CANADA UNDER BRITISH RULE 1760-1900

BY

SIR JOHN G. BOURINOT, K. C. M. G. , LL. D. , LITT. D. 

Author of 'Parliamentary Procedure and Practice', 'ConstitutionalHistory of Canada, ' 'The Story of Canada, ' etc

WITH EIGHT MAPS

1900

CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL SERIES

EDITED BY G. W. PROTHERO, LITT. D. , LL. D. 

Honorary Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and Late Professor ofHistory in the University of Edinburgh. 

GENERAL PREFACE. 

The aim of this series is to sketch the history of Modern Europe, withthat of its chief colonies and conquests, from about the end of thefifteenth century down to the present time. In one or two cases thestory commences at an earlier date: in the case of the colonies itgenerally begins later. The histories of the different countries aredescribed, as a rule, separately, for it is believed that, except inepochs like that of the French Revolution and Napoleon I, the connectionof events will thus be better understood and the continuity ofhistorical development more clearly displayed. 

The series is intended for the use of all persons anxious to understandthe nature of existing political conditions. "The roots of the presentlie deep in the past"; and the real significance of contemporary eventscannot be grasped unless the historical causes which have led to themare known. The plan adopted makes it possible to treat the history ofthe last four centuries in considerable detail, and to embody the mostimportant results of modern research. It is hoped therefore that theseries will be useful not only to beginners but to students who havealready acquired some general knowledge of European History. For thosewho wish to carry their studies further, the bibliography appended toeach volume will act as a guide to original sources of information andworks more detailed and authoritative. 

Considerable attention is paid to political geography, and each volumeis furnished with such maps and plans as may be requisite for theillustration of the text. 

G. W. PROTHERO. 

PREFACE. 

I devote the first chapter of this short history to a brief review ofthe colonisation of the valley of the St. Lawrence by the French, and oftheir political and social conditions at the Conquest, so that a readermay be able to compare their weak and impoverished state under therepressive dominion of France with the prosperous and influentialposition they eventually attained under the liberal methods of Britishrule. In the succeeding chapters I have dwelt on those important eventswhich have had the largest influence on the political development of theseveral provinces as British possessions. 

We have, first, the Quebec Act, which gave permanent guarantees for theestablishment of the Church of Rome and the maintenance of the languageand civil law of France in her old colony. Next, we read of the comingof the United Empire Loyalists, and the consequent establishment ofBritish institutions on a stable basis of loyal devotion to the parentstate. Then ensued the war of 1812, to bind the provinces more closelyto Great Britain, and create that national spirit which is the naturaloutcome of patriotic endeavour and individual self-sacrifice. Thenfollowed for several decades a persistent popular struggle for largerpolitical liberty, which was not successful until British statesmenawoke at last from their indifference, on the outbreak of a rebellion inthe Canadas, and recognised the necessity of adopting a more liberalpolicy towards their North American dependencies. The union of theCanadas was succeeded by the concession of responsible government andthe complete acknowledgment of the rights of the colonists to managetheir provincial affairs without the constant interference of Britishofficials. With this extension of political privileges, the peoplebecame still more ambitious, and established a confederation, which hasnot only had the effect of supplying a remarkable stimulus to theirpolitical, social and material development, but has given greatersecurity to British interests on the continent of North America. Atparticular points of the historical narrative I have dwelt for a spaceon economic, social, and intellectual conditions, so that the reader mayintelligently follow every phase to the development of the people fromthe close of the French régime to the beginning of the twentieth centuryIn my summary of the most important political events for the lasttwenty-five years, I have avoided all comment on matters which are "asyet"--to quote the language of the epilogue to Mr. Green's "ShortHistory"--"too near to us to admit of a cool and purely historicaltreatment. " The closing chapter is a short review of the relationsbetween Canada and the United States since the treaty of 1783--soconducive to international disputes concerning boundaries and fishingrights--until the present time, when the Alaskan and other internationalcontroversies are demanding adjustment. 

I have thought, too, that it would be useful to students of politicalinstitutions to give in the appendix comparisons between the leadingprovisions of the federal systems of the Dominion of Canada and theCommonwealth of Australia. I must add that, in the revision of thehistorical narrative, I have been much aided by the judicious criticismand apt suggestions of the Editor of the Series, Dr. Prothero. 

HOUSE OF COMMONS, OTTAWA, CANADA. 1st October, 1900

CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE FRENCH RÉGIME (1534--1760)

Section 1. Introduction

Section 2. Discovery and Settlement of Canada by France

Section 3. French exploration in the valleys of North America

Section 4. End of French Dominion in the valley of the St. Lawrence

Section 5. Political, Economic, and Social Conditions of Canada during French Rule

CHAPTER II. 

BEGINNINGS OF BRITISH RULE (1749--1774)

Section 1. From the Conquest until the Quebec Act

Section 2. The Foundation of Nova Scotia (1749--1783)

CHAPTER III. 

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS (1763--1784)

Section 1. The successful Revolution of the Thirteen Colonies in America

Section 2. Canada and Nova Scotia during the Revolution. 

Section 3. The United Empire Loyalists

CHAPTER IV. 

DEVELOPMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS (1784-1812)

Section 1. Beginnings of the Provinces of New Brunswick, Lower Canadaand Upper Canada. 

Section 2. Twenty years of Political Development. (1792-1812)

CHAPTER V. 

THE WAR OF 1812-1815

Section 1. Origin of the war between Great Britain and the United States

Section 2. Canada during the War

CHAPTER VI. 

THE EVOLUTION OF RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT (1815-1839)

Section 1. The Rebellion in Lower Canada

Section 2. The Rebellion in Upper Canada

Section 3. Social and Economic Conditions of the Provinces in 1838

CHAPTER VII. 

A NEW ERA OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENT (1839-1867)

Section 1. The Union of the Canadas and the establishment of ResponsibleGovernment

Section 2. Results of Self-government from 1841 to 1864

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE EVOLUTION OF CONFEDERATION (1789-1867)

Section 1. The beginnings of Confederation

Section 2. The Quebec Convention of 1864

Section 3. Confederation accomplished

CHAPTER IX. 

CONFEDERATION (1867--1900)

Section 1. The First Parliament of the Dominion of Canada (1867--1873)

Section 2. Extension of the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean (1869--1873)

Section 3. Summary of Noteworthy Events from 1873 until 1900

Section 4. Political and Social Conditions of Canada under Confederation

CHAPTER X. 

CANADA'S RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND HER INFLUENCE IN IMPERIALCOUNCILS (1783--1900)

APPENDIX A: COMPARISONS BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONS OF THE CANADIAN DOMINIONAND AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH. 

APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

INDEX

PLANS AND MAPS. 

Map showing Boundary between Canada and the United States by Treaty of1783. 

Map of British America to illustrate the Charter of the Hudson's BayCompany. 

International Boundary as finally established in 1842 at Lake of theWoods. 

Map of the North-Eastern Boundary as established in 1842. 

Map of British Columbia and Yukon District showing disputed Boundarybetween Canada and the United States. 

France, Spain, and Great Britain, in North America, 1756--1760. 

Outline map of British Possessions in North America, 1763--1775. 

Map of the Dominion of Canada illustrating the boundaries of Provincesand Provisional Districts. 

A SHORT HISTORY OF CANADA UNDER BRITISH RULE. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE FRENCH RÉGIME. 1534--1760. 

SECTION I. --Introduction. 

Though the principal object of this book is to review the political, economic and social progress of the provinces of Canada under Britishrule, yet it would be necessarily imperfect, and even unintelligible incertain important respects, were I to ignore the deeply interestinghistory of the sixteen hundred thousand French Canadians, about thirtyper cent of the total population of the Dominion. To apply to Canada anaphorism of Carlyle, "The present is the living sum-total of the wholepast"; the sum-total not simply of the hundred and thirty years thathave elapsed since the commencement of British dominion, but primarilyof the century and a half that began with the coming of Champlain to theheights of Quebec and ended with the death of Wolfe on the Plains ofAbraham. The soldiers and sailors, the missionaries and pioneers ofFrance, speak to us in eloquent tones, whether we linger in summer timeon the shores of the noble gulf which washes the eastern portals ofCanada; whether we ascend the St. Lawrence River and follow the routetaken by the explorers, who discovered the great lakes, and gave to theworld a knowledge of the West and the Mississippi, whether we walk onthe grassy mounds that recall the ruins of the formidable fortress ofLouisbourg, which once defended the eastern entrance to the St. Lawrence; whether we linger on the rocks of the ancient city of Quebecwith its many memorials of the French régime; whether we travel over therich prairies with their sluggish, tortuous rivers, and memories of theFrench Canadians who first found their way to that illimitable region. In fact, Canada has a rich heritage of associations that connect us withsome of the most momentous epochs of the world's history. The victoriesof Louisbourg and Quebec belong to the same series of brilliant eventsthat recall the famous names of Chatham, Clive, and Wolfe, and that gaveto England a mighty empire in Asia and America. Wolfe's signal victoryon the heights of the ancient capital was the prelude to the great dramaof the American revolution. Freed from the fear of France, the people ofthe Thirteen Colonies, so long hemmed in between the Atlantic Ocean andthe Appalachian range, found full expression for their love of localself-government when England asserted her imperial supremacy. After astruggle of a few years they succeeded in laying the foundation of theremarkable federal republic, which now embraces forty-five states with apopulation of already seventy-five millions of souls, which owes itsnational stability and prosperity to the energy and enterprise of theAnglo-Norman race and the dominant influence of the common law, and theparliamentary institutions of England. At the same time, the AmericanRevolution had an immediate and powerful effect upon the future of thecommunities that still remained in the possession of England after theacknowledgement of the independence of her old colonies. It drove toCanada a large body of men and women, who remained faithful to the crownand empire and became founders of provinces which are now comprised in aDominion extending for over three thousand miles to the north and eastof the federal republic. 

The short review of the French régime, with which I am about tocommence this history of Canada, will not give any evidence ofpolitical, economic, or intellectual development under the influence ofFrench dominion, but it is interesting to the student of comparativepolitics on account of the comparisons which it enables us to makebetween the absolutism of old France which crushed every semblance ofindependent thought and action, and the political freedom which has beena consequence of the supremacy of England in the province once occupiedby her ancient rival. It is quite true, as Professor Freeman has said, that in Canada, which is pre-eminently English in the development of itspolitical institutions, French Canada is still "a distinct and visibleelement, which is not English, --an element older than anything Englishin the land, --and which shows no sign of being likely to be assimilatedby anything English. " As this book will show, though a hundred and fortyyears have nearly passed since the signing of the treaty of Paris, manyof the institutions which the French Canadians inherited from Francehave become permanently established in the country, and we seeconstantly in the various political systems given to Canada from time totime--notably in the constitution of the federal union--the impress ofthese institutions and the influence of the people of the Frenchsection. Still, while the French Canadians by their adherence to theirlanguage, civil law and religion are decidedly "a distinct and visibleelement which is not English"--an element kept apart from the English bypositive legal and constitutional guarantees or barriers ofseparation, --we shall see that it is the influence and operation ofEnglish institutions, which have made their province one of the mostcontented communities of the world. While their old institutions areinseparably associated with the social and spiritual conditions of theirdaily lives, it is after all their political constitution, which derivesits strength from English, principles, that has made the FrenchCanadians a free, self-governing people and developed the best elementsof their character to a degree which was never possible under thedepressing and enfeebling conditions of the French régime. 

SECTION 2. --Discovery and settlement of Canada by France. 

Much learning has been devoted to the elucidation of the IcelandicSagas, or vague accounts of voyages which Bjorne Heriulfson and LiefEricsson, sons of the first Norse settlers of Greenland, are supposed tohave made at the end of the tenth century, to the eastern parts of whatis now British North America, and, in the opinion of some writers, evenas far as the shores of New England. It is just possible that suchvoyages were made, and that Norsemen were the first Europeans who sawthe eastern shores of Canada. It is quite certain, however, that nopermanent settlements were made by the Norsemen in any part of thesecountries; and their voyages do not appear to have been known toColumbus or other maritime adventurers of later times, when the veil ofmystery was at last lifted from the western limits of what was so longtruly described as the "sea of darkness. " While the subject isundoubtedly full of interest, it is at the same time as illusive as the_fata morgana_, or the lakes and rivers that are created by the mists ofa summer's eve on the great prairies of the Canadian west. 

Five centuries later than the Norse voyagers, there appeared on thegreat field of western exploration an Italian sailor, Giovanni Caboto, through whose agency England took the first step in the direction ofthat remarkable maritime enterprise which, in later centuries, was to bethe admiration and envy of all other nations. John Cabot was a Genoeseby birth and a Venetian citizen by adoption, who came during the lastdecade of the fifteenth century, to the historic town of Bristol. Eventually he obtain from Henry VII letters-patent, granting to himselfand his three sons, Louis, Sebastian, and Sancio, the right, "at theirown cost and charges, to seek out and discover unknown lands, " and toacquire for England the dominion over the countries they might discover. Early in May, 1497, John Cabot sailed from Bristol in "The Matthew, "manned by English sailors. In all probability he was accompanied bySebastian, then about 21 years of age, who, in later times, through thecredulity of his friends and his own garrulity and vanity, took thatplace in the estimation of the world which his father now rightly fills. Some time toward the end of June, they made a land-fall on thenorth-eastern coast of North America. The actual site of the land-fallwill always be a matter of controversy unless some document is foundamong musty archives of Europe to solve the question to the satisfactionof the disputants, who wax hot over the claims of a point near CapeChidley on the coast of Labrador, of Bonavista, on the east shore ofNewfoundland, of Cape North, or some other point, on the island of CapeBreton. Another expedition left Bristol in 1498, but while it is nowgenerally believed that Cabot coasted the shores of North America fromLabrador or Cape Breton as far as Cape Hatteras, we have no details ofthis famous voyage, and are even ignorant of the date when the fleetreturned to England. 

The Portuguese, Gaspar and Miguel Cortereal, in the beginning of thesixteenth century, were lost somewhere on the coast of Labrador orNewfoundland, but not before they gave to their country a claim to newlands. The Basques and Bretons, always noted for their love of the sea, frequented the same prolific waters and some of the latter gave a nameto the picturesque island of Cape Breton. Giovanni da Verrazzano, aFlorentine by birth, who had for years led a roving life on the sea, sailed in 1524 along the coasts of Nova Scotia and the present UnitedStates and gave a shadowy claim of first discovery of a great region toFrance under whose authority he sailed. Ten years later Jacques Cartierof St. Malo was authorised by Francis I to undertake a voyage to thesenew lands, but he did not venture beyond the Gulf of St. Lawrence, though he took possession of the picturesque Gaspé peninsula in the nameof his royal master. In 1535 he made a second voyage, whose results weremost important for France and the world at large. The great river ofCanada was then discovered by the enterprising Breton, who established apost for some months at Stadacona, now Quebec, and also visited theIndian village of Hochelaga on the island of Montreal. Here he gave theappropriate name of Mount Royal to the beautiful height which dominatesthe picturesque country where enterprise has, in the course ofcenturies, built a noble city. Hochelaga was probably inhabited byIndians of the Huron-Iroquois family, who appear, from the best evidencebefore us, to have been dwelling at that time on the banks of the St. Lawrence, whilst the Algonquins, who took their place in later times, were living to the north of the river. 

The name of Canada--obviously the Huron-Iroquois word for Kannata, atown--began to take a place on the maps soon after Cartier's voyages. Itappears from his _Bref Récit_ to have been applied at the time of hisvisit, to a kingdom, or district, extending from Ile-aux-Coudres, whichhe named on account of its hazel-nuts, on the lower St. Lawrence, to theKingdom of Ochelay, west of Stadacona; east of Canada was Saguenay, andwest of Ochelay was Hochelaga, to which the other communities weretributary. After a winter of much misery Cartier left Stadacona in thespring of 1536, and sailed into the Atlantic by the passage between CapeBreton and Newfoundland, now appropriately called Cabot's Straits onmodern maps. He gave to France a positive claim to a great region, whoseillimitable wealth and possibilities were never fully appreciated by theking and the people of France even in the later times of her dominion. Francis, in 1540, gave a commission to Jean François de la Roque, Sieurde Roberval, to act as his viceroy and lieutenant-general in thecountry discovered by Cartier, who was elevated to the position ofcaptain general and master pilot of the new expedition. As the Viceroywas unable to complete his arrangements by 1541, Cartier was obliged tosail in advance, and again passed a winter on the St. Lawrence, not atStadacona but at Cap Rouge, a few miles to the west, where he built apost which he named Charlesbourg-Royal. He appears to have returned toFrance some time during the summer of 1542, while Roberval was on hisway to the St. Lawrence. Roberval found his way without his master pilotto Charlesbourg-Royal, which he renamed France-Roy, and where he erectedbuildings of a very substantial character in the hope of establishing apermanent settlement. His selection of colonists--chiefly taken fromjails and purlieus of towns--was most unhappy, and after a bitterexperience he returned to France, probably in the autumn of 1543, anddisappeared from Canadian history. 

From the date of Cartier's last voyage until the beginning of theseventeenth century, a period of nearly sixty years, nothing was done tosettle the lands of the new continent. Fishermen alone continued tofrequent the great gulf, which was called for years the "Square gulf" or"Golfo quadrado, " or "Quarré, " on some European maps, until it assumed, by the end of the sixteenth century, the name it now bears. The nameSaint-Laurens was first given by Cartier to the harbour known asSainte-Geneviève (or sometimes Pillage Bay), on the northern shore ofCanada, and gradually extended to the gulf and river. The name ofLabrador, which was soon established on all maps, had its origin in thefact that Gaspar Cortereal brought back with him a number of natives whowere considered to be "admirably calculated for labour. "

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the English began to take a prominentpart in that maritime enterprise which was to lead to such remarkableresults in the course of three centuries. The names of the ambitiousnavigators, Frobisher and Davis, are connected with those arctic waterswhere so much money, energy, and heroism have been expended down to thepresent time. Under the influence of the great Ralegh, whose fertileimagination was conceiving plans of colonization in America, SirHumphrey Gilbert, his brother-in-law, took possession of Newfoundland ona hill overlooking the harbour of St. John's. English enterprise, however, did not extend for many years to any other part of NorthEastern America than Newfoundland, which is styled Baccalaos on theHakluyt map of 1597, though the present name appeared from a very earlydate in English statutes and records. The island, however, for a centuryand longer, was practically little more than "a great ship moored nearthe banks during the fishing season, for the convenience of Englishfishermen, " while English colonizing enterprise found a deeper interestin Virginia with its more favourable climate and southern products. Itwas England's great rival, France, that was the pioneer at the beginningof the seventeenth century in the work of exploring, and settling thecountries now comprised within the Dominion of Canada. 

France first attempted to settle the indefinite region, long known as_La Cadie_ or _Acadie_[1]. The Sieur de Monts, Samuel Champlain, and theBaron de Poutrincourt were the pioneers in the exploration of thiscountry. Their first post was erected on Dochet Island, within the mouthof the St. Croix River, the present boundary between the state of Maineand the province of New Brunswick; but this spot was very soon foundunsuitable, and the hopes of the pioneers were immediately turnedtowards the beautiful basin, which was first named Port Royal byChamplain. The Baron de Poutrincourt obtained a grant of land aroundthis basin, and determined to make his home in so beautiful a spot. DeMonts, whose charter was revoked in 1607, gave up the project ofcolonizing Acadia, whose history from that time is associated for yearswith the misfortunes of the Biencourts, the family name of Baron dePoutrincourt; but the hopes of this adventurous nobleman were neverrealized. In 1613 an English expedition from Virginia, under the commandof Captain Argall, destroyed the struggling settlement at Fort Royal, and also prevented the establishment of a Jesuit mission on the islandof Monts-Déserts, which owes its name to Champlain. Acadia hadhenceforth a checquered history, chiefly noted for feuds between rivalFrench leaders and for the efforts of the people of New England toobtain possession of Acadia. Port Royal was captured in 1710 by GeneralNicholson, at the head of an expedition composed of an English fleet andthe militia of New England. Then it received the name of Annapolis Royalin honour of Queen Anne, and was formally ceded with all of Acadia"according to its ancient limits" to England by the treaty of Utrecht. 

[1: This name is now generally admitted to belong to the language of theMicmac Indians of the Atlantic provinces. It means a place, or locality, and is always associated with another word descriptive of some specialnatural production; for instance, Shubenacadie, or Segubunakade, is theplace where the ground-nut, or Indian potato, grows. We find the firstofficial mention of the word in the commission given by Henry IV ofFrance to the Sieur de Monts in 1604. ]

It was not in Acadia, but in the valley of the St. Lawrence, that Francemade her great effort to establish her dominion in North America. SamuelChamplain, the most famous man in the history of French Canada, laid thefoundation of the present city of Quebec in the month of June, 1608, orthree years after the removal of the little Acadian colony from St. Croix Island to the basin of the Annapolis. The name Quebec is nowgenerally admitted to be an adaptation of an Indian word, meaning acontraction of the river or strait, a distinguishing feature of the St. Lawrence at this important point. The first buildings were constructedby Champlain on a relatively level piece of ground, now occupied by amarket-house and close to a famous old church erected in the days ofFrontenac, in commemoration of the victorious repulse of the New Englandexpedition led by Phipps. For twenty-seven years Champlain struggledagainst constantly accumulating difficulties to establish a colony onthe St. Lawrence. He won the confidence of the Algonquin and Huron tubesof Canada, who then lived on the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers, and inthe vicinity of Georgian Bay. Recognizing the necessity of an alliancewith the Canadian Indians, who controlled all the principal avenues tothe great fur-bearing regions, he led two expeditions, composed ofFrenchmen, Hurons, and Algonquins, against the Iroquois or Confederacyof the Five Nations[2]--the Mohawks, the Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas--who inhabited the fertile country stretching from theGenesee to the Hudson River in the present state of New York. Champlainconsequently excited against his own people the inveterate hostility ofthe bravest, cruellest and ablest Indians with whom Europeans have evercome in contact in America. Champlain probably had no other alternativeopen to him than to become the active ally of the Canadian Indians, onwhose goodwill and friendship he was forced to rely; but it is alsoquite probable that he altogether underrated the ability and bravery ofthe Iroquois who, in later years, so often threatened the security ofCanada, and more than once brought the infant colony to the very vergeof ruin. 

[2: In 1715 the confederacy was joined by the Tuscaroras, a southernbranch of the same family, and was then called more properly the SixNations. ]

It was during Champlain's administration of affairs that the Company ofthe Hundred Associates was formed under the auspices of CardinalRichelieu, with the express object of colonizing Canada and developingthe fur-trade and other commercial enterprises on as large a scale aspossible. The Company had ill-fortune from the outset. The firstexpedition it sent to the St. Lawrence was captured by a fleet commandedby David Kirk, a gentleman of Derbyshire, who in the following year alsotook Quebec, and carried Champlain and his followers to England. TheEnglish were already attempting settlements on the shores ofMassachusetts Bay; and the poet and courtier, Sir William Alexander, afterwards known as the Earl of Stirling, obtained from the King ofEngland all French Acadia, which he named Nova Scotia and offered tosettlers in baronial giants. A Scotch colony was actually establishedfor a short time at Port Royal under the auspices of Alexander, but in1632, by the treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye, both Acadia and Canada wererestored to France. Champlain returned to Quebec, but the Company of theHundred Associates had been severely crippled by the ill-luck whichattended its first venture, and was able to do very little for thestruggling colony during the three remaining years of Champlain's life. 

The Recollets or Franciscans, who had first come to the country in 1615, now disappeared, and the Jesuits assumed full control in the wide fieldof effort that Canada offered to the missionary. The Jesuits had, infact, made their appearance in Canada as early as 1625, or fourteenyears after two priests of their order, Ennemond Massé and Pierre Biard, had gone to Acadia to labour among the Micmacs or Souriquois. During thegreater part of the seventeenth century, intrepid Jesuit priests areassociated with some of the most heroic incidents of Canadian history. 

When Champlain died, on Christmas-day, 1635, the French population ofCanada did not exceed 150 souls, all dependent on the fur-trade. Canadaso far showed none of the elements of prosperity; it was not a colonyof settlers but of fur-traders. Still Champlain, by his indomitablewill, gave to France a footing in America which she was to retain for acentury and a quarter after his death. His courage amid the difficultiesthat surrounded him, his fidelity to his church and country, his abilityto understand the Indian character, his pure unselfishness, are amongthe remarkable qualities of a man who stands foremost among the pioneersof European civilization in America. 

From the day of Champlain's death until the arrival of the Marquis deTracy, in 1665, Canada was often in a most dangerous and pitiableposition. That period of thirty years was, however, also distinguishedby the foundation of those great religious communities which have alwaysexercised such an important influence upon the conditions of lifethroughout French Canada. In 1652 Montreal was founded under the name ofVille-Marie by Paul Chomedey, Sieur de Maisonneuve, and a number ofother religious enthusiasts. In 1659, the Abbé de Montigny, better knownto Canadians as Monseigneur de Laval, the first Roman Catholic bishop, arrived in the colony and assumed charge of ecclesiastical affairs underthe titular name of Bishop of Petraea. Probably no single man has everexercised such powerful and lasting influence on Canadian institutionsas that famous divine. Possessed of great tenacity of purpose, mostascetic in his habits, regardless of all worldly considerations, alwaysworking for the welfare and extension of his church, Bishop Laval waseminently fitted to give it that predominance in civil as well asreligious affairs which it so long possessed in Canada. 

While the Church of Rome was perfecting its organization throughoutCanada, the Iroquois were constantly making raids upon the unprotectedsettlements, especially in the vicinity of Montreal. The Hurons in theGeorgian Bay district were eventually driven from their comfortablevillages, and now the only remnants of a powerful nation are to be foundin the community of mixed blood at Lorette, near Quebec, or on thebanks of the Detroit River, where they are known as Wyandots. The Jesuitmission of Sainte-Marie in their country was broken up, and Jean deBrébeuf and Gabriel Lalemant suffered torture and death. 

Such was the pitiable condition of things in 1663, when Louis XIV madeof Canada a royal government. At this time the total population of theprovince did not exceed 2500 souls, grouped chiefly in and aroundQuebec, Three Rivers and Montreal. In 1665 the Marquis de Tracy andGovernor de Courcelles, with a brilliant retinue of officers and aregiment of soldiers, arrived in the colony, and brought with themconditions of peace and prosperity. A small stream of immigration flowedsteadily into the country for some years, as a result of the new policyadopted by the French government. The Mohawks, the most daring anddangerous nation of the Iroquois confederacy, were humbled by Tracy in1667, and forced to sue for peace. Under the influence of Talon, theablest intendant who ever administered Canadian affairs, the countryenjoyed a moderate degree of prosperity, although trade continuedentirely dependent on the orders and regulations of the King and hisofficials. 

Among the ablest governors of Canada was undoubtedly Louis de la Buade, Count de Frontenac, who administered public affairs from 1672-1687 andfrom 1689-1698. He was certainly impatient, choleric and selfishwhenever his pecuniary interests were concerned; but, despite his faultsof character, he was a brave soldier, dignified and courteous onimportant occasions, a close student of the character of the Indians, always ready when the necessity arose to adapt himself to their foiblesand at the same time able to win their confidence. He found Canada weak, and left it a power in the affairs of America. He infused his ownnever-failing confidence into the hearts of the struggling colonists onthe St. Lawrence, repulsed Sir William Phipps and his New Englandexpedition when they attacked Quebec in 1690, wisely erected a fort onLake Ontario as a fur-trading post and a bulwark against the Iroquois, encouraged the fur-trade, and stimulated exploration in the west and inthe valleys of the Ohio and the Mississippi. The settlements of NewEngland trembled at his name, and its annals contain many a painfulstory of the misery inflicted by his cruel bands of Frenchmen andIndians. 

Despite all the efforts of the French government for some years, thetotal immigration from 1663 until 1713, when the great war betweenFrance and the Grand Alliance came to an end by the treaty of Utrecht, did not exceed 6000 souls, and the whole population of the province inthat year was only 20, 000, a small number for a century of colonization. For some years after the formation of the royal government, a largenumber of marriageable women were brought to the country under theauspices of the religious communities, and marriages and births wereencouraged by exhortations and bounties. A considerable number of theofficers and soldiers of the Carignan-Salières regiment, who followedthe Marquis de Tracy into Canada, were induced to remain and settle newseigniories, chiefly in palisaded villages in the Richelieu district forpurposes of defence against Iroquois expeditions. Despite all thepaternal efforts of the government to stimulate the growth of a largepopulation, the natural increase was small during the seventeenthcentury. The disturbing influence, no doubt, was the fur-trade, whichallured so many young men into the wilderness, made them unfit for asteady life, and destroyed their domestic habits. The emigrants fromFrance came chiefly from Anjou, Saintonge, Paris and its suburbs, Normandy, Poitou, Beauce, Perche, and Picardy. The Carignan-Salièresregiment brought men from all parts of the parent state. It does notappear that any number of persons ever came from Brittany. The largerproportion of the settlers were natives of the north-western provincesof France, especially from Perche and Normandy, and formed an excellentstock on which to build up a thrifty, moral people. The seigniorialtenure of French Canada was an adaptation of the feudal system of Franceto the conditions of a new country, and was calculated in some respectsto stimulate settlement. Ambitious persons of limited means were able toform a class of colonial _noblesse_. But unless the seignior cleared acertain portion of his grant within a limited time, he would forfeit itall. The conditions by which the _censitaires_ or tenants of theseigniorial domain held their grants of land were by no meansburdensome, but they signified a dependency of tenure inconsistent withthe free nature of American life. A large portion of the best lands ofFrench Canada were granted under this seigniorial system to men whosenames frequently occur in the records of the colony down to the presentday: Rimouski, Bic and Métis, Kamouraska, Nicolet, Verchères, Lotbinière, Berthier, Beloeil, Rouville, Juliette, Terrebonne, Champlain, Sillery, Beaupré, Bellechasse, Portneuf, Chambly, Sorel, Longueuil, Boucherville, Chateauguay, Lachine, are memorials of theseigniorial grants of the seventeenth century. 

The whole population of the Acadian Peninsula in 1710-13, was not morethan 1500 souls, nearly all descendants of the people brought to thecountry by Poutrincourt and his successors Razilly and Charnisay. At notime did the French government interest itself in immigration toneglected Acadia. Of the total population, nearly 1000 persons weresettled in the beautiful country which the industry and ingenuity of theAcadian peasants, in the course of many years, reclaimed from therestless tides of the Bay of Fundy at Grand Pré and Minas. The remainingsettlements were at Beau Bassin, Annapolis, Piziquit (now Windsor), Cobequit (now Truro), and Cape Sable. Some small settlements were alsofounded on the banks of the St. John River and on the eastern bays ofthe present province of New Brunswick. 

SECTION 3. --French exploration in the great valleys of North America. 

The hope of finding a short route to the rich lands of Asia by the St. Lawrence River and its tributary lakes and streams, influenced Frenchvoyagers and explorers well into the middle of the eighteenth century. When Cartier stood on Mount Royal and saw the waters of the Ottawa theremust have flashed across his mind the thought that perhaps by this riverwould be found that passage to the western sea of which he and othersailors often dreamed both in earlier and later times. L'Escarbot tellsus that Champlain in his western explorations always hoped to reach Asiaby a Canadian route. He was able, however, long before his death tomake valuable contributions to the geography of Canada. He was the firstFrenchman to ascend the River of the Iroquois, now the Richelieu, and tosee the beautiful lake which still bears his name. In 1615 he found hisway to Georgian Bay by the route of the Ottawa and Mattawa Rivers, LakeNipissing and French River. Here he visited the Huron villages whichwere situated in the district now known as Simcoe county in the provinceof Ontario. Father le Caron, a Recollet, had preceded the Frenchexplorer, and was performing missionary duties among the Indians, whoprobably numbered 20, 000 in all. This brave priest was the pioneer of anarmy of faithful missionaries--mostly of a different order--who livedfor years among the Indians, suffered torture and death, and connectedtheir names not only with the martyrs of their faith but also with theexplorers of this continent. From this time forward we find the traderand the priest advancing in the wilderness; sometimes one is first, sometimes the other. 

Champlain accompanied his Indian allies on an expedition against theOnondagas, one of the five nations who occupied the country immediatelyto the south of the upper St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario. The partyreached Lake Ontario by the system of inland navigation which stretchesfrom Lake Simcoe to the Bay of Quinté. The Onondagas repulsed theCanadian allies who returned to their settlements, where Champlainremained during the winter of 1616. It was during this expedition, whichdid much to weaken Champlain's prestige among the Indians, that ÉtienneBrulé an interpreter, was sent to the Andastes, who were then livingabout the headwaters of the Susquehanna, with the hope of bringing themto the support of the Canadian savages. He was not seen again until1618, when he returned to Canada with a story, doubtless correct, ofhaving found himself on the shores of a great lake where there weremines of copper, probably Lake Superior. 

With the new era of peace that followed the coming of the Viceroy Tracyin 1665, and the establishment of a royal government, a fresh impulsewas given to exploration and mission work in the west. Priests, fur-traders, gentlemen-adventurers, _coureurs de bois_, now appearedfrequently on the lakes and rivers of the west, and gave in the courseof years a vast region to the dominion of France. As early as 1665Father Allouez established a mission at La Pointe, the modern Ashland, on the shores of Lake Superior. In 1668 one of the most interestingpersons who ever appeared in early Canada, the missionary and explorer, Father Marquette, founded the mission of Sainte-Marie on the southernside of the Sault, which may be considered the oldest settlement of thenorth-west, as it alone has a continuous history to the present time. 

In the record of those times we see strikingly displayed certainpropensities of the Canadian people which seriously interfered with thesettlement and industry of the country. The fur-trade had far moreattractions for the young and adventurous than the regular and activelife of farming on the seigniories. The French immigrant as well as thenative Canadian adapted himself to the conditions of Indian life. Wherever the Indian tribes were camped in the forest or by the river, and the fur-trade could be prosecuted to the best advantage, we see the_coureurs de bois_, not the least picturesque figures of these grandwoods, then in the primeval sublimity of their solitude and vastness. Despite the vices and weaknesses of a large proportion of this class, not a few were most useful in the work of exploration and exercised agreat influence among the Indians of the West. But for theseforest-rangers the Michigan region would have fallen into the possessionof the English who were always intriguing with the Iroquois andendeavouring to obtain a share of the fur-trade of the west. Joliet, thecompanion of Marquette, in his ever-memorable voyage to the Mississippi, was a type of the best class of the Canadian fur-trader. 

In 1671 Sieur St. Lusson took formal possession of the Sault and theadjacent country in the name of Louis XIV. In 1673 Fort Frontenac wasbuilt at Cataraqui, now Kingston, as a barrier to the aggressivemovements of the Iroquois and an _entrepôt_ for the fur-trade on LakeOntario. In the same year Joliet and Marquette solved a part of theproblem which had so long perplexed the explorers of the West. Thetrader and priest reached the Mississippi by the way of Green Bay, theFox and Wisconsin Rivers. They went down the Mississippi as far as theArkansas. Though they were still many hundreds of miles from the mouthof the river, they grasped the fact that it must reach, not the westernocean, but the southern gulf first discovered by the Spaniards. Marquette died not long afterwards, worn out by his labours in thewilderness, and was buried beneath the little chapel at St. Ignace. Joliet's name henceforth disappears from the annals of the West. 

Réné Robert Cavelier, better known as the Sieur de la Salle, completedthe work commenced by the trader and missionary. In 1666 he obtained agrant of land at the head of the rapids above Montreal by the side ofthat beautiful expanse of the St. Lawrence, still called Lachine, a namefirst given in derisive allusion to his hope of finding a short route toChina. In 1679 he saw the Niagara Falls for the first time, and theearliest sketch is to be found in _La Nouvelle Découverte_ written orcompiled by that garrulous, vain, and often mendacious Recollet Friar, Louis Hennepin, who accompanied La Salle on this expedition. In thewinter of 1681-82 this famous explorer reached the Mississippi, and forweeks followed its course through the novel and wondrous scenery of asouthern land. On the 9th of April, 1682, at a point just above themouth of the great river, La Salle took formal possession of theMississippi valley in the name of Louis XIV, with the same imposingceremonies that distinguished the claim asserted by St. Lusson at theSault in the lake region. By the irony of fate, La Salle failed todiscover the mouth of the river when he came direct from France to theGulf of Mexico in 1685, but landed somewhere on Matagorda Bay on theTexan coast, where he built a fort for temporary protection. Finding hisposition untenable, he decided in 1687 to make an effort to reach theIllinois country, but when he had been a few days on this perilousjourney he was treacherously murdered by some of his companions near thesouthern branch of Trinity River. His body was left to the beasts andbirds of prey. Two of the murderers were themselves killed by theiraccomplices, none of whom appear ever to have been brought to justicefor their participation in a crime by which France lost one of thebravest and ablest men who ever struggled for her dominion in NorthAmerica. 

Some years later the famous Canadians, Iberville and Bienville, foundeda colony in the great valley, known by the name of Louisiana, which wasfirst given to it by La Salle himself. By the possession of the Sault, Mackinac, and Detroit, the French were for many years supreme on thelakes, and had full control of Indian trade. The Iroquois and theirEnglish friends were effectively shut out of the west by the Frenchposts and settlements which followed the explorations of Joliet, LaSalle, Du Luth, and other adventurers. Plans continued to be formed forreaching the Western or Pacific ocean even in the middle of theeighteenth century. The Jesuit Charlevoix, the historian of New France, was sent out to Canada by the French government to enquire into thefeasibility of a route which Frenchmen always hoped for. Nothingdefinite came out of this mission, but the Jesuit was soon followed byan enterprising native of Three Rivers, Pierre Gaultier de Varennes, generally called the Sieur de la Verendrye, who with his sons venturedinto the region now known as the province of Manitoba and the north-westterritory of Canada. He built several forts, including one on the siteof the city of Winnipeg. Two of his sons are believed to have reachedthe Big Horn Range, an "outlying buttress" of the Rocky Mountains, in1743, and to have taken possession of what is now territory of theUnited States. The youngest son, Chevalier de la Verendrye, who was thefirst to see the Rocky Mountains, subsequently discovered theSaskatchewan (Poskoiac) and even ascended it as far as the forks--thefurthest western limits so far touched by a white man in America. A fewyears later, in 1751, M. De Niverville, under the orders of M. De St. Pierre, then acting in the interest of the infamous Intendant Bigot, whocoveted the western fur-trade, reached the foot-hills of the RockyMountains and built a fort on the Saskatchewan not far from the presenttown of Calgary. 

We have now followed the paths of French adventurers for nearly acentury and a half, from the day Champlain landed on the rocks of Quebecuntil the Verendryes traversed the prairies and plains of theNorth-west. French explorers had discovered the three great waterways ofthis continent--the Mississippi, which pours its enormous volume ofwater, drawn from hundreds of tributaries, into a southern gulf; the St. Lawrence, which bears the tribute of the great lakes to the AtlanticOcean; the Winnipeg, with its connecting rivers and lakes which stretchfrom the Rocky Mountains to the dreary Arctic sea. La Verendrye was thefirst Frenchman who stood on the height of land or elevated plateau ofthe continent, almost within sight of the sources of those great riverswhich flow, after devious courses, north, south and east. It has beenwell said that if three men should ascend these three waterways to theirfarthest sources, they would find themselves in the heart of NorthAmerica; and, so to speak, within a stone's throw of one another. Nearlyall the vast territory, through which these great waterways flow, thenbelonged to France, so far as exploration, discovery and partialoccupation gave her a right to exercise dominion. Only in the greatNorth, where summer is a season of a very few weeks, where icebergs barthe way for many months, where the fur-trade and the whale-fishery aloneoffered an incentive to capital and enterprise, had England a right toan indefinite dominion. Here a "Company of Gentlemen-Adventurerstrading into Hudson's Bay" occupied some fortified stations which, during the seventeenth century, had been seized by the daringFrench-Canadian corsair, Iberville, who ranks with the famousEnglishman, Drake. On the Atlantic coast the prosperous English coloniesoccupied a narrow range of country bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and theAlleghanies. It was only in the middle of the eighteenth century--nearlythree-quarters of a century after Joliet's and La Salle's explorations, and even later than the date at which Frenchmen had followed theSaskatchewan to the Rocky Mountains--that some enterprising Virginiansand Pennsylvanians worked their way into the beautiful country wateredby the affluents of the Ohio. New France may be said to have extended atthat time from Cape Breton or Isle Royale west to the Rocky Mountains, and from the basin of the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. 

SECTION 4. --End of French dominion in the valley of the St. Lawrence. 

After the treaty of Utrecht, France recognized the mistake she had madein giving up Acadia, and devoted her attention to the island of CapeBreton, or Isle Royale, on whose southeastern coast soon rose thefortifications of Louisbourg. In the course of years this fortressbecame a menace to English interests in Acadia and New England. In 1745the town was taken by a force of New England volunteers, led by GeneralPepperrell, a discreet and able colonist, and a small English squadronunder the command of Commodore, afterwards Admiral, Warren, both of whomwere rewarded by the British government for their distinguished serviceson this memorable occasion. France, however, appreciated the importanceof Isle Royale, and obtained its restoration in exchange for Madraswhich at that time was the most important British settlement in the EastIndies. England then decided to strengthen herself in Acadia, whereFrance retained her hold of the French Acadian population through thesecret influence of her emissaries, chiefly missionaries, andaccordingly established a town on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, ever since known as Halifax, in honour of a prominent statesman of thosetimes. The French settlers, who by the middle of the eighteenth centurynumbered 12, 000, a thrifty, industrious and simple-minded people, easilyinfluenced by French agents, called themselves "Neutrals, " and could notbe forced to take the unqualified oath of allegiance which was demandedof them by the authorities of Halifax. The English Government was nowdetermined to act with firmness in a province where British interestshad been so long neglected, and where the French inhabitants had in thecourse of forty years shown no disposition to consider themselvesBritish subjects and discharge their obligations to the British Crown. France had raised the contention that the Acadia ceded to England by thetreaty of Utrecht comprised only the present province of Nova Scotia, and indeed only a portion of that peninsula according to some Frenchauthorities. Commissioners were appointed by the two Powers to settlethe question of boundaries--of the meaning of "Acadie, with its ancientboundaries"--but their negotiations came to naught and the issue wasonly settled by the arbitrament of war. The French built the forts ofBeauséjour and Gaspereau--the latter a mere palisade--on the Isthmus ofChignecto, which became the rendezvous of the French Acadians, whom theformer persuaded by promises or threats to join their fortunes. In 1755a force of English and Colonial troops, under the command of ColonelsMoncton, Winslow and Scott, captured these forts, and this success wasfollowed by the banishment of the Acadian French. This cruel act ofGovernor Lawrence and the English authorities at Halifax was no doubtlargely influenced by the sentiment of leading men in New England, whowere apprehensive of the neighbourhood of so large a number of an alienpeople, who could not be induced to prove their loyalty to GreatBritain, and might, in case of continued French successes in America, become open and dangerous foes. But while there are writers who defendthis sad incident of American history on the ground of stern nationalnecessity at a critical period in the affairs of the continent, allhumanity that listens to the dictates of the heart and tender feelingwill ever deplore the exile of those hapless people. 

Previous to the expulsion of the Acadians from their pleasant homes onthe meadows of Grand Pré and Minas, England sustained a severe defeat inthe valley of the Ohio, which created much alarm throughout the Englishcolonies, and probably had some influence on the fortunes of thosepeople. France had formally taken possession of the Ohio country andestablished forts in 1753 on French Creek, at its junction with theAlleghany, and also at the forks of the Ohio. Adventurous Britishpioneers were at last commencing to cross the Alleghanies, and a companyhad been formed with the express intention of stimulating settlement inthe valley. George Washington, at the head of a small Colonial force, was defeated in his attempt to drive the French from the Ohio; and theEnglish Government was compelled to send out a large body of regulartroops under the command of General Braddock, who met defeat and deathon the banks of the Monongahela, General Johnson, on the other hand, defeated a force of French regulars, Canadian Militia and Indians, underGeneral Dieskau, at the southern end of Lake George. 

In 1756 war was publicly proclaimed between France and England, although, as we have just seen, it had already broken out many monthspreviously in the forests of America. During the first two years of thewar the English forces sustained several disasters through theincompetency of the English commanders on land and sea. The French inCanada were now led by the Marquis de Montcalm, distinguished both as asoldier of great ability and as a man of varied intellectualaccomplishments. In the early part of the Canadian campaign he was mostfortunate. Fort William Henry, at the foot of Lake George, and FortOswego, on the south side of Lake Ontario, were captured, but his signalvictory at the former place was sullied by the massacre of defencelessmen, women and children by his Indian allies, although it is nowadmitted by all impartial writers that he did his utmost to prevent sosad a sequel to his triumph. The English Commander-in-Chief, LordLoudoun, assembled a large military force at Halifax in 1757 for thepurpose of making a descent on Louisbourg; but he returned to New Yorkwithout accomplishing anything, when he heard of the disastrous affairof William Henry, for which he was largely responsible on account ofhaving failed to give sufficient support to the defenders of the fort. Admiral Holbourne sailed to Louisbourg, but he did not succeed in comingto an engagement with the French fleet then anchored in the harbour, andthe only result of his expedition was the loss of several of his shipson the reefs of that foggy, rocky coast. 

In 1758 Pitt determined to enter on a vigorous campaign against Francein Europe and America. For America he chose Amherst, Boscawen, Howe, Forbes, Wolfe, Lawrence and Whitman. Abercromby was unfortunatelyallowed to remain in place of Loudoun, but it was expected by Pitt andothers that Lord Howe, one of the best soldiers in the British army, would make up for the military weakness of that commander. Louisbourg, Fort Duquesne, and the forts on Lake George, were the immediate objectsof attack. Abercromby at the head of a large force failed ignominiouslyin his assault on Ticonderoga, and Lord Howe was one of the first tofall in that unhappy and ill-managed battle. Amherst and Boscawen, onthe other hand, took Louisbourg, where Wolfe displayed great energy andcontributed largely to the success of the enterprise. Forbes was able tooccupy the important fort at the forks of the Ohio, now Pittsburg, whichgave to the English control of the beautiful country to the west of theAlleghanies. Fort Frontenac was taken by Bradstreet, and Prince EdwardIsland, then called Isle St. Jean, was occupied by an English force asthe necessary consequence of the fall of the Cape Breton fortress. Thenation felt that its confidence in Pitt was fully justified, and thatthe power of France in America was soon to be effectually broken. 

In 1759 and 1760 Pitt's designs were crowned with signal success. Wolfeproved at Quebec that the statesman had not overestimated his value as asoldier and leader. Wolfe was supported by Brigadiers Moncton, Townshend, Murray, and Guy Carleton--the latter a distinguished figurein the later annals of Canada. The fleet was commanded by AdmiralsSaunders, Durell and Holmes, all of whom rendered most effectiveservice. The English occupied the Island of Orleans and the heights ofLévis, from which they were able to keep up a most destructive fire onthe capital. The whole effective force under Wolfe did not reach 9000men, or 5000 less than the regular and Colonial army under Montcalm, whose lines extended behind batteries and earthworks from the St. Charles River, which washes the base of the rocky heights of the town, as far as the falls of Montmorency. The French held an impregnableposition which their general decided to maintain at all hazards, despitethe constant efforts of Wolfe for weeks to force him to the issue ofbattle. Above the city for many miles there were steep heights, believedto be unapproachable, and guarded at all important points by detachmentsof soldiery. Wolfe failed in an attempt which he made at Beauport toforce Montcalm from his defences, and suffered a considerable lossthrough the rashness of his grenadiers. He then resolved on a boldstroke which succeeded by its very audacity in deceiving his opponent, and giving the victory to the English. A rugged and dangerous path wasused at night up those very heights which, Montcalm confidentlybelieved, "a hundred men could easily defend against the whole Britisharmy. " On the morning of the 13th September, 1759, Wolfe marshalled anarmy of four thousand five hundred men on the Plains of Abraham where hewas soon face to face with the French army. Montcalm had lost no time inaccepting the challenge of the English, in the hope that his superiornumbers would make up for their inferiority in discipline and equipmentcompared with the smaller English force. His expectations were neverrealized. In a few minutes the French fell in hundreds before the steadydeadly fire of the English lines, and Montcalm was forced to retreatprecipitately with the beaten remnant of his army. Wolfe receivedseveral wounds, and died on the battlefield, but not before he wasconscious of his victory. "God be praised, " were his dying words, "I nowdie in peace. " His brave adversary was mortally wounded while seekingthe protection of Quebec, and was buried in a cavity which a shell hadmade in the floor of the chapel of the Ursuline Convent. A few dayslater Quebec capitulated. Wolfe's body was taken to England, where itwas received with all the honours due to his great achievement. GeneralMurray was left in command at Quebec, and was defeated in the followingspring by Lévis in the battle of St. Foye, which raised the hopes of theFrench until the appearance of English ships in the river relieved thebeleaguered garrison and decided for ever the fate of Quebec. A fewweeks later Montreal capitulated to Amherst, whose extreme cautionthroughout the campaign was in remarkable contrast with the dash andenergy of the hero of Quebec. The war in Canada was now at an end, andin 1763 the treaty of Paris closed the interesting chapter of Frenchdominion on the banks of the St. Lawrence and in the valleys of the Ohioand the Mississippi. 

SECTION 5. --Political, economic and social conditions of Canada duringFrench ride. 

France and England entered on the struggle for dominion in America aboutthe same time, but long before the conquest of Canada the communitiesfounded by the latter had exhibited a vigour and vitality which werenever shown in the development of the relatively poor and strugglingcolonies of Canada and Louisiana. The total population of New France in1759--that is, of all the French possessions in North America--did notexceed 70, 000 souls, of whom 60, 000 were inhabitants of the country ofthe St. Lawrence, chiefly of the Montreal and Quebec districts. Francehad a few struggling villages and posts in the very "garden of theNorth-west, " as the Illinois country has been aptly called; but thetotal population of New France from the great lakes to the Gulf ofMexico did not exceed 10, 000 souls, the greater number of whom dwelt onthe lower banks of the Mississippi. At this time the British colonies inAmerica, pent up between the Atlantic Ocean and the Appalachianmountains, had a population twenty times larger than that of Canada andLouisiana combined, and there was not any comparison whatever betweenthese French and British colonies with respect to trade, wealth or anyof the essentials of prosperity. 

Under the system of government established by Louis XIV, under theadvice of Colbert, the governor and intendant of Canada were, to allintents and purposes in point of authority, the same officials whopresided over the affairs of a province of France. In Canada, as inFrance, governors-general had only such powers as were expressly giventhem by the king, who, jealous of all authority in others, kept themrigidly in check. In those days the king was supreme; "I am the state, "said Louis Quatorze in the arrogance of his power; and it is thus easyto understand that there could be no such free government orrepresentative institutions in Canada as were enjoyed from the verycommencement of their history by the old English colonies. 

The governor had command of the militia and troops, and was nominallysuperior in authority to the intendant, but in the course of time thelatter became virtually the most influential officer in the colony andeven presided at the council-board. This official, who had the right toreport directly to the king on colonial affairs, had large civil, commercial and maritime jurisdiction, and could issue ordinances whichhad full legal effect in the country. Associated with the governor andintendant was a council comprising in the first instance five, andeventually twelve, persons, chosen from the leading people of thecolony. The change of name, from the "Supreme Council" to the "SuperiorCouncil, " is of itself some evidence of the determination of the king torestrain the pretensions of all official bodies throughout the kingdomand its dependencies. This body exercised legislative and judicialpowers. The bishop was one of its most important members, and thehistory of the colony is full of the quarrels that arose between him andthe governor on points of official etiquette or with respect to moreimportant matters affecting the government of the country. 

Protestantism was unknown in Canada under French rule, and theenterprise of the Huguenots was consequently lost to a country alwayssuffering from a want of population. Even the merchants of La Rochelle, who traded with the country, found themselves invariably subject torestrictions which placed them at an enormous disadvantage in theircompetition with their Roman Catholic rivals. The Roman Catholic Churchwas all powerful at the council-board as well as in the parish. In thepast as in the present century, a large Roman Catholic church rose, themost prominent building in every town and village, illustrating itsdominating influence in the homes of every community of the province. The parishes were established at an early date for ecclesiasticalpurposes, and their extent was defined wherever necessary by thecouncil at Quebec. They were practically territorial divisions for theadministration of local affairs, and were conterminous, wheneverpracticable, with the seigniory. The curé, the seignior, the militiacaptain (often identical with the seignior), were the importantfunctionaries in every parish. Even at the present time, when acanonical parish has been once formed by the proper ecclesiasticalauthority, it may be erected into a municipal or civil division aftercertain legal formalities by the government of the province. Tithes werefirst imposed by Bishop Laval, who practically established the basis ofecclesiastical authority in the province. It was only in church mattersthat the people had the right to meet and express their opinions, andeven then the intendant alone could give the power of assembling forsuch purposes. 

The civil law of French Canada relating to "property, " inheritance, marriage, and the personal or civil rights of the community generally, had its origin, like all similar systems, in the Roman law, on whichwere engrafted, in the course of centuries, those customs and usageswhich were adapted to the social conditions of France. The customary lawof Paris became the fundamental law of French Canada, and despite thechanges that it has necessarily undergone in the course of many years, its principles can still be traced throughout the present system as ithas been modified under the influences of the British regime. Thesuperior council of Canada gave judgment in civil and criminal casesaccording to the _coutume de Paris_, and below it there were inferiorcourts for the judicial districts of Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal. The bishop had also special jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters. The intendant had authority to deal with cases involving royal, orseigniorial, rights, and to call before him any case whatever for finalreview and judgment. In all cases appeals were allowable to the kinghimself, but the difficulty of communication with Europe in those dayspractically confined such references to a few special causes. Theseigniors had also certain judicial or magisterial powers, but theynever acted except in very trivial cases. Torture was sometimes appliedto condemned felons as in France and other parts of the old world. Onthe whole justice appears to have been honestly and fairly administered. 

Parkman, in a terse sentence, sums up the conditions which fettered allCanadian trade and industry, "A system of authority, monopoly andexclusion in which the government, and not the individual, acted alwaysthe foremost part. " Whether it was a question of ship-building, of abrewery or a tannery, of iron works or a new fishery, appeals must bemade in the first instance to the king for aid; and the people werenever taught to depend exclusively on their individual or associatedenterprise. At the time of the conquest, and in fact for many yearspreviously, the principal products of the country were beaver skins, timber, agricultural products, fish, fish oil, ginseng (for some yearsonly), beer, cider, rug carpets, homespun cloths--made chiefly by theinmates of the religious houses--soap, potash, leather, stoves, toolsand other iron manufactures--made in the St. Maurice forges--never aprofitable industry, whether carried on by companies or the governmentitself. All these industries were fostered by the state, but, despiteall the encouragement they received, the total value of the exports, principally furs, seal and other oils, lumber, peas, grain and ginsengnever exceeded 3, 500, 000 francs, or about one-tenth of the export tradeof the English colonies to Great Britain. Two-thirds of this amountrepresented beaver skins, the profits on which were very fluctuating, onaccount of the unwise regulations by which, the trade was constantlycrippled. This business was heavily taxed to meet the necessities ofcolonial government, which were always heavy, and could never have beenmet had it not been for the liberality of the king. In the year 1755 theamount of all exports did not reach 2, 500, 000 francs, while the importswere valued at 8, 000, 000 francs. These imports represented wines, brandies, hardware and various luxuries, but the bulk was made up of thesupplies required for the use of the military and civil authorities. The whole trade of the country was carried in about thirty sea-goingvessels, none of them of heavy tonnage. The royal government attemptedto stimulate ship-building in the country, and a few war vessels wereactually built in the course of many years, though it does not appearthat this industry was ever conducted with energy or enterprise. Duringthe last fifty years of French rule, in all probability, not a hundredsea-going vessels were launched in the valley of the St. Lawrence. Duties of import, before 1748, were only imposed on wines, brandies, andBrazilian tobacco; but after the commencement of the war with England, the king found it necessary to establish export and import duties: aspecial exception was however made in favour of the produce of the farm, forest and sea, which were allowed to enter or go out free. The wholeamount of duties raised in ordinary years did not reach above 300, 000francs. 

In the closing years of French dominion the total population of Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers, the only towns in the province, did notexceed 13, 000 souls--about the population of Boston. Quebec alone had8000 inhabitants, Montreal 4000, and Three Rivers 1000. The architectureof these places was more remarkable for solidity than elegance orsymmetry of proportions. The churches, religious and educationalestablishments, official buildings and residences--notably theintendant's palace at Quebec--were built of stone. The most pretentiousedifice was the château of St. Louis--the residence of thegovernor-general--which was rebuilt by Count de Frontenac within thelimits of the fort of St. Louis, first erected by Champlain on thehistoric height always associated with his name. The best buildings inthe towns were generally of one story and constructed of stone. In therural parishes, the villages, properly speaking, consisted of a church, presbytery, school, and tradesmen's houses, while the farms of the_habitants_ stretched on either side. The size and shape of the farmswere governed by the form of the seigniories throughout the province. M. Bourdon, the first Canadian surveyor-general, originally mapped out theseigniories in oblong shapes with very narrow frontage along theriver--a frontage of two or three _arpents_ against a depth of fromforty to eighty _arpents_--and the same inconvenient oblong plan wasfollowed in making sub-grants to the _censitaire_ or _habitant_. Theresult was a disfigurement of a large portion of the country, as thecivil law governing the succession of estates gradually cut up all theseigniories into a number of small farms, each in the form of theparallelogram originally given to the seigniorial grants. The houses ofthe _habitants_, then as now, were generally built of logs or sawnlumber, all whitewashed, with thatched or wooden roofs projecting overthe front so as to form a sort of porch or verandah. The farm-houseswere generally close together, especially in the best cultivated andmost thickly settled districts between Quebec and Montreal. Travellers, just before the Seven Years' War, tell us that the farms in thatdistrict appeared to be well cultivated on the whole, and the homes ofthe _habitants_ gave evidences of thrift and comfort. Some farmers hadorchards from which cider was made, and patches of the coarse strongtobacco which they continue to use to this day, and which is now animportant product of their province. Until the war the condition of theFrench Canadian _habitant_ was one of rude comfort. He could neverbecome rich, in a country where there was no enterprise or trade whichencouraged him to strenuous efforts to make and save money. Gold andsilver were to him curiosities, and paper promises to pay, paper or cardmoney, were widely circulated from early times, and were never for themost part redeemed, though the British authorities after the peace of1763 made every possible effort to induce the French government todischarge its obligations to the French Canadian people. The life of the_habitants_ in peaceful times was far easier and happier than that ofthe peasants of old France. They had few direct taxes to bear, exceptthe tithes required for the support of the church and such smallcontributions as were necessary for local purposes. They were, however, liable to be called out at any moment for military duties and weresubject to _corvées_ or forced labour for which they were never paid bythe authorities. 

The outbreak of the Seven Years' War was a serious blow to a people whohad at last surmounted the greatest difficulties of pioneer life, andattained a moderate degree of comfort. The demands upon the peoplecapable of bearing arms were necessarily fatal to steady farmingoccupations; indeed, in the towns of Quebec and Montreal there was morethan once an insufficiency of food for the garrisons, and horse-fleshhad to be served out, to the great disgust of the soldiers who at firstrefused to take it. Had it not been for the opportune arrival of a shipladen with provisions in the spring of 1759, the government would havebeen unable to feed the army or the inhabitants of Quebec. The gravityof the situation was aggravated for years by the jobbery and corruptionof the men who had the fate of the country largely in their hands. A fewFrench merchants, and monopolists in league with corrupt officials, controlled the markets and robbed a long-suffering and too patientpeople. The names of Bigot, Péan, and other officials of the last yearsof French administration, are justly execrated by French Canadians asrobbers of the state and people in the days when the country was on theverge of war, and Montcalm, a brave, incorruptible man, was fightingagainst tremendous odds to save this unfortunate country to which hegave up his own life in vain. 

So long as France governed Canada, education was entirely in the handsof the Roman Catholic Church. The Jesuits, Franciscans, and otherreligious orders, male and female, at an early date, commenced theestablishment of those colleges and seminaries which have always had soimportant a share in the education of Lower Canada. The Jesuits foundeda college at Quebec in 1635, or three years before the establishment ofHarvard, and the Ursulines opened their convent in the same city fouryears later. Sister Bourgeoys of Troyes founded at Montreal in 1659 theCongrégation de Notre-Dame for the education of girls of humble rank;the commencement of an institution which has now its buildings in manyparts of Canada. In the latter part of the seventeenth century BishopLaval carried out a project for providing education for Canadian priestsdrawn from the people of the country. Consequently, in addition to thegreat seminary at Quebec, there was the lesser seminary where boys weretaught in the hope that they would take orders. In the inception ofeducation the French endeavoured in more than one of their institutionsto combine industrial pursuits with the ordinary branches of anelementary education. But all accounts of the days of the French régimego to show that, despite the zealous efforts of the religious bodies toimprove the education of the colonists, secular instruction was at avery low ebb and hardly reached the seigniories. One writer tells usthat "even the children of officers and gentlemen scarcely knew how toread and write; they were ignorant of the first elements of geographyand history. " Still, dull and devoid of intellectual life as was thelife of the Canadian, he had his place of worship where he received amoral training which elevated him immeasurably above the peasantry ofEngland as well as of his old home. The clergy of Lower Canadaconfessedly did their best to relieve the ignorance of the people, butthey were naturally unable to accomplish, by themselves, a task whichproperly devolved on the governing class. Under the French régime inCanada the civil authorities were as little anxious to enlighten thepeople by the establishment of public or common schools as they were togive them a voice in the government of the country. 

Evidence of some culture and intellectual aspirations in social circlesof the ancient capital attracted the surprise of travellers who visitedthe country before the close of the French dominion. "Science and thefine arts, " wrote Charlevoix, in 1744, "have their turn and conversationdoes not fail. The Canadians breathe from their birth an air of liberty, which makes them very pleasant in the intercourse of life, and ourlanguage is nowhere more purely spoken. " La Gallissonière, a highlycultured governor, spared no effort to encourage a sympathetic study ofscientific pursuits. Dr. Michel Sarrasin, who was a practising physicianin Quebec for nearly half a century, devoted himself most assiduously tothe natural history of the colony, and made some valuable contributionsto the French Academy. The Swedish botanist, Peter Kalm, was impressedwith the liking for scientific study which he observed in the Frenchcolony. But such intellectual culture, as Kalm and Charlevoix mentioned, never showed itself beyond the walls of Quebec or Montreal. Theprovince, as a whole, was in a state of mental sluggishness at the timeof the conquest by England, under whose benign influence the FrenchCanadian people were now to enter on a new career of political andintellectual development. 

Pitt and Wolfe must take a high place among the makers of the Dominionof Canada. It was they who gave relief to French Canada from theabsolutism of old France, and started her in a career of self-governmentand political liberty. When the great procession passed before the Queenof England on the day of the "Diamond Jubilee"--when delegates from allparts of a mighty, world-embracing empire gave her their loyal andheartfelt homage--Canada was represented by a Prime Minister whobelonged to that race which has steadily gained in intellectualstrength, political freedom, and material prosperity, since thememorable events of 1759 and 1760. In that imperial procession nearlyhalf the American Continent was represented--Acadia and Canada firstsettled by France, the north-west prairies first traversed by FrenchCanadian adventurers, the Pacific coast first seen by Cook andVancouver. There, too, marched men from Bengal, Madras, Bombay, Jeypore, Haidarabad, Kashmir, Punjaub, from all sections of that greatempire of India which was won for England by Clive and the men who, likeWolfe, became famous for their achievements in the days of Pitt. Perhapsthere were in that imperial pageant some Canadians whose thoughtswandered from the Present to the Past, and recalled the memory of thatillustrious statesman and of all he did for Canada and England, whenthey stood in Westminster Abbey, and looked on his expressive effigy, which, in the eloquent language of a great English historian, "seemsstill, with eagle face and outstretched arm, to bid England be of goodcheer and to hurl defiance at her foes. "

CHAPTER II. 

BEGINNINGS OF BRITISH RULE. 1760-1774. 

SECTION I. --From the Conquest until the Quebec Act. 

For nearly four years after the surrender of Vaudreuil at Montreal, Canada was under a government of military men, whose headquarters wereat Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal--the capitals of the old Frenchdistricts of the same name. General Murray and the other commanderslaboured to be just and considerate in all their relations with the newsubjects of the Crown, who were permitted to prosecute their ordinarypursuits without the least interference on the part of the conquerors. The conditions of the capitulations of Quebec and Montreal, whichallowed the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, werehonourably kept. All that was required then, and for many years later, was that the priests and curés should confine themselves exclusively totheir parochial duties, and not take part in public matters. It had beenalso stipulated at Montreal that the communities of nuns should not bedisturbed in their convents; and while the same privileges were notgranted by the articles of capitulation to the Jesuits, Recollets, andSulpitians, they had every facility given to them to dispose of theirproperty and remove to France. As a matter of fact there was practicallyno interference with any of the religious fraternities during the earlyyears of British rule; and when in the course of time the Jesuitsdisappeared entirely from the country their estates passed by law intothe possession of the government for the use of the people, while theSulpitians were eventually allowed to continue their work and developeproperty which became of great value on the island of Montreal. (TheFrench merchants and traders were allowed all the commercial and tradingprivileges that were enjoyed by the old subjects of the BritishSovereign, not only in the valley of the St. Lawrence, but in the richfur regions of the West and North-West. ) The articles of capitulationdid not give any guarantees or pledges for the continuance of the civillaw under which French Canada had been governed for over a century, butwhile that was one of the questions dependent on the ultimate fate ofCanada, the British military rulers took every possible care during thecontinuance of the military régime to respect so far as possible the oldcustoms and laws by which the people had been previously governed. French writers of those days admit the generosity and justice of theadministration of affairs during this military régime. 

The treaty of Paris, signed on the 10th February, 1763, formally cededto England Canada as well as Acadia, with all their dependencies. TheFrench Canadians were allowed full liberty "to profess the worship oftheir religion according to the rites of the Romish Church, as far asthe laws of Great Britain permit. " The people had permission to retirefrom Canada with all their effects within eighteen months from the dateof the ratification of the treaty. All the evidence before us goes toshow that only a few officials and seigniors ever availed themselves ofthis permission to leave the country. At this time there was not asingle French settlement beyond Vaudreuil until the traveller reachedthe banks of the Detroit between Lakes Erie and Huron. A chain of fortsand posts connected Montreal with the basin of the great lakes and thecountry watered by the Ohio, Illinois, and other tributaries of theMississippi. The forts on the Niagara, at Detroit, at Michillimackinac, at Great Bay, on the Maumee and Wabash, at Presqu' isle, at the junctionof French Creek with the Alleghany, at the forks of the Ohio, and atless important localities in the West and South-West, were held by smallEnglish garrisons, while the French still occupied Vincennes on theWabash and Chartres on the Mississippi, in the vicinity of the Frenchsettlements at Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and the present site of St. Louis. 

Soon after the fall of Montreal, French traders from New Orleans and theFrench settlements on the Mississippi commenced to foment disaffectionamong the western Indians, who had strong sympathy with France, and werequite ready to believe the story that she would ere long regain Canada. The consequence was the rising of all the western tribes under theleadership of Pontiac, the principal chief of the Ottawas, whosewarriors surrounded and besieged Detroit when he failed to capture it bya trick. Niagara was never attacked, and Detroit itself was successfullydefended by Major Gladwin, a fearless soldier; but all the other fortsand posts very soon fell into the hands of the Indians, who massacredthe garrisons in several places. They also ravaged the bordersettlements of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and carried off a number ofwomen and children to their wigwams. Fort Pitt at the confluence of theAlleghany and the Monongahela rivers--the site of the present city ofPittsburg--was in serious peril for a time, until Colonel Bouquet, abrave and skilful officer, won a signal victory over the Indians, whofled in dismay to their forest fastnesses. Pontiac failed to captureDetroit, and Bouquet followed up his first success by a direct marchinto the country of the Shawnees, Mingoes and Delawares, and forced themto agree to stern conditions of peace on the banks of the Muskingum. Thepower of the western Indians was broken for the time, and the British in1765 took possession of the French forts of Chartres and Vincennes, whenthe _fleur-de-lys_ disappeared for ever from the valley of theMississippi. The French settlers on the Illinois and the Mississippipreferred to remain under British rule rather than cross the great riverand become subjects of Spain, to whom Western Louisiana had been cededby France. From this time forward France ceased to be an influentialfactor in the affairs of Canada or New France, and the Indian tribesrecognized the fact that they could no longer expect any favour or aidfrom their old ally. They therefore transferred their friendship toEngland, whose power they had felt in the Ohio valley, and whose policywas now framed with a special regard to their just treatment. 

