A
 
CARICATURE HISTORY
 
OF
 
Canadian Politics.

4════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

A “caricature history” does not mean that history is caricatured. On the contrary, a good caricature enables us to see, in a true light, facts that might otherwise be hidden or misrepresented. We understand current events and the social life of England from the illustrations of Punch more truly than from the columns of the Times or the Morning Post. Canada is only beginning life, and our politics touch subjects of general interest so seldom, that it is sometimes thought and said that there is no field for a Canadian Punch; but the fact, perhaps not generally known, that for the last forty years, at any rate, we have rarely been without artists whose pictures on the questions of the day have appealed successfully to popular humor, proves that our political life has been robust from the beginning. Some of these artists had to content themselves with publishing fly-sheets that provoked the laughter of the town, but that had no chance of obtaining more than a local reputation. For others, organs well-known in their day, such as Punch in Canada, Diogenes, and Grinchuckle, were established at different times prior to 1873, when Grip vaulted into the seat which he has occupied since to the satisfaction of all Canada. Requests have been frequently made for a work containing a continuous series of his cartoons, and in now acceding to these it has been thought well to give illustrations of what was done among us in the same line previously. Fortunately the publishers were able to obtain selections from the sources to which I have referred, and also from the Canadian Illustrated News; and the First Volume of this work thus gives something like a continuous pictorial history of the events that have stirred popular feeling most deeply since 1848. They believe that those older representations will be heartily welcomed, and they desire to thank all who have assisted in making the work so extended.

As to Grip himself, he needs no letters of commendation, but, with his well-known regard to the established usages of society, he thinks that there should be a Preface to the work. Considering how freely he takes a hand in our concerns, and that, in order to show us what goes on behind the scenes, he has no hesitation in entering bar-rooms, Government Houses, Palaces, and the Privy-Council Chambers of our pastors and masters, this modesty on his part will be duly appreciated by a modesty-loving public.

A young member of our House of Commons waxed eloquent in the course of his maiden speech, and, naturally enough, some of his brethren thought him mad. Not so thought Joseph Howe, to whom Shakespeare was dearer than all the Blue-books in the Parliamentary Library: “Thank God for a bit of poetry in this dry-as-dust House,” whispered the old man to a near neighbor. Yes, and thank God for Humor, with its intuitive perception of truth, and its consequent impartiality. Without Grip, what Saharas our Parliaments would be!

Every man should take an intelligent interest in the political life of his country. But from what quarter is he to get information? He cannot get Hansard; and even if he could, life is too short to read the terrible volumes. To trust himself to this or that party paper will insure interest but not intelligence; and to read the papers on both sides will land him in hopeless scepticism, or drown him “in a popular torrent of lies upon lies.” On the whole, he cannot do better than trust Grip, as the most honest interpreter of current events we happen to have. Grip, too, not only generally hits the nail on the head, but sometimes hits like a blacksmith—and we belong to a race that loves to see a blow well struck. Besides, the fellow has no malice in him. He has always a merry heart, and that doeth good like a medicine. Many a laugh he has given us, and laughter clears away unwholesome fogs from the spirit. Along with music it is next best to Holy Writ, according to the testimony of Martin Luther. A picture, too, has this unspeakable advantage over verbiage, that you can take in the situation at a glance, and if it is not agreeable, you can pass on. You condemn the representation as unfair, but, at any rate, your time is not lost.

8I do not speak as an artist of the cartoons or the caricatures that illustrate our political history since 1873. To me their artistic merit is exceptionally great, but I am not qualified to speak as a critic of technique. I speak only as a public teacher who knows that the educational influence of pen or pencil may be greater than that of the living voice, and who rejoices when that influence is on the right side.

In this case it is on the right side. Grip is impartial, in a country where it is very hard to be impartial, and harder still to have your impartiality acknowledged. Grip is also always patriotic. He is something even better—he is healthy. You may think him at times Utopian. You may not agree with the means he proposes, but you must always sympathize with the end he has in view. He is scrupulously clean. He never sneers. In the best sense of the word, he is religious.

One word more: Grip’s humor is his own. It has a flavor of the soil. It is neither English nor American. It is Canadian.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I have the honor formally to introduce to you my esteemed friend, Mr. Grip. You may receive him with confidence into your homes and hearts.

G. M. Grant

University of Queen’s College,

Kingston, March, 1886.

From the date of the English conquest of Quebec and the Treaty of Paris (1763) down to the year at which the present brief historical sketch opens, (1841), the history of Canada is a story of unrest and agitation. The old-world simplicity and pious contentment of the French habitant was intruded upon by the advent of the more enterprising Briton, and ere long the inevitable struggle began. The French Canadian, whose language, laws and religion had been specially reserved to him by the Treaty, was not unnaturally apprehensive of the consequences of English domination, and with a new-born energy he awoke to the defence of his rights. His English fellow-colonist having discovered that the governmental arrangements were too primitive and narrow for the comfort of one who had formerly lived under the British constitution, lost no time in commencing the agitation for reform. In some of his views—outside of the sacred reservation referred to—his French neighbor joined him. Hand in hand they protested against the infringement of their common rights by the Governor and his Council, and demanded changes in the constitution. Meantime the English element was growing in the country west of Montreal, by emigration from the old land, and accessions of Loyalists from the newly-established Republic of the United States. The superiority of the British settler soon made itself manifest in the material conquests which he achieved over the forests. The new English Province rapidly surpassed the old French one in prosperity, and the flames of jealousy were rekindled. Ultimate ruin of the colony from internecine strife seemed inevitable unless some adequate remedy could be found. The separation of the rival races naturally suggested itself as that remedy, and as they were already practically divided geographically—the number of English settlers in the French Province being comparatively small—great hopes were built upon a similar division politically. The Imperial Government accordingly in 1791 passed the Constitutional Act, by which the country was divided into the two Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, each being granted a representative form of government and a constitution supposed to be suited to its population. The governmental machinery provided for each Province under this Act was a Governor, appointed by the Crown, and responsible to the Imperial authorities alone; a Legislative Council, appointed for life by the Governor, and a Legislative Assembly, elected by the people on a suffrage almost universal. The executive functions of the supposedly popular branch of this governmental system were nominally 14vested in a committee known as the Executive Council, the members of which were selected by the Governor, usually from the judiciary, the membership of the Legislative Council, and the ranks of salaried officials. Practically the Governor himself was the real executive, as his Council thus chosen (and responsible only to himself as representative of the Crown) was regarded by him merely as an advisory committee in grave matters of policy, but as possessing no control over appointments to office, and the various other matters, which under our present system appertain to the executive. This proved a fatal weakness. In both Provinces the Executive Councils gradually drifted away from the sympathy of the people as represented in the Assemblies. The breach became wider and wider, until at length the discontent of the people terminated in open rebellion (1838).

At this juncture the Imperial Government appointed Lord Durham to proceed to Canada and report upon the state and requirements of the country, civil and military. After five months spent in investigation, Lord Durham prepared his celebrated Report, which was duly submitted to the government of Lord John Russell (1839). In this document a legislative union of the Provinces was recommended, and the Home Government proceeded without delay to carry the recommendation into effect. It was thought desirable, however, to secure the assent of the people of the Provinces before passing the Union measure, and for this purpose Mr. Charles Poulett Thompson (afterwards Lord Sydenham), was despatched to Canada. On his arrival (17th October, 1839) he found Lower Canada without an Assembly—that body having been superseded by a Select Council appointed by Lord Durham’s successor in the governorship—Sir John Colborne. This Council being chiefly composed of adherents of the British party readily gave the required assent, and subsequently the Upper Canada Assembly and Legislative Council acquiesced. A draft Union Act was forthwith prepared and forwarded to England, and a measure founded upon it was at once passed.

