Part 2

By the great mass of Canadians the news of this appointment was received with a feeling very much akin to indifference. The fact is that, except among reading men, and persons intimately familiar with the diplomatic history of Great Britain during the preceding twenty years, the name of Lord Dufferin was entirely unknown in this country. A few middle-aged and elderly persons remembered that an Irish peer named Lord Dufferin had made an eloquent speech on the death of the Prince Consort. Others remembered that a peer of that name had done something noteworthy in Syria. A few had read or heard of "Letters from High Latitudes;" but not one of us suspected that the new Governor-General was destined to be the most popular representative of Great Britain known to Canadian history. It was not suspected that, for the first time during many years, we were to have at the head of our Administration a statesman of deep sympathies and enlarged views; a nobleman combining elegant learning and brilliant powers of oratory with a tact and _bonhomie_ which would win for him the friendship and respect of Canadians of all social ranks, and of all grades of political opinion. By many of us the office of a Governor-General in Canada had come to be looked upon as a sort of sinecure; as a part which any man not absolutely a dunce is capable of playing. We regarded the Governor-General merely as the Royal representative; as a figurehead whose duties consist of doing as he is bid. He has responsible advisers who prescribe for him a certain line of action, and all he has to do is to obey. When his Cabinet loses the confidence of Parliament, he either sends them about their business or accepts their resignation. The successors selected for him by the dominant majority are accepted as a matter of course, and everything goes on _da capo_. This, or something like this, was the way we had learned to estimate the powers and functions which Lord Dufferin was coming among us to discharge. It was reserved for him to give us a juster appreciation of the position of a Canadian Governor-General. The lesson learned by us during the six years of his residence among us is one that Canadians will not soon forget. The learning of it has perhaps made us unduly exacting, and it would have been most unfortunate had his successor been chosen from the ranks of respectable mediocrity whence Colonial Governors are not unfrequently selected. Happily the choice fell upon a gentleman whose character and attainments bear some affinity to those of his predecessor, and the dignity and respect due to the Governor-General are not likely to suffer depreciation while the office remains in his hands.

There was one circumstance which led many Canadians to look upon the appointment of Lord Dufferin with no friendly eyes. He had been appointed by the Gladstone Government, and the Gladstone Government had manifested a disposition to treat Canada rather cavalierly. Canadian interests had not been very efficiently cared for at the negotiation of the Treaty of Washington, and there had been a good deal of diplomatic correspondence between the Canadian and Imperial Governments, in which the latter had pretty clearly intimated that Canada's separation from the Mother Country would not be regarded as an irreparable loss to the Empire at large. The London _Times_ openly advocated such a separation, and it was known to speak the sentiments of persons high in power. It was even conjectured by some of the more suspicious that Lord Dufferin had been appointed for the express purpose of carrying out an Imperial project for a separation between Canada and Great Britain. Had His Lordship been a weak or commonplace man he would most probably have had a very uncomfortable time of it in Canada. He was neither weak nor commonplace, however, and he began to be popular from the very hour of his arrival in the country. By the time he had been six months among us everyone spoke well of him; and long before his administration came to an end he had gained a firm hold on the hearts of the people throughout the length and breadth of our land.

He arrived at Quebec on the 25th of June, 1872. During the same day he was sworn in as Governor-General, and two days later reached his seat of Government at Ottawa. There is no need to describe in minute detail the various events which characterized his administration. Those events are still fresh in all our memories, and have been recorded at full length by two Canadian authors--Mr. Stewart and Mr. Leggo--in works to which everyone has access. For these reasons it is considered unnecessary to give more than a brief summary in these pages.

During the summer of 1872 Lord Dufferin made the first of his memorable Vice-Regal tours, visiting Toronto, Hamilton, London, Niagara Falls, and other places of interest in the Province of Ontario. To say that he made a marvellously favourable impression wherever he went is simply to say what everybody knows, and what might equally be said of all his subsequent progresses through the Dominion. There was a general election during the summer and autumn of this year, and an opportunity was thus afforded His Excellency for observing the working of our political institutions at such a time.

