Class. Book. COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2010 witii funding from Tine Library of Congress littp://www.arcli ive.org/details/evolutionofdominOOporr Evolution of the Dominion of Canada Its Government and Its Politics Government Handbooks is a new series of college textbooks in government prepared under the joint editorship of David Prescott Barrows, Ph.D., Professor of Political Sci- ence (on leave) and formerly Dean of the Faculties in the University of California, now Colonel in the United States Army, and Thomas Harrison Reed, A.B., LL.B., Associate Professor of Government in the University of CaHfomia and City Manager of San Jose, California. The series will provide a handbook for each of the European countries, and one on the Government of American De- pendencies, treating of the political and administrative organization. Each volume will have such maps and illustrations as are needed, and will contain an annotated bibliography. The authors of the different volumes are men who combine a thorough knowledge of the subject and a personal ac- quaintance with the country and system described. The volumes now published are: Evolution of the Dominion OF Canada, by Edward Porritt, author of " The English- man at Home," " The Unreformed House of Commons," and "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada"; Govern- ment AND Politics of Switzerland, by Robert C. Brooks, Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College; and Government and Politics of the German Empire, by Fritz-Konrad Kruger, Ph.D., formerly of the Department of Political Science, University of California. Some of the other volumes in preparation are: Government of American Dependencies, by Dr. David Prescott Bar- rows; Government of France, by Edward M. Sait, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Political Science, Columbia University; and volumes on the governments of Great Britain, Japan, Spain, Argenrina, Chile, and Brazil. The publishers cordially invite correspondence with regard to the Series. Edited by David P. Barrows and Thomas H. Reed (Botittnment ^anDIi0ofe0 Evolution of the Dominion of Canada Its Government and Its Politics BY EDWARD PORRITT AUTHOR OF "the ENGLISHMAN AT HOME," "THE UNREFORMED HOUSE OF COMMONS," AND " SIXTY YEARS OF PROTECTION IN CANADA" YONKERS-ON-HUDSON : : : NEW YORK WORLD BOOK COMPANY 1918 Our teaching of politics in the universities, excellent upon the side of theory, needs to be supplemented by practical teaching. ... A political theory, detached from the actual conditions of life, is as worthless as the political economy of a few decades ago which first assumed a competitive market which never existed, and then formulated the laws which would presumably operate in it if it did exist. Dream politics have been taught too long. What Ameri- can students need today is a training which will fit them to deal with actual conditions, and to be real vital factors in making them better. Dr. Robert M. McElroy, President Wilson's successor as head of the Department of History and Politics at Princeton University, at conference of educators, rooms of Bar Association, New York, October 14, 1917. SEP -3 1918 \f^/Gfoi COPYRIGHT, 19 1 8, BY WORLD BOOK COMPANY COPYRIGHT IN GREAT BRITAIN • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED gh: pedc-1 /.ro ©Gi.A50;:{2G7 av* I EDITORS' INTRODUCTION DESPITE the increased study given in America to modern government, small at- tention has been -paid either by college teachers or the general public to the political institu- tions of the two nations zohich are the imme- diate neighbors of the United States, and whose territory defines our own national boundaries on both the north and the south. And yet our relations with these two countries occupy a very large place in our political history and continue to be among the most vital concerns of our nation. In no other part of the world is it so important to us to have a thorough accord as on the continent of North America, and no real understanding is possible in the absence of a full knowledge of the character and spirit of the public life of neighboring states. In both cases these neighboring countries have been deeply influenced by our political constitu- tion and from us both have adopted the federal form of government, and many of the common American terms and conceptions of republican society. As far as the Mexican republic is concerned the problem of our relations is admittedly a serious and difficult one, made [vii] EDITORS' INTRODUCTION more so by the lack of knowledge arising from profound differences in race, speech, and inheritance. But in the case of Canada a common derivation, a common speech, a com- mon literature, and institutions derived from common sources, somewhat differently devel- oped, have already gone far to produce in both countries a common American type of society and social philosophy. While Canada has learned much from the experience of the United States, she is prepared also to teach much. In the last fifty years Americans have exhibited slight originality in politics hut have gained a spirit to profit from the experience of others. While in our state development, which has added commonwealth after commonwealth to the American Union, our constitution drafters and lawmakers have adhered conservatively to a fixed type of political organization, Canada can show a successful experience with single-chamber legislatures and with centralized adminis- trations — types of progressive organizations which American state political leaders have lacked the courage and vision to attempt. The administration of justice, of cities, and of local institutions in Canada shows a clear superiority over their counterparts in the United States, which should arouse grave inquiry in the minds of a people no less for- tunately situated nor less socially endowed [ viii ] EDITORS' INTRODUCTION than the Canadians. Assuredly a large part of American failure in government is attribu- table to a vicious form of organization which Canada, influenced by sounder conceptions, has avoided. But undoubtedly the most fruitful contrast be- tween government in Canada and government in the United States is the different organi- zation of the executive power. To the presi- dential type of executive, elected for a fixed term and above any political control during the period of office, which prevails in the United States of Mexico, Canada opposes the parlia- mentary or responsible executive derived from England and adopted generally by repre- sentative governments in Europe. It is by no means certain which of these two strongly contrasted institutions will eventually be pre- ferred by a successful republicanism in the Western Hemisphere. All the countries of America except those which are members of the British Empire have followed the example of the United States and created presidential executives; but with the exception of the United States none has wholly escaped dictatorship or avoided civil wars occasioned by the abuse of presidential power. The late President Madero, at the time when he was a candidate for the office, informed one of the editors of this series that he was convinced that constitutional order in Mexico would never be possible unless [ix] EDITORS' INTRODUCTION the Mexican presidency was changed to the form of the presidency of France. A consti- tutional amendment to effect this change was introduced into the Mexican congress in igii, after Madero's election. Certainly in one respect parliamentary government is most impressive, and that is in its capacity promptly to determine the popular will upon a vital issue. An American presidential election seldom, effects this. The issue may have already passed into the background before the vote can be taken, and the large number of controversies pressed upon the American elec- torate at the end of each four years confuse the main issue and render the decision so doubtful that it is rarely found binding upon the administration elected to power. Contrast such delayed and dubious decision with the dissolution of the Canadian parliament over the reciprocity issue in 1911, or the election of 1917 upon the issue of conscription for the war. In each case the controversy was isolated and unconfused, a decision was given by the nation unmistakably and within the space of a few weeks' time, and government was imme- diately reorganized in terms of that decision and with the designated victors in this contest to carry out the people's will. Such a parlia- mentary election is a great referendum beside which an American election is a halting and uncertain decision. EDITORS' INTRODUCTION It would be impertinent to enlarge upon the qualities of the eminent writer who has prepared this volume on the Evolution of the Dominion of Canada: Its Government and Its Politics. Mr. Porritt's long researches and authoritative writings in the field of representative govern- ment, his broad and decided views upon the economic policies of governments, his long identification with liberal movements in the United States as well as in Great Britain and Canada, make his willingness to perform this task a cause of congratulation. No one is better qualified than he to speak for the American people both in Canada and in the United States. The Editors [xi] PREFACE MORE than once I have been asked why I, an Englishman, long resident in the state of Connecticut, take so much pleasure in writing on Canada. The answer to this question is easy to make. From 1896 to 1914, my work, as a special correspondent of London, Leeds, and Glasgow newspapers, took me as much afield in the Dominion of Canada as in the United States, as frequently to Ottawa as to Washington. Canada has also a peculiar interest for me arising out of long devotion to a particular line of study. From days of boyhood, when I was serving my apprenticeship to newspaper work in England, the study of the history and working of British political institutions, local, central, and imperial, has been one of the joys of my life. In Canada, British political institutions have been in working since 1758 — working under New World conditions. As transplanted in the eigh- teenth century they were as nearly as possible replicas of English political institutions — as much so as the institutions, parliamentary, administra- tive, and judicial, that were established by Eng- land in Ireland at the end of the fifteenth century. In the first half of the nineteenth century there were far-reaching reforms in Great Britain. The system of parliamentary representation was [ xiii ] PREFACE modernized and made much more democratic than it had been for three centuries before 1832; and within the decade in which this long overdue reform was effected, the attitude of Great Britain towards her oversea possessions also underwent a great and beneficent change. Responsible government was conceded to the colonies in which representative government had already been established; and with the concession of responsible government the political institu- tions of Canada went through much the same process as the political institutions of the United Kingdom, local and central, had done in the eighty-two years from 1832 to the beginning of the war. In no province in Canada is the political civi- lization much more than a century and a half old. But I have found the study of it as fascinating as that of the much older political civilizations of England, Scotland, and Ireland. It has presented much the same four aspects: (i) how the older political institutions came to be; (2) how they worked; (3) the forces that impelled their reform and liberalization; (4) how the newer and more democratic political institutions have worked. More ground has been covered in the following pages than is usual in books concerned with " government and politics. More ground had to be covered if the government and contemporary politics of the Dominion of Canada were to be visualized and comprehended. For conditions [xiv] PREFACE in Canada are peculiar, and peculiar in at least four respects. These are (i) the conditions under which the political development of Canada has proceeded since 1763; (2) the relations of Canada with Great Britain and the empire; (3) the enormous influence which Canada, and in particular the united provinces of Upper and Lower Canada — 1840-1867 — have had on the colonial policy of Great Britain since 1840; and (4) the position of Canada arising from the former political connec- tion of three of the old British North American provinces with the thirteen colonies that broke away in 1 776-1 783 from Great Britain and established themselves as the United States; the proximity of Canada to the United States; and the influence that the United States has had on the political and economic development of Canada, and on its relations, political and eco- nomic, with Great Britain and the vast empire of which Great Britain is the center. It is to make Canada understandable, and also to make clear its relations with Great Britain, and also the potency of American influence upon it, that so much attention has been devoted in these pages to the evolution of the Dominion, and to the National Policy, which, largely owing to American example and influence, had its origin as far back as 1858. Dominion politics from 1867 to the war cannot be understood without an adequate comprehen- [xv] PREFACE sion of the conditions, political, racial, religious, economic, and social, within Canada, and also of some important conditions of external origin that brought about Confederation, and the gradual development of the Dominion to its present-day status of nation. There is also needed some comprehension of the history of the National Policy, and its various developments, and its influence on Canadian politics and on the day-by-day life of the people of the Dominion, as well as on the relations of the Dominion with Great Britain and the other dominions, and with the United States. To some degree this preface is characterized by a personal note. I will end it in the same key by adding that my interest 'in the history and working of British political institutions has been stimulated by the privileges I have enjoyed since 1894 at the Connecticut State Library, where the collection of material for the study of Canadian history and politics is remarkably large and complete. In this respect the State Library here is excelled, so far as I can recall, by only three libraries in England, and all these three libraries are in London. Edward Porritt Hartford, Connecticut, U. S. A. May 24, 1918. [xvi] CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. The British Oversea Dominions i II. The Dominion of Canada — Area, Physical Features, and Distribution of Population 13 III. The Geographic and Economic Divisions of the Dominion 21 IV. The Evolution of the Dominion of Canada, 1783-1840 59 V. From the Rebellion to Confeder.\tion, 1837-1867 89 VI. The Influences and Forces that Brought about Confederation 180 VII. The Quebec Convention and the British North America Act 197 VIII. The Dominion a Federal Union 211 IX. The Distribution of Powers between the Dominion and Provincial Governments . 223 X. The Governor-General and Cabinet . . . 247 XI. Parliament: The Senate 267 XII. The House of Commons 305 XIII. The Cabinet: The .King's Privy Council for Canada 351 XrV. Parliament at Work: The House of Com- mons 378 XV. The National Policy of the Dominion . . 430 XVI. The National Policy and the Develop- ment of Canada 469 XVII. PROVINCLA.L Legislatures and Governments 483 Sources and Authorities 507 Index 513 [ xvii 3 FULL-PAGE MAPS PAGE The Dominion of Canada Frontispiece Economic Map of the Dominion of Canada 39 The Two Canadas and the Maritime Provinces .... 69 The Dominion of Canada in 1867 275 The Prairie Provinces 473 The Great Lakes and the Drainage East to Montreal . 475 [xix] Evolution of the Dominion of Canada: Its Government and Its Politics CHAPTER I THE BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS T HE oversea possessions of Great Britain, Extent of ' other than the Indian Empire — pos- *^® 1 • 1 • 1 I c 1 British sessions which in the year before the Empire great war of 1914-1918 were of the aggregate area of nearly nine and a half million square miles — have been grouped at the colonial ofl&ce in London, since 1907, in two divisions. The grouping is by political status. It is determined by the relations of parliament at Westminster and the colonial ofl&ce to each of the forty-eight oversea possessions. In one group are the dominions, which call for pouticai little or no attention from parliament, and, as ^°"p^« regards their internal concerns, throw no burdens oversea on the colonial ofl&ce. In the other group are p°^^®^- the crown colonies and protectorates. These receive some attention from parliament, in particular when the annual vote for the colonial ofl&ce is before the house of commons and the house of lords, — a vote on which any aspect of [i] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Area and popu- lation of crown colonies Domin- ions Respon- sible govern- ment crown colony government can be discussed, — and the internal and external concerns of these colonies are constantly under the supervision of the colonial office. The dependencies under the supervision of the colonial office cover on the roughest of estimates an area of two million square miles. They have a population of over forty millions, among whom — including immigrants as well as children of the soil — are to be found, in the words of the Book of Daniel, "all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth." ^ The dominions are (i) the Dominion of Canada; (2) the Commonwealth of Australia; (3) the Dominion of New Zealand; (4) the Union of South Africa; and (5) the Dominion of Newfoundland. In all these British oversea possessions there are parliaments or legislatures elected on democratic franchises, and responsible governments. The term "responsible government" is a comparatively new one in British colonial history. It was not of British political terminology — certainly not accepted in England as applicable to colonial governments — until Great Britain in the period between 1837 and 1850 at last began to learn the lesson of the American revolution, and to concede large powers of self-government to the British North American provinces; next ^ Cf. C. P. Lucas, "The Crown Colonies and Protectorates," Manchester Guardian, March 20, 1917. [2] BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS to Australia, New Zealand, and Cape Colony; and finally in 1893 to Natal, The term "responsible government," as now used in British political science, means that in each dominion there is a parliament and an executive, called the ministry, which, like the ministry in Downing Street for the last two centuries, is dependent for its tenure on the continuous support of a majority in the house of commons. In the oversea dominions, as in the United Kingdom, the executive is often described as the cabinet. The correct term is the ministry; for it frequently happens, especially at West- minster, that there are men in the ministry who are not of the inner committee of the privy council which is termed the cabinet. The aggregate area of the five dominions in 1914 was in round figures seven and a half million square miles. The aggregate white population was nearly fifteen millions, as compared with forty-six millions in the United Kingdom. West- ern AustraUa, a state in the Commonwealth of AustraUa, and Natal, a province in the Union of South Africa, were the last colonies, now of the dominions, to receive responsible government. Western Australia was a crown colony until 1890. Natal was in the same class until 1893. With these exceptions, electors in all the domin- ions, for at least half a century before the world upheaval of 1914, had been as free to govern themselves in all internal or domestic concerns, [3] Meaning of respon- sible govern- ment Area and popu- lation of the do- minions Political freedom in the domin- ions EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Protec- tive tariffs Protec- tion against imports from the United Kingdom Domin- ions and imperial ezpendi- tores and in more recent years also in regard to some external matters, such as tariff preferences and trade conventions, as the parliamentary electors of the United Kingdom. There were no preferences for the oversea dominions in the tariffs of the United Kingdom after 1846. From 1859, when the united prov- inces of Quebec and Ontario established a protective tariff, each colony or province that is now of the dominions was free to frame its own tariff without regard to the industrial or com- mercial interests of the United Kingdom. With the exception of Newfoundland, all the dominions in the period between 1859 ^^'^ 19^4 had availed themselves of this liberty to impose protective duties on imports from the United Kingdom and from other parts of the British Empire. It was not until 1897, when the Domin- ion of Canada made the innovation, that there were any preferences in the tariffs of the domin- ions for imports from England, Scotland, and Ireland. Except for contributions towards the British navy from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland, none of which was made earlier than 1887, and some contribution for several years from the Union of South Africa towards the expense of maintaining British troops in that dominion, no dominion makes, or ever has made, any contribution to the imperial exchequer. [4] BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS In the year before the war, the British national debt was seven hundred and sixteen milHons sterHng. A very large part of the national debt that accumulated in the eighteenth century was incurred in defending and extending British colonial possessions in North America. Some of the debt of the nineteenth and twentieth cen- turies was also incurred in wars which arose directly out of Great Britain's oversea possessions. But no dominion has ever paid a contribution to the interest or sinking fund of the national debt. These have always been a charge on the tax- payers of the United Kingdom; and the main- tenance of the crown, of the colonial office and its staff, and of the foreign office and the diplomatic and consular services, have also been charges to which no contributions have ever been made by the dominions. Parliament at Westminster never interferes in the domestic concerns of the dominions except at the instance of a dominion parliament, when, for example, an amendment to the constitution of a dominion is desired. The imperial parlia- ment has far less to do with the internal concerns of the dominions — with those of Canada, for instance — than congress at Washington has to do with the internal concerns of the several states. The presence of the governor-general at Ottawa, and the lieutenant-governors at the provincial capitals — Charlottetown, Fredericton, Halifax, Quebec, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, [5] No con- tributions to the British national debt No inter- ference from parlia- ment at West- minster Gov- ernor- general EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA and Victoria — all representatives of the king, are about the only manifestations in Canada of the close connection between the Dominion and Great Britain. The governor-general is sent out from Lon- don. His salary and establishment charges are paid by the Dominion. Lieutenant-governors are appointed at Ottawa. But while the governor- general is appointed by the king, on the recom- mendation of the British cabinet, always with the approval of the executive of the Dominion, no other civil servants are appointed by the British government; and there is no interference from the colonial office with the internal affairs of any of the dominions. Crown colonies stand in quite another relation to parliament and the colonial office. Many of them have elected, or partly elected and partly nominated, legislatures, with fiscal and police powers and comprehensive law-making powers. They have not responsible government as it exists in the dominions. Their executives cannot be dislodged by an adverse vote in the legislature. At the colonial office crown colonies are constitutionally grouped into five classes: (i) Colonies possessing an elected house of assembly and a nominated council, e.g. the Bahamas, the Barbados, and Bermuda; (2) col- onies possessing a partly elected legislative council, the constitution of which, as in British Guiana and the island of Cyprus, does not provide [6] BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS for an official majority; (3) colonies possessing a partly elected legislative council, the constitution of which provides for an official majority, e.g. Fiji, Leeward Islands, Jamaica, and Malta; (4) colonies and protectorates in which there are legislative councils appointed by the crown, e.g. British Honduras, Ceylon, East Africa Pro- tectorate, Falkland Islands, St. Lucia, St. Vin- cent, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Southern Nigeria, Straits Settlement, and Trinidad; and (5) colonies and protectorates in which there are no legislative councils or representative institutions, e.g. Ashanti, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Northern Nigeria, the northern territories of the Gold Coast, St. Helena, Uganda, Weihaiwei, and the islands under the protectorate of the Western Pacific High Commission. Great Britain, at an early stage in the new Attitude colonial era — the era that may be dated from °^ ^""^^^ J • 1 1 111 Britain 1840 — determmed that the development of towards these crown colonies, most of them tropical *^°^™ , . , , colonies possessions in which there can never be a pre- ponderant white population, was a necessity to the British Empire. It was then realized that such a development could come only through a partner- ship between the white and the colored races. Different methods have been adopted in work- ing towards the development of these colonies.^ ^ "Beyond anything, such success as has attended our people in dealing with colored races has been the result of practical good sense, which has not attempted to drill alien [7] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA These methods represent a variety of means to a single end. They represent stages of constitu- tional and social development adapted to differing stages of civilization. The general policy is to adapt to every administrative unit of the empire the principles that have long been applied in working out the political, social, and economic welfare of the British nation, and to establish in each of the crown colonies the order, stability, freedom, and justice that are characteristics of British political civilization.^ Grants in aid are sometimes made to crown colonies by the British parliament. Higher civil office with servants, as well as governors, are sent out from London; and the supervision by the colonial peoples on one uniform pattern or to stamp out diversity, but. has utilized the men and the things native to the soil and familiar to the peoples — the sultan, the headman, the village community; respecting customs and creeds, letting the peoples live their own lives in their own way, provided that they abide by the general rules which distinguish humanity from bar- barism; gradually leavening them with the British spirit of freedom rather than inculcating a sense of British domination. By eschewing uniformity, by adapting methods to diverse peoples of diverse lands in preference to recasting the peoples in a strange mold, by ensuring life and property and even- handed justice, by letting conditions grow instead of forcing them, the English control many millions in smgular content- ment and goodwill." — C. P. Lucas, "The Crown Colonies and Protectorates," Manchester Guardian, March 30, 1917. Cf. Josiah Royce, "Race Questions, Provincialism, -and other American Problems," 22-25. ^ Cf. Sir Charles Bruce, "The Broad Stone of Empire: Problems of Crown Colony Administration," I, 34-35. [8] BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS office of these oversea possessions — most of them colonies in which the white population is largely outnumbered by natives — is usually close and continuous. The establishment of representative and re- sponsible government in the dominions — the creation of these autonomous states of the British Empire — was a gradual process. It went on most quickly and most obviously from 1840, when the provinces of Quebec and Ontario were united, until 1893. It did not stop in 1.893 when responsible government was granted to Natal. Other concessions, all tending to autonomy and sovereignty, were made after the last of the dominions became self-governing. The process, going on almost continuously since 1840, has been one in which the United States, quite unconsciously to most Americans, has had a large and easily traceable influence. This influence has been due to the political development of the United States since 1783, and also to the fact that the old British North American provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, in their formative period, were neighbors of the United States, which greatly influenced their social, political, and economic life, as since 1867 the United States has influenced the life of the Dominion of Canada. There have been four eras in British colonial policy and history since 1776-1783. The first [9] Develop- ment of respon- sible govern- ment Lifiuenca of United States on Britlsli colonial policy E\"OLLTION OF THE DOMINION OF C\NADA extended from 17S3 to the Papineau and Macken- zie rebellions in Lower and Upper Canada in 1837. The second lasted from 1837 to the confederation of the British North American provinces, which was accomplished between 1S65 and 1873; and the third was from 1873 to the great war. from which began a fourth era in the colonial history of the British Empire. The process of estabhshing representative and responsible government in the dominions — so far at anj' rate as it depended on parliament at Westminster and the colonial ofl&ce — did not begin until the union of the p^o^"inces of Quebec and Ontario, an experiment which was a direct result of the Papineau and ^lackenzie rebeUions. It was only as recently as 1907 that Great Britain, in continuation of the process, finally and fully conceded to the dominions the much valued right to appoint their own plenipotentiaries to make their commercial treaties with foreign powers. In this gradual development of self-govern- ment, statesmen of what are now the dominions had the largest part. With them, and in par- ticular with the statesmen of British North America, originated the successive demands between 1820 and 1907 for more autonomy and for less control by parUament at Westminster and by the colonial office, Papineau and Mackenzie, in the years from 1820 to the union of the provinces, risked their [lo] BRITISH OVERSEA DOMINIONS lives in pressing on the British government the first of these demands. Gait, the most famous Men who of the ministers of finance of the United Provinces, '^^^ pressed to success in 1859 the demand for the de^r^ds right of the provinces to make their own tariffs without regard to the industrial interests of Great Britain. John A. Macdonald, Alexander Gait, Charles Tupper, George Brown, George Etienne Carrier, Edward Blake, Wilfrid Laurier, Richard Cart- wright, and William S. Fielding pressed other demands from the negotiations which preceded confederation in 1867 until the right of the dominions to make their own immigration laws and their own commercial treaties was conceded in 1904 and 1907. Quite sixty years had elapsed, and there had British been the rebellions in Canada, before statesmen ^^*^^" at Westminster really began to learn the lesson UsMeam of the American revolution. Then they gradually ^^ '^^' conceded the demands that were made from the i776-i783 colonies that are now of the dominions. They themselves suggested little. They originated few of the developments that have contributed to the autonomy of the dominions. But after 1837 they became more receptive to demands from colonial statesmen; and except for Gait's demand of 1859, for the right of the provinces to make their own tariffs, and some delay in fully conceding the demand of the dominions to make their own commercial treaties, there was no [II] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA New policy strength- ens the links of empire grudging in conceding these demands after the lesson of the American revolution had once been learned. After it was realized that as concessions towards autonomy were granted the links binding the dominions to Great Britain became stronger instead of weaker, there were no compromises with the demands. As the result of the colonial statesmanship that pressed these demands, and the statesmanship at Westminster that conceded them, responsible government for all the colonies that are now of the dominions had been established for at least two decades before 1914; and its establishment, and the success which has attended it in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland, is the greatest political achievement of people under British rule in the 140 years between the American revolution ■ and the war between Great Britain and her allies and the Teutonic powers. [12] CHAPTER II THE DOMINION OF CANADA — AREA, PHYSICAL FEATURES, AND DIS- TRIBUTION OF POPULATION I N area and population Canada is the largest Areaof of the dominions. Politically and economi- i^® • . Dominion cally it is, with the possible exception of India, of Canada the most interesting of the British oversea pos- sessions. It embraces the northern half of the North American continent, with its adjacent islands in the Arctic Ocean, but exclusive of ■ Alaska in the extreme northwest, the island of Newfoundland, and the small islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which are colonies of the French republic. The total area of the Dominion is 3,729,665 square miles. Of this, 309,000 square miles are comprised in the arctic islands. Newfoundland, the oldest of the British oversea Canada possessions in the New World, has an area of ^^ _ 42,000 square miles; and the aggregate area of foundiand these two'^ dominions — Canada and Newfound- land — is 3,771,665 square miles. This is a little ' more than the area of the United States; larger by 640,333 square miles than the combined area of the commonwealth of Australia and the dominion of New Zealand, and not much smaller than the aggregate area of all the countries of Europe. [13] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Coast- lines of the Dominion Hudson Bay The Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States are much straighter than those of the Dominion. The Canadian coastline on both oceans is much indented with gulfs and bays — particularly the Atlantic coast. These gulfs and bays are good feeding and breeding grounds for fish. They also aflFord many harbors and havens for fishermen, thus giving Canada the most extensive sea-fisheries in the world. Hudson Bay — a sea 800 miles from north to south, and 600 miles in width — is wholly within the Dominion. For two centuries Hudson Bay had great influence on exploration and trade in Canada. With the enormous development of grain growing in what are now the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, between 1898 and 1916, and with the construction *by the Dominion government in the years from 1910 to 1 91 6 of a harbor, with wharfs and elevators for the grain trade, at Port Nelson, and a railway 410 miles long from Le Pas, Manitoba, to this new port, Hudson Bay is again of importance in the trade and transport economy of the large area of Canada that lies between the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains. Canada has a common use with the United States of all the Great Lakes — Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior; and also a common use of the St. Lawrence from its source in Lake Ontario to the Atlantic Ocean. Since 1854, when by treaty the United States conceded [14] rence River AREA, PHYSICAL FEATURES, POPULATION the privilege of free navigation of Lake Michigan to Canada, and Great Britain conceded to the United States the navigation of the St. Lawrence, both countries have had joint use of the series of magnificent canals — Canadian and American — that make navigation possible from Lake Superior to tidewater below Montreal. The St. Lawrence occupies an even larger st. Law- place than Hudson Bay in the history of Canada, particularly as regards exploration and trade, and incidentally as regards diplomatic relations with the United States. In the sixteenth century it opened a route for exploration, colonization, and trade. It led Cartier, the explorer, in 1535 to the sites now occupied by the cities of Quebec and Montreal. In the eighteenth century, after the creation its in- of the province of Ontario by the Quebec act of ^"^^^^ 1 79 1, and in the nineteenth century, it was the deveiop- St. Lawrence, with its importance in inland q^^°* navigation, that brought into existence the Ontario cities of Prescott, Kingston, Hamilton, and Toronto; and with the opening of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Montreal to Vancouver, in 1886, there came into existence, as the most western cities on the lakes and St. Lawrence route. Port Arthur and Fort William, also in Ontario, the largest grain ports in the British Empire. It is within the power of the Dominion parlia- ment to organize territories into provinces. Three [15] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Creation of new prov- inces PoUttcal divisions of the Dominion Yukon Territory Order In which provinces entered Confed- eration provinces have been so created since Confedera- tion. They were carved out of the vast territory- lying between Lake Superior and the Rocky Mountains, over which the Hudson Bay Com- pany ruled from the reign of Charles II until 1869, when its rights were acquired by purchase by the Dominion government. Manitoba was created a province in 1870, Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905. Since 1905 the Dominion has been politically divided into nine provinces and two territories. The territories are Yukon and the northwest territories. Yukon is bounded on the west by Alaska, on the south by British Columbia, on the north by the Arctic Ocean, and on the east by the northwest territories, which extend to the western shore of Hudson Bay. Both terri- tories lie north of the sixtieth parallel — the northern boundary of all provinces west of Ontario. There were in 1916 fewer than 30,000 people in these territories. Only in the Yukon is there any industry — that of gold mining, of which Dawson, the political capital, is the center. The Yukon is the only territory that elects a representative to the house of commons at Ottawa. The provinces in the order in which they came into Confederation are: Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, 1867; Manitoba, 1870; British Columbia, 1871; Prince Edward Island, 1873; and Saskatchewan and Alberta, [16] AREA, PHYSICAL FEATURES, POPULATION 1905. Quebec is the capital of the old French province; Toronto of Ontario; Halifax of Nova Scotia; Fredericton of New Brunswick; Winnipeg of Manitoba; Victoria, on Vancouver Island, of British Columbia Charlottetown of Prince Edward Island; Regina of Saskatchewan; and Edmonton of Alberta. These are the political divisions which are under provincial or territorial government for domestic concerns; each, with the exception of the northwest territories, with its quota of senators and commoners in the Dominion parlia- ment — a quota that as regards the house of commons is determined by act of parliament after each decennial census. The area of each of the nine provinces and of the Yukon and northwest territories, the popula- tion of each at the census of 191 1, and the number of senators and members of the house of com- mons allotted to each province and to the Yukon by the redistribution act of the Dominion parlia- ment of 1914 and as regards the senate by the amendment to the British North America act of 191 5 ^ are stated in the accompanying table.^ As the Dominion embraces almost half the North American continent, it has a diversified climate. On the Pacific coast, with the ocean on one side and lofty mountain ranges on the other, the climate is moist and temperate. East of the ^ British Statutes 5 and 6, George V, c. 45. ^ Canada Year Book, 1914, 41, 43. C17] Repre- sentation in parlia- ment at Ottawa Popu- lation and repre- sentation Climate of Canada beyond the Great Lakes EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Province Area sq. m. Population, 1911 Representation Sen. H.C. Quebec 705.834 407,262 21,418 27,985 251,832 355,855 2,184 251,700 255.285 207,076 242,224 2,003,232 2,523,274 492,338 351,889 455.614 392,480 93,728 492,432 374,663 8,512 18,481 24 24 10 10 6 6 4 6 6 65 82 Ontario Nova Scotia 16 New Brunswick Manitoba II 15 13 3 16 12 British Columbia Prince Edward Island . Saskatchewan Alberta Yukon Territory Northwest Territories . I Totals 3,729,665 7,206,643 96 234 Climate from Great Lakes to Atlantic Ocean Spring and summer In the maritime provinces Rocky Mountains, on the high level plateaus of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the north- west territories, the climate is characterized by extremes of temperature, but is bright, dry, bracing, and healthy. East of Manitoba the extremes of heat and cold are modified by the Great Lakes. In the valleys of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence a cold but bright and exhilarating winter is followed by a long and warm summer. The Maritime Provinces, lying between the same parallels of latitude as France, and with shores washed by the Atlantic, are equally favored in climate. The opening of spring in the Maritime Prov- inces is usually a little later than in Ontario or in the prairie provinces, and a little earlier than in the lower St. Lawrence valley. On the other hand summer lingers longer, especially in the Annapolis valley. Summer in the Maritime Provinces is not as a rule quite so warm as in L18] AREA, PHYSICAL FEATURES, POPULATION western Canada. Great heat Is seldom ex- perienced, except very occasionally at inland places in New Brunswick. From Alberta to the Maritime Provinces there snowand is in the winter much snow. It lies deep over "® this area from November or December until tages March. But the value of this covering of snow cannot be overestimated. It protects the roots of trees and herbage during the severe weather, and east of the Great Lakes it also greatly facili- tates the lumber industry. The Great Lakes never freeze over, but ice ice- closes the harbors from the middle of December *^'°®®*^ until the beginning of April. The average date of the closing of navigation on the St. Lawrence at Montreal is December i6, and of its opening April 21. Harbors in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are likewise closed by ice during the winter months. On the Bay of Fundy and the coast of Nova Winter Scotia, harbors are open all the year round. ^^^ °* fifl.stfim Halifax and St. John, by this freedom from ice, Canada obtain their importance as the Atlantic winter ports of the Dominion. In particular they owe to this great advantage over the St. Lawrence ports their constantly increasing importance on the national grain route — lake, canal, and rail — which stretches from Port Arthur and Fort WiUiam on Lake Superior to the Atlantic sea- board. The coal fields and coal deposits of the Domin- ion are the most extensive and best known of its [19] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Coal areas and the distri- bution of iwpu- lation mineral resources. The known area underlain by workable coal beds is nearly 30,000 square miles. Notwithstanding the vastness of these deposits, the total quantity of coal annually mined in Canada is less than half of the country's con- sumption. The coal fields are found principally in the coast provinces — Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and British Columbia — and in Alberta. The central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, — in which in 1916 four sevenths of the total population was concentrated, — are without coal. They are nearer to Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana than to any of the coal-producing provinces; and consequently they find it more economical to draw their supplies of coal — bituminous as well as anthracite — from these American coal fields. American coal in large quantities is also imported by the prairie prov- inces. Anthracite, and some special bituminous coals from Pennsylvania, are used as far west of Lake Superior as Winnipeg and Brandon. [20] CHAPTER III I THE GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS OF THE DOMINION T has been customary since Confederation to Four group the provinces geographically and eco- ^^° j^^ nomically. There have been, since the prairie and provinces were organized, four of these geographic ^^^j^g and economic divisions. All of them are well marked, and generally accepted in poHtical and economic understanding. L The Maritime Provinces In one group, the oldest and a group that is Provinces tenacious of its British traditions and its local ^°^ political history, are the Maritime Provinces — sea" Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. These three provinces are often collo- quially described in parliament and in the press as the provinces "down by the sea." Before Confederation these provinces had many common interests, so many in fact that in 1864 there was a movement for a legislative before union. This movement culminated in an inter- ^°g^^^ provincial conference at Charlottetown, which had the effect of greatly facilitating Confederation. Before Confederation the Maritime Provinces [21] Mari- time provinces EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Old free- trade provinces Common interests of the provinces down by the sea" Char- acter- istics of people of Quebec and Ontario had tariffs exclusively for revenue. They had not followed the example of the united provinces of Ontario and Quebec in adopting protective tariffs in 1859, chiefly because they drew their manufactured goods from England, and there were no factories in the Maritime Provinces to be aided by protection. For thirty years after Confederation the people of these provinces were opposed to the protectionist policy of the Ottawa government, and also to the large expenditures on the canals of Quebec and Ontario, from which they then derived no direct advantage. In later years their common interests have been shipping and fishing, lumber and coal industries, agriculture, and the general economic interests of a long-settled and sparsely distributed maritime population, much less affected by the cosmopolitan immigration of the years from 1898 to 1914 than any other division of the Dominion. II. Central Canada Quebec and Ontario form the second of the geographic and economic groups. These prov- inces constitute what is known as central Canada. In general each is inhabited by people of a different race, language, and religion and of differing philosophies of life. Quebec is peopled by French-Canadians, who are Roman Catholics, and unambitious and content with the domestic joys afforded by their homes, their occupations, their religion, and their province. [22] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS Ontario is inhabited by people of English or Scotch origin, speaking English, of the Protestant religion, energetic and ambitious, and nearer in temperament and character to Americans of New England or of the middle west than to their eastern neighbors in Quebec, or the present generation of people in England or Scotland. There is more or less antagonism between these two peoples — an antagonism which can be traced back almost to the American revolution. Despite these differences in race, language, religion, and outlook on life, and despite the antagonism which not infrequently manifests itself at Ottawa, and at the provin,cial capitals of Toronto and Quebec, no other provinces in the Dominion have achieved so much in common politically, or have so much in common economically, as Ontario and Quebec. It was these provinces that made most of the constitutional history of Canada from the Quebec act of 1 79 1 to Confederation in 1867. In this respect no other provinces in any of the dominions have more beneficently affected the colonial policy of Great Britain. The modern era of colonial policy, the fruits of which were the loyal, unstinting, and whole-hearted support of Great Britain in the war with Germany, had its beginnings between 1837 and 1845 in what are today the central provinces of the Dominion. Ottawa, the Dominion capital since Confedera- tion, is situated just within the eastern boundary [23] Economic interests in common Ontario and Quebec and the new era in British colonial policy Ottawa EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA A pro- vincial capital becomes the capital of the Dominion Ottawa : its remote- ness from the coast cities Newer cities of the Dominion of Ontario, with only the stately and quick- flowing Ottawa River dividing it from Hull, the most western city of Quebec. The original plan was that Ottawa should be the capital of the united provinces of Ontario and Quebec. This was the design when it was selected by Queen Victoria in 1859. But Con- federation of all the British provinces on the mainland of North America, long desirable and long inevitable, was coming into being as the beautiful parliament building at Ottawa was rising on its foundations on the bluffs above the widening out of the Ottawa River, and within a year from the completion of the parliament building the senate and house of commons of the Dominion of Canada were in possession. "^ From Halifax to Ottawa the distance by rail is 940 miles; from Charlottetown it is 914 miles; and from St. John it is 597 miles. From Victoria to Ottawa, by the Canadian Pacific Railway, the distance is 2867 miles; from Vancouver 2783 miles; from Edmonton, 2145 miles; from Regina, 1656 miles; and from Winnipeg, 1299 miles. Halifax, Charlottetown, and St. John, and Quebec, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, and Hamil- ton, were cities of commercial importance in the days of the old British North American provinces. Only two cities west of the Great Lakes, Winnipeg and Victoria, were in existence at Confederation. Vancouver was a creation of the Canadian 1 Cf. J. D. Edgar, "Canada and Its Capital," 51-52. [24] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS Pacific Railway after 1886. Regina and Edmon- ton were only Hudson Bay Company posts until the Canadian Pacific Railway — the first of the transcontinental railways — was pushed across the prairies and over the mountains of British Columbia. Ottawa is not conveniently situated as the Amonu- capital of the Dominion. As population increases ^g*"^"* it may not remain as the capital. But for Briash fifty years Ottawa has served not only as the *^°^,°^^ capital of the Dominion, but also as the most outstanding monument in the empire of the new colonial policy of Great Britain, which began with the union of Ontario and Quebec. Ottawa was the creation of these provinces, and the Dominion succeeded to it at Confederation. Its early history, its transformation from the little lumber camp and distributing center of Bytown into the most important political capital in the overseas dominions, belongs jointly to Ontario and Quebec. A share in molding the newer colonial policy Manu- of Great Britain is not all that the provinces of j^^*"*^ Quebec and Ontario have in common. There of are present-day material advantages of enormous ^^^^ value, peculiar to central Canada, which these Quebec two provinces possess in common. Manufacturing in the two decades that pre- ceded the great war had been developed in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Nova Scotia is the largest iron and steel producing province; and [25] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA like New Brunswick it has several cities in which the cotton and woolen industries are established. Some large indigenous industries are established at Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Calgary, and other cities of the prairie provinces. But Ontario and Quebec, Ontario in particular, are the manu- facturing provinces of Canada. The manufac- tures of these provinces are shipped east and west — to the Maritime Provinces, and to all the provinces west of the Great Lakes. A pre- The predominance of the central provinces in domi- ^Yie manufacturing economy of the Dominion, that is which must necessarily be theirs for generations abiding ^^ come, is easily explained. Quebec and Ontario were the British North American provinces of largest population from 1840 to Confederation, and from Confederation to the war. All through the nineteenth century Ontario attracted more immigration from England and Scotland than any of the other provinces. It first attracted immi- grants to its vacant lands; and as these were gradually cleared and occupied and cities de- veloped, it attracted immigrants to its farms and to its cities. Quebec Immigration from the United Kingdom went ^^^^ only to the cities of the French province — to stream . ,_, , of jmmi- Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal. The rural gration economy of the province — its habitants speak- ing only the French language, and socially and industrially sufficient unto themselves, and also the religious and at times political supremacy [26: GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS of the Roman Catholic Church — repelled rather than attracted newcomers from England and Scotland. Those who did not establish them- selves in Montreal or Quebec pushed farther west to Ontario, where social conditions were more akin to those they had left behind. Until Manitoba was opened for settlement by When the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway ^^^ across the province in 1884, and in fact until Ontario after the great immigration propaganda of the Dominion was begun in 1898, when an Eng- lishman or Scotchman told his neighbors in the old country that he was emigrating to Canada it usually meant that he was going to Ontario. There was some immigration into the Maritime A Provinces in the nineteenth century. Between ^^"^^ 1812 and 1828, 25,000 Highlanders from Scotland some settled in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia; and Gaelic °^^i^- is still the language of thousands of men and char- women in Nova Scotia. But the main stream of fl*®*^" - Istlcs or immigration until the end of the nineteenth cen- England tury, both from England and Scotland, was to the St. Lawrence ports of Quebec and Montreal, and thence into wide and beautiful Ontario, a province that in some parts is more like the midland and western counties of England than any other part of Canada. The needs of a large and growing population Begin- gave the first impetus to manufacturing in ^°! Ontario and also in Montreal, which, as regards facturing trade and commerce, is nearly as closely inter- Ontario [27] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Raw materials from the United States Influence of the protec- tionist tariffs of the United States Coal and ore from the United States woven in the life of Ontario as it is in that of the old French province. This impetus came in the days of small undertakings in manufacturing, in the days when $10,000 was a large capital for a manufacturing enterprise. Some raw materials for manufacturing were to hand in Ontario. What was lacking could easily be procured from the United States, on which Canadian manufacturers, in the Maritime Prov- inces, as well as in Ontario and Quebec, have, from the first, drawn largely for raw materials, and also for partly finished materials to be carried further in the process of manufacturing. The United States has influenced manufac- turing in central Canada, and through central Canada in the Maritime Provinces, in three distinct ways. In the forties and fifties of the last century, American manufacturing develop- ment, and particularly the development of New England, served as an example to Canadians. The adoption by the United States in 1842 of a frankly protectionist policy impelled the united provinces of Ontario and Quebec to the adoption of a similar fiscal policy in 1 858-1 859; and since 1879 successive increases in the protectionist tariffs at Washington have been followed by increases in the tariffs at Ottawa. Finally it was possible for the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec to draw on the United States for coal and ore, for cotton and other raw materials, and for partly finished materials at [28] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS less cost in transport than from any other source of supply. The transport system of these two provinces — their railways and their lake and canal naviga- tion systems — are so similar to these systems in the states that border on the lakes, the St. Law- rence, and the boundary line, and they are so interwoven through the system of bonding traffic crossing and recrossing the border, that only the customs houses recall the fact that Ontario and Quebec are provinces of Canada, while Maine, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan are states of the American republic. There will be more development of manu- facturing in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This is inevitable in provinces endowed by nature with much water power, abundantly supplied with lumber and coal, and to which ore is contiguous, as it is at Belle Island, Newfound- land, for the manufacture of iron and steel on a large scale. The war brought two modern steel shipbuilding plants into existence in Nova Scotia. There will be further development of manu- facturing in the prairie provinces. But the absence of many of the raw materials of manu- facture, and the long distances that materials must be carried, will always seriously handicap manufacturing in the part of Canada that lies beyond the Great Lakes. The hold that central Canada has secured on [29] Transport systems of Ontario and Quebec Con- ditions that favor the central provinces EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Ontario long a protec- tionist province Trade relations of the central provinces with Canada beyond the Great Lakes National grain route the manufacturing economy of the Dominion is, therefore, Hkely to be as permanent as the hold that Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the counties of the black country, secured in the manufactur- ing economy of England in the earlier years of the industrial era. The protective policy of Canada originated in Ontario. Before Confederation it was Ontario that maintained the protective system of the United Provinces. Since Confederation, and especially since 1897, protection has been sup- ported by the mining and manufacturing com- munities of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. But its stronghold today, as for sixty years before the war, is in Ontario; and this fact explains the sharp political division between central Canada and Canada beyond the Great Lakes. In comparison with Ontario and Quebec, the prairie provinces have few manufacturing in- dustries. There is no great staple industry except flour milling; and the people of these provinces, who are mostly grain growers, must, for the manufactures that they need, pay the higher prices which the thirty-five and forty-two and a half per cent duties of the Dominion tariff^ enable the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec to exact. Predominance in manufacturing, and the lion's share of the benefits of the protective tariff^, are not the only material advantages due to geo- [30] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS graphical, economic, and political conditions that Ontario and Quebec enjoy. British Columbia, and all the provinces east of the Great Lakes with the exception of Prince Edward Island, are largely dependent on the grain-growing provinces for their prosperity, and in particular for their industrial development. With the extension of grain growing in the prairie provinces there is a larger call for the lumber, coal, fish, and fruit of British Columbia; for the services of lake steamers that are on the Canadian register; for the services of the three railway companies that handle grain en route from the lower lake ports to tidewater; for the loanable capital that is concentrated in Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax; and also for the output of the factories of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. An abounding harvest in the prairie provinces The — a harvest in which the crop greatly exceeds ^ff^<=* <>' that of the preceding year — beneficently affects harvest the payroll of every factory from Fort William *° ^® to Sydney and Halifax, and also the turnover of growing nearly every wholesaler and retailer in these four f"^" f ■' _ _ inces provinces east of the Great Lakes. But in addi- on tion to enjoying by far the larger share of the p*y ""^ trade in factory-made goods of the prairie prov- the Great inces, both of the central provinces — Ontario ^^^^ and Quebec — derive much profit from the transport business of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta — from the carriage westward of machinery and other manufactured goods, and [31] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA The transport business of Ontario and Quebec the transport eastward to tidewater on the St. Lawrence and to the ports of the Maritime Prov- inces of grain and flour from the west. Three provinces west of the Great Lakes, and two of the five provinces east of the Lakes, all need the transport services of Quebec and Ontario. Grain bulks largest in the transport business of the central provinces; and it is for this reason that Ontario and Quebec, for thirty years before the war, were more interested than any of the other provinces east of the Lakes in the continued efforts to divert as much as possible of the western grain from Buffalo to Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, St. John, and Portland. All the wheat of the grain-growing provinces used in Canadian flour mills east of the Great Lakes, and all the wheat for export across the Atlantic, passes through some one of the thirty elevators at Port Arthur and Fort William. So far in the history of the western grain trade, since its beginning in 1884, in each navigation season more than half the wheat has been carried to the seaboard from these Ontario ports on Lake Superior by way of Buffalo.^ The payment for its handling and transport, after it had left the Canadian elevators at the head of the Great Lakes, accrued to owners of American lake steamers, American elevators, and American railways. ^ Cf. Annual Report of the Council of the Quebec Board of Trade, 1917, p. 63. [32] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS The rest of the wheat for export is shipped from Montreal, Quebec, Portland, St. John, and Halifax — most of it from Montreal. Wheat for Canadian shipment is carried direct from Port Arthur and Fort William over the lake and canal route, or it is carried to Canadian transfer ports on the lower lakes — Huron or Erie — and thence by Canadian railways or canals to Montreal. There is in normal times no reciprocity between the Dominion and the United States in lake navigation.^ Canadian vessels are not permitted by the United States navigation laws to carry cargoes from one American port to another; and vessels on the United States register are not per- mitted by the navigation code of the Dominion to carry cargoes from one Canadian port to another. Except for occasional cargoes from Ogdensburg, a port on the St. Lawrence in the ^ In the lake navigation season of 1917, for the first time in the history of Canada, there was reciprocity in lake naviga- tion. Canadians had desired this reciprocity since the old navigation code of Great Britain — the code that had its beginnings in the seventeenth century — was remodeled and made much less exclusive in 1847. Washington, however, declined all overtures for reciprocity in lake or coastwise navigation from 1847 until April, 1917, when the United States joined France and Great Britain and the other allies in the war against the Teutonic Powers. Reciprocity in lake shipping was then established as a war measure; and also as a war measure there was a suspension of the convention of 1818 under which the United States and Great Britain agreed that no war vessels should be built or maintained on the lakes. [33] Grain en route to the Atlantic seaboard of the Dominion No recipro- city in lake navi- gation EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Impor- tance to the cen- tral provinces of the grain- handling business The port equip- ment of Montreal Shipyards of the central provinces State of New York, all the grain from Port Arthur and Fort William that goes to Montreal, whether directly by lake and canal, or by way of Ontario transfer ports, goes in vessels that are on the Dominion or the British register. The transport business in this Lake Superior and Montreal grain trade is thus secured to Canadian vessels. Ontario ports on the lower lakes get the transfer and storage business. Those divisions of the Grand Trunk, the Canadian Pacific, and the Canadian Northern railways that are in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec get the railway haul. Montreal, with the largest and best grain- handling equipment of any tidewater port in the world, gets the tidewater terminal elevator business; and in normal times the transport of grain from Port Arthur and Fort William to Montreal — elevating, storing, and shipping it thence overseas — puts ten cents a bushel into the treasuries of the commission, transport, and elevator companies which handle the business.^ Most of this ten cents — a sum which does not include oversea freight charges — goes in pay- ment for labor, for services rendered to the shippers of grain. It represents mainly payments in wages to men who are employed on the lake vessels, on the railways, and in the elevators. It is this grain business also that finds work for ^ Cf. Cowie, "The Transportation Problem in Canada," 47. [34] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS the shipyards of Ontario and Quebec, for the two large and well-equipped yards on the St. Lawrence, and for the yards on the lakes at Kingston, Toronto, Collingwood, and Port Arthur. There has been an increase in the wheat crop share of the prairie provinces almost every year since "g^^j^ 1884. In the grain year 1915-1916, these prov- prov- inces had 264,000,000 bushels of wheat for ex- ^^^ port. Much less than half of this wheat went business oversea from Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, and St. ^tionai John. The greater part went by way of Buffalo, grain and was shipped across the Atlantic from Boston, "" ® New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Newport News. The constantly increasing production of wheat Canals in Canada beyond the Great Lakes, the value of °g^^ the transport business to Ontario and Quebec, prov- and the long-established and successful competi- ^^^^ tion of the Buffalo route, explain why, since 1871, it has been the continuous policy of the Dominion government to improve the Canadian canals on the national grain route.^ The aim of the govern- ment at Ottawa in constructing the lock and the canal at Sauk Ste. Marie, Ontario; in deepening and enlarging the canals; in providing a fourteen- foot waterway in the Welland and St. Lawrence canals; in creating a well-equipped transfer port at Colborne at the Lake Erie entrance to the Welland Canal; and in aiding harbor boards to ^ Cf. Canal Commission, Sessional Papers, No. 54, 1871, 17-35- C35] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA equip the tidewater ports with ample elevator accommodation and grain-handling facilities, was to reduce the time and the cost of lake and canal transport. For forty years before the great war, canal and port improvements, conceived on a generous scale, were the continuous policy of both Con- servative and Liberal governments at Ottawa. Its aim was to divert as much as possible of the export grain business of the prairie provinces from Buffalo, to the St. Lawrence canals and the Atlantic ports of the Dominion. In this policy, as in the policy of deepening the world-famous ship channel from Montreal to Quebec, the government at Ottawa, regardless of party com- plexion, always had the support of central Canada. Finally in this examination of the geographical and economic conditions of Ontario and Quebec — conditions which must be understood, if there is to be any understanding of contemporary poli- tics of the Dominion — there is the fact that Montreal and Toronto are the financial centers of Canada. These cities are to Canada what New York, Boston, and Chicago are to the United States. The head offices of the great banks — banks with scores of branches in every province — are in Montreal and Toronto. Those of the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific railways are in Montreal. The great coal companies of Nova Scotia and Alberta, the iron and steel manufacturing com- [36] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS panies of Nova Scotia and Ontario, and the tex- tile companies whose mills are established in the industrial cities of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and most of the companies engaged in interprovincial trade, have their headquarters in either Montreal or Toronto. There are also stock and grain exchanges in both cities. Men who are of bank and trust company Finance directorates, or concerned in the finance of rail- *°*|„ ' . politics ways and other transport companies, or are financiers of manufacturing undertakings, have much influence in Dominion politics. These men constitute the governing class of Canada, and their influence is much more potent at Ottawa than similar influence is at Westminster. It is greater and more obvious than at Washing- ton; ^ for the tariff and transport policies of the Dominion government more frequently originate in Toronto or Montreal than with the cabinet at Ottawa. The influence thus exercised by Montreal and Govem- Toronto, and at times by Halifax, the third *°^ financial center, is notorious and of long standing; Canada and when a rural newspaper with a circula- tion among farmers or grain growers alludes to Canadian barons, the editor has in mind not men who are of the lower tier of the British peerage, but the men who are dominant in the offices of the great corporations which have their head- ^ Cf. Clarus Ager, "The Farmer and the Interests," 68. [37] The EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA quarters in Montreal or Toronto.^ These two financial centers, and the social life incident to them, account almost as much as the long-estab- lished predominance of Ontario and Quebec in politics, in manufacturing, and in transport, as well as in journalism and literature, for the distinction held by central Canada in the political, economic, and social Ufe of the Dominion. III. The Prairie Provinces What is known by railway men as "the Bridge " Bridge separates the prairie provinces from the older, settled area of Ontario. The Bridge stretches from North Bay, Ontario, an important railway center on the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific systems, to Kenora, on the Lake of the Woods, also in Ontario, a lake of singular beauty that is part of the eastern boundary of Manitoba.^ The distance from North Bay to Kenora is 920 miles. The journey over the Bridge takes twenty-one hours on the Imperial Limited, the fastest train that travels over the Canadian Pacific from Montreal to Vancouver. 1 Cf. "Canada's Aristocracy," Grain Growers' Guide, Winnipeg, June 25, 1913; "Our Canadian Barons," Free Press, Forest, Ontario, April 27, 1916. "The east is the seat of the great financial and transport interests, which are shining marks for many a western brick." — " East and West," Quarterly Journal of the Canadian Bankers' Association, Montreal, June, 1917. 2 Cf. " East and West," ^arterly Journal of the Canadian Bankers' Association, Montreal, June, 1917. [38] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Physical charac- teristics of the Bridge Canada's wilder- aess In these 900 miles of wilderness, where the soil is so poor as to warn off the settler, there are only three cities. Fort William, Port Arthur, and Sudbury. These cities in 191 6 had an aggregate population of not more than 35,000. Besides these there are few settlements large enough to warrant being described as villages. The country is wild and picturesque. There are indentations of Lake Superior of bewitching charm, small lakes, rivers, rocks, and hills. In winter the temperature on parts of the Bridge — at White River and at Chapleau, for instance — is lower than in any other part of any province of the Dominion. In summer and autumn the climate is superb. It is as clear and exhilarating as anywhere on the North American continent; and there are parts of the Bridge that are famous all over the world for their fishing and hunting. For the most part, however, the Bridge is a wilderness with only the railway and passing railway trains to remind one of the civilization to the east and west of it. There can be no country anywhere in the British oversea domin- ions that is crossed by a railway, except the Karoo in Cape Colony, that yields less traffic — passenger or freight — than the Bridge, if Sud- bury, Port Arthur, and Fort William are left out .of the count. The Bridge was the great barrier to the opening out and development of the prairie country at [40] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS the time of Confederation. It had a value for Barrier the Hudson Bay Company, which before 1869 •'etw^^'* was intent only on exploiting the fur trade, and west unloading its imported wares — 'textiles, hard- ware, and tobacco — on the Indians; and conse- quently did not desire civilization or community life in its dooryard. It remained a barrier against immigration and commerce until 1884, when after fifteen years of effort, first by the Dominion government, and later by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, railway communication was established between Winnipeg and Port Arthur. The wilderness from North Bay to Kenora is its still a barrier. It is a barrier that to a considerable *°^"^°'=® on extent still isolates western Canada. It adds to economic the cost of living in the prairie provinces. Com- bined with a fiscal system that originated with and that favors Canada east of the Great Lakes, it makes the prairie provinces the most expensive part of the British Empire in which to dwell; for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta have no forests available for lumber, little manufac- turing, and good coal is mined only in the far northwest of Alberta. Canadian flour in normal times is cheaper in Cost of England than it is in the prairie provinces. Jj^^ Canadian bacon, for which Canadians pay from prawe twenty-two to twenty-eight cents a pound, was ^™^' sold in England before the war for from fifteen to twenty cents a pound. It is the same with fish, lumber, or any commodity that is the [41] condi- tions EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Railways across the Bridge Area of the grain- growing provinces Where grain elevators begin to break the sky line product of the natural industries of Canada; and none of the extra price which Canadians pay goes to the grain growers of the prairie provinces.^ The pohtical factors which largely account for these economic conditions in the prairie provinces are determined east of the Bridge, in Toronto and Montreal. Despite the fact that since 1914 the Bridge has been crossed by two railways in addition to the pioneer Canadian Pacific, — the National Trans- continental, that extends from Moncton, New Brunswick, to Winnipeg, where it joins the Grand Trunk Pacific line to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and the Canadian Northern, which connects all four western provinces with Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec, — it still ob- viously influences political, economic, and social conditions in the prairie provinces. These provinces, sharing in common all the physical characteristics that the word "prairie" suggests, extend from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains. From east to west they stretch over a distance of looo miles. North- ward they extend from the boundary of Dakota and Montana to the sixtieth parallel. On the east the grain-growing country begins at Whitemouth, on the Canadian Pacific Railway, 390 miles west of Port Arthur, and 50 miles east of Winnipeg. Stony Plain and Nordegg, in Alberta, were in 191 6 the most northwesterly 1 Harpell, "Canadian National Economy," 12. [42] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS towns in the grain-growing area. Nordegg is 1475 miles from Port Arthur and 2951 miles from St. John, the winter grain port of the Do- minion. At every railway station in the country from Whitemouth to Nordegg there are small elevators — "line" or "country" elevators as they are termed, to distinguish them from ter- minal and transfer elevators. In winter, when lake navigation is closed, grain a grain is carried from these interior elevators to Fort ^°^'^ 3000 William and Port Arthur. From these ports it miles is taken over the three transcontinental railways ^°^^ to Montreal, thence to Halifax, St. John, and Portland, Maine; so that at some seasons of the year grain from the prairie provinces is moving to tidewater over an all-Canadian route that is 3000 miles long. In the fifteen years that preceded the war. Home- out of the three million immigrants who arrived ^^^ ^'^ in Canada from the United Kingdom, from the grain United States, and from the countries of Europe, ^"^''^^s one and a quarter millions went into the prairie provinces; ^ and of the immigrants who went into these provinces to acquire homesteads from the Dominion government, or to buy land from the Hudson Bay Company or the railway com- panies, ninety out of every hundred had em- barked in grain growing. The outbreak of the war, coming as it did in a period of industrial and commercial depression ^ Cf. "Immigration Facts and Figures," Ottawa, 1915, 4. [43] crop country EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Thewar in Canada that had lasted over two years — a grain-* depression more widespread and serious than any growing other since the turn of the twentieth century — "^*^ gave a new impulse to grain growing in Mani- toba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. The result is easily measurable. The average area under grain in the prairie provinces from 1910 to 1914 was 16,608,000 acres. At the second harvest after the beginning of the war, the aggregate area under grain was 19,797,000 acres, of which 11,744,700 acres were under wheat and 6,290,000 acres under oats.^ A one- There is some cattle ranching in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The sheep industry also has long been established in these provinces. As the popu- lation of Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, and Edmonton increased, there were increases in the acreage devoted to mixed farming. But the prairie provinces do not supply their own needs. They import large quantities of potatoes, butter, eggs, cheese, and fruit. In fact, from the time railway connection was estabUshed with Lake Superior ports and eastern Canada, the vast territory stretching west from Winnipeg to Calgary and Edmonton has been a one-crop country. It is as much a one-crop country as the southern states in which cotton is grown; and nine tenths of the people in these three provinces — in the cities as well ^ Cf. Census and Statistics Monthly, Ottawa, January, 19 16, 28. [44] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS as In the country — are as dependent on the grain crop as the people in Pittsburgh are on the iron and steel industry, or the people of Fall River on the cotton mills. Economically the prairie provinces are based impor- on grain growing. Every city in Manitoba, ^^° Saskatchewan, and Alberta is a monument to growing the success of grain growing. The cities east of ? da Winnipeg from Kenora to St. John and Halifax, beyond and in particular Toronto, Hamilton, and Mont- ^® real, have grown in importance, extended their Lakes to municipal boundaries, added to their commer- T^^^^ cial houses and their factories and to their popu- lation, as a result of the development in Canada beyond the Great Lakes. Eastern Canada of the twentieth century — To Montreal with its population of 717,000 in 1915, Toronto with 534,000, and Hamilton with Toronto 102,000^ — owes much of its growth since 1900, the larger part of it, in fact, to railway building, home building, grain growing, and urban de- velopment in the prairie provinces. This is true also of Sydney and North Sydney, Nova Scotia, with the largest iron and steel plants in the British oversea dominions. It is equally true of Collingwood, Kingston, and Port Arthur, with their steel shipbuilding yards. The prairie provinces realize their economic importance to Canada. Were there no boundary ^ Estimated. Cf. Griffin, "Canada, the Country of the Twentieth Century," 20. [45] Montreal and EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Attitude of grain- growing provinces to Canada east of the Bridge Protec- tion and the grain- growing industry line, and no Canadian custom-houses, manu- factured goods that are needed in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, could be more ad- vantageously supplied from Chicago, St. Paul, and Minneapolis, than from Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal, and the manufacturing cities of the Maritime Provinces. Except for transport services and for loans, the provinces in the east are of little economic im- portance to the grain-growing provinces. Their consumption of grain and flour does not affect the price of grain. The price that the grain grower receives is the same whether the grain be exported or used in Canada. It is always based on the price ruling in Liverpool and Lon- don.^ The western point of view is that Mani- toba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta could thrive far better without eastern Canada than eastern Canada could thrive without the grain-growing provinces. The western country that lies between the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains derives no benefit from the high tariff. British Columbia, before the war, had no manufacturing. It had no iron and steel plants and no textile industries. But it has coal, lumber, fish, and fruit, for which there is a market in Canada, and it derives con- siderable advantage from the protective duties on these products. The prairie provinces, except for beef, hides, and a little wool, have only grain ^ Cf. Harpell, "Canadian National Economy," 12. [46] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS and flour to export, either to eastern Canada or oversea; and while the tariff does not influence the price of grain, it greatly increases the over- head charges of the grain grower and the cost of his maintenance. The tariff" is consequently the dividing line in Dividing politics between the grain-growing provinces and ^1^ eastern Canada. "More and more the east is pouocs given over to manufacture and commerce and finance. The east has imposed upon the west a fiscal system which it terms national, but which the prairie west considers sectional.^" The line is further accentuated by the fact that so much of the financial and political power of the Do- minion is concentrated in Toronto and Montreal and Halifax.^ Manifestations of the attitude of the prairie Grain provinces towards eastern Canada, and its domi- ^"'^^'^ nance in politics and finance, come almost ex- politics clusively from the grain growers, who carry most of the burden of the tariff.^ The grain growers began to organize locally in 1903. Since then they have organized by provinces, and also inter- provincially. They were 65,000 strong in 1917; and for five or six years before the war they were better organized, more articulate, and more in- fluential in provincial and Dominion politics, ^ "East and West," Quarterly Journal of the Canadian Bankers' Association, Montreal, June, 19 1 7. ^ Cf. Clarus Agar, "The Farmer and the Interests," 34. ' Cf. "The Farmers' Platform," 3-53. L47] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA than any other of the social and economic forces of the Dominion, except the bankers and finan- ciers and the manufacturers. Municipal In municipal and provincial politics the prairie ownership pj-Qvinces are distinctly radical. They are much prairie more radical, more disposed to political experi- provinces j^gnt, than Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Water supplies and sewers are the only public utilities in eastern Canada owned by the municipalities. In the prairie provinces cities own street-car lines, natural-gas systems, and electric light and power undertakings. Public The provincial governments own telegraph utilities ^j^j telephone systems; and in the years from by the 1910 to 1912 the governments of all three prov- provinciai jj^^es, at the urging of the grain growers' asso- govern- ..' ,, ,, , ments ciations, took the ground that country elevators are public utilities, and legislation was enacted providing for the public ownership of these utilities. The prairie provinces form the most agrarian division of Canada — a fact that is manifest in much of the legislation enacted at Winnipeg, Regina, and Edmonton. It is equally manifest in the attitude of the grain growers of the three provinces towards tariff, fiscal, and railway legis- lation at Ottawa.^ The economic importance of this geographic division of the dominion will increase as new homesteads are carved out of the 25,700,000 1 Cf. "The Farmers' Platform," 6-26, 27-40, and 41-49. [48] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS acres of surveyed lands that were available for settlement when immigration into Canada from England and Scotland and other European coun- tries was brought to a standstill by the great war. With the increase of population that the settlement of these lands will bring, there will be an increase in the parliamentary representa- tion of the prairie provinces at Ottawa. The continued political dominance of Ontario and Quebec is consequently not assured — not nearly so assured as their dominance in manufacturing, transport, and finance. Growing political impor- tance of the grain- growing provinces IV. British Columbia British Columbia, a province that Canadians like to describe as the wonderland of Canada,^ is the fourth of the geographical and economic divisions of the Dominion. The state of Wash- ington forms its southern boundary. On the east it has Alberta as a neighbor; on the north it is bounded by Alaska and the northwest terri- tories, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. Vancouver Island, 285 miles long and from 40 to 80 miles wide, is included in British Colum- bia. Victoria, on Vancouver Island, has been a political capital since 1850. It has been the capital of the province since the government of the island and the mainland was united in 1866. By its situation and environment it is the most beautiful capital in the British Empire, not even 1 Cf. Griffin, 153. [49] Wonder- land of the Dominion Most beautiful capital in the British Empire EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Tide- water cities of British excepting Capetown, where the parHament house of the Union of South Africa occupies a com- manding site on the slope of Table Mountain, with the Atlantic Ocean in view from the windows of the legislative chambers. The windows of the legislative building at Victoria look out on Puget Sound; and from the windows of the legislative library, one of the best-equipped libraries in the Dominion of Canada, are visible the snow-capped mountains of the State of Washington. Two thirds of the population of British Colum- bia — two thirds of a total population of 400,000 — were in 1916 resident on Vancouver Island, Columbia ^^ ^^ tidewater of the mainland. Vancouver had then a population of 106,000; Victoria, 60,000; New Westminster, 17,000; and Prince Rupert, the new city created by the Grand Trunk Pacific, 550 miles north of Vancouver, 3500.^ Rossland, a mining town, and Nelson, Ashcroft, Kamloops, and Revelstoke, railway and distrib- uting centers, are the only cities in the interior. The province is separated from Alberta by the Rocky Mountains, a barrier almost as great from a political and economic point of view as the wil- derness that lies between Kenora and North Bay. ' The physical characteristics of British Colum- bia — its climate, seashore, mountains, passes, rivers, lakes, and forests; its fruit orchards, coal Cities of the Interior ^ The last Dominion census was taken in 191 1. figures are estimates. Cf. GriflBn, 20. C50] These character- istics GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS and other mineral resources; and its fisheries — Physical are the pride of the Dominion. It is to Victoria ^^^^^' * _ _ tenstics and Vancouver that men retire in old age after and re- gaining wealth in the prairie provinces or in ^^^^^^ eastern Canada. Victoria is the Newport of the province Dominion. Vancouver is its Narragansett or Atlantic City. The social characteristics of British Coulmbia Social are as well marked as those of Quebec. In British Columbia people of English birth or stock are predominant. The Scotch have no such hold on British Columbia as they have on Ontario or Nova Scotia. Frcm 1850 until Confederation, the newcomers into British Columbia, other than Chinese, were from England. These newcomers were of the English middle immi- classes; for before the Canadian Pacific con- f^*f into the nected Vancouver with Montreal, it was a costly province undertaking to emigrate from England to British ™°^^y Columbia. Even after the railway was completed England in 1886, there was little change in the class of immigrants; and the great immigration propa- ganda of the Dominion government of 1898-1914 had been pushed for ten years before there was a proletarian immigration from England and Scotland and from the countries of conti- nental Europe into the three large cities of Brit- ish Columbia. Externally Vancouver and Victoria are the The two most EngHsh cities in the Dominion — Eng- ™°^* ^ ,. . English lish as regards the homes of the people and their ciues C51] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA British Columbia from 1850 to Confeder- ation Influence of British Columbia on Confeder- ation setting; English in social life, in particular in outdoor social life; and English in fashions in dress and furniture. British Columbia, like Ontario, takes pride in its pre-Confederation history and traditions. It does so with as good reason as Ontario or Quebec; for between 1850 and 1871, when British Colum- bia came into Confederation, more constitutional history was made in the little city of Victoria than in any other city in the oversea possessions of Great Britain. The constitutional history that was made in Victoria in these twenty-one >'ears did not affect the dominions as did the constitutional history that was made between 1837 and 1867 at Toronto, Kingston, Montreal, and Quebec. It did affect the terms on which British Columbia came into Confederation; and these terms greatly influ- enced the political and economic history of Canada. Had Victoria been merely a trading post of the Hudson Bay Company, like Fort Garry, which, after Manitoba came into Confederation, became known to the world as Winnipeg, or had the statesmen of British Columbia of 1 866-1 872 not been men of vision, alert, persistent, and resource- ful, there is no telling how long would have been delayed the carrying through of the railway from Montreal to Vancouver. No group of men in any British colony ever better earned the title of statesmen than the C 52 ] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS group at Victoria who were in control after the Hudson Bay Company had been ousted from Vancouver Island in 1849. They had been in- fluenced by the successful movement for parlia- mentary reform in England. They had witnessed the rebirth of English municipal institutions that followed so quickly the reform of the house of 'commons of 1832; and they had, moreover, the genius for working representative institutions — parliamentary and municipal — in the English spirit that became so widespread in England in the first half of the nineteenth century. The immigrants to British Columbia from Eng- land of the years from 1849 to 1871, when they were establishing themselves in what was then the most remote and isolated of all the British North American colonies, knew what political institutions would meet their needs. They knew what they wanted from the colonial office in London, in the days when British Columbia was a crown colony, with no relation to eastern Canada except that it was on the same continent, under the same sovereign, and that it had, like eastern Canada, the United States as its neighbor. They also knew what they wanted from Ottawa and from London at Confederation; and in the long run — in the period from 1849 to 1871 — they got what they demanded from the British and the Dominion governments. Before Confederation eastern Canada knew as little about Victoria as it did about Capetown. C53] British Columbia states- men of the pre-Con- federa- tion era Political genius of the early settlers hi British Columbia EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA The old- time isolation of British Columbia Crown colony stage of British Columbia Repre- sentative govern- ment estab- lished Twenty years of political achieve- ment British Columbia was then almost as remote from Toronto or Quebec as Cape Colony. Over- land it could be reached only through the United States, by way of San Francisco, which was then to Victoria much what Boston has long been to Halifax and St. John. Political rule at Victoria by the Hudson Bay Company came to an end in 1849. From 1849 to 1 871 British Columbia was a crown colony; and there was a period — 1 864-1 866 — during which there were two British colonies on the Pacific coast — Vancouver Island, with Victoria as the capital, and the mainland, with New Westminster as the capital. Representative government, with an elected legislative assembly and a nominated legislative council, was established for Vancouver Island in 1856. The entire white population of the island and the mainland was then not more than 450, of whom 300 were resident at Victoria,^ which from 1856 to 1 871 was the Athens of the over- sea dominions of Great Britain.