local government reform in upper canada

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN UPPER CANADA

REFORMERS AND THE TOWNSHIP OFFICERS’ ACX OF 1835

The first outspoken criticism against the autocratic, oligarchic and aristocratic government of Upper Canada occurred during the provincial election of 1804.l Benajah Mallcny, representing Norfolk, Oxford and Middlesex, and William Weekes, representing the counties of York and Durham, attacked the administration of the executive and legislative councils. At first their ideas spread very slowly, but by the time of the war of 1812 there was a noticeable under-current of unrest against the provincial executives. The movement received an impetus from evangelical reIigious groups and the leadership provided by such men as Gourlay and Macken- zie.2 With the accession to power of a reform government in England, and the passage of the Reform Bill, the reformers in Upper Canada could no longer be denied. By the spring of 1832 the spirit of reform was in the air throughout Upper Canada.8 Meetings were held in many townships throughout the District of London and activity was particularly prominent in the county of Middlesex.4

Early in 1832 Colonel Talbot? who had promoted the growth of the southern half of the London districtye suspected that there was considerable unrest among some of the settlers. This unrest was just a part of the general desire for reform sweeping across the entire province. Talbot directed his own supporters, “.., to use force against the ‘black sheep,’

1For a brief discussion see, S . D. Clark, Movements of Political Protest fn Canada,

2Zb&i., p 33244. 8James I!? Coyne, “The Talbot Papers,” Transacth of The Royal Society of Can-

4There was great activity among the reformers of the Talbot settlement; see Clark,

5A good standard work is C. 0. Ennatinger, The Tdbot Regime, St Thomas: 1904. Talbot had served on Simcoe’s staff before returnin to England in 1794. In 1786 he was promoted Lieutenant-Colonel. Talbot later sob his commission and settled in Upper Canada.

Wmmoting the growth of settlement was the Talbot Road running from Long Point settlement westward to Sandwich, with a link from Port Talbot to London. MIS Jameson was impressed by the road and by the Colonel. She pointed out how the territory under his control, by 1837, contained some twenty-eight townships and some 650,000 acre8 of land of which 98,700 acres were cleared. The population of his area totalled 50,OOO. See Anna Brownell Jameson, Winter Studies and Summer Rambles in C a d , ed. J. J. Talman, Toronto: Nelson, 1943, p. 109.

1840-1840, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1959, p. 213.

a&, Ottawa: The Royal Society of Canada, 1908, p. 51.

op. dt., p. 356.

388 CANADZAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

‘rebels,’ ‘incendiaries and scoundrels’ who were in their midst and who under cover of organizing ‘Damned Cold Water Drinking Societies’ were out to impose upon and delude the unwary.’v It is obvious in which group the Colonel placed the evangelical societies.

In 1834 reform conventions were being held to secure candidates for the provincial election, who would support the principles of reform. These men wanted the executive council to be responsible to the assembly for its actions. There was also concern about the control, exerted by the executive, over district administration through the appointment of the justices of the peace. The conventions of 1834 paid handsome dividends and the reformers were able to win a majority of seats in the election of October 1834. The reformers were in control from 1834 to 1838. In the election of 1836 Lieutenant-Governor Head succeeded in making loyalty the chief issue and many of the reformers, including Mackenzie, were defeated.

The legislature being for a brief period under the control of the reformers, their leaders were able to secure the passage of a measure for a radical change in the municipal system throughout the rural districts. Un- doubtedly, the pressure for an enlarged sphere of local government was closely associated with the larger struggle for provincial self-government.8 For example the District of London had, by 1835, been well established under the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace working through the Courts of General Quarter Sessioss. These justices, who were appointed through the Crown, in turn, appointed many of the subordinate district officials. The powers of taxation possessed by the justices were a matter of concern to the reformers? In fact, it was felt by many that, “... the system under which they [justices] are appointed requires instant revision.”lO The reformers were able to pass an advanced piece of municipal legislation which repealed the Parish and Town Officers’ Act of 1793. It also cut a wide swath across the entrenched powers of the justices of the peace.

The Township Oficel‘s Actll This legislation was a radical departure from the principles developed by

Simcoe in 1793. The new legislation proved to be very workable in the 7 F d Landon, “Rebellion Losses Claims in London District in 1845,” Ontosf0

Historical Society’.9 Papers mul Recorh, vol. 27,1931, p. 3. BC. F. J. Whebell, “The Geographical Basis of Local Government in Southern

Ontario,” University of London: Unpublished PhD Thesis, 1961, p. 95 sug ests that, “Local government was a subsidiary aim of the reformers who sought to encfthe system of control by the quarter sessions.”

Wee, The Seventh Report From The Select Committee of The House of Assembly of Upger Canada on Grievances, Toronto: 1835, pp. v-vi.

115 Wm. xv, c.8 (1835) reduced to one Act the several laws relative to the appointment and duties of Township Officers. Possibly, it is significant, that The Seoenth Report From the Select Committee of The House of Assembly of Upper C a d on crieoances, was tabled in the Assembly on April 10,1835 and The Township Officers Act was passed on April 16.

10I id., p. vi.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN UPPER CANADA 389

administration of local government. So well did it operate that the Tories or anti-reformers, who were returned to power in 1836, did not immediately repeal the Act.12 It was not until after the ill-fated rebellion of 1837 that the Act was repealed in 1838.l8

During the debate an the Bill the radical reformer Bidwell, who had introduced it, could not avoid criticising the Courts of Quarter Sessions. He stated that, “.., the bill will give the people the power of choosing justices of the Peace at Township meetings, that it will have the effect of transferring the power from the Executive to the people themselves.” And he continued, “The main feature of the Bill is that it allows the people to appoint those who shall manage the Township affairs; and cannot this as well be done by themselves as to allow His excellency to do it for them.=14

It is interesting to note that the reform legislation was concerned pri- marily with the rural unit of the township. It was apparent that many rural communities resented the degree of self-government granted to some urban centres. For example, Brockville had received a Board of Police in 1832 and Hamilton in 1833. These boards received more extensive powers than the justices of the peace. There does not appear to have been any idea or suggestion to alter the broad administration of the district nor to impose any changes upon the urban areas. The rural townships were allowed to elect commissioners who were given, as will appear, many of the powers formerly exercised by the justices of the peace.

Board of Commissioners The Act of 1835 repealed the majority of the previous acts in regard to

town meetings and the powers and duties of the township 0fficiaIs.1~ It also made provision for the transfer of much of the power of the courts of quarter sessions to an elected body called a Board of Commissioners. The township officials, previoudy responsible to the quarter sessions, now came under the supervision of the newly created Board of Commission- ers.18 In addition, the legislative range of the annual town meetings was broadened and, in fact, the entire municipal system within the townships was given quite a democratic turn.

The inhabitant householders and freeholders, at their annual town meet-

laAitchison, “The Development of Local Government in Upper Canada 1783-1850,” 2 vols., University of Toronto: un ublished PhD Thesis, 1953, p. 203 felt that “. . . the major, if temporary, victory opthe reformers was in the act of 1835.”

