Lord Durham's Report on the Affairs of British North America, though considered marred by racial biases by some schools of thought, was nevertheless very important in Canadian history. It was instrumental in the union of Upper and Lower Canada, and it served to address some of the questions and concerns that had been raised during the rebellions of 1837. But what exactly did it influence, and what changes resulted from Durham's ideas?
British North America in the 1830s was a political disaster waiting to happen, with both French- and English-speaking lower classes ruled over by an aristocracy that was mostly indifferent to their concerns. The two largest colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, were situated in the St. Lawrence River valley, which is a very fertile region ideal for agriculture; much of Lower Canada's economy was based on farming and exporting grain, mostly to Great Britain. In 1835 the overseas demand for grain tapered off; suddenly impoverished, the French farmers rose up against the English in the 1837 Lower Canada Rebellion. Upper Canada saw similar unrest, but for different reasons: a clique known as the Family Compact held a monopoly on political power, passing only legislations that benefitted itself and ignoring calls for representation and responsible government from those outside the clique. Tensions erupted into rebellion in 1837 as Upper Canada's reformers followed the example of those in Lower Canada. Both rebellions were put down by the government, and the instigators were imprisoned.
Lord Durham
In mid-November of 1837, the current governor of Quebec, Lord Gosford, requested that he be recalled because of the unrest in the colonies and the fallout from the rebellions. He was replaced in February of 1838 by Lord Colborne; the status quo under Colborne lasted only a short time, ended by the announcement from London that the constitution had been suspended and that Colborne was to govern the colony under the influence of a council made up of equal numbers of French- and English-speaking colonists. This measure was taken to calm the unrest and placate the people of the colony; the British crown assumed correctly that the French wished for more representative power in the government, and this council was put in place to soothe relations between the colonists and the colonial government overseas.
This governmental regime too was short-lived, this time ended by the arrival of John George Lambton, the first Earl of Durham. Lord Durham was nicknamed "Radical Jack" for his policies and ideas advocating political and governmental reform. He was appointed governor general of all of the British colonies in North America; that is, he was responsible for overseeing political operations in both the Canadas. He was instructed to conduct an inquiry into the events leading up to and following the rebellions, and to analyse the unrest and the problems that plagued the colonies. The reputation for reform and radical thought that preceded him reassured rather than upset the colonists; everyone knew that change was both imminent and necessary, and all the better that the governor general was not adverse to implementing it.
From the start, Durham made an impression on the Canadians. He surrounded himself with an entourage and all the pomp and splendour that goes with nobility; this image of grandeur helped to calm the nerves of the colonists and reformers, because Durham appeared as one who was knowledgeable enough to conceive of changes to be made and powerful enough to effect them. He also created an effect of impartiality and aloofness by immediately dispensing with the council of his predecessor, under the banner that its members were too involved with colonial affairs and local political intrigue. In their stead he appointed members of his own entourage to serve on the council, as they were men who were foreign to the colony and its internal politics. This impartiality endeared him to both the English and French Canadians; they felt that as the council was now involved with neither side, their concerns would be more fairly addressed.
The second action taken by Lord Durham after his arrival was to organise task forces whose prerogative it was to research and report the problems faced by each side of the conflicts during the rebellions. They were also to report on actions taken by each side, and come up with a definitive and impartial account of precisely what had taken place. A report of this type would enable Durham to accurately pass judgement on what had occurred, and perhaps aid in finding a resolution that was fair to both the French and English Canadians on all sides.
A particularly delicate issue, and one which required careful handling so as not to offend and alienate either the English or French Canadians, was that of the political prisoners who had been languishing in custody since the end of the rebellions. Originally, five hundred and fifteen instigators of rebellion had been arrested; Colborne, the previous governor of the colony, had released all but one hundred and sixty-one. Seventy-two of these had been primary instigators of the 1837 rebellion. Rather than send the remaining prisoners to trial where they would be either condemned to death or acquitted of all charges regardless of their guilt, according to the makeup of the jury, Durham decided to release all of them save for eight, who were exiled to Bermuda.
