Choosing Canada's Capital: Conflict Resolution In a Parliamentary System [Second edition] 9780773573710

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Abbreviations
Preface to the second, expanded edition
Acknowledgements
1. INTRODUCTION
2. COMPETING CITIES: THE EARLIER YEARS
3. THE FIRST COMPROMISE: KINGSTON
4. MONTREAL: THE PARIS OF CANADA
5. PERAMBULATION AND FRUSTRATION
6. STALEMATE AND REFERRAL
7. THE CITY MEMORIALS
8. THE DECISION FOR OTTAWA
9. PARLIAMENT REJECTS OTTAWA
10. CRISIS BEFORE PARLIAMENT ACCEPTS OTTAWA
11. OTTAWA AS CAPITAL
12. CONCLUSION AND REFLECTIONS
Endnotes
Appendix: Ridings of the Province of Canada
Index to the Documents

Citation preview

Choosing Canada’s Capital: Conflict Resolution in a Parliamentary System

DAVID B. KNIGHT

CARLETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

CHOOSING CANADA'S CAPITAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

THE CARLETON LIBRARY SERIES

A series of original works, new collections and reprints of source material relating to Canada, issued under the supervision of the Editorial Board, Carleton Library Series, Carleton University Press Inc., Ottawa, Canada. General Editor Michael Gnarowski Editorial Board Duncan M. Anderson (Geography) Bruce Cox (Anthropology) Irwin Gillespie (Economics) Naomi Griffiths (History) Robert J. Jackson (Political Scien ) Michael MacNeil (Law) Stephen Richer (Sociology)

CHOOSING CANADA'S CAPITAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN A PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

DAVID B. KNIGHT

CARLETON UNIVERSITY PRESS OTTAWA, CANADA 1991

©Carleton University Press Inc. 1991 ISBN 0-88629-136-4 (paperback) ISBN 0-88629-148-8 (casebound) Printed and bound in Canada Carleton Library Series #168 Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Knight, David B. Choosing Canada's Capital - 2nd edition (The Carleton library 168) ISBN 0-88629-136-4 (paperback) ISBN 0-88629-148-8 (casebound) 1. Canada--Capital and capitol--History-Sources. 2.Canada--History--1841- -1867---Sources. I. Title. II. Series. FC479.C3K641991 F1032.K64 1991

971.04

C91-090046-9

Distributed by Oxford University Press Canada, 70 Wynford Drive, Don Mills, Ontario, Canada. M3C 1J9 (416)441-2941 Cover design: Y Graphic Design Acknowledgements Carleton University Press gratefully acknowledges the support extended to its publishing programme by the Canada Council and the Ontario Arts Council.

TO

GEORGE AND NANCY KNIGHT AND ANN

This page intentionally left blank

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures

viii

List of Tables

xi

Abbreviations Preface to the second, expanded edition

xi xiii

Acknowledgements xviii 1. INTRODUCTION

1

2. COMPETING CITIES: THE EARLIER YEARS

35

3. THE FIRST COMPROMISE: KINGSTON

47

4. MONTREAL: THE PARIS OF CANADA

97

5. PERAMBULATION AND FRUSTRATION

129

6. STALEMATE AND REFERRAL

155

7. THE CITY MEMORIALS

199

8. THE DECISION FOR OTTAWA

241

9. PARLIAMENT REJECTS OTTAWA

265

10. CRISIS BEFORE PARLIAMENT ACCEPTS OTTAWA

285

11. OTTAWA AS CAPITAL

329

12. CONCLUSION AND REFLECTIONS

339

Endnotes

347

Appendix: Ridings of the Province of Canada

379

Index to the Documents 383

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Locations of the several seats of government for the Province of Canada

2

2. Map of British North America sent to London with the Ottawa 1857 Memorial

6

3. Political party alignments

11

4. Key personalities

13

5. Toronto and Quebec sum ry patterns from specific pre-1854 votes on alternating

24

6. Kingston summary patterns from specific pre-1854 votes

24

7. Bytown summary patterns from specific pre-1854 votes

24

8. Toronto and Quebec summary patterns from specific post-1854 votes on alternating

25

9. Montreal summary patterns from specific post-1854 votes

25

10. Ottawa summary patterns from specific post-1854 votes

25

11. City support regions as derived from voting patterns

27

12. (a) Upper Canadian sites considered for the seat of government of Upper Canada; (b) voting patterns, House of Assembly, February 1830

43

13. Kingston

49

14. For alternating system (Quebec and Toronto) or for compensation; September 16,1841

62

15. Against Kingston; October5, 1842

71

16. Expedient to move to Montreal; November 3,1843

88

17. Montreal

98

18. Destruction of the Parliament Buildings, Montreal; April 25,1849

100

ix

19. For Kingston; May 19,1849

108

20. ForBytown;May 19,1849

108

21. For alternating between Quebec and Toronto; May 19,1849

108

22. Toronto

131

23. Quebec

131

24. Expedient to discontinue alternating system; June 3,1853 .... 141 25. Expedient to keep Quebec until permanent capital decided March 23,1855

150

26. Inexpedient to interfere with the arrangement adopted in 1849 and re-affirmed in 1851; March 23,1855

150

27. Movers and seconders of motion and amendments; April 16,1856

160

28. Postpone until expenses submitted for Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec; March 17,1856

170

29. Discontinue alternating system; April 14,1856

172

30. Quebec instead of Toronto; April 16,1856

176

31. Quebec instead of Kingston; April 16,1856

176

32. Quebec instead of Montreal; April 16,1856

176

33. Quebec instead of Ottawa; April 16,1856

177

34. Permanently fixed at some place near the division line between Upper and Lower Canada [that is, Ottawa]; April 16,1856

177

35. For Quebec after 1859; as amended from amendment supporting Ottawa; April 16,1856

177

36. Main question: Quebec; April 16, 1856

179

37. That £50,000 for buildings at Quebec be deleted from supply bill; June 27,1856

184

38. For Ottawa; March 20,1857

191

x 39. Inexpedient now to consider Quebec; March 20,1857

191

40. Continue alternating system; March 20,1857

191

41. £225,000 for necessary buildings; March 24,1857

192

42. On sending an Address to the Queen for exercising the Royal Prerogative; March 24,1857

192

43. Map of Canada that accompanied the 1857 Colonial Office collection of documents relating to the Canadian seat of government question

248

44. Enlargement of a portion of Figure 43

249

45. Ottawa, 1857

267

46. Ottawa ought not to be the permanent seat of government; July 28,1858

284

47. Motion to adjourn; regarded as a want of confidence motion; July 28,1858

284

48. Vote changes from July 28,1858 to February 10,1859

295

49. Against Crown's interference and against Ottawa; February 10,1859

316

50. Agree with the Queen's choice and to locate temporarily in Quebec; February 14, 1859

320

51. First Houses of Parliament, Ottawa

331

52. View of Ottawa and the Parliament Buildings, c. 1866

332

53. Ridings in the Province of Canada, 1841-1854, 1854-1867

380

xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. Population, Province of Canada

8

2. Tabulations of Divisions on the Seat of Government Issue in the Legislative Assembly, 1841-1859

19

3. Tabulations of Divisions on Designated Places in the Legislative Assembly, 1841-1859

20

4. Expenses Connected With the Several Removals of the Seat of government, 1849-1858 (selection 325)

ABBREVIATIONS C.E.

Canada East

C.W.

Canada West

CO NAC PRO RA

Colonial Office National Archives of Canada Public Record Office Royal Archives, Windsor Castle

MG

Manuscript Group

RG

Record Group

327

This page intentionally left blank

xiii

PREFACE TO THE SECOND, EXPANDED EDITION

The seat-of-government issue was arguably the most contentious matter to be faced by the politicians in the Province of Canada. Severe tensions, reflecting social, cultural, economic, political, ideological and locational ties and conflicts prevented the matter from being suitably settled, quickly and easily, to everyone's satisfaction. The tensions were not ephemeral; they reflected the fundamental character of and reasons for the union that was created in 1840 between Upper Canada and Lower Canada and gave warning that the union might not last. Indeed, the divisions and tensions in the society that were revealed by the question of where the capital city functions should be located were later to find reflection in the process that led to the break-up of the Province of Canada and to the creation of the Confederation of Canada. The social and political tensions and divisions revealed in the seat-of-government issue provide a template against which to measure present-day tensions and divisions in Canada, for evident then, as now, were a variety of matters, including: conflict between the two Houses of Parliament; constitutional crises; cultural biases that sometimes reached racist dimensions; conflict within and between political parties; politicians resigning from Cabinet due to matters of principle; attachments to territory at local, regional and sectional scales which thwarted co-operation between the territories now known as Quebec and Ontario; calls for linking parts of Canada East (Quebec) to Canada West (Ontario); calls for the separation of Canada East from Canada West; calls for annexation by the United States; calls for a renewing of political-territorial organization by means of a federation of all of British North America; and addresses to the Crown amidst cries that such approaches devalued the country's newly won independence from Britain. This book examines the Canadian seat-of-government issue. Two interwoven elements together capture the essence of the complicated decision-making process: an analytic narrative which discusses the key events and processes, and a selection of documents. Two introductory chapters set the stage for understanding the issue as it developed in the

xiv

Choosing Canada's Capital

years 1840-1844 and 1849-1859. Two concluding chapters examine consequences. The analytic narrative makes considerable use of quotations from various "participants" in the issue, for their words are most revealing. The endnotes (which appear at the end of the volume) form an integral part of the text and so should not be ignored. The narrative and the documents can be read separately, but a fuller insight can be gained from reading them together. Some of the documents identify aspects of formal proceedings; the majority of the documents identify how individuals' beliefs, values, and attitudes were important Taken as a whole, the documents reveal how a variety of tensions came together and had to be dealt with during the divisive issue of capital city location. The book clearly reveals that it is not enough simply to focus on the 1857 decision-making in London, or the subsequent 1858-59 reactions in the Canadian Parliament. To understand the how and why of what transpired, it is essential to gain an understanding of the whole period in question. And while the central question — ultimately, about how Ottawa became the capital — is important, it is the decision-making process that involved so many people over such a long time that is critical, for by focusing on the process, on images, attitudes, and values expressed, and on the patterns in voting behaviour, hitherto only partially appreciated aspects about the nature of Canada are revealed. This book thus provides an additional perspective on an important period of Canadian history. The first edition of Choosing Canada's Capital, with an emphasis on documents, was published in tandem with a limited edition of A Capital for Canada, the author's doctoral dissertation.1 To gain a full understanding of the issue, both volumes had to be read. Both books are out of print. This new edition of Choosing Canada's Capital incorporates some material that was published in the dissertation volume and also includes new material. New to this expanded edition of Choosing Canada's Capital are: the incorporation of numerous works published since the first edition appeared; discussions of political party affiliations and of voting behaviour by parliamentary members; an identification of how cultural duality was dealt with by territorial means; comments on cultural biases; an examination of the Upper Canada seat-of-government issue, which set a precedent for the later Province of Canada case; significantly expanded introductory sections to the documents chapters so as to provide a full, documented analysis of the complicated, lengthy

Preface

xv

decision-making process, and thus context, for the documents that follow;2 an increased emphasis on parliamentary proceedings in both the documents sections and in the analytical narrative; numerous additional documents, some of which — excerpts from parliamentary debates — have multiple entries; more emphasis in the documents section on the 1849-1857 period so as to better lead the reader to an understanding of how and why the stalemate was reached in 1857; additional discussion of the documents used in London in 1857; a restructuring of the chapters relating to the 1849-57 and the 1858-59 periods; additional original maps showing voting patterns on selected divisions of the Legislative Assembly; several illustrations; an extended discussion of Ottawa as capital; and a new "conclusion and reflections." The process of conflict resolution involved several levels of governance (from local to imperial). The most important arena was the Canadian Parliament, which struggled to reconcile powerful centrifugal forces that found expression in the political system. The sub-title of the first edition was Jealousy and Friction in the 19th Century but with the addition of many documents and the substantial rewriting and considerable expansion of the original text, a far more appropriate sub-title is that used for this edition, namely, Conflict Resolution in a Parliamentary System, since the book is about the resolution of an outwardly simple yet, in actuality, a very complicated question: where was the seat-ofgovemment to be located? The documents include excerpts from the official and private correspondence of Queen Victoria, her husband, his secretary, colonial authorities in London and Canada, and Canadians in private and public life. The correspondence between the colonial secretaries and the governors-general offers interesting insights into political life in the Canadas. Several key documents privately published by the Colonial Office in 1857 are included, as are important Canadian government documents that relate to earlier phases of the issue. The many excerpts from newspapers provide information about parliamentary and other happenings and also wondrously illustrate the different kinds of socio-cultural, political and locational biases that became entwined in the divisive issue. Many items are printed in full, as they were in their original form, while others are extracts from lengthier documents. For letters, formal introductions and conclusions ("Sir...Yours very sincerely," etc.) have been omitted, as have sections of all documents that do not pertain to the

xvi

Choosing Canada's Capital

seat-of-government question. Abbreviations in letters generally have been left as in the originals. Parliament, for instance, is abbreviated in various ways by different writers, including "Parlt.," "Part.," and "Parts.," but the reference generally is quite clear within the context of the letters. Spellings vary — for example, "dispatch" is used in the original text but "despatch" is generally the spelling in the nineteenth-century documents. Upper and lower case use in "seat-of-government" varies in the documents; for the sake of consistency, except for when this term appears in newspaper headings and in book titles, seat-of-government has been hyphenated. The collection of documents brought together in this book is not an exhaustive one. Numerous items were omitted, including many letters, petitions, motions, memoranda, despatches, a full recording of the speeches in Parliament, and newspaper reports. Only a few of the hundreds of petitions sent to Parliament and the governors-general from settlements across the country are included in the book. A full listing of the numerous motions, withdrawn motions, and amendments and divisions on them that related to the seat-of-government issue would fill a separate volume. The key items are however included in this book. Several additional volumes could be filled with a full presentation of reconstructed speeches made in the two parliamentary chambers that pertained to the seat-of-govemment question. There was no regular Hansard in the Province of Canada.3 The excerpts from the parliamentary debates included in this book are taken from the author's reconstruction of the debates, which involved compiling and editing hundreds of reports that appeared in newspapers across the country. The parliamentary speeches, as quoted in this book, are as they were recorded by newspaper reporters. Original maps are included in this volume.4 Most of the maps show the areal patterns of voting by members of the Legislative Assembly on 28 of the more than 200 divisions that were taken from 1841 to 1859 on the seat-of-govemment issue. The divisions as recorded in the Journals of the Legislative Assembly gave only names by "yea" and "nay" groupings. To compile the maps, the names of individual members had to be associated with their ridings — or constituencies — so tables could be developed from which, in turn, the data could be plotted on the maps. By this means much more information is revealed than appears in the

Preface

xvii

official recording of the votes. The key to each map thus shows the votes (yea or nay, the number of members absent and totals) by Canada West and Canada East divisions. The reader will quickly recognize that the pattern of votes is far more revealing than their numbers. The author's bias is that of a political geographer, with a particular concern for both cultural and political processes in their historical context, as should become clear to the reader. The book will be of interest to many readers, whether serious readers, or students, or scholars. The principal goal of the book is to help readers come to an understanding of an intriguing issue that developed during a critical period of Canadian history. A secondary goal is to demonstrate that a perspective derived from political geography is important. Comments from many people who read the first edition of the book helped give direction to the preparation of this significantly revised edition.5

xviii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I owe many people thanks. I remain grateful for the generous assistance and support of many people during the several years spent in libraries and archives while gathering the materials from which have been culled the selection published in this volume. During the early phases of my research, archivist Barbara Wilson (National Archives of Canada), historian Elizabeth Nish, and Wilfrid Eggleston provided thoughtful guidance. Later, RobertMackworth-Young (Librarian and Assistant Archivistto the Queen, Royal Archives, Windsor Castle) gave me assistance in obtaining certain documents and in answering questions. I am indebted to Her Majesty for permitting me to use documents from the Royal Archives. On many occasions, I was aided by archivists and librarians (most of whose names I do not know) in the National Archives of Canada, The Library of Parliament, The National Library of Canada, The Archives of Nova Scotia, The Archives of Ontario, Toronto Public Library (Bald win Room), Ottawa Public Library, and the libraries of McGill University in Montreal, Queen's University in Kingston, and Carleton University in Ottawa. John Taylor, Gordon Merrill, Nancy Warren, Iain Wallace and Greg Finnigan read part or all of the revised text and made many useful suggestions for improving it. Mary Dawson kindly shared her thoughts on a constitutional issue. I thank them for their comments. Stefan Palko expertly drafted the maps and Christine Earl provided camera-ready copies. Alan Pendlington prepared the photographs. Catherine Galley helped me with proof-reading. I remain responsible for the materials selected for inclusion in this volume and for the interpretations presented. Time for reflecting upon interpretations was provided during a year as Visiting Fellow at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, for which I am most grateful. I thank Pauline Adams, Production Co-ordinator of Carleton University Press, for her patience and support. Mildred and Lewis Briner, parents-in-law surely without parallel, have helped me in many indirect ways and to them I will always remain grateful. This edition is dedicated to my parents, George and Nancy Knight, and my sister, Ann, in gratitude for everything they have given me. Foremost, I am delighted to

xix

acknowledge that my wife Janet and our children, Karen and Andrew, have provided me with th intimate spark of life that can be gained from family life. I will always be indebted to them for their shared love and support. March 1991

David B. Knight Ottawa

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW One of the most contentious locational decisions a state faces is when a new seat-of-government must be selected. Competition for the capital functions is likely to be fiercely contentious for anticipated economic benefits and questions of power and status are at issue. As in any locational dispute, significant subjective expressions of attachments to place will be developed by people in different parts of the state. These attachments to place will influence the way competing locations are viewed. Decisionmakers, especially when chosen to represent particular places (as with elected parliamentarians who represent specific ridings, or constituencies), will be expected by their constituents to lobby and vote in favour of the "best" site, that is, the one that best suits the needs of the respective ridings. Selecting a site for the seat-of-government involves the resolution of conflict, for proponents of contending sites generally will be vociferous and tenacious in their claims. An Australian writer suggests that: "Capital cities...are [more] generally conceived in jealousy than in love."1 The Canadian experience of capital-site selection is an excellent case in point, for local and regional conflicts of interest and outlook, motives and ambitions, all had to be dealt with within a political system that was riven with sectionalism before a permanent site was selected. The process of conflict resolution in the Province of Canada was protracted, complicated, emotional, and divisive, and yet a compromise location finally was selected. The capital functions were relocated many times during the period 1841-1865: first relocated from the pre-existing capitals of Quebec and Toronto to Kingston in 1841, only to be moved to Montreal in 1844, yet moved from Montreal in 1849 when a perambulating system was instituted between Toronto (1849-1851,1855-1859) and Quebec (1851-1855, 1859-1865) before Ottawa (known as Bytown until 1855) finally became functional as the legislative capital in 1866 (Figure 1).

1

Choosing Canada's Capital

2

Figure 1.

Locations of the several seats-of-government for the Province of Canada. Source: compiled by the author.

The seat-of-government issue raged on and off from the first session of the Parliament of the new Province in 1841 until 1859, with numerous lively debates over the relative merits of various cities for housing the capital functions. Despite pleas that the question be approached objectively, local, regional, and sectional partiality was the order of the day. Indeed, because local, regional, and sectional frictions finally led to a legislative deadlock, the legislators in 1857 requested Queen Victoria to select one site from five possibilities submitted to her.2 Ottawa was the choice of Governor-General Sir Edmund Head, the Colonial Office, and (by implication) the Queen, and was the reluctant choice of Canadian legislators who finally accepted it by a majority of only 64 votes to 59.

PREVIOUS LITERATURE The literature on capital cities is extensive.3 But Canadian historians and political scientists have neglected most of the details as well as the full sweep of the Canadian capital city site selection issue, even though the issue occupied public attention for many years and was extremely divisive. This neglect is most surprising since the question was described in 1858 as "the most vexatious question which has yet arisen among us."4 Most Canadian histories and political science texts ignore the seat-ofgovernment issue.5 Canadian human geographies also ignore the issue, perhaps because historical-political geography is not yet well developed in Canada as part of the now-burgeoning field of historical geography.6

Introduction

3

Apart from the author's publications on the Canadian seat-ofgovernment issue,7 the few researchers who have given more than cursory treatment to the capital city site selection issue have confined their attention to an incomplete examination of some phase of the issue. There are Lionel Groulx's partial use of one series of letters in his brief overview of the 1841-1859 period,8 D.J. Pierce and J.P. Pritchett's limited examination of Kingston's selection in 1841,9 two brief initial "impact" evaluations by J.E. Hodgett and C.C. J. Bond,10 Hodgett's highlighting of administrative problems caused by perambulating capitals,11 and James Gibson's two similar articles on the 1857-58 period.12 A former mayor of Ottawa published a brief essay on aspects of the 1857 claims for capital honours made by six cities.13 Some participants in the legislative issue later wrote about their roles, but the evaluations are quite incomplete. One of the more valuable reminiscences was written by Sir Richard Scott of Ottawa. He presented an Ottawa-biased point of view and placed emphasis on his own actions.14 As will be indicated later, Scott's beliefs on how Ottawa was selected have in recent times been incorrectly cited as facts by several authors who have not checked their original sources! An anonymous writer in Montreal in 1856 wrote a disjointed ramble in favour of Montreal and against the perambulatory system.15 Dunbar Ross, a politician who strongly supported Quebec, wrote two booklets on the issue.16 He claimed objectivity but quite delightfully was subjective in his plea for Quebec to be named capital. Ross developed his own unique system for measuring "objectively" the advantages of the various sites under consideration. His technique for measuring "degrees of deficiency in centrality" (and how he played with it to "prove" Quebec's importance as the site for a permanent capital) is fascinating.17 There are also useful nineteenth and twentieth century evaluations of the period which include descriptions of isolated parts of the issue.18 Some biographies make reference to selected phases or events.19 Other studies, histories of particular cities or regions, occasionally refer to the places involved and to some of the events. These works commonly deal either with the well-known highlights and rely on secondary sources (but in so doing they all too often repeat incorrect information), or else they are local histories revealing little of the larger regional and national framework within which they are set.20 Several general works exist that are incorrect in their facts.21

4

Choosing Canada's Capital

DEALING WITH DUALITY Following the Treaty of Paris of 1763, when most of French Canada became British territory, a persistent problem developed, that is, how best to reconcile the major cultural differences between the French, who were dominant numerically in Lower Canada, and the English who, following the American Revolution, became dominant in Upper Canada. Government policy recognized these cultural differences and attempted to manage the political issues involved, first by dividing the region between the contending cultures in 1791 and then, in 1841, uniting the colonies in a legislative union. When Quebec was divided in 1791 into the two provinces, government was dominated by conservative groups. Reform groups in both territories sought a political evolution toward representative institutions, a goal difficult to achieve within the context of the constitution of 1791 and because of opposition by the ruling conservatives. Friction between the groups in both provinces increased over the years until open resentment against the governments' repressive policies swelled and burst into open revolution in Lower Canada during November, 1837.22 There also was an uprising in Upper Canada, but it is the 1837-38 rebellion in Lower Canada that is important to note here because its effects became entwined in the seat-of-government issue in 1849. Lord Durham was sent to Canada to investigate the situation and to recommend changes in the form of government. His observations were telling on the British Government and as a sanction for the "Reform" position. Durham "expected to find a contest between a government and a people," but instead discovered "two nations waning in the bosom of a single state: I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races."23 He was deeply aware that further outbreaks of violence in Lower Canada "admit no delay; the existing form of government is but a temporary and forceful subjugation,"24 and that there was "paramount necessity of a prompt and decisive settlement of this important question."25 Tories were furious. The report Durham submitted to London was largely a description and analysis of the problems in the Canadian colonies. At times he wrote with brilliant frankness and a penetration that critically highlighted realities and some causes for friction. However, Durham was blinded by a cultural bias, for he generally viewed French-Canadians as "backward"

Introduction

5

and illiterate, in "natural" contrast with forward-looking and practical English-Canadians. He strongly believed that anglicization of FrenchCanadians was right and, indeed, essential for the future well-being of the colony, its people, and the empire. He believed that the means whereby assimilation could occur was a federal union of the territories, with an English-speaking majority. To achieve such a union would take time, but Durham recognized that "the period of gradual transition is past in Lower Canada."26 In place of a federal union he therefore recommended a legislative union of Upper and Lower Canada because "tranquillity can only be restored by subjecting the Province to the vigorous rule of an English majority; and that the only efficacious government would be that formed by a legislative union."27 Reactions in the Canadas varied. French-Canadians were embittered by the racist tones of the report. Although many French-Canadians favoured responsible government, they strongly objected to its price: domination by an English majority. Commercial interests in both sections of the country generally favoured union. Reactions also varied in Britain, but most politicians there favoured Durham's recommendation of union and gradual assimilation. Assimilation of French-Canadians was to be the formal British policy until its abandonment in the early 1840s. An Act of Union was accepted by the British Parliament in 1840, and the union of the Canadas came into effect in 1841. The new Province of Canada had two sections (see Figure 2), Canada East (Lower Canada) and Canada West (Upper Canada).28 THE PROVINCE OF CANADA Canada West at the time of union in 1841 had a rapidly increasing, ethnically mixed population of 455,000, over half of whom were immigrants from Britain (Table 1). The majority of the 650,000 people in Canada East, in contrast, were of French-Canadian origin. In 1841 there were approximately 160,000 English in Canada East and 14,000 FrenchCanadians in Canada West. Indigenous peoples existed in most parts of the territory. They are not considered here for they were shut out from the new European-derived political and legal systems and were not consulted about the seat-of-govemment issue, even though some of their lands were involved. Canada East, long-settled by Europeans, was dominated by two principal urban centres: the old capital Quebec, with various administra-

Figure 2.

Map of British North America sent to London with the Ottawa 1857 Memorial. The two sections of the Province of Canada (Canada West and Canada East) are indicated.

Introduction

7

tive, military, religious and educational institutions, as well as a shipbuilding industry and shipping facilities; and the commercially-dominant, economically-diversified city of Montreal. Three Rivers (TroisRivieres), the next ranked urban place, was small. The rural areas were largely French-Canadian, with the exceptions of the heavily "English" (that is, 40,000 Scots, Irish, and New Englanders) areas in southern Gaspe* and more especially the Eastern Townships south of the St. Lawrence. Commerce in the centres of both Quebec and Montreal was largely nonFrench in composition. Apart from the Eastern Townships, where New England architectural origins found clear expression amidst various French forms, the rural and most of the urban landscapes of Canada East had a marked French flavour, although the centres of Quebec and more especially Montreal were dominated by British "commercial" architecture. In Canada West the landscape was being vigorously remade, with a mixed American-British imprint. Toronto was well on its way to dominance in the urban hierarchy — a dominance that was achieved during the 1850s — but civic leaders in many places (including Kingston, Hamilton, By town, Port Hope, London, and many more) had grand dreams of glorious futures for their respective towns. Many towns constructed fine town halls of great pretension in anticipation of their dreams coming true. The population of Canada West was ethnically mixed (that is, English, Scottish, Irish, German, American, etc.) and largely Protestant, in contrast to predominantly Roman Catholic Canada East. Canada West's population was growing more rapidly than Canada East's population and between 1841 and 1851 the former surpassed the latter.29 The union of the two Canadas eventually failed to accommodate regional attachments and sectional frictions so a new system of government was proposed and eventually instituted: a federal union of most of the British North American colonies, begun in 1867.30 A principal reason for the failure of the 1841 union of the two Canadas was that the Parliament was based on equal representation for the two sections of the Province. Union by this formula permitted a political recovery for FrenchCanadians and, arguably, also provided for French-Canadian cultural development.31 In addition, especially as Canada West's population became larger than the population of Canada East, interregional tensions took on a sectional character as sectional — in contrast to lower order local and regional — identities formed and indeed hardened, in part as a result of Canada West claims for "representation by population."

8

Cho ing Canada's Capital

TABLE 1 POPULATION, PROVINCE OF CANADA

1841

1851

Approx. 9!b (increase)

1861

i\pprox. % (increase)

c .1,105,700

1,842,265

(65)

2,507,657

(36)

CANADA EAST

c.650,000

890,261

c.40,000 c.35,000 c.3,000

57,715 42,052 4,936

(37) (44) (20) 65)

1,111,566

Montreal Quebec Three Rivers

(25) (57) (43) (23)

CANADA WEST Toronto Kingston Hamilton

455,688 14,249 6,292 c.3,400

952,004 30,775 11,697 14,112

1,396,091 44,821 13,743 19,096

3,122 c.2,000

7,760 7,035

(109) (116) (86) (315) (149) (252)

CANADA

Bytown/Ottawa London

90,323 59,990 6,068

14,669 11,555

(47) (46) (18) (35) (89) (64)

Source: Data from or based upon "Censuses of Canada 1665 to 1871" in Canada, Department of Agriculture, Census of Canada, 1870-71, Vol. IV (Ottawa: I.E. Taylor, 1876). One of the consequences of the dualism built into the political structure of the Province of Canada was the creation of dual political and administrative policies, especially after 1848. Governments were headed by political leaders from both sections of the province and were named after the respective attorneys-general, East and West, hence the CartierMacdonald or Brown-Dorion ministries. One politician later recalled that the dual premiership was "makeshift" and was reminiscent of "the old Roman custom of selecting two Consuls, each representing one of the great parties in the state."32 The dual or hyphenated ministries were, among the other things, a response to the regionally-based cultural dualism of the country's population. Departments (for example, Crown Lands and Public Works) were established in and for each section of the province.

Introduction

9

After 1848, the union operated in a federal manner, as the Canada West politician John A. Macdonald retrospectively noted: in matters affecting Upper Canada solely, members from that section claimed and generally exercised the right of exclusive legislation while members from Lower Canada legislated in matters affecting only their own section. We have had a Federal Union in fact, though a Legislative Union in name.33 There were numerous times, however, when matters affecting Upper Canada were determined by a Lower Canada majority present in Parliament, and vice versa. Equal representation for the two sections of the province and the dual system were not enough to protect sectional interests and the recognition of these facts aroused feelings of suspicion and ill will. POLITICAL ALIGNMENTS In the early 1840s the term ministerial government was used to describe supporters of the Governor-General, who formed a ministry. Following the institution of responsible government in 1848, the term came to mean the leaders of the party with a majority in Parliament. Ministerial government, in its second sense, needs a clear-cut party system if it is to function effectively, but while there were political parties in the Province of Canada they were not parties in the modem sense.34 Governments were formed on personal loyalties, cultural identities and attachments to one section of the country or the other, as much as on "party" affiliations. Within each section of the Province there sometimes were subgroups which would change from year to year, and it was only after Parliament was assembled following an election and the first votes were cast that a ministry would learn what its support was. There was no party discipline and defections were frequent, so ministries sometimes were short-lived. Political groupings during the period were fluid and difficult to describe. Following the descriptions by Cornell and Careless, we can refer broadly to basic rivalries between Tories and Reformers in Canada West and between French-Canadian nationalists and "British" Tories in Lower Canada, at least until 1854.35 After that time Lower Canadians, whether English or French, tended to align themselves with the Rouges

10

Choosing Canada's Capital

on the left or the Bleus on the right. In terms of distribution, the following can be identified: the moderate French-Canadian party held consistent strength along the St. Lawrence, the early British Tory strength was in the Montreal district and the Eastern Townships, radicalism found support in the southern Richelieu Valley, there was a solidly Conservative bloc from the Ottawa River to Kingston, and Reform and later Liberal strength was found through much of southwestern Canada West. Over the years there were various combinations of political alliances (Figure 3). Generally speaking, for the period 1841-1851, in Lower Canada there was principally the French-Canadian Reform party of LaFontaine, Morin and, in the early 1850s, Hincksites, a disintegrating Tory group, and Radicals. In Canada West during the same period the principal groups were the Tories and the Reformers ("Gear Grits" and "Grits" or Brownites). The French-Canadian group shared a similar political viewpoint with most of the Reformers of Canada West, as did the Tories in both sections, and so each of the groups are shown with similar shadings on Figure 3 although it must be noted that such does not imply that in either case there were cross-sectional united groups. Only after about 1850 was there any real sense of cross-sectional linkage between the groups, most notably between the French-Canadians and the Reformers, although earlier instances of such linkages were evident. The Reformers collapsed in 1851, which led to political problems in the years following; the conservatives became dominant, although, as will be seen later, their hold on power became tenuous. THE SEAT-OF-GOVERNMENT ISSUE: THE KEY PEOPLE Some of the numerous people involved in the Canadian seat-of-government case acted independently and often privately, while others were public in their actions and reactions. It is not enough to say either that "Queen Victoria decided" or that "the Legislative Assembly agreed." There were six levels of decision-making. Theoretically, the Queen was at the top, then, working down the hierarchy, there was the British government (especially the Colonial Office), the governors-general, the Executive Council (who were the key members of a Ministry), the appointed Legislative Council and the elected Legislative Assembly.36 Conflict often existed within and between the three latter bodies. At least in theory, the people in London probably had a more objective outlook on the issue than did the people in Canada, most especially those at the local level.

11

Int

Figure 3

Political Party Alignments, a. 1841 -1844; b. 1851 -1854; c. 1854-1857; d. 1858-1859.

Sources: Knight, A Capitalfor Canada, p. 19; Cornell, The Alignment; J.O. Cote", Political Appointments and Elections in the Province of Canada from 1841 to 1865 (Ottawa, 1866); newspapers.

12

Choosing Canada's Capital

Decision-making powers lay with the governors-general from 1841 to 1848, when the Governor-General acted as his own first minister, but those powers were relocated as responsible government was put into effect, when the Legislative Assembly — more particularly the majority group in it—became the critical body in the decision-making hierarchy. The Legislative Assembly (the "House" or, simply, Assembly) and the Legislative Council had to work together in order to pass legislation, but these two bodies of parliament clashed several times over the seat-ofgovernment issue. There also was considerable conflict within the Council and, more especially, within the elected Assembly. Indeed, it is clear that the representatives in the latter would have been unable to conclude the question entirely by themselves since local, regional, sectional and, at times, political party considerations intervened. Perhaps it was thus necessary for a "third party" to make a recommendation to be accepted or rejected.37 Since the third party called upon in 1857 was the Queen, the acceptance of "the Royal decision" — when in fact it was more an announcement in her name of a decision made by her advisors, as will be identified later—thereafter was tied to loyalty and respect for the Monarch. Several key individuals at the various levels of the decision-making hierarchy formulated and guided decisions and responses during the course of the whole issue (Figure 4). Governors-general were central to the seat-of-government issue for the Province of Canada. The several men were: Charles Poulett Thomson (who, as Lord Sydenham, selected Kingston), Sir Charles Bagot and Sir Charles Metcalfe (both of whom were opposed to Kingston and made recommendations to London in favour of Montreal), Lord Elgin (who suffered insult in Montreal and thereafter helped guide the Government to its decision to relocate to Toronto upon the initiation of an alternating system), and Sir Edmund Head (who privately favoured Ottawa and who was perhaps the single most important person in the process that led finally to the determination and acceptance of Ottawa as capital). Many frank thoughts these men had about Canada and the capital-site issue were shared only with the colonial secretaries over the years, but the governors-general privately brought pressure to bear on the Executive Council members. The governors-general were by no means simply figureheads, even following the application in 1848 of responsible government in the Canadas.

Introduction

Figure 4.

Key personalities. Top row: Governor-General Lord Sydenham (Charles Poulett Thomson), Queen Victoria, Governor-General Sir Charles Metcalfe. Second row: Governor-General Lord Elgin, Governor-General Sir Edmund Head. Third row: Robert Baldwin, LouisHippolyte LaFontaine, George Brown. Fourth row: John A. Macdonald, George Carrier. (National Archives of Canada)

13

14

Choosing Canada's Capital

Colonial Office personnel involved in the 1857 Canadian seat-ofgovernment referral were few in number. Judging from the leading questions and suggestions posed for their superiors by Herman Merivale (Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies) and Arthur Blackwood (Chief Clerk of the North American Division), these two civil servants were most important in determining the way in which the Colonial Office responded to Canadian initiatives and requests. While the colonial secretaries and their fellow politician undersecretaries also played important roles, they seem in large measure to have been guided to certain responses by Merivale and Blackwood. The Cabinet and the Queen also were guided, for recommended responses went to them from the Colonial Office in the name of (and usually directly from) the Colonial Secretary. Queen Victoria was kept informed of proceedings, and decisions were released from the Colonial Office in her name. Of course, many decisions were issued from London in the name of the Queen; which were "routine" and which did Her Majesty pay attention to? In Canada, the symbolism of "a Royal decision" weighed heavily on the shoulders and perhaps consciences of many legislators, but there were also Canadians who were angered by any referrals to the Crown. Little of the deliberations in the Canadian Executive Council or in the colonial-imperial hierarchy was normally known to Canadians, though on two occasions the public learned of dissension within the Council over the seat-of-govemment question, when members resigned rather than vote with their respective ministries. Openness of debate was experienced only within the Legislative Council and, of greater importance, the Legislative Assembly. Several times the two Houses came into conflict over recommendations regarding the seat-of-govemment and supply for buildings. Politicians of the day all dealt with the seat-of-government issue since they had to debate numerous motions and vote on many divisions. Certain leaders of the fledgling political parties, operating in pairs, one from Canada East and one from Canada West (including, most especially the leaders of the Baldwin-LaFontaine and the Macdonald-Cartier ministries), were prominent in the continuing saga. Other politicians sometimes came to the fore, but usually only when they went against the wishes of the party or their constituents or when, as with Grit leader George Brown, they led concerted attacks against the existing govern-

Introduction

15

ment over the seat-of-government issue. Several politicians left letters (including John A. Macdonald) and written reports (including Dunbar Ross and Richard Scott) that dealt with aspects of the seat-of-government issue. All we have for the majority of politicians is the official record of how they voted, and what they said during parliamentary debates. Canadian newspapers carried detailed reports of the proceedings of both Houses, but particularly the Assembly, for the public demanded good parliamentary news coverage. Indeed, it has been observed that newspapers that failed to satisfy the desire for detailed reports on parliamentary proceedings were faced with financial ruin.38 Newspapers were not unbiased when reporting on what people said in the Legislature, for they tended to stress what members from "their" city or region said and to downplay or ignore what representatives from other constituencies said. Political alignment also was a consideration, for a Liberal paper might ignore a Conservative member's statements, and vice versa. Public interest in the continuing question was fuelled by the hundreds of columns of opinion and analysis that appeared in newspapers all over the country. Indeed, historian Peter Waite's suggestion that the newspapers of the day were "engines of opinion" certainly applies in the seat-of-government question.39 As suggested above, newspaper partisanship, both in terms of political affiliation and allegiance to a particular city, was often blatant and sometimes outrageous. Because of their place in the debate over the capital, newspapers also can be seen as "participants" in the seat-of-government issue. In Quebec there were the Quebec Mercury, Chronicle and Le journal du Quebec, in Montreal La Minerve, Le Canadien, Le Pays, Pilot, and Montreal Gazette, in Kingston the British Whig and Whig-Standard, in Bytown/Ottawa the Gazette, Ottawa Tribune and Ottawa Citizen, and in Toronto the British Colonist, Leader, Mirror, and Globe, to cite the chief examples. These newspapers, plus many others in both sections of the country, stirred public response to proposed and completed political decisions. Newspapers in the Maritimes, in the New England states of the United States and the Times of London also wrote about the Canadian seat-of-government issue as it unfolded. An interested and sometimes concerned Canadian public often reacted to news accounts by holding public meetings about the seat-ofgovernment question, informing legislators how they were expected to

16

Choosing Canada's Capital

vote, sending petitions by the dozen to all branches of government, challenging candidates during election campaigns, and, when things turned sour, even burning in effigy their elected representatives when the latter dared to vote the "wrong" way!

CULTURAL BIASES Anglo-centred bias was the order of the day for some of the governorsgeneral, especially in the early years. Their bias generally was expressed only in private comments (as, for example, in selection 3). Some politicians and many newspapers all too often expressed their personal cultural biases in vitriolic language, language which today might lead to court action for slander or for exciting "racial" hatred. As noted earlier, the term "racial" in the nineteenth century encompassed cultural differences, but the expressions of hatred for peoples of the "other" section of the Province sometimes reached "racist" levels of expression. Not all people were "separatist" in mind or voice, of course, and, indeed, there was widespread goodwill between many of the English and the French. But for some people, whether politicians, newspaper editorialists, or members of the general public, there often was an unwillingness to understand and, more to the point, accept and respect cultural differences. Intolerance for differences found expression in the seat-of-government issue because of what people said about the "other" section of the country and people there or about specific cities. BIG OR SMALL PLACE, AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Should the seat-of-government be a large city or small town? Opinions differed, for some felt that it was better to be removed from large-city influences while others felt that such influences were necessary. The city most referred to in this regard was Montreal. Those who favoured being in the large commercial centre referred to European experiences. The men who disagreed often referred to the decision made in the United States to locate the federal capital in Washington, D.C., rather than in New York or Philadelphia, or to the method used in many states in the United States whereby a geographical central point was selected. The presence of the United States influenced Canadians in other ways too. Initially there was the military concern and also a fear of "republican influences" which, it was perceived, would adversely affect Canadian society. Both of these factors were instrumental in the early

Introduction

17

identification of Bytown/Ottawa as a favoured interior location. Later, in the 1850s when there was renewed fear of the United States, the Governor-General's conclusion, the military views sought by the Colonial Office, and the writers of the several city memorials all explicitly mentioned defensive locations. Colonial authorities always considered military matters, undoubtedly because defense was reserved to the British under the Act of Union. It was not a constitutional responsibility of the Canadas. Perhaps because of this the defensiveness of the various sites was seldom discussed in the Legislative Assembly, but regional and particularly local factors may simply have obscured any overriding defensive concerns the legislators may have had.

INERTIA OF THOUGHT: WHICH CITIES WERE CONSIDERED The process involving the consideration of sites in various parts of the Canadas was restricted by an inertia of thought. Only five cities were given serious consideration. The competition between the four dominant urban places — as well as their relative location within each section of the country (Quebec and Montreal in Lower Canada/Canada East; Kingston and Toronto in Upper Canada/Canada West) — confined GovernorGeneral Thomson's thinking in 1840 as he determined which place should be the capital of the new Province. From 1841 onwards, Montreal was recognized by most Lower Canadians as the best site. Kingston, after the 1844 relocation, dropped out of serious contention in the minds of all but Kingston district supporters. A similar filtering out process occurred for Montreal after 1849. From 1849 on, members of the Legislature split into two camps, that is, the "fixed site men" (for Montreal or Kingston or Bytown/Ottawa) and the "alternating men" in the "perambulating compact" (for Toronto and Quebec). In reality, Toronto was favoured by few people apart from the Toronto region supporters, and such also held true for Quebec. The alliance during the years 1849-1856 between elected supporters of the two cities was a matter of convenience and perceived benefit to the two cities, not a genuine cross-sectional support for the "other" city. Bytown/Ottawa supporters were the most persistent of any legislative group in presenting their city for consideration. Just as consistently, the House overwhelmingly rejected it. When referral was agreed to in 1857, the cities given serious consideration were Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston and Toronto. At that time, the mayors of these five cities were invited to send "memorials" to the Queen. A memorial could be a

18

Choosing Canada's Capital

statement of fact used as the basis of a petition. It also could be an informal State paper. The petitions submitted to London in 1857 from the several cities, as will be seen later, were not exactly simple "statements of fact." They provide fascinating insights into how the Canadas, and the several cities, were viewed from the different perspectives of the respective authors.

SEAT-OF-GOVERNMENT DIVISIONS IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY In the Legislative Assembly from 1841 to 1859, there were 218 votes (or divisions of the House) that directly related to the seat-of-government question. These divisions are categorized and recorded by years in Table 2. The years in which the capital functions were relocated are underlined. The category "designated places" is shown in greater detail in Table 3. For the years 1841 to 1844 and 1849 to 1859 there were several votes during each session. There were clusters of votes in 1842 and 1843 before relocation from Kingston, in 1849 after the burning of Parliament in Montreal, in 1853 when a bill was introduced to give money for new Parliament buildings in Toronto, in 1855 shortly before relocation from Quebec to Toronto occurred, in 1856 immediately following this move, in 1857 when there was a carry-over from the 1856 session, and finally, in 1859, as the issue was brought to a close.

Introduction

19

TABLE 2 TABULATION OF DIVISIONS ON THE SEAT-OF-GOVERNMENT ISSUE IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 1841-1859.

Royal Prerogative or Ministerial Measure

2

2

Addresses to Queen

1

1

Addresses to Governors General

1

1

1

4

3

Designated Places (see Table 3)

7

Alternating r For System Against

1

1

2

To fix Time and Place 1 5

1

1

3

9

3

Direct to People

1

Supply

1

Other

TOTALS

1 3

Postpone or Adjourn Debate Procedural

1

8

3

2

14

20

4

1

4

1 12

7

1 1

2 2

1

3

1

2 1

3

2

2

10

4

45

1

9 6

7

1

7

9

10

2

1

9

36

2

11

9

5

6

59

1

3

3

1

3

1

1

13

(Source: compiled by the author.)

2

9

5

2

4

6

1

2

3

3

14

19

48

30

17

8

4

22

26

218

Choosing Canada's Capital

20

TABLE 3 TABULATION OF DIVISIONS ON DESIGNATED PLACES IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 1841-1859.

Bytown / Ottawa

2

Kingston

2

Toronto

1

Montreal

1

Quebec

1

Upper Canada

1 2

11

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

8

1

1

1

4

1

2

1

2

8

2

2

1

7

1

1

11

3

2

1

Some Central Town

2

1

1

Hamilton

1

1

Cornwall

1

1

Montreal, Ottawa or Kingston by Lot TOTALS

1 7

4

(Source: compiled by the author.)

3

1

4

1

12

7

1

2

4

45

Introduction

21

The Legislative Assembly formally approached the governorsgeneral ten times and Queen Victoria three times. Two divisions took place on whether or not the capital issue was a matter of Royal Prerogative or a ministerial measure, and these were early in the period, when responsible government was still a goal to be achieved. On two occasions votes were cast on taking the issue directly to the people. Seventeen direct votes on supply have been tabulated; these include only those supply divisions that were contentious and clearly identified with the relocation of the capital. Other supply items that were incidental (such as normal upkeep of buildings) have been excluded. Motions to postpone debate or to adjourn proceedings often were used for strategic purposes, especially during the 1854/55, 1856, and 1859 sessions. Procedural divisions included referrals of resolutions to committees, decisions on whether or not to draft or engross an address to a governor-general or the monarch, and the like; clearly peripheral procedural motions have been excluded from the tabulations. The "other" category on Table 2 includes several motions and amendments, such as motions to fix the time and place of the sitting of Parliament, enquiries about the sufficiency of government buildings, and motions declaring that the capital question was a purely local matter. Of major interest are the votes cast in the Legislative Assembly for and against the various cities during the period 1841-1859. Cornwall and Hamilton were each voted on once, but the division for Cornwall was in jest and the division for Hamilton was part of a strategy by Ottawa supporters and was not a vote for Hamilton as such. Most of the early votes for Kingston had a distinctly sectional character, and the town was not given serious consideration by House members following relocation in 1844. Following the rejection of Kingston, the serious contenders during the years that followed were Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, and, in the background, Bytown/Ottawa. Montreal was voted on eight times during the period 1841-1859, seven motions for Quebec were presented and voted on, while only four direct divisions of the House occurred for Toronto. However, with respect to Toronto and Quebec, many of the 15 direct votes for or against the alternating system after 1849 really were votes for one or both of those cities. Bytown/Ottawa, with 11 divisions in the House, was the city to be most considered during the period. In sum, Canadians gave serious consideration only to pre-existing cities, and not to any sites that could become an urban place, as in the case of Washington, D.C.

22

Choosing Canada's Capital

VOTING PATTERNS AND CITY SUPPORT REGIONS Politicians, and also newspaper editorialists, demonstrated their territorial attachments whenever they examined the seat-of-govemment issue. Indeed, they often openly acknowledged the power of these territorial bonds in causing fractiousness over the issue. In accepting that votes cast in the Legislative Assembly on the seat-of-government issue were "political acts, officially placed on record,"40 it is possible to comment on the essentially non- or only partly-political party-dictated divisions that occurred in the Legislative Assembly. The mapped analyses of the votes, as presented in this book, graphically reveal something of "the inner conflicts and apparent contradictions" that Jean Gottmann claims for territory.41 As indicated earlier, sectional is taken to mean either Canada East or Canada West. In total, 37 divisions of the Assembly were clearly sectional in character, that is, where a great majority of members from at least one section voted for its section. Canada East members found it easier to link together on a sectional basis than did Canada West members, for the latter frequently divided among themselves. Indeed, on divisions for specific places in Canada West, Canada East members voted sectionally on 18 occasions. In contrast, Canada West members voted sectionally nine times against specific Canada East locations. Sectionallybased divisions were evident in two critical votes: the 1843 motion to relocate to Montreal (Figure 16) and the 1856 decision in favour of Quebec as the permanent capital (Figure 36). Clearly, sectional attachments were important, but perhaps the most interesting patterns emerge from the more local interrelated levels of territorial allegiance, that is, local attachments to a particular place or small area, and broader regional affiliations. Numerous divisions of the Legislative Assembly are identified in this book. The search for general conclusions about the spatial patterns of those divisions is difficult due to the many alliances and numerous and often elusive strategies that were formed and reformed. Many of these strategies are identified later. It must also be recognized that it is dangerous to make generalizations about a series of votes on a continuing question when the composition of the Legislative Assembly altered so often during the 19 years. Not only were new members elected from year to year, but men changed political party affiliation and some even changed seats (that is, were elected to office from different ridings).

Introduction

23

However, if we accept that the dominant factor in the resolution of the case was local or regional in character, then by plotting the incidence of votes favouring particular places — regardless of who the individual members were — maps of territorial affiliation can be compiled. The mapped results give substance to what Maurice Careless calls "attitudinal metropolitanism," whereby each city in question had a "hinterland of regard."42 Almost all of the divisions specifically for Toronto or Quebec were due to strategies involving other places or were of a sectional character. The divisions on alternating the location of the seat-of-government thus better reflect the respective regions of support for the two cities.43 The votes in the 1850s for and against the alternating system and also many motions to postpone or adjourn proceedings reflected the split between the "alternating men" and the "fixed-site men." By plotting all of these votes together, three regions emerge, focusing on Toronto, Quebec, and a central "opposition" region. However, in order to achieve some finer control on votes mapped, the number finally used as a measure was confined. Three of the motions on alternating were really procedural moves rather than motions directly for or against the alternating system, so they and the numerous postponement and adjournment divisions have been excluded from the summary maps (Figures 5 and 8). The maps thus show the tabulations of the number of times divisions resulted in decisions favouring the point of view represented by Toronto and Quebec supporters. These maps, and also Figures 6, 7, 9 and 10, should be read with care, for they simply record the votes as cast and cannot account for votes that might have been given if certain absent members had been present. Even so, definite clusterings of votes can be seen. Quebec's support region in the 1841-1854 period (Figure 5) can be seen to be more extensive than after 1854 (Figure 8) when its support was centred principally in the city and the county, and south of the St. Lawrence, west of the Drummond-Richmond and Wolfe-MeganticBeauce boundaries (see Appendix). If the many postponement votes that reflected the alternating system alignments were added in, the line south of the St. Lawrence is definite and thus is taken as the western outer limit of supporters. Interestingly, the 1854-1859 votes directly for Montreal (Figure 9) also reveal this boundary. Neither Quebec nor Montreal had such a clearly-defined boundary to their respective support region on the north shore of the St. Lawrence.

24

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 5.

Toronto and Quebec summary patterns from specific pre1854 votes on alternating.

Figure 6.

Kingston summary patterns from specific pre-1854 votes.

Figure 7.

Bytown summary patterns from specific pre-1854 votes.

Introduction

25

Figure 8.

Toronto and Quebec summary patterns from specific post1854 votes on alternating.

Figure 9.

Montreal summary patterns from specific post-1854 votes.

Figure 10. Ottawa summary patterns from specific post-1854 votes.

26

Choosing Canada's Capital

Toronto's support region (Figures 5 and 8) was less cohesive than that for Quebec. The representatives for the expanding western and northern agricultural regions supported Toronto. The eastern boundary was uneven, with support coming from scattered representatives along the lake and the St. Lawrence. Only one of the eight divisions for Kingston can be used as a measure of regional support (Figure 19). Most votes for Kingston were essentially sectional in character, with some Canada West members being compromised by party considerations (Figure 6). Canada West members were voting either for an Upper Canada site or against a Lower Canadian site rather than supporting Kingston per se. During the alternating years the "fixed site men" supported Kingston, but only because it was neither Toronto nor Quebec. In 1857 an amendment for Kingston was posed by two Anglophone members from the Eastern Townships, one of whom then absented himself while the other voted against it, as did several members from Kingston and area. Montreal's support base was either sectional (Figure 16) or was clustered around the city. The divisions that pitted Montreal against Quebec broke any sectional linkages that otherwise applied, and so they reveal a city-centred region of support (Figure 32). The boundary between Montreal/Quebec regions was noted above. The Champlain/Portneuf boundary seems to have been the north shore limit of support respectively for the two cities. Three Rivers (Trois-Rivieres) was located on the upstream side of this line but its members favoured Quebec. Some eastern Canada West/St. Lawrence county and town members supported Montreal. Bytown/Ottawa had a limited support base when the issue was approached openly (Figure 20) or when Ottawa was pitted against another city (Figure 33). Support for Ottawa generally became tied to various temporary alliances and political allegiances. Pre-1854 support was strongly focused in the Ottawa Valley, with members from Carleton, Russell, Lanark, and Bytown itself being the strongest supporters (Figure 7). The base widened after 1849 due to the "fixed-site men" alliance. Post-1854 the base widened (Figure 10), with a stronger core, scattered Canada West support, and surprising strength in several Canada East ridings. To a degree some of the latter support can be discounted because of a particular ministry's policies,44 and yet the voting by members from the Eastern Townships perhaps should not be surprising since

Introduction

27

Ottawa represented a reasonable alternative for the Anglophones of the region. However, the "belt" of support from Vercheres (George Carrier's riding), Rouville, Shefford and Brome represented a culturally mixed electorate, from predominantly French-Canadian in the north to heavily English in the south. This fact helps to illustrate the point that no simple association can be made between the ethnic character of ridings and the way elected members voted. Any region is an artificial construct, for the boundaries will vary depending upon the criteria selected to define it. Figures 5-10 are six summary maps which show from none to eight votes cast in favour of certain places. If these maps were superimposed, one upon the other, the result would be confusing. But if lower order votes are filtered out then a contraction of each support region occurs. Using the 1854-59 data, the results were plotted for from 5 to 8 votes in favour of Toronto and Quebec, 3 to 5 for Montreal, and 4 to 6 for Ottawa (Figure 11). While this simple filtering technique can be criticized, the results are interesting, for what emerges are "support regions" for the four cities. If Ottawa's scattered supporters west of Frontenac are discounted, a tightly knit cluster appears that corresponds with the "Ottawa district" as defined by politicians of the time. The same holds true for the "Quebec district."45 Of course, some "holes" emerge, as with Quebec East, Montreal East, and Toronto West, but these were due to the absence of members for certain votes in which they normally would have supported their respective cities. Both Montreal and Ottawa had cross-sectional support. The maps clearly suggest that politicians perceived the Province of Canada — or at least their continued lives as politicians — from the locational perspective of their particular ridings. In a sense, each riding was "central."

Figure 11

City Support Regions as Derived from Voting Patterns.

28

Choosing Canada's Capital

THE IMPORTANCE OF CENTRALITY A principal factor considered for each site was relative location, with special attention being given to a measure of centrality. Centrality is a highly-relative concept. As an adjective, central means situated in the centre; as a noun, it signifies the quality of being central. The question is, of course, centre of what and in what sense? This point is addressed in many subtly different ways in the documents sections. For the Canadian seat-of-govemment case we can identify three principal levels of understanding. First there were people in Britain who would have had the most abstract image of Canada. To the Queen, her husband, plus British politicians and civil servants, centrality in Canada likely was related to a geographic centre point on an east-west line, perhaps influenced by the line of settlement from Quebec west to at least Toronto. Such an opinion undoubtedly was supported by maps they would have seen in connection with the case, such as those prepared by Ottawa and the Colonial Office in 1857 in which Ottawa was roughly centred on an east-west axis (see Figures 2 and 43). At the second level were the governors-general who had to balance imperial policy directives, needs and views from London againstthe socio-economic and geopolitical realities of life in the Canadas. In marked contrast to these views was the local one, the one most directly tied to "realities" of linkages to specific places, at local and regional scales. Every place in contention was said by its supporters to be central and, of course, every place was: to the particular local observer. Centrality was claimed for the five cities in their 1857 memorials to London, but it also was claimed for each city by newspaper writers, politicians, and other observers, both before and after the institution of the 1841 union. After 1841, most stress on central location was given by supporters of Montreal, Kingston and Bytown/Ottawa, but mention also was made of it by supporters of Toronto and Quebec. Torontonians rightly claimed centrality within Canada West, whereas Quebec claimed centrality in the event of a union of all of the British North American colonies. This point was stressed in Quebec's 1857 memorial. However, Ottawa also claimed centrality in the event of such a union because of the likelihood of territorial expansion in the Northwest, in the Hudson's Bay lands. The concept of centrality was implicit in almost all that was written and said about the capital question. It was quite explicitly stated by

Introduction

29

the governors-general in 1840, 1842 and 1843, in Sir Edmund Head's 1857 memorandum, the 1857 city memorials, and in the legislators' numerous speeches, especially in the years 1842,1843, and 1850-1856.

IMAGES, ATTITUDES, AND BoosTERisM46 Several of the cities, most notably Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa, had a French/English division. However, Quebec and Montreal's cultural pluralism was not regarded as so strong a positive factor that it could set aside the many negative factors proposed by the opponents of those two cities. In contrast, especially in the minds of French-Canadians, a strong plus for Ottawa was that it had a sizable French-Canadian component within its population. This fact gained importance when it was linked to other considerations, such as the way people in Canada viewed Ottawa as a neutral location between Canada East and Canada West. With the latter in mind, it was suggested—not always positively — that neither section of the country would triumph if Ottawa were selected capital. Ottawa nevertheless was seen to be free of the ill feeling and jealousies felt among supporters of the other competing cities and the two sections of the state, Ottawa supporters thus willingly voiced the idea that it was relatively neutral in regional politics and so it could serve as a focus for the political unit.47 The notion of neutrality proposed for Ottawa found meaning because of the bitter jealousies and suspicions that had particular focus in the four competing urban nodes of Quebec, Montreal, Kingston and Toronto. Ottawa thus was an alternative. It was the "forest city," the "city of the woods," with a small, rough but culturally-mixed population in a relatively isolated region. It was linked by the Rideau Canal to Kingston, but economically and to a degree socially it was tied to Montreal and Quebec. Ottawans were not tied to Toronto or vice versa. The latter point was of considerable significance. It was thus no surprise that when Ottawa was selected as the seat-of-government, one Torontonian wailed, as numerous Canadians have continued to do ever since: Ottawa must not be like Toronto, or Hamilton, or Kingston, or Montreal, raised into importance by the industry and enterprise of their inhabitants; it must be fed with pap from the public kitchen, raised into independence by public money.48

30

Choosing Canada's Capital

Ottawa writers and politicians in their speeches always presented Ottawa's case in a good light. Speeches and articles by Ottawa supporters were aimed at creating a positive image of the city, regardless of the complex truth. But the image of Ottawa thus projected met with counter images enunciated by supporters of other cities. The images of other cities that were evoked by a supporter of any one city were based at least partly on ignorance and partial information which, in turn, were affected by and also reflected quite firmly set attitudes. Richard Scott spoke much truth when he declared in the Legislative Assembly that he "was sorry to see that almost three-fourths of this House were as ignorant of the Ottawa country as of Central Africa."49 Canadians obviously were "ignorant" about other places too, but ignorance also is a relative concept, since it is related to perception, which is a personal process. Nevertheless, judging from speeches and editorials, certain general images and attitudes were held about the other cities as well. Toronto, a vigorously growing city, was called a Tory and Protestant place and was said to be influenced by the American press. Above all, Toronto, the "Queen city," symbolized the triumph of Canada West and especially the western parts of that section, and thus was viewed with dislike by Lower Canadians. Kingston also was largely Protestant, being a major stronghold of the Orange Order. It was a small place much disliked by French-Canadians who claimed the air and water were unhealthy. It was said that Kingston had no agricultural hinterland. As suggested earlier, memories of 1841-1844 remained and later prevented serious consideration being given to new facts about Kingston. Montreal was acknowledged as the chief commercial centre and so was viewed jealously by supporters of all other places. In addition, memories of the rebellion of 1837, the riots of 1849, and election days with radical crowds and bitter cultural conflict, later prevented it from being viewed positively by many Canadians. Quebec, the "Garrison City," the "Ancient Capital," was the symbolic centre of Romanism in Canada and thus was utterly unacceptable to Canada West Protestants. Also, while it was regarded as being so far east as to be neutral, it was quite inconveniently located. To cap this reaction, in the words of one Toronto politician, "Quebec, to an Upper Canadian, is about the most miserable place conceivable."50 Old intercity jealousies, which section of the country a city was in, dominant religious and ethnic characteristics, and relative location all

Introduction

31

influenced politicians and were used by them as they forged strategies, undertook certain actions, and delivered explanations. Political party affiliations sometimes temporarily modified some people's actions during the seat-of-govemment issue, but each person had his own "swan" and this fact led them to speak and write favourably of it and to condemn another person's "swan" as a "goose." This basic, but always contrasting identification with place was a dominant factor in the seat-of-government question as it unfolded.

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF CHANGING SEATS-OF-GOVERNMENT The significance of a place becoming the seat-of-government was great, judging from newspaper evaluations, for joy reigned when capital functions were moved in and grief was pronounced when they moved out, though a city was said to become the capital only when the GovernorGeneral arrived, not when government departments moved in or when Parliament opened. Likewise, a place was said to cease being the seat-ofgovernment when governors-general left after a closing of Parliament, not when government departments relocated. The impact of the changing seats of government is difficult to measure but at least three levels can be identified: the impact on the country, on the cities involved, and on individuals. First, the full monetary consequences for the country cannot be measured. Only minimum costs can be cited. The relocation from Kingston to Montreal cost £9,187 and another £1,500 was spent on renovating the Montreal buildings in 1844. From 1849 to 1858 the expenses were great (see selection 325). Rents and repairs to the public buildings at the existing seat-of-government totalled £197,282, but because the buildings in the "other" place had to be kept up, rents and repairs to the public buildings elsewhere totalled £51,062. There also were removal costs. Allowances to clerks, ministers and others involved in removals totalled £7,613, while the actual expenses for removal of records and other materials amounted to £42,150. In total, the country spent £298,107 from 1849 to 1858 for expenses connected with the several removals, but if we subtract the cost of rents and repairs at the "existing seat-of-government" from the total, then we can assume that the alternating system cost the country a minimum of £100,825. Additional amounts could be added to this if it were known how much government departments and individuals had to pay for lost

32

Choosing Canada's Capital

or damaged documents and government and personal goods. Simply put, the financial impact on the country of not having a fixed seat-of-government was great. The second level of impact was on the different cities. This too is an elusive thing but clearly the impact was greater on the smaller centres of Kingston and Ottawa than on Toronto, Montreal and Quebec. In each of the five cities, new buildings were constructed or converted for use by the Executive, Parliament, and Government departments. The influx of Government officials and legislators and their families had an inflationary effect on housing costs. The "necessities of life" were said in 1856 to be higher in Toronto than in Quebec. Not only did housing and food costs increase as a result of moves, but the value of land rose and fell. Profiteering occurred in each of the cities, but particularly in Kingston and Ottawa. For example, as soon as it was known that Ottawa had been fixed upon, land values increased by 50 to 100 percent. Toronto, Quebec, and especially Montreal did not noticeably suffer when government relocated, but smaller Kingston received a critical blow from which it never recovered. If Quebec or some other city had been selected as the federal capital in the 1860s then Ottawa, undoubtedly, would also have suffered decline. Competing newspapers in the seat-of-government took on new importance, as their coverage of parliamentary proceedings expanded whenever their city was capital. Changing the seat-of-government also affected individuals, although once again it is difficult to be precise. Civil servants complained about the dreadful inconveniences, discomfort, and expense of breaking up households and relocating families to a new city. Damages and losses to personal property occurred as a result of the several moves. Invariably, people had to pay higher prices for food and rent in the new capital. Also, during the alternating years, some civil servants suffered the hardship of paying double rents, that is, renting houses in both Toronto and Quebec because of the uncertainty of relocation dates. Frustration must have been great.

EXPECTATIONS Expectations varied. In Toronto, Quebec, Kingston and Ottawa, anticipation of a pending relocation was always great while in the commercial capital, Montreal, several writers and speakers over the years professed a lack of interest in having their city house the government. This feigned

Introduction

33

disdain was in marked contrast to the other cities, whose supporters openly stated their desire for having the seat-of-government in their city. Anticipation was particularly great in Ottawa and the valley in 1858 and 1859, for Ottawans expected their small city to reap benefits from having the capital functions relocated there. They also expected the surrounding countryside and the Ottawa Valley to benefit too, through massive population growth and related settlement and commercial developments. In the words of one Ottawa booster: all the unoccupied lands will speedily be settled by a sturdy and industrious people. Hamlets will spring, as if by magic, into villages, villages into towns, and towns into cities.51 Likewise, once the decision for Ottawa had been made, some Kingstonians expressed the belief that they too would benefit from having Ottawa as capital since, in the words of one writer, [the] hitherto partly neglected townships lying between Kingston and Ottawa...will, in the course of a few years.. .be densely filled with an industrious population.52 Such expectations have never been realized, for in many ways the region has remained a backwater, with the federal government's impact being focused on Ottawa and, in recent years, neighbouring Hull, not the greater Ottawa Valley or, more generally, eastern Ontario. Why should expectations in each of the cities have been high? Simply put, supporters of each of the five contending cities wanted their particular city to become the "metropolis," or "chief city."53

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 2 COMPETING CITIES: THE EARLIER YEARS INTRODUCTION Prior to the creation of the Province of Canada, the political units of Lower Canada and Upper Canada each had their own seats-of-govemment. In Lower Canada there had been but one capital, Quebec, but in Upper Canada two places, Niagara and York (Toronto), had housed the Government functions at different times. This chapter offers a brief sketch of the pre-union period, focusing on the origins of the urban rivalry in both sections of the country that was later to play such an important role in the seat-of-government issue, and, using primary sources, identifies how inter-city rivalries found expression in the seat-of-government issue for Upper Canada.

THE FRENCH BEGINNINGS Jacques Cartier's penetration of the St. Lawrence River in 1535 marked the beginning of official French interest in that region, although it was not until 1608 that a permanent settlement was founded.1 Henri IV's Royal Geographer, Samuel de Champlain, was to "search for a place suitable for our settlement, but I could find none more convenient or better suited than the point of Quebec... ."2 The settlement he founded eventually became the North American administrative centre for a vast domain, but the initial years for the colony were difficult. As the (then) highest point of navigation on the St. Lawrence, Quebec became the link with France, with settlements upstream being administratively subservient to it. But other settlements were few for many years. Trois-Rivieres (Three Rivers)3 was not founded until 1634, and, as a trading place, represented the new colony's most advanced post upstream for the eight years until the religious settlement of Ville-Marie was founded on Montreal Island in 1642.4 Communication between the settlements was made difficult by Indians, especially the Iroquois, in the Trois-Rivieres to Montreal section of the river. The populations of the three settlements remained small and even as late as 1663 only Quebec

35

36

Choosing Canada's Capital

could really be called a town.5 The colony was heavily dependent on fur trading.6 In 1663, Canada, which was only a small area of New France, and which had been in the hands of the Company of New France, was made a royal province. As such, it became like any other province of France, so theoretically the Government of Canada resided wherever King Louis XIV and his chief Minister, Colbert, happened to be.7 In Canada there were governors in Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. The one in Quebec was at once the Governor of the Colony and also of the whole of New France.8 The higher authorities and the institutions for administering the people and territory of New France were thus in Quebec and this in turn attracted others, including the Jesuits, who founded a college there.9 Also located in Quebec was the main office of the Compagnie des Indes, the only body permitted to export beaver fur.10 There was a cathedral in Quebec — but only a parish church in Montreal — and there was a Bishop at Quebec who was directly under the guidance of the Vatican. Such an arrangement was a source of friction between the French Crown and the Vatican until, in 1674, an independent diocese of Quebec was established.11 Concerning the location of Quebec, Governor Frontenac, in a letter to France dated November 3,1672, exclaimed: Never have I beheld anything so beautiful and magnificent as the site of the city of Quebec; none better could have been chosen for that which it must one day become,—the capital of a great empire.12 The French, of course, were not the only Europeans on the continent: of concern here w the active competition between French and English traders, not only for furs but for the allegiance of the Indians.13 In 1690, Governor Frontenac successfully repulsed a Boston fleet and army intent on capturing Quebec.14 New France was at its zenith in 17001703 when peace was made with the Iroquois and other Indians. Quebec became not only the administrative, religious, and cultural capital, and military headquarters but was also the transhipment point for merchandise from France in exchange for furs.15 The population of Quebec was about 2,000. Upstream was Montreal, with about 1,000 people whose economic functions were even more closely dependent on the fur trade.16

Competing Cities: The Earlier Years

37

By the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, France lost Acadia, Newfoundland and Hudson Bay and although there was peace, the conditions of the Treaty favoured the British, for they were then in a position possibly to close New France's "lifeline to the sea."17 Also, because of ambiguous phrasing in the Treaty, the stage was set for British expansionism.18 At first there was peace and both Quebec and Montreal began to grow rapidly and settlements slowly spread over the St. Lawrence lowlands.19 But conflict between the English and the French broke out again in 1740, culminating in the defeat of the French, first with the capture of Quebec in 1759 and then, in 1760, Montreal, and the collapse of New France.20

QUEBEC IN CANADA AS "QUEBEC" With the conquest, Canada was renamed the Province of Quebec. The ceremonies inaugurating this event, and instituting civil government, took place in 1764 in the city of Quebec, which was to remain as capital.21 Following the precedent set by the French, the British had a governor of the colony in Quebec and lieutenant-governors in Trois-Rivieres and Montreal.22 In addition, Quebec remained the ecclesiastical, judicial, military, and educational centre for the colony. Quebec was likened to a French provincial capital. General Montcalm, who died on the Plains of Abraham when the British attacked Quebec, is said to have considered Quebec's society a more "fashionable" one than that of the frontier town of Montreal.23 The American Revolution led to an invasion of the Province of Quebec. Montreal fell to the Americans, but the attempt to capture Quebec failed.24 The influx of many Loyalists after the American Revolution helped bring about a reorganization of the remaining British territories. In 1786 a new position of governor general was created, the appointee being directed to take charge of "the empire in America."25 Lord Dorchester thus became Governor of Quebec, Governor of Nova Scotia and its dependencies, Governor of New Brunswick, and Commander-inChief of all these provinces and Newfoundland.26 The principal seat-ofgovernment remained Quebec City and, in fact, Dorchester stirred from his capital on only one occasion.27 With the decline of the fur trade, especially after the loss of the region south of the Great Lakes to the Americans, a new economy based on new staples (timber and then wheat) developed and Montreal and

38

Choosing Canada's Capital

Quebec continued to grow. By about the 1830s Montreal had assumed Quebec's role as the commercial "capital" although both cities still depended heavily on their trade connections outside the province.28 Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General in the 1820s, recognized Montreal as the logical centre of the new commercial system that developed, for Montreal was said to be the heart of the country and from it circulated the lifeblood of Canada.29 The centre of population moved west due to the influx of the new settlers. This fact, plus the commercial dominance of Montreal, threatened Quebec, but Quebec remained the administrative centre. Many people in Quebec viewed Montreal with suspicion and were jealous of the other city's power and prestige, and many people in Montreal felt similarly about Quebec. These jealousies and suspicions were later to find expression in the seat-of-govemment issue for the United Province of Canada.

UPPER CANADA Town and regionally-based jealousies also found expression in the Upper Canadian capital-site question. Two Upper Canada towns, Niagara and York (renamed Toronto in 1834), housed the governmental functions at different times. The way these places were selected to be the seat-ofgovemment and the manner in which York/Toronto later was challenged are important because of the establishment of precedents, ideas held, and processes set in motion that later were to find expression in the Province of Canada seat-of-government issue. As the territory was settled by Loyalists, hopes were formed concerning which location could become capital of a new province. Indeed, in 1785, two years after the site for Kingston was prepared for settlers, a newly arrived church leader observed that the site "will certainly be the Capital of all the new Settlements."30 Two years later Lord Dorchester was told by Kingstonians that: As its central situation with respect to the settlements and its being the point where the Bateau Communication naturally stops, and that by larger Vessels Commences, renders Kingston the properest spot to form the Capital of these Settlements in a commercial view.31

Competing Cities: The Earlier Years

39

This settlement in the "properest spot" was in 1788 little more than "a collection of log and frame houses clustered around the barracks,"32 but it was claimed that the "Town increases rapidly and will certainly be the Capital of the new Settlements."33 A naval base was created in 1789, which served to reinforce Kingstonians' hopes, hopes that were heightened when Quebec was split into Upper Canada and Lower Canada in 1791. If Lord Dorchester had had his way Kingston would have been named capital, but the first Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe, felt otherwise. Before Simcoe left England for Upper Canada he decided to locate the capital functions at a then unsettled site on the Thames River that later became known as London. That site, he wrote, was the "most centrical spot for all civil purposes, and at the same time...the best adapted situation for self-preservation on account of its distance [from the border]."34 When Simcoe arrived in Upper Canada in 1791 he found the territory occupied by Indians and by 20,000 to 30,000 Europeans, mostly Loyalists located along the Upper St. Lawrence and the Bay of Quinte. Two small British settlements were located at Niagara and Detroit. Although Kingston was the only "urban" centre of importance in Upper Canada (with 50 houses in 1792),35 Simcoe was of the opinion that Kingston was "absolutely indefensible."36 He also thought it best not to locate the capital in an area of entrenched Loyalists who were favourably inclined towards his superior, Lord Dorchester. Simcoe informed the British Secretary for Home Affairs that he had decided to "call the Houses together near Niagara, as the most central point in the Province for the convenience of the different settlements."37 The selection of Niagara meant that the capital was to be "on the most active frontier zone in the province."38 Simcoe regarded Niagara as a temporary site since it was a most difficult location to defend, and he continued to hold to his notion of relocating the functions to the Thames River site. The elites of the new society who knew the latter reacted unfavourably. Richard Cartwright, for instance, exclaimed: I hope [Simcoe's] plan will not be persisted in, for it appears to me as complete a piece of political Quixotism as I recollect to have met with, and will be going out of the way of the

40

Choosing Canada's Capital inhabited part of the country, instead of coming to govern it39

In May 1793, because of the increased likelihood of conflict with the United States, and the estimation that Niagara was "not tenable" against assault, Simcoe decided to occupy the site of Toronto — long used by Indians en route between Lakes Ontario and Huron, and as the location of a French garrison from 1750 to 1759—which he called York. Though still desirous of eventually moving the capital to "London," York was to remain as capital until the demise of the separate province in 1841. Simcoe felt that a capital-site was needed from whence should flow loyalty, attachment, and respect to the British Government and all those principles, qualities and manners which are of eminent use in decorating and strengthening such an attachment.40 A small town was laid out near the harbour and by 1796 it was in use as the capital of Upper Canada, with new Parliament buildings. Simcoe never met with his legislature in York; his successor completed the task of moving the administrative functions and personnel from Niagara to York. Not much more than a frontier village of about 700 people, York was twice invaded in 1813 and pillaged by U.S. forces. Recovering from these events—but with strong anti-American views remaining entrenched in the minds of the elites — York eventually became Upper Canada's main banking and commercial centre as it attracted immigrants and grew to meet the needs of a rapidly expanding agricultural hinterland.41 Kingstonians refused to accept that York was a reasonable site for the capital given its growing economic role in the life of the colony and so they continued to express the view that their town should be capital. Due largely to the belief that Kingston was less vulnerable to attack than York, as demonstrated in the War of 1812, the Secretary for War and the Colonies in England decided in 1815 that the government should relocate to Kingston. The Lieutenant-Governor and many officers of the Government, who were prominent landowners in York, successfully appealed the decision. The officers' argument was that they would suffer losses if forced to move.42 In June 1816 the Crown decided that the Royal pleasure was that "the Seat of this Government should be permanently estab-

Competing Cities: The Earlier Years

41

lished at this place," York.43 Three years later, however, another lietitenant-governor felt that capital functions should be removed from York to an interior location. Nothing came of this possibility. In the 1820s, when there was some pressure to unite Upper and Lower Canada, some people with foresight thought that if there was a union then "it could be made acceptable by locating the capital "on the Ottawa [River] beyond Perth."44 New rumours spread in 1826 as a result of a military report to the Duke of Wellington, which expressed regret that York had been selected for the Capital of Upper Canada since Kingston appeared (to the authors) to be the "natural Capital, in a Military point of view," and being the location where "the most important of the proposed Canals will meet."45 The report observed that Kingston's commercial importance "must proportionally increase." And, it concluded, "if Kingston could be made the Seat-of-govemment, the Civil Military and Naval Authorities would be more collected, and as appear to us, with the happiest effects to His Majesty's Service." No immediate action was taken to move the capital functions. Renewed calls were made in Kingston for relocating the capital once the Rideau Canal was built (between 1826 and 1832) from the Ottawa River to Kingston. Such calls were made in newspapers and, in 1830, were voiced in the Upper Canada House of Assembly. THE FIRST DEBATE The first full-scale parliamentary debate on the seat-of-govemment issue took place on February 9, 1830. Prior to this date, York's position as capital had been threatened only by British administrators who thought principally in military terms. The Upper Canada House of Assembly's debate moved the issue into the political arena. During the debate members discussed the merits of many places. Expectedly, Kingstonians, who favoured removal of governmental functions from York to Kingston, stressed the defence argument for support, while York residents in the House understandably were against removal. The member from Carleton (who was from Perth) said he would name Bytown or Perth as the proper place; for, from the state of the roads, the enemy could not reach it. York was open to the attacks of the enemy, and so was Kingston; but Bytown was not, and it would be the proper place for the seat-of-government.46

42

Choosing Canada's Capital

Other places fleetingly — not always seriously—mentioned were Burlington, London, Peterborough, Lake Simcoe area, Ancaster and Niagara (Figure 12a). The representative from Niagara most perceptively remarked that "everyone wished to have it at his own door and it would be impossible from the feelings of hon. members to fix upon any place."47 When the members voted on the motion to relocate the seat-ofgovernment from York "to a place of security" (in other words to Kingston) they agreed by a division of 19 to 14.48 On its second reading the motion was accepted by a vote of 18 to 16, but it is reported to have been th wn out the next day.49 Members, when voting (Figure 12b) voted in favour or York or Kingston, whichever was closer to their own ridings. The three exceptions to the general tendency were the member from Stormont who twice voted against the motion, the member from Carleton who voted first in favour and then against, and the member from Niagara who voted for removal, presumably because of old commercial ties that Niagara had with Kingston.50 The voting pattern is interesting because it illustrates the pronounced regional tendency within the colony, with the decisive split between a Toronto-based region and a Kingston-based region. Figure 12b represents the first delineation of such regions in the Canadas and visually conveys underlying elements of the competition between the two main Upper Canada urban centres as they strove for metropolitan dominance. The seat-of-govemment question was again raised in 1834 but no action resulted, and York/Toronto remained as capital of Upper Canada until the union of the two Canadas in 1841.

BYTOWN'S EARLY "BOOSTER" ACTIVITIES Since Bytown (as Ottawa) eventually became capital, it is useful to identify the early "booster" activities generated by Bytown supporters.51 It should be remembered that similar booster claims were made elsewhere for other places. Bytown came into existence in 1826 at the confluence of the Rideau and Ottawa Rivers, on a rocky, forested site, with swamps nearby. Lieutenant-Colonel John By, chief officer of the Royal Engineers, was charged with constructing the Rideau Canal from Bytown to Kingston.52 He laid out the initial street design for Bytown.53 Several years before settlement began in Bytown, Lord Dalhousie, as Governor-in-Chief of British

Competing Cities: The Earlier Years

43

Figure 12. a. Upper Canadian sites considered (some more seriously than others) for the seat-of-government of Upper Canada.The places discussed or mentioned during the 1830 House of Assembly debate are underlined, b. The voting patterns of the House of Assembly on the seat-of-government issue for Upper Canada, 1830.