1% Vic., c.21 (1838). 14Kingston Chronicle and Gazette, March 7,1835. 16A Brief View of The Township Laws U p to the Present Time, etc., Toronto:

1835,” p. 110; see also “Bill no. 37, Township Officers’ Bill,” Appendix To J o u d of The Howe of h e m b l y of Upper Cam&, Toronto: 1835.

leAitchison, “The Development of Local Government in U per Canada 1783- 1850,” op. clt., p. 203 states that to the Board, “. . . was transkkd practically, all the powers of control over the township officers, and many other functions, some of them judicial, formerly exercised by the justices with respect to township &airs.”

390 CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

ing were, “ ... to choose three proper persons to serve the ofEice of Commis- sioners of the Township.”17 For the first time representatives elected by the township inhabitants would administer local government in a manner never known before in Upper Canada.18

The Commissioners were to meet twice in January, again in July and also in August. In fact, the members met whenever the business of a township required them to meet. They issued all regulations for the con- struction and maintenance of roads and bridges. Townships were divided into divisions and allocated to overseers of highways on the basis of the divisions, A Board could also fill township offices that became vacant due to the death or departure from the community of the incumbent. Officials, elected by the inhabitants, who refused or neglected to take their oath of office were also replaced by the Board.lS

A Board could relieve a man or woman from statute labour by reasons of age, sickness, a large family or misfortune.20 The members were empowered to summon anyone who refused or neglected to take an oath of office, or who gave a false list to the assessor of his rateable property. A single Commissioner could issue a summons and dispense with either of these offences on the, “.., confession of the party or the oath of one cre- dible witness, shall issue such warrant of distress and sale as aforesaid to some constable who is hereby authorized and required to execute the same unless the sum or penalty is immediately satisfied, and such sums or penalties when collected shall be paid into the hands of the Township Clerk.”*’ The Board could also summon any individual within the township to give evidence or to answer to a complaint,

For the first time, eIected municipal officials handling local government were to be paid.22 The Commissioners were to receive, “ ... the sum of five shillings per day for every day they are necessarily engaged.”23 Powers of the town wardens, such as they were also given to the Commis- sioners. They were also authorized to provide for the education and support of orphan children. Finally, they were to be a corporation to hold the property of the township and to sue, prosecute or defend.26

175 Wm. IV, c.8 (1835), sec. 6. 18It should be pointed out that the principle of local elections was actually intro-

195 Wrn. IV, c.8 (1835). sec. 52. 205 Wm. IV, c.8 (1835), sec. 53. 215 Wm. IV, c.8 (1835), sec. 54. =This principle was later included in the municipal legislation of 18.48. 235 Wm. IV, c.8 (1835), sec. 56. The township clerk was to provide a certikate

covering their time and the district Treasurer was to pay them out of district funds. The “District Treasurer’s Account 31 March, 1837, to 1 April, 1838,” in Appendix to ] m l of The House of Assembly of Upper Caw&, Session 1839, Toronto: 1839, shows that the Commissioners for Westminster were paid dL 1 10s in 1836, p. 396, and in 1837, received 5?2 10s

duced into England by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.

,397. %Wardens were re-intrsuced by the Act of 1838. 255 Wm. IV, c.8 (1835), sec. 76.


These powers, granted to the Boards of Commissioners transferred to them a great deal of control over the township officers. They also exercised a large portion of the administrative and judicial powers formerly exercised by the justices of the peace through the Courts of General Quar- ter Sessions. This break with the former aristocratic and autocratic form of local government was one of the main reasons why the Solicitor-Gen- era1 had voted against the Bill. He felt that transferring powers from the justices of the peace to elected representatives, "would be contrary to the practice always pursued under our form of government."2*

Township Ofiicials The township clerk, for the time being, was given a function formerly

performed by the justices. The clerk was empowered to assemble the householders and freeholders, ".., paying or liable to pay any public assessment or rate of such township on the first Monday in January, at the hour of ten o'clock in the forenoon ,.."27 For subsequent annual meetings the clerk had to give Ween days notice of such meetings, and when the township inhabitants met they were to select their own chairman to preside.

At the annual meeting a town clerk, assessor, collector, overseers of highways and pound-keepers were to be elected. This differed little from the Parish and Town Officers' Act of 1793, The new Act provided that, ".., no person shall be compelled or be liable to serve any township office above mentioned for two successive years except the inhabitant householders and freeholders neglect or refuse to assemble and appoint officers ..."28

This section introduced a new concept. Now an individual's obligation or responsibility to serve his unit of local government was presumably limited to one year at a time. However, it did not prevent an individual from offering his services year after year.

Powers and duties assigned to the township clerks were increased. As in the past, he was to keep a record of annual meetings and any other pro- ceedings of the township.29 In addition he now administered the oaths of office to the township official^.^^ For the first time a township clerk would be paid and at the rate of five shillings per day, " ... that he may be necessarily employed in performing the duties of his This s u m was to be paid by the district treasurer, on demand, after a justice of the peace had approved it for payment.

The township clerk also acted as clerk for the newly created Board of 2Wingston Chronicle and Gazette, March 7, 1835. 275 Wm. IV, c.8 (1835), sec. 2. 285 Wm. IV, c.8 (1835), sec. 6. ZQA copy of the Township Minutes was to be sent to the District Clerk of the

WPreviously the officials normally travelled to the district centre where the oaths

315 Wm. IV, c.8 (1835), sec. 16. This payment of the township clerk was retained

Peace.

of office were administered.

in the repealing legislation of 1838.

392 CANADULN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Commissioners. The clerk, in actual fact, performed the dual role of township clerk and treasurer. He handled all monies received for the commutation of militia service and statute labour from the residents of the municipality. In addition, the h e s and fees derived by the Commission- ers for summary punishment of petty trespass and other offences were to be paid to the clerk.32 The clerk prepared a detailed statement of all monies received and expended during each current year. A copy of this statement had to be displayed publicly for inspection by the township inhabitants.

The reformers had repeatedly expressed concern over the handling of local funds and records by the justices of the peace. The fact that there had been no public accounting for such records caused them to include in the Bill a provision that any person could examine, “.., any or all of the books and records of the Township, at all seasonable [sic] hours, upon the payment of one shilling to the Township Clerk.”3s

The annual meetings retained the powers, granted in 1793, for making regulations concerning cattle and animals running at large, and to regu- late the height of fences. Two additional powers were given to the assem- bled inhabitants who could now make local regulations in regard to dangerous pits and for the cutting of weeds in the

As in the past, the township assessor prepared the list of all rateable property. This list was then sent to the clerk of the peace for approval by the Court of General Quarter Sessions. In adition, the assessor also prepared a population or census return for the district clerk of the peace. Like the clerk, the assessor was also to be paid by the district treasurer.

Upon receipt of the certified assessment roll the township collector was authorized to collect the rates. These funds were to be turned over to the district treasurer. From the legislation of 1835, emerged the idea of two separate accounts for the financing of local government. Certain minor monies paid to the township clerk were to be expended on township roads and bridges. The district rates or assessments levied by the justices of the peace were payable to the district treasurer to finance those matters s t i l l within the jurisdiction of the Courts of Quarter Sessions.

