durham report

durham report

The Impact of the Durham Report on Colonial Governance

1. Historical Background of the Durham Report

The Act of Union between Upper and Lower Canada in 1840 and the Act of Union with Canada in 1841 was brought about by a long series of crises unexpected by the people of Great Britain and caused largely by the endeavor to provide Canada with a form of government too independent for a colony, but not independent enough for a nation. The War of 1812, the effect in Europe of that struggle, the French Restoration, the rebellion and execution of Louis Riel, and finally the fear of American attack after the Civil War were all factors which contributed in various ways to disunion. Above all, unsuccessful experiments in political machinery had produced the feeling in Canada that the errors proved the system to be unsuited to the country. By capable and honest men on both sides, and especially by Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot, the new constitution by responsible government was tried in its most favorable form. But when the experiment still led to discord, and when the possibility of disallowance of the French language in the Assembly gave offense in Quebec, the British Government recognized the necessity of taking a hand in the matter. During the negotiations and framings of terms of union, both India and Ireland were proposed as models of finding a middle colonial settlement. And in both cases, the lesson drawn from the dazzling phenomenon of representative institutions was misunderstood. In the former country, men did not see that Indian representation was not representative government but simply a combination of many forms of administering and taxing different States with one general system of war and external politics, and that it was European colonization very little indeed which had remarkable to show in the way of implanting and expanding the lesser or greater degree of representative government. In Ireland, on the other hand, it was not understood that the purely industrial and trading community in British North America desired to maintain the liberty of engaging in fiscal dealings with foreign countries and would not have been patiently satisfied with the system of commercial union such as that subsequently imposed on the sister island.

2. Key Findings and Recommendations of the Report

Durham made a number of major findings in the course of his inquiry. At the heart of these was his belief that the French Canadian race was the key to Lower Canada’s future. At the time, this was an observation of immense profundity. The prior imperial outlook had sought to assimilate the French Canadians into a British pattern or to reduce their influence quite drastically. Durham’s view recognized the relative failure of these policies in the past and their unlikelihood of success in the future. He did not endorse the French Canadian form of society, but he did believe that its preservation was vital to the happiness of the French Canadians themselves and equally vital to the interests of the British empire. He was convinced that it was well-nigh impossible to uproot the French Canadians and therefore the only alternative was their political annexation to the United States. He thought this a most dangerous experiment and the one thing associating Canada with the United Kingdom was the bond of government. Durham’s second finding was a diagnosis of the troubles of Upper Canada. He determined that they were essentially due to defects in the political machinery of the colony. There was no Canadian nationality comparable to that of the French Canadians, but the ruling oligarchy in Upper Canada sought to assume it British and to rule the colony as a colony of Great Britain. They had failed to persuade the people to loyalty and had indeed become disloyal themselves and aimed at annexation to the United States. This situation in Upper Canada was fertile soil for rebellion and Durham noted that the rebellions had revealed unexpected strength of anti-British feeling. He canvassed a number of accusations against the imperial government in connection with these rebellions, but his own conclusion was that they had been primarily and almost exclusively due to “bad government in the colonies”. Durham’s belief in the unity of the empire did not preclude the possibility of the colonies eventually achieving separate national existence, but he saw this as a distant and hypothetical future. Meantime, the link between mother-country and colonies was precious and the rebellion had demonstrated that it had grown perilously weak.