44

Choosing Canada's Capital

North America, planned for a fortified town at the location, so what is now Parliament Hill might well have become the site of a military fortress. Lt.-Col. By also considered constructing a fortress on the site and the Royal Engineers even went so far as to develop a plan for it54 Military barracks were built on part of the land which Dalhousie earlier had reserved for Crown use, land which, in time, would house the parliament buildings. It is believed that while visiting the site in 1822 Dalhousie said: "I may not live so long, but whoever lives to see the Canadas united, will from this eminence, see the seat of the United Legislature."55 Several other people, including Lt.-Col. By, were reputed to have made similar statements.56 Bytown grew rapidly and was described by Bouchette in 1828 as having houses "of neatness and taste and streets laid out with such regularity, and of a liberal width that will hereafter contribute to the convenience, salubrity and elegance of the place."57 The population of Bytown in 1830 was said to fluctuate because of "the greater or less demand for labour originating in the slowness or rapidity which the public works [that is, the canal] are carried on."58 Another influence was the timber trade for, by 1830, Bytown had become the centre of the Ottawa Valley forest industry. These two factors, the canal and timber, plus the perceived strategic importance of the site, led the representative for Carleton in 1830 to declare to the Upper House of Assembly that Bytown was "the proper place for the seat-of-govemment," even though the town then had less than 1,000 permanent inhabitants. In 1835, a prominent Bytown citizen commented to a colleague that Bytown should be the capital of a united Canada because Quebec [is] too distant from the west—Montreal indefensible — any place on the StLawrence too near the Enemy...no part of Canada is so well fitted for the purpose [of capital] as Bytown [because] it is equidistant between the two extremes of the country, reasonably distant from the frontier, [there is] nearly enough of building stone about it, [and] with respect also to salubrity it is not exceeded by any place in the world.59

Competing Cities: The Earlier Years

45

The survival of this letter tells us that the idea of proposing Bytown as the capital of the anticipated union was in the minds of some local elites. But while local private discussion undoubtedly continued, the public airing of the idea began in earnest when AJ. Christie started publishing the Bytown Gazette on June 9,1836.60 Until his death in 1843 the newspaper carried numerous editorials by Christie on why Bytown should be capital. The editorials stimulated others to respond, either in the "letters to the editor" section of the Bytown Gazette or in editorials in newspapers in other cities, including Quebec, Montreal, Kingston and Toronto.61 Many of the arguments advanced by Christie were among the reasons that ultimately led to the site being selected as seat-of-government. The several points can be summarized. Christie questioned the defensiveness of the towns along the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario and he suggested also that they were vulnerable to republican ideas and principles from the U.S. He thought that Bytown would be free from such dangers since it was away from the border and the site was militarily strong as well as being in the centre of the proposed united provinces and yet surrounded by a "loyal population." He suggested — anticipating the neutrality argument — that Bytown might be chosen as capital "without exciting those jealousies which could arise from the choice of any other place."62 He felt too that placement of the capital functions in Bytown would be an inducement to new settlement in the Ottawa Valley, and would boost revenues generated by the Rideau Canal, which provided easy communication between the St. Lawrence and the west He noted the presence of government property in Bytown, and rejoiced in the grandeur and beauty of the scenery. To criticism that Bytown was but an "embryo city consisting of a few houses huddled together," he asked if there was "the capital of any country under the sun which was not at one time in this condition."63 So convinced was Christie of Bytown's advantages that he seems to have assumed that his town was the only logically-possible location and therefore it would be selected. Although he was ahead of his time in his conviction, Christie's writings spurred and also were echoed in later "booster" activities. Christie, while a key figure, was not alone. The many residents thus involved demonstrated and voiced sentiments not unusual to any one place or time. In later periods local newspapers and also elected representatives — from Bytown/Ottawa and all other places in the country — expressed in writ-

46

Choosing Canada's Capital

ing and in speeches various "booster" images and attitudes as they each sought to best express why their chosen place was the "best" place, and why all other places were inadequate!

CONCLUSION Competition and jealousies existed between the two main cities and their supportive regions in each province. With the union of the two political units in 1841 this city and regionally-based competition was raised to a higher, inter-sectional one, and would become an important consideration in the continuing seat-of-govemment issue. At the same time, local attachments and allegiances led supporters of each city to be boosterist in their proclamations about their favoured places. In the years ahead, politicians were to be swayed by varying local, regional and sectional attachments that clearly had their foundations in the pre-union period.

CHAPTER 3 THE FIRST COMPROMISE: KINGSTON

INTRODUCTION Lord John Russell in 1839 first introduced the Canadian union bill to the Parliament in Westminster. The draft of the bill declared that Montreal was to be the capital of the proposed Canadian union. This was objected to by Governor-General Charles Poulett Thomson (who was made Lord Sydenham late in 1840), whose task it was to get Canadians to agree to the union. Thomson recognized that the issue of where to locate the seat-ofgovemment was one of the most sensitive and yet also "one of the most urgent" issues he had to address.1 He further recognized that acceptance of the union might be delayed or even prevented if one place was designated as capital prior to the acceptance of the union bill by Canadians. At Sydenham's request, Lord Russell withdrew the union bill in the Parliament in London.2 The resubmitted union bill made no mention of any place as the seat-of-government and it stated that the matter should be left in the hands of the Crown's representative. The Governor-General had to balance conflicting pressures. Foremost were the sectional tensions between Canada East and Canada West. Upper Canadians stated flatly that it was "their right to have the seat of the Provincial Government within the[ir section of the new] Province"3 while Lower Canadians were equally clear in their claim to the honour. These sectional claims reflected, in part, French-English cultural jealousies and suspicions. At a different level, as anticipation of union grew, inter-city jealousies flourished while claims were made for this or that place to be the capital. There were some people who felt that the setting aside of such differences could benefit Toronto and Quebec. They talked of instituting an alternating system whereby each city would house the government functions for set periods. By this means each city — which clearly had benefitted from having the pre-union capital functions — could recoup some of the losses that they were sure to suffer if another

47

48

Choosing Canada's Capital

city was selected as capital. The Governor-General was strongly against this notion because, as he noted for his superior in London: there cannot be a greater fallacy than the notion which I have sometimes heard, that it would be expedient to allow the Legislature to meet alternately in different Cities of the Province. It would not only be inexpedient, but it would be utterly impossible to conduct the business of the Government under such a system.4 Within Lower Canada, the long-standing rivalry between Quebec and Montreal was compounded by the meeting of Lower Canada's Special Council in Montreal rather than in Quebec. Within Upper Canada, supporters of both Kingston and Toronto were prominent in advancing the claims of their favoured city, but supporters of other places also spoke up. One of the other places was the small, rough-and-tumble lumber town called Bytown, on the Ottawa River. Bytownians privately approached the Governor-General with the idea of renaming their town Sydenham in honour of his recent elevation, but he was not swayed.5 The Bytownians did not know that the Governor-General, though resident in Montreal, had already privately decided in favour of Kingston.6 Montreal can claim to be the union's first (albeit temporary and undeclared) capital, for Lord Sydenham governed from there for the first four months of the new Province of Canada before he moved to Kingston. Since he was still located in Montreal when the Union of the Canadas came into being, the Lower Canadian ceremonies were held in that city, not Quebec. The selection of Kingston as capital represented a compromise. While jubilation reigned in Kingston the decision was hailed as an unpopular choice in almost all sections of the country. For many French Canadians, "local patriotism strengthened provincial prejudice in their opposition to the 'infamous act'" of the imposed union,7 and the selection of the Upper Canada location for the seat-of-govemment served to confirm their belief that colonial subjugation was to continue.8 Quebec newspapers expressed open offence at the decision and there was concern about "the great inconvenience the inhabitants of this district will be subjected to."9 In contrast, members of the powerful (dominantly

The First Compromise: Kingston

49

Figure 13. Kingston, by William Henry Bartlett in N.P. Willis, Canadian Scenery (London, 1842), II, facing p. 50. (National Archives of Canada.)

English) commercial class in Montreal were not upset by the choice of Kingston as capital. They were warmly enthusiastic over the union itself since they knew that Montreal's commercial dominance was in no way threatened. In their estimation, the union would free them from the weight of the French majority within Lower Canada10 and, more importantly, would encourage trade with the west and thus further enhance and enlarge Montreal's commercial hinterland. In such circles there was a rather pious attitude, as illustrated by the following statement from a Montreal newspaper: We hear not her [Montreal's] lament on the subject. The independent citizens feel that they are to acquire greatness without artificial aids, by the advantage of position and their own

50

Choosing Canada's Capital

energies.11 Newspapers in Upper Canada — that is, those outside of Kingston's sphere of influence — also expressed considerable disappointment, including especially those in Bytown and Toronto. One Toronto writer complained that The good people of Toronto without distinction of party, have been astounded at the intelligence that the first meeting of the United Legislature is to be held at Kingston.12 Indeed, some Torontonians felt that Kingston had been selected to spite them. Newspapers in Quebec and Montreal took delight in reporting that "notes of wailing and wrath have already reached us from Toronto"13 for "the Toronto papers in general are much incensed at the removal of the seat-of-govemment from their city."14 The GovernorGeneral was not surprised by the reaction from Toronto for he had "expected that there would be a breeze at Toronto about the Seat-of-government, but it can't be helped.... As a set off, I have at least as great a row from Quebec...."15 Recalling the cities' rivalries and the several attempts to move the Upper Canada capital functions from Toronto (York) to Kingston, a Kingston writer "congratulated" the citizens of Toronto by observing that "the Public Records will now be placed in a situation equally secure from foreign invasion on the one hand and from internal insurrection on the other."16 Even as complaints reverberated around the province, workmen began to remodel the recently-completed General Hospital in Kingston so that it could suitably house the two houses of the legislature. The nearby railway buildings were prepared for their new function as government offices, and an addition was made to a leased house (called Alwington) for use by the Governor-General.17 Accommodation in Kingston quickly became expensive and hard to find for parliamentarians, civil servants, and others who were called or were otherwise attracted to Kingston. Profiteering occurred.18

The First Compromise: Kingston

51

The Governor-General was presented with two addresses when he arrived in Kingston on May 26,1841. The Kingston Council rejoiced that: It has been our providential lot, to be placed in a geographical position so favoured, as to be selected, by those most competent to decide this momentous question, for the location of the Government of this extensive Province.19 The address from the citizens of the surrounding districts proudly recognized that they too would benefit since "the selection of Kingston...cannot fail of greatly advancing our immediate neighbourhood."20 Lord Sydenham was pleased with what he found, for "my new capital answers extremely well, and except for the Toronto people who still complain all seem satisfied with it."21 More than just the 'Toronto people" were unhappy, however, for French Canadians felt lost in the new capital, which they disliked because of its lack of "character" and the "filthy water."22 They also remained suspicious of Upper Canadians' intentions. Efforts were made almost immediately following the opening of Parliament to have the capital decision altered. A motion was soon accepted by the Legislative Assembly to the effect that either an alternating system between Toronto and Quebec should be revived, or for these two cities to be recompensed for the losses they had suffered from the departure of government functions and personnel (Figure 14). The Queen, in council — in effect, the Governor-General — rejected the request for change.23 The Legislative Assembly next debated the issue in 1842 after the Queen's (that is, the Governor-General's) response to the 1841 Address was presented to the House. As an important harbinger of things to come, members claimed to recognize "the undoubted prerogative of the Crown" yet they also felt free to discuss the merits of contending cities and to vote for them. In most of the votes in the Legislative Assembly, a strong area! association was evident between riding and place under consideration. When it came to a vote against Kingston, however, there was a

52

Choosing Canada's Capital

sectional split (Figure 15). Reaction to the vote against Kingston was swift, as people in various places called for the preservation of the rights of this section or that, for the retention of Kingston as capital, or for one of the other cities to be made capital.24 Governor-General Sir Charles Bagot got the Executive Council to face the issue privately and, early in 1843, the Council recommended that Montreal should be made the capital. One of the members of the Council was from Kingston. He strongly objected to the report and later resigned from office in protest. The general public learned nothing of all this for almost seven months. Although both Sir Charles Bagot and his successor, Sir Charles Metcalfe, wanted Montreal to be the capital, they feared that the relocation of the seat-of-govemment to Canada East might lead Upper Canadians to seek dissolution. This threat was to persist throughout the life of the union. As rumours spread, both of an impending move and of the belief that the Government would have Parliament debate the issue, the enraged Kingston Loyalist declared that the Government was throwing "a new apple of fierce discord between contending parties" and warned that "if the capital of Canada be removed to the Lower section of the Province, there will be no cessation of an agitation to repeal the Union so lately affected."25 Governor-General Metcalfe opened Parliament on September 28, 1843, but made no mention of the seat-of-govemment question in his speech. Within a few days, however, members of the Assembly were angrily discussing the issue and they asked the Governor-General for any correspondence he might have on the topic. He responded by announcing that the substance of the instruction issued to him was that "Her Majesty's Government decline coming to a determination in favour of any place," but then confined the choice of possible locations for capital to Kingston and Montreal.26 After a long and very heated debate, and several divisions, the Assembly finally agreed to recommend a relocation to Montreal. The vote was a sectional one for Canada East members, with some (but not all) Reformers from Canada West supporting them (Figure 16). The recommendation was accepted and relocation occurred in 1844. The Governor-General was not altogether happy about moving to Montreal. His concern was prophetic, given what was to happen in Montreal in 1849: "he was concerned [upon taking up his residence] in a city

The First Compromise: Kingston

53

where political feeling is so easily excited and carried to such an extent as in Montreal."27 When the Governor-General departed for Montreal, he was given a "cold and sad" farewell by the people of Kingston.28 Kingston thereafter suffered badly from a loss of about 1,700 people, many of whom were in Government service.29 Never again was Kingston to be given serious consideration as a good site for the country's capital functions.

DOCUMENTS 1.

Charles Poulett Thomson (Governor-General) to Lord John Russell (Colonial Secretary), March 13,1840.

The choice of the Seat of Govt. must be left entirely to the Crown without giving the Parlt. any power to alter the Prerogative. I have left it so purposely, for no man can say where the first Parlt. ever ought to be held, and it is not unlikely that we must found a new capital. Kingston perhaps, for Bye Town [Bytown] is too cold and too far, tho' that wd. in other respects be the best place. 2.

The Union Act, 1840.

XXX. And be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the Governor of the Province of Canada for the time being to fix such place or places within any part of the Province of Canada, and such times for holding the first and every other session of the Legislative Council and Assembly of the said Province as he may think fit, such times and places to be afterwards changed or varied as the Governor may judge advisable and most consistent with general convenience and the public welfare, giving sufficient notice thereof.... 3.

Charles Poulett Thomson (Governor-General) to Lord John Russell (Colonial Secretary), (Private and Confidential), May 22,1840.

Under the provisions of the Union Bill, should they receive the sanction of Parliament, there will remain so little time for carrying into effect the objects contemplated, and for making preparations to meet an United Legislature, that I am compelled, with a view to prevent difficulties arising too late to enable me satisfactorily to overcome them, to consider

54

Choosing Canada's Capital

most attentively & maturely some points upon which a decision of Her Majesty's Government is required to enable me satisfactorily to fulfil my duty. One of the most urgent, & one which has engaged my most serious attention is the question of the future seat-of-government, and of the means which I shall have to adopt for satisfactorily assembling the first United Legislature, which I presume must be called together early next year. I have given to this subject the best consideration in my power, and altho' I am not at all prepared to offer any definite recommendation upon it, or entirely decided in my own mind upon the course to be followed, as it will be too late for correspondence with references to the first meeting at least to wait until then, I can only state my present views & solicit from Her Majesty's Government discretionary powers to carry them into effect as shall hereafter appear most advisable. There are four, if not five, possible situations for the seat-ofgovernment of the new Province of Canada; Quebec-Montreal-KingstonToronto-and Bytown. The last I will dismiss at once however. Altho' presenting considerable advantages from its position away from the Frontier, or at the mouth of the Rideau, it is so very small a place, would require such vast increase of Buildings, & is altogether so remote from thickly settled Districts, that I cannot consider it as fit for the purpose at present. Of the four others, Quebec & Toronto enjoy in point of convenience of accommodation & the necessary Buildings, considerable advantages. At Quebec there is a Building for the House of Assembly & Legislative Council, and Public Buildings for the different offices — No Government House. — At Toronto, there are all these Establishments on a moderate scale, which might without much difficulty or expense be increased. But both these places are unfortunately utterly unfit from their position & other circumstances for being made the permanent seat-ofgovernment, nor are they suited even for the place in which the first Legislature should hold its sittings. — Quebec, situated at the extreme

The First Compromise: Kingston

55

East of the Province, nearly 1000 miles from the Western position of the country, surrounded by a French Population, and removed at a Great distance from communication thro' the states with Great Britain, would be unsuited to the wants of a Government constituted as this is. — Toronto is on the other hand too far to the west for affording the means of guiding affairs in Lower Canada. It is a Town altogether undefended & indefensible — a bad Port—an unhealthy District The communication thro' the [United] States must in the winter be carried on thro' Hamilton & Niagara round the Lake, a tedious circuit, & its extreme distance from the Eastern Provinces renders communication with England by Halifax open to great delay. There are many political reasons too which would make this city an extremely unfit place for the seat-of-govemment, & even undesirable as the place where the first Assembly should be holden. I cannot therefore entertain the idea of fixing the seat-of-government at either Quebec or Toronto, & altho' it might be possible under an emergency to hold the first Parliament at Toronto, I should regret being obliged to do so. Quebec is out of the question even for that purpose. There remains Montreal & Kingston. With respect to accommodation at present existing for the Legislature, the Governor & the Government offices both stand much upon a par. — There is little or none in either. At Montreal there is one Building only belonging to the Civil Government — the old Government House, of one story only and of moderate size, affording partial accommodation for the Civil Secretary's office & a Room for myself in which the special Council assemble. There is no Government House or Residence for the Governor. I occupy a House hired by the year of W. Bingham. There are no offices whatever for the different Departments of Government. Rooms have been engaged for this purpose for short periods as best can be done, and the different officers of Government receive large additional Pay for quitting Quebec, and establishing themselves here. There is no Parliament House. At Kingston there is of course nothing of the kind either. On the score of defence Kingston enjoys a great superiority over Montreal. It is defensible & may be rendered still more so. The Public Archives could be in safety there, which they would not here.

56

Choosing Canada's Capital

In respect to any communication with England they are about on a par.—Kingston affords greater facilities at all times of the year thro' the States than does Montreal — the latter place enjoys about 24 hours advantage over the other thro' Halifax. — Montreal is at the head of the Atlantic navigation—Kingston at the outlet of the Lake navigation & the head of the Rideau. The first is about 180 miles from Quebec, which may be considered the extreme East of the Province requiring attention, and upwards of 600 from Sandwich the extreme West. — Kingston is about 360 from Quebec & about 450 from Sandwich. — Montreal is the older & more populous City of the two. So far then the matter would stand thus between the two cities. Montreal is the most populous & extensive of the two. — It is a greater commercial place. — Kingston is more central to the whole Province. It is more easily defensible & more secure even at present. Neither have any Public Buildings, & they must be erected whichever be chosen. Both afford about equal facilities of communication with Europe. But with a view to the future Government of the Province, Kingston possesses Great advantages over Montreal — and with regard merely to the expense to be incurred in preparation it seems to me to enjoy also a Superiority, altho' for mere temporary purposes the other City, owing to its greater population & extent, would afford perhaps more immediate facilities. I am strongly of opinion that the most important portion of the Canadas is the Upper Province. The fertility of its soil—the character of its people, the nature of Settlement, the direction which it has taken Westward — the Capabilities for improvement, the room afforded for Emigration, make Upper Canada even now an object demanding the utmost care & attention from the Government, and will render it if properly governed hereafter the source of our wealth & greatness on this Continent. Lower Canada has, it is true, a numerical majority of population but of what does it consist? — Of a vast body of French Canadian Peasantry cultivating in the most barbarous way a soil of far less fertility — a people not incapable of improvement, but still only to be very slowly and gradually improved in the Habits & Education— and of an English

The First Compromise: Kingston

57

or Scotch Town population in the cities engaged chiefly in forwarding the products of Upper Canada. The Eastern Townships indeed exhibit a healthy & thriving population of British & American Settlers, but the want of water communication & the rigor of the climate as compared with the other Province will make their growth slow and set limits to their improvement. These are the general features of the two Provinces, & from their consideration I infer that it is most important that the government should be pleased as far as possible in a situation to superintend & give close attention to the affairs of that which demands it most, namely Upper Canada, rather than in such a position as would render its control less effective, its means of communication with that Province more difficult, & place it in immediate contract only with that portion of the Country where direct superintendence will be less useful. Next it seems to me very desirable that the seat-of-govemment & above all the sittings of the Legislature should be removed from the presence of a large French Population. Montreal is its centre. To bring the French members to the middle of English Population would instil English ideas into their minds, destroy the immediate influence upon their actions of the host of little Lawyers, Notaries & Doctors — the pest of Lower Canada, who swarm in the District — and show them the advantages of practical improvements & the working of English habits. In regard to the expense which must attend the Establishments required for Government & Parliamentary purposes, Kingston would likewise probably possess an advantage to a considerable extent over Montreal. At the last mentioned City there is no land belonging to the Crown, at the other there is a great deal, which might be taken advantage of. The expense of erecting Buildings would be less too, at Kingston than here. For a permanent Establishment therefore that City would possess superior advantages to the other in every respect. For a mere makeshift for a year or two a moderate Expenditure would probably suffice to erect a place for the first meetings of the Legislature at Montreal. Buildings might be hired there for the Public Officers, & less difficulty would be found for the servants of the government & others attending on Business in procuring for themselves the accommodation which is necessary to them. But this expense would of course be so much lost.

58

Choosing Canada's Capital

Of the two therefore as the permanent seat-of-government I give the preference decidedly to Kingston, & it would be extremely desirable if possible that, if intended as such, it should also be the place for the meeting of the first Legislature. My stay in that City was not however sufficiently long to enable me to examine the locality so much as I would desire to do—nor have my enquiries enabled me to ascertain the extent of accommodation which might be obtained there, or the time which would be required to prepare what may be wanted, sufficiently to form an opinion whether it would be possible to have the means of meeting the Legislature there next year. These enquiries however I have ordered to be made, & upon my journey to the Upper Province in July, or August I shall examine more closely into the matter in order to come to a determination. As however it may be necessary to make immediate preparations either at Montreal or Kingston, with a view to a place for the Legislature to meet in & for the Government Offices, even tho' they should be of a temporary character, I would solicit your Lordship's authority to act at once in the manner which may seem best, with reference to the whole subject, as soon as I have the necessary data upon which to come to a determination, either by preparing temporary Buildings, if I find it impossible to have permanent ones ready in time, or by making arrangements for permanent Buildings if I find that possible. Should further examination of Kingston confirm me in my opinion, I shall endeavour of course to make arrangements if possible for meeting the Legislature there next year—at all events with a view to the Government being fixed there hereafter. Should the first not be possible, I must then consider whether temporary arrangements can be made here, or whether under all the circumstances I may not meet the first Parliament at Toronto — it being clearly understood that Kingston was the seat-ofgovernment, that the buildings were in preparation, & that the arrangement was purely temporary. The expense must I presume be ultimately borne by the Province, but there are no funds at present applicable to the purpose & it may be necessary therefore in the first instance to draw upon the military chest and arrangement can afterwards easily be made when a financial settlement

The First Compromise: Kingston

59

for the United Province comes to be effected. — My utmost endeavours will of course be to observe the strictest economy. Before closing this Dispatch I may as well with reference to this subject remark that there cannot be a greater fallacy than the notion which I have sometimes heard, that it would be expedient to allow the Legislature to meet alternately in different Cities of the Province.—It would not only be inexpedient, but it would be utterly impossible to conduct the Business of the Government under such a system.—Here everything centres in the Government. The most trifling affairs are matter of reference from all parts of the country, and the most constant and immediate reference is daily required to the Public Departments and the Documents preserved in them. The utmost inconvenience is even now felt from the circumstance of the Government Departments for this Province being divided between Quebec and Montreal. The offices and Archives there — the officers themselves here and I assure you that the difficulty of conducting affairs satisfactorily is in no small degree increased by this circumstance. It would be next to impossible to conduct the Business of the United Province upon such a system, still less with an ambulatory Executive. 4.

Lord John Russell (Colonial Secretary) to Charles Poulett Thomson (Governor-General), June 22,1840.

I received by the British Queen your despatch of the 22nd of May, marked private, and confidential, on the question of the future Seat-ofgovemment in Canada. I beg you to accept my thanks for the very clear and useful information which you have communicated to me on this subject. My own opinion is strongly in favour of Kingston as the seat of Govt. and the permanent place of meeting for the Legislature. With respect to the first Assembly so many local circumstances of convenience must be considered, that I leave it entirely to your discretion, only desiring that you will consult persons of all parties before your decision is formed. The distance of Toronto from Quebec wd. I should imagine, make a journey to that place from Quebec very burthensome. 5.

Lord Sydenham (Governor-General) to Lord John Russell (Colonial Secretary), October 28,1840.

60

Choosing Canada's Capital

Hitherto not a soul suspects my intention to holding the Parlt. at Kingston and making it the seat of Govt. 6.

Lord Sydenham (Governor-General) to Sir George Arthur (former Lieutenant-Governor), December 14,1840.

[Assembling the first parliament in Kingston would] not be unattended with difficulty, but it is worth almost any amount of sacrifice of comfort or convenience, if it can be brought about. [I am] quite determined not to hold it here [Montreal], and Toronto is too far off and exposed to many moral inconveniences.exposed to many moral inconveniences. 7.

(Kingston) Upper Canada Herald, February 2,1841.

We are happy to be able to inform our readers that the secret is at last out. Kingston is to be the Seat-of-government. 8.

(Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, February 6,1841.

...the Public Records will now be placed in a situation equally secure from foreign invasion on the one hand and from internal insurrection on the other. 9.

Lord Sydenham (Charles Poulett Thomson; Governor-General) to Sir George Arthur (former Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada), February 10,1841.

I expected that there would be a breeze at Toronto about the Seatof-govemment, but it can't be helped, and I am satisfied that the rest of the Province will not sympathize with the Toronto-ites. All that the [Upper Canada] House of Assembly asked in their 'recommendations' has been conceded to them by taking Kingston, and Upper Canada therefore ought to be very well pleased. As a set off, I have at least as great a row from Quebec, whose claims are about the same as Toronto's. Montreal on the contrary, which really might have expected to see the Government established there, is quite quiet and does not repine. 10.

(Toronto) Examiner, February 10,1841.

The good people of Toronto without distinction of party, have been astounded at the intelligence that the first meeting of the United Legislature is to be held at Kingston. 11.

(Montreal) Morning Courier, February 10,1841.

The First Compromise: Kingston

61

Notes of wailing and wrath have already reached us from Toronto upon the selection of Kingston for the first Session of the Legislature. As for Montreal, we hear not her lament upon the subject. The independent citizens feel that they are to acquire greatness without artificial aids, by the advantage of position and their own energies. 12.

Quebec Mercury, March 6,1841.

The Toronto papers in general are much incensed at the removal of the seat-of-govemment from their city. Many of them indulge in wild assertions of promises implied and violent invective against the Governor General; others, again, sit down despondingly and weep over what they consider an irremediable evil. 13.

Kingston Herald, May 18,1841.

The time approaches when the Governor General will enter Kingston, to open the first Parliament of Canada. It is an event important in itself; but it has additional interest in this Town, owing to it being the place chosen for the sitting of Parliament, by which the metropolitan dignity is conferred on Kingston. 14.

(Montreal) Le Canadian, July 7,1841.

[Kingston is] a town without local colour, without character...the water above all is almost undrinkable. 15.

Legislative Assembly, September 16,1841.

[Three identical votes on alternating the capital between Toronto and Quebec or for compensation, and for sending an Address to the Queen on this topic: Yeas 26, Nays 21. See Figure 14 for the voting pattern and for the indication of the ridings of the seven committee members who examined and reported on the Address to the Queen—selection 17. Note (on Figure 14) the large number of members who were absent from the House, some of whom were still involved with harvesting activities. See also selection 16.] 16.

Stewart Derbishire (Legislative Assembly member for Bytown) to A J. Christie (Editor, Bytown Gazette), September 16,1841.

I voted against the Address because I do not like to shackle the Prerogative of the Crown; but, I am not sorry that it has passed, for I do not

62

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 14. For alternating system (Quebec and Toronto) or for compensation; September 16,1841 (see selection 15).

want the Park, fixed at Kingston — our [Bytown's] chance is better by keeping it an open question. 17.

Address of the Legislative Assembly to Queen Victoria, September 16,1841.

MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN: We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly, of Canada, in Parliament assembled, humbly beg leave to approach Your Majesty with renewed expressions of our devoted attachment to Your Royal Person and Government. We would, most respectfully, beg leave to represent to Your Majesty, that the Inhabitants of the, now, Province of Canada, having never been expressly called upon to offer an opinion upon the Union of the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, do not presume, on the present occasion, to obtrude upon Your Majesty our views and opinions on that measure; but content ourselves, now that it has taken place, with express-

The First Compromise: Kingston

63

ing our fervent wishes that every advantage, contemplated by its promoters, may be fully realized. That the Inhabitants of these Provinces did not anticipate, from the adoption of the union, that the vital interests of any portion were likely to be jeopardized, as recent events seem to threaten, because there is no principle in Legislation more fully established than that when a Law, though necessary for the good of the Community, bears severely on particular Sections, and causes serious loss and inconvenience, such loss and inconvenience should be as fully remunerated as possible, at the expense of the public, for whose benefit it is sustained. That, in considering the union of the Province, the Inhabitants of the Cities of Quebec and Toronto did not conceal from themselves the possibility of being called upon to make greater sacrifices than the Inhabitants of any other part of the Province; but they did not anticipate any greater disadvantage than what might arise from holding the Provincial Parliament alternately at Toronto and Quebec; for they assured themselves that their Most Gracious Sovereign, the Queen, in the exercise of Her just prerogative, would be entirely directed, in selecting the place for convening the Legislature, by a due regard to existing claims, and interests, as well as the general convenience of the Province. That, while the question of the Union was under discussion, only two places seemed to offer any just Claims to become the seat-ofgovernment— Quebec and Toronto—both had been the Capitals of their respective Provinces, from the very first; they possessed all the necessary convenience, and the great interests which had grown up in each respectively, from the fact of their being the seat-of-govemment, required favourable consideration. That the vast extent of the United Province, (sufficient, in the practice of our neighbours, to constitute six or seven Sovereign States) seems to render any position, however near the centre, undesirable as the permanent place for the meeting of Parliament for the following, among other reasons: The great object of the Union is to amalgamate, as soon as possible into one people, the population of both Provinces; gradually but

64

Choosing Canada's Capital

gently to assimilate their laws and customs, their hopes and interests. We respectfully beg leave to express our sincere conviction that no measure can, with equal facility, quicken such happy results as causing the Legislature to meet four years in the midst of one population, and four years in the midst of the other. The Representatives of Eastern and Western Canada would thus become acquainted with the respective Inhabitants; their habits and views; their wants and expectations, and become able to meet their just desires; and to adopt such measures as will, without violence to any feelings, or even prejudices, transform them, in a reasonable time, into one people. That the measure of alternate Parliaments, in like circumstances, is not without many precedents, and in the present case will be attended with many essential and paramount advantages. The only objection that can be raised must be confined to a small matter of expense which will bear no proportion to the interest of the very large sums required for erecting such buildings to accommodate the Legislature, and the several Public Departments, as already exist at Toronto and Quebec. That although these may be deemed among the leading points in favour of alternate Parliaments at Quebec and Toronto, there are other reasons, to which, though somewhat of a local nature, we would respectfully pray Your Majesty's consideration. Toronto from the change of the Seat-of-government is threatened with even greater loss than Quebec, from the removal of the Superior Courts. Now such removal would be of great and serious disadvantages to Western Canada. Toronto is very nearly in its centre, being about 280 miles from the Point au Baudet, the Eastern extremity and 270 miles from Amherstburg, the Western; and therefore convenient, beyond all other places, for transacting the public business of the Province. It has all the public buildings required, and as the Laws, Customs, and habits, of the two Provinces, differ essentially, at present, many years may elapse before they can be assimilated so as to unite the Judiciary. Add to all this the fact that seven-tenths of the population of Western Canada must always be found west of the Bay ofQuinté, and to them the loss and inconvenience of managing their business will be greatly increased should the Courts be removed from Toronto', and all this without the slightest equivalent

The First Compromise: Kingston

65

That many of the inhabitants of the late Provinces of Lower and Upper Canada, relying on the emphatic language of His late Majesty, King William the fourth, "that a Union of the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada was not a measure fit to be recommended to Parliament" and therefore not anticipating any such enactment did, under the conviction that Toronto and Quebec would continue the seat-of-government in their respective Provinces, expend the greater part of their means on fixed property, and will therefore, be impoverished, and many of them exposed to the greatest sacrifices should the seat-of-government be wholly removed. Indeed the loss to merchants and tradesmen begins already to be felt, and to some it will prove utter ruin, all must suffer should there be no remedy; for the depreciation of real property, cannot under such a disastrous event, be less than several hundred thousand pounds. Therefore we most earnestly entreat that Your Majesty, in the exercise of Your Royal prerogative, will be pleased to order that the Parliament of Canada, hereafter, assemble alternately at Quebec and Toronto, the respective capitals of the late Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, or should such prayer be thought unadvisable, and any other measure be adopted, that adequate and just remuneration be granted for the loss sustained by the inhabitants of Toronto and Quebec. 18.

Sir Richard D. Jackson (Administrator of the Province of Canada) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), September, 8,1841.

I have the honour to transmit to you herewith in order that it may be laid at the foot of the Throne, an Address to the Queen from the Legislative Assembly of this Province, on the subject of the Seat-ofgovemment. Two similar Addresses had been previously presented to the Governor General, by the Inhabitants of Toronto, and in forwarding the present Address, which was adopted in the last few days of the Session, after a large proportion of the Members had left Kingston, and then only by a small majority, it is my duty to state to your Lordship that, as far as I can learn, this question excites but little interest in any place besides Toronto. The Inhabitants of Quebec, though naturally regretting the removal of the Seat-of-government from their City, have apparently acquiesced in the reasonableness of that measure; at any rate they have

66

Choosing Canada's Capital

taken no active steps to urge the matter on the consideration of the Government. The prayer of the present Petition is, that the Parliament should be summoned for alternate periods of four years at Toronto and Quebec; an arrangement which would of course involve a quadrennial removal of the Executive Departments. The impracticability of such an arrangement, from the expense attending it, must be evident to every one and of the inconvenience and interruption to business which it must create, we have had sufficient experience in the removal during last spring from Montreal to this place. This inconvenience too would be annually increasing as the Records of the Departments grew in bulk, until even if there were no other difficulty, this alone would render the proposed scheme impossible. There are many other objections to the proposal, which it seems scarcely necessary to point out, considering that the single advantage which itis proposed to obtain at so great a sacrifice is an indemnity fortheir supposed loss to the Inhabitants of Toronto and Quebec. But I would observe that the Petition of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada to the Crown, which accompanied the Resolutions on the Union of the Provinces, merely prayed that the Seat-of-govemment should be within the limits of the Upper Province, a prayer that has been fully complied with; the present demand is altogether of a different character, and supported on different and more questionable arguments. I cannot therefore recommend that Her Majesty should be advised to comply with the prayer of this Address. 19.

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Charles Bagot (GovernorGeneral), November 2,1841.

I have received Sir Richard Jackson's Despatch of the 28th of September, forwarding an Address to the Queen from the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, praying Her Majesty to order the Provincial Parliament to be held alternately at the Cities of Quebec and Toronto. I have had the honour to lay that Address before the Queen, and I have received Her Majesty's commands to instruct you to acquaint the House of Assembly, that Her Majesty is always desirous, so far as may be possible, of consulting the wishes of Her Loyal Subjects in Canada,

The First Compromise: Kingston

67

deliberately entertained and constitutionally expressed through their Representatives in the House of Assembly; but that the establishment of Kingston as the Seat of the United Legislature was not adopted without full consideration, and that a change involving among other consequences largely increased expenditure, ought notto be sanctioned, except upon the clearest necessity, and the general sense of the Province unequivocally expressed in its favour. Many and serious objections attach to the proposal for holding Sessions for alternate periods of four years each at distinct and distant places, which, upon reconsideration, HerMajesty can hardly doubt will induce the House of Assembly to take a different view from that which is expressed in the Address now submitted to Her Majesty. 20.

Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), (Confidential), January 19,1842.

In my despatch of the 17th Instant, I have alluded to the final decision as to the Seat of Govt. of this Province as a question which has given rise to a great deal of excitement, and one on which it would be desirable to avoid discussion in the Legislature until the Govt. should be prepared to take a decided course. I now proceed to explain more at length the views which I [have] been led to form respecting it and the decision to which I think H.M. Govt. should come. Lord Sydenham's Private and Confidential despatch of the 22 May, 1840, the advantages of the several places in which the Seat-ofgovernment might be fixed and more especially those of Montreal and Kingston are discussed at considerable length and the preference given to the latter. No doubt much weight is due to Lord Sydenham's opinion, and in many of his arguments I entirely concur. In his view for instance as to the expediency of removing the first meeting of the Legislature from the midst of a French population and thus of opening the eyes of the French Members to their real position in the midst of a people of English descent and feelings, I quite agree, and have reason to believe that the proposed effect was produced during the last Session. But the time which has since elapsed, and more especially the experience of the last nine months give us more ample means of judging of the capabilities and fitness of Kingston than Lord Sydenham possessed, and have produced a very general impression that it is not the most convenient place for the Seat-of-government. The town is small and poor;

68

Choosing Canada's Capital

and the Country around it unproductive. There is no accommodation for the Members of the Legislative when the Session is in progress nor even at other times for those Strangers who may be compelled to resort to the Seat of Govt. on business. And although it might no doubt be so fortified as to make it difficult for an enemy to hold the Town, it would be impossible to secure it from attack and insult and even from danger of being destroyed should its destruction as the depository of the public archives be of sufficient importance. Situated on the border of the Lake to which it is perfectly open — within twelve miles of the American Shore and within fifteen miles of their principal naval station on Lake Ontario, it is evident that its security must depend on the enemy never being able, even for a few hours to obtain the superiority on this end of the Lake. This however is a contingency on which in the event of a war it would of course be impossible to reckon. Still Kingston has so many advantages from its central position and it is so important to avoid the expense and inconvenience of moving the Government Offices that I should not think of a change did I suppose that the permanent settlement of the Government here would be not unacceptable to the great body of the people. But I have every reason to believe the contrary. The utter want of accommodation, and, I regret to say, the extortion which has been practised by the Inhabitants on those who have been compelled to come here, have produced a universal dislike to the place; and I have not met with a single person unconnected with the Town or its immediate vicinity who does not deprecate its selection as the permanent Seat-of-government. It would therefore, I apprehend be a matter of extreme difficulty if not of absolute impossibility, to persuade the Legislature to vote the necessary Funds for Public Buildings in this Town, or even for the continuance of the present arrangement, except on the understanding that it is altogether temporary. The H.M. Government can of course have no interest in the locality of the Govt. of Canada, provided it be in a position where the Records and Officers will be secure, and which may be acceptable to the great bulk of the population. There is no fear that the proposition of last Session for alternate Parliaments at Quebec and Toronto should be renewed: indeed had any other proposal by which to get away from Kingston been brought forward, that proposition would probably not have

The First Compromise: Kingston

69

been carried. But there appears to be an increasing desire that the permanent Seat-of-govemment should be fixed at Montreal or Quebec— the former as the most central, the most populous and the most accessible Town in the Province — the latter as the strongest, and as already possessing a great portion of the necessary buildings. Montreal has undoubtedly many advantages. It is a very large and growing city containing from 45,000 to 50,000 inhabitants—and capable therefore of accommodating any number of strangers who might resort to it. It is at the head of the Sea Navigation, and is accessible from the Sea for about three weeks later than Kingston is by the Rideau Canal; and it is removed from the Frontier, and therefore, althoughnot defensible in itself, perfectly secure from a coup de main — and within less than 12 hours of Quebec to which in case of necessity the Government and the Public Archives could be removed. All the members from Lower Canada would naturally prefer Montreal to Kingston, and so also would the members from the Eastern part of Upper Canada. The members from Toronto and its vicinity would likewise prefer Montreal from feelings of jealousy towards this Town—leaving those only who either have property here or who come from the Western District, to support its pretensions. Quebec also would as compared with Kingston and even perhaps as compared with Montreal have a majority of Lower Canadian Members in its favour; also one strong argument for it would be the saving of expense in the erection of the public buildings; but I apprehend that the Western Members would be indisposed to vote for a situation so distant from them, and with which they have not the same commercial relations as with Montreal. The arrangement which now subsists for the Parliament buildings, the Public Offices and the Government House will expire in May 1844, and it is indispensable that before that time permanent accommodation should be provided for the Government. It is also highly desirable that an end should be put to the uncertainty and excitement now existing on the subject, and with this view that it should be brought forward and decided at the next meeting of the Legislature—should that meeting not take place till the summer. But this [is] a question on which it would be neither prudent nor becoming in the Government to leave the initiative to an individual

70

Choosing Canada's Capital

member, or to appear to be without any definitive views of its own. Still less would it be becoming that the Government should find itself in opposition to a majority of the House of Assembly and should be compelled either to abandon its proposed vote, or to adopt whatever decision the House might come to. There appears but one way to avoid the risk of such a dilemma. There is little fear that opinions will be so balanced as to leave a doubt respecting the wishes of the Legislature; and I shall have an opportunity during the coming Summer and more especially when the Legislature shall be called together of ascertaining exactly the nature of those wishes. I would propose to determine my course according to the result of these enquiries. If, as I expect a decided preponderance should appear in favour of Quebec or Montreal, it should I think be the policy of the Government to adopt either of those Cities as might appear most desirable, and to bring the matter forward as a Government measure. If the House should appear to be nearly balanced, or even to incline a little in favour of Kingston, the Government might then by throwing its weight into the Scale decide the question and fix the Seat-of-government where it is. But it is indispensable that whatever is to be carried should be carried by the Government and not by individual members. I would therefore solicit your Lordship's authority to frame my course on this subject as I shall on enquiry find to be most agreeable to the People of the Province, and as may appear most advantageous to the public service. Your Lordship may be assured that I shall use this discretion solely with a view to public considerations, and without any personal predilections in favour of any place. Whatever decision may be come to it will be impossible to remove from Kingston for the next two years, and for that time the existing arrangements must be continued; but there will I apprehend be no difficulty in obtaining the sanction of the Legislature to that course provided their wishes in regard to the permanent Seat-ofgovernment be not thwarted. 21.

Quebec Mercury, September 29,1842, reacting to the dispatch from London of November 2,1841 — selection 19.

The despatch of the Colonial Minister respecting the future Seatof-government has been communicated to the Legislative Assembly; it is completely on the non-committal principle and leaves the choice in the hands of that body. The great contest will be between Montreal and this city, and the advantages and disadvantages of both are so nearly balanced

The First Compromise: Kingston

71

that it is probable the convenience of the public buildings already in existence, will, on the score of expense, restore this city to its former rank as the true Metropolis of British North America.... It appears however pretty certain that whatever place may be ultimately chosen as the Seat-of-government the sessions of the Legislature will, for the next two years, be held in this city. 22.

Mr. Johnston, member for Carleton, in the Legislative Assembly when proposing Bytown as capital, October 5,1842; motion defeated: yeas 6, nays 57.

Bytown was the properplace to have the seat-of-govemment, and there it should and ought to be. He had no serious complaints against Kingston, for he had experienced the hospitality of Kingston in many ways. Mr. Boulton [Niagara] no doubt approves of Toronto, but, of course, every man thinks his own goose a swan. He proposed Bytown as the seatof-govemment, being in every respect calculated for it.

Figure 15. Against Kingston; October 5,1842 (see selection 23).

72

23.

Choosing Canada's Capital

Legislative Assembly as House in Committee, October 5,1842.

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is the undoubted prerogative of the Crown, and conformable to the positive enactment of the Statute of the Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom, under which this House is constituted and assembled, that "The place or places, within any part of the Province of Canada, for holding each and every Session of the Legislative Council and Assembly," should be fixed under the authority of the Crown, (accepted) Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the building in which the Legislative Assembly is now held, and which was erected several years ago, for a different purpose, does not afford sufficient accommodation to enable the Members to discharge their duty to their Constituents with due enquiry, and sufficient deliberation, and that the locality of Kingston is not central to the majority of the population, and is badly provided with accommodation for the residence of the Members, particularly during Winter, which is the Season in which they can attend to their Legislative duties, with the smallest sacrifice to their general interests. (Yeas 40, Nays 20; see Figure 15.) 24.

Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), October 8,1842.

I have the honour to inform your Lordship that on the 28th ultimo I transmitted, in a Message to the House of Assembly, Her Majesty's Answer to the Address of that House, adopted last Session, relative to the Seat-of-government, as communicated in your Lordship's Despatch of the 2nd November last. The result was that on the 5th instant a motion was made in the form of two Resolutions, brought forward by an independent British Member, to the effect, first—of declaring the undoubted prerogative of Her Majesty to fix the said Seat, and secondly, of condemning Kingston as the locality for it, and the present Parliament Buildings as insufficient and incommodious.... The first Resolution was carried in the affirmative. Before passing the second, propositions were made and divisions were taken upon the

The First Compromise: Kingston

73

propriety of expressing a preference in favour of the Towns of Toronto, Quebec, Montreal, and Bytown, but the motions were negatived on the double ground that their adoption would stultify the first Resolution, and that it was impossible to induce the House so far to agree upon the choice of a substitute for Kingston as to furnish a majority large enough to mark the feeling of the public upon the subject, and to have an influence upon Her Majesty's determination. The division on the several Resolutions finally took a sectional character. Twenty Members, all belonging to Upper Canada, opposed it, and forty Members, of whom seven were Upper Canadians, supported it. The question, thus your Lordship will perceive, is left in the same position as before; and it is not my intention to recommend to Her Majesty to take any steps in the matter, until some strong sense of public convenience or public policy, or some more definite expression of the general feeling of the Province shall lead me to pronounce an opinion upon the subject. 25.

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Charles Bagot (GovernorGeneral), November 11,1842.

I have received your correspondence relative to the removal of the Seat-of-govemment in Canada, From Kingston to some other Town. I think that you have acted wisely in abstaining from any public step on this subject; but as the question must be definitely settled at no very distant period, I would suggest to you the propriety of making up your mind, with the aid of your Executive Council, on the point, in order that you may be prepared to guide public opinion whenever the measure may be brought into discussion. 26.

Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), October 28,1842.

[The] very difficult [question should] remain in status quo — which at present may be the best state in which it can be left—all parties acknowledge the absolute prerogative of the Crown to decide it—but the question of the money is unfortunately their own.

74

Choosing Canada's Capital

27.

Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), (confidential), November 11,1842.

...it is very desirable to keep the question of the Metropole in abeyance at this moment if it should be found possible. 28.

Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), December 11,1842.

...eventually, and if things hold, there is no doubt that Montreal is the proper place.... The question virtually must be in the hands of the Assembly which holds the purse strings.... 29.

Report of a Committee of the Executive Council to Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General), March 16,1843.

May it please your Excellency, The important question respecting the locality of the seat of Provincial Government of Canada, upon which your Excellency is desired by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies to form an opinion with the assistance of the Executive Council, has engaged the anxious attention of the Committee of the whole of that body, and the Committee, fully sensible of the difficulties attending such a subject of inquiry, and aware of the impossibility of reconciling local interests in favour of any decision which may be pronounced, respectfully offer their advice, the result of much deliberation, and which, though not in accordance with the first impression on the mind of the late Governor-General, or with the policy which directed the assemblage of the Legislature at Kingston, and the removal of the public departments to that place, they believe, nevertheless, to be most conducive to the public welfare, and most likely to meet with the general approbation of the people of the Province. As might naturally be expected, the popular opinions most strongly expressed are either openly based upon the claims of the inhabitants of certain localities to have the seat-of-government in their own city or neighbourhood, or they are traceable to local pecuniary interest, though assuming the appearance of taking public and general ground. Thus, for example, the citizens of the ancient capitals of Upper and Lower Canada complain of depreciation in the value of property, consequent upon the removal of the Government from these cities. The inhabitants of Kingston set up a like claim because of their late investment of capital in building,

The First Compromise: Kingston

75

and in the purchase of building-ground, under an expectation formed by them that Kingston was to be the permanent capital. Then on behalf of Quebec, its military strength and its possession of buildings for the use of the Legislature are said to give that city the preference, on the arguments of security and economy. The existence of public buildings in Toronto, the rapidly increasing population and wealth of that city and the neighbouring districts, are urged as public grounds of economy and future convenience in its favour; while in Kingston its central position and defences, and the expenditure, that lately took place under the authority of Lord Sydenham, in the purchase of lands for the erection of public buildings, are brought forward, not only as inducements for making Kingston the provincial capital, but as in a manner binding Her Majesty's Government to fulfil expectations to which the acts of Government gave rise. Then in favour of Bytown, its inland position on the boundary river between the late provinces, and at the mouth of the great military canal of the Rideau, are said to give it claims to consideration above other places, because it is comparatively safe in case of war, and convenient alike for Upper and Lower Canadians. The Committee look upon the selection of a locality for the Government and Legislature as far too important to the public generally, to permit of much consideration of the local interests of the inhabitants of the places claiming to be chosen. The convenience and advantage of the whole community are mainly to be sought, and it may be said that these are the sole objects to be served in the selection of a capital in a country like Canada, where as yet no great local interests are created of sufficient importance to entitle them to regard in a national point of view. The removal of a Government is unquestionably a great calamity to the possessors of property in the place from which the removal is made and measures of change in this respect should never be lightly adopted; but these facts only make it more imperatively the duty of the Government to be careful of the choice, and at the earliest possible period to fix the capital at a place from which the future condition of the country will not require a removal. To continue for a time any seat-of-govemment injudiciously chosen, exposes the place to the aggravated but certain future evil of abandonment when the interest involved would be vastly greater than at present; and therefore while the Government is bound to avoid as much as possible changes in the location of a capital, this desirable object can only

76

Choosing Canada's Capital

be attained by a correct selection made in contemplation, not of local or temporary, but of general and abiding interests. The union of the provinces of Canada brings together in one legislature and in one city those interested with the management of the public affairs of a people scattered over an extensive region, and differing in language, in laws, and, inmany respects, in local interests. It also brings to the seat of the Provincial Government a continual concourse of persons having private or public matters to solicit. To cause this assemblage in any portion of one section of the province, which, from its position, would place the legislature and suitors from the other section at once out of view of everything connected with their own race and country, and at a distance from those whose interests they are bound to represent, and whose confidence it is essential to them to continue, would, in the opinion of the Committee of Council, prove a never-ceasing source of discontent, and would promote a sense of banishment and abandonment which no arguments could overcome, or no advantages counterbalance; some of this feeling is unavoidable, from the fact that any capital in Canada must be a great distance from the extremities of the province, and those at a distance from the scene of legislative deliberation and executive action will always imagine their interests more or less overlooked or their opinions slighted; but dissatisfaction of this nature must be very much aggravated if legislation be carried on in a locality where neither the language, laws, or manners of a large portion of the community prevail, or are known, and where the actual condition and requirements of that part of the population cannot be observed, and can only be learned upon statements liable to be denied or controverted. Could no common locality be found on ground equal, or nearly so, to both parties, a great obstacle would be offered to the success of the measure of the union, for the Committee think that one or the other party would continue discontented, and would suffer under a sense of injustice and oppression most injurious to the Government, and inimical to the tranquillity of the province. To find the place which leaves the least foundation for complaint on any side, has therefore been the object of the Committee of Council in the present inquiry, and it is one which they think ought to be paramount to all others. Quebec, it is true, has its fortifications; it is the mart of the timbertrade, in which a portion of the people of Upper Canada are concerned; it has Houses of Parliament already constructed, which might temporarily

The First Compromise: Kingston

77

answer for the meeting of the Legislature, and part of which would serve the same purpose in future; and it is not materially different in climate from most other parts of the Province. But its distance from Upper Canada; its want of equal commercial connection with the Upper Province, except as regards one branch of trade; the little personal common intercourse between its inhabitants and people from the western portion of the Colony, form, in the opinion of the Committee, strong objections to its being chosen as the seat-of-government. Upper Canadians having business to transact with Government, or who are engaged in public affairs, would feel themselves forced to go to a distance from their country to a place where everything would appear strange, and where even the distance from, and expense of communication with, their own section of the Province would be considered unnecessary inflictions. Toronto, though a flourishing and rapidly-rising city, situated in a fertile country, and having a large extent of territory in its rear, peopled and in the course of settlement, has, nevertheless, little interests in common with the Lower Province, unless as a place through which its commerce must pass. And its strangeness to Lower Canadians would ever be greater than would be felt in Quebec by people from Upper Canada, whilst its distance from Eastern Canada would cause many and constant inconveniences, too great to admit the continuance of the capital there. Kingston, it is true, is somewhat nearer to a centrical position, but its importance, except as a military post, depends mainly upon the forwarding trade; and not having an improved back country, its progress has not been rapid, notwithstanding its being one of the most ancient towns in the Province, and favoured by the presence of large naval and military establishments. The coming of the Government caused improvements, which, however, must be limited to the wants of the influx of population consequent upon that occasion. It is close upon the American frontier, many of its supplies are taken from the United States; and the inhabitant of Lower Canada feels himself alienated from his own people as much in this city as he could well be anywhere in Canada; while it is not a place in which any considerable number of the inhabitants of Upper Canada, besides its own citizens and the country in the neighbourhood, have any interest. It is not surprising, therefore, that when the question was discussed in the last two sessions in the Legislative Assembly, a very large majority of members declared decidedly against Kingston. Of Bytown, it may be said that it is comparatively safe from attack in the interior, that when the country of the Ottawa

78

Choosing Canada's Capital

comes to be settled, it promises to rise into importance; and that it is situated on the Provincial Boundary. But then its position makes it inconvenient both for Upper or Lower Canadians; it is, in fact, out of the way of both; and thus possessing disadvantages which would be equally felt by both divisions of the Province, it would probably unite both in one feeling, and that not in its favour. The Island of Montreal was chosen as the site of a great city, by the French Government, in the early times of the Colony. In making this choice, the acknowledged sagacity and foresight displayed by the officers of that nation in their selection of positions, for either civil or military occupation, along the course of the St. Lawrence and down the Mississippi in a country then a forest wilderness, was scarcely required when Montreal was designated as a future city. No discoveries of localities claiming to be equal; no development of the vast resources of later times; no improvement in canal navigation and not even the discovery and use of steam, which in other instances have set at nought the calculations of the wisest and most profound of early politicians, have made any change in the prospects of importance to Montreal, except as they have confirmed and advanced all prognostications of its future greatness. Situated at the head of navigation from the sea, and at the foot of the river and canal navigation, not only of Canada, but of North Western America, Montreal has long been the commercial capital of the Province, and bids fair to be the mart of commerce of a larger portion of the vast north-western country of the American States. It is not merely a city through or by which the commerce of the country passes, but it is the depot and place of exchange of that commerce, and consequently it is, beyond all comparison, the centre of the wealth of Canada; a wealth not derived from any partial or changeable source, but flowing to it alike from the Atlantic, from the distant Western Lakes, and even from waters whose natural outlet is to be found at New Orleans, but which, by means of canals, have been made to communicate with the Canadian lakes, and to bring contributions to the favoured city of Canada. Ships from the ocean and vessels from the interior lie together in the port, and men from all quarters meet there in the ordinary course of business. Montreal has no concern in the sectional jealousies of the different positions in the western country; but it is impossible to imagine an improvement in the condition of that country by which that city is not benefited; while, on the other hand, the Upper Canadians, having little to

The First Compromise: Kingston

79

do with the affairs of the other ports of Lower Canada, have a deep interest in Montreal, as their own seaport and their own market. Montreal is, therefore, essentially a city of both the late Provinces, one in which each claims an interest, and is, moreover, a city familiar to Upper Canadians as it is to the inhabitants of the section of which it forms a part; it is the place of all others in which to study the statistics and politics of the whole of Canada, in which there is the least chance of partial legislation, or of the interests of any part of the people of the Province being overlooked or disregarded. There can be no stronger proof of the correctness of these Opinions, than the claim setup by the inhabitants of the western country, long before the Union, to the city of Montreal, as a place built up with the result of their industry, and sustained by their commerce, but of the resources arising from the wealth of which they were deprived, in consequence of that city forming part of a different Province. That the Lower Canadians resented and resisted a proposition for the dismemberment of their country, and the loss of their chief city, is undoubted; and surely this contest for a place in which both claimed a deep and obvious interest, shared by no other locality, ought to be conclusive evidence in favour of the disputed position, when the inquiry is made, where shall be the United Capital of these contending Provinces? That the capital of the United Provinces ought to be placed in the position which would enable Upper Canadians most effectually to look after the concerns of their own seaborne and outward trade, and in the place in which Lower Canadians can most effectually investigate and control the internal management of communications, of which they share the expense, and in the advantages of which they expect to share, appears to the Committee of Council almost an indisputable proposition. That Montreal possesses these advantages is not to be disputed; and that there are facilities afforded to a Government Resident in Montreal of closely and constantly ascertaining what is for the public advantage of the whole community, and what is the true bent of public opinion, superior to any offered by rival cities claiming the choice of the Government, the Committee think is equally apparent. All the advantages of common and universal interest in one locality are, in the opinion of the Committee, found in Montreal in a superior degree to those existing in most capital cities and therefore they feel bound, without giving much weight to local claims, or to desires naturally entertained of political preponderance in either section of the Province, to tender to your

80

Choosing Canada's Capital

Excellency their respectful advice to recommend to the Queen the choice of Montreal as Her Majesty's Canadian capital. The Committee further beg leave to suggest that although it is for Her Majesty to declare her gracious pleasure upon this subject, yet in whatever place the seat-of-government shall be fixed, heavy expenses will attend its establishment, which have come through the vote of the Legislature, and they have no doubt but that it would be gratifying to Her Majesty, as it would to your Excellency and Council, to see the necessary expenditure cheerfully and cordially undertaken and borne by the Provincial Parliament. And the Committee need not say how much it would mortify them to see any serious difference of opinion in the Legislature on such a point. The proceedings in the two last sessions of Parliament would, the Committee apprehend, indicate such a difficulty, to an extent which would make an application to Parliament almost hopeless were Kingston to be continued, or any of the places which put forward their own claims, chosen, and they are of opinion that although the citizens of Montreal appear to take little interest in the question, as they might be personally affected by its decision, and although, in fact, that city is so full of other resources as to account for the indifference of its inhabitants to the acquisition of the character of a political capital, yet the advantages to the public generally appear so plain, and the general objects in view in the choice so defensible, that they have the strongest hope of a concurrence in the selection by the Legislature, and of the avoidance of the difficulties which any other would probably occasion. In favour of whichsoever place Her Majesty may be pleased to decide, the Committee of Council would respectfully suggest that the interests of individuals are suffering, and will continue to suffer, by any delay in the final decision. The popular mind is also kept more or less unsettled and agitated on the question, so as to affect other politics injuriously. When once the provincial capital is definitively chosen, bad feeling on the subject will cease, and common favourable interests will be awakened. The more quickly the intention of Her Majesty shall be carried into execution, the sooner will its beneficial objects be understood and admitted. And should your Excellency be pleased to agree in the recommendation of the Committee, and should Her Majesty be advised to concur in the measure of fixing the capital at Montreal, the Committee think that facilities for a very early removal of the Government thither can be found in that city, and the accommodation offered by its

The First Compromise: Kingston

81

extent and position, as well as by the possession of public property there, available for the use of the Government. The urgent necessity for an immediate decision, and for early action thereupon, is further shown by the approaching want of funds to pay the rents of the public buildings and Government House occupied in Kingston. As application to Parliament for those funds would bring on the question respecting the seat-of-government in its most embarrassing shape. The buildings occupied for public offices and for public offices and for Parliament in Kingston, are, moreover, totally unfit for the purpose to which they are temporarily turned. The members of the Legislature have been put to the greatest inconvenience for the want of a tolerable building in which to hold their sessions, and the facilities for the erection of buildings in Montreal, and the superior cheapness of their construction at that place, give it advantages in an economical point of vie w, which would more than counterbalance the value of any public edifices that exist either in Quebec or Toronto. 30.

Protest dated March 20,1843, by Mr. Harrison, to the Executive Council's Committee Report of March 16,1843.

Mr. Harrison, as a Member of the Executive Council of Canada, present on the 16th instant, in a Committee of Council, when a minute was agreed upon, by which the Committee advise the transfer of the Seat-ofgovemment of Canada from Kingston to Montreal, feels it to be his duty to communicate to His Excellency, the Governor General, that he has not concurred in the Minute of Council above referred to. Anxious to avoid every possible cause of embarrassment, and feeling satisfied that all the political arguments upon every view that can be taken of the subject have been fully exhausted, Mr. Harrison refrains from entering into any statement of the process of reasoning by which he has been led to the conclusion at which he has arrived, and therefore contents himself with making this communication to His Excellency. 31.

Montreal Gazette, May 22,1843.

[The Governor-General's] reply to [an] Address from the Municipal Council of the Prince Edward District, stated that 'the question as to the permanent seat-of-government has always been, and still remains unsettled,' the matter is revived as briskly as ever. When will this vexed

82

Choosing Canada's Capital

question be settled? The Home Government, if they wish a grant for the public buildings, will never find a more pliant House of Assembly to vote it, for the thirty-eight office holders, and as many more office expectants, would vote, if need be, for the seat-of-governmenttobe atPenetanguishine. 32.

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, August 17,1843 (RA).

...Lord Stanley is humbly of opinion, after a very careful consideration of the case, that there is no ground for regretting, or departing from, the Instructions which he has already sent out under Your Majesty's sanction; and with regard to the solution of the Seat-of-govemment which Sir Charles Metcalfe fears may lead to a general desire for a dissolution of the Legislative Union, the course adopted appears...the one obviously required by a due regard to Your Majesty's name and station. That instruction, in substance, left to the Members of the Canadian Government the duty, and the responsibility of recommending to Your Majesty the solution of the seat-of-govemment and of obtaining the assent of the Legislature to the measure necessary for giving effect to Your Majesty's Orders. In any case, it would appear, that the solution will give great offence, and cause great exasperation, in one of the two portions of the Province; and if Montreal be selected, as Sir Charles Metcalfe upon the whole recommends, it will be in violation of an 'assurance alleged to amount to a promise,' made in Your Majesty's name, and on which, in great measure, the assent of the Upper Province to the Union was originally founded. While Lord Stanley fully admits that such an engagement cannot be binding against the expressed wish of the majority of the Colonial Legislature, he continues of opinion, that it should be strictly observed in the absence of such an expression; and he cannot regret that by refusing to permit a Message to be sent down in Your Majesty's name, or any practical step to be taken on Your Majesty's behalf, he has precluded the possibility of a charge of bad faith being brought against Your Majesty's Government, and has left the responsibility of proposing the change, where he conceives it ought properly to rest, with the local advisers of the Governor General. Lord Stanley trusts that Sir Charles Metcalfe will have seen the extreme inconvenience of making such a question the subject of a direct appeal to the people by the dissolution and General Election.

The First Compromise: Kingston 33.

83

Montreal Gazette, August 28,1843.

Having made careful enquiry in well informed quarters, we believe the following may be taken as the exact state at present of the question as to the seat-of-govemment. Five towns have been named as eligible — Quebec, Montreal, Bytown, Kingston and Toronto. The last three all urge their claims very strongly, but the Colonial Office positively declines to sanction the removal of the seat-of-govemment to either Toronto or Quebec, both being too far from the centre of the Province. With respect to the other three, it is understood that the wishes of the majority of the Legislature will be the guide of the Executive. The party at present in the majority have always complained very bitterly of the holding the sittings of the Legislature so far West as Kingston. We are not aware that they have expressed any predilections in favour of Bytown, and we apprehend that there can be little doubt that this Parliament will be the last that will ever assemble at Kingston, and that the removal to Montreal will be effected at as early a period as possible. It is much to be regretted, we think, that the Act of Union did not specifically fix the seat-ofgovernment, and equally so, that the Governor General is not instructed to exercise the Royal prerogative on his own responsibility, and prevent the reopening of a vexatious and irritating question. 34.

Kingston Herald, September 12,1843.

We have hitherto refrained from noticing the rumours set afloat lately respecting the Seat-of-government, but shall now make a few remarks there on.... It was said in the Montreal papers that when His Excellency the Governor General was in that city, he intimated that the Seat-of-government question would be left to the disposal of the Legislature, or the Assembly, and that the decision would probably be between Montreal and Kingston. Thereupon the Montrealers [declare it] as being settled in their favour and tell us that the Legislature will meet no more in Kingston; and the Toronto people are also in ecstasies, thinking that if Kingston lose the Seat-of-govemment, they will keep the Courts of Law at Toronto, and may obtain something more beside, as a deputy land office &c. We shall say nothing on the probability of all this, but come to the point at once, by declaring, that to remove the Seat-of-government from

84 Choosing Canada's Capital Kingston would be a breach of faith on the part of the Government with the people of Kingston and to remove it from Kingston to Montreal would be a breach of faith with the people of Upper Canada.... The people of Kingston did not seek to have the Capital of the Province fixed here. It was done by the Governor alone, without consulting them; and having been done, they naturally concluded that it was intended to remain here for, if otherwise, the Governor should have said so. But there was not the least hint given of this being still an 'unsettled' question; nor was it so considered by the Governor then, as is seen by Lord Sydenham's private correspondence. ...if we move the Seat-of-govemment to the east, we shall move against the current of population, and away from where its growing numbers will mostly congregate, requiring supervision and control. In fact, to move the Seat-of-government to Montreal will, in a few years, render a dissolution of the Union necessary. And then the amalgamation of the two sections of the Province will be much more effectively carried on if the Capital of the United Province remains here, because the members from the east on coming to the west have to fall in with the language, manners, and customs of the west; but if they remain in the east, they will retain their own. 35.

(Montreal) Le Canadien, September 30,1843.

We foresee that the discussions on the question of the Seat-ofgovernment will be of the most animated character. The result of the deliberations of the Assembly on this question will be the touchstone for the recognition of the true friends of 'equal justice' in Upper Canada. Lower Canada cannot be on a footing of equality with Upper Canada so long as the Seat-of-government shall be in the UpperProvince, which does not contain a single town in which the two populations are to be found in any considerable proportions, as in our two great towns of Quebec and Montreal.... [I]n one word, every one will find himself at home, while, so long as the gentlemen from Lower Canada who are called by the business of the Government or the Legislature to Kingston, are detained there, they feel themselves as it were exiles in a foreign land.

The First Compromise: Kingston 36.

85

Montreal Gazette, September 30,1843.

The selection of the future Seat-of-government of the United Canadas, is destined to create much agitation and contention, both within the walls of Parliament and without, until the matter has been finally decided.... Many of the most influential inhabitants of Montreal, indeed, entertain strong doubts if the establishment of the Seat-of-government in our great commercial city would not prove prejudicial rather than advantageous to its real interests and prosperity. The luxury, the glitter, the expensive habits which always, more or less, prevail in capitals, are calculated to interfere, injuriously, with the industry, order, and sobriety which are so necessary in a commercial community; and for our own part, we feel persuaded that neither our morals nor our manners will be benefited by the establishment among us of the Vice-regal Court, and its often showy, idle, and luxurious train of officials and other satellites. Man is naturally an imitative animal; and we would shortly see our sober citizens, their dames and children, vying with Honourables, Colonels, and office holders in luxury, fashion, and expense. This was, in former days, the case in Quebec; and clearly have the merchants and other inhabitants of that city paid for their folly in that respect. But, still, this must be decided on broader grounds than these; and the main point is, where does the general welfare demand that the Seat-of-government should be placed, so as to secure the greatest good of the greatest number.... If it come to Montreal, it shall be welcome; if it do not, we will bear the blow with philosophical coolness. 37.

Legislative Assembly, October 3,1843.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, praying that His Excellency will be pleased to cause to be laid before this House, copies of all communications between the Executive Government of this Colony, and Her Majesty's Government, relative to the [seat-of-govemment] subject, as His Excellency may feel himself at liberty to communicate to this House. Ordered, That the said Address be presented to His Excellency, the Governor General, by such Members of this House as are of the Honourable the Executive Council of this Province.

86

Choosing Canada's Capital

38.

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Legislative Assembly, October 6,1843.

The Governor General informs the House of Assembly, in reply to their Address on the subject of the Seat-of-government, that he does not consider himself at liberty to lay before the House copies of the communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor of this Colony, relative to that subject; but that the substance of the instructions issued to him is to the effect, that Her Majesty's Government decline coming to a determination in favour of any place as the future Seat-of-government, without the advice of the Provincial Legislature; and that Her Majesty' s Ministers will be prepared to submit favourably to Her Majesty such Addresses on this subject as may be presented by either, or both, of the Legislative House, in recommendation of either Kingston or Montreal', provided, that in any Address for this purpose from the House of Assembly, the House shall pledge itself to provide the necessary supply for the expenditure which may be expected to attend the permanent location of the Seat-of-government at the place that they may recommend; it being understood that the selection is now necessarily limited to one of those places; the former Capitals Quebec and Toronto, being alike too remote from the centre of the Province, and the plan of alternate Sessions at one or the other of these last mentioned, or any other places being deemed objectionable and impracticable, on account of its manifest and extreme inconvenience; as connected with this subject, the Governor General transmits a copy of a Report from the Committee of the Executive Council, and a copy of a Protest from one of its Members on the subject thereof, which were submitted for the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers. 39.

Cornwall Observer, October 12,1843.

The business of the country — the business which more peculiarly affects the community, is deferred, until such subjects as the seat-ofgovernment question be first settled. 40.

Kingston Herald, October 17,1843.

It will be observed that in the Report of the Executive Council the subject is discussed as if nothing had been done on it—as if no selection of a Seat-of-government for United Canada had been made, but the

The First Compromise: Kingston

87

question was now brought up for the first time. Had this been the case, we should have said only little about it, but might have acquiesced, without remark, in whatever the Legislature decided. But action has been taken on this question previously, and the Executive, having the sole right and authority to decide it, has decided it, and selected Kingston as the Seat-ofgovernment; and so far from giving any intimation of the selection being only temporary, gave the opposite, by making extensive purchases of land for government buildings, to the amount of about £70,000, thus declaring in the most expression manner, that the selection was ofapermanent Seatof-government. On the faith of this selection, confirmed by this vast expenditure on the part of the Government, the people of Kingston have made extraordinary exertions to meet the wants of the Town, and have expanded, according to the Mayor's calculations, £300,000 in the erection of buildings, etc. — We contend then, that their expenditure on this account, warranted as it was by the actions and expenditure of the Government, has given them a claim to retain the Seat-of-govemment, which cannot be set aside without injustice. If it be said that they were hasty in the matter, and — should have waited until the question was placed beyond a cavil or dispute, it may be replied, that they concluded, and had right to conclude, that the question was settled beyond dispute, and if they had — not done what they did to provide accommodations in the town, it would have been argued that they did not deserve to keep the Seat-of-government, because they would not do any thing to be worthy of it. Their exertions to supply all that was wanted for the Seat-of-government prove that they are worthy of keeping it among them. 41.

Legislative Assembly, November 3,1843.

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this House, that it is expedient that the Seat-of-govemment for this Province, should be at the City of Montreal (accepted: yeas 51, nays 27; Figure 16). 42.

Robert Baldwin, leading Canada West Reformer, in Legislative Assembly, November 3,1843.

...the place for the Seat-of-government never has been settled since the Union.... [The object of government] was to legislate for the benefit of the whole people, without regard to class or sectional division. [A] government ought to have a deep sympathy with the mass of the people, and ought...to consult their wants, their wishes, and their

88

Choosing Canada's Capital

desires... and as one of the means of producing that sympathy, the Government should be placed, as much as possible within the reach of all.... [There are] persons of both races in almost equal proportion in [Montreal], therefore, no such estrangement could exist as [in a place] the population of which is composed exclusively of persons of the same origin and language. Montreal is the place where it should be placed. It is emphatically the city of Canada. 43.

Mr. Boulton, member for Niagara, C.W., in Legislative Assembly, November 3,1843.

[To Robert Baldwin's suggestion that off-centred European capitals supported the case for Montreal, Boulton responded:] It was not to the old European States but to the new American States, situated in most respects like ourselves, that we should look for examples of the description required, for in these States only has the voice of the people been expressed and acted upon in fixing the seat-of-govemment.... [The] French members...spoke of going to Montreal for the purpose of obtaining a great public opinion, he must express his conviction that it was a species of opinion not at all desired by the people of Upper Canada.

Figure 16. Expedient to move to Montreal; November 3,1843 (see Selection41).

The First Compromise: Kingston 44.

89

Mr. Hincks, member for Oxford, C.W., in Legislative Assembly, November 3,1843.

...we are incapable of forming a correct judgement on a point of local interests, (Hear, hear) — that we are so much under the influence of local and sectional feeling that our decision must be unsatisfactory to the country, — and further we declare that the people of Canada will cheerfully acquiesce in the decision of the Imperial Government, but not in that of their own Legislature. 45.

Dr. Tache, member for L'Islet, C.E., in the Legislative Assembly, November 3,1843

[Brought forth a great laugh from the House when he said that Montreal had more] real English, more out and out 'John Bulls' than either Kingston or Toronto. 46.

Mr. Derbishire, member for Bytown, in Legislative Assembly, November 4,1843.

[Bytown] was in the very heart of the Country. It stood upon a commanding and impregnable height, bidding defiance, as well from its interior position as well as from its local military advantages to all idea of foreign aggression. And it was seated, moreover, upon the broad navigable waters of the Ottawa, a stream wholly Canadian from its source to its mouth, washing no foreign soil and owing no divided allegiance. 47.

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), November 4,1843.

[Regarding the actions] of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, on the question of the permanent location of the Seat-of-government.... The largest Majority, i.e., 29 to 50, was on an Amendment moved to refer the question to be decided by Her Majesty' s Government. After Divisions on several Amendments, one in favour of Kingston, one for Upper Canada, and one for an appeal to the sense of the people, the motion in favour of Montreal was carried, by 51 to 27. A second Resolution pledging the House to provide the requisite expense of the removal, was carried by 55 to 22. 48.

R.E. Caron (Speaker of the Legislative Council) to Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General), November 8,1843.

May it please Your Excellency.

90

Choosing Canada's Capital

We, Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada, in Provincial Parliament assembled, beg leave to approach Your Excellency with our respectful request, that you will be pleased to transmit our Joint Address on the subject of the future Seat of Her Majesty's Provincial Government for this Province, in such way as Your Excellency may deem fit, in order that the same may be laid at the foot of the Throne. 49.

Joint Address of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly to Queen Victoria, November 8,1843.

Most Gracious Sovereign: We, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Canada, in Provincial Parliament assembled most humbly beg leave to approach Your Majesty with renewed expressions of a devoted attachment to Your Majesty's Royal Person and Government. During the present Session of Your Majesty's Provincial Parliament, Your Majesty's Governor General of this Province has, by Message communicated to us, that Your Majesty's Imperial Government decline coming to a decision in favour of any place as the future Seat-ofgovernment for this Province, without the advice of the Provincial Legislature; and that Your Majesty's Ministers will be prepared to submit favourably to Your Majesty such Addresses on this subject, as may be presented by either or both of the Legislative Houses, in recommendation should be accompanied by a Parliamentary pledge to provide the necessary supply. We assure Your Majesty, that we most deeply feel this additional proof of Your Majesty's Gracious desire to consult the wishes of your Canadian people. And we most respectfully beg leave to submit to Your Majesty, that we have in compliance with the gracious wish thus expressed, taken this most important subject into our most careful and deliberate consideration—and that in our opinion it is expedient that the Seat of Your Majesty's Provincial Government, forthis Province, should be at the City of Montreal. We further beg leave most respectfully to assure Your Majesty that upon Your Majesty, in the Gracious exercise of Your Royal Prerogative, giving directions for the location of it at that place, we pledge

The First Compromise: Kingston

91

ourselves to provide the necessary supply for the expenditure which may be expected to attend upon the establishment of the Seat-of-government at that City. 50.

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), November 9,1843.

I have already reported the Resolutions of the Legislative Assembly, in favour of the location of the Seat-of-government at Montreal. 2. The Assembly subsequently sent a Message to the Legislative Council, inviting them to concur in an Address to Her Majesty to the same effect. 3. It was determined by a majority of the Legislative Council to take this Message into consideration. The Votes being 18 to 13, the minority protested against that Resolution as a violation of Parliamentary usage, the question having been disposed of by a previous Address, and withdrew from the House, with the avowed intention of seceding at least during the agitation of the Seat-of-government question. 4. The Speaker was among the seceders, and as he persevered in his determination, I was under the necessity of appointing a new Speaker.... 5. The Legislative Council having resumed its proceedings, after the nomination of a Speaker, concurred with the Legislative Assembly in the proposed measure, and I am to receive both Houses tomorrow with their Joint Address. 6. ...I regret the conduct of the minority in deserting their posts. That of the Speaker especially was calculated to produce considerable embarrassment. They could not reasonably have expected that the real majority of their body would allow the stratagem to succeed by which the minority had obtained a momentary superiority. I hope that the seceders will return to the exercise of their functions when they see that the question so warmly disputed has been settled. Several, however, have quitted Kingston, and returned to their homes at a distance. If they persist in abandoning the field to their adversaries, they will have themselves to blame for the consequences of such neglect of their duty to their County. 51.

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), November 10,1843.

92

Choosing Canada's Capital

I have the honour to submit a Joint Address from the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Canada to Her Majesty, recommending that the Seat-of-government of the Province be established at Montreal, and engaging to supply the sums required for the necessary expenditure, if Her Majesty should be pleased to order that arrangement to be carried into effect. 52.

(Kingston) Chronicle a

Gazette, November 11,1843.

.. .now to remove the seat-of-government would be an act of gross injustice to the inhabitants [of Kingston], who had been induced to make extra-ordinary exertions, at an immense outlay of capital, for their accommodations and to many of whom a removal would prove utter ruin. 53.

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), November 11,1843.

I leam from public report that a meeting held at this place [Kingston] has been resolved to send Delegates to England with a view to endeavour to prevent the removal of the Seat-of-government from Kingston to Montreal. 54.

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, November 17, 1843 (RA).

Lord Stanley, with his humble duty, submits to Your Majesty copies of several Dispatches arrived by the last mail from Sir Charles Metcalfe on the subject of proceedings in Canada in reference to the Seatof-government. Your Majesty will not fail to perceive that the Inhabitants of Upper Canada lay great stress upon the engagement entered with previously to the Union that the Seat-of-govemment should be within the limits of that Province; and notwithstanding the excitement which has been caused by the reference of the question to the Legislature, Lord Stanley sees in these documents reason to rejoice that Your Majesty was not advised to interpose Your Royal Prerogative for the settlement of this question in a sense which it is evident that a large body of the people of Canada would have considered to involve a breach of faith. 55.

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, December [2?], 1843 (RA).

Lord Stanley, with his humble duty, submits to YourMajesty.. .the Draft of a Despatch which, subject to Your Majesty's pleasure, Lord

The First Compromise; Kingston

93

Stanley proposed to send out by the Mail of Monday the 4th Inst. It would seem desirable that the final decision of this question should not be longer delayed, and as Your Majesty had already signified Your intention of being guided by the opinion of the local Legislature, and that opinion has been unquestionably declared, no object would be gained by awaiting the arrival of the Delegates whom Sir Charles Metcalfe announces to be about to proceed to this Country to demonstrate against the decision. 56.

Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), December 3, 1843 (RA).

The Queen approves of L[ord] Stanley's proposed Draft to Sir Ch[arles] Mfetcalfe]. This question can in no way be settled without giving offence to one part of the Country; the Queen however hopes that the fixing upon Montreal as the Seat of Govt. will hereafter be considered as fair by impartial minds. Sir Ch[arles] continues to show great discretion & firmness in his most arduous & unsatisfactory situation & deserves much praise & encouragement. 57.

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General), December 2,1843.

I have laid before the Queen, the joint Address of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Canada...in which the Houses of the Provincial Parliament submit to the Queen their opinion, that it is expedient that the Seat of Her Majesty's Provincial Government for Canada should be at the City of Montreal, and assure Her Majesty that upon Her Majesty, in the gracious exercise of Her Royal Prerogative, giving directions for the location of it at that place, the Houses pledge themselves to provide the necessary supply for the expenditure which may be expected to attend the Establishment of the Seat-of-government at that City. The Queen having taken this Address into Her consideration, and adverting to the terms of the Act of the Imperial Parliament for reuniting the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and for the Government of Canada, has been pleased to command me to instruct you, to acquaint the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Canada, that, in compliance with their expressed wish and opinion, it is Her Majesty's pleasure that the City of Montreal be henceforth the place of the habitual residence of yourself and your successors in the Government of Canada;

94

Choosing Canada's Capital

and thatitis Her Majesty's further pleasure, that the future Sessions of the Legislative Council and Assembly of the Province, beholden at Montreal, subject of course to the strict observance of the provisions of the Statute already mentioned, respecting the selection of the proper place for that purpose. The Queen is further pleased to direct you to acquaint the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, that Her Majesty accepts their offer of providing the necessary supplies for the expenditure which may be attendant on this measure, and will give the necessary orders for ensuring the effective and economical application of any such funds, in executing the service for which they may be so appropriated. 58.

[Dunbar Ross], Seat-of-Government (Canada) (Quebec: November 20,1843).

It will be necessary to combat this new feature of the case, which would seem to [have] excluded the Gibraltar of the American continent, from any consideration whatever in the choice of the future Capital of the Canadas.... Quebec outstrips the boasted advantages of its pygmy rivals.... Quebec is decidedly the most central point for the Seat of the Provincial Government, upon the only true and rational grounds by which centrality can be tested.... It is in vain to defend the propriety of choosing Montreal as the Seat-of-govemment, by reason of its greater territorial centrality...it is but twelve hours stream distant from [Quebec]. Centrality! — what particular evil or inconvenience has resulted to the many great Capitals of representative — Europe, which are situate on the confines of their respective States and Kingdoms, from the want of centrality? Has there ever been a hue and cry raised in those countries upon such a ground? Who ever heard of such a thing, except amidst a few of the mushroom capitals, of the mushroom states, of the neighbouring Union. 59.

Kingston News, January 4,1844.

It would certainly have been much better that the Seat-of-government had never been fixed here, if it is now to be removed, as a large amount of capital which would have been, in all probability, applied to more useful purposes, had been applied to that of erecting buildings which for some time may be tenantiess.

The First Compromise: Kingston 60.

95

Kingston Herald, January 9,1844.

The Seat-of-govemment question is still the engrossing topic of conversation in Kingston, and amidst the universal expression of the injustice done to us by the change is mingled a general opinion that, after all, the town is not ruined, but that a strenuous improvement of the advantages we still possess will overcome this treacherous blow. Treacherous it is most certainly, for the mayor was encouraged by Lord Stanley to proceed with borrowing money for the market buildings. 61.

James Hopkirk to Sir George Arthur, January 17,1844.

...all the Kingston people are in a fever about the removal of the Seat of Govt. to L[ower] C[anada] and I must say their case is a hard one, after the exertions they made and the money they have laid out to accommodate the Public. Two thirds of them will be ruined. 62.

(Toronto) Patriot, cited in Quebec Gazette, May 10,1844.

Toronto has, in our humble judgement at least, quite as much cause of complaint as Kingston. 63.

(Kingston) British Whig, June 21,1844.

The inhabitants did not muster strongly, and of those present a general air of gloom and discontent was on each countenance. Shortly after twelve o'clock a salute of nineteen guns commenced firing, and His Excellency moved towards the steamer, accompanied by his staff, and followed by his guests. During his progress to the Ottawa and Rideau Wharf, no cheer greeted his ear, no single hat was lifted to do him reverence — he passed to his boat amid the most profound and ominous silence. Thus did the Governor General leave Kingston the chosen capital of Canada, 'after mature deliberation', and with him departed the pledged faith of the Imperial Government! 64.

(Montreal) Morning Courier, June 25,1844.

The streets [of Montreal] were thronged to excess, as the Governor passed along, he was greeted with the most hearty cheering we ever

96

Choosing Canada's Capital

heard. We think he must be very popular amongst the ladies, for the windows were full of them, and the enthusiastic manner in which they waved their handkerchiefs, showed pretty plainly the way their little hearts were inclined.... 65.

