Eighth Day
Council Chamber, Upper Fort Garry
Wednesday, 2 February 1870
Ten o'clock, A.M. — English and French representatives in session.
Debate resumed on Article 18.
Mr. Riel addressed the Convention in French, and, as translated by Mr. Ross, said — I have
found great difficulty in arriving at any conclusion on this matter. It was difficult
to form any plan which would please all sections of the Settlement, and establish
a uniform rule. In some cases persons had ploughed on this two mile hay privilege;
how were they to be dealt with? This shows the difficulty of the matter. Again, the
people living on the River La Seine come into conflict with the hay privilege, and
also those settled along the section as far as Rat River. This shows the difficulty
of getting one rule to apply to cases so different. After looking at the whole matter,
this idea occurred to me, and I throw it out for consideration. Instead of being so
specific, would it not be wise in us to ask for a certain tract of country? Why not
ask for a certain block of land, to be under the exclusive control of the Local Legislature?
Let that land be disposed of as the people through their representatives, thought
best for their interest. Of course when we attained the status of a province, we would
at once have control of all the public lands of the country. But at present we were
asking to go into Confederation as a Territory. In reference to the remark made last
night, that we ought not to take the position of Indians, I say it is very true: and
I would say further, that here is a request which we can make with perfect consistency
as civilised men.
Mr. Bunn — Without going into the merits of the question, I think there is something in it
worthy of consideration. But it does not meet the object contemplated in this article.
We want it absolutely guaranteed to us now, whereas if we adopt Mr. Riel's suggestion,
it places us in the same position regarding the Local Legislature as we are now regarding
the Dominion Government. We want this guarantee at once. As to a general rule not
being applicable, I do not see that that ought to affect the question. If I cannot
enjoy a right, I have no objection that another should enjoy it. If this hay privilege
is guaranteed in fee simple to the present possessors, that takes nothing from the
man not having the right. It simply gives something to the other (cheers).
Mr. Riel, as interpreted by Mr. Ross, urged that a large tract of land should be applied for,
as it would better satisfy all parties in the Settlement. Being absolute masters of
this tract it could be disposed of, as the people desired.
Dr. Bird — The two-mile grant which we ask for, does not at all clash with Mr. Riel's proposal.
We do not interfere with the rights of any who have not this privilege. We only desire
to make absolutely certain of our rights. We will be glad to support their arrangements
for the benefit of those who have never enjoyed this privilege. Let the Legislature
set apart a portion of land for the old settlers, but let us have the land immediately
in rear of our lots. True, some parties have settled on, and ploughed these hay privileges,
but it has been done in very few instances, and nearly always under protest.
Mr. Flett — For all outside the two miles, I would say let it be a common for the present.
And when the Local Legislature takes hold, then let those enjoying the hay privilege
get the absolute ownership of it.
Mr. Bunn — You are going to take away the only little privilege we have.
Mr. Flett — I am speaking for the parties that sent me here.
Mr. Tait — I believe my constituents want all they can get.
Mr. Flett — Many of the people in that parish cannot get the two miles.
Mr. Bunn — That is no reason for taking it from us.
Mr. Flett — You will get your privileges when the Legislature takes hold.
Mr. Bunn — We have got his privilege already and want to keep it — what is more.
Mr. O'Donoghue — I approve of the remarks of Mr. Riel and Mr. Flett. By converting this two mile
privilege into ownership immediately, we are giving occasion for disputes, quarrels
and litigation. Many persons have settled on, and cultivated some of those hay privileges,
without any protest being entered against them. Thus we have a class of squatters.
Which of the two have the better right? Who is to decide? A decision in favor of converting
this hay privilege into fee-simple ownership would ruin many who believe they have
as good a right to the land as the first occupants. We may conceive of a case in which
a father may have given his son the lot behind him, without saying a word as to this
hay privilege. Is such an occupant to be ousted, because the father may subsequently
come and say, I never gave you the hay privilege? The whole question is one of difficulty
and needing a good deal of time to consider. I can see the reasons for asking such
a tract of land as has been alluded to, and I can see none why the request should
be denied.