Sections 29,30 and 31 of the Bill set forth the duties and responsibilities of the overseers of highways. The overseers now came under the direction of the Board of Commissioners and were subject to such regulations as the

325 Wm. rv, c.8 (1835), sec. 60. sslbid., sec. 71. In England the “Municipal Corporations Act of 1835,” provided

for council meetings to be open to the public and that all accounts were to be audited. For highlights of the English Act, see P. Stones, Local Gooernment for Students, London: Macdonald and Evans, 1964, pp. 14-5. For the first report of the Commis- sioners, appointed to enquire into the Municipal Corporations in England and Wales, see T. H. Reed and P. Webbink, Documents Illustrative of American Municipal Government, New York: Century, 1926, pp. 3-29.

345 Wm. N, c.8 (1835), sec. 9.


Board issued from time to time.36 This was a further signdcant change as the overseers had previously come under those justices of the peace, who formed the Court of Requests, for their division.

Impact U p m the Township of Westminster Assessment lists, collectors’ rolls and other returns continued to be han-

dled as previously. There was close co-operation between the township and district officials. It took the newly created Board of Commissioners, and other elected township officials, almost i year to become familiar with their roles under the Township Officers’ Act. Just when it appeared that they were becoming knowledgeable and efficient at their jobs the Iegisla- tion was repealed. Undoubtedly, the work load of the justices of the peace had been reduced. The impact of the Act upon the local government of the township was very sigdicant.

The township minutes, for 1836 and 1837, show a sudden outburst of legislative and executive action. Obviously, the newly elected, and representative, Board of Commissioners wanted to demonstrate that the p e e ples’ representatives were just as capable of administering the township as the crown appointed justices of the peace. The year 1836 marks the first time that the representatives of Westminster acted separately on behalf of their township.

The minutes for 1836 begin, “AD 1836 G. G. Bostwick, T. C. Anual [sic] Town Meeting held at the house of Charles Reeves for the Township of Westminster - on the first Monday in Jan[uary] AD 1836 when the following town officers were nominated and cho~en.”~e Subsequently,37 the township commissioners called a meeting at which the town clerk administered the oaths of office to the township ~fficials.~~

The township minutes for the annual meeting record that, “ ... the following Town OfEcers were nominated and chosen Commissioners, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Beattie, Silas E. Curtis.”4o An assessor and a collector were also elected. Some thirty-three overseers of highways were appointed and also seven pound-keepers.

The Board of Commissioners, at their meeting of January 16, established a scale of fees to be charged by the pound-keepers. The regulations

35In referring to statute labour the words “he or she” are used. See, 5 Wm. IV, c.8 (1835), sec. 53.

36Minute Book, Township of Westminster, p. 19. 37January 16, 1836. 38Some officials were not present on January 16 and they were sworn into office

at a later date. For the names of the officials and the dates in which they took their oaths of oEce see, Minute Book, Township of Westminster, pp. 21-2.

39% would be the grand-father of E. Sifton Hunt who was township assessor, collector and then clerk of the township in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

MMinute Book, Township of Westminster, p. 19.


covered not anly the fee structure but the amount of hay or grain that was to be provided to each type of animal held by the pnd-keepers.

Meeting again, at the house of Shubal Nichols, on March 5, 1836 the commissioners allocated the township road divisions to each of the overseers or pathmasters? On May 31 the Commissioners met at the house of William Norton to hear a complaint registered by Cyrus Sumner, one of the pound-keepers, against Norton. Judgment was against Norton and he was ordered to pay for the impounding of his animals and also the fees for the township

To expedite the handling of minor cases the Board moved throughout the township making it much easier for cases to be held. In July 1836 the Commissioners met at the house of Joseph L. Ode11 to hear a complaint brought by the town constable against Anson Simons.45 The complaint stated that Simons, an overseer, had refused to lay out and expend five pounds on a hill in the township. Presumably this referred to work that Simons, as overseer, was to have had performed by statute labour to re- duce a hill in the township. He had not arranged for either the equipment or the inhabitants to perform the task. Acting in its judicial capacity the Board ordered Simon to pay the constable four shillings and each of the three witnesses were to be paid two shilling and six pence. Fines paid to the constable were turned over to the township clerk and not to the district treasurer. It appeared as though the township Commissioners were enjoying their new found freedoms.

Meeting again in October, the Commissioners ordered two residents to work one day on their division at Dingman's Creek. Two other residents were ordered to work ten days each, " ... on the hill in Lot No. The first year was a busy one for the Commissioners and further meetings were held in November and December.

The meeting of November 12, 1836 was held at the house of Shubal Nichols. The Commissioners re-defined certain divisions for roadwork, ordered a number of residents to perform statute labour and in addition to pay a fine to their pathma~ter .~~ They also ordered that their host, "Shubal Nichols is to make the bridge on the side line near his home and that whatever no [number] of days may be required to finish it more than four days and half the [com]mission shall give him credit towards his statute labour the next year ..."46 Peter McGregor, who was prominent in the early history of the town of London, was ordered to remove his fence

4lThese divisions cover four pages, see tbid., pp. 23-7. 42Minute Book, Township of WestmZnster, . 27. 43At this same hearing, William SoutherEnd was ordered to pay a fine of ten

shillings and three pence on a charge laid by the overseer of highways Anson Simons; see ibid., p. 28.

44Ibid., p. 28. 4Wtnute Book, Township of Watmdnster, p. 28. 4eZbtd. p. 29. Shuball is also spelled Shubal.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN UPPER CANADA 395 and place it in the proper place. Further, the clerk was instructed to advise McGregor that failure to comply with the Board’s order would result in a fine.

The Commissioners called a meeting for December, at NichoI’s house, for the purpose of considering the returns submitted by the pathmasters. As all returns were not in the Board members adjourned for one week. Those pathmasters who had not submitted returns were ordered to show cause why they had not done ~ 0 . ~ 7 Later, the Board agreed to receive one return on payment of the constable’s fee and two other returns were accepted without a fine being imposed. One pathmaster was ordered to account to the township clerk that the work had been done or to pay the money involved.48 Anson Simons, must have been hoping for a quick return to the easier ways of the Court of Quarter Sessions, once again he ran afoul of the Commissioners who ordered, “That Anson Simons become accountable for two days work or the money at 5 shillings per day by the first Monday in January next.”49

At the annual township meeting of 1837 Nathan Griffith was once again chosen clerk.50 The Board of Commissioners consisted of three newly elected members, Albert S. Ode11,61 John Grieve and WiIIiam Orr. Over- seers of highways, pound-keepers, assessor and a collector were also chosen. The inhabitants having elected their township officers passed regulations about animals running at large and the height of the township fences. The electors ended the meeting by agreeing that the next annual township meeting would be held at the house of Nathan Griffi th~.~~

The new Commissioners met at the house of their clerk, in April 1837, and made a number of roadmaster appointments and also allocated certain tasks to be performed by statute labour. The township cIerk was instructed to advise the roadmasters, “.,. to get their orders as soon as convenient and to have their statute labour all done and returns made of the same to the Township Clerk by the first day of July.”63 The work of the first Board must have been effective for when the members met, in October, to examine the road returns all the returns were found to be satisfactory and were approved. This in itself was a remarkable achievement for the elected representatives of the people.

