Document Information

Date: 1866-04-19
By: Montreal Herald
Citation: “THE GLOBE JUSTIFYING THE TREATMENT OF MR. BROWN BY SIR EDMUND HEAD” Montreal Herald (19 April, 1866)
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

THE “GLOBE” JUSTIFYING THE TREATMENT OF MR. BROWN BY SIR EDMUND HEAD.

—When Mr. Brown turned his coat he evidently made up his mind not to do it by halves. He had been the loudest in his condemnation of Sir Charles Metcalfe, for acting in opposition to the advice of his constitutional advisers; and we all recollect the cries of anger with which he complained of his own treatment by Sir Edmund Head, when that Governor refused to accept his advice to dissolve Parliament. But see how, through the Globe, he now justifies these very things when done to Mr. Smith by Governor Gordon, under circumstances exactly analogous to those in which Sir Charles Metcalfe acted, but much less favorable to the course of the Governor, than those in which Sir Edmund acted.

Mr. Smith had in one year so far forfeited the confidence of the members elected to support him, that the strength of the Opposition had been nearly doubled—though he appears still to have a majority of five or six in a House where he once had a majority of more than twenty. The Legislative Council, however, is against Mr. Smith, and in favour of Union, by a majority of more than two to one. The York election, so often referred to, is some evidence that the country, too, is against him; nor are there wanting other indications that the public sentiment has wonderfully changed since last election.

Under such circumstances, the adoption of the course which led to the resignation of the Smith Cabinet, was not an extreme step Knowing that thsee men stood in the way of a great public policy, and having excellent reason for thinking that, in so doing, they did not represent the feelings of the country, it is not surprising that the Governor should take steps to hasten a test of the matter. It is true that he has taken considerable responsibility on his shoulders, and if the event should prove that he has misjudged the public sentiment of New Brunswick, his error might prove serious. But his new Ministers, by taking office, have sanctioned his opinion and indorsed his judgment. We think it really impossible that such a mistake has been made. If it has not; if the new Ministers and their policy prove acceptable to the country, then we shall have the best evidence that Governor Gordon did right in accepting the resignation of a Government not acceptable to the people.

The old Government have a chance of testing their strength at once in three important counties, because three of the new Ministers must go back to their constituencies. If those men, or two of them, can be beaten, it will be a serious blow to the Government; but if they should all be re-elected, it will be a pretty sure indication that the country is with the Unionists.

Now the difference between Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown is just this—that if “the strength of the opposition to Mr. Smith had been nearly doubled,” there was no necessity for any such doubling of opposition in the case of Mr. Brown, because he was in a minority already. The Globe admits that Mr. Smith, after all defections, “appears still to have a majority of five or six.” Well, Mr. Brown never appeared to have a majority at all. Then we are told, “the Legislative Council, however, is against Mr. Smith;” and the Legislative Council was also against Mr. Brown, and even voted direct non-confidence in him. But Mr. Brown at that time held that the Legislative Council ought to have no hand in making or unmaking Ministries. The election for York we are informed, “is some evidence that the country, too, is against him; nor are there wanting other indications that public sentiment has wonderfully changed”—which, if it means anything, means that if any ministerial candidate—not even a Minister—should lose an election, it would be a good ground for the Governor dismissing his Ministry. That would have been a first rate doctrine when Mr. Brown was a governmental impossibility, and used to see a good many Ministerialists and even Ministers beaten. But we do not know that even his impudence ever reached to making such a pretension then. It is dangerous doctrine, however, now that he is going to be permanently on the Ministerial side. What would he have thought if we had urged it in case of a defeat of one of his friends while he was recently in the Cabinet? “Under such circumstances,” we are told, “the adoption of the course which led to the resignation of Mr. Smith, was not an extreme step.” Of course not; but if Mr. Brown had been the Minister, the step would have been excruciatingly extreme. Farther, the “new Ministers by taking office have sanctioned his (the Governor’s) opinion and indorsed his judgment.” That again was just what Messrs. MacDonald and Cartier did after Mr. Brown was forced to retire. We now, therefore, see the value of the past protestations of this Prince of Impostors. Everything which he says to excuse Governor Gordon is a direct justification of the conduct of Sir Edmund Head in 1858, when Mr. Brown made the country ring with the wrongs of the Brown-Dorion administration.