Quebec Gazette, June 26,1844.

We hope that His Excellency's residence in the new capital, may allay at least, the wretched personal, national origin, and factious feelings, which at various times have brought discredit on Montreal, and so much injured the rest of the Province.

CHAPTER 4 MONTREAL: THE PARIS OF CANADA

INTRODUCTION Montreal may have remained as Canada's capital city until the present day had it not been for cultural and political passions that burst forth in violence in 1849. Because of the burning of the Parliament buildings, the physical abuse of the Governor-General and several politicians by roving mobs, and newspaper tirades against the Governor-General and politicians, there followed the implementation of a perambulating system whereby two cities shared the governmental functions for set periods. A principal ideal to be achieved by the system was better understanding between peoples. In reality, the alternating system was a compromise proposed by groups of supporters of Toronto and Quebec; both groups later sought to have their particular city named as the permanent capital. The causes of the outburst of violence were many. The country was feeling the ever-worsening effects of world depression, with exports dropping, unemployment critical, the Montreal business community facing ruin, and revolutionary thoughts rampant. Lord Elgin, GovernorGeneral since 1847, was deeply concerned over "the generally uneasy and diseased condition of the public mind."1 Dreams of a great, expanded Montreal-based commercial empire were rapidly collapsing.2 In 1846 the British Parliament had repealed the Com Laws and imperial preference soon came to an end. In addition, a damaging wheat midge spread and devastated crops in Canada East. Depression ensued, with Montreal feeling the full effect. Three-quarters of the business community in the city went bankrupt.3 Montreal commercial English Tories, shocked and dismayed at the depression and at the bad treatment they had received from the British, turned their thoughts to annexation by the United States (and, in so doing, became linked with the Republican French in their desire for such). The Tories, who had for so long controlled the Government, were fur-

97

98

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 17. Montreal. Lithograph by A. Kollner (National Archives of Canada).

ther crushed when the Reformers swept the country in the 1848 election. The English minority in Montreal and those in the Eastern Townships, where they were a majority, feared French-Canadian domination. Their sad economic situation and their disgust at the actions of the British government, once added to these fears, accounts for the outburst on April 25,1849. The trigger for releasing the explosive tensions was the Rebellion Losses Bill. The bill was a legacy from the 1837-38 troubles. Compensation for property losses during the Upper Canada rebellion had been granted earlier, but similar payments in Lower Canada had not been. FrenchCanadian members of the Legislative Assembly were determined that redress should be made, and Canada West Reformers generally supported them as part of a cross-sectional political alliance that had been forged by Baldwin and LaFontaine. Resolutions were introduced to the Legislative Assembly on February 13, 1849, and, in the days that followed, the "debates were the most exciting in our Parliamentary annals."4 A British newspaper wrote of the situation in Canada at that time as being

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

99

even more critical and dangerous than we originally supposed.... The [introduction of] the 'Rebellion Losses' Bill...has acted as a match laid to a train of gunpowder; and there is too much reason to fear that the explosion will shatter the existing political and social system of Canada to atoms.5 The issue was of symbolic importance to French-Canadians, who felt that it meant, among other things, the test of equality and of the newlyachieved responsible government. But to the Tories it meant rewarding rebels for treason.6 The debate was extremely heated, but finally the bill was passed.7 The big question then became, would Lord Elgin sign the bill? In accordance with the newly-accepted concept of responsible government, Elgin was determined to "stand apart from any appearance of favouring one side in the country, and to accept any measure which was suggested by his ministers."8 Elgin thus decided to give the bill the required Royal Assent. He went to the House on April 25 for the ceremony for accepting a number of bills. Shortly after 5 p.m., before a packed House, the Governor-General's decision was made public with the reading of the title of the bill. At mention of Royal Assent for the bill a tumult arose in the galleries. After the proceedings Lord Elgin left for his residence amid hostile demonstrations. Before his carriage could get beyond range, however, he was pelted with eggs and other missiles. Word of the granting of Royal Assent quickly spread through the city. With the House still in session, a large crowd of "loyal British" assembled at 8 p.m. in the Champ de Mars and, after hearing inflammatory orations on "French domination" and "British rights," the crowd moved off. Smashing windows all the way, they surged on toward the Parliament building, which they then attacked, forcing the members of the House to flee. The building was burned to the ground (Figure 18). Destroyed in the blaze were the 20,000 volumes of the libraries of both Houses, all the records of the provincial Parliament since 1841, and also all the records from the former Upper Canada and Lower Canada Parliaments. A portrait of the Queen was among the few things saved.9

100

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 18. Destruction of the Parliament Buildings, Montreal; April 25,1849. "Sketched on the spot and drawn by E. Hides," colour lithograph by Matthews (National Archives of Canada).

Reactions varied, from Tory pronouncements of fury at the Government's "irresponsible" actions to Reform declarations that the Tories had, in the words of one writer, "unmasked themselves before the world...as the enemies of social order [and of] constitutional liberty — the abettors of mobs, and the destroyers of property."10 Over the next few weeks there were pro- and anti-Elgin demonstrations all across the Province. Montreal in particular remained an extremely tense place, with several instances of renewed violence. Fear of annexation remained high. Lord Grey in London "was grieved" that Elgin "had been so disgracefully attacked"11 and the Legislative Assembly, too, expressed shock at what had transpired. The Legislative Assembly, meeting temporarily in the immense cold hall of the Bonsecours Market,12 sent an address to Elgin expressing the

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

101

deep sorrow and indignation [over the actions of] a mob of riotous and disorderly inhabitants of this City [who] committed several wanton and disgraceful outrages, as well upon persons as property, [and giving assurance] of the devoted loyalty and attachment of the People of Canada to the Person and Government of our beloved Sovereign, and of their earnest desire to preserve the connection with the Parent State.13 The Legislative Assembly was not unanimous in accepting this address. Angry debate continued in the House, ranging wide. For example, the French-Canadian radical leader, Papineau, spoke against the union, while Boulton of Canada West voiced the provocative thought that "the English portions of Lower Canada should be joined to Upper Canada."14 There were speeches for and against the Rebellion Losses Bill and the consequences of Royal Assent having been given, with particular focus on the decision by the Governor-General. Of more immediate interest, Papineau, at the first hurriedly-arranged session on the day after the riot, suggested that: if a protracted session was determined on, it would be necessary to decide whether it should be held in Montreal exposed to the inconvenient pressure of the crowd, or at Quebec where there was a complete establishment fit for carrying on the public business.15 On the following day, Laterriere (Saguenay,C.E.) urged the removal of the seat-of-government from Montreal to Quebec.16 And several days later Chauveau (Quebec County, C.E.) told the House that he "was prepared to vote for the transfer of Government to any other place than where it is at present [because] he was opposed to the Government remaining longer at Montreal."17 Such expressions as that of Chauveau were not surprising, for Montreal remained in a disturbed state. Troops guarded the makeshift Assembly building, members were bodily roughed-up when on the streets, and the private residences of some members (including LaFontaine's house) were the targets of destructive attack. The Governor-General was

102

Choosing Canada's Capital

himself again insulted when, on April 30, he drove by carriage to Government House, an office building in town. As his small troop-guarded procession proceeded, it was met by an increasingly hostile mob. Stones — including one weighing two pounds, which Elgin kept as a memento — and eggs were thrown at the carriage. The members of the Assembly who went to Government House to meet with the Governor-General were likewise attacked. And, as Lord Elgin left to return to his official residence, he was met by a furious mob. He was physically unharmed but others of his party were not so fortunate. It was to be many months before Elgin would again enter Montreal.18 The expected finally happened: the Legislative Assembly entertained a motion from Sherwood (of Toronto West), which called upon the House to present an address to the Governor-General in which it would be suggested that "...after the present Session, His Excellency will be pleased to convene the Parliament alternately at Toronto and Quebec, during periods not exceeding four years at each."19 When speaking to his motion, Sherwood declared that such an arrangement would be good for supporting the Union and that "nothing could be more fair and equitable."20 The debate that followed was sharp. Perhaps the most telling of criticisms of Montreal was made by Boulton (Norfolk, C.W.) who declared that: it was imprudent to have the seat-of-government in the very vortex of sedition [for Montreal] is the Paris of Canada, where a mob could be at any at time collected at the tinkling of a bell.21 On May 19 a series of votes was cast on the Sherwood motion for alternating the seat-of-government and on amendments to the motion.22 At the outset, members from the Montreal area ridings attempted to postpone a decision on the main motion but they lost (yeas 27, nays 36). Then the House voted for an amendment calling for "some one central City or Town" — which meant Kingston — but this too was defeated (yeas 23, nays 38). John A. Macdonald then moved an amendment directly in favour of Kingston, his own riding, but only nine Canada West members supported him and all but two of these members were from the St. Lawrence counties of eastern Canada West (Figure 19). A vote for Bytown followed but it too was crushed (Figure 20). Finally, brushing

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

103

aside further diversionary attempts, the main question was put and it passed (yeas 34, nays 29; Figure 21). An address was then accepted and sent to the Governor-General. The latter thought caution was appropriate, a sentiment shared by members of the Legislative Council, for, as one Montreal writer stated, a move from Montreal would prove "injurious to the best interests of the whole Province."23 Communications between the Colonial Secretary and the Governor-General reveal a concern for the union and for where the capital functions should be located. Their deliberations, and those between the Governor-General and his ministers, were private. In due course, the Executive Council agreed with Lord Elgin that the functions should be relocated. But to which place? Speculation was considerable. For instance, the Quebec Mercury wondered about "the great many reports in circulation to the effect that the Seat-of-government is to be removed from Montreal directly; — some say to Toronto,"24 while the Montreal Courier simply stated that "the Seat-of-government is to go to Toronto."25 In contrast, the Quebec Chronicle was more cautious, stating that "it would appear that the seat-of-govemment is really to be removed from Montreal; but whether to Quebec or Toronto is not yet decided upon."26 The Kingston Chronicle and Gazette noted that "the general impression appears to be that Toronto is the place decided upon."27 The Toronto Globe, while happily acknowledging the excitement caused by such reports, cautiously noted that: we believe that the question of where the Seatof-government shall be located in future is not yet fully decided [but then added that] we have not the slightest doubt that ere winter sets in the Government will have been removed to this city. No other course is open to the Government.28 Anticipation amongst Upper Canadians increased when, on September 5, the Governor-General and his family left Montreal to go to Niagara Falls — where he was to meet the President of the United States — and, perhaps not so incidentally, to test the feelings of the various towns in relation to the seat-of-govemment question. During this tour, Lord Elgin was also supposed to go to Bytown where some residents hoped to press "its claims to be the future seat-of-government," but a

104

Choosing Canada's Capital

violent riot caused a postponement of the visit.29 Indeed, Elgin did not visit Bytown until 1853. As he travelled from place to place, Lord Elgin was presented with many memorials professing loyalty to the Crown. The Kingston memorial reminded the Governor-General of a petition that the city had recently sent to London about Kingston again becoming capital and then declared Kingstonians' "belief that the best interests of the Province of Canada, will be promoted by the restoration of the Seatof-government to this City...."30 The Governor-General was non-committal in his reply: I shall not fail to bestow my best consideration on the documents to which you draw my attention. The removal of the Seat-of-government is a very grave question, and I have already, when it was brought to me in the most solemn manner, deprecated a hasty decision upon it.31 Meanwhile the Montreal papers continued their bitter debate over Montreal's role as the capital. La Minerve and the Pilot recognized why the seat-of-government probably would be moved but La Minerve thought the report of Toronto becoming capital was simply an "invention" of several journalists "to give themselves an air of importance."32 The Herald, Transcript, and Gazette all angrily held to the belief that the seatof-government would remain in the city. The Gazette later added that "if it is removed, it will only be to suit the personal pique of Lord Elgin against Montreal; and will be brought back as soon as he leaves."33 The Executive Council met privately on October 18 and after considerable discussion agreed to advise the Governor-General that the recommendation of the House of Assembly should be adopted and acted upon, to the effect "that Parliament be in future convened alternately at Toronto and Quebec during periods not exceeding four years at each place."34 Even as the public waited for an official announcement there were reports of increased property values in Toronto35 and it was reported that a house had been rented on Yonge Street for three years, for the accommodation of the Governor-General.36 Then, finally, on the evening of October 22, the announcement was made: Toronto was indeed to be the capital — for the final sessions of the Third Parliament —

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

105

and thereafter Quebec and Toronto were each to enjoy the presence of government functions for four years at a time.37 Montreal was many things, not least of which was the location of a vindictive press. The Herald, Transcript, and especially the Gazette had hurled insults at the Governor-General and the Government for months, fomenting the reaction to the Rebellion Losses Bill and to the continued threat of removal of governmental functions. The newspapers in that city, by their harassment, had in a sense provided the GovernorGeneral and the Ministry with support, and perhaps even a justification, for moving the capital functions. While other factors obviously also were at work, it is difficult to underplay the role of the Tory press in Montreal in helping the decision-makers conclude that the seat-of-government simply had to be moved from that city. The Montreal press was chastened by the final decision. Also of note, on October 11, 1849, an Annexation Manifesto appeared in the Montreal Gazette and considerable stir occurred for several weeks thereafter, but by December Lord Elgin was able to report to London that the annexation (by the United States) movement was "arrested" and "stigmatised as a merely local movement" although he thought that if Montreal had remained as capital — as "the Metropolis" — the idea could have spread.38 Even as Lord Elgin and the Government were settling into the new capital of Toronto, Elgin received a perceptive comment from London —the alternating system had "not an air of permanence" and it would be "very difficult to manage."39 Canadians were soon to discover that Earl Grey's fear was well-founded.

DOCUMENTS

66.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), May 7,1847.

...as respects a Union of the [British North American] Provinces —My impression is that there is little feeling here in favour of the project. The French dislike a measure which has, they feel, a tendency to increase British Influence. The inhabitants of Montreal dread it, because they fancy that it will lead to the removal of the seat of Govt. to Quebec.

106 67.

Choosing Canada's Capital Statement in Journal of the Legislative Assembly, April 25,1849.

The Proceedings of the [House in] Committee were interrupted by continued volleys of stones and other missiles thrown from the streets, through the windows, into the Legislative Assembly Hall, which caused the Committee to rise, and the Members to withdraw into the adjoining passages for safety, from whence Mr. Speaker and the other Members were almost immediately compelled to retire and leave the Building which had been set fire to on the outside. 68. Henry Rose to William Manson, May 7,1849. I never saw anything like the fire; — so awfully grand — the whole scene is indescribable.... 69. (Toronto) Globe, April 28,1849. The Tories of Canada have at length unmasked themselves before the world. The garment of loyalty under which they have concealed their deformity, has been cast off by their own hands, and they stand revealed as the enemies of British Connexion — the enemies of the constitutional liberty — the abettors of mobs, and the destroyers of property. 70. (Kingston) British Whig, May 4,1849 [We are] not among those who feel pleased that a British Mob has herded a French House of Assembly. We deplore the act.... [H]ad Lord Elgin refused the Royal Assent to the Act, it would have satisfied the loyal population of Canada. 71. (British) London Morning Chronicle, reprinted in Montreal Gazette, May 5,1849. We are sorry to find that the letters and newspapers brought by the mail steamer from Canada, represent the state of public feeling in that province to be even more critical and dangerous than we originally supposed. The discontent and disaffection are more deep seated; the chances of reconciliation are fainter, and the sympathy with the United States more openly pronounced. The "Rebellion Losses" Bill, which Lord Elgin has suffered his Ministers to introduce, without any remonstrance on his part, has acted as a match laid to a train of gunpowder; and there is too much reason to fear that the explosion will shatterthe existing political and social system of Canada to atoms. A war of races has been again proclaimed—a war which, during the past ten years, has been slumbering,

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

107

and, by judicious management might have been extinguished altogether, but which must now run its course, and will only end with the complete subjugation of the one or the other nationality. 72. (Kingston) British Whig, May 11,1849. The first fruits of the removal of the seat-of-govemment from Upper to Lower Canada, are only beginning to develop themselves.... On the heads of those who are responsible for placing and retaining it in Montreal, all those evils and consequences, and bloodshed, and probably a civil war — a war of races — must rest. 73. Legislative Assembly, May 19,1849. Moved in amendment (by Montreal supporters) ...postpone the vote...(defeated: 27 to 36). Moved in amendment ...some one central Town or City... (defeated: 23 to 38). Moved in amendment ...Kingston... (defeated: 10 to 51 (Figure 19)

Movedin amendment ...Bytown... (defeated: 13 to 47 (Figure 20). Moved That after the present Session, His Excellency will be pleased to convene the Parliament alternately at Toronto and Quebec, during periods not exceeding four years at each (Yeas 34, Nays 29; Figure 21; and see selection 74). 74. Mr. Sherwood, member for Toronto West, C.W., in Legislative Assembly, May 19,1849, when presenting his motion (selection 73). ...he did not take that step from any party motives, nor was the proposition original, as an address to the Queen had been formerly passed by the Assembly and sent to the Queen to the same effect [in 1841; selection 17]. He thought nothing could be better calculated to carry out the Union than placing the seat-of-government alternately in Upper and Lower Canada, for periods not exceeding four years. He thought nothing could be more fair and equitable....

108

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 19. For Kingston; May 19, 1849 (see selection 73).

Figure 20. For Bytown; May 19,1849 (see selection 73).

F ure 21. For alternating between Quebec and Toronto; May 19, 1849 (see selection 73).

Montreal: The Paris of Canada 75.

109

Excerpts from comments made in debate by several members of the Legislative Assembly, May 19,1849.

SUPPORTERS OF ALTERNATE SYSTEM: (a) it is imprudent to have the seat-of-government in the very vortex of sedition. [Montreal] is the Paris of Canada, where a mob could be at any time collected at the tinkling of a bell. (b) in great commercial cities it is impossible to prevent a mob rising, in a short time without notice, and destroying property: in the United States, great commercial cities were not chosen for the seats of Government.

OPPONENTS OF ALTERNATE SYSTEM: (a) the effect of adopting the scheme—would be to throw both sections of the Province into confusion, and to lead to the dissolution of the Union. (b) the disturbances have been magnified by the personal apprehension of hon. gentlemen...Montreal [is] the best place for the amalgamation of the two races, and the best place to keep the Government to carry out the working of the Union. (c) .. .the late disturbances [were] disreputable and blackguardly, but [I] could not consider them the acts of the whole, nor the majority of the population of Montreal, who ought not to be punished for the acts of a few blackguards...it would be an evidence of weakness to remove the seat-of-government now. [I] would never consent to be driven from [my] Position, by a lawless mob. (d) one member ridiculed the idea of a perambulatory Government as being absurd, and advocated the removal of Government to some central part of the Province, near to the division line of the two sections of the Province, and spoke strongly in favour of removing the Government to Bytown, as being well adapted for the seat-of-govemment. 76.

(Bytown) Packet, May 19,1849.

Bytown received pretty fair attention [in the Legislative Assembly], having received fourteen votes, while Kingston—once the Capital — received but ten. Should the removal take place as now suggested by the House,—which one very much doubts, — we foretell that eight years will not pass ere Bytown will have a majority in its favour, and before

110

Choosing Canada's Capital

when we the inhabitants of the City of Ottawa will bask in the sunshine of Governmental patronage. 77.

Address from Legislative Assembly to Lord Elgin (GovernorGeneral), May 19,1849.

We, Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, in Provincial Parliament assembled, humbly beg leave to approach your Excellency with feelings of respect, and to represent — That the time has arrived when a different and much more satisfactory arrangement may be made as regards the place of convening Parliament than at present exists. That it was the cause of complaints on the part of many of the inhabitants of Upper Canada, that the Parliament was, in 1843, removed altogether from within the limits of their province. That it was suggested at that time, as each province had enjoyed the advantage of having a separate legislature within its limits, from the first establishment of its representative form of government down to the time of the union, that after the union it would be an act of common justice only for the representative of the Sovereign to convene Parliament alternately at Toronto, in Upper Canada, and at Quebec, in Lower Canada; but the Legislature to whom the subject was submitted thought otherwise, and advised Montreal as the place to be selected, which advice was received and acted on. Within a very short period of time, however, we have seen the building in Montreal occupied by the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, rented and fitted up as it was, at a great expense to the country, wilfully burnt before our eyes, and the libraries belonging to the respective houses, and their records and proceedings consumed with it. That such then, being the state of the case, and with the view of removing every obstacle that may have a tendency to hinder, or in any way interfere with the well working of the union, we most respectfully beg leave to recommend to your Excellency to adopt the suggestion referred to, that after the present session, your Excellency will be pleased to convene the Parliament alternately at Toronto and Quebec, during periods not exceeding four years at each place. The first sitting under this arrangement to be held at such of the two places mentioned as your

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

111

Excellency in your discretion may deem most advisable for the general good. That the plan now submitted to your Excellency is not without precedents in other countries, and that it can now more easily than at any antecedent period be carried out, inasmuch as all former records and proceedings in Parliament have been destroyed. That each branch of the legislature will now have to commence anew again, and with a view to alternate sittings as herein recommended, their records and proceedings ought henceforward to made out in duplicate, so that one copy may be deposited in the vaults of the Parliament House at Toronto, and the other within the walls of the Citadel of Quebec, where they will be secure from the ravages of fire, and from the attacks of external and internal foes. That the Parliament buildings at each of the cities of Toronto and Quebec are the property of the province; that they are commodious and comfortable, and can be made ready for the reception of the legislature at comparatively small expense. That under this arrangement the members of the legislature will have a better opportunity of ascertaining and understanding by personal observation, the condition, the wants, and the wishes of the whole people, instead of being confined, as they now necessarily are, in their knowledge of public affairs, to the narrow limits of their respective sections of the province. 78.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Legislative Assembly, May 22, 1849.

...in my opinion so serious a change in [public] policy ought not to be lightly adventured upon, and that above all the pressure of an apparent temporary necessity for that change, must not be allowed to exercise an undue influence upon the adoption of it. 79.

(Montreal) Pilot, May 22,1849

Another of the consequences of Tory outrage develops itself in the vote to which the Legislative Assembly on Friday last [May 19] came, with reference to the Seat-of-government. We cannot wonder at that vote, however we may reject it. 80.

Resolution accepted by Legislative Council, May 25,1849.

That is the opinion of this House that it would be extremely inconvenient and expensive to hold alternate Parliaments at Quebec and

112 Choosing Canada's Capital Toronto inasmuch as such an arrangement would keep the public mind unsettled and uneasy under the constant influence of local and personal feeling; and therefore this House cannot withhold its opinion that any such measures would prove injurious to the best interests of the whole Province. 81.

Comments by two members of the Legislative Council, in debate on the resolution (selection 80), May 25,1849.

(a) ...this was not the time to agitate this question...his belief was that the Government ought not to be bullied into changing the Seat-ofgovernment, as it would make people believe that it had been, were the Seat-of-government to be changed at present. (b) If the proposition of alternating Parliaments was acted upon, the public mind would be kept in a constant play of agitation between parties connected with the cities where the Parliament might be held. 82.

(Toronto) Globe, May 30,1849.

Our own feeling used to be that the seat-of-govemment should be located either at Montreal, as the most westerly city of Lower Canada, or at Kingston, as the most easterly of Upper Canada; when it was resolved to give the preference to Montreal, while we felt Kingston was deeply injured by it, we justified the choice on grounds of high public expediency. In common with others, we felt the advantage of having the government in a large city, where public feeling might naturally have been expected to be more enlarged than in a small community, and we anticipated great benefit from the free social intercourse, which the selection of Montreal promised, between Canadians of British and French origin. Experience has in our opinion shown conclusively that the benefits expected from the selection of Montreal have not arisen; but, on the contrary, that such a bitter hostility exists on the part of the Anglo Saxons (as they love to describe themselves) of Montreal, towards their French-Canadian fellow-subjects, as to forbid the hope that any fruit but violence and bloodshed can grow from continuing the seat-of-government longer where it is now. Adhering to our principles, we are therefore of opinion that the seat-of-govemment should be removed back to Kingston.... [F]ailing this, and we fear the yeas and nays on the several divisions in the house, and the known sentiments of the leading public men of the country forbid the

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

113

hope, we conceive that to call parliament at Quebec and Toronto alternately would be a wise and beneficial measure.... There are two strong arguments in favour of alternate meetings at Quebec and Toronto. The first is that Quebec being very much a French city, and Toronto being entirely British, the visits of persons of one race to the city of the other will enable each to appreciate the other better, and draw closer the bonds of friendship. There is no jealousy of race between Upper and Lower Canadians — it exists solely between the Montreal Anglo-Saxon and the Montreal French-Canadian. There is no city in the Province where such bitter internal dissension exists as in Montreal. The second argument is that the alternate system will enable the feelings of the people of both sections to tell more directly on the administration of public affairs. Out of sight out of mind, is an old and truthful adage. It matters not how honest a man is—how anxious he may be to do right — he will always do your work better if you are standing beside him, than if you are six or eight hundred miles off. By the time an Upper Canada Cabinet minister resides in Montreal a year — aye, by the time an Upper Canada member of Parliament stays there three or four months — he begins to exhibit, unknown to himself, atoms of local influence.... The moral influence of society at or near the seat-of-govemment is very great; a more pernicious influence than that of Montreal could not exist; it is not desirable to have it all Lower Canadian nor all upper Canadian—and the only way to do justice to both divisions is the alternate system.... Should Quebec and Toronto be fixed upon, we think it quite obvious that Toronto should have the first visit. Upper Canada had the seat first, for between two and three years — Lower Canada has now had it between five and six years — and surely it cannot be doubted that the Upper Province should have it next. The Ministry will do justice and in our opinion show sound policy by throwing their weight into the scale in favour of Toronto. 83.

Kingston City Council to Queen Victoria, June 1,1849.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR MAJESTY, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the City Council of the city of Kingston, in that part of the province of Canada

114

Choosing Canada's Capital

known as Upper Canada, having learned that it is in contemplation to remove the seat-of-government of Canada from Montreal, in consequence of the insults to Your Majesty's representative, and the violent disturbances and destruction of property, so much to be deprecated, which have recently occurred there, consider it a duty which they owe to the inhabitants of Upper Canada, as well as to their fellow-citizens, to set forth the claims of this city to be restored as the capital of Canada. We humbly beg to assure Your Majesty, that the union of the Canadas was effected with a distinct expression of opinion on the part of the Legislature of Upper Canada, that the seat of the united Government should be placed within the limits of that province, and their assent was undoubtedly given upon that understanding; accordingly, the seat of the Canadian Government was fixed at Kingston by the late Lord Sydenham after the "most mature deliberation" (as stated in the despatch of the Colonial Secretary, Lord Stanley, dated February, 1842), and where it remained for three years until removed to Montreal. We further beg humbly to inform Your Majesty, that a large and valuable tract of land in this city, now lying vacant, was procured by Lord Sydenham in order to erect thereon the necessary provincial buildings, which tract still remains public property, and is now available for the purpose for which it was purchased. That the inhabitants and Corporation of Kingston, under the assurance that the town was permanently fixed upon as the seat-of-govemment, expended large sums of money in erecting public and private buildings to provide for the increased population, which expenditure, upon the removal to Montreal, occasioned serious and ruinous losses to many citizens, and has ever since caused great embarrassment to the Corporation. This Council humbly express to Your Majesty their opinion, that had the seat-of-government been allowed to remain at Kingston, a far better opportunity would have been afforded for carrying out the main objects of the Union, which are understood to have been gradually to remove sectional interests, to amalgamate the population, and make the united province one people, "British in fact as well as in name": That one branch of the Provincial Legislature having recently expressed an opinion in favour of alternate seats of Government at Quebec and Toronto (a scheme which has since been unanimously condemned by the other branch of Parliament), we humbly crave Your Majesty's attention to a

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

115

message from Sir Charles Metcalfe to the Legislative Assembly of Canada, dated the 6th day of October, 1843, when that nobleman communicated the instruction of Your Majesty' s Government in these words: — "The former capitals, Quebec and Toronto, being alike too remote from the centre of the province, and the plan of alternate sessions at one or the other of these last mentioned, or any other places, being deemed objectionable and impracticable, on account of its manifest and extreme inconvenience." We most humbly beg to state to Your Majesty, that the rapidly increasing population of Canada tends almost entirely to the west, which circumstances will, in a short period, cause the census of Upper Canada to be equal to, if not greater than that of Lower Canada, and that Kingston, from its central situation at the junction of the great chain of lakes with the River St. Lawrence; at the head of the communication with the River Ottawa by the Rideau Canal; its accessibility at all seasons of the year; the great strength of its position and fortifications, with its public buildings, superior to any in the province for Government purposes, recently offered by your petitioners to his Excellency Lord Elgin for such purposes, and immediately available, is peculiarly eligible for the seat of the Canadian Government. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly beg, in view of these various circumstances, most strongly, but most respectfully to urge upon the attention of Your Majesty, that the loyal and peaceable inhabitants represented by your petitioners have strong and undeniable claims for a restoration to Kingston of the seat-of-govemment, and which they humbly solicit may be restored accordingly. And that heaven may bless Your Majesty, long to rule over an united empire, your petitioners will ever humbly pray. 84.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), June 3,1849.

I have sent you the copy of the address of the Assembly recommending that the seat of Govt. should be changed and that it should be fixed every four years alternately at Toronto and Quebec. I confess I think if this Union is to work at all a great deal may be said in favour of the plan. — Nothing however should be done hastily in the matter, — and if we move from this place I am decidedly of opinion that the first move should be towards U[pper] Canada. Meanwhile Sherwood who proposed the plan

116

Choosing Canada's Capital

in Parliament] has been obliged to fly the Town—He received some very significant hint of the fate which awaited him if he remained in Montreal after having slandered the mob who had done so much for him and his party. 85.

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), (private), June 22,1849.

The change of the seat of Govnt is a very important and difficult question — I see many strong reasons for moving it from Montreal but there wd be great difficulty and expense in having it alternately in the Upper and Lower Provinces for periods of 4 years—I see by the votes that it was suggested that Kingston or Bytown shd be chosen and if this cd be managed I am inclined to believe that it wd be an improvement especially if it were part of the arrangement that the favored Town shd provide the necessary buildings. 86.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), August 20,1849.

We are again in some excitement here. LaFontaine's House was attacked by a mob (for the second time) two nights ago.... The most atrocious articles issue from the Tory Press—and there is room to fear that mischief may ensue. The immediate cause of this excitement is the arrest of certain persons who were implicated in the destruction of the Part Building in April last. — All this...affords the occasion for a fresh exhibition of the recklessness of the Montreal mob, and the demoralization of all other classes in the community. Nevertheless I am not altogether without hope that better times may be at hand. — The Montreal rioters cannot now raise themselves to the dignity of revolutionists for it is clear that annexation is dead for the moment. They must be rioters and nothing more. I cannot but think that the tradesmen in the city will begin to feel that even constitutional Govt is more tolerable than the continuance of a system which must lead if persevered in t[o] the removal of the seat of Govt and their own ruin. 87.

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), (private), September 12,1849. (This letter was written at Balmoral Castle, where the Queen and Prince Albert were holidaying.)

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

117

... Your account of the state of feeling in Montreal is far from a pleasant one, but I trust this spirit is local and confined chiefly to that place, if so its existence seems to me to afford a conclusive reason for changing the Seat-of-government, and I have directed a Despatch to be prepared expressing that opinion officially; if it is not a local feeling our chances of keeping Canada would seem to be but small. 88.

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), September 14,1849.

I have had the honour to receive your Lordship's Despatch of the 20th of August, transmitting the copy of a letter addressed to the Provincial Secretary of Canada by the police magistrates of Montreal, reporting the occurrence of disturbances on the occasion of the arrest of certain persons charged with having destroyed the Parliament House in April last. I have received with great regret, the intelligence of these fresh interruptions of the public peace in Montreal, and I cannot withhold the expression of my opinion, that the existence of such a spirit of insubordination in that city would appear to render it a very unfit place for the seat of the Provincial Government, and for the meeting of the Legislature. 89.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), August 27,1849.

I begin to hope that there may be some return to common sense in Montreal. My advisers however who are some what impressionable have been horrified beyond measure by what has occurred here lately and loudly protest that it will be impossible to maintain the seat of Govt here. — We had a long discussion on this point yesterday.—All seem to be agreed that if a removal from this town takes place it must be on the condition prescribed in the address of the Assembly presented to me last Session, (viz) that there shall henceforth be Parts held alternately in the Upper and Lower Provinces. A removal from hence to any other fixed point, would be the certain ruin of the Party making it. — Therefore removal from Montreal implies the adoption of the system which although it has a great deal to recommend it is certainly open to great objections, of alternating Parliaments. But this is not the only difficulty. The French Members of the administration declare that they cannot keep their section of the Party together unless Quebec is the point to which the first move is made. They

118

Choosing Canada's Capital

are willing to go to Toronto for 4 years at the close of the present Part, but they give many reasons, which it were tedious to enumerate, and which appear to have in a great measure satisfied their U. Canada colleagues, for insisting on Quebec as the first point to be made. Now I have great objection to going to Quebec at present because I fear that it will be considered both here and in England as an admission that the Govt is under French-Canadian influence, and that it cannot maintain itself in Upper Canada. I therefore concluded in favour of a few days more being given in order to see whether or not the movement now in progress in Montreal may be so directed as to render it possible to retain the seat of Govt here. 90.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), September 3,1849.

.. .1 regret to say that I discover as yet nothing in it [the comparative quiet of the last few days] to warrant the belief that the seat of Govt can properly remain at Montreal. The existence of a perfect understanding between the more outrageous and respectable fractions of the Tory party in the town is rendered even more manifest by the readiness with which the former through their organs have yielded to the latter when they preached moderation in good earnest. Additional proof is thus furnished of the extent to which the blame of the disgraceful transactions of the past four months falls on all. Even now every effort is made to make it appear that the present tranquillity is rather a triumph over the Govt than submission to law—All attempts, and several have been made, to induce the Conservatives to unite in an address inviting me to return to the Town have failed — which is the more significant because it is well known & (indeed it is so stated in their own Press) that the removal of the seat of Govt is under consideration, and that I have deprecated the abandonment of Montreal. I do not think that the indisposition to sign this address arises so much from personal hostility to myself as from a determination not to admit that the Party were not justified in resorting to the acts of violence which caused me to avoid the city. You may imagine how dogged is the resolution to refuse to acquiesce in the conditions of constitutional Govt when the acknowledgement that it is improper to pelt the Queen's representative with brickbats cannot be extorted even by the dread of Montreal's ceasing to be the metropolis of Canada. The existence of a Party animated by such sentiments, — powerful in numbers and organization, and in the station of some who more or less openly join it, owning

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

119

a qualified allegiance to the constitution of the Province, — professing to regard the Part and the Govt as nuisances to be tolerated within certain limits only, — raising itself, whenever the fancy seizes it, or the crisis in its judgment demands it, not an imperium in imperio — renders it I fear extremely doubtful whether the functions of Legislative or of Govt can be carried on to advantage in this city. 'Show vigour and put it down,' say some.—You may and mustput down those who resist the law, when overt acts are committed — But the Party is unfortunately a national as well as political one — After each defeat it resumes its attitude of defiance, and whenever it comes into collision with the authorities there is the risk of a frightful race feud being provoked. All these dangers are vastly increased by Montreal's being the seat of Govt. — There are other arguments of no small force in favour of removal — I am assured that a good many of the members have declared that nothing will induce them to come again to Montreal—We shall lose one of our regiments, for you have determined (very properly I think) not to build a new Barrack, and it is believed that so far from voting money for this purpose there is very little probability that the Assembly could be induced to make provision for a building for the Part itself— As to the corporate authorities, they are without funds — and the city council consists of an utterly inefficient Mayor who is attached to Papineau in Politics, and of councillors, for the most part equally inefficient, who may be generally classed as Papineauistes, repeal Irish, and British Ultras — Nothing is to be hoped for from such a body, until the seat of Govt is removed and the citizens feel that they have nothing to rely on but themselves. In addition to the reasons which I have given, there is one argument in favour of leaving Montreal which struck me forcibly even before the recent disturbances occurred. You find in this city I believe the most Anti-British specimens of each class of which our community consists — The Montreal French are the most Yankeefied French in the Province — the British, though furiously anti-Gallican, are, with some exceptions, the least loyal — and the commercial men the most zealous annexationists which Canada furnishes—It must I think do great mischief to the members who come from other parts of the Province to pass some months of each year in this hot bed of prejudice and disaffection —

120

Choosing Canada's Capital

These being among the reasons for removal from this place which, although not new, have been pressed upon me with renewed force lately. I have to add that Mr Baldwin who has just returned from the U. Province & with whom I have had a good deal of conversation on this subject, is entirely in favour of goingto Western Canada. He does not think that the arguments for a first move to Quebec can stand for a moment against the consideration of the moral effect which will be produced both here and in England by a move on the part of the Govt to Kingston or Toronto in the face of the taunt that it is Anti British and subject entirely to French influence. On this point I am altogether of his opinion and I only hope that when La Fontaine returns from Halifax and Hincks from England he may be able to make his views prevail. — It is fair too that I should say that I believe the council are quite ready to go to either section of the Province that I indicate, if I make a point of it. — on a subject however involving such serious consequences — it would he more agreeable to me that difficulties should be solved by discussion than by an arbitrary edict proceeding from myself. 91. (Kingston) British Whig, September 21,1849. MADAME LaFONTAINE'S POODLE Among the numerous arguments which are daily made use of in favour of the Seat-of-govemment's returning to Kingston, one trifling, though not unimportant matter has been lost sight of. It will be recollected by all the constant readers of the British Whig, that the ill health of Madame Lafontaine's poodle was the originating cause of the loss to Kingston of the Seat-of-government. The air of our good old city did not agree with this interesting animal, which panted forthe balmy breezes of Montreal— hence the fatal removal. Now, from some inquiries made, and information received (private of course,) we learn that the sanitary condition of the sweet poodle still remains precarious—that the affection which Madame retains for her canine favourite will not allow her to risk any further derangement of its health, and consequently, that any Removal of the Seat-of-govemment is wholly out of the question. The condition of the poodle will not allow Madame Lafontaine to leave it—Madame Lafontaine will not allow Mons. Lafontaine to quit her—Mons. Lafontaine will not allow the Governor-General to go without him; and therefore it follows that the Seat-of-government remains at Montreal.

Montreal: The Paris of Canada 92.

121

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), October 11,1849.

I expect Hincks [of the Executive Council] today and when he arrives the seat of Govt question is to be taken up. The Lower Canadians threaten all manner of things — If the seat of Govt is removed from Montreal, all public property is to be burned, not to mention the Gov Genl's.... On the other hand if any spot but Quebec is selected for the new site all French Canada is to make common cause with Montreal. 93.

Extract from a Report of a Committee of the Executive Council, October 18,1849.

The Committee of the Executive Council have had under consideration upon your Excellency's reference, the Resolution of the Honourable the Legislative Council, and also the Address of the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of last Session, on the subject of the place at which the future Sessions of the Provincial Parliament should be holden, together with your Excellency's answer to the latter; and the Committee most respectfully beg leave to report, that after the best consideration that they have been able to give the matter, they see no sufficient grounds arising out of anything that has transpired since the prorogation of Parliament, to lead them to a different conclusion upon this question from that arrived at by the popular branch of the Legislature in their Address. The Committee therefore respectfully advise your Excellency that the recommendation of the House of Assembly, that Parliament be in future convened alternately at Toronto and Quebec during periods not exceeding four years at each place, be adopted and acted upon. As it would be manifestly most inconvenient to have the public archives and the departments of the State at a different place from that at which the Parliament is to sit, the Committee conceive that the adoption of the views of the House of Assembly in this particular, leads of necessity to the removal of those archives and departments to the place at which Parliament is to be assembled. They therefore conceive it to be expedient that the place where it may be your Excellency's pleasure to summon Parliament for the next session should be decided upon, and the necessary steps taken for the removal of the public departments thither with as little delay as possible. And they are respectfully of opinion that, under all circumstances it will be most expedient that such removal should in the

722

Choosing Canada's Capital

first instance be to the city of Toronto, for the period of the constitutional duration of the present Parliament, and that the quadrennial periods of alternation be commenced with the removal to Quebec, at the expiration of that time. The Committee would also recommend that, in order to prevent any misapprehension as to the full intention of the Government and Parliament to carry out strictly the principle of an alternate periodical residence in each section of the Province, estimates be prepared and submitted to Parliament at the next session, for making such alterations and additions in and to the public buildings, both at Toronto and Quebec, as may be necessary for the accommodation of the Representative of the Sovereign, the departments of State, and both houses of Parliament in each of those cities. 94.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (confidential), October 19,1849.

...We [the Executive Council, with the Governor-General] have decided on leaving Montreal and summoning the Legislature at Toronto. LaFontaine is much against the plan—but except a sort of vague idea that by means of a great fight we might subdue the faction and restore order in Montreal he seems to me to have nothing to offer to justify remaining there. My own conviction is that our return to Montreal at present would give a great impulse to the annexation movement in U. Canada, and that the Members could not pass a Session there in the present temper of men' s minds without being themselves to a great extent corrupted. At the same time I am quite aware that the removal will do some mischief among the French who are Narrow Minded and bigoted on all these points beyond belief— In order to meet this difficulty as we best may we have determined to act on the suggestion of the Assembly itself and to adopt the principle of alternate Parliaments — The plan of leaving Montreal for a Session with the view of obtaining additional powers did not obtain much support. We all feel that the evil is of a moral and chronic character, that it is intensely aggravated by the presence of the seat of Govt, and that it cannot be eradicated by force. When I say all I mean the English councillors for perhaps some of the French think differently — The truth is the French would like nothing better than to see the power of England employed to break down the party which has so long domineered over them — The

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

123

Military! The Military! is their everlasting cry — It is most extraordinary to me to observe that persons who have such a pious horror of shedding blood that they never will consent to the execution of a criminal who has been convicted by the tribunals of the most atrocious murder are the first to grumble if the troops do not find occasions to fire upon the multitude. The crisis is certainly a very serious one — It may lead not improbably to a break up of parties — If it splits the French it will be a consummation devoutly to be wished. Toronto is the most Tory place in Canada it contains 25,000 people and I am assured that in the Town and neighbourhood there are not less than 25, orange Lodges. I am confident however that the respectable classes are averse to rioting and violence— That they will not stand by as the respectabilities of Montreal of all politics have done while riot and arson have their swing.—And if the worst comes to the worst you have there a homogenous population and you may call out the supporters of Govt and order without risking a war of race. — I think too that the orangemen in U. Canada are generally attached to the connexion. 95. Toronto Mirror, cited in Montreal Gazette, October 20,1849. Our government is, hereafter, to be conducted on the saddle-bag, or itinerant plan; and the sole cause of delay on the proclamation of the change has been the difficulty in getting the necessary apparatus and fittings prepared for the several departments. 96. (Toronto) Globe, October 23,1849. IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT! TORONTO SEAT OF GOVERNMENT!! We have great pleasure in congratulating our fellow citizens that the Seat-of-government will in a few days be in Toronto once more. How much it will add to the value of property, and the business of our rising city, it is impossible to estimate, but it must be considerable.... The Telegraph announces that the Provincial Secretary has issued a general order to the different departments (excepting the Educational department) directing preparations to be made for removal to Toronto, with all possible despatch. 97. (Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, cited in (Toronto) British Colonist, November 2,1849.

124

Choosing Canada's Capital

Toronto is to be honoured with the title of provincial capital for a couple of years, and at the expiration of so very short a period of time, that honour— if honour it be—must be yielded to Quebec for four years! Well, we envy not the Torontonians the advantage which they have gained.... [W]e of Kingston have had a taste of this sort of thing, and we are very far from desiring a repetition. 98.

Montreal Gazette, October 23,1849.

The English people of Montreal will not regret the disappearance of the Government from this city as much as the French Canadians will...the latter will feel it, in the sorest of all points for a Frenchman, his purse... .[T]hatastepmvolvmgiUtimatelymedestinyofthecountry...should depend upon a trumpery of sprig of nobility and his personal pique! It is a fact worth feeding upon by the people of Canada. 99.

Montreal Gazette, October 29,1849.

A weak and cowardly government, that is to say, one that cannot face, but is driven from its post by a mob, is deserving neither of confidence nor respect.... And from these timid and unstatesmanlike motives — in fact from a pique — for there really is no other cause, and originating with himself—the Governor-General of BritishNorth America, absconds from his capital — in every sense the most suitable place in Canada for such.... 100.

(Kingston) British Whig, October 26,1849.

The Montreal papers, as might be expected, are raising a mighty howl at the loss of the Seat-of-government. Nobody in Western Canada cares one jot about their howling so they may as well keep their breath to cool their porridge. It was the wretched selfishness of the Montrealers which caused the removal of the Seat-of-government from Western Canada; from amid an Anglo-Saxon race, to place it within the control of French Oligarchists and their Helots. Had the Government remained at Kingston, or at any place within the limits of the upper province, the Franco-Canadians never would have attained and exercised that arbitrary power which has been the exciting cause of all the late political riots and troubles. A war of races might have existed, as it now does, but it would have been a defensive war on the part of the Eastern Canadians, who would have had their hands full in making laws for themselves, instead of inflicting upon their neighbours the ills of an oppressive statute book. —

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

125

From such evils the province, in future, will be protected, while legislation takes place in an educated land, and among free men. The Radicals may rule over us, and they will, but our rulers will be Anglo-Saxon Radicals, and not aliens to us in blood, language, and religion. 101.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), October 25,1849.

I believe that if we had returned [to Montreal] this complex iniquity would have worked the desired result—and that the Annexation mania would have spread rapidly through U.C. — what can you do with such a set? ...Everything depends on this section [Canada West] of the Province and the removal of the seat of Govt was absolutely necessary to keep it right. — Even the bugbear of French domination is made less frightful by our coming to the most British and Tory Town in N. America. 102.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), October 28,1849.

The Montrealers are very angry about the removal of the seat of Govt but hitherto there have been more symptoms of confusion and stupor among them than of any other emotion—I had a message from a very high Tory a resident in Montreal only this morning who shows that feelings are divided even there — 'Tell Lord Elgin' he said to my correspondent 'that he has saved Canada by this removal' — I have no doubt that I have done so at least for the time — The annexation movement has received no support from the Press out of Montreal — but of course so long as it had the prestige of being the metropolis its press had a great influence in the Province and was regarded beyond it as the exponent of the sentiments of the Community at large. 103.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), November 1,1849.

It is hardly possible to determine how far the return of the Govt to Montreal would have been expedient without taking into consideration the peculiar condition of the Press in that city. 104.

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), (private), November 16,1849.

I presume for the reasons you have the removal of the seat of Govnt was indispensable & I hope it will work well, but this arrangement

126

Choosing Canada's Capital

of alternate Parks in the two Capitals has not an air of permanence & I shd think it wd be very difficult t[o] manage. 105.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), November 15,1849.

.. .it was hopeless to expect that the truth respecting Public opinion in this Province ever could reach England, so long as the Montreal Press had the prestige of being Metropolitan. — Meanwhile it is satisfactory to see that the removal of the seat of Govt has had an excellent effect on the tone of the Montreal Press itself.... 106.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General), to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), November 18,1849.

1. With reference to your Lordship's Despatch, of the 14th September, in which you express the opinion, that the spirit of insubordination existing in the city of Montreal, would appear to render it a very unfit place for the seat of the Provincial Government, and for the meeting of the Legislature, I have the honour to report, that I have resolved on the advice of my Council, and after full and anxious deliberation, to act on the recommendation of the House of Assembly, conveyed in the address of which a copy was transmitted to your Lordship...and with that view to summon the Provincial Parliament for the next session at Toronto. 2. Exception is taken to the system of alternating Parliaments on various grounds, chiefly on that of its alleged inconvenience and expense. It is to be observed, however, on this head, that buildings which with moderate additions and repairs may be fitted for the uses of Parliament and of the departments of State, exist both at Toronto and Quebec, while the St. Lawrence and its canals afford the greatest facilities for the cheap and expeditious conveyance of the records of Government between these two points. Looking at these facts and to the considerations of public policy advanced in the address of the Assembly, I am disposed to believe that the advantages attending this arrangement will be found in practice to outweigh its inconveniences. 107.

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), December 13,1849

I am glad to hear that your removal of the seat of Govnt has answered your expectations & promises to be useful, but this reminds me that you have never yet reported to me that measure officially. — this is

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

127

an omission that may prove inconvenient when Parlt meets [in London] & considering how much we are to be the object of attack I cannot impress upon you too strongly the importance of writing to me safe producible despatches reporting to me all facts of importance on wh. it will not do for me to be without official information. 108.

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), January 1,1850.

I have had the honour to receive your Lordship' s Despatch and its Enclosure of the 18th November, reporting that you had resolved, on the advice of your Council, and after full and anxious deliberation, to act on the recommendation of the House of Assembly on the subject of the place at which the future sessions of the Provincial Parliament should be held, and summon the next Parliament to meet at Toronto. As the Assembly in their Address proposed this arrangement, I have only to express my hope that it may prove successful, and my approbation of your Lordship's determination to act upon the opinion expressed to you by the representatives of the people of Canada. 109.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), December 2,1849.

I see by the English Papers that I am well abused on all hands for the change of the seat of Govt — I have the consolation of knowing that I would have been quite as much abused if I had done anything else — Meanwhile the measure is producing the important and valuable fruit which I expected — Annexation is arrested, and stigmatised as a merely local movement. The movement is a disappointed self seeking fraction— If Montreal had continued to be the Metropolis it would have spread and become, I do not say triumphant, but certainly Provincial. ...As respects Montreal itself the effect of this measure has been just what I expected—Having no Govt to fight on the spot the inhabitants are taking to their business — Even the Press is comparatively mild only indulging once or twice a week in some violent abuse of the Govr. Genl.... P.S.... I intended to have said at an earlier part of this letter that the conduct of the French in reference to the seat of Govt has been excellent. The annexation movement does not appear to have made any head among them.

128

Choosing Canada's Capital

110. Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), January 14,1850.

Before your next letters will have been despatched you will probably have received from me something official both with respect to the annexation movement and to the removal of the seat of Govt — I am most anxious, I can assure you, to give you despatches for Parliament— But while I maintain my constitutional position here, acting as I believe you agree with me in thinking I ought to act, on & through my Ministry, you must feel how difficult it is forme to discuss my own name and person, in documents which are sure to be published, acts of the administration which may at a later period be the subject of controversy in the local Parliament, perhaps the ground work of new ministerial arrangements. I do not think that there is any class of duties more difficult to define even theoretically than those which devolve upon a Governor under our newly adopted system of constitutional Govt towards the colonists on the one hand, and the Imperial Govt and Part on the other — and what it is so difficult to define in theory it is not easier to work out in practice. As respects the seat of Govt question I would respectfully suggest that you should throw the whole responsibility of the change on the local Govt & Part — But if you want a case made out I can do it easily enough.

CHAPTER 5 PERAMBULATION AND FRUSTRATION

INTRODUCTION The scheme of perambulation—or "the system of rotatory Parliaments"1 — was instituted upon the removal of the government from Toronto to Quebec in 1851. The Third and Fourth Sessions of the Third Parliament had met in Toronto (in 1850 and 1851) and thereafter, for terms of four years, the seat-of-government was to be alternately in Quebec (in theory, 1851-1855, 1859-1863, etc.) and Toronto (in theory, 1855-1859, 18631867, etc.). Alternating the capital functions between these two cities was viewed positively by some Canadians, for politicians and civil servants became better acquainted with other regions, places and peoples. However, the system was expensive to operate, it caused great administrative inefficiencies, important public records were damaged or lost during moves, and civil servants and others were frustrated by the many inconveniences caused by the relocations. As a result, legislative debates took place on the merits of the system and on which site was best, votes on many motions and amendments occurred in Parliament, dozens of public petitions were generated and sent to Parliament, and numerous editorials appeared in papers, as did many letters to newspaper editors. In 1855 the two Houses of Parliament came into conflict over how to proceed, a clash that set the stage for a further clash in 1856. In January 1850, the Times of London reported that Toronto was "basking in the sunshine of the increased business and high house rents."2 A question quickly arose: would the capital functions remain in Toronto or would they be removed to Quebec in 1851? Public figures were involved in spreading rumours. For example, John Wetenhall told his Holton, C.W., electorate that "it is not true that the government is pledged to go back to Quebec," which led a reform newspaper to observe that "the Government is pledged to go to Quebec."3 Of the alternating system, William Stewart, of Bytown, said during the 1851 election campaign: 729

130

Choosing Canada's Capital

I hold the enormous wasteful expenditure to be nothing less than a plunder of the public monies of this country [but] it is probable that public rights, and public justice, will be violated for some time longer.4 The 1851 election left the moderate (centre) nature of the Ministry essentially unaltered, but something new was emerging, for the "old political affinities and association were giving place to a new groping for alignment."5 The newly-forming alignments were to be tested in the seat-of-government issue, especially in the 1856-1959 period. In July of 1850 Earl Grey, the Colonial Secretary, knew little about the displeasure in Canada over the alternating seat-of-government system, although he recognized that it had been wise to move governmental functions out of Montreal.6 But the problems were not minor. Indeed, right from the start, Parliament was confronted by motions to "fix the time and place for the meeting of parliament," by motions that stated "it is expedient to discontinue the system of alternate parliaments," and by attempts to reject or amend motions providing for monies to be used in Quebec and Toronto for government buildings. The speeches often were boisterous but seem not, in the early 1850s, to have been bitter. Some humorous alternatives to the perambulating system were suggested. But all too soon the good-natured debates turned sour, as the politicians grew tired of the issue and more adamant about the various claims they had for their favourite city. Following the implementation of the system, members of the Legislative Assembly split into two groups that had nothing to do with other political alignments: the coalition of "central" Canada members (that is, supporters of Montreal, Kingston, or Bytown/Ottawa) who were the "fixed-site men," and the "log-rolling compact" or "alternating men" who were supporters of Toronto and Quebec. Frustrations mounted and a deadlock developed between the two groups. While most of the "alternating men" accepted the wisdom of having a permanent seat-of-government, "on principle" they felt that the alternating system had to continue, and in 1851,1853 (Figure 24), and 1855 (Figure 26) were able to get a parliamentary majority to support their view. On these and other occasions the point was forced either by supporters of the city (Toronto or Quebec) about to receive the capital functions or by the "fixed-site

Perambulation and Frustration

131

Figure 22. Toronto. Lithograph by E. Whitefield (National Archives of Canada).

Figure 23. Quebec. By R.S.M. Bouchette (National Archives of Canada).

732

Choosing Canada's Capital

men" who sought to disrupt the system in favour of one of the three more centrally located cities. The latter men could not muster enough votes to force a change, so the costly and inefficient system continued. Early in 1854 a fire destroyed the recently renovated Parliament buildings in Quebec. The only items saved were 8,725 of the 17,000 volumes in the library and the Queen's portrait. (The portrait was first saved from destruction during the 1849 fire in Montreal and now hangs outside the Senate chamber in the Parliament buildings in Ottawa.) The Government found new quarters in the building of the Sisters of Charity, the Legislative Assembly met in the city's music hall and the Legislative Council in the Court House. A general election was held in 1854 and a Liberal-Conservative coalition was formed, which was in contrast to the several earlier "reform" cabinets. For several years the ministry (which altered in composition several times) usually held a safe majority, even as opposition groups regrouped and formed new links. George Brown (C.W.) and Antcine-Aime" Dorion (C.E.) were the two principal leaders in opposition. John A. Macdonald (C.W.) and George Cartier (C.E.) were also forming links within the ministerial side. These men were all to become entangled in the seat-of-govemment issue. About this same time another person appeared who was to become intimately entwined in the issue, that is, Lord Elgin's replacement as Governor-General, Sir Edmund Head. Before the government relocated from Quebec to Toronto in 1855 there was a vigorous, often bitter debate in Parliament concerning the wisdom of relocation, of moving to other places (including Bytown), or of staying in Quebec. Indeed, the debate became quite vicious and, it was stated, "that the discussion is exciting animosities."7 Several motions and amendments were proposed and debated, but not voted upon. The matter had to be left in limbo during the Christmas-New Year recess. On January 3, 1855, the town of Bytown changed to the City of Ottawa. During the celebrations the mayor, H.J. Friel, said, prophetically: To this common centre all parties must turn ere long; the finger of destiny points hitherward, and I doubt not that metropolitan honours await the City just ushered into existence.8

Perambulation and Frustration

133

Thoughts were not towards Ottawa, however, when the parliament reconvened on February 23,1855. The seat-of-govemment debate, postponed from the previous November 8, had lost none of its urgency or emotion. For 13 hours, spread over two nights, the scene in the House was "probably the richest the present parliament has witnessed [as] old political feuds were merged into a great, disinterested struggle for local pre-eminence."9 Toronto supporters wanted the alternating system to continue and for relocation to Toronto to take place, Ottawa supporters wanted Ottawa chosen, and so on. Some Canada East members expressed fears for the union if the system was changed while others warned that if the capital functions were once again removed to Toronto then Quebec would see them no more. Voting began at midnight and continued for three hours, ending at 3 a.m. on March 24. Various motions and amendments were dealt with before a division occurred which accepted (by a vote of 61 to 54 votes, Figure 26) that it was "inexpedient to interfere with the existing system." An address from the Legislative Assembly confirming that decision was sent to the Governor-General. The behaviour of members supporting different cities was at times puzzling. It led them to combine in various ways, such as when Montreal supporters adroitly identified their interests with those of Ottawa and then managed to get Canada West members identified with the prospects of the Ottawa district to vote for Montreal. And Quebec supporters were angered when their representatives voted for the continuation of the alternating system. The Quebec Mercury concluded that these representatives were naive to think that by supporting the relocation to Toronto they would later be able to bring the government back to Quebec.10 A Toronto paper declared that "personal interest and local prejudice assume the place of principle."11 Late in April the Legislative Council discussed the seat-of-government issue once more. The Council argued that "the system of holding alternate Parliaments at Quebec and Toronto is objectionable and detrimental to the Public Service" and it requested that the GovernorGeneral exercise the Royal Prerogative "to fix permanently upon some convenient place for the annual assembling of Parliament."12 An address to the Governor-General on the issue was accepted by the Council on April 28.13 By this action the Council put itself in conflict with the Assembly. The Legislative Assembly thereafter refused to entertain a motion to concur with the Legislative Council's address, it being ruled

134

Choosing Canada's Capital

that the House had previously decided the question and therefore the subject could not be raised again that session. In late May the Council met in conference with members of the House in order to discuss their conflicting addresses. It was resolved that the Governor-General would receive each of the addresses independently. This conflict, coupled with many earlier votes for particular places by the Legislative Assembly, and also the Assembly's reaffirmation of the alternating system, led many people to conclude that the whole issue had either to be taken out of the hands of the legislature or else made a ministerial question (whereby members would be forced to consider political party affiliations). The Montreal Gazette correctly observed, however, that the question would remain a complex one: ...the final decision rests with the GovernorGeneral orthe Colonial Office, that being apart of the absolute prerogative of the Crown. The exercise of that prerogative, however, may be checked by either House. The Lower may refuse to vote the necessary supplies; the Upper may refuse to sanction them. The question in its present shape is beset with difficulties for the Governor-General.14 The Governor-General concluded that the seat-of-government would have to be moved to Toronto but he also was fully aware that the system probably could not continue. Relocation thus occurred on schedule. As before, worn-out furnishings were sold, everything else was packed, civil servants were advanced two months salary and, in a set order, the government departments moved from Quebec to Toronto. When the Governor-General moved from town to town in Upper Canada, on the way to Toronto, he was most warmly greeted. He told his audiences that he had "no doubt" that the "French members" would be heartily welcomed and received "as brothers" by Upper Canadians.15 His hope that the meeting of Canadians in Toronto would have benefits cannot be doubted, but cultural prejudices all too soon re-emerged in the legislative debates.

Perambulation and Frustration

135

DOCUMENTS 111.

Times of London, January 10,1850.

Toronto is now basking in the sunshine of the increased business and high house rents caused by the influx of Government employees.... Lord Elgin is now residing with his family at Toronto, where he appears to be generally popular, as it is certain he is throughout Upper Canada. 112.

(Kingston) British Whig, May 10,1850.

In the course of a few days the Provincial legislature will have assembled. Some predict a stormy Session; but our opinion is the Session will be a remarkably quiet one. There is nothing political to quarrel about.... The Lower Canadians may probably kick up a dust about the Seatof-government, as doubtless, a pretty good intimation will be given to them that the Upper Canadians will never peaceably consent to Quebec's being made, even for four years only, the metropolis of Canada, being so wholly out of the way. But in all probability, the Ministers may bluff off the matter for the present time. While Lord Elgin remains in the province, he will never consent to dwell again in Montreal; but should he return home, it is not at all unlikely, that under other auspices, Montreal will be made the permanent Seat-of-government. 113.

Montreal Gazette, May 16,1850.

The novelty of a Parliament being again opened in this ancient metropolis [on May 14], after a banishment of ten years, excited the curiosity of all the good people of Toronto, and brought them to the Parliament House in immense crowds at the opening hour. 114.

Governor-General Lord Elgin in speech when open in g Parliament, May 14,1850.

...the occurrences of the past year, and the necessity which had arisen for providing suitable accommodations for Parliament [had led him to summon parliament in Toronto] after full deliberations [and with references to the Address of the House of Assembly of the last session].

136

Choosing Canada's Capital

115.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), May 17,1850.

I opened Part on Tuesday. The day was fine, the crowd within and without the House large, the cortege imposing, and the reception very favourable. Everything passed off as I could have wished, and the Speech seems to have given satisfaction. 116. Montreal Gazette, May 16,1850. Lord Elgin delivers a speech at Toronto, and lo! to commemorate the event, fourteen houses in Toronto are burned to the ground! A sad destiny, as we have lamented, everywhere attends his Excellency, who, though individually insignificant either for good or evil, can never move without bringing down mischief on somebody. Like mother Carey's chickens, his presence is always the harbinger of trouble. Perhaps we owe an apology for this comparison, but we know not whether it be to the chickens or to the man—the one is certainly feathering his ownnest, but we never heard that of the other. 117. Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), July 12,1850. Your removal of the seat of govt seems to have answered marvellously, assisted no doubt a great deal by the return of better times. 118. Mr. LaFontaine, member for Montreal Centre, C.E., in the Legislative Assembly, August 7,1850. In advising the removal of the seat-of-govemment to Upper Canada in the first place, he was actuated to put an end to the warfare under the cry of French domination. He did so in good faith and in confidence in the Upper Canadians. The breaking of this faith would, of course, tend to break up the Union; but he would repeat that he had confidence in the Upper Canadians. 119.

(Toronto) British Colonist, August 13,1850.

In this matter-of-fact age—this age of wonders — an age of big events...who couldhave foreseen.. .that the Seat-of-government of United Canada would, in the short space of nine years, be seen moving to and fro, like a city shaken by an earthquake, having neither stability nor security?

Perambulation and Frustration 120.

137

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), February 4,1851.

...there is an attempt to get up some agitation about the removal of the Seat-of-government.... The thing is a bore—but the removal hither has unquestionably been attended with every great benefit, and it could not have been effected at the same time on any terms but those I agreed to. 121. (Bytown) Statesman, reprinted in (Kingston) British Whig, May 16, 1851.

The perambulating Seat-of-government scheme, we look upon as a monster humbug — too absurd to be reasoned upon, and too dear to be laughed at. We trust Bytown will be the place ultimately chosen. It is central in [its] situation — removed from the frontier — would give a triumph to neither section of the Province — the French could reside in Hull, the British in Bytown— a Railroad to Montreal and Prescott, would bring Quebec, Boston and Toronto, within a day's journey of it—it would be secure in time of war — central in time of peace; and taking all circumstances into consideration, is we believe, the true position for the permanent Seat-of-government. We think Bytown only requires some few men of talent and influence in the Councils of the Country, to ensure its success. Should Bytown not be able to succeed, we should then go for Kingston, being the next best place. 122. William Lyon Mackenzie, member for Haldimand, C.W., in a speech in the Legislative Assembly, May 20,1851. The plan of getting a steamboat fitted up for the Legislative Assembly, with a nice place for the Speaker's chair, that they might sail up and down the lakes at their pleasure. It would at all events he thought be much cheaper than running about the country as they had been doing, and were still intending to do. 123. Motion presented in Legislative Assembly by H J. Boulton, member for Norfolk, C.W., July 30,1851. Moved That it is inexpedient to remove the Seat-of-government until after the expiration of four years from the time of its recent removal to Toronto. [Defeated, Yeas 12, Nays 48]

138

Choosing Canada's Capital

124.

Mr. Boulton, member for Norfolk, C.W., when presenting his motion in Legislative Assembly, June 12,1851

...no sufficient reason had been shown for the removal from Toronto before the expiration of four years. Such a course would be an act of gross injustice to Upper Canada, and was intended solely to gratify the wishes, and meet the convenience, of Lower Canadian members. 125.

William Lyon Mackenzie, member for Haldimand, C.W., in a speech in the Legislative Assembly, July 30,1851.

Quebec was more distant than Washington; and when there, there were 1,400,000 people above [up river], and only 100,000 below [down river]. Was there anything central; anything convenient in that? Certainly not. There might be something said for Montreal, but Toronto was far more central than Quebec, and so was Bytown. 126.

Robert Baldwin, a senior C.W. member in the Ministry, in the Legislative Assembly, July 30,1851.

The system of alternate Parliaments...was essential to the satisfactory working of the Union.... Any interference with the arrangement would be a great breach of faith. 127.

(Toronto) British Colonist, September 2,1851.

The melancholy event [the closing of parliament] took place on, Saturday last [August 30]. The room of the Legislative Council was crowded almost to an inconvenience, by those who were anxious to see the close of what many supposed to be the last Parliament in Upper Canada. After the prorogation, His Excellency...took his departure, and proceeded by the steamer City of Toronto, to Niagara Falls...there was not the slightest manifestation of popular rejoicing either as his Excellency entered or left the House, with the exception of a sickly cheer, given by some of the assembly messengers as the carriage rolled off. 128.

Quebec Mercury, September 4,1851

[Elected members] have lost no time in returning to their homes. [Government officials and their departments] with their valuable traps packed up [are] ready to embark immediately for their new quarters in this city, hereafter entitled to be called the capital.

Perambulation and Frustration 129.

139

Quebec Mercury, September 30,1851.

There can exist no doubt that the city of Quebec is the only place fitted to be the permanent Metropolis of the country. While the "peripatetic seat-of-govemment" is the target of many a jest, and the metropolis of a country going out "a gypsying" every four years (for change of air we presume), is generally condemned, yet Toronto, Kingston, Montreal, and Bytown, would, any one of them, willingly secure its advantages from motives of local self-interest and sectional jealousy.... As for centralism.. .in reality, Quebec is the only true central spot in Canada.... 130.

William Stewart, 'To the Electors of Bytown," October, 1851.

With regard to the Seat-of-government, the idea of perambulating from City to City, with a Political Menagerie, "a Government" has become a subject of derision to every sensible man in the Province; apart from every other consideration connected with so important a subject, I hold the enormous wasteful expenditure to be nothing less than a plunder of the public monies of this country. One with "half an eye in his head," can easily discern where the most central and suitable place for the Seatof-government is; but as I presume the settlement of that important question would not yield that amount of servile Ministerial support which is desirable, it is probable that public rights, and public justice, will be violated for some time longer. 131.

W.L. Mackenzie in Haldimand Independent, October 11,1851.

Bytown and its environs astonishes me; I have walked ten miles to view the river scenery, and, though much fatigued, am highly gratified. This place has a large trade, and will increase with the prosperity of the country around it; nature seems to have destined it for the site of a great city, and I suppose it would have been chosen for the capital of United Canada had it not been located above tide-water, or had not some plan for consolidating the colonies, or creating a Northern federation, been in the minds of men in power in England. 132.

Quebec Mercury, October 18,1851.

We, in Quebec, are on the eve of a pleasing and important event In the advent of Her Majesty's Representative to the Ancient Seat of the Government of this Province, both under the French and English rule, and the restoration of our metropolitan position.

140

Choosing Canada's Capital

The seat-of-government returns to Quebec, after a long hegira, occasioned by a shallow and time-serving policy here, and a mistaken concession on the part of the Crown of the right of naming and definitely fixing the Capital of the Colony; a course which threw local and sectional jealousies, and partizan interests into the question, which never ought to have been permitted to influence it, as it should have been decided on the mere ground of local fitness; and would, without doubt, have been so decided, had it been left for decision where the above named minor considerations did not prevail. The remarkable salubrity, picturesque beauty and historical reminiscences of Quebec render it no less eminently fit for a Vice Regal residence, than the important political advantages of its position, its security, and its comparative proximity to the ocean and the Seat of Empire, render it the fitting resting place of the Executive and Legislative powers. 133.

Quebec Mercury, October 21,1851.

RESTORATION OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT ARRIVAL OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL Quebec is once more the Capital of the Canadas, the forerunner, as we trust, of a still prouder position for her among the cities of British North America. 134.

Quebec Mercury, May 26,1853.

A UNION OF ALL THE PROVINCES TO BE DESIRED We perceive that the people of Montreal are far from resigned to their fate, in being excluded from a return to their former glory as the seat of the Provincial Government. We cannot, for our part, discover what claim Montreal has or ever had to be the Metropolis of Canada. The capital of the country ought to be a fortress as well as a seaport—Quebec is both: and the jargon talked about centralism is pure "bunkum" and nonsense. In these days of steam and electricity, locality does not constitute centralism in the political import of the word, a day's difference by river navigation, six hours by a railway, and a few minutes by telegraph, are scarcely advantages sufficient to compensate the many defects of Montreal. We not only regard Quebec as the most eligible metropolis for Canada, but as the only capital for British America, which is, without

Perambulation and Frustration

141

doubt, destined to be before many years are over, but one country. Everything tends to this result; everywhere at the present moment the centralising principle is at work, bringing large masses of the human race into compact communities, and drawing as it were vast tracts of country within the boundary of single states — the Union, perhaps, may, in the opinion of some, be at present excepted.... 135.

Legislative Assembly, June 2,1853.

Resolved It is expedient that ample accommodation should be provided at Toronto, for the residence of the Governor General, for the two Houses of the Provincial Parliament, and for the various Departments of the Public Service, before the time when the Sittings of the Legislature, and consequently the Seat-of-government, will, under the existing arrangements, be transferred for four years to the said City. (Accepted, yeas 52, nays 15) 136.

W.L. Mackenzie, member for Haldimand, C.W., in speech in Legislative Assembly, June 2,1853.

[While complaining about the present system he protested that Montreal was not a good potential site because it was] too savage a place for any civilized legislature. 137.

Legislative Assembly, June 3,1853.

Moved It is expedient to discontinue the present system of Parliament sitting alternately at two places (Yeas 27, Nays 39; see Figure 24).

Figure 24. Expedient to discontinue alternating system; June 3, 1853 (selection 173).

142

Choosing Canada's Capital

138.

G.B. Lyon, member for Russell, C.W., on the Ottawa River, speaking in the Legislative Assembly, June 3,1853.

[Since] the majority of the people were in favour of the union there should be a permanent seat-of-govemment for the United Province. There was a place that neither section of the country could complain of— a sort of District of Columbia, on the borders of both. He was not so wedded, however, to Bytown, but that if he could not get the best place he would like Montreal as the next. 139.

Quebec Mercury, June 4,1853.

[There is a] union between the advocates for Quebec and Toronto upon the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. 140.

(Bytown) Citizen, June 11,1853.

Some [of the leading men] are interested in Quebec, others in Toronto, and as both could not have their purposes served they have made a compact with each other and agreed to devour the alternately. School boys sometimes eat an apple by taking a bite turn about; — it is thus our great men [who] eat up the people's money. 141.

Quebec Mercury, February 11,1854.

The present moment is one at which the question of a permanent seat-of-government must necessarily occupy a large share of public attention. There can be no doubt, but that Quebec is the only fit place in Canada for a Provincial Metropolis, in the opinion of any impartial reasoner. On the ground of centralism (so much spoken of during some years past) Quebec possesses immense advantages. IT IS IN REALITY THE MOST CENTRAL CITY IN CANADA, the nearest to the seaboard, the nearest to the seat of empire, most directly in the track of trans-marine commerce in peace, and the natural and necessary basis of military operations in war. These things form the elements of centralism; they are the advantages it holds out, and they are to be found to an equal extent only in the City of Quebec. Nations have in all times selected their capitals chiefly for their capabilities of defence, security against aggression, and convenience as emporiums of trade. These are the grounds on which the site was selected. Such reasons have prevailed since builders were, from Nineveh to Rome, from Rome to London, from London to St. Petersburg; and when in Quebec, salubrity of climate, and beauty of scenery, is added

Perambulation and Frustration

143

to these eminent advantages, prejudice alone can question the eligibility of the situation. As for the rest, telegraph, steamboat, and railway are appliances of the age which devour space and leave little to be said on the subject of speedily transit from the western extremity of the province. 142. Quebec Mercury, May 6,1854. The public have got used to the idea of a Legislature burnt out of doors, and going about begging admission to City Halls, Courts of Justice, Hotels, Music Halls, and other places, where it might reasonably be expected not to go. Well now, where shall it be?.. .Why not select the Jail? There could be no fitter place for the bribe-giving Ministers and bribetaking Representatives. 143. Mr. Patrick, member for Grenville, C.W., in the Legislative Assembly, November 7,1854 (see selection 160). Moved That the system of alternate Parliaments is inconsistent with the proper regard to the economical expenditure of public money...a permanent place [should be] selected. 144. George Brown, Toronto, C.W., moved an amendment to Patrick's motion, in the Legislative Assembly, November 7,1854 (see selection 160). Moved in amendment That it is inexpedient to interfere with the arrangement in regard to the Seat-of-government adopted by this House in 1849, and re-affirmed in 1854. 145. Mr. Hartman, member for York North, C.W., moved an amendment to Brown's amendment, in the Legislative Assembly, November 7,1854 (see selection 160). Moved in amendment That the following should be added [to Brown's motion:] in accordance with that arrangement the Public Departments should be removed to Toronto in 1855. 146. Various members of the Legislative Assembly during a debate, November 7-8,1854. (a) [Mr. S. Macdonald (Glengarry, C.W.) declared that] the country was tired of the present system; which is to say nothing of the expense, [and which] was attended with the greatest insecurity.

144

Choosing Canada's Capital

(b) [Mr. Powell (Carleton, C.W.) agreed, saying] the unanimous voice of the Press was against the alternate system. [The] vagabondizing system [could only be supported] by biased people. (c) [Mr. Gait (Sherbrooke, C.E.) did not believe] there was a shadow of chance of the union being dissolved because of the change in the system of alternate Parliaments. (d) [Mr. Bellingham (Argenteuil, C.E.) felt it was best not to select a permanent capital for he] looked forward to a union of all the Provinces: we are in a transition state. (e) [Mr. W.L. Mackenzie (Haldimand, C.W.) declared that] a fixed seat-of-government was essential to any free country. (f) [Mr. Marchildon (Champlain, C.E.) added a needed (perhaps unwitting) touch of humour to the debate:] it is very hard for the members of the ministry to be subjected to the migratory Parliaments. By such a system, neither they nor their children became acclimated. (Shouts of laughter.) They had good air in Quebec, favourable to their health. (Renewed laughter.) He did not see that distance should have anything to do with considering where the seat of Parliament should be, because when speaking of Railroads, hon. members never alluded to distance as being any objection to their formation. (Laughter.) Quebec was the proper place for it. 147.

Quebec Mercury, November 9,1854.

The House will very likely decide tonight on the question of the seat-of-govemment, probably the perambulatory principle will prevail. For the present the legislature will adjudge this question: in a little time the mob will settle it for them; all the facts of history in Canada show that in its present state of society the Assembly never can be safe unless protected by walls, batteries, and troops. They were driven out of Montreal, and in Toronto many of their members were considered unsafe in the streets at noon-day, and to cap the climax one of their members, Mr. Brown, would last year have been murdered on the floor of the House by a mob on their road from sacking a church, had it not been that Quebec is a fortified town, and one wing of the parliament buildings happened to abut on a guard house.

Perambulation and Frustration 148.

145

Montreal Gazette, November 11,1854.

The really important question of the Seat-of-government, is at length, I am sorry to write it, reduced to the magnificent proportions of a game of grab. Members from different sections of the Province snap at it as a set of hungry pike would at a tempting bait. There is no sort of decency in the thing—there is not even enough to conceal the miserable actuating motives. 'Chiselling' is at length the order of the day, and we have divers caucus meetings held accordingly. Common sense, even that of the House, points to fixing a permanent site for the seat-of-govemment, but the members from the district of Quebec, join with those from the neighbourhood of Toronto, to keep up ambulating Parliaments, and thus combination makes a powerful 'log rolling' vote—perhaps a majority of the whole House.... The fixed site men are trying to checkmate things.... Any game of this sort seems to me to be justifiable as a dernier ressortto stop the present mad system, — better that the Government should be fixed at either Quebec or Toronto; and it is clear that if a few votes can be detached from either of these places, by the bait of getting the Government permanently at one of them, we shall get a fixed site and the disappointed gentlemen may be safely left to scream out until they are tired or their throats are sore. Now the question has become one of intrigue, the excitement is equal to that of horse racing, and the trickery practised equals in morality that of jockeys. 149.

(Toronto) Leader, November 13,1854.

The seat-of-government question is one on which more selfishness is generally manifested, under the poor disguise of a pretended devotion the public interest, than, perhaps on any other. Everyone wishes it to be understood that his conduct, in regard to the subject, is regulated by the highest principles of public justice, by an anxious regard for economy, and for the safety of the public archives; while in point of fact, nearly everybody directs his arguments to the great end of making his own city, town, or village the capital.... The advocates of Montreal, of Bytown, of Kingston, are shocked with the utter profligacy of the alternating system; but of course they are to the last degree unselfish in the matter: they would by satisfied with having their own particular locality the permanent seat-of-govemment.

146 150.

Choosing Canada's Capital (Toronto) Leader, November 14,1854.

[Montreal supporters are] not only the most selfish, but the most unscrupulous in the means they employ to carry their ends. 151.

Ottawa Citizen, November 17,1854.

We trust Montreal or Bytown will be fixed on, and that the question may be settled. 152.

Ottawa Citizen, November 18,1854.

The debate upon the Seat-of-govemment has brought out the most extraordinary amount of selfishness ever exhibited in any legislature.... One of the arguments made use of is that faith should be kept with Toronto in carrying out the resolution of alternating parliaments for as least four years more. If it were to return to Toronto for four years, that city would be satisfied. This would be doing what is called keeping faith with Upper Canada. — Upper Canada has always been treated by the family compact as if it belonged to Toronto — as if, in fact, its whole body and soul were concentrated within the walls of that town. 153.

Ottawa Citizen, December 23,1854.

[It hoped that during the recess of parliament that] some of the members will manage to arrange their ideas upon this subject, into a form approaching that of common sense. The mind of a Legislator must be in a beautiful state of regulation, when he is unable to perceive that the vagabondizing system is an absurd way of transacting the affairs of the country. 154.

Address of H J. Friel, Mayor of Bytown, at the close of the Town Corporation, January 1,1855, when the town obtained a charter as a city (Ottawa).

Permit me, gentlemen, to hope that the brightening prospect now opening on our young City is but a foreshadowing of its future greatness. The centre of the Ottawa Valley, its local importance cannot be questioned; the centre of a whole Province its general importance must be conceded. To this common centre all parties must turn ere long; the finger of destiny points hitherward, and I doubt not that metropolitan honours await the City just ushered into existence.

Perambulation and Frustration 155.

147

Executive Council to heads of Government Departments, January 30,1855.

[Tell] respective clerks and employees that the Seat-of-government will, in all probability, be removed to Toronto, during the ensuing autumn, under the alternate system. [Stress added.] 156.

John A. Macdonald to his sister, Louisa, February 21,1855.

It is impossible to tell what the Parlt. may do about the Seat of Govt. until they meet. 157.

W. Patrick, member for Grenville, C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, March 22,1855.

The difficulty was to decide between the conflicting claims of different localities.... Lower Canada claimed it as the oldest, longest settled portion of the Province, and on account of its geographical position. Upper Canada, on the other hand, based its claims on the fact that it was the most vigorous and rapid in its growth, and was fast outstripping the lower province in population.... It was advisable, if possible, to place the capital on neutral ground, and this could best be done at Ottawa: it was situated just on the boundary line of the two provinces, possessed of mixed population, and offered the best site of any place in the Province. If members would divest themselves of their peculiar local prejudices, he was sure they could not fail to appreciate those advantages. The city of Ottawa, which might be described as the Columbus of Canada — scarcely in one Province or the other [an honourable member "'tis nowhere"]—one of the finest situated cities in the world-the district one of the fairest and richest—the property ready purchased the ordnance property — ready prepared and well suited in every respect. And if honourable members would divest themselves of all prejudice — he thought that that was the place they would choose. 158.

George Brown, member for Toronto, in Legislative Assembly, March 22,1855.

A fixed site was, no doubt, best, if a satisfactory one could be decided on, but here it seemed almost impossible. They had two sections of the Province, with two sets of institutions, two races, two languages, and differing customs. Upper Canada members felt they had not the same weight and influence in Quebec as in Toronto, and no doubt Lower

148

Choosing Canada's Capital

Canadians had the same feelings respecting Toronto. It might perhaps be possible eventually to select some common ground, but to change the system now would have the appearance of breaking faith, and repudiating a solemn league entered into in 1849, and twice ratified — once in 1851 and again in 1853. 159.

Additional comments by Members in Legislative Assembly, March 22,1855.

(a) [A member, responding to Patrick's comment about the need for neutral ground, noted] we are on neutral ground, for, undoubtedly, Quebec, if not out of the world, was the next thing to it (b) [A member speaking strongly against the ambulatory system added that] he cared little what site was selected. He would have preferred any fixed site — Port Sarnia, London, Hamilton, Toronto, Kingston, Bytown, Montreal, Quebec, or the island of Anticosti even... [to] the evils arising [from the present system which] had a demoralizing effect. (c) [Another member agreed, noting that] the idea that it [the ambulatory system] improved the knowledge of members of Upper and Lower Canada, was all moonshine. (d) [But one member felt the case was otherwise, for] without doubt it created a better sentiment between the people of the two sections of the Province. (e) [A Canada East member felt that the seat-of-govemment must be fixed at Quebec for any other proposition was a] trap to deprive Lower Canada of the Seat-of-government for ever [and this, he thought, would be] fatal to French-Canadian nationality. 160.

