Читать книгу Sir George Étienne Cartier, Bart.--His Life and Times - John Boyd - Страница 11

Table of Contents

The period following the rising of 1837 was full of peril for the French-Canadians. The Patriots, victorious at St. Denis, were crushed at St. Charles, St. Benoit and St. Eustache. The abortive rising of 1837 was followed in 1838 by the foolhardy movement headed by Robert Nelson, a brother of Wolfred Nelson. Proclaiming a Canadian republic, the younger Nelson entered Canada from the States with a nondescript following, but the expedition was completely defeated at Lacolle and Odelltown, and its leader decamped to Vermont. The constitution of the province was suspended, martial law was proclaimed in the district of Montreal and a price was set upon the heads of Papineau, Nelson, O’Callaghan, Brown, Cartier and other leading spirits of the rising. The leaders of the French-Canadians were either in prison or in exile; the prisons were filled with those who had taken part in the insurrection; ninety-nine of the prisoners were tried by court martial and sentenced to death; twelve were executed and the remainder transported. It was the darkest page in the history of the French-Canadian people. But it was the darkness before the dawn of a brighter day. The lives that had been lost had not been sacrificed in vain. The Imperial authorities, alarmed at the existing conditions in Canada and the stubborn resistance shown by the people to arbitrary measures, realised that it was time to take action to provide a remedy. With that end in view Lord Durham was, early in 1838, appointed Lord High Commissioner as well as Governor-General of British North America and vested with extraordinary powers, with special instructions to report upon the conditions and requirements of the country. Lord Durham arrived at Quebec on May 27th, 1838, and remained in Canada until November 3rd following. The result of his mission was the famous report which has been well described as one of the classics of British political literature and the most important state paper in our archives.

With a masterly grasp Durham seized upon the salient defects of the Canadian situation and his report furnished the strongest justification for the constitutional reforms that had been demanded by Papineau and other leaders of the popular cause. In language remarkable for its lucidity the case for colonial freedom was stated. “The powers for which the Assembly contended,” Lord Durham remarked, “appear to be such as it was perfectly justified in demanding. It is difficult to conceive what could have been their theory of government who imagined that in any colony of England a body invested with the name and character of a representative assembly could be deprived of any of those powers which in the opinion of Englishmen are inherent in a popular legislature. It was a vain delusion to imagine that by mere limitation in the Constitutional Act or an exclusive system of government a body strong in the consciousness of wielding the public opinion of the majority could regard certain portions of the provincial revenues as sacred from its control, could confine itself to the mere business of making laws and look on as a passive and indifferent spectator while those laws were carried into effect or evaded and the whole business of the country was conducted by men in whose intentions or capacity it had not the slightest confidence. Yet such was the limitation placed on the authority of the Assembly of Lower Canada. It might refuse or pass laws, vote or withhold supplies, but it could exercise no influence on the nomination of a single servant of the Crown.... However decidedly the Assembly might condemn the policy of the Government, the persons who had advised that policy retained their offices and their power of giving bad advice.... The wisdom of adopting the true principle of representative government and facilitating the management of public affairs by entrusting it to the persons who have the confidence of the representative body has never been recognised in the government of the North American colonies.”

“It is difficult to understand how any English statesmen,” proceeds Lord Durham, “could have imagined that representative and irresponsible government could be successfully combined. There seems, indeed, to be an idea that the character of representative institutions ought to be thus modified in colonies, that it is an incident of colonial dependence that the officers of government should be nominated by the Crown, without any reference to the wishes of the community whose interests are entrusted to their keeping. It has never been very clearly explained what are the Imperial interests which require this complete nullification of representative government. But if there be such a necessity it is quite clear that a representative government in a colony must be a mockery and a source of confusion. For those who support this system have never yet been able to devise or to exhibit in the practical working of colonial government any means for making so complete an abrogation of political influence palatable to the representative body.”[39]

Even Papineau’s objection to the constitution of the Legislative Council was sustained by Lord Durham, who declared that the constitution of the upper house was defective and recommended its revision.

Lord Durham’s realisation that responsible government was the sole remedy for political evils in Canada showed the keen insight and broad vision of a great statesman. He believed that the remedies which he proposed could best be carried into effect by a legislative union of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada and that was the practical recommendation of his report. But, penetrating as was Lord Durham’s insight, splendid as was his vision and admirable as were many of his conclusions, he failed to grasp one most essential fact, that was the marvellous racial vitality of the French-Canadian people, which had enabled them to successfully resist all attempts to denationalise them. The aim of Lord Durham in recommending the union of the two provinces was to Anglicise the French-Canadians, not by any harsh or drastic measures, but by the slow process of time and the overwhelming preponderance of numbers. The object was to be achieved by constitutional means through a legislative union. In this Lord Durham was perfectly frank. Even those who have most strongly denounced his object have admitted his loyalty and frankness. There was no ambiguity or equivocation about his language. “I entertain no doubts,” says the noble Lord, “as to the national character which must be given to Lower Canada; it must be that of the British Empire, that of the majority of the population of British America, that of the great race which must in the lapse of no long period of time be predominant over the whole North American continent.”

“If the population of Upper Canada is rightly estimated at 400,000, the English inhabitants of Lower Canada at 150,000 and the French at 450,000, the union of the two provinces would not only give a clear English majority, but one which would be increased every year by the influence of English emigration, and I have little doubt that the French, when once placed by the legitimate course of events and the working of natural causes in a minority, would abandon their vain hopes of nationality.”

Nothing certainly could have been more outspoken than Lord Durham’s language. But it is remarkable that a statesman of such keen insight could have imagined that the French-Canadians who had displayed such wonderful racial resistance, and who had shown themselves so tenacious of their national status, would so easily abandon their position and be content with a subservient condition.

Lord Durham’s supreme merit is undoubtedly that he was the first British statesman to recognise the advisability of applying the principles of representative government in their entirety to the colonies. “Without a change in our system of government,” he remarked, “the discontent which now prevails will spread and advance.”

“It needs no change in the principles of government,” he adds, “no invention of a constitutional theory to supply the remedy which would in my opinion completely remove the existing political disorders. It needs but to follow out consistently the principles of the British constitution and introduce into the government of these great colonies those wise provisions by which alone the working of the representative system can in any country be rendered harmonious and efficient.”

In line with this declaration, Lord Durham distinctly recommended that “the responsibility to the united legislature of all officers of the government, except the governor and his secretary, should be secured by every means known to the British constitution.” “The governor as the representative of the Crown should be instructed,” added Lord Durham, “that he must carry on his government by heads of departments in whom the united legislature shall repose confidence and that he must look for no support from home in any contest with the legislature, except on points involving strictly imperial interests.”

