About the same time, and by the action of the same general forces, including the ascend ency of the Liberal party in Great Britain, responsible government on the same model was introduced in the maritime provinces. In Nova Scotia the change was brought about largely by the eloquence of the patriot leader Joseph Howe (q.v.) (1838).
The transition was smoothed by the wisdom of the governor, Poulett Thompson, Lord Sydenham (1839-42), a man of business, trained in commercial life, who adapted himself steadily and with general success to the introduction and working of the new system. Sir Charles Bagot, who followed (1842-43), though a Con servative, took the same line. But the idea of colonial self-government had hardly taken root in the policy of the Colonial Office or in the minds of British statesmen. Sir Charles Metcalfe (1843-45), the next governor, had been trained in the imperial government of Hindustan, and brought with him the impres sion that in every dependency the governor was still personally supreme and responsible for the choice of his ministers and for their policy. Acting upon this principle, he attempted to form a ministry (1843) of his own without regard to party designation. A political storm, with furious pamphleteering and ministerial interregnum, were the results. The upshot was failure on the governor's part to form an effective ministry, and his consequent defeat. The Colonial Secretary, Lord Stanley, how ever, emphatically endorsed the governor's con duct, and was authorized with his own appro bation to convey the personal approbation of the Queen.
The new system was finally installed and brought into order by Lord Elgin (q.v.) (1847-55), one of the best and wisest servants of the empire, who entered fully into the spirit of responsible government, contenting him self with the exercise of an informal influence, rendered important by his character and ability. He could even flatter himself that he did more in this way than he could have done with the formal powers of the governor. He came in, however, for the last of the storm. The Liberal party, now in power, passed an act called the Rebellion Losses Act (1849), indemnifying those who had suffered losses by the destruc tion of their property in the suppression of the rebellion. This the Tories regarded as the indemnification of the rebels. Their cry was taken up by the Tory party in Great Britain. Elgin gave his assent to the act, reluctantly it seems, in compliance with the rule which re quired him to be guided by the vote of Par liament and the advice of his responsible min isters. The Tories, now playing the part of
insurgents in their turn, rose, burned the Par liament House at Montreal (1849), with its irreplaceable archives, and stoned the governor general, who had a narrow escape from their fury. Elgin, however, remained firm and was supported by the home government. After this his reign, or rather his term, was peaceful and generally popular, though more popular with the Liberals than with the Tories. The triumph of the free trade policy in Great Britain, depriving Canada of her colonial privi leges, while she remained fettered by the Navi gation Laws and was excluded from the market of the United States, bred commercial depres sion and discontent. The consequence was a manifesto signed by leading commercial men and pointing to union with the American re public as a remedy in the last resort. To put an end to this movement by removing its cause, Lord Elgin went to Washington and negotiated a reciprocity treaty with the United States (1854). This, following the repeal of the Navi gation Acts and the release of the Canadian trade from the fetters which they imposed, restored prosperity, allayed discontent and put an end to the desire of annexation.
After the Rebellion Losses Bill, the most hotly debated of the political questions was that of the secularization of the clergy reserves (1854) (see CANADA - CLERGY RESERVES), tracts of and, which, before the revolution of 1837, when the Church of England was estab lished in Canada, had been set apart for the maintenance of the clergy of the state church. After a long struggle secularization was car ried, and the state church, with its privileges, ceased to eicist. King's College, Toronto, which, so far as the teaching staff was concerned, had, like Oxford and Cambridge, been Anglican, was turned into the University of Toronto (see TORONTO, Umvesisiry or), and thrown entirely open to all denominations. Under Bishop Strachan, the powerful Anglican leader of the day, high Anglicans seceded from the Univer sity of Toronto and founded the University. of Trinity College (1852). Other churches, dur ing the continuance of the exclusion, had ob tained charters for universities of their own, and dissipation of resources not more than sufficient, if collected, to maintain one great university, was the result.