FOOTNOTES:

[19] Gunn and Tuttle's History of Manitoba, p. 303.

[20] Toronto Globe, January 25th, 1858.



CHAPTER XXII

THE RECIPROCITY TREATY OF 1874

Mr. Brown's position in regard to reciprocity has already been described. He set a high value upon the American market for Canadian products, and as early as 1863 he had urged the government of that day to prepare for the renewal of the treaty. He resigned from the coalition ministry, because, to use his own words, "I felt very strongly that though we in Canada derived great advantage from the treaty of 1854, the American people derived still greater advantage from it. I had no objection to that, and was quite ready to renew the old treaty, or even to extend it largely on fair terms of reciprocity. But I was not willing to ask for a renewal as a favour to Canada; I was not willing to offer special inducements for renewal without fair concessions in return; I was not willing that the canals and inland waters of Canada should be made the joint property of the United States and Canada and be maintained at their joint expense; I was not willing that the custom and excise duty of Canada should be assimilated to the prohibitory rates of the United States; and very especially was I unwilling that any such arrangement should be entered into with the United States, dependent on the frail tenure of reciprocal legislation, repealable at any moment at the caprice of either party." Unless a fair treaty for a definite term of years could be obtained, he thought it better that each country should take its own course and that Canada should seek new channels of trade.

The negotiations of 1866 failed, mainly because under the American offer, "the most important provisions of the expiring treaty, relating to the free interchange of the products of the two countries, were entirely set aside, and the duties proposed to be levied were almost prohibitory in their character." The free-list offered by the United States reads like a diplomatic joke: "burr-millstones, rags, fire-wood, grindstones, plaster and gypsum." The real bar in this and subsequent negotiations, was the unwillingness of the Americans to enter into any kind of arrangement for extended trade. They did not want to break in upon their system of protection, and they did not set a high value on access to the Canadian market. In most of the negotiations, the Americans are found trying to drive the best possible bargain in regard to the Canadian fisheries and canals, and fighting shy of reciprocity in trade. They considered that a free exchange of natural products would be far more beneficial to Canada than to the United States. As time went on, they began to perceive the advantages of the Canadian market for American manufactures. But when this was apparent, Canadian feeling, which had hitherto been unanimous for reciprocity, began to show a cleavage, which was sharply defined in the discussion preceding the election of 1891. Reciprocity in manufactures was opposed, because of the competition to which it would expose Canadian industries, and because it was difficult to arrange it without assimilating the duties of the two countries and discriminating against British imports into Canada.

In earlier years, however, even the inclusion of manufactures in the treaty of reciprocity was an inducement by which the Americans set little store. The rejected offer made by Canada in 1869, about the exact terms of which doubt exists, included a list of manufactures. In 1871 the American government declined to consider an offer to renew the treaty of 1854 in return for access to the deep sea fisheries of Canada. The Brown Treaty of 1874, which contained a list of manufactures, was rejected at Washington, while in Canada it was criticized as striking a blow at the infant manufactures of the country.

The Brown mission of 1874 was a direct result of the Treaty of Washington. Under that treaty there was to be an arbitration to determine the value of the American use of the Canadian inshore fisheries for twelve years, in excess of the value of the concessions made by the United States. Before the fall of the Macdonald government, Mr. Rothery, registrar of the High Court of Admiralty in England, arrived in Canada as the agent of the British government to prepare the Canadian case for arbitration. In passing through Toronto Mr. Rothery spoke to several public men with a view to acquiring information as to the value of the fisheries. Mr. Brown availed himself of that opportunity to suggest to him that a treaty of reciprocity in trade would be a far better compensation to Canada than a cash payment. Mr. Rothery carried this proposal to Washington, where it was received with some favour.

Meantime the Mackenzie government had been moving in the matter, and in February 1874, Mr. Brown was informed that there was a movement at Washington for the renewal of the old reciprocity treaty, and was asked to make an unofficial visit to that city and estimate the chances of success. On February 12th, he wrote: "We know as yet of but few men who are bitterly against us. I saw General Butler, at his request, on the subject, and I understand he will support us. Charles Sumner is heart and hand with us, and is most kind to me personally." On February 14th, he expressed his belief that if a bill for the renewal of the reciprocity treaty could be submitted to congress at once, it would be carried.

A British commission was issued on March 17th, 1874, appointing Sir Edward Thornton, British minister at Washington, and Mr. Brown, as joint plenipotentiaries to negotiate a treaty of fisheries, commerce and navigation with the government of the United States. This mode of representation was insisted upon by the Mackenzie government, in view of the unsatisfactory result of the negotiations of 1871, when Sir John A. Macdonald, as one commissioner out of six, made a gallant but unsuccessful fight for the rights of Canada. Mr. Brown was selected, not only because of his knowledge of and interest in reciprocity, but because of his attitude during the war, which had made him many warm friends among those who opposed slavery and stood for the union.

Negotiations were formally opened on March 28th. The Canadians proposed the renewal of the old reciprocity treaty, and the abandonment of the fishery arbitration. The American secretary of state, Mr. Fish, suggested the enlargement of the Canadian canals, and the addition of manufactures to the free list. The Canadian commissioners having agreed to consider these proposals, a project of a treaty was prepared to form a basis of discussion. It provided for the renewal of the old reciprocity treaty for twenty-one years, with the addition of certain manufactures; the abandonment of the fishery arbitration; complete reciprocity in coasting; the enlargement of the Welland and St. Lawrence canals; the opening of the Canadian, New York, and Michigan canals to vessels of both countries; the free navigation of Lake Michigan; the appointment of a joint commission for improving waterways, protecting fisheries and erecting lighthouses on the Great Lakes. Had the treaty been ratified, there would have been reciprocity in farm and other natural products, and in a very important list of manufactures, including agricultural implements, axles, iron, in the forms of bar, hoop, pig, puddled, rod, sheet or scrap; iron nails, spikes, bolts, tacks, brads and springs; iron castings; locomotives and railroad cars and trucks; engines and machinery for mills, factories and steamboats; fire-engines; wrought and cast steel; steel plates and rails; carriages, carts, wagons and sleighs; leather and its manufactures, boots, shoes, harness and saddlery; cotton grain bags, denims, jeans, drillings, plaids and ticking; woollen tweeds; cabinet ware and furniture, and machines made of wood; printing paper for newspapers, paper-making machines, type, presses, folders, paper cutters, ruling machines, stereotyping and electrotyping apparatus. In general terms, it was as near to unrestricted reciprocity as was possible without raising the question of discriminating against the products of Great Britain.

Mr. Brown found that American misapprehensions as to Canada, its revenue, commerce, shipping, railways and industries were "truly marvellous." It was generally believed that the trade of Canada was of little value to the United States; that the reciprocity treaty had enriched Canada at their expense; and that the abolition of the treaty had brought Canada nearly to its wits' end. There was some excuse for these misapprehensions. Until confederation, the trade returns from the different provinces were published separately, if at all. No clear statement of the combined traffic of the provinces with the United States was published until 1874, and even Canadians were ignorant of its extent. American protectionists founded a "balance of trade" argument on insufficient data. They saw that old Canada sold large quantities of wheat and flour to the United States, but not that the United States sent larger quantities to the Maritime Provinces; that Nova Scotia and Cape Breton sold coal to Boston and New York, but not that five times as much was sent from Pennsylvania to Canada. Brown prepared a memorandum showing that the British North American provinces, from 1820 to 1854, had bought one hundred and sixty-seven million dollars worth of goods from the United States, and the United States only sixty-seven million dollars worth from the provinces; that in the thirteen years of the treaty, the trade between the two countries was six hundred and thirty million dollars according to the Canadian returns, and six hundred and seventy million dollars according to the American returns; and that the so-called "balance of trade" in this period was considerably against Canada. It was shown that the repeal of the treaty did not ruin Canadian commerce; that the external trade of Canada which averaged one hundred and fifteen million dollars a year from 1854 to 1862, rose to one hundred and forty-two million dollars in the year following the abrogation, and to two hundred and forty million dollars in 1873. In regard to wheat, flour, provisions, and other commodities of which both countries had a surplus, the effect of the prohibitory American duties had been to send the products of Canada to compete with those of the United States in neutral markets.

This memorandum was completed on April 27th and was immediately handed to Mr. Fish. It was referred to the treasury department, where it was closely examined and admitted to be correct. From that time there was a marked improvement in American feeling.