Mr. D. Gunn — I have had some considerable experience in the working of the narrow lots down
our way, and have known cases where three families were settled on a three chain lot,
all fronting on the river; but I have not known a case where a son settled behind
a father (hear, hear). Really, if the people down below do not get some rights beyond
the limits of the two miles,— and in many cases only a mile and a half, as the length
of the lots depends on the curves of the river — I do not know what they can do. Those
who have borne the heat and burden of making this Settlement what it is — and let
me say, without egotism, that I have been a toiler here for forty-six years — ought
not to be deprived of property which is justly theirs. Take this two-mile privilege
from us, and you really compel us to leave our homesteads. Would that, I ask, be fair
or reasonable? As to the Riviere la Seine lots, I would say,— Could not something
be done to give these or others similarly circumstanced, an equivalent which would
make them equal with those getting in perpetuity the two-mile privilege?
Mr. Ross — The proposition which is laid before the Convention by the committee is fair and
desirable, and does not necessarily conflict with what Mr. Riel seems to be aiming
at. His proposition is difficult and vague; and this vagueness is the very thing we
wish to guard against. We want absolutely that these two miles shall be given us.
We claim it as of vital consequence; and in such a list of rights, I cannot see that
this one would be at all counted unreasonable or unjust. I wish it to be distinctly
understood that this two-mile hay privilege is vitally necessary for such of our inhabitants
as live on the banks of the river. We must get it, whether we ask for it absolutely
as a free gift, or claim the first right by purchase. Whichever way we adopt, it is
vital that we should get it.
Mr. Ross — Get it we must, or it will be absolute ruin to three-fourths of the Settlement.
Hereafter the possession of this land will become of more importance than in the past,—
for in the past we have had a vast common outside of it, for wood or hay, and could
go where we wished without let or hindrance. It is a new thing in this country to
speak of raising hay, but we may have to do it, and if we do not secure room enough,
we will be practically destroying one-half or three-fourths of the Settlement (hear,
hear). I cannot see, either, how Canada could object to such a demand. Looking at
this vast country, with its small population, what would she think of giving us double
what we own at present? I say, let those living on the river get this right, and let
those living elsewhere get an equivalent in some way or somewhere else. As to Mr.
Flett's remark, that all outside the first two miles ought to be common, it would
be exceedingly unsatisfactory. If that rule came into play, it would be a rule for
the rich man as against the poor. The rich man would have only to get behind twenty
of his neighbors, and get twenty or thirty ploughs, and get the full benefit of their
land, because they would not be able to cope with him in the number of ploughs or
men. In laying down general principles on this subject, one or two persons may be
affected injuriously, but we cannot help that. Those who settled immediately beyond
the first two miles, did so against the local law; and in a great many cases, of which
I am aware, this was done against the protest of the man living on the banks of the
river. As to litigation among relatives, which Mr. O'Donoghue so pathetically alluded
to, I think it is more theory than fact.
Mr. Riel — It is very strange that Mr. Ross should stick at two miles and want me to help
him, when I am really asking for more. I say that my proposition is not only in the
interest of those born in the country, but of all.
Mr. Ross — The difference is, that your provision, liberal as it is, does not secure us what
we want.
Mr. Ross — Perhaps. We do not know what the Legislature may do. We want absolute security.
Mr. Riel — You cannot secure it today, and may not have this list returned to you till June.
Mr. Riel — We ask twelve times more than you do.
Mr. Scott — Mr. Ross is not consistent. According to the proposition he advocates, the rich
man having six chains would have six chains extra, while the poor man, having but
one chain, will have but one chain extra. Mr. Riel wants a certain block of land,
to be apportioned equally.