^ There were only 8500 white men in the whole of British Columbia at Confederation. Yet such was the political activity at Victoria between 1851, when its first legislative council was established, and 1872, that in these twenty-one years the 1 Cf. Begg, 201. ^ Cf. Report by James D. Edgar to Secretary of State for Canada, June 17, 1874, Canadian Sessional Papers, 1880, page 167. C54] GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS people of British Columbia secured for themselves (i) a legislature with an elected chamber, and a chamber in which the members were nominated; (2) a municipal system on the English model for Victoria; (3) an educational system, free and unsectarian, over which no church — Protestant or Roman Catholic — was permitted any control; (4) a ruling by the legislative assembly which defeated an attempt to make the assembly bilingual, as was the legislature of Ontario and Quebec at this time, and as parliament at Ottawa has been since Confederation; ^ and (5) the right of the colony to make its own protective tariffs, to pay bounties to encourage local indus- tries, and the liberty to apply to Washington for inclusion in the Elgin-Marcy reciprocity treaty of 1 854-1 866. All this progress towards autonomy had been conces- made before the negotiations which preceded the ^°^^ entry of British Columbia into Confederation were Columbia begun in 1869. As a result of these negotiations ^ , , with the colonial office in London, and with eraoon Ottawa, British Columbia secured (i) the right to responsible government, to a status similar to that of the five provinces of eastern Canada; (2) liberty to abolish the bicameral system and substitute a single-chamber legislature, with all ^ "A petition was brought forward, but being in French it was turned back, as the house cannot receive petitions written in any foreign language." "MS. Journals of Representative Assembly," August 24, 1858. C55] * EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Crown lands Slow economic develop- ment of British Columbia its members directly chosen by the electors; ^ (3) pledges from the government at Ottawa for the construction of a telegraph line and a rail- way from eastern Canada to the Pacific coast; (4) a representation in parliament of three sena- tors and five members of the house of commons; and (5) complete control of the vast area of crown lands within the province.^ In respect to crown lands, British Columbia has an advantage over Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, the provinces which were brought into Confederation by legislation originating and en- acted at Ottawa. Crown lands in these three prov- inces remain under the control of the Dominion government - — the only lands in provinces that are so controlled; for at Confederation Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, as was the case with British Co- lumbia, retained control of their crown lands. From Confederation to 1914 the economic de- velopment of British Columbia, and its growth in population, were comparatively slow. Until 1907-1908 central Canada and the prairie prov- ^ "The two-chamber system in these young countries is a superstition which grew out of the social conditions of Eng- land — a social condition which has no counterpart in her colonies." — British Colonist^ October 19, 1871. "^ "No wonder, then, that Governor Musgrave (Sir An- thony Musgrave, governor of British Columbia, 1869-1871) should have stated publicly that he was amazed at the con- cessions granted by the Canadian government." — Edward Blake, house of commons, Ottawa, March 28, 1871. GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DIVISIONS inces absorbed the great stream of Immigration that flowed into the Dominion. The population of British Columbia in 1901 was only 178,000, including Chinamen and Indians. The Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific railways were constructed across British Columbia, and their termini established at New Westminster, Vancouver, and Prince Rupert, in the years between 1907 and 1914. The great increase in the population of the prairie provinces, and this railway construction, aided the develop- ment of British Columbia. Lumber, coal, fish, and fruit were in increasing demand in the grain- growing provinces. In these years, with improved railway com- munication and with prosperity all over the Dominion, British Columbia became increasingly the pleasure ground of Canada; and the first boom in its history — a boom at the height of which prices for real estate in Vancouver and Victoria mounted as high as prices for real estate in central London — continued until within a year of the war. The resources of British Columbia are lumber, coal, fish, and fruit. It exports all these products oversea. In the decade before the war it marketed lumber, fish, and fruit in the prairie provinces, and to some extent also in eastern Canada. British Columbia was a protectionist province in the pre-Confederation era. It was almost as protectionist as Ontario; and as a result of the 157-} An era of railway building and in- creased immi- gration A pro- tectionist province EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA protection of its lumber and fruit-growing indus- tries by the Dominion tariff, it is politically allied with central Canada and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and not with its neighbors immediately east of the Rocky Mountains — the agrarian, radical, and free-trade provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. [58] CHAPTER IV THE EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA. I783 TO 184O THE loss of the American colonies ended one era in British colonial history and began a new one. It began the eventful and beneficent era that extended from 1783 to 1914 — an era parallel to, and greatly influenced by, the era of constitutional reform and progress towards democracy in Great Britain that extended from 1832 to the outbreak of the war. British colonies at the end of the American revolution were Canada, Newfoundland, the British West Indies, Australia and New Zealand, and a number of smaller possessions now in the crown colony division of the colonial office. India in 1783 was under the control of the East India Company. It was not transferred to the im- perial government until 1858. At the beginning of the new era there were no British settlements in either Australia or New Zealand. Canada included the vast territory under the rule of the Hudson Bay Company; Quebec, which then extended from the Detroit River to the western boundary of what is now the province of New Brunswick; Nova Scotia; and Prince Edward Island. C59] A new era In British colonial history BriHsh colonial posses- sions at the end of the American revo- lution Canada in 1783 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Popu- lation of the British North American provinces at the end of American revolution The only white inhabitants of the country west of the Detroit River were the factors or agents and other employees of the Hudson Bay Company. In Quebec the white population did not exceed 113,000, of whom it was estimated 15,000 were of British origin. Nova Scotia, which then included New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, had a population of 42,700.^ In Newfoundland there were about 10,000 inhabitants. In all the oversea possessions of Great Britain at the end of the American revolu- tion, the white population was not more than 170,000, more than half of whom were French- Canadians. Impelling forces towards coloni- zation in 1783 I. Influence of the American Revolution on British North America Enthusiasm for colonial possessions was damped by the loss of the American colonies; and a period of indifference and stagnation in regard to them might have begun in 1783 had it not been for two conditions which arose out of the war with the American colonies. One of these conditions, the convicts in England, who during the war ^ For these statistics of population I am indebted to Mr. William Smith, secretary to the board of publications, public archives of Canada, Ottav^a. The United Empire Loyalists, about 15,000, are not included in the population statistics for Canada. In those for Nova Scotia, the then recently arrived United Empire Loyalists, as well as disbanded troops, in all 28,000 men, women, and children, are included, as are also 400 Acadians. [60] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 had been temporarily detained in hulks awaiting penal transportation oversea, created a seriously embarrassing domestic problem. The second condition, the obligation of the British govern- ment to the Tories or United Empire Loyalists of the revolution, existed in the United States, in Canada, and in Nova Scotia; and after the peace of 1783 presented a problem that admitted of no delay in solution. Convicts had been sent out from England to Convict the American colonies from as early as 161 8 to ®®"^f"_ . ments in 1776. They were commg at the rate of 400 or Australia 500 a year in the decade which preceded the revolution. At the end of the war the British government determined to establish a convict settlement in Australia. Seven hundred men and women, and boys The first and girls, condemned to transportation under f'^B^^"^ the revoltingly brutal code of the eighteenth cen- colonies tury, were sent to Port Jackson, the present site ^^^'^^^ of Sydney, New South Wales, in 1787; and be- revoiu- tween then and 1830, 25,000 convicts were trans- *'°° ported to New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land. The successful revolt of the American colonies thus led almost immediately to the colonization of Australia; for in 1788 New South Wales was formally proclaimed a British colony. It was under crown colony rule until 1855; and convicts were transported thither until 1841.^ ^ Cf. "The Oxford Survey of the British Empire — Gen- eral Survey," VI, 152-153. [61] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA United Empire Loyalists as wards of the British govern- ment Exodus to Canada of 1783-1784 A large immigration of United Empire Loyal- ists from the United States to the British North American provinces, and the Quebec act of 1791, were the developments in the solution of the second of these problems arising directly out of the war of 1 776-1 783. The United Empire Loyalists became the wards of the British gov- ernment after the treaties of Versailles and Paris; and they remained the peculiar care of the Brit- ish government for a decade after the revolution. The British government arranged for and financed the transportation to Canada of all the United Empire Loyalists who wished to leave the United States. It offered them houses and lands in Nova Scotia and Quebec. It maintained many of them while they were reestablishing them- selves; and it also appointed a royal commission to award compensation to them for the material loss they had incurred in the American revolu- tion. Most of the United Empire Loyalists were too poor to go to England. Canada seemed to them the most hopeful country of refuge. The exodus to Canada — an exodus regarded by Canadian historians as comparable with the exodus of the Huguenots from France ^ — had begun before the treaty of peace was signed at Versailles. Nine transports sailed from New York for Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia, in April, 1782. Another company of 7000 men, women, and children sailed from New York in April, ^ Cf. Wallace, "The United Empire Loyalists," 3. [62] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 1783. Half of them went to what is now St. John, New Brunswick, and the other half to Port Roseway, Shelbourne County, Nova Scotia. By the end of September, 1783, 18,000 of the Move- loyalists had reached Nova Scotia; and as late ^^^ova as January, 1784, they were still arriving at St. Scotia John. Canadian historians compute that the total immigration of 1 782-1 783 into what are now the Maritime Provinces was about 35,000.^ There was an immigration of loyalists into inroad Quebec as early as 1776. A stream of immigra- Quebec tion began after the defeat of Burgoyne, at Sara- toga, in 1777. By the end of that year 3000 loyalists were in the province — most of them in the neighborhood of Three Rivers, where "every- thing in reason was done to make the unfortu- nates comfortable." After the treaty of peace had been concluded, the stream of immigration overland to Quebec greatly increased in volume. There were nearly 7000 United Empire Loyalists in the French province in the winter of 1 783-1 784; and the resources of the British government were strained to the utmost to provide for the necessities of the thousands who had thus flocked over the border line from the United States.^ At the time the exodus from the United States began, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island were the only organized provinces in Canada. In only two of them. Nova Scotia and 1 Cf. Wallace, 63. 2 cf. Wallace, ibid., 92^3. [63] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA PoUtical status of the British North American provinces in 1783- 1784 Quebec constitu- tion of 1774 Prince Edward Island, was there organized civil government in which the colonists had any part through elected legislatures. In 1758 a legisla- tive assembly had been established at Halifax, for the province of Nova Scotia; and there had come into being a legislature which today has the distinction of being the oldest law-making body in any of the British oversea dominions.^ Prince Edward Island had been created a separate colony in 1769, at a time when there were only about 150 families on the island; ^ and in 1773 a legislature, with an elected assembly, had been established at Charlottetown. The wide but sparsely populated province of Quebec was administered at this time, and until 1 79 1, under a constitution framed by the British government, and enacted by parliament at West- minster in 1774. Under this constitution, which had aroused much opposition from Chatham, Burke, Townshend, Dunning, and Barrie, and the Whigs as a party, all power was vested in the governor. There was a nominated legislative council, with extremely restricted powers — with less legislative power than is exercised today by Canadian municipal councils.^ It was a nominated council, because as North 1 Cf. Burpee, "Sandford Fleming, Empire Builder," 271-275. 2 Cf. Weaver, "A Canadian History," 125. ^ Cf. Egerton, " Historical Geography of the British Colo- nies," Vol. V, pt. ii, 12, 13. [64] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 told the house of commons in 1774, there was at the time not a sufficient number of EngUsh people in Quebec to elect a legislature similar to that which had been established at Halifax. No pro- vision was made in the Quebec constitution — a constitution which Chatham declared "tore up justice and every good principle by the roots" — for habeas corpus, or for the trial of civil cases by jury.^ The constitution recognized and continued the Position Roman Catholic church in Quebec as an estab- °* ^^ . Roman lished church, collecting tithes and church levies, cathoUc and enforcing its own decrees as to marriage and ^"^^^ ^ . . ° Quebec the nullification of marriage. These were great advantages for the church, especially when they were compared with the constitutional disabili- ties which were the lot of the adherents of the Roman Catholic church in England, Ireland, and Scotland in the last quarter of the eighteenth cen- tury. They were advantages that partly account for the hostility of the church in Quebec to the American revolution; for it was realized by the clergy that all these valuable privileges enjoyed under the constitution of 1774 must come to an end if Quebec became a state in the American Union. French-Canadians, and in particular the hier- archy of the church, from 1783 to 1791, had no complaint against the constitution of 1774. It was the large inflow of United Empire Loyalists ^ Cf. W. R. RIddell, "The Constitution of Canada," 9-14. L652 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA United Empire Loyalists demand a new constitu- tion for Quebec Potency of American influence in the years from 1784 to 1791 that made a new constitution imperative. A government with an elected legislature had been established for New Brunswick — a province carved out of Nova Scotia — in 1784, almost before the stream of immigration of United Empire Loyalists to the St. John River country had come to an end. Before the Quebec act of 1774 was passed by parliament, English colonists at Three Rivers, Quebec, and Montreal had urged the establish- ment of a legislative assembly. There were agitations for an assembly in 1769, and again in 1773; for military rule, such as existed from 1763 to 1774, never commended itself to colonists of British origin. i II. Upper and Lower Canada under the Constitutions of 17QI For 130 years America has influenced political and economic thought in Canada; and this influence can be traced almost from the time the loyalists settled in Quebec. These newcomers of 1 778-1 784, joined as they soon were by many loyalists who had first emigrated to New Bruns- wick, soon began to demand such British institu- tions as they had been accustomed to in the American colonies. In particular they desired (i) an elected legis- lative assembly; (2) trial by jury in civil cases; and (3) the division of Quebec into two provinces, an English and a French province. The larger [ 66 ] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 number of United Empire Loyalists had settled west of the Ottawa River, in what is today the province of Ontario, and they were desirous that this should be an English province. The first colonial constitution of the new era First in British colonial history — the era of 178'?- '^°^°^^ r -NT -r» • constitu- 1914 — was that of 1784 for New Brunswick, tions The second constitution, much more elaborate, °^ *^® new era was that embodied in the Quebec act of 1791. This act created the political divisions of Upper and Lower Canada, which were continued under these names until the reunion of the two prov- inces in 1840.^ The constitutions of these provinces were similar. Each provided for (i) a governor and executive council; (2) a nominated legislative council; and (3) a popularly elected legislative assembly. The qualifications for electors of the legislative QuaUfi- assembly, it was provided by the act of 1791, *=^^°°^ were to be the same as those in England at that electors time for electors of knights of the shire. In counties of Lower and Upper Canada, the elect- ors were the owners of land of a rental value of forty shillings a year. There was at that time no uniformity in England as regarded the quali- fications of parliamentary electors in the bor- oughs; but it was provided that electors in the three towns of Lower Canada, and the two of 1 Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," Note XVI, 45- [67] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Upper Canada, should be the owners of houses of a rental value of five pounds, or occupiers of houses of which the rent was not less than ten pounds a year. In England and Scotland in 1791, and until 1829, the oath against transubstantiation ex- cluded Roman Catholics from the exercise of the electoral franchise, and also from parliament. No such oath was imposed by the constitution of 1 79 1 on electors in Upper and Lower Canada, or on members of the legislature. Wages had not been paid to members of the house of commons in England since the seven- teenth century, and the system of paying the traveling expenses of members to and from parliament had been in desuetude for a much longer time. In Upper and Lower Canada wages and traveling expenses were for many years a charge on the electorates. Property qualifications were necessary for members of the house of commons at West- minster from 1 710 to 1858.^ There was no provision in the Quebec act for property quali- fications for members of the legislative assembly; nor was there any provision that members should be resident in the constituencies from which they were elected. Two departures in colonial constitutions char- acterized Pitt's Quebec act of 1791. The first ^ Porritt, "The Unreformed House of Commons," I, 168- 178. [68] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Pitt's attempt to establish the English church in Canada and to create an aristoc- racy Clergy reserves Sixty years of sectarian strife was an attempt, long persisted in, to establish a connection between state and church, such as exists in England — to establish the Church of England as a state-supported church in Lower and Upper Canada. The second was an attempt, but nothing more than an attempt, to create a hereditary aristocracy and a governing class similar to that which then existed and still exists in England. By the thirty-sixth section of the act of 1791, provision was made for reserving out of all grants of public lands an allotment for the sup- port of a Protestant clergy. The allotment was to be equal in value to the seventh part of the lands granted. These allotments were known as the "clergy reserves." The rents and profits from them were to be applicable solely to the maintenance and support of a Protestant clergy. Provision was also made for the endowment of rectories out of the proceeds of the sale of public lands. In the first half of the nineteenth century these provisions in the act of 1791 were prolific of bitter political and sectarian strife in Upper Canada. The setting aside of the clergy lands in the settlement of townships caused great hard- ship to pioneer homesteaders. It retarded the development of Upper Canada. It divided the inhabitants both in town and country into two hostile camps. It was one of the contributing causes of the rebellion of 1837. It entailed much C70] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 trouble for the legislatures of Upper Canada, and of the United Provinces, and also for the colonial office and parliament at Westminster, The clergy reserves were persistently disturbing issues in Canadian politics until Pitt's attempt of 1791 was finally abandoned in 1854.^ From every point of view — economic, social, and political — Pitt's attempt to create an estab- lished church was unfortunate. It was especially unfortunate for the Episcopal church in Canada, which did not begin to make the appeal, of which it is eminently capable, until the great Im- migration from England of 1901-1914. By that time the disturbing controversies of 1 820-1 854 were forgotten, and the clergy reserves were a memory with only the elder generation of Canadians.^ Pitt's plan for an aristocracy and a governing class was that the dignity of membership of the legislative councils was to be coupled with every title of honor conferred in Canada by the crown. ^ Pitt knew little of England outside London. He knew nothing of social conditions in a new coun- ^ Cf. Stimson, " History of the Separation of Church and State in Canada," 27, 28. ^ Cf. "The Days of the Glebe," Globe, Toronto, November 23, 1911. ' "There was a very curious provision in the act of 1791, which might have proved mischievous. This right was never exercised, and the Canadas fortunately escaped an heredi- tary second house of parliament." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," Note XVII, 46. [71] A mis- fortune for the Episcopal church In Canada Pitt's attempt to create a gov- erning class EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA try like Canada^ where there were hundreds of thousands of square miles of unoccupied land and consequently no renters and no rural laborers to support an aristocracy.^ FamUy Canada since the American revolution was *^f imT^ never long without a governing class. It first 1840 emerged from the United Empire Loyalists and the first generation of their descendants. These men formed oligarchies known at Toronto, Quebec, Halifax, and Fredericton, from 1820 to 1840, as the "Family Compacts." ^ Present- Since Confederation, and especially since 1879, ^^^°^' the governing class of the Dominion has been class composed of the bankers, the railway magnates, 2f *^,^, and the manufacturers who have their head- Dominion quarters in Toronto and Montreal. Pitt's plan of 1 79 1 for an aristocracy was no factor in the creation of either the governing class of 1820— 1840 or in that of 1879-1914. From as early as 1829 knighthoods were some- times bestowed on judges of the higher courts. ^ "The history of the thirteen colonies was full of evi- dence to show that an executive and an upper house inde- pendent of popular control in colonial constitutions were fruitful sources of conflict, disorder, and even of the paraly- sis of government. There was evidence also to show the impossibility of a colonial hereditary nobihty." — George Burton Adams, "The Influence of the American Revolution on England's Government of her Colonies." Report of American Historical Association, 1896, Vol. I, 375-389. 2 Cf. Boyd, "Sir George Etienne Cartier," 7. 3 Cf. Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 158-164. [72] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 The title of knight lapses with the death of its Heredi- holder. Only baronetcies and peerages are he- ^ reditary; and the Quebec act of 1791 had been on Canada the statute books for over sixty years, and had been superseded by the constitutional legisla- tion of 1840, before there were in Canada men sufficiently wealthy to assume the family, social, and financial responsibilities of a hereditary title.^ It was 1854 before a baronetcy was conferred on a Canadian. It was 1891 before a Canadian received a peerage.^ Long before the first baron- etcy was conferred on a Canadian, Pitt's plan of 1 791 had been forgotten; and today member- ship of the nominated senate at Ottawa, and of ^ Only three peerages were bestowed on native-born Canadians between 1783 and 1917. Commenting on a peer- age bestowed on a Montreal newspaper proprietor in Febru- ary, 1917, N. W. Rowell, K. C, leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario, said: "I venture to think that in the free democracy of Canada we are not improving condi- tions by importing hereditary titles, passing from father to son. I hope it may be the last. I think when we are fighting the battle of democracy the world over the tendency will be in the Old Country to bring themselves into harmony with our spirit of democracy rather than for us transplanting part of the old feudal system into Canada." — Gazette, Montreal, February 16, 1917. ^ Sir John Beverley Robinson, chief justice of Upper Canada, 1829-1863, was the first Canadian to receive a baron- etcy. The first Canadian peer was a woman, Baroness Mac- donald of Eamscliffe, widow of Sir John A. Macdonald, who at the time of his death in 1891 was premier of the Dominion. [73] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Five British North American provinces of 1791- 1861 Political develop- ment of Nova Scotia and New Bruns- wick the nominated legislative councils of Quebec and Nova Scotia — the only provinces in which legislative councils or upper houses survive — is not affected by baronetcies or peerages con- ferred on Canadians. The Quebec act of 1791, by the division of Quebec into Lower and Upper Canada, increased the number of British North American prov- inces to five.^ It remained at this number until 1 85 1, when British Columbia was organized as a province. In the period from the incoming of the United Empire Loyalists to Confederation, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each made some contribu- tion to the constitutional development of the Dominion. In each, as in Upper Canada, there was a struggle, finally successful, against efforts to establish and maintain a privileged position for the church of England.^ It was, moreover, the conference in Charlottetown, organized by the Maritime Provinces in 1864 for the purpose of establishing a legislative union of these three provinces, that brought Confederation of all the British North American provinces within the realm of practical politics in Canada and at Westminster. ^ Cape Breton was organized as a separate province in 1784. It was reunited with Nova Scotia in 1820. As an island province it had no particular part in the constitutional history of Canada. 2 Cf. Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 156-159. [74] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 Joseph Howe, the editor of the Nova Scotian, struggle of Halifax, in 1835, was the defendant in a crimi- !*"^ * nal proceeding for Ubel; and by his successful press defense he achieved a victory which established freedom of the press in Nova Scotia. In New Brunswick in 1844, the printers of the Loyalist, Doak and Hill, fought to a successful issue in the law courts the claim of the legislature at Fredericton to interfere with the liberty of the press, and thereby rendered a service to all the British North American provinces as great as that rendered by the printers of the Public Ad- vertiser, in England, in their memorable contest with the house of commons in 1772, over the reporting of the debates.^ British Columbia, in the years from 1851, Political defeated an attempt to establish state-aided *<=^«^«- '^ meats sectarian education, and also an attempt to make of Upper the legislature at Victoria bilingual. But gen- ^^ erally speaking the constitutional advances from Canada 1791 to Confederation, which beneficently af- ^'°™, ' ^ . , . . -^ 1791 to fected all the British colonies which are now of confed- the dominions, were achieved in Lower and ^^**^°° Upper Canada. The first legislature of Upper Canada assem- Early bled at Niagara in September, 1792; but in j®^" 1794 York, now known as Toronto, became the capital. Quebec continued to be capital of the French province. The first legislature assembled ^ Porritt, "A Century and a Half of English Journalism in Canada," 125-126, 133-134. [75] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Legis- lative councils there in December, 1792. The governor-general was estabhshed in the citadel at Quebec. At Toronto there was a lieutenant-governor. Both these officials were appointed by the colonial office. Each new governor came out with de- tailed instructions, prepared by the colonial office, as to the policy which he was to follow. At each capital the governor-general or the lieutenant-governor chose the executive council; nominated the members of the legislative coun- cil; and had at his disposition all political pat- ronage.^ At Quebec the legislative council, according to the terms of the constitution, was to consist of not less than fifteen members. In Upper Canada it was to consist of not less than seven members. The legislature was to be called together once in every twelve months. The dura- tion of the elected legislative assembly could not exceed four years. Proce- dure and usages of West- minster estab- lished in Canada III. The Legislatures of iyg2-i8^y The earliest legislatures established in Canada, that at HaUfax in 1758 and that at Fredericton in 1784, were organized for business as nearly as possible on the model of parliament at West- minster. The throne was placed in the cham- ber of the legislative council. The presiding officer of the legislative council, as in the house of lords, was appointed by the government. All 1 Cf. Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service, 19. [76] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 communications of the council with the assembly were carried, with the old world formalities, either by a master in chancery, or by black rod, whose official costume was patterned to the last detail on that of black rod at Westminster. In the legislative assemblies, at the meeting The of a new legislature, the first business was the election of speaker. The procedure at this elec- tion was similar to that at the first meeting of a house of commons. The clerk of the house and the sergeant-at-arms were appointed by the government. The formalities attending the opening of a session were the same as at Westminster. The speech was read from the throne by the governor, with the speaker, the sergeant-at-arms, and rriembers of the assembly in attendance at the bar of the council chamber. Back in their own chamber, for the consideration of the speech from the throne, the first proceeding after the speech had been read by the speaker was to give a first reading, pro forma, to a bill, in order that the assembly might assert its independence of the crown, and exercise its right to attend to its own business before concerning itself with the business to which the sovereign had directed its attention. The rules of debate and procedure on bills — introduction and first reading, second reading, committee stage, and third reading — were all as at Westminster. [77] speaker Speech from the throne Proce- dure in bUls EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Epoch- making measures of the first legis- lature of Upper Canada An anti- slavery law The legislature of Upper Canada held its first session in 1792, at Niagara, in a log cabin with only one door and two windows.^ Only eight members of the assembly were in attendance. But there was a speech from the throne ^ and the formalities and procedure were as at West- minster. This parliament in miniature, more- over, earned distinction in British colonial history by two of its proceedings. It declared British law with regard to property and civil rights to be in force in Upper Canada; and it passed an act ^ forbidding slavery in the province — another early instance of the influ- ence of the United States, direct and indirect, on the political, economic, and social development of Canada. "It has the honor," writes one of the most sympathetic of its historians, "of being the first assembly in the British Empire to for- bid the terrible wrong of slavery." * An anti-slavery law was necessary if slavery were not to be established in Upper Canada; for at Westminster, in 1790, in the session immedi- ately preceding that in which the second Quebec act was passed, a remarkable amendment^ had ^ Cf. Weaver, "A Canadian History," 145. ^ John Graves Simcoe, Lieutenant-Governor, in his speech from the throne, at the closing of the session of 1792, assured the legislature that the constitution of the Province of Upper Canada was "the very image and transcript of that of Great Britain." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," Note XVIIL 47- '33 Geo. Ill, c. 7. * Weaver, 146. ^ 30 George III, c. 27. [78] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 been made to the old navigation code of Great Britain. It was an amendment which was re- garded as a concession to the colonies in America. By virtue of it immigrants arriving in any of the British North American provinces were per- mitted to import their "negroes, household furniture, utensils of husbandry, and clothing " - duty free. The legislature which met for the first time French- at Quebec, in December, 1792, was also organized ^^^^' for business after the model of parliament at and the Westminster; and in no province of the Dominion P^sean- have the old-world formalities and ceremonial state usages of parliament been more tenaciously ad- hered to than in Quebec. The French-Canadian has a natural love for the pageantry of state. The urban and rural population of the French province in 1792 was much larger than that of Upper Canada. The cities — Quebec, Three Rivers, and Montreal — had an aggregate repre- sentation of ten members in the assembly. There was also a member for the town of Sorel. The other members were knights of the shire. Knights usually two from each of the counties into which °f*^® Lower Canada was divided. These members were girt with sword at the time the sheriff de- clared their election, as was the custom in Eng- land until after 1885, when English counties lost their ancient parliamentary identity by partition into modern electoral divisions. The total number of members of the Quebec [79] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA assembly in 1792 was fifty. Sixteen were of British origin. This proportion was never ex- ceeded in the forty-five years from 1792 to the rebellion in 1837, which for thirty years made an end to a separate legislature in Quebec. French The elective legislative assembly at Quebec, language ^^ j^g £j.g^ session in 1792, made history by adopting the rule that the French and English languages should stand on a footing of complete equality in debate and in the introduction of bills. Today both languages are used in the Quebec legislature, which was reestablished at Confedera- tion in 1867. Both are also used in parliament at Ottawa, in debate, in the printing of bills and acts, and in government documents. This usage at Quebec and Ottawa can be traced back to the rule adopted by the legislative assembly in 1792. Restricted The powcts of the assembly, both at Quebec powers ^j^j ^^ Toronto, were restricted. It had no power legis- over appropriations until after the constitution lative Qf J-Q2 was amended in 183 1. In these fort\ assem- ^ bues years, the assembly had no such power over appropriations as was exercised by the house of commons. Vote as it might, the assembly, at no time between 1792 and 1837, could influence the policy of the executive, if the executive was determined to pay no heed to the will of the majority of the assembly. Act as it would, the assembly could not dislodge the executive. The assembly, when it initiated legislation, was always confronted by two powers at Quebec that C80] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 could override it, and in practice veto any bills Three that it might pass. These were (i) the legislative °^" council, whose members had no constituents to powers whom they were responsible, only the governor who had appointed them having any power to call them to account; and (2) the governor, who had power to accept or reserve a bill which had passed both houses of the legislature, to reserve involv- ing the transmission of the bill to London for approval by the colonial office. Moreover, even after a bill had run the gantlet of the assembly and the council, and after it had been accepted by the governor, it could be vetoed in London at any time within two years. These were the days of the old commercial Old policy of the British Empire. England was under ^"^j^ a protectionist system. The old navigation code, policy which had its beginnings in the days of the Crom- q^^^^ wellian protectorate, was in force until 1847; and Britain the aim of the commercial system was to build ^^^l^^ up British trade with little regard to any develop- force ing manufacturing industries in the colonies. None of the North American provinces was at liberty to frame its own fiscal system. No British colony enjoyed this freedom without restriction until 1846. None exercised it to the full until 1858. Lower and Upper Canada were consequently not permitted to impose other than revenue duties on manufactures from Great Britain. All imports from Great Britain must come into the provinces in British vessels; all colonial exports [81] start EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA to Great Britain had also to be carried in ves- sels on the British registry; and there were no free ports until 1822. IV. The Dreary Period of the New Era in British Colonial History Political It cannot be affirmed that the governments corrup- established at Toronto and Quebec in 1 792-1 793 almost worked well. There was jobbery and corruption from the fj-Qm as early as 1795 — corruption in the collec- tion of the revenue; and jobbery, with the con- nivance of the executive council at Quebec, in the allotment of public lands in Lower Canada.^ Conditions became worse in the first decade of the nineteenth century; ^ and between 181 2 and 1820 there began the most dreary period of the new era of British colonial history — the era from 1783 to 1914. The dreary period lasted from 181 2 to 1840; and, like the Quebec act of 1791, and the ham- strung legislative assemblies created by this act,^ 1 Cf. Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 61-64. ^ Cf. Boyd, 34. ' "It is difficult to conceive what could have been their theory of government, who imagined that in any colony of England a body invested with the name and character of a representative assembly could be deprived of any of those powers which in the opinion of Englishmen are inherent in a popular legislature." — "Lord Durham's Report on the Affairs of British North America." Lucas, Vol. II, 76. "While the French-Canadians had been given representative parlia- mentary institutions, those institutions had been practically rendered inoperative. The people possessed the shadow with- out the substance of parliamentary government." — Boyd, 35. [82] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 it furnished abundant proof that British states- men had not learned the lesson of 1 776-1 783, and were not disposed to learn it until forced to do so by the rebellions of 1837. Causes for the popular discontent existed in London as well as at Toronto and Quebec; for some petitions to the colonial office from Canada were ignored; others were long in bringing any results; and when con- cessions were made to the reformers of Upper and Lower Canada they were grudging and inadequate. At Quebec power under the constitution of 1 79 1, exercised through the executive and legis- lative councils, was monopolized by the com- mercial classes of the city and of Montreal. The men of the mercantile interests, most of them newcomers from Britain, were at this time the governing class of Lower Canada; and between the British and the French-Canadians there was keen and politically disturbing antagonism. Political power at Toronto, exercised, as at Quebec, through the executive and legislative councils, usually with the sanction of the lieu- tenant-governor, was in the hands of the Tories of the Family Compact. Here again American example and tradition influenced Canadian politi- cal conditions. At this time — 1820-183 7 — this American influence was adverse to popular gov- ernment in Upper Canada; though in the long run, in the years from 1820 to 1837, it made indirectly for constitutional advance and the prog- ress of democracy in Canada. [83] British states- men fall to learn the lesson of 1776- 1783 Govern- ing class of Lower Canada Family compact in Upper Canada EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Tradi- tions of the American revolution Bourbon Torjrism of Upper Canada Partisan governors The Tories of this period were mostly United Empire LoyaHsts, or descendants of loyalists, who, influenced by experiences in the American revolution, or by family tradition of these ex- periences, and by ill-feeling engendered by the invasion of Upper Canada by American troops during the war of 1812, cherished an assertive and aggressive hatred of democracy or republi- canism in any shape or form. The dominant political cliques in Upper Canada at this time developed a cult of Toryism which has never been matched in any other part of the English-speaking world. ^ It was more Tory even than the American Toryism of 1 776-1 783. It was even more Bourbon and unyielding than the Toryism of England that was developed by the wars with France of 1793-18 15; for it was in- flamed by a struggle to hold on to a monopoly of all political opportunities, and by the strife attending a finally unsuccessful endeavor to es- tablish a privileged political position for one division of the Christian church. Governors from 1792 to 1837 were notoriously partisan. Nearly all of them were, or had been, army ofiicers. They were imbued with the Eng- lish Toryism of the period. A new governor, as i"A junto of oligarchs, who, however odious and tyran- nical they might become, could not be punished or brought to account for their conduct." — John Charles Dent, "The Last Forty Years: Canada Since the Union of 1841," Vol. I, p. 19. [84] EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 soon as he arrived, fell into the arms of the little group of officials in control, and could hardly- escape the influence of the ruling clique. From the point of view of the elected legislative assem- bly, the governor was an opponent from the day he arrived at Quebec or Toronto. Governors openly interfered in elections, and always against the popular or democratic group in the legislative assembly. The last governor of Upper Canada before the Pork- rebellion of 1837 — Francis Bond Head — in 1836 *^^' . . appro- committed the province, which had then a popu- priations lation of only 350,000, to an expenditure of four million dollars on roads, bridges, and wharfs, chiefly to carry a general election. Head thereby began a practice which has continued and flour- ished up to the present day; for in the house of commons at Ottawa annual pork-barrel appro- priations for post offices, customs houses, armo- ries, wharfs, and dredging, with the bribery of constituencies and the local jobbery inherent in these appropiations, are as notorious as they are in congress at Washington. Offices and patronage at Quebec and Toronto Patron- were the monopoly of the Family Compact groups, ^f^^^ Plural office holders were numerous. The legis- office lative assemblies were crowded with office holders. ^°^^^^^ Protestant and Roman Catholic bishops were of the legislative councils; and so were judges. Bills originating in the legislative assemblies were rejected mechanically and wholesale by [85] , EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA " What's the constitu- tion among friends?" the legislative councils. If a member of the assembly was persona non grata to the ruling clique, he was ejected without regard to his indi- vidual rights or the rights of the constituency by which he had been elected. If the constit- uency ventured to petition for redress it was publicly snubbed by the governor, whose atti- tude can best be expressed in the words of an American boss, who exclaimed. "What's the constitution among friends?" Political issues of 1820- 1837 Govern- ments that were oligarchic and corrupt V. Crown Colony Rule at Its Worst The questions at issue in the decade which preceded the rebellions of 1837 were (i) the clergy reserves; (2) responsible government — the demand for an executive dependent upon a majority in the assembly, as was the constitu- tional usage in England; (3) full control by the assembly over taxation and appropriations; (4) an elected instead of a nominated legislative council; (5) the exclusion of judges from the legis- lature; (6) the system under which judges held office at the will of the government; and (7) the abolition of the system of plural office holding. Cartier, the best-equipped statesman the French province ever gave to the Dominion, was, in his youth, associated with Papineau in the rebellion in Quebec. He always insisted that it was a rebellion, not against British authority, or against the British connection, but against the vicious system of government which existed in [86: EVOLUTION FROM 1783 TO 1840 Lower and Upper Canada for a generation before 1837.^ It was a rebellion against governments at Quebec and Toronto that were Bourbon in out- look, oligarchic, and corrupt. "Narrow-minded and tyrannical," is Eger- ton's characterization of the government at Toronto. 2 These governments bore down ruth- lessly on all attempts at reform from outside; and the colonial office in London made no attempt either to check or to reform them. From the American revolution until responsible Crown government was conceded to all the British ^""^ North American provinces in the forties of the the nineteenth century, Quebec and Ontario, Nova ^^j^g^. Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward enceto Island were under what would be described to- °^®'"^®* posses- day as crown colony rule; and from 1820 to 1837 sions crown colony government was seen at its worst in Toronto and Quebec.^ It was crown colony rule of the era of indif- ference to colonial expansion, of the days when Wellington ^ was willing to turn over Ceylon to the East India Company; when George Corne- wall Lewis ^ confessed that he was unable to see what possible advantage England derived from the possession of Canada; and Peel ^ was quite 1 Cf. Boyd, 66. 2 Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 127. 3 Cf. Egerton, Vol. V, pt. ii, 68-78, 1 16-123, 124-132; Lucas, " Lord Durham's Report," Vol. I, 33-72; Vol. II, 7- 185; Boyd, 27-44. * 1828. 5 jg27_ 6 i8^i_ [87] . EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA willing to see Canada separate from the British Empire. New era It was, however, an era of crown colony rule of crown ^j^^^ j^^j nothing but the name in common with colony ° rule the new and beneficent era of crown colony government that began in the first decade of Queen Victoria's reign. The fundamentals of this modern crown colony rule are (i) that the principle of government must be determined by parliament at Westminster, as interpreter of the spirit of the British constitution; (2) policy de- termined by the colonial ofl&ce, subject to the control of parliament; and (3) practice deter- mined by the governor, sent out from London, subject to the control of the colonial office.'^ ^ Bruce, "The Broad Stone of Empire," Vol. I, xix. [88] CHAPTER V FROM THE REBELLION TO CONFED- ERATION. 1837 TO 1867 P APINEAU was the leader of the rebellion Leaders of the rebellion in the French province. WilHam Lyon °^^^^ Mackenzie was the leader in the much less san- guinary rising in Upper Canada. There seems to have been only a sympathetic connection be- tween the two revolts. But in each province there were adequate causes for the rebellion. Both leaders were subject to fierce criticism and abuse by contemporary writers whose sym- pathies were with the ruling cliques at Quebec and Toronto. Each has also received some harsh criticism from some Canadian historians. Little importance now attaches to any of this criticism; for Papineau and Mackenzie between them started a new and beneficent era in British colonial policy. Louis Joseph Papineau was born at Montreal Papi- in 1786. He became active in politics in 1809, "^^^ and was elected to the legislative assembly in 1812. He was a man of attractive personality and commanding presence, and was an effective speaker in the assembly and on the platform. He was also a man of the highest character. French-Canadians were always in a majority in [89] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Pamell of French Canada Papi- neau's political platform the legislative assembly at Quebec; and Papi- neau was elected speaker in 1815, and held that office until the rebellion. In these twenty-five years — 1812-1837 — Papineau was the political leader of the French- Canadians. The issue was whether the British minority or the French majority should rule at Quebec; and in these years the hold of Papineau on the French people was quite as great as the hold which either O'Connell or Parnell had on the Nationalist movement in Ireland in the nineteenth century. Before the rebellion there was nothing disloyal ^ or treasonable in Papineau's platform. What he desired was stated by him in a speech in the assembly in 1835, at a time when the assembly was harassing the government at Quebec by withholding supplies, and rendering it necessary that measures in rehef should be passed by par- liament at Westminster. "The government I long for," said Papineau, in this speech of 1835, "is one composed of friends of legality, Hberty, and justice — a gov- ernment which would protect indiscriminately 1 Private advices received in Montreal last night an- nounced the death in action of Captain Talbot M. Papineau, M.C., of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. In April, 191 S, he was awarded the Military Cross for con- spicuous gallantry at St. Eloi, on February 28. Captain Papineau was the great grandson of Louis Joseph Papineau. He was a Rhodes scholar at Oxiord. — Gazette, Montreal, November 3, 1917. [903 EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 every proper interest, and accord to all ranks and to each race of inhabitants equal rights and privi- leges. We demand for ourselves such political institutions as are in accordance with those of the rest of the Empire, and the age we live in." ^ William Lyon Mackenzie was a Scotsman, Macken- born at Dundee in 1795. He emigrated to Upper ^*® Canada in 1820. He was a man of some educa- tion and of good family. Like Papineau he understood the working of government by par- liament and cabinet at Westminster. He was persistent and resourceful as an agitator. He was also impetuous, with a tinge of the theatrical in his make-up. Immigrants into Canada from England and Scotland at this time had many of them come under the influence of the movement for parlia- mentary reform, and were permeated by its radicalism. Political conditions in Canada were even worse than political conditions in England before 1832. They aroused the indignation of these newcomers, whose influence, along with the effect of the success of parliamentary reform at Westminster, helped to give force and per- sistency to the movement for reform in Upper Canada. Mackenzie soon identified himself with this Upper democratic movement. In 1824 he established ^^gf at Toronto the Colonial Advocate; and attained dread of province-wide fame in 1826 through a stupid and ^ rougn a stupia ana 1 Boyd, 37. C91] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Macken- zie in the legis- lature at Toronto PubU- cation of division lists A partisan governor ill-conceived riotous attack, made by the younger Tories, on his printing plant, during which his hand-press was thrown into Lake Ontario. In 1828 Mackenzie was elected to the assem- bly. There he made himself objectionable to the Tories by assailing the appointment of an Episcopalian chaplain to the assembly; by his opposition to the presence of an Episcopal and a Roman Catholic bishop in the legislative coun- cil; by assailing the executive for crowding the assembly with office holders; and by publishing the division lists in his newspaper. For publishing the division lists, a practice which had been established in connection with the house of commons at Westminster since 1689, Mackenzie in 1832 was expelled from the assem- bly at Toronto. Four times he was reelected. Then the assembly, without any constitutional warrant, declared him incapable of serving as a member; and on presenting himself he was ejected by the sergeant-at-arms. His constituents presented a petition to Head, who was then governor. The only answer to this petition, which was presented to the gov- ernor in person, was, "I have received your peti- tion "; and no redress was forthcoming at Toronto either for Mackenzie or for his constituents. A landmark in the constitutional history of Canada of interest to all the dominions was set up by Mackenzie during his first session in the legislative assembly. He drafted in 1828 a [92] i EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 statement of the grievances of the colonists of First Upper Canada, which was forwarded by the re- ^^™^* formers in the assembly to the colonial office respon- in London; and it would seem that in this mani- ^*^*® govem- festo the first claim for responsible government ment for any British colony was made. Papineau, in his speech of 1835, pressed the claim; but it was one to which seven years before 1835 the reformers in Upper Canada had directed their efforts. I. The Rebellions in Lower and Upper Canada The rebellion in Lower Canada broke out on inter- November 6, 1837. The rising in Upper Canada ^^"^'^^ began at Toronto on December 4. The imme- pariia- diate cause in Lower Canada developed out of ^^^^ the popular agitation, led by Papineau, against West- a resolution passed by Parliament at Westmin- °^^*®'' ster, providing for the payment of salaries of judges in Lower Canada, after the legislative assembly at Quebec had persistently refused to vote supplies for these payments. Meetings to protest against this legislation by Gosford the British parliament were prohibited by Gos- ^°' 1 • T hiblts ford, the governor-general, m June. But they protest went on, nevertheless, from June to October. ™®«**°8* The crisis came in November. There was a riot in Montreal on the 6th. Seven of the leaders were arrested. These men were taken out of the custody of the military; and the fighting began when the soldiers attempted to arrest one [93] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Three hundred rebels kiUed Fiasco at Toronto Mac- kenzie In exile of Papineau's associates at St. Denis. There the rebels fortified a stone barn. In attempting to take the barn, Colonel Gore, who was in command of the military, lost six men killed, and ten were wounded. Between the 6th and the iid of November there was fighting at St. Charles, St. Eustache, and Benoit. Two thousand soldiers were en- gaged. The fatalities were mostly on the side of the rebels. Three hundred of Papineau's followers lost their lives. Papineau fled to the United States, and was a refugee there until 1845.^ The rising at Toronto involved no great loss of life. Mackenzie's plan was to seize govern- ment house. His followers, who numbered at most not more than 750 men, assembled at Mont- gomery's tavern on the outskirts of the town. They were quickly dispersed by 1200 volunteers. Five of the rebels lost their lives. Mackenzie fled to Navy Island in the Niagara River. There he issued a proclamation; set up a provisional government; printed paper money — and otherwise introduced a touch of burlesque into the rising. He was soon dislodged from Navy Island, and fled to the state of New York, where, after serving a term in prison for viola- tion of the neutrality laws of the United States, he was an exile until a general amnesty act was passed by the legislature of the united provinces of Quebec and Ontario in 1849. 1 Cf. Boyd, 45-76. C94] rebellion that EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 There was never any prospect of military sue- a cess for rebellion in either Upper or Lower Canada. But if a revolution is a rebellion that succeeds, effected the rebellion of 1837 was a revolution. In its f^"^°'"- -" ' . tion way it was as successful as the American revolu- tion. It was the only time after 1783 that Brit- ish troops were in action against armed white British subjects in any of the British colonies; and all that is beneficent in the modern era of British colonial government dates from the Papi- neau and Mackenzie rebellions, and the epoch- making mission of the Earl of Durham to Canada, by which the rebellions were immedi- ately followed. The Melbourne administration of 183 5-1 841 wniiam was in power in England at the time of the re hellions. William IV died in June, 1837. The of death of the king gave the administration a "'*"**** ... . govern- freer hand in coping with the serious problems ment of Canada. William IV's conception of colonies, and of the relation of the sovereign to them, was very similar to that of George III. When Lord Gosford was sent out to Quebec as governor- general in 1835, the king told him that he would never consent to the establishment of an elective legislative council. The king held that control of the legislative council, by nomination, was one of the prerogatives of the crown. "It was," he said, "a safeguard for the preservation of the wise and happy connection between the mother [95 ] IV's con- ception EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Queen Victoria and the new era in British colonial policy Legis- lation at West- minster Character of Durham country and the colonies, which it was both his duty and his incHnation to maintain." The development of the British cabinet had not reached its present stage in 1835. William IV was the last sovereign to assume an attitude of this kind towards his ministers; and for the United Kingdom, as well as for the colonies, an era of less monarchical rule began with the ad- vent of Queen Victoria. II. Durham's Mission and the Durham Report The rebellions necessitated immediate legisla- tion at Westminster. Accordingly on January 16, 1838, a bill was introduced in the house of commons suspending the constitution of Lower Canada for four years, and authorizing Durham, the new governor-general, in concert with an executive council of five members, to frame ordi- nances for the province. Durham was further authorized to investigate and report on condi- tions in all the British North American provinces, and his commission constituted him governor- general of all the provinces except Newfoundland. Durham was in his forty-sixth year when he was intrusted with this mission to Canada. He was a man of great wealth, derived largely from coal mines in the county of Durham; and he was son-in-law to Grey, the Whig premier of reform bill fame. He was one of the most aggres- sive members of the cabinet during the crises over the reform bill of 1830-183 2; always ready C96] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 to force the struggle with William IV; always ready to fight for the bill either in the cabinet or in parliament; and the politically courageous part Durham had in framing and carrying the reform bill would have given him a conspicuous place in British history even if his achievements of 1 830-1 83 2 had not been overshadowed by his contribution of 1838 to the inauguration of the new era in British colonial policy. Durham's famous report has been more fre- Durham's quently reprinted, more frequently edited and ^^jg^ annotated, and more widely read over the English- widely speaking world than any other British state paper ^^^^ of the nineteenth century.^ He was in Canada paper only from May 29 to November i, 1838. He °^^ resigned and returned to England,^ because the teenth Melbourne government, holding that he had "^*"^ exceeded his powers, disallowed an ordinance of June 28, 1838, banishing eight rebels to Bermuda. He was succeeded in August, 1839, by Poulett Thomson, afterwards Lord Sydenham, who as a colonial governor ranks second only to Durham in the history of the establishment of responsible government in the dominions. Condemnation of the entire system of govern- ment at Quebec and Toronto was the burden of Durham's report. It substantiated nearly every allegation of the reformers in Canada and of the ^ The authoritative edition is edited, with an introduction, by Sir Charles P. Lucas, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1912. 2 He died July 28, 1840. [97] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Durham's condem- nation of the govern- ments at Quebec and Toronto Share of the colonial office in misrule in Upper and Lower Canada Friction between Upper and Lower Canada radicals who had supported them in parHament at Westminster. It demonstrated that ohgar- chies had ruled in both provinces; that there was no system of municipal government — that in this respect Lower and Upper Canada com- pared badly with the New England states; that there was no system of education; that justice was badly administered; and that the manage- ment of crown lands was characterized by job- bery and fraud. The colonial office in London was also con- demned; for Durham recalled that there were eight colonial secretaries from 1827 to 1837, and that the policy of each secretary had been more or less different from that of his predecessor. In a word, Durham stigmatized the whole system as vicious. He rejoiced that it had broken down. In Lower Canada much of the trouble was due to race antagonism. In addition there had been friction between Upper and Lower Canada aris- ing out of a common use of the St. Lawrence; for Upper Canada was entirely dependent on the tidewater ports of the lower province. This friction had been so serious that at one time there was a plan to create a third province out of the Island of Montreal. In Montreal the English were in control; and such a plan would have ended the dependence of Upper Canada on ports that were under the control of French- Canadians. [98] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 American influence on political conditions in Canada in the years from 1783 to 1837 has already been noted. More evidence of this influence is contained in Durham's report, and in his recom- mendations as to the system of government that should be adopted at the great crisis of 183 7-1 840. The suggestion was put forward, in plans pro- posed to Durham for the government of Lower Canada, that as a permanent or as a temporary and intermediate scheme, the government of the French province should be constituted on an en- tirely despotic footing, or on one that would vest it entirely in the hands of the British minority. "It is proposed," wrote Durham, "either to place the legislative authority in a governor, with a council formed of the heads of the British party, or to contrive some scheme of representation by which a minority, with the form of representation, is to deprive the majority of all voice in the man- agement of its own affairs." ^ The adoption of such a plan would have meant the indefinite continuation of the dreary period of colonial history of 1791-1837. But at this, the greatest crisis in British colonial history be- tween 1783 and the great war, the influence of what the late Sir Richard Cartwright, for forty- five years a member of parliament at Ottawa, liked to describe as "Canada's only neighbor,'* again made itself felt on the destinies of what is now the greatest British oversea dominion. ^ Cf. Lucas, II, 296-297. C99: American Influence again An auto- cratic govern- ment sug- gested for Quebec Dur- ham's con- dem- nation of this sug- gestion " Cana- da's only neigh- bor" EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Influence It was an influence not of the government at of popular Washington, but of the people of the United opinion ° ,. , , , i- i • i States, indirectly rather than directly exercised. It turned the scale with Durham. Durham's report turned the scale with the Melbourne gov- ernment, and through the government with par- liament at Westminster. Durham thus described American influence, and how, in his opinion, it would aflPect Canada, if a despotic government were established at Quebec: The maintenance of an absolute form of government on any part of the American continent can never continue for any long time without exciting a general feeling in the United States against a power of which the existence is secured by means so odious to the people; and as I rate the preserva- tion of the present general sympathy of the United States with the policy of our government in Lower Canada as a matter of the greatest importance, I should be sorry that the feeling should be changed for one which, if prevalent among the people, must extend over the surrounding prov- inces. The influence of such an opinion would not only act very strongly on the entire French population, and keep up among them a sense of injury and a determination of resist- ance to the government, but would lead to just as great dis- content among the English.^ Legis- The experience in Canada of a government not lative responsible to the people did not, in Durham's Upper and Opinion, justify a belief that an absolute govern- Lower rnent in Lower Canada would be well adminis- urgedby tcrcd. Durham was confident that the great Durham ^ Lucas, II, 297. C 100] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 reforms in the institutions of the French province, which must be made before it could be a well- ordered and flourishing community, could be effected by no legislature which did not repre- sent a great mass of public opinion. He was con- vinced that tranquillity could only be restored by subjecting Lower Canada "to the vigorous rule of an English majority, and that the only efficacious government would be that formed by a legislative union." ^ At this time the estimated population of Upper Canada was 400,000. The number of English and Scottish people in Lower Canada was 150,000, and of French 450,000. If these estimates were correct, Durham believed that the union of the provinces would not only give a clear English majority, but one which would be increased every year by immigration from the United Kingdom. Durham was convinced, moreover, that the French, when once placed in a minority by the legitimate course of events, and the working of natural causes, "would abandon their vain hopes of nationality"; for he held that the union of Scotland with England in 1707, and the union of Ireland with Great Britain in 1800, taught "us how effectually the strong arm of a popular legis- lature would compel the obedience of a refrac- tory population,^ and the hopelessness of success ^ Cf. Lucas, n, 307. ^ Sir Charles Lucas notes that the history of Ireland from 1838 has hardly borne this out. Lucas, II, 308, footnote. C loi ] Popu- lation of Upper and Lower Canada In 1838 Durham and the national aspira- tions of French Cana- dians EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA would gradually subdue the existing animosities, and incline the French-Canadian population to acquiesce in their new state of political existence." ^ Advan- Union of the provinces, according to Durham, tagesof would result in two advantages. The British union to . . Upper would control the new legislative assembly, as Canada ^gjj ^g ^j^g legislative council; and union would end for Upper Canada, for which there was no suggestion of despotic government, the disputes as to the division, or amount of revenue, collected on imports into Canada at the St. Lawrence ports. Lower Canada in the twenties and thirties of last century, as in the second decade of the twen- tieth, was the most self-sustaining area of the North American continent. French-Canadians imported little from the United Kingdom or from the United States. The needs of the British population in Upper Canada were greater and more varied. Their importations from the United Kingdom — clothing and other manufactured articles — were comparatively large. Import All import duties levied by the legislatures of duplies ^j^g British North American provinces until 1858 revenue were .for revenue only, and most of the revenues °°^^ of the provinces were raised by these duties. The disputes between Upper and Lower Canada were as to the division of the duties. Realizing that most of the duties were finally paid by the people of Upper Canada, this prov- ince was long aggrieved by the division of the ^ Lucas, II, 308. [ 102] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 money collected by the customs officers of Lower Canada at Montreal and Quebec. Durham be- lieved that with union the surplus revenue of Lower Canada would meet the deficiency of Upper Canada, and that Lower Canada would be placed "beyond the possibility of locally jobbing the surplus revenue." Upper Canada would, by union, also secure access to the sea; and Lower Canada would pay its fair share to the cost of the canals in Upper Canada, which, as Durham rightly insisted, were as much the concern of one province as of the other. The saving of public money which would be influence effected by the union of the governmental estab- °* -' ° union on lishments would, Durham contended, supply pariia- the means of conducting the general government ™^'** on a more efficient scale. "And," he added, in west- summing up the advantages of union, "responsi- °^^*®' bility of the executive would be secured by the increased weight which the representative body of the United Provinces would bring to bear on the imperial government and legislature." Durham was wrong in the assumption that where with the union of the provinces race antagonism ^^ , and the struggle of the French-Canadians for assump- nationality would gradually disappear. It was ^°^^ race antagonism, and the deadlocks which ensued wrong; from it, that forced on Confederation in 1864- ^^^"^^ . . ^ they 1867. He was wrong also m assummg that econ- were omy, coupled with greater efficiency, would result ^^^* from union. But he was absolutely right when [ 103] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA he assumed that the increased weight of the representative body would have influence with the imperial government; for it was the legisla- tive assembly of the United Provinces that in the years from 1841 to 1849 forced the conces- sion of responsible government — an executive dependent on a majority in the assembly — and again it was the assembly that in 1858-1859 insisted on the concession by Great Britain of liberty to the United Provinces to frame their own customs tariff, regardless of British manu- facturing interests. III. The Legislative Union of 184.0 Con- The Melbourne government acted on Durham's ^^!^^«°^ recommendation that Upper and Lower Canada or 1840- _ ^ _ 1867 should be united in one province. By the act of 1840, which established this union, there was created the constitution of 1 840-1 867. The bill was introduced in the house of commons by Lord John Russell. Neither in the commons, nor in the lords, was the discussion in general from the Whig or Conservative standpoints. A In spite of appeals from the Duke of Welling- measiwe ^qj^ 1 Qj^|y eight ot nine Conservatives in the supported ' ^ & by both house of commons opposed the bill. Gladstone political ^^g g^jjj ^ Conservative in 1840; but he and parties ' ' . atwest- Stanley and Peel, also Conservatives, were as anxious as Russell and his colleagues of the Whig administration that Canada should have a better 1 Cf. Parker, "Sir Robert Peel," III, 379. [ 104] minster EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 form of government than experience had demon- strated was possible under the constitution of 1791. The debates at Westminster were character- ized by frequent expressions of the conviction that Great Britain could not long hold colonies with large white populations; and that Canada would break away when it was ready. Peel and Gladstone gave expression to these convic- tions. They were anxious, in the meantime, that Great Britain should do all that she could to establish a beneficent political civilization for the colonies. Further legislation for Canada was enacted in the session of 1840. A bill was passed empowering the legislature of the United Provinces to deal with the clergy reserves without interference from parliament. The plan was to divide the money received from the sale of the clergy reserves among the churches. The Episcopal church was to have the largest share; next was to be the Presbyterian portion; and smaller shares were to be assigned to the Methodist and other churches. This plan was adopted at once by the legisla- ture of the United Provinces. It was in opera- tion until 1854, when the clergy reserves were secularized. From 1841 to 1854 each church was free to expend the money it received at will, whether for the support of its clergy, the erec- tion of places of worship, or for education.^ ^ Cf. Stimson, "History of the Separation of Church and State in Canada," 56-57. C 105] Con- viction that the colonies would demand inde- pendence The clergy re- serves — a free hand for the new legis- lature The clergy reserves from 1840 to 1864 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Legis- lature of the United Provinces Urban develop- ment In Upper Canada from 1791 to 1840 Urban constitu- encies in the new repre- sentative system The new constitution for the United Provinces that was enacted by parliament in 1840 provided (i) for a legislative council, nominated like the legislative councils at Quebec and Toronto, the members to hold office for life; and (2) for a legislative assembly elected on the same fran- chises as the assemblies of 1 792-1 840. For mem- bership of these assemblies there had been no property qualification; for membership of the new legislature ownership of landed property of the value of £500 was a prerequisite. In the period from 1791 to 1840 eight towns had come into existence in Upper Canada. These were Toronto, Kingston, Hamilton, Brockville, Cornwall, Niagara, London, and Bytown — known since 1854 as Ottawa. With the excep- tion of London and Ottawa, all these towns — now cities — are on Lake Ontario, a fact which indicates the importance of water transport in the early settlement of Canada. By the imperial act of 1840 two members were assigned to Toronto, and one each to the other seven towns. Urban development in Lower Canada had pro- ceeded more slowly than in Upper Canada. The French-Canadian is usually not a town dweller. Sherbrooke, in the eastern counties of Lower Canada, — counties that were settled between 1800 and 1840 chiefly by immigrants from the United Kingdom, — was the only new town suffi- ciently important in 1840 for separate represen- tation in the assembly. [106] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 Sherbrooke was assigned one member. Two each were allotted to Montreal and Quebec, and one to Three Rivers. There were, therefore, in the new legislature fifteen representatives of urban constituencies. To each province were allotted ten members of the legislative council. To each province also there were allotted forty-two members of the assembly — a provision that for ten years was a distinct advantage to Upper Canada, and a grievance with Lower Canada. In the fifties and sixties, when immigration had given Upper Canada a population larger than that of the French province, the position was reversed; and out of this reversal of the position at the time of the union of the provinces there was developed the agitation in Upper Canada for rep- resentation by population — one of the most vigorous and persistent agitations of the decade preceding Confederation.^ There was a provision in the constitution that the legislature might add to the number of mem- bers of the assembly. In 1853 the total number of members was increased from 84 to 130. The census of 1852 had shown that the population of Upper Canada was then 60,000 in excess of that of Lower Canada. But 65 members were apportioned to each province; and the French- Canadians had so easily the upper hand in the legislative assembly that the reform demanded * Cf. Clarke, "Sixty Years in Upper Canada," 65. C107] Legis- lative council French Canada secures the upper hand in the legis- lative assembly EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Preemi- nence assigned totlie English language Municipal govern- ment by Upper Canada could not be obtained, and was not obtained until the principle of repre- sentation according to population was embodied in the act of Confederation.^ Bills introduced into the legislature, and all official documents for record, it was enacted in the organic law of 1840, must be in the English language; but this provision was not to prevent copies being printed in French. As in the legis- lature at Quebec from 1792 to the rebellion, both English and French were used in debate in the legislature of the United Provinces; and from 1 841 to the present day there has never been a time when French-Canadian members, either of the legislature of the United Provinces, or of the house of commons or senate at Ottawa, have not freely exercised this privilege of speaking in French in debate. Provision was also made in the new constitu- tion for meeting a need to which Durham had called attention when he noted the efficiency of municipal government in the United States, and the fact that in the United States even where municipal institutions were "lacking or imper- fect, the energy and self-governing habits of the Anglo-Saxon population enable it to com- bine whenever a necessity arises." ^ There was a clause in the act making it manda- tory on the government of the United Provinces to constitute townships, and organize municipal 1 Cf. Boyd, 143-147. 2 Lucas, II, 112-113. [108: EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 government. A temporary measure for this Munici- purpose was passed by the legislature in 1841. p^*^°*^®s A municipal code was framed for Lower Canada Lower in 1845; and in 1849 a municipal code was en- ^^ acted for Upper Canada, "which at last gave to Canada the people the system of self-government which they now enjoy, and established the principle that local control of financial matters of local interest should be vested in the taxpayers." ^ Until 1846, when Great Britain adopted free Regu- trade and abandoned her old commercial policy, ^^**°° °' ^ -' ' corn- duties levied on imports into all British colonies merce were determined by parliament at Westminster, ]ll^^^^ and these duties were fixed with a view to Brwsh affording British manufacturers a monopoly of ^^^' all colonial markets. Accordingly under the con- stitution of 1840 the imperial government again reserved the power of imposing duties for the regulation of commerce. The revenues from these customs duties were to flow into the treas- ury of the United Provinces; and, subject to two conditions, the legislature was conceded control of the raising of all other revenues and the spending of all revenues. These conditions were: (i) the provision of other a civil list for the salaries of the governor-general reser- vations ^ Clarke, 95-96. Clarke, who was clerk of the legislature of Ontario from 1891 to 1907, in writing of the municipal code of 1849 and its amendments — page 96 — says, "It has given us a system far excelling that adopted in many states of the American Union." C 1093 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Popular demands ignored in framing the new consti- tution Two of these demands subse- quently conceded and the judges; and (2) the provision of a con- solidated fund for the salaries of provincial offi- cials. Over the civil list that determines the salaries of the governor-general and the judges, and over the consolidated fund, parliament at Westminster retained control until 1847. The only bills reserved — bills to which the governor-general could not give the royal assent — were bills affecting religion and crown lands. Three demands of the long agitation in Lower and Upper Canada which had preceded the rebellion of 1837 were not conceded in the act of 1840: the legislative council was not made elective; judges and civil servants were not excluded from the legislature; and there was not a word in the act concerning the epoch-making claim, urged in Upper Canada as far back as 1828, for responsible government, a claim that had been emphasized in Papineau's platform of 1835. It was 1853 before the constitution of 1840 was amended to exclude judges and civil serv- ants from the assembly and the legislative coun- cil; and it was 1856 before an amending act was passed at Westminster admitting elected mem- bers to the legislative council. Elected members were of the council from 1856 until Confedera- tion. At the time the constitution of 1840 was before the house of commons. Lord John Russell, who was in charge of the bill, held tenaciously to [no] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 nomination for legislative councils. He was sure Nomi- that the connection between the colonies and ?^^^ legis- Great Britain would be in danger if there were lative elected legislative councils. But like other <=o^°'=fs o as links fears entertained at Westminster between 1783 of and 1887 in regard to the colonies, there was no ^'"p^® ground for this apprehension. Seven of the nine provincial legislatures of Canada today have no second chamber; and even the most ardent friends of the senate at Ottawa, if it has any such friends,'^ never advance the claim that the nomi- nated senate is of any peculiar value in main- taining the imperial connection. IV. The Struggle for Responsible Government The claim for responsible government was con- Fortunes ceded in 1841. The concession was withdrawn °^^^^ ^ move- in 1843, ^^^ was completely and finally conceded ment in 1849. Its first and its final concessions were ('°™, ^^ . . 1841 to due, not to anything actually stated in the act i849 of 1840, although that memorable act was the key to all the constitutional freedom now en- joyed by all the dominions. They were due to the statesmanship and democratic spirit of Syden- ham, Bagot, and Elgin, three of the four govern- ors-general who were in office from 1839 to 1850, and also, it is important to note, to the new policy literally forced on Downing Street by the Liberals of Upper and Lower Canada, who were ^ Cf. The Round Table, London, III, December, 1912, to September, 1913, 719-722. [Ill] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Syden- ham's con- cessions to the demand Cabinet govern- ment as at West- minster Principles on which Sydenham acted in control of the legislative assembly of the United Provinces, during the first decade of the consti- tution of 1840. Durham was succeeded by Sydenham in November, 1839. The new governor-general recognized the justice of the long-sustained demand for responsible government, and the wisdom of prompt concession. Under the old regime at Toronto and Quebec, the executive councils were generally composed of men in political opposition to the majority of the legis- lative assembly; and the governor, at each of these capitals, usually took extreme care to have every act of his own go forth on the responsibility of the executive council.^ In the first session of the legislature of the United Provinces — a session held at Toronto in ; 1 841 — Sydenham chose the executive council from members of the legislature who were of the political party in the majority in the assembly. By so doing he established cabinet government in Canada on the same basis as at Westminsterl Sydenham's conception of the functions and duties of a governor of a colony having representative institutions was so novel that his action forms landmark in British colonial history, scarcely second in importance to Durham's famous reportj The principles of Sydenham's policy werd (i) that as governor-general — as the represen- tative of the crown in Canada — he was himseli C112] ^ Cf. Scrope, "Lord Sydenham," 143. EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 responsible to the imperial authorities alone; and (2) that it was his duty so to form and conduct the government as to insure harmony with the majority of the elected legislative assembly.^ Sydenham died at Kingston, Ontario's most beautiful lakeside city, in September, 1841. He was only forty-two. He was not of the aristo- cratic governing class of England — not of the territorial aristocracy from which at this time the governing class was almost exclusively drawn. He was not a peer until 1840. In his earlier life Sydenham had been a mer- chant in a large way of business in the city of London. He has the distinction of being the first man of the commercial class, after the re- form of the house of commons in 1832, to attain front rank in imperial politics; and he had no successor from the commercial or manufacturing class in the wide field of imperial politics until Chamberlain became colonial secretary in 1895. No other man of the capitalistic or commercial classes was appointed to a colonial governorship until Lord Brassey, a great railway contractor, ^ who was created a peer, was appointed governor of Victoria in 1895. Queen Victoria objected to men of the com- mercial class as colonial governors. In 1856 the Queen vetoed a suggestion by Labouchere, secre- tary for the colonies, in Palmerston's adminis- tration, that James Wilson, a manufacturer, and A mer- chant's success in empire politics Men of the com- mercial class in imperial politics ^ Cf. Scrope, 273. [113] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Queen Victoria's objections to men of com- merce as colonial governors Men of the British governing class as colonial governors a financier of national fame, who was also founder of the Economist, should be appointed governor of Victoria, Australia. It was then a colony with representative institutions, but not in the enjoyment of responsible government. Its popu- lation was much less than that of many of the parishes of London in 1856. "Mr, Wilson," the Queen wrote, "would not be at all a proper person to be governor of so large and important a colony as Victoria. It ought to be a man of higher position and standing, and who could represent his sovereign adequately." ^ The ideas expressed in the Queen's letter of 1856 as to men who were unfit for colonial gov- ernorships have, as a rule, held good at thea colonial office from that day to the present time.l Governorships in the dominions — offices ordi- narily only of dignity, form, and pageantry, under the system of responsible government — have gone almost exclusively to men of the terri- torial governing class; and as a rule these offices,^ which offer no career, go to men of second 01 third rank in political life at Westminster.^ ^ Benson and Esher, "Letters of Queen Victoria," III,] 24-27. 2 Munro-Ferguson, who in 1886 was elected to the house! of commons from Leith Burghs (Scotland), was in 19141 appointed governor-general of the Commonwealth of Aus- tralia. "They were now," he said, at a farewell meeting of I his constituents at Leith, on February 10, 1914, "giving their late member a first-class political funeral." — Herald, Glasgow, February 11, 1914. [114] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 Sydenham had no experience of colonial ad- ministration before he arrived at Montreal in 1839. He was of a different type and mental caliber from the governors-general and lieuten- ant-governors who were at Quebec or Toronto from 1 79 1 to the rebellion. There were of these governors several with political ability; but most of them were military men who needed a salaried job. Sydenham was one of three men — Durham, Sydenham, and Elgin — whose genius for gov- ernment, and whose courage, vision, and popular sympathies carried Canada successfully through the great crisis of 1 837-1 850, and made possi- ble the self-governing dominions and their loyalty to Great Britain. "Lord Durham," writes Sir Charles Lucas, England's foremost authority on British colonial history, "preached his gospel and died. Lord Sydenham, before he too died, set the political machine running in the right direction. Then the machine went on, the way widened, the views widened. Men grew up to contemplate a nation, and after contemplating to create it. Lord Dur- ham's report gave the inspiration. Sydenham, with his combination of strong popular sympa- thies and great business capacity, showed how to begin putting principles into practice." "The history of Canada," continues Lucas, who was under-secretary at the colonial office from 1897 to 191 1, and next in importance to the secretary for the colonies, "has been on the whole C115] Syden- ham a new type of colonial governor Achieve- ments of Durham and Syden- ham Lucas's tribute to their work EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA a history of singular good fortune; and not the least part of this good fortune has been that Lord Durham should have been forthcoming at the particular time when he went to Canada; and that Lord Sydenham should have been available as his successor. It would be difficult to find in the chronicles of any country two men who, within little more than three years in all, did so much to help the coming time." ^ Bagot Sir Charles Bagot, a member of Lincoln's continues ^^^ ^^^ j^^j l^ggj^ ^f ^j^g house of commons, and Syden- . ham's who had served as parliamentary under-secretary policy £qj. foreign affairs with Canning as his chief, and who had been minister at Washington, and am- bassador at Petrograd and The Hague, succeeded] Sydenham as governor-general in 1841. He was] appointed by the Peel government — a Conserv-I ative administration that had come into powen in September, 1841. Bagot, who in British politics was a Tory^j continued Sydenham's policy. At a crisis ir Quebec, he formed his government "in unisor with the known will of the majority of the popu-| lar assembly." ^ Bagot, in fact, was so situated] that he had to adopt Sydenham's principles of government.^ Acting on the broad principle] that the constitutional majority had the right toj ^ Lucas, "Durham Report," I, 301-302. 2 Parker, "Sir Robert Peel," III, 382. ^ Cf. speech by Roebuck, house of commons. May 36^ 1842. C116] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 rule under the constitution, he appointed Louis HyppoHte Lafontaine to the executive council, in association with Robert Baldwin, the leader of the Liberals of Ontario. Lafontaine had succeeded Papineau as leader Men of of the French-Canadian Liberals; and with La- ^f ,„ rebellion fontaine's appointment to the executive council of 1837 there was also the appointment to office of ^ppointed several French-Canadians who had been con- office cerned in the rebellion — men who belonged to what Wellington stigmatized as "a party tainted with treason." ^ "What a fool," declared Wellington, "the WeUing- man (Bagot) must have been to act as he has ^^j^_ done! And what stuff and nonsense he has nation written! And what a pother he makes about his policy and his measures, when there are no meas- ures but rolling himself and his country in the mire!" "The duke," Peel was told, "can talk of nothing else; and is in a perfect fury of anger and indignation." ^ Bagot's efforts to manage what Peel described as "the fierce democracy of Canada," developed 1 Parker, III, 384. 2 Parker, III, 382-383. Wellington died in 1852. With the exception of the Earl of Derby, who was thrice premier between 1852 and 1868, Wellington was the last British statesman who dreaded an extension of self-government to the colonies. He was the last to learn the lesson of the Ameri- can revolution. He was certainly the last statesman to hold the idea that a British colony, which had the United States as neighbor, could long continue under military rule. C117] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA a situation that Wellington feared would be fatal to the connection of the United Provinces with Great Britain. What equally troubled Welling- ton — perhaps troubled him even more — was a dread that Bagot's concession to the democ- racy of French-Canada might be fatal to Peel's cabinet, of which he was a member without portfolio.