and in private, the editor of the Globe, from June, 1850, up to the meeting of parliament in 1851, pressed this policy on the Upper Canada leaders. He insisted with pertinacious earnestness on such a change of the constituencies as would give justice to the large counties, and consequently to the reform party, and on a thorough reform of the franchise; and, this done, he urged that the Upper Canada members of the government should come to a clear understanding with their Lower Canada colleagues, that they should take their stand on thorough anti-state church principles, and in case of refusal, come out of the government and appeal to the people at the coming election. Occurrences at the time of the Haldimand election and immediately after prepared us for the infidelity of the administration, but certainly not to the extent which we afterwards witnessed. From the commencement of the session, it became too apparent that Mr. Hincks and his colleagues had succumbed to French Canadian influence, and that the ministerial policy was to be in open hostility to the views of the reform party of Upper Canada on the ecclesiastical questions. No bill was proposed to rearrange the constituencies, none to equalize the suffrage; no action was proposed on the reserves; ecclesiastical corporations were increased; and on the retirement of Mr. Baldwin, and the accession of Mr. Hincks to the leadership, that gentleman announced that he had taken his stand with the French Canadians, and if his Upper Canadian supporters did not cease their grumbling, he and his Lower Canada friends would coalesce with the Tories! He said: "I regret to say there have been indications given by a section (the anti-state churchmen) of the party to which I belong, that it will be difficult indeed, unless they change their policy, to preserve the union. I will tell these persons (the anti-state church reformers of Upper Canada) that if the union is not preserved by them, that, as a necessary consequence, other combinations must be formed by which the union may be preserved. I am ready to give my cordial support to any combination of parties by which the union shall be maintained. On this we left the ministry openly and decidedly. We denounced the infidelity of Mr. Hincks and his Upper Canada colleagues, and his indecent attempt to sell the power entrusted to him by the reformers into the hands of the high churchmen. And to show that this was his intention, let us quote an authority which will not now be disputed; the North American of 27th June, 1851, says: "However much old friends of the ministry may be disinclined to credit it, we solemnly assert our belief in movements afoot for the formation of a coalition ministry, and we think that few men who have scanned the political horizon closely for the past three months will doubt the truta of our conjectures."

We spoke out our suspicions plainly, and demanded from the organ of the combination a full explanation of the grounds, the principles, the measures, on which this "consolidation" had been so "successfully and satisfactorily carried out.' But we got no satisfaction. What then was our course? We saw all the danger to the anti-state church cause, which, in fact, is the main cause in jeopardy; we saw that if Mr. Hincks as Prime Minister carried his own election, and the elections of those who had gone with him through all the passages of 1851, with the strength of the French Canadians and the disposition of the conservatives to coalesce with aim, the voluntaries of Upper Canada would be completely at his mercy or four years; that he could turn out Dr. Rolph and Mr. Cameron at any ime, and laugh at them. We therefore turned all our strength towards this point. We insisted that the country should be told ere the election what ground the ministry took and were prepared to stand by on the ecclesiastical questions, and we urged on the electors the absolute necessity of their knowing this ere giving their votes. The combination papers denounced us for asking their principles, called us traitor, and cried "Peace, peace," but not one word of explanation was obtained. All this

dded force to our fears and suspicions; but the danger of division in the

ranks stared us in the face on the eve of an election, and we saw it our duty to support cordially all the reform candidates in the field, with the exception of the ministers, and to endeavour to force them into declarations on the vital questions from which they could not afterwards retract.

Later in the year 1851, he published the series of letters addressed to Mr. Hincks, already quoted from. In the first letter, the following arraignment of ministers was presented: "At last election (1847) the "reform party occupied a noble position. The country had long "" groaned underan irresponsible system of government, from which the "most grave abuses had resulted. The reformers promised to replace

They

"that system by one of strict accountability to the people. "enunciated that the ministry, for the time being, are responsible for "the executive administration of public affairs-that it is the duty "of the ministry to take in hand and carry out all great legislative 66 measures affecting the body politic-and that when they fail to carry any such measures through Parliament, or when the opposition carries any vital measure not by them deemed to be demanded by the neces"sities of the country, it is their duty to resign office and transfer the "reins of government to other hands; and by this rule they promised "to be guided. The country had long suffered from a most iniquitous "and injurious system of class legislation and executive favouritism, " and especially so in matters of a sectarian character. The reformers 66 promised that they would remove every ground for contention on "this score, by sweeping away all state endowments for ecclesiastical 66 purposes, by placing all denominations on an equal footing, and 66 regarding no man or sect in the light of their religious views. "The country had long suffered from the old theory, faithfully reduced "to practice, that colonists were not entitled to self-government, and "that their rulers, whether of imperial or provincial appointment, 66 were the best judges of what was requisite for the good of the "land. The reformers utterly repudiated such doctrine: they de"clared that the people of Canada knew best what the necessities of "the country required, and they promised that the popular will "should rule the government while they held power, that legislation "should progress with public opinion and never do violence to it. The 66 country had deeply suffered from the existence in our midst of two "distinct races, with different languages and institutions, and from "the corrupt and injurious system which had grown up of appealing "to the local prejudices and feelings of the two sections for political "ends. The reformers denounced this policy as evil in the extreme ; "declared they would carry out the union of the provinces in its integrity, and would seek to assimilate the laws and institutions of the "two divisions, and to knit the population together by the bonds of "sympathy and interest. The liberal party had long suffered from the

"unfair distribution of the parliamentary representation-by which "one-third of the population, living in boroughs and small counties, 'enjoyed a larger share of representation than the remaining two"thirds; and the country had suffered as deeply from the corruption "and infidelity entailed, when parties were nearly balanced, by the "small number of representatives. The reformers pledged themselves to increase the number of representatives, and to distribute them more fairly. On these principles, and the measures which neces"sarily flowed from them, the liberal party sought the suffrages of the "electors at last general election, and they met a hearty response from the intelligence of the country. And not less popular than the measures were the leading men of the party. Mr. Sullivan and you "had not passed unscathed through your previous political careers, "but the good services you had both rendered had regained for you 'the confidence of your party; and Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Price, Mr. "Cameron and Mr. Merritt, enjoyed the unbounded confidence and respect of the liberals of Upper Canada. Never did a party go to 'the polls with a better cause or more united; and, as a natural re"sult, the most triumphant success rewarded them.

