No progress had been made with the clergy reserve question. In 1850 Mr. Price moved his resolution, and an address founded thereon, praying the passage of an Act by the Imperial Parliament to authorize the Canadian Parliament to deal with the question conditionally. Earl Grey in a formal despatch, early in 1851, advised Lord Elgin that the ministry was compelled to postpone this bill to next session.

A conservative government which succeeded declined to pass the necessary Act, and it was only in the winter of 1853 that the Imperial Act was finally passed. In the meantime a bill had been passed by the Canadian parliament, increasing the number of representatives from 84 to 130, and in this prospective increase the ministers found an excuse for not proceeding with the Clergy Reserve Bill. At the beginning of the session of 1854, a motion was carried by a majority of 13, condemning the government for not introducing a measure for the settlement of the clergy reserves. The conservatives had not obtained a sufficient share in the good things to keep them quiet, and therefore they united with the reformers against the government, and secured its overthrow.

A general election immediately followed the ministerial defeat. Mr. Brown became a candidate for Lambton, which county, under the new law, had a member for itself. He was opposed by the Hon. Malcolm Cameron, Postmaster-General, whom he defeated by a majority of about 200. Many other prominent supporters were defeated, making it tolerably certain that the government could not live. Mr. Brown gave his support in certain cases to candidates of the conservative type, on the ground that there was nothing to be hoped for from the ministry, and conservatives doubtless led some to believe that they would agree to an immediate settlement of the clergy reserves. Supporting conservative candidates was a perilous experiment which could hardly produce any good, though of course in this case it secured the defeat of the government, and also secured the final settlement of the clergy reserve question, though not exactly as it should have been settled. Mr. Brown was entitled to the chief credit for the anti-ministerial success at the elections; Mr. Hincks was entitled to the discredit of forming a new combination with the Tories for no apparent reason but to wreak his vengeance on reform opponents. Mr. Hincks did not himself form one of the new government, but he narrates that Sir Allan N. McNab, the new Premier, "opened a negotiation with him, the result of which was that two of the Upper Canada supporters of the late govern"ment became members of the new ministry," Messrs. John Ross and Robert Spence being the two members. Mr. Ross had been a member

of Mr. Hincks' government for over a year. These gentlemen and some other western reformers who supported the new government never returned to their allegiance to the liberal party. The Lower Canadian

members of Mr. Hincks' government, who joined the so-called coalition government, were Messrs. Taché, Morin, Chabot, Chaveau, and Drummond; the latter gentleman afterwards acted with the liberal party, and became a member of the Brown-Dorion administration. The other four had been for some time leaning to the conservative camp, and now made it their permanent home. Indeed, Sir Francis Hincks does not refer to those French gentlemen as parties to the coalition, as he does of the two Upper Canadians; their adhesion was treated of as a matter of course.

No one

The new government was savagely assailed by the Globe. could expect that a governmeut in which the names of J. A. Macdonald, Sir Allan McNab, and Mr. Cayley appeared, could be other than hostile to the determined demands of the Upper Canadian people. They had all declared by speech and vote against any measure secularizing the clergy reserves, and by those who did not know them intimately, it was believed that their principles would compel them to resist any interference with the appropriation of these lands. The possession of office had a mollifying effect on their political consciences, and they yielded their views of public questions or principles to the demands of office and public clamour, as some of them have often done since then. Several conservative candidates had, however, promised at the elections to aid in procuring a settlement of the clergy reserve question according to the popular view. It is not the intention of the writer to discuss the settlement here further than to say that though Mr. Brown and other reformers opposed some provisions of the bill, all were glad to have a troublesome question disposed of. The principle long advocated by him, that no church should have any connection with, or support from, the state, was by that settlement conceded. The concession was largely due to Mr. Brown's exertions in the Globe and his advocacy on the platform. The amount of labour he undertook could be accomplished by few men. His own articles were easily recognized from their trenchant, free, off-hand style. His influence as a popular speaker has never been equalled in Canada. The Globe no doubt circulated largely amongst the presbyterian population, from the very fact that it displaced the Banner, which was a presbyterian organ, but the management of the paper and its views on all ecclesiastical questions also commended it to the intelligence of the Free Church element, whose views harmonized with Mr. Brown's. The high moral tone of the paper, and its growing excellence as a newspaper, did much for its circulation among all classes of the population. George Brown and the Globe became, in fact, convertible terms. Both editor and paper had many opponents, some might be called enemies, but no man ever had so large a portion of the population ranged on his side as warm devoted friends as had Mr. Brown. Nevertheless,

the schism in the reform ranks continued, though events were maturing a feeling in favour of united action and formal organization. Mr. Brown had in several constituencies supported conservative candidates who pledged themselves thoroughly in favour of representation by population and secularization of the clergy reserves; this, in several instances, accomplished the defeat of liberal candidates who were more or less unwilling to commit themselves to out-and-out measures. It may fairly be questioned whether this course was the best party movement for a leader to take, even under the peculiar circumstances then existing; but if the triumph of righteous principles was the right thing to aim at, there can be no doubt that Mr. Brown's policy was successful. A comparatively good government might be had under a vicious system for a time, but for permanency in good government it was necessary that the English population of Upper Canada must be put on terms of perfect equality with the Lower Canadians, and that legislative enactments which brought certain churches in close relationship to the state, thus giving them an exceptional standing, must be swept away, and all denominations of Christians be placed on terms of perfect equality in the eye of the law. To the advocacy of such measures Mr. Brown applied himself in this parliament with untiring zeal and indomitable energy. If others fell out by the way wearied with the march, he held on his way, making light of all obstacles; and looking forward with a hope that was never dimmed to the objects to be reached, he never allowed himself to doubt of ultimate success.