The result of the elections was a majority in favour of Sir John A. Macdonald's Ministry. Parliament met in the following March, and on the 2nd of April Mr. Huntington made his serious, and now historic, charge against the Government, in connection with the granting of the Pacific Railway Charter, and the corrupt sale to Sir Hugh Allan. A motion was made for a committee of investigation, but was voted down as a motion of want of confidence in the Government. A few days later, Sir John, knowing that a policy of reticence could not long be available, himself moved for a committee. The motion was passed, and the committee was appointed, but was unable to proceed, owing to its inability to take evidence on oath. A Bill was introduced into the House to give the committee the power required, and was passed without opposition, but was subsequently disallowed by the Imperial Government as being _ultra vires_. Meanwhile the inquiry was proceeded with; but on the 5th of May, owing to the absence from the country of three important witnesses--Sir George E. Cartier, Sir Hugh Allan and the Hon. J. J. C. Abbott--the committee deemed it advisable to adjourn to the 2nd of July. The ordinary Parliamentary business had been got through with, and there was no necessity for the House remaining in session; but, as the committee had no authority to sit during recess, it was thought desirable that there should be an adjournment of Parliament instead of a prorogation, until the committee should be prepared with its report. Accordingly, on the 23rd of May, Parliament adjourned to the 13th of August, when it was agreed that it should meet expressly for the purpose of receiving the committee's report, and not for the despatch of ordinary legislative business. It would thus be unnecessary for the Governor-General to be present at the formal reassembling, and soon after the adjournment His Excellency, with his family, started on a projected tour through the Maritime Provinces. On the 27th of June, while on his travels, he received a telegram from Lord Kimberley, Secretary for the Colonies in the Home Government, announcing the disallowance of the "Oaths Bill," as it was called, viz., the Act authorizing Parliamentary committees to examine witnesses under oath. He at once gave notice of the disallowance to the Premier, Sir John A. Macdonald, who made it known to the committee. The committee was composed of five members, three of whom were supporters of the Government, and the remaining two of the Opposition. The Government supporters were the Hon. J. G. Blanchet, the Hon. James Macdonald (of Pictou), and the Hon. John Hillyard Cameron. The Opposition members were the Hon. Edward Blake and the Hon. A. A. Dorion. On the 1st of July a proclamation was issued giving public notice of the disallowance of the Oaths Bill. The Premier offered to issue a Royal Commission to the committee, which would enable it to take evidence under oath, and to demand the production of persons, papers and records. The proposal was rejected by Messrs. Blake and Dorion, who wrote to the Premier pointing out to him that the inquiry was undertaken by the House; that the appointment of a Royal Commission by a Government to investigate charges against that Government would be an unheard-of and most unbecoming proceeding; and that the House did not expect the Crown or anyone else to obstruct the inquiry.

When the Parliament met, pursuant to adjournment, on the 13th of August, the committee, having been prevented from taking evidence, was unable to report. A numerously signed memorial was presented to His Excellency praying that there might be no prorogation of Parliament until the charges against the existing Government had been subjected to investigation. His Excellency, however, replied that he felt bound to act on the advice of his Ministry. His Ministry advised him to prorogue Parliament, and prorogued it accordingly was. Every Canadian remembers the tumultuous scene which ensued--a scene almost without parallel in modern Parliamentary history; a faint reflex of that memorable episode which took place in the English House of Commons two hundred and twenty years before.

The next act in the drama was the appointment by His Excellency of a Royal Commission on his own authority. It was issued to the Hon. C. D. Day, the Hon. Antoine Polette, and James Robert Gowan, three judges learned in the law. The commission met, and on the opening of the session in the following October its report was laid before Parliament. The contents are familiar to every reader of these pages, and do not form an attractive subject for extended comment. There could no longer be any doubt as to the course to be taken by the Premier. A few days afterwards Sir John Macdonald's Government resigned, and Mr. Mackenzie was called upon to form a new one. This he soon succeeded in doing, and on the 7th of November the new Administration took office. As was abundantly proved at the ensuing elections, the new government had the confidence of the country.

During the progress of these events, Lord Dufferin was assailed with a good deal of rancour by one section of the Canadian press. The question now to be considered is: How far were these assaults justifiable? In other words: How far, if at all, was Lord Dufferin to blame?

The principal allegations made against him were, that his sympathies all through this deplorable episode in our political history were with Sir John Macdonald and his colleagues; that he assisted the latter to postpone and evade investigation into their conduct; that his partisanship was evinced by his prompt transmission of the Oaths Bill for Imperial consideration, and by his subsequent prorogation of Parliament in defiance of the wishes of a large body of the members.

It must be borne in mind, in considering these matters, that we at the present day are in a much better position to form a correct opinion respecting them than Lord Dufferin could possibly be in the summer of 1873. He came to this country an utter stranger to every man in Canadian public life. He found at the head of affairs a gentleman who had long held the reins of power; who had a very wide circle of warm personal friends; who was regarded with affectionate loyalty by his Party; and whose Government enjoyed an overwhelming support in Parliament. With such a support at its back, the Government might reasonably lay claim to possessing the confidence of the Canadian people, and, possessing such confidence, it was entitled to the confidence of Her Majesty's Representative. There was, moreover, a manifest disposition on the part of some opponents of the Government to make the most of any little shortcomings of which Ministerialists might be guilty. One of the most virulent of the Opposition, a man whose own character could not be said to be wholly above reproach, made certain wild charges against the Government. These charges were so utterly monstrous and incredible that any man of probity might reasonably refuse to believe them until they were proved to be true by the most irrefutable evidence. Such evidence was not forthcoming. The head of the Government hurled back the charges in the teeth of the man who had made them; pronounced the latter a slanderous calumniator; protested that his own hands were clean; and called upon his Maker to bear witness to the truth of his avowal. His conduct was not unlike that of an honest man smarting under a strong sense of injustice. He professed to court inquiry, and while he treated Mr. Huntington's motion as one of want of confidence in the Government, and triumphantly voted it down, he himself came forward with his motion for a committee. Both from his place in the House, and to the Governor-General in person, he continued to protest before God that there was no shadow of foundation for the charges made against him. He spoke of his acquittal as a matter which did not admit of a moment's question. Under these circumstances, is it any wonder if Lord Dufferin refused to believe vague and unsubstantiated charges from such a source; charges which might well have excited incredulity by the very depth of their blackness? Is it to be wondered at, even if His Lordship sympathized with those whom he believed to have been so shamefully maligned, and who seemed so anxious to set themselves right before the country? Such was the state of affairs when Parliament was adjourned on the 23rd of May.

With regard to the prompt transmission to England of the Oaths Bill, His Excellency simply complied with his official instructions, and with the Union Act, which requires the Governor-General to transmit "by the earliest convenient opportunity" all Acts of Parliament to which he has assented on Her Majesty's behalf. His Excellency's despatch to the Imperial Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 15th August, 1873, puts this matter very clearly. It shows that he understood and was prepared to do his duty, no matter what might be said by Opposition members, and no matter how scurrilous might be the attacks of hostile newspapers. "Amongst other respects," says the despatch, "in which my conduct has been criticised, the fact of my having communicated to you by the first opportunity a certified copy of the Oaths Bill, has been a very general point of attack. I apprehend it will not be necessary to justify myself to your Lordship in this particular. My law-adviser had called my attention to the possibility of the Bill being illegal. Had perjured testimony been tendered under it, no proceedings could have been taken against the delinquent, and if, under these circumstances, I had wilfully withheld from the Home Government all cognizance of the Act, it would have been a gross dereliction of duty. To those in this country who have questioned my procedure it would be sufficient to reply that I recognize no authority on this side of the Atlantic competent to instruct the Governor-General as to the nature of his correspondence with Her Majesty's Secretary of State." The assertion so often made, to the effect that the Law Officers of the Crown in England were improperly influenced to advise a disallowance of the Bill, is in itself utterly preposterous, and no attempt, so far as we know, has ever been made to bring forward any proof of it.

There remains for consideration the prorogation of Parliament on the 13th of August.

Before the adjournment on the 23rd of May, as we have seen, it had been understood that Parliament should meet only to receive the committee's report, and not for the despatch of ordinary business. It had not even been considered necessary that His Excellency should attend. During his absence in the Maritime Provinces, however, the famous McMullen correspondence had appeared in print, and this, together with other circumstances which had come to his knowledge, had made him resolve to be present at the reassembling of Parliament. The attendance of Government supporters was not large, very few, if any, being present from outlying constituencies. The Opposition on the other hand, was fully represented, and was eager for the battle, which was regarded as inevitable. It soon appeared that there was nothing to be done. Owing to the disallowance of the Oaths Bill there was no report from the committee. In the estimation of His Excellency, to proceed with the investigation, as the Opposition members were desirous of doing, would under these circumstances have been to place the Ministry at an unfair disadvantage. A considerable number of its supporters were absent, whereas the Opposition was in full force. It has been charged upon the Ministry that this was part of their tactics, and that the absentees were acting under the orders of their Chief in remaining at home. This is another of those loose, sweeping assertions which may be true, but the truth of which has not been proved. That unhappy Ministry has enough to answer for at the Bar of History, without being called upon to refute charges which have never been substantiated by evidence. In any case, no fair-minded person will wish to hold the Governor-General responsible for such tactics. His position was one of no ordinary difficulty. Very damnatory correspondence had been given to the world, but it was not in such a shape that the House could possibly regard it as free from suspicion. The most serious charges seemed to point rather to the guilt of Sir Hugh Allan and McMullen than to that of the Members of the Government. The charges directly affecting the Government were solemnly and emphatically repudiated by the Premier, who pledged himself to explain the matter under oath to the satisfaction of the whole world, as soon as a properly constituted tribunal should be appointed, with authority to take evidence under oath. Sir Hugh Allan published a sworn affidavit, negativing McMullen's charges, and McMullen himself had subsequently admitted that his charges had been hasty and inaccurate. The latter, moreover, was evidently a man whose character was not such as to inspire respect. The Government could still command a majority of votes in the House. Under such circumstances, can His Excellency be blamed if he continued to act upon the advice of his constitutional advisers by proroguing Parliament? He was determined, however, that there should be no unnecessary delay, and exacted as a condition of adopting that course that parliament should be convened with all imaginable expedition. His reply to the memorial presented by the Opposition is so much to the point that we cannot do better than abridge a portion of it. "You urge me," says His Excellency, "on grounds which are very fully and forcibly stated, to decline the advice which has been unanimously tendered me by my responsible ministers, and to refuse to prorogue Parliament. In other words, you require me to dismiss them from my councils; for you must be aware that this would be the necessary result of my assenting to your recommendation. Upon what grounds would I be justified in taking so grave a step? What guarantee can you afford me that the Parliament of the Dominion would endorse such an act of personal interference on my part? You yourselves do not form an actual moiety of the House of Commons, and I have no means of ascertaining that the majority of that body subscribe to the opinion you have enounced. . . It is true, grave charges have been preferred. . . but the truth of these remains untested. . . Is the Governor-General, upon such evidence as this, to drive from his presence gentlemen who for years have filled the highest offices of State, and in whom, during the recent session, Parliament has repeatedly declared its continued confidence?. . . Certain documents of grave significance have lately been published in the newspapers, but no proof has been adduced which necessarily connects them with the culpable transactions of which it is asserted they formed a part. . . Under these circumstances, what right has the Governor-General, on his personal responsibility, to proclaim. . . that he believes his ministers guilty of the crimes alleged against them?"

Such were the circumstances under which the prorogation of the 13th of August, 1873, took place. Looking back on it, in the light of the seven years which have since elapsed, it will be hard to arrive at any other conclusion than that Lord Dufferin did not deserve the animadversions which were heaped upon him. As he himself observed in his despatch to the Colonial Secretary two days after the prorogation: "It is a favourite theory at this moment with many persons that when once grave charges of this nature have been preferred against the Ministry they become _ipso facto_ unfit to counsel the Crown. The practical application of this principle would prove very inconvenient, and would leave not only the Governor-General, but every Lieutenant-Governor in the Dominion very thinly provided with responsible advisers; for, as far as I have been able to seize the spirit of political controversy in Canada, there is scarcely an eminent man in the country on either side whose character or integrity has not been, at one time or another, the subject of reckless attack by his opponents in the press." In a word, he acted on the well-established principle that every man is to be adjudged innocent until he has been proved guilty; and in so acting he showed that he understood the responsibilities of his position. That his Ministers were culpable, as well as unwise, in advising the prorogation, is certain; and when the next elections came on they paid the penalty of their disingenuousness.