585
FRIDAY, March 3, 1865.
MR. PERRAULT—Mr. SPEAKER, it is
not without a degree of hesitation easy to
be understood that I venture to give my
reasons for my vote on the question of the
Confederation of the Provinces of British
North America. I hesitate, because I am
conscious how much I fall short in respect
of solid information and political experience
to enable me to form a healthy and reliable
judgment of the various reasons to be alleged
on both sides of that vast question, the
decision of which is pregnant with such
serious consequences to the future welfare
of the country. A further cause of my
hesitation, Mr. SPEAKER, is that I see on
the Ministerial benches men grown old in
political warfare—men who for many years
have been the leaders and guides of the
majorities in the two Canadas—supportiug
the scheme now submitted to us, and assuring us that it is the only remedy for all
the
difficulties of our present position. Still
another cause of my hesitation is that I am
aware of the great severity with which the
Ministerial press visits all the adversaries
of the plan of Confederation, and of the
small measure of justice which it metes
out in estimating the motives of those
who oppose this constitutional scheme,
however upright their characters or
honest the motives which actuate them.
But I should consider myself wanting in my
duty as a member if, swayed by these misgivings, I did not state my motives in this
House for my opposition to the project of
Confederation. On so important a question
it is a duty to my constituents, it is a
duty which I owe to myself, that I should
justify the responsibility which I take upon
myself in resisting a measure which is so
strongly supported in this House, and I
should think I failed in my duty and
was unworthy of the seat which I fill in it, if
I did not add force to my opposition by
citing the history of the past, by
portraying
the prosperity of the present, and by pointing out the dangers to be feared in the
future
which is preparing for us. I have been
long studying the general question of a Confederation, and I am of opinion that the
Provinces of British North America are
destined to form, at some future time which
may be more or less remote, a vast Confederation, in which the two races of French
and English origin will be seen struggling
in the career of progress for the common
prosperity of both ; and for the better convenience of studying the question, I visited
the Lower Provinces in 1863, by way of the
Gulf, and in 1864 by the Bay of Fundy. I
am bound to say that I found the people
everywhere in easy circumstances, and intelligent, and doing honor to that part of
the country. I was then enabled to appreciate the advantages and the inconveniences
attending on the decision of the question of
Confederation generally. On my return
from my last journey, which I made in the
month of August, 1864, in company with a
certain number of the members of both
Houses, it was said by the press that I had
in several companies declared myself favorable to the plan of a Confederation of all
the
provinces. At that time the Conference at
Charlottetown had not taken place, and public opinion had already busied itself with
classifying the members of this House as
favorers or opponents of Confederation. I
had already, at that time, publicly expressed
my opinion on the question through the
press, in order that I might bring it under
the notice of my constituents, and I must
declare that the opinion which I then expressed coincides with the line of conduct
to which I still adhere, and that I have not
found it necessary to alter my position in
any one point from what it then was. In
order that I may show this in the clearest
manner, I shall read what I wrote in the
month of August last, as perfectly explanatory of what I always thought of the scheme
of confederating the Provinces of British
North America. Here is what I wrote :—
This question of serious import, on which the
minds of all our political world are so busy, in
the present crisis, is so difficult of solution, that
it would be an act of presumption in me to attempt even to discuss it, while our public
men of
the highest mark are still doubtful whether to
favor it or not. As the Minerve, however, in
its last number, claims me as one of the new converts to the great scheme of Confederation,
I
should think myself wanting to my duty and my
convictions if I failed to let the world know my
impressions of the present position, as I understand it. Those who consider the inexhaustible
resources of the Provinces of British North America have no doubt that we possess
all the elements of a great power. In territory we have a
tenth part of the habitable globe, capable of
supporting a population of 100,000,000 of persons. Bounded on the east by the Atlantic,
on
the west by the Pacific, our territory is further
accessible by the navigation of the internal seas,
which bound it on the south. Our rivers complete the incomparable net-work of communica
586
tion by water, and, like vivifying arteries, bear
on their bosom to the ocean and the markets of
the world the heavy produce of the western
plains, the lofty pines of our forests, our ores of
gold and copper, our furs collected in our hunting
grounds, and the produce of our fisheries in the
gulf. In this vast field of productiveness, where
all the materials of immense wealth exist, we
need a moving power, and the inexhaustible coal
fields of Nova Scotia are at hand to furnish it.
British North America, therefore, looms in the
future with gigantic proportions, and it depends
only on ourselves to decide whether the French
element shall have a large share of the power
which is to grow up within its limits. With
energy and union, we shall keep the ground we
have gained in a struggle of a hundred years.
The past is a warranty of success in the future.
Yet must we not hurry matters, nor overrun the
natural progress of events. While we are still
too few to take the offensive, our policy should be
one of resistance. Accordingly, before pledging
myself to the support of Confederation, which is a
total change of the basis of our present Constitution, I would be perfectly sure that
we shall not
lose an inch of ground. More than this ; I would
permit no change to be made in our present Constitution, except in as far as it would
ensure a
larger measure of prosperity for our country,
more powerful protection for our institutions, and
the absolute inviolability of our rights. For I
have not deviated in the smallest degree from the
terms of my address to the electors of Richelieu,
when I had the honor to solicit their votes as their
representative in the Legislative Assembly. In
that address, I declared myself opposed to any
concession whatever to Upper Canada. Accordingly, if it should appear that the scheme
of
Confederation, which is to be laid before the Provincial Parliament in its next session,
would assure
to French-Canadians greater advantages than they
enjoy under the present Constitution, I should, as
a thing of course, be in favor of Confederation.
But if it should be otherwise; if, in however small
a degree, Confederation should appear to be a
concession to Upper Canada, to the detriment of
our institutions, our language or our laws, I shall
to the utmost extent of my power oppose any
change whatever in the present Constitution. Of
course I am not one of those who would bound
our political horizon and place limits to our greatness as a people ; on the contrary,
nothing would
render me happier than the creation of a vast
political organization, spread over an immense
territory. The heart-burnings between localities
and individuals would thenceforward cease and die
out from mere insignificance, as compared with
the great interests which would be confided to the
watchful guardianship of our statesmen, and
become the subject of their deliberations in the
councils of the nation. Then the laudable ambition of achieving a great name in a
great country
would produce a race of great men, of whom we
might be justly proud. But if this glorious future
is to be purchased only at the price of our absorption, of our language, and all that
is dear to
us as Frenchmen, I for one could not hesitate
between what we may hope for while still remaining what we are, and the bastardizing
of our race
paid as the price of advantages to come. To sum
up all, therefore, I declare for the Constitution
such as it is, which, so far, has yielded us a greater
amount of advantage than all the proposed changes
would ; and such, I venture to say, is the opinion
of the majority of our Legislative Assembly. But
if the projected scheme secures to us in the convention all the privileges which the
French-Canadiens
now enjoy in the present Parliament, and if, in the
whole and in every part, it secures to us greater
advantages than those which are guaranteed to us
by the Constitution, I shall prefer Confederation
to all other changes.
I am bound to declare that this way of looking at the question, in the month of August
last, has undergone no change in my mind,
since I heard the explanations given by the
members of the Administration. The skill
which they have evinced certainly does
them great honor, but neither the arguments
of Ministers, nor those of the members of
the House who support the scheme, have
convinced me ; and I rely on being able to
show in my remarks what are the grounds of
my opposition, and to justify, according to my
way of looking at it, the responsibility which I
undertake in opposing a project which has
found such powerful supporters in this House.
I trust I shall be able to show, first, the
inexpediency of a constitutional change ;
second, the hostile object of Confederation ;
third, the disastrous consequences of the
adoption of the project of Confederation.
The inexpediency of a constitutional change
must be perfectly evident to any one who
considers for a moment the present prosperity
of Canada, and who takes the trouble to
examine the progress made by United
Canada since 1840. The Hon. Attorney
General East says that "the union has done
its work." But is that quite certain?
When we compare the past with the present,
have we not reason to be proud of our growth
since 1840, and of the fact that within the
past twenty-five years, our progress, both
social and material, has kept pace with that
of the first nations in the world? During
the past twenty-five years we have progressed
politically in a manner unprecedented in
colonial history ; and Canada has furnished
a magnificent instance of the good result of
responsible government in an English colony,
notwithstanding diversity of races and
religions. In 1840, we had just terminated
a glorious struggle, during which, unfortunately, many lives had been lost—
587
struggle undertaken in order to secure
responsible government, which had, up to
that time, been refused, and which was then
accorded us as the reward of the struggle.
At that period Lower Canada was united as
one man ; she had forwarded to England
petitions, bearing 60,000 signatures, asking
for responsible government. We then had
in our ranks men who did not shrink from
the struggle, men accustomed to resist
oppression, men who had grown up in the
midst of a strife with an arrogant minority,
which sought to overrule the majority ; and
these were the great men who secured the
triumph of our nationality, and upheld the
rights of Lower Canada, by securing responsible government at the same time that the
union was forced upon us. Let us now see
the result of their labors. Is it true that
we have progressed both socially and materially since that period ? Any one who
reflects on what Canada was in 1840, and
what it is in 1865, cannot but admit that we
have progressed in a degree almost unprecedented in the history of the prosperity
of
nations ; that we have immensely extended
our territory, by clearing away the forest ;
that our population has increased in a
wonderful manner, that that population is
prosperous and contented, and that we have
progressed materially and socially in a
manner heretoforce unprecedented under the
colonial system. In the social order, let us
examine, first, our legislation and system in
municipal matters. Can a more perfect
system be found anywhere ? Has not every
locality all the powers necessary for effecting
all improvements of real necessity ? It is
since the union that we have perfected this
system, and that we have endowed our rural
districts with the means of effecting all improvements they may desire, and particularly
as regards road matters and the making of
new roads, in order to facilitate the transport
of farm produce to market. (Hear, hear.)