Under the Act of 1835 any road monies paid to the district treasurer were to be forwarded to the Commissioners and spent on township roads and bridges. In the correspondence of the London district treasurer is a

471bid., pp. 29-30. 4*ThiS was William Routledge, ibid., p. 29. 49Minute Book, Township of Westminster, p. 30. WG&& had been ap 5lThis is the same Oc& who had been one of the first township wardens. He had

52Mlnute Book, Township of We&minster, p. 31. 6slbid., p. 32.

inted a pound-keeper in 1817.

settled on Lot 20 of the First Concession.


small slip of paper containing the following instructions: “Mr Hams, Sir, Pay to Mr Albert Odell the Road Money that is in your hands for the Township of Westminster and Obledge [sic], yours, William Orr, John Grieve, Commissioners for the Township of Westminster.” The note is signed September 2, 1837. It is apparent that Odell received the sum of .U2 10s from the district treasurer, as a receipt bearing his signature is on the reverse side of the note.”

The progress towards an orderly evolution of local government administered by elected representatives, was shattered by the rebellion of 1837. The London district gaol become congested with political prisoners. But even more significant was the swift return to the former system of local government administered by justices of the peace through the Courts of General Quarter Sessions. At the annual township meeting of January 1838, G a t h was again elected township clerk while William Hutton, Thomas Shore and William Orr were elected as Commissioners. Having elected the other township officials the inhabitants decided that the height of fences would be set at five feet.55 There are no further records of any meetings being held by the Board of Commissioners. They, like so many other township residents, realized that the radical local legislation, passed by the reformers in 1835, would soon be altered. In fact, the inhabitants of Westminster township knew, only too well, that the ill-fated rebellion of 1837 had sounded the death-knell to representative township government. They did not have long to wait and in March the Act of 1835 was repealed.66

London and London Township Under the Act of VRCE An examination of the Minute Book for London township reveals that the

inhabitant householders, of that municipality, were as enthusiastic about representative local government as were their friends and neighbours in Westminster township. The annual meeting held in January of 1836 took place in the Court House of London which was the District capital. We read that the inhabitant householders, “,.. of the and township of London,” met and chose George J. Goodhue to chair the meeting. They then elected James Farley as clerk, George Robson, Henry Van Buskirk and Charles Goulding as Commissioners, John Blackwell assessor and

%ondon District Treasurer, Correspondence 1837-1839, Regional History Cdec- tion, University of Western Ontario.

66See Minute Book, Township of Westminster, pp. 324. 56A. Shortt, “Municipal Histor , 1791-1867,” in A. Shortt and A. G. Doughty ( eds. ),

Canada and its Provinces, 23 v d . , xvm, Toronto: Brook, 1914, p. 426states, “. . .the radical wing of the legislature being discredited and paralyzed, the munici a1 Act of 1835 was repealed in 1838. The board of commissioners was abolished and i e powers of the court of quarter sessions restored.”

57The terms town and village are used indiscriminately throughout the township minutes. London was the district centre but had not yet been incorporated as a sep mate town.


William Haskett as collector. The same group of elected officials administered both the district town and the township in which it was located.

Thirty-four overseers were appointed for the township and five for the district town. The residents of the district town, who were present at the meeting, were able to obtain the passage of a regulation to prevent homed cattle from running at large on their streets.

In 1837 Robson, Van Buskirk and Goulding were re-elected township commissioners. Given freedom of choice, the residents re-elected individuals who had already served them and with whom they were, presumably, well satisfied. These Commissioners, like their counterparts in Westminster township, spent two active years handling municipal affairs. Their work, except for the matter of the district town, followed a pattern similar to that in Westminster.b*

Commissioner Van Buskirk, in 1837, ordered the removal of fourteen dead animal carcasses from the town at a cost of 3s 9d - which was paid by the township clerk. In the same year a pump was constructed on the public square, near the court house, at a cost of 232 10s. York Street was improved to the extent of 5?3 3s 2d while Ridout Street, near the post office, had work done on it amounting to 321 13~.~O All these expenses were paid by the township clerk from monies received from the commutation of statute labour and from the fees, and fines, levied by the Board of Commissioners. Throughout the short-lived period of the Township Officers Act the inhabitants of the district town continued to be administered as part of the township of London.

Mrs Jameson, who travelled through the district of London in 1837, was impressed by the district town. She wrote, "... the town of London has sprung up and become within ten years a place of great importance. In size and population it exceeds every town I have yet visited, except To- ronto and Hamilton. London ... now contains more than two hundred frame or brick houses; and there are many more buildings. The population may be about thirteen hundred people."s0

One of the busiest men in the district town between 1837 and 1839 was James Hamilton, sheriff for the district. In a list of state prisoners confined, and later bailed out of the London District gaol, some 138 names are shown for the period December 15, 1837 to February 28, 1838."l In addition a number of groups were also held in security pending their transfer to other centres. None of these matters affected the township Board of Commissioners in any way. The complete operation of the district gaol remained under the district organization and control of the justices of the

58See Minute Book, Township of Lolldon, for 1838 and 1837. 5OFor a h n c i a l statement of London Township for 1837, see ibtd., pp. 34-5. mJameson, Winter Studies and Summer R a d h in Canada, op. Cit., p. 94. SlHarrfS F m U Pa s Re iond His Collection, Universi of Western On-

tario. Samuel Par[, w r & s g e jailer, h z t o provide the shenf?with accounts for the maintenance of all prisoners.

398 CANADLA” PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

peace. The district treasurer paid the accounts rendered by the sheriff when approved by any two justices of the peace. The treasurer was subsequently reimbursed by the provincial government for any monies expended on the political prisoners. The district treasurer also paid the member of the Provincial Parliament, the township commissioners and other officials.Ba

The short experiment of representative and democratic local govem- ment at township level was over. The repealing legislation of 1838 provided that those township Commissioners, already elected for 1838, would serve out the balance of the year as township wardens.B5 However, the repealing Act did not affect a complete return to the status quo of the Parish and Town Officers’ Act of 1793. Even the most ardent of the Tones had come to realize that all aspects of local government could no longer be adequately and efficiently administered under the system established by Simcoe. The municipal legislation of 1838, while abolishing the Board of Commissioners, retained a number of aspects of the reform legislation of 1835. In fact, it is quite possible that it helped to set the stage for the legislation of 1841.

The Municipal Act of 1838 The legislation of 1838,64 which repealed the Township Officers’ Act of

1835, included certain provisions on matters not dealt with by the Parish and Town OEcers’ Act of 1793. The Act of 1838 restored the responsibility for the calling of the annual township meetings in the hands of two justices of the peace, “... acting within the division ... to issue their war- rent, giving not less than ten days previous notice to the Township Clerk ... authorizing him on the first Monday in January in each year to assemble the inhabitant freeholders and householders, paying or liable to any public assessment or rate. ...”g6 The clerk was to preside at such meetings until a chairman had been appointed. The inhabitants were to elect one clerk, one assessor, one collector, pound-keepers, overseers of highways and three town wardens.