By this Act, the country was renamed the Province of Canada, and the governmental machinery provided was, a Governor, representing the Crown, a Legislative Council of 24, to be appointed for life, and an assembly of 84 members, to be elected by the people, and executing its business through a Responsible Government. This Act went into effect in the year 1841, when the first United Parliament met at Kingston, which had been chosen as the Capital by the Governor. The first session passed off in a manner which on the whole promised well for the new system, although it was made manifest that the people of Quebec regarded the Union as a scheme to which they had not assented—the Special Council, which had acted for them in the matter, having been in no sense a truly representative body. The session was chiefly remarkable, however, for a distinct pledge given by the Ministry—though with apparent reluctance—that the Government would fully acknowledge its responsibility to the people as that term was understood under the British constitution. This was regarded as a signal victory by the advocates of the responsible system, as the first Cabinet was composed of mixed elements—some of its leading members having been known as pronounced opponents of “Responsibility.” The fact that there was no French representative in the Ministry augmented the discontent of Lower Canada, but the election of one of their trusted compatriots to the speakership did something to mollify this feeling.

The Governor-General, who, for his services in connection with the Union, had been raised to the Peerage, under the title of Lord Sydenham, was in delicate health at the time of the first session of the House, and died before the second session began, his end being hastened by an accident which befel him while taking his customary horseback exercise. It was some months before the Home Government appointed a successor to the vice-royalty, and during the interregnum the affairs of the Province were administered by Lieut.-General Sir Richard Jackson, commander of the forces in Canada. Meantime, Sir Robert Peel had succeeded to power in England, and, as a natural consequence, the new Governor-General was selected from the Conservative ranks. The choice fell upon Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Bagot, who was known in Imperial politics as a “High Tory,” and was a man of acknowledged ability and wide diplomatic experience. The friends of Responsible Government in Canada were apprehensive of bad consequences to the newly inaugurated system as a result of this appointment, but their fears were in due time dispelled, as Sir Charles proved a thoroughly constitutional Governor. Indeed, so conscientiously did he keep within the exact limits of his powers throughout his term of office, that his only enemies were amongst the reactionary section of the Canadian Tory party. The new Governor, when he met Parliament in 1842, found the Sydenham Government still in office, though manifestly weak in the House, and almost certain of defeat on the first opportunity offered. A Kingston paper of the day described this Cabinet as follows: “Instead of being a coalition of moderate men it is a coalition of fierce extremes. How they can meet at the Council Board and not laugh in each other’s faces if in merry mood, or come to fisticuffs if in angry one, must be an eighth wonder of the world.” In Parliament they were earnestly opposed on the one hand by the old-line Conservatives, under the leadership of Sir Allan Macnab and Mr. John S. Cartwright, 16member for Lennox and Addington, and on the other hand by the Upper Canada Reformers and Radicals, under Hon. Robt. Baldwin, in alliance with the French Canadian members, who acknowledged Louis Hypolite Lafontaine as their leader. This distinguished gentleman now entered the Union Parliament for the first time, sitting for the fourth riding of York, for which constituency he had been elected on the personal introduction of Mr. Baldwin. A motion of no confidence was moved early in the session, but, instead of allowing the vote to be taken, the Cabinet resolved upon a reconstruction, and after considerable difficulty this was effected by the retirement of three of the Conservative members, and the accession in their stead of Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Morin, the two latter being the first French representatives admitted to seats in the Cabinet. With the second session ended the career of the second Governor-General. Sir Charles Bagot was through illness obliged to relinquish the post. His successor was Sir Charles T. Metcalf, late of India and Jamaica, who assumed office in Canada, March 30th, 1843. Sir Charles Bagot died on the 19th of May following, at Kingston. The new Governor-General entered upon his duties with a high reputation for ability, rectitude and independence of mind, and a record which marked him as a Liberal statesman. His eastern experiences and training, however, were against the probability of his success in his new sphere, for a colonial application of Responsible Government was one of those things he did not understand. The Cabinet that saluted him on his arrival is known in our history as the Lafontaine-Baldwin Ministry, and on the assembling of the third session, it was found that this reconstructed Government commanded a large majority in the House. The weakness of the Opposition, composed as it was, in Sir Chas. Metcalf’s opinion, of representatives of “the only party in the country upon whom the mother country might confidently rely in the hour of need,” evoked the sympathy of the new Governor, and it was not long before the cordiality between him and some of the members of the administration began to wane. It became apparent that the Governor was not disposed to interpret “Responsible Government” to mean that the Governor-General was a mere figure-head. He claimed the right to exercise a certain amount of patronage on his own account, and asserted that his responsibility in various matters was to the Imperial authorities directly and not to the people of Canada through his ministers. Sir Charles’ ardent wish was to obliterate the strong party lines and allay the rancorous hostilities around him, and it is evident that he thought to effect these good ends by appointing Conservatives to various offices as opportunity might offer. In the meantime, while outwardly at peace with his ministers, the Governor openly cultivated very friendly relations with prominent members of the Opposition party.

The session of 1843 began on the 28th of September, and was signalized by a long and hot debate on the subject of the removal of the seat of Government, the ministry having decided to establish the capital at Montreal. The vote finally taken showed a good majority in favor of the removal, though as one consequence of it, Mr. Jameson, Speaker of the Legislative Council, resigned his seat. This resignation assumed some importance as a factor in the developments of the near future, when it came to the knowledge of the ministry that the vacant chair had been offered by the Governor-General—acting, of course, without their advice—to a prominent Conservative, Mr. L. P. Sherwood, and 17subsequently to another opponent of the Government, Mr. Neilson, of Quebec. Prior to this discovery, however, His Excellency appointed one Mr. Francis Powell (also a Conservative) to the position of Clerk of the Peace for Dalhousie District—of which action he subsequently informed his ministers in a note. This little missive was the signal for a long and stubborn contest, in which the very principles of Responsible Government were considered by the Reform Party to be at stake.

The Cabinet at once deputed Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin to wait upon the Governor-General, and to represent to him that in their view the exercise of the prerogatives of the Crown without reference to the responsible ministry was contrary to the letter and spirit of the resolutions of 1841, in which Responsible Government in its fullest sense had been affirmed as the new Canadian constitution. That the Governor possessed certain prerogatives of appointment to office, etc., they did not deny, but they insisted that before exercising any of these the system required him to consult his advisers, who, if they could not approve, had the alternative of resigning. Sir Charles Metcalfe could not be brought to take this view of his duty; on the contrary, he regarded it as derogatory to the dignity of the Crown to accept such a condition, which, he contended, was not contained in the Resolutions of 1841, as he interpreted them. In this position, which he maintained throughout the contest, the Governor appears to have been upheld by Lord Stanley, the Colonial Secretary in the Home Government. The conference having been without result—except to make the attitude of the Governor perfectly clear—all the members of the Government, excepting Mr. Dominic Daly, Provincial Secretary for Lower Canada, resigned their portfolios. A prolonged debate ensued in the House, which was brought to a close by the passage of the following resolution by a vote of 64 to 23: Moved by Mr. Price, seconded by Mr. Benjamin Holmes, “That an humble address be presented to His Excellency, humbly representing to His Excellency the deep regret felt by this House at the retirement of certain members of the Provincial Administration on the question of the right to be consulted on what the House unhesitatingly avow to be the prerogative of the Crown, appointments to office; and further to assure His Excellency that the advocacy of this principle entitles them to the confidence of this House, being in strict accordance with the principles embraced in the resolution adopted by this House on the 3rd of September, 1841.” Parliament rose on December 9th, and the country was thus left without any regular Ministry, in which condition it practically remained for some nine months. In the meantime, Mr. D. B. Viger, a prominent French Canadian, and Mr. Draper (afterwards Chief Justice) had been prevailed upon to join Mr. Daly—and for the greater portion of the period mentioned this semblance of a Cabinet were the only advisers of the Governor. These months, as may easily be supposed, were filled up with vociferous debate on the platform and through the press. The Conservative Party very generally sided with the Governor, and he was not without many able defenders of the course he had taken; on the other hand he was violently denounced and even defamed by the Liberals, who looked upon him and his sympathisers as the deliberate enemies of popular rights. It was during this “interregnum,” i.e., on the 5th of March, 1844, that the Toronto Globe made its first appearance as an organ of the Liberal Party under the editorship of Mr. Peter Brown and his subsequently famous son, George, and it was the 18struggle then going on which paved the way for the public career of the younger man. Mr. Viger exerted his utmost influence to win the Lower Canadians to the Governor’s side, but in this he signally failed, and when at length after vast trouble the vacant Cabinet places had been filled up, it was so evident that they could command no following in the House that a dissolution and general election were decided upon. The result of this contest—which was bitter beyond precedent—was a small majority for the Government in the Parliament of 1844. Amongst the newly-elected members was Mr. (now Sir) John A. Macdonald, who was returned as Member for Kingston. Mr. Draper resigned his seat in the Legislative Council to assume the leadership of the Government, and it required all his acknowledged ability to weather the storm of the Session, for meantime the Lafontaine-Baldwin Party was steadily gaining strength. While matters were in this precarious condition, the Governor-General was obliged on account of ill health to resign his office, and return to England. Ere leaving Canada he was raised to the Peerage with the title Baron Metcalfe of Fern Hill, but he had worn his new honors but a few months before death relieved him of his sufferings (5th September, 1846). Whatever may be thought of Lord Metcalfe’s political views or actions, all who are authorized to speak of him personally agree in describing him as a most generous, kindly and lovable man. Earl Cathcart, Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Canada, succeeded to the Governor-Generalship after a brief period as Administrator, and under his rule the struggle between the parties continued.