But I need not dwell on the progress we
have made and the reforms we have carried
out, as regards legislation. That which
had chiefly contributed, from the first establishment of English rule, to arrest our
progress in this respect was the Legislative
Council of the former Legislature, and that
which existed from the union up to 1856.
Since that period have we not obtained an
elective Legislative Council, and must not
our greatest reforms be considered the consequence ? With the union and responsible
government, did we not also secure the right
of being represented by French-Canadian
fellow-countrymen in the Executive Council ? And since then have we not enjoyed
all the advantage of a system of government
under which the people can, not only express their wants, but enforce their wishes
?
These are reforms of the highest importance,
but we have obtained yet more. When, in
1840, the union of the Canadas took place,
landed property in Lower Canada was subjected to the feudal system, which had been
introduced with all its features derogatory
to the dignity of man, with all its charges
upon property, and all its vexations for the
censitaire. Under that system no property
whatever could change hands without being
submitted to a heavy charge in the form of
lods et ventes for the benefit of the seignior,
and to cens et rentes which considerably
reduced its value. With the political rights
conferred on us by the union, the seigniorial
system of necessity disappeared, giving us
property in freehold, the same as in the
neighbouring States and in all civilized
nations. It is also since the union that we
have consolidated our laws ; that we have
created a system of public instruction
which imparts the blessings of education
to the most remote parts of the province.
At the present moment we have a school
system which does honor to the country, and
the intelligent, however poor they may be,
can, almost without charge, acquire an education. Now, each village, each concession
has its school, and the child of the backwoodsman dwelling in the midst of the forest,
can there obtain a degree of elementary
instruction sufficient to enable him to enter
upon a career of honor and fortune, should
his talents, his industry and his energy fit
him for playing a part in politics, in the
sciences, in the arts or in the ranks of the
clergy of his country. It is a remarkable
fact, Mr. SPEAKER, and one which I deem
it right to mention, that the majority of the
notable men who have attained seats on the
judicial bench, in the Ministry and even in
the Episcopal chair, came forth from our
humble country homes, and qualified themselves in our educational institutions, where
instruction is afforded all but gratuitously, by
dint of talent, perseverance, study and industry. It was the pressure of want in the
family homestead that in many cases created
in the breasts of our most eminent public
men, the eager desire of attaining a high
position by means of study and labor. Since
the union our system and means of public
588
instruction have made immense progress.
Before the union we had no Catholic university in the country. Young men intending
to enter the liberal professions were
compelled, instead of following a regular
course, to content themselves with what they
could acquire in the office of their patrons,
who were not in all cases competent for the
task they undertook, or else to go abroad at
great expense for many years, in order to
obtain in England or France a certificate of
qualification. To-day we have in Lower and
in Upper Canada universities rivalling European universities of the same class, and
we
have also a body of young students, who,
fifteen or twenty years hence, will give proof
of the excellence of our university system,
and of the high curriculum of studies these
institutions have now rendered universal.
Now, in face of the degree of progress I have
just referred to, in the social order, can it be
truly said that the union has run its day,
when all these marvels are its creation ?
When we are stronger and better educated
than we were twenty years ago ; when we
have new political rights : when we have a
free right to the soil, and when we have
created a system of public instruction such
as we now enjoy, can it be said that the union
has done its work, and that it must be broken
up ? For my part, Mr. SPEAKER, I am not prepared to support that assertion. The union
has
been for us a great means of progress, since
it has enabled us to secure all these results
in the social order. The Hon. Attorney General East has told us that Confederation
will
procure us material advantages still greater,
and that that is all we want. 1 deny, Mr.
SPEAKER, that material interests form the
sole ambition of the French-Canadian population. We attach a far higher importance
to the preservation of our own institutions.
But even as regards material interests, apart
from the advantages, in the social order,
derived from the union, we have still a vast
field before us as regards the progress we
have made since 1840. In order to see
what the union has done in this respect, it
is sufficient to look at our system of railroads,
and above all, at the great Grand Trunk line
from Sarnia to Rivière du Loup, which has
increased our commerce tenfold, opened our
dense forests to colonization, and multiplied
our resources to an incalculable extent ; it is
suficient to look at our ports of Montreal
and Quebec during the season of navigation,
filled with vast forests of shipping, to see
our transatlantic steamers bearing off weekly
the products of our country to the most
distant European markets, in exchange for
the articles of import we require. And if
we ascend our great River St. Lawrence, what
do we see ? We find canals, which in their
dimensions, the materials of which they are
constructed, and in their extent, are unsurpassed in any part of the world. I maintain,
Mr. SPEAKER, that there is nothing to
be found in Europe to compare with our
artificial water communications. In England,
for instance, the canals are only miserable
gutters, and the little boys, in rowing their
boats, can touch both sides at once with the
ends of their oars. Here our canals pass
through the whole country, and connect
the most remote parts of it with the
markets of Europe. And, in fact, a ship
of four hundred tons burden can now
sail from Chicago, cross the ocean, and
discharge her cargo in the docks at Liverpool. The union which has given us such
canals, such railways, has not run its
day, has not done its work, as the Hon.
Attorney General East pretends. On
the contrary, with such means as these,
we are justified in anticipating from the
union still greater results in the future. If
we look at our colonization, we behold the
forest receding before the axe of the settler,
the products of our land increased tenfold,
and our settlers locating in advance of the
surveyor on our wild lands. What the
union has already done for us is certainly
great, but the advantages it has in store for
us are still greater, if we know how to avail
ourselves of the means it places at our command. Therefore it is that I do not think
the union has done its work, but that, on
the contrary, it will yet secure our prosperity. And hence it is that I wish to
preserve the union and remain under
allegiance to Her Most Gracious Majesty
the Queen of England, and refuse to accept
constitutional changes which must of necessity imperil our future as a nation. (Hear,
hear.) It has often been said that Lower
Canada was a drag on Upper Canada, retarding her advancement in the march of progress,
and that a new Constitution was
necessary. I deny the justice of the accusation, and I maintain that such a charge
could only emanate from Upper Canadian
fanaticism. True, the French Canadian race
has been characterized at Toronto by a
Governor General as an "inferior race," but
the insult thus offered to Lower Canada has
not a single fact to bear it out. Moreover,
589
I am happy to bring forward the testimony
of the Hon. Finance Minister (Hon. Mr.
GALT) to refute these assertions, to answer
these insults, and to prove that the prosperity
of Canada is due to the active co-operation
of the French-Canadians—not only in the
Executive, but in the Legislative Assembly.
In a letter written from London in 1860,
the Hon. Minister of Finance says :—
From 1849 up to this day, the French Canadian
majority has been fairly represented in the Ministry, an it is with its powerful co-operation
and
the part it has taken in initiating every measure,
and the support of its votes in Parliament, that
all great reforms have been realized.
Well, if it be true that the French-Canadian
members of the Government, since 1849,
have, by their unceasing efforts, obtained the
realization of these reforms, why is it now
sought to destroy the Constitution under
which they were obtained, and to create a
new state of things which will diminish that
influence which we now enjoy ? It is because, notwithstanding our material prosperity,
the old aggression of race against
race, the former state of antagonism and
ill-will, has not disappeared. The end proposed to be attained by the Government in
making these changes is a vast and noble
end, I admit. It is the creation of an immense Empire, which will redound to our
glory and to that of England. But it seems
to me that this will not be the necessary
result of the means which are being taken
to attain it. (Hear, hear.) Whenever the
great measures of reform to which I have
already referred have been submitted to
Parliament, we have seen public men devote
themselves exclusively to these measures,
and labor for their realization. We have
seen parties arrayed for or against these
great questions—the abolition of the Seigniorial Tenure, the election of the members
of the Legislative Council, the construction
of our railways and canals, &c. In view of
these great questions, there was no room for
the contemptible personal considerations,
and the miserable wrangling of the church
door ; but as soon as these great reforms
were obtained, there was no longer any
ground for opposition to the Government on
these subjects ; yet subjects for the exhibition of discontent and opposition had
to be
devised, with the view of attaining power,
and of satisfying individual ambition. They
then addressed themselves to the prejudices
of race and religion. A cry was raised in Up
per Canada that French-Canadian domination
could no longer be endured, and that an end
must be put to it. No heed was taken of
the progress that had yet to be made, but it
seemed as though nothing required to be
done in order to attain success, but to destroy
the national character of a large section of
Canada. They complained of French domination, the influence of the clergy, and of
the
great number of religious institutions in
Canada ; and what was the remedy proposed
to put an end to all these evils which Upper
Canada could no longer tolerate ? The
hon. member for South Oxford (Hon. Mr.
