[2] The quotations in this chapter are taken from Pope's Confederation Documents.

[3] At Cornwall, March 2, 1866.

[4] It is worth noting that almost any change of importance would affect the office of the lieutenant-governor and thus challenge federal interference.

[5] We know now from Sir Joseph Pope's Confederation Documents (p. 140) that it was proposed in the first draft of the union bill to have interpretation clauses, and one of these declared that where the governor-general was required to do any act it was to be assumed that he performed it by the advice and consent of his executive council.

[6] In the copy of the Confederation debates possessed by the writer there appears on the margin of the page, in William McDougall's handwriting and initialled by himself, these words: 'In the Quebec Conference I moved and Mr Mowat seconded a motion for the elective principle. About one-third of the delegates voted for the proposition, Brown arguing and voting against it. At this date (1887) under Sir John's policy and action the Senate contains only 14 Liberals; all his appointments being made from his own party.'

[7] Gray's Confederation, p. 62.



{84}

CHAPTER VIII

THE DEBATES OF 1865

In the province of Canada no time was lost in placing the new constitution before parliament. A dilatory course would have been unwise. The omens were favourable. Such opposition as had developed was confined to Lower Canada. The Houses met in January 1865, and the governor-general used this language in his opening speech:

With the public men of British North America it now rests to decide whether the vast tract of country which they inhabit shall be consolidated into a State, combining within its area all the elements of national greatness, providing for the security of its component parts and contributing to the strength and stability of the Empire; or whether the several Provinces of which it is constituted shall remain in their present fragmentary and isolated condition, comparatively powerless for mutual {85} aid, and incapable of undertaking their proper share of Imperial responsibility.

The procedure adopted was the moving in each House of an address to the Queen praying that a measure might be submitted to the Imperial parliament based upon the Quebec resolutions. The debate began in the Legislative Council on the 3rd of February and in the Assembly three days later. The debate in the popular branch lasted until the 13th of March; in the smaller chamber it was concluded by the 23rd of February.

These debates, subsequently published in a volume of 1032 pages, are a mirror which reflects for us the political life of the time and the events of the issue under discussion. They set forth the hopes and intentions of the Fathers with reference to their own work; and if later developments have presented some surprises, some situations which they did not foresee, as was indeed inevitable, their prescience is nowhere shown to have been seriously at fault. Some of the speeches are commonplace; a few are wearisome; but many of them are examples of parliamentary eloquence at its best, and the general level is high.

The profound sincerity of the leaders of the {86} coalition, whether in or out of office, is not to be questioned. The supporters of the union bore down all opposition. Macdonald's wonderful tact, Brown's passionate earnestness, and Galt's mastery of the financial problem, were never displayed to better advantage; while the redoubtable Cartier marshalled his French compatriots before their timidity had a chance to assert itself. Particularly interesting is the attitude which Brown assumed towards the French. He had been identified with a vicious crusade against their race and creed. Its cruel intolerance cannot be justified, and every admirer of Brown deplores it. He met them now with a frank friendliness which evoked at once the magnanimity and readiness to forgive that has always marked this people and is one of their most engaging qualities. Said Brown:

The scene presented by this chamber at this moment, I venture to affirm, has few parallels in history. One hundred years have passed away since these provinces became by conquest part of the British Empire. I speak in no boastful spirit. I desire not for a moment to excite a painful thought. What was then the fortune of {87} war of the brave French nation might have been ours on that well-fought field. I recall those olden times merely to mark the fact that here sit to-day the descendants of the victors and the vanquished in the fight of 1759, with all the differences of language, religion, civil law and social habit nearly as distinctly marked as they were a century ago. Here we sit to-day seeking amicably to find a remedy for constitutional evils and injustice complained of. By the vanquished? No, sir, but complained of by the conquerors! [French-Canadian cheers.]

Here sit the representatives of the British population claiming justice—only justice; and here sit the representatives of the French population, discussing in the French tongue whether we shall have it. One hundred years have passed away since the conquest of Quebec, but here sit the children of the victor and the vanquished, all avowing hearty attachment to the British Crown, all earnestly deliberating how we shall best extend the blessings of British institutions, how a great people may be established on this continent in close and hearty connection with Great Britain.

{88}

In thus proclaiming the aim and intent of the advocates of Confederation in respect to the Imperial link, Brown expressed the views of all. It was not a cheap appeal for applause, because the question could not be avoided. It came up at every turn. What was the purpose, the critics of the measure asked, of this new constitution? Did it portend separation? Would it not inevitably lead to independence? and if not, why was the term 'a new nationality' so freely used? In the opening speech of the debate Macdonald met the issue squarely with the statesmanlike gravity that befitted the occasion:

No one can look into futurity and say what will be the destiny of this country. Changes come over peoples and nations in the course of ages. But so far as we can legislate, we provide that for all time to come the sovereign of Great Britain shall be the sovereign of British North America.

And he went on to predict that the measure would not tend towards independence, but that the country, as it grew in wealth and population, would grow also in attachment to the crown and seek to preserve it. This prophecy, as we know, has proved true.

{89}

The fear of annexation to the United States figured likewise in the debate, but the condition of the Republic, so recently in the throes of civil war, was not such as to give rise to serious apprehension on that score. The national sentiment, however, which would naturally arise when the new state was constituted, was a proper subject for consideration, since it might easily result in a complete, if peaceful, revolution.

There were other uncertain factors in the situation which gave the opponents of Confederation an opportunity for destructive criticism. The measure was subjected to the closest scrutiny by critics who were well qualified to rouse any hostile feeling in the country if such existed. Weighty attacks came from dissentient Liberals like Dorion, Holton, and Sandfield Macdonald. A formidable opponent, too, was Christopher Dunkin, an independent Conservative, inspired, it may be supposed, by the distrust of constitutional change entertained by his immediate fellow-countrymen, the English minority in Lower Canada.

Brown bore the brunt of the attack from erstwhile allies and faced it in this fashion:

No constitution ever framed was without defect; no act of human wisdom was ever {90} free from imperfection.... To assert then that our scheme is without fault, would be folly. It was necessarily the work of concession; not one of the thirty-three framers but had on some points to yield his opinions; and, for myself, I freely admit that I struggled earnestly, for days together, to have portions of the scheme amended.

This was reasonable ground to take and drew some of the sting from the criticism.

But all the criticism was not futile. Some of the defects pointed out bore fruit in the years that followed. As already stated, the financial terms were far from final, and a demand for larger subsidies had soon to be met. Friction between the federal and provincial powers arose in due course, but not precisely for the reasons given. The administration of the national business has cost more than was expected, and has not been free, to employ the ugly words used in these debates, from jobbery and corruption. The cost of a progressive railway policy has proved infinitely greater than the highest estimates put forth by the Fathers. The duty of forming a ministry so as to give adequate representation {91} to all the provinces has been quite as difficult as Dunkin said it would be. To parcel out the ministerial offices on this basis is one of the unwritten conventions of the constitution, and has taxed the resources of successive prime ministers to the utmost. With all his skill, as we shall see later, Sir John Macdonald nearly gave up in despair his first attempt to form a ministry after Confederation. Yet it must be said, surveying the whole field, that the critics of the resolutions failed to make out a case.

Both in the Legislative Council and in the Assembly the resolution for a nominated second chamber caused much debate. But the elective principle was not defended with marked enthusiasm. By the Act of 1840 which united the Canadas the Council had been a nominated body solely. Its members received no indemnity; and, as some of them were averse from the political strife which raged with special fury until 1850, a quorum could not always be obtained. Sir Etienne Tache drew an affecting picture of the speaker frequently taking the chair at the appointed time, waiting in stiff and solemn silence for one hour by the clock, and at last retiring discomfited, since members enough did not appear to form a {92} quorum. To remedy the situation the Imperial parliament had passed an Act providing for the election of a portion of the members. Fresh difficulties had then arisen. The electoral divisions had been largely formed by grouping portions of counties together; the candidates had found that physical endurance and a long purse were as needful to gain a seat in the Council as a patriotic interest in public affairs; and it had become difficult to secure candidates. This unsatisfactory experience of an elective upper chamber made it comparatively easy to carry the resolution providing for a nominated Senate in the new constitution.