But that time was fortunately very brief. In justice to Lord Cathcart it must be said that he took no active part in the Government, his attention being wholly occupied by military matters in view of the strained relations of England and the United States over the Oregon Boundary matter. It was chiefly as a military expert that he had been placed at the head of affairs, and the probability of war having disappeared by the ratification of the Oregon Treaty, the Imperial Government relieved him of the Viceroyalty, and selected Lord Elgin, a trained statesman, as his successor. This nobleman bore an exceptionally high character and his official career had hitherto been very successful. Like Lord Metcalfe he left the Governorship of Jamaica to assume that of Canada. In politics he was a Conservative, but could not fairly be described as a Tory in the fullest meaning of that term. The new Governor-General was sworn into office on January 30th, 1847, and one of his first utterances in reply to the usual addresses of welcome was, “I am sensible that I shall best maintain the prerogative of the Crown, and most effectually carry out the instructions with which Her Majesty has honored me, by manifesting a due regard for the wishes and feelings of the people and by seeking the advice and assistance of those who enjoy their confidence.” Lord Elgin met his first Parliament on June 2nd. The 19Government had meanwhile been reconstructed, Mr. Draper having retired from the leadership in favor of Mr. Henry Sherwood, and amongst other new members was Mr. John A. Macdonald, who had accepted the post of Receiver-General. At the close of this session Mr. Draper was honored with a judgeship, and rising from one judicial dignity to another, he at length achieved the highest place on the Canadian Bench—the Presidency of the Court of Error and Appeal. He died in 1877. The Sherwood-Daly Government was overwhelmingly defeated at the general election held early in 1848, and the Baldwin-Lafontaine Ministry returned to power. Amongst the members of the new House were William Hume Blake (father of Hon. Edward Blake) and Louis Joseph Papineau, who, from 1809 until his banishment for complicity in the rebellion of 1838, had been an influential leader of the Lower Canadians. He had been permitted to return to Canada in 1843, but his distrust of British rule and his wild project of a Canadian Republic were in no respect abated. In the House of Assembly he soon arrayed himself in deadly opposition to the Cabinet, denouncing “Responsible Government” in unmeasured terms. The adoption of the Free Trade policy in England at this time had a depressing effect upon Canadian commerce, as Canada ceased to be as heretofore the highway of American exports to the 20English markets. The result of this was the growth of a sentiment in favor of annexation. Parliament next met on the 18th of January, 1849, when Mr. George Etienne Cartier and Alexander Galt made their first appearance as members. Early in the session an Amnesty Bill in favor of those expelled from the country through the rebellion of ’37-8 was passed. Under this measure Mr. Wm. Lyon Mackenzie returned to Canada from his exile in the United States. Besides this Bill, some two hundred more or less important measures were passed, amongst them being the Act reorganizing the Court of Chancery. While this Bill was regarded as an inestimable boon by all concerned, it was the means of closing the promising political career of Mr. Hume Blake, who, in deference to the wishes of his colleagues and of the legal profession of the Province, accepted the Chancellorship. The great measure of the session, from the historical point of view, was the Rebellion Losses Bill. This measure was intended to supplement the compensation already granted by the Provincial Assemblies of Upper and Lower Canada to loyal citizens who had suffered loss by the rebellion of 1837-8. The legislation referred to had not recognized the cases of many whose property had been destroyed or damaged, not by rebels, but by those acting ostensibly in support of the authorities. This further relief was granted by an Act passed in the first session of the Union Parliament, but was restricted to Upper Canada. The Bill now passed extended the provisions for compensation to Lower Canada as well. Commissioners had been appointed by the Draper Government in 1845 to investigate and report upon the amount of money which would be required to settle the claims indicated, but great difficulty had been encountered in distinguishing between claimants who were entitled to relief and those who had been implicated more or less seriously in the rebellion. The report of the Commissioners was therefore not such as to afford a safe basis for legislation, and the Government, owing nothing to the Lower Canadians on the score of political support, had taken no further action. The Lafontaine-Baldwin Government felt that they were in duty bound to carry out the measure of justice which the former Government had initiated, and the French influence had now become strong enough to compel this even if the Government had felt otherwise. The Bill as passed expressly excluded from participation in the indemnity all rebels under the description of those “who had been convicted of treason or had been transported to Bermuda.” It was reasonably believed that after the lapse of so many years, it would be impracticable to make any distinctions between “loyal citizens” and “rebels” apart from the record of the courts of law. The Opposition insisted, however, that such distinction must be made: and that no person who had taken part in the rebellion, whether convicted or not, should on any account be paid for his losses. The whole Conservative party took this “high loyal” ground, and the Bill at once evoked the most furious enmity in that quarter. The measure was debated in the House with unexampled passion—its chief opponents there being Mr. Sherwood, Col. Gugy, Sir Allan MacNab and Col. Prince; and its ablest defender Mr. Wm. Hume Blake, whose speech is justly regarded as the greatest effort of his life and the most powerful address ever delivered in the Canadian Parliament. The Bill was finally carried on March 9th by a majority of forty-seven to eighteen. Meantime the Tory party throughout the Province had poured in petitions to the Governor-General, demanding the reservation of the Bill or a dissolution of the House. After careful consideration, Lord Elgin could not see 21that his duty lay in either of these directions, and he accordingly assented to the measure amongst others on Wednesday, April 25th. As he retired from the Council Chamber after this ceremony, he was greeted with groans and hisses by a mob assembled in front of the building, and as his carriage rolled away it was pelted with rotten eggs. This incident is referred to in the first cartoon from Punch in Canada imbedded in our letter-press. In the evening of the same day a crowd assembled on the Champ-de-Mars, where “loyal speeches,” openly advocating violence, were made. The mob was in a fitting frame of mind, and was swift to act upon the ill-advice. Amidst shouts and curses, an advance was made upon the Houses of Parliament. The legislators, engaged in discussing an important measure at the moment, were startled by the crashing in of the windows, and soon the rioters entered the chamber where, with maniacal fury, they demolished everything that was breakable, and wound up the peculiar display of “fealty to the Crown” by setting fire to the buildings. The Assembly House was totally consumed, involving a direct money loss far exceeding the amount appropriated by the Bill which had afforded the pretext for the outrage. Parliament assembled the next day in a chamber improvised in the Bonsecours market building. Sir Allan MacNab and a few of his political colleagues spoke in justification of the riot, and declared that the blame rested more with the Government than with the mob (see Cartoon 1). The members of the Ministry and many of their leading supporters were for several days maltreated on the streets, and the residences of Mr. Lafontaine and others in Montreal were wrecked by the mob. The carnival of “Loyalty” was kept up until the 30th when it culminated in a second and still more disgraceful attack upon Lord Elgin, on the occasion of an official visit to the Government House on Notre Dame street. After this outrage Lord Elgin remained in seclusion at Monklands for many months, earning thereby the sobriquet of the Hermit (see Cartoon 4). Parliament was prorogued on May 30th, Major General Rowan, Commander of the Forces, being commissioned to act for the Governor-General, who thought it best to avoid another demonstration of the “loyalists.” The Government re-appointed the Draper Commissioners to carry out the provisions of the Rebellion Losses Bill in the adjudication of claims, and instructions were given them to use all possible care to distinguish between “rebels” and “loyalists” amongst the claimants, but this conciliatory action passed for little with the Tory press.