BROWN) was imported, and brought out
here from Scotland, to cast the flaming torch
of discord between the two populations, and
to inflame them one against the other. I
emagine that since that time the Hon. Mr.
BUCHANAN must have more than once regretted this importation, which was not quite
in
the regular line of his commercial operations.
And when this gentleman had been imported,
who has been the cause of all our dissensions up to the present time, parties were
organized under his command as they are
this day. To diminish or destroy the influence of the French-Canadians in Parliament,
the hon. member for South Oxford
raised a clamour for representation based
upon population, which was reëchoed from
one end of Upper Canada to the other.
These cries, the offspring of fanaticism, were
rejected by Lower Canada with unanimity
on the part of our public men. The hon.
member for South Oxford, finding that
this cry for representation based on population was a magnificent war-horse, made
use of it to form a party. Since that
period he has allowed nothing to stand in
his way. He has calumniated every public
man and all the institutions which were
held in respect by the inhabitants of
Lower Canada ; he has attacked, with the
greatest fury, all that was dear to us as
Frenchmen and Catholics ; and by this
means he gained his object ; and we have
seen all the western farmers, all the inhabitants of Canada West, cry out that here
we
were all under the domination of the clergy,
and that the English and Protestant population ought not to submit to so heavy a yoke.
He knew that the English element was
fanatic and aggressive, and by means of this
cry the then leader of the Opposition in
Upper Canada succeeded in forming a
phalanx so strong, that Lower Canada has
been compelled to yield some portion of the
590
ground which she had conquered in her
struggles of former days. I do not believe
that there is a single member for Lower
Canada who would wish to change our
present Constitution in the manner now
proposed, were he not forced to it by Upper
Canada. We are, then, about to give up
some of our franchises and our rights in
this new struggle against the spirit of
encroachment and domination manifested by
the English race. Hon. members who
support the measure will tell you that they
are giving up a part of our rights, in order
that what remains may be saved from destruction, and that they may not lose all they
now
enjoy, before any lengthened period shall
have elapsed. But was this clamor in favor
of representation based upon population
sincere on the part of those who used it as
a means of attacking us ? Was it in reality
a remedy for the evils of which they
complained ? No, Mr. SPEAKER, I do not
think it was. It was simply an electoral platform, by which to attain power and consummate
the encroachment upon our rights contemplated by the leaders of the movement. I do
not deem it necessary to repeat here all the
arguments brought to bear against the demand for representation by population, in
eighty speeches delivered in 1860, during
the discussion of that exciting question ;
but I remember that debate with all the
more pleasure, that the French-Canadians
showed that they retained some vestiges of
firmness in the day of battle, and of perseverance in the maintenance of our rights,
which our fathers had so often manifested.
On that occasion the Hon. Attorney General
East (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) deserved the
approbation of his country for the resistance
he made to that unjust demand on the part
of Upper Canada, with that energy and
tenacity he is so well known to display ; he
was the champion of our rights. Why,
then, does he to-day come down and propose
a compromise with his opponents of those
days ? Is it just at the moment when the
leaders of the Upper Canadian Opposition
had, by entering the MACDONALD-SICOTTE
Government, absolutely rejected the principle
of representation based upon population,
that he should abandon the struggle ? Is it
at the moment the MACDONALD-SICOTTE
Government had obtained separate schools
for the Catholics of Upper Canada, that the
party led by the honorable member for South
Oxford was to be dreaded ? Is it at the
moment when the law providing separate
schools for the Catholics of Upper Canada
was the subject of a triumph, which the
Hon. Attorney General had never succeeded in obtaining during the whole time
he has been in power, that the Hon.
Attorney General should cease from further
efforts, throw down his arms, and declare as a French-Canadian that we could
no longer hold the breach, and that we
must make concessions to Upper Canada ?
Did not the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration make a close question of representation
by population ? Were not all the
members of that Government bound to oppose
it ? Yes, Mr. SPEAKER, the Hon. Attorney- General East was guilty of a grievous wrong,
when he defeated that Government by a
hostile majority composed of French-Canadians. It was after that hostile vote that
Upper Canada insisted on her right to renew
her claims to representation based on population, and that we are compelled to-day
to
make concessions. For my part, Mr.
SPEAKER, I have never been convinced of
the sincerity of those who made use of the
cry for representation based on population,
for I have never seen any other means
employed to obtain the aid of the western
farmers in securing more easily the reins of
power. Has the principle of representation
based on population ever served as the basis
of a government having monarchical ideas,
like those which actuate the existing Government ? Now we are seeking for a Confederation
for which there is no precedent—not a
Confederation like those to be found in other
countries which have adopted that form of
government, but a monarchical Confederation. (Hear, hear.) It is sought to retain
the English Constitution, and yet it is asserted that representation by population
is a
just principle, and that it must be extended
to Upper Canada. Does not the Honorable
Attorney General East (Hon. Mr. CARTIER)
remember the arguments he urged in 1860
against this principle ? Did he not then declare
with the view of showing that the principle
was neither a just one nor one recognized
in the British Constitution, that if it were
applied to the British Parliament the city
of London alone would have thirty members
instead of sixteen, and that Scotland would
send many more members to Parliament
than she does now ? Did he not assert that
rotten boroughs, containing only a few hundred inhabitants, had one representative,
and that counties containing 100,000 inhabitants had no more ? Have these argu
591
ments, then so full of power, lost all their
force and value to-day? Have they become
futile since the alliance of the Honorable
Attorney General East and the hon. member
for South Oxford? Can they no longer be
used to save our Constitution and our
liberties? How can the party which has
so long been kept together by its opposition
to the principle of representation by population, say to-day that it is a just principle,
and that it must be conceded? I confess,
Mr. SPEAKER, that I cannot understand
why we should concede to-day what we
refused in 1860. It is true that I do not
possess the experience of the hon. gentlemen
who now occupy the Ministerial benches,
and that, perhaps, it may be wiser to bend
to-day than to be broken to-morrow ; but
when I study the history of the past, when
I look at things as they are, and look forward to the future which is now proposed
for us, I only see in the scheme of Confederation a remedy which is more violent
than the disease, and which, instead of
removing the difficulties it is proposed to
eradicate, will only have the effect of producing results the most unfavorable to
the peace and prosperity of our country.
I state then, Mr. SPEAKER, that the
question of representation by population,
which has been the principal cause of the Confederation scheme, was excluded from
the
political programme of the MACDONALD-
SICOTTE Government, and that the Upper
Canada majority, the leaders of which,
throughout their whole political career, had
so loudly demanded this concession in favor
of Upper Canada, had bound itself not to
raise that exciting question within the halls
of the Legislature, at least during the existence of the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Ministry.
(Hear, hear.) I stated that, thanks to the
patriotic firmness of that Administration,
Lower Canada was enabled for two years to
live in peace and enjoy the fruits of a tranquility unknown for ten years previous,
and
during two sessions the question of representation based on numbers ceased to be a
subject of strife and fanatical attack on the part
of Upper Canada. (Hear, hear.) It was
at that period that the honorable member
for South Oxford asked for a committee to
enquire as to the means of settling the sectional difficulties, by effecting a change
in
the basis of the present Constitution. ( Hear,
hear.) Well, Mr. SPEAKER, what took
place then? We saw that able speaker, that
indefatigable and powerful advocate of the
claims of Upper Canada against the Lower
Canada section, unable to find in this House
more than forty men prepared to support
him in his unjust demand for a constitutional
change which the present Administration are
about to grant. (Hear, hear.) We saw that
powerful politician humbled, and giving up
in despair all hopes of succeeding with the
House—and, for my part, Mr. SPEAKER, I
must say that I felt pained at his position
—asking a leave of absence in order to
avoid a humiliating defeat, and returning to
his home to lament his fall and the loss of
an influence based solely on fanaticism and
prejudice. (Hear, hear.) Subsequently,
Mr. SPEAKER, the House witnessed an act
which I do not desire to characterize now ;
we saw the Administration which had the
courage to chain down the monster of representation by population, overthrown by a
French-Canadian majority! (Hear, hear.)
Yes, Mr.SPEAKER, that Liberal government,
which had afforded so much security to our
institutions by maintaining intact our present
Constitution, was defeated by a French-Canadian majority of this House. I do not intend,
when I say this, to attack my fellow-
countrymen, far from it ; but I wish to
trace the parliamentary history of our
country, and I do not hesitate to assert that
that vote gave a fatal blow to our influence as French-Canadians, and that
posterity will record that vote, which is now
a matter of history, as a fatal act by which
our public men sacrificed to party spirit
the dearest of our interests. (Hear, hear.)
I fearlessly assert, Mr. SPEAKER, that for
fifteen years our affairs had not been administered by men more sincerely devoted
to
our interests and better able- to protect the
political liberties, the interests and the
institutions of Lower Canada. What have
we seen during the past fifteen years in this
House? We have witnessed party appeals
to prejudices and the most insulting personalities; and, in fact, the lowering of
the
moral status of our national representatives,
as the natural result. We have seen the
men best qualified to enforce, on the floor of
this House, the rights of the people, refusing
to come forward at elections, because they
saw that the position of a member of Parliament no longer conferred that degree of
dignity and position which made it an object
of ambition in better times. We have seen
men of eminence, who had labored in behalf
of the interests of their constituents for
many long years, abandoning their political
592
career in disgust, and retiring to the
seclusion of their homes. Then it was that
we saw a French-Canadian majority voting
down a Ministry whose political programme
afforded more effectual guarantees for Lower
Canada interests than that of any previous
government. (Hear, hear.) But a blind
and paltry party spirit induced them to
sacrifice, for a momentary triumph, the
general interests of their country; and the
majority, by its vote, decreed our national
downfall. (Hear, hear.) Well, Mr. SPEAKER,
under the new Government we found representation by population again made a subject
of discussion in our Legislature; and now,
there is no denying it, that unfortunate
concession, which places us at the mercy of
Upper Canada, has become an accomplished
fact. (Hear, hear.) I stated, just now, Mr.