The
Chairman — There has been a great deal of discussion on this point, and some considerable
apparent difference of opinion, though not, I think, in reality. However insignificant
this stipulation about the hay privilege may be in the eyes of some, it is perhaps
of all others that which comes most home to the bosoms and business of the inhabitants
of Red River. I have not the least doubt that the feeling regarding it is such, that
if the government, whose advent we are looking to, were to interfere with it practically,
to the extent of taking it away from them — it might be difficult to convince the
people of Red River that they had derived any substantial advantage at all from the
Canadian Government. It is a principle which above all others is most valued. Let
us look at the privilege as it stands. It amounts to this. That at a certain period
— a fortnight, I believe — every owner of a lot of land fronting on the river has
the exclusive right to the hay on the land stretching for two miles immediately behind
it. It is now proposed not only that these proprietors should have exclusive privileges
on these second two miles, but that they should have the absolute ownership for all
time. This is the nature of the privilege, and the claim we base on it. No doubt,
it is a very considerable structure to raise on such a foundation; but I do not mean
to say it is an imprudent claim, or one so formidable that it is not likely to receive
favorable consideration on the part of the Government. As to Mr. Riel's proposition,
I would ask, may we not be doing something injurious to ourselves by adopting it?
When the debate was going on last night, it occurred to me that if we could stipulate
that the hay privilege should be held intact until dealt with by the Local Legislature,
and that when so dealt with, it should be in such a manner as to give the owner of
the lot, gratis, the land held as hay privilege; and as to those not having the hay
privilege, I think that finding an equivalent for them might form a very fitting subject
indeed for consideration in the Local Legislature.
Mr. Boyd — As to turning this hay privilege into a common, which has been spoken of, we must
remember that those purchasing lots fronting on the river, consider that they have
purchased that hay privilege already; and if they are not left to the enjoyment of
that privilege, not only do they lose that in their junction with Canada, but actually
lose what they have purchased.
Mr. Bunn — I do not think the Chairman's suggestion covers the ground. We want the land guaranteed
to us now. As to Mr. Riel's proposition, it depends upon contingencies — on a Legislature
not now in existence. Besides I do not like the appearance of dictating beforehand
to the Local Legislature.
Mr. Riel, seconded by
Mr. Poitras, moved in amendment — That the local Legislature of the Territory have full control
of all the lands inside a circumference having Upper Fort Garry as a centre, and that
the radii of this circumference be the number of miles that the American line is distant
from Fort Garry.
Mr. Riel remarked — If we are going to ask for any land, let us ask for the greater rather
than the lesser quantity.
Mr. K. McKenzie — I object to Mr. Riel's proposition, as it appears to me that, if adopted, it would
encroach on the boundary of the Portage.
Mr. O'Donoghue strongly urged that the Local Legislature should have control over this tract of
land.
At half-past one, the Convention adjourned for an hour and a half.
Three o'clock, P.M.
Mr. Riel — There seems to be a fear among the English members that if this matter is left
to the Local Legislature this point will not be carried. Where, I would ask, is there
a parish in the country which will elect a man who will not vote for this. No one
having the interests of his people at heart could venture to do so. I say leave the
matter to the Local Legislature.
Mr. Ross — If Mr. Riel is really in earnest in desiring to see us secured in possession of
this, why object to securing it to us now?
Mr. Riel — It is to make a useless demand. I say it is far better to get sixty miles than
four. I would like the Local Legislature to have its power exerted from Fort Garry.
I want this country to be governed for once by a Local Legislature. Our country has
been hitherto differently governed and they were within an ace of selling us. But
now, I say let the authority of the Legislature be everywhere and influencing everything.
Mr. Sutherland — I consider there is great weight in what Mr. Ross says. We have a chance to get
what we ask, and ought to avail ourselves of that chance. For my part, if this is
not carried, I will consider that we have done nothing. It is the first point which
came up in which my constituents were directly interested.
Mr. Riel — If I am not wrong, I see where all this goes. [But? Yet? ] some days more will
explain it. Hitherto I have made no allusion to this fact — but now I claim the liberty
to do so — when we speak of making laws — that I am President of the Provisional Government,
which is in actual operation, and in that capacity I can say that this claim which
is made will be at once guaranteed, if the Convention will first dispose of the claim
for a tract of land, with Fort Garry as its centre. Hitherto, I have been acting at
the head of my people, with many others, and only in the present connection do I mention
it. I hold this position without any pretensions, and whenever the interests of the
country call on me to resign,— if I see that the voice of the people is there, I will
obey it.