^ Bagot had no friend at court. Long before his dispatches had arrived in London — dispatches that came as a thunderbolt to Wellington — as early, in fact, as September 9, 1841, Queen Vic- toria had regretted her formal approval of Bagot's appointment as governor-general. "The Queen," she wrote to Peel, "cannot refrain from saying that she cannot quite approve of Sir Charles Bagot's appointment, as from what she hears of his qualities she does not think that they are of a character quite to suit in the arduous and diffi- cult position in which he will be placed." ^ After much commotion within Peel's cabinet, Bagot was censured. It was hopeless for him to attempt to continue as governor-general. He asked for his recall. His request was complied with; and he died in Canada soon after the arrival of his successor, Sir Charles T. Met- calfe. Bagot made his stand for Sydenham's enlight- ened policy. He was highly regarded as a colonial 1 Cf. Parker, III, 382. ^ Benson and Esher, I, 405-406. C118] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 reformer by radicals at Westminster such as Roe- Bagot as buck and Hume/ and by one at least of his l^°^f biographers he is credited with having inaugu- rated responsible government in Canada.^ V. Metcalfe's Repudiation of Responsible Government Unlike Durham, Sydenham, and Bagot, Met- Met- calfe, who was created a peer in 1845, had had l^^J^ a varied experience of governorships before he ideas of reached Canada in 1843. He was then fifty-eight ''°^°^_ years of age. He had been, from the time he ment left Eton in 1800, to 1838, in the service of the East India Company — an indifferent school for a governor of a colony, with representative insti- tutions, Hke the united provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and a colony, moreover, that was vigorously pushing for responsible government.* Metcalfe's last Indian appointment was as lieu- tenant-governor of the northwest provinces. From 1839 to 1842 he had been governor of Jamaica, where he had been eminently success- ful in adjusting relations between the English sugar planters and the 400,000 negroes who had been Hberated from slavery in 1838. Metcalfe did not follow the policy of Syden- 1 Cf. Parliamentary Debates, Series III, vol. 75, pp. 33 and 61. 2 Cf. "Dictionary of National Biography," Supplement I, 98; Boyd, "Cartier," 72. 3 Walrond, "Letters and Journals of the Earl of Elgin," 33. C119] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA ham and Bagot. He refused recognition of the principle of responsible government — any recog- nition that would satisfy Canadian political leaders. At the time Bagot resigned, the Lafon- taine-Baldwin ministry was in power. This was the ministry whose formation had been the cause of Bagot's loss of prestige in Downing Street. Kingston was then the seat of government of the United Provinces; and Metcalfe, soon after he had established himself in that city as governor- general, undertook to make himself practically minister of the colony.^ He refused to accept the recommendations of the executive council in regard to public appointments. He "refused to follow the advice of his ministers in matters which were within their absolute province." ^ Furthermore, when he was interviewed by a dep- utation of electors from Upper Canada, who asked that he follow the constitutional practice initiated by Sydenham, Metcalfe made a speech, much more suited to the political atmosphere of India than to that of any British North Ameri- can province after the rebellion of 1837. "If you mean," said Metcalfe, "that the gover- nor is to have no exercise of his own judgment in the administration of the government, and is to be a mere tool in the hands of the council, I totally disagree with you. That is a condition to which 1 Cf. Speech by Earl of EUenborough, H. of L., June 15, 1854. 2 Speech by Cartier, at St. Denis, 1844, Boyd, 88. [ 120] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 I never can submit, and which her majesty's government, in my opinion, can never sanction.^ If you mean that every word and deed of the governor is to be previously submitted for the advice of the council, then you propose what, besides being unnecessary, is utterly impossible, consistent with the due despatch of business." ^ Metcalfe's difficulties with the Lafontaine-Bald- Met- win administration had arisen over an appoint- «=^®'^ .... con- ment in the civil service — over patronage. In ception his speech Metcalfe took up this question, and °*^^ expressed himself in strong terms in regard to the pouacai claims of the ministers. "If you mean," he con- ^^^°^- tinued, "that the patronage of the crown is to be surrendered for exclusive party purposes to the council, instead of being distributed to reward merit, to meet just claims, and to promote the efficiency of the public service, then we are at issue again. Such a surrender of the prerogative ^ "The claim for responsible government," said Stanley, secretary of state for the colonies, in defending Metcalfe's policy and administration in Canada, in the house of com- njons on May 30, 1844, "is inconsistent with the existence of monarchical institutions; and in the next place with the relations that should exist between a colony and the mother country. It is inconsistent with monarchical government that the governor who is responsible should be stripped of all authority and all power, and be reduced to that degree of political power which is vested in the constitutional sov- ereign of the country." 2 Egerton and Grant, "Canadian Constitutional Docu- ments," 295. C121] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA His distlnc- tlon as a governor- general of Canada of the crown ^ is, in my opinion, incompatible with the existence of a British colony." ^ There had been no utterance from a governor- general in this key since Head's rebuff to Mac- kenzie's constituents when they petitioned against his exclusion from the assembly at Toronto. Met- calfe has the distinction of being the last governor- general of Canada to use such language to his ministers or to their constituents. Responsible government meant nearly all that Metcalfe inferred; and his attempt in 1 843-1 845 to stay the progress towards responsible govern- ment was as useless as it would have been for him to command the waters of Lake Erie to cease flowing over Niagara Falls. 1 As late as October I, 1843, there was no realization at Whitehall of the changing conditions in the United Provinces, or of the claim for responsible government which was being insistently pressed on the governor-general. In that month the "Rules and Regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Serv- ice" were revised and reissued; and on page 19 in the new edition there is a rule applicable to the distribution of patron- age. " Great weight," it reads, " must always be attached to local services and experience. Every governor will, therefore, make once in each year a confidential report of the claims of candidates, whether already employed in the public service or not, whom he may consider to possess that qualification, in order that when a vacancy, or an opportunity for promo- tion, occurs, the secretary of state may have before him the means of judging how far the particular candidate recom- mended by the governor is, on the whole, best qualified, and whether a candidate of proper qualifications is to be found in the colony or in any adjacent colony." 2 Egerton and Grant, 295. [ 122 ] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 Racial divisions existed in the legislature of Doubie- the United Provinces from 1841 to 1866. But ^7^**^ party lines were not identical with race lines. double- All the members from Quebec were not Liberal, ^^^^^g nor all the members from Ontario Conservative. Combinations of groups from each province were necessary to secure a party majority in the as- sembly. It was by a combination of this kind that the Lafontaine-Baldwin administration was formed when Bagot was governor-general. Such an administration was known as a double- majority and double-headed cabinet, because a British and a French party leader — of equal rank in the cabinet, and each with his regimented following in the assembly — were necessary to keep the administration in power. Robert Baldwin, who with Lafontaine was at Baid- the head of the government when Metcalfe at- ^'^ ° , . part in tempted to restore the old regime and enforce his the old crown colony ideal of colonial government, struggle was the leader of the Liberals in Ontario. He had been in the political life of the upper prov- govern- ince since 1829, when he was elected to the ment assembly. He had been a radical and a reformer at Toronto, when association with radicals and reformers meant a boycott for a professional man — he was a lawyer — and meant also social ostracism. With Baldwin from 1829 to 1849, responsible government was the alpha and omega of political reform. He was the author of the municipal code [ 123] respon- sible EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Outcome of Met- calfe's oppo- sition to respon- sible govern- ment Governor- general's power to dissolve the legis- lature Metcalfe as a Tory partisan of 1849, a democratic measure of much value in the domestic history of Ontario. But his fame today, Hke that of Lafontaine, rests chiefly on his part in the successful struggle for responsible government under the constitution of 1840. The Lafontaine-Baldwin government resigned in September, 1844. It was succeeded by the Draper-Viger government, which had as its fol- lowing members of the assembly from both Que- bec and Ontario, who were willing to accede to Metcalfe's views of responsible government. But these members were not numerous enough to give the Draper-Viger administration a majority in the assembly. Without a majority there could be no votes in supply — no money with which to carry on the government. Under the constitution a session of the legis- lature had to be held each year, and a legislature might continue in existence for four years. But, as under the British constitution, the governor- general had power, as he has today, to dissolve the legislature at a crisis which seemed to make expedient a new appeal to the electorate. Metcalfe, under the conditions which con- fronted him in the autumn of 1844 — with La- fontaine and Baldwin out of office, but with their followers still compact and hostile to the new government — was compelled to dissolve the legis- lature. He was compelled to take this step, or to yield to the demand for responsible government, as the radicals conceived it. C 124] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 The new ministers, Draper and Viger, were Conservatives — Tories, as Conservatives in Can- ada were called until 1855. Metcalfe had had no experience in the management of elections. Elec- tions were unknown in India. But he threw him- self into the election of 1844 with all the vigor that had characterized Head's intervention in the election in Upper Canada in 1836, and with such success that a majority was secured in the assem- bly for Draper and Viger. As Metcalfe was the last governor-general to assume what today would be regarded as a dis- tinctly unconstitutional position towards an ad- ministration, so also was he the last governor who was openly partisan. He was the last to inter- fere in a general election in the interest of either party. Within less than a year of his success at the election of 1844, Metcalfe died — the third governor-general to die in Canada in the years from 1 84 1 to 1845. For only about two years was the movement for responsible government retarded by Metcalfe's conflict with the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry and his success in securing a majority in the assembly for Draper and Viger. But unlike Bagot, Met- calfe had friends at court. His administration and his policy were regarded by Queen Victoria, and by the prince consort, as "prudent, consist- ent, and impartial." "Upon the continuance and consistent appli- cation of the system which Lord Metcalfe has [ 125] Last gov- ernor- general to inter- fere In elections Queen Victoria's admira- tion of Met- calfe's policies EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Met- calfe's instruc- tions His policy defended by the colonial secretary laid down and acted upon," wrote Prince Albert, in August, 1846, "will depend, in the Queen's estimation, the future welfare of the province, and the maintenance of proper relations with the mother country." ^ Metcalfe's policy certainly was in accordance with the instructions he had received when he was appointed governor-general — instructions which Stanley, who was then colonial secretary in Peel's administration of 1 841-1846, on Feb- ruary 2, 1844, declined to lay on the table of the house of commons. There was a debate on that day on Metcalfe's administration. Stanley expressed satisfaction that the question had been raised; for he be- lieved it of importance that there should be no mistake as to the views of the government. " Metcalfe," reads the report of Stanley's speech, "was sent to Canada to carry out the fairly new colonial system, but equally determined to resist those extravagant demands which were incon- sistent with the authority of the crown, and of the true rights of a colony. He believed that the course taken by the governor-general was the right one, and he had no hesitation in stating that it met with the entire concurrence of the government at home."^ Metcalfe's death was regarded by the Queen as a great loss. Her correspondence with minis- ^ Benson and Esher, II, 111-112. 2 Pari. Debates, Series III, vol. 72, p. 145. C126] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 ters at this time shows that she fully endorsed their policy of conceding to the United Provinces something far short of what Baldwin and Lafon- taine understood by the term — a term of Cana- dian origin — "responsible government." "The selection of a successor," the Queen wrote, "will be most difficult;" and she urged on Stanley, that it was of "the greatest importance that the judicious system pursued by Lord Metcalfe, which, after a long continuation of toil and adversity, only now ^ just begins to show its effect, should be followed up by his successor." ^ Queen Victoria, in this letter of November 2, 1845, added that she knew "nobody who would be as fit for the appointment as Lord Elgin, who seems to have given great satisfaction in Jamaica," where he had succeeded Metcalfe as governor in 1842. VL Responsible Government under the Elgin Regime During the whole of her sixty-four years' reign the Queen can scarcely have done what are now the dominions a more valuable service than when she suggested the appointment of Elgin to Stan- ley. The appointment was ultimately made, not by the Peel government to which the Queen had addressed her letter, but by the government of Lord John Russell, which had succeeded the Peel administration in July, 1846. ^ November 2, 1845. ^ Benson and Esher, II, 54-55; 111-112. [ 127] Some- thing short of respon- sible govern- ment to be conceded Queen suggests Elgin as Met- calfe's A fortimate sugges- tion EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Elgin's Elgin, who was thirty-five when he was '*°^ appointed governor-general, did not continue makers Metcalfe's policy, although when the Russell gov- ofthe ernment was about to make the appointment — British 1 ^ 1 T- 1 /-I Empire August 3, 1 846 — the Queen urged on Earl Grey, the new colonial secretary, that "regard should be had to securing an uninterrupted development of Lord Metcalfe's views." ^ Today Elgin ranks with Durham and Syden- ham among the great colonial administrators of the nineteenth century. Had he followed in Met- calfe's footsteps — made speeches like that of Metcalfe to the advocates of responsible govern- ment, and interfered in elections — his name would have been of interest only to colonial antiquaries. Elgin's Durham and Sydenham were Whigs — ap- f°fhT* pointees of a Whig government. Bagot and 1841 Metcalfe were Conservatives, appointees of a Con- servative government. Elgin was a Conserva- tive. Had he not been a Conservative he would not have been suggested by the Queen to a Con- servative government in 1846; for governorships in the dominions, as distinct from governorships of crown colonies, are regarded as patronage at Westminster, except when occasionally a prince or other connection of the royal family is ap- pointed.2 Otherwise governorships go, as a ^ Benson and Esher, II, 112. ^ The Marquis of Lome, who was governor-general of Canada from 1878 to 1883, was husband of Princess Louise, daughter of Queen Victoria. [128] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 matter of course, to supporters of the adminis- tration at Westminster. At this period of his career Elgin was a Liberal- Conservative.^ But the liberaUsm was pre- ponderant. He was not a Tory of the type of Wellington. He was not even a Tory of the school of Stanley, afterwards Earl of Derby, from whom in 1842 he had received his appointment as governor of Jamaica. He had avowed his lib- eralism when he was a candidate for the house of commons for Southampton, in 1841; ^ and he carried his Hberalism into practice during the six years he was governor-general of Canada. Before Elgin left England for Canada in 1847, he married a daughter of Durham. This would seem to have broadened his liberalism and strengthened his popular sympathies.^ It un- doubtedly gave the Durham family added importance in the history of the struggle for responsible government, a struggle which had been carried to a successful issue when Elgin left Canada in December, 1854. At the time that Elgin was governor-general of Canada, and for at least a quarter of a century afterwards, the attitude of many statesmen in England — Conservatives as well as Liberals — was that colonies such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would end the connection with Great Britain as soon as they were strong enough ^ Cf. Walrond, ibid., 9. ^ Cf. Walrond, ibid., 9-10. * Cf. Walrond, ibid., 44. [ 129] Elgin's marriage with the daughter of Durham Helping the colonies to prepare for inde- pendence EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA New- castle's views on holding colonies by force American influence once more to Stand alone. Many English statesmen were convinced that the constitutions framed by par- liament after 1840 for colonies with representa- tive government were only provisional — only preliminary to constitutions in which these colonies would assert their complete independence. Proof of the existence of this conviction is abundant in the biographies and letters of British statesmen of the first half of the nineteenth cen- tury. Expressions of it are to be found in the de- bates of the house of lords on June 15 and 29, 1854, on the legislative council (Canada) bill; and as late in the nineteenth century as 1862 the colonies were told by the Duke of Newcastle, who was secretary of state for the colonies in the Palmerston administration of 1 859-1 865, that he trusted the day would never come when the mother country would make an effort to retain her colonies by force. "I trust," added Newcastle, "that the day will never return when a single redcoat will point a bayonet, or fire a shot, in hostility to the colo- nies if they wish to separate from the mother country." ^ Here again America had its influence on British colonial policy; for the conviction that the colonies would break away was largely based on Great Britain's experience of 1 776-1 783 with the American colonies. These convictions were all ill-founded. This ^ Speech by Duke of Newcastle, Australian anniversary dinner, London, February 12, 1862. EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 fact was demonstrated to the world several times in the years from Queen Victoria's jubilee in 1887 to the outbreak of the war in August, 1914. As one concession after another was made to the dominions, in the years from 1840 to 1907, when they were conceded the liberty to make their own commercial treaties with foreign powers, and as the dominions increased in population, material wealth, and world-wide political impor- tance, they drew nearer to Great Britain. They attached increasing importance to the imperial connection; and when war came a million troops were raised in the dominions, and the response which the dominions made to the Empire's need was in some respects more remarkable than England's own.^ From 1840 to 1880, however, the conviction was widely held that the colonies with representative and responsible government would inevitably break away as soon as it suited them to do so. Elgin never held this view of the temporary character of the connection between the domin- ions and Great Britain. He did not go to Canada with the idea that he was to aid in perfecting a system of government that was to be only pro- visional, or with the conviction that the British North American colonies would follow the ex- ample of the American colonies, and end the con- nection with Great Britain. ^ Cf. Adams, "Imperial Federation after the War," Yale Review, July, 1916, 688-694. C131] Con- victions for which there was no basis Elgin con- vinced of the enduring con- nection of the colonies with Great Britain EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA His con- ception of his mission In Canada His frank adoption of the policy of Sydenham Family Compact and Elgin's declara- tion of his principles As Elgin conceived it, his mission was to con- vince Canadians that, without severing the bonds that united them with Great Britain, "they might attain the degree of perfection and of social and political development to which organized com- munities of freemen had the right to aspire." ^ The principles on which Elgin based his policy as governor were identical with those that had guided Sydenham in 1841. He would identify himself with no party, but would make himself a moderator between the influential of all parties. He would have no ministers who did not enjoy the confidence of the Canadian people; and he would not refuse his consent to any measure, proposed by the ministry, unless it were of an extreme party character, such as the assembly or the electors would be sure to disapprove.^ Elgin arrived at Montreal at the end of De- cember, 1847. On the day that he took oath as governor-general, he received an address of wel- come from the municipality of Montreal. In reply he intimated that he had frankly and un- equivocally adopted Durham's view of colonial governorship — an intimation that caused no little astonishment to the Family Compact and its partisans, who had scarcely more sympathy with Durham's principles of colonial government than they had with republicanism in the United States.^ ^ Walrond, ibid., 116. '^ Walrond, ibid., 34. 3 Cf. Walrond, ibid., 36. . [ 132 ] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 The Draper-VIger government was at this time still in office. The leaders and their partisans were in good humor, as they were in enjoyment of the offices to which as Tories of the Family Compact group they were convinced they had a prescriptive right. The Liberals were in a hope- ful mood, as they were convinced — rightly, as it developed — that with the end of the Met- calfe regime a better era would open for the advo- cates of responsible government. A dissolution of the legislature came at the Defeat end of 1847. As soon as the newly elected assem- ^^^ bly convened, early in 1848, the Draper-Viger govem- ministry was again in the position in which it ™®'^* was when it was first organized. It was in a minority, and unable to carry on the government. A new ministry — again a Lafontaine-Baldwin administration — was formed from the opposi- tion; and at this juncture the members of the two parties observed a truce long enough to con- cur in an expression of admiration of the perfect fairness and impartiality with which Elgin had conducted himself during the election and the formation of the new ministry.^ Within a year of his assuming the governor- Elgin's generalship, Elgin thus succeeded in carrying ^"* into effect the second of the principles on which his administration was to be based — that he would have no ministers, no members of the executive council, who could not command a ^Cf. Walrond, ibid., 50. [ 133] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA majority in the legislative assembly. He had still to make a fight, in the end successful, for his third principle, that he would not refuse his consent to any measure proposed by the cabinet, unless it were of an extreme party character, such as the assembly or the electors would dis- approve. VII. The Rebellion Losses Bill A The test came on the measure known in Cana- j^ dian history as the rebellion losses bill — a bill Canadian almost as important in the constitutional history tationai ^^ Canada as the act of union of 1840, and quite develop- as important as the tariff acts of 1858-1859, °^^°^ out of which developed the right of British colonies, with representative and responsible governments, to frame their own tariffs without interference from the colonial office or parlia- ment at Westminster. The object of the rebellion losses bill was to provide for the indemnification of men in Lower Canada whose property had been destroyed dur- ing the rebelHon. Elgin regarded the bill as a questionable measure; "but," to use his own words, "one which the preceding administration had rendered almost inevitable by certain pro- ceedings adopted by them" during Metcalfe's term of office. Some compensation had been paid to persons who had suffered loss of property in the rebel- lion. In the last session of the old legislature C 134 ] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 of Upper Canada a compensation bill was enacted; and by an ordinance, passed by the council that was in existence in Lower Canada during the sus- pension of the constitution from 1838 to the union in 1840, some compensation was also paid in Lower Canada. In both provinces the payments made were deemed inadequate; and in the first session of the legislature of the United Provinces — 1841 — a bill was enacted for further compensation for sufferers in Upper Canada. In 1845 there was an appeal on behalf of sufferers in Lower Canada. It was addressed to Metcalfe, who responded by appointing a commission of inquiry. The com- mission reported in April, 1846, that there were losses for which compensation should be paid. The Draper-Viger government took no action on the report. The question of compensation was consequently pending when the Lafontaine-Bald- win government again came into power in 1848. The Metcalfe commission had reported that .$100,000 would cover the losses still to be com- pensated in Lower Canada. The bill that was introduced into the legislature in 1848 by the Lafontaine-Baldwin government appropriated $90,000 for this purpose. There was a provision in the bill that no person who had been con- victed, or who had pleaded guilty of treason, during the rebellion, should be entitled to any compensation.^ 1 Cf. Walrond, ibid., 70-74. [135] Com- pensation to sufferers from the rebellion in Upper Canada Claims from Lower Canada An misettled question EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Oppo- sition by the Tories Elgin's assent to the compen- sation bill resolu- tions His reasons for his assent communi- cated to the colonial ofiSce The Tories in both provinces raised a great commotion against the bill. There was much hard language from the loyalists against Elgin, who was urged to dissolve the legislature, though little more than a year had elapsed since the general election. The bill, however, was per- sisted in by the Lafontaine-Baldwin administra- tion. In all British legislatures money bills originate in the lower house. They are based on resolu- tions. If the resolutions are carried they are embodied in a bill which is introduced, and goes through all its stages in both houses like any other measure. The resolutions on which the rebellion losses bill was based — resolutions which, by con- stitutional usage, could not have been submitted to the legislative assembly had the governor- general not signified his assent to them by message to the house — were carried by fifty to twenty- five votes. The bill was carried by forty-seven to eighteen votes. The reasons which induced Elgin to give his assent to the resolutions were explained in a letter which he wrote from Montreal to Grey, who was secretary for the colonies in the Russell administration of 1846-185 2. "The measure itself," he wrote, "is not indeed altogether free from objection; and I very much regret that an addition should be made to our debt for such an object at this time. Nevertheless, I must say, [136] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 I do not see how my present government could have taken any other course in this matter than that which they have followed. Their prede- cessors had already gone more than halfway in the same direction, though they stopped short and now tell us that they never intended to go further. If the ministry had failed to complete the work of alleged justice to Lower Canada which had been commenced by the former administration, M. Papineau ^ would most as- suredly have availed himself of the plea to under- mine their influence in this section of the province." ^ A disposition to observe constitutional usages old and practices was never characteristic of the ^'^""dian Tories of the Family Compact groups in Upper Tories' and Lower Canada. They were a law to them- ^^T" selves, as was sufficiently proved by their ejection for of Mackenzie from the assembly at Toronto. ^^^\ They again ignored constitutional usage in the usages crisis over the rebellion losses bill. They or- ganized many petitions against the bill; but ^ "Returning from exile in 1845, after eight years' absence from Canada, Papineau decided to reenter public life; and the prestige of his name, and of his past parliamentary tri- umphs, were sufiicient to secure his election for the constit- uency of St. Maurice. Papineau at once showed himself irreconcilable. He was against the union. He had no faith in responsible government, such as was advocated by La- fontaine and his colleagues, and he declared in favor of inde- pendence." ^ Boyd, 76. ^ Walrond, ibid., 74-75. [137] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA instead of presenting these petitions to the assembly, or to the legislative council, in accord- ance with the usage at Westminster, they addressed them to Elgin personally. This un- constitutional course was obviously adopted with the design of bringing about a collision between the governor-general and his ministry and the assembly. At Westminster, where petitions to the sover- eign can only be presented through the home sec- retary, petitions thus out of order would have not opposition j-eached the Queen. Elgin, acting consistently compen- on the first of the principles on which he based ^^°^ his administration, that he would make himself a mediator and a moderator between the two political parties, received the petitions against the rebellion losses bill. He received them civilly, and promised to bestow on them his best consideration, but studiously avoided the expres- sion of any opinion. "By maintaining a strictly constitutional posi- tion," writes his biographer, "he failed that section of the agitators who calculated on his being frightened or made angry, while he left the door open for any one who might have candor enough to admit that, after all, he was only carrying out fairly the principle of responsible government." ^ From the assembly the rebellion losses bill went to the legislative council; and here it ^ Walrond, ibid., 77. C138] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 should be noted that Elgin in appointing members Elgin's to the council had acted on the advice of his ^'>"**^- tions ministers. By so doing, he had accepted another to the demand of the protagonists of responsible govern- J^^^" ment, and established the usage which has councu continued at Ottawa and at Quebec and Halifax to the present day. It is in accordance with this usage that appointments to the senate, and to the legislative councils in the provinces where these exist, are made by the governor-general, or the lieutenant-governors, as representatives of the crown, but invariably on the advice of the cabinet at Ottawa or the provincial executives at Quebec and Halifax. The bill, having passed the assembly and the Compen- council, was ready for the royal assent on April f*.^*"^ 25, 1849. It received the royal assent from receives Elgin on that day. As Elgin left the parhament ^® house in Montreal he was received with mingled assent cheers and hooting, and his carriage was pelted with rotten eggs, thrown by a "small knot of individuals consisting of persons of a respectable class in society." An open-air demonstration in the Champs de LoyaUst Mars followed the outbreak at the parliament building. Inflammatory speeches were made; and on a sudden the mob proceeded to the house of parliament, where the members were still sitting. After breaking the windows, the mob set fire to the building, and burned it to the ground. The crowd then dispersing, members [ 139] demon- strations EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA An address from the legislative assembly More loyalist demon- strations of the legislature were permitted to leave without molestation; and no resistance was offered by the riotous loyalists to the soldiers who came on the scene to assist in extinguishing the fire.^ At the next sitting of the assembly an address was voted to the governor-general. It expressed abhorrence of the outrage of April 25, and ap- proval of Elgin's "just and impartial administra- tion of the government." It also commended his attitude towards the Draper-Viger ministry as well as towards the Lafontaine-Baldwin cabinet. Elgin went into the city on April 30 to receive this address. He was escorted by a troop of volunteer dragoons. On his way through the streets he was greeted with a shower of stones. Returning from the parliament house to Monk- lands, his residence on Mount Royal, Elgin varied his route to avoid further hostile demon- strations. But the mob, discovering his purpose, rushed in pursuit. They again assailed his carriage with stones, rotten eggs, and other missiles; and it was only by furious driving that the governor-general reached Monklands unhurt. For several days Monklands was prepared for a siege; and for two or three weeks Elgin did not leave the grounds, as he was determined that no act of his should offer occasion or excuse to the mob — an exclusively British as distinct from a French-Canadian mob — for further outrages. ^ Cf. Walrond, 81-82; Burpee, "Sandford Fleming," 34. [ 140] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 Members of the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry Elgin's feared that if Elgin went again into Montreal, ^^^^^^^ his life would be in danger.^ As the legislature as m was still sitting, ministers urged the appointment *^*^®' of a deputy-governor for the purpose of pro- roguing the legislature, thus avoiding another journey for Elgin to the parliament house. Less responsible advisers urged Elgin to use the military forces at his command to protect his person in an official visit to Montreal. While Elgin was thus a prisoner at Monklands, Develop- there were two developments of importance — ™^^ Elgin tendered his resignation to Grey, and ad- the crisis dresses were forwarded to the governor-general from various parts of Upper and Lower Canada indorsing the fight he was making for responsible government. One of these addresses was from a settlement Elgin of Scotch Highlanders in the county of Glen- ^^^^ garry, Upper Canada. "It is truly gratifying to cause me," wrote Elgin to his fellow countrymen in *°' Glengarry, "to learn that you appreciate my he was exertions. Depend upon it they will not be ®^^' relaxed. I claim to have something of your own spirit, devotion to a cause which I believe to be a just one, courage to confront, if need be, danger ^ "Great as has been Elgin's success," said the Earl of Derby, in the house of lords, on June 29, 1854, "I cannot help saying and feeling that the leading principle on which Lord Elgin has acted has been concessions one after another to popular demands — concessions which would enable him to lead an easy life." [ 141 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Consti- tutional govern- ment on its trial Elgin offers his resig- nation to the colonial office and even obloquy in its pursuit, and an undying faith that God protects the right." ^ Elgin's resignation was offered to Grey on April 25, the day that the loyalists burned the parliament house. "It is my firm conviction," he wrote to the colonial secretary, "that if this dictation be submitted to, the government of this province by constitutional means will be impossible, and that the struggle between over- bearing minorities, backed by force, and ma- jorities resting on legality and established forms, which has so long proved the bane of Canada, driving capital from the province, and producing a state of chronic discontent, will be perpetuated." These were the views that Elgin unfolded to Grey. But while holding these views as to the real nature of the struggle then going on in Montreal, he conceived it his duty to the govern- ment at Westminster to suggest that "if he should be unable to recover that position of dignified neutrality between the contending parties which it had been his unremitting study to maintain," it might be a question "whether it would not be for the interests of her majesty's service that he should be removed to make way for some one who should have the advantage of being personally unobnoxious to any section of her majesty's subjects within the province." ^ Grey would not hear of Elgin's resignation. Were he to resign it would be a most serious loss 1 Walrond, ibid., 87-88. 2 Walrond, ibid., 86. [ 142] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 to her majesty's service and to the province. Queen Moreover, with conditions as they were in Mont- ^^^^^^ "^ anxious real, it would be "most injurious to the pubhc that welfare, from the encouragement which it would ^^^ give to those who had been concerned in the vio- ws lent and illegal opposition" to Elgin's government. °®'^® Relying on Elgin's devotion to the interests of Canada, Grey was sure he would not be induced to retire from the high office the Queen had been pleased to intrust to him, "and which," he added, "from the value she puts on your past services, it is her majesty's anxious wish that you should retain." ^ VIII. Responsible Government Accepted and Indorsed by Parliament at Westminster The loyalists then appealed to England. Appeals Petitions were sent from Montreal to Westminster J*^ ^® loyalists for the disallowance of the rebellion losses bill, to Gladstone, who, it will be recalled, was not of p"^" ' ' _ ' . ment the Liberal party until 1859, denounced the bill at in the house of commons ^ as a measure for the ,®®*" minster rewarding of rebels; and Herries, who had been a member of the Wellington and Peel adminis- tration, moved for an address to the Queen for its disallowance. There was a debate on this motion extending over two nights. In the course of it Elgin's policy was defended by Peel, almost as strongly as by Russell. Russell stoutly contended that under the 1 Walrond, ibid., 86-87. ^ June 14, 1849. [ 143] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Russell's eulogy of respon- sible govern- ment End of a twenty years' struggle Anew principle adopted at the colonial office constitution of 1840 the majority in the United Provinces must rule. The premier's speech was remarkable, in view of his dread in 1837, and again in 1840, of responsible government in Canada. "Not only," he said, "has Canada self-government, but responsible government, which has never been enjoyed to such an extent as it has been since the time of the Earl of Elgin. If the present ministry in Canada are sustained by popular opinion and by the assembly, they will remain in office. If, on the contrary, the opinion of the province is adverse to them, the governor-general will take other advisers, and will act strictly in accordance with the rule that has been adopted here." There was a majority of 141 against the motion to disallow. In the house of lords a majority also supported the position that Russell had taken in the house of commons; and by these two epoch-making divisions at Westminster in June, 1849, a struggle that had been going on in Canada since 1828 was brought to a triumphant conclusion. Thereafter there was no more discus- sion of Canadian grievances in parliament at Westminster. There were no more petitions from Conservatives in Canada who objected to responsible government. Thenceforward a new principle governed the colonial office in its relations with colonies with representative and responsible government. This principle was that the imperial government had C 144] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 no Interest whatever in exercising any greater influence in the internal afFairs of the colonies than was indispensable, either for the purpose of preventing any one colony from adopting measures injurious to another, or to the empire at large.^ In the following year, 1850, when bills estab- a free lishing responsible government in New South ^^^ Wales, Van Diemen's Land, New Zealand, and legis- Cape Colony were before parliament, Russell ^^^^ made a statement of the attitude of the imperial govem- government towards the colonies that are now of °^^^^ the dominions. "I am convinced," he said in the house of commons, "that any man acquainted with the colonies will come to the conclusion that it is only in rare cases that the authority of the crown ought to be interposed, and that with regard to local affairs the executive and legis- lative authorities of the colonies are the best judges." Thus within a year of the attacks of the Tory Respon- mob on Elgin, and the burning of the parliament ^'^^^ house at Montreal, the success which had been ment achieved by Papineau and Mackenzie, by La- «^ended fontaine and Baldwin, and by Durham, Syden- British ham, Bagot, and Elgin, was beneficently affecting British colonies on three continents. Abiding conti foundations were also being laid for the develop- ^^^^ ment of the good relations between Great Britain and the dominions that were manifested to the world when Germany declared war in 1914. ^ Egerton and Grant, 297. [ 145] colonies on three EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA and the empire Elgin's Elgin, who, later in his career, was British services envov to China, and viceroy of India, was to Canada ■^ governor-general of Canada from 1847 to 1854. In these seven years — years of political turmoil, and also of commercial dislocation and depression due to the sweeping fiscal reforms of 1 846-1 847 in the United Kingdom — he did more than any governor-general before or after him to create a political civilization for Canada. He did much also to establish better relations between the British North American provinces i and the United States; for he was primarily responsible for the much-valued treaty of reci- procity with the United States that was in force ^ — to the moral and material advantage of both countries — from 1854 to 1866. Elgin's fame as a statesman of the empire, like that of Durham and Sydenham, is enduring. It will survive as long as the history of Great Britain's oversea dominions is read. Every privy council chamber in the political capitals of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Newfoundland is a monument to Elgin's achievements of 1 847-1 854. IX. The Development of the Political Civiliza- tion of Upper and Lower Canada Aback- The extreme poverty of the political civiliza- woods ^Jqjj Qf Upper and Lower Canada had been political civilization revealed to the world by Durham. It was a backwoods or frontier political civilization. Even as such it was inadequate. C146] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 In Upper Canada the men who were active in An era political life — unless they were of the Family f^^^^ Compact group, and satisfied with conditions as they were — realized this poverty quite as much as Durham had done when he was in Canada in 1838; and as soon as the question of responsible government was satisfactorily settled in 1849, there began an era of political development which extended from 1851 to 1866, an era which is without parallel in the nineteenth-century history of any English-speaking country. Even before the disturbing questions of Munici- responsible government and the relation of the ^^^^_ state to religion were settled, the upbuilding ment of a political civilization had been well begun, ^^j^tion County and municipal government had been estabhshed on a democratic basis. Systems of public education — one for Upper Canada, and another for the French province — had been organized. The criminal code had been human- ized. Postal services had been greatly extended. The adoption of free trade in England in 1846, Railways and the abandonment of the old British colonial ^^e^ce policy, had enabled the United Provinces to navi- enact their own customs laws; although these *^*'°° laws were not for the protection of home in- dustries until 1858. Liberal naturalization laws had been enacted. Government aid had been given to railway undertakings; and large sums of money had been expended on road construction, on the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, and C 147] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Clear Grits and Rouges Program of the reformers Old laws to be repealed on the ship channel in the St. Lawrence that gives access to Montreal from the sea. All this work was going on before responsible government was finally achieved in 1849. With this achievement began the era of constitutional reform that continued until Confederation. The reformers were Liberals — Rouges as they were called in Lower Canada, Clear Grits in Upper Canada.^ In Upper Canada, where political thought was most active and potent, the program of the reformers in 1851 was in two divisions. In the first were reforms which it was in the power of the legislature, under the constitution of 1840, to make. In the second were constitutional reforms, which, in some important respects, could only be made by the legislature after liberalizing amendments had been made to the constitution by parliament at Westminster. The more important demands in the first ; division of the program of 1851 were: I. Simplification of procedure in the courts. law ^ "In Canada parties have been known by different names. We have had Liberals and Conservatives, Rouges and Blues, Grits and Tories, and for a short period under Robert Baldwin, Reformers. It was in 185 1 that Brown fastened on that sec- tion of the Reform party which, under Malcolm Cameron, withdrew its confidence from the Baldwin-Lafontaine ministry, the term 'Clear Grits'; and from that day to this the name Grits has been used colloquially to designate the Liberal party." — Gazette, Montreal, October 15, 1917. [ 148 ] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 2. Repeal of all laws conferring special privi- leges on churches. 3. Reform in the method of sale of crown lands. 4. Free navigation of the St. Lawrence for all nations. 5. Abolition of primogeniture, which had become the law in Upper Canada, when, by act of its legislature in 1792, Enghsh law had been declared the law of the province. 6. * Abolition of customs houses and duties on imports. 7. EstabHshment of a uniform decimal currency. In the second part of the program, as it stood Amend- in 1 85 1, the demands were: ^^^^ 1. * Election of the governor. consu- 2. An elected legislative council. SImo 3. Election by county and municipal councils of all county and municipal officers. 4. Abolition of the property qualification for members of the assembly, created by the imperial act of 1840. 5. An extension of the electoral franchise — an extension that would bring in all householders. 6. Vote by ballot. 7. * Biennial legislatures with a fixed term, instead of legislatures of uncertain duration. 8. No expenditure of public money without the control of the legislature. 9. Representation according to population — a demand which developed out of the obvious [ 149] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Revival of some of the popular demands of 182S- 1837 Attitude of the Conserv- ative party over-representation of Lower Canada in the legislature of the United Provinces. 10. Abolition of pensions to government officials. 11. Canadian commerce and commercial inter- course with other nations to be entirely under the control of the legislature.^ 12. *The legislature to have power to alter or repeal any act or charter, imperial or otherwise, affecting only Canada, which the imperial parlia- ment itself might alter or repeal.^ These were the demands of the Liberals of Upper Canada in 185 1. In the second part of the program there was a revival of the demand of the reformers of 1828-1837 for an elected instead of a nominated legislative council; and in 1852 another of these earlier demands was revived — the demand for the exclusion of judges and office holders from the legislature. The Conservatives naturally were not re- formers. They opposed most of the demands in the program of 185 1. It was, however, mainly with the Conservatives of Toronto, Montreal, and Hamilton — with the manufacturers of ^ This was the beginning of the movement for the right of Canada to make her own commercial treaties — the movement that achieved complete success when plenipotentiaries named by the Laurier government of 1896-1911 negotiated the reciprocity treaty with France of 1907. 2 Cf. Clarke, 65. The demands marked with an asterisk have not been realized and have not been pressed since Confederation. [ 150] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 these cities — that there originated in 1856- 1857 a movement for a protective tariff for the United Provinces, a tariff that should protect Canadian manufacturers against both British and American competition. This movement was almost immediately successful. At least ten of the reforms were realized in the era of great political activity from 1851 to 1866. Others, such as vote by ballot, the abolition of tolls on the Welland and the St. Lawrence canals, representation according to population, and the right of Canada to make her own commercial treaties, were not realized until after Confedera- tion in 1867. Only those demands which entailed amend- ments to the imperial act of 1840 are of paramount interest; and this interest is chiefly in the con- ciliatory spirit in which governments at Whitehall, and parliament at Westminster, met the demands from Canada for democratic amendments to the constitution of 1840, and for amendments to other legislation of the imperial parliament affecting Canada, that hindered reforms which the legis- lature was prepared to undertake. There were four of these amendments in the sixteen years that the constitution of 1840 was in force. They were all made in the years from 1847 to 1854. Two of the most important — one giving the legislature a free hand in making a final settlement of the clergy reserves question, and the other bestowing large powers on it for [151: Reforms that were effected before Confed- eration Conces- sions made at West- minster Amend- ments to the act of the imperial parlia- ment of 1840 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA reforming its own constitution — were made while Elgin was governor-general. Increased These two amendments were made by the ^"^^^ imperial parliament at Elgin's request, or at any to the rate they were made at the request of the cabinet provincial ^f ^j^g United Provinces, with the cordial approval legislature r ■ rt ^ r • of Elgin. By these four amendments parliament at Westminster parted with control it had exer- cised over Canada, and by so doing increased appreciably the power of the legislature of the United Provinces, civil Ust The first amendment, enacted at Westminster ^^^f in 1847, removed the restrictions in the constitu- consoU- . dated tiou of 1840 on the civil list and the consolidated *™*^ fund. These restrictions had been imposed on account of the serious difficulties that arose in 1 83 3-1 83 7, when the legislative assembly of Lower Canada refused to pass money bills. The new legislature of the United Provinces chafed under these restrictions; and apparently without a word of opposition in parhament at Westminster, they were all removed, and thence- forward the legislature was as free as the im- perial parliament in the appropriation of pubHc money. Use of the A Valuable concession was made to Lower Canada by the second amendment, made in 1848. French-Canadians were aggrieved by the pro- vision in the constitution that all legislative and state documents, which were to be of record, must be in English. Copies of these documents might II152] French lanjguage EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 be printed in French, but these copies were not to be of official record. By the amendment of 1848, without opposition in either the house of commons or the house of lords, a greater use of the French language was conceded. The amendment, in fact, gave to the legislature — in practice to each house — power to make such regulations as to the use of French as might seem desirable. It was an amendment that was in train before Elgin became governor-general. Apparently Metcalfe had urged it; and Gladstone, during his short tenure of the office of colonial secretary in Peel's second administration, had promised that parliament should be asked to enact it. Elgin welcomed the new freedom in the use Papi- of French; for in 1 847-1 848 Papineau was agi- °®*"'^ tating in Lower Canada against the restrictions agitation of 1840 on the use of the French language; and Elgin was, moreover, convinced of the impolicy of all attempts to denationalize the French- Canadians. "Generally speaking," wrote Elgin to Grey, Elgin's "all such attempts produce the opposite effect *^^^g from that intended, causing the flame of national French prejudice and animosity to burn more fiercely. ^*°**^ But suppose them to be successful, what would be the result? You may perhaps Americanize, but depend upon it by methods of this description you will never Anglicize the French inhabitants of the province. Let them feel, on the other [153] ENOLITION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA French Canada and the United States Speech from the throne in English and in French hand, that their rehgion. their habits, their prepossessions, their prejudices if you will, are more considered and respected here than in other portions of this vast continent, who will venture to say that the last hand that waves the British flag on American ground maj- not be that of a French-Canadian?" ^ Here again "our only neighbor," to use Cart- wright's phrase, influenced British policy towards Canada. Ob\'iously it was Elgin's purpose that conditions for French-Canadians should be such that they would realize the advantage of British supremacy. They would realize that the institu- tions they cherished — language, church, and schools — had a greater likelihood of permanency within the British Empire than if Lower Canada should become a state of the adjoining republic. Elgin spoke French with ease and fluency. He addressed meetings in French as well as in English during the first year of his governorship; and when the legislature assembled at Montreal, in January', 1S49, he took advantage of the new amendment to the constitution to deliver the speech from the throne in the chamber of the legislative council in French as well as in English. This was an innovation so far as the legislature of the United Pro^"inces was concerned. It was disliked by the Tories; but it established a usage which is followed to this day at the opening and proroguing of parliament at Ottawa. aj ^ Walrond, ibid., 54. [154: EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 The British act of 1853 which empowered the a final legislature of the United Provinces to make a ^^^^^ 1 r 1 1 mentof complete settlement of the clergy reserves, was the not an amendment to the constitution of 1840. ^^^^^ . . reserves It repealed an act, passed by parliament in 1840, question which authorized the legislature to rearrange the clergy reserves scheme of 1791,^ and to divide the proceeds of the lands among all the Christian churches, the larger shares to be assigned to the Episcopal church of England and the Presby- terian church of Scotland. In 1 85 1 the government of the United Prov- "Dis- inces was desirous to sweep away the whole *^' system. Since 18 19 the system had been, as and Sydenham described it in 1840, "the perpetual ^^^^" spring of discord, strife, and hatred." But the legislature could take no step in this direction with the Imperial act of 1840 in effect, and it accordingly petitioned the government at West- minster for the repeal of the law. A coalition government — Conservatives and The Whigs — with the Earl of Aberdeen as premier, ^™^^^" and the Duke of Newcastle as colonial secretary, m was in power in 1853, when parliament was p"^- asked to repeal the act of 1840. The petition ^ After the establishment of the clergy reserves by the imperial act of 1791 an attempt was made in Upper Canada to establish the tithe system, as it then existed in connection with the Episcopalian church in England and Wales and in Ireland. The legislature, however, ended this attempt in 1821. Cf. Statutes of Upper Canada, 1821, ch. 32. [ 155] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA End of the con- nection between church and state asked the transfer to the legislature of Canada of the power of dealing with these reserves.^ The bill, unlike the bills of 1847 and 1848, amending the constitution of 1840, met with opposition in both the house of commons and the house of lords. In the commons, the strongest opposition came from Sir John Pakington, who had been secretary for the colonies in the Con- servative administration of February-December, 1852. Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, was its most resolute opponent in the house of lords. But it was carried in both houses; and the only restriction imposed in the new law on the action of the legislature was a clause protecting the life interest of beneficiaries under the act of 1840. The legislature of the United Provinces lost no time in exercising the power thus conferred upon it. In fact, it had been waiting since 1851 for authority to proceed. A settlement of the clergy reserves question was made in 1854. All connection between church and state was then ended; and in connection with this Canadian bill, there was an incident in the house of com- mons which illustrates the new attitude of parliament and government at Westminster towards colonial legislation. A member of the house of commons had moved that a copy of the bill of 185 1 of the legislature of the United Provinces be laid on the table of the ^ Cf. Speech by Sir William Molesworth, H. C, March 4, 1853- [156] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 house. Sir George Grey was then colonial secre- ParUa- tary in the Aberdeen administration. Usually a ™^^g motion of this kind is complied with at once, freedom But Grey moved that the motion be discharged. '^^^^ The government had no copy of the bill. No vindai copy had been forwarded by the governor- J^^^ general; "and," added Grey, "if the government should write to the colony for a copy, it would look like interference on their part with a measure pending before the colonial legislature." ^ X. Democratic Amendments at Westminster to the Constitution of 1840 The most important of the democratic amend- ParUa- ments to the constitution of 1840 were made in °^^°* ~ sur- 1854. At the instance of the Aberdeen govern- renders ment, parliament then empowered the legislature *^®*'* ' r r & power of the United Provinces to make radical changes in its constitution. At the same time parliament surrendered a right, under the constitution of 1840, to a veto on certain bills enacted by the legislature. These bills were measures concerning religion ReUgion and crown lands. In the event of the legislature ""* ° crown passing such measures it was the duty of the lands governor-general to reserve them. They were sent to Westminster. Copies of them must lie for thirty days on the tables of the house of commons and the house of lords; and in these thirty days it was open to any member of parlia- ^ Sir George Grey, H. C, December 19, 1854. [157] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA ment to move for an address to the Queen praying her to withhold the royal assent. In any case there could be no royal assent until the bills had thus been before parliament for thirty days. New At this time — 1852-1854 — the legislature of powers ^i^g United Provinces was intent on several sought . . . _ , . by the retorms to its constitution. It was desirous le^siature ^j') ^j^^^ p^j.^ ^f ^j^g members of the legislative council should be directly elected; (2) that there should be an elected speaker of the council, instead of a speaker nominated by the governor- general — in practice by the government; (3) that a property qualification should not be required for election to the assembly; and (4) that the legislature should have power to increase the number of members of the assembly, unrestrained by a section in the constitution of 1840, which provided that such an increase could be made only by a two-thirds majority in each branch of the legislature. Oppo- The Aberdeen government was quite ready to swon amend the act of 1840 as the legislature desired. by the . . ^ . * leader It was willing, as was bitterly protested by °f*^® Stanley, now Earl of Derby, to agree to "an ative absolute subversion of the present constitution"; party at willing to make a "change from the present form minster of a limited monarchy into what would be practi- cally and absolutely a democratical government." ^ As Newcastle, the colonial secretary, was of the house of lords, the bill making these changes was 1 H. L. Debates, June 22, 1854. C158] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 introduced in the upper house at Westminster. In acquainting the house with its provisions, Newcastle described the changes desired, and intimated that when the Aberdeen government acceded to the petition of the legislature three courses were open to it: The government could have (i) adopted a draft measure making these changes in the constitution of the legislature, which had been sent over from Canada, and by following this course parliament at Westminster would have settled the question for Canada; (2) it could have asked the legislature to pass and send to West- minster a bill making these changes, which could be confirmed by imperial act; or (3) govern- ment could ask parliament to repeal the sections of the constitution of 1840 which prevented the legislature from making the desired changes itself. "To have adopted the first course," Newcastle told the house of lords, " would have been at variance with those principles of colonial govern- ment which I have endeavored to carry out during the time I have held the seals of the colonial office." "The proper course to pursue," he continued, "is to legislate no more for the colonies than we can possibly help. Indeed, I believe that the only legislation now required by the colonies consists in undoing the bad legisla- tion of former years." ^ 1 H. L. Debates, June 15, 1854. [159] Aberdeen govern- ment grants all the conces- sions asked by the legis- lature "Un- doing the bad legis- lation of former years" EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Failure Newcastle, by inference, thus classed the *** ^^ ^ many restraining clauses of the constitution of nominated . . legislative 1840 as "bad legislation"; and in defending the ^^^^ amendment which conceded to the legislature liberty to reform the legislative council, he admitted that the nominated legislative council had been a failure. "It does not," he said, "exercise that due influence in the colony or the legislature which it ought to possess." Furthermore, the legislative council, as then constituted, was so little esteemed that difficulty had been experienced in finding men who were willing to accept appointments to it. "It has fallen," added Newcastle, "into disfavor with the colonists to such an extent that men have frequently expressed their repugnance and un- willingness, and in many instances their positive refusal, to enter the legislative council." ^ Opposition to these democratic changes was strongest and most persistent in the lords. Derby, who was at this time leader of the Con- servative party, was anxious to retain direct control by parliament at Westminster over the legislature of the United Provinces. He was intent on retaining some of the restraining sections of the act of 1840. But only 39 peers voted with him — 39 to 63 — when he divided the house at second reading of the bill. In the house of commons the opposition lacked the spirited lead, the vigor, and the persistence 1 H. L. Debates, June 15, 1854. C160] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 of the opposition in the lords. The bill, com- No prehensive and far-reaching as it was, was enacted ^*'°°^ in the form in which it had been introduced by siaon Newcastle, whose name five years later was to ^^^ . . . com- be associated with another great concession to mons political agitation in Canada — the concession to the legislature of the right to make what tariffs it pleased. In its exercise of its new powers under the im- a partly perial acts of 1854, the legislature of the United ^^^^^^^ Provinces in 1856 enacted a law for the ad- lative dition of elected members to the legislative <=°"^*='^ council. The franchise on which these members were elected was the same as that on which members of the assembly were chosen. It was a prerequisite to election that a candidate should be the owner of real estate to the value of £2000, over and above all incumbrances and debts. There was also a provision in the law which excluded clergymen of the churches of England, of Scotland, and of Rome. The term of the elected members was eight years. Forty-eight new electoral divisions — twenty- New four in Upper Canada and twenty-four in Lower ^^^g°J^ Canada — were created by the act of 1856. But all these electoral areas were not to elect councilors at once. The forty-eight new members were to be gradually introduced; and lots were drawn to determine which divisions should form the groups to elect first. There were only two elections between 1856 and Confederation, when [161] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the total number of the council — nominated and elected — stood at forty-eight. Of these twenty- three had been appointed, and twenty-five were of the council by popular election.^ With the enactment by the imperial parliament of the amending law of 1854, about all that now remained to the government at Westminster in connection with the administration of the United Provinces was the appointment of the governor- general. It will be recalled that the provinces had enjoyed the right to frame their own customs tariffs since 1847; and in that year also, it may be added, as a result of the thoroughgoing re- vision of the old navigation code by parliament at Westminster the United Provinces obtained the right to make their own coastwise navigation laws as regards the Great Lakes and other inland waters. In the fourteen years from 1840 to 1854, Great Britain had frankly and completely'- surrendered to the United Provinces all the rights which were once considered a necessary condition to the holding of colonies. Great Britain, in those years, was, as she is today, responsible for the defense of Canada. "She guards our coasts, she maintains our troops, she builds our forts, and she spends hundreds of thousands among us yearly." So Canadians were reminded in 1851 by George Brown, leader of the Liberal party in 1 Cf. Statutes of U. P., 19 and 20 Vict., ch. 100; Mackenzics "Life and Speeches of George Brown," 308. C162] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 Upper Canada, when there was an agitation against the payment of the salary of the governor- general from the treasury of the United Prov- inces.^ Except as regards the navy these direct burdens Growth of Great Britain were gradually reduced. Most ^^^^' of them, in fact, were entirely removed in the pro- forty-seven years from Confederation to the great '^^^ war. But while still carrying all this responsi- lature bility, while still defraying the cost of patrolling the coasts, the expense of troops in Canada, and the maintenance of forts at Kingston, Quebec, and Halifax, Great Britain conceded to the United Provinces (i) responsible government; (2) the patronage of the crown; (3) control over crown lands; (4) control over the civil list; (5) the customs; (6) the post office; (7) the clergy reserves; (8) freedom from the old navigation laws; and (9) liberty to the legislature, as great as was then, or at any time, enjoyed by parlia- ment at Westminster, to change its constitution, and greater than has ever been enjoyed directly by congress at Washington. In this period Great Britain also obtained for privi- the United Provinces the right to the free navi- ^^^^^ gation of Lake Michigan, and m the years from ceded iSCA to 1866 secured for all the British North ?,* ^, . . . . . Washing- American provinces, except British Columbia, the ton to advantages of commercial reciprocity with the ^*°**^ United States. ^ Mackenzie, "Life of George Brown," 50. [163] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA XI. The Unwritten Constitution of the United Provinces as Developed from 1841 to 18 ^q Most of these concessions, as well as two others still to be mentioned, were based on acts of the imperial parliament. Three of them — control of customs, freedom from the old navigation laws, and liberty to enjoy commercial reciprocity with the United States — resulted from Great Britain's adoption of free trade in 1846, and from the liberalizing amendment, made by parliament in 1846, to what was known in the old colonial code as the British possessions act of 1845.^ Freedom of navigation of Lake Michigan, an exclusively American lake, was secured by a treaty negotiated by Great Britain with the United States. Three rights, however, were assumed by the legislature of the United Provinces between 1 841 and 1859 for which usage was the only basis. For these rights, so long as the constitu- tion of 1840, as amended by parliament at Westminster in 1854, was in operation, no act of the imperial parliament could be cited as the authority on which the legislature and govern- ment proceeded. In the order in which they were assumed, these rights were (i) the right of the legislature to Insist on an executive or cabinet which was sup- ^ Cf. Porritt, "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 188-189; 8-9 Vict. ch. 93; and 9-10 Vict ch. 94. [ 164 ] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 ported by a majority in the legislative assembly — 1 841-1849; ^ (2) the right of the legislature to exercise the same power that parliament at Westminster then exercised in matrimonial causes — in other words divorce cases, 1853; and (3) the right of the legislature to enact protective tariffs without interference from Whitehall, 1859. XII. The Legislature of the United Provinces Assumes Control over Divorce The right of the legislature of the United Provinces to grant relief in matrimonial causes would seem to have been assumed in 1853.^ Parliament at Westminster exercised this right from 1551 to 1857, when the divorce court in London was created.^ Not more than four or five divorce bills were enacted by the legislature of the United Provinces from 1853 to Confederation. But at Confederation it was not practicable, owing to the opposition of Catholic Lower Canada, to follow the example of England of 1857, and ^ The history of the struggle by which responsible govern- ment was won has already been recounted. ^ The legislature of Upper Canada, in the last year of its existence, 1840, had enacted a divorce bill in the interest of John Stuart, of London, in that province. Cf. Statutes of Upper Canada, 3 Vict., ch. Ixxii. This was, as far as can be ascertained, the only divorce bill enacted by the legislature of Upper Canada during the forty-nine years of its existence. ' Cf. Clifford, "A History of Private Bill Legislation," I> 389-391. [165: Matri- monial causes Five provinces still without courts for matri- monial causes EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA delegate all matrimonial causes to the courts in all the provinces. By a usage, the origin of which has thus been described, it comes about that today petitioners for divorce in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta — the five provinces in which courts with jurisdiction in divorce cases have never been established — must go for relief to parliament at Ottawa.^ XIII. The Fiscal Freedom of the United Provinces Protec- The right to enact protective tariffs without f^?„ interference from Westminster — tariffs which tariffs against might be detrimental to the commercial interests im**rts °^ ^^^ United Kingdom, but which were regarded as in the interest of the United Provinces — was first asserted by the legislature in 1858. After one strongly worded protest from the colonial office the right was conceded by the British government in 1859. Influence Once again in the period between the rebellions °^^l, in Lower and Upper Canada and Confederation, American . . . tariff of but not for the last time in these twenty-nine ^**^ years, American influence and example had weight in determining policies in Canada; and in this instance in affecting also policies of colo- nial governments in Australia and New Zealand. It was the development of manufacturing in New England and in other states adjacent to ^ Cf. Sinclair, "Rules and Practice before the Parliament of Canada upon Bills of Divorce," 1-3. [166] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 Canada, under the United States tarifF of 1842, that gave the impetus at Hamilton, Toronto, and Montreal to the protectionist movement.^ The movement had its origin at Hamilton in 1847. It resulted in the enactment in 1858 by the legis- lature of the United Provinces of what is known in Canadian fiscal history as the Cayley tarifF. The Cayley tariff takes its name from the cayiey minister who framed it and piloted it through *^^^ the legislative assembly, where in accordance with British constitutional procedure all money bills originated. It was a frankly protectionist tariff — the first tariff to protect domestic manufacturers enacted in any of the British North American provinces, or in any colony that is now of the dominions. The measure superseded the tariff of the United Provinces of 1856. In this tariff — a tariff exclusively for revenue — the general range of duties on manufactured goods, imported either from the United Kingdom or the United States, was fifteen per cent. Only in a few instances were the duties on these imports as high as twenty per cent. In the Cayley tariff the general range of duties compari- was increased to twenty per cent. Duties as ^erican high as twenty-five per cent were levied on tariff boots, shoes, harness, and saddlery, on leather, clothing, and wearing apparel. These duties ^ Cf. Edward Porritt, "Canada's National Policy," Political Science Quarterly, June, 1917, 197-208. [167: EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA ; were nearly as high and as protective as those in the United States tariff of 1842. First anti- There was no concealment by the government dumping Qf ^j^g United Provinces of the character of the clause -rr T\ • • new tariff. Protectionist arguments were ad- vanced from the treasury bench in the assembly in support of the higher duties. In particular when objection was made to the increased duty on soap, a duty in the interest of a factory in Montreal, Rose, the attorney-general, assured the house that the change was made because the Canadian market was flooded with the refuse soap of British manufacturers, which was entered at the customs house at prices below those at which soap had ever been sold in the United Kingdom.^ Tory By this time, 1858, the name "Tory" was ^"^ disappearing from the phraseology of Canadian assumes . ^'^ ° i i • anew politics. It began to be dropped m 1855, after the Liberals, or "Grits," as they were called, had carried to success their agitation against the clergy reserves. The new name of the Tories was "Liberal-Conservatives." The name was coined by a Tory newspaper — the Spectator, of Hamilton — which was convinced that there was no future in Canada for a political party living on the Bourbon Toryism of the United Empire Loyalists, or of the Family Compact, hopelessly struggling for ascendancy in church and state. 1 Cf. Porritt, " Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 228-230. [168] name EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 Hamilton had been the center of the movement for the protectionist tariff of 1858. The Spectator, to which Isaac Buchanan, the father of what has been known in Canada since 1879 as the National PoUcy, was a frequent contributor, had given the new movement its energetic support. It accordingly welcomed the Cayley tariff with enthusiasm; and in expressing this welcome it acknowledged that the United Provinces were following the example of the United States. "The free traders, so called," wrote the Specta- tor, " have been worsted, and they have probably learned by this time that their nostrums are by no means palatable to the people of this country. Though this country is not, and we trust never will be, republican, its material interests are the same as those of our republican neighbors. Can- ada, therefore, wants no untried theory of trade and industry, seeing that we have the actual and dearly bought experience of the United States." ^ No halt in the protectionist movement followed the success of 1858. In August of that year Cayley was succeeded by Alexander Gait. The new minister of finance was a man of much force, independence, and individuality, who afterwards achieved wide fame as one of the fathers of Con- federation. He was also one of the earliest and most resourceful protagonists of the movement for complete liberty for Canada to make her own commercial treaties. "Canada first," was Gait's 1 Spectator, Hamilton, July 30, 1858. [169] Father of the Canadian National Policy Following American example Alex- ander Gait EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Gait's tariff of 1869 Governor- general's helpless- ness Gait's challenge to free traders in England conception of the duty of a Canadian statesman, both before and after Confederation. Gait was ready and wiUing to concede more protection to Canadian manufacturers. He framed the tariff of 1859 with this intent; and it was this tariff that brought Gait into conflict with Newcastle, who in 1859 was again colonial secretary — this time in the Palmerston-Russell Whig administration of 1 859-1 866. Elgin had retired in 1854. He had been suc- ceeded by Sir Edmund Walker Head. In forward- ing the new tariff to the colonial office, Head ex- pressed regret at its protectionist features. " But," he added, "I must necessarily leave the represen- tatives of the people in parliament to adopt the mode of raising supplies which they believe to be the most beneficial to the constituencies." Gait had anticipated that he would come into conflict with the free trade government at White- hall over the new tariff. This may be inferred from the speech in which he introduced his bill to the assembly in March, 1859. The policy pursued with regard to taxation in this country — he then said — has been objected to in England. But I am perfectly certain that this house will never permit any other body to interfere with its proper right to determine what shall be the amount and mode in which taxes shall be put upon the people. Canada has adopted the protective policy; and it is scarcely fair for parties in England to criticize our policy, when in point of fact the greater part of our debt was incurred when they had a protective policy in England.^ 1 Glohe, Toronto, March 14, 1859. [ 170 ] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 British manufacturers promptly and energeti- cally protested to the colonial office against the increased duties in the Gait tariff, especially against increases in the iron and steel schedule, which, as they asserted, would divert much of the trade of Sheffield with the United Provinces to the United States. Newcastle was a free trader. He had sup- ported Peel in 1846 when, as Earl of Lincoln, he was a member of the house of commons. His sympathies were consequently with the protesting manufacturers. In principle he was opposed to the upbuilding of a protectionist system in Canada. This he made clear to the governor- general in a dispatch dated August 13, 1859. But, as will be recalled, Newcastle had taken a prominent part in creating the democratic con- stitution then in operation in the United Prov- inces, and political conditions in Canada were well in mind when he wrote his dispatch to Head. Whenever the authenticated act of the Canadian parlia- ment on this subject arrives — he wrote, concerning the Gait tariff bill — I may probably feel that I can take no other course than signify to you the Queen's assent to it, notwith- standing the objections raised against the law in this country. But I consider it my duty, no less to the colony than to the mother country, to express my regret that the experience of England, which has fully proved the injurious effect of the protective system, and the advantage of low duties upon manufactures, should be lost sight of, and that such an act as the present should have been passed.^ Protests by British manu- facturers New- castle supports the British manu- facturers New- castle helpless ^ Egerton and Grant, 348-349. [171] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Gait's defense of the new fiscal policy Fiscal freedom aright of the Canadian people Provincial govern- ment respon- sible only to the people of Canada Gait, through the governor-general, then as now the medium of communication between the cabinet and the colonial office, replied to New- castle on October 25, 1859. He replied in a memorandum, approved by the cabinet at Quebec, which among state papers of the nine- teenth century concerning colonies that are now of the dominions, ranks second only to Durham's Report of 1838. The paragraphs of importance in this study of the evolution of the Dominion of Canada are three in number. "Respect to the imperial government," wrote Gait, in the first of these paragraphs — a paragraph in which he stated what he conceived were the rights of the govern- ment of the United Provinces under the written and unwritten constitution of 1840 — must always dictate the desire to satisfy them that the policy of this country is neither hastily nor unwisely formed, and that due regard is had to the interests of the mother country as well as of the province. But the government of Canada, acting for its legislature and people, cannot through those feelings of deference which they owe to the imperial author- ities, in any measure waive or diminish the right of the people of Canada to decide for themselves both as to the mode and extent to which taxation shall be imposed. The provincial ministry — Gait assured Newcastle — are at all times ready to afford explanations in regard to acts of the legislature to which they are party, but subject to their duty and allegiance to her majesty, their responsibility in all general questions of policy must be to the provincial parlia- ment, by whose confidence they administer the affairs of the country. And in the imposition of taxation it is so plainly [172] .J EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 necessary that the administration and the people be in accord, that the former cannot admit responsibility or require approval beyond that of the local legislature. Self-government — reads the second of these paragraphs — would be utterly annihilated if the views of the imperial government were to be preferred to those of the people of Canada. It is, therefore, the duty of the present government distinctly to affirm the right of the Canadian legislature to adjust the taxation of the people in the way they deem best — even if it should unfortunately happen to meet with the disapproval of the imperial ministry. Her majesty cannot be advised to disallow such acts unless her advisers are pre- pared to assume the administration of the affairs of the colony, irrespective of the views of its inhabitants. The imperial government — wrote Gait, in the third para- graph of his historic memorandum — are not responsible for the debts and engagements of Canada. They do not maintain its judicial, educational, or civil services. They contribute nothing to the internal government of the country; and the provincial legislature, acting through a ministry directly responsible to it, has to make provision for all these wants. They must necessarily claim and exercise the widest latitude as to the nature and extent of the burdens to be placed upon the industry of the people. The provincial government believes that his grace must share their con- viction on this important subject; but as serious evils would have resulted had his grace taken a different course, it is wiser to prevent future complications by distinctly stating the position that must be maintained by every Canadian administration.^ Gait's concep- tion of colonial auton- omy Re- lations of the imperial govern- ment with the province After Great Britain had conceded responsible government to all the British North American provinces, and had also adopted free trade, there were at least two instances in which the colonial 1 Egerton and Grant, 349-351. C 173 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA office had interfered with the fiscal poUcies of colonies with responsible government. The legis- lature of New Brunswick in 1848 had passed a bill under which bounties were to be paid to encourage the cultivation of hemp. At Charlotte- town in 1852 the legislature of Prince Edward Island passed a bill under which bounties were to be paid to fishermen to offset the competition the island fishermen were then meeting from the bounty-aided fishermen of New England. Both these laws were disallowed by the government at Westminster.^ It would have been possible, moreover, for Newcastle to have objected to the tariff of the United Provinces of 1859 on the ground that it endangered the treaty of reciprocity with the United States, which was then in force, a treaty for which the British government was responsible; and also on the ground that it was injurious to the empire at large. The second of these objections could easily have been lodged against the new tariff, because, as will be recalled, after the conflict over the rebellion losses bill of 1849 the principle adopted at the colonial office in regard to colonies with responsible government was that Great Britain "has no interest whatever in exercising any greater influence in the internal affairs of the colonies than is indispensable, either for the purpose of preventing any one colony from 1 Cf. Speech by Sir John Pakington, H. C, March 4, 1853. [ 174] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 adopting measures injurious to another, or to the empire at large." ^ The New Brunswick and Prince Edward Prece- Island precedents were, however, not pressed ^^^ *°* into service by the colonial office at this crisis ignored of 1859. The changes in the tariff adverse to American manufacturing interests, changes which had much to do with the denunciation of the treaty in 1865 by the United States,^ were ignored in the correspondence between Westminster and Quebec. Nor was there any attempt to enforce the principle that a government at Whitehall had the right to interfere when legislation was pending in a colony that was injurious to other colonies or to the empire at large. The Cayley and Gait tariffs directly endangered interests no interest of the maritime provinces, because, ^jariame except for a little coal from Sydney, Nova Scotia, provinces none of the provinces "down by the sea" marketed any of its products in Lower or Upper Canada. But these tariffs of 1 858-1 859 did endanger the reciprocity treaty, in which New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island had as large an interest as the United Provinces. The tariffs were also distinctly adverse to the iron and steel, textile and leather industries of the United Kingdom. They came, moreover, as a shock to both British statesmen and British 1 Cf. Earl Grey, "The Colonial Policy of Lord John Russell's Administration," I, 17. ^ Cf. Porritt, "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 142-144. [175] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA A shock to British states- men and British com- mercial Interests No alter- native open to Newcastle Charter of the fiscal freedom of the dominions Other colonies follow the example of the United Provinces commercial and manufacturing interests; for it had never been conceived in England in 1846, when protection and the old commercial policy of the empire — the protectionist tariff and the old navigation code — were abandoned, that British colonies would dream of imposing protective duties on imports from the United Kingdom. Newcastle and the Whig government at Westminster were confronted with the fact that responsible government had been established in the United Provinces for ten years, and that Gait's memorandum left them no alternative, unless they were prepared to establish military rule in the United Provinces, and in the colonies that followed the example of Canada. The royal assent, as Newcastle's dispatch to the governor-general of August 13 had fore- shadowed, was not withheld. The tariff bill became a law; and Gait's memorandum of October 25, 1859, became the charter of fiscal freedom of the colonies with responsible govern- ment. It became, in fact, part of the unwritten constitution of the oversea dominions. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Ed- ward Island in the years from 1859 to Confeder- ation did not follow the example of the United Provinces. These provinces had then no manu- facturing industries to protect. Newfoundland has never had a protective tariff. But Victoria adopted protection in 1864; New South Wales in 1865; British Columbia in 1867; New Zealand C176] of a series of EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 in 1881; South Australia in 1882; and until the British preference was embodied in the Canadian tariff of 1897 not a single colony had enacted any preference for imports from the United Kingdom or for the sister colonies. Into all British colonies, from 1846 to 1897, manufactures from the United States were admitted on exactly the same terms as manufactures from the United Kingdom. The concession by Great Britain to the United Last Provinces of the right to make their own tariffs was the last of a long series of concessions that con- began in 1841, after responsible government had *=^^^'°°^ been established as the result of the liberal policy of Sydenham and of the democratic spirit in which he interpreted his instructions from the colonial office. XIV. A Nation Created out of Two Backwoods Provinces Political conditions in the United Provinces were Pouacai at no time ideal. There was intense bitterness in ^°^' dltions the political life of Upper Canada until the clergy in the reserves question was settled in 1854, and the influence of the Family Compact was eradicated in 1859-60. Corruption in connection with railway legislation and railway subsidies and bonds was abounding.^ There was much friction and jealousy ^ A detailed description of some of these conditions is embodied in a report of 115 pages from a select committee of the legislative council — a committee that in 1855 investi- gated charges made against Francis Hincks, premier of the United Provinces from 185 1 to 1854. C 177] United Provinces EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Develop- ments due to local conditions between Upper and Lower Canada over the de- mand of Upper Canada for representation based on population. There was, in fact, such friction, and such instabiHty of government arising from the system of ministries with double heads and double majorities, that a federal union instead of the legislative union of 1840 had become inevitable as early as 1856. Elections to the legislative assembly were characterized by bribery, corruption, and most of the artifices of the political boss. Speakers of the assembly were sometimes partisan. Sharp and discreditable manoeuvers in constitutional practice were resorted to by at least one hard- pressed ministry. The civil service was recruited from political heelers, with little regard for economy or efficiency; and special interests, intent on using the constitutional machinery t)f taxation for their own advantage, promptly entrenched themselves in the tariffs enacted after 1858. After the numerous amendments to the con- stitution of 1840 made by the imperial parliament between 1847 and 1854, not one of these evils was inherent in the system of government — in the constitutional machinery created either by parliament at Westminster or by the legislature of the United Provinces. Nor were they due, j directly or indirectly, to any influence or control exercised by the colonial office. They were all developed by local as distinct from constitutional conditions; and after the sweeping amendments C178] EVOLUTION FROM 1837 TO 1867 made at Westminster in 1854, it was easily within the power of the legislature to remedy or eradicate them all. Despite the friction between Lower and Upper Canada, and despite these blemishes, a political civilization extremely democratic in character was created between 1840 and 1867. With the political and constitutional opportunities that were afforded by Great Britain to all the British North American provinces in those years, the legislature and the statesmen of the United Provinces, aided by governors-general such as Sydenham, Bagot, Elgin, Head, and Monck, created a nation out of two backwoods provinces. "You can mark during that period," said Monck,^ in his farewell address to the last legisla- ture of the United Provinces, "the firm consolida- tion of your institutions, both political and municipal. You can mark the extended settle- ment of your country, the development of your internal resources and foreign trade, the improve- ment and simplification of your laws, and above all the education which the adoption of the system of responsible government has afforded to your statesmen in the well-tried ways of the British constitution." ^ There was, it can be added, no exaggeration or overstatement in these farewell words of the last governor-general of the United Provinces. ^ Governor-general from 1861 to 1867. ' Journals of the Legislative Council, August 15, 1866. C 179] A demo- cratic political civiliza- tion A gov- ernor- general's survey of the achieve- ments of 1840- 1867 CHAPTER VI THE INFLUENCES AND FORCES THAT BROUGHT ABOUT CONFEDERATION Canadian, X"^ OUR distinct and easily traceable in- British, ■-* F and ' JL fluences worked to bring about Con- American federation and the enactment of the British Influences ^t i a • i • • r i North America act — the constitution oi the Dominion — by the imperial parliament in 1867. Two of these influences were at work in Canada. The first of them was operative in the United Provinces; the second in the Maritime Provinces. The third influence was potent at Westminster; and the fourth, which affected political conditions both in Canada and at Westminster, but especially at Westminster, was American. Example The American influence was developed partly and fear of Q^^. q£ ^^^ example of the United States, and United . States partly, it must be conceded, out of fear of the United States. The example of the United States — the success of the federal system — stimulated the movement for confederation in the United Provinces.