544
THURSDAY, March 2, 1865.
MR. ARCHAMBEAULT—In rising on
this occasion, sir, my intention is not to
occupy the attention of the House for a
long time, nor to discuss the merits of the
measure which is now before us. I intend
merely to explain my own motives for the
vote which I shall give, and this I shall do
as briefly as possible. I am bound to acknowledge at once that when I arrived in
Quebec, at the commencement of the session,
I was opposed to the plan of Confederation,
and so strongly opposed to it, that I was
fully determined to vote against it. But
alter a more serious consideration of the
question, and after hearing the explanations
which have been afforded to us of the
scheme of the Government, I have arrived
at the conviction that I had decided, if not
wrongly, at least hastily, and that I ought
not to aid in the rejection of the measure,
merely because it did not quite coincide
with all my opinions. After listening to
the discussion, and the explanations of the
members of the Administration, I perceived
that the plan was one of compromise and
could not, therefore, be adapted to suit all
views, nor shaped even to meet those of the
men who framed it. I can understand that
those persons who are opposed to any degree
of Confederation, and who would rather
have representation based on poulation or
the annexation of Canada to the United
States, may be opposed to the project of the
Government, and reject it accordingly ; but
those who, like myself, are not opposed to it
under any circumstances, and are capable of
appreciating the necessity of it at the present
conjuncture, together with the advantages it
may produce to the country, ought not, cannot, I think, reject it, only because some
of
its details are not exactly to their mind. It
is our business first to enquire whether some
constitutional changes are not necessary,
and none I think will deny that they are.
The political leaders of the two parties into
which this House is divided, have acknowledged this as a necessity. It remains,
therefore, only to consider what changes
should be made. The members of the
Government have decided this question, and
proposed a Confederation of all the Provinces
545
of British North America. They have come
to an understanding with the sister provinces,
and now lay before you their scheme of a
Confederation. We are not now to inquire
whether all the details of the scheme perfectly agree in every point with our particular
ideas, but whether the change is necessary, whether the proposed scheme is good
and fit to be accepted as a whole ; for, as
the scheme is a compromise between different parties, whose interests are at variance
with each other, the Government who now
move its adoption must be held to be responsible for all its details. Any amendment
of
the plan passed by this House would really
be a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and you must therefore either
adopt the plan as laid before you, or pass a vote
of want of confidence in the present Administration. Now, I for my part am not prepared
to vote a want of confidence in the men now
in power. To induce me to do that, I must
see in their opponents a better security for
good government, and its advantages to the
country, than they are able to show ; I
must hope to find in the latter something
better than what I find in those whose
measures they withstand. So far, I do
not find that they have offered, nor do
I find that they now offer, such security
or such hope. Far from it ; if we are to
judge them by their former acts, we must
confess that we cannot give them our confidence, that they have displayed great want
of capacity for the government and management of the affairs of the country. When
they were in power they had no decided
policy, they were incapable of dealing with
any important question : they lived from
hand to mouth. Their acts in the Administration were stamped with a spirit of resentment
and injustice towards their adversaries.
They instituted commissions of inquiry, for
instance, against public officers, in order to
get a pretext for dismissing them and making
room for their hungry partisans. Again,
have they any better plan to propose to us
than that of the Government ? No ! They
might offer us, perhaps, representation based
on population, or annexation to the United
States ; but I do not think such remedies
would suit our taste. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in declaring
that I shall vote for the scheme of Confederation, as presented to us by the Government,
although it does not meet all my views, and
does not promise all the guarantees which I
should be glad to find in it, and although I
do not consider it as likely, in its present
form, to afford a sufficient safeguard for the
interests of the different provinces, and to
secure stability in the working of the proposed union. As I am not in a position
to
influence public opinion, so as to oblige the
Government to modify their plan to suit my
views, I take sides with the men who have
always had my confidence, and with whom I
have always acted, because I have confidence
in their honesty and their patriotism. I
cherish a belief that in this all-important
question, which affects our best interests and
our national existence and social welfare,
they have been actuated by the same love
for their country which has ever guided
them in times past. (Cheers.)
Mr. BLANCHET said - Mr. Speaker, as no one is disposed to take the floor just now, and it would
seem as if all who intend to discuss this question are bent on having a large audience
in the galleries, I shall take upon me to say a few words. Those who moved to have
the speeches of this House printed in official form certainly did no good service
to the country ; for all are trying which shall make the longest speech, and I do
not think it is altogether just to the public purse. Each one would speak at a particular
hour, and to the ears of a certain audience ; but the history of the Parliament of
England shews that her great statesmen and orators did not concern themselves about
that. The greatest and most important speeches were delivered in the House of Commons
at a very late hour of the night ; thus Fox delivered his great speech on the East
India Bill at two o'clock in the morning ; Pitt his on the abolition of the slave
trade at four o'clock in the morning ; and we should lose nothing by speaking before
half-past seven in the evening. But as the honorble member for Montmorency (Hon. Mr.
CAUCHON) is to speak this evening, and I wish to explain my way of thinking on the
question, I rise to do so. This question of Confederation is not a new one. It has
already agitated men's minds and been a subject of debate for a great many years.
Now public opinion is completely made up concerning it. I have no occasion to enter
into details respecting the scheme which we have before us. It has been discussed
with much more of knowledge and precision than I bring to the consideration of the
subject, by the members of the Government and the honorable members on the opposite
side of the House. I need not say
546
that the territory intended to be included
in the Confederacy is nearly as large as
all Europe, that it will contain four millions of souls, and that having confederation,
we shall become the fourth power in
the world in respect of merchant shipping.
We have only to compare the statement of
our present imports and exports with that of
the United States a few years ago, and we
shall find that our position is as good as
theirs was. I hold in my hand a work lately
written by Mr. BIGELOW, at present
chargé
d' affaires from the American Government
to the Tuileries, containing valuable statistics
of the commerce, manufactures and resources
of the United States, as well as of the war
at present raging in that country. In the
chapter devoted to commerce, he writes as
follows :—
 After the reorganization of the constitutional
government in 1798, commerce speedily grew to
vast proportions. The tonnage, which, in l792, was
564,437 tons, had reached 1,032,219 in 1801 ; the
imports valued in 1792 at 31,500,000 dollars
(157,500,000 francs), were in 1801, 111,363,511
dollars (556,817,555 francs) ; the exports had in
the same period risen from 20,753,098 dollars
(103,765,490 francs) to 94,115,925 dollars (470,
579,625 francs). In 1807 the tonnage was 1,268,548 ; the imports 138,500,000 dollars
(692,500,000 francs) ; and the exports 108,343, 150 dollars
(541,715,750 francs). At that period, American
commerce received a blow from which it did not
recover for several years. The measures of the
English Parliament, followed by Napoleon's
decrees, issued from Berlin and Milan, and by the
embargo of 1807, produced a deep stagnation in
the commercial affairs of the Union, and although
the amount of tonnage did not very perceptibly
diminish during the fifteen following years, the
imports fell in 1808 to 56,990,000 dollars (284,950,000 francs), and exports 22,430,960
dollars
(112,154,000 francs). The war of 1812-'16 gave
employment to the shipping which would otherwise have rotted in the docks, and occasioned
some clipper privateers to be built ; but the
trade of the country continued to decline, so
that in 1814 the imports rose only to 12,965,000
dollars (64,825,000 francs), and the exports
6,927,441 dollars (34,637,205 francs.) The ending of the war gave activity to commercial
pursuits. In 1815 the imports reached 113,041,274
dollars (565,206,370 francs) and in 1816, 147,
103,000 dollars (735,515,000 francs); the exports
of these same years were 52,557,753 dollars
(262,788,765 francs) and 81,905,452 dollars
(409,602,250 francs). This amount of imports,
which was in excess of the requirements of the
country at that time, fell the following year to
99,250,000 dollars (496,250 ,000 francs), and from
that period to 1830, excepting the year 1818, the
average amount of the imports did not exceed 78
millions of dollars (390 millions of francs), and
the exports reached about the same amount.
Thus we find that the average amount of the
imports and exports did not exceed $78,000,000 at that time. We are only a few years
behind the United States in that respect. I
said a moment ago that the question of a
Confederation of all the Provinces of British
North America was not a new one, and in
fact we find that it was mooted at a somewhat
remote period of the history of the country. In
1821, the leader of the Upper Canada Radicals, Mr. W. L. MacKenzie, declared that
he
wished with his whole heart that there could
be a Confederation of the British Provinces.
Ten years later the scheme became a special
question of debate, and the discussion
established it as a positive fact, as it will
soon be an historical one. (Hear, hear.)
Others besides the members on this side of
the House are in favor of a Federal union ;
some incline to a Confederation of all the
Provinces, others to a Federal union of the
two Canadas only—all are well disposed to a
Federal union of one kind or other. At the
time of the crisis of 1858, the Brown-Dorion
Government were to settle the difficulties
then besetting us, and if I understood the
meaning of one of the members of that
Government, who went to meet his constituents in order that they might ratify his
acceptance of a portfolio in that Adminis
tration, the remedy intended to be applied
to the existing evils by that Cabinet was a
Federal union of the two Canadas ; but he
said also that, although the policy of the
Government to which he belonged was not
yet clearly defined, he thought they would
take up, at some future day, the question of
a Confederation of all the Provinces of
British North America. That hon. member
was the Hon. F. Lemieux, and he was returned by the county of LĂ©vis immediately
after making these declarations. Nearly
about the same time Mr. J. C. Taché,
present Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, wrote a work which was almost prophetic
of the question of a Confederation of the
British North American Provinces. It is
unnecessary to remark that that gentleman
had acquired much experience in his travels,
and much information by hard study and
presevering labor, and was therefore perfectly
qualified to form a judgment on the question.
Mr. Taché has written a work of some
length, in which he roughly sketches the
scheme of a Confederation of the Provinces,
547
of which I trust the House will permit me
to cite a few lines. These will show that
his predictions are speedily to be realized :—
What hopes may we not be allowed to indulge
respecting the material future of the immense
country which includes the two Canadas, New-
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince
Edward Island, the Hudson's Bay Territory and
Vancouver's Island, when we reflect on the wealth
o fa soil which is almost everywhere remarkably
fertile, (we except the extreme north,) on the re
sources which the forests have treasured up for
the settler in the lapse of ages, on the immense
fisheries in the Gulf, sufficient of themselves to feed
the whole world with fish of the finest quality;
when we consider that the whole of this vast continent offers to us, in its various
geological formations mineral wealth of the most precious kinds,
and that nature has arranged for us channels of
intercommunication of incredible grandeur. The
fertile soil of these provinces intersected throughout their entire length by the
rivers St. Lawrence
and St. John, bathed by the waters of the Gulf
and those of the Great Lakes, the superb forests
through which flow the immense Ottawa, the St.
Maurice and the Saguenay, the mines of copper
bordering on lakes Superior and Huron, the iron
mines of Canada, the coal measures of Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick, the seaports of Quebec, Halifax and St. John, the ores of
all kinds
dispersed throughout the provinces—all those
form an aggregate of means which, if we suppose
them to be turned to account by a competent
population, governed by a political system based
on true principles of order and liberty, justifies
the most extravagant calculations of profit, the
most extraordinary predictions of growth , as compared with the present state of things.
Thus spoke Mr. TACHE at that period. Not
satisfied, moreover, with sketching with a
rapid pencil the general working of this
mighty organization, he entered, in a subsequent part of his work, into details which,
astonishing to say—although I have no
doubt that the members of the Conference
had read his work—exactly coincide with the
plan now submitted to us. Accordingly, in
the partition of powers between the General
Government and the local governments, the
scheme of the Conference is nearly word or
word Mr. TACHÉ'S work.
HON. MR. DORION—The hon. member
is mistaken, for Mr. TACHÉ assigns the
ascendancy and the highest powers to the
local governments, whereas the Government
plan assigns them to the Central Government.
These powers of the Federal Government are
not, as we understand the matter, to be exercised,
except as regards the following subjects, viz.,
Commerce, comprising purely commercial laws,
such as laws respecting banks and other institutions of a general financial character,
coinage,
and weights and measures; Customs, including
the establishment of a uniform tariff, and the collection of the revenue resulting
therefrom ; great
Public Works and Navigation, such as canals,
railways, telegraph lines, great seaport works and
the lighting of the coast; Post Office arrangements, both in their entirety and in
their internal
and external details; the Militia in the entirety
of its organization; Criminal justice. comprising
all offences which do not come under the jurisdiction of the police courts and justices
of the
peace. Everything else connected with civil law,
education, public charities, the settlement of
public lands, agriculture, city and rural police,
road works. in fact, with all matters relating to
the family life, so to speak, of each province, will
remain under the exclusive control of the respective Local Government of each one
of them, as by
inherent right; the powers of the Federal Government being looked upon as merely a
concession of rights, which are specially designated.
I consider that under the present plan of
Confederation the local legislatures are supreme in respect of the powers which are
attributed to them, that is to say, in respect
of local matters. In this respect it goes
even further than the honorable member for
Hochelaga himself was prepared to go in
1859, for he proposed to leave to the Federal
Government the right of legislating upon
the French civil laws, &c., of Lower Canada;
but, as his Government was not very long-
lived, I know that the honorable member for
Hochelaga can deny all this. Very nearly
at the same time another Government addressed to the Imperial Government a
memorial, in which it asked for the Confederation of the British North American
Provinces; but the Imperial Government
replied that it was not prepared to give a
decided reply; and as there had been no
agreement between the provinces, the matter
remained in abeyance for the time. Thenceforward no steps were taken in the matter
until last year—until the crisis, with the circumstances connected with which every
one
is perfectly well acquainted. Different governments had been defeated, and the country
was already weary of that state of aflairs,
when the honorable member for Hochelaga
moved his vote of censure upon the Government in relation to the $100,000 affair,
and
the Government then finding itself in a
minority, was compelled to seek a remedy
for the existing state of affaire, and the
result was the Coalition, the Quebec Confer
548
ence, and finally the plan of Confederation,
although he does not now choose to acknowledge his offspring. (Hear, hear.) That
conduct releases the latter from any debt of
gratitude. (Hear.) It is not my intention
to discuss the question of Confederation in a
commercial point of view, nor in a financial
point of view, nor in a political point of view,
for in these several aspects it has been ably
discussed by those who have preceded me.
I shall confine myself to making a few
remarks upon the question in respect of
defence. Every one acknowledges that in
order to defend a country effectually there
must be unity of action, uniformity of system,
and a combination of the means of defence.
Without uniformity, without unity, it is impossible to make any serious attempt at
defence in case of attack, and the divided
country falls an easy prey to the enemy. So
general is this rule that history shews us
that weak nations have always united
together, have always coalesced when they
were attacked or were in fear of being
attacked by a powerful enemy. The North
American colonies did so in 1775, when they
wished to offer resistance to the Mother
Country. They organized themselves into
a Confederation, and it was in consequence
of their so doing that they were able to
resist what they considered as an act of
oppression on the part of England. Had
those colonies, instead of organizing themselves as they did, had each of them a
different system of defence, and had there
been no uniformity in their tactics, England
would have had an easy bargain of them.
And is it to be supposed, if they had not banded themselves together, so as to possess
a certain amount of strength, that they would have
obtained the alliance and the assistance of
France ? When a feeble power is attacked
by a powerful enemy, it should seek to ally
itself with other states which have interests
in common with it, in order that they may
defend themselves in common. So far as
we are concerned, if we are desirous of
assisting the Mother Country in offering an
effectual resistance to invasions by the
American people, we ought to have unity of
command, in order that we might be able to
send the militia from the centre and cause
them to extend towards the circumference.
In case of war with our neighbors, we should,
of necessity, be compelled, by the very force
of circumstances, to unite with the other
provinces. That being the case, why not
do so at once, in time of peace, while we
have time to devote to it that calm and
deliberate consideration which the importance of the subject demands. Confederation
is the sole means of offering resistance to
attempts at invasion by our enemies. The
Federal system is the normal condition of
American populations ; for there are very
few American nations which have not a
political system of that nature. The Federal
system is a state of transition which allows
the different races inhabiting the same part
of the globe to unite, with the view of
attaining national unity and homogeneousness. Spain, Belgium, France, and several
other European countries were formerly
peopled by different races, who constituted
so many different communities ; but they
became united, they entered into confederations, and in the course of ages all the
communities were consolidated into those
which we now see—into everything that is
held to be beautiful, noble and great
throughout the whole world. When the
Federal system has been put in practice in
an enlightened manner, it has always sufficed
for the requirements of those who adapted
it. The case of Greece has been cited by
an hon. member of this House, to show the
fatal nature of this system to the nations
who adopted it ; but he ought to know that
the decadence of Greece only began from
the moment when she abandoned the Federal
system. The hon. member for Lotbinière
sought to prove that confederations were the
source of all sorts of disturbances ; and in
support of what he said, he read out to us
the table of contents of the history of
America, in which he found a long list of
échauffourées, movements, agitations, risings,
civil wars and revolutions. It is not my wish
to deny the facts quoted by the honorable
member, but I must say that his conclusions are not correct, and that it
is not right to draw conclusions adverse to a
system from merely perusing the table of
contents of any work whatsoever. The history of all nations will afford tables of
contents, which, if they were taken as indicating
the normal and habitual condition of a
people, would cause us to make strange mistakes and to draw strange historical conclusions.
Even the present history of England,
the history of the reign of Her Majesty
Queen Victoria, might afford to a person,
who was desirous of forming a judgement
respecting it from the table of contents
alone, some facts which might induce him to
believe in the complete disorganization of
549
the British Empire ; for in it he would find
allusion made to the Chinese war, the several
insurrections in India, the insurrectional
movement in Ireland, the Russian war, the
Sepoy rebellion, and a large number of other
matters ; but all this would prove nothing
against the prosperity of the empire under
the rule of Her Majesty. (Hear, hear.)
But, without losing time over the reply
which may be made to this style of reasoning,
I say that it does not follow that the Federal
system is impracticable, because it has not
succeeded among certain peeple who were
not in a suficiently advanced condition for
the application of the system. No constitution suits every people equally well; constitutions
are made for the people, and not the
peeple for the constitution. When a people
is sufficiently enlightened and sufficiently
educated and civilized, a constitution ensuring their liberty may be given them ;
but it
is necessary to wait until they are able to
appreciate and enjoy it, before giving it to
them. A free constitution entrusted to an
unenlightened peeple is like an edged tool
placed in the hands of a child ; it is a dangerous instrument, with which it may chance
to wound itself. Besides, certain forms of
government are better suited to certain
people than others. Thus, to endeavor to
give the English Constitution to the French
people would be to commit a great mistake,
for the French people are not adapted to the
working of the political institutions of England. Again, try to give the English people
the French Constitution, and the English
people will revolt. Before giving a constitution to a people, that people must be
taught
how to use it. It cannot be said that a table
of contents is not history, but certainly one
would not seek in that part of the volume for
the philosophy of history. Let us suppose
that some one is desirous of reading the
history of the Celestial Kingdom, and that
on taking up the book he finds, in the table
of contents, that at a certain period there
was a terrible battle between the good and
the wicked angels; if he shared the ideas of
the hon. member for Lotbinière, he would
say to himself: " This country cannot have a
good government, and it is not advisable to
live in it." When aperson draws historical
conclusions from a table of contents, it shews
that he has not derived much benefit from
his states. Those who are now opposing
Confederation are not agreed as to their
mode of attack, any more than they are upon
the means to be adopted to meet the dificul
ties of the position in which we are now
placed. The hon. member for Hochelaga
(Hon. Mr. DORION) is in favor of Confederation of the two Canadas, and the hon.
member for Lotbinière (Mr. JOLY) is against
any Confederation at all. They do not even
agree as to their reasons for opposition.