The agreement that the resolutions must be accepted or rejected as a whole led Dorion to complain that the power of parliament to amend legislation was curtailed. What value had the debate, if the resolutions were in the nature of a treaty and could not be moulded to suit the wishes of the people's representatives? The grievance was not so substantial as it appeared. The Imperial parliament, which was finally to pass the measure, could be prompted later on to make any alterations strongly desired by Canadian public opinion.

Why were not the terms of Confederation {93} submitted to the Canadian people for ratification? The most strenuous fight was made in parliament on this point, and in after years, too, constitutional writers, gifted with the wisdom which comes after the event, have declared the omission a serious error. Goldwin Smith observed that Canadians might conceivably in the future discard their institutions as lacking popular sanction when they were adopted, seeing that in reality they were imposed on the country by a group of politicians and a distant parliament. In dealing with such objections the reasons given at the time must be considered. The question was discussed at the Quebec Conference, doubtless informally.[1] The constitutional right of the legislatures to deal with the matter was unquestioned by the Canadian members. Shortly after the conference adjourned, Galt in a speech at Sherbrooke[2] declared that, if during the discussion of the scheme in parliament any serious doubt arose respecting the public feeling on the subject, the people would be called upon to decide for themselves. The {94} Globe, which voiced the opinion of Brown, said:

If on the assembling of Parliament the majority in that body in favour of Confederation shall be found so large as to make it manifest that any reference to the country would simply be a matter of form, Ministers will not, we take it, feel warranted in putting the country to great trouble and expense for the sake of that unessential formality.

When challenged in parliament the government gave its reasons. The question of Confederation had, in one form or another, been before the country for years. During 1864 there had been elections in eleven ridings for the Assembly and in fourteen for the Legislative Council. The area of country embraced by these contests included forty counties. Of the candidates in these elections but four opposed federation and only two of them were elected. Brown stated impetuously that not five members of parliament in Upper Canada dare go before the people against the scheme. No petitions against it were presented, and its opponents had not ventured to hold meetings, knowing that an enormous majority of the {95} people favoured it. This evidence, in Upper Canada, was accepted as conclusive. In Lower Canada appearances were not quite so convincing. The ministry representing that section was not a coalition, and the Liberal leaders, both French and English, organized an agitation. But afterwards, in the campaign of 1867, Cartier swept all before him. It was also argued that parliament was fresh from the people as recently as 1864, and that though the mandate to legislate was not specific, it was sufficient. The method of ascertaining the popular verdict by means of a referendum was proposed, but rejected as unknown to the constitution and at variance with British practice.

Parliament finally adopted the resolutions by a vote of ninety-one to thirty-three in the Assembly and of forty-five to fifteen in the Legislative Council. Hillyard Cameron, politically a lineal descendant of the old Family Compact, supported by Matthew Crooks Cameron, a Conservative of the highest integrity and afterwards chief justice, then moved for a reference to the people by a dissolution of parliament. But after an animated debate the motion was defeated, and no further efforts in this direction were attempted. That an eagerness to invoke the judgment of democracy {96} was not seen at its best, when displayed by two Tories of the old school, may justify the belief that parliamentary tactics, rather than the pressure of public opinion, inspired the move.

Fortune had smiled upon the statesmen of the Canadian coalition. In a few months they had accomplished wonders. They had secured the aid of the Maritime Provinces in drafting a scheme of union. They had made tours in the east and the west to prepare public opinion for the great stroke of state. They and their co-delegates had formulated and adopted the Quebec resolutions, on which a chorus of congratulation had drowned, for the time, the voices of warning and expostulation. And, finally, the ministers had met parliament and had secured the adoption of their scheme by overwhelming majorities.

But all was not so fair in the provinces by the sea. Before the Canadian legislature prorogued, the Tilley government had been hurled from power in New Brunswick, Joseph Howe was heading a formidable agitation in Nova Scotia, and in the other two provinces the cause was lost. It seemed as if a storm had burst that would overwhelm the union and that the hands of the clock would be put back.



[1] See the remark of McCully of Nova Scotia that the delegates should take the matter into their own hands and not wait to educate the people up to it—Pope's Confederation Documents, p. 60.

[2] November 23, 1864.



{97}

CHAPTER IX

ROCKS IN THE CHANNEL

In the month of March 1865, as the Canadian debates drew to a close, ominous reports began to arrive from all the Maritime Provinces. An election campaign of unusual bitterness was going on in New Brunswick. The term of the legislature would expire in the following June; and the Tilley government had decided to dissolve and present the Quebec resolutions to a newly elected legislature, a blunder in tactics due, it may be, to over-confidence. The secrecy which had shrouded the proceedings of the delegates at first was turned to account by their opponents, who set in motion a campaign of mendacity and misrepresentation. The actual terms became known too late to counteract this hostile agitation, which had been systematically carried on throughout the province. The bogey employed to stampede the electors was direct taxation. The farmers were told that every cow or horse they {98} possessed, even the chickens in the farmyard, would be taxed for the benefit of Canada. Worse than all, it was contended, the bargain struck at the honour of the province, because, as the subsidy was on the basis of paying to the provinces annually eighty cents per head of population, the people were really being sold by the government like sheep for this paltry price. The trusted Tilley, easily first in popular affection by reason of his probity and devotion to public duty, was discredited. His opponent in the city of St John, A. R. Wetmore, illustrated the dire effects of Confederation in an imaginary dialogue, between himself and his young son, after this fashion: 'Father, what country do we live in?'—and, of course, the reply came promptly—'My dear son, you have no country, for Mr Tilley has sold us all to the Canadians for eighty cents a head.' Time and full discussion would have dissipated the forces of the anti-confederates. But constituencies worked upon by specious appeals to prejudice are notoriously hard to woo during an election struggle. There existed also honest doubts in many minds regarding federation. Enough men of character and influence in both parties joined to form a strong opposition, while one of Tilley's {99} colleagues in the ministry, George Hathaway, went over to the enemy at a critical hour. The agitation swept the province. It was not firmly rooted in the convictions of the people, but it sufficed to overwhelm the government. All the Cabinet ministers, including Tilley, were beaten. And so it happened that, when the Canadian ministers were in the full tide of parliamentary success at home, the startling news arrived that New Brunswick had rejected federation, and that in a House of forty-one members only six supporters of the scheme had been returned from the polls.

Equally alarming was the prospect in Nova Scotia. On arriving home from Quebec, Dr Tupper and his fellow-delegates found a situation which required careful handling. 'When the delegates returned to the Province,' says a pamphlet of the time, 'they did not meet with a very flattering reception. They had no ovation; and no illuminations, bonfires, and other demonstrations of felicitous welcome hailed their return. They were not escorted to their homes with torches and banners, and through triumphal arches; no cannon thundered forth a noisy welcome. They were received in solemn, sullen and ominous silence. {100} No happy smiles greeted them; but they entered the Province as into the house of mourning.'[1] And in Nova Scotia the hostility was not, as in New Brunswick, merely a passing wave of surprise and discontent. It lasted for years. Nor was it, as many think, the sole creation of the ambitious Joseph Howe. It doubtless owed much to his power as a leader of men and his influence over the masses of the Nova Scotians. But there is testimony that this proud and spirited people, with traditions which their origin and history fully warranted them in cherishing, regarded with aversion the prospect of a constitutional revolution, especially one which menaced their political identity. Robert Haliburton has related the results of his observations before the issue had been fairly disclosed and before Howe had emerged from seclusion to take a hand in the game.