^ Apprehension in England concerning the attitude of the United States towards British North America, especially during and at the close of the civil war of 1 861-1865, ^ Cf. Mackenzie, 342. [180] FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION greatly strengthened the influences at West- minster that were favorable to any workable plan for a union of all the provinces under British rule from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast.^ In the Maritime Provinces the influence that union of worked for a confederation of the British North ™^**™« provinces American provinces was the fact that in 1863- contem- 1864 the Maritime Provinces, which then had ^^^f^ many interests in common, and scarcely any isei that were antagonistic, were contemplating a legislative union. All these influences were at work from 1861 to Failure 1867. Two had been in existence and operating |>^*^sis- from 1858; for in that year it was shown un- union of mistakably that the legislative union of Upper ^^^^^ and Lower Canada was a failure as far as Upper Lower Canada was concerned; and there was also an ^*^^* intimation in the speech from the throne, in the house of lords, at Westminster, that the imperial government would welcome a union of all the British North American provinces. I. The Origin of the Confederation Idea If Great Britain was to retain the half of the con- North American continent that remained to her ****''" atlon after the American revolution. Confederation sug- was inevitable as soon as the peace of Versailles p!,*^f„ . - in 1783 was signed. It was urged, in fact, as early as ^ Cf. Debates on British North America Act, H. L., Febru- ary 27, March 4, also Queen's speech at end of session, August 21, 1867. [181] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA A con- federated Canada as a rival to United States Credit accorded to Moore A sug- gestion from parlia- ment in 1837 1783 by Colonel Moore, a government engineer, who under instructions from Guy Carleton, governor of Quebec, reported on the resources and defenses of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Moore recommended the union of the Mari- time Provinces with the territory out of which in 1791 Lower and Upper Canada were carved. He urged that by the establishment of uniform government and laws, intercourse and mutual interests would be created; that "a great country may yet be raised up in America"; and that "only by union was there any likelihood of saving what remained to Great Britain upon the continent of America, and of building up a formidable rival to the American states." ^ All that is known of Moore is that he was a military engineer, and that he wrote this report in 1783; but Canadian historians credit him with having been the first Englishman to con- ceive of a great- Canadian confederation, such as came into being between Dominion Day, 1867, and the great war. A little more than half a century after Moore dreamed his dream, the house of commons at Westminster in 1837 adopted a resolution in which was emphasized the need of some arrange- ment between the Maritime Provinces and Lower and Upper Canada for the joint regulation and adjustment of interests that were common to all the British North American provinces.^ ^ Cf. Boyd, 173. * Cf. Mackenzie, 339. [182] FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION Durham in his report of 1838 recommended Durham's scheme of 1838 that the bill for the union of Lower and Upper ^'^■^^^^ Canada "should contain provisions by which any or all of the other North American colonies may, on application of the legislature, with the consent of the two Canadas, or their united legislature, be admitted into the union on such terms as may be agreed on between them." The idea of a union of all the British North An American provinces was thus much older than ^^^\ the yoking of Lower and Upper Canada in 1840; piea for and this union of two provinces, with nearly as ^^~ many interests which were sharply antagonistic aUon as interests which they had in common, had ^ ^*" been in existence for only a single decade when an Upper Canadian member of the legislative assembly — Merritt, of Lincoln — asked the house to agree to an address to the crown for a constitutional convention to consider a federal union. This was in 1851, before the under-repre- sentation of Upper Canada in the legislative assembly had become a grievance with Canadians west of the Ottawa River, and only seven members voted with Merritt. IL Popular Dissatisfaction in Upper Canada with the Union of 1840 It was the census of 1851 that revealed that census Upper Canada was inadequately represented in °^ *^" the legislative assembly. Experience of the working of legislative union showed that through [ 183 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Safeguards for Upper Canada that became a boomerang indirect taxation by which the revenues were raised, and also through the difference in social habits and requirements of the people of Upper Canada and of the habitants of the French province, Upper Canada was paying three-fourths of the expenditures of the United Provinces. With the revelation of these facts there began the movement of Upper Canada for a representa- tive system based on population. After the sweeping and radical amendments made in 1854 at Westminster to the constitution of 1840, it was within the power of the legislature to remedy this grievance, and to increase the repre- sentation of Upper Canada in the legislative assembly. French Canada was, however, well aware of two facts in the history of the act of union of 1840. It knew that the assigning to Upper Canada of as many representatives in the legisla- tive assembly and the legislative council as were assigned to Lower Canada was done to give the population of British origin in the United Prov- inces a preponderating influence in the legislature and the government. Canadians of British origin were to have this ascendancy, although from 1830 to 1840 the population of Upper Canada was much less than that of Lower Canada. French Canada also knew that the clause in the act of union making it impossible to vary the apportionment of members in the assembly, except by a two-thirds vote of both the assembly [184] FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION and the council, was intended to safeguard the representation as determined at the union. The leaders of French-Canadians in the legis- Lower lature could not gainsay the census statistics of ^^^^ 1 85 1. Nor could it be denied that the larger part claims of the revenue was paid by Upper Canada. But ^ French-Canadians refused to concede the claim Canada of Upper Canada for a larger representation in the legislature; and nothing short of another rebellion, and another intervention by the im- perial government similar to that of 183 7-1 840, could have remedied the grievance of Upper Canada, had not French Canada, as time went on, become willing to consider a federal union, with a legislature for each province, charged with the administration of exclusively provincial business. No appeal for representation by population French moved French Canada as long as the union ^f^** ° _ blocks of 1840 continued. French-Canadian leaders, taking moreover, were so determined that nothing g^^*** should endanger the position of their people in Bay the legislature, that for some years they blocked ^°™,P*°y all proposals for taking over the territory of the Hudson Bay Company by the government of the United Provinces, lest its settlement and development should add to the political power of Upper Canada.^ 1 Cf. Mackenzie, 102. C185] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA III. Imperial Aspects of Confederation At this point the difficulties between Upper and Lower Canada on the question of representa- tion in the legislature touched an important imperial interest; for the imperial government at this time was much concerned about the future of the vast stretch of country lying between the western boundary of Upper Canada and the Rocky Mountains. Population was pouring into the northwestern states. Settlement was coming near the boundary line that divides these states today from Mani- toba and Saskatchewan; and Great Britain was nervous lest American settlement might push into the uninhabited prairie country of Canada, and lest international complications might ensue. ^ If the United Provinces would not, or could not, take over responsibility for the government and settlement of the Hudson Bay Company's territory, its settlement presented a new and difficult problem for the colonial office; and it was for this reason, among others, that in 1864- 1866 the government at Westminster extended such a welcome hand to statesmen from Canada with proposals for a confederation of the British North American provinces. Old as were the suggestions for confederation, there were great difficulties to be overcome before ^ Cf. Speech by Earl of Carnarvon, H. L., February 19, 1867. C186] FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION the dreams of Moore, Durham and Merritt civU could be realized. Several decades might have !!^^ , . ° United passed before the Dommion of Canada came states into being, had it not been for the failure in some important aspects of the union of 1840, and for the civil war in the United States. The civil war, and the international difficulties End of it developed, raised apprehensions at Toronto, ^^^^°^ Quebec, and Ottawa, and above all at West- treaty minster, concerning the defense of the British North American provinces.^ Resulting from the civil war there came threats from Washington — threats made good in 1865 — of the denuncia- tion of the reciprocity treaty of 1854. There were also threats, which were not made good, of abrogating the article in the convention of 181 8 — an article which Great Britain had rigidly insisted on at the time the convention was made — which interdicted the maintenance of vessels of war on the Great Lakes, and of ending the bonding privileges which so greatly facili- tated transport by the railways and on the Great Lakes. There was, moreover, the isolation of British isolation Columbia, and its partial dependence for transport g^jy^jj facilities on San Francisco; and there was the Coiiimbia danger, which has already been alluded to, that American settlers in the northwestern states might look with covetous eyes on the splendid ^ Cf. Buckle, "The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield," IV, 475. [187] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Hudson Bay Com- pany's tenure of power Conditions that afiected all provinces Deadlock in United Provinces grain-growing and ranching country in the territory between the Lake of the Woods and the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains. The only governing power until 1869 in the territory out of which since 1871 there have been organized the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta was the Hudson Bay Company. Its tenure of authority had long been wearing thin. The British govern- ment dreaded any large inroad of Americans into the country before it should be taken over by a Canadian government, and adequately organized for defense and civil administration. Upper Canada had no practical concern over the isolation of British Columbia. That was an unfortunate condition that troubled only the English settlers in the Pacific coast province and the colonial office at Westminster. But Upper Canada was greatly interested in the almost uninhabited regions beyond its western boundary line. It was also practically interested in the bonding question; and Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and the Maritime Provinces were directly interested in the defense of the British North American provinces, and in the disturbing economic changes that would result from the denunciation by the United States of the Elgin-Marcy treaty. All these conditions, as well as the movement in the Maritime Provinces in the early sixties for a legislative union, made for Confederation. [188] FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION But it was the deadlock in the United Provinces, resulting from the inadequate representation of Upper Canada and the instability of govern- ments based on double majorities and double- headed cabinets/ that forced the question to the front, and from 1858 made a federal union of Upper and Lower Canada, or a union including all the British North American provinces, the dominant issue in Canadian politics. There were many fathers of Confederation.^ Thirty-three statesmen of the United Provinces, the Maritime Provinces, and Newfoundland were of the constitutional conventions at Char- lottetown and Quebec in 1864 at which the Do- minion was created. But it was Alexander Tulloch Gait — Gait of the epoch-making correspondence with Newcastle over the tariffs of 1858 and 1859 — who first pushed the idea of Confederation into the realm of practical politics at Toronto and Quebec and also at Westminster. In the session of 1858, before he succeeded Cayley as minister of finance, Gait outlined a plan for federal union in a speech in the legislative 1 Cf. Francis J. Audet, "Canadian Dates and Events — 1492-1915," 105. " "Confederation will stand for all time as the monument of the work accomplished by the devotion, the unselfishness, and the far-sighted vision of those men whom we are all proud to call the fathers of federation. To these men and their work we owe a debt which we can never repay." — The Duke of Devonshire, governor-general of Canada, at the dedication of the new parliament house, at Ottawa, July 2, 1917. [189] Gait pushes Confed- eration to the front His fear of absorp- tion of provinces by United States EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA assembly — a speech in which he declared, with characteristic outspokenness, that unless such a union were effected, the British North American provinces would ultimately drift into the United States.^ Edmund Walker Head, Elgin's successor as governor-general, did all in his power to forward the scheme Gait had outlined on July 6, 1858; and the first intimation to the world at large that the imperial government was coming into the discussion of Confederation was an announce- ment in the speech from the throne in the legisla- tive council of the United Provinces, at the end of the session of 1858, that the Maritime Provinces and the imperial government, were about to be invited to discuss, with representatives of the United Provinces, the principles on which a "bond of a federal character, uniting the provinces of British North America, may perhaps hereafter be practicable." ^ IV. An Appeal to Whitehall In the interval between the end of the session of 1858 and the beginning of that of 1859, Gait and Carrier were at Whitehall in the interest provinces ^f ^]^g ^^^ movement. Representatives of the selves Maritime Provinces had been at the colonial office in the previous year, in the interest of a union of these provinces. They had been told by Labouchere, secretary for the colonies in the 1 Cf. Boyd, 174. 2 7^j^., 175, [ 190 ] FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION Palmerston administration of 1855-1858, that union was a question for the provinces them- selves, and that no obstacles would be thrown in their way by the imperial government. In October, 1858, when Gait and Cartier were Buiwer in London, the Derby administration of 1858- ^^°° 1859 was in power, with Buiwer Lytton as colonial colonial secretary. It was Buiwer Lytton who ^^*^®*"^ piloted the act creating representative govern- ment for British Columbia through the house of commons. It was Buiwer Lytton also who was responsible for the paragraph in the Queen's speech at the end of the session of 1858 expressing the hope that the new colony on the Pacific coast would be but one step in the process by which the British dominions in North America might be peopled in an unbroken chain from the Atlantic to the Pacific by a loyal population of subjects of the British crown. Gait and Cartier laid the case for Confederation Case for before Buiwer Lytton in a memorandum dated ^°^_^^' -' _ eration October 23, 1858 — one of the really important documents in the constitutional history of the Dominion. The act of union of 1840 and its provisions regarding representation in the legisla- tive assembly were recalled. The colonial secre- tary was reminded that in 1840 Lower Canada possessed a much larger population than Upper Canada, and that in the first decade of the union representation as determined by the act had led to no difficulties. [ 191 : EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA But since that period — continued the memorandum — the growth of population has been more rapid in the west- ern section — in Upper Canada — and claims are now made on behalf of its inhabitants for giving them representation in the legislature in proportion to their numbers. These claims, involving, it is believed, a most serious interference with the principles on which union was based, have been and are being strenuously resisted by Lower Canada. The result is shown by an agitation fraught with great danger to the peaceful and harmonious working of our constitutional system, and consequently detrimental to the progress of the provinces. The necessity of providing a remedy for a state of things that is yearly becoming worse, and of allaying feelings that are being daily aggravated by the contentions of political parties — continued the memorandum — has impressed the advisers of her majesty's representative in Canada with the importance of seeking for such a mode of dealing with these difficulties as may forever remove them. In this view it has appeared to them advisable to consider how far the union of Lower with Upper Canada could be rendered essentially federative in combination with the provinces of New Bruns- wick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, together with such other territories as it may be desirable to incorporate with confederation from the possessions of the crown in British North America.^ The interests that the Maritime Provinces then shared with the United Provinces were only those that arose out of the fact that all five prov- inces were on the same continent, and were under the same crown. Otherwise the United Provinces and the "provinces down by the sea" stood to each other almost in the relation of foreign states. 1 Boyd, 176. [ 192 ] FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION Hostile customs houses guarded their frontiers. Tariffs Tariffs for protection in the United Provinces, ^^^j^ and tariffs for revenue in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfound- land, choked the channels of intercolonial trade. There was no uniformity in banking. There was no common system of weights and measures; and there was no identity of postal service. The currency differed. The sovereign and the American dollar were legal tender in the United Provinces. British and American coins were also current in New Brunswick. In Nova Scotia, Peruvian, Mexican, and Columbian dollars were legal tender; while in Prince Edward Island .the complexity of current moneys and of their relative values was even greater.^ In the Gait and Carrier memorial, Bulwer Progress Lytton, the colonial secretary, was reminded of ^^^^^ these conditions. He was reminded that each North colony was distinct in government, customs, ^^^^^ industries, and legislation. To each other — continued the memorandum — no greater facilities are extended than to any foreign state, and the only common tie is that which binds all to the British crown. This state of things is considered neither promotive of the physical prosperity of all, nor of that moral union which ought to be possessed in the presence of the powerful con- federation of the United States. ^ Cf. Speech by Earl of Carnarvon, H, L., February 19, 1867. C 193] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA New Bruns- wick and Prince Edward Island hold aloof V. Dread of Annexation by the United States Gait, in his speech in the legislative assembly in 1858, had urged confederation to ward off annexation. Cartier had no admiration of Ameri- can political institutions. He never concealed his dislike of them; ^ and the attitude of Gait and Cartier towards the United States is ex- pressed in the memorandum of October 13. "It is in the power of the imperial government by sanctioning a confederation of these provinces," they wrote, "to constitute a dependency of the empire, valuable in time of peace and powerful in the event of war, forever removing the fear that these colonies may ultimately serve to swell the power of another nation." ^ The request to the colonial secretary was that the British government would authorize a con- vention of delegates from the Maritime Provinces and the United Provinces to consider a federative union — the convention to report on the prin- ciples on which such a union might properly be based. Only Nova Scotia and Newfoundland had shown any active interest in the movement in 1857 for a union of the Maritime Provinces. Bulwer Lytton communicated this fact to the representatives of the United Provinces. "We think," he added, "that we should be wanting in 1 Cf. Boyd, 356-357- C 194] 2 Ibid., \77. FORCES THAT BROUGHT CONFEDERATION proper consideration for those governments if we were to authorize, without previous knowledge of their views, a meeting of delegates from the executive councils, and thus commit them to preliminary steps towards the settlement of a momentous question of which they have not yet signified their assent to the principle." The colonial secretary communicated the views of the United Provinces to the governments at Fredericton, Halifax, Charlottetown, and St. John's; and when Gait and Cartier returned to Quebec in the winter of 1858, the cabinet of the United Provinces also put itself in communication with these governments, and invited them to take such action as they deemed expedient. Nothing immediate resulted from these com- munications; but they gave an impetus to the movement, and they were the first practical steps in the direction of Confederation. The next year, 1859, the Liberals of Upper Canada held a convention at Toronto which was attended by 570 delegates. Confederation was discussed; but the outlook for a comprehensive scheme was then so unpromising that the con- vention decided that the most practical and immediate remedy for the constitutional griev- ances of Upper Canada was the organization of two local governments, and the creation of a joint authority to control interests common to Upper and Lower Canada. Brown, the leader of the Liberals of Upper C 195] Govern- ment of United Provinces makes first move A less am- bitious scheme than Confed- eration EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Canada/ formulated this plan in the session of the legislature of i860. He submitted two reso- lutions. One declared that the union of 1840 was a failure, that it had resulted in great politi- cal abuses and universal dissatisfaction. The other called for an end to the legislative union, and the organization of the two provinces on the lines urged at the Toronto convention of Sep- tember, 1859. Both resolutions were defeated by large majorities, and in i860 no progress towards confederation or towards redress of the grievances of Upper Canada was apparent. ^ "George Brown was loved by many people who never saw his face, nor heard his voice. Back in the townships, where the Globe carried its weekly message, he had the authority of a prophet. He created the Liberal party of Upper Canada, as Sir Wilfred Laurier has fashioned the Liberal party of to-day." — Sir John Willison, " Some Politi- cal Leaders in the Canadian Federation," in "The Federa- tion of Canada — 1867-1917," p. 54. [196] CHAPTER VII THE QUEBEC CONVENTION AND THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT THERE was a general election in the United A Provinces in 1861. It resulted in the ~^"°° govem- overthrow of the Cartier-Macdonald government, ment But in the years from 1861 to 1864 there was ^^^^^'^ instability of political conditions in the United Confed- Provinces that was without precedent in the *"^°° English-speaking world. There were three gov- ernments in this short period; and in June, 1864, a deadlock would have ensued had not Brown ^ and the Liberals supported the Tache- Macdonald administration in return for a guar- antee for the settlement of the constitutional difficulty. ^ " Brown was leader of the Clear Grit party, and second to Macdonald (if to him) in personal influence." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," Note xxii, 49. "Dunkin, a member of the legislature from Broome, said that the attempt to overcome the deadlock by the scheme of Confederation reminded him of the two boys who upset the canoe. Tom said, 'Bill, can you pray?' Bill admitted that he could not think of any prayer that was suitable to the occasion. Tom's rejoinder, according to Dunkin, was earnest, but not parliamentary. He said, 'Well, something has to be done, and that — soon.'" — Willison, "Some Political Leaders in the Canadian Federation," 51. [ 197 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Or end A coalition government was formed, with legislative gj-own and two of his colleagues of the Liberal of 1840 party as members of the cabinet. It was a coalition based on a written agreement that (i) the government would address themselves to the negotiations for a confederation of the British North American provinces; and (2) in the event of failure in this undertaking, they would intro- duce, in the next legislative session, the federal principle for the United Provinces alone, "coupled with such provisions as would permit the Mari- time Provinces to be hereafter incorporated into the Canadian system." ^ It was in June, 1864, that this great forward step was taken. Earlier in the year the pro- posals of 1857 for a legislative union of the Maritime Provinces had been revived. The legislatures of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island passed resolutions authoriz- ing their governments to send representatives to a convention to be held at Charlottetown in September, 1864. Charles Tupper, at this time a doctor at Amherst, Nova Scotia, but from 1864 to 1901 one of the foremost Canadian statesmen, was the leading spirit in the union movement in the Maritime Provinces.^ ^ Mackenzie, 90. 2 "Tupper was bold, confident, dominant. He never knew the call to retreat. He had courage for any combat and resource for any emergency. History will find and point out blemishes in the public career of Sir Charles [198] BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT The Charlottetown convention met on Sep- Char- tember i. The government of the United °g^_°^^ Provinces, without waiting for an invitation, vention sent a delegation to Charlottetown to urge a confederation of all the British provinces. The delegation was cordially received, and the result was a second convention held at Quebec in October. All the provinces, including Newfoundland, Quebec were represented at Quebec. The convention ^^^^^^ was in session behind closed doors from October lo to October 28.^ It agreed on a federal as distinct from a legislative union; and from the historic Quebec convention, the first constitu- tional convention in the history of the British Empire, with the exception of the conventions that preceded the union of England and Scotland in 1707, were issued the famous seventy-four confederation resolutions. Tupper, but he gave the state physical vigour, intellectual power, and constructive energy. As for the rest, 'his great- ness, not his littleness, concerns mankind.'" — Willison^ "Some Political Leaders in the Canadian Federation," 59. ^ Correspondents representing Canadian, British and American newspapers assembled at Quebec to report the proceedings of the convention. In answer to a memorial for facilities for reporting the correspondents were told, in a letter from the secretary, H. Bernard, that no com- munications of the proceedings of the convention could be made until the delegates were enabled definitely to report the issue of their deliberations to the governments of the respective provinces. — Joseph Pope, "Confederation Docu- ments," II. [ 199] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA These resolutions having been adopted by the legislatures of the United Provinces, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,^ they were embodied in the British North America act which was passed by the imperial parliament. The act received the royal assent on March 29, and the Dominion came into existence on July i, 1867. There are 145 sections and five schedules in the British North America act. The act was the creation of the statesmen of the British North American provinces, with few suggestions and little help from the colonial office or the imperial parliament. There were statesmen in British North America — John Alexander Mac- donald, in particular — who would have liked to give to the new confederation the title of the Kingdom of Canada. But Lord Derby, who was premier of the Conservative administration of 1 866-1 868 that carried the act through parlia- ment, was careful of the susceptibilities of the United States, and suggested Dominion instead of Kingdom. I. American Opposition to Confederation In 1866-67 the acutely disturbing contention over the compensation demanded by the United States from Great Britain for the losses sustained ^ Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island withdrew from the negotiations after the Quebec conference, although Prince Edward Island came into confederation in 1873. [ 200 ] BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT by American shipping and trade from the depredations of the Alabama, a cruiser built at Birkenhead, for the government of the confed- erate states, had not been settled. There was, moreover, some opposition to Confederation in the United States, particularly at Augusta, the capital of Maine, and also in the senate and house of representatives at Washington. The legislature of Maine adopted, and trans- mitted to Washington, resolutions originating with the federal relations committee of the assembly, in which Confederation was condemned on the ground that it would establish monarchi- cal government on the North American con- tinent. In its alarm the legislature at Augusta overlooked the fact that a legislature, organized under the monarchical system, had existed in Nova Scotia for more than a century before the Charlottetown and Quebec conventions of 1864; and that in 1867 there were no fewer than five legislatures on the North American continent that were opened and closed with speeches from the throne. The preamble to the Augusta resolutions disclaimed any desire to accelerate the progress of republican principles in the British North American provinces. The conviction was ex- pressed that "repubUcan institutions should never be assumed by any people until the whole population has been inured to habits of self- government, and thoroughly imbued with the [201] Alann at Augusta, Maine Republi- can principles and Institu- tions EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA principle of implicit obedience to law, whenever that law is the declared will of a majority." The first resolution declared that "any at- tempt on the part of the imperial government of Great Britain to establish monarchical govern- ment in North America, or to place a vice- royalty, by act of parliament, over her several North American provinces, would be an implied infraction of those principles of government which this nation has assumed to maintain upon this continent," By the second of these resolutions the people of Maine, "deeply interested in the preservation of peace, and of friendly relations with the people of British North America," respectfully ap- pealed to the United States government "to interpose its legitimate influence, in friendly and earnest remonstrance with the British government, against establishing any system of government in North America the influence of which would endanger the friendly relations of the people of the British provinces with the people of the United States." Copies of the resolutions were transmitted by the governor of Maine to President Johnson, and to each house of congress. In the house of representatives,^ Banks, of Massachusetts, a former chairman of the committee on foreign afi^airs, and a soldier of much distinction in the civil war, called attention to the resolutions, and 1 March 8, 1867. \^ 202 2 mittee desired BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT made a motion demanding the immediate ap- pointment, by the speaker, of the standing com- mittee on foreign affairs. Urgency was pleaded "in view of events transpiring on the northern frontier," and the need for "considering the for- eign relations of the United States." "It is not intended," said Banks, in asking a com- the house to adopt his motion, "to present at this time any protest against Confederation of the British provinces. The resolutions which I have read, from the state of Maine, were read merely for information. All I ask is that a committee shall be appointed, to which any instructions, in reference to this matter, may be given by the house." Blaine, of Maine — James Gillespie Blaine, "a afterwards secretary of state and candidate of ^^fP^"^*- the Republican party for the presidency m test" 1884 — 'deprecated any action by congress, and reminded Banks that the matter "certainly could not go beyond a mere protest," "The resolutions of the state of Maine," Blaine added, "do not contemplate any positive action. They contemplate merely a respectful protest." Banks, however, was persistent. His object The per- was the immediate appointment of the com- pf^g^g mittee on foreign affairs, with an instruction to consider the resolutions from Augusta, and report to the house. "This question of Con- federation," he said, in answer to Blaine, "affects not alone the interests of the British provinces. [203] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA It affects our interests also; and it is certainly proper that its effects upon the interest of this country should be considered. At least we should have an organized committee that shall have power to consider its bearing upon our interests, whether it be for the purpose of making a protest or for more decided action. It is necessary that we should ascertain the full effect of this measure when consummated, and that it should be understood." Had the committee been named, Banks would probably have resumed the position of chairman, and as such would have been charged with the duty of drawing up the report, if the Augusta resolutions had been sent to the committee with an instruction. The house, however, took no action in the direction desired by Banks; and in the senate ^ an attempt made by Simon Cameron, of Penn- sylvania, was equally futile. Cameron was desirous that the committee on foreign relations should be instructed (i) to inquire "upon the facts in respect to the design of foreign powers to impose their systems of monarchical govern- ment upon the people of this continent; " and (2) to report "what action, if any, our government should take to avert the inevitable consequences of the further prosecution of such designs, and to maintain for ourselves and for our posterity the fundamental principles and objects of the ^ March 9. [204] BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT original settlers of our country and the founders of the republic." Cameron also desired that the committee should be "authorized and empowered to take such measures as they may judge expedient and necessary to collect and submit the facts for the information of the government and the people." Obviously the senator from Pennsylvania was anxious for a manifesto against Confed- eration. Few members of the senate shared Cameron's apprehensions regarding the British North America act; and no new duties were thrown upon the committee on foreign relations as a result of the resolution of which he gave notice. President Johnson, Lincoln's successor, did not even mention the Confederation of Canada in the customary survey of the foreign relations of the United States in his annual message to congress on December 3, 1867.^ These discussions in congress came a^fter the British North America bill had been introduced in the house of lords, but before it had been read a third time in the house of commons. They could not have influenced Derby in offer- ing the suggestion that the word "dominion" be substituted for "kingdom" in deference to American susceptibilities. But Derby and his son. Lord Stanley, who was secretary of state for foreign affairs, were only too well aware of ^ Cf. Congressional Globe, March 8 and 9, 1867. James D. Richardson, Messages of the Presidents, VI, 558-581. [ 205 ] No men- tion of Confed- eration in John- son's annual message What influ- enced Derby EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the extreme tension over the Alabama claims, and of the outbursts it was provoking in the Dominion United States. So were the Fathers of Con- of Canada fgjgj-ation who had carried the bill to London. They accepted the premier's suggestion made before the bill was introduced in the house of lords; ^ and when the Earl of Carnarvon, the colonial secretary, announced the title of the new Confederation to the house of lords, at second reading of the bill, he added, "It is a designation which is a graceful tribute on the part of the colonies to the monarchical principle under which they have lived and prospered, a principle which they trust to transmit unim- paired to their children's children." ^ II. The Attitude of Parliament, the Colonial Office, and the People of Great Britain towards the New Dominion ParUament There was no contention over the bill, either ^ll^l. in the house of lords where it was introduced, or iintisn North in the house of commons. It was before the America j^Q^ge of lords Only four days.^ The house of commons spent no longer time on it.^ Additional schedules were added by Adderley, under- secretary for the colonies, when the bill was in committee. But only one amendment — little 1 Cf. George M. Wrong, "The Creation of the Federal System in Canada," "The Federation of Canada," 22, 23. 2 H. L. Debates, February 19, 1867. 3 February 19, 22, 25, 26. * February 27, March 4, 7, 8. [206] act BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT more than a parliamentary draftsman's amend- ment — was made to the bill. This was the only amendment made in either the lords or the commons to an act which in the Pickering edition of the British statutes extends to thirty-three closely printed pages. One member of the house of commons, Roebuck, No of Sheffield, regretted that the act did not create ^P'f™® a supreme court, with functions similar to those of the supreme court at Washington. Cardwell, who had been secretary for the colonies in the Whig administration of 1 859-1 866, and who from the front opposition bench helped Adderley to pilot the bill through committee, answered this objection. "As matters now stand," he said, "if the legislature acted ultra vires the question would first be raised in the colonial law courts, and would ultimately be settled by the privy council. No doubt it was a defect. But the point had undergone consideration by the delegates, who thought it would be better to leave things in this state." ^ 1 H. C. Debates, March 4, 1867. In the early years of Confederation, when there were many questions at issue between the dominion government and the governments of the provinces, there was a movement at Ottawa in favor of the creation of a supreme court. "It is worthy of con- sideration," wrote Sir John Young, governor-general from 1868 to 1869, to the Earl of Granville, then secretary of state for the colonies, "whether it would not be expedient to establish a tribunal with powers analogous to those of the supreme court of the United States, for the decision of all [207] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Viscount Monck had succeeded Head in 1866 as governor-general. Monck, like Head, did all that was constitutionally possible to forward Confederation, and he has a distinguished place in Canadian history for his services in the crisis of 1 864-1 867. But the task of framing the resolutions on which the British North America act was based — the task so successfully per- formed at Quebec in October, 1864 — was achieved by the thirty-three men who in Canada today are always spoken of with veneration as the Fathers of Confederation.^ There was no steering of the Quebec conven- tion by any representative of the colonial office. About this time an act was passed by the imperial parliament empowering all legislatures in colonies with representative and responsible government to amend their constitutions as they deemed expedient. At Westminster, Confederation was regarded as a matter which concerned the British North American provinces. Consequently the questions of constitutional law and conflict of jurisdiction." "I see no reason," wrote Granville, on May 8, 1869, "for the establishment of such a tribunal. Any question of this kind could be entertained and decided by the local courts, subject to an appeal to the judicial committee of the privy council; and it does not appear in what respect this mode of determi- nation is likely to be inadequate or unsatisfactory." — Ses- sional papers of Canada, 1870, No. 35, 4-5. ^ A complete list of the Fathers of Confederation, with the names of the provinces they represented at the Quebec con- vention, is given on pages 121-22 of Audet's "Canadian His- torical Dates and Events." [2083 BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT Fathers of Confederation were given a free hand. Their mission at Quebec was to agree on a plan which would bring the provinces into union, and they went about their great task with the confi- dent feeling that their plan would be promptly accepted by the colonial office and by parliament at Westminster. At the Quebec convention the United Provinces were represented by twelve delegates; Nova Scotia by five; New Brunswick by seven; Prince Edward Island by seven; and Newfoundland by two. Of these thirty-three delegates, the men who achieved greatest distinction from their part in bringing about Confederation, and from their subsequent careers in the political life of the Dominion, were Alexander Tulloch Gait, George Brown, John Alexander Macdonald, and Oliver Mowat, of Ontario; George Etienne Cartier and Thomas Darcy McGee, of Quebec; Charles Tupper, of Nova Scotia; and Samuel Leonard Tilley, of New Brunswick. England watched with appreciative interest the conventions in Charlottetown and Quebec which led up to Confederation. At Westminster the British North America bill aroused no party controversies. At this time the people of the United Kingdom were engrossed by the fortunes of the bill of the Derby government extending the parliamentary franchise in the boroughs, — the first extension of the electoral franchise , since 1832, — and, moreover, in 1867 the era of [209] Fathers of Confed- eration who rank as states- men of the Dominion No party contro- versy over B. N. A. act at West- minster EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA popular indifference to oversea possessions had not yet come to an end. The popular attitude towards Confederation was well expressed by the Times, in its survey of the year. "India and the colonies," reads a paragraph in this survey, "have enjoyed an unbroken tranquillity. The British provinces of North America have formally assumed the title of the Dominion of Canada, and the experiment of confederation or union promises favorably. The colonial office, once the most onerous depart- ment in the imperial government, is now, in great measure, relieved of its legislative and administrative functions." ^ How the creation of the Dominion was regarded by the Derby-Disraeli government may be judged from the queen's speech at the end of the session of the imperial parliament of 1867. "The act for the union of the British North American provinces," it read, "is the final accomplishment of a scheme long contemplated, whereby these colonies, now combined in the Dominion, may be expected not only to gain additional strength for the purposes of defense against external aggression, but may be united among themselves by fresh ties of mutual interest, and attached to the mother-country by the only bonds which can effectually secure important dependencies, those of loyalty to the crown and attachment to the British connection." ^ ^ Annual Summaries Reprinted from the Times, I, 266. 2 H. L. Debates, August 21, 1867. [210] c CHAPTER VIII THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION ONFEDERATION involved quite impor- changes tant changes in political organization for ^yy^^ the provinces which came under the terms of the organ- British North America act — Ontario, Quebec, ^^^^ Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia. These changes were necessary because each province had thence- forward to elect two groups of parliamentary representatives; one for the Dominion house of commons, and the other for the provincial legisla- ture; and also because each of the provinces at Confederation ceded some of its powers to the Dominion government. After Confederation the relations of the colonial Colonial office in London were only with the government ^^® at Ottawa, and not with the five provincial changes capitals, as in the period from 1846 to 1867. ^*^jjg^_ Except for this fact, and for the fact that after eration 1878 an end was made in practice to the reserva- tion of bills by the governor-general,^ it cannot be said that there was any change in the relations between the government in Canada and the im- perial government at Westminster. 1 Cf. Z. A. Lash, "The Working of Federal Institutions in Canada." — "The Federation of Canada," 80-85. [211] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Few new Powcr was given in the British North America powers ^^^ ^^ ^Pjg Dominion parliament to create new accrue to '^ Dominion provinces out of the territories lying between the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains — a power which was exercised in 1870, when Mani- toba was organized as a province/ and again in 1905 when Saskatchewan and Alberta were created. Otherwise it cannot be said that any additional freedom or any important new powers accrued to Canada at Confederation. In the period between 1841 and 1867, as has been shown in the preceding pages, the govern- ment at Whitehall had, sometimes promptly and cordially, sometimes tardily and grudgingly, conceded everything that had been asked by the United Provinces and the Maritime Provinces. It had conceded so much, and had obtained so little in return, that in September, 1866, when the Derby government was faced with the problem of the defense of the British North American provinces, Disraeli, who was then chancellor of the exchequer, deemed that the time had come for reconsidering the position of the British government in relation to these outlying portions of the empire. "We must," he wrote to Derby, "consider our Canadian position, which is most illegitimate. An army ^ Note also an act respecting the establishment of prov- inces in the Dominion of Canada, which received the royal assent on June 29, 1871. — British Statutes, 34 and 35 Vict., c. 78. [212] THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION maintained in a country which does not permit us even to govern it! What an anomaly!" ^ Long before Confederation the British North American provinces had secured nearly all the es- sentials of autonomy. They had obtained nearly all the powers they could ask or expect, if they were to remain of the British Empire and under the British crown. They all enjoyed representa- tive and responsible government. Each since 1859 had been almost completely m-aster of its own fiscal system, although only Ontario and Quebec had used this power to levy protective duties on imports from the United Kingdom. All, except British Columbia, had enjoyed the right of reciprocal trade with the United States, and had received from the United States, in return for adequate concessions made by the United Prov- inces and the Maritime Provinces, tariff con- cessions which were denied by the United States to Great Britain. The imperial government in 1850-1854 had greatly exerted itself through its minister at Washington, and through Elgin, the governor- general, to secure reciprocal trade between the United States and the United Provinces, the Maritime Provinces, and Newfoundland. But the terms and conditions of the treaty were left to the statesmen of the provinces to determine as seemed best for the interests of the provinces; and so far as the British government was con- Auton- omy of provinces before Confed- eration Paitlal treaty- making power exercised by provinces in 1864 Buckle, IV, 476. [213] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Powers accruing to Dominion from 1867 to 1914 cerned the treaty might have been continued indefinitely so long as the British provinces found reciprocity to their advantage, as they un- doubtedly did from 1854 to i866> All the provinces before Confederation pos- sessed the power to amend their constitutions as their legislatures might deem advisable. Before Confederation there had also been far-reaching modifications of the instructions given to governors-general and governors on their appoint- ment to the capitals of the provinces. These modifications were necessary owing to the large measure of home rule enjoyed by all the provinces between 1841 and 1867. The classes of bills that might be reserved for transmission to the colonial ofiice before approval by the governor-general, or the governors of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, had, in consequence of the larger measure of home rule, also been much restricted, thereby increasing the powers of the legislatures and the authority of the cabinets. There were, therefore, few new powers to be asked from the imperial government by the Fathers of Confederation. The fullness of the concessions to the old British North American provinces was made obvious by half a century's experience of the working of the British North America act. 1 Cf. Porritt, "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 79-118. [214] THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION From 1867 to the outbreak of the war In 1914, the imperial government was even more ready to make concessions than it had been from 1840 to Confederation. The growth and development of Canada created new needs, needs which had not existed when there were not more than two or three million people in all the British North American provinces. But in these forty- seven years — 1867 to 1914 — the Dominion had sought, had had bestowed on her, or had asserted, only six rights or powers which had not been enjoyed by the United Provinces and the Maritime Provinces between 1859 and 1867. The rights thus obtained by the Dominion Treaty- between 1867 and 19 14 were (i) the right to ™^^^8 make her own tidewater coastwise navigation fuUy laws — a right first exercised in 1870;^ (2) the ^°°^^ right of the Dominion cabinet to veto a nomina- in i907 tlon to the office of governor-general — a right that has existed at least since 1882^; (3) the right of the Dominion to direct representation on the judicial committee of the privy council at White- hall — a right first exercised in 1897, when Sir Henry Strong, then chief justice of Canada, took his seat on the judicial committee; (4) the right of the Dominion to decide whether It will be a party to treaties made by Great Britain, a right 1 The United Provinces were conceded the right to make their own inland coastwise navigation laws in 1847. 2 Cf. Bruce, II, 205. [215] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA enjoyed since 1872; ^ (5) the right of the Dominion to make her own immigration laws, and to exclude paupers and other undesirables from the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the British Empire — a right first asserted and exercised in 1904; and (6) the right of the Dominion to appoint her own plenipotentiaries for the negotiation of commercial treaties and conventions — a right partially conceded as early as 1870, and fully conceded by the imperial government in 1907.^ I. The Cost and Advantages of Federal Union Mac- The British North America act of 1867 estab- *"i ^ lished a federal as distinct from a legislative prefer- _ ° ence for uuion. Macdouald, one of the Fathers of Con- J^^*"*''® federation, who was the first premier of the 1 At the present time the British government never nego- tiates a treaty without putting in a stipulation that this treaty does not apply to Canada, or any of the self-governing dominions, unless they are willing to be bound by it. — Speech by Sir Wilfred Laurier at Simcoe, Ontario, August 15, 191 1. 2 It may be briefly noted that growing out of the war, and out of the prompt and self-sacrificing part that Canada and the other oversea dominions took in the defense of the empire and of civilization, the Dominion of Canada, the Common- wealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa were in 1916 claiming a part in formu- lating the foreign policy of the empire. (Cf. ^arterly Re- view, July, 19 16, 266-282.) It was urged that foreign policy and imperial defense must no longer be determined by the cabinet which is chosen only from the British parliament, and maintained in power by a majority in the house of commons at Westminster. [216] THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION Dominion, would have preferred a legislative union; ^ and Macdonald did not lack support for this preference in the legislature of the United Provinces. Most of the advocates of legislative union urged it on the ground of economy. Had such a union been possible, economy case might have resulted; for with nine provincial *°''* legislatures, and as many provincial capitals and lative governments, in addition to the Dominion par- "°*''° liament, the Dominion government, and the Dominion capital, Canada, on the basis of its population and its normal expenditures on de- fence, is the most expensively governed country in the English-speaking world. A legislative union might have greatly hin- Eastern dered the development of political civilization in *°*^ • rT\,r-i ni Western the newer provmces or Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Canada and Alberta. East and west are even more accentuated in Canada — the difference is more obvious — than in the United States. As regards political thought and tendencies, a Canadian from any one of the four provinces east of the Ottawa River enters into another world when he crosses the "Bridge," and settles in rural Mani- toba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta. ^ "Federalism in 1861 had received a staggering blow by the apparent breakdown of the American union and the beginning of the civil war. This breakdown so impressed the mind of Macdonald that he despaired of Federalism, and had fixed his attention on a unitary system like that of the United Kingdom." — George M. Wrong, "The Crea- tion of the Federal System in Canada," 14-15. [217] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA PecuUar A legislative union with a house of commons needs of ^^^ senate, controlled by majorities from the provinces five provinces east of the Great Lakes, would have been a perpetual brake on the three prairie provinces. It would have been a hindrance for these provinces, on which in the second decade of the twentieth century the material prosperity of all Canada largely depended.^ During their rapid development from 1905 to 1914, the prairie provinces acted on the convic- tion that taxation and police are not the only me^^^™' functions of government. They developed poli- cies in regard to public utilities — grain elevators, street-car lines, telephone systems, and water, light, and power undertakings — more in accord with English and Scottish precedents than with the precedents of eastern Canada or of the United States. Federal union has been costly and is still costly to Canada, in view of its enormous area Its cost to and its comparatively small and scattered popu- ^^^ lation. Federal union has its inconveniences arising from some of the direct methods of taxa- tion in use in the various provinces, and the lack of uniformity as regards bankruptcy, usury, and other laws directly affecting commerce. But ^ "The creation of western Canada is the most splendid achievement of our life since 1867. The hope of that great lone land has been realized beyond expectation." — R. A. Fal- coner (president of the University of Toronto), "The Quality of Canadian Life," in "The Federation of Canada," 120. [218] THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION no student of the political and economic and social development of Canada since 1867 — no student who can survey the various needs and economic and social characteristics of the nine provinces of the Dominion — will deny that federal union has been, and is, worth all that it has cost, that it is costing, and that it will cost. Nor will he desire that Macdonald had carried a union on the lines of his first plan and wishes. A legislative union might today be possible for the prairie provinces, with little interference with the federal system. A legislative union, it has long been contended, is possible for the Maritime Provinces, and such a union might be much to their advantage. But experience from 1841 to 1867, and from 1867 to the jubilee year of Confederation, has shown that a legislative union was never desirable for the Dominion.^ ^ In the Mail of Toronto, of January 6, 1880, there was a review of twelve j^ears' working of the system of govern- ment that was established in 1867. "The local system," it read, "has been in existence only twelve years. During that time it has, on the whole, worked well. Certainly it will not be contended that the business of the province of Ontario would have been transacted as well or more cheaply by a legislative union. The bitter experiences of the politi- cal vendetta that rent Upper and Lower Canada, and made the union of 1841 a grim satire on unity, ought to satisfy every thinking man that such a form of government is not suited for a country of mixed races. It is tolerably certain, indeed, that if one parliament had to deal with the local as well as the general interests of the seven provinces, the work [219] Le^sla- tive unions in Canada that are possible EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA II. The Forces against a Legislative Union However desirable legislative union might have seemed to the advocates of economy, it was a plan which in 1 864-1 867 could never have been carried. Quebec would hear of nothing but a federal union. The attitude of the Maritime Provinces was the same as that of Quebec. More- over, much as British Columbia desired railway and telegraph lines from the Atlantic to the Pacific — public utilities of supreme importance politically, economically, and socially, which it could obtain only by union with eastern Canada — its political history from 1850 to 1867 warrants the assumption that the Pacific coast province, with its almost exclusively English population, and its dread of some of the political, racial, and religious conditions that had developed and become rooted in Ontario and Quebec, might have long held aloof if a legislative union had been established in 1867. George Brown, leader of the Liberal party of Upper Canada, told the advocates of legislative union why such a plan was not possible, when he addressed the legislative assembly of the United Provinces and asked it to indorse the resolutions of the Quebec convention of October, 1864. "We had," he said, in recalling the deliberations would be badly done, if done at all, and the sectionalism that now curses us would become an intolerable drag on progress and a perpetual danger to the state." [ 220 ] THE DOMINION A FEDERAL UNION of the convention, "to take federal union or drop the negotiations. Not only were our friends from Lower Canada against legislative union, but so were most of the delegates from the Mari- time Provinces. There was but one choice open to us — federal union or nothing." ^ At Westminster there were tried and sincere friends of self-government in the colonies that are now of the Dominions who in 1867 would have preferred a legislative union for the Dominion of Canada. Foremost among them was Russell — Lord John Russell of the act of union of 1840. Carnarvon had these advocates of legislative union in mind when, in introducing the British North America bill to the house of lords, he came to the clause establishing federal union. It is true — said the colonial secretary of the Derby- Disraeli administration of 1866-1868 — that no federation can be as compact as a single homogeneous state, though the compactness will vary with the strength or weakness of the central government. It is true that federation may be com- paratively a loose bond, but the alternative is no bond at all. Federation is only possible under certain conditions, when the states to be federated are so far akin that they can be united, and yet so far dissimilar that they cannot be fused into one single body politic; and this I believe to be the present conditions of the provinces of British North America. Russell's prefer- ence for federal union Carnar- von on federal bond Carnarvon realized that there might be diffi- Crown culties even with federal union. But he believed ^f . federal that the Dominion of Canada enjoyed one con- union ^ Mackenzie, 335, 336. [221 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA splcuous advantage lacking in confederations in non-British countries. "It is to be remembered," he said, "that unHke every other federation that has existed, the federation of British North Ameri- can provinces derives its poHtical existence from an external authority. It derives it from that which is the recognized source of power and rights — the British crown." "And I cannot but recog- nize in this," Carnarvon added, "some security against those conflicts of state rights and central authority which in other federations have some- times proved so disastrous." ^ 1 H. L. Debates, February 19, 1867. [222 J CHAPTER IX THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS BETWEEN THE DOMINION AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS T HE success of the United States under the Lessons federal system stimulated the first stages ^^ of the movement in the United Provinces for a war of union of all the British North American prov- Jf^g" inces. But as the movement was gradually pushed forward — as confederation of all the provinces, or a federal union of Upper and Lower Canada, was coming into sight — disturbing conditions developed in the United States which brought about the civil war of 1 861-1865. The Fathers of Confederation noted these ominous conditions, and realized that they must establish a federal union with a constitution that would reduce to a minimum the likelihood of serious friction between the central government and the various provincial governments. In the session of the legislature of the United Avoiding Provinces of i860 — soon after the mission of ^'^^^'^ over Gait and Carrier to London in the interest of provincial confederation — John A. Macdonald made a ^^^^^ speech in the assembly in which he insisted that in the constitution for the British provinces some dangers which he regarded as inherent in the constitution of the United States must be avoided. [223] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Hat- "The fatal error which they have committed," onception ^^ Said, in alluding to the struggle over states' >t rights, "and it was perhaps unavoidable from the Lmerican g^-^^g gf ^.j^g American colonies at the time of the onstl- ution revolution, was in making each state a distinct sovereignty. The fatal error was made in giving to each state distinct sovereign power, except in those instances where powers were specially reserved by the constitution, and conferred upon the general government." "The true principle of confederation," continued the statesman of the United Provinces, who in 1867 was created Knight Commander of the Bath for his services at Confederation, "lies in giving to the general government all the principles and powers of sovereignty, and in the provision that the subordinate or individual states should have no powers but those expressly bestowed on them. We should thus have a powerful central government, a powerful central legislature, and a powerful decentralized system of minor legis- latures for local purposes." ^ The principles of distribution of powers between the Dominion and the provincial governments ition of which Macdonald thus enunciated in i860 were tetes reiterated by him at the Quebec convention of rred 1 864. He recalled political conditions in the recently revolted American colonies at the time when the constitution of the United States was framed. 1 Boyd, 181-182. [224] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS "There were," he said, "thirteen individual sovereignties, quite distinct the one from the other. The error at the formation of these con- stitutions was that each state reserved to itself all sovereign rights, save small portions dele- gated. We must reverse the decision by strength- ening the general government, and conferring on the provincial bodies only such powers as may be required for local purposes." ^ The principles which Macdonald had thus twice enunciated were adopted at Quebec.^ It 1 "The framers of the constitution of Canada," wrote ex- President Taft, in the National Geographic Magazine, Wash- ington, March, 1916, "thought it an improvement on the constitution of the United States in that the defects which the constitution of the United States was supposed to have shown in the civil war were corrected." Mr. Taft quoted Mac- donald's speech at Quebec. "I think," he continued, "it is the general opinion now that this view of the constitution of the United States was a mistaken one. The adoption of the 13th, 14th, and isth amendments strengthened somewhat the restraint upon state legislatures enforceable in the supreme court of the United States, but generally the division of power between the states and the general government remained the same. And yet as our congress has exercised powers which she always had, but which she had not before exercised, the strength of the central government is seen to be quite all that it ought to be. There is danger that a great widening of the field of federal activity, and a substantial diminution of state rights, would in the end threaten the integrity of our union instead of promoting it." ^ "Canada is a single state, in which the various units have prescribed powers: the United States is a union of many states, which have agreed to delegate certain powers to a [225] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA convention accepts Mac- lonald's rtews was agreed that in the division of powers between the Dominion and the provincial governments the residuum should be in the Dominion government, and not be reserved either to the provinces or to the people, as in the constitution of the United States.^ The plan was apparently adopted without contention; for Tupper, in his recollections of the convention, writes that there was "a wonder- 3f powers jpyj accord among the various representatives in regard to general principles involved in drafting a basis of union." ^ This unanimity was eulogized by Adderley, under-secretary for the colonies, when the British North America bill was before the house of commons at Westminster.^ I. The Powers of the Dominion Parliament Carnarvon, in introducing the bill to the house of lords, characterized the clauses which effected the distribution of powers as "the most delicate and important part of the measure." "In this," he said, "I think is comprised the main theory and constitution of federal government. On this depends the practical working of the new scheme." central authority." — George M. Wrong, "The Creation of the Federal System in Canada," 24. 1 Cf. Taft, "Great Britain's Bread upon the Waters," National Geographic Magazine, March, 1916, 232. "^ Tupper, "Recollections of Sixty Years," 40. 3 Cf. H. C. Debates, February 27, 1867. [226] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS And here — Carnarvon continued — we navigate a sea of difficulties. There are rocks on the right hand, and on the left. If, on the one hand, the central government be too strong, then there is risk that it may absorb the local action and that wholesome self-government by the provincial bodies which it is a matter of both good faith and political expediency to maintain. If, on the other hand, the central government is not strong enough, there arises a conflict of states' rights and pretensions. Cohesion is destroyed, and the effective vigor of central authority is encroached upon. Familiarity with Macdonald's enunciation of Munici- 1860 and 1864 of the principles on which he desired ?.fV that the federal union should be based is obvious for in Carnarvon's next remarks on the distribution p^°^^<=^^ of powers effected by the bill. The real object we have in view — he said — is to give to the central government those high functions and almost sovereign powers by which general principles and uniformity of legislation may be secured in those questions that are of common import to all the provinces, and at the same time retain for each province so ample a measure of municipal liberty and self-government as will allow them, and indeed compel them, to exercise those local powers which they can exercise with great advantage to the community. Carnarvon made no claim as to the general Claims superiority of the constitution of the Dominion °* _, • • /• 1 TT • 1 superi- over the constitution of the United States. Such ority over a claim was left to the advocates of the new con- A™^^<=an consti- stitution in the legislatures of the several British tution North American provinces. ^ But in one particu- lar he was confident that the constitution was superior to that of the United States. 1 Cf. Mackenzie, 309; Boyd, 225. [227] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA To the central parliament — he said, when explaining the clause of the bill dealing with the criminal code and the administration of criminal law — will be assigned the enact- ment of criminal law. The administration of it, indeed, is vested in the local authorities; but the power of general legislation is very properly reserved for the central parliament. And in this, I cannot but note a wise departure from the system pursued in the United States, where each state is competent to deal, as it may please, with its criminal code, and where an offense may be visited with one penalty in the state of New York, and with another in the state of Virginia. The system proposed is, I believe, a better and a safer one.^ The division of powers made by the British North America act is effected by a distinct classification into four divisions. In the first division are those subjects which are assigned exclusively to the Dominion parliament. In the second are those which are assigned exclusively to the provincial legislatures. In the third are the subjects of concurrent legislation, such as immigration and agriculture; and the fourth com- prises the subject of education. The section of the act assigning subjects to the Dominion parliament declares that it shall be lawful for the sovereign, "by and with the advice and consent of the senate and the house of commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces." "And for greater certainty," H. L. Debates,- February 19, 1867. [228] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS it continues, "but not so as to restrict the gener- ality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared, notwithstanding anything in this act, that the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next here- inafter enumerated." Twenty-nine subjects are enumerated. They are as follows: 1. The public debt and property. 2. The regulation of trade and commerce. 3. The raising of money by any mode or system of taxation. 4. The borrowing of money on the public credit. 5. Postal service. 6. The census and statistics. 7. Militia, military and naval service, and defense. 8. The fixing of and providing for the salaries and allowances of civil and other officers of the government of Canada. 9. Beacons, buoys, lighthouses, and Sable Island. 10. Navigation and shipping. 11. Quarantine, and the establishment and maintenance of marine hospitals. 12. Seacoast and inland fisheries. 13. Ferries between a province and any British or foreign country, or between two provinces. 14. Currency and coinage. L 229 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 15. Banking, incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money. 16. Savings banks. 17. Weights and measures. 18. Bills of exchange and promissory notes. 19. Interest. 20. Legal tender. 21. Bankruptcy and insolvency. 22. Patents of invention and discovery. 23. Copyrights. 24. Indians and lands reserved for the Indians. 25. Naturalization and aliens. 26. Marriage and divorce. 27. The criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters. 28. The establishment, maintenance, and man- agement of penitentiaries, 29. Such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces. "And any matters coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section," reads the paragraph following the foregoing enumeration, "shall not be deemed to come within the class of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the enumeration of the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces." [230] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS 11. Powers of the Provincial Legislatures The second of the four divisions — the divisions Division in which are set out the subjects assigned to the provincial legislatures — is prefaced by a declara- tion that "in each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects hereinafter enumerated." They are as follows: 1. The amendment from time to time, notwith- standing anything in this act, of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of the lieutenant-governor. 2. Direct taxation within the province, in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes. 3. The borrowing of money on the sole credit of the province. 4. The establishment and tenure of provincial offices, and the appointment and payment of provincial officers. 5. The management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province, and of the timber and wood thereon. 6. The establishment, maintenance, and man- agement of public and reformatory prisons in and for the province. 7. The establishment, maintenance, and man- agement of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the prov- inces, other than marine hospitals. C231] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 80 Municipal institutions in the province. 9. Shop, saloon, tavern, and other licenses, in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial, local, or municipal purposes. 10. Local works and undertakings, other than such as are of the following classes: (a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and under- takings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province; (b) Lines of steamships between the province and any British or foreign country; (c) Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before, or after their execution, declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada, or for the advantage of two or more of the prov- inces. 11. The incorporation of companies with pro- vincial objects. 12. Solemnization of marriage in the province. 13. Property and civil rights in the province. 14. The administration of justice in the prov- ince, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in these courts. 15. The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty, or imprisonment, for enforcing any law of the province made with relation to any matter [232] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section. 1 6. Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province. III. Concurrent Legislation The third division — concurrent legislation — Division needs a few words of explanation. Long before ™ Confederation, Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and British Columbia had possessed, as they still do in 191 8, large areas of crown lands. In each of these provinces, moreover, laws had been enacted to encourage immigration from the United Kingdom with a view to the settlement of these crown lands. None of the provinces parted with the control of their crown lands when they entered the federal union. At Confederation the Dominion was possessed Grown of no crown lands that were available for colo- ^^^ nization on a large scale. Its only public lands in 1867 were military and naval reservations, which, at Confederation, were ceded by the im- perial government. The Dominion government remained without so much as a quarter section of 160 acres to offer to immigrants until it acquired the Hudson Bay Company's territory in 1869, and parts of these vast areas were surveyed and parceled out for settlement. It was these conditions as regards crown lands, and also the fact that each of the provinces [233] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Agri- desired, after Confederation, to continue its own cultural agricultural policy, that resulted in the third poUciesof ,. . . . V J- -I • r ff- J provinces division in the distribution or powers enected by the British North America act. immi- There is only one section in this third division. ajj^ In each province — it reads — the legislature may make agriculture laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immi- gration into the province. And it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and to immigration into all or any of the provinces; and any law of the legislature of a province, relative to agriculture, or to immigration, shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any act of the parliament of Canada. Except that the legislature of British Columbia has frequently passed bills restricting Chinese immigration into the province — bills that did not become law because they were disallowed by the government at Ottawa^ — the provincial legislatures after Confederation, ceased to pass laws regulating immigration. The Dominion code, administered by the department of immigration and colonization at Ottawa, has long been the only law. Dominion ^ "By virtue of sections 56 and 90 of the British North America act, an authentic copy of every provincial act has to be sent to the governor-general; and if the governor- general in council, within one year after receipt thereof, think fit to disallow the act, such disallowance, being signi- fied by the governor-general in the manner prescribed, shall annul the act from and after the day of such signification." — Lefroy, "Canada's Federal System," 81. [ 234 ] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS or provincial, regulating immigration. But in immi- recent years all the provinces except Prince ^^"•"' . . . . propa- Edward Island, and the prairie provinces, which gandaby have no lands at their disposition for settlement,^ provincial . . . . govem- have, under the concurrent legislative provision ments of the British North America act, enacted laws under which immigration propaganda is con- ducted in the United Kingdom, and in the case of Ontario and Quebec, also in the United States. The propaganda of these provinces, which is distinct from the propaganda of the Dominion government, on which fourteen million dollars were expended in the years from 1897 to 1914,^ is in the interest of the province which embarks on it. It advertises the special attractions which the province offers to immigrants. The aim of the wider propaganda, long maintained by the government at Ottawa, is to attract immigration to the Dominion as a whole, and in particular to divert a stream of agrarian immigration to the unoccupied Dominion crown lands in the grain- growing provinces west of the Great Lakes. IV. The Legislatures; Parliament and the Cabinet; Education The fourth division in the distribution of powers Division — the division concerned with education and the ^ powers of the Dominion and provincial govern- ^ Crown lands in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta are under the control of the Dominion government. * Cf. " Immigration Facts and Figures, Ottawa," 19 15, 30. [235] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA ments in regard to it — gave the Fathers of Confederation more trouble than almost any other provision embodied in the resolutions on which the British North America act was based. The difficulty arose out of the system of sectarian schools established in Upper Canada under an act of the legislature of the United Provinces passed in 1863, The school system then established created for Upper Canada what have since been known as separate schools — schools for Roman Catho- lics and schools for Protestants, all supported by local taxation, and under the management of local representatives, with some supervision from the department of education of the province. In the Catholic schools distinctly Catholic teaching is given; in the Protestant schools there is no teaching of the beliefs or tenets of any denomination. The great majority of the people of Upper Canada did not desire separate schools. A com- mon school system, with schools attended by children of all religions, was the aim of the Protes- tant population of Upper Canada in the years of the legislative union. But in the era of the United Provinces, as today, there were areas in Upper Canada, now Ontario, in which there were large settlements of French-Canadians, and areas settled by immigrants from Ireland. French-Canadians in the legislature, before 1863, had insisted on separate schools for Lower [236] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS Canada; and in the interests of the Roman Cathohcs — French-Canadian and Irish — they also insisted, from 1849 to 1863, that there should be a separate school system in Upper Canada. Fourteen years of bitter sectarian contro- versy, years in which the Roman Catholics in Upper Canada made the separate school question the paramount issue in politics,^ culminated in the education act of 1863. It was accepted by the Roman Catholic hierarchy as a settle- ment — a settlement which relieved the Protes- tants of Upper Canada from "standing constantly to arms," as George Brown, leader of the Liberals, described the position, "awaiting fresh attacks upon our school system," as they had been com- pelled to do in the years from 1849 to 1863. On the eve of Confederation there were 4,000 common schools in Upper Canada. Of this number 100 were separate schools, Roman Catholic in local management and in organization, atmosphere, and teaching. It would have been impossible to carry the preliminaries to Confederation beyond the Char- lottetown convention of September, 1864 — beyond the second of the five stages ^ — had not 1 Cf. Mackenzie, 122-127. 2 These stages were (i) the agreement effected when the Tache-Macdonald government was reorganized in June, 1864; (2) the Charlottetown convention; (3) the Quebec convention; (4) the approval of the Quebec resolutions by the legislatures of the several provinces; and (5) the enact- ment of the British North America act at Westminster. [237] Upper Canada edu- cation act of 1863 Lower Canada at Confed- eration demands safe- guarding of separate school system EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the Fathers of Confederation been wIlHng that adequate protection should be afforded in the British North America act to the separate school system, and the principles on which it was based when it was established in 1863. Safeguards French Canada would never have given its ftotestant suppott to Confederation without this pro- schools m tection. There were also in 1 864-1 867 com- Cealda paratively large numbers of Roman Catholics — ■ French-Canadian, Irish, and Highland-Scotch — • in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Moreover, in Montreal and Quebec, and also in the eastern townships of the French province, there were many people of English and Scotch descent who were of the Protestant minorities in that province — people who could not send their children to the Catholic schools, and who were consequently in need of schools similar to those of the Protestant majority in Upper Canada. Section The protection demanded by those Fathers of tt^ee^' Confederation who were vigilant guardians of Roman Catholic interests — nearly all of them from the French province — was embodied in section 93 of the British North America act. This section, which forms the fourth division in the classification and assignment of powers, determines the powers of the provincial legis- latures and of the Dominion parliament respec- tively with regard to education. Carnarvon approached this section with cir- cumspection when on February 19, 1867, he C238] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS unfolded the provisions of the bill to the house Carnar- of lords. Your lordships — he said — will observe some rather complicated arrangements in reference to education. The object of this clause is to secure to the religious minority of one province the same rights, privileges, and protection which the religious minority of another province may enjoy. The Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada, the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, and the Roman Catholic minority of the Maritime Provinces will thus stand on a footing of entire equality. But in the event of any wrong at the hands of the local majority, the minority have a right of appeal to the governor-general in council, and may claim the appli- cation of any remedial laws that may be necessary from the central parliament of the Confederation.^ The section as it stands in the act declares that "in and for each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education." But the enactment of laws relating to education is governed by an important condition, important from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church in at least two of the provinces that were organized before Confederation, and also in the three provinces — Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta — which were created by parliament at Ottawa in the years from 1870 to 1905. This condition — the kernel of section 93 — is that nothing in "any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to de- nominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union." 1 H. L. Debates, February 19, 1867. [239] von explains section to house of lords A restric- tion of powers of legis- latures Kernel of section 93 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Protection In the province of Quebec the legislature can- '°' not enact a law prejudicial to separate schools, Protestant _ t^ r-. i i- • i schools in Protestant or Roman Catholic, without contra- Quebec yening section 93. It cannot legislate to the dis- advantage of these schools, because by section 93 "all the powers, privileges, and duties at the union, by law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools and school trustees of the queen's Roman Catholic sub- jects," were "extended to the dissentient schools of the queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects in Quebec." Grievances Quite as important as these restrictions on the °^ legislatures in enacting laws relating to schools minorities , , , maintained out of public funds are two other provisions of section 93 for remedying any griev- ance of minorities that might result from legis- latures or governments of the provinces acting in contravention of these terms of the British North America act. Appeal to The first of these provisions declares that where governor- jj^ ^^j pj-Qvince a system of separate schools In council existed by law at the union, or after the union was established, an appeal shall lie to the governor- general in council — that is, to the cabinet at Ottawa — "from any act or decision of any provincial authority affecting any right or privi- lege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the queen's subjects in relation to education." "In case any such provincial law, as from time to time seems to the governor-general-in-council [240] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS requisite for the due execution of the provisions Remedial of this section, is not made," reads the second 1®^^" ^ . . . lationby of these provisions, "or in case any decision of parUa- ment the governor-general-in-council or any appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper provincial authority in that behalf, then, and in every such case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case require, the parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any decision of the governor-general under this statute." V. A Contention-breeding Provision of the British North America Act Only two of the existing nine provinces of the school Dominion had separate school systems at Con- ^'t"**'"'^ federation. These were Ontario and Quebec, confed- Nova Scotia,^ New Brunswick, and Prince ^^^^^°'^ Edward Island^ were free from the system; and 1 An attempt was made in Nova Scotia on the eve of Confederation to assimilate the school law of that province to the school laws of Upper and Lower Canada. The move- ment was opposed by Tupper, who intimated to Dr. T. L. Connolly, Roman Catholic archbishop of Halifax, that he should oppose any bill introduced in the legislature to the end desired by the archbishop, and should not shrink from the performance of that duty were he confident that it would terminate his public life. — Saunders, "Life and Letters of Sir Charles Tupper," I, 150-152. 2 In New Brunswick before Confederation there was a parish school system. In 1871, after an education bill had been enacted by the legislature at Fredericton, the question [241 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA British Columbia, six years before it came into Confederation, had estabhshed a school system, which the education act ^ declared "shall be conducted upon strictly non-sectarian principles." "Books inculcating the highest morality shall be selected for the use of such schools," reads another section of the law, "and all books of religious character, teaching denominational dogma, shall be strictly excluded therefrom." In 1872, a year after it came into the union, British Columbia amended the education act of 1865; and when Robertson, provincial secre- tary in the McCreight administration, who was in charge of the bill, introduced it to the legis- lative assembly, he intimated that its basal principles were (i) that every child had a moral right to an education, and (2) that the system should be free and unsectarian.^ By this act of 1872 clergymen were incapacitated from serving as school trustees. As the school system of British Columbia had been established before the province came into ection 93 Confederation, it was not possible for the Domin- ion government to make section 93 of the British was raised as to whether the parish school system constituted a separate school system under the terms of the British North America act. A case was taken to the judicial com- mittee of the privy council at Whitehall. The decision was that the New Brunswick parish system could not. properly be held to constitute a separate school system. ^ The Common School act, 1865, 28 and 29 Vict., c. 6. 2 Cf. Colonist, Victoria, March 14, 1872. [242] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS North America act operative in that province. But when Manitoba was created a province in 1870, the section was made to apply to laws re- lating to education passed by its legislature. A Conservative government was responsible for the Manitoba act. In 1905, when Saskatchewan and Alberta were created provinces, a Liberal government, supported by fifty-five of the sixty- five members of the house of commons from Quebec, was in power at Ottawa, and again section 93 was extended to the new provinces. There was much heated contention over sepa- Conten- rate schools in Upper Canada from 1849 to 1863. g°°°J^g' But this contention of the era of the United schools Provinces was comparatively small, and cer- ^^g^. tainly limited in area, as compared with the eraoon intense and extended contention and bitterness which in the first half-century of Confederation were engendered by section 93 of the British North America act. French-Canadians, in these fifty years, were as vigilant in asserting the rights of their church under this section, and in securing that the sec- tion was extended to the provinces carved out of the Hudson Bay Company's territory, as they were in insisting on the use of the French language in parliament, or in asserting their claims to offices in the civil service and to government patronage generally, or in opposing the enact- ment of the conscription law of 1917. Section 93, in the years from 1867 to 191 7, [243] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA was at the root of more political crises in Winni- peg, Toronto, and Quebec, and also at Ottawa, than any other issue in provincial or Dominion section 93 politics. It was the occasion of more public noise in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec than any other controversial question. More political rep- utations had their gilt edges worn off in these heated and long-drawn-out politico-sectarian, constitutional controversies than in any other controversy or agitation in Canada from Con- federation to the great war. Both political parties were vexed and torn by these section 93 agitations. Tupper, a Conserv- ative premier, partly owed his political downfall in 1896 to trouble in Manitoba over section 93, and to developments in Ottawa growing out of this trouble. Laurier, premier of Liberal govern- ments from 1896 to 191 1, lost prestige with the Liberals in the constituencies through his part in embodying the section in the constitutions of Saskatchewan and Alberta. He again lost pres- tige in 1916, when as leader of the opposition in the house of commons he identified himself with claims of the Roman Catholic church under this section — claims originating in connection with separate schools in Ottawa, which at that time were agitating Ontario and Quebec, and making business for the judicial committee of the privy council in London.