This Indian war was still in progress when King George III issued hisproclamation for the temporary government of his new dependencies inNorth America. As a matter of fact, though the proclamation was issuedin England on the 7th October, 1763, it did not reach Canada and comeinto effect until the 10th August, 1764. The four governments of Quebec, Grenada, East Florida, and West Florida were established in theterritories ceded by France and Spain. The eastern limit of the provinceof Quebec did not extend beyond St. John's River at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, nearly opposite to Anticosti, while that island itself and theLabrador country, east of the St. John's as far as the Straits ofHudson, were placed under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland. The islandsof Cape Breton and St. John, now Prince Edward, became subject to theGovernment of Nova Scotia, which then included the present province ofNew Brunswick. The northern limit of the province did not extend beyondthe territory known as Rupert's Land under the charter given to theHudson's Bay Company in 1670, while the western boundary was drawnobliquely from Lake Nipissing as far as Lake St. Francis on the St. Lawrence; the southern boundary then followed line 45° across the upperpart of Lake Champlain, whence it passed along the highlands whichdivide the rivers that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from thosethat flow into the sea--an absurdly defined boundary since it gave toCanada as far as Cape Rosier on the Gaspé peninsula a territory only afew miles wide. No provision whatever was made in the proclamation forthe government of the country west of the Appalachian range, which wasclaimed by Pennsylvania, Virginia, and other colonies under theindefinite terms of their original charters, which practically gavethem no western limits. Consequently the proclamation was regarded withmuch disfavour by the English colonists on the Atlantic coast. Noprovision was even made for the great territory which extended beyondNipissing as far as the Mississippi and included the basin of the greatlakes. It is easy to form the conclusion that the intention of theBritish government was to restrain the ambition of the old Englishcolonies east of the Appalachian range, and to divide the immenseterritory to their north-west at some future and convenient time intoseveral distinct and independent governments. No doubt the Britishgovernment also found it expedient for the time being to keep thecontrol of the fur-trade so far as possible in its own hands, and inorder to achieve this object it was necessary in the first place toconciliate the Indian tribes, and not allow them to come in any wayunder the jurisdiction of the chartered colonies. The proclamationitself, in fact, laid down entirely new, and certainly equitable, methods of dealing with the Indians within the limits of Britishsovereignty. The governors of the old colonies were expressly forbiddento grant authority to survey lands beyond the settled territorial limitsof their respective governments. No person was allowed to purchase landdirectly from the Indians. The government itself thenceforth could alonegive a legal title to Indian lands, which must, in the first place, besecured by treaty with the tribes that claimed to own them. This was thebeginning of that honest policy which has distinguished the relations ofEngland and Canada with the Indian nations for over a hundred years, andwhich has obtained for the present Dominion the confidence andfriendship of the many thousand Indians, who roamed for many centuriesin Rupert's Land and in the Indian Territories where the Hudson's BayCompany long enjoyed exclusive privileges of trade. 

The language of the proclamation with respect to the government of theprovince of Quebec was extremely unsatisfactory. It was ordered that sosoon as the state and circumstances of the colony admitted, thegovernor-general could with the advice and consent of the members of thecouncil summon a general assembly, "in such manner and form as is usedand directed in those colonies and provinces in America which are underour immediate government. " Laws could be made by the governor, council, and representatives of the people for the good government of the colony, "as near as may be agreeable to the laws of England, and under suchregulations and restrictions as are used in other colonies. " Until suchan assembly could be called, the governor could with the advice of hiscouncil constitute courts for the trial and determination of all civiland criminal cases, "according to law and equity, and as near as may beagreeable to the laws of England, " with liberty to appeal, in all civilcases, to the privy council of England. General Murray, who had been inthe province since the battle on the Plains of Abraham, was appointed toadminister the government. Any persons elected to serve in an assemblywere required, by his commission and instructions, before they could sitand vote, to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribe adeclaration against transubstantiation, the adoration of the Virgin, andthe Sacrifice of the Mass. 

This proclamation--in reality a mere temporary expedient to give timefor considering the whole state of the colony--was calculated to doinfinite harm, since its principal importance lay in the fact that itattempted to establish English civil as well as criminal law, and at thesame time required oaths which effectively prevented the FrenchCanadians from serving in the very assembly which it professed a desireon the part of the king to establish. The English-speaking or Protestantpeople in the colony did not number in 1764 more than three hundredpersons, of little or no standing, and it was impossible to place allpower in their hands and to ignore nearly seventy thousand FrenchCanadian Roman Catholics. Happily the governor, General Murray, was notonly an able soldier, as his defence of Quebec against Lévis hadproved, but also a man of statesmanlike ideas, animated by a high senseof duty and a sincere desire to do justice to the foreign peoplecommitted to his care. He refused to lend himself to the designs of theinsignificant British minority, chiefly from the New England colonies, or to be guided by their advice in carrying on his government. Hisdifficulties were lessened by the fact that the French had no conceptionof representative institutions in the English sense, and were quitecontent with any system of government that left them their language, religion, and civil law without interference. The stipulations of thecapitulations of 1759-1760, and of the treaty of Paris, with respect tothe free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion, were always observedin a spirit of great fairness: and in 1766 Monseigneur Briand waschosen, with the governor's approval, Roman Catholic bishop of Quebec. He was consecrated at Paris after his election by the chapter of Quebec, and it does not appear that his recognition ever became the subject ofparliamentary discussion. This policy did much to reconcile the FrenchCanadians to their new rulers, and to make them believe that eventuallythey would receive full consideration in other essential respects. 

For ten years the government of Canada was in a very unsatisfactorycondition, while the British ministry was all the while worried with thecondition of things in the old colonies, then in a revolutionaryferment. The Protestant minority continued to clamour for an assembly, and a mixed system of French and English law, in case it was notpossible to establish the latter in its entirety. Attorney-GeneralMasères, an able lawyer and constitutional writer, was in favour of amixed system, but his views were notably influenced by his strongprejudices against Roman Catholics. The administration of the law wasextremely confused until 1774, not only on account of the ignorance andincapacity of the men first sent out from England to preside over thecourts, but also as a consequence of the steady determination of themajority of French Canadians to ignore laws to which they had naturallyan insuperable objection. In fact, the condition of things becamepractically chaotic. It might have been much worse had not GeneralMurray, at first, and Sir Guy Carleton, at a later time, endeavoured, sofar as lay in their power, to mitigate the hardships to which the peoplewere subject by being forced to observe laws of which they were entirelyignorant. 

At this time the governor-general was advised by an executive council, composed of officials and some other persons chosen from the smallProtestant minority of the province. Only one French Canadian appears tohave been ever admitted to this executive body. The English residentsignored the French as far as possible, and made the most unwarrantableclaims to rule the whole province. 

A close study of official documents from 1764 until 1774 goes to showthat all this while the British government was influenced by an anxiousdesire to show every justice to French Canada, and to adopt a system ofgovernment most conducive to its best interests In 1767 Lord Shelburnewrote to Sir Guy Carleton that "the improvement of the civilconstitution of the province was under their most seriousconsideration. " They were desirous of obtaining all information "whichcan tend to elucidate how far it is practicable and expedient to blendthe English with the French laws, in order to form such a system asshall be at once equitable and convenient for His Majesty's old and newsubjects. " From time to time the points at issue were referred to thelaw officers of the crown for their opinion, so anxious was thegovernment to come to a just conclusion. Attorney-General Yorke andSolicitor-General De Grey in 1766 severely condemned any system thatwould permanently "impose new, unnecessary and arbitrary rules(especially as to the titles of land, and the mode of descent, alienation and settlement), which would tend to confound and subvertrights instead of supporting them. " In 1772 and 1773 Attorney-GeneralThurlow and Solicitor-General Wedderburne dwelt on the necessity ofdealing on principles of justice with the province of Quebec. The FrenchCanadians, said the former, "seem to have been strictly entitled by the_jus gentium_ to their property, as they possessed it upon thecapitulation and treaty of peace, together with all its qualities andincidents by tenure or otherwise. " It seemed a necessary consequencethat all those laws by which that property was created, defined, andsecured, must be continued to them. The Advocate-General Marriott, in1773, also made a number of valuable suggestions in the same spirit, andat the same time expressed the opinion that under the existentconditions of the country it was not possible or expedient to call anassembly. Before the imperial government came to a positive conclusionon the vexed questions before it, they had the advantage of the wiseexperience of Sir Guy Carleton, who visited England and remained therefor some time. The result of the deliberation of years was the passagethrough the British parliament of the measure known as "The Quebec Act, "which has always been considered the charter of the special privilegeswhich the French Canadians have enjoyed ever since, and which, in thecourse of a century, made their province one of the most influentialsections of British North America. 

The preamble of the Quebec Act fixed new territorial limits for theprovince. It comprised not only the country affected by the proclamationof 1763, but also all the eastern territory which had been previouslyannexed to Newfoundland. In the west and south-west the province wasextended to the Ohio and the Mississippi, and in fact embraced all thelands beyond the Alleghanies coveted and claimed by the old Englishcolonies, now hemmed in between the Atlantic and the Appalachian range. It was now expressly enacted that the Roman Catholic inhabitants ofCanada should thenceforth "enjoy the free exercise" of their religion, "subject to the king's supremacy declared and established" by law, andon condition of taking an oath of allegiance, set forth in the act. TheRoman Catholic clergy were allowed "to hold, receive, and enjoy theiraccustomed dues and rights, with respect to such persons only as shallconfess the said religion"--that is, one twenty-sixth part of theproduce of the land, Protestants being specially exempted. The FrenchCanadians were allowed to enjoy all their property, together with allcustoms and usages incident thereto, "in as large, ample and beneficialmanner, " as if the proclamation or other acts of the crown "had not beenmade", but the religious orders and communities were excepted inaccordance with the terms of the capitulation of Montreal--the effect ofwhich exception I have already briefly stated. In "all matters ofcontroversy relative to property and civil rights, " resort was to be hadto the old civil law of French Canada "as the rule for the decision ofthe same", but the criminal law of England was extended to the provinceon the indisputable ground that its "certainty and lenity" were already"sensibly felt by the inhabitants from an experience of more than nineyears. " The government of the province was entrusted to a governor and alegislative council appointed by the crown, "inasmuch as it wasinexpedient to call an assembly. " The council was to be composed of notmore than twenty-three residents of the province. At the same time theBritish parliament made special enactments for the imposition of certaincustoms duties "towards defraying the charges of the administration ofjustice and the support of the civil government of the province. " Alldeficiencies in the revenues derived from these and other sources had tobe supplied by the imperial treasury. During the passage of the actthrough parliament, it evoked the bitter hostility of Lord Chatham, whowas then the self-constituted champion of the old colonies, who foundthe act most objectionable, not only because it established the RomanCatholic religion, but placed under the government of Quebec the richterritory west of the Alleghanies. Similar views were expressed by theMayor and Council of London, but they had no effect. The king, in givinghis assent, declared that the measure "was founded on the clearestprinciples of justice and humanity, and would have the best effect inquieting the minds and promoting the happiness of our Canadiansubjects. " In French Canada the act was received without any populardemonstration by the French Canadians, but the men to whom the greatbody of that people always looked for advice and guidance--the priests, curés, and seigniors--naturally regarded these concessions to theirnationality as giving most unquestionable evidence of the considerateand liberal spirit in which the British government was determined torule the province. They had had ever since the conquest satisfactoryproof that their religion was secure from all interference, and now theBritish parliament itself came forward with legal guarantees, not onlyfor the free exercise of that religion, with all its incidents andtithes, but also for the permanent establishment of the civil law towhich they attached so much importance. The fact that no provision wasmade for a popular assembly could not possibly offend a people to whomlocal self-government in any form was entirely unknown. It wasimpossible to constitute an assembly from the few hundred Protestantswho were living in Montreal and Quebec, and it was equally impossible, in view of the religious prejudices dominant in England and the Englishcolonies, to give eighty thousand French Canadian Roman Catholicsprivileges which their co-religionists did not enjoy in Great Britainand to allow them to sit in an elected assembly. Lord North seemed tovoice the general opinion of the British parliament on this difficultsubject, when he closed the debate with an expression of "the earnesthope that the Canadians will, in the course of time, enjoy as much ofour laws and as much of our constitution as may be beneficial to thatcountry and safe for this", but "that time, " he concluded, "had not yetcome. " It does not appear from the evidence before us that the Britishhad any other motive in passing the Quebec Act than to do justice tothe French Canadian people, now subjects of the crown of England. It wasnot a measure primarily intended to check the growth of popularinstitutions, but solely framed to meet the actual conditions of apeople entirely unaccustomed to the working of representative or popularinstitutions. It was a preliminary step in the development ofself-government. 

On the other hand the act was received with loud expressions ofdissatisfaction by the small English minority who had hoped to seethemselves paramount in the government of the province. In Montreal, theheadquarters of the disaffected, an attempt was made to set fire to thetown, and the king's bust was set up in one of the public squares, daubed with black, and decorated with a necklace made of potatoes, andbearing the inscription _Voilà le pape du Canada & le sot Anglais_. Theauthor of this outrage was never discovered, and all the influentialFrench Canadian inhabitants of the community were deeply incensed thattheir language should have been used to insult a king whose only offencewas his assent to a measure of justice to themselves. 

Sir Guy Carleton, who had been absent in England for four years, returned to Canada on the 18th September, 1774, and was well received inQuebec. The first legislative council under the Quebec Act was notappointed until the beginning of August, 1775. Of the twenty-two memberswho composed it, eight were influential French Canadians bearinghistoric names. The council met on the 17th August, but was forced toadjourn on the 7th September, on account of the invasion of Canada bythe troops of the Continental Congress, composed of representatives ofthe rebellious element of the Thirteen Colonies. In a later chapter Ishall very shortly review the effects of the American revolution uponthe people of Canada; but before I proceed to do so it is necessary totake my readers first to Nova Scotia on the eastern seaboard of BritishNorth America and give a brief summary of its political developmentfrom the beginning of British rule. 

SECTION 2. --The foundation of Nova Scotia (1749--1783). 

The foundation of Halifax practically put an end to the Acadian periodof Nova Scotian settlement. Until that time the English occupation ofthe country was merely nominal. Owing largely to the representations ofGovernor Shirley, of Massachusetts--a statesman of considerable ability, who distinguished himself in American affairs during a most criticalperiod of colonial history--the British government decided at last on avigorous policy in the province, which seemed more than once on thepoint of passing out of their hands. Halifax was founded by theHonourable Edward Cornwallis on the slope of a hill, whose woods thendipped their branches into the very waters of the noble harbour longknown as Chebuctou, and renamed in honour of a distinguished member ofthe Montague family, who had in those days full control of theadministration of colonial affairs. 

Colonel Cornwallis, a son of the Baron of that name--a man of firmnessand discretion--entered the harbour, on the 21st of June, old style, or2nd July present style, and soon afterwards assumed his, duties asgovernor of the province. The members of his first council were sworn inon board one of the transports in the harbour. Between 2000 and 3000persons were brought at this time to settle the town and country. Thesepeople were chiefly made up of retired military and naval officers, soldiers and sailors, gentlemen, mechanics, farmers--far too few--andsome Swiss, who were extremely industrious and useful. On the whole, they were not the best colonists to build up a prosperous industrialcommunity. The government gave the settlers large inducements in theshape of free grants of land, and practically supported them for thefirst two or three years. It was not until the Acadian population wereremoved, and their lands were available, that the foundation of theagricultural prosperity of the peninsula was really laid. In the summerof 1753 a considerable number of Germans were placed in the presentcounty of Lunenburg, where their descendants still prosper, and take amost active part in all the occupations of life. 

With the disappearance of the French Acadian settlers Nova Scotia becamea British colony in the full sense of the phrase. The settlement of 1749was supplemented in 1760, and subsequent years, by a valuable and largeaddition of people who were induced to leave Massachusetts and othercolonies of New England and settle in townships of the present countiesof Annapolis, King's, Hants, Queen's, Yarmouth, Cumberland, andColchester, especially in the beautiful townships of Cornwallis andHorton, where the Acadian meadows were the richest. A small number alsosettled at Maugerville and other places on the St. John River. 

During the few years that had elapsed since the Acadians were drivenfrom their lands, the sea had once more found its way through the ruineddykes, which had no longer the skilful attention of their old builders. The new owners of the Acadian lands had none of the special knowledgethat the French had acquired, and were unable for years to keep back theever-encroaching tides. Still there were some rich uplands and low-lyingmeadows, raised above the sea, which richly rewarded the industriouscultivator. The historian, Haliburton, describes the melancholy scenethat met the eyes of the new settlers when they reached, in 1760, theold homes of the Acadians at Mines. They came across a few stragglingfamilies of Acadians who "had eaten no bread for years, and hadsubsisted on vegetables, fish, and the more hardy part of the cattlethat had survived the severity of the first winter of theirabandonment. " They saw everywhere "ruins of the houses that had beenburned by the Provincials, small gardens encircled by cherry-trees andcurrant-bushes, and clumps of apple-trees. " In all parts of the country, where the new colonists established themselves, the Indians wereunfriendly for years, and it was necessary to erect stockaded houses forthe protection of the settlements. 

No better class probably could have been selected to settle Nova Scotiathan these American immigrants. The majority were descendants of thePuritans who settled in New England, and some were actually sprung frommen and women who had landed from "The Mayflower" in 1620. GovernorLawrence recognized the necessity of having a sturdy class of settlers, accustomed to the climatic conditions and to agricultural labour inAmerica, and it was through his strenuous efforts that these immigrantswere brought into the province. They had, indeed, the choice of the bestland of the province, and everything was made as pleasant as possiblefor them by a paternal government, only anxious to establish Britishauthority on a sound basis of industrial development. 

In 1767, according to an official return in the archives of Nova Scotia, the total population of what are now the provinces of Nova Scotia, NewBrunswick, and Prince Edward Island, reached 13, 374 souls; of whom 6913are given as Americans, 912 as English, 2165 as Irish, 1946 as Germans, and 1265 as Acadian French, the latter being probably a low estimate. Some of these Irish emigrated directly from the north of Ireland, andwere Presbyterians. They were brought out by one Alexander McNutt, whodid much for the work of early colonization; others came from NewHampshire, where they had been settled for some years. The name ofLondonderry in New Hampshire is a memorial of this important class, justas the same name recalls them in the present county of Colchester, inNova Scotia. 

The Scottish immigration, which has exercised such an importantinfluence on the eastern counties of Nova Scotia--and I include CapeBreton--commenced in 1772, when about thirty families arrived fromScotland and settled in the present county of Pictou, where a very fewAmerican colonists from Philadelphia had preceded them. In later years asteady tide of Scotch population flowed into eastern Nova Scotia and didnot cease until 1820. Gaelic is still the dominant tongue in the easterncounties, where we find numerous names recalling the glens, lochs, andmountains of old Scotland. Sir William Alexander's dream of a newScotland has been realised in a measure in the province where hisambition would have made him "lord paramount. "

Until the foundation of Halifax the government of Nova Scotia was vestedsolely in a governor who had command of the garrison stationed atAnnapolis. In 1719 a commission was issued to Governor Phillips, who wasauthorised to appoint a council of not less than twelve persons. Thiscouncil had advisory and judicial functions, but its legislativeauthority was of a very limited scope. This provisional system ofgovernment lasted until 1749, when Halifax became the seat of the newadministration of public affairs. The governor had a right to appoint acouncil of twelve persons--as we have already seen, he did soimmediately--and to summon a general assembly "according to the usage ofthe rest of our colonies and plantations in America. " He was, "with theadvice and consent" of the council and assembly, "to make, constituteand ordain laws" for the good government of the province. During nineyears the governor-in-council carried on the government without anassembly, and passed a number of ordinances, some of which imposedduties on trade for the purpose of raising revenue. The legality oftheir acts was questioned by Chief Justice Belcher, and he was sustainedby the opinion of the English law officers, who called attention to thegovernor's commission, which limited the council's powers. The result ofthis decision was the establishment of a representative assembly, whichmet for the first time at Halifax on the 2nd October, 1758. 

Governor Lawrence, whose name will be always unhappily associated withthe merciless expatriation of the French Acadians, had the honour ofopening the first legislative assembly of Nova Scotia in 1758. OneRobert Sanderson, of whom we know nothing else, was chosen as the firstspeaker, but he held his office for only one session, and was succeededby William Nesbitt, who presided over the house for many years. Thefirst sittings of the legislature were held in the court house, andsubsequently in the old grammar school at the corner of Barrington andSackville Streets, for very many years one of the historic memorials ofthe Halifax of the eighteenth century. 

At this time the present province of New Brunswick was for the most partcomprised in a county known as Sunbury, with one representative in theassembly of Nova Scotia. The island of Cape Breton also formed a part ofthe province, and had the right to send two members to the assembly, butthe only election held for that purpose was declared void on account ofthere not being any freeholders entitled by law to vote. The island ofSt. John, named Prince Edward in 1798, in honour of the Duke of Kent, who was commander-in-chief of the British forces for some years in NorthAmerica, was also annexed to Nova Scotia in 1763, but it never sentrepresentatives to its legislature. In the following year a survey wascommenced of all the imperial dominions on the Atlantic. Various schemesfor the cultivation and settlement of the island were proposed as soonas the surveys were in progress. The most notable suggestion was made bythe Earl of Egmont, first lord of the admiralty; he proposed thedivision of the island into baronies, each with a castle or strongholdunder a feudal lord, subject to himself as lord paramount, under thecustoms of the feudal system of Europe. The imperial authoritiesrejected this scheme, but at the same time they adopted one which was asunwise as that of the noble earl. The whole island, with the exceptionof certain small reservations and royalties, was given away by lotteryin a single day to officers of the army and navy who had served in thepreceding war, and to other persons who were ambitious to be greatlandowners, on the easy condition of paying certain quit-rents--acondition constantly broken. This ill-advised measure led to manytroublesome complications for a hundred years, until at last they wereremoved by the terms of the arrangement which brought the island intothe federal union of British North America in 1873. In 1769 the islandwas separated from Nova Scotia and granted a distinct government, although its total population at the time did not exceed one hundred andfifty families. An assembly of eighteen representatives was called soearly as 1773, when the first governor, Captain Walter Paterson, stilladministered public affairs. The assembly was not allowed to meet withregularity during many years of the early history of the island. Duringone administration it was practically without parliamentary governmentfor ten years. The land question always dominated public affairs in theisland for a hundred years. 

From the very beginning of a regular system of government in Nova Scotiathe legislature appears to have practically controlled theadministration of local affairs except so far as it gave, from time totime, powers to the courts of quarter sessions to regulate taxation andcarry out certain small public works and improvements. In the firstsession of the legislature a joint committee of the council and assemblychose the town officers for Halifax. We have abundant evidence that atthis time the authorities viewed with disfavour any attempt to establisha system of town government similar to that so long in operation in NewEngland. The town meeting was considered the nursery of sedition in NewEngland, and it is no wonder that the British authorities in Halifaxfrowned upon all attempts to reproduce it in their province. 

Soon after his arrival in Nova Scotia, Governor Cornwallis establishedcourts of law to try and determine civil and criminal cases inaccordance with the laws of England. In 1774 there were in the provincecourts of general session, similar to the courts of the same name inEngland; courts of common pleas, formed on the practice of New Englandand the mother country, and a supreme court, court of assize and generalgaol delivery, composed of a chief justice and two assistant judges. Thegovernor-in-council constituted a court of error in certain cases, andfrom its decisions an appeal could be made to the king-in-council. Justices of peace were also appointed in the counties and townships, with jurisdiction over the collection of small debts. 

We must now leave the province of Nova Scotia and follow therevolutionary movement, which commenced, soon after the signing of theTreaty of Paris, in the old British colonies on the Atlantic seaboard, and ended in the acknowledgement of their independence in 1783, and inthe forced migration of a large body of loyal people who found their wayto the British provinces. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS (1763--1784). 

SECTION I. --The successful Revolution of the Thirteen Colonies inAmerica. 

When Canada was formally ceded to Great Britain the Thirteen Colonieswere relieved from the menace of the presence of France in the valleysof the St. Lawrence, the Ohio, and the Mississippi. Nowhere were theremore rejoicings on account of this auspicious event than in the homes ofthe democratic Puritans. The names of Pitt and Wolfe were honoured aboveall others of their countrymen, and no one in England, certainly notamong its statesmen, imagined that in the colonies, which stretched fromthe river Penobscot to the peninsula of Florida, there was latent aspirit of independence which might at any moment threaten the rule ofGreat Britain on the American continent. The great expenses of the SevenYears' War were now pressing heavily on the British taxpayer. Britishstatesmen were forced to consider how best they could make the coloniesthemselves contribute towards their own protection in the future, andrelieve Great Britain in some measure from the serious burden whichtheir defence had heretofore imposed on her. In those days colonies wereconsidered as so many possessions to be used for the commercialadvantage of the parent state. Their commerce and industries had beenfettered for many years by acts of parliament which were intended togive Great Britain a monopoly of their trade and at the same timeprevent them from manufacturing any article that they could buy from theBritish factories. As a matter of fact, however, these restrictivemeasures of imperial protection had been for a long time practicallydead-letters. The merchants and seamen of New England carried onsmuggling with the French and Spanish Indies with impunity, andpractically traded where they pleased. 

The stamp act was only evidence of a vigorous colonial policy, which wasto make the people of the colonies contribute directly to their owndefence and security, and at the same time enforce the navigation lawsand acts of trade and put an end to the general system of smuggling bywhich men, some of the best known merchants of Boston, had acquired afortune. George Grenville, who was responsible for the rigid enforcementof the navigation laws and the stamp act, had none of that worldlywisdom which Sir Robert Walpole showed when, years before, it wasproposed to him to tax the colonies. "No, " said that astute politician, "I have old England set against me already, and do you think I will haveNew England likewise?" But Grenville and his successors, in attemptingto carry out a new colonial policy, entirely misunderstood theconditions and feelings of the colonial communities affected and raiseda storm of indignation which eventually led to independence. The stampact was in itself an equitable measure, the proceeds of which were to beexclusively used for the benefit of the colonies themselves; but itsenactment was most unfortunate at a time when the influential classes inNew England were deeply irritated at the enforcement of a policy whichwas to stop the illicit trade from which they had so largely profited inthe past. The popular indignation, however, vented itself against thestamp act, which imposed internal taxation, was declared to be in directviolation of the principles of political liberty and self-governmentlong enjoyed by the colonists as British subjects, and was repealed as aresult of the violent opposition it met in the colonies. Parliamentcontented itself with a statutory declaration of its supremacy in allmatters over every part of the empire; but not long afterwards thedetermination of some English statesmen to bring the colonies as far aspracticable directly under the dominion of British law in all matters ofcommerce and taxation, and to control their government as far aspossible, found full expression in the Townshend acts of 1767 whichimposed port duties on a few commodities, including tea, imported intothose countries. At the same time provision was made for the dueexecution of existing laws relating to trade. The province of New Yorkwas punished for openly refusing to obey an act of parliament whichrequired the authorities to furnish the British troops with thenecessaries of life. Writs of assistance, which allowed officials tosearch everywhere for smuggled goods, were duly legalised. These writswere the logical sequence of a rigid enforcement of the laws of tradeand navigation, and had been vehemently denounced by James Otis, so farback as 1761, as not only irreconcilable with the colonial charters, butas inconsistent with those natural rights which a people "derived fromnature and the Author of nature"--an assertion which obtained greatprominence for the speaker. This bold expression of opinion inMassachusetts should be studied by the historian of those times inconnection with the equally emphatic revolutionary argument advanced byPatrick Henry of Virginia, two years later, against the ecclesiasticalsupremacy of the Anglican clergy and the right of the king to vetolegislation of the colony. Though the prerogative of the crown was thusdirectly called into question in a Virginia court, the Britishgovernment did not take a determined stand on the undoubted rights ofthe crown in the case. English statesmen and lawyers probably regardedsuch arguments, if they paid any attention to them at all in days whenthey neglected colonial opinion, as only temporary ebullitions of localfeeling, though in reality they were so many evidences of the oppositionthat was sure to show itself whenever there was a direct interferencewith the privileges and rights of self-governing communities. Both Henryand Otis touched a key-note of the revolution, which was stimulated bythe revenue and stamp acts and later measures affecting the colonies. 

It is somewhat remarkable that it was in aristocratic Virginia, foundedby Cavaliers, as well as in democratic Massachusetts, founded byPuritans, that the revolutionary element gained its principal strengthduring the controversy with the parent state. The makers ofMassachusetts were independents in church government and democrats inpolitical principle. The whole history of New England, in fact, from thefirst charters until the argument on the writs of assistance, is full ofincidents which show the growth of republican ideas. The Anglican churchhad no strength in the northern colonies, and the great majority oftheir people were bitterly opposed to the pretensions of the Englishhierarchy to establish an episcopate in America. It is not thereforesurprising that Massachusetts should have been the leader in therevolutionary agitation; on the other hand in Virginia the Anglicanclergy belonged to what was essentially an established church, and thewhole social fabric of the colony rested on an aristocratic basis. Nodoubt before the outbreak of the revolution there was a decided feelingagainst England on account of the restrictions on the sale of tobacco;and the quarrel, which I have just referred to, with respect to thestipends of the clergy, which were to be paid in this staple commodityaccording to its market value at the time of payment, had spreaddiscontent among a large body of the people. But above all such causesof dissatisfaction was the growing belief that the political freedom ofthe people, and the very existence of the colony as a self-governingcommunity, were jeopardised by the indiscreet acts of the imperialauthorities after 1763. It is easy then to understand that the action ofthe British government in 1767 renewed the agitation, which had beenallayed for the moment by the repeal of the stamp act and the generalbelief that there would be no rigid enforcement of old regulations whichmeant the ruin of the most profitable trade of New England. The measuresof the ministry were violently assailed in parliament by Burke andother eminent men who availed themselves of so excellent an opportunityof exciting the public mind against a government which was doing so muchto irritate the colonies and injure British trade. All the politicalconditions were unfavourable to a satisfactory adjustment of thecolonial difficulty. Chatham had been one of the earnest opponents ofthe stamp act, but he was now buried in retirement--labouring under somemental trouble--and Charles Townshend, the chancellor of the exchequerin the cabinet of which Chatham was the real head, was responsible formeasures which his chief would have repudiated as most impolitic andinexpedient in the existing temper of the colonies. 

The action of the ministry was for years at once weak and irritating. One day they asserted the supremacy of the British parliament, and onthe next yielded to the violent opposition of the colonies and theappeals of British merchants whose interests were at stake. Nothingremained eventually but the tea duty, and even that was so arranged thatthe colonists could buy their tea at a much cheaper rate than theBritish consumer. But by this time a strong anti-British party was incourse of formation throughout the colonies. Samuel Adams ofMassachusetts, Patrick Henry of Virginia, and a few other politicalmanagers of consummate ability, had learned their own power, and theweakness of English ministers. Samuel Adams, who had no love in hisheart for England, was undoubtedly by this time insidiously workingtowards the independence of the colonies. Violence and outrage formedpart of his secret policy. The tea in Boston harbour was destroyed by amob disguised as Mohawk Indians, and was nowhere allowed to enter intodomestic consumption. The patience of English ministers was nowexhausted, and they determined to enter on a vigorous system ofrepression, which might have had some effect at an earlier stage of therevolutionary movement, when the large and influential loyal body ofpeople in the colonies ought to have been vigorously supported, and notleft exposed to the threats, insults, and even violence of a resoluteminority, comprising many persons influenced by purely selfishreasons--the stoppage of illicit trade from which they had profited--aswell as men who objected on principle to a policy which seemed to themirreconcilable with the rights of the people to the fullest possiblemeasure of local self-government. As it was, however, the insults andinjuries to British officials bound to obey the law, the shameless andcontinuous rioting, the destruction of private property, the defiantattitude of the opposition to England, had at last awakened the homeauthorities to the dangers latent in the rebellious spirit that recklessagitators had aroused in colonies for which England had sacrificed somuch of her blood and treasure when their integrity and dearestinterests were threatened by France. The port of Boston, where theagitators were most influential and the most discreditable acts ofviolence had taken place, was closed to trade; and importantmodifications were made in the charter granted to Massachusetts byWilliam III in 1692. Another obnoxious act provided that persons"questioned for any acts in execution of the laws" should be tried inEngland--a measure intended to protect officials and soldiers in thedischarge of their duty against the rancour of the colonial communitywhere they might be at that time. These measures, undoubtedly unwise atthis juncture, were calculated to evoke the hostility of the othercolonies and to show them what was probably in store for themselves. Butwhile the issue certainly proved this to be the case, the course pursuedby the government under existing conditions had an appearance ofjustification. Even Professor Goldwin Smith, who will not be accused ofany sympathy with the British cabinet of that day, or of antagonism toliberal principles, admits that "a government thus bearded and insultedhad its choice between abdication and repression, " and "that repressionwas the most natural" course to pursue under the circumstances. LordNorth gave expression to what was then a largely prevailing sentiment inEngland when he said "to repeal the tea duty would stamp us withtimidity, " and that the destruction of the property of privateindividuals, such as took place at Boston, "was a fitting culmination ofyears of riot and lawlessness. " Lord North, we all know now, was reallydesirous of bringing about a reconciliation between the colonies and theparent state, but he servilely yielded his convictions to the king, whowas determined to govern all parts of his empire, and was in favour ofcoercive measures. It is quite evident that the British ministry andtheir supporters entirely underrated the strength of the colonial partythat was opposing England. Even those persons who, when the war brokeout, remained faithful to their allegiance to the crown, were of opinionthat the British government was pursuing a policy unwise in the extreme, although they had no doubt of the abstract legal right of thatgovernment to pass the Grenville and Townshend acts for taxing thecolonies. Chatham, Burke, Conway, and Barré were the most prominentpublic men who, in powerful language, showed the dangers of the unwisecourse pursued by the "king's friends" in parliament. 

As we review the events of those miserable years we can see that everystep taken by the British government, from the stamp act until theclosing of the port of Boston and other coercive measures, had theeffect of strengthening the hands of Samuel Adams and the otherrevolutionary agitators. Their measures to create a feeling againstEngland exhibited great cunning and skill. The revolutionary movementwas aided by the formation of "Sons of Liberty"--a phrase taken from oneof Barré's speeches, --by circular letters and committees ofcorrespondence between the colonies, by petitions to the king winch wereframed in a tone of independence not calculated to conciliate thatuncompromising sovereign, by clever ingenious appeals to publicpatriotism, by the assembling of a "continental congress, " by acts of"association" which meant the stoppage of all commercial intercoursewith Great Britain. New England was the head and front of the wholerevolution, and Samuel Adams was its animating spirit. Even those famouscommittees of correspondence between the towns of Massachusetts, whichgave expression to public opinion and stimulated united action when thelegislative authority was prevented by the royal governor from working, were the inspiration of this astute political manager. ProminentVirginians saw the importance of carrying out this idea on a wider fieldof action, and Virginia accordingly inaugurated a system ofintercolonial correspondence which led to the meeting of a continentalcongress, and was the first practical step towards politicalindependence of the parent state. Adams's decision to work forindependence was made, or confirmed, as early as 1767, when CharlesTownshend succeeded in passing the measures which were so obnoxious tothe colonists, and finally led to civil war. 

At a most critical moment, when the feelings of a large body of peoplewere aroused to a violent pitch, when ideas of independence wereripening in the minds of others besides Samuel Adams, General Gage, thenin command of the British regular troops in Boston, sent a militaryforce to make prisoners of Adams and Hancock at Lexington, and seizesome stores at Concord. Then the "embattled farmers" fired the shot"which was heard around the world. " Then followed the capture ofTiconderoga and Crown Point, and the battle of Bunker's Hill, on thesame day that Washington was appointed by congress to command thecontinental army. At this critical juncture, John Adams and otherprominent colonists--not excepting Washington--were actually disavowingall desire to sever their relations with the parent state in the face ofthe warlike attitude of congress--an attitude justified by thedeclaration that it was intended to force a redress of grievances. TomPaine, a mere adventurer, who had not been long in the country, nowissued his pamphlet, "Common Sense, " which was conceived in a spiritand written in a style admirably calculated to give strength andcohesion to the arguments of the people, who had been for some timecoming to the conclusion that to aim at independence was the onlyconsistent and logical course in the actual state of controversy betweenEngland and the colonies. On March 14th, 1776, the town of Boston, thenthe most important in America, was given up to the rebels; and Britishships carried the first large body of unhappy and disappointed Loyaliststo Halifax. On July the fourth of the same year the Declaration ofIndependence was passed, after much hesitation and discussion, andpublished to the world by the continental congress assembled atPhiladelphia. The signal victory won by the continental army overBurgoyne at Saratoga in the autumn of the following year led to analliance with France, without whose effective aid the eventual successof the revolutionists would have been very doubtful The revolutionistswon their final triumph at Yorktown in the autumn of 1781, when a smallarmy of regulars and Loyalists, led by Cornwallis, was obliged tosurrender to the superior American and French forces, commanded byWashington and Rochambeau, and supported by a French fleet whicheffectively controlled the approaches to Chesapeake Bay. 

The conduct of the war on the part of England was noted for the singularincapacity of her generals. Had there been one of any energy or abilityat the head of her troops, when hostilities commenced, the undisciplinedAmerican army might easily have been beaten and annihilated Boston neednever have been evacuated had Howe taken the most ordinary precautionsto occupy the heights of Dorchester that commanded the town. Washingtoncould never have organised an army had not Howe given him every possibleopportunity for months to do so. The British probably had another grandopportunity of ending the war on their occupation of New York, whenWashington and his relatively insignificant army were virtually in theirpower while in retreat. The history of the war is full of similarinstances of lost opportunities to overwhelm the continental troops. Allthe efforts of the British generals appear to have been devoted to theoccupation of the important towns in a country stretching for a thousandmiles from north to south, instead of following and crushing theconstantly retreating, diminishing, and discouraged forces of therevolutionists. The evacuation of Philadelphia at a critical moment ofthe war was another signal illustration of the absence of all militaryforesight and judgment, since it disheartened the Loyalists and gave upan important base of operation against the South. Even Cornwallis, whofought so bravely and successfully in the southern provinces, made amost serious mistake when he chose so weak a position as Yorktown, whichwas only defensible whilst the army of occupation had free access to thesea. Admiral Rodney, then at St. Eustatius, is open to censure for nothaving sent such naval reinforcements as would have enabled the Britishto command Chesapeake Bay, and his failure in this respect explains theinability of Clinton, an able general, to support Cornwallis in his hourof need. The moment the French fleet appeared in the Chesapeake, Cornwallis's position became perfectly untenable, and he was obliged tosurrender to the allied armies, who were vastly superior in number andequipment to his small force, which had not even the advantage offighting behind well-constructed and perfect defences. No doubt, fromthe beginning to the end of the war--notably in the case ofBurgoyne--the British were seriously hampered by the dilatory and unsafecounsels of Lord George Germaine, who was allowed by the favour of theking to direct military operations, and who, we remember, had disgracedhimself on the famous battlefield of Minden. 

All the conditions in the country at large were favourable to theimperial troops had they been commanded by generals of ability. TheLoyalists formed a large available force, rendered valueless time aftertime by the incapacity of the men who directed operations. At no timedid the great body of the American people warmly respond to the demandsmade upon them by congress to support Washington. Had it not been forNew England and Virginia the war must have more than once collapsed forwant of men and supplies. It is impossible to exaggerate the absence ofpublic spirit in the States during this critical period of theirhistory. The English historian, Lecky, who has reviewed the annals ofthose times with great fairness, has truly said: "The nobility andbeauty of the character of Washington can hardly be surpassed; severalof the other leaders of the revolution were men of ability and publicspirit, and few armies have ever shown a nobler self-devotion than thatwhich remained with Washington through the dreary winter at ValleyForge. But the army that bore those sufferings was a very small one, andthe general aspect of the American people during the contest was farfrom heroic or sublime. " This opinion is fully borne out by thoseAmerican historians who have reviewed the records of their nationalstruggle in a spirit of dispassionate criticism. We know that in thespring of 1780 Washington himself wrote that his troops were "constantlyon the point of starving for want of provisions and forage. " He saw "inevery line of the army the most serious features of mutiny andsedition. " Indeed he had "almost ceased to hope, " for he found thecountry in general "in such a state of insensibility and indifference toits interests" that he dare not flatter himself "with any change for thebetter. " The war under such circumstances would have come to a suddenend had not France liberally responded to Washington's appeals andsupported him with her money, her sailors and her soldiers. In theclosing years of the war Great Britain had not only to fight France, Spain, Holland and her own colonies, but she was without a single allyin Europe. Her dominion was threatened in India, and the king preventedthe intervention of the only statesman in the kingdom to whom thecolonists at any time were likely to listen with respect. When Chathamdied with a protest on his lips "against the dismemberment of thisancient monarchy, " the last hope of bringing about a reconciliationbetween the revolutionists and the parent state disappeared for ever, and the Thirteen Colonies became independent at Yorktown. 

SECTION 2. --Canada and Nova Scotia during the Revolution. 

If Canada was saved to England during the American Revolution it was noton account of the energy and foresight shown by the king and hisministers in providing adequately for its defence, but mainly throughthe coolness and excellent judgment displayed by Governor Carleton. TheQuebec act, for which he was largely responsible, was extremelyunpopular in the Thirteen Colonies, on account of its having extendedthe boundaries of the province and the civil law to that western countrybeyond the Alleghanies, which the frontiersmen of Pennsylvania andVirginia regarded as specially their own domain. The fact that theQuebec act was passed by parliament simultaneously with the Boston portbill and other measures especially levelled against Massachusetts, gaveadditional fuel to the indignation of the people, who regarded thisgroup of acts as part of a settled policy to crush the British-speakingcolonies. 

Under these circumstances, the invasion of Canada by Arnold in 1775, with the full approval of the continental congress, soon after thetaking of Crown Point and Ticonderoga by the "Green Mountain boys" ofVermont, was a most popular movement which, it was hoped generally, would end in the easy conquest of a province, occupied by an alienpeople, and likely to be a menace in the future to the country south ofthe St. Lawrence. The capture of Chambly and St. John's--the keys ofCanada, by way of Lake Champlain--was immediately followed by thesurrender of Montreal, which was quite indefensible, and the flight ofCarleton to Quebec, where he wisely decided to make a stand against theinvaders. At this time there were not one thousand regular troops in thecountry, and Carleton's endeavour to obtain reinforcements from Bostonhad failed in consequence of the timidity of Admiral Graves, whoexpressed his opinion that it was not safe to send vessels up the St. Lawrence towards the end of the month of October. No dependenceapparently could be placed at this critical juncture on a number of theFrench _habitants_, as soon as the districts of Richelieu, Montreal andThree Rivers were occupied by the continental troops. Many of them werequite ready to sell provisions to the invaders, provided they were paidin coin, and a few of them even joined Montgomery on his march toQuebec. Happily, however, the influence of the clergy and the_seigneurs_ was sufficiently powerful to make the great mass of thepeople neutral during this struggle for supremacy in the province. 

The bishop and the priests, from the outset, were quite alive to thegravity of the situation. They could not forget that the delegates tothe continental congress, who were now appealing to French Canada tojoin the rebellious colonists, had only a few weeks before issued anaddress to the people of England in which they expressed theirastonishment that the British parliament should have established inCanada "a religion that had deluged their land in blood and dispersedimpiety, bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion through every partof the world. " Almost simultaneously with the capture of the forts onLake Champlain, Bishop Briand issued a _mandement_ in which he dweltwith emphasis on the great benefits which the people of French Canadahad already derived from the British connection and called upon them allto unite in the defence of their province. No doubt can exist that theseopinions had much effect at a time when Carleton had reason to doubteven the loyalty of the English population, some of whom werenotoriously in league with the rebels across the frontier, and gavematerial aid to the invaders as soon as they occupied Montreal. It wasassuredly the influence of the French clergy that rendered entirelyineffectual the mission of Chase, Franklin, and the Carrolls ofMaryland--one of whom became the first Roman Catholic archbishop of theUnited States--who were instructed by congress to offer every possibleinducement to the Roman Catholic subjects of England in Canada to jointhe revolutionary movement. 

Richard Montgomery, who had commanded the troops invading Canada, hadserved at Louisbourg and Quebec, and had subsequently become a residentof New York, where his political opinions on the outbreak of therevolution had been influenced by his connection, through marriage, withthe Livingstones, bitter opponents of the British government. His meritas a soldier naturally brought him into prominence when the war began, and his own ambition gladly led him to obey the order to go to Canada, where he hoped to emulate the fame of Wolfe and become the captor ofQuebec. He formed a junction, close to the ancient capital, with theforce under Benedict Arnold, who was at a later time to sully amemorable career by an act of the most deliberate treachery to hiscompatriots. When Montgomery and Arnold united their forces beforeQuebec, the whole of Canada, from Lake Champlain to Montreal, and fromthat town to the walls of the old capital, was under the control of thecontinental troops. Despite the great disadvantages under which helaboured, Carleton was able to perfect his defences of the city, whichhe determined to hold until reinforcements should arrive in the springfrom England. Montgomery had neither men nor artillery to storm thefortified city which he had hoped to surprise and easily occupy with theaid of secret friends within its walls. Carleton, however, rallied allloyal men to his support, and the traitors on whom the invaders hadrelied were powerless to carry out any treacherous design they may haveformed. The American commanders at once recognised the folly of aregular investment of the fortress during a long and severe winter, anddecided to attempt to surprise the garrison by a night assault. Thisplan was earned out in the early morning of the thirty-first ofDecember, 1775, when the darkness was intensified by flurries of lightblinding snow, but it failed before the assailants could force thebarricades which barred the way to the upper town, where all theprincipal offices and buildings were grouped, just below the château andfort of St. Louis, which towers above the historic heights. Montgomerywas killed, Arnold was wounded at the very outset, and a considerablenumber of their officers and men were killed or wounded. 

Carleton saved Quebec at this critical hour and was able in the courseof the same year, when General Burgoyne arrived with reinforcementslargely composed of subsidised German regiments, to drive thecontinental troops in confusion from the province and destroy the fleetwhich congress had formed on Lake Champlain. Carleton took possession ofCrown Point but found the season too late--it was now towards the end ofautumn--to attempt an attack on Ticonderoga, which was occupied by astrong and well-equipped garrison. After a careful view of the situationhe concluded to abandon Crown Point until the spring, when he couldeasily occupy it again, and attack Ticonderoga with every prospect ofsuccess. But Carleton, soon afterwards, was ordered to give up thecommand of the royal troops to Burgoyne, who was instructed by Germaineto proceed to the Hudson River, where Howe was to join him. Carletonnaturally resented the insult that he received and resigned thegovernor-generalship, to which General Haldimand was appointed. Carletoncertainly brought Canada securely through one of the most criticalepochs of her history, and there is every reason to believe that hewould have saved the honour of England and the reputation of hergenerals, had he rather than Burgoyne and Howe been entrusted with thedirection of her armies in North America. 

Carleton's administration of the civil government of the province wasdistinguished by a spirit of discretion and energy which deservedlyplaces him among the ablest governors who ever presided over the publicaffairs of a colony. During the progress of the American war thelegislative council was not able to meet until nearly two years afterits abrupt adjournment in September, 1775. At this session, in 1777, ordinances were passed for the establishment of courts of King's bench, common pleas, and probate. 

A critical perusal of the valuable documents, placed of late years inthe archives of the Dominion, clearly proves that it was a fortunate dayfor Canada when so resolute a soldier and far-sighted administrator asGeneral Haldimand was in charge of the civil and military government ofthe country after the departure of Carleton. His conduct appears to havebeen dictated by a desire to do justice to all classes, and it is mostunfair to his memory to declare that he was antagonistic to FrenchCanadians. During the critical time when he was entrusted with thepublic defence it is impossible to accuse him of an arrogant orunwarrantable exercise of authority, even when he was sorely beset byopen and secret enemies of the British connection. The French Canadian_habitant_ found himself treated with a generous consideration that henever obtained during the French régime, and wherever his services wererequired by the state, he was paid, not in worthless card money, but inBritish coin. During Haldimand's administration the country was in aperilous condition on account of the restlessness and uncertainty thatprevailed while the French naval and military expeditions were inAmerica, using every means of exciting a public sentiment hostile toEngland and favourable to France among the French Canadians. AdmiralD'Estaing's proclamation in 1778 was a passionate appeal to the oldnational sentiment of the people, and was distributed in every part ofthe province. Dr. Kingsford believes that it had large influence increating a powerful feeling which might have seriously threatenedBritish dominion had the French been able to obtain permission fromcongress to send an army into the country. Whatever may have been thetemper of the great majority of the French Canadians, it does not appearthat many of them openly expressed their sympathy with France, for whomthey would naturally still feel a deep love as their motherland. Theassertion that many priests secretly hoped for the appearance of theFrench army is not justified by any substantial evidence except the factthat one La Valinière was arrested for his disloyalty, and sent aprisoner to England. It appears, however, that this course was takenwith the approval of the bishop himself, who was a sincere friend of theEnglish connection throughout the war. Haldimand arrested a number ofpersons who were believed to be engaged in treasonable practices againstEngland, and effectively prevented any successful movement being made bythe supporters of the revolutionists, or sympathisers with France, whoseemissaries were secretly working in the parishes. 

Haldimand's principal opponent during these troublous times was onePierre du Calvet, an unscrupulous and able intriguer, whom he imprisonedon the strong suspicion of treasonable practices; but the evidenceagainst Calvet at that time appears to have been inadequate, as hesucceeded in obtaining damages against the governor-general in anEnglish court. The imperial government, however, in view of all thecircumstances brought to their notice, paid the cost of the defence ofthe suit. History now fully justifies the action of Haldimand, for thepublication of Franklin's correspondence in these later times shows thatCalvet--who was drowned at sea and never again appeared in Canada--wasin direct correspondence with congress, and the recognised emissary ofthe revolutionists at the very time he was declaring himself devoted tothe continuance of British rule in Canada. 

Leaving the valley of the St. Lawrence, and reviewing the conditions ofaffairs in the maritime provinces, during the American revolution, wesee that some of the settlers from New England sympathised with theirrebellious countrymen. The people of Truro, Onslow, and Londonderry, with the exception of five persons, refused to take the oath ofallegiance, and were not allowed for some time to be represented in thelegislature. The assembly was always loyal to the crown, and refused toconsider the appeals that were made to it by circular letters, andotherwise, to give active aid and sympathy to the rebellious coloniesDuring the war armed cruisers pillaged the small settlements atCharlottetown, Annapolis, Lunenburg, and the entrance of the St. JohnRiver. One expedition fitted out at Machias, in the present state ofMaine, under the command of a Colonel Eddy, who had been a resident ofCumberland, attempted to seize Fort Cumberland--known as Beauséjour inFrench Acadian days--at the mouth of the Missiquash. In this section ofthe country there were many sympathisers with the rebels, and Eddyexpected to have an easy triumph. The military authorities were happilyon the alert, and the only result was the arrest of a number of personson the suspicion of treasonable designs. The inhabitants of the countyof Yarmouth--a district especially exposed to attack--only escaped thefrequent visits of privateers by secret negotiations with influentialpersons in Massachusetts. The settlers on the St. John River, atMaugerville, took measures to assist their fellow-countrymen in NewEngland, but the defeat of the Cumberland expedition and the activity ofthe British authorities prevented the disaffected in Sunbury county--inwhich the original settlements of New Brunswick were thencomprised--from rendering any practical aid to the revolutionists. Theauthorities at Halifax authorised the fitting out of privateers inretaliation for the damages inflicted on western ports by the same classof cruisers sailing from New England. The province was generallyimpoverished by the impossibility of carrying on the coasting trade andfisheries with security in these circumstances. The constant demand formen to fill the army and the fleet drained the country when labour wasimperatively needed for necessary industrial pursuits, including thecultivation of the land. Some Halifax merchants and traders alone foundprofit in the constant arrival of troops and ships. Apart, however, fromthe signs of disaffection shown in the few localities I have mentioned, the people generally appear to have been loyal to England, and rallied, notably in the townships of Annapolis, Horton and Windsor, to thedefence of the country, at the call of the authorities. 

In 1783 the humiliated king of England consented to a peace with his oldcolonies, who owed their success not so much to the unselfishness anddetermination of the great body of the rebels as to the incapacity ofBritish generals and to the patience, calmness, and resolution of theone great man of the revolution, George Washington. I shall in a laterchapter refer to this treaty in which the boundaries between Canada andthe new republic were so ignorantly and clumsily defined that it tookhalf a century and longer to settle the vexed questions that arose inconnection with territorial rights, and then the settlement was to theinjury of Canada. So far as the treaty affected the Provinces its mostimportant result was the forced migration of that large body of peoplewho had remained faithful to the crown and empire during the revolution. 

[Illustration: MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATESBY TREATY OF 1783]

SECTION 3. --The United Empire Loyalists

John Adams and other authorities in the United States have admitted thatwhen the first shot of the revolution was fired by "the embattledfarmers" of Concord and Lexington, the Loyalists numbered one-third ofthe whole population of the colonies, or seven hundred thousand whites. Others believe that the number was larger, and that the revolutionaryparty was in a minority even after the declaration of independence. Thegreater number of the Loyalists were to be found in the present state ofNew York, where the capital was in possession of the British fromSeptember, 1776, until the evacuation in 1783. They were also themajority in Pennsylvania and the southern colonies of South Carolina andGeorgia. In all the other states they represented a large minority ofthe best class of their respective communities. It is estimated thatthere were actually from thirty to thirty-five thousand, at one time orother, enrolled in regularly organised corps, without including thebodies which waged guerilla warfare in South Carolina and elsewhere. 

It is only within a decade of years that some historical writers in theUnited States have had the courage and honesty to point out the falseimpressions long entertained by the majority of Americans with respectto the Loyalists, who were in their way as worthy of historical eulogyas the people whose efforts to win independence were crowned withsuccess. Professor Tyler, of Cornell University, points out that thesepeople comprised "in general a clear majority of those who, of whatevergrade of culture or of wealth, would now be described as conservativepeople. " A clear majority of the official class, of men representinglarge commercial interests and capital, of professional training andoccupation, clergymen, physicians, lawyers and teachers, "seem to havebeen set against the ultimate measures of the revolution". He assumeswith justice that, within this conservative class, one may "usually findat least a fair portion of the cultivation, of the moral thoughtfulness, of the personal purity and honour, existing in the community to whichthey happen to belong. " He agrees with Dr. John Fiske, and otherhistorical writers of eminence in the United States, in comparing theLoyalists of 1776 to the Unionists of the southern war of secession from1861 until 1865. They were "the champions of national unity, as restingon the paramount authority of the general government. " In other wordsthey were the champions of a United British Empire in the eighteenthcentury. 

"The old colonial system, " says that thoughtful writer Sir J. R. Seeley, "was not at all tyrannous; and when the breach came the grievances ofwhich the Americans complained, though perfectly real, were smaller thanever before or since led to such mighty consequences. " The leaders amongthe Loyalists, excepting a few rash and angry officials probably, recognised that there were grievances which ought to be remedied. Theylooked on the policy of the party in power in Great Britain asinjudicious in the extreme, but they believed that the relations betweenthe colonies and the mother-state could be placed on a more satisfactorybasis by a spirit of mutual compromise, and not by such methods as wereinsidiously followed by the agitators against England. The Loyalistsgenerally contended for the legality of the action of parliament, andwere supported by the opinion of all high legal authorities; but thecauses of difficulty were not to be adjusted by mere lawyers, whoadhered to the strict letter of the law, but by statesmen who recognisedthat the time had come for reconsidering the relations between thecolonies and the parent state, and meeting the new conditions of theirrapid development and political freedom. These relations were not to beplaced on an equitable and satisfactory basis by mob-violence andrevolution. All the questions at issue were of a constitutionalcharacter, to be settled by constitutional methods. 

Unhappily, English statesmen of that day paid no attention to, and hadno conception of, the aspirations, sentiments and conditions of thecolonial peoples when the revolutionary war broke out. The king wishedto govern in the colonies as well as in the British Isles, andunfortunately the unwise assertion of his arrogant will gave dangerousmen like Samuel Adams, more than once, the opportunity they wanted tostimulate public irritation and indignation against England. 

It is an interesting fact, that the relations between Great Britain andthe Canadian Dominion are now regulated by just such principles as wereurged in the interests of England and her colonies a hundred and twentyyears ago by Governor Thomas Hutchinson, a great Loyalist, to whomjustice is at last being done by impartial historians in the countrywhere his motives and acts were so long misunderstood andmisrepresented. "Whatever measures, " he wrote to a correspondent inEngland, "you may take to maintain the authority of parliament, give meleave to pray they may be accompanied with a declaration that it is notthe intention of parliament to deprive the colonies of their subordinatepower of legislation, nor to exercise the supreme power except in suchcases and upon such occasions as an equitable regard to the interests ofthe whole empire shall make necessary. " But it took three-quarters of acentury after the coming of the Loyalists to realise these statesmanlikeconceptions of Hutchinson in the colonial dominions of England to thenorth of the dependencies which she lost in the latter part of theeighteenth century. 

Similar opinions were entertained by Joseph Galloway, Jonathan Boucher, Jonathan Odell, Samuel Seabury, Chief Justice Smith, Judge Thomas Jones, Beverley Robinson and other men of weight and ability among theLoyalists, who recognised the short-sightedness and ignorance of theBritish authorities, and the existence of real grievances. Galloway, oneof the ablest men on the constitutional side, and a member of the firstcontinental congress, suggested a practical scheme of imperialfederation, well worthy of earnest consideration at that crisis inimperial affairs. Eminent men in the congress of 1774 supported thisstatesmanlike mode of placing the relations of England and the colonieson a basis which would enable them to work harmoniously, and at the sametime give full scope to the ambition and the liberties of the colonialcommunities thus closely united; but unhappily for the empire therevolutionary element carried the day. The people at large were nevergiven an opportunity of considering this wise proposition, and themotion was erased from the records of congress. In its place, the peoplewere asked to sign "articles of association" which bound them to ceaseall commercial relations with England. Had Galloway's idea been carriedout to a successful issue, we might have now presented to the world thenoble spectacle of an empire greater by half a continent andseventy-five millions of people. 

But while Galloway and other Loyalists failed in their measures ofadjusting existing difficulties and remedying grievances, history canstill do full justice to their wise counsel and resolute loyalty, whichrefused to assist in tearing the empire to fragments. These men, whoremained faithful to this ideal to the very bitter end, suffered manyindignities at the hands of the professed lovers of liberty, even inthose days when the questions at issue had not got beyond the stage oflegitimate argument and agitation. The courts of law were closed and thejudges prevented from fulfilling their judicial functions. No class ofpersons, not even women, were safe from the insults of intoxicatedruffians. The clergy of the Church of England were especially the objectof contumely. 

During the war the passions of both parties to the controversy werearoused to the highest pitch, and some allowance must be made forconditions which were different from those which existed when thequestions at issue were still matters of argument. It is impossible intimes of civil strife to cool the passions of men and prevent them fromperpetrating cruelties and outrages which would be repugnant to theirsense of humanity in moments of calmness and reflection. Both sides, more than once, displayed a hatred of each other that was worthy of theAmerican Iroquois themselves. The legislative bodies were fully asvindictive as individuals in the persecution of the Loyalists. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, disqualification for office, banishment, and even death in case of return from exile, were among thepenalties to which these people were subject by the legislative acts ofthe revolutionary party. 

If allowance can be made for the feelings of revenge and passion whichanimate persons under the abnormal conditions of civil war, noextenuating circumstances appear at that later period when peace wasproclaimed and congress was called upon to fulfil the terms of thetreaty and recommend to the several independent states the restorationof the confiscated property of Loyalists. Even persons who had taken uparms were to have an opportunity of receiving their estates back oncondition of refunding the money which had been paid for them, andprotection was to be afforded to those persons during twelve monthswhile they were engaged in obtaining the restoration of their property. It was also solemnly agreed by the sixth article of the treaty thatthere should be no future confiscations or prosecutions, and that noperson should "suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty or property, " for the part he might have taken in the war. Nowwas the time for generous terms, such terms as were even shown by thetriumphant North to the rebellious South at the close of the war ofsecession. The recommendations of congress were treated with contempt bythe legislatures in all the states except in South Carolina, and eventhere the popular feeling was entirely opposed to any favour or justicebeing shown to the beaten party. The sixth article of the treaty, asolemn obligation, was violated with malice and premeditation. TheLoyalists, many of whom had returned from Great Britain with the hope ofreceiving back their estates, or of being allowed to remain in thecountry, soon found they could expect no generous treatment from thesuccessful republicans. The favourite Whig occupation of tarring andfeathering was renewed. Loyalists were warned to leave the country assoon as possible, and in the south some were shot and hanged becausethey did not obey the warning. The Loyalists, for the most part, had noother course open to them than to leave the country they still loved andwhere they had hoped to die. 

The British government endeavoured, so far as it was in its power, tocompensate the Loyalists for the loss of their property by liberalgrants of money and land, but despite all that was done for them themajority felt a deep bitterness in their hearts as they landed on newshores of which they had heard most depressing accounts. More thanthirty-five thousand men, women and children, made their homes withinthe limits of the present Dominion. In addition to these actual AmericanLoyalists, there were several thousands of negroes, fugitives from theirowners, or servants of the exiles, who have been generally counted inthe loose estimates made of the migration of 1783, and the greaternumber of whom were at a later time deported from Nova Scotia to SierraLeone. Of the exiles at least twenty-five thousand went to the maritimecolonies, and built up the province of New Brunswick, whererepresentative institutions were established in 1784. Of the tenthousand people who sought the valley of the St Lawrence, some settledin Montreal, at Chambly, and in parts of the present Eastern Townships, but the great majority accepted grants of land on the banks of the St. Lawrence--from River Beaudette, on Lake St. Francis, as far as thebeautiful Bay of Quinté--in the Niagara District, and on the shores ofLake Erie. The coming of these people, subsequently known by the name of"U. E. Loyalists"--a name appropriately given to them in recognition oftheir fidelity to a United Empire--was a most auspicious event for theBritish-American provinces, the greater part of which was still awilderness. As we have seen in the previous chapters, there was in theAcadian provinces, afterwards divided into New Brunswick and NovaScotia, a British population of only some 14, 000 souls, mostly confinedto the peninsula. In the valley of the St. Lawrence there was a Frenchpopulation of probably 100, 000 persons, dwelling chiefly on the banks ofthe St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal. The total Britishpopulation of the province of Quebec did not exceed 2000, residing forthe most part in the towns of Quebec and Montreal. No English peoplewere found west of Lake St. Louis; and what is now the populous provinceof Ontario was a mere wilderness, except where loyal refugees hadgathered about the English fort at Niagara, or a few French settlers hadmade homes for themselves on the banks of the Detroit River and Lake St. Clair. The migration of between 30, 000 and 40, 000 Loyalists to themaritime provinces and the valley of the St. Lawrence was the saving ofBritish interests in the great region which England still happilyretained in North America. 

The refugees who arrived in Halifax in 1783 were so numerous thathundreds had to be placed in the churches or in cabooses taken from thetransports and ranged along the streets. At Guysborough, in NovaScotia--so named after Sir Guy Carleton--the first village, which washastily built by the settlers, was destroyed by a bush fire, and manypersons only saved their lives by rushing into the sea. At Shelburne, onthe first arrival of the exiles, there were seen "lines of women sittingon the rocky shore and weeping at their altered condition. " Towns andvillages, however, were soon built for the accommodation of the people. At Shelburne, or Port Roseway--anglicised from the French _Razoir_--atown of fourteen thousand people, with wide streets, fine houses, someof them containing furniture and mantel-pieces brought from New York, arose in two or three years. The name of New Jerusalem had been given tothe same locality some years before, but it seemed a mockery to theLoyalists when they found that the place they had chosen for their newhome was quite unsuited for settlement. A beautiful harbour lay infront, and a rocky country unfit for farmers in the rear of theirambitious town, which at one time was the most populous in British NorthAmerica. In the course of a few years the place was almost deserted, andsank for a time into insignificance. A pretty town now nestles by theside of the beautiful and spacious harbour which attracted the first toohopeful settlers; and its residents point out to the tourist the sitesof the buildings of last century, one or two of which still stand, andcan show many documents and relics of those early days. 

Over twelve thousand Loyalists, largely drawn from the disbanded loyalregiments of the old colonies, settled in New Brunswick. The name ofParrtown was first given, in honour of the governor of Nova Scotia, tothe infant settlement which became the city of St. John, in 1785, whenit was incorporated. The first landing of the loyal pioneers took placeon the 18th of May, 1783, at what is now the Market Slip of thisinteresting city. Previous to 1783, the total population of the provincedid not exceed seven hundred souls, chiefly at Maugerville and otherplaces on the great river. The number of Loyalists who settled on theSt. John River was at least ten thousand, of whom the greater proportionwere established at the mouth of the river, which was the base ofoperations for the peopling of the new province. Some adventurousspirits took possession of the abandoned French settlements at Grimrossand St. Anne's, where they repaired some ruined huts of the originalAcadian occupants, or built temporary cabins. This was the beginning ofthe settlement of Fredericton, which four years later became thepolitical capital on account of its central position, its greatersecurity in time of war, and its location on the land route to Quebec. Many of the people spent their first winter in log-huts, bark camps, andtents covered with spruce, or rendered habitable only by the heavy banksof snow which were piled against them. A number of persons died throughexposure, and "strong, proud men"--to quote the words of one who livedin those sorrowful days--"wept like children and lay down in theirsnow-bound tents to die. "

A small number of loyal refugees had found their way to the valley ofthe St. Lawrence as early as 1778, and obtained employment in theregiments organised under Sir John Johnson and others. It was not until1783 and 1784 that the large proportion of the exiles came to WesternCanada. They settled chiefly on the northern banks of the St. Lawrence, in what are now the counties of Glengarry, Stormont, Dundas, Grenville, Leeds, Frontenac, Addington, Lennox, Hastings and Prince Edward, wheretheir descendants have acquired wealth and positions of honour andtrust. The first township laid out in Upper Canada, now Ontario, wasKingston. The beautiful Bay of Quinté is surrounded by a country full ofthe memories of this people, and the same is true of the picturesquedistrict of Niagara. 

Among the Loyalists of Canada must also be honourably mentioned JosephBrant (Thayendanega), the astute and courageous chief of the Mohawks, the bravest nation of the Iroquois confederacy, who fought on the sideof England during the war. At its close he and his people settled inCanada, where they received large grants from the government, some in atownship by the Bay of Quinté, which still bears the Indian title of thegreat warrior, and the majority on the Grand River, where a beautifulcity and county perpetuate the memory of this loyal subject of theBritish crown. The first Anglican church built in Upper Canada was thatof the Mohawks, near Brantford, and here the church bell first broke thesilence of the illimitable forest. 

The difficulties which the Upper Canadian immigrants had to undergobefore reaching their destination were much greater than was the casewith the people who went direct in ships from American ports to Halifaxand other places on the Atlantic coast. The former had to make toilsomejourneys by land, or by _bateaux_ and canoes up the St. Lawrence, theRichelieu, the Genesee, and other streams which gave access from theinterior of the United States to the new Canadian land. The Britishgovernment did its best to supply the wants of the population suddenlythrown upon its charitable care, but, despite all that could be done forthem in the way of food and means of fighting the wilderness, theysuffered naturally a great deal of hardship. The most influentialimmigration found its way to the maritime provinces, where many receivedcongenial employment and adequate salaries in the new government of NewBrunswick. Many others, with the wrecks of their fortunes or thepecuniary aid granted them by the British government, were able to makecomfortable homes and cultivate estates in the valleys of the St. Johnand Annapolis, and in other fertile parts of the lower provinces. Of thelarge population that founded Shelburne a few returned to the UnitedStates, but the greater number scattered all over the provinces. Thesettlers in Upper Canada had to suffer many trials for years after theirarrival, and especially in a year of famine, when large numbers had todepend on wild fruits and roots. Indeed, had it not been for the fishand game which were found in some, but not in all, places, starvationand death would have been the lot of many hundreds of helpless people. 

Many of the refugees could trace their descent to the early immigrationthat founded the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. Some wereconnected with the Cavalier and Church families of Virginia. Others wereof the blood of persecuted Huguenots and German Protestants from theRhenish or Lower Palatinate. Not a few were Highland Scotchmen, who hadbeen followers of the Stuarts, and yet fought for King George and theBritish connection during the American revolution. Among the number werenotable Anglican clergymen, eminent judges and lawyers, and probably onehundred graduates of Harvard, Yale, King's, Pennsylvania, and Williamand Mary Colleges. In the records of industrial enterprise, of socialand intellectual progress, of political development for a hundredyears, we find the names of many eminent men, sprung from these people, to whom Canada owes a deep debt of gratitude for the services theyrendered her in the most critical period of her chequered history. 

CHAPTER IV. 

DEVELOPMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS (1784--1812). 

SECTION I--Beginnings of the provinces of New Brunswick, Lower Canadaand Upper Canada. 

On the 16th August, 1784, as a consequence of the coming of over tenthousand Loyalists to the valley of the St. John River, a new provincewas formed out of that portion of the ancient limits of Acadia, whichextended northward from the isthmus of Chignecto to the province ofQuebec, and eastward from the uncertain boundary of the St. Croix to theGulf of St. Lawrence. It received its present name in honour of theBrunswick-Luneburg or Hanoverian line which had given a royal dynasty toEngland, and its first governor was Colonel Thomas Carleton, a brotherof the distinguished governor-general, whose name is so intimatelyassociated with the fortunes of Canada during a most critical period ofits history. The first executive council, which was also the legislativecouncil, comprised some of the most eminent men of the Loyalistmigration. For instance, George Duncan Ludlow; who had been a judge ofthe supreme court of New York; Jonathan Odell, the famous satirist anddivine; William Hazen, a merchant of high reputation, who had largeinterests on the St. John River from 1763, and had proved his fidelityto the crown at a time when his countrymen at Maugerville were disposedto join the revolutionary party; Gabriel G. Ludlow, previously a colonelin a royal regiment; Edward Winslow, Daniel Bliss and Isaac Allen, allof whom had borne arms in the royal service and had suffered the loss ofvaluable property, confiscated by the successful rebels. 

The constitution of 1784 provided for an assembly of twenty-six memberswho were elected in 1785, and met for the first time on the 3rd ofJanuary, 1786, at the Mallard House, a plain two-storey building on thenorth side of King Street. The city of St. John ceased to be the seat ofgovernment in 1787, when the present capital, Fredericton, first knownas St. Anne's, was chosen. Of the twenty-six members elected to thisassembly, twenty-three were Loyalists, and the same class necessarilycontinued for many years to predominate in the legislature. The firstspeaker was Amos Botsford, the pioneer of the Loyalist migration to NewBrunswick, whose grandson occupied the same position for a short time inthe senate of the Dominion of Canada. 

Coming to the province of Lower Canada we find it contained at this timea population of about a hundred thousand souls, of whom six thousandlived in Quebec and Montreal respectively. Only two thousandEnglish-speaking persons resided in the province, almost entirely in thetowns. Small as was the British minority, it continued that agitationfor an assembly which had been commenced long before the passage of theQuebec act. A nominated council did not satisfy the political ambitionof this class, who obtained little support from the French Canadianpeople. The objections of the latter arose from the working of the actitself. Difficulties had grown up in the administration of the law, chiefly in consequence of its being entrusted exclusively to menacquainted only with English jurisprudence, and not disposed to complywith the letter and intention of the imperial statute. As a matter ofpractice, French law was only followed as equity suggested; and theconsequence was great legal confusion in the province. A question hadalso arisen as to the legality of the issue of writs of _habeas corpus_, and it was eventually necessary to pass an ordinance to remove alldoubts on this important point. 

The Loyalist settlers on the St. Lawrence and Niagara Rivers sent apetition in 1785 to the home government, praying for the establishmentof a new district west of the River Beaudette "with the blessings ofBritish laws and British government, and of exemption from French tenureof property. " While such matters were under the consideration of theimperial authorities, Sir Guy Carleton, once more governor-general ofCanada, and lately raised to the peerage as Lord Dorchester, established, in 1788, five new districts for the express object ofproviding for the temporary government of the territory where theLoyalists had settled. These districts were known as Luneburg, Mecklenburg, Nassau and Hesse, in the western country, and Gaspé in theextreme east of the province of Quebec, where a small number of the sameclass of people had also found new homes. Townships, ranging from eightyto forty thousand acres each, were also surveyed within these districtsand parcelled out with great liberality among the Loyalists. Magistrateswore appointed to administer justice with the simplest possiblemachinery at a time when men trained in the law were not available. 

The grants of land made to the Loyalists and their children were large, and in later years a considerable portion passed into the hands ofspeculators who bought them up at nominal sums. It was in connectionwith these grants that the name of "United Empire Loyalists" originated. An order-in-council was passed on the 9th of November, 1780, inaccordance with the wish of Lord Dorchester "to put a mark of honourupon the families who had adhered to the _unity of the empire_ andjoined the royal standard in America before the treaty of separation in1783. " Accordingly the names of all persons falling under thisdesignation were to be recorded as far as possible, in order that "theirposterity may be discriminated from future settlers in the parish listsand rolls of militia of their respective districts, and other publicremembrances of the province. "

The British cabinet, of which Mr. Pitt, the famous son of the Earl ofChatham, was first minister, now decided to divide the province ofQuebec into two districts, with separate legislatures and governments. Lord Grenville, while in charge of the department of colonial affairs, wrote in 1789 to Lord Dorchester that the "general object of the plan isto assimilate the constitution of the province to that of Great Britainas nearly as the differences arising from the names of the people andfrom the present situation of the province will admit. " He alsoemphatically expressed the opinion that "a considerable degree ofattention is due to the prejudices and habits of the French inhabitants, and every degree of caution should be used to continue to them theenjoyment of those civil and religious rights which were secured to themby the capitulation of the province, or have since been granted by theliberal and enlightened spirit of the British government. " When the billfor the formation of the two provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canadacame before the house of commons, Mr. Adam Lymburner, an influentialmerchant of Quebec, appeared at the Bar and ably opposed the separation"as dangerous in every point of view to British interests in America, and to the safety, tranquillity and prosperity of the inhabitants of theprovince of Quebec" He pressed the repeal of the Quebec act in itsentirety and the enactment of a perfectly new constitution "uncloggedand unembarrassed with any laws prior to this period" He professed torepresent the views "of the most intelligent and respectable of theFrench Canadians"; but their antagonism was not directed against theQuebec act in itself, but against the administration of the law, influenced as this was by the opposition of the British people to theFrench civil code. Nor does it appear, as Mr. Lymburner asserted, thatthe western Loyalists were hostile to the formation of two distinctprovinces. He represented simply the views of the English-speakinginhabitants of Lower Canada, who believed that the proposed divisionwould place them in a very small minority in the legislature and, as theissue finally proved, at the mercy of the great majority of the FrenchCanadian representatives, while on the other hand the formation of onelarge province extending from Gaspé to the head of the great lakes wouldensure an English representation sufficiently formidable to lessen thedanger of French Canadian domination. However, the British governmentseems to have been actuated by a sincere desire to do justice to theFrench Canadians and the Loyalists of the upper province at one and thesame time. When introducing the bill in the house of commons on the 7thMarch, 1791, Mr. Pitt expressed the hope that "the division would removethe differences of opinion which had arisen between the old and newinhabitants, since each province would have the right of enacting lawsdesired in its own house of assembly. " He believed a division to beessential, as "otherwise he could not reconcile the clashing interestsknown to exist. " Mr. Burke was of opinion that "to attempt to amalgamatetwo populations composed of races of men diverse in language, laws andcustoms, was a complete absurdity", and he consequently approved of thedivision. Mr. Fox, from whom Burke became alienated during this debate, looked at the question in an entirely different light and was stronglyof opinion that "it was most desirable to see the French and Englishinhabitants coalesce into one body, and the different distinctions ofpeople extinguished for ever. "

The Constitutional act of 1791 established in each province alegislative council and assembly, with powers to make laws. Thelegislative council was to be appointed by the king for life, in UpperCanada it was to consist of not less than seven, and in Lower Canada ofnot less than fifteen members. The sovereign might, if he thoughtproper, annex hereditary titles of honour to the right of being summonedto the legislative council in either province--a provision which wasnever brought into operation. The whole number of members in theassembly of Upper Canada was not to be less than sixteen; in LowerCanada not less than fifty--to be chosen by a majority of votes ineither case. The British parliament reserved to itself the right oflevying and collecting customs-duties, for the regulation of navigationand commerce to be carried on between the two provinces, or betweeneither of them and any other part of the British dominions or anyforeign country. Parliament also reserved the power of directing thepayment of these duties, but at the same time left the exclusiveapportionment of all moneys levied in this way to the legislature, whichcould apply them to such public uses as it might deem expedient. Thefree exercise of the Roman Catholic religion was guaranteed permanently. The king was to have the right to set apart, for the use of theProtestant clergy in the colony, a seventh part of all uncleared crownlands. The governor might also be empowered to erect parsonages andendow them, and to present incumbents or ministers of the Church ofEngland. The English criminal law was to obtain in both provinces. 

In the absence of Lord Dorchester in England, the duty devolved onMajor-General Alured Clarke, as lieutenant-governor, to bring the LowerCanadian constitution into force by a proclamation on the 18th February, 1791. On the 7th May, in the following year, the new province of LowerCanada was divided into fifty electoral districts, composed oftwenty-one counties, the towns of Montreal and Quebec, and the boroughsof Three Rivers and William Henry (now Sorel). The elections to theassembly took place in June, and a legislative council of fifteeninfluential Canadians was appointed. The new legislature was convoked"for the despatch of business" on the 17th December, in the same year, in an old stone building known as the Bishop's Palace, which stood on arocky eminence in the upper town of the old capital. 

Chief Justice Smith took the chair of the legislative council underappointment by the crown, and the assembly elected as its speaker Mr. Joseph Antome Panet, an eminent advocate, who was able to speak the twolanguages. In the house there were only sixteen members of Britishorigin--and in later parliaments there was even a still smallerrepresentation--while the council was nearly divided between the twonationalities. When the house proceeded to business, one of its firstacts was to order that all motions, bills and other proceedings shouldbe put in the two languages. We find in the list of French Canadianmembers of the two houses representatives of the most ancient anddistinguished families of the province. A descendant of Pierre Boucher, governor of Three Rivers in 1653, and the author of a rare history ofCanada, sat in the council of 1792 just as a Boucherville sitsnow-a-days in the senate of the Dominion. A Lotbinière had been king'scouncillor in 1680. A Chaussegros de Lery had been an engineer in theroyal colonial corps; a Lanaudière had been an officer in the Carignanregiment in 1652; a Salaberry was a captain in the royal navy, and hisfamily won further honours on the field of Chateauguay in the war of1812-15, when the soil of Lower Canada was invaded. A Taschereau hadbeen a royal councillor in 1732. The names of Belestre, Valtric, Bonne, Rouville, St. Ours, and Duchesnay, are often met in the annals of theFrench régime, and show the high character of the representation in thefirst parliament of Lower Canada. 

The village of Newark was chosen as the capital of Upper Canada byColonel (afterwards Major-General) Simcoe, the first lieutenant-governorof the province. He had served with much distinction during therevolution as the commander of the Queen's Rangers, some of whom hadsettled in the Niagara district. He was remarkable for his decision ofcharacter and for his ardent desire to establish the principles ofBritish government in the new province. He was a sincere friend of theLoyalists, whose attachment to the crown he had had many opportunitiesof appreciating during his career in the rebellious colonies, and, consequently, was an uncompromising opponent of the new republic and ofthe people who were labouring to make it a success on the other side ofthe border. The new parliament met in a wooden building nearly completedon the sloping bank of the river, at a spot subsequently covered by arampart of Fort George, which was constructed by Governor Simcoe on thesurrender of Fort Niagara. A large boulder has been placed on the top ofthe rampart to mark the site of the humble parliament house of UpperCanada, which had to be eventually demolished to make place for newfortifications. The sittings of the first legislature were notunfrequently held under a large tent set up in front of the house, andhaving an interesting history of its own, since it had been carriedaround the world by the famous navigator, Captain Cook. 

As soon as Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe assumed the direction of thegovernment, he issued a proclamation dividing the province of UpperCanada into nineteen counties, some of winch were again divided intoridings for the purpose of electing the sixteen representatives to whichthe province was entitled under the act of 1791. One of the first actsof the legislature was to change the names of the divisions, proclaimedin 1788, to Eastern, Midland, Home, and Western Districts, whichreceived additions in the course of years until they were entirelysuperseded by the county organisations. These districts were originallyintended for judicial and legal purposes. 

The legislature met under these humble circumstances at Newark on the17th September, 1792. Chief Justice Osgoode was the speaker of thecouncil, and Colonel John Macdonell, of Aberchalder, who had gallantlyserved in the royal forces during the revolution, was chosen presidingofficer of the assembly. Besides him, there were eleven Loyalists amongthe sixteen members of the lower house. In the council of nine membersthere were also several Loyalists, the most prominent being theHonourable Richard Cartwright, the grandfather of the minister of tradeand commerce in the Dominion ministry of 1896-1900. 

SECTION 2. --Twenty years of political development (1792-1812). 

The political conditions of the two decades from 1792 until 1812, whenwar broke out between England and the United States, were for thegreater part of the time quite free from political agitation, and therepresentatives of the people in both the provinces of Canada weremostly occupied with the consideration of measures of purely provincialand local import. Nevertheless a year or two before the close of thisperiod we can see in the province of Lower Canada premonitions of thatirrepressible conflict between the two houses--one elected by thepeople and the other nominated by and under the influence of thecrown--which eventually clogged the machinery of legislation. We canalso see the beginnings of that strife of races which ultimately led tobloodshed and the suspension of the constitution given to Lower Canadain 1791. 

In 1806 _Le Canadien_, published in the special interest of "Nosinstitutions, notre langue, et nos lois, " commenced that career ofbitter hostility to the government which steadily inflamed theantagonism between the races. The arrogance of the principal officials, who had the ear of the governor, and practically engrossed all theinfluence in the management of public affairs, alienated the FrenchCanadians, who came to believe that they were regarded by the British asan inferior race. As a matter of fact, many of the British inhabitantsthemselves had no very cordial feelings towards the officials, whosesocial exclusiveness offended all who did not belong to their special"set. " In those days the principal officials were appointed by thecolonial office and the governor-general, and had little or no respectfor the assembly, on which they depended in no wise for theircontinuance in office or their salaries. The French Canadians eventuallymade few distinctions among the British but looked on them as, generallyspeaking, enemies to their institutions. 

It was unfortunate, at a time when great discretion and good temper wereso essential, that Sir James Craig should have been entrusted with theadministration of the government of Lower Canada. The critical state ofrelations with the United States no doubt influenced his appointment, which, from a purely military point of view, was excellent. As it was, however, his qualities as a soldier were not called into requisition, while his want of political experience, his utter incapacity tounderstand the political conditions of the country, his supremeindifference to the wishes of the assembly, made his administration anegregious failure. Indeed it may he said that it was during his timethat the seed was sown for the growth of that political and racialantagonism which led to the rebellion of 1837. It is not possible toexaggerate the importance of the consequences of his unjustifiabledismissal of Mr. Speaker Panet, and other prominent French Canadians, from the militia on the ground that they had an interest in the_Canadien_, or of his having followed up this very indiscreet act by theunwarrantable arrest of Mr. Bedard and some other persons, on the chargethat they were the authors or publishers of what he declared to betreasonable writings. It is believed that the governor's action waslargely influenced by the statements and advice of Chief Justice Sewell, the head of the legislative council and the official class. Severalpersons were released when they expressed regret for the expression ofany opinions considered extreme by the governor and his advisers, butMr. Bedard remained in prison for a year rather than directly orindirectly admit that the governor had any justification for hisarbitrary act Sir James attempted to obtain the approval of the homegovernment; but his agent, a Mr. Ryland, a man of ability and suavity, prominent always in the official life of the country, signally failed toobtain the endorsement of his master's action. He was unable to secure apromise that the constitution of 1791 should be repealed, and thelegislative council of the Quebec act again given the supremacy in theprovince. Mr. Bedard was released just before the governor left thecountry, with the declaration that "his detention had been a matter ofprecaution and not of punishment"--by no means a manly or gracefulwithdrawal from what was assuredly a most untenable position from thevery first moment Mr. Bedard was thrown into prison. Sir James Craigleft the province a disappointed man, and died in England a few monthsafter his return, from the effects of an incurable disease to which hehad been a victim for many years. He was hospitable, generous andcharitable, but the qualities of a soldier dominated all his acts ofcivil government. 

In the other provinces, happily, there were no racial differences todivide the community and aggravate those political disputes that aresure to arise in the working of representative institutions in a Britishcountry. In Upper Canada for years the questions under discussion werechiefly connected with the disposal of the public lands, which in earlytimes were too lavishly granted by Simcoe; and this led to the bringingin for a while of some undesirable immigrants from the United States--undesirable because they were imbued with republican and levellingideas by no means favourable to the development and stability of Englishinstitutions of government. One of the first acts of the legislature wasthe establishment of courts of law and equity, in accordance with thepractice and principles of English jurisprudence. Another very importantmeasure was one for the legalisation of marriages which had beenirregularly performed during early times in the absence of the clergy ofthe Anglican Church by justices of the peace, and even the officers incharge of military posts. Magistrates were still allowed to perform themarriage ceremony according to the ritual of the Church of England, whenthe services of a clergyman of that denomination were not available. Notuntil 1830 were more liberal provisions passed and the clergy of anyrecognised creed permitted to unite persons legally in wedlock. 

It was in the second session of the first parliament of Upper Canada, where the Loyalists were in so huge a majority, that an act was passed"to prevent the further introduction of slaves and to limit the term ofcontract for servitude within this province. " A considerable number ofslave servants accompanied their Loyalist masters to the provinces atthe end of the war, and we find for many years after in the newspapersadvertisements relating to runaway servants of this class. The Loyalistsin the maritime provinces, like the same class in Upper Canada, nevergave their approval to the continuance of slavery. So early as 1800 someprominent persons brought before the supreme court of New Brunswick thecase of one Nancy Morton, a slave, on a writ of _habeas corpus_; and herright to freedom was argued by Ward Chipmim, one of the Loyalist makersof New Brunswick. Although the argument in this case was not followed bya judicial conclusion--the four judges being divided in opinion--slaverythereafter practically ceased to exist, not only in New Brunswick, butin the other maritime provinces, leaving behind it a memory so faint, that the mere suggestion that there ever was a slave in either of theseprovinces is very generally received with surprise, if not withincredulity. 

The early history of representative government in Prince Edward Islandis chiefly a dull narrative of political conflict between the governorsand the assemblies, and of difficulties and controversies arising out ofthe extraordinary concessions of lands to a few proprietors, whogenerally infringed the conditions of their grants and retarded thesettlement of the island. In New Brunswick the legislature was entirelyoccupied with the consideration of measures for the administration ofjustice and local affairs in an entirely new country. Party governmenthad not yet declared itself, and the Loyalists who had founded theprovince controlled the legislature for many years until a spirit ofliberalism and reform found full expression and led to the enlargementof the public liberty. 

In Nova Scotia the Loyalists gradually acquired considerable influencein the government of the province, as the imperial authorities felt itincumbent on them to provide official positions for those men who hadsacrificed so much for the empire. Their power was increased after thearrival of Governor John Wentworth--afterwards made a baronet--who hadbeen the royal governor of New Hampshire, and had naturally a strongantipathy to democratic principles in any form. In his time there grewup an official oligarchy, chiefly composed of members of the legislativecouncil, then embodying within itself executive, legislative andjudicial powers. A Liberal party soon arose in Nova Scotia, not onlyamong the early New England settlers of the time of Governor Lawrence, but among the Loyalists themselves, for it is inevitable that whereverwe find an English people, the spirit of popular liberty and thedetermination to enjoy self-government in a complete sense will sooneror later assert itself among all classes of men. The first prominentleader of the opposition to the Tory methods of the government was oneWilliam Cottnam Tonge, who was for some years in the employ of the navaldepartment. Sir John Wentworth carried his hostility to the extent ofdismissing him from his naval office and also of refusing to accept himas speaker of the assembly--the first example in colonial history of anextreme exercise of the royal prerogative by a governor. Mr. Tonge'sonly crime appears to have been his bold assertion from time to time ofthe privileges of the house of assembly, as the guardian of the revenuesand expenditures, against the interference of the governor and council. We find in Nova Scotia, as in the other provinces, during the period inquestion, the elements of perpetual discord, which found more seriousexpression after the war of 1812-15, and led to important constitutionalchanges. 

The governors of those times became, from the very nature of theirposition, so many provincial autocrats, brought constantly intoconflict with the popular body, and unable to conceive any system ofgovernment possible that did not place the province directly under thecontrol of the imperial authorities, to whom appeals must be made in themost trivial cases of doubt or difficulty. The representative of thecrown brooked no interference on the part of the assembly with what heconsidered his prerogatives and rights, and as a rule threw himself intothe arms of the council, composed of the official oligarchy. In thecourse of time, the whole effort of the Liberal or Reform party, whichgathered strength after 1815, was directed against the power of thelegislative council. We hear nothing in the assemblies or the literatureof the period under review in advocacy of the system of parliamentary orresponsible government which was then in existence in the parent stateand which we now enjoy in British North America. In fact, it was notuntil the beginning of the fourth decade of the nineteenth century thatthe Liberal politicians of Nova Scotia, like those of Upper Canada, recognised that the real remedy for existing political grievances was tobe found in the harmonious operation of the three branches of thelegislature. Even then we look in vain for an enunciation of thisessential principle of representative government in the speeches orwritings of a single French Canadian from 1791 until 1838, when theconstitution of Lower Canada was suspended as a result of rebellion. 

During the twenty years of which I am writing the government of Canadahad much reason for anxiety on account of the unsatisfactory state ofthe relations between Great Britain and the United States, and of theattempts of French emissaries after the outbreak of the revolution inFrance to stir up sedition in Lower Canada. One of the causes of the warof 1812-15 was undoubtedly the irritation that was caused by theretention of the western posts by Great Britain despite the stipulationin the definitive treaty of peace to give them up "with all convenientspeed. " This policy of delay was largely influenced by the fact that thenew republic had failed to take effective measures for the restitutionof the estates of the Loyalists or for the payment of debts due toBritish creditors; but in addition there was probably still, as in 1763and 1774, a desire to control the fur-trade and the Indians of the west, who claimed that the lands between the Canadian frontier and the Ohiowere exclusively their hunting-grounds, not properly included within theterritory ceded to the United States. Jay's treaty, arranged in 1794, with the entire approval of Washington, who thereby incurred thehostility of the anti-British party, was a mere temporary expedient fortiding over the difficulties between England and the United States. Itsmost important result so far as it affected Canada was the giving up in1797 of the western posts including Old Fort Niagara. It became thennecessary to remove the seat of government from Niagara, as an insecureposition, and York, which regained its original Indian name of Torontoin 1834, was chosen as the capital by Lord Dorchester in preference to aplace suggested by Simcoe on the Tranche, now the Thames, near whereLondon now stands. The second parliament of Upper Canada met in York onthe first of June, 1797, when Mr. Russell, who had been secretary to SirHenry Clinton during the American war, was administrator of thegovernment after the departure of Lieutenant-Governor Simcoe from aprovince whose interests he had so deeply at heart. 

After the declaration of war against England by the republicanconvention of France in 1793, French agents found their way into theFrench parishes of Lower Canada, and endeavoured to make the credulousand ignorant _habitants_ believe that France would soon regain dominionin her old colony. During General Prescott's administration, one McLane, who was said to be not quite mentally responsible for his acts, wasconvicted at Quebec for complicity in the designs of French agents, andwas executed near St. John's gate with all the revolting incidents of atraitor's death in those relentless times. His illiterate accomplice, Frechétte, was sentenced to imprisonment for life, but was soon releasedon the grounds of his ignorance of the serious crime he was committing. No doubt in these days some restlessness existed in the French Canadiandistricts, and the English authorities found it difficult for a time toenforce the provisions of the militia act. Happily for the peace andsecurity of Canada, the influence of the Bishop and Roman Catholicclergy, who looked with horror on the murderous acts of therevolutionists of France, was successfully exerted for the support ofBritish rule, whose justice and benignity their church had felt eversince the conquest. The name of Bishop Plessis must always be mentionedin terms of sincere praise by every English writer who reviews thehistory of those trying times, when British interests would have beenmore than once in jeopardy had it not been for the loyal conduct of thisdistinguished prelate and the priests under his direction. 

I shall now proceed to narrate the events of the unfortunate war whichbroke out in 1812 between England and the United States, as a result ofthe unsettled relations of years, and made Canada a battle ground onwhich were given many illustrations of the patriotism and devotion ofthe Canadian people, whose conquest, the invaders thought, would be avery easy task. 

CHAPTER V. 

THE WAR OF 1812--15. 

SECTION I. --Origin of the war between England and the United States. 

The causes of the war of 1812-15 must be sought in the history of Europeand the relations between England and the United States for severaldecades before it actually broke out. Great Britain was engaged in asupreme struggle not only for national existence but even for theliberties of Europe, from the moment when Napoleon, in pursuance of hisoverweening ambition, led his armies over the continent on thosevictorious marches which only ended amid the ice and snow of Russia. Britain's battles were mainly to be fought on the sea where her greatfleet made her supreme. The restriction of all commerce that was notBritish was a necessary element in the assertion of her navalsuperiority. If neutral nations were to be allowed freely to carry theproduce of the colonies of Powers with whom Great Britain was at war, then they were practically acting as allies of her enemies, and wereliable to search and seizure. For some time, however, Great Britainthought it expedient to concur in the practice that when a cargo wastrans-shipped in the United States, and paid a duty there, it became toall intents and purposes American property and might be carried to aforeign country and there sold, as if it were the actual produce of therepublic itself. This became a very profitable business to the merchantsof the United States, as a neutral nation, during the years when GreatBritain was at war with France, since they controlled a large proportionof all foreign commerce. Frauds constantly occurred during thecontinuance of this traffic, and at last British statesmen felt theinjury to their commerce was so great that the practice was changed toone which made American vessels liable to be seized and condemned inBritish prize courts whenever it was clear that their cargoes were notAmerican produce, but were actually purchased at the port of an enemy. Even provisions purchased from an enemy or its colonies were considered"contraband of war" on the ground that they afforded actual aid andencouragement to an enemy. The United States urged at first that onlymilitary stores could fall under this category, and eventually went sofar as to assert the principle that under all circumstances "free shipsmake free goods, " and that neutral ships had a right to carry anyproperty, even that of a nation at war with another power, and to tradewhen and where they liked without fear of capture. England, however, would not admit in those days of trial principles which wouldpractically make a neutral nation an ally of her foe. She persisted inrestricting the commerce of the United States by all the force she hadupon the sea. 

This restrictive policy, which touched the American pocket andconsequently the American heart so deeply, was complicated by anotherquestion of equal, if not greater, import. The forcible impressment ofmen to man the British fleet had been for many years a necessary evil inview of the national emergency, and of the increase in the mercantilemarine which attracted large numbers to its service. Great abuses wereperpetrated in the operation of this harsh method of maintaining anefficient naval force, and there was no part of the British Isles wherethe presence of a press gang did not bring dismay into many a home. Great Britain, then and for many years later, upheld to an extremedegree the doctrine of perpetual allegiance; she refused to recognisethe right of any of her citizens to divest themselves of their nationalfealty and become by naturalisation the subject of a foreign power or acitizen of the United States Such a doctrine was necessarily mostobnoxious to the government and people of a new republic like the UnitedStates, whose future development rested on the basis of a steady andlarge immigration, which lost much of its strength and usefulness aslong as the men who came into the country were not recognised asAmerican citizens at home and abroad. Great Britain claimed the right, as a corollary of this doctrine of indefeasible allegiance, to searchthe neutral ships of the United States during the war with France, toenquire into the nationality of the seaman on board of those vessels, toimpress all those whom her officers had reason to consider Britishsubjects by birth, and to pay no respect to the fact that they may havebeen naturalised in the country of their adoption. The assertion of theright to search a neutral vessel and to impress seamen who were Britishsubjects has in these modern times been condemned as a breach of thesound principle, that a right of search can only be properly exercisedin the case of a neutral's violation of his neutrality--that is to say, the giving of aid to one of the parties to the war The forcibleabduction of a seaman under the circumstances stated was simply anunwarrantable attempt to enforce municipal law on board a neutralvessel, which was in effect foreign territory, to be regarded as sacredand inviolate except in a case where it was brought under the operationof a recognised doctrine of international law. Great Britain at thatcritical period of her national existence would not look beyond the factthat the acts of the United States as a neutral were most antagonisticto the energetic efforts she was making to maintain her naval supremacyduring the European crisis created by Napoleon's ambitious designs. 

The desertion of British seamen from British ships, for the purpose offinding refuge in the United States and then taking service in Americanvessels, caused great irritation in Great Britain and justified, in theopinion of some statesmen and publicists who only regarded nationalnecessities, the harsh and arbitrary manner in which English officialsstopped and searched American shipping on the high seas, seized men whomthey claimed to be deserters, and impressed any whom they asserted to bestill British subjects. In 1807 the British frigate "Leopard, " actingdirectly under the orders of the admiral at Halifax, even ventured tofire a broadside into the United States cruiser "Chesapeake" a few milesfrom Chesapeake Bay, killed and wounded a number of her crew, and thencarried off several sailors who were said to be, and no doubt were, deserters from the English service and who were the primary cause of thedetention of this American man-of-war. For this unjustifiable actEngland subsequently made some reparation, but nevertheless it rankledfor years in the minds of the party hostile to Great Britain and helpedto swell the list of grievances which the American government in thecourse of years accumulated against the parent state as a reason forwar. 

The difficulties between England and the United States, which culminatedin war before the present century was far advanced, were alsointensified by disputes which commenced soon after the treaty of 1783. Ihave already shown that for some years the north-west posts were stillretained by the English on the ground, it is understood, that the claimsof English creditors, and especially those of the Loyalists, should befirst settled before all the conditions of the treaty could be carriedout. The subsequent treaty of 1794, negotiated by Chief Justice Jay, adjusted these and other questions, and led for some years to a betterunderstanding with Great Britain, but at the same time led to a ruptureof friendly relations with the French Directory, who demanded the repealof that treaty as in conflict with the one made with France in 1778, andlooked for some tangible evidence of sympathetic interest with theFrench revolution. The war that followed with the French republic wasinsignificant in its operations, and was immediately terminated byNapoleon when he overthrew the Directory, and seized the government forhis own ambitious objects. Subsequently, the administration of theUnited States refused to renew the Jay Treaty when it duly expired, andas a consequence the relatively amicable relations that had existedbetween the Republic and England again became critical, since Americancommerce and shipping were exposed to all the irritating measures thatEngland felt compelled under existing conditions to carry out inpursuance of the policy of restricting the trade of neutral vessels. Several attempts were made by the British government, between the expiryof the Jay Treaty and the actual rupture of friendly relations with theUnited States, to come to a better understanding with respect to some ofthe questions in dispute, but the differences between the two Powerswere so radical that all negotiations came to naught. Difficulties werealso complicated by the condition of political parties in the Americanrepublic and the ambition of American statesmen. When the democraticrepublicans or "Strict constructionists, " as they have been happilynamed, with Jefferson at their head, obtained office, French ideas cameinto favour; while the federalists or "Broad constitutionalists, " ofwhom Washington, Hamilton and Adams had been the first exponents, wereanxious to keep the nation free from European complications and tosettle international difficulties by treaty and not by war. But thisparty was in a hopeless minority, during the critical times wheninternational difficulties were resolving themselves into war, and wasunable to influence public opinion sufficiently to make negotiations forthe maintenance of peace successful, despite the fact that it had aconsiderable weight in the states of New England. 

The international difficulties of the United States entered upon acritical condition when Great Britain, in her assertion of navalsupremacy and restricted commerce as absolutely essential to hernational security, issued an order-in-council which declared a strictblockade of the European coast from Brest to the Elbe. Napoleonretaliated with the Berlin decree, which merely promulgated a paperblockade of the British Isles. Then followed the later Britishorders-in-council, which prevented the shipping of the United Statesfrom trading with any country where British vessels could not enter, andallowed them only to trade with other European ports where they madeentries and paid duties in English custom-houses. Napoleon increased theduties of neutral commerce by the Milan decree of 1807, which orderedthe seizure of all neutral vessels which might have been searched byEnglish cruisers. These orders meant the ruin of American commerce, which had become so profitable; and the Washington government attemptedto retaliate, first by forbidding the importation of manufactures fromEngland and her colonies, and, when this effort was ineffective, bydeclaring an embargo in its own ports, which had only the result ofstill further crippling American commerce at home and abroad. Eventually, in place of this unwise measure, which, despite itssystematic evasion, brought serious losses to the whole nation andseemed likely to result in civil war in the east, where the discontentwas greatest, a system of non-intercourse with both England and Francewas adopted, to last so long as either should press its restrictivemeasures against the republic, but this new policy of retaliation hardlyimpeded American commerce, of which the profits were far greater thanthe risks. The leaders of the Democratic party were now anxious toconciliate France, and endeavoured to persuade the nation that Napoleonhad practically freed the United States from the restrictions to whichit so strongly objected. It is a matter beyond dispute that the Frenchdecrees were never exactly annulled; and the Emperor was pursuing aninsidious policy which confiscated American vessels in French ports atthe very moment he was professing friendship with the United States. Hisobject was to force the government of that country into war withEngland, and, unfortunately for its interests, its statesmen lentthemselves to his designs. 

The Democratic leaders, determined to continue in power, fanned theflame against England, whose maritime superiority enabled her to inflictthe greatest injury on American shipping and commerce. The governingparty looked to the south and west for their principal support. In thesesections the interests were exclusively agricultural, while in NewEngland, where the Federalists were generally in the majority, thecommercial and maritime elements predominated. In Kentucky, Ohio, andother states there was a strong feeling against England on account ofthe current belief that the English authorities in Canada had tamperedwith the Indian tribes and induced them to harass the settlers untilHarrison, on the eve of the war of 1812, effectually cowed them. It is, however, now well established by the Canadian archives that Sir JamesCraig, when governor-general in 1807, actually warned the Washingtongovernment of the restlessness of the western Indians, and of theanxiety of the Canadian authorities to avoid an Indian war in thenorth-west, which might prejudicially operate against the westernprovince. This fact was not, however, generally known, and the feelingagainst Canada and England was kept alive by the dominant party in theUnited States by the disclosure that one John Henry had been sent by theCanadian government in 1808 to ascertain the sentiment of the people ofNew England with respect to the relations between the two countries andthe maintenance of peace. Henry's correspondence was really quiteharmless, but when it had been purchased from him by Madison, on therefusal of the imperial government to buy his silence, it served thetemporary purpose of making the people of the west believe that Englandwas all the while intriguing against the national interests, andendeavouring to create a discontent which might end in civil strife. Under these circumstances the southern leaders, Clay of Kentucky, andCalhoun of South Carolina, who always showed an inveterate animosityagainst England, forced Madison, then anxious to be re-electedpresident, to send a warlike message to congress, which culminated in aformal declaration of hostilities on the 18th of June, 1812, only oneday later than the repeal of the obnoxious order-in-council by England. When the repeal became known some weeks later in Canada and the UnitedStates, the province of Upper Canada had been actually invaded by Hull, and the government of the United States had no desire whatever to desistfrom warlike operations, which, they confidently believed, would end inthe successful occupation of Canada at a time when England was unable, on account of her European responsibilities, to extend to its defenderseffective assistance. 

SECTION 2. --Canada during the war. 

In 1812 there were five hundred thousand people living in the provincesof British North America. Of this number, the French people of LowerCanada made up at least one half. These people had some grievances, andpolitical agitators, notably the writers of the _Canadien_, werecreating jealousies and rivalries between the French and English raceschiefly on the ground of the dominant influence of the British minorityin the administration of public affairs. On the whole, however, thecountry was prosperous and the people generally contented with Britishrule, the freedom of which presented such striking contrast to theabsolutism of the old French régime. The great majority of the eightythousand inhabitants of Upper or Western Canada were Loyalists ordescendants of Loyalists, who had become deeply attached to their newhomes, whilst recalling with feelings of deep bitterness the sufferingsand trials of the American revolution. This class was naturally attachedto British rule and hostile to every innovation which had the leastsemblance of American republicanism. In the western part of the provinceof Upper Canada there was, however, an American element composed ofpeople who had been brought into the country by the liberal grants ofland made to settlers, and who were not animated by the high sentimentsof the Loyalists of 1783 and succeeding years. These people, for someyears previous to 1812, were misled by political demagogues like Wilcoxand Marcle, both of whom deserted to the enemy soon after the outbreakof the war. Emissaries from the republic were busily engaged for months, we now know, in fomenting a feeling against England among these laterimmigrants, and in persuading them that the time was close at hand whenCanada would be annexed to the federal republic. Some attempts were evenmade to create discontent among the French Canadians, but no successappears to have followed these efforts in a country where the bishop, priests and leading men of the rural communities perfectly appreciatedthe value of British connection. 

The statesmen of the United States, who were responsible for the war, looked on the provinces as so many weak communities which could beeasily invaded and conquered by the republican armies. Upper Canada, with its long and exposed frontier and its small and scatteredpopulation, was considered utterly indefensible and almost certain to besuccessfully occupied by the invading forces. There was not a town ofone thousand souls in the whole of that province, and the only forts ofany pretension were those on the Niagara frontier. Kingston was afortified town of some importance in the eastern part of the province, but Toronto had no adequate means of defence. At the commencement of thewar there were only fourteen hundred and fifty regular troops in thewhole country west of Montreal, and these men were scattered atKingston, York, Niagara, Chippewa, Erie, Amherstburg, and St. Joseph. The total available militia did not exceed four thousand men, themajority of whom had little or no knowledge of military discipline, andwere not even in the possession of suitable arms and accoutrements, though, happily, all were animated by the loftiest sentiments of courageand patriotism. In the lower provinces of Eastern Canada and NovaScotia there was a considerable military force, varying in the aggregatefrom four to five thousand men. The fortifications of Quebec were in atolerable state of repair, but the citadel which dominates Halifax wasin a dilapidated condition. The latter port was, however, the rendezvousof the English fleet, which always afforded adequate protection toBritish interests on the Atlantic coasts of British North America, despite the depredations of privateers and the successes attained duringthe first months of the war by the superior tonnage and equipment of thefrigates of the republic. But the hopes that were entertained by the warparty in the United States could be gathered from the speeches of HenryClay of Kentucky, who believed that the issue would be favourable totheir invading forces, who would even "negotiate terms of peace atQuebec or Halifax. "

The United States had now a population of at least six millions and ahalf of whites. It was estimated that during the war the government hada militia force of between four and five hundred thousand men availablefor service, while the regular army amounted to thirty-four thousandofficers and privates. The forces that invaded Canada by the way of LakeChamplain, Sackett's Harbour, the Niagara and Detroit Rivers, werevastly superior in numbers to the Canadian army of defence, except inthe closing months of the war, when Prevost had under his command alarge body of Peninsular veterans. One condition was always in favour ofCanada, and that was the sullen apathy or antagonism felt by the peopleof New England with respect to the war. Had they been in a differentspirit, Lower Canada would have been in far greater danger of successfulinvasion and occupation than was the case at any time during theprogress of the conflict. The famous march of Arnold on Quebec by theKennebec and Chaudière Rivers might have been repeated with more seriousconsequences while Prevost, and not Guy Carleton, was in supreme commandin the French Canadian province. 

I can attempt to limn only the events which stand out most plainly onthe graphic pages of this momentous epoch in Canadian history, and topay a humble tribute to the memory of men, whose achievements savedCanada for England in those days of trial. From the beginning to the endof the conflict, Upper Canada was the principal battle ground upon whichthe combatants fought for the supremacy in North America. Its frontierswere frequently crossed, its territory was invaded, and its towns andvillages were destroyed by the ruthless hand of a foe who entered theprovince not only with the sword of the soldier but even with the torchof the incendiary. The plan of operations at the outset of the campaignwas to invade the province across the Niagara and Detroit Rivers, neither of which offered any real obstacles to the passage of adetermined and well-managed army in the absence of strongfortifications, or a superior defensive force, at every vulnerable pointalong the Canadian banks. Queenston was to be a base of operations for alarge force, which would overrun the whole province and eventuallyco-operate with troops which could come up from Lake Champlain and marchon Montreal. The forces of the United States in 1812 acted withconsiderable promptitude as soon as war was officially declared, and hadthey been led by able commanders the result might have been mostunfortunate for Canada. The resources for defence were relativelyinsignificant, and indecision and weakness were shown by Sir GeorgePrevost, then commander-in-chief and governor-general--a well meaningman but wanting in ability as a military leader, who was also hamperedby the vacillating counsels of the Liverpool administration, which didnot believe in war until the province was actually invaded. It wasfortunate for Canada that she had then at the head of the government inthe upper province General Brock, who possessed decision of characterand the ability to comprehend the serious situation of affairs at acritical juncture, when his superiors both in England and Canada didnot appear to understand its full significance. 

The assembly of Upper Canada passed an address giving full expression tothe patriotic sentiments which animated all classes of people when theperilous state of affairs and the necessity for energetic action becameapparent to the dullest minds. The Loyalists and their descendants, aswell as other loyal people, rallied at the moment of danger to thesupport of Brock; and the immediate result of his decided orders was thecapture of the post of Michillimackinac, which had been, ever since thedays of the French régime, a position of great importance on the upperlakes. Then followed the ignominious surrender of General Hull and hisarmy to Brock, and the consequent occupation of Detroit and the presentstate of Michigan by the British troops. Later, on the Niagara frontier, an army of invaders was driven from Queenston Heights, but this victorycost the life of the great English general, whose promptitude at thecommencement of hostilities had saved the province. Among other bravemen who fell with Brock was the attorney-general of the province, Lieutenant-Colonel John Macdonell, who was one of the general's aides. General Sheaffe, the son of a Loyalist, took command and drove the enemyacross the river, in whose rapid waters many were drowned whilestruggling to save themselves from the pursuing British soldiery, determined to avenge the death of their honoured chief. A later attemptby General Smyth to invade Canadian territory opposite Black Rock on theNiagara River, was also attended with the same failure that attended thefutile attempts to cross the Detroit and to occupy the heights ofQueenston. At the close of 1812 Upper Canada was entirely free from thearmy of the republic, the Union Jack floated above the fort at Detroit, and the ambitious plan of invading the French province and seizingMontreal was given up as a result of the disasters to the enemy in thewest. The party of peace in New England gathered strength, and thepromoters of the war had no consolation except the triumphs obtained atsea by some heavily armed and well manned frigates of the United Statesto the surprise of the government and people of England, who neveranticipated that their maritime superiority could be in any wayendangered by a nation whose naval strength was considered soinsignificant. But these victories of the republic on the ocean duringthe first year of the war were soon effaced by the records of the twosubsequent years when "The Chesapeake" was captured by "The Shannon" andother successes of the British ships restored the prestige of England onthe sea. 

During the second year of the war the United States won some militaryand naval successes in the upper province, although the final results ofthe campaign were largely in favour of the defenders of Canada. The waropened with the defeat of General Winchester at Frenchtown on the RiverRaisins in the present state of Michigan; but this success, which waswon by General Procter, was soon forgotten in the taking of York, thecapital of the province, and the destruction of its public buildings. This event forced General Sheaffe to retire to Kingston, while GeneralVincent retreated to Burlington Heights as soon as the invading armyoccupied Fort George and dominated the Niagara frontier. Sir GeorgePrevost showed his military incapacity at Sackett's Harbour, where hehad it in his power to capture a post which was an important base ofoperations against the province. On the other hand Colonel GeorgeMacdonell made a successful attack on Ogdensburg and fittingly avengedthe raid that an American force had made a short time previously onElizabethtown, which was called Brockville not long afterwards in honourof the noted general. An advance of the invading army against GeneralVincent was checked by the memorable success won at Stoney Creek byColonel Harvey and the surrender at Beaver Dams of Colonel Boerstler toLieutenant Fitzgibbon, whose clever strategy enabled him to capture alarge force of the enemy while in command of a few soldiers and Indians. When September arrived, the small, though all-important, British fleeton Lake Erie, under the command of Captain Barclay, sustained a fataldefeat at Put-in-Bay, and the United States vessels under CommodorePerry held full control of Lake Erie. A few weeks later, General Procterlost the reputation which he had won in January by his defeat ofWinchester, and was beaten, under circumstances which disgraced him inthe opinion of his superiors, on the River Thames not far from theIndian village of Moraviantown. The American forces were led by GeneralHarrison, who had won some reputation in the Indian campaign in thenorth-west and who subsequently became, as his son in later times, apresident of the United States. 

It was in this engagement that the Shawenese chief, Tecumseh, waskilled, in him England lost a faithful and brave ally. English prospectsin the west were consequently gloomy for some time, until the autumn of1813, when the auspicious tidings spread from the lakes to the Atlanticthat the forces of the republic, while on their march to Montreal by theway of Lake Champlain and the St. Lawrence, had been successfully metand repulsed at Chateauguay and Chrysler's Farm, two of the mostmemorable engagements of the war, when we consider the insignificantforces that checked the invasion and saved Canada at a most criticaltime. 

In the last month of the same year Fort George was evacuated by theAmerican garrison, but not before General McLure had shamelessly burnedthe pretty town of Niagara, and driven helpless women and children intothe ice and snow of a Canadian winter. General Drummond, who was incommand of the western army, retaliated by the capture of Fort Niagaraand the destruction of all the villages on the American side of theriver as far as Buffalo, then a very insignificant place. When the newyear dawned the only Canadian place in possession of the enemy wasAmherstburg on the western frontier. 

The third and last year of the war was distinguished by the capture ofOswego and Prairie-des-Chiens by British expeditions; the repulse of alarge force of the invaders at Lacolle Mills in Lower Canada; thesurrender of Fort Erie to the enemy, the defeat of General Riall atStreet's or Usher's Creek in the Niagara district, the hotly contestedbattle won at Lundy's Lane by Drummond, and the ignominious retreat fromPlattsburg of Sir George Prevost, in command of a splendid force ofpeninsular veterans, after the defeat of Commodore Downey's fleet onLake Champlain. Before the year closed and peace was proclaimed, FortErie was evacuated, the stars and stripes were driven from Lake Ontario, and all Canadian territory except Amherstburg was free from the invader. The capital of the United States had been captured by the British andits public buildings burned as a severe retaliation for the conduct ofthe invading forces at York, Niagara, Moraviantown, St. David's and PortDover. Both combatants were by this time heartily tired of the war, andterms of peace were arranged by the treaty of Ghent at the close of1814; but before the news reached the south, General Jackson repulsedGeneral Packenham with heavy losses at New Orleans, and won a reputationwhich made him president a few years later. 

The maritime provinces never suffered from invasion, but on the contraryobtained some advantages from the presence of large numbers of Britishmen-of-war in their seaports, and the expenditure on military and navalsupplies during the three years of war. Following the example of theCanadas, the assemblies of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia voted largesums of money and embodied the militia for active service or generalpurposes of defence. The assembly of New Brunswick, essentially theprovince of the Loyalists, declared in 1813 that the people were "readyand determined to repel every aggression which the infatuated policy ofthe American government may induce it to commit on the soil of NewBrunswick. " But the war was so unpopular in the state of Maine and otherparts of New England that the provinces by the sea were comparativelysafe from aggression and conflict. Soon after the commencement ofhostilities the governors of Maine and New Brunswick issuedproclamations which prevented hostilities for two years along theirrespective borders. In Nova Scotia there was much activity during thewar, and letters of marque were issued to privateers which made manycaptures, and offered some compensation for the losses inflicted on thecoasting and fishing interests by the same class of American vessels. In1814 it was decided by the imperial authorities to break the truce whichhad practically left Maine free from invasion, and Sir John Sherbrooke, then governor of Nova Scotia, and Rear-Admiral Griffith took possessionof Machias, Eastport, Moose, and other islands in Passamaquoddy Bay. 

The people of the United States generally welcomed the end of a warwhich brought them neither honour nor profit and seemed likely to breakthe union into fragments in consequence of the hostility that hadexisted in New England through the conflict from the very beginning. Thenews of Prevost's retreat from Plattsburg no doubt hastened the decisionof the British government to enter into negotiations for peace, whichwas settled on terms by no means favourable to Canadian interests. Thequestion of the New Brunswick boundary might have been then adjusted onconditions which would have prevented at a later day the sacrifice of alarge tract of territory in Maine which would be now of great value tothe Dominion. The only advantage which accrued to the Canadians was alater convention which gave the people of the provinces full control offisheries, ignorantly sacrificed by the treaty of 1783. 

No class of the people of Canada contributed more to the effectivenessof the militia and the successful defence of the country than thedescendants of the Loyalists, who formed so large and influential aportion of the English population of British North America. All theloyal settlements on the banks of the St. Lawrence, on the Niagarafrontier, and on the shores of Lake Erie, sent many men to fight by theside of the regular British forces. Even aged men, who had borne arms inthe revolutionary war, came forward with an enthusiasm which showed thatage had not impaired their courage or patriotism, and although they wereexempted from active service, they were found most useful in stationaryduties at a time when Canada demanded the experience of such veterans. "Their lessons and example, " wrote General Sheaffe, "will have a happyinfluence on the youth of the militia ranks. " When Hull invaded theprovince and issued his boastful and threatening proclamation he usedlanguage which must have seemed a mockery to the children of theLoyalists. They remembered too well the sufferings of their fathers andbrothers during "the stormy period of the revolution, " and it seemedderisive to tell them now that they were to be "emancipated from tyrannyand oppression and restored to the dignified station of free men. " Theproclamation issued by Governor Brock touched the loyal hearts of apeople whose family histories were full of examples of "oppression andtyranny, " and of the kind consideration and justice of England in theirnew homes. "Where, " asked Brock, with the confidence of truth, "is theCanadian subject who can truly affirm to himself that he has beeninjured by the government in his person, his property, or his liberty?Where is to be found, in any part of the world, a growth so rapid inprosperity and wealth as this colony exhibits?" These people, to whomthis special appeal was made at this national crisis, responded with aheartiness which showed that gratitude and affection lay deep in theirhearts. Even the women worked in the field that their husbands, brothersand sons might drive the invaders from Canadian soil. The 104thRegiment, which accomplished a remarkable march of thirteen days in thedepth of winter, from Fredericton to Quebec--a distance of three hundredand fifty miles--and lost only one man by illness, was composed ofdescendants of the loyal founders of New Brunswick. This march wasaccomplished practically without loss, while more than three hundredmen were lost by Benedict Arnold in his expedition of 1777 againstQuebec by the way of Kennebec--a journey not more dangerous or arduousthan that so successfully accomplished by the New Brunswick Loyalists. In 1814 considerable numbers of seamen for service in the upper lakespassed through New Brunswick to Quebec, and were soon followed byseveral companies of the 8th or King's Regiment. The patriotism of theLoyalists of New Brunswick was shown by grants of public money and everyother means in their power, while these expeditions were on their way tothe seat of war in the upper provinces. 

Historians and poets have often dwelt on the heroism of Laura Secord, daughter and wife of Loyalists, who made a perilous journey in 1814through the Niagara district, and succeeded in warning LieutenantFitzgibbon of the approach of the enemy, thus enabling him with a fewsoldiers and Indians to surprise Colonel Boerstler near Beaver Dams andforce him by clever strategy to surrender with nearly 600 men andseveral cannon. Even boys fled from home and were found fighting in thefield. The Prince Regent, at the close of the war, expressly thanked theCanadian militia, who had "mainly contributed to the immediatepreservation of the province and its future security. " The Loyalists, who could not save the old colonies to England, did their full share inmaintaining her supremacy in the country she still owned in the valleyof the St. Lawrence and on the shores of the Atlantic. 

As Bishop Plessis stimulated a patriotic sentiment among the FrenchCanadians, so Vicar-General Macdonell of Glengarry, subsequently thefirst Roman Catholic bishop of Upper Canada, performed good service byassisting in the formation of a Glengarry regiment, and otherwise takingan active part in the defence of the province, where his will always bean honoured name. Equally indefatigable in patriotic endeavour wasBishop Strachan, then rector of York, who established "The Loyal andPatriotic Society, " which did incalculable good by relieving thenecessities of women and children, when the men were serving in thebattlefield, by providing clothing and food for the soldiery, andotherwise contributing towards the comfort and succour of all those whowere taking part in the public defences. Of the engagements of the warthere are two which, above all others, possess features on which thehistorian must always like to dwell. The battle which was fought againstsuch tremendous odds on the banks of the Chateauguay by less than athousand French Canadians, led by Salaberry and Macdonell, recalls insome respects the defeat of Braddock in 1755. The disaster to theBritish forces near the Monongahela was mainly the result of thestrategy of the Indians, who were dispersed in the woods which reechoedto their wild yells and their ever fatal shots fired under cover oftrees, rocks and stumps. The British were paralysed as they saw theirranks steadily decimated by the fire of an enemy whom they could neversee, and who seemed multitudinous as their shrieks and shouts were heardfar and wide in that Bedlam of the forest. The leaves that lay thick anddeep on the ground were reddened with the blood of many victims helplessagainst the concealed, relentless savages. The woods of the Chateauguaydid not present such a scene of carnage as was witnessed at the battleof the Monongahela, but nevertheless they seemed to the panic-strickeninvaders, who numbered many thousands, alive with an enemy whosestrength was enormously exaggerated as bugle sounds and Indian yellsmade a fearful din on every side. Believing themselves surrounded byforces far superior in numbers, the invaders became paralysed with fearand fled in disorder from an enemy whom they could not see, and whomight close upon them at any moment. In this way Canadian pluck andstrategy won a famous victory which saved the province of Lower Canadaat a most critical moment of the war. 

If we leave the woods of Chateauguay, where a monument has been raisedin recognition of this brilliant episode of the war, and come to thecountry above which rises the mist of the cataract of Niagara, we see alittle acclivity over which passes that famous thoroughfare called"Lundy's Lane. " Here too rises a stately shaft in commemoration ofanother famous victory--in many respects the most notable of thewar--won by a gallant Englishman, whose name still clings to the prettytown close by. 

This battle was fought on a midsummer night, when less than threethousand British and Canadian troops fought six hours against a muchsuperior force, led by the ablest officers who had taken part in thewar. For three hours, from six to nine o'clock at night, less than twothousand held the height, which was the main object of attack from thebeginning to the end of the conflict, and kept at bay the forces thatwere led against them with a stern determination to win the position. Sunlight gave way to the twilight of a July evening, and dense darknessat last covered the combatants, but still the fight went on. Columns ofthe enemy charged in such close and rapid succession that the Britishartillerymen were constantly assailed in the very act of sponging andloading their guns. The assailants once won the height, but only to findthemselves repulsed the next instant by the resolute daring of theBritish. Happily at the most critical moment, when the defenders of thehill were almost exhausted by the heroic struggle, reinforcementsarrived, and the battle was renewed with a supreme effort on both sides. For three hours longer, from nine o'clock to midnight, the battle wasfought in the darkness, only relieved by the unceasing flashes from theguns, whose sharp reports mingled with the deep and monotonous roar ofthe great falls. It was a scene worthy of a painter whose imaginationcould grasp all the incidents of a situation essentially dramatic in itsnature. The assailants of the Canadian position gave way at last andwithdrew their wearied and disheartened forces. It was in all respects avictory for England and Canada, since the United States army did notattempt to renew the battle on the next day, but retired to Fort Erie, then in their possession. As Canadians look down "the corridors oftime, " they will always see those flashes from the musketry and cannonof Lundy's Lane, and hear the bugles which drove the invaders of theircountry from the woods of Chateauguay. 

The war did much to solidify the various racial elements of BritishNorth America during its formative stage. Frenchmen, Englishmen, Scotsmen from the Lowlands and Highlands, Irishmen and Americans, unitedto support the British connection. The character of the people, especially in Upper Canada, was strengthened from a national point ofview by the severe strain to which it was subjected. Men and women alikewere elevated above the conditions of a mere colonial life and thestruggle for purely material necessities, and became animated by thatspirit of self-sacrifice and patriotic endeavour which tend to make apeople truly great. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE EVOLUTION OF RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT (1815--1839)

SECTION I. --The rebellion in Lower Canada. 

Responsible government in Canada is the logical sequence of thepolitical struggles, which commenced soon after the close of the war of1812-15. As we review the history of Canada since the conquest we canrecognise "one ever increasing purpose" through all political changes, and the ardent desire of men, entrusted at the outset with a verymoderate degree of political responsibility, to win for themselves alarger measure of political liberty in the management of their own localaffairs. Grave mistakes were often made by the advocates of reform inthe government of the several provinces--notably, as I shall show, inLower Canada, where the French Canadian majority were carried oftenbeyond reason at the dictation of Papineau--but, whatever may have beenthe indiscretions of politicians, there were always at the bottom oftheir demands the germs of political development. 

The political troubles that continued from 1817 until 1836 in LowerCanada eventually made the working of legislative institutionsimpracticable. The contest gradually became one between thegovernor-general representing the crown and the assembly controlledalmost entirely by a French Canadian majority, with respect to thedisposition of the public revenues and expenditures. Imperial statutes, passed as far back as 1774-1775, provided for the levying of duties, tobe applied solely by the crown, primarily "towards defraying theexpenses of the administration of justice and the support of the civilgovernment of the province", and any sums that remained in the hands ofthe government were "for the future disposition of parliament. " Thenthere were "the casual or territorial revenues, " such as money arisingfrom the Jesuits' estates, royal seigniorial dues, timber and land, allof which were also exclusively under the control of the government. Theassembly had been given jurisdiction only over the amount of dutiespayable into the treasury under the authority of laws passed by thelegislature itself. In case the royal revenues were not sufficient tomeet the annual expenditure of the government, the deficiency was metuntil the war of 1812-15 by drawing on the military exchequer. As theexpenses of the provincial administration increased the royal revenuesbecame inadequate, while the provincial revenues gradually showed aconsiderable surplus over the expenditure voted by the legislature. In1813 the cost of the war made it impossible for the government to usethe military funds, and it resorted to the provincial moneys for theexpenses of justice and civil government. In this way, by 1817, thegovernment had incurred a debt of a hundred and twenty thousand poundsto the province without the direct authority of the legislature. Theassembly of Lower Canada was not disposed to raise troublesome issuesduring the war, or in any way to embarrass the action of Sir GeorgePrevost, who, whatever may have been his incompetency as a militarychief, succeeded by his conciliatory and persuasive methods in winningthe good opinions of the French Canadian majority and making himself anexceptionally popular civil governor. After closing the accounts of thewar, the government felt it expedient to stop such irregularproceedings, to obtain from the legislature a general appropriation act, covering the amount of expenditures in the past, and to prevent thenecessity of such a questionable application of provincial funds in thefuture. This may be considered the beginning of the financialcontroversies that were so constant, as years passed by, between thegovernors and the assemblies, and never ended until the rebellion brokeout. The assembly, desirous of obtaining power in the management ofpublic affairs, learned that it could best embarrass the government andforce them to consider and adjust public grievances, as set forth by themajority in the house, by means of the appropriation bills required forthe public service. The assembly not only determined to exercise solecontrol over its own funds but eventually demanded the disposal of theduties imposed and regulated by imperial statutes. The conflict wasremarkable for the hot and uncompromising temper constantly exhibited bythe majority on the discussion of the generally moderate and fairpropositions submitted by the government for settling vexed questions. The assembly found a powerful argument in favour of their persistentcontention for a complete control of the public revenues andexpenditures in the defalcation of Mr. Caldwell, the receiver-general, who had been allowed for years to use the public funds in his businessspeculations, and whose property was entirely inadequate to cover thedeficiency in his accounts. 

The legislative council was always ready to resist what it oftenasserted to be unconstitutional acts on the part of the house and directinfringements of "the rights of the crown" sometimes a mere convenientphrase used in an emergency to justify resistance to the assembly. Itoften happened, however, that the upper chamber had law on its side, when the house became perfectly unreasonable and uncompromising in itsattitude of hostility to the government. The council, on severaloccasions, rejected a supply bill because it contained provisionsasserting the assembly's right to control the crown revenues and to votethe estimates, item by item, from the governor's salary down to that ofthe humblest official. Every part of the official and legislativemachinery became clogged by the obstinacy of governor, councils, andassembly. To such an extent, indeed, did the assembly's assumption ofpower carry it in 1836, that the majority actually asserted its ownright to amend the constitution of the council as defined in theimperial statute of 1791. Its indiscreet acts eventually alienated thesympathy and support of such English members as Mr. Neilson, ajournalist and politician of repute, Mr. Andrew Stuart, a lawyer ofability, and others who believed in the necessity of constitutionalreforms, but could not follow Mr. Papineau and his party in theirreckless career of attack on the government, which they thought wouldprobably in the end imperil British connection. 

The government was in the habit of regularly submitting its accounts andestimates to the legislature, and expressed its desire eventually togrant that body the disposal of all the crown revenues, provided itwould consent to vote a civil list for the king's life, or even for afixed number of years, but the assembly was not willing to agree to anyproposal which prevented it from annually taking up the expenditures forthe civil government item by item, and making them matters of yearlyvote. In this way every person in the public service would be subject tothe caprice, or ill-feeling, of any single member of the legislature, and the whole administration of the public departments would probably bemade ineffective. Under the plan suggested by the government inaccordance with English constitutional forms, the assembly would haveevery opportunity of criticising all the public expenditures, and evenreducing the gross sum in cases of extravagance. But the samecontumacious spirit, which several times expelled Mr. Christie, memberfor Gaspé, on purely vexatious and frivolous charges, and constantlyimpeached judges without the least legal justification, simply tosatisfy personal spite or political malice, would probably have beenexhibited towards all officials had the majority in the assembly beengiven the right of voting each salary separately. The assembly neveronce showed a disposition to meet the wishes of the government evenhalf-way. Whatever may have been the vacillation or blundering ofofficials in Downing Street, it must be admitted that the imperialgovernment showed a conciliatory spirit throughout the whole financialcontroversy. Step by step it yielded to all the demands of the assemblyon this point. In 1831, when Lord Grey was premier, the Britishparliament passed an act, making it lawful for the legislatures of Upperand Lower Canada to appropriate the duties raised by imperial statutesfor the purpose of defraying the charges of the administration ofjustice and the support of civil government. The government consequentlyretained only the relatively small sum arising from casual andterritorial dues. When Lord Aylmer, the governor-general, communicatedthis important concession to the legislature, he also sent a messagesetting forth the fact that it was the settled policy of the crown on nofuture occasion to nominate a judge either to the executive or thelegislative council, the sole exception being the chief justice ofQuebec. He also gave the consent of the government to the passage of anact declaring that judges of the supreme court should thereafter holdoffice "during good behaviour, " on the essential condition that theirsalaries were made permanent by the legislature. The position of thejudiciary had long been a source of great and even just complaint, and, in the time of Sir James Craig, judges were disqualified from sitting inthe assembly on the demand of that body. They continued, however, tohold office "during the pleasure" of the crown, and to be called at itswill to the executive and legislative councils. Under thesecircumstances they were, with some reason, believed to be more or lessunder the influence of the governor-general; and particular judgesconsequently fell at times under the ban of the assembly, and wereattacked on the most frivolous grounds. The assembly passed a billproviding for the independence of the judiciary, but it had to bereserved because it was not in accordance with the conditions considerednecessary by the crown for the protection of the bench. 

The governor-general also in his message promised reforms of thejudicial and legal systems, the disposal of the funds arising from theJesuits' estates by the legislature, and, in fact, nearly all thereforms which had been demanded by the house for years. Yet when thegovernment asked at the same time for a permanent civil list, themessage was simply referred to a committee of the whole house whichnever reported. Until this time the efforts of the assembly to obtaincomplete control of the public revenues and expenditures had ajustification in the fact that it is a recognised English principle thatthe elected house should impose the taxes and vote the supplies; buttheir action on this occasion, when the imperial government made mostimportant concessions, giving them full control over the public funds, simply on condition that they should follow the English system of votingthe salaries of the judiciary and civil list, showed that the majoritywere earned away by a purely factious spirit. During the progress ofthese controversies, Mr. Louis Joseph Papineau, a brilliant but anunsafe leader, had become the recognised chief of the French Canadianmajority, who for years elected him speaker of the assembly. In theabsence of responsible government, there was witnessed in those timesthe extraordinary spectacle--only now-a-days seen in the Americancongress--of the speaker, who should be above all political antagonisms, acting as the leader of an arrogant majority, and urging them tocontinue in their hostility to the government. It was Mr. Papineau whofirst brought the governor-general directly into the arena of politicalconflict by violent personal attacks; and indeed he went so far in thecase of Lord Dalhousie, a fair-minded man anxious to act moderatelywithin the limits of the constitution, that the latter felt compelled bya sense of dignity to refuse the confirmation of the great agitator asspeaker in 1827. The majority in the assembly vehemently asserted theirright to elect their speaker independently of the governor, whoseconfirmation was a mere matter of form, and not of statutory right; andthe only course at last open to Lord Dalhousie was to prorogue thelegislature. Mr. Papineau was re-elected speaker at the next session, when Lord Dalhousie had gone to England and Sir James Kempt wasadministrator. 

After 1831, Mr. Papineau steadily evoked the opposition of the moreconservative and thoughtful British Liberals who were not disposed to becarried into a questionable position, inimical to British connection andthe peace of the country, Dr. Wolfred Nelson, and Dr. O'Callaghan, ajournalist, were soon the only supporters of ability left him among theBritish and Irish, the great majority of whom rallied to the support ofthe government when a perilous crisis arrived in the affairs of theprovince. The British party dwindled away in every appeal to the people, and no French Canadian representative who presumed to differ from Mr. Papineau was ever again returned to the assembly. Mr. Papineau becamenot only a political despot but an "irreconcilable, " whose vanity ledhim to believe that he would soon become supreme in French Canada, andthe founder of _La Nation Canadienne_ in the valley of the St. Lawrence. The ninety-two resolutions passed in 1834 may be considered the climaxof the demands of his party, which for years had resisted immigration ascertain to strengthen the British population, had opposed theestablishment of registry offices as inconsistent with the Frenchinstitutions of the province, and had thrown every possible oppositionin the way of the progress of the Eastern Townships, which wereattracting year by year an industrious and energetic British populationfrom the British Isles and New England. 

In these resolutions of 1834 there is not a single paragraph or evenphrase which can be tortured into showing that the French Canadianagitator and his friends were in favour of responsible government. Thekey-note of the whole document is an elective legislative council, whichwould inevitably increase the power of the French Canadians and placethe British in a hopeless minority. Mr. Roebuck, the paid agent of theassembly in England, is said to have suggested the idea of this electivebody, and assuredly his writings and speeches were always calculated todo infinite harm, by helping to inflame discontent in Canada, andmisrepresenting in England the true condition of affairs in theprovince. The resolutions are noteworthy for their verbosity and entireabsence of moderate and wise suggestion. They were obviously writtenunder the inspiration of Mr. Papineau with the object of irritating theBritish government, and preventing the settlement of politicaldifficulties. They even eulogised the institutions of the neighbouringstates which "commanded the affection of the people in a larger measurethan those of any other country, " and should be regarded "as models ofgovernment for Canada. " They even went so far as "to remind parliamentof the consequences of its efforts to overrule the wishes of theAmerican colonies, " in case they should make any "modification" in theconstitution of the province "independently of the wishes of itspeople. " Colonel Gugy, Mr. Andrew Stuart, Mr. Neilson and otherprominent Englishmen opposed the passage of these resolutions, ascalculated to do infinite harm, but they were carried by a very largeFrench Canadian majority at the dictation of Mr. Papineau. Whatever mayhave been its effect for the moment, this wordy effusion has long sincebeen assigned to the limbo where are buried other examples of thedemagogism of those trying times. 

In 1835 the imperial government decided to send three commissioners toexamine into the various questions which had been so long matters ofagitation in Lower Canada. Lord Aberdeen, then Colonial Secretary ofState, emphatically stated that it was the intention of the government"to review and enquire into every alleged grievance and examine everycause of complaint, and apply a remedy to every abuse that may still befound to prevail. "

The choice of the government as chief commissioner and governor-generalwas Lord Gosford, an amiable, inexperienced and weak man, who failedeither to conciliate the French Canadian majority to whom he was evenhumble for a while, or to obtain the confidence of the British party towhose counsels and warnings he did not pay sufficient heed at theoutset of the crisis which culminated during his administration. Themajority in the assembly were determined not to abate one iota of theirpretensions, which now included the control of the casual andterritorial revenues; and no provision whatever was made for four yearsfor the payment of the public service. The commissioners reportedstrongly against the establishment of an elected council, and in favourof a modified system of responsible government, not dependent on thevote of the house. They recommended also the surrender of the casual andterritorial revenues on condition of proper provision for the payment ofthe civil service, and the administration of justice. 

The imperial government immediately recognised that they had to face avery serious crisis in the affairs of Lower Canada. On the 6th March, 1836, Lord John Russell, then home secretary in Lord Melbourne'sadministration, introduced a series of ten resolutions, providing forthe immediate payment of the arrears of £142, 160. 14s. 6d. , due to thepublic service, out of the moneys in the hands of the receiver-general. While it was admitted that measures should be taken to secure for thelegislative council a greater degree of public confidence, thegovernment deemed it inexpedient to make that body elective. Thenecessity of improving the position of the executive council was alsoacknowledged, but the suggestion of a ministry responsible to theassembly was not approved. This disapproval was quite in accordance withthe policy adopted by Englishmen since 1822, when a measure had beenintroduced in parliament for the reunion of the two Canadas--theprecursor of the measure of 1840. This measure originally provided thattwo members of the executive council should sit and speak in theassembly but not vote. Those parts of the bill of 1822 which providedfor a union were not pressed on account of the objections raised in boththe provinces, but certain other provisions became law under the titleof "The Canadian Trade Acts, " relieving Upper Canada from thecapricious action of Lower Canada with respect to the duties from whichthe former obtained the principal part of her fund for carrying on hergovernment. This share had been originally fixed at one-fifth of theproceeds of the customs duties collected by the province of LowerCanada, but when the population of the western section increasedconsiderably and consumed a far greater quantity of dutiable goods, itsgovernment justly demanded a larger proportion of the revenues collectedin the ports of the lower St. Lawrence. The legislature of Lower Canadapaid no attention to this equitable demand, and eventually even refusedto renew the legislation providing for the payment of one-fifth of theduties. Under these circumstances the imperial government found itnecessary to intervene, and pass the "Trade Acts, " making the pastlegislation of Lower Canada on the subject permanent, and preventing itslegislature from imposing new duties on imports without the consent ofthe upper province. As this was a question of grave import, theresolutions of 1836 gave authority to the legislatures of Upper andLower Canada to provide joint legislation "for determining and adjustingall questions respecting the trade and commerce of the provinces. "

As soon as the passage of these resolutions became known throughoutLower Canada, Papineau and his supporters commenced an active campaignof denunciation against England, from whom, they declared, there was noredress whatever to be expected. Wherever the revolutionists were in themajority, they shouted, "_Vive la liberté!" "Vive la Nation Canadienne!""Vive Papineau!" "Point de despotisme_!": while flags and placards weredisplayed with similar illustrations of popular frenzy. _La NationCanadienne_ was now launched on the turbulent waves of a littlerebellion in which the phrases of the French revolution were gliblyshouted by the _habitants_ with very little conception of their realsignificance. The British or Constitutional party took active steps insupport of British connection, but Lord Gosford, unhappily stillgovernor-general, did not for some time awaken to the reality of thepublic danger. Happily for British interests, Sir John Culhorne, afterwards Lord Seaforth, a courageous and vigilant soldier, was in thecountry, and was able, when orders were given him by the reluctantgovernor, to deal determinedly with the rebels who had taken up arms inthe Richelieu district. Dr. Wolfred Nelson made a brave stand at St. Denis, and repulsed Colonel Gore's small detachment of regulars. Papineau was present for a while at the scene of conflict, but he tookno part in it and lost no time in making a hurried flight to the UnitedStates--an ignominious close to a successful career of rhetoricalflashes which had kindled a conflagration that he took very good careshould not even scorch him. Colonel Wetherall defeated another band ofrebels at St. Charles, and their commander, Mr. Thomas Storrow Brown, awell-meaning but gullible man, fled across the border. Dr. WolfredNelson was captured, and a number of other rebels of less importancewere equally unfortunate. Some of the refugees made a publicdemonstration from Vermont, but precipitately fled before a small forcewhich met them. At St. Eustache, one Girod, a plausible, mendaciousSwiss or Alsatian, who had become a leader in the rebellious movement, and Dr. Chenier, a rash but courageous man, collected a considerablebody of rebels, chiefly from St. Benoit, despite the remonstrances ofMr. Paquin, the curé of the village, and defended the stone church andadjacent buildings against a large force, led by Sir John Colbornehimself. Dr. Chenier and many others--at least seventy, it is said ongood authority--were killed, and the former has in the course of timebeen elevated to the dignity of a national hero and a monument raised inhis honour on a public square of the French Canadian quarters ofMontreal. Mad recklessness rather than true heroism signalised hisaction in this unhappy affair, when he led so many of his credulouscompatriots to certain death, but at least he gave up his life manfullyto a lost cause rather than fly like Papineau who had beguiled him tothis melancholy conclusion. Even Girod showed courage and ended his ownlife when he found that he could not evade the law. The rebelliouselement at St. Benoit was cowed by the results at St. Eustache; and theAbbé Chartier, who had taken an active part in urging the people toresistance, fled to the United States whence he never returned. Thegreater part of the village was destroyed by fire, probably inretaliation for the losses and injuries suffered by the volunteers atthe hands of the rebels in different parts of the district of Montreal. 

One of the most unfortunate and discreditable incidents of the rising inthe Richelieu district was the murder of Lieutenant Weir, who had beentaken prisoner while carrying despatches to Sorel, and was literallyhacked to pieces, when he tried to escape from a _calèche_ in which hewas being conveyed to St. Charles. An equally unhappy incident was thecold-blooded execution, after a mock trial, of one Chartrand, a harmlessnon-combatant who was accused, without a tittle of evidence, of being aspy. The temper of the country can be gauged by the fact that when itwas attempted, some time later, to convict the murderers on clearevidence, it was impossible to obtain a verdict. Jolbert, the allegedmurderer of Weir, was never punished, but François Nicholas and AmableDaumais, who had aided in the trial and execution of Chartrand, weresubsequently hanged for having taken an active part in the secondinsurrection of 1838. 

The rebellion of 1837 never reached any large proportions, and very fewFrench Canadians of social or political standing openly participated inthe movement. Monseigneur Lartigue, Roman Catholic bishop of Montreal, issued a _mandement_ severely censuring the misguided men who had joinedin the rebellious movement and caused so much misery throughout theprovince. In England, strange to say, there were men found, even inparliament, ready to misrepresent the facts and glory in a rebellion thecauses of which they did not understand. The animating motive withthese persons was then--and there were similar examples during theAmerican revolution--to assail the government of the day and makepolitical capital against them, but, it must be admitted, in allfairness to the reform ministry of that day and even to precedingcabinets for some years, that the policy of all was to be just andconciliatory in their relations with the provincial agitators, though itis also evident that a more thorough knowledge of political conditionsand a more resolute effort to a reach the bottom of grievances mighthave long before removed causes of irritation and saved the loss ofproperty and life in 1837 and 1838. 

In the presence of a grave emergency, the British government feltcompelled to suspend the constitution of Lower Canada, and send out LordDurham, a Liberal statesman of great ability, to act as governor-generaland high commissioner "for the determining of certain importantquestions depending in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canadarespecting the form and future government of the said provinces" Despitea certain haughtiness of manner which was apt to wound his inferiors andirritate his equals in position, he was possessed of a great fund ofaccurate political knowledge and a happy faculty of grasping all theessential facts of a difficult situation, and suggesting the best remedyto apply under all the circumstances. He endeavoured, to the utmost ofhis ability, to redeem the pledge with which he entered on his missionto Canada, in the first instance "to assert the supremacy of hermajesty's government, " in the next "to vindicate the honour and dignityof the law, " and above all "to know nothing of a British, a French, or aCanadian party, " but "to look on them all alike as her majesty'ssubjects. " After he had appointed a special council he set to workenergetically to secure the peace of the country. Humanity was thedistinguishing feature of his too short career in Canada. Acomprehensive amnesty was proclaimed to all those engaged in therebellion with the exception of Dr. Wolfred Nelson, R. S. M. Bouchette, Bonaventure Viger, Dr. Masson, and four others of less importance, whowere ordered by an ordinance to be transported to Bermuda during thequeen's pleasure. These persons, as well as sixteen others, includingPapineau, who had fled from justice, were declared to be subject todeath should they venture to enter the province. Not a single rebelsuffered death on the scaffold during Lord Durham's administration. Unfortunately the ordinance, transporting a number of persons withouttrial to an island where the governor-general had no jurisdiction, gavean opportunity to Lord Brougham, who hated the high commissioner, toattack him in the house of lords. Lord Melbourne, then premier, wasforced to repeal the ordinance and to consent to the passage of a billindemnifying all those who had acted under its provisions Lord Glenelg, colonial secretary, endeavoured to diminish the force of thisparliamentary censure by writing to the high commissioner that "hermajesty's government repeat their approbation of the spirit in whichthese measures were conceived and state their conviction that they havebeen dictated by a judicious and enlightened humanity"; but a statesmanof Lord Durham's haughty character was not ready to submit to such arebuke as he had sustained in parliament He therefore immediately placedhis resignation in the hands of the government which had commissionedhim with powers to give peace and justice to distracted Canada, and yetfailed to sustain him at the crucial moment. Before leaving the countryhe issued a proclamation in defence of his public acts. His course inthis particular offended the ministry who, according to Lord Glenelg, considered it a dangerous innovation, as it was practically an appeal bya public officer to the public against the measures of parliament. LordDurham may be pardoned under all the circumstances for resenting at theearliest possible moment his desertion by the government, who were boundin honour to defend him, at all hazards, in his absence, and should nothave given him over for the moment to his enemies, led by a spitefulScotch lawyer. Lord Durham left Canada with the assurance that he hadwon the confidence of all loyal British subjects and proved to allFrench Canadians that there were English statesmen prepared to treatthem with patience, humanity and justice. 

Sir John Colborne became administrator on the departure of Lord Durham, and subsequently governor-general. Unhappily he was immediately calledupon to crush another outbreak of the rebels, in November, 1838, in thecounties watered by the Richelieu River, and in the district immediatelysouth of Montreal. Dr. Robert Nelson and some other rebels, who hadfound refuge in the frontier towns and villages of Vermont and New York, organised this second insurrection, which had the support of aconsiderable number of _habitants_, though only a few actually took uparms. The rising, which began at Caughnawaga, was put down atBeauharnois, within a week from the day on which it commenced. Theauthorities now felt that the time had passed for such leniency as hadbeen shown by Lord Durham; and Sir John Colborne accordingly establishedcourts-martial for the trial of the prisoners taken during this secondinsurrection, as it was utterly impossible to obtain justice through theordinary process of the courts. Only twelve persons, however, sufferedthe extreme penalty of the law; some were sent to New South Wales--wherehowever they were detained only a short time; and the great majoritywere pardoned on giving security for good behaviour. 

While these trials were in progress, and the government were anxious togive peace and security to the province, refugees in the border stateswere despatching hands of ruffians to attack and plunder the Loyalistsin the Eastern Townships; but the government of the United Statesintervened and instructed its officers to take decisive measures for therepression of every movement in the territory of a friendly Power. Thusthe mad insurrection incited by Papineau, but actually led by theNelsons, Chenier and Brown, came at last to an end. 

A new era of political development was now to dawn on the province, as aresult of a more vigorous and remedial policy initiated by the imperialgovernment, at last thoroughly awakened to an intelligent comprehensionof the political conditions of the Canadas. But before I proceed toexplain the details of measures fraught with such importantconsequences, I must give an historical summary of the events which ledalso to a rash uprising in Upper Canada, simultaneously with the onewhich ended so disastrously for its leaders in the French province. 

SECTION 2. --The rebellion in Upper Canada. 

The financial disputes between the executive and the assembly neverattained such prominence in Upper Canada as in the lower province. In1831 the assembly consented to make permanent provision for the civillist and the judiciary, on condition of the government's giving up tothe legislature all the revenues previously at its own disposition. Three years later the legislature also passed an act to provide that thejudges should hold their offices during good behaviour, and not at thepleasure of the crown--a measure rendered possible by the fact that theassembly had made the salaries of the bench permanent. 

Nor did the differences between the assembly and the legislative councilever assume such serious proportions as they did in the French province. Still the leaders of the reform party of Upper Canada had strongobjections to the constitution of the council; and a committee ofgrievances reported in 1835 in favour of an elected body as well as aresponsible council, although it did not very clearly outline themethods of working out the system in a colony where the head of theexecutive was an imperial officer acting under royal instructions. Thedifferent lieutenant-governors, the executive and legislativecouncillors, and the whole body of officials, from the very momentresponsible government was suggested in any form, threw every possibleobstacle in the way of its concession by the imperial government. 

It was largely the dominant influence of the official combination, longknown in Canadian history as the "family compact, " which prevented theconcession of responsible government before the union of the Canadas. This phrase, as Lord Durham said in his report, was misleading inasmuchas there "was very little of family connection between the persons thusunited. " As a matter of fact the phrase represented a political andaristocratic combination, which grew up as a consequence of the socialconditions of the province and eventually monopolised all offices andinfluence in government. This bureaucracy permeated all branches ofgovernment--the executive, the legislative council, and even theassembly where for years there sat several members holding offices ofemolument under the crown. It practically controlled the banks andmonetary circles. The Church of England was bound up in its interests. The judiciary was more or less under its influence while judges wereappointed during pleasure and held seats in the councils. This governingclass was largely composed of the descendants of the Loyalists of 1784, who had taken so important a part in the war with the United States andalways asserted their claims to special consideration in thedistribution of government favour. The old settlers--all those who hadcome into the country before the war--demanded and obtained greaterconsideration at the hands of the government than the later immigrants, who eventually found themselves shut out of office and influence. Theresult was the growth of a Liberal or Reform party, which, whilegenerally composed of the later immigrants, comprised several persons ofLoyalist extraction, who did not happen to belong to the favoured classor church, but recognised the necessity for a change in the methods ofadministration. Among these Loyalists must be specially mentioned PeterPerry, who was really the founder of the Reform party in 1834, and theReverend Egerton Ryerson, a Methodist minister of great natural ability. 

Unfortunately creed also became a powerful factor in the politicalcontroversies of Upper Canada. By the constitutional act of 1791 largetracts of land were set aside for the support of a "Protestant clergy", and the Church of England successfully claimed for years an exclusiveright to these "clergy reserves" on the ground that it was theProtestant church recognised by the state. The clergy of the Church ofScotland in Canada, though very few in number for years, at a later timeobtained a share of these grants as a national religious body; but allthe dissentient denominations did not participate in the advantages ofthese reserves. The Methodists claimed in the course of years to benumerically equal to, if not more numerous than, the EnglishEpiscopalians, and were deeply irritated at the inferior position theylong occupied in the province. So late as 1824 the legislative council, composed of members of the dominant church, rejected a bill allowingMethodist ministers to solemnise marriages, and it was not until 1831that recognised ministers of all denominations were placed on anequality in this respect. Christian charity was not more acharacteristic of those times than political liberality. Methodism wasconsidered by the governing class as a sign of democracy and socialinferiority. History repeated itself in Upper Canada. As the Puritans ofNew England feared the establishment of an Anglican episcopacy, and usedit to stimulate a feeling against the parent state during the beginningsof the revolution, so in Upper Canada the dissenting religious bodiesmade political capital out of the favouritism shown to the Church ofEngland in the distribution of the public lands and public patronage. The Roman Catholics and members of all Protestant sects eventuallydemanded the secularisation of the reserves for educational or otherpublic purposes, or the application of the funds to the use of allreligious creeds. The feeling against that church culminated in 1836, when Sir John Colborne, then lieutenant-governor, established forty-fourrectories in accordance with a suggestion made by Lord Goderich someyears previously. While the legality of Sir John Colborne's course wasundoubted, it was calculated to create much indignant feeling among thedissenting bodies, who saw in the establishment of these rectories anevidence of the intention of the British government to create a statechurch so far as practicable by law within the province. This act, soimpolitic at a critical time of political discussion, was anillustration of the potent influence exercised in the councils of thegovernment by Archdeacon Strachan, who had come into the province fromScotland in 1799 as a schoolmaster. He had been brought up in the tenetsof the Presbyterian Church, but some time after his arrival in Canada hebecame an ordained minister of the Church of England, in which he rosestep by step to the episcopacy. He became a member of both the executiveand legislative councils in 1816 and 1817, and exercised continuouslyuntil the union of 1841 a singular influence in the government of theprovince. He was endowed with that indomitable will, which distinguishedhis great countryman, John Knox. His unbending toryism was the naturaloutcome of his determination to sustain what he considered the justrights of his church against the liberalism of her opponents--chieflydissenters--who wished to rob her of her clergy reserves and destroy herinfluence in education and public affairs generally. This very fidelityto his church became to some extent her weakness, since it evoked thebitter hostility of a large body of persons and created the impressionthat she was the church of the aristocratic and official class ratherthan that of the people--an impression which existed for many yearsafter the fall of the "family compact. "

The public grievances connected with the disposition of the publiclands were clearly exposed by one Robert Gourlay, a somewhat meddlesomeScotchman, who had addressed a circular, soon after his arrival inCanada, to a number of townships with regard to the causes whichretarded improvement and the best means of developing the resources ofthe province. An answer from Sandwich virtually set forth the feeling ofthe rural districts generally on these points. It stated that thereasons for the existing depression were the reserves of land for thecrown and clergy, "which must for a long time keep the country awilderness, a harbour for wolves, and a hindrance to compact and goodneighbourhood; defects in the system of colonisation; too great aquantity of lands in the hands of individuals who do not reside in theprovince, and are not assessed for their property. " Mr. Gourlay'squestions were certainly asked in the public interest, but they excitedthe indignation of the official class who resented any interference witha state of things which favoured themselves and their friends, and werenot desirous of an investigation into the management of public affairs. The subsequent treatment of Mr. Gourlay was shameful in the extreme. Hewas declared a most dangerous character when he followed up his circularby a pamphlet, attacking the methods by which public affairs generallywere conducted, and contrasting them with the energetic and progressivesystem on the other side of the border. The indignation of the officialsbecame a positive fever when he suggested the calling of public meetingsto elect delegates to a provincial convention--a term which recalled thedays of the American revolution, and was cleverly used by Gourlay'senemies to excite the ire and fear of the descendants of the Loyalists. Sir Peregrine Maitland succeeded in obtaining from the legislature anopinion against conventions as "repugnant to the constitution, " anddeclaring the holding of such public meetings a misdemeanour, whileadmitting the constitutional right of the people to petition. Theseproceedings evoked a satirical reply from Gourlay, who was arrested forseditious libel, but the prosecutions failed. It was then decided toresort to the provisions of a practically obsolete statute passed in1804, authorising the arrest of any person who had resided in theprovince for six months without taking the oath of allegiance, and wassuspected to be a seditious character. Such a person could be ordered bythe authorities to leave the province, or give security for goodbehaviour. This act had been originally passed to prevent theimmigration of aliens unfavourable to England, especially of Irishmenwho had taken part in the rebellion of 1798 and found refuge in theUnited States. Gourlay had been a resident of Upper Canada for nearlytwo years, and in no single instance had the law been construed to applyto an immigrant from the British Isles. Gourlay was imprisoned in theNiagara gaol, and when his friends attempted to bring him out on a writof _habeas corpus_ they failed simply because Chief Justice Powell, anable lawyer of a Loyalist family and head of the official party, refusedto grant the writ on a mere technical plea, afterwards declared by thehighest legal authorities in England to be entirely contrary to soundlaw. Gourlay consequently remained in prison for nearly eight months, and when he was brought again before the chief justice, his mentalfaculties were obviously impaired for the moment, but despite hiswretched condition, which prevented him from conducting his defence, hewas summarily convicted and ordered to leave the province withintwenty-four hours, under penalty of death should he not obey the orderor return to the country. 

This unjust sentence created wide-spread indignation among allright-thinking people, especially as it followed a message of thelieutenant-governor to the legislature, that he did not feel justifiedin extending the grants of land, made to actors in the war of 1812-15, to "any of the inhabitants who composed the late convention ofdelegates, the proceedings of which were very properly subjected to yourvery severe animadversion" This undoubtedly illegal action of thelieutenant-governor only escaped the censure of the assembly by thecasting vote of the speaker, but was naturally justified in thelegislative council where Chief Justice Powell presided. Gourlay becamea martyr in the opinion of a large body of people, and a Reform partybegan to grow up in the country. The man himself disappeared for yearsfrom Canadian history, and did not return to the province until 1856, after a chequered and unhappy career in Great Britain and the UnitedStates. The assembly of the United Canadas in 1842 declared his arrestto be "unjust and illegal, " and his sentence "null and void, " and he wasoffered a pension as some compensation for the injuries he had received;but he refused it unless it was accompanied by an official declarationof the illegality of the conviction and its elision from the records ofthe courts. The Canadian government thought he should be satisfied withthe action of the assembly and the offer of the pension. Gourlay diedabroad, and his daughters on his death received the money which herejected with the obstinacy so characteristic of his life. 

During these days of struggle we find most prominent among the officialclass Attorney-General Robinson, afterwards chief justice of UpperCanada for many years. He was the son of a Virginian Loyalist, and aTory of extreme views, calm, polished, and judicial in his demeanour. But whatever his opinions on the questions of the day he was toodiscreet a politician and too honest a judge ever to have descended tosuch a travesty of justice as had been shown by his predecessor in thecase of Gourlay. His influence, however was never in the direction ofliberal measures. He opposed responsible government and the union of thetwo provinces, both when proposed unsuccessfully in 1822, and whencarried in Upper Canada eighteen years later. 

The elections of 1825 had a very important influence on the politicalconditions of the upper province, since they brought into the assemblyPeter Perry, Dr. Rolph, and Marshall Spring Bidwell, who became leadingactors in the Reform movement which culminated in the concession ofresponsible government. But the most conspicuous man from 1826 until1837 was William Lyon Mackenzie, a Scotchman of fair education, who cameto Canada in 1820, and eventually embraced journalism as the professionmost suited to his controversial temperament. Deeply imbued with aspirit of liberalism in politics, courageous and even defiant in theexpression of his opinions, sadly wanting in sound judgment and commonsense when his feelings were excited, able to write with vigour, butmore inclined to emphatic vituperation than well-reasoned argument, hemade himself a force in the politics of the province. In the _ColonialAdvocate_, which he established in 1824, he commenced a series ofattacks on the government which naturally evoked the resentment of theofficial class, and culminated in the destruction of his printing officein 1826 by a number of young men, relatives of the principalofficials--one of them actually the private secretary of thelieutenant-governor, Sir Peregrine Maitland. Mr. Mackenzie obtainedlarge damages in the courts, and was consequently able to continue thepublication of his paper at a time when he was financially embarrassed. The sympathy felt for Mr. Mackenzie brought him into the assembly asmember for York during the session of 1829. So obnoxious did he becometo the governing class that he was expelled four times from the assemblybetween 1831 and 1834, and prevented from taking his seat by the ordersof the speaker in 1835--practically the fifth expulsion. In 1832 he wentto England and presented largely signed petitions asking for a redressof grievances. He appears to have made some impression on Englishstatesmen, and the colonial minister recommended a few reforms to thelieutenant-governor, but they were entirely ignored by the officialparty. Lord Glenelg also disapproved of the part taken byAttorney-General Boulton--Mr. Robinson being then chief justice--andSolicitor-General Hagerman in the expulsion of Mr. Mackenzie; but theytreated the rebuke with contempt and were removed from office for againassisting in the expulsion of Mr. Mackenzie. 

In 1834 he was elected first mayor of Toronto, then incorporated underits present name, as a consequence of the public sympathy aroused in hisfavour by his several expulsions. Previous to the election of 1835, inwhich he was returned to the assembly, he made one of the most seriousblunders of his life, in the publication of a letter from Mr. JosephHume, the famous Radical, whose acquaintance he had made while inEngland. Mr. Hume emphatically stated his opinion that "a crisis wasfast approaching in the affairs of Canada which would terminate inindependence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mothercountry, and the tyrannical conduct of a small and despicable faction inthe colony. " The official class availed themselves of this egregiousblunder to excite the indignation of the Loyalist population against Mr. Mackenzie and other Reformers, many of whom, like the Baldwins andPerrys, disavowed all sympathy with such language. Mr. Mackenzie'smotive was really to insult Mr. Ryerson, with whom he had quarrelled. Mr. Ryerson in the _Christian Guardian_, organ of the Methodists, hadattacked Mr. Hume as a person unfit to present petitions from theLiberals of Canada, since he had opposed the measure for theemancipation of slaves in the West Indies, and had consequentlyalienated the confidence and sympathy of the best part of the nation. Mr. Hume then wrote the letter in question, in which he also stated thathe "never knew a more worthless hypocrite or so base a man as Mr. Ryerson proved himself to be. " Mr. Mackenzie in this way incurred thewrath of a wily clergyman and religious journalist who exercised muchinfluence over the Methodists, and at the same time fell under the banof all people who were deeply attached to the British connection. Moderate Reformers now looked doubtfully on Mackenzie, whose principalsupporters were Dr. Duncombe, Samuel Lount, Peter Matthews, and othermen who took an active part in the insurrection of 1837. 

In the session of 1835 a committee of grievances, appointed on themotion of Mr. Mackenzie himself, reported in favour of a system ofresponsible government, an elective legislative council, the appointmentof civil governors, a diminution of the patronage exercised by thecrown, the independence of the legislature, and other reforms declaredto be in the interest of good government. The report was temperatelyexpressed, and created some effect for a time in England, but thecolonial minister could not yet be induced to move in the direction ofpositive reform in the restrictive system of colonial government. 

Unhappily, at this juncture, when good judgment and discretion were sonecessary in political affairs, all the circumstances combined to hastena perilous crisis, and to give full scope to the passionate impulses ofMackenzie's nature. Sir John Colborne was replaced in the government ofthe province by one of the most incapable governors ever chosen by thecolonial office, Sir Francis Bond Head. He had been chiefly known inEngland as a sprightly writer of travels, and had had no politicalexperience except such as could be gathered in the discharge of theduties of a poor-law commissioner in Wales. His first official act wasan indiscretion. He communicated to the legislature the full text of theinstructions which he had received from the king, although he had beenadvised to give only their substance, as least calculated to hamper LordGosford, who was then attempting to conciliate the French Canadianmajority in Lower Canada. These instructions, in express terms, disapproved of a responsible executive and particularly of an electedlegislative council, to obtain which was the great object of Papineauand his friends. Mr. Bidwell, then speaker of the assembly, recognisedthe importance of this despatch, and forwarded it immediately to Mr. Papineau, at that time speaker of the Lower Canadian house, with whom heand other Reformers had correspondence from time to time. Lord Gosfordwas consequently forced to lay his own instructions in full before thelegislature and to show the majority that the British government wasopposed to such vital changes in the provincial constitution as theypersistently demanded. The action of the Lower Canadian house on thismatter was communicated to the assembly of Upper Canada by a letter ofMr. Papineau to Mr. Bidwell, who laid it before his house just beforethe prorogation in 1835. In this communication the policy of theimperial government was described as "the naked deformity of thecolonial system, " and the royal commissioners were styled "deceitfulagents, " while the methods of government in the neighbouring states wereagain eulogised as in the ninety-two resolutions of 1834. Sir FrancisBond Head seized the opportunity to create a feeling against theReformers, to whom he was now hostile. Shortly after he sent hisindiscreet message to the legislature he persuaded Dr. Rolph, Mr. Bidwell and Receiver-General Dunn to enter the executive council on thepretence that he wished to bring that body more into harmony with publicopinion. The new councillors soon found that they were not to beconsulted in public affairs, and when the whole council actuallyresigned Sir Francis told them plainly that he alone was responsible forhis acts, and that he would only consult them when he deemed itexpedient in the public interest. This action of the lieutenant-governorshowed the Reformers that he was determined to initiate no changes whichwould disturb the official party, or give self-government to the people. The assembly, in which the Liberals were dominant, passed an address tothe king, declaring the lieutenant-governor's conduct "derogatory to thehonour of the king, " and also a memorial to the British house of commonscharging him with "misrepresentation, and a deviation from candour andtruth. "

Under these circumstances Sir Francis eagerly availed himself ofPapineau's letter to show the country the dangerous tendencies of theopinions and acts of the Reformers in the two provinces. In an answer hemade to an address from some inhabitants of the Home District, he warnedthe people that there were individuals in Lower Canada, who wereinculcating the idea that "this province is to be disturbed by theinterference of foreigners, whose powers and influence will proveinvincible"--an allusion to the sympathy shown by Papineau and hisfriends for the institutions of the United States. Then Sir Francisclosed his reply with this rhodomontade: "In the name of every regimentof militia in Upper Canada, I publicly promulgate 'Let them come if theydare'" He dissolved the legislature and went directly to the country onthe issue that the British connection was endangered by the Reformers. "He succeeded, in fact, " said Lord Durham in his report of 1839, "inputting the issue in such a light before the province, that a greatportion of the people really imagined that they were called upon todecide the question of separation by their votes. " These strong appealsto the loyalty of a province founded by the Loyalists of 1784, combinedwith the influence exercised by the "family compact, " who had alloffices and lands at their disposal, defeated Mackenzie, Bidwell, Perryand other Reformers of less note, and brought into the legislature asolid phalanx of forty-two supporters of the government against eighteenelected by the opposition. It was a triumph dearly paid for in the end. The unfair tactics of the lieutenant-governor rankled in the minds of alarge body of people, and hastened the outbreak of the insurrection of1837. The British government seems for a time to have been deceived bythis victory of the lieutenant-governor and actually lauded his"foresight, energy and moral courage"; but ere long, after more matureconsideration of the political conditions of the province, it dawnedupon the dense mind of Lord Glenelg that the situation was not verysatisfactory, and that it would be well to conciliate the moderateelement among the Reformers. Sir Francis was accordingly instructed toappoint Mr. Bidwell to the Bench, but he stated emphatically that suchan appointment would be a recognition on disloyalty. He preferred toresign rather than obey the instructions of the colonial department, andgreatly to his surprise and chagrin his proffer of resignation wasaccepted without the least demur. The colonial office by this timerecognised the mistake they had made in appointing Sir Francis to aposition, for which he was utterly unfit, but unhappily for the provincethey awoke too late to a sense of their own folly. 

Mackenzie became so embittered by his defeat in 1836, and theunscrupulous methods by which it was accomplished, that he made up hismind that reform in government was not to be obtained except by a resortto extreme measures. At meetings of Reformers, held at Lloydtown andother places during the summer of 1837, resolutions were carried that itwas their duty to arm in defence of their rights and those of theircountrymen. Mackenzie visited many parts of the province, in order tostimulate a revolutionary movement among the disaffected people, asystem of training volunteers was organised; pikes were manufactured andold arms were put in order. It was decided that Dr. Rolph should be theexecutive chief of the provisional government, and Mackenzie in themeantime had charge of all the details of the movement. Mr. Bidwellappears to have steadily kept aloof from the disloyal party, but Dr. Rolph was secretly in communication with Mackenzie, Lount, Matthews, Lloyd, Morrison, Duncombe, and other actors in the rebellion. The planwas to march on Toronto, where it was notorious that no precautions fordefence were being taken, to seize the lieutenant-governor, to proclaima provisional government, and to declare the independence of theprovince unless Sir Francis should give a solemn promise to constitute aresponsible council. It is quite certain that Mackenzie entirelymisunderstood the sentiment of the country, and exaggerated the supportthat would be given to a disloyal movement. Lord Durham truly said thatthe insurrectionary movements which did take place were "indicative ofno deep rooted disaffection, " and that "almost the entire body of theReformers of the province sought only by constitutional means to obtainthose objects for which they had so long peacefully struggled beforethe unhappy troubles occasioned by the violence of a few unprincipledadventurers and heated enthusiasts. "

Despite the warnings that he was constantly receiving of the seditiousdoings of Mackenzie and his lieutenants, Sir Francis Bond Head could notbe persuaded an uprising was imminent. So complete was his fatuity thathe allowed all the regular troops to be withdrawn to Lower Canada at therequest of Sir John Colborne. Had he taken adequate measures for thedefence of Toronto, and showed he was prepared for any contingency, therising of Mackenzie's immediate followers would never have occurred. Hisapathy and negligence at this crisis actually incited an insurrection. The repulse of Gore at St. Denis on the 23rd November (p. 134) no doubthastened the rebellious movement in Upper Canada, and it was decided tocollect all available men and assemble at Montgomery's tavern, only fourmiles from Toronto by way of Yonge Street, the road connecting Torontowith Lake Simcoe. The subsequent news of the dispersion of the rebels atSt. Charles was very discouraging to Mackenzie and Lount, but they feltthat matters had proceeded too far for them to stop at that juncture. They still hoped to surprise Toronto and occupy it without muchdifficulty. A Colonel Moodie, who had taken part in the war of 1812-15, had heard of the march of the insurgents from Lake Simcoe, and wasriding rapidly to Toronto to warn the lieutenant-governor, when he wassuddenly shot down and died immediately. Sir Francis was unconscious ofdanger when he was aroused late at night by Alderman Powell, who hadbeen taken prisoner by the rebels but succeeded in making his escape andfinding his way to Government House. Sir Francis at last awoke from hislethargy and listened to the counsels of Colonel Fitzgibbon--the hero ofBeaver Dams in 1813--and other residents of Toronto, who had constantlyendeavoured to force him to take measures for the public security. Theloyal people of the province rallied with great alacrity to put down therevolt. The men of the western district of Gore came up in force, andthe first man to arrive on the scene was Allan MacNab, the son of aLoyalist and afterwards prime minister of Canada. A large and wellequipped force was at once organised under the command of ColonelFitzgibbon. 

The insurrection was effectually quelled on the 7th December atMontgomery's tavern by the militia and volunteer forces under ColonelFitzgibbon. The insurgents had at no time mustered more than eighthundred men, and in the engagement on the 7th there were only fourhundred, badly armed and already disheartened. In twenty minutes, orless time, the fight was over and the insurgents fled with the loss ofone man killed and several seriously wounded. The Loyalists, who did notlose a single man, took a number of prisoners, who were immediatelyreleased by the lieutenant-governor on condition of returning quietly totheir homes. Mackenzie succeeded in escaping across the Niagarafrontier, but Matthews was taken prisoner as he was leading a detachmentacross the Don into Toronto. Lount was identified at Chippewa whileattempting to find his way to the United States and brought back toToronto. Rolph, Gibson and Duncombe found a refuge in the republic, butVan Egmond, who had served under Napoleon, and commanded the insurgents, was arrested and died in prison of inflammatory rheumatism. Mr. Bidwellwas induced to fly from the province by the insidious representations ofthe lieutenant-governor, who used the fact of his flight as an argumentthat he had been perfectly justified in not appointing him to the Bench. In later years, the Canadian government, recognising the injustice Mr. Bidwell had received, offered him a judgeship, but he never could beinduced to return to Canada Mackenzie had definite grievances againstSir Francis and his party; and a British people, always ready tosympathise with men who resent injustice and assert principles ofpopular government, might have soon condoned the serious mistake he hadmade in exciting a rash revolt against his sovereign. But hisapologists can find no extenuating circumstances for his mad conduct instirring up bands of ruffians at Buffalo and other places on thefrontier to invade the province. The base of operations for these raidswas Navy Island, just above the Niagara Falls in British territory. Asmall steamer, "The Caroline, " was purchased from some Americans, andused to bring munitions of war to the island. Colonel MacNab was sent tothe frontier, and successfully organised an expedition of boats underthe charge of Captain Drew--afterwards an Admiral--to seize the steamerat Fort Schlosser, an insignificant place on the American side. Thecapture was successfully accomplished and the steamer set on fire andsent down the river, where she soon sank before reaching the cataract. Only one man was killed--one Durfee, a citizen of the United States. This audacious act of the Canadians was deeply resented in the republicas a violation of its territorial rights, and was a subject ofinternational controversy until 1842 when it was settled with otherquestions at issue between Great Britain and the United States. Mackenzie now disappeared for some years from Canadian history, as theUnited States authorities felt compelled to imprison him for a time. Itwas not until the end of 1838 that the people of the Canada were freefrom filibustering expeditions organised in the neighboring states. "Hunters' Lodges" were formed under the pledge "never to rest until alltyrants of Britain cease to have any dominion or footing whatever inNorth America. " These marauding expeditions on the exposed parts of thewestern frontier--especially on the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers--weresuccessfully resisted. At Prescott, a considerable body of persons, chiefly youths under age, under the leadership of Von Schoultz, a Pole, were beaten at the Old Stone Windmill, which they attempted to holdagainst a Loyalist force. At Sandwich, Colonel Prince, a conspicuousfigure in Canadian political history of later years, routed a band offilibusters, four of whom he ordered to instant death. This resolutedeed created some excitement in England, where it was condemned by someand justified by others. Canadians, who were in constant fear of suchraids, naturally approved of summary justice in the case of persons whowere really brigands, not entitled to any consideration under the lawsof war. 

In 1838 President Buren issued a proclamation calling upon all citizensof the United States to observe the neutrality laws; but the difficultyin those days was the indisposition of the federal government tointerfere with the states where such expeditions were organised. Thevigilance of the Canadian authorities and the loyalty of the peoplealone saved the country in these trying times. A great many of theraiders were taken prisoners and punished with the severity due to theirunjustifiable acts. Von Schoultz and eight others were hanged, a goodmany were pardoned, while others were transported to Van Diemen's Land, whence they were soon allowed to return. The names of these filibustersare forgotten, but those of Lount and Matthews, who perished on thescaffold, have been inscribed on some Canadian hearts as patriots. SirGeorge Arthur, who succeeded Sir Francis Head, was a soldier, who hadhad experience as a governor among the convicts of Van Diemen's Land, and the negro population of Honduras, where he had crushed a revolt ofslaves. Powerful appeals were made to him on behalf of Lount andMatthews, but not even the tears and prayers of Lount's distracted wifecould reach his heart. Such clemency as was shown by Lord Durham wouldhave been a bright incident in Sir George Arthur's career in Canada, buthe looked only to the approval of the Loyalists, deeply incensed againstthe rebels of 1837. His action in these two cases was regarded withdisapprobation in England, and the colonial minister expressed the hopethat no further executions would occur--advice followed in the case ofother actors of the revolt of 1837. Sir George Arthur's place incolonial annals is not one of high distinction. Like his predecessors, he became the resolute opponent of responsible government, which hedeclared in a despatch to be "Mackenzie's scheme for getting rid of whatMr. Hume called 'the baneful domination' of the mother country"; "andnever" he added, "was any scheme better devised to bring about such anend speedily". 

SECTION 3. --Social and economic conditions of the Provinces in 1838. 

We have now reached a turning-point in the political development of theprovinces of British North America, and may well pause for a moment toreview the social and economic condition of their people. Since thebeginning of the century there had been a large immigration into theprovinces, except during the war of 1812. In the nine years preceding1837, 263, 089 British and Irish immigrants arrived at Quebec, and in oneyear alone there were over 50, 000. By 1838 the population of the fiveprovinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick andPrince Edward Island had reached about 1, 400, 000 souls. In Upper Canada, with the exception of a very few people of German or Dutch descent, andsome French Canadians opposite Detroit and on the Ottawa River, therewas an entirely British population of at least 400, 000 souls. Thepopulation of Lower Canada was estimated at 600, 000, of whom hardlyone-quarter were of British origin, living chiefly in Montreal, theTownships, and Quebec. Nova Scotia had nearly 200, 000 inhabitants, ofwhom probably 16, 000 were French Acadians, resident in Cape Breton andin Western Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick there were at least 150, 000people, of whom some 15, 000 were descendants of the original inhabitantsof Acadie. The Island of Prince Edward had 30, 000 people, of whom theFrench Acadians made up nearly one-sixth. The total trade of the countryamounted, in round figures, to about £5, 000, 000 sterling in imports, and somewhat less in exports The imports were chiefly manufactures fromGreat Britain, and the exports were lumber, wheat and fish. Those weredays when colonial trade was stimulated by differential duties in favourof colonial products, and the building of vessels was encouraged by theold navigation laws which shut out foreign commerce from the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic ports, and kept the carrying trade betweenGreat Britain and the colonies in the hands of British and colonialmerchants, by means of British registered ships. While colonists couldnot trade directly with foreign ports, they were given a monopoly fortheir timber, fish, and provisions in the profitable markets of theBritish West Indies. 

The character of the immigration varied considerably, but on the wholethe thrifty and industrious formed the larger proportion. In 1833 theimmigrants deposited 300, 000 sovereigns, or nearly a million and a halfof dollars, in the Upper Canadian banks. An important influence in thesettlement of Upper Canada was exercised by one Colonel Talbot, thefounder of the county of Elgin. Mrs. Anna Jameson, the wife of avice-chancellor of Upper Canada, describes in her _Winter Studies andSummer Rambles_, written in 1838, the home of this great proprietor, aTalbot of Malahide, one of the oldest families in the parent state. Thechâteau--as she calls it, perhaps sarcastically--was a "long woodenbuilding, chiefly of rough logs, with a covered porch running along thesouth side. " Such homes as Colonel Talbot's were common enough in thecountry. Some of the higher class of immigrants, however, made effortsto surround themselves with some of the luxuries of the old world. Mrs. Jameson tells us of an old Admiral, who had settled in the Londondistrict--now the most prosperous agricultural part of Ontario--and hadthe best of society in his neighbourhood; "several gentlemen of family, superior education, and large capital (among them the brother of anEnglish and the son of an Irish peer, a colonel and a major in the army)whose estates were in a flourishing state. " The common characteristicof the Canadian settlements was the humble log hut of the poorimmigrant, struggling with axe and hoe amid the stumps to make a homefor his family. Year by year the sunlight was let into the denseforests, and fertile meadows soon stretched far and wide in the onceuntrodden wilderness. Despite all the difficulties of a pioneer's life, industry reaped its adequate rewards in the fruitful lands of the west, bread was easily raised in abundance, and animals of all kinds thrived. 

Unhappily the great bane of the province was the inordinate use ofliquor. "The erection of a church or chapel, " says Mrs. Jameson, "generally preceded that of a school-house in Upper Canada, but the milland the tavern invariably preceded both. " The roads were of the mostwretched character and at some seasons actually prohibitory of allsocial intercourse. The towns were small and ill-built. Toronto, longknown as "muddy little York, " had a population of about 10, 000, but withthe exception of the new parliament house, it had no public buildings ofarchitectural pretensions. The houses were generally of wood, a few ofstaring ugly red brick; the streets had not a single side-walk until1834, and in 1838 this comfort for the pedestrian was still exceptional. Kingston, the ancient Cataraqui, was even a better built town thanToronto, and had in 1838 a population of perhaps 4500 persons. Hamiltonand London were beginning to be places of importance. Bytown, nowOttawa, had its beginnings in 1826, when Colonel By of the RoyalEngineers, commenced the construction of the Rideau Canal on the chainof lakes and rivers between the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence at Kingston. The ambition of the people of Upper Canada was always to obtain acontinuous and secure system of water navigation from the lakes toMontreal. The Welland Canal between Lakes Erie and Ontario was commencedas early as 1824 through the enterprise of Mr. William Hamilton Merritt, but it was very badly managed; and the legislature, which had from yearto year aided the undertaking, was obliged eventually to acquire it asa provincial work. The Cornwall Canal was also undertaken, but work wasstopped when it was certain that Lower Canada would not respond to theaspirations of the West and improve that portion of the St. Lawrencewithin its direct control. Flat-bottomed _bateaux_ and Durham boats weregenerally in use for the carriage of goods on the inland waters, and itwas not until the completion of a canal system between the lakes andMontreal, after the Union, that steamers came into vogue. 

The province of Upper Canada had in 1838 reached a crisis in itsaffairs. In the course of the seven years preceding the rebellion, probably eighty thousand or one half of the immigrants, who had come tothe province, had crossed the frontier into the United States, wheregreater inducements were held out to capital and population. As Mrs. Jameson floated in a canoe, in the middle of the Detroit River, she sawon the one side "all the bustle of prosperity and commerce, " and on theother "all the symptoms of apathy, indolence, mistrust, hopelessness. "At the time such comparisons were made, Upper Canada was on the veryverge of bankruptcy. 

Turning to Lower Canada, we find that the financial position of theprovince was very different from that of Upper Canada. The publicaccounts showed an annual surplus, and the financial difficulties of theprovince were caused entirely by the disputes between the executive andthe assembly which would not vote the necessary supplies. The timbertrade had grown to large proportions and constituted the principalexport to Great Britain from Quebec, which presented a scene of muchactivity in the summer. Montreal was already showing its greatadvantages as a headquarters of commerce on account of its naturalrelations to the West and the United States. Quebec and Montreal hadeach about 35, 000 inhabitants. Travellers admitted that Montreal, onaccount of the solidity of its buildings, generally of stone, comparedmost favourably with many of the finest and oldest towns in the UnitedStates. The Parish Church of Notre Dame was the largest ecclesiasticaledifice in America, and notable for its simple grandeur. With itsancient walls girdling the heights first seen by Jacques Cartier, withits numerous churches and convents, illustrating the power and wealth ofthe Romish religion, with its rugged, erratic streets creeping throughhewn rock, with its picturesque crowd of red-coated soldiers of Englandmingling with priests and sisters in sombre attire, or with the_habitants_ in _étoffe du pays_, --the old city of Quebec, whose historywent back to the beginning of the seventeenth century, was certainly apiece of mediaevalism transported from northern France. The plain stonebuildings of 1837 still remain in all their evidences of sombreantiquity. None of the religious or government edifices weredistinguished for architectural beauty--except perhaps the Englishcathedral--but represented solidity and convenience, while harmonisingwith the rocks amid which they had risen. 

The parliament of Lower Canada still met in the Bishop's Palace, whichwas in want of repair. The old Château St. Louis had been destroyed byfire in 1834, and a terrace bearing the name of Durham was in course ofconstruction over its ruins. It now gives one of the most picturesqueviews in the world on a summer evening as the descending sun lights upthe dark green of the western hills, or brightens the tin spires androofs of the churches and convents, or lingers amid the masts of theships moored in the river or in the coves, filled with great rafts oftimber. 

As in the days of French rule, the environs of Quebec and Montreal, andthe north side of the St. Lawrence between these two towns, presentedFrench Canadian life in its most picturesque and favourable aspect. These settlements on the river formed one continuous village, withtinned spires rising every few miles amid poplars, maples and elms. While the homes of the seigniors and of a few professional men were morecommodious and comfortable than in the days of French rule, while thechurches and presbyteries illustrated the increasing prosperity of thedominant religion, the surroundings of the _habitants_ gave evidences oftheir want of energy and enterprise. But crime was rare in the ruraldistricts and intemperance was not so prevalent as in parts of the west. 

Nearly 150, 000 people of British origin resided in Lower Canada--aBritish people animated for the most part by that spirit of energynatural to their race. What prosperity Montreal and Quebec enjoyed ascommercial communities was largely due to the enterprise of Britishmerchants. The timber trade was chiefly in their hands, and the bank ofMontreal was founded by this class in 1817--seven years before the bankof Upper Canada was established in Toronto. As political strifeincreased in bitterness, the differences between the races becameaccentuated. Papineau alienated all the British by his determination tofound a "_Nation Canadienne_" in which the British would occupy a veryinferior place. "French and British, " said Lord Durham, "combined for nopublic objects or improvements, and could not harmonise even inassociations of charity. " The French Canadians looked with jealousy anddislike on the increase and prosperity of what they regarded as aforeign and hostile race. It is quite intelligible, then, why tradelanguished, internal development ceased, landed property decreased invalue, the revenue showed a diminution, roads and all classes of localimprovements were neglected, agricultural industry was stagnant, wheathad to be imported for the consumption of the people, and immigrationfell off from 52, 000 in 1832 to less than 5000 in 1838. 

In the maritime provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PrinceEdward Island, there were no racial antagonisms to affect internaldevelopment; and the political conflict never reached such proportionsas to threaten the peace and security of the people. In New Brunswickthe chief industry was the timber trade--deals especially--whichreceived its first stimulus in 1809, when a heavy duty was placed onBaltic timber, while that from the colonies came free into the BritishIsles. Shipbuilding was also profitably followed in New Brunswick, andwas beginning to be prosecuted in Nova Scotia, where, a few years later, it made that province one of the greatest ship-owning and ship-sailingcommunities of the world until iron steamers gradually drove woodenvessels from the carrying trade. The cod, mackerel, and herringfisheries--chiefly the first--were the staple industry of Nova Scotia, and kept up a large trade with the British West Indies, whence sugar, molasses and rum were imported. Prince Edward Island was chiefly anagricultural community, whose development was greatly retarded by thewholesale grant of lands in 1767 to absentee proprietors. Halifax andSt. John had each a population of twenty thousand. The houses weremostly of wood, the only buildings of importance being the governmenthouse, finished in 1805, and the provincial or parliament house, considered in its day one of the handsomest structures in North America. In the beautiful valleys of Kings and Annapolis--now famous for theirfruit--there was a prosperous farming population. Yarmouth illustratedthe thrift and enterprise of the Puritan element that came into theprovince from New England at an early date in its development. Theeastern counties, with the exception of Pictou, showed no sign ofprogress. The Scotch population of Cape Breton, drawn from a poor classof people in the north of Scotland, for years added nothing to thewealth of an island whose resources were long dormant from the absenceof capital and enterprise. 

Popular education in those days was at the lowest possible ebb. In 1837there were in all the private and public schools of the provinces onlyone-fifteenth of the total population. In Lower Canada not one-tenthcould write. The children of the _habitants_ repeated the Catechism byrote, and yet could not read as a rule. In Upper Canada things were nobetter. Dr. Thomas Rolph tells us that, so late as 1833, Americans orother anti-British adventurers carried on the greater proportion of thecommon schools, where the youth were taught sentiments "hostile to theparent state" from books used in the United States--a practice stoppedby statute in 1846. 

Adequate provision, however, was made for the higher education of youthin all the provinces. "I know of no people, " wrote Lord Durham of LowerCanada, "among whom a larger provision exists for the higher kinds ofelementary education. " The piety and benevolence of the early possessorsof the country founded seminaries and colleges, which gave an educationresembling the kind given in the English public schools, though morevaried. In Upper Canada, so early as 1807, grammar schools wereestablished by the government. By 1837 Upper Canada College--aninstitution still flourishing--offered special advantages to youthswhose parents had some money. In Nova Scotia King's College--the oldestuniversity in Canada--had its beginning as an academy as early as 1788, and educated many eminent men during its palmy days. Pictou Academy wasestablished by the Reverend Dr. McCulloch as a remonstrance against thesectarianism of King's; and the political history of the province waslong disturbed by the struggle of its promoters against the narrownessof the Anglicans, who dominated the legislative council, and frequentlyrejected the grant made by the assembly. Dalhousie College was foundedin 1820 by Lord Dalhousie, then governor of Nova Scotia, to afford thathigher education to all denominations which old King's denied. AcadiaCollege was founded by the Baptists at Wolfville, on a gently risingground overlooking the fertile meadows of Grand Pré. The foundations ofthe University of New Brunswick were laid in 1800. McGill University, founded by one of those generous Montreal merchants who have always beenits benefactors, received a charter in 1821, but it was not opened until1829. The Methodists laid the foundation of Victoria College at Cobourgin 1834, but it did not commence its work until after the Union; and thesame was the case with King's College, the beginning of the Universityof Toronto. 

We need not linger on the literary output of those early times. JosephBouchette, surveyor-general, had made in the first part of the century anotable contribution to the geography and cartography of Lower Canada. Major Richardson, who had served in the war of 1812 and in the Spanishpeninsula, wrote in 1833 "Wacousta or the Prophecy, " a spirited romanceof Indian life. In Nova Scotia the "Sayings and Doings of Sam Slick, ofSlickville"--truly a remarkable original creation in humorousliterature--first appeared in a Halifax paper. The author, JudgeHaliburton, also published as early as 1829 an excellent work in twovolumes on the history of his native province. Small libraries and bookstores could only be seen in the cities. 

In these early times of the provinces, when books and magazines wererarities, the newspaper press naturally exercised much influence on thesocial and intellectual conditions of the people at large. By 1838 therewere no less than forty papers printed in the province of Upper Canadaalone, some of them written with ability, though too often in a bitter, personal tone. In those days English papers did not circulate to anyextent in a country where postage was exorbitant. People could hardlyafford to pay postage rates on letters. The poor settler was oftenunable to pay the three or four shillings or even more, imposed onletters from their old homes across the sea; and it was not unusual tofind in country post-offices a large accumulation of dead letters, refused or neglected on account of the expense. The management of thepost-office by imperial officers was one of the grievances of the peopleof the provinces generally. It was carried on for the benefit of a fewpersons, and not for the convenience or solace of the many thousands whowere anxious for news of their kin across the ocean. 

CHAPTER VII. 

A NEW ERA OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENT (1839--1867). 

SECTION I. --The union of the Canadas and the establishment ofresponsible government. 

Lord Durham's report on the affairs of British North America waspresented to the British government on the 31st January, 1839, andattracted an extraordinary amount of interest in England, where the tworebellions had at last awakened statesmen to the absolute necessity ofproviding an effective remedy for difficulties which had been pressingupon their attention for years, but had never been thoroughly understooduntil the appearance of this famous state paper. A legislative union ofthe two Canadas and the concession of responsible government were thetwo radical changes which stood out prominently in the report amongminor suggestions in the direction of stable government. On the questionof responsible government Lord Durham expressed opinions of the deepestpolitical wisdom. He found it impossible "to understand how any Englishstatesman could have ever imagined that representative and irresponsiblegovernment could be successfully combined. .. . To suppose that such asystem would work well there, implied a belief that the French Canadianshave enjoyed representative institutions for half a century, withoutacquiring any of the characteristics of a free people; that Englishmenrenounce every political opinion and feeling when they enter a colony, or that the spirit of Anglo-Saxon freedom is utterly changed andweakened among those who are transplanted across the Atlantic[3]. "

[3: For the full text of Lord Durham's report, which was laid beforeParliament, 11 February, 1839, see _English Parliamentary Papers_ for1839. ]

In June, 1839, Lord John Russell introduced a bill to reunite the twoprovinces, but it was allowed, after its second reading, to lie over forthat session of parliament, in order that the matter might be fullyconsidered in Canada. Mr. Poulett Thomson was appointed governor-generalwith the avowed object of carrying out the policy of the imperialgovernment. Immediately after his arrival in Canada, in the autumn of1839, the special council of Lower Canada and the legislature of UpperCanada passed addresses in favour of a union of the two provinces. Thesenecessary preliminaries having been made, Lord John Russell, in thesession of 1840, again brought forward "An act to reunite the provincesof Upper and Lower Canada, and for the government of Canada, " which wasassented to on the 23rd of July, but did not come into effect until the10th of February in the following year. 

The act provided for a legislative council of not less than twentymembers, and for a legislative assembly in which each section of theunited provinces would be represented by an equal number ofmembers--that is to say, forty-two for each or eighty-four in all. Thenumber of representatives allotted to each province could not be changedexcept with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of each house. The members of the legislative council were appointed by the crown forlife, and the members of the assembly were chosen by electors possessinga small property qualification. Members of both bodies were required tohold property to a certain amount. The assembly had a duration of fouryears, subject of course to be sooner dissolved by the governor-general. 

Provision was made for a consolidated revenue fund, on which the firstcharges were expenses of collection, management and receipt of revenues, interest of public debt, payment of the clergy, and civil list. TheEnglish language alone was to be used in the legislative records. Allvotes, resolutions or bills involving the expenditure of public moneywere to be first recommended by the governor-general. 

The first parliament of the United Canadas was opened on the 14th June, 1841, in the city of Kingston, by the governor-general, who had beencreated Baron Sydenham of Sydenham and of Toronto. This session was thecommencement of a series of parliaments which lasted until theconfederation of all the provinces in 1867, and forcibly illustrated thecapacity of the people of Canada to manage their internal affairs. Forthe moment, I propose to refer exclusively to those political conditionswhich brought about responsible government, and the removal ofgrievances which had so long perplexed the imperial state and distractedthe whole of British North America. 

In Lord John Russell's despatches of 1839, --the sequence of LordDurham's report--we can clearly see the doubt in the minds of theimperial authorities whether it was possible to work the system ofresponsible government on the basis of a governor directly responsibleto the parent state, and at the same time acting under the advice ofministers who would be responsible to a colonial legislature. But thecolonial secretary had obviously come to the opinion that it wasnecessary to make a radical change which would insure greater harmonybetween the executive and the popular bodies of the provinces. HerMajesty, he stated emphatically, "had no desire to maintain any systemof policy among her North American subjects which opinion condemns", andthere was "no surer way of gaining the approbation of the Queen than bymaintaining the harmony of the executive with the legislativeauthorities. " The new governor-general was expressly appointed to carryout this new policy. If he was extremely vain, at all events he was alsoastute, practical, and well able to gauge the public sentiment by whichhe should be guided at so critical a period of Canadian history. Theevidence is clear that he was not individually in favour of responsiblegovernment, as it was understood by men like Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Howe, when he arrived in Canada. He believed that the council should be one"for the governor to consult and no more"; and voicing the doubts thatexisted in the minds of imperial statesmen, he added, the governor"cannot be responsible to the government at home" and also to thelegislature of the province, if it were so, "then all colonialgovernment becomes impossible. " The governor, in his opinion, "musttherefore be the minister [i. E. The colonial secretary], in which casehe cannot be under control of men in the colony. "

When the assembly met it was soon evident that the Reformers in thatbody were determined to have a definite understanding on theall-important question of responsible government; and the result wasthat the governor-general, a keen politician, immediately recognised thefact that, unless he yielded to the feeling of the majority, he wouldlose all his influence. There is every reason to believe that theresolutions which were eventually passed in favour of responsiblegovernment, in amendment to those moved by Mr. Baldwin, had his approvalbefore their introduction. The two sets of resolutions practicallydiffered little from each other, and the inference to be drawn from thepolitical situation of these times is that the governor's friends in thecouncil thought it advisable to gain all the credit possible with thepublic for the passage of resolutions on the all-absorbing question ofthe day, since it was obvious that it had to be settled in somesatisfactory and definite form. These resolutions embodying theprinciples of the new constitution of Canada, were as follows: (1) "Thatthe head of the executive government of the province, being within thelimits of his government the representative of the sovereign, isresponsible to the imperial authority alone, but that, nevertheless, themanagement of our local affairs can only be conducted by him with theassistance, counsel, and information of subordinate officers in theprovince. (2) That, in order to preserve between the different branchesof the provincial parliament that harmony which is essential to thepeace, welfare and good government of the province, the chief advisersof the representative of the sovereign, constituting a provincialadministration under him, ought to be men possessed of the confidence ofthe representatives of the people; thus affording a guarantee that thewell-understood wishes and interests of the people, which our gracioussovereign has declared shall be the rule of the provincial government, will on all occasions be faithfully represented and advocated. (3) Thatthe people of this province have, moreover, the right to expect fromsuch provincial administration, the exertion of their best endeavoursthat the imperial authority, within its constitutional limits, shall beexercised in the manner most consistent with their well-understoodwishes and interests. "

On the 4th September, 1841, Lord Sydenham met with a serious accidentwhile riding, and as his constitution had been impaired for years hedied a fortnight later, to the regret of all political parties. He wassucceeded by Sir Charles Bagot, a Conservative and High Churchman, whosebrief administration was notable for the display of infinite discretionon his part, and for his desire to do justice to the French Canadianseven at the risk of offending the ultra-loyal party, who claimed specialconsideration in the management of public affairs. Responsiblegovernment was in a fair way of being permanently established when SirCharles Bagot unhappily died in 1843 of dropsy, complicated byheart-disease; and Lord Metcalfe was brought from India to create--as itsoon appeared--confusion and discord in the political affairs of theprovince. His ideas of responsible government were those which had beensteadily inculcated by colonial secretaries since 1839, and were evenentertained by Lord Sydenham himself, namely, that the governor shouldbe as influential a factor as possible in the government, and shouldalways remember that he was directly responsible to the crown, andshould consider its prerogatives and interests as superior to all localconsiderations. 

When Lord Metcalfe assumed the responsibilities of his post, he found inoffice a Liberal administration, led by Mr. Baldwin, the eminent Reformleader of Upper Canada, and Mr. Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine, afterwardschief justice of Lower Canada and a baronet, who had been at the outset, like all his countrymen, opposed to the union, as unjust to theirprovince. What originally excited their antagonism were the conditionsexacted by the legislature of Upper Canada: an equality ofrepresentation, though the French section had a population of twohundred thousand more than the western province, the exclusion of theFrench language from the legislature, and the imposition of the heavydebt of Upper Canada on the revenues of the united provinces. But unlikeMr. Papineau, with whom he had acted during the political struggles inLower Canada, Mr. Lafontaine developed a high order of discreetstatesmanship after the union, and recognised the possibility of makingFrench Canada a force in government. He did not follow the example ofMr. John Neilson, who steadily opposed the union--but determined to workit out fairly and patiently on the principles of responsible government. 

Lord Metcalfe, at the very outset, decided not to distribute thepatronage of the crown under the advice of his responsible advisers, butto ignore them, as he declared, whenever he deemed it expedient. Noresponsible ministers could, with any regard to their own self-respect, or to the public interests, submit to a practice directly antagonisticto responsible government, then on its trial. Consequently, all themembers of the Baldwin-Lafontaine government, with the exception of Mr. Daly, immediately resigned, when Lord Metcalfe followed sounconstitutional a course. Mr. Dominick Daly, afterwards knighted whengovernor of Prince Edward's Island--who had no party proclivities, andwas always ready to support the crown in a crisis--became nominallyhead of a weak administration. The ministry was only completed after amost unconstitutional delay of several months, and was even then onlycomposed of men whose chief merit was their friendliness to thegovernor, who dissolved the assembly and threw all the weight of thecrown into the contest. The governor's party was returned with a verysmall majority, but it was a victory, like that of Sir Francis Bond Headin 1835, won at the sacrifice of the dignity of the crown, and at therisk of exciting once more public discontent to a dangerous degree. LordMetcalfe's administration was strengthened when Mr. Draper resigned hislegislative councillorship and took a seat in the assembly as leader. Lord Metcalfe's conduct received the approval of the imperialauthorities, who elevated him to the peerage--so much evidence that theywere not yet ready to concede responsible government in a completesense. The result was a return to the days of old paternal government, when the parliamentary opposition was directed against the governorhimself and the British government of which he was the organ. LordMetcalfe had been a sufferer from cancer, and when it appeared again inits most aggravated form he returned to England, where he died a fewmonths later (1846). The abuse that followed him almost to the grave wasa discreditable exhibition of party rancour, but it indicated thecondition to which the public mind had been brought by his unwise andunconstitutional conduct of public affairs--conduct for which his onlyapology must be the half-hearted, doubtful policy of the imperialauthorities with regard to the province, and his own inability tounderstand the fundamental principles of responsible government. 

Lord Metcalfe's successor was Lord Cathcart, who had served withdistinction in the Peninsular War, and was appointed with a view tocontingencies that might arise out of the dispute between England andthe United States on the Oregon boundary question, to which I shallrefer in another chapter. He pursued a judicious course at a time whenpolitics were complicated by the fact that the industry and commerce ofthe country were seriously deranged by the adoption of free trade inEngland, and the consequent removal of duties which had given thepreference in the British market to Canadian wheat, flour and otherproducts. What aggravated the commercial situation was the fact that thenavigation laws, being still in force, closed the St. Lawrence toforeign shipping and prevented the extension of trade to other marketsso as to compensate Canadians for the loss of that with the parentstate. Lord Cathcart was recalled within less than a year, when allprospect of war with the United States had disappeared, and was followed(1847) by a civil governor, the Earl of Elgin, who was chosen by theWhig ministry, in which Lord John Russell was prime minister, and EarlGrey the secretary of state for the colonies. It had dawned upon Englishstatesmen that the time had come for giving the colonists of BritishNorth America a system of responsible government without such reservesas had so seriously shackled its beginnings. In all probability theythought that the free-trade policy of England had momentarily weakenedthe ties that had bound the colonies to the parent state, and that itwas advisable to follow up the new commercial policy by removing causesof public discontent in the province. 

Lord Elgin was happily chosen to inaugurate a new era of colonialself-government. Gifted with a judicial mind and no ordinary amount ofpolitical sagacity, able to originate as well as carry out astatesmanlike policy, animated, like Lord Durham--whose daughter he hadmarried--by a sincere desire to give full scope to the aspirations ofthe people for self-government, so far as compatible with the supremacyof the crown, possessed of eloquence which at once charmed andconvinced, Lord Elgin was able to establish on sure foundations theprinciples of responsible government, and eventually to leave Canadawith the conviction that no subsequent representative of the crowncould again impair its efficient operation, and convulse the publicmind, as Lord Metcalfe had done. On his arrival he gave his confidenceto the Draper ministry, who were still in office; but shortly afterwardsits ablest member was elevated to the bench, and Mr. Sherwood becameattorney-general and head of a government, chiefly interesting now forthe fact that one of its members was Mr. John Alexander Macdonald, who, on becoming a member of the assembly in 1844, had commenced a publiccareer which made him one of the most notable figures in the history ofthe colonial empire of England. 

Parliament was dissolved, and the elections were held in January, 1848, when the government were defeated by a large majority and the secondLafontaine-Baldwin ministry was formed; a ministry conspicuous for theability of its members, and the useful character of its legislationduring the four years it remained in power. It is noteworthy here thatLord Elgin did not follow the example of his predecessors and select theministers himself, but followed the strict constitutional usage ofcalling upon Mr. Lafontaine as a recognised leader of a party inparliament to form a government. It does not fall within the scope ofthis chapter to go into the merits of this great administration, whosecoming into office may be considered the crowning of the principlesadopted by Lord Elgin for the unreserved concession of responsiblegovernment, and never violated from that time forward by any governor ofCanada. 

We must now direct our attention to the maritime provinces, that we maycomplete this review of the progress of responsible government inBritish North America. In 1836 the revenues of New Brunswick had beenplaced at the disposal of the legislature, and administrative powerentrusted to those who possessed the confidence of the assembly. Thelieutenant-governor, Sir John Harvey, who had distinguished himself inthe war of 1812-15, recognised in Lord John Russell's despatches "a newand improved constitution, " and by an official memorandum informed theheads of departments that "thenceforward their offices would be held bythe tenure of public confidence"; but after his departure (in 1841) anattempt was made by Sir William Colebrooke to imitate the example ofLord Metcalfe. He appointed to the provincial secretaryship a Mr. Reade, who had been only a few months in the province, and never represented aconstituency or earned promotion in the public service. The members ofthe executive council were never consulted, and four of the most popularand influential councillors soon resigned. One of them, Mr. Lemuel A. Wilmot, the recognised leader of the Liberals, addressed a strongremonstrance to the lieutenant-governor, and vindicated those principlesof colonial government "which require the administration to be conductedby heads of departments responsible to the legislature, and holdingtheir offices contingently upon the approbation and confidence of thecountry, as expressed through the representatives of the people. " Thecolonial secretary of state disapproved of the action of thelieutenant-governor, and constitutional government was strengthened inthis province of the Loyalists. From that time there was a regularlyorganised administration and an opposition contending for office andpopular favour. 

In Nova Scotia a despatch from Lord Glenelg brought to a close in 1838the agitation which had been going on for years for a separation of theexecutive from the legislative functions of the legislative council, andthe formation of two distinct bodies in accordance with the existingEnglish system. In this state paper--the first important step towardsresponsible government in the province--the secretary of state, LordGlenelg, stated that it was her Majesty's pleasure that neither thechief justice nor any of his colleagues should sit in the council, thatall the judges should entirely withdraw from all political discussions;that the assembly's claim to control and appropriate all the revenuesarising in the province should be fully recognised by the government;that the two councils should be thereafter divided, and that the membersof these bodies should be drawn from different parts of theprovince--Halifax previously having obtained all the appointments exceptone or two--and selected without reference to distinctions of religiousopinions. Unfortunately for Nova Scotia there was at that time at thehead of the executive a brave, obstinate old soldier, Sir ColinCampbell, who had petrified ideas on the subject of colonialadministration, and showed no disposition to carry out the obviousdesire of the imperial authorities to give a more popular form to thegovernment of the province. One of his first official acts was to giveto the Anglican Church a numerical superiority to which it had no validclaim. As in Upper Canada, at that time, there was a combination orcompact, composed of descendants of English Tories or of the Loyalistsof 1783, who belonged to the Anglican Church, and were opposed topopular government. Two men were now becoming most prominent inpolitics. One of these was Mr. James William Johnston, the son of aGeorgia Loyalist, an able lawyer, gifted with a persuasive tongue whichchimed most harmoniously with the views of Sir Colin. On the other sidewas Mr. Joseph Howe, the son of a Loyalist printer of Boston, who had nosuch aristocratic connections as Mr. Johnston, and soon became thedominant influence in the Reform party, which had within its ranks suchable and eloquent men as S. G. W. Archibald, Herbert Huntington, LawrenceO'Connor Doyle, William and George R. Young, and, very soon, James BoyleUniacke. Sir Colin Campbell completely ignored the despatches of LordJohn Russell, which were recognised by Sir John Harvey as conferring "animproved constitution" upon the colonies. In February, 1840, Mr. Howemoved a series of resolutions, in which it was emphatically stated that"no satisfactory settlement of questions before the country could beobtained until the executive council was remodelled, " and that, as thenconstituted, "it did not enjoy the confidence of the country. " Themotion was carried by a majority of eighteen votes, in a house offorty-two members, and indeed, so untenable was the position of theexecutive council that Mr. James Boyle Uniacke, a member of thegovernment, retired, rather than vote, and subsequently placed hisresignation in the hands of the lieutenant-governor, on the ground thatit was his duty to yield to the opinions of the representative house, and facilitate the introduction of a better system of government, inaccordance with the well-understood wishes of the people. From that timeMr. Uniacke became one of Mr. Howe's ablest allies in the struggle forself-government. Sir Colin, however, would not recede from the attitudehe had assumed, but expressed the opinion, in his reply to the addressof the legislature, that he could not recognise in the despatch of thecolonial secretary of state "any instruction for a fundamental change inthe colonial constitution. " The assembly then prayed her Majesty, in apowerful and temperate address, to recall Sir Colin Campbell. ThoughLord John Russell did not present the address to the Queen, the imperialgovernment soon afterwards appointed Lord Falkland to succeed Sir ColinCampbell, whose honesty of purpose had won the respect of all parties. 

Lord Falkland was a Whig, a lord of the bedchamber, and married to oneof the Fitzclarences--a daughter of William IV and Mrs. Jordan. Hearrived at Halifax in September, 1840, and his first political act wasin the direction of conciliating the Liberals, who were in the majorityin the assembly. He dismissed--to the disgust of the officialparty--four members of the executive who had no seats in either branchof the legislature, and induced Mr. Howe and Mr. James MacNab to enterthe government, on the understanding that other Liberals would bebrought in according as vacancies occurred, and that the members of thecouncil should hold their seats only upon the tenure of publicconfidence. A dissolution took place, the coalition government wassustained, and the Liberals came into the assembly with a majority. Mr. Howe was elected speaker of the assembly, though an executivecouncillor--without salary; but he and others began to recognise theimpropriety of one man occupying such positions, and in a later sessiona resolution was passed against the continuance of what was really anun-British and unconstitutional practice. It was also an illustration ofthe ignorance that prevailed as to the principles that should guide thewords and acts of a cabinet, that members of the executive, who hadseats in the legislative council, notably Mr. Stewart, stated openly, incontradiction of the assertions of Mr. Howe and his Liberal colleagues, that "no change had been made in the constitution of the country, andthat responsible government in a colony was responsible nonsense, andmeant independence. " It was at last found necessary to give some sort ofexplanation of such extraordinary opinions, to avert a political crisisin the assembly. Then, to add to the political embarrassment, there wasbrought before the people the question of abandoning the practice ofendowing denominational colleges, and of establishing in their place onelarge non-sectarian University. At this time the legislature votedannual grants to five sectarian educational institutions of a highclass. The most important were King's College, belonging to the AnglicanChurch, and Acadia College, supported by the Baptists. The AnglicanChurch was still influential in the councils of the province, and theBaptists had now the support of Mr. Johnston, the able attorney-general, who had seceded from the Church of England. This able lawyer andpolitician had won the favour of the aristocratic governor, andpersuaded him to dissolve the assembly, during the absence of Mr. Howein the country, though it had continuously supported the government, andthe people had given no signs of a want of confidence in the house asthen constituted. The fact was, Mr. Johnston and his friends in thecouncil thought it necessary to lose no time in arousing the feelings ofthe supporters of denominational colleges against Mr. Howe and otherLiberals, who had commenced to hold meetings throughout the country infavour of a non-sectarian University. The two parties came back fromthe electors almost evenly divided, and Mr. Howe had an interview withLord Falkland. He consented to remain in the cabinet until the assemblyhad an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question at issue, when the governor himself precipitated a crisis by appointing to theexecutive and legislative councils Mr. M. B. Almon, a wealthy banker, anda brother-in-law of the attorney-general. Mr. Howe and Mr. MacNab atonce resigned their seats in the government on the ground that Mr. Almon's appointment was a violation of the compact by which two Liberalshad been induced to join the ministry, and was most unjust to the fortyor fifty gentlemen who, in both branches, had sustained theadministration for several years. Instead of authorising Mr. Johnston tofill the two vacancies and justify the course taken by the governor, thelatter actually published a letter in a newspaper, in which he boldlystated that he was entirely opposed to the formation of a governmentcomposed of individuals of one political party, that he would steadilyresist any invasion of the royal prerogatives with respect toappointments, and that he had chosen Mr. Almon, not simply on the groundthat he had not been previously engaged in political life to any extent, but chiefly because he wished to show his own confidence in Mr. Johnston, Mr. Almon's brother-in-law. Lord Falkland had obviously thrownhimself into the arms of the astute attorney-general and his politicalfriends. 

It was now a political war _à outrance_ between Lord Falkland and Mr. Howe, from 1842 until the governor left the province in 1846. LordFalkland made strenuous efforts to detach Mr. MacNab, Mr. Uniacke andother Liberals from Mr. Howe, and induce them to enter the government, but all to no purpose. He now gave up writing letters to the press, andattacked his opponents in official communications addressed to thecolonial office, which supported him, as it did Lord Metcalfe, underanalogous circumstances. These despatches were laid without delay onthe tables of the houses, to be used far and wide against therecalcitrant Liberals. Mr. Howe had again renewed his connection withthe press, which he had left on becoming speaker and councillor, and hadbecome editor of the _Nova Scotian_, and the _Morning Chronicle_, ofwhich Mr. Annand was the proprietor. In these influential organs of theLiberal party--papers still in existence--Mr. Howe attacked LordFalkland, both in bitter prose and sarcastic verse. All this while thegovernor and his council contrived to control the assembly, sometimes bytwo or three votes, sometimes by a prorogation when it was necessary todispose summarily of a troublesome question. Public opinion began to setin steadily against the government. The controversy between LordFalkland and Mr. Howe reached its climax on the 21st February, 1846, when a despatch was brought down to the house, referring to the speaker, Mr. William Young, and his brother, George R. Young, as the associatesof "reckless" and "insolvent" men--the reference being to Mr. Howe andhis immediate political friends. When the despatch had been read, Mr. Howe became greatly excited, and declared amid much disorder that if"the infamous system" of libelling respectable colonists in despatchessent to the colonial office was continued, "without their having anymeans of redress . .. Some colonist would by-and-by, or he was muchmistaken, hire a black fellow to horsewhip a lieutenant-governor. "

It was time that this unhappy conflict should end. The imperialauthorities wisely transferred Lord Falkland to Bombay, where he coulddo no harm, and appointed Sir John Harvey to the government of NovaScotia. Like Lord Elgin in Canada, he was discreetly chosen by theReform ministry, as the sequel showed. He was at first in favour of acoalition government like his predecessors, but he wisely dissolved theassembly when he found that the leading Liberals positively refused togo into an alliance with the members of the executive council, or anyother set of men, until the people had decided between parties at thepolls. The result was a victory for the Liberals, and as soon as theassembly met a direct motion of want of confidence was carried againstthe government, and for the first time in the history of the country thegovernor called to his council men exclusively belonging to theopposition in the popular branch. Mr. Howe was not called upon to form acabinet--his quarrel with Lord Falkland had to be resented somehow--butthe governor's choice was Mr. James Boyle Uniacke, who gave a prominentposition in the new government to the great Liberal, to whom responsiblegovernment owed its final success in this maritime province. 

Responsible government was not introduced into Prince Edward Islanduntil 1851, when an address on the prosperous state of the island waspresented to the imperial authorities, who at once consented to concederesponsible government on the condition that adequate provision was madefor certain public officers affected by the new order of things. Theleader of the new government was the Honourable George Coles. 

In the history of the past there is much to deplore, the blunders ofEnglish ministers, the want of judgment on the part of governors, theselfishness of "family compacts, " the arrogance of office-holders, therecklessness of Canadian politicians. But the very trials of the crisisthrough which Canada passed brought out the fact, that if Englishstatesmen had mistaken the spirit of the Canadian people, and had notalways taken the best methods of removing grievances, it was not fromany studied disposition to do these countries an injustice, but ratherbecause they were unable to see until the very last moment that, even ina colony, a representative system must be worked in accordance withthose principles that obtained in England, and that it was impossible todirect the internal affairs of dependencies many thousand miles distantthrough a colonial office, generally managed by a few clerks. 

Of all the conspicuous figures of these memorable times, which alreadyseem so far away from Canadians of the present day, who possess so manypolitical rights, there are several who stand out more prominently thanall others, and represent the distinct types of politicians, whoinfluenced the public mind during the first half of the nineteenthcentury, when responsible government was in slow process of evolutionfrom the political struggles which arose in the operation ofrepresentative institutions. Around the figure of Louis Joseph Papineauthere has always been a sort of glamour which has helped to conceal hisvanity, his rashness and his want of political sagacity, which would, under any circumstances, have prevented his success as a safe statesman, capable of guiding a people through a trying ordeal. His eloquence wasfervid and had much influence over his impulsive countrymen, hissincerity was undoubted, and in all likelihood his very indiscretionsmade more palpable the defects of the political system against which heso persistently and so often justly declaimed. He lived to see hiscountrymen enjoy power and influence under the very union which theyresented, and to find himself no longer a leader among men, but isolatedfrom a great majority of his own people, and representing a past whosemethods were antagonistic to the new régime that had grown up since1838. It would have been well for his reputation had he remained inobscurity on his return from exile in 1847, when he and other rebels of1837 were wisely pardoned, and had he never stood again on the floor ofthe parliament of Canada, as he did from 1848 until 1854, since he couldonly prove, in those later times, that he had never understood the trueworking of responsible government. While the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministrywere in power, he revived an agitation for an elective legislativecouncil and declared himself utterly hostile to responsible government;but his influence was at an end in the country, and he could make littleimpression on the assembly. The days of reckless agitation had passed, and the time for astute and calm statesmanship had come. Lafontaine andMorin were now safer political guides for his countrymen. He soondisappeared entirely from public view, and in the solitude of hispicturesque château, amid the groves that overhang the Ottawa River, only visited from time to time by a few staunch friends, or by curioustourists who found their way to that quiet spot, he passed the remainderof his days with a tranquillity in wondrous contrast to the stormy andeventful drama of his life. The writer often saw his noble, dignifiedfigure--erect even in age--passing unnoticed on the streets of Ottawa, when perhaps at the same time there were strangers, walking through thelobbies of the parliament house, asking for his portrait. 

William Lyon Mackenzie is a far less picturesque figure in Canadianhistory than Papineau, who possessed an eloquence of tongue and a graceof demeanour which were not the attributes of the little peppery, undignified Scotchman who, for a few years, played so important a partin the English-speaking province. With his disinterestedness andunselfishness, with his hatred of political injustice and oppression, Canadians who remember the history of the constitutional struggles ofEngland will always sympathise. Revolt against absolutism and tyranny ispermissible in the opinion of men who love political freedom, but theconditions of Upper Canada were hardly such as justified the rashinsurrection into which he led his deluded followers, many to misery andsome to death. Mackenzie lived long enough to regret these sad mistakesof a reckless period of his life, and to admit that "the success of therebellion would have deeply injured the people of Canada, " whom hebelieved he was then serving, and that it was the interest of theCanadian people to strengthen in every way the connection with England. Like Papineau, he returned to Canada in 1849 to find himself entirelyunequal to the new conditions of political life, where a largeconstitutional knowledge, a spirit of moderation and a statesmanlikeconduct could alone give a man influence in the councils of his country. One historian has attempted to elevate Dr. Rolph at his expense, but acareful study of the career of those two actors will lead fair-mindedreaders to the conclusion that even the reckless course followed at thelast by Mackenzie was preferable to the double-dealing of his moreastute colleague. Dr. Rolph came again into prominence as one of thefounders of the Clear Grits, who formed in 1849 an extreme branch of theReform party. Dr. Rolph's qualities ensured him success in politicalintrigue, and he soon became a member of the Hincks-Morin government, which was formed on the reconstruction of the Lafontaine-Baldwinministry in 1851, when its two moderate leaders were practically pushedaside by men more in harmony with the aggressive elements of the Reformparty. But Mr. Mackenzie could never win such triumphs as were won byhis wily and more manageable associate of old times. He published anewspaper--_The Weekly Message_--replete with the eccentricities of theeditor, but it was never a financial success, while his career in theassembly from 1851 until 1858 only proved him almost a nullity in publicaffairs. Until his death in 1861 his life was a constant fight withpoverty, although his closing years were somewhat soothed by the gift ofa homestead. He might have received some public position which wouldhave given him comfort and rest, but he would not surrender what hecalled his political freedom to the men in office, who, he believed, wished to purchase his silence--the veriest delusion, as his influencehad practically disappeared with his flight to the United States. 

Joseph Howe, unlike the majority of his compeers who struggled forpopular rights, was a prominent figure in public life until the veryclose of his career in 1873. All his days, even when his spirit wassorely tried by the obstinacy and indifference of some Englishministers, he loved England, for he knew--like the Loyalists, from oneof whom he sprung--it was in her institutions, after all, his countrycould best find prosperity and happiness. It is an interesting factthat, among the many able essays and addresses which the question ofimperial federation has drawn forth, none can equal his great speech onthe consolidation of the empire in eloquence, breadth, and fervour. Ofall the able men Nova Scotia has produced no one has surpassed thatgreat tribune of the people in his power to persuade and delight themasses by his oratory. Yet, strange to say, his native province hasnever raised a monument to his memory. 

One of the most admirable figures in the political history of theDominion was undoubtedly Robert Baldwin. Compared with other popularleaders of his generation, he was calm in council, unselfish in motive, and moderate in opinion. If there is any significance in the politicalphrase "Liberal-Conservative, " it could be applied with justiceto him. The "great ministry, " of which he and Louis HippolyteLafontaine--afterwards a baronet and chief justice--were the leaders, left behind it many monuments of broad statesmanship, and made a deepimpression on the institutions of the country. In 1851 he resigned fromthe Reform ministry, of which he had been the Upper Canadian leader, inconsequence of a vote of the Reformers of that province adverse to thecontinuance of the court of chancery, the constitution of which had beenimproved chiefly by himself. When he presented himself as a candidatebefore his old constituency he was defeated by a nominee of the ClearGrits, who were then, as always, pressing their opinions with greatvehemence and hostility to all moderate men. He illustrated the ficklecharacter of popular favour, when a man will not surrender hisprinciples and descend to the arts of the politician. He lived until1858 in retirement, almost forgotten by the people for whom he hadworked so fearlessly and sincerely. 

In New Brunswick the triumph of responsible government must always beassociated with the name of Lemuel A. Wilmot, the descendant ofa famous United Empire Loyalist stock, afterwards a judge and alieutenant-governor of his native province. He was in some respects themost notable figure, after Joseph Howe and J. W. Johnston, the leadersof the Liberal and Conservative parties in Nova Scotia, in that famousbody of public men who so long brightened the political life of themaritime provinces. But neither those two leaders nor theirdistinguished compeers, James Boyle Uniacke, William Young, JohnHamilton Gray and Charles Fisher, all names familiar to students of NovaScotia and New Brunswick history, surpassed Mr. Wilmot in that magneticeloquence which carries an audience off its feet, in versatility ofknowledge, in humorous sarcasm, and in conversational gifts, which madehim a most interesting personality in social life. He impressed hisstrong individuality upon his countrymen until the latest hour of hisuseful career. 

In Prince Edward Island, the name most intimately connected with thestruggle for responsible government is that of George Coles, who, despite the absence of educational and social advantages in his youth, eventually triumphed over all obstacles, and occupied a most prominentposition by dint of unconquerable courage and ability to influence theopinions of the great mass of people. 

SECTION 2. --Results of self-government from 1841 to 1864. 

The new colonial policy, adopted by the imperial government immediatelyafter the presentation of Lord Durham's report, had a remarkable effectupon the political and social development of the British North Americanprovinces during the quarter of a century that elapsed between the unionof the Canadas in 1841 and the federal union of 1867. In 1841 Mr. Harrison, provincial secretary of the upper province in the coalitiongovernment formed by Lord Sydenham, brought in a measure which laid thefoundations of the elaborate system of municipal institutions which theCanadian provinces now enjoy. In 1843 Attorney-General Lafontainepresented a bill "for better serving the independence of the legislativeassembly of this province, " which became law in 1844 and formed thebasis of all subsequent legislation in Canada. 

The question of the clergy reserves continued for some years after theunion to perplex politicians and harass governments. At last in 1854 theHincks government was defeated by a combination of factions, and theLiberal-Conservative party was formed out of the union of theConservatives and the moderate Reformers. Sir Allan MacNab was theleader of this coalition government, but the most influential member wasMr. John A. Macdonald, then attorney-general of Upper Canada, whosefirst important act was the settlement of the clergy reserves. Reformministers had for years evaded the question, and it was now left to agovernment, largely composed of men who had been Tories in the earlypart of their political career, to yield to the force of public opinionand take it out of the arena of political agitation by means oflegislation which handed over this property to the municipalcorporations of the province for secular purposes, and at the same timemade a small endowment for the protection of the clergy who had legalclaims on the fund. The same government had also the honour of removingthe old French seigniorial system, recognised to be incompatible withthe modern condition of a country of free government, and injurious tothe agricultural development of the province at large. The question waspractically settled in 1854, when Mr. Drummond, then attorney-generalfor Lower Canada, brought in a bill providing for the appointment of acommission to ascertain the amount of compensation that could be fairlyasked by the seigniors for the cession of their seigniorial rights. Theseigniors, from first to last, received about a million of dollars, andit also became necessary to revise those old French laws which affectedthe land tenure of Lower Canada. Accordingly in 1856 Mr. George Cartier, attorney-general for Lower Canada in the Taché-Macdonald ministry, introduced the legislation necessary for the codification of the civillaw. In 1857 Mr. Spence, post-master-general in the same ministry, brought in a measure to organise the civil service, on whose characterand ability so much depends in the working of parliamentaryinstitutions. From that day to this the Canadian government haspractically recognised the British principle of retaining publicofficers without reference to a change of political administration. 

Soon after the union the legislating obtained full control of the civillist and the post-office. The last tariff framed by the imperialparliament for British North America was mentioned in the speech at theopening of the Canadian legislature in 1842. In 1846 the Britishcolonies in America were authorised by an imperial statute to reduce orrepeal by their own legislation duties imposed by imperial acts uponforeign goods imported from foreign countries into the colonies inquestion. Canada soon availed herself of this privilege, which wasgranted to her as the logical sequence of the free-trade policy of GreatBritain, and, from that time to the present, she has been enabled tolegislate very freely with regard to her own commercial interests. In1849 the imperial parliament repealed the navigation laws, and allowedthe river St. Lawrence to be used by vessels of all nations. With therepeal of laws, the continuance of which had seriously crippled Canadiantrade after the adoption of free trade by England, the provincesgradually entered on a new career of industrial enterprise. 

No part of the constitution of 1840 gave greater offence to the FrenchCanadian population than the clause restricting the use of the Frenchlanguage in the legislature. It was considered as a part of the policy, foreshadowed in Lord Durham's report, to denationalise, if possible, theFrench Canadian province. The repeal of the clause, in 1848, was oneevidence of the harmonious operation of the union, and of a betterfeeling between the two sections of the population. Still later, provision was made for the gradual establishment of an electivelegislative council, so long and earnestly demanded by the oldlegislature of Lower Canada. 

The members of the Lafontaine-Baldwin government became the legislativeexecutors of a troublesome legacy left to them by a Conservativeministry. In 1839 acts had been passed by the special council of LowerCanada and the legislature of Upper Canada to compensate the loyalinhabitants of those provinces for the loss they had sustained duringthe rebellions. In the first session of the union parliament the UpperCanadian act was amended, and money voted to reimburse all persons inUpper Canada whose property had been unnecessarily, or wantonly, destroyed by persons acting, or pretending to act, on behalf of thecrown. An agitation then commenced for the application of the sameprinciple to Lower Canada, and in 1845 commissioners were appointed bythe Draper administration to inquire into the nature and value of thelosses suffered by her Majesty's loyal subjects in Lower Canada. Whentheir report was presented in favour of certain claims the Draperministry brought in some legislation on the subject, but went out ofoffice before any action could be taken thereon. The Lafontaine-Baldwingovernment then determined to set the question at rest, and introducedlegislation for the issue of debentures to the amount of $400, 000 forthe payment of losses sustained by persons who had not been convictedof, or charged with, high treason or other offences of a treasonablenature, or had been committed to the custody of the sheriff in the gaolof Montreal and subsequently transported to the island of Bermuda. Although the principle of this measure was fully justified by the actionof the Tory Draper government, extreme Loyalists and even some Reformersof Upper Canada declaimed against it in the most violent terms, and afew persons even declared that they would prefer annexation to theUnited States to the payment of the rebels. The bill, however, passedthe legislature by a large majority, and received the crown's assentthrough Lord Elgin on the 25th April, 1849. A large crowd immediatelyassembled around the parliament house--formerly the St. Anne MarketHouse--and insulted the governor-general by opprobrious epithets, and bythrowing missiles at him as he drove away to Monklands, his residence inthe country. The government and members of the legislature appear tohave been unconscious of the danger to which they were exposed until agreat crowd rushed into the building, which was immediately destroyed byfire with its fine collection of books and archives. A few days later, when the assembly, then temporarily housed in the hall of BonsecoursMarket, attempted to present an address to Lord Elgin, he was inimminent danger of his life while on his way to the governmenthouse--then the old Château de Ramesay in Nôtre-Dame Street--and theconsequences might have been most serious had he not evaded the mob onhis return to Monklands. This disgraceful affair was a remarkableillustration not simply of the violence of faction, but largely of thediscontent then so prevalent in Montreal and other industrial centres, on account of the commercial policy of Great Britain, which seriouslycrippled colonial trade and was the main cause of the creation of asmall party which actually advocated for a short time annexation to theUnited States as preferable to the existing state of things. The resultwas the removal of the seat of government from Montreal, and theestablishment of a nomadic system of government by which the legislaturemet alternately at Toronto and Quebec every five years until Ottawa waschosen by the Queen as a permanent political capital. Lord Elgin felthis position keenly, and offered his resignation to the imperialgovernment, but they refused to entertain it, and his course as aconstitutional governor under such trying circumstances was approved byparliament. 

The material condition of the provinces--especially of Upper Canada, which now became the first in population and wealth--kept pace with therapid progress of the people in self-government. The population of thefive provinces had increased from about 1, 500, 000, in 1841, to about3, 200, 000 when the census was taken in 1861 The greatest increase hadbeen in the province of Upper Canada, chiefly in consequence of thelarge immigration which flowed into the country from Ireland, where thepotato rot had caused wide-spread destitution and misery. The populationof this province had now reached 1, 396, 091, or nearly 300, 000 more thanthe population of Lower Canada--an increase which, as I shall show inthe next chapter, had important effects on the political conditions ofthe two provinces. The eastern or maritime provinces received but asmall part of the yearly immigration from Europe, and even that wasbalanced by an exodus to the United States. Montreal had a population of100, 000, or double that of Quebec, and was now recognised as thecommercial capital of British North America. Toronto had reached 60, 000, and was making more steady progress in population and wealth than anyother city, except Montreal. Towns and villages were springing up withgreat rapidity in the midst of the enterprising farming population ofthe western province. In Lower Canada the townships showed the energy ofa British people, but the _habitants_ pursued the even tenor of wayswhich did not include enterprise and improved methods of agriculture. 

The value of the total exports and imports of the provinces reached$150, 000, 000 by 1864, or an increase of $100, 000, 000 in a quarter of acentury. The great bulk of the import trade was with Great Britain andthe United States, but the value of the exports to the United States waslargely in excess of the goods purchased by Great Britain--especiallyafter 1854, when Lord Elgin arranged a reciprocity treaty with theUnited States. Lord Elgin represented Great Britain in the negotiationsat Washington, and the Congress of the United States and the severallegislatures of the Canadian provinces passed the legislation necessaryto give effect to the treaty. Its most important provisions establishedfree trade between British North America and the United States inproducts of the forest, mine, and sea, conceded the navigation of theSt. Lawrence to the Americans, and the use of the canals of Canada onthe same terms as were imposed upon British subjects, gave Canadians theright to navigate Lake Michigan, and allowed the fishermen of the UnitedStates to fish on the sea-coasts of the British provinces withoutregard to distance from the shore, in return for a similar butrelatively worthless privilege on the eastern shores of the republic, north of the 30th parallel of north latitude. During the thirteen yearsthe treaty lasted the trade between the two countries rose from overthirty-three million dollars in 1854 to over eighty million dollars in1866, when it was repealed by the action of the United States governmentitself, for reasons which I shall explain in a later chapter. 

The navigation of the St. Lawrence was now made continuous and secure bythe enlargement of the Welland and Lachine canals, and the constructionof the Cornwall, Williamsburgh, and Beauharnois canals. Railwaysreceived their great stimulus during the government of Sir FrancisHincks, who largely increased the debt of Canada by guaranteeing in 1852the bonds of the Grand Trunk Railway--a noble, national work, nowextending from Quebec to Lake Michigan, with branches in everydirection, but whose early history was marred by jobbery andmismanagement, which not only ruined or crippled many of the originalshareholders, but cost Canada eventually twenty-three million dollars. In 1864 there were two thousand miles of railway working in BritishNorth America, of which the Grand Trunk Railway owned at least one-half. The railways in the maritime provinces were very insignificant, and allattempts to obtain the co-operation of the imperial and Canadiangovernments for the construction of an Intercolonial Railway throughBritish American territory failed, despite the energetic efforts of Mr. Howe to bring it about. 

After the union of the Canadas in 1841, a steady movement for theimprovement of the elementary, public, or common schools continued foryears, and the services of the Reverend Egerton Ryerson were engaged aschief superintendent of education with signal advantage to the country. In 1850, when the Lafontaine-Baldwin government was in office, theresults of the superintendent's studies of the systems of othercountries were embodied in a bill based on the principle of localassessment, aided by legislative grants, for the carrying on of thepublic schools. This measure is the basis of the present admirableschool system of Upper Canada, and to a large extent of that of theother English-speaking provinces. In Lower Canada the history of publicschools must be always associated with the names of Dr. Meilleur and theHonourable Mr. Chauveau; but the system has never been as effective asin the upper province. In both provinces, separate or dissentientschools were eventually established for the benefit of the RomanCatholics in Upper or Protestant Canada, and of the Protestants in Loweror Catholic Canada. In the maritime provinces satisfactory progress wasalso made in the development of a sound school system. In Nova ScotiaDr. Tupper, when provincial secretary (1863-1867), laid the foundationsof the excellent schools that the province now enjoys. 

During this period the newspaper press increased remarkably in influenceand circulation. The most important newspaper in the Dominion, the_Globe_, was established at Toronto in 1844 by Mr. George Brown, aScotchman by birth, who became a power from that time among the Liberalpoliticians of Canada. No notable books were produced in theEnglish-speaking provinces except "Acadian Geology, " a work by Dr. Dawson, who became in 1855 principal of McGill University, and was, inlater years, knighted by the Queen; but the polished verses of Crémazieand the lucid histories of Canada by Ferland and Garneau already showedthat French Canada had both a history and a literature. 

Towards the close of this memorable period of Canadian development, thePrince of Wales, heir-apparent to the throne, visited the BritishAmerican provinces, where the people gave full expression to their loyalfeelings. This was the third occasion on which these communities hadbeen favoured by the presence of members of the royal family. PrinceWilliam Henry, afterward William IV, visited Nova Scotia during theyears 1786-1788, in command of a frigate. From 1791 until 1797 PrinceEdward, Duke of Kent, father of the present sovereign, was in command ofthe imperial forces, first at Quebec, and later at Halifax. The year1860 was an opportune time for a royal visit to provinces where thepeople were in the full enjoyment of the results of the liberal systemof self-government extended to them at the commencement of the Queen'sreign by the mother-country. 

A quarter of a century had passed after the union of the Canadas whenthe necessities of the provinces of British North America forced them toa momentous constitutional change, which gave a greater scope to thestatesmanship of their public men, and opened up a wider sphere ofeffort to capital and enterprise. In the following chapter I shall showthe nature of the conditions which brought about this union. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE EVOLUTION OF CONFEDERATION (1789--1864). 

SECTION 1--The beginnings of confederation. 

The idea of a union of the provinces of British North America had beenunder discussion for half a century before it reached the domain ofpractical statesmanship. The eminent Loyalist, Chief Justice Smith ofQuebec, so early as 1789, in a letter to Lord Dorchester, gave anoutline of a scheme for uniting all the provinces of British NorthAmerica "under one general direction. " A quarter of a century laterChief Justice Sewell of Quebec, also a Loyalist, addressed a letter tothe father of the present Queen, the Duke of Kent, in which he urged afederal union of the isolated provinces. Lord Durham was also of opinionin 1839 that a legislative union of all the provinces "would at oncedecisively settle the question of races, " but he did not find itpossible to carry it out at that critical time in the history of theCanadas. 

Some ten years later, at a meeting of prominent public men in Toronto, known as the British American League, the project of a federal union wassubmitted to the favourable consideration of the provinces. In 1854 thesubject was formally brought before the legislature of Nova Scotia bythe Honourable James William Johnston, the able leader of theConservative party, and found its most eloquent exposition in the speechof the Honourable Joseph Howe, one of the fathers of responsiblegovernment. The result of the discussion was the unanimous adoption of aresolution--the first formally adopted by any provinciallegislature--setting forth that "the union or confederation of theBritish provinces, while calculated to perpetuate their connection withthe parent state, will promote their advancement and prosperity, increase their strength, and influence and elevate their position. " Mr. Howe, on that occasion, expressed himself in favour of a federation ofthe empire, of which he was always an earnest advocate until his death. 

In the legislature of Canada Mr. , afterwards Sir, Alexander Tilloch Galtwas an able exponent of union, and when he became a member of theCartier-Macdonald government in 1858 the question was made a part of theministerial policy, and received special mention in the speech of SirEdmund Head, the governor-general, at the end of the session. The matterwas brought to the attention of the imperial government on more than oneoccasion during these years by delegates from Canada and Nova Scotia, but no definite conclusion could be reached in view of the fact that thequestion had not been taken up generally in the provinces. 

The political condition of the Canadas brought about a union much soonerthan was anticipated by its most sanguine promoters. In a despatchwritten to the colonial minister by the Canadian delegates, --members ofthe Cartier-Macdonald ministry--who visited England in 1858 and laid thequestion of union before the government, they represented that "verygrave difficulties now present themselves in conducting the governmentof Canada"; that "the progress of population has been more rapid in thewestern province, and claims are now made on behalf of its inhabitantsfor giving them representation in the legislature in proportion to theirnumbers"; that "the result is shown by agitation fraught with greatdanger to the peaceful and harmonious working of our constitutionalsystem, and, consequently, detrimental to the progress of the province"that "this state of things is yearly becoming worse"; and that "theCanadian government are impressed with the necessity for seeking such amode of dealing with these difficulties as may for ever remove them. " Inaddition to this expression of opinion on the part of therepresentatives of the Conservative government of 1858, the Reformers ofUpper Canada held a large and influential convention at Toronto in1859, and adopted a resolution in which it was emphatically set forth, "that the best practicable remedy for the evils now encountered in thegovernment of Canada is to be found in the formation of two or morelocal governments to which shall be committed the control of all mattersof a local and sectional character, and some general authority chargedwith such matters as are necessarily common to both sections of theprovinces"--language almost identical with that used by the Quebecconvention six years later in one of its resolutions with respect to thelarger scheme of federation. Mr. George Brown brought this scheme beforethe assembly in 1860, but it was rejected by a large majority. At thistime constitutional and political difficulties of a serious nature hadarisen between the French and English speaking sections of the unitedCanadian provinces. A large and influential party in Upper Canada hadbecome deeply dissatisfied with the conditions of the union of 1840, which maintained equality of representation to the two provinces whenstatistics clearly showed that the western section exceeded FrenchCanada both in population and wealth. 

A demand was persistently and even fiercely made at times for such areadjustment of the representation in the assembly as would do fulljustice to the more populous and richer province. The French Canadianleaders resented this demand as an attempt to violate the terms on whichthey were brought into the union, and as calculated, and indeedintended, to place them in a position of inferiority to the people of aprovince where such fierce and unjust attacks were systematically madeon their language, religion, and institutions generally. With muchjustice they pressed the fact that at the commencement of, and for someyears subsequent to, the union, the French Canadians were numerically inthe majority, and yet had no larger representation in the assembly thanthe inhabitants of the upper province, then inferior in population. Mr. George Brown, who had under his control a powerful newspaper, the_Globe_, of Toronto, was remarkable for his power of invective and histenacity of purpose, and he made persistent and violent attacks upon theconditions of the union, and upon the French and English Conservatives, who were not willing to violate a solemn contract. 

The difficulties between the Canadian provinces at last became sointensified by the public opinion created by Mr. Brown in Upper Canadain favour of representation by population, that good and stablegovernment was no longer possible on account of the close division ofparties in the legislature. Appeals were made frequently to the people, and new ministries formed, --in fact, five within two years--but thesectional difficulties had obviously reached a point where it was notpossible to carry on successfully the administration of public affairs. On the 14th June, 1864, a committee of the legislative assembly ofCanada, of whom Mr. Brown was chairman, reported that "a strong feelingwas found to exist among the members of the committee in favour ofchanges in the direction of a federal system, applied either to Canadaalone or to the whole of the British North American provinces. " On theday when this report was presented, the Conservative government, knownas the Taché-Macdonald ministry, suffered the fate of many previousgovernments for years, and it became necessary either to appeal at onceto the people, or find some other practical solution of the politicaldifficulties which prevented the formation of a stable government. Thenit was that Mr. Brown rose above the level of mere party selfishness, and assumed the attitude of a statesman, animated by patriotic and nobleimpulses which must help us to forget the spirit of sectionalism andilliberality which so often animated him in his career of heatedpartisanship. Negotiations took place between Mr. John A. Macdonald, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Galt, Mr. Morris, Mr. McDougall, Mr. Mowat, andother prominent members of the Conservative and Reform parties, with theresult that a coalition government was formed on the distinctunderstanding that it would "bring in a measure next session for thepurpose of removing existing difficulties by introducing the federalprinciple into Canada, coupled with such provisions as will permit themaritime provinces and the north-west territories to be incorporatedinto the same system of government. " The Reformers who entered thegovernment with Macdonald and Cartier on this fundamental condition wereMr. Brown, Mr. Oliver Mowat, and Mr. William McDougall, who stooddeservedly high in public estimation. 

While these events were happening in the Canadas, the maritime provinceswere taking steps in the direction of their own union. In 1861 Mr. Howe, the leader of a Liberal government in Nova Scotia, carried a resolutionin favour of such a scheme. Three years later the Conservative ministryof which Dr. , now Sir, Charles Tupper, was premier, took measures in thelegislature of Nova Scotia to carry out the proposition of hispredecessor; and a conference was arranged at Charlottetown betweendelegates from the three provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, andPrince Edward Island By a happy forethought the government of Canada, immediately on hearing of this important conference, decided to send adelegation, composed of Messrs J. A. Macdonald, Brown, Cartier, Galt, McGee, Langevin, McDougall, and Campbell. The result of the conferencewas favourable to the consideration of the larger question of the unionof all the provinces; and it was decided to hold a further conference atQuebec in October for the purpose of discussing the question as fully asits great importance demanded. 

SECTION 2. --The Quebec convention of 1864. 

Thirty-three delegates met in the parliament house of this historiccity. They were all men of large experience in the work ofadministration or legislation in their respective provinces. Not a fewof them were noted lawyers who had thoroughly studied the systems ofgovernment in other countries. Some were gifted with rare eloquence andpower of argument. At no time, before or since, has the city of Quebecbeen visited by an assemblage of notables with so many highqualifications for the foundation of a nation. Descendants of thepioneers of French Canada, English Canadians sprung from the Loyalistsof the eighteenth century, eloquent Irishmen and astute Scotchmen, all, thoroughly conversant with Canadian interests, met in a conventionsummoned to discharge the greatest responsibilities ever entrusted toany body of men in Canada. 

The chairman was Sir Etienne Paschal Taché, who had proved in his youthhis fidelity to England on the famous battlefield of Chateauguay, andhad won the respect of all classes and parties by the display of manyadmirable qualities. Like the majority of his compatriots he had learnedto believe thoroughly in the government and institutions of GreatBritain, and never lost an opportunity of recognising the benefits whichhis race derived from British connection. He it was who gave utteranceto the oft-quoted words: "That the last gun that would be fired forBritish supremacy in America would be fired by a French Canadian. " Helived to move the resolutions of the Quebec convention in thelegislative council of Canada, but he died a few months before the unionwas formally established in 1867, and never had an opportunity ofexperiencing the positive advantages which his race, of whose interestshe was always an earnest exponent, derived from a condition of thingswhich gave additional guarantees for the preservation of their specialinstitutions. But there were in the convention other men of much greaterpolitical force, more deeply versed in constitutional knowledge, morecapable of framing a plan of union than the esteemed and discreetpresident. Most prominent among these was Mr. , afterwards Sir, John A. Macdonald, who had been for years one of the most conspicuous figures inCanadian politics, and had been able to win to a remarkable degree theconfidence not only or the great majority of the French Canadians butalso of a powerful minority in the western province where his ableantagonist, Mr. Brown, until 1864 held the vantage ground by hispersistency in urging its claims to greater weight in the administrationof public affairs. Mr. Macdonald had a great knowledge of men and didnot hesitate to avail himself of their weaknesses in order to strengthenhis political power. His greatest faults were those of a politiciananxious for the success of his party. His strength lay largely in hisability to understand the working of British institutions, and in hisrecognition of the necessity of carrying on the government in a countryof diverse nationalities, on principles of justice and compromise. Hehad a happy faculty of adapting himself to the decided current of publicopinion even at the risk of leaving himself open to a charge ofinconsistency, and he was just as ready to adopt the measures of hisopponents as he was willing to enter their ranks and steal away someprominent men whose support he thought necessary to his politicalsuccess. 

So early as 1861 he had emphatically expressed himself on the floor ofthe assembly in favour of the main principles of just such a federalunion as was initiated at Quebec. The moment he found that the questionof union was likely to be something more than a mere subject foracademic discussion or eloquent expression in legislative halls, herecognised immediately the great advantages it offered, not only for thesolution of the difficulties of his own party, but also for theconsolidation of British American as well as imperial interests on thecontinent of North America From the hour when he became convinced ofthis fact he devoted his consummate ability not merely as a partyleader, but as a statesman of broad national views, to the perfection ofa measure which promised so much for the welfare and security of theBritish provinces. It was his good fortune, after the establishment ofthe federation, to be the first premier of the new Dominion and to mouldits destinies with a firm and capable hand. He saw it extended to thePacific shores long before he died, amid the regrets of all classes andcreeds and races of a country he loved and in whose future he had themost perfect confidence. 

The name of the Right Honourable Sir John Macdonald, to give him thetitles he afterwards received from the crown, naturally brings up thatof Mr. , afterwards Sir, George Etienne Cartier, who was his faithfulcolleague and ally for many years in the legislature of old Canada, andfor a short time after the completion of the federal union, until hisdeath. This able French Canadian had taken an insignificant part in theunfortunate rising of 1837, but like many other men of his nationalityhe recognised the mistakes of his impetuous youth, and, unlike Papineauafter the union of 1840, endeavoured to work out earnestly and honestlythe principles of responsible government. While a true friend of hisrace, he was generous and fair in his relations with othernationalities, and understood the necessity of compromise andconciliation in a country of diverse races, needs, and interests. SirJohn Macdonald appreciated at their full value his statesmanlikequalities, and succeeded in winning his sympathetic and faithfulco-operation during the many years they acted together in opposition tothe war of nationalities which would have been the eventual consequenceof Mr. Brown's determined agitation if it had been carried to itslogical and natural conclusion--conclusion happily averted by the wisestand taken by Mr. Brown himself with respect to the settlement ofprovincial troubles. In the settlement of the terms of union, we can seenot only the master hand of Sir John Macdonald in the British frameworkof the system, but also the successful effort of Sir George Cartier topreserve intact the peculiar institutions of his native province. 

All those who have studied Mr. Brown's career know something of hisindependent and uncompromising character; but for some time after heentered the coalition government his speeches in favour of federationassumed a dignified style and a breadth of view which stand out in greatcontrast with his bitter arguments as leader of the Clear Grits. In theframing of the Quebec resolutions his part was chiefly in arranging thefinancial terms with a regard to the interests of his own province. 

Another influential member of the Canadian delegation was Mr. , afterwards Sir, Alexander Galt, the son of the creator of that originalcharacter in fiction, Laurie Todd, who had been a resident for manyyears in Western Canada, where a pretty city perpetuates his name. Hisable son had been for a long time a prominent figure in Canadianpolitics, and was distinguished for his intelligent advocacy of railwayconstruction and political union as measures essential to the materialand political development of the provinces. His earnest and eloquentexposition of the necessity of union had no doubt much to do withcreating a wide-spread public sentiment in its favour, and withpreparing the way for the formation of the coalition government of 1864, on the basis of such a political measure. His knowledge of financial andcommercial questions was found to be invaluable in the settlement of thefinancial basis of the union, while his recognised position as arepresentative of the Protestant English-speaking people in FrenchCanada gave him much weight when it was a question of securing theirrights and interests in the Quebec resolutions. 

The other members of the Canadian delegation were men of variedaccomplishments, some of whom played an important part in the workingout of the federal system, the foundations of which they laid. There wasa brilliant Irishman, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, poet, historian and orator, who had been in his rash youth obliged to fly from Ireland to the UnitedStates on account of his connection with the rebellious party known asYoung Ireland during the troubles of 1848. When he removed from theUnited States in 1857 he advocated with much force a union of theprovinces in the _New Era_, of which he was editor during its shortexistence. He was elected to parliament in 1858, and became a notablefigure in Canadian politics on account of his eloquence and _bonhomie_. His most elaborate addresses had never the easy flow of Joseph Howe'sspeeches, but were laboured essays, showing too obviously the results ofcareful compilation in libraries, while brightened by touches of naturalhumour. He had been president of the council in the Sandfield Macdonaldgovernment of 1862--a moderate Reform ministry--but later he joined theLiberal-Conservative party as less sectional in its aspirations and moregenerous in its general policy than the one led by Mr. Brown. Mr. McGeewas during his residence in Canada a firm friend of the Britishconnection, having observed the beneficent character of British rule inhis new Canadian home, with whose interests he so thoroughly identifiedhimself. 

Mr. William McDougall, the descendant of a Loyalist, had been longconnected with the advocacy of Reform principles in the press and on thefloor of parliament, and was distinguished for his clear, incisive styleof debating. He had been for years a firm believer in the advantages ofunion, which he had been the first to urge at the Reform convention of1859. Mr. , afterwards Sir, Alexander Campbell, who had been for someyears a legal partner of Sir John Macdonald, was gifted with aremarkably clear intellect, great common sense, and business capacity, which he displayed later as leader of the senate and as minister of thecrown. Mr. , afterwards Sir, Oliver Mowat, who had been a student of lawin Sir John Macdonald's office at Kingston, brought to the discharge ofthe important positions he held in later times as minister, vice-chancellor, and premier of the province of Ontario, great legallearning, and admirable judgment. Mr. , now Sir, Hector Langevin wasconsidered a man of promise, likely to exercise in the future muchinfluence among his countrymen. For some years after the establishmentof the new Dominion he occupied important positions in the government ofthe country, and led the French Conservative party after the death ofSir George Cartier. Mr. James Cockburn was an excellent lawyer, whothree years later was chosen speaker of the first house of commons ofthe federal parliament--a position which his sound judgment, knowledgeof parliamentary law, and dignity of manner enabled him to dischargewith signal ability. Mr. J. C. Chapais was a man of sound judgment, whichmade him equal to the administrative duties entrusted to him from timeto time. 

Of the five men sent by Nova Scotia, the two ablest were Dr. , now Sir, Charles Tupper, who was first minister of the Conservative government, and Mr. , later Sir, Adams G. Archibald, who was leader of the Liberalopposition in the assembly. The former was then as now distinguished forhis great power as a debater and for the forcible expression of hisopinions on the public questions on which he had made up his mind. Whenhe had a great end in view he followed it with a tenacity of purposethat generally gave him success. Ever since he entered public life as anopponent of Mr. Howe, he has been a dominant force in the politics ofNova Scotia. While Conservative in name he entertained broad Liberalviews which found expression in the improvement of the school system, ata very low ebb when he came into office, and in the readiness and energywith which he identified himself with the cause of the union of theprovinces. Mr. Archibald was noted for his dignified demeanour, soundlegal attainments, and clear plausible style of oratory, well calculatedto instruct a learned audience. Mr. William A. Henry was a lawyer ofconsiderable ability, who was at a later time elevated to the bench ofthe supreme court of Canada. Mr. Jonathan J. McCully, afterwards a judgein Nova Scotia, had never sat in the assembly, but he exercisedinfluence in the legislative council on the Liberal side and was aneditorial writer of no mean ability. Mr. Dickey was a leader of theConservatives in the upper house and distinguished for his generalculture and legal knowledge. 

New Brunswick sent seven delegates, drawn from the government andopposition. The Loyalists who founded this province were represented byfour of the most prominent members of the delegation, Tilley, Chandler, Gray, and Fisher. Mr. , afterwards Sir, Samuel Leonard Tilley had beenlong engaged in public life and possessed admirable ability as anadministrator. He had for years taken a deep interest in questions ofintercolonial trade, railway intercourse and political union. He was aReformer of pronounced opinions, most earnest in the advocacy oftemperance, possessed of great tact and respected for his high characterin all the relations of life. In later times he became finance ministerof the Dominion and lieutenant-governor of his native province. 

Mr. John Hamilton Gray, later a judge in British Columbia, was one ofthe most eloquent and accomplished men in the convention, and brought tothe consideration of legal and constitutional questions much knowledgeand experience. Mr. Fisher, afterwards a judge in his province, was alsoa well equipped lawyer and speaker who displayed a cultured mind. Likeall the delegates from New Brunswick he was animated by a great love forBritish connection and institutions. Mr. Peter Mitchell was a Liberal, conspicuous for the energy he brought to the administration of publicaffairs, both in his own province and at a later time in the newDominion as a minister of the crown. Mr. Edward Barron Chandler had longbeen a notable figure in the politics of New Brunswick, and wasuniversally respected for his probity and worth. He had the honour ofbeing at a later time the lieutenant-governor of the province with whichhe had been so long and honourably associated. Mr. John Johnson and Mr. William H. Steeves were also fully qualified to deal intelligently withthe questions submitted to the convention. 

Of the seven members of the Prince Edward Island delegation, four weremembers of the government and the rest were prominent men in one orother branch of the legislature. Colonel Gray--a descendant of aVirginia Loyalist--was prime minister of the island. Mr. George Coleswas one of the fathers of responsible government in the island, and longassociated with the advocacy and passage of many progressive measures, including the improvement of the educational system. Mr. Edward Whelanwas a journalist, an Irishman by birth, and endowed, like so many of hiscountrymen, with a natural gift of eloquence. Mr. Thomas Heath Haviland, afterwards lieutenant-governor of the island, was a man of culture, andMr. Edward Palmer was a lawyer of good reputation. Mr. William H. Popeand Mr. Andrew Archibald Macdonald were also thoroughly capable ofwatching over the special interests of the island. 

Newfoundland had the advantage of being represented by Mr. FrederickB. T. Carter, then speaker of the house of assembly, and by Mr. AmbroseShea, also a distinguished politician of the great island. Both wereknighted at later times; the former became chief justice of his ownprovince, and the latter governor of the Bahamas. 

SECTION 3. --Confederation accomplished. 

The Quebec convention sat with closed doors for eighteen days, andagreed to seventy-two resolutions, which form the basis of the Act ofUnion, subsequently passed by the imperial parliament. These resolutionsset forth at the outset that in a federation of the British Americanprovinces "the system of government best adapted under existingcircumstances to protect the diversified interests of the severalprovinces, and secure harmony and permanency in the working of theunion, would be a general government charged with matters of commoninterest to the whole country, and local governments for each of theCanadas, and for the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PrinceEdward Island, charged with the control of local matters in theirrespective sections" In another paragraph the resolutions declared that"in forming a constitution for a general government, the conference, with a view to the perpetuation of our connection with themother-country, and the promotion of the best interests of the people ofthese provinces, desire to follow the model of the British constitutionso far as our circumstances permit" In a subsequent paragraph it was setforth: "the executive authority or government shall be vested in thesovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and beadministered according to the well-understood principles of the Britishconstitution, by a sovereign personally, or by the representative of thesovereign duly authorised. "

In these three paragraphs of the Quebec resolutions we see clearlyexpressed the leading principles on which the Canadian federationrests--a federation, with a central government having jurisdiction overmatters of common interest to the whole country comprised in the union, and a number of provincial governments having the control and managementof certain local matters naturally and conveniently belonging to them, each government being administered in accordance with thewell-understood principles of the British system of parliamentaryinstitutions. 

The resolutions also defined in express terms the respective powers ofthe central and provincial governments. Any subject that did not fallwithin the enumerated powers of the provincial legislatures was placedunder the control of the general parliament. The convention recognisedthe necessity of preventing, as far as possible, the difficulties thathad arisen in the working of the constitution of the United States, where the residuary power of legislation is given to the people of therespective states and not to the federal government. In a subsequentchapter I give a brief summary of these and other details of the systemof government, generally laid down in the Quebec resolutions andpractically embodied in an imperial statute three years later. 

Although we have no official report of the discussions of the Quebecconvention, we know on good authority that the question of providingrevenues for the provinces was one that gave the delegates the greatestdifficulty. In all the provinces the sources of revenue were chieflycustoms and excise-duties which had to be set apart for the generalgovernment of the federation. Some of the delegates from Ontario, wherethere had existed for many years an admirable system of municipalgovernment, which provided funds for education and local improvements, recognised the advantages of direct taxation; but the representatives ofthe other provinces would not consent to such a system, especially inthe case of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, wherethere were no municipal institutions, and the people depended almostexclusively on the annual votes of the legislature for the means to meettheir local necessities. All of the delegates, in fact, felt that toforce the maritime provinces to resort to direct taxes as the onlymethod of carrying on their government, would be probably fatal to thesuccess of the scheme, and it was finally decided that the centralgovernment should grant annual subsidies, based on population, relativedebts, financial position, and such other facts as should be fairlybrought into the consideration of the case. 

It is unfortunate that we have no full report of the deliberations anddebates of this great conference. We have only a fragmentary record fromwhich it is difficult to form any adequate conclusions as to the parttaken by the several delegates in the numerous questions whichnecessarily came under their purview. [4] Under these circumstances, acareful writer hesitates to form any positive opinion based upon thesereports of the discussions, but no one can doubt that the directingspirit of the conference was Sir John Macdonald. Meagre as is the recordof what he said, we can yet see that his words were those of a man whorose above the level of the mere politician, and grasped the magnitudeof the questions involved. What he aimed at especially was to follow asclosely as possible the fundamental principles of English parliamentarygovernment, and to engraft them upon the general system of federalunion. Mr. George Brown took a prominent part in the deliberations. Hisopinions read curiously now. He was in favour of having thelieutenant-governors appointed by the general government, and he waswilling to give them an effective veto over provincial legislation. Headvocated the election of a legislative chamber on a fixed day everythird year, not subject to a dissolution during its term--also anadaptation of the American system. He went so far as to urge theadvisability of having the executive council elected for three years--bythe assembly, we may assume, though the imperfect report before us doesnot state so--and also of giving the lieutenant-governor the right ofdismissing any of its members when the house was not sitting. Mr. Brownconsequently appears to have been the advocate, so far as the provinceswere concerned, of principles that prevail in the federal republicacross the border. He opposed the introduction of responsiblegovernment, as it now obtains, in all the provinces of the Dominion, while conceding its necessity for the central government. 

[4: Mr. Joseph Pope, for years the able confidential secretary of SirJohn Macdonald, has edited and published all the official documentsbearing on the origin and evolution of the British North America Act of1867; but despite all the ability and fidelity he has devoted to thetask the result is most imperfect and unsatisfactory on account of theabsence of any full or exact original report of proceedings. ]

We gather from the report of discussions that the Prince Edward Islanddelegates hesitated from the beginning to enter a union where theirprovince would necessarily have so small a numerical representation--oneof the main objections which subsequently operated against the islandcoming into the confederation. With respect to education we see that itwas Mr. , afterwards Sir, Alexander Galt, who was responsible for theprovision in the constitution which gives the general government andparliament a certain control over provincial legislation in case therights of a Protestant or a Roman Catholic minority are prejudiciallyaffected. The minutes on this point are defective, but we have theoriginal motion on the subject, and a note of Sir John Macdonald himselfthat it was passed, with the assent of all the provinces, at thesubsequent London conference in 1867. The majority of the delegatesappear from the outset to have supported strenuously the principle whichlies at the basis of the confederation, that all powers not expresslyreserved to the provinces should appertain to the general government, asagainst the opposite principle, which, as Sir John Macdonald pointedout, had led to great difficulties in the working of the federal systemin the United States. Sir John Macdonald also, with his usual sagacity, showed that, in all cases of conflict of jurisdiction, recourse would benecessarily made to the courts, as was the practice even then wheneverthere was a conflict between imperial and Canadian statutes. 

Addresses to the Queen embodying the Quebec resolutions were submittedto the legislature of Canada during the winter of 1865, and passed inboth houses by large majorities after a very full discussion of themerits of the scheme. The opposition in the assembly came chiefly fromMr. Antoine A. Dorion, Mr. Luther H. Holton, Mr. Dunkin, Mr. Lucius SethHuntington, Mr. John Sandfield Macdonald, and other able Liberals whowere not disposed to follow Mr. Brown and his two colleagues in theirpatriotic abandonment of "partyism. "

The vote on the address was, in the council--Contents 45, Non-contents15. In the assembly it stood--Yeas 91, Nays 33. The minority in theassembly comprised 25 out of 65 representatives of French Canada, andonly 8 out of the 65 from Upper Canada. With the speaker in the chairthere were only 5 members absent on the taking of the final vote. 

Efforts were made both in the council and assembly to obtain anunequivocal expression of public opinion at the polls before the addresswas submitted to the imperial government for final action. It was arguedwith much force that the legislature had had no special mandate from thepeople to carry out so vital a change in the political condition of theprovinces, but this argument had relatively little weight in eitherhouse in view of the dominant public sentiment which, as it was obviousto the most superficial observer, existed in the valley of the St. Lawrence in favour of a scheme which seemed certain to settle thedifficulties so long in the way of stable government, and offered somany auspicious auguries for the development of the provinces embracedin federation. 

Soon after the close of the session Messrs Macdonald, Galt, Cartier, andBrown went to England to confer with the imperial authorities on variousmatters of grave public import. The British government agreed toguarantee a loan for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway andgave additional assurances of their deep interest in the proposedconfederation. An understanding was reached with respect to the mutualobligations of the parent state and the dependency to provide for thedefences of the country. Preliminary steps were taken in the directionof acquiring the north-west from the Hudson's Bay Company on equitableterms whenever their exact legal rights were ascertained. The report ofthe delegates was laid before the Canadian parliament during a veryshort session held in August and September of 1865. It was then thatparliament formally ratified the Civil Code of Lower Canada, with whichmust be always honourably associated the name of Mr. Cartier. 

In the maritime provinces, however, the prospect for some months was farfrom encouraging. Much dissatisfaction was expressed with the financialterms, and the haste with which the maritime delegates had yielded tothe propositions of the Canadian government and given their adhesion tothe larger scheme, when they were only authorised in the first instanceby their respective legislatures to consider the feasibility of a unionof Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. In NewBrunswick Mr. Tilley found himself in a minority as a result of anappeal to the people on the question in 1865, but his successor Mr. , afterwards Sir, Albert Smith, minister of marine in the Mackenziegovernment of 1873-78, was forced to resign a year later on somequestion purposely raised by Lieutenant-Governor Hamilton Gordon, thenvery anxious to carry the union before he left the province. A newgovernment was immediately formed by Mr. Peter Mitchell, a veryenergetic Liberal politician--the first minister of marine inthe first Dominion ministry--who had notoriously influenced thelieutenant-governor in his arbitrary action of practically dismissingthe Smith cabinet. On an appeal to the people Mr. Mitchell wassustained, and the new legislature gave its approval to the union by alarge majority. The opinion then generally prevailed in New Brunswickthat a federation was essential to the security of the provinces, thenthreatened by the Fenians, and would strengthen the hands of the parentstate on the American continent. In Nova Scotia the situation wasaggravated by the fact that the opposition was led by Mr. Howe, who hadalways been the idol of a large party in the country, and an earnest andconsistent supporter of the right of the people to be first consulted onevery measure immediately affecting their interests. He succeededin creating a powerful sentiment against the terms of themeasure--especially the financial conditions--and it was not possibleduring 1865 to carry it in the legislature. It was not attempted tosubmit the question to the polls, as was done in New Brunswick, indeedsuch a course would have been fatal to its progress; but it waseventually sanctioned by a large vote of the two houses. A stronginfluence was exerted by the fact that confederation was approved by theimperial government, which sent out Sir Fenwick Williams of Kars aslieutenant-governor with special instructions that, both Canada and NewBrunswick having given their consent, it was proposed to make suchchanges in the financial terms as would be more favourable to themaritime provinces. In Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland it was notpossible for the advocates of federation to move successfully in thematter. The opposition to the scheme of union, as proposed at Quebec, was so bitter in these two provinces that the delegates found it uselessto press the matter in their legislatures. 

In the meantime, while confederation was on the eve of accomplishment, the people of Canada were subjected to an attack which supplied thestrongest possible evidence of the necessity for a union enabling themto combine for purposes of general defence as well as other matters ofnational importance. In the month of April, 1866, the Fenians, an Irishorganisation in the United States, made an insignificant demonstrationon the New Brunswick frontier, which had no other effect than to excitethe loyal action of the people of the province and strengthen the handsof the advocates of confederation. In the beginning of June aconsiderable body of the same order, under the command of one O'Neil, crossed from Buffalo into the Niagara district of Upper Canada and won atemporary success near Ridgeway, where the Queen's Own, a body ofToronto Volunteers, chiefly students and other young men, were badlyhandled by Colonel Booker. Subsequently Colonel Dennis and a smalldetachment of militia were surprised at Fort Erie by O'Neil. Theknowledge that a large force of regulars and volunteers were marchingagainst him under Colonel Peacock forced O'Neil and his men to disperseand find their way back to the United States, where a number werearrested by the orders of the Washington government. The EasternTownships of Lower Canada were also invaded but the raiders retreatedbefore a Canadian force with greater rapidity than they had shown inentering the province, and found themselves prisoners as soon as theycrossed the frontier. Canada was kept in a state of anxiety for somemonths after these reckless invasions of a country where the Irish likeall other nationalities have always had the greatest possible freedom;but the vigilance of the authorities and the readiness of the people ofCanada to defend their soil prevented any more hostile demonstrationsfrom the United States. The prisoners taken in the Niagara district weretreated with a degree of clemency which their shameless conduct did notmerit from an outraged people. No persons were ever executed, though anumber were confined for a while in Kingston penitentiary. The invasionhad the effect of stimulating the patriotism of the Canadian people toan extraordinary degree, and of showing them the necessity that existedfor improving their home forces, whose organisation and equipment provedsadly defective during the invasion. 

In the summer of 1866 the Canadian legislature met for the last timeunder the provisions of the Union Act of 1840, and passed addresses tothe Queen, setting forth constitutions for the new provinces of Upperand Lower Canada, afterwards incorporated in the imperial act of union. A conference of delegates from the provinces of Nova Scotia, NewBrunswick, and Canada was held in the December of 1866 at theWestminster Palace Hotel in the City of London. The members on behalf ofCanada were Messrs Macdonald, Cartier, Galt, McDougall, Langevin, andW. P. Howland (in the place of Mr. Brown); on behalf of Nova Scotia, Messrs Tupper, Henry, McCully, Archibald, and J. W. Ritchie (who took Mr. Dickey's place); of New Brunswick, Messrs Tilley, Johnson, Mitchell, Fisher, and R. D. Wilmot. The last named, who took the place of Mr. Steeves, was a Loyalist by descent, and afterwards became speaker ofthe senate and a lieutenant-governor of his native province. Theirdeliberations led to some changes in the financial provisions of theQuebec plan, made with the view of satisfying the opposition as far aspossible in the maritime provinces but without disturbing thefundamental basis to which Canada had already pledged itself in thelegislative session of 1865. All the difficulties being now removed theEarl of Carnarvon, then secretary of state for the colonies, submittedto the house of lords on the 17th of February, 1867, a bill intituled, "An act for the union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and thegovernment thereof; and for purposes connected therewith. " It passed thetwo houses with very little discussion, and the royal assent was givento it on the 29th of March of the same year as "The British NorthAmerica Act, 1867. " It is interesting to know that in the original draftof the bill the united provinces were called the "Kingdom of Canada, "but when it came eventually before parliament they were designated asthe "Dominion of Canada"; and the writer had it from Sir John Macdonaldhimself that this amendment did not emanate from the colonial delegatesbut from the imperial ministry, one of whose members was afraid ofwounding the susceptibilities of United States statesmen. 

During the same session the imperial parliament passed a bill toguarantee a loan of three million pounds sterling for the constructionof an intercolonial railway between Quebec and the coast of the maritimeprovinces--a work recognised as indispensable to the success of the newfederation. Her Majesty's proclamation, giving effect to the Union Act, was issued on the 22nd May, 1867, declaring that "on and after the firstof July, 1867, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, shall form and be one Dominion, under the name of Canada. "

CHAPTER IX. 

CONFEDERATION. 1867--1900. 

SECTION I--The first parliament of the Dominion of Canada. 1867--1872. 

The Dominion of Canada took its place among the federal states of theworld on the first of July, 1867. Upper and Lower Canada now becameknown as Ontario and Quebec, while Nova Scotia and New Brunswickretained their original historic names. The first governor-general wasViscount Monk, who had been head of the executive government of Canadathroughout all the stages of confederation. He was an Irish nobleman, who had been a junior lord of the treasury in Lord Palmerston'sgovernment. He was a collateral descendant of the famous general of thecommonwealth, created Duke of Albemarle after the Restoration. Withoutbeing a man of remarkable ability he was gifted with much discretion, and gave all the weight of his influence to bring about a federation, whose great benefits from an imperial as well as a colonial point ofview he fully recognised. 

The prime minister of the first federal government was naturally SirJohn Macdonald, who chose as his colleagues Sir George E. Cartier, SirS. L. Tilley, --to give them all their later titles--Sir A. T. Galt, SirW. P. Howland, Mr. William McDougall, Mr. P. Mitchell, Sir A. G. Archibald, Mr. A. F. Blair, Sir A. Campbell, Sir H. L. Langevin, Sir E. Kenny, and Mr. J. C. Chapais. Mr. Brown had retired from the coalitiongovernment of 1864 some months before the union, nominally on adisagreement with his colleagues as to the best mode of conductingnegotiations for a new reciprocity treaty with the United States. Theministry had appointed delegates to confer with the Washingtongovernment on the subject, but, while Mr. Brown recognised thedesirability of reciprocal trade relations with the United States onequitable conditions, he did not deem it expedient to appear beforeAmerican statesmen "as suitors for any terms they might be pleased togrant. " A general impression, however, prevailed that this difference ofopinion was not the real reason of Mr. Brown's resignation, but thatthe animating motive was his intense jealousy of Sir John Macdonald, whose dominant influence in the government he could no longer brook. 

The governments of the four provinces were also regularly constituted atthis time in accordance with the act of union. The firstlieutenant-governor of Ontario was Lieutenant-General Stisted, ofQuebec, Sir Narcisse Belleau; of Nova Scotia, Lieutenant-General SirFenwick Williams, the hero of Kars; of New Brunswick, Major-GeneralDoyle, but only for three months. With the exception of the case ofQuebec, these appointments were only temporary. It was consideredprudent to select military men in view of the continuous reports ofFenian aggression. Sir William Howland became, a year later, lieutenant-governor of Ontario, Major-General Sir Francis Hastings Doyleof Nova Scotia in the fall of 1867, and Hon. L. A. Wilmot, of NewBrunswick in July 1868. The first prime minister of Ontario was Mr. JohnSandfield Macdonald, who had been leader of a Canadian ministry beforeconfederation. He had been a moderate Liberal in politics, and opposedat the outset to the federal union, but before 1867 he became identifiedwith the Liberal-Conservative party and gave his best assistance to thesuccess of the federation. In Quebec, Mr. Pierre Chauveau, a man of highculture, formed the first government, which was also associated with theLiberal-Conservative party. In New Brunswick, Attorney-General Wetmorewas the first prime minister, but he was appointed a judge in 1870, andMr. George E. King, a judge of the supreme court of Canada some yearslater, became his successor. In Nova Scotia, Mr. Hiram Blanchard, aLiberal and unionist, formed a government, but it was defeated at theelections by an overwhelming majority by the anti-unionists, and Mr. Annand, the old friend of Mr. Howe, became first minister. 

The elections for the Dominion house of commons took place in thesummer of 1867, and Sir John Macdonald's government was sustained bynearly three-fourths of the entire representation. The most notableincident in this contest was the defeat of Mr. Brown. Soon after hisresignation in 1866 he assumed his old position of hostility to Sir JohnMacdonald and the Conservatives. At a later date, when the Liberals werein office, he accepted a seat in the senate, but in the meantime hecontinued to manage the _Globe_ and denounce his too successful and wilyantagonist in its columns with his usual vehemence. 

The first parliament of the new Dominion met in the autumn of 1867 inthe new buildings at Ottawa--also chosen as the seat of government ofthe federation--and was probably the ablest body of men that everassembled for legislative purposes within the limits of old or newCanada. In the absence of the legislation which was subsequently passedboth in Ontario and Quebec against dual representation--or the electionof the same representatives to both the Dominion parliament and thelocal legislatures--it comprised the leading public men of all partiesin the two provinces in question. Such legislation had been enacted inthe maritime provinces before 1867, but it did not prevent the ablestmen of New Brunswick from selecting the larger and more ambitious fieldof parliamentary action. In Nova Scotia Sir Charles Tupper was the onlyman who emerged from the battle in which so many unionists were for themoment defeated. Even Sir Adams Archibald, the secretary of state, wasdefeated in a county where he had been always returned by a largemajority. Mr. Howe came in at the head of a strong phalanx ofanti-unionists--"Repealers" as they called themselves for a short time. 

The legislation of the first parliament during its five years ofexistence was noteworthy in many respects. The departments of governmentwere reorganised with due regard to the larger interests now intrustedto their care. The new department of marine and fisheries, renderednecessary by the admission of the maritime provinces, was placed underthe direction of Mr. Peter Mitchell, then a member of the senate, whohad done so much to bring New Brunswick into the union. An act waspassed to provide for the immediate commencement of the IntercolonialRailway, which was actually completed by the 1st of July, 1876, underthe supervision of Mr. , now Sir, Sandford Fleming, as chief governmentengineer; and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec were at last directlyconnected with the maritime sections of the Dominion. 

The repeal agitation in Nova Scotia received its first blow by thedefection of Mr. Howe, who had been elected to the house of commons. Heproceeded to England in 1868 with an address from the assembly of NovaScotia, demanding a repeal of the union, but he made no impressionwhatever on a government and parliament convinced of the necessity ofthe measure from an imperial as well as colonial point of view. Dr. Tupper was present on behalf of the Dominion government to answer anyarguments that the Repealers might advance against the union. The visitto England convinced Mr. Howe that further agitation on the questionmight be injurious to British connection, and that the wisest course wasto make the union as useful as possible to the provinces. Then, asalways, he was true to those principles of fidelity to the crown andempire which had forced his father to seek refuge in Nova Scotia, andwhich had been ever the mainspring of his action, even in the tryingdays when he and others were struggling for responsible government. Hebelieved always in constitutional agitation, not in rebellion. He nowagreed to enter the ministry as president of the council on conditionthat the financial basis, on which Nova Scotia had been admitted to thefederation, was enlarged by the parliament of Canada. These "betterterms" were brought before the Canadian parliament in the session of1869, and provided for the granting of additional allowances to theprovinces, calculated on increased amounts of debt as compared with themaximum fixed by the terms of the British North America Act of 1867. They met with strong opposition from Edward Blake, a very eminentlawyer and Reformer of Ontario, on the ground that they violated theoriginal compact of union as set forth in the British North America Act;but despite the opposition of the western Reformers they were ratifiedby a large majority, who recognised the supreme necessity ofconciliating Nova Scotia. On account of his decision to yield to theinevitable, Mr. Howe incurred the bitter antagonism of many men who hadbeen his staunch followers in all the political contests of Nova Scotia, and it was with the greatest difficulty that he was re-elected for thecounty of Hants as a minister of the crown. He remained in thegovernment until May, 1873, when he was appointed lieutenant-governor ofNova Scotia. The worries of a long life of political struggles, andespecially the fatigue and exposure of the last election in Hants, hadimpaired his health and made it absolutely necessary that he shouldretire from active politics. Only a month after his appointment, theprinter, poet and politician died in the famous old government house, admittance to which had been denied him in the stormy days when hefought Lord Falkland. It was a fit ending, assuredly, to the life of thestatesman, who, with eloquent pen and voice, in the days when hisopinions were even offensive to governors and social leaders, ever urgedthe right of his countrymen to a full measure of self-government. 

Canada and all other parts of the British empire were deeply shocked onan April day of 1868 by the tragic announcement of the assassination ofthe brilliant Irishman, Thomas D'Arcy McGee on his return late at nightfrom his parliamentary duties. He had never been forgiven by the Irishenemies of England for his strenuous efforts in Canada to atone for theindiscretion of his thoughtless youth. His remains were buried with allthe honours that the state could give him, and proper provision was madefor the members of his family by that parliament of which he had beenone of the most notable figures. The murderer, Thomas Whelan, a memberof the secret society that had ordered his death, was executed atOttawa on the 11th February, 1869. 

SECTION 2. --Extension of the Dominion from the Atlantic to the PacificOcean. 1869-1873. 

The government and parliament, to whom were entrusted the destinies ofthe federation of four provinces, had a great work to accomplish in theway of perfecting and extending the Dominion, which was necessarilyincomplete whilst its western territorial limits were confined to theboundaries of Ontario, and the provinces of British Columbia on thePacific coast and of Prince Edward Island in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence remained in a position of isolation. The provisions of theBritish North America Act of 1867 provided in general terms for theaddition of the immense territories which extend from the head of LakeSuperior in a north-westerly direction as far as the Rocky Mountains. Three great basins divide these territories; Hudson Bay Basin, withprobably a drainage of 2, 250, 000 square miles; the Winnipeg sub-basintributary to the former, with nearly 400, 000 square miles; the MackenzieRiver basin with nearly 700, 000 square miles. The Winnipeg basin coversa great area of prairie lands, whose luxuriant grasses and wild flowerswere indented for centuries only by the tracks of herds of innumerablebuffaloes on their way to the tortuous and sluggish streams which flowthrough that wide region. This plain slopes gently towards the arcticseas into which its waters flow, and is also remarkable for risinggradually from its eastern limits in three distinct elevations orsteppes as far as the foot hills of the Rocky Mountains. Forests oftrees, small for the most part, are found only when the prairies areleft and we reach the more picturesque undulating country through whichthe North Saskatchewan flows. An extraordinary feature of this greatregion is the continuous chain of lakes and rivers which stretch fromthe basin of the St. Lawrence as far as the distant northern sea intowhich the Mackenzie, the second largest river in North America, carriesits enormous volume of waters. As we stand on the rugged heights ofland which divides the Winnipeg from the Laurentian basin we are withineasy reach of rivers which flow, some to arctic seas, some to theAtlantic, and some to the Gulf of Mexico. If we ascend the SaskatchewanRiver, from Lake Winnipeg to the Rocky Mountains, we shall findourselves within a measurable distance not only of the sources of theMackenzie, one of whose tributaries reaches the head waters of theYukon, a river of golden promise like the Pactolus of the easternlands--but also within reach of the head waters of the rapid Columbia, and the still more impetuous Fraser, both of which pour into the PacificOcean, as well as of the Missouri, which here accumulates strength forits alliance with the Mississippi, that great artery of a more southernland. It was to this remarkable geographical feature that Oliver WendellHolmes referred in the following well-known verses:

 "Yon stream whose sources run Turned by a pebble's edge, Is Athabaska rolling toward the Sun Through the cleft mountain ledge. "

 "The slender rill had strayed, But for the slanting stone, To evening's ocean, with the tangled braid Of foam-flecked Oregon. "

[ILLUSTRATION: MAP OF BRITISH AMERICA TO ILLUSTRATE THE CHARTER OF THEHUDSON'S BAY COMPANY]

A great company claimed for two centuries exclusive trading privilegesover a large portion of these territories, known as Rupert's Land, byvirtue of a charter given by King Charles II, on the 2nd May, 1670, toPrince Rupert, the Duke of Albemarle, and other Englishmen of rank andwealth. The early operations of this Company of Adventurers of Englandwere confined to the vicinity of Hudson and James Bays. The French ofCanada for many years disputed the rights of the English company to thisgreat region, but it was finally ceded to England by the Treaty ofUtrecht. Twenty years after the Treaty of Paris (1763) a number ofwealthy and enterprising merchants, chiefly Scotch, established atMontreal the North-West Company for the purpose of trading in thosenorth-western territories to which French traders had been the first toventure. This new company carried on its operations with such activitythat in thirty years' time it employed four thousand persons andoccupied sixty posts in different parts of the territories. 

The Hudson's Bay Company's headquarters was York Factory, on the greatbay to which British ships, every summer, brought out supplies for theposts. The North-West Company followed the route of the old Frenchtraders from Lachine by way of the Ottawa or the lakes to the head ofLake Superior, and its principal depot was Fort William on theKaministiquia River. The servants of the North-West Company becameindefatigable explorers of the territories as far as the Pacific Oceanand arctic seas. Mr. , afterwards Sir, Alexander Mackenzie first followedthe river which now bears his name, to the Arctic Ocean, into which itpours its mighty volume of water. He was also the first to cross theRocky Mountains and reach the Pacific coast. Simon Fraser, anotheremployee of the company, discovered, in 1808, the river which stillrecalls his exploits; and a little later, David Thompson, from whom ariver is named, crossed further south and reached Oregon by the ColumbiaRiver. The energetic operations of the North-west Company so seriouslyaffected the business of the Hudson's Bay Company that in some years thelatter declared no dividends. The rivalry between the two companiesreached its highest between 1811 and 1818, when Thomas Douglas, fifthEarl of Selkirk, who was an enthusiastic promoter of colonisation inBritish North America, obtained from the Hudson's Bay Company an immensetract of land in the Red River country and made an earnest effort toestablish a Scotch settlement at Kildonan. But his efforts to peopleAssiniboia--the Indian name he gave to his wide domain--were baulked bythe opposition of the employees of the North-west Company, who regardedthis colonising scheme as fatal to the fur trade. In the territoryconveyed to Lord Selkirk, the Montreal Company had established postsupon every river and lake, while the Hudson's Bay Company had only onefort of importance, Fort Douglas, within a short distance of theNorth-west Company's post of Fort Gibraltar, at the confluence of theRed and Assiniboine Rivers, where the city of Winnipeg now stands. Thequarrel between the Scotch settlers who were under the protection of theHudson's Bay Company and the North-westers, chiefly composed of FrenchCanadians and French half-breeds, or _Métis_ culminated in 1816, in themassacre of Governor Semple and twenty-six other persons connected withthe new colony by a number of half-breeds. Two years later, a number ofpersons who had been arrested for this murder were tried at York inUpper Canada, but the evidence was so conflicting on account of thefalse swearing on the part of the witnesses that the jury were forced toacquit the accused. Lord Selkirk died at Pau, in 1820, but not before hehad made an attempt to assist his young settlement, almost broken up bythe shameful attack of 1816. 

The little colony managed to exist, but its difficulties were aggravatedfrom time to time by the ravages of clouds of grasshoppers whichdevastated the territories and brought the people to the verge ofstarvation. In March, 1821, the North-west Company made over all theirproperty to the older company, which now reigned supreme throughout theterritories. All doubts as to their rights were set at rest by an act ofparliament giving them a monopoly of trade for twenty-one years in whatwere then generally known as the Indian territories, that vast regionwhich lay beyond the confines of Rupert's Land, and was not strictlycovered by the charter of 1670. This act was re-enacted in 1838 foranother twenty-one years. No further extension, however, was evergranted, as an agitation had commenced in Canada by 1859 for thesurrender of the company's privileges and the opening up of theterritories, so long a great "lone land, " to enterprise and settlement. When the two rival companies were united, Mr. , afterwards Sir, GeorgeSimpson, became governor, and he continued to occupy that position until1860, when he died in his residence at Lachine, near Montreal. Thisenergetic man largely extended the geographical knowledge of the widedominions entrusted to his charge, though like all the servants of thecompany, he discouraged settlement and minimised the agriculturalcapabilities of the country, when examined in 1857 before a committee ofthe English house of commons. In 1837 the company purchased from LordSelkirk's heirs all their rights in Assiniboia. The Scotch settlers andthe French half-breeds were now in close contiguity to each other on theRed and Assiniboine Rivers. The company established a simple form ofgovernment for the maintenance of law and order. In the course of time, their council included not only their principal factors and officials, but a few persons selected from the inhabitants. On the whole, law andorder prevailed in the settlements, although there was always latent acertain degree of sullen discontent against the selfish rule of a merefur company, invested with such great powers. The great object of thecompany was always to keep out the pioneers of settlement, and give noinformation of the value of the land and resources of their vast domain. 

Some years before the federation of the British-American provinces thepublic men of Canada had commenced an agitation against the company, with the view of relieving from its monopoly a country whose resourceswere beginning to be known. Colonial delegates on several occasionsinterviewed the imperial authorities on the subject, but no practicalresults were obtained until federation became an accomplished fact. Then, at length, the company recognised the necessity of yielding tothe pressure that was brought to bear upon them by the Britishgovernment, at a time when the interests of the empire as well as of thenew Dominion demanded the abolition of a monopoly so hostile to theconditions of modern progress in British North America. In 1868successful negotiations took place between a Canadian delegation--SirGeorge Cartier and the Hon. William Macdougall--and the Hudson's BayCompany's representatives for the surrender of their imperial domain. Canada agreed to pay £300, 000 sterling, and to reserve certain lands forthe company. The terms were approved by the Canadian parliament in 1869, and an act was passed for the temporary government of Rupert's Land andthe North-west territory when regularly transferred to Canada. In thesummer of that year, surveyors were sent under Colonel Dennis to makesurveys of townships in Assiniboia; and early in the autumn Mr. Macdougall was appointed lieutenant-governor of the territories, withthe understanding that he should not act in an official capacity untilhe was authoritatively informed from Ottawa of the legal transfer of thecountry to the Canadian government. Mr. Macdougall left for Fort Garryin September, but he was unable to reach Red River on account of arising of the half-breeds. The cause of the troubles is to be traced notsimply to the apathy of the Hudson's Bay Company's officials, who tookno steps to prepare the settlers for the change of government, nor tothe fact that the Canadian authorities neglected to consult the wishesof the inhabitants, but chiefly to the belief that prevailed among theignorant French half-breeds that it was proposed to take their landsfrom them. Sir John Macdonald admitted, at a later time, that much ofthe trouble arose "from the lack of conciliation, tact and prudenceshown by the surveyors during the summer of 1869. " Mr. Macdougall alsoappears to have disobeyed his instructions, for he attempted to set uphis government by a _coup-de-main_ on the 1st December, though he had noofficial information of the transfer of the country to Canada, and wasnot legally entitled to perform a single official act. 

The rebellious half-breeds of the Red River settlement formed aprovisional government, in which one Louis Riel was the controllingspirit from the beginning until the end of the revolt. He was a FrenchCanadian half-breed, who had been educated in one of the French Canadiancolleges, and always exercised much influence over his ignorant, impulsive, easily-deluded countrymen. The total population living in thesettlements of Assiniboia at that time was about twelve thousand, ofwhom nearly one-half were _Métis_ or half-breeds, mostly the descendantsof the _coureurs-de-bois_ and _voyageurs_ of early times. So long as thebuffalo ranged the prairies in large numbers, they were hunters, andcared nothing for the relatively tame pursuit of agriculture. Theirsmall farms generally presented a neglected, impoverished appearance. The great majority had adopted the habits of their Indian lineage, andwould neglect their farms for weeks to follow the scarce buffalo totheir distant feeding grounds. The Scotch half-breed, the offspring ofthe marriage of Scotchmen with Indian women, still illustrated theindustry and energy of his paternal race, and rose superior to Indiansurroundings. It was among the French half-breeds that Riel found hissupporters. The Scotch and English settlers had disapproved of thesudden transfer of the territory in which they and their parents had solong lived, without any attempt having been made to consult theirfeelings as to the future government of the country. Though they took noactive part in the rebellion, they allowed matters to take their coursewith indifference and sullen resignation. The employees of the Hudson'sBay Company were dissatisfied with the sale of the company's rights, asit meant, in their opinion, a loss of occupation and influence. Theportion of the population that was always quite ready to hasten theacquisition of the territory by Canada, and resolutely opposed Riel fromthe outset, was the small Canadian element, which was led by Dr. Schultz, an able, determined man, afterwards lieutenant-governor ofManitoba. Riel imprisoned and insulted several of the loyal party whoopposed him. At last he ruthlessly ordered the execution of one ThomasScott, an Ontario man, who had defied him. 

While these events were in progress, the Canadian government enlisted inthe interests of law and order the services of Mr. Donald Smith, nowLord Strathcona, who had been long connected with the Hudson's BayCompany, and also of Archbishop Taché, of St. Boniface--the principalFrench settlement in the country--who returned from Rome to act asmediator between the Canadian authorities and his deluded flock. Unhappily, before the Archbishop could reach Fort Garry, Scott had beenmurdered, and the Dominion government could not consider themselvesbound by the terms they were ready to offer to the insurgents under avery different condition of things. The murder of Scott had clearlybrought Riel and his associates under the provisions of the criminallaw; and public opinion in Ontario would not tolerate an amnesty, as washastily promised by the Archbishop, in his zeal to bring the rebellionto an end. A force of 1200 regulars and volunteers was sent to the RedRiver towards the end of May, 1870, under the command of ColonelWolseley, now a field-marshal and a peer of the realm. Riel fled acrossthe frontier before the troops, after a tedious journey of three monthsfrom the day they left Toronto, reached Fort Garry. Peace was restoredonce more to the settlers of Assiniboia. The Canadian government had hadseveral interviews with delegates from the discontented people of RedRiver, who had prepared what they called "a Bill of Rights, " and it wastherefore able intelligently to decide on the best form of governing theterritories. The imperial government completed the formal transfer ofthe country to Canada, and the Canadian parliament in 1870 passed an actto provide for the government of a new province of Manitoba. Representation was given to the people in both houses of the Canadianparliament, and provision was made for a provincial government on thesame basis that existed in the old provinces of the Dominion. Thelieutenant-governor of the province was also, for the present, to governthe unorganised portion of the North-west with the assistance of acouncil of eleven persons. The first legislature of Manitoba was electedin the early part of 1871, and a provincial government was formed, withMr. Albert Boyd as provincial secretary. The first lieutenant-governorwas Sir Adams Archibald, the eminent Nova Scotian, who had been defeatedin the elections of 1867. Mr. Macdougall had returned from theNorth-west frontier a deeply disappointed man, who would never admitthat he had shown any undue haste in commencing the exercise of hispowers as governor. Some years later he disappeared from active publiclife, after a career during which he had performed many useful servicesfor Canada. 

In another chapter on the relations between Canada and the United StatesI shall refer to the results of the international commission which metat Washington in 1870, to consider the Alabama difficulty, the fisherydispute, and other questions, the settlement of which could be no longerdelayed. In 1870, while the Red River settlements were still in atroublous state, the Fenians made two attempts to invade the EasternTownships, but they were easily repulsed and forced to cross thefrontier. They were next heard of in 1871, when they attempted, underthe leadership of the irrepressible O'Neil, who had also been engaged in1870, and of O'Donohue, one of Riel's rebellious associates, to make araid into Manitoba by way of Pembina, but their prompt arrest by acompany of United States troops was the inglorious conclusion of thelast effort of a dying and worthless organisation to strike a blow atEngland through Canada. 

The Dominion government was much embarrassed for some years by thecomplications that arose from Riel's revolt and the murder of Scott. Anagitation grew up in Ontario for the arrest of the murderers; and whenMr. Blake succeeded Mr. Sandfield Macdonald as leader of the Ontariogovernment, a large reward was offered for the capture of Riel and suchof his associates as were still in the territories. On the other hand, Sir George Cartier and the French Canadians were in favour of anamnesty. The Macdonald ministry consequently found itself on the hornsof a dilemma; and the political tension was only relieved for a timewhen Riel and Lepine left Manitoba, on receiving a considerable sum ofmoney from Sir John Macdonald. Although this fact was not known until1875, when a committee of the house of commons investigated the affairsof the North-west, there was a general impression after 1870 throughoutOntario--an impression which had much effect on the general election of1872--that the government had no sincere desire to bring Riel and hisassociates to justice. 

In 1871 the Dominion welcomed into the union the great mountainousprovince of British Columbia, whose picturesque shores recall thememories of Cook, Vancouver and other maritime adventurers of the lastcentury, and whose swift rivers are associated with the exploits ofMackenzie, Thompson, Quesnel, Fraser and other daring men, who first sawthe impetuous waters which rush through the cañons of the greatmountains of the province until at last they empty themselves into thePacific Ocean. For many years Vancouver Island and the mainland, firstknown as New Caledonia, were under the control of the Hudson's BayCompany. Vancouver Island was nominally made a crown colony in 1849;that is, a colony without representative institutions, in which thegovernment is carried on by a governor and council, appointed by thecrown. The official authority continued from 1851 practically in thehands of the company's chief factor, Sir James Douglas, a man of signalability, who was also the governor of the infant colony. In 1856 anassembly was called, despite the insignificant population of the island. In 1858 New Caledonia was organised as a crown colony under the name ofBritish Columbia, as a consequence of the gold discoveries which broughtin many people. Sir James Douglas was also appointed governor ofBritish Columbia, and continued in that position until 1864. In 1866, the colony was united with Vancouver Island under the generaldesignation of British Columbia. When the province entered theconfederation of Canada in 1871 it was governed by a lieutenant-governorappointed by the crown, a legislature composed of heads of the publicdepartments and several elected members. With the entrance of thisprovince, so famous now for its treasures of gold, coal and otherminerals in illimitable quantities, must be associated the name of SirJoseph Trutch, the first lieutenant-governor under the auspices of thefederation. The province did not come into the union with the sameconstitution that was enjoyed by the other provinces, but it wasexpressly declared in the terms of union that "the government of theDominion will readily consent to the introduction of responsiblegovernment when desired by the inhabitants of British Columbia. "Accordingly, soon after its admission, the province obtained aconstitution similar to that of other provinces: a lieutenant-governor, a responsible executive council and an elective assembly. Representationwas given it in both houses of the Dominion parliament, and the memberstook their seats during the session of 1872. In addition to the paymentof a considerable subsidy for provincial expenses, the Dominiongovernment pledged itself to secure the construction of a railway withintwo years from the date of union to connect the seaboard of BritishColumbia with the railway system of Canada, to commence the worksimultaneously at both ends of the line, and to complete it within tenyears from the admission of the colony to the confederation. 

In 1872 a general election was held in the Dominion, and while thegovernment was generally sustained, it came back with a minority fromOntario. The Riel agitation, the Washington Treaty, and the undertakingto finish the Pacific railway in so short a time, were questions whichweakened the ministry. The most encouraging feature of the electionswas the complete defeat of the anti-unionists in Nova Scotia, --theprelude to their disappearance as a party--all the representatives, withthe exception of one member, being pledged to support a government whosechief merit was its persistent effort to cement the union and extend itfrom ocean to ocean. Sir Francis Hincks, finance minister since 1870, was defeated in Ontario and Sir George Cartier in Montreal. Both thesegentlemen found constituencies elsewhere, but Sir George Cartier nevertook his seat, as his health had been seriously impaired, and he died inEngland in 1873. The state gave a public funeral to this great FrenchCanadian, always animated by a sincere desire to weld the two racestogether on principles of compromise and justice. Sir Francis Hincksalso disappeared from public life in 1873, and died at Montreal in 1885from an attack of malignant small-pox. The sad circumstances of hisdeath forbade any public or even private display, and the man who filledso many important positions in the empire was carried to the grave withthose precautions which are necessary in the case of those who fallvictims to an infectious disease. 

But while these two eminent men disappeared from the public life ofCanada, two others began now to occupy a more prominent place inDominion affairs. These were Mr. Edward Blake and Mr. AlexanderMackenzie, who had retired from the Ontario legislature when an act waspassed, as in other provinces, against dual representation, which madeit necessary for them to elect between federal and provincial politics. Sir Oliver Mowat, who had retired from the bench, was chosen primeminister of Ontario on the 25th October, 1872, and continued to hold theposition with great success and profit to the province until 1896, whenhe became minister of justice in the Liberal government formed by SirWilfrid Laurier. 

In 1873 Prince Edward Island yielded to the influences which had beenworking for some years in the direction of union, and allied herfortunes with those of her sister provinces. The public men who weremainly instrumental in bringing about this happy result, after muchdiscussion in the legislature and several conferences with the Dominiongovernment, were the following: Mr. R. P. Haythorne, afterwards asenator; Mr. David Laird, at a later time minister in Mr. Mackenzie'sgovernment and a lieutenant-governor of the North-west territories; Mr. James C. Pope, who became a member of Sir John Macdonald's cabinet in1879; Mr. T. H. Haviland, and Mr. G. W. Howlan, who were in later yearslieutenant-governors of the island. The terms of union made not onlyvery favourable financial arrangements for the support of the provincialgovernment, but also allowed a sum of money for the purpose ofextinguishing the claims of the landlords to whom the greater portion ofthe public domain had been given by the British government more than ahundred years before. The constitution of the executive authority andthe legislature remained as before confederation. Adequaterepresentation was allowed to the island in the Canadian parliament, andthe members accordingly took their places in the senate and the house ofcommons during the short October session of 1873, when Sir JohnMacdonald's government resigned on account of transactions arising outof the first efforts to construct the Canadian Pacific railway. 

The Dominion was now extended for a distance of about 3, 500 miles, fromthe island of Prince Edward in the east to the island of Vancouver inthe west. The people of the great island of Newfoundland, the oldestcolony of the British crown in North America, have, however, alwaysshown a determined opposition to the proposed federation, from the timewhen their delegates returned from the Quebec convention of 1864. Negotiations have taken place more than once for the entrance of theisland into the federal union, but so far no satisfactory arrangementhas been attained. The advocates of union, down to the present time, have never been able to create that strong public opinion which wouldsustain any practical movement in the direction of carrying Newfoundlandout of its unfortunate position of insular, selfish isolation, andmaking it an active partner in the material, political, and socialprogress of the provinces of the Canadian Dominion. Financial andpolitical difficulties have steadily hampered the development of theisland until very recently, and the imperial government has been obligedto intervene for the purpose of bringing about an adjustment ofquestions which, more than once, have rendered the operation of localself-government very troublesome. The government of the Dominion, on itsside, while always ready to welcome the island into the confederation, has been perplexed by the difficulty of making satisfactory financialarrangements for the admission of a colony, heavily burdened with debt, and occupying a position by no means so favourable as that of theprovinces now comprised within the Dominion. Some Canadians also seesome reason for hesitation on the part of the Dominion in the existenceof the French shore question, which prejudicially affects theterritorial interests of a large portion of the coast of the island, andaffords a forcible example of the little attention paid to colonialinterests in those old times when English statesmen were chiefly swayedby considerations of European policy. 

SECTION 3. --Summary of noteworthy events from 1873 until 1900. 

On the 4th November, 1873, Sir John Macdonald placed his resignation inthe hands of the governor-general, the Earl of Dufferin; and the firstministry of the Dominion came to an end after six years of office. Thecircumstances of this resignation were regrettable in the extreme. In1872 two companies received charters for the construction of theCanadian Pacific railway--one of them under the direction of probablythe wealthiest man in Canada, Sir Hugh Allan of Montreal, and the otherunder the presidency of the Honourable David Macpherson, a capitalist ofToronto. The government was unwilling for political reasons to give thepreference to either of these companies, and tried to bring about anamalgamation. While negotiations were proceeding with this object inview, the general elections of 1872 came on, and Sir Hugh Allan madelarge contributions to the funds of the Conservative party. The factswere disclosed in 1873 before a royal commission appointed by thegovernor-general to inquire into charges made in the Canadian house ofcommons by a prominent Liberal, Mr. Huntington. An investigation orderedby the house when the charges were first brought forward, had failedchiefly on account of the legal inability of the committee to takeevidence under oath; and the government then advised the appointment ofthe commission in question. Parliament was called together in October, 1873, to receive the report of the commissioners, and after a long andvehement debate Sir John Macdonald, not daring to test the opinion ofthe house by a vote, immediately resigned. In justice to Sir JohnMacdonald it must be stated that Sir Hugh Allan knew, before hesubscribed a single farthing, that the privilege of building the railwaycould be conceded only to an amalgamated company. When it was shown somemonths after the elections that the proposed amalgamation could not beeffected, the government issued a royal charter to a new company inwhich all the provinces were fairly represented, and in which Sir HughAllan appears at first to have had no special influence, although thedirectors of their own motion, subsequently selected him as president onaccount of his wealth and business standing in Canada. Despite Sir JohnMacdonald's plausible explanations to the governor-general, and hisvigorous and even pathetic appeal to the house before he resigned, thewhole transaction was unequivocally condemned by sound public opinion. His own confidential secretary, whom he had chosen before his death ashis biographer, admits that even a large body of his faithful supporters"were impelled to the conclusion that a government which had benefitedpolitically by large sums of money contributed by a person with whom itwas negotiating on the part of the Dominion, could no longer commandtheir confidence or support, and that for them the time had come tochoose between their conscience and their party. "

The immediate consequence of this very unfortunate transaction was theformation of a Liberal government by Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, the leaderof the opposition, who had entered the old parliament of Canada in 1861, and had been treasurer in the Ontario ministry led by Mr. Blake until1872. He was Scotch by birth, and a stonemason by trade. He came toCanada in early manhood, and succeeded in raising himself above hisoriginally humble position to the highest in the land. His greatdecision of character, his clear, logical intellect, his lucid, incisivestyle of speaking, his great fidelity to principle, his inflexiblehonesty of purpose, made him a force in the Liberal party, who gladlywelcomed him as the leader of a government. When he appealed to thecountry in 1874, he was supported by a very large majority of therepresentatives of the people. His administration remained in officeuntil the autumn of 1878, and passed many measures of great usefulnessto the Dominion. The North-west territories were separated from thegovernment of Manitoba, and first organised under a lieutenant-governorand council, appointed by the governor-general of Canada. In 1875, pending the settlement of the western boundary of Ontario, it wasnecessary to create a separate territory out of the eastern part of theNorth-west, known as the district of Keewatin, which was placed underthe jurisdiction of the lieutenant-governor of Manitoba. This boundarydispute was not settled until 1884, when the judicial committee of theprivy council, to whose decision the question had been referred, materially altered the limits of Keewatin and extended the westernboundaries of Ontario. In 1878, in response to an address of theCanadian parliament, an imperial order in council was passed to annex tothe Dominion all British possessions in North America not then includedwithin the confederation--an order intended to place beyond question theright of Canada to all British North America except Newfoundland. In thecourse of succeeding years a system of local government was establishedin the North-west territories and a representation allowed them in thesenate and house of commons. 

As soon as the North-west became a part of the Dominion, the Canadiangovernment recognised the necessity of making satisfactory arrangementswith the Indian tribes. The policy first laid down in the proclamationof 1763 was faithfully carried out in this great region. Between 1871and 1877 seven treaties were made by the Canadian government with theCrees, Chippewas, Salteaux, Ojibways, Blackfeet, Bloods and Piegans, whoreceived certain reserves of land, annual payments of money and otherbenefits, as compensation for making over to Canada their title to thevast country where they had been so long the masters. From that day tothis the Indians have become the wards of the government, who havealways treated them with every consideration. The Indians live onreserves allotted to them in certain districts where schools of variousclasses have been provided for their instruction. They aresystematically taught farming and other industrial pursuits; agents andinstructors visit the reserves from time to time to see that theinterests of the Indians are protected; and the sale of spirits isespecially forbidden in the territories chiefly with the view ofguarding the Indians from such baneful influences. The policy of thegovernment for the past thirty years has been on the whole mostsatisfactory from every point of view. In the course of a few decadesthe Indians of the prairies will be an agricultural population, able tosupport themselves. 

The Mackenzie ministry established a supreme court, or general court ofappeal, for Canada. The election laws were amended so as to abolishpublic nominations and property qualification for members of the houseof commons, as well as to provide for vote by ballot and simultaneouspolling at a general election--a wise provision which had existed forsome years in the province of Nova Scotia. An act passed by Sir JohnMacdonald's government for the trial of controverted elections by judgeswas amended, and a more ample and effective provision made for therepression and punishment of bribery and corruption at elections. Aforce of mounted police was organised for the maintenance of law andorder in the North-west territories. The enlargement of the St. Lawrencesystem of canals was vigorously prosecuted in accordance with the reportof a royal commission, appointed in 1870 by the previous administrationto report on this important system of waterways. A Canada temperanceact--known by the name of Senator Scott, who introduced it whensecretary of state--was passed to allow electors in any county toexercise what is known as "local option"; that is to say, to decide bytheir votes at the polls whether they would permit the sale ofintoxicating liquors within their respective districts. This act wasdeclared by the judicial committee of the privy council to beconstitutional and was extended in the course of time to very manycounties of the several provinces; but eventually it was found quiteimpracticable to enforce the law, and the great majority of thosedistricts of Ontario and Quebec, which had been carried away for a timeon a great wave of moral reform to adopt the act, decided by an equallylarge vote to repeal it. The agitation for the extension of this lawfinally merged into a wide-spread movement among the temperance peopleof the Dominion for the passage of a prohibitory liquor law by theparliament of Canada. In 1898 the question was submitted to the electorsof the provinces and territories by the Laurier government. The resultwas a majority of only 14, 000 votes in favour of prohibition out of atotal vote of 543, 049, polled throughout the Dominion. The province ofQuebec declared itself against the measure by an overwhelming vote. Thetemperance people then demanded that the Dominion government should takeimmediate action in accordance with this vote; but the prime ministerstated emphatically to the house of commons as soon as parliament openedin March, 1899, "that the voice of the electorate, which has beenpronounced in favour of prohibition--only twenty-three per cent. Of thetotal electoral vote of the Dominion--is not such as to justify thegovernment in introducing a prohibitory law. " In the premier's opinionthe government would not be justified in following such a course "unlessat least one-half of the electorate declared itself at the polls in itsfavour. " In the province of Manitoba, where the people have pronouncedthemselves conclusively in favour of prohibition, the Macdonaldgovernment are now moving to give effect to the popular wishes andrestrain the liquor traffic so far as it is possible to go under theprovisions of the British North America act of 1867 and the decisions ofthe courts as to provincial powers. 

For two years and even longer, after its coming into office, theMackenzie government was harassed by the persistent effort that was madein French Canada for the condonation of the serious offences committedby Riel and his principal associates during the rebellion of 1870. Rielhad been elected by a Manitoba constituency in 1874 to the Dominionhouse of commons and actually took the oath of allegiance in the clerk'soffice, but he never attempted to sit, and was subsequently expelled asa fugitive from criminal justice. Lepine was convicted of murder atWinnipeg and sentenced to be hanged, when the governor-general, LordDufferin, intervened and commuted the sentence to two years'imprisonment, with the approval of the imperial authorities, to whom, asan imperial officer entrusted with large responsibility in the exerciseof the prerogative of mercy, he had referred the whole question. Soonafterwards the government yielded to the strong pressure from FrenchCanada and relieved the tension of the public situation by obtainingfrom the representative of the crown an amnesty for all personsconcerned in the North-west troubles, with the exception of Riel andLepine, who were banished for five years, when they also were to bepardoned. O'Donohue was not included, as his first offence had beenaggravated by his connection with the Fenian raid of 1871, but he wasallowed in 1877 the benefit of the amnesty. The action of Lord Dufferinin pardoning Lepine and thereby relieving his ministers from allresponsibility in the matter was widely criticised, and no doubt hadmuch to do with bringing about an alteration in the terms of thegovernor-general's commission and his instructions with respect to theprerogative of mercy. Largely through the instrumentality of Mr. Blake, who visited England for the purpose, in 1875, new commissions andinstructions have been issued to Lord Dufferin's successors, with a dueregard to the larger measure of constitutional freedom now possessed bythe Dominion of Canada. As respects the exercise of the prerogative ofmercy, the independent judgment of the governor-general may be exercisedin cases of imperial interest, but only after consultation with hisresponsible advisers, while he is at liberty to yield to their judgmentin all cases of local concern. 

One of the most important questions with which the Mackenzie governmentwas called upon to deal was the construction of the Canadian Pacificrailway. It was first proposed to utilise the "water-stretches" on theroute of the railroad, and in that way lessen its cost, but the schemewas soon found to be impracticable. The people of British Columbia wereaggrieved at the delay in building the railway, and several efforts weremade to arrange the difficulty through the intervention of the Earl ofCarnarvon, colonial secretary of state, of the governor-general when hevisited the province in 1876, and of Mr. , afterwards Sir, James Edgar, who was authorised to treat with the provincial government on thesubject. At the instance of the secretary of state the government agreedto build immediately a road from Esquimalt to Nanaimo on VancouverIsland, to prosecute the surveys with vigour, and make arrangements forthe completion of the railway in 1890. Mr. Blake opposed these terms, and in doing so no doubt represented the views of a large body of theLiberal party, who believed that the government of Canada had in 1871entered into the compact with British Columbia without sufficientconsideration of the gravity of the obligation they were incurring. Thecommons, however, passed the Esquimalt and Nanaimo bill only to hear ofits rejection in the senate, where some Liberals united with theConservative majority to defeat it. When the surveys were all completed, the government decided to build the railway as a public work; but by theautumn of 1878, when Mr. Mackenzie was defeated at a general election, only a few miles of the road had been completed, and the indignation ofBritish Columbia had become so deep that the legislature passed aresolution for separation from the Dominion unless the terms of unionwere soon fulfilled. 

During the existence of the Mackenzie government there was muchdepression in trade throughout the Dominion, and the public revenuesshowed large deficits in consequence of the falling-off of imports. Whenthe elections took place in September, 1878, the people were called uponto give their decision on a most important issue. With that astutenesswhich always enabled him to gauge correctly the tendency of publicopinion, Sir John Macdonald recognised the fact that the people wereprepared to accept any new fiscal policy which promised to relieve thecountry from the great depression which had too long hampered internaland external trade. In the session of 1878 he brought forward aresolution, declaring emphatically that the welfare of Canada required"the adoption of a national policy which, by a judicious readjustment ofthe tariff will benefit the agricultural, the mining, the manufacturingand other interests of the Dominion . .. Will retain in Canada thousandsof our fellow-countrymen now obliged to expatriate themselves in searchof the employment denied them at home . .. Will restore prosperity to ourstruggling industries now so sadly depressed . .. Will prevent Canadafrom being made a sacrifice market . .. Will encourage and develop aninterprovincial trade . .. And will procure eventually for this country areciprocity of trade with the United States. " This ingenious resolutionwas admirably calculated to captivate the public mind, though it wasdefeated in the house of commons by a large majority. Mr. Mackenzie wasopposed to the principle of protection, and announced the determinationof the government to adhere to a revenue tariff instead of resorting toany protectionist policy, which would, in his opinion, largely increasethe burdens of the people under the pretence of stimulatingmanufactures. As a consequence of his unbending fidelity to theprinciples of his life, Mr. Mackenzie was beaten at the general electionby an overwhelming majority. If he had possessed even a little of theflexibility of his astute opponent he would have been more successful asa leader of a party. 

One of Lord Dufferin's last official acts in October, 1878, was to callupon Sir John Macdonald to form a new administration on the resignationof Mr. Mackenzie. The new governor-general, the Marquess of Lorne, andthe Princess Louise, arrived in Canada early in November and wereeverywhere received with great enthusiasm. The new protectivepolicy--"the National Policy" as the Conservatives like best to nameit--was laid before parliament in the session of 1879, by Sir LeonardTilley, then finance minister; and though it has undergone someimportant modifications since its introduction it has formed the basisof the Canadian tariff for twenty years. The next important measure ofthe government was the vigorous prosecution of the Canadian Pacificrailway. During the Mackenzie administration the work had made littleprogress, and the people of British Columbia had become very indignantat the failure to carry out the terms on which they had entered theconfederation. In the session of 1880-81 Sir Charles Tupper, minister ofrailways, announced that the government had entered into a contract witha company of capitalists to construct the railway from Montreal toBurrard's Inlet. Parliament ratified the contract by a large majoritydespite the vigorous opposition made by Mr. Blake, then leader of theLiberal party, who had for years considered this part of the agreementwith British Columbia as extremely rash. Such remarkable energy wasbrought to the construction of this imperial highway that it wasactually in operation at the end of five years after the commencement ofthe work--only one-half of the time allowed in the charter for itscompletion. The financial difficulties which the company had toencounter in the progress of the work were very great, and they wereobliged in 1884 to obtain a large loan from the Dominion government. Theloan was secured on the company's property, and was paid off by 1887. The political fortunes of the Conservative administration, in fact, wereindissolubly connected with the success of this national enterprise, andfrom the moment when the company commenced the work Sir John Macdonaldnever failed to give it his complete confidence and support. 

One of the delicate questions which the Macdonald government was calledupon to settle soon after their coming into office was what is known as"the Letellier affair. " In March, 1878, the lieutenant-governor of theprovince of Quebec, Mr. Letellier de Saint-Just, who had been previouslya member of the Mackenzie Liberal government, dismissed the BouchervilleConservative ministry on the ground that they had taken steps in regardto both administrative and legislative measures not only contrary to hisrepresentations, but even without previously advising him of what theyproposed to do. At his request Mr. , now Sir, Henry Joly de Lotbinièreformed a Liberal administration, which appealed to the country. Theresult was that the two parties came back evenly balanced. TheConservatives of the province were deeply irritated at this action ofthe lieutenant-governor, and induced Sir John Macdonald, then leader ofthe opposition, to make a motion in the house of commons, declaring Mr. Letellier's conduct "unwise and subversive of the sound principles ofresponsible government. " This motion was made as an amendment on theproposal to go into committee of supply, and under a peculiar usage ofthe Canadian commons it was not permitted to move a second amendment atthis stage. Had such a course been regular, the Mackenzie governmentwould have proposed an amendment similar to that which was moved in thesenate, to the effect that it was inexpedient to offer any opinion onthe action of the lieutenant-governor of Quebec for the reason that "thefederal and provincial governments, each in its own sphere, enjoyedresponsible government equally, separately, and independently"--inother words, that the wisest constitutional course to follow under thecircumstances was to allow each province to work out responsiblegovernment without any undue interference on the part of the Dominiongovernment or parliament. As it happened, however, Mr. Mackenzie and hiscolleagues had no alternative open to them but to vote down the motionproposed in the commons; while in the Conservative senate the amendment, which could not be submitted to the lower house under the rules, wasdefeated, and the motion condemning the lieutenant-governor carried by alarge party vote. 

In 1879, when the Macdonald government was in office, the matter wasagain brought before the house of commons and the same motion of censurethat had been defeated in 1878 was introduced in the same way as before, and carried by a majority of 85. The prime minister then informed LordLorne that in the opinion of the government Mr. Letellier's "usefulnesswas gone, " and he recommended his removal from office; but thegovernor-general was unwilling to agree hastily to such a dangerousprecedent as the removal of a lieutenant-governor, and as an imperialofficer he referred the whole matter to her Majesty's government fortheir consideration and instructions. The colonial secretary did nothesitate to state "that the lieutenant-governor of a province has anindisputable right to dismiss his ministers if, from any cause, he feelsit incumbent to do so, " but that, in deciding whether the conduct of alieutenant-governor merits removal from his office, as in the exerciseof other powers vested in him by the imperial state the governor-general"must act by and with the advice of his ministers. " After furtherconsideration of the subject, the Canadian government again recommendedthe dismissal of Mr. Letellier, and the governor-general had now noalternative except to act on the advice of his responsible ministers. Itwas unfortunate that the constitutional issue was obscured, from theoutset, by the political bitterness that was imported into it, and thatthe procedure, followed in two sessions, of proposing an amendment, condemnatory of the action of the lieutenant-governor, on the motion ofgoing into committee of supply, prevented the house from coming to adecision squarely on the true constitutional issue--actually raised inthe senate in 1878--whether it was expedient for the parliament orgovernment of Canada to interfere in a matter of purely provincialconcern. 

In 1891 another case of the dismissal of a ministry, having a majorityin the assembly, occurred in the province of Quebec, but theintervention of parliament was not asked for the purpose of censuringthe lieutenant-governor for the exercise of his undoubted constitutionalpower. It appears that, in 1891, the evidence taken before a committeeof the senate showed that gross irregularities had occurred inconnection with the disbursement of certain government subsidies whichhad been voted by parliament for the construction of the Bay desChaleurs railway, and that members of the Quebec cabinet werecompromised in what was clearly a misappropriation of public money. Inview of these grave charges, Lieutenant-governor Angers forced his primeminister, Mr. Honoré Mercier, to agree to the appointment of a royalcommission to hold an investigation into the transaction in question. When the lieutenant-governor was in possession of the evidence takenbefore this commission, he came to the conclusion that it was his dutyto relieve Mr. Mercier and his colleagues of their functions asministers "in order to protect the dignity of the crown and safeguardthe honour and interest of the province in danger. " Mr. De Bouchervillewas then called upon to form a ministry which would necessarily assumefull responsibility for the action of the lieutenant-governor under thecircumstances, and after some delay the new ministry went to the countryand were sustained by a large majority. It is an interesting coincidencethat the lieutenant-governor who dismissed the Mercier government andthe prime minister who assumed full responsibility for the dismissal ofthe Mercier administration, were respectively attorney-general andpremier in the cabinet who so deeply resented a similar action in 1878. But Mr. Letellier was then dead--notoriously as a result of the mentalstrain to which he had been subject in the constitutional crisis whichwrecked his political career--and it was left only for his friends tofeel that the whirligig of time brings its revenge even in politicalaffairs[5]. 

[5: Since this chapter was in type, the Dominion government have foundit necessary to dismiss Mr. McInnes from the lieutenant-governorship ofBritish Columbia, on the ground--as set forth in an order-in-council--that "his official conduct had been subversive of the principles ofresponsible government, " and that his "usefulness was gone. " While Mr. McInnes acted as head of the executive at Victoria, the politicalaffairs of the province became chaotic. He dismissed ministries in themost summary manner. When the people were at last appealed to at ageneral election by Mr. Martin, his latest adviser, he was defeated byan overwhelming majority, and the Ottawa government came to theconclusion--to quote the order-in-council--"that the action of thelieutenant-governor in dismissing his ministers has not been approved bythe people of British Columbia, " and it was evident, "that thegovernment of the province cannot be successfully carried on in themanner contemplated by the constitution under the administration of thepresent incumbent of the office. " Consequently, Mr. McInnes was removedfrom office, and the Dominion government appointed in his place SirHenri Joly de Lotbinière, who has had large experience in public affairs, and is noted for his amiability and discretion. ]

A very important controversy involving old issues arose in 1888 inconnection with an act passed by the Mercier government of Quebec forthe settlement of the Jesuits' estates, which, so long ago as 1800, hadfallen into the hands of the British government, on the death of thelast surviving member of the order in Canada, and had been, after somedelay, applied to the promotion of public instruction in the province ofQuebec. The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church always contended thatthe estates should have been vested in them "as the ordinaries of thevarious dioceses in which this property was situated. " Afterconfederation, the estates became the property of the government ofQuebec and were entirely at the disposal of the legislature. TheJesuits in the meantime had become incorporated in the province, andmade, as well as the bishops, a claim to the estates. Eventually, tosettle the difficulty and strengthen himself with the ecclesiastics ofthe province, Mr. Mercier astutely passed a bill through thelegislature, authorising the payment of $400, 000 as compensation to theJesuits in lieu of all the lands held by them prior to the conquest andsubsequently confiscated by the crown. It was expressly set forth in thepreamble of the act--and it was this proposition which offended theextreme Protestants--that the amount of compensation was to remain as aspecial deposit until the Pope had made known his wishes respecting thedistribution. Some time later the Pope divided the money among theJesuits, the archbishops and bishops of the province, and LavalUniversity. The whole matter came before the Dominion house of commonsin 1888, when a resolution was proposed to the effect that thegovernment should have at once disallowed the act as beyond the power ofthe legislature, because, among other reasons, "it recognizes theusurpation of a right by a foreign authority, namely his Holiness thePope, to claim that his consent was necessary to dispose of andappropriate the public funds of a province. " The very large vote insupport of the action of the government-188 against 13-was chieflyinfluenced by the conviction that, to quote the minute of council, "thesubject-matter of the act was one of provincial concern, only havingrelation to a fiscal matter entirely within the control of thelegislature of Quebec. " The best authorities agree in the wisdom of notinterfering with provincial legislation except in cases where there isan indisputable invasion of Dominion jurisdiction or where the vitalinterests of Canada as a whole may imperatively call for suchinterference. 

In March, 1885, Canada was startled by the news that the half-breeds ofthe Saskatchewan district in the North-west had risen in rebellionagainst the authority of the Dominion government. It is difficult toexplain clearly the actual causes of an uprising which, in allprobability, would never have occurred had it not been for the fact thatRiel had been brought back from Montana by his countrymen to assist themin obtaining a redress of certain grievances. This little insurrectionoriginated in the Roman Catholic mission of St. Laurent, situatedbetween the north and south branches of the Saskatchewan River, andcontiguous to the British settlement of Prince Albert. Within the limitsof this mission there was a considerable number of half-breeds, who hadfor the most part migrated from Manitoba after selling the "scrip[6]"for lands generously granted to them after the restoration of order in1870 to the Red River settlements. Government surveyors had been busilyengaged for some time in laying out the Saskatchewan country in order tokeep pace with the rapidly increasing settlement. When they came to themission of St. Laurent they were met with the same distrust that haddone so much harm in 1870. The half-breeds feared that the system ofsquare blocks followed by the surveyors would seriously interfere withthe location of the farms on which they had "squatted" in accordancewith the old French system of deep lots with a narrow frontage on thebanks of the rivers. The difficulties arising out of these diversesystems of surveys caused a considerable delay in the issue of patentsfor lands, and dissatisfied the settlers who were anxious to know whatland their titles covered. The half-breeds not only contended that theirsurveys should be respected, but that they should be also allowed scripfor two hundred and forty acres of land, as had been done in the case oftheir compatriots in Manitoba. Many of the Saskatchewan settlers hadactually received this scrip before they left the province, butnevertheless they hoped to obtain it once more from the government, andto sell it with their usual improvidence to the first speculators whooffered them some ready money. 

[6: A certificate from the government that a certain person is entitledto receive a patent from the crown for a number of acres of the publiclands--a certificate legally transferable to another person by theoriginal holder. ]

The delay of the government in issuing patents and scrip and the systemof surveys were no doubt the chief grievances which enabled Riel andDumont--the latter a resident of Batoche--to excite the half-breedsagainst the Dominion authorities at Ottawa. When a commission wasactually appointed by the government in January, 1885, to allot scrip tothose who were entitled to receive it, the half-breeds were actuallyready for a revolt under the malign influence of Riel and hisassociates. Riel believed for some time after his return in 1884 that hecould use the agitation among his easily deluded countrymen for his ownselfish purposes. It is an indisputable fact that he made an offer tothe Dominion government to leave the North-west if they would pay him aconsiderable sum of money. When he found that there was no likelihood ofSir John Macdonald repeating the mistake which he had made at the end ofthe first rebellion, Riel steadily fomented the agitation among thehalf-breeds, who were easily persuaded to believe that a repetition ofthe disturbances of 1870 would obtain them a redress of any grievancesthey might have. It is understood that one of the causes that aggravatedthe agitation at its inception was the belief entertained by some whitesettlers of Prince Albert that they could use the disaffection among thehalf-breeds for the purpose of repeating the early history of Manitoba, and forcing the Dominion government to establish a new province in theSaskatchewan country, though its entire population at that time wouldnot have exceeded ten thousand persons, of whom a large proportion werehalf-breeds. Riel for a time skilfully made these people believe that hewould be a ductile instrument in their hands, but when his own planswere ripe for execution he assumed despotic control of the wholemovement and formed a provisional government in which he and hishalf-breed associates were dominant, and the white conspirators ofPrince Albert were entirely ignored. The loyal people of Prince Albert, who had always disapproved of the agitation, as well as the priests ofthe mission, who had invariably advised their flock to use only peacefuland constitutional methods of redress, were at last openly set atdefiance and insulted by Riel and his associates. The revolt broke outon the 25th March, 1885, when the half-breeds took forcible possessionof the government stores, and made prisoners of some traders at DuckLake. A small force of Mounted Police under the command ofSuperintendent Crozier was defeated near the same place by Dumont, andthe former only saved his men from destruction by a skilful retreat toFort Carleton. The half-breed leaders circulated the news of thisvictory over the dreaded troops of the government among the Indian bandsof the Saskatchewan, a number of whom immediately went on the war-path. Fort Carleton had to be given up by the mounted police, who retired toPrince Albert, the key of the district. The town of Battleford wasbesieged by the Indians, but they were successfully kept in check forweeks until the place was relieved. Fort Pitt was evacuated by InspectorDickens, a son of the great novelist, who succeeded in taking his littleforce of police into Battleford. Two French missionaries and severalwhite men were ruthlessly murdered at Frog Lake by a band of Crees, andtwo women were dragged from the bodies of their husbands and carriedaway to the camp of Big Bear. Happily for them some tender-heartedhalf-breeds purchased them from the Indians and kept them in safetyuntil they were released at the close of the disturbances. 

The heart of Canada was now deeply stirred and responded with greatheartiness to the call of the government for troops to restore order tothe distracted settlements. The minister of militia, Mr. AdolpheCaron--afterwards knighted for his services on this tryingoccasion--showed great energy in the management of his department. Between four and five thousand men were soon on the march for theterritories under Major-General Middleton, the English officer then incommand of the Canadian militia. Happily for the rapid transport of thetroops the Canadian Pacific Railway was so far advanced that, with theexception of 72 miles, it afforded a continuous line of communicationfrom Montreal to Qu'Appelle. The railway formed the base from whichthree military expeditions could be despatched to the most importantpoints of the Saskatchewan country--one direct to Batoche, a second toBattleford, and a third for a flank movement to Fort Edmonton, where adescent could be made down the North Saskatchewan for the purpose ofrecapturing Fort Pitt and attacking the rebellious Indians under BigBear. On the 24th of April General Middleton fought his first engagementwith the half-breeds, who were skilfully concealed in rifle pits in thevicinity of Fish Creek, a small erratic tributary of the SouthSaskatchewan. Dumont for the moment succeeded in checking the advance ofthe Canadian forces, who fought with much bravery but were placed at agreat disadvantage on account of Middleton not having taken sufficientprecautions against a foe thoroughly acquainted with the country andcunningly hidden. The Canadian troops were soon able to continue theirforward movement and won a decisive victory at Batoche, in whichColonels Williams, Straubenzie, and Grasett notably distinguishedthemselves. Riel was soon afterwards captured on the prairie, but Dumontsucceeded in crossing the frontier of the United States. While Middletonwas on his way to Batoche, Lieutenant-Colonel Otter of Toronto, an ablesoldier who was, fifteen years later, detached for active service inSouth Africa, was on the march for the relief of Battleford, and had onthe first of May an encounter with a large band of Indians underPoundmaker on the banks of Cut Knife Creek, a small tributary of theBattle River. Though Otter did not win a victory, he showed Poundmakerthe serious nature of the contest in which he was engaged against theCanadian government, and soon afterwards, when the Cree chief heard ofthe defeat of the half-breeds at Batoche, he surrenderedunconditionally. Another expedition under the command ofLieutenant-Colonel Strange also relieved Fort Pitt; and Big Bear wasforced to fly into the swampy fastnesses of the prairie wilderness, butwas eventually captured near Fort Carleton by a force of Mounted Police. 

This second rebellion of the half-breeds lasted about three months, andcost the country upwards of five million dollars. Including the personsmurdered at Frog Lake, the loyal population of Canada lost thirty-sixvaluable lives, among whom was Lieutenant-Colonel Williams, a gallantofficer, and a member of the house of commons, who succumbed to aserious illness brought on by his exposure on the prairie. Thecasualties among the half-breeds were at least as large, if not greater. Five Indian chiefs suffered the extreme penalty of the law, whilePoundmaker, Big Bear, and a number of others were imprisoned in theterritories for life or for a term of years, according to the gravity oftheir complicity in the rebellion. Any hopes that Riel might have placedin the active sympathy of the French Canadian people of Quebec were soondispelled. He was tried at Regina in July and sentenced to death, although the able counsel allotted to him by the government exhaustedevery available argument in his defence, even to the extent of settingup a plea of insanity, which the prisoner himself deeply resented. Themost strenuous efforts were made by the French Canadians to force thegovernment to reprieve him, but Sir John Macdonald was satisfied thatthe loyal sentiment of the great majority of the people of Canadademanded imperatively that the law should be vindicated. The FrenchCanadian representatives in the cabinet, Langevin, Chapleau, and Caron, resisted courageously the storm of obloquy which their determination tosupport the prime minister raised against them; and Riel was dulyexecuted on the 16th November. For some time after his death attemptswere made to keep up the excitement which had so long existed in theprovince of Quebec on the question. The Dominion government wascertainly weakened for a time in Quebec by its action in this matter, while Mr. Honoré Mercier skilfully used the Riel agitation to obtaincontrol of the provincial government at the general election of 1886, but only to fall five years later, under circumstances which must alwaysthrow a shadow over the fame of a brilliant, but unsafe, politicalleader (see p. 247). The attempt to make political capital out of thematter in the Dominion parliament had no other result than to weaken theinfluence in Ontario of Mr. Edward Blake, the leader of the oppositionsince the resignation of Mr. Mackenzie in 1880. He was left without thesupport of the majority of the Liberal representatives of the provincein the house of commons when he condemned the execution of Riel, principally on the ground that he was insane--a conclusion not at alljustified by the report of the medical experts who had been chosen bythe government to examine the condemned man previous to the execution. The energy with which this rebellion was repressed showed both thehalf-breeds and the Indians of the west the power of the Ottawagovernment. From that day to this order has prevailed in the westerncountry, and grievances have been redressed as far as possible. Thereadiness with which the militia force of Canada rallied to the supportof the government was conclusive evidence of the deep national sentimentthat existed throughout the Dominion. In Ottawa, Port Hope, and Torontomonuments have been raised in memory of the brave men who gave up theirlives for the Dominion, but probably the most touching memorial of thisunfortunate episode in Canadian history is the rude cairn of stone whichstill stands among the wild flowers of the prairie in memory of thegallant fellows who were mown down by the unerring rifle shots of thehalf-breeds hidden in the ravines of Fish Creek. 

In 1885 parliament passed a general franchise law for the Dominion inplace of the system--which had prevailed since 1867--of taking theelectoral lists of the several provinces as the lists for elections tothe house of commons. The opposition contested this measure with greatpersistency, but Sir John Macdonald pressed it to a successfulconclusion, mainly on the ground that it was necessary in a country likeCanada, composed of such diverse elements, to have for the Dominionuniformity of suffrage, based on a small property qualification, insteadof having diverse systems of franchise--in some provinces, universalfranchise, to which he and other Conservatives generally were stronglyopposed. 

Between 1880 and 1894 Canada was called upon to mourn the loss of anumber of her ablest and brightest statesmen--one of them the mostnotable in her political history. It was on a lovely May day of 1880that the eminent journalist and politician, George Brown, died from theeffects of a bullet wound which he received at the hand of one Bennett, a printer, who had been discharged by the _Globe_ for drunkenness andincapacity. The Conservative party in 1888 suffered a great loss by thesudden decease of Mr. Thomas White, minister of the interior in theMacdonald ministry, who had been for the greater part of his life aprominent journalist, and had succeeded in winning a conspicuous anduseful position in public affairs as a writer, speaker, andadministrator. Three years later, the Dominion was startled by the sadannouncement, on the 6th June, 1891, that the voice of the great primeminister, Sir John Macdonald, who had so long controlled the affairs ofCanada, would never more be heard in that federal parliament of which hehad been one of the fathers. All classes of Canadians vied with oneanother in paying a tribute of affection and respect to one who had beenin every sense a true Canadian. Men forgot for the moment his mistakesand weaknesses, the mistakes of the politician and the weaknesses ofhumanity, "only to remember"--to quote the eloquent tribute paid to himby Mr. Laurier, then leader of the opposition--"that his actions alwaysdisplayed great originality of view, unbounded fertility of resources, ahigh level of intellectual conception, and above all, a far-reachingvision beyond the event of the day, and still higher, permeating thewhole, a broad patriotism, a devotion to Canada's welfare, Canada'sadvancement, and Canada's glory. " His obsequies were the most statelyand solemn that were ever witnessed in the Dominion; his bust wassubsequently unveiled in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral by the Earlof Rosebery, when prime minister of England; noble monuments were raisedto his memory in the cities of Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal;and the Queen addressed a letter full of gracious sympathy to his widowand conferred on her the dignity of a peeress of the United Kingdomunder the title of Baroness of Earnscliffe, as a mark of her Majesty'sgratitude "for the devoted and faithful services which he rendered forso many years to his sovereign and his Dominion. "

Mr. Alexander Mackenzie, stonemason, journalist, and prime minister, died in April, 1892, a victim to the paralysis which had been steadilycreeping for years over his enfeebled frame, and made him a pitiablespectacle as he sat like a Stoic in the front seats of the opposition, unable to speak or even to rise without the helping arm of someattentive friend. On the 30th October, 1893, Sir John Abbott, probablythe ablest commercial lawyer in Canada, who had been premier of Canadasince the death of Sir John Macdonald, followed his eminent predecessorsto the grave, and was succeeded by Sir John Thompson, minister ofjustice in the Conservative government since September, 1885. A greatmisfortune again overtook the Conservative party on the 12th December, 1894, when Sir John Thompson died in Windsor Castle, whither he had goneat her Majesty's request to take the oath of a privy councillor ofEngland--high distinction conferred upon him in recognition of hisservices on the Bering Sea arbitration. Sir John Thompson was giftedwith a rare judicial mind, and a remarkable capacity for the lucidexpression of his thoughts, which captivated his hearers even when theywere not convinced by arguments clothed in the choicest diction. Hisremains were brought across the Atlantic by a British frigate, andinterred in his native city of Halifax with all the stately ceremony ofa national funeral. The governor-general, Lord Stanley of Preston, nowthe Earl of Derby, called upon the senior privy councillor in thecabinet, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, to form a new ministry. He continued inoffice until April, 1896, when he retired in favour of Sir CharlesTupper, who resigned the position of high commissioner for Canada inEngland to enter public life as the recognised leader of theLiberal-Conservative party. This eminent Canadian had already reachedthe middle of the eighth decade of his life, but age had in no senseimpaired the vigour or astuteness of his mental powers. He has continuedever since, as leader of the Liberal-Conservative party, to displayremarkable activity in the discussion of political questions, not onlyas a leader of parliament, but on the public platform in every provinceof the Dominion. 

During the session of 1891 the political career of Sir Hector Langevin, the leader of the Liberal-Conservative party in French Canada, wasseriously affected by certain facts disclosed before the committee ofprivileges and elections. This committee had been ordered by the houseof commons to inquire into charges made by Mr. Israel Tarte againstanother member of the house, Mr. Thomas McGreevy, who was accused ofhaving used his influence as a commissioner of the Quebec harbour, agovernment appointment, to obtain fraudulently from the department ofpublic works, presided over by Sir Hector for many years, largegovernment contracts in connection with the Quebec harbour and otherworks. The report of the majority of the committee found Mr. McGreevyguilty of fraudulent acts, and he was not only expelled from the housebut was subsequently imprisoned in the Ottawa common gaol after hisconviction on an indictment laid against him in the criminal court ofOntario. With respect to the complicity of the minister of public worksin these frauds the committee reported that it was clear that, while theconspiracy had been rendered effective by reason of the confidence whichSir Hector Langevin placed in Mr. McGreevy and in the officers of thedepartment, yet the evidence did not justify them in concluding that SirHector knew of the conspiracy or willingly lent himself to its objects. A minority of the committee, on the other hand, took the opposite viewof the transactions, and claimed that the evidence showed the ministerto be cognisant of the facts of the letting of the contracts, and thatin certain specified cases he had been guilty of the violation of apublic trust by allowing frauds to be perpetrated. The report of themajority was carried by a party vote, with the exception of twoConservative members who voted with the minority. Sir Hector Langevinhad resigned his office in the government previous to the inquiry, andthough he continued in the house for the remainder of its constitutionalexistence, he did not present himself for re-election in 1896 whenparliament was dissolved. 

Unhappily it was not only in the department of public works thatirregularities were discovered. A number of officials in severaldepartments were proved before the committee of public accounts to havebeen guilty of carelessness or positive misconduct in the discharge oftheir duties, and the government was obliged, in the face of suchdisclosures, to dismiss or otherwise punish several persons in whom theyhad for years reposed too much confidence. 

On the 20th and 21st of June, 1893, a convention of the most prominentrepresentative Liberals of the Dominion was held in the city of Ottawa;and Sir Oliver Mowat, the veteran premier of Ontario, was unanimouslycalled upon to preside over this important assemblage. Resolutions werepassed with great enthusiasm in support of tariff reform, a fair measureof reciprocal trade with the United States, a sale of public lands onlyto actual settlers upon reasonable terms of settlement, an honest andeconomical administration of government, the right of the house ofcommons to inquire into all matters of public expenditure and charges ofmisconduct against ministers, the reform of the senate, the submissionof the question of prohibition to a vote of the people, and the repealof the Dominion franchise act passed in 1885, as well as of the measureof 1892, altering the boundaries of the electoral districts andreadjusting the representation in the house of commons. This conventionmay be considered the commencement of that vigorous political campaign, which ended so successfully for the Liberal party in the generalelection of 1896. 

In the summer of 1894 there was held in the city of Ottawa a conferenceof delegates from eight self-governing colonies in Australasia, SouthAfrica, and America, who assembled for the express purpose of discussingquestions which affected not merely their own peculiar interests, buttouched most nearly the unity and development of the empire at large Theimperial government was represented by the Earl of Jersey, who had beena governor of one of the Australian colonies. After very full discussionthe conference passed resolutions in favour of the following measures:

(1) Imperial legislation enabling the dependencies of the empire toenter into agreements of commercial reciprocity, including the power tomake differential tariffs with Great Britain or with one another. (2)The removal of any restrictions in existing treaties between GreatBritain and any foreign power, which prevent such agreements ofcommercial reciprocity. (3) A customs arrangement between Great Britainand her colonies by which trade within the empire might be placed on amore favourable footing than that which is carried on with foreigncountries. (4) Improved steamship communication between Canada, Australasia, and Great Britain. (5) Telegraph communication by cable, free from foreign control, between Canada and Australia. These variousresolutions were brought formally by the Earl of Jersey to the noticeof the imperial government, which expressed the opinion, through theMarquess of Ripon, then secretary of state for the colonies, that the"general economic results" of the preferential trade recommended by theconference "would not be beneficial to the empire. " Lord Ripon evenquestioned the desirability of denouncing at that time the treaties withBelgium and Germany--a subject which had engaged the attention of theCanadian parliament in 1892, when the government, of which Sir JohnAbbott was premier, passed an address to the Queen, requesting thatimmediate steps be taken to free Canada from treaty restrictions"incompatible with the rights and powers conferred by the British NorthAmerica act of 1867 for the regulation of the trade and commerce of theDominion. " Any advantages which might be granted by Great Britain toeither Belgium or the German Zollverein under these particular treaties, would also have to be extended to a number of other countries which hadwhat is called the "favoured nations clause" in treaties with England. While these treaty stipulations with regard to import duties did notprevent differential treatment by the United Kingdom in favour ofBritish colonies, or differential treatment by British colonies infavour of each other, they did prevent differential treatment by Britishcolonies in favour of the United Kingdom. As we shall presently see, when I come to review the commercial policy of the new Dominiongovernment three years later, the practical consequence of thesetreaties was actually to force Canada to give for some months not onlyto Germany and Belgium, but to a number of other countries, the samecommercial privileges which they extended in 1897 to the parent state. 

Among the difficult questions, which have agitated the Dominion fromtime to time and perplexed both Conservative and Liberal politicians, are controversies connected with education. By the British North Americaact of 1867 the legislature of each province may exclusively make lawsin relation to education, but at the same time protection is affordedto denominational or dissentient schools by giving authority to theDominion government to disallow an act clearly infringing the rights orprivileges of a religious minority, or to obtain remedial legislationfrom parliament itself according to the circumstances of the case. From1871 until 1875 the government of the Dominion was pressed by petitionsfrom the Roman Catholic inhabitants of New Brunswick to disallow an actpassed by the provincial legislature in relation to common schools onthe ground that it was an infringement of certain rights which theyenjoyed as a religious body at the time of confederation. The questionnot only came before the courts of New Brunswick and the Canadian houseof commons, but was also submitted to the judicial committee of theimperial privy council; but only with the result of showing beyondquestion that the objectionable legislation was clearly within thejurisdiction of the legislature of New Brunswick, and could not beconstitutionally disallowed by the Dominion government on the groundthat it violated any right or privilege enjoyed by the Roman Catholicsat the time of union. A solution of the question was, however, subsequently reached by an amicable arrangement between the RomanCatholics and Protestants, which has ever since worked mostsatisfactorily in that province. 

The Manitoba school question, which agitated the country from 1890 until1896, was one of great gravity on account of the issues involved. Thehistory of the case shows that, prior to the formation of Manitoba in1870, there was not in the province any public system of education, butthe several religious denominations had established such schools as theythought fit to maintain by means of funds voluntarily contributed bymembers of their own communion. In 1871 the legislature of Manitobaestablished an educational system distinctly denominational. In 1890this law was repealed, and the legislature established a system ofstrictly non-sectarian schools. The Roman Catholic minority of theprovince was deeply aggrieved at what they considered a violation of therights and privileges which they enjoyed under the terms of unionadopted in 1870. The first subsection of the twenty-second section ofthe act of 1870 set forth that the legislature of the province could notpass any law with regard to schools which might "prejudicially affectany right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which anyclass of persons have, by law or practice, in the province at the timeof union. " The dispute was brought before the courts of Canada, andfinally before the judicial committee of the privy council, whichdecided that the legislation of 1890 was constitutional inasmuch as theonly right or privilege which the Roman Catholics then possessed "by lawor practice" was the right or privilege of establishing and maintainingfor the use of members of their own church such schools as they pleased. The Roman Catholic minority then availed themselves of another provisionof the twenty-second section of the Manitoba act, which allows an appealto the governor-in-council "from any act or decision of the legislatureof the province or of any provincial authority, affecting any right orprivilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the Queen'ssubjects in relation to education. "

The ultimate result of this reference was a judgment of the judicialcommittee to the effect that the appeal was well founded and that thegovernor-in-council had jurisdiction in the premises, but the committeeadded that "the particular course to be pursued must be determined bythe authorities to whom it has been committed by the statute. " The thirdsubsection of the twenty-second section of the Manitoba act--arepetition of the provision of the British North America act withrespect to denominational schools in the old provinces--provides notonly for the action of the governor-in-council in case a remedy is notsupplied by the proper provincial authority for the removal of agrievance on the part of a religious minority, but also for the makingof "remedial laws" by the parliament of Canada for the "due execution"of the provision protecting denominational schools. In accordance withthis provision Sir Mackenzie Bowell's government passed anorder-in-council on the 21st March, 1895, calling upon the government ofManitoba to take the necessary measures to restore to the Roman Catholicminority such rights and privileges as were declared by the highestcourt of the empire to have been taken away from them. The Manitobagovernment not only refused to move in the matter but expressed itsdetermination "to resist unitedly by every constitutional means any suchattempt to interfere with their provincial autonomy. " The result was theintroduction of a remedial bill by Mr. Dickey, minister of justice, inthe house of commons during the session of 1896; but it met from theoutset very determined opposition during the most protractedsittings--one of them lasting continuously for a week--ever known in thehistory of the Canadian or any other legislature of the empire. Onseveral divisions the bill was supported by majorities ranging from 24to 18--several French members of the opposition having voted for it andseveral Conservative Protestant members against its passage. The billwas introduced on the 11th February, and the motion for its secondreading was made on the 3rd March, from which date it was debatedcontinuously until progress was reported from a committee of the wholehouse on the 16th April, after the house had sat steadily from Mondayafternoon at 3 o'clock until 2 o'clock on the following Thursdaymorning. It was then that Sir Charles Tupper, leader of the governmentin the house, announced that no further attempt would be made to pressthe bill that session. He stated that it was absolutely necessary tovote money for the urgent requirements of the public service and passother important legislation during the single week that was left beforeparliament would be dissolved by the efflux of time under theconstitutional law, which fixes the duration of the house of commons"for five years from the day of the return of the writs for choosing thehouse and no longer. "

In the general election of 1896 the Manitoba school question was anissue of great importance. From the commencement to the close of thecontroversy the opponents of denominational schools combined with thesupporters of provincial rights to defeat the government which had sodeterminedly fought for what it considered to be the legal rights of theRoman Catholic minority of Manitoba. It had looked confidently to thesupport of the great majority of the French Canadians, but the result ofthe elections was most disappointing to the Conservative party. Whilstin the provinces, where the Protestants predominated, the Conservativesheld their own to a larger extent than had been expected even by theirsanguine friends, the French province gave a great majority to Mr. Launer, whose popularity among his countrymen triumphed over allinfluences, ecclesiastical and secular, that could be used in favour ofdenominational schools in Manitoba. 

The majority against Sir Charles Tupper was conclusive, and he did notattempt to meet parliament as the head of a government. Before hisretirement from office, immediately after his defeat at the elections, he had some difference of opinion with the governor-general, the Earl ofAberdeen, who refused, in the exercise of his discretionary power, tosanction certain appointments to the senate and the judicial bench, which the prime minister justified by reference to English and Canadianprecedents under similar conditions--notably of 1878 when Mr. Mackenzieresigned. Soon after the general election, and Lord Dufferin wasgovernor-general, Sir Charles Tupper considered the subject ofsufficient constitutional importance to bring it before the house ofcommons, where Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then premier, defended the course ofthe governor-general. The secretary of state for the colonies alsoapproved in general terms of the principles which, as thegovernor-general explained in his despatches, had governed his action inthis delicate matter. 

On Sir Charles Tapper's defeat at the elections, Mr. Laurier becamefirst minister of a Liberal administration, in which positions weregiven to Sir Oliver Mowat, so long premier of Ontario, to Mr. Blair, premier of New Brunswick, to Mr. Fielding, premier of Nova Scotia, andeventually to Mr. Sifton, the astute attorney-general of Manitoba. SirRichard Cartwright and Sir Louis Davies--to give the latter the titleconferred on him in the Diamond Jubilee year--both of whom had been inthe foremost rank of the Liberal party for many years, also took officein the new administration; but Mr. Mills, versed above most Canadianpublic men in political and constitutional knowledge, was not brought inuntil some time later, when Sir Oliver Mowat, the veteran minister ofjustice, was appointed to the lieutenant-governorship of Ontario. Anotable acquisition was Mr. Tarte, who had acquired much influence inFrench Canada by his irrepressible energy, and who was placed over thedepartment of public works. 

When the school question came to be discussed in 1897, during the firstsession of the new parliament, the premier explained to the house that, whilst he had always maintained "that the constitution of this countrygave to this parliament and government the right and power to interferewith the school legislation of Manitoba, it was an extreme right andreserved power to be exercised only when other means had beenexhausted. " Believing then that "it was far better to obtain concessionsby negotiation than by coercion, " he had, as soon as he came intooffice, communicated with the Manitoba government on the subject, andhad "as a result succeeded in making arrangements which gave the FrenchCatholics of the province religious teaching in their schools and theprotection of their language, " under the conditions set forth in astatute expressly passed for the purpose by the legislature ofManitoba[7]. The premier at the same time admitted that "the settlementwas not acceptable to certain dignitaries of the church to which hebelonged"; but subsequently the Pope published an encyclical advisingacceptance of the concessions made to the Manitoba Catholics, whileclaiming at the same time that these concessions were inadequate, andexpressing the hope that full satisfaction would be obtained ere longfrom the Manitoba government. Since the arrangement of this compromise, no strenuous or effective effort has been made to revive the question asan element of political significance in party contests. Even in Manitobaitself, despite the defeat of the Greenway government, which wasresponsible for the Manitoba school act of 1890, and the coming intooffice of Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, the son of the great Conservativeleader, there has been no sign of the least intention to depart from thelegislation arranged by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1897 as, in his opinion, the best possible compromise under the difficult conditions surroundinga most embarrassing question. 

[7: This statute provides that religious teaching by a Roman Catholicpriest, or other person duly authorised by him, shall take place at theclose of the hours devoted to secular instruction; that a Roman Catholicteacher may be employed in every school in towns and cities where theaverage attendance of Roman Catholic children is forty or upwards, andin villages and rural districts where the attendance is twenty-five orupwards; and that French as well as English shall be taught in anyschool where ten pupils speak the French language. ]

In the autumn of 1898 Canada bade farewell with many expressions ofregret to Lord and Lady Aberdeen, both of whom had won the affection andrespect of the Canadian people by their earnest efforts to support everymovement that might promote the social, intellectual and moral welfareof the people. Lord Aberdeen was the seventh governor-general appointedby the crown to administer public affairs since the union of theprovinces in 1867. Lord Monck, who had the honour of initiatingconfederation, was succeeded by Sir John Young, who was afterwardsraised to the peerage as Baron Lisgar--a just recognition of theadmirable discretion and dignity with which he discharged the duties ofhis high position. His successor, the Earl of Dufferin, won theaffection of the Canadian people by his grace of demeanour, and hisIrish gift of eloquence, which he used in the spirit of the cleverdiplomatist to flatter the people of the country to their heart'scontent. The appointment of the Marquess of Lorne, now the Duke ofArgyll, gave to Canada the honour of the presence of a Princess of thereigning family. He showed tact and discretion in some difficultpolitical situations that arose during his administration, and succeededabove all his predecessors in stimulating the study of art, science andliterature within the Dominion. The Marquess of Lansdowne and LordStanley of Preston--both inheritors of historic names, trained in thegreat school of English administration--also acquired the confidence andrespect of the Canadian people. On the conclusion of Lord Aberdeen'sterm of office in 1898, he was succeeded by the Earl of Minto, who hadbeen military secretary to the Marquess of Lansdowne, whengovernor-general, from the autumn of 1883 until the end of May, 1888, and had also acted as chief of staff to General Middleton during theNorth-west disturbances of 1885. 

Since its coming into office, the Laurier administration has been calledupon to deal with many questions of Canadian as well as imperialconcern. One of its first measures--to refer first to those of Canadianimportance--was the repeal of the franchise act of 1885, which had beenfound so expensive in its operation that the Conservative government hadfor years taken no steps to prepare new electoral lists for the Dominionunder its own law, but had allowed elections to be held on old listswhich necessarily left out large numbers of persons entitled to vote. Inaccordance with the policy to which they had always pledged themselvesas a party, the Liberal majority in parliament passed an act whichreturned to the electoral lists of the provinces. An attempt was alsomade in 1899 and 1900 to amend the redistribution acts of 1882 and 1892, and to restore so far as practicable the old county lines which had beenderanged by those measures. The bill was noteworthy for the feature, novel in Canada, of leaving to the determination of a judicialcommission the rearrangement of electoral divisions, but it was rejectedin the senate on the ground that the British North America act providesonly for the readjustment of the representation after the taking of eachDecennial census, and that it is "a violation of the spirit of the act"to deal with the question until 1901, when the official figures of thewhole population will be before parliament. The government was alsocalled upon to arrange the details of a provisional government for thegreat arctic region of the Yukon, where remarkable gold discoveries wereattracting a considerable population from all parts of the world. Anattempt to build a short railway to facilitate communication with thatwild and distant country was defeated in the senate by a large majority. The department of the interior has had necessarily to encounter manydifficulties in the administration of the affairs of a country so manythousand miles distant. These difficulties have formed the subject ofprotracted debates in the house of commons and have led to involvedpolitical controversies which it would not be possible to explainsatisfactorily within the limits of this chapter. 

In accordance with the policy laid down in 1897 by Mr. Fielding, thefinance minister, when presenting the budget, the Laurier government hasnot deemed it prudent to make such radical changes in the protective or"National Policy" of the previous administration as might derange thebusiness conditions of the Dominion, which had come to depend sointimately upon it in the course of seventeen years, but simply to amendand simplify it in certain particulars which would remove causes offriction between the importers and the customs authorities, and at thesame time make it, as they stated, less burdensome in its operation. Thequestion of reciprocal trade between Canada and the United States hadfor some time been disappearing in the background and was no longer adominant feature of the commercial policy of the Liberal party as it hadbeen until 1891, when its leaders were prepared under existingconditions to enter into the fullest trade arrangements possible withthe country to the south. The illiberality of the tariff of the UnitedStates with respect to Canadian products had led the Canadian people tolook to new markets, and especially to those of Great Britain, with whomthey were desirous, under the influence of a steadily growing imperialspirit, to have the closest commercial relations practicable. Consequently the most important feature of the Laurier government'spolicy, since 1897, has been the preference given to British products inCanada--a preference which now allows a reduction in the tariff of33-1/3 per cent. On British imports compared with foreign goods. Intheir endeavour, however, to give a preference to British imports, thegovernment was met at the outset by difficulties arising from theoperation of the Belgian and German treaties; and after very fullconsultation with the imperial government, and a reference of the legalpoints involved to the imperial law officers of the crown, Canada wasobliged to admit Belgian and German goods on the same terms as theimports of Great Britain, and also to concede similar advantages totwenty-two foreign countries which were by treaty entitled to anycommercial privileges that Great Britain or her colonies might grant toa third power. Happily for Canada at this juncture the colonialsecretary of state was Mr. Chamberlain, who was animated by aspirationsfor the strengthening of the relations between the parent state and herdependencies, and who immediately recognised the imperial significanceof the voluntary action of the Canadian government. The result was the"denunciation" by the imperial authorities of the Belgian and Germantreaties, which consequently came to an end on the 31st July, 1898. Down to that date Canada was obliged to give to the other countriesmentioned the preference which she had intentionally given to GreatBritain alone, and at the same time to refund to importers the dutieswhich had been collected in the interval from the countries in question. With the fall, however, of the Belgian and German treaties Canada was atlast free to model her tariff with regard to imperial as well asCanadian interests. It was a fortunate coincidence that the governmentshould have adopted this policy at a time when the whole British empirewas celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of the accession of her MajestyQueen Victoria to the throne. In the magnificent demonstration of theunity and development of the empire that took place in London in June, 1897, Canada was represented by her brilliant prime minister, who thenbecame the Right Honourable Sir W. Laurier, G. C. M. G. , and took aconspicuous place in the ceremonies that distinguished this memorableepisode in British and colonial history. 

A few months later the relations between Canada and Great Britain werefurther strengthened by the reduction of letter postage throughout theempire--Australia excepted--largely through the instrumentality of Mr. Mulock, Canadian postmaster-general. The Canadian government andparliament also made urgent representations to the imperial authoritiesin favour of the immediate construction of a Pacific cable; and it maynow be hoped that the pecuniary aid offered to this imperial enterpriseby the British, Australasian and Canadian governments will secure itsspeedy accomplishment. I may add here that debates have taken place inthe Canadian house of commons for several sessions on the desirabilityof obtaining preferential treatment in the British market for Canadianproducts The Conservative party, led by Sir Charles Tupper, haveformulated their opinions in parliament by an emphatic declaration that"no measure of preference, which falls short of the complete realisationof such a policy, should be considered final or satisfactory. " TheLaurier government admits the desirability of such mutual tradepreference, but at the same time it recognises the formidabledifficulties that lie in the way of its realisation so long as GreatBritain continues bound to free trade, and under these circumstancesdeclares it the more politic and generous course to continue giving aspecial preference to British products with the hope that it mayeventually bring about a change in public opinion in the parent statewhich will operate to the decided commercial or other advantage of thedependency. 

This chapter may appropriately close with a reference to the remarkableevidences of attachment to the empire that have been given by theCanadian people at the close of the nineteenth century. From themountains of the rich province washed by the Pacific Sea, from thewheat-fields and ranches of the western prairies, from the valley of thegreat lakes and the St. Lawrence where French and English Canadiansalike enjoy the blessings of British rule, from the banks of the St Johnwhere the United Empire Loyalists first made their homes, from therugged coasts of Acadia and Cape Breton, from every part of the wideDominion men volunteered with joyous alacrity to fight in South Africain support of the unity of the empire. As I close these pages Canadiansare fighting side by side with men from the parent Isles, fromAustralasia and from South Africa, and have shown that they are worthydescendants of the men who performed such gallant deeds on the evermemorable battlefields of Chateauguay, Chrystler's Farm, and Lundy'sLane. Not the least noteworthy feature of this significant event in theannals of Canada and the empire is the fact that a French Canadianpremier has had the good fortune to give full expression to the dominantimperial sentiment of the people, and consequently to offer anadditional guarantee for the union of the two races and the security ofBritish interests on the continent of America. 

SECTION 4. --Political and social conditions of Canada underconfederation. 

At the present time, a population of probably five million four hundredthousand souls inhabit a Dominion of seven regularly organisedprovinces, and of an immense fertile territory stretching from Manitobato British Columbia. This Dominion embraces an area of 3, 519, 000 squaremiles, including its water surface, or very little less than the area ofthe United States with Alaska, and measures 3500 miles from east towest; and 1400 miles from north to south. 

No country in the world gives more conclusive evidences of substantialdevelopment and prosperity than the Dominion under the beneficialinfluences of federal union and the progressive measures of governmentsfor many years. The total trade of the country has grown from over$131, 000, 000 in the first year of confederation to over $321, 000, 000 in1899, while the national revenue has risen during the same period from$14, 000, 000 to $47, 000, 000, and will probably be $50, 000, 000 in 1900. The railways, whose expansion so closely depends on the materialconditions of the whole country, stretch for 17, 250 miles compared with2278 miles in 1868; while the remarkable system of canals, which extendfrom the great lakes to Montreal, has been enlarged so as to giveadmirable facilities for the growing trade of the west. The naturalresources of the country are inexhaustible, from the fisheries of NovaScotia to the wheat-fields of the north-west, from the coal-mines ofCape Breton to the gold deposits of the dreary country through which theYukon and its tributaries flow. 

No dangerous questions like slavery, or the expansion of the Africanrace in the southern states, exist to complicate the political andsocial conditions of the confederation, and, although there is a largeand increasing French Canadian element in the Dominion, its history sofar need not create fear as to the future, except perhaps in the mindsof gloomy pessimists. While this element naturally clings to itsnational language and institutions, yet, under the influence of acomplete system of local self-government, it has always taken as activeand earnest a part as the English element in establishing andstrengthening the confederation. It has steadily grown in strength andprosperity under the generous and inspiring influence of Britishinstitutions, which have given full scope to the best attributes of anationality crushed by the depressing conditions of French rule for acentury and a half. 

The federal union gives expansion to the national energies of the wholeDominion, and at the same time affords every security to the localinterests of each member of the federal compact. In all matters ofDominion concern, Canada is a free agent. While the Queen is still headof the executive authority, and can alone initiate treaties with foreignnations (that being an act of complete sovereignty), and while appealsare still open to the privy council of England from Canadian courtswithin certain limitations, it is an admitted principle that theDominion is practically supreme in the exercise of all legislativerights and privileges granted by the imperial parliament, --rights andprivileges set forth explicitly in the British North America act of1867, --so long as her legislative action does not conflict with thetreaty obligations of the parent state, or with imperial legislationdirectly applicable to Canada with her own consent. 

The crown exercises a certain supervision over the affairs of theDominion through a governor-general, who communicates directly with animperial secretary of state; but in every matter directly affectingCanada--as for instance, in negotiations respecting the fisheries, theBering Sea, and other matters considered by several conferences atWashington--the Canadian government is consulted and its statements arecarefully considered, since they represent the sentiments and interestsof the Canadian people, who, as citizens of the empire, are entitled toas much weight as if they lived in the British Isles. 

In the administration of Canadian affairs the governor-general isadvised by a responsible council representing the majority of the houseof commons. As in England, the Canadian cabinet, or ministry, ispractically a committee of the dominant party in parliament and isgoverned by the rules, conventions and usages of parliamentarygovernment which have grown up gradually in the parent state. Wheneverit is necessary to form a ministry in Canada, its members are summonedby the governor-general to the privy council of Canada; anotherillustration of the desire of the Canadians to imitate the oldinstitutions of England and copy her time-honoured procedure. 

The parliament of Canada consists of the Queen, the senate, and thehouse of commons. In the formation of the upper house, threegeographical groups were arranged in the first instance, Ontario, Quebec, and the maritime provinces, and each group received arepresentation of twenty-four members. More recently other provinceshave been admitted into the Dominion without reference to thisarrangement, and now seventy-eight senators altogether may sit inparliament. The remarkably long tenure of power enjoyed by theConservative party--twenty-five years from 1867--enabled it in thecourse of time to fill the upper house with a very large numericalmajority of its own friends, and this fact, taken in connection withcertain elements of weakness inherent in a chamber which is not electedby the people and has none of the ancient privileges or prestige of ahouse of lords, long associated with the names of great statesmen andthe memorable events of English history, has created an agitation amongthe Liberal party for radical changes in its constitution which wouldbring it, in their opinion, more in harmony with the people'srepresentatives in the popular branch of the general legislature. Whilesome extremists would abolish the chamber, Sir Wilfrid Launer and otherprominent Liberals recognise its necessity in our parliamentary system. In all probability death will ere long solve difficulties arising outof the political composition of the body, if the Liberal party remain inpower. 

The house of commons, the great governing body of the Dominion, has beenmade, so far as circumstances will permit, a copy of the English house. Its members are not required to have a property qualification, and areelected by the votes of the electors of the several provinces where, ina majority of cases, universal suffrage, under limitations ofcitizenship and residence, prevails. 

In each province there is a lieutenant-governor, appointed by theDominion government for five years, an executive council, and alegislature consisting of only one house, except in Nova Scotia andQuebec where a legislative council appointed by the crown stillcontinues. The principles of responsible government exist in all theprovinces, and practically in the North-west territory. 

In the enumeration of the legislative powers, respectively given to theDominion and provincial legislatures, an effort was made to avoid theconflicts of jurisdiction that have so frequently arisen between thenational and state governments of the United States. In the first placewe have a recapitulation of those general or national powers thatproperly belong to the central authority, such as customs and exciseduties, regulation of trade and commerce, militia and defence, post-office, banking and coinage, railways and public works "for thegeneral advantage, " navigation and shipping, naturalisation and aliens, fisheries, weights and measures, marriage and divorce, penitentiaries, criminal law, census and statistics. On the other hand, the provinceshave retained control over municipal institutions, public lands, localworks and undertakings, incorporation of companies with provincialobjects, property and civil rights, administration of justice, andgenerally "all matters of a merely local and private nature in theprovince. " The _residuary_ power rests with the general parliament ofCanada. 

The parliament of Canada, in 1875, established a supreme court, orgeneral court of appeal, for Canada, whose highest function is to decidequestions as to the respective legislative powers of the Dominion andprovincial parliaments, which are referred to it in due process of lawby the subordinate courts of the provinces. The decisions of this courtare already doing much to solve difficulties that impede the successfuloperation of the constitution. As a rule cases come before the supremecourt on appeal from the lower courts, but the law regulating its powersprovides that the governor in council may refer any matter to this courton which a question of constitutional jurisdiction has been raised. Butthe supreme court of Canada is not necessarily the court of last resortof Canada. The people have an inherent right as subjects of the Queen toappeal to the judicial committee of the privy council of the UnitedKingdom. 

But it is not only by means of the courts that a check is imposed uponhasty, or unconstitutional, legislation. The constitution provides thatthe governor-general may veto or reserve any bill passed by the twohouses of parliament when it conflicts with imperial interests orimperial legislation. It is now understood that the reserve power ofdisallowance which her Majesty's government possesses under the law issufficient to meet all possible cases. This sovereign power is neverexercised except in the case of an act clearly in conflict with animperial statute or in violation of a treaty affecting a foreign nation. The Dominion government also supervises all the provincial legislationand has in a few cases disallowed provincial acts. This power isexercised very carefully, and it is regarded with intense jealousy bythe provincial governments, which have more than once attempted to setit at defiance. In practice it is found the wisest course to leave tothe courts the decision in cases where doubts exist as to constitutionalauthority or jurisdiction. 

The organised districts of the North-west--Assiniboia, Alberta, Athabaska, and Saskatchewan--are governed by a lieutenant-governorappointed by the government of Canada and aided by a council chosen byhimself from an assembly elected by the people under a very liberalfranchise. These territories have also representatives in the two housesof the parliament of Canada. The Yukon territory in the far north-west, where rich discoveries of gold have attracted a large number of peoplewithin the past two years, is placed under a provisional government, composed of a commissioner and council appointed by the Dominiongovernment[8], and acting under instructions given from time to time bythe same authority or by the minister of the interior. 

[8: Since this sentence was in type the Dominion government has giveneffect to a provision of a law allowing the duly qualified electors ofthe Yukon to choose two members of the council. ]

The public service enjoys all the advantages that arise from permanencyof tenure and appointment by the crown. It has on the whole beencreditable to the country and remarkably free from political influences. The criminal law of England has prevailed in all the provinces since itwas formerly introduced by the Quebec act of 1774. The civil law of theFrench regime, however, has continued to be the legal system in FrenchCanada since the Quebec act, and has now obtained a hold in thatprovince which insures its permanence as an institution closely alliedwith the dearest rights of the people. Its principles and maxims havebeen carefully collected and enacted in a code which is based on thefamous code of Napoleon. In the other provinces and territories thecommon law of England forms the basis of jurisprudence on which a largebody of Canadian statutory law has been built in the course of time. 

At the present time all the provinces, with the exception of PrinceEdward Island, have an excellent municipal system, which enables everydefined district, large or small, to carry on efficiently all thosepublic improvements essential to the comfort, convenience and generalnecessities of the different communities that make up the province atlarge. Even in the territories of the north-west, every proper facilityis given to the people in a populous district, or town, to organise asystem equal to all their local requirements. 

Every Englishman will consider it an interesting and encouraging factthat the Canadian people, despite their neighbourhood to a prosperousfederal commonwealth, should not even in the most critical and gloomyperiods of their history have shown any disposition to mould theirinstitutions directly on those of the United States and lay thefoundation for future political union. Previous to 1840, which was thecommencement of a new era in the political history of the provinces, there was a time when discontent prevailed throughout the Canadas, butnot even then did any large body of the people threaten to sever theconnection with the parent state. The Act of Confederation was framedunder the direct influence of Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Cartier, and although one was an English Canadian and the other a FrenchCanadian, neither yielded to the other in the desire to build up aDominion on the basis of English institutions, in the closest possibleconnection with the mother country. While the question of union wasunder consideration it was English statesmen and writers alone whopredicted that this new federation, with its great extent of territory, its abundant resources, and ambitious people, would eventually form anew nation independent of Great Britain. Canadian statesmen never spokeor wrote of separation, but regarded the constitutional change in theirpolitical condition as giving them greater weight and strength in theempire. The influence of British example on the Canadian Dominion can beseen throughout its governmental machinery, in the system ofparliamentary government, in the constitution of the privy council andthe houses of parliament, in an independent judiciary, in appointedofficials of every class--in the provincial as well as Dominionsystem--in a permanent and non-political civil service, and in allelements of sound administration. During the thirty-three years thathave passed since 1867, the attachment to England and her institutionshas gained in strength, and it is clear that those predictions ofEnglishmen to which we have referred are completely falsified. On thecontrary, the dominant sentiment is for strengthening the ties that havein some respects become weak in consequence of the enlargement of thepolitical rights of the Dominion, which has assumed the position of asemi-independent power, since England now only retains her imperialsovereignty by declaring peace or war with foreign nations, byappointing a governor-general, by controlling colonial legislationthrough the Queen in council and the Queen in parliament--but not so asto diminish the rights of local self-government conceded to theDominion--and by requiring that all treaties with foreign nations shouldbe made through her own government, while recognising the right of thedependency to be consulted and directly represented on all occasionswhen its interests are immediately affected. 

In no respect have the Canadians followed the example of the UnitedStates, and made their executive entirely separate from the legislativeauthority. On the contrary, there is no institution which works moreadmirably in the federation--in the general as well as provincialgovernments--than the principle of making the ministry responsible tothe popular branch of the legislature, and in that way keeping theexecutive and legislative departments in harmony with each other, andpreventing that conflict of authorities which is a distinguishingfeature of the very opposite system that prevails in the federalrepublic. If we review the amendments made of late years in thepolitical constitutions of the States, and especially those ratified notlong since in New York, we see in how many respects the Canadian systemof government is superior to that of the republic. For instance, Canadahas enjoyed for years, as results of responsible government, the secretballot, stringent laws against bribery and corruption at all classes ofelections, the registration of voters, strict naturalisation laws, infrequent political elections, separation of municipal from provincialor national contests, appointive and permanent officials in every branchof the civil service, a carefully devised code of private billlegislation, the printing of all public as well as private bills beforetheir consideration by the legislative bodies; and yet all theseessentials of safe administration and legislation are now only in partintroduced by constitutional enactment in so powerful and progressive astate as New York. 

Of course, in the methods of party government we can see in Canada attimes an attempt to follow the example of the United States, and tointroduce the party machine with its professional politicians and allthose influences that have degraded politics since the days of Jacksonand Van Buren. Happily, so far, the people of Canada have shownthemselves fully capable of removing those blots that show themselvesfrom time to time on the body politic. Justice has soon seized those menwho have betrayed their trust in the administration of public affairs. Although Canadians may, according to their political proclivities, findfault with some methods of governments and be carried away at times bypolitical passion beyond the bounds of reason, it is encouraging to findthat all are ready to admit the high character of the judiciary forlearning, integrity and incorruptibility. The records of Canada do notpresent a single instance of the successful impeachment or removal of ajudge for improper conduct on the bench since the days of responsiblegovernment; and the three or four petitions laid before parliament, inthe course of a quarter of a century, asking for an investigation intovague charges against some judges, have never required a judgment of thehouse. Canadians have built wisely when, in the formation of theirconstitution, they followed the English plan of retaining an intimateand invaluable connection between the executive and legislativedepartments, and of keeping the judiciary practically independent of theother authorities of government. Not only the life and prosperity of thepeople, but the satisfactory working of the whole system of federalgovernment rests more or less on the discretion and integrity of thejudges. Canadians are satisfied that the peace and security of the wholeDominion do not more depend on the ability and patriotism of statesmenin the legislative halls than on that principle of the constitution, which places the judiciary in an exalted position among all the otherdepartments of government, and makes law as far as possible the arbiterof their constitutional conflicts. All political systems are veryimperfect at the best; legislatures are constantly subject to currentsof popular prejudice and passion; statesmanship is too often weak andfluctuating, incapable of appreciating the true tendency of events, andtoo ready to yield to the force of present circumstances or dictates ofexpediency; but law, as worked out on English principles in all thedependencies of the empire and countries of English origin, asunderstood by Blackstone, Dicey, Story, Kent, and other great masters ofconstitutional and legal learning, gives the best possible guarantee forthe security of institutions in a country of popular government. 

In an Appendix to this history I have given comparisons in parallelcolumns between the principal provisions of the federal constitutions ofthe Canadian Dominion, and the Australian Commonwealth. In studyingcarefully these two systems we must be impressed by the fact that theconstitution of Canada appears more influenced by the spirit of Englishideas than the constitution of Australia, which has copied some featuresof the fundamental law of the United States. In the preamble of theCanadian British North America act we find expressly stated "the desireof the Canadian provinces to be federally united into one Dominion underthe crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with aconstitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, " whilethe preamble of the Australian constitution contains only a baldstatement of an agreement "to unite in one indissoluble federalCommonwealth under the crown, " When we consider the use of"Commonwealth"--a word of republican significance to British ears--aswell as the selection of "state" instead of "province, " of "house ofrepresentatives" instead of "house of commons, " of "executive council"instead of "privy council, " we may well wonder why the Australians, allBritish by origin and aspiration, should have shown an inclination todeviate from the precedents established by the Canadian Dominion, which, though only partly English, resolved to carve the ancient historic namesof the parent state on the very front of its political structure. 

As the several States of the Commonwealth have full control of their ownconstitutions, they may choose at any moment to elect their owngovernors as in the States of the American Union, instead of having themappointed by the crown as in Canada. We see also an imitation of theAmerican constitution in the principle which allots to the centralgovernment only certain enumerated powers, and leaves the residuarypower of legislation to the States. Again, while the act provides for ahigh and other federal courts, the members of which are to be appointedand removed as in Canada by the central government, the States are stillto have full jurisdiction over the State courts as in the United States. The Canadian constitution, which gives to the Dominion exclusive controlover the appointment and removal of the judges of all the superiorcourts, offers a positive guarantee against the popular election ofjudges in the provinces. It is not going too far to suppose that, withthe progress of democratic ideas in Australia--a country inclined topolitical experiments--we may find the experience of the United Statesrepeated, and see elective judges make their appearance when a wave ofdemocracy has suddenly swept away all dictates of prudence and givenunbridled licence to professional political managers only anxious forthe success of party. In allowing the British Parliament to amend theAct of Union on an address of the Canadian parliament, we have yetanother illustration of the desire of Canadians to respect the supremacyof the sovereign legislature of the empire. On the other hand, theAustralians make themselves entirely independent of the action of theimperial parliament, which might be invaluable in some crisis affectingdeeply the integrity and unity of the Commonwealth, and give full scopeto the will of democracy expressed at the polls. In also limiting theright of appeal to the Queen in council--by giving to the high court thepower to prevent appeals in constitutional disputes--the Australianshave also to a serious degree weakened one of the most important tiesthat now bind them to the empire, and afford additional illustration ofthe inferiority of the Australian constitution, from an imperial pointof view, compared with that of the Canadian Dominion, where a referenceto the judicial committee of the privy council is highly valued. 

The Canadian people are displaying an intellectual activity commensuratewith the expansion of their territory and their accumulation of wealth. The scientific, historical and political contributions of three decades, make up a considerable library which shows the growth of what may becalled Canadian literature, since it deals chiefly with subjectsessentially of Canadian interest. The attention that is now particularlydevoted to the study and writing of history, and the collection ofhistorical documents relating to the Dominion, prove clearly thenational or thoroughly Canadian spirit that is already animating thecultured class of its people. 

Of the numerous historical works that have appeared since 1867 two onlydemand special mention in this short review. One of these is _A Historyof the days of Montcalm and Lévis_ by the Abbé Casgrain, whoillustrates the studious and literary character of the professors of thegreat university which bears the name of the first bishop of Canada, Monseigneur Laval. A more elaborate general history of Canada, in tenoctavo volumes, is that by Dr. Kingsford, whose life closed with hisbook. Whilst it shows much industry and conscientiousness on the part ofthe author, it fails too often to evoke our interest even when it dealswith the striking and picturesque story of the French régime, since theauthor considered it his duty to be sober and prosaic when Parkman isbright and eloquent. 

A good estimate of the progress of literary culture in Canada can beformed from a careful perusal of the poems of Bliss Carman, ArchibaldLampman, Charles G. W. Roberts, Wilfred Campbell, Duncan Campbell Scottand Frederick George Scott. The artistic finish of their verse and theoriginality of their conception entitle them fairly to claim a foremostplace alongside American poets since Longfellow, Emerson, Whittier, Bryant and Lowell have disappeared. Pauline Johnson, who has Indianblood in her veins, Archbishop O'Brien of Halifax, Miss Machar, EthelynWeatherald, Charles Mair and several others might also be named to provethat poetry is not a lost art in Canada, despite its pressing prosaicand material needs. 

Dr. Louis Fréchette is a worthy successor of Crémazie and has won thedistinction of having his best work crowned by the French Academy. French Canadian poetry, however, has been often purely imitative ofFrench models like Musset and Gautier, both in style and sentiment, andconsequently lacks strength and originality. Fréchette has all thefinish of the French poets and, while it cannot be said that he has yetoriginated fresh thoughts, which are likely to live among even thepeople whom he has so often instructed and delighted, yet he has givenus poems like that on the discovery of the Mississippi which prove thathe is capable of even better things if he would seek inspiration fromthe sources of the deeply interesting history of his own country, orenter into the inner mysteries and social relations of his picturesquecompatriots. 

The life of the French Canadian habitant has been admirably described inverse by Dr. Drummond, who has always lived among that class of theCanadian people and been a close observer of their national and personalcharacteristics. He is the only writer who has succeeded in giving astriking portraiture of life in the cabin, in the "shanty" (_chantier_), and on the river, where the French habitant, forester, and canoe-man canbe seen to best advantage. 

But if Canada can point to some creditable achievements of recent yearsin history, poetry and essays, there is one department in whichCanadians never won any marked success until recently, and that is inthe novel or romance. Even Mr. Kirby's _Le Chien d'Or_ which recalls theclosing days of the French régime--the days of the infamous IntendantBigot who fattened on Canadian misery--does not show the finished art ofthe skilled novelist, though it has a certain crude vigour of its own, which has enabled it to live while so many other Canadian books havedied. French Canada is even weaker in this particular, and this is themore surprising because there is abundance of material for the novelistor the writer of romance in her peculiar society and institutions. Butthis reproach has been removed by Mr. Gilbert Parker, now a resident inLondon, but a Canadian by birth, education and sympathies, who isanimated by a laudable ambition of giving form and vitality to theabundant materials that exist in the Dominion for the true story-teller. His works show great skill in the use of historic matter, more thanordinary power in the construction of a plot, and, above all, a literaryfinish which is not equalled by any Canadian writer in the same field ofeffort. Other meritorious Canadian workers in romance are Mr. WilliamMcLennan, Mrs. Coates (Sarah Jeannette Duncan), and Miss Dougall, whosenames are familiar to English readers. 

The name of Dr. Todd is well known throughout the British empire, andindeed wherever institutions of government are studied, as that of anauthor of most useful works on the English and Canadian constitutions. Sir William Dawson, for many years the energetic principal of McGillUniversity, the scientific prominence of which is due largely to hismental bias, was the author of several geological books, written in agraceful and readable style. The scientific work of Canadians can bestudied chiefly in the proceedings of English, American and Canadiansocieties, especially, of late years, in the transactions of the RoyalSociety of Canada, established over eighteen years ago by the Marquessof Lorne when governor-general of the Dominion. This successfulassociation is composed of one hundred and twenty members who havewritten "memoirs of merit or rendered eminent services to literature orscience. "

On the whole, there have been enough good poems, histories, and essays, written and published in Canada during the last four or five decades, toprove that there has been a steady intellectual growth on the part ofthe Canadian people, and that it has kept pace at all events with themental growth in the pulpit, or in the legislative halls, where, of lateyears, a keen practical debating style has taken the place of the morerhetorical and studied oratory of old times. The intellectual facultiesof Canadians only require larger opportunities for their exercise tobring forth rich fruit. The progress in the years to come will be muchgreater than that Canadians have yet shown, and necessarily so, with thewider distribution of wealth, the dissemination of a higher culture, anda greater confidence in their own mental strength, and in theopportunities that the country offers to pen and pencil. What is nowwanted is the cultivation of a good style and artistic workmanship. 

Much of the daily literature of Canadians--indeed the chief literaryaliment of large numbers--is the newspaper press, which illustratesnecessarily the haste, pressure and superficiality of writings of thatephemeral class. Canadian journals, however, have not yet descended tothe degraded sensationalism of New York papers, too many of whichcirculate in Canada to the public detriment. On the whole, the tone ofthe most ably conducted journals--the Toronto _Globe_, and the Montreal_Gazette_ notably--is quite on a level with the tone of debate in thelegislative bodies of the country. 

Now, as in all times of Canada's history, political life claims manystrong, keen and cultured intellects, though at the same time it is toomanifest that the tendency of democratic conditions and heated partycontroversy is to prevent the most highly educated and sensitiveorganisations from venturing on the agitated and unsafe sea of politicalpassion and competition. The speeches of Sir Wilfrid Laurier--theeloquent French Canadian premier, who in his mastery of the Englishtongue surpasses all his versatile compatriots--of Sir Charles Tupper, Mr. Foster and others who might be mentioned, recall the most brilliantperiod of parliamentary annals (1867--1873), when in the firstparliament of the Dominion the most prominent men of the provinces werebrought into public life, under the new conditions of federal union. Thedebating power of the provincial legislative bodies is excellent, andthe chief defects are the great length and discursiveness of thespeeches on local as well as on national questions. It is also admittedthat of late years there has been a tendency to impair the dignity andto lower the tone of discussion. 

Many Canadians have devoted themselves to art since 1867, and someEnglishmen will recognise the names of L. R. O'Brien, Robert Harris, J. W. L. Forster, Homer Watson, George Reid--the painter of "TheForeclosure of the Mortgage, " which won great praise at the World's Fairof Chicago--John Hammond, F. A. Verner, Miss Bell, Miss Muntz, W. Brymner, all of whom are Canadians by birth and inspiration. Theestablishment of a Canadian Academy of Art by the Princess Louise, andof other art associations, has done a good deal to stimulate a tastefor art, though the public encouragement of native artists is still veryinadequate, when we consider the excellence already attained under greatdifficulties in a relatively new country, where the great mass of peoplehas yet to be educated to a perception of the advantages of highartistic effort. 

Sculpture would be hardly known in Canada were it not for the work ofthe French Canadian Hebert, who is a product of the schools of Paris, and has given to the Dominion several admirable statues and monuments ofits public men. While Canadian architecture has hitherto been generallywanting in originality of conception, the principal edifices of theprovinces afford many good illustrations of effective adaptation of thebest art of Europe. Among these may be mentioned the following:--theparliament and departmental buildings at Ottawa, admirable examples ofItalian Gothic; the legislative buildings at Toronto, in the Romanesquestyle; the English cathedrals in Montreal and Fredericton, correctspecimens of early English Gothic; the French parish church ofNotre-Dame, in Montreal, attractive for its stately Gothic proportions;the university of Toronto, an admirable conception of Normanarchitecture; the Canadian Pacific railway station at Montreal and theFrontenac Hotel at Quebec, fine examples of the adaptation of old Normanarchitecture to modern necessities; the provincial buildings atVictoria, in British Columbia, the general design of which isRenaissance, rendered most effective by pearl-grey stone and severaldomes; the headquarters of the bank of Montreal, a fine example of theCorinthian order, and notable for the artistic effort to illustrate, onthe walls of the interior, memorable scenes in Canadian history; thecounty and civic buildings of Toronto, an ambitious effort to reproducethe modern Romanesque, so much favoured by the eminent Americanarchitect, Richardson; Osgoode Hall, the seat of the great law courts ofthe province of Ontario, which in its general character recalls thearchitecture of the Italian Renaissance. Year by year we see additionsto our public and private buildings, interesting from an artistic pointof view, and illustrating the accumulating wealth of the country, aswell as the growth of culture and taste among the governing classes. 

The universities, colleges, academies, and high schools, the public andcommon schools of the Dominion, illustrate the great desire of thegovernments and the people of the provinces to give the greatestpossible facilities for the education of all classes at the smallestpossible cost to individuals. At the present time there are between13, 000 and 14, 000 students attending 62 universities and colleges. Thecollegiate institutes and academies of the provinces also rank with thecolleges as respects the advantages they give to young men andwomen. Science is especially prominent in McGill and TorontoUniversities--which are the most largely attended--and the formeraffords a notable example of the munificence of the wealthy men ofMontreal, in establishing chairs of science and otherwise advancing itseducational usefulness. Laval University stands deservedly at the headof the Roman Catholic institutions of the continent, on account of itsdeeply interesting historic associations, and the scholarly attainmentsof its professors, several of whom have won fame in Canadian letters. Several universities give instructions in medicine and law, and Torontohas also a medical college for women. At the present time, at leastone-fifth of the people of the Dominion is in attendance at theuniversities, colleges, public and private schools. The people of Canadacontribute upwards of ten millions of dollars annually to the support oftheir educational establishments, in the shape of government grants, public taxes, or private fees. Ontario alone, in 1899, raised fivemillions and a half of dollars for the support of its public schoolsystem; and of this amount the people directly contributed ninety-oneper cent, in the shape of taxes. On the other hand, the libraries ofCanada are not numerous; and it is only in Ontario that there is a lawproviding for the establishment of such institutions by a vote of thetaxpayers in the municipalities. In this province there are at least420 libraries, of which the majority are connected with mechanics'institutes, and are made public by statute. The weakness of the publicschool system--especially in Ontario--is the constant effort to teach achild a little of everything, and to make him a mere machine. Theconsequences are superficiality--a veneer of knowledge--and the loss ofindividuality. 

CHAPTER X. 

CANADA'S RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES AND HER INFLUENCE IN IMPERIALCOUNCILS (1783--1900). 

I have deemed it most convenient to reserve for the conclusion of thishistory a short review of the relations that have existed for more thana century between the provinces of the Dominion and the United States, whose diplomacy and legislation have had, and must always have, aconsiderable influence on the material and social conditions of thepeople of Canada. --an influence only subordinate to that exercised bythe imperial state. I shall show that during the years when there was noconfederation of Canada--when there were to the north and north-east ofthe United States only a number of isolated provinces, having few commonsympathies or interests except their attachment to the crown andempire--the United States had too often its own way in controversialquestions affecting the colonies which arose between England and theambitious federal republic. On the other hand, with the territorialexpansion of the provinces under one Dominion, with their politicaldevelopment, which has assumed even national attributes, with the steadygrowth of an imperial sentiment in the parent state, the old conditionof things that too often made the provinces the shuttlecock of skilfulAmerican diplomacy has passed away. The statesmen of the Canadianfederation are now consulted, and exercise almost as much influence asif they were members of the imperial councils in London. 

I shall naturally commence this review with a reference to the treaty of1783, which acknowledged the independence of the United States, fixedthe boundaries between that country and British North America, and ledto serious international disputes which lasted until the middle of thefollowing century. Three of the ablest men in the UnitedStates--Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay--succeeded by theirastuteness and persistency in extending their country's limits to theeastern bank of the Mississippi, despite the insidious efforts ofVergennes on the part of France to hem in the new nation between theAtlantic and the Appalachian Range. The comparative value set uponCanada during the preliminary negotiations may be easily deduced fromthe fact that Oswald, the English plenipotentiary, proposed to give upto the United States the south-western and most valuable part of thepresent province of Ontario, and to carry the north-eastern boundary upto the River St. John. The commissioners of the United States did notaccept this suggestion. Their ultimate object--an object actuallyattained--was to make the St. Lawrence the common boundary between thetwo countries by following the centre of the river and the great lakesas far as the head of Lake Superior. The issue of negotiations sostupidly conducted by the British commissioner, was a treaty which gavean extremely vague definition of the boundary in the north-east betweenMaine and Nova Scotia--which until 1784 included New Brunswick--anddisplayed at the same time a striking example of geographical ignoranceas to the north-west. The treaty specified that the boundary should passfrom the head of Lake Superior through Long Lake to the north-west angleof the Lake of the Woods, and thence to the Mississippi, when, as amatter of fact there was no Long Lake, and the source of the Mississippiwas actually a hundred miles or so to the south of the Lake of theWoods. This curious blunder in the north-west was only rectified in1842, when Lord Ashburton settled the difficulty by conceding to theUnited States an invaluable corner of British territory in the east (seebelow, p 299). 

[Illustration: INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY. AS FINALLY ESTABLISHED IN 1842 ATLAKE OF THE WOODS]

The only practical advantage that the people of the provinces gainedfrom the Treaty of Ghent, which closed the war of 1812--15, was anacknowledgment of the undoubted fishery rights of Great Britain and herdependencies in the territorial waters of British North America. In thetreaty of 1783 the people of the United States obtained the "right" tofish on the Grand and other banks of Newfoundland, and in the Gulf ofSt. Lawrence and at "all other places in the sea, where the inhabitantsof both countries used at any time heretofore to fish", but they were tohave only "the liberty" of taking fish on the coasts of Newfoundland andalso of "all other of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America; andalso of drying and curing fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of Nova Scotia (then including New Brunswick), MagdalenIslands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled. " Inthe one case, it will be seen, there was a recognised right, but in theother only a mere "liberty" or privilege extended to the fishermen ofthe United States. At the close of the war of 1812 the Britishgovernment would not consent to renew the merely temporary liberties of1783, and the United States authorities acknowledged the soundness ofthe principle that any privileges extended to the republic in Britishterritorial waters could only rest on "conventional stipulation. " Theconvention of 1818 forms the legal basis of the rights, which Canadianshave always maintained in the case of disputes between themselves andthe United States as to the fisheries on their own coasts, bays, andharbours of Canada. It provides that the inhabitants of the UnitedStates shall have for ever the liberty to take, dry, and cure fish oncertain parts of the coast of Newfoundland, on the Magdalen Islands andon the southern shores of Labrador, but they "renounce for ever anyliberty, heretofore enjoyed" by them to take, dry, and cure fish, "on orwithin three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays or creeks orharbours of his Britannic Majesty's other dominions in America";provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be admitted toenter such bays and harbours, for the purpose of shelter, and ofrepairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and of obtaining water, and "for no other purpose whatever. "

In April, 1817, the governments of Great Britain and the United Statescame to an important agreement which ensured the neutrality of the greatlakes. It was agreed that the naval forces to be maintained upon theseinland waters should be confined to the following vessels: on LakesChamplain and Ontario to one vessel, on the Upper Lakes to two vessels, not exceeding in each case a hundred tons burden and armed with only onesmall cannon. Either nation had the right to bring the convention to atermination by a previous notice of six months. This agreement is stillregarded by Great Britain and the United States to be in existence, since Mr. Secretary Seward formally withdrew the notice which was givenfor its abrogation in 1864, when the civil war was in progress and therelations between the two nations were considerably strained at times. 

The next international complication arose out of the seizure of thesteamer _Caroline_, which was engaged in 1837 in carrying munitions ofwar between the United States and Navy Island, then occupied by a numberof persons in the service of Mr. Mackenzie and other Canadian rebels. In1840 the authorities of New York arrested one Macleod on the charge ofhaving murdered a man who was employed on the _Caroline_. TheWashington government for some time evaded the whole question bythrowing the responsibility on the state authorities and declaring thatthey could not interfere with a matter which was then within thejurisdiction of the state courts. The matter gave rise to muchcorrespondence between the two governments, but happily for the peace ofthe two countries the American courts acquitted Macleod, as the evidencewas clear that he had had nothing to do with the actual seizing of the_Caroline_; and the authorities at Washington soon afterwardsacknowledged their responsibility in such affairs by passing an actdirecting that subjects of foreign powers, if taken into custody foracts done or committed under the authority of their own government, "thevalidity or effect whereof depends upon the law of nations, should bedischarged. " The dissatisfaction that had arisen in the United States onaccount of the cutting out of the _Caroline_ was removed in 1842, whenSir Robert Peel expressed regret that "some explanation and apology forthe occurrence had not been previously made, " and declared that it was"the opinion of candid and honourable men that the British officers whoexecuted this transaction, and their government who approved it, intended no insult or disrespect to the sovereign authority of theUnited States[9]. "

[9: Hall's _Treatise on International Law_ (3rd ed. ), pp. 311--313]

In the course of time the question of the disputed boundary betweenMaine and New Brunswick assumed grave proportions. By the treaty of1783, the boundary was to be a line drawn from the source of the St. Croix, directly north to the highlands "which divide the rivers whichfall into the Atlantic ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence;" thence along the said highlands to the north-easternmost headof the Connecticut River; and the point at which the due north line wasto cut the highlands was also designated as the north-west angle of NovaScotia. The whole question was the subject of several commissions, andof one arbitration, from 1783 until 1842, when it was finally settled. Its history appears to be that of a series of blunders on the part ofEngland from the beginning to the end. The first blunder occurred in1796 when the commissioners appointed to inquire into the question, declared that the Schoodic was the River St. Croix mentioned in thetreaty. Instead, however, of following the main, or western, branch ofthe Schoodic to its source in the Schoodic Lakes, they went beyondtheir instructions and chose a northern tributary of the river, theChiputnaticook, as the boundary, and actually placed a monument at itshead as a basis for any future proceeding on the part of the twogovernments. The British government appear to have been very anxious atthis time to settle the question, for they did not take exception to thearrangement made by the commissioners, but in 1798 declared the decisionbinding on both countries. 

Still this mistake might have been rectified had the British governmentin 1835 been sufficiently alive to British interests in America to haveaccepted a proposal made to them by President Jackson to ascertain thetrue north-western angle of Nova Scotia, or the exact position of thehighlands, in accordance with certain well-understood rules in practicalsurveying which have been always considered obligatory in thatcontinent. It was proposed by the United States to discard the due northline, to seek to the west of that line the undisputed highlands thatdivide the rivers which empty themselves into the River St. Lawrencefrom those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to find the point in the'watershed' of these highlands nearest to the north line, and to trace adirect course from it to the monument already established. "If thisprinciple had been adopted, " says Sir Sandford Fleming, the eminentCanadian engineer, "a straight line would have been drawn from themonument at the head of the Chiputnaticook to a point which could havebeen established with precision in the 'watershed' of the highlandswhich separate the sources of the Chaudière from those of thePenobscot, --this being the most easterly point in the only highlandsagreeing beyond dispute with the treaty. The point is found a little tothe north and west of the intersection of the 70th meridian westlongitude and the 46th parallel of north latitude. " Had this proposalbeen accepted England would have obtained without further difficultyeleven thousand square miles, or the combined areas of Massachusettsand Connecticut. 

[Illustration: MAP OF THE NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY AS ESTABLISHED IN1842. ]

For several years after this settlement was suggested a most seriousconflict went on between New Brunswick and the state of Maine. Theauthorities of Maine paid no respect whatever to the negotiations thatwere still in progress between the governments of Great Britain and theUnited States, but actually took possession of the disputed territory, gave titles for lands and constructed forts and roads within its limits. Collisions occurred between the settlers and the intruders, andconsiderable property was destroyed. The legislature of Maine voted$800, 000 for the defence of the state, and the legislature of NovaScotia amid great enthusiasm made a grant of $100, 000 to assist NewBrunswick in support of her rights. Happily the efforts of the UnitedStates and British governments prevented the quarrel between theprovince and the state from assuming international proportions; and in1842 Mr. Alexander Baring, afterwards Lord Ashburton, was authorised bythe ministry of the Earl of Aberdeen to negotiate with Mr. DanielWebster, then secretary of state in the American cabinet, for thesettlement of matters in dispute between the two nations. The result wasthe Ashburton Treaty, which, in fixing the north-eastern boundarybetween British North America and the United States, started due northfrom the monument incorrectly placed at the head of the Chiputnaticookinstead of the source of the true St. Croix, and consequently at thevery outset gave up a strip of land extending over some two degrees oflatitude, and embracing some 3000 square miles of British territory. Byconsenting to carry the line due north from the misplaced monument LordAshburton ignored the other natural landmark set forth in the treaty:"the line of headlands which divide the waters flowing into the Atlanticfrom those which flow into the St. Lawrence. " A most erratic boundarywas established along the St. John, which flows neither into the St. Lawrence nor the Atlantic, but into the Bay of Fundy, far east of theSt. Croix. In later years the historian Sparks found in Paris a map onwhich Franklin himself had marked in December, 1782, with a heavy redline, what was then considered the true natural boundary between the twocountries. Mr. Sparks admitted in sending the map that it conceded morethan Great Britain actually claimed, and that "the line from the St. Croix to the Canadian highlands is intended to exclude [from theterritory of the United States] all the waters running into the St. John. " Canadians have always believed with reason that that portion ofthe present state of Maine, through which the Aroostook and othertributaries of the St. John flow, is actually British territory. If welook at the map of Canada we see that the state of Maine now presseslike a huge wedge into the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec as asequence of the unfortunate mistakes of 1796, 1835, and 1842, on thepart of England and her agents. In these later times a "Canadian shortline" railway has been forced to go through Maine in order to connectMontreal with St. John, and other places in the maritime provinces. Hadthe true St. Croix been chosen in 1796, or President Jackson's offeraccepted in 1835, this line could go continuously through Canadianterritory, and be entirely controlled by Canadian legislation. 

Another boundary question was the subject of much heated controversybetween England and the United States for more than a quarter of acentury, and in 1845 brought the two countries very close to war. In1819 the United States obtained from Spain a cession of all her rightsand claims north of latitude forty-two, or the southern boundary of thepresent state of Oregon. By that time the ambition of the United Stateswas not content with the Mississippi valley, of which she had obtainedfull control by the cession of the Spanish claims and by the Louisianapurchase of 1803, but looked to the Pacific coast, where she madepretensions to a territory stretching from 42° to 54° 40' northlatitude, or a territory four times the area of Great Britain andIreland, or of the present province of Ontario. The claims of the twonations to this vast region rested on very contradictory statements withrespect to priority of discovery, and that occupation and settlementwhich should, within reasonable limits, follow discovery; and as thewhole question was one of great perplexity, it should have been settled, as suggested by England, on principles of compromise. But the people ofthe United States, conscious at last of the importance of the territory, began to bring their influence to bear on the politicians, until by 1845the Democratic party declared 'for 54° 40' or fight, ' Mr. Crittendenannounced that "war might now be looked upon as almost inevitable. "Happily President Polk and congress came to more pacific conclusionsafter a good deal of warlike talk; and the result was a treaty (1846) bywhich England accepted the line 49 degrees to the Pacific coast, andobtained the whole of Vancouver Island, which for a while seemed likelyto be divided with the United States. But Vancouver Island was by nomeans a compensation for what England gave up, for, on the continent, she yielded all she had contended for since 1824, when she firstproposed the Columbia River as a basis of division. 

But even then the question of boundary was not finally settled by thisgreat victory which had been won for the United States by thepersistency of her statesmen. The treaty of 1846 continued the line ofboundary westward along "the 49th parallel of north latitude to themiddle of the channel which separates the continent from VancouverIsland, and thence southerly through the middle of the said channel andof Fuca's straits to the Pacific Ocean" Anyone reading this clause forthe first time, without reference to the contentions that were raisedafterwards, would certainly interpret it to mean the whole body of waterthat separates the continent from Vancouver, --such a channel, in fact, as divides England from France; but it appears there are a number ofsmall channels separating the islands which lie in the great channel inquestion, and the clever diplomatists at Washington immediately claimedthe Canal de Haro, the widest and deepest, as the canal of the treaty. Instead of at once taking the ground that the whole body of water wasreally in question, the English government claimed another channel, Rosario Strait, inferior in some respects, but the one most generally, and indeed only, used at the time by their vessels. The importance ofthis difference of opinion lay chiefly in the fact, that the Haro gaveSan Juan and other small islands, valuable for defensive purposes, tothe United States, while the Rosario left them to England. Then, aftermuch correspondence, the British government, as a compromise, offeredthe middle channel, or Douglas, which would still retain San Juan. Ifthey had always adhered to the Douglas--which appears to answer theconditions of the treaty, since it lies practically in the middle of thegreat channel--their position would have been much stronger than it waswhen they came back to the Rosario. The British representatives at theWashington conference of 1871 suggested the reference of the question toarbitration, but the United States' commissioners, aware of theirvantage ground, would consent to no other arrangement than to leave tothe decision of the Emperor of Germany the question whether the Haro orthe Rosario channel best accorded with the treaty; and the Emperordecided in favour of the United States. However, with the possession ofVancouver in its entirety, Canada can still be grateful; and San Juan isnow only remembered as an episode of skilful American diplomacy. Thesame may be said of another acquisition of the republic--insignificantfrom the point of view of territorial area, but still illustrative ofthe methods which have won all the great districts we have named--Rouse's Point at the outlet of Lake Champlain, "of which an exactsurvey would have deprived" the United States, according to Mr. Schoulerin his excellent history. 

During this period the fishery question again assumed considerableimportance. The government at Washington raised the contention that thethree miles' limit, to which their fishermen could be confined by theconvention of 1818, should follow the sinuosities of the coasts, including the bays, the object being to obtain access to the valuablemackerel fisheries of the Bay of Chaleurs and other waters claimed to beexclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the maritimeprovinces. The imperial government sustained the contention of theprovinces--a contention practically supported by American authorities inthe case of the Delaware, Chesapeake, and other bays on the coast of theUnited States--that the three miles' limit should be measured from aline drawn from headlands of all bays, harbours and creeks. In the caseof the Bay of Fundy, however, the imperial government allowed adeparture from this general principle, when it was urged by theWashington government that one of its headlands was in the territory ofthe United States, and that it was an arm of the sea rather than a bay. The result was that foreign fishing vessels were only shut out from thebays on the coasts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick within the Bay ofFundy. All these questions were, however, placed in abeyance by thereciprocity treaty of 1854 (see p. 96), which lasted until 1866, when itwas repealed by the action of the United States, in accordance with theprovision bringing it to a conclusion after one year's notice from oneof the parties interested. 

The causes which led in 1866 to the repeal of a treaty so advantageousto the United States have been long well understood. The commercialclasses in the eastern and western states were, on the whole, favourableto an enlargement of the treaty; but the real cause of its repeal wasthe prejudice in the northern states against Canada on account of itssupposed sympathy for the confederate states during the Secession war. Alarge body of men in the north believed that the repeal of the treatywould sooner or later force Canada to join the republic; and a bill wasactually introduced in the house of representatives providing for heradmission--a mere political straw, it is true, but showing the currentof opinion in some quarters in those days. When we review the history ofthose times, and consider the difficult position in which Canada wasplaced, it is remarkable how honourably her government discharged itsduties of a neutral between the belligerents. In the case of the raid ofsome confederate refugees in Canada on the St. Alban's bank in Vermont, the Canadian authorities brought the culprits to trial and even paid alarge sum of money in acknowledgment of an alleged responsibility whensome of the stolen notes were returned to the robbers on their releaseon technical grounds by a Montreal magistrate. It is well, too, toremember how large a number of Canadians fought in the unionarmies--twenty against one who served in the south. No doubt theposition of Canada was made more difficult at that critical time by thefact that she was a colony of Great Britain, against whom both north andsouth entertained bitter feelings by the close of the war; the formermainly on account of the escape of confederate cruisers from Englishports, and the latter because she did not receive active support fromEngland. The north had also been much excited by the promptness withwhich Lord Palmerston had sent troops to Canada when Mason and Slidellwere seized on an English packet on the high seas, and by the bold toneheld by some Canadian papers when it was doubtful if the prisoners wouldbe released. 

Before and since the union, the government of Canada has made repeatedefforts to renew a commercial treaty with the government at Washington. In 1865 and 1866, Canadian delegates were prepared to make largeconcessions, but were reluctantly brought to the conclusion that thecommittee of ways and means in congress "no longer desired trade betweenthe two countries to be carried on upon the principle of reciprocity. "In 1866 Sir John Rose, while minister of finance, made an effort in thesame direction, but he was met by the obstinate refusal of therepublican party, then as always, highly protective. 

All this while the fishery question was assuming year by year a formincreasingly irritating to the two countries. The headland question wasthe principal difficulty, and the British government, in order toconciliate the United States at a time when the Alabama question was asubject of anxiety, induced the Canadian government to agree, veryreluctantly it must be admitted, to shut out foreign fishing vesselsonly from bays less than six miles in width at their entrances. In this, however, as in all other matters, the Canadian authorities acknowledgedtheir duty to yield to the considerations of imperial interests, andacceded to the wishes of the imperial government in almost everyrespect, except actually surrendering their territorial rights in thefisheries. They issued licenses to fish, at low rates, for severalyears, only to find eventually that American fishermen did not think itworth while to buy these permits when they could evade the regulationswith little difficulty. The correspondence went on for several years, and eventually led to the Washington conference or commission of 1871, which was primarily intended to settle the fishery question, but whichactually gave the precedence to the Alabama difficulty--then of mostconcern in the opinion of the London and Washington governments. Therepresentatives of the United States would not consider a propositionfor another reciprocity treaty on the basis of that of 1854. Thequestions arising out of the convention of 1818 were not settled by thecommission, but were practically laid aside for ten years by anarrangement providing for the free admission of salt-water fish to theUnited States, on the condition of allowing the fishing vessels of thatcountry free access to the Canadian fisheries. The free navigation ofthe St. Lawrence was conceded to the United States in return for thefree use of Lake Michigan and of certain rivers in Alaska. The questionof giving to the vessels of the Canadian provinces the privilege oftrading on the coast of the United States--a privilege persistentlydemanded for years by Nova Scotia--was not considered; and while thecanals of Canada were opened up to the United States on the most liberalterms, the Washington government contented itself with a barren promisein the treaty to use its influence with the authorities of the states toopen up their artificial waterways to Canadians. The Fenian claims wereabruptly laid aside, although, if the principle of "due diligence, "which was laid down in the new rules for the settlement of the Alabamadifficulty had been applied to this question, the government of theUnited States would have been mulcted in heavy damages. In this case itwould be difficult to find a more typical instance of responsibilityassumed by a state through the permission of open and notorious acts, and by way of complicity after the acts; however, as in many othernegotiations with the United States, Canada felt she must makesacrifices for the empire, whose government wished all causes ofirritation between England and the United States removed as far aspossible by the treaty. One important feature of this commission was thepresence, for the first time in the history of treaties, of a Canadianstatesman. The astute prime minister of the Dominion, Sir JohnMacdonald, was chosen as one of the English high commissioners: andthough he was necessarily tied down by the instructions of the imperialstate, his knowledge of Canadian questions was of great service toCanada during the conference. If the treaty finally proved morefavourable to the Dominion than it at first appeared to be, it was owinglargely to the clause which provided for a reference to a latercommission of the question, whether the United States would not have topay the Canadians a sum of money, as the value of their fisheries overand above any concessions made them in the treaty. The result of thiscommission was a payment of five millions and a half of dollars toCanada and Newfoundland, to the infinite disappointment of thepoliticians of the United States, who had been long accustomed to havethe best in all the bargains with their neighbours. Nothing shows moreclearly the measure of the local self-government at last won by Canadaand the importance of her position in the empire, than the fact that theEnglish government recognised the right of the Dominion government toname the commissioner who represented Canada on an arbitration whichdecided a question of such deep importance to her interests. 

The clauses of the Washington treaty relating to the fisheries and totrade with Canada lasted for fourteen years, and then were repealed bythe action of the United States government. In the year 1874 theMackenzie ministry attempted, through Mr. George Brown, to negotiate anew reciprocity treaty, but met with a persistent hostility from leadingmen in congress. The relations between Canada and the United Statesagain assumed a phase of great uncertainty. Canada from 1885 adhered tothe letter of the convention of 1818, and allowed no fishing vessels tofish within the three miles limit, to transship cargoes of fish in herports, or to enter them for any purpose except for shelter, wood, water, and repairs. For the infractions of the treaty several vessels wereseized, and more than one of them condemned. A clamour was raised in theUnited States on the ground that the Canadians were wanting in thatspirit of friendly intercourse which should characterise the relationsof neighbouring peoples. The fact is, the Canadians were bound to adhereto their legal rights--rights which had always been maintained before1854; which had remained in abeyance between 1854 and 1866; whichnaturally revived after the repeal of the reciprocity treaty of 1854;which again remained in abeyance between 1871 and 1885; and were revivedwhen the United States themselves chose to go back to the terms of theconvention of 1818. 

In 1887 President Cleveland and Mr. Secretary Bayard, acting in astatesmanlike spirit, obtained the consent of England to a specialcommission to consider the fishery question. Sir Sackville West, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and Sir Charles Tupper represented England; Mr. Bayard, then secretary of state, Mr. Putnam of Maine, and Mr. Angell ofMichigan University, represented the United States. Sir Charles Tuppercould not induce the American commissioners to consider a mutualarrangement providing for greater freedom of commercial intercoursebetween Canada and the United States. Eventually the commission agreedunanimously to a treaty which was essentially a compromise. Foreignfishermen were to be at liberty to go into any waters where the bay wasmore than ten miles wide at the mouth, but certain bays, including theBay of Chaleurs, were expressly excepted in the interests of Canada fromthe operation of this provision. The United States did not attempt toacquire the right to fish on the inshore fishing-grounds of Canada--thatis, within three miles of the coasts--but these fisheries were to beleft for the exclusive use of the Canadian fishermen. More satisfactoryarrangements were made for vessels obliged to resort to the Canadianports in distress; and a provision was made for allowing Americanfishing-vessels to obtain supplies and other privileges in the harboursof the Dominion whenever congress allowed the fish of that country toenter free into the market of the United States, President Cleveland inhis message, submitting the treaty to the senate, acknowledged that it"supplied a satisfactory, practical and final adjustment, upon a basishonourable and just to both parties, of the difficult and vexedquestions to which it relates. " The republican party, however, at thatimportant juncture--just before a presidential election--had a majorityin the senate, and the result was the failure in that body of a measure, which, although by no means too favourable to Canadian interests, wasframed in a spirit of judicious statesmanship. 

As a sequel of the acquisition of British Columbia, the Canadiangovernment was called upon in 1886 to urge the interests of theDominion in an international question that had arisen in Bering Sea. AUnited States cutter seized in the open sea, at a distance of more thansixty miles from the nearest land, certain Canadian schooners, fittedout in British Columbia, and lawfully engaged in the capture of seals inthe North Pacific Ocean, adjacent to Vancouver Island, Queen CharlotteIslands, and Alaska--a portion of the territory of the United Statesacquired in 1867 from Russia. These vessels were taken into a port ofAlaska, where they were subjected to forfeiture, and the masters andmates fined and imprisoned. Great Britain at once resisted the claim ofthe United States to the sole sovereignty of that part of Bering Sealying beyond the westerly boundary of Alaska--a stretch of sea extendingin its widest part some 600 or 700 miles beyond the mainland of Alaska, and clearly under the law of nations a part of the great sea and open toall nations. Lord Salisbury's government, from the beginning to the endof the controversy, sustained the rights of Canada as a portion of theBritish empire. After very protracted and troublesome negotiations itwas agreed to refer the international question in dispute to a court ofarbitration, in which Sir John Thompson, prime minister of Canada, wasone of the British arbitrators. The arbitrators decided in favour of theBritish contention that the United States had no jurisdiction in BeringSea outside of the three miles limit, and at the same time made certainregulations to restrict the wholesale slaughter of fur-bearing seals inthe North Pacific Ocean. In 1897 two commissioners, appointed by thegovernments of the United States and Canada, awarded the sum of $463, 454as compensation to Canada for the damages sustained by the fishermen ofBritish Columbia, while engaged in the lawful prosecution of theirindustry on that portion of the Bering Sea declared to be open to allnations. This sum was paid in the summer of 1898 by the United States. 

In 1897 the Canadian government succeeded in obtaining the consent ofthe governments of Great Britain and the United States to theappointment of a joint high commission to settle various questions indispute between Canada and the United States. Canada was represented onthis commission by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright, SirLouis Davies, and Mr. John Charlton, M. P. , Newfoundland by Sir JamesWinter; the United States by Messieurs C. W. Fairbanks, George Gray, J. W. Foster, Nelson Dingley Jr. , J. A. Kasson, and T. Jefferson Coolidge. Theeminent jurist, Baron Herschell, who had been lord chancellor in thelast Gladstone ministry, was chosen chairman of this commission, whichmet in the historic city of Quebec on several occasions from the 23rdAugust until the 10th October, 1898, and subsequently at Washington fromNovember until the 20th February, 1899, when it adjourned. Mr. Dingleydied in January and was replaced by Mr. Payne, and Lord Herschell alsounhappily succumbed to the effects of an accident soon after the closeof the sittings of the commission. In an eulogy of this eminent man inthe Canadian house of commons, the Canadian prime minister stated thatduring the sittings of the commission "he fought for Canada not onlywith enthusiasm, but with conviction and devotion. " England happily inthese modern times has felt the necessity of giving to the considerationof Canadian interests the services of her most astute and learnedstatesmen and diplomatists. 

This commission was called upon to consider a number of internationalquestions--the Atlantic and inland fisheries, the Alaska boundary, thealien labour law, the bonding privilege, the seal fishery in the BeringSea, reciprocity of trade in certain products of the two countries, andother minor issues. For the reasons given in a previous part of thischapter (page 269), when referring to the commercial policy of theLaurier government, reciprocity was no longer the all-important questionto be discussed, though the commissioners were desirous of making fiscalarrangements with respect to lumber, coal, and some other Canadianproducts for which there is an increasing demand in the markets of theUnited States. The long and earnest discussions of the commission on thevarious questions before them were, however, abruptly terminated by theimpossibility of reaching a satisfactory conclusion with respect to thebest means of adjusting the vexed question of the Alaska boundary, whichhad become of great international import in consequence of the discoveryof gold in the territory of Alaska and the district of Yukon in Canada. 

The dispute between Great Britain and the United States has arisen as tothe interpretation to be given to the Anglo-Russian treaty of 1825, which was made forty-two years before Russia sold her territorial rightsin Alaska to the United States, that sale being subject of course to theconditions of the treaty in question. Under the third article of thistreaty[10]--the governing clause of the contract between England andRussia--boundary line between Canada and Alaska commences at the southend of Prince of Wales Island, thence runs north through PortlandChannel to the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude, thence follows thesummit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast of the continent, to one hundred and forty-one west longitude and thence to the frozenocean. That part of the line between fifty-six north latitude and onehundred and forty-one west longitude is where the main dispute arises. Great Britain on behalf of Canada contends that, by following thesummits of the mountains between these two points, the true boundarywould cross Lynn Canal, about half way between the headlands andtide-water at the head of the canal, and leave both Skagway andDyea--towns built up chiefly by United States citizens--within Britishterritory. The contention of Great Britain always has been that theboundary should follow the general contour of the coast line and not theinlets to their head waters. On the other hand the United States contendthat the whole of Lynn Canal up to the very top, to the extent oftide-water, is a part of the ocean, and that the territory of the UnitedStates goes back for ten leagues from the head of the canal andconsequently includes Skagway and Dyea. In other words the United Statesclaim that the boundary should not follow the coast line but passaround the head of this important inlet, which controls access to theinterior of the gold-bearing region. 

[10: The following is the article in full: "The line of demarcationbetween the possessions of the high contracting parties upon the coastof the continent and the islands of America to the north-west, shall bedrawn in the following manner: commencing from the southernmost point ofthe island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in theparallel of fifty-four degrees forty minutes north latitude, and betweenthe one hundred and thirty-first and the one hundred and thirty-thirddegree of west longitude, the said line shall ascend to the north alongthe channel called Portland Channel as far as the point of the continentwhere it strikes the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude. From thislast-mentioned point the line of demarcation shall follow the summit ofthe mountains situated parallel to the coast as far as the point ofintersection of the one hundred and forty-first degree of west longitude(of the same meridian), and finally from the said point of intersectionof the one hundred and forty-first degree in its prolongation as far asthe frozen ocean, shall form the limit between the Russian and Britishpossessions, on the continent of America to the north-west"]

[Illustration: MAP OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AND YUKON DISTRICT SHOWINGDISPUTED BOUNDARY BETWEEN]

The Canadian commissioners first offered as a compromise to leave Dyeaand Skagway in the possession of the United States if the commissionersof that country would agree that Canada should retain Pyramid Harbour, which would give to Canadians a highway into the Yukon district. Theacceptance of this compromise would have made a common water of the LynnCanal, and at the same time left to the United States the greaterportion of the territory in dispute. When the commissioners of theUnited States refused this fair compromise, the Canadians offered torefer the whole question to arbitration in order to ascertain the trueboundary under the Anglo-Russian treaty. They proposed that thearbitrators should be three jurists of repute: one chosen for GreatBritain by the judicial committee of the privy council, one appointed bythe president of the United States, and the third a high internationalauthority to act as an umpire. The commissioners of the United Statespositively refused to agree to this proposition and suggested theappointment of six jurists, three to be appointed by Great Britain, andthe others by the United States. The Canadian representatives wereunable to agree to the amendment suggested by their American colleagues, on the ground that it did not "provide a tribunal which wouldnecessarily, and in the possible event of differences of opinion, finally dispose of the question, " They also refused to agree to otherpropositions of the United States as "a marked and important departurefrom the rules of the Venezuelan boundary reference. " The commissionersof the United States were not only unwilling to agree to the selectionof an impartial European umpire, but were desirous of the appointment ofan American umpire--from the South American Republics--over whom theUnited States would have more or less influence. Under thesecircumstances the Canadian commissioners were unwilling to proceed tothe determination of other questions (on which a conclusion had beennearly reached) "until the boundary question had been disposed of eitherby agreement or reference to arbitration. " The commission adjourneduntil August in the same year, but the negotiations that took place inthe interval between the governments of Great Britain and the UnitedStates on the question at issue were not sufficiently advanced to enablea meeting at the proposed date. In these circumstances a _modus vivendi_was arranged between the United States and Canada, whose interests havebeen carefully guarded throughout the controversy by the government ofthe imperial state. 

This review of Canada's relations with the United States and England formore than a century illustrates at once her weakness and herstrength--her weakness in the days of provincial isolation and imperialindifference; her strength under the inspiring influences of federalunion and of an imperial spirit which gives her due recognition in thecouncils of the empire. It may now be said that, in a limited sense, there is already a loose system of federation between Great Britain andher dependencies. The central government of Great Britain, as theguardian of the welfare of the whole empire, cooperates with the severalgovernments of her colonial dependencies, and, by common consultationand arrangement, endeavours to come to such a determination as will beto the advantage of all the interests at stake. In other words, theconditions of the relations between Great Britain and Canada are such asto insure unity of policy so long as each government considers theinterests of Great Britain and the dependency as identical, and keeps inview the obligations, welfare, and unity of the empire at large. Fullconsultation in all negotiations affecting Canada, representation inevery arbitration and commission that may be the result of suchnegotiations, are the principles which, of late years, have beenadmitted by Great Britain in acknowledgement of the development ofCanada and of her present position in the empire; and any departurefrom so sound a doctrine would be a serious injury to the imperialconnection, and an insult to the ability of Canadians to take a part inthe great councils of the world. The same mysterious Providence that hasalready divided the continent of North America, as far as Mexico, between Canada and the United States, and that in the past preventedtheir political fortunes from becoming one, still forces the Canadiancommunities with an irresistible power to press onward until theyrealise those high conceptions which some statesmen already imagine forthem in a not very distant future. These conceptions are of a stillcloser union with the parent state, which shall increase their nationalresponsibilities, and at the same time give the Dominion a recognisedposition in the central councils of the empire. 

 APPENDIX A. 

 COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA AND THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH. 

 CANADA. AUSTRALIA. | _Name. _ _Name_ The Dominion of Canada The Commonwealth of Australia. 

 _How Constituted. _ _How Constituted_ Of provinces. Of states. 

 _Seat of Government. _ _Seat of Government_ At Ottawa until the Queen Within federal territory in otherwise directs. New South Wales, at least 100 miles from Sydney

 _Executive Power. _ _Executive Power_ Vested in the Queen. Vested in the Queen. Queen's representative, a Queen's representative, a governor-general, appointed by governor-general, appointed by the Queen in council. The Queen in council. 

 Salary of governor-general Not less than £10, 000 paid £10, 000 sterling, paid by Dominion by the commonwealth, fixed by government, alterable by parliament from time to time, the parliament of Canada, but not diminished during tenure of subject to the disallowance of a governor-general. The crown, as in 1868, when parliament passed a bill to reduce this salary. 

 CANADA. AUSTRALIA. Ministers called by governor-general Same--only for "privy to form a cabinet, first councillors" read "executive sworn in as privy councillors, councillors" hold office while they have the confidence of the popular house of parliament, in accordance with the conventions, understandings, and maxims of responsible or parliamentary government. 

 Privy councillors hold, as the Executive councillors administer crown may designate, certain such departments as departments of state, not limited governor-general from time to in name or number, but left to time establishes. Until other the discretionary action of provision is made by parliament, parliament. Such heads of number of such officers, who departments must seek a new may sit in parliament, shall not election on accepting these exceed seven. Office of emolument. 

 _Command of Military and _Command of Military and Naval Forces_ Naval Forces_ Vested in the Queen. In the Queen's representative. 

 _Parliament_ _Parliament_ The Queen. The Queen. Senate. Senate. House of commons. House of representatives. Session once at least every The same. Year. Privileges, immunities and Such as declared by the parliament powers held by senate and house of the commonwealth, of commons, such as are defined and, until declared, such as are by act of the parliament of held by the commons' house of Canada, but not to exceed those parliament of Great Britain at enjoyed at the passing of such the date of the establishment of act by the commons' house of the commonwealth. Parliament of Great Britain. 

 CANADA. AUSTRALIA

 Senate composed of twenty-four Senate composed of six members for each of the senators for each state, directly three following divisions (1) chosen for six years by the Ontario, (2) Quebec, and (3) people of the state voting as maritime provinces of Nova one electorate; half the number Scotia, New Brunswick, and shall retire every three years, Prince Edward Island. Other but shall be eligible for provinces can be represented re-election. No property under the constitution, but the qualification is required, but the total number of senators shall senators must be British subjects not at any time exceed of the full age of twenty-one years. Seventy-eight, except in the In Queensland the people can case of the admission of vote in divisions, instead of in Newfoundland, when the maximum one electorate. May be eighty-two. Senators appointed by the crown for life, but removable for certain disabilities. They must have a property qualification and be of the full age of thirty years. 

 Speaker of the senate appointed President of the senate elected by the governor-general by that body. (in council). 

 Fifteen senators form a quorum One-third of whole number of until parliament of Canada senators form a quorum until otherwise provides. Parliament of commonwealth otherwise provides. Non-attendance for two whole Non-attendance for two consecutive sessions vacates a senator's seat. Months of any session vacates a senator's seat. Members of house of commons Every three years. Elected every five years, or whenever parliament is dissolved by the governor-general. 

 No property qualification, but The same. Must be British subjects of full age of twenty-one years. 

 CANADA. AUSTRALIA The electors for the Dominion Qualification of electors for commons are the electors of the members of the house of several provinces, under the representatives is that limitations of a statute passed prescribed by the law of each by the Dominion parliament in state for the electors of the 1878. Qualifications vary, but more numerous house of the universal suffrage, qualified by parlianment of the state. Residence, generally prevails. 

 A fresh apportionment of The same. Representatives to be made after each census, or not longer than intervals of ten years. 

 Speaker of house of commons The same. Elected by the members of the house. 

 Quorum of house of commons Quorum of house of representatives --twenty members, of whom the --one-third of the speaker counts one. Whole number of members until otherwise provided by parliament. 

 No such provision. Member vacates his seat when absent, without permission, for two months of a session. 

 No such provision. Parliament to be called together not later than thirty days after that appointment for return of writs. 

 Allowance to each member of Allowance of £400 to members senate and commons $1, 000 for of both houses until other a session of thirty days, and provision is made by parliament. Mileage expenses, 10 cents a mile going and returning. Not expressly provided for by constitution but by statute of parliament from time to time. 

 CANADA. AUSTRALIA. Canadian statutes disqualify Same classes disqualified in contractors and certain persons the constitution. Holding office on receiving emoluments or fees from the crown while sitting in parliament. 

 Each house determines the The constitution has a special rules, and orders necessary for provision on the subject. The regulation of its own proceedings; not in the constitution. 

 _Money And Tax Bills_ _Money and Tax Bills_ The same. Money and tax bills can only originate in the house of representatives. 

 |Same by practice. The senate can reject, but not amend, taxation or appropriation bills. 

 Not in Canadian constitution. The senate may return money and appropriation bills to the house of representatives, requesting the omission or amendment of any provision therein, but it is optional for the house to make such omissions or amendments. 

 No such provision. If bills, other than money bills, have twice been passed by the house of representatives and twice been rejected by the senate or passed by that body with amendments to which the house of representatives will not agree, the governor-general may dissolve the two houses simultaneously; and if, after the new election they continue to disagree, the governor-general may convene a joint sitting of the members of the two houses, who shall deliberate and vote upon the bill, which can only become law if passed by an absolute majority of the members sitting and voting. 

 _Legislative Powers of the _Legislative Powers of the Parliament of the Dominion_. Parliament of the Commonwealth_. 

 Respective powers of the federal The Legislative powers of the parliament and provincial federal parliament are alone legislatures are enumerated and enumerated, and the states defined in the constitution; the expressly retain all the powers residuum of power rests with the vested in them by their central government in relation respective constitutions at the to all matters not coming within establishment of the the classes of subjects by the commonwealth as to matters not British North America act of specified as being within the 1867 assigned exclusively to the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislatures. Federal parliament. 

 _The Provinces. _ _The States. _

 Legislatures may alter provincial Constitutions may be altered constitutions except as under the authority of the regards the office of lieutenant parliaments thereof. -governor. 

 Lieutenant-governors are appointed The constitution of each state by the governor-general-in-council, continues (subject to the and removable by constitution) as at the him within five years only for establishment of the cause assigned and communicated commonwealth, or as at the by message to the two admission or establishment houses of parliament. Of the states, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the constitution of the states. In other words, the powers of the states over their own constitutions are preserved. 

 Acts of the provincial When a law of the state is legislatures may be disallowed inconsistent with one of the by the governor-general-in-council commonwealth, the latter shall, one year after their receipt. To the extent of such inconsistency, be invalid. 

 Education is within exclusive No special provisions in the jurisdiction of the provinces, constitution; education being but with conditions for the one of the subjects exclusively maintenance and protection of within the powers of the state rights and privileges of parliaments, under the clause religious bodies in a province leaving them in possession of with respect to denominational all powers not expressly given schools. To the federal parliament. 

 The federal parliament can A state shall not impose any alone impose duties or taxes on taxes or duties upon imports imports. Except such as are necessary for executing the inspection laws of a state, but the net produce of all charges so levied shall be for use of the, commonwealth, and such inspection laws may be annulled by the parliament of the commonwealth. 

 Similar power. The parliament of the commonwealth may from time to time admit new states, and make laws for the provisional administration and government of any territory surrendered by any state to the commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the same. 

 CANADA. AUSTRALIA. 

 _The Judiciary. _ _The Judiciary. _

 The same. The parliament of the commonwealth can establish a federal supreme court, called the High Court of Australia, and other federal courts for the commonwealth; the judges to be appointed by the governor-general, to hold office during good behaviour, No such provision with respect not to be removed except upon to diminution of salary during an address of both houses of tenure of office. Parliament, but so that the salary paid to any judge shall not be diminished during his continuance in office. 

 Similar provisions by statutory The high court can adjudicate enactments of Dominion in cases arising out of the parliament. Constitution, or controversies between states, or in which the commonwealth is a party. 

 No such stringent provision Appeals only allowed to exists in the Canadian Queen-in-council from high court constitution, but appeals in all on constitutional issues between civil--though not in commonwealth and any state, criminal--cases are allowed, by or between two or more states, virtue of the exercise of the when high court gives leave to royal prerogative, from appeal. Otherwise, the royal provincial courts as well as prerogative to grant appeals is from the supreme court of Canada not impaired. Parliament may, to the Queen-in-council; however, make laws limiting _i. E. _, in practice, to the such appeals, but they must judicial committee of the privy be reserved for her Majesty's council. Pleasure. 

 CANADA. AUSTRALIA. 

 Judges of the superior and Judges in the states are appointed county courts in the provinces and removable under existing state (except those of probate in New constitutions, which the state Brunswick, Nova Scotia and parliaments can change at will. Prince Edward Island) are appointed by the governor-general-in-council, and removable only by the same on the address of the two houses of parliament. Their salaries and allowances are fixed by the parliament of Canada. 

 The provinces have jurisdiction Similar powers in the states. Over the administration of justice in a province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organisation of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including the procedure in civil matters in those courts. 

 The enactment and amendment With the states. Of the criminal law rest with the Dominion parliament. 

 The enactment and amendment With the states. Of all laws relating to property and civil rights rest with the provinces. 

 _Trade and Finance. _ _Trade and Finance. _ Customs and excise, trade and The parliament of the commonwealth commerce, are within exclusive has sole power to jurisdiction of Dominion parliament. Impose uniform duties of customs and excise, and to grant bounties upon goods when it thinks it expedient. As soon as such duties or customs are imposed, trade and intercourse throughout the commonwealth, whether by internal carriageor ocean navigation, is to be free. 

 The Dominion government The parliament of the commonwealth can veto any such unconstitutional may annul any state law. Law interfering with the freedom of trade or commerce between the different parts of the commonwealth, or giving preference to the ports of one part over those of another. 

 The power of direct taxation Direct taxation may be imposed is within the jurisdiction of both by the commonwealth Dominion parliament and provincial and by each state within its own legislatures, the one for limits--but taxation, when Dominion and the other solely exercised by the commonwealth, for provincial purposes. Must be uniform. 

 Both Dominion and provincial Same is true of commonwealth governments have unlimited and states. Borrowing power under the authority of parliament and legislatures. 

 Certain money subsidies are Of the net revenue of the paid annually to the provinces commonwealth from duties of towards the support of their customs and excise, not more governments and legislatures. Than one-fourth shall be applied annually by the commonwealth towards its expenditure. The balance shall, in accordance with certain conditions of the constitution, be paid to the several states, or applied towards the payment of interest on debts of the several states. This arrangement is limited to ten years. Financial aid may be granted to any state upon such terms as the federal parliament may deem expedient. Western Australia may, subject to certain restrictions, impose duties on goods imported from other parts of the commonwealth. 

 No such provision; but the For the administration of the Dominion parliament and provincial laws relating to interstate trade legislatures could by the governor-general-in-council legislation arrange a similar may appoint an interstate commission. Commission. 

 Canada is liable for amount of The parliament of the commonwealth the debts and liabilities of the may consolidate or provinces existing at the time of take over state debts by general the union, under the conditions consent, but a state shall and terms laid down in the indemnify the commonwealth, and constitution. The amount of interest payable in respect to a debt shall be deducted from its share of the surplus revenue of the commonwealth. 

 _Imperial Control over_ _Imperial Control over_ _Dominion Legislation. _ _Australian Legislation. _ Bills may be reserved by the The same. Governor-general for the Queen's pleasure, and her Majesty in As the old state constitutions council may within two years continue in force until amended after receipt of any Dominion by the state, state legislation is act disallow the same. Still subject to power of disallowance by Queen in council. 

 No such provision. The governor-general may return any "law" presented to him for the Queen's assent and suggest amendments therein, and the houses may deal with them as they think fit. 

 The recommendation of the The same. Crown is required before initiation of a money vote in parliament. 

 _Amendments to the _Amendments to the Constitution_. Constitution. _

 By the imperial parliament on Any proposed amendment to an address of the houses of the the constitution must be first Dominion parliament to the passed by an absolute majority Queen. Of each house of parliament, and submitted in each state to the electors qualified to vote for members of the house of representatives. If in majority of the states a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the governor-general for the royal assent. 

APPENDIX B. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES. 

I confine these notes to the most accurate and available books andessays on the history of Canada. 

For the French régime consult. --_Jacques Cartier's Voyages_, by JosephPope (Ottawa, 1889), Charlevoix's _History and General Description ofNew France_, translated by J. Gilmary Shea (New York, 1868); _Coursd'histoire du Canada_, by Abbé Ferland (Quebec, 1861); _Histoire duCanada_, by F. X. Garneau (4th ed. , Montreal, 1882); F. Parkman's seriesof admirable histories of the French régime (Boston, 1865--1884), _TheStory of Canada_ (Nations' Series, London, New York and Toronto, 1896), by J. G. Bourinot, necessarily written in a light vein, is largelydevoted to the days of French rule, and may profitably be read on thataccount in connection with this later book, chiefly devoted to Britishdominion. 

For the history of Acadia, consult. --_Acadia_, by James Hannay (St. John, N. B. , 1879); _History of Nova Scotia_, by Thomas C. Haliburton(Halifax, N. S. , 1829). A valuable compilation of annals is _A History ofNova Scotia or Acadie_, by Beamish Murdoch (Halifax, 1867). _Builders ofNova Scotia_, by J. G. Bourinot (Toronto, and "Trans. Roy. Soc. Can. , "1900), contains many portraits of famous Nova Scotians down toconfederation, and appendices of valuable historical documents. 

_Cape Breton and its Memorials of the French Régime_ ("Trans. Roy. Soc. Can. , " vol. IX, and in separate form, Montreal, 1891) by J. G. Bourinot, gives a full bibliography of voyages of Northmen, the Cabots, Carrier, and Champlain, and of the Histories of the Seven Years' War. The sameremarks apply to Winsor's _Narrative and Critical History of America_(Boston, 1886--89). The "Trans. Roy. Soc. Can. , " since 1894, haveseveral important papers by Archbishop O'Brien, Dr. S. E. Dawson, andothers on the Cabot discovery. 

British rule, 1760-1900:--Garneau's _History_, already mentioned, givesthe French Canadian view of the political situation from 1760 until1840; William Kingsford's _History of Canada_ (Toronto, 1887-1898) has afairly accurate account of events from 1760 until 1840, in vols. V-X; _AHistory of Lower Canada_, by R. Christie, a member of the assembly ofthe province (Quebec, 1848-1854) is very useful for copies of publicdocuments from 1774 until 1840. 

The most important accounts of the U. E. Loyalists of the AmericanRevolution by writers in the United States are:--L. Sabine's _Loyalists_(Boston, 1864), and Tyler's _Literary History of the AmericanRevolution_ (New York, 1897). Canadian accounts are to be found inEgerton Ryerson's _Loyalists of America_ (Toronto, 1880)--remarkablyprosaic--and Canniff's _History of Upper Canada_ (Toronto, 1872). Consult also articles of J. G. Bourinot in the _Quarterly Review_ forOctober, 1898, and the _Canadian Magazine_ for April, 1898, in whichnames of prominent Canadian descendants of Loyalists are given. 

Kingsford's _History_, vol. VIII, has the best Canadian account of theWar of 1812-15. The most impartial American record of its causes andprogress is Henry Adams's _History of the United States of America_ (NewYork, 1860), vols VI and VII. 

Garneau's _History_ gives the most favourable estimate of Papineau andhis party, who brought about the Rebellion in Lower Canada. Kingsford(vols. IX and X) writes impartially on the risings in the two Canadas. 

Other works to be consulted are:--Lord Durham's _Report on the Affairsof British North America_ (London, 1839); _Life of W. Lyon Mackenzie_, by Charles Lindsey, his son-in-law (Toronto, 1863); _The Upper CanadianRebellion_, by J. Charles Dent (Toronto, 1885). The _Speeches andLetters_ of the Hon. Joseph Howe (Boston, 1858) contain the ablestexpositions of the principles of responsible government by its greatestadvocate in British North America. See also Campbell's _History ofPrince Edward Island_ (Charlottetown, 1875). New Brunswick has not asingle good history. _The Life and Times of Sir Leonard Tilley_, byJames Hannay (St. John, N. B. 1897), can be read with advantage. SeeProf. Ganong's valuable essays on the early history of New Brunswick in"Trans. Roy. Soc. Can, " New Series, vols. I--v. Rev. Dr. Withrow's_History of Canada_ (Toronto, 1888) has chapters on affairs of PrinceEdward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to date of publication. 

For the history of Canada since 1840, consult. --_Canada since the Union_(1840--1880), by J. Charles Dent (Toronto, 1880--81); _Le Canada sousl'Union_, by Louis Turcotte (Quebec, 1871); _Memoirs of the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald_, by Joseph Pope, his private secretary (Londonand Ottawa, 1894); _Debates on Confederation_ (Quebec, 1865);_Confederation_, by Hon. J. H. Gray, M. P. , a delegate to the QuebecConference (Toronto, 1872). 

For the constitutional development of Canada, consult. --_A Manual_, byJ. G. Bourinot (Montreal, 1888, and included in latest edition of his_Parliamentary Procedure_, 1891); _How Canada is Governed_, by the same(Toronto, 1897--1900); _Parliamentary Government in the Colonies_, byAlpheus Todd (London, 1894); _Documents illustrative of the CanadianConstitution_, by W. Houston (Toronto, 1891). _Parliamentary Governmentin Canada_, by J. G. Bourinot (Amer. Hist. Association, Washington, 1892, and "Trans. Roy. Soc. Can. , " 1892), contains a long list of booksrelating to the constitutional history of Canada. Also consult _HowCanada is Governed_ for works on constitutional, legal, municipal andeducational history of the provinces of Canada. 

For Manitoba and the North-west Territories the reader mayconsult:--_Manitoba. Its Infancy, Growth and Present Condition_, by Rev. Prof. Bryce (London, 1882); _History of the North-west_, by A. Begg(Toronto, 1894); _The Great Company_, by Beckles Wilson (Toronto andLondon, 1899); _Reminiscences of the North-west Rebellions_, by MajorBoulton (Toronto, 1886). A remarkable _History of the Hudson's BayCompany_, by Rev. Prof. Bryce (London, New York and Toronto, 1900). ForBritish Columbia:--A. Begg's _History_ (Toronto, 1896). 

For the literary progress of Canada, consult:--_The IntellectualDevelopment of the Canadian People_, by J. G. Bourinot (Toronto, 1881);_Canada's Intellectual Strength and Weakness_ ("Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, " vol. XI, also in separate form, Montreal, 1893), by the same, contains an elaborate list of Canadian literature, French and English, to date. The 17 volumes of the same Transactions contain numerousvaluable essays on French Canadian literary progress. 

Other valuable books to be consulted are:--_Canada and Newfoundland_ inStanford's _Compendium of Geography and Travel_ (London, 1897), by Dr. S. E. Dawson, F. R. S. C. ; _The Statistical Year Book of Canada_, agovernment publication issued annually at Ottawa, and edited by Geo. Johnson, F. S. S. ; _The Great Dominion_ (London, 1895), by Dr. G. R. Parkin, C. M. G. , LL. D. , the eloquent advocate of imperial federation formany years, merits careful reading. _Canada and the United States_, inPapers of the Amer. Hist Assoc. (Washington, July, 1891), and _Canadaand the United States: their Past and Present Relations_, in the_Quarterly Review_ for April, 1891, both by the present author, havebeen largely used in the preparation of the last chapter of this book. 

With respect to the boundaries of Canada and the English colonies duringthe days of French dominion, and from 1763 until 1774--_i. E. _ from theTreaty of Paris until the Quebec Act--consult a valuable collection ofearly French and English maps, given in _A Report on the Boundaries ofOntario_ (Toronto, 1873), by Hon. David Mills, now Minister of Justicein the Laurier government, who was an Ontario commissioner to collectevidence with respect to the western limits of the province. Consultalso Prof. Hinsdale's _Old North-west_ (New York, 1888); _Epochs ofAmerican History_, edited by Prof. Hart, of Harvard University (Londonand Boston, 1893); _Remarks on the French Memorials concerning theLimits of Acadia_ (London, 1756) by T. Jefferys, who gives maps showingclearly French and English claims with respect to Nova Scotia or Acadia"according to its ancient limits" (Treaty of Utrecht). These and othermaps are given in that invaluable compilation, Winsor's _Narrative andCritical History of America_. See also Mitchell's map of British andFrench possessions in North America, issued by the British Board ofPlantations in 1758, and reprinted (in part) in the _Debates on theQuebec Act_, by Sir H. Cavendish (London, 1839). For text of Treaties ofUtrecht (1612), of Paris (1763), of Quebec Act (1774), and othertreaties and imperial acts relating to Canada, see Houston's_Documents_, cited above, p. 329. The maps of Canada and the disputedboundary in Alaska, which I give in this book, are taken from the smallmaps issued in 1899 by the Department of the Interior at Ottawa. 

INDEX

Abbott, Sir John; prime minister of Canada, 257; death of, ib

Aberdeen, Earl of; governor-general of Canada, 265-267

Aberdeen, Lady, 267

Acadia College, N. S. , founded, 163

_Acadie_ or _La Cadie_; name of, 8; settled by France, 8, 9; ceded toGreat Britain by Treaty of Utrecht (1713), 9; French inhabitantsexpelled from, 22, 23

Adams, President John; on the U. K. Loyalists, 76

Alaskan Boundary, 310-312; map of, 311

Alexander, Sir William (Lord Stirling); names Nova Scotia, 11

Allan, Sir Hugh; contributes funds to Conservative elections, 236;results of, 237

Allouez, Father; founds mission at La Pointe (Ashland), 17

Almon, M, B. ; banker and politician of Nova Scotia, 178

American Revolution; causes of, 56-65; momentous events of, 63-67; itseffects upon Canada and Maritime Provinces, 67-74, 81

Angers, lieutenant-governor; dismisses Mercier ministry in Quebec, 247

Anglican Church: first built in Upper Canada, 84

Annand, William; Nova Scotian journalist, and first minister of provinceafter Confederation, 218

Annapolis (Port Royal) named, 9

Archibald, Sir Adams, delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 204; firstlieutenant-governor of Manitoba, 230

Architecture in Canada, 288, 289

Art in Canada, 288

Assiniboia; name of Lord Selkirk's domain in North-west, 225

Australia, Commonwealth of; constitution of, 282, 283; comparisonsbetween Canadian and Australian federal systems, 315-326 (Appendix A)

Baccalaos, or Newfoundland, 8

Bagot, Sir Charles, governor-general of Canada, 169

Baldwin, Robert, efforts of, for responsible government, 168, 169; jointleader with Lafontaine in Reform ministry, 170, 173; admirable characterof, 184

Ballot, vote by; established, 239

Basques in Canada, 5

Batoche, N. W. T. ; victory of loyal Canadian forces at, in secondNorth-west rebellion of 1885, 253

Bay of Chaleurs Railway; scandal connected with, 247

Bering Sea dispute, 308, 309

Bibliographical notes, see App. B

Bidwell, Marshall Spring; reformer of Upper Canada, 146, 149, 151;unjust treatment of, by lieutenant-governor Head, 153

Big Bear, Indian Chief in N. W. T. ; rebels against Canada and is punished, 253-254

Bishop's Palace; first parliament house of Lower Canada, 92, 160

Blair, Mr. ; Canadian statesman, 265

Blake, Edward; Canadian statesman, 230, 231, 234, 241, 244, 255

Blanchard, Hiram; Nova Scotia, Unionist, defeated in 1867, 218

Botsford, Amos; first speaker of assembly of New Brunswick, 88

Boucherville, M. De; prime minister of Quebec, 245, 247

Bouchette, Joseph, Canadian general and author, 164

Boundary disputes; in North-west, 292; in Maine, 296-300; in Oregon, 300-302; in British Columbia (San Juan) 301, 302; in Alaska, 310-312. See _Maps_

Boundary of Ontario settled, 238

Bourgeoys, Sister, 34

Bowell, Sir Mackenzie; prime minister of Canada, 257

Brant, Joseph (Thayendanega), Mohawk Chief, 84; his loyalty to GreatBritain, ib. 

Brébeuf, Jean de, Jesuit martyr, 12

Bretons in Canada, 51

Briand, Bishop; consecrated after conquest, 43; loyal _mandement_ of, in1775, 58

British American League suggests federal union of provinces, 194

British Columbia, province of; its early history, 231, 232; entersConfederation, 232

British North America Act of 1867; passed to unite provinces, 215. See_Constitution of Canada. _

Brock, General; services of, during war of 1812-15, 114, 119; death of, ib. 

Brown, George; Canadian journalist and reformer, suggests federal union, 196; advocates representation by population, 197; assists in bringingabout Confederation, 197; joins the Taché-Macdonald government withother reformers, 198; leaves the coalition ministry, 217; unsuccessfulmission to Washington to obtain reciprocity, 306; assassination of, 256;character of, 197, 202

Brown, Thomas Storrow; leads Canadian rebels at St. Charles in 1837, 134

By, Colonel, founder of Bytown (Ottawa), 158; engineer of Ruleau Canal, ib. 

Cabot, John; voyages of, to North America, 4, 5

Caldwell, Receiver-General; defaulter to government, 126

Calvet, Pierre du; opponent of Governor Haldimand, 72; disloyalty of, 72, 73

Campbell, Sir Alexander; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 203

Campbell, Sir Colin; governor of Nova Scotia, 173; opposes responsiblegovernment, ib. 

Canada, name of, 6; discovery and settlement of, by France, 4-15; Frenchexploration of, 15-21; conquered by Great Britain, 21-27; political, economic, and social conditions of, during French rule, 27-36;beginnings of British rule in, 37-45; influence of Quebec Act of 1774upon, 45-48; during American Revolution, 67-74; United Empire Loyalistssettle in, 81-86; political divisions of (in 1792), 91; effects of warof 1812-15 upon, 110-123; rebellion in, 134-156; social and economiccondition of, in 1838, 156-164; union of, in 1840, 166; responsiblegovernment in, 167-173; social and economic conditions of, in 1866, 185-192; Confederation of, 215, 216; federal constitution of, 273-284, 315-326; first ministry of, under Confederation, 216, first parliamentof, 218, 219; trade and revenue of, in 1899, 273; literature in, 284-287, art in, 288; sculpture in, ib. ; architecture in, 288, 289;education in 289, 290; libraries in, ib. ; relations with England and theUnited States, 390-314; bibliographical notes of, 327-330; maps of, see_Maps_

Canada's representation at "Diamond Jubilee" (1897), 35, 36, 270, 271

Canada Temperance Act. See _Temperance Legislation_

Canada and the United States, relations between (1783-1900), 290-313

_Canadien, Le_; established in French Canada, 95

Canadian Pacific Railway; history of 232, 233, 236, 242, 244

Canadian Trade Acts; respecting Upper and Lower Canada, 153

Canals of Canada, 273

Cape Breton, name of, 5

Carignan-Salières regiment settled in Canada 14

Carleton, Guy (Lord Dorchester); governor general of Canada, 44; hisjust treatment of French Canadians, ib. ; his part in framing of theQuebec Act, 45; saves Canada during American revolution, 67; againgovernor-general, 89; his tribute to the U. E. Loyalists, ib. 

Carleton, Colonel John; first governor of New Brunswick, 87

Carnarvon, Earl of; introduces British North America Act of 1867 inBritish Parliament, 215

Caroline steamer; seized by Canadians 295; international complicationsrespecting 295, 296

Caron Father le; French missionary, 16

Caron, Sir Adolphe; minister of militia during North-west rebellion of1885, 252; resists Riel agitation in French Canada, 254

Carter, Frederick B. T. ; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

Cartier, Sir George; a father of Confederation, 201; great publicservices of, ib. ; death of, 233

Cartier, Jacques, discovers the St. Lawrence, 6, 7

Cartwright, Sir Richard; Canadian statesman, 94, 265

Casgrain, Abbé; Canadian author, 284

Cathcart, Lord; governor-general of Canada, 171, 172

Champlain, Samuel; founds Quebec, 9; career of, in Canada, 9-12, character of, ib. 

Chandler, Edward Barron delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 205;public career of, 206

Chapais, J. C. , delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 304

Chapleau, Sir Adolphe; resists popular clamour in French Canada forRiel's pardon after rebellion of 1885, 254

Charlesbourg-Royal, 7

Charlevoix, Jesuit priest; historian of New France, 19

Chartier, Abbé; Canadian rebel of 1837, 135

Chartrand, murder of, in Lower Canadian rebellion of 1837, 135

Chateauguay, battle of; won by French Canadians, 116, 121

Château of St. Louis; founded at Quebec, 31; destroyed by fire, 160

Chauveau, Pierre O. J. ; his services to education, 192; first primeminister of Quebec after Confederation, 217

Chenier, Dr. ; Canadian rebel, 134; monument to, 135

Christie, Mr. ; expelled from assembly of Lower Canada, 127;

Chrystler's Farm, battle at; won by British troops in 1813, 116

Civil Law of French Canada, 29; established under British rule, 46, 278

Clergy Reserves Question; origin of, 141; powerful factor in politicalcontroversy for years, ib. ; settled, 186

Cockburn, James; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 204; firstspeaker of commons' house of Dominion parliament, ib. 

Code Napoléon in French Canada, 278

Colbert, French minister, 27

Colborne, Sir John (Lord Seaforth); represses rebellion in Lower Canada, 134, 138; governor-general of Canada, 138

Colebrooke, Sir William; lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, 174

Coles, George; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

Colonial Conference at Ottawa (1894), 200

Commissions, International, affecting Canada; Maine boundary, 296, Washington (1871), 302, 304-306; Washington (1887), 307, 308, BeringSea, 309; joint high commission (Quebec and Washington, 1897-98), 309-313

Commonwealth of Australia. See _Australia_

Confederation of the British North American provinces; foreshadowed, 194; beginnings of, 195-198; initiated at Quebec Convention of 1864, 199; fathers of, 199-206, consummated, 206-215; birth of Dominion ofCanada, 216; constitution of, 206-209, 273-284; first ministry under, 216; first parliament under, 217; results of, 272, 273

Congrégation de Notre-Dame established, 34

Constitutional Act of 1791; forms provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, 90, 91; general provisions of, 91, 92

Constitution of Canadian Dominion, 273-281; compared with that ofAustralian Commonwealth, 282-284, 315, 326 (App. A)

Cornwallis, Colonel, founds Halifax, 49

Corrupt elections: measures to restrain and punish, 239

Cortereal, Gaspar and Miguel; voyages of, to North America, 5

_Coureurs-de-bois, _ 17, 18

_Coutume de Paris_ established in French Canada, 29

Craig, Sir James; governor-general of Canada, 96; quarrels of, withleading French Canadians, character of, 96, 97

Crémazie, Canadian poet, 192

Crozier, Superintendent; defeated by half-breeds in North-west rebellionof 1885, 252

Cut Knife Greek, N. W. T. ; Colonel Otter engages Indians at, in North-westrebellion of 1885, 253

Dalhousie College, Nova Scotia; founded, 163

Dalhousie, Lord, governor-general of Canada; quarrel of, with Papineau, 129

Daly, Sir Dominick; first minister of Canada under Lord Metcalfe, 170

Davies, Sir Louis; Canadian statesman, 265

Davies, English navigator; voyages of, to Canada, 7

Dawson, Sir William; Canadian scientist, 192, 286

Dickey, R. B. ; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 305

Dochet Island (St. Croix River); first settlement of French on, 8

Dominion of Canada; origin of name, 215; established, 215, 216; firstministry of, 216; first parliament of, 217; completed from Atlantic toPacific, 227, 232, 234; history of, from 1873-1900, 236-272; map of, _atend. _

Dorchester, Lord; see _Carleton, Sir Guy_

Douglas, Sir James; governor of British Columbia, 232

Drew, Captain; seizes steamer Caroline on U. S. Frontier, 154. See_Caroline. _

Drummond, Attorney-General; member of MacNab-Morin ministry, 186

Drummond, Dr. , Canadian poet, 285

Drummond, General, services of, during war of 1812-15, 116, 117, 122

Duck Lake, N. W. T. , defeat of government forces at, in Canadian rebellionof 1885, 252

Dumont Gabriel; takes part in Riel's North-west revolt of 1885, 252, 253

Dufferin, Lord; governor-general of Canada, 241, 243, 267

Durham, Earl of; high commissioner to Canada after rebellion of 1837, 136; his humanity and justice, 137; returns from Canada when rebuked inEngland, ib. , his report on Canadian affairs, 165

Durham Terrace, constructed, 160

Education in Canada; state of, under French rule, 33, 34, in 1838, 162, 163; after union of 1840, 192; present condition of, 290; contributionsby government and people, ib. 

Elgin, Lord; governor-general of Canada, character of, 172, 173;established responsible government, 173; action of, on Rebellion LossesBill in 1849, 188, 189

Falkland, Lord; governor of Nova Scotia, 176; quarrels with Joseph Howeand Liberal party, 177-179; returns to England, 179

Family Compact in Upper Canada; meaning of, 141; controls government, ib. 

Fenian raids; in 1866, 213; in 1870-71, 230, 231, Canada neverindemnified for, 305

Ferland, French Canadian historian, 192

Fielding, Mr. , finance minister of Canada, 265, his budget of 1897, 209

Fish Creek, N. W. T. ; General Middleton checked at, in engagement withrebels of 1885, 253

Fisher, Charles; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 205

Fishery question between Canada and the United States, 293, 302, 304, 307, 308

Fitzgibbon, Lieutenant; successful strategy of, at Beaver Dams in 1813, 116

Franchise Act of Dominion, passed, 255, repealed, 268

Frechétte, French Canadian poet, 285

Free Trade policy of England; its early effects upon Canada, 172, 187, 189

French Acadians See _Neutrals_

French Canada; during French regime (1534-1760), 4-37; under militarygovernment after conquest by Great Britain, 37, 38; desire of Britishgovernment to do justice to, 44, 45, provisions of Quebec Act affecting, 45, 48; political struggles and rebellion in, 124-138; influence ofUnion Act of 1840 upon, 170, 187; brought into confederation, 216;results of union upon, 273; literature in, 284, 285

French exploration in great valleys of North America, 15-21

French language; use of, restricted by Union Act of 1840, 187;restriction removed, ib. 

Frobisher, English navigator; voyages of, to Canada, 8

Frog Lake, massacre at, in North-west rebellion of 1885, 252

Frontenac, Count de (Louis de La Buade); French governor of Canada, 13;eminent services of, ib. 

Galloway, Thomas; his scheme for readjusting relations between GreatBritain and her old Colonies, 79

Galt, Sir Alexander; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 20; publicservices of, ib. 

Garneau, French Canadian historian, 192

German and Belgian Treaties; denunciation of, 261, 271

Gilbert, Sir Humphrey; takes possession of Newfoundland, 8

Glenelg, Lord; colonial secretary in 1838, 137

Gordon, Lt. -Governor; promotes federal union in New Brunswick, 212

Gosford, Lord; governor-general of Canada, 132, 134

Gourlay, Robert; misfortunes of, as a reformer in Upper Canada, 143-145

Grasett, Colonel; assists in repressing North-west rebellion of 1885, 253

Gray, Colonel; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

Gray, John Hamilton, delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 205

Grey, Earl; colonial secretary, 172

Haldimand, general; governor-general of Canada, 71, 72

Haliburton, Judge, author of _Sam Sack_, etc. , 164

Halifax, founded, 49

Harvey, Colonel; victory of, at Stoney Creek in 1813, 116. See _Harvey, Sir John. _

Harvey, Sir John; governor of Nova Scotia, of New Brunswick, establishesresponsible government in the maritime provinces. See _Harvey, Colonel. _

Haviland, Thomas Heath; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206;public career of, ib. 

Head, Sir Francis Bond; lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, 148; hisunjust treatment of reformers, 149-151; his rashness before rebellion, 152; represses rebellion, 153

Henry, William A. ; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 204

Hincks, Sir Francis; Canadian statesman, melancholy death of, 233

Historian of Canada, 192, 284

Hochelaga (Montreal); Indian village of, visited by Jacques Cartier, 6

Howe, Joseph; father of responsible government in Nova Scotia, 175, 176;his quarrel with Lord Falkland, 176-179; ability of, 183, 184; advocateof imperial federation, 195; opposes confederation from 1864-1868, 212, 219; his reasons for receding from his hostile position, 219; enters theMacdonald ministry, 220; lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia, ib; suddendeath of, ib; orator, poet, and statesman, 220, 221

Howland, Sir William P. ; delegate to Westminster Palace Conference of1866-67, 214; lieutenant-governor of Ontario, 217

Hudson's Bay Company; its great territorial privileges, 231-324; itsclaims purchased by the Canadian government, 227; map illustrating itscharter, 222

Hull, General; defeat of, by Brock at Detroit, 114

Hundred Associates, Company of; established in Canada, 10

"Hunter's Lodges"; formed in United States to invade Canada, 154

Huntington, Lucius Seth; makes charges against Sir John Macdonald, 236

Huron Indians; massacre of, by the Iroquois, 12

Hutchinson, Governor Thomas (of Massachusetts); on relations betweenGreat Britain and her old Colonies, 98

Iberville, founder of Louisiana, 19

Immigration to Canada, 78, 79

Independence of old Thirteen Colonies acknowledged, by Great Britain, 74

Indians; British treatment of, 41, 42; Canadian relations with, 238, 239

Intellectual culture in Canada; under French rule, 35; under Britishrule, 164, 192, 284, 285

Intercolonial Railway; history of, 191, 215, 219

Iroquois Indians; ferocity of, 10-13

Jameson, Miss Anna, her "Winter Studies and Summer Rambles" in UpperCanada in 1838, 157-159

Jesuit College at Quebec, 34

Jesuits' Estates, Act; political controversies respecting, 248

Jesuits in Canada, 11, 12; their estates confiscated by the Britishgovernment, 38; restored in part, 248

Johnson, John; delegate to the Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

Johnston, James William; public career of, 175; eminence of, 185; earlyadvocate of confederation, 194, 195

Joliet, Louis; discovers the Mississippi, 18

Journalism in Canada, 164, 287

Judiciary, independence of; political contests for, 128, 139

Keewatin, district of; established provisionally, 238

Kent, Duke of; commander of British forces in Canada, 193; gives name toP. E. Island, 53; letter to, from Chief Justice B. C. Sewell on union ofprovinces, 194

King, George E. ; prime minister of New Brunswick after Confederation, 218

King's University, Nova Scotia; founded, 163

Kingsford, Dr. ; Canadian historian, 284

Kingston, city of; first parliament of Canada meets at, in 1841, 167

Kirk, David; captures Quebec, 10, 11

Labrador, discovery of, 5; origin of name of, 7

Lafontaine-Baldwin Ministry, 170, 173; its successful administration ofCanadian affairs, 173

Lafontaine, Sir Louis Hippolyte; Canadian statesman and jurist, 170, 173, 184

La Gallissonière, French governor of Canada, 35

Lake of Woods, international boundary at, 292, 293; map of, 293

Lalemant, Gabriel; Jesuit martyr, 12

Land question; in Upper Canada, 143; in Prince Edward Island, 54, 234

Langevin, Sir Hector; Canadian statesman, delegate to Quebec Conventionof 1864, 205; charges against, 258

Lansdowne, Marquess of; governor-general of Canada, 207

Lartigue, Bishop; _mandement_ of, against French Canadian rebels, 135, 136

La Salle, Sieur de (Réné Robert Cavelier); at Lachine, 18; descends theMississippi, 18, 19; assassination of, 19

Laurier government; formation of, 265; measures of, 268-272

Laurier, Rt Hon. Sir Wilfrid; prime minister of Canada, 265; settlesManitoba school question, 266 267; represents Canada at celebration of"Diamond Jubilee" (1897), 36, 270; his action on Canadian aid to Englandin South African War, 372; his mastery of English, 267

Laval, Bishop; first Roman Catholic Bishop of Canada, 12; establishestithes, 29

Laval University, Quebec, 290

La Valmière, a disloyal priest, 72

Lawrence, Governor; expels French Acadians from Nova Scotia, 23;encourages New England emigration, 51; opens first assembly in Halifax, 53

Lepine, Canadian rebel; punished, 241; his sentence commuted, _ib_. 

Letellier de Saint-Just; lieutenant-governor of Quebec, 246; dismissed, 246, 247

Lévis, General; defeats Murray at St. Foye, 26

Liberal or Reform party; formed in Nova Scotia, 99; in Upper Canada, 141

Liberal Convention in Ottawa (1893), 259

Libraries in Canada, 290

Lisgar, Lord, governor-general of Canada, 267

Literature in Canada, during French régime, 35; before union of 1840, 164; after union, 192; since Confederation, 284-287

Londonderry in Nova Scotia; origin of name of, 51, 52

Lome, Marquess of; governor-general of Canada, 244; His services to Art, Science, and Literature, 267

Louisiana, named by La Salle, 19

Louis XIV establishes royal government in Canada, 12, 27, 28

Lount, Samuel; Upper Canadian rebel of 1837, 148, 152-153; executed, 155

Loyalists. See _United Empire Loyalists_

Loyal and Patriotic Society of Upper Canada; usefulness of, during warof 1819-15, 121

Lundy's Lane, battle of; won by British in 1814, 117, 120

Lymburner, Adam; opposes separation of Upper from Lower Canada, 90

Macdonald, Andrew Archibald; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

Macdonald, Baroness (of Earnscliffe), 257

Macdonald, Colonel George; at Ogdensburg in 1813, 115; at Chateauguay, 121

Macdonald, John Sanfield; first prime minister of Ontario afterConfederation, 217

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. Sir John; enters public life, 173; member ofgovernment, ib. ; settles Clergy Reserves question, 186; takes lead inestablishing Confederation, 198, 199, 209; first prime minister of theDominion, 216; resigns under unfortunate circumstances, 236; initiatesthe "National Policy" of Conservative party, 243; prime minister again, ib. ; death of, 256; great ability, and patriotism of, 200, 256; mournedby all Canada, 257; monuments and tributes to his memory, ib. 

Macdonell; Colonel John; first speaker of assembly of Upper Canada in1792, 94

Macdonell, Vicar-General; first Roman Catholic Bishop of Upper Canada, 120

Mackenzie, Alexander; prime minister of Canada, 237; character of, ib. , 243; his administration of public affairs (1873-78), 238-242; death of, 257

Mackenzie, Sir Alexander; North-west explorer, 224

Mackenzie, William Lyon; journalist and reformer, 146; enters UpperCanada legislature, 146; unjustly expelled, ib. , first mayor of Toronto, 147; indiscretions of, ib. ; moves for committee of grievances, 148, itsreport, ib. ; defeat of, at elections of 1836, 150, resorts to rebellion, 152; defeat of, at Montgomery's and flight from Canada, 153; on NavyIsland, 154; imprisoned in the United States, ib. ; returns from exile, 182, exercises no influence in Canadian politics, ib. ; poverty and deathof, ib. ; character of, 182, 183

MacLeod, international dispute respecting, 295

MacNab, Sir Allan; leads loyal "Men of Gore" against Canadian rebels in1837, 153; orders seizure of steamer Caroline on. U. S. Frontier, 154;prime minister of Canada, 186

Maine Boundary Dispute, 292, 296-300; map of, 296

Maisonneuve, Sieur de (Paul de Chomedey); founds Montreal, 12

Manitoba, first visited by French, 20; province of, established, 230

Manitoba school question, 262-265, 266, 267

Maps relating to Canada; of French, Spanish and British possessions inNorth America in 1756-1761, _at end_; of British possessions in1763-1775, at end; of boundary established in 1783 between Canada andthe United States, 75; of Hudson's Bay Co. 's territory, 222; ofNorth-west boundary in 1842, 293; of North-eastern boundary in 1842, 297; of Alaskan disputed boundary, 311; of the Dominion of Canada in1900, at end. 

Marquette, Father, founds mission of Sainte-Maria, 17; discovers theMississippi, 18; death of, _ib_. ;

Marriage laws in early Canada, 97

Masères, Attorney-general, 43

Matthews, Peter; Upper Canadian rebel, 148, 151, 153; executed, 155

McCully, Jonathan; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 205

McDougall, William, delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 203;provisional lieutenant-governor of N. W. T. , 227; Half-breed rebellionprevents him assuming office, ib. ; disappears from public life, 230

McGee, Thomas D'Arcy; historian and orator, delegate to QuebecConvention of 1864, 203; his political career in Canada, ib. ;assassinated, 221

McGill University, Montreal; founded, 163

McGreevy, Thomas, impeached for serious misdemeanors, 258; punishmentof, ib. 

McLane, executed for treason in 1793, 101, 102

McLure, General (United States General); burns Niagara in 1814, 116

Mercier, Honoré, prime minister of Quebec, 247; dismissed, ib. 

Merritt, W. Hamilton; originator of Welland Canal, 159

Metcalfe, Lord; governor-general of Canada, 170; antagonism of, toresponsible government, 171; retirement and death of, ib. 

_Métis_ or Half-breeds of the Canadian North-west, 225, 228, 249

Middleton, Major-general; commands Canadian forces on Riel's revolt of1885 in North-west, 252-254

Military rule in Canada after 1760, 37, 38

Mills, David; Canadian statesman, 206

Minto, Earl of; governor-general of Canada, 268

Mitchell, Peter; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 205; publiccareer of, ib. 

Mohawks, members of the Iroquois confederacy, 10; humbled by the Marquisde Tracy, 13. See _Brant Joseph, Iroquois. _

Monk, Lord; governor-general of Canada at Confederation, 216, 267

Montcalm, Marquis de; loses battle on Plains of Abraham, 26; death ofib. 

Montgomery, Brigadier-General; invades Canada, 69, 70; death of, atQuebec, 70

Montreal founded, 12

Monts, Sieur de; founder of French _Acadie_, 8

Monts-Déserts named by Champlain, 9

Mowat, Sir Oliver; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1804, 203; publiccareer of, 203, 265, 266

Municipal system of Canada; established, 185, 186; nature of, 278

Murray, General; in command at Quebec, 26; defeat of, at St. Foye, ib. ;governor-general of Canada, 42; his just treatment of FrenchCanadians, 43

Mutual or reciprocal preferential trade between Canada and England;advocacy of, 260, 271

_Nation Canadienne, La_; Papineau's dream of, 130, 133, 134

"National Policy, " or Protective system; established by Conservativeparty (1879), 243, 244

Navigation Laws repealed, 187

Navy Island, see _Mackenzie, William Lyon_

Neilson, John; Canadian journalist and politician, 127, 131

Nelson, Robert; Canadian rebel of 1837-38, 138

Nelson, Dr. Wolfred; leader in Lower Canadian rebellion of 1837, 134

Neutrality of the Great Lakes, 294, 295

"Neutrals, " on French Acadians; expulsion of from Nova Scotia, 22, 23

Newark (Niagara), meeting of first Upper Canadian legislature at, 93;seat of government removed from, to York, 101

New Brunswick; originally part of Acadie and Nova Scotia, 53; provinceof founded by Loyalists, 83; capital ib. ; state of, in 1838, 162;political struggle for self-government in, 173, 174; takes part inQuebec Convention, 198, 205; brought into Confederation, 215, 216;boundary dispute with Maine, 296-300

New Brunswick school question, 201, 2O2

New Brunswick University; founded at Fredericton, 163

New Caledonia; old name of British Columbia, 232

Newfoundland; delegates from, to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206; refusesto join the Dominion, 235

Niagara, see _Newark_

Nicholson, General; captures Port Royal, 9

Norse voyages to Canada, 4

North-eastern Boundary question, 296-299; map of Boundary, 1842, 297

North-west Company; rival of the Hudson's Bay Company in North America, 224, 225

North-west Boundary dispute, 292, 293; map of, 293

North-west Territories, early history of, 221-227; annexation of, toCanada, 227, 230; first rebellion in, 227-230; government of, 277;second rebellion in, 249-255; districts of, 277

Nova Scotia (Acadie); first settled by France, 8, 9; foundation of PortRoyal (Annapolis), 8; ceded to Great Britain by Treaty of Utrecht, 9;population of, at conquest, 15; first called Nova Scotia, 11; Halifaxfounded, 49; settlement by colonists of New England, 50, 51;expatriation of the Acadian French, 22, 23, 50, 51; population of, in1767, 51; Irish immigration, ib. ; Scotch immigration, 52; earlygovernment of, 52, 53, included New Brunswick, C. Breton, and St. John'sIsland (Pr. Edward I), 53; early courts of justice, 55; coming ofLoyalists to, 82; state of in 1837-38, 162, political struggles in, forself-government, 174-180; take part in Quebec Convention of 1864, 198, 204; brought into Confederation, 215; people opposed to, 212, 218, 219;repeal movement gradually ceases in, 233

Novelists, Canadian, 164, 285, 286

O'Callaghan, Dr. ; Canadian journalist and rebel, 130

O'Donohue, Canadian rebel, 231; amnesty to, 241

Ohio Valley, French in, 23

Oregon Boundary, dispute respecting, 300-302

Osgoode, Chief Justice; first speaker of legislative council of UpperCanada in 1792, 94

Ottawa, city of; founded, 158

Pacific Cable; action of Canadian government with respect to, 271

Palmer, Edward; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

Panet, Joseph Antoine; first speaker of assembly of Lower Canada in1792, 93

Papineau, Louis J. ; leader of French Canadian malcontents in rebellionof 1837, 129-134; conduct of, on outbreak of rebellion, 134, 135; returnof, from exile, 181; opposes responsible government, ib. ; losespolitical influence, ib. ; character of, 180-182

Pardon, prerogative of; instructions respecting exercise of, 241

Parishes established in French Canada, 29

Parker, Gilbert; Canadian novelist, 286

Parr Town, first name of St. John, New Brunswick, 83

Perry, Peter; founder of Upper Canadian Reform party, 141, 146, 150

Pictou Academy, Nova Scotia; founded, 163

Pitt, the elder (Lord Chatham); gives Canada to Great Britain, 25, 35, 36

Pitt, William (the younger); introduces Act separating Upper from LowerCanada (Constitutional Act of 1791), 90, 91

Plains of Abraham; Wolfe's victory on, 26

Plattsburg, battle of, pusillanimity of General Prevost at, 117

Plessis, Bishop (Roman Catholic); patriotism of, in war of 1812-15, 120

Poets in Canada, 192, 284, 285

Pontiac's Conspiracy, 39

Pope, William H. , delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

Portuguese discovery in Canada, 5

Post Office in Canada; under British management, 164; transferred toCanada, 187

Poundmaker, Indian chief in North-west; rebels against Canadiangovernment, 253; punished, 254

Poutrincourt, Baron de; founder of Port Royal, 8

Powell, Chief Justice, his unjust treatment of Robert Gourlay, 145

Preferential trade with Great Britain, 200, 201, 269, 271

Prevost, Sir George (governor-general of Canada), retires from Sackett'sHarbour 1813, 115; retreats from Plattsburg in 1814, 117; character of, 113

Prince, Colonel; orders execution of American raiders in 1838, 155

Prince Edward Island. See _St. John's Island_

Prince of Wales visits Canada, 193

Princess Louise, arrives in Canada with the Marquess of Lome, 244; hersupport of Art, 288

Proclamation of 1764; for government of Canada, 40-42

Procter, General, defeats General Winchester in 1813, 115; beaten atMoraviantown in 1813, 116

Prohibitory Liquor Law; agitation for, 340; popular vote on, ib. 

Protestantism unknown in French Canada, 28

Provincial governments established under Confederation, 217, 218

Provinces, constitution of, under Confederation, 275, 276

Puritan migration to Nova Scotia, 50

Put-in Bay (Lake Erie); British fleet defeated at, in 1813, 116

Quebec Act; origin of, 44, 45, its provisions, 45-47; how received inCanada, 46; unpopularity of, in old British colonies, 67

Quebec, Convention of, 1864; delegates to, 199-206; passes resolutionsin favour of federal union, 206-209

Quebec founded, 9

Queenston Heights; battle of, in 1812, 114

Railways in Canada; in 1865, 191, in 1899, 273. See _Intercolonial R. Canadian Pacific R. _

Rebellion in Lower Canada; its origin, 124-133; Louis J. Papineau's partin, 129-134; outbreak of, 134; prompt action of authorities against, ib. ; Dr. Nelson wins success at St. Denis, ib. ; defeat of Brown at St. Charles, ib. ; flight of Papineau and rebel leaders, ib. ; fight at St. Eustache and death of Chenier, ib. ; murder of Weir and Chartrand, 135;collapse of the rebellion of 1837, 135, 136; loyal action of BishopLartigue, 135; arrival of Lord Durham as British high-commissioner andgovernor-general, 136; his career in Canada, 137-138; Sir John Colborne;governor-general, 139; second outbreak of rebellion, 1838, ib. ; promptlysubdued, ib. ; punishment of prominent insurgents, ib. ; action of UnitedStates government during, 139; social and economic condition of Canadaduring, 159-162; remedial policy of British government, and new era ofpolitical development. See _Responsible Government in Canada. _

Rebellion in Upper Canada; effect of family compact on, 140, 141; ofclergy reserves on, 141, 142; influence of Archdeacon, afterwardsBishop, Strachan in public affairs, 142; unjust treatment of RobertGourlay, 143-145; persecution of William Lyon Mackenzie, 146-148; otherprominent actors in, 148; indiscretions of the lieutenant-governor, SirFrancis Bond Head, 149-152; outbreak and repression of, 152, 153; flightof Mackenzie and other rebel leaders, 153; Mackenzie's seizure of NavyIsland, 154; affair of the Caroline, ib. ; filibustering expeditionsagainst Canada from United States in 1838, 154, 155; prompt execution offilibusters by Colonel Prince, 155; action of U. S. Authorities during, ib. ; execution of Von Schoultz, Lount, Matthews, and other rebels, ib. ;Sir George Arthur, harshness of, ib. ; social and economic conditions ofUpper Canada at time of, 156-159; rebellion leads to the enlargement ofpolitical privileges of people, See _Responsible Government in Canada. _

Rebellion Losses Bill (of 1849); its nature, 188; assented to by LordElgin, 189; consequent rioting and burning of parliament house atMontreal, 189, Lord Elgin's life in danger, ib. ; his wise constitutionalaction, ib. Rebellions in North-west: See _North-western Territories, _and _Riel, Louis. _

Reciprocity of Trade between Canada and the United States; treaty of1814, 190, 191; repeal of the same, 303; efforts to renew it, 304, 307;Canadians not now so favourable to, 310

Recollets, or Franciscans, in Canada, 11

Redistribution Acts of 1882 and 1897; measures to amend, rejected bySenate, 268

Representative institutions in Canada; established in Nova Scotia, 53;in New Brunswick, 88; in French or Lower Canada (Quebec), 91; in UpperCanada (Ontario), ib. ; in Prince Edward Island, 54; in Manitoba, 230; inBritish Columbia, 232

Responsible government in Canada; beginnings of, 165-175; consummatedby Lord Elgin, 173; struggle for, in New Brunswick, 173, 174; in NovaScotia, 174-180; in Prince Edward Island, 180; prominent advocates of, 183-185; results of (1841-1867), 185-192

Revenue of Canada in 1899, 273

Riall, General; defeated by United States troops at Street's Creek in1814, 117

Richardson, Major; Canadian author, 164

Richelieu, Cardinal; his effort to colonise Canada, 10

Rideau Canal, constructed, 158

Riel, Louis; leads revolt of French half-breeds in North-west, 228;murders Ross, 229; flies from the country, ib; elected to and expelledfrom the Canadian Commons, 241; reappears in North-west, and leadssecond revolt, 249-253; captured and executed, 253, 254; politicalcomplications concerning, 240, 254

Roberval, Sieur de (Jean François de la Rocque); attempts to settleCanada, 7

Robinson, Chief Justice; public career of, in Upper Canada, 145

Rocque, Jean François de la. See _Roberval_

Roebuck, Mr. ; Canadian agent in England, 131

Rolph, Dr. ; his part in Canadian rebellion of 1837, 151-153; characterof, 183

Roman Catholic Church in Canada, 28, 29, 43, 46, 47

Rose, Sir John, effort of, to obtain reciprocity with United States, 304

Rosebery, Earl of, unveils Sir John Macdonald's bust in St. Paul'sCathedral, 256

Rouse's Point, boundary at, 302

Royal Society of Canada, 286

Rupert's Land; origin of name of, 224. See _North-west Territories ofCanada_. 

Russell, Administrator, 101

Russell, Lord John; introduces resolutions respecting Canada in Britishparliament in 1836, 132; also Act reuniting the Canadas in 1840, 166;lays basis of responsible government in Canada, 167. See _ResponsibleGovernment in Canada_. 

Ryerson, Rev. Egerton; Loyalist, Methodist, and educationalist, 141, 147, 192

Sainte-Geneviève (Pillage Bay); named St. Laurens by Jacques Carrier, 7

Salaberry, Colonel de; defeats United States troops at Chateauguay, 121

Sanderson, Robert; first speaker of assembly of Nova Scotia, 53

San Juan Island; international dispute respecting, 301, 302

Sarrasin, Dr. , French Canadian scientist, 35

Saskatchewan River (Poskoiac), discovery of, 20

Sculpture in Canada, 288

Seaforth, Lord. See _Colborne, Sir John_

Secord, Laura; heroic exploit of, in 1814, 120

Seigniorial tenure in French Canada, 14, 32; abolished under Britishrule, 186

Selkirk, Lord; attempts to colonise North-west, 225; death of, _ib. _

Seven Years' War; between France and Great Britain in America, 21-27

Sewell, Chief Justice (Loyalist); adviser of Sir James Craig, 96;suggests union of provinces, 194

Shea, Ambrose; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

Sheaffe, General; services of, during war of 1812-15, 114

Shelburne, in Nova Scotia, founded by Loyalists, 82

Sherbrooke, Sir John, governor of Nova Scotia, 118; occupies Maine inwar of 1812-15, ib. 

Shirley, Governor; deep interest of, in Nova Scotia, 49

Simcoe, Colonel; first lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, 93; publiccareer of, 94

Simultaneous polling at elections established, 239

Slavery in Canada, 98

Smith, Chief Justice (Loyalist); first president of legislative councilof Lower Canada in 1792, 92; suggests federal union of provinces, 194

Smith, Donald (Lord Strathcona); intervenes in North-west rebellion of1870, 229

Social and economic conditions of the Canadian provinces; in 1838, 156-164; in 1866, 189-192; in 1900, 272-290

South African War; Canadians take part in, 271, 272

Square Gulf, or "golfo quadrado"; old name of St. Lawrence Gulf, 7

St. Charles; defeat of Canadian rebels in 1837 at, 134

St. Denis; Canadian rebels repulsed by British regulars in 1837 at, 134

St. Eustache; stand of Canadian rebels at, 134; death of Chenier, ib. 

St. John, New Brunswick; founded, 83

St. John's, Island; named Prince Edward, 53; under government of NovaScotia, _ib_. ; survey of, ib. ; separated from Nova Scotia, 54; publiclands of, granted by lottery, ib. ; political struggles in, forself-government, 180, 185; takes part in Quebec Convention of 1864, 206;enters Confederation, 234; settlement of its land question, ib. 

St. Lawrence, River and Gulf of; origin of name of, 7

St. Lusson, Sieur; takes possession of the Sault, 18

St. Maurice forges founded, 30

Stadacona (Quebec), Indian village of, visited by Jacques Cartier, 6

Stanley, Lord, governor-general of Canada, 267

Steeves, William H. ; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

Strachan, Bishop (Anglican); patriotism of, during war of 1812-15, 121;his influence in Upper Canadian politics, 142

Strange, Lt. -Col. ; engaged in repressing North-west rebellion of 1885, 253

Stuart, Andrew; prominent Canadian lawyer and politician, 127, 131

Sulpitians in Canada, 37

Superior Council of French Canada. See _Supreme Council_

Supreme Council, established by Louis XIV in French Canada, 28, 29

Supreme Court, established in Canada, 239

Sydenham, Lord (Poulett Thomson); governor-general of Canada, 166;carries out scheme of uniting the Canadas in 1840, 167; opinions of, onresponsible government, 168; death of, 169

Taché, Sir Etienne Paschal; chairman of Quebec Convention of 1864, 199;character of, ib. 

Talbot, Colonel, pioneer in Upper Canada, 157

Talon, Intendant, 13

Taite, Israel; accuses McGreevy of grave misdemeanours, 258; member ofLaurier ministry, 206

Temperance Legislation; "Scott Act" passed, 239; _plèbiscite_ onProhibition, 240

Thompson, Sir John; prime minister of Canada, 257; sudden death of, ib; great ability of, ib. 

Thomson, Poulett. See _Sydenham, Lord_

Tilley, Sir Leonard; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 205; publiccareer of, ib. ; introduces scheme of "National Policy, " 244

Timber trade in Canada, in early time, 162

Tithes established in French Canada, 29

Todd, Dr. ; Constitutional writer, 286

Tonge, William Cottnam Tonge; Nova Scotian Liberal, 99; his controversywith Governor Wentworth, ib. 

Trade of Canada in 1899, 273

Treaties, international, affecting Canada; of St. Germain-en-Laye(1632), 11; of Utrecht (1713), 9, 21, 22; of Paris (1763), 38; ofVersailles, 292; of Ghent, 293; of 1818, 294; Ashburton (1842), 299;Oregon (1846), 301; reciprocity (1854), 303; of Washington (1871), 305, 306; Bering Sea, 308, 309, Anglo-Russian (Alaska), 310-312

Treaties with Indian tribes of Canada, 41, 238

Trutch, Sir Joseph; first lieutenant-governor of British Columbia underConfederation, 232

Tupper, Sir Charles; prime minister of Nova Scotia, 192; services of, toeducation, ib. ; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 204; introduceslegislation for construction of Canadian Pacific Railway, 244; highcommissioner of Canada in London, 258; re-enters political life, ib. ;action of, on Manitoba school question, 264; prime minister of Canada, 265; defeat of, at general elections of 1896, ib; difference with LordAberdeen, when governor-general, ib. ; remarkable ability of, 204, 258;leader of Liberal Conservative party from 1896-1900, 258; policy of, on"preferential trade" with Great Britain, 271

Tyler, Professor, on U. E. Loyalists, 76

Uniacke, James Boyle; Nova Scotian statesman, 175; advocate ofresponsible government, 176; first minister of Nova Scotia, 180

Union of the Canadas in 1840, 166, 167

United Empire Loyalists; number of, during American Revolution, 76;justice done to, ib. ; opinions of, on issues of revolution, 77, 78;suffering of, during revolution, 79; treatment of, after the peace of1783, 80; compensation to, by British government, 81; settle in BritishAmerica, ib; privations of, in Nova Scotia, 80; founders of NewBrunswick, 83; of Upper Canada, 84; eminent descent of, 86; Canada'sdebt to, ib origin of name of, 89; representatives of, in firstlegislature of New Brunswick, 87, 88; of Upper Canada, 94; services of, during war of 1812-15, 188-120

Universities in Canada, 163, 289

University of Toronto, beginning of, 164

Upper Canada, founded by Loyalists, 84; first districts of, 89, 94; madeseparate province, 91, first government of, 93; Newark, first capitalof, ib. ; York (Toronto), second capital of, 94; rebellion in, see_Rebellion in Upper Canada_; state of, in 1838, 159; reunited with LowerCanada, 166; joins Confederation as Ontario, 216

Upper Canada College, Toronto, founded, 163

Ursulines at Quebec, 34

Vancouver Island; history of, 231, 232

Verendrye, Sieur de la (Pierre Gauthier de Varennes); discoversManitoba and North-west of Canada, 19, 20

Verrazzano, Giovanni di; voyages of, to North America, 5

Victoria College, Upper Canada, founded, 164

Vincent, General; services of, in war of 1812-15, 115

Von Schoultz; leads filibusters into Canada, 155; executed, ib. 

War of 1812-15; origin of, 103-110; population of Canada and UnitedStates during, 110-112; loyalty of Canadian people during, 113; servicesof General Brock during, 114; campaign of 1812 in Upper Canada, 114, 115; of 1813, 115, 116; of 1814, 117; maritime provinces during, 117, 118, close of, 118; services of Loyalists during, 118-120; Laura Secord, heroism of, 120; description of striking incidents of battles during, 121-123

Washington, George; eminent character of, 66

Washington Treaty of 1871, 304, 305

Weir, Lieutenant, murder of, in Lower Canadian rebellion of 1837, 135

Welland Canal commenced, 159; completed, 190

Wentworth, Sir John; Loyalist governor of Nova Scotia, 99

Westminster Palace Conference in London; Canadian delegates arrangefinal terms of federation at, 214, 215

Wetmore, Attorney-general; first minister of New Brunswick afterConfederation, 218

Whelan, Edward; delegate to Quebec Convention of 1864, 206

White, Thomas; Canadian journalist and statesman, 256; sudden death of, ib. 

William IV visits Canada as Prince William Henry, 193

Williams, Lt. -Col. ; death of, in North-west rebellion of 1885, 254

Williams, Sir Fenwick ("hero of Kars"); lieutenant-governor of NovaScotia, 213, 217

Wilmot, Lemuel A. ; father of responsible government in New Brunswick, 174, 185; lieutenant-governor of the province, 217

Wolfe, General; at Quebec, 25; his bold ascent of heights, 25, 26; winsbattle on Plains of Abraham, 26; death of, 26; a maker of Canada, 35

York (Toronto) made capital of Upper Canada, 101

Young, Sir William; Nova Scotian statesman and jurist, 185

Yukon, district of; gold discovery in, 209; administration of, ib, 277;boundaries of, 310-312

[Illustration: (map) FRANCE, SPAIN, AND ENGLAND, IN NORTH AMERICA, 1756-1760. ]

[Illustration: OUTLINE MAP OF ENGLISH POSSESSIONS IN NORTH AMERICA, 1763-1775. ]

[Illustration: MAP OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA ILLUSTRATING THE BOUNDARIESOF PROVINCES AND PROVISIONAL DISTRICTS]