“Lord Elgin,” he said, “has solved one of the most difficult problems of statesmanship.  He has been able, successfully and satisfactorily, to administer, amidst many difficulties, a colonial government over a free people.  This is an easy task where the commands of a despot are law to his obedient servants, but not so in a colony where the people feel that they possess the rights and privileges of native-born Britons.  Under his enlightened government, Her Majesty’s North American provinces have realized the blessings of a wise, prudent and prosperous administration, and we of the neighbouring nation, though jealous of our rights, have reason to be abundantly satisfied with his just and friendly conduct towards ourselves.  He has known how to reconcile his devotion to Her Majesty’s service with a proper regard to the rights and interests of a kindred and neighbouring people.  Would to heaven we had such governors-general in all the European colonies in the vicinity of the United States!”

On his return from England Lord Elgin made a visit to Washington and succeeded in negotiating the reciprocity treaty which he had always at heart.  It was not, however, until a change of government occurred in Canada, that the legislature was able to give its ratification to this important measure.  This subject is of such importance that it will be fully considered in a separate chapter on the relations between Canada and the United States during Lord Elgin’s term of office.

In 1854 the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Quebec and Montreal were deeply excited by the lectures of a former monk, Father Gavazzi, who had become a Protestant and professed to expose the errors of the faith to which he once belonged.  Much rioting took place in both cities, and blood was shed in Montreal, where the troops, which had been called out, suddenly fired on the mob.  Mr. Wilson, the mayor, who was a Roman Catholic, was accused of having given the order to fire, but he always denied the charge, and Hincks, in his “Reminiscences,” expresses his conviction that he was not responsible.  He was persuaded that “the firing was quite accidental, one man having discharged his piece from misapprehension, and others having followed his example until the officers threw themselves in front, and struck up the firelocks.”  Be this as it may, the Clear Grits in the West promptly made use of this incident to attack the government on the ground that it had failed to make a full investigation into the circumstances of the riot.  As a matter of fact, according to Hincks, the government did take immediate steps to call the attention of the military commandant to the matter, and the result was a court of inquiry which ended in the removal of the regiment—­then only a few days in Canada—­to Bermuda for having shown “a want of discipline.”  Brown inveighed very bitterly against Hincks and his colleagues, as subject to Roman Catholic domination in French Canada, and found this unfortunate affair extremely useful in his systematic efforts to destroy the government, to which at no time had he been at all favourable.