How different was Lord Durham’s language from that of other British statesmen of the period! As has been stated by one who played a leading part in the battle for reform in Canada, the introduction of parliamentary government into the colonies was not deemed practicable by any English statesmen at that time.[40] Both Whigs and Tories were at one in this respect. Lord John Russell, speaking in the British Commons, emphatically declared that “cabinet government in the colonies was incompatible with the relations which ought to exist between the mother country and the colony. Those relations required that His Majesty should be represented in the colony not by ministers but by a governor sent out by the king and responsible to the parliament of Great Britain, otherwise Great Britain would have in the Canadas all the inconveniences of colonies without any of their advantages.” The Imperial parliament set its seal to this declaration by adopting resolutions repudiating the idea of responsible government for the colonies and declaring that it was inadvisable to subject the Executive Council of Lower Canada to the responsibility demanded by the House of Assembly. Amendments favouring the recognition of responsible government for the colonies were rejected by the British Commons. “The very idea was in fact regarded in some quarters as absurd and its advocates as irresponsible.” “It does not appear, indeed,” remarked Lord John Russell at a later stage, “that any very definite meaning is generally agreed upon by those who call themselves the advocates of this principle (responsible government), but its very vagueness is a source of delusion and if at all encouraged would prove the cause of confusion and danger.”[41]

Lord John Russell’s view was shared by other British statesmen who had to do with the colonies. Lord Glenelg expressed the opinion that in the administration of Canadian affairs a sufficient practical responsibility already existed without the introduction of any “hazardous schemes.” Such was the opinion of all the British statesmen, who successively presided over the Colonial office. Nor should we be too ready to denounce, as some have done, the action of British statesmen of that period, as if it was dictated by malicious intent towards the colonies. They were, to a great extent, acting according to their lights. It required years to develop that enlightened colonial policy under which the overseas Dominions have become such free, progressive and prosperous communities. Though representative institutions had been granted to the Canadas and though the constitution was supposed to be the very image and transcript of that of Great Britain, the imitation, as one historian has wittily remarked, was somewhat like the Chinese imitation of the steam vessel, “exact in everything except the steam.”[42] It remained for Lord Durham to recognise that the true policy was to follow out constitutionally the principles of the British constitution and to introduce into the government of the great colonies the wise provisions by which the working of the representative system could alone be rendered harmonious and efficient. Lord Durham was in fact the real inventor of colonial autonomy.[43]

Lord Durham’s splendid vision was further demonstrated by his recommendation of an ultimate confederation of all the British North American colonies, though the plan that he proposed for such a union contained a defect. His vision indeed was to be realised, but not on the basis he proposed—a legislative union with the provincial legislatures abolished and a single government for the whole country—but by a federal union which while providing for a strong central government left the direction of purely local affairs in the hands of the provinces. The achievement of this result was, as we shall see, largely due to the genius of George-Étienne Cartier, whose advocacy of a federal union was to triumph over the idea of a legislative union which was supported by some of his great colleagues.

The legislative union of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada recommended by Lord Durham became effective by proclamation on February 10th, 1841. It had been considered advisable by the Imperial authorities before putting the scheme into operation to secure the formal sanction of the legislative bodies which were presumed to represent the two provinces. As far as Lower Canada was concerned the sanction so obtained was little short of a mockery, as owing to the suspension of the constitution the province was practically at this period without representative institutions. The sanction of the Special Council which had been appointed following the suspension of the constitution was easily obtained, as its members were Crown nominees, nearly all of whom belonged to the so-called British party. But the Special Council could in no sense be regarded as a representative body. It adopted the union resolutions by a majority of twelve to three, two of the dissentients being English-speaking Canadians and only one a French-Canadian—John Neilson, James Cuthbert and Joseph Quesnel. The Governor-General, Poulett Thomson, afterwards Lord Sydenham, was not inclined to pay any attention to the views of the dissentients, though in reality they were the true exponents of the public opinion of the province.[44]

The provisions of the Union Act were clearly unfair in many respects to Lower Canada. Not only was the Act distinctly aimed, as its author had frankly intimated, at eventually denationalising the French-Canadians, but though the population of Lower Canada was much larger than that of Upper Canada, under the terms of the Union Act, Upper Canada was given an equal parliamentary representation with Lower Canada. While the public debt of Upper Canada was large and its financial condition deplorable, the public debt of Lower Canada was small and its financial condition sound. Upper Canada had therefore everything to gain from the union, while Lower Canada had much to lose. The clause of the Union Act proscribing the use of the French language in all public proceedings was a most unjust and humiliating provision in respect to a people who had more than once displayed their loyalty to Great Britain and had a right to expect at least British fair play. Under the circumstances it was little wonder that the Union Act should have aroused general indignation amongst the French-Canadian population.[45]

It was fortunate that at this critical stage of their history the French-Canadians possessed a leader of the mental, moral and physical equipment of Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine. No less fortunate was it for the peace and future welfare of the country that a great and enlightened English-speaking Canadian was found in the person of Robert Baldwin to join forces with LaFontaine in the momentous struggle that was about to ensue. Thus was begun and cemented that union of the two great races in this country based on the only possible foundation—the common interests of both.

LaFontaine is one of the noblest figures in Canadian history. A man of the highest intellectual attainments, of spotless moral character and of the most ardent patriotism, his career is one of which all Canadians have reason to be proud. Physically LaFontaine was of heroic mould. In his youth he was noted for his great strength. Of medium height but of massive build, his sturdy frame was crowned by a noble head. His features were of a Napoleonic cast; the face, illumined by genius, wore an habitual expression of calmness and serenity. His speech was grave and measured; his whole demeanour was marked by that intellectual distinction which was his predominating trait. Inclined to radicalism in his youth, LaFontaine gained wisdom and experience in the momentous struggle that preceded the rising of 1837, and thereafter his actions were guided by a calm and unimpassioned judgment, by a ripened wisdom and an undeviating devotion to constitutional methods. Like nearly all the young men of the period, LaFontaine in his youth was under the dominance of Papineau, who was twenty years older than his gifted young lieutenant. But LaFontaine was not one to be for long the blind follower of any man, however eminent. After the stormy days of his youth, with his powers matured and possessing himself in an eminent degree many of the qualities of leadership, LaFontaine marked out a course for himself, and with Papineau in exile it was not long before he became the undisputed leader of the French-Canadians. Without either the eloquence or the personal magnetism of Papineau, he approached every question from the logical side. With a well-stored mind, deeply versed in history and in constitutional law, he appealed to the reason rather than to the imagination of his auditors. He was a great debater rather than a great orator.