SPEAKER, that the hon. member for South
Oxford was unable to obtain his committee
under the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration, an essentially liberal one. (Hear,
hear.) On reference to the Journals of this
House of that period, what do we find?
The Ministry which succeeded that Government had hardly taken possession of the
Treasury benches, when the Hon. Mr.
BROWN again came before the House asking for a committee, and in that instance
with more success. I had the honor to propose an amendment to his motion, but my
amendment was rejected, and amongst the
members who figure in that unfortunate division, I find the names of the Hon. Minister
of
Public Works, the Hon. Provincial Secretary,
and the Hon. Attorney General East. Mr.
SPEAKER, this is a very significant fact, and
one extremely deserving of attention at the
present moment. ln pressing that motion
upon the House, I maintained that our policy
was to act on the offensive, instead of merely
defending ourselves, as we had up to that
time done; that we ought to unite as one
man to obtain the re-enactment of the proviso
to the 26th clause of the Act of Union, which
had been shamefully struck out in 1856,
when we obtained an elective Legislative
Council. (Hear, hear.) Now, on this point,
which was perfectly clear, we found these
same Ministers voting for the rejection of
the amendment, which asserted a right sacred
to French-Canadians. Did not this vote
imply that those who made this cowardly
concession were prepared to yield again in
the proposed constitutional changes? Yes,
Mr. SPEAKER, I do not hesitate to assert, that
from that moment, Upper Canada understood
that our political leaders, who, up to that
time, had shown an unyielding front, were
about to give way. And when the Hon. Mr.
BROWN submitted his proposition to the
House, all the English members united in an
overwhelming majority, and he carried his
point successfully, notwithstanding that all
the French-Canadian members voted against
it, except the hon. member for Rouville (Mr.
POULIN), who displayed the questionable
courage of thus committing an act I shall
not attempt to qualify. (Hear, hear.) I
need not dwell upon the consequences of
that vote, for they are now patent to the
whole country, and the hon. member for
South Oxford himself has told us in this
House that the scheme of Confederation was
the creation of his constitutional committee;
that the appointment of that committee was
the first step in the direction of the object
for which he had struggled during his whole
political career, and that the scheme of Confederation now before the House was an
ample reward for his unremitting efforts,
and a complete justification of the principles he has supported in the struggle between
Upper Canada and Lower Canada.
Subsequently, Mr. SPEAKER, the TACHÉ- MACDONALD Government succumbed on a
question of finance, and, finding that they
could not sustain themselves without the
assistance of the Opposition, that same Government called into the Cabinet the man
who
had proved most hostile to Lower Canadian
interests, and with whom they had ever lived
in unexampled antagonism. From that
alliance resulted the scheme of Confederation
which is now submitted to us, and which
concedes the principle of representation based
on population. Ought the Lower Canadian
party to have made so important a concession
to Upper Canada? I am prepared to establish by figures that that question contained
within itself its own remedy; and those who
voted in favor of its concession are in no way
justifiable, looking at the question in any
point of view whatsoever. The future held
out to us a positive assurance that the grounds
of this demand would no longer exist at a
period which is close at hand! When we
look into the question of the respective
populations of the two Canadas, we shall
observe at a glance that that of Upper
Canada is in great part English and Protestant, and, by reference to the last census,
we
shall find that a very large proportion of the
593
annual increase in that section is the result
of emigration. From 90,000, which was the
total amount during the single year 1847,
immigration gradually fell to 10,000 in the
year 1860. But there is another important
fact which it would be well to bear in mind ;
it is that Lower Canada, which increased
slowly at first, because her material and moral
development was impeded by the political
institutions under which she was governed,
and because she had no colonization roads
through her forests, still beheld her sturdy
children emigrating from their native soil
to the United States in search of daily bread
and liberty. The increase in the population
of Lower Canada was slow and small then ;
but as railways were built and highways
were opened, the population was found to
increase in nearly the same proportion as
the diminution was observed to be going on,
in respect of annual increase, in Upper
Canada. I maintain further, Mr. SPEAKER,
that the census of 1861 is no basis from
which to estimate exactly the total population of the two sections ; that census is
merely a tissue of errors of a serious nature,
which demonstrate the inaccuracy of the
whole. Thus when we find it stated that at
Three Rivers there is not a single Catholic
church ; that at Hamilton there is but one ;
that in the year 1861 there were but three
vessels built in Lower Canada, while we know
that at Quebec alone more than sixty were
constructed, we may with perfect safety assert
that similar inaccuracies must needs have
occurred in the totals of the populations of
the two sections. We know that in Upper
Canada the true total of the population has
been greatly exaggerated. Did not all their
journals declare that the census of 1861
must indicate a very large total population
in favor of Upper Canada over Lower
Canada ? And, accordingly, the result shewed
a majority of nearly 300,000 souls in
favor of that province. To such an extent
was the number of the living increased, and
the number of the dead diminished, that the
total number of living children under one year
old was 8,000 more than the total number
of births in the year. (Hear, hear.) I am
quite willing to admit that the climate of
Upper Canada is most salubrious and highly
favorable to the development of that part of
the population of a less age than one year,
but even then there is some difliculty in
understanding how it is that in twelve
months some of them do not die, and how
there can be 8,000 more of less than a year
old than were born during the preceding
twelve months. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
When I observe such results accruing from
our official census, I am compelled to believe
that it is inaccurate, and that it may be
quite as erroneous in respect of the general
population. But if in the census the
population of Upper Canada was exaggerated, in the case of Lower Canada, on the
contrary, it has been considerably diminished.
Here our farmers have always stood in dread
of the census, because they have a suspicion
that it is taken with the sole object of imposing some tax, or of making some draft
of
men for the defence of the country. Under
these circumstances, I consider that the
difference between the totals of the population of Upper and Lower Canada is not so
well proved as it is wished to have us believe
that it is. I maintain that it is less in reality
than it is in appearance, and that the figures
of the census are not sufficently accurate to
allow of our taking them as the basis of a
demand for constitutional changes of so important a character. But if we study the
increase of the French-Canadian population
in America, we shall find the increase of the
French-Canadians to have been 1,700,000
between the years 1760 and 1860, the total
having increased tenfold two and a half times
in that period, and this is equivalent to 3.40
per cent. per annum, or a doubling of the
population in twenty-one years ; otherwise
an increase of twenty-five times their number in one hundred years. The increase,
since
1860, having been 3.60 per cent. in Lower
Canada, these figures show that the natural
increase in the Lower Canadian population
is greater than it is anywhere else. In
Upper Canada the average of births has
been 3.40 per cent. per annum, and in
Lower Canada it has been 4.10 per cent.
per annum ; this is equivalent to a greater
relative increase of 20 per cent. in favor
of Lower Canada over Upper Canada.
If a calculation is made of the progressive increase of the French population
in Lower Canada, from 1784 to 1851,
the following results will be arrived
at:—
|
Per ct. per ann. |
| From 1784 to 1831 |
the increase was equal to |
2.60 |
| do. 1831 to 1844 |
do. do. to |
3.20 |
| do. 1844 to 1851 |
do. do. to |
4.25 |
But the growth of population that would
have resulted from this increase has been
594
diminished by emigration to the United
States. The difficulties between the sections of the province have, during long
years, driven our youth to foreign countries,
and that is why that considerable increase
does not appear, by the census, so great as in
reality it has been. Thus the total number
of French-Canadian emigrants to the United
States amounted, in 1841, to 34,000; from
1844 to 1850 the total amounted to 30,000;
making, in 1850, a grand total of 64,000 of
our countrymen who had passed into foreign
lands. With such an emigration going on,
it is clear that our population could not increase with rapidity; but now, fortunately,
the movement of our population has assumed
a contrary direction. Many families have
already returned to us, whilst many others
are only awaiting a favorable opportunity to
return to the country, which they ought
never to have left. The French-Canadian
population in the United States is still very
considerable, as the following figures will
show: in the State of Vermont there are
14,000 French-Canadians ; in the State of
New York 20,000; in Ohio and Pennsylvania, 6,000; in Michigan, 30,000; in Illinois,
20,000; in Wisconsin, 12,000; in
Indiana, 5,000 ; in Minnesota, 15,000—without taking into consideration the fact that
nearly 35,000 of our young men, besides, are
enrolled in the army of the United States.
