and the upper house, which kept the people in the different provinces, especially in Lower Canada, in a state of continual agitation. In Upper and Lower Canada the official class was arrayed, more or less, with the legislative council against the majority in the assembly. In Lower Canada the dispute was at last so aggravated as to prevent the harmonious operation of the constitution. The assembly was constantly fighting for the independence of parliament, and the exclusive control of the supplies and the civil list. The control of "the casual and territorial revenues was a subject which provoked constant dispute between the crown officials and the assemblies in all the provinces. These revenues were not administered or appropriated by the legislature, but by the governors and their officers. At length, when the assemblies refused supplies, the executive government availed itself of these funds in order to make itself independent of the legislature, and the people through their representatives could not obtain those reforms which they desired, nor exercise that influence over officials which is essential to good government.1 The governor dissolved the Quebec legislature with a frequency unparalleled in political history, and was personally drawn into the conflict. The majority in the assembly persistently advocated an elective legislative council, which would necessarily increase the influence of the French Canadians, and were too often intemperate in the expression of their opinions. Public officials were harassed by impeachments. The assembly's bills of a financial, as well as of a general character, were frequently rejected by the legislative council, and the disputes between the two branches of the legislature eventually rendered it impossible to pass any useful legislation. In this contest the two races were found arrayed against each other in the bitterest antagonism.2 Appeals to the home government were

1 Mr. W. Macdougall: Mercer v. Attorney-General for Ontario, Can. Sup. C. R., vol. v. 545-6.

2" I expected to find a contest between a government and a people; I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state; I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races." Lord Durham's R., 7

very common, but no satisfactory results were attained as long as the constitution of 1791 remained in force. In Upper Canada the financial disputes, which were of so aggravated a character in the lower province, were more easily arranged; but nevertheless a great deal of irritation existed on account of the patronage and political influence being almost exclusively in the hands of the official class—derisively called a family compact"—which practically controlled the executive and legislative councils.1 Religious passion was also aroused on account of the large grants of public land to the Anglican Church (see infra, p. 32), which was all powerful in the government of the province.

In Nova Scotia the majority of the house of assembly were continually protesting against the composition of the executive and legislative councils, and the preponderance therein of certain interests which they conceived to be unfavourable to reform. In New Brunswick, for years, the disputes between the executive and legislative powers were characterized by much acrimony, but eventually all the revenues of the province were conceded to the assembly, and the government became more harmonious from the moment it was confided to those who had the confidence of the majority in the house.3 In Prince Edward Island the political difficulty arose from the land monopoly, which was not to disappear in its entirety until the colony became a part of the confederation of Canada. But when we come to review the political condition of all the provinces, we find, as a rule, "representative government

1 Lord Durham's R., 56-58.

2 Mr. Young to Lord Durham, R., 75, and App. At the time of the border difficulties with Maine, the Nova Scotia legislature voted the necessary supplies. "Yet," said Mr. Howe, "those who voted the money, who were responsible to their constituents for its expenditure, and without whose consent (for they formed two-thirds of the Commons) a shilling could not have been drawn, had not a single man in the local cabinet, by whom it was to be spent, and by whom, in that trying emergency, the governor would be advised." Howe's Speeches and Public Letters, ii. 275.

coupled with an irresponsible executive, the same abuse of the powers of the representative bodies, owing to the anomaly of their position, aided by the want of good municipal institutions; and the same constant interference of the imperial administration in matters which should be left wholly to the provincial governments." In Lower Canada, the descendants of the people who had never been allowed by France a voice in the administration of public affairs, had, after some years' experience of representative institutions, entered fully into their spirit and meaning, and could not now be satisfied with the workings of a political system which always ignored the wishes of the majority who really represented the people in the legislature. Consequently the discontent at last assumed so formidable a character that legislation was completely obstructed. Eventually this discontent culminated in the rebellion of 1837-38,2 which inflicted much injury on the province, though happily it was confined to a very small part of the people. An attempt at a rebellion was also made in the upper province, but so unsuccessfully that the leaders were obliged to fly almost simultaneously with the rising of their followers; though it was not for many months afterwards that the people ceased to feel the injurious effects of the agitation which the revolutionists and their emissaries endeavoured to keep up in the province. In the lower or maritime colonies, no disturbance occurred, and the leaders of the popular party were among the first to assist the authorities in

1 Lord Durham's R., 74.

2 For various accounts of this ill-advised rebellion in Lower Canada, and of the political controversies which preceded it, see Garneau, ii., chaps. ii. and iii., Book 16, pp. 418-96; Christie, vols. iv. and v. ; Bourinot's Canada under British Rule, chap. vi.