In September and October, 1864, when our delegates were at Quebec, and therefore before there could be any objections raised to the details of the scheme, or to the mode of its adoption, I travelled through six {101} counties, embracing the whole of Cape Breton and two counties in Nova Scotia, and took some trouble to ascertain the state of public opinion as to what was taking place, and was greatly surprised at finding that every one I met, without a solitary exception, from the highest to the lowest, was alarmed at the idea of a union with Canada, and that the combination of political leaders, so far from recommending the scheme, filled their partisans with as much dismay as if the powers of light and darkness were plotting against the public safety. It was evident that unless the greatest tact were exercised, a storm of ignorant prejudice and alarm would be aroused, that would sweep the friends of union out of power, if not out of public life. The profound secrecy preserved by the delegates as to the scheme, until an accomplice turned Queen's evidence, added fuel to the flame, and convinced the most sceptical that there was a second Gunpowder Plot in existence, which was destined to annihilate our local legislature and our provincial rights.[2]

{102}

This was the situation which confronted Howe when he returned in the autumn from his tour as fishery commissioner. He had written from Newfoundland, on hearing of the conference at Charlottetown: 'I have read the proceedings of the delegates and I am glad to be out of the mess.' At first he listened in silence to the Halifax discussions on both sides of the question. These were non-partisan, since Archibald and McCully, the Liberal leaders, were as much concerned in the result as the Conservative ministers. Howe finally broke silence with the first of his articles in the Halifax Chronicle on 'The Botheration Scheme.' This gave the signal for an agitation which finally bore Nova Scotia to the verge of rebellion. Howe's course has been censured as the greatest blot upon an otherwise brilliant career. In justice to his memory the whole situation should be examined. He did not start the agitation. Many able and patriotic Nova Scotians urged him on. Favourable to union as an abstract theory he had been: to Confederation as a policy he had never distinctly pledged himself. The idea that the Quebec terms were sacrosanct, and that hostility to them involved disloyalty to the Empire, must be put aside. It is neither {103} necessary nor fair to assume that Howe's conduct was wholly inspired by the spleen and jealousy commonly ascribed to him; for, with many others, he honestly held the view that the interests of his native province were about to be sacrificed in a bad bargain. Nevertheless, his was a grave political error—an error for which he paid bitterly—which in the end cost him popularity, private friendship, and political reputation. But the noble courage and patience with which he sought to repair it should redeem his fame.[3]

It was no secret that the governor of Nova Scotia, Sir Richard Graves Macdonnell, was opposed to Confederation. The veiled hostility of his speech in Halifax has already been noted; and he followed it with another at Montreal, after the conference, which revealed a captious mind on the subject. Arthur Hamilton Gordon (afterwards Lord Stanmore), the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, also hampered the movement; although the Imperial instructions, even at this early stage of the proceedings, pointed to an opposite {104} course. In the gossipy diary of Miss Frances Monck, a member of Lord Monck's household at Quebec in 1864, appears this item: 'Sir R. M. is so against this confederation scheme because he would be turned away. He said to John A.: You shall not make a mayor of me, I can tell you! meaning a deputy governor of a province.' Macdonnell was transferred to Hong-Kong; and Gordon, after a visit to England, experienced a change of heart. But the mischief done was incalculable.

In view of the disturbed state of public opinion in Nova Scotia the Tupper government resolved to play a waiting game. When the legislature met in February 1865, the federation issue came before it merely as an open question. The defeat of Tilley in New Brunswick followed soon after, and the occasion was seen to be inopportune for a vote upon union. But, as some action had to be taken, a motion was adopted affirming the previous attitude of the legislature respecting a maritime union. There was a long debate; Tupper expounded and defended the Quebec resolutions; but no one seemed disposed to come to close quarters with the question. Tupper's policy was to mark time.

Prince Edward Island made another {105} contribution to the chapter of misfortune by definitely rejecting the proposed union. The Legislative Council unanimously passed a resolution against it, and in the Assembly the adverse vote was twenty-three against five. It was declared that the scheme 'would prove politically, commercially and financially disastrous'; and an address to the Queen prayed that no Imperial action should be taken to unite the Island to Canada or any other province.

Newfoundland, likewise, turned a deaf ear to the proposals. The commercial interests of that colony assumed the critical attitude of the same element in Nova Scotia, and objected to the higher customs duties which a uniform tariff for the federated provinces would probably entail. It was resolved to take no action until after a general election; and the representations made to the legislature by Governor Musgrave produced no effect. Although the governor was sanguine, it required no great power of observation to perceive that the ancient colony would not accept federation.

The Canadian government took prompt measures. On the arrival of the bad news from New Brunswick it was decided to hurry the debates to a close, prorogue parliament, and send a committee of the Cabinet to England {106} to confer with the Imperial authorities on federation, defence, reciprocity, and the acquisition of the North-West Territories. This programme was adhered to. The four ministers who left for England in April were Macdonald, Brown, Galt, and Cartier. The mission, among other results pertinent to the cause of union, secured assurances from the home authorities that every legitimate means for obtaining the early assent of the Maritime Provinces would be adopted.[4] But the calamities of 1865 were not over. The prime minister, Sir Etienne Tache, died; and Brown refused to serve under either Macdonald or Cartier. He took the ground that the coalition of parties had been held together by a chief (Tache) who had ceased to be actuated by strong party feelings or personal ambitions and in whom all sections reposed confidence. Standing alone, this reasoning is sound in practical politics. Behind it, of course, was the unwillingness of Brown to accept the leadership of his great rival. Macdonald then proposed Sir Narcisse Belleau, one of their colleagues, as leader of the government. Brown assented; and the coalition was {107} reconstituted on the former basis, but not with the old cordiality. The rift within the lute steadily widened, and before the year closed Brown resigned from the ministry. His difference with his colleagues arose, he stated, from their willingness to renew reciprocal trade relations with the United States by concurrent legislation instead of, as heretofore, by a definite treaty. Although his two Liberal associates remained in the ministry, and the vacancy was given to another Liberal, Fergusson Blair, the recrudescence of partisan friction occasioned by the episode was not a good omen. Brown, however, promised continued support of the federation policy until the new constitution should come into effect—a promise which he fulfilled as far as party exigencies permitted. But the outlook was gloomy. There were rocks ahead which might easily wreck the ship. Who could read the future so surely as to know what would happen?



[1] Confederation Examined in the Light of Reason and Common Sense, by Martin I. Wilkins.

[2] Intercolonial Trade our only Safeguard against Disunion, by R. G. Haliburton. Ottawa, 1868.

[3] Howe's biographers have dealt with this episode in his life in a vein of intelligent generosity. See Joseph Howe by Mr Justice Longley in the 'Makers of Canada' series and The Tribune of Nova Scotia, by Prof. W. L. Grant, in the present Series.

[4] Report of the Canadian ministers to Lord Monck, July 13, 1865.



{108}

CHAPTER X

'THE BATTLE OF UNION'

At the dawn of 1866 the desperate plight of the cause of union called for skilful generalship in four different arenas of political action. In any one of them a false move would have been fatal to success; and there was always the danger that, on so extended a front, the advocates of union might be fighting at cross purposes and so inflicting injury on each other instead of upon the enemy. It was necessary that the Imperial influence should be exerted as far as the issues at stake warranted its employment. Canada, the object of suspicion, must march warily to avoid rousing the hostile elements elsewhere. The unionists of New Brunswick should be given time to recover their position, while those of Nova Scotia should stand ready for instant co-operation.

The judicious but firm attitude of the Imperial authorities was a material factor in the {109} situation. From 1862 onwards there was no mistaking the policy of Downing Street, as expressed by the Duke of Newcastle in that year to the governor of Nova Scotia. Colonial secretaries came and went and the complexion of British ministries changed, but the principle of union stood approved. Any proposals, however, must emanate from the colonies themselves; and, when an agreement in whole or in part should be reached, the proper procedure was indicated. 'The most satisfactory mode,' said the dispatch of 1862, 'of testing the opinion of the people of British North America would probably be by means of resolution or address proposed in legislatures of each province by its own government.' This course all the governments had kept in mind, with the additional safeguard that the ministers of the day had associated with themselves the leaders of the parliamentary oppositions. Nothing could have savoured less of partisanship than the Quebec Conference; and Mr Cardwell, the colonial secretary, had acknowledged the resolutions of that body in handsome terms.

