2

things, they demanded an elective legislative council.1 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.3 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 act1 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Sir John Colborne appointed a special council.5 which continued in office until the arrival of Lord Durham, who superseded Lord Gosford as governor-general, and was also entrusted with large powers as high commissioner "for the adjustment of certain important affairs, affecting the provinces of Upper and Lower

6

1 Garneau, II. 415-5. Journals, L. C., 1834, p. 310.

2 Withrow, 365. Sir C. Grey and Sir G. Gipps were associated with Lord Gosford on the Commission.

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

4 1 and 2 Vict., c. 9; 2 and 3 Vict., c. 53.

5 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.

6 Christie, V. 48-9. Sir John Colborne was only administrator at this time.

For instructions, in part, to Lord Durham and his remarks in the House of Lords on accepting the office, see Christie V., 47-50.

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 most severely censured in and out of Parliament as entirely unwarranted 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 putting the ordinance in force.3

1 Christie, V. 150-51.

2

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

3 This bill was introduced by Lord Brougham, 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.

CHAPTER V.

UNION ACT, 1840.

10

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 recommendation in the report was to the effect that "no time should be lost in proposing to Parliament a bill for restoring the union of the Canadas under one legislature, and reconstructing them as one province." On no point did he dwell more strongly than on the abSolute necessity that existed for entrusting the government to the hands of those in whom the representative body had confidence. He also proposed that the Crown

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

2 "I know not how it is possible to secure harmony in any other way than by administering the government on those prin. ciples which have been found perfectly efficacious in Great Britain. I would not impair a single prerogative of the Crown; on the contrary, I believe that the interests of the people of these provinces require the protection of prerogatives which

should give up its revenues, except those derived from land sales, in exchange for an adequate civil list, that the independence of the judges should be secured, and that municipal institutions should be established without delay, "as a matter of vital importance." The first immediate result of these suggestions was the presentation to the Imperial Parliament, on the 3rd of May, 1839, of a royal message,' recommending a union of the Canadas. In the month of June, in the same year, Lord John Russell introduced a bill to reunite the two provinces, but it was allowed, after its second reading, to lie over for that session of Parliament, in order that the matter might be fully considered in Canada, and more information obtained on the subject. Mr. Poulett Thomson3 was appointed governor-general with the avowed object of carrying out the policy of the imperial government, and immediately after his arrival at Montreal in November, 1839, he called the special council together, and ex

have not hitherto been exercised. But the crown must, on the other hand, submit to the necessary consequences of representative institutions; and if it has to carry on the government in unison with a representative body, it must consent to carry it on by means of those in whom that representative body has confidence." Page 106 of R.

1 Mr. Poulett Thomson's remarks to special council, 11th Nov., 1839. Christie, V. 316.

2 Christie, V. 289-90. The opinion of the British Parliament was decidedly favourable to the bill.

3 Mr. Thomson was a member of the Imperial Parliament, and of decidedly advanced views in politics. Sir John Colborne was governor in the interval between Lord Durham's retirement and Mr. Thomson's appointment.

plained to them "the anxious desire felt by Parliament and the British people that a settlement of the questions relating to the Canadas should be speedily arrived at.” The council passed an address in favour of a reunion of the provinces under one legislature, as a measure of “indispensable and urgent necessity." The governorgeneral, in the month of December, met the legislature of Upper Canada, and, after full consideration of the question, both branches passed addresses in favour of union, setting forth at the same time the terms which would be considered most acceptable to the province."

It will be seen that the imperial government considered it necessary to obtain the consent of the legislature of Upper Canada, and of the special council of Lower Canada, before asking Parliament to reunite the two provinces. Accordingly, Lord John Russell, in the session of 1840, again brought forward his bill entitled, "An Act to reunite the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and for the government of Canada," which was assented to on the 23rd of July, but did not come into effect until the 10th of February in the following year, in accordance

1 Special Coun. J., Nov. 11, 12, 13, 14. Christie V., 316-22. Leg. Coun. J. (1839-40) 14, &c. Leg. Ass. J. (1839-40), 16, 57, 63, 66, 161, 164. Christie, V. 326-56. Previously, however, in 1838, a committee of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada had declared itself in favour of the proposed union. Upp. Can. Ass. J. (1838), 282.

3

3 and 4 Vict., c. 35. The bill passed with hardly any opposition in the Commons, but it was opposed in the Lords by the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Gosford, and the Earl of Ellenborough, besides others.