^ ^ Cf. " Priests Block Recruiting in Quebec Province," New York Times Magazine, June 25, 1916; Senator Landry's [244] THE DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS The church whose interests were so carefully Roman safeguarded at the Quebec convention of 1864 ^^^°^'^ has obtained some advantages in other provinces in than Quebec by section 93. The area in which ^^^'^ schools controlled by its clergy and its lay adher- ents are established was extended between 1867 and 1 91 7 in Ontario, and separate schools were established in the prairie provinces. The recrudescence of the separate-schools question also afforded the church opportunities of giving a political lead to its adherents, and of keeping in touch with political leaders. The schools question also has, since Confederation, as in the years from 1849 to 1863 in Upper and Lower Canada, strengthened the political soli- darity of French-Canadians and kept them in association and political sympathy with Roman Catholics in other provinces besides Quebec. Lawyers have undoubtedly profited from all Profit- these agitations. Cases under the separate- schools laws found their way into the courts. Some of them were carried to the judicial com- mittee of the privy council — the court of last resort for litigants from India and the British dominions that holds its sessions at Whitehall. In the first half century of Confederation, section 93 enriched more barristers in Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, Toronto, and Winnipeg, and more letter of May 22, 1916, the Gazette, Montreal, June 3, 1916; full text of judgments in school cases, the Gazette, Montreal, November 3, 1916. [245] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA attorneys and gentlemen of the long robe and of the Inns of Court in the neighborhood of Temple Bar, than any other section of the British North America act. Carnarvon, who as colonial secretary managed the preliminary negotiations with the Fathers of Confederation who were in London in 1867, and who piloted the British North America act through the house of lords with a good will towards Canada and its aspirations and a states- manlike parliamentary skill that are kindly remembered in the Dominion, described section 93 as complicated. It is complicated. It is one of the most com- plicated and contention-breeding sections ever embodied in the constitution of any English- speaking country. But it must be understood, and so must the education systems of the older provinces as they existed on the eve of Confeder- ation. Otherwise it is impossible to understand many political episodes and developments in Canada since 1867, or to realize the cause of the divisions between Quebec and Ontario in Domin- ion politics, or to understand some of the con- ditions that have long characterized politics at Ottawa. ; [246] CHAPTER X THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET BEFORE Confederation there was a governor- Colonial general established at the capital of the 8°^f°- ° _ *^ , ors be- United Provinces, and a governor in each of fore the other provinces of British Columbia, Nova ^°^®'*" Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. They were all appointed by the crown, on the advice and recommendation of the colonial office in London. They were sent out from Great Britain, and were appointed under the patronage system as it then existed at Westminster, I. The Governor-general under Confederation By the British North America act the office of governor-general was continued; and governors of the other provinces ceased to be appointed by the colonial office. For governors sent out from Great Britain there were substituted lieutenant- governors — invariably Canadians — appointed by the governor-general in council — in practice by the cabinet at Ottawa. No change was made by the British North America act in the general relations of the gov- ernor-general to the cabinet. These remained the same as from 1849 — the year in which [247] Lieu- tenant- govem- ors under the B. N. A. act Gov- ernor- general and the cabinet EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Elgin, continuing an undertaking successfully begun by Sydenham in 1841, aided in com- pletely establishing responsible government in the United Provinces. By responsible government, it will be recalled, is meant the system under which the governor- general must form his executive council or cab- inet only from members of parliament who can command the support of a majority of the mem- bers of the house of commons — the house which in practice has sole control of the powers of taxation and appropriation. There was no law, either of the imperial parlia- ment or of the legislature of the United Provinces, establishing the system of responsible govern- ment. There is no law of the imperial parliament which established the cabinet at Ottawa exactly as it is constituted today — as it has been con- stituted since 1867.^ Nor is there any law which declares that the cabinet at Whitehall must be * All that the section of the British North America act establishing the executive council or cabinet says is, "There shall be a council to aid and advise the government of Canada, to be styled the queen's privy council for Canada; and the persons who are to be members of that council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the governor-general and sworn in as privy councilors, and the members thereof may be from time to time removed by the governor-general." — -Section XI. "The provisions of the British North- America act imply, though they do not express, the unwritten conventions of British parliamentary practice." — H. E. Egerton, " Federations and unions within the British Empire," 123-24. [248] GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET chosen by the king from members of parliament who command a majority in the house of commons at Westminster. The cabinet system at White- hall is based on usage — on a custom of the con- stitution which has been continuously followed for at least two centuries. At the capital of the United Provinces the system of responsible government was also based only on usage, or on the custom of the constitution. From 1840 to 1867 the United Provinces had a written constitution — the act of union of 1840, with the liberalizing amendments made by the imperial parliament in 1847 and 1854. But they had also, as has already been told, an unwritten constitution. The greatly restricted power of the legislative council in respect to money bills — the power to reject but not to amend a money bill — was deter- mined by the unwritten constitution. So also was the right of the legislature to enact a tariff without regard to the industrial and commercial interests of the United Kingdom, a right first asserted and exercised in 1858. It was also under the unwritten constitution that responsible govern- ment was established in 1 841-1845, and main- tained inviolate from 1849 to 1867. Quite important parts of the constitution of the Dominion are still unwritten. The British North America act ordains that "bills for appro- priating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any tax or impost shall originate in [249] Un- written consti- tution of the United Provinces Un- written consti- tution of the Dominion EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the house of commons." The conditions under which money bills shall originate — conditions which prevent any money bill from originating except at the instance of the privy council or cabinet — are also determined by the written constitution. There is, however, no section in the act which decrees that the senate shall have far less power over money bills — a power that in practice is scarcely more than nominal — than is exercised by the house of commons. Nor was there any section in the Quebec act of 1791, or in the act of union of 1840, which gave to the three legis- lative assemblies of 1791-1867^ the larger powers which they exercised over money bills. In regard to money bills the legislative councils were in the same position as is today the senate at Ottawa. In all matters affecting the raising and appro- priation of the provincial revenues they were in an inferior or secondary position in relation to the legislative assemblies. The larger powers of the commons of the Domin- ion over money bills are based on a custom of the constitution of the United Kingdom, which originated at Westminster in 1661 ^ — a custom that had been established for almost a century ^ The legislative assembly of Upper Canada, the legislative assembly of Lower Canada, and the legislative assembly of the United Provinces. 2 Cf. Porritt, "Unreformed House of Commons," I, 548- 557- [ 250 ] GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET before the first elected legislative assembly in Respon- any of the present oversea dominions of Great ^^^^® . . . . . . govem- Britain came into existence at Halifax in 1758. ment Responsible government in the Dominion, ^^~ ^ r- o ^ ' yeloped the system of government that restricts drasti- by usage cally the actual power and authority of the governor-general at Ottawa, is also still based only on usage and custom. Neither by the British North America act, nor by any subsequent legislation at Westminster, was direct statutory sanction given to the system of government in Canada that between 1841 and 1849 was created by the statesmen of the United Provinces, and accepted by Sydenham, Bagot, and Elgin as representatives of the crown. II. Relations of the Governor-general to the Cabinet There is, however, a section in the British Govern- North America act that to some degree and °^" general indirectly establishes responsible government, must act and much of what in Canada between 1841 and "^^^dvice 1867 had come to be associated with the term — cabinet Canadian in origin — "responsible government." "The provisions of this act relating to the gov- ernor-general," it reads, "shall be construed as referring to the governor-general, acting by and with the advice of the queen's privy council for Canada." Lafontaine and Baldwin and their colleagues of the movement for responsible government, [251 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA it will be recalled, made two demands on Met- calfe in 1 843-1 845. They insisted on his acting on two principles. The first was that he should select his executive council — or cabinet — only from the political party which commanded a majority in the legislative assembly. The second was that he should act in all political matters only on the advice of the council so chosen. Elgin's policies and actions as governor-general of the United Provinces from 1847 to 1854 were based on these two principles. His fame in Canadian history, and in the history of the Empire, rests on his part in the establishment of respon- sible government. Head and Monck, his suc- cessors, acted on the precedents that Elgin had established. These principles were soon adopted in other British colonies. They were, in fact, so quickty, and completely adopted in the British North American provinces, in Australasia, and in South Africa, that as early as i860, seven years before Confederation, responsible government had be- come so general in British colonies with parlia- mentary institutions, and the powers of governors had thereby been so greatly curtailed, that Sir William Denison, governor of New South Wales from 1854 to 1 861, expressed regret that under the new order there remained little real work for governors to do. While serving as governor at Sydney, Denison, who was of the old school of colonial adminis- [252] GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET trators, was appointed governor of Madras, a province of India, in which there was no represen- tative government, and consequently no system of responsible government. "I look forward with great pleasure," he wrote from Sydney, on November 17, i860, "to the idea of having something to do. In these responsible govern- ments one sees much going on which is most objectionable. Yet one is powerless either to do good or to prevent evil." ^ New duties and added responsibilities were imposed by the British North America act on the governor-in-council. These new duties nec- essarily accrued to the cabinet in a federation which in 1867 included four provinces and by 1905 had come to include nine. Only two or three examples need be cited to illustrate the new duties that had to be assumed by the cabinet of the Dominion, duties of a class and importance such as had never been discharged by the executive council of the United Provinces nor by the cabinet of any British North American province in the era of 1 791-1867. The appointment of lieutenant-governors of the provinces, by the British North America act, is vested in the governor-general-in-council. On the governor-general-in-council is also imposed the responsibility of disallowing acts passed by the provincial legislatures; and it is to the governor- general-in-council that aggrieved minorities under ^ Denison, "Varieties of Viceregal Life," I, 497. C253] Position of colonial governor under respon- sible govern- ment Govem- or-in- council Increased powers and new functions of the Dominion cabinet EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA section 93 — the separate-schools section — make their appeals for remedial measures. Orders-in-council made under statutory author- ity — orders promulgated in the Canada Gazette, the official journal of the Dominion — which have the force of law, also issue from the governor- general-in-council. These orders, under the fed- eral system, are necessarily more numerous, much more important, and in every way a larger part of the governmental machinery than orders-in- council were in the period in which every province was separately organized, and conducted, through its governor, all its own business and its nego- tiations with the sister provinces and with the imperial government. At most, however, these new duties and respon- sibilities thrown upon the governor-general-in- council add only to the dignity and the nominal importance of the governor-general. The gov- ernor-general-in-council in reality is not much more than the title of the cabinet, the king's privy council in Canada. III. The Governor-general and Party Politics The presence of the governor-general-in-council is today not much more than a constitutional fiction. In the chamber of the king's privy council, in the eastern block at Ottawa, there is a high-backed, decorated chair. It is at the head of the council board. It is reserved for the [254] GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET king's representative. There is a tradition at Ottawa that in the days of the United Provinces this chair was sometimes occupied by the governor- general. But rare indeed are the occasions since Confederation when the regal chair has been occupied by the governor-general during a session of the cabinet. Why the governor-general of the Dominion has seldom Or never sat at the head of the cabinet table has been explained by a former governor- general, the late Duke of Argyll, who was much appreciated and popular in Canada during his term of office from 1878 to 1883. Argyll, who until 1900 was Marquis of Lome, assumed office at Ottawa in November, 1878. In a private letter written in November or Decem- ber of that year, the new governor-general re- marked on some of the old world usages he had discovered in the new world capital. It is curious — he wrote — how old monarchical ways, no longer known in Great Britain, still survive in some forms in the free and self-governing colonies. For instance, now that I have taken up my work, and attend at the government buildings to all the papers that are brought before me, I am sometimes told that my predecessors used to attend also the meetings of the cabinet, quite as we may suppose the Stuart monarchs may have presided at their council of state, when their ministers deliberated. Now you know well, or ought to know, that the queen, and the sovereigns before her since the revolution, have done this but seldom. When the queen nominally presides at a council it is only a form, for all de- cisions have been previously taken. She has seen the papers that led to the decision, and she may herself, or through her Non- attend- ance of governor- general at meetings of cabinet Survival of old monar- chical ' usages EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA secretary, have taken part in written or oral discussion, but with each minister, or the prime minister singly, and not in cabinet conclave. Regal But the governor-general of Canada has often himself chair In sat and spoken in the cabinet conclave. To prove this to tte cabinet ^^ j ^^^ shown the council room, in which a high-backed, decorated chair was placed at the head of the long table, and ranged along the table at each side, were the chairs for the ministers. I said, as soon as I saw this cabinet throne, that I would not be representing the queen in occupying it when ministers were engaged in consulting with each other about any bill they proposed to bring forward in the house, and that I would never use it. "Nor did I," added Argyll, when in 1907 these notes of 1878 were published in his reminis- cences, "do so — sit in the regal chair — even for the formality of assenting to bills passed, which was done by signing council orders." ^ The attitude and policy of Argyll towards the cabinets of 1 878-1 882 was also the attitude of the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Stanley of Preston, the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Minto, Earl Grey, and the Duke of Connaught, who were successively governors-general from 1883 to the outbreak of war in 1914. No other attitude, in fact, was possible; for no other attitude would have been tolerated by the statesmen or by the people of the Dominion. The governor-general's attitude on all political questions must be absolutely non-partisan. What- ever his party affiliations at Westminster may 1 Argyll, "Passages from the Past," II, 412. [256] GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET have been, immediately he assumes office at Ottawa, as the representative of the king, his attitude towards poHtical parties and poHtical agitations of all kinds, in the constituencies as well as in parliament, must be as nearly as he can approach it the attitude of the king toward political parties at Westminster. As the king's representative he must stand His aloof in all party contentions. He must accept ***^^"*® • r 1 r toward the services of the group of party leaders who the ins can command a majority in the house of com- ^^ *^® . outs mons. But he must be ready at any time to accept the services of the leaders of the opposition, if a ministerial crisis, or the issue of a general election, brings about the downfall of the party in power, and control of the house of commons is transferred to the party previously in opposition. IV. hifluence of the Governor-general on Political Life A political history of Canada from 1867 to Cor- 1917 that was loyal to the truth would have to ^^^°^ tell of much corruption and of many scandals political at Ottawa. Some of the scandals grew out of ^'^^'^^ methods resorted to by politicians in power to raise money for election campaigns from Canada's governing class — from the men who were dicker- ing for railway charters and the accompanying land grants and subsidies from the Dominion treasury; ^ from beneficiaries of the tariff and of 1 Cf. Boyd, 328-332. C257] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the iron and steel bounties of 1883-1911;^ from men who desired large grants of public lands with valuable timber rights; and from men who were seeking by orders of the governor- general-in-council valuable mineral or water rights.^ Other political scandals of the first fifty years of Confederation developed out of corrupt rela- tions of politicians in power with contractors for public buildings, for dredging, and other public works; ^ out of the corruption^ and frauds at elec- tions to the house of commons; out of the lavish expenditures on the immigration propaganda; 1 Cf. Cartwright on the Red Parlor at Ottawa, H. C. De- bates, April II, 1890. 2 "Generally I would charge against your party, as repre- sented by the governments in which you sat," wrote Sir John Willison, editor of the News, Toronto, to Sir Charles Tupper, in 1903, "that it carried on a strong constructive Canadian policy by bad political methods, and gross corrup- tion in the constituencies; and that the net result was to build up Canada, and greatly lower the public morals." — Saunders, "Life and Letters of Sir Charles Tupper," II, 255. ^ Cf. Speech by Sir George E. Foster, Minister of Trade and Commerce, House of Commons, Ottawa, February 17, 1916; and "Campaign Funds, Dominion and Provincial," Tribune, Winnipeg, November 30, 1915. * "In Canada the necessity of two contending parties to obtain an electoral majority in every district is a cor- rupting influence which poisons the life of the people from the Atlantic to the Pacific." — Viscount Grey of Fallodon, letter on proportional representation. The Times, London, April 2, 1917. [258] GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET and out of the purchase of small railway lines, to be used as feeders or branches of the Inter- colonial Railway, the line owned and operated by the Dominion government, that connects St. John and Halifax with Montreal.^ Political conditions at Ottawa and in the con- stituencies, that since 1867 have continued or developed these flaws in the working of the repre- sentative and administrative institutions of Can- ada, are soon obvious to a new governor-general. He cannot read Canadian history, the debates in parliament, the reports of royal commissions and investigating committees, or even the daily newspapers, without becoming aware of them. But the position of the king's representative at Ottawa in regard to political parties and political controversy is, and since 1849 has always been, such as to make corrective action on his part impossible. The Dominion is under responsible govern- ment. This is a condition that obviously ad- mits of no change. However great the scandal, there can be no interference by the governor- general, so long as the political party in the majority stands ready to support the government in the house of commons at Ottawa. "The Canadian ministers," said Gladstone, when, during his administration of 1 868-1 874, his attention was called in the house of commons to the scandal over the first charter for the ^ Cf. Grain Growers' Guide, Winnipeg, May 31, 1915. [259] An ex- govemor- general's descrip- tion of political con- ditions The attitude at Whitehall toward poUtical scandals in the Dominion EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Canadian Pacific Railway, granted by the Mac- donald government in 1872, "are responsible to their parliament, and are not in any way responsible to us for their conduct. I do not think this is a matter in which it is competent or desirable for us to interfere." ^ An attitude Investigations into the granting of the first in which chatter for the first trans-continental line across no change is possible the Dominion revealed the worst scandal in the history of Great Britain's oversea dominions. Macdonald, by the action of the house of com- mons at Ottawa, was forced to resign, and was out of power from 1873 ^o 1878. The scandal was not forgotten in Great Britain, when, after his death in 1891, tributes to Macdonald as an empire builder were paid in parliament at West- minster. But neither in Great Britain nor in Canada has the attitude which Gladstone as- sumed in 1873 ever been questioned. No The Dominion of Canada, like all the domin- uninvited Jqj^s, is Under responsible government in the fullest ference meaning of the term. Canadians pride themselves on this fact. They point with pride also to the leading and conspicuous part which the old British North American provinces had from 1791 to 1849 in securing responsible government and the status of nation for the other oversea dominions of the empire. In the internal aflPairs of Canada there can never be any uninvited interference by Great Britain, either through parliament at 1 H. C. Debates, August i, 1873. [260] from Great Britain GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET Westminster, or through the colonial office or the governor-general.^ Recognition of this fact is one of the funda- Pouacai mental principles of the relations between Great ^*^*' Britain and the oversea dominions. Failure to a matter recognize it, and to adapt all policies in accord- ^°' *^® ance with it, would endanger the tie that holds Canada the Empire together. The government of Canada can be made responsible in the widest and best sense of the term — a government under which it will be impossible for any governing class to achieve its unsocial ends — only by the action of the men and women of Canada. Only by public opinion, expressed at the polls, a can the government be made actually responsible *=°""p*- to all the people of the Dominion. Only by govem- public opinion, so expressed, will an end be made ^^ to a party system that permits a small governing class, systematically using both political parties, to name the men who shall hold this or that port- folio in the Dominion cabinet,^ or to dictate 1 "The king is a constitutional monarch, reigning by virtue of an act of parliament, who leaves ruling to those whose constitutional duty it is — the ministry responsible to the people of the British Isles. That ministry has long ceased to interfere with Canadian affairs. It would not think of directing or even advising the people of Canada or its ministry what to do, or to leave undone." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 90-91. * In the twenty years from 1896 to 1917 there were only two changes of government at Ottawa. At each of these changes — the first in 1896, and the second in 191 1 — the [261: EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA policies and legislation in its own interest, and antagonistic to the interests of the people as a whole.^ PubUc Public opinion in Canada is slow in expressing opinion itself at the polls against a government under expressing which corruption has manifested itself, or against itself ^ government which has repudiated pledges by virtue of which it was elected.^ Only once in the first half century of Confederation, in 1874, did the electors of the Dominion dethrone a government because it had proved corrupt and untrustworthy.^ Party An administration at Ottawa is little perturbed fealty jjy ^}^g exposure of a scandal unless it is so grave as to bring about its downfall. The party supporters of the government in the house of commons — the only house that need be consid- ered in these matters — under any and all con- ditions will vote with the government.* The party press from Halifax to Victoria will white- wash the government, and insist, no matter how governing class, represented on both occasions by the bankers of Montreal and Toronto, dictated to the incoming premier the man on whom he must bestow the portfolio of minister of finance. ^ Cf. Goldwin Smith, "On the Position and Functions of the Governor-General," Sun, Toronto, March 18, 1908, and A. MacPhail, "Essays in Politics," 92. 2 Cf. Porritt, "Sixty Years of Protection in Canada," 363-387- 3 Cf. Cartwright, "Reminiscences," IIO-119. * Cf. Cartwright, ibid., 112. [262] GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET gross the scandal that has been exposed, that conditions are no worse than they were when the opposition was in power. Much the same attitude will be taken by the Rigidity active supporters of the government in the con- ^ ^*^ stituencies, and in particular by the local political mechanics; for nowhere in the English-speaking world in normal times are party lines more rigidly drawn or more rigidly adhered to than in Canada. In the constituencies there is no large body of electors who are unattached to either political party. There is no large independent vote, as there is in the United Kingdom and the United States; ^ and unfortunately for the beneficent working of the party system and of representa- tive institutions, conditions in Dominion politics from 1896 to the beginning of the war in 1914 were such as not to admit of the existence of a strong, aggressive, and effective opposition in the house of commons at Ottawa. V. Extra-Official Utterances of the Governor- general On the everyday political life of the Dominion Gov- — on the policies, standards, and ideals of states- ®™°'" , ^ , ' ' general men and parties at Ottawa — the governor- and general has not as much influence, direct or *^°*®'^' ... . . . porary mdirect, as the editor of any widely circulated pouocs newspaper that is not tied to any poHtical party. ^ Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," notes IV and V, ios-6. [263] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Academic freedom of the governor- general Functions of governor- general more than formal Only with his constitutional advisers is it allow- able for him to talk politics. In public, con- temporary politics is a forbidden subject for a governor-general; and discretion must be ex- ercised when he ventures to discourse from a public platform on religion, economics, or so- ciology. There is not much even of academic freedom for a governor-general. Grey, who was at Ottawa from 1904 to 191 1, was much criticized because he spoke in public on the widespread success in England and Scotland of cooperation on the Rochdale principle. Even in discussing on the platform general or abstract principles and virtues, a governor-general must use much circumspection, and take due care that any speech he makes is accurately reported in the press. On contemporary politics in all their various aspects he must not, in public, venture even a hint. It might be construed as prejudicial to the political party in power, or as giving aid and comfort to the party in opposition in the house of commons. The position of governor-general in Canada, or in any of the other four dominions, is, admit- tedly, much as Denison described the position of the governor of New South Wales, in i860. But the office is more than the most visible link that binds the Dominion to Great Britain and the empire. Some of the functions that attach to the office are ceremonial. Others are only [264] GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND CABINET formal. Formal as they are, they must be faith- fully discharged, or there might be crises when the day- by-day business of the Dominion would come indefinitely to a standstill. It was a maxim of Wellington's, in the political WeiUng- years of his long career, that come what might |^°^^ to political parties at Westminster, the king's business must go on; and the important mission of the governor-general is to see that, no matter what may happen to contending political parties, the king's business in Canada goes on. More than once it has been suggested in Canada a that the governor-general should be elected. ^^^^ There are Canadians — many of them — who govemor- could discharge the executive functions of the gov- ^^ggj^. ernor-general; and little harm would result if able some of the ceremonial functions were abandoned. But no popular election could possibly carry into the office a man sufficiently aloof from political parties and political controversies and agitations to exercise the delicate and important consti- tutional functions that come at times into the day's work of the governor-general under the present system of representative and responsible government. It is the complete aloofness of the governor- general from the fortunes of all political parties in Canada; his disinterestedness in all politics in the Dominion except the smooth and contin- uous running of government; and the fact that his term in Ottawa is fixed, and he is indebted C265] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA to no party, no interest, and no man in Canada for his appointment, that gives value to the governor-general's position. Men who It is sometimes asserted that if Great Britain serve had no king, a king must be created, if the system and the of government by parliament and cabinet, as it empire j^^g been developed since 1688, were to continue. The same might be asserted of the governor- generalship of Canada. It is inconceivable that representative and responsible government could continue, as it has been developed since 1841, without a governor-general sent out from England; and so long as the existing form of government continues, the men in political life in Great Britain who, for terms of four or five years, exchange Westminster for Ottawa to serve as governor-general, render good service not only to Canada, but to the empire and to British political civilization. [266] CHAPTER XI parliament: the senate FROM 1856 to 1866 the council of the legis- lature of the United Provinces was partly nominated and partly elected;^ and the two provinces — Ontario and Quebec — were divided into senatorial electoral districts. At Confedera- tion the elective principle was discarded; and by the British North America act it was provided that there should be a senate and a house of commons, and that members of the senate should be ap- pointed by the crown, acting through the governor- general. In practice this obviously meant that the senators were to be appointed by the cabinet at Ottawa; for since the end of the Metcalfe regime of 1843-1845, it had not been in the power of a governor-general to appoint even a postmaster or a collector of customs, except on the advice of the executive council or the cabinet. The statutory qualifications for senator are (i) that he shall be of the full age of thirty years; (2) that he shall be either a natural-born or naturalized subject of the king; (3) that he shall hold freehold property within the province for ^ Cf. Statutes of the Province of Canada, 19 and 20 Vic- toria, c. cxl. 1 267 2 Principle of elected upper chamber discarded Senators appointed by cabinet Qualifi- cations for senator EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA which he is appointed, of the value of $4000 over and above all incumbrances; (4) that his real and personal property shall be worth $4000 over and above his debts and liabilities; (5) that he shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed; and (6) in the case of Quebec, that he shall have his real property qualification in the senatorial division for which he is appointed or shall be resident in that division. I. Abandonment of the Elective Principle Objection In February, 1865, when the resolutions of the ^ J, Quebec conference were before the legislative discarding ^- . . . . elective assembly of the United Provinces, objection was principle jj^ade both to the abandonment of the elective principle for the senate and to the continuing of senatorial divisions for Quebec, while no such provision was made for senatorial divisions in the other provinces. Grounds George Brown, of Ontario, who was of the on which administration that carried the Quebec resolutions It was . ^~ , discarded through the legislature of the United Provinces, answered both of these criticisms. One of the reasons for abandoning the elective principle was the dread that an elective upper house might encroach on the powers of the lower house. It might claim power over money bills, which the lower house claimed as its right. Elected "Could they not," asked the leader of the senate and Qntario Liberals of the era of Confederation, money bills "justly say that they represent the people as [268] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE well as we do, and that the control of the purse strings ought therefore to belong to them as much as to us? They might amend our money bills. They might throw out our bills if they liked, and bring to a stop the whole machinery of government." Another reason for abandoning the elective cost of principle as it had been tried from i8i;6 was that ^f*^^*"^*^ , , . f. (. . . ~ election the election of senators from districts of large area made it difficult to find men who were willing to be candidates. "The constituencies," continued Brown, in speaking of the forty-eight electoral divisions for the legislative council of the United Provinces, "are so vast that it is diffi- cult to find gentlemen who have the will to incur the labor of such a contest, who are sufficiently known and popular enough throughout districts so wide, and who have money enough to pay the enormous bills that are sent in after the combat is over." ^ These were the reasons advanced in 1865 for Radicals abandoning the elective principle — a principle ^^^^ for which radicals of the school of Papineau and principle Mackenzie had contended ten or fifteen years before the rebellions of 1837, and for which radicals had contended from the union of 1840 until 1856, when the principle was adopted for both houses of the legislature. One reason for the abandonment was not publicly advanced by any of the Fathers of . ^ Mackenzie, "Life of George Brown," 306-307. [269] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Greasing Confederation. It was known that seventy-two the ways sgn^t-oj-s^ with salaries, and holding office for life, Confed- would be appointed at Confederation; and a r^iutions P^'-^ ^^^^ these appointments should be made from among men already in the legislative coun- cils of the United Provinces and of the Maritime Provinces undoubtedly greased the ways for the Quebec resolutions in the legislatures of what are now sometimes described as the senior provinces of the Dominion. II. Senatorial Divisions in Province of Quebec Senatorial How it comes about that today, as since 1867, ^visions senators at Ottawa from Quebec represent sena- Quebec torial divisions, while senators from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia represent their provinces at large, can be learned from the speech of the Liberal leader of Ontario when the Quebec resolutions were before the legislative assembly of the United Provinces. Many important concessions were made to the French province to insure the success of the movement for Confederation.^ ^ "No other constitution would give French-Canadians such liberty. If French-Canadians were to break the consti- tution, what kind of a constitution would they now get from the majority of the people of Canada? Would they get the same rights? No. I believe in the constitution that Cartier got for us. By this constitution the majority of the people cannot harm us. The signature of the king of England is there, and no force can change it one iota." — Speech by [2703 PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE The concession of senatorial districts was held to be necessary to safeguard the sectional interests of the province. " Our Lower Canada friends " — said Brown ^ — Safe- " felt that they had French-Canadian interests ^^^ and British interests to be protected; and they interests conceived that the existing system of electoral ^*^t divisions would give protection to these separate province interests. We, in Upper Canada, on the other hand, were quite content that they should settle that among themselves, and maintain their existing divisions if they chose. But so far as we in the west were concerned, we had no such separate interests to protect. We had no di- versities of origin or language to reconcile; and we felt that the true interest of Upper Canada was that her very best men should be sent to the legislative council wherever they might hap- pen to reside, or wherever their property was located."^ For the legislative councils of the old British upper North American provinces the only special claim ^^^' that was ever made was that as their members safe- were nominated by the crown, acting through s>^^^ ° f or the the governors, they afforded a safeguard to the British British connection. When all the provinces were "^on^ec- Lieutenant-Colonel P. E. Blondin, ex-member of house of commons, grandson of Edmund Barnard, associate of Papi- neau in rebellion of 1837, at meeting in Montreal, May 7, 1917, to stimulate recruiting of French-Canadians for Cana- dian overseas forces. — Gazette, Montreal, May 8, 1917. ^ February 8, 1865. 2 Mackenzie, 309. [271] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA in possession of representative and responsible government — after 1851 — the legislative coun- cils ceased to have this value, because a gov- ernor-general or a governor could appoint to the legislative council only on the recommendation of the executive of the province, which owed its existence from day to day to a majority in the popularly elected assembly, and the maintenance of the British connection was never taken into account by the executive councils in their ap- pointments to the legislative councils. The Since Confederation, when the usefulness of anTthe *^^ Senate at Ottawa has been challenged, it provinces has been asserted that the senate represents the provinces, much in the same way as the senate at Washington represents the states.^ Quebec, since 1867, has continuously had more peculiar interests to safeguard than any of the other provinces. For French-Canadians, religion and language are the most important of these interests. The population in Quebec of British origin is largely urban. Its special care is the industrial, commercial, maritime, and financial interests of Montreal, which are not the interests of the rural population. From 1867 to 1913, 113 bills originating in the house of commons were rejected by the senate. An examination of these rejected bills would not ^ Cf. Wrong, "Second Chambers in Canada," The New Statesman, London, February 7, 19 14; Gazette, Montreal, April 27, 1915. [272] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE disclose that many of them assailed the interest a claim of any of the provinces; and it would seem that * the claim that the senate represents the provinces on only and safeguards their interests grows exclusively °^^^^s out of the peculiar interests of Quebec. This much is certain: one of the earliest recognitions of the principle that the senate represents the provinces is contained in the section of the con- stitution of 1867 that continues for Quebec the senatorial divisions that came into existence in 1856, when for the first time in any country under the British crown, part of the members of the upper house of a legislature were popu- larly elected, and like members of the lower house were responsible to their constituents. III. Membership of Senate from i86y to igi6 — Provision to End Deadlocks At Confederation there were seventy-two in- senators from the three geographical divisions '^^^^ created in 1867. There were twenty-four from number Ontario, twenty-four from Quebec, and twenty- °* , ' -' _ , . senators four from the Maritime Provinces, In the years from 1867 to 1905 British Columbia came into Confederation, and Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta were organized as provinces. Addi- tions to the senate followed the incoming of British Columbia and the organization of the three prairie provinces; and from 1906 to 1916 the number of senators stood at eighty-seven. [273] Four geo- graphical divisions in senate EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA In 1 916, at the instance of the Dominion parliament, the section of the British North America act that determines the number of senators, and their distribution among the provinces, was amended by parUament at West- minster; and the senate has since consisted of ninety-six members. There are now four geo- graphical divisions: Ontario 24 Quebec 24 Maritime Provinces 24 Nova Scotia 10 New Brunswick 10 Prince Edward Island 4 Canada beyond the Great Lakes . 24 Manitoba 6 Saskatchewan 6 Alberta 6 British Columbia 6 New- found- land's quota Provision to end dead- locks of house and senate The door to Confederation has always been wide open to Newfoundland. Had Newfound- land thrown in its lot with the Dominion it would, before 1916, have been entitled to four senators at Ottawa. By the 1916 amendment to the British North America act it would now be entitled to six senators. In the event of a deadlock between the senate and house of commons additional senators may be appointed; but the number of these appoint- ments has always been fixed by the British North America act and its amendments. From 1867 to the amendment of 1916 the number was three or six — one or two from each division. It is now [274] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Criticism of deadlock provision Quebec's objection to unlimited increase in numbers of senate four or eight; and including seats for senators from Newfoundland, until there is another amend- ment to the British "North America act, the total number of senators cannot exceed no. In the event of the appointment of senators to end a deadlock, the governor-general "shall not sum- mon any person to the senate until each of the four divisions is represented by twenty-four sen- ators and no more." The Fathers of Confederation had to answer criticisms of this provision of the constitution, as they had of the abandonment of the elective principle, the retaining of senatorial divisions only in Quebec, and life membership in the senate. It fell to George Brown to answer all these criti- cisms, apparently because the criticisms came from Liberals in Ontario, in which province Brown, after the death of Baldwin in 1858, was the leader of the Liberal party. It was objected that if members of the senate were to be appointed for life the number should be unlimited, so that in the event of a deadlock between the senate and the house there should be power to overcome the deadlock by the appoint- ment of additional members. "Under the British constitution, in the case of a legislative union," said Brown, in answering this criticism, "that might be a legitimate provision. But honorable gentlemen must see that the limitation of the numbers in the upper house lies at the base of the whole compact on which this scheme rests. [276] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE It is perfectly clear, as was contended by those who represented Lower Canada in the conference/ that if the number of legislative councilors was made capable of increase, you would thereby sweep away the whole protection they had in the upper chamber." ^ IV. Life Tenure of Senators — Salary and Privileges George Brown was a convert to the principle Defense of life membership in the senate. He frankly principle admitted his conversion when he was called upon of life to defend the principle in the legislative assembly. ^^^J^' Answering the objection that there ought to be senate a limit to the term of senators, he told the assem- bly that he had been in favor of a limited term. "I thought it would be well," he said, "to provide for a more frequent change in the composition of the upper house, and lessen the danger of the chamber being largely composed of gentlemen whose advanced years might forbid the punctual and vigorous discharge of their public duties." The objection to this — Brown continued — was very Con- strong. It was said: "Suppose you appoint them for nine ception years, what will be the effect? For the last three or four years of their term they would be anticipating its expiring, and anxiously looking to the administration of the day for reappointment; and the consequence would be that a third of the members would be under the influence of the executive." The desire was to render the upper house a thoroughly inde- of senate of fathers of Confed- eration ^ At Quebec. 2 Mackenzie, 307-308. [277] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA pendent body — one that would be in the best position to canvass dispassionately the measures of the lower house, and stand up for the public interests in opposition to hasty or partisan legislation.^ Conditions A senator can resign at any time by a writing that vacate m^jgj. j^jg hand addressed to the governor-general; SG£lt 111 senate and the seat or a senator becomes vacant in any of the following cases: (i) If for two consecutive sessions of parliament he fails to attend the senate; ^ (2) if he becomes the subject or citizen of a foreign power; (3) if he is adjudged bank- rupt, or insolvent, or becomes a public defaulter; (4) if he is attainted of treason or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime; (5) if he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or residence. Another It is a constitutional fiction in Canada that consti- wages or salaries are not paid to senators or tutional ° ^ fiction members of the house of commons, or to members of the provincial legislatures. As a matter of fact wages and traveling expenses have been paid to legislators ever since the first legislature in Canada came into existence in Halifax in 1758. Otherwise the existence of popularly elected ^ Mackenzie, 308. 2 The seat in the senate of the oldest senator, Hon.AV. J. Macdonald, of British Columbia, has been declared, vacant by reason of his absence for two consecutive sessions. He occupied his seat for forty-four years, and was one of the half-dozen left of all the appointments made by Sir John A. Macdonald. The seat of Hon. Dr. J. E. Robertson, of Prince Edward Island, was declared vacant for the same reason, in the same motion. — Tribune, Winnipeg, April 29, 1915. [278] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE legislatures would have been impossible. But payments to members of parliament at Ottawa, and of the provincial legislatures, are described in enactments and in parliamentary debate, as indemnities; and the constitutional fiction is that these payments are not in return for services rendered, but to recoup members for loss they may sustain in attending to their parliamentary duties. Senators and members of the house of commons salaries have always received equal indemnities. For ggj^^^^^g some years after Confederation the payment was $600 per session, with allowances for main- tenance on the journeys to and from Ottawa, and a mileage allowance of ten cents a mile. Several times between 1867 and 1905 the indem- Free nity was increased. For some years it stood at ^^j^ ^1500; and in 1905 an act was passed which fixed and the payment at $2500 a session. At that time a ^^^ law was also passed under which senators and members of the house of commons travel free on all Canadian railways. They have also the privilege of franking letters and parcels through the mails, a privilege which members of parlia- ment at Westminster have not enjoyed since the penny post was established in the United Kingdom in 1840. During the session at Ottawa letters can be sent to senators and members of the house of commons free of postage. [279] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Throne In senate Scene of state cere- monies The bar of the senate V. The Chamber of the Senate The chamber of the senate, colloquially known as the red chamber, from the color of the uphol- stery and hangings, is modeled on the chamber of the house of lords at Westminster. There is no woolsack; for Canada has no lord chancellor to act as the presiding officer of the senate. But, as in the house of lords, there is a throne; for the senate chamber is the scene of the state cere- monial attending the opening and proroguing of parliament. The commons are summoned thither by the gentleman usher of the black rod, when the king's speech at the opening or closing of the session is about to be read in English and French by the governor-general. It is in the senate chamber also that the royal assent is given to bills that have gone through all their stages in both houses. The chair of the speaker of the senate is a little to the left of the dais on which stands the throne; and immediately in front of the chair is the table at which sit the clerk of the parliament and clerk of the senate, and the clerk assistant. The place of black rod is at the bar, at the entrance to the chamber; and it is at this bar that the speaker, the sergeant-at-arms, and the commons stand when they have responded to the summons of black rod to attend on the governor-general in the senate chamber. [ 280 ] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE The chamber Is spacious and handsome, with large galleries for visitors — galleries which are crowded when the governor-general attends in state to open a new session of parliament. The house of commons at Ottawa followed the Seating seating plan long in use in the house of representa- °* • • senators tives, and still in use in the senate, at Washington. Each member sits at a desk. In the senate chairs are provided — a departure from the usage of the house of lords, where, as in the house of com- mons at Westminster, members sit on benches. The chairs, two deep, face each other the length of the chamber; and between the front rows there is a broad aisle extending from the throne to the bar. Beyond the bar is the antechamber, which is not accounted a part of the senate chamber. Senators who are supporters of the government sit, as at Westminster, to the right of the speaker. Members of the opposition sit to the left. Partly in accordance with long usage, and partly The in accordance with statute, the ministry at West- *^^^®* minster is divided — usually unevenly — between Snate^ the house of lords and the house of commons. Every member of the cabinet at Ottawa must by usage be either of the house of commons or of the senate.^ But neither by usage nor by law ^ "'It was reserved for the Australian Commonwealth act (enacted at Westminster thirty-three years later than the enactment of the constitution of Dominion of Canada) expressly to state that a minister must become a member of the legislature within a prescribed time." — H. E. Egerton, "Federations within the British Empire," 123-124. [281] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA is it necessary that any member of the cabinet should be of the senate. There have been cabinets of which no member was of the senate.^ It is seldom that more than one or two members of the cabinet are of the upper house; and thus it comes about that in the senate chamber there is nothing that corresponds with the treasury bench in the house of commons. Govern- There is, however, always a leader for the ^^T - government in the senate. The exposition of the leader m ° _ _ , '^ senate policies of the government is deputed to this leader; and it is his duty to pilot government bills through the upper house. Questions To the government leader in the senate inter- rogatories are also addressed; for questions to ministers, with all the advantages, direct and indirect, that accrue therefrom in a democratic form of government, are as much a parliamentary institution at Ottawa as they are at Westminster. Opposition There is also a leader of the opposition in the senate. The member to whom this position is assigned is elected in party caucus — a caucus that under normal conditions is held during the first days of a new parliament. If the new par- liament has brought with it a new government, ^ "At Confederation, and for many years thereafter, ministers holding portfolios sat in the senate. There are none such now. Mr. Loughed leads the senate capably, but he is not the head of a department, and this state of things is not good for the country, nor good for the senate, nor does it tend to strengthen the constitution." — Gazette, Montreal (Canada's oldest Conservative newspaper), May 2, 1917. [282] leader in senate PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE and if there was a member of the cabinet in the senate of the preceding parhament, the position of leader of the opposition goes, almost as a matter of course, to this senator. VI. A Merging of the Old and the New — Procedure in the Senate In the early years of Confederation, while the provincial spirit was still strong, it was often a complaint of members of the house of commons from the Maritime Provinces that members from Ontario and Quebec were too much inclined to regard the parliament of the Dominion as an enlargement and continuation of the legislature of the United Provinces. It was not unnatural that the members from what are now the central provinces should so regard the Dominion parlia- ment. It was in the assembly of the legislature of the United Provinces that the struggle for responsible government had been successfully waged. Success in that struggle had paved the way for Confederation. Conditions in the United Provinces had made Confederation imperative and greatly hastened its realization. The new parliament had been established in Ottawa, which in 1866 had become the capital of the United Provinces; and it was holding its sessions in a parliament house that had been built for the legislature of the United Provinces. Party lines as they were developed in the first five years of Confederation were similar to party C283] Dominion parlia- ment and' legis- lature of Upper and Lower Canada New oc- cupants of legislative building of United Provinces EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Party lines before and after Confed- eration Usages and procedure of old legislature Procedure in senate Speech from the throne Procedure on bills lines in the United Provinces. In the early years of Confederation the Liberal-Conservatives ranged themselves on the side of protective tariffs and against democratic electoral franchises, and the Liberals on the side of free trade and democ- racy, much as had been the alignment of political parties on these questions in the old legislature from 1 841 to 1866. The usages and procedure of the old legislature, moreover, were continued in the Dominion parlia- ment; and for members of the senate or house of commons who had been of the legislative council or assembly of the United Provinces, there was little outward change after the consti- tutional transition of 1867, The procedure and ceremonial of the senate of 1 91 7 are little different from those of the legis- lative council of 1 841-1866; for procedure in the earlier era, as in the later, was modeled as closely as possible on that of the house of lords. A new session is opened with the speech from the throne — a speech which is prepared for the governor-general by the cabinet, and in which the legislative work of the session is briefly outlined. An address in reply is adopted, and the senate is then ready for any business that may be awaiting it. Bills originate in the senate — private members' bills and bills for divorce — rather than govern- ment bills. Leave to introduce a bill is given by the senate, and the bill is read a first time. [284] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE These stages are formal. It is seldom that there is any discussion either of a motion for leave to introduce or at first reading. At second read- ing the general principle of a bill is discussed; and after being read a second time it goes to committee. The bill may go to committee of the whole house, or to a standing committee. In either case clauses and details are discussed in committee. It is reported back to the senate, with or without amendment, and is then ready for third reading. At this stage amendments are still possible, and it is also possible to reject a bill at third reading, or to refer it back to committee. After a bill is read a third time it is carried to House the house of commons, and if amendments are *™®'^<*" ments made there it is returned to the senate for con- to a currence or non-concurrence with the amend- f^,"**® . . bill ments. Discussion between the two houses over bills is by message, not by conference, as is the rule at Washington, and as was the usage at Westminster until 1851.^ Finance bills, or bills which, if they became Finance law, would impose a charge on the treasury of '''"^*° the Dominion, cannot originate in the senate. The provision that every bill for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax, must originate in the house of commons, is intended to crystallize the constitutional practice at Westminster, and make it plain that the people 1 Cf. Porritt, " Unreformed House of Commons," I, 560. [285] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Senate no part in molding tariff bills Senate much less active body than the house BUls for divorce hold the purse-strings.^ It is within the power of the senate to reject a finance bill, but it can make no amendment to a bill of this character. Unlike the senate at Washington, the Canadian senate has no part in originating or molding tariff legislation. Individual senators may have some influence with the cabinet when a tariff bill is being framed by a committee of the cabinet for acceptance first by the cabinet, and then by the house of commons. But as a body the senate has never had any influence in determining the details of that part of the National Policy of the Dominion that centers in the tariff and the bounty system. In such legislation, in practice, the only function of the senate is to give formal con- firmation to bills sent to it from the house of commons. As regards the initiation of bills, the activities of the senate are much less than those of the house of commons, where most of the members of the cabinet have their seats. In the forty-six years from 1867 to 1913, 5871 bills were passed by the house, and sent to the senate. In this period, 1294 bills, originating in the senate, were sent to the house of commons. Bills for divorce, which by usage always originate in the senate, are included in the total of 1294 bills. In the first thirty years of Con- federation petitions for divorce were not numerous. In no year before 1900 did the number of divorce ^ Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 95. [286] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE bills which received the royal assent exceed six.^ Petitions were few because in the Maritime Provinces and in British Columbia there are courts for matrimonial causes. These four prov- inces are in practice outside the jurisdiction of the senate as regards divorce. French Canada, from its large Roman Catholic population, presents no petitions for divorce. A few petitions come from the English-speaking and Protestant population of Quebec. Other- wise divorce petitions come only from the part of the Dominion that lies between the Ottawa River and the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains; and until 1900 there were not more than two and a half million people in this vast territory. Of these, two millions were in Ontario. Divorce bills increased in number between 1900 and 1 91 6. There were fourteen in 1906; nineteen in 191 1; and in the last five years of this period there were from forty-five to fifty petitions at each session of parliament. At times the precincts of the senate were thronged with women who were lobbying for or against these divorce bills. ^ These bills, which are discussed at third read- ing, take up much of the time of the senate. In the common acceptance of the term they cannot be described as legislative measures. ^ Cf. Canada Year Book, 191 1, 429. 2 Cf. Northrup, "Divorce Bills in the Senate," GazettCt Montreal, January 11, 1916. C287] Area of Dominion from which petitions for divorce are presented Women as lobbyists for divorce bills Dis- cussion at third reading EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA The senate as a revising chamber Senate not an impartial chamber of review Spasmodic service as a revising body VII. The Senate as a Revising Body — Popular Indifference to its Existence and Proceedings It is a modern claim for the house of lords that it acts as a revising chamber. The same claim is made for the senate at Ottawa. To what extent the senate acts as a revising chamber can to some degree be judged from the record of its work from 1867 to 191 3. It amended 1246 of the 5871 bills it received from the house of com- mons, or 21.5 per cent. It rejected 113 bills, or 2 per cent.^ As furnishing a basis for the claim that the senate is of value as a revising body these figures covering a period of forty-six years are of only limited service. They cannot be taken at their face value. They cannot be accepted as a measure of the service of the senate as an independent and impartial chamber of review, because since 1874, and especially since 1896, it has been well known that the vigilance of the senate in amend- ing or rejecting bills depends on conditions which should have no influence with a really independent or impartial chamber of revision. In the forty-two years from 1874 to 1916 — a period during which the Liberals were in power from 1874 to 1878, and again from 1896 to 1911, and the Conservatives from 1878 to 1896, and again from 191 1 onward — the vigilance of the senate as a chamber of revision was not continuous. ^ Cf. Ross, "The Senate of Canada," 76. [288] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE It was spasmodic. The senate was vigilant only in the 3^ears that followed a change of govern- ment. Its vigilance depended on whether or not the political complexion of its majority matched that of the administration as supported by the majority in the house of commons. Second chambers in the legislatures of the Second British North American provinces were contin- ^^^ ' uously unsatisfactory from 1791 to 1866. Par- contm- ticularly was this the case with the legislative ^^^^ councils of Upper and Lower Canada and of the factory United Provinces. ^ In framing the British North America act the Confed- Fathers of Confederation desired to create a ^g^^^^ senate that would begin a new and better era in to begin the history of upper chambers in Canada. The ^^^^ professed expectation of the framers of the con- upper stitution was that the upper chamber at Ottawa ^ would be "an independent body, moderating Canada between parties — a body of judicial temper, and of rarer atmosphere than the house of commons." - The expectation of 1S64-1S67 has not been even An expec- tation partially realized. The position of senator is a highly pri^-ileged one. He is free from indi^■id- not ual claims by constituents on his time and energy ^ Cf. Durham's Report, II, 82; and H. L. Debates, June IS, 1854. - "The Round Table," III, 719. "The senate was intended to be the drag on the house of commons coach, a check upon hasty legislation arising out of feverish popular agitation." — Gazette, Montreal, May 2, 1917. [289] E\OLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Only five men of national fame In senate from 1867 to 1917 Senators unknown to "the man in the street" during the parliamentar}' session. He takes no part in elections. Political propaganda has never made any large demands on his time. A senator is free constitutionally to play a bold, strong, and independent part in the political life of the Dominion. But privilege and freedom have been of no avail. Senators, as members of one division of parliament, have never played a prominent part, to saj' nothing of a bold or strong part, in Dominion poHtics. From Confederation to 191 7, George Brown, who was leader of the Liberal party in Ontario; Sir John J. C. Abbott, who was premier of the Dominion 1891-1892; Sir Mackenzie Bowell, who was premier from 1894 to 1896; Sir Oliver Mowat, who was premier of Ontario from 1872 to 1896 and minister of justice at Ottawa from 1896 to 1897; and Sir Richard Cartwright, who was minister of finance at Ottawa from 1874 to 1878, and minister of trade and commerce from 1896 to 191 1, were the only men of national fame who were of the senate. Over 300 senators — to be exact, 304 — were appointed in the years from 1867 to 1914.^ Not more than ten of them were of front rank in Dominion politics, or were men who, after Confed- eration, earned for themselves even mention in the political history- of Canada. Wrong, a writer on Canadian constitutional history of interna- tional fame, asserted in 1914 that the average 1 Cf. Ross, 121-124. [290] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE Canadian — Balfour's "the man in the street" — would be puzzled if asked to draw up a list of half a dozen of the senators at Ottawa.^ A similar statement might have been made at any time in the forty years that preceded the great war. Except for an agitation against the senate. Popular carried on by the Liberal party for a few years ™<^^'- f . ' ence to before the Liberals took office in 1896, the people senate of Canada have been continuously indifferent ^^ ^^ . proceed- to the senate and its proceedmgs. Canadian ings newspapers for the most part ignore its debates. There is, in practice, no press gallery in the ignored senate. There is ample accommodation for re- ^^ ^ . , news- porters. But the newspapers will not assign men papers to the senate. A reporter, who is a salaried employee of the senate, furnishes, free of cost, summaries of the debates to all the newspaper correspondents at Ottawa. His work is of little public value; for nine out of ten of the daily newspapers regard senate debates as not worth the cost of telegraph tolls. Similar neglect is the fate of the senate with the weekly and semi- weekly newspapers all over the Dominion. "A measure or criterion that we have of the Popular value which is placed upon speeches by members "^"^^r- of parliament,'* said Cartwright, government realized leader in the senate, in 191 1, "is the sjmopsis ^^ which we find in the public press from day to ^ Cf. Wrong, "Second Chambers in Canada," The Ncm Statesman, London, February' 7, 1914. [291] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Reason for popular Indiffer- ence day as to what took place in this chamber. We, in this chamber, have appropriated a very sub- stantial sum for the purpose of disseminating to the press a synopsis of our deliberations. And what do we find? We find that the value placed by the press upon these deliberations is indicated in about a quarter of a column in the ordinary newspaper of the day, and sometimes not even that." 1 The reason for popular indifference to the senate is that its creation in 1867 did not begin a better era in the history of second chambers in Canada. The senate, at no time since 1867, has aroused such intense popular hostility as was aroused by the legislative councils of Upper and Lower Canada of 1791-1840. It has never flouted popular opinion. Nor has it ever entered on a contest with the house of commons over any measure in which there was keen popular interest. Unlike the legislative councils of Upper and Lower Canada, the senate has always been free legislature of oifice-holders. Unlike the legislative councils under the constitution of 1791, also, it has never attempted the position of predominant partner. None the less, part of Newcastle's character- ization of the legislative council of the United Provinces in 1854 — his insistence that the council did not exercise the influence in the province that it ought to possess — might be applied to the senate from 1867 to 1917. ^ Senate Debates, March 29, 191 1, p. 508. [292] Never an ambitious branch of senate PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE The senate admittedly has not exercised the Class of influence in the Dominion or in parliament that ™^° ^*^° was expected by the Fathers of Confederation. ^ appoint- There are no pubHc records of refusals to accept ™^°* ^° nomination to the senate as there are to accept membership in the legislative council of the United Provinces. There is never any lack of claimants for appointment — claimants with efficient press agents — when vacancies occur in the senate owing to death or to the automatic ending of the careers of senators in consequence of failure — mostly due to old age — to attend its sessions. It is a matter of history, however, that a seat in the cabinet has seldom been offered to a senator; and since 1871, when administrations at Ottawa began to have power to make nomi- nations, it has been notorious that the men most anxious to become senators — the men to whom about ninety-eight per cent of the nominations went between 1871 and 1916 — were men who regarded a senatorship and a life salary as their due for services in Dominion or provincial pol- itics to the party in power. ^ " For one cause or another the senate has scarcely had fair play. When formed, the intention was that it should be non-partisan, a sort of judicial tribunal supervising and re- viewing the legislation of the commons with an eye single to the merits of that legislation. In the course of years this purpose has somewhat failed." — Gazette, Montreal, May 2, 1917. [293] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA VIII. The Senate and the Spoils System — Friction between the House and the Senate Senator- "From the first," writes Wrong, "appointments ship a ^Q ^l^g senate came under the full control of the crown of party mechanism of the party. The security of the service position for life, and the freedom from the labors of an election, have made a senatorship a desirable crown of party service; and to this use the office has been put. The view is generally current in Canada, that only elderly men should be appointed to the senate." ^ Only party "Men who have given long service In the house interests ^f commons, " coutlnues Wrong, " sometimes claim con- '. 1 • 1 • • sidered a senatorship for their declining years. Other claims are from those who have given similar service in the party organization, or it may be have contributed liberally to the party funds. No government. Liberal or Conservative, has made any serious effort to save the post of senator as a reward for any other kind of public service, and in the present condition of public thought It would be quixotic to expect that anything but party interests should be considered." ^ ^ At the time the Parliamentary Guide for 1912 was compiled, four senatorships were vacant. Of the 83 senators then on the roll, two were under 50 years of age; 14 were between 50 and 60; 24 between 60 and 70; 32 over 70 and under 80; and 11 over 80 years. There have been instances of men of 95 and 96 in attendance as senators. 2 Wrong, " Second Chambers in Canada," The New States- man, February 7, 1914. [294] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE From the early years of Confederation appoint- To ments to the senate were always regarded as the ^'^°^^ . . belong patronage of a political party. The principle that the to the victors belong the spoils is nearly as old in ^^^^ Canada as it is in the United States; and in the years before the war at Ottawa its application was almost as wide as it ever was at Washington. From Confederation to 191 8, when, as a war measure, there was some reform in the distribu- tion of patronage, the principle was continuously applied to the speakership of the house of com- mons and of the senate,^ and to appointments to the higher positions on the clerical staff of parliament, to appointments as judges, and to many of the prized positions in the civil service of the Dominion. The principle was also applied to a large range of government purchases of sup- plies, and particularly to contracts for printing and advertising, which went only to newspapers which supported the political party in power.- 1 The speaker of the senate, who is paid a salary of ^40x20 and provided with an apartment within the parliament build- ing, is appointed by the government. The speaker of the house of commons, who also receives ^4000 a year and is provided with an apartment, is elected by the house at the opening of a new parliament. But the successful candidate for the chair is in practice always nominated by the government. ^ On the order paper of the house of commons on April 25, 1917, there was notice of a resolution to be moved from the opposition benches condemning the spoils system. It read as follows: "That, in the opinion of this house, the prevailing system of party patronage constitutes a menace to honest [295] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Senate The spoils system was most rigidly adhered and the ^^ jj^ appointments to the senate. "In neariy system half a century," writes a Canadian critic of the senate, "the claims of party have been ignored in only a single appointment. The Canadian constitution reposes a vast patronage in govern- ments. The situation in Canada is exactly the situation that would exist in the United States if the president appointed every senator, every state governor, and every federal and state judge throughout the Union. This is perhaps the reason why changes of government occur so seldom in the Dominion. The prospect of a life seat in the senate attracts many powerful supporters in the constituencies. It assists discipline, and reduces contumacy in the house of commons." ^ Friction Friction between the senate and the house of between commons is infrequent. It occurred in the and quarter of a century before the great war only house jj^ ^j^g £j.g^ fg^ years of the Liberal govern- Infrequent i • i r r ment of 1896-1911, and m the first few years of the Conservative government that was in power from 191 1 to 191 7. In each case the friction was traceable to the fact that both political parties and efficient government, incites to great waste of resources and extravagance, in its application to expenditures and appointments for military purposes, greatly injures the proper fulfillment of our duty to the nation, tends inevitably to cor- rupt and lower the tone of public morals, and should forth- with be eliminated from our federal administration." 1 "The Round Table," III, 719-722. [296] from 1867 to PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE had appointed none but partisans to the senate when the appointing power was in their control. The first seventy-two members of the senate Appoint- were appointed by royal proclamation. These ^^^^ appointments had been agreed upon before the senate new constitution became effective. From 1867 to 1873 a Conservative government, with Mac- 1873 donald as premier, was in power. As vacancies due to death occurred, and as additional prov- inces came into Confederation — Manitoba in 1870 and British Columbia in 1871 — the ap- pointments to the senate were made by Macdonald. Thirty-two senators had been so appointed before Macdonald went out of office in 1873. Only one was of the Liberal party.^ A Liberal government, with Alexander Mac- Liberals kenzie of Ontario as premier, was in power from |°^ ^. 1873 to 1878; and in these years sixteen senators, all of the Liberal party, were appointed. Mac- donald and the Conservatives were returned to power in 1878, and the Conservatives were con- tinuously in office until 1896. In these eighteen years eighty-five senators, all Conservatives, were appointed by the successive Conservative govern- ments. The result was that when the Liberal government, with Laurier as premier, came into power in 1896, it was confronted with the fact that out of eighty-three senators, only thirteen, all ap- pointed before 1878, were of the Liberal party. ^ Cf. Willison, "Some Political Leaders in the Canadian Federation," 50. C297] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA The position reversed, 1896-1911 Partisan activity of senate The Liberals were in power from 1896 to 191 1. Eighty-one senators, all Liberals/ were appointed in these fifteen years; and when the Conserva- tives, with Robert L. Borden as premier, took office in 191 1, of the eighty-seven senators only twenty-two were Conservatives. After each of these changes in government in 1896 and 191 1, when the majority of the senate realized that for four or five years, at least, it would be in opposition to the government, and to the majority in the house of commons, there was a quickening of activity in rejecting and amending government bills. The power of re- vision was exercised from 1896 to 1901, and from 191 1 to 1916, with a vigilance that was altogether lacking in the longer periods when the majority of the senate was of the same party as the major- ity of the house of commons and the government. Meas- ures of Liberal govern- ment rejected IX. Attitude of Political Parties towards the Senate In the years 1 896-1901, during which the Liberal government was confronted with a hostile majority in the senate, the senate rejected four or five ^ "Sir John Macdonald appointed John Macdonald, of Toronto, to the upper chamber. But the Conservative leader never found any other Liberal with the necessary qualifications for a senatorship. From 1878 to 1902 no Liberal was appointed chairman of a senate committee. We cannot trace to Liberal governments — 1 874-1878 and 1896- 191 1 — even one such error as Sir John Macdonald com- mitted." — Willison, "Some Political Leaders in the Con- federation of Canada," 50. C298] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE government bills. One was a measure for extend- ing the Intercolonial Railway — a government undertaking — from Levis to Montreal. Another bill, rejected in 1897, would have authorized the construction of a government railway from the Stickene River to Teslin Lake — a railway which was designed to form part of the rail and water route to Dawson City. The senate between 191 1 and 1916, when a Same Conservative government was faced with a ^^'^ *°' Liberal majority, rejected six or seven bills, or uresof so amended bills as to make them unacceptable Consenr- ative to the house of commons and the government, govem- One of these measures was a bill, passed by the ^^^^ house of commons in 191 2, under which Canada was to provide three battleships as an addition to the British navy. A second bill, also in 191 2, was for the creation of a permanent tariff com- mission; and a third, passed by the house in 1914, was to provide for increases in the salaries of railway mail clerks. With harmonious majorities in the senate and Eras of house of commons, government bills are never **^°°y rejected, or even amended in any way that is docuity unacceptable to the government. At these times there is not a more docile second chamber in the English-speaking world than the senate at Ottawa. At these times its sittings for public business a "me are not continuous from day to day like the ^"°* . . house of sittmgs of the house of commons. Sittings commons seldom extend beyond the dinner hour; for almost [299] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Senators never resign Waiting Ust the sole business of the senate as regards gov- ernment bills is to say ditto to the house of commons.^ Only a new government, which is temporarily without a majority in the senate, need fear the power that the senate can exercise as a chamber of revision. The incoming governments of 1896 and 191 1 strongly objected to the hostility encountered by some of their bills in the senate. So did the supporters of these governments in the house of commons and in the press. But time is on the side of the government.^ Senators never resign except when, as sometimes happens, they are appointed lieutenant-governors of provinces. But most of them are elderly. Death or failure to attend for two consecutive parliamentary ses- sions creates on an average five or six vacancies a year. No matter which political party is in power, there is always a long waiting list for appoint- ment to the senate. On the list are names of men in the house of commons, who are tired of close attendance on the house, with the physical and nervous strain it entails, and tired also of contested elections and of being at the beck and call of constituents. ^ " If there be any pertinent criticism to be made of the senate, it is that the chamber has fallen into a state of desue- tude. It has become in a way a mere recording body, a *me too' machine. This condition is far from desirable." — Gazette, Montreal, May 2, 1917. 2 Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 102. [300] PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE Men are also on the list who have held cabinet office in provincial administrations, and who are out of a job. Others are owners or editors of newspapers, who conceive that a seat in the senate, a salary of ^2500 a year, a luxurious clubhouse in Ottawa, free of annual dues, and free railway travel over the Dominion, would be some return for the services they have rendered to their political party. As vacancies in the senate occur or come into sight, the agitation for senate reform, growing out of irritation over the rejection of the bills of a new government, completely dies away. The j demand ceases to interest the politicians in power as the procession of the government's nominees into the senate increases in length.^ The Conservatives were in a minority of forty- three in the senate in 191 1, when the Borden government was organized. New appointments by May, 1914, had decreased the adverse majority to six. "Nature," wrote a Canadian chronicler of the changes in the senate from 191 1 to 1914, "may be fairly depended upon to wipe out the surplus of Liberal senators before next session; ^ and then with the Conservatives in control, the senate can be counted quite a model body, which needs no change." ^ 1 Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 102-103. 2 Deaths of senators were so frequent in the first six years of the Borden government that by April, 1917, the minority of forty-three of 191 1 had become a majority of eight. ' Mercury, Renfrew, Ontario, May 8, 1914. C301] Men on the waiting list Evanes- cent demands for senate refonn Nature settles diffi- culties with the senate EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA And is This was the attitude of the Conservative non- government, and its house of commons supporters, ^*^'^ toward senate reform after nature and the govern- ment had adjusted the balance of power in the senate. The attitude of a Liberal government is precisely the same when once it is in possession of a majority in the senate.^ Senate The Liberals came into power in 1896 after a reform general election in which they had gone to the Kbetais constituencies on the Ottawa program of 1893. m power j^g ^ew government chafed for four or five years under the disadvantage of an adverse majority in the senate. But as vacancies occurred the government filled them with its nominees; and despite the fact that the resolution of 1893, pledging the Liberal party to a reform of the senate,^ was submitted to the Ottawa convention by three men who were afterwards of the cabinets of 1 896-1 91 1, not a word was heard from the government about senate reform during the fifteen years that the Liberals were in power.» 1 " Since advocacy of senate reform Is the strict and In- alienable prerogative of oppositions, the senate as now con- stituted seems to rest upon a reasonably stable foundation. — Wllllson, "Some Political Leaders In the Canadian Federa- tion," 51. • r\ 2 Cf. Official report of the Liberal convention, Uttaw, ^ ? "Notwithstanding the fact that one of the planks of thl Liberal platform In 1893 was the reform of the senate, during the whole fifteen years the Liberal party were in power, there was no reform of the senate other than through the efforts C302] :hP PARLIAMENT: THE SENATE The senate has been of some little service in improving details of bills sent to it from the house of commons. For five provinces also it has served as a divorce court. These are its public services. Two distinctly party services have also been rendered by the senate. Twice since 1896 its existence has made it possible for a political party, defeated at a general election, to harass and thwart a new government. Its existence also has added quite largely to the patronage of governments, and has thus enabled governments to keep in line and under party discipline a far larger number of active and office-seeking parti- sans than is represented by the actual number of appointments made by any government to the senate. The senate, chiefly by its failure to realize the professed expectations of the Fathers of Con- federation, by its failure to make a beneficent impression on politics in Canada, or at any time in its fifty years' existence to convince the people of Canada that it was of any possible public usefulness,^ is, from the standpoint of students of Divine Providence. No action along that line v^as taken by the government or by any member supporting the govern- ment, with the exception of Mr. Maclntyre." — W. M. German, Liberal member from Ontario, in debate on constitu- tion of senate, house of commons, May 7, 1917. ^ "W. M. German's proposal in the house of commons today to reform the senate by making it elective instead of selective, met with little favor. The mover of the resolution C303] PubUc services of senate Its services to political parties Its peculiar Interest to students of parlia- mentary institu- tions EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA of the working of parliamentary institutions, the most interesting second chamber in the EngHsh- speaking world. It is especially so, when it is kept in mind that it represents the fourth attempt since 1791 to establish a second chamber, modeled after the house of lords, in the portion of the British empire that is now comprised in the Dominion of Canada, and all others who took part in the debate paid tribute to the personnel of the senate, past and present, but regretted that it had ceased to be an active legislative body, and in a measure lost the confidence of the people." — Ottawa correspondence, Gazette, Montreal, May 7, 19 17. C304] I CHAPTER XII THE HOUSE OF COMMONS N the first session of the first parliament of Number the Dominion there were i8i members of °* members the house of commons. Ontario was represented by 82 members; Quebec by 65; Nova Scotia by 19; and New Brunswick by 15. After the redistribution of representation in 1914, the num- ber stood at 234.^ In 1867, when only four provinces were in Confederation, the population of the Dominion was 3,250,000; at the census of 191 1, on which the redistribution of 1914 was based, it was 7,206,000. In the intervening forty-four years two of the old British North American provinces, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, had come into the Dominion; and parliament at Ottawa, by virtue of amendments to the constitution which had increased its powers, had created the prov- inces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and had conferred on these provinces, and also on the Yukon Territory, the right to represen- tation in the house of commons. ^ Cf. An act to readjust the representation in the house of commons, assented to June 12, 1914 — 4-5 George V., c. .51. [305] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA I. The Distribution of Representation These additions to the membership of the house were made in strict accordance with section 51 of the British North America act, the section! which defines the powers of parHament in the' apportionment of representation among the sev- eral provinces. Section 51 — 2l disturbing section since 1903 to the older provinces, which, under its strict pro- visions, must submit to reductions in their repre- sentation — reads as follows: On the completion of the census in 1871, and on each subsequent decennial census, the representation of the four provinces shall be readjusted by such authority, in such a manner, and from such time, as the parliament of Canada shall from time to time provide, subject and according to the following rules: (i) Quebec shall have the fixed number of 65 members. (2) There shall be assigned to each of the other prov- inces such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as the number 65 bears to the number of the population of Quebec (so ascertained). (3) In the computation of the number of members for a province, a fractional part, not exceeding one half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one half of that number shall be equivalent to the whole number. (4) On any such readjustment, the number of mem- bers for a province shall not be reduced unless the pro- portion which the number of the population of the prov- ince bore to the number of the aggregate population of [306] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one twentieth part or upwards. (5) Such readjustment shall not take effect until the termination of the then existing parliament. At each decennial redistribution of represen- Losses tation, parliament when it enters on this task ^^^ is confronted with these provisions of the con- bution stitution; and when, as in 1903 and again in 1914, the older and more settled provinces of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island know, from the census returns, that they are to lose some part of their representation, there is a reminder from the minister who intro- duces the redistribution bill that no blame can rest on parliament for the losses that provinces must undergo. II. Quebec the Pivotal Province "We have," said Laurier, premier of the Liberal Pariia- administrations of 1896-1911, when he intro duced the bill of 1903, "only to take the pro- in visions of section Ci of the constitution, and ^°^<^*^ •^ ^ redls- the figures of the census, and find the result, tribution In this matter parliament is not a free agent. It has no discretion to exercise. It is simply the instrument and creature of the law. In this particular bill we have only to take the result of the census of 1901, and make the redis- tribution accordingly. We give to each province [307] ment not free bUls Quebec quota unalter- able Unit of repre- sentation EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the number to which it is entitled, some having less, some more, but all being bound by the same rule." ^ Quebec is the only province which can look on without direct concern when a redistribution bill is before the house of commons. Increased representation for the new provinces, and for British Columbia, the four provinces which, after 1900, attracted much of the stream of im- migration, may lessen the influence and weight of the French province at Ottawa. But no matter what the census returns may show, Quebec's quota of sixty-five remains unalterable, unless there is an amendment to section 51 — an amend- ment of which during the first half-century of Confederation there was not even a hint at Ottawa. In the redistribution of representation Quebec is thus the pivotal province. "Taking the popu- lation of Quebec at 2,003,232," said Borden, premier of the Conservative government that was responsible for the redistribution bill of 1914, "and dividing it by 65, we obtain the unit of 30,819. Applying this unit to the popu- lation of the various provinces, we find that Alberta is entitled to a membership of 12.12 — the decimal is disregarded, and Alberta receives a membership of 12. In the case of British Columbia, the number is 12.70. The decimal being in excess of five, British Columbia receives a membership of 13." ^ i C308] * H. C. Debates, March 31, 1903. 