What took place in Canada also took place
in Acadia, where the French population also
increased in a manner which was truly
astonishing. From 1707 to 1737 this increase amounted to a proportion of 6 per
cent. per annum ; in thirty years the total
had increased fivefold. It continued to
increase in nearly a like proportion up to
1755, the memorable date of the deportation
of the Acadians. From 1755 to 1855 the
Acadians increased tenfold by themselves,
and now the French-Acadian population in
the Maritime Provinces and in the State of
Maine is distributed as follows :—
| Newfoundland ............................ |
15,000 |
| Cape Breton ................................. |
16,000 |
| Prince Edward Island................ |
15,000 |
| Nova Scotia .................................. |
22,000 |
| New Brunswick ........................... |
25,000 |
| State of Maine ............................... |
5,000 |
| Giving a total of ........................... |
98,000 |
Let us now enquire, Mr. SPEAKER, what
the annual increase has been in Upper Canada. This consideration is an important
one, for it goes to prove that in ten years
the total population of Upper and Lower:
Canada will be equal, and that, consequently,
the constitutional changes resulting from the
question of representation based on population are not called for:—
| In 1830 |
that increase was |
10 per ct. |
per annum. |
| " 1832 |
do. |
8.77 |
do. |
| " 1842 |
do. |
6.42 |
do. |
| " 1852 |
do. |
5.62 |
do. |
| " 1861 |
do. |
4.35 |
do. |
| " 1865 it will |
probably be |
3.00 |
do. |
This amounts to saying that in thirty years
the proportion of increase has diminished
by more than 50 per cent., and that diminution of annual increase has been consequent
upon the diminution of immigration. The
following figures, which shew the number of
immigrants who have come into Upper
Canada since the year 1829, shew this
clearly :—
| Years. |
Immigration |
| 1829 to 1833 ............... |
167,697 |
| 1834 to 1838 ................. |
96,351 |
| 1839 to 1843 ............... |
123,860 |
| 1844 ................................ |
20,142 |
| 1845 ................................ |
25,375 |
| 1846 ................................ |
32,753 |
| 1847 ................................ |
90,150 |
| 1848 ................................ |
27,939 |
| 1849 ................................ |
38,494 |
| 1850 ................................ |
32,292 |
| 1851 ................................. |
41,076 |
| 1852 ................................ |
39,176 |
| 1853 ................................. |
36,699 |
| 1854 ............,,,,,,,,,............ |
53,183 |
| 1855 .................................. |
21,274 |
| 1856 .................................. |
22,439 |
| 1857 .................................. |
32,097 |
| 1858.. ,,,,,,,,,,,,.................... |
12,810 |
| 1859..... ............................... |
8,778 |
| 1860 .................................. |
10,150 |
| 1861 .................................. |
19,923 |
| 1862 .................................. |
22,176 |
| 1863 .................................. |
19,419 |
| 1864 .................................. |
19,000 |
In 1854 we had no railways as we have today, and consequently the European emigration
which was directed to the United States
did not pass through Canada, as it does now,
towards the Western States. In 1854 the
immigration was 53,000, and all who landed
in Canada settled there at once; but in 1864
the immigration fell to 19,000, of whom not
more than one half remained in the country ;
the remainder went on to the Western States.
Thus it may be said that the immigration,
which numbered more than 53,000 souls in
595
1854, has fallen in ten years to 8,000 only for
Upper Canada, whilst in Lower Canada we
have increased, by natural progress, in the
proportion of from 2.20 per cent. to 2.60 per
cent. during the same period. And it is just at
the time that our population is increasing in
this proportion that it is proposed to grant to
Upper Canada representation based on population. Why do we not still resist ? We
are told that if we wait longer the disproportion will be increased. I maintain, according
to the above calculations, and in view
of other considerations that I shall by and
by have the honor to submit to this House,
that we can only be the gainers in this matter,
because the proportion of our natural increase
is increasing, while that of immigration is
diminishing. In thirty years, from 1829 to
1860, 942,735 immigrants landed on our
shores, nearly all of whom settled in Upper
Canada. And there is another fact to which
I beg to call the attention of the House, and
that is, that the Irish emigration, which
amounted in 1851 to 22,381, diminished during the ten following years to 376 in 1861,
and it is a well known fact that it was this
wholesale deportation from the Emerald Isle
which has made the population of Upper
Canada what it is to-day. But it is not necessary to consult the census to arrive
at the
conclusion that the proportionate difference in
the increase of the populations of the two
sections of the province is only due to the
arrival in the country of this million of immigrants. If we study the proportion of
births,
or of the natural increase, we shall see that
Lower Canada has increased its population
more rapidly than Upper Canada, and that
there are more births in proportion in our
section of the province. As these artificial
sources of increase diminish in Upper Canada,
we may be certain that the equililbrium will
be established between the two populations.
There is yet another cause which must contribute to reëstablish this equilibrium,
and I
find it in an official report written by the
present Honorable Provincial Secretary (Hon.
Mr. MCDOUGALL) when he was Commissioner
of Crown Lands. The cause of colonization
has attracted, for several years past, the special
attention of our clergy and of the influential
inhabitants of the country, so soon as it
became generally known that the increase of
the population in Upper Canada would lead
very soon to constitutional changes, having for
their object representation based upon population, with all its disastrous results
for the
minority. Since that period new colonization
roads have been opened for the surplus population of the old counties, and our youth,
instead of expatriating themselves, plunge
into the forests to clear the land, and thus to
increase the strength of the French element.
The cause of the diminution in the increase
of Upper Canada, of which I have just spoken,
may be found in the important fact that the
best disposable lands are nearly exhausted—I
do not mean to say that they have lost their
fertility, but that they arc nearly all occupied.
We require no better proof of my assertion
than the report of the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands for 1862, from which
I ask permission to cite the following paragraph :—
It will be observed that the whole quantity of
land sold during the past year is less by 252,471
acres than in 1861. The falling off is equal to
about 38.5 per cent. The fact is significant, and
suggests enquiry as to the cause. It may, I think,
be attributed to the commercial and monetary derangements resulting from the civil
war in the
neighboring country; to the retarding influence
of that war upon immigration, and to the diminished means of purchasers within the
country by
reason of the generally deficient harvest of 1862.
Another cause may be mentioned, which, in an
official view, is more important than either of
these, because its influence is not accidental or
temporary. It is the fact that the best lands of
the Crown in both sections of the province have
already been sold. The quantity of really good
land now open for sale is, notwithstanding recent
surveys, much less than formerly, and is rapidly
diminishing. The new surveys in Upper Canada
have added, during the last five years, no less
than 2,808,172 acres to the land roll of the department. The addition during the same
period,
in Lower Canada, was 1,968,168 acres. Yet it
may be doubted if there are to-day as many acres
of wild land of the first quality at the disposal of
the department as there were in 1857. The clergy, school and Crown lands of the western
peninsula, the most desirable, both as to quality and
situation, of all the public lands of the province,
are mostly sold; the few lots that remain are generally of inferior quality. The new
townships
between the Ottawa and Lake Huron contain
much good land, but they are separated from the
settled townships on the St. Lawrence and north
shore of Lake Ontario by a rocky, barren tract,
which varies in width from ten to twenty miles,
and presents a serious obstruction to the influx of
settlers. Moreover, the good land in these new
townships is composed of small tracts, here and
there, separated from each other by rocky ridges,
swamps and lakes, which render difficult the construction of roads, and interrupt
the continuity
of settlement. These unfavorable circumstances
have induced the better class of settlers in Upper
Canada to seek, at the hands of private owners,
for lands of a better quality and more desirable
596
location, though the price and terms of sale are
more onerous than for the lands of the Crown.
I think that this official report contains a
statement of great importancc to Lower Canada, and which it is desirable should be
clearly demonstrated before we decide whether
we ought to change the present Constitution.
As the population of Upper Canada is no
longer sensibly increased by immigration, and
as the natural increase of the population of
Lower Canada is more rapid than that of
Upper Canada ; as the emigration of our
countrymen to the United States is ceasing,
and as the best lands in Upper Canada are
occupied, whilst the territory of Lower Canada is only just beginning to be opened
up
for settlement, I see no reason why we should
make such haste to give up the struggle we
have so successfully maintained up to the
present time, and, without any just reason,
grant representation by population. This is
what is said in the same report by the present Hon. Provincial Secretary, and his
words
agree exactly with my statements :—
In Lower Canada the sales in 1862 reached a
little more than double the quantity sold in Upper Canada. The discovery of copper
and other
minerals in the Eastern Townships and the opening of better means of communication
have
caused a considerable influx of population into
that part of Lower Canada, and a corresponding
increase in the demand for unsold public lands.
The new surveys on the southern slope of the
high lands which border the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal, have developed
a
very considerable quantity of good land, which is
being rapidly taken up.
And what is the consequence of this fact pointed out by the Hon. Commissioner of Crown
Lands ? It is that if the public lands are sold
only to settlers, so soon as it is established that
the quantity of lands sold in Lower Canada
is double that sold in Upper Canada, I am
justified in concluding that the extent cleared
is also double, and as a necessary consequence,
that the population must be increasing in the
same preportion. Thence I conclude that the
question of representation based upon population tends every day to its own solution.
Thus we have a man, who certainly cannot be
accused of partiality to Lower Canada, and
whose extensive knowledge no one will deny,
declaring officially that we are increasing in a
much greater proportion than Upper Canada.
And it is at the very moment that we are on
the point of turning the scale of victory, that
we are about to give way and cease from further effort. Our rising generations were
emi
grating to the United States a few years ago,
because we had no colonization roads to give
them access to the forests of Lower Canada, as
we have now ; and why had we them not ?
