Diary in America, Series Two

Volume Three—Chapter Six

I have quoted largely from Lord Durham’s Report, as in most points relative to Lower Canada, especially as to the causes which produced the rebellion, the unwarrantable conduct of the Legislative Assembly, and his opinions as to the character of the French Canadians, I consider that the remarks are correct: they are corroborated by my own opinions and observations: but I think that the information he has received relative to Upper Canada is not only very imperfect, but certainly derived from parties who were not to be trusted: take one simple instance. His lordship says in his Report, that the petitioners in favour of Mathews and Lount, who were executed, amounted to 30,000, whereas it is established, that the whole number of six natures only amounted to 4,574. Those who deceive his lordship in one point would deceive him in another; indeed his lordship had a task of peculiar difficulty, going out as he did, vested with such powers, and the intents of his mission being so well known. It is not those who are in high office that are likely to ascertain the truth, which is much more likely to be communicated to a humble individual like myself, who travels through a country and hears what is said on both sides. The causes stated by his lordship for discontent in Upper Canada are not correct. I have before said, and I repeat it, that they may almost be reduced to the following: the check put upon their enterprise and industry by the acts of the Lower Canadian Assembly; and the favour shewn to the French by the Colonial Office, aided by the machinations of the American party, who fomented any appearance of discontent.

There is in his lordship’s Report, an apparent leaning towards the United States, and its institutions, at which I confess that I am surprised. Why his lordship, after shewing that the representative government did all they possibly could to overthrow the constitution, should propose an increase of power to that representative government, unless, indeed, he would establish a democracy in the provinces, I am at a loss to imagine.

That a representative body similar to that which attempted to overturn the constitution in Lower Canada can work well, and even usefully reform when in the hands of loyal English subjects, is acknowledged by his lordship, who says, “the course of the Parliamentary contest in Upper Canada has not been marked by that singular neglect of the great duties of a legislative body, which I have remarked in the proceedings of the Parliament of Lower Canada. The statute book of the Upper Province abounds with useful and well-constructed measures of reform, and presents an honourable contrast to that of the Lower Province.”

Indeed, unless I have misunderstood his lordship he appears to be inconsistent, for in one portion he claims the extension of the power of the representative, and in another he complains of the want of vigorous administration of the royal prerogative, for he says:—

“The defective system of administration in Lower Canada, commences at the very source of power; and the efficiency of the public service is impaired throughout by the entire want in the colony of any vigorous administration of the prerogative of the crown.”

To increase the power of the representative is to increase the power of the people, in fact to make them the source of power; and yet his lordship in this sentence acknowledges that the crown is the source of power, and that a more vigorous administration of its prerogative is required.

There are other points commented upon in his lordship’s Report, which claim earnest consideration: one is, that of the propriety of municipal institutions. Local improvements, when left in the hands of representative assemblies, are seldom judicious or impartial, and should therefore be made over either to the inhabitants or executive. The system of townships has certainly been one great cause of the prosperity of the United States, each township taxing itself for its own improvement. Although the great roads extending through the whole of the Union are in the hands of the Federal Government, and the States Government take up the improvement on an extensive scale in the States themselves, the townships, knowing exactly what they require, tax themselves for their minor advantages. The system in England is much the same, although perhaps not so well regulated as in America. Are not, however, municipal institutions valuable in another point of view? Do they not prepare the people for legislating? are they not the rudiments of legislation by which a free people learn to tax themselves? And indeed, it may also be asked, would not the petty influence and authority confided to those who are ambitious by their townsmen satisfy their ambition, and prevent them from becoming demagogues and disturbing the country?

