The political unrest which affected most civilized countries in the generation following the battle of Waterloo appeared in Canada under an acute form and was not quieted until after the rebellion of 1837. The Upper Prov ince, free from the problem of a mixed nation. arty, had hitherto been undisturbed by violent disputes, but as time went on the Constitutional Act was found unsatisfactory— or rather, the act gave no redress of the grievances which grew up under the existing system of adminis _vatic:in. In Lower Canada the claims of the assembly found. an eloquent champion in Louis -Joseph Papineau (q.v.), the most prominent French Canadian of his generation. It should be clearly pointed. out that the grounds of dis cord were different in the two provinces, but the development of agitation went on simulta neously and the two movements, each proceed, ling from its own set of conditions reacted strongly on each other. Feigligh radicals and French radicals were brought iato close am, pathy as agitators by their common opposition to the established order. In both cases there were minorities whose privileges depended upon the maintenance of the constitution and the bit.. terness of the struggle for responsible govern ment was intensified by the presence of these vested interests. In Upper Canada the contest between officialism and reform did not centre round the first principles of politics so much as it did round the exercise of power by cer tain individuals. The main strife was one of old settlers against new, with several minor issues coining in to complicate the situation and render it disagreeable. A few families of Loyalist stock constituted a local . oligarchy from which were drawn the chief officials of the colony. As the members of this •ruling .class belonged almost wholly to the Anglican Church, and used their influence freely to bene fit the Anglican clergy, they provoked the op position of the dissenters who formed a majority of the more recent immigrants. The political solidarity of Anglicanism and the "Family Compact" led both to be denounced by the champions of responsible government— Robert Gourlay, William Lyon Mackenzie, Dr. Rolph and Egerton Ryerson. The clergy re serves were represented as a symbol of gov ernment by privilege and Roman Catholics united with Protestant dissenters to demand the application of their proceeds toward the sup port of schools. It will be seen that these sources of discontent were hardly of a funda mental character, but the population of Upper Canada was not one to bear political grievances lightly. In Lower Canada the situation was more intricate and more serious. When the ex citement caused by the War of 1812 had died away, the relations between council and assem bly resumed their former rancor, while the as sembly and the executive became involved in a protracted dispute over the power of the purse. By the financial provisions of the constitution certain revenues were at the disposition of the Crown and the assembly had control of certain other revenues which originally were much smaller. Through the development of the colony, the assembly's share of the revenue kept growing larger in proportion to that of the Crown, and at he same time the Radicals discovered that they could place the govern ment in a very awkward position by refusing their assent to appropriations. The advantage which the assembly possessed through its power to keep up a perpetual dispute over fiscal matters was used with much tactical cleverness, though perhaps with less genuine patriotism than might have been desired. The fight against privilege (and there can be no doubt that the council had excessive privileges) was accom panied by a revival of racial feeling among the French Canadians. With Papineau for their leader the Nationalist majority in the assembly used language which showed that their brightest ideal was not summed up in subjection to British sway. Gradually the English element was eliminated from the ranks of the re formers, and though a few politicians of Eng lish and Irish name supported Papineau during the disturbances of 1837 his sole hope of suc cess lay in the support of the French. Under
such a system of government as was provided by the Constitutional Act, the role of the gov ernor assumed a degree of importance which it does not possess at present in any self-govern ing colony of the British Empire. Had abler men than Sir Francis Bond Head and Lord Gosford represented the Crown in Upper and Lower Canada during the acrimonious debates of 1836, there might have been no breach of the peace. As it was risings took place in both provinces, the Radicals of Upper Canada being encouraged by some initial successes which the party of Papineau had gained in the autumn of 1837. The rebellion cannot be dignified by the name of a war since the engagements were ac companied by slight fatalities and the issue was never in doubt. The French Canadian peasants who took the field were defeated at Saint Charles and Saint Eustache, and in Upper Canada the appeal to force collapsed after a farcical skirmish at Montgomery's Tavern, near Toronto. In 1838 fresh disturb ances occurred at a few places in Lower Canada, only to be repressed with a promptness which showed the futility of further resistance. Apart from the domestic bitterness occasioned by these outbrealts,, they were the cause of a diplomatic crisis, in that the activity of Mac kenzie's sympathizers led to strained relations between Great Britain and the United States. The burning of the Caroline (q.v.) and the fight at Pelee Island (q.v.) were interna tional episodes of the first importance.
The best fruit of the rebellion was Lord Durham's report and the transformation of British colonial methods which followed it. In 1838 the Earl of Durham (see Duauwat, J. G. L., EARL OF) was sent to Canada as gov ernor-general and given a commission to in vestigate the state of the country. The blue book in which he described the causes of the rebellion and suggested remedies for obvious evils is held, by common consent, to rank first among the documents of the Colonial Office. Whether the text was written by Durham or Charles Buller, or by both in conjunction with Gibbon Wakefield, the report as it stands is a classic in political literature. The two essential recommendations which it makes are that re sponsible government be freely conceded and that the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada be reunited with a view of allaying the racial discord which had raged so fiercely in Quebec under the Constitutional Act. The Union Act of 1840 was the immediate sequel of Lord Durham's proposals and a first step toward the political consolidation of British North America. The salient feature of this constitu tion may be defined as the transfer of political power to an assembly which was chosen on a very democratic basis, though not by universal suffrage. The legislative council, with members appointed by the Crown, was retained, but real authority centred in the popular branch of the legislature. To the assembly each province con tributed 42 members and it was provided that a general election should be held every four years, subject to the chance of a dissolution by the governor-general during the interval. The Union Act had imperfections and incon veniences which finally furnished a strong argument in favor of confederation, but under it (1840-67) Canada gained a political training which was invaluable and escaped from the worst of the anomalies that had provoked the rebellion. At first the act seemed to favor the English, inasmuch as French ceased to be an official language; but in 1848 it was restored to its former position of parity. With the estab lishment of democratic principles the party system reached a maturity which before had been unknown in Canada. Lafontaine (see LAFONTAINE, SIR Louts H.), Baldwin (see BALDWIN, Roman), McNab (see McNait, SIR ALA N N.), Macdonald (see MACDONALD, Ste