Legislative Assembly, March 23,1855; on the motion (selection 143) and two of the amendments (selections 144 and 145) made on November 7,1854.

There were several additional easily defeated amendments — including one on Quebec to be named the permanent seat-of-government, and one on appropriating money for buildings in Toronto before approving removal—that are not identified here. An amendment which sought to have Quebec kept as seat of government was voted on before the Hartman and Brown amendments. Note: the motion and amendments as recorded as selections 143,144 and 145 were voted on in reverse order, thus the order here.

Perambulation and Frustration

149

Moved in amendment That the system of alternate Parliaments is inconsistent with the proper regard to the economical expenditure of public money...it is expedient to keep Quebec as the seat-of-govemment until a permanent place shall be decided upon (Rejected: Yeas 50, Nays 67; Figure 25). Moved in amendment [to Brown's amendment]: in accordance with that arrangement the Public Departments should be removed to Toronto in 1855 (Rejected: Yeas 53, Nays 61). Moved in amendment [by Brown] That it is inexpedient to interfere with the arrangement in regard to the Seat-of-government adopted by this House in 1849, and re-affirmed in 1854 (Accepted: yeas 61, nays 54; Figure 26). 161.

[The main question, as amended, was accepted 58 to 40.] Montreal Gazette, March 26,1855.

Ambulatory Parliaments — We published the following intelligence in our Extra on Saturday: Gazette Office Saturday Noon, March 24, 1855. By Special Telegraphic Despatch. Our Correspondent at Quebec sent us the following message, dated this morning: "The House has decided to continue the Alternate System of Parliaments by a vote that took place at three o'clock this morning—the majority was seven for continuing the system." The public, we feel assured, will peruse this intelligence with no pleasure; but, on the contrary, with regret. We have seen something of the manner in which the Seat-of-government question has been treated by the House of Assembly of late years, and must state it has been little creditable to that body. The general good has not been the object sought to be attained by members, but local interests have swayed them. From the first hour that the system was established, there has been what our neighbours across the frontier expressively call a "log-rolling" compact, between members in the interest of Quebec and Toronto, and the parties to this disgraceful compact have been unwilling to see anything beyond it. During the prolonged debates that took place on the Seat of Govt. last fall, dirty intrigues on behalf of different localities were the order of the day, and little, indeed nothing, was to be heard on the real merits of this important

150

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 25. Expedient to keep Quebec until permanent capital decided; March 23, 1855 (selection 160).

Figure 26. Inexpedient to interfere with the arrangement adopted in 1849 and re-affirmed in 1851; March 23,1855 (selection 160).

Perambulation and Frustration

151

question. Members from this and that portion of the Province snapped at the Seat-of-govemment, as a prize to be obtained for their respective localities, and did not, as we stated, look on it as a public question. We cannot exempt the government from blame in the matter. No government consistently with self respect, or the very principles on which the British system is founded, could leave such a question an open one, and it is no excuse for present ministers to say that they follow the bad and improper precedent set by their predecessors. A government that cannot, as a government, make up its mind on such a question, is not fit to remain in office. We know the strong prejudices and jealousies against Montreal, and we know from what unworthy motives many of them spring; in view of them, although believing that Montreal has most claims to be the seatof-govemment, rather than endanger the permanent fixing of it some where, we have all along steadily and sincerely advocated the claims of the City of Ottawa, and would have been glad to see it fixed there. We believe that the City of Ottawa has many of the necessary qualifications, and that the public interests would be consulted by taking the seat-of-govemment there. In this view of the case we have been personally disinterested, as we also believe that Montreal has been and can afford to he, to an extent that cannot be said of any other city in Canada. We look with no pleasure on the history of this system of nomadic Parliaments: it began in disgraceful cowardice, and has been continued in disreputable intrigue. 162.

(Toronto) Globe, March 30,1855.

[Toronto member, George Brown's amendment, selection 160] bringing the seat-of-government to Toronto [has passed] in spite of the most strenuous opposition.. .our citizens may prepare for the inroad of the officials. Where they are to find room puzzles every one who knows the state of our crowded city. 163.

(Toronto) Leader, March 30,1855.

Montreal is for ever disposed of.... [H]enceforth the claims of Montreal are nil.... The context was destitute of the slightest principle of anything that would bear the name of principle...personal interest and local prejudice assume the place of principle.

752 164.

Choosing Canada's Capital Montreal Gazette, April 5,1855.

[Responding to an editorial in the (Toronto) Leader which endeavoured to show how, with population growth and development the west, Toronto would become more central—at Montreal's expense, the Gazette writer warned Quebec's "log-rolling" members that once the Government was in Toronto] Quebec may whistle for what is not called 'keeping the faith'... [I]t would give us joy to see any party to a discreditable compact punished. 165. Address from Legislative Council to Sir Edmund Head (GovernorGeneral), April 25,1855. May it please Your Excellency. We, her Majesty's dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Legislative Council of Canada in Provincial Parli ament assembled, beg leave respectfully to represent to Your Excellency that in our opinion the time has arrived when the Royal Prerogative should be exercised in determining upon a permanent Seat-of-govemment in this Province that the system of holding alternate Parliament at Quebec and Toronto is objectionable and detrimental to the Public Service, on account of its manifest and extreme inconvenience; that it involves a large expenditure of the Public Funds; and that by the frequent transportation from place to place of the several Departments connected with the Government, the security and safekeeping of the Libraries, Records and Archives of the Country are seriously endangered. We therefore pray that Your Excellency will be pleased, in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, to fix permanently upon some convenient place for the annual assembling of Parliament, and we beg to assure Your Excellency of our cheerful concurrence in any proposition you may think fit to make for the appropriation of Public Money for the erection of suitable buildings for the accommodation of the three Branches of the Legislature at the place which may be so fixed upon by Your Excellency. 166. (Toronto) Leader, April 27,1855. The Legislative Council has determined to disturb the arrangement deliberately sanctioned by the popular branch of the Legislature. A question which has almost broken up existing party affinities during the present Session of Parliament is thus attempted to be reopened.... The

Perambulation and Frustration

153

same antagonism between the two branches of the Legislature existed [in 1849] as exists now. 167. Montreal Gazette, April 27,1855 ...the final decision rests with the Governor General or the Colonial Office, that being a part of the absolute prerogative of the Crown. The exercise of that prerogative, however, may be checked by either House. The Lower may refuse to vote the necessary supplies; the Upper may refuse to sanction them. The question in its present shape is beset with difficulties for the Governor General. 168. Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir William Molesworth (Colonial Office), (private), August 7,1855. You are probably aware of the fact that in pursuance of an arrangement made some years ago it was understood that the Seat-ofgovemment after remaining four years at Quebec, was to be removed again to Toronto. After some discussion in the course of last Session, this arrangement was virtually confirmed; although an Address in favour of a fixed Seat-of-government was presented to me by the Legislative Council. Consequently it is now settled that in the course of this autumn, the residence of the Governor-General and the various public departments necessarily connected with the Seat-of-government will have to be transferred to Upper Canada. This is not the place or time for discussing the question whether the moveable Seat-of-government be a wise or economical arrangement. The disadvantages of such a system — among which I rate highly the inconvenience to the subordinate Officers and Clerks employed in the various departments, are obvious to every one; but it has without doubt produced certain benefits which are not less real because they do not catch the eye so readily as its evils.... 169.

Speech at Cobourg, C.W., by Sir Edmund Head (GovernorGeneral), printed in/*'armers Journal, Vol.9, no. 7 (November, 1855).

Your Legislature has been settled in Lower Canada for four years. Your members from Upper Canada have been learning the nature of the country, and have been conciliating any prejudice that might exist, by living ingood fellowship and brotherhood with their French brethren. And

154

Choosing Canada's Capital

now that the French members from Lower Canada are coming up to live among you for a certain time, and are going to perform legislative duties in the midst of you, I have no doubt that you will heartily welcome them and receive them as brothers. It has struck me lately that it would be one of the most absurd things in the world if the French and English in Canada were to take to quarrelling just as the French and English in all the rest of the world are uniting to each other in amity. I think it would be one of the most foolish exhibitions that could be witnessed. — (Cheers.) And therefore it is that I have too much confidence in the good sense of the people both of Upper and Lower Canada, to expect ever to ever see any such thing.

CHAPTER 6 STALEMATE AND REFERRAL

INTRODUCTION The 1856 and 1857 sessions of Parliament were marked by great bitterness, much due to the seat-of-government issue (which was discussed at great length) but also because of calls for "representation by population" (whereby Canada West would be given more parliamentary seats than would Canada East, as a result of changes in population size). One observer of the seat-of-government discussions said of the Assembly debaters that they showed "the same narrow-mindedness, the same local selfishness" as in previous years.1 William Lyon Mackenzie, member for Haldimand, C. W., jested in the House that "the children of Israel travelled 1750 miles in 40 years, and the children of Canada had beatjen] them in a fifteen years pilgrimage."2 Anothermember of the Assembly denounced the "nomadic system" and claimed that there was "no such system found in any country having any aspirations after nationality."3 The Parliament again came into conflict in 1856, with the House and the Council disagreeing on how to proceed. In 1857, the Ministry was able to get the seat-of-government issue referred to London. The phrase "a state of chronic crisis for the ministry" nicely captures something of the tensions that existed within the Parliament, with George Brown and John A. Macdonald being the principal protagonists.4 During the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the two men got into a furious verbal battle. The 1856 session thus got off to an electrifying start, and quarrels were to burst forth all during the session. Some of the conflict was between political foes but much of it occurred because of weaknesses within the Liberal-Conservative coalition ministry. A growing dissatisfaction with the ministry's leadership was played upon by opponents and it became entwined with the seat-ofgovernment issue. On the seat-of-government issue itself, there were 48 divisions of the Assembly during the 1856 session.

155

156

Choosing Canada's Capital

The House met on March 17 "in obedience to the call of the House to consider the Seat-of-government question."5 The galleries of the Legislative Assembly were filled "in expectation of a close contest."6 The House learned that £19,375 had been spent on 1855 removal costs, but that the amount needed for various Toronto buildings brought the total to £71,726.7 It was moved that the journals of the House, relative to the subject of the alternating system of government, should be read in order that the sense of the House might be taken on the question. The 1849 address to the Governor-General and his reply to the House were read, whereupon a member moved that the alternating system be discontinued. He reasoned that if the union was to last it was expedient to establish a permanent capital. He also complained of the existing expensive system, its lack of success in modifying prejudices, and, in discussing the inconveniences to public servants, commented that 172 families had recently been moved back to Toronto. The real motive behind placing the motion before the House was to have Montreal named as capital so, not unexpectedly, a Toronto supporter objected, confessing "to the great advantage which he had derived from a periodical residence at Quebec" and then moving an amendment that it was inexpedient to discuss the whole question "during the current session."8 An effort was made to reject this motion through an amendment concerning prerogative but the amendment was defeated, due to the strength of the Toronto-Quebec alliance. A Toronto member presented another motion that asked for an adjournment of the debate until the Ministry could provide a statement of the estimated costs for erecting necessary government buildings in Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec. When the votes were cast, Canada East members did not vote as a bloc, as some expected they might, and instead voted as affiliates of either the Quebec-Toronto compact or the opposing central Canada region. The Quebec-Toronto alliance was able to hold off the threat (yeas 63, nays 58; Figure 28). Due to the attempts by Montreal supporters to get their city considered, George Brown (Toronto, C.W.) declared: The great question was evidently not the abstract principle of apermanent Seat-of-govemment, but whether Montreal should be selected. The justness of the abstract principle no one disputed; but the contingencies of the Union

Stalemate and Referral 157 had to be taken into account. We were a different people — different in language and religion. And Upper Canada would never submit to the Seat-of-govemment permanently in Lower Canada—so long as representation was not based on population.9 Brown thus highlighted the several interrelated inhibitory threads which found different strengths of importance and expression in the two sections of the country and the several regions within the country. Clearly the vote on March 17 did not end the seat-of-govemment issue; it remained open. On April 10, 1856, a report by the Department of Public Works was laid before the House.10 It stated that no government buildings existed in Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec, and those in Toronto were not of a "permanent description." As for grounds, "fine" sites existed in Toronto, Kingston and Ottawa, and a "very fine site" at Quebec. The total estimated cost of new facilities, not including grounds, was £300,000, a figure that surprised members for it was higher than previous estimates. Four days later J.S. Macdonald (Glengarry, C.W.) moved in the House that the system of alternating capitals should be discontinued. Brown (Toronto) was quickly on his feet, saying that the motion was simply a ruse by supporters of Montreal and so he moved an amendment which stated that it was "inexpedient to consider the Question" but, to a mixture of dismay and delight, this amendment was defeated (yeas 53, nays 65). The Macdonald motion against the ambulatory system carried (yeas 64, nays 54; Figure 29) and an address to this effect was presented to the Governor-General. Sir Edmund Head indicated in his reply to the Assembly his "willingness to discontinue the present system of convening the Parliament alternately" when the legislature decided what was "most convenient," and that the "requisite means for carrying out its wishes" were in his possession.11 Following the Governor-General's response, a series of motions and amendments were made in the Assembly. The divisions that followed were fascinating, since the voting patterns reflected a series of city-based alliances and or sectional attachments (see Figures 30-36). Old strategies suddenly and unexpectedly failed on April 16. The proceedings of April 16 were perhaps the most complicated of any during the whole seat-of-government issue. A Ministry member,

158

Choosing Canada's Capital

Drummond of Shefford, C.E., moved that one place should be selected from Toronto, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Hamilton. This motion represented a quite new approach. The debate began at 3 p.m. that day and continued for many hours. At first it was "joyous" but it soon became "very long and very selfish."12 Following the presentation of Drummond's motion for the Ministry, a series of amendments were put. First, an effort was made to seek the opinion of municipal councils to determine public opinion but this was ruled out of order. There followed five amendments in favour of Ottawa, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, and Hamilton, that is, one for each city named in the Drummond motion but for Quebec. These in turn were all further amended when it was moved that the word "Hamilton" be deleted from the fifth amendment and "Quebec" inserted. This was accepted by a vote of 70 to 46. Divisions then took place on Quebec versus Toronto (71 to 50; Figure 30), and Quebec versus Kingston (67 to 54; Figure 31). The pattern changed when the next amendment was dealt with for it pitted Quebec against Montreal, when Quebec received the majority vote (65 to 55; Figure 32). In contrast to the almost total sectional vote against the Canada West locations previously considered (in order, Hamilton, Toronto and Kingston) the Canada East members this time split into a Montreal group and a Quebec group. Quebec then won a majority against Ottawa (77 to 43; Figure 33), with Ottawa receiving mixed support from the Eastern Townships (C.E.) and scattered Canada West members, in addition to a 16 member core group. It was next resolved that the original motion was amended to read that "Quebec is the most eligible place for the future Capital of Canada" and that after 1859 the Parliament should "be permanently convened in that City."13 Attempts were made to move further amendments — including one by Ottawa supporters which called for the capital to be fixed at "some place near the division line between Upper and Lower Canada" — but they failed (Figure 34). The question was then put on the amendment to the original motion — that Quebec was the most eligible place to fix the seat-ofgovernment — and it was accepted, by a division of yeas 61, nays 59 (Figure 35). George Brown immediately jumped to his feet, declaring that "it was time this farce was at an end" and Montreal supporters moved in amendment that the debate be adjourned, but this was defeated (yeas 40, nays 78), essentially by the "log-rolling compact" or alternating men. Finally, at 2 a.m. on April 17, the main motion, as amended, was put —

Stalemate and Referral 159 that Quebec be the permanent seat-of-government — and it carried by a majority of 11 (yeas 64, nays 56; Figure 36). Joy reigned amongst Quebec supporters and rage was expressed by members from everywhere else! It is interesting to observe that John A. Macdonald, while supporting Quebec in the crucial 61 to 59 division, voted against it when the main question was put. And he voted for Quebec against both Montreal and Ottawa, but against Quebec all other times. Macdonald's voting pattern demonstrates well the point that the issue was not a ministerial question and that members could vote freely upon it. Also, however, the Kingston member's voting pattern suggests something else, notably locally and regionally based strategies. Failed strategies form part of the reason for Quebec's selection. The series of amendments that occurred on April 16 cannot at first glance be logically explained by local or regional affiliations. An order was assigned in Drummond's original motion identifying and limiting the places to be considered. The position on such a list was important, for the last named was the first voted upon. From all accounts, there was a jockeying for position, and Ottawa won when Patrick caught the Speaker's eye first and was able to move an amendment in Ottawa's favour. The motions in amendment for the other places followed. The catch is that the motions for Ottawa, Montreal, Hamilton, and also Quebec, were all made and seconded by Ottawa supporters (Figure 27). Powell (Carleton, C.W.), in moving in favour of Quebec, explained to the House that: No place in the Province was better fitted for a seat-of-govemment than Ottawa.... [H]is object was, that when Quebec was decided upon, as it would be, to be unfit for the seat-ofgovernment, and the other cities named—with the exception of Ottawa — were also decided upon to be ineligible; that then Ottawa might again be considered.14

160

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 27. Movers and seconders of motion and amendments; April 16, 1856.

The strategy of the Ottawa men was to carry Quebec up to the last vote, until the question became Ottawa or Quebec, whereupon they would drop Quebec. To aid them in this task, and in order not to alienate the other fixed-site supporters, the Ottawa men carefully divided theirvotes, giving some support to the other places, but also giving votes to Quebec in order to help it win. The Ottawa men thus split their votes on Kingston and Montreal, the other two fixed-site nodes. In doing this, however, the Ottawa men seem to have alienated potential supporters, for when these two places were defeated, many of the Kingston and Montreal supporters, at least in part out of spite, unexpectedly gave their votes to Quebec rather than Ottawa. The Ottawa men, upon seeing their strategy fall apart, quickly caucused to determine what to do. They concluded that if it could be decided that the capital should be fixed in Canada West then many Lower Canadians would be forced to vote for Ottawa rather than Kingston or Toronto because Ottawa was the one place in Canada West "nearest in position, in population and social habits, to Lower Canada."15 However, their motion to this effect was defeated on an essentially sectional vote. The actions of the log-rolling men and fixed-site men (apart from Ottawa supporters) are of interest too. They knew that if the Drummond amendment had been altered or superseded, all chance would have gone for the places once put and lost. The Canada West "alternate" supporters

Stalemate and Referral 161 knew this so they planned to vote for Quebec until it had killed the Drummond motion, but then they would vote against Quebec. When Quebec squeezed by on the critical 61 to 59 vote, Brown (for the alternate men) moved the previous question whereas Dorion (for the fixedsite men) tried to cut this off by moving an amendment. When the latter amendment failed the fixed-site men were caught on a matter of principle: whether to vote for the selection of a permanent site (Quebec) or not. Some of them did so, for to do otherwise would have meant supporting the alternating system. Quebec received a majority vote. George Brown and his Canada West followers thus had fallen into a trap they themselves had set, for, first by their "log-rolling" support and later by their opposition to Quebec, they prevented a more central site from being selected. The Montreal Gazette concluded: "they had literally driven it to Quebec."16 This view was supported the next day when J.S. Macdonald, a Montreal supporter, who sought again to raise the issue in the House, wailed that he had been "forced to vote for Quebec last evening, in consequence of the system of tactics adopted by the Upper Canada members."17 He added that "those who wanted a permanent Seatof-government and voted for Quebec as such, did not intend it to go there."18 Of the whole scenario, the Montreal Gazette observed that: Sectionalism in this matter more than any other has been rampant. The patriotism of each man, with rare exceptions, has been bounded by his county, or his immediate district. The few exceptions were those men from the district of Montreal and Upper Canadian constituencies who voted for Quebec as the permanent seatof-govemment rather than continue the absurd alternating system longer. There seemed no principle of cohesion between differing sections, no broad principle of any kind on which men from various portions of the Province could hang together19

162

Choosing Canada's Capital

Most people in the country were upset at the Assembly's decision in favour of Quebec. The rage increased when the Attorney General for Canada West, John A. Macdonald, announced in the House that the Ministry would, during the session, be prepared to ask the House for "an appropriation for new Public Buildings, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the House."20 A vital question asked was: By this decision was the Cabinet making the seat-of-govemment issue a Ministerial measure? Seemingly not, for on May 5 it was moved in the House that "the permanence of the Seat-of-govemment ought to be a Ministerial measure, and that the Administration, by declining to make it a Ministerial measure have ceased to enjoy the confidence of this House."21 The motion was ruled out of order. In early May the Ministry introduced the supply bill which included, as a matter of course, following the House's decision in favour of Quebec, £50,000 for public buildings in that city. There followed a long and bitter debate. George Brown declared that the decision in favour of Quebec "was not in accordance with the views of members of [the] House — it was merely a vote of expediency." Brown therefore moved an amendment to the motion for the House to go into a committee of the whole to deal with the supply bill that it was inexpedient to appropriate money for buildings.22 Several other amendments shared the same fate — being declared out of order by the Speaker. Two motions not ruled out of order were both expressions of want-of-confidence in the Ministry. Papin (L'Assomption, C.E.) moved that the Ministry's position on the seat-of-govemment issue did "not inspire this House with the confidence necessary to entrust the Administration with the moneys required for the construction of the necessary Buildings at the Seat-ofgovernment."23 The next day Holton (Montreal, C.E.) moved an amendment that the actions of the Ministry, relative to the seat-of-govemment, had "disappointed the just expectations of the great majority of the People of this Province."24 After debating the issue for five nights and one full day, with the final sitting lasting 32 hours, the votes were cast on the two want-of-confidence motions. Both were defeated: Papin's by 43 to 73 and Holton's by 47 to 70. However, the Ministry's support in the latter came primarily from Canada East. The Ministry was in a minority of six in Canada West. Only to a degree was the vote-party based, for there were defections. Of the 14 Canada East members who voted for

Stalemate and Referral 163 censure (and thus also against Quebec), all were from the western portion of the section, and all but one were Rouges. Other Rouges voted against the motion but in so doing did not vote in favour of the Ministry as much as voting for the choice of Quebec. In Canada West there was a sectional element that confused normal party alignments. Because the Ministry received only 27 of the 60 Canada West votes cast, MacNab and his Canada West Cabinet members felt obliged to resign. Within a few days a reconstituted coalition ministry was formed (without MacNab), with E.P. Tactic" (President of the Legislative Council) as first minister and John A. Macdonald as Attorney General West and Leader of the Government in the House. On June 23, Powell (Ottawa, C.W.) moved that "the permanence of the Seat-of-government ought to be a Ministerial measure" but immediately two amendments were made, one stating that the motion should not be proceeded with and the other (moved by George Brown) to the effect that the April 16 resolution in favour of Quebec should be rescinded.25 These were set aside, as were other attempts to name a place other than Quebec. When the question was called (June 25) on the resolution involving the £50,000 for buildings at Quebec, it was accepted but only by a majority of four (yeas 50, nays 46). Once more, the issue was regarded as a sectional one by Lower Canadians and they voted accordingly. Only Canada West ministers and two other members voted with the majority — and they were all branded as "traitors to the interests of Upper Canada"26 and, it was said that the seven Upper Canadians deserved "to be sent down to posterity with all the retribution that can be cast upon them."27 Two days later it was moved that the £50,000 for buildings at Quebec be deleted from the supply bill. The vote was close: yeas 48, nays 50, with the division being decidedly sectional in character (Figure 37). The complete supply bill, with the £50,000 still intact, was accepted 74 to 18. For one further day it seemed that Quebec was indeed to become the permanent seat-of-govemment, but the Legislative Council defiantly refused to accept either Quebec or provide the needed money provisions for buildings. This clash between the two Houses of Parliament was similar to the 1849 and 1855 disagreements. This time the Council had the constitutional power to alter an Assembly decision, for bills of supply had to be accepted by both Houses. When the Council voted (12 to

164

Choosing Canada's Capital

9) to refuse acceptance of the bill, it thus forced the bill to be returned to the Assembly. The conflict between the two branches of the Parliament was lauded by Upper Canadian newspapers, who rejoiced at the "patriotic" action of the Council. The Montreal Gazette felt the decision was "the only one constitutionally open" to the Council,28 but Quebec papers expressed utter dismay, calling the decision unconstitutional. Quebec supporters were further dismayed when a new supply bill, stripped of the £50,000 resolution, was rushed through both Houses on June 30, the day before the Parliament was prorogued. The Quebec Mercury wailed that "the rights of Quebec are sacrificed."29 Many people in both sections of the province felt that the issue could only be resolved by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. As opinions were being expressed about how the issue could be resolved, rumours began to spread, including one that told of an Imperial decision in favour of Quebec. Throughout the period of debating and voting in Parliament, newspapers across the country maintained their booster activities, laying claim to the capital honours for the reasons by now well known. Unknown to Canadians their Governor-General, Sir Edmund Head, had confidentially notified Henry Labouchere, the Colonial Secretary, that, in his opinion, the Canadian government should "take a decided course on the seat of Govt. question, either by selecting a place themselves, or voting the money for the Crown to expend where it pleases."30 As the country wondered if the Ministry would be decisive in its actions, Sir Edmund Head travelled to different parts of the country. Rumour had it that he was visiting possible locations for the seat-of-government. One of the places he and his wife visited was Ottawa where, on a bright clear day, they were entertained at a luncheon on Major's Hill. From that site they had a panoramic view of the picturesque eight-stepped Rideau Canal locks leading down to the Ottawa River, the brooding Gatineau Hills to the north across the Ottawa River, the magnificent Chaudiere Falls, and the impressive Barrack Hill promontory (the site destined to become Parliament Hill). Lady Head so enjoyed the scene that she made a sketch of it.31 Once back in Toronto the Heads were visited by an English friend, Robert Lowe, Viscount Sherbrooke. While Lowe was in Toronto the two

Stalemate and Referral 165 men discussed the seat-of-govemment question. Lowe had visited the United States and been in Montreal, Quebec and Toronto, and Head was fresh from his visits to Ottawa and Kingston. They discussed the issue at length, reviewing the sectional and local jealousies, the legislative deadlock, and the advisability of placing the capital away from the frontier for fear of a raid from the United States. The men concluded — privately, of course — that the logical choice for the seat-of-government was Ottawa.32 As workmen in Toronto hurried to complete the alteration and renovation of the Parliament buildings before the start of the next session, there was active discussion within the country about the seat-ofgovernment issue. The Ottawa Railway Times looked forward to Ottawa becoming the capital, but its claims were dismissed with typical Toronto contempt by the Colonist as being simply "pleasant conceit" for "it is very doubtful whether people residing in what may be properly termed Canada will consent to their removal to the backwoods."33 All the evidence from the 1856 session suggested that the seat-ofgovernment issue would continue to remain divisive until it was finally settled. But how was the Ministry to proceed? Should it settle on one place? But which place? The Ministry itself was divided, with each member having a preference for a particular place. The Cabinet agonized over the issue from at least January, 1857.34 They were undoubtedly ignorant of the Governor-General's opinion in favour of Ottawa, but Sir Edmund Head surely must have guided his ministers towards taking the definite step they finally settled on. Even so, it is not known just when the Cabinet made its decision. In any event, when the Governor-General opened Parliament he said, in part, that he had made an examination of the Ottawa Valley "in which Upper and Lower Canada are equally interested, with the view to ascertain what facilities its course may hereafter afford to inland traffic."35 On the first day of the new session two notices of motion were presented: one called for a permanent site in a central part of the province, and that Ottawa should be the place selected; the other was an amendment in favour of Montreal. In short, the House was immediately faced once more with having to deal with the seat-of-government issue. Thus if the Cabinet had not fully decided on which course to take, its hand may well have been forced by these notices of motion.

166

Choosing Canada's Capital

Before these two motions could be dealt with, the Government surprised everyone by announcing on March 6,1857, that it intended to introduce a series of resolutions: (1) pronouncing it advisable to select a permanent seat-of-government, (2) providing a sum of money (not to exceed £225,000) for the erection of the necessary buildings, and (3) referring the choice of place to the Queen. The Government then scheduled these resolutions to be considered before the dates set for the two motions. By this action the Government set the frame for discussion rather than having to conform to a frame set by others. Response to the Ministry's announcement was quick. Papers of different political persuasions recognized that the proposal for referral was either dreadfully wrong or else the wisest possible. The Legislative Council was the first body to consider the resolutions. On March 12, the Government leader in the Council moved the first resolution, saying that: taking into consideration the experience of last session, and considering that each member of the House is not free from local jealousies of some sort or other, on the question he thought the Government had adopted the wisest plan.36 The first resolution was accepted without division. When the second resolution was moved, it was moved in amendment that the reference was inexpedient since self-government had been conceded to Canada and this issue was a local matter. This amendment was defeated and the second resolution carried (26 to 16). The Council then accepted an address to the Queen (20 to 4). Quebec supporters felt betrayed. On March 17, John A. Macdonald moved that the Legislative Assembly should go into the Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution but Thibaudeau (Portneuf, C.E.) quickly moved in amendment that the Speaker should not leave the chair and that "it is not expedient to discuss the Question of the permanency of the Seat-of-government during the present Session, it having already been decided last Session."37 At first the debate was almost exclusively in French, as speakers denounced the Ministry for its position. To Quebec supporters it represented a case of broken faith. The first vote cast was on the Thibaudeau amendment, which lost (44 to 68). Several Canada East men who normally supported the Government left it "upon the simple grounds of bad faith and untruth."38 Dorion (Montreal West, C.E.) then moved in

Stalemate and Referral 167 amendment to the Government's resolution that it be resolved the referral "would be at variance with the principles of local self-government."39 The House adjourned before a division could occur but the Globe correctly forecast that "it is probable that the subject will occupy [the House's] attention for several evenings."40 Only one member of the Ministry, George Cartier, at first spoke in favour of the resolutions, and he did so in French, which led some Upper Canadians to complain that they had not understood. Because John A. Macdonald did not speak for the Ministry's position he was accused of either having counted votes and being thus sure of a majority or of "not think[ing] it worthwhile to say anything."41 Others spoke, some at length, either in favour of the Ministry's proposals or against them. Late in the evening of March 19, as expectations were heightened in anticipation of the vote on the Dorion amendment, Macdonald surprised the opposition by indicating that several amendments still were to be offered. "The whole Cabinet expanded into a broad grin" when Loranger thereafter rose to move an amendment which declared that Montreal should be capital.42 Loranger had agreed in caucus to support the Government resolutions and had made two speeches in support of them, yet he moved in favour of Montreal. Why? He said that he did so because he wanted "to test the sincerity of members opposing the resolutions which, if lost, would prove the necessity of a reference to England."43 Opposition members were most indignant, especially Dorion and other Montreal supporters, who fumed that Loranger "under the guise of friendship to Montreal, was really injuring her interests."44 The debate closed for the day on this angry note. On March 20, the fourth day of debate, the tone and substance of the comments were essentially as before, with rehashed arguments over whether or not referral meant a retrenchment of responsible government, or members' voting inconsistencies, and on a Canada West versus a Canada East location. Finally, after eight hours of debate that day, a division occurred on the Loranger amendment for Montreal (yeas 39, nays 75). Three Canada West members absented themselves before the votes were cast. The vote was a sectional one for Canada West members (with only four C. W. members voting for Montreal) while in Canada East the members split into a Montreal group and a Quebec group. The Dorion amendment was then put and it too lost (yeas 53, nays 63). On this vote, the alliances formed earlier for Thibaudeau's original amendment (regarding inexpediency) regrouped and picked up some additional sup-

168

Choosing Canada's Capital

port, including six eastern Canada West members. The outcome heartened the Ministry since the vote indicated that the Quebec district group could not challenge the Ministry's resolutions. Several further amendments were then put. Patrick (Grenville South, C.W.) moved in amendment that Ottawa should be selected but he was roundly roasted by other Ottawa supporters for moving an amendment "prejudicial to the claims of Ottawa."45 The vote was decisive: yeas 11, nays 100 (Figure 38). Masson (Montreal supporter, Soulanges, C.E.) moved in amendment that Quebec should be the permanent capital but he was strongly denounced by a member for his "bunkum motion meant to injure Quebec."46 In turn, Papin castigated the man who objected to Masson's amendment and then he proceeded to "satirize the Ministry for nearly an hour, keeping the House in fits of laughter the whole time."47 Another amendment was then put, in favour of Quebec, but it was easily defeated (44 to 77; Figure 39) with the Quebec-Toronto alternating men voting in favour. A Toronto member moved in amendment that rather than referring the question to England the alternating system should continue. Again, it was essentially a "log-rolling"/fixed- site men contest, with the latter having more votes (34 to 80; Figure 40). An Eastern Townships member then moved that "Kingston" should replace "Quebec" in Masson's amendment but this too lost (28 to 84). Toronto was proposed but defeated (30 to 81). Masson's amendment was finally put — that Quebec should be the capital — and it was defeated (14 to 100). All Canada West members and also Quebec district supporters voted nay. The House finally went into Committee of the Whole and the Government's resolutions were agreed to without division. The House adjourned at 3 a.m. after another exhausting 12-hour day. On March 24 the House dealt with the resolutions previously accepted by the Committee of the Whole House. The first resolution was accepted, with no division. The House next voted on the second resolution (on providing money) and it was accepted (64 to 48; Figure 41) on an essentially political party basis. Patrick then moved "a silly motion" which sought to have Montreal, Ottawa or Kingston chosen "by lot" but this was defeated, with only two positive votes. A member for Quebec next moved that the "exercise of the Royal Prerogative" should not alter the perambulating system — in other words, Quebec should again become the capital in 1859 — whereupon, to the surprise of Toronto sup-

Stalemate and Referral 169 porters, John A. Macdonald stated that "the ministry intended to carry out the present arrangement until the Seat-of-government had been fixed by her Majesty and the necessary buildings erected."48 The Ministry was promptly accused of double dealing since they had been speaking for a week about the expense of moving the capital. The motion was withdrawn after the Ministry's expression of support for its sentiments, and because it ran the distinct risk of defeat if then pressed to a vote. The third resolution requesting that the Queen "exercise the Royal Prerogative by the selection of some one place" was then put and accepted (61 to 50; Figure 42), with voting pattern being similar to the party-based second division on the resolution. By an identical vote the House then adopted an address to the Queen which was duly presented to the Governor-General for transmittal to London. The referral was accepted in London. To repeat, the referral was itself a contentious act, for many Canadians (but notably Opposition members and their supporters) claimed that the Government was irresponsible because it was referring a "local" issue. A government newspaper, however, later declared that: we might have gone on fighting aboutlocalities until doomsday had not the happy expedient been hit upon of referring the question to the Queen, as the person most likely to give it a calm, impartial and unbiased decision.49 In conclusion, with respect to the 1849-1857 period, the perambulating system for the seat-of-govemment provided positive and negative effects. The latter were clearly identified by the people who sought to end the system. Stalemate was reached in the Parliament over the seat-of-government issue. Undoubtedly encouraged by GovernorGeneral Sir Edmund Head and certainly desirous of ridding itself of a political nightmare, the Ministry in 1857 was able to achieve an essentially party-based majority in Parliament in support of referring the highly contentious issue to the Queen.

770

Choosing Canada's Capital

DOCUMENTS

170.

Legislative Assembly, March 17,1856.

Moved That the debate shall be adjourned until the House is provided with a statement of the estimated costs for erecting necessary Government buildings in Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec. (Yeas 63, Nays 58; Figure 28). 171.

Montreal Gazette, March 26,1856.

Few things excite more intense interest in this House, and among outsiders, than this question of the Seat-of-government. Every one seems determined to make it a personal matter. The galleries were filled last evening [March 17,1856], inexpectationof aclosecontest. Thedebate...was characterised by the same narrow-mindedness, the same local selfishness which has marked all previous debates of a similar kind. Montreal, poor Montreal, was the great bugbear that seemed to bestride men's minds; and weigh down their spirits like a nightmare: The Kingston people even, and all or nearly all from the vicinity of that city, turned traitors to the cause of a fixed Seat-of-government because, forsooth, there was so great a prospect of Montreal being determined on as the site....

Figure 28. Postpone until expenses submitted for Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec; March 17,1856 (selection 170.)

Stalemate and Referral 171 Kingston men publicly avow that they admit the evils of the present system, and are favourable to the establishment of the Government at some fixed site, yet vote against their convictions, because Montreal might benefit by it, and Kingston might fail to win the prize she covets. Not only did they vote thus, but called upon their friends to sacrifice their convictions in a similar manner, and violate the pledges given to their constituents. The poor simpletons from the District of Quebec too, have deluded themselves with the idea that they will get the Seat-of-government back there at the end of four years. Wait till the Government asks for a vote of money for the purpose of erecting buildings there, and they will see the result. Mr. George Brown will object until representation by population is granted, and will carry a sufficient number of Western men to vote with him upon this pretext and others to refuse the vote if Ministers should have the courage to propose it. Montreal has shown by her conduct throughout this matter, that she cared little about the Seat-of-government. She, at least, can afford to condemn it. She has not intrigued for it. 172. (Montreal) Pilot, reprinted in Montreal Gazette, March 25,1856 If the Government is in any danger of disruption, it is upon mis [the seat-of-government] question, for while some of its members are determined to have it settled, others are adverse to further interference. 173. Montreal Gazette, March 27,1856. The atmosphere of Quebec is not congenial to good Upper Canadian legislation we are told, nor is that of Toronto to Lower Canadians is retorted every day. In Ottawa or Montreal both might meet on neutral ground [where] a just, temperate and moderate middle course would be adopted, and the union cemented, not threatened with dissolution. 174. Brockville Recorder, April 3,1856. Despite the jealousies and trickery of interested parties, we sincerely trust a majority will set the question at rest. Kingston we think deserves the honour; but should the friends of Kingston fail, let them unite with voting for some other locality. Throw Quebec out of the list, and we

772

Choosing Canada's Capital

are willing to submit to either Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal, as a permanent locality. It is worse than foolish to stave off the question longer. Every removal cost the country nearly £ 100,000. No true man will vote to sustain this waste. Better apply the money in relieving the people from the burden of taxation in the articles to tea, sugar, etc. 175. Dunbar Ross, The Seat-of-Government of Canada (Quebec, 1856). Railways and electric telegraphs have annihilated distance, and centrality has ceased to be a question, thus adding materially to the preference already due to Quebec on a fair consideration of all the requisites for a proper site for the Government of this Province. 176. Legislative Assembly, April 14,1856. In the opinion of this House the time has arrived when the present system of convening Parliament alternately at Toronto and Quebec should be discontinued (Accepted Yeas 64, Nays 54; Figure 29). [Sent as an address to the Governor-General.]

Figure 29. Discontinue alternating system; April 14,1856 (selection 176).

Stalemate and Referral 173 177.

(Toronto) Globe, April 16,1856

We hope that Upper Canadians will quit themselves like men in the struggle. It will be a serious injury to our interests should Lower Canada win the day. The Seat-of-govemment gives vast power to the views of those who possess it. Everybody knows what an influential priestcraft obtained over the government when it was stationed in the head quarters of Romanism, Quebec; and no one can fail to see the new power Upper Canadian opinions have gained since Parliament met in Toronto. Upper Canada should never allow such an advantage to be gained by the priest-party, so long as she is denied Representation by Population. The acquisition of her rights in that respect would enable her to cope in any place with her opponents, but before it is attained there should be no compliance even on the smallest point. 178.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856.

The Governor-General is ready to discontinue the present system of convening Parliament alternately at Toronto and Quebec, when the necessary information as to what is most convenient to the Legislature, and the requisite means for carrying out its wishes, are in possession of His Excellency. 179.

Mr. Drummond, member for Shefford, C.E., and Attorney General East, speaking in the Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856.

MovedThat in order to facilitate the selection of a proper place for a Permanent Seat-of-government, it is expedient that no one place other than one of the Cities hereinafter named, be selected, or proposed for selection, as the place where the Seat-of-govemment is to be permanently fixed, viz: Toronto, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Hamilton.... [For the series of amendments and the subsequent divisions of the House, see selection 184 and Figures 30-36.] [In presenting this motion, Drummond said he] had not placed the names of the places on the motion in their order of eligibility; but he had placed Toronto first, because it was the present capital, and then he took Quebec next, as being the previous capital. It was merely through courtesy he gave Toronto the precedence. Then he came up the river and took the places in regular order, ending with Hamilton.

174

Choosing Canada's Capital

180.

E. Larwill, member for Kent, C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856.

If a fixed place must be found, do as they did in Michigan, where they pitched on the middle of the State, which was also the middle of a bush, away from the influences which surrounded a Government wherever it was situated. 181. J.-E. Turcotte, member for Maskinonge, C.E., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856. I want the seat-of-goverriment in a place where members could find an understanding ear, and an appreciative heart to listen to their speeches. Such a place could be Quebec, Montreal, or Ottawa, because all three have French-speaking populations. 182.

I want the question treated as a national, not a local one. A member from Canada West speaking in reply to Turcotte in the Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856.

[Turcotte's reasoning] established a reason why the seat-ofgovemment should not be fixed in the Lower Province. Why should Upper Canadian members be compelled to go down to Lower Canada, and to a people whose language they did not fully, and in many instances, at all understand? For it was a fact that the French members understood English much better than the Upper Canadian members understood French. 183. Mr. Chabot, member for Quebec City, C.E., in Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856. ...in times of trouble, it was essential that Parliament should be assembled in a fortified city, and to that end he thought Quebec was the best that could be selected. 184.

Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856.

Moved That in order to facilitate the selection of a proper place for a Permanent Seat-of-government, it is expedient that no one place other than one of the Cities hereinafter named, be selected, or proposed for selection, as the place where the Seat-of-government is to be permanently fixed, viz: Toronto, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Hamilton.... Moved in amendmentThat all of the words after "That" to the end of the Question be left out, and the words "in the opinion of this House,

Stalemate and Referral 175 the City of Ottawa is the most eligible place for the future Capital of Canada, and it is recommended that after 1859, the Parliament be permanently convened in that City, and that suitable buildings be forthwith commenced for the accommodation of the Legislature and Government" inserted instead thereof; Moved in amendmentThat the word "Ottawa" be left out, and the word "Montreal" inserted instead thereof; Moved in amendment That the word "Montreal" be left out, and the word "Kingston" inserted instead thereof; Moved in amendment That the word "Kingston" be left out, and the word "Toronto" inserted instead thereof; Moved in amendmentThat the word "Toronto" be left out, and the word "Hamilton" inserted instead thereof; Moved in amendment That the word "Hamilton" be left out, and the word "Quebec" inserted instead thereof; And the Question being put on the last proposed Amendment [that is, Quebec instead of Hamilton]: Yeas 70, Nays 46. And the Question being put on the Amendment as amended, That the word "Toronto" be left out, and the word "Quebec" inserted instead thereof; the House divided: Yeas 71, Nays 50 (Figure 30). And the Question being put on the Amendment as amended, That the word "Kingston" be left out, and the word "Quebec" inserted instead thereof; the House divided: Yeas 67, Nays 54 (Figure 31). And the Question being put on the Amendment as amended, That the word "Montreal" be left out, and the word "Quebec" inserted instead thereof; the House divided: Yeas 65, Nays 55 (See Figure 32). And the Question being put on the Amendment as amended, That the word "Ottawa" be left out, and the word "Quebec" inserted instead thereof; the House divided: Yeas 77, Nays 43 (See Figure 33). And the Question being proposed on the Amendment to the original Question, as amended, That all the words after "That" to the end of the Question be left out, and the words "in the opinion of this House, the City of Quebec is the most eligible place for the future Capital of Canada, and it is recommended that after 1859 the Parliament be permanently convened in that City, and that suitable buildings be forthwith

176

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 30. Quebec instead of Toronto; April 16,1856 (selection 184).

Figure 31. Quebec instead of Kingston; April 16,1856 (selection 184).

Figure 32. Quebec instead of Montreal; April 16,1856 (selection 184).

Stalemate and Referral

Figure 33.

177

Quebec instead of Ottawa; April 16,1856 (selection 184).

Figure 34. Permanently fixed at some place near the division line between Upper and Lower Canada [that is, Ottawa]; April 16,1856 (selection 184).

Figure 35. For Quebec after 1859; as amended from amendment supporting Ottawa; April 16,1856 (selection 184).

178

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 36. Main question: Quebec; April 16,1856 (selection 184).

commenced for the accommodation of the Legislature and Government" inserted instead thereof; Moved in amendment to the said Amendment, That the words "the Seat-of-government be permanently fixed in Upper Canada at some place near the division line between Upper and Lower Canada" inserted instead thereof; and the Question being put on this Amendment to the said proposed Amendment to the original Question, as amended; the House divided: Yeas 53, Nays 67 (Figure 34). And the Question being put on the Amendment to the original Question as amended; the House divided: Yeas 61, Nays 59 (Figure 35). Then the main Question, so amended, being put, That in the opinion of this House, the City of Quebec is the most eligible place for the future Capital of Canada, and it is recommended that after 1859 the Parliament be permanently convened in that City, and that suitable buildings be forthwith commenced for the accommodation of the Legislature and Government; the House divided: Yeas 64, Nays 56 (See Figure 36). 185.

George Brown, member for Toronto, C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856.

[Immediately following the announcement of the vote (yeas 61, nays 59; Figure 35) on the final amendment to the original question—that Quebec was the most eligible place to fix the seat-of-govemment — Brown jumped up and stated that:] It was time this farce was at an end. It was evident that members had not been voting according to principle. [He

Stalemate and Referral 179 held that] there were many great measures to be brought forward which would require a United Government to carry through; and if they decided to fix the seat-of-government in the frozen regions of Quebec, it would tend to create a disaffection that would not easily subside. 186. Mr. Powell, member for Carleton, C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856. [In moving the amendment in favour of Quebec rather than Hamilton — no. 7 on Figure 28 — which set up the series of divisions whereby Quebec was pitted against the other cities he said] No place in the Province was, in his opinion, better fitted for a seat-of-govemment than Ottawa.... In making his motion, his object was, that when Quebec was decided upon, as it would be, to be unfit for the seat-of-govemment, and the other cities named — with the exception of Ottawa — were also considered upon to be ineligible; that then Ottawa might again be considered. 187. Quebec Mercury, AprU 17,1856. THE NEWS QUEBEC TO BE THE PERMANENT SEAT OF GOVERNMENT!! The question finally settled by Parliament at 2 o'clock this morning!! The most important decision of the Session,—one saving a vast annual and needless expense to the Province, and at the same time terminating an agitation that seemed destined to be prolonged indefinitely to no benefit; — has at last been come to by the Assembly in Toronto this morning. The general votes in favour of Quebec may be thus computed: — majority for Quebec in preference to Toronto 40, Hamilton 22, Kingston 13,Montreal 10,—so that Montreal had the nearest chance after Quebec, and Toronto the most remote. We had expected the choice to result in favour of Montreal, as in the Estimates laid before the House on the 11th the outlay for the necessary buildings stood as follows, including the residence for the Governor-General, would be as follows:At Quebec At Montreal At Kingston At Toronto

£178,385 151,558 162,240 155,747

180

Choosing Canada's Capital NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AT QUEBEC

The decision as to the permanency of the seat-of-govemment in this city, involves an outlay of some £300,000 in Buildings, that will have to be commenced at an early date. The Government have already recommended that the Parliament Buildings be erected on the Jesuit Barrack grounds, and that the Governor's residence be in or about the Castle Gardens. The city will gain, in addition, the location of aprovincial Picture Gallery, and Museum, intended to be build in connection with the Halls of Legislature. 188.

Montreal Gazette, April 24,1856.

This debate on the seat-of-government question raises some reflections on party government in Canada which may be of use if properly acted on. Sectionalism in this matter more than any other has been rampant. The patriotism of each man, with rare exceptions, has been bounded by his county, or his immediate district. The few exceptions were those men from the district of Montreal and Upper Canadian constituencies who voted for Quebec as the permanent seat-of-government rather than continue the absurd alternating system longer. There seemed no principle of cohesion between differing sections, no broad principle of any kind on which men from various portions of the Province could hang together. Alternate system men were found voting for a permanent seatof-govemment where the country would not desire to see it, in order to defeat by a trick the previously declared intentions of the House. And some of the permanent system men were found voting against all but the particular place which suited them thereby endangering the chance of getting it fixed in any place at all. 189.

Legislative Assembly, 14-20 May, 1856

[Supply Bill included £50,000 for new public buildings in Que-

bec.] [Brown (Toronto, C. W.) moved that the House should not go into committee to discuss the Supply Bill and that it was inexpedient to appropriate £50,000 for the purpose specified. Ruled out of order.] [Many other amendments, all ruled out of order.]

Stalemate and Referral 181 [Papin (L'Assomption, C.E.) moved a want-of-confidence motion: the Ministry's position of the seat-of-government question did] not inspire this House with the confidence necessary to entrust the Administration with the money's required for the construction of the necessary Buildings at the Seat-of-government [rejected, 43 to 73]. [Holton (Montreal, C.E.) moved a want-of-confidence motion based on the belief that the actions of the Ministry, relative to the seat-ofgovernment] has disappointed the just expectations of the great majority of the People of this Province [rejected: 47 to 70; only 27 of the 60 C.W. votes cast were with the Ministry]. 190.

An opposition member in the Legislative Assembly, May 15,1856.

On the Seat-of-government question, the Government professed to leave it an open question, which showed either that they were lamentably ignorant of the geography of their country, or that they had not the courage to do what they knew they ought to do, and to encounter the opposition.... It proved that they were incompetent or that they were unpatriotic. 191.

(Toronto) Leader, June 9,1856

Voting money towards the erection of public buildings in Quebec, with the idea of that city becoming the permanent seat-of-government looks like a gigantic hoax. Every body feels that the thing is impossible; that any action which may now be taken in that direction is only a step to be replaced at some future time. You may force water up hill; but it will never be possible to force the whole population of the country down to Quebec to do the business of legislation. The tide of population flows westward, steadily and without recession. In a short time, the preponderance of Upper over Lower Canada will be immense. Rational men would aim to do the business of Legislation at the centre of population; and to this it might come at last, however the representatives of either section of the country may try to deceive themselves in the matter at present. The Government is made for the people, not the people for the Government; and the former must follow the latter instead of the latter following the former. Whoever seeks to reverse this inevitable law deceives himself; he cannot deceive posterity for whom a fixed seat-of-government can only be required. In new countries, we live fast; and half a generation suffices to settle the knottiest questions. This seat-of-government question, so diffi-

182

Choosing Canada's Capital

cult of solution at present, will one day settle itself. It is difficult of solution now because every thing is in a state of transition. Two United Provinces claim a population about equal to one another, but if this equality really exists, which we very much doubt, it is destined soon to be replaced by a positive and decided preponderance. Let people dispute as much as they may about the relative population of Upper and Lower Canada, at this moment every body sees the inevitable tendency of the population and can foretell with absolute certainty where its future centre will be. But while the population goes one way, is the government to set off the other? Is the government to run away from the people whose business it is required to transact? Is the great majority of the people to be dragged down hundreds of miles to the government, or is the government to take up its position among the bulk of the people? 192.

Legislative Assembly, June 23,1856.

[Moved by Powell (Ottawa, C.W.)] That the permanence of the Seat-of-government ought to be a Ministerial measure. [Moved in amendment] That said motion be not proceeded with. [Moved in amendment by George Brown] That the resolution of the Legislative Assembly of April 16, 1856, in favour of Quebec as the permanent seat-of-government, be rescinded. [The motion and amendments were suspended by the calling of the orders of the day.] 193.

Legislative Assembly, June 25,1856.

[The House refused to accept Brown's amendment to the supply bill that] the Sisters of Charity, Quebec, be compensated for the loss of their buildings by burning while it was in the possession of the Government. [Moved in amendment to the supply bill by Holton (Montreal, C.E.)] That it is expedient to rescind the Resolution in favour of Quebec and to vote an address for the selection of Montreal, and the erection of public buildings in that city. [Objection was made to this amendment as being irregular, Speaker ruled otherwise, Speaker's decision upheld by a 54 to 40 division.] [Moved in amendment that the City of Montreal should be replaced with Town of Cornwall. Defeated.]

Stalemate and Referral 183 [Brown moved in amendment that Helton's amendment should only be against Quebec and should leave out mention of Montreal. Defeated on a sectional vote.] [Mackenzie moved in amendment that nothing should happen until the question of continuance or repeal of the legislative union was] submitted to the direct Vote of the People [rejected: 11 to 79.] [Powell moved in amendment] That the words City of Montreal [in the Holton amendment] should be replaced with the City of Ottawa [rejected: 19 to 74]. [Holton amendment in favour of Montreal was then put, but it too was defeated, 29 to 67.] [Moved in amendment directly against the April 16th resolution and in favour of Kingston was put; objected to and the Speaker agreed.] [The Question was put on the resolution involving the £50,000 for buildings in Quebec and it was accepted by a largely sectional division. Accepted: 50 to 46.] 194.

Legislative Assembly, June 27,1856.

[Second reading of the supply bill, it was moved that the £50,000 for buildings at Quebec be left out. Rejected, 48 to 50; Figure 37.] [The complete supply bill, with the £50,000 intact, was accepted, 74 to 18.] 195.

Legislative Council, June 28,1856.

Resolved: That this House not having been consulted...and the other branch of the Legislative having resolved upon Quebec,...and having, moreover, passed a Bill of Supply, making provision for erecting Public Buildings at Quebec, this House feels itself imperatively called upon to declare that it cannot concur in the said Bill of Supply; the Council divided: Yeas 12, Nays 9. 196.

Excerpts from speeches in Legislative Council debates on the resolution (selection 195)

(a) The Country was looking to the Council as the last hope.... It was a strong step to stop supplies [but] desperate diseases required a desperate remedy. (b) ...the House in throwing out the bill would receive the support of nine-tenths of the people of Upper Canada.

184 197.

Choosing Canada's Capital Quebec Mercury, July 1,1856.

The rights of Quebec are sacrificed. 198.

Hamilton Spectator, July 8,1856.

...On the Seat-of-government question there can be but one opinion among Upper Canadians, and that is, that the most central and accessible locality should be chosen. Where that locality should be, must be left to the good sense of the people to decide. For our part, we give the preference to Kingston, but should the decision be otherwise, we would willing acquiesce in it. — One thing is certain: the Seat-of-government can never be located in either Quebec or Montreal. That, we firmly believe, is a fixed fact in so far as Upper Canada is concerned; but should it be otherwise we would not like to answer for the consequences. 199.

Le Journal de Quebec, February, 1857.

It is now a year ago since the House, having to make a choice of a city to establish there the permanent Seat-of-govemment, pronounced in favour of Quebec. This decision is as sacred as if it were law.

Figure 37. That £50,000 for buildings at Quebec be deleted from supply bill; June 27,1856 (selection 194).

Stalemate and Referral 185 200.

Quebec Mercury, February 24,1857.

It is something extraordinary with what rabid hatred anything and everything which may prove advantageous to this city is objected to by the Upper Canadian Press. 201.

(Toronto) Globe, March 7,1857.

[The Ministry wants] to get rid of a question which imperils its safety, without regard to considerations of policy or right. 202.

(Toronto) Leader, March 10,1857

Proof enough exists that there are sectional parties in the House who would not allow the Seat-of-government question to remain undisturbed, whatever might be the desire of the Government in regard to it. 203.

Montreal Gazette, March 11,1857.

[Referral is right because] any decision whatever in our Parliament will hardly be regarded as a finality. We got a decision last session in favour of Quebec. The Government found it impossible to act upon it —to get supplies voted for the necessary buildings. Suppose Montreal, or Ottawa, or Kingston were decided on, is there any certainty that the appropriation would meet with any better fate? It may be decided 500 times, and there will be plenty of men found desirous of trying it over the 501st time. 204.

Brockville Recorder, March 12,1857.

The important subject, omitted in the Governor's speech, is not to be allowed to slumber.... The selection of a permanent locality being a ticklish point for Ministers, they have shown to the country their want of moral courage in refusing to embody the subject in the Governor's Speech. They perfectly well know the country is disgusted with the expensive menagerie up and away plan, and desire the permanent settlement of the Government. Quebec cannot be chosen, neither, we are afraid, is Toronto likely to be the favoured spot. The race in our opinion will be between Montreal, Ottawa and Kingston. We would certainly prefer Kingston, but failing this city, then Ottawa. Montreal has had her day.... We know no more eligible site on the banks of the St. Lawrence, except Brockville, but we suppose if Kingston loses, Ottawa is likely to

186

Choosing Canada's Capital

come in for the next chance. Be this as it may, a permanent seat should be at once selected, to stop the squandering of public money. He is no friend to his country who will vote against the selection of a permanent Seat-ofgovernment. 205.

Legislative Council, March 12,1857.

[The Legislative Council accepted (without a division) a resolution that it was advisable to select a permanent Seat-of-government; accepted (yeas 26, nays 16) that a sum of money should be provided for the erection of buildings; and accepted (yeas 20, nays 4) an Address to the Queen.] [In moving the first resolution, the Government Leader in the upper chamber said that] taking into consideration the experience of last session, and considering that each member in the House is not free from local jealousies of some sort or other, on the question he thought the Government had adopted the wisest plan. 206.

Quebec Mercury, March 13,1857.

[Reacting to the Council's decision to refer the matter to London] Reference [of the issue] to the Home Government is simply confessing that Canadians are political children, and incapable of managing their own affairs. [The Government should declare in the House that] this question is now yours; you have by your vote affirmed that Quebec shall be the Seat-of-govemment [and to honour that vote]. 207.

George Cartier, member for Vercheres, C.E., and senior member of the Ministry from C.E, speaking in the Legislative Assembly, March 17,1857.

[The Government introduced the three resolutions already accepted by the Legislative Council (document 205). Cartier declared that] it was impossible to obtain a majority in the House for any one place, and if that were possible, it would still be impossible to obtain the concurrence of the Council. [Because of this,] the Ministry had now come to the conclusion that the question must be settled [by referral to the Queen] and to make a grant of money for the purpose, and this in conjunction with the other House. 208.

Legislative Assembly, March 17,1857.

[John A.Macdonald moved that the House should go into the Committee of the Whole to consider the resolutions on the seat-of-

Stalemate and Referral 187 government whereupon Mr. Thibaudeau (Portneuf, C.E.) quickly moved in amendment that the Speaker should not leave the chair and that] it is not expedient to discuss the Question of the permanency of the Seat-ofgovernment during the present Session, it having been already decided [in favour of Quebec] last Session [yeas 44, nays 68]. 209.

Several members of the Legislative Assembly in debate, March 1720,1857.

(a) [Mr. Thibaudeau (Portneuf, C.E.). When Quebec had been selected the year before] it was rumoured at the same time that the Government were not sincere in their intention to appropriate for the erection of buildings in that city, and however unwilling hon. members have been to believe that rumour at that time, the proof was now before the House that that rumour was true. (b) [Mr. Simard (Quebec West). Spoke in indignant terms of] the injustice done to Quebec by the attempt to deprive it of the advantages secured to it by the vote of last session. (c) [Another member attacked the Government for abandoning] every principle of national independence and self-reliance, by inviting the Imperial Government to come back and virtually take away the selfgovernment it was England's boast to have given us, and our boast to have worked creditably and intelligently. (d) Mr. Georges Cartier (Vercheres, C.E.)] ...the vote for Quebec was a joke. [To which Mr. Powell (Carleton, C.W.) added "it was humbug."] (e) [Mr. George Brown (Toronto, C.W.) claimed that] if they first settled the question of Representation by Population they would have no difficulty in settling the question of the Seat-of-government.... The people of Upper Canada were quite able to manage their own affairs. (f) [Mr. Powell (Carleton, C.W.) defended the Government's actions by claiming that] this question is beset with difficulties. The grave difficulty of two Provinces dissimilar in feeling and with different laws, languages and institutions, united together, met them at the outset and was only to be overcome by mutual forbearance and conciliation. (Hear, hear.) It was admitted on all hands that the union worked advantageously and tended to the advantage of both sections of the Country, but it could only be maintained by mutual forbearance.

188

Choosing Canada's Capital

(g) [Mr. Papin expressed the heart-felt fear of many Canada East members.] It is clear that the object, as the effect, of reference of this question to the Imperial authorities would be to settle the seat-of-government permanently in Upper Canada. 210. John A. Macdonald to his sister, Louisa, March 17,1857. [Papin is] making a French speech [so I will] snatch a moment [to tell you that we] were busily engaged in the House of Assembly discussing the question of the Seat-of-government, on which we expect a very close vote. 211. Montreal Gazette, March 23,1857. [Reacting to the division whereby Thibaudeau's amendment was defeated; selection 208] In order to defeat the Government the leaders of the Opposition [have] entered into a dishonest compact with the Quebec section of the Ministerialists.... Here then we have a new coalition by the denouncers of the Government coalition, the most immoral of men. 212. Amendment by Dorion, member for Montreal West, C.E., Legislative Assembly, March 17,1857. [Upon the defeat of the Thibaudeau amendment (selection 208), Dorion moved in amendment to the Government's resolution concerning the House going into Committee of the Whole, that the Speaker should not leave the chair and that] in the opinion of the House, the reference of a Question of a purely local nature, such as the selection of a permanent Seat-of-government undoubtedly is, to Her Majesty, to be decided by Her, without the advice of Her Provincial Parliament, or of Ministers responsible thereto, would be at variance with the principles of local selfgovernment... 213. (Toronto) Globe, March 18,1857. [The Globe felt] it is probable that the [seat-of-government] subject will occupy [the House's] attention for several evenings. 214.

Carleton Place Herald, March 19,1857.

It is probable that the seat-of-government question will be referred to the Queen, by way of compromise; and if so; the City of Ottawa, has as good a prospect of being selected, as any other place in Canada. It is too bad, however, that we cannot settle our own affairs; and this [the

Stalemate and Referral 189 seat-of-government question], of all others, is certainly a purely local matter. 215.

John A. Macdonald, member for Kingston, C .W., and senior member of the Ministry from C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, March 19,1857.

[Referral to London was] the only way in which the question could be settled. The fault was not with the Government, but with the sectionalism of the Legislature. By pursuing the proposed course the matter would be referred to a disinterested arbiter, one anxious only for the promotion of the interests of every section of the Country. Every locality would have a full opportunity of laying its claims at the foot of the Throne. He assured the House that there had not been and would not be the most distant communication with the Home Government upon the question of where the Seat-of-government should be, either by the Government as a Government or by any member of it 216.

Legislative Assembly, March 20,1857.

Moved That the present system of perambulation is highly injurious to the Public Service, and of the greatest possible inconvenience; that, therefore, this practice be abandoned, and a convenient and central place selected as the permanent Seat-of-government, and that Ottawa be so selected; and the House divided: Yeas 11, Nays 100 (Figure 38). Moved in amendment That it is inexpedient now to submit to the decision of this House that Quebec should be selected.... (Rejected: Yeas 44, Nays 70; Figure 39.) Moved in amendment ...foe, system of alternate Parliaments should be continued as heretofore (rejected: Yeas 34, Nays 80; Figure 40). Moved in amendment [That "Kingston" should replace "Quebec" in the Masson amendment for Quebec; rejected: 28 to 84.] Moved in amendment [That 'Toronto" should replace "Quebec" in the Masson amendment for Quebec; rejected: 30 to 81.] Moved in amendment [by Masson, That Quebec should be the permanent seat-of-government; rejected: 14 to 100.]

190 217.

Choosing Canada's Capital (Toronto) Leader, March 21,1857.

The debate and the divisions of last night...only lead to confirm the opinion heretofore expressed in this journal, as to the impossibility of determining the question of a permanent Seat-of-government in the present House of Assembly—or indeed in any Parliament subject, as ours must necessary be, to local influences. 218.

Montreal Gazette, March 24,1857.

[After four days of debate in the House it was reported that] The seat-of-government debate drags on its way and grows more personal and senseless the further it goes. 219.

Resolutions accepted by the Legislative Assembly, March 24,1857.

1. Resolved, That the interests of Canada require that the Seat of the Provincial Government should be fixed at some certain place. 2. Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding the sum of Two hundred and twenty five thousand pounds, be appropriated for the purpose of providing for the necessary Buildings and accommodation for the Government and the Legislature at that certain place [Yeas 64, Nays 48; Figure 41]. 3. Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She may be graciously pleased to exercise the Royal Prerogative by the selection of some one place as the permanent Seat-ofgovernment in Canada [Yeas 61, Nays 50; Figure 42] 220.

Address from Legislative Assembly to Queen Victoria, March 24, 1857.

To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. May it please Your Majesty, We, Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of Cfl/ifldfl, in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty forthe purpose of representing:That the interests of Canada require that the Seat of the Provincial Government should be fixed at some certain place. That we have resolved to appropriate the sums requisite for providing the necessary Buildings and accommodation for the Govern-

Stalemate and Referral

191

Figure 38. For Ottawa; March 20, 1857 (selection 216).

Figure 39. Inexpedient now to consider Quebec; March 20, 1857 (selection 216).

Figure 40. Continue alternating system; March 20,1857 (selection 216).

792

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 41. £225,000 for necessary buildings; March 24,1857 (selection 219).

Figure 42. On sending an address to the Queen for exercising the Royal Prerogative; March 24, 1857 (selection 219).

Stalemate and Referral 193 ment and the Legislature at such place as Your Majesty may see fit to select. And we therefore humbly pray Your Majesty to be graciously pleased to exercise the Royal Prerogative by the selection of some one place as the permanent Seat-of-government in Canada. 221.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary), March 28,1857.

I forward, with the present despatch, two Addresses to Her Most Gracious Majesty, of an unusual character. They are respectively from the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, and the prayer of both is the same. 2. That from the Legislative Council is as follows: To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. Most Gracious Sovereign, "We, your Majesty's loyal and dutiful subjects, the Legislative Council of Canada in Provincial Parliament assembled, beg leave to approach your Majesty with renewed assurance of devotion and attachment to your Royal person and Government. "We desire, may it please your Majesty, to express our opinion that the interests of Canada require that the seat of the Provincial Government should be fixed at some certain place. "We therefore respectfully pray that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to exercise your Royal prerogative, and select some place for the permanent seat-of-government in Canada." 3. The Address from the Legislative Assembly is founded on resolutions passed in Committee of the whole House, which resolutions contain the additional assurance that the House resolves to appropriate a sum not exceeding £225,000, for providing the necessary buildings and accommodation for the Government and Legislature, at such place as Her Majesty may see fit to select. 4. You are aware, Sir, of the difficulty which, in this Colony, has long surrounded the question of the seat-of-government. After its removal

194

Choosing Canada's Capital

from Kingston to Montreal, in 1843, certain circumstances caused the Legislature to adopt a migratory system, by which Parliament was to sit alternately five years at Toronto and five years at Quebec. 5. The inconvenience of this arrangement has been strongly felt. It is attended by great expense, and by a periodical suspension of public business in every office. At the same time it is impossible to deny that it has done good; prejudices have been softened and misconceptions removed by it. 6. In the last session, however, the Legislative Assembly asserted the necessity of a fixed seat-of-government, by a resolution of their own, and a vote was carried in favour of Quebec. When the question of providing money for the erection of the public buildings at Quebec came up, a clause appropriating £50,000 for that purpose was struck out of the supplies by the Legislative Council, and the whole Supply Bill had to be introduced again in the Lower House. Practically, therefore, the main question at the commencement of this session remained yet undecided. 7. My own conviction was, and is, that the time has arrived when this matter ought to be definitively settled. To keep it open is to maintain in full flow a constant source of local bitterness and sectional animosity, which by a little management, can always be turned against the Government of the day; nor is this the worst consequence of its unsettled condition. If the Province of Canada is to remain one, it is essential that its seat-of-government should be fixed and recognised by all. 8. There can be no doubt that Her Majesty's prerogative enables her to summon the Parliament wherever she may please, but Her Majesty, with a desire to meet the wishes of the people of Canada, has, in practice, graciously left the matter to be determined by those most immediately interested therein. 9. It now appears to a majority of both branches of the Legislature that the question is one not likely to be arranged satisfactorily by themselves. They do not, I conceive, by their present Addresses, in any way renounce or disclaim their own capacity for self-government; nor do they, by referring this question to the Queen, intend to establish a principle in any way inconsistent with the free and unimpeded action ofParliamentary responsibility in the Colony.

Stalemate and Referral 195 10. The matter itself is one of exceptional character, nothing but this consideration, and a strong conviction that its speedy settlement is of the utmost importance, would induce me to recommend that so soon as the money necessary for erecting the public buildings at the spot which Her Majesty may select, shall have been placed at her disposal, the prayer of these Addresses should be complied with. 11. Under any circumstances, I apprehend that the Legislature and public offices will, in 1859, have to be removed again to Quebec, according to the present arrangement. What is asked of the Queen is to select the site at which, in the meantime, fit and suitable buildings may be erected, for the establishment of the permanent Legislative capital of Canada. 12. In orderto lay fully before the Queen the claims of the several places which may be said to consider themselves entitled to selection as the seat-of-government, I have caused a circular (of which a copy is annexed to this despatch [selection 230]) to be addressed by my Secretary to the Mayor of each of these cities. I have asked each Corporation to set forth the reasons in favour of their own city; and to forward the statement of such reasons to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, before the 1st of July. 13. In doing this I have, perhaps, presumed too much on the probability of Her Majesty complying with the request of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly: if so, I must entreat forgiveness; but I have thought it important that no time should be lost. The question must, of course, be decided after calm and deliberate consideration of the interests of the whole province, not of those of any particular city or place. 14. It would evidently be improper to convey to the Queen's advisers in England any opinion or advice in this matter, as on the part of the Executive Council here. The whole reference is, as I have observed, of an exceptional character, and if it were to be finally decided on the advice of persons any of whom are responsible to the Parliament of Canada, the great object of removing it beyond the cross-action of local politics and sectional jealousies would be altogether frustrated. 16. This despatch has been shown to the members of my Council, and concurred in by them. With this observation I again submit my recommendation that Her Majesty may be advised to comply with the prayer of the Addresses now transmitted.

796

Choosing Canada's Capital

222.

Herman Merivale (Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies) memo to Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary), April 13,1857.

It will not be expedient that any answer should be given for 8 or 10 months, except the acceptance of the reference [of the seat-of-government issue from Canada]. The sooner that comes the better. 223.

Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) memo to Herman Merivale (Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies), April 15,1857.

[Directed that] a draft be prepared accepting the reference. I mean to read it to the Queen before it goes to the Governor [in Canada]. 224.

Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General), April 17,1857.

I have to acknowledge your despatch of the 28th ultimo, forwarding Addresses from the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to exercise the Royal prerogative by the selection of some place for the permanent seat-ofgovernment in Canada. I understand the object of these Addresses to be the selection of some fitting place at which, under all ordinary circumstances, the Legislature of the Province should henceforward be called together, and where the necessary public buildings may be provided for that purpose, as well as for the general administration of the affairs of Canada. I have to inform you that Her Majesty, on the advice of Her Ministers, and fully weighing the importance of the reference thus made to her by the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada, has been graciously pleased to comply with the prayer of these Memorials. I shall await the further information which your despatch promises and in particular the replies which may be received to the circular which you have addressed to the Mayors of the several cities, before taking any further steps to initiate the necessary examination into the relative advantages of the places indicated for the information of Her Majesty. 225.

Extract from speech by Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) when proroguing Parliament, June 10,1857.

In submitting to the decision of Her Most Gracious Majesty the final choice of a Seat-of-govemment for Canada, you have done that, which, without derogating from the rights of the Colonial Parliament, will

Stalemate and Referral 197 remove from its walls a constant source of heart-burning and local jealousy. 226.

(Nova Scotia) Acadian Recorder, April 25,1857.

The competition among the leading Canadian cities for the honour of being the permanent seat-of-govemment does not flag in spirit in consequence of its being carried on in a new field.... The candidate cities are taking active steps to bring their respective claims into notice in the proper quarters. 227.

Times of London, April 4,1857.

The Queen has been invited to discharge one of the most interesting and poetical duties of the empire, and one of very rare occurrence. She is asked to decide between the rival claims of as many as four or five cities to be the seat of the Canadian Government. [Kingston] is neither one thing nor the other, [Toronto] is simply the capital of Upper Canada. It has not a particle of sympathy with Lower Canada...it is absolutely indefensible. [Quebec is] a very picturesque city, in a beautiful situation.... But Quebec is the capital of Lower Canada in a still more exclusive sense than Toronto is of the Upper Province. It's population [is] more French than the French themselves.... [T]he recommendations of this city are those that appeal to the imagination rather than the reason, and we should pay dear for poetry and sentiment. There is a very strong party for Ottawa, a city that is to be rather than is now.... We must deal with realities, and, as things are now, the choice of Ottawa would sacrifice the actual convenience of the majority to the ideas of the few.... There remains the city of Montreal which would probably be the capital at this moment but for the folly of some intemperate politicians, who being beaten in the Legislature, instigated a mob to burn its House to the ground. Whatever reasons then existed for the choice exist now. Montreal is the most central.... 228.

Letter from "Ego" (an Ottawa supporter residing in London) to the Editor, Times of London, April 21,1857. (This letter was written in response to the article on the seat of government issue; selection

227.)

Let this decision, then, be in favour of Lower Canada, and you light a volcano in the heart of Upper Canada; let it be in favour of Upper Canada, and you sink a deep well of discontent in the heart of Lower Canada. But let it be in favour of Ottawa, which is on the boundary line

198

Choosing Canada's Capital

between the two, with one-half its population French and the other English — let at this point, where the two provinces are connected by a magnificent suspension bridge, the Parliament Houses be erected in Upper Canada, and the Governor's Palace, or Government House in Lower Canada, and you hush the voice of discontent for ever, sink all that rivalry and jealousy between parties, and unite the two provinces and the two races in a bond that can never be broken. 229.

Quebec Mercury, April 23, 1857 (in reaction to the article in the Times of London; selection 227).

...flippancy, reckless sophistry, slapdash arrogance, ignorant assumption, vulgar impudence, unscrupulous mendacity, and that shameless disregard of every right, or every sentiment, and of every principle, which [heretofore] has been eminently characteristic of the Times newspaper.

CHAPTER 7 THE CITY MEMORIALS

INTRODUCTION Governor-General Sir Edmund Head was the leading figure in the 1857 decision-making process that followed referral to London by the Canadian government, although this was not known in Canada. In 1856, Head had determined that Ottawa should be capital1 and this belief was transmitted privately to the Colonial Office in writing and orally in 1857. Sir Edmund also asked that memorials from Toronto, Kingston, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec be sent to London laying out the case for each site. Private letters with claims for different cities were sent to the Colonial Office by members of the Canadian government even after John A. Macdonald had assured the Legislative Assembly that such would not happen. Also sent to London were memorials from Sarnia and Belleville, C.W., praying that Kingston should be made capital.2 Receipt of the Sarnia memorial prompted Arthur Blackwood (Chief Clerk of the North American Division in the Colonial Office) to ask his superior, Herman Merivale (Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies) "whether representatives from Mayors of Cities in Canada, or other persons on behalf of places in which they are interested" were to be added to the collection of memorials to be examined.3 Merivale in turn wrote to his superior, Chichester Fortescue (Parliamentary Under Secretary for the Colonies), stating that "I apprehend" that "correspondence" from minor towns and villages should not be added to the collection."4 As with normal practice, this memo continued up the hierarchy and so also was seen by Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary).5 Subsequently, a dispatch went to Sir William Eyre, the Officer Administering the Government of Canada in Sir Edmund Head's absence, instructing him to forward all further petitions in the normal manner, rather than having them sent directly to the Colonial Secretary. The latter dispatch was drafted by Sir Edmund Head who was then in London but, of course, it was not sent to Canada in his name.6 The dispatch also indicated: 199

200

Choosing Canada's Capital I wish to point out to you that only places, the authorities of which were put directly in communication with Her Majesty's Government by Sir E. Head, are the several cities which have been named as those between which the selection of the future Capital of Canada must be made.7

From this dispatch we can conclude that the capital of Canada was to be selected from only the five cities identified by Head. Clearly, this reservation excluded Hamilton, yet the Colonial Office decided to accept the uninvited Hamilton memorial, but in accepting it, Merivale wrote a cool note to Blackwood: "Put with the other Papers on this subject. The Governor did not ask the Citizens of Hamilton for an opinion."8 Even so, Labouchere asked that the Hamiltonians be informed that their memorial would be laid before the Queen.9 The memorials from Ottawa, Hamilton, and the two from Quebec were addressed directly to the Queen. The memorials from Toronto, Montreal, and Kingston were written to the Colonial Secretary. Following the receipt of the Hamilton memorial, on May 25,1857, the Colonial Office received the other city memorials — Quebec (represented by two groups), Montreal, Toronto, a supplemental memorandum from an actuary in London in support of the Toronto memorial, Kingston, and Ottawa. In late July, Ottawa city officials became concerned that their original submission had not reached London, given that they had not received an acknowledgment so, on July 30, they sent a second copy.10 The order of presentation of the memorials in this book is the same order as they appeared in a very limited circulation publication printed in London for use by the Colonial Office. The order of receipt of the documents in London differed from the published order. Discussion of how these documents were used in London is presented in the next chapter. What can be noted here is that the several memorials provide fascinating insights into the socio-political life and geography of Canada, as understood by representatives of the various cities. Above all, the documents serve as wonderful examples of "booster" literature. As such, the memorials are important documents for what they reveal about the growth and importance of the six cities and about the growth and devel-

The City Memorials

201

opment of Canada — from the perspective of each of the cities in question. Quebec's memorialists, for instance, placed particular stress on communications, defence, and the city's historical role. Toronto's mayor, in contrast, cleverly played with population and temperature data to give support to the city's other known (especially communications and trade) strengths, strengths that could only grow once the west was settled. Most of the memorials included criticism of the otherplaces being considered. The Ottawa memorial explored the same types of themes as those examined in the memorials from the other cities, including centrality, suitable buildings, military issues (especially defensive position), population characterization, communications, commercial character, and the issue of an Upper Canada versus a Lower Canada site. The Ottawa memorial is of particular interest because of its use of the concept of centrality. Included with the Ottawa submission was the specially prepared map "compiled from authentic sources" (Figure 2). In case the reader in London missed the point in the text about Ottawa being the most central place, two other devices were used to direct the person to such an understanding. First, the map has Ottawa at its centre. It is easy to imagine a Colonial Office official opening up the rolled map and seeing how well-placed Ottawa was on an east-west basis and in terms of its location on a river that went to the northwest. Second, on the map was placed a table of distance comparisons (selection 239), from Ottawa to pairedplaces in different directions and at increasing distance from the city! Two other points in connection with the Ottawa memorial are worthy of comment. First, the collective procedure for drafting the document was similar to that followed in Hamilton, Kingston and Quebec. In contrast, the memorials from Toronto and Montreal each had one author. Ottawa formed a committee to prepare its memorial and several leading citizens were invited to prepare draft documents for examination by the committee. Three drafts were submitted and that by Richard W. Scott was selected.11 Before it was sent to London some changes were made by the committee—20 minor changes (mostly word substitutions), two relatively major insertions, and one deletion. The paragraph on the 1857 vote against Ottawa was not in Scott's draft. Second, with respect to the boosterist nature of the Ottawa document, an interesting change of a figure was made. To help impress upon the reader that the impact for selecting Ottawa would be great, in the draft it was noted that "the Ottawa valley...is capable of sustaining a population of 5,000,000" but this

202

Choosing Canada's Capital

was subsequently changed to read "8,000,000" in the memorial as submitted to London! Toronto's memorial included a map and some "photographic views of various portions of the city." The mayor of Quebec submitted with his memorial a beautifully scribed, very detailed 1822 map of Quebec City and its harbour (that was published in 1826). Ottawa's memorial included the specially drafted map, as noted above. The manner in which the various maps and picture views of the cities were considered in London provides us with another example of the hierarchical nature of Colonial Office decision making.12 Blackwood, on July 9, 1857, wrote Merivale for a reaction: "What should be done with the plan and the views? The printing of them will add to the expense; but if the correspondence on the subject of the Seat of Govt. should eventually be laid before Parlt. the omission of them from the series may give rise to complaints." On July 10, Merivale wrote "I should say there is no reason for printing," to which Fortescue (July 13) added, "I think not," and Labouchere (July 16) stated firmly, "Certainly not."13

DOCUMENTS 230.

R.T. Pennefather (Governor's Secretary) to His Worship the Mayor of Toronto, Montreal, Kingston, Ottawa, and Quebec, March 28, 1857.

You are probably aware that the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Canada have addressed Her Most Gracious Majesty to exercise her prerogative in the selection of a permanent seat of Government for the whole province. In the event of Her Majesty complying with the prayer of these Addresses, his Excellency is anxious that her advisers in England should be enabled to place before her a full and fair statement of the claim of each separate city which may be considered a candidate for the honour of becoming the future capital of Canada. As a matter of course, the final selection must depend on a comprehensive survey of the interests, not of any one place, but of the whole Province, as part of British North America.

The City Memorials

203

The claims, however, of each city are likely to be stated by the persons most interested in supporting them better than they would be by any other party. His Excellency, therefore, invites the Corporation of to cause to be prepared a paper setting forth the reasons which may, in their opinion, favour the claims of that place to be selected by the Queen. With every wish to afford full time for preparing these statements, his Excellency desires that it may be in the hands of the Colonial Secretary by the first week of July in the present year. You will please, if you see fit to comply with his Excellency's desire, to address the packet to the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, London, and endorse it with the words: "City of , Canada." 231.

Memorial of the Council of the Quebec Board of Trade, May 30, 1857.