Whatever may be the future arrangements for ruling these provinces, it appears to me that there are two great evils in the present system; one is, that the governors of the provinces have not sufficient discretionary power, and the other, that they are so often removed. The evils arising from the first cause have been pointed out in Lord Durham’s Report:—

“The complete and unavoidable ignorance in which the British public, and even the great body of its legislators, are with respect to the real interests of distant communities, so entirely different from their own, produces a general indifference, which nothing but so me great colonial crisis ever dispels; and responsibility to Parliament, or to the public opinion of Great Britain, would, except on these great and rare occasions, be positively mischievous, if it were not impossible. The repeated changes caused by political events at home having no connexion with colonial affairs, have left, to most of the various representatives of the Colonial Department in Parliament, too little time to acquire even an elementary knowledge of the condition of those numerous and heterogeneous communities for which they have had both to administer and legislate. The persons with whom the real management of these affairs has or ought to have rested, have been the permanent but utterly irresponsible members of the office. Thus the real government of the colony has been entirely dissevered from the slight nominal responsibility which exists. Apart even from this great and primary evil of the system, the presence of multifarious business thus thrown on the Colonial Office, and the repeated changes of its ostensible directors, have produced disorders in the management of public business which have occasioned serious mischief, and very great irritation. This is not my own opinion merely; for I do but repeat that of a select committee of the House of Assembly in Upper Canada, who, in a Report dated February 8, 1838, say, ‘It appears to your committee, that one of the chief causes of dissatisfaction with the administration of colonial affairs arises from the frequent changes in the office of secretary of state, to whom the Colonial department is intrusted. Since the time the late Lord Bathurst retired from that charge, in 1827, your committee believe there has not been less than eight colonial ministers, and that the policy of each successive statesman has been more or less marked by a difference from that of his predecessor. This frequency of change in itself almost necessarily entails two evils; first, an imperfect knowledge of the affairs of the colonies on the part of the chief secretary, and the consequent necessity of submitting important details to the subordinate officers of the department; and, second, the want of stability and firmness in the general policy of the Government, and which, of course, creates much uneasiness on the part of the Governors, and other officers of the colonies, as to what measures may be approved.

“‘But undoubtedly (continues the Report) by far the greatest objection to the system is the impossibility it occasions of any colonial minister, unaided by persons possessing local knowledge, becoming acquainted with the wants, wishes, feelings, and prejudices of the inhabitants of the colonies, during his temporary continuance in office, and of deciding satisfactorily upon the conflicting statements and claims that are brought before him. A firm, unflinching resolution to adhere to the principles of the constitution, and to maintain the just and necessary powers of the crown, would do much towards supplying the want of local information. But it would be performing more than can be reasonably expected from human sagacity, if any man, or set of men, should always decide in an unexceptionable manner on subjects that have their origin thousands of miles from the seat of the Imperial Government, where they reside, and of which they have no personal knowledge whatever; and therefore wrong may be often done to individuals, or a false view taken of some important political question, that in the end may throw a whole community into difficulty and dissension, not from the absence of the most anxious desire to do right, but from an imperfect knowledge of facts upon which to form an opinion.’”

This is all very true. There is nothing so difficult as to legislate for a colony from home. The very best theory is useless; it requires that you should be on the spot, and adapt your measures to the circumstances and the growing wants of the country. I may add that it is wrong for the Home Government to consider the government given to the colony as permanent. All that the mother-country can do is to give it one which, in theory, appears best adapted to secure the true freedom and happiness of the people; but leaving that form of government to be occasionally modified, so as to meet the changes which the colony may require, and to conform with its wants and its rising interests: all of which being unforeseen could not be provided for by the prescience of man. The governor, therefore, of a colony should be invested with more discretionary power.

The constant removal of the governor from the colony is also much to be deprecated. On his first arrival, he can only have formed theoretical views, which, in all probability, he will have to discard in a few months. He finds himself surrounded by people in office, interested in their own peculiar policy, and viewing things through their own medium. In all colonies you will usually find an oligarchy, cemented by mutual interest and family connection, and so bound up together as to become formidable if opposed to the Government. Into the hands of these people a governor must, to a certain degree, fall; and must remain in them until he has had time to see clearly and to judge for himself. But by the time that he has just disenthralled himself, he is removed, and another appointed in his place, and the work has to commence de novo.

Lord Durham has proposed that the Canadas should be united, and there certainly are some benefits which would arise could their union take place. He asserts most positively that the French party must be annihilated. He says:– “It must henceforth be the first and steady purpose of the British Government to establish an English population, with English laws and language in this province, and to trust its government to none but a decidedly English legislature.” This is plain and clear; but how is it to be effected? The land of Lower Canada is still in the hands of the French, and nearly five hundred thousand out of six hundred thousand of the population are French.