During the vacation, Sir Allan MacNab and Hon. Wm. Cayley proceeded to England to place the Tory view of the Rebellion Losses Bill before the public there; and about the same time Mr. Francis Hincks crossed the ocean on a similar errand for the Liberal party. Lord Elgin’s course in the matter was ultimately sustained in both Houses of the Imperial Parliament when the subject came up for consideration. Subsequent riotous demonstrations in Montreal decided the question of the removal of the seat of Government from that city. The remaining two sessions were accordingly held in Toronto, and thereafter it was arranged to transfer the honor alternately to Quebec and Toronto every four years. The removal to Toronto took place in November, 1849, and the official residence was fixed at Elmsley Villa, on the site of the present Central Presbyterian Church.

As an outcome of the prevailing commercial depression of the time the project of annexation to the United States had come prominently forward for discussion, and in October a manifesto in favor of a peaceful separation from the Mother Country and a union 22with the Republic was published at Montreal. Amongst the signers of this celebrated document were many prominent persons connected with both political parties, amongst the number being Mr. Benjamin Holmes, to whom reference is made in this connection in the Punch in Canada cartoons. Mr. Papineau earnestly advocated the scheme, in consistence with his long cherished republican opinions, and many other public men—amongst them Col. Gugy—were suspected of sympathy with the movement. The only practical result of the agitation was to deprive some of those implicated in it of offices which they held at the pleasure of the Crown.