Both the French and the English acclaimed this act of amnesty as generous and noble diplomacy. However, the British government declared the decision arbitrary, maintaining that Durham did not have the authority to pardon prisoners, and disallowed it in November 1838. The British government also disallowed Durham's decision to permanently exile Louis-Joseph Papineau and some of his followers, who had been instrumental in the conception and development of the insurrection. Durham resigned immediately and returned to England, leaving Colborne in charge of the colony once again.
Although he left in November of 1838, Durham had not yet accomplished what he had set out to do; that is, to report on the causes of the rebellions and make suggestions for ameliorations to the governmental system in the Canadas to prevent more of the same from happening again. His Report on the Affairs of British North America was to be completed in January of 1839, and presented on 4 February of the same year.
The Durham Report
The Report received a warm reception in Upper Canada, where it was regarded as revolutionary and a solution to the political problems that plagued the colonies. In Lower Canada, however, the Report was widely regarded as unfair to the French Canadians: rather than blaming the rebellions of 1837 on political unrest, he instead blamed racial tensions:
I expected to find a contest between a government and a people: I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state: I found a struggle, not of principles, but of races; and I perceived that it would be idle to attempt any amelioration of laws or institutions until we could first succeed in terminating the deadly animosity that now separates the inhabitants of Lower Canada into the hostile divisions of French and English...
Durham continued on to imply the racial and cultural inferiority of French Canadians, stating that they have neither history nor literature and therefore little value as a society. This view of the causes of the rebellions ties in directly to one of the central tenets of the Report; that is, that in order to maintain peace and order in British North America, the French population must be assimilated through a union between Upper and Lower Canada, becoming a part of an English majority. This suggestion has been widely criticised as a failing of the Report and of Durham's political thoughts, as well as indicative of an inherent bias against the French. General opinion holds it that this suggestion was arrogant and offensive, and that Durham was not at all correct in his assumptions regarding the necessity of French assimilation.
The basis for Durham's proposed assimilation rested on his thinking that there were two methods for dealing with conquered territory. The first is the more difficult one; it calls for the conquerer to honour "the rights and nationalities of the actual occupants". The second approach is entirely the opposite. In Durham's own words, this method
is that of treating the conquered territory as one open to the conquerors, of encouraging their influx, of regarding the conquered race as entirely subordinate, and of endeavouring as speedily and as rapidly as possible to assimilate the character and institutions of its new subjects to those of the great body of the empire.
Where the former method requires that the colonial government dedicate resources to keep the culture of its conquered territory intact, thus reducing the wealth that might be gained from the colony, the latter is a quick and dirty approach that is considerably cheaper. Add to this that Durham considered the French-Canadians to be "a people with no literature and no history" -- a culture unworthy of preservation under any circumstances -- and it becomes obvious which method he felt best suited to the situation.
The influences of Durham's thoughts on the two modes of dealing with "conquered" territory can be seen throughout the history of French-English relations in Canada following the Report, continuing on with policies and legislations made today. This is no better exemplified than in the emergence of political parties in the province of Quebec demanding recognition for the province and its inhabitants as a "separate and distinct society" with special language and culture rights, to the point of exclusion of all things Anglophone.
Increasing political stability, and working toward colonial independence
Whereas Durham laid blame for the rebellion in Lower Canada on the perceived cultural inferiority of French Canada, insofar as Upper Canada was concerned he had criticism for the inadequacy of the constitutional system, which instability he felt had led to the unrest and insurrection. He asserted that all of the political power in Upper Canada was monopolised by "a petty, corrupt, insolent Tory clique" -- which observation was not far off the mark. The concentration of power in the hands of those ill-suited for such responsibility unsurprisingly hindered social and economic development in the colony, by connection hampering the economic productivity in the colony, which because of its vast area of natural resources had the potential for being a wealthy and useful colony for Great Britain. The blockage of economic and social development led to discontent among the colonists and then to rebellion. This issue was simple enough to remedy: all it required was that power be spread out rather than concentrated in the hands of the elite, who held a political monopoly. Durham also felt that discord between the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly increased political instability in the colony and should be rectified along with the removal of the elitist monopoly.