Born near the village of Boucherville in the county of Chambly in 1807, LaFontaine when the union of the two Canadas was effected was only in his thirty-fourth year. In 1830, at the age of twenty-three, he was elected to the Quebec Assembly for the county of Terrebonne, and at once assumed a leading part in the agitation for political freedom. From 1830 until the rising of 1837 he was one of Papineau’s ablest lieutenants and one of the most zealous advocates of the popular cause. When the agitation culminated in armed resistance to the authorities the youthful Patriot realised the dangers to which his people were exposed and a few days after the engagements at St. Denis and St. Charles he hastened to Quebec and made a personal appeal to Lord Gosford to summon parliament. His appeal proving ineffective, LaFontaine left for Europe, only to return the following year. Arrested and thrown into prison on the flimsiest pretext, he was soon released, and so great was his influence that, prior to the Union Act going into force, he was solicited by the Governor-General, Poulett Thomson, to accept the position of Solicitor-General for Lower Canada on the understanding that he would approve the Governor’s policy. LaFontaine naturally declined this tempting offer. He had from the outset been one of the most determined opponents of the union, which he rightly regarded as an attempt to denationalise his people, and he was not the man to relinquish his principles for the sake of office.

LaFontaine found an able and devoted coadjutor amongst his compatriots in Augustin-Norbert Morin, one of the finest figures in Canada’s political annals. Born in 1803, Morin was slightly older than LaFontaine, being in his thirty-eighth year at the time of the union. He became a member of the Quebec Assembly at the same time as LaFontaine and soon attained prominence as one of the strongest supporters of the popular cause. It was Morin who drafted the famous Ninety-two resolutions, which were passed by the Assembly in 1834, and he was a delegate to England to lay the Assembly’s petition before the Imperial authorities. Morin was the Chevalier Bayard of Canadian politics. In his person the highest abilities were united with the noblest character. He was inferior to LaFontaine only in practical qualifications and in that personal energy which is so essential in public life. His sensitive nature and his benevolent temperament ill fitted him for the fiery ordeals of the political arena. He was destined, however, to fill many high offices, all of which he adorned by the nobleness of his character.

The great English-speaking Canadian, whose name must forever be linked with that of LaFontaine, was eminently qualified both in natural gifts and in temperament to be LaFontaine’s associate. Robert Baldwin, who was three years older than the French-Canadian leader, having been born in 1804, was at this period in his thirty-seventh year. The two great leaders in the struggle for responsible government were therefore very nearly of the same age and both were in the full vigour and prime of life. Though not possessing intellectual qualities in as high a degree as his illustrious colleague, the great Upper Canadian reformer was a man of ability, of sterling character, of scrupulous honour and of the most exalted patriotism. Entering public life in 1829 as member for the town of York in the Assembly of Upper Canada, he became one of the staunchest supporters of reform. It has been truly said that the alpha and omega of Baldwin’s programme of political reform lay in the demand for the introduction of responsible government.[46] His supreme merit is that, rising above the sectional and racial prejudices that prevailed in his time and perceiving with the insight of a true statesman that the salvation of the country lay in a union of all Canadians to achieve responsible government, he joined forces with LaFontaine and made the achievement possible.

Neither LaFontaine nor Morin accepted the union, or perhaps it would be more correct to say that they accepted it only under protest. LaFontaine made his position perfectly clear in an address that he issued to the electors of the county of Terrebonne when he declared: “The union is an act of injustice and of despotism, in that it is imposed upon us without our consent, that it deprives Lower Canada of its legitimate number of representatives, that it deprives us of the use of our language in the proceedings of the legislature, contrary to the faith of treaties and the word of the Governor-General, in that it makes us pay without our consent a debt which we did not contract, in that it permits the Executive to illegally employ under the name of a civil list and without a vote of the representatives of the people an enormous portion of the revenues of the country.”

Morin’s attitude was defined with equal emphasis. “To resume the whole details in a few words,” he said, “I am against the union and against its main features, as I think every honest Lower Canadian should be. But I am not for violence or haste; I do not expect a direct repeal at least for a time, and therefore I do not wish to take a hostile position and embarrass government on account of the union. I want to convince the authorities of their error and give them the necessary time to repair it. As to firm though moderate declarations and protestations, we would be unworthy of those whom we represent if we did not make them. We cannot sacrifice or compromise their essential rights, we even hope that a liberal majority will be with us to assert them. You must not be surprised if we are opposed to the union. Marked with so many defects in its details, the measure in principle has been advocated both in England and here as the surest means of destroying the political rights and social institutions of half a million of people. No other principle but that one can be squeezed out of it.”[47]

The attitude of both LaFontaine and Morin it will thus be seen was utterly hostile to the union. But though LaFontaine was emphatic in his declaration against the injustice of the union, he did not go as far as Papineau in demanding its repeal. Upon this critical issue the views of these two eminent men, who had for years been friends and co-workers, were strongly at variance. Their divergent views were clearly indicated in the famous parliamentary duel during the session of 1849. Returning from exile in 1845 after eight years’ absence from Canada, Papineau decided to re-enter public life, and the prestige of his great name and his past parliamentary triumphs were sufficient to secure his election for the constituency of St. Maurice. Papineau at once showed himself irreconcilable. He was against the union, he had no faith in responsible government, such as advocated by LaFontaine and his colleagues, and he declared in favour of independence. He demanded “the repeal of the Act of 1840 and the independence of Canada, for the Canadians need never expect justice from England; to submit to her would be an eternal disgrace and a signing of their own death warrant; independence, on the contrary, would be a principle of resurrection and natural life.” The bitter experience through which he had passed had embittered the great tribune against England and monarchical institutions; the United States appeared to him as the acme of freedom. It was inevitable under the circumstances that Papineau and LaFontaine should come into collision. Early in the session of 1849 in a speech of ten hours’ duration Papineau made an attack upon the policy of his former friend and follower. His principal grievance against LaFontaine was that the latter had finally accepted the union of 1840, after having at first protested against it. Papineau’s denunciation of the union and of those whom he charged with having accepted it was couched in the strongest possible language. He charged LaFontaine and his French-Canadian colleagues with having by accepting power contradicted themselves and their protestations in 1841 against the Union Act. “Far from thinking like them,” he declared, “I find the constitution extremely defective, tyrannical and demoralising. Conceived by statesmen of a genius as narrow as it was malevolent, as small as was great that of those who under happier circumstances prepared the Act of 1791, it has up to the present and can only have in the future dangerous effects, ruinous and destructive results. From the moment that the Liberal party attained power I saw that it was intended to ask from us this degrading and unconditional approbation of the Union Act, and it was from that moment that I resolved not to put my confidence in men on their simple promises, but always to judge men by their acts.” LaFontaine’s attitude he denounced as cowardice, as the union could only prove disastrous to the French-Canadians. “For my own part,” declared Papineau, “I see nothing in it but treachery and iniquity, a law of proscription and of tyranny against our people. That Liberals such as LaFontaine should accept this régime is something I cannot understand.” In regard to the question of representation Papineau also differed from LaFontaine. “As far as I am concerned,” he said, “I do not wish either to practise or to impose an unjust domination, and if Upper Canada should have a larger population and demands, as she cannot fail doing, a majority of representatives, yes, I will vote for the general application of this essential principle of constitutional government—representation according to population.... Far from being discouraged by the prospect of a much more rapid increase of population in one section than another, the only reasonable and patriotic conclusion to be deduced is that there is not a day, not an hour, to lose, but that we should at once demand the repeal of the Union Act.” In another passage of his speech Papineau declared that annexation was inevitable, that it was only a question of time and in no sense a subject of doubt or uncertainty. He closed his onslaught by declaring that the Tory ministry of which he had thought so badly and the Liberal party of which he had hoped so much had both equally disappointed his expectations.

LaFontaine’s reply to Papineau’s onslaught was calm, reasoned and deliberate, though at times he displayed some feeling at what he apparently regarded as an attack upon his honour. “It will not,” said LaFontaine, “be unjust to the honourable member to qualify his system as a system of opposition to the bitter end; he himself so qualified it on several occasions. I leave to the honourable member the full benefit of a declaration which I have often made and now repeat: The idea of the governor who suggested, the idea of the man who had drafted the Act was that the union of the two provinces would crush the French-Canadians. Has that object been attained? Has Lord Sydenham’s idea been realised? All my fellow countrymen, except the honourable member, will answer with one unanimous voice—no. But they will also admit, as every honest man will admit, that had the system of opposition to the bitter end, upheld by the honourable member, been adopted it would have brought about ere now the aim of Lord Sydenham—the French-Canadian would have been crushed! That is what the honourable member’s system would have brought us to, and what it would bring us to to-morrow if the representatives of the people were so ill-advised as to adopt it.

“The protest of 1841 has a scope and bearing which it behooves us to bear well in mind to-day; but to my mind the refusal of the government and the majority of the legislature of Upper Canada to accede to that protest had a far greater significance. That refusal demonstrated absolutely that the Act of Union had not made of the two Canadas one single province, but that it simply united under the action of one single legislature two provinces, theretofore distinct and separate, and which were to continue to be so for all other purposes whatsoever; in short there had been effected, as in the case of our neighbours, a confederation of two provinces of two States. It was in accordance with this view of the facts, based on the operation of the Act of Union, as it was interpreted by Upper Canada itself, when the province was invited to do so by the Lower Canada Liberals in their protest of 1841, that I regulated my political course in 1842, and relying upon the principle that the Act of Union is only a confederation of the two provinces, as Upper Canada itself declared it to be in 1841, I now solemnly declare that I will never consent that one of the sections of the province shall have in this house a larger number of members than the other, whatever may be the figure of its population.”

It will thus be seen how divergent were the views of Papineau and LaFontaine, not only as regarded the union itself, but as regarded the vexed question of representation by population which was to become in course of time a brand of political discord. Though Papineau’s long discourse was listened to with the utmost respect by a crowded house, though it has been stated by one who heard him,[48] that there was in the attitude, the gesture and the voice of the great tribune something solemn and majestic which commanded attention, the force of logical argument was with LaFontaine, and an amendment which Papineau moved to the address expressive of his view received the support of only eighteen members out of a house of sixty-six.

Among those who listened to the eloquent denunciations of Papineau and the calm reasoning of LaFontaine was a young man of thirty-five who had just been elected to represent the county of Verchères in the parliament of United Canada. It was George-Étienne Cartier. What his thoughts were as he listened to the great tribune who had been the idol of his youth and the calm statesman who led the reformers of Lower Canada we can well imagine. Cartier was then, as he was ever afterwards, a supporter of LaFontaine’s policy.

LaFontaine clearly perceived that the Union Act, unjust and arbitrary as many of its provisions were as concerned the French-Canadians, contained a germ from which might spring the political freedom of his people. That germ was ministerial responsibility, or, as it was generally termed, responsible government. “I do not hesitate to say,” declared LaFontaine in his address to the electors of Terrebonne, “that I am in favour of the English principle of responsible government. I see in its operation the sole guarantee that we can have of good constitutional government.” LaFontaine was ably seconded in this view by Morin. “But one thing is to be dissatisfied with the Union,” said that statesman, “and another thing to be disposed to break everything on account of it. I am convinced that the Act would not be immediately repealed and that if it was it would be only for the worse. It is a well-known fact that it has been passed in opposition to the well-known wishes of Lower Canada. But as the metropolitan authorities are at present towards us from lack of duty or from misapplied national prejudice, it is only with time and with the help of honest and liberal men amongst you that we can instill better feelings in the hearts of our rulers. Let us try to do so and in the meantime let Upper and Lower Canadians know and appreciate each other better and cement a union which at all events will be profitable to both.”[49]

LaFontaine’s policy, in which he was seconded by Morin, was to take the Union Act as he found it and to make of what was intended as an instrument for the subordination and denationalisation of the French-Canadians the means of their political aggrandisement. Papineau, on the other hand, was consistently and vehemently opposed both to the recognition of the Union and to the policy of ministerial responsibility as advocated by LaFontaine. His remedy for the political evils in Lower Canada, as we have seen, was the application of the elective principle to all branches of government. He had himself refused a seat on the Executive Council of Lower Canada, and when in 1830 Dominique Mondelet accepted an appointment to the Council Papineau unsparingly denounced him and he was subsequently expelled from the House. The appointment of Mondelet to the Council Cartier subsequently claimed as a step in the direction of responsible government. “In reading the Ninety-two resolutions proposed by Elzéar Bédard but which were drafted by Mr. Morin,” said Cartier, “we see enumerated all the evils of which Lower Canada complained with much reason. What was demanded? One thing only—that the Legislative Council should be elective. The public men at that time do not seem to have understood the importance of the system of responsibility. When in 1830 Mr. Panet was called to the Executive Council of Lower Canada little attention was paid to it though he was a member of the Legislative Assembly. But it was otherwise with Mr. Dominique Mondelet. He was a distinguished advocate, deeply versed in law and enjoying a considerable practice. He represented in the Assembly the county of Montreal and the counties of Jacques Cartier and Hochelaga. This nomination was the introduction of responsible government in Lower Canada. Mr. Mondelet having a seat in the Assembly would have defended the government’s measures, but he himself would have been under the influence of the House, which would have obliged him to influence his colleagues to obtain the reforms demanded. The House, however, did not have this just view of things. It considered Mr. Mondelet a spy and in an unfortunate moment it decided to expel him.”[50] It would be unjust to Papineau, however, to regard him as being ignorant of ministerial responsibility. Bédard, one of his colleagues, as I have pointed out, was an advocate of the principle and Papineau was certainly cognisant of it. But to Papineau of far greater importance than ministerial responsibility at the time of the conflict between the two branches of the legislature was the supremacy of the will of the people as represented by the Legislative Assembly. Few men, in fact, were better versed in British history and the British constitution than the great tribune, who possessed the largest library of British historical literature in the country and who was a deep reader and student. To Papineau the supremacy of parliament was all important and he desired the abolition of the Legislative Council because that irresponsible body stood in the way of the people’s will as expressed by the Assembly. In this Papineau was undoubtedly on reasonable grounds in the early stages of the struggle, but his subsequent course under the Union was not equally justifiable.

Papineau’s irreconcilable attitude was further indicated in an election address which he issued in 1847 and in which he said: “All that I demanded in the House of 1836 I demand again in 1847 and believe that it is impossible there can be contentment as long as these just demands shall be unsatisfied. The repeal of the Union must be demanded because it is the wish of the people declared in their petitions of 1822 and 1836, because apart from the injustice of its provisions its principle is stupidly onerous in placing under one legislature a territory so vast that it cannot be sufficiently well known for the representatives to decide advisedly as to the relative importance of local improvements demanded on all hands and the contradictory allegations of the people on a great variety of measures.” Papineau went on to say that he despaired of the useful working of “responsible government” and that he hoped those of his friends who did not might prove not to be mistaken.

Though he did not display in this respect the political acumen that was shown by LaFontaine, this is no reason for minimising the great services which Papineau rendered his country. It is not necessary to disparage Papineau in order to glorify LaFontaine. Both were great men and both rendered invaluable service under entirely distinct conditions. They do Papineau a grave injustice who represent him as merely an agitator, and as one who loved agitation for its own sake. His convictions, whatever they were, were sincere, and he fought the battle of the people with unflagging zeal because he was convinced of the justice of their demands and was filled with a righteous indignation against the pernicious system of government that prevailed. In the great constitutional agitation that preceded the rising of 1837 Papineau was essentially the man for the times. His figure dominates the whole period; he was the political colossus of the epoch. At this stage of their history, when their rights and liberties were menaced by a tyrannical minority the French-Canadians required a leader who could show that he was inferior to none in eloquence, courage and devotion to the people’s cause. Such a leader they found in Papineau. Though his course under the Union cannot be justified, none the less was Papineau the veritable pioneer in the great work that had to be done before responsible government could be achieved. He impressed upon his compatriots their rights as British subjects and as free men. With dauntless courage and incomparable eloquence, consistently true to the principles which he believed to be right, he attacked the mass of abuses which had to be removed before the ground was clear for the seed that was to have so bountiful a harvest. In this sense Papineau was the precursor of LaFontaine and rendered LaFontaine’s work possible.

The fact is that at the time of the Union Papineau’s great work was done; the glorious epoch of his career was over. His close association during his long stay in Paris with Louis Blanc, Béranger and others led him to espouse radical anti-clerical and republican principles which were utterly at variance with the views and feelings of the great mass of his French-Canadian compatriots. When he returned to Canada in 1845, after his long exile, political conditions had entirely changed and the new conditions called for a leader of an entirely different equipment and temperament. Such a leader was found in LaFontaine and it was through the efforts of that great man, assisted by Robert Baldwin, that the solid edifice of responsible government was reared upon the ground that had been cleared through the efforts of Papineau and his fellow-workers. It was because he apparently realised that his great work had been accomplished that Papineau retired from public life in 1854. To the very last he remained opposed to many of the political changes that had been effected. But, whatever his mistakes, it can at least be said of Papineau—what unfortunately cannot be said of all public men—that he was true to his principles and that no considerations of office, power or emolument could swerve him from the course he deemed right. No one loved his country better or was actuated by a higher sense of patriotism. There was justification for the utterance in the last public address he delivered: “You will believe me, I trust, when I say to you, I love my country; I have loved her wisely; I have loved her madly. Opinions outside may differ, but looking into my heart and mind in all sincerity I feel that I can say that I have loved her as she should be loved.”

Had Papineau shown somewhat more patience; had he been able to restrain the impetuosity of his extreme followers and had he kept the agitation of which he was the recognised leader within strictly constitutional bounds until the will of the people was acknowledged, as it eventually was, as the supreme rule of government, he would to-day be universally hailed as one of the greatest of constitutional reformers. The unsuccessful appeal to arms, for which he should not be held responsible, with the distress and suffering that it evolved, tended to dim his prestige and to lessen his influence. But despite all his mistakes Papineau must ever remain one of the most striking figures in Canada’s political annals and his memory be honoured by all Canadians as that of one of the great champions of political freedom.[51]

It is a noteworthy historical fact that the French-Canadians who were forced to struggle so desperately to secure the plenitude of political freedom showed their justice and tolerance under the parliamentary régime by putting all Protestant sects on a footing of equality with the Roman Catholic Church, and were amongst the first to remove the civil and political disabilities of the Jews. Papineau himself in supporting a law passed by the Legislative Assembly, giving to all Protestant sects the right to keep records of births, marriages and deaths in the same manner and with the same legal effect as the Roman Catholic Church and the Churches of England and Scotland, declared in an address to his electors against the arbitrary will of the Governor his unalterable creed that men are accountable for their religion to their Maker only and not to the civil powers.

Though the views of LaFontaine and Papineau differed widely and though they advocated opposite policies, the great principle for which they contended was in reality essentially the same—popular sovereignty, the control of the executive power by the representatives of the people. I do not propose to enter into all the details of the momentous struggle which LaFontaine and Baldwin conducted to a successful issue; to do so would require a separate work. Suffice to say that, disguised as that struggle was under various forms, the contest extending from 1774 to 1848, so long, so stubborn and so heroic, as an eminent Canadian statesman has remarked, was in reality the battle of the people to secure control of the executive power.[52] “The constitution of 1774,” as the same authority remarks, speaking of the liberties acquired by the French-Canadians, “gave us representation, but we did not have liberty. The constitution of 1791 assured to the people more extensive powers, but still we did not have liberty. The Union Act of 1840 re-established representation, but it was full of grave perils and tainted with flagrant injustice. There was not liberty, there could only be liberty when the executive power was under popular control.”

LaFontaine for a period of ten years, from 1841 to 1851, conducted a vigorous and persistent struggle for the recognition of the rights of his compatriots and for popular control of the executive power. It would of course have been impossible for LaFontaine to have achieved success without the aid and co-operation of the Upper Canadian Reformers. While each of the provinces had its special and particular grievances, there was one that furnished a common ground for action, that was the pretension of the Governor to act independently of the popular will. It was the demand for popular sovereignty, for the control of the executive power by the representatives of the people, that furnished the bond between Baldwin and LaFontaine. Hitherto the reformers of Lower Canada had directed their attention to securing an elective upper house as the best means of achieving constitutional government, while the Upper Canadian reformers had aimed to secure control of the executive power. Both were now united on the latter course as the surest means of attaining political freedom.

LaFontaine’s attitude in respect to the position of the French-Canadians was simply that they were entitled to equal rights with English-speaking Canadians. “Lower Canada,” he declared, “should have what is granted to Upper Canada, nothing more, but nothing less.”[53] This was the position that the French-Canadian leader maintained from first to last. As we have seen, he declined to accept the position of Solicitor-General for Lower Canada prior to the Union Act coming into force, and he firmly and consistently refused all overtures to form part of any administration in which the just claims of the French-Canadians were not recognised.

In the famous Draper-Caron correspondence,[54] the French-Canadian leader made his position perfectly clear. “I shall observe at first,” he says in a letter addressed to Mr. Caron, “that I infer from the tenor of your letter, although not stated in express terms, that you are of opinion that in the circumstances of the country the majority of each province should govern respectively in the sense that we attach to that idea, that is to say, that Upper Canada should be represented in the administration of the day by men possessing the confidence of the political party in that section of the province which has the majority in the House of Assembly, and that it should be the same for Lower Canada.... The present administration as far as regards Upper Canada is founded on this principle, but as regards Lower Canada its formation rests on an opposite principle. Why this distinction between the two sections of the Province? Is there not in this fact alone a manifestation of injustice, if not of oppression?”

The policy that LaFontaine urged upon his compatriots was to be united if they wished to advance and maintain their political rights. “What French-Canadians should do above everything else,” he said, “is to remain united and to make themselves respected. They will thus make themselves respected in the Council and will thence exercise the legitimate influence which is due to them, not when they are represented there only by the passive instruments of power, however numerous they may be, but when they shall be constitutionally represented there by a Lower Canadian administration formed in harmony with principles which public opinion does not repudiate.”

The high principles and patriotic spirit which dictated LaFontaine’s course are shown by his memorable declaration: “If under the system of accepting office at any price there are persons who from personal and monetary advantages do not fear to break the only bond which constitutes our strength, namely, union amongst ourselves, I do not wish to be and I never will be of the number.”

It was on September 3rd, 1841, in the first session of the first parliament of United Canada that the principles of responsible government which LaFontaine and Baldwin had so earnestly advocated were solemnly promulgated. Baldwin had resigned on the very day the legislature assembled because his demand that the ministry should be reconstructed so as to give adequate representation to the French-Canadians had been refused by the Governor-General, Lord Sydenham. Following his resignation, Baldwin moved for copies of Lord John Russell’s despatches and other papers on the question of responsible government, and shortly after those documents had been brought down, the Upper Canada leader moved a series of resolutions affirming the principles of responsible government. The Draper ministry, which was then in office and which had a safe working majority in the legislature, seeing the way public opinion was veering, did not think it advisable that the Reform party should have the credit of such resolutions, and accordingly a second series of resolutions, very much to the same effect as that proposed by Baldwin, were proposed by Hon. S. B. Harrison, Provincial Secretary in the Draper government.

These resolutions, which, though moved by Harrison, must forever be associated with the name of Baldwin, as it was the great Reformer who took the initiative in having them introduced, were adopted almost unanimously. They were as follows:

1. “That the head of the Executive Government of the province being within the limits of his government, the representative of the Sovereign is responsible to the Imperial authority alone, but that nevertheless the management of our local affairs can only be conducted by him by and with the assistance, counsel and information of subordinate officers of the province.”

2. “That in order to preserve between the different branches of the provincial parliament that harmony which is essential to the peace, welfare and good government of the province, the chief advisers of the representative of the Sovereign constituting a provincial administration under him ought to be men possessed of the confidence of the representatives of the people, thus affording a guarantee that the well-understood wishes and interests of the people which our Gracious Sovereign has declared shall be the rule of the provincial government will on all occasions be faithfully represented and advocated.”

3. “That the people of this province have, moreover, a right to expect from such provincial administration the exertion of their best endeavour that the Imperial authority within its constitutional limits shall be exercised in the manner most consistent with their well understood wishes and interests.”

These resolutions, it has been well remarked by a high constitutional authority, “constitute in fact articles of agreement upon the momentous question of responsible government between the executive authority of the Crown and the Canadian people.”[55]

I have dwelt upon LaFontaine’s part in the great struggle for responsible government because it had an important bearing upon the career of George-Étienne Cartier. In that momentous conflict Cartier was in fact one of LaFontaine’s most ardent disciples and one of his strongest supporters. When he returned from exile after his bitter experience following the rising of 1837, young Cartier devoted himself assiduously to the practice of his profession in Montreal and soon acquired an enviable position at the Bar. He never, however, lost his interest in public affairs. His experience had convinced him of the folly of armed resistance to the constituted authorities; he realised that the remedy for the existing political evils must be sought not through such means, but through constitutional agitation and legislative action. He, therefore, became a constitutional reformer and as such a warm supporter of LaFontaine’s policy. So high an opinion did LaFontaine have of his young follower that he urged him to stand for parliament in 1841, on the occasion of the first elections held under the Union Act. But both on this occasion and in the subsequent elections of 1844 Cartier refused to accede to the demands of his leader, desiring to acquire an independent position in his profession before embarking on the stormy sea of politics. None the less did he display the liveliest interest in the discussion of the great questions which were then agitating the public mind.

The first LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry was formed in September, 1842 and, as has been truly said, marked an epoch-making date in the constitutional history of Canada, as it was the first Canadian cabinet in which the principle of colonial self government was recognised. In that government LaFontaine held the office of Attorney-General for Lower Canada, Baldwin, his great colleague, being Attorney-General for Upper Canada.

Cartier, who had taken a prominent part in support of LaFontaine’s policy, was overjoyed at the result, and as showing the close and intimate relations that existed between the great French-Canadian leader and one who was destined to be his successor, I cannot do better than give the following letter addressed by Cartier to LaFontaine at the time:

“Montreal, 18th Sept., 1842.

“Hon. L. H. LaFontaine, Kingston.

Dear Sir: I did not expect to learn on my arrival yesterday from St. Charles the extremely good news, so happily confirmed, of your appointment as Attorney-General. Permit me to offer you my congratulations on your promotion to such an important position. I must congratulate you in the first place as a friend of the country. Certainly the events of the past week must constitute a chapter in the history of Canada. One could never have imagined that the power which during recent years has never acted except to crush and sacrifice our too long unfortunate party, would of itself, in advance, offer the olive branch to that party and choose amongst us to aid in repairing past injustices and to accomplish future good a man so worthy and esteemed as you are in all respects. I wish to tell you that all our friends here, and myself in particular, give our complete approval to the conditions which you made before accepting your new office. We recognise your independence, your uprightness, and your patriotism. Your appointment has electrified our hearts and our spirits; we begin to revive, to have hope and confidence, things which we had so long abandoned. We seem to rouse ourselves from the torpor and disgust, which have weighed us down, and push forward to social and political life, for the defence and the conquest of our legitimate rights. May the car of state under your direction run better than it has in the past.

“I have spoken as a friend of the country. It remains for me to express myself as your friend, on your present position which rejoices me beyond all words. I am gratified to see that your work and your perseverance have received due recompense. I know that in your public life you have been exposed to small and unjust calumnies, which you have endured with a patriotic patience. What can venomous tongues say now? There is nothing in your acts or your principles that they can wrongly interpret, or injuriously comment upon. The independence of which you have always given proof and your merit recognised in such a signal manner, should forever silence these petty enemies. I have confidence that every friend of the country will aid you in your ministerial action. You should expect that, and you may count upon being sustained and supported in your measures by the influence and actions of our compatriots.

“I see that in one of your last letters to Berthelot[56] you ask me to go to Kingston. I do not think that at present I can be of use to you. Nevertheless, if you judge that my presence at the seat of government would benefit you in any way, I beg you to write me, and I will govern myself accordingly. I lost the whole of last week at the District Court of St. Charles (which amongst other things I hope to see disappear). I am greatly behind for the term, and I cannot without difficulty leave before eight or ten days. I inform you of this circumstance, so as to aid you in what you may desire to do with me. Berthelot and I drank champagne to your health. We put our stomachs in unison with our hearts.

“I close by wishing you success and prosperity. Believe me your very obedient servant and friend,

“Geo. Et. Cartier.

“N.B.—I write this letter slowly, in order that you may be able to read it.”

Not only historically but also for the personal and intimate references it contains is this letter of interest. It shows how staunch Cartier was in support of LaFontaine’s policy and how devoted he personally was to his great leader, as well as what confidence the latter placed in his youthful follower. It also indicates that Cartier was already contemplating some of those great legal reforms which were to be amongst his most notable achievements. With the natural jollity of youth Cartier and his boon companion, Berthelot, join in drinking champagne to their leader’s health, so that their stomachs might be in unison with their hearts. The postscript is indicative of Cartier’s poor handwriting, which was often extremely difficult to decipher.[57]

Cartier’s support of LaFontaine’s policy never wavered and we find him in 1844 again taking up the cudgels on behalf of that policy. When Sir Charles Metcalfe refused to accept the recommendations of his advisers in regard to public appointments, the LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry, holding that the governor’s action was in direct contravention of the principle of responsible government, resigned. Only one French-Canadian in the person of Denis-Benjamin Viger, who had previously rendered distinguished service to the Patriot cause, could be found to enter the Draper ministry, which succeeded the LaFontaine-Baldwin government. On September 23rd, 1844, the legislature was dissolved, and a general election followed. Viger, whose action was generally regarded in Lower Canada as inimical to the interests of his compatriots, sought re-election in St. Hyacinthe and it was during the contest that Cartier made his first public speech of which we have record. That speech was a clear and vigorous appeal on behalf of responsible government and in support of LaFontaine’s policy.

“You have heard the speech of Mr. Denis-Benjamin Viger, President of the Executive Council,” said Cartier in addressing the electors at St. Denis. “This speech cannot have my approbation any more than the conduct of the honourable gentleman in agreeing to form an administration at the demand of Sir Charles Metcalfe.

“The question which agitates the country, in a few words, is the triumph of the principle of ministerial responsibility, enunciated in the resolutions of 1841 and put in practice under Sir Charles Bagot. Now what do these resolutions say? That the most important and the most incontestable of the rights of the people is to have a government which protects its liberties, which exercises a constitutional influence on the executive, which legislates on all matters within its province; that the governor whilst responsible alone to the Imperial authorities should conduct our affairs with the assent of responsible ministers and that the ministers should enjoy the confidence of the representatives of the people.

“Sir Charles Bagot desired to make a loyal trial of the resolutions, that is why he called to power our worthy and respected chief, Mr. LaFontaine, who with his eminent colleague, Mr. Baldwin, really represents popular sentiment. His successor, Sir Charles Metcalfe, refused to follow the advice of his ministers in matters which were within their absolute province, and I am here to-day to blame him. He has found three Lower Canadian members to approve him and Mr. Viger is one of them. Not satisfied with having badly voted, he has become the chief adviser of the governor and has allied himself with our worst enemies. What has become of the man who remained nineteen months behind the bars for not submitting to conditions which were not in accord with the honour of his country? Times have greatly changed.[58]

“Mr. Viger now seeks to divide us by lending himself to the manœuvres of Sir Charles Metcalfe. But Lower Canada will tell him in a few days with an almost unanimous voice that it remains inviolably attached to the principle of ministerial responsibility. That is our salvation in our fight of the present as in our struggle of the future.

“Electors of St. Denis,” eloquently concluded young Cartier, “you gave proof of your courage on November 22, 1837, when, armed with a few poor guns, pitchforks and bludgeons, you repulsed the troops of Col. Gore. I was of your number and I do not think I showed lack of courage. To-day I demand from you a greater, a better, a more patriotic action. I appeal to you to repel by your votes an arm still more formidable—those who would continue oppression by depriving you of the advantage of responsible government. Yes, electors of this noble parish, do your duty, give a salutary example and Lower Canada will be proud of you.”[59]

The youthful orator’s words, which struck home to the hearts of his hearers, proved to be prophetic. Viger was badly beaten and the government of which he was one of the leaders was defeated in Lower Canada, though it secured a majority in Upper Canada.

For four more years the struggle was continued, LaFontaine and Baldwin maintaining their demands for the full recognition of the principles of responsible government against the arbitrary and unconstitutional interpretation of the governor. The Viger-Draper ministry, the Draper-Daly ministry, and the Sherwood-Daly ministry, which held office successively following the resignation of the LaFontaine-Baldwin government, each had a precarious existence. The dissolution of parliament by Lord Elgin at the close of 1847 was followed by a bitter struggle and the election resulted in the triumph in both Lower and Upper Canada of the Liberal or Reform party led by LaFontaine and Baldwin. The new parliament met on Friday, February 25th, 1848; on Friday, March 3rd, an amendment to the address which was practically a motion of non-confidence in the Government was carried by fifty-four to twenty, and on the following day the Sherwood-Daly ministry resigned. Lord Elgin, who was determined to govern constitutionally, at once put himself into communication with LaFontaine, who was entrusted with the task of forming a new administration. On March 10th LaFontaine accepted office as Premier and Attorney-General and on the 11th of March the second LaFontaine-Baldwin ministry assumed the direction of affairs. “The day when Lord Elgin after long hesitation,” as a distinguished Canadian statesman has said, “summoned Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine to ask him if he could form a cabinet which would have the confidence of parliament, the day when LaFontaine accepted the charge of Premier and took the oath, stipulating that Robert Baldwin, his life-long friend, should be his colleague, the 11th of March, 1848, was without doubt a day of triumph dearly bought. It was also the blessed day of the birth of free government for our country, the true birth of our nation. On that day the last shackles, the last bonds, were broken and colonial autonomy was consecrated forever.”[60]

Fac-simile Autograph Letter from Sir Charles Tupper, Bart., Sole Surviving Father of Confederation

The long struggle for responsible government was won. LaFontaine and Baldwin had triumphed and the principle of popular sovereignty, of the control of the executive by the people’s representatives, was recognised in its entirety. When we realise the conditions that had to be met at the outset of the struggle, the triumph of the reformers is all the more remarkable. The lot of reformers in Canada in those days was no bed of roses. They had to face not only the bitterest and most powerful opposition, but also contumely, misrepresentation and persecution in the accomplishment of their great design. That they should have persisted in their efforts in the face of such conditions is the strongest proof of their sincerity and of their patriotism. To the triumph of the great cause, Cartier, though not a member of parliament, had, as we have seen, by his efforts and his influence contributed in no small degree. I have said that Cartier was LaFontaine’s disciple and a staunch supporter of his policy. He was destined to be even more, he was to be LaFontaine’s successor as the undisputed leader of the French-Canadian people for a long period. I have dwelt upon the careers of Papineau and LaFontaine because it was in association with those two great men that Cartier learned his first lessons in politics. We have seen how the mass of abuses was demolished by Papineau, how the solid edifice of constitutional freedom was reared by LaFontaine and Baldwin on the ground thus cleared. We shall see how great reforms were carried into effect, gigantic public works inaugurated and a mighty Dominion established through the efforts of Cartier and his illustrious colleagues. Cartier throughout the whole of his career never forgot the lessons he had learned from LaFontaine; he continued to be an ardent reformer and a staunch constitutionalist; his whole policy in fact was based upon principles he had imbibed from the great French-Canadian Reform leader. When LaFontaine’s work was completed his mantle fell upon one who was eminently fitted by nature and temperament to meet a new set of conditions which demanded the highest practical qualifications. As LaFontaine was the natural successor of Papineau, equally so was Cartier the natural successor of LaFontaine.

And when LaFontaine, who retired from public life in 1851 at the early age of forty-four years to adorn the bench for a period of twelve years, passed away in 1864, no nobler or more sincere tribute was paid to the memory of the great French-Canadian than that delivered by Cartier in the parliament of United Canada. “As far as concerns my relations with the eminent man who has just passed away,” said Cartier on that occasion, “I may observe that he was my friend in my profession and that I took him for a model. Not that I was capable of being an equal or a rival of his. No, Judge LaFontaine possessed a vast intelligence, and when he practised at the Bar it was always with fear that I undertook to defend a case in opposition to him who is now no more. If I have been able to acquire some experience as a lawyer, I owe it in great measure to the model which I was happy in attempting to emulate. I had the good fortune to be not only the professional but also the personal friend of Sir Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, who was my political chief and of whom I was a follower in the House as I was before my entrance to Parliament.

“The late Chief Justice was a great man and his death I venture to say is an irreparable loss to his country. He was remarkable for his uprightness, his precision in debate, and his probity. No doubt he had adversaries, but he never forgot the respect he owed to his reputation for honesty and ability in the midst of the fiercest political agitations. I may add that he never claimed by exterior actions the position to which he had a right.

“We must therefore all deplore the loss which we have suffered by the death of Sir Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine, who reflected honour on the judiciary of his country. His appointment as Chief Justice of Lower Canada was viewed with the greatest favour by the public, without exception. It was desired to recompense him in a certain measure for his generous services and when Her Majesty conferred on him a high mark of distinction, the title of baronet,—there was but one voice in proclaiming that none was worthier of it.”[61]

The words used by Cartier in reference to LaFontaine were to be equally applicable years afterwards to LaFontaine’s great successor in the leadership of the French-Canadian people. What the reformers, of whom Cartier was one, achieved was to prove of lasting benefit to their country. It was in fact nothing short of a revolution, but a revolution effected by peaceful and constitutional methods. It laid broad and deep the foundations of Canada’s political liberties and national autonomy. It was the foundation upon which was erected by Cartier and his associates the mightier fabric of a great confederation of sister provinces enjoying equal rights and liberties and bound together in a common destiny of national greatness.

We have hitherto seen George-Étienne Cartier in a subordinate capacity; soon his figure shall loom large upon the political horizon until the course of events shall make him one of the dominating personalities of Canadian history.