Canada, Sir John George Bourinot [best time to read books .TXT] 📗

this war. The American navy, small though it was, won several successes mainly through the superiority of their vessels in tonnage, crew, and armament. The memorable fight between the British frigate _Shannon_, under Captain Broke, and the United States frigate _Chesapeake_, under Captain Lawrence, off Massachusetts Bay, illustrates equally the courage of British and American sailors--of men belonging to the same great stock which has won so many victories on the sea. The two ships were equally matched, and after a sharp contest of a quarter of an hour the _Chesapeake_ was beaten, but not until Captain Lawrence was fatally wounded and his victorious adversary also severely injured. During the war Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces were somewhat harassed at times by American privateers, but the presence of a large fleet constantly on their coasts--Halifax being the rendezvous of the British navy in American waters--and the hostility of New England to the war saved these sections of British America from invasion. On the other hand, all the important positions on the coast of Maine from the Penobscot to the St. Croix, were attacked and occupied by the English. The whole American coast during the last year of the war was blockaded by the English fleet with the exception of New England ports, which were open to neutral vessels. The public buildings of Washington, {335} the federal capital, were destroyed by an English army, in retaliation for the burning of York, Newark, and Moraviantown. The attempt to take Baltimore failed, and a bold man from Tennessee, Andrew Jackson--in later years President--drove Pakenham from New Orleans. The taking of Mobile by British ships was the closing incident of the war on the Atlantic coast. In fact peace was happily declared by the Treaty of Ghent on the 24th December, 1814, or a fortnight before the defeat of the English at New Orleans. The two nations gladly came to terms. It is questionable if the heart of either was ever deeply enlisted in this unhappy war which should never have been fought between peoples so closely connected by language and race. It was mainly a war of Western and Southern politicians, and when it ended New England, whose interests had been so seriously affected, was showing signs of serious restlessness which had broken out in the Hartford convention, and might have even threatened the integrity of the Union.

Although the war ended without any definite decision on the questions at issue between the United States and Great Britain, the privileges of neutrals were practically admitted, and the extreme pretensions of Great Britain as to the right of search can never again be asserted. One important result of the war, as respects the interests of Canada, was the re-opening of the question of the British American fisheries. Certain privileges extended by the Treaty of 1783 to American fishermen on the coasts of British North America were not again conceded, {336} and the convention of 1818, which followed the peace of 1815, is the basis of the rights which Canadians have always maintained in disputes between themselves and the United States as to the fisheries on their coasts. Looking, however, to its general results, the war gave no special advantages to the Canadian people. When peace was proclaimed not an inch of Canadian territory, except the village of Amherstburg, was held by the American forces. On the other hand, Great Britain occupied the greater part of the sea-board of Maine, and her flag flew over Michillimackinac, the key to the Northwest. Had British statesmen seized this opportunity of settling finally the western boundary of New Brunswick, Canada would have obtained a territory most useful to the commercial development of the present Dominion. England, however, was very desirous of ending the war--perhaps the humiliating affair at Plattsburg had some effect on the peace--and it was fortunate for the provinces that they were allowed in the end to control their most valuable fisheries.

The people of Canada will always hold in grateful recollection the names of those men who did such good service for their country during these momentous years from 1812 to 1815. Brock, Tecumseh, Morrison, Salaberry, McDonnell, Fitzgibbon, and Drummond are among the most honourable names in Canadian history. Englishmen, Scotchmen, Irishmen, Canadians, Indians, were equally conspicuous in brilliant achievement. A stately monument overlooks the noble river of the Niagara, and recalls {337} the services of the gallant soldiers, Brock and McDonell, whose remains rest beneath. A beautiful village, beyond which stretches historic Lundy's Lane, recalls the name and deeds of Drummond. As the steamers pass up and down the St. Lawrence they see on the northern bank the obelisk which the Canadian Government has raised on the site of the battlefield where Morrison defeated Boyd. On the meadows of Chateauguay, another monument has been erected by the same national spirit in honour of the victory won by a famous representative of the French Canadian race, who proved how courageously French Canadians could fight for the new regime under which they were then, as now, so happy and prosperous.


XXIV.


POLITICAL STRIFE AND REBELLION.

(1815-1840.)