In his Report, Durham made a suggestion in this same vein to improve political stability in the colony -- he proposed that the executive branch of government be drawn from the party in the majority in the assembly. This proposal was based on ideas of colonial reformers like Robert Baldwin in Upper Canada, and was to develop into the system of government that we see in Canada today, in which Cabinet ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister from elected members of the House of Commons. Durham's solution would not only stimulate colonial expansion, it would also strengthen the imperial influence in the colony by making the government more similar to the British government overseas. By strengthening imperial ties in British North America, American influence from the south would be minimised.
Another reason for limiting American influence is to stave off expansionist aspirations borne of manifest destiny. Historian John Turner addresses this in his frontier thesis: one of its implications is that so much of the American identity is wrapped up in conquering new "frontier territory" that to be American is to acquire more territory. With the opening of the interior of the North American continent and the rapid settlement of the west, the colonial government would have had good reason to fear that their own territory would be swallowed up by the United States unless something was done to avert it. To allow American influences in their government might prove disastrous indeed to their independence in the long run, and so must be limited, and if possible prevented altogether.
Assimilation
For Durham, it was logical and rational to assume the nationalist sentiment among French Canadians leading up to and following the rebellions was indicative of the fact that assimilation was already occurring. A contemporary example of this is the nationalism seen in the province of Quebec. The Parti Quebecois on the provincial level and the Bloc Quebecois federally were formed with the aim to protect and preserve the French Canadian culture; they were formed because some felt that their unique culture was being lost to English influence, and that the federal government in Ottawa was doing nothing to prevent it. The nationalist sentiment may have existed before but it was not in the political limelight until a threat to the continuity of the cultural status quo was perceived.
French-Canadian nationalism in the nineteenth century was no different. With the influx of immigrants to the Canadas from the British isles, political leaders and radicals in Lower Canada feared, perhaps rightly, the destruction of their culture and way of life under British rule and British influence from immigrants and colonists in Upper Canada, and increasingly in Lower Canada as well. Their agitation spread to the populace and caused a disturbance that was partly responsible for the rebellion. Durham observed the growth of such sentiment in the period leading up to the rebellion, and postulated that since French leaders were concerned about assimilation, it must be occurring already to some extent, however small.
If the assimilation process had already begun, and if said assimilation would assist British North America in becoming wealthier and more productive, why should it be stopped? Why not carry on until the Francophone population had been entirely incorporated into the Anglophone population, which was quickly becoming the majority? Halting assimilation seemed counterproductive and perhaps even economically harmful in the long run. Although it is widely thought of as being astonishingly ignorant and offensive, Durham's proposal was perfectly reasonable in the context of creating economic and political stability.
Another sign of the process of assimilation was the changing attitudes toward government held by the French in Canada. Historically, the French people had been subservient to authority -- they lived under an autocratic system of government which involved an absolute monarch who had the final say in all decisions, and held unquestioned authority. It was the British who instituted a constitutional monarchy with an elected body making up part of the governmental system and limiting the authority of the monarch. The English "conquerors" of New France may even have expected to find a people who would be "entirely subordinate" to their rule; after all, historically the French did not have a propensity toward questioning authority. The British certainly would not have expected to find a people who were eager to instigate rebellion.
The very idea behind the rebellion itself indicated a change in the French attitude toward government. Evidently French Canadians were different from the French in France; this could in part be due to English influence, which in turn implies that assimilation had commenced and was progressing, at least insofar as political thought and radical activity went. A natural result of such political influence would be an amalgamation of the French Canadian culture into that of the English settlers who were immigrating from the British isles. Perhaps Durham saw this tendency and was aware of it, lending yet more credence to his argument for assimilation.
The assimilation argument gains even more credibility when one takes into account the depth of the unrest in Lower Canada. The grievances that the political leaders of Lower Canada held against their British rulers ran deep; so deep, in fact, that a peaceful resolution, one that occurred without resorting to open conflict, would have been all but impossible. Durham knew that this was true, and his assimilation policy reflects it; as peaceful resolution was impossible, and maintaining two separate cultures economically unwise, assimilation of the French culture was the most rational option.
