To Download the PDF File
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
"A statesmanlike measure with a partisan tail": The Development of the Nineteenth-Century Dominion Electoral Franchise by Colin J. Grittner, BHum A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario 29 June, 2009 © copyright 2009, Colin J. Grittner Library and Archives Biblioth&que et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'6dition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votra r6f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-60310-9 Our file Notre r6f6rence ISBN: 978-0-494-60310-9 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliothgque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commercials ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriety du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie priv&e, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. Canada Abstract In Canada, the vote represents the principal avenue for political participation. Between Confederation in 1867 and the end of the nineteenth century, Canada's federal franchise law - the law that determines who may vote in Dominion elections - underwent a series of seemingly antithetical alterations. Thus far, historians and political scientists have written very little on this development of the nineteenth-century Dominion franchise. Amongst those who have, the idea that franchise reform took place during this period because of partisan expediency has tended to hold sway historiographically. Taking other factors into account - from political altruism to popular pressure - this thesis questions that historiographical trend. Certainly, partisanship still played a part in these legislative alterations. Through an application of state formation theory, this thesis argues that nineteenth-century Canadian statesmen, by means of new franchise law, in large part attempted to graft their own ideological visions of Canada onto the burgeoning nation. i Acknowledgements This thesis would have never reached its completion without the generous support of those around me. I must first thank my parents for all they have done. Aside from reading drafts and acting as a sounding board for my zany ideas, they unfailingly provided encouragement and motivation whenever I needed it. I am similarly grateful to my family and friends. If I managed to stay grounded while undertaking this project, I have them to thank for it. Many thanks must also go to my supervisor at Carleton University, Professor Duncan McDowall. Whatever I required, whatever my concern, I could always count on Prof. McDowall to provide a friendly ear and sage advice. I would also like to thank Professors Norman Hillmer and John Walsh for keeping their doors open to me and challenging me to push my work further. I must also extend a thank you to Joan White for helping steer me through the woolly world of graduate studies. Lastly, I would like to thank both SSHRC and the Ontario Graduate Scholarship program for their confidence in and financial support of this project. Before it begins in earnest, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my grandmother, Alice Grittner. One of the toughest (yet kindest) people I have ever known, she sadly passed away just before this project got underway. Her memory has helped push me through whatever obstacles fell before me, no matter how insurmountable or unpleasant they may have appeared. Thanks Granny. ii Table of Contents Page Abstract i Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii List of Figures iv Chapter 1 "The Canadian franchise was a neglected field": 1 Introduction, Historiography, and Methodology Chapter 2 "Every man who now has a vote.. .should continue to have a vote": 42 The Confederation Franchise of 1867 Chapter 3 "It is conservative in its very essence": 92 The Electoral Franchise Act of 1885 Chapter 4 "In no two cases.. .do you find the same franchise apply": 142 The Franchise Act of 1898 Conclusion 177 Bibliography 188 iii List of Figures Page "A Bird's-Eye View" 115 "The Triple Alliance" 133 iv Chapter 1 "The Canadian franchise was a neglected field": Introduction, Historiography, and Methodology On June 18, 1886, at nine o'clock in the morning, Judge Edward Morgan opened the court of final revision for divisions four, five, six, and seven of East York in Davisville, Ontario.1 In front of the judge appeared delegations for both the Conservative and Reform parties, led respectively by lawyers Alfred Boultbee and John A. Paterson, their witnesses, contingents of party loyalists, and individuals hoping to receive the federal vote.2 The previous year, Prime Minister John A. Macdonald's Conservative government had rewritten Canada's federal electoral franchise legislation. The new Dominion Franchise Act removed jurisdiction over the federal franchise from the provincial sphere and placed it under the sole control of the Dominion Parliament, thereby instituting new qualifications for voting in federal elections. Consequently, the Dominion government needed to establish afresh precisely who could elect 1 Born in St. Vincent, Wisconsin, in 1838, Edward Morgan came to Canada with his father in 1854. Originally a Newmarket, Ontario solicitor, he was appointed as junior judge for York County on September 15, 1885. As of 1912, he still resided in Toronto. See: "Morgan, His Honour Edward," The Canadian Men and Women of the Time, ed. Henry James Morgan (Toronto: William Briggs, 1912), 821. When drawing up voters' lists - the lists that named individuals who could legally vote in a given election - the revising barrister (the person responsible for this process) would hold courts of final revision. There, individuals could make their case as to who should or should not receive the vote in a given election. After such a court took place, and the resultant changes to the voters' lists made, no other alterations would take place before election day. 2 "East York," Toronto Globe, 19 June 1886, 14. Born near Southampton, England in 1828, Alfred Boultbee was called to the Ontario bar in 1855. A Conservative, he served as York North's Member of Provincial Parliament from 1872 until he resigned in 1875 to contest a federal by-election for the same riding. Although he failed in this instance, he was elected under the Conservative banner as Member of Parliament for York East in 1878. While he was not reelected in 1882, he remained a Conservative supporter until his death in 1901. See: Richard Boultbee, "Alfred Boultbee (1828 - 1901)," The History of the Boultbee Family (2005), <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/boultbee/bfh/alfredb.htm> (17 October 2008). Born in Scotland on the Isle of Lewis in 1846, John Andrew Paterson received his education at the University of Toronto. Also a lawyer by trade, he lived and practiced in Toronto as well. See: "Paterson, John Andrew," The Canadian Men and Women of the Time, 885. 1 2 representatives to the House of Commons.3 As the revising barrister for East York, it fell to Judge Morgan to finalize the constituency's federal voters' list before the impending winter election.4 Arthur and James Acey, a pair of brothers who resided in Division Five of the constituency, submitted two of the first applications heard by Judge Morgan that day.5 The Acey brothers were farmers. Not possessing land of their own, the two still lived on the family farm with their aging father, John Acey.6 To gain their livelihood, they helped him with the farm's upkeep. According to the new franchise act, all sons of farmers who had reached the age of majority of twenty-one, and whose fathers owned farms worth at least $150, could exercise the vote.7 Unfortunately for the junior Aceys, while they had both reached the age of majority, John Acey did not own his farm. He was a tenant farmer.8 Under Ontario's franchise law - the legislation used to regulate the federal franchise in Ontario before January 1, 1886 - the fact that the senior Acey rented his land would not have posed a problem. Ontario viewed all farmers' sons as equals with respect to the franchise.9 If the federal franchise had remained unaltered, the Acey brothers could have therefore happily cast their ballots at the next federal election. Despite the exhortations of John A. Paterson on the Aceys' behalf, the new act was clear. As the 3 See: Elections Canada, A History of the Vote in Canada (Ottawa: The Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1997), 48-49.