The history of the twenty-five years between the peace of 1815 and the union of the Canadas in 1840, illustrates the folly and misery of faction, when intensified by racial antagonisms. In Lower Canada the difficulties arising from a constant contest for the supremacy between the executive and legislative authorities were aggravated by the fact that the French Canadian majority dominated the popular house, and the English-speaking minority controlled the government. "I found," wrote Lord Durham, in 1839, "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state; I found a struggle not of principles but of races." It is true that some Englishmen were found fighting for popular liberties on the side of the French Canadian majority. Mr. John Neilson, who was for years editor of the _Quebec Gazette_, was a friend of the French Canadians, and in close sympathy with the movement for the extension of public rights, but he was never prepared to go beyond {339} the legitimate limits of constitutional agitation and threaten British connexion. On the other hand, Dr. Wolfred Nelson, descended from a loyalist stock, was one of the leaders of the majority that controlled the assembly of Lower Canada, and did not hesitate to join in the rebellion to which his rash and impetuous chief, Louis Joseph Papineau, led him at last. But while undoubtedly there were many persons among the British people, who were disgusted with the arrogance of some of the governing class, and discontented with the methods of government, they were gradually alienated by the demagogism of the French Canadian majority, who did not hesitate to profess their desire to make French Canada exclusively a French dominion. The tyranny of the majority was exhibited in the assembly by the attempt to impeach Chief Justices Sewell and Monk, on charges which had no justification in law or justice. Mr. Robert Christie, the member for Gaspe, who subsequently wrote a useful history of Lower Canada, was expelled several times because he was believed to have procured the dismissal from the magistracy of some members of the assembly who were inimical to the executive government. On the other hand, Lord Dalhousie, the governor-general, in 1827, refused to approve of the election of Mr. Papineau as speaker of the assembly, because he had reflected in strong terms in a manifesto on the public conduct of the former. Mr. Louis J. Papineau, the future leader of the rebellion in 1837, was a man of fine presence, gifted with remarkable powers of rhetoric and persuasion, but {340} he was entirely wanting in discretion, and in the qualities which make a great statesman. When the assembly refused to reconsider its action and elect another speaker, Lord Dalhousie prorogued the legislature, which did not again meet until he was recalled and sent to India as commander-in-chief. Like other governors, Lord Dalhousie attempted to govern to the best of his ability, and what mistakes he committed arose from the contradictory and perplexing instructions he received from the officials in Downing Street, who were quite incapable at times of understanding the real condition of affairs in the province.

The disputes at last between the contending parties in Lower Canada prevented the working of the constitution. The assembly fought for years for the independence of Parliament and the exclusive control of the civil list and supply. When at last the assembly refused to vote a civil list and other necessary expenditures, the government were obliged to use the casual and territorial revenues--such as the proceeds of the sales and leases of Crown lands--and these funds were inadequate for the purpose. So carelessly were these funds managed that one receiver-general, engaged in business, became a heavy defaulter. The governors dissolved the legislatures with a frequency unparalleled in political history, and were personally drawn into the conflict. Public officials, including the judges, were harassed by impeachments. Bills were constantly rejected by the legislative council on various pretexts--some of them constitutionally correct--and the disputes {341} between the two branches of the legislature eventually made it impossible to pass even absolutely necessary measures. Appeals to the home government were very common, and concessions were made time and again to the assembly. In fact, the contest as to the revenues and expenditures ought to have closed, in a great measure, with the abandonment, in 1832, by the government of every portion of the {342} previously reserved revenue, but, as Lord Durham pointed out, the assembly, "even when it obtained entire control over the public revenues," refused the civil list because it was determined "not to give up its only means of subjecting the functionaries of government to any responsibility." The conflict was carried on to the bitter end. It does not appear, however, that the majority in the assembly at all understood the crucial difficulty. They devoted their whole strength to attacks on the legislative council, and to demands for an elective body. The famous ninety-two resolutions of 1834, in which Papineau's party set forth their real or fancied grievances, did not contain a single paragraph laying down the principles of parliamentary or responsible government as worked out in England, and ably supported by the moderate Upper Canadian Reformers like Robert Baldwin. The home government ought to have appreciated the gravity of the situation, but they were not yet prepared to introduce into these colonies the principles of parliamentary government. In 1835 they appointed a commission to inquire into the nature of the grievances and the best method of remedying them. The governor-general, Lord Gosford, was the head of this commission, but it failed because Papineau and his party were not now prepared to listen to moderate and conciliatory counsels. When in 1837 the assembly continued to refuse supply for the payment of public officials, and of the arrears, which up to that time amounted to nearly one hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling, Lord John Russell {343} carried in the English House of Commons a series of resolutions, rejecting the demand for an elective legislative council and other changes in the constitution, and empowering the executive government to defray the expenses of the public service out of the territorial and casual revenues. This action of the imperial government increased the public discontent, and gave an opportunity to Papineau and his followers to declare that no redress of grievances could be obtained except by a resort to arms. In this year the rebellion broke out, but before I refer to it, it is necessary to review briefly the condition of things in the other provinces.