To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. The Memorial of the Council of the Quebec Board of Trade humbly and respectfully Showeth That Addresses, voted by the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada, praying that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to exercise the Royal prerogative, by the selection of some place for the permanent seat of Government in Canada, have been forwarded to be laid before your Majesty, and are now awaiting the further information promised upon the question submitted, before any action is taken thereon. That his Excellency the Governor-General, in transmitting these Addresses, was pleased to intimate that he had by circular letters, called upon the Mayors of the several places which may be said to consider themselves entitled to selection as the seat of Government, to set forth the reasons in favour of their own city, and to forward the statement of such reasons to the Secretary for the Colonies before the 1st of July. That, the Mayor and Corporation of Quebec having prepared such statement, they are now forwarding the same accordingly. That the Council of the Quebec Board of Trade, representing in their corporate capacity the mercantile interests of this the most extensive

204

Choosing Canada's Capital

shipping port in British North America, whose splendid harbour is annually visited by a large amount of British tonnage, of great value, and carrying on extensive trade, and to which shipping and trade the seat of Government is of vast importance, beg leave, on behalf of these several interests, humbly and respectively to submit to your Majesty the following observations:That Quebec was for 230 years the capital of Canada; that during the period it was so, as a British Possession, the affairs of the Government, and the Legislative proceedings, were carried on in perfect tranquility and without interruption, in the midst of its peaceful inhabitants. The circumstances which led to the first removal of the Government and Legislature to Kingston, at the time of the union of the provinces, the next movement to Montreal, and the unfortunate cause of the abrupt change from that city to the system of alternate removals of the Government and sittings of the Parliament, every four years, to Toronto and Quebec, are already so fully before your Majesty, that it is only deemed necessary herein briefly to allude to these changes as public events that are past. That the inconvenience of the alternate system having been strongly felt, the Legislative Assembly, in the session of 1856, asserted the necessity of a fixed seat of Government, when a vote was carried in favour of Quebec; the appropriation then made by the representatives of the people towards the erection of public buildings was, however, struck out by a small majority of the Legislative Council the main question was thus left undecided, and the appeal to your Majesty to select a site has been the result, as above stated. That Quebec having been selected as most suitable for a fixed seat of Government by a vote of the Representative Assembly, in preference to the other cities competing for the honour, this Council would venture to offer the following statement in support of that decision: The City of Quebec is now, in consequence of internal improvements in the country, in a position as central as is usually deemed requisite for the seat of Government, either for nations orprovinces; throughoutthe year, railroads extending, expecially westward, nearly to the extent of the province are in constant use; splendid and fast steamers are running on the lakes and rivers during the open navigation; and, for immediate communication, electric telegraphs are established to all places of importance, thus making Quebec of as easy, and perhaps more ready, access from the extreme western

The City Memorials

205

sections of the province, than London is from the distant parts of the British Isles. That during seven months of open navigation, Quebec connects with the mother-country by means of mail-steamers, evennow, in the very short space often days, with the expectation of a yet greater diminution of time, and in the winter months the same connection is kept us (and soon, it is to be hoped, by railroad) through British territory to the open seaports of St. John's, St. Andrew's, and Halifax, in your Majesty's Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. That the situation of Quebec is most healthy; it is surrounded by natural scenery of great extent and grandeur; the necessaries and comforts of life are abundant, and reasonable as compared with other cities in the province, a fact worthy of consideration with reference to the many employed about a Government and Legislature; and it contains, within its walls, magnificent and commodious sites for Government and Legislative buildings, while abundant materials, in its neighbourhood, are available for their construction. That an important advantage, perhaps the most important in favour of Quebec, and which is not possessed by other of the competing cities, is the great strength of its fortress, under the protection of which the proceedings of the Government and the deliberations of the Legislature would not be liable to interruption, nor the public archives, books, and documents to destruction, either from domestic commotion or foreign aggression; neither of these contingencies may appear probable, yet what has occurred before may occur again. Quebec, in addition to its own strength, is of convenient access to the fleet and army of England (the harbour is capable of containing any number of ships from the largest downwards): and if at any time hard pressed, would soon be relieved and supported, while, through it, other points in the province could be strengthened, if required; so long as the British fleet commands the sea, communication between the Imperial Government in London, and the Colonial Government in Quebec, could not be cut off; a foreign attack in winter is not much to be dreaded, the distance from the lines of the adjoining Republic, and the severity of the climate, form a strong bar in prevention. That the selection of a fixed site for the seat of Government in Canada may also be considered with reference to another, and, perhaps,

206

Choosing Canada's Capital

not distant, political change, namely, a Federal or Legislative Union of the British North American Colonies, a union often contemplated by statesmen, recommended by the late Earl of Durham, and looked forward to by many of the colonists themselves, as a means of consolidating their resources, strength, and power, of increasing their commercial prosperity, and extending the railway lines both to and in the neighbouring provinces. In the event of such a union taking place, it is believed to be conceded on all sides that Quebec would be most suitable and convenient as the seat of general Government for your Majesty's North American Possessions. That, under all and several the advantages herein set forth, of future prospects, present suitableness and salubrity, ready means of obtaining naval and military aid, from the mother country, in case of need, and a strong fortified position, affording the requisite security for the Government, the Legislature, the public archives, books, and records of the province; it is humbly hoped that the claims of Quebec to be restored to its ancient privileges and public position, by being again selected and fixed as the site for the seat of the Canadian Government, may obtain from your Majesty favourable consideration. 232. Memorial of the City of Quebec, May 25,1857. To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty Your Majesty having graciously been pleased to accede to the request of your Majesty's loyal people of Canada, praying that your Majesty would select from among the cities of this Province the place for the future seat of Government and capital of this flourishing and important part of your Majesty's dominions, the mayor, councillors, and citizens of the city of Quebec beg leave to approach your Majesty with the fullest reliance upon your Majesty's wisdom and regard for the interest of this Province, and to lay before your Majesty a statement of the grounds on which they found the hope that the ancient city of Quebec may be honoured by your Majesty's selection as the future capital of Canada. The choice of the capital of a county is a subject of the very highest importance, involving, in almost all cases, the destiny and greatness of a people. Accident has in some instances determined the selection, but, generally, a city has owed this distinction to the advantages of its situation for the purposes of commerce and navigation, and, above all, for the

The City Memorials

207

defence of the country, and the facility of communication and supervision over all parts of the subject territory. The natural features of a country generally point out, of themselves, the place possessing these advantages of position. So true is this, that almost all the first towns founded by Europeans in both North and South America have ultimately become the capitals of their respective Provinces. The first Europeans who ever visited Canada located themselves at Quebec. Although at a distance of 360 miles from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and of more than 800 from the Atlantic, no other point between Quebec and the sea offered, to the first colonists of Canada, such a striking position as to induce them to form a permanent establishment. The wisdom of their choice has never since been questioned. A Governor of Canada, the Count de Frontenac, wrote to the Minister at the Court of France, in 1672:— "Nothing struckme as so beautiful and grand as the location of the town of Quebec, which could not be better situated, even were it to become, in some future time, the capital of a great Empire." It is a frequent practice, at the present, for some persons to speak of Quebec as though it was situated at one extremity of the Province, and on the margin of the sea; but this, as we have just seen, is an altogether erroneous impression. The situation of Quebec is far in the interior of the country, and, if renowned as a sea-port, it is that the town is situated on one of the greatest rivers in the world—a river whose waters bring to her door the largest vessels of the ocean. It was this interior and commanding situation, and this vast and capacious port, which drew from the Count de Frontenac an expression of his opinion that Quebec was formed by nature to be the capital of a vast Empire. Indeed, there is a striking resemblance, in point of situation, between the cities of Quebec and London, the respective geographical limits of Canada and Great Britain being considered. The situation of London, as a capital, has never been condemned; on the contrary, it is believed that the commercial and maritime greatness of England, arising out of her insular position, is due, in a great measure, to the situation of the capital on a sea-port, and where the Government and the Legislature had

208

Choosing Canada's Capital

offered to their constant observation the importance of commerce and navigation as the source of wealth and power. Peter the Great, when in England in 1698, impressed by these considerations, decided upon the abandonment of Moscow as the capital of his Empire, and the founding of St. Petersburgh on the shores of the Baltic, where the seat of Empire has ever since remained. Yet St. Petersburgh is 13° further north than Quebec. While, in point of maritime situation, the city of Quebec is incontestably the first city of Canada, it is placed in the centre of a vast and fertile district whose mineral and agricultural wealth, and facilities for the establishment of manufactures yet in their infancy, promise, at no distant period, to place the city in the very first rank as to population and resources, an increase which would be much accelerated by the impulse which would be given by the possession of the seat of Government. In determining this question, the policy of Government as respects the future development of British America must also be kept in view. The ever increasing power of the United States necessarily points to the Federal union of the British Provinces under the protection of England as a measure which will ultimately become necessary. England herself is interested, even in view of her European policy, that a power should exist on this continent to counterbalance that of the great American Republic, in imitation of the European system. With this prospect in view, the choice of a capital for Canada could not possibly be uninfluenced by so important a consideration, and, in the event of such an union, Quebec would be not only the most accessible from the sea, but the most central city of British America. The Duke of Wellington himself observed, that the whole of the British North American colonial system depended upon the possession of Quebec; and, indeed, Quebec is the stronghold of Canada, and history has proved, over and over again, under the French as under the English rule, that the possession of Quebec is always followed by that of the territory composing the British Provinces. Chosen, in 1535, by Cartier, in 1608, by Champlain, the promontory of Cape Diamond has ever been regarded as the key of the country, and on all occasions the fate of the Province has been decided under the walls of Quebec. Of all the towns of Canada, also, Quebec is the least exposed to attack from the Americans, and the easiest of access to succour from

The City Memorials

209

England. It is remote from the frontier of the United States, and protected by the River St. Lawrence, on whose left bank it is built. It is well known that Canada is bounded, throughout its entire length, on the south by the United States, who have the superiority on Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior, and that the most flourishing part of Upper Canada lies in an angle between those lakes, exposed to attack from all of them. The numerical superiority of the United States over Canada would permit any skilful Commander to cut off the communication with the interior at any point between Montreal in the east, and Lake Superior in the west. In the last war the Americans burnt Toronto, and marched as far east as the Cedars within thirty miles of Montreal. Toronto and Kingston are immediately contiguous to the United States, exposed to the cannon of their ships; while they are also liable, from that contiguity, and close intercommunication with the Republic, to imbibe political opinions adverse to the integrity of the Empire. But it is not merely as a fortified city that Quebec has exercised such an important influence on the fortunes of Canada. Its adaptation to the peaceful purposes of commerce also renders it a place of the first rank and importance. At Quebec the navigation of the largest class of vessels terminates, and at Quebec the inland navigation commences. The port is accessible to ships from sea long before any other place, as was strikingly exemplified this year by the arrival of the "City of Toronto" from Glasgow, at Quebec, on the 20th of April, when the St. Lawrence, above Quebec, was frozen over as far as Montreal, and inaccessible to navigation. Whatever may be the present course of trade, the time is fast approaching when the products of the Great West, illimitable in amount, will come to Quebec by river, canal, and railroad, as to a common centre of export to Europe. Among the cities of Canada, Montreal might have some claim to enter the lists with Quebec, but since railroads have shortened the distance between these two cities to a few hours, the advantages which its more western situation might impart to Montreal are more than counterbalanced by its want of defences in case of war, and its exposure to an American army, which could penetrate, without obstruction, into its streets, and all the more easily when the Victoria bridge is finished. The towns of Montreal and Kingston have successively been selected as the seat of Government, but have successively been abandoned

270

Choosing Canada's Capital

after the experience of a few years; while, in the session of the Parliament of Canada, held at Toronto in 1856, the Governor-General, the Ministers of the Crown, and a majority of the Representatives of the people, by a solemn vote, decided in favour of the city of Quebec, and appropriated the moneys necessary for the erection of a House of Parliament, and it was only the defeat of this measure by the Legislative Council, by a questionable exercise of power, which rendered it necessary to adopt other means for the solution of this important question. Your Majesty, in your choice, governed by a regard for the general interests of Canada and of the British Empire, will feel the importance of these influences, which tend permanently to connect Canada with England as an integral portion of the Empire; and, in this view, the city of Quebec may point to the tried fidelity of her citizens, who, when the English rule was menaced in America in 1775, in 1812, and 1837, rallied in defence of the Government, their peaceful and hospitable character, the harmony in which the two races destined to occupy the banks of the St. Lawrence, here live together, and have always lived together, and the familiar use of both languages prevalent in Canada. Besides these considerations, Quebec may boast of the salubrity of its climate, the beauty and grandeur of its site, the extent and safety of its harbour, its fortifications, its impregnable citadel, its historical associations — all of them incidents which impart dignity to power. For 230 years Quebec was the capital of Canada. During this long period fifty-three Governors here successively took up their residence. None of these ever expressed a wish to transfer the seat of Government from its original position. 233.

Letter from the Mayor of Toronto to the Right Hon. H. Labouchere, June 15,1857.

The Governor-General having called upon me to furnish Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies with a statement of the grounds upon which Toronto bases her claims to becoming the permanent seat of Government for the Province of Canada, I have now the honour of addressing you in compliance with his Excellency's request. In order to estimate the value of the arguments on which I rely for establishing the justice of the selection I am advocating, it is necessary to state the considerations which will naturally influence Her Majesty's Government in determining upon the selection of a site for the permanent

The City Memorials

211

capital of Canada. In doing so, I have endeavoured to approach the question in a broad and extended view of those interests which concern the whole province, uninfluenced by the supposed claims of any particular locality to especial consideration; for this city repudiates the idea that it has any pretensions to the distinction of continuing to be the metropolis of this vast dependency of the British Crown other than those based upon an enlarged and prospective view of public policy, convenience, and justice to the people, considered as one great body of British subjects without regard to national distinction, which time is rapidly obliterating. Among the considerations which may be presumed to influence the determination of this important question are:— 1st. The convenience of the people to be governed, keeping in view the direction in which the settlement of the unoccupied territories is advancing as indicated by past experience. The extent and availability of those territories forthe purposes of colonization, and also the commercial energy of the people, as evinced by their commercial wealth and enterprise. 2ndly. Economy. 3rdly. The defence of the capital in the event of war with the adjoining States. Although the exigencies which may arise during a state of war are not to be disregarded, it appears just to give the greatest importance to the considerations first named, and in relation to them I shall confine myself strictly to facts deduced from official documents which, without doubt, are within the archives of your office. When the union of the two provinces was consummated, the districts bordering on the waters of Lake Ontario, at its western extremity, were looked upon as being coterminous with the western limits of Canada. In 1843 the population of the two provinces number 1,190,867, and of these there were in the home district (in which Toronto is situated), and westward of its eastern boundary, only 275,081, being 23.1 per cent of the whole population. In 1851, by the census then taken, the population of United Canada was found to be 1,842,265 and of these there were to the westward of the same line 579,524, being 30.3 per cent of the whole; and exhibiting an increase in eight years of 110.6 per cent, west of the supposed line of

272

Choosing Canada's Capital

demarcation, and of only 37 per cent, eastward of it. A similar rate of increase if maintained would, in 1859, make the population west of Toronto 1,220,477 and east of it 1,729,955, while in 1867 just ten years hence, a similar ratio of increase will give a population west and east respectively, of 2,570,324 west, and 2,370,038 east. If, in like manner, we estimate the density of population, embraced within circles described with equal radii, and having the various competing cities as centres, by the ratio of increase indicated by the census of 1851, as compared with that previously taken, we find that within a radius of— 50 miles 100 miles 150 miles Toronto will have

596,992

1,118,578

1,460,558

Montreal will have

551,667

841,185

1,182,868

Quebec will have

251,262

425,523

897,423

Ottawa will have

234,969

544,242

1,179,810

Kingston will have 180,646 521,383 833,567 Thus satisfactorily proving that within two years (as in all probability it now is) Toronto will be the centre, not only of the greatest wealth, but of the greatest number of inhabitants. As the above calculations are based on data obtained from official documents, and represent a period of eight years, four of which were years of extraordinary depression, and inasmuch as the progress of settlement in the adjoining States exhibits parallel results, I can discover no reason for questioning the correctness of the deductions drawn therefrom. But doubts, however unfounded, may arise as to the extent of territory available for agricultural purposes west of this city being sufficient for so large a population as I have indicated: without checking the ratio of increase on which my figures are founded, by ceasing to afford the requisite inducements to settlers, as will presently be seen, no such check is likely to occur. I shall hereafter refer to the Red River Settlement, and the Hudson's Bay territory, and their probably future connection with this province; but for the present I shall confine myself to the boundaries of Canada, as usually exhibited on maps. Thus limited, Canada extends from 64° to 91 ° of longitude west from Greenwich, and from the 42nd to the 51 st

The City Memorials

213

parallel of north latitude. Toronto is in longitude 79° 25 * west, and nearer as regards the east and west limits of the province to the geographical centre of the country to be governed, than any of the cities mentioned in connection with this question, and if we exclude from our argument the sterile coasts and territory bounding the Gulf of St. Lawrence, it will be found that the city lies, in fact, somewhat to the eastward of the centre; especially will this obtain if we exclude all territory which lies to the north of the mean temperature of Quebec (i.e. 41° of Farenheit), as we might justly do for all practical purposes of colonization. In this way the number of square miles of territory east of the meridian of Toronto would be reduced to 85,690, and west of that meridian there would be 108,484 square miles. That the isothermal line of 41 ° of mean temperature which passes through Quebec is deflected by the influence of the great inland seas far to the north of the assumed Canadian Territory is an important fact, inasmuch as the moderate temperature which prevails over the vast tracts of finely timbered lands lying to the north of lakes Huron and Superior is a guarantee that an early period will see them settled by an agricultural population who will not only be able to supply the wants of those engaged in mining operations on the shores of those lakes, but will have a large surplus of cereals for exportation to Europe. Recent explorations through the territories alluded to have proved it to be well adapted to colonization, and capable of immediately affording vast and almost unlimited supplies of timber of the finest quality. In fact, therefore, the territory westward of the meridian of Toronto is greater in extent than that to the eastward of it; and if we take into account the vast prairies (and the magnificent uplands drained by the Saskatchewan and other rivers) within the British possessions, and if we add to the importance of these the value of the vast coal-fields and other mineral resources between this province and the Rocky Mountains, and bear in mind that the line of mean temperature before mentioned still trends towards the north, as we advance westward we shall be forced to the inevitable conclusion that the present generation will see interests in existence about the shores of Lake Superior equal in every respect to those which now render the trade of Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario so important an item in the commerce of America.

214

Choosing Canada's Capital

Apart from all these, however, the fertile districts of the Western Peninsula, already surveyed and in a course of settlement, afford abundant space for a population far greater than I have indicated, without any portion of it becoming more thickly settled than the counties lately constituting the county of York now are; it is abundantly evident, therefore, that, both as regards population and territorial extent, this city occupies a more central position than any other city named as likely to be selected for the seat of Government. It has been justly held that where railways are in existence, the activity of the traffic over them may be fairly taken as the exponent of the energy and enterprise of the inhabitants, as well as of the commercial, agricultural, and other capabilities of the country and people. If we apply this test we shall find it an overwhelming evidence of that fact that, in all these particulars, the west is far in advance of the east; for not only in the gross amount earned per week, but in the average earnings per mile, the railways west of the city exhibit returns, both in the former and latter respect, nearly three times as great as those exhibited by the railways east of it. It is difficult to separate from the gross amounts returned those portions either of exports contributed, or of the imports consumed, by any section of the whole country; but it is certain that much of both which appear in the official returns, as entered at the Custom-houses of Quebec and Montreal, is for account of that part of the province west of and bordering uponLake Ontario. In tracing the exports, however, no insuperable difficulty exists, inasmuch as the quantities passing the St. Lawrence canals are a fair test of all the important quantities leaving this part of the province. Referring to the Trade and Navigation Returns recently laid before Parliament, we find that the total quantities of wheat and flour exported in 1856 were equivalent to 9,491,531 bushels of wheat (1,186,441 quarters); of this there were apparently due to Quebec and Montreal 2,002,122 bushels (250,265 quarters); but by reference to the quantity of wheat and flourpassing downwards through the canals, we find that, after deducting from that quantity the wheat from United States' ports, this part of the province not only contributed all the wheat exported, but no less than 2,064,606 bushels (314,117 quarters) for the consumption of the inhabitants east of the Ottawa. If we extend our investigation on this point

The City Memorials

215

to other articles of export, we shall find cognate results in every article exported except timber, and even in these the inquiry reverses the opinion commonly held in Britain, that the products of the forest are chiefly due to the country laying east of the Ottawa; and it is susceptible of demonstration that of the £3,146,446 currency reported as the value of the exports from Montreal, Quebec, and the lesser sea-ports of the province, fully onehalf has been contributed by the western portion of the province, while of the remaining half no insignificant proportion has been drawn from the American States bordering on Lake Michigan. In like manner it can be shown that a very large proportion of the imports via the St. Lawrence, which appear in the returns from Montreal and Quebec, are consumed west of Kingston, inasmuch as the returns of freight upward on the canals below this city indicate that more than half the tonnage reported inwards at the lower ports is re-shipped for the western districts of Canada. It follows, therefore, that of the total imports, amounting in value in 1856 to £10,896,096, fully £7,000,000 currency have been for the service of the inhabitants west and north of Lake Ontario. This conclusion is sustained by the ability of the people to purchase the imported luxuries of life; and the statistics of the annual creation of wealth in the various sections of the province, considered with reference to the same dividing lines as were assumed in relation to population, indicate results even more conclusive as to the westward tendency of wealth than were shown when considering the direction of the increase of population. With reference to the economic bearing of the question, our arguments should have a wider application than to the mere construction of public buildings: they should apply to the effect which the determination of the question will have on the economy and convenience of that portion of the whole people governed who have occasion to resort to the seat of Government for the transaction of business; and this again has an intimate connection with the facilities afforded by the travelled routes over which the metropolis may be reached. A glance at the map attached to this communication [not reprinted here] will show that while all the cities claiming the honour of being selected (except Ottawa) may be approached by navigable waters and by railway, Toronto is the only point upon which several railways converge, it being already the centre of no less than four important lines; and at a period not far distant, other important railways, already projected, and

216

Choosing Canada's Capital

having Toronto for their terminus, will be brought into existence; nor should it be lost sight of that one of those railways — a work especially promoted by this city, and the first opened for traffic — connects, by the shortest possible link, the waters of Lakes Huron and Superior with those of Ontario, and thus affords the most direct access to those regions in the great north-west previously alluded to, and which are now exciting so much attention, not only here, but in the Imperial Parliament. I have already drawn your attention to the comparative activity of railway traffic east and west of this city, to the greater and more rapidly increasing amount of business transactions, and to the relative number of the whole population interested in obtaining cheap and convenient access to the metropolis. By reference to that part of my communication, it will be made evident that if the selection falls on either Kingston, Montreal, Ottawa, or Quebec, the greatest proportion of the people will be placed at the greatest distance; while if it falls on Toronto, the counties most densely peopled, and where the greatest business activity exists, will be brought within a minimum distance. This fact becomes all-important when we reflect that great numbers of the people have occasion to resort to the seat of Government on business connected with the Crown Land Department, and that of the whole business transacted in that office, 90*72 per cent of the lands sold, and 968/io percent of the value was, during the last three years, due to that portion of the province west and north of Toronto: that such is practically the fact could not be doubted for one moment by any attentive observor of the people who have resorted here from a distance since the Government has been established in this city. If the same proportions obtain in reference to other classes, and all circumstances justify such a conclusion, it follows that with the seat of Government at Toronto the economy of the majority of those governed will be best consulted. So again in relation to the minor consideration of public buildings: none are in existence elsewhere, having either been destroyed by the populace, as in Montreal, or by fires originating in unaccountable causes as in Quebec; but in Toronto, not only does the Government hold abundance of land for the purpose, but buildings amply sufficient for its wants are already erected and occupied, representing an immediate saving of at least half-a-million of money, an item of no small consequence to a

The City Memorials

217

colony whose debt in proportion to its revenue already exceeds that of the mother country. It is not necessary for me to occupy time in discussing the capability of Toronto and the surrounding country, for offering resistance to an the enemy in time of war, inasmuch as Her Majesty's Government is undoubtedly in possession of the best military opinions on that part of the question; but to such circumstances in this connection, as are most obvious to a civilian, I may be permitted briefly to direct your attention. That Quebec may be considered impregnable is now a generally received opinion, and such being the case, that city would have no competitor were the question to be determined solely with reference to military defence; but the chances of war are, it is believed and hoped, so remote, that it would be unreasonable to allow such a contingency to override the convenience of the whole country, especially now, when, if a war should unfortunately occur, the railways afford every facility for rapid transportation of the archives of the province to the chief military stronghold, if such a course should be deemed necessary. In comparison with any of the other cities which his Excellency has called upon to state their claims to becoming the permanent seat of Government, it is confidently asserted that Toronto is best capable of defence. Montreal is within an easy day's march of the frontier, and no defensible position intervenes until the River St. Lawrence is reached; and in winter this may be crossed on the ice by the heaviest artillery, or in open boats in summer. Kingston is immediately on the frontier, and, as at Montreal, the St. Lawrence may be crossed in open boats in summer, or on the ice in winter. Ottawa is within forty miles of the frontier, and no defensible position intervenes. This city, on the contrary, is 100 miles by land from the National Boundary, where either the steep banks of the river, or the rapid current, renders a passage at all times extremely difficult; but even if passed, the strong position at Stoney Creek, the scene of the ignominious defeat of the United States' forces in the last war, has to be passed, and subsequently the position at Burlington Heights, which may be counted as impregnable if defended by a similar force to that which occupied it during the war of 1812. With the command of the lakes, an enemy might assail Toronto by water, but the same applies to all other places along our extended frontier, this, however, is of small moment, when we take into account the

218

Choosing Canada's Capital

fact that our provincial canals give access to all the lakes for a numerous fleet of gunboats which could be dispatched from Britain on the first appearance of hostilities, and which could effectually prevent the creation of a hostile fleet in those waters, and at once assume that position of superiority on those great inland seas which Her Majesty's fleets have never failed to sustain on the ocean, and inasmuch as Toronto possesses a harbour open at all seasons, this arm of defence would be at all times available. Apart, however, from these considerations, Toronto might, if occasion required it, be rendered as safe as Quebec itself; the late war has demonstrated that stone walls are not essential for defensive works, and with the gallantry and loyalty which now animates Her Majesty's subjects in this part of her dominions, defences would rise as rapidly as the earth works did at Sebastopol, wherever a necessity for them might exist, and would be defended with equal pertinacity. But I believe the time has passed when the defence of the capital should be held to be of prime importance: such reasoning is only applicable to despotic countries, where serfs are to be awed into submission; here, where every arm would freely rise in defence of the Crown and its rights, such arguments may be safely dismissed. A desire to confine this communication within reasonable limits, as induced me to omit reference to many points which will, doubtless, have weight with Her Majesty's advisers, and will exert a favourable influence towards this city, but they will be referred to by the gentlemen who have undertaken to urge our arguments with you in person, namely, the Honourable John Hillyard Cameron, M.P.P.,the Honourable Henry John Boulton, and George William Allan, Esq. There are sent by mail this day a series of photographic views of various portions of the city. 234.

In In In In In In

Memorandum relative to the policy and justice of continuing the seat of Government for the Province of Canada at Toronto, July 9, 1857, from John Naylor, Actuary (in London).

1825 Lower Canada - 423,630 souls 1831 Lower Canada - 511,917 souls 1835 No census for Lower Canada 1840 No census for Lower Canada 1848 No census for Lower Canada 1851 Lower Canada census 890,261

Upper Canada

157,425

Upper Canada census Upper Canada census Upper Canada census Upper Canada census

344,500 427,078 723,332 952,004

The City Memorials

219

Upon the above data, what has been the annual progress of each, and how many fold has each advanced between the extreme periods; and at the same progression, what will be the population of each in 1860 and in 1870? From the annexed data it appears that the population of Lower Canada has increased, during the twenty-six years from 1825 to 1851, at the uniform rate of 28/io per annum, that it has been somewhat more than doubled during that period, and that if it continues to increase at the same uniform rate its amount — In 1860 will be 1,142,000 and In 1870 will be 1,506,000 It also appears that the population of Upper Canada has increased from — 1825 to 1835 at the rate of 8 Vio per cent, per annum 1835 to 1840 at the rate of 4 4/io per cent, per annum 1840 to 1848 at the rate of 6 8/io per cent, per annum 1848 to 1851 at the rate of 9 6/io per cent, per annum The average rate of increase slightly exceeding 7 per cent, per annum. It further appears that the population has during the twenty-six years (1820-1851) increased by more than six times its amount, and that if it continues to increase at the uniform rate of 7 per cent, per annum, its amount — In 1860 will be 1,750,000 and In 1870 will be 3,443,000 235.

Memorial of the City of Montreal, May 27,1857.

The confidence which the citizens of Montreal have ever entertained in the wisdom and justice of Her Most Gracious Majesty, and their knowledge of her gracious consideration and regard for all her loyal Canadian subjects would have withheld the City Government of Montreal from submitting the reasons which they confidently believe will induce Her Most Gracious Majesty, on a comprehensive survey of the interests, not of any particular locality, but of the whole Province, to select the City of Montreal as the future permanent seat of Government for United Canada; but respect for the wishes of Her Majesty's Representative, expressed in the foregoing circular, now demands that some, at least, of these reasons should be stated.

220

Choosing Canada's Capital

The present is not the first occasion on which the important question has been mooted of the locality in which the seat of Government should be permanently established in Canada. It was discussed and decided upon by the Provincial Legislature, in the year 1843, when the Government was temporarily located in Kingston. The reasons which induced the Legislature, at that time, to decide upon fixing the seat of Government permanently in Montreal, are embodied in the Report of a Committee of the Executive Council to his Excellency the Right Hon. Sir Charles Bagot, then Governor-General of British North America. This report was drawn up by the Chairman of the Committee, the late Honourable Mr. Sullivan, an Upper Canadian member of the Legislature, who was born, and resided all his lifetime, in Toronto, and who was for many years the popular Representative of that city in the Legislative Assembly of the Province. All the other members of the Committee by whom the Report was adopted with the exception of two, Messrs. Lafontaine and Morin, were Upper Canadian members resident in and representing constituencies in that section of the Province. Such men could not have been charged, on such a question, with indifference to the claims of any section of Upper Canada, or with partiality or bias for the city of Montreal. The reasons given in the report apply with even greater force and weight at present than they did then: they so obviously proceed from a comprehensive survey of the interests of the whole Province, and not from partial or corrupt feelings for any particular locality; they are so cogent and conclusive, and they are, moreover, so clearly and impartially stated, that no excuse will be offered for their reproduction here:[See selection 25 for the Report of the Executive Council, 1843]. If any reasons require to be added to those so ably stated in the preceding report, why Montreal should be selected as the seat of Government, from a regard both to the present and future welfare of the Province, and the advancement of its interests, socially, politically, and nationally, the following may, with confidence and propriety, be urged:The central position of the City. It is as nearly equidistant as possible from the eastern and western extremities of the Province. Gaspe*, the extreme east, lies in the vicinity of the 63rd degree of longitude; Montreal, the centre, in about the 73rd;

The City Memorials

221

Sandwich, the extreme west, in close proximity to the 83rd. On the north, the settled country extends, as yet, but a short distance from Montreal: on the south, the United States boundary line lies at a distance of about fifty miles from it. The Facilities of Access to the City by Sea and Inland Navigation. Montreal lies at the head of ship navigation. By the deepening of Lake St. Peter, which, though a provincial undertaking, Montreal is now effecting and has nearly completed at her own cost, ships of war of almost any magnitude are able to anchor in her ports; whilst by means of the vast lakes, the noble St. Lawrence and the magnificent canals above the city, vessels capable of loading 3,000 barrels of flour can descend to Montreal from the far west, without breaking bulk. The Railroad Inter-communication of the City. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have their principal depots at Point St. Charles in this city. The Grand Trunk Railroad is already completed to St. Thomas, below Quebec, and to Toronto, in Upper Canada; it also extends to the seaboard at Portland. The Victoria Bridge, which, when finished, will span the St. Lawrence at Montreal, at a breadth of about two miles, and may be justly classed among the wonders of the age, will complete the link in the Grand Trunk Railway, connecting the eastern and western extremities of the Province, and it is fervently hoped by all Canadians, but by none more earnestly and enthusiastically than by the citizens of Montreal, that this great achievement of engineering science and skill will, when perfected, be opened by Her Most Gracious Majesty in person. As the main artery of railroad inter-communication in Canada, the Grand Trunk will ultimately extend from Montreal, as its centre, not merely to the extremities of the Province east and west, but unite with the railroads in progress in the Lower Provinces, and otherwise branch off from Montreal in numerous eradiations. It already links Montreal to Quebec at Point Levi, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, and will in all probability, at no very distant day, connect Quebec with Montreal by the north shore, and extend along the banks of that noble tributary, the Ottawa, even as far as the Georgian Bay in the west.

222

Choosing Canada's Capital

Montreal is the Commercial Emporium of Canada, and the centre of extensive manufacturing interests. Our Upper Canadian friends, and those intelligent American citizens who honoured us with their presence at the memorable celebration of the opening, in Montreal, in November last, of the Grand Trunk Railway, conceded those facts, and complimented us on their advantages. It is hither the masses of the Upper Canadian merchants come to purchase their supplies of merchandize, imported from Great Britain and foreign parts. It is here that, from the magnitude of our commerce and the extent of our commercial relations, the Legislature during the session could best obtain the greatest diversity of public opinion affecting the commercial interests of the whole Province. This remark would equally apply to the manufacturing interests. Montreal is the seat and centre of extensive manufactories, from which all parts of the Province to some extent draw their supplies, and commands within herself an immense hydraulic power, lying, as she does, on the banks of the St. Lawrence, whose rapids above the city furnish her with an inexhaustible supply of water for mill-seats and manufacturing purposes. Of this power she has already largely availed herself by establishing extensive and costly manufactories on the banks of the Lachine Canal at Montreal. Her Population, its numbers and mixed character. The population of Montreal, now more than 75,000, and probably amounting to 80,000 in number, greatly exceeds that of any other city in Canada. Besides being the most populous city, Montreal receives throughout the year the largest number of transient visits from persons residing in various parts of the province; and thus in fact possesses at all times within herself, the greatest amount of public opinion, affecting every interest of a nature to be legislated upon, available on the spot at all times to the members of the Executive Government, and to Parliament when in session. This is in itself of much importance; but the mixed character of her population is of infinitely greater. Composed as the population of United Canada is well known to be of the descendants of different nationalities, speaking different languages, and to some extent yet retaining their respective national peculiarities—the French predominating in Lower, the English in Upper Canada — the population of Montreal is happily, for the interest of both races, almost equally divided in number between Franco- and Anglo-Canadians, or the descendants of

The City Memorials

223

the two races, the number of the latter rather preponderating over those of the former. The city of Montreal consequently affords to each race the greatest possible facility for acquiring a knowledge of the language, habits, and feelings of the other, and that these facilities are readily and extensively availed of by both races, is manifest from the fact that both languages are constantly and familiarly spoken by nearly all the inhabitants of the city. If due regard, therefore, be paid to the dearest, the most sacred rights and interests of all Her Majesty's Canadian subjects, no otherplace so fitting as Montreal can be selected for the permanent seat of Government in Canada. The harmonious working together of both nationalities, for their common good, will be more readily secured by assembling the members of the Legislature together in Montreal, where both languages are equally and generally used, than by calling them together in any other city of Canada where only one of these languages is spoken or understood. The opportunities afforded to the members of the Legislature in Montreal, for social intercourse with its intelligent and cultivated citizens of both Origins, will tend more than any other means to extinguish those national antipathies and prejudices from which Canada has already suffered so much, and such harmonious intercourse will no doubt produce those feelings of mutual forbearance, goodwill, and esteem for each other, so necessary to the welfare and advancement of both races. The progress of Montreal in Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts. In these certain evidences of civilization, Montreal lays claim to no very marked superiority over other cities; but a large and liberal spirit pervades her citizens, and if she cannot boast of extensive literary or scientific reputation, she has certainly not been niggard in the promotion of science and the fine arts, in cultivating a taste for literature, and in founding and endowing institutions of learning. The High School, the University of McGill College, the Natural History Society, the Canadian Institute, the Mercantile Library Association, the Mechanics' Institute, and the Geological Museum, may all be referred to with confidence as honourable and gratifying results of her literary and scientific progress; and the fact that the American Association for the Advancement of Science has honoured Montreal by selecting her as the favoured city in which they will hold their anniversary meeting this year, testifies to the estima-

224

Choosing Canada's Capital

tion in which her claims to consideration on the score of science and literature, are held by that eminently scientific and erudite body. Her position for Military Defence. In a recent communication to one of our city papers a competent military authority has shown that Montreal possesses the greatest possible natural advantage for military defence, and that by means of the lofty mountain which overshadows the city and river at its base, and which has most judiciously been named the Royal Mount, and by means also of the Island of St. Helen's and the Nun's Island, commanding the channel of the river above, below, and opposite the city, Montreal can easily, and at a comparatively trifling cost, be made impregnable to hostile attack. If defended on the modern European system, as illustrated at Coblentz on the Rhine, and Lentz on the Danube, and still more recently in the immense external fortifications of Paris, but at the same time in a more inexpensive and simple way — by a series of detached works, scientifically designed to strengthen a naturally strong position, and by that class of impromptu intrenchments which late events have shown to be "the cheap defences of nations," Montreal may be defended, not only till succour comes, but may be made so formidable as greatly to deter an enemy from coming at all. Montreal of 1857 is not the Montreal of 1775, when Montgomery marched into it at the head of a few thousand continentals. The city then numbered less than 5,000 inhabitants; it now counts upwards of 75,000. It embraces within itself immense resources, the largest, best-disciplined, and most efficient volunteer force of all arms, Horse, Foot, and Artillery, in Canada; and features in its material progress have imperceptibly added to its military strength since the period of the American Revolution. The writer adverted to, most correctly observes that Montreal possesses two fortresses of great natural strength in its well known "Mount Royal" and in the Island of St. Helen's. The Mount Royal, or Mountain of Montreal, immediately in the rear of the city, forms the apex of a defensible triangle, of which the River St. Lawrence forms the base. One foot of the triangle is planted on the Island of St. Helen's, the other on the Island of St. Paul, commonly known as the Nuns' Island. This outline embraces the system of an inexpensive but secure defence. The Mountain of Montreal consists in reality of a nest of hills, each, in a defensive point of view, bearing upon, but independent of the other. They abound in wood and water, and offer convenient and safe accommodation

The City Memorials 225 for troops. As a whole, with the employment of skill and labour in the improvement of natural advantages, the mountain may be made impregnable. So long as the mountain is held in force, no enemy can safely assail the flanks of the triangle, the eastern and western defences of the town; and it is, therefore, impossible, under these circumstances, that the town can ever be taken. Many other and most cogent reasons might be added to the foregoing, why Montreal should be selected as the seat of Government; but the length to which this document has extended would cause their enumeration to be tedious, and the force and weight of the arguments submitted render any further reasons supererogatory. In the name, therefore, of the city authorities of Montreal, I will conclude this document by repeating in the candid and unanswerable language of the late Honourable Mr. Sullivan's Report—as incontrovertible reason why the seat of Government should be established here—that Montreal is essentially a city of both the late provinces of Canada, the Upper and the Lower, one in which each claims an interest, and it is, moreover, a city familiar to Upper Canadians, as it is to the inhabitants of the section of which it forms a part; it is the place of all others in which to study the statistics and politics of the whole of Canada, in which there is the least chance of partial legislation, or of the interests of any part of the people of the province being overlooked or disregarded. There can be no stronger proof of the correctness of these opinions, than the claim set up by the inhabitants of the western country, long before the Union, to the city of Montreal, as a place built up with the result of their industry and sustained by their commerce; but of the resources arising from the wealth of which they were deprived in consequence of the city forming part of a different province. That the Lower Canadians resented and resisted a proposition for the dismemberment of their country, and the loss of their chief city, is undoubted, and surely this contest for a place in which both claimed a deep and obvious interest, shared by no other locality, ought to be conclusive evidence in favour of the disputed position when the inquiry is made, where shall be the united capital of these contending provinces? That the capital of the united provinces ought to be placed in the position which would enable Upper Canadians most effectually to look after the concerns of their own seaborne and outward trade, and in the place in which Lower Canadians can most effectually investigate and control the

226

Choosing Canada's Capital

internal management of communications of which they share the expense, and in the advantages of which they expect to share, is as indisputable a proposition now as it was when first enunciated by the Committee of the Council, and afterwards confirmed by the Legislature of the province in 1843. That Montreal possesses these advantages is not to be disputed, and that there are facilities afforded to a Government resident in Montreal, of closely and constantly ascertaining what is for the public advantage of the whole community and what is the true bent of public opinion, superior to any offered by rival cities claiming the choice of the Government, is equally apparent. All the advantages of common and universal interest in one locality are found in Montreal in a superior degree to those existing in most capital cities; and, therefore, every disinterested and upright Canadian, every true patriot and lover of his country, feels a confident expectation that Her Most Gracious Majesty, without giving much weight to local claims, or to desires naturally entertained of political preponderance in either section of the province, will make choice of Montreal as Her Majesty's Canadian capital. 236.

Memorial of the City of Kingston, June 15,1857.

In obedience to a circular addressed by his Excellency the Governor-General of British North America to the Mayor of the city of Kingston, we, the Corporation of that city, beg to lay before Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies the following reasons and considerations why the City of Kingston should be chosen, and permanently adopted, as the future seat of Government of the Province of Canada. So many and so valid are the claims which can be urged on behalf of Kingston, that it is found difficult to select them in any order of precedence in importance; but we venture first to mention the centrality of its position, not only geographically considered, but also with regard to population. Kingston is situated at the head of the River St. Lawrence, and at the foot of that gigantic chain of lakes whose outlet is that noble stream. It is almost equidistant from the eastern and western points of the settled portions of the province. It is immediately connected by railway or by water communication with all the principal cities and towns of Canada, and is within a reasonable distance of, and readily accessible from, any of them; whilst its relative position with respect to the American seaports on the Atlantic,

The City Memorials

227

renders them available, when occasion requires, and brings the most important of them within a few hours' travel by railway: New York being distant about 366 miles, and reached in about twelve hours; and Boston and Portland being respectively distant about 417 and 465 miles, and reached in about eighteen hours. With regard to population, the census returns and other official documents show this city to be almost in the very centre of the population of Eastern and Western Canada. Of the sixty-three counties into which Canada is divided, abouthalf (not counting a few remote and thinly-settled counties) lie east, and half west, of the County of Frontenac, in which the City of Kingston stands. That apart from being thus central and accessible from all parts of the province, the United States, and Great Britain, Kingston possesses all the security that great natural strength, and extensive fortifications, naval and military, can afford; and on several occasions, when danger threatened the province, have the archives of the Government been sent here for safe keeping. Immense sums have been laid out on these defences, and no post in British America, save Quebec and Halifax, is so strongly fortified; it is acknowledged and well known to be the stronghold of Western Canada. It is, moreover, the outlet of that stupendous military work, the Rideau Canal, which unites it with the waters of the Ottawa, and adds to its resources in time of war or threatened danger. Its harbour is not excelled by that of any lake-port in Canada; not only can it furnish safe anchorage to an almost countless fleet, but its natural features and extensive fortifications render it a refuge and safe roadstead in time of war. The naval command of the American lakes would always be secured to Great Britain while this post was held; in short, it is the only fortified harbour in Western Canada, and its importance in this respect would ensure the city being always garrisoned and defended, and make it a safe and secure place for the Government archives and Legislative buildings; this circumstance, we feel well assured, is well known to Her Majesty's Government, the naval depot of the province having been located here for many years, and some of the largest vessels of war having been constructed here. That as a naval and military post this city can fairly be considered what it proved to be when first the flag of Great Britain floated over the rude walls of Fort Frontenac, the key to the whole of Western Canada.

228

Choosing Canada's Capital

That for salubrity of climate, and healthiness of locality, Kingston is not excelled, perhaps not equalled, in the province; the epidemics which have visited the land have touched it with a lenient hand. The army and navy returns, the comparative mortality bills, and all reliable statistics, show it to be as healthy a spot as any in Canada. Another consideration worthy of attention is, that the Government possesses, in Kingston, a very valuable and extensive tract of land, admirably calculated for the site of public, legislative, and official buildings. That on former occasions, whenever the selection of a locality for the seat of the Government of this province has occupied the attention of the British Crown, Kingston has always been the place considered most eligible, and has even received the sanction of the choice of his Grace the late Duke of Wellington, whose prescient mind had well considered the circumstances of the country, both with a view to the construction of the Rideau Canal, and, subsequently, with regard to the site of its capital. Lord Sydenham, whose best energies and judgment had been devoted to this subject, writes thus upon the question. In a letter dated April 9,1840, he says: "I shall certainly make the seat of Government in the Upper Province, Toronto is too far, and out of the way; but Kingston or Bytown would do. The people, the soil, the climate, of the Lower Province are all below par. Marryatthas not said a word too much of Upper Canada; it is the garden of the whole North American continent, and is, in fact, the source of all the wealth and trade of the Canadas. The Lower Province, except the eastern townships, is nothing but a fringe, some seven or eight miles deep, along the St. Lawrence, with two cities, Montreal and Quebec, which being the shipping ports for the whole of Upper Canada, have become wealthy and populous: but the source of their prosperity, even, is all in the Upper Province; the wheat, the timber, the cattle, all come from there. Lower Canada will not even now support itself withbread....All our efforts ought, therefore, to be directed to Upper Canada, and I shall turn mine all that way as soon as the Union is through. There is some pleasure in working with and for an intelligent and enterprising set of men." On July 11,1841, he writes: "I have every reason to be satisfied with having selected this place (Kingston) as the new capital. There is no situation in the province so well adapted for the seat of Government, from

The City Memorials

229

its central position, and certainly we are as near England as we should be any where else in the whole of Canada. My last letter reached me in fifteen days from London! So much for steam and railways." In a letter to Lord John Russell, dated September 16,1840: "I have no longer the slightest doubt about Kingston as the seat of Government; nothing would make me meet in Lower Canada, or hold the central Government there. I really had no notion of what Upper Canada is till I made this tour. I always thought the country a fine one, but the whole of that tract of land which lies between the three lakes, and is nearly as large as England, is, I believe, unsurpassed in any part of the world, and any one district of it already contains more real wealth and intelligence than all Lower Canada (excluding the townships)." Under date June 12,1841, he writes to Lord John Russell thus: "I think we shall do very well here. I have really a very fair house for the Assembly and Council to meet in, and the accommodation would be thought splendid by our members of the English House of Commons. "The house I lodge in is really a very nice one; and the public offices are far better than either at Montreal or Toronto." Mr. Scrope acknowledges the salubrity of Kingston, when in writing his brother's life he says, "His health rather improved under the influence of the purer air of Kingston." Lord Durham, in a despatch to Lord Glenelg, dated July 12,1838, writes: "Kingston is a highly important station, both in a commercial and a military point of view. It will be the depot of all the trade from the west by the St. Lawrence, and the Rideau Canal and the Ottawa, to Montreal and Quebec; and its harbour is excellent for ships of any size." Sir Charles Metcalfe, in a message to the House of Assembly, on October 6, 1843, says: "Her Majesty's Ministers will be prepared to submit favourably to Her Majesty such Addresses as may be presented by either, or both, of the Legislative Houses, in recommendations of either Kingston or Montreal,...it being understood that the selection is now necessarily limited to one of those places; the former capitals, Quebec and Toronto, being alike too remote from the centre of the province, and the plan of alternate sessions at one or other of these last-mentioned, or any other, places, being deemed impracticable, on account of its manifest and extreme inconvenience."

230

Choosing Canada's Capital

Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, in a despatch to Sir Richard Jackson, the Administrator of the government of this Province, dated November 1841, writes thus:"I have received Her Majesty's commands to instruct you to acquaint the House of Assembly that Her Majesty is always desirous, so far as may be possible, of consulting the wishes of her loyal subjects in Canada, deliberately entertained and constitutionally expressed through their Representatives in the House of Assembly; but that the establishment of Kingston as the seat of the united Legislature was not adopted without full consideration, and that a change involving, among other consequences, largely-increased expenditure, ought not to be sanctioned, except upon the clearest necessity, and the general sense of the Province unequivocally expressed in its favour. "Many and serious objections attach to the proposal of holding sessions for alternate periods of four years each, at distant and distinct places, which, upon reconsideration, Her Majesty can hardly doubt will induce the House of Assembly to take a different view from that which is expressed in the Address now submitted to Her Majesty." When, after much discussion, the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada were united, it was made a pledge to the members of the Upper Canadian Legislature that the seat of Government should be in Upper, or purely British, Canada, and their assent to that measure was undoubtedly given upon such understanding. It was in accordance with the pledge that the seat of the Provincial Government was, "after the most mature consideration" (as stated in the despatch of the Colonial Secretary, dated in February 1842), established at Kingston. Expensive public buildings were erected, and much private expenditure incurred, on the strength of its permanency, but, after the death of Lord Sydenham, and about three years after its establishment, it was removed to Montreal. When circumstances, against the recurrence of which there is no security, rendered it inexpedient, if not impossible, to continue the Government at Montreal, the system of alternate Parliaments at Quebec and Toronto was adopted, a system now unanimously condemned by both Houses of the Legislature, and by well-understood public opinion, on account of the reason given by Lord Metcalfe—"its manifest and extreme inconvenience," its expense and risk to public documents and the suspension of business caused in all the governmental departments.

The City Memorials

231

On the abandonment of a plan so obviously open to serious objection, and keeping in view the pledge given, that the site of the metropolis should be in Canada West, it seems to us that the claims of Kingston cannot, with justice, be overlooked; no other city in the Province, which possesses the requisites for a capital, being so ready of access to the members of the Legislature from Eastern Canada, at the same time that it is within reasonable distance from the cities and towns of the West. When the comparative claims of other Canadian cities are considered, the obvious superiority of Kingston appears too great to be passed over. Whilst Montreal would need an enormous expenditure to place it in a state of anything approaching to security, the forts, batteries, and towers of Kingston, already present a formidable barrier against the approach of a foe. Whilst the peculiar position of Montreal, its mixed population, its conflicting creeds and races, its opposing factions, religious and political, have on former occasions, and might again on future ones, render it the arena of bloodshed and the scene of conflagration; whilst party-feeling has, there, even contaminated the legal tribunal, and rendered powerless the arm of justice; Kingston has ever presented, and still presents, a spectacle of order, peace, and good local government, and can justly boast a population, order-loving and law abiding in their conduct, loyal in their principles of attachment to British rule, and intelligent and capable of selfmanagement in all their local and municipal institutions. Whilst Montreal, from its location and other causes, forms the rock on which the waves of contending parties break in their violence, Kingston, whilst near enough to Lower Canada to keep alive all the better feelings that an interchange of reciprocal good offices will create, is yet far enough from the line between the two divisions of the Province to escape the effects of the smouldering, but not extinct, conflicting elements of adverse races, creeds, and feeling. Whilst the isolated and extreme easterly position of Quebec would place it almost beyond consideration in relation to this question, Kingston, second only to it in military strength, is in the very heart of Canada. Whilst Toronto's western situation and unguarded and indefensible position place it, almost equally with Quebec (save as to its site in Upper Canada), beyond the question, Kingston, equally British in feeling, loyal and orderly in population, is already strongly defended, and possesses the claims we have urged of centrality.

252

Choosing Canada's Capital

Whilst the remote city of Ottawa (the recent town of Bytown) would possibly admit of fortification, though at an immense outlay, Kingston's defences are already built, and as the outlet of the Rideau Canal, the key to that military work, and the only protected harbour where a fleet could lie, it must ever be the stronghold on the possession of which the fate of Ottawa must depend. Whilst for Ottawa it may perhaps be contended that its inferiority in size, in population, and in comparative importance, constitute claims as the location of a capital, on the principle acknowledged in America, that the Legislature should be removed from the influence of a large and wealthy community; even these claims, shared, as they may be considered to be, by every village in the country, fall valueless before the fact that the situation of Ottawa on the line between the two Provinces exposes it in a marked degree to the same unfavourable influences that exist in Montreal, whilst its actual location, partly in each division of the Province, and subject to two different codes of laws, makes it's satisfactory municipal management almost impossible, and tends to unfit it for ever for a capital city. On the other hand, Kingston, without possessing so large or influential a population as to create a danger of pressure on the Legislature, is of sufficient size and consequence to render all the necessary accommodation that increased population and the wants of a capital would demand. Of Bytown a Committee of the Executive Council of Canada reports thus:"Its position makes it inconvenient both for Upper and Lower Canadians; it is, in fact, out of the way of both; and thus possessing disadvantages which would be equally felt by both divisions of the Province, it would, probably, unite both in one feeling, and that not in its favour." Doubtless the gentlemen who composed this Committee felt that the highway of Canadian prosperity, progress, and refinement, must ever be, or must surely be for a period beyond which human legislation need scarcely look, on the St. Lawrence frontier. One other consideration we beg to urge: that fertile peninsula, surrounded by the great Canadian lakes, which has hitherto drawn the emigrant westward, may now be considered as well settled; and land, at prices suited to emigrants of ordinary means, can scarcely be procured there. The policy of the Provincial Government, which has recently opened up roads through the country lying between Ottawa River, Lake

The City Memorials

233

Ontario, and the River Madawaska, will turn the tide of emigration northward of Kingston, and the valuable tract of territory thus brought into occupation, with the aid of projected railways, will find its natural outlet, the entrepot for its commerce, and its channel of communication with surrounding countries and Great Britain, all at Kingston. Apart from all these grave considerations, we believe that the selection of Kingston would be more satisfactory to the Province generally than that of any other spot that can be chosen, and also that one very great and important object of the union of the Provinces would be thereby attained, namely, gradually to remove sectional interests, to amalgamate the population, and make the United Provinces one people, "British in fact as well as in name." 237. Memorial of the City of Ottawa, May 18,1857. To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. Most Gracious Sovereign, We, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects of the city of Ottawa, in the Province of Canada, beg leave to approach the foot of the Throne with assurances of our loyalty and fidelity to the Crown of Great Britain, and of our devoted attachment to the person of your Majesty. We have approached the Throne, on the present occasion, at the suggestion of your Majesty's Representative in Canada, to lay before our Sovereign the claims of the city of Ottawa for selection as the future capital of this growing province. Since the union of Upper and Lower Canada, in the year 1840, the subject of the adoption of a permanent site for the seat of Government has continuously agitated the public mind, and has annually given rise to excited and protracted debates in the Legislature of the country, gradually developing bitter feelings of jealousy in the two sections of the province, and at times, almost threatening a dissolution of the union. To avoid, for the future, an agitation so injurious to our best interests, the present Provincial Parliament have, with the concurrence of the Government, wisely resolved to refer to the judgment of our Sovereign the decision of a question that they themselves have in vain endeavoured to settle; and we beg to assure your Majesty that this judicious course is approved of by a very large majority of the people of the two Canadas,

234

Choosing Canada's Capital

convinced, as they are, that, in the discharge of so onerous a task, your Majesty will recognise the important bearing it will have upon the future greatness of this country, in cementing more firmly the union of Upper and Lower Canada, in extinguishing those national jealousies that have for years past mutually existed, and in developing the illimitable resources of both sections of the province. That, without desiring to prejudice the claims of other cities in the mind of your Majesty, wemay, nevertheless, be permitted succinctly to set forth reasons demonstrative of the superiority of Ottawa to every other place for selection as a capital. Consisting, as Canada does, of an extended line of territory, lying opposite the frontier of a powerful and rapidly-increasing Republic, it is of the highest importance to its protection that the seat of Government should be at some point far removed from the possibility of hostile attack in time of war, and of foreign influences on the minds of its people in time of peace, and so situated that its connection with the rest of the country could never be cut offer intercepted by an invading enemy, an argument forming an insuperable objection to Toronto and Kingston, lying, as they do, in an exposed position, immediately opposite American territory, and, in the event of foreign invasion, liable, as they are to be at any time dissevered from the other parts of the province. A similar objection may also be urged against Montreal, and with nearly equal force, for it must be conceded that Montreal itself fell an easy prey to an American army during the revolutionary war, and, from the present navigability of the St. Lawrence, the descent by water from foreign territory to that city is a task of little difficulty, and one that would require but a few hours in its accomplishment. Quebec, lying also on the St. Lawrence, is undoubtedly a point of great strength, but, from its extreme eastern situation and exclusive population, it is rather adapted to protect the approaches to the province by sea, than suited for the capital of United Canada, and the connection of both Quebec and Montreal with the rest of the country might at any time be readily severed by an invading army. Similar objections cannot be urged against this city, which lies in the very heart of Canada, far removed from the American frontier, surrounded by a loyal population, composed equally of French and British origin, who have ever remained free from the stain of disaffection to the Crown of England, and which is situated on the banks of the Ottawa, one of the largest and most

The City Memorials

235

beautiful rivers in your Majesty's widely-extended dominions, running entirely through British territory, and forming, in its course, the boundary line of the Upper and Lower Provinces. As a central military position it stands unrivalled, its natural capabilities for defence not being even second to Quebec, and with but a moderate expenditure its fortifications could easily be made equal to that city, a knowledge of which, we believe, your Majesty already possesses from the plans and reports furnished at various times by the late Colonel By, its founder, and by other scientific military authorities, and in the once projected construction of which, that distinguished soldier, the late Duke of Wellington, is said to have taken a warm interest. The city is connected with Montreal, on the east by the Ottawa river, with Kingston on the south-west by that great military work the Rideau Canal, and when the improvements on the upper portions of the Ottawa river shall have been completed, and the connection with Lake Huron on the extreme west made navigable, a project that in a few years will doubtless be executed, the city of Ottawa will be the radiating centre from which will diverge to the distant sections of Canada, the great arteries of the country, bearing on their waters trade and commerce, during peace, and affording a constant communication with the natural capital of the province during war. Moreover it is now united by rail with every other city in the two Canadas; a railway from Ottawa, intersecting the Grand Trunk and the River St. Lawrence at the town of Prescott, thus bringing this city within seven hours of Montreal, and twelve of Toronto; as a centre it is equally distant from Kingston and Montreal, from Quebec and Toronto, and when, in the future that already seems to shadow forth the destinies of this country, the Red River Valley shall be united on the one side, and the Lower British Provinces on the other, it will still form the centre of that extensive Empire. Were the seat of Government permanently located in Toronto, Kingston, Montreal, or Quebec, its effect would not be felt beyond the immediate limits of the metropolis, while it must be obvious that the location of it at this central point would tend to develop equally the growth of the two Canadas in the very region where a stimulus is imperatively required, by attracting emigration and capital to the Ottawa valley, now the only part of Canada where any large and valuable tracts of land suitable for cultivation are still held by the Crown, and thus, by settling the interior,

236

Choosing Canada's Capital

giving to the province that depth and solidity so essential to its strength, and creating for Kingston and Montreal that back country so indispensable to their prosperity. The Ottawa valley, already containing over 100,000 souls, is capable of sustaining a population of 8,000,000, while it is rich in mineral wealth and possesses unlimited water-power on the various tributaries of the Ottawa river. So far back as the year 1843 the Committee of the Executive Council when recommending the removal of the seat of Government from Kingston to Montreal, thus alluded to the claims of this city: "Of Bytown, it may be said that it is comparatively safe from attack in the interior; that when the country of the Ottawa comes to be settled, it promises to rise into importance, and that it is situated on the provincial boundary, but then its position makes it inconvenient for both Upper and Lower Canadians." The argument of inconvenience cannot now be urged since the introduction of our railways, which render it easy of access from all parts of the province. And, though a matter of minor importance, it may still not be unworthy of consideration that the city of Ottawa stands unrivalled on the continent of America for the beautiful and romantic scenery of its rivers, cascades, and mountains, yielding not only pleasure to the eye, but keeping the atmosphere in so healthy a state that Ottawa has hitherto been comparatively free from those epidemics, cholera and fever, that have so fearfully devastated other cities of Canada. The city contains also ample grounds, in its very centre, belonging to the Crown, admirably suited for the requirements of the Government, with abundance of the best building material at hand, and a productive country around it to furnish the wants of the place. It may not be out of place, your memorialists conceive, to explain the apparent minority of votes which this city received during the debate in the present Parliament, on the reference of the selection of a capital to your Majesty. The amendment to the original motion for the reference of the question, naming Ottawa as the permanent site, was introduced solely with a view of embarrassing the Government, and did not receive the support of those members of the House favourable to the selection of Ottawa, since they had previously expressed their approbation of the Government measure, and they felt that the amendment was capriciously brought forward.

The City Memorials

237

In fine, we conceive that, situated as Ottawa is, within the territory of Upper Canada, but connected with the lower province by the "Union" suspension bridge, with a population of French and British origin equally balanced, the political and social effect of its selection would be to forever set at rest any feelings of jealousy on the part of either section, and would tend more firmly to cement a union which has already been productive of the happiest results; a conclusion your memorialists are warranted in asserting from the frequently expressed opinions of the Lower Canadians that, next to the place they felt immediately interested in, they preferred Ottawa, and to which, moreover, they have never urged any objection in Parliament; and Upper Canada would have no cause of complaint, since the pledge that the seat of Government should be permanently placed within the territory of Upper Canada, said to have been tacitly given by the late Lord Sydenham when carrying out the union, would be fulfilled. We beg to accompany this, our memorial, with the tracing of a comprehensive map of British North America, compiled from authentic sources. And again renewing our assurances of loyalty and attachment to your Majesty, and expressing our confidence in the exercise of your wise judgement, we remain your Majesty's devoted subjects. 238.

Map of Canada (see Figure 2) that accompanied Ottawa's Memorial to the Queen (selection 237). The "direct distance from the City of Ottawa" data that appears hi the right bottom corner is reprinted in the next selection.

239.

Centrality data from table on the map (selection 238) compiled to accompany Ottawa's 1857 memorial to the Queen (selection 237).

DIRECT DISTANCE FROM THE CITY OF OTTAWA Place Miles Place Miles To Montreal C.E. 100 To St. Johns N.B. 480 To Kingston C.W. 95 To Sault St. Marie C.W. 475 To Three Rivers CJE. 175 To Pictou Coal Mines N.S. 665 To Port Hope C.W. 172 To L.S. Copper Mines C.W. 660 To Quebec C.E. 240 To Halifax. N.S. 612 To Toronto C.W. 233 ToSt.john N.s. 1150 To Fredericton N.B. 455 To Ft Garry Red River To Windsor C.W. 440 Settlement 1140 To Pt. Chicoutimi Sagenay 322 To New York 336 To London C.W. 334 To Moose Fact[ory] James Bay 492

238 240.

Choosing Canada's Capital Memorial from the Citizens of Hamilton (not dated).

To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. Most Gracious Sovereign, We, your Majesty's faithful subjects, Citizens of Hamilton, in the Province of Canada, in public meeting assembled, beg leave to approach the Throne for the purpose of stating our views in reference to the application made by the Canadian Parliament to your Majesty for the selection of the seat of Government for this province. Your Memorialists beg to represent that the city of Hamilton, from its many natural advantages and commercial prosperity, is the most suitable place in the Canadas for the seat of Government; that situated at the head of Lake Ontario, at the point from which the through trade and traffic from and to the far west diverge by railways in every direction, and also have direct communication with the Atlantic Ocean by the best navigable inland waters in the world; Hamilton is destined to become at no distant period the commercial emporium of your Majesty's North American possessions; That the ratio of increase in its annual exports and imports is greater than that of Toronto, Montreal, or Quebec; that its facilities of defence to repel invasion, and to preserve the archives of the country, are unequalled by any city in the province; That it is rapidly becoming the centre of population and wealth, and is accessible to the most remote rural constituencies by railroads, so that no inconvenience would be experienced by those whose duty would necessitate their attendance at the seat of Government; and that the tide of emigration moves westward, and if the numerical increase of the population of Upper over that of Lower Canada during the next ten years be proportionate to that of the last ten years, Hamilton will be too far eastward for the centre of population. Your Memorialists beg further to represent that your Gracious Majesty, having conferred on the people of this colony the power of controlling their own local affairs, it is derogatory to their character to refer a measure so purely provincial as the selection of the seat of Government to your Majesty's decision. This is a question which, from its local character, your Memorialists contend ought to be left to the decision

The City Memorials

239

of the people of Canada, whose interests it would be to make the most judicious selection. Your Memorialists have much pleasure in referring to a dispatch of Lord Stanley, dated the 2nd day of November, 1841, in reply to an Address from the Provincial Legislature, in which your Majesty declined to select the seat of Government for Canada on the ground of its being a local question which should be determined by the people interested in and affected by it. The same strong adherence on the part of your Majesty to the principles of self-government which have been so graciously ceded to your Majesty's Canadian subjects has been ably set forth by the Right Honourable H. Labouchere in a recent dispatch to the people of Newfoundland relative to the fisheries question, which your Memorialists regard as indicative of your Majesty's indisposition to depart from those wise maxims of Colonial policy, the scrupulous observance of which has contributed so much to the prosperity of this Colony, and the inculcation of feelings of loyalty in all classes of your Majesty's Canadian subjects. Your Memorialists would further represent that the question of a permanent seat of Government should not be decided until the union of Upper and Lower Canada, which was effected by Imperial authority in 1841, shall have been settled on a satisfactory basis, your Memorialists cannot conceal from your Majesty the grave doubts they entertain of the continuance of the Union unless a fair proportion of representation in the Legislature be conceded to your Majesty's Upper Canadian subjects. The rapidly increasing wealth and population of Upper Canada overthose of Lower Canada, and also the unwillingness of your Majesty's French Canadian subjects to submit to the same systems of taxation and of Municipal Government that obtain in Upper Canada, loudly call for a change in the representation of the people in both branches of the Legislature. Your Memorialists are, therefore, of opinion that, until the problem of the Union shall have been solved, it is impolitic to determine the question which has been referred by the Canadian Parliament to your Majesty's decision. Your Memorialists further represent that the Parliament of this your Majesty's loyal Colony, as at present constituted, does not represent the majority of the people, as your Majesty's Representative and Council have been petitioned by a majority of the principal constituencies for a dissolution without effect.

240

Choosing Canada's Capital

That the object aimed at by the Government in referring this important question to your Majesty's decision is manifestly to avoid responsibility on their part, while it cannot fail very seriously to embarrass your Majesty, as no Imperial decision of the question is likely to give universal satisfaction to your Majesty's Canadian subjects. In view of the foregoing facts, your Memorialists, in public meeting assembled, do most earnestly and respectfully pray your Majesty notto accede to the Address of the Canadian Parliament in reference to the seat of Government, but to refer the settlement of this question back to the people of this Colony.

CHAPTER 8 THE DECISION FOR OTTAWA

INTRODUCTION The city memorials and several other documents were published in a limited edition for use within the Colonial Office, the British Cabinet, and by the Queen.1 Included in the booklet were the seven city memorials, the Toronto supplement, some official correspondence between Head and Labouchere, the addresses from the Legislative Council and Assembly, an outline of the Assembly's proceedings in February and March, 1857 — but not the 1856 proceedings — and three confidential documents (none of which were seen by anyone apart from the Colonial Office personnel, the Cabinet, and the Queen, her husband and his secretary). One of the latter documents was a confidential memorandum written by Sir Edmund Head. The other two documents were requested by the Colonial Secretary. The first was from J.F. Burgoyne, Inspector General of Fortifications, the other by General Lord Seaton, who had been in charge of British forces in Canada for several years. The three confidential reports are reproduced in this chapter. Since Sir Edmund Head was in London during the period of decision-making there, and took part in some Colonial Office decisions on related matters, it is highly likely the he also helped Arthur Blackwood and Herman Merivale decide the sequence of the items in the published collection of documents. The order of the documents was a deliberate one, for they were not arranged in the order received. Indeed, it is easy to conclude that the sequence was selected to deliberately guide a reader to conclude that Ottawa was the best site. Following the general items (the official correspondence, the addresses and proceedings) the order was: two Quebec memorials (with many strong claims), Toronto (with its very parochial claims and a stress on trade and communications), the Toronto supplement, Montreal (with a reliance on 1843 reasons, and an overextended declaration of possible defences), Kingston (with a rather sad groping into the past to find reasons to support its claims), and Ottawa 241

242

Choosing Canada's Capital

(with a positive, eloquently written set of claims). There followed Hamilton's quickly dismissed document. A major document followed, that by Sir Edmund Head, which concluded that Ottawa was the best location for the capital. Thereafter came the two military evaluations, the first in favour of Quebec and the second which, while also favouring Quebec, admitted that Ottawa was a defensible location. The reader of the booklet thus first was led through examples of the divisiveness in Canada before coming to what seemed to be a rational answer to the issue — the choice of Ottawa — a choice that was supported in three documents. Th single most important document of the collection was that written by Sir Edmund Head. It was an undated confidential memorandum. The Canadian Government was not aware of it, and, it seems, never did learn of it, at least during John A. Macdonald's lifetime. The memorandum, which reached the Colonial Office before the end of July, 1857, may have been written while Head was still in Canada and sent to London from there, or perhaps it was written while he was aboard ship and returning to Britain, where he hand-delivered it to the Colonial Secretary, Henry Labouchere (Head arrived at Liverpool on July 3, and was in London seeing Labouchere the following day). Or most likely, Head may have written it once he was back in England after having spoken to Labouchere. Whatever the case, the document was conclusively in favour of Ottawa. Among other things, Head wrote that: Ottawa is the only place which will be accepted by the majority of Upper Canada and Lower Canada as a fair compromise. With the exception of Ottawa, every one of the cities proposed is an object of jealousy to each of the others. Ottawa is, in fact, neither in Upper nor Lower Canada. Literally it is in the former, but a bridge alone divides it from the latter. Consequently its selection would fulfil the letter of any pledge given, or supposed to be given, to Upper Canada at the time of the Union. The population at present is partly French, and partly English and Irish. The settlement of the valley of the Ottawa is rapidly increasing, and

The Decision for Ottawa

243

will be at once stimulated by making it the capital. This circumstance is an incidental advantage of great value. Canada is long and narrow; in fact, all frontier. The rapid extension of settlement up the Ottawa, and on each side of it, would give breadth and substance to the country. Head felt that Upper Canada "must in the end prevail," however, he strongly felt that a solution for sectionalism was the development of the central area, where Ottawa was located. It was most important, he declared, that the middle district should be made to feel its importance, and should connect its interests with Upper Canada. This object will be greatly promoted by the choice of Ottawa, linked to Montreal by its trade, and literally in Upper Canada, but close on the border of the other section of the province. Thereafter, Head reviewed the merits of the contending sites. Montreal, "as the most populous and the most central city" had, Head wrote, the "strongest prima facie claim" but it "would scarcely...be accepted as a final compromise." He thought Montreal to be a turbulent place, subject to American influences, and defensively inadequate. Quebec, a good military place and readily accessible from England was nevertheless ruled out because "its selection would exasperate Upper Canada, and would rouse the jealousy of Montreal." Kingston was well situated and central "but it is what may be called 'a dead place,' when compared to Montreal and Toronto." Also, the selection of Kingston "would cause discontent in all Lower Canada, and would rouse the jealousy of Toronto and Hamilton, both of which are, and will continue, to be far more flourishing." Toronto, "though increasing every day in commercial importance, is so situated as virtually to stand at one extreme of the united province. Its selection.. .would not be willingly acquiesced in by Lower Canada.... Toronto would in no sense be accepted as a compromise...." Ottawa, Head thought, could be objected to due to "its wild position, and relative inferiority to the other

244

Choosing Canada's Capital

cities named. But this wild position is a fault which every day continues to diminish." Interestingly, Head felt that a point in favour of Ottawa's "relative inferiority" was that "it is questionable whether in America legislation is best carried on in a commercial city." But then Head — invoking the decisive argument which established the superiority of Themistocles to all rival commanders at Salamis2 — declared that: ...the least objectionable place is the city of Ottawa. Every city is jealous of every other city except Ottawa. The second vote of every place (save, perhaps, Toronto) would be given to Ottawa. The question, it must be remembered, is essentially one of compromise. Unless some insuperable bar exists to its selection, it is expedient to take that place which would be most readily acquiesced in by the majority. If Quebec were taken, all Upper Canada would be angry at the choice. If any place in Upper Canada (with the exception of Ottawa) were taken, all Lower Canada would raise an outcry. If Ottawa is chosen, Montreal will acquiesce in the choice, and the majority of Upper Canada will not in any way resist, for to them it is a partial triumph. The whole matter is a choice of evils, and the least evil will, I think, be found in placing the seat-of-government at Ottawa. Whichever section predominates, and howeverfarwestward the commerceof Canada may extend, Ottawa will be a convenient position. By the time any impartial reader had read through the several city memorials, Sir Edmund Head's memorial, and the two military views that followed, it would be clear that the only plausible choice to be made was in favour of Ottawa. There was a dissenting view, however, but it was published separately, having arrived late atthe Colonial Office.3 The author of the dissenting view was Sir Francis Bond Head (no relation to Sir

The Decision for Ottawa

245

Edmund). Sir Francis had been Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada from 1836 until 1838. His capital had been Toronto; his links were to the "establishment" who were also prominent landowners. He was convinced that Toronto was the best place for the capital. However, in an aside about Ottawa, he unknowingly provided support for one of Sir Edmund's observations. Sir Francis wrote: "It is probable that, for a moment, the majority would be less annoyed by the success of Ottawa than by that of any of their great competitors." To Ottawans such as Richard Scott and Fred Cook, the question of who selected Ottawa to be capital could be supplied with but one answer: Queen Victoria!4 However, the Queen did not act alone, and yet neither did the British government have the final say. To understand this, it is necessary to appreciate that the government advises the monarch. The branch of government most closely involved with the matter was the Colonial Office. The Colonial Secretary was responsible to the Crown and, more particularly, to Parliament. In the Canadian seat-of-government case, the British Parliament was not consulted, but Colonial Office personnel, the Cabinet, and at least three members of the Royal "household" were involved. The decision made within the Colonial Office was to accept Sir Edmund Head's recommendation in favour of Ottawa. This decision, along with printed copies of the supporting documents, was relayed by Henry Labouchere to the British Cabinet for approval, which was given. On October 16, 1857, Labouchere sent the Queen the printed papers on the seat-of-govemment question, "the decision of which has been submitted to Your Majesty."5 Does this latter quotation refer to the final decision for Ottawa as having been made and simply referred to Her Majesty for her consent, or to the referral from Canada of the question for the Queen's decision? Certainly, in mid-August, the matter was said to have engaged "the attentive consideration of H.MS. Confidential Advisers,"6 while the matter seems not to have been discussed by the Cabinet until after October 27.7 The quotation by Labouchere may in fact purposely have had the double meaning, for while the "Queen's decision" was being sought, she was given the advice of her senior advisers, prime among whom was the Colonial Secretary himself. The "Queen's choice" thus was not arrived at in a vacuum. In private meetings she received the Colonial Office's decision, approved by Cabinet, in favour

246

Choosing Canada's Capital

of Ottawa. Labouchere would have reviewed the complicated history of the divisive issue. His own knowledge of the question came from his two years as Colonial Secretary, the correspondence and then talks with Sir Edmund Head, and briefings from Blackwood and Merivale, both of whom had been in the Colonial Office for many years and had a sound understanding of the situation in Canada. The Queen also received guidance from within the Royal household, for her husband, Prince Albeit, the Prince Consort, took a great interest in the Canadian seat-of-government issue. And Prince Albert's private secretary, General Grey, acted as a discussant.8 A pencilled memorandum in the hand of General Grey has survived, which may well have been intended, if approved by the Prince, to have been laid before the Queen. Grey read the various memoranda in the Colonial Office's published collection. Some time after October 16, Grey concluded that "An attentive perusal of the papers...leads to the conviction that the choice of Ottawa will be the right and politic one." He felt that a citadel should be constructed in Ottawa, so "Plans of the locality ought at once to be submitted to the Home Government and the necessary ground reserved, before its value has been increased by the Government decision."9 The latter phrase — "the Government decision" — is most instructive, for it indicates quite clearly that the British Government, through the Colonial Office, had decided on Ottawa and that this decision had been sent to the Queen for her formal approval. Grey's stress on defence possibly reflected discussions with Sir Edmund Head, who would have revealed to him the nature of the fear of aggression from the United States, although he undoubtedly knew of the basis of such fears from other sources. Sir Edmund Head also spoke with the Queen and Prince Albeit on more than one occasion while he was in England and it is reasonable to assume that the Canadian seat-of-government question was discussed. However, there is no evidence to support the belief of some contemporary local historians that Queen Victoria saw Lady Head's sketches of Ottawa.10 As observed earlier, it is unlikely that the Queen and the British Cabinet saw the maps submitted with the Toronto, Quebec and Ottawa memorials for they may simply have been filed, as per the instruction from the Colonial Secretary concerning such additional materials to the city memorials. They may have seen the map that was submitted by Sir Francis Bond Head. The "Dinsmore's Complete Map of the Railroads

The Decision for Ottawa

247

and Canals in the United States and Canada" was a curious submission, however, for it excluded most of Canada East! Perhaps it was only the Colonial Office personnel who saw all of the maps. The one map we know that the Colonial Secretary, the British Cabinet, and the Queen certainly saw showed all of British North America. It is undated and has no cartographer's name attached. The origin of the map is unknown, but it is possibly a special Colonial Office redrafting of data from other maps. There are distinct similarities between the Ottawa map and the one included in the published papers (Figure 43). Royal and government viewers of the Colonial Office map must have been attracted to certain statements (which we know today to be of a somewhat exaggerated character): the eastern interior of southern Canada West was marked "Interior fertile Tract 4,500,000 Acres," and northern Canada East and West was labelled "Great Red and White Pine Forests interspersed with Tracts of very fertile Land" (see the enlargement, Figure 44). Neither map would counter Sir Edmund Head's false claim (in his memorandum) for rapid settlement extension "on each side" of the Ottawa River since there was no indication of the presence of the Canadian Shield on the north side of the river. The "proposed Huron and Ottawa Canal" was shown on the Colonial Office map. The decision to select Ottawa was made while Sir Edmund and Lady Head were still in Britain, and Sir Edmund likely knew of the final determination before they left on November 3 to return to Canada. If he did not know of the Queen's acceptance while he was travelling, then he learned of it soon after his arrival back in Canada, for he was requested by Henry Labouchere secretly to secure whatever land might be required in the vicinity of Ottawa for public purposes. In return, Head sent Labouchere further descriptive papers on Ottawa which Labouchere shared with Prince Albert.11 In returning them to Labouchere, the Prince observed that the material tended to "confirm the impression that the choice is the right one."12 The Queen was informed in October that "Sir Edmund Head is of the opinion that the decision had better arrive in Canada about Christmas,"13 however, when Head arrived back in Canada in mid-November, he recommended a later date to the Colonial Office because of the forthcoming (early January) election.14 A draft of the dispatch officially informing Head that Ottawa was the choice was sent from the Colonial

Figure 43. Map of Canada that accompanied the 1857 Colonial Office collection of documents relating to the Canadian seat-ofgovemment question.

The Decision for Ottawa

Figure 44. Enlargement of a portion of Figure 43.

249

250

Choosing Canada's Capital

Office to the Queen on December 7,1857, for her consent, and the formal dispatch from Labouchere to Head was sent from London to Canada on December 31, 1857.15 The all important dispatch declared that Ottawa had been selected.16 Documents

241. Confidential Memorandum by Sir Edmund Head, containing reasons for fixing the seat-of-government for Canada at Ottawa (not dated).

1. The periodical transfer of the seat-of-government from one place to another was declared inexpedient by a resolution of the Legislative Assembly in 1856. The adoption therefore of a fixed seat-of-government in 1857 became a matter of necessity, not of choice. The expediency, moreover, of putting an end to the migratory system, was obvious at all events. To keep the question open was to afford to any Opposition the opportunity of thrusting, in some form or other, on any Government a question on which four places of importance could always be made to direct their influence against any proposal of that Government. This question too, above all others, supplied a constant stimulant to the hatred of race and the conflict of religious feeling. Irrespective then of the periodical expense, the suspension of public business, and the personal inconvenience caused by the change from one place to another, the interests of Canada as a whole, and the security of the Union, demanded a solution of the difficulty. 2. Ottawa is the only place which will be accepted by the majority of Upper and Lower Canada as a fair compromise. With the exception of Ottawa, every one of the cities proposed is an object of jealousy to each of the others. Ottawa is, in fact, neither in Upper nor Lower Canada. Literally it is in the former; but a bridge alone divides it from the latter. Consequently its selection would fulfil the letter of any pledge given or supposed to be given, to Upper Canada at the time of the Union. The population at present is partly French, and partly English and Irish. The settlement of the valley of the Ottawa is rapidly increasing, and will be at once stimulated by making it the capital.

The Decision for Ottawa

251

3. This circumstance is an incidental advantage of great value. Canada is long and narrow; in fact, all frontier. The rapid extension of settlement up the Ottawa, and on each side of it, would give breadth and substance to the country. 4. Ultimately, indeed in a short time, the question will arise, "which is to predominate, Upper or Lower Canada?" Upper Canada is conscious of its increasing strength, and of the fact that it pays the larger share of the taxes. The cry for increased representation to the most populous and the richest portion will soon be heard, or rather it is already raised. The only solution of the difficulty will be the chance that the district of Montreal, and the English population about it and in the townships, may be got to side with Upper Canada, and thus turn the scale in favour of that section, which, for reasons beyond our control, must in the end prevail. All real conflict would then be useless, and Quebec must succumb. It is most important, therefore, that the middle district should be made to feel its importance, and should connect its interests with Upper Canada. This object will be greatly promoted by the choice of Ottawa, linked to Montreal by its trade, and literally in Upper Canada, but close on the border of the other section of the province. 5. Montreal, as the most populous and the most central city, may be said to have the strongest prima facie claim to be the seat-of-government of the whole. The objections to it are the following: — Its selection, though more agreeable to Upper Canada than that of Quebec, would not fulfil the supposed promise alluded to above, and would long leave open a pretext for reviving the question hereafter, when the increased wealth and population of the Upper Province shall have materially augmented its weight in the Legislature. The choice of Montreal, therefore, would scarcely perhaps be accepted as a final compromise. Montreal has been a turbulent town: it may not be so again; but it is supposed to be particularly subject to American influences of various kinds. In Canada, the direct influences brought to bear on a Ministry and a Parliament by the people of the place where the Government is carried on, are not to be overlooked or despised. The importance and character of their influence for the promotion of jobs of various kinds in Upper or Lower Canada has been visible according as the seat-of-government has

252

Choosing Canada's Capital

been Toronto or Quebec. The pressure which would be brought to bear on a weak Government at Montreal would always be considerable. Montreal is, no doubt, the most important place in Canada in a military point of view. The attack of any regular army would probably, in the first instance, he directed against this city from the side of Lake Champlain. Its defences are inadequate, and could not be completed except at a very great outlay. This outlay the jealousy of Upper Canada would not allow to be made at the expense of the colony. 6. Quebec is well secured against any military attack, and is most readily accessible from England; but its selection would exasperate Upper Canada, and would rouse the jealousy of Montreal. The influence of Quebec is decreasing. The tendency of growth in wealth and trade is westward; and Quebec is practically at one extremity of the colony: all below it is of secondary importance. 7. Kingston is well situated and central, but it is what may be called 'a dead place,' when compared to Montreal and Toronto. Within a few years Ottawa will probably rival Kingston in population and in wealth. Kingston is accessible to an enemy, and though partially fortified, can scarcely be said to be secure from attack at any moment. The choice of Kingston would cause discontent in all Lower Canada, and would rouse the jealousy of Toronto and Hamilton, both of which are, and will continue, to be far more flourishing. 8. Toronto, though increasing every day in commercial importance, is so situated as virtually to stand at one extremity of the united provinces. Its selection for the seat-of-govemment would not be willingly acquiesced in by Lower Canada, and would tend to unite Montreal with Quebec in renewed jealousy of the western section. Were this feeling to be created, the future conflict of which I have spoken as impending between Upper and Lower Canada would have to be fought out with much more equal power, and would be much more bitter in its character and more doubtful in its results. In short, Toronto would, in no sense, be accepted as a compromise: its choice would be considered as a complete triumph to the western section of Upper Canada.