3. Implementation of the Report’s Recommendations

Lord Sydenham died on 19 October 1841, within a few weeks of his arrival in Canada. His successor, Sir Charles Bagot, though appointed on the understanding that he would reverse the policy of uniting the two Canadas, quickly announced that the union was a fait accompli, and it would be his task to make it work (Creighton 1941, 238). While Bagot had agreed with Durham’s recommendation that responsible government should be conceded, it was not until his successor, Sir Charles Metcalfe, came to Canada that the recommendations in favour of responsible government began to be realized. The task was greatly helped by the refusal of the Colonial Office to sanction Bagot’s practice of governing through an elite of French and English moderates, thus bypassing the Assembly. Faced with the alternative of dissolution or giving in, French moderates such as Louis Hippolyte LaFontaine decided that the only way to have a policy implemented in Canada was to enter colonial politics. Metcalfe was an autocratic man by nature, whose views on responsible government were conditioned by his long service in India. Yet in practice he quickly found it prudent to accept LaFontaine’s tenet that he should be guided by ministers with Assembly support. In 1843 and 1844 LaFontaine and Robert Baldwin won the position of their Reform party as the predominant political force in Canada through the achievement of an elected majority in the Assembly and effective leadership in the country at large. When Metcalfe refused to dismiss a ministry without an Assembly majority, LaFontaine and Baldwin were able to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and claim that they were now the constitutionally appointed advisers to the governor. Metcalfe’s successors, Lord Cathcart and Sir Charles Bagot’s brother, Sir Charles Edward Grey Bagot, greatly encouraged the Reform party’s demands and rapidly carried forward the establishment of responsible government. By 1848, after the fall of Lord Elgin’s ministry over the question of seigneurial tenure, it was clear that the governor would always be guided by the ministers who had control of the Assembly. On the seigneurial question Elgin precipitated an election, dissolved the old Assembly, and reconstituted his ministry on the basis of new elections, thereby ensuring that the will of the ministerial majority would be done. Although tired and embittered by his struggles with what he still felt to be factious party factions, LaFontaine noted at this time ‘it is the first instance … in the history of the two Canadas, that there has been real constitutional government.

4. Evaluation of the Durham Report’s Impact

Britain’s government could do little but accept and implement these recommendations. Between this time and the eventual Union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840, Durham’s Report was cited as justification for a series of measures passed in London, which completely overturned the existing form of colonial government in Canada. The Report had little immediate impact on colonial policy elsewhere in the Empire. In the Report’s preamble, Durham expressed his belief that “the British Empire is constituted by a body of distinct communities, possessing a great diversity of character, but agitated by a common sympathy and bound together by a common interest.” He felt that his recommendations could be applied to all colonies and that with their implementation, the issue of an English-speaking colony’s independence could be “finally and satisfactorily” put to rest. Durham had intended for the Act of Union and the institution of Responsible Government to provide a solution to the problem that he had identified—the conflict between colonial and imperial interest. It is quite clear that Durham saw the “reunion” of the two Canadas as a moderate and safe method of concurrently achieving independence and stability for the colonies and providing for the defense of British interests, which he believed could only be taken into account under a colonial administration that was subject to the control of the imperial state. The Act of Union had readmitted French Canada into the mainstream of Canadian public life and given the recruitment of French-Canadians into the colonial civil service a chance to compete once again for a share in the government of their country. This occurred, but only for a brief period, after which French-Canadian political influence rapidly declined. The civil service became an almost exclusively English-Canadian preserve, and because the governors, on the advice of their ministers, were henceforth to follow a policy that was determined by partisan considerations within the colony.

5. Legacy and Continuing Relevance of the Durham Report

Most significantly, Durham had given a new pattern to the colonists when he said, “I believe that no fouler system was ever devised by man.” This was a platform on which later leaders sought to build. In his own day, however, Durham found it necessary to continue the very system he had condemned. He had provided three possible solutions to the Canadian problem, but by joining Canada to the very Empire which he was striving to free it from, Durham ignored his own first two solutions and opted for the third. While Canada was still not entirely sovereign, responsible government was at least some hours closer. Durham had conceded to the colonists that they were in fact better off in a legal sense than the mother country itself, for in England, women, workers, and even lunatics were not represented, and in many areas most ordinary citizens were not enfranchised. Durham’s refusal to govern Lower Canada through martial law was of great importance to the future of the province. His decision was a victory for the rule of law.