Durham also noted in his Report that the British government itself must be held accountable to a certain extent for the discord between English and French Canada. Shortly after the British conquest of New France, legislation had been made that preserved French civil law in the Canadas, though British criminal law was instituted. Immigration to the Canadas was encouraged by the British government; a thriving and modern commercial society in the English style had been allowed to grow and flourish in the colony. However, the seigneurial system and the French civil law that still existed were somewhat at odds with the new English society; the British government followed neither Durham's first method of dealing with conquered territory, which was to preserve the existing culture in its entirety, nor did they follow his second method, which called for complete assimilation. Instead the British government followed a system that was both and neither; "encouraging the influx" of British settlers as per the second method while at the same time leaving the French to their existing way of life under the seigneurial system and French civil law for day-to-day affairs. Under Durham's directives for dealing with conquered territory, such equivocation was destined to fail spectacularly -- as indeed it did, disintegrating into political unrest in both Upper and Lower Canada and culminating in outright rebellion.
Responsible Government
The other main tenet of Durham's Report was the institution and development of a responsible system of government -- that is, one that was accountable to the people under it, a democratically elected government. In the form proposed by Durham, the executive branch of government would be made up of representatives appointed from the elected legislative assembly. In the case of an extreme situation, the appointed executive could be dismissed according to a majority vote among the legislative assembly.
To introduce such a system in the Canadas would increase colonial independence. No longer would a decision on a particular matter have to be handed down from the British government overseas to representative officials in the colonies themselves; instead, the government would be based in the colony and, though still connected to the British government, would be capable of making its own decisions and legislations. If the people of the colonies were unhappy with decisions made by their government on a particular issue or issues, they would be able to voice their displeasure by making governmental changes in the next election. Members of the legislative assembly would then be directly accountable to their constituents; this would effectively remove the monopoly of political power from the hands of the Family Compact.
Some schools of thought view this proposal as indicative that Durham wished to institute a democratic style of government in the colonies. This of course was entirely possible; however, it has also been thought that Durham suggested it as a means of controlling the democratic process. Instead of weakening the power of the governmental executive, such a system would strengthen it -- the appointed officials would be on a higher and more powerful political plane than would members of the elected legislative body, and thus less accountable to the people of the colonies. Historically, Canada has been a conservative nation; despite the more recent trend toward liberalism traces of this can still be seen in the Cabinet, made up of appointees from the House of Commons, and an appointed Senate. Also, Canadians tend to look down upon the governmental system in the United States to the south, putting it down as "mob democracy" and sneering at their election process with its electoral colleges and popular vote and ballot-counting miscues for being inefficient and unreasonably complicated. Our appointed Cabinet and our faith in it to make reasonable decisions exists in part because of Durham's recommendation to move toward responsible government.
Certain passages in Durham's Report indicate that the intent of an appointed executive was in fact to limit the democratic power of the elected body of representatives. He makes reference to the necessity for "limitation on the present powers of the representative bodies" in the colonies, as though such powers are a negative influence on the government and so need to be minimised. He also states that what is required in Upper Canada is no less than "an executive sufficiently powerful to curb popular excesses". This suggestion in turn intimates that Durham, despite his reputation as a reformer and a radical, still harboured some conservative notions about what should be the nature of government. He seems here to be at cross purposes with his own ideas; promoting a responsible government accountable to the people while at the same time warning against it. However, this becomes clearer when one takes into account the conundrum with which British liberals in the nineteenth century were faced. In her work on the background to Lord Durham's political philosophy, historian Janet Ajzenstat states that
Throughout the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth, British political thinkers ... held forth on the dangers of "popular power". They argued that a strong political executive relatively immune to popular demand, and an appointed upper legislative chamber, were as necessary to good government as a popularly elected assembly. The good political constitution must comprise a "monarchic" branch (the Cabinet, the ministers of the Crown), and an "aristocratic" branch (the upper legislative house), as well as a "democratic" branch. This was the famous "balanced" or mixed constitution.