3 Ib. pp. 134, 153; Lindsey's Life of W. Lyon Mackenzie.

4" If in these provinces there is less formidable discontent and less obstruction to the regular course of government, it is because in them there has been recently a considerable departure from the ordinary course of the colonial system, and a nearer approach to sound constitutional practice." Lord Durham's R., 74.

their efforts to preserve the public tranquillity, and to express themselves emphatically in favour of British connection.1

The result of these disturbances in the upper provinces was another change in the constitution of the Canadas. The imperial government was called upon to intervene promptly in their affairs. Previous to the outbreak in Canada the government had sent out royal commissioners with instructions to inquire fully into the state of the province of Lower Canada, where the ruling party in the assembly had formulated their grievances in the shape of ninety-two resolutions, in which, among other things, they gave emphasis to their demand for an elective legislative council.2 Lord Gosford came out in 1835 as governor-general and as head of the commission, but the result tended only to intensify the discontent in the province. In 1837, Lord John Russell carried in the House of Commons, by a large majority, a series of resolutions, in which the demand for an elective legislative council and other radical changes was positively refused a rebellion almost immediately followed by rebellion. In this public emergency the Queen was called upon, on the 10th of February, 1838, to sanction a bill passed by the two houses, suspending the constitution, and making temporary provision for the government of Lower Canada. This act 5 was proclaimed in the Quebec Gazette on the 29th of March in the same year, and, in accordance with its provisions, Sir John Colborne appointed a special council, which continued in office until the arrival of Lord Durham, who superseded Lord Gosford as governor

1 See remarks of Mr. Joseph Howe at a public meeting held at Halifax, N.S., in 1838. Howe's Letters and Speeches, i. 171, 179.

2 Garneau, ii. 414. Journals, L. C., 1834, p. 310. Kingsford, ix. 529.

3 Sir C. Grey and Sir G. Gipps were associated with Lord Gosford on the Commission. Kingsford, ix. 589.

4 Eng. Com. J. [92] 305; Mirror of P., 1243-4.

51 and 2 Vict., c. 9; 2 and 3 Vict., c. 53.

6 Christie, v. 51. The first ordinance suspended the Habeas Corpus and declared that the enactment of the council should take effect from date of passage.

general,1 and was also entrusted with large powers as high commissioner 2 "for the adjustment of certain important affairs, affecting the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada.” Immediately on Lord Durham's arrival he dissolved the special council just mentioned and appointed a new executive council. This distinguished statesman continued at the head of affairs in the province from the last of May, 1838, until the 3rd of November in the same year, when he returned to England, where his ordinance of the 28th of June, sentencing certain British subjects in custody to transportation without a form of trial, and subjecting them and others, not in prison, to death in case of their return to the country without permission of the authorities, had been severely censured in and out of Parliament as not warranted by law. So strong was the feeling in the Imperial Parliament on this question, that a bill was passed to indemnify all those who had issued or acted in enforcing an ordinance really enacted in the interest of peace and clemency.5

V. Union Act, 1840.—The immediate result of Lord Durham's mission was an elaborate report, in which he fully reviewed the political difficulties of the provinces, and recommended imperial legislation with the view of remedying existing evils and strengthening British connection. The most important

1 Christie, v. 47-9. Sir John Colborne was only administrator at this time. 2 For instructions, in part, to Lord Durham and his remarks in the House of "Lords on accepting the office, see Christie, v. 47-50.

3

Christie, v. 150-51. After the departure of Lord Durham a council was again appointed. Ib. 240.

For debates on question, text of ordinance and accompanying proclamation, see Christie, v. 158-83.

5 This bill was introduced by Lord Brougham, a personal enemy and the severest critic of Lord Durham's course in this matter. (1 and 2 Vict., c. 112.) In admitting the questionable character of the ordinance, Lord Durham's friends deprecated the attacks made against him, and showed that all his measures had been influenced by an anxious desire to pacify the dissensions in the provinces. Christie, v. 183-94. Bourinot's Canada under British Rule, pp. 136-138. Kingsford, x. 143, et seq.

6 Officially communicated to Parliament, 11th Feb., 1839.