Because until quite recently, the Hon. Minister of the Department of the Crown Lands,
as
well as the Hon. Minister of the Department
of Agriculture and Emigration, were always
Upper Canadians. Upper Canada always understood the importance of those departments
as regards the material development of that
section of the province. Accordingly, all the
measures of improvement were in favor of the
western section, and all the immigration was
carefully directed thither. Now that we
have found out the results of that cleverly devised policy, the Lower Canadian party
are
more attentive to the colonization of our wild
lands, and we find the clergy and all our political and influential men seconding
their efforts.
We have colonization societies in every quarter,
and the result of their labors is the settlement
and occupation of our public lands as soon as
they are surveyed. Frequently we even see the
settlers getting ahead of the parties employed in
opening the roads through the forests. These
facts are important enough to deserve our
serious consideration, more especially as the
report of the Hon. Provincial Secretary confirms my statements in every particular.
The
Canadian families now in the United States
are glad to return among us to aid in developing the resources of our country, and
if the
Government, instead of making changes in
the Constitution, were to establish a vast
system of colonization, to draw hither our
fellow-countrymen from the United States, and
an immigration from Europe of those who
own a common origin with ourselves, we
should have no need to trouble ourselves
about the political changes now proposed to
us, of which the object is evidently to destroy
our influence in America. (Hear, hear. )
The intention of the Confederation scheme,
we are told by the Ministry, is the formation
of a vast Empire, bounded by the Pacific Ocean
on one side, on the other by the Atlantic
Ocean, and on the south by the American
Union, while on the north it would extend to
the Pole, leaving Russian America on the
west. No doubt the scheme is a grand one,
magnificent in conception, and likely to take
with the ambitious minds of the most aspiring
men in British North America. The opposition perfectly understands the noble object
of the promoters of the Confederation, which
it is proposed to establish on a monarchical
basis, in opposition to the American Union,
597
based on the democratic and republican principle; but the Opposition is also aware
that
this creation of an Empire presents difficulties
of an important character, not only because it
is starting into existence in opposition to the
neighboring powerful republic, which is essentially opossed to monarchical institutions,
but also
because the differences of nationality, religion
and sectional interests are so many stumbling
blocks with which the principal provisions of the
scheme of Confederation will come in contact.
It must not be believed that the Opposition
only oppose the scheme because they do not
understand its import. On the contrary
they do understand it, and see in it nothing
but provisions of a nature hostile to them.
At the present day, with sectional equality,
Canada constitutes but a single people, who
have tendencies and aspirations in common;
but under Confederation such will no longer
be the case; we shall have a minority opposed to a majority, the aggressive tendencies
of which have always manifested themselves
whenever the power of numbers was in their
favor. If the populations of all the provinces were homogeneous; if their interests,
their
ideas, their belief and their nationality were
identical, we might perhaps be more disposed
to accept the by no means judicious provisions
of the scheme which is submitted to us. But
as none of these are identical, we consider
that we should be in danger if we did accept
them. Formerly France possessed all this
part of the continent; the settlers of that
period, the farmers, fishermen, hunters and
trappers travelled over the whole extent
of those immense possessions which were
known by the name of New France. At
this moment what remains to her of a
territory that was equal in extent to Europe
itself? A wretched little island at the entrance of the Gulf, a foothold for her fisheries,
and a few acres of beach on the coast of Newfoundland. When we consider that fact,
when we see French power completely destroyed on this continent, are we not justified
in looking closely into the project of Constitution now submitted to us, which has
for its
object, I repeat, simply to complete the destruction of the influence of the French
race
on this continent ? Has not the past taught
us to dread the future? Yes, Mr. SPEAKER,
the policy of England has ever been aggressive,
and its object has always been to annihilate
us as a people. And this scheme of Confederation is but the continued application
of that
policy on this continent; its real object is
nothing but the annihilation of French influ
ence in Canada. If we examine history in
order to ascertain whether a precedent is to
be found for the course of action adopted
to-day, we shall derive a valuable lesson from
the experience of the past. There was a
period, after the conquest of England by the
Normans, when the French language was the
general and official language of that country,
but subsequently the conquerors were compelled to adopt the language of the vanquished.
The history of the Parliament of England
shows that up to 1425, every bill introduced
in the Legislature, without a single exception,
was in the French language. But at that
date the first English bill was presented to Parliament; and twenty-five years later,
in 1450,
the last French bill was presented in the
English Parliament. After that date we no
longer find a trace of the French language in
Parliament; twenty-five years had sufficed to
do away with it completely.. There is another historical fact connected with thc political
existence of a people, which it is right to
recall. We know how long Scotland and
Ireland resisted the encroachments of England
The struggle was protracted and obstinate-
But these two nations were compelled to succumb to political encroachment, under the
pressure of the powerful assimilating tendencies of the English nation. But let us
see what
means England used to attain her ends. Impartial history tells us, as it will tell
of the
means employed to-day to annihilate our race
on this continent. History records, in letters
of gold, the names of those who have bravely
struggled for the lives and liberties of nations,
but it also holds up to execration the memory
of those who barter those liberties and those
rights for titles, honor, power, or gold. We
now enjoy responsible government, dearly
earned by a century of heroic struggles, and
before yielding an inch of the ground we
have conquered, we should see what we are
likely to gain by the proposed constitutional
changes. Let us profit by the experience of
the countries we now see lamenting the loss of
their political rights resulting from constitutional changes similar to those now
proposed
to Lower Canada. I find the following with
reference to the union of Scotland with England in 1706 :—
Queen ANNE carried out, in l706, a project
vainly attempted by WILLIAM III., the union of
England and Scotland into a single kingdom, under the dominion of Great Britain. The
uncontrollable character of the Scotch, the mutual antipathy of the two people, and
the constantly recurring difficulties resulting from these principles,
598
rendered the measure highly useful at the same
time that they increased the obstacles.
Thus, it is clear that the antipathies between
the two races produced many obstacles to the
English project, and, in order to remove these
obstacles, England had recourse to means
precisely similar to those adopted here we
preparation for Confederation, namely, the
appointment of a conference of commissioners charged with the preparation of the Act
of Union. Says M. EMILE DE BONNECIIOSE:
These commissioners agreed on the general
question. but differences arose as regards the
manner in which the English proposed to constitute the new Parliament of the United
Kingdom,
and while the population of Scotland amounted to
a sixth of the population of England, they allowed that kingdom but forty-six members
in the
Commons, or a thirteenth of the total representation. Sixteen peers only, out of the
whole
peerage of Scotland, were to be chosen by election, to sit in the English House of
Lords. The
stringency of these latter clauses, by which the
people of Scotland felt themselves aggrieved, excited universal discontent ; it was
to be expected,
particularly at the outset, from a treaty of union
between the two nations, that there would be a
clashing of material interests prejudicial to the
welfare of very many persons, as occurs at the
outset in every important political connection.
The wounding of their national self-love would
of itself have been sufficient to render the people
of Scotland insensible to the remote advantages
of the compact, and all parties—Whigs and
Tories, Jacobites and Williamites, Presbyterians,
Episcopalians and Cameronians, combined to
defeat it.
Thus we have nearly the whole people
uniting to oppose the union it was sought to
impose upon them, and yet in face of the all
but unanimous opposition of the people of
Scotland, England succeeded in forcing them
into the union by the use of means she never
hesitates to adopt :—
The commissioners of the Government were
insulted by the populace, who destroyed the
dwellings of many state officials favorable to the
union, while they were loud in praise of the Duke
of HAMILTON, one of the chief opponents of the
measure. The Dukes of QUEENSBERRY and ARGYLE, Earls of MONTROSE STAIR, ROXBURCH
and MARCHMONT strove in vain to allay by
argument and reasoning, the explosion of patriotic
feeling and national fury, and what the best
arguments could not obtain was carried by corruption. A portion of the gold promised
by the
English Commissioners as a compensation for the
fresh burdens about to be imposed upon the sister
kingdom, was divided amongst their Scotch colleagues and many influential members
of the
Parliament sitting in Edinburgh; thenceforward
all obstacles were removed; the treaty of union.
which the Scotch people looked upon as an act of
suicide, and which the purest and best men would
not have sanctioned, received the assent of a venal
majority. In fine, that famous compact, which
was denounced as a dishonor to Scotland, which
that country looked upon as the yielding up of her
interests and her glory, and which was destined
to open for her, in subsequent times, an era of
unparalleled peace and prosperity, was signed on
the lst May, 1707, and was considered a great
triumph by the people of England, already at that
time intoxicated with joy at the success of their
arms on the continent.
There, Mr. SPEAKER, is an instance of the
manner in which the policy of England can
overcome even the most justifiable resistance,
supported by the unanimous wishes of a
people. Scotland lookcd upon a union with
England as an act of suicide, and yet the
union was carried by a majority in the
Parliament of Edinburgh. I need not dwell
at length upon these facts ; they speak
eloquently for themselves. (Hear, hear.)
There is another fact in the parliamentary
history of England, of which it is well to
remind the House—I mean the abolition of
the Irish Parliament. The Honorable
Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. MCGEE)
has told us, in that flowery language which
characterises the children of his native soil,
that he himself, when scarce twenty years
of age, struggled to emancipate his country
from the tyranny of England, and not succeeding in his noble undertaking, preferred
to exile himself to American soil rather than
remain to be a daily spectator of the misfortunes and sufferings of his native land.