Brown also carried on a vigorous propaganda in the newspapers. In New York the Tribune, Herald, Times, World, Evening Post, Express, Journal of Commerce, Graphic, Mail, and other journals, declared in favour of a new treaty; and in Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati and other large cities, the press was equally favourable. A charge originated in Philadelphia and was circulated in the United States and Canada, that this unanimity of the press was obtained by the corrupt use of public money. Mr. Brown, in his speech in the senate of Canada denied this; said that not a shilling had been spent illegitimately, and that the whole cost of the negotiation to the people of Canada would be little more than four thousand dollars.

In his correspondence Brown speaks of meeting Senator Conkling, General Garfield and Carl Schurz, all of whom were favourable. Secretary Fish is described as courteous and painstaking, but timid and lacking in grasp of the subject, and Brown speaks impatiently of the delays that are throwing the consideration of the draft treaty over to the end of the session of congress.

It did not reach the senate until two days before adjournment. "The president" wrote Mr. Brown on June 20th, "sent a message to the senate with the treaty, urging a decision before the adjournment of congress. I thought the message very good; but it has the defect of not speaking definitely of this message as his own and his government's and calling on the senate to sustain him. Had he done this, the treaty would have been through now. But now, with a majority in its favour, there seems some considerable danger of its being thrown over until December." The treaty was sent to the Foreign Relations Committee of the senate. "There were six present; three said to be for us, one against, and two for the measure personally, but wanted to hear from the country before acting. How it will end, no one can tell." As a matter of fact it ended there and then, as far as the United States were concerned.

Of the objections urged against the treaty in Canada, the most significant was that directed against the free list of manufactures. This was, perhaps, the first evidence of the wave of protectionist sentiment that overwhelmed the Mackenzie government. In his speech in the senate, in 1875, justifying the treaty, Mr. Brown said: "Time was in Canada when the imposition of duty on any article was regarded as a misfortune, and the slightest addition to an existing duty was resented by the people. But increasing debt brought new burdens; the deceptive cry of 'incidental protection' got a footing in the land; and from that the step has been easy to the bold demand now set up by a few favoured industries, that all the rest of the community ought to be, and should rejoice to be, taxed seventeen and a half per cent, to keep them in existence."

Brown joined issue squarely with the protectionists. "I contend that there is not one article contained in the schedules that ought not to be wholly free of duty, either in Canada or the United States, in the interest of the public. I contend that the finance minister of Canada who—treaty or no treaty with the United States—was able to announce the repeal of all customs duties on the entire list of articles in Schedules A, B, and C,—even though the lost revenue was but shifted to articles of luxury, would carry with him the hearty gratitude of the country. Nearly every article in the whole list of manufactures is either of daily consumption and necessity among all classes of our population, or an implement of trade, or enters largely into the economical prosecution of the main industries of the Dominion." The criticism of the sliding scale, of which so much was heard at the time, was only another phase of the protectionist objection. The charge that the treaty would discriminate in favour of American against British imports was easily disposed of. Brown showed that every article admitted free from the United States would be admitted free from Great Britain. But as this meant British as well as American competition, it made the case worse from the protectionist point of view. The rejection of the treaty by the United States left a clear field for the protectionists in Canada.

Four years after Mr. Brown's speech defending the treaty, he made his last important speech in the senate, and almost the last public utterance of his life, attacking Tilley's protectionist budget, and nailing his free-trade colours to the mast.



CHAPTER XXIII

CANADIAN NATIONALISM

It will be remembered that after the victory won by the Reformers in 1848, there was an outbreak of radical sentiment, represented by the Clear Grits in Upper Canada and by the Rouges in Lower Canada. It may be more than a coincidence that there was a similar stirring of the blood in Ontario and in Quebec after the Liberal victory of 1874. The founding of the Liberal and of the Nation, of the National Club and of the Canada First Association, Mr. Blake's speech at Aurora, and Mr. Goldwin Smith's utterances combined to mark this period as one of extraordinary intellectual activity. Orthodox Liberalism was disquieted by these movements. It had won a great, and as was then believed, a permanent victory over Macdonald and all that he represented, and it had no sympathy with a disturbing force likely to break up party lines, and to lead young men into new and unknown paths.

The platform of Canada First was not in itself revolutionary. It embraced, (1) British connection; (2) closer trade relations with the British West India Islands, with a view to ultimate political connection; (3) an income franchise; (4) the ballot, with the addition of compulsory voting; (5) a scheme for the representation of minorities; (6) encouragement of immigration and free homesteads in the public domain; (7) the imposition of duties for revenue so adjusted as to afford every possible encouragement to native industry; (8) an improved militia system under command of trained Dominion officers; (9) no property qualifications in members of the House of Commons; (10) reorganization of the senate; (11) pure and economic administration of public affairs. This programme was severely criticized by the Globe. Some of the articles, such as purity and economy, were scornfully treated as commonplaces of politics. "Yea, and who knoweth not such things as these." The framers of the platform were rebuked for their presumption in setting themselves above the old parties, and were advised to "tarry in Jericho until their beards be grown."

But the letter of the programme did not evince the spirit of Canada First, which was more clearly set forth in the prospectus of the Nation. There it was said that the one thing needful was the cultivation of a national spirit. The country required the stimulus of patriotism. Old prejudices of English, Scottish, Irish and German people were crystallized. Canadians must assert their nationality, their position as members of a nation. These and other declarations were analyzed by the Globe, and the heralds of the new gospel were pressed for a plainer avowal of their intentions. Throughout the editorial utterances of the Globe there was shown a growing suspicion that the ulterior aim of the Canada First movement was to bring about the independence of Canada. The quarrel came to a head when Mr. Goldwin Smith was elected president of the National Club. The Globe, in its issue of October 27th, 1874, brought its heaviest artillery to bear on the members of the Canada First party. It accused them of lack of courage and frankness. When brought to book as to their principles, it said, they repudiated everything. They repudiated nativism; they repudiated independence; they abhorred the very idea of annexation. The movement was without meaning when judged by these repudiations, but was very significant and involved grave practical issues when judged by the practices of its members. They had talked loudly and foolishly of emancipation from political thraldom, as if the present connection of Canada with Great Britain were a yoke and a burden too heavy and too galling to be borne. They had adopted the plank of British connection by a majority of only four. They had chosen as their standard-bearer, their prophet and their president, one whose chief claim to prominence lay in the persistency with which he had advocated the breaking up of the British empire. Mr. Goldwin Smith had come into a peaceful community to do his best for the furtherance of a cause which meant simply revolution. The advocacy of independence, said the Globe, could not be treated as an academic question. It touched every Canadian in his dearest and most important relations. It jeopardized his material, social and religious interests. Canada was not a mere dead limb of the British tree, ready to fall of its own weight. The union was real, and the branch was a living one. Great Britain, it was true, would not fight to hold Canada against her will, but if the great mass of Canadians believed in British connection, those who wished to break the bond must be ready to take their lives in their hands. The very proposal to cut loose from Britain would be only the beginning of trouble. In any case what was sought was revolution, and those who preached it ought to contemplate all the possibilities of such a course. They might be the fathers and founders of a new nationality, but they might also be simply mischief-makers, whose insignificance and powerlessness were their sole protection, who were not important enough for "either a traitor's trial or a traitor's doom."

Mr. Goldwin Smith's reply to this attack was that he was an advocate, not of revolution but of evolution. "Gradual emancipation," he said, "means nothing more than the gradual concession by the mother country to the colonies of powers of self-government; this process has already been carried far. Should it be carried further and ultimately consummated, as I frankly avow my belief it must, the mode of proceeding will be the same that it has always been. Each step will be an Act of parliament passed with the assent of the Crown. As to the filial tie between England and Canada, I hope it will endure forever."

Mr. Goldwin Smith's views were held by some other members of the Canada First party. Another and a larger section were Imperialists, who believed that Canada should assert herself by demanding a larger share of self-government within the empire, and by demanding the privileges and responsibilities of citizens of the empire. The bond that united the Imperialists and the advocates of independence was national spirit. This was what the Globe failed to perceive, or at least to recognize fully. Its article of October 27th is powerful and logical, strong in sarcasm and invective. It displays every purely intellectual quality necessary for the treatment of the subject, but lacks the insight that comes from imagination and sympathy. The declarations of those whose motto was "Canada first," could fairly be criticized as vague, but this vagueness was the result, not of cowardice or insincerity, but of the inherent difficulty of putting the spirit of the movement into words. A youth whose heart is stirred by all the aspirations of coming manhood, "yearning for the large excitement that the coming years would yield," might have the same hesitation in writing down his yearnings and aspirations on a sheet of paper, and might be as unwisely snubbed by his elders.