2 Ibid., February 10, 19 14. 1 THE HOUSE OF COMMONS The territories west of the Great Lakes came into the parliamentary representation at the redistribution of 1892. Four members were then assigned to what were called the northwest territories. It was 1905 before portions of these territories were organized as the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The changes in the representation brought about since 1892 by the operation of section 51 of the British North America act, and by the amendments made to it at Westminster in 1871 and 1886, are recorded in the accompanying table: Changes In repre- sentation since 1892 Province Ontario Quebec Nova Scotia New Brunswick Manitoba British Columbia .... Prince Edward Island Northwest Territories Yukon Alberta Saskatchewan Totals 1892 1903 1905 92 86 86 6,S 6.S 6.? 20 18 18 14 13 13 7 10 10 6 7 7 S 4 4 4 10 I I 7 10 213 214 221 I9I4 82 65 16 II IS 13 3 I 12 16 234 The Dominion parliament has left to the pro- Electoral vincial legislatures the determination of the *'^" chlsGS franchises on which members of the house of deter- commons shall be elected. This is in accordance mi^edby with the federal principle — the principle which vinciai from the first has prevailed in the United States. •^^^ To the state legislatures also has been assigned, [309] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA from the first, the division of the states into congressional districts. Canada has not followed the example of the United States in the redistribution of representa- tion. It has never permitted the provincial legislatures to map out the electoral divisions or constituencies from which representatives of the province are elected to the house of commons. III. The Era of the Gerrymander The first three redistributions of representation — those of 1872, 1883, and 1892 — were made by Conservative governments, and in the re-ar- rangement of the constituencies in 1882 and 1892 the Liberal minorities in the house of commons were not permitted any part. The Liberal opposition, led in 1882 by Edward Blake and in 1892 by Wilfred Laurier, had no more say in the redisricting of the provinces than they had in the redistribution of seats at Westminster which accompanied the extension of the parliamentary franchise in the United Kingdom in 1884. The bill of 1882, allotting each province its quota of members, was introduced in the house of commons. As part of the bill there was a schedule of the electoral divisions in each prov- ince. It was useless for the opposition to take a map, as they could have done, and show how glaringly some constituencies had been gerry- mandered in the interest of the Conservative party. The decennial redistribution of repre- [310] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS sentation was regarded in those days as offering an opportunity to advance the interests of the political party that was in power. During the Conservative regime of 1 878-1 896 "Hiving there was no pretense to fairness in the readjust- ^^^ „ ment of the parliamentary constituencies. The phrase, long in use in Dominion politics, "hiving the grits," had its origin in those years. It described the throwing together of communities that were predominantly Liberal, without heed to county boundaries, to make other constituen- cies safely Conservative. Gerrymandering began in 1872. It was particularly rampant at the redistributions of 1882 and 1892.^ At no time in the first fifty years of Confeder- Party ation was party bitterness more marked than ^^^' in the years from 1878 to 1896. Much of the bitterness, a bitterness which characterized de- bates in the house of commons, and political discussions on the platform and in the press, grew out of the gerrymanders. It was partly attributable to other partisan legislation affect- ing elections by the Conservative government. It was partly attributable to a manipulation of electoral franchises in 1885, which was not cor- rected until 1898, when a Liberal government repealed the act of 1885 and established the ^ "Gerrymandering is a Yankee institution, a Yankee in- vention which the National Policy — the policy of a high tariff — does not keep out of Canada." — Sir William Mulock, Ottawa Liberal convention, June 21, 1893. [311] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA principle that under the federal system the elec- toral franchises must be determined, not by the federal parliament, but by the legislatures of the provinces. The Liberals persistently denounced the gerry- manders when the bills of 1872, 1882, and 1892 were before parliament. They were denounced also at the general elections of 1882, 1887, and 1891; and in 1893, when the Liberal national convention was held at Ottawa, a resolution was adopted that committed the Liberal party to a reform in the method of redistributing the prov- inces for representation in the house of commons. ^'To put an end to this abuse, to make the house of commons a fair exponent of public opinion, and to preserve the historic continuity of coun- ties," continued the resolution, "it is desirable that in the formation of electoral divisions, county boundaries should be preserved, and that in no case should parts of different counties be put in one electoral division." ^ IV. The Reform of IQOJ At the general election in 1896 the Liberals were returned to power. In 1903, for the first time in the history of the Dominion, a Liberal government was responsible for framing and carrying through parliament a bill for a redis- tribution of the representation. The government 1 Official Report, Ottawa Liberal convention, 129. [312] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS availed itself to the full of the opportunity to fulfill the pledge made in the years when the Liberals were in opposition. We on this side of the house — said Laurier, when he intro- duced the bill in the house of commons — have always com- plained that in previous redistributions the opposition was unfairly treated. In 1892 we proposed a conference over the bill — a conference at which there should be representation of both political parties. But though our proposition was not accepted, we do not intend to depart from the principle which we then laid down. What we claimed for ourselves when we were in a minority, we are now ready to grant to our opponents when they are in a minority. There is no schedule to this bill. If this bill is accepted by our friends on the other side of the house, we intend, after it has been debated, and read a second time, to refer it to a special committee composed of seven members, on which the opposition will be represented by three, to be selected by themselves. We propose to invite our friends now sitting on the opposition benches to meet us in the committee room, and there discuss with us the division of the constituencies which shall be empowered to elect the members of this house.^ The complete fulfillment by the Liberal govern- ment in 1903 of a pledge which had been given by the Liberal party when it was in opposition, ended permanently, it would seem, the scandals of the gerrymander. The Conservatives were in opposition from 1896 to 191 1. But from 1903 to 191 1 they had no grievance with regard to the arrangement of electoral divisions; and in 1914, when a Conservative government was Partisan redis- tributions recalled Electoral map arranged by confer- Conserv- atives in 1914 also adopt confer- ence plan ^ H. C. Debates, March 31, 1903. C 313 II EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA responsible for a redistribution bill, the precedent of 1903 was followed in all details. The bill was introduced by Borden. Again no schedule was attached; and after the bill had been read a second time, the readjustment of the electoral divisions was relegated to a special committee on which were four representatives of the majority in the house of commons and three of the Liberal opposition.^ V. Inequalities in Electoral Divisions Equal electoral divisions have never been attempted by either Conservative or Liberal governments. Favorable treatment has always been accorded to the rural divisions. Under the apportionment of 1903, Soulanges, a rural division of Quebec, with a population of 9400, had one member of the house of commons, and there was only one for Maisonneuve, a manufacturing and residential suburb of Montreal, which according to the census of 1901 had a population of 170,987. Lisgar, a rural division of Manitoba, had a popu- lation of 23,501. In Winnipeg, which, like Lisgar, had then one member, the population was 128,157.2 Both political parties accept the principle of a larger unit for urban than for rural constituen- cies. Borden recalled this fact when he was 1 Cf. H. C. Debates, February 10, 1914. 2 Ibid., February 10, 19 14. [314] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS piloting the redistribution act of 191 4 through the house of commons. It is said — the premier reminded the house — that in a city there ought to be a higher unit, for the reason that a city possesses greater solidarity and compactness. Its interests are more uniform, and they can make themselves felt more effectually and cogently than the interests of a rural constit- uency. It is said also that many men who represent rural constituencies reside in the cities, and in that way the cities have a certain voice in the legislature which is denied to rural constituencies. Importance also has been laid by some members of this house upon the argument that there is perhaps a more stable interest in those who dwell upon the land than is to be found in the case of a certain floating element of city population. Finally there is the English principle of community of interest, compactness and historic association — a principle that is always regarded in British redistribution bills. "^ These arguments in favor of a smaller unit of population for rural than for urban constit- uencies were accepted and indorsed by Laurier. Without going into all the reasons — he said — there is one supreme reason. It is that in a country like Canada, where there is a very large territory with a sparse popu- lation, if you give the same unit of population to cities and counties, in rural constituencies you would have such a large area of territory as to be almost impossible to cover. That is quite sufficient to justify the principle which has been adopted on every occasion on which we have had a redistribution. Unlike the older universities of England, Ireland, and Scotland, none of the fourteen universities of Canada elects a member to the house of commons. It was intended by the legislature of Upper Canada that there should be a university » 1 H. C. Debates, February 10, 1914. C315] Com- munity of interest and historic asso- ciations Large rural divi- sions EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA constituency in that province. An act was passed in 1820 (Geo. Ill, c. II § IV, St. of Upper Canada) by which it was provided "that whenever an university shall be organized, and in operation as a seminary of learning in this province, and in conformity to the rules and statutes of similar insti- tutions in Great Britain, it shall and may be lawful for the governor to declare by proclamation the tract of land ap- pendant to such university, and whereupon the same is situated, to be a town or township, and that such town or township so constituted, shall be represented by one member." "No person," continues the section, "shall be permitted to vote at any such election for a member to represent the said university in parliament, who besides the qualification now by law required shall not also be entitled to vote in the convocation of the said university." There was, however, no election of a member for the university between 1820 and the union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840. At the union of the provinces there was no mention of univer- sity representation, and no suggestion of it at Confederation.^ With only three or four exceptions, all the 234 electoral divisions are single-member con- stituencies. Divisions of counties are known as "ridings," a term that has been in use in British parliamentary geography at least since 1821, when the right to elect two members was trans- ferred from the long notoriously corrupt borough of Grampound to the West Riding of Yorkshire. The term "division" is applied only in cities in Canada which return three or more members. Electoral divisions are not numbered, as in the United States. Geographical names are used, such as Toronto East, or Toronto West; and ^ H. C. Debates, February 17, 1914. [316] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS such names as Algoma, Frontenac, Two Moun- tains, Antigonish, Pontiac, and Yale Caribou are given the ridings of counties. As a member of the house of commons must never be mentioned in debate by name, but always referred to as the honorable member for Pon- member tiac or whatever consituency he represents, both **'"" a new and an old world flavor is imparted to de- bates by giving names instead of numbers to all the constituencies that elect members to Ottawa. "The honor- able VL Unsuccessful Experiment with a Uniform Dominion Franchise At Confederation a large measure of freedom was conferred on the Dominion parliament in regard to the franchises on which the house of commons at Ottawa is elected. By section 41 of the British North America act, it was provided that until the parliament of Canada otherwise decided the electoral laws of the provinces should apply to the election of members of the house of commons. The year of the passage of the British North America act was the year in which, for the first time in modern history, all male householders in parliamentary boroughs in the United Kingdom were enfranchised. It was a great step towards democracy when the British electoral law of 1867 was enacted; and there is some reflection of the new democratic spirit in the section of the C317] Elections from 1867 to 1882 on provin- cial fran- chises Influence of British reform act of 1867 on electoral franchise EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA House- hold suffrage British North America act which was appHcable to Algoma. Algoma Is today included in the province of Ontario. In 1867 it was a territory; but it was In Algoma then contemplated that it would have represen- tation in the house of commons at Ottawa; and by section 41 of the act it was decreed that until the parliament of Canada otherwise provided, at any election for a member of the house of commons from Algoma, in addition to persons qualified by the law of the United Provinces of Ontario and Quebec to vote, "every male British subject, aged twenty-one years or upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote." At five general elections after the British North America act had come into operation — in 1867, 1872, 1874, 1878? and 1882 — members of the house of commons were chosen on franchises which had been determined by the provincial legislatures. They were elected on the same franchise as members of the legislature. With the exception of the election of 1874, at each of these general elections the Conservative party was returned to power. Macdonald was premier of all these Conservative governments; and Macdonald, and a group of Conservative members, of extreme Tory politics, who were closely associated with him, never liked the federal principle applied to electoral franchises. Macdonald, in the first session of the first parliament of the Dominion, assailed this prin- [318] Conserv- atives agitate for uniform franchise gateways THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ciple; and between 1867 and 1885 he introduced Federal no fewer than six or seven bills with the object ^f^i^s- of transferring from the provincial legislatures 1898 to parliament the determination of the franchise for elections to the house of commons. But the Liberal opposition stood out for the federal principle, and Macdonald could not persuade all his Conservative supporters to vote with him. It was 1885 before he succeeded in carrying the Dominion franchise bill through parliament. Under this law of 1885, a uniform franchise Eight was established in all the provinces. The right 5^^^^ to vote was given in respect of eight qualifications, franchise These were (i) owners and occupiers of real estate of the value of $300 in a city, and ^200 in a town; (2) persons in receipt of incomes, or yearly earnings of at least ^300 from some profession, office, trade, or investment in Canada; (3) life annuitants of ^100 a year; (4) farmers' sons, living at home; (5) sons of owners of real property; (6) tenants of real property paying more than $2 a month rental; (7) fishermen owning boats, nets, fishing gear, or shares in a registered ship to the actual value of at least ^150; and (8) Indians in possession and occupation of distinct tracts of land in an Indian reserve, the improve- ments on which were valued at not less than $150. The act created a wide franchise, but it was Property a franchise based on property. It was thus in ^^^ accordance with the principles then held both by vote C319] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the Conservative party In England and by the Conservative party in Canada. It was con- trary to the principles of the Liberal party in Canada, which as regards the franchise had outrun the Liberal party in England and Scot- land; for it was committed to the principle of manhood suffrage, a principle that by 1885 the Liberals in Ontario and in other provinces had already carried into law. Argu- Macdonald's case for substituting a Dominion ?^®°* franchise for the provincial franchises of 1867- federai 1 885 was that the old plan was an anomaly, franchise « jt jg quite contrary," he said, " to first principles. The representatives of the people in parliament, representing the people in a Dominion sense, must have, and ought to have, control of all reforms and changes in the representation." Civil In some of the provinces, notably in the Mari- senrants ^j^^^ Provinces, which are served by the Inter- and tlie . . ' ■' . franciuse colonial Railway — the government railway — the legislatures had excluded men on the pay roll of the Dominion government from the franchise. Macdonald had these exclusions in mind when he submitted his case for the Dominion franchise to the house of commons. "It is out of the question," he said, "that we here, representing the people of the Dominion as a whole, should find ourselves, for local reasons or local purposes, in any given province, actually deprived of people who would elect us." ^ 1 H. C. Debates, April 16, 1885. C 320 ] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Ostensibly uniformity and the estopping of More provincial legislatures from excluding civil serv- p**^°°" ants of the Dominion from the franchise were the grounds on which the act of 1885 was based. Another reason for it undoubtedly was the fact that the act placed the compiling of the electoral lists in the hands of nominees of the govern- ment, and also added largely to the patronage of the government. It was provided by the act that there should Revision be a revision of the electoral rolls each year. **! T-i r ... - ., , ,. electoral The first revision m 1886 entailed an expenditure rolls of over $400,000. The government was afraid to ask parliament for annual appropriations on this scale. It therefore carried through parlia- ment bills suspending the sections of the act of 1885 which made annual revisions of the electoral rolls mandatory; and although the law was on the statute book from 1885 to 1898, there were only three revisions of the rolls. There were seven provinces in 1885. In five Manhood of them — British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, ^"**s« New Brunswick, and Ptince Edward Island — ■ manhood suffrage had been established by act of the legislature. In Quebec and Nova Scotia the franchises were based on property — on qualifications not much unlike those of the Do- minion franchise of 1885. In all the provinces the Dominion act was Opposi- condemned as a departure from the federal **°?^ , . . to federal principle. By the Liberal party it was also franchise [321 ] Liberals pledge them- selves EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA condemned because it was opposed to Liberal principles, and because of the jobbery and manoeu- vering in the interest of the Conservative party which it made possible. The Liberals from 1885 to 1896 denounced the Dominion franchise act — in parliament, on the platform, and in the press— as strongly and to repeal persistently as they denounced the gerrymandering 1885 of electoral divisions by the redistribution acts of 1872, 1882, and 1892. At the national con- vention of 1893 — the only national convention of the Liberal party in the first fifty years of Confederation — the party committed itself to the repeal of the act of 1885. It pledged itself to repeal on these grounds: That the act since 1885 had cost the Dominion treas- ury over a million dollars, besides entailing heavy ex- penditures on both political parties. That the heavy cost had prevented annual revisions of the electoral rolls, as originally intended; and in the absence of such revisions, young voters, entitled to the franchise, had in numerous instances been prevented from exercising their natural rights. That the act had failed to secure uniformity, which was the principal reason assigned for its introduction. That it had produced gross abuses by partisan revis- ing barristers appointed by the government; and That its provisions were less liberal than those already existing in many provinces of the Dominion.^ ^ Official Report, Liberal convention, 1893, 122. [322] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS VII. The Return to Provincial Franchises Two years after the Liberal government came Rever- into power it implemented this pledge of 1893; ^*°"j*** and since 1898 members of the house of commons ciai have again, as from 1867 to 1885, been elected *^' on the same franchises as members of the pro- vincial legislatures. "The qualifications neces- sary to entitle any person to vote at a Dominion election in any province," reads a section of the election code, as it was enacted in 1898, "shall be those established by the laws of that province as necessary to entitle such person to vote in the same part of the province at a provincial election." The objection that Macdonald made in 1885 Safe- to the electoral laws of the provinces — the objec- f^^^ tion that in some of the provinces employees of chise the Dominion government were denied exercise °^ of the franchise — was not overlooked at the servants remodeling of the electoral code in 1898. A section was embodied in the act which provides that no person, otherwise qualified as an elector, shall be disqualified from voting at a Dominion election because he is employed in any capacity in the public service of Canada or of a province. Only the strong and forceful personality of Conserv- Macdonald, and the whip hand he constantly ^^l\ kept of his followers in the house of commons, reform enabled the Conservative government to carry the Dominion franchise act of 1885. It was greatly disliked by quite a number of Conserv- [323] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA atives in parliament and in the constituencies. In 1898, when the law was repealed, there were no expressions of regret, and no protests from the Conservative benches. Electoral For six years after 191 1 a Conservative govern- refonns i^ent was again in power. It did not revert to govern- the old systcm; and redistribution of seats effected ™ent ^y conference between the representatives of both political parties at Ottawa, and provincial electoral franchises as the franchises on which members of the house are elected, would now seem to have become permanently established as usage and law.^ Credit for both these demo- 1 During the parliamentary session of 1917 a war-time elections act was passed. It enfranchised the wives, widows, mothers, and sisters of Canadian soldiers and sailors, who had gone overseas to serve with the British military and naval forces; disquaUfied British subjects "of alien enemy birth, or of other European birth, or of alien enemy mother-tongue or native language," who had been naturalized later than March 31, 1902; and also disqualified men who had been exempted from military service, or had applied for exemption from the operation of the conscription act of 19 17, on the ground that they had conscientious objections to serving with military forces. "Its provisions," said Meighen, secretary of state, in introducing the bill in the house of commons, are to operate only during the period of the present war and of demobilization thereafter. That is to say, so far as the bill amends the Dominion elections act, it amends it only to cover the now apparently certain event of an election during the war or before demobilization. After that the bill ceases to affect the Dominion elections act; the general law becomes the same as it was before, the same as it is today." — H. C. Debates, September 6, 1917. [324] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS cratic reforms must be given to the Liberal govern- ment of which Laurier was premier. The general requisites for voting at Dominion elections are that a man shall be a native-born Canadian, or a subject of the king by birth or naturalization; that he shall be of the full age of twenty-one; and not disqualified by reason of insanity or by conviction of crime. Manhood suffrage has been long established in all the provinces except Nova Scotia and Quebec. The residential qualification in the manhood- suffrage provinces varies from six months in Manitoba, to a year in British Columbia. Resi- dence in the electoral division varies from one month in Manitoba, to nine months in Ontario — nine months before the time fixed by law for the opening of registration. In Nova Scotia, where representative govern- ment has been established longer than in any other outlying part of the British Empire, the vote is based on real or personal property, or the occupation of real estate. Nova Scotia has clung with tenacity to the ancient English principle in regard to the franchise. One qualification is assessment of real property valued at $150 or over, or of personal property or real and personal property together valued at $300. Men with an income of $250 a year are entitled to vote; so are fishermen, with boats and gear and real estate assessed at an actual value of $150, provided that such property is within the county where the [325] Qualifi- cations of electors Manhood suffrage in seven provinces Property qualifi- cations in Nova Scotia EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA vote is given. Yearly tenants of real estate, which is assessed at ^150, are entitled to vote; and so are the sons of owners of real estate, where they are actually resident on the qualifying property. With one exception — that of teachers in schools under the management of commissioners or trustees — the franchise in Quebec is based on property, or on income. It can be exercised by owners or occupiers of real estate valued in cities at ^300, or in other municipalities at ^250, or which yields a value of ^20 a year. It can be exercised by tenants in cities who rent real estate of the value of ^30 a year, and of ^20 a year in other municipalities. Teachers in schools under commissioners or trustees are also enfranchised — a provision in the law intended to meet educational conditions in the French province, where many of the schools and colleges are staffed by members of the teach- ing orders of the Roman Catholic church. Rentiers or retired farmers, with a rental of at least ^100 a year, are enfranchised, and so are farmers' sons, working on their parents' farms, if divided equally between them as co-proprietors, and sons of owners of real property resident with their parents. As in Nova Scotia, fishermen who own boats or gear of an actual value of at least ^150 are entitled to vote. [ 326 ] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS VIII. Landmarks in the Evolution of the Electoral System Many of the old laws and usages of elections in England were adopted in the British North American provinces from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia, in the years from 1758 to 1867 — from the first establishment of repre- sentative government in Nova Scotia to the creation of the Dominion of Canada. The early election laws were patterned after the English election code; and English usages, as distinct from laws, were established in the British North American provinces because it was immigrants from England who were in charge of elections in the pioneer days of the provinces. Among these importations were laws and usages which (i) established the forty-shilling freehold as a qualification for the vote in the counties — a qualification that in England dated back to 1430 and survived until the sweeping reform in the electoral system of the United Kingdom in 191 8; (2) admitted of a man voting in as many electoral divisions as he held qualifying properties in; (3) excluded civil servants from the franchise; (4) made the possession of real or personal prop- erty a requisite for membership of a legislature; (5) established hustings at an election — the platform in the open air at which the sheriff and candidates and their supporters assembled on the day fixed by the sheriff for the nomination; (6) [327] Old world election laws and usages in a new world country Forty- shilling free- holder and the plural voter EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA The move- ment towards democ- racy Passing of old world laws and usages established the English custom of chairing the successful candidate after the announcement by the sheriff of the result of the election; and (7) the much older English custom of girding a newly elected knight of the shire or representative of a county with a sword. As Canada in the first fifty years of Confeder- ation progressed towards democracy, and as bar- riers against democracy imported from England ^ began to be regarded as out of date and out of harmony with Canadian political and social conditions, the old electoral laws were repealed, and the old world usages were discarded. The forty-shilling-freehold qualification for the vote disappeared before Confederation. Only members of the senate at Ottawa are today required to own property as a requisite for nomination. The law requiring a property quali- fication for members of the house of commons was repealed by the Dominion parliament in 1872. The electoral franchise of civil servants at Domin- ion elections has been secured to them since 1885; and today there are no hustings, and few county towns in the Dominion at which has survived the old English custom of girding a knight of the shire with a sword. The plural voter — the man who can exercise the franchise in several constituencies because he ^ Edward Porritt, "Barriers against Democracy in the British Electoral System," Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, No. I. C328] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS has property qualifications in these places — where has survived longer than any of the other impor- *^® tations of the old electoral system of England, voter He still survives in Nova Scotia; and he was not ^"^^^s dislodged from the electoral system in the province of Quebec until 1916. But in Quebec the plural voter was only a factor in one or two of the divisions of Montreal; and even in the days when there were two or three provinces in which he survived, his influence Was greatly checked by the fact that since 1873 the polling at a general election has been all on the same day. IX. Ratifications of Members of the House of Commons The qualifications of members of the house Pariia- of commons at Ottawa, unlike those of a member ™^°* deter- of the senate, were not defined by the British mines North America act. It was left by parliament ^^^^' at Westmmster m 1867 to the parliament of of Canada to determine both the qualifications and ^e^i'er disqualifications of members of the popularly com- elected house. ™°°^ "Any British subject," reads section 69 of the Dominion election code of 1 898-1908, "may be a candidate in an election for a seat in the house of commons." "No qualification in real estate," reads the only other paragraph in the section, "shall be required of any candidate." A Canadian, who has neither a home nor any C329] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA No resi- dential qualifi- cation Open field for carpet- baggers Pro- portion of non- resident members Non- resi- dency and careers in political life material possessions in the United Kingdom, is eligible as a parliamentary candidate at any election in England, Scotland, or Ireland, as soon as he arrives in the country. In fact, he may be adopted as a candidate, and elected without his even leaving Canada; and the eligibility is reciprocal. An Englishman, Scotsman, or Irish- man, or a British subject from any part of the Empire, no matter how short a time he may have been in Canada, is as eligible, under the law, for parliament as a native-born Canadian who has never been beyond the boundaries of his own province. As in the United Kingdom, neither by law nor by usage is it necessary that a member of the house of commons at Ottawa reside in the con- stituency that he represents. Thirty members of the house of commons elected in 191 1 were not residents of the constituencies from which they were returned. At other general! elections after 1898 the proportion of non-resident] members was about the same; and from thel absence of law or usage requiring residence in a| constituency Canada, like England, has derivedj obvious and permanent advantage. These easy conditions, with the freedom theyl afford both to candidates and constituencies,] make a parliamentary career possible for a manj of ability who has an instinct for politics. A manj so equipped can regard an election to the house| of commons not merely as an episode in his lif^ [330] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS He can regard it as opening to him a career in Dominion politics — a career in the service of the state; for if he is defeated in one constit- uency at a general election, he can oflPer himself for another constituency at a special or by- election, or at the next general appeal to the electorate. Under any other system than that in use at British Westminster for three and a half centuries, and ^^ ,, ' _ Canadian in Canada from the earliest days of representative gains institutions in the old British North American ^°™^ abandon- provinces, the British system of government mentof through parliament and through a cabinet, all of ^^^^L. whose members must be in parliament, would quaim- never have reached its present high state of de- *^*^*"* velopment and efficiency. The names of scores of men, who in the three Fifteenth- centuries from the reign of Tames I to that of '^^^^ o •' ^ enact- George V, rank high as reformers or parlia- ments mentarians or statesmen, would be missing from the pages of history had the laws of Henry V and Henry VI, that decreed that members of the house of commons, citizens and burgesses, as well as knights of the shire, must be "dwelling and resident" within their constituencies, not fallen into desuetude long before the end of the sixteenth century. It was the lawyers — the gentlemen of the long Lawyers robe of the Inns of Court in London — who, by ^^^®st , . , ... J , , EngUsh their pressure on electors m cities and boroughs, carpet- wore down the English election laws of 1429, i^ageers C331] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Empire's debt to carpet- baggers of Tudor era English prece- dent followed in Canada Resulting gain 1432, and 1444-1445, requiring that members of the house of commons must live in the counties, cities, or boroughs they represented. The British Empire is thus indebted to the lawyers of the Tudor era, who, for their own advantage, thrust aside the old requirement that members of the house of commons must be resi- dent in their constituencies. The innovation had advantages to recommend it. It was con- ceded to be of national service as early as 1620. In the eighteenth century, when the cabinet system was being slowly developed, the freedom of choice of the constituencies was especially valuable; and in 1774 all the laws requiring residence were repealed.^ The English precedent was followed when representative systems were adopted in the British North American provinces, and again when the constitution of the Dominion was framed. There were no provisions that residence in a constituency should be required of a candidate for election. A result of this freedom — a result of by no means small importance — is the effect that the permanency of groups of well-known parlia- mentary leaders at Ottawa has on political education, and in stimulating political ambition. The names of Macdonald, Brown, Blake, Cart- wright, and Tupper — to take instances only of Canadian statesmen who have passed away — • 1 Cf. Porritt, "Unreformed House of Commons," I, 122. [332] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS from 1867 to 1 910 were as much household words in Canada as the names of Salisbury, Chamber- lain, Bright, Disraeli, and Gladstone were in England from 1867 to 1906, when Chamberlain made his last speech in the house of commons at Westminster. These five Canadian statesmen were always Leader- sure of large audiences in any city from the f'^^ Atlantic to the Pacific. The speeches they made pariia- in parliament or on the platform were widely ™^*^*^ read, — as are the speeches made today by fame Laurier, Foster, or Borden, — and in any democ- racy the utterances of the political leaders are the most effective means of popular political education. X. Disqualifications of Parliamentary Candidates First in the category of ineligibles are men ineii- who have been convicted of corrupt practices at ^^^^^ elections. Next come government contractors. Members of provincial legislatures are also in- eligible. From 1867 to 1872 there were many members of Dual parliament who were also members of the legis latures of Ontario and Quebec. The Liberals, session after session, opposed this dual member- ship; for it admittedly gave opportunities for log rolling by the Dominion and the provincial governments. The case of the Conservative government against the abolition of dual representation was C333] member- EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Shortage of political abiUty in 1867 Members of legis- latures ineU- gible Public officers and civil servants excluded that there were not then sufficient men of poHtical ability in Canada to fill all the seats in padia- ment and in the legislatures. It was contended, moreover, that to prohibit a man from being a member of parliament and at the same time a member of a provincial legislature was an undue interference with the freedom of choice of the electors.^ Public opinion, however, was strongly against dual representation. It condemned the suspicions and abuses to which it gave rise in the years when there were still many unsettled questions — financial and legal — outstanding between the Dominion and the provinces; and in 1872 an act was passed by parliament which made a member of a legislature ineligible as a candidate for the house of commons. ^ Following English precedent, sheriffs and regis-] trars of deeds are on the ineligible list. Clerks] of the peace and crown attorneys are also ineligi- ble; and so is "every person accepting or holding] any office, commission, or employment, perma-| nent or temporary, in the service of the govern- ment of Canada at the nomination of the crowr or at the nomination of any of the officers of thi| government of Canada, to which any salary, fee,]| wages, allowance, emolument, or profit of am kind is attached." Ministers, of whom in 191] there were twenty-three, are exempt from tl [334] 1 Cf. H. C. Debates, March i, 1870. 2 35 Vict. c. XV. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS section of the election law which excludes office holders — provincial as well as Dominion — from parliament. XI. Duration of Parliaments General elections in Canada, unlike congres- statutory sional elections in the United States, do not come *^™ °* parlla- at fixed and regular periods. The election of a ment new house of commons begins a new parliament. .Under the British North America act the term of a parliament can run for five years. It is, however, possible for the governor-general to dissolve a parliament at any time, in one of two eventualities. He must grant a dissolution if ! his ministers — the cabinet — ask for it; and he can, exercising the prerogative of the crown, I order a dissolution at a crisis which in his opinion ^ renders it necessary that there should be a general appeal to the constituencies. With two or three exceptions, parliaments Pariia- since 1867 have run nearly their full course of ^^^^ I five years. One of these exceptions was the not run j parliament of 1 872-1 874, the duration of which |^ ' was much shortened by the downfall of the Macdonald administration in November, 1873, due to the scandal in connection with the granting of the first charter for the Canadian Pacific Railway. Alexander Mackenzie, leader of the Liberal opposition, was called upon by DufFerin, the governor-general, to form a new government. C335] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA The call to Mackenzie came after Macdonald, having been defeated in the house of commons, had, according to constitutional usage, tendered his resignation to the governor-general. A group of Conservatives had voted with the Liberals for the motion censuring Macdonald and his government. But these Conservatives had not thrown in their lot with the Liberals on other questions than the Canadian Pacific scandal; and the Liberals in the session of 1873 were outnumbered by the Conservatives by six. No contentious business could have been carried through the house under these adverse conditions. At the request of the new administration parlia- ment was dissolved on January 2; and at the elections on January 22 the Mackenzie adminis- tration was returned with a majority of sixty in a house of 206 members. Another instance of a parliament that was dissolved some time before the end of its term was that of 1908-1911. Like the parliament of 1 872-1 874 its lifetime was shortened by a crisis — a crisis not due to a scandal, but to the persistent and successful obstruction, by the Conservative opposition, of the bill of the Laurier government for reestablishing commercial reciprocity with the United States. The opposition was determined to force a dis- solution. The obstructionists were so successful that the reciprocity bill, necessary to make effec- tive the reciprocity act already passed by congress C336] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS at Washington, did not get beyond its preliminary stages in the house of commons. The opposition forced the Laurier administration into a place where it had either to withdraw the bill, or to ask the governor-general to grant a dissolution. The government preferred a dissolution; and after the general election in September, Laurier and his following of the Liberal party found themselves in a minority of thirty-seven in the new house of commons.^ As at Westminster, it is only under the most exceptional circumstances that a governor-general at Ottawa can dissolve parliament by the exer- cise of the prerogative, and not on the advice of his ministers. XIL Dissolution of Parliament — General Elections The last session of a parliament before dissolu- The tion ends in exactly the same way as any other ^^^ *^* session. There is the usual speech from the ment throne in the chamber of the senate. Senators and members of the house of commons disperse to their homes; and at a later date, determined upon by the cabinet, there issues a royal procla- mation dissolving parliament. The proclamation discharges the existing parlia- ment — the parliament that had been prorogued at the end of the session — from its duties of ^ Conservatives, 133; Liberals, 86; Independents, 2. C337] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Dis- attendance; declares the desire of the crown, solution acting through the governor-general, to have by royal . . procia- the advice of its people, and the royal will and mation pleasure to call a new parliament. It is further announced in the proclamation that an order has been issued to the clerk of the crown in chancery — a state official at Ottawa — to issue the neces- sary writs for the new parliament. King's The writs go out in the name of the king. They go to the sheriffs or other returning officers — a separate writ for each electoral division. In the writ the sheriff is informed that "by the advice of our privy council for Canada, we have ordered a parliament to be holden at Ottawa," on a date that is named. The sheriff is com- manded, notice of the time and place of the election having been duly given, to "cause election to be made, according to law, of a member to serve in the house of commons of Canada, for the electoral district" of Algoma, or whatever the district may be. Com- The sheriff is further commanded to "cause ™^* the nomination of candidates at such election" sheriff to be held on a day named in the writ. The election is held seven days after the nomination; and after the votes have been counted it is the duty of the sheriff — again quoting from the writ — to cause the name of the member elected, "whether he is present or absent, to be certified to our clerk of the crown in chancery, as by law directed." C338] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS The procedure is almost Identical with that Election followed in the election of members to the house ^°'^®" dure of commons at Westminster, procedure now al- most six centuries old. Before the writs are received by the returning Exixa- officers much has happened in connection with ^^ the pending election which may be described proce- as extra-constitutional, in that it is not governed ^^^ by any section of the British North America act, nor by any enactment of the Dominion parliament. Party conventions have been held in each con- Con- stituency at which candidates have been chosen. ^®^**°°^ The premier of the government in existence at the mam- dissolution of parliament has issued his manifesto ^^^*°^^ to all the electors of the Dominion, and a similar manifesto has been issued by the leader of the party in opposition. Each candidate has also issued his address to the electors of the constit- uency from which he desires to be returned to parliament; and each candidate has made his campaign at mass meetings in the electoral division. The returning officer in his official capacity No knows nothing of political parties. At his session, y°^*"' in the court house or the town hall, on nominat- recogni- ing day, any twenty-five electors may nominate "°°y°' a candidate; and it does not come within the parties duties of a returning officer to make any inquiries as to the party affiliations of the electors who sign the nominating paper. [339] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA] All that the returning officer Is legally requirec to ascertain is (i) that the person named in eacl nominating paper has consented in writing to| the nomination, except where such person is absent from the province, when such absence must be stated in the nominating paper; anc (2) that accompanying each nominating papei there is a deposit of $200. British parlia- mentary candi- dates pay ofiSclal expenses of elections XIII. Candidates and the Official Expenses of Elections Canada, in its election code, has departed ii one important particular from the usage of elections and the laws applicable to members o^ the house of commons at Westminster. By usage for many generations before 1712^ and by numerous enactments since 171 2, candi- dates for the British house of commons havel always been saddled with the official expenses of elections. They pay the fees of the returning officers, and the cost of constructing polling booths or of hiring rooms for polling booths. They pay the cost of printing the ballots, and of official advertising. They pay the fees of the poll clerks, and of the men who count the ballots; and they pay also all charges for the services of extra policemen who may be required to keep order on election day. Before a nomination of a candidate Is accepted by a returning officer In the United Kingdom, [340] i THE HOUSE OF COMMONS the candidate must make a deposit large enough to cover his quota of the official expenses — expenses which, for each candidate, vary from £ioo in a borough constituency to £1500 in a county division with a large electorate. Official expenses at elections in Canada, except in one eventuality, are a charge on the Dominion treasury. Under the election code of the United Provinces, in the days of nomination at the hustings and open voting — proceedings which the law stipulated must be held in the open air — none of the official expenses were by law thrown on the candidates, and there was no change in this respect until the first election code of the Dominion was enacted by parliament in 1874. In this code it was provided that each candidate, before his nomination could be accepted, must make a payment of ^50 towards the expenses of the returning officer. The code of 1874 was framed and carried through parliament by a Liberal government. At the redistribution of representation in 1882 — a redistribution notorious for the systematic gerrymandering of electoral divisions by the Conservative government, of which Macdonald was premier — an amendment was made to the electoral code of 1874. The section providing for the payment of $50 towards election expenses by candidates was repealed. In its place was inserted a remarkable section which still remains C 341 ] Deposit made by candi- date Official expenses of elections in Canada a public charge Charges on candi- dates from 1874 to 1882 Amend- ment of election code in 1882 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA in the electoral code. It is remarkable, because it was undemocratic in conception; and for thirty- five years it has been undemocratic in operation. It is, moreover, without a parallel in the election codes of English-speaking countries. An Under this section of the electoral law each ^tiT*°" candidate, before his nomination is accepted by pro- the returning officer, must deposit with that iaw°^^ official a sum of ^200. To a successful candidate 1882 the deposit is promptly returned. It is not returned to an unsuccessful candidate if he fails to obtain a number of votes at least equal to half the number polled by the candidate elected. In this event the deposit is forfeited to the king, for the public uses of Canada, and is applied by the returning officer toward the payment of election expenses. XIV. A Statutory Penalty for an Unsuccessful Candidate Object The object of thus penalizing an unsuccessful °* candidate is professedly to prevent irresponsible men from thrusting themselves into an election. It has the effect of checking contests against mem- bers of a preceding parliament who secured their seats by large majorities. It accounts for many uncontested elections — for what are described as walk-overs or elections by acclamation. A candidate who has been returned by an overwhelming majority, to emphasize the measure [342] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS of success, frequently uses the phrase that his opponent "lost his deposit," a remark that indi- cates that he regards his seat in the house of commons as unassailable. The system of only two parties in politics — Conservative and Liberal — is much more firmly established in Canada than it was in England during the half century before the war. At Westminster, after the Irish Nationalist party was organized in the parliament of 1 867-1 874, the old system of two parties broke down; and from 1900 to 1914 there were five distinct organ- ized parties in the house of commons. The two-party system in Canada is even more firmly established than it is in the United States. An agrarian party that developed some strength in Ontario — the Patrons of Industry — elected two or three members to Ottawa in 1896. But it was a short-lived movement; and at no time in Canada was there a movement, carried on independently of both Conservative and Liberal parties, that for success in securing representation in the federal legislature can be compared with the movement of the Progressive Republicans at the congressional elections of 191 2 and 1914. ^ Nearly 13,000 votes were polled for labor candidates in the Dominion general election of 191 1. But in no house of commons from 1900 to 1916 was there a single independent labor member, despite the fact that there are a score of con- 1 Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 105-106. [343] Candi- date who loses deposit Two- party system In Canadian politics An agrarian party that collapsed No labor members at Ottawa EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA stituencies in which men employed in factories or in coal mines constitute the majority of the electorate. Labor For ten or twelve years before the war the ticmio Dominion Trades and Labor Congress — a per- eiection manent organization with headquarters in Toronto deposit — ^^ ^YiQ eve of each new session of parliament petitioned both Liberal and Conservative govern- ments to repeal the section of the electoral code which requires a deposit from a candidate for the house of commons. In 19 14 the deputation from the congress — an organization which com- prises in its membership most of the leaders of the labor party in provincial and municipal politics — coupled with the request for repeal a suggestion that a candidate might be required to obtain a much larger number of signatures to his nomination paper than the twenty-five demanded by the existing code. A The petition for this reform was presented to o^^ Doherty, minister of justice, in the Borden govern- eiection ment. It evoked more sympathy from him than it had done from any minister, Liberal or Conserv- ative, in any previous year. "Under the present law," he said, "a candidate is practically betting ^200 that he will secure half as many votes as the candidate who is elected." "We say to a candidate," he added, lapsing into the colloquial, "go down in your clothes and get ^200, or you can't have a run at this thing." ^ 1 Globe, Toronto, March 14, 1914. [344] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS The penalizing section was aimed at the Long Liberals, who in 1882 were in opposition. In ^^ operation it has had a more far-reaching effect pouticai than the Conservative authors of the clause p*^®^ I conceived. It has been of service to the Liberal t party at Ottawa as well as to the Conservative party. It has been of even more service to the Liberals than the Conservatives; for the require- ment of a deposit of $200 tends to prevent a gen- eral election from being used as an opportunity for unauthorized political propaganda; and usu- ally, in any English-speaking country, it is the professedly liberal orthodox political party that sustains most loss of electoral strength from the propaganda of unorthodox political groups such as the Labor and Socialist parties. The law of 1882 is, moreover, obviously an An aid aid in maintaining discipline in the two existing *° I parties in the house of commons. The undemo- disci- cratic character of it, in a country where electors ^"°® in seven provinces vote on manhood-suffrage franchises, has consequently been persistently ignored by Liberal as well as by Conservative politicians at Ottawa. XV. Simplicity of Election Procedure As contrasted with congressional elections in Only one baUot be the United States, elections to the house of J commons at Ottawa are exceedingly simple, marked There are three or four constituencies, as, for [345] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA example, Ottawa and St. John, in which electors vote for two candidates. In the other 220-odd electoral divisions, when an elector goes to the polls all that he can do is to vote for one or other of two candidates. No At Dominion elections only members of the emWems ^ouse of commons are chosen. Provincial or on municipal elections are never held at the same ballots time. There are no party emblems on the bal- lots, no word or mark to indicate with which political party the candidate is affiliated. No The term "Liberal" or "Conservative" has statutory j^gygj- been embodied in a Canadian act of par- recog- , .... nition liament. These political parties exist, and have °' existed since 1792. But it is possible to go through parties all the constitutions framed for the old British North American provinces, for the Dominion of Canada, and for the three provinces created by the Dominion parliament since 1867, as well as through all the laws governing elections and concerning parliament, without finding a single acknowledgment of the existence of either Con- servative or Liberal party. Political parties and their activities in and out of parliament are extra- constitutional; and in Canada, in accordance with British precedent, they are without statu- tory recognition. Order The names of candidates are printed on the °* ballot papers in alphabetical order. The size, names r r r ' on baUot letterpress, and every detail of the ballot paper rl are determined by the electoral code of the 3] [346] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Dominion. To prevent the printing of fraudu- lent ballots, the paper used for the official ballots is issued by the king's printer at Ottawa. The ballot paper, in an electoral division which Form of returns two members, is in this form: baUot The hours of polling are from nine to five Hours I o'clock. Ballots are counted at the polling sta- ; tions by the deputy returning officers, "in full view of the poll clerk, and the candidates or their agents," and before midnight on election day [347] of polUng EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the government in office has been unofficially informed of its fate. It learns from the news- paper bulletins whether it has been granted another lease of power by the electorate, or whether, in a few days, it must give place to an administration formed by the leader of the opposition in the late parliament. Return Each writ is promptly returned to the clerk of writ q£ ^i^g crown at Ottawa; and the final act of the returning officer is the publication of abstracts of the statements of expenses incurred by candi- dates at the election. Election Each candidate is by law required to appoint ^^^°^ an election agent; and only through this agent can payments be made of expenses incurred by the candidate in connection with the election. Extra- At elections in the United Kingdom the maxi- eiection mum sum that can be expended by a candidate expenses [g fixed by law. The sum is determined by the number of electors, and by the general character of the constituency — a larger amount being allowed for connty divisions than for divisions of cities or for boroughs. In Canada there is no such restriction on election expenses. Except for the deposit, election expenses are within the con- trol of the candidates, and it costs much less to contest a constituency in Canada than in Eng- land or Scotland. Election Petitions arising out of elections — petitions petitions ^^^^ have for their object the unseating of mem- bers for bribery or corruption, or other contra- C348] il THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ventions of the electoral code — are tried before two judges of the superior court of the province in which the election in dispute was held. The Dominion parliament inherited from the leg- islature of the United Provinces the system of referring controverted election cases to select com- mittees of the house of commons. This system was that in use at Westminster from 1770, when the Grenville act was passed, until 1868, when parliament transferred the adjudication of elec- tion cases from committees of the house to judges of the high court. Canada in 1873 followed the Westminster prec- Trial of edent of 1868; and since then all election cases *'®'^**°° ' _ cases by have been heard by judges of the superior court judges of the provinces, with a right of appeal to the supreme court of the Dominion — ■ a court which holds its sessions at Ottawa. The judges, after hearing an election case, report their decision to the speaker, who in turn reports it to the house of commons. In the event of the unseating of a member, a motion for a new writ is moved in the house. A member of the house of commons can resign Resig- at any time by a formal notification to the speaker of his intention to do so. In this par- ticular the Dominion house of commons has ! made an innovation on the procedure of the house of commons at Westminster, where a member can free himself from service only by applying for, and being appointed to, the steward- [349] nation of mem- bers EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA ship of the Chiltern Hundreds, or of a crown manor. These are technically offices of profit under the crown. Acceptance of one of these offices by a member vacates his seat. Ana- While the Dominion parliament has devised a e"*i^ more easy method by which a member can free proce- himself of the tie to his constituency and to the house of commons, it still retains the old proce- dure of Westminster. Occasionally a member who desires to retire accepts an appointment to a country postmastership that happens to be vacant. He holds the office for a day or two, and then tenders his resignation to the postmaster- general. dure retained C350] CHAPTER XIII THE cabinet: the king's privy COUNCIL FOR CANADA A T a general election, if the result is the Fate of return to the house of commons of a ^^^n^" majority pledged to the support of the adminis- deter- tration in power, there is no change in the ™^^ premiership, and usually only a few changes in general the personnel of the cabinet. On the other hand, if the opposition in the late parliament has secured a majority, the pre- mier, with as little delay as possible, tenders his resignation to the governor-general.^ By the resignation of the premier — as at his death — all the other members of the cabinet hand in their resignations. Appointment to all cabinet offices is made by Appoint- the governor-general only on the recommend a- ™^et° tion of the premier. It is the right and privilege of the premier to choose his colleagues, and to submit their names to the governor-general for appointment. Every member of a cabinet, so ^ "The present practice is for the government to resign as soon as it is certain that it is defeated at an election; but it cannot yet be called unconstitutional for the defeated govern- ment to hold office until it is voted down in the house of commons." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," Note VII, io6. [351 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA chosen, knows that in the event of the death or resignation of the premier, he must, in accord- ance with the principle on which government by parHament and cabinet is based, at once resign his portfoHo. I. The Formation of a Cabinet For- The governor-general, on the resignation of a ^ **° premier whose party has sustained defeat at an cabinet election, sends for the leader of the opposition, who is charged by the governor-general with the formation of the new cabinet. Number In the first administration after Confedera- ^^jjjg_ tion — 'the Macdonald administration of 1867- teriai 1873 — there were fifteen ministers, one of whom ° ^^ was without portfolio. From 1867 to 1891 the presidency of the council was a separate office. From 1891 to 1917 the offices of first minister and president of the council were held by the same member of the cabinet; and from 1909 to 191 7 the premier also held the office of secretary of state for external affairs — an office created' by act of parliament in 1909 in consequence of the increased international relations of the Dominion. With a view to more systematic and acceler- ated development of the public lands and of the resources of the Dominion after the war, there was created in 1917, the department of immigra- tion and colonization. To this new department C352] THE CABINET were assigned powers, duties, and functions which, increase from Confederation to 1917, had been in the de- "gn^ber- partment of the interior. In 1917 also, at the ship organization on September 12, of the union gov- cabinet ernment, with Borden as premier,^ the office of due to president of the council again became a separate ^^^^ office. These changes in 1917 increased the num- war her of ministerial offices to twenty-three.^ 1. First minister. 2. Secretary of state for external affairs. 3. President of the king's privy council for Canada. 4. Minister of finance. 5. Minister of trade and commerce. 6. Minister of public works. 7. Minister of railways and canals. ^ At this reorganization, what, from 191 1, had been a Conservative ministry became a coaHtion or union win-the- war administration. There were of the new administration fourteen Conservatives, eight Liberals, and one leader of the newly organized grain growers' party in the prairie provinces. Six of the members of the new cabinet were, in October, with- out seats in the house of commons or the senate. Parliament, however, was not in session in the autumn of 1917; and no attempt was made by the new members of the ministry to enter parliament until the general election on December 17, 191 7, the election at which the union administration and its i war policy was indorsed by the constituencies. 2 In the administration organized in October, 1917, there was also a minister of overseas service — a war-time office that is not likely to survive the war and the restoration of the military forces of the Dominion to a peace basis. [353] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Salaries of minis- ters 8. Minister of marine and fisheries and of naval defense. 9. Minister of the interior. Minister of immigration and colonization. Minister of militia and defense. Minister of agriculture. Minister of customs. Minister of inland revenues. Minister of justice. Postmaster-general. Minister of labor. Secretary of state. Minister of mines. 20. Attorney-general. ^ 21. Solicitor-general. 22. Parliament secretary of the department of external affairs. 23. Parliamentary secretary of militia and defense.^ The aggregate salaries of the first minister] and secretary of state for external affairs , two] offices usually held by the same man, are ^12,000. j With the exception of the two parliamentary! secretaries, whose salaries are $5000, the other] ministers receive ^7000. These salaries, in each case, are in addition to the parliamentary indem- nity of ^25CXD. ^ The office of attorney-general is usually held in conjunc-j tion with that of minister of justice. 2 These parliamentary secretaries, like the solicitor-general, j are of the ministry but not of the cabinet. [354] I THE CABINET II. Conditions Determining the Distribution of Cabinet Offices In framing a new cabinet, in making recom- rcsMc- mendations to the governor-general for appoint- ^^^^ ments to these ministerial oiffices, the premier premier's has (in normal times) much less freedom of ^'^^^^ <>' choice than has the prime minister at West- coi- minster. leagues At Westminster, a premier, after a general election which has newly returned to power the party of which he is the leader, must consider the claims to office of the men who are associated with him in the leadership of the party. Men who have established a claim upon him are of both the house of commons and the house of lords; and there must be a division — now always an unequal one — of cabinet and ministerial offices between the commons and the lords. At such times the house of commons is the predominant partner, and to its members go the larger number of ministerial appointments. At Ottawa an incoming premier seldom need Senate concern himself about the claims to cabinet office ^^^^^ of members of the senate. All claims a politician at may have established on his party are settled in ^^^ full by his appointment to the senate. The of senate, moreover, has never developed any leaders *^''^®* who for long made any place for themselves in political life. Leaders of established position, who are grow- [355] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Provin- cial states- men with claims to cabinet office Securing seats in parlia- ment for pro- vincial states- men ing old, occasionally get themselves transferred from the house to the senate; but it is seldom, indeed, that a senator of the rank and file has established any claim on his party that need be recognized when a new cabinet is formed. The upper house at Ottawa is thus not a factor in the formation of a cabinet to anything like the extent that the house of lords is, and always has been, when a cabinet is coming into being at Whitehall. At Westminster a prime minister must weigh the claims of men only who are already in parlia- ment. A prime minister at Ottawa must do more than this. He must consider the claims of men of his party in the house of commons, and also of men who are not in parliament, but whose claims rest on party service in office, or in opposition, in the provincial legislatures. It is usual for the premier of the Dominion to summon to his cabinet men who are premiers of provincial governments or leaders of the opposi- tion in provincial legislatures. Men so summoned to Ottawa are, of course, without seats in the house of commons. If they accept the premier's offer, as they almost invariably do, they must resign their seats in the provincial legislatures and any office they may hold in the provincial govern- ments. Seats in the house of commons must be secured for them without delay, for only mem- bers of parliament can hold cabinet offices. In a newly-elected house of commons there [356] I THE CABINET are always members who are willing to resign their seats on the promise of a nomination to the senate. These accommodating members accept a postmastership or some other minor office. Their seats thus become automatically vacant, and the vacancies are promptly filled by the election of the members of the new cabinet who were without seats in parliament. In considering the claims of the leaders of the political party at Ottawa and at the provincial capitals, the new premier must also regard (i) the claims of French-Canada; (2) the claims of the other eight provinces; (3) the claims of the English-speaking population of Quebec; and (4) the claims of the Roman Catholic population of the Dominion that is not French. Three cabinet or ministerial offices are usually assigned to French-Canada.^ The same number ^ At the general election of 191 1 the Nationalist party of Quebec threw in its lot with the Conservative party under the leadership of Borden. The platform of the Nationalists, adopted at Eustache, Quebec, in July, 19 10, declared against any participation by the Dominion in imperial wars outside Canadian territory, and against any attempt at recruiting troops in Canada for Great Britain; and expressed opposi- tion to the establishment in Canada of "a naval school with the help, and for the benefit, of imperial authorities." The Nationalists, in the election campaign, also opposed any addi- tions to the British fleet at the expense of the Dominion. They carried eighteen or nineteen seats; and as a condition of support of the Borden government they demanded (l) that the portfolios of public works, inland revenue, and the post oflice be assigned respectively to Monk, Nantel, and C357] Accom- modating mem- bers of the com- mons Geo- graphical, racial, and religious con- ditions affecting forma- tion of cabinet EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA The claims of Quebec and Ontario Cabinet offices ear- marked for particular provinces as a rule go to Ontario. At least one cabinet office must, by usage, be assigned to each of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Mani- toba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Colum- bia; and since the appointment of Edward Kenny, of Nova Scotia, in 1869, as representative of the English-speaking Catholics ^ no cabinet has been long without a representative of the English- speaking Roman Catholic church.^ There is a custom, but not a custom invariably followed, to assign certain cabinet offices to par- ticular provinces. The department of marine and fisheries is usually assigned to a member from one of the tidewater provinces. To a New Bruns- Pelletier, all Nationalist leaders in Quebec; and (2) that no Protestant from Quebec hold a portfolio in the cabinet. Bor- den complied with these conditions. Cf. H. C. Debates, January 26, 1917; Canadian Pari. Guide, 1912, 25-26; and Ottawa dispatch to the Gazette, Montreal, dated November 28, 1917, summarizing J. S. Ewart's reasons for supporting Laurier at the general election of December 17, 1917. 1 Cf. H. C. Debates, February 17, 1871. 2 The claim of the English-spefaking Roman Catholics was first recognized in the days of the United Provinces — in the days of what were described as "broad-bottomed administra- tions." (Cf. Buckingham and Ross, "Life of Alexander Mackenzie," 307.) Like the claim for recognition of English- speaking Roman Catholics in the senate, it has been recog- nized for fifty years by both Liberal and Conservative govern- ments. A politician of Irish extraction — almost invariably a lawyer and generally a member of the house of commons from the province of Quebec — usually represents the English- speaking Roman Catholics in the cabinet. C358] THE CABINET wick member has several times been assigned the department of railways and canals. This office goes to a New Brunswick member because the headquarters of the Intercolonial Railway — • the government railway — are at Moncton, New Brunswick; and, moreover, by far the larger part of the mileage of the Intercolonial is in the prov- inces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The department of the interior, previous to The 1917, was usually assigned to a member from ^l^^ the prairie provinces. It went to a member depart- from the grain-growing country because the ^^^^ government lands in the organized provinces, interior as distinct from those in the territories, are mostly in the provinces which lie between the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains; and, more- over, because the purpose of the immigration propaganda, under the supervision of the depart- ment of the interior from 1867 to 191 7, was to attract immigration into these provinces. A department of immigration and colonization Depart- was created in 191 7. Following precedents, dat- ^®° ing back to the early years of Confederation in immi- regard to the department at Ottawa having ^ °° charge of immigration and colonization, the port- coioni- folio of the new department went to a member from the prairie provinces — Calder, of Saskatche- wan. All these conditions and factors confront the premier at Ottawa when he is forming his cabi- net; and in recent years, certainly since 1896, C359] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Govern- when Laurlcr formed his cabinet, the freedom dass °^ choice of a premier has been further restricted and the by the claims of the financial interests of Mont- °j '^^ real and Toronto, and the tariff interests cen- minister tering in these cities, that they have a voice in finance ^^^ selection of the minister of finance. Laurier recognized this claim in 1896. It is a claim that was also fully conceded by Borden when he formed his first cabinet in 191 1. inno- Distribution of cabinet offices based on geo- In °°^ graphical considerations, a%d on claims of race, usages religion, and special financial and material in- British terests, is an innovation on the usages and cabinets traditions of cabinets at Westminster. The in- novation has been developed by the differing conditions of Canada and the United Kingdom; by the operation of the federal principle; and by the need for conciliating assertive interests — racial and religious ^ — which is as old in Cana- dian politics as the ill-assorted legislative union of Upper and Lower Canada of 1841-1867. 1 "Sir Wilfred Laurier is not the only sinner. Practically every party leader in Canada managed Quebec as Sir Wilfred has managed that province. A little more than an equal division of the spoils of office, concessions here and conces- sions there to race and creed, and there you have the states- manship of Canadian premiers of both Conservative and Liberal stripe." — Tribune, Winnipeg, December 20, 1917. [360] ill THE CABINET III. Ministers without Portfolio Another innovation is the presence in the Ministers cabinet at Ottawa of ministers without port- ^^' foHos. At Westminster, from 1832 to 1914, there ments were only four cabinets in which there were ^.^ members who held no office. In the first cabinet salaries of the Dominion — 1 867-1 872 — there was a minister without portfolio. In every cabinet since there has been a minister to whom no office was assigned, and who consequently drew no salary. In some cabinets there were two, or even three, ministers without portfolios.^ These ministers are sworn of the king's privy House of council for Canada. They attend cabinet meet- *^™" . . . mons ings and share in the collective responsibilty of and the cabinet. But as they draw no salaries other ™^^" than their parliamentary indemnities, it is diffi- without cult to criticize their actions in the house of com- ?°,f" • r • • • • folios mons if occasion for criticism should arise. In the case of a cabinet minister, who is in receipt of a salary, it is possible to challenge any action of his by moving a reduction in the vote for the department of which he is the par- liamentary head when it comes before the house of commons in committee of supply. There have been instances where the inclusion Addi- in the cabinet of a minister without portfolio ^°^^^° debating added considerably to the debating strength of strength of ^ Cf. Audet, "Canadian Historical Dates and Events," cabinet 113-114- [ 361 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the cabinet in parliament. Notable instances of this were the inclusion in the Mackenzie cabinet of 1 873-1 878 of Edward Blake, who was leader of the Liberal opposition from 1878 to 1890; and the inclusion of Abbott, afterwards premier of the Dominion, in the Macdonald cabinet of 1878-1891. Reasons No similar instances of a cabinet recruiting *°f , , its debating strength by the inclusion of a min- minlster ° . without ister without portfolio occurred after Abbott's f*^" appointment in 1887. The appointments, in more recent times, were made (i) to secure for the cabinet the aid, counsel, and influence of strong men, who were not free to devote them- selves entirely to politics; (2) to satisfy the claims of a province which otherwise might not be represented in the cabinet; and (3) to honor a man who had claims on the party in power, to give him a larger importance in the world of politics, and in the social life of Ottawa, than would attach to him if he were only of the rank and file of the government's supporters in the house of commons or the senate. A The dignity, so bestowed, carries with it the ^^ right to the prefix "honorable" for Ufe. It is a life not unlike the honor bestowed on men at West- tenure minster who desire neither a baronetcy nor a peerage, but who prize a summons to the privy council, a summons that carries with it the rank, dignity, and title of "right honorable." More than half of the members of the ministry [362] THE CABINET at Westminster — the men who hold subordinate Ministiy offices in the government, and resign when the ^^j^g^ premier goes out of office — are not of the cabinet. At Ottawa since 1895, when the bu- reaus of customs and inland revenues were made departments of state, the solicitor-general and the parliamentary secretaries of state departments are the only ministers who are not in the cabinet. IV. Honors for Canadian Premiers — Titles and Hereditary Honors Three of the premiers of the Dominion of order of Canada — Macdonald, Thompson, and Tupper ?f; ^ , i-i iri -1 1 Michael — were knights before they attained to the pre- and st. miership. Mackenzie, the Liberal premier of ^^°'eo 1 873-1 878, was three times offered a knighthood, and on each occasion declined the honor. "^ Abbott, Bowell, Laurier, and Borden, whose names com- splete the list of premiers from Confederation to the great war, were all created knights of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, within a few months after they had assumed office; and for nearly half a century a knighthood was re- garded at Ottawa and at Whitehall, as the due of any man who became premier of the Dominion. A still greater distinction is usually bestowed Member- by the sovereign on premiers at Ottawa. Mac- ship of donald, Thompson, Laurier, and Borden were councu each sworn of the privy council at Whitehall, ^twhite- and thereby became "right honorable." ^ Cf. Buckingham and Ross, 551. C363] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA A dignity empire- wide in its value Premiers of domin- ions and the Britlsli cabinet From 1872 to the war, from the time Mac- donald became a privy councilor to 191 5, a sum- mons to the premier of Canada, or to the premier of any other of the five dominions, to the privy council was only a method of conferring a dignity empire-wide in its value. It gave a defined place in the order of precedence at ceremonies of state. But it involved no duties at Whitehall, because previous to the war only men who were of the cabinet in Downing Street were called upon to perform the routine duties of privy councilors. The privy council meets as a body only on the death of the sovereign. During the war, Borden, the premier of Canada, and the premiers of the other four dominions, attended meetings of the cabinet in Downing Street. A premier of a dominion had never be- fore attended a meeting of the British cabinet. Borden's participation in the cabinet meetings of July, 191 5, revolutionized the "theory and practice of the system by which the British Empire had been governed for more than a cen- tury and a half." ^ A new constitutional link of empire was thus forged — one of many new links, constitutional and extra-constitutional, forged by the war; and from July, 191 5, a new significance attached to the fact that premiers of the dominions are of the privy council at Whitehall. The premier at Ottawa, in the years from 1870 1 Daily Telegraph, London, July 15, 1915. C364] THE CABINET to 191 8, was not the only member of the cabinet distinguished by a knighthood. There were usually three or four knights in the cabinet; and knighthoods in Canada were in these thirty- eight years conferred on other men besides those in political life. There was a time when titles were conferred only at the instance of the colonial office in London. But as the powers of the Dominion cabinet, under the unwritten part of the constitution, were gradually extended, the colonial office lost the sole initiative in the bestowal of honors on men in the oversea dominions. For at least thirty years before 191 8 — a year in which the cabinet and the house of commons, following a popular lead from the constituencies, adopted a new and more demo- cratic attitude towards titles — it had been possible for the premier at Ottawa to make a recommendation, through the governor-general, for the conferring, by the sovereign, of a knight- hood on any of his colleagues in the cabinet or in parliament; on the premier of a province; on a judge of the superior courts; on a dis- tinguished civil servant; or on any man in the political, scientific, industrial, commercial, or journalistic world of the Dominion, whom the premier and the cabinet deemed worthy of such distinction. In more recent years baronetcies, and in at least two cases peerages, were bestowed on men [365] Premier of Canada and bestowal of honors Knight- hoods for distin- guished Cana- dians clans had to look EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Baronet- domiciled in Canada, on the recommendation, cies and ^^ ^^ least With the sanction or approval, of the peerages _ rr ? premier. To whom In these years — 1885 to 1918 — men who ^mbuious "^^^^ ^" politics, and who were ambitious for a poiiti- title, expected recognition of their claims only from the premier of a government of which they were supporters in or out of parliament. PoUtics Conditions at Ottawa in this period in this Htf respect were similar to long-existing conditions Ottawa at Westminster, except that it was never even ^^ , hinted at Ottawa, that titles were bartered for West- . . ' . minster subscriptions to campaign funds of political parties; while at Westminster the squalid con- nection between some knighthoods, baronetcies, and peerages, and the election funds of political parties, was notorious for nearly a generation before the beginning of the war in 1914. Political In Canada, in these years, the ability to recom- patron- mend for titles had popularly come to be regarded as an addition to the patronage in the bestowal of the premier. Popular Except among candidates for these honors, attitude ^j^j among their womenfolk, titles were never in Canada esteem in Canada. Knighthoods for men in towards ^}^g front rank in political life were tolerated as incidental to the connection with Great Britain; and they were regarded, moreover, as not disturb- ing to social order and social conditions in the Dominion. But there developed a widespread dislike of the bestowal of baronetcies and peer- [366] I THE CABINET ages; for a baronetcy or a peerage descends from father to son. The title and the distinc- tion, in the case of these dignities, do not end with the death of the man on whom they were conferred, as is the case with the lower rank of knighthood. There was a protest in the house of commons An up- at Ottawa in the session of 1914 against con- J^gt ferring titles on Canadians; and in 191 7, after them a baronetcy had been conferred on a resident at Toronto, long prominent as a dealer in hog products on a vast scale, and a peerage had also been bestowed on the owner of a newspaper published in Montreal, the agitation against titles, begun in the house of commons in 1914, extended itself east and west from Ottawa. The question was agitated in provincial legisla- An tures; and at conventions of church organiza- ^^^^^ tions, and of grain growers, farmers, and trade union unionists, resolutions were adopted urging the ^J^™" then newly organized union government to re- frain from recommending Canadians for titles of nobility. Baronetcies and peerages, in particular, were Baronet- condemned in these resolutions, or in the pre- peerages ambles to the resolutions, as manifestly out of assaUed harmony with political, economic, and social conditions in the Dominion.^ ^ Cf. Gazette, Montreal, September 10, 1917; Grain Growers' Guide, March 14, 1917; Joseph Martin, "The Menace of Canadian Titles," Maclean's Magazine, Toronto, August, 1917; C367] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADAJ Only once before in the history of the Dominionl from 1867 to 191 8 did a government at Ottawa] react to a popular agitation in the constituencies] as promptly as the union government did to] the war-time agitation against titles. This was] in 1906, when the Laurier government repealed' an act passed by parliament in 1905 establishing a pension system for ex-members of Dominion cabinets. It was known at Ottawa as soon as the house of commons elected in December, 1917, assembled for its first session on March 18, 1918, that there would be a renewal in parliament of the agitation of 1914, and of the then more recent popular agitation of the question. The union government did not wait for action by the house. It anticipated action in the com- mons by adopting a minute of council, dated March 25 — a minute which was subsequently transmitted to Whitehall — in which four recom- mendations in respect to the bestowal of titles on Canadians, domiciled in Canada, were submitted to the colonial office and the imperial govern- ment. The recommendations were: "The Badge of Autocracy," Globe, Toronto, August 22, 1917. "Even now," said the Tribune, Winnipeg, August 18, in com- menting on Martin's protest in Maclean's Magazine, "these peerages should be plucked out of the life. of Canada, and a declaration made by the parliament of our Dominion that the democracy of which we boast is real and should remain untainted." [ 368 ] THE CABINET 1. No honour or titular distinction (saving those granted in recognition of mihtary service during the present war or ordinarily bestowed by the sovereign propria motu) shall be conferred upon a subject of his majesty ordinarily resi- dent in Canada except with the approval or upon the advice of the prime minister of Canada. 2. The government of the United Kingdom shall exercise the same authority as heretofore in determining the charac- ter and number of titles or honours to be allocated to Canada from time to time. 3. No hereditary title of honour shall hereafter be con- ferred upon a subject of his majesty ordinarily resident in Canada. 4. Appropriate action shall be taken, whether by legis- lation or otherwise, to provide that after a prescribed period no title of honour held by a subject of his majesty now or hereafter ordinarily resident in Canada shall be recognized as having hereditary effect. No more heredi- tary titles The bestowal of knighthoods was not ended Respon- by this action of the government. But with the far-reaching reform so brought about it became no longer constitutionally possible for the cabinet to ambush itself behind the preroga- tive of the crown, as had been possible under the old procedure at Ottawa, governing recom- mendations for honors made by the premier. A recommendation for a knighthood is now manifestly an act, in practice, by the cabinet — an act which can be discussed or challenged in parliament, like any other act for which the cabinet is responsible.^ ^ Cf. "Last Prerogative Goes," Sun, Toronto, April 11, 1918. C369] slbUity of cabinet for honors conferred **^* ._ _ .. ^- - ttt'i^t; ." _ u" 1 ; , LT : r 7. I arc t -'J i '— ~. «fe Imp aridbe -. LT^3 THE CABINET a similar law has been in force in Cirii- . rie representative gov^nn^nt vr2> -rs : e f : i : £ r. e i in Nova Scotia in 1758. Members wbo have accepted office at the for- niati<» of a new cabinet are sddom put to xsz trouble and expoise of a corrected decricr They are oftoi reSectei ^^. :_: :r taming t: their constituencies. I: 2. Z-ir^z — "r'ftf: : ccxnpelled to enter upc.~ ^ ::z-tsz ::: :;- t:: :r and if he is defeated, it does not £dUow thit -e disappears finnra die cabinet. The cabins duoo^ the party macfain^y. can always '^opoi'* a safe ccMistitDaicy. It can always induce one of its supporters in '.'r - : _;r of conun<»s to relinqui^ a seat in : e : ~er house in escliai^;e for life memberdiip <^ the senate: and the defeated calun^ minister is promptly reinstated in the house of commons. The livT —iii-^ :relecti«a acmiditicm of office is contiE_: £ : ::f At any poiod in die lifetime c: i :i: rf: :: m the toon of a pailia- ment. i -f:::e: :rf rouse of cfMOOiiMXis who 2cccr:5 ::i:: r: -.e iir;— 5 that he must se^ re^lec: :r. ^r - :r^: : e ziiy nave to face a con- test in his constituency. VL. Pamers, F**ctio*s, amd RespemxAUities of the CaMxet The formaticHi of a cabinet is complete as -soim as its m^nbers have takoti die oath of office, and have been sworn of the king's privy council C3713 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Governor- general and cabinet Minutes of council Cabinet and budget for Canada.^ It immediately assumes its exec- utive duties, and begins its preparations for the assembling and work of the newly-elected parliament. The cabinet is the executive of the Domin- ion. It is the medium of all communications with the governor-general, who in his turn is the medium of all communications, outward and in- ward, with the secretary of state for the colonies at Whitehall. Communications from the cabinet are in the form of minutes of council. Appointments and contracts are also made by minutes of council. Orders-in-council, which have the force of law — orders which are made under many various statutes — issue from the privy council, in other words, from the cabinet. Responsibility for all bills for raising revenue, and for all the estimates that are submitted to parliament providing for the current expenses of the Dominion, lies with the cabinet. The finance bill, colloquially known as the "budget," is prepared by the minister of finance. ^ Every man who is sworn of the king's privy council for Canada is a privy councilor for life. The nine or ten members of the Borden cabinet of 1911-1917 who retired in October, 1917, to facilitate the formation of a union-win-the-war administration remained of the privy council after they had ceased to be members of the cabinet. But the privy council at Ottawa never meets as a body, not even on the death of the sovereign. In the working of the constitution all the duties of the privy council are delegated to the cabinet. [372] THE CABINET Each minister prepares or supervises the prepara- Framing tion of the estimates of the department over °*^ , . budget which he presides. But before the bill of the minister of finance or the estimates for a depart- ment can be submitted to the house of commons, they must receive the approval of the cabinet; for the cabinet as a whole is responsible to parlia- ment for the estimates and the budget.