THE SHORT ADMINISTRATION

“A Ministry of two days : a thing which was, and which is not, before either friend or foe can realize its existence. ”— The Cosmopolitan, Toronto ; August 11th, 1858.

4 k T the beginning of February, 1858, Messieurs Spence and b WI Morrison, having failed in their respective elections, demitted their seats in the Cabinet. The Postmaster- General's portfolio was accepted by Mr. Sidney Smith, who had sat during the last Parliament for the West Riding of Northumberland, and who had now been reëlected for that constituency. He was a successful lawyer, resident at Cobourg, and had up to this time been in the ranks of the Upper Canadian Opposition. The Receiver-Generalship was assumed by the Hon. John Ross, who had resigned the Attorney- General's portfolio during the session of 1856.% Mr. Cayley's candidature in Renfrew being considered safe (as it ultimately proved to be), the Inspector-Generalship was permitted to remain in his hands, and the Cabinet was thus complete,

The intelligence that Ottawa had been fixed upon by Imperial mandate as the Provincial capital became known in Canada early in the year, but too late to exercise any influence upon the elections, which were just over. Her Majesty’s choice was most unpopular with the Opposition, and their organs inveighed loudly on the subject until the meeting of Parliament, In Montreal and Quebec there was naturally much dissatisfaction, independently of party

* Ante, p. 330,

The Short Administration. 367

considerations. All the circumstances being taken into account, however, it would seem that the royal selection was wisely made, Standing on the boundary-line between the two Provinces, Ottawa’s position, more especially as compared with that of Quebec or Toronto, was central. Being remote from the frontier, it might be regarded as comparatively safe in the event of aggression from across the lines. But its highest recommendation was unquestionably to be found in the fact that its geographical position afforded à sort of compromise between the rival claims of Upper and Lower Canada, which claims had presented the most serious obstacle to the settlement of the Seat of Government question for years past.

The new Parliament assembled at Toronto on the 25th of February. Mr. Henry Smith was elected Speaker of the Assembly without opposition, The Speech from the Throne, which was delivered by the Governor on the 26th, outlined a few practical measures of reform, but was otherwise unimportant. It referred to the settlement of the Seat of Government question, but the reference was of the most cursory nature, and was inserted in the middle of a short paragraph referring to the Hudson’s Bay Company's territory. The Address in Reply gave rise to an exceptional number of amendments, which were so worded as to force the Government to declare their policy on all the great questions of the time, Long before the debates came to a close it had become evident that there would be a considerable preponderance of Upper

Canadian votes against the Ministry, who must either resign oflice

or consent to abandon the double-majority principle, and carry on the affairs of the country by means of a majority obtained from Lower Canada. In adopting the latter alternative they would violate no principle. They would merely say, in effect: “We have changed our opinions on this subject.” The amendments were voted down, one after another, It was clear that the Government could command a majority of from twenty to thirty of the whole

368 The Last Forty Years.

House, though it was equally clear that they were in a minority as regarded Upper Canada. Under these cireumstances they resolved, as the less of two evils, to incur the charge of inconsistency, rather than hand over the reins of power to their opponents. The doublemajority doctrine was cast overboard, and the ministerial ship, lightened of so unmanageable a burthen, pursued its way with a favouring wind. Thenceforward until towards the end of July the sessional business was carried on with energy, and with tolerably productive results. During the interval the double-majority question received a formal Parliamentary quietus. A motion by Mr. Joseph E. Thibaudeau, member for Portneuf, that “any attempt at legislation which would affect one section of the Province, in opposition to the votes of a majority of the representatives of that section, would produce consequences detrimental to the welfare of the Province,” gave rise to a full discussion of the entire question involved. This motion, as well as a number of amendments affirming the double-majority principle, was opposed by the whole power of the Administration, the very life of which was menaced thereby. The Opposition also put forward their utmost strength, The latter were strong in oratorical ability, and now included in their ranks the three ex-Ministers, Messieurs Cauchon, Drummond and Lemieux, as well as the three new members, Messieurs MeGee, Mowat and Hogan. But the incidents of former sessions were repeated, The Opposition were divided by sectional and personal jealousies, as well as by differences of opinion on public questions ; * whereas the Ministerialists stood loyally by each other, and presented an almost unbroken front.+ Mr. Thibaudeau’s motion and the various amendments were defeated by majorities which plainly proved that on

* Messieurs George Brown, David Christie, J. S. Hogan, Oliver Mowat, and many other members of the Upper Canadian Opposition voted on the same side as the Ministerialists on this question, and others shirked the vote by purposely absenting themselves,

+Several of their supporters, however, including Mr. Langevin, the new member for Dorchester, voted in favour of the double-majority doctrine,

The Short Administration. 369

any vital question the Administration had nothing to fear. From that time forward, the question of a double or sectional majority cannot be said to have ever presented itself before the Canadian Parliament as a matter for practical consideration.

The Opposition, though beaten, were not discouraged, and addressed themselves to the task of discomfiting the Ministry on another important question. The selection of Ottawa as the Provincial capital had occasioned a good deal of surprise throughout the country, and, as previously mentioned, had been eagerly seized hold of by the Opposition as a weapon to be used against the Administration. Her Majesty's choice had been ratified by Parliament, and a sum had been appropriated for the erection of public buildings, but these circumstances did not deter the opponents of the Government from attempting to reverse the decision. A series of motions expressive of dissatisfaction at the Imperial selection was now set on foot. After the first of the series, which was moved by Mr. A. A. Dorion in connection with a question of supply, had been voted down, the matter was allowed to rest until the 28th of July, when the subject was revived by Mr. Thibaudeau. His motion, which was to the same purport as Mr. Dorion's, was for that reason ruled to be out of order; whereupon Mr. Dunkin moved an address to the Queen, praying Her Majesty to reconsider her decision, and to name Montreal instead of Ottawa. Such a motion could not be expected to command a very wide support, and Mr. Brown moved in amendment, “That an humble address be presented to his Excellency, praying that no action be taken towards the erection of public buildings at Ottawa for the permanent accommodation of the Executive Government and Leyislature, or for the removal of the public departments to that city.” A further amendment by Mr. Piché, member for Berthier, “That it is the opinion of this House that the city of Ottawa ought not to be the permanent Seat of Government for the Province,” came next in order, and upon it,