Ontario's Farmer-Labour Government and Political Patronage
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Document generated on 09/28/2021 2:59 p.m. Ontario History “Patronage, like Hamlet’s ghost will not down!” Ontario’s Farmer-Labour Government and Political Patronage, 1919-1923 Mark Sholdice Volume 106, Number 2, Fall 2014 Article abstract This article examines the issue of political patronage during the tenure of the URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1050693ar United Farmers of Ontario (UFO)-Independent Labor Party (ILP) coalition DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1050693ar government in Ontario, which held office between 1919 and 1923. The reform of political patronage became the focus of profound controversy during the See table of contents UFO-ILP government because of an unresolved contradiction between the inequality inherent in the practice, and the importance of patronage to the agrarian community. Politically motivated appointments were not just result of Publisher(s) simple hypocrisy but came about because of the government’s desire to include greater numbers of farmers and workers in the province’s political system. The Ontario Historical Society ISSN 0030-2953 (print) 2371-4654 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Sholdice, M. (2014). “Patronage, like Hamlet’s ghost will not down!”: Ontario’s Farmer-Labour Government and Political Patronage, 1919-1923. Ontario History, 106(2), 191–213. https://doi.org/10.7202/1050693ar Copyright © The Ontario Historical Society, 2014 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ “Patronage, like Hamlet’s 9 ghost will not down!” Ontario’s Farmer-Labour Government and Political Patronage, 1919-1923 By Mark Sholdice “Patronage, like Hamlet’s ghost will not down! The Drury Gov- ernment is probably having more Abstract trouble over the patronage ques- This article examines the issue of political patronage dur- tion than all the other problems ing the tenure of the United Farmers of Ontario (UFO)- 1 Independent Labor Party (ILP) coalition government in combined.” Ontario, which held office between 1919 and 1923. The reform of political patronage became the focus of profound he United Farmers of controversy during the UFO-ILP government because of an unresolved contradiction between the inequality inher- Ontario (UFO) (1914- ent in the practice, and the importance of patronage to the 1943) was an important agrarian community. Politically motivated appointments Toutgrowth of the unsettled eco- were not just result of simple hypocrisy but came about be- nomic, political, and social con- cause of the government’s desire to include greater numbers ditions of late-nineteenth- and of farmers and workers in the province’s political system. early-twentieth-century Canada. Résumé: Dans cet article nous examinons le patron- Faced with a sense of great change age politique sous la coalition entre les United Farmers wrought by increased industriali- of Ontario (UFO) et le parti travailliste indépendant zation and urbanization, Ontario (Independent Labor Party -- ILP), qui a gouverné l’Ontario de 1919 à 1923. La réforme du patronage poli- farmers created a new organiza- tique a provoqué une controverse profonde sous le gou- tion to achieve their economic vernement UFO-ILP qui résultait de la contradiction and political goals. The UFO’s entre l’inégalité inhérente à cette pratique et l’importance heritage spanned back to agrar- de ce patronage pour la communauté agricole. Ce n’est pas ian organizations in the late-nine- le seul désir de procurer un avantage à ces partis qui a mo- tivé les nominations politiques à des postes publics, mais le teenth-century, such as the Pa- désir du gouvernement de faire participer un plus grand trons of Industry and the Grange; nombre de cultivateurs et de travailleurs au système poli- following the tentative steps taken tique de la provinces. by these groups, the UFO and its The author would like to thank the Rural History Roundtable at the University of Guelph and the Tri- University History Conference for hearing earlier versions of this paper. Additionally, David Murray, and most especially Alan Gordon, of the University of Guelph are especially thanked for their advice and guidance for the master’s research paper on which this article is based 1 Farmers’ Sun, 7 Feb. 1920, 7. Ontario History / Volume CVI, No. 2 / Autumn 2014 OH autumn 2014.indd 191 27/08/2014 9:51:53 PM 92 ONTARIO HISTORY members sought to address the perceived promises, the UFO-ILP provincial gov- neglect shown to the province’s agri- ernment of 1919-1923 failed to eliminate cultural community by the traditional political patronage from official appoint- brokerage parties, the Liberals and the ments. Broadly, this can be attributed to Conservatives. The farmers’ grievances three