The work he performed in the sessions of 1854, 1855, 1856, and 1857, was far more than any man should attempt. He had noble supporters in the toil in William Lyon Mackenzie and others, whose patriotic efforts for good government will never be forgotten.

CHAPTER IX.

ATTACKED BY MR. J. A. MACDONALD.-REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.

In proportion to the vigour of Mr. Brown and the opposition in opposing bad measures and promoting the reverse, did the bitterness of Tory and coalitionist in the government increase. This bitterness at last took shape in the session of 1856 in a concerted attack on Mr. Brown by the government in connection with the Penitentiary Commission, which they hoped would banish him from parliament. Mr. John A. Macdonald made a violent speech in relation to this subject in the House on the 26th day of February, in which Mr. Brown was accused of falsifying the evidence, suborning witnesses, procuring pardons for murderers at the price of evidence to be given against the then management of the institution. The pitiable spectacle of the chief law officer af the Crown indulging in such violence and perpetrating such injustice, created unusual astonishment. If he believed Mr. Brown guilty of such conduct he should have brought him to trial for the specified offences. Mr. Brown rose immediately, and said there was not a vestige of truth in the charges made, and that he would next day move for a committee, and compel Mr. Macdonald to prove his statements.

Next day Mr. Brown made the following motion: "That the "Honourable John A. Macdonald having, in the course of a debate on "last evening, charged Mr. George Brown, a member of this House, "while acting, in 1848, as a member and secretary of a commission "appointed by the government to inquire into the condition of the "provincial penitentiary :-First, with having recorded falsely the "evidence of witnesses examined before the said commission; second, "with having altered the written testimony given by witnesses after "their evidence was closed and subscribed; third, with having "suborned convicts to commit perjury; fourth, with having obtained "the pardon of murderers confined to the penitentiary, to induce "them to give false evidence, or in words substantially to the same "effect; and the said Honourable John A. Macdonald having pledged "himself to substantiate these charges, a special committee of seven "members be appointed to inquire and report with all convenient 66 speed as to the truth of the said charges, with power to send for 66 persons, papers and records.”

This motion, singularly enough, was opposed by some ministerialists, who were unwilling to afford to the accused an immediate opportunity of disproving the infamous charges. Some called for delay, others for amendment. Mr. Macdonald would neither admit nor deny that the language in the motion quoted as his was uttered by him, but he demanded that the committee should be required to find out what he did say, and then investigate the conduct of Mr. Brown on the commission. Mr. Cayley put these extraordinary views in writing in amendment to Mr. Brown's motion. He moved "that a committee "of seven members be appointed to inquire into and report with all "convenient speed as to the nature of the charges made by the Attorney"General against Mr. George Brown, a member of this House, and as "to their truth, and that this committee be struck to-morrow." Mr. Loranger, Mr. Cameron, and others on the ministerial side, urged the immediate appointment of the committee to have the charges gone into. Indeed the accuser, in making his charges, was bound in honour to make his charges good at once, as he alleged he could do, while the accuser was not bound, by law or custom, to prove a negative. Mr. Brown, however, at once waived his right and determined to disprove the charges, yet some ministerialists desired that he should not be allowed to do so, but that he should lie under the accusation as long as possible. An overwhelming majority were, however, determined that a committee should at once be granted, the Speaker also ruling that the committee, if granted, must be struck that day, and the motion was carried by a vote of 94 to 12. The report of this committee was presented on the 16th of June, every effort having been made by the ininisterial majority in the committee to delay its production until it should be too late to act upon it during the session. The minority report was also produced on the 16th of June. The ministerialists on the committee acted throughout in the most partisan manner. Instead of finding whether the charges were true-yes or no-they entered on a prolonged discussion as to the mode in which Mr. Brown and his cocommissioners had conducted the penitentiary inquiry. They assumed that the condensed evidence reported was the actual detailed evidence, and affected to find discrepancies, and so reported. The report cunningly implied blame to Mr. Brown, and finally blamed Mr. Macdonald for having allowed himself to reiterate charges. It was coolly assumed that such charges had been made before, whereas the matter alluded to was on a general charge against the commission which Mr. Macdonald had made some years before.

When the report was presented, on the motion "that the report "be received," Mr. Wilson moved in amendment, seconded by Mr. Holton, "That all the words after that be left out, and the following