And
yet, what is he now doing? He is trying, with
the help of a hostile majority, to thrust upon
Lower Canada, his adopted country, a union
which is repugnant to her, and to revive here
the system of oppression over which he wept
in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) Let us see what
the means were which were employed to
impose upon Ireland that union which was
destined to entail the wholesale exodus of
her population :—
In the case of Ireland; the contest was a longer
one, but England was ultimately triumphant.
After the crisis of 1798, (says M. GUSTAVE
DE BEAUMONT,) England, holding down rebellions
and vanquished Ireland, chastise her unrelentingly and pitilessly. Twenty years previously
Ireland again came into possession of her political
liberties; England preserved a bitter recollection of this success of Ireland, and
took advantage
of the depression ofthe latter to replace her under an absolute yoke. The Irish Parliament.
after
recovering its independence, became troublesome
599
to England; it was necessary, in order to master
it, to take great pains in corruption, in spite of
which great resistance on the part of the Irish
Parliament was met with; the opportunity was
favorable to suppress it, and in consequence the
English Government abolished it.
On the reception of this news, poor Ireland
was in an instant in agitation, just as a body
which has just been deprived of life stirs again
under the steel which mutilates and rends it. Of
thirty-two counties, twenty-one loudly exclaimed
aginst the destruction of the Irish Parliament.
That Parliament, from whom an act of suicide
had necessarily to be asked, refused to consummate it, and by its vote maintained
its constitutional existence.
Indignant at the servility which it was dared to
ask for from the body of which he formed part,
GRATTAN vehemently opposed the Ministerial
scheme. But all this resistance was in vain. The
only resistance which definitively opposed a
serious obstacle to the views of England, was
that of the Irish Parliament, which would not
vote its own abolition. Hitherto its acts had
been bought, and now its death was in like manner purchased. Corruption was at once
made
use of on an enormous scale; places, pensions
and favors of all kinds were lavished in every
direction, and the same men who, in 1799, rejected
the scheme of union, adopted it on the 26th May,
1800, by a majority of a hundred and eighteen
votes against seventy-three, and that majority
consisted of either state pensioners or public
functionaries. And so, through violence, aided
by corruption, was accomplished the destructive
act of the Irish Parliament, not without stirring
up in Ireland all that remained of national passion and feelings of patriotism.
Mr. SPEAKER, when we have such acts as
these from which to form an opinion of the
politics of England, it is reasonable that
those who have not the same reasons for
desiring constitutional changes as the hon.
members who sit on the Ministerial benches,
should, at least, have an opportunity of
carefully studying all the details of the
measure which is submitted to us. For my
part, I am satisfied with the present Constitution, and am ready to defend it against
every
enemy which may come forward to attack
our territory. But I am bound to declare
that if that Constitution is changed despite
the will of the peeple, we shall no longer
find among the Lower Canadians that impulse
for which they have always been distinguished in days gone by, and which enabled
them to vanquish a hostile force of double
their number. (Hear, hear.) There would
appear to have been no reason why the
antagonism between the English and French
races, to which I alluded as existing in
Europe, should have been carried into
America; and yet the strife was continued
in the New World, after it had arisen in the
old hemisphere. At the present day that
strife continues, and despite the protestations
of sincere friendship interchanged between
Paris and London, we see France and
England continually facing each other,
sword in hand, feeling for each other that
respect which mutual fear alone can inspire.
And could it be expected that those feelings
of rivalry and antagonism which have always
existed, and which still exist at the present
day, between the two races, would be effaced
from among their Canadian descendants, that
we may be fused into one nation? It is an
impossibility! Do what you may, the same
feelings will always exist. They are blameable, perhaps, but the fact remains—they
exist, and form part of the very nature of
the two races. The language, the religion,
the institutions and the customs of a people
are so many obstacles to its union with
another people, whose language, religion,
institutions and customs are different from
theirs. And is it supposed that these feelings of rivalry and these causes of estrangement
will be removed on the adoption of the
scheme of Confederation which is proposed
to us? For my part, I would wish in
Canada to see the two nationalities rival
each other in progress in the useful
works of peace. This rivalry, not of strife
hand to hand, but a rivalry in the laudable
ambition which has for its object the realizing of the greatest prosperity known,
the
attaining of the highest excellence in the
sciences, and of the most profound secrets
of art, would confer upon our country a
degree of power equal to what has resulted
from the combined strength of England and
France, which has, up to the present, been
employed to impel the world towards the
prodigies which have been realized in the
nineteenth century. With equality of
numbers, and of sectional representation,
the two nationalities cannot fall foul of each
other; but with Confederation, as we shall
be in a great minority in the General Parliament, which has all the important powers
in relation to legislation, we shall have to
carry on a constant contest for the defence
and preservation of our political rights and
of our liberty. Under the union the French
Canadians are divided in this House into
two camps, opposed the one to the other,
because they have nothing to fear in regard
to their national interests; but under Confederation, as we shall have but forty-eight
600
French members against one hundred and
forty-six in the Federal Legislature, those
members will have to go together like one
man to maintain their influence, and the
simple fact of that union of the French-
Canadians into a solid phalanx will cause
the English element to unite on its side to
crush and vanquish it. It is because I fear
such a strife that I cannot approve of a
Constitution which does not secure our
political rights, and the working of which
will necessarily entail disastrous consequences
to our race. (Hear, hear.) The strife
of nationalities which has been too long
maintained in Europe appeared to have no
cause of existence in America. It appeared
that there was on this continent room enough
and prospects enough to allow everybody,
of all principles and of all nationalities, to
live in peace upon it, without jostling and
falling foul of each other. It appeared that
those who had emigrated from the old world
should have at heart the formation of powerful nations on this continent, without
introducing the religious and national hatred
which had for so long a time divided Europe,
and deluged her in blood. And yet what
do we see here? We have seen France,
who first of all despatched the apostles of
Christianity into the vast solitudes of North
America—France, who first planted her
noble flag on the Island of Montreal and the
heights of Quebec—we have seen France
deprived of the last inch of the soil which she
had conquered on this continent, bequeathing to her children, abandoned in Canada,
but a future of struggles and contests against
the encroaching spirit of her powerful rival.
(Hear, hear.) From the commencement of
the French domination in America, we have
seen reproduced here the strifes which
divided the European continent. Towns
and villages were destroyed as though there
was not room enough in this new world for
the few handsfuls of men who came to inhabit it. The first scene of this inexcusable
description occurred in Acadia, in 1613.
GARNEAU makes the following remarks on
this subject:—
In 1612 LA SAUSSAYE began, on the left bank
of the Penobscot river, a settlement which he
called St. Sauveur. All went well at first, and
flattering hopes were entertained at once of success beyond all expectation, when
an unlooked for
storm burst over the colony and stifled it in its
cradle.
England claimed the country as far as the 45th
degree of north latitude—that is to say, all the
continent to the northward as far as the heart of
Acadia. France, on the other hand, maintained
that her boundary ran southward as far as the
40th degree. From this dispute it resulted that,
while LA SAUSSAYE thought himself within the
boundary of New France at St. Sauveur, the English declared that he was deep in their
territory.
To maintain the claim, Captain ARGALL of Virginia resolved to go and dislodge him,
incited by the
hope of obtaining a rich booty, and by his prejudices against Catholics, who had been
the cause of
the ruin of POUTRINCOURT.
Thus in 1612, in other words only two or
three years after the founding of Quebec, we
already find religious and national strife
beginning their work of exclusiveness on our
continent, and that strife we shall again have
to engage in, disagreeable as it may be. I
proceed :—
He appeared suddenly before St. Sauveur with
a vessel mounting 14 guns, and spread dismay
among the defenceless inhabitants, who took him
at first for a pirate. Father GILBERT DU THET
vainly endeavored to offer a slight resistance; he
was killed, and the settlement given up to pillage.
Everything was carried off or sacked, ARGALL
himself setting the example.
To legalize this act of piracy (for such it was),
he stole LA SAUSSAYE'S commission, and pretended
to look upon him and his people as unaccredited
adventurers. Gradually, however, he seemed to
soften, and proposed to those who had trades to
follow him to Jamestown, from whence, after
having worked for one year, they should be sent
back to their native land. The offer was accepted
by a dozen of them. The remainder, with LA
SAUSSAYE and Father MASSE, preferred to risk
themselves in a frail vessel with the object of
reaching La Hève, where they found a vessel of
St. Malo, which conveyed them to France.
Those who trusted to ARGALL'S word were
greatly surprised, on their arrival at Jamestown,
to find that they were thrown into prison and
treated as pirates. In vain they claimed the fulfilment of the treaty which they had
made with
him; they were condemned to death. ARGALL,
who had not supposed that the abstraction of LA
SAUSSAYE'S commission would have such serious
results, did not think that he ought to carry dissimulation any further, and gave
up the commission
to the Governor, Sir THOMAS DALE, and confessed
all. That document, and information which was
obtained in the course of the enquiry into the
matter, caused the government of Virginia to
resolve to drive the French from all the places
occupied by them to the south of the line 45. A
squadron of three vessels was placed under the
command of the same man, ARGALL, in order to
put that resolution in execution.