reasons: firstly, the decision to leave included high tariffs on manufactured many of the Heart regime’s appointees in goods, corporate influence over the fed- office (and indeed, in promoting many); eral and provincial governments, and a secondly, the appointment of UFO and perceived decline in political morality. ILP supporters due to the influence of One of their solutions was the elimina- political exigencies; and lastly, the gov- tion of patronage, which was seen as both ernment’s failure to replace the old pa- an impediment to a true democracy and tronage system with a new, reformed a barrier to morality in public affairs. method of making appointments. Yet The immediate cause of the UFO’s members of the Drury government be- 1918 entrance into political activity was lieved that they had abolished patronage anger at the federal Union government and subtly shifted their interpretation of for reversing its promise not to conscript the term. Patronage, to them, came to farmers. Autonomous local units decided mean the appointment of government to display their fury at the urban political supporters lacking the proper qualifica- class by running candidates in two pro- tions to conduct their official duties. This vincial by-elections occurring in the fol- change in meaning led to bewilderment lowing months. Meeting success, enthu- within the ranks of the UFO and sharp siasm spread throughout the movement (and exaggerated) attacks from the op- in anticipation for the next general con- position Liberals and Tories. test. When the UFO unexpectedly won However this is not merely a story of a plurality of seats in the October 1919 political hypocrisy and the compromise provincial election and formed a coalition of ideals. It is an attempt to clarify the government with the Independent Labor position of political patronage during Party (ILP) under the leadership of E.C. a time of flux. Like reformers in other Drury, many of the agrarians believed times and places, the members of the their aspirations were close to realization. UFO-ILP government failed to com- They further carried this optimism into pletely excise politics, understood as the the 1921 federal election, for which UFO antinomianism of private or individual members helped create a national Progres- interests, from public governance. In sive Party. Investigations were promised their practice of patronage, the govern- into the inner-workings of the defeated ment tried to resolve this tension by Conservative government of Sir William promoting the inclusion of groups such Howard Hearst, which they believed to be as farmers and workers into the adminis- corrupt in its provision of patronage. tration of power. This helps to underline Despite earnest hopes and sincere the dual nature of political patronage, OH autumn 2014.indd 192 27/08/2014 9:51:53 PM political patronage 99-923 93 as both a mechanism for the promotion two-party system. The 1919 provincial of social cohesion, and a prime target of election victory is thus viewed as unin- those wishing to transform society. These tentional.2 Explanations of the UFO’s de- groups initially saw patronage as a prac- mise are likewise varied, but they mostly tice that disempowered their collective stress internal discord within the organi- political efforts, but upon taking office zation. The “Broadening Out” contro- the UFO-ILP government used appoint- versy, a feud between Drury and UFO ments as a constructive way to bring their Secretary-Treasurer J.J. Morrison over supporters into public administration. the make-up of the movement, is central The overriding focus of the literature to the body of literature. An ex-Liberal, on the UFO has been to explain the sud- Drury wished to create a “People’s Party” den political rise and decline of the move- of farmers, organized labour, middle-class ment between 1914 and 1923. The rise of reformers, and others; Morrison opposed the UFO is mainly seen as accidental: as a return to the two-party system and in- a reaction to conscription, rural depopu- stead advocated “group government,” an lation, the collapse of the Ontario Con- idea which originated from the Western servatives, and a general breakdown of the agrarians.3 Individual economic groups 2 Peter Oliver, Public & Private Persons: The Ontario Political Culture, 1914-1934 (Toronto and Vancouver: Clarke, Irwin & Company, 1975); F.J.K. Griezic, “‘Power to the People’: The Beginning of Agrarian Revolt in Ontario, the Manitoulin By-Election, October 24, 1918,” Ontario History 69:1 (March 1977), 33-54; Brian D. Tennyson, “The Ontario General Election of 1919: The Beginnings of Agrarian Revolt,” Journal of Canadian Studies 4:1 (February 1969), 26-36; Norman Douglas Farrow, “Political Aspects of the United Farmers Movement in Ontario” (MA thesis, University of Western Ontario, 1938); Robert W.