How, then, are we to make the Lower Canadas English? We may buy up the seigneuries; we may insist upon the English language being used in the Assembly and courts of law, in public documents, etcetera; we may alter the laws to correspond with those of the mother-country; but will that make the province English? We may even insist that none but English-born subjects, or Canadian-born English, shall be elected to the House of Assembly, or hold any public office; but will that make the province English? Certainly not. There is no want of English-born demagogues, as well as French, in the province. The elections of the Lower province are decided by the Canadian French, who are in the majority, and they would find no difficulty in obtaining representatives who would continue the former system of controlling the executive and advocating rebellion. Is it, then, by altogether taking away from the Canadian French the elective franchise and giving it entirely into the hands of the English, that the province is to be made English? If so, although I admit the French have proved themselves undeserving, and have by their rebellion forfeited their birth-right, you then place them in the situation of an injured, oppressed, and sacrificed people; reducing them to a state of slavery which, notwithstanding their offences, would still be odious to the present age. By what means, therefore, does his lordship intend that the province shall become English—by immigration? That requires time; and before the immigration necessary can take place the Canadas may be again thrown into a rebellion by the French machinations. In our future legislation for the Canadas, we must always bear in mind that the French population will be opposed to the Government and to the mother-country; and that there is no chance of a better state of feeling in the Lower province until they shall become amalgamated and swallowed up by British immigration. Until that takes place, the union of the Canadas will only create a conflict between the two races, as opposed to each other as fire and water, and nearly equal in numbers. It will be an immense cauldron, bubbling, steaming, and boiling over—an incessant scene of strife and irritation—a source of anxiety and expense to the mother-country, and, so far from going a-head, I should not be surprised if, in twenty years hence, the English population should be found to be smaller than it now is. Political dissensions would paralyse enterprise, frighten away capital, and, in all probability, involve us in a conflict with the United States. Until, therefore, I understand how the Lower Province is to become British, I cannot think a union between the Canadas advisable.

Whether his lordship is aware of it or not, I cannot say; but there appears to me to be a strong inclination to democracy in all his proposed plans, and an evident leaning towards the institutions of the United States. He wishes to make the Executive Government responsible to the people; he would make one Federal Union of all our provinces, and institute the Supreme Court of Appeal which they have in the United States. In short, change but the word governor for president, and we should have the American constitution, and a “free and enlightened people;”—that is to say, the French Canadians, who can neither read nor write, governing themselves.

So far from a Federal union between all our transatlantic possessions being advisable, I should think, from their contiguity with the Americans, that it would be advisable to keep them separate. I am of the same opinion respecting the Canadas. I consider that, even as two provinces, they are too vast in territory already. Whether it be a woman looking after her servants and household affairs, or a captain commanding a ship, or a governor ruling over a province, large or small as may be the scale of operation, one of the most important points in good legislation, is the eye. A governor of a vast province cannot possibly be aware of the wants of the various portions of the province. He is obliged to take the reports of others, and consequently very often legislates unadvisedly.

That the two provinces cannot remain in their present state is acknowledged by all. The question therefore is, can we rationally expect any improvement from their union? Perhaps it may appear presumptuous in me to venture to differ from Lord Durham, who is a statesman born and bred—for this is not a party question in which a difference of politics may bias one: it is a question as to the well-governing of a most important colony, and no one will for a moment doubt that his lordship is as anxious as the Duke of Wellington, and every other well-wisher to his country, to decide upon that which he considers honestly and honourably to be the best. It is really, therefore, with great deference that I submit to him, whether another arrangement should not be well considered, before the union of the two provinces is finally decided upon.