The Decision for Ottawa

253

Besides this, Toronto is indefensible against even a coup-de-main. Its position is such as to preclude efficient protection, except by the constant presence of a superior naval force on Lake Ontario. 9. The main objection to Ottawa is its wild position, and relative inferiority to the other cities named. But this wild position is a fault which every day continues to diminish. The present population may be called 8,000 or 10,000, not of the best description. It will be six years before the Government can be actually transferred thither, and the settlement of the fertile country on the Ottawa would be accelerated by the very fact of the certainty of such transfer, even before it took place. According to my view, neither legislation, nor the action of the Executive Government, gain much by the casual presence of strangers, each of whom usually takes the opportunity afforded by the transaction of his own business, to press on the Ministry the 'jobs' which affect himself or the district to which he belongs. It is questionable whether in America legislation is best carried on in a great commercial city. The same might perhaps have been said of London in the days of Wilkes or Lord George Gordon. The Legislature of the State of New York would hardly have ventured to pass the law which destroyed the iniquitous jobbing of the Corporation, if it had held its sittings in New York itself. Ottawa is accessible by water from Montreal and from Lake Ontario. In the former communication there are still some difficulties, but they are not important. It is accessible too by a branch railroad from Prescott, where the line joins the Grand Trunk. The distance from Montreal may be called 100 or 120 miles, but its connection with Montreal is such as to cause its selection to be readily acquiesced in by that great city. I have heard persons of influence at Montreal say that they would as soon have the seat-ofgovernment at Ottawa as at Montreal itself. The latter city considers itself as the natural outlet to the Ottawa country, and believes that the opening of the valley of that river would establish its own communications with the western lakes, independently of Lake Ontario. In this they may be wrong, but the impression undoubtedly exists, and is important for our present purpose. In a military point of view (I speak of course with submission to higher authorities), Ottawa is advantageously situated. Its distance from the frontier is such as to protect it from any marauding party, or even from a regular attack, unless Montreal and Kingston, which flank the approach

254

Choosing Canada's Capital

to it, were previously occupied by the enemy. Stores and troops could be sent to Ottawa either from Quebec or Kingston, without exposure on the St. Lawrence to the American frontier. A secondary consideration, but one of some importance as affecting the popularity of the choice, is the fact that the Rideau Canal, now handed over to the Provincial Government, would probably increase its traffic, and become more productive by the transfer of the seat-ofgovemment to Ottawa. At present this great work is a dead loss so far as money is concerned. It may be added, that as Kingston stands at the outlet of the canal on Lake Ontario, the probable increase of traffic by this route would in some degree compensate Kingston for the preference of a rival city. 10. On the whole, therefore, I believe that the least objectionable place is the city of Ottawa. Every city is jealous of every other city except Ottawa. The second vote of every place (save, perhaps, Toronto) would be given for Ottawa. The question, it must be remembered, is essentially one of compromise. Unless some insuperable bar exist to its selection, it is expedient to take that place which would be most readily acquiesced in by the majority. If Quebec were taken, all Upper Canada would be angry at the choice. If any place in Upper Canada (with the exception of Ottawa) were taken, all Lower Canada would raise an outcry. If Ottawa is chosen, Montreal will acquiesce in the choice, and the majority of Upper Canada will not in any way resist, for to them it is a partial triumph. The whole matter is a choice of evils, and the least evil will, I think, be found in placing the seat-of-govemment at Ottawa. Whichever section predominates, and however far westward the commerce of Canada may extend, Ottawa will be a convenient position. If the Red River Settlement and the Saskatchewan country are finally to be annexed to Canada, the Ottawa route to Lake Huron and Lake Superior will be available, and may possibly turn out the shortest and the most advantageous of all. I have written this Memorandum with no wish to thrust on Her Majesty's Government advice in a matter specially referred to the discretion of the Queen; but I have thought that I may be expected not to avoid the responsibility of expressing an opinion of my own.

The Decision for Ottawa

255

I would also suggest that the military authorities in Canada should be forthwith consulted on this question. 'How far each of the places named is, or is not, exposed to attack by an enemy, and how far each such place may be easily protected in time of war?' 242.

Opinion of the Inspector-General Fortifications (J.F. Burgoyne) as to the place which, in a Military point of view, it would be most desirable to select for the Seat of Government in Canada, September 26,1857.

Whatever may be the expediency of political considerations, and the wish to reconcile rival local interests, and the irritation of races, there can, I think, hardly be a question but that the principal military establishments should be centred in Quebec. Quebec must be the base of action for the military, and the receptacle for the military resources. It is the only port in the Province; the only point having free communication with England; the only stronghold in the country; the first to start from, and the last to retire to; the only situation not immediately exposed to hostile aggression, in a country which presents one entire long line of frontier: Ottawa being no exception, as its security will be entirely dependent upon that of Montreal. And as regards the co-operation of all the British North American States with Canada, it is in a reasonably central position; but the value of a strictly central position is much reduced by the facilities of intercourse afforded by inland navigation, railways, and electric telegraphs. A thorough personal knowledge of the country and of its military attributes, might afford means of giving a better opinion; and it is to be regretted that the present General in command there, had not had the opportunity of expressing his sentiments; but there is one of the best military authorities now in Dublin, General Lord Seaton, who was for several years in command in Canada in very troubled times, and during some period, it is believed, directed the Civil Administration also, whose judgment on the question would be of much consideration. Unfortunately Lord Elgin is out of reach, but there is another former Governor-General, and a military man, Sir Francis B. Head, Baronet, residing at Oxendon, Northampton, who might perhaps also be consulted to advantage.

256

Choosing Canada's Capital

243.

Confidential letter from General Lord Seaton to the Secretary of State for War, October 3,1857.

With reference to your Lordship's letter of the 20th of September, relative to the question under the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers ,' As to the most eligible place for establishing the seat-of-govemment in Canada,' I have the honour to state, that if Quebec should be selected for the seat-of-government, no doubt can be entertained that public business, and the proceedings of the Legislature, would be less liable to be disturbed than by establishing it either at Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, or Toronto. We may conclude that Quebec would not even be menaced by an invading force. Its strong citadel, and improvable fortifications; the difficult and dangerous lines on which an army from the United States must act in moving in that direction; and a certain communication with the mother-country and the Lower Provinces, would afford, when the St. Lawrence is open, sufficient confidence, under any circumstances, to enable the affairs of Canada to be carried on without interruption at a seatof-government thus protected. Montreal might probably be defended by constructing detached fortifications at an immense outlay; but military operations against this place would be much facilitated if the United States should obtain the command of the Chambley river from St. John's to its own confluence with the St. Lawrence. The northern part of the Island of Montreal would probably be constantly exposed to attack from Sorel; and it must be expected, in case of war, that one of the most important commercial towns in North America would be seldom free from alarm. Ottawa, although only two marches from Ogdensburgh by Prescott, would be sufficiently remote from the St. Lawrence to prevent any sudden attack from the United States; and the position in which part of Bytown stands, between the Rideau and the Ottawa, might be easily fortified and protected. Kingston cannot, I am persuaded, be considered a suitable place for the seat-of-government, from its vicinity to the frontier of the United States, and the apprehension of attack, in winter particularly, on the part of the Canadians, which could not fail to be promoted by demonstrations from the towns and ports on the opposite side of the St. Lawrence.

The Decision for Ottawa

257

Toronto could not be satisfactorily fortified, and would therefore invite invasion and attack; and it would appear, on military grounds, inexpedient to select this increasing city for the seat-of-government. 244. Memorial of Sir Francis Bond Head, October 18,1857. [Section omitted on general facts about Canada written to support the claim that "the heart or centre of the whole is, as nearly as possible, the City of Toronto." Also omitted is a section on the defence of Canada.] On the Locality in Canada which, for the general interests of the Province and of the Empire, should be selected as its Capital. In theory, it might naturally be supposed that the capital of every country ought to exist, as nearly as possible, in its centre. In practice, however, the opposite rule has been followed. Dublin, Edinburgh, London, Paris, Lisbon, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Berlin, St. Petersburgh, Constantinople, and Washington in the United States, being all, either on the outside, or at an extremity of their respective countries. Indeed, as a negative proof, it may be remarked that Madrid, the only centrical capital, is [in] the least flourishing country in Europe. In India, the Great Mogul reigned internally in Delhi, as the Emperor of China still reigns in Pekin; but in the one country, Calcutta, and in the other, Canton — both on the outside — are the real capitals. As it would be absurd to suppose that, in a living animal, the heart could exist at any other point than at the terminus of its arteries, so must the heart or capital of a country necessarily exist in the centre of its business and of its commerce, or, in other words, at the termini of its main arterial railways and lines of water communication, which, in the map of every country, are the real indices or exponents of both. Now, it is impossible for any unprejudiced man to study the map of Canada, without perceiving that almost the whole of the main arterial lines, of railway (especially those of the Grand Trunk and Great Western), and of lake navigation, converge upon, or diverge from, Toronto, which...is not only in the centre of the best land, the commerce, and the business of the province, but is also the heart of that fighting portion of it which, in case of invasion by the United States, would form its only defence. This is no idle theory. In the rebellion and invasion of Canada by the American people, armed with the muskets and artillery of their

258

Choosing Canada's Capital

Government, in 1837-8-9, Toronto, by two Lieutenant-Governors, was maintained as the point of Civil government and of military rendezvous; and if, from every direction, in the depth of winter, the fighting portion of the population hurried through the wilderness to it on foot, at a moment when the whole of Her Majesty's troops were concentrated in the Lower Province, how much easier could they be assembled by the railways, which, from Toronto now radiate in almost every direction. In the city of Toronto, which for nearly half a century has been the seat-of-government and metropolis of the Upper Province, and latterly of both, there exist, ready made, a suitable residence for the GovernorGeneral, a Parliament-House, public offices, barracks, banks, and the other various requirements of a capital. As regards its military position, it is a hundred miles from the United States by land, and once and a-half the distance from Dover to Calais by water. In case of war, Toronto, like all the other lake-cities of Canada and the United States, would be liable to be attacked by the vessels of the most powerful of the two naval forces, whichever that might be. But, before such an event could occur, it would no doubt be deemed prudent to collect artillery, throw up earth-works, and transmit by railway to an inland position of perfect security all public archives of importance. As regards the position of the other candidate cities,a very few remarks will, it is believed, suffice. Of all of them Kingston would be the most unsafe, in consequence of its being divided from the United States only by the St. Lawrence, which in summer could be crossed by boats, and in winter in less than an hour, at any time by day or night, on ice. Montreal, the populous, wealthy, and important metropolis of the Lower Province, lies not only within a day's march of the United States, but at the eastern extremity of 173 miles of the St. Lawrence, which, studded with islands, and averaging only two miles in breadth, could throughout the greater portion of that distance be crossed with the greatest facility by the enemy, who, by cutting the electric telegraph, breaking up the rails, and destroying the lockage of the navigation of the St. Lawrence, could completely isolate Montreal from that fighting portion of the population which, throughout the Province, constitutes its main defence.

The Decision for Ottawa

259

Of the impregnable fortress and city of Quebec (which, like Montreal, is connected by railway with Portland, Boston, and New York), it may briefly be said that, on account of its position, as a metropolis, and even as a citadel, it is (especially during winter) hors de combat. Of all the candidate cities, Ottawa—formerly called Bytown— would be the most inefficient for the capital of Canada. In a northern and secluded locality — cut off from every arterial line of railway in the Province, and removed also from the navigation of the St. Lawrence, except by a branch railway greater in length than between London and Brighton — in time of peace it would be utterly impracticable to govern and transact from such a point the commercial business of the Province, especially that connected with the sale of public lands, as also with the valuable 'through' and home-traffic which exists between the cities on the five great lakes, and the vast corn-growing region of 'the Great West.' Ottawa, it is true, communicates with Montreal by the lockage of the Ottawa river, with Kingston, by the lockage of the Rideau canal; and with Brockville, on the St. Lawrence, by the long branch railway already described. But in time of war, of these three communications the termini of two, in the course of an hour, and of the third in the course of a day, might be in the possession of the enemy, who, of course, would also cut the wires of the electric telegraph; and as the St. Lawrence for 85 miles east, and for the same distance west of Brockville, would be crossed by them at any point, assistance by troops from Toronto might be either seriously impeded, or totally cut off; and the Provincial Parliament would then feel that it would be infinitely better for them 'to dwell in the midst of alarms than reign' in a desolate region, cut off from the wealth, commerce, business, and fighting population of the Province. Actuated by the intense feelings with which the great cities situated on the main arterial or trunk-line are seeking, on the one hand, to be selected; and, on the other, to combine together against any one rival; it is probable that, for a moment, the majority would be less annoyed by the success of Ottawa than by that of any of their great competitors. But, though by order of Government, trade may occasionally be diverted unfairly from one sea-port to another, yet, in the selection of a capital for a great country, it is confidently submitted that the laws of nature must be implicitly obeyed, and that, in the language of Holy Scripture, 'where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.'

260

Choosing Canada's Capital

Now, by figures and facts which it will not be easy to gainsay, it has been shown that, as regards the wealth, business, commerce, and military defence of Canada, Toronto is the heart of the Province. As regards its locality, as a convenient point of rendezvous for the 130 members of the House of Assembly, and the 48 Legislative Councillors who form the Provincial Legislature, the following figures will show, in that respect, a very remarkable resemblance between Toronto and the position of the Houses of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain: — DISTANCES Miles 1. From London to Inverness 572 miles to Aberdeen 508 miles averaging 540 Toronto to the northern city of Quebec 501 2. From London to the metropolis of Edinburgh 400 Toronto to the metropolis of Montreal 333 3. From London to York city 189 Toronto to Kingston 160 4. From London to Birmingham 112 Toronto to Huron 95 5. From London to the west port of Bristol 112 Toronto to the west port of Samia 172 6. From London to Liverpool (or great Western Ocean) 202 Toronto to Detroit (and regions of 'Great West') 221 In the selection by Her Majesty of the city which is to form the capital of the Province of Canada, the inhabitants of the six great Republican States which form its frontier are vitally interested. If the heart of this magnificent British territory be deliberately inserted, unscientifically, in the wrong place, it will be physically, morally, and politically impossible for its wealth and commerce to maintain a healthy circulation. For the disease that must ensue, the people of the United States will offer to the people of Upper Canada, as the only remedy, annexation. 245.

Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, October 16,1857 (RA).

Mr. Labouchere sends Your Majesty, with his humble duty, Papers relating to the future Seat-of-government in Canada, the decision

The Decision for Ottawa

261

of which has been submitted to our Majesty. Sir Edmund Head is of opinion that the decision had better arrive in Canada about Christmas. 246.

Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, October 30,1857 (RA).

With Mr. Labouchere's humble duty to Your Majesty, Mr Labouchere sends 1. A memorandum from Sir Francis Head (who was formerly Governor of Upper Canada) upon the Seat-of-government question.... 247.

Pencil memorandum written in Lieutenant-General Hon. Charles Grey's hand, October, 1857 (RA).

An attentive perusal of the Papers relative to the Seat-of-government in Canada leads to the conviction that the choice of Ottawa will be the right and politic one. Quebec may be the strongest and most acceptable situation for communication with the Mother Country, but great Military strength lies in contenting the people of both Provinces and rendering them therefore more determined to exert themselves to the utmost in the defence of their Capital. — Ottawa is reported by no means deficient in natural strength. It ought to have a Citadel planned on the best Military design, commanding the Town, but detached from it so as not to impede the natural growth of a Metropolis, destined to assume the largest dimensions. — Great care ought to be taken to leave sufficient space round the fortress, so that the town shd. not act as a covered way for its attack; Plans of the locality ought at once to be submitted to the Home Government and the necessary ground reserved, before its value has been increased by the Government decision. — In order to secure future beauty and healthfulness, space ought at once to be acquired for laying out a large Park, which American towns do not in general possess, and would form the best site for the future Public Offices. — The Military strength of the Position wd. be much increased by two fortified Ports in advance on the St. Lawrence, — say at Prescott or Brockville and Cornwall, which an American force crossing the St. Lawrence to attack the new Capital cd. not with safety leave in their rear. 248.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Arthur Blackwood (Colonial Office), (private), November 21,1857.

262

Choosing Canada's Capital

The despatch about the seat-of-govemment had better be delayed till January first or the first mail after that day, which is the 2nd (Saturday). The reason for this delay is the fact than an general election will not be well over till the beginning of January. 249.

Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Prince Albert, December 15,1857 (RA).

The interest that your Royal Highness has taken in the question of the future Seat-of-government for Canada induces me to bother you with the accompanying Papers [not reprinted]. They have been sent to me by Sir Edmund Head in reply to a confidential letter which I wrote to him on the importance of endeavouring to secure whatever land might be required in the vicinity of Ottawa for Public structures. Sir Edmund Head informs me that it will be better that the decision of Her Majesty should not reach Canada until the Provincial Elections are over & the new Administration completely formed — & I shall therefore keep back my despatch for a few posts. 250.

Prince Albert to Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary), December 18,1857.

I return the enclosed papers with very best thanks. Ottawa must indeed be a beautiful situation and all the detached descriptions must tend to confirm the impressions that the choice is the right one. We must now trust that the Province will look upon it in the same light, when it becomes known. 251.

Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) December 31,1857.

By my despatch of the 17th April last, I informed you that Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to comply with the prayer of the Addresses presented to Her by the Legislative Council and Assembly of Canada, namely — that she would exercise the Royal Prerogative by the selection of some place for the permanent Seat-of-govemment in Canada. This question has now been considered by Her Majesty and by Her Government, with that attention which its great importance demanded.

The Decision for Ottawa

263

The statements and arguments contained in the various memorials laid before them, in consequence of your invitation to the Mayors of the several Cities chiefly interested, have been fully weighed. I am commanded by the Queen to inform you that in, the judgment of Her Majesty, the City of Ottawa combines greater advantages than any other place in Canada for the permanent Seat of the future Government of the Province, and is selected by Her Majesty accordingly.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 9 PARLIAMENT REJECTS OTTAWA INTRODUCTION The naming of Ottawa as capital was not universally well received in Canada. The issue had been referred to the Queen as a means for ridding the country of the vexed question, but now it had returned and it was potentially as dangerous as before. Indeed, the Parliament voted against Ottawa, which gave the Macdonald-Cartier government an excuse to resign in protest. As 1857 drew to a close, Canadians wondered when the selection would be made and announced. The Quebec Mercury felt that the delay in making an announcement: is highly injurious in every respect. It keeps people's minds in an uneasy and unsettled state. It leaves room for fractious agitation, and runs the risk of re-opening the whole question by a contrary vote of the Canadian legislature.1 When Sir Edmund Head arrived back in Canada in November, 1857, he let it be known that there was no decision on the seat-of-government question prior to his departure from England.2 His purpose in so indicating, and in remaining quiet on the issue during the following two months, was to help keep the seat-of-govemment question from becoming a central issue of contention during the election. He felt it was better to keep each locality and region thinking it still had a chance than to make an announcement that could cause dissention and adversely effect the Government's chances at the polls. In anticipation, however, the capital city issue was raised by many campaigners. Opposition supporters expressed regret at the referral, while specific city supporters (including Scott of Ottawa, Ross and Beauce of Quebec) told their electorates that they could help get the issue finalized to their respective city's advantage.3 Also discussed during the campaign was the question of whether or not there should be sectional versus union-wide majorities in the Legislative Assembly. Raised to the level of urgent debate in 1857, the issue 265

266

Choosing Canada's Capital

became increasingly contentious in 1858, especially when it became clear that the Macdonald-Cartier government might not have a majority in Canada West.4 The Clear Grits under Brown pushed for sectional majorities, while Government supporters called such a sectionally-based policy "incompatible with loyalty to the existing constitution."5 Sectionalist centrifugal forces remained especially powerful in Canada East, where an eastern sectionalist conservative group and the Catholic Conservative Bleus gained seats at the expense of the Rouge Liberals. The coalition government kept its majority in Canada East and also for the union as a whole, but it came out of the election with a minority in Canada West. Except for in Montreal, the election had been relatively quiet in Canada East. In contrast, it had been vigorous in Canada West, where the Gear Grits and Reformers took 33 seats to the Conservatives' 28. Three of the five Canada West members of the Executive Council were defeated by Reformers. Macdonald's position as leader of the Ministry thus was greatly weakened and the coalition's control became vulnerable. Members realized they would fall from power if a group of its Canada West supporters ever were detached from their normal alignment. It was while Macdonald and his key supporters were mulling over strategies that the official notification from Labouchere regarding the Queen's choice arrived in Toronto. The Governor-General and Macdonald decided to release the information. Macdonald wrote to the publisher of the Toronto Colonist, telling him to announce that Ottawa had been selected. He also suggested that the announcement should be placed in the paper "at the last moment, to prevent the Globe having it... ."6 The announcement in Canada that Ottawa had been selected as the capital of the country was met with a mixture of joy, surprise, anger, and shock. Delight was expressed in Ottawa, but city-centred and sectional jealousies led to resentment being expressed elsewhere when the news was released. A public debate began over whether the Queen's decision was an award or a recommendation. There also was concern expressed about whether the decision was the Queen's (as claimed by conservatives) or the Colonial Secretary's (as claimed by reformers). These points apart, it is fair to conclude that the majority of newspapers all over the country, including several in Toronto, Hamilton, Kingston, and Quebec, philosophically accepted the decision, even while deeply regretting that the city of their choice had not been selected.7

Parliament Rejects Ottawa 267

Figure 45.

Ottawa, 1857. Colour lithograph. (National Archives of Canada.)

268

Choosing Canada's Capital

The Reformers, led by George Brown, were determined to keep the capital city issue a political one. Brown's newspaper, the Globe, expressed relief that "the money fortunately, is not voted, and the question must come before the House."8 To this, the Montreal Gazette retorted that the normal power to withhold supplies as a check to the Royal Prerogative was, on this occasion, withdrawn by the two Houses when they had approached the Queen indicating that they would appropriate the money.9 This belief was not accepted by opposition members, who actively planned for the forthcoming session. Brown at that time was forging new and stronger links with Lower Canadians. One of his principal allies in Canada East, Luther Holton, wrote privately to Brown, informing him that he was assured that one of the leading cabinet ministers (Sicotte of St. Hyacinthe) would "balk" at the selection of Ottawa.10 Holton suggested that the ministry would "attempt to buy off Quebec opposition" to Ottawa by offering them the capital for the following four years — "but I think that could be defeated." He also told Brown that he suspected that the Government would "attempt to find an Ottawa constituency for Cayley — and that the Seatof-government announcement was so timed as to facilitate the movement."11 William Cayley, Inspector General, was one of the three cabinet members defeated in the election and John A. Macdonald wanted him returned to the House from another constituency. Holton's surmise was correct. Macdonald approached Richard Scott of Ottawa for help in finding a seat for Cayley. Scott, in turn, prevailed on the sitting member for Renfrew who reluctantly resigned in favour of Cayley. Cayley was elected to office.12 The Globe was furious, declaring that Cayley had told his new electorate: "Secure me a seat in the House and I'll secure you the Seat-of-govemment. But reject my overture and you will probably lose the prize."13 With the election of Cayley, Ottawans felt that they had two sure Ministry supporters, the other being Vankoughnet, President of the Legislative Council. The Government came under attack because the Colonial Secretary's dispatch had not been released. Macdonald asked Sir Edmund Head to release the document, for then its contents could no longer be misrepresented.14 Government supporters across the country were relieved when they saw the date on the document for it indicated to them that the Min-

Parliament Rejects Ottawa

269

istry could not have known of the decision before the main election, as had been claimed by the opposition. Also, the statement regarding Ottawa's choice, it was said, was "sufficiently explicit in its terms to prove the groundlessness of the agitation that it was not 'positive.'"15 People across the country wondered how the Government planned to proceed on the issue. Unconfirmed stories were published in newspapers — most notably in the Toronto Globe — which reported that the Ministry had decided to leave the seat-of-government question as an open one in the Legislature. The Globe claimed to be astounded! It agreed that for the Ministry "to vote for Ottawa would be suicidal, and to make it an open question appears the only alternative, save the worst and last — resignation."16 The Government neither confirmed nor denied the Globe's story. Ottawans hoped that the Government would make a bold statement decreeing that since the choice had been made the Parliament now must accept it. Instead, at the opening of Parliament on February 25, 1858, there was only a glancing reference to the topic at the end of the Speech from the Throne: "Correspondence...will be laid before you, as well as an answer to your address presented to Her Most Gracious Majesty on the subject of the Seat-of-govemment."17 Hopes for a strong statement on Ottawa's behalf were thus shattered and Ottawans feared the result. Observers of the scene asked, what was the Macdonald-Cartier Ministry's policy? Was the issue to be regarded as an open one or a party one for members of the Assembly? What would the effect of the Government's nervousness be on some supporters, especially those from Quebec, but also those from Toronto, Kingston, Montreal, and even Ottawa? In fact, the Cabinet could not agree on what to do. The dissension prevented a policy from being developed. Four of the five Lower Canadian ministers were from the Montreal area, including Sicotte who was very firmly in favour of Montreal. Cartier, however, who also favoured Montreal, accepted with great reluctance the decision in favour of Ottawa. His decision was based on his and Macdonald's fear that the issue would split the Ministry if the issue was made a ministerial one, and thus could lead to the downfall of the Government. They also realized that if the issue was left open they would be vulnerable to attack by the opposition. Clearly Macdonald and Cartier faced a serious dilemma. During the debate on the address in reply to the Governor-General's Speech from the Throne, several members of the Legislative Coun-

270

Choosing Canada's Capital

cil wondered why the Government had not been decisive.18 Why had the Government not said at once that Ottawa had been selected? To this Vankoughnet responded: ...the reason why it was simply announced that the despatch would be laid before the House was this, that as a matter of expediency, if any substantive action was to be taken in regard to it, or if any discussion was to arise, such a discussion would be most appropriate when the despatch itself was laid on the table.19 The same question was posed in the Legislative Assembly during the debate in reply (which continued for many days). The opposition attempted to force the issue when Foley (Waterloo North, C.W.) moved that the "answer" from England would, "we trust...be found in accordance with the best interests of the people of this province, and such as to render it unnecessary for this House, in view of the final settlement of this important question, again to approach her Most Gracious Majesty on the subject."20 This motion assumed that the House was still ignorant of the choice that had been made. Also, it asserted the right of Parliament to re-open the question and, by so raising the question, it sought to force the Government either to abandon Ottawa or support it. During the debate, Dorion pointed out that if the Government made it an open question "it might reasonably be said that they had used her Majesty's decision as a mere election ruse,"21 whereupon Cartier tried to assure the House that "there was no trick in the case."22 The great orator McGee criticized the Government for being "disrespectful" to the Queen by not having "a single sentence [in the Governor-General's speech, when opening Parliament] to state where her decision had placed the future capital." Indeed, he continued, not only was there not a paragraph on the subject but "the future capital of British North America was not favoured with a single capital letter!"23 Another member said that "The place was, however, notorious, and he thought it was the duty of the House to approve the choice of the Queen."24 The debate became so heated that the Governor-General transmitted to Parliament the December 31,1857 dispatch from Labouchere. This action did not calm the situation, however, for the politicians continued to speak heatedly about the seat-of-government issue and the Government's seeming indecisivness.

Parliament Rejects Ottawa

271

Concern over the seat-of-government question remained especially high in both Quebec and Ottawa. Resolutions bitterly against Ottawa were accepted at a public meeting held in Quebec.25 In Ottawa it was announced at a public meeting that the Bishop of Ottawa and the Sisters of Charity had placed at the disposal of the City Council the College and Nunnery of the Sisters for use by the Government.26 Ottawa City Councillors quickly decided to avail themselves of this offer and, hoping to sway opinion in favour of Ottawa, sent to Toronto the proposition that Ottawa would supply "the necessary buildings to accommodate the Legislature and the officers of the Government, until the permanent Government Buildings be erected in this City."27 This offer was greeted with laughter by members of the Legislative Assembly. In Parliament, opposition members continued to try, albeit without success, to get a definitive policy statement from the Government regarding the seat-of-government question. Vankoughnet argued in the Legislative Council that "the Government considered the question settled by the votes of last session [so now] his duty and that of his colleagues was simply to carry out the law."28 This seemed straight enough, but the question remained as to when this would happen. To this Vankoughnet answered, "at the proper time." He also declared that "it was the intention of the Government to adhere to the law so long as it was unrepealed." By this admission the way seemed open for the rescinding of the Queen's choice. The first tentative move in this direction occurred in the Legislative Council when a long debate culminated with the defeat of a motion calling for postponing the erection of buildings in Ottawa (yeas 5, nays 30).29 Ottawans were happy to hear of this vote, but their happiness was short-lived. Angered by the large number of negative votes and by Vankoughnet's comments, de Blaquiere in the Council then gave notice of a more pointed motion which would force the Ministry to indicate whether or not it intended to proceed immediately to erect public buildings in Ottawa, and to reveal if plans and specifications had been prepared. A similar notice of enquiry was given in the Assembly, where John A. Macdonald simply said that it was the duty of the Government to carry out the law.30 On April 21, Vankoughnet told the Council that the Government had plans and estimates for buildings at Toronto and there was a need to determine whether or not they could be adopted for use in Ottawa.31

272

Choosing Canada's Capital

The Ottawa Union complained that "the course is still wrapped in impenetrable mystery. What this portends, we confess our inability to suggest There is 'something rotten in the State of Denmark.'"32 Agitation around the country continued. For instance, some Ottawa members thought it might help their chances if Toronto remained as the capital until buildings in Ottawa were ready.33 Some Quebec supporters recognized that under the union the best they would get was the capital on a temporary basis so they began to discuss a wider federal union, of which they felt Quebec would have to be selected as capital. The Quebec City Council petitioned the Legislative Assembly, praying that the seat-ofgovernment would be removed to Quebec in 1859 in accordance with the ambulatory system,34 and the Quebec Chronicle appealed to Ottawans to help get the seat-of-government relocated to Quebec. Ottawans held concerns about such a relocation for they feared that Quebec might indeed remain as capital if a federal union was created. In Canada West generally many people were repelled by the thought of having the government functions moved back to Quebec. Meanwhile, Montreal papers continued to argue against Ottawa and for Montreal. In short, the ingredients for further legislative conflict were still evident. In May, the Government introduced its estimates for 1858 and from mid-June on, for nearly a month, the House debated matters of supply. On June 22, when the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply was to be considered, a member of the opposition (McGee of Montreal) moved in amendment that: this House has had no opportunity of expressing its opinion as to the selection of Ottawa, and that before any expenditure of moneys be made for Public Buildings at the said City, the Government ought to submit the selection made to the consideration of the Legislature.35 In making the motion, McGee said that "neither Mr. Labouchere nor the Government here have as yet given the reasons for [the] selection. [He proposed] to give them an opportunity of doing so now."36 The Speaker ruled that this amendment was out of order and the debate on supply continued.37 Before the ruling of the Speaker, several members spoke.38 Gowan (Leeds and Grenville, C. W.) remarked that "the amendment must, of course, be looked upon as one of want of confidence, and gentlemen

Parliament Rejects Ottawa

273

would vote accordingly." He disagreed with McGee's contention that public opinion was against Ottawa and that "in a place the size of Ottawa there would be no public opinion sufficient to control the government." Indeed, Gowan continued, Ottawa was ideal because "the country gave tone to cities, not cities to the country." The topic was again raised on July 16 when Dorion introduced two motions. His first motion stated, in part, that "...this House deeply regrets that the City of Ottawa...is not acceptable to a large majority of the Canadian people," whereas his second motion proposed that the House should ask "Her Majesty to reconsider the selection she has been advised to make, and name Montreal as the future Capital for Canada."39 Scott of Ottawa felt the motions were "very injurious."40 To the Government charge that they were disloyal to the Queen for questioning her decision, opposition members retorted that they were not challenging any choice made by the Queen, but that made by Labouchere and the Imperial Government. Opposition members variously proposed Quebec and Montreal for the capital. The vote on Dorion's first motion was regarded as a want-of-confidence motion for the Government. This was the second such want-of-confidence motion in two days and, since this time it was tied to the seat-of-government issue, Brown and colleagues fully expected to see the Government topple. Indeed, Brown was sure that the Ministry had been caught in a trap, thus he and his colleagues were deeply disappointed when the House voted (yeas 45, nays 63) in support of the Ministry. However, the Ministry was still in a difficult position, for not only did 13 Government supporters (including nine French-Canadians) vote against the Government, but it was known that the matter would again be dealt with on July 28. There was widespread concern for the Government lack of policy which could guide their actions on the seat-of-government question.41 The debate on the evening of the 28th was especially bitter.42 A Quebec supporter, Thibaudeau (Portneuf, C.E.), moved that Ottawa was unacceptable. Scott (of Ottawa) jumped to his feet and called the motion out of order. The Speaker agreed. Some Lower Canadians then angrily objected; they saw the Speaker's ruling as a means for stifling them. Some ministerial supporters become so indignant over the ruling that the leaders of the Ministry realized they had to act. Cartier at once hurriedly proposed a remedy, based on Dorion's original motion, of July 16. It was moved, first, that the Queen's decision did not satisfy the people of

274

Choosing Canada's Capital

Canada and, second, that Montreal should be the seat-of-governmenL When neither Dorion nor Thibaudeau would consent, Cartier suggested to a colleague, Harwood (Vaudreuil, C.E.), that he might move the first part, with the addition of a place to be fixed upon as a permanent seat-ofgovemment. Harwood did so, and tried to substitute Quebec for Montreal, but the Speaker ruled the motion out of order. Since the House had not rejected Montreal on July 16 — Dorion's second motion had been withdrawn — it was in order to move it again, but no other place could be substituted. At this point a Government supporter, Dunkin (Drummond and Arthabaska, C.E.) moved that the Queen be asked "to reconsider the selection...and to name Montreal as such future Capital."43 The Government's purpose clearly was to appease its Canada East supporters by bringing up the question but, at the same time, by naming Montreal as a challenge to the Queen's decision, making it difficult to achieve a majority vote in support of the motions. Macdonald and Cartier relaxed, thinking they had solved the problem, but their moment's peace was shattered when Brown moved in amendment that "no action may be taken towards the erection of buildings [in Ottawa] or for the removal of the Public Departments to that City."44 They became quite agitated whenPiche* (Berthier, C.E.) added another, curt amendment, "that in the opinion of this House, the City of Ottawa ought not to be the permanent seat-of-govemment of this Province."45 John A. Macdonald then made a major speech in which he challenged the House not to be so disloyal and even rude as to adopt the Piche" amendment, an amendment which, to his mind, was "an insult to Her Majesty."46 Further, he declared that the Government was prepared to stand by the Queen's decision and so to carry out the law, although he did not say when or how this could happen. He also declared that the Picric" resolution "would not alter the actual condition of things [since it] could not reverse the [1857] law which set apart a sum of money for erecting buildings...."47 The debate continued, with members speaking on behalf of Ottawa, or against the selection process, or for other cities. Knowing that feelings against the Government among Lower Canadians was high and that members regarded the question as an open one, opposition members were impatient for a division and so cries of "question, question" rang out all during the evening. Finally, the moment arrived, when the Picric"

Parliament Rejects Ottawa

275

amendment was put. It was accepted by a division of 64 to 50 votes (Figure 46).48 Upon the result being announced, Powell (Carleton, C.W.) immediately moved in amendment to the original motion that the word "Ottawa" be left out and the word "Quebec" inserted instead,49 but before a vote could be cast a jubilant George Brown rose amid cheers and claimed that the result of the vote on the Piche' amendment really represented "an express declaration on the part of the House of its dissatisfaction with the policy of the Government, and he would therefore move a direct wantof-confidence in the Administratioa"50 Brown said that if the ministers were willing to accept the test right then and there, he would move that: the House do now adjourn, with the understanding that all who voted for the adjournment were to be considered as recording their opinions against the Government, and those in favour of non-adjournment as expressing their confidence in the Administration. The gauntlet was down, and Brown was supremely confident. How would the Government react? John A. Macdonald rose and, on behalf of the Ministry, declared his willingness to accept the challenge: their stay in office would depend upon the outcome of the vote for adjournment. After a noisy discussion, votes were cast and the Government was sustained (yeas 50, nays 61; Figure 47), with the men who had voted against Ottawa returning to vote with the Ministry for non-adjournment. Was this a victory for the Government? The opposition did not think so. They saw the Piche' vote against Ottawa as the crucial vote, since by that vote the Ministry had been defeated on a major bill. That was all that mattered! The Ministry fully realized that it was on shaky ground because several of its normal supporters, even while voting nay, had spoken against the Government's lack of policy on the question. Also, two men who voted with the Government on the Piche' motion had absented themselves for the want-ofconfidence motion. The Government clearly was on the defensive. Members, without success, sought to induce Macdonald to declare to the House what the Government would do in reference to the House's decision against Ottawa. With a great excitment in the air, the House adjourned at 2:15 a.m. on July 29.

276

Choosing Canada's Capital

Macdonald immediately, that night, called a Cabinet meeting. They discussed their situation. Their recent record in the legislature was poor and the future offered them no relief. They had been defeated on a major division but then sustained on the following vote and thus they remained safely in office. But for what? The economic picture was becoming increasingly bleaker, the loss of the (Toronto) Colonist's support had raised further questions about their policies, and sectional frictions were raising even more questions about the constitutional future. A dramatic change was needed, but what? The Ministers agreed they had to resign and, in reaching that decision, they knew that they could do so with a flourish: under cover of the seat-of-government issue. The Queen had been insulted and therefore it was their duty to resign! This excuse surely would distract the public from further considering the Ministry's problems and anyway, they reasoned, the over confident Brown could never form an effective government and so would fail in the House, only to be replaced once again by themselves. Wearily, the Ministers went home to get some sleep. A few hours later, when the Legislative Council convened for a normal session, the members were greeted with the announcement from Vankoughnet that the Government had resigned. Macdonald made the same announcement to a stunned Assembly.51 He said that he had been to see the Governor-General that morning and that the Ministry's resignation had been accepted. He then reviewed the 1857-1858 seat-of-government decision-making process. He declared that: on the one hand the law of the land declared that Ottawa was the place, and the Government considered itself bound to give effect to it. On the other, the House declared the law should not be carried out. [The vote against Ottawa had prevented his Ministry from] carrying on the administration of affairs with satisfaction to ourselves or with due respect to Her Majesty.... [S]everal gentlemen from Lower Canada, who had formerly rendered to the Government their support, on that occasion withdrew it.... [By accepting the Rene* amendment the House had] expressed its disapproval

Parliament Rejects Ottawa

277

for the Queen's selection without suggesting another place, [therefore] the present alternate system of must be continued. The House then adjourned.

DOCUMENTS 252.

Quebec Mercury, August 27,1857.

[The delay in making an announcement about the seat-of-govemment] is highly injurious in every respect. It keeps people's minds in an uneasy and unsettled state. It leaves room for fractious agitation, and runs the risk of re-opening the whole question by a contrary vote of the Canadian Legislature. 253.

John A. Macdonald to Charles Lindsey (editor of the Toronto Colonist), January 26,1858.

Announce tomorrow morning that Ottawa has been selected by the Queen as the future seat of Govt.... I need not say that it should go in at the last moment, to prevent the Globe having it in the morning. 254.

(Toronto) Leader, January 27, 1858. [This paper was produced after the Colonist released the news hi the morning.]

Her Majesty the Queen, in compliance with the expressed wishes of the Canadian Legislature, has selected the future capital of United Canada. The City of Ottawa is the favoured place. This announcement will probably surprise few persons, since a very general notion — we cannot call it conviction — prevailed that Ottawa would be selected. This supposition arose chiefly from the position which that city occupies in Upper Canada. To suppose that the choice made by Her Majesty of the future capital of United Canada would not be generally acquiesced in, is to suppose the Legislature and people of Canada the most fickle and unstable legislature and people on the face of the globe. The Queen has done what we asked her to do; neither more nor less. She has settled a question which we were too divided, too selfish, too local in our views and aims to settle

275

Choosing Canada's Capital

for ourselves. We appointed Her Majesty arbiter of our dispute; begged her acceptance of the office, and she has complied with our request.... 255. Ottawa Tribune, January 30,1858. OTTAWA THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT

...Ottawa is now destined to advance with rapid stride on the road to prosperity. Her natural advantages will be brought prominently before the country, and the time is not far distant when she will rank as one of the first rate cities of Canada. This city alone will not reap all the advantages to be derived from this wise selection of Her Majesty's Government, the entire Ottawa country will be a gainer. Real estate will be doubled in value, and all the unoccupied lands will speedily be settled by a sturdy and industrious people. — Hamlets will spring, as if by magic, into villages, villages into towns, and towns into cities.... The Ottawa country has long been kept in the background, — always looked upon by both Eastern and Western men as the fag end of Canada, belonging to neither sections, and therefore unworthy of notice. This can be the case no longer. The goddess of fortune has at last deigned to smile upon us benignly.... It will be some years, however, before the voices of United Canada will assemble in our midst. The necessary buildings for Legislative accommodation, and that of the Public Offices, must first be built, and this will take little short of fouryears.—This must cause the expenditure of a 'small pile,' which will be of vast importance. Ottawa has been fortunate in drawing such a noble prize. 256. Quebec Mercury, January 28,1858.

...the astounding intelligence [tells us that] the whole machinery of government [is] to be removed from the civilized and old established cities, and located in one of the most out of the way, unprotected and unsettled parts of the Country, [and that in preference to Quebec]! 257. (Montreal) Pilot, January 28,1858.

That fearfully vexed question of the Seat-of-government has at length been fixed, and the Opposition scribes are loud in their denunciations of the decision which has been come to. We confess ourselves to somewhat of regret that Montreal has not been the choice of the Imperial Govt. We cannot help thinking that our good city is the place which should have been chosen; and that it has, in any respect which could be men-

Parliament Rejects Ottawa

279

tioned, advantages superior to any other city or locality in the Province. But the matter having been deliberately referred to the decision of Her Majesty, and that noble lady having accepted the reference and made the award, as loyal, true and honourable citizens, it becomes us to accept the decision and submit to it. Next to Montreal, the City of Ottawa is certainly the best that could have been chosen. ...objections would have been found to the Garden of Eden, had it been possible to fix upon that elysium as the metropolis of Canada. And we might have gone on fighting about localities until doomsday had not the happy expedient been hit upon of referring the question to the Queen, as the person most likely to give it a calm, impartial and unbiased decision. The fiat has now gone forth; the choice has been made withmuch wisdom; and we congratulate the good folks of Ottawa on its good fortune in being chosen. 258.

Montreal Transcript, January 28,1858.

The great battle of the Session will be that of the Seat-ofgovemment.... There will be, as in former years, a keen struggle for the prize on the part of the respective friends of the various localities... and in the conflict of these clashing local interests, there will be manouverings and stratagems, plottings and counterplottings.... These considerations of local feeling, of party spirit, and of the respect due to our Gracious Queen, being all gathered around this question, it is impossible to predict what the action of Parliament will be. 259.

Montreal Transcript, January 28,1858.

Ottawa is certainly nearer being the seat-of-govemment than ever it was before; but there are two old Proverbs, which do not seem to be altogether inapplicable to the case. One is, that 'near dead never fills the churchyard,' and the other, that 'there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.' 260.

(Toronto) Globe, January 28,1858.

[The population of Ottawa is] nearly five-eighths Roman Catholic, and half of them are of French origin. [Ottawa and the Ottawa Valley are] inhabited by an unenlightened and unprogressive people who know nothing of political principles.... the whole spirit of the city and its neighbourhood is against sound legislation, almost as much so as Quebec.

280 261.

Choosing Canada's Capital (Toronto) Globe, February 1,1858.

We are curious to know the reasons which the Colonial Secretary was given for his judgement [in favour of Ottawa]. [Stress added.] 262.

(Ottawa) Bytown Gazette, February 4,1858.

The announcement...has caused considerable ferment amongst some of the members of the Provincial press, the more rational and temperate of them, after the display of a little disappointment at the choice not falling on their own pet localities, bowing to destiny and declaring their willingness to have Her Majesty's decision carried out in good faith, whilst the others have declared against this course being pursued, and threaten to make the question still a bone of contention and the source of agitation in Parliament. 263.

Boston Daily Advertiser, as reprinted in the (Halifax) Acadian Recorder, February 6,1858.

[The Canadian seat-of-govemment question] has been a concatenation of follies; but the last act in the series has been by far the most foolish of all. 264.

Hamilton Times, February 12,1858.

Right glad are we that the question of the permanent Seat-ofgovemment for this country is at last settled, though we confess it has not been settled in accordance with our wishes on the subject.... We accept that decision fairly and frankly, and we hope no attempt will be made to disturb it. The country has suffered enough already from the action of sectional jealousies on the question, and now that both branches of the Legislature have pronounced, no matter on what grounds, that the Royal choice of Ottawa is to be maintained, no true patriot will endeavour again to kindle discussion on the subject. 265.

Letter from "An Onlooker" to Editor of (Toronto) Globe, February 20,1858.

Ottawa must not be like Toronto, or Hamilton, or Kingston, or Montreal, raised into importance by the industry and enterprise of their inhabitants; it must be fed with pap from the public kitchen, raised into independence by public money.

Parliament Rejects Ottawa 266.

281

(Toronto) Globe, February 22,1858.

[The Globe agreed that for the Ministry] to vote for Ottawa would be suicidal, and to make it an open question appears the only alternative, save the worst and last — resignation. 267.

(Ottawa) Gazette, February 25,1858.

To those who now raise a howl against Ottawa, it matters not what the real merits of the case are. The City of Ottawa may be the very best, all things considered, for the location of the future capital of the Province, but this with them makes no difference. Nothing is considered of any account but what will enable them to strike an effective blow at the Ministry. 268.

Sir Edmund Head in Speech from the Throne when opening Parliament in Toronto, February 25,1858.

Correspondence...will be laid before you, as well as an answer to your address presented to Her Most Gracious Majesty on the subject of the Seat-of-government. 269.

Resolution passed by the Municipal Council of the City of Ottawa, April 5,1858.

Resolved This his Worship the Mayor, be and he is hereby authorised to communicate to His Excellency the Governor-General, in Council, and to both Houses of Parliament, that in order to aid in carrying out the decision of Her Majesty in favour of Ottawa as the Seat-ofgovernment, with the least convenient delay, this Council will furnish the necessary Buildings to accommodate the Legislature and the officers of the Government, until the permanent Government Buildings be erected in this City. 270.

D'Arcy McGee, member for Montreal, C.E., in Legislative Assembly, June 22,1858.

Moved in amendment That this House has had no opportunity of expressing its opinion as to the selection of Ottawa, and that before any expenditure of moneys be made for Public Buildings, at the said City, the Government ought to submit the selection made to the consideration of the Legislature.

282 271.

Choosing Canada's Capital Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Prince Albert, July 16,1858 (RA).

Your Royal Highness took so much interest in the question of the future Seat-of-government for Canada, that you may like to see the private letter which I have received from Sir Edmund Head about it, and the extracts from Canadian newspapers which accompanied it. I see no reason to change my opinion that Ottawa is the best choice which could be made. It appears to have been as well received in Canada as could be expected in a Country where local considerations exercise so great an influence, of which Ottawa perhaps a much less share than any of her rivals, — I am, Sir, with great respect Your Royal Highness's most obedient humble servant. 272.

Motions by A.A. Dorion, member for Montreal West, C.E., in the Legislative Assembly, July 16,1858.

This House is duly grateful to Her Majesty for complying with the Address...this House deeply regrets that the City of Ottawa...is not acceptable to a large majority of the Canadian people (Defeated: Yeas 45, Nays 63). This House humbly prays Her Majesty to reconsider the selection she has been advised to make, and name Montreal as the future Capital of Canada [withdrawn]. 273.

Richard Scott, member for Ottawa, C.W., speaking against Dorion's first motion (selection 272) in the Legislative Assembly, July 16, 1858.

[The first motion] was a very injurious one, as it was framed to secure the support not only of what might be termed the legitimate Opposition, but of members from various sections who desired the Seatof-government to be fixed in their respective localities, and therefore wished to have the question re-opened. 274.

George Cartier, member for Vercheres, C.E., speaking against Dorion's first motion (selection 272) in the Legislative Assembly, July 16,1858.

Had the Queen been advised to select a commercial centre, Montreal should have been the choice; if a stronghold, Quebec; but if a compromise was wanted between the two Provinces, Ottawa was the

Parliament Rejects Ottawa

283

place. [Ottawa] was far more a Lower Canada than an Upper Canada city because it was part French.... But what was the design of this [Dorion's] motion? Neither more nor less than a censure of her Majesty. 275.

(Montreal) Pilot, July 23, 1858, commenting on the debate on Dorion's motions (selection 272) in the Legislative Assembly, July 16,1858.

[The debate] exhibited good grounds for believing that the Legislative Assembly is no better prepared to fix upon a site than it was last Session or at any previous time. 276.

Motion by Mr. Piche, member for Berthier, C.E., in the Legislative Assembly, July 28,1858.

In the opinion of this House, the City of Ottawa ought not to be the permanent seat-of-government of this Province (Accepted: Yeas 64, Nays 50; see Figure 46) 277.

John A. Macdonald in the Legislative Assembly, July 28, 1858, speaking before the vote on the Piche motion (selection 278).

[The motion] is an insult to Her Majesty. [It] would not alter the actual condition of things, [for] a resolution could not reverse the [1857] law which set apart a sum of money for erecting buildings wherever the Queen decided that the Government should go. 278.

Legislative Assembly, July 28,1858.

[Motion to adjourn; regarded as a want-of-confidence motion; yeas 64, nays 50; see Figure 47.] 279.

(Toronto) Globe, July 29,1858. IGNOMINIOUS DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT MR. LABOUCHERE'S DECISION REVERSED! OTTAWA NOT TO BE THE CAPITAL

280.

Montreal Transcript, July 30,1858.

This vote leaves all the exciting questions connected with that [seat-of-government] question open, and will revive another cause of dissention which we thought was disposed of forever.

284

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 46. Ottawa ought not to be the permanent seat-of-govemment; July 28,1858 (selection 276).

Figure 47. Motion to adjourn; regarded as a want-of-confidence motion; July 28,1858 (selection 278).

CHAPTER 10 CRISIS BEFORE PARLIAMENT ACCEPTS OTTAWA INTRODUCTION The drama that followed the Macdonald-Cartier ministry's resignation over Parliament's rejection of Ottawa as the seat-of-government was one of considerable constitutional consequence, for it involved the GovernorGeneral, the appointment of a George Brown-A.A. Dorion ministry, a want-of-confidence vote, the re-appointment of the Macdonald and Cartier ministry, and the questionable (at least to reformers) "double shuffle." Then, after considerable politicking, Ottawa was accepted by a parliamentary vote, but only by a small margin. The Governor-General was upset at the decision of the House to accept the Fiend motion. He immediately wrote to his superior in the Colonial Office (now Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton), stating that: it is impossible to say what the precise meaning of the vote of the Assembly is. It may signify that they think Her Most Gracious Majesty has been advised to select the wrong place for the Seat-of-govemment, or it may signify that the Assembly, contrary to the express votes of the last two sessions, would prefer to continue the system of transferring the Seat-of-govemment from one place to another. If the former of the two meanings is the right one, then I presume some other place will be suggested as preferable to Ottawa.1 Head expressed his "unfeigned regret for having...recommended that Her Majesty should be advised to accept the reference of the question." He continued:

285

286

Choosing Canada's Capital

My present duty will be to carry out the Government of the Province in such a manner as may best lead to the ultimate settlement of the [seat-of-government] difficulty without deranging the administration of affairs. Macdonald sent out messages saying that the Government had "resigned on insult offered to the Queen."2 Government papers accepted that the Macdonald-Cartier ministry "only did what they [were] bound to do in vindication of the honour of the Crown."3 Opposition papers saw the downfall of the Government as "the inevitable result of corruptness and ineptitude,"4 and commented that "although the Administration received the coup de grace on the Seat-of-government question, their fate was not decided by it."5 Whatever the reactions to the Government's resignation, there was a concern that was widely voiced: This vote leaves all the exciting questions connected with that [seat-of-govemment] subject open, and will revive another cause of dissention which we thought was disposed of for ever.6 Brown, as the recognized leader of the opposition, was asked by the Governor-General to form a government7 This Brown elatedly set out to do. He had firm support from his Canada West reform colleagues but he needed to work hard to get Canada East support. His chief Canada East supporter was A. A. Dorion. Together they formed a cabinet; four of its members were identified with Montreal. Newspapers at once began asking how the new government would treat the seat-of-government issue. A Montreal paper called upon Brown "to state distinctly what policy he holds respecting the Seat-of-government; whether he desires a permanent seat, or intends to carry on the alternating system."8 Brown had been closely identified with the alternating system because of the benefits it gave Toronto, but Dorion was most decidedly in favour of Montreal. Brown and Dorion agreed that the seat-of-government issue should become a cabinet measure to be dealt with after sectional problems within the union had been remedied, and that Montreal would be the place.9 However, the Brown-Dorion Ministry did not have an opportunity to inform the House of their policies. When Brown pre-

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

287

sented the names of his cabinet to Sir Edmund Head on the morning of August 2 — they were sworn into office at noon — the 10 men were obliged to resign their seats in order to seek re-election. Thus it was that when the House assembled that afternoon, the members of the Ministry were absent. On their behalf, a supporter informed members that the new Ministry did not yet have a fully-defined policy and he asked for the House to be prorogued. He also moved an election writ, whereupon a Bleu member moved a non-confidence motion against the new administration. The result was inevitable, even though the desperate and infuriated Liberals kept the debate alive until the late hours of the night: yeas 71, nays 31. A similar want-of-confidence motion was carried in the Legislative Council: yeas 16, nays 8. The Brown-Dorion cabinet met and concluded that "the affairs of the country cannot be efficiently conducted under the control of the House as now constituted."10 Brown and Dorion asked Sir Edmund Head to dissolve the Parliament and to call a general election, however, to their surprise and absolute dismay, Head refused to accept this suggestion, so the Brown-Dorion "two-day ministry" was forced to resign on August 4. On August 6, a new Cartier-Macdonald ministry was sworn in, just one week after the Macdonald-Cartier ministry had resigned. There were but two changes in membership of the Cabinet, although new positions were held. In order to avoid vacating their seats for re-election in the manner followed by Brown and companions, the members of the new ministry all switched portfolios just one day later, thus taking advantage of the law which declared that a minister need not resign if his portfolio was changed within 30 days of appointment! The switching of seats came to be called the "double shuffle" and heralded the rise of a major constitutional debate.11 A raging torrent of abuse thereafter was aimed at the Governor-General, much of it in the columns of the Toronto Globe. Indeed, the Globe's vitriolic reaction reminded observers of the abuse of Lord Elgin in 1849 by Montreal Gazette writers. Why did the Governor-General not call a general election? A short answer is that he felt personally slighted by the Assembly's rejection of Ottawa, the place he had so strongly and carefully recommended. Indeed, he was so dismayed by the House's rejection that he concluded he had made a grave error in 1857 when advising London to accept the referral. Head also was distressed by the derogatory comments made in

288

Choosing Canada's Capital

parliamentary speeches and newspaper editorials in reaction to the "Queen's choice." In addition, there was the political crisis: not only had the Ministry resigned but Parliament again stood in conflict with itself, since the House had declared that Ottawa ought not to be the permanent seat-of-government while the Legislative Council had resolved to accept the Queen's choice. Head thereafter saw his duty to be the ensuring of the ultimate settlement of the seat-of-govemment question while also continuing to carry on the administration of affairs. Pressure was on the new Cartier-Macdonald ministry to find some means for reconciling the Legislative Assembly's rejection of Ottawa with the existing law as agreed to in 1857, and also for reconciling the differences between the two houses. As they discussed how they should proceed, reactions to the recent events were voiced at meetings all across the country, where people declared their support for or condemnation of the actions of Sir Edmund Head and the Cartier-Macdonald Ministry. In Ottawa, there was a large "indignation" meeting on August 7 at which Ottawans expressed their regret at the news of "the gross manner in which Her Majesty has been insulted."12 Instead of despairing, however, Ottawans planned for the future. The Mayor sent a circular to other localities asking for help in getting the Queen's decision upheld,13 and a lobbying group of prominent citizens was formed to bring direct pressure on the Cartier-Macdonald Ministry. When Cartier met the Assembly on August 7, and spoke about the policy of his new government — "the same as was announced in the Speech from the Throne" — he added that: the Government felt...bound to carry out the law of the land respecting the Seat-of-govemment, but in the face of the recent vote on that subject, the Administration do not consider themselves warranted in incurring an expenditure for public buildings until Parliament has an opportunity of considering the whole question in all its bearings.14 Some people took this statement to mean that the Government had decided to leave the issue an open question,15 but the truth was that the Ministry still could not agree on a course of action.16 Cartier tied the seat-of-gov-

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

289

eminent question to the possibility of a federation, but the session closed with no further reference to the question. The Governor-General and representatives from Ottawa subjected Cartier and Macdonald to intense pressure. The Ottawa "party" included men of different political persuasions.17 Their tasks were several: to convince the several members of the Brown-Dorion Ministry who had earlier voted for Ottawa to do so again, and, in time, they got Bell (Liberal from Lanark North, C.W.) and Cook (Liberal from Dundas, C.W.) to agree, but not Patrick (Liberal from Grenville South, C.W.); to canvass other politicians, including, especially, Quebec supporters; and, above all, to pressure the Cartier-Macdonald Ministry to be decisive on the issue. The potential power of the Ottawa party and also its raison d'etre (which made it susceptible to bargaining) was not lost on Macdonald. Indeed, Macdonald insisted that the Ottawa and area members should support his government on other issues as well. Not all did, although Richard Scott did subsequently support Macdonald for the following 14 years.18 Finally, the Cabinet agreed it would declare its support for the Queen's choice, even if the ministers' personal choices were elsewhere. The reasoning behind the Cabinet's decision is interesting. They reasoned that the Queen had responded to the solicitation that she use her undoubted prerogative in making a decision, and the Canadian Parliament had passed an act which, by anticipation, adopted as their own the decision of the Queen, and had appropriated money to carry it out. As Sir Edmund Head noted, On these grounds, therefore, the Executive Council view the action by the Queen, as being, in reality, the actionof the Legislative of Canada. They consider that the issue is not between the Government of the colony and that of the mother country, but between the Parliament of Canada and itself.19 The Governor-General was instrumental in guiding the cabinet to its decision. Indeed, Head happily wrote a friend in England to say that he had been able to get his ministers boldly and openly to face the question in the next Speech from the Throne.20 The Ministry's decision was too much for one minister, Sicotte (St. Hyacinthe, C.E.), so he resigned

290

Choosing Canada's Capital

from the Cabinet.21 News of the resignation leaked out, which caused a Montreal newspaper to declare that: the seat-of-government has again...given rise to a ministerial crisis, and it certainly is to be deplored, that such an element of disunion and discord should exist among public men, and the political parties of this country. So long as the Seat-of-government remains an unsettled question, the country will be exposed to constantly recurring divisions and disruptions in cabinets and political parties.22 The Ministry's decision seemed final: Ottawa was to be supported. As the time for the opening of Parliament approached, people organized meetings on the question in many places across the country. At one meeting in Montreal, members of the Legislature were told "to cast their votes and exert their influence as to prevent the selection of any other place, and restore to Montreal those advantages of which she should never have been deprived."23 A Toronto newspaper warned that "it is Montreal against every other place, including Ottawa, in the country."24 Quebec supporters told their elected representatives "to vote in every possible manner and on all occasions against Ottawa."25 Such directives from their electorates put members under considerable strain. A few resisted, including Rose, a Cabinet member from Montreal, who replied that it was "a subject of regret" that Montreal had not been selected, but he felt it his duty to carry out the law."26 Others, including some Quebec members, later went against the stated wishes of their constituents. Great scheming took place as members from one area or another tried to forge plans for either supporting or upsetting the acceptance of the Queen's choice. Part of the Ministry's plan (and also Ottawa's) for support was to promise to Quebec members that relocation to Quebec would occur in 1859 and that their city would remain as capital until the necessary buildings in Ottawa were completed. It thus was with considerable anticipation that the country awaited the meeting of Parliament. The Speech from the Throne on January 29,1859, included a firm statement on the capital question. It was noted that the Legislature had solicited the Queen's decision and had appropriated the necessary funds to carry out her decision, that the decisions were binding, that Quebec

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

291

should become the seat-of-government until the necessary arrangements had been made in Ottawa, and that correspondence with the Government in London would be presented to the Assembly and the Council.27 The Legislative Council quickly set to discussing its response to the speech. The Queen's decision in favour of Ottawa was agreed to, but dissension arose over the statement that it was their "duty to carry out" the removal to Quebec for, as one member declared: "If this duty did exist, it must be drawn from some other premise than the Queen's selection of Ottawa."28 Opposition members argued (correctly) that the Government had put the tricky Quebec clause into the speech in order to capture Quebec votes. The Council voted 24 to 14 that the expense of removing to Quebec precluded their acceptance of the proposal. This rejection prompted Sir Edmund Head to write to the Colonial Secretary, explaining that the Council had accepted the Queen's choice but that its vote against moving to Quebec "is in no way involved in, or connected with the decision made by Her Most Gracious Majesty."29 The Council's vote against removal caused the Globe gleefully to declare that "the defeat [of the Government] is certain to lead to defeat in the Lower [Canada],"30 while the ministerialist papers declared that "the hostile vote" was nothing worse "than a temporary obstructive effect"31 for it would "serve to bring the members from the District of Quebec to their senses."32 By its "yes" (for Ottawa) but "no" (for removal to Quebec) response, the Council was later to find itself in conflict with the Assembly. The Assembly began to debate its reply to the Speech from the Throne. From the outset, attempts were made to have the members accept Montreal as capital. Debates were lively, due as much to the need for a final decision on the seat-of-government issue as to the survival of the Government. Scott (Ottawa) spoke in the House: Every member must admit that, from the way the debate had been carried on, one would think that the question was not, if Ottawa should be selected as the Seat-of-government, but whether the present Premier was to remain in office or not.33 After reviewing the many reasons why Ottawa should be capital, he continued:

292

Choosing Canada's Capital The selection of a capital ought not to be made subservient to the upholding or upsetting of any Government and he called upon members to give a vote which they could in future years reconcile to their consciences, their God, and their country. It appeared to him that they had but one duty to discharge, and that was to carry out the Queen's decision.34

On the second day of the debate, Sicotte moved that the Assembly's declaration of the previous July — that Ottawa ought not to be the permanent capital — was not intended to slight the Queen but was the House's expression of "views and opinions" carried out "in the ordinary and constitutional exercise of its privileges."35 Two days after that an independent member from Canada West moved in amendment that due to the question of a federal union having been raised "it is inexpedient at present to take any steps towards the erection of Public Buildings at Ottawa."36 The latter amendment was defeated on February 8.37 Many observers were surprised that the opposition, during the six days of debate, had not introduced amendments favouring some place other than Ottawa. The reason seems to lie in their fear of dividing their party forces if local loyalties were introduced. The unity of the opposition was tested when the first vote on which a division was recorded. On February 8, Bleu member Archambault (L'Assomption, C.E.) introduced an amendment which would, if accepted, have asked the Queen to reconsider her choice "and to move Montreal as such future Capital."38 In making the motion, Archambault denied Dorion's angrily launched accusation that it "was a dodge of the Government" to propose Montreal at this time, saying that the Government's position of declaring the Queen's decision was obligatory on them and thus "the only way to have it altered was to request Her Majesty to change it."39 McGee (Montreal) agreed with Dorion that the motion was but a ruse to subvert any chances Montreal had, whereas Coutiee (Soulanges, C.E.) saw it as a means of giving members who wished to see Montreal as capital an opportunity for so indicating. The scene was acrimonious for several minutes, but "after the storm subsided," the vote was taken.40 The opposition forces held their ranks, and all voted "nay" in a division that saw only 13 Canada East Bleu and Conservative members — all from within the Montreal region — voting "yea." However, the strain within opposition ranks

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

293

showed shortly after that, when Rouge Picric* moved in amendment that Montreal should be the seat-of-government instead of Ottawa. The Speaker ruled the amendment out of order. The debate continued for two more days, with many long, often repetitive, speeches. The keenest action was not among the debaters, however, but among the lobbyists. Toronto district opposition members pressured Ottawans to reject Quebec in favour of Toronto keeping the capital functions until Ottawa's buildings were completed, this in return for their vote of support for Ottawa. Ottawa lobbyists and members of the Ministry kept working on wavering Canada West members and on the members from the Quebec district. To the benefits of having the capital functions for a short time, ministers may also have suggested to Quebec members that if a federation was achieved its new seat-of-government might well be Quebec.41 And some Montreal supporters pressured other Canada East members, urging them to vote against Ottawa because a location in Canada East was preferable to one in Canada West. There was great excitement in the Legislative Assembly on the night of February 10 when both sides indicated they were ready for the division on Sicotte's amendment, which included the words from the 1858 decision "that in the opinion of this House the City of Ottawa ought not to be the permanent Seat-of-government." Acceptance of the amendment would mean the Government faced defeat. Marin (Terrebonne, C.E.) delivered an eloquent, three-hour oration attacking the opposition. Several speeches in reply followed, which carried the time to 1 a.m. when, as expected, Dr. Fortier (Bellechasse, C.E.) came into the House. (The Grand Trunk train he had taken to Toronto had been delayed by snow.) The Speaker then called Dunbar Ross to take his place in the Chair and thereupon left the House and went to his quarters, to the consternation of opposition members who thought that Speaker Smith, by this act, was subtracting one from the available strength of the opposition. Smith, however, simply went to fetch Powell (Carleton), who had been lying ill for several days, not daring to be out of reach for the critical vote. When Smith returned to the House and resumed the Chair, he was greeted with calls of "question, question" and so the division bells were rung. A Government-allied reporter recorded the scene (see selection 310). The outcome of the division was the defeat of the amendment, by a vote of yeas 59, nays 64 (Figure 49).42 This was the crucial

294

Choosing Canada's Capital

vote, for by it, by a majority of only five votes, the Ministry was sustained and Ottawa, in effect, was accepted as capital city. Gait wrote that the margin was "rather too close to be pleasant [for the Government, but it afforded] no indication of the strength of the Ministry on other questions."43 Thirty-two Canada West members voted for and 30 against Ottawa; 32 Canada East members voted for and 29 against. Seven members were absent. In Canada West, outside of the Ottawa district, where differing political alignments were set aside by three opposition members as they voted with the Government, most members voted along "normal" lines. Sixteen of the Canada East members voted contrary to their normal alignments, all but one of whom normally voted with the Ministry. But the most interesting cluster of votes was among members from the Quebec region, for eleven members voted with the opposition against Ottawa, while seven others voted with the Government. Significantly, three of the latter seven members represented the City of Quebec, and thus they voted in contradiction to a resolution of their City Council which had directed them to vote against Ottawa. In so voting, these three men recognized that if, as Quebec members, they had voted to reject the act of permanence and award to Ottawa, the Government would in no way be bound to adhere to the agreement to go to Quebec on a temporary basis. Some comparisons between the two "Ottawa divisions" are possible, that is, the divisions of July 28, 1858 and February 10, 1859 (Figures 46 and 49).44 In 1858, 50 members had voted in favour of Ottawa and the Ministry, in 1859 some 64 did so (Figure 48). Two members changed from supporting Ottawa to being against it. Fourteen members who had been absent in 1858 were present in 1859: five voted against Ottawa and nine voted for it. Five members who had voted in 1858 were absent in 1959. Eleven members changed their votes, from being against Ottawa in 1858 to being for Ottawa in 1859, whereas 98 voted the same way each time. Beyond the walls of the Parliament there was joy in Ottawa and a widespread, but reluctant, acceptance in the rest of the country of the fact that Ottawa would be the capital of Canada. The matter was perhaps summed up by the Toronto Globe, which acknowledged simply that "the agony of the Government is over."45 But it was not yet over. The House remain divided over whether or not to relocate temporarily the seat-of-

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

295

Figure 48. Vote changes from July 28,1858 to February 10,1859.

government functions to Quebec. An effort was made to keep the capital functions in Toronto until Ottawa was ready to receive them because, in the words of the mover, McDougall (Oxford North, C.W.), "the double removal first to Quebec and then to Ottawa was wholly unnecessary, and was the penalty which the people of this country had to pay for maintaining the present Ministry in power."46 The highlight of the evening of February 11, and perhaps of the whole long debate, was a four-hour speech by John A. Macdonald.47 He said "the reference to the Queen did not prove the weakness of the Government, on the contrary, it manifested their strength...." He denounced the allegation that the Government had used "sinister influences, and that power and patronage of the Crown had been employed to secure the vote of last night," ridiculed "the sudden interest taken by the Opposition in Ottawa being made the Seat-of-govemment," and said that "the Opposition's conduct was totally inexplicable except on the assumption that they were not sincere." To cheers from his supporters, he concluded: if hon. gentlemen wanted to preserve the position of Canada as a growing nation and keep the national character pure and unsullied, they would not only carry out the Queen's decision

296

Choosing Canada's Capital

but also fulfil with equal good faith their pledge to the people of Quebec. McDougalTs amendment was then defeated by a vote of 38 to 76. By this enlarged margin, the House thus put aside the opposition's attempt to prevent relocation to Quebec. Head wrote to his superior in London that "it is now extremely probable (though by no means certain) that the recognition of the Queen's decision and the virtual reversal of the vote of last session about Ottawa will succeed completely."48 It seems that Head — and undoubtedly others — did not realize that the most critical vote had already been held, on Sicotte's amendment against Ottawa, for he still saw a reversal as a possibility. Head thus continued, underlining the statement: "If the vote on the seat-of-government goes right I am quite satisfied, and whether I stay the remainder of the session or not -will be immaterial—/ care only for this" An attempt was made on February 14 to have Montreal considered, but there was merriment in the House when Rose of Montreal declared that: all classes [in Montreal] would scorn the adventitious advantages the Seat-of-government would confer upon them at the price of the good faith of the country. Montreal did not depend upon these slight advantages for her prosperity. She depended upon the energy and enterprise of her merchants, and upon her own unrivalled mercantile position.49 The division was a clear vote against Montreal: 29 to 73. Other proposed amendments were negated too. The House then turned to considering the two paragraphs in the address in reply to the Speech from Throne which dealt directly with the capital issue. The paragraphs stated that the House fully accepted the Queen's decision underthe conditions earlier agreed to, and that the Government would be transferred "to Quebec for a fixed period, until the necessary arrangements [in Ottawa] shall have been completed."50 The division occurred quickly, without further debate, and the result was positive: 59 to 47 (Figure 50).51

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

297

In Canada East the voting pattern was almost a complete reverse of the February 10 division, with nays becoming yeas and vice versa. Perhaps the only surprise was the persistence of the many Quebec district supporters who voted against the measure, although, as with the earlier critical division, the three city members voted with the Government. The Leader theorized that those Quebec supporters who voted negatively (including Dunbar Ross and Quebec's mayor, Langevin) "fancied the Government would be defeated; and that, in that case, they would have the political game in their own hands. We may, however, safely leave these gentlemen to reck with their own constituents."52 There was an inner cluster of Montreal supporters who also voted against the measure. In Canada West the vote was essentially along political lines although two Clear Grits in the Ottawa district voted yes, Conservative Robinson of Toronto altered his vote to be against Ottawa (this perhaps because of the chiding he had received from his constituents after the February 10 vote), and 18 representatives (13 of them opposition members) absented themselves rather than vote on the question. One riding was vacant and Powell of Carleton was too sick to be present. The House thereafter accepted the remainder of the address and forwarded it to the Governor-General. The following day a happy Sir Edmund Head sent a copy of the address to London and, in an accompanying letter, he wrote: you will see from the following paragraphs in this Address recognize fully and completely the selection of the Seat-of-govemment made by Her Most Gracious Majesty.... Such selection therefore has now been accepted and recognized by both branches of the Canadian Legislature.53 As was usual, the dispatch went up the hierarchy within the Colonial Office and then, on March 15, a copy was sent to the Queen. When ordering that a copy be sent to Her Majesty, Lytton indicated to his juniors: "Guard the reply much."54 Two days later a reply was sent from Lytton to Head in which "satisfaction" was expressed at the Assembly's "ultimate judgement" being "in accordance with those views which first prompted the submission of the question to Her Majesty."55

298

Choosing Canada's Capital

The Province remained in an economic depression and there were calls for a reduction in Government spending. Anger was thus expressed in many places — apart from in Ottawa — about Quebec being "paid its enormous bribe out of the public purse"!56 Even so, Government officials in Toronto soon started to secure residences in Quebec by leasing houses from the following May,57 and plans were drafted for the relocation of Government departments. However, agitation over the decision to relocate to Quebec continued and its principal public forum, apart from newspapers, became the Legislative Council. By accepting the principle of moving to Quebec, the House had put itself in conflict with the Legislative Council which earlier had rejected such a scheme. The Government announced that it would effect the removal without the consent of the Council. To this, the Montreal Transcript commented: "It remains to be seen what steps will be taken by that body to vindicate in this matter its rights and privileges as a power in the realm...."58 Members of the Legislative Council were still angry at the Ministry's tying the removal to Quebec with Ottawa's acceptance, and even more angry at the Government's announcement that the Council's decision was to be ignored. On March 16, a motion was put to the effect that it was premature to begin erecting public buildings in Ottawa, pending the settlement of the question of the federation of British North American provinces. It was put to a vote and defeated by a vote of 14 to 47. Did this vote signal the end of the Council's resentment? There was still the matter of supply to be dealt with. At that same time, engineers began surveying the Ottawa site for future public buildings, and the Executive Council expressed concern over suitable accommodations in Quebec.59 The Executive Council and the Governor-General felt it was "desirable to make no outlay beyond what is unavoidable" and accepted that the only suitable building was the "Jesuit Barracks."60 In both Houses, members requested that they receive statements of all expenses of the various removals of the seat-ofgovemment. They learned that from 1849 to 1858 removals had cost the country £42,149, and that the cost per move had increased substantially each time: from £6,188 in 1849 to £18,164 in 1855.61 This information did not sit well with many members, but the House accepted the Supply Bill. Reaction in the Legislative Council was more heated. The Council shocked the country when it threw out the Supply Bill, by a vote of 23 to 20.62

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

299

The Council's rejection of the Government's Bill — "extravagant as it must be considered"63 — was not just a reaction to the anticipated cost of removal. The stated cause was that the Supplies did not include mention of removal expenditures, but other reasons included a mixture of local and regional resentments and also the anger felt over the Government's decision to relocate even when the Council had declared its objections to such a move. Government newspapers expressed dismay while opposition papers (especially in Canada West, outside of Ottawa) rejoiced at this new ministerial crisis.64 Frantic politicking followed the defeat of the Supply Bill before it was resubmitted to the Council on May 3. When the vote was called, the bill was accepted 24 to 20, and so was duly presented to the GovernorGeneral. Sir Edmund Head prorogued Parliament the following day. He said in his speech that the Colonial Secretary had expressed "satisfaction on learning your ultimate judgement on this long-agitated [seat-of-government] matter — consistent as such judgement is with the honour and good faith of the Provincial Legislature."65 Realizing that the Government functions were definitely to move from their city, Torontonians discussed the impact of the impending loss of revenue from the loss of high rents and increased prices that they had benefitted from. The Leader observed that there had been no resulting depression the last time the Government moved to Quebec but, if Toronto "has been indebted to its presence for some share of the prosperity it has enjoyed, it remains to be considered in what way the void can be filled, and new elements of prosperity introduced."66 Such Toronto concerns mattered little to Quebeckers since they happily anticipated the arrival of Government departments. When it became known that a new post office building was to be constructed in Quebec for use by the Legislature, the Toronto Globe griped that "the bleeding process has commenced."67 Jubilation reigned in Ottawa when the Governor-General visited on May 21. Sir Edmund Head was presented with a congratulatory address from the City Corporation. Head's reply is interesting: I have no interest in the selection of a Capital, except that which arises from a sincere desire of securing the welfare of Canada.... Your city, I believe, offers a site well calculated to recon-

300

Choosing Canada's Capital cile the interests and calm the apprehension of both the portions which compose the Province.68

Ottawans were thrilled with the anticipation of what lay ahead. A picture of Ottawa was engraved and sent to the Queen "in testimony of gratitude for her selection of Ottawa as the Seat-of-government."69 And prophetic boasts were made about Ottawa's advantages: Nature has established it no less the Capital of British North America than the Capital of Canada. It is the centre "as the crow flies," it has the position, and it intends to keep it.70 The 19-year bitter debate on a site for the permanent seat-of-government for the Province of Canada was over, even though in May 1860 some Ottawa opponents in the Legislative Assembly tried one final time to get the decision set aside. Ministers in 1860 did not argue the question at all, and the motion was soundly defeated.71 Ottawa thus became capital because of two basic ministerial decisions, namely to refer the issue to London and second, following the 1858 rejection, to make the issue a ministerial matter. Since there was little support in the Legislative Assembly for Ottawa on its own terms, and since many men voted for it only because the Government's life was at stake, one can only conclude that Ottawa became capital because of compromise. Finally, it is important to note that Canadians did not know of the critically important role Sir Edmund Head had played in London, in having Ottawa's case presented so strongly. His key memorial remained a secret from Canadians. D'Arcy McGee claimed in the Legislative Assembly that the Governor-General had interfered with the selection process but John A. Macdonald stated boldly that he had not. Indeed, many years later his wife wrote: I suppose you have often heard Sir John tell the story of how Sir E. Head promised not in any way to interfere about the selection of the capital & how he did not do so.... [T]he first time I think I ever heard him speak [in the Legislative Assembly] he told McGee what he

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

301

said was — as false as hell — in a parliamentary way of course but using those words. Sir John told me afterwards that what was so false was McGee's repeating the statement that Sir E. had interfered.72

DOCUMENTS 281.

John A. Macdonald to Samuel Amsden, July 30,1858, explaining why his Ministry had to resign the day before.

[The Government] resigned on insult offered to the Queen. 282.

(Toronto) Globe, July 30,1858.

...although the Administration received the coup de grace on the Seat-of-government question, their fate was not decided by it. 283.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), October 22,1858.

[The Macdonald administration] resigned because what may be called a chance vote of the House was inconsistent with what they conceived to be their duty to the Queen. 284.

(Montreal) Pilot, August 2,1858.

The general opinion is, that they only did what they would [be] bound to do in vindication of their honour of the Crown. 285.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), July 31,1858.

On Friday, the 16th of July, the following proceedings took place in the Legislative Assembly of Canada — "The order of the day for the House to go again into Committee of Supply being read, "And the question being put that the Speaker do now leave the Chair; "Mr. Dorionmoved, in amendment, that Mr. Speaker do not leave the Chair, but that it be Resolved:

302

Choosing Canada's Capital

"That this House is duly grateful to Her Majesty for complying with the Address of Her Canadian Parliament, praying Her Majesty to select a permanent Seat-of-government, but that this House deeply regrets that the City which Her Majesty has been advised to select is not acceptable to a large majority of the Canadian people. — Yeas 45, Nays 63." The proposal of Mr. Dorion was therefore negatived by a majority of 18. 2.1 now proceed to give an extract from the votes of the House on Wednesday, July 28: "Mr. Dunkin moved that it be Resolved, — "That an Address be presented to Her Majesty to represent that this House humbly prays Her Majesty to re-consider the selection she has been advised to make of a future Capital of Canada, and to name Montreal as such future Capital. "Mr. Brown moved, in amendment, that an Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, praying that no action may be taken towards the erection of Buildings in the City of Ottawa, for the permanent accommodation of the Executive Government and Legislature, or for the removal of the Public Departments of that City. "Mr. Pichg moved, in amendment to the said amendment, that in the opinion of this House the City of Ottawa ought not to be the permanent Seat-of-government of this Province. — Yeas 64, Nays 50. "The question being then put on Mr. Brown's amendment as amended, "Mr. W.F. Powell moved, in amendment thereto, that in the opinion of this House the City of Quebec ought not to be the permanent Seat-of-government of this Province. "Mr. Brown moved that the House do now adjourn. — Yeas 50, Nays 61. "The question being then put on Mr. Powell's amendment, and a debate arising. "Mr. Cimon moved that the debate be adjourned. — Yeas 35, Nays 68.

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

303

"Mr. Turcotte moved that the House do now adjourn.—Yeas 95, Nays 5." 3. Thus, notwithstanding the rejection of Mr. Dorion's motion on the 16th, the Legislative Assembly on the 28th asserted that they did not approve of Ottawa as the "permanent" Seat-of-government. No proposal has yet been made to embody that assertion in an address or to bring it under my notice in an official shape. 4. On the morning following this division, the two leading Members of the Administration waited on me, and tendered the resignation of themselves and their colleagues. I had no alternative but to accept such resignation, and to send for the most prominent member of the opposition Mr. George Brown, Member for the City of Toronto.... 6. Mr. Brown has undertaken to form a Government, and he is to wait on me on Monday for the purpose of submitting the names of those whom he would propose to associate with himself. 7. Until some address or some legislative action is taken in consequence of the proceedings of the 28th, it is impossible to say what is the precise meaning of the vote of the Assembly. It may signify that they think Her Most Gracious Majesty has been advised to select the wrong place for the Seat-of-government, or it may signify that the Assembly, contrary to the express votes of the two last sessions, would prefer to continue the system of transferring the Seat-of-government from one place to another. 8. If the former of the two meanings is the right one, then I presume some other place will be suggested as preferable to Ottawa, — that is to say:—The Parliament, having referred the decision to the Queen, will itself say what that decision ought to be. At any rate until a clew is obtained to the precise wishes of the Assembly by definite action on their part, and until their ultimate acceptance of the New Government shall have been expressed, any advice or recommendation from me would be premature and useless. 9.1 cannot however forbear offering the following observations: I. The address of last session to the Queen was the act of both Houses of the Legislature, not of one.