The township clerk was to continue to keep minutes and records of all township meetings. He was to forward a copy of the minutes to the district clerk of the peace. In addition, his successor was to receive the complete township minutes and records. The clerk now had to maintain a record of all papers, unexpended monies and property belonging to the township.“6 Further, all declarations of office were to be filed with the clerk. As in the past, a list of township officers was sent to the justices of

@See “District Treasurers’ Account 31 March 1837 to 1 April 1838,” Appendfx To Journal of The HDupB of Asmnbly of Upper C a d , Smsion 1839 (Toronto, 1839).

6% Vic., 42.21 (1838), see. xxxix. WZbfd. 661 Vic., c.21 (1838), sec. ii. WbkE., sec. vii.


the peace. The clerk also prepared a list of all township residents who were eligible for statute labour. Monies paid to the clerk for fines or for commutation of militia service were to be expended by him for the im- provement of highways and bridges within the township.B7 At the annual township meeting the clerk was to present a financial statement for approval by the town wardens. For these tasks the clerk was paid A54 per annum by the district treasurer from the district funds.6s

It will be recalled that the reformers, in 1835, were concerned about the lack of information provided to the public in regard to township accounts. This same concern was evident in the legislation of 1838 which retained the clause making it possible for anyone to examine the township records, in possession of the clerk, on the payment of a fee of one shilling, three pence.6s

The tasks assiped to the assessor, collector and overseers were similar to those previously in force under the justices of the peace. The assessor prepared his list of all rateable property which he forwarded to the district clerk of the peace.70 When the list had been duly certified by the latter official, and two justices of the peace, it became the collector's roll authorizing the collection of the district rates. A scale of fees to be paid by the district treasurer to both the assessor and collector was provided for in the Act.71

The overseers of highways were again placed under the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace in their division.72 Statute labour could be com- muted by the overseers at the rate of two shillings six pence per day. It will be apparent that the role of the assessor, collector and overseers, in their new relationship to the justices, and to the district officials, differed very little from their previous relationship under the Parish and Town OfEicers Act of 1793. Even the township electors reverted to their earlier role of legislating upon the height of fences and on what cattle or animals could run at large.78

Township wardens replaced the commissioners but with reduced powers as the control over the township officials and other powers were restored to the justices of the peace. The wardens could act as a corporation to hold property belonging to the township and like the commissioners they could sue, prosecute and defend in actions against the township. The wardens audited the clerk's accounts each year.

elIbid., sec. x. e8x Vic., c.21 (1&38), sec. viii. eSThe Act of 1835 had charged a fee of one shilling. 7OWhen preparing the assessment list or roll, the assessor also prepared a separate

census list. The census report also went to the district clerk of the peace who forwarded the reports for the district, each year, to the provincial secretary.

711 Vic., c.21 (1838), secs. mi and xviii. As in the past the township coIIectoxs had to y t bond.

Wbid., sec. xx. 181 Vic., c.21 (1838), sec. xii.


From 1838 to 1841 the administration of local government, for the townships of Westminster and London, was carried on in a manner very similar to that under the Parish and Town Officers Act of 1793. This system of local government was finally altered by the District Councils Act of 1841.

However, for eleven years, 1838-49, the minute books for the two townships record the annual meetings, the election of town officers and, of course, regulations concerning animals running at large and the height of fences. The usual quota of overseers and pound-keepers were also named.

The Courts of General Quarter Sessions, until 1841, were once again the principal body for municipal government. Road petitions went to the justices of the peace. For example, in 1841, a petition was addressed to Mr William McMillan, Surveyor for the Township of Westminster, asking for a new road from the middle of the third conce~sion.~~ The surveyor reported to the justices, of the General Quarter Sessions, at London, on July 13, 1841. He pointed out that the route proposed by the petitioners was not feasible due to a swamp and he recommended an alternate route. The justices ordered that his report be appr0ved.7~

Conclzrsion The reformers, while in control of the provincial assembly for a little over

two years, had made significant changes in the principles of local government. The powers granted to elected representatives marked a distinct break with the system of local government introduced by Simcoe. A study of two townships, suggests that the Act of 1835 was effectively administered by the peoples’ representatives and also respected by the township inhabitants.

Unlike England, where reform of the political structure began with parliament we find that in Upper Canada reform begins at municipal level. But before that reform could take place it was necessary for reformers to control the provincial assembly. It is worth noting that in one important respect Upper Canada went ahead of England in regard to local government. The townships in Upper Canada received elected responsible government in 1835 whereas the rural areas in England remained, until 1888, under the undemocratic control of the justices of the peace sitting in Courts of General Quarter Sessions.”

Undoubtedly, the pressure for responsible local government in Upper Canada was closely associated with the larger struggle for responsible provincial government. It was the lower tier of rural government that

74The petition was signed by twelve district residents among whom were Thomas

7Wondon Distdct Quarter Sesstons, Road Rep&, 1837-1841, Regional History

7aFor a discussion of this point, see Albert Shaw, Munidpal Government in Great

77For highlights of “The Local Government Act of 1888,” see Stone, op. cit., pp.

Baty, Adam Murray and George Murray.

Collection, University of Western Ontario, Road Report no. 179.

Britain, New York: Macmillan, 1895, p. 25.

21-2.


clamoured for reform and at the same time there was obvious concern about the powers of the justices of the peace within the district. The handling of the tax rate by crown appointed officials and the administration of public funds by the same individuals irritated many outspoken reformers. The majority, if not all, of those reform candidates who were successful in the provincia1 election were concerned over the control exerted by the executives in the District Administration. Thus in 1835 occurred the first major and distinct break with the municipal system introduced by Simcoe.

It was at the township level that a number of new principles were introduced when certain powers of the justices of the peace were transferred to elected members of a Board of Commissioners. This action provided a decided democratic turn to township government. For the first time elected representatives took over responsible administration of municipal government. For the first time elected municipal representatives were paid and for the first time all township books and records were avail- able for public scrutiny. These, of course, are only a few of the major innovations introduced by the Township Officers’ Act of 1835. The significant fact is that the township inhabitants elected as their Commissioners men who were already prominent in the townships. They proved to be capable, conscientious and effective in administering township affairs. They were the type of individuals who in an earlier time, and under a different situation, might well have been appointed justices of the peace by the Crown.

The rebellion shattered the progress towards a more democratic system of local government, and the repealing legislation of 1838 restored the township meetings to the status quo of 1793. However, in restoring the powers to the justices of the peace certain of the reform principles in the handling of the actual municipal administration were retained. Having experienced a responsible form of local government the township inhabitants, in spite of the suppression following the rebellion, continued to press for responsible local government, In many respects the Act of 1835 speeded up the legislation that was introduced in 1841. The Act of 1835 was a singular achievement by the reformers and had it not been for the later rebellion it might well have become the Magna Carta of municipal government for Upper Canada. The next major change in local government occurred with the passage of the Districts Councils Act of 1841.

THE DISTRICT COUNCILS ACT OF 1841

Prior to the rebellion of 1837 there was a feeling, in many parts of the province, that the justices of the peace should be elected by the people. However, after the rebellion the demand for popular election of the justices rapidly Iost momentum and instead two significant alternatives emerged. One was that the appointment of the justices should be in the


hands of the elected assembly or in a ministry responsible to that body. The second, and more acceptable solution, was to divest the justices of many of their local government functions and to give such powers to elected, representative local government bodies.78 It was the latter alter- native that was embodied into the District Councils Act of 1841.