Taking this into account, Durham's thoughts on the issue of constitutional reform and responsible government become more clear; perhaps he felt that instituting responsible government would be a positive change, but he and the current government must proceed with some trepidation so as not to capitulate entirely to the will of the masses. To the south, Andrew Jackson had been elected to the presidency and Jacksonian democracy was beginning to take hold; the idea of this sort of democracy was radical beyond the wildest aspirations of Durham and his Whig colleagues. Again, here is a case of minimising American influence in British North America; only this time it is revolutionary political influence in the form of Jacksonian democracy that is to be limited rather than territorial conquest on the frontier.
To summarise, Lord Durham made three key recommendations in his Report on the Affairs of British North America: i) assimilation of the French through the unification of Upper and Lower Canada; ii) institution of a system of responsible government; and iii) increasing colonial independence gradually in matters of government through separation of imperial and local affairs.
The Act of Union, and finally making changes
Despite Durham's recommendations and the vigour with which the rebellions prior to it had taken place, it was some time before constitutional change was effected and a true system of responsible government implemented. It seemed that the colonists were less than enthusiastic regarding matters of constitutional reform, and that the elite were understandably unwilling to relinquish their monopoly on political power in the colonies. It was not until 1841 that Upper and Lower Canada were united into a single colony; the regions were renamed Canada East and Canada West (Lower and Upper Canada respectively) in accordance with geographical location rather than position on the St. Lawrence River.
The governors general who succeeded Lord Colborne in the years following Durham's departure and the presentation of his Report all attempted to institute constitutional reform; they met with a lukewarm reception from the colonists and the members of the Chateau Clique and the Family Compacts, who resisted change passively without resorting to open rebellion and insurrection. The first election held following the uniting of Upper and Lower Canada into the single United Province of Canada was held in 1841; shrewd political manipulations on the part of the governor general, Lord Sydenham, ensured a majority in the legislative assembly for English-speaking Tories. He was then able to exclude French-Canadians from his Executive Council by appointing only Anglophones in accordance with the majority. Sydenham's exploitation of the warring factions of French-Canadian politicians -- some of whom were more radical than others -- made certain that the French-Canadian element in the government was weak at best and held little political influence.
French-Canadian politicians were divided on the issue of the uses for responsible government. The most radical of them wanted the Act that united Upper and Lower Canada to be repealed, and felt that the new form of government would aid in this. Moderate reformers felt that the Act had been a positive step and that responsible government with its "equal representation" in the legislative assembly would reduce the threat of assimilation implicit to such a union, as proposed and supported by Lord Durham. Naturally this discord within the movement weakened the political influence held by the French in Canada.
However, the efforts of Lord Sydenham to restrict reform influence in government inadvertently encouraged English reformers to join forces with French radicals and thus gain more influence -- much like the Reform Party and the Conservative Party of Canada brought together into the Canadian Alliance Party under the banner of the "Unite the Right" movement, making them a legitimate and powerful opponent to the majority government. In late 1841 Lord Sydenham died, leaving the problem of the growing reform movement to his successor, Sir Charles Bagot. Bagot realised that in order to maintain an English-speaking Tory majority in the legislative assembly, it was necessary to curry favour among the leaders of the reform movement, which was rapidly gaining popular support. He appointed Robert Baldwin, a prominent radical from Canada West, and Louis Lafontaine, another radical this time from Canada East, and three other reformers to the Executive Council; this gave some power to the reformers, but maintained the status quo insofar as the political majority went and effectively allowed Bagot to ignore the principles of responsible government.
In 1843, Sir Charles Metcalfe replaced Bagot as governor general of the Province of Canada. A dispute between he and his Executive Council over the presence of an official ministry to oversee all appointments made by the governor general led to the resignation en masse of the ministry, and Metcalfe's dissolution of the entire Legislative Assembly. An election was called in 1844; Metcalfe's Tories succeeded in retaining their majority in Canada West, but Lafontaine's Reform coalition gained more support than ever before in Canada East. This left the Tories with a majority in the Legislative Assembly, but only just; Metcalfe was forced to turn to the leader of the Tory majority in English-speaking Canada West, William Henry Draper, to lead the Legislative Assembly. This formed a body very similar to the modern-day Cabinet, with Draper functioning as Prime Minister; in fact, this same Tory majority would later become the Conservative Party of Canada. Draper had nearly as much power as Metcalfe himself. If his recommendations to the governor general were ignored, Metcalfe's decisions could be voted down by Draper's majority in the Legislative Assembly. The only alternative option was a French Reform government, led by Lafontaine -- who would insist that the governor general acquiesce to the consensus that had been reached by the majority party.