"The reform party, by their success at the polls, obtained office— "four years have they now held office-three sessions of Parliament, "with overwhelming majorities, have placed them in a position to fulfil the just expectations of the country. Have they done so? Is "the legislation of the last session such that the reform press can 'point to it with confidence as consistent with the promises of 1847, or as the pledge of a wholesome administration for the future? You "dare not, on your conscience, say it is either. You and your colleagues "have trampled under foot your constitutional responsibility as minis

CHAPTER V.

CLERGY RESERVES, RECTORY ENDOWMENT, AND SEPARATE SCHOOL QUESTIONS. THE "GLOBE'S" ATTITUDE.

From this time Mr. Brown and the Globe were ranged in opposition to the ministry, which, on Mr. Baldwin's resignation, was led by Mr. Hincks. Mr. Lafontaine retired at the same time. The latter gentleman was probably the greatest obstacle to progress. Mr. Baldwin was

timid; Mr. Lafontaine was hostile; and it is not improbable that if the ministry had proceeded with the necessary measures for secularizing the clergy reserves, that he would have seceded.

It is impossible to avoid charging him with something like deception or treachery. He knew the principles avowed at the general election he knew this carried the country; he accepted office with the cry for justice ringing in his ears, yet he retained office from April 1848 to October 1851, ostensibly as a liberal minister practically pledged to carry out the electoral programme, though he must have known that the course he pursued was not altogether what would be expected from an honourable high-minded man, and must result in the disruption of the party whose policy and principles he was bound to sustain and promote. That Mr. Lafontaine's friends may have something to say for him is very probable. That many, indeed all, of the people loved Mr. Baldwin for his high personal qualities, is very true; but nothing can excuse the course pursued by them when they were placed in power for a specific purpose and then failed to attempt the accomplishment of that purpose. Sir Francis Hincks long after

wards wrote concerning Mr. Lafontaine as follows:

"The French Canadians as a party were extremely unwilling to "commit themselves on the clergy reserves or rectory questions.

Mr. Lafontaine himself had a strong conservative bias, and two of "his colleagues, Colonel Taché and L. M. Viger, fully shared his "sentiments Mr. Lafontaine went cordially with his colleagues for the repeal of the Imperial Act, but there is great reason "to doubt whether the Lafontaine-Baldwin ministry could have agreed "to a bill for settling the clergy reserve question." Messrs. Lafontaine and Viger voted against the resolution moved by Mr. Price (then a member of the government), which declares "that the appropriation "of the revenues derived from the investment of the proceeds of the public lands of Canada, by the Imperial Parliament, will never cease

"to be a source of discontent to your Majesty's loyal subjects in this "province, and that when all the circumstances are taken into consid"eration, no religious denomination can be held to have such vested "interest in the revenue derived from the said clergy reserves, as "should prevent further legislation with reference to the disposal of "them." Their votes on this occasion were the more remarkable, as the resolution provided for the payments of the stipends then derived by certain clergymen from said lands.

In 1851 one element of discord was found in the prevailing feeling respecting the endowment of the rectories founded by Sir John Colborne from public lands. The popular opinion was undoubtedly not only hostile to that step, but that the act of establishing the rectories was not legal.

The law officers of the Crown in London gave an opinion in 1837 that the endowments of the 57 rectories were not valid and lawful acts. The same officers reconsidered this decision, having obtained certain other documents, and gave another opinion that they were legal and valid acts. This last opinion, dated January 24th, 1838, contains the following words in addition to the opinion that the act was lawful; "We are of opinion that the rectors of the parishes so erected and "endowed, have the same ecclesiastical authority within their respec"tive limits as is vested in the rector of a parish in England." The difference in the two opinions was altogether based on the interpretation given to the royal instructions, and the terms of the royal commission issued to Sir Patrick Maitland in 1825, so that the rectories were established simply by virtue of a royal permission, and not on any legislative authority. The Act of 1851 practically settled the question in favour of the incumbents on the condition that the patents had been validly issued. The English opinion obtained was hostile, but the Court of Chancery decided that they were valid.

The following extracts from Globe editorials of January 15th, 1852, and March 9th, will show the view taken immediately after the general elections :

Had the reformers of Upper Canada been rallied to the polls upon clearly-defined principles and measures-on issues framed to meet the difficulties encountered in the previous parliament: had the ground of "union" been in full accordance with those principles and not the support of Dr. Rolph and Mr. Hincks, the dissensions and apathy in the ranks would have been removed, and the victory at the polls the most triumphant ever witnessed.

The reformers have been greatly injured as a party by these proceedings; they have no acknowledged leaders, no avowed policy, no great defined aims as a party. The premier of our government was returned by a Tory constituency, which, if true to his party, he must stand ready to disfranchise; and in his own county, one of the most decidedly reform constituencies in Upper Canada, he owed his election to men who but a day before were denouncing him, and only gave him their votes under