The home authorities faced the difficulties with a statesmanlike front. They had no disposition to dictate, but, once assured that a {110} substantial majority in each consenting province supported the scheme, it was their duty to speak plainly, no matter how vehemently a section of opinion in England or in the provinces protested. They held the opinion, that since the provinces desired to remain within the Empire, they must combine. All the grounds for this belief could not be publicly stated. It was one of those exceptional occasions when Downing Street, by reason of its superior insight into foreign affairs and by full comprehension of the danger then threatening, knew better than the man on the spot. The colonial opposition might be sincere and patriotic, but it was wrong. Heed could not be paid to the agitations in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick because they were founded upon narrow conceptions of statesmanship and erroneous information.

Another difficulty with which British governments, whether Liberal or Tory, had to contend was the separatist doctrine known as that of the Manchester School. When George Brown visited England in 1864 he was startled into communicating with John A. Macdonald in these terms:

I am much concerned to observe—and I {111} write it to you as a thing that must seriously be considered by all men taking a lead hereafter in Canadian public matters—that there is a manifest desire in almost every quarter that, ere long, the British American colonies should shift for themselves, and in some quarters evident regret that we did not declare at once for independence. I am very sorry to observe this; but it arises, I hope, from the fear of invasion of Canada by the United States, and will soon pass away with the cause that excites it.

The feeling did pass away in time. The responsible statesmen of that period were forced to go steadily forward and ignore it, just as they refused to be dominated by appeals from colonial reactionaries who abhorred change and who honestly believed that in so doing they exhibited the best form of attachment to the Empire.

Why Mr Arthur Gordon, the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, was at first opposed to Confederation, when his ministers were in favour of it, is not quite clear.[1] {112} However this may be, his punishment was not long in coming; and, if he escaped from the storm without loss of honour, he certainly suffered in dignity and comfort. The new ministry which took office in New Brunswick was formed by A. J. Smith, who afterwards as Sir Albert Smith had a useful career in the Dominion parliament. His colleagues had taken a prominent part in the agitation against Confederation, but it appears that they had no very settled convictions on this question, and that they differed on many others. At any rate, dissension soon broke out among them. The colonial secretary pressed upon the province the desirability of the union in terms described as 'earnest and friendly suggestions,' and which left no doubt as to the wishes of the home government. 'You will express,' said the colonial secretary to the lieutenant-governor, 'the strong and deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Government that it is an object much to be desired that all the British North American colonies should agree to unite in one government.' In stating {113} the reasons for this opinion the dispatch continued:

Looking to the determination which this country has ever exhibited to regard the defence of the colonies as a matter of Imperial concern, the colonies must recognize a right, and even acknowledge an obligation, incumbent on the home government to urge with earnestness and just authority the measures which they consider to be most expedient on the part of the colonies with a view to their own defence.

The New Brunswick frontier, as well as Canada, was disturbed by the threatened Fenian invasion, so that the question of defence was apposite and of vital importance.

Presently a change of sentiment began to show itself in the province, and the shaky Cabinet began to totter from resignations and disagreements. By-elections followed and supporters of federation were returned. The legislature met early in March. In the lieutenant-governor's speech from the throne, a reference to the colonial secretary's dispatch implied that Gordon had changed his views and was now favourable to union. He {114} afterwards explained that the first minister and several of his colleagues had privately intimated to him their concurrence, but felt unable at the time to explain their altered attitude to the legislature. The next step involved proceedings still more unusual, if not actually unconstitutional: the address of the Legislative Council in reply to the speech from the throne contained a vigorous endorsement of union; and the lieutenant-governor accepted it, without consulting his advisers, and in language which left them no recourse but to resign. A new ministry was formed on the 18th of April, and the House was dissolved. The ensuing elections resulted in a complete victory for federation. On the 21st of June the legislature met, fresh from the people, and adopted, by a vote of thirty to eight, a resolution appointing delegates to arrange with the Imperial authorities a scheme of union that would secure 'the just rights and interests of New Brunswick.' The battle was won.

Meanwhile, like the mariner who keeps a vigilant eye upon the weather, the Tupper government in Nova Scotia observed the proceedings in New Brunswick with a view to action at the proper moment. The agitation throughout the province had not affected the {115} position of parties in the legislature which met in February. The government continued to treat federation as a non-contentious subject. No reference to it was made in the governor's speech, and the legislature occupied itself with other business. The agitation in the country, with Howe leading it, and William Annand, member for East Halifax and editor of the Chronicle, as his chief associate, went on. Then the debacle of the anti-confederate party in New Brunswick began to attract attention and give rise to speculations on what would be the action of the Tupper government. This was soon to be disclosed. In April, a few days before the fall of the Smith ministry in New Brunswick, William Miller, member for Richmond, made a speech in the House which was destined to produce a momentous effect. His proposal was to appoint delegates to frame a scheme in consultation with the Imperial authorities, and thus ignore the Quebec resolutions. To these resolutions Miller had been strongly opposed. He had borne a leading part with Howe and Annand in the agitation, although he was always favourable to union in the abstract and careful on all occasions to say so. Now, however, his speech provided a means of enabling Nova Scotia to enter the {116} union with the consent of the legislature, and Tupper was quick to seize the opportunity by putting it in the form of a motion before the House. An extremely bitter debate followed; vigorous epithets were exchanged with much freedom, and Tupper's condemnation of Joseph Howe omitted nothing essential to the record. But at length, at midnight of the 10th of April, the legislature, by a vote of thirty-one to nineteen, adopted the motion which cleared the way for bringing Nova Scotia into the Dominion.

Miller's late allies never forgave his action on this occasion. He was accused of having been bribed to desert them. When he was appointed to the Senate in 1867 the charge was repeated, and many years afterwards was revived in an offensive form. Finally, Miller entered suit for libel against the Halifax Chronicle, and in the witness-box Sir Charles Tupper bore testimony to the propriety of Miller's conduct in 1866. Notwithstanding the hostility between Howe and Tupper, they afterwards resumed friendly relations and sat comfortably together in the Dominion Cabinet. In politics hard words can be soon forgotten. The doughty Tupper had won his province for the union and could afford to forget.



{117}

The tactics pursued in Canada during these exciting months in the Maritime Provinces were those defined by a great historian, in dealing with a different convulsion, as 'masterly inactivity.' In that memorable speech of years afterwards when Macdonald, about to be overwhelmed by the Pacific Railway charges, appealed to his countrymen in words that came straight from the heart, he declared: 'I have fought the battle of union.' The events of 1866 are the key to this utterance. Parliament was not summoned until June; and meanwhile ministers said nothing. That this line of policy was deliberate, is set forth in a private letter from Macdonald to Tilley:

Had we met early in the year and before your elections, the greatest embarrassment and your probable defeat at the polls would have ensued. We should have been pressed by the Opposition to declare whether we adhered to the Quebec resolutions or not. Had we answered in the affirmative, you would have been defeated, as you were never in a position to go to the polls on those resolutions. Had we replied in the negative, and stated that it was an {118} open question and that the resolutions were liable to alteration, Lower Canada would have arisen as one man, and good-bye to federation.

Thus was the situation saved; and, although the delegates from the Maritime Provinces were obliged to wait in London for some months for their Canadian colleagues, owing to the Fenian invasion of Canada and to a change of ministry in England, the body of delegates assembled in December at the Westminster Palace Hotel, in London, and sat down to frame the details of the bill for the union of British North America.



[1] Gordon's dispatches to the colonial secretary indicate that from the first he distrusted the Quebec scheme and that the overthrow of his ministers owing to it occasioned him no great grief. James Hannay, the historian, attributes his conduct to chagrin at the pushing aside of maritime union, as he had hoped to be the first governor of the smaller union.



{119}

CHAPTER XI

THE FRAMING OF THE BILL

When the British American delegates met in London to frame the bill they found themselves in an atmosphere tending to chill their enthusiasm. Lord Palmerston had died the year before, and with him had disappeared an adventurous foreign policy and the militant view of empire. The strictly utilitarian school of thought was dominant. Canada was unpleasantly associated in the minds of British statesmen with the hostile attitude of the United States which seemed to threaten a most unwelcome war. John Bright approved of ceding Canada to the Republic as the price of peace. Gladstone also wrote to Goldwin Smith suggesting this course. The delegates were confronted by the same ideas which had distressed George Brown two years earlier. The colonies were not to be forcibly cast off, but even in official circles the opinion prevailed that ultimate separation was the inevitable end. The reply {120} of Sir Edward Thornton, the British minister at Washington, to a proposal that Canada should be ceded to the United States was merely that Great Britain could not thus dispose of a colony 'against the wishes of the inhabitants.' These lukewarm views made no appeal to the delegates and the young communities they represented. It was their aim to propound a method of continuing the connection. Theirs was not the vision of a military sway intended to overawe other nations and to revive in the modern world the empires of history. To them Imperialism meant to extend and preserve the principles of justice, liberty, and peace, which they believed were inherent in British institutions and more nearly attainable under monarchical than under republican forms.

