Parliament Passes Canadian Union Bill

The Union of the Provinces was an accomplished fact, and it only remained for the representatives of both to accept the situation and make the best of it.

Continuing Upper and Lower Canada United,
our selection from The Last Fourty Years by John Charles Dent published in 1881. The selection is presented in four easy 5 minute installments. For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Previously in Upper and Lower Canada United.

Time: 1841
Place: Montreal

In the House of Lords the objections to the measure were urged with more vigor than commonly characterizes the debates there, and among those who spoke most strongly against it were Lords Gosford and Seaton, both of whom had been Governors of Canada, and might be supposed to bring special knowledge to bear upon the subject. The act passed, however, and was to come into operation by virtue of a royal proclamation, to be issued within fifteen calendar months. The issuing of the proclamation was deferred until February 5, 1841, when it appeared under the authority of the Provincial Secretary, the Honorable Dominick Daly. By its terms the Act of Union was to take effect from the 10th of the month; and at that date the union of the Provinces was accordingly complete.

[The day upon which the union of the Provinces took effect was the anniversary of two events of some importance in Canadian history; viz., of the signing of the Treaty of 1763, and of the royal assent being accorded to the suspension of the Lower Canadian Constitution in 1838.]

The French population of Lower Canada generally, and even some of the British, were much averse to the project of union on the terms proposed, and an impartial critic must confess that their discontent was not wholly groundless. In the first place, the population of the Lower Province was considerably in excess of that of Upper Canada; whereas the latter, by the terms of union, were granted an equal Parliamentary representation with the former. The financial condition of the two Provinces was still more unequal than the population. In Lower Canada the public debt was insignificant, and, if there was less public enterprise than in the Upper Province, there was no financial embarrassment. The revenue was small, but it was ample for the public requirements. In Upper Canada, on the other hand, for some years past an amount of enterprise had been displayed which was altogether out of proportion to the age and financial condition of the Province. The construction of the great canals and other important public works had involved what for those times must be pronounced to have been an enormous expenditure, and for this there had so far been little or no return. A good deal of the expenditure had been unnecessary -— the result of mismanagement and inexperience -— and would never produce any return. The public debt was large. Further outlay was imperative, and the exchequer was empty. Some important public enterprises had been temporarily abandoned for want of funds. The Province seemed to be on the verge of bankruptcy.

By the imposition of the public debt on the united Province, therefore, Upper Canada was clearly a gainer. But, it was argued, this was only fair, inasmuch as Lower Canada would participate in the advantages derivable from the public works which had given rise to the debt. Lower Canada, moreover, had long reaped an undue advantage in respect of the revenue from imports collected at Montreal and Quebec. That revenue was chiefly paid by the Upper Province, where a majority of the consumers resided; yet Lower Canada had for years received the lion’s share of it, and surrendered even the smallest proportion with reluctance. The argument as to the representation of the two Provinces being equal, and therefore disproportionate to the population, was met by the plea that the disproportion would soon disappear, inasmuch as the population of Upper Canada had been largely recruited by immigration; that it was rapidly increasing, and would continue to increase; whereas immigration to the Lower Province was insignificant in comparison, and the increase of population proportionately slow.

The Lower Canadians were not disposed to regard this argument as conclusive. They argued, with some show of reason, that it would be time enough to equalize the representation when the prediction as to equality of population should be realized. The practical proscription of the French language in all public proceedings, moreover, was keenly felt by the French- Canadians, and they never ceased to clamor for the repeal of the clause effecting it -— a repeal which was finally accomplished after the accession to power of the second Lafontaine-Baldwin Ministry in 1848. The French- Canadians, indeed, looked upon the Union Act as the result of a predetermination to destroy their nationality and their religion. It was evident that if the British representatives from Lower Canada should act in unison with their conationalists from the Upper Province, the combination would be all-powerful in the Legislature.

The discontent in the Lower Province over the terms of union made itself felt in various quarters before the passing of the act. In the districts of Quebec and Three Rivers a petition was set on foot under the auspices of the clergy, and erelong forty thousand signatures were appended to it. Some of the signatories were influential members of the British party. It expressed strong hostility to the proposed union, and prayed that the Constitution of 1791 might be maintained. It was sent over to England and laid before the Imperial Parliament, and doubtless influenced the Government there to the extent of inducing them not to legislate without due deliberation. A large meeting was also held at Montreal, where, on motion of Mr. Lafontaine, an address to the Imperial Parliament protesting against the proposed union was adopted; but, owing to a want of concord among its promoters, it was not forwarded to England.

Dissatisfaction, however, was now of no further avail. The Union of the Provinces was an accomplished fact, and it only remained for the representatives of both to accept the situation and make the best of it. The Governor-General, for his arduous and indefatigable services, was in August, 1840, raised to the peerage with the title Baron Sydenham of Sydenham in Kent and of Toronto in Canada. His exertions had not been without their effect on his physical frame, which was even more weakly than Lord Durham’s had been; but he was keenly ambitious, and not disposed to sit down and brood over his maladies. He was authorized by the thirtieth clause of the Union Act to fix the capital of the United Province at such place as he might be ad vised. He chose to fix it at Kingston, in the Upper Province. This was another step which was keenly felt by the inhabitants of Lower Canada, who had hoped that the capital would be either Montreal or Quebec, both of which, as compared with Kingston, were large towns. The pressure from Upper Canada on this point, however, was overwhelming, and the Governor- General exercised a wise discretion in placing the seat of government in the center of a district where the unwavering loyalty of the people was a guarantee for free and undisturbed legislation.

More information here and here, and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history