^ The same principle holds in respect to govern- Govern- ment bills concerning matters other than taxa- f!f°* . bills tion and expenditure. It is open to a member framed of the cabinet, before a government bill is sub- ^^. mitted to parliament, to take issue with his colleagues as to the policy embodied in the meas- ure, or as to its principle, or as to details of the bill. If his colleagues refuse to accept his view, and he persists in his opposition, constitutional usage demands that he resign. It is the constitutional privilege of a minister Privilege who resigns from the cabinet — subiect to the °\ ^ , , minister permission of the governor-general, which is who never withheld — to make a statement from his '^^'^^ seat in parliament of the reasons for his disagree- question ment with his colleagues, and of the grounds on °!j^ , , which he resigned. Permission from the governor- general is necessary, because without it proceed- ings in privy council cannot be divulged. Only in parliament can an ex-cabinet minister make his first statement of the reasons for his resignation. The statement must be made in ^ Cf. Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 95-96. [373] EN'OLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA parliament, in order that an answer may be forth- coming from the premier.^ Resignations from the cabinet on account of disagreements of ministers on questions of policy, or as to principles involved in government bills, are infrequent. There were only five such resig- nations in the twenty 3-ears preceding the war. Two members of the Bowell ministry of 1894- 1S96 resigned in 1895 owing to differences with their colleagues on the Manitoba school question. They were differences arising out of proposed remedial legislation under the con- tention-breeding clause 93 of the British North America act. These were resignations from a Conservative administration. There were two resignations from the Liberal government that was in power from 1896 to 191 1. Blair, of New Brunswick, minister of railways and canals, resigned in 1904, because he was opposed to a bill for the construction of a second transcontinental railway. In 1905, Sifton, min- ister of the interior, resigned owing to differences with his colleagues over concessions to the sepa- rate school interests in the bills creating the pro\'inces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Three of the five resignations between 1894 ^^^ 19^4 were thus due to issues originating in section 93 of the constitution of 1867. Monk, of Quebec, resigned from the Borden cabinet in 191 2, because he could not concur in 1 Cf. H. C. Debates, March i, 1905. [374] THE CABINET the decision of the cabinet to make an emergency contribution of ^35,000,000 to the British navy, "with the sanction of parhament, but without giving the Canadian people an opportunity of ex- pressing its approval of this important step." ^ A minister who persists in his opposition to a bill at cabinet stage sometimes embarks on a course that may cost him more than his ofl&ce and his seat in the council chamber. He may break with his party; find himself unwelcome at caucus; forfeit his position as almoner of patronage in his electoral division; and jeopardize his seat in the commons at the general election. It is recognized, however, at Ottawa, as at Westminster, that there is no place in the cabi- net, as it has developed at Westminster since the revolution of 1688, and in all the dominions since 1 841, for a member who cannot go all the way with his colleagues on any bill which the cabinet is about to submit to parliament. A cabinet minister who disagrees with his colleagues, and persists in disagreeing, has no alternative but resignation; for a bill submitted to parliament as a government measure may — often does — involve the fate of the government. Every mem- ber of the cabinet must, therefore, support it in parliament by voice and vote. There are frequently political questions under discussion, both in the constituencies and in parliament, concerning which the cabinet, as a ^ "Canadian Annual Review," 1912, 181-182. [375] Navy Issue of 191S Risks attending resig- nation Member of cabinet must go all the way with his col- EVOLUTION OF THE DOi MINION OF CANADA whole, has come to no agre known as "open questions/'^^ment. These are ment of women, as it was a^ The enfranchise- from 191 1 to 1916, is a typic?^^^^^'^ '"^ ^^"/^^ open question, and of the attitu?! example of an in regard to such questions. ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^'"^^ In a debate on this subject in commons, in the session of 1916, S^^ house ot of the cabinet — Rogers, of Manit"^ member minister of the interior — spoke in fav°°^' ^ ^ parhamentary enfranchisement of womer°'' ° Borden, the premier, would at that time }^\ ^ \^ movement no support; and a motion in f?^^^ ^ votes for women at Dominion elections i^ ^^°'' i feated.^ The minister of the interior, ^^^ ?' speech, and by his difference on this c "^ _ ^^ with the prime minister, infringed no ' question usage of the cabinet. The motion on v^^ V-^ ?^ speech was made did not originate i ^"^ch t e cabinet; and woman suffrage was tri ^^^" ^ an open question. abated as At this time — February, 1916 — wo° on Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta we^^" !" possession of the right to vote at all provn'T^ }^ and municipal elections. A bill to the same' /"^^ had passed the British Columbia legislat and was awaiting the decision of the ele't ^ * The motion that was before the house of com ^^^ was for an amendment of the Dominion elec^ ^ . code by which the women enfranchised bv° , •^ M the 1 H. C. Debates, February 28, 1916. L376I THE CABINET provinces would have the right to vote at elec- tions to the house of commons. Had the premier intimated when the motion was proposed that the government would accept it, and introduce a bill to amend the election code, woman suffrage would no longer have remained in the category of open questions. The amending bill would have received the approval of the cabinet before it could have been introduced into the house of commons as a government measure; and in parliament, as in the cabinet, it must have had the - approval and support of all the cabinet ministers. The duties of a cabinet minister are (i) to assist in council, and to share in the collective responsibility of the cabinet for the acts, meas- ures, and policies of the government; (2) to frame the policies of his department, and with the aid of a deputy-minister, a permanent civil servant, to supervise the administrative work of his department; (3) to receive deputations on all matters connected with his department; (4) to pilot through the house of commons bills that originate in his department; (5) to carry the estimates of his department through committee of supply; (6) to answer all questions in the house of commons concerning the policies and activities of his department; and (7) to support and defend the policies and measures of the ad- ministration in parliament, and when need be on the platform in the constituencies. C377] Circum- stances under which open ques- tion loses that status Duties of cabinet minister Assexa- bT law CHAPTER XIV PARLIAMENT AT WORK: THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ^s.^- IV T EITHER by the constitution, nor by any bUng _L\j i^^ of |-]^e Dominion, is there a fixed time pallia- for the assembling of parUament, as there is ""^ for the assembUng of congress at Washington. dSer- "There shall," reads the British North America ^^ act, "be a session of parliament once at least in every year; so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the parlia- ment in one session and its first sitting in the next session." The financial year of the Do- minion ends on March 31, and this condition practically determines the time at which a new session of parUament begins. Parliament is convened by proclamation, issued vened ^ly the governor-general. The date of its assem- jLia- bly is determined by the cabinet, on whose advice "^■^ the governor-general issues the proclamation. The sessions in normal years extend from Novem- ber until April or May. Organ- At the assembHng of a new parliament the if^ house of commons is without a speaker. The continuing officers of the house are the clerk, the assistant clerk, and the sergeant-at-arms. Much of the work preliminary to the organiza- [378] Con- the bouse THE HOUSE OF COMMONS tion of the house is, by usage, delegated to the clerk. The newly-elected members take the oath^ and sign the roll at the table in the chamber of the commons in the presence of the clerk; and until a speaker has been elected, the clerk is the presiding officer. I. The Speaker and His Office The speaker is the chairman of the commons Duties for the purpose of maintaining order and declar- " ^^^^ ing or interpreting the rules of the house. He is also, unless the house otherwise directs, the spokesman and representative of the house in all communications made in its collective capac- ity to the crown. • At Ottawa the position of the speaker as re- Speaker's gards political parties is midway between the ^^'^^ position of the speaker at Washington and that with his of the speaker at Westminster. At Westminster ^^^ ^ party the speaker, as soon as he has been elected to the chair, ceases to be a partisan. He never enters a political club. Unlike every other mem- ber of the house of commons he makes no political address when he seeks reelection from his con- stituency at a general election. He never pub- licly discusses politics. He is outside the arena of political parties. He serves for two or three parliaments, or for as long as he can stand the ^ "I do swear," reads the oath, "that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his majesty King George V." C379] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Speaker at West- minster Speaker at Washing- ton Cabinet and choice of speaker at Ottawa Strain and burden of an exceedingly arduous office. It is a tradition at Westminster of now a hun- dred years' standing that a speaker must not continue of the house of commons after the end of his ser\4ce in the chair. For a century it has been regarded as incompatible with the dignity of the chair that a speaker should fall back into the rank and file of the house; and since Addington vacated the speakership to become chancellor of the exchequer and premier of the administration of 1 801-1804, 1^0 speaker at West- minster has ever resigned to accept office in the cabinet. A peerage and a pension have been the rewards of speakers at Westminster since the early years of the nineteenth century. At Washington the speakership goes to the leader of the party that is in a majority in the house of representatives, and after election to the chair he continues as leader of his party. Ser%4ce in the chair at Washington, moreover, has frequently been a stepping stone to the position of candidate at national conventions for the presidency of the United States. The choice of speaker at Ottawa, as at West- minster, lies with the cabinet. An election to the chair is not made by the house acting quite apart from the government, although at West- minster the usage is that the nomination of speaker must not be moved in the house of com- mons by any member of the cabinet. C380] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS There is no such usage at Ottawa. The nomi- nation is moved by the premier, who, almost in- variably, is of the commons and is leader for the government in the house. It is sometimes seconded by another member of the cabinet, and usually supported by the leader of the opposition. At the time these speeches are made — always speeches emphasizing the importance and dignity of the office and the eligibility and fitness of the member nominated — the chair is without an occupant. The mace, the symbol of the office, is absent from the table in front of the chair. Members, accordingly, address their remarks by name to the clerk at the table; for the clerk must desig- nate, by pointing to them as they rise in their seats, the members who have the floor to move, to second, and to support the nomination.^ A division is seldom taken on the motion for the election of speaker. Rarely is a second candi- date nominated; for the opposition is aware that a nomination to the chair, moved by the premier, fvill be supported by the full strength of the gov- srnment in the house of commons. The member elected as speaker at Ottawa is seldom of the leaders of his political party, al- though in addition to his obvious master\^ of the rules and procedure of the house, and his ability :o preside, he must have established some claims 3n his party. ^ Cf. election of Edgar Rhodes as speaker, H. C. Debates, [anuary i8, 1917. [381] Premier and election of speaker Ftmctlon of clerk at election of speaker Divi- sions on election of speaker Qualifi- cations of speaks EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Speaker does not attend caucus Speaker's asso- ciation with his party In the chair he must be non-partisan in his ruUngs and in his recognition of members who desire to address the house. He must favor neither the government nor the opposition. He does not go into party caucus; and in no sense is he a leader of his party. It is not, however, the usage at Ottawa, as it is at Westminster, that the speaker shall com- pletely sever himself from his political party. Speakers make political addresses in their own constituencies and elsewhere. They distribute government patronage in their constituencies, like all other members elected to support the government; and there have been instances — one as recent as January, 1917 — in which a speaker has vacated the chair in order to accept office in the cabinet. One tenn only for speaker II. Speakers Alternately from English-Speaking and French-Speaking Canada One reason for the larger freedom at Ottawa is that speakers there, unlike speakers at West- minster, serve only during the lifetime of one parliament. Conditions at Ottawa, partly due to race and language, and partly to long-prevailing ideas as to the distribution of all government patronage, have militated against the Westminster precedent of continuing a member in the chair for two or three parliaments, regardless of the fortunes of political parties at general elections. C382] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS There is a new speaker at Ottawa for each Division new house of commons; and it has long been a "L . . ° . offices custom that when one pohtical party continues between in power for two or three parHaments, if the *^° speaker in one parhament is of British extraction the next one shall be a French-Canadian. It is a rule also that the offices of speaker and Deputy- of deputy-speaker can at no time be held by men ^v^^" of the same race. If the speaker is a French- Canadian, the deputy-speaker, who is also chair- man of committees, must be an English-speaking Canadian; for the rule of the house is that "the member elected to serve as deputy-speaker shall be required to possess the full and practical knowledge of the language which is not that of the speaker for the time being." ^ The clerkship and the assistant clerkship of cierks the house, and the offices of sergeant-at-arms "^^ and deputy-sergeant-at-arms — all appointive as geants- distinct from elective offices — are, by usage, ^t-anns also similarly divided between the two races. Nearly all the offices, important and unimpor- Minor tant, connected with parliament, with the senate ° ^^^ as well as with the house, are distributed in accord- ance with these rules or usages. A roll call of the staffs of the two houses, including even the boys in knickerbockers who act as pages, would contain the names of almost as many French- Canadians as Canadians of British ancestry. 1 Rules of the H. of C, 1909, 7; "Canadian Annual Review," 191 1, 304. [383] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Origin The rules and usages by virtue of which this °!_, , distribution of offices is made are older than Con- diTision of offices federation. They date back to the early years of the United Provinces, when Quebec and On- tario elected exactly the same number of mem- bers to the legislature, and when these were the only provinces in the union. French Quebec today elects only 65 of the 234 members Canada ^^ ^j^^ house of commons. Its population is not equal One foutth of the population of the Dominion, division j^g contribution to Dominion revenues does not of offices exceed one sixth. But an equal division of the offices of the house of commons is regarded by Quebec as necessary to the preservation of its rights and privileges; and so long as each political party, when it is in power, is dependent on sup- port from French-Canada, it will be nearly as difficult to ignore the claim of Quebec to these parliamentary honors and offices as it would be to repeal the clause in the British North America act that safeguards the separate schools system. III. The Crown and the Speaker — The Crown and the House Pledges As soon as the motion for the election of the ^^^ speaker has been carried, the speaker, addressing speaker the house, not from the chair, but from the steps to the chair, pledges himself to maintain the rights and privileges of the commons, and asks the aid of all his colleagues in so doing. He then takes the chair, and the sergeant-at-arms, who [384] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS is the custodian of the mace, lays the mace on the table. Even yet the house is not completely organ- ized. Another step must be taken before all the constitutional usages have been observed. The crown must approve of the choice which the house has made of speaker. For this purpose the commons are summoned by black rod to the bar of the senate. They go in procession from their chamber to that of the senate. In this procession the sergeant-at-arms, bearing the mace, goes first, closely followed by the speaker, who is attended by a group of his fellow-members of the house of commons. At the bar of the senate the speaker announces his election to the governor-general, and submits himself, as is the custom at Westminster, "with all humility," for the approbation of the crown. Approval and confirmation are announced from the throne; and the speaker then demands "the ancient and undoubted rights and privileges of the commons." These are granted, and the speaker and his retinue return to the house of commons. At the opening session of a new parhament the house of commons has still one more duty to discharge before it is ready to consider the speech from the throne with which every new session is opened. Following a usage of the house of com- mons at Westminster, which can be traced at least as far back as 1558,^ the house of commons 1 Porritt, "Unreformed House of Commons," I, 543. [385] Approval of speaker by crown State proces- sion to senate Speaker at bar of senate House asserts its inde- pendence of crown EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA BiU No. 1 Dis- appear- ance of BUI No. 1 Leader of his majesty's oppo- sition at Ottawa reads a bill in order to assert its right of deliberation without reference to the cause of summons as stated in the royal proclamation convening parliament, or to the business to which the attention of parliament has been directed in the speech from the throne. A dummy bill, long known at Ottawa as "Bill No. I," "respecting the administration of oaths of office," is handed by the clerk to a member on the treasury benches, — the benches on which sit the members of the cabinet, — who introduces it to the house, and moves that it be read a first time.^ No further progress is ever attempted with Bill No. I. It disappears from the order paper of the house the day after it has been read a first time, and is not seen or heard of again until the opening of the next session of parliament, when it is once more brought out from cold storage to serve its purpose as an assertion on the part of the house of its independence of the crown. IV. The Leader of the Opposition Organization of the house is not complete until another and an extra-constitutional step has been taken. The leader of his majesty's opposition has yet to be elected. A salary of ^7000 a session has, since 1905, been paid to the leader of the opposition, in addition to the allowance of ^2500 that he receives as member of the house. Pay- 1 Cf. H. C. Debates, January 19, 1917. [386] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Elected at caucus ment of a salary to the leader of the opposition is an innovation on the usage at Westminster. It is, so far as the British Empire is concerned, an innovation peculiar to the house of commons of Canada.^ The method by which the leader of the opposi- tion is chosen is also an innovation on procedure at Westminster. He is elected at a caucus which is attended only by the members of the opposi- tion in the house of commons. Senators who are of the opposition do not attend the caucus; and except very infrequently senators, whether sup- porters of the government or of the opposition, take no part in caucuses held in the commons wing of the parliament building. The caucus is an extra-constitutional institu- tion which has never been established at West- minster by either of the two historic parties in washing- British politics. In Canada it is admittedly an *°° importation from the United States. It was well established in the era of the United Provinces at least as early as 1854; ^ and it was generally in use in the United Provinces, in the constituencies as well as at Ottawa, at Con- federation. Impor- tation from 1 "This afFords a not very remote analogy with the advo- catus diaholi in courts which are to pass upon the proposed canonization of a saint — and to the employment and pay- ment by the state of counsel for an accused upon his trial." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 107. ^ Cf. Buckingham and Ross, 121. C 387 ] •iSB E\"OLL"noN OF ry.z dominion of Canada Both the parr%" supporting the government and the party in opposition maintain the caucus rrs te uL. Members of the cabinet, who are of the house of coauDons, discuss in the caucus of their party the policies, bills, plans, and sometimes the appointm^its of the government. In the caucus of the opposition at the opening of the first sesaon of a new parliament, the leado- of the party in the h:;isr ;: c:cmnons is elected, and the attitude to ct :i^r- t?— ards g pv emmait measures and policie- i ir trrined. The caucus at Ottawa, while admittedly pat- terned after the caucus at Washington, is at least cMie stage behind the caucus of the house of represaitatives in development. The constit- noits of a m^nber of the house of commons have as good a constitutioaal rig^t to be informed of what he says and how he votes in caucus, as c f his speeches and votes in the house of commons. At Wadiington since 19 13 this right of con- stitooits has been recoguBed. Representatives of the press are admitted to caucus. At Ottawa the li^ts of constitn^ts in this matter have been ignored for fifty years. A caucus is always r.z\i iz\lnd dosed doors; and there is no full ^r. 1 . irirndent public record of its proceedings, as there 5 :: iTiites and votes in the house of cMmnons. The act of parliament of 1905 which authorizes the payment of a salary to the leader of the oppo- siticHi, when it was before the house as a bill, C388] conten- tious THE HOUSE OF COxM.MONS was treated as an agreed or non-contentious Salary measure. It was a bill for increasing the allow- °f ^ ^ ances of members and senators from $1500 to oppo- $2500; establishing pensions of $3500 a year for ex-members of the cabinet; ^ and providing a salar^^ for the leader of the opposition. All the details of the bill had been agreed on Anon- at a caucus of the supporters of the government, and at a caucus of the members of the opposition; bm and as both political parties were satisfied with all its provisions, the measure fell into the cate- gory of non-contentious bills. The circumstances under which the bill was An era submitted to the house bv the government — ° .^^ feeling the era of good feeling in which it was born — explain the brevity and looseness of the section by virtue of which the salary of the leader of the opposition is paid. It neither defines an opposi- tion, nor indicates by whom and how the leader of the opposition shall be chosen. All that the section declares is that "to the a vague member occupying the recognized position of ^ ^^ leader of the opposition in the house of commons worded there shall be payable an additional sessional ^^'^'^^ allowance of $7000." There is no provision in the law for a certificate Warrant of election, nor for a report to the house of com- mons of the result of the election. The member of elected in caucus takes his seat on the bench on ^^^ ^ The pension section of the act of 1905 aroused wide- spread popular indignation, and was repealed in 1906. [389] for payment EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the opposition side of the house, assigned by custom to the leader of the opposition, and his appearance there is the warrant for the payment of the salary. V. The Seating of the House — Grouping of Parties Descrip- The chamber in which the commons hold their ^^ sittings is oblong.^ It is divided by a spacious chamber aisle extending from the main entrance — the entrance at which the bar is erected, and at which the sergeant-at-arms is stationed — to the clerk's table and the speaker's chair, which is on a dais nearly the height of the table. Treasury Members sit at desks in rows on each side of the aisle, rows which rise in tiers running back to the ends of the chamber. In the front row, to the speaker's right, sit the members of the cabinet. The most commanding place in the row is assigned to the premier, who is the leader of the house. By unwritten law the desks in this front row are always occupied by ministers, as active members of the privy council. In the rows rising behind sit members who were elected to support the government. 1 The chamber of the commons, also that of the senate, as well as many offices in parliament house, were destroyed by fire on February 3, 1916. A new and enlarged parliament house, on the site of the old building, was being erected at the time this study of the evolution of the Dominion of Canada was in preparation. C390] bench THE HOUSE OF COMMONS The desks in the front row to the speaker's Front left are occupied by the leaders of the opposition. "^^ As members of a previous cabinet, they have a bench prescriptive right to these places, because they also are of the privy council for Canada, although on their ceasing to act as ministers they no longer attend at council. Cabinet ministers thus face the leaders of the Rank opposition. They are almost near enough to ^^^ ® them to carry on a conversation in a whisper oppo- across the aisle. The rank and file of the oppo- ^^'^°^ sition occupy the rows of desks behind those assigned to their leaders. At Westminster members of the government cierk and the leaders of the opposition speak from the ^* rr ... mace clerk's table that serves as a division between the treasury bench and the front opposition bench. No such use is made of the table at Ottawa. It is reserved for the clerk and the assistant clerk, and as the place of the mace while the house is in session and the speaker is in the chair. The mace is on the table only at such times, with- When the house is in committee, and the ^/^^ . oi mace presiding officer is the chairman of committees m and not the speaker, the mace is taken from *^°™" *^ ' mittee the table. The larger use of the table of the house of com- mons at Westminster — its centuries' long use as the place from which ministers and leaders of the opposition address the house — is due to the difference in seating of the two chambers. C391 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Termi- nology of West- minster in use at Ottawa Privilege of floor Govern- or- general and the house Only benches are provided for members of the house of commons of the mother of parliaments. At Ottawa every member is provided with a chair and a desk; and it is from their desks that members address the house. This difference in furnishing has not, however, prevented the adoption at Ottawa of terms descriptive of parts of the chamber in use at Westminster since gov- ernment by party was established there more than two centuries ago. Despite the absence of benches, the row of desks at which members of the cabinet sit is described as the "treasury bench"; and the row to the left of the speaker as the " front opposition bench." The privilege of the floor of the house of com- mons is much more restricted than that of the house of representatives at Washington. It is nearly as closely restricted as at Westminster, where a stranger is never permitted beyond the bar. At Ottawa the privilege is not granted to senators or to ex-members of the house, nor is it extended to visitors, however distinguished, except by motion adopted by the house. The floor is reserved for members, and for such of the house of commons staff' whose duties make it necessary that they pass inside the bar. A gallery facing the speaker's chair is reserved for the family and entourage of the governor- general. It is part of the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom that the King must not be present at a sitting of the house of commons. C392] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS The governor-general is the representative of the crown in Canada, and as such .he must never be present in the house of commons at Ottawa. VI. The House, the Public, and the Press There are galleries on all four sides of the cham- Public her, all freely open to visitors. A motion can be ^ ^ made by a member at any time that the speaker order strangers to withdraw. Not more than two or three times in the first half-century of Confederation were strangers excluded from the galleries. The press gallery is immediately above the Press speaker's chair. One custom of this gallery is ^^^^ peculiar to Ottawa among press galleries in parliaments of the English-speaking world. Re- porters representing newspapers which support the government sit, like the government members, to the speaker's right. Reporters for opposition newspapers sit to the left of the chair. After a general election which has involved PoUticai a change of government, reporters, like members, ^^^ change sides in the chamber. The custom in press accordance with which this change of seats in the press gallery is made illustrates relations long existing between political parties and the press. Canada is a country of many newspaper organs Party and singularly few independent journals. There "^s^^ are not more than three or four politically inde- pendent daily newspapers in all the cities from [393] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Halifax to Vancouver. Only in these few news- papers is there independent eulogy or criticism of the government or of the opposition. The other daily newspapers are organs, either of the party in office or of the party out of office. Govern- Conservative newspapers, during a tenure of reyretfds power by the Conservative party, are rewarded for by the bestowal of cabinet office or senator- °®^" ships on the controlling owners; by knighthoods paper ^ _ =• ... owners and Other titular honors; by the distribution of government patronage to owners or editors; by orders for government printing; and by government advertising. Widely At the end of the term of a Conservative *^^^ government there is scarcely a Conservative lar- daily newspaper organ whose owners and editors ^®^^ have not received some reward or largess from the government. With a change of government, favors to Conservative newspapers come to an abrupt end. It then becomes the turn of the Liberal newspaper organs to receive similar honors and rewards. Press Any policy or measure of the government, or any policy of the opposition, which secures the indorsement of the party caucus, is, as a result of these close and long-standing relations between political parties and the press, certain of the eulogy and support of the newspaper organs of the party. For eighteen years the Liberal party contin- uously opposed the protectionist tariffs enacted [394] and caucus THE HOUSE OF COMMONS at the instance of the Conservative governments of 1 878-1 896, and also opposed a system of boun- ties for industries that had been estabHshed by the Conservatives. A Liberal government came into power in 1896; and in 1897, bills were framed by the cabinet continuing and extending the protectionist tariff, and also greatly extending the system of bounties for the iron and steel in- dustry which the Conservative government had begun in 1883. Both these bills — bills which completely re- versed the fiscal policy of the Liberals during their eighteen years of opposition — were indorsed by a caucus of the Liberal members of the house of commons; and within a few days this complete, unexpected, and startling change of policy had received the indorsement and support of the Liberal organs in all the nine provinces. From Confederation to 191 1 the Conservative party advocated reciprocity with the United States. In three of its tariff acts the Conserv- ative government inserted sections which pro- vided that as soon as Canadian farm, forest, and mineral products were admitted free of duty into the United States, similar products of the United States should be admitted duty free into Canada. Three or four times in the years from 1867 to 191 1 members of Conservative administrations journeyed from Ottawa to Washington to urge governments there to accept the long-standing C395] Organs take their cue from caucus A volte face by Liberal organs in 1897- 1898 Volte face of Conserv- ative organs in 1911 Conserv- ative record on reciproc- ity EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA offers of reciprocity embodied in Canadian tariffs; and during these thirty-four years organs of the Conservative party never ceased to emphasize the importance of reciprocity to the farmers, lumber- men, miners, and fishermen of the Dominion. In the United States tariff act of 1910, the government at Washington proclaimed its willing- ness to establish reciprocity, not by treaty, as in 1854, but by concurrent legislation. The Liberal government of 1 896-191 1 promptly and cordially accepted the long-desired overtures from Washing- ton. Resolutions preliminary to a bill to make effective the reciprocity agreement were intro- duced in the house of commons. The Con- servatives went into caucus on the resolutions. There, at the instance of the protected manu- facturers and the railway and transport companies, it was decided that the resolutions must be opposed; that the Liberal government must either withdraw them, or be compelled by ob- struction in the house of commons to dissolve parliament. Within a week after the caucus at Ottawa every Conservative newspaper organ in the Dominion was vehemently declaring that reci- procity with the United States would ruin the Dominion and endanger the connection of Canada with the British Empire. These close and long-standing relations of political parties with the newspapers — relations as old as Confederation — explain the change C396] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS in the press gallery after a general election that Organs has resulted in a change of government at Ottawa. ^ The custom is based on the presumption that of reporters of newspapers that are organs of the ^ ^*®^ government will, as a matter of course, give most attention to the supporters of the government in the house of commons, and that reporters for organs of the opposition will give most attention to the speeches of the members who sit to the speaker's left. Much more than at either Westminster or joumai- Washington, the press gallery at Ottawa is a ^®™ stepping-stone to a career in Dominion politics stepping- or in the civil service. But a journalist whose ^toneto seat in the press gallery is to the speaker's left career expects nothing so long as the political party to which he is attached is in opposition. Parliamentary debates are not as fully reported News- in the newspapers as are debates at Westminster p^p^*" in the newspapers of the United Kingdom. For of fifteen or sixteen years before the war they were debates not as fully reported as they were in the first thirty-five years of Confederation. As the Dominion developed, and the material prosperity of a part of its population greatly increased, new interests — industrial, financial, and social — pressed on the attention of the newspapers. Popular interest in the debates, and in the contention of political parties at Ottawa, more- over, obviously slackened after the only well- marked dividing line between Conservatives and [ 397 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Dis- Liberals disappeared in 1897. This line was appear- obliterated by a Liberal government. Protec- of old tionist tariffs — the Cayley and Gait tariffs of uLT*"^ 1858 and 1859 — constituted a dividing line between between Conservatives and Liberals in the era political q£ ^Yxe United Provinces. After Confederation parties protection was again a dividing line — the most obvious dividing line — from 1870 to 1897. The line disappeared completely after official Liberalism at Ottawa, as distinct from Liberalism in the constituencies, was suddenly converted to the Conservative policies of high tariffs and generous bounties to some Canadian industries. Absence No Outstanding political principle thereafter ^^ divided Conservatives from Liberals. No new political . ... . _^ . . Issues issues based on principles arose in Dominion politics until 1910, when there was some contro- versy over the form in which Canada should contribute to the strengthening of the British navy, and 191 1, when the question of reciprocity with the United States was revived. Easing A great slackening of political propaganda down of jj^ ^]^g constituencies followed the volte face of propa- the Liberals on protection in 1897; for there was ganda ^q longer a question to be discussed which aroused popular interest all over the Dominion. With the slowing down of political activities there was a decline in popular interest in the debates in the house of commons, which soon manifested itself in a curtailment of the space appropriated in the newspapers to parliamentary reports. [398] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Even under these newer conditions — the Reports wider range of pubHc interests other than political ^eb^tes demanding continuous attention from the news- papers, and the absence in the years from 1897 to 1914 of any well-marked and long-continuing dividing line between Conservatives and Liberals — debates in the house of commons are much more fully reported in Canadian newspapers than are debates in Congress in newspapers in the United States. Proceedings in parliament are also accorded More more continuous attention in the editorial columns ^^", cussion of the Canadian newspapers than is given in of American newspapers to proceedings in Congress. ^"*^<=^ Dominion politics, moreover, are much more Canada discussed in the home, on the street, in hotel „ ' ' United than in United corridors and clubs, and in the street cars and the states railway trains, in Canada than federal politics are so discussed in the United States. In some aspects of industrial and social life — ■ Kinship particularly of social life — Canadians are more °^ . . . . political akin to their American neighbors than to the ufein people of England or Scotland. But Canadian Canada political life in most of its aspects is much more pouticai akin to political Hfe in England than to political ^®"^ IT • U TT • J C England hte in the United btates. Especially is this true as regards popular interest in the proceedings of parliament. It is due partly to the love of Canadians for political affairs and political discussions; partly to the stimulus given to popular political education C399] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA and discussion by the fact that at Ottawa there are men whose names and figures are familiar all over the Dominion, confronting each other decade after decade in political rivalry; and partly to the fact that at Ottawa there is no fixed period for an administration, and that any day a political crisis may develop there that may involve the fate of a government and confront the Dominion with a general election. Rules of British parlia- ment adopted at Confed- eration VII. Procedure of the House — Debate on the Address to the Governor-General Procedure of the house of commons is deter- mined by rules which are continuing — ■ rules which are not adopted by each new house in the first days of a new parliament, but which are part of what may be described as the law of parliament. The legislatures of the old British North Ameri- can provinces east of the Great Lakes, when they were organized in the years between 1758 and 1792, each adopted, as far as was practicable amid their primitive surroundings, the rules of procedure of the parliament at Westminster. From 1 841 to 1866 the legislature of the United Provinces was governed by the rules of the British parliament; and in the first session of the parliament of the Dominion the rules of the house of commons were closely modeled on the rules of the house of commons at Westminster. [ 400 ] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS A general rule — Rule No. i — was then Rule adopted, a rule still in force at Ottawa, which °* declares that in all cases not provided for in the rules, "the rules, usages, and forms of proceedings of the house of commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in force on the first day of July, 1867, shall be followed." ^ Not all the rules and usages of Westminster No are practicable at Ottawa. At Westminster, ^^^^^^ because there is in England an established church, Ottawa prayers in the house of commons are read by a chaplain, who is of the Church of England. In Canada there is no national church. There is no chaplain of the house of commons. Prayers are read by the speaker. At Westminster forty members of the house Quorum have, since 1640, constituted a quorum. At Ottawa, where the number of members is less than one third of those at Westminster, twenty members constitute a quorum. Every member is bound to attend the house, Noroii- unless leave of absence has been given. There is ^^S~Qf no call of the roll and no reading of the journals, whips as there is in the senate and house at Washington. Each political party has its whips — members of the party to whom is delegated the duty of keeping members in attendance. The organ- ization and activities of the whips' offices are such that the whereabouts of every member of the house is known. ^ Rules of H. C. of Canada, 1909, i. [401 ] from the throne EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Keeping Pairs for divisions are arranged by the whips; ^ and on the government whips is thrown the responsibihty of keeping a quorum, especially at those sittings at which government business is before the house. Speech Procedure in regard to the speech from the throne at the opening of a session at Ottawa is identical with that at Westminster. Even the form of the speech is the same. The opening paragraphs foreshadowing the legislation that is to be introduced during the session, and describ- ing material conditions in the Dominion, are addressed to members of the senate and the house; while the paragraph intimating that the govern- ment will need votes of money is addressed to the house of commons alone. The final paragraph commending the measures to be submitted to the attention of parliament, and invoking the blessing of the Almighty on the deliberations, is, like the opening paragraphs, addressed to "honorable gentlemen of the sen- ate; gentlemen of the house of commons." ^ Debate The Speech comes before the house of commons address °" ^ motion made from the government benches in reply — a motion for which the government is respon- speech ^''^^^ — ^'^^^ " ^^ address be presented to his excellency, the governor-general, offering the thanks of this house to his excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament." 1 Cf. H. C. Debates, January 19, 1917. [402 ] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS To two of the younger members, members who are recognized as men of promise, is assigned the duty of proposing and seconding the motion for the address of thanks. It is a much-prized distinction to be invited by the leader of the house to render this service. Only supporters of the government are asked to undertake it. In accordance with a usage which had its origin in the legislature of the United Provinces, the motion is proposed by an English-speaking member, and seconded by a member from Quebec, who addresses the house in French. Thus, at the beginning of a new session — usually at the second sitting — the house and the Dominion are formally reminded of the compact at Con- federation that the two languages should be on an equality in parliament. Except for the introduction of bills, the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne takes precedence of all other business. Any question within the realm of Dominion politics, or of Empire politics, can be discussed when the address is before the house. There is no time limit for speeches. It was 1913 before the house had any rule under which a debate on any subject could be closured. So far in the history of the new rule it has never been applied in the debate on the address, and usually from eight to ten sittings are devoted to it. The first member to address the house after [403] Motion for address Dual language Prece- dence for debate on motion No time limit for speeches EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Leader of oppo- sition and the address Criticism of govern- ment Expert criticism the motion has been proposed and seconded is the leader of the opposition, who avails himself of this opportunity to make a general criticism of the policies of the government. The premier and leader of the house replies to the speech from the front opposition bench; and thereafter the debate on the address becomes general. All the leaders on the two front benches take part. It is a custom also that ex-ministers in opposition criticize the policies and measures of their successors in office. Thus, if the minister of finance in the late government is of the house, he directs his criticism to the policies that originate in the department of finance; and the minister of finance, when he intervenes in the debate, replies at length, and in detail, to the criticisms offered by his predecessor in office. In the same way it often happens that the minister of the interior replies to an ex-minister of the interior, and the postmaster-general to the member of the opposition who held this office in the preceding administration. The custom so described gives a zest and inter- est to the debate, an interest that extends far beyond the house and the galleries. It results in a discussion of the policies and administration of the principal departments of state by men who from their experience are regarded as experts. Back-bench members on both sides of the house, in the debate on the address, have the best opportunity of the session of expressing [404] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS their opinions and convictions; and, through the official verbatim reports of the debates and the newspapers, of presenting their opinions and convictions to their constituents. VIII. The Constitutional Value of the Debate on the Address The debate has much more than a formal or More ceremonial value. It has a larger value than of ^_* affording ex-ministers an opportunity of criticizing moniai their successors in office, and back-bench members ^*^"® of addressing their constituents from the floor of the house of commons. It offers the house, and through the house, the Discus- Dominion, two opportunities that at times are of ^1.°° °^- much constitutional value. It can be, and often Dominion has been, a debate on the state of the Dominion, an opportunity of calling the attention of gov- ernment to unfavorable conditions In the body politic, for which It Is urgent that some remedy shall be devised. It also affords an opportunity to the opposition ChaUen- of challenging the policy of the government, p^jf^j^g of testing, by a division, the feeling of the house, of and of Informing the constituencies of the grounds ^^' and expediency of the challenge. If the opposition In caucus has decided on Amend- challenglng any policy of the government — motioV** on a challenge that is to be pressed to a division — the mode of procedure Is quite simple. No objection is raised by the opposition to the address [405] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Motion of want of con- fidence in govern- ment Presen- tation of address to governor- general of thanks to the governor-general. To object to the motion would be discourteous, if not dis- loyal, despite the fact that the speech from the throne is framed by the cabinet. An amendment is offered of which the purpose is threefold. It expresses concurrence with the proposed address of thanks; condemns the policy which is assailed; and expresses regret that in the speech from the throne there is no announcement that the policy challenged is to be amended or abandoned. An amendment framed on these lines is equiv- alent to a motion of want of confidence in the government. It is so regarded on both sides of the house; and for a division on such an amend- ment the government and opposition whips beat up all the strength that each party can com- mand. No government that was defeated on an amendment to the address could hope to carry on through the session. The premier would have no alternative but to tender his resignation to the governor-general. After the motion for the address of thanks has been adopted by the house, it is followed by another motion, proposed and seconded from the treasury bench, that "the said address be en- grossed, and presented to his excellency the governor-general, by such members of this house as are of the honorable the privy council." ^ This is a formal motion on which there is no debate. Cf. H. C. Debates, January 30, 1917. [406] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IX. The Select Standing Committees of the House While the house is occupied with the debate on the address, a special committee, on which are supporters of the government and members of the opposition, has prepared lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the house — committees which continue only during the session in which they are appointed. There are eleven of these committees, in addi- tion to a committee that has charge of the official reports of the debates, and a committee that, in association with a committee of the senate, has charge of the library of parliament. Supporters of the government are in a majority on each committee. Membership of the com- mittees varies from 25 to 119. The importance of a committee, and the volume of work that is referred to it, are indicated by the number of its members. The committees are: Members 1. Privileges and elections 34 2. Railways, canals, and telegraph lines 119 3. Miscellaneous private bills 64 4. Standing orders 31 5. Printing 25 6. Public accounts 63 7. Banking and commerce 95 8. Agriculture and colonization 94 [407] Nomina- tions of standing com- mittees Member- ship of com- mittees Descrip- tion of com- mittees of com- mittees EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA 9. Marine and fisheries 36 10. Mines and minerals 30 1 1 . Forests, waterways, and water powers 3 1 Election The Special committee which has prepared the lists of members to compose these committees makes its report as soon as the address to the governor-general has been adopted. The govern- ment, in practice, is responsible for the organ- ization of the house for this committee work — work that is quite distinct from the work of com- mittees of the whole house, such as the committee of ways and means and the committee of supply. Powers The acceptance of the report of the special of com- committee is moved by the leader of the house. mittees n i • • i By this motion, when agreed to, the committees are established and empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house; called upon to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; and empowered to send for persons, papers, and records.^ Watch- From time to time the committees avail them- *^°s selves of the power to send for persons, papers, treasury and records. Most use of this power is made by the committee on public accounts. It investi- gates the expenditure of public money, and may be described as the parliamentary watchdog of the treasury. 1 Cf. H. C. Debates, January 31, 1917. [408] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS X. Procedure on Bills Procedure in the house of commons on bills is, Bills in its main lines, almost identical with that in the o^eimte senate. But there is a range of bills which cannot in house originate elsewhere than in the house of commons, 1 "'™' o ^ mons In the senate there is neither committee of ways and means nor committee of supply; for bills imposing any charge on the people of the Dominion or making any grant for the services of the crown cannot originate in the upper house. "All aids and supplies granted to his majesty Aids and by the parliament of Canada," reads house rule ^^^ ®^ No. 78, " are the sole gift of the house of commons; and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the house, as it is the un- doubted right of the house to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, con- siderations, conditions, limitations, and qualifica- tions of such grants, which are not alterable by the senate." All money bills — all bills imposing a charge BUis that on the people of Canada — must be based on resolutions of the house of commons; and the with usage is that private members — members not p^^**® - . . . . members of the cabinet — cannot introduce bills of this description. The bills must originate with the government, and the house can act on them only with the leave of the crown. ^ ^ "The provision which prevents the house passing any such bill unless it shall first have been recommended by message [409] originate EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Reso- No bill, moreover, relating to trade, or the lutions alteration of laws concerning trade, can be intro- nary to duced Until "the proposition shall have been first ^^^^ considered in a committee of the whole house, and agreed unto by the house." ^ This means that there must be resolutions preliminary to the bill, resolutions which add an additional stage to the stages of an ordinary bill. Intro- Two days' notice must be given of a motion ductton f^j. leave to introduce a bill, resolution, or address for the appointment of any committee. On the day designated leave to introduce a bill is given, the bill is introduced, and it is read a first time. Except in the case of important bills, introduced by the government, there is seldom any debate at first reading. A brief explanation of the general aim or purpose of the bill is all that is offered by the member who introduces it. Second At second reading the case for the bill is fully reading presented. It is at second reading that the house decides for or against the principle of the bill. But if there is opposition, and it is desired that the house shall not commit itself on the principle, a second course is open. "Six It can be moved that the bill be given "six ^T^f months' hoist." This motion is equivalent to the motion at Westminster that "the bill be from the governor-general, emphasizes the responsibility of the ministry for the expenditure of every dollar of public money." — Riddell, "Constitution of Canada," 95-96. ^ Rules of the House of Commons, 1909, Rule 48. [410] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS read a second time this day six months." If the motion is carried, it is as fatal for the bill as a direct rejection, for nothing more is heard during a session of a bill that has been given the six months' hoist. If the house accepts the principle of a bill at second reading, the bill goes either to one of the standing committees, or it is considered in com- mittee of the whole house. If it goes to a stand- ing committee, committee stage in the house is not omitted. The purpose of sending it to a stand- ing committee is to perfect its details, and thereby lessen the work on the bill in committee of the whole house. At second-reading stage, and also at the third reading of a bill, a member can speak only once. In committee of the whole the bill is considered clause by clause. At this stage, unless the closure has been moved and a time limit fixed for com- mittee stage, there is no restriction on the number of times a member can speak, or on the number of amendments he can offer, provided that the amendments are germane to the bill. From committee the bill is reported to the house. This is a distinct stage — a stage at which, when amendments have been made in committee, debate and amendments are in order. In the event of a bill being reported from commit- tee without amendments, report stage is formal. Third reading is the last stage of a bill. It then goes to the senate. If the senate amends a [411] standing com- mittees and com- mittee of the whole Com- mittee stage in the house Report stage Third reading EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Royal assent BlUs formerly reserved Instruc- tions to governor- general Revision of instruc- tions in 1878 bill and the house disagrees, the question is settled by messages or by conference, usually by message. The royal assent must be given before a bill becomes law. The British North America act provides that when a bill is presented to the governor-general for the king's assent, "he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to the provisions of this act, and to his majesty's instructions, either that he assents thereto in the king's name, or that he withholds the king's assent, or that he reserves the bill for the signifi- cation of the king's pleasure." For a few years after Confederation certain bills, including all divorce bills, were reserved, and did not become law until the signification from the crown had been received at Ottawa from London, a fact which was announced by procla- mation issued by the governor-general. This procedure, a procedure established in connection with certain classes of bills in the days of the legislature of the United Provinces, was in accordance with the instructions received by the governor-general on his appointment. But in 1876, Blake, minister of justice in the Mackenzie cabinet of 1 873-1 878, for the govern- ment, objected to this and other provisions in the royal instructions to the governor-general. Blake's case was that the instructions to which the Mackenzie government objected were incon- sistent with the advanced stage of responsible government existing in the Dominion. [412] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS "Canada," the colonial office was reminded in this Blake memorandum of July, 1876, "is not merely a colony or a province; she is a dominion composed of an aggregate of seven large provinces federally united under an imperial charter, which expressly recites that her constitution is to be similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Nay, more, besides the powers with which she is invested over a large part of the affairs of the inhabitants of the several provinces, she enjoys absolute powers of legislation and administration over the people and territories of the north- west, out of which she has already created one province, and is empowered to create others, with representative insti- tutions. "These circumstances, together with the vastness of her area, the numbers of her free population, the character of the representative institutions and of the responsible govern- ment which as citizens of the various provinces and of Canada her people have so long enjoyed, all point to the propriety of dealing with the question in hand in a manner very dif- ferent from that which might be fitly adopted with reference to a single and comparatively small and young colony. "Besides the general spread of the principles of constitu- tional freedom there has been, in reference to the colonies, a recognized difference between their circumstances resulting in the application to those in a less advanced condition of a lesser measure of self-government, while others are said to be invested with the fullest freedom of political government; and it may be fairly stated that there is no dependency of the British crown which is entitled to so full an application of the principlies of constitutional freedom as the Dominion of Canada." The erection of another landmark in the consti- tutional development of Canada, in the progress of the Dominion to the status of a nation, re- sulted from the interchanges of 1876 between Ottawa and the colonial office. The commission C413] The case for larger powers Canada's claim for constitu- tional freedom AU claims conceded EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Veto power dormant and instructions given to the governor-general of the Dominion were recast when Lome succeeded DufFerin in 1878. The principles that Blake and the Mackenzie administration had insisted upon were conceded by the colonial office; "and since then there has been no dispute with ref- erence to ministerial responsibility, either with regard to the assent to bills, the granting of par- dons, or anything else." ^ As a result of this revision in 1878, and of the greatly increased power which the government at Ottawa gradually drew to itself under the unwritten, as well as the written, constitution of the Dominion, the power to veto or reserve a bill is dormant. It has so long been out of use as to be almost forgotten in Canada;^ and parlia- ment at Ottawa passes bills with as little appre- hension of a veto as parliament at Westminster, where the veto power of the crown, though the exercise of it was threatened by George III in 1774 and again by George IV in 1829,^ has not been used since the reign of Queen Anne. ^ Lash, " The Working of Federal Institutions in Canada," -85; Keith, " Responsible Government in the Dominions," 240, Cf. Rlddell, "Constitution of Canada," 97, and Note J XIX, III. ■ ^ Cf. James Anson Farrer, "The Monarchy in Politics," 82, 128. [414] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS XL Government Business: Private Members* Bills and Private Bill Legislation Bills introduced in the house of commons are of Three three classes: government bills, private members' of^^^uis bills, and private bill legislation. All bills for which the government is respon- Govem- sible are in the first of these classes. In normal ^j^ times government business monopolizes two thirds of the time of the house. The two impor- tant government bills — bills which occupy much of the time of the house each session — • are (i) the finance bill or the budget, and (2) the bill voting supplies for all the services of the Dominion. The finance bill is framed by the minister of Budget finance. Before it is introduced, any increases or decreases in taxation that are embodied in it have been discussed and approved by the cabinet. The minister of finance makes his budget state- ment on a motion that the house go into commit- tee of ways and means; and it is on resolutions, considered in committee of ways and means, that the finance bill is founded. The statement of the minister is long and de- Speech tailed. Two, and sometimes three, hours are occupied in its submission to the house. It covers of the receipts and expenditures of the government for the fiscal year, and includes a detailed sta- tistical survey of the material progress of the Do- minion. Finally, the changes in taxation are announced. Increases or decreases in customs or [415] of minister finance EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Indirect taxation Sources of revenue Private members and amend- ments to finance bill Inland revenue duties go Into effect Immediately on their announcement In the house of commons by the minister of finance. People In Canada, In normal times, do not come face to face with the tax gatherers of the Dominion government. Except for stamps on tobacco, cigars, and patent medicines, they are never reminded, unless they are Importers, that the government at Ottawa Is exercising its powers of taxation.^ All the revenue Is derived from three sources. By far the larger part of It comes from Indirect taxation — from (i) customs duties on imports and (2) inland or Internal revenue duties on wines, spirits, and beer, and on tobacco and patent medicines. The third source Is mining royalties, payments for leases of lands and of water privi- leges, and for services rendered by the govern- ment as a carrier of mails, and also as the owner of railways, grain elevators, and coastwise steamship lines. After the resolutions have been adopted in committee and embodied In a bill, procedure on the bill is much the same as on a non-financial measure. But at no stage of the finance bill is it ^ A tax on excess profits of manufacturing, transport, insurance, banking, and other business companies was im- posed as a war-time finance measure in 1916. Except for this, and some other direct imposts of the war period, no direct taxation has ever been imposed by the Dominion parHament. [416] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS in order for a private member to move to increase any charge imposed by the bill. A motion to increase a tax can be made only from the treasury bench. A motion to decrease a tax, made by any member of the house of commons, is in order; and it is on such motions that discussions occur when the house is in committee on the schedules of a tariff bill. Debates on the budget extend over an even larger number of sittings than the debate on the address to the governor-general; for almost any aspect of Dominion politics can be discussed when the budget is before the house. In the period from 1878 to 1896, when the Liberal opposition was conducting in the constit- uencies, as well as in the house and the senate, a vigorous and continuous propaganda for a tariff for revenue only, debates on the finance bill ran on for weeks, and the people of the Dominion looked on with keen interest. After the Liberals in 1897 became as protection- ist as the Conservatives, and were responsible for the highest protective tariffs ever enacted at Ottawa from 1867 to the war, there was not a member left in the house of commons to advocate tariffs for revenue only, or even to oppose in- creases in the tariff made by the Liberal govern- ment. Debates on the finance bill were greatly curtailed, because as the Conservatives were all protectionists there was no longer any opposition in the house to a high protective tariff; and there C417] Wide scope of discus- sion on budget Budget debates of 1878- 1896 Less interest- ing after Liberals become protec- tionists EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Finance bUl in senate Com- mittee of supply Esti- mates for state depart- ments Value of work in com- mittee of supply was a corresponding decline in popular interest in the budget debate. From the house the finance bill goes to the senate. There the stages of the bill are merely formal, and the debates of only academic interest. The senate can reject a finance bill, but only at the cost of bringing the various governmental services of the Dominion to a standstill. It is denied all power of amendment. In this respect the senate stands in the same subordinate position towards the house of commons that the house of lords has held since 1678 towards the house of commons at Westminster. In committee of supply the estimates are taken department by department. Each minister is in charge of the estimates for his department. It is his business, at this time, to answer criti- cisms, and to defend any items in the estimates that are challenged by the opposition. Carrying the estimates through committee is a long process. It involves much close work on the floor of the house for ministers, especially for ministers in charge of spending departments, such as the departments of public works, rail- ways and canals, the interior, and marine and fisheries. A large part of the session is occupied with these votes of money. But some of the most effective work of the house is done at the numerous sit- tings in committee; for in committee of supply the house can exercise close supervision of the [418] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS expenditures, administration, and general policies of all the state departments. No matter how large a majority a government Check may have, or how mechanically obedient its "^ ^^^^ majority may be to the summons and instructions methods of the government whips, the fact that there will be detailed and searching discussion by the opposition of the estimates is, in itself, a check on slipshod methods, and on plans and policies that will not admit of full discussion in committee of supply. The house is not continuously in committee of Appro- supply. The vote for one department is carried, f^f***"* Then some other business is taken up, and when this is finished the house again goes into com- mittee. After all the votes have been passed, they are embodied in what is known as the " appropriation bill." The final stages of this bill are taken in the closing days of the session, in order to get the supplies of the whole year into one bill. The appropriation bill, after it has been passed Appro- by the senate, is returned to the commons; and P"*t^°° , . , , . bill at when the royal assent is about to be given to bar of this and other bills, and the commons are sum- ^^^^^^ moned to the senate chamber for the purpose, the bill which grants money for the service of the crown is carried by the speaker to the bar of the senate, and handed by him to the clerk of the parliament to receive the royal assent. The final stage of the appropriation bill is in C419] than financial EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Final an ordinary session the only occasion on which a'*ro-° ^^^ speaker is the representative of the house in priation communications with the governor-general; for it ^^^ will be recalled that when the house has adopted an address of thanks to the governor-general for the speech from the throne, at the opening of the session, it delegates by resolution, to members of the privy council — to members of the cabinet — the duty of presenting the address to the governor-general. Govern- Government bills are those which come to the f|f.'^* house from the cabinet. All these bills originate other in one or other of the state departments; for every government bill alters or varies the functions and responsibilities, or throws new functions and responsibilities on some executive department. A government bill intended to effect momentous or far-reaching changes, or embodying an impor- tant policy of the government, is sometimes intro- duced by the premier, who nowadays is always free of the responsibilities of a heavily burdened state department. Otherwise, it is the rule that a government bill is introduced by the minister who is at the head of the department in which the bill originated. Caucus Members on the government side of the house **" know beforehand the principles and main lines govern- . ment of a government bill. These they learn in caucus in the early days of the session; and in this way the caucus serves as a link between the govern- ment forces in the house and the cabinet. [420] bUls THE HOUSE OF COMMONS In the case of a government bill of first-class importance, there is usually a caucus on the bill sometime between its introduction and second- reading stage; and from the rank and file on the government benches loyal support is expected. A government suffers a loss of prestige in parliament and in the constituencies if it is com- pelled by division within its ranks, or by the tac- tics of the opposition, to abandon a bill that has been announced in the speech from the throne at the opening of the session. Loss of prestige when a bUl is aban- doned XII. The Closure A government must in each regular session carry through parliament the finance bill and the appropriation bill. Each session, also, there are two or three important bills, embodying its policies, that it is essential to its success as a government should be enacted. Despite these conditions it was 1913 before any government had, by the rules, sufficient command over the time of the house of commons to prevent its legislative plans from being thwarted by obstruction and filibustering by the opposition. The house of commons at Ottawa was late among legislative bodies in the English-speaking world in adopting a closure rule. By filibustering the Conservative opposition in 191 1 made it impossible for the Laurier govern- ment to carry a reciprocity bill through the house . . [ 421 ] Parlia- mentary program of govern- ment Obstruc- tion and fili- bustering EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA AfiU- buster that ended fili- bustering Closure rule of 1913 Old rules that per- mitted minority to control of commons. Obstruction to the bill forced the Liberal government to advise the governor- general to dissolve a parliament which, in the normal course, had still nearly two and a half years to run. Two sessions later — in 1913 — ^the Liberals, then in opposition, attempted similar tactics on the bill of the Borden government for a grant of thirty-five million dollars to be expended in adding three battleships to the British navy. Realizing after parliament had been in session for five months that no progress was being made, and that the opposition was intent on forcing the abandonment of the navy bill by obstruction, the Borden government proposed the adoption of a new rule. The rule, which is now in force, prohibits debate at certain technical stages of a bill preliminary to those that have been here described, and also empowers a member of the cabinet to move that there be a time limit to a debate, either in the house or in committee of the whole. With the closure rule thus brought into operation no speaker can hold the floor for longer than twenty minutes. In explaining the need and purpose of the new rule, Borden reminded the house that under the then existing rules there were nineteen stages, in- cluding committee, at which it was possible for members to discuss a measure. He stated also that it had been affirmed by some members of the house that it was absolutely impossible for the [422] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS majority to pass any measure without the consent of the minority.^ Long before 1913 there had been a widespread conviction in the Dominion that an amendment of the rules of the house was necessary. " Liberty of speech in the commons," the Globe, of Toronto, a Liberal journal, had declared during the parlia- mentary crisis of 1911,^ "has degenerated into license, and half a dozen inveterate talkers bore a weary house with talks that were old two thousand years ago, until the wonder is that enough members can be induced to remain in the chamber to make a quorum." Members of the Liberal administration in the general election of 191 1 had also given pledges that if the Liberals were again returned to power the rules of the house should be promptly amended so as to make impossible filibustering like that which compelled the Laurier government to abandon the reciprocity bill. The new rule was, however, treated by the Liberal opposition as a party measure. There were nine days of debate on it, and the rule was carried only by a parliamentary manoeuver by which the opposition was foiled in its intention of obstructing its adoption.^ The objections made by the Liberals were that the new rule endangered freedom of speech; that it would tend to Americanize the Canadian 1 Cf. H. C. Debates, April 9, 1913. ^ April 22, 1911, ^ Cf. "Canadian Annual Review," 191 3, 164-167. [423] A liberty of speech that was long abused Liberals promise to end filibus- tering They oppose the new rule "Ameri- canizing Canadian parlia- ment" EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Oppo- sition from French Canada French- Cana- dians fear a star chamber Less drastic than closure rules at West- minster and Washing- ton parliament and establish the tyranny of the pohtical boss. From Quebec there was a specific and remark- able objection. "My province at the time of Confederation," said Lemieux, who had been postmaster-general in the Laurier administration, "accepted the compact of Cartier and Mac- donald that the rules, usages, and customs of the British house of commons up to 1867 should be binding on the parliament of Canada in the future. Therefore, you have no right to impose on the minority in this house rules which have been created since 1867 — rules which tend to abridge the rights of the minority." Lemieux was apprehensive that the new rule would jeopardize the rights of French-Canadians. "Has any one the right," he asked, "to alter a compact — 'to change the constitution; for the rules adopted in 1867 are embodied in that com- pact, in that constitution; and you cannot deface them. Canada, with such drastic rules, is no longer government by parliament but by the cabinet. It is a revival of the star chamber." ^ The rules as they stood after the amendment of 1913 — an amendment adopted by a vote of 108 to 73 — as regards closure of debate and the shutting off of amendments in committee — are not nearly so comprehensive or so drastic as the closure rules at Westminster or at Washington. There is no debate under a five or a ten minute 1 H. C. Debates, April 14-15, 1913. [424] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS rule, as there is in the house of representatives; and no closure by compartments, as there is in the British house of commons. All substantial or obviously bona-fide motions Bona- which bring into question the propriety of passing ^g,^ate any bill or vote are as debatable today as they were stm before 1913; and at least one day's notice must ^^%g^ be given from the treasury bench of the intention of the government to move that a continued debate shall not be further adjourned. The rules as they stood before 1913 were Old rules adapted to conditions which ceased to exist at the '^^'^^ °* . pro- turn of the twentieth century, when the great vinciai material expansion of Canada began and the ^^°^^ Dominion took rank among nations. XIII. Private Members' Bills and Private Bill Legislation A private or unofficial member of the house of Oppor- commons has at least four opportunities of *^^®^ exercising his parliamentary abilities, and con- private vincing his constituency that he can be of service ™®™''®" at Ottawa. They are opportunities, moreover, that are distinct from the service he renders as a supporter of the government or a member of the opposition, or as a member of a standing com- mittee; and distinct also from the local service which every member is expected to render to his constituency. Under the rules it is possible for a private [425] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Ques- tions to ministers Rules as to ques- tions Oral and written answers Value of ques- tions Attention directed to matters of urgent public impor- tance member to address to ministers questions of which written notice has been given, and also questions of which written notice has not been given, which are addressed to ministers when the orders of the day are moved, or at the adjourn- ment of the house. Questions may be put to ministers relating to public affairs; and to other members relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter con- nected with the business of the house. In putting a question no argument or opinion can be offered; and a minister in replying to a question must not argue or put forward any opinion. Answers to some questions are given orally. To others the answers are in writing. In either case the answers are embodied in the official report of the debate. Much information of Dominion-wide value is thus at times elicited from ministers; and infor- mation of value to a province, or to particular interests in a province, is forthcoming at almost every sitting of the house through these formal and informal questions. A member may at any sitting of the house initiate a discussion on a definite matter of urgent public importance, provided twenty members rise in their places to support his motion for leave to move the adjournment of the house. The discussion takes place on the motion so made for adjournment. The rules carefully safeguard this valuable privilege. A motion to [426] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS discuss a matter of urgent public importance cannot be made to revive a discussion of a matter previously discussed in the same session of parliament. The motion must not anticipate a matter — bill, motion, or vote — which has been previously appointed for consideration by the house, and it must not raise a question of privilege. In a country of immense area like Canada, and of varying climatic conditions, the privilege of every private member of thus calling the atten- tion of the house and the government to a matter of urgent public importance is of peculiar value. Members avail themselves of it to call attention to an unexpected failure of a crop; to a disaster to a fishing fleet; or to a labor dispute of a far- reaching character. The privilege may also be exercised to call attention to international com- plications, such as may arise in connection with Asiatics on the Pacific Coast, or some incident on the American border line. A statement for the government follows a motion on an urgent matter of public importance; and in times of stress or crisis such statements have a quieting influence, particularly in cases of great disasters; for in such cases the debate on the motion elicits from the government a statement of the steps it is taking to afford relief. A third opportunity afforded to private members is that of submitting motions to the house in favor of reforms or amendments of the law. The C427] Roles as to these motions for adjourn- ment Peculiar value of these motions Times of stress or crisis Motions In favor of reforms EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Private members' bUls Private- bill legis- lation Propa- ganda for reform Govern- ment accept- ance of private members' bills fourth is the opportunity open to members of submitting bills to the house. Private members' bills are distinguished from (i) bills originating with the government and (2) private-bill legislation — a description which comprises divorce bills and bills for the incor- poration of transport, industrial, and financial undertakings and of ecclesiastical, educational, and philanthropic institutions. The stages of all bills coming within the term "private-bill legislation" are the same as those of bills which originate with the government, or with private members, with one important exception. The detailed examination and perfecting of bills incorporating undertakings or institutions, and the exercise of vigilance in safe-guarding the pub- lic interests, are largely the work of the standing committees, to which the bills are referred after they have been read a second time in the house. Much effective propaganda work for amend- ments or extensions of laws is accomplished by motions by private members and by private members' bills. The case for amendment ^or ex- tension is impressed on the government; and by discussion of these motions or bills in the house, newspaper and other popular support is secured. It not infrequently happens that as an outcome of these discussions, and the sympathetic interest they arouse in the house of commons and in the constituencies, the government undertakes to introduce a bill for the reform suggested by the [428] THE HOUSE OF COMMONS private member or gives its support to the bill which the private member has introduced. Apart from the effect on the government of the Amend- discussion of private members' bills and motions, ^^^4^4 at each session of parliament quite a number of by beneficent amendments to the law are made by ^J^f private members' bills. There is no chance for bers' a private member's bill if the government is hos- tile to it. In that event supporters of the govern- ment act on the instructions of the whip, and the bill fails of second reading. Questions of privilege cannot be raised as privuege questions of urgent public importance. But they may be raised at any sitting at the time the orders of the day are moved. Scores of questions of privilege are raised at every session. Occasionally they arise out of revelations in Sensi- special committees or in investigations before l*^^'*^^^ royal commissions. Much more frequently privi- news- lege is invoked in order that members may correct p*^" . *= . -^ . criticism inaccurate reports in the newspapers of their speeches in the house, or repudiate interpretations of their speeches which have been published on the editorial pages of the newspapers. Among members of legislative bodies in English-speaking countries, members of the house of commons of Canada are most sensitive to newspaper criticism. [429] National Policy CHAPTER XV THE NATIONAL POLICY OF THE DOMINION Scope of TN the thirty-five years from 1879 to 1914, X and in particular from 1879 to 1897, there was no phrase in political discussion in Canada in more frequent use than the one, "the National Policy of the Dominion," In the earlier part of the period the term was used to describe (i) the imposition of duties in the Dominion tariff to protect home industries against all outside competition; (2) the paying of bounties from the Dominion treasury to aid the upbuilding of indus- try; and (3) the attempt to secure reciprocity agreements with the United States and other non- British countries, with a view to extending the export trade of the Dominion. Exten- In the decade before the war the phrase had of°i^s come to have a meaning much more comprehen- scope sive. It included, as of old, protectionist duties in the interest of Canadian industries. It in- cluded, until 191 1, lavish bounties to iron and steel companies in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Ontario. But it also included (i) the continuous and wide immigration propaganda for the peopling of the provinces west of the Great Lakes, and (2) the development of the national grain route, by rail, C430] THE NATIONAL POLICY lake, and canal, from all the grain-growing provinces to tidewater ports on the Atlantic. I. The Development of the National Policy There were protective tariffs in Canada twenty years before the phrase "National Policy" was brought into general use by the Macdonald government in 1879. The United Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada had been under a protectionist tariff for eight years before Con- federation. In British Columbia a protective tariff was in operation from 1867 until the province came into Confederation in 1871. The Pacific Coast province, like the United Provinces and the Maritime Provinces, had also agitated for reciprocity with the United States; and while it was still an independent and isolated colony, British Columbia had offered bounties for the encouragement of the iron and woolen industries, thus anticipating a part of the National Policy that was not adopted by the Dominion government until 1883, when bounties to encour- age the production of pig iron were first paid from the treasury at Ottawa. The first attempt to estabUsh a National Policy for the Dominion was made in 1870, by the Mac- donald government of 1 867-1 871. As it was developed at that time the National PoUcy included protective duties on only some Canadian products; and an offer, embodied in the tariff, C431] Origin of National Policy Antici- pations of National Policy by British Columbia First attempt to establish Dominion National Policy EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Low tariff at Confed- eration Mac- donald's theory of how reciproc- ity could be obtained Washing- ton Ignores offer of 1370 of reciprocity with the United States. In this tariff" of 1870 there were no increases in the duties on manufactured goods. These duties then stood at fifteen per cent, as imposed by the tariff of the United Provinces enacted in 1866. Confederation was in sight in 1866; and duties in the tariff enacted in that year were made less protective than in the tariffs of the United Prov- inces from 1858 to 1866, in order to ease the way into Confederation for Nova Scotia, New Bruns- wick, and Prince Edward Island, provinces in which there had never been any protective duties. The protective duties in the first National Policy tariff were on coal, salt, wheat, flour, and hops. In the tariff of 1866 all these articles were on the free list. They were made dutiable in the tariff of 1870 in accordance with a theory of Macdonald's that if Canada was ever to succeed in negotiating a second treaty of reciprocity — if it was ever to have another era of valuable trade relations with the United States, like that which was enjoyed under the Elgin-Marcy treaty of 1854-1866 — the government at Washington must be made to feel that it was in the power of the government at Ottawa to restrict trade of the United States with Canada. The tariff of 1870 produced no results at Wash- ington. There were no overtures from the govern- ment of the United States for a renewal of the trade relations of 1 854-1 866. The duty of fifty cents a ton on anthracite and bituminous coal, [432] THE NATIONAL POLICY imposed in the interest of the bituminous coal mines of Nova Scotia, worked, moreover, great hardship on the people of Montreal and of the province of Ontario. Ontario in 1870 was the only wheat-growing Aim of province, and the only province in which com- ^^^^ mercial miUing was established. It had long been exporting wheat and flour to the United Kingdom, and also to Newfoundland. The new duties were intended to encourage grain growing and milling, by compelling the Maritime Provinces to draw their supplies from Ontario. Ontario was to be forced to use the coal of a province that was over a thousand miles from its western border; and in return for the favors to the coal owners at Sydney, Island of Cape Breton, the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, were to be forced to buy their wheat and flour from Ontario. Both in Ontario and in the Maritime Provinces Popular the new duties provoked much popular dis- l'*'^*^*^ satisfaction, especially in the Maritime Provinces, tariff where a protectionist tariff was regarded as a breach of the compact at Confederation. At this time Ontario was the only province, east of the Rocky Mountains, in which the protectionist movement, begun in 1857-1858, had made any appreciable headway. Even in Ontario it was a movement that in 1870-1871 had secured sup- port only in a few manufacturing centers. There was so much agitation in Ontario against [433] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Abandon- the coal duty, and so much agitation in Nova "*°* Scotia and New Brunswick against the duties National on wheat and flour, that in 1871 Macdonald was oMSTO forced to abandon the National Pohcy of 1870; and it was 1879 before the Dominion was com- mitted to a high protectionist tariff; and 1883 before a bounty system for the encouragement of the iron and steel industry was adopted. Re- A Conservative government was responsible mMit"**^' ^°^ ^^^ unsuccessful attempt of 1 870-1 871 to of establish the National Policy. The Conservatives National ^gj-e also responsible for the system finally in 1879 estabhshed in 1879. From 1878 to 1896 the Liberals were in opposition at Ottawa, During these eighteen years they continuously denounced the tariff policy of the Conservatives, and from 1883 to 1896 they were equally vigorous and persistent in their denunciation of the payment of bounties for the encouragement of the iron and steel industries.^ Liberals In 1 897 the Liberals, who were in power at accept Ottawa from 1896 to 191 1, adopted both the National ^ t • r i V^ PoUcy tariff and bounty policies of the Conservatives. They greatly extended the bounty system. They increased many of the protective duties; British ^jjj -j^ tariff policy they made one innovation entiai of fat-reaching political importance. They estab- *^^^ lished a preferential tariff for imports from the United Kingdom; forged another link of empire; 1 Cf. Edward Porritt, " Iron and Steel Bounties in Canada," Political Science Quarterly, Vol. xxii, No. 2 (1907), 194-195. [434] and establish THE NATIONAL POLICY impelled Great Britain in 1897 to change a long- existing policy in regard to commercial treaties; and incidentally provoked a tariff war between the Dominion and the German Empire ^hat lasted from 1903 to 19 10. 11. The British Preferential Tariffs of iSgy and igoy The reductions in the tariff in favor of imports from the United Kingdom were made gradually in the three years from 1897 to 1900. The original plan was that from July, 1900, these imports should be chargeable only with two-thirds of the duties imposed on imports from the United States and other non-British countries. From July, 1900, to June, 1904, all imports from the United Kingdom were admitted oa these favorable terms. But Canadian manufacturers, through their national association, loudly pro- tested against this new competition from British manufacturers; and in 1904 and 1907 — particu- larly in 1907, when there was a general revision of the tariff, and many increases in duties — the preference was curtailed, and the tariff made more protective against British imports. At the revision in 1907 the principle of a uniform reduction of one third in favor of British imports was abandoned. The government then adopted the plan of a tariff in three divisions — a plan that will be easily understood from the accom- [435] Reduc- tions In duties on Imports from United E^lngdom HostlUty of Canadian manu- facturers — pref- erence curtailed TarlflE In three divi- sions EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA SCHEDULE A Britiah Inter- Preferential mediate- General TariH, Tariff. Tariff. 