The greatest intellect of the Liberal party felt the impulse. At Aurora Edward Blake startled the more cautious members of the party by advocating the federation of the empire, the reorganization of the senate, compulsory voting, extension of the franchise and representation of minorities. His real theme was national spirit. National spirit would be lacking until we undertook national responsibilities. He described the Canadian people as "four millions of Britons who are not free." By the policy of England, in which we had no voice or control, Canada might be plunged into the horrors of war. Recently, without our consent, the navigation of the St. Lawrence had been ceded forever to the United States. We could not complain of these things unless we were prepared to assume the full responsibilities of citizenship within the empire. The young men of Canada heard these words with a thrill of enthusiasm, but the note was not struck again. The movement apparently ceased, and politics apparently flowed back into their old channels. But while the name, the organization and the organs of Canada First in the press disappeared, the force and spirit remained, and exercised a powerful influence upon Canadian politics for many years.

There can be little doubt that the Liberal party was injured by the uncompromising hostility which was shown to the movement of 1874. Young men, enthusiasts, bold and original thinkers, began to look upon Liberalism as a creed harsh, dry, tyrannical, unprogressive and hostile to new ideas. When the independent lodgment afforded by Canada First disappeared, many of them drifted over to the Conservative party, whose leader was shrewd enough to perceive the strength of the spirit of nationalism, and to give it what countenance he could. Protection triumphed at the polls in 1878, not merely by the use of economic arguments, but because it was heralded as the "National Policy" and hailed as a declaration of the commercial independence of Canada. A few years later the legislation for the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, bold to the point of rashness, as it seemed, and unwise and improvident in some of its provisions, was heartily approved by the country, because it was regarded as a measure of national growth and expansion. The strength of the Conservative party from 1878 to 1891 was largely due to its adoption of the vital principle and spirit of Canada First.

The Globe's attacks upon the Canada First party also had the effect of fixing in the public mind a picture of George Brown as a dictator and a relentless wielder of the party whip, a picture contrasting strangely with those suggested by his early career. He had fought for responsible government, for freedom from clerical dictation; he had been one of the boldest of rebels against party discipline; he had carelessly thrown away a great party advantage in order to promote confederation; he had been the steady opponent of slavery. In 1874 the Liberals were in power both at Ottawa and at Toronto, and Mr. Brown may not have been free from the party man's delusion that when his party is in power all is well, and agitation for change is mischievous. Canada First threatened to change the formation of political parties, and seemed to him to threaten a change in the relations of Canada to the empire. But these explanations do not alter the fact that his attitude caused the Liberal party to lose touch with a movement characterized by intellectual keenness and generosity of sentiment, representing a real though ill-defined national impulse, and destined to leave its mark upon the history of the country.



CHAPTER XXIV

LATER YEARS

In the preceding chapters it has been necessary to follow closely the numerous public movements with which Brown was connected. Here we may pause and consider some incidents of his life and some aspects of his character which lie outside of these main streams of action. First, a few words about the Brown household. Of the relations between father and son something has already been said. Of his mother, Mr. Alexander Mackenzie says: "We may assume that Mr. Brown derived much of his energy, power and religious zeal from his half Celtic origin: these qualities he possessed in an eminent degree, united with the proverbial caution and prudence of the Lowlander." The children, in the order of age, were Jane, married to Mr. George Mackenzie of New York; George; Isabella, married to Mr. Thomas Henning; Katherine, who died unmarried; Marianne, married to the Rev. W. S. Ball; and John Gordon. There were no idlers in that family. The publication of the Globe in the early days involved a tremendous struggle. Peter Brown lent a hand in the business as well as in the editorial department of the paper. A good deal of the writing in the Banner and the early Globe seems to bear the marks of his broad Liberalism and his passionate love of freedom. Gordon entered the office as a boy, and rose to be managing editor. Three of the daughters conducted a ladies' school, which enjoyed an excellent reputation for thoroughness. Katherine, the third daughter, was killed in a railway accident at Syracuse; and the shock seriously affected the health of the father, who died in 1863. The mother had died in the previous year.

By these events and by marriages the busy household was broken up. George Brown, as we have seen, married in 1862, and from that time until his death his letters to his wife and children show an intense affection and love of home. After her husband's death Mrs. Brown resided in Edinburgh, where she died on May 6th 1906. The only son, George M. Brown, was, in the last parliament, member of the British House of Commons for Centre Edinburgh, and is one of the firm of Thomas Nelson & Sons, publishers. In the same city reside two daughters, Margaret, married to Dr. A. F. H. Barbour, a well-known physician, and writer on medicine; and Edith, wife of George Sandeman. Among other survivors are, E. B. Brown, barrister, Toronto; Alfred S. Ball, K.C., police magistrate, Woodstock; and Peter B. Ball, commercial agent for Canada at Birmingham, nephews of George Brown.

From 1852 George Brown was busily engaged in public life, and a large part of the work of the newspaper must have fallen on other shoulders. There are articles in which one may fancy he detects the French neatness of William Macdougall. George Sheppard spoke at the convention of 1859 like a statesman; and he and Macdougall had higher qualities than mere facility with the pen. Gordon Brown gradually grew into the editorship. "He had" says Mr. E. W. Thomson, writing of a later period, "a singular power of utilizing suggestions, combining several that were evidently not associated, and indicating how they could be merged in a striking manner. He seems to me now to have been the greatest all-round editor I have yet had the pleasure of witnessing at work, and in the political department superior to any of the old or of the new time in North America, except only Horace Greeley." But Mr. Thomson thinks that like most of the old-timers he took his politics a little too hard. Mr. Gordon Brown died in June, 1896.

Mr. Brown regarded his defeat in South Ontario in 1867, as an opportunity to retire from parliamentary life. He had expressed that intention several months before. He wrote to Holton, on May 13th, 1867, "My fixed determination is to see the Liberal party re-united and in the ascendant, and then make my bow as a politician. As a journalist and a citizen, I hope always to be found on the right side and heartily supporting my old friends. But I want to be free to write of men and things without control, beyond that which my conscientious convictions and the interests of my country demand. To be debarred by fear of injuring the party from saying that—is unfit to sit in parliament and that—is very stupid, makes journalism a very small business. Party leadership and the conducting of a great journal do not harmonize."

In his speech at the convention of 1867 he said that he had looked forward to the triumph of representation by population as the day of his emancipation from parliamentary life, but that the case was altered by the proposal to continue the coalition, involving a secession from the ranks of the Liberal party. In this juncture it was necessary for Liberals to unite and consult, and if it were found that his continuance in parliamentary life for a short time would be a service to the party, he would not refuse. It would be impossible, however, for him to accept any official position, and he did not wish, by remaining in parliament, to stand in the way of those who would otherwise become leaders of the party. He again emphasized the difficulty of combining the functions of leadership of a party and management of a newspaper. "The sentiments of the leader of a party are only known from his public utterances on public occasions. If a wrong act is committed by an opponent or by a friend, he may simply shrug his shoulders." But it was otherwise with the journalist. He had been accused of fierce assaults on public men. "But I tell you if the daily thoughts and the words daily uttered by other public men were written in a book as mine have been, and circulated all over the country, there would have been a very different comparison between them and myself. I have had a double duty to perform. If I had been simply the leader of a party and had not controlled a public journal, such things would not have been left on record. I might have passed my observations in private conversation, and no more would have been heard of them. But as a journalist it was necessary I should speak the truth before the people, no matter whether it helped my party or not; and this, of course, reflected on the position of the party. Consequently, I have long felt very strongly that I had to choose one position or the other—that of a leader in parliamentary life, or that of a monitor in the public press—and the latter has been my choice being probably more in consonance with my ardent temperament, and at the same time, in my opinion, more influential; for I am free to say that in view of all the grand offices that are now talked of—governorships, premierships and the like—I would rather be editor of the Globe, with the hearty confidence of the great mass of the people of Upper Canada, than have the choice of them all."