Some are opposed to Confederation because
it grants too much to Lower Canada, and
others because it grants too much to Upper
Canada. Yet Confederation cannot be disadvantageous to everybody, and, for my part,
I am of opinion that everyone may find something good in it, it he is only reasonable
in
his expectations. If the hon. member for
Hochelaga were called upon to arrange the
diflicultics in which the country is at present
situated, I am satisfied that he would not
bring forward any other plan than some
scheme of Confederation or other; and if he
did not succeed with the scheme for the
Confederation of the Canadas, he would try
the more extended plan of a great Confederation of all the provinces. There is indeed,
it is true, another remedy which would be
more likely to meet the views of certain
members—annexation to the United States ;
but I, for my part, am resolutely opposed to
it, and am prepared to fight against it by
every possible means, and to take up arms,
if necessary, to resist it. If we are ever
invaded by the United States. I shall ever
be ready to take up arms to drive the
invaders out of the country. (Hear, hear.)
A great outcry which is raised against Confederation is that about direct taxation.
For my part, I consider that the honorable
Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. GALT) has
proved clearly that we shall not require to
have recourse to it. But even supposing
that such should turn out to be the case, we
should not be any worse off than we should
be with the gentlemen on the other side of
the House in power ; for it is perfectly well
known that the hon. member for Chateauguay's plan is to establish direct taxation.
With them, therefore, we should not have
to wait for Confederation before we got it.
The honorable members on the other side of
the House have also taken occasion to find
fault with the Speech from the Throne having
contained an allusion to the peace and general prosperity of the country. " Why,"
they
say, "the Speech from the Throne states
that trade is prospering, that the peeple are
happy and contented, that the harvests have
been magnificent, and that great contentment
and great prosperity everywhere prevail ;
550
and yet constitutional changes are proposed
in order to soothe the discontent of the
people and the agitation of the country."
Well ! let us suppose that the gentlemen are
right—for it is true that the year has not
been a good one in respect of business, and
it is natural that such should be the case, in
view of the position of the crisis through
which America is now passing, and but little
else can be expected ; the harvest has not been
a very good one,—however, allowing that
these gentlemen are right, it is not the less
true that we are relatively in a state of quietude and great prosperity, and it is
just at
the present time, when we are in a state of
tranquillity and can do it in perfect liberty,
that we should adopt means to settle our
internal dificulties. It is not during a time
of trouble or a civil war that we can do it,
and therefore we ought to profit by the
opportunity which is now offered us. A Constitution will not last unless it is elaborated
with the care, the deliberation and the calm
consideration which can be devoted to it
only in time of peace. We are now at peace
with our neighbors, our friends are in a large
majority, the question is known to the
country and has been considered for several
months past, and our duty is to do now in
time of peace, what it is impossible to do in
time of trouble. We ought also to labor to
enlighten public opinion on the subject of
this plan of Confederation, not by appeals to
its prejudices, but by free and open discussion, and by wise counsel based on that
truth
which should always be our guiding star.
I am, therefore, disposed to vote in favor of
the resolutions which are submitted to us.
When I became aware that the Government
were bringing forward this scheme of Confederation, I said to myself that we were
about to be liberated from colonial leading-
strings, and that we were about to become a
people, and I expected the House would
approach the question with due regard to
its greatness ; some hon. members have undoubtedly done so, but I regret that many
others have not been able to raise themselves
above the narrow considerations of party.
The question has been discussed by statesmen on this side of the House at least ;
but
on the other side it has been made a miserable question of party and of taxation.
With these few remarks, I shall conclude by
stating that it is my determination to vote
in favor of the scheme submitted to us.—
(Applause.)
 Â
Mr. BEAUBIEN—Mr. Speaker, I do
not rise to make a long speech, for I freely
acknowledge that it is not in my power to
do so ; and besides, the question which is
submitted to us has been so well discussed
by those who have preceded me, and who
are in a better position than myself to judge
of the condition and requirements of the
country, that the subject is almost exhausted.
I only wish, by rising on this occasion, to
record my presence at the debates which are
in progress on this question, and to state in
a few words what the reasons are which induce me to support this measure. The
peculiar position of the British North American colonies and their proximity to the
United States, call upon them to unite
together in order to form a stronger nation,
and one more able to withstand the onslaught
of an enemy, should it be necessary so to do,
and to increase their prosperity in a material point of view. There is one fact which
must not be forgotten, and which I must
mention—it is that when France abandoned
this country, and England took possession
of it, from that moment French immigration
entirely ceased and gave way to immigration
of persons of foreign origin—of British
origin. From that period the English population increased from day to day in this
country, and at the present time the French-
Canadians are in a minority in United
Canada. Under these circumstances, I am
of opinion that it would be at once an act of
imprudence and one characterised by a lack
of generosity on our parts to wish to prevent
the majority of the population of the country
from displaying greater aspirations for our
common country, and from desiring its advancement and more rapid progress in an
onward direction, at the same time drawing
closer the bonds which unite us to the
Mother Country. I have reflected on these
matters, and although I am not disposed to
submit to injustice to my country or my
countrymen, yet I am ready to enter into a
compromise with persons of other origins.
I consider, moreover, that since we are
satisfied with our position as English subjects, and with the Constitution which we
are allowed freely to exercise, we should
do all in our power to increase England's
interest in her colonies ; and for my part, I
consider that the means of so doing is to
accept the Confederation which is proposed
to us. Not long since discontent was manifested in England among a part of the com
551
mercial class, in consequence of the liberty
which we took of imposing high duties on
English merchandize imported into this
country ; but the English Government did
not share that discontent, I am happy to
say, and did not choose to interfere. This
fact, however, was of a nature to cast a chill
upon the interest with which we were regarded in England ; but when the news of
Confederation reached England, that interest
was revived, and has ever since continued
to increase. If we desire to interest
England in our fate, we must draw
closer the bonds that unite us to her,
and we must do it by means of the
Confederation now proposed to us, because
that measure once carried out, she will
undoubtedly put forth her whole strength
for our defence if we should be attacked.
Moreover, in view of the events which have
recently occurred in the southern portion of
this continent, if we reflect that it seems to
be the policy of France and of England
to establish a balance of power similar to
what exists in Europe, if we consider that it
is for this end that France has established
an empire in Mexico, it is clear that England
cannot but view with a favorable eye the
movement now in progress here for the Confederation of all the British North American
Provinces. It is not at such a time as this,
therefore, that England would be disposed
to abandon her colonies, as it has been pretended by some. I stated, a moment ago,
that we should not resist the just demands
of the British population of this country,
provided they do not ask anything involving
injustice towards French-Canadians. If we
were guilty of injustice towards them, they
would complain, and propose a plan of constitution humiliating to the French-Canadians,
and they would no longer entertain
sentiments of esteem and consideration for
us. I do not refer to this matter for the
purpose of discouraging my own fellow-
countrymen, but because I believe it is
necessary that they should take this view of
the matter into account in the position in
which we now find ourselves placed. To-day
our position is an excellent one ; we are
strong as a party, we have statesmen at the
head of the affairs of our country who are
devoted to its interest—they have proved it
again and again—and united together by
the ties of interest and friendship ; and
above all, we have ever had confidence in
those who prepared the project of a Constitu
tion now submitted for our consideration ;
it is evident, then, that a more favorable
opportunity could not possibly be found for
eflecting constitutional changes than the
present circumstances afford. These men,
who are surely possessed of as much diplomatic skill as the representatives of the
other
provinces can exhibit, will undoubtedly look
after the interests of Lower Canada ; and
their opinion, based upon justice, will prevail
with those to whom the preparation of our
new Constitution is to be entrusted. Moreover, what I have just stated is perfectly
understood by every influential class in the
country, by all men who help to form public
oinion, who are the guides of the people,
and who have hitherto managed to lead them
aright, and to bring them into a safe harbor
at the last. To-day these men and these
influences are in favor of the present plan, and
all are convinced of its necessity. But, on the
other hand, what are the influences opposed
to Confederation in Lower Canada ? They
are confined to a party which has existed for
the past fifteen years in Lower Canada, and
which has always been remarkable for its
opposition to all measures demanded and
supported by the party representing in this
House the vast majority of the people of
Lower Canada. This persistent opposition
to the measures of the Lower Canadian
party savoured of revolution—for your revolutionist is by nature incapable of submitting
to the majority ; it is the same party
which in other countries forms secret societies, by means of which society is thrown
into disorder—and it is admitted that everywhere, in Europe as well as in America,
these secret societies are composed of men
who are invariably opposed to everything
calculated to secure the peace and happiness
of the people. Is it not true that in 1856
or 1857 a place in the Administration was
offered to one of the leaders of that party
by the present Attorney General, and that
an opening was repeatedly made for them,
because it was thought that they were acting
in good faith ? Now, did they not invariably
refuse the alliance offered them ? And did
they not even refuse to give a cordial support to the Macdonald-Sicotte
Administration, which was composed of Liberal-
Conservatives ? And the reason was, that
that Administration was not exclusively
composed of the democratic element.
Â
Hon. Mr. DORION—Who voted against
that Administration, and who defeated it ?
MR. BEAUBIEN—It is true that the
actual vote by which that government was
upset was given by us, because there was in
that Government an excess of the element I
have just referred to, and for other reasons;
but it was that party that betrayed and
spurned those who had enabled them to
carry their elections. (Hear, hear.) Is
that not the truth? Then, that persistent
and constant opposition to everything, shows
that the members of that party were inspired
by passions, not to be found in the generality
of men. The Conservative party has always
opposed representation by population under
the present union, because under this union
we are face to face with the population of a
country of which the products are different
from ours, and of which the interests are
not always identical with ours. This question
was strongly agitated. The whole people of
Lower Canada resisted that demand, and
the whole Conservative party firmly refused
to consent to it, while the other party—the
Opposition party—held out hopes to those
who demanded that measure, and allied
themselves with them. This is a statement,
the truth of which cannot be denied, for
documents proving the facts exist, and have
been laid before this House and the country.
This cause of dissension has always existed,
and will always exist in Upper Canada, not
because it is necessary to the support of
such or such a party, but because it is the
result of a provision of the Constitution, and
because the interests of Upper Canada are
not the same as ours. And if we do not
effect a settlement of this question now,
these dissensions will, ere long, be renewed
and the difficulties increased. Here is an
opportunity of removing these difficulties by
uniting ourselves with the Lower Provinces;
and I think Lower Canada would do well
not to lose the opportunity. Under Confederation, the political parties into which
the provinces will be divided will find it
necessary to form alliances, and our alliance
will be courted by all, so that we shall in
reality hold the balance of power. Moreover, I am quite convinced that we have no
grounds for fear in that respect. I have
always remarked that material interests are
of great weight in the formation of parties,
and the conduct of the French-Canadians,
with reference to their religious institutions,
never inspired any uneasiness or distrust in
our fellow-countrymen of a different origin
from ours, when they found it their interest
to form an alliance with us; and I am
certain that we shall find, under like circumstances, the same disposition among the
inhabitants of the Lower Provinces The
plan proposed to us being based upon the
principle of justice and equity to all, it is
deserving of the support of all parties. It
presents a remedy for the evils of which
Upper Canada complains, at the same time
that it affords guarantees for the protection
of the interests of the other provinces; and
inasmuch as it is founded on just bases, it
will be found—more especially among a
people such as that of this country, who are
peaceable and well-disposed, who are, for the
most part, owners of land, and have many
interests to protect—it will be found, I say, that
a sentiment of justice will prevail, and that
every one will do his best to promote the
working of the new Constitution in such a
manner as to give full satisfaction to all the
parties interested. Notwithstanding what
the hon. member for Lotbinière has said in
the course of a speech, with which he himself seemed to be so intensely amused, the
sound sense and judgment of the people of
Lower Canada will satisfy them that they
will find in the project which has been submitted to us, guarantees for all their
interests
and for everything they hold dear, and that
the measure will meet all their wants; and
on the other hand, the sound sense and judgment of the people of the other provinces
will prevent them from committing any
excess or any act of injustice towards Lower
Canada, if the latter should happen to be in
a minority, or if the alliance I have referred
to should not be made. And, moreover, as
regards our being in a minority, are we not
exposed to it under the present system? And
I prefer facing the larger majority, since it
will be less hostile to Lower Canada As
matters now stand, we should find ourselves
at the mercy of the Upper Canada majority,
if they wished to commit any injustice
towards us; but, under the Confederation, I
believe we shall have better guarantees than
we now possess against any attempt at injustice on the part of the Federal Government,
for the policy of England is to aflord her
colonies every possible reason for contentment. The hon. member for Richelieu has
spoken of the events which occurred prior to
1837, to convince us that we have every
reason to distrust the sentiments of the British population. Why refer to matters
so
long forgotten? The hon. member ought to
know that the policy which circumstances
have induced England to adopt, is no longer
553
the policy which then prevailed. Does any
one believe that England would now encourage any section of the British population
in
doing an injustice to the inhabitants of
Lower Canada? It will be said that the
national life of Lower Canada is so deeply
rooted, that it is impossible to destroy it;
but, if we desire to secure its safety, we must
accept the present scheme of Confederation,
under which all the religious interests of
Lower Canada, her educational institutions,
her public lands, in fact everything that constitutes a people's nationality, will
find protection and safety. With the control of
our public lands in our own hands, we
can attract the tide of emigration, retain
our own people in the country, and advance
in prosperity as rapidly as the other provinces. And all this is secured to us under
the plan of Confederation. Every impartial
man will admit that great care has been
taken, in the drawing up of this project of
Confederation, to protect all our interests.
It may be true that it is not quite free from
defect, but every one must acknowledge
that it is the most perfect system that could
possibly be obtained, and the system best
calculated to aford us security. All the
hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the
Opposition side say that the expenses will
Be extraordinary, and that the revenue will
not be suficient to support the governments
of the Confederation. But they base their
calculations upon the revenue as it now
stands, and they do not reflect that the present debt of the province has been contracted
in carrying out the vast public works we
now possess, and that these public works
have not as yet produced a revenue, but will
hereafter do so. These public works were
essentially necessary for the development of
our resources; and if at this moment the
Minister of Finance is able to present a
budget shewing a surplus of revenue over
expenditure, we are justified in hoping that
within a few years our revenue will be
more than sufficient to enable us to meet
all the expenses of the different governments,
and to extinguish our present debt. For
my own part, I do not think that our
expenses will be greater under Confederation
than they are at present. If the Federal
Government works well, our expenses will
be less than they are at present, for we shall
end of factious sectional jealousies, and
the system of equivalents, which have done
so much injury to the country, and which
have so greatly impeded the working of the
Government in times past. It is ridiculous
to fancy that the Government of Canada can
continue to work and maintain itself with a
majority of one or two votes in this House,
as we have witnessed for some years past;
for a government so placed is at the mercy
of every member who has a local interest to
serve, or a particular favor to obtain; and
it is thus forced to grant favors which it
would refuse if it were stronger. This
was the cause of all the useless expenditure;
and almost every one of our governments
has been in that position. (Hear, hear.)
But under Confederation we may hope that
the Federal Government will generally have
the support of a large majority, and will consequently not be compelled to yield to
the
demands of a small number of members.
The resources at the disposal of the local
governments being limited, they will practise
a degree of economy which will serve as an
example to the Fe eral Government itself.
Lower Canada, when left to herself, will become highly prosperous in a few years—and
perhaps Upper Canada also—provided her
expenses be kept within bounds; and I am
convinced that her Local Government will be
a model for the Federal Government; for men
formed in the school of the Local Government,
and who will be habituated to the practice of
economy, will exert a salutary influence on
the members of the Federal Legislature, to
whom they will impart, and on whom they
will impress, their ideas of economy and good
government. (Hear, hear.) It is well that
. the means at the disposal of the local governments should be limited, but at the
same
time amply sufficient, for they must then feel
that they cannot enter into too large expenditure, and they will adopt a perfect system
of economy. (Hear, hear.) Before concluding I must pay a tribute of justice to the
British population of Lower Canada. We
have always gone along hand in hand like
good friends, acknowledging each other's
rights, and each party invariably making it a
rule to accede to the just claims of the other.
This will be our safety also under the Federal
Government. For my part I should be sorry
to see the present plan of Confederation fail,
at all events through any action of ours, for
that would justly dissatisfy the British population of this country, who desire to
see it
carried out, and to whom we should not refuse it. We know that the British have always
done everything in their power to promote the material prosperity of the country,
and it is our duty to respect them and to accede to their just demands. With these
few
554
remarks, Mr. SPEAKER, I shall conclude
by stating that I am in favor of the present
plan of Confederation, not because I trust
solely to the evidence of my own judgment,
but because I see at the head of the movement
the most enlightened men in the country, and
because all the men of influence, all the men
of property in the country, are in favor of the
project. (Hear, hear.) And I am convinced,
notwithstanding all that may have been said,
that the country is sufficiently familiar with the
project, and that the people now know all they
will ever know about it. In every parish
there are men who are the leaders of public
opinion, and we know that these men are in
favor of this plan. We have all these influences with us, and for my part I attach
but
little importance to the opinion expressed at
certain public meetings held to oppose Confederation, or to the petitions presented
against the project, for it is always easy to
obtain signatures to petitions. And, moreover, let any one compare the signatures
to
these petitions with the poll-books kept at
elections, and it will be found that they are
the names of those who have always been opposed to everything proposed by the great
national party, which has ever represented the
interests of Lower Canada. (Applause.)
MR. DUFRESNE (of Montcalm)—Mr.
SPEAKER, I do not rise to speak on the question now before the House, but simply to
express my surprise that after six weeks of
discussion the Opposition pretend that we refuse them time to discuss the measure,
and
that nevertheless they refuse to discuss it
during the afternoon sittings, and will only
take it up in the evening. For my part, I am
prepared to vote at once upon this matter,
and I believe that the question is perfectly
mastered and well understood by every member of this House. Why are the Opposition
unwilling to speak during the afternoon sittings? Their object in speaking is to kill
time, rather than to discuss the merits of
the question. And why is this? Is it
because they are waiting for a few more petitions, a few more names, in order to protest
against Confederation ? But we know the
value of these petitions-we know what the
Rouges are, and that they will sign any and
every petition, provided it be against the Government and its policy. The Opposition
is
like a sulky child ; if you refuse him a plaything he cries for it, and then if you
offer it
to him he refuses to take it. The Confederation is in reality the plan of those gentlemen
themselves, and yet to-day they will not hear
of it; they reject it as something horrible.
The country is watching them, and I hold the
Opposition responsible for the loss of time we
are now undergoing. If they have any
reasons to advance, let them do so, but let us
come to a vote. Their conduct will receive
its due reward at the hands of the people.
(Hear, hear.)
After the recess,—
HON. MR. CAUCHON said—Mr. SPEAKER, when so many eloquent voices have spoken
on the great question which occupies us so
seriously, which stands preëminent over all
others in the present situation, which pre-occupies all minds, which agitates to its
farthest
limits all British North America, which includes within its immense scope two oceans
and nearly half a continent, and which is
pregnant with the destinies of a great people
and a great country—when the whole of the
motives which can be advanced for and against
the project have been so luminously discussed,
when I myself have, elsewhere, at such considerable length and so completely developed,
with the feeble abilities which Providence has
conferred upon me, the considerations which
militate for or against the entirety and the
details of the work of the Quebec Conference,
I might—perhaps I should—have remained a
simple spectator of these solemn debates, while
awaiting the hour at which I should be permitted to record my vote in accordance with
my convictions. considered, however, that
as one of the oldest representatives of the
people, after having spoken elsewhere, I
should speak again within the parliamentary
precinct, in order to accomplish to the letter
my trust, and in order to obey that voice
which has a right to command me. I have
therefore come this evening in order to bring
my feeble tribute of ideas to the decisive
ordeal which is being accomplished. For my
part I should have wished for the bringing
forward of fewer personal questions, fewer
criminations and reeriminations, fewer allusions to the past; in a word, I should
have
wished to see the debate rising at its very
outset to the dignity of the question itself,
so as to place as in a position to judge of
it on its own merits, without considering
the names or the antecedents of those who
may defend or may oppose it; I should
have wished to see the conscience of our public men in harmony with the public con—
science,- and that under such grave circumstances, men had forgotten that they were
party men, in order to remember only their
national character. (Hear, hear.) But sev
555
eral of the speakers have not appreciated the
situation in this manner ; they have not believed that it was of such importance as
to exact the development of great virtues and great
sacrifices. One honorable gentleman amused
himself by making jeux de mots of doubtful
merit on the complexion of two pamphlets ;
another devoted a third of his long speech to
the task of endeavoring to make his present
position agree with his antecedents, and the
other two-thirds almost entirely to an effort to
make his opponents contradict themselves,
without any regard to the question under
discussion, imitating the Trojan hero of whom
Virgil sings, and of whom ROUSSEAU says :
" Pouvait-elle mieux attendre
De ce pieux voyageur,
Qui, fuyant sa ville en cendre,
Et le fer du Grec vengeur,
Quitta les murs de Pergame
Tenant son fils par la main,
Sans prendre garde Ă sa femme,
Qui se perdit en chemin ?"
*
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I seem to defend here my past opinions on Confederation.
I wrote from conviction in 1858, just as I
have written from conviction in 1865. My
two works are there—provoking discussion,
and throwing down the gauntlet to those who
may desire to take it up. It will soon be a
third of a century since I commenced to
write, and if I had no other recommendation
to public attention than that of being the
oldest journalist in the country, it appears
to me that people ought, if they could, not
to have allowed me to pass without asking
me the reason of my present doctrines. How
is it, then, that from the midst of the democratic and opposition press not a single
voice has been heard against the long commentary of the Journal on the scheme of the
Quebec Conference ? (Hear, hear.) Is it inability ? Is it that talent is wanting among
this phalanx which believes itself to have
been specially ushered into existence in order
to enlighten and govern the country ? Even
if I had not written under a strong sense of
duty, I should feel sufficiently strengthened
by the high and disinterested approbation
which greeted my humble work, to bear un
disturbed the scratches and pin pricks of the
honorable member for Lotbinère, and, all unworthy though it may be, I should not
hesitate to place it in the balance against, I will
not say the episode, but the speech by which
he seems to hope to arrive at the position of a
statesman, to which he aspires. It is to be
regretted also that the honorable member for
Hochelaga kept himself almost constantly,
during three hours and a half, in the lowest
level of personal recriminations. Was he
unable to raise himself to a more dignified
ground, or is it the natural level of his talents
and his habits ? It seems to me that the
occasion required more serious debate, larger
views, wiser appreciation drawn from more
profound thoughts, a truer idea of the situation, greater truth in the statement of
facts,
greater exactness, more sequence, and more
logic in the reasoning. But, instead of this,
we have had a jumble of ideas and assertions,
dates which give each other the lie, and a history sadly made and sadly told. The
honorable gentleman challenged me, and I must
accept this challenge before entering upon the
consideration of the question which is now
before us. The honorable gentleman (Hon.
Mr. DORION) said the other evening :—
 This speech has been tortured and twisted in
every possible sense. I have seen it quoted in
order to prove that I was in favor of representation by population pure and simple
; I have seen
it quoted in order to prove that I was in favor of
the Confederation of the provinces, and, in fact,
to prove many other things, according to the
necessities of the moment or of those who quoted
it. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The first time
the question was put to a practical test was in
1858. On the occasion of the resignation of the
MACDONALD-CARTIER Government the BROWN-
DORION Government was formed, and it was
agreed between the members that the constitutional question should be met and settled,
either
by means of a Confederation of Upper and Lower
Canada, or by means of representation by population, with checks and guarantees ensuring
the
religious faith, the laws, the language and the
local institutions of each section of the country
against any attack from the other. Pretended
extracts from this document as of my speech
have been given and falsified, in the press and
elsewhere, to prove every kind of doctrine as
being my views ; but I can show clearly that the
proposition which it contains is exactly the same
as that which was made in 1858, that is to say,
Confederation of the two provinces, with some
joint authority for the management of affairs
common to both. My speeches have been lately
paraded in the ministerial journals ; they have
been distorted, ill translated, and even falsified,
in order to induce the public to believe that I
556
formerly held opinions different from those which
I now hold. A French journal has said "that I
loudly called for a Confederation of the provinces." But I shall say now, as I stated
in 1856,
and as I stated in 1861, that I have always been
and am still opposed to Confederation. I find
by the Mirror of Parliament, which contains a
report of my speech, although an exceedingly bad
report, that I stated in 1861—"A time may
come when it will be necessary to have a Confederation of all the provinces; * * *
but the
time has not yet come for such a scheme." This
was the speech which was misrepresented as
meaning that I was calling loudly for Confedertion, and that nothing would give me
greater
pleasure. And yet I explicitly stated on that
occasion that although a time might come when
Confederation would become necessary, it was
not desirable under actual circumstances.
The honorable gentleman already admits two
things with which he has been charged—representation on the basis of population, with
checks, guarantees and assurances, and the
Confederation of Upper and Lower Canada.
We shall now see if, in extending the field of
my investigations, I shall not find that the
honorable member for Hochelaga has—to use
a felicitous expression of the honorable member for Lotbinière—occasionally enlarged
the
circle of his constitutional operations. Here
is what the honorable gentleman stated on
the 6th July, 1858; the extract is from the
Globe, of which, at that period at least, he did
not question the veracity :—
The honorable member for Brockville, the
Honorable Postmaster General, the Speaker. and
other members representing Lower Canadian
counties in the present Parliament, have voted
for representation by population. Before long,
it will be impossibe to resist the demands of
Upper Canada in this respect. If representation by population is not granted now,
it will infallibly obtain it at a later period, but then without
any guarantees for the protection of the French-
Canadians. The repeal of the union, a Federal
union, representation based on population, or
some other great change must in all necessity
take place, and for my part I am disposed to
consider the question of representation by population, in order to see if it may not
be conceded
with guarantees for the protection of the religion,
the language, and the laws of Lower Canadians.
I am equally ready to take into consideration the
project of a Confederation of the provinces,
leaving to each section the administration of its
local affairs, as for example the power of regulating its own civil municipal and
educational
laws; and to the General Government the administration of the public works, the public
lands,
the post-office department, and commerce.
I now quote the Mirror, the orthodoxy and
veracity of which are denied by the honorable member for Hochelaga and his organ".
The date of the report in the Mirror is the
3rd May, 1860 :—
I hope, nevertheless, that a day will come when
it will be desirable for Canada to unite federally
with the Lower Provinces; but the time is not
yet ripe for such a project. And even if Canada
should be favorable, the Maritime Provinces
would not like to enter into it on account of our
great debt. As to the joint authority, it ought
to have the least authority. But those who are
in favor of the Federal union of the provinces
ought to see this Federation of Upper and Lower
Canada is the best mode of creating a nucleus
around which, at a later period, the Confederation of all the provinces might be formed.
Thus the honorable member for Hochelaga
had all sorts of wares, just as the keeper of a
"general store" possesses all sorts of merchandise, great and small, on his shelves.
To
some he sells lace and to others cutlery.
(Laughter.)
HON. MR. CAUCHON—The honorable
gentleman calls it a
pot pourri. I think my
comparison of it as a general store is much
more accurate and characteristic.
A MEMBER — Music is sold there.
(Laughter.)
HON. MR. CAUCHON—Yes, on his shelves
loaded with all sorts of goods, even old
music is to be found. (Laughter.) Here
there is a conflict of authorities as there is
in relation to dogmatic questions between Protestant and Catholic writers; and the
Pays
expressed itself as follows with respect to the
Mirror of Parliament:—
But here is the crowning of the edifice. The
editor of the Journal finds strange things in the
Mirror of Parliament, a publication which was
never controlled by any committee of the House,
and the authority of which is worth less than that
of a solidly founded newspaper such as the Globe,
the Herald, the Chronicle, or the Journal de
Québec itself. It is notorious that the reporters
for this Mirror were not over particular as to
their correctness, and that but little importance
was attached to their reports; so much so that
the sheet in question had only an ephemeral existence.
Without admitting the truth of the pretensions of this organ of the honorable member
for Hochelaga, I did not hesitate to follow
the honorable gentleman on the ground which
he himself has chosen, and I found the following in the Morning Chronicle of the 4th
557
May, 1860, to which he referred me for a
more exact and veracious report—it being the
same speech of the third May, a report of
which I have read from the Mirror of Parliament. [Here the honorable gentleman
read a French translation of the Chronicle's
report.] And in order that there may be no
doubt as to the exactness of the translation, with
the exception of a word which I shall explain after reading the extract, I shall now
quote the English text as reported in the
Chronicle, viz. :—
 Mr. Dorion argued that when Lower Canada
had the preponderance of population, complaints
were of the inequality of the representation of
that section. The union of Belgium and Holland, which was somewhat similar to that
at
present existing between Upper and Lower
Canada was dissolved when it was found it did
not work advantageously to both countries. He
instanced a number of questions on which it was
impossible for Upper and Lower Canada to agree ;
public feeling being quite dissimilar—subjects popular in one section being the reverse
in the other.
He warned Lower Canada members, that when
the time came that the whole of the representatives from the western portion of the
province
would be banded together on the question, they
would obtain representation by population, and
secure the assistance of the Eastern Township
members in so doing. He regarded a Federal
union of Upper and Lower Canada as a nucleus
of the great confederation of the North American
Provinces to which all looked forward. He concluded by saying he would vote for the
resolution,
as the only mode by which the two sections of
the province could get out of the difficulties in
which they now are. He thought the union ought
to be dissolved, and a Federal union of the provinces would in due time follow.
The translation into French says, "que
j'appelle de mes voeux," and the original text is
is " to which all looked forward." Thus,
instead of rendering the desire for a Confederation of the provinces, as his own he
made
it general. Instead of speaking for himself,
he spoke for all, and as the whole comprises
the part, in expressing the general thought he
had most naturally expressed his own thought.
(Hear, hear.) I take this opportunity of
correcting this involuntary error of translation, and of saying that the honorable
gentleman affirmed then that not only himself, but
that all turned their eyes from the mountain
top towards the promised land of Confederation of all the British North American Provinces.
Did not the honorable member for
Hochelaga say in his famous manifesto of the
7th Nov., 1864 :—
 The union which is proposed appears to me
premature, and if it is not altogether incompatible with our colonial state, it is
at least without
precedent in the history of the colonies.
And the other day, in this House he stated :—
 Necessarily, I do not mean to say that I shall
always be opposed to Confederation. The population may extend itself, and cover the
virgin
forests which exist between Canada and the Maritime Provinces, and commercial relations
may
increase in such a manner as to render Confederation necessary.
 It is, therefore, in every respect merely a
question of time, and of expediency as
between the majority of the House and the
honorable member for Hochelaga. But he has
not thought proper to tell us why Confederation
of all the provinces of British North America
is to-day a crime, an anti-national act, yet
would have at one period, been good and acceptable to Lower Canada. In the same manner
he
has also preserved silence on the character which
Confederation should possess, in order to merit
the sanction of his word and his vote. Always to condemn, always to destroy, never
to build up—this appears to be the motto of
the honorable member for Hochelaga, and
those who follow his lead on the floor of
this House. (Hear, hear.) They always
keep to themselves the easiest share of sacrifice and patriotism—the task of casting
blame
and censure upon others. (Hear, hear.) The
honorable gentleman thinks that the union
proposed to us, that is to say Confederation,
is without precedent in Colonial history . He
has, therefore, not read the Federal history,
scarcely accomplished, of the colonies of
Australia. But if it be true that the Confederation of the six colonies is without
precedent in Colonial history, will the honorable
gentleman at least tell us where he found his
precedent for the Confederation of the two
provinces ? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) In
order to get out of the diflicnlty again this
time, the honorable gentleman will hardly
deny that which be affirmed so categorically
only the other evening. It is evident that
logic and recollection of facts are not among
the most prominent features of the honorable
member's eloquence. Since he desires so much
to establish that he was at all times in favor
of a Confederation of the two Canadas as
an alternative for representation by population, it appears to me, and it ought to
be
evident to the House and to the country
which we represent, that he should have
stated the motives of such a deep and constant
558
conviction. Why conceal from us the fruits
of so many and such serious meditations ?
Why, setting aside the facile and convenient
task of censor, does he not come forward as
the architect of a political edifice capable of
sheltering and protecting against tempest from
without, our nationality and the institutions
of which it is composed. It is because " if
criticism is easy, art is diflicult." This truth
enunciated by a poet, nearly two thousand
years ago, evidently belongs to all ages, and it
finds, today more particularly, its application
in the person of the honorable member for
Hochelaga. (Hear, hear.) Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis—and behold, the
honorable gentleman told us on the 16th
February, 1865 :—
 Representation based upon population was
one of the least causes of this project. [And
further on]: But, as soon as the Government
found itself, after its defeat, obliged either to
resign or to appeal to the people, gentlemen on
the other side of the House, without there being
the slightest agitation on this question, prepared
to embrace their most violent adversaries, and
said to themselves : " We are going to forget
our past differences, provided we can preserve
our portfolios."
Had the honorable gentleman, therefore, forgotten that which he stated with so much
emphasis and apparently with so much conviction in 1858 :—
 The honorable member for Brockville, the
Postmaster General, the Speaker, and other
members representing Lower Canadian counties,
in the present Parliament, have already voted for
representation by population. Before long, it
will become impossible to resist the demand
of Upper Canada in this respect. If representation by population be not granted now,
it will infallibly obtain it later, but then without any guarantee for the protection
of the
French Canadians.
Had he changed his opinion in 1859 when he
wrote conjointly with Hon. Messrs. DRUMMOND, DESSAULLES and McGEE:—
 It is with the settled conviction that an inevitable constitutional crisis imposed
upon the Liberal
party of Lower Canada duties proportionate with
the gravity of the circumstances in which the affairs of the country were, that your
Committee
has undertaken the task with which it is charged.
It has become evident to all those who, for
several years back, have given their attention to
daily events ; and above all to those who have
had to mingle actively with public affairs, that
we are rapidly reaching a state of things which
will necessitate modifications in the relations existing between Upper and Lower Canada
; and a
search for the means most likely to meet the difficulty, when it presents itself,
has not failed to
be the subject of the most serious consideration
and frequent discussion in and out of Parliament.
* Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â
 The proposition for the formation of a Confederation of the two Canadas is not a
new one. It
has frequently been agitated in Parliament and
in the press for several years past. The example
of the neighboring states, in which the application of the Federal system has shewn
us how fitting it was to the government of an immense territory, inhabited by people
of different origins,
creeds, laws and customs, has no doubt suggested
the idea ; but it was only in 1856 that this proposition was enunciated before the
Legislature by
the Lower Canadian Opposition, as offering, in
its opinion, the only effective remedy for the
abuses produced by the present system.
* Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â
 Lower Canada wishes to maintain intact the
present union of the provinces. If she will not
consent to a dissolution nor to Confederation, it
is difficult to conceive what plausible reasons she
can advance for refusing representation by population. Up to the present time she
has opposed
it by alleging the anger which might result to
some of the institutions which are most dear to
her ; but this reason would be no longer sustainable if it resisted a proposition
the effect of which
would be to leave to the inhabitants of Lower
Canada the absolute control of those same institutions and to surround them with the
most
efficient protection which it is possible to imagine—that which would procure for
them the
formal dispositions of a written constitution,
which could not be changed without their consent.
* Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â
 lt appears therefore that the only alternative
which now offers itself to the inhabitants of
Lower Canada is a choice between dissolution
pure and simple, or Confederation on one side,
and representation by population on the other.
And however opposed Lower Canada may be to
representation by population, is there not imminent danger that it may be finally
imposed upon
it, if it resist all measures of reform, the object
of which is to leave to the local authorities of
each section the control of its own interests and
institutions.
 We should not forget that the same authority
which imposed on us the Act of Union, or which
altered it without our consent, by repealing the
clause which required the concurrence of two-
thirds of the members of both Houses in order to
change the representation respecting the two sections, may again intervene to impose
upon us this
new change.
* Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â
 The customs, postal matters, laws regulating
currency, patents, copyrights, public lands, and
those public works which are of common interest
to all parts of the country, should be the principal if not the only subjects of
which the Federal
Government would have the control, while all
that related to purely local improvements, to edu
559
cation, to the administration of justice, to militia,
to laws of property and internal policy, should be
left to the local government the powers of
which, in a word, should extend to all those subjects which do not come within the
domain of the
General Government.
 Your Committee believes that it is easy to
prove that the expenses absolutely necessary for
the support of the Federal Government and the
several local governments ought not to exceed
those of the present system, while the enormous
indirect expenses occasioned by the latter system
would be avoided by the new—both on account
of the additional restrictions which the Constitution would place upon all public
expenditure, and
of the more immediate responsibility of the
several officers of the Government towards the
people who are interested in restraining them.
 The Federal Legislature having only to occupy
itself with a limited number of affairs, might, in
a short time every year, perform all necessary
legislation ; and, as the number of members
would not be very great, the expenses of the
Federal Government would not, therefore, be a
fraction of the present expenses, which, added to
the cost of the local governments, if they were on
the plan of those of the United States, which are
the best and the most economically administered,
could not exceed the figure of the present
budget.
 The system proposed could not in any way
diminish the importance of this colony, nor
damage its credit, inasmuch as it offers the great
advantage of being able to suit itself to any territorial extension which circumstances
might, in
future, render desirable, without troubling the
general economy of the Confederation.
A. A. DORION,
L. T. DRUMMOND,
L. A. DESSAULLES,
T. D. McGEE.
Â
Mr. PERREAULT—I rise to a question
of order. We have listened with much pleasure to the excellent pamphlet which the
honorable member has been reading out to us for
half an hour past. I can understand that
the honorable member having written a pamphlet in 1858 against Confederation, and
another in 1865 in favor of Confederation, now
feels the necessity of writing a third pamphlet to make the two others agree. But,
as
the honorable member for Montmorency possesses great powers of improvisation, the
House, I think, ought not to be more indulgent to him than to other members, who are
compelled to speak under all the disadvantages of improvisation, which is always difficult.
I have, therefore, to ask whether the honorable member for Montmorency is in order
in
reading his magnificent speech from beginning to end ?
Â
Hon. Atty. Gen. CARTIER — I see
nothing extraordinary in this particular case.
I see that my honorable friend the member
for Montmorency has notes before him to
which he refers, but I do not see any speech.
The honorable member for Richelieu, with
his eccentric genius, requires no notes when
he makes those splendid speeches with which
he regales us from time to time. I can easily
understand that for such lucubrations no very
lengthy preparation is necessary. (Laughter.)
 Â
Hon. Mr. CAUCHON—Every one has
not the genius of the honorable member for
Richelieu. I know also that he is one of
those who can talk a long time, because they
do not always know what they are saying.
(Laughter.) The honorable member may
talk as long as he likes, without being afraid
of my interrupting him, for his speeches can
do no harm except to the person who utters
them. (Laughter.)
  The SPEAKER said it was not exactly in
order for an honorable member to read a
speech quite through, but he might make use
of notes.
Hon. Mr. CAUCHON—From all these
extracts one must conclude that either the
honorable member for Hochelaga was ready
to sacrifice everything in order to attain
power in 1858, or else that in 1858, as in
1859, he was deeply convinced that nothing
but representation by population or a Federal
union of the two Canadas could prevent the
storm then lowering on the horizon. We find
therein, firstly, that we were rapidly reaching
a state of things which would necessitate modifications in the relations between Upper
and
Lower Canada ; secondly, that the proposal to
form a Federation of the Canadas was not
new ; thirdly, that the example of the neighboring States, where the application of
the Federal system shewed how suitable it was to the
government of an immense territory, inhabited
by people of different origin, belief, laws and
customs, had suggested the idea ; fourthly,
that Lower Canada would not have any legitimate motive to resist representation based
upon population if it refused a written Constitution, under which it would have protection
for and control of its institutions ; fifthly,
that it would be in imminent danger of seeing imposed upon it representation based
upon
population, if the Confederation of the two
Canadas were obstinately resisted, and that
those who imposed the Union Act upon us, and
afterwards altered it to our detriment, could
oblige us to accept the former; sixthly, that
customs, currency, patents, copyrights, public
lands, public works and things of common
560
interest should be among the attributes of the
Federal Parliament; seventhly, that the expenses of the Federal and local governments
should not exceed those of the present system.
The following extract, taken from the same
document, must be added to those already
cited :—
Your committee has therefore become convinced, that whether we consider the present
wants with regard to the future of this country,
the substitution of a purely Federal Government
for the present legislative union, presents the true
solution of our difficulties, and that such substitution would free us from the inconveniences,
while at the same time securing to us all the
advantages which the present union may possess.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) At the same
period the Pays, with a conviction as profound
as that of the honorable gentleman whose
organ it is, thought that if we did not make
some constitutional concessions we should not
be able to resist the torrent of public opinion
of Upper Canada, which threatened to break
through the feeble barrier opposed to it by the
Union Act of 1840. The honorable member
for Hochelaga went on with his fears and his
convictions to the time when, by an accident
unfortunate for the country, he again came
into power. (Hear, hear.) It is not then
merely the holding of a ministerial portfolio
which is cast up to us to-day. The time
has then arrived when constitutional changes
become necessary—the question of Confederation under any form is, therefore, not
new. (Hear, hear.) To take the United
States, as the honorable member for Hochelaga has done, for example, I will say that
the
Federal system is suitable for the government
of an immense territory, inhabited by people
of different races, laws and customs, and consequently more suitable to the Confederation
of the British North American Provinces than
to the smaller one of Upper and Lower Canada. Lower Canada, " unless she wish representation
based upon population, should
not reject a written Constitution under which
she has protection for and control of her peculiar institutions." (Hear, hear.) Finally,
the expenses of the federal and local governments and legislatures will not exceed
those
of the present system. According to the
Montreal manifesto of 1859, the Federal Government and Parliament, having very little
to
do, ought to cost but little, so as to leave more
to be done by the local legislatures. According to the scheme of the Conference held
at
Quebec, the tables are turned, and it will be
the local legislatures that, having but local
affairs to attend to, will have to practise economy for the benefit of the General
Government. It is therefore evident that the honorable member for Hochelaga is not
more of a
conjuror than others. It is again still more
evident that the honorable member would be
less hostile to this project, had he been the
author of it, or if he had been sitting on the
right instead of on the left side of the House;
for after all it is but a question of expediency,
at least as regards principle. The honorable
member for Hochelaga also told us :—
I would never have attempted to make a change
in the Constitution of the country without being
convinced that the population of that section of
province which I represented was favorable to
such a scheme.
(Hear.) I do not wish to doubt his sincerity, but has he not also said, " I know that
the possession of power leads to despotism?"
Did he not say, before the events of 1858,
that were he in power, never, no never, would
he consent to govern Lower Canada with the
help of an Upper Canada majority, and yet
how did he act in 1862? How did he act on
coming into power in 1863, after having
ejected in such a loyal and sympathising manner his illustrious predecessor and chief,
Hon.
Mr. SICOTTE? (Hear, hear.) It was not
despotism, but thirst for power, which made
him adopt means to attain that end, which I
shall not designate by their proper name in
this solemn debate. (Hear, hear.) How
did he act? Forgetting his declarations of
1858, he governed Lower Canada with a
weak minority of its representatives, and as,
according to his ideas, "power led to despotism," he ruled it with that rod of iron
which the radicals alone know how to wield.
But happily those days of painful memories
are passed, and the level of the political soil,
which had sunk down, from some of those
secret causes known to Providence alone, again
suddenly rose up to escape from the overflowing torrents of demagogic principles which
threatened society at large. What the Opposition detest the most in the project of
the
Quebec Conference, is its monarchical character, as also those words found at the
commencement of that remarkable work :—
The best interests and present and future
prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal union under the
Crown of
Great Britain, provided such union can be effected
on principles just to the several provinces.
In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of government
best
adapted, under existing circumstances, to protect the diversified interests of the
several pro
561
vinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the union,
would be
a General Government, charged with matters of
common interest to the whole country ; and
Local Governments for each of the Canadas, and
for the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick
and Prince Edward Island, charged with the
control of local matters in their respective
sections. Provision being made for the admission into the union, on equitable terms,
of Newfoundland, the North-West Territory, British
Columbia, and Vancouver.
We move in a different circle of ideas from
that in which the Opposition moves. We wish
in America, as elsewhere, for a monarchy tempered by parliamentary system and ministerial
responsibility, because, without interfering
with liberty, it renders institutions more solid
and secure. We have all seen British democracy holding its existence under the protection
of the immutable ægis of Royal Majesty,
and exercising over the destinies of the country that salutary control which has made
Great Britain so rich, so powerful and so free.
(Hear, hear.) We have also seen, not far
from our own homes, that same democracy
wrapped in the mantle of republicanism, moving at a rapid pace towards demagogy, and
from demagogy to an intolerable despotism.
(Hear, hear. ) We have seen military rule
extending over the entire face of the great
neighboring republic, lately so proud of its
popular institutions. And we have also seen
that people, so proud of their liberty, humbly
bend their necks to the sword of the soldier,
allow their press to be muzzled, after having
condemned the system of censorship legalized
in France, and suffer their writers to be imprisoned without a protest. (Hear, hear.)
M. DE TOCQUEVILLE has lived too long ; his
admirable work on democracy in America
produces upon our minds, at the present day,
only the effect of an heroic poem ; it is the
Isle of Calypso, so admirably sung by FENELON, but which fades away when you have
closed Telemachus. (Laughter.) Instead of
those institutions, framed with such mathematical precision, and that mechanism so
finished and so regular in its course, there is to
be seen but violent and jerking motions, overturnings, and the collision and smashing
of
the component parts of the disconnected machinery of state ; instead of peace and
harmony we find civil war on a gigantic scale,
universal desolation, formidable battles, and
the blood of brothers mingling in streams on
the soil of their common country. (Hear,
hear.) What has become of that race of
giants who, after seven years of a glorious
struggle, laid the foundation, in 1783, of the
American republic ? Disdaining to use the
means employed by the smaller spirits of the
age to grasp at the helm of the state, they
have retired from the public arena, so as to
live in an honorable and dignified manner in
private retirement—for the genius of the
American people is not dead, and the country
which still produces great judges and learned
jurists could also, under another order of
things, and in a different moral condition,
give birth to new WASHINGTONS, FRANKLINS,
HAMILTONS, ADAMS, and MADISONS. (Hear,
hear.) They did not act wrongly then, those
forty chosen men of British North America '
who came to Quebec to erect a new nation on
the monarchical basis, and as much as possible
on the principles of the Parliament of Great
Britain. It seems to us that that authority
was imposing enough to merit the respect of
men of much less experience, and much less
versed in the science of government. (Hear,
hear.) And yet when the honorable member
for Joliette asked with much reason of the
honorable member for Lotbinière why he did
not speak of Confederation based upon monarchical principles, the latter gentleman
answered that he could not speak of what did
not exist, and of what was absurd. He was
like the French savant who, in 1836, proved
by arguments not to be refuted, that it was
impossible to cross the ocean with steam as
the motive power. But while he was thus
floundering through his powerful and learned
arguments, the Sirius was steaming majestically across the Atlantic as if to mock the
wisdom of science. Facts are stubborn and
positive things. (Hear, hear.) We are not
here, like COLUMBUS, looking for an unknown
world ; yet the honorable member who went
as far back as the heroic times of Greece to
find arguments against all Confederations, who
unfolded pompously to our gaze Roman history to prove to us that what was strong and
durable was formed piece by piece, and that
even what is actually strong must also perish, as
the Roman Empire had ended by succumbing
under the weight of its own power ; who, bent
on finding out Confederations in confusion, and
in the midst of pronunciamentos, of movimentos and of échauffourées, travelled through without seeing them, those non-federative Spanish-
American republics, so irritable and so agitated ; who, to be faithful to this system,
attributed the five hundred years' existence of
the Swiss Confederation to every other cause
than to the stability of its principle, and to
the conservative and national character of its
562
inhabitants ; and who, in his enthusiasm for
his doctrines, did not see that the European
equilibrium would have been secure just as
well by the existence of one or more distinct
states as with a Confederation in the Helvetic
Mountains — he failed to see not far from
the native land of his ancestors, the noble
Helvetia which conquered and maintained
for five centuries its independence in the
midst of the most terrible conflicts which
shook the soil of Europe, which overturned
thrones and transformed nations—he has not
seen, in flesh and blood, a Confederation resting almost entirely on the monarchical
principle—the Germanic Confederation—of which
Austria is the head, and for which this latter
power and Prussia alone can decide questions
of peace and war. (Hear, hear.) This was
preceded by the Confederation of the Rhine,
which had found like it its elements and its
mode of being in the ancient empire founded by CHARLEMAGNE, " the strongest hand
that ever existed," to use the splendid
expression of OZANAM ; the Germanic Empire, a true confederation of princes, becoming
really independent in the course of
centuries, and kings in their respective states
under the Imperial suzerainty. The Golden
Bull promulgated by the Emperor CHARLES
IV., in 1356, gives us some useful information on this subject. I would refer
the honorable member for Lotbinière to it.
(Hear, hear.) But why should we ransack
history to establish a fact which is as clear
as day ? Is it not sufficient to open the first
dictionary at hand to know that the word
" confederation " means simply " league,"
union of states or sovereigns, of nations, or
even of armies for a common object. (Hear,
hear.) The honorable member has therefore ill-chosen his time to be witty at the
expense of a man of sense. He declared
himself by turns against the Federal principle and against legislative unity. Appealing
alternately to every prejudice to attain his
object, he said to the French-Canadian
Catholics—" Resist Confederation, because it
will leave you without protection in the
Federal Government and Parliament." Then,
turning towards English Protestants, and
reading complacently to them an extract from
Lord DURHAM'S report, he said :—" Do not
vote for Confederation ; you would be at the
mercy of a French and Catholic majority in
the Local Government and Parliament."
(Hear, hear.) Although the direct reverse
in every other respect of the honorable
member for Hochelaga, his conduct proves
that he believes with that honorable
gentleman " that power engenders despotism." But, in his place, at the outset of
my public career, full of youth and of the
generous sentiments which it inspires, instead of setting the torch to such inflammable
elements as national and religions prejudices, I should have imitated the example
of the honorable member for Montreal
Centre ; and in order to calm mutual distrust,
I should have endeavored to fulfil my duty
by recalling the eminently honorable, christian and civilising history of the last
quarter
of a century. (Cheers ) But the honorable
gentleman was evidently incapable of so
doing. He had just emerged terrified from
amidst the pronunciamentos, the echauffourées
and the movimentos of the very civilized
Spanish Confederations of Central America,
and full of feverish agitation, he launched
himself on spreading pinions towards the
rain-bow and the aurora borealis. (Laughter.) We know what the rainbow is
physically. It is composed of drops of
water, which, placed at a certain angle facing
the sun, refract and reflect its light with
all the colors of which it is composed
(Laughter.) As to the aurora borealis,
some attribute it to the reverberations of
solar light on the snows of the North Pole,
whither the honorable gentleman proceeded
in order to find the vast territory with which
he wishes us to form the Confederation
domain. But the opinion most generally
accepted is that it is, in a manner, something imponderable and unsubstantial.
(Laughter.) Our people, seeing them
moving in all directions with the most
prodigious rapidity, rising, falling, doubling
backward and forward on each other with
such inconceivable rapidity, have given them
the true and picturesque name of dancing
puppets (marionnettes). (Hear, and laughter.) It is, therefore, easily seen that if they
hold in horror the prejudices which are productive of so much evil, their mind is
at least
not so torpid as the hon. member for Lotbinière believes, and it is at least not necessary
to arouse them in this manner. (Hear, hear.)
We know what invariably happens to all
these luminous meteors. Jack o' the Lanterns
and Will o' the Wisps having complacently
expanded themselves on the confines of the]
infinite horizon, after having gambolled at
their ease, become serious and solemn—they
are seized with the ambition of ascending to
the zenith. But as they have, " with the
stature of a giant, but the strength of a
563
child," they soon diminish and disappear,
to be, in the words of BOSSUET, " qu'un je
ne sais quoi qui n'a plus de nom dans aucune
langue (a thing which has no name in any
tongue)." (Hear, hear.) On close examination, however, it would be seen that the
hon. member was not so sarcastic as might
have been at first supposed, when he
suggested the iris as the emblem of the new
Confederation. The rainbow, from a figurative point of view, is the emblem of alliance,
and consequently of strength and durability—
it is the symbol of peace and calm after a long
day of storm and tempest—it is the pledge of
promise that, in future, the flood-gates of
demagogy will no longer be opened on
the country, to leave upon its surface that
morbid sediment, the fetid odors of which
still offend the moral sense of the people
after their unwholesome waters have retired.
(Cheers.) It is the unity of many-colored
rays which, combined, produces light and
heat and fecundity. I should, therefore,
advise those who will be charged at a future
day with our new destinies to adopt the
rainbow as our national emblem, and to give
credit to the hon. member for Lotbinière,
who will doubtless be astonished to find that
he has been so wonderfully inspired. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) If there were never to
be any mutual confidence among men ; if we
were for ever destined to fear and suspect each
other reciprocally, we would be obliged to
renounce all idea of government as well as
all the relations of social life The very
laws which protect persons and property
would be without value, because they are
expounded by men. (Hear, hear.) Fortunately such is not the case, as our own
history sufficiently proves. Before the
union. the parliamentary majority in Lower
Canada was Catholic, and although it was
long involved in a struggle with power, was
it ever guilty of an injustice towards the
Protestant minority ? (Hear, hear.) On
the contrary, did it not emancipate the
latter, civilly and religiously, and did it not
give that minority privileges which it had
not hitherto possessed? If our people
are inflexibly attached to our faith, it is
also full of toleration, of good-will towards
those who are not of the same belief. Since
the union the parts have changed. Protestantism dominates in the government and in
the legislature, and yet has not Catholicity
been better treated, and has it not been
better developed, with more liberty and more
prosperity than under the regime of the Con
stitution of 1791. (Hear, hear.) Living
and laboring together we have learned to
know, to respect, to esteem each other, and
to make mutual concessions for the common
weal. We Catholics have therefore no fear
of the ill-will of a Protestant majority in the
Federal Government and Legislature, and
we are certain that the Protestants of Lower
Canada need not fear for themselves in the
local legislature. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
The hon. member for Hochelaga has declared
that he was willing to accord to the Protestants the guarantees of protection which
they
sought for the education of their children ;
but in this he has been forestalled by the
Quebec Conference and by the unanimous
sentiment of the Catholic population of
Lower Canada. If the present law be insufficient. let it be changed. Justice demands
that the Protestant minority of Lower Canada
shall be protected in the same manner as the
Catholic minority of Upper Canada, and that
the rights acquired by the one and the other
shall not be assailed either by the Federal
Parliament or the local legislatures. (Hear,
hear.) This is all I feel called upon to say,
on this occasion, respecting a question which
will again arise in the course of the debate.
The hon. member for Lotbinière has attacked
the scheme as being too federal, and the hon.
member for Hochelaga has condemned it as
not being sufficiently federal, and as tending
too much towards unity. Neither one nor
the other is strictly accurate—it is not absolute unity, nor the federal principle
in the
American sense. In the American Confederation, supreme authority proceeded at the
outset from the delegation of the states,
which nevertheless divested themselves of it
forever—at least according to the opinion of
the Northern jurisconsults, who hold that no
state is free to break the compact of 1788.
In the scheme of the Quebec Conference
there was no delegation of the supreme
authority, either from above or below, inasmuch as the provinces, not being independent
states, received, their political organizations from the Parliament of the Empire.
There are only distinct attributes for the one
and the others. (Hear, hear.) Unity does
not obtain in an absolute sense, because local
interests and institutions required in the local
constitutions, guarantees and protections
which they feared they would not find in the.
united Parliament and Government. But it is
as complete as possible, inasmuch as unity gives
to institutions chances of duration, and an
initiatory force which is not given, which
564
cannot be given, by confederacies in which
authority is scattered, and where it is consequently without value and without real
existence. Every constitutional mode of
existence has its advantages ; but assuredly
that state of existence which gives permanence and stability to institutions should
be
preferred to others. Let us bear in mind
that the Constitution of the United States
has been but a compromise between state
sovereignty and the need of a supreme
authority to ensure the working of the state
machinery, and that it was not perfect even
in the opinion of its authors. In order to
prove this statement, I shall call to my assistance words of greater weight than my
own—
those of JOSEPH STOREY, probably the
greatest constitutional authority of the
United States :—
Any survey, however slight, of the Confederation will impress the mind with the intrinsic
difficulties which attended the formation of its principal features. It is well known
that upon three
important points touching the common rights and
interests of the several states, much diversity of
opinion prevailed, and many animated discussions
took place. The first was as to the mode of
voting in Congress, whether it should be by
states or according to wealth or population. The
second, as to the rule by which the expenses of
the Union should be apportioned among the
states. And the third, as has been already seen,
relative to the disposal of the vacant and unappropriated lands in the western territory.
But that
which strikes us with most force is the increasing
jealousy and watchfulness everywhere betrayed
in respect to the powers to be confided to the
General Government. For this several causes
may be assigned. The colonies had been long
engaged in struggles against the superintending
authority of the Crown, and had practically felt
the inconveniences of the restrictive legislation
of the parent country. These struggles
had naturally led to a general feeling of resistance of all external authority, and
these inconveniences to extreme doubts, if not to dread
of any legislation, not exclusively originating in
their domestic assemblies, They had, as yet,
not felt the importance or necessity of union
among themselves, having been hitherto connected with the British sovereignty in all
their
foreign relations. What would be their fate, as
separate and independent communities ; how far
their interests would coincide or vary from each
other as such ; what would be the effects of the
union upon their domestic peace, their territorial
interests, their external commerce, their political
security, or their civil liberty, were points to them
wholly of a speculative character, in regard to
which various opinions might be entertained, and
various and even opposite conjectures formed,
upon grounds apparently of equal plausibility.
Nothwithstanding the declaration of the articles,
that the union of the states was to be perpetual,
an examination of the powers confided to the
General Government would easily satisfy us that
they looked principally to the existing revolutionary state of things. The principal
powers
respected the operations of war, and would be
dormant in times of peace. In short, Congress
in peace was possessed of but a delusive and
shadowy sovereignty, with little more than the
empty pageantry of office. They were indeed
clothed with the authority of sending and receiving
ambassadors ; of entering into treaties and alliances ; of appointing courts for the
trial of piracies
and felonies on the high seas ; of regulating the
public coin ; of fixing the standard of weights and
measures ; of regulating trade with Indians, of
establishing post offices ; of borrowing money and
emitting bills on the credit of the United
States ; of ascertaining and appropriating the
sums necessary for defraying the public expenses, and of disposing of the western
territory. And most of these powers required for
their exercise the assent of nine states. But they
possessed not the power to raise any revenue,
to levy any tax, to enforce any law, to secure
any right, to regulate any trade, or even the poor
prerogative of commanding means to pay its own
ministers at a foreign court. They could contract
debts, but they were without means to discharge
them. They could pledge the public faith, but
they were incapable of redeeming it. They could
enter into treaties, but every state in the union
might disobey them with impunity. They could
contract alliances, but could not command men
or money to give them vigor. They could institute courts for piracies and felonies
on the high
seas, but they had no means to pay either the
judges or the jurors. In short, all powers which
did not execute themselves were at the mercy of
the states, and might be trampled upon at will
with impunity.
One of our leading writers addressed the
following strong language to the public :—
By this political compact the United States in
Congress have exclusive power for the following
purposes, without being able to execute one of
them : they may make and conclude treaties, but
can only recommend the observance of them.
They may appoint ambassadors, but cannot defray even the expenses of their tables.
They
may borrow money in their own name on the
faith of the union, but cannot pay a dollar. They
may coin money, but they cannot purchase an
ounce of bullion. They may make war, and
determine what number of troops are necessary,
but cannot raise a single soldier. In short, they
may declare everything, but do nothing.
Strong as this language may seem, it has no
coloring beyond what the naked truth would
justify. WASHINGTON himself, that patriot
without stain or reproach, speaks, in 1785,
565
with unusual significancy on the same subject. " In a word," says he," the Confederation
appears to me to be little more than
a shadow without the substance, and Congress a nugatory body, their ordinances being
little attended to."The same sentiments
may be found in many public documents.
One of the most humiliating proofs of the
utter inability of Congress to enforce even
the exclusive powers vested in it, is to be
found in the argumentative circular addressed
by it to the several states, in April, 1787,
entreating them in the most supplicating
manner to repeal such of their laws as interfered with the treaties with foreign nations.
" If in theory,"says the biographer of WASHINGTON, " the treaties formed by Congress
were obligatory, yet it had been demonstrated that in practice that body was absolutely
unable to carry them into execution."—
 In this state of things, the embarrassments of
the country in its financial concerns, the general
pecuniary distress among the people from the exhausting operations of the war, the
total prostration of commerce and the languishing unthriftiness
of agriculture, gave new impulses to the already
marked political divisions in the Legislative
Councils. Efforts were made on our side to relieve the pressure of the public calamities
by a
resort to the issue of paper money, to tender
laws, and instalment and other laws, having for
their object the postponement of the payment of
private debt, and a diminution of the public taxes.
On the other side, public as well as private creditors became alarmed from the increased
dangers
to property, and the increased facility of perpetrating frauds, to the destruction
of all private
faith, and credit. And they insisted strenuously
upon the establishment of a government and system of laws which should preserve the
public
faith and redeem the country from that ruin
which always follows upon the violation of the
principles of justice and the moral obligation of
contracts. " At length," we are told, " two great
parties were formed in every state, which were
distinctly marked and which pursued distinct objects with systematic arrangement."
The wonder
indeed is, not under such circumstances, that the
constitution should have encountered the most
ardent opposition, but that it should ever have
been adopted at all by the majority of the states.
In the convention itself which framed it, there
was a great diversity of judgement, and upon some
vital subjects an intense and irreconcilable hostility of opinion. It is understood
that, at several
periods the convention were upon the point of
breaking up without accomplishing anything. On
the other hand, if the votaries of the national
government are fewer in number, they are likely
to enlist in its favor men of ardent ambition,
comprehensive views and powerful genius. A
love of the union, a sense of its importance—nay,
of its necessity to secure permanence and safety
to our political liberty ; a consciousness that the
powers of the national constitution are eminently
calculated to preserve peace at home and dignity
abroad, and to give value to property, and system
and harmony to the great interests of agriculture,
commerce and manufactures ; a consciousness,
too, that the restraints which it imposes upon the
states are the only efficient means to preserve
public and private justice, and to ensure tranquility amidst the conflicting interests
and rivalries of
the states—these will doubtless combine many
sober and reflecting minds in its support. If to
this number we are to add those whom the larger
rewards of fame or emolument or influence connected with a wider sphere of action
may allure
to the national councils, there is much reason to
presume that the union will not be without resolute friends. .
The events now occurring in the United
States sufficiently prove, I think, that the
fears of the illustrious founders of the Union
were not without some foundation. The
scheme of Constitution which is submitted
to us is also a compromise, but a compromise in the best conditions of existence,
and
in those least dangerous to the stability and
the strength of the nation to which it is to
give being. Unity moves more at ease, and
the checks placed therein for the benefit of
the sections are placed in such a manner as
not to obstruct the general action. It is not
so much against the Federal principle that
the greater number of the arguments of the
hon. member for Hochelaga are directed.
For him it is a party question which he puts
to himself in this manner :—" How shall we
find ourselves, my friends and myself, in this
Confederation ? Shall we be strong or weak ?
May we hope to regain power, or shall we be
lost like so many drops of water in the
ocean ?" In order to convince the House
that I have correctly appreciated the motive
of the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. DORION'S)
opposition, I shall quote from his speech of
the l6th inst. :—
  Hon. Mr. DORION—But, sir, I may be asked,
admitting all that—admitting that the scheme
now submitted to us is not that which has been
promised us, what difference will the immediate
admission of the Provinces into the Confederation
make ? I will try to explain it. When the
ministers consented to the votes in the Conference
being taken by provinces, they gave a great advantage to the Maritime Provinces. This
mode
of procedure had for its result the most conservative measure that was ever submitted
to the
House. The members of the Upper House are
no longer to be elected, but nominated—and by
whom ? By a Tory or Conservative Government
for Canada, by a Conservative Government in
Nova Scotia, by a Conservative Government in
Prince Edward Island, and by a Conservative
566
Government in Newfoundland, the only Liberal
Government concerned in the nomination of the
Upper House being that of New Brunswick, where
there is a Liberal Administration, whose fate
depends on the result of the elections now taking
place in that province. A similar scheme would
never have been adopted by the Liberal members
from Upper Canada, the people of which section,
to the number of 1,400,000, with those in the
Lower Province, making in all 2,500,000, have
been controlled by the 900,000 people of the
Maritime Provinces. Have we not been told in
set terms that it was the Lower Provinces which
did not want an elective Legislative Council ? If,
instead of inviting to a Conference the delegates
of the Lower Provinces, our Government had
done what it engaged to do, namely— had itself
prepared a Constitution, it would never have
dared to draw up a proposal like this now laid
before us ; it would never have proposed a Legislative Council nominated for 1ife,
with a limited
membership, and which has to be named by four
Tory Governments. Reckoning 15 to 20 years,
as the average of the time each Legislative
Councillor will hold his seat, a century would
elapse before its composition could be entirely
changed ! We will have, thus, a Legislative
Council lasting for ever—at least as regards this,
and the next generation—controlled by the influence which today preponderates in
our Government and in those of the Maritime Provinces ;
and are we going to believe, as the present document promises us, that a government
like that
which we possess now, will employ itself in getting the Qpposition represented in
the LegislativeÂ
Council ? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I thank
the delegates for their solicitude as regards the
opposition, but I rely but little on their promises.
Did we not hear the Honorable Attorney General
West say the other day, turning towards his supporters : " If I had the recommending
of the
nominations, I would advise the choice of the
most qualified—but of course, of my own party.
(Hear, hear.) It would be done in this way, sir ;
and, if this precious scheme is put into operation,
we shall have a Legislative Council divided in the
following manner : for Upper Canada, we shall
probably have Liberals in the proportion of 3 to
9, for I suppose that the honorable member for
South Oxford (Honorable Mr. BROWN) has made
enough sacrifices to deserve at least this concession, and as his friends constitute
a fourth of the
Executive Council, I suppose we shall have also
one-fourth of the Executive Councillors for Upper
Canada, Liberals.
Â
Hon. Mr. DORION—Yes; precisely 25 per cent.
Besides, we shall have for Nova Scotia ten Conservatives, from Prince Edward Island
four
more, and four from Newfoundland. Thus we
are to have eighteen Conservatives from the
Lower Provinces, who, added to the thirty-six
from Canada, will make fifty-four Conservatives,
against twenty-two Liberals, supposing that the ten
Legislative Councillors from New Brunswick will
all be Liberals. Now, supposing that the average
of deaths amounted to three per cent. in a year, it
would need a term of thirty years to bring about a
change in the character of the majority of the
Council, taking it for granted that the additions
which might be made to it would be taken from
the ranks of the Liberal party. Yet that would
be scarcely possible. In some of the Lower
Provinces there would be from time to time Conservative Governments, and there might
be also
a Conservative Government in Canada. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) And the present generation will have passed away before the
opinions of the Liberal party will have any influence in the divisions of the Legislative
Council.
Â
Hon. Mr. DORION—The hon. member for
Lambton says that makes no difference ! The
honorable member is ready to accept everything.
but for those who are not so well disposed the
difference would be that we would be bound by
this constitution which will permit the Legislative
Council to throw obstacles in the way of all
measures of reform wished for by the Liberal
party. If the hon. member for Lambton thinks
that that makes no diflerence, I will take the
liberty of differing from him, and I think that
the Liberal party generally will differ from him
also. The Government told us that they were
obliged to consent to the introduction of certain
measures in the project of Confederation which
did not altogether please them, so as to come to
an understanding with the Lower Province delegates, and that they bound themselves
to cause
the scheme to be adopted by this House without
amendment. Does the hon. gentleman not see a
difference now ? If the two Canadas were the
only interested parties, the majority would act
as they pleased, would examine minutely the
Constitution, and erase all measures which did
not suit them, and a proposition such as that
relative to the Legislative Council would have no
chance of being adopted—it is too short a time
ago since this House voted, by a crushing
majority, the substitution of an elective Council
for a Council nominated by the Crown. In fact,
the Council named by the Crown had so fallen in
public estimation—I do not say so on account of the
men who composed it, but still such was the fact,
that it exercised no influence ; it was even difficult
to assemble a quorum of members—a change
had become absolutely necessary, and up to the
present time the elective system has worked well
—the elected members are equal in every respect
to those nominated by the Crown. Well, it is
just as public attention commences to be bestowed
upon the proceedings of the Upper House, that
we are to change its constitution to give it the
place of the same one we so short a time ago
condemned. I said same Constitution—I mistake, Mr. SPEAKER, we want to substitute
for the
present Constitution one much worse than the
old one, and one for which it is impossible to find
a precedent.
567
Here, then, is the solution of the enigma;
here, then, is the reason why Federal union
is worthless—without us there is no country
—it is no longer the doctrine: "Let the country
perish rather than a principle be abandoned,"
but, "let the country perish rather than a political party should succumb". It is less absurd,
but at the same time less noble, and if it be
not cynical in words, it is so undoubtedly in
conception. (Hear, hear.) What ! must we
resist in future all progress, all strength and
national greatness, solely because a party,
which exhausted itself almost at its birth,
thinks it cannot discern in the new order of
things the stepping stones to power? But
is it our fault that the doctrines and the acts
of that party are not in accordance with the
feelings of the country, and that the country
persists in discountenancing them? The hon.
member for Hochelaga would hope more for
his party in a Confederation of the two
Canadas only; he has said to himself, no doubt,
"In this last order of things the increase
of the Upper Canadian representation would
augment the Radical majority of Upper
Canada, and that majority, added to the
small minority I command, would have
placed me in a position to rule Lower Canada
as I have already done, against its will, and
in spite of my former declarations." Either
he must think us very blind, or else he
must expect that placing the question in
a party point of view, he would rally around
him only those who, leaving aside all national sentiments, follow him nevertheless.
(Hear, hear.) But the extract which I
have just now read brings us naturally to
the question of an elective Legislative Council, to which system the honorable member
for Hochelaga grants a great degree of
superiority over the nominative one. Just
now he told us that the Council nominated
by the Crown had fallen into imbecility,
and had lost public respect. (Hear, hear.)
Now, to prove how logical he is, he tells us:
It is true that the House of Lords, Conservative though it be, finds itself removed
from
all popular influence; but its numbers may be
increased upon the recommendation of the responsible advisers of the Crown, if such
a measure
were to become necessary to obtain the concurrence of both Houses, or to prevent a
collision
between them. The position which its members
occupy in it establishes a sort of compromise
between the Crown and the popular element.
But this new House, after Confederation, will be
a perfectly independent body; its members will
be nominated for life, and their number cannot be
increased. How long will this system work
without bringing about a collision between the
two branches of the Legislature? Let us suppose
the Lower House composed in a great part of
Liberals, for how long a time would it submit to
an Upper House named by Government?
Be kind enough to observe, Mr. SPEAKER,
that under the old system, the Legislative
Council possessed the same elements of
existence as the House of Lords, and that
the Crown could increase its numbers at
need; it augmented it in 1849, as it threatened to augment the House of Lords in
1832. Observe, again, that it is precisely
this control exercised by the Crown over
the Upper House that the hon. gentleman
found so fatal to legislation previous to 1856.
But there is a more rational manner of
appreciating the part sustained by the House
of Lords in the British Constitution. No
one denies to the Sovereign the abstract
right of increasing at will the House of
Lords; but such right has never been exercised but for the purpose of rewarding men
distinguished for great national services?
and when, in 1832, WILLIAM IV. granted
Earl GREY the tremendous power to swamp
the representative body of the great landed
nobility, it was because the country was
moving with rapid strides towards revolution, and because there remained to the
Sovereign but two alternatives, either to
lessen the moral weight of the House of
Lords, or to see his own throne knocked to
pieces from under his feet. (Hear, hear.)
To convince the House that I do not exaggerate, I will read an extract from LINGARD'S
History of England :—
It is known that justice and common sense
were wounded by the electoral system of England,
when such a rock, such a building, such a hamlet
belonging to noble families sent representatives
to Parliament, where cities of 100,000 inhabitants were not represented, where corporations
of twenty or thirty individuals had a right to elect
members for large cities, and so forth. All this
was the consequence of a social order, founded
on privilege, and in which preperty was the mistress of all power. To reform the electoral
system was then to make an attempt not only on
the Constitution, but society. And the Tories
offered a desperate resistance. Such was their
attitude, that the Ministry proclaimed Parliament
dissolved on the 11th May, 1831, a course which
was joyfully welcomed by the people. New elections were bad and results in a ministerial
majority. The Reform Bill was adopted by the
Commons, but the House of Lords threw it out
by a majority of forty-one votes. The intelligence o this result was received throughout
the
three kingdom with the most lively agitation.
568
Petitions were sent in from all parts, praying for the
upholding of the Ministry, and for a new creation
of peers; reform associations were formed, and
serious disturbances took place at London, Bristol, Nottingha &c. Parliament was
prorogued,
and at its re-assembling the Reform Bill was
again presented with some alterations. The
Commons accepted it; it passed a first and a second
reading in the House of Lords, but the third
reading was adjourned, and WELLINGTON and
seventy-four peers protested. Agitation became
almost universal ; societies met, petitions took a
threatening character ; everything was tending
towards armed insurrection. England never
before presented such a spectacle. Meantime
the Ministry had demanded of the king a new
creation of peers to change the majority of the
Upper Chamber. It was refused,—they immediately resigned on the 9th May, 1832. The
Duke of
WELLINGTON and his friends were then called in
to form a Ministry ; he tried it several days in
vain. The nation was astir ; whole armies were
being created ; riots broke out everywhere ; the
lives of the principal Tories were threatened, and
the House of Commons seemed disposed to support a measure which would have overturned
both the Government and the aristocracy. The
King called back the GREY Ministry, and the
Bill was presented to the House of Lords for a
third reading, on which the Tories, knowing that
the Cabinet had decided to create an unlimited
number of peers, so as to obtain a majority,
abstained from attending the discussion, and the
Bill passed by 106 votes against 22. The Parliament was immediately dissolved, and
new elections took place according to the new electoral
law, and on the 5th of February, 1833, the first
Reformed Parliament was opened.
It must then have been a real revolution,
this nomination of one hundred new peers.
a revolution as real as that which menaced
the Throne ; and do we not feel persuaded
that if one day our Federal Legislative
Council were to place itself obstinately and
systematically in opposition to popular will,
matured and strengthened by ordeals, it
would not be swept away by a revolutionary
torrent such as threatened to sweep away
the House of Lords in 1832 ? This Council,
limited as to numbers, because the provinces
insist on maintaining in it an equilibrium
without which they would never have consented to a union, this Council, sprung from
the people—having the same wants, hopes
and even passions, would resist less the popular will in America, where it is so prompt
and active, than could the House of Lords
in England, where the masses are inert because they have not political rights ; reason
tells us thus because they would be a
less powerful body socially or politically.
The honorable member for Hochelaga has
spoken to us of the elected senate of Belgium, which he says works admirably. But
let us examine the manner of its construction and the reasons of its organization.
We
find in a note under the 53rd article of the
Belgian Constitution, section 2 of the Senate
in: HAVARD'S Public and Administrative
Law, vol. I :—
89. Elected by the People.—Three principal
Opinions divided the Congress on the question of
the senate. One wanted no kind of senate.
Another wished the senate named with or without conditions, by the head of the state
; and
another wished for the senate but elected by the
people. These two last opinions carried the existence of the Chamber to be admitted,
but it was
difficult to fix the majority on the mode of nominating the senators. Among the members
who
desire a senate, the greater number sustained
nomination by the king, as being more in harmony
with the nature of the institution ; but those who
wished only one Chamber directly elected being
in despair, and in order to popularize an institution which they accused of not being
sufficiently
so, joined with those favoring senators elect,
named without the intervention of the royal
power, so that this opinion prevailed. The
senate and its mode of existence was not, therefore, the result either of the same
opinion or of
the same majority. The central section proposed,
with a majority of sixteen against four, nomination by the king without presentation
and in unlimited number. The question was discussed at
the sitting of the 15th, 16th and 17th December.
Nomination by the king was rejected by 96
against 77. Two leading opinions still divided
the partisans of election. One would confide it
to the ordinary electoral colleges, and others to
the Provincial Council or States. " We desire,"
said M. BLARGNIES in proposing the last mode
of election "a neutral power which can resist the
dangers which might result from the preponderance of the head of the state or from
an elective
Chamber. It is, therefore, necessary that this
power should emanate neither from the same
elements as the elective Chamber, nor from the
chief of the state." To confide election to a particular class, was said on the other
side, is to create
privileged electors with a double vote, and to introduce into our country all the
inconveniences
of the division of electors which has just been
abolished in France. Provincial Councils should,
moreover, be administrative bodies. The system
of article 53 was adapted by 136 votes against
40. The opinion which was in favor of only
one Chamber, and consequently only one mode of
election, determined the majority.
Thus we find that the constitution of this
senate is a compromise similar to that of the
Federal Government of the United States.
But let us go on a little further :—
In order to be elected and to continue to be a
senator, one qualification, among others, is to
569
pay, in Belgium, at least one thousand florins of
direct imposts, patents included.
Is not this last provision of the Belgian
Constitution a hundred times more conservative than all the provisions of this
scheme, which the honorable member condemns ? What ! No one can be a senator
in Belgium without paying $500 direct
taxes, over and above indirect taxes, municipal and local impositions of all sorts.
And the honorable member for Hochelaga
calls that a popular House ! Who but men
powerful and rich in titles and fortune can
enter it ? (Hear, hear.)
Â
Hon. Mr. DORION—What is the qualification of the electors of the Belgian House
of Representatives ? Is it not much higher
than elsewhere ?
 Â
Mr. CAUCHON—It is the same
for both Houses. And this is an argument
against the honorable member ; for if, in a
country like Belgium, in which every fourth
person you meet is a beggar, it has been
found requisite to make the elective franchise
and the electoral qualification of the senators
so high, it is a proof that he has made a
bad selection of examples ; it is a proof that
the tendencies of Belgium are conservative.
Why, then, should we adopt another course
in Canada, where there is not one beggar
in a thousand inhabitants ?
Â
Hon. Mr. EVANTUREL—Will the
honorable member for Montmorency allow
me to interrupt him in his argument
in relation to the qualifications and appointment of the legislative councillors.
Like him, I am quite of opinion that the conservative element ought, of necessity,
to be
the basis of the Legislative Council, to counterbalance the popular element. This
principle governed the constitution of the House of
Lords in England, that of the Legislative
Council in Belgium, and that of every well-
organized representative government. It is
that element of conservatism which I desire
to see introduced into the Constitution of
the Confederation now before us ; but the honorable member for Montmorency will allow
me to remark that the whole of his argument
applies only to the antagonism which might
arise between the two branches of the legislature, in a monarchical government like
that of
Belgium, which is not based on a Federative
system like that now submitted to us by the
Government. But we have not only to avoid
the differences which might arise between
the conservative and the popular elements ;
we have also to protect the rights of the
several provinces which are to form part
of the proposed Confederation. That is
the all important question we have to consider. We have accorded the principle of
representation based upon poulation in the
House of Commons of the Federal Government, and that is without doubt a great sacrifice
; but we ought only to make so important
a concession on the condition that we shall
have equality of representation in the Legislative Council, and the right reserved
to ourselves to appoint our twenty-four legislative
councillors, in order that they may be responsible to the public opinion of the province
and
independent of the Federal Government.—
Without this essential guarantee I affirm that
the rights of Lower Canada are in danger.
For my part I am ready, on behalf of Lower
Canada, to give up her right to elect directly
her twenty-four legislative councillors, although the retention of the elective principle
might perhaps be the surest means of preserving our institutions ; but I am anxious
that the new Constitution now proposed
should give us adequate guarantees that the
legislative councillors to be appointed for
life should, at all events, be selected by the
Local Government of Lower Canada, which
would be responsible to the people. These
not ill-grounded sources of anxiety I should
like to see removed. I would bespeak the
earnest attention of the honorable member for
Montmorency to this point, which is of the
very highest importance to us Lower Canadians ; and I hope that he will pardon me
for
having interrupted him, and that he will be
in a position to give me such an answer as
will dissipate the anxiety which I am aware
has been evinced on this subject.
 Hon. Mr. CAUCHON—The honorable
gentleman has not understood me ; my object
has not been to attack the representative system
of Belgium as being too conservative ; on the
contrary I use it as an argument in my favor,
because the qualification there is so high, that
hardly one in six thousand can be found who
can aspire to the post of senator. Parties
having been unable to come to any understanding at the time of the revolution of
1830, and neither the hereditary peerage or the
life peerage having been able to prevail, the
most conservative principle next to these was
adopted, viz., that of a large property qualification. All those who have drawn up
constitutions, either theoretical or for practical purposes, have never omitted to
provide counterpoises to prevent, on the one hand, too
570
precipitate and hasty legislation, and on
the other hand the encroachment of the
power of the executive. In our Constitution it is the duty of the Legislative Council
to exercise the conservative influence, and to
modify the legislation too energetic and too
full of outside effervescence, which is sent for
their consideration from the House of Commons. But when public opinion gains vigor
from the obstacles which it encounters, and
the reforms demanded are rational and come
before them in due course, there is no danger
that the legislation which embodies them will be
obstructed in its progress ; for the people will
rise in their majesty and in their sense of justice, as did the people of England
in 1832,
and the obstacles they might meet with on
their way would be swept away as by a torrent. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. CAUCHON—That is the
danger which assailed the House of Lords in
1832, but no one would venture to confront to
the last extremity a danger such as this.
But the honorable member for Quebec tells us,
if I understand him rightly, that we have not
sufficient guarantees for Lower Canada in
the appointment of the legislative councillors.
The selection of legislative councillors has
no bearing whatever on the question we
are now considering, viz., whether the
appointment by the Crown is or is not preferable to the elective principle. But in
answer to him I will say, that the scheme before us seems to be quite clear. According
to this plan the candidates for the Legislative Council will be recommended by the
local
governments and appointed by the General
Government, and it is by this very division of
powers that the selections are sure to be good,
and made in conformity with the desire and
sentiments of the provinces.
HON. MR. DORION—Only the first nominations are to be made in this manner, not
those which may be made afterwards.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—The first nominations will be made by the present Governments, and the federal councillors
will be
taken from the present legislative councillors
to the number prescribed, 24, provided so
many can be found who will accept the post,
and who possess the requisite property qualification. The Conference has engaged,
by
the terms of the scheme, to respect the rights
of the Opposition, and any government who
should fail to carry out so solemn an engagement would well deserve to lose the pub
lic confidence. (Hear, hear.) I repeat that
the mode of appointing the councillors in no
wise affects the conservative principle of
nomination on which the constitution of the
Legislative Council ought to be based.
HON. MR. DORION—In the course of my
observations the other night, I did not
examine the question from the point of
view from which the honorable member
from Quebec is now looking at it. That
honorable member, if I have understood
him rightly, affirms that in the proposed constitution of the Federal Legislative
Council
there is no conservativc principle to guarantee that the provinces will be represented
in
that Council, and he does so with justice. If
the honorable member for Montmorenci will
examine it attentively, he will see that the first
nominations are to be made by the existing
governments. Thus the Government of Canada, that of New Brunswick and that of
Nova Scotia will appoint legislative councillors, but afterwards the Federal Government
will make the appointments. The honorable
member for Quebec can, with reason, draw
the conclusion that there is no guarantee that
the views of the provinces will be respected.
I for my part have investigated the matter,
more in connection with the power that will
be vested in the legislative councillors. I
asserted that by appointing them for life and
limiting their number, an absolute authority
would created, which would be quite beyond the control of the people and even of the
Executive ; that the power of this body will be
so great, that they will always be in a position
to prevent every reform if they thought proper, and that a collision between the two
branches would be inevitable and irremediable.
The danger arising from the creating of such
a power is exactly that of being obliged to destroy it if they resist too obstinately
the popular demands. In England there is no necessity for breaking down the obstructions
sometimes presented by the House of Lords,
because the Crown having it in its power to
appoint new peers, can overcome the difficulty.
Here there will be no means of doing it, when
the number of councillors is fixed. Accordingly, I have looked at the question through
the medium of the powers assigned to the
councillors, whereas the honorable member for
the county of Quebec fears lest the Government should make choice of men who would
not represent public opinion in the provinces ;
that they might appoint members all of French
origin or all of English origin to represent
Lower Canada, or take them all from among
571
a class of men who would not represent the
province for which they are appointed, and
who could give no pledge that they would
maintain its institutions.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—It is evident that the honorable member for Hochelaga has not read the resolutions
; but I have
read them. Lower Canada is in a peculiar
position. We have two races of people whose
interests are distinct from each other in
respect to origin, language and religion. In
preparing the business of the Confederation at
Quebec, we had to conciliate these two interests, and to give the country a Constitution
which might reconcile the conservative with
the democratic element ; for the weak point in
democratic institutions is the leaving of all
power in the hands of the popular element.
The history of the past proves that this is an
evil. In order that institutions may be stable
and work harmoniously, there must be a power
of resistance to oppose to the democratic element. In the United States the power
of
resistance does not reside in the Senate, nor
even in the President. The honorable member for Hochelaga says that the objection
of
the honorable member for the county of
Quebec is well founded, because the Federal
Government may appoint all English or all
French-Canadians as legislative councillors for
Lower Canada. If the honorable member had
read the resolutions, he would have found that
the appointments of legislative councillors are
to be made so as to accord with the electoral
divisions now existing in the province. Well,
I ask whether it is probable that the Executive
of the Federal Government, which will have a
chief or leader as it is now—I ask whether it
is very probable that he will recommend the
appointment of a French-Canadian to represent divisions like Bedford or Wellington
for
Instance ?
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Am I not
in a minority at present in appointing judges ?
And yet when I propose the appointment of a
judge for Lower Canada, is he not appointed ?
Did the honorable member for Cornwall
(Hon. J. S. MACDONALD), when he was in
the Government, ever attempt to interfere
with the appointments recommended by the
honorable member for Hochelaga ? And now,
when a chief justice or a puisné judge is to be
appointed for Lower Canada, I find myself
surrounded by colleagues, a majority of whom
are English and Protestants ; but do they presume to interfere with my recommendations?
No, no more than we Lower Canadians inter
fere with the recommendations of my honorable friend the Attorney General for Upper
Canada in making appointments to office in
Upper Canada. There will be in the Federal
Government a leader for Lower Canada, and
do you think that the other Ministers will
presume to interfere and intermeddle with his
recommendations ? But I am told that I am
in a minority. So I am now, so I have been
for eight years—
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Yes, we
have equality, but not as a race, nor in respect
of religion. When the leader for Lower Canada shall have sixty-five members belonging
to his section to support him, and command
a majority of the French-Canadians and of the
British from Lower Canada, will he not be
able to upset the Government if his colleagues
interfere with his recommendations to office ?
That is our security. At present, if I found
unreasonable opposition to my views, my
remedy would be to break up the Government
by retiring, and the same thing will happen in
the Federal Government.
HON. MR. DORION—The honorable member will be allowed to retire from the Government ; as there will
then be a sufficient
number of English members to be able to do
without him, he will be allowed to retire, and
nobody will care.
HON. MR. CAUCHON —— The honorable
member for Hochelaga put a question to me
relative to the constitution of the Legislative
Council, and said that he had not looked at
the question, while speaking the other evening, in the same light as the honorable
member for the county of Quebec. He spoke of
the conservatives as a party, and his fear was,
not that the Upper House would not be conservative enough, but that it would be too
much so.
HON. MR. DORION—I looked at it both
ways, both as it involved the interests of parties, and in regard to the power which
that
House would exercise from the nature of its
constitution.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—I did not see the
two ways of looking at it. I saw but one. It
is the same idea in a different form. He said
that even if the Lower House were altogether
liberal, the Upper House would remain composed of conservatives ; this was his fear.
He
has been a long while trying to gain predominance for his democratic notions, but
it is evident he will not succeed. I recur to the real
medium through which the honorable member looks at the question, namely, his fears
572
that his party will sink out of sight. In the
present day, parties disappear and become
fused with others, while others arise from
passing events. In New Brunswick, conservatives join the liberal government to carry
Confederation, and we see no parties there
but the partisans and the opponents of the
union, as in 1788, in the United States, there
were no parties but the adherents of royalty
and those of Federal Government. We see
the same thing in Nova Scotia. This is true
patriotism and the real dignity of public men.
It is unfortunate for us that we do not follow
their example here.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—The honorable
member from Verchères says " Hear ! " Is
it not a fact that the Opposition vote as a
party on the present uestion ? If it is not
so, will he name a single member of the Opposition who does not vote against Confederation
?
HON. MR. CAUCHON—The honorable
member for Cornwall says "Hear! hear!"
He may well say so—he who never had a
party. He came into power, nobody expected he would. He will never get it again,
everybody expects that. (Continued laughter.)
I am bound to shew him respect because he
is my senior in this House, my senior by three
years. It is true he has not always represented the same county, his brother having
fraternally driven him out of Glengarry, and
obliged him to take refuge in the rotten
borough of Cornwall. (Laughter.) But although we have almost always been unlucky
enough to do duty in different camps, we have
not on that account ceased to be good friends.
(Laughter.) I will not look at this question
in a party light, because parties expire, and
we do not know whether in thirty years the
present parties will exist. We ought to look
at the question apart from party considerations, and on its own merits: that is to
say, we
ought to place in the Constitution a counterpoise to prevent any party legislation,
and to
moderate the precipitancy of any government
which might be disposed to move too fast
and go too far,—I mean a legislative body
able to protect the people against itself and
against the encroachments of power. (Hear,
hear.) In England, the Crown has never
attempted to degrade the House of Peers by
submerging it, because it knows well that the
nobility are a bulwark against the aggressions
of the democratic element. The House of
Lords, by their power, their territorial posses
sions, and their enormous wealth, are a great
defence against democratic invasion, greater
than anything we can oppose toit in America.
In Canada, as in the rest of North America,
we have not the
castes—classes of society—
which are found in Europe, and the Federal
Legislative Council, although immutable in
respect of number, inasmuch as all the members belonging to it will come from the
ranks
of the people, without leaving them, as do the
members of the House of Commons, will not
be selected from a privileged class which have
no existence. Here all men are alike, and
are all equal; if a difference is to be found, it
arises exclusively from the industry, the intelligence, and the superior education
of those
who have labored the most strenuously, or
whom Providence has gifted with the highest
faculties. (Hear, hear.) Long ago the privileges of
caste disappeared in this country.
Most of our ancient nobility left the country
at the conquest, and the greater number of
those who remained have sunk out of sight
by inaction. Accordingly, whom do we see
in the highest offices of state ? The sons of
the poor who have felt the necessity of study,
and who have risen by the aid of their intellect and hard work. (Hear, hear.) Everything
is democratic with us, because everyone
can attain to everything by the efforts of a
noble ambition. The legislative councillors
appointed by the Crown will not be, therefore, socially speaking, persons superior
to the
members of the House of Commons; they
will owe their elevation only to their own
merit. They will live as being of the people
and among the people as we do. How can
it happen, then, that having no advantage over us greater than that of not
being elected, they will not be subject in a
legitimate degree to the influence of public
opinion? There are some men who have
enough patriotism to approve of everything
done elsewhere, but to find fault with everything done at home—it is a pitiful crotchet
in the human mind. If there had been as
much danger for the liberal party in this
union as you say there was, would Hon. Mr.
TILLEY, the leader of the Liberal government
of New Brunswick, a man of such foresight and
judgment; would the honorable member for
South Oxford, your former leader, whose talent
and experience you will not deny, have accepted it? (Hear, hear.) But look rather
at what is now passing in New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia; what they have agreed to
designate as the Federal electoral ticket is
composed of six candidates for the town and
573
county of St. Johns, N.B.; and in Nova Scotia,
Hon. Mr. TUPPER, the leader of a Conservative government, and Messrs. ARCHIBALD
and MCCULLEY, two of the chiefs of the
Liberal party, are working hand in hand for
Confederation. (Hear, hear.) One must be
short-sighted not to see that this new order
of things will produce new combinations
similar to those produced by the American
Constitution of 1788, when the citizens and
public men divided into two camps, the camp
of the supporters of national union and that
of the friends of the state sovereignty. (Hear,
hear.) Let us not then be anxious about the
future of parties. What does it matter to
this country what position the honorable
member for Hochelaga or myself may occupy
in this new Constitution ? ( Laughter.) What
matters it to the country if we be above or
below, the first or the last, the victors or the
vanquished, so long as it is happy under the
new rule, and finds happiness, greatness, power
and prosperity in the free development of its
resources and institutions ? (Hear, hear.)
The opponents of Confederation do not desire
the union of the provinces for the purpose of
military defence ; two and two will always
make four, say they, and in uniting the populations of the different provinces, you
will not
give us more strength to resist the common
enemy, unless, as facetiously remarked the
honorable member for Lotbinière, we make a
treaty with the enemy, which would bind him
to attack us at but one place at a time, so as
to allow us to oppose all our forces to the
invasion. Yes, two and two will always
make four. You are right. War between
England and the United States would expose
us in our colonial position to the attacks of the
enemy at all vulnerable points of the respective provinces. But, firstly, the union
carries with it the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, and that railway which
does
not particularly please the two annexationist
leaders of the Opposition, would allow
England and the provinces to transport troops
rapidly from the furthest limits of the country
to the threatened points of the national territory. Without the aid of railways how
could NAPOLEON III. have been able, in a
fortnight, to throw two hundred thousand
men on the plains of Italy, to defeat the
Austrians at Magenta and Solferino, and to
gain one of the bloodiest and most glorious
Victories of modern times ? But in the advanced condition of our civilization, our
commerce and our manufactures—with so many
elements of greatness, with so many prodi
gious sources of prosperity and wealth—with
a population of nearly four millions already
—should we have so little ambition as not to
aspire to take our place one day in the
rank of nations ? (Hear, hear.) Shall
we forever remain colonists ? Does the
history of the world afford examples of
eternal subjection? (Hear, hear.) It is
not, for my part, because I do not feel
myself proud and happy under the glorious
flag which protects and shelters in safety one
hundred and fifty millions of souls. It is not
because I do not feel myself free as the bird
of air in the midst of space, under the mighty
segis of the British Empire—a thousand times
more free than I should be, with the name of
citizen, in the grasp of the American Eagle.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) But we must not
conceal from ourselves the fact that we are
attracted by two centres of attraction—the
opposing ideas which are developed and which
make war upon each other, even within these
walls, sufficiently attest the fact. Everything
tells us that the day of national emancipation
or of annexation to the United States is approaching, and while the statesmen of all
parties in the Empire warn us affectionately to
prepare for the first, a few of our own public
men drive us incessantly towards the second,
by propagating republican ideas, and by endeavoring by all possible means to assimilate
our institutions to those of the neighboring
republic. (Hear, hear.) If we remain isolated, what will happen at the moment of
separation from the Mother Country ; for
that moment will come, whether we wish
it or wish it not? Each province would
form an independent state, and as to attack the one would no longer mean to attack
all, inasmuch as we should have ceased
to be the subjects of the same empire,
the United States, if they covet them, would
devour them one by one in their isolated position, following therein the able tactics
of the
Romans in Asia, Europe and Africa, of the
English in India, and of NAPOLEON, the
greatest warrior of modern times, in Europe.
1 understand that the annexationists insist on
the
status quo and on isolation ; but others
would be blind did they listen to them, inasmuch as reason commands them to organize,
so as to be ready when danger comes. If we
are four millions to-day, we shall probably be
eight millions and over then, with proportionate
means of defence, and the alliances which we
would find in the necessity on the part of the
European powers to keep within bounds the
too extensive development of that nation which
574
is now struggling in the horrors of civil war.
(Hear, hear.) Honorable gentlemen do not
desire Confederation, because there must be
an outlay for its defence. But are those, who
argue thus, logical ? If two and two did not
make more than four a moment ago, why
would they make five now ? If each province,
standing in an isolated position, would be
obliged to expend money to organize the
defence of its territory, why would the combination of all these various outlays in
Confederation amount to more than the total
of these same expenses otherwise added up ?
Would this be the case because a single
organization ought to be, necessarily, less expensive than six distinct commands ?
The
honorable member for Hochelaga has exaggerated the expenses of the Confederation,
as
he has everything else ; as he exaggerated
and perverted, the other day, the words of the
Hon. President of the Council.
MR. GEOFFRION—And besides this, the
Maritime Provinces have to be paid to come
into the Confederation.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—That question
will naturally come up in its turn. But it is
not the less true that all the provinces come
into the Confederation on an equal footing, as
their debt is placed in equilibrium ; and as,
for the purposes of the union, the arrangement
is strictly based on the total population of
each of them. On a previous occasion, as I
have elsewhere quoted, the honorable member
for Hochelaga stated that the Maritime Provinces did not choose our alliance, because
our
debt was too great. Now he does not choose
their alliance, because he is afraid we shall
have to pay for them. Now that the debt is
perfectly equal, in proportion to the total
population, and the Conference has so equalized it in order to found Confederation
on
justice, the Atlantic Provinces consent to the
union.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—I allude to New
Brunswick and Newfoundland, and I am
convinced that the decision of those two
provinces will sufficiently influence Nova
Scotia to cause her to resolve to come into
the Confederation. The Nova Scotian newspapers, even those of them which are most
hostile to the scheme, acknowledge that that
province cannot remain isolated ; and accordingly she awaits the result of the elections
in New Brunswick before taking action. In
the meantime the journals in question are
making incredible exertions to prevail upon
New Brunswick to refuse the great Confederation, because they wish for another and
a smaller one, that of the Maritime Provinces alone. Another motive which will
induce Nova Scotia to accept the scheme of
the Quebec Conference, if New Brunswick
should declare herself in favor of it, is that
the terminus of the Intercolonial Railway
would be fixed at St. John instead of at
Halifax ; and what would become of Nova
Scotia so isolated ? She would not consent
to it ; her writers and her statesmen positively
assert it. For our part, we require an outlet upon the Atlantic seaboard, and that
we
can only have by means of Confederation.
(Hear, hear.) To those who cherish different ideas, I can conceive that this matter
is
not one of equal importance, for they wish
to fix their terminus at another point on the
Atlantic seaboard. (Hear, hear.) I feel
that I have already spoken at length, and I
have yet some important points of the
scheme to examine. I will not, then, enter
into calculations of figures to prove the
extravagance and absurdity of those of the
hon. member for Hochelaga, preferring,
moreover, to leave them in the more skilful
and powerful hands of the Hon. Minister of
Finance. I shall content myself with telling
the hon. member for Hochelaga—and that
will suffice for myself as well as for the
House and the country—that I prefer Confederation with its prospects of expense, to
annexation to the United States with an
actual debt of close upon three thousand
millions, and with an annual tax of five hundred millions of dollars. The 34th paragraph
of the 29th clause of the scheme reads
thus : " The establishment of a General
Court of Appeal for the Federated Provinces." What is the object—what will be
the character of the tribunal ? These two
questions will naturally present themselves
to those who have given any attention to
that part of the scheme which refers to the
civil and criminal law, and the working of
the judiciary. The whole of the clauses
which refer to the latter are as complete as
the most ardent supporters of union could
desire, tempered by the few exceptions by
means of which the provinces have wished
to shelter their local institutions from
attack. (Cheers.) To convince the House
of this, I need but read the following :—
31. The General Parliament may also, from
time to time, establish additional courts, and the
General Government may appoint judges and
officers thereof, when the same shall appear
575
necessary or for the public advantage in order
to the due execution of the laws of Parliament.
32. All courts, judges and officers of the
several provinces shall aid, assist and obey the
General Government in the exercise of its rights
and powers, and for such purposes shall be held
to be courts, judges and officers of the General
Government.
33. The General Government shall appoint
and pay the judges of the Superior Courts in
each province, and of the County Courts in Upper
Canada, and Parliament shall fix their salaries.
35. The judges of the courts of Lower Canada
shall be selected from the Bar of Lower Canada.
37. The judges of the Superior Courts shall
hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall
be removable only on the address of both Houses
of Parliament.
45. In regard to all subjects over which jurisdiction belongs to both the General
and Local
Legislatures, the laws of the General Parliament
shall control and supersede those made by the
local legislature, and the latter shall be void so
far as they are repugnant to, or inconsistent with
the former.
38. For each of the provinces there shall be
an executive officer, styled the lieutenant-governor, who shall be appointed by the
Governor
General in Council, under the great seal of the
Federated Provinces, during pleasure : such pleasure not to be exercised before the
expiration of
the first five years, except for cause : such cause
to be communicated in writing to the Lieutenant-
Governor immediately after the exercise of the
pleasure as aforesaid, and also by message to both
Houses of Parliament, within the first week of the
first session afterwards.
39. The lieutenant-governor of each province
shall be paid by the General Government.
50. Any bill of the General Parliament may
be reserved in the usual manner for Her Majesty's
assent, and any bill of the local legislatures may,
in like manner, be reserved for the consideration
of the Governor General.
51. Any bill passed by the General Parliament
shall be subject to disallowance by Her Majesty
within two years, as in the case of bills passed by
the legislatures of the said provinces hitherto,
and, in like manner, any bill passed by a local
legislature shall be subject to disallowance by the
Governor General within one year after the passing thereof.
The evident object of this organization is
to reassure the Protestant minority of Lower
Canada against any apprehension for the
future ; it is also perhaps in the interest of
national unity, to prevent local parliaments
and governments from infringing the attributes of the Central Parliament. The
nomination of judges, the veto, the reservation and even certain directions to be
found
in the project itself, tend to the same end,
and must necessarily attain it. I see nothing
wrong in that, provided that this formidable
engine in going out of its course does not
crush the rights which we are bound to respect and maintain forever in their integrity.
(Hear, hear.) I am not of the same opinion
as the hon. member for Brome, who pretends
to see in those clauses that the judges would
be under two masters at the same time. If
they could possibly be controlled at all, it
would be by the Federal Government, which
alone will appoint them, pay them, and have
the power of dismissing them in certain
cases. There is no anomaly here, because
one thing follows another ; all are linked
together and harmonize perfectly . If anything could possibly arise, it would be danger.
However, so far as we can see, there will be
no danger in the administration of justice—
the question of veto, and reserve with regard
to legislation, being a totally different thing,
and suggesting considerations of a different
nature. But here is the point to which I
wish to draw the attention of this House.
Among all the things guaranteed to Lower
Canada in the Constitution, and in fact to
all the provinces, we find their own civil
laws. Lower Canada has been so tenacious
of its civil code, that it is laid down in the
project before us that the Federal Parliament shall not even be able to suggest legislation
by which it may be affected, as it will
have the right to do for the other provinces.
The reason is obvious—the civil laws of the
other provinces are nearly similar ; they
breathe the same spirit and the same principles ; they spring from the same source
and the same ideas. But it is not so
with regard to those of Lower Canada,
with their origin from almost entirely
Latin sources ; and we hold to them as to a
sacred legacy ; we love them because they
suit our customs, and we find under the
protection for our property and our families.
(Hear, hear.) The Conference has understood and respected our ideas on this point.
However, if a Court of Appeal should one day
be placed over the judiciary tribunals of all
the provinces, without excepting those of
Lower Canada, the result would be that those
same laws would be explained by men who
would not understand them, and who would,
involuntarily perhaps, graft English jurisprudence upon a French code of laws.—
(Hear, hear.) Such was the spectacle presented in Canada after the conquest, and no
one, I am sure, would wish to see a repetition
of the scene. (Hear, hear.) We have, it
576
is true, Her Majesty's Privy Council as a last
resort, but we owe it to necessity ; we have
not asked for it ourselves. At any rate it is
composed of chosen men, all or nearly all of
whom are well versed in Roman law—men
who, when they have a doubt upon some
point, avail themselves of the counsels and
advice of the most eminent jurists of France.
Nor does the proposed Constitution speak
of doing away with this tribunal,
which will dominate by its imperial
character even over the Court of Appeal which the Federal Government has
the power of creating. Here the Convention had national views ; it foresaw evidently
in the future the day of colonial emancipation. Nevertheless, whatever the intentions
of the delegates, their project does not
define the attributes of this Federal court ;
and as there is some apprehension on this
point, I would wish to put the following
question to the Government :—If this Court
of Appeal be established, will it be a purely
civil tribunal, or a constitutional one ? Or
will it be at the same time civil and constitutional ? If it be a civil tribunal,
will
it have jurisdiction over Lower Canada?
(Hear, hear.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER —The
question put by my hon. friend the member
for Montmorency is one which it is not easy
for the Government to answer, inasmuch as
the power conferred by that article is only
that of creating a Court of Appeal at some
future day, and the jurisdiction of that court
will depend on the causes which lead to its
creation. The hon. member has very justly
remarked that it may become necessary at
a future period to constitute such a tribunal.
At present the several provinces which are
to form part of the Conlederation have the
same court of final appeal. As long as we
keep up our connection with the Mother
Country, we shall always have our court of
final appeal in Her Majesty's Privy Council.
But when the British Provinces on this continent are united by the bond of Confederation,
we shall have one uniform system,
common to all, in regard to imports, bills of
exchange and promissory notes, as well as
universal jurisprudence. Accordingly, when
we have lived some years under the Federal
régime, the urgent need of such a Court of
Appeal with jurisdiction in such matters will
be felt, and, if it is created, it will be fit that
its jurisdiction should extend to civil causes
which might arise in the several Confederate
Provinces, because it will necessarily be
composed of the most eminent judges in the
different provinces, of the jurists whose reputation stands highest, of men, in short,
profoundly skilled in the jurisprudence of
each of the provinces which they will respectively represent. Well, if this court
is
called upon, for instance, to give final judgment on a judgment rendered by a Lower
Canada court, there will be among the judges
on the bench men perfectly versed in the
knowledge of the laws of that section of the
Confederation, who will be able to give the
benefit of their lights to the other judges
sitting with them. I must observe to my
hon. friend the member for Montmorency,
that he disparages the civil law of Lower
Canada in the estimate he makes of it ; but
he need be under no uneasiness on that
head. He should not forget that if, at this
day, the laws of Lower Canada are so remarkably well understood in Her Majesty's
Privy Council, it is because the code of
equity, which is a subject of deep study and
familiar knowledge among the members of
the council, is based on Roman law, as our
own code is. All the eminent judges,
whether in England, in the Maritime Provinces or in Upper Canada, are profoundly
versed in those principles of equity, which
are identical with those of our civil code.
Now, as to my own personal opinion, respecting the creation of that tribunal, I think
that it is important not to establish it until
a certain number of years shall have elapsed
from the establishment of Confederation,
and to make it consist of judges from the
several provinces ; for this court would have
to give final judgment in causes pronounced
upon in the courts of all the sections. Neither can I tell what functions and powers
might be assigned to it by the act establishing
it. Time alone can tell us that ; but I do
hold, and the spirit of the conference at
Quebec indicated, that the appeal to the
judicial committtee of Her Majesty's Privy
Council must always exist, even if the court
in question is established.
HON. MR. EVANTUREL—I acknowledge the frankness which the Hon. Attorney
General for Lower Canada has evinced in
giving the explanations to the House which
we have just heard ; and I trust that the
honorable minister will permit me to ask
him one question. Paragraph 32 gives the
Federal Government the power of legislating
on criminal law, except that of creating
577
courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including
rules of procedure in criminal cases. If I
am not mistaken, that paragraph signifies
that the General Government may establish
judicial tribunals in the several Confederate
Provinces. I should much like to be enlightened on this head by the Hon. Attorney
General for Lower Canada.
HON. MR. CARTIER—I am very glad
that the honorable member for the County
of Quebec has put this question, which I
shall answer as frankly as that of the hon.
member for Montmorency. My hon. friend
will find, if he refers to the paragraph which
he has cited, that it gives the General Government simply the power of providing for
the execution of the laws of the Federal
Government, not of those of the local governments.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—I have listened
to the explanations of my hon. friend the
Attorney General for Lower Canada, and I
find them perfectly satisfactory, as they
regard criminal law ; for that is the same
or nearly the same in all the provinces. For
my own part, I infinitely prefer the criminal
law of England to that of any other country.
It affords more protection to the party accused, than, for instance the criminal code
of
France does. The civil laws of the latter, by
the way, have my warm admiration, as have
also their administrative talent and their aptness for civilizing influences. (Hear,
hear.)
If the English criminal law gives the criminal
too great a chance of escaping, it at least
saves society the stigma of condemning the
innocent. The accused is tried for the single
act for which he is indicted, and is not
questioned concerning his whole past life
and conversation. The laws of commerce
are nearly the same in all countries, and
those which rule the trade of two continents
may be said to be founded on an ordinance
of a king of France. Accordingly, there will
be no inconvenience in bringing commercial
causes, as well as others, for adjudication
before the Court of Appeals mentioned in
the scheme of Confederation. I am convinced that if ever that tribunal comes into
existence, it will be composed of the most
eminent men in the several provinces, who
will devote their whole energies to the causes
brought before them, but the majority of
whom will have studied and practised a code
different from ours ; although the laws of
Upper Canada, for instance, have a constant
tendency to coincide with our civil code :
BLACKSTONE, with his national common law
which he aimed at establishing, being no
longer the great authority which he was in
former days, and England, like Germany,
drawing rather from the pure spring of Roman law, as the most perfectly rational code
in existence. We have not, however, yet
come to this position of things in our provinces, and, up to the present hour, English
law consists rather of precedents and
decisions of eminent judges, like Lords
MANSFIELD, COKE, and others ; and as
the scheme of a Constitution makes an
exception in favor of our civil laws, it would
be most prudent, in my opinion, to leave
the decision of our causes to those judges
who have studied and practised them.
Nothing is as yet written in the Constitution concerning them, and nothing stands
in the way of the desired exception. (Hear.)
I am aware that it may be attended with
some inconveniences and that in this behalf
concessions may have been, perforce, submitted to in order to obtain others ; but
I think that on reflection it will be found
best for all concerned to have the laws enforced rather by those who understand them
than by those who do not. (Hear, hear.) I
now come, Mr. SPEAKER, to the question of
marriage and divorce. The word divorce
has sounded strangely upon Catholic care
through the length and breadth of Lower
Canada ; for the Catholic, whether he live
in Rome, in London, Paris, New York,
Halifax or Quebec, does not recognize any
authority on earth with power to sanction or
legalize divorce. Such is what the Catholic believes, whether he be the Sovereign
Pontiff, ruling spiritually over 200,000,000
souls, or the humblest or poorest of the
faithful, with nothing to shelter him from
the fury of the elements but the thatched
roof of his cabin. (Hear, hear.) That is
what I believe, in common with all the
Catholics of the world ; but here, in this
House, composed of Catholics and Protestants, I feel that I need, in order to be
understood, to speak in another language,
which will be understood by all, because
it is based upon principles anterior to Christianity and universally admitted. What
is
marriage, considered as a natural contract?
It is the social formula ; it is, as I had occasion to write elsewhere, the natural
mode of
transmitting property, which is the fundamental base of society, and, to go farther,
society itself in its constitution. (Hear,
578
hear.) If we cannot suppose a body without
a form, so we cannot suppose society without its formula, and in destroying its formula
you destroy society. That is the
reason why the marriage tie should be indissoluble ; it is it which constitutes the
family, and in breaking that tie you destroy
the family, in breaking that tie you strike
a mortal blow at society, because family ties
are its only base, its only foundation, its
only element of composition. (Hear.) It
is from those fundamental truths that spring
the rights, duties and civil laws which
prove their existence and at the same time
protect them. (Hear.) I have heard in
another place than in this House, men who,
forgetting the natural law and the principles
of society, become affected at the recital
of the domestic miseries of one of their
fellow beings, and even invoke the Divine
word to justify them in granting a divorce
for cause of adultery. Let us see if the
language of the Saviour of the world, who
taught here upon earth a social doctrine,
by preserving the inviolability of domestic
ties and surrounding them with duties which
rendered them still more sacred, justifies
such an interpretation—"l say unto you,
that he who putteth away his wife, except
for adultery, and marrieth another, committeth adultery, and he who marrieth her who
hath been put away also committeth adultery." Are not these words as clear as day,
and do they not expressly forbid divorce,
since they declare an adulterer the man who
shall marry the woman separated from her
husband. (Hear, hear.) These words permit the sending away, the separation of the
body, but they expressly forbid divorce—
that is, the rupture of family ties. (Applause.)
I have said that those Divine words had a
social object ; in fact what other object could
they have but to preserve intact the social
formula for the transmission of property ; and
if they surround that formula with a supernatural sanction, accompanied by a prospect
of reward or punishment, it is to protect it
still more. It is for this reason that, in
Catholicism, marriage, a natural contract, is
elevated to the dignity of a sacrament, but it
was inviolable and indissoluble before that
sanction. (Hear, hear.) Now, if we drop
the consideration of these great philosophical
Christian ideas, we come to the region of material facts, and we are forcibly led
to distinguish between force and right, between power
and duty. The sovereign legislative authority,
as a superior power everywhere, in spite of
right and duty, has ruled with a high hand
questions in the social order, among which
may be found divorce ; everywhere, in ancient
Rome, in France, in England, in the United
States, and in Canada, has this authority
acted, and the judiciary was bound to execute
its commands. (Hear, hear.) This power
is inherent to Parliament, and is exercised,
without opposition. Our present Parliament
possessed that power, as did those of '74 and
'91, and several of us have had, at some time
or other, to give our vote on a bill of divorce.
Catholics invariably voted against those bills,
denying the right, but unable to deny the
power, of Parliament, thus reconciling their
consciences with their principles. (Hear,
hear.) This scheme of the Conference does
not ask us to-day to proclaim a principle, but
simply the transposition of the exercise of a
power which exists in spite of us. Now, in
weighing the advantages and inconveniences,
I, for my part, say—and I believe, in so
speaking I express the general sentiment of
Catholics—that, since the evil is a necessary one, and cannot be got rid of, I would
rather see it where its consequences would be
less serious, because they would be more
cramped in their development, and consequently less demoralizing and less fatal in
their influence. (Hear, hear.) Marriage
presents itself to us here under another aspect
—that is, marriage with regard to its civil
effects. This project attributes the civil laws
and legislation as to property to the local
legislatures. Now, marriage, considered as a
civil contract, becomes necessarily a part of
these laws, and, I might even say, it affects
the entire civil code, containing in its broadest
sense all the marriage acts, all the qualities
and conditions required to allow marriage to
be contracted, all the formalities relative to
its celebration, all its nullifying causes, all its
obligations, its dissolution, the separation of
the body, its causes and effects ; in a word, all
the possible consequences that can result from
marriage to the contracting parties, their
children and their estates. (Hear, hear.)
If such had been the intention of the delegates, we might as well say that the civil
laws
will not be one of the attributes of our Local
Legislature, and that these words, "Property
and civil rights," have been placed ironically
in the fifteenth section of the forty-third
clause of the scheme. But I was sure beforehand that such could not be the case,
when the Honorable Solicitor General for
Lower Canada declared the other day, in the
579
name of the Government, that the word marriage, inserted in the project of Confederation,
expresses the intention to give to the
Federal Parliament the power to declare that
marriages contracted in any one of the provinces, according to its laws, should be
considered as valid in all the others. Then am I
to understand that that part of the Constitution relating to this question will be
drafted
in the sense expressed in the declaration of
the Honorable Solicitor General, and will be
restricted to the case mentioned ?
HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN —I made,
Mr. SPEAKER, the other day, in the name of
the Government, the declaration now alluded
to by the honorable member for Montmorency, relative to the question of marriage.
The explanation then given by me exactly
accords with that which was affixed to it at
the Quebec Conference. It is undoubted that
the resolutions laid before this honorable
House contain in all things only the principles on which the bill or measure respecting
Confederation will be based. I can assure
the honorable member that the explanations I
gave the other evening, relative to the question of marriage, are perfectly exact,
and that
the Imperial Act relating to it will be drawn
up in accordance with the interpretation I
put upon it.
HON. MR. DORION—I thought I understood from some one, whom I had reason to
consider well informed, that that article was
intended to protect mixed marriages.
HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—In order
that I may be better understood by the hon.
member, I will read the written declaration
which I communicated to the House the other
evening. This declaration reads as follows :
The word marriage has been placed in the draft
of the proposed Constitution to invest the Federal
Parliament with the right of declaring what marriages shall be held and deemed to
be valid
throughout the whole extent of the Confederacy,
without, however, interfering in any particular
with the doctrines or rites of the religious creeds
to which the contracting parties may belong.
The hon. member for Hochelaga will please
to remark that I have been careful in
reading this declaration ; and in order that
no doubt may exist respecting it, I have given
to the reporters the very text of the declaration.
HON. MR. DORION—I may have been
mistaken ; but the question on which I wish
to be enlightened by the Hon. Solicitor General for Lower Canada is this : Will a
Local
Legislature have the right of declaring a mar
riage between parties not professing the same
religious belief invalid ?
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Has not
the Legislature of Canada now the power of
legislating on that matter, and yet has it ever
thought of legislating in that way? (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. CAUCHON—If I understand
the explanation of the Hon. Solicitor General
for Lower Canada correctly, it will be nothing
but the application between the provinces of
public international law, namely, that a marriage lawfully contracted in one province
should be equally binding in all the others.
( Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. CAUCHON—If the principle
is just, I do not see what harm there can be
in having it written in the Constitution, particularly as it is desired in the provinces,
and
we, for our part, are interested in knowing
that marriages contracted in Lower Canada
are valid in all parts of the Confederation.
That declaration is satisfactory and reassuring. Some of the speakers, imbued with
democratic-republican ideas, have gone so far as
to deny one of the most essential and fundamental principles of the British Constitution
—that is to say, that the Parliament may
change the Constitution without special appeals to the electoral body, and without
recourse to popular conventions. It is evident
that they wish to lead us towards a social republic, government and legislation in
full
force. The Roman armies in the days of the
decadence of the empire, made and unmade
emperors ; but it never occurred to them to
make laws and administer affairs of state.
This had to be reserved to our republicans,
who are against Confederation because they
desire annexation to the United States, and
who raise all kinds of obstacles in order to
attain their end. (Hear, hear.) Here there
are useless debates provoked in order to
kill time ; there, petitions covered with false
signatures or names obtained under false pretences ; and the forlorn hope of democracy,
who in the streets threaten with riots and
gibbets all who wish for the union of the provinces, and thereby, in its time, constitutional
monarchy and parliamentary government.
(Hear, hear.) But for those who, like myself, move in another circle of ideas, who
have other aspirations, and who are unwilling to accept on any condition their share
of a debt of three thousand millions, and
of an annual burthen of five hundred mil
580
lions of dollars ; for those the theory and
practice of English constitutional law alone
possess attractions. (Hear, hear.) These convictions on my part are not of yesterday.
When, in 1849, after a commercial crisis,
which had everywhere caused discouragement, ruined merchants sighed for annexation,
because they hoped to find in it a remedy for the ills and the fortune they had lost
;
they supplicated Great Britain to allow them
to go over, arms and baggage, to the Washington Government ; to them became immediately
allied the republicans by inclination
and principle, among whom were the honorable members for Chateauguay and Hochelaga.
(Hear, hear.) The prosperity which followed
brought back the merchants to affection for
British rule, but the others remained republicans and annexationists. Their leaders
are
here before us. Their acts betray them, and
were it permitted to us to hear them in their
familiar counsels, I am sure their words would
also betray them. (Hear, hear.) The annexation movement had scarcely commenced
in Montreal, when the two similar classes of
men began to agitate in Quebec, and called an
annexationist meeting in the St. George's
Hotel, now occupied as the Executive Council Chamber. This meeting was inaugurated
under evil auspices. It was presided over by
a bankrupt merchant. It was evening, and
the meeting was held by gas-light. An orator
was chanting with stentorian lungs the praises
[illegible] annexation and republicanism, from which
we were to derive prosperity and happiness.
Respectable leading citizens, indignant at
what they beheld, implored me to speak, and
by a spontaneous movement I was borne towards the platform. The annexationist orator,
losing his balance with the shock, in order to
keep himself upright, seized the gas-burner
above his head, but the frail support gave
way. (Laughter.) The flames ascended in
a threatening manner towards the ceiling, and
the terrified hotel-keeper immediately ran to
the cellar and put a stop to the sources of illumination—and thus annexation was quenched
in utter darkness. (Cheers and continuous
laughter.) The republican annexationists,
their hearts bursting with rage, in order to
avenge themselves, proceeded to break my
windows. This occurred nearly sixteen years
ago, and time has only strengthened within
me the opinion which guided my action then.
It is neither hatred nor prejudice which has
inspired me since I have been able to read
and reflect. My opinion is the result of
matured conviction. It is, therefore, in the
parliamentary history of Great Britain, and
not in that of American institutions, that I
shall seek a rule of conduct to guide me under
the circumstances. In 1717 the British soil
was invaded by the Pretender. The tories,
who were not in power, but who wanted to
rise to it precisely like the honorable members
in opposition whom I see before me, exclaimed, like them, that the church and religion
of
the country were in danger. Observe well
the similarity. These tories wished to elevate
a Catholic prince to the throne. (Laughter.)
The Whigs, who held the Government, and
who saw in the approaching election the certainty of the downfall of the reigning
dynasty,
determined to prolong the existence of the
Parliament for four years more without an
appeal to the people. Their adversaries exclaimed, as do ours to-day, about violation
of
the Constitution, and accused them of evading,
by violent means, an appeal to the people, to
maintain themselves in power.
MR. GEOFFRION—In proportion to their
numbers, there are more Protestants than
Catholics in favor of Confederation.
HON. MR.CAUCHON—In the first place,
there are a great many more Protestants in
the House than Catholics—Upper Canada
being entirely Protestant with the exception
of two votes, and the Opposition of Lower
Canada pronouncing themselves, as a party,
against Confederation, it is not to be wondered
at that there should be proportionably more
Protestants than Catholics in favor of Confederation. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition
benches.) And this leads me to say that
Catholic institutions have been much better
maintained by Protestant votes than by certain
Catholic votes in the Legislature. If Catholicism has been insulted, the insult has
come
from the Opposition newspapers. (Hear.)
MR. GEOFFRION—The
Globe, the organ
of the Honorable the President of the Council !
HON. MR. CAUCHON—Yes, the
Globe
has made attacks on Catholic institutions and
the Catholic clergy—it was wrong, there is
no doubt, and so was its proprietor. But at
that time, and more particularly when the
Honorable the President of the Council accused Catholicism of demoralizing society,
who was it who replied on the floor of this
House, at great length, and I believe victoriously, in disproof of that assertion
? (Sensation.) I am then justified in saying that the
Honorable the President of the Council was
wrong in speaking and writing as he did. He
was unjust, but he was a Protestant, and he
adhered to his opinions. What, however, has
581
be written in comparison with what has been
written by certain newspapers of the Catholic
opposition, among which the
Avenir takes
the highest place ? They have ransacked the
history of the world from the beginning of the
Christian era in search of the calumnies of
past ages, with the view of overwhelming, if
it were possible, our bishops and priests.
They have even gone so far as to cast their
venom upon the august Pontiff who now rules
over the Catholic Church ;' and what has not
been done by the
Institut Canadien of Montreal,
which is patronized by the leaders of the
Opposition ? (Cheers.)
HON. MR. CARTIER—And the
Avenir,
which asserted that the Pope ought to be a
schoolmaster.
HON. MR. CAUCHON—Ah ! We now well
know those who pretend to be the defenders
of Catholicism, those former editors of the
Avenir; we know what has been done by the
Avenir, and the
Pays also, in certain circumstances.
(Hear, hear.) But here is what we
find in a great constitutional authority, the
value of which honorable gentlemen opposite
will probably not contest—" Hallam's
History of England" :—
Upon the prevalent disaffection and the general
changes of the established government was founded
that measure so frequently arraigned 1n later
times, the substitution of septennial for triennial
parliaments. The Ministry deemed it too perilous
to their master, certainly for themselves, to encounter a general election in 1717
; but the arguments
adduced for the alteration; as if it was
meant to be permanent, were drawn from its permanent expediency. Nothing can be more
extravagant
than what is sometimes confidently
pretended by the ignorant, that the legislature
exceeded its rights by this enactment; or if that
cannot legally be advanced, that it at least violated
the trust of the people, and broke in upon
the ancient Constitution. The law for triennial
parliaments was of little more than twenty years'
continuance. It was an experiment which, as
was argued, had proved unsuccessful; it was
subject, like every other law, to be repealed
entirely, or to be modified at discretion. As a
question of constitutional expediency, the septenial
bill was doubtless open at the time to one
serious objection. Everyone admitted that a parliament
subsisting indefinitely during a king's
life, but exposed at all times to be dissolved at
his pleasure, would become far too little dependent
on the people, and far too much so on the
Crown. But if the period of its continuance
should thus be extended from three to seven
years, the natural course of encroachment of those
in power, or some momentous circumstance like
the present, might lead to fresh prolongations,
and gradually to an entire repeal of what had
been thought so important a safeguard of its
purity. Time has happily put an end to apprehensions
which are not on that account to be
reckoned unreasonable.
Against those who pretended that the Parliament
of England could not effect, without an
appeal to the people, a legislative union with
Ireland, William Pitt, that other great
constitutional authority, maintained that Parliament had the right to alter even the
succession
to the Throne, to incorporate with itself
anothcr legislature, to deprive of the franchise
those who elected it, and to create for
itself other electors. To be more exact I will
quote from a speech made by the illustrious
Sir Robert Peel, on the 27th March, 1846,
on the Corn Law question. You will find
there the opinion of Pitt, Fox and PEEL
himself, the most weighty English constitutional
authority of this century. It is found
in Hansard's Parliamentary-Debates, third
series, vol. 85, pages 224, 225 and 226. Sir
Robert Peel said :—
But my honorable friend says he did not object
to it as impeding the formation of a protection
government, but as preventing a dissolution; and
my honorable friend and others have blamed me
for not advising a dissolution of Parliament. In
my opinion, it would have been utterly inconsistent
with the duty of a Minister to advise a dissolution
of Parliament under the particular circumstances
in which this question of the Corn Law
was placed. Why should it be so utterly impossible
for this Parliament to deal with the present
proposition? After its election in 1841, this
Parliament passed the existing Corn Law, which
diminished protection ; this Parliament passed
the tariff destroying altogether the system of
prohibition with respect to food; this Parliament
passed the Canada Corn Bill; why should it
exceed the functions of this Parliament to entertain
the present proposition? But upon much
higher round I would not consent to a dissolution.
That, indeed, I think would have been a
"dangerous precedent" for a Minister to admit
that the existing Legislature was incompetent to
the entertainment of any question ; that is a precedent
which I would not establish. Whatever
may have been the circumstances that may have
taken place at an election, I never would sanction
the view that any House of Commons is incompetent
to entertain a measure that is necessary
for the well-being of the community. If you
were to admit that doctrine, you would shake the
foundations on which many of the best laws are
placed. Why, that doctrine was propounded at
the time of the union between England and Ireland,
as it had been previously at the time of the
union between England and Scotland. It was
maintained in Ireland very vehemently, but it was
not maintained in this country by Mr. Fox. It
was slightly adverted to by Mr. Sheridan at the
time when the message with regard to the union
582
was delivered. Parliament had been elected
without the slightest reason to believe it
would resolve that its functions were to be fused
and mixed with those of another Legislature,
namely, the Irish Parliament ; and Mr. SHERIDAN
slightly hinted it as an objection to the competency of Parliament. Mr. PITT met that
objection
at the outset in the following manner. Mr. PITT
said :—" The first objection is what I heard alluded
to by the honorable gentleman opposite to me,
when His Majesty's message was brought down,
namely, that the Parliament of Ireland is incompetent to entertain and discuss the
question or
rather, to act upon the measure proposed without
having previously obtained the consent of the
people of Ireland, their constituents. This point,
sir, is of so much importance that I think I ought
not to suffer the opportunity to pass without illustrating more fully what I mean.
If this principle
of the incompetency of Parliament to the decision of the measure be admitted, or if
it be contended that Parliament has no legitimate authority to discuss and decide
upon it, you will be
driven to the necessity of recognizing a principle
the most dangerous that ever was adopted in any
civilized state, I mean the principle that Parliament cannot adopt any measure, new
in its nature
and of great importance, without appealing to the
constituent and delegating authority for direction.
If that doctrine be true, look to what an extent it
will carry you. If such an argument could be
set up and maintained, you acted without any legitimate authority when you created
the representation of the Principality of Wales or of either
of the counties palatine of England. Every law
that Parliament ever made, without that appeal,
either as to its own frame and constitution, as to
the qualification of the electors or the elected, as
to the great and fundamental point of the succession to the Crown, was a breach of
treaty and an
act of usurpation." Then, Mr. PITT asked, if
they turned to Ireland herself, what would they
say to the Protestant Parliament that destroyed
the exclusive Protestant franchise, and admitted
the Roman Catholics to vote without any fresh
appeal ? Mr. PITT went on :—
 " What must be said by those who have at any
time been friends to any plan of parliamentary
reform, and particularly such as have been most
recently brought forward, either in Great Britain
or Ireland ? Whatever may have been thought of
the propriety of the measure, I never heard any
doubt of the competency of Parliament to consider and discuss it. Yet I defy any man
to
maintain the principle of those plans without
contending that, as a member of Parliament, he
possesses a right to concur in disfranchising those
who sent him to Parliament, and to select others,
by whom he was not elected, in their stead. I
am sure that no sufficient distinction, in point of
principle, can be successfully maintained for a
single moment ; nor should I deem it necessary
to dwell on this point in the manner that I do,
were I not convinced that it is connected in part
with all those false and dangerous notions on the
subject of Government which have lately become
too prevalent in the world." Mr. PITT contended,
therefore, that Parliament had a right to alter
the succession to the Throne, to incorporate with
itself another legislature, to disfranchise its constituents, or associate others
with them. Why,
is it possible for a Minister now to advise the
Crown to dissolve Parliament on the ground that
it is incompetent to entertain the question what
this country shall do with the Corn Law ? There
could not be a more dangerous example, a more
purely democratic precedent, if I may so say,
than that this Parliament should be dissolved, on
ground of its incompetency to decide any question of this nature. I am open to the
charge,
therefore, if it be one, that I did advise Her
Majesty to permit this measure to be brought forward in the present Parliament.
The principle which I hold is so firmly established, that at the time of the flight
of JAMES
II. in 1688, the English Parliament, that is
to say two branches of it only, declared the
succession vacant and gave the Throne to a
new dynasty.
 HON. MR. DORION—Hear! hear!
 HON. MR. CAUCHON—I wish to be well
understood. I do not cite this example as an
authority, because the Parliament was incomplete without its third legislative branch,
but
only for the purpoæ of shewing to what length
the Parliament of Great Britain has carried
the exercise of its great prerogative. During
the illness of GEORGE III., as it had been impossible to foresee that such a misfortune
would happen, and as without the action of
the Sovereign, neither the administration of
the government, which is conducted in the
name of the king, nor legislation, which is only
effectual after receiving the assent of the three
branches of the legislature, were possible ; under these unforeseen circumstances,
the two
Houses, at the suggestion of the Ministers
created a mechanism to act during the illness
of the king, and all that was done under its
operation became law, and was regarded as
such by the whole British nation and all those
charged with the execution of the laws of Parliament. But setting aside these extraordinary
circumstances, which demanded extraordinary remedies, we assert that Parliament in
its integrity has power to alter the Constitution and even the succession to the Throne.
As to us, we do not propose to go so far ; we
simply ask the Imperial Parliament to give us
a new Constitution, and even that Parliament
will only with our consent make use of that
power which it has a right to exercise without
our consent. (Hear, hear.) Let it be ob
583
served, Mr. SPEAKER, that I am only
considering now the question of power and
right ; the question of what is fit and expedient is quite another matter. We
might do well or we might do ill by taking
this course, but as we act in our capacity of
representatives of the people, it is for us to
decide whether it is expedient or advantageous that an appeal should be had to the
people under the circumstances. (Hear, hear.)
As regards the sentiments of Great Britain
in relation to us, the events which have taken
place since the union show that they are altogether changed. In 1840 we had a Constitution
imposed upon us against our will, and
by so doing Great Britain was guilty of injustice towards us. Now they await our decision
before they act. In past days England looked
upon the colonies as her own special markets,
and fortified them by prohibitory duties against
foreign trade. Now they are open to the
whole world. Formerly we were under a despotic and oligarchical government, and
since
1841 we have had that British Parliamentary
Government which the great economist TURGOT, more than sixty years before, had advised
England to extend to her colonies.
(Hear, hear.) Thus the Parliament of Great
Britain, which had just proclaimed the union
with Ireland, incorporated into its legislature
the representation of the latter, and constituted itself, by its own authority, the
first
Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain, without recourse to a dissolution
and new elections. At the meeting of the
Houses they proceeded to the election of
a new Speaker for the Commons, precisely as after a general election, and all
the other formalities were observed which,
according to custom, accompanied the opening of new parliaments. You will find those
details in the Parliamentary History, vol. 35,
page 857. Here is another authority which
the republican-annexation adversaries of Confederation will hardly care to doubt.
I find
it in pages 164, 165, and 166 of SEDGWICK
on Statutory and Constitutional Law :—
 For are these merely speculative or abstract
questions. We shall find them presenting themselves in a large class of cases which
1 am about
to examine. The dificulty, generally, seems to
have arisen from a want of accurate notions as to
the boundary line which, under our system, divides
the legislative and judicial powers. I now turn
to a more detailed consideration of the cases in
this country, where these questions have been
considered and which, so far as they go, tend to
give a practical definition to the term law, and to
define the boundaries which separate the legisla
tive from the judicial power. And first, of causes
where the legislature has sought to divest itself
of real powers. Efforts have been made, in several cases, by the state legislatures
to relieve
themselves of the responsibility of their functions,
by submitting statutes to the will of the people,
in their primary capacity. But these proceedings
have been held, and very rightly, to be entirely
unconstitutional and invalid. The duties of
legislation are not to be exercised by the people
at large. The majority governs, but only in the
prescribed form ; the introduction of practices of
this kind would remove all checks on hasty and
improvident legislation, and greatly diminish the
benefits of representative government. So where
an act to establish free schools was, by its terms,
directed to be submitted to the electors of the
state, to become a law only in case a majority of
the votes were given in its favor, it was held, in
New York, that the whole proceeding was
entirely void. The Legislature, said the Court
of Appeals, have no power to make such submission, nor had the people the power to
bind each
other by acting upon it. They voluntarily surrendered that power when they adopted
the constitution. The government of this state is
democratic ; but it is a representative democracy,
and in passing general laws, the people act only
through their representatives in the Legislature.
And in Pennsylvania, in the case of an excise
statute, the same stern and salutary doctrine has
been applied. In some of the more recent state
constitutions this rule has been made a part of the
fundamental law. So in Indiana, the principle is
now framed into a constitutional provision which
vests the legislative authority in a Senate and
House of Representatives, and declares that no
act " shall be passed, the taking effect of which
shall be made to depend upon any authority
except as provided in the Constitution." And
under these provisions it has been held that so
much of an act as relates to its submission to the
popular vote, was null and void.
 HON. MR. DORION—In England there
are seven or eight acts of Parliament which
were submitted to the popular vote before becoming law.
 HON. MR. CAUCHON—In England it is
admitted that Parliament may do anything
and even change the sexes if necessary, according to the doctrine of the honorable
member for Brome. (Laughter.) The honorable member for Hochelaga is an admirer of
written constitutions ; I am citing authorities
to suit him, and which it is quite impossible
for him to reject. (Hear, hear.) All these
authorities establish, by incontestable evidence,
the power of Parliament in regard to every
question that may come before it. There
only remains now the question of convenience
and expediency, and that question can only be
considered by Parliament. In 1717, 1800,
584
and 1846, the British Parliament decided it
without appealing to the people. In 1832 it
decided the question after an appeal to the
people, acting in all those circumstances under the constitutional responsibility
of its
trust. That is what we shall do in the present difficult conjuncture, awaiting in
the approaching elections the approval or condemnation of our initiative. But let
the opponents of the scheme be well convinced that we
understand, quite as well as themselves, the
entire importance of the vote which we are
going to give. In closing, Mr. SPEAKER, I
may be allowed to say to the House, that in
a debate of such a solemn character, and when
such great destinies as regards the future of
the whole of British North America are at
stake within these walls, let us have the
courage to rise superior to passions, hatreds,
personal enmities, and a miserable spirit of
party, in order to allow our minds to soar
. more freely in the larger sphere of generous
sentiments, and of great and noble national
aspirations. We possess all that we want—
all the necessary elements of greatness and
prosperity to found an empire in America.
Let us boldly set to work, sheltered by the
flag and protected by the powerful ægis of
the Empire which leads us on to undertake
the task. (Prolonged applause.)
 HON. MR. DORION—MR. SPEAKER, the
honorable member for Montmorency, who has
just sat down, having given it as his opinion
that all those who are opposed to Confederation are annexationists and infidels, I
must
congratulate him upon having at last opened
his eyes and escaped the danger of being
drawn into the vortex of the American Union,
and perhaps into something worse—(laughter)
—-as but a short time ago he was in the bad
company of those who are opposed to Confederation. He has even written a whole volume
in opposition to the union of the British
North American Provinces. (Hear, hear.)
I suppose that at that time he did not look
upon himself as an annexationist, and still
less as an infidel, for the simple reason that
he combatted with all the power at his command, not only Confederation, but also union
of any kind with the British American Provinces. (Hear, hear.) In that book, which
I have just referred to, and which was written at the end of 1858, the honorable member,
after having described the different systems under which the union might be projected,
says :-" We do not desire it, because
we do not want union in any form, inasmuch
as the same object will always be attained, no
matter under what form the union may be established." That object, according to the
hon.
member, was the depriving Lower Canada of
the small influence which she exercises on the
legislation of the existing union. It is true
that the honorable gentleman has written another book lately. According to that book
he
no longer sees any other danger for Lower Canada than that of annexation, and invites
everyone to turn round as he has done, and to follow him with the view of avoiding
these dangers. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Once
more I congratulate him that he is now out
of danger, and I will endeavor to follow him
with his two books in his hand. As it is too
late to-night, however, I will do it at the next
sitting, and for that purpose I move that the
debate be now adjourned.
HON. MR. CAUCHON —The honorable
member for Hochelaga alludes to the two
pamphlets which I have written, one in 1858,
and the other in 1865, on the subject of the
Confederation of the provinces. The difference between the honorable member and me
is simply this, that I do not deny what I have
written, whilst in' order that he may enjoy
greater freedom of discussion, he has thought
proper to deny his actions in the past. ( Hear,
hear.) There is another contradiction which
it is of importance to remark. After having
asserted, up to 1861, that there was danger
for Lower Canada in not granting to Upper
Canada representation based upon population,
or its substitute, the Confederation of the
two Canadas, and that the danger was so
menacing that it was more prudent to give
way than to allow it to be forcibly taken by
her—to-day he comes down and maintains
that the horizon is quite serene; that there
is no necessity for constitutional changes.
Does he then so easily forget the days of
1858, '59, '60 and '61 ? ( Hear, hear.) For
my part, Mr. SPEAKER, I think we should
be acting with more dignity, and would render more service to the country, if we devoted
ourselves exclusively to the consideration of the question, setting aside those accusations
of contradiction from which no one
is ever exempt. (Hear, hear.)
HON. MR. DORION moved the adjournment of the debate to the sitting to-morrow
night at half-past seven. ,
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER moved in
amendment that it be adjourned till half-past
three to-morrow, to be then the first order of
the day after routine business.
After some discussion, the amendment was
carried, and the House adjourned.
This individual participated in:
