[Illustration: Louis J. Papineau, Aet. 70.]
The disputes at last between the contending parties in Lower Canada prevented the working of the constitution. The assembly fought for years for the independence of Parliament and the exclusive control of the civil list and supply. When at last the assembly refused to vote a civil list and other necessary expenditures, the government were obliged to use the casual and territorial revenues--such as the proceeds of the sales and leases of Crown lands--and these funds were inadequate for the purpose. So carelessly were these funds managed that one receiver-general, engaged in business, became a heavy defaulter. The governors dissolved the legislatures with a frequency unparalleled in political history, and were personally drawn into the conflict. Public officials, including the judges, were harassed by impeachments. Bills were constantly rejected by the legislative council on various pretexts--some of them constitutionally correct--and the disputes { 341} between the two branches of the legislature eventually made it impossible to pass even absolutely necessary measures. Appeals to the home government were very common, and concessions were made time and again to the assembly. In fact, the contest as to the revenues and expenditures ought to have closed, in a great measure, with the abandonment, in 1832, by the government of every portion of the { 342} previously reserved revenue, but, as Lord Durham pointed out, the assembly, "even when it obtained entire control over the public revenues," refused the civil list because it was determined "not to give up its only means of subjecting the functionaries of government to any responsibility." The conflict was carried on to the bitter end. It does not appear, however, that the majority in the assembly at all understood the crucial difficulty. They devoted their whole strength to attacks on the legislative council, and to demands for an elective body. The famous ninety-two resolutions of 1834, in which Papineau's party set forth their real or fancied grievances, did not contain a single paragraph laying down the principles of parliamentary or responsible government as worked out in England, and ably supported by the moderate Upper Canadian Reformers like Robert Baldwin. The home government ought to have appreciated the gravity of the situation, but they were not yet prepared to introduce into these colonies the principles of parliamentary government. In 1835 they appointed a commission to inquire into the nature of the grievances and the best method of remedying them. The governor-general, Lord Gosford, was the head of this commission, but it failed because Papineau and his party were not now prepared to listen to moderate and conciliatory counsels. When in 1837 the assembly continued to refuse supply for the payment of public officials, and of the arrears, which up to that time amounted to nearly one hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling, Lord John Russell { 343} carried in the English House of Commons a series of resolutions, rejecting the demand for an elective legislative council and other changes in the constitution, and empowering the executive government to defray the expenses of the public service out of the territorial and casual revenues. This action of the imperial government increased the public discontent, and gave an opportunity to Papineau and his followers to declare that no redress of grievances could be obtained except by a resort to arms. In this year the rebellion broke out, but before I refer to it, it is necessary to review briefly the condition of things in the other provinces.