Of Mr. Brown's relations with the parliamentary leaders after his retirement, Mr. Mackenzie says: "Nor did he ever in after years attempt to control or influence parliamentary proceedings as conducted by the Liberals in opposition, or in the government; while always willing to give his opinion when asked on any particular question, he never volunteered his advice. His opinions, of course, received free utterance in the Globe, which was more unfettered by reason of his absence from parliamentary duties; though even there it was rarely indeed that any articles were published which were calculated to inconvenience or discomfort those who occupied his former position."[21]

Left comparatively free to follow his own inclinations, Brown plunged into farming, spending money and energy freely in the raising of fine cattle on his Bow Park estate near Brantford, an extensive business which ultimately led to the formation of a joint stock company. The province of Ontario, especially western Ontario, was for him the object of an intense local patriotism. He loved to travel over it and to meet the people. It was noticed in the Globe office that he paid special attention to the weekly edition of the paper, as that which reached the farming community. His Bow Park enterprise gave him an increased feeling of kinship and sympathy with that community, and he delighted in showing farmers over the estate. It would be hard to draw a more characteristic picture than that of the tall senator striding over the fields, talking of cattle and crops with all the energy with which he was wont to denounce the Tories.

Brown was appointed to the senate in December, 1873. Except for the speech on reciprocity, which is dealt with elsewhere, his career there was not noteworthy. He seems to have taken no part in the discussion on Senator Vidal's resolution in favour of prohibition, or on the Scott Act, a measure for introducing prohibition by local option. A popular conception of Brown as an ardent advocate of legislative prohibition may have been derived from some speeches made in his early career, and from an early prospectus of the Globe. On the bill providing for government of the North-West Territories he made a speech against the provision for separate schools, warning the House that the effect would be to fasten these institutions on the West in perpetuity.

In 1876 Senator Brown figured in a remarkable case of contempt of court. A Bowmanville newspaper had charged Senator Simpson, a political ally of Brown, with resorting to bribery in the general election of 1872. It published also a letter from Senator Brown to Senator Simpson, asking him for a subscription towards the Liberal campaign fund. On Senator Simpson's application, Wilkinson, the editor of the paper, was called upon to show cause why a criminal information should not issue against him for libel. The case was argued before the Queen's Bench, composed of Chief-Justice Harrison, Justice Morrison, and Justice Wilson. The judgment of the court delivered by the chief-justice was against the editor in regard to two of the articles complained of and in his favour in regard to the third. In following the chief-justice, Mr. Justice Wilson took occasion to refer to Senator Brown's letter and to say that it was written with corrupt intent to interfere with the freedom of elections.

Brown was not the man to allow a charge of this kind to go unanswered, and in this case there were special circumstances calculated to arouse his anger. The publication of his letter in the Bowmanville paper had been the signal for a fierce attack upon him by the Conservative press of the province. It appeared to him that Justice Wilson had wantonly made himself a participant in this attack, lending the weight of his judicial influence to his enemies. Interest was added to the case by the fact that the judge had been in previous years supported by the Globe in municipal and parliamentary elections. He had been solicitor-general in the Macdonald-Sicotte government from May 1862 to May 1863. Judge Morrison had been solicitor-general under Hincks, and afterwards a colleague of John A. Macdonald. Each of them, in this case, took a course opposite to that which might have been expected from old political associations.

A few days afterwards the Globe contained a long, carefully prepared and powerful attack upon Mr. Justice Wilson. Beginning with a tribute to the Bench of Ontario, it declared that no fault was to be found with the judgment of the court, and that the offence lay in the gratuitous comments of Mr. Justice Wilson.

"No sooner had the chief-justice finished than Mr. Justice Wilson availed himself of the occasion to express his views of the matter with a freedom of speech and an indifference to the evidence before the court and an indulgence in assumptions, surmises and insinuations, that we believe to be totally unparalleled in the judicial proceedings of any Canadian court."

The article denied that the letter was written with any corrupt intent, and it stated that the entire fund raised by the Liberal party in the general election of 1872 was only three thousand seven hundred dollars, or forty-five dollars for each of the eighty-two constituencies. "This Mr. Justice Wilson may rest assured of: that such slanders and insults shall not go unanswered, and if the dignity of the Bench is ruffled in the tussle, on his folly shall rest the blame. We cast back on Mr. Wilson his insolent and slanderous interpretation. The letter was not written for corrupt purposes. It was not written to interfere with the freedom of elections. It was not an invitation to anybody to concur in committing bribery and corruption at the polls; and be he judge or not who says so, this statement is false."

The writer went on to contend that there were perfectly legitimate expenditures in keenly contested elections. "Was there no such fund when Mr. Justice Wilson was in public life? When the hat went round in his contest for the mayoralty, was that or was it not a concurrence in bribery or corruption at the polls?" Mr. Justice Wilson had justified his comment by declaring that he might take notice of matters with which every person of ordinary intelligence was acquainted. Fastening upon these words the Globe asked, "How could Mr. Justice Wilson in his hunt for things which every person of ordinary intelligence is acquainted with, omit to state that while the entire general election fund of the Liberal party for that year (1872) was but three thousand seven hundred dollars, raised by subscription from a few private individuals, the Conservative fund on the same occasion amounted to the enormous sum of two hundred thousand dollars, raised by the flagitious sale of the Pacific Railway contract to a band of speculators on terms disastrous to the interests of the country."

In another vigorous paragraph the writer said: "We deeply regret being compelled to write of the conduct of any member of the Ontario Bench in the tone of this article, but the offence was so rank, so reckless, so utterly unjustifiable that soft words would have but poorly discharged our duty to the public."

No proceedings were taken in regard to this article until about five months afterwards, when Mr. Wilkinson, the editor of the Bowmanville paper, applied to have Mr. Brown committed for contempt of court. The judge assailed took no action and the case was tried before his colleagues, Chief-Justice Harrison and Judge Morrison. Mr. Brown appeared in person and made an argument occupying portions of two days. He pointed out that the application had been delayed five months after the publication of the article. He contended that Wilkinson was not prejudiced by the Globe article and had no standing in the case. In a lengthy affidavit he entered into the whole question of the expenditure of the two parties in the election of 1872, including the circumstances of the Pacific Scandal. He repeated on oath the statement made in the article that his letter was not written with corrupt intent; that the subscription asked for was for legitimate purposes and that it was part of a fund amounting to only three thousand seven hundred dollars for the whole province of Ontario. He boldly justified the article as provoked by Mr. Justice Wilson's dictum and by the use that would be made of it by hostile politicians. The judge had chosen to intervene in a keen political controversy whose range extended to the Pacific Scandal; and in defending himself from his enemies and the enemies of his party, Brown was forced to answer the judge. He argued that to compel an editor to keep silence in such a case, would not only be unjust to him, but contrary to public policy. For instance, the discussion of a great public question such as that involved in the Pacific Scandal, might be stopped upon the application of a party to a suit in which that question was incidentally raised.

The case was presented with his accustomed energy and thoroughness, from the point of view of journalistic duty, of politics and of law—for Mr. Brown was not afraid to tread that sacred ground and give extensive citations from the law reports. His address may be commended to any editor who may be pursued by that mysterious legal phantom, a charge of contempt of court. The energy of his gestures, the shaking of the white head and the swinging of the long arms, must have somewhat startled Osgoode Hall. The court was divided, the chief-justice ruling that there had been contempt, Mr. Justice Morrison, contra, and Mr. Justice Wilson taking no part in the proceedings. So the matter dropped, though not out of the memory of editors and politicians.

FOOTNOTES:

[21] Mackenzie's Life and Speeches of the Hon. George Brown, p. 119.



CHAPTER XXV

CONCLUSION

The building in which the life of the Hon. George Brown was so tragically ended, was one that had been presented to him by the Reformers of Upper Canada before confederation "as a mark of the high sense entertained by his political friends of the long, faithful and important services which he has rendered to the people of Canada." It stood upon the north side of King Street, on ground which is now the lower end of Victoria Street, for the purpose of extending which, the building was demolished. The ground floor was occupied by the business office; on the next, looking out upon King Street, was Mr. Brown's private office; and above that the rooms occupied by the editorial staff, with the composing room in the rear. At about half past four o'clock on the afternoon of March 25th, 1880, several of the occupants of the editorial rooms heard a shot, followed by a sound of breaking glass, and cries of "Help!" and "Murder!" Among these were Mr. Avern Pardoe, now librarian of the legislative assembly of Ontario; Mr. Archibald Blue, now head of the census bureau at Ottawa; Mr. John A. Ewan, now leader writer on the Globe; and Mr. Allan S. Thompson, father of the present foreman of the Globe composing room. Mr. Ewan and Mr. Thompson were first to arrive on the scene. Following the direction from which the sounds proceeded, they found Mr. Brown on the landing, struggling with an undersized man, whose head was thrust into Brown's breast. Mr. Ewan and Mr. Thompson seized the man, while Mr. Brown himself wrested a smoking pistol from his hand. Mr. Blue, Mr. Pardoe and others quickly joined the group, and Mr. Brown, though not apparently severely injured, was induced to lie on the sofa in his room, where his wound was examined. The bullet had passed through the outer side of the left thigh, about four inches downward and backward; it was found on the floor of the office.

The assailant was George Bennett, who had been employed in the engine room of the Globe for some years, and had been discharged for intemperance. Mr. Brown said that when Bennett entered the office he proceeded to shut the door behind him. Thinking the man's movements singular, Mr. Brown stopped him and asked him what he wanted. Bennett, after some hesitation, presented a paper for Mr. Brown's signature, saying that it was a statement that he had been employed in the Globe for five years. Mr. Brown said he should apply to the head of the department in which he was employed. Bennett said that the head of the department had refused to give the certificate. Mr. Brown then told him to apply to Mr. Henning, the treasurer of the company, who could furnish the information by examining his books.

Bennett kept insisting that Mr. Brown should sign the paper, and finally began to fumble in his pistol pocket, whereupon it passed through Mr. Brown's mind "that the little wretch might be meaning to shoot me." As he got the pistol out, Mr. Brown seized his wrist and turned his hand downward. After one shot had been fired, the struggle continued until the two got outside the landing, where they were found as already described.

The bullet had struck no vital part, and the wound was not considered to be mortal. But as week after week passed without substantial improvement, the anxiety of his friends and of the country deepened. At the trial the question was raised whether recovery had been prevented by the fact that Mr. Brown, against the advice of his physician, transacted business in his room. After the first eight or ten days there were intervals of delirium. Towards the end of April when the case looked very serious, Mr. Brown had a long conversation with the Rev. Dr. Greig, his old pastor, and with members of his family. "In that conversation," says Mr. Mackenzie, "he spoke freely to them of his faith and hope, and we are told poured out his soul in full and fervent prayer," and he joined heartily in the singing of the hymn "Rock of Ages." A few days afterwards he became unconscious; the physicians ceased to press stimulants or nourishment upon him, and early on Sunday, May 10th, he passed away.

Bennett was tried and found guilty of murder on June 22nd following, and was executed a month afterwards. Though he caused the death of a man so conspicuous in the public life of Canada, his act is not to be classed with assassinations committed from political motives, or even from love of notoriety. On the scaffold he said that he had not intended to kill Mr. Brown. However this may be, it is certain that it was not any act of Mr. Brown's that set up that process of brooding over grievances that had so tragic an ending. By misfortune and by drinking, a mind, naturally ill-regulated had been reduced to that condition in which enemies are seen on every hand. A paper was found upon him in which he set forth a maniacal plan of murdering a supposed enemy and concealing the remains in the furnace of the Globe building. That the original object of his enmity was not Mr. Brown is certain; there was not the slightest ground for the suspicion that the victim was made to suffer for some enmity aroused in his strenuous career as a public man. Strange that after such a career he should meet a violent death at the hands of a man who was thinking solely of private grievances!

Tracing Mr. Brown's career through a long period of history, by his public actions, his speeches, and the volumes of his newspaper, one arrives at a somewhat different estimate from that preserved in familiar gossip and tradition. That tradition pictures a man impulsive, stormy, imperious, bearing down by sheer force all opposition to his will. In the main it is probably true; but the printed record is also true, and out of the two we must strive to reproduce the man. We are told of a speech delivered with flashing eye, with gestures that seemed almost to threaten physical violence. We read the report of the speech and we find something more than the ordinary transition from warm humanity, to cold print. There is not only freedom from violence, but there is coherence, close reasoning, a systematic marshalling of facts and figures and arguments. One might say of many of his speeches, as was said of Alexander Mackenzie's sentences, that he built them as he built a stone wall. His tremendous energy was not spasmodic, but was backed by solid industry, method and persistence.

As Mr. Bengough said in a little poem published soon after Mr. Brown's death,

"His nature was a rushing mountain stream; His faults but eddies which its swiftness bred."

In his business as a journalist, he had not much of that philosophy which says that the daily difficulties of a newspaper are sure to solve themselves by the effluxion of time. There are traditions of his impatience and his outbreaks of wrath when something went wrong, but there are traditions also of a kindness large enough to include the lad who carried the proofs to his house. Those who were thoroughly acquainted with the affairs of the office say that he was extremely lenient with employees who were intemperate or otherwise incurred blame, and that his leniency had been extended to Bennett. Intimate friends and political associates deny that he played the dictator, and say that he was genial and humorous in familiar intercourse. But it is, after all, a somewhat unprofitable task to endeavour to sit in judgment on the personal character of a public man, placing this virtue against that fault, and solemnly assuming to decide which side of the ledger exceeds the other. We have to deal with the character of Brown as a force in its relation to other forces, and to the events of the period of history covered by his career.

A quarter of a century has now elapsed since the death of George Brown and a still longer time since the most stirring scenes in his career were enacted. We ought therefore to be able to see him in something like his true relation to the history of his times. He came to Canada at a time when the notion of colonial self-government was regarded as a startling innovation. He found among the dominant class a curious revival of the famous Stuart doctrine, "No Bishop, no King;" hence the rise of such leaders, partly political and partly religious, as Bishop Strachan, among the Anglicans, and Dr. Ryerson, among the Methodists, the former vindicating and the latter challenging the exclusive privileges of the Anglican Church. There was room for a similar leader among Presbyterians, and in a certain sense this was the opportunity of George Brown. In founding first a Presbyterian paper and afterwards a political paper, he was following a line familiar to the people of his time. But while he had a special influence among Presbyterians, he appeared, not as claiming special privileges for them, but as the opponent of all privilege, fighting first the Anglican Church and afterwards the Roman Catholic Church, and asserting in each case the principle of the separation of Church and State.

For some years after Brown's arrival in Canada, those questions in which politics and religion were blended were subordinated to a question purely political—colonial self-government. The atmosphere was not favourable to cool discussion. The colony had been in rebellion, and the passions aroused by the rebellion were always ready to burst into flame. French Canada having been more deeply stirred by the rebellion than Upper Canada, racial animosity was added there to party bitterness. The task of the Reformers was to work steadily for the establishment of a new order involving a highly important principle of government, and, at the same time, to keep the movement free from all suspicion of incitement to rebellion.

The leading figure of this movement is that of Robert Baldwin, and he was well supported by Hincks, by Sullivan, by William Hume Blake and others. The forces were wisely led, and it is not pretended that this direction was due to Brown. He was in 1844 only twenty-six years of age, and his position at first was that of a recruit. But he was a recruit of uncommon vigour and steadiness, and though he did not originate, he emphasized the idea of carrying on the fight on strictly constitutional and peaceful lines. His experience in New York and his deep hatred of slavery had strengthened by contrast his conviction that Great Britain was the citadel of liberty, and hence his utterances in favour of British connection were not conventional, but glowed with enthusiasm.

With 1849 came the triumph of Reform, and the last despairing effort of the old regime, dying out with the flames of the parliament buildings at Montreal. Now ensued a change in both parties. The one, exhausted and discredited by its fight against the inevitable coming of the new order, remained for a time weak and inactive, under a leader whose day was done. The other, in the very hour of victory, began to suffer disintegration. It had its Conservative element desiring to rest and be thankful, and its Radical element with aims not unlike those of Chartism in England. Brown stood for a time between the government and the Conservative element on the one side and the Clear Grits on the other. Disintegration was hastened by the retirement of Baldwin and Lafontaine. Then came the brief and troubled reign of Hincks; then a reconstruction of parties, with Conservatives under the leadership of Macdonald and Reformers under that of Brown.

The stream of politics between 1854 and 1864 is turbid; there is pettiness, there is bitterness, there is confusion. But away from this turmoil the province is growing in population, in wealth, in all the elements of civilization. Upper Canada especially is growing by immigration; it overtakes and passes Lower Canada in population, and thus arises the question of representation by population. Brown takes up this reform in representation as a means of freeing Upper Canada from the domination of the Lower Province. He becomes the "favourite son" of Upper Canada. His rival, through his French-Canadian alliance, meets him with a majority from Lower Canada; and so, for several years, there is a period of equally balanced parties and weak governments, ending in dead-lock.