His lordship has very truly observed, that in legislating, we are to legislate for futurity; if not, we must be prepared for change. Acting upon this sound principle, we are to legislate upon the supposition that the whole country of Upper and Lower Canada is well peopled. We are not to legislate for the present population, but for the future. And how is this to be done in the present condition of the provinces? Most assuredly by legislating for territory—for the amount of square acres which will eventually be filled up by emigration. I perfectly agree with his lordship in the remark that, “if the Canadians are to be deprived of their representative government, it would be better to do it in a straightforward way;” but I submit that it would be done in a straightforward way by the plan I am about to submit to him, and I consider it more advisable than that of convulsing the two provinces by bringing together two races so inveterate against each other. Instead of a union of the two provinces, I should think it more advisable to separate the Canadas into three: Upper, Lower, and Middle Canada,—the line of demarcation, and the capitals of each Province appearing already to be marked out. The Lower province would have Quebec, and be separated from the Middle province by the Ottawa river. The Middle province would have Montreal, and would extend to a line drawn from Lake Simcoe to Lake Ontario, throwing into it all the townships on the American side of the St. Lawrence, which would do away with the great objection of the Upper province being dependent upon the Lower for the transport of goods up the river, and the necessity of dividing between the provinces the custom-house revenues. Under any circumstances, it would be very advantageous to have sport of entry and a custom-house, in or nearer to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as ships would then be able to make an extra voyage every year. I should say that about Gaspé would be the spot. This bay being on the American side of the river St. Lawrence would become the entry port for the Upper and Middle provinces, rendering them wholly independent of the Lower. The Upper province would comprehend all the rest of the territory west of the line, drawn from Lake Superior, and have Toronto for its capital. This would be a pretty fair division of territory, and each province would be more than sufficient for the eye of the most active governor. Let each province have its separate sub-governor and House of Assembly; but let the Upper House, or Senate, be selected of equal numbers from each province, and assemble at Quebec, to decide, with the Governor-in-chief of the provinces, upon the passing or rejecting of the bills of the three respective Lower Houses. This, although perfectly fair, would at once give in the Senate the preponderance to the English of the Upper and Middle provinces. It would still leave to the Lower Canadians their franchise; and their House of Assembly would be a species of safety-valve for the demagogues to give vent to their opinions, (without their being capable of injuring the interests of the provinces,) until they gradually amalgamated with the British immigration. I merely offer this plan as a suggestion to his lordship, and, of course, enter into no further detail.

There are, however, one or two other points which appear to me to be worthy of consideration. If the Canadas are of that importance which I think them, there are no means which we should not use to attach them to the mother country—to make them partial to monarchical institutions—and to identify them with the British empire. We should make sacrifices for them that we would not for other colonies; and therefore it is that I venture my opinion, that it would not only be politic, but just, to such an extensive territory—and what will eventually be, such an extensive population—to permit each of the three provinces, (provided they are ever divided into three,) to select one of their senate to represent them in the British House of Commons. I consider it but an act of justice as well as of policy. This step would, as I said before, identify these valuable provinces with ourselves. They then would feel that they were not merely ruled by, but that they were part and portion of, and assisted in, the government of the British empire. And to draw the line as strictly as possible between them and their democratic neighbours, and to attach them still closer to monarchical institutions, it should be proposed to the Sovereign of these realms that an Order of knighthood and an Order of merit expressly Canadian should be instituted. These last may be considered by many to be, and perhaps in themselves are, trifles; but they are no trifles when you consider that they must militate against those democratic feelings of equality which have been so industriously and so injuriously circulated in the provinces by our transatlantic descendants. I cannot better conclude these observations than by quoting the opinion of so intelligent a nobleman as Lord Durham, who asserts most positively that, “England, if she loses her North American colonies, must sink into a second-rate power.”

Volume Three—Chapter Seven

There was no subject of higher interest to me during my travels in North America, than the past and present condition of the Indian tribes. Were I to enter into the history of the past, I could easily fill three or four volumes with matter which I think would be found very well worth perusing. It is to be lamented that there has been no correct history of the Indian tribes yet published. There are many authors in America well calculated to undertake the task; and the only reason which I can give for its not having been already done, is that, probably, the American Government are not very willing to open the archives of the Indian department even to their own countrymen; and, at the same that time, an American author, who would adhere to the truth, would not become very popular by exposing the system of rapine and injustice which was commenced by the English who first landed, and has been continued up to the present day by the Federal Government of the United States. Nevertheless, it is to be lamented, now that the race is so fast disappearing, that a good historical account of them is not published. There is no want of material for the purpose, even if the Government refuse their aid; but at present, it is either scattered in various works, or when attempted to be collected together, the author has not been equal to the task.