304

Choosing Canada's Capital

II. The Act 20 Vic. c. 17, s.2, expressly provides that a sum of £225,000 shall be expended at such place as the Queen may select for the Seat-of-government. That choice, having been made, the section in question has, I apprehend, operated, and as it contains no provision for a change of place, the section itself must be repealed before it could cease to be binding, or before the money could be laid out elsewhere. III. As regards myself, I desire to express my unfeigned regret for having, in my despatch of March 28, 1857, recommended that Her Majesty should be advised to accept the reference in question. In palliation of so grave an error in judgment, I can only urge that it might have seemed ungracious to refuse a spontaneous reference of this kind, and that it appeared to me impossible to conceive any form in which a Legislature could bind its successors more solemnly, or commit itself in its corporate capacity more conclusively than was done by the Parliament of Canada with reference to the Seat-of-govemment, more especially because their address was coupled with the Legislative provision in the 20 Vic c. 17, referred to above. 10. It would now seem however that my view of the binding character of the action of a Legislature differs essentially from that taken by the majority of the Legislative Assembly of Canada. My present duty will be to carry out the Government of the Province in such a manner as may best lead to the ultimate settlement of the difficulty without deranging the administration of affairs. 11. So soon as I am able to afford further information on the deliberate opinion of Parliament, and the course they wish to pursue I will communicate again. In the meantime I am ready to act in all ordinary business cordially and frankly with the new Ministry as I have done with their predecessors. 286.

John A. Macdonald in a speech made in St. Catherines, C.W., n.d.

If there is one thing, gentlemen, that has been trumpeted from one end of the country to the other, it is the course the Government pursued when they resumed office after the disastrous and humiliating defeat of the Two-Days administration. [Hear, hear.] I allude to what has been called the "double shuffle." [Laughter.]... Sir, when we resigned over positions in 1858, we had a large majority in Parliament We were not then driven

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

305

out because we had lost the confidence of the House; on the contrary, we had a very large working majority; but we, who' cling to office for the sake of public plunder,' resigned our places at once, rather than see our Queen insulted on the Seat-of-govemment question. We might have retained our position without difficulty, for that very day, half an hour after the vote was taken, I appealed to the House on the question of confidence, which Mr. Brown, with his usual want of judgement, brought up, and when I accepted the vote on the adjournment as one of confidence, a majority of 14 sustained us. 287.

Ottawa Union, reprinted in (Toronto) Globe, August 7,1858.

To the miserable trucking of the fallen [Macdonald-Cartier] administration may be attributed to the temporary misfortune which has befallen the country. Time and again have they been called upon to grapple manfully, and as became ministers of the Crown, with this national issue. They had a splendid basis for their operations — an act of Parliament granting them the necessary funds, a vote of the Legislature referring the question to solemn arbitration — the arbitration given, and the legalized decree of the Sovereign in their hands. Why dally with the question? Why keep it dangling between earth and heaven as a tempting bait for interested localities and greedy demagogues? The answer is simple — because ministers were not sincere; they desired to make a show of obedience to the Sovereign, and regard for the national welfare, while at the same time they endeavoured to provoke outside interference, advance local interests, preserve corrupt parliamentary support, and retain Government patronage, pelf and power. It was their duty to have pushed on the work; and if storms threatened, like men of principle, have stood or fallen with the robe of decency around them, as they pledged themselves to do, by the decision of their Royal Mistress. Their disloyalty and treachery is as marked and as indelible as that of the abused aspirants to their vacant portfolios. 288.

(Toronto) Globe, August 2,1858.

The organs of the fallen Government are inclined to harp upon the question which proved the final stumbling block for its feeble steps, and ring the changes upon the "Queen's decision," "an insult to Her Majesty," "an invasion of the prerogative," while they endeavour to take credit to ministers for their devoted loyalty in resigning when the choice of the Crown was reversed. The truth is, that although the Administration received the coup de grace on the Seat-of-govemment question, their fate

306

Choosing Canada's Capital

was not decided by it. Had the question not been brought before the House at all, they would still have been compelled to resign office. As Mr. Macdonald himself admitted, the defections from the ranks of their supporters, evidenced by the vote of want of confidence which he himself demanded, proved to the Government that they were lost. Had they continued in office a few days longer, more than one question would have been brought on the tapis which would have supplied as effectual a finishing blow as that of the Seat-of-government. The reference of the question to the Queen in 1857 was carried in the House of Assembly by a narrow partizan majority, and was not supported by public opinion either in the House or the country. People were induced to support that method of settling the question only by the most positive assurances that the places in which they were interested respectively would be chosen. Quebec was the place, it was said, which the military authorities would choose, Montreal was the commercial centre, Ottawa the compromise between Upper and Lower Canada, and Kingston the British place. Each was to be the favoured spot, according to the assurances of members of the Administration, and but for these assurances, the reference never could have been carried. It was passed however, by a majority of two only, a fact which ought to have induced Mr. Labouchere to decline the responsibility placed upon him. Besides that fact, however, the Colonial Minister was warned by Canadian gentlemen whom he consulted on the subject that his decision would not be final, that it would assuredly be upset if it did not find general approval in Canada. — In spite of all this, Mr. Labouchere proceeded, and we can only account for his doing so, on the supposition that he did not care whether his decision was sustained or not, that he made the choice to please the Canadian Government which pressed the task upon him, and was perfectly willing to submit to any change which might take place. Since that time a general election has taken place, and the whole policy which referred the matter to the Imperial authorities has been condemned by the people of Canada. It is not the choice made which has been set aside, for the elections were over before the secret was revealed, it was the policy of reference which received the mark of public disapproval. Under such circumstances, is the Legislature not at liberty to declare the result of an appeal to the people? Is it not free to say to the Sovereign, that whereas the last Parliament left to the decision of her Colonial Secretary the Seat-of-government question, the present one

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

307

disapproved of that step, and would prefer to do the work itself? Are the fiats of Colonial Secretaries—of whom we have had three within the last three or four months — like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable? The absurdity of talking of her Majesty's views of the matter, it is not necessary to dwell upon. Neither the Queen, nor, for that matter, her ministers, care one straw about the seat of Canadian Government. Mr. Labouchere undertook a duty pressed upon him by our provincial ministry, whose sole motive was to get rid of a question which affected their fortunes, and if, after a general election, and after other difficulties connected with the matter have approached a solution, anew Ministry and Parliament declare themselves prepared to choose a Seat-of-government themselves, we are quite convinced that neither Her Majesty nor her Colonial Secretary (even were Mr. Labouchere himself in office) will have any objection. As to the language of the resolution which was carried on Wednesday night last, it was not intended for the eyes of Royalty. When the address on the subject is passed it will, we have no doubt, be perfectly satisfactory in its respectful devotion even to the flunkies who are now so indignant against any interference with what they are pleased to call "the Queen's decision." 289.

George Carrier speaking in the Legislative Assembly on August 7, 1858.

[The policy of his new Government was] the same as was announced in the Speech from the Throne....The Government felt itself bound to carry out the law of the land respecting the Seat-of-government, but in the face of the recent vote on that subject, the administration do not consider themselves warranted in incurring an expenditure for public buildings until Parliament has an opportunity of considering the whole question in all its bearings. 290.

(Toronto) Leader, August 9,1858

After some ten days of ministerial crisis the machinery of Government is again in working order. With the exception of two names, the Macdonald-Cartier Administration have been reinstalled. The new Government naturally takes the policy of the old one, in other words, it adheres to the policy which, in its previous phase, it announced to Parliament at the beginning of the Session. The recent vote of the House, on the subject of

308

Choosing Canada's Capital

the Seat-of-government will render it necessary that Parliament should have an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question. The law directs the Government to expend £225,000 on public buildings, in Ottawa, and there is a resolution of one branch of the Legislature declaring that the law ought not to be carried into effect. Parliament being thus at cross-purposes with itself, on the question, any immediate action by the Government on the subject becomes impossible. Parliament must become consistent with itself; it must find some means of reconciling its late position, in taking a stand against Ottawa, with the existing law, which authorizes the expenditure of £225,000 on public buildings in Ottawa. We cannot see how the Legislature can give due consideration to the question this Session; if indeed the rules of the House would permit of its being brought up again. 291.

Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General), September 10,1858.

In reviewing the history of the Session of the Canadian Parliament now terminated, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to avoid expressing their regret that after having deliberately invited the award of Her Majesty on the question of the future Seat of Canadian Government, the Assembly should have thought proper deliberately to reject that award. They are not in possession of the reasons which may have led to so unexpected a decision; but they are too strongly assured of the loyalty of the representatives of the Canadian people, to believe that any individual among the Members who joined in that vote intended a slight to his Sovereign. 292.

(Toronto) Leader, November 6,1858.

...next session will witness an Ottawa party. Experience shows that such parties always give a great deal of trouble; and there is no reason to suppose this will be an exception to the rule. 293.

Montreal Transcript, December 28,1858.

The question of the future course to be adopted with reference to the carrying out of the Queen's choice of Ottawa, it has been whispered during the past week, has been the bone of contention in the Cabinet, and Mr. Sicotte has been represented as firm in the determination that Ottawa must be set aside, and a choice made by the Cabinet Ministry of some place in Lower Canada to enjoy the metropolitan honours. His colleagues, on the other hand, were said to be firm in opposition to anything that would

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

309

imply a revocation by the Cabinet of her Majesty's decree. This radical difference, it was felt, would be found difficult of solution. Still, so many dissensions have sprung up amongst our statesmen of late years, and been either plastered up or reconciled in other ways, that little attention was given to the reports of a probable break-up of the entirety of the present Administration. It therefore took people by surprise when they learned yesterday thatMr. Sicotte had actually resigned his seat in the Cabinet, and on the very question which, according to public rumour, was the actual stumbling block.... The reference to the Queen of the Seat-of-govemment question has from the first been viewed with public disfavour; and if the Ministry thought to relieve themselves from difficulty by it they have been egregiously mistaken. It has been, and promises to be, a never-ending theme of discontent, breaking down or rendering unpopular every one who sustained it.... 294.

Montreal Transcript, December 31,1858.

The Seat-of-govemment has again...given rise to a ministerial crisis [with the resignation from the Executive Council of Sicotte who favoured Montreal], and it certainly is to be deplored, that such an element of disunion and discord should exist among public men, and the political parties of this country. So long as the Seat-of-government remains an unsettled question, the country will be exposed to constantly recurring divisions and disruptions in cabinets and political parties. 295.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), January 8,1859.

I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. able Mr. Sicotte has tendered to me, through Mr. Cartier, the resignation of his seat in the Executive Council, and of his office as Chief Commissioner of Public Works, which I have accepted. Mr. Sicotte resigns because he differs from his colleagues on the policy which it is their duty to pursue with reference to the question of the seat-of-government. It is therefore necessary that I should state what I now understand that policy to be.... [T]he members of the Canadian Government, as at present constituted, believe that it would be an entire misapprehension of the real state of the question of the seat-of-government to represent the

310

Choosing Canada's Capital

issue as being one between the Legislature of Canada and the Government of the Queen. According to this view, it has no analogy whatever to those differences which formerly, from time to time, arose between the Colonial Secretary and the Government of the Colony. They know that no interference of any kind was thrust upon the Canadian Government by the advisers of Her Most Gracious Majesty in England. The Canadian Parliament, after more than one resolution to adopt a fixed seat-of-government, apparently found themselves unable to select any one place for that purpose, and in the most solemn manner they solicited Her Majesty to exercise Her undoubted prerogative in making such solution—thereby acknowledging expressly Her Majesty's constitutional power to take such a step, whilst they asked for its discretionary exercise. They passed, moreover, an act which by anticipation adopted as their own the decision of the Queen, and appropriated money for carrying it out. This act remains unrepealed. On these ground, therefore, the Executive Council view the action taken by the Queen, as being, in reality, the action of the Legislative of Canada. They consider that the issue is not between the Government of the colony and that of the mother country, but between the Parliament of Canada and itself. They think it essential that the Parliament of Canada should show respect for laws yet unrepealed which it has itself enacted, and should adhere in honour and good faith to a course of action deliberately adopted, and to pledges solemnly given. Such, Sir, I understand to be the principles in the maintenance of which Mr. Sicotte does not entirely concur with his colleagues, and he has accordingly resigned office. 296.

Journalde Quebec, reprinted in (Toronto) Leader, January 8,1859.

Nothing. ..not even fifty general elections, held one afterthe other, would make Lower Canada, and especially the District of Quebec, renounce the hope of possessing the Seat-of-government.... 297.

(Toronto) Globe, January 20,1859

The [Toronto] Colonist copies from the Montreal Commercial Advertiser—being ashamed, we presume, to give such an absurd story on its own authority—a statement that it was the Queen herself, and nobody but the Queen, who made choice of Ottawa for the Seat-of-government.

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

311

The thing would be a good joke, if it were not intended to deceive some innocent people. Every well-informed person knows that all such matters are decided by the advice of responsible ministers, but we dare say that there are some people ignorant enough to believe that Her Majesty put on the Crown of State and the Royal robes, and, looking over a map of Canada, laid her finger on Ottawa and declared that there the Canadian Parliament should meet, and nowhere else. One thing is certain, that neither the Queen nor ministers will contradict this story, announced by the veracious editor of the Montreal Commercial Advertiser and we have no doubt that ministers will use it freely. 298.

Ottawa Citizen, January 24,1859.

The Ministry are again peddling with the seat-of-govemment question. They want the unconditional support of all the Ottawa members, otherwise they declare they must be careful about that question. 299.

Montreal Transcript, January 28,1859.

[Montreal had] a right to expect that her interests shall be protected by her representatives. [The latter were instructed] to cast their votes and exert their influence as to prevent the selection of any other place, and restore to Montreal those advantages of which she should never have been deprived. 300.

(Toronto) Leader, January 28,1859

[Did] the Queen [select] Ottawa simply as an arbitress or in the exercise of the Royal prerogative[?] Nominally, the selection of the place at which the Queen, through Her Representative in the Province, will convoke the Chambers is a matter of prerogative. In strict right, it belongs to Her Majesty by an exercise of the royal prerogative to decide what Canadian city shall be the Seat-of-govemment. But this had long since been numbered with the dormant or disused prerogatives. Over and over again, the Provincial Parliaments had exercised the power of determining where the Seat-of-govemment should be. In 1843, the Legislature decided to leave Kingston, and fix the Seat-of-government at Montreal. In 1849, one branch of the Legislature advised the Executive to take the Seat-ofgovernment from Montreal and on many subsequent occasions, the Legislature has treated the question as one entirely at its disposal. In remitting the decision of the question to the Queen in 1857, the Legislature has treated the question as one entirely at its disposal. In remitting the

372

Choosing Canada's Capital

decision of the question to the Queen in 1857, the Legislature only asked Her Majesty to step in as arbiter and settle what local disputes, prejudices, and interests rendered impossible to settle in this country. The Queen, it is clear, acted the part of an arbiter, and did not undertake the settlement of the question by an exercise of the Royal prerogative.... The Queen in selecting Ottawa did so simply as an arbiter acting on reference. 301.

Letter to the Editor from "Syphax," (Toronto) Leader, February 1, 1859.

There exists too deep a sense of individual and public honour to allow the Queen's decision to be for a moment questioned. 302.

(Toronto) Leader, February 1,1859.

Anyone who has watched, with ordinary attention, the late movements in regard to the Seat-of-govemment question, must have observed that almostthe entire opposition, to the Queen's decision is in the interest of Montreal.... As the question stands at this moment, it is Montreal against every other place, including Ottawa, in the country. The object of the attempt to set aside the Queen's award is to make Montreal the capital.... The question, which is at this moment paramount to all others, is viewed in very different lights by different people. There is a class of men who will not consent to argue whether or not they should keep their ward; whether it is allowable to cater to a solemn engagement and then repudiate it. This class of persons value their own honour higher than any other earthly possession. Another class of persons look at the question solely as one of local interest. The expenditure occasioned by the Government they believe beneficial to any place where it may happen to be; and that consideration with them is paramount. If they live in the district of Quebec, they will listen to nothing but that Quebec should be the permanent Seat-of-government; if they live in Montreal, they advocate that city, on the same grounds. It is the same if they live in any other place. Another class are only anxious to use the question for political purposes. If they can so manipulate the question as to defeat the ministry, a great point would, in their estimation, be gained. But this is not the only advantage. An Upper Canada politician by agreeing to give his influence in favour of Montreal, may obtain allies from the city and district interested in the success of such a scheme.

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa 303.

313

Extract from Speech from the Throne at opening of Parliament by Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General), January 29,1859.

It is my duty, on the present occasion, to call your attention to the question of the Seat-of-government of Canada. The Legislature of Canada, having resolved that a fixed Seat-ofgovernment should be selected, solicited our Gracious Queen, by an Address of either House, to exercise her prerogative in making such selection. An Act, moreover, was passed, adopting beforehand the decision of Her Majesty, and appropriating the necessary funds. This Act of the Canadian Parliament and the decision of the Queen are binding on the Executive Government of the Province, and it will be their duty to carry out the understanding which existed at the time when the reference was made, by which the Government will be transferred to Quebec for a fixed period, until the necessary arrangements shall have been completed. The Correspondence with Her Majesty's Government will be laid before you, and I cannot doubt that you will recognize a selection made by Her Majesty at your own request, and that you will duly acknowledge Her gracious compliance with the Addresses which you yourselves caused to be presented to Her. 304.

Legislative Council, February 2,1859.

Resolved: That this House cannot perceive that the transfer of the Seat-of-govemmentto Quebec, for a fixed period, until the completion of the necessary buildings at Ottawa, is involved in the duty which devolves upon the Executive of carrying out the Queen's decision — or that any such arrangements has ever been recognized by any resolution of the Legislature; and this House deprecates the expenditure attending a double removal of the Seat-of-government after the Queen's selection of a fixed site has been promulgated (accepted by Yeas 24, Nays 14). 305.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), February 4,1859.

I have the honour to enclose a copy of the speech from the Throne with which I opened the Session of Parliament on the 29th ultimo.

314

Choosing Canada's Capital

2. I also enclose a copy of the address from the Legislative Council in answer to the Speech which has this day been presented to me. 3. You will see that the Legislative Council explicitly recognize, as they have already done, the Queen's selection of Ottawa — they dissent, however, from the avowed intention of my present ministers to transfer the Government to Quebec for a certain fixed period according to what it was thought was understood at the time of the reference. This latter question is one entirely of expediency, and is in no way involved in, or connected with the decision made by Her Most Gracious Majesty. 4. The address from the Lower House is still under discussion.... 6. [An amendment] is of a general and abstract character, but as it will, (if carried) remove from the address the immediate recognition of Her Majesty's solution of the seat-of-government, it would in fact place the Legislative Council and the Assembly at direct issue with each other on this very important subject. 306.

(Toronto) Leader, February 3,1859

[The action of the Legislative Council] is an unequivocal defeat of the Government, but it cannot be regarded as of serious, muchless fatal, import. We have only to go back ten years to find a removal of the Government from Montreal, in opposition to the expressed opinions of the Legislative Council, and what has happened once may happen again. Since the Government cannot go to Quebec with the consent of the Second Chamber, it is within the range of possibility that it may go there without that consent. 307.

(Montreal) Pilot, February 4,1859.

The question one is asked at every street corner here, is, Will the Ministry have a majority on the Seat-of-government question? The answer is generally in accordance with the wishes of the person asked.... The members of the District of Quebec have the decision in their hands, and if they do not sacrifice the interests of their constituents to their own ends, there can be no doubt of the course they will pursue. In the first place, they are given the Seat-of-government for four years, with all that the 'chapter of accidents' may bring forth in those years; in the second place, if the Ministerial proposal in favour of Ottawa be voted down, Montreal must win the coveted prize, and Quebec may whistle for metropolitan honours for ever and a day, federation or no federation of the Provinces.

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa 308.

315

Richard Scott, member for Ottawa, speaking in the Legislative Assembly, February 1,1859.

Every member must admit that, from the way the debate had been carried on, one would think that the question was not, if Ottawa should be selected as the Seat-of-government, but whether the present Premier was to remain in office or not.... The selection of a capital ought not to be made subservient to the upholding or upsetting of any Government, and he called upon the members to give a vote which they could in future years reconcile to their consciences, their God, and their country. It appeared to him that they had but one duty to discharge, and that was to carry out the Queen's decision. 309.

Legislative Assembly, February 10,1859.

Question That we shall give our earnest attention to the question of the Seat-of-government of Canada. Moved in amendment [by Sicotte] That all the words after "That" to the end thereof, be left out, in orderto insert the words, "the fundamental principle of the representative system, and one of the most important advantages resulting from it, is the right of the majority to have their views and opinions prevail in the Administration of the country; and it is the duty of this House to repel any attempt which might endanger a principle which for centuries has preserved, in a wise measure of progress, the franchises and liberties of England." That, in declaring, on the 28th July last, "that in the opinion of this House the City of Ottawa ought not to be the permanent Seat-of-government of this Province," this House, without intending any want of respect to the Sovereign, expressed its views and opinions on the subject of the Seat-of-government in the ordinary and constitutional exercise of its privileges," instead thereof. And the Question being put on the Amendment to the original Question, the House divided: Yeas 59, Nays 64 (Figure 49). Then, the Question being put on the second paragraph [that is, the motion above which was to form part of the House's reply to the Speech from the Throne]; the House divided; and it was resolved in the Affirmative.

376

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 49. Against Crown's interference and against Ottawa; February 10,1859 (selection 309).

310.

(Montreal) Pilot, February 15,1859 [regarding division on February 10,1859; selection 309 and Figure 49].

Two minutes must elapse after the ringing of the peal before the vote can be taken—they seem to all an age. The seats begin to change their look—well-known forms rush in to occupy them. From the gallery, we see the crowd of heads more closely packed than we ever noticed them before. Ah, Scott, of Ottawa, well may you nervously twitch your fingers, and look in fifty places for that division-list you put there not a moment since. Calm and unruffled though you try to look, you cannot deceive a close observer! Powell, of Carleton, thin and pale as death, wrapped in his furs, walks in upright; but we see how great an effort it is for the sick man as he sinks down into his chair.... Silent as the ice-covered Bay outside, are all the members. With one impulse, yet without noise, the Opposition rise as Mr. Speaker invites the ayes to the amendment to declare themselves.... The numbers increase; fifty-seven,fifty-eight, FIFTY-NINE!.......How will the tide of battie turn? For whom will be the victory? The Honourable Attorneys General Cartier and Macdonald lead the van. There are a few "hear, hears" when Dubord votes, a few when Holmes is found all right. But the anxiety becomes too great to cheer as we count sixty, sixty-one, sixty-two. Now we are safe: Yeas 59; Nays 64 — says the clerk. The Ottawa men shout hurrah! Scott goes into ecstasies of joy for once. A burst of cheering follows....

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa 311.

317

A.T. Gait (member of the Cartier-Macdonald Ministry), to B. Pomroy, February [11], 1859.

We got a vote on the Seat-of-government last night, and had a majority of 5 — rather too close to be pleasant — but it affords no indication of the strength of the Ministry on other questions. 312.

(Toronto) Globe, February 11,1859.

The agony of the Government is over. 313.

Hamilton Times, February 12,1859.

[The question was not settled] in accordance with our wishes on the subject [but we accept it] fairly and frankly, and we hope no attempt will be made to disturb it. The country has suffered enough already from the action of sectional jealousies on the question.... No true patriot will endeavour again to rekindle discussion on the subject. 314.

Montreal Transcript, February 12,1859.

The interests, not only of Montreal, but of the Province, have been sacrificed, so far as this question is concerned [but] however tortuous may have been the course by which the result has been reached, a decision has at length been pronounced by the only competent tribunal, and to that decision we bow. 315.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Herman Merivale (Colonial Office), (private), February 12,1859.

I cannot send you the result of our debate on the address by this mail because it is not yet over — The Ministry defeated Sicotte's amendment by a majority of five and last night they put aside another proposed change — It is now extremely probable (though by no means certain) that the recognition of the Queen's decision and the virtual reversal of the vote of last session about Ottawa will succeed completely. Cartier deserves great credit: he has parried great abuse and odium from his Civil Supporters most manfully. The whole matter of Brown's Government has been debated over and over again and I am none the worse for what has passed.... If the vote on the seat-of-government goes right I am quite satisfied, and whether I stay the remainder of the session or not will be immaterial—/ care only for this.

318

Choosing Canada's Capital

If the Government were to be defeated tomorrow I could never form another Cabinet without Mr. Brown — but I think the chances are greatly in Carrier's favour. 316.

Mr. McDougall, member for Oxford North, C.W., in the Legislative Assembly, February 10,1859, immediately following the vote on Ottawa (selections 309 and 310).

Moved in amendmentThat the seat-of-government shall be transferred directly from Toronto to Ottawa as soon as the necessary arrangements shall have been completed in Ottawa. [Division on February 15th: yeas 38, nays 76.] [Speaking to his amendment:] [Even] a majority of the Ministry themselves were convinced in their own minds that Ottawa was not the most suitable place to be made the capital of Canada. Yet they had brought to bear upon members all the influence they could command as an Administration for the purpose of inducing them to select that city.... [N]early all they had heard in the course of this debate..., except from members from Ottawa (who might well be expected to offer some observations on the advantages presented by that city,) consisted of appeals to the loyalty of the House, and to the respect they bore to the Queen. It had been made a point of etiquette—a matter of courtesy.... The double removal first to Quebec and then to Ottawa, was wholly unnecessary, and was the penalty which the people of this country had to pay for maintaining the present Ministry in power. 317.

Two members in the Legislative Assembly, February 10,1859, speaking to McDougall's amendment.

(a) [Sicotte declared:] that Ottawa ought not to be the permanent Seat-of-government. Once in Quebec the [1959] majority of 5, will turn into the majority of 14 of the previous year. The gentlemen who voted for Ottawa were not in favour of Ottawa. They voted to keep the Ministry in their places. (b) [Patrick stated:] if they could not agree to go from Toronto to Ottawa, it was quite clear that it would be impossible for them to agree to go from Quebec to Ottawa. 318.

John A. Macdonald in the Legislative Assembly, February 10, 1859, speaking to McDougall's amendment.

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

319

The reference to the Queen did not prove the weakness of the Government — on the contrary, it manifested their strength.... [He reminded members of their 1857 agreement whereby] in the year 1859 the Government should be taken to Quebec until permanent buildings should have been erected in such place as Her Majesty might select.... [He denounced] the allegation that the Government had used sinister influences, and that power and patronage of the Crown had been employed to secure the vote of last night.... It was most extraordinary to observe the sudden interest taken by the Opposition in Ottawa being made the Seat-of-govemment. After all they had spoken and written against Ottawa—after their caucuses—after seeing them going from desk to desk in that House, and using all their persuasive powers to induce members with them — after resorting to all kinds of little arrangements for the purpose of defeating the Queen's decision and defeating Ottawa — such conduct was totally inexplicable except on the assumption that they were not sincere. 319.

Extract from Address to Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) from the Legislative Assembly in Reply to Speech from the Throne, February 14,1859. [The third paragraph—regarding the Queen's choice and agreeing to move the capital functions to Quebec—was accepted by a division of yeas 59, nays 47; see Figure 50.]

May it please Your Excellency, We, Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly thank Your Excellency for your Gracious Speech at the opening of the present Session of the Provincial Parliament. Your Excellency may rest assured that we shall give our earnest attention to the question of the Seat-of-govemment of Canada. The Legislature of Canada having resolved that a fixed Seat-ofgovemment should be selected, and having solicited our Gracious Queen, by an Address of either House, to exercise Her prerogative in making such selection, — and an Act, moreover, having been passed adopting beforehand the decision of Her Majesty, and appropriating the necessary funds, —we agree with Your Excellency that the Act of the Canadian Parliament and the decision of the Queen are binding on the Executive Government of the Province, and that it will be their duty to carry out the understanding

320

Choosing Canada's Capital

which existed at the time when the reference was made, by which the Government will be transferred to Quebec for a fixed period, until the necessary arrangements shall have been completed. Any Correspondence with Her Majesty's Government which Your Excellency may be pleased to lay before us will receive our most respectful consideration; We are prepared to recognize the selection made by Her Majesty at our own request; and we shall not fail duly to acknowledge Her gracious compliance with the Address which we ourselves caused to be presented to Her. 320.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), February 15,1859.

I have the honour to enclose a copy of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne presented to me this day by the Legislative Assembly of Canada. You will see that the... Address recognize[s] fully and completely the selection of the Seat-of-government made by Her Most Gracious Majesty as communicated in Mr. Labouchere's Despatch of the 31st December, 1857.

Figure 50. Agree with the Queen's choice and to locate temporarily in Quebec; February 14,1859 (selection 319).

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

321

The several votes on Montreal go far to show that it would be very difficult to ensure the settlement of the question by the selection of any one place by the voice of the majority of the Legislative Assembly of Canada. 321.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), March 19,1859.

The vote by which the address from the Legislature in answer to the speech from the throne was carried was, as you will see by reference to my despatch of February 15, a small one. The majority, such as it was, in support of the selection of Ottawa was obtained only by a combination of interests of a peculiar kind. All the Quebec members would, on local grounds, have been unwilling to reverse the adverse vote of last Session, had not the ministers at the same time professed to adhere to the understanding that the Government would be transferred to Quebec for the interval which must elapse before buildings can be erected, and arrangements made, at Ottawa. 322.

Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General), March 17,1859.

I have to acknowledge your Despatch of the 15th ultimo, enclosing a copy of the Address of the Legislative Assembly in reply to the Speech from the Throne. That Address, as you observe, recognises the selection of the Seat-of-government made by Her Majesty in compliance with the former reference of the question to Her decision by the Province. I must refer you to my Despatch of the 10th September last on the subject, in which, while expressing the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government at the rejection of that decision by the Assembly, I assured you that they were persuaded that no slight was intended to Her Majesty or Her Majesty's decision by any individual who joined that vote. As on that occasion, so on the present, they are convinced that the welfare of the Province has been, as it ought to be, the object aimed at through much difference of opinion in the course of these proceedings. But I must nevertheless express their satisfaction that the ultimate judgement of the Assembly has been in accordance with those views which first prompted the submission of the question to Her Majesty. 323.

(Kingston) British Whig, February 17,1859.

The question of the Seat-of-government is now happily settled, so far as the present House of Assembly can settle any question.... [A]n

322

Choosing Canada's Capital

immense country, hitherto neglected by emigrants...will now become properly settled. We allude particularly to the counties of Lanark and Renfrew, and the newly surveyed townships.... To say nothing of the immense valley of the Ottawa, and the hitherto partly neglected townships lying between Kingston and Ottawa. These fertile though now waste lands will, in the course of a few years following upon Ottawa's being established as the Seat-of-government, be densely filled with an industrious population, and Kingston, being their outlet to the United States and as well, as to the more western parts of Canada, must reap the benefit of their productiveness. 324. Montreal Transcript, February 19,1859 In the Legislative Council last night, in reply to De Blaquiere's enquiry, whether the Government intended, in defiance of the vote of the [Legislative] Council, to carry the Seat-of-government to Quebec, Mr. Vankoughnet replied, that no decision had yet been arrived at by the Executive. We are pleased to see that the Government are hesitating, and we sincerely hope that the country may be saved this unnecessary expenditure of half a million of dollars. The whole Province is raising a cry for retrenchment, and, if this half million is thrown away, there will be wide-spread discontent. No paltry savings, effected by the dismissal of a few clerks and the paring down of the salaries of those who remain, will appease the popular clamour, if Quebec is paid its enormous bribe out of the public chest. 325. Expenses Connected With The Several Removals of the Seat of Government, 1849-1858 (see Table 4). 326. (Toronto) Globe, April30,1859. THE MINISTRY DEFEATED IN THE UPPER HOUSE THE SUPPLIES THROWN OUT! This morning at one o'clock the Government received the fitting penalty of their reckless extravagance, their perfidy, and their disregard of the feelings of the people of Upper Canada. The Supply Bill was thrown out by the Legislative Council, by a vote of 23 to 20, after the Government had used the most extraordinary exertions to overcome the adverse majority.... Hon. Mr. Vankoughnet having moved the second reading of the Supply Bill, Mr. DeBlaquiere moved an amendment refusing to go into

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

323

supply unless the Government pledged themselves to spend no money on the removal to Quebec, without the sanction of Parliament.... Mr. Allan, who seconded the resolution, stated his reason for so doing, in a clear, precise way, capable of no misconstruction, and with irresistible force of argument. The removal of the Government to Quebec was a part of the system of bribes or equivalents which was demoralising our public affairs, as an act of extravagance in the present state of the finances, and was an insult to the Council. 327. (Toronto) Globe, May 3,1859. The machinery of government is at a standstill. The Legislative Council, having thrown out the Supplies, has checkmated the move of the ministry, and created a Crisis which the boldest partizan cannot afford to despise. It is the Council backed by the people, versus the Assembly, driven by Mr. Carrier and his whip. The antagonism is not accidental, or on an immaterial issue. It has been foreseen from the commencement of the session, and is the natural result of the attempt to subject both branches of the Legislature to the caprice of the present ministers. And the issue is vitally important. A government can outlive the defeat of an ordinary bill; but a stoppage of the Supplies cannot be disregarded; impeding as it does Executive action, and implying in the most marked manner a want of confidence in Executive integrity.... Aware that in a fair contest they would be again defeated—aware that a majority of the Council, being averse to the removal to Quebec, will not consent to any proceeding calculated to give to the Executive command overthe Supplies—ministers intend to muster their forces secretly, and then, without notice, and in an unexpected moment, to bring up again the bill of Supply and push it through without further debate. The manoeuvre is almost too base to obtain credence. 328. (Toronto) Globe, May 4,1859. THE SUPPLIES ARE FORCED THROUGH THE COUNCIL It was as we stated yesterday morning, Ministers set all their agencies to work — bribery, persuasion, intimidation — and yesterday, four days after the refusal of the supplies, they were prepared to force the Council to stultify its action of Friday night. Three members of the Opposition who were present on Friday returned to their homes on Saturday, not thinking of a re-consideration, and were not able to return....

324

Choosing Canada's Capital

The Government brought up three Lower Canadians, and Colonel Prince rose from his bed to serve his masters in their time of trial. This gave the ministry a majority of four, the vote being 24 to 20. The result might have been different, but for the attitude assumed by Mr. Vankoughnet, in moving the second reading of the bill. He said that it did not matter to the ministry what the Council did; they might do just what they pleased; the Government would go to Quebec this year, and Parliament would meet there next session. If the Council refused the supplies, the Government would at once stop all public business, Parliament would be prorogued, and the removal commenced. This threat was not, of course, resorted to without the consent of the Head of the Government. 329.

Extract from Speech by Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) when proroguing Parliament, May 4,1859.

The answer of Her Majesty's Secretary of State to my despatch, announcing the final settlement of the question of our Seat-of-government, has been placed in your hands. You will see that such answer expresses satisfaction on learning your ultimate judgment on this longagitated matter consistent as such judgment is with the honour and good faith of the Provincial Legislature. [Refer to selection 322.] 330.

(Toronto) Leader, May 24,1859.

House rent, it is true, never reached the exorbitant figure in Quebec that it did in Toronto, on the return of the Government. But everywhere the same result substantially is produced. The increased demand for any particular thing naturally increases the price; but in these cases something like the impositions proverbially put upon travellers are practised upon the helpless officials. Houses form precisely that description of commodity which does not respond readily to the demand. If ten thousand extra barrels of flour are required, they can be imported in a few days; but houses cannot come into existence upon short notice, and they constitute altogether another species of property. In the one case, there is a temporary investment; in the other a permanent one. And who will enter into a permanent investment for the accommodation of a passing population: a population that is here today and off again in four years? The results of these official migrations are inevitably to create considerable social perturbation. They put things out of joint; and as soon as they have been set right, another move upsets everything again. There is no help for it, but

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

325

in that changed system which Parliament, with the consent of the Crown, has decreed. If ever the Government can get settled down permanently in some one place, the evil will be cured. But, at the very moment when we are told everything is to settle down into a position of permanency, we are threatened on the one hand with a dissolution of a Union, and on the other with a Federation of all the Provinces of British North America.... 331. Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Duke of Newcastle (Colonial Secretary), August 29,1859. I have the honour to inform you that as the various public Departments are about to be transferred to Quebec my address after the receipt of this Despatch will be in that City. 332. (Toronto) Leader, September 14,1859. Today, His Excellency the Governor-General, his family and staff leave Toronto for Quebec, the ancient as well as the present capital of Canada. Two or three ministers may remain a few days longer; and perhaps a stray member of the Government may not depart until the end of the month. But with the departure of the Governor-General Toronto ceases to be the capital of the Province, and Quebec rises to the importance which that position is capable of conferring upon it. 333. Ottawa Citizen, November 4,1859 [from the Citizen's Quebec Correspondent.] The ancient as well as the present capital of the Canadas is dull— very dull indeed at the present moment.... Were it not for the number of Government employees I meet at every step I take in our narrow, dirty thoroughfares—I would fain make myself believe that the establishment of legal authority was not in Quebec at all. What good it will do during its stay remains to be seen.... Very many people are still under the impression that Ottawa will never become the Seat-of-govemment. What folly to believe in any such thing. What a delusion! As sure as the Government left Toronto to come to this city—as sure will it depart from the ancient capital for Ottawa. 334.

Ottawa Citizen, May 12,1860. THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT QUESTION BEFORE THE HOUSE! OTTAWA STILL THE FAVOURED LOCALITY Her Opponents in a Minority of Sixty-Four!

326

Choosing Canada's Capital

The telegraphic report of Wednesday night's [May 9,1860] proceedings in the House of Assembly... shows the complete failure of the long threatened attempt to cheat Ottawa out of becoming the Seat-ofgovemment for United Canada. On this question it was reserved for its introducer, Mr. Piche", and his followers, to suffer a most inglorious defeat, they being in a minority of sixty-four! This miserable failure to upset the Queen's decision and the people's choice, must have the effect of convincing Mr. Piche", and those who supported him in his unsuccessful effort, that they cannot find a respectable minority in the present House to wink at even a disguised attempt to treat with disrespect the expressed wish of our Sovereign. After Mr. Piche' 's poor success we dare say few can be found to broach the subject again. So we may now consider the matter finally settled.

TABLE 4 EXPENSES CONNECTED WITH THE SEVERAL REMOVALS OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, 1849-1858

Actual Expense of Removal, &c Allowances to Clerks and others, in consequence of Removal

1849

1850

1851

1852

1853

1854

1855

1856

1857

1858

Total

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

£.s.d.

eiss. 2. o

—

8965. 9.11

282.10.0

—

—

so?, e. s

67.7.6 42149.16.9

—

—

—

130. 4. 2

—

—

Rents. Repairs, &c.,&c., To Public Buildings at the existing Seat of Government

3900.18. 2 19747.16.0

Rents, Repairs, &c.,&c., To Public Buildings elsewhere than at the existing Seat of Government

2253.19.3

TOtal

£12347.19. 5

18164.15.10 7674.5.1

—

—

7289. e. 2

193.11. e

7513. 2. o

1928.19.5 38643.15. s 10584. e. o 27548. 7. 9 370^10.10 35193.12.11 15235.12. 2 74ee. 2. & 197282. 1. 7

3417.1.820169.14.7

1302.16.11 1113.9.7

6853.12.11 4461.3.2 5354.1.4 4301.15.8 1824. B. 1 51062.3.2

23164.17. 8 31064. 3.11 40359. 6. 9 11702.15. 7 34402. 0. 8 59638. 9.10 48221.19. 4 27634. 0. 5 9571. 9.11 298107. 3. 6

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 11 OTTAWA AS CAPITAL

CREATING THE CENTRE-POINT FOR THE NEW POLITICAL LANDSCAPE The phrase "political landscape" can mean several things, including the specific landscape in Ottawa or, at varying scales, the generalized "landscape" of Canada. Ottawa was to become the principal political "centre" of Canada — as the Province of Canada and then, after 1867, as the expanding federal state — but first, the centre-piece of the specific landscape had to be created. Three government buildings were to be constructed in Ottawa at a cost of no more than £225,000 (about one million dollars) — the Parliament building and two departmental buildings — and a residence was to be obtained for use by the Governor-General. Despite having less than three months to develop plans, 18 different architects submitted 33 separate designs, 16 of which were for the Parliament building. The "NeoGothic" design — or "Civil Gothic," as it was called by the architects of the time — selected for the Parliament building was submitted by a newly arrived Englishman who obviously was influenced by the style of the recently completed (1852) Houses of Parliament in London. Because of the Ottawa buildings' stylistic links to the Parliament building in England, Ottawa has been nick-named the "Westminster of the wilderness." Anthony Trollope visited Ottawa in 1861 and later commented: The glory of Ottawa will be — and, indeed, already is — the set of public buildings which is now being erected on the rock which guards, as it were, the town from the river.... I know of no modern Gothic purer of its kind, or less sullied with fictitious ornamentation.... I know no site for such a set of buildings so happy as regards both beauty and grandeur.1

329

330

Choosing Canada's Capital

When Trollope visited Ottawa, he visited a site of discord. The relative happiness in Government over the laying of the cornerstone for the new Parliament building by the Prince of Wales on September 1, I860,2 was short-lived, for it soon became evident that something was wrong. Mismanagement and cost over-runs became the order of the day.3 For instance, the original plans omitted heating and ventilating arrangements, so these had to be added, at great expense because of the extra digging; no preliminary examinations of the Barrack's Hill site had been made, so that it was not realized that costly rock excavations were needed; and the design selected for the Parliament building was too grand and costly for the initial $300,000 appropriation. Indeed, by the end of 1860, over $423,000 had been paid to the contractors, and the buildings were not then above ground. Another indication of mismanagement comes from the news that "There have been more strikes on this Parliament Building than on any other job on this continent..."4 By September, 1861, all of the appropriations were exhausted, so the work was halted by the Commissioner of Public Works. The result for Ottawa was serious, for the decision "...instantly [threw] out of employment between sixteen and seventeen hundred mechanics and labourers; representing a population...of between five and six thousand. That no riot or disturbance took place in consequence, testifies favourably to their good conduct and management of the works."5 In 1862 a Royal Commission was appointed to examine the situation. New contracts were signed in April 1863 and work was resumed. However, even by July 1, 1867, when Confederation came into being, the library, the main tower roof, and the surrounding roads and gardens were still incomplete. Once the buildings were complete, however, the Ottawa landscape was completely dominated by the grand new structures (Figures 51 and 52). The impact of the Government's decision to locate in Ottawa was not only felt on the landscape, for, as revealed in the above quotation, approximately 1,600-1,700 workmen were employed in the construction of the buildings and these men supported perhaps 5,000-6,000 people in Ottawa. Ottawa's population also grew as others, including public servants and politicians, moved to the city. The population of Ottawa doubled in a decade, for the 1851 population of 7,760 jumped by 1861 to 14,669, and it jumped again, by 1871, to 21,545.6

Ottawa as Capital

331

The Parliament building burned down in 1916 but was replaced with a close copy of the original on the same superb site. The principal feature at the front of the reconstructed building is the imposing tower known as the Peace Tower, which serves as a memorial to all who have fallen in war. At the rear of the building is the truly magnificent Library of Parliament—not destroyed in the fire of 1916 — which is one of the best examples in the world of a round "chapter house." The West Block was enlarged in 1874-76 and the inside totally changed in the mid-twentieth century. The East Block thus remains as the building least changed from the 1860s. Indeed, much of the East Block has been retained in its confederation-period form.7

Figure 51. First Houses of Parliament, Ottawa. Artist unknown. Artistic licence led the artist to "complete" the towers and to create gardens and a fountain that did not exist. (National Archives of Canada.)

332

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 52. View of Ottawa and the Parliament Buildings, c. 1866. (National Archives of Canada.)

ANOTHER COMPROMISE: CAPITAL OF THE DOMINION On October 31,1864, delegates from the various British North American provinces were welcomed to Ottawa by an immense torchlight procession. Next day the delegates were shown over the new buildings and they "warmly expressed their admiration at the exterior design and construction of the edifices,and what promised to be the splendour of the interior arrangements."8 By 1867 the still not-completed buildings had cost nearly $2,600,000. (Phillips notes that the total cost for the three buildings on Parliament Hill was estimated, in 1882, to have been $4,500,000.9) Largely due to the tremendous cost for providing the legislative and administrative buildings in Ottawa — which, in the 1860s, were deemed to be adequate for decades to come — the "Fathers of Confederation" — the politicians from the provinces which linked to form a federal union— agreed, reluctantly, to make Ottawa the capital of the larger union. The delegates thus selected as their federal capital the place that had been

Ottawa as Capital

333

chosen in the 1850s as a veritable federal capital — due to the nature of the political system — even before Canada formally became a federal union.10 Ottawa, as seat-of-government for the proposed federation, clearly represented a compromise for Maritimers and Quebeckers. The principal non-Canadian to agree to Ottawa was Dr. Charles Tupper of Nova Scotia. Some men were openly against such a compromise, however, including another Maritimer, anti-confederation politician Joseph Howe, who sought continued ties with England. He later said that there was no need to seek a capital "in the backwoods of Canada and [that we] may be pardoned if we prefer London under the dominion of John Bull to Ottawa under the dominion of Jack Frost."11 But if there needed to be a capital for the new federation, then, Howe asked, "Is Halifax...so poor an outlook for an orator?"12 The Maritime newspapers which gave print to their thoughts generally favoured Quebec for the federal capital

FEARS, AND A "Guv FAWKES" PLOT Resentment continued to be expressed in the Province of Canada over the expense of buildings in an "obscure" town, but other realities partially distracted the thrust of concern and continued jealousies. Notably, dangerous tensions were introduced into Canadian life by the rupture between north and south in the United States, the distinct possibility of a northern movement by United States troops, and a fear of annexation. In late 1866, during the Fenian threats, a plan was discovered for blowing up the new Parliament buildings in Ottawa.13 A British spy in the United States sent a message to the British Legation in Washington, which immediately forwarded the news to the Governor-General in Ottawa, warning him that: They [the Fenians] have all the ammunition they require for the destruction of the Parliament Buildings. It has been sent to Ogdensburgh, New York, in care of Dr. McMonagh. They have 1,000 Ibs powder, 5,010 inch shells, & 6 torpedoes each capable of containing 200 Ibs powder which are to be placed in the air ventilators or conductors leading from the banks of the Ottawa river

334

Choosing Canada's Capital

under ground and under the buildings for the purpose of airing the Halls of Assembly. The ammunition will be kept on this side [of] the [boundary] line until they [Fenian raiders] are about to make the move on Goderich, Samia, etc. Two members of the attack group lived in Ottawa.14 These plans were not acted upon, nor were they ever made public. Perhaps because of this lack of knowledge of how a small group had actively planned to invade Canada and attack the Parliament buildings, Canadians felt that Ottawa could be defended by "a single Company of Artillery" because of its distance from the United States border.15 Few Canadian soldiers were deemed to be necessary since, in the opinion of one United States newspaper, Ottawa's defences were excellent: all "invaders would inevitably be lost in the woods trying to find it."16 EARLY REACTIONS TO THE NEW CAPITAL Newcomers to Ottawa seem mostly to have been very favourably impressed by the Parliament and administrative (East Block and West Block) buildings under construction. For instance, George Brown told his wife that "the buildings are really magnificent.... They grow upon you very much."17 However, the Governor-General Viscount Monck, while agreeing that the Parliament and administrative buildings were "magnificent," declared to George Brown that "every day I spend here impresses me in the conviction that it would be impossible to select a worse place than this for the seat-of-government."18 The Moncks initially were "much disgusted with the squalid look of Ottawa,"19 Indeed, a Monck family member later wrote that "we all groaned over Ottawa. It looks as if it were at 't'other end of nowhere,' and we felt [it to be] so out of the way."20 The Governor-General in fact was loath to leave Spencer Wood, the splendid vice-regal residence two miles from Quebec. It was only after Rideau Hall in Ottawa was enlarged "by three or four times its size"21 and made to resemble Spencer Wood "as closely as possible," that the Governor-General became reconciled to Ottawa.22 Some other newcomers also reacted negatively at first. For example, politicians who arrived for the first session of the legislature in 1866

Ottawa as Capital

335

were not favourably impressed by either the housing available or the social life, and there was "an almost unanimous desire...to get away from [Ottawa] as soon as practicable."23 Once the Parliament building was occupied there was some negative reaction about it too. Soon after the legislature first met, George Brown observed that: everyone is quite dissatisfied with the new Buildings. You cannot hear what the speakers say and it is very unpleasant to speak. The whole thing is a superlative piece of folly — and hardly a man can be found here who is not already [of the opinion] to remove the Govt. to Montreal.24 Civil servants, about 350 of whom had been relocated to Ottawa in 1865-1866, were distressed by living conditions in Ottawa and clearly desired a return to favoured Quebec.25 After questioning the new arrivals to Ottawa, a reporter wrote that: The society of the Old Capital [Quebec], or even Toronto, is, in their estimation, far superior to that they meet with in the "forest city". Houses are not to be found at moderate rents, living [costs are] higher, and even the public buildings for comfort and convenience are inferior, in their opinion, to those in Quebec.26 That such thoughts against Ottawa were expressed should not be surprising, given the fractious manner in which Ottawa came to be selected and accepted as capital. There was but one session of the Parliament of the Province of Canada, in 1866, before the Province was dissolved and the Dominion of Canada created. TERRITORIALLY ECCENTRIC BUT SYMBOLICALLY CENTRAL Ottawa quickly became territorially eccentric, first as union with the Maritimes occurred, upon confederation taking effect in 1867, and later as the Dominion of Canada spread westwards and northwards, and, following World War II, as the federation was further expanded to include Newfoundland.27 Each unit of the growing federation had self-government but all the units were linked through the federal system which centred on Ottawa. Ottawa—as the "sub-arctic lumber-village converted

336

Choosing Canada's Capital

by royal mandate into a political cock-pit"28 — was critically important during the nineteenth century as expansionary forces based principally in Montreal and Toronto were balanced. The Canada that unfolded was centred as much on the political capital as on the two dominant, competing commercial cities. Perhaps the nineteenth century politicians were correct when they surmised that Canada should not have the political functions in a large commercial centre! Even so, it is interesting to wonder how Canada might have developed differently if Montreal had not ceased to be the capital city in 1849. Ottawa was different from the economic centres, Montreal and Toronto. Beginning on July 1,1867, a new national sentiment emerged, and it was Ottawa that became the symbolic "heart" of that sentiment, for Ottawa drew to it people from across the country who met, exchanged ideas and views, and helped plan and implement numerous changes that affected the whole country. Ottawa thus became more than just any other city in Canada, and more than just one of the now 13 political capitals in the country, for it became the symbolic and political-administrative centrepiece in the mosaic that is Canada.29 Ottawa, while "central" — at the border — between Quebec and Ontario, yet being in Ontario, also became eccentric in terms of its location relative to the provincial capital, Toronto. John Taylor nicely captures something of the problem of Ottawa's location — as it pertains to Canada East and Canada West, as transformed into Quebec and Ontario — when he writes: While external rivals and internal rivalry...vitiated much of the city's metropolitan thrust, the events of 1867 would have a final telling effect. Once again political boundaries changed, and though Ottawa was the capital of the new Dominion, the city was once again thrust to the periphery of two provinces, whose centres of gravity were far distant, and whose ambitions were much different than those of the divided valley. Not much could be expected from the denizens of Queen's Park and Toronto who considered the Ottawa River a "mere creek."30

Ottawa as Capital

337

Ottawans have long complained about the relative neglect of their city by provincial politicians in Toronto. For example, the southward road and rail systems linking Ottawa to the main east-west, Montreal-Toronto, artery are inadequate. Indeed, the situation is such that jokes about Americans not finding Ottawa still are heard! But more than offsetting such complaints, Ottawa has benefitted from the presence of the federal government. As should be clear from the many quotations cited throughout this work, the "centre" of the state is where people believe it to be: it need not be geographically central. Ottawa serves as a positive symbolic centre of the federation, focused, perhaps, on the Centennial Flame, or on the Peace Tower, or on the whole Parliament building, or, more amorphously, on the City of Ottawa or perhaps even on the greater metropolitan area. But some Canadians, jealous that the city has benefitted from the federal presence (and forgetting that there is hunger, poverty and homelessness in the city too), see Ottawa as the symbol of what is wrong with a particular federal decision or even of the government in power. The generalized city, for them, becomes the symbolic target, as a detested or even hated place. But the device of rhetoric whereby it is said that "Ottawa does this or that" should really be "the Government [or the Cabinet, or Parliament] does this or that."

THE PET OF GOVERNMENT Only in the mid-twentieth century did Ottawa become, to use geographer Derwent Whittlesey's term, the "pet of government."31 A symbolic landscape has emerged largely as a result of federal action, but that action has not always suited the needs of a city operating under Ontario provincial authority. Competition and friction often seem to have been more prevalent than co-operation among the various levels of government — city, regional, provincial and federal — that find common expression in Ottawa. Nevertheless, there has been the development of a remarkably beautiful city landscape, filled as it is with the impressive Parliament buildings, numerous buildings for government departments and for the many Crown corporations, striking museums with good collections, statues of Queen Victoria and politicians from all periods, delightful winding driveways, the Rideau Canal, the National Arts Centre (with a superb resident orchestra), dozens of embassies, a "green belt" and more, all set within the pre-existing and since greatly expanded settlement

338

Choosing Canada's Capital

pattern.32 Ottawa has become one of the most beautiful capital cities in the world.33 Ottawa now is a multicultural, multiracial place, with a vibrant character that is the envy of other cities. Once heavily dependent upon the timber trade, then also on government, the city today has two large universities, a community college, considerable light industrial and commercial development, and a major tourist and convention industry, which have lessened the relative importance of the government on the city. Even so, Ottawa is foremost the political capital of Canada. Although the symbolic linking of the settlements on the two sides of the Ottawa River, as a Washington, D.C.-type of capital region, was suggested in the 1850s by a few people, the idea was not considered by key decision-makers at that time. The idea is occasionally posed again, but nothing has happened to make such an administrative change. Controversy developed in the 1970s, however, when the Trudeau government expanded the area! dimensions of the definition of the "capital" to include the smaller neighbouring City of Hull, on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River, in an attempt to create a meaningful national capital region astride the borders of Quebec and Ontario.34 A more extensive "capital landscape" has resulted, as federal government actions have dramatically altered the face of Hull. Deryck Holdsworth has observed that the massive new federal buildings in Hull "were perhaps the most symbolically Canadian buildings in a generation, but it was their site on the Quebec bank rather than their facade articulation that mattered. Ottawa was reaching to French Canada."35 CONCLUSION Despite attempts by the Trudeau and later federal and local governments to get people to accept Ottawa-Hull as the capital, it is only Ottawa that is firmly fixed in the minds of Canadians and people elsewhere as the capital of Canada. Such a notion is in accord with the December 31,1857, official notification that Ottawa had been selected as capital and, again, with the fact that only Ottawa is named as capital in the British North America Act of 1867. And despite disparaging comments made in the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s, the city has served very well as the seat-of-government for, first, the Province of Canada and, second, confederated Canada. Ottawa became the capital city as a result of several compromises. It fittingly has been the place where politicians have made numerous compromises in the name of Canada ever since.

CHAPTER 12 CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTIONS

Canada eventually got a permanent seat-of-govemment, but only after a divisive 19-year process which entailed the removal of the governmental functions from Kingston to Montreal, then to Toronto before being moved to Quebec, only to be returned to Toronto and, for one final time, back again to Quebec once it was decided that Ottawa would become the permanent capital. The seat-of-government remained in Quebec until the new Parliament buildings were constructed in Ottawa. Once they were ready enough for occupation — they were not completed until several years later—Ottawa became the capital in 1865. The new buildings were used for just one session as the Parliament of the Province of Canada, starting on June 6, 1866. The following year, on July 1, 1867, Ottawa became the capital of the new confederation, the Dominion of Canada. It became the latter principally because of a fear of further divisive squabbling and because financial necessity forced further compromises upon the politicians concerned. The seat-of-government process in the Province of Canada vividly revealed some essential weaknesses in the political system, weaknesses that eventually led politicians to forge a new political system, a federation that involved considerably wider territory than that encompassed by the Province of Canada. The seat-of-government process also dramatically demonstrated that inter-city competition, already pronounced in each of the two sections prior to the union in 1841, took on a new dimension within the Province of Canada, as the competition sometimes took on cross-sectional dimensions. The analysis of politicians' voting patterns has illustrated how politicians generally voted according to the demands of their constituents, although there were times when some politicians felt they had to set aside such demands and so voted differently. At least one (Canada West) member was burned in effigy as a result. Some members were otherwise denounced, yet some were able to make their constituents realize why they had voted as they did, as with

339

340

Choosing Canada's Capital

the Quebec City and Quebec County members who, in 1859, voted for Ottawa rather than for Quebec because otherwise Toronto likely would have kept the governmental functions until the Ottawa buildings were ready. At times, supporters of each of the cities voted simply according to the direct needs of their city, and so linked with other politicians from their respective city's region of support, their city's "hinterland of regard." On occasion, they linked with supporters of at least one other city. The two dominant such groupings of politicians were the "alternating men" from Quebec and Toronto regions, and the "fixed-site" men from the Montreal, Kingston, Ottawa region. In reality, each member was a "fixed-site man," but the fixed site in each instance was "their" particular chosen city in "their" region of the country, and not a city elsewhere! Since no one city was able to get a majority in support of it on its own terms, the issue remained unsettled, until a third party was called upon to make a choice. When the decision was returned to Canada as "the Queen's choice" — even though in reality it was the Governor-General's and the Colonial Office's choice, and issued in the name of the Queen — the matter in Canada then became one of principle: whether to support the principle of royal prerogative, and the resulting decision, or to reject it. The opposition within Parliament to the Macdonald-Cartier Ministry, fully aware of the difficulties the Ministry was having due to other issues, rallied support from enough members who varyingly wanted the government defeated or another place chosen, and so the "Queen's choice" was rejected. Only after considerable lobbying and back-room negotiating was the matter placed once more before Parliament. That time, in 1859, the selection of Ottawa was accepted by members, but only by the slim majority of five votes. Many of the members who voted with the Ministry, in favour of Ottawa, did so as a compromise which was forced on them by the need to support the Ministry rather than for an acceptance of Ottawa as the "best" site. The reasons for Ottawa finally being selected were many, but there was not a sincere acceptance by all politicians of the day of the several "logical," "rational," "positive" factors in favour of Ottawa, as laid out in either the several governors-general reports or, more especially, in the booster newspapers articles, politicians' speeches, or the 1857 city memorials to the Queen. After all, supporters of each city also had "logical," "rational," "positive" factors in favour of their own city. Instead,

Conclusion and Reflections 341 Ottawa was finally selected because an alternate site could not be chosen due to the profound local, regional and sectional attachments and rivalries that powerfully affected all parliamentary attention to the question. To many, it was the "best" second choice. Clearly the choice was not based upon some rational economic argument. The governors-general and the colonial authorities were influenced by strategic questions, as well as a fair reading of the various divisions within the country. And they were aware that the Parliament controlled supply, so ultimately, the seat-ofgovernment question was in the hands of Parliament. The politicians within Canada were swayed by the many perceived subjective benefits that "their" city or region could benefit from by the location there of the capital functions. While the politicians were fully aware of the symbolism and perceived prestige that would be drawn to the chosen city and surrounding region, they also fully appreciated that there would be more tangible rewards for the chosen city. R.J. Johnston has observed that elected representatives will seek "rewards for their constituents" by "scraping the barrel for pork."1 Such certainly was the underlying basis for many of the Canadian legislators, however, it also must be recalled that there were those who, in the final analysis, had to compromise their constituents' needs with their own need to support a particular government. The seat-of-govemment issue vividly demonstrated the linkages that representatives in various parts of the country had to particular cities. The city-hinterland regions, as revealed by the voting patterns, suggest that there existed a variety of communications, trade, and, in all likelihood, emotional, social, cultural, and possibly political linkages between the people in the "centres" with people in the "peripheries." Of course, the "support regions" as mapped represent but one level of regionalization, for it must be appreciated that each of the cities in question had linkages to far broader regions as well. Montreal and Toronto especially had linkages to extensive regions to the north and west. But the identified "support regions" illustrate nicely that at a relatively local "regional" scale, each city had an array of supporters who felt obliged to support "their" nearby city. Accordingly, the "support regions" thus identified by voting data give substance to the most important conceptualizations by Careless of metropolitan-hinterland relationships.2 The voting patterns revealed in the mapped analyses of the numerous parliamentary votes generally cannot be done today. Political

342

Choosing Canada's Capital

party power and direction is too great. Members of Parliament usually are forced by their parties to vote in a certain manner, although, on occasion, members are free to vote according to their consciences in an open vote. But when this happens it is often on issues that do not have a particular territorial or locational dimension to them, such as abortion. The best instances of voting patterns that reveal local, regional and probably sectional ties now occur in private, in political party caucuses. Issues that could prove to be revealing of territorial attachments within meetings of caucuses, especially those of the government in power, likely are those that deal with certain constitutional concerns (say, for instance, the granting only to Quebec certain powers previously held by the federal government) or with the placement of particular "favours" in one region of the country or another. The same undoubtedly also holds true within some Cabinet meetings, when members from one part of the country may be pitted against members from other parts whenever a locational issue is dealt with, such as the placement of a government contract to construct naval ships, or to service planes, or to relocate a Crown corporation or government department away from Ottawa, and so forth. Party allegiance prevents members from revealing the breakdown of such votes, in caucuses and Cabinet meetings, although the patterns surely must at times be most revealing for what they tell about attitudes, values and attachments to "place" across the country. It is significant that the two Houses of Parliament were in conflict over the seat-of-government on four occasions. In 1849 the Houses differed over whether or not to relocate from Montreal. The GovernorGeneral, in accordance with the newly accepted responsible government, sided with his ministers, and so relocation occurred in accordance with the wishes of the Legislative Assembly, even though the stated desire of the Legislative Council was to have Montreal retained as capital. In 1855 the houses clashed over whether or not to recommend to the GovernorGeneral the selection of one place (the Council's wish) or maintain the perambulatory system (the Assembly's wish). In 1856 there was a more serious clash, when the Council refused to accept the Assembly's recommendation for moving to Quebec and, of considerable consequence, refused to pass the supply bill because it included provision for moving the government functions to Quebec. The matter was resolved only when the House deleted the provision of the money for removal. And, in 1859, the Legislative Council again put itself into conflict with the Legislative

Conclusion and Reflections 343 Assembly when it refused to pass the supply bill because it included money for the temporary relocation of governmental functions to Quebec. Only after frantic politicking did the Council accept the Supply Bill. Conflict between the two Houses within Parliament continues, on occasion, to this day. Politicking alone has not resolved all such conflict, as witnessed in 1990, when the Government had to appoint additional senators to the upper chamber in order to get a majority vote on a tax issue. Some of the sectional votes that pitted members from Canada East against members from Canada West illustrate nicely that regionally based identities were formed or were forming, that cut across cultural differences. Thus both English and French members from Canada East on occasion voted en masse for a position that most favoured their section of the country. The same sometimes held in Canada West, although, perhaps because of the greater variety of cultural backgrounds, Canada West members seem not to have been as cohesive as were Canada East members. Canada West members, however, at times had a profound sense of regional "self," a "self that was quite apart from that found in Canada East. For members from Canada East, the strong attachment to their section — which often found expression in sectional votes, when they voted together against an Upper Canadians — suggests at least a strong regionalism, and perhaps even an embryonic "nationalism," although perhaps that is too strong a word to be used for the cross-cultural Canada East identity that was emerging. Some Canada East members were indeed nationalists, but their French nationalism generally precluded an involvement with the English in the territory. At minimum, the Canada East members' attachment (whether English or French) to the political entity was marked, and expressions of that attachment served notice that a separate government apart from the legislative union which linked them to Canada West was desired. This attachment, and the stubbornness of Canada West members who claimed it was their right to be dominant in the government, helped lead to the breakdown of the union and paved the way for the creation of a federation. A sad observation derived from the Canadian seat-of-government issue, as viewed from the present, is that many of the cultural biases that were voiced in the 1840s and 1850s, largely based upon ignorance and intolerance, still occur today. Righteously held assumptions about the relative importance of one group over another are still held, about the

344

Choosing Canada's Capital

use of language, about religion, about education, about cultural habits, about race. Inward-looking, isolated, narrow views about what made up the territorial community (Canada East or Canada West, or smaller sections of those territories) and its people were voiced by some nineteenth century politicians, newspaper writers and others, reflecting as they did partialities espoused by some members of the larger population. Bigotry reigned at times, the targets being the culturally different "other" people within the state. There were also outward-looking, expansive people, concerned with seeking new opportunities, who reached beyond the limits of particular communities and thereby linked politicians and others from different parts of the country. They were concerned about a greater community, not just the local one. When sectionalist tendencies destroyed the Province of Canada they were the leaders who helped to mould a greater creation, the Dominion of Canada. These same two tendencies still pertain today. There are those who maintain and espouse the view that "their" people in but a part of the state should have the right to self-determination, and others, elsewhere, who encourage that stance by being intolerant of cultural and racial differences, differences that are an essential part of the Canadian mosaic. In contrast, there are people who remain rooted to the idea that there is something very valuable and important about both tolerating and encouraging the flowering of different group politico-territorial identities within the country, and maintaining the linkages by means of a federated state, so that opportunities can be grasped that otherwise would never happen.3 The former tendency could feed the process whereby Canada is broken up; the latter tendency may help hold it together. As noted in the last chapter, Ottawa has served very well as the capital of the diverse and very large federation. Given the "French/English fact" in Canada's political and cultural life, Ottawa undoubtedly remains a good location for Canada's federal capital, although to many Que'be'cois the "national" capital is Quebec City, not Ottawa. But given the powerful regionalisms within Canada, not just that which finds focus in Quebec, and the continued threat of the country being split by secessionist forces, it can be debated whether Ottawa will always be the optimal location for the federal government.4

Conclusion and Reflections 345 If Quebec seceded, for instance, and the boundaries of the new state remained as they are now for the Province of Quebec — although whether such would be the case is a very a debatable point — then Ottawa would instantly become a capital city on the margin of the country. There would once again be a "forward-capital"5 (as in the 1790s Upper Canada case of Niagara being located at the boundary with the United States). Immediate pressures would develop to have the capital functions removed from such a location. How would such a question be resolved? If local, regional and sectional ties were strong in the 1840s and 1850s, consider how much stronger and more divisive they might be now, given the much greater area! extent of the country (or what would remain of it), the ill will that would be generated by having Canada split up by Quebec, the power of regionalisms within various parts of the country (with or without Quebec), and the still (perhaps more) pervasive influence of the United States. The impact would have particularly damaging consequences for the country's indigenous people, for they undoubtedly would be caught in the "crossfire" that would occur, since any fracturing of Canada would undermine the fundamental federal government - indigenous peoples' relationship.6 Although it is interesting to speculate about which cities would be contenders for a new federal capital—if indeed a federal structure could be retained after secession—that is not the purpose of this discussion. It is this writer's earnest hope that Quebec will not secede from Canada, (even though a reformulation of the constitution undoubtedly is needed and will occur,) and thus that Ottawa will remain as the capital of a federal Canada. A fundamental quality of a democracy is for regional interests to find expression in the political system, especially, perhaps, but not only, when there is a federal system which, after all, is the most geographically expressive of all political systems. If Canada — in its present or some reconstructed form — was forced to seek a new location for the "national" capital, it is doubtful that politicians and others today would be any more successful than their nineteenth century counterparts were in selecting one place. Why should they be more sophisticated today than a century and more ago? Regional interests would still prevail, with significant expressions of boosterism for this place or that, within this region or that. Parliament likely would be the focal point for any deci-

346

Choosing Canada's Capital

sion-making, but because of the power of regionalisms, and the fact that political party solidarity would be severely strained by the divisiveness of the issue, Canada surely would once again have to seek a third party arbiter. There thus remains the final question: who would actually make the decision if a new capital is ever needed? Provision already exists for the intervention of a third party! The British North America Act states that "until the Queen otherwise directs, the seat-of-government shall be Ottawa."7 The 1947 Letters Patent and The Constitution Act, 1982 do not delegate this authority to the Governor-General or any other authority, therefore, the Monarch retains the right to make the all-important decision. So, to repeat: "until the Queen otherwise directs, the seat-of-government shall be Ottawa."

ENDNOTES

348

Choosing Canada's Capital PREFACE (pp. xiii — xvii)

1

David B. Knight, A Capital for Canada: Conflict and Compromise in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago, Geography Research Series No. 182, 1977).

2

A criticism of the first edition was that the introductory essays at the start of Chapters 3 -8 were too short and so did not adequately prepare the reader for the documents that followed. It is hoped that this edition's expanded essays, with considerable new material, fully addresses that problem.

3

The only full recording of debates of the Parliament of the Province of Canada was Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, Third Session, Eighth Provincial Parliament of Canada, 2 volumes (Quebec, 1865). Parliamentary debates that related directly and indirectly to the seat-of-government issue were reconstructed for the present study from a reading of thousands of newspapers, from many towns and cities across the Canada. A reconstruction (also from varied newspaper sources) of the full parliamentary debates of the period is currently under way: varyingly Elizabeth Nish/Elizabeth Gibbs/Danielle Blais, editor, Legislative Assembly Debates of the Legislative Assembly of United Canada, 1841 -1866 (Montreal: Presses del'ecoledeshautes etudes commercials, 1970- ).To date, the volumes for 1841 to 1856 have been published. When research for the present study was done, only the volumes for 1841 and 1842 were published. Professor Elizabeth Nish kindly permitted me to see draft copies for 1843 and 1844. Even so, the author's own research on parliamentary debates as drawn from newspapers form the basis for the conclusions presented in this book.

4

The maps, plus many additional ones, first appeared in A Capital for Canada.

5

The first edition of this volume has been used by instructors in several ways, including as a supplementary reader and, usually based on selected documents, as the stimulant to group discussions in courses in history, historical and political geography, and political science. Some instructors have followed or adapted the ideas suggested in David B. Knight, "Role Playing, Decision Making and Perception of Place: The Use of Discussion Groups for an Introductory Cultural Geography Course," Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 3, no. 1 (1979), pp. 38-44.

Introduction

349

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION (pp.1 —33) 1

2

3

G.J.R. Linge, "Canberra After Fifty Years," Geographical Review, Vol. LI, no. 4 (1961), p. 467. As will be seen later, six cities submitted "memorials" to London, even though only five were invited to do so. The sixth city, Hamilton, was not seriously considered and, indeed, itharmed any chance itmighthavehadby the tone and content of its submitted memorial. For a bibliography on capital cities and related issues on state structures see M.I. Glassner and H. J. de Blij, Systematic Political Geography, fourth edition (New York: Wiley, 1989), pp. 134-153.

4

(Montreal) Pilot, July 30,1858.

5

I have spoken to many high school and university groups and to service clubs about the seat-of-government issue, with full reference to the drama of the times. The reaction always has been positive. Inevitable comments include "our history is exciting!" And, from teachers, "why is such a significant and revealing issue ignored in our history books?" See the two superb volumes: R. ColeHarris, editor, Historical Atlas of Canada: From the Beginning to 1800, Vol. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989); Donald Kerr and Deryck W. Holds worth, editors, Historical Atlas of Canada: Addressing the Twentieth Century, Vol. 3 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990). For a recent review of the historical geography literature, with an extensive bibliography organized by selected themes, see Graeme Wynn, "Introduction," in People, Places, Patterns, Process: Geographical Perspectives on the Canadian Past, Graeme Wynn, editor (Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, 1990), pp. 1-37.

6

7

Knight, A Capital for Canada, as cited in the Preface. Summary statements on the issue are: David B. Knight, "The Persistence of an Idea Among Divergent Regional Forces: How Ottawa Became Capital," in Ottawa Hull: Spatial Perspectives and Planning -Perspectivesspatialesetamenagement, R. WescheandM. Kugler-Gagnon, editors (Ottawa: Ottawa University Press, 1978), pp. 3-11, and idem, "The Ottawa Valley and the Selection of Canada's Capital City," in Exploring Our Heritage: The Ottawa Valley Experience, V. Ivonoffski, editor (Arnprior: Historical Society, with the Ontario Heritage Foundation, 1980), pp. 105-114.

8

Lionel Groulx, "Le choix de la capitale au Canada," Revue d'histoire I'Amerique Francaise (1951-52), pp. 521-530.

9

DJ. Pierce and J.P. Pritchett, "The Choice of Kingston as the Capital of Canada," Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report 1929, pp. 57-63.

350 10

11

12

13

Choosing Canada's Capital I.E. Hodgetts, "The Civil Service When Kingston was the Capital of Canada," Historic Kingston, Vol. 5 (1956), and C.CJ. Bond, "The Canadian Government Comes to Ottawa, 1865-1866," Ontario History, Vol. LV, no. 1 (1963), pp. 23-34. I.E. Hodgetts, Pioneer Public Service: An Administrative History of the United Canadas, 1841-1867 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1955), pp. 58-62. James A. Gibson, "The Choosing of the Capital of Canada," British Columbia Historical Quarterly, Vol. XVJJ, nos.1-2 (1953), pp. 78-85, and idem, "How Ottawa Became the Capital of Canada," Ontario History, Vol. XLVI, no. 4 (1954), pp. 213222. Frederick Cook, The Struggle for the Capital of Canada (Ottawa: By the author, 1938).

14

R.W. Scott, The Choice of the Capital: Reminiscences Revived on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Selection of Ottawa as the Capital of Canada by Her Late Majesty (Ottawa, 1907).

15

"Marullus", Reflections on Itinerary Parliaments (Montreal, 1856).

16

[Dunbar Ross], Seat of Government (Canada) (Quebec, 1843). The manuscript was serialized, also with no reference to Ross as author, in five January, 1844, issues of the Quebec Mercury. The second booklet was published under his name, Dunbar Ross, The Seat of Government of Canada... (Quebec, 1856). Ross included no methodological statement in his publications. The method has been reconstructed based upon what he provided by way of results. The reconstruction, and the problems encountered, appear in David B. Knight and Susan Burrows, "Centrality By Degrees: A 19th Century Canadian's Measurement for Central Location," The Canadian Cartographer, Vol. 12, no. 2 (1975), pp. 109-120. For instance, J.C. Dent, The Last Forty Years: The Union of 1841 to Confederation, 2 volumes. (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Carleton Library Series, No. 62, [1881] 1972); J.M.S. Careless, The Union of the Canadas: The Growth of Canadian Institutions, 1841-1857 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1967); W.L. Morton, The CriticalYears:TheUnionofBritishNorthAmerica,1857-1873(Toronto:McCleneand and Stewart, 1964); J. Monet, The Last Cannon Shot: A Study of French-Canadian Nationalism, 1837-1850 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969).

17

18

19

For example, D.G.C. Kerr, Sir Edmund Head: A Scholarly Governor ^Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1954); D.G. Creighton, John A. Macdonald, 2 vols. (Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada, 1952,1955); J.M.S. Careless, Brown of the Globe, 2 vols. (Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada, 1959,1963).

20

Selected items on Ottawa that are of varying quality, and which generally use secondary sources — and which sometimes thereby repeat errors — are: A.H.D. Ross, Ottawa Past and Present (Ottawa: Thornbum and Abbott, 1927); an initial exploration of selected archival materials, Lucien Brault, Ottawa: Capitale du Canada, de son origine a nos jours (Ottawa, 1942), and idem, Ottawa Old andNew (Ottawa: Ottawa Historical Institute, 1946); wide-ranging but undocumented Wilfrid Eggleston, The Queen's Choice (Ottawa: The Queen's Printer, 1961); Courtney Bond, City onthe Ottawa (Ottawa, [1965], 1971); H. andO. Walker, CarletonSaga (Ottawa: Runge Press, 1968); and, a chronology of events, Robert Haig, Ottawa: City

Introduction

351

of the Big Ears (np, nd); Georgette Lamoureux, By town et sespioniers canadiensfrancais 1826-1855 (Ottawa: np, 1978); the readable, but undocumented, recapitulation of the history of the city, Shirley E. Woods, Jr., Ottawa: The Capital of Canada (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, The Romance of Canadian Cities Series, 1980); the soundly researched, documented study of the social and political life in the capital, Sandra Gwyn, The Private Capital (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1984); selectively, RichardM. Reid, editor, The Upper Ottawa Valley to 1855 (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Carleton Library Series, No. 158,1990); and the outstanding "local history" of By town/Ottawa, with considerable new research, John Taylor, Ottawa: An Illustrated History (Toronto: James Lorimer and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, History of Canadian Cities Series, 1986). 21

For example, AmoldToynbee, Cities on the Move (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 108, twice incorrectly claims that Ottawa was an especially created capital city, like Brazilia.

22

See Jean-PaulBemard,L€5r^e//w/isde/W7-783S(Montreal:Bor6alExpress, 1983).

23

Gerald M. Craig, editor, Lord Durham's Report (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Carleton Library Series No. 1, [1963], 1982), pp. 22-23. All references to Durham's Report on the Affairs of British North America are to Craig's edited version, but the reader should be aware of the original publication in the Parliamentary Papers for 1839 (the "Blue Books") and the reprinted version, Sir Charles Lucas, editor, Report... (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 3 vols.

24

25

A comment is needed concerning Lord Durham's use of the word "race." Too many Canadians, scholars or not, have insisted on following Durham's example of using the term "race," even though the meaning of the word has changed. Elizabeth Nish has observed that in the 19th century the word "race" was "almost synonymous with what is today called 'nationalism,' [thus] French Canadians considered themselves to be a distinct people, or 'race,' with institutions, traditions and various characteristics not shared by the English who surrounded them." Elizabeth Nish, Racism or Responsible Government: The French CanadianDilemma of the 1840s (Toronto: Copp Clark, 1967), p. 2. Despite the change in the meaning of the word "race," it is still possible to say that Durham was quite racist (in the 20th century sense) in his views about French Canadians. For a thoughtful discussion of this issue, see A.G. Bailey, Culture and Nationality (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Carleton Library Series No. 58,1972), pp. 210-222. In the present work, "race" is used only when it forms parts of a quotation, or in chapter 12 when it is used to refer to physical characteristics. Craig, Lord Durham's Report, p. 127. After the rebellion all administrative powers in Lower Canada were placed in the hands of an appointed Special Council for Lower Canada, whereas the Upper Canada House of Assembly continued as before. Ibid., p. 173.

26

Ibid., p. 158.

27

Ibid., p. 159. Charles Buller, Durham'schief secretary while in Canada, put the matter quite clearly: "The great argument against a federal Union is that it does nothing to attain the main end which we ought to have in view. That end is the keeping Lower Canada quiet now, and making it English as speedily as possible." NAC, Durham Papers, Vol. 3, pp. 194-199, "Memorandum on the Advantages of a Legislative

352

Choosing Canada's Capital Union over a Federal Union," unsigned but in Charles Duller's hand (February, 1839); cited in William Ormsby, The Emergence of the Federal Concept in Canada, 1839-1845 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969), p. 46.

28

Strictly speaking, Lower Canada and Upper Canada ceased to exist when, in 1841, they became, respectively, Canada East and Canada West within the new legislative union called the Province of Canada. Both officially and unofficially, both terms continued in use after 1841.

29

Many of the themes mentioned in the above three paragraphs are elaborated upon in R. Cole Harris and John Warkentin, Canada Before Confederation: A Study in Historical Geography (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, [1974], 1991), especially chapters 3 and 4; A. David Wood, editor, Perspectives on Landscape and Settlement in Nineteenth Century Ontario (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Carleton Library Series No. 91,1975); There is as yet no sound comprehensive history or historical geography of urban growth in Canada although v aluable insights can be gained from: G.A. Nader, Cities of Canada, Vol. I (Toronto: Macmillan, 1975); Jacob Spelt, Urban Development in South-Central Ontario (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Carleton Library Series No. 57 [1955], 1983); Leroy Stone, Urban Development in Canada (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967); G.A. Stelter and A.J. Artibise, Shaping the Urban Landscape: Aspects of the Canadian City-building Process (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Carleton Library Series, No. 125,1982); G.A. Stelter and A. J. Artibise, editors, The Canadian City: Essays in Urban and Social History (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Carleton Library Series No. 132, 1984).

^°

Generally on the Province of Canada see Careless, The Union of the Canadas..., Morton, The Critical Years..., and, for perspectives focusing on Lower Canada/ Canada East, Fernand Ouellet, Histoire economique et sociale du Quebec, 17601850: structures et conjonctures (Montreal: Fides, 1966).

31

Mason Wade, The French-Canadian Outlook (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Carleton Library Series No. 14, [1946], 1964), pp. 35-36.

32

Richard Cartwright, Reminiscences (Toronto, 1912), p. 5.

33

Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, p. 30.

34

Frank H. Underbill, "The Development of National Political Parties in Canada," Canadian Historical Review, Vol. XVI, no. 4 (1935), pp. 367-387.

35

Careless, The Union of the Canadas...; Paul G. Cornell, The Alignment of Political Groups in Canada, 1841-1867 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962); idem, et al., Canada: Unity in Diversity (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), pp. 245-253; idem, "The Genesis of Ontario Politics in the Province of Canada (18381871)," Profiles of a Province: Studies in the History of Ontario, Edith Firth, editor (Toronto: Ontario Historical Society, 1967), pp. 59-72.

36

We might add a seventh level since the members of the Legislative Assembly were elected "by the people."

37

A similar situation existed in New Zealand in 1863-64 when an invited commission of three Australians examined potential sites for a new capital away from Auckland and then submitted their choice — Wellington — to the New Zealand House of Representatives for acceptance.

Introduction

353

38

Mary McLean, "Early Parliamentary Reporting in Upper Canada," Canadian Historical Review, Vol. XX, no. 4 (1939), p. 382. See also W.H. Kesterton, A History of Journalism in Canada (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Carleton Library Series No. 36, [1967], 1984).

39

The aptness of the description of the newspapers of the day as "engines of opinion" willsoon become evident to the reader. The phrase is from P.B. Waite, Confederation, 1854-1867 (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Canadian History Through the Press Series, 1972), p. 1.

40

(Toronto) Leader, April 2,1855.

41

Jean Gottmann, The Significance of Territory (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1973). Territory, according to Gottmann, "although a very substantial, material, measurable, and concrete entity, is the product and indeed the expression of the psychological features of human groups. Itis indeed \hepsychosomatic phenomenon of the community, and such is replete with inner conflicts and apparent contradictions" (ibid., p. 15).

42

Maurice Careless, review of David B. Knight, A Capital for Canada in Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 68 (1978), p. 440. For a fascinating overview of his ideas, see J.M.S. Careless, Frontier and Metropolis: Regions, Cities, and Identities in Canada Before 1914 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989).

43

Of the 15 divisions for or against the alternating system, all but one were for Quebec and Toronto. The exception was for instituting an alternating system between Toronto and Montreal.

44

For example, the 1858-59 Montreal Centre member was a minister of the Crown— and thus was committed to the Ministry's policies, which were for Ottawa — while two of the Quebec city members were party to the deal favouring Quebec if Ottawa should be accepted.