Minds influential in the Colonial Office and elsewhere saw in this only a flamboyant patriotism. The Duke of Newcastle, when colonial secretary, had not shared the desire for separation, and he found it hard to believe that any one charged with colonial administration wished it. He had written to Palmerston in 1861:

You speak of some supposed theoretical gentlemen in the colonial office who wish {121} to get rid of all colonies as soon as possible. I can only say that if there are such they have never ventured to open their opinion to me. If they did so on grounds of peaceful separation, I should differ from them so long as colonies can be retained by bonds of mutual sympathy and mutual obligation; but I would meet their views with indignation if they could suggest disruption by the act of any other, and that a hostile, Power.

The duke was not intimate with his official subordinates, or he would have known that Palmerston's description exactly fitted the permanent under-secretary at the Colonial Office. Sir Frederic Rogers (who later became Lord Blachford) filled that post from 1860 to 1871. He was therefore in office during the Confederation period. He left on record his ideas of the future of the Empire:

I had always believed—and the belief has so confirmed and consolidated itself that I can hardly realize the possibility of any one seriously thinking the contrary—that the destiny of our colonies is independence; and that in this view, the function of the Colonial Office is to secure that {122} our connexion, while it lasts, shall be as profitable to both parties, and our separation, when it comes, as amicable as possible. This opinion is founded first on the general principle that a spirited nation (and a colony becomes a nation) will not submit to be governed in its internal affairs by a distant government, and that nations geographically remote have no such common interests as will bind them permanently together in foreign policy with all its details and mutations.

In other words, Sir Frederic was a painstaking honourable official without a shred of imagination. He typifies the sort of influence which the delegates had to encounter.

The conference consisted of sixteen members, six from Canada and ten from the Maritime Provinces. The Canadians were Macdonald, Cartier, Galt, McDougall, Howland, and Langevin. From Nova Scotia came Tupper, Henry, Ritchie, McCully, and Archibald; while New Brunswick was represented by Tilley, Johnston, Mitchell, Fisher, and Wilmot. They selected John A. Macdonald as chairman. The resignation of Brown had left Macdonald the leader of the movement, and the nominal {123} Canadian prime minister, Sir Narcisse Belleau, was not even a delegate. The impression Macdonald made in London is thus recorded by Sir Frederic Rogers in language which gives us an insight into the working of the conference:

They held many meetings, at which I was always present. Lord Carnarvon [the colonial secretary] was in the chair, and I was rather disappointed in his power of presidency. Macdonald was the ruling genius and spokesman, and I was very greatly struck by his power of management and adroitness. The French delegates were keenly on the watch for anything which weakened their securities; on the contrary, the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick delegates were very jealous of concessions to the arrieree province; while one main stipulation in favour of the French was open to constitutional objections on the part of the Home Government. Macdonald had to argue the question with the Home Government on a point on which the slightest divergence from the narrow line already agreed upon in Canada was watched for—here by the French and {124} there by the English—as eager dogs watch a rat hole; a snap on one side might have provoked a snap on the other and put an end to the concord. He stated and argued the case with cool ready fluency, while at the same time you saw that every word was measured, and that while he was making for a point ahead, he was never for a moment unconscious of any of the rocks among which he had to steer.

The preliminaries had all been settled before the meetings with the colonial secretary. The gathering was smaller in numbers than the Quebec Conference, and the experience of two years had not been lost. We hear no more of deadlocks or of the danger of breaking up. There was frank discussion on any point that required reconsideration, but the delegates decided to adhere to the Quebec resolutions as far as possible. For the Liberal ministers from Upper Canada, Howland and McDougall, this was the safest course to pursue, because they knew that George Brown had put his hand and seal upon the basis adopted at Quebec and would bitterly resent any substantial departure from it. This was also the view of the representatives of Lower Canada. The {125} maritime delegates wanted better financial terms if such could be secured, but beyond this were content with the accepted outline of the constitution.

The delegates were careful to make plain their belief that the union was to cement and not to weaken the Imperial tie. At Quebec they had agreed upon a motion in these terms:

That in framing a constitution for the general government, the conference, with a view to the perpetuation of our connection with the Mother Country and to the promotion of the best interests of the people of these provinces, desire to follow the model of the British constitution, so far as our circumstances will permit.

The saving clause at the close was a frank admission that a federal system could not be an exact copy of the British model with its one sovereign parliament charged with the whole power of the nation. But the delegates were determined to express the idea in some form; and this led to the words in the preamble of the British North America Act declaring 'a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.' To this writers {126} of note have objected. Professor Dicey has complained of the 'official mendacity' involved in the statement. 'If preambles were intended to express the truth,' he said, 'for the word Kingdom ought to have been substituted States, since it is clear that the constitution of the Dominion is modelled on that of the United States.' It is, however, equally clear what the framers of the Act intended to convey. If they offended against the precise canons of constitutional theory, they effected a political object of greater consequence. The Canadian constitution, in their opinion, was British in principle for at least three reasons: because it provided for responsible government in both the general and local legislatures; because, unlike the system in the United States, the executive and legislative functions were not divorced; and because this enabled Canada to incorporate the traditions and conventions of the British constitution which bring the executive immediately under control of the popular wish as expressed through parliament. Furthermore, the principle of defining the jurisdictions of the provinces, while the residue of power was left to the federal parliament, marked another wide distinction between Canada and the Republic. A {127} federation it had to be, but a federation designed in the narrowest sense. In theory Canada is a dependent and subordinate country, since its constitution was conferred by an Act of the Imperial parliament, but in practice it is a self-governing state in the fullest degree. This anomaly, so fortunate in its results, is no greater than the maintenance in theory of royal prerogatives which are never exercised.

It was intended that the name of the new state should be left to the selection of the Queen, and this was provided for in the first draft of the bill. But the proposal was soon dropped. It revived the memory of the regrettable incident of 1858 when the Queen had, by request, selected Ottawa as the Canadian capital and her decision had been condemned by a vote of the legislature. The press had discussed a suitable name long before the London delegates assembled. Some favoured New Britain, while others preferred Laurentia or Britannia. If the maritime union had been effected, the name of that division would probably have been Acadia, and this name was suggested for the larger union. Other ideas were merely fantastic, such as Cabotia, Columbia, Canadia, and Ursalia. The decision that Canada should give up its name {128} to the new Confederation and that Upper and Lower Canada should find new names for themselves was undoubtedly a happy conclusion to the discussion. It was desired to call the Confederation the Kingdom of Canada, and thus fix the monarchical basis of the constitution. The French were especially attached to this idea. The word Kingdom appeared in an early draft of the bill as it came from the conference. But it was vetoed by the foreign secretary, Lord Stanley,[1] who thought that the republican sensibilities of the United States would be wounded. This preposterous notion serves to indicate the inability of the controlling minds of the period to grasp the true nature of the change. Finally, the word 'Dominion' was decided upon. Why a term was selected which is so difficult to render in the French language (La Puissance is the translation employed) is not easy of comprehension. There is a story, probably invented, that when 'Dominion' was under consideration, a member of the conference, well versed in the Scriptures, found a verse which, as a piece of descriptive prophecy, at once clinched the matter: 'And his dominion shall be from {129} sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.'[2]

The knotty question of the second chamber, supposed to have been solved at Quebec, came up again. The notes of the discussion[3] are as interesting as the surviving notes of the Quebec Conference. Some of the difficulties since experienced were foreseen. But no one appears to have realized that the Senate would become the citadel of a defeated party, until sufficient vacancies by death should occur to transform it into the obedient instrument of the government of the day. No one foresaw, in truth, that the Senate would consider measures chiefly on party grounds, and would fail to demonstrate the usefulness of a second chamber by industry and capacity in revising hasty legislation. The delegates actually believed that equality of representation between the three divisions, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and the Maritime Provinces, would make the Senate a bulwark of protection to individual provinces. In this character it has never shone.[4] Its chief value has been as {130} a reservoir of party patronage. The opinions of several of the delegates are prophetical:

HENRY (Nova Scotia)—I oppose the limitation of number. We want a complete work. Do you wish to stereotype an upper branch irresponsible both to the crown and the people? A third body interposed unaccountable to the other two. The crown unable to add to their number. The people unable to remove them. Suppose a general election results in the election of a large majority in the Lower House favourable to a measure, but the legislative council prevents it from becoming law. The crown should possess some power of enlargement.

