Читать книгу Canada and its Provinces - Various - Страница 24

Table of Contents

The governor was the representative of the sovereign in the colony, and as such exercised many of the prerogatives of the crown. His executive functions involved his relationship to the judiciary, to the council in its executive and legislative capacities, to the militia and to the church.

The governor was authorized, with the consent of the council, to erect such courts of justice as should be considered necessary. This power, however, was never exercised as a prerogative, and the creation of courts came to be considered as a subject for legislative action. The appointment of judges, sheriffs and the necessary officers of the peace was vested in the governor in council, while for valid cause these officers could be dismissed by the governor alone. When, in 1778, Guy Carleton dismissed the chief justice, Peter Livius, an investigation was demanded, and the commissioners for Trade, after examining the records relating to the case, completely exonerated the chief justice and ordered his reinstatement. The prerogative of pardon was exercised by the governor, though special cases were reserved for the decision of the crown.

The right to nominate for the regular appointments to the council gave the governor a measure of control over its policies. This, however, did not prevent factions from arising in the council antagonistic to the governor, and it was the experience alike of Murray, Carleton and Haldimand that the governor could not completely dominate the action of the council. On the more important questions of state, specified in the commission and instructions, the governor was required to act on the advice of the council. On all other questions, however, the governor followed his own pleasure with regard to consulting the council. In 1766 a group in the council took occasion to remonstrate with Governor Carleton for summoning only certain members of the council, and drew from the governor a very pointed reply. ‘On all matters which do not require the consent of council,’ said Carleton, ‘I will call together such Councillors as I shall think best qualified to give me Information: and further, that I will ask the Advice and Opinion of such Persons, tho’ not of the Council, as I shall find men of good Sense, Truth, Candor, and Impartial Justice.... After I have obtained such Advice, I will still direct as to me shall seem best for His Majesty’s Service, and the Good of His Province committed to my Care.’^[1]

The instructions to the governor required him to lay before the council ‘such and so many of Our said Instructions wherein their Advice and Consent are made requisite.’ Carleton had seen fit to withhold the instructions from the council, and his policy was followed by Haldimand. The dismissal of Chief Justice Livius, who in the council had moved for a communication of the instructions, brought the question before the commissioners for Trade. A special additional instruction was issued in March 1779, directing Haldimand to lay the instructions before the council. Haldimand persisted in withholding them, pleading the interests of the king’s service as his justification. This conduct was severely censured alike by the Board of Trade and by the secretary of state, who informed Haldimand that his refusal to comply with the instructions was considered as ‘such an Instance of disobedience to the Royal Authority as ought not to be passed over, if longer persisted in.’^[2] In the interpretation of this order Haldimand exercised considerable liberty, for on August 18, 1781, he informed the council that ‘he was directed by His Majesty to lay before them such articles of his private Instructions as he should think proper,’^[3] and then communicated to them only three articles of the instructions.

The governor’s commission endowed him with a supremacy in legislation. In 1774 the formation of a legislative assembly was contemplated, and the governor was given a negative voice against both the council and assembly. This power was seldom, if ever, exercised, legislation of doubtful validity being reserved for the decision of the crown.

The governor was vested with authority to raise troops and to employ them for the defence of the colony, and in time of war he was empowered to execute martial law. He was authorized, with the advice of the council, to build and equip such fortifications within the province as should be deemed necessary. The relation between the civil and military authorities was productive of serious friction during the administrations of Murray and Haldimand. After the Conquest a large number of troops remained for garrison duty at Quebec, Three Rivers and Montreal. The officers in command of the forces at the two latter points refused to recognize the authority of the civil governor and claimed that they were responsible to the commander-in-chief of the forces in North America. This conflict of jurisdiction continued for many years and was not settled until the civil and military commands were vested in the one person.

The constitution contained provision for the administration of the government in case of the death of the governor or of his absence from the province. The offices of lieutenant-governor of Montreal and of Three Rivers, created by General Amherst in 1760, were continued, and the lieutenant-governors were made ex officio members of the council. The commission to Governor Murray provided that in the absence of the governor the administration was to devolve on the senior lieutenant-governor, or on the eldest councillor resident in the province. The full power of the governor, however, was not transferred to the president of the council, as he was instructed to ‘forbear to pass any Act or Acts, but what are immediately necessary for the Peace and Welfare of the said Province, without Our particular Order for that purpose.’^[4]

In 1764 Colonel Irving was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Montreal and Hector Cramahé of Three Rivers. These, however, were the last appointments which were made, and the offices became extinct.

Although General Murray returned to Britain in 1766, he retained the post of governor-in-chief until 1768. During these years Guy Carleton was administering the government under a commission as lieutenant-governor of the province. On Carleton’s departure in 1770, Cramahé as eldest member of the council became president, and in July 1771 was appointed lieutenant-governor. From this time onward there was but one lieutenant-governor, who presided over the meetings of the legislative council and assisted the governor-in-chief in the administration of the province.

It will thus be seen that the supremacy of the crown in the government of Britain found its counterpart in the supremacy of the governor in the administration of Canada. Extensive executive powers and an effective check on legislation, combined with the crown’s control of the public revenue, made the governor-in-chief dictator in the administration of Canadian affairs.

[1]	For the correspondence relating to this question see Carleton to Shelburne, October 25, 1766: Canadian Archives, Q 3, p. 261.

[2]	See Germain to Haldimand, April 12, 1781: Canadian Archives, Q 18, p. 37; also Q 18 B, pp. 143, 155 and 182.

[3]	See the Minutes of the Legislative Council for August 30, 1781.

[4]	Instructions to Governor Murray, quoted in Constitutional Documents 1759-91, Shortt and Doughty, 1907, p. 148.