ght and
action, forced those who demanded responsible government to test and
think over again their own position. The criticism which Elgin passed
on him in 1847 is final: "I never cease to marvel what study of human
nature, or of history, led him to the conclusion {124} that it would be
possible to concede to a pushing and enterprising people, unencumbered
by an aristocracy, and dwelling in the immediate vicinity of the United
States, such constitutional privileges as were conferred on Canada at
the time of Union, and yet restrict in practice their powers of
self-government as he proposed."[60] Yet he had raised the question,
for both sides, to a higher level, and his adversaries owed something
of their triumph, when it came, to the man who had taught them a more
spacious view of politics.

But it may be urged that he roused the French, insulted them, excluded
them, and almost precipitated a new French rising. Undoubtedly he was
an enemy to French claims, but, at the time, most of these claims were
inadmissible. The French had brought the existing system of local
government to a standstill. Few of those who took part in the
Rebellion had any reasonable or adequate conception of a reformed
constitution. As a people they had set themselves to obstruct the
statesmen who came to assist them, and to oppose a Union which was
doubtless imperfect as an instrument of government, but which was a
necessary stage in the construction of a {125} better system. Here
again Sydenham aimed at carrying out a perfectly clear and consistent
programme, the political blending of the French with the British
colonists. Unfortunately that programme was impossible. It had been
constructed by men who did not understand the racial problem, and who,
even if they had understood it, would not have accepted the modern
solution. Yet French nationalism, between 1839 and 1841, had certain
negative lessons still to learn. As, in Upper Canada, Robert Baldwin
discovered from his opposition to the governor-general the methods and
limits of parliamentary opposition, so La Fontaine, the worthiest
representative of French Canada, began in these years to substitute
constitutional co-operation with the reformers of the West, for the old
sullen negative nationalism which had failed so utterly in 1837, as the
most suitable means for maintaining the rights of his people.

[1] I disregard Cathcart's tenure of office. For all practical
purposes it wa