The next great questions to press for settlement were those relating to the Secularization of the Clergy Reserves and the abolition of Seigniorial Tenure—questions which concerned the Upper and Lower Provinces respectively. The first of these had its rise in the blunder originally made by the Imperial authorities in setting apart a large portion of the public domain for the maintenance of “a Protestant clergy.” As population increased and settlement spread, the lands thus apportioned in various parts of the country—particularly those in Upper Canada—became valuable, and a hot dispute as to their ownership naturally arose. The Church of England laid exclusive claim to the term “Protestant Clergy,” and, as a consequence, to the Reserves. The other denominations opposed these pretensions. At length, in 1840, an Imperial Act, intended to settle the question finally, decreed that the proceeds of all sales of reserved lands to date should be divided between the churches of England and Scotland,—the former body to receive two-thirds and the latter one-third; and that all future proceeds from such sales should be handed over, in the proportion of one-third and one-sixth, to the same churches; the residue to be devoted to the cause of public worship and religious instruction generally—in other words, to be divided, as might be, amongst such of the other Protestant denominations as cared to apply for it. This Act quite failed to allay the sense of injustice in regard to the Reserves, and the matter continued in agitation. In 1844 many supporters of the Reform party insisted on the question being made a political issue, and called upon the Government to petition the Home authorities for the repeal of the Act of 1840 as a preliminary to a radical settlement of the difficulty by the complete secularization of the Reserves. The Government failed to respond to this suggestion, and in 1849 a number of influential Reformers protested against the delay by stepping out of the Government ranks and forming a new organization, which became known by the sobriquet of the “Clear Grit” party. About the same time a somewhat similar departure was made by a number of French Liberals, who formed Le Parti Rouge under the leadership of Mr. Papineau. These new organizations joined in the advocacy of several advanced measures of reform, though the Rouges were on many points far more radical than the “Grits.” When the session of 1850 opened, the Government found themselves confronted by an opposition not to be despised either in numbers or influence, aside from Conservatives, led by Sir Allan MacNab, John A. Macdonald, Wm. Cayley and Henry Sherwood. An incident of the session (to which reference is made in the caricature from Punch in Canada annexed) was the defection from the Conservative ranks of Col. Gugy, who had long been known as an ultra Tory. The reason assigned for this step by the hon. gentleman was his disapproval of the extreme rancor displayed during the opening debate by Sir Allan MacNab towards his political opponents, on issues 23which were practically dead, and to aspersions cast by that gentleman upon the Governor-General in connection with the events of 1837-8. The Clear Grits vigorously attacked the Government for their procrastination in the matter of the Clergy Reserves, and advocated the immediate passage of a Bill, without waiting for the formality of the repeal of the Imperial Act. It was evident that the Cabinet were by no means of one mind on this important question, and these passionate appeals were unheeded. The pressure was great enough, however, to ensure the passage of a resolution in favor of the repeal of the Act, and in due course an Address in accordance therewith was forwarded to the Imperial authorities. The attitude of the Ministry, however, was not definite enough to meet the views of the Reform Party at large, and the consequence was many defections from the ranks. Amongst warm friends who had been transformed to lukewarmness, was Mr. George Brown. The Globe, which had ridiculed the “Clear Grit” movement from its inception, was now preparing to cast in its fortunes with that faction. The next year was notable for the re-entry into Parliament of William Lyon Mackenzie, the hero of the Rebellion of ’38. He was elected as member for Haldimand, having defeated Mr. Brown, who as yet professed a certain amount of friendship for the Government. Mackenzie, of course, entered the House as their pronounced opponent, and soon became the clearest of Clear Grits. During the session of this year (1851) an Act was introduced by Hon. Mr. Hincks to make provision for the construction of a trunk line of railway from Quebec to the west. A guaranteed loan from the Home Government—such as had already been promised to Nova Scotia in promotion of a line from Halifax to Quebec, was anticipated. The outcome of this Act, some years later, was the Grand Trunk railway. Before the close of the session the Globe had reached the point of open hostility to the Government, and clamored for immediate action on the Clergy Reserves question. As yet, however, Mr. Brown was not in actual alliance with the Clear Grits. One of the planks in the platform of that party was the abolition of the Court of Chancery, which, as has been mentioned, was re-organized and established under Mr. Baldwin’s auspices in 1849. Toward the end of the session, Mr. Lyon Mackenzie introduced a resolution looking to the abolition of this Court, and although defeated on a division, the fact that a majority of the Upper Canada members had voted in favor of the motion affected Mr. Baldwin so keenly that he resigned his office and retired from the Cabinet. Before the end of the same year Mr. Lafontaine also resigned, in pursuance of his expressed intention of retiring from public life. This act was immediately followed by the resignation of the remaining ministers, and the Lafontaine-Baldwin Cabinet thus passed calmly out of existence. Mr. Lafontaine was raised to the Bench as Chief Justice of Quebec in 1853, 24and the next year was created a Baronet. He died at Montreal, Feb. 26, 1864. Mr. Baldwin was defeated in North York at the ensuing general election by Mr. Joseph Hartman, a Clear Grit candidate, and this respected leader then permanently retired from public life. In 1854 he was made a C. B. The late Ministry having practically fallen before the Reform spirit of the day, the demand was for a Cabinet still less conservative. The formation of such a Cabinet was entrusted to Mr. (now Sir Francis) Hincks, who had been a prominent member of the late Administration, and was regarded as one of the most capable public men of the time. In a few months Mr. Hincks had completed the task committed to him by making judicious concessions to the Clear Grit sentiment and to all other forces which were capable of retarding the course of legislation. Mr. Morin, being the acknowledged leader of the French Liberals since the retirement of Mr. Lafontaine, headed the Lower Canada branch of the Government, which is known in our history as the Hincks-Morin Administration. The Globe came out strongly against the new Premier, expressing a total want of confidence in the sincerity of his Reform professions, and charging him with surrendering to French Canadian influence. The cause of the Government was on the other hand ably advocated by the Toronto North American (edited by Mr. Wm. Macdougall) and the Montreal Pilot, a journal established some years previously by Mr. Hincks himself. During the general election (1851) Mr. Brown was returned as member for Kent, and at once became a conspicuous figure in the House at Quebec—whither, in accordance with the alternating system, the seat of Government had been removed. Early in the new year Mr. Hincks proceeded to England, in company with Mr. E. B. Chandler of New Brunswick, to arrange for the Imperial guarantee to the construction of the Intercolonial railway, which, it had been agreed, should be built by the three Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to connect Halifax and Quebec by way of the St. John Valley. The Home authorities expressed a preference for a military route around the shore, and declined the guarantee on any other condition. Though unsuccessful in this matter, Mr. Hincks succeeded, during his stay in England, in arranging for the formation of what is now known as the Grand Trunk railway company, to secure the early construction of the line westward from Montreal. On the Premier’s return to Canada in 1852, the session opened, and Mr. Brown took the earliest opportunity of expressing his opinion that the Government was Reform in name only. Mr. John A. Macdonald also attacked them sharply, alleging that there was no principle in common among members of the Administration except the desire to hold office. During the session Mr. Hincks introduced a series of resolutions strongly urging the repeal of the Clergy Reserves Act of 1840, and an Address founded upon them was forwarded to the Queen. In October of this year Mr. Narcisse Fortunat Belleau (the subject of one of our cartoons) received a seat in the Legislative Council. Parliament adjourned on account of the presence of cholera at Quebec, between Nov. 10, 1852, and Feb. 14th, 1853. During this recess a despatch from the Home Secretary announced the intention of the Imperial Government to repeal the Act of 1840, and to pass an Act authorizing the Canadian Parliament to deal with the Clergy Reserves question. On the re-assembling of the House a Representation Act was passed, increasing the membership from 84 to 130—65 for each section of the Province. About the same time it became known in Canada that the promised legislation in the matter of 25the Clergy Reserves had been passed in England, and the ardent advocates of secularization renewed their agitation for immediate action by the Provincial Government. The session was allowed to end, however, without any intimation of the Government’s intentions, and this apparent want of good faith, in connection with various charges of extravagance in connection with railway contracts, and other shortcomings, furnished an abundance of ammunition for the Opposition in the interim. The Ministry decided to take no action on the Clergy Reserves question, the reason assigned being that it would be better to leave such important legislation to the next Parliament, in which there would be a larger representation of the people. This resolve, when announced in Parliament, raised a furious storm amongst the extreme members of the Opposition. No fewer than four amendments were moved to the Address in Reply, and the defeat of the Government was practically accomplished on a vote regretting that a measure for the settlement of the Seigniorial Tenure and Reserves question was not to be submitted during the session. This motion was carried by forty-two against twenty-nine. Mr. Hincks asked for an adjournment for a day or two, which was granted. The Ministry decided to dissolve the House, and when the members re-assembled, Black Rod forthwith knocked at the door. The general election came off in the following July and August. Amongst the members of the new House subsequently noticed in our cartoons were Messrs. Luther Hamilton Holton and A. A. Dorion. The Assembly was now divided into three distinct parties: Ministerialists; Conservatives, led nominally by Sir A. MacNab,—really by Mr. John A. Macdonald; and Advanced Reformers, including Clear Grits and Rouges. Mr. Brown was now, to all intents and purposes, not only an ally but a leader of the last named party, with Mr. Dorion for his Lower Canada colleague. The Ministry managed to weather the storm for but a few days after the opening of the session; they were then defeated by a vote on a question of privilege raised by the Opposition, and handed in their resignations. This was on Sept. 8th, 1854. Sir Allan MacNab was called upon to form an Administration, a task which was only possible of accomplishment by the sacrifice on his part of cherished convictions at the bidding of expediency. The Government to be formed had before it the work of secularizing the Reserves, and to this Sir Allan, in common with the old Conservatives whom he represented, was opposed. Rather, however, than yield the leadership to the hands of his rising colleague, Macdonald, Sir Allan accepted the responsibility, and in due time completed the formation of a Government by an alliance of Conservatives and moderate French Liberals, with two representatives of the ministerial party nominated by Mr. Hincks. This Government, taking the names of the leaders of the two sections as was customary, is known as the MacNab-Morin Administration. The immediate secularization of the Reserves was an essential condition of the coalition, and the passage of a Bill abolishing the Seigniorial Tenure had also been stipulated for. With the advent of the new Cabinet, the old Tory Party may be said to have become extinct, as the leading colleagues of the new Premier were imbued with the prevailing spirit of progress to an extent which would almost entitle them to the name of Liberals. That title was, indeed, adopted, and the party in question has ever since been known as Liberal-Conservative. The old time Reform Party became similarly modified, by the absorption of its more conservative element into the ranks of Government supporters 26and of its radical members into the Clear Grit or Rouge party. The pledges of the Government as to the Reserves question were duly fulfilled by the introduction of the Secularization Act by Mr. John A. Macdonald in 1854. During the same session, the Seignioral Tenure system, a long-standing grievance of Lower Canada—a remnant of mediævalism, under which the tillers of the soil were practically the vassals of feudal lords—was also abolished. Upon the prorogation of Parliament Lord Elgin retired from the Governor-Generalship, and was succeeded by Sir Edmund Head. By a reconstruction of the Lower Canada section of the Cabinet during the recess, Mr. Geo. E. Cartier became Provincial Secretary. This is noteworthy, as marking the commencement of the long-continued comradeship in office of that gentleman with Mr. J. A. Macdonald. After another brief session at Quebec, the seat of Government was removed to Toronto. Meantime (in 1855) Mr. Hincks, while absent in England, received the appointment of Governor of Barbadoes and the Windward Islands and his connection with Canadian affairs thus ended for the time being. The questions of Separate Schools for Roman Catholics, and Representation by Population, were the important topics of political discussion next to be brought forward, but before they had become ripe for legislative action, an important change had taken place in the Ministry. The colleagues and supporters of the Government had become impatient of the nerveless leadership of Sir Allan MacNab, and anxious to replace him by an abler man, who stood ready for the position in the person of Mr. John A. Macdonald. Sir Allan MacNab, however, would not voluntarily resign, and the affairs of the Government were thus kept in a awkward state of suspense for a considerable time. The “conspirators” in the Cabinet at last succeeded in carrying their point. A resolution of confidence having been moved on the question of making Quebec the permanent seat of Government, the vote was taken, and it was found that although duly carried, a majority of the Upper Canada members had voted against it. This was seized upon as a pretext and, on a profession of adherence to the principle of a “double majority” (a principle which had never been adopted by either party), the Ministers handed in their resignations. This left Sir Allan alone in his glory, and he being unable to fill the vacant places. Col. Taché, as the senior Executive Councillor, was entrusted with the task of forming a ministry, which he speedily accomplished by replacing the members of the late Cabinet. Mr. Macdonald was made Attorney-General West, and was the actual leader (May, 1856). On a motion of no confidence moved by Mr. Dorion, the reconstructed ministry found the adverse Upper Canada majority increased, but having got rid of old Sir Allan they were not now so particular about the double majority “principle” and entertained no thought of resigning. For some time prior to 1856 Mr. Wm. Macdougall, as editor of the North American, had been agitating the question of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s possessions in the North-West. The project of obtaining control of that valuable domain for Canada now began to take shape, and was warmly advocated by many of the leading public men. Communications on the subject were opened with the Company, and early in 1857, Chief Justice Draper was sent over to England to represent the Province in the negotiations. During the Parliamentary session of the same year Mr. George Brown introduced a resolution in favor of the principle of Representation by Population, which, although defeated, received strong support in the House and throughout the country. The vexed question of the 27permanent seat of Government was avoided by the submission of the matter to Her Majesty, who, in due course, named Ottawa, as a compromise between the conflicting claims of Toronto and Quebec. By the retirement of Col. Taché, which took place this year, Mr. Macdonald became Premier, and Mr. Cartier was formally appointed leader of the Lower Canada section of the Government. Parliament was dissolved in November and the general election came off in December and January. It was during this campaign that Mr. George Brown contested Toronto against Mr. John Beverley Robinson and others—reference to which is made in cartoons 17 to 24. Amongst the new members elected were Messrs. T. D’Arcy McGee, Hector L. Langevin, Christopher Duncan, Oliver Mowat, Wm. P. Howland, and John Carling. The main questions upon which the elections turned were Separate Schools and Representation by Population, and the general result was a weakening of the Upper Canada support of the Government and a more than proportionate addition to their Lower Canada following. When the House met in 1858, the “double majority” doctrine was promptly cast overboard, as it was clear the Ministry had to rely wholly on a Lower Canada majority. A motion expressing dissatisfaction with the selection of Ottawa as seat of Government, which appealed alike to the French and English members of the House, was carried by sixty-four to fifty. Thereupon the Government resigned, and Mr. George Brown was called upon, as leader of the Opposition, to form an Administration. This he succeeded in doing. He asked, however, for a dissolution of the House and an appeal to the country, on the ground that the present Assembly did not fairly represent public opinion. The Governor-General, upon consideration, declined to accede to this, and a vote of no confidence having been carried in the House, Mr. Brown and his colleagues handed in their resignations. The lately deposed ministers were recalled, and, taking advantage of the letter of the law which permitted of an interchange of portfolios without an appeal to the country, Mr. Macdonald and his colleagues performed what is notorious in our annals as the “Double Shuffle.” The members of the Government resumed the treasury benches upon making a mere re-distribution of the offices. Having been duly sworn in, they then made another re-distribution which left them in the positions which they originally occupied.

