The abolition of the seigniories (1854) in French Canada (see article SEIGNIORIAL TEN URE), relics of the old Bourbon regime, with the oppressive privileges of the seignior, was another change obviously demanded by the new order of things. It was accomplished peace fully, without violation of the rights of prop erty, and with entire success. Another nec essary change was the abolition of the aristo cratic custom of primogeniture in succession to land, for which was substituted the demo cratic principle of equal partition, "gavel-kind," as the movers called it. The Tory party, sym pathizing with aristocracy, faintly resisted the change. The progress of democracy was fur ther marked by a change in the constitution of the Legislative Council which formed the Upper House of Parliament. Instead of being nom inated by the Crown, as it had hitherto been, it was in 1856 made elective.
The party system of government was now in full play, but the principles and relations of parties were far from being definite or stable. There was a Tory party representing the U. E. Loyalists, and the traditions of the Family Compact under the leadership of Sir Allen MacNab, who opposed the secularization of the clergy reserves and the abolition of primogeni ture. There were on the other side moderate Liberals under Baldwin and more advanced Liberals under Hincks. But the lines of politi cal party were crossed and perplexed by the na tionality of French Quebec. The French Cath olics, instead of succumbing politically to Brit ish predominance as Durham had imagined that they would, closed their ranks, showed their force, played on the balance between the Brit ish parties and put a Frenchman, in the per son of La Fontaine, at the head of the gov ernment. For a time it became an understand ing that a government, to hold its ground, must have a double majority; that is, a majority both in the British and the French province. The act of reunion had given to the provinces gen eral representation in Parliament, though the population of the French province was much larger than that of the British. Presently the balance of population turned in favor of the British province. The Liberal leaders of the British province, the most pronounced of them at least, then demanded a rectification in its favor. With the political strife about repre sentation by population, "Rep. by Pop.," as it was called, mingled the religious antagonism of the British Protestants of the upper prov ince to the Roman Catholics of the lower. The great advocate of representation by population, and at the same time the extreme exponent of the feelings of the Protestants against the Catholics, was George Brown (q.v.), a Scotch Presbyterian, and founder of the Toronto Globe, the most powerful organ of the British Canadian press in those days. On the other side appeared Mr., afterward Sir, John Mac donald (q.v.), one remarkably gifted with the arts of party management, and with an address in dealing with men which in his chief antagon ist, George Brown, was wanting. Macdonald
supplanted in the leadership of his party the old-time Tory, Sir Allan MacNab (q.v.), Lib eralized it, and set it free from all incum brances in the way of reactionary principle by which, up to this time, it had been weighted in the struggle for place. It was a stroke of strategy something like that performed in Eng land by Sir Robert Peel (q.v.) when, accepting the consequences of the Reform Bill, he changed his party from Tory to Conservative. Between Macdonald and Brown there was, and to the end continued there to be, enmity, personal as well as political. But Brown was no match for Macdonald in playing the party game. Once for a moment, by a casual defeat of the gov ernment of which his rival was a member, he set his foot on the steps of power (1858) • but be immediately fell again, Sir Edmund Head, then governor-general (1855-61), having, by an unwonted exercise of the prerogative, which Brown furiously resented, refused him the dis solution and appeal to the country he demanded (1858). Questions and principles of all kinds were crossed by personal ambitions and connections, as well as by the national sensibilities of Quebec, which naturally carried her to the side of the Conservatives rather than to that of the advocates of representation by population, the hot Protestants and the Orange men.
The end, after a rapid succession of changes of ministry, producing a total instability of gov ernment, was a ministry with a majority so narrow that it was said that the life of the gov ernment depended on the success of a page finding a member at the moment of critical division. The upshot was a deadlock. The re lation between the two races, owing to the per sistent attacks of George Brown's party on the French Catholics, had at the same time become critical and dangerous. From this position an escape was sought by merging the antagonism of British and French Canada in a confedera tion of all the British colonies in North Amer ica. The credit of proposing confederation has been assigned to different politicians, to George Brown, to Sir John Macdonald, to Sir Alexan der Galt. Of the party leaders, it was George Brown who first came forward holding out his hand to his rival, Sir John Macdonald,. to propose coalition for the relief of the situation. But Mr. Brown's original proposal was not a confederation of all the provinces, but a substi tution of a federal for the legislative union between the British and the French province. What Sir John Macdonald, as a strong Con servative and monarchist, preferred was not a federal but a legislative union of all the'North American colonies under the British Crown. What all alike wanted was a relief from the situation, and for this purpose a coalition gov ernment comprehending the two rivals and enemies, Sir John Macdonald and George Brown, with followers of both, was formed (1864). The fact is that the real author of confederation, so far as British and French Canada was concerned, was deadlock.