The Earl of Durham, in his famous Report, had put forth a number of recommendations that were to have a marked influence on the subsequent growth of local government in Upper Canada.79 Three recommendations, the union of the two Canadas, the establishment of local government with elected councils and a change in the assessment policies figured prominently in the debates of the first parliament of the united Canadas.

The establishment of a sound system of representative municipal institutions throughout Upper Canada was a matter of vital importance. To Durham, the provincial legislative body controlling the business of every parish and which managed the general business of the entire province exercised powers too great for a single body. He had recommended that, “The establishment of municipal institutions for the whole country should be made a part of every colonial constitution ... .” Durham was also concerned over taxation and assessment policies. He had reported that, “There is no adequate system of local assessment to improve the means of communication; and the funds occasionally voted for this purpose are, under the present system, disposed of by a House of Assembly which represents principally the interests of the more settled districts ... He urged that local assessment and the spending of such funds should be en- trusted to local officials. Undoubtedly taxation was a contributing factor in the growth of local government, as indeed in the very rise of parliamen- tary government. It would appear that one principal reason for the crea- tion of the new district councils was the need for increased powers of local taxation. Unless the people were to receive representative local government, no thought could be given to increasing their local tax levies. The resident settlers and townspeople were concerned over the possibility that increased taxation might be imposed by an oligarchy operating through the courts of quarter sessions. Sydenham and others realized the need for greater local taxation to offset the insufficiency of revenue from

It was apparent that the people would contribute more wil-

7SThis had taken dace. to a limited extent, during the period of the short-lived Township Officers’ A& of 1835.

”

Wir C. P. Lucas. Lord Durham’s Revort on The Affairs of British North AmerccO. 2 vols., Oxford: Clhendon Press, 1912.’The text of hirepo; will be found in vol. S e e also The Durham Papers, Report of the Public Archives For the Year 1923, pp. 19381, Ottawa: 1924.

WLucas, Lord Durham’s Report on The AfFatrs of British North America, vol. n,

8lAt k2?me there was a lack of co-operation by Lower Canada in the levying and sharing of customs duties. To overcome the bankrupt situation facing the government, in 1837, many felt that by giving more responsibilities to the districts, together with increased powers of local taxation, the financial crisis could be eased.

op. cit.,


lingly if such taxation were to be imposed by their own locally elected bodies.

Poulett-Thompson, who as Lord Sydenham was the first Governor- General of the united Canadas, was determined to alter, if not do away with, the unpopular government by courts of general sessions in Upper Canada. Sydenham felt that a system of local government had to be im- plemented together with the other administrative reforms proposed by Lord Durham. He was acutely aware of the criticism levelled at the provincial government for having handled the private business of every parish in addition to the common business of the country.82 Possibly Sydenham felt that to enforce executive control over money bills would serve no useful purpose if there were no units of local government to handle minor public works financed out of local rates.= So concerned was S y d d a m about the introduction of local government that he had prepared and submitted clauses for inclusion in the draft Act of Union. He was convinced that the whole principle of a legislative union would operate only if a new system of local government was introduced. The British government was advised that, “ ... there should be a municipal system in Lower Canada similar to that in Upper Canada to provide for local works by local taxation.”% Undoubtedly Sydenham felt that without local government he would not be able to prevent the lobbying by local members in the spending of provincial funds. And, although the executive would be called upon to provide the funds, they could not be expected to know how such funds were being spent throughout the united provinces. Sydenham’s proposals to include elective local government in the two provinces met, understandably, with considerable opposition in the British parliament.86 After all, the rural areas in England were st i l l under the complete control of the justices of the peace working through courts of general quarter sessions and these areas remained so until 1888. Russell, Secretary of State for the Colonies, wrote to Sydenham pointing out that he could not jeopardize the entire Bill by retention of the clauses dealing with local government. Further he suggested that, “The benefit of municipal government being so great, it is difficult to conceive that the legislature of the United Province can long resist the introduction of a system so useful to its interests. ...”86

szFor a discussion of this point see, R. K. Ross, Local Government fn Ontario, Toronto: Canada Law Book Co., 1962, p. 13.

83J. E. Hodgetts, Pioneer Public Service, An Administratdue Htktory of the United Cab, 1841-1867 (Canadian Government Series, ed. R. MacG. Dawson), Toronto: Universi

of CuMda 1759-1 791, Sessional Paper no. 18, Ottawa: 1918, p. 232. Wee correspondence, “Russell to Sydenham,” of October 25, 1840 in W. P. M.

Kennedy, Documenta of The Canudian Constitution, 1759-1 91 5, in Shortt and Doughty (eds. ), C a d and Its Prouinces, pp. 554-5. This is also covered by Shortt, “Municipal

SsKennedy, Documents of The Canadian Constitution 1759-1915, op. dt . , p. 555.

of Toronto Press, 1955, p. 33. 84A. S x ortt and A. G. Doughty, Documents Relating to The Cmi tu t iowl History

History, 1791-1887.”


Most politicians, in Upper Canada, had presumed that the Act of Union would have established a system of local government, by elected representative bodies, in the urban centres and rural districts.m However, the Act of Union of 1840, by which Upper Canada and Lower Canada became the Province of Canada:* contained no reference to the introduction of local government.

Lord Sydenham was extremely disappointed about the omission of any clauses to establish a system of municipal government.s9 Writing to a friend he said, “No man in his senses would think for a moment of the Union without it being accompanied by some sort of Local Government, in which the people may control their own aff airs.”90 Writing to Russell, he stated that he was convinced that the difficulty in the province, “ ... is to be found in the absence of any well organized system of local govem- ment.’%l With the Govenor-General so concerned about the inauguration of a system of local government, it was a foregone conclusion that he would attempt to secure the early passage of suitable legislation.

Sydenham lost no time in getting his ideas before parliament. In the throne speech, at the opening of the legislature in June 1841, he said, “It appears highly desirable that the principle of local self-government, which already prevails to some extent throughout that part of the Province which was formerly Upper Canada, should receive a more extended application there, and that the people should exercise a greater degree of power over their own local Continuing his address to the members of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly, he went on to say, “I have directed a measure upon this subject be submitted to you, and I solicit your earnest attention to the establishment of such a form of local government for those Districts of the Provinces which are unprovided for it.”93 It fell to the lot of the Honourable S. B. Hamson, Provincial Secretary, to introduce in July 1841, the Bill which gave Canada West municipal institutions at district level.Bp

87Lord John Russell, leader of the British House of Commons, and Secretary of State for the Colonies, had originally supported the inclusion of such provisions in the legislation see J. L. Morison, British Supremocg and Canadian Self-Gouernment 1839-1854, Toronto: S . B. Gundy, 1919, .71.

SSUpper Canada now became CanaA West and Lower Canada became Canada East.