FISHER (New Brunswick)—The prerogative of the crown has been only occasionally used and always for good. This new fangled thing now introduced, seventy-two oligarchs, will introduce trouble. I advocate the principle of the power of the crown to appoint additional members in case of emergency.

HOWLAND (Upper Canada)—My remedy would be to limit the period of service and vest the appointment in the local legislatures. Now, it is an anomaly. It won't work and cannot be continued. You cannot give the crown an unlimited power to appoint.

One result of the views exchanged is found in the twenty-sixth section of the Act. This gives the sovereign, acting of course on the advice of his ministers and at the request of the Canadian government, the right to add {131} three or six members to the Senate, selected equally from the three divisions mentioned above. These additional members are not to be a permanent increase of the Senate, because vacancies occurring thereafter are not to be filled until the normal number is restored. Once only has it been sought to invoke the power of this section. In 1873, when the first Liberal ministry after Confederation was formed, the prime minister, Alexander Mackenzie, finding himself faced by a hostile majority in the Senate, asked the Queen to add six members to the Senate 'in the public interests.' The request was refused. The colonial secretary, Lord Kimberley, held that the power was intended solely to bring the two Houses into accord when an actual collision of opinion took place of so serious and permanent a kind that the government could not be carried on without the intervention of the sovereign as prescribed in this section. The Conservative majority in the Senate highly approved of this decision, and expressed its appreciation in a series of resolutions which are a fine display of unconscious humour.

Not the least important of the changes in the scheme adopted at London was that relating to the educational privileges of {132} minorities. This is embodied in the famous ninety-third section of the Act, and originated in a desire to protect the Protestant minority in Lower Canada. Its champion was Galt. An understanding existed that the Canadian parliament would enact the necessary guarantees before Canada entered the union. But the proposal, when brought before the House in 1866, was so expressed as to apply to the schools of both the Protestant minority in Lower Canada and the Catholic minority in Upper Canada. This led to disturbing debates and was withdrawn. No substitute being offered, Galt, deeming himself pledged to his co-religionists, at once resigned his place in the Cabinet and stated his reasons temperately in parliament. Although no longer a minister, he was selected as one of the London delegates, partly because of the prominent part taken by him in the cause of Confederation and partly in order that the anxieties of the Lower Canada minority might be allayed. Galt's conduct throughout was entirely worthy of him. That he was an enlightened man the memoranda of the London proceedings prove, for there is a provision in his handwriting showing his desire to extend to all minorities the protection he claimed for the Lower {133} Canada Protestants. The clause drawn by him differs in its phraseology from the wording in the Act and is as follows:

And in any province where a system of separation or dissentient schools by law obtains, or where the local legislature may adopt a system of separate or dissentient schools, an appeal shall lie to the governor in council of the general government from the acts and decisions of the local authorities which may affect the rights or privileges of the Protestant or Catholic minority in the matter of education. And the general parliament shall have power in the last resort to legislate on the subject.[5]

The bill passed through parliament without encountering any serious opposition. Lord Carnarvon's introductory speech in the House of Lords was an adequate, although not an eloquent, presentation of the subject. His closing words were impressive:

We are laying the foundation of a great State—perhaps one which at a future day {134} may even overshadow this country. But, come what may, we shall rejoice that we have shown neither indifference to their wishes nor jealousy of their aspirations, but that we honestly and sincerely, to the utmost of our power and knowledge, fostered their growth, recognizing in it the conditions of our own greatness. We are in this measure setting the crown to the free institutions which more than a quarter of a century ago we gave them, and therein we remove, as I firmly believe, all possibilities of future jealousy or misunderstanding.

No grave objections were raised in either the Lords or the Commons. In fact, the criticisms were of a mild character. No division was taken at any stage. In the House of Commons, Mr Adderley, the under-secretary for the Colonies, who was in charge of the measure, found a cordial supporter, instead of a critic, in Mr Cardwell, the former colonial secretary, so that the bill was carried through with ease and celerity. John Bright's speech reflected the anti-Imperial spirit of the time. 'I want the population of these provinces,' he said, 'to do that which they believe to be the {135} best for their own interests—remain with this country if they like, in the most friendly manner, or become independent states if they like. It they should prefer to unite themselves with the United States, I should not complain even of that.'

The strenuous protests made by Joseph Howe and the Nova Scotian opponents of Confederation were not unnoticed. It was claimed by one or two speakers that the electors of that province should be allowed to pronounce upon the measure, but this evoked no support, and the wishes of all the provinces were considered to have been sufficiently consulted. The argument for further delay failed to enlist any active sympathy; and the wish of the delegates that no material alteration be made in the bill, as it was a compromise based upon a carefully arranged agreement, was respected. The constitution was thus the creation of the colonial statesmen themselves, and not of the Imperial government or parliament.

That so important a step in the colonial policy of the Empire should have been received at London in a passive and indifferent spirit has often been the subject of complaint. When the Australian Commonwealth came into existence, the event was marked by more {136} ceremony and signalized by greater impressiveness. But another phase of the question should be kept in mind. The British North America Act contained the promise of the vast Dominion which exists to-day, but not the reality. The measure dealt with the union of the four provinces only. The Confederation, as we have it, was still incomplete. When the royal proclamation was issued on the 10th of May bringing the new Dominion into being on July 1, 1867, much remained to be done. The constitution must be put to the test of practical experience; and the task of extending the Dominion across the continent must be undertaken. Upon the first government of Canada, in truth, would rest a duty as arduous as ever fell to the lot of statesmen. They had in their hands a half-finished structure, and might, conceivably, fail in completing it.



[1] He became Lord Derby in 1869 and bore this title in 1889 when Sir John Macdonald related the incident.

[2] Zechariah ix 10.

[3] Sir Joseph Pope's Confederation Documents.

[4] The recent increase in the number of western senators modifies this feature.

[5] Confederation Documents, p. 112. Mr Justice Day of Montreal, an English Protestant enjoying the confidence of the French, is believed to have had a hand in framing the Galt policy on this subject.



{137}

CHAPTER XII

THE FIRST DOMINION MINISTRY

Before the delegates left London the governor-general privately invited John A. Macdonald to form the first ministry of the Dominion. A month later the same offer was made more formally in writing:

I entrust this duty to you as the individual selected for their chairman and spokesman by the unanimous vote of the delegates when they were in England, and I adopt this test for my guidance in consequence of the impossibility, under the circumstances, of ascertaining, in the ordinary constitutional manner, who possesses the confidence of a Parliament which does not yet exist. In authorizing you to undertake the duty of forming an administration for the Dominion of Canada, I desire to express my strong opinion that, in future, it shall be distinctly understood that the position of first minister shall be {138} held by one person, who shall be responsible to the Governor-General for the appointment of the other ministers, and that the system of dual first ministers, which has hitherto prevailed, shall be put an end to.[1]

The selection of Macdonald was inevitable. When George Brown by his action in 1864 made Confederation possible and entered a Cabinet where his great rival was the commanding influence, he must have foreseen that, in the event of the cause succeeding, his own chances of inaugurating the new state as its chief figure were not good. And by leaving the coalition abruptly before union was accomplished he had put himself entirely out of the running. In a group of able men which included several potential prime ministers Macdonald had advanced to the first place by reason of gifts precisely suited to the demands of the hour. Lord Monck's choice was therefore justified. Nor was the resolve to abolish the awkward and indefensible system of a dual premiership less open to question. It may have given pain to Cartier, but it was a wise and necessary decision.