The rejection of the double majority principle, and the popular demand for representation by population had given rise to the idea of a Federal Union of the Provinces of British North America, and the “new” Government announced that the feasibility of this scheme would receive the most serious consideration. Mr. A. T. Galt, who was now Inspector-General, was known as a strong advocate of Confederation, and on entering the Ministry he had insisted on it being made a Cabinet question. In the next session Ottawa was formally accepted as the seat of Government by a motion in the House, which was carried by a majority of five. A new Tariff Act, raising the general duties to fifteen per cent., was amongst the measures of the session, and marks the commencement of Protection in Canada.

At the close of the session the departments were once more established at Quebec, whence in 1866 they were removed to Ottawa and permanently settled in the new Parliament buildings. The Government was now sustained entirely by Lower Canada votes, and the cry of French domination was being vociferously raised in the Upper Province. As the 28outcome of a Liberal convention an address to the people made its appearance in 1860. This document, which forcibly exposed the unsatisfactory state into which public affairs had been brought by the existing system, was widely distributed, and is regarded as having done much to pave the way for the Confederation scheme subsequently matured. The Liberal leaders of Lower Canada were disposed to admit the justice of the complaints thus formulated, but no great expression of sympathy could be expected in that quarter for a cause with which the name of George Brown was intimately associated. In the meantime, the divisions in the ranks of the Opposition aided the Government. In the following session (1860) Mr. Brown introduced two motions embodying the reforms discussed at the convention, and suggesting, as a remedy for the evils complained of, the formation of local governments for the management of Provincial affairs, with some central authority to take cognizance of affairs common to all sections. These resolutions were defeated by overwhelming majorities. In connection with changes in the personnel of the Parliamentary forces during 1860, it may be noted that Sir Allan MacNab was elected to a seat in the Legislative Council, and Mr. Chas. J. Rykert succeeded Mr. Merritt as member for Lincoln in the Assembly. The agitation for “Rep. by Pop.” and its proposed accompanying reforms was not allowed to die out. Mr. D’Arcy McGee continued to eloquently advocate the Federal Union plan, and the Globe kept steadily educating public opinion upon the subject. In the next session resolutions in favor of the “double majority” principle, moved respectively by Mr. J. Sandfield Macdonald and Mr. A. A. Dorion, obtained a fair measure of support in the House, being defeated by majorities of only thirteen and nineteen. Amongst the supporters of these motions were several prominent French Canadians who had hitherto acted with the Government, and ere long an alliance between these gentlemen and the Upper Canada followers of Mr. J. S. Macdonald was brought about, much to the embarrassment of the Ministry. The publication of the returns of the census, which had just been completed, gave new life to the agitation for Rep. by Pop. as they showed that the population of the Upper Province was 300,000 in excess of that of Lower Canada. A measure embodying to some extent the principles contended for was, however, defeated by a vote of sixty-seven to forty-nine. On the 10th of June Parliament was dissolved, and at the ensuing general election the Government was sustained, notwithstanding the herculean efforts of the Opposition. Mr. Brown himself was defeated in East Toronto, and Mr. Dorion failed in Lower Canada. Mr. Brown remained out of Parliament until 1863; Mr. Dorion was returned for Hochelaga in the year following his defeat. Amongst the new members (subsequently noticed in our cartoons) were Alexander Mackenzie and H. G. Joly. Mr. Mackenzie was elected for Lambton, and has remained in Parliament to the present time. M. Joly sat as member for Lotbinière. Mr. Wm. Lyon Mackenzie, who had resigned his seat for Haldimand in 1858, died during the summer of this year.

Sir Edmund Head’s term having expired, he was succeeded in the Governorship by Viscount Monck. In 1862 Mr. John Beverley Robinson and Mr. John Carling became members of the Cabinet, the former as President of the Council, and the latter as Receiver-General. Both of these gentlemen (who figure in several of our cartoons) were favorable to Rep. by Pop., and that question was henceforth to be regarded as “open” in the Cabinet. The Ministerial span of life was, however, now at an end. Before the session closed 29the Government sustained a decisive defeat on a militia bill introduced by Attorney-General Macdonald, and resigned on the following day. The Macdonald-Sicotte Administration succeeded to the vacant benches, the Premier being Mr. John Sandfield Macdonald, and his Lower Canadian colleague, Mr. L. V. Sicotte, a former follower of Mr. Cartier. The new Ministry, in announcing their programme, practically ignored the question of Rep. by Pop., and adopted the principle of Separate Schools. In the following session Mr. George Brown (who had meantime been elected for South Oxford) found himself at the head of a strong party in opposition to the Government on the issues named, and although the “double majority” principle was supposed to have been adopted by the Ministry, they resisted defeat on many divisions by a solid Lower Canada vote. Indeed, in this respect they were in precisely the same position as the Government they had replaced. This disingenuous conduct brought swift punishment. The Government was in May defeated on a direct vote of want of confidence, and a dissolution was decided upon. The general election was fixed for June, and resulted in the Government being sustained. The personnel of the Cabinet had undergone some changes in the meantime. Mr. Oliver Mowat being taken in as Postmaster-General, and the Lower Canada section being as follows: A. A. Dorion, L. H. Holton, Isidore Thibaudeau, L. Letellier de St. Just, L. S. Huntington and Maurice Laframboise. Mr. Huntington was comparatively new to Parliament, and represented Shefford. In the second session after its formation this Government voluntarily resigned office, being unable to command a working majority, and in the meantime little if any progress had been made toward the settlement of the great question of the day. After some difficulty a new Government was formed under the joint leadership of Sir E. P. Taché and Hon. John A. Macdonald. In this Cabinet Mr. Hector L. Langevin first sat as a Minister; the new names in the Upper Canada section were those of Messrs. John Simpson and James Cockburn. It was found, on the reassembly of Parliament, that this Government, like its predecessor, could not command a working majority, and it was evident that no Ministry it would be possible to form from the material available would be in any better position. It had been decided to dissolve the House and appeal to the country, when, at the critical moment, Mr. George Brown suggested that the crisis might be utilized to settle the constitutional difficulties between Upper and Lower Canada on the line of the recommendations just laid before the House by a committee entrusted with the consideration of that subject, viz.: a Confederation of the Provinces.

