The history of the twenty-five years between the peace of 1815 and the union of the Canadas in 1840, illustrates the folly and misery of faction, when intensified by racial antagonisms. In Lower Canada the difficulties arising from a constant contest for the supremacy between the executive and legislative authorities were aggravated by the fact that the French Canadian majority dominated the popular house, and the English-speaking minority controlled the government. "I found," wrote Lord Durham, in 1839, "two nations warring in the bosom of a single state; I found a struggle not of principles but of races." It is true that some Englishmen were found fighting for popular liberties on the side of the French Canadian majority. Mr. John Neilson, who was for years editor of the _Quebec Gazette_, was a friend of the French Canadians, and in close sympathy with the movement for the extension of public rights, but he was never prepared to go beyond { 339} the legitimate limits of constitutional agitation and threaten British connexion. On the other hand, Dr. Wolfred Nelson, descended from a loyalist stock, was one of the leaders of the majority that controlled the assembly of Lower Canada, and did not hesitate to join in the rebellion to which his rash and impetuous chief, Louis Joseph Papineau, led him at last. But while undoubtedly there were many persons among the British people, who were disgusted with the arrogance of some of the governing class, and discontented with the methods of government, they were gradually alienated by the demagogism of the French Canadian majority, who did not hesitate to profess their desire to make French Canada exclusively a French dominion. The tyranny of the majority was exhibited in the assembly by the attempt to impeach Chief Justices Sewell and Monk, on charges which had no justification in law or justice. Mr. Robert Christie, the member for Gaspé, who subsequently wrote a useful history of Lower Canada, was expelled several times because he was believed to have procured the dismissal from the magistracy of some members of the assembly who were inimical to the executive government. On the other hand, Lord Dalhousie, the governor-general, in 1827, refused to approve of the election of Mr. Papineau as speaker of the assembly, because he had reflected in strong terms in a manifesto on the public conduct of the former. Mr. Louis J. Papineau, the future leader of the rebellion in 1837, was a man of fine presence, gifted with remarkable powers of rhetoric and persuasion, but { 340} he was entirely wanting in discretion, and in the qualities which make a great statesman. When the assembly refused to reconsider its action and elect another speaker, Lord Dalhousie prorogued the legislature, which did not again meet until he was recalled and sent to India as commander-in-chief. Like other governors, Lord Dalhousie attempted to govern to the best of his ability, and what mistakes he committed arose from the contradictory and perplexing instructions he received from the officials in Downing Street, who were quite incapable at times of understanding the real condition of affairs in the province.