{139}

Lord Monck, however, does not rank high in the list of talented men who have filled the office of governor-general. The post had gone a-begging when he accepted it in 1861. It had been offered to and refused by Lord Wodehouse, a former viceroy of Ireland; Lord Harris, once governor of Madras and a contemporary of Elgin; Lord Eversley, who had been speaker of the House of Commons; and the Duke of Buckingham. Lord Monck had scarcely arrived in Canada when the Trent Affair occurred. Later on the St Albans Raid intensified the bitter feelings between Great Britain and the United States. On both occasions he performed his duties as an Imperial officer judiciously and well. But his relations with Canadian affairs were not so happy. He became dissatisfied with the political conditions as he found them; and his petulance over the slow progress of Confederation led him to threaten resignation. He contrived, moreover, to incur much personal unpopularity, which found vent, during the first session of the Dominion parliament, in a measure to reduce the salary of the governor-general from L10,000 to $32,000. That this unparalleled action was, in part, directed at Lord Monck is shown in the determination {140} to put the reduction in force at once. The home authorities, however, disallowed the bill. In his speech in the House of Lords on the British North America Act, Monck failed to rise to the occasion, owing to a sympathy with the views of the Manchester School. To remain long enough in Canada to preside over the new Dominion had been his own wish. But it does not appear that he utilized his opportunities to marked advantage.

A unique political situation confronted Macdonald. It was natural to suppose that, as the federation leaders belonged to both parties, the first Cabinet should be composed of representative men of both. This was the line Macdonald proposed to take. By this policy a strong national party, with larger aims, would arise, and the old prejudices and issues would be swept away. This statesmanlike conception involved certain embarrassments, because the number of ambitious men looking for Cabinet appointments would be increased and the expectations of faithful Conservative supporters must suffer disappointment. These problems, however, were not new to Macdonald. He had faced similar dangers before, and his skill in handling them was equal to his experience.

{141}

Meanwhile, Brown set himself to prevent a plan which would detach a section of the Liberals from their former associates and permanently range them under a Conservative leader. He cannot be blamed for this. Confederation being now a fact, he considered himself under no obligation to continue an alliance proposed for a special object. Although Macdonald might be able to enlist the support of some maritime Liberals, Brown strove to reunite his party in Ontario and present a solid phalanx to the enemy.

A Liberal convention met in Toronto on the 27th and 28th of June 1867. There was a good attendance, and impassioned appeals were made to men of the party throughout the province to join in opposing any ministry which Macdonald might form. It was generally understood that the three Liberal ministers—Howland, McDougall, and Blair—were to continue in the government, which would be renewed as a coalition with a certain degree of Liberal support in the House. To strict party men this was obnoxious. George Brown denounced any further coalition of parties:

If, sir, there is any large number of men in this assembly who will record their votes {142} this night in favour of the degradation of the public men of that party [the Liberals] by joining a coalition, I neither want to be a leader nor a humble member of that party. [Cheers.] If that is the reward you intend to give us all for our services, I scorn connection with you. [Immense cheering.] Go into the same government with Mr John A. Macdonald! [Cries of never! never!] Sir, I understood what degradation it was to be compelled to adopt that step by the necessities of the case, by the feeling that the interests of my country were at stake, which alone induced me ever to put my foot into that government; and glad was I when I got out of it. None ever went into a government with such sore hearts as did two out of the three who entered it on behalf of the Reform party—I cannot speak for the third. It was the happiest day of my life when I got out of the concern. [Cheers.]

These were warm words, designed to rally a divided party. In due time the tireless energy of the speaker and his friends reawakened the fighting strength of their followers. For the moment, however, a considerable number of {143} Liberals were disposed to give the new conditions a trial. Howland and McDougall were invited to address the convention, and they put their case in temperate and dignified language. Howland pointed out that in the new ministry there would be several Liberals from the lower provinces, and these men had requested their Ontario friends not to leave them. McDougall's address was especially apt and convincing:

We think that the work of coalition is not done, but only begun. We think that British Columbia should be brought into the confederacy, that the great north-western territory should be brought in, that Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland should be brought in. I say that the negotiations of the terms upon which these provinces are to be brought in are important, and that it is as necessary that the government in power should not be obliged to fight from day to day for its political existence, as when Confederation was carried up to the point we have now reached.... I think the coalition ought not to cease until the work begun under Mr Brown's auspices is ended.

{144}

It was evident from these remarks that the arguments—what his critics called the blandishments—of Macdonald had prevailed.

The first Cabinet, which was announced on July 1, began on a non-party basis. This commended it to moderate men generally. But the task of getting it together had been herculean. To secure a ministry representative of all parts of the country seemed a reasonable policy at the beginning. With time this has grown into an unwritten convention of the constitution which cannot be ignored. In 1867 the Cabinet representation had to be determined by geography, race, creed, and party. None but an old parliamentary hand could have made the attempt successfully. Ontario claimed and was assigned five ministers, Quebec four, and the Maritime Provinces four. So much for geography. Then came race and creed. It was found necessary to give the Irish Catholics and the English minority in Quebec each a minister. The French demanded and were granted three ministers. Finally, the fusion of parties imposed another difficulty upon the cabinet-maker. He could not find room for all the really deserving. There were thirteen ministers—too many, {145} thought Brown and the Globe—and of these six were Liberal and six Conservative, while Kenny of Nova Scotia had once been a Liberal but had lately acted with the Tupper party. The surprises were the absence of the names of McGee and Tupper from the list. To have selected McGee as the Irish Catholic minister meant five representatives for Quebec, and Ontario would not consent. This threatened a deadlock, and Macdonald was about to advise the governor-general to send for George Brown, when McGee and Tupper, with a disinterested generosity rare in politics, waived their claims, and Edward Kenny became the Irish representative and second minister from Nova Scotia. The first administration was thus constituted:

JOHN A. MACDONALD, Prime Minister and Minister of Justice. GEORGE E. CARTIER, Minister of Militia and Defence. S. LEONARD TILLEY, Minister of Customs. ALEXANDER T. GALT, Minister of Finance. WILLIAM McDOUGALL, Minister of Public Works. WILLIAM P. HOWLAND, Minister of Inland Revenue. ADAMS G. ARCHIBALD, Secretary of State for the Provinces. A. J. FERGUSSON BLAIR, President of the Privy Council.

{146}

PETER MITCHELL, Minister of Marine and Fisheries. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, Postmaster-General. JEAN C. CHAPAIS, Minister of Agriculture. HECTOR L. LANGEVIN, Secretary of State of Canada. EDWARD KENNY, Receiver-General.

The two men who had stepped aside in order that a ministry might be formed under Macdonald were actuated partly by personal regard for their leader. It was not a small sacrifice. Macdonald wrote to McGee:

The difficulties of adjusting the representation in the Cabinet from the several provinces were great and embarrassing. Your disinterested and patriotic conduct—and I speak of Tupper as well as yourself—had certainly the effect of removing those difficulties. Still, I think you should have first consulted me. However, the thing is done and can't be undone for the present; but I am very sure that at a very early day your valuable services will be sought for by the government.

McGee was to have retired from political life and to have received the appointment of commissioner of patents at $3200 a year, a sinecure which would have enabled him to pursue his literary work. His assassination in the {147} early morning of April 7, 1868, on returning to his lodging after a late session of the House, is one of the most tragic episodes in the annals of Canada.