As the result of conferences then initiated a Federal Union of the Provinces was decided upon, and three Reformers, Messrs. Brown, Mowat and Macdougall entered the Government to assist in carrying the plan into effect. In due course the Imperial authorities passed the necessary legislation, under the title of the British North America Act, and on the 1st of July, 1867, the plan was consummated, and the Dominion of Canada came into existence. For distinguished services in connection with this great measure, Mr. Macdonald was honored with knighthood, and in the following year Mr. Cartier accepted a baronetcy. Other distinguished Confederationists received minor honors. In the ensuing general election, Mr. Brown was defeated in South Ontario, and never thereafter sat in Parliament. In 1873 he accepted a seat in the Senate at the hands of the Reform 30Government of Mr. Mackenzie, and in that quiet retreat ended his eventful political career. The formation of Provincial Ministries had meantime been arranged for. In Ontario, the first Cabinet—a coalition—was under the leadership of Mr. John Sandfield Macdonald, and remained in office for the ensuing four years. Amongst the new Members of the first Dominion Parliament were Joseph Howe of Nova Scotia and Edward Blake of Ontario, the latter gentleman being at the same election (1867) returned as a member of the Ontario Assembly, where he soon assumed the leadership of the Opposition. Mr. Howe continued his active efforts against Confederation both in and out of the House. In 1868 he was the leading member of a delegation to England to present an address in favor of the repeal of the Union on behalf of Nova Scotia. This petition was rejected, and early in 1869 Mr. Howe was induced to enter the Cabinet, certain modifications of the terms of Union being promised. In 1868, Lord Monck was succeeded in the Governorship by Sir John Young (afterward Lord Lisgar). In the ensuing session, the North-West Territories, which had been acquired by the extinction of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s claim, were formally added to the Dominion, and an Act was passed to provide for the appointment of a Lieutenant-Governor and Council to administer their affairs. The closing negotiations in England had been conducted by Sir Geo. Cartier (Cartoon 32) and Hon. Wm. Macdougall, and in recognition of his services the latter gentleman was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of the new Territory. The Metis settlers, however, felt aggrieved that the transfer had been effected without their consent, and entertained a want of confidence in the good-will of the new owners of the country. The result was that when Lieutenant-Governor Macdougall undertook to assume the direction of affairs he was met by armed resistance, and found that the half-breeds about Fort Garry were in open rebellion under the leadership of one Louis Riel. Upon the peremptory order of the rebels Mr. Macdougall was forced to retreat from the frontier (Cartoon 49). Meanwhile the rebellion went on. Bishop Taché, a prelate of vast influence amongst the half-breeds, happened unfortunately to be absent in Rome. It being clear that peace could not be restored without his intervention, he was communicated with, and on his arrival at Ottawa he was empowered to offer the rebels an amnesty for all past offences and to assure them of the good-will of the Dominion. He at once departed on his mission, but before his arrival at the Red River, Riel had crowned his folly and wickedness by the cold-blooded murder of a loyalist named Thomas Scott, under form of a “court martial” execution. The Bishop, notwithstanding this, duly delivered his message. The rebels were ultimately overawed by the appearance of a military force under command of Colonel (afterwards Sir Garnet) Wolseley, 31and Riel took flight. He returned, however, after a time, and remained in Manitoba unmolested until the offer of a reward for his apprehension by the Ontario Government caused him to seek safety on the American side. To forestall further trouble the Dominion Government, at the suggestion of Bishop Taché, secretly provided him with some $1,500 on condition of his remaining out of the country for good. With this strangely acquired booty he took up his residence in the United States. He was subsequently twice elected to Parliament for the constituency of Provencher, Manitoba, but his banishment from the country for five years was decreed in connection with the general amnesty subsequently ratified by the Mackenzie Government.

In 1872 Sir John Macdonald was appointed one of the British Commissioners for the arrangement of a treaty involving the fishery interests of Canada, amongst other important matters, as between Great Britain and the United States. The result of the Commissioners’ labors is known as the Washington Treaty, which was ratified in that year. By this document, inter alia, the right to take fish in Canadian waters was extended to the United States for the period of ten years in consideration of a money payment, the amount subsequently agreed upon by a joint Commission, which met at Halifax in 1877, being $5,500,000. This the Americans paid, but only after a protest on flimsy grounds by their representative, Mr. Kellogg, and much grumbling by Congress. In 1871, British Columbia was admitted to the Union. In the session of the following year a Bill was passed empowering the Government to contract with a chartered company for the construction of a railway to connect British Columbia with the Eastern Provinces. This year was also signalized by the advent of Lord Dufferin as the successor of Baron Lisgar in the vice-regal office, and by a general election, the term of the first Parliament of the Dominion having expired. The result of the election was favorable to the Government, though the Opposition was materially strengthened. In 1873 Confederation was rounded off by the admission of Prince Edward Island into the Union. The session of this year is memorable for the “Pacific Scandal.” Mr. Huntington from his place in the House charged the Government with having corruptly sold the contract for the construction of the C. P. R., to Sir Hugh Allan, in consideration of a large contribution by that worthy knight to the Conservative election fund. This unparalleled indictment caused a great sensation, and eventually compelled the resignation of the Ministry. A Reform Government under Mr. Mackenzie succeeded to office, and continued down to 1878, when the prevailing depression of trade compassed its defeat, the Conservatives having declared for Protection to native industries as a “National Policy,” a cry which caught the public fancy wonderfully. The leading political incidents of the term thus briefly indicated are commented upon in their order in the cartoons from Grip presented in this volume. Early in 1880, Mr. Mackenzie was succeeded in the leadership by Mr. Blake, who still remains at the head of the Reform Party.

Punch in Canada, May 19th, 1849.

Punch in Canada, July 7th, 1849.

Punch in Canada, July, 1849.

Her Most Gracious Majesty.—“Sir Allan Macnab and Mr. William Cayley,—I regret that it is out of our power to offer you any accommodations at present, our only spare room being just now occupied by Mr. Francis Hincks.”

Punch in Canada, July 1849.

Punch in Canada, August, 1849.

Punch in Canada, August, 1849.

Punch in Canada, May, 1849.

Boy.—Hallo, Mister! ye’ve dropped yer hankercher.

Leaguer.—Ha! my good boy, yes!—I mean no, my blessed little kid, no! not mine, my excellent little gentleman, not mine—Oh no, no, no, not mine!

Boy.—Well, some o’ yis dropped it anyhow, and now none o’ yiz ’ll own to it.

Punch in Canada, May, 1849.

Punch in Canada, 1849.

Punch in Canada, September, 1849.

Punch in Canada, September, 1849.]

Punch in Canada, October 10th, 1849.

Punch in Canada, October, 1849.

Punch in Canada, November, 1849.

Punch in Canada, November, 1849.

Punch in Canada, November 29th, 1849.

Punch in Canada, December, 1849.

Punch in Canada, December, 1849.

Punch in Canada, December 28th, 1849.

Punch in Canada, December, 1849.]

Punch in Canada, 1849.

YOUNG LITERARY LEADER.—HERE IS ONE SETTLER, SARE, FOR YOUR TOWNSHIP, SARE, ON YOUR FARM, SARE.

TOWNSHIPPER.—OH, THAT’S YOUR SETTLER, EH? WHY THERE’S LOTS OF THEM CHAPS HERE ALREADY—IN THE MASHES!

Punch in Canada, 1849.

Punch in Canada, 1849.

Autolycus.—I see this is the time that the unjust man doth thrive. Sure the gods do this year connive at us, that we may do anything extempore. (Sings.)

Clown.—He seems to be of great authority; close with him, give him gold.

Punch in Canada, 1849.

Punch in Canada, 1849.

Punch in Canada, 1849.

Mr. Chamberlin at Shefford.

Diogenes, October 22nd, 1869.

Diogenes, October 29th, 1869.

MISS CANADA.—“YOU’LL TAKE CARE OF THE MONEY, WON’T YOU? YOU KNOW I’M NOT VERY RICH.”

MR. MELTER MOSH.—“O, YESH, MA TEAR, I’LL LOOK AFTER TE MONISH! I’M A HONEST MAN; IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME, AX BARBADOES AND DEMARARA. DEY KNOW ME, TEN YEARS.”

Grinchuckle, November 4th, 1869.

GRINCHUCKLE.—“FAITH! IF HE GETS AT IT, THERE WILL BE VERY LITTLE LEFT FOR KING CROW OR ANYONE ELSE.”