Lord Elgin and responsible government (at long last)
The principles of a true responsible government were not demonstrated until 1849, after several old colonial laws were repealed in Britain. These laws had in the past been barriers to free trade in Britain; now that they were no longer in effect, the economic systems of the colonies were no longer under imperial government. The political climate at this time was one that was open and receptive to change; the proponents of responsible colonial government were eager to demonstrate its utility and efficacy in making decisions that appealed to and answered the concerns of the populace. Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine and their Reform coalition each held a majority in their respective half of the Legislative Assembly. The reformers could now wield their majority power to effect permanent and unequivocative change.
In 1849, Lord Elgin, the governor general, signed the controversial Rebellion Losses Bill, which gave compensation to those who had lost property during the rebellions. Elgin himself did not agree with the bill and would not have signed it into existence had he not been required to do so by a majority vote in the Legislative Assembly. This exemplified the principle of responsible government; a bill had been passed by representatives elected by and accountable to the people of the colony, and the appointed officials had to let it pass against their judgement.
Political evolution into the system of responsible government came about far faster in the colony of Nova Scotia than it did in the Province of Canada. In 1846 a missive was sent from the British colonial secretary to the governor of Nova Scotia, John Harvey, which contained the common-sense message that it was impossible to have a government that was opposed to the people over which it ruled. By 1847 British colonial officials felt that there was no reason to put off institution of the British system of responsible government and Cabinet if that was how the people of the colony wished for it to be governed. The Reformers came into the majority in the next election, in autumn of 1847, and Harvey had no choice but to allow them to form the new government.
The institution of responsible government and through it a far greater degree of colonial independence in British North America differed considerably from the establishment of the same in the Thirteen Colonies to the south. The former occurred largely through quiet and subdued evolution of political philosophies that changed to suit the times; mostly non-violent (with only two exceptions), the colonies remained just that with strong ties to Britain despite their new self-government. The latter took place by means of violent insurrection and ended with bitterness for past injustices harboured by both sides, and complete severance of all imperial ties with the American Declaration of Independence. These differing approaches to the institution of a responsible system of government spawned the phrase "evolution, not revolution", which some historiographers would assert has been a guiding influence in the development of the Canadian identity.
Governmental form changes (or, If you only read one part of this writeup, make it this one)
Before Upper and Lower Canada were united into a single legislative body, the government was made up of a governor appointed by the British Crown, who in turn appointed an Executive Council and a Legislative Council. An elected Legislative Assembly existed, but they wielded no real political power in the scheme of government. In effect, an oligarchy existed, and the people of the colonies had little to no influence over what transpired and what decisions were made.
In 1841, on Lord Durham's advice, the Act of Union brought Upper and Lower Canada together into a single colony under a single government. The structure of the political system changed considerably from the way it had been before; the governor was still appointed by the Crown, and still was charged with appointing a Legislative Council to assist with decision making and legislations, but now the Legislative Assembly was made up of 42 representatives each from Canada West and Canada East, and members of the Executive Council were chosen from the electorate with the support of the Legislative Assembly. With the advent of responsible government by 1849, governmental structure was altered yet again. The governor general still had the power to appoint a Legislative Council, but he began the practice of asking the leader of the Legislative Assembly to appoint the Executive Council -- very similar to the Prime Minister and Cabinet seen in the modern-day Canadian government.
Sources:
Ajzenstat, Janet. The Political Thought of Lord Durham. Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1988.
Christopher, James R. The North Americans. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Craig, Gerald M., ed. Lord Durham's Report. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963.
Ouellet, Fernand. Lower Canada 1791-1840: Social Change and Nationalism. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1980.
Wade, Mason. The French-Canadian Outlook. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1964.
Whew. If you read all the way to the end of this without drifting off to sleep, I owe you a drink. | 