If Brown's action had only broken this dead-lock, extricated some struggling politicians from difficulty, and allowed the ordinary business of government to proceed, it might have deserved only passing notice. But more than that was involved. The difficulty was inherent in the system. The legislative union was Lord Durham's plan of assimilating the races that he had found "warring in the bosom of a single state." The plan had failed. The line of cleavage was as sharply defined as ever. The ill-assorted union had produced only strife and misunderstanding. Yet to break the tie when new duties and new dangers had emphasized the necessity for union seemed to be an act of folly. To federalize the union was to combine the advantage of common action with liberty to each community to work out its own ideals in education, municipal government and all other matters of local concern. More than that, to federalize the union was to substitute for a rigid bond a bond elastic enough to allow of expansion, eastward to the Atlantic and westward to the Pacific. That principle which has been called provincial rights, or provincial autonomy, might be described more accurately and comprehensively as federalism; and it is the basic principle of Canadian political institutions, as essential to unity as to peace and local freedom.

The feeble, isolated and distracted colonies of 1864 have given place to a commonwealth which, if not in strictness a nation, possesses all the elements and possibilities of nationality, with a territory open on three sides to the ocean, lying in the highway of the world's commerce, and capable of supporting a population as large as that of the British Islands. Confederation was the first and greatest step in that process of expansion, and it is speaking only words of truth and soberness to say that confederation will rank among the landmarks of the world's history, and that its importance will not decline but will increase as history throws events into their true perspective. It is in his association with confederation, with the events that led up to confederation, and with the addition to Canada of the vast and fertile plains of the West, that the life of George Brown is of interest to the student of history.

Brown was not only a member of parliament and an actor in the political drama, but was the founder of a newspaper, and for thirty-six years the source of its inspiration and influence. As a journalist he touched life at many points. He was a man of varied interests—railways, municipal affairs, prison reform, education, agriculture, all came within the range of his duty as a journalist and his interest and sympathy as a man. Those stout-hearted men who amid all the wrangling and intrigue of the politicians were turning the wilderness of Canada into a garden, gave to Brown in large measure their confidence and affection. He, on his part, valued their friendship more than any victory that could be won in the political game. That was the standard by which he always asked to be judged. This story of his life may help to show that he was true to the trust they reposed in him, and to the principles that were the standards of his political conduct, to government by the people, to free institutions, to religious liberty and equality, to the unity and progress of the confederation of which he was one of the builders.



INDEX

A

Albion, the, Peter Brown contributes thereto, 2

Anglican Church, exclusive claims of, 11, 51, 52

Annexation manifesto, result of discontent aroused by Rebellion Losses Bill, and repeal of preferential trade, 37

B

Bagot, Sir Charles, Governor of Canada, friendly attitude towards French-Canadians, 16; accepts Lafontaine and Baldwin as his advisers, 16; accused of surrender to rebels, 16; his action threatens to cause ministerial crisis in England, 16; denounced by Duke of Wellington, 16, 17; recalled at his own request, 18; illness and death, 18; begs his ministers to defend his memory, 18

Baldwin, Robert, father of responsible government, 21; criticized by Dr. Ryerson, 22, 23; his wise leadership, 24; victory at polls, 33; achievements of his ministry, 33; the Rebellion Losses Bill, 34-7; discontent of Clear Grits, 39; the Baldwin-Lafontaine government defended by Brown, 42; resigns because of vote of abolition of Court of Chancery, 47

Banner, the, established by the Browns, 5; descriptive extracts, 3, 6-8

Belleau, Sir Narcisse F., succeeds Sir E. P. Tache as head of the coalition government, 191; his headship only nominal, 191

Bennett, George, employed in engine room of the Globe, 256; discharged, 256; his conversation with Brown, 256; shoots and wounds Brown, 257; on death of Brown is tried and found guilty of murder, 258; his mind disordered by misfortune and by intemperance, 258

Blake, the Hon. Edward, speech at Aurora advocating imperial federation, 240

British-American League, the, advocates federation, 37

British Chronicle, the, established by the Browns in New York, 4

Brown, George, birth, 1; education, 1; leaves Scotland for the United States, 2; visits Canada, 4; founds the Banner, 5; founds the Globe, 20; addresses Toronto Reform Association, 21; refuses to drink health of Lord Metcalfe, 27, 28; his dwelling attacked by opponents of Lord Elgin, 36; opposes Clear Grit movement, 40; attitude towards Baldwin-Lafontaine government, 42; dissatisfied with delay in dealing with clergy reserves, 42; causes of rupture with Reform government, 44; comments on Cardinal Wiseman's pastoral, 44, 45; attacked as an enemy of Irish Catholics, 44-6; defeated in Haldimand election by William Lyon Mackenzie, 46; his election platform, 47; rupture with Hincks's government, 48; complains of French and Catholic influence, 48, 49; series of letters to Hincks, 48; addresses meeting in favour of secularization of clergy reserves, 55, 56; candidate for parliament for Kent, 61; his platform, 61; advocates free and non-sectarian schools, 62; advocates similar policy for university education, 62; elected member for Kent, 64; his first appearance in parliament, 65; consequence of parliament being held in city of Quebec, 65; hostility of French-Canadians to Brown, 65; Brown's maiden speech, 66; vindicates responsible government, and insists upon fulfilment of ministerial pledges, 66, 67; condition of parties in legislature, 69; Brown's temporary isolation, 69; his industry, 69; opposes legislation granting privileges to Roman Catholic institutions, 70; his course leads towards reconstruction of legislative union, 70; growth of his popularity in Upper Canada, 71; remarkable testimony of a Conservative journal, 71, 72; his appearance on the platform in 1853 described by the Hon. James Young, 73; favours prohibition, 76; elected for Lambton, 77; forms friendship with the Rouge leader, A. A. Dorion, 80, 81; advocates representation by population, 82-4; charged by J. A. Macdonald with misconduct as secretary of prison commission, 87; moves for committee of inquiry, 88; forcibly repels attack, 89; exposes cruelties and abuses in prison, 90; his relations with Macdonald embittered by this incident, 91; delivers address on prison reform, 91, 92; repels charge that he had been a defaulter in Edinburgh, and defends his father, 93-7; elected for city of Toronto in 1857, 99; defeats government on question of seat of government, 100; called upon to form a government, 101; confers with Dorion, 101; forms Brown-Dorion administration, 102; waits upon the governor-general, 102; receives communication from the governor-general, 102; forms belief that obstacles are being placed in his way by intrigue, 102; criticizes the governor-general's communication, 103; meets his colleagues, 104; his government defeated in parliament, 104; asks for dissolution and is refused, 105, 106; his government resigns, 106; his part in work of the Anti-Slavery Society of Canada, 112; denounces Fugitive Slave Law, 113, 114; discusses Lincoln's proclamation of emancipation, 114-19; his relations with Roman Catholics, 121; opposes separate schools, 121; accepts compromise, 122; his "no popery" campaign, 123; his letter to Roman Catholics, 124-6; his position considered, 127, 128; his course leads up to confederation, 130; letter to Holton, 131; his speech at Reform convention of 1859, 137; fails to obtain support of legislature for proposals to federalize the union, 139; contemplates retirement from leadership of Reform party, 141; defeated in East Toronto, 141; opposes John Sandfield's "double majority" plan, 143; visits England, 143; marriage in Edinburgh, 144; his attitude towards separate schools, 145; accepts compromise of 1863, 145; describes dead-lock situation, 149; lays before legislature report of special committee advocating federation of Canada as a remedy, 150; negotiations with government, 151-6; consults Reformers of Upper Canada, 156, 157; urged by governor-general (Monk) to enter government, 157; consents, 158; enters ministry, 159; visits Maritime Provinces, 161; addresses meeting at Halifax in furtherance of confederation, 161; advocates nominative as against elective senate, 164; describes result of Quebec conference, 165; addresses meeting at Music Hall, Toronto, 166; visits England, 167; describes English feeling in favour of confederation, 167; his speech in parliament advocating confederation, 171-5; describes crisis created by defeat of New Brunswick government, 181, 182; visits England with Macdonald, Cartier and Galt, 186; on the death of Tache objects to Macdonald assuming premiership, 189; consents to succession of Sir N. F. Belleau, 191; his work in connection with reciprocity, 192; appointed member of confederate council on reciprocity, 193; protests against Galt's proceedings in Washington, 194; objects strongly to proposal for reciprocity by legislation, 194; resigns from coalition, 195; letter to Cartier, 196; his reasons for resigning, 196; the rupture inevitable, 199; reasons why coalition could not endure, 199; Holton's warning, 200, 201; experience of Howland, Macdougall and Tilley, 202; experience of Joseph Howe, 203, 204; coalition endangers Liberal principles, 204-7; Brown's course after leaving coalition, 208; addresses Reform convention of 1867 against continuance of coalition, 209; interest in North-West Territories, 211, 213; advocates union of North-West Territories with Canada, 218-20; takes part in negotiations with British government, 220; his services as to North-West Territories acknowledged by Macdonald, 221; sent to Washington by Mackenzie government to inquire as to reciprocity (1874), 226; appointed with Sir Edward Thornton to negotiate treaty, 226; finds much ignorance of value of Canadian trade, 228; prepares memorandum as to trade, 229; carries on propaganda in American journals, 230; falsely accused of bribing them, 230; describes progress of negotiations, 231; joins issue with Canadian protectionists, 232, 233; effect of his hostility to Canada First movement, 241, 242; his family, 243, 244; determines to retire from public life, 245; describes difficulty of combining journalism with politics, 246-8; his relations with party leaders after retirement, 247; acquires Bow Park estate, and engages in raising of fine cattle, 248; engaged in a famous case of contempt of court, 249; accused by Mr. Justice Wilson of bribery, 249; Mr. Justice Wilson attacked by the Globe, 250-2; Brown charged with contempt of court, appears in person, and defends himself, 252-4; attacked and shot by George Bennett, 255; the wound not regarded as mortal, 257; unfavourable progress of case, 257; death, 258; motives of Bennett, 258; character of Brown, 259; his career in relation to history, 260-3; his share in achievement of confederation, 264, 265