The fleet began by destroying all that remained
of the old habitation of Ste. Croix—a useless vengeance, as it had been abandoned
for several
years; its course was then directed towards Port
601
Royal, where nobody was found (all the people
being in the fields, two leagues away), and in less
than two hours all the houses, together with the
fort, were reduced to ashes.
Well, Mr. SPEAKER, this scene of devastation
and vandalism on our continent, which at
that period contained hardly a thousand
white inhabitants, gives the clue to all the
events which followed from that date up to
the conquest of Canada by the English.
This fact is a corroboration of the principle
that provides that the stronger nation shall
oppress the weaker. unless by special circumstances the one is protected against the
other.
This is the proof that the sectional equality
secured by the system of government which
we now possess has alone been effective in
Canada to enable different nationalities to
live together on terms of equality, and to
labor successfully for the advancement of
the common prosperity. (Hear, hear.) But
the strife which began in 1613, between
France and England, became more deadly
after a century and a half of occupation ; it
spread along the whole frontier of New
France. At the instigation of the rival race,
Indian tribes fell upon all the French settlements in the country, and an incessant
and
vindictive war was kept up with the sole
object of driving the French off the continent. We know at the present day what
the result of that contest was. We are told
that we have no reason to complain of the
system of government which we now have.
That is true. But if we have that government
it is because, ever since the conquest, the
remnant of the French nation which remained in the land have striven bravely to
obtain it. Had it not been for the American
revolution, we too would have had our large
share of suffering and humiliation, similar
to that which the Acadians were made to
undergo. The treatment to which they were
subjected by England is an example of what
might have happened to us, but for our
number, and, subsequently, but for the vicinity to us of the American Republic. There
was in Acadia a nucleus of French people,
who lived peaceably and happily, and who
had submitted to English domination without a murmur ; and yet, because they were
weak and had no longer the arm of France
to protect them, they were transported, like
negroes on the coast of Africa, by philanthropic England. This is an important
historical fact which must not be forgotten,
and the details of which it is well to set before
the eyes of our population, at a time when the
English element is pursuing, with a persistence
worthy of a better cause, the aggressive and
encroaching policy concealed under the
scheme of Confederation which is submitted
to us. The hon. member for South Lanark
(Mr. MORRIS) told us the other day that we
ought to thank England, and be most grateful to her for the system of government
which we received from her. But to whom
do we owe that system? Do we owe it to
the liberality of England? Did we not
obtain our political rights only at the time
when she could no longer refuse them to us
with safety ? No, Mr. SPEAKER, our gratitude and our thanks are only due to those
fellow-countrymen of ours who at all times
bravely strove to obtain them. When we
see French colonies which still groan under
the English colonial system, and which
complain to Europe of the treatment to
which they are subjected, the conclusion
must be come to that we owe nothing to
England, but that on the contrary we owe
all to those who, after an age of strife,
obtained for us that governmental reform
which we enjoy. In order that our people
may form a correct opinion of that liberality
which is so highly vaunted to us, allow me
here, Mr. SPEAKER, to quote a few pages of
the history of the Acadian people :—
The war of 1774 began their misfortunes; that
of the seven years completed its total ruin. For
some time the English agents acted with the
greatest severity; the courts, by the most flagrant
violation of the law, by systematic denial of
justice, had become to the poor inhabitants an
object at once of terror and of hatred. The most
subordinate official insisted on obedience to his
will. "If you do not suppy wood to my troops,"
said a certain Captain MURRAY, "I will tear
down your houses and use them for fuel." "If
you will not take the oath of fidelity," added
Governor HOPSON, "I will turn my cannon
against your villages." Nothing could induce
these honorable men to do an act against which
their consciences exclaimed, and which, in
the opinion of many people, England had no
right to demand from them. "The Acadians,"
observes Mr. HALIBURTON, "were not British
subjects, as they had not taken the oath
of allegiance, and they could not, therefore,
be considered rebels; nor were they to be
looked upon as prisoners of war, nor to be
sent to France, as for nearly half a century they
had been allowed to retain their possessions, on
the simple condition of remaining neutral." But
many schemers and adventurers looked at their
fine farms with an envious eye. What fine inheritances, and, consequently, what a
bait! It was
not difficult for them to find political reasons to
justify the expulsion of the Acadians. By far the
602
greater number had committed no act whatever
inconsistent with neutrality; but, in the great
catastrophe which was impending, the innocent
were to be placed in the same category with the
guilty. Not one inhabitant had been deserving of
mercy. Their fate was decided in Governor
LAWRENCE'S Council, at which were present Admirals BOSCAWEN and MOSTYN, whose fleets
were
cruising on the coast. It was resolved to disperse through the English colonies the
remnant
of this unfortunate people; and in order that
none might escape, the most profound secrecy
was enjoined up to the moment fixed for the removal, which was to take place on the
same day
and at the same hour in all parts of Acadia at
once. It was decided also, in order to make the
success more complete, to bring together the inhabitants of the principal places.
Proclamations,
prepared with perfidious skill, invited them to
meet in certain places under the most severe
penalties. Four hundred and eighteen heads of
families, relying on the British faith, so assembled
on the 5th of September in the Church of Grand-
Pré. Colonel WINSLOW went thither with a large
attendance. There he showed them the commission which he held from the Governor, and
informed them that they had been called together
to hear the final decision of the King with respect
to them. He declared to them that, although the
duty which he had to perform was a most painful
one to him, he was compelled, in obedience to
his orders, to inform them "that their lands and
their cattle, of all kinds, were confiscated to the
Crown, together with all their other property, except their money and their clothing,
and that they
themselves were to be deported from the province." No motive was assigned for this
decision,
and none could be assigned. In full civilization
and in a time of political and religious quiet, such
an act of spoliation was inexcusable, and, like
the usurer, had to conceal its criminality by
silence. A body of troops which had been kept
concealed up to that point, emerged from their
ambush and surrounded the church. The inhabitants, taken by surprise and unarmed,
offered
no resistance. The soldiers collected the women
and children; 1,023 men, women and children
were collected at Grand-Pré alone. Their cattle
consisted of 1,269 oxen, 1,557 cows, 5,007 calves,
493 horses, 3,690 sheep, and 4,197 swine. A few
Acadians having escaped into the woods, the
country was devastated to prevent their obtaining
subsistence. At Les Mines, 276 barns, 155 other
small buildings, 12 mills and one church were
burned. Those who had rendered the greatest
services to the Government, such as the old notary LE BLANC, who died at Philadelphia
of grief
and misery, while seeking his sons scattered
through the English provinces, were no better
treated than those who had favored the French.
No distinction was made. The men included in
both classes were allowed, and it was the only
consolation allowed them, before their embarkation to visit, in parties of ten, their
families, and
to gaze for the last time on that country which
was once so calm and happy, in which they were
born, and which they were never to see again. The
10th was the day fixed for their embarkation. A
calm resignation had succeeded to their first despair. But when the time came for
them to bid a last
adieu to their country, to go and live dispersed in
the midst of a people foreign in language, in customs, in manners and in religion,
the courage of
these unfortunate people gave way, and they gave
themselves up to the most profound grief. ln
violation of the promise which had been made
them, and by an unexampled refinement of barbarity, families were separated and dispersed
throughout different vessels. In order to put
them on board, the prisoners were arranged in
sixes, with the young people in front. These
having refused to march, and having claimed the
fulfilment of the promise made them, that they
should be put on board with their relatives, they
were replied to by the advance of soldiers with
their bayonets crossed. The road from the Grand-
Pré chapel to the river Gaspereaux was a mile in
length; it was lined on both sides by women and
children, who, on their knees and bathed in tears,
encouraged them by calling down blessings on
their heads. The sad procession moved slowly
along, praying, and singing hymns. The heads
of families walked after the youth; at last
the procession reached the shore, the men were
put into some vessels and the women and children
into others, pell-mell, without any regard whatever for their comfort. Governments
have committed acts of cruelty under the impulse of
unreflecting anger. but they had been provoked
and irritated by aggression and repeated attacks.
There is no example in modern days of chastisement inflicted on a peacable and inoffensive
people
with so much premeditation, barbarity and coolness as that to which allusion is now
being made.
On the same day and at the same hour, all the
other Acadian settlements presented the same
spectacle of desolation. The vessels, laden with
the numerous victims, sailed for the different
provinces where they were to be dispersed. They
were thrust ashore on the coast between Boston
and Carolina, without bread and without protection, and were left to the charity of
the inhabitants
of the country in which they might happen to be.
For many days after their departure, their
cattle might be seen collecting around the ruins
of their dwellings, and their dogs passed the nights
in pitiful howlings at the absence of their masters.
Happy even in their grief, they did not know to
what extremes avarice and ambition can impel
mankind.
Well, Mr. SPEAKER, these are facts which
it is important to remember. Here is a
French colony, situated a few hundred
leagues from Canada, deported in a body,
and the remnant of which long after returned to the same territory. Still more, it
is
with the descendents of a small part of these
exiles that it is now proposed to unite us.
But a few months ago, I went among those
people, and when I saw the magnificent
603
properties of which they had been so brutally despoiled, in order that they might
be
conferred upon their executioners, in spite
of myself, I remembered their moving history, