Part 10

In 1825, the government, during his lordship’s temporary absence, was administered by Sir Francis Burton. This officer, anxious to conciliate the Lower House, yielded nearly all the points in dispute. He sanctioned a bill of supply, in which no distinction was made between the government and the popular expenditure; an annual grant being made, with considerable reductions, so that a virtual control over the whole revenue was thereby conceded to the members. Accordingly, they now openly claimed the right to appropriate all that was raised within the province, denying the privilege hitherto exercised by government—of the uncontrolled disposal of certain branches. These were the produce of duties on imports, imposed by act of parliament in 1774, and yielding annually about 34,000_l._, with some of smaller amount, arising from the sale of land, timber, and other casual sources. Earl Bathurst strongly disapproved of the concessions made by Burton; and Lord Dalhousie, having resumed office in 1826, disallowed a bill in which the above claim was incorporated.

Lord Goderich, who, in 1827, received the seals of the Colonial Office, though he maintained the right of government to dispose of the disputed revenue, yet directed that an offer should be made of resigning it to the Assembly, on their granting an annual civil list of 36,000_l._ On the meeting of that body, however, M. Papineau was elected speaker—an appointment which, on account of his violent opposition to the measures of administration, Lord Dalhousie refused to sanction. The consequence was, that no session of either house was held in the winter of 1827-1828.

Discontent had now risen to an alarming height; and in the latter year a petition was presented to the king, signed by 87,000 inhabitants, complaining of the conduct of successive governors, particularly of the Earl of Dalhousie, and urging a compliance with the demands of the Assembly. Mr. Huskisson, who had become Colonial Minister, moved that this petition should be referred to a committee of the House of Commons. One was accordingly named, composed, in a great degree, of members attached to liberal principles; who, after a very elaborate investigation, gave in a report, in which they strongly condemned the practice of appropriating large sums, taken from the public revenue, without the sanction of the representatives of the people. With regard to the main portion of the disputed income, being that produced by the duties of 1774, its disposal appeared, from the report of his Majesty’s law officers, to be vested in the crown; yet the committee judged, that the real interests of the province would be best promoted by placing the whole under the control of the Assembly. At the same time, they distinctly expressed their opinion that the governor, the judges, and the executive council, should be made independent of the annual votes of that body. They recommended that a more liberal character should be assigned in a more beneficial manner. Generally admitting that the grievances complained of were more or less well-founded, they advised a thorough and effectual redress.

This report appears to have given very decided satisfaction in the colony, and the Assembly ordered it to be printed, and 400 copies distributed. In a series of resolutions, passed on the 19th of March, 1830, they seem to limit their demands to the complete fulfilment of its provisions. Sir James Kempt, who was sent out in 1828, had been furnished with instructions to carry the recommendations of the committee into effect with as little delay as possible, and generally to follow a conciliatory system. He appears to have proceeded with zeal and efficiency in the prescribed course. Three new members were added to the legislative council, who are said to have been agreeable to the popular party. The judges, with the exception of the Chief Justice, whose advice on legal questions was considered desirable, were requested, with some earnestness, to resign their places in that body. They declined compliance, but agreed to take no share in its deliberations, and did not afterwards attend its sittings. New members were also added to the executive council, in which seats were even offered to Neilson and Papineau, the leaders of the opposition. The act, transferring to the Assembly the revenue in dispute, could not be obtained immediately, but it was promised on the first meeting of parliament. The Assembly, however, in voting the supplies of 1829, had proceeded on the supposition of having the whole at their disposal, and cut off several thousand pounds from the governor’s estimates; but as the vote did not appear to involve any absolute recognition of their claim, and as it seemed inexpedient to dispute a point virtually given up, Sir James yielded his assent. This step, though not approved by Sir George Murray, was not, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, positively disallowed. The governor is said to have treated the ruling party in the Assembly with a courtesy of manners to which they had not been accustomed; and on his departure, in 1830, addresses were presented to him by the most respectable inhabitants of Quebec and Montreal, which were signed by Papineau and other popular leaders.

Lord Aylmer immediately succeeded to the government. His communications with the Assembly were of the most friendly description; and though circumstances, consequent on the death of George IV., had still prevented the passing of the proposed act, it was promised with all practicable speed. Lord Goderich, who now presided in the Colonial Office, directed that the items, which had been again rejected in 1830, and amounting now to 7,500_l._, should not be longer pressed, but a compensation be requested for several individuals who had been thereby deprived of their income. On the 24th of December, his lordship sent two despatches, intimating his intention to bring in a bill, which should empower his Majesty to place the proceeds of the duties in question at the disposal of the Assembly. In return, that body was expected to make a permanent provision for the judges, as well as for the principal officers of government. The demand was fixed, according to a very moderate estimate, at 19,100_l._, which, by a grant of 5,000_l._, made in 1795, for the support of the civil government, would be reduced to 14,100_l._ It was intimated, however, that the casual and territorial revenues, arising from the sale of land, the cutting of timber, and other sources, were still to be considered as belonging to the king. They had amounted in the previous year to 11,231_l._, but were reduced, by expenses of collection and other deductions, to about 7,500_l._ This sum it was proposed to employ chiefly in paying the stipends of the clergy of the established church, hitherto drawn, not very appropriately, out of the army extraordinaries. It was urged, that these funds belonged legally and constitutionally to his Majesty, whose employment of them upon objects, not of mere patronage, but closely connected with the interests of the province, could not be reasonably objected to.

Lord Aylmer was well aware that this last reservation would be deemed very unsatisfactory; but he considered it most prudent to lay before the Assembly a full and frank statement of the views of government. That body, after inquiring into the mode of collection and amount of these revenues, passed a resolution, that, “under no circumstances, and upon no consideration whatever, they would abandon or compromise their claim to control over the whole public revenue.” Particular objection was also intimated to the support of exclusive religious establishments; doubtless, more strongly felt from the circumstance, that the church to be endowed was different from that of the ruling party. They determined, therefore, for the present, not to grant any permanent supply; and on the 8th of March, 1831, drew up, on the motion of Mr. Neilson, a pretty long list of grievances, which was presented to the governor. He expressed in return an earnest wish to know if these comprised the whole of their complaints; giving them to understand that silence would be construed into an admission of their being so. They were accordingly silent; passed a bill of annual supply; and showed, on the whole, a more favourable tone and temper.

His lordship transmitted the list of complaints, with an admission that many of them were well founded; at the same time eulogising the loyal disposition of the people of Canada. Lord Goderich, in a long reply, dated July 7, 1831, declared that there was scarcely a point which government were not ready to concede; and expressed his satisfaction at the prospect thus afforded of a termination to this long and harassing contest. This despatch was laid before the house, who, in a series of resolutions, declared their gratitude for the expressions of his Majesty’s paternal regard—the proofs of a just and liberal policy—and the feelings of kindness and good-will manifested in it. The different points to which it related were referred to separate committees.

Soon after, a despatch from the Colonial Secretary made known that the act for transferring the funds in dispute had passed the houses of parliament, and received the royal assent. Whether from extreme liberality or total inadvertence, it was so worded as to preclude the imperial treasury from ever exercising any control over them, leaving thus no room for negotiation with the Assembly. Lord Aylmer was instructed, however, to demand in return a grant of permanent salaries to the judges, who were also, according to the Assembly’s desire, to be made independent of the crown; and a similar provision was asked for the governor, and a few of the chief executive officers. This matter being referred to the Assembly, they began, on the 20th of January, 1832, with the first particular. On providing that the judges should be independent of the crown, and, with the exception of the Chief Justice, should not sit in the executive or legislative councils, it was determined that permanent salaries should be paid to them. But, at the same time, a motion of Mr. Neilson was carried by a large majority, that these should be drawn in the first instance from the casual and territorial revenues, which Lord Goderich had expressly reserved to the crown. Lord Aylmer considered it, therefore, necessary to send home the bill, yet with an advice to accept the terms, as the best there was any likelihood of obtaining. It was rejected, however, on two grounds: first, that it did not render the judges really independent of the Assembly, but left an annual vote still necessary. We cannot help suspecting that there was an unhappy misconception. The terms of the bill are, “that the salaries shall be secured to them in a fixed and permanent manner;” and “shall be taken and paid out of the proceeds of the casual and territorial revenue now appropriated by acts of the provincial parliament, for defraying the charges of the administration of justice, and the support of the civil government, and out of any other public revenue of the province which may be or come into the hands of the receiver-general.” It would appear that, according to the plain meaning of language, these terms involved a full warrant for payment. Probably Lord Goderich had legal advice, and some technical terms, usual in British acts, might be wanting; but a provincial legislature could scarcely be expected to be fully aware of these niceties. The legislative body, the governor, and we doubt not also the Assembly, had considered this as a permanent settlement; the latter, had it been so acted on, probably would not, and certainly could not reasonably have objected. The other ground was the encroachment upon the casual and territorial revenue, which, in this indirect manner, was considered peculiarly offensive, though Lord Goderich had been fully apprised of their determination against any agreement in which this article was not included.

The next question which came before the Assembly was—the demand of a permanent provision for the governor, and a certain number of the leading executive officers. After a long debate, however, it was carried by a large majority in the negative. This decision placed the Assembly completely at issue with the crown, and has been represented as a breach of faith on their part. They had not, it is true, come under any formal engagement; yet the report of the committee of 1828, which decidedly connected this arrangement with the cession of the disputed revenues, had always been referred to by them as embracing almost every thing desired; and to this part of it they had never hinted any objection. On the 6th of December, 1830, they had passed resolutions, insisting, indeed, on the control of the entire revenue; but expressing an intention, were this gained, to grant the permanent provision now demanded. That preliminary claim certainly embraced also the casual and territorial branches still withheld; yet these were not of great amount, and the present bill, like that relating to the judges, might have been so framed as to be inoperative without these funds being embraced by it. No reason was assigned; but the view of the Assembly is stated to have been, that the executive, not being dependent on them for a naval and military establishment, would, in case of such a permanent settlement, have been entirely free from that control which they sought to exercise over it. They passed, however, a vote of annual supply, which Lord Goderich, though much dissatisfied with the tenor of their proceedings, thought it expedient to sanction.

Next year (1833) the Assembly still granted only an annual bill, in which, according to a requisition of Lord Goderich, they stated the purposes to which each particular sum was to be applied. They added, without its being asked or wished, the individuals to whom it was to be paid; and appended a number of conditions, chiefly bearing, that such persons should not hold any other situation, and should not be members of the executive or legislative councils. This was considered objectionable, because public officers were thus suddenly deprived of situations which they had long held, without any consideration of their claims to compensation; also, because those regulations ought not to have been tacked to a money bill, but made the subject of a separate enactment. On these grounds this bill was negatived by the Legislative Council; and Lord Stanley, who had been placed at the head of the Colonial Office, intimated that, had it reached him, he could not have advised his Majesty to assent to it. In the same session, a measure was introduced for securing independence and permanent provision to the judges, in a form calculated to obviate Lord Goderich’s chief objections; but on the motion of M. Papineau it was rejected, and the speeches of the leaders of the Assembly are said to have implied, that it was no longer considered advisable to exempt these functionaries from their control.

The breach now continually widened. Lord Stanley, considering the conduct of the Canadians as manifesting a resolution to engross the whole power of the state, directed the funds, not yet made over by parliament, to be employed in the partial payment of the civil officers; and he is said to have determined to bring in a bill for repealing the act by which the concession had been made. Meantime the Assembly had raised, and placed in the front of their demands, a new article, which almost entirely precluded all hope of accommodation; namely, the abolition of the present Legislative Council, and the substitution of one elected like themselves by the body of the people. Such an arrangement was without example in any British colony; and the existing state of political feeling in the mother country would have rendered it scarcely possible for ministers to propose it in parliament. It had been first started in March, 1831, when Lord Aylmer had just gone out, with the announced intention of acting upon the report of 1828, and redressing, if possible, every grievance hitherto complained of. There seemed, therefore, room to suspect that the conciliatory disposition shown, instead of producing final satisfaction, had only prompted to higher demands, through the belief that by perseverance they would finally obtain whatever they chose to ask. Yet, though a resolution of the committee to that effect was approved by the members, it was not expressly included in the list of grievances then presented. But on the 20th of March, 1833, a petition to the King, signed by M. Papineau, speaker of the House of Assembly, strenuously urged this measure, and the calling of a body of delegates to arrange the conditions. The leading ones proposed were, a qualification in the electors of £10 in the country, and of £20 in towns; a certain income to qualify the councillor, and the duration of his functions for six years. Lord Stanley, in reply, said this was an object to which, deeming it altogether inconsistent with the very existence of monarchical institutions, he could never advise his Majesty to consent; and he particularly objected to the proposed mode of effecting it, by what he termed “a national convention.” A counter address, however, by the Legislative Council, was censured as intemperate in its language, and appearing to ascribe generally to his Majesty’s subjects, of one origin, views inconsistent with their allegiance. In conclusion, he alluded to “the possibility that events might unhappily force upon parliament the exercise of its supreme authority to compose the internal dissensions of the colonies, and which might lead to a modification of the charter of the Canadas.”

This despatch was submitted to the Assembly, and its entire tenor, particularly the implied threat at the close, excited the highest indignation in that body. They declined this year (1834) to pass any bill of supply whatever, and employed the session in preparing another long list of grievances. They complained that, while those formerly urged were still unredressed, there had been added the partial payment of the civil officers without their consent. They made a preparatory demand of the elective Legislative Council, without which nothing would be accepted as satisfactory. Lord Aylmer’s conduct was reprobated as violent, unconstitutional, and contemptuous, and his recall urgently demanded. The published correspondence assuredly does not bear out this charge. His addresses to the Assembly are particularly courteous; and he recommends generally to the government at home concessions so extensive, that Lord Goderich, himself considered liberal towards the colonies, refused to accede to them. The petition, however, was presented to parliament, and a committee appointed for its consideration.

Meantime, Lord Stanley retired from power, and was succeeded in the colonial department by Mr. Spring Rice. This gentleman renounced the design entertained by his predecessor, of recalling the revenues yielded to the Assembly, and gave intimation, it is said, that he would follow a more conciliatory course. He only asked a little time, till he could make himself master of the subject; and thus the popular leaders were induced to delay taking any strong measures. They bitterly complained, however, that the administration was carried on as before. Lord Aylmer was continued in the government; and, though the Canadian funds were not intrenched upon, a sum of £31,000 was advanced from the military chest for payment of the civil servants, by which their responsibility to the Assembly was equally evaded. Before Mr. Rice had matured his plan, he was removed from office by the accession of Sir Robert Peel to power. He stated that he had it completed, and was ready to submit it to the cabinet on the very day when this change occurred; an assertion which Mr. Roebuck treats with evident scepticism, though seemingly without any adequate ground.

Sir Robert, on assuming the reins of office, early directed his attention to the disturbed state of Canada. After some deliberation, he determined to send out a commissioner, with power to examine on the spot, and redress without delay, every real grievance which should be proved to exist. Even the casual and territorial revenues were to be surrendered, on condition of the settlement of a civil list for at least seven years. The elective Legislative Council, however, and the entire management of the public lands could not be conceded. Viscount Canterbury, the late speaker, was first invited to fill this important appointment; and, on his declining, it was conferred on Earl Amherst. This arrangement, however, was nullified by the vote which led to the resignation of Sir Robert, and the return of Lord Melbourne to power.

The restored ministry followed up, with certain modifications, the plan of their predecessors. A commission was sent out for inquiry only, and without the power of decision, composed of the following individuals: the Earl of Gosford, Sir Charles Edward Grey, and Sir George Gipps. The first, an Irish nobleman, professing principles decidedly liberal, succeeded Lord Aylmer as governor. Lord Glenelg, now the Colonial Secretary, drew up for their guidance a series of instructions, in which he considered the claim to the disposal of the entire revenue somewhat exorbitant, and not warranted by British example; yet was willing, for the sake of peace, to consent to it on certain conditions. These were—an independent provision for the judges, and salaries for the civil officers, fixed for a certain number of years; ten being mentioned as particularly suitable. With regard to the uncleared lands, the whole proceeds arising from their sale were to be placed at the disposal of the Assembly; but government could not consent to part with the management of them, or annul the contract made with the Land Company, though they would be ready to guard against all abuses, and even to receive any suggestions on the subject. The existing pensions were also to be retained, but the future power of granting them would be surrendered. In regard to the critical question of the elective legislative council, it was said: “The King is most unwilling to admit as open to debate, the question—whether one of the vital principles of the provincial government shall undergo alteration?” The right of petition, however, was fully recognized; and his Majesty would not “absolutely close the avenue to inquiry,” even where, “for the present, he saw no reasonable ground of doubt.”

“The Earl of Gosford, having arrived in Canada, lost no time in calling a meeting of the legislature, who were convoked on the 27th of October, 1835; and, in his opening speeches, he professed the most conciliatory views, particularly towards the French, or popular party. He avowed the opinion, that “to be acceptable to the great body of the people, is one of the most essential elements of fitness for public station.” He intimated his readiness to place the whole revenue at the disposal of the Assembly, on the conditions formerly stated. All the other grievances were to be carefully examined and redressed; and allusion was made to “still graver matters,” respecting which the commissioners “were not precluded from entering into an inquiry.”