403 403a 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 Wire, crucible cast steel, valued at not less than six cents per pound Free. Steel wire valued at not less than two and three-quarter cents per pound when imported by manufacturers of rope for use exclusively in the manufacture of rope; and also wire rope for use exclu- sively for rigging of ships and vessels — under regulations by the Minister of Customs Free. See Tariff Amendment, June 12, 1914. Buckthorn strip fencing, woven wire fenc- ing, atid wire fencing of iron or steel, n.o.p., not to include woven wire or netting made from wire smaller than number fourteen gauge nor to include fencing of wire larger than number nine gauge 10 p.c. Wire of all metals and kinds, n.o.p 15 p.c. Wire, single or several, covered with cotton, linen, silk, rubber or other material, including cable so covered 20 p.c. Wire rope, stranded or twisted wire, clothes lines, picture and other twisted wire and wire cable, n.o.p 17J p.c. Wire cloth or woven wire, and wire netting, of iron or steel 20 p.c. See Tariff Amendment, June 12, 1914. See Tariff Amendment, June 12, 1914. Iron or steel nuts, washers, rivets, and bolts, with or without threads; nut, bolt and hinge blanks; and T and strap hinges of all kinds, n.o.p per one hundred pounds 75 cents . and 10 p.c. Screws, commonly called "wood screws," of iron or steel, brass or other metal, including lag or coach screws, plated or not, and machine or other screws, n.o.p. 22^ p.c. Iron or steel cut nails and spikes (ordinary builders') ; and railroad spikes per one hundred pounds . 30 cents . Composition nails and spikes and sheathing nails 10 p.c. Wire nails of all kinds, n.o.p per one hundred pounds . 40 cents . Nails, brads, spikes and tacks of all kinds, n.o.p 20 p.c. Wire cloth, or woven wire of brass or copper 17 J p.c. 5 p.c. 5 p.c. Free. 12i p.c. 17i p.c. Free^ 15 p.c. 20 p.c. 27i p.c. 30 p.c. 22i p.c 27J p.c. 75 cents 20 p.c. 25 p.c. 30 p.c. 75 cents. 25 p.c. 30 p.c. 35- p.c. 45 cents. 50 cents 12J p.c. 15 p.c. 55 cents. 60 cents. 30 p.c. 35 p.c. 22i p.c. 25 p.c. [436] THE NATIONAL POLICY panying facsimile of a page from the Dominion tariff as it stood before the war.^ Under the tariff as enacted in 1907 there are (i) the British preferential tariff; (2) an inter- mediate tariff for countries that make concessions in their tariffs for imports from the Dominion; and (3) a general tariff, applicable to all countries that in their tariffs make no concessions to Canada. No general principle was followed in 1907 in determining rates in the British preferential tariff. Consideration was given to the opposi- tion of Canadian manufacturers of competing goods, who demanded adequate protection against all comers, British or non-British. While the tariff on British imports was usually fixed at rates below the rates in the intermediate tariff, much care was exercised to make it certain that in the British preferential tariff there should be adequate protection for all Canadian manufac- turing interests — a procedure that necessitated many curtailments of the preference of 1897-1907. From 1897 to 1907 the preferential tariff stimulated trade between the United Kingdom and Canada. Particularly was this the case as regards woolens and other textiles, some products Protec- tion inaU three tariffs for Canadian manu- facturers Stimu- lation of British trade ^ The tariff act of 1915 added seven and a half per cent to the duties of the intermediate and general tariffs; five per cent to the duties of the preference division; and imposed a duty of seven and a half per cent on many imports, mostly raw materials or partly finished materials, that were formerly on the free list. [ 437 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA of the secondary stages of the iron and steel and metal industries, and glass, earthenware, and furniture. Propa- It was this increase in trade between the ganda United Kingdom and Canada, and the efforts of con- manufacturers in England and Scotland to avail cessions themselves of the lower duties, that impelled British Canadian manufacturers to protest. They waged imports ^ continuous propaganda against the British preference at the meetings of their association and in their newspaper organs. They protested to parliament in 1904 and 1905;' and in the winter of 1 905-1 906 scores of individual manu- facturers appeared before the tariff commission to demand more protection against competition from Great Britain than was afforded under the tariff of 1897. Several of them characterized British competi- tion as foreign competition, and they all declared that protection against British manufacturers was as essential to the success and prosperity of Canadian industries as protection against the manufacturers of the United States. Curtaiie The effect of the revised and much curtailed prefer- preferential tariff in encouraging exports to tariff in Canada from the United Kingdom in the years oper- from 1907 to 1914 was less obvious than the effect of the tariff of 1897. There was some increase in the seven years before the war. But it was an increase which, when measured in customs-house valuations, afforded little ground C438] THE NATIONAL POLICY for jubilation in manufacturing communities in the United Kingdom, especially in view of the widespread enthusiasm with which the original preferential tariff was received in Great Britain/ the enormous increase in emigration from Great Britain to Canada in the twelve years that preceded the war, the widespread prosperity in the Dominion from 1904 to 191 2, and the great increase in the price of manufactured goods in the period from 1900 to 191 4. III. The Political Effect in Canada of the Preferential Tariff In the seventeen years from 1897 to the be- Attitude ginning of the war, the political effect of the ^onser- preferential tariff, as framed in 1897, and revised vative in 1907, was much more important than the J'^l^^g economic effect. In Canada two political de- prefer- velopments followed the enactment of the ^°'^® preference. From 1897 to 191 1 the preference was de- nounced by the Conservatives, who in these years were in opposition at Ottawa. The objec- tions of the Conservatives were (i) that Canadian manufacturers must have protection against all comers; and (2) that Great Britain had given Canada no tariff concessions in return for the concessions in the Dominion tariff. 1 Cf. Heckles Willson, "Life of Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal," II, 336. [439] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA ., Demand As the United Kingdom was on a free-trade *uid basis from 1846 to the beginning of the war, it pro quo was not possible for any government at Whitehall to offer Canada an equivalent for the preference, without effecting a revolution in the British fiscal system. Many increases in the tariff were made at Ottawa after the Conservatives were returned to power at the general election in 191 1. These increases, made in the years from 191 2 to 1914, were intended to afford more protection to Canadian manufacturers, or to add to the pro- tection of fruit growers in British Columbia, against competition from the United States. Conserv- As soon as the Conservatives were in office, how- ative ever, they ceased to condemn the British prefer- ment ence; and from 191 1 to the outbreak of the war accepts they made no effort to secure from the govern- prefer- mcut at Whitehall any quid pro quo for the ence lower duties first established for imports from the United Kingdom by the preferential tariff of 1897. They accepted the policy of the Liberals as regards the preference, just as the Liberals in 1897 had accepted the National Policy of the Conservatives of the preceding eight years. Attitude Advocates of free trade in Canada welcomed °' the preferential tariff of 1897, and protested interests against the curtailments made in it in 1904 and towards 1907. The Only consumers in Canada who are entiai organized and articulate as such are the grain **^ growers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta and the farmers of Ontario. From 1905 onwards [440] THE NATIONAL POLICY these organizations continuously agitated for lower duties in the British preferential tariff. As the leaders of both the Liberal and Conserva- tive parties at Ottawa as continuously ignored the agitation, the grain growers and farmers in the winter of 1915-1916 launched an independent movement in Dominion politics. The purpose of the movement — the most considerable of all attempts in Canada from 1867 to 1918 to create a party independent of the Conservative and Liberal parties — was to secure direct representation of grain growers and farmers in the house of commons. In the national political platform adopted by the grain growers' associations, at their provincial conventions in the winter of 1916-1917, there was a demand for an extension of the British preference as a means of strengthening the bonds between Canada and Great Britain, and also of bringing about a reduction in the cost of living in Canada.^ The innovation in tariff legislation at Ottawa in 1897 — an innovation in which Canada once more led the oversea dominions — thus resulted in raising a new issue in Dominion politics; and the persistence with which the grain growers agitated for an extension of the preferential tariff widened the political gulf between the manufacturing interests of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the 1 Cf. "A National Political Guide, December 13, 1916. Platform," Grain Growers' [441] Grain growers organize inde- pendent move- ment In Dominion politics Division between agrarian and manu- facturing interests EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA agrarian interests of Ontario, and of the thousand- mile stretch of country that Hes between the Lake of the Woods and the Rocky Mountains. IV. The Tariff War of igoj-igio with Germany Ger- For the Empire at large the preferential tariff 'i^ta °^ ^^97 ^^^ quite far-reaching consequences, 1897 some of which developed out of the aggressive attitude of Germany towards the new trade relations of Canada with Great Britain. Ger- many claimed that as an empire with a treaty of commerce with Great Britain, according it favored- nation treatment, it was entitled to send its exports to Canada on the same terms as were conceded under the preferential tariff to imports from Great Britain. Great In order to leave Canada, and other oversea Britain possessions with responsible government, free to nounces make their own commercial arrangements with *^°™" one another, and with non-British countries, mercial treaties Great Britain in July, 1897, — only three months after the new tariff had been enacted at Ottawa — denounced her commercial treaties with Ger- many, Belgium, Italy, and nearly a dozen other powers in Europe, Asia, and South America. Rounding The action of Great Britain in regard to these com- treaties, all of them, like that with Germany, of mercial long Standing, and of much value to manufacturers ^ree om ^^j exporters in the United Kingdom, completed dominions the fiscal and commercial freedom of Canada. [442] THE NATIONAL POLICY It also completed the fiscal and commercial freedom of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the Dominion of Newfoundland; for heretofore, while these oversea dominions had no part in the negotiation of commercial treaties made by Great Britain, they had all, like Canada, been bound by British commercial treaties made before 1872. This was the year when Great Britain conceded to the colonies with responsible government the option of inclusion in new treaties. Until July, 1898, imports from Germany into Canada were admitted under the preferential tariflF. Thereafter imports from Germany paid the duties imposed by the general tariff of 1897 — the same duties as were paid on imports from the United States. Germany resented this treatment. Belgium agreed to a Canada and the other action. Germany flatly with Great Britain to replace the treaty of 1865- 1898. Her position was that what the oversea dominions conceded to Great Britain must also be conceded to the German Empire. What Lansdowne, who was secretary for foreign affairs in the Salisbury and Balfour governments of 1 895-1 906, described as a serious position, developed out of Germany's opposition to the new commercial relations between Great Britain and the dominions. [443] new treaty which left dominions freedom of refused a new treaty Imports from Germany- pay duties of general tariff Germany attempts to domineer Reprisals threat- ened by Germany EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Lans- downe's state- ment in the house of lords Germany and Great Britain's "naughty little colonies" Tariff war of 1903- 1910 "It is not merely that we find Canada liable to be made to suffer in consequence of the differen- tial treatment which the Canadian government had afforded to us," Lansdowne told the house of lords, on June 29, 1903, "but it was actually adumbrated in an official document, that, if other colonies acted in the same manner as Can- ada, the result might be that we, the mother country, would find ourselves deprived of most- favored-nation treatment." "Thus," wrote English commentators on the action of Germany, after the government at Whitehall, at the instance of Canada, had ended the British-German treaty of commerce of 1865, " Germany first demanded to share in the Ca- nadian preference. And when that attempted intrusion into the domestic life of the British Empire was forbidden, we had the threat that England would be punished in her trade with Germany, if she did not put these naughty little colonies in their place." ^ The upshot of Germany's procedure was that for the first time since Great Britain had adopted free trade in 1846, one dominion of the British Empire was engaged from 1903 to 1910 in a tariff war, Germany was the aggressor. Until July, 1898, Canadian exports to Germany were admitted under the German minimum tariff. As soon as the treaty of 1865 had expired, and ex- ports from Germany to Canada were consequently 1 P. and A. Hurd, "The New Empire Partnership," 228. [444] THE NATIONAL POLICY no longer admitted on the same favorable terms as exports from the United Kingdom, Germany put her maximum tariff into force against Canada. "We did not," said Fielding, minister of finance at Ottawa, "deny to Germany favored- nation treatment. We were willing to give her every consideration that we gave to any foreign government. But she took offense because we would not treat her as we did the United Kingdom." ^ The Dominion was slow to retaliate. The government at Ottawa conceived that there was some misunderstanding on the part of Germany. By diplomatic correspondence, and also through the German consulate at Montreal, efforts were made to assure Berlin that Canada was giving to Germany everything that it gave to any foreign country; that it was conceding to Germany what it conceded to France, although France, with which Canada had a treaty of commerce since 1893, gave valuable concessions in return, and Germany conceded nothing. All that Canada asked was that her exports to Germany should again come under the minimum tariff. This Germany refused. Her maximum tariff was put into force against Canada in the autumn of 1898; but it was October, 1903, before Canada retaliated. Then, by act of parliament, a surtax of one third of the duties of the general tariff was imposed on imports from Germany. ^ H. C. Debates, December 14, 1907. [ 445 ] Canada's offer to Germany Efforts at Ottawa to avoid tariff war Stirtax on German Imports EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Peace without victory — for Germany The result of the surtax was that on many of the imports from Germany duties in the years from 1903 to 1910 ranged as high as forty per cent, the highest tariff duties ever in force in Canada, until the war tariff of 1915 was enacted. There was at once a great reduction in Germany's export trade to Canada. Germany slowly realized that only loss of trade was resulting from persistence in the tariff war; and in February, 1910, on overtures from Berlin, the tariff war was ended in a peace without victory for Germany.^ Germany no tariff advan- tages over United States V. The United States and the British Preferential Tariffs Notwithstanding the treaty of commerce be- tween Great Britain and Germany of 1 865-1 898 — a treaty in which there was a clause ^ which provided that goods exported from Germany to Canada should not be chargeable with higher duties than were imposed on goods exported from the United Kingdom to Canada — only from April, 1897, to July, 1898, in the thirty- three years from 1865 to 1897 had Germany any advantage over the United States in the export trade to Canada. ^ Cf. Fielding's Speech, "House of Commons Debates," February 16, 1910. 2 "A clause very obnoxious to the people, not only of Canada, but of the colonies generally." — Fielding, H. C. Debates, April 16, 1903. [446] THE NATIONAL POLICY The United States enjoyed special advantages from 1854 to 1866, the years of the Elgin-Marcy treaty; and since 1883 France has continuously en- joyed a measure of special treatment in Canadian tariffs, owing to the existence of commercial treaties between the Dominion and the French Republic. With these exceptions, until 1897 all countries, British and non-British, exported goods to Canada on the same terms. There were no tariff concessions in Canada to countries with favored-nation treaties with Great Britain, be- cause it was not until tariffs for the protection of Canadian industries had been in operation in the United Provinces from 1858 to 1867, and in the Dominion from 1867 to 1897, that any concession was made in Canadian tariffs to imports from the United Kingdom.^ No concession was asked by Canada from the United Kingdom when the original preferential tariff was framed. "England," said Fielding, when he announced the innovation of 1897 to the house of commons, "has dealt generously with us in the past. She has given us liberty to tax her wares, even when she admits ours free; and we have taxed them to an enormous degree." ^ Canada also asked nothing in return for the preference for British crown colonies in which there were tariffs for revenue only; and by 191 3 ^ Salt imported from the United Kingdom for the sea fisheries of Canada has always been on the free list. ^ H. C. Debates, April 22, 1897. C447] Countries that had advan- tages Other- wise all countries on same footing No conces- sion in return for British prefer- ence Canada and crown colonies EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA twenty-five crown colonies were participating in the concessions of the British preference of 1907.^ The dominions with protective tariffs had to make reciprocal concessions before they could share in the preferential rates conceded to the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and the Union of South Africa, all made terms with Canada. Recipro- With the nine West Indian colonies ^ Canada, ^^g in 1913, entered into an elaborate and liberal with agreement for reciprocal trade. The result of Indies ^^^ these various arrangements was that in the year preceding the war, the United Kingdom, four dominions, and thirty-four crown colonies were all linked together by the far-reaching innovation in tariff making at Ottawa in 1897, which originated with the Liberal government of 1896-1911. Canada There is no country in the world that advertises ^l^_ more systematically or on a more lavish scale tiser than Canada. It expended nearly fifteen million dollars in the years from 1897 to 1914, in ad- vertising itself in the United Kingdom, the United States, and the countries of continental Europe — in making known the opportunities that were awaiting immigrants into the Dominion. The preferential tariff of 1897 advertised ^ Cf. Customs Tariff, 1907, Ottawa, 1914, Appendix 18, 212. 2 Trinidad, British Guiana, Barbados, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Antigua, St. Kitts, Dominica, and Montserrat. [448] THE NATIONAL POLICY Canada all over the English-speaking world better than all its immigration propaganda. It enormously supplemented the lavish outlay on printer's ink of the Dominion government. Magna Charta, for seven centuries England's great standing advertisement, was not promul- gated in an act of parliament. With Magna Charta outside of the category of acts of parlia- ment, it can be said of the preferential tariff act of 1897 that it obtained for Canada more free and appreciative advertising — oral as well as printed — than any other country ever obtained by means of any act ever passed by its legislature, parliament, or congress. Austria and Italy demurred to Great Britain's policy of 1 897- 1 898 of freeing the Dominions from obligations under the old treaties of commerce. But Germany, with whom both Austria and Italy were then in alliance, was the only country that persistently and strenuously objected to the restriction by the government at Ottawa of the preferential tariff to the United Kingdom and the colonies of the British Empire. The United States, France, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Colombia, Mexico, and Costa Rica all accepted the new status of the British dominions. Italy and Austria created diplomatic obstacles to the new fiscal and commercial free- dom of Canada and the other dominions, obstacles which had not been removed up to the time war began in August, 1914. [449] Its greatest adver- tisement up to the war Austria and Italy demur to Great Britain's treaty policy of 1898 Issues with the countries tmsettled when war began EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Talked German and talked it loudly No objection to prefer- ential tariff by United States "An arrange- ment within the family" No sug- gestion of retali- ation But Germany was the only country that embarked on a tariff war with Canada, or threat- ened commercial reprisals against the United Kingdom. Germany talked German, and talked it loudly. It was of no avail. The tariff war with Canada would have gone on indefinitely if Germany had not capitulated in 1910. Great Britain, when she denounced her com- mercial treaties in 1897, had no commercial treaty with the United States — at any rate no commercial treaty quite comparable with the British-German treaty of 1 865-1 898. At Washington, however, there were no objec- tions to the preferential tariff. From the time of its enactment it was regarded as a purely domestic concern of the British Empire. Sereno E. Payne, chairman of the committee of ways and means of the house of representatives, described it, in 1909, as "an arrangement within the family, to which no exception could be taken." Payne was quite as protectionist as McKinley or Dingley, or any other of his Re- publican predecessors in the chairmanship of the committee at Washington in which all tariff bills originate. The Dingley bill of 1897 was before congress when parliament at Ottawa enacted the first preferential tariff. No retaliation was suggested at that revision of the United States tariff; and there was no suggestion of retaliation at the tariff revisions at Washington in 1909 or 1913. [450] THE NATIONAL POLICY For the United Kingdom the preferential tariff Far- of 1897 had four or five obvious results. It did ^g^^^.^ ^ more than forge a new link of empire. It ended of the apprehensions, born of the successful revolt ^^^' of the American colonies of 1 776-1 783, that the tarifif British dominions with responsible government ° ^ ^"^ would sooner or later assert their independence. It impelled the British government to create a New new diplomatic status — a world-standing of ^^ importance — for Canada, New Zealand, Aus- status tralia. South Africa, and Newfoundland. It °' , ' ' domln- stimulated trade between the United Kingdom ions and Canada, and created a new, widespread, and continuous popular interest in the Dominion, an interest that by 1905 had helped to turn the tide of immigration from England and Scotland from the United States to Canada.^ Another of these results of the original prefer- other ential tariff was easier trade relations between f°^^^' ions the United Kingdom and the other dominions, follow New Zealand followed the example of Canada in ^^*«^p^® 1903; the Union of South Africa in 1906; and Canada the Commonwealth of Australia in 1907. New- foundland is the only dominion which has made no tariff concession to the United Kingdom. Its isolated position in regard to the preference is due to the fact that its tariff is exclusively for revenue. From 1903 to the beginning of the war, and in particular from 1903 to 1907, the preferential ^ Cf. Johnson, "A History of Emigration from the United Kingdom to North America," 1763-1912, 347. [451 3 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA tariff was a factor in the domestic politics of the United Kingdom. In 1903 Chamberlain, who had been secretary of state for the colonies since 1895, resigned that ofl5.ce to devote himself to a propa- ganda for tariff protection to agriculture and to the industries of the United Kingdom, with preferences for imports from the dominions and crown colonies.^ In the earlier stages of the propaganda in England and Scotland it was assumed that the manufacturers of Canada, and of the other dominions, would agree to a reduction of the protection afforded them in the tariffs of the dominions in order to secure for Canadian grain growers and farmers and for farmers and wool growers in the other dominions, a preference in the markets of Great Britain. It was a mistaken assumption; and there was a prompt and general shattering of it in 1904, when Canadian manu- facturers of woolens forced the Dominion govern- ment to put the duties on British woolens back nearly to the level of 1 884-1 897. After the revision of the tariff at Ottawa in the winter of 1906-1907 — the revision at which the preferential tariff was so greatly curtailed — • the assumption that Canadian manufacturers would agree to anything less than an adequate protection against imports from the United Kingdom had to be abandoned by British pro- tectionists of the Chamberlain school. Canadian manufacturers never disguised their * Cf. A. Mackintosh, "Joseph Chamberlain," 264-269. [ 452 ] THE NATIONAL POLICY at Ottawa that must be obeyed hostility to the British preference. In season Making and out of season from 1897 to the beginning of ^ ^°^ the war, the Canadian Manufacturers' Associa- delusion tion — the most poHtically powerful protec- tionist organization in the British Empire ^ — ■ assailed the preference, and strove to rid people of the United Kingdom of "the delusion that access to the Canadian market is the natural right of the British manufacturers, regardless of the will of the country." ^ At the revision of 1907 it was made obvious Behests that the government at Ottawa must obey the behests of the Canadian Manufacturers' Associa- tion; and after the whittling down of the prefer- ence in 1904 and 1907, the British preferential tariff ceased to be a factor in the agitation in Great Britain for a return to a protectionist sys- tem. The agitation continued until the eve of the war. But in the later years the protectionists no longer advanced the claim of 1 903-1 907 that a larger market could be secured in Canada for British manufactures through a British protec- tionist tariff in which there would be preferences for the farm products and lumber of the Dominion. ^ "The Canadian Manufacturers' Association is like a young giant ignorant of its own power. By the exercise of its power, it could, if it chose, bring several millions of people to the verge of starvation and paralyze the industry of the whole Dominion." — Speech of G. M. Murray, secre- tary of the association, Winnipeg, February 9, 1910. ^ Industrial Canada, the organ of the Canadian Manu- facturers' Association, Toronto, October, 1908. [453] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Abortive reciproc- ity treaty of 1874 Treaty rejected by senate at Washing- ton American objec- tions to VI. The Movement for Reciprocity with the United States One of the objects of the National Policy, to which Macdonald and the Conservatives com- mitted the Dominion in 1879, was to secure reciprocity with the United States. There was an offer of reciprocity in the tariff of 1870; and in 1874 the government at Ottawa made the first open and direct overtures to Washington, after Confederation, for another treaty. Brown, of Ontario, was the Canadian com- missioner. He was delegated by the Liberal government of 1 873-1 878, appointed a joint plenipotentiary by the government at Whitehall, and worked in association with Thornton, the British minister at Washington. After many conferences between Thornton and Brown, and Hamilton Fish, secretary of state in Grant's second administration, a draft treaty was agreed upon. It was approved at Whitehall. But the senate at Washington refused to ratify it; and today the chief interest attaching to it lies in the i free list. This shows how far the government at Ottawa, with the approval of a Conservative government at Whitehall, was prepared to go in meeting one of the objections at Washington to the old reciprocity treaty of 1 854-1 866. After the Elgin-Marcy treaty had been in operation for four or five years, one of several objections raised against it at Washington was [454] THE NATIONAL POLICY that its spirit had not been observed in Canada — that the United Provinces in 1858-1859 had adopted protective tariffs with a view to the exclusion of manufactures from the United States. Between 1866 and 1874 it was reaHzed at Ottawa that there had been a basis for this objection at Washington. It was also realized by the Liberal administration of 1 873-1 878 that Canada could not hope for another reciprocity- treaty conceding the free admission of fish, coal, lumber, and farm products into the United States unless concessions were made in Canadian tariffs for American manufactures. Canada in 1874 was prepared to make generous concessions, concessions of much value to Ameri- can manufacturers; for if the treaty had been ratified by the senate at Washington, Canada would have admitted, duty free, seventy-seven classes of American manufactures. Among these were agricultural implements, cotton goods, tweeds, and boots and shoes. It was the best offer ever made by Canada to any country, British or non-British. It was an offer, which, if it had been accepted by the senate, would have established conditions of trade between Canada and the United States of much more value to the manufacturers of the United States than the preferential tariff of 1897- 1907 was to the manufacturers of the United Kingdom. It was of much value to American trade because it was for a certain definite period, [455] reciproc- ity treaty of 1854- 1866 Canadian tariff con- cessions to American manu- facturers Generous con- cessions offered in 1874 An offer exclu- sively to the United States EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Over- tures for reciproc- ity All offers of less value than offer of 1S71 and because the manufactures to be admitted duty free under the proposed treaty were articles in general use in the Dominion, and all similar to those in common use in the United States. It was, moreover, an ofFer exclusively to the United States; for it was no part of the plan of the Mackenzie government that similar tariff con- cessions should be made in favor of British manufacturers. At least seven overtures for reciprocity were made by Canada in the thirty-three years from the denunciation of the Elgin-Marcy treaty to 1 898-1 899, when a high joint commission, ap- pointed as a result of overtures made by the Laurier government of 1896-1911, failed to reach an agreement on reciprocity and other questions which had been submitted to it. Five of the overtures were made direct to Washington. Two of them — those of 1870 and 1879 — ■ were embodied in tariff acts of the Dominion parliament. The offer made in the tariff of 1879 — an offer that remained on the statute book of the Domin- ion until 1894^ — and all the other offers made after 1 879, were of much less value to the United States than the offer embodied in the rejected treaty of 1874. It was well known at Ottawa that the government at Washington would entertain no proposals for reciprocity that did not include free trade in some manufactured ^ Cf. Canada Customs Tariff, 1894, sections 7 to 13. [456] THE NATIONAL POLICY goods as well as in coal, lumber, fish, and farm products. But It was not practicable, either for the Conservative governments of 1 878-1 896 or the Liberal governments of 1896-1911, to renew the offer of 1874, with its long list of American manufactures to be admitted into the Dominion duty free. The Conservatives framed and enacted the impossi- National Policy in 1879. The Liberals adopted ^f^^ and greatly extended It in 1 897-1 907; and after con- high tariffs and bounties from the Dominion ^^^^^ treasury had been established for the upbuilding as of Canadian Industries, Canadian manufacturers ^^°J' were promptly on hand at Ottawa to oppose any as those reciprocity agreement that would In any degree ° ^^^* lower the tariff barriers against competition from the United States. In the earlier years of the reciprocity move- interests ment — 1846 to 1879 — the demand for freer Canada trade relations with the United States was that strongest with the coal operators of Nova Scotia fe^f^^^c- and British Columbia, and with the lumbermen ity and farmers of Ontario, Quebec, and the Mari- time Provinces. There were no exports of grain from what are now the prairie provinces until after the Canadian Pacific Railway connected Winnipeg with Montreal in 1883; and the organized grain growers did not come Into the reciprocity movement until 1905. The movement for reciprocity in Canada easily survived the rebuff at Washington in C457] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Attempts at Ottawa to con- cUiate these interests PoUtl- clans humor farmers and lumber- men 1874; and it was to conciliate the interests that were behind it, and to attract support in the electorate for the National Policy, that Mac- donald embodied the offer of reciprocity in fish, coal, lumber, and farm products in the tariff act of 1879. But after the tariff of 1879 had been in operation a few years, the coal operators of Nova Scotia, long an influential factor in Domin- ion politics, preferred the duties in the tariff which protected them against American competi- tion to the free entry of their coal into the United States that they had enjoyed under the reciproc- ity treaty of 1854-1866.^ Moreover, as manu- facturing industries were developed and extended in Canada, it became increasingly difficult for governments at Ottawa to make proposals of reciprocal trade that would be acceptable at Washington. Farmers, fishermen, and lumbermen persisted ; in their demand for reciprocity. These interests had to be humored at election times. Pledges had to be made to them; and the last two over- tures from Ottawa to Washington — those of 1892 and 1898 — were not much more than perfunctory fulfillments of pledges given at the general elections of 1891 and 1896. Neither the Conservative government in 1892, nor the Liberal government in 1898, as the general elec- tion of 191 1 subsequently demonstrated, was in 1 Cf. Saunders, "Life and Letters of Sir Charles Tupper," II, 97. [458] THE NATIONAL POLICY a position to barter an iota of the tariff protection of Canadian manufacturers to secure free entry into the United States of coal, lumber and farm products from Canada. The seventh attempt since 1866 to secure a reciprocity agreement broke down during the sessions of an international commission which had convened first at Quebec and later on at Washington. The Liberal government, at whose instance the commission had been appointed, then proclaimed that henceforth there would be no more pilgrimages to Washington, that the next overtures for reciprocity must come from the government of the United States. In the sixty-four years from the peace of Ver- sailles to 1847, and particularly in the period from the treaty of Ghent of 18 14, to 1847, the United States made many overtures to Great Britain — some of them partially successful — for admission to the West India trade, and to the trade of the old British North American provinces. But in the fifty years from 1848 to 1898 all overtures for reciprocity in navigation and trade were made, either by the British North American provinces, or the Dominion of Canada, or by the British government on behalf of Canada. In this half century — 1 848-1 898 — no over- tures were made from Washington. The United States ceased to ask for reciprocity after Great Britain, without asking from any country any concessions for herself, or for any of her oversea [459] Failure of negotia- tions of 1898- 1899 Com- mercial con- cessions sought from Great Britain Washing- ton ceases to ask for con- cessions EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA possessions, had established herself on a free- trade basis in 1846, and in 1847 had also aban- doned her old navigation code. After the navigation of the St. Lawrence was conceded by Great Britain in 1854, the United States — with the exception of the restoration of the fishery privileges, enjoyed from 1783 to 181 2, and again from 1854 to 1866, and of reciprocity in wrecking on the Great Lakes — desired nothing in trade or navigation from Great Britain or Canada. Reciproc- It followed, therefore, that when the negotia- shei d tions of 1 898-1 899 broke down, there seemed as at little likelihood that Washington would ever ask Ottawa |-Qj. j-eciprocity as there was that congress would repeal the duties on all imports from Canada, without asking any tariff concessions from the Dominion for the United States. This attitude of Washington admirably suited the politicians and manufacturers of the Dominion. It shelved, and shelved indefinitely, an extremely awkward issue for both political parties. Develop- Reciprocity after 1899, so far as politicians at meats Ottawa were concerned, might have gone into revived the limbo of forgotten questions, but for two reciproc- developments that came in the years from 1905 issue to 1910. The organized grain growers of the prairie provinces, and the farmers of Ontario, put new life into the old movement for reciprocity when the tariff commission made its tour of the Dominion In 1905-1906. In 1909 President [460] THE NATIONAL POLICY to Canada Taft, disheartened by popular hostility to the Payne-Aldrich tariff, conceived that the high cost of living might be reduced if the United States could draw more freely on the products of Canada. Reciprocity, with some slight advantages for American American manufacturers, was the easiest way ^^^ ^ for a Republican administration to achieve this surprise end. To the surprise of the government at Ottawa, and to the people of the Dominion, and to the dismay of Canadian manufacturers, who had concluded, after the Liberal government in 1897 adopted a protectionist policy, and reaffirmed that policy in 1904, and again in 1907, that they had heard the last of any lowering of the Canadian tariff wall that faces the United States, there were overtures from Washington for reciprocity, to be based, not as in 1854 on a treaty, but on concurrent legislation at Washington and Ottawa. The Ottawa government was willing to nego- tiate; and after conferences at Ottawa and Washington, extending from November 4, 1910, to January 21, 191 1, an agreement was reached. It was more inclusive than the Elgin-Marcy treaty, which did not cover any manufactured goods. It was not nearly as inclusive as the rejected treaty of 1874; for wood pulp, paper, brass rods, wire rods, fencing wire, coke, type- casting and type-setting machines, and cream separators were about the only manufactured goods that Ottawa would agree should be imported [461] Proposed agree- ment of 1910- 1911 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA No depar- ture fronr policy Washing- ton adopted In 1866 Rejection of reciproc- ity at general election of 1911 duty free from the United States. Duties on farm equipment, on printers' equipment, and on railway and builders' and plumbers' supplies from the United States were, as a further con- cession, slightly reduced. The concessions made by Ottawa on manu- factured goods were, however, sufficient to en- able the government at Washington to proclaim that there had been no departure from the attitude adopted in 1866, when the government took the position that no reciprocity agreement would be considered which did not include manufactured goods as well as fish, farm products, lumber, and minerals. Legislation was enacted at Washington to bring the agreement into effect. At Ottawa, when the reciprocity bill was introduced, it was opposed by the manufacturers, the bankers, and the railway and transport interests. The Con- servatives, then in opposition, took their cue from these interests. They promptly and com- pletely abandoned their old arguments in favor of reciprocity, and so successfully filibustered against the bill in the house of commons that the Laurier government was compelled to advise the governor-general to dissolve parliament. After the most exciting and bitter electoral cam- paign in the history of the Dominion, the Laurier government and the reciprocity bill were defeated. The election of 191 1, which returned 133 Con- servatives to the house of commons, as compared [462] THE NATIONAL POLICY With 86 Liberals,^ demonstrated to the world what had been known at Ottawa since 1879. No government that is committed to the National Policy, and that becomes dependent on the electoral, newspaper, and financial support of the manufacturers and the various interests allied with the manufacturers, can enter on any agreement for reciprocal trade with the United States if the agreement involves even the slightest scaling down of the duties that protect Canadian manufacturers from competition from the United States. The Laurier government of 1 896-191 1 knew this fact as well as any Conservative government from 1878 to 1916. But from 1905 to 1910 the organized grain growers were increasing rapidly in numbers, and were exercising a growing influence on politics in the prairie provinces. This fact, and a fact of much portent to the government, was brought home to Laurier and the Liberal party in the summer of 1910. Laurier, in July and August, made a political tour of the prairie provinces. He was received by the grain growers in a critical rather than an admiring mood, with an absence of reserve towards leaders in political life at Ottawa that was quite new in the history of the Dominion. Representatives of the grain growers' associations at half a score of places between Winnipeg and Calgary re- ^ The popular vote of the Conservatives was 669,000; Liberals, 625,000. [463] Political power of Canadian manu- facturers Grain growers in Dominion politics A premier on tour EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Repudia- tion of pledges recalled A Dominion election In sight called to the premier the pledges that the Liberal party had given to the Dominion at the Ottawa convention of 1893. Laurier was reminded with much bluntness of utterance that the tariff pledges had been re- pudiated by the Liberal government in 1897 and 1907. He was told that the grain growers were grieviously disappointed at this repudiation; and told with much emphasis that the grain growers' associations were intent on lower duties in the Dominion tariff — that lower duties were essential to the success of the grain growing business in the prairie provinces — and also informed that the grain growers were still intent on reciprocity with the United States.-' The grain growers were thus insistent in their demands for lower duties and for reciprocity; and during Laurier's political tour in 1910 they made it plain to the premier and to the Liberal party, that they were in politics to stay. The new political movement in the prairie provinces was all the more important because in 1910 parliament at Ottawa was more than halfway through its statutory term of five years. The Laurier government accordingly took a ^ Cf. Grain Grower s Guide, July 27, August 3, 10, and 17, 1910; Globe, Toronto, July 23, 25, 28, and 30, and August 4 and 5; Farmers' Tribune, Winnipeg, August 3; Weekly Phcenix, Saskatoon, August 3; Standard, Regina, August 4; Free Press, Winnipeg, September 7; and Sun, Toronto, August 10, September 28, and October 19, 1910. [464] THE NATIONAL POLICY chance in the interest of a movement that the Liberal party had championed for thirty years before it went over to protection in 1897. With the manufacturers and bankers and the trans- port interests denouncing reciprocity — declaring that it would end the connection with Great Britain — the odds were against the govern- ment; and it encountered defeat in a cause that both Liberals and Conservatives had continu- ously advocated from 1846 to 1896. The govern- ment takes a chance Vn. Influence of the United States on the National Policy In no department of the political life of Canada increases was American influence more potent than in the *° ^^°~ . . tective origm and development of the National Policy, duties Canada was greatly influenced by the success ^^ . . . . . congress of manufacturing industries in the United States, by the refusal of the United States from 1866 to 1909 to negotiate another reciprocity treaty on terms which Canada could meet, and by increases in the protective duties of American tariffs from 1880 to 1897. Of these influences the rejection by the senate Rejection of the reciprocity treaty of 1874 was most power- ful in the formative period of the National Policy. Had the treaty been accepted it would have restored to the farmers and lumbermen of eastern Canada much of the prosperity of 1 854-1 866. With rural Canada enjoying prosperity in any [465] of reciproc- ity treaty of 1874 EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA degree comparable with that of the period of the Elgin-Marcy treaty, it is inconceivable that Macdonald, at the general election of 1878, could have persuaded the electorate to sanction the National Policy, framed by a convention of manufacturers at Toronto in 1876, and endorsed and advocated by the Conservatives, then in opposition at Ottawa, in the parliamentary sessions of 1876, 1877, and 1878. EfEect The critical years of the National Policy were ?^*^'' from the second revision of the tariff in 1884 to Kiniey the third revision in 1894. This was the decade *f^a9o ^^ what is known in Canadian political history as the disappointing census of 1891. There was a general election in 1891, and it was a stroke of rare good fortune for the Conservative govern- ment that the McKinley tariff had been enacted at Washington in 1890. The McKinley tariff affected farmers and lumbermen in Canada more adversely than any development at Washington had done since the denunciation of the Elgin-Marcy treaty in 1865. It created an emotional atmosphere all over eastern Canada favorable for the advocates of the National Policy, who at that time, and until 1897, were exclusively of the Conservative party. The Conservative government, in 1891, instead of sustaining losses, as is usual with a government that is becoming stale through long tenure of office, slightly improved its position in the house of commons, and continued in office until 1896. [466] THE NATIONAL POLICY The Dingley tariff of 1897, with duties much The higher than those of the McKinley tariff, greatly tariff ^^ helped the Liberal party, after it had abandoned ofiss? its fiscal policy of 1 874-1 896, and made peace ^^ with the protectionists. At the revision of the protec- tariff in 1906-1907, Canadian manufacturers ""wai asked for duties as high as those of the Dingley party tariff. Fielding, minister of finance, refused to con- sider this request. If it were complied with it would mean that the tariff would be framed not at Ottawa, but at Washington. Concessions, however, had to be made to the manufacturers, who had long complained of the high duties of the Dingley tariff. Increases were made in all the protective duties; and at this revision of 1 906-1 907 the Dingley act was nearly as service- able to the Liberals as the McKinley act had been to the Conservatives at the general election of 1891. Manifestly from 1858 to 191 7, the year in Canadian which the Conservative government at Ottawa •^*®''^^*^ ... In accepted the offer of reciprocity in wheat and tariff- flour — an offer made in the Underwood-Sim- '"^'^k mons tariff of 1913 — the fiscal policy of Canada, WasUng- first the policy of the United Provinces, and then *°° for forty-five years the policy of the Dominion, was much influenced by the fiscal policy of the United States from 1840 to 1913. Tariff-making at Washington, especially from 1880 to 1913, was watched with keenest interest from all over [467] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA the Dominion; for Canada's nearest neighbor has always been her biggest customer for a large range of the products of her mines, forests, and farms, and for an increasing quantity of the catch of the Atlantic coast fisheries of the Dominion. C468] CHAPTER XVI THE NATIONAL POLICY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CANADA M ATERIAL results of the National Policy Indus- . on the industrial development of the ^u^g^ Dominion are visible, even to a casual observer, of from the window of a railroad car on a journey ^^^ through the central provinces or the Maritime Provinces. They can be seen in Toronto, Hamil- ton, Sault Ste. Marie, and London; Montreal, Quebec, Valleyfield, Three Rivers, and St. Hyacinthe; Halifax, New Glasgow, and Sydney; St. John, Fredericton, and Moncton. They are, in fact, manifest in every city and factory town of Canada east of the Great Lakes; and few of these manifestations of industrial development and prosperity date further back than Confedera- tion. Most of this industrial activity has been developed since 1879. At Confederation there were four or five Indus- cotton mills in the British North American ^^^,^ position provinces. There were four furnaces — all quite at small — where charcoal pig iron was made. ° ® *'" There were 2278 miles of railroad, and not a cargo carrier on the Great Lakes on the Canadian register that was built of iron or steel. In 1917 there were in the Dominion twenty- nine cotton mills, with 21,400 looms and 106,800 [469] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Growth of the cotton Industry Capacity of modem blast fur- naces RaU mills MUllng of flour spindles. In 1867 Canada imported 1300 bales of cotton. The mills of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in 1916 called for 208,000 bales. The output of iron at the charcoal furnaces in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Quebec in the year of Confederation did not exceed 5000 tons. In the jubilee year there were seven blast furnaces in Nova Scotia and eleven in Ontario, with an aggregate daily capacity of 4600 tons. They were all coke furnaces, equal in design and equipment to any of the furnaces at Pittsburgh or Cleveland. At Confederation, and in fact until 1904, Canada imported all her rails from Great Britain or the United States. For ten years before the war there were rail mills at Sault Ste. Marie and Sydney, with a capacity equal, in normal times, to the demand of Canadian railways; and in some years, between 1907 and 1914, rails from these mills were exported. Commercial milling of flour was in its infancy in 1867. There was an export trade in flour, confined to Ontario. The flour went only to the Maritime Provinces, the United Kingdom, or Newfoundland. In no year before 1879 — the year when the National Policy was adopted — did the exports of flour reach half a million barrels. In 1914 there were 600 flour mills in the Dominion, of an aggregate daily capacity of 112,000 barrels. Of these mills 350 were in Ontario and 120 in the prairie provinces. C470] NATIONAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT Exports of flour increased with the extension Exports of grain growing in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, °^^°^ and Alberta, and with the estabhshment of flour mills at Kenora, Winnipeg, Brandon, and other cities west of the Great Lakes, From 1902 to 1914 there was a large development of the flour trade with non-British countries, — with China, Denmark, Holland, Japan, and Norway, — and in 191 5 the total exports of flour reached nearly five million barrels. Three quarters of a million barrels went to non-British countries. A special census of industries taken in 191 5 — indus- ■^i year in which war expenditures created an *^^ . . . . census industrial and commercial prosperity without of wis precedent — brought out the fact that there were 21,291 manufacturing establishments in the Dominion. Over 9000 were in Ontario. Over 7000 were in Quebec. Nova Scotia had nearly 1000. The census further showed that there were a pay 511,000 men, women, and children on the pay ^"°* rolls of these establishments; that in 1915 nearly muuon $288,000,000 was disbursed in salaries and wages; and that the aggregate value of the output was $1,392,516,953. An era of railway building began soon after Half Confederation; for it was a condition with the ^/^'^t^y . . of Maritime Provinces that the Intercolonial Rail- railway way should be constructed. It was also a con- ''"^•^'°s dition with British Columbia that it should be connected by railway with eastern Canada. [471 ] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA Railway building, in fact, was continuous after 1873. It was going on up to the beginning of the war. Even the war did not put a stop to it; for while the mileage of Canadian lines in 1914 stood at 30,755, by the end of 1916 it had been increased to 37,434 miles. Govern- Towards the cost of these railways the ™^^* Dominion government, between 1867 and 191 6, raUway contributed ^184,719,000; the provincial govern- ment"^" rnents contributed $37,437,000; and the mu- nicipalities nearly $17,000,000. The Dominion government also granted the railway companies 31,864,000 acres of land in the prairie provinces; and the provinces that retained their crown lands at Confederation — British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia — granted 13,120,000 acres of their domain to aid in the construction of railways. PoUtics Canada in 1916 had a population of 185 for ^ each mile of railway, as compared with 400 in buUding the United States. Politics, rather than trans- port needs,^ accounted for much of the railway building between 1904 and the beginning of the war, building largely due to the railway policy of the Liberal government of 1896-1911. Trans- Two new transcontinental lines were built nentai between 1905 and 1914. There was much railways double-tracking of the Canadian Pacific, west of Fort William, to facilitate the movement of grain ^ Cf. A. W. Smithers, chairman of Grand Trunk Railway Company. "The Answer," 2. C472] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA to the head of the lakes. There was in these years also much double-tracking of the Grand Trunk, the pioneer line of eastern Canada, which handles much of the western grain en route from transfer ports in Ontario to tidewater at Mont- real and Portland, and also serves many of the industrial cities and towns of the central provinces. New lines were also built that were not of any of the three transcontinental systems. RaUway The most important of these new lines was Nelson *^^ government-owned railway from Le Pas, on Hudson the Great Saskatchewan river, in the province of Manitoba, to Port Nelson, on Hudson Bay. The Laurier government of 1 896-1 911, in direct response to an agitation by the organized grain growers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, committeed the Dominion to this undertaking, which, with the wharves and elevator at Port Nelson, entailed a charge of $26,ocra,ooo on the Dominion treasury. Key to Map on Page 475 Bay I. Lachine canal 10. Scugog branch of Trent 2. Soulanges canal canal 3- Beauharnais canal II. Welland canal 4- Cornwall canal 12. Grand River feeder S- Rapide Plat canal 13- Ottawa-Georgia Bay canal 6. Galops canal (projected) 7- Rideau canal 14. Murray canal 8. Perth branch of Rideau IS- Carillon canal canal 16. Greenville canal 9- Trent canal [474] EVOLUTION OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA A new outlet for western grain Over building of railways Water trans- port The line is 420 miles long. It was pushed through a wild and altogether unsettled country, solely to provide an additional route to Great Britain for grain from the prairie provinces, and thereby relieve the pressure in the months of Sep- tember, October, and November each year on the three transcontinental railways that connect the grain growing provinces with the numerous trans- fer elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur.^ The net result of this almost feverish activity in railway building from 1904 was that 10,000 miles were added to the railway mileage; and in 1916 the Dominion woke up to the fact that, as regards railways, it was seriously overbuilt.^ From 1884 to 1916, and particularly from 1900 to 1914, when the grain trade of the west was increasing with great rapidity, the development of water transport and the building of grain carriers for service on the national grain route from Port Arthur and Fort William to Montreal nearly kept pace with the building of railways. A magnificent lock was built at Sault 'Ste. Marie. The Welland and St. Lawrence canals — seventy-four miles long — were deepened to ^ Cf. Report of Proceedings at Farmers' Delegation to Members of the Government, December 16, 1910, Ottawa, 1911, 29-31; "The Hudson Bay Railroad," S^ueen's Quarterly, Kingston, July, August, September, 1916, 38-45; H. of C. Debates, May 3, 1916, and June 11, 1917. ^ Cf. Report of Royal Commission on Railways, 1915- 1916; "Canada's Future: A Symposium of Official Opinion," 1916, 113. [476] NATIONAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT fourteen feet. Canal tolls were abolished. The canais St. Lawrence ship channel, which extends for °^^^ . grain seventy miles below Montreal, was widened to route 450 feet, and dredged to a depth of thirty feet at low water. Great improvements were also made at all the lake and tidewater ports on the grain route. A large fleet of lake carriers — some for service sMp- on the upper lakes and some, of lesser tonnage, *»"Udiiig for both lake and canal service — went on the Canadian register in the years from 1900 to 1914. Steel shipbuilding yards were established at Port Arthur, Collingwood, Toronto, Kingston, Mont- real, Levis, Sorel, and New Glasgow; and at all these ports except New Glasgow dry docks were built as part of the equipment of the grain route. Liberal subsidies were granted to these docks Govem- by the Dominion government. By this aid, and ^^^ also by a tariff duty of twenty-five per cent on ship- the cost of repairs, made to Canadian vessels in b'>" 494 Customs duties, 416 Customs, minister of, 354, 363 Dawson City, 299 Deadlock, between senate and house, 275 Debates in parliament, re- porting of, 398; and closure, 423, 424 Democracy in Canada, 499, 504; in 1840-1867, 179 Denison, Sir William, and re- sponsible government, 252 Denmark, trade with, 471 Dent, John Charles, 84 n Department of immigration and colonization, 352, 359 Department of interior, 353 Departments, government, 352. 353, 354; and esti- mates, 418 Deposits by candidates, 342, 344» 345 Deputy speaker, 383 Derby administration, 191, 209, 212 Derby, Earl of (Lord Stan- ley), 141, 158, 160; and " Dominion of Canada," 200 Derby-Disraeli government, 210, 221 Desks, in house of commons, 392 Detroit River, 60 Dingley bill, 450, 467 Direct taxation, 494 Disallowance of legislation, 234, 253, 495. 496, 497 Disqualifications of parlia- mentary candidates, 333 Disraeli, Benjamin, 212, 333 Dissolution of parliament, 335; in 1872,336; in 1911, 336; by governor-general, 337 Divorce and United Prov- inces legislature, 165; at Confederation, 166 Divorce bills, in senate, 284, 286; number of, 286; and Ontario and Quebec, 287; reserved, 412 Divorce courts, 287 Doak, printer, 75 Dominion of Canada, 483; rights of, 215; and British treaties, 215; powers of, [519] INDEX 224; status of, in 1876, 413 Dominion franchise bill of 1885, 319; condemned in provinces, 321; arguments against, 322; repealed in 1898, 323 Dominion government, 211; and grants to railways, 473 ; and subventions to prov- inces, 493 Dominion Trades and Labor Congress, 344 Dominions, and colonial oflEce, i; enumerated, 2; area of, 3; population of, 3; tariffs of, 4; and contributions to Great Britain, 4; and British national debt, 4; no in- terference with, from Westminister, 5 Draper-Viger government, 124, 140; and Lord Elgin, 133; and rebeUion losses, 135 Dual membership, 333 Dufferin, Marquis of, 335, 414 Dunning, John, 64 Duration of parliament, 335 Durham, Earl of, 112, 119, 128, 132, 145, 146, 183; mission of, to Canada, 95, 96; Report of, 97-102; return of, to England, 97; and American influence [520] on Canada, icdo; and advantages of union, 102, 103; as a statesman, IIS East India Company, 119 Economist, The, 114 Edgar, J. D., 24 n, 54 n Edmonton, 17, 24 Education act of 1863, 237 Education, in British North America act, 236 Egerton, 64 n, 74 n, 87 Egerton and Grant, 121 «, 122 n Election petitions, 348 Elections act of 1917, 324 n Elections, British, expenses of, 340 Elections, corruption in, 178; holding of, 338; procedure of» 339> 346; expenses of, 340, 341, 348; usages at, 340; uncontested, 342; nomination papers for, 344; day of, 347; controverted, 348 Electoral divisions, settle- ment of, 310; inequality of, 314, 315; single-mem- ber, 316 Electoral franchise, reform of, demanded, 149; left to provinces, 309; civil ser- vants debarred from, 320; civil servants admitted to, 323; reforms in, 324 INDEX Electoral reform in 1856, 161 Electors, qualifications of, 1791, Gj; manifestoes to, 339 Elgin, Earl of, III, 145, 151, 170, 179, 213; as a states- man, 115, 146; governor- general, 127, 132; his policy, 128, 132, 138; politics of, 129; and British connec- tion, 131; and respon- sible government, 133, 248, 252; and rebellion losses bill, 134, 136; demon- strations against, 139, 140; tenders resignation, 141, 142; his achievement, 146; and use of French, 153, 154 Elgin-Marcy Treaty, 188, 432, 447, 454, 456, 461, 466; and British Columbia, 55 EUenborough, Earl of, 120 n Enfranchisement of women, an open question, 376, 377; in prairie provinces, 376 Episcopal church, and clergy reserves, 71 Established church, 401 Estimates, prepared by cabinet, 372, 373; in house of commons, 418 Excess profits tax, 416, 494 Executive councils, 112 Family compacts, 72, 132, 137, 147, 168, 177; and corruption m government, 83 Farrer, James Anson, 414 w Federal union, inevitable, 178 Federal v. legislative union, 217-221 Fielding, William S., 11, 445, 447. 467 Finance bill, 415; amend- ments to, 417; debate on, 417 Finance, minister of, 353 Financial centers of Canada, 36 Financial year of Canada, 378 _ Financiers, and government, 37 Fiscal freedom of colonies, 17,442 Fish, and reciprocity, 458 Fish, Hamilton, 454 Fisheries, and United States, 460 Fleming, Sandford, 64 n Flour exports, 470, 471 Flour milling, 470 Flour mills, 32 Fort Garry, 52 Fort William, 15, 19, 31, 34, 40, 473, 475 Forty shilling freehold quali- fication, 328 Foster, G. E., 333 France, and Canadian tariiFs, 447 Franchise, dominion, 317 [521 ] INDEX Franking privilege, 279, 490 Fredericton, 17 Freedom of speech, and closure, 423 Freedom of the press, struggle for, 75 Free trade, 284; adoption of, by Great Britain, 147; and concessions to Canada, 164, 440 French, use of in king's speech, 280; use of, in parliament, 403 French Canada, and separate schools, 236; and places in cabinet, 357; and the speakership 383; and di- vision of offices, 384 Frontenac, 317 Galleries in house of com- mons, 393 Gait, Alexander, Tulloch, and right of tariff making, 11, 169; and friction with British government, 170; his reply to Newcastle, 172; and Confederation, 189, 191, 209, 223 Gait tariff, 171-175, 398 Gazette, Canada, 253 Gazette, Montreal, 503 George III, 414 George IV, 414 German tariff war, 435-444, and peace without victory, 446 [522] Germany, and British prefer- ence, 442, 443, 450 Gerrymander, in Canada, 310; abolished by Liberals, 312 Gladstone, W. E., 104, 333; and rebellion losses bill, 143; and corruption in Canada, 259, 260 Glengarry, address to Elgin from, 141 Globe, of Toronto, 423 Gosford, Lord, 95 Governing class in Canada, 72; in Lower Canada, 83 Government bills, 415, 420; in provincial legislatures, 493 Government leader in senate, 282 Governor-general of Canada, as link with Great Britain, 5; appointment of 6, 162; at Quebec, in 1792, 76; powers of, 81; partisan, 84; can dissolve legis- lature, 124; appointment of, as patronage, 128; and reserved bills, 157; payment of salary of, 163; nomination of, 215; before and after Confederation, 247; in British North America act, 251; duties of, 254; nonpartisan, 256; limitations on freedom of, 264; suggestion of election INDEX of, 265; and dissolution of parliament, 335; and cabinet, 351, 373; and convening of parliament, 378; and election of speaker, 385; never in house of commons, 393; and speech from the throne, 402; and speaker of house of commons, 420; and disallowance of provincial legislation, 496 Governor-in-council, 253; and rights of minorities, 240 Governors-general, list of, 256 Grain, and railroads, 473, 474 Grain crop, 35 Grain growers, and American interests, 32; organization of, 47; and agitation against titles, 367; and British preference, 440; political movements of, 441; and reciprocity, 457, 460, 463; and Sir W. Laurier, 463, 464 Grain Growers' Guide, 367 n, 441 n Grain growing, beyond Great Lakes, 35; increase of, 44; importance of, 45 Grain handling, charges for, 34 Grain harvests, and pros- perity, 31 Grand Trunk Pacific Rail- way, 42, 50, 57 Grand Trunk Railway, 34, 36; double tracking of, 474 Grants to railways, 473 Granville, Earl of, 207 n Great Britain, and Canadian taxation, 173; and Hudson Bay Co.'s territory, 186; welcomes Confederation, 186; and responsible gov- ernment for Canada, 261; denounces treaties for sake of Canada, 442; and Brit- ish preference, 447 Great Lakes, 14; climate on, 19; and prairie provinces, 31; warships on, 187 Grenville act of 1770, 349 Grey, third earl, 136, 141, 153, 256; and Elgin's offer of resignation, 142 Grey, Sir George, 157 Grey, fourth earl, and co- operation, 264 Grits, 168 Halifax, 17, 24, 33, 37, 43, I39» 163; and legislative assembly of 1758, 64, 76, 251 Hamilton, 24, 45, 106, 150, 167, 169 Harpell, James J., 42 n, 46 n Head, Francis Bond, 85, 92, 122 [523] INDEX Head, Sir Edward Walker, governor-general, 170, 171, 179, 252; and Confeder- ation, 190 Herries, J. C, 143 Hill, printer, 75 Hincks, Francis, 177 n "Hiving the grits," 311 Holland, trade with, 471 Homesteads, 479 "Honorable," 362 House of Commons, Domin- ion, and money bills, 250, 409; membership of, 305; representation of provinces in, 305, 306; and election of speaker, 385; organi- zation of new, 385; seat- ing of members in, 390; rules of, 400; procedure in, 401, 402, 409, 410; quorum of, 401; atten- dance in, 401; select stand- ing committees of, 407; and supply, 418; and obstruction, 421 Howe, Joseph, 75 Hudson Bay, 14, 474 Hudson Bay Company, 16, 24, 53; and the Bridge, 41; and immigration, 43; end of rule of, 54; territory of, 59; Lower Canada and, 185; and United States, 188; and crown lands, 233 Hume, Joseph, 119 Hustings, 327 C524] Immigration, 27, 478; into prairie provinces, 43; Do- minion rights over, 216; Chinese, 234; legislation concerning, 234; propa- ganda, 23 s, 473; expendi- tures on, and corruption, 258; and National Policy, 430; and British prefer- ence, 451; polyglot, 478; and Ontario, 481 Immigration and coloniza- tion, minister of, 354 Indemnities, for members of parliament, 279 Independent political move- ments, 480 India, 59 Industries of United Kingdom and Canadian tariffs, 175 Ineligibility for parliament, 334 Inland revenue duties, 416 Inland revenue, minister of, 354, 363 Institute of chartered accoun- tants, 497 Intercolonial Railway, 259, 299. 359, 471 Interior, minister of, 354; from prairie provinces, 359 Intermediate tariff, 437 Irish Nationalist party, 343 Iron and steel bounties, 258 Iron and steel manufacture, 29; in Sydney, 45; and National Policy, 469, 470 INDEX Italy, and British preference, 442,449 Jamaica, 119, 127 Japan, trade with, 471 Johnson, President, 202, 205 Journals of parHament, 401 Judges, appointment of, 498, 499 Judicial committee of privy council, 495; and separate schools question, 245 Judiciary of Canada, 499 Justice, minister of, 354 Kamloops, 50 Kenny, Edward, 358 Kenora, 38, 41, 50, 471 "Kingdom of Canada," 200, 205 Kingston, 24, 35, 106, 113, 120, 163 Knighthoods, 72, 365, 366, 369 Labor and socialist parties, 480; and elections, 345; in provincial legislatures, 488 Labor candidates, 343 Labor, minister of, 354 Labouchere, Henry, 113; co- lonial secretary, 190 Lafontaine, Louis Hyppolite, 117, 120, 123, 251 Lafontaine-Baldwin govern- ment, 123, 124, 133, I3S> 136, 140 Lake Erie, 35 Lake navigation and United States, 33 Lake of the Woods, 38 Lake Superior, 34, 44 Lansdowne, Marquis of, 256, 443 Lash, 414 n Laurier, Sir Wilfred, 11, 297, 310,333,363; and separate schools, 244; and redistri- bution, 307, 315; and end of gerrymandering, 313; and cabinet, 360; and the grain growers, 463 Laurier government 150 n; repeals Dominion franchise act, 323; and electoral reform, 324; and reci- procity with United States, 336, 396, 456, 461, 462; and obstruction, 421, 422; defeat of, 465 Lawyers, and parliament, 331 Legislative assembly, Quebec, 76; made bihngual, 80; limitations of, 81, 8$; refused to vote supplies, 93 Legislative assembly. Upper Canada, powerlessness of, Legislative council, Quebec, 76; power of, 81; bishops and judges in, 85 Legislative council, United Provinces, demand for elec- C5253 INDEX tion of, ISO, 158; New- castle and, 160; members of, elected, 161, 267; num- ber of members of, 162 Legislative councilors, salaries of, 486 Legislative councils, disap- pearance of, 484; member- ship of, 485 Legislative union of 1840, 104; debates at West- minister on, 105; consti- tution of, 106 Legislature of United Prov- inces, constitution of, 107; bilingual, 108 Legislatures, early, 76; con- stitution and procedure of, 77, 4CX); limitations of 80; bicameral, 484 Lemieux, Rodolphe, 424 Le Pas, Manitoba, 14, 474 Lewis, George Cornewall, 87 Liberal-Conservatives, 168, 284 Liberal convention of 1859, 19s Liberals, 343; after Con- federation, 284; and the senate, 288, 302; and the gerrymander, 312; and electoral franchise, 320; and Dominion franchise act of 188s, 322; and electoral reform, 324; and the tariff, 398, 417, 434 Lieutenant-governors, as [526] links with Great Britain, 5; appointment of, 6, 253, 483; and resignation of premier, 488; salaries of, 491; terms of, 491; non- partisan, 491; duties of, 492» 493 Links of empire, 364, 434, 49^ Lisgar, Lord, 314 London, O., 106 Lord Chancellor, 280 Lome, Marquis of, 128 n, 2SS. 414 Lower Canada, 67, 74; and constitutional development, 75; legislature of. In 1792, 79; and import duties, 81; corruption In government of, 82; and governing class, 83; population of, in 1838, loi; and disputes with Upper Canada, 102; repre- sentation of, 106; con- cession to, in 1848, 152; overrepresentatlon of, 184 " Loyahst," 75 Lucas, Sir C. P., on crown colonies, 7 w, 82 w; on Durham, 115 Lumber, and reciprocity, 457 Lytton, Bulwer, colonial sec- retary, 191 Macdonald, Baroness, first Canadian peer, 73 n Macdonald government, 362, 431; and Canadian Pacific INDEX Railroad scandal, 260; members of, 352 Macdonald, Senator, 278 n Macdonald, Sir John A., 11, 297, 332, 336, 363, 424; and Confederation, 200, 209, 216, 223, 225; and electoral franchises, 318, 320, 323; and National Policy, 432, 433, 466; and reciprocity, 458 Mace, the, 381, 384, 391 McGee, Thomas Darcy, 209 Mackenzie, Alexander, 297, 335. 336, 363, 412, 414 Mackenzie government, 453 Mackenzie, William Lyon, rebellion of, 10, 89, 94, 122, 138, 145, 269; life of, 91, 92, 93; amnestied, 94 McKinley tariff, 466, 467 MacLean's Magazine, 367 n Magdalen Islands, 486 Magna Charta, as advertise- ment, 449 Mails, 416 Maine, and Confederation, 201; resolutions against, from, 202 Maisonneuve, 314 Manhood suffrage, 325 Manitoba, 14, 31, 41, 186, 188, 212, 297, 474; created a province, 16; climate of, 18; and crown lands, 56; and divorce, 166; and federal union, 217; and separate schools, 239; representation of, in house of commons, 305; and the cabinet, 358; and enfranchisement of women, 376; and British prefer- ence, 440; and bicameral system, 484; scandals in, 502 Manitoba school question, 243. 374 Manufacturers, British, pro- tests of, 171 Manufacturers, Canadian, and protection, 30, 170, 437; and the preference, 435. 452; and British trade, 438; more protec- tion for, 440, 467; and reciprocity, 457, 461 Manufacturing in Canada, 29; first impulse towards, 27; influenced by United States, 28; and National Policy, 469 Marine and fisheries, minis- ter of, 354 Maritime Provinces, climate of, 18; and union, 21, 219; economic interests of, 22; immigration into, 27; and crown lands, 56; and union in 1864, 74, 198; and Confederation, 180; union of, urged by Moore, 182; and overtures for Con- federation, 195; and jeal- [527] INDEX ousy of United Provinces, 283; divorce courts in, 287; and exclusion of civil servants from fran- chise, 320; and protection, 432 Marriage, power over, 230, 232 Melbourne administration,9S; and Lord Durham, 97 Member of house of com- mons, resignation of, 349; attendance of, 401; oppor- tunities of, 425 Merritt, of Lincoln, 183 Metcalfe, Sir C. T., 118, 124, 128, 153, 252; life of, 119; policy of, 120, 121, 126; and election of 1844, 125 Metcalfe commission, 134, 13s Michigan, Lake, 15, 163, 164 Mileage allowances, 279 Militia and defense, minister of, 3 54 Mines, minister of, 354 Minister of finance, 353; his statement to parlia- ment, 415 Minister of public works, 353 Minister of railways and canals, 353; from New Brunswick, 358 Minister of trade and com- merce, 353 Ministers without portfolio, 361, 390 [528] Minorities, safeguards for, 240 Minto, Earl of, 256 Molesworth, Sir William, 156 n Monck, Viscount, governor- general, 179, 252; and Confederation, 208 Moncton, 42, 359 Money bills, originating in lower house, 136; in legis- lature, 249; and senate, 286; and the cabinet, 373; procedure on, 409 Montgomery's tavern, 94 Montreal, 24, 26, 33, 34. 37» 79, 106, 132, 150, 167, 360; as financial center, 36; population of, 45; and governing class 72; bad municipal government in, 500 Moore, Colonel, 182 Move to reduce salary, 361 Mowat, Oliver, 209, 290 Mulock, Sir WiUiam, 311 n Municipal code for United Provinces, 109 Municipal elections, 346 Municipal government, 500 Municipal ownership, in prai- rie provinces, 48 Municipalities, and Act of Union, IC9 Munro-Ferguson, 114 Musgrave, General, 56 n Natal, a crown colony to 1893. 3 INDEX National debt of Great Britain, and dominions, 4 National grain route, 19, 430; improvements to, 35, 36 National Policy, 169, 457, 463, 466; definition of, 430; beginnings of, 431, 434; and McKinley tariff, 466; results of, 469, 477, 479; and industries, 479; and farmers, 479, 481; and high cost of living, 481 National Policy tariffs, 432 National Transcontinental Railway, 42 Navigation laws, 162, 163; right to make, 215 Navigation laws, United States, 33 Navy, British, and Canada, 163 Navy Island, Niagara River, 94 Nelson, B. C, 50 New Brunswick, manufactur- ing in, 29; and crown lands, 56; government es- tablished in, 66; and politi- cal demands of United Empire Loyalists, 66; and constitutional development, 74; and hemp bounties, 174; adopts Confederation resolutions, 2CX); and Con- federation, 211; and sepa- rate schools, 241; and the senate, 270; representation of, in house of commons 305; and the cabinet, 358 and iron industry, 470, and bicameral system, 484 and separate schools, 498 scandals in, 502 Newcastle, Duke of, 161 170, 292; and colonies, 130; colonial secretary, 155; and Canadian re- forms, 158, 159; and pro- tection, 171; and tariff of 1859, 174, 176 Newfoundland, 59, 213; and protection, 4; area of, 13; population of, in 1783, 60; and Confederation, 275; and fiscal freedom, 443 New Glasgow, 477 Newport News, 35 New South Wales, 61; and responsible government, 145; and protection, 176 Newspaper organs, 393, 395; and reciprocity in 191 1, 396 Newspaper press, 262; and the senate, 291 Newspapers, political rewards for, 394; and reporting of parliament, 399; and criti- cism, 429 New Westminster, 50, 57 New York, 35 [529] INDEX New Zealand, 59, 146, 166; and the British connection, 129; and responsible gov- ernment, 145; and pro- tection 176; and fiscal freedom, 443; and British preference, 448 Niagara, 75, 106; and meet- ing of legislature of Upper Canada 78 Nomination papers, 344 Nordegg, 42 North Bay, Ontario, 38 North, Lord, 63 North Sydney, 45 Northwest Territory, 16 Norway, trade with, 471 Nova Scotia, 327, 371, 43°; climate of, 19; manufac- turing in, 29; and crown lands, 56; and United Empire Loyalists, 63; gov- ernment of, in 1758, 64; and constitutional develop- ment, 74; and tariffs of United Provinces, 175; and Confederation resolutions, 200; and Confederation, 211; and separate schools, 241; and the senate, 270; representation of, in house of commons, 305; fran- chise in, 325; and plural voters, 329; and coal, 433; and iron industry, 470; and manufacturing, 471; bicameral legislature of, [530] 484, 485; and separate schools, 498; municipal government in, 501 Nova Scotian, 75 Oaths, of members of parUa- ment, 379 Obstruction in house of com- mons, 421-423, 462 Ogdensburg, 33 Ontario, 213, 430; climate of, 18; economic interests of, 22; antagonism of, to Quebec, 23; and manufac- turing, 26; and immigra- tion, 27; and protection, i 30; and prairie prov- inces, 31; and crown lands, 56; and divorce, 166; and Confederation, 211; and separate schools, 236; and the senate, 270; and divorce bills, 287; representation of, in house of commons, 305; and the cabinet, 357; and wheat, 433; and British preference, 440; and manu- facturing, 471; abandons bicameral system, 484; gov- ernment of, 489; municipal government in, 501 Open questions, 376 Opposition leader, 352; elec- tion of, 386; salary of, 387, 388 Orders-in-council, 254, 372 INDEX Ottawa, 23, 139, 283; foun- dation of, 24 Pakington, Sir John, 156 Palmerston, Lord, 113, 130 Falmerston-Russell adminis- tration, 170 Papineau, Louis Joseph, re- bellion of, 10, 86, 93, 117, 153, 269; life of, 89, 90; success of, 95, 145; return of, 137 n Parliament, British, and re- bellion losses bill, 144 Parliament, Dominion, and creation of provinces, 16; and divorce, 166; as con- tinuation of United Prov- inces legislature, 284; and electoral divisions, 3 10; duration of, 335; time of assembling of, 378 Pariiamentary candidates in United Kingdom, Cana- dians as, 330 Parliamentary reform, move- ment for, in England, 91 Parliamentary secretaries, 354. 363 Party conventions, 339 Party lines in Canada, 263; after Confederation, 284 Party names in Canada, 148 n Patronage of the crown, 163, 267, 295; and revision of electoral rolls, 321; titles as, 366; and independent political movements, 480; and legislative councils, 485 Patrons of Industry, 343, 480, 481 Payne-Aldrich tariff, 461 Payne, Sereno E., 450 Peel, Sir R., 87, 104, 117, 143, 153 Peerages, 73, 365-370 Pensions for ex-cabinet minis- ters, 389 Pensions for government offi- cials, abolition of, de- manded, 150 Philadelphia, 35 Pitt, 69, 71 Plural office holders, 85 Plural voter, in Canada, 328 Political parties, not recog- nized by law, 346 PoHtics, popular interest in, 399 Pontiac, 317 Population of Canada, 305; and railway mileage, 473; slow increase, of 477, 479 Pork barrel, in Canada, 85 Port Arthur, 15, 19, 34, 40, 41. 475 Port Jackson, 61 Portland, 32, 33, 43 Port Nelson, 14, 474 Port Roseway, 63 Postmaster general, 354 Prairie provinces, 29, 30; and Ontario and Quebec, 31, 45; and immigration, [531] INDEX 43; crops of, 44; and the tariff, 45; politics of, 48; parliamentary represen- tation of, 49; forward policies of, 218; railway lands in, 473 Preferential tariff for United Kingdom, 434, see British preference Premier, and cabinet, 351, 3SS-3S7» 359; and con- ferring of titles, 365; and legislation, 420 Premier, British, and for- mation of cabinet, 355 President of council, 352 Press gallery, in house of commons, 39; and prefer- ment, 397 Press gallery, in senate, 291 Prices in Canada, 41; of grain, 45 Prime minister, see Premier Primogeniture, abolition of, demanded, 149 Prince Edward Island, 31, 305, 327; and crown lands, 56; and United Empire Loyalists, 63; and fish bounties, 174; and Con- federation, 211; and sepa- rate schools, 241, 498; and the senate, 270; and the cabinet, 358; and single- chamber legislature, 485 ; municipal government in, SOI C532] Prince Rupert, 42, 50, 57 Private bills, 415; definition of, 428; in provincial legislatures, 499 Private members' bills, 415; definition of, 428; in pro- vincial legislatures, 493 Privilege, question of, 427, 429 Privy council at Whitehall, Canadian members of, 363 Privy council for Canada, 251. 338, 361, 364. 371; members of, in parliament, 390 Procedure of house of com- mons, 401, 402, 409, 410 Procedure of senate, 284, 285 Progressive Republican party, 434 Property qualifications, abo- lition of, demanded, 149, 158 Protection in Canada, and United States, 28, 30; movement for, 167, 168; adopted by Liberals, 395; and National Policy, 430, 431; and British prefer- ence, 438; increases in, 440; and high cost of living, 482 Protective tariff, demand for, 151; Liberal opposition to, 394; as dividing line in poUtics, 398; before Na- tional Policy, 431; Domin- ion committed to, 434 INDEX Protectorates, and colonial ofl&ce, I Provinces, North American, i6; area of, 17; represen- tation of, 17, 272 Provinces, power to create, 212; and representation in house of commons, 309; and electoral franchises, 3"» 318 Provincial governments, and grants to railways, 473; and advertising, 478; defi- nition of, 483; dependent on parliamentary majority, 488; formation of, 489; salaries of ministers in, 490; revenues of, 493 Provincial legislatures, pow- ers of, 231; members, of, and Dominion cabinet, 356; membership of, 486; salaries of members of, 487; terms of, 487; party lines in, 488; procedure in, 492; powers of, 494; checks on, 494 Public Advertiser, 75 Public opinion in Canada, 262 Public works, minister of, 353 Puget Sound, 50 Qualifications, for mem- bers of legislative council, 161; for voters, 319, 325, 327; disappearance of, 328; for members of house of commons, 329 Quebec, economic interests of, 22; antagonism of, to Ontario, 23; manufactur- ing in, 26; rural economy, of, 26; and immigration, 27; and prairie provinces, 31; and crown lands, 56; and United Empire Loyal- ists, 63; and constitution of 1774, 64; and divorce, 166; and Confederation, 211; and legislative union, 220; and separate schools, 236, 240; and the senate, 270; representation of, in house of commons, 305; and redistribution, 308; and electoral franchise, 326; and plural voters, 329; and the cabinet, 357; and iron and steel bounties, 430; and the iron industry, 470; and manufacturing, 471; bicameral legislature of, 484, 485 Quebec act of 1791, 69, 82; and number of provinces, 74 Quebec City, 17, 24, 106, 139, 163; legislature meets at, in 1792, 79 Quebec convention, 199; in- dependence of, 208; con- stitution of, 209; and distribution of powers, 224 [533] INDEX Queen Anne, 414 Queen Victoria, 88, 96; and Canada, 24; and colonial governors, 113; and Sir Charles Bagot, 118; and Sir C. T. Metcalfe, 125; and Lord Elgin, 127 Questions in Parliament, 426 Quorum of house of commons, 401 Rails, steel, 470 Railway building, 471, 473 Railways and canals, minister of, 353 Railways, and corruption, 258; and government grants, 473, 494; mileage of, 473, 475 Readings of bills, 410, 411 Rebellion losses bill, 134, 138, 139; and British ( parliament, 144 Reciprocity with United States, 163, 174, 395, 398; endangered by Gait tariff, 174, 175; denunciation of treaty of, 187; in 1911,336, 396; and obstruction, 421; in National Policy, 430, 431, 432; movements for, 4S4» 4S5> 459; and Cana- dian tariffs, 455; over- tures for, from Canada, 456, 459; overtures for, from United States, 461; opposition to, in 191 1, 462; in wheat and flour, 467 [534] Red chamber, 280 Redistribution act of 1882, 310, 341 Redistribution act of 1914, 18 Redistribution, after census, 306, 307, 309; principle of, 308; in 1903, 312; in 1914. 314 Reforms, demand for, in Upper Canada, 148-15 1; and British parliament, 160 Regal chair, 255 Regina, Sask., 17, 26 Registrars of deeds, ineligible to parliament, 334 Reporting of parliamentary debates, 397 Reserved bills, 157, 214 Residential qualification for members of parliament, 330, 332 Resolutions, preceding bills, 415, 416 Responsible government, de- fined, 2; development of, 9; granted to dominions, 12; granting of, iii, 163; and Sir C. Bagot, 118; and Sir C. T. Metcalfe, 120; and Robert Baldwin, 124; in United Provinces, 127; and Elgin, 133, 139; on trial, 142; and Earl Rus- sell, 144; extended in 1850, 14s; conceded to United INDEX Provinces, 164; or military rule, 176; definition of, 248; based on usage, 249; and corruption, 259; and Canadian leadership, 260; and people of Canada, 261; from 1840, 487; in provinces, 495 Retaliation, against Ger- many, 445 Returning officers, 339, 342, 348 Revelstoke, B. C, 50 Rhodes, Edgar, 381 n Riddell, Justice, 65 n, 67 n, 71 n, 261 n, 409 n, 414 n; on United States Supreme Court, 499 Ridings, county divisions, 316 Robertson, Senator J. E., 278 n Robinson, Sir John Beverley, first Canadian baronet, 73 w Roebuck, J. A., 116, 119, 207 Roll call of house of commons, 401 Roman Catholic church, and Quebec constitution of I774> 65; and American Revolution, 65 Roman Catholics, as electors, 69; and separate schools, 236, 240, 244, 24s, 497; in Canada in 1867, 238; and the cabinet, 358 Rose, attorney-general, 168 Rossland, B. C, 50 Rouges, Liberals, 148 Royal assent, 412, 419 Royal commission, 429 Royalties, mining, 416, 494 Russell, Lord John, 104; and Act of Union of 1840, no; and Earl of Elgin, 127; and rebellion losses bill, 143; and responsible government, 145; and Con- federation, 221 Russell administration, 136 St. Denis, 94 St. John, 24, 33, 43 St. John River, 66 St. Lawrence, 14, 460; and development of Canada, IS St. Lawrence canals, 36, 147, 151. 475 St. Lawrence ship channel, 36, 475 St. Michael and St. George, order of, 363 Salisbury, Marquis of, 333, 443 San Francisco, 187 Saskatchewan, 14, 31, 41, 186, 188, 212, 474; created a province, 16; climate of, 18; and crown lands, 56; and divorce, 166; and federal union, 217; and separate schools, 239, 243, 374; and the senate, 270; [535] INDEX representation of, in house of commons, 305, 309; and the cabinet, 358; and enfranchisement of women, 376; and British prefer- ence, 440; and single- chamber legislature, 485 Saskatoon, 44 Sault Ste. Marie, canal locks at, 35; and steel rails, 470, 475 Scandals at Ottawa, 257, 258; in municipal government, 502 Schools, in Upper Canada in 1867, 237 Schools, separate, see Sepa- rate schools Scotch immigration, 27 Second chambers in Canada, 289, 292, 303 Secretary of state, 354 Secretary of state for external affairs, 352 Sectarian schools, 236 Select standing committees of house of commons, 407; powers of, 408 Senate, Dominion, 267; and elective principle, 268; and money bills, 269; appoint- ment to, as patronage, 270, 293, 295; use of, 272, 303; bills rejected by, 272, 299; an independent body, 277; seating of members of, 281; and the cabinet, 282; [336] procedure in, 284; divorce bills in, 284, 286, 303; and tariff legislation, 286; num- ber of bills in, 286; as revising chamber, 288; its place in Canada, 289; agitation against, 291; no office holders in, 292; and house of commons, 296; first appointments to, 297; adverse majorities in, 297; docility of, 299; vacancies in, 300; applicants for, 300, 301; party service by, 303; and speech from throne, 402; and finance bills, 418 Senatorial divisions of Que- bec, 268, 270, 271 Senators, qualifications of, 267; number of, 273, 275; appointments of, to break deadlock, 275; tenure of, 276, 277; resignation of, 278; vacation of seat of, 278; payments to, 278; age of, 294; periods of vigilance of, 298 Separate schools, 236, 244, 24s. 374» 497 Sergeant at arms, 280, 378, 383,384 Sheep industry, 44 Sheffield, 171 Sherbrooke, 106 Sheriffs, ineligible to parlia- ment, 334; and elections, 337 INDEX Shipbuilding in Canada, 35, 477 Sifton, minster of interior, 374 Simcoe, John Graves, 78 n "Six months' hoist," 410 Slavery forbidden in Upper Canada, 78 Smith, Goldwin, 262 n Soap, duties on, 168 Socialist movements, 480 Solicitor-general, 354, 363 Sorel, Quebec, 79 Soulanges, 314 South Africa, Union of, 443, 448 Southampton, 129 South AustraUa, and pro- tection, 177 Speaker, British, 379 Speaker of house of commons, 378, 379; choice of, 380; duty of, 382; patronage of, 382; election of, 384; and governor-general, 420 Speaker of house of repre- sentatives, 380 Speaker of legislative council, 158 Speaker of senate, 280, 295 Speakerships, as spoils, 295 Spectator, The, Hamilton, 168 Speech from the throne, 284, 402 Speeches, time limit for, 403, 422 Spoils, political, 295, 296 Stages of bills, 411 Stanley, Lord, Earl of Derby, 104, 121, 126, 205, 256 State church, attempt to establish, 70 State departments, 363 Stickene River, 299 Stimson, 71 n, 105 n Stony Plain, 42 Strathcona, Lord, 439 n Strong, Sir Henry, 215 Stuart, John, 165 n Subsidies to railways, 494 Subventions to provinces, 493 Sudbury, Ontario, 40 SuppUes, voting of, 415 Surtax, German, 446 Sword, girding with, 328 Sydenham, Lord, 97, iii, 112, 119, 120, 128, 145, 179, 248; life of, 113; character of, 115 Sydney, N. S., 45, 175, 436; and steel rails, 470 Sydney, New South Wales, 61 Tache-Macdonald govern- ment, 197 Taft, William H., 225 n, 461 Tariff, dividing line in poli- tics, 47; schedules of, 436; and commercial treaties, 447 Tariff duties in Canada, 109, 150, 162; right to enact, 165, 166; rates of, in 1856, [537] INDEX 167; and reciprocity with United States; 455 Tariff for revenue only, 417 Tariff of 1870, 432; discon- tent with, 433 Tariff policy of Dominion, 37; enunciated by Gait, 172 Tariff preferences, 4 Taxation, imposing of, 415; resolutions for, 415, 416 Teslin Lake, 299 Textile industry, 37 Thomson, Poulett, Lord Sydenham, 97 Thompson, premier, 363 Thornton, British minister, 4S4 Three Rivers, 26, 79, 106 Tilley, Samuel Leonard, 209 Titles, new attitude towards, 365; bargains for, 366; agitation against, 367; minute of council against, 368 Toronto, 17, 24, 37, 106, 123, 150, 167, 360; as financial center, 36; population of, 45; and governing class, 72; became capital, 75; as capital, 489 Toronto East, 316 Toronto West, 3 16 Toryism in Canada, 84 Townshend, Thomas, 64 Trade and commerce, minis- ter of, 353 C 538 ] Transport policy of Do- minion, 37 Transport system of central Canada, 29 Treasury bench, 392 Treaties, British, and Do- minion of Canada, 215, 442 Treaties, commercial, ap- pointment of plenipoten- tiaries for, 10; and British preference, 442 Tupper, Sir Charles, 11, 198, 332, 363, 458 n; and Con- federation, 209, 226; and separate schools, 245 Two Mountains, 3 17 Two-party system, 343 Underwood-Simmons tariff, 467 Union of Quebec and On- tario, 10 United Empire Loyalists, 61, 168; exodus of, from United States, 62; settle- ment of, in Canada, 63; and Quebec constitution, 64; and New Brunswick, 66; and Family Compacts, 72; and United States, 84 United Farmers of Ontario, 4S0 United Provinces, constitu- tion of, 105; legislature of, 106, 112, 154; political civilization of, 146; and INDEX tariiF laws, 147; develop- ment of, 147; and British cabinet, 152; and clergy reserves, 156; and amend- ments to constitution, 157- 159; concessions to, 163; rights assumed by, 164; protection in, 168, 432; and Confederation, 180; dead- lock in, 189; and sugges- tions for Confederation, 195; instability in, 197; adopt Confederation reso- lutions, 200; dominant in Dominion parliament, 283 United States constitution, compared with British North America act, 227 United States, influence on Canada, 9, 166, 180, 465, 467; between 1820 and 1837, 83; in 1838, 99; and protection in Canada, 169,465; equality of treat- ment of, 177; opposition of, to Confederation, 200; mistakes of, emphasized, 224; and British prefer- ence, 44.9, 450; and reci- procity, 454, 455 United States supreme court, 499. University representation in Canada, 315 n Upper Canada, 74; created in 1791, 67; constitutional contribution of, 75; and British law, 78; and im- port duties, 81; corruption in government of, 82; population of, in 1838, loi; and disputes with Lower Canada, 102; repre- sentation of, 106; political development of, 147; re- formers of, 148; discontent with representation of, 183; and defense of northwest provinces, 188 Upper chambers, 74 Vancouver, 24, 51, 57 Vancouver Island, description of, 49, 50; history of, 54 Van Dieman's Land, 61; and responsible govern- ment, 145 Veto power, 414, 495 Victoria, 17, 24; description of, 49-51; and protection, 176 Wages, of members of parlia- ment, 69 Wages, of senators, 278 Wallace, 62 n Ways and means, committee on, 415 Weaver, Emily, 64 n Welland canal, 35, 147, 151, 475 Wellington, Duke of, 87, 104, 143; and Sir C. Bagot, 117; maxim of, 265 [539] INDEX West Australia, a crown colony, to 1890, 3 West Indies, and British preference, 448 Wheat growing in Ontario, 433 Whigs, and Canadian con- stitution of 1774, 64 Whips, party, 401, 402, 429 Whitemouth, Manitoba, 42 Whitney administration, 490 Wilberforce, 156 William IV, and colonies, 95 Willsun, UcckUs, 439 n Wilson, James, 1 1 3 Winnipeg, 17, 24, 41, 42, 314, 471; formerly Fort Garry, 52 Woolen duties and British preference, 452 Wrecking, reciprocity in, 460 Writs, for elections, 338, 348 Wrong, Professor, 290; and the senate, 294 Yale, Caribou, 317 York, now Toronto, 75 Young, Sir John, governor- general, 207 n Yukon, territory of, 16; and representation in house of commons, 305 [540] -0 \V'2 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 017 373 548 l<(4ii if it ' ' 'pi m' !'* ' ' i* \ t i 1 1 1 ' ■ ■*■',