45

The maps of the city regions were developed before a reading of newspapers revealed that people hi the 1850s referred to exactly the same ridings identified in the maps as being the "Ottawa Region" and "Quebec Region."

46

These three concepts flow together. See Yi-Fu Tuan, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, andValues(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974) on booster imagery for cities, pp. 201-204. Presentation of the basic concept of boosterism, with a Canadian application, appears in David B. Knight," 'Boosterism' and Locational Analysis or One Man's Swan is Another Man's Goose," Urban History Review, Vol. 2, no. 3 (1974), pp. 10-16. The idea of boosterism subsequently has been developed in the Canadian context in analyses of the growth of specific places and of city systems, as in A.F.J. Artibise, "Boosterism and the Development of the Prairie Cities, 1871-1913," in Town and City: Aspects of Western Canadian Urban Development, A.FJ. Artibise, editor (Regina: Canadian Plains Research Centre, 1981); idem, "In Pursuit of Growth: Municipal Boosterism and Urban Development in the Canadian Prairie West, 1871-1913," inShapingthe UrbanPast: Aspects of the Canadian City-Building Process, G.A. Stelter and A.FJ. Artibise, editors (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Carleton Library Series No. 125,1982), pp. 116-147; andT.C. Meridith, "The Upper Columbia Valley 1900-20: An Assess-

354

47

48 49 50

51 52 53

Choosing Canada's Capital ment of 'Boosterism' and the 'Biography of Landscape,'" The Canadian Geographer, Vol. 29, no. 1 (1985), pp. 44-55. A central, neutral location that provides a linking function has been one of the dominant reasons for the selection of many capital city locations, although "central" has had several meanings. See, for example, O.H.K. Spate, "Factors in the Development of Capital Cities," Geographical Review, Vol. XXXII, no. 4 (1942), pp. 622631; Vaughan Cornish, The Great Capitals (London: Methuen, 1923); H. Guthe, "Jerusalem," The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, S.M. Jackson, editor (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), Vol. VI, pp. 130-137; DavidB. Knight, "Gaberones: A Viable Proposition!" ProfessionalGeographer, Vol. 17, no. 6 (1965), pp. 38-39; William Walton, The Evidence ofWashington (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), pp. 6-11. Letter from "An Onlooker" to Editor of (Toronto) Globe, February 20,1858. Montreal Transcript, February 10,1859. Province of Canada, Journals of the Legislative Assembly, Vol. IX (1850), p. 270. Henceforth, the records of the House will be referred to simply as Legislative Assembly, Journals. Similarly, the records of the upper chamber of Parliament will be cited as Legislative Council, Journals. Ottawa Tribune, January 30, 1854. (Kingston) British Whig, February 17, 1859. On the definition of "metropolis" as "chief city," see a dictionary used by some people in Canada at the time, G. Fulton and G. Knight, A General Pronouncing and Explanatory Dictionary of the English Langauge (Edinburgh, 1824), pp. 53 and 213. See akoThe Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), "Capital," Vol. JJ, p. 93, "Metropolitan" and "Metropolis," Vol. VI, pp. 400-401, and "Seat," Vol. IX, pp. 341.

Competing Cities: The Earlier Years

355

CHAPTER 2 COMPETING CITIES: THE EARLIER YEAR (pp.35 —46) 1

H.P. Biggar, translator, The Voyages of Jacques Carrier (Ottawa, 1924).

2

Quoted in N.E. Dionne. Champlain (Toronto, 1909), p.41.

3

Albert Tessier, Trois-Rivieres (Trois-Rivieres: Le Nouvelliste, 1935).

4

Gustave Lanctot, Montreal sous maisonneuve: 1642-1645 (Montreal: Beauchemin, 1966).

5

Marcel Trudel, The Beginnings of New France, 1524-1663 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1973), pp. 252-253. In 1629 the settlement at Quebec was captured by the British but it was returned to the French in 1631.

6

See H.P. Biggar, The Early Trading Companies of New France (Toronto, 1901). W.J.Eecles,CanadaUnderLouisXIVl 663-1701 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1964), p. 10.

7

8

There were other governors, also subservient to Quebec, in Acadia and, after 1698, Louisiana.

9

On the administration see WJ. Eccles, The Government of New France (Ottawa: Canadian Historical Society, Historical Booklet No. 15,1965), and Marcel Trudel, Introduction to New France (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Ltd., 1968), pp. 148-158.

10

Trudel, Introduction..., p. 121. Eccles, Canada..., pp. 30,71. Reprinted in Quebec Mercury, April 2, 1857.

11 12 13

14

For a brilliant exploration of themes relating to this competition see W. J. Eccles, The Canadian Frontier: 1534-1760 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969). Frontenac mobilized the entire population of the colony and mustered it at Quebec. See W. J. Eccles, Frontenac:TheCourtier Governor (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Carleton Library Series No. 24,1959), especially pp. 230-243.

15

Allana Reid, "The Development and Importance of the Town of Quebec. 16081760," unpublished dissertation, McGill University, 1950.

16

E.R. Adair, "Evolution of Montreal Under the French Regime," Canadian Historial Association, Annual Report (1942), pp. 20-41; E.E. Rich, Montreal andthe Fur Trade (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1966).

17

Yves F. Zoltvany, Philippe deRigaud de Vaudreuil: Governor of New France, 17031725 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, Carleton Library Series No. 80,1974), p. 130.

18

For an exploration of this see ibid., pp. 131-132.

356

Choosing Canada's Capital

19

R.C. Harris, "The French Impact in Canada and Acadia," in Harris and Warkentin, Canada Before Confederation, pp. 19-63; and R.C. Harris, The Seigneurial System in Early Canada: A Geographical Study (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966).

20

George F.G. Stanley,NewFrance:TheLastPhase, 1741-1760 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1968), especially pp. 242-258.

21

A.L. Burt, The Old Province of Quebec (Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1933), pp. 74101.

22

The positions of lieutenant-governors in Trois-Rivieres and Montreal were soon discontinued. Ibid., p. 87.

23

Harris, "The French Impact...," p. 59.

24

Burt, The Old Province of Quebec, pp. 202-247.

25

Ibid., p. 427.

26

A.L. Burt, Guy Carleton.LordDorchester, 1724-1808 (Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, Historical Booklet No. 5, revised edition, 1968), p.13.

27

Wade, The French Canadians 1760-1967 (Toronto: Macmillan, 1968), p. 82.

28

Cole Harris, "Quebec in the Century After the Conquest," in Harris and Warkentin, Canada Before Confederation, p. 100.

29

See Donald Creighton, The Empire of the St. Lawrence (Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada [1937], 1970), p. 214.

30

NAC, Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Journals, Vol. XXIV, p. 197, John Stuart to the Society, October 1, 1785. NAC, RG4, S28, Report of John Collins and William Dummer Powell to Lord Dorchester on Loyalists' Grievances, August 18, 1787. R.A R.A.PreSton,KingstonBeforetheWarofl812:ACollectionofDocuments(Taronto: Champlain Society, 1959), p. Ivii. PAO, Miscellaneous MSS, White Letters, Stuart to Rt. Rev. Wm. [White], Bishop of Philadelphia, October 9, 1789. E.A. Cruikshank, ed., The Correspondence of Lieut. Governor John Graves Simcoe with Allied Documents Relating to His Administration of the Government of Upper Canada (Toronto: Ontario Historical Society, 5 vols., 1923-1931), 1,18, Simcoe to Sir Joseph Banks, January 8,1791. Simcoe mentioned the interior location in many letters and he visited the site in March, 1793.

31

32

33

34

35

Preston, Kingston, p. cxiii.

36

Cruikshank, Simcoe Papers, JJ, 57, Simcoe to Dundas, September 20,1793.

37

Cruikshank, Simcoe Papers, I, 144, Simcoe to Dundas, April 28,1792.

38

The words of Louis Gentilcore, "Settlement," in Ontario: Studies in Canadian Geography, R.L. Gentilcore, ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), p. 26. Some Upper Canadians were concerned at being so close to the border for "The Americans seem possessed with a species of mania for getting lands, which have no bounds" (Cruikshank, Simcoe Papers, p.98, Robert Hamilton to Simcoe, January 4, 1792).

Competing Cities: The Earlier Years

357

On settlement spread in Upper Canada see Gentilcore, "Settlement," in Ontario, pp. 23^14; R.L. Gentilcore and J.D. Wood, "A Military Colony in a Wilderness: The Upper Canada Frontier," in Wood, Perspectives on Landscape and Settlement..., pp. 32-50, and J. David Wood, "Population Change on an Agricultural Frontier: Upper Canada 1796tol841,"in Patterns of the Past: Interpreting Ontario's History, Roger Hall, et al., editors (Toronto: Dundern, 1988), pp. 55-77. 39

Cruikshank, Simcoe Papers, 1,239, Richard Cartwright to Isaac Todd, October 21, 1792.

40

Ibid., HI, 61, Simcoe to the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade and Plantations, September 1,1794.

41

On the growth of Toronto and generally on the developing urban system, including the competition between Kingston and Toronto, see especially Jacob Spelt, Urban Development inSouth-Central Ontario (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Carleton Library Series No. 57, [1955], 1984). See also Peter G. Goheen, Victorian Toronto, 1850 to 1900: Pattern and Process of Growth (Chicago: University of Chicago, Departmentof Geography, ResearchPaper No. 127,1970), Edith Firth, ed.,The Town ofYorkl793-1815:ACollectionofDocuments(ToTOTito: Champlain Society, 1962), and idem, The Town of York 1815-1834: A Further Collection ofDocuments of Early Toronto (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1966).

42

NAC, PRO, CO42, Vol. 356, pp. 111-112, Gore to Bathurst, May 30,1815; NAC, MG11, CO42, Vol. 319, pp. 152b-l56, Memorial of Twenty-three Servants of the Crown to Bathurst. It is clear that a principal motivation behind the latter memorial was the fear of financial loss from their land speculation activities. On the influence of the capital's location at York on land patenting, see L. A. Johnson, "Land Policy, Population Growth and Social Structure in the Home District, 1793-1851," Ontario History, Vol. 63 (1971), pp. 41-60.

43

(York) Upper Canada Gazette, June 12,1816.

44

Quoted in Craig, Upper Canada (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963), p. 32.

45

Firth, TheTown of York 1815-1834, pp. 18-20, Sir James Carmichael Smyth's Report on Defence, 1826.

46

(York) Observer, March 1,1830.

47

Ibid.

48

Upper Canada, Journals of the House of Assembly, 1830, pp. 44-45.

49

Ibid., p. 48; (York) Colonial Advocate, February 18,1830.

50

The map is based on the divisions as recorded in the Upper Canada, Journals of the House of Assembly, 1830, pp. 44-45,48. The ridings that members represented were taken from F.H. Armstrong, Handbook of Upper Canadian Chronology and Territorial Legislation (London: University of Western Ontario, Lawson Memorial Library, 1967), pp. 38-57,69-70. Many of the ridings had two representatives but since each pair of legislators (but for one case—S torment) voted the same way, the double representation is shown only for Stormont.

51

These thoughts were first explored in David B. Knight, "'Boosterism' or Locational Analysis...."

355

Choosing Canada's Capital

52

On the construction and use of the Rideau and the Ottawa River canals see Robert E. Legget, Rideau Waterway (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967); idem, Ottawa River Canals and the Defence of BritishNorth America (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988); Robert W. Passfield, Building the Rideau Canal: A Pictorial History (Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, in association with Parks Canada, 1982); Normand Lafreniere, The Ottawa River Canal System (Ottawa: Environment Canada, Parks Canada, 1984).

53

On the nature and lasting impact of Colonel By's street layout see Taylor, Ottawa: An Illustrated History.

54

For a reproduction of the proposed fortification of Bytown see Nick and Helma Mika, Bytown: The Early Days (Belleville: Mika Publishing Co., 1982), p. 96.

55

Bytown Gazette, January 14, 1844. A different version of Dalhousie's vision was "would you not be startled were I to add, that on that eminence may one day be the seat-of-government?" NAC, MG24,19, Hill Collection, Vol. I, p. 44, Hamnett K. Pinhey to A.J. Christie, n.d.

56

As recalled in the Bytown Gazette, August 28,1840.

57

J. Bouchette, A Topographical Description of the Province of Lower Canada with Remarks upon Upper Canada (London, 1832).

58

(Perth) The Examiner, November 26,1830.

59

NAC, MG24,19, Hill Collection, Pinhey Papers, Vol. 10, pp. 2857-58, George W. Baker to Hamnett Pinhey, April 3,1835.

60

See C.C.J. Bond, "Alexander James Christie, Bytown Pioneer: His Life and Times 1787-1843," Ontario History, LVI, no. 1 (1964), 16-36, and Hamnet P. Hill, "The Bytown Gazette: A Pioneer Newspaper," Papers and Records, XXVTJ (1931), 407423. Christie had long favoured union of the provinces and served as editor of the Montreal Herald in 1822 and the Bytown Gazette. Once he moved to Bytown he became convinced that it was the logical place for the capital of a union.

61

Editors in other cities jested about Bytown as a potential location for the seat-ofgovemment, which indicates they viewed Christie's "swan" a "goose"! Not unexpectedly, they generally viewed their respective cities as the best locations for the capital functions. "Every man thinks his own goose a swan" was the phrase used by Mr. Johnston of Carleton, C.W., during the Legislative Assembly debate on October 5,1842, as recorded in the (Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, October 8,1842.

62

Bytown Gazette, March 2,1837.

63

Bytown Gazette, September 4,1839.

The First Compromise: Kingston

359

CHAPTER 3 THE FIRST COMPROMISE: KINGSTON (pp.47 —53) 1 2

3

4 5

NAC, PRO, MG11, Vol. 705, p. 144, Thomson to Lord John Russell, May 22,1840. DJ. Pierce and J.P. Pritchett, "The Choice of Kingston as the Capital of Canada, 1839-1841," Canadian Historical Association, Annual Report 1929, p. 58; Paul Knaplund, ed., Letters from Lord Sydenham to Lord John Russell (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1931), Thomson to Russell, March 13,1840, p. 53. Thomson may have sought guidance from his senior advisors. Certainly, the Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada wrote Thomson a rambling, indecisive letter on the subject, which appears in Charles R. Sanderson, ed., The Arthur Papers (Toronto: Toronto Public Libraries and the University of Toronto, 1957), Vol. 2, p. 327, Arthur to Thomson, November 26,1839. Upper Canada, Journals of the House of Assembly, 1839-1840, "Address to Her Majesty on Union of the Canadas," p. 93. Besides demanding that the capital of the united province should be in Upper Canada, they demanded the use of English only, the disenfranchisement of most of the French, and fewer seats in the new legislature for Lower Canada because of it having a larger population. Ibid., pp. 100-101. NAC, PRO, MG11, Vol. 705, p. 157, Thomson to Russell, May 22,1840. NAC, MG24,19, Hill Collection, Pinhey Papers, Vol. 4, pp. 1009-1010, Derbishire to Christie, October 6,1840; ibid.. Vol. 4, p. 1058, Derbishire to Christie, December 30,1840.

6

Knaplund, Letters..., p. 90, Thomson to Russell, September 16,1840, and ibid., p. 99, Sydenham to Russell, October 28, 1840.

7

William Kingsford, The History of Canada (Toronto, 1898), Vol. X, p. 526. S.B. Ryerson, Unequal Union: Confederation and the Roots of Conflict in the Canadas, 1815-1873 (Toronto: Progress Books, 1968), p. 143. See also Quebec Mercury, February 27,1841, and March 5,1841. (Quebec) Le Canadien, February 8, 1841. Monet concluded that the GovernorGeneral "insulted" Quebec and Montreal by proclaiming Kingston as the new capital. Jacques Monet, The Last Cannon Shot, p. 72.

8

9

10

Careless, The Union of the Canadas, p. 2.

11

(Montreal) Morning Courier, February 10, 1841.

12

(Toronto) The Examiner, February 10,1841. (Montreal) Morning Courier, February 10, 1841.

13 14

Quebec Mercury, March 6, 1841.

15

Sanderson, Arthur Papers, HI, p. 313, Sydenham to Arthur, February 10,1841. (Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, February 6,1841.

16

360

Choosing Canada's Capital

17

Brian S. Osbome and Donald Swain, Kingston: Building on the Past (Westport: Butternut Press, 1988), p. 87. See also R.H. Hubbard, Ample Mansions: The Viceregal Residences of the Canadian Provinces (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1989), pp. 112-113. Hubbard notes that Charles Dickens, who visited Kingston in 1842, considered it "a very poor town" and wrote of Alwington [the GovernorGeneral's residence] that it was "neither elegant nor commodious." Charles Dickens, AmericanNotes (London, 1842; national edition, 1907, p. 242.) In contrast, Dickens described Quebec as the "Gibraltar of Canada: its giddy heights; its citadel suspended, as it were, in the air; its picturesque steep streets and frowning gateways...a place not to be forgotten or mixed up in the mind with other places." (Ibid., p. 245.)

18

(Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, February 6,1841; Quebec Gazette, June 2,1841; Sanderson, Arthur Papers, HI, p. 3 65, Kingston Staff Memorial, March 6,1841; ibid., p. 366, James Sampson (Mayor of Kingston) to Sydenham, March 6,1841.

19

Kingston Herald, June 1,1841.

20

Ibid.

21

Sanderson, Arthur Papers, HI, p. 441, Sydenham to Arthur, July 27, 1841.

22

Le Canadien, July 7,1841. See also Toronto Public Library, Baldwin Papers, Henry Boulton to Robert Baldwin, June 30,1841.

23

There are no papers in the Royal Archives relating to the 1841 Canadian seat-ofgovernment issue. Kingston sent to London a memorial in which Imperial support was asked for but the Governor-General wrote privately to London that he thought it "very desirable to keep the question of the Metropole in abeyance at this moment if it should be found possible." NAC.MG24, A-31, Derby Papers, Bagot to Stanley, November 11,1842. Representations on behalf of Bytown were made in London to Lord Stanley by Charles Shirreff of the Ottawa Valley. Shirreffused published reprints of newspaper articles (mostly from the Bytown Gazette) to help make the case for Bytown. NAC, MG11, CO42, Vol. 502, Charles Shirreff to Colonial Office, December 5,1842. Kingston Loyalist, cited in Montreal Gazette, August 30, 1843. Legislative Assembly, Journals, HI, 1843, p. 25, Metcalfe to Legislative Assembly, October 6, 1843. As reported in (Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, May 1,1844.

24

^ 26

27 28

Kingston Herald, June 25,1844.

29

W.H. Smith, Canadian Gazetteer (Toronto, 1846), p. 93. Sir Charles Bagot thus seems to have been correct in his 1842 confidential summation of Kingston — see selection 20: "The town is small and poor; and the Country around it unproductive." Kingston's importance decreased markedly following the removal of the Government. See Brian S. Osborne, "Kingston in the 19th Century: A Study of Urban Decline," in J.D. Wood, ed., Perspectives onLandscape and Settlement inNineteenth Century Ontario (Toronto: Macmillan, Carleton Library Series No.91, 1975), pp. 159-181; and Osborne and Swainson, Kingston.

Montreal: The Paris of Canada

361

CHAPTER 4 MONTREAL: THE PARIS OF CANADA

(pp. 97 _ 105) 1 Arthur Doughty,ed.,TheElgin-GreyPapersl846-1852,4 Volumes (Ottawa: King's

2 3 4 5 6 7

8

9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21

Printer, 1937), 1,280, Elgin to Earl Grey, January 4,1849. Lord Elgin, the 8th Earl of Elgin, was the son of the collector of the Elgin Marbles. See Creighton, The Empire of the St. Lawrence, pp. 349-385. Doughty, Elgin-Grey Papers, I, 349, Elgin to Grey, April 23,1849. Dent, The Last Forty Years, p. 200. (British) London Morning Chronicle, cited in Montreal Gazette, May 5,1849. On the symbolism of the bill see Careless, The Union of the Canadas, p. 124. Five members (including four Upper Canada Reformers) absented themselves and two Upper Canada Reformers voted against. See Dent, The Last Forty Years, p. 204, and Cornell, The Alignment, p. 27. Arthur Keith, Responsible Government in the Dominions, 3 Volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), Vol. 1, p. 18. (Montreal) Pilot, April 27,1849, andMontreal Gazette, April 27,1849. For further reference to the picture see p. 132. (Toronto) Globe, April 28,1849. Doughty, Elgin-Grey Papers, I, 353, Grey to Elgin, May 24,1849. The Legislative Council at first also met in the hall of the Bonsecours Market but on April 30 it met in Trinity Church, opposite the Hall, and from May 22 it met in the Masonic Hall. Legislative Assembly, Journals, VIE, April 28,1849, p. 264. Montreal Gazette, May 3,1849. (Montreal) Pilot, April 27,1849. (Montreal) Pilot, April 30, 1849. Montreal Gazette, May 3,1949. Snow was not the problem on that occasion, but the late eighteenth century villa, called Monklands, was often isolated from Montreal due to winter snow drifts. Hubbard, Ample Mansions, p. 30. Hubbard notes that Dickens (in American Notes, p. 245) recorded his admiration for Monklands as the residence of the GovernorGeneral: 'Very superior to that at Kingston." Legislative Assembly, Journals, VHI, May 19,1849, p. 318. Quebec Mercury, May 22,1849. (Montreal) Pilot, May 22,1849.

362

Choosing Canada's Capital

22

The votes are recorded in the Legislative Assembly, Journals, VEI, 1849, pp.317322.

23

(Montreal) Pilot, May 29, 1849.

24

Quebec Mercury, August 21, 1841.

25

Montreal Courier, August 21,1849.

26

Quebec Chronicle, August 23, 1849.

27

(Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, August 25, 1849. (Toronto) Globe, August 28,1849.

28 29

The quotation is from the (Bytown) Packet, September 22, 1849. See Michael S. Cross, "Stony Monday, 1849: The Rebellion Losses Riot in Bytown," Ontario History, Vol. LXIH, no. 3 (1971), pp. 177-190.

30

(Toronto) Globe, September 11, 1849. Ibid.

31 32

La Minerve, October 4,1849.

33

Montreal Gazette, October 3,1849.

34

Great Britain, Canada Papers (1849), p. 7. Montreal Gazette, October 17,1849. (Toronto) British Colonist, October 12, 1849.

35 36 37

(Toronto) Globe, October 23,1849.

38

Doughty, Elgin-Grey Papers, E, 552, Elgin to Grey, December 2,1949. In October, when the news of the capital relocation reached Halifax, it was felt that "this news will advance the cause of annexation in Montreal while, for the time being, it will undoubtedly retard it in Toronto." (Halifax) British Colonist, October 27,1849.

39

Doughty, Elgin-Grey Papers, E, 527, Grey to Elgin, November 16,1849.

Perambulation and Frustration

363

CHAPTER 5 PERAMBULATION AND FRUSTRATION

(pp. 129 —134) 1

The words of Mr. Smith, but which Smith of three in the Legislative Assembly is not identified in any of the recording newspapers.

2

Timesof London, January 10,1850. The dispatch, fromMontreal, is dated December 20,1849.

3

Letter from John Wetenhall to the "Free and Independent Electors of the County of Holton," in (Toronto) Globe, February 19,1850.

4

See selection 130. Stewart lost that election.

5

Cornell, The Alignment, pp. 30-32, reference on p. 30. Baldwin and LaFontaine had resigned as leaders of the ministry late in 1850 and were replaced by Francis Hincks and A.N. Morin.

6

Doughty, Elgin-Grey Papers, H, 687-688, Grey to Elgin, July 12, 1850.

7

(Toronto) Leader, November 17,1854, about the night of November 9.

8

A copy of the address is in NAC, MG24,19, Hill Collection, Vol. 24, pp. 6 174-77, reference on p. 6177.

9

(Toronto) Leader, March 31,1855.

10

Quebec Mercury, March 24, 1855, and March 29, 1855.

11

(Toronto) Leader, March 30,1855. Legislative Council, Journals, XTV, 1856, p. 380. Legislative Council, Journals, XIV, 1856, p. 414. Montreal Gazette, April 27, 1855.

12 13 14 15

(Cobourg) Farmers Journal, Vol. 9, no. 7 (November, 1855), copy in NAC, PRO, CO42/599, B-438, Head to Labouchere, December 23,1855.

364

Choosing Canada's Capital

CHAPTER 6 STALEMATE AND REFERRAL

(pp. 155 —169) 1 2 3 4

5

6 7 8 9

Montreal Gazette, March 26,1856. (Toronto) Leader, March 18,1856. Ibid. W. A. Langton, editor, Early Days in Upper Canada: Letters of John Langtonfrom the Backwoods of Upper Canada... (Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada, 1926), p. 257, John Langton to William Langton, May 24,1856. Montreal Gazette, March 24,1856. The Toronto Globe, March 24,1856, reported a rumour that the Governor-General had received dispatches from England, "recommending the removal of the Seat-of-government to a safer place than Toronto." The Globe's response was short and to the point: "Not very likely"! Montreal Gazette, March 24,1856. Legislative Assembly, Journals, XTV, 1856, Appendix No. 21. (Toronto) Leader, March 18,1856. Ibid.

10

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XIV, April 10, 1856, pp. 281-283.

11

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XIV, April 14, 1856, pp. 304-305.

12

Hamilton Spectator, April 18,1856. Legislative Assembly, Journals, XTV, April 16,1856, p. 327. (Toronto) Leader, April 17, 1856. Montreal Gazette, April 23,1856. Ibid. (Toronto) Leader, April 18,1856. (Toronto) Leader, April 19,1856. Montreal Gazette, April 24, 1856. (Toronto) Leader, April 19,1856. (Toronto) Leader, May 6,1856. (Toronto) Leader, May 16, 1856. Legislative Assembly, Journals, XTV, May 14, 1856, p. 514. Legislative Assembly, Journals, XTV, May 15,1856, p. 522. Legislative Assembly, Journals, XTV, June 23,1856, p. 688. Hamilton Spectator, June 27,1856.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Stalemate and Referral 365 27

(Toronto) Globe, June 26,1856.

28

Montreal Gazette, July 1,1856. Quebec Mercury, July 1, 1856. NAC, PRO, CO42/604, Head to Labouchere, private and confidential, May 26,1856. Scott, The Choice of the Capital, p. 30. For a comment about Lady Head's sketch, see footnote 10, Chapter VJH.

29 30 31

32

Patchett Martin, Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Robert Lowe, Viscount Sherbrooke (London, 1893), Vol. E, pp. 133-134.

33

(Toronto) Colonist, February 11,1857. Emphasis added.

34

34 NAC, MG24, C31, Sir Henry Smith Papers, John A. Macdonald to Sir Henry, January

21,1857. 35

Legislative Journals, Journals, XV, February 26,1857.

36

(Toronto) Globe, March 13,1857.

37

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XV, March 17,1857, p. 91.

38

(Toronto) Colonist, March 18,1857.

39

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XV, March 17,1857, p. 92. (Toronto) Globe, March 18,1857. (Toronto) Leader, March 20,1857. (Toronto) Globe, March 20,1857. Quebec Mercury, March 24,1857. (Toronto) Globe, March 20,1857.

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Quebec Mercury, March 24,1857. Ibid. Ibid. (Toronto) Leader, March 25,1857. (Montreal) Pilot, January 28,1858.

366

Choosing Canada's Capital

CHAPTER 7 THE CITY MEMORIALS (pp. 199 —202) 1

2

3

4

See A. Patchett Martin, Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Robert Lowe, Viscount Sherbrooke (London, 1893), Vol. n, p. 134. NAC, PRO, CO42/611, B-227, p. 402, Memorial from Samia, undated, but received at the Colonial Office on July 20,1857; and p. 404, Memorial from Belleville, June 23,1857. NAC, PRO, CO42/611, B-227, p. 402, note from Blackwood to Merivale, July 20, 1857. Ibid., Merivale to Fortescue, July 23, 1857. Fortescue saw it on the 24th.

5

Labouchere saw the submission with comments on July 30th.

6

NAC, PRO, CO42/611, B-227, p. 405-407, notation by Merivale, July 23,1857, on draft of "Labouchere to Officer Administering Government of Canada, July 24, 1857."

7

Ibid.

8

NAC, PRO, CO42/611, B-227, pp. 304-306. NAC, PRO, CO42/611, B-227, pp. 307-308, Labouchere to Administrator of Canada, July 3,1857. Both copies are in the Public Record Office: NAC, PRO, CO42/611, B -227, pp. 321 323 and ibid., pp. 414-415. A copy of Scott's original draft is in NAC, MG24, B61, City of Ottawa, 1857. For an excellent overview of the Colonial Office, see John W. Cell, British Colonial Administration in the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The Policy-Making Process (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. 3-44.

9

10

11 12

The Decision for Ottawa

367

CHAPTER 8 THE DECISION FOR OTTAWA (pp.241 —250) 1

2

Papers Relative to the Seat of Government In Canada (London: Colonial Office, October, 1857). The publication was marked "Confidential". Three copies are known to have survived. One is in the Royal Archives, Windsor Castle, RA, P22/37-8; another is in the National Archives of Canada, NAC, MG27, IA2, B-1067, pp. 225251, Carnarvon Papers, and is marked "very scarce"; the third is in the Public Record Office in London. This parallel is that of Sir Arthur Hardinge, The Life of Henry Howard Molyneux Herbert, Fourth Earl of Carnarvon, 1831-1890 (London: Oxford University Press, 1925), Vol. I, p. 288.

3

Further Papers Relating to the Seat of Government in Canada (London: Colonial Office, October 24,1857). Marked "confidential." Three copies are known to exist: in the Royal Archives, Windsor Castle, RA, P22/43, the Public Record Office, and the National Archives of Canada, NAC, MG27, IA2, B-1067, pp. 252-259. A draft of Sir Francis Bond Head's memorandum was read by Toronto's two representatives to London before Sir Francis sent the final version to Labouchere (ibid., Sir Francis Head to Labouchere, October 18,1857). It is possible that Sir Francis wrote it at their urging. Certainly they supplied information for the memorandum and some of the ideas he noted were also to be found in the Toronto memorial. The memorandum by Sir Francis was later published in Toronto along with the City of Toronto's memorial to the Queen: Toronto: The Grounds Upon Which Are Based Her Claims To Be The Seat Of Government of Canada (Toronto, 1858).

4

Scott, The Choice of the Capital, and Cook, The Struggle for the Capital for Canada. Both men served as Mayor of Ottawa: Scott in 1852-53 and Cook in 1902-03.

5

RA, P22/36, Labouchere to Queen Victoria, October 16, 1857. Also part of the package sent to the Queen that day was "an interesting account of discoveries that have been made from South Australia in the interior of the country." Sir Francis Bond Head's confidential memorandum was relayed to the Queen later in the month, RA, P22/42, Labouchere to Queen Victoria, October 30,1857.

6

NAC, PRO, CO42/611, pp. 416-417, Draft copy of Labouchere to The Officer Administering the Government of Canada, August 19,1857. On the first draft it read "Government Advisers" but this was altered to read "Confidential Advisers."

7

NAC, PRO, CO42/611, B-227, p. 375, note by Blackwood, October 27,1857.

8

While Prince Albert was alive, he and his private secretary did the necessary secretarial work for the Queen. At that time, she was not permitted — for constitutional reasons — to have a private secretary of her own. After Prince Albert's death, Grey became Queen Victoria's private secretary, but there was considerable oppo-

368

Choosing Canada's Capital sitionfrom Government inhaving the position recognized. On General Grey, see Paul H. Emden, Behind the Throne (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934), pp. 141-149.

9

RA, P22/39, unsigned pencil memorandum written in Lieutenant-General Hon. Charles Grey's hand, [?] October, 1857. Stress added.

10

There is no mention in the Royal Archives of the sketch by Lady Head, nor is it to be found in the Royal Collection of Drawings. Head's biographer did not locate it either. The suggestion that the Queen had seen Lady Head's sketch of Ottawa is recorded in Ottawan Richard Scott's writings. In a private letter he said (stress added): "She [Lady Head] went to England...and / understand submitted the sketch to Her late Majesty..." (NAC, MG27, n, D14, Scott Papers, Vol. 4, Scott to Henry J. Morgan, February 3,1902). This reference is fairly emphatic, but it does not state who Scott learned of the submittal from. Several years later, in a published document, Scott was muchmore guarded in his claim (stress added): "the writer has always entertained the belief that the sketch was shown to the Queen" (Scott, The Choice of the Capital, p. 30). Scott's belief became fact for some later writers, including Kerr, p. 177, Brault, p. 151, Eggleston, p. 108, Gibson, "The Choosing of the Capital of Canada," p. 81, idem, "How OttawaBecame the Capital of Canada," p. 219, Louis Reynolds, Agnes: The Biography of Lady Macdonald (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1990), p. 25.

11

RA, M54/74, Labouchere to the Prince Consort, December 15,1857.

12

NAC, MG26A, Sir John A. Macdonald Papers, Vol. 537, pp. 253496-253497, Prince Albert to Labouchere, December 18,1857. How this letter came to Canada is a puzzle. One possibility is that while in London, Macdonald "lifted" the document as a souvenir. A copy of this document has now been placed in the Royal Archives.

13

RA, P22/36, Labouchere to Queen Victoria, October 16, 1857.

14

NAC, PRO, CO42/610, B-227, pp. 403-405, Head toBlackwood, private, November 21,1857.

15

NAC, PRO, CO42/609, B-226, pp. 465-466, rough draft of despatch informing Head that Ottawa was the choice. Notation in the margin indicates that a copy was sent to the Queen on December 7th.

16

NAC, PRO, CO43/151, Labouchere to Head, December 31,1857. The despatch was reprinted in Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVI, 1858, Part I, p. 139.

Parliament Rejects Ottawa

369

CHAPTER 9 PARLIAMENT REJECTS OTTAWA (pp.265 —277) 1

Quebec

Mercury,

August

27,1857.

2

Quebec Mercury, November 19,1857.

3

In all parts of the country during the months of December, 1857, numerous newspapers had "letters to electors" from candidates in which mention was made of the divisive seat-of-govemment issue. These letters were also often released as separate hand-bills.

4

Tache retired from political life in November, 1857,andGeorgeCartiertookhisplace as leader of the Canada East section of the Executive Council.

•*

(Toronto) Leader, January 1,1858.

6

PAO, Mackenzie-Lindsey Collection, John A. Macdonald to Charles Lindsey, January 26,1858.

7

This observation was arrived at after reviewing the reports in papers from disparate parts of the Province, including 24 locations in Canada West and 12 locations (French and English newspapers) in Canada East

8

(Toronto) Globe, January 29,1858.

9

Montreal Gazette, reprinted in (Kingston) British Whig, February 4,1858.

10

NAC, MG24, B40, George Brown Papers, Vol. 2, P. 307-308, Holton to Brown, February 2,1858. This belief was later supported by the Montreal Pilot, reprinted in (Toronto) Globe, February 18,1858. Ibid., The matter of the timing of the news release was quickly tied to Cayley's election by many papers, including the Brockville Recorder, February 18,1858.

11

12

See NAC, MG27, H, D14, Sir Richard W. Scott Papers, Vol. 5, p. 2060, J.L. McDougall, 'To the Electors of Renfrew,"; Ottawa Tribune, reprinted in Brockville Recorder, February 25, 1858. The (Toronto) Globe, February 15, 1858, accused McDougall of having given up his seat because of his "purchase with a large sum of money."

13

(Toronto) Globe, February 9,1858. See also ibid., February 17,1858, and February 25,1858.

14

PAO, Mackenzie-Lindsey Collection, John A. Macdonald to Lindsey, February 13, 1858.

15

(Toronto) Globe, February 13,1858.

16

Toronto) Globe, February 22,1858. The (Ottawa) Bytown Gazette, a few days earlier (February 18,1858) had expressed worries about the actions of those in power, but could not see how the ministry could do anything to avoid confirming the Queen's decision.

370

Choosing Canada's Capital

17

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVI, February 25,1858.

18

Of course, the debate on the Address in reply focused on more than just the seat-ofgovernment issue. For example, there was the matter of the Hudson's Bay territory. Some other issues strongly debated reflected the dualistic cultural nature of the society and on how to reconcile the sectionalist tensions. Mackenzie and Couchon advocated disunion, Brown called for representation by population, others spoke up for the double majority, and Gait revived the idea of a federal union. Everyone but the Government seemed to have a solution for the difficulties. And, it seemed, the Government did not have a policy on the seat-of-government issue, a centralizing issue that highlighted divisions and yet demanded conciliation. Macdonald described the long multi-faceted debate on the Address in reply as "a free fight all around." NAC, MG27,1, E17, Sir James Robert Gowan Papers, John A. Macdonald to Gowan, March 30,1858.

19

(Toronto) Globe, March 2,1858.

20

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVI, March 1,1858.

21

(Toronto) Leader, March 4,1858.

22

(Toronto) Globe, March 4,1858.

23

Ibid.

24

(Toronto) Globe, March 11,1858.

25

Quebec Mercury, April 6,1858.

26

Ottawa Tribune, April 10,1858.

27

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVI, April 9,1858, p. 178.

28

(Toronto) Globe, April 14, 1858.

29

(Legislative Council, Journals, XVI, April 13,1858.

30

(Toronto), Leader, April 20, 1858.

31

(Toronto) Leader, April 22, 1858. The Leader suggested (April 23, 1858) that because the permanent buildings would be "a monument, which is to endure for ages..." there should be a competition for the best plans.

32

(Ottawa) Union, reprinted in (Toronto) Globe, April 17,1858.

33

Ottawa Tribune, May 8,1858.

34

Quebec Chronicle, reprinted in (Toronto) Globe, April 19,1858. In Ottawa, fears were generated by the talk of a federation of the North American provinces, for then Ottawa's chances would indeed be weakened. NAC, MG24,19, Hill Collection, Vol. 20, pp. 5276-79, Rev. S.S. Strong to James Holmes, May 14,1858.

35

Ibid.

36

(Toronto) Leader, June 23, 1858.

37

Supply was not the only matter discussed. On July 5th, for example, Gait made a major speech on a federal system as an alternative to "representation by population." He discussed the increase of sectional interests during 1857 and noted that "for the last four months there has been a struggle going on between the two sections of the Province which it should be admitted was growing stronger." After reviewing the

Parliament Rejects Ottawa

371

major sectionally-based issues since 1841, Gait concluded by saying that to rid themselves of these difficulties they should adopt the federal principle, for then "each section of the Federation might adopt whatever views it regarded proper to itself." (Toronto) Leader, July 6,1858. 38

Reported on June 23,1858, in the Toronto papers, Globe and Leader.

39

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVI, July 16,1858, p. 862.

40

(Toronto) Globe, July 17,1858.

41

The Ministry's seeming lack of policy on anything distressed many, even including the "official" Government mouthpiece, the Conservative Colonist in Toronto. Indeed, in June, 1858, the Colonist revolted and turned against the Government. See Careless, Brown of the Globe, p. 261.

42

On this debate see (Toronto) Leader, July 29,1858, and (Toronto) Globe, July 29, 1858.

43

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVI, July 28,1858, p. 930.

44

Ibid., P. 930-931.

45

Ibid., p. 931.

46

(Toronto) Globe, July 29,1858.

47

Ibid.

48

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVI, July 28,1858, p. 931.

49

According to Powell's Assembly colleague from Ottawa, this amendment was a question of tactics for he hoped by his actions to rally the Quebec members at a later stage in support of Ottawa. Scott, The Choice of the Capital, p. 34.

50

(Toronto) Leader, July 29,1858.

51

NAC, MG26A, Sir John A. Macdonald Papers, Vol. 158, P. 63876-80, manuscript of the speech given in the House by Macdonald upon the resignation of the Ministry. Sir Edmund Head reported to the Colonial Secretary about the turn of events. He stated that the Macdonald administration has "resigned because what may be called a chance vote of the House was inconsistent with what they conceived to be their duty to the Queen." NAC, CO42, 615, p. 175, Head to Lytton, October 22, 1858.

372

Choosing Canada's Capital

CHAPTER 10 CRISIS BEFORE PARLIAMENT ACCEPTS OTTAWA (pp.285 —301) 1

Head to Lytton, My 31, 1858, as reprinted in "Despatches and other documents relating to the Seat-of-government," in Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVI, 1859, Appendix No. 2. Henceforth, this collection is referred to as "Despatches, 1858."

2

NAC, MG24, B65, Samuel Amsden Papers, p. 1, Macdonald to Amsden, July 30, 1858.

3

(Montreal) Pilot, August 2,1858.

4

(Toronto) Globe, July 30,1858.

5

(Toronto) Globe, August 2, 1858. Montreal Transcript, July 30,1858.

6 7

According to Careless (in Brown of the Globe, p. 269), Head did not like Brown.

8

Montreal Transcript, July 31, 1858.

9

(Toronto) Globe, August 9,1858.

10

Executive Council to Head, August 3, 1858, as reprinted in "Despatches, 1858."

11

See NAC, MG27,1, D8, Sir Alexander Gait Papers, Vol. 5, pp. 2118-25, manuscript by Gait entitled "Double Shuffle, 1858"; Careless, Brown of the Globe, pp. 269-280; Creighton, John A. Macdonald, pp. 265 forward; Kerr, Sir Edmund Head, pp. 183201. Ottawa Banner, August 11,1858. Brockville Recorder, August 19, 1858. (Toronto) Colonist, August 9,1858.

12 13 14 15

Aylmer Times, reprinted in (Toronto) Globe, September 16,1858.

16

It is doubtful that the Ministry seriously considered proposing the question that session. The ten opposition leaders seeking re-election were absent, of course, but at leastfour or five othermembers wouldhave to be convinced to alter their votes. Also, many members already had returned home and so the Ministry would have been reluctant, and perhaps politically unable, to formally propose the issue.

17

The phrase "Ottawa party" was used in both the (Toronto) Leader and the (Toronto) Globe on November 6,1858.

18

W.L. Scott, "Sir Richard Scott, K.C. (1825-1913)," reprint from the Report of the Canadian Catholic Historical Association, 1936-37, p. 7; copy available in NAC, MG24,19, Hill Collection, Vol. 30, pp. 7939-66.

19

NAC, PRO, CO42/617, B-442, pp. 7-8, Head to Lytton, January 8,1859. Lewis Papers, Head to Lewis, February 12, 1859, cited in Kerr, p. 201.

20

Crisis Before Parliament Accepts Ottawa

373

21

Sicotte wanted the choice, when fixed, to be confined to some locality (preferably Montreal) within the bounds of Canada East. He agreed with other policies of the Ministry but felt honour bound to resign over the seat-of-government decision.

22

Montreal Transcript, December 31,1858.

23

Montreal Herald, January 14,1859. The /toughs-dominated public meeting of between 750 and 1,000 people was held in Montreal on January 13th, as an announced first move in the opposition's drive towards agitating the question. The (Toronto) Globe gleefully reported the Montreal meeting to its readers and, judging from the series of later articles, also favoured Montreal as a site for capital. Brown's links with the Rouges seemed strong.

24

(Toronto) Leader, January 16,1859.

25

Warning of the Corporation of Quebec, as reported in Quebec Mercury, January 22, 1859.

26

John Rose to His Worship the Mayor of Montreal, January 29, 1859, reprinted in (Montreal) Pilot, February 1, 1859.

27

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVJJ, January 29,1859, pp. 9-10. The correspondence referred to included official letters, including Head's official explanation of the 1858 vote against Ottawa and Lytton's official reply. Private communications between the two men were not transmitted to Parliament.

28

(Toronto) Globe, February 3, 1859.

29

NAC,PRO,CO42/617,B-442,pp. 198-19, Head to Lytton, February 4,1859.Lytton, on February 27th, ordered that a copy of the despatch should be sent to the Queen.

30

(Toronto) Globe, February 3, 1859.

31

(Toronto) Leader, February 3,1859.

32

(Montreal) Pilot, February 7,1859.

33

Ibid.

34

Ibid.

35

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVTJ, February 2,1859, p. 21. This motion essentially was one of want-of-confidence.

36

Ibid., February 3,1859, p. 27.

37

Ibid., February 8,1859, p. 33. No names were recorded.

38

Ibid..

39

(Toronto) Leader, February 9,1859.

40

(Montreal) Pilot, February 11,1859.

41

The (Toronto) Globe, January 31,1859, accused the Ministry of this action.

42

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVJJ, February 10, 1859, p. 40.

43

NAC, MG27,1, D8, Sir Alexander T. Gait Papers, Vol. 10, Letterbook 1859-66, p. 1-2, A.T. Gait to B. Pomroy, February [11], 1859.

44

This figure should be read with care for it is based upon an analysis of representatives' votes as of the two dates in question. From the one year to the next, however, some

374

Choosing Canada's Capital different men were involved. There were six electoral changes. Drummond moved from Shefford (which he represented in 1858) to Lotbiniere (and he changed his vote from nay to yea). Five ridings had new representatives in the House in 1859 (that is, Brant East, Haldimand, Middlesex West, Maskinonge, and Shefford).

45

(Toronto) Globe, February 11,1859.

46

(Toronto) Globe, February 12,1859.

47

Ibid..

48

NAC, PRO, CO42/617, B^42, pp. 231-232, Head to Merivale, February 12,1859.

49

(Toronto) Globe, February 15,1859.

50

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVH, February 1,1859, p. 17.

51

Ibid., February 14,1859, p. 57.

52

(Toronto) Leader, February 15,1859.

53

NAC, PRO, CO42/617, B-442, pp. 240-242, Head to Lytton, February 15,1859.

54

NAC, PRO, CO42/617, B-442, p. 242, note by Lytton, March 12,1859.

55

Ibid., pp. 250-251, Lytton to Head, March 17,1859.

56

Montreal Gazette, February 19,1859.

57

Quebec Mercury, February 26, 1859.

58

Montreal Transcript, March 4,1859.

59

See NAC, PRO, CO42/617, B-442, pp. 247-348, Head to Lytton, March 19,1859. Also Quebec Mercury, March 19,1859, Montreal Gazette, March 26,1859, Ottawa Citizen as reprinted in (Montreal) Pilot, March 30,1859.

60

NAC, PRO, CO42/617, B^t42, pp. 247-348, Head to Lytton, March 19,1859.

61

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVH, April 7,1859.

62

Legislative Council, Journals, XVH, April 29,1859.

63

(Toronto) Leader, April 30, 1859.

64

A mass meeting was held in Toronto to support "the noble stand taken by the Legislative Council," (Toronto) Globe, May 4,1859. The (Kingston) British Whig, May 2, 1859, called the Council's action "highly patriotic."

65

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVII, May 4,1859, p. 594.

66

(Toronto) Leader, May 16,1859.

67

(Toronto) Globe, May 23,1859.

68

(Ottawa) Union [Extra], May 22,1859, and (Toronto) Globe, May 25,1859.

69

(Ottawa) Union, May 18,1859, and NAC, PRO, CO42/619, B^42, p. 162, Head to Newcastle, August 11,1859.

70

(Ottawa) Union, September 21,1859.

71

Legislative Assembly, Journals, XVffl, May 9,1860, pp. 335-356.

72

NAC, MG30, El, Vol. 106, Pope Papers, Macdonald Estate, Lady Agnes Macdonald to Joseph Pope, November 19,1892; as cited in Reynolds, Agnes: The Biography of Lady Macdonald, p. 25.

Ottawa as Capital

375

CHAPTER 11 OTTAWA AS CAPITAL (pp.327 —338) 1

Anthony Trollope, North America (London, 1862), Vol. I, pp. 104-106.

2

N. A. Woods, The Prince of Wales in Canada and the United States (London, 1861), p. 159. See also OttawaCitizen, September 1,1860, andn.n., TheTourofHJUJ. The Prince of Wales Through British North America and the United States (Montreal, 1860), pp. 131-143.

3

The principal sources for the remainder of the paragraph and also the next were: Province of Canada, Sessional Papers, No. 57 (1860), No. 4 (1861), No. 3 (1862); Legislative Assembly, Journals, 1860-1866; Documents Relating to the Construction of the Parliamentary and Departmental Buildings at Ottawa (Quebec, 1862); NAC, MG 24, B40, George Brown Papers, Vol. 5, pp. 1021-1026, Brown to Anne (wife), August 28, 1864; Eggleston, The Queen's Choice, pp. 127-130; Hodgetts, Pioneer Public Service, pp. 198-204.

4

Quoted, without source, in Taylor, Ottawa, p. 63.

5

H.H. Killaly, "Report to the Commissioner of Public Works," mDocuments Relating to the Construction of the Parliamentary and Departmental Buildings at Ottawa, p. 361.

6

The data are from the several censuses of Canada. Taylor, Ottawa, provides a ready reference to the city's changing population figures (p. 210), and also to many other statistical data (pp. 210-216). 7 See R. A. J. Phillips, The East Block of the Parliament Buildings of Canada (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967). 8

Edward Whelan, The Union of the British Provinces, edited and with an introduction by D.C. Harvey (Toronto: Garden City Press, [1865] 1927), pp. 137-138. See also (Ottawa) Union, Novembers, 1865.

9

Phillips, The East Block, p. 20.

10

On the federal nature of the legislative union, see chapter 1. And, to again cite John A. Macdonald's words: "We have had a Federal Union in fact, though a Legislative Union in name." Parliamentary Debates on the Subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces, p. 30.

11

(Halifax) Morning Chronicle, June 9,1866.

12

Ibid.

13

The correspondence in question is to be found in NAC, MG 27,1, B1, Monck Papers, F.W. A. Bruce (British Legation, Washington) to Governor-General Monck, September 8, 1866; Bruce to Monck, September 9,1866; Bruce to Monck, September 18, 1866.

376

Choosing Canada's Capital

14

NAC, MG 27,1, B1, Monck Papers, F.W. A. Bruce (British Legation, Washington) to Governor-General Monck, Bruce to Monck, September 9,1866).

15

Opinion of leading politician Thomas D' Arcy McGee (Ibid., McGee to Lady Monck, June 4,1866).

16

Cited in Brault, p. 153.

17

NAC, MG 24. B40, George Brown Papers, Vol. 6, pp. 1377, Brown to Anne, December 14,1865.

18

NAC, MG 24, B40, George Brown Papers, Vol. 7, Monck to Brown, May 17,1866.

19

Frances Monck, My Canadian Leaves (London, 1891), p. 152.

20

Ibid., p. 154.

21

R.H.H. Hubbard, Rideau Hall (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967), p. 16. Hubbard records that both John A. Macdonald and John Brown were angered by the expense the government incurred when enlarging Rideau Hall. Macdonald, he notes, felt that "we have spent more money patching up Rideau Hall than a palace would have cost at Nepean Point," overlooking the new Parliament buildings. As quoted in ibid., p. 18.

22

R.H.H. Hubbard, Ample Mansions: The Vice-Regal Residences of the Canadian Provinces (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1989), p. 38.

23

NAC, MG 24,19, Hill Collection, Vol. 20, p. 5338, G.H. Perry to Daniel McLachlin, June 12,1866. NAC, MG 24, B40, George Brown Papers, Vol. 7, p. 1440, Brown to Anne, June 14, 1866. C.C.J. Bond, "The Canadian Government Comes to Ottawa, 1865-1866," Ontario History, Vol. IV, no. 1 (1963), pp. 23-34. Brockville Recorder, July 5, 1866. On the areal growth of Canada see Norman L. Nicholson, The Boundaries of the Canadian Confederation (Toronto: Macmillan, Carleton Library Series, No. 115, 1979). Goldwin Smith, as quoted in Eggleston, The Queen's Choice, p. 131.

24

25

26 27

28 29

30

The figure thirteen is derived as follows: Ottawa, ten provincial capitals, and the administrative centres for the two territories, Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Taylor, Ottawa, p. 61.

31

DeTwentVflntdesey,The Earth and the State Qtew York: Henry Holt, 1939), p. 196. For a review of some literature which examines the relationship between political authority and the physical environment see David B. Knight, "Impress of Authority andIdeologyonLandscape,"TijdschriftvoorEconomischeenSocialeGeografie,Vol. LXH, no. 6 (1971), pp. 383-387, and Dennis Rumley and Julian Minghi, editors, Border Landscapes (London: Routledge, 1991).

32

On the making of the contemporary Ottawa landscape — from a "Victorian city and national capital" to a "city transformed"—see Taylor, Ottawa. See also John Taylor, "Ottawa: The Emerging Capital," in Historical Atlas of Canada: Addressing the Twentieth Century, Vol. 3 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), plate 56.

Ottawa as Capital 377 33

See, for example, Chris Lund and Malek [Karsh], A Photographic Essay on Canada's Houses of Parliament (Ottawa: National Film Board, 1967), and Malek [Karsh], Ottawa and the National Capital Region (Toronto: Key Porter Books, 1990).

34

There is a "national capital region" of 1,800 square miles that embraces 72 municipalities in two provinces, with the National Capital Commission being both the major landholder in the area and a major land use planning agency. There is often conflict between the NCC and other federal agencies, most notably the Department of Public Works, and between federal governmental agencies and the many local governments over how lands and roads should be developed. Indeed, to Caroline Andrew, "The role of Ottawa-Hull as federal capital ensured fragmented, multilevelled competition between intervening governments [thus] local politics [became] intergovernmental relations." Caroline Andrew, "Ottawa-Hull," in W. Magnusson and A. Sancton, City Politics in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983), p. 141.

35

Deryck Holdsworth, "Architectural Expressions of the Canadian National State," Canadian Geographer, Vol. 30 (1986), p. 170.

378

Choosing Canada's Capital

CHAPTER 12 CONCLUSION AND REFLECTIONS (pp.337 —346) 1

R.J. Johnston, Political, Electoral and Spatial Systems (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), p. 129.

2

Careless, Frontier and Metropolis.

3

On group politico-territorial identities, see David B. Knight, "Identity and Territory: Geographical Perspectives on Nationalism and Regionalism," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 72 (1982), pp. 514-531. On the power of regionalisms within Canada, see David B. Knight, "Canada in Crisis: The Power of Regionalisms," in Tension Areas in World Affairs, G. Bennett, editor (Champaign, III:Park Press,1982),PP.254-279;idem,"Regionalisam and Nationalisms and the Canadian State," Journal of Geography, Vol. 83, no. 5 (1984), pp. 212-220.

4

An important perspective on what would happen to Montreal and other matters, if Quebec seceded, is given in Andrew F. Burghardt, "Quebec Separatism and the Future of Canada," in Geographical Approaches to Canadian Problems, R.L. Gentilcore, editor (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall of Canada, 1971), pp. 229-235. See also David B. Knight, "The Dilemma of Nations in a Rigid State Structured World," in Pluralism and Political Geography: People, Territory and State, N. Kliot and S. Waterman, editors (London: Croom Helm, 1983), pp. 114-137.

5

The term "forward capital" was proposed by Vaughan Cornish, The Great Capitals: An Historical Geography (London: Methuen, 1923).

6

On the issue of indigenous peoples see the important collection of essays in Bradford W. Morse, editor, Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: Indian, Metis and Inuit Rights in Canada, revised first edition (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, Carleton Library Series, No. 131, [1985], 1989) and, for an international perspective, DavidB. Knight, "Self-Determination for Indigenous Peoples: The Context for Change," in Nationalism, Self-Determination and Political Geography, RJ. Johnston, D.B. Knight and E. Kofman, editors (London: Croom Helm, 1988), pp. 117-134.

7

Clause 16 of the The 1867 British North America Act.

APPENDIX

RIDINGS IN THE PROVINCE OF CANADA 1841-1854,1854-1867

379

380

Choosing Canada's Capital

Figure 53. Ridings in the Province of Canada, 1841 -1854,1854-1867.

Appendix

381

NAMES OF RIDINGS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BY SECTION WITH NUMBERS KEYED TO FIGURE 53* CANADA WEST 1. Brant East 2. Brant West 3. Brockville [Bytown—see Ottawa] 4. Carleton 5. Cornwall 6. Dundas 7. Durham East 8. Durham West 9. Elgin East 10. Elgin West 11. Essex 12. Frontenac 13. Glengarry 14. Grenville South 15. Grey 16. Haldimand 17. Halton 18. Hamilton 19. Hastings North 20. Hastings South 21. Huron and Bruce 22. Kent 23. Kingston 24. Lambton 25. Lanark North 26. Lanark South 27. Leeds and Genville North 28. Leeds South 29. Lennox and Addington 30. Lincoln 31. London 32. Middlesex East

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Middlesex West Niagara Norfolk Northumberland East Northumberland West Ontario North Ontario South Ottawa [Bytown to 1855] Oxford North Oxford South Peel [York Second; York West] Perth Peterborough [NorthumberlandNorth] Prescott Prince Edward Renfrew Russell Simcoe North Simcoe South Stormont Toronto East Toronto West Victoria Waterloo North Waterloo South [Halton West] Welland [Lincoln South] Wellington North Wellington South Wentworth North Wentworth South York North [York Fourth] York East [York Third]

65. York West [York First; York South]

382

Choosing Canada's Capital CANADA EAST

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.

Argenteuil Bagot Beauce Beauharnois Bellechasse Berthier Bonaventure Brome Chambly Champlain Charlevoix Chateauguay Chicoutimi and Saguenay [Saguenay] Compton Dorchester Drummond and Arthabaska Gaspe Hochelaga Huntingdon Iberville Jacques Cartier [Montreal County] Joliette Kamouraska LaPrairie L'Assomption [Leinster] Laval L'Islet Levis Lotbiniere Maskinonge Megantic Missisquoi Montcalm

99. Montmagny 100. Montmorency 101. Montreal East 102. Montreal Centre 103. Montreal West 104. Napierville 105. Nicolet 106. Ottawa County 107. Pontiac 108. Portneuf 109. Quebec East 110. Quebec Centre 11 I.Quebec West 112. Quebec County 113. Richmond and Wolfe [Sherbrooke County; Sherbrooke and Wolfe] 114. Richelieu 115. Rimouski 116. RouviUe 117. St. Hyacinthe 118. St. Johns 119. St. Maurice 120. Shefford 121. Sherbrooke 122. Soulanges 123. Stanstead 124. Temiscouata 125. Terrebonne 126. Three Rivers/Trois-Rivieres 127. Two Mountains 128. Vaudreuil 129. Vercheres 130. Yamaska

* Earlier names of ridings are indicated within brackets. Source: After Cornell, The Alignment, Figure VI and maps A and C, but with many corrections added.

INDEX TO THE DOCUMENTS CHAPTER 3 THE FIRST COMPROMISE: KINGSTON 1.

Charles Poulett Thomson (Governor-General) to Lord John Russell (Colonial Secretary), March 13,1840

53

2.

The Union Act, 1840

53

3.

Charles Poulett Thomson (Governor-General) to Lord John Russell (Colonial Secretary), (Private and Confidential), May 22,1840

4.

(Governor-General), June 22,1840 5.

53

Lord John Russell (Colonial Secretary) to Charles Poulett Thomson 59

Lord Sydenham (Governor-General) to Lord John Russell (Colonia Secretary), October 28, 1840

59

Lord Sydenham (Governor-General) to Sir George Arthur (former Lieutenant Governor), December 14,1840

60

7.

(Kingston) Upper Canada Herald, February 2,1841

60

8.

(Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, February 6, 1841

60

9.

Lord Sydenham (Charles Poulett Thomson; Governor-General) to Sir George Arthur (former Governor of Upper Canada), February 10,1841.... 60 (Toronto) Examiner, February 10, 1841 60

6.

10. 11.

(Montreal) Morning Courier, February 10. 1841

60

12. 13. 14.

Quebec Mercury, March 6, 1841 Kingston Herald, May 18, 1841 (Montreal) Le Canadien, July 7, 1841

61 61 61

15.

Legislative Assembly, September 16,1841

61

16.

Stewart Derbishire (Legislative Assembly member for Bytown) to A.J. Christie (Editor, Bytown Gazette), September 16,1841

61

Address of the Legislative Assembly to Queen Victoria, September 16, 1841

62

18.

Sir Richard D. Jackson (Administrator of the Province of Canada) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), September, 8, 1841

65

19.

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Charles Bagot (GovernorGeneral), November 2, 1841

66

17.

383

384 20. 21.

Choosing Canada's Capital Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), (Confidential), January 19,1842 Quebec Mercury, September 29,1842

67 70

22.

Mr. Johnston, member for Carleton, in the Legislative Assembly when proposing Bytown as capital, October 5,1842

71

23.

Legislative Assembly as House in Committee, October 5,1842

72

24.

Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), October 8,1842

72

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Charles Bagot (GovernorGeneral), November 11,1842

73

Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), October 28,1842

73

Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), (confidential), November 11, 1842

74

Sir Charles Bagot (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), December 11, 1842

74

29.

Report of a Committee of the Executive Council to Sir Chrles Bagot (Governor-General), March 16, 1843

74

30.

33.

Protest dated March 20,1843, by Mr. Harrison, to the Executive Council's Committee Report of March 16, 1843 Montreal Gazette, May 22, 1843 Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, August 17, 1843 (RA) Montreal Gazette, August 28, 1843

82 83

34. 35.

Kingston Herald, September 12, 1843 (Montreal) Le Canadien, September 30, 1843

83 84

36.

Montreal Gazette, September 30, 1843

85

37.

Legislative Assembly, October 3,1843

86

38.

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Legislative Assembly, October 6, 1843

86

25. 26. 27. 28.

31. 32.

81 81

39.

Cornwall Observer, October 12, 1843

86

40.

Kingston Herald, October 17,1843

86

41. 42.

Legislative Assembly, November 3, 1843 Robert Baldwin, leading Canada West Reformer, in Legislative Assembly, November 3, 1843

87

43.

Mr. Boulton, member for Niagara, C.W., in Legislative Assembly, November 3,1843

87 88

Index to the Documents 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

385

Mr. Hincks, member for Oxford, C.W., in Legislative Assembly, November 3,1843

89

Dr. Tache, member for L'Islet, C.E., in the Legislative Assembly, November 3,1843

89

Mr. Derbishire, member for Bytown, in Legislative Assembly, November 4,1843

89

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), November 4,1843

89

R.E. Caron (Speaker of the Legislative Council) to Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General), November 8, 1843

89

49.

Joint Address of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly to Queen Victoria, November 8,1843 90

50.

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), November 9, 1843

91

51.

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), November 10,1843

91

52.

(Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, November 11,1843

92

53.

Sir Charles Metcalfe (Governor-General) to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), November 11,1843

92

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, November 17,1843

92

54. 55.

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, December [2?],

1843 (RA)

92

56.

Queen Victoria to Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary), December 3, 1843 (RA)

93

57.

Lord Stanley (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Charles Metcalfe (GovernorGeneral), December 2,1843

93

[Dunbar Ross], Seat of Government (Canada) (Quebec: November 20, 1843)

94

59.

Kingston News, January 4,1844

94

60.

Kingston Herald, January 9,1844

95

61.

James Hopkirk to Sir George Arthur, January 17,1844

95

5 8.

62.

(Toronto) Patriot, cited in Quebec Gazette, May 10,1844

95

63.

(Kingston) British Whig, June 21, 1844

95

64.

(Montreal) Morning Courier, June 25,1844

95

65.

Quebec Gazette, June 26,1844

96

386

Choosing Canada's Capital

CHAPTER 4 MONTREAL: THE PARIS OF CANADA 66.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), May 7,1847

105

67.

Statement in Journal of the Legislative Assembly, April25,1849

106

68.

Henry Rose to William Manson, May 7,1849

106

69.

(Toronto) Globe, April 28,1849

106

70.

(Kingston) British Whig, May 4,1849

106

71. 72.

(British) London Morning Chronicle, reprinted in Montreal Gazette, May 5,1849 (Kingston) British Whig, May 11,1849

106 107

73.

Legislative Assembly, May 19,1849

107

74.

Mr. Sherwood, member for Toronto West, C.W., in Legislative Assembly, May 19,1849 Excerpts from comments made in debate by several members of the Legislative Assembly, May 19, 1849

75. 76. 77. 78.

107 109

(Bytown) Packet, May 19,1849 109 Address from Legislative Assembly to Lord Elgin (Governor General), May 19,1849 110 Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Legislative Assembly, May 22,1849

Ill

79. 80. 81.

(Montreal)Pilot, May 22, 1849 Ill Resolution accepted by Legislative Council, May 25,1849 Ill Comments by two members of the Legislative Council, in debate on the resolution (selection 80), May 25, 1849 112

82. 83.

(Toronto) Globe, May 30,1849 Kingston City Council to Queen Victoria, June 1, 1849

112 113

84.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), June 3,1849

115

85. 86. 87.

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor -General), (private), June 22,1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), August 20,1849 Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), (private), September 12,1849

116 116 116

Index to the Documents 88. 89. 90.

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), September 14, 1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), August 27, 1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), September 3,1849

91. 92.

(Kingston) British Whig, September 21,1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), October 11,1849

93.

Extract from a Report of a Committee of the Executive Council, October 18,1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (confidential), October 19,1849 Toronto Mirror, cited in Montreal Gazette, October 20,1849

94. 95.

387 117 117 118 120 121 121 122 123

96. 97.

(Toronto) Globe, October 23,1849 (Kingston) Chronicle and Gazette, cited in (Toronto) British Colonist, November 2, 1849

123

98.

Montreal Gazette, October 23,1849

124

99.

Montreal Gazette, October 29,1849

124

100. 101.

(Kingston) British Whig, October 26,1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), October 25,1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), October 28,1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), November 1, 1849 Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), (private), November 16, 1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General), to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private) November 15,1849 Lord Elgin (Governor-General), to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), November 18,1849 Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), December 13,1849

124

126

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), January 1,1850

127

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), December 2,1849

127

102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109.

123

125 125 125 125 126 126

388 110.

Choosing Canada's Capital Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), January 14, 1850

128

CHAPTER 5 PERAMBULATION AND REFERRAL

111.

Times of London, January 10,1850

135

112. 113.

(Kingston) British Whig, May 10, 1850 Montreal Gazette, May 16, 1850

135 135

114.

Governor-General Lord Elgin in speech when opening Parliament, May 14,1850

135

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), (private), May 17, 1850

136

116.

Montreal Gazette, May 16, 1850

136

117.

Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary) to Lord Elgin (Governor-General), July 12,1850

136

118.

Mr. LaFontaine, member for Montreal Centre, C.E., in the Legislative Assembly, August 7,1850 (Toronto) British Colonist, August 13, 1850

136 136

120.

Lord Elgin (Governor-General) to Earl Grey (Colonial Secretary), February 4,1851

137

121.

(Bytown) Statesman, reprinted in (Kingston) British Whig, May 16,1851

137

122.

William Lyon Mackenzie, member for Haldimand, C.W., in a speech in the Legislative Assembly, May 20,1851 137

123.

Motion presented in Legislative Assembly by H.J. Boulton, member for Norfolk, C.W., July 30,1851 137

124.

Mr. Boulton, member for Norfolk, C.W., when presenting his motion in Legislative Assembly, June 12,1851 138

125.

William Lyon Mackenzie, member for Haldimand, C.W., in a speech in the Legislative Assembly, July 30, 1851 138

126.

Robert Baldwin, a senior C.W. member in the Ministry, in the Legislative Assembly, July 30, 1851

138

115.

119.

127.

(Toronto) British Colonist, September 2,1851

138

128.

Quebec Mercury, September 4, 1851

138

129.

Quebec Mercury, September 30, 1851

139

Index to the Documents

389

130. 131.

William Stewart, 'To the Electors of Bytown," October, 1851 W.L. Mackenzie in Haldimand Independent, October 11, 1851

139 139

132.

Quebec Mercury, October 18, 1851

139

133.

Quebec Mercury, October 21,1851

140

134.

Quebec Mercury, May 26,1853

140

135. 136.

Legislative Assembly, June 2,1853 141 W.L. Mackenzie, member for Haldimand, C.W., in speech in Legislative Assembly, June 2,1853 141

137.

Legislative Assembly, June 3,1853

138. 139.

G.B. Lyon, member for Russell, C.W., on the Ottawa River, speaking in the Legislative Assembly, June 3, 1853 142 Quebec Mercury, June 4,1853 142

141

140.

(Bytown) Citizen, June 11,1853

142

141. Quebec Mercury, February 11, 1854 142 142. 143.

Quebec Mercury, May 6,1854 Mr. Patrick, member for Grenville, C.W., in the Legislative Assembly, November 7,1854

143 143

144.

George Brown, Toronto, C.W., moved the following in the Legislative Assembly, November 7, 1854

143

145.

Mr. Hartman, member for York North, C.W., moved an amendmen to Brown's motion in Legislative Assembly, November 7,1854

143

146.

Various members of the Legislative Assembly during a debate November 7-8, 1854

143

147. 148. 149. 150. 151.

Quebec Mercury, November 9, 1854 Montreal Gazette, November 11, 1854 (Toronto) Leader, November 13, 1854 (Toronto) Leader, November 14, 1854 Ottawa Citizen, November 17,1854

144 145 145 146 146

152.

Ottawa Citizen, November 18, 1854

146

153.

Ottawa Citizen, December 23,1854

146

154.

Address of H.J. Friel, Mayor of Bytown, at the close of the Town Corporation; the town obtained its charter as the city of Ottawa, 1 January, 1855

146

155.

Executive Council to heads of Government Departments, January 30,1855

147

156.

John A. Macdonald to his sister, Louisa, February 21,1855

147

390 157. 158. 159.

Choosing Canada's Capital W. Patrick, member for Grenville, C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, March 22,1855 George Brown, member for Toronto, in Legislative Assembly, March 22, 1855 Additional comments by Members in Legislative Assembly,

147 147

March 22,1855

148

160.

Legislative Assembly, March 23,1855

148

161.

Montreal Gazette, March 26,1855

149

162.

(Toronto) Globe, March 30,1855

151

163.

(Toronto) Leader, March 30,1855

151

164.

Montreal Gazette, April 5,1855

152

165.

Address from Legislative Council to Sir Edmund Head (GovernorGeneral), April 25,1855

152

166.

(Toronto) Leader, April 27,1855

152

167.

Montreal Gazette, April 27, 1855

153

168.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir William Molesworth (Colonial Office), (private), August 7, 1855 Speech at Cobourg, C.W., by Sir Edmund Head (Governor -General), printed in Farmers Journal, Vol. 9, no. 7 (November 1855)

169.

153 153

CHAPTER 6 STALEMATE AND FRUSTRATION 170.

Legislative Assembly, March 17, 1856

170

171.

Montreal Gazette, March 26,1856

170

172.

(Montreal) Pilot, reprinted in Montreal Gazette, March 25,1856

171

173.

Montreal Gazette, March 27,1856

171

174.

Brockville Recorder, April 3,1856

171

175.

Dunbar Ross, The Seat of Government of Canada (Quebec, 1856)

172

176.

Legislative Assembly, April 14,1856

172

177. 178.

(Toronto) Globe, April 16, 1856 Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856

173

179.

Mr. Drummond, member for Shefford, C.E., and Attorney General East, speaking in the Legislative Assembly April 16,1856 173

173

Index to the Documents 180. 181. 182. 183.

391

E. Larwill, member for Kent, C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, April 16, 1856

174

J.-E. Turcotte, member for Maskinonge, C.E., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856

174

A member from Canada West speaking in reply to Turcotte in the Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856

174

Mr. Chabot, member for Quebec City, C.E., in Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856

174 174

184.

Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856

185.

George Brown, member for Toronto, C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, April 16, 1856 176

186.

Mr. Powell, member for Carleton, C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, April 16,1856

176

187.

Quebec Mercury, April 17, 1856

179

188.

Montreal Gazette, April 24,1856

180

189.

Legislative Assembly, 14-20 May, 1856

180

190.

A member in the Legislative Assembly, May 15, 1856

181

191.

(Toronto) Leader, June 9,1856

181

192.

Legislative Assembly, June 23, 1856

182

193.

Legislative Assembly, June 25, 1856

182

194.

Legislative Assembly, June 27,1856

183

195. 196.

Legislative Council, June 28, 1856 183 Excerpts from speeches in Legislative Council debates on the resolution (selection 185) 183

197.

Quebec Mercury, July 1, 1856

184

198.

Hamilton Spectator, July 8,1856

184

199. 200. 201.

Le Journal de Quebec, February, 1857 Quebec Mercury, February 24, 1857 (Toronto) Globe, March 7,1857

184 185 185

202.

(Toronto) Leader, March 10,1857

185

203.

Montreal Gazette, March 11,1857

185

204.

Brockville Recorder, March 12,1857

185

205.

Legislative Council, March 12, 1857

186

206.

Quebec Mercury, March 13,1857

186

207.

George Cartier, member for Vercheres, C.E., and senior member of the Ministry from C.E, speaking in the Legislative Assembly, March 17,1857

186

392

Choosing Canada's Capital

208.

Legislative Assembly, March 17, 1857

209.

Several members of the Legislative Assembly in debate,

186

March 17-20,1857

187

210.

John A. Macdonald to his sister, Louisa, March 17, 1857

188

211.

Montreal Gazette, March 23,1857

188

212. 213.

Amendment by Dorion, member for Montreal West, C.E., Legislative Assembly, March 17,1857 (Toronto) Globe, March 18,1857

188 188

214.

Carleton Place Herald, March 19,1857

188

215.

John A. Macdonald, member for Kingston, C .W., and senior member of the Ministry from C.W., speaking in the Legislative Assembly, March 19,1857

189

216.

Legislative Assembly, March 20,1857

189

217.

(Toronto) Leader, March 21,1857

190

218. 219.

Montreal Gazette, March 24,1857 Resolutions accepted by the Legislative Assembly, March 24, 1857

190 190

220.

Address from Legislative Assembly to Queen Victoria, March 24,1857

190

221. 222. 223. 224. 225.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary), March 28,1857 193 Herman Merivale (Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies) memo to Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary), April 13, 1857 196 Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) memo to Herman Merivale (Permanent Under Secretary for the Colonies), April 1857 196 Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Edmund Head (GovernorGeneral), April 17,1857 196 Extract from speech by Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) when proroguing Parliament, June 10, 1857

196

226.

(Nova Scotia) Acadian Recorder, April 25,1857

197

227.

Times of London, April 4,1857

197

228.

Letter from "Ego" (an Ottawa supporter residing in London) to the Editor, Times of London, April 21,1857

197

Quebec Mercury, April 23,1857 (in reaction to the article in the Times of London

198

229.

Index to the Documents

393

CHAPTER 7 THE CITY MEMORIALS

230.

R.T. Pennefalher (Governor's Secretary) to His Worship the Mayor of Toronto, Montreal, Kingston, Ottawa, and Quebec, March 28,1857

202

231.

Memorial of the Council of the Quebec Board of Trade, May 30,1857... 203

232.

Memorial of the City of Quebec, May 25,1857

206

233.

Letter from the Mayor of Toronto to the Right Hon. H. Labouchere, June 15,1857

210

234.

Memorandum relative to the policy and justice of continuing the seat-ofgovemment for the Province of Canada at Toronto, July 9,1857, from JohnNaylor, Actuary (in London) 218

235.

Memorial of the City of Montreal, May 27,1857

219

236.

Memorial of the City of Kingston, June 15,1857

226

237.

Memorial of the City of Ottawa, May 18,1857

233

238.

Map of Canada that accompanied Ottawa's Memorial to the Queen

237

239.

Centrality data from table on the map compiled to accompany Ottawa's 1857 memorial to the Queen 237

240.

Memorial from the Citizens of Hamilton (not dated)

238

CHAPTER 8 THE DECISION FOR OTTAWA

241.

Confidential Memorandum by Sir Edmund Head, containing reasons for fixing the seat-of-govemment for Canada at Ottawa (not dated)

250

242.

Opinion of the Inspector-General Fortifications (J.F. Burgoyne) as to the place which, in a Military point of view, it would be most desirable to select for the Seat of Government in Canada, September 26,1857

255

Confidential letter from General Lord Seaton to the Secretary of State for War, October 3,1857

256

Memorial of Sir Francis Bond Head, October 18,1857

257

243. 244.

394 245. 246.

Choosing Canada's Capital Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, October 16,1857 (RA)

260

Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Queen Victoria, October 30,1857 (RA)

261

247.

Pencil memorandum written in Lieutenant-General Hon. Charles Grey's hand, October, 1857 (RA) 261

248.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Arthur Blackwood (Colonial Office), (private), November 21,1857

249. 250. 251.

261

Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Prince Albert, December 15, 1857 (RA) 262 Prince Albert to Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary), December 18, 1857 262 Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Edmund Head (GovernorGeneral) December 31,1857 262

CHAPTER 9 PARLIAMENT REJECTS OTTAWA

252.

Quebec Mercury, August 27,1857

253.

John A. Macdonald to Charles Lindsey (editor of the Toronto Colonist), January 26, 1858 (Toronto) Leader, January 27, 1858. [This paper was produced after the Colonist released the news in the morning.]

277

255.

Ottawa Tribune, January 30,1858

278

256.

Quebec Mercury, January 28,1858

278

(Montreal) Pilot, January 28,1858

278

254.

257.

277 277

258.

Montreal Transcript, January 28,1858

279

259.

Montreal Transcript, January 28,1858

279

260.

(Toronto) Globe, January 28,1858

279

261.

(Toronto) Globe, February 1,1858

280

262.

(Ottawa) Gazette, February 4, 1858

280

263.

Boston Daily Advertiser, as reprinted in the (Halifax) Acadian Recorder, February 6,1858 280

264.

Hamilton Times, February 12,1858

280

Index to the Documents 265. 266.

395

Letter from "An Onlooker" to Editor of (Toronto) Globe, February 20, 1858 (Toronto) Globe, February 22, 1858

280 281

267. 268.

(Ottawa) Gazette, February 25,1858 281 Sir Edmund Head in Speech from the Throne when opening Parliament in Toronto, February 25, 1858 281

269.

Resolution passed by the Municipal Council of the City of Ottawa, April 5,1858

281

D'Arcy McGee, member for Montreal, C.E., in Legislative Assembly, June 22,1858

281

Henry Labouchere (Colonial Secretary) to Prince Albert, July 16,1858 (RA)

282

Motions by A. A. Dorion, member for Montreal West, C.E., in the Legislative Assembly, July 16,1858

282

270. 271. 272. 273.

Richard Scott, member for Ottawa, C.W., speaking against Dorion's first motion in the Legislative Assembly, July 16,1858 282

274.

George Cartier, member for Vercheres, C.E., speaking against Dorion's

275. 276. 277.

first motion in the Legislative Assembly, July 16,1858 282 (Montreal) Pilot, July 23, 1858, commenting on the debate on Dorion's motions in the Legislative Assembly, July 16, 1858 283 Motion by Mr. Piche, member for Berthier, C.E., in the Legislative Assembly, July 28,1858 283 John A. Macdonald in the Legislative Assembly, July 28,1858, speaking before the vote on the Pich6 motion

283

278.

Legislative Assembly, July 28,1858

283

279. 280.

(Toronto) Globe, July 29,1858 Montreal Transcript, July 30, 1858

283 283

CHAPTER 10 CRISIS BEFORE PARLIAMENT ACCEPTS OTTAWA

281. 282.

John A. Macdonald to Samuel Amsden, July 30,1858, explaining why his Ministry had to resign the day beforE

301

(Toronto) Globe, July 30,1858

301

396

Choosing Canada's Capital

283.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton

284.

(Colonial Secretary), October 22,1858 (Montreal) Pilot, August 2,1858

285.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), July 31,1858

301

286.

John A. Macdonald in an speech made in St. Catherines, C.W., n.d

304

287.

Ottawa Union, reprinted in (Toronto) Globe, August 7,1858

305

288.

(Toronto) Globe, August 2,1858

305

289.

George Cartier, speaking in the Legislative Assembly on

301 301

August 7,1858

307

290.

(Toronto) Leader, August 9,1858

307

291.

Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General), September 10, 1858

308

(Toronto) Leader, November 6,1858

308

292. 293.

Montreal Transcript, December 28,1858

308

294.

Montreal Transcript, December 31,1858

309

295.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), January 8,1859

309

296.

Journal de Quebec, reprinted in (Toronto) Leader, January 8,1859

310

297. 298.

(Toronto) Globe, January 20,1859 Ottawa Citizen, January 24, 1859

310 311

299. 300. 301.

Montreal Transcript, January 28, 1859 (Toronto) Leader, January 28, 1859 Letter to the Editor from "Syphax," (Toronto) Leader,

311 311

February 1,1859

312

(Toronto) Leader, February 1,1859 Extract from Speech from the Throne at opening of Parliament by

312

302. 303.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General), January 29,1859

313

304.

Legislative Council, February 2,1859

313

305.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), February 4,1859

313

306.

(Toronto) Leader, February 3, 1859

314

307. 308.

(Montreal) Pilot, February 4,1859 Richard Scott, member for Ottawa, speaking in the Legislative

314

309.

Assembly, February 1, 1859 Legislative Assembly, February 10,1859

315 315

Index to the Documents

397

310.

(Montreal) Pilot, February 15,1859 [regarding the division on February 10,1859] A.T. Gait (member of the Cartier-Macdonald Ministry), to

316

311.

B. Pomroy, February [11], 1859

317

312.

(Toronto) Globe, February 11,1859

317

313.

HamiltonTimes, February 12, 1859

317

314. 315.

Montreal Transcript, February 12,1859 Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Herman Merivale

317 317

316.

(Colonial Office), (private), February 12, 1859 Mr. McDougall, member for Oxford North, C.W., in the Legislative Assembly, February 10, 1859 Two members in the Legislative Assembly, February 10, 1859, speaking to McDougall's motion

318 318

John A. Macdonald in the Legislative Assembly, February 10,1859, speaking to McDougall's motion

318

317. 318. 319.

Extract from Address to Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) from the Legislative Assembly in Reply to Speech from the February 14,1859

319

320.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton 320

321.

(Colonial Secretary), February 15, 1859 Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary), March 19,1859 Sir E. Bulwer Lytton (Colonial Secretary) to Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General), March 17, 1859 (Kingston) British Whig, February 17, 1859 Montreal Transcript, February 19, 1859 Expenses Connected With The Several Removals of the Seat of Government, 1849-1858

321

322

326.

(Toronto) Globe, April 30,1859

322

327. 328. 329.

(Toronto) Globe, May 3,1859 (Toronto) Globe, May 4,1859 Extract from Speech by Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) when proroguing Parliament, May 4, 1859

323 323

330.

(Toronto) Leader, May 24,1859

324

331.

Sir Edmund Head (Governor-General) to Duke of Newcastle

322. 323. 324. 325.

(Colonial Secretary), August 29,1859

321 321 322

324

325

398

Choosing Canada's Capital

332.

(Toronto) Leader, September 14, 1859

333.

Ottawa Citizen, November 4,1859 [from the Quebec

334.

325

Correspondent of the Citizen}

325

Ottawa Citizen, May 12,1860

325