Brown, J. Gordon, succeeds George as managing editor of the Globe, 244

Brown, Peter, father of the Hon. George Brown, leaves Scotland for New York, 2; contributes to the Albion, 2; author of Fame and Glory of England Vindicated, 3; establishes the British Chronicle, 4; establishes the Banner, 5; his business troubles in Edinburgh lead to an attack on George Brown, 93; George Brown's speech in the legislature, 93-8; his work on the Globe, 243, 244

C

Canada First, its platform, 235; severely criticized by the Globe, 236; the Globe suspects that it means Canadian independence, 237; the Globe's attack on Canada First and Goldwin Smith, 237, 238; Mr. Goldwin Smith's reply, 238; national spirit evinced by movement, 239; effect of Canada First movement, 240, 241; Edward Blake at Aurora advocates imperial federation, 240; Liberal party injured by hostility to Canada First, 240-2

Cartier, Georges E., asks Brown to reconsider his resignation from coalition ministry, 196

Cartwright, Sir Richard, on confederation, 148, 153

Cathcart, Earl, governor of Canada, 28

Church, the, opposes responsible government as impious, 6

Clear Grit party, its leaders, 39; opposed by George Brown and the Globe, 40; its platform, 41

Clergy reserves, intended to endow Protestant clergy, 51; claim of Church of England to exclusive enjoyment, 51; evidence of intention to establish Church of England, 52; effect of policy on Canada, 52; described as one of the causes of rebellion, 53; settlement retarded by locking up of lands, 53, 54; Brown advocates secularization, 54; Brown addresses meeting in Toronto, 55, 56; the meeting mobbed, 58; Riot Act read, and military aid used to protect meeting, 58; secularization accomplished, 59, 60

Confederation of British American provinces advocated by British American League, 37, 38; the proposal attributed to various persons, 129; D'Arcy McGee says it was due to events more powerful than men, 129, 130; Brown's course leads up to confederation, 130; his letter to Luther Holton treating it as an open question, 131; advocated by Dorion, 132; by A. T. Galt, 132; failure of attempt made in 1858, 133; Liberals of Lower Canada declare for federal union, 133; convention of Upper Canada Reformers, 133, 134; the evils of the legislative union set forth, 134; account of the convention, 134; divided between dissolving and federalizing the union, 135; Sheppard's acute criticism of plan of federation, 135; convention declares for local legislatures, with joint authority for matters of common interest, 136, 138; George Brown opposes dissolution of union, 137; the legislature rejects Brown's resolutions founded on those of the convention, 139; becomes an urgent question, 147; causes of that change, 147; Canada urged by Great Britain to take measures for defence, 147; effect of the American Civil War, 147; abrogation of reciprocity treaty and loss of American trade, 148; fears of abolition of bonding system, 148; isolated position of Canada, 148; the credit of the country low, 148 (note); the dead-lock in the government of Canada, 149; attempts to form a stable government fail, 149; Brown describes the situation, 150; Brown brings into the House report of a special committee favouring federation as a remedy for difficulties in the government of Canada, 150; the Tache' government defeated, 151; negotiations with Brown, 151; Ferrier's account of the meeting, 152; Brown's account of negotiations, 152, 153; Sir Richard Cartwright describes a scene in the House, 153; official account of negotiations, 154; Brown reluctant to join coalition ministry, 154; question whether federation should include Maritime Provinces and North-West Territories, 155, 156; Brown consults Reform members for Upper Canada, 156; they approve of confederation and of coalition, 157; the governor-general (Monk) urges Brown to enter coalition, 157; Brown consents, 158; letter from Brown, 158; formation of the coalition, 159; predominance of Conservatives in government, 160; the bye-elections generally favour confederation, 160, 161; movement for Maritime union, 161; meeting of Canadian and Maritime representatives at Charlottetown, 161; conference at Quebec, 163; anxiety to avoid danger of "State sovereignty," 163; powers not defined to reside in central parliament, 163; constitution of the senate, 164; Brown advocates nominated senate, 164; Brown describes result of conference, 165; the Maritime delegates visit Canada, 166; cordial reception at Toronto, 166; Brown there describes scheme of confederation, 166; Brown visits England, 167; Brown finds English opinion favourable, 167; debate in the legislature of Canada, 169; speech of Sir E. P. Tache, 169; of John A. Macdonald, 170; of Brown, 171-4; of Dorion, 175; Dorion's objections to centralization considered, 178; the plan endangered by defeat of New Brunswick government, 181; debate in the Canadian legislature, 182; John Sandfield Macdonald charges coalition with attempting to mislead people, 183; John A. Macdonald announces that a deputation will be sent to England to consult as to defence, and as to attitude of New Brunswick, 183; Macdonald refers to debate in House of Lords on Canadian defences, 183, 184; Macdonald moves previous question, 185; ministers charged with burking discussion, 185; the Maritime Provinces inclined to withdraw, 186; Macdonald, Brown, Carrier and Galt visit England and confer with British ministers, 186; an agreement made as to defence, etc., 186; pressure brought to bear on New Brunswick, 186-8; death of Sir E. P. Tache, 189; discussion as to succession, 189; Brown's objection to Macdonald becoming premier, 189, 190; Sir N. F. Belleau chosen, 191; causes which led to Brown's leaving the ministry, 191; the reciprocity negotiations, 192; a confederate council on reciprocity formed, 193; Galt and Howland visit Washington, 193; Seward, American secretary of state, proposes reciprocal legislation instead of treaty, 193; Brown protests against that, and generally against Galt's proceedings, 194; Brown resigns his place in coalition, 195; his reasons considered, 195-201; violation of self-government involved in steps taken to bring about confederation, 204, 205; absence of popular approval, 205, 206; undue centralization, 207

D

Dorion, A. A., leader of Rouges, 80; his friendship with George Brown, 80; joins Brown-Dorion government, 102; proposes federal union, 132; his speech in Canadian legislature against confederation, 175; declares that real authors of confederation were owners of Grand Trunk Railway Company, 176; contends that too much power is vested in central authority, 177; some of his objections well-founded, 178; declares that Macdonald accepted confederation merely to retain office, 199

"Double majority," the, advocated by John Sandfield Macdonald, 142

"Double Shuffle," the, 100; the Cartier-Macdonald government defeated on question of seat of government, 100; resigns, 101; George Brown asked to form ministry, 101; conference between Brown and Dorion, 101; the government formed, 102; the governor-general notifies Brown that he will not pledge himself to grant dissolution, 102, 103; his action criticized by Brown, 103, 104; the government defeated in the legislature, 104; policy of the government, 104; a dissolution asked for, 105; dissolution refused and government resigns, 106; former government resumes office, 106; artifice by which ministers avoid fresh elections, 107

Drummond, L. T., a member of the Brown-Dorion government, 102

Durham, Lord, extracts from his report, 11, 12, 52, 53, 54, 82, 83

E

Elgin, Lord, (see also Rebellion Losses Bill) condemns system of preferential trade, 32; reconciles colonial self-government with imperial unity, 33; concedes responsible government, 33; attacked by Canadian Tories as a sympathizer with rebels and Frenchmen, 33; assents to Rebellion Losses Bill, 36; mobbed at Montreal, 30; firm attitude during disturbance, 37

F

Ferrier, Mr., describes negotiations for confederation, 152

French-Canadians, Lord Durham's plan of benevolent assimilation, 12; its failure, 12; friendly attitude of Bagot towards, 16; their attitude towards representation by population, 83, 84

G

Galt, A. T., asked to form a ministry, 106; enters reconstructed Cartier-Macdonald government, 107; advocates confederation of Canada, 132, 133; appointed with Brown to represent Canada in confederate council on reciprocity, 193; visits Washington and confers with Mr. Seward, secretary of state, 193; discusses with him question of reciprocity by legislation, 193; his course condemned by Brown, 194

Gladstone, W. E., his eulogy of Peel government, 14; replies to despatch of Canadian government complaining of repeal of preferential tariff, 31

Globe, the, founded, 20; its motto, 20; its prospectus, 20; champions responsible government, 20; advocates war with United States to free slaves, 28, 29; defends abolition of Corn Laws in England, 31; defends Lord Elgin, 36; opposes Clear Grit movement, 40; discusses dissensions among Reformers, 42, 43; comments on Cardinal Wiseman's pastoral, 44; attacks Hincks-Morin government, 48; first issued as a daily in 1853, 74; absorbs North American and Examiner, 74; declaration of principles, 74, 75; advocates alliance with Quebec Rouges, 78; befriends fugitive slaves, 112; opposes slavery, 119; "no popery" campaign, 123, 124; attacks Separate School Bill, 145; the early article showing value of North-West Territories, 213-17; severely criticizes Canada First party, 236-8; its attitude considered, 239; Brown declares his preference for editorship of Globe to any official position, 247; its attack on Mr. Justice Wilson, 250-2; the article gives rise to proceedings for contempt of court, 252; Brown's defence, 252-4; the court disagrees, 254; description of building where Mr. Brown was shot, 255

Gordon, Arthur Hamilton, governor of New Brunswick, opposes confederation, 187; is censured by British government and instructed to reverse his policy, 187; brings pressure to bear on his ministers to abandon opposition to confederation, 188; the ministry resigns and is succeeded by a ministry favourable to confederation, 188

H

Head, Sir Edmund Bond, sends for George Brown to form government, 101; notifies Brown that he gives no pledge to dissolve, 102; refuses dissolution, 106; charge of partiality considered, 107, 108

Hincks, Sir Francis, succeeds Robert Baldwin, 48; attacked by Brown and the Globe, 48; policy as to secularization of clergy reserves, 59; his government defeated, 77; he retires and gives his support to the MacNab-Morin government, 77, 78

Holton, Luther, a member of the Brown-Dorion government, 102; opposes coalition of 1864, 199; his remarkable appeal to Brown to leave coalition, 200, 201

Howe, Joseph, his relations with Sir John Macdonald, 203

Howland, Sir W. P., visits Washington in connection with reciprocity, 193; his relations with Sir John A. Macdonald's ministry, 202; defends his course in adhering to coalition, 209

I

Isbester, Mr., services in calling attention to North-West Territories, 212

L

Liberal, the, founded during Canada First movement, 235

M

Macdonald, John A., rises to leadership of reconstructed Conservative party, 42; charges Brown with misconduct as secretary of prison commission, 87-90; enmity with Brown, 91; recounts negotiations with Brown as to confederation, 154; speech in legislature supporting confederation, 170; informs House of crisis caused by defeat of New Brunswick government, 182; announces mission to England, 182; deals with question of defence, 183; moves previous question, 185; goes to England to confer with British government, 186; asked to form an administration on death of Sir E. P. Tache, 189; Brown objects, 190; proposes Sir N. F. Belleau, who is accepted, 191; relations with Brown, 201; relations with Joseph Howe, 203

Macdonald, John Sandfield, a member of Brown-Dorion government, 102; advocates the "double majority," 142; his government adopts Separate School Bill, 144

Macdougall, William, one of the Clear Grits, 39; editor of the North American, 40; enters coalition ministry for purpose of carrying out confederation, 159; argues for continuance of coalition, 210

Mackenzie, Alexander, opposed to Reformers entering coalition ministry in 1864, 199; his government sends Brown to Washington in connection with reciprocity, 1874, 226

Metcalfe, Sir Charles (afterwards Lord), asked to undertake government of Canada, 18; difficulty of position emphasized by Lord Stanley, 18; misinformed as to intentions of Canadian Reformers, 19; his dispute with Baldwin and Lafontaine, 19; regards himself as defending unity of empire, 19; willing to grant responsible government in a qualified sense, 19; personal character, 19; dissolves legislature, 24; his view of the contest, 24; votes offered for him personally, 25; his victory, 26; subsequent difficulties, 26; illness and death, 27; raised to peerage, 27

Mowat, Oliver, a member of the Brown-Dorion government, 102; a member of committee of Anti-Slavery Society, 112; advocates federal union, 135; enters coalition to carry out confederation, 159

N

Nation, the, founded to advocate Canada First movement, 235; sets forth programme of Canada First party, 236

National Club, the, founded during the Canada First movement, 235

New Brunswick, defeat of local government, 181; the confederation scheme endangered by this defeat, 181; the situation discussed in the legislature of Canada, 182, 183; the Canadian mission to England, 186; the British government agrees to bring influence to bear on Maritime Provinces to enter confederation, 186; position of Mr. Gordon, lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, 187; he at first opposes confederation, 187; receives instructions from England to promote confederation, 187; brings pressure to bear on his government to abandon opposition to confederation, 187, 188; the government resigns, 188; a general election follows, and a government favourable to confederation is returned, 188

New York, experience of the Browns in, 2, 3

North American, the organ of the Clear Grits, 40

Nova Scotia, the province of, forced into confederation, 206

North-West Territories, Brown's interest in, 211; address by Robert Baldwin Sullivan, 211; article in the Globe describing resources of country, 213-15; letters of "Huron" in Toronto Globe, 215; meeting of Toronto Board of Trade, 216; Reform convention of 1857 advocates addition of territories to Canada, 217; scepticism as to value of country, 217, 218; Brown speaks in favour of extension of Canada to Pacific Ocean, 219; negotiations with British government, 220; Macdonald's testimony to Brown's services, 221

P

Parties, political, in state of transition on Brown's entry into parliament, 69; reconstruction on defeat of Hincks-Morin government, and formation of MacNab-Morin government, 77; the new government described as a coalition by its friends and as Tory by its opponents, 77; gradually comes to represent personal influence of John A. Macdonald, 78; the Baldwin Reformers, 78; opposition gathers under Brown, 78; alliance between Upper Canadian Reformers and Rouges, 78

Peel government, its attitude towards responsible government in Canada, 13; Gladstone's eulogium on, 14; misunderstands Canadian situation, 14; controversy with Governor Bagot, 16; regards Bagot's action as a surrender to rebels, 16, 17; appoints Metcalfe, 17-19

Preferential trade, abolished by repeal of Corn Laws, 31; complaints from Canada, 31; the Globe defends British position, 31; Lord Elgin condemns imperial protection, 32

Prison commission, Macdonald charges Brown with falsifying testimony and suborning prisoners to commit perjury, 87; scene in the House, 88; Brown moves for a committee of inquiry, 88; unexpectedly produces report of commission, 88; proceedings of committee, 89; Brown describes abuses revealed by commission, 90; the incident embitters relations between Brown and Macdonald, 91; Brown delivers public address on prison reform, 91, 92

Prohibition, advocated by the Globe in 1853, 75; discussed in legislature, 75; drinking habits of Canada in early days, 75, 76