89See G. I. P. Scrope, Memoirs of The Life of The Rt.-Hon. Charles Lord Sgden- ham, London: 1843, pp. 200-1,

eo(luoted, {bid., p. 201. For the full letter see Kennedy, 9lH. E. Egerton and W. L. Grant, Crmadian Cmtituth?Deuelqnnent, London:

Murray, 1907, p. 283. 9zEgerton and Grant, Canadian Constitutional Deuelopment, op. d t . , p. 283. galbid., p. 292. This is &a discussed by J. G. Bourinot, “Local Government in

Canada,” in H. B. Adams (ed.), Johns Hopkins Vniuersity Studies in H&&d and Po2itical Science, Baltimore: 1897, p. 56.

94Harrison was an English lawyer of distinction who had come to Canada in 1837. In 1839 he became private secretary to Lieutenant Governor Sir George Arthur and in 1841 he entered Lord Sydenham’s government as provincial Secretary. A short but

. cit., p. 555.


Struggle For Passage The Bill, from the very moment of its introduction, became a very contro-

versial issue. It was proposed that elected councillors should assume the functions previously performed by the justices of the peace. Until this time there existed in the districts no elective municipal bodies. The justices of the peace, appointed by the Crown, had exercised, through the courts of general quarter sessions, supervision over local government and had levied local assessment.

The principal features of the Bille6 provided that the people of the seventeen districts, into which the rural sections of the province had been divided, would be represented by district councils rather than governed by justices of the peace working through the Courts of General Quarter Sessions. The District Council was to consist of a warden appointed by the who would preside over the council meetings, and a body of councillors elected by the inhabitant householders and freeholders at their annual town meetings. Only those entered upon the assessment roll for the townships were to vote. To qualify to run as a District Councillor an individual had to possess real or personal property of 6?300.97 Certain individuals were not eligible for office, for example, persons of holy orders, ministers or teachers of religion, judges, officers of the army or navy on full pay, persons holding offices under the district authorities, those having contracts with the districts and those convicted of treason or felony.

The basis for representation on the District Council was one councillor for every township and two when there were more than 300 names on the assessment roll. The District Council was to hold four quarterly meetings but the Governor could authorize extraordinary meetings. Meetings were to be open to the public and they were to be held in the place at which the sittings of the District Court for the district were held. The councillors held office for three years, one third of the total number retir- ing each year.e8 The district clerk was selected by the Governor from three names submitted by the district council, but the district treasurer like the warden was appointed by the Crown. The district surveyor was appointed by the warden, subject to the approval of the Crown. The surveyor was to supervise all public works in the district. The District Coun- cils could pass by-laws on such matters as roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, purchasing and selling property, funds for the administration of justice, imposing penalties, and for the payment of district and township officers. All new public works had to be approved by the District Surveyor before they could be commenced. If the project exceeded ~€300, approval interesting account of Harrison will be found in R. S. Woods, Harrison Hall and its Associations, Chatham: Planet Book and Job Dept., 1896, pp. 12-3.

WSee 4 and 5 Vic., c.10 (1841). eelbid., sec. iii. QVbid., sec. iv. Q8The first group to retire were drawn for by lot.

406 CANADMN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

had to be obtained by the District Council from the Board of Works or some other such body appointed by the Governor. Copies of all by-laws had to be transmitted to the Provincial Secretary by the district warden.eB

If a District Council persisted in following a course unsatisfactory to the Government, the Governor in Council could, by proclamation, dissolve such a Counci1.100 The legislation also provided that the justices of the peace and surveyors of roads, within two months after January 1, 1842, were to deliver to the district council or their clerk, “all and every record, books, judgments, reports, orders, plans, documents, instruments and writ- ings, in their custody, possession or power, appertaining or relating to the Roads, Highways and Bridges, within the District, or to any matters whatever hereby placed under the controul [sic] of such District Council, or of the officers to be appointed by them ...’lO1

The Honourable S. B. Harrison began the discussion of this important government measure on a Thursday evening August 5,1841. He began by explaining the general principles of the Bill but before he was able to finish a turbulent and furious debate ensued. So boisterous did the debate become that the House continued in session until three o’clock the next morning. It was the third clause of the Bill providing for the composition of the District Councils that caused the fireworks to erupt.lo2

The opposition came not so much from the conservatives who were opposed to the principle of elective local governments as from Baldwin and other reformers who were violently outspoken against this section that dealt with the appointment of the warden and others. They also criticized the method for appointing the district treasurers and clerks. All these officials were to be appointed by the Crown and not by the municipalities which they would help to administer. During the debate over the appointment of the warden, Baldwin moved an amendment which, in effect, would have restricted the Executive to appoint the warden for the first three years only; after that he would be elected by the people. Some eleven divisions took place with the ultra reformers opposed to the clause and favourable to the amendment. Even some of the high Conservatives, such as Sir Allan McNab and Cartwright, actually voted for the election of the warden in order to quash the Bill.laS Some conservatives were prepared to oppose the Bill as they felt it was a concession to republicanism.

e@By-laws were not in force until after thirty days of receipt by the Provincial Sec- retary. Within the thirty day eriod the Governor might, by order-in-council, declare the disallowance of any by-paw. A by-law roviding for a salary of &lo0 for the

I, 1847. warden of the Gore District was disallowed, P or an account see, London Times, April

1004 and 5 Vic., c.10 (1841), sec. hi. loYbid., sec. liv. 1mSee Kingston Chronicle and Gazette of August 7,1841. 1Wee Scrope, Memoirs of The Life of The Rt. Hon. Charles Lord Sydenhum, op cit.,

p. 252.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN UPPER CANADA 407 By supporting the amendment, they would not defeat their party but would ensure that the Bill would be buried by the legislative council. When the yeas and nays were recorded on the amendment, the vote was tied with thirty-three apiece. The chairman cast the deciding vote against the amendment. As one newspaper so aptly reported, “One peculiarity about this measure is that it is denounced by one party as republican in principle and by another as tyrannical placing undue power and patron- age in the hands of the executive.1O4

As the debate continued during the subsequent detailed description of the Bill, Hamson became concerned that proposed alternations and amendments would have the effect of destroying the intentions of the government. At one stage he felt that the question had resolved itself almost into a vote of corhdence in the government. He argued that, “The measure has been brought forth in compliance with the wishes of the people, and if it be now destroyed by this House the fault must not rest with the government but with the representatives of the people themselves.”1O6

Hamson, during the debate on the Bill, had made reference to the two Ordinances passed by the Special Council in Lower Canada, in 1840, which had forced local government upon the Sydenham had taken advantage of the closing session of the Special Council to introduce a municipal system into Lower Canada. The system, however, did not include the cities of Quebec and Montreal that already were provided for by special ordinances. In so doing Sydenham had to weigh carefully the open opposition towards democratic innovations and what he felt was the need for strong central control of the purse strings until the municipalities would be capable of handling their own affairs. As a result the legislation for Lower Canada provided for considerable control over official appointments and the financial operations of the municipalities.