Mr. Sutherland — Suppose that Government passes away soon, would not its laws pass away too?
Rev. Mr. Cochrane — I would like to ask a question about this sixty miles or more for which it is proposed
to ask. I represent here the Indian Settlement. Of course, there is a Chief there,
who thinks he has control over those lands. How would it affect him if this large
tract were granted?
Mr. Riel — His right would stand good. We are not here to deprive anybody of their rights.
For my part, I wish the whole country was under the control of the Local Legislature.
We have to work for the country, in case the Canadians will not work for us.
The Chairman — Is it intended that Upper Fort Garry, or any private property immediately around
it, shall be placed under the control of the Local Legislature?
Mr. Riel — We will respect the rights of everybody,— even the Company.
The Chairman — I see no reason why their rights should not be respected.
Mr. Riel — And I do not see why the question should be put. If this doubt exists regarding
the property of the Company, a similar doubt would exist regarding everybody's property.
As to the land, I will say that for ourselves we cannot fix on any general rule at
once which will meet our requirements. But if you want this two-mile grant absolutely,
I will leave it to yourselves. I only object to the way in which you propose to get
it.
Mr. Bunn — We are very much obliged to Mr. Riel. But we are very strongly opposed to anything
like a division between the French and the English people.
At this stage the debate took a sharp turn and the question of revenue came up.
Mr. Riel — When we asked for the Public Accounts, Mr. Mactavish told us he had everything
in his memory, and the clerk in the office told us the same thing. I say that the
revenue of the country has been great, but no proper account was ever kept of it by
the Company. I have seen the books.
The Chairman — There must have been accounts kept of it year by year. I am pretty certain there
have been accounts of the revenue and expenditure every year.
Mr. Fraser — I move in amendment, that Article 18 be struck out.
Mr. Ross — I would suggest that this question of the hay privilege be voted on first, and
that afterward this sixty mile claim come up as a separate article. I propose that
Article 18 be now voted on, on the understanding that Mr. Riel's proposition be taken
up afterwards and disposed of on its own merits.
Mr. O'Donoghue — One reason why we wish this land to be under the control of the Local Legislature,
is to prevent persons doing as has been done in town, taking up what lots they like
and putting their names on them.
Mr. Riel — No man will take this tract of land here from us. We have asked for it, and Canadians
will not take it from us, unless they take our lives.
Mr. Riel's amendment was put and carried in the following division:—
Yeas — Messrs.
Thibert,
Dauphinais,
Birston,
X. Pagee,
Poitras,
Beauchemin,
O'Donoghue,
Lepine,
Genton,
Schmidt,
Riel,
A. Beauchemin,
Parenteau,
Laronce,
Touron,
Lascerte,
Delorme,
C. Nolin,
Klyne,
Harrison,
Scott — 21.
Nays — Messrs.
Cochrane,
Spence,
Bunn,
A. McKenzie,
Black,
Ross,
Gunn,
Boyd,
Bird,
Fraser,
Sutherland,
Flett,
Tait,
Taylor,
Lonsdale,
Cummings,
Gunn,
Spence— 18.
Mr. K. McKenzie, of the Portage, protested against this decision of the Convention, on the ground
that it appeared to stretch beyond the limits of Assiniboia proper and encroached
on the Portage boundary.
Article 19 was next proposed:—
"19. That every male person, twenty-one years of age, resident in the country one
year, shall be entitled to vote for the election of a member to serve in the Legislature
of this Territory and in the Parliament of the Dominion."
Mr. Bunn — I would recommend the adoption of the provision for the District of Algoma. It
provides for those who may vote at elections, as follows:—
"That, until other provision is made in their behalf, that every male British subject
having a stated residence in the Territory at least one year next previous to the
date of the writ of election, and being a householder therein, of the full age of
twenty-one years, shall be entitled to vote for member" — in our case it would be
for the Local Legislature of said Territory, and for the Dominion Parliament.
At half-past six the Convention adjourned till ten the following morning.
This individual participated in:
