its integrity, they were reproached with leading them to Republicanism and the American Union. Lord Stanley (the late Lord Derby) had declared in 1849, amid the cheers of the House of Commons, that, if the Colonial Secretary was in the habit of consulting Ministers of the Crown in the Colony before placing persons on the colonial pension list, he had no hesitation in saying they had already established a republic in Canada. "Now I believe on the contrary," wrote Lord Elgin, an English Tory, be it remembered, but one who had more statesmanship than most of the first men in England of either party at that time, "that it may be demonstrated that the concession of constitutional government has a tendency to draw the colonists the other way; firstly, because it slakes the thirst for self-government which seizes on all British communities when they approach maturity, and secondly, because it habituates the colonists to the working of a political mechanism which is both intrinsically superior to that of the Americans, and more unlike it than our old colonial system."

Earl Grey, admitting the superiority of the Canadian political system to that of the United States, argued that the people of the Union had the remedy in their hands; that, without abandoning their republicanism, they and their brethren in France had nothing to do but to dismiss their Presidents and to substitute the British or Canadian constitution without a King or a Governorthe body without the head-in order to get rid of the inconveniences they experienced; and the Colonial Secretary quoted with approbation the project submitted by M. Grévy and the Red Republicans to the French Constituent Assembly. The usurpation of Napoleon III. was a cynical commentary on the statesmanship and foresight of Earl Grey.

Earl Grey did not see that the monarch or a constitutional governor is an indispensable element in our constitutional mechanism. The advantages of that system are not to be had without him. Earl Grey had said that the system the Red Republicans would have established in France would have been the nearest possible approach to that of England. "It is possible," wrote Lord Elgin," perhaps probable, that as the House of Commons becomes more democratic in its composition, and consequently more arrogant in its bearing, it may cast off the shackles which

THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.

571

the other powers of the State impose on its self-will, and even utterly abolish them, but I venture to believe that those who last till that day comes will find they are living under a very different constitution from that which we now enjoy; that they have traversed the interval which separates a temperate and cautious administration of public affairs resting on the balance of powers and interests, from a reckless and overbearing tyranny, based on the caprices and passions of an absolute irresponsible body. You talk somewhat lightly of the check of the Crown, although you acknowledge its utility. But is it indeed so light a matter even as our constitution now works? Is it a light matter that the Crown should have the power of dissolving Parliament, in other words, of deposing the tyrant at will? Is it a light matter that for several months in each year the House of Commons should be in abeyance, during which period the nation looks to Ministers not as slaves of Parliament, but as servants of the Crown? Is it a light matter that there should be be such respect for the monarchical principle, that servants of that visible unity, yclept the Crown, are enabled to carry on much of the details of internal and foreign administration without consulting Parliament, and even without its cognisance? Or do you suppose that the Red Republicans, when they advocated the nomination of a revocable mandat, intended to create a Frankenstein,* endowed with powers in some cases paramount to, and in others running parallel with, the authority of this omnipotent body to which it owed its existence ? My own impression is, that they meant a set of delegates to be appointed, who should exercise certain functions of legislative initiation and executive patronage so long as they reflected clearly

* Lord Elgin fell into not an uncommon error of busy people who make allusions to books they have not read, and put the creator for the monster he created. In 1816, Lord Byron and Mr. and Mrs. Shelley having amused themselves with reading German ghost-stories, agreed to write something in imitation of them. Byron began the "Vampire" but never finished it. Mrs. Shelley conceived and wrote her powerful romance of "Frankenstein." It was published in 1817. Frankenstein discovers that, by his study of natural philosophy, he can create a living sentient being, and he constructs and animates a gigantic figure eight feet in height. The monster becomes a terror to his creator, demands that a help mate shall be made for him. Frankenstein failing to comply with his demands, he murders the friend of his creator, strangles his bride on his wedding night, and ultimately frightens Frankenstein into a condition which leads to his death.

in the former, the passions, and in the latter, the interests of the majority for the time being and no longer." To have a Republican form of government in a great country, the executive and legislative departments must be separated, as in the United States, and the people must submit to the tyranny of the majority, not the more tolerable because capricious, and wielded by a tyrant with many heads. How much more violent would be the proceedings of the majorities in the American Legislatures, how much more reckless would be their appeals to popular passion, how much oftener would the interests of the nation and individual rights be sacrificed to making political capital, if debates or discussions affected the tenure of office. Only under a monarchy can the executive and the legislative departments of the State be made to work together with that degree of harmony which shall give the maximum of strengh and of mutual independence by which freedom and the rights of minorities are secured. Nor can the moral power of a monarch, or a governor be measured by his recognised power, so long as the people are monarchical in sentiment. When it was urged that Lord Elgin, in maintaining and carrying out these views, committed official suicide, and degraded himself into a roi fainéant, he used to say that he had tried both systems. "In Jamaica there was no Responsible Government, but I had not half the power I have here with my Constitutional and Changing Cabinet." Under the Vice-regal Throne of India, he missed something of the authority and influence he enjoyed as constitutional Governor in Canada.* The honour of bringing about this wise system of Government, belongs, more than to any other man, to Robert Baldwin, who so early as 1825, had taken in the whole situation with its imperative needs.

Parliament met at Toronto on the 14th of May, and a vigorous debate took place on the address, the attack being led by " Clear

* Letters of Lord Elgin, pp. 115-124. Compare the views respecting the American and English constitutions with the remarks of Mr. Caleb Cushing on the same subject. "The Treaty of Washington," by Caleb Cushing, p. 44-46. Mr. Cushing's remarks are more suggestive than instructive. But they emphasize the opinions propounded by Lord Elgin, and they show how paramount the necessity of lifting the people here and in England, by education, out of the ignorance which makes them the sport of unprincipled demagogues.

BALDWIN'S SCRUPULOUSNESS.

573

Grits," and sore heads. In division after division, the Government was sustained, though it was evident they were not prepared to move as fast as the requirements of the country needed. When disloyalty raised its head, Baldwin showed entire sympathy with the country by moving that the petition in favour of independence, presented by Colonel Prince, the self-styled "English gentleman," should not be received-a motion which was carried by fifty-seven to seventeen.

He was not, however, abreast of the time in maintaining, as he did, with all his influence and force of argument, that the setting apart the Clergy Reserves for the supportof the Protestant clergy, was a just and a proper measure, and that it did not establish a particular body as a dominant church. When a Reform leader hangs behind his party, his time is up. Mr. Drummond, an Irishman of considerable power, spoke strongly in favour of the secularization of the Clergy Reserves.

Baldwin's scrupulousness struck many as weakness. A conscientious man often appears feeble to the unscrupulous. About this time an instance of his rare tenderness of political conscience occurred. When a vacancy took place on the bench, Mr. Boulton, a Conservative, who had aided in the struggle for Responsible Government, claimed the reward of a party man. He wished to get the appointment. There can be no doubt he should have had it. He was, in all respects, a man to make an efficient judge. Baldwin desired to give him the position. But letters poured in on him from all sides deprecating that course. The conflict between his desire to do right, and his desire not to injure the party, made him ill. Leave the thing to us, Mr. Francis Hincks said, and we will settle it. They settled it by appointing Mr Robert E. Burns.

In the first days of January, the municipal elections were going forward. Platt was one of the common council men, elected for St. Lawrence Ward. Bowes, who has been mentioned in an earlier chapter was elected Alderman for St. James' Ward.

On Twelfth Night, Lord Elgin had a large party at Elmsley House, on King Street-originally the private residence of ChiefJustice Elmsley, which had been purchased after the war of 181214, for the use of the Lieutenant-Governor. Among the company,

were, Chancellor and Mrs. Blake, Judge and Mrs. Sullivan, Messrs. Baldwin, Hincks and others. The attendance at his receptions showed, it was contended, that he had the confidence of the country. The argument supported a true proposition, though the reasoning was far from cogent. It was not, however, so much the case then, as it is now, that the doors of society open to the golden key, no matter by whose hand applied.

*Notwithstanding the split in the Reform Party, Ministers went

* McMullen conveys the impression that the Globe had ceased to support Baldwin's Administration in 1850. The Globe, on the contrary, supported Baldwin to the last, and denounced the Examiner and the "Clear Grits" for dividing the party. The Globe began to take a more critical stand in 1850. In an article in the autumn of that year, it reviewed the struggle since 1838, and concluded as follows;

"We have thus on the political carpet of Upper Canada :- Ultra Tories-represented by Mr. W. B. Robinson and others in the House, and a numerous party out of it, whose prominent characteristic is High Churchism. Moderate Tories-represented by John A. Macdonald, and Henry Sherwood and others in the House, and a large sec tion out of it-who have no principles in particular but their opposition to the Ministry. Ministerialists-comprising two-thirds of the people of Upper Canada. Leaguers -comprising several active leaders, but few followers. Their strength, at an election would lie in dividing the enemy and receiving tribute from all. Their principles are very diversified according to the locality and the man to be run. Clear Grits-comprising disappointed Ministerialists, ultra English Radicals, Republicans, Annexationists. Their ultra principles find little sympathy, and their formal proposal for a Convention has been a ridiculous botch. They have made the most of the slips of the Ministry, and discontent among their supporters-but as a party on their own footing they are powerless, except to do mischief. All these parties are now contending for the dominancy in Upper Canada, but with a feebleness quite new in our political history. Were the Ministerialists united, and the constituencies fairly adjusted, there could be no doubt that, at a trial of strength, they would sweep all before them. But they are far from being united, and we propose to take another opportunity of showing the causes of the existing division. Party landmarks have in a great measure been swept away by the legislation of the last few years; and the straggling parties are forming anew. The establishment of Responsible Government removed the main wall of separation; and the successful establishment of the Municipal Coun cil and National Common School systems did almost as much. Then the settlement of the King's College question, and the probable settlement of Clergy Reserves will take away fertile elements of bitter contention in past years. We are glad that so many grounds of strife are removed; but as believers in party government we wish the lines separating parties were more clearly drawn on great questions of public policy. We see constant allusions to a coming Coalition Ministry, which, in the opinion of many, the position of parties naturally points to. We sincerely trust that as far as the Ministerial Party is concerned, no such movement is in any way contemplated. The constitutional Reform Party of Upper Canada needs no assistance, and we are sure that any attempt at coalition with Toryism wonld be fatal to all who touched it. That a re-organization of the Liberal Party is necessary few will deny; but that a more progressive policy, a firmer step, and more sympathy within the