Baldwin was very critical of that portion of the Bill that proposed to have senior district administrative officiaIs appointed by the Crown. Bald- win told the government, “.., you gave to Lower Canada law which was unasked for and which was never consented to by the people of that Province - and you now come down to this House and tell us we are to pursue the same system; that this is the great measure of the session upon which the government rests its responsibility and that you are determined to have the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill.” Evidence of his later statesmen-like qualities became apparent as he added, ‘‘I am in favour of the main principles of municipal institutions, but I would have

104Kingston Chronicle and Gazette, August 7, 1841. 1oWingston Chronicle and Gazette, August 14, 1841. l*aThe system for District Councils contained in the legislation of 1840 is practic-

ally identical to that of 1841.


them placed upon such a footing as will prevent collision between the people and the head of government and I would also have both sections of the province placed upon equal footing. I would rather have a worse bill which should be precisely similar to that which our fellow subjects enjoy, than have a better bill which shall be d8erent."lo7

Cartwright, who had figured so prominently in the development of the Midland District, argued against the bill, He visualized the seventeen districts becoming seventeen subordinate parliaments which in time would become very powerful. In fact, within ten years he pictured the province as a republic with the people electing the Governor. A moderate reformer, Mr Price, spoke in favour of the bill and he expressed the view that the majority of the people in his riding were in favour of the proposed legislation. On a number of occasions the Bill came within a vote or two of being defeated. Without the leadership and support given by Sydenham it is doubtful if the legislation would have passed.

That under the old system they [the settlers] were merely hewers of wood and drawers of water, the magistrates seizing upon the funds and appro riating

great increase in the resources of the country, those who lived in the interior looking forward when it came into operation, for the privilege of having that voice in the management of their own affairs, which hitherto when it had been raised, had been productive only of the emptiness of its own echo.108

Fortunately, in the midst of all the heated debate, cooler heads realized that to obtain the general principles embodied in the Bill certain contro- versial points would have to be overlooked. Once the principles of local government became part of the general legislation subsequent amendments could be introduced as required. Hincks was one who realized this. He tells us that, "It was obvious to others, as well as to myself, that the points in controversy were by no means essential and that it would be comparatively easy, as indeed was afterwards proved, to procure amendments to any Municipal Act, while the total loss of the Bill might lead to an indefinite postponement of a most important measure of reform. I was reluctantly compelled to take an opposite course to that of Mr Baldwin, on the most important measure of the Session, but I was instrumental in saving the Bill .... A few years later, Mr Baldwin was himself enabled to introduce a Municipal Bill of a much more comprehensive character, but the Municipal System was established in 1841."109

On the third and final reading Mr Baldwin moved an amendment, which was seconded by Mr Price, that the final reading be delayed for six months. The amendment was defeated by a recorded forty-two votes

Captain Steele, a reformer, who supported the bill suggested:

them as they saw fit .... He expected by these institutions, there woud P be a

1oWngston Chronicle and Gazette, August 14, 1841. loschatiaarn JournuZ, September 4, 1841. 1WSir Francis Hincks, Reminiscences of His Public Life, Montreal: William Drysdale,

1884, p. 64.


as against thirty - and the Bill was adopted.ll0 The District Councils Act of 1841 is sometimes referred to as a compromise measure. While the Act created self-government in the rural districts, it still left considerable regulative and legislative power in the hands of the Executive government. Some Tories felt that the legislation went too far by replacing the justices of the peace with elected township councillors. They were prepared to compromise only if the Crown retained the power to appoint certain key figures in the district administration. The reformers, while arguing that the proposals did not go far enough, were also prepared to compromise provided the powers over local government were taken from the justices of the peace and given to elected representatives. Although the Act, as we shall see, worked reasonably well for such a new type of legislation it did not satisfy the increasing popular demand for complete local self-government.l’l

Sydenham was happy when the Bill was finally adopted. Writing to his brother, in August, he said, “My last feat has been to carry the Municipal District Bill for Upper Canada .... The bill has passed both Houses, and I proceed today in state to give it royal assent, in order to make perfectly sure of its being law, even if I were to quit this world the day after.”l12 Sydenham did not realize how close to the truth he was for within three weeks he had left this w0r1d.l~~

Conchion Lord Sydenham stands out as a staunch supporter, and enthusiastic advo-

cate, for representative local government. His influence on the passage of the contentious District Councils Act of 1841 was most marked as was his imprint upon the introduction of a municipal system in Lower Canada.

As the Act of Union made no provision for a system of local government it was indeed fortunate, for Upper Canada, that a man of Syden- ham’s stature was prepared to support and, indeed, initiate the issue. A major influencing factor in the draft of the District Councils Act was the precedent already established by the Special Council of Lower Canada. This precedent had not been copied from England but, in fact, preceded action taken there in regard to rural units of local government.

110These figures are given in the Kingston Chronic& cmd Guzette of Au p t 21, 1841. However, Scrope, Memoirs of The Life of The Rt.-Hon. Charles Lor Syden- hum, op. cit., p. 254 states that the vote was 42 to 29. In either case it was a clear majority.

11lIn 1843 Baldwin introduced a bill to establish complete self-government in al l types of municipal corporations in Upper Canada. The bill was defeated by the Legislative Council. It was not until 1849 that the next major municipd act was passed.

IWcrope, Memoirs of The Life of the Rt.-Hon. Charles Lord Sydenham, op. cit.,

1Wydenham was injured in a riding accident on September 4, 1841 and died on p. 254.

September 19.

410 CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINSTRATION

It was the lot of Sydenham to pilot through the provincial legislature Lord Durham’s recommendations in regard to local municipal institutions. The Act of 1841 introduced, for the first time, a comprehensive municipal system for the rural districts of Upper Canada by transferring all the municipal functions of the Courts of Quarter Sessions to publicly elected bodies. The principal exception, of course, was the appointment of the warden by the Crown until 1846. No provision was made for any uniform municipal system for the towns and cities. The urban centres were handled through individual acts, passed by the legislature upon receipt of petitions, to incorporate a town or ~ity.11~ Undoubtedly, the Act of 1841 was intended to give the rural districts of the province a system of local government having some relation to that already enjoyed by the urban centres.

The Act of 1841 while establishing, in some respects, democratic institutions showed that the provincial government was still hesitant about permitting the people to elect all their own local officers. Possibly, patron- age was a factor in the initial retention by the Crown of the right to a p point the district clerk, district surveyor and district treasurer. It appears that the Governor’s appointment of the warden was, in part, an imitation of the senior executive officer of the province who was also a crown a p pointee. Even though the justices of the peace had been divested of the majority of their powers, over local government, the people continued to identify them, either rightly or wrongly, with the so-called Family Compact.l16

There was still an undue concentration of power at the District level. Too many problems of local government in the townships had to be pro- cessed through the quarterly meetings of the district council. The district organization was s t i l l too large, and too unwieldly, for effective and efficient local government at the township level. However, imperfect as was the Act of 1841 it did begin a new era in municipal government in Can- ada. The Act was but preparing the way for complete local self-government in the not too distant future.

“4An interesting meeting was held in the Court House of the Midland District, “. . . for the purpose of considering the pro riety of pztitioning the Provincial Parlia-

zette, January 2, 1838. The secretary for the meeting was J. A. Macdonald and Mr Mowatt was an ardent supporter.

11aFor M excellent account of the Family Compact see, Robert E. Saunders, “What Was the Family Compact?” Onturfo Historical Society, vol. 49, 1957, pp. 165-78.

ment for the incorporation of the Town o P Kingston, Kingston Chronicle and Ga-