KING CROW.—“IF SOME OF THESE NORTH RENFREW MEN WOULD ONLY FRIGHTEN HIM AWAY NOW, WOULDN’T THE LIKE OF ME HAVE OUR FILL!”

Diogenes, November 5th, 1869.

Grinchuckle, November 18th, 1869.

Diogenes, November 19th, 1869.

Grinchuckle, November 25th, 1869.

Grinchuckle, December 2nd, 1869.

“I AM HAPPY TO BE ABLE TO ANNOUNCE TO YOU THAT SUCH PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE DIVISION OF THE SURPLUS DEBT OF THE LATE PROVINCE OF CANADA AS TO LEAD ME TO EXPECT AN EARLY SETTLEMENT OF THE QUESTION.”

Lieutenant-Governor’s Speech, Opening of Quebec Legislature.

Grinchuckle, December 9th, 1869.

J. S. McD——LD.—“YES, MY PET, YOU SHALL HAVE IT. I COULD NOT FIND IT IN MY HEART TO DEPRIVE YOU OF IT.”

E. BL——E.—“YOUR PET! SHE WAS NOT ALWAYS SO; BUT IF YOU DARE, I’LL TEAR THE LOLLY-POPS FROM YOUR MEDDLING HAND.”

Grinchuckle, January 6th, 1870.

Grinchuckle, January 27th, 1870.

JOE (FROM THE EAST).—“GO IT! BE A PATRIOT; AND YOU’LL SELL WELL,—LIKE ME.”

LOUIS (IN THE WEST).—“YOU’RE AN UNPRINCIPLED OLD SCAMP; BUT IF I DON’T GET MY $5000 A YEAR, BLOW ME TIGHT.”

Grinchuckle, February 10th, 1870.

Canadian Illustrated News, May 11th, 1872.

Canadian Illustrated News, May 11th, 1872.

Mr. John K. Nucke (a gentleman farmer).—“A fine balance at my banker’s, eh! Glad to hear it! What’s the next improvement you intend carrying out? For I’ve noticed a surplus always indicates some grand scheme concocted between you and the hands on the farm. Now tell me; out with it!”

Steward.—“Well, Your Honour ought to have a road made to the lake; it would open up your property, and keep the hands busy, and——”

Mr. J. K. N.—“Well, well! and what will it cost?”

Steward.—“Oh! a mere trifle; some thirty millions or so; and if that don’t pay the contractor we will give him some of our waste land, you know. We might spare 40 or 50 million acres and never feel it!”

Mr. J. K. N.—“Whew! (whistle). Hem! Ho, ho! Well, we’ll talk over it.”

Canadian Illustrated News, March 30th, 1872.

Canadian Illustrated News, May 4th, 1872.

Canadian Illustrated News, March 29th, 1873.

Canadian Illustrated News, April 12th, 1873.

Grip, May 31st, 1873.

J. A. M—C—D—N—LD.—“COME ON, OLD FELLOW, IT’S ALL RIGHT, YOU KNOW; IT’S MY TURN TO TREAT!”

A. M—K—NZ—E.—“OH, AYE, JONEY! BUT Y’MAUN RECOLLEC’ I’M TE-TOTAL—MORE ESPEECIALLY TILL AUGUST!”

Grip, July 19th, 1873.

Grip, July 26th, 1873.

Grip, August 2nd, 1873.

J—N A. (Anxiously).—“CARRIAGE, SIR? ‘MINISTERIAL’ HOTEL—ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL PLACE IN THE CITY—COME ALONG WITH ME, SIR.”

Mc—K—NZ—(Eagerly).—“THIS WAY, MY LORD—‘REFORM’ HOUSE! TAK’ THE RIGHT COURSE—GIE’ US YER CHECKS!!”

L—D D—FF—N.—“MUCH OBLIGED, GENTLEMEN, I ASSURE YOU; BUT I HAVE A ‘RIG’ OF MY OWN AT HAND, YOU KNOW.”

Grip, August 9th, 1873.

Grip, August 16th, 1873.

Grip, August 23rd, 1873.

Grip, August 30th, 1873.

Grip, September 13th, 1873.

Grip, September 20th, 1873.

Grip, September 27th, 1873.

Grip, October 4th, 1873.

MISS CANADA (Anxiously).—“DOCTORS, HOW DO YOU FIND THE POOR DEAR PREMIER?”

DR. B—N (For the M.D.’s).—“MADAM, WE’VE JUST HAD A CONSULTATION; THE SYMPTOMS ARE HOPEFUL—WE BELIEVE HE CAN’T SURVIVE OCTOBER!”

Grip, October 11th, 1873.

M—K—ZIE—“I WILL FIGHT HIM UPON THIS THEME UNTIL MY EYELIDS WILL NO LONGER WAG!”—Hamlet, Act v., Scene 1.

JOHN A.—“WHAT DO I FEAR?”—Richard III., Act v., Scene 3.

Grip, October 18th, 1873.

Grip, October 25th, 1873.

Grip, November 1st, 1873.

Grip, November 8th, 1873.

Grip, November 15th, 1873.

Grip, November 22nd, 1873.

Grip, November 29th, 1873.

Grip, December 13th, 1873.

Grip, December 20th, 1873.

Grip, December 27th, 1873.

Grip, January 3rd, 1874.

Grip, January 10th, 1874.

Grip, January 31st, 1874.

Grip, February 7th, 1874.

Grip, February 21st, 1874.

Grip, February 28th, 1874.

Grip, March 7th, 1874.

Grip, March 21st, 1874.

Grip, March 28th, 1874.

Grip, April 4th, 1874.

Grip, April 11th, 1874.

Grip, April 18th, 1874.

Grip, May 2nd, 1874.

Grip, May 16th, 1874.

Grip, May 23rd, 1874.

Grip, July 6th, 1874.

Grip, August 8th, 1874.

Grip, September 12th, 1874.

Grip, September 19th, 1874.

Grip, October 10th, 1874.

Grip, October 31st, 1874.

Grip, November 7th, 1874.

Grip, November 28th, 1874.

Grip, December 26th, 1874.

Grip, January 16th, 1875.

Grip, January 30th, 1875.

Grip, February 6th, 1875.

Grip, February 27th, 1875.

Grip, March 6th, 1875.

Grip, March 13th, 1875.

Grip, March 20th, 1875.

Grip, May 1st, 1875.

Grip, May 15th, 1875.

Grip, May 22nd, 1875.

Grip, May 29th, 1875.

Grip, July 24th, 1875.

Grip, July 31st, 1875.

Grip, August 7th, 1875.

Grip, August 21st, 1875.

Grip, September 4th, 1875.

Grip, September 11th, 1875.

Grip, September 25th, 1875.

Grip, October 2nd, 1875.

Grip, December 18th, 1875.

Grip, December 25th, 1875.

“IF THE GLOBE BELIEVES M. CAUCHON FIT TO SIT IN THE MINISTRY, IT OWES HIM AN APOLOGY FOR MALIGNING HIM IN THE PAST.”—KINGSTON WHIG.

Grip, February 19th, 1876.

Grip, March 18th, 1876.

Grip, March 25th, 1876.

Grip, April 8th, 1876.

Grip, April 29th, 1876.

Grip, May 6th, 1876.

Grip, June 10th, 1876.

Grip, July 15th, 1876.

Grip, July 29th, 1876.

Grip, August 5th, 1876.

Grip, August 19th, 1876.

Grip, September 2nd, 1876.

Grip, September 9th, 1876.

Grip, September 16th, 1876.

Grip, September 30th, 1876.

Grip, October 7th, 1876.

Grip, October 27th, 1876.

Grip, November 11th, 1876.

Grip, December 2nd, 1876.

Grip, January 6th, 1877.

Grip, February 10th, 1877.

Grip, February 17th, 1877.

Grip, March 10th, 1877.

Grip, March 17th, 1877.

Grip, March 31st, 1877.

Grip, April 7th, 1877.

Grip, April 21st, 1877.

Grip, May 5th, 1877.

Grip, May 19th, 1877.

Grip, June 9th, 1877.

Grip, June 28th, 1877.

Grip, July 7th, 1877.

Grip, July 14th, 1877.