The ministers having been sworn of the Privy Council, Lord Monck announced that Her Majesty had been pleased to confer upon the new prime minister the rank of Knight Commander of the Bath, and upon Cartier, Galt, Tilley, Tupper, Howland, and McDougall the companionship of the same order. No previous intimation had been given to any of them. Cartier and Galt, deeming the recognition of their services inadequate, declined to receive it. This incident is only worthy of mention because it tended to disturb the personal relations of men who should have acted in complete harmony at a time of national importance. No Imperial honours had been conferred in Canada since 1860, and it was unfortunate that the advice tendered the crown on this historic occasion should have been open to criticism and have engendered ill feeling. Cartier thought that his race had been affronted in his person, and his reasons for protest were political. He told his colleagues: 'Personally I care nothing for honours, but as a representative of one of the {148} two great provinces in Confederation I have a position to maintain, and I shall not accept the honour. I regret that such an action is necessary, because it may be construed as an insult to Her Majesty. I feel aggrieved that I should not have been notified in advance, so that I should not now have to refuse, but I shall write to Her Majesty myself explaining the reasons for my refusing the honour.'[2] The error was soon rectified and Cartier was made a baronet. A number of persons, including Charles Tupper and Edward Watkin, a member of the Imperial parliament, interested themselves in the matter, pointing out to the London authorities the unwisdom of bestowing titles without due regard to the Imperial services of the recipients. The reputations of Galt and Cartier as serious statesmen were not enhanced. Explain it as we may, there is a flavour of absurdity about their proceedings. Galt was offered a knighthood in 1869, and would not accept until the Imperial government had been made aware of his views upon the ultimate destiny of Canada. In a letter to the governor-general he thus placed himself on record:

{149}

I regard the confederation of the British North American Provinces as a measure which must ultimately lead to their separation from Great Britain. The present connection is undoubtedly an embarrassment to Great Britain in her relations to the United States and a source of uneasiness to the Dominion, owing to the insecurity which is felt to exist from the possibility of a rupture between the two nations. It cannot be the policy of England, and is certainly not the desire of the people here, to become annexed to the United States; but I believe the best, and indeed the only way to prevent this, is to teach the Canadian people to look forward to an independent existence as a nation in the future as desirable and possible. Unless such a spirit be cultivated, the idea will become engrained in the public mind, that failing the connection with Great Britain annexation must ensue.

Galt went on to state that he hoped separation would be postponed as long as possible. The reply of the secretary of state, Lord Granville, was private, but it appears to have been in effect a declaration that Galt could hold {150} any views he pleased about the future of the Empire. He accepted the K.C.M.G. and worthily wore it to the end of an honourable and public-spirited career. Thus was vindicated the freedom of speech which is the birthright of every British subject. But Galt, in exercising it, showed lack of stability and a tendency to take an erratic course, which crippled his influence in the young state he had done so much to found.

It was an enormous burden of duty which now fell upon the executive. The whole machinery of state required recasting. The uncertainties of a situation wherein party bonds sat lightly and diversities of opinion lingered, taxed all the resources of the leader of the government. Although different views are held as to the particular stage in his long career in which the remarkable qualities of Sir John Macdonald displayed themselves most conspicuously, the first five years of the union may well be regarded by future historians as the period when his patience, tenacity, and adroitness were especially in evidence.

The provincial governments had to be constituted; and in Ontario Macdonald scored again by persuading Sandfield Macdonald to form a coalition ministry in which party lines {151} were effaced and the policy of coalition was defended by an erstwhile Liberal leader. Sandfield Macdonald was a man of talent and integrity. His attitude of mind was rather that of an oppositionist, upon whom the functions of independent critic sat more easily than the compromises and discipline entailed by party leadership. He bore restraint with impatience, and if his affiliations had always been with the Liberals, it was not because his sympathies were radical and progressive.[3] In the Liberal caucus of 1864 he had moved the resolution requesting George Brown to enter the coalition government, without recognizing, apparently, that he thereby incurred an obligation himself to support federation. Both in the Ontario legislature, where he was loth to follow any course but his own, and in the Dominion parliament, where he ostentatiously {152} sat on an Opposition bench, he presented a shining example of that type of mind which lacks the capacity for unity and co-operation with others. He illustrated, too, one of the difficult features of Macdonald's problem—the absence of unity among the public men of the time—a condition which complicated, if it did not retard, the formation of a homogeneous national sentiment.[4]

The general elections were impending, and everything turned upon the verdict of the country. The first elections for the House of Commons took place during the months of August and September, the practice of holding elections all on one day having not yet come into vogue. The three provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick sustained the government by large majorities. But in Nova Scotia the agitation against the union swept the province. Tupper was the only Conservative elected. His victory was the more notable in that he defeated William Annand, the chief lieutenant of Howe and afterwards the leader of the repeal movement. Adams Archibald, the secretary of state, was {153} defeated in Colchester by A. W. McLelan, and Henry, another member of the Quebec Conference, was rejected in Antigonish. In Ontario there were losses. George Brown was defeated in South Ontario by a few votes, and did not again sit in parliament until he was appointed to the Senate in 1874. In the early years of the Dominion a member might sit both in the House of Commons and in the legislature of his province. So it was that at this election Edward Blake was returned from South Bruce to the Ontario legislature and from West Durham to the House of Commons. Other members who occupied seats in both bodies were Sandfield Macdonald, John Carling, Alexander Mackenzie, and E. B. Wood. Cartier's success in Quebec left his opponents only fifteen seats out of sixty-five. The stars in their courses fought for the government; and had it not been for Nova Scotia, where the victorious and hostile forces were pledged to repeal, the consolidation of the Dominion could have gone forward without hindrance.

To deal with 'that pestilent fellow Howe,' to use Macdonald's phrase, was a first charge upon the energies of the government. The history of the repeal movement in Nova Scotia, {154} with all its incidents and sidelights, has yet to be written. It was but one of the disintegrating forces which Macdonald found so hard to cope with, that in a moment of discouragement he seriously thought of withdrawing from the government and letting others carry it on. A large portion of the year 1868 was occupied with the effort to reconcile the Nova Scotians. Instead of abating, the anti-confederate feeling in that province grew more bitter. A delegation headed by Howe and Annand went to England to demand repeal from the Imperial authorities. To counteract this move the Dominion government sent Charles Tupper to present the other side of the case. None of the passages in his political life reflect more credit upon him than his diplomacy upon this occasion. He had already declined, as we have seen, a seat in the Cabinet. Later, he had further strengthened his reputation by refusing the lucrative office of chairman of the commission to build the Intercolonial Railway. This fresh display of independence enabled him to meet the repeal delegates on ground as patriotic as their own, for it had shown that in this crisis they were not the only Nova Scotians who wanted nothing for themselves.

{155}

Tupper's first step on reaching London was to call on Howe. 'I said to him,' writes Tupper, 'I will not insult you by suggesting that you should fail to undertake the mission that brought you here. When you find out, however, that the Government and the Imperial Parliament are overwhelmingly against you, it is important for you to consider the next step.'[5] This was to put the finger upon the weakest spot in Howe's armour. After his mission had failed and the Imperial authorities had refused to allow the union to be broken up, as they most assuredly would, what could Howe and his friends do next? A revolution was unthinkable. A province 'on strike' would have no adequate means of raising a revenue, and a government lacking the power of taxation soon ceases to exist. The extremists talked Annexation; but in this they counted without Howe and the loyal province of Nova Scotia. The movement, noisy and formidable as it appeared, was foredoomed to failure. All this Tupper put to Joseph Howe; and when Tupper proposed that Howe should enter the Dominion Cabinet, not as his docile follower but as his leader, it {156} can readily be believed that he was 'completely staggered.'

True to Tupper's forecast, and due in part, at least, to his powerful advocacy of the cause of union, the home government stood firm against the cry from Nova Scotia. The delegates and their opponents returned home. Then the rapid development of events compelled Howe to face the issue: when legal and constitutional methods were exhausted without avail, what then? The crisis came. Howe was obliged to break with his associates, some of whom were preaching sedition, and to take a stand more in accordance with his real convictions and his Imperial sentiments. Early in August 1868 Sir John Macdonald went to Halifax and met the leading malcontents. 'They have got the idea into their heads,' wrote Howe in a private letter, 'that you are a sort of wizard that, having beguiled Brown, McDougall, Tupper, etc., to destruction, is about to do the same kind of office to me.' Howe was not beguiled, but a master of tactics showed him the means by which Nova Scotia could be kept in the union; the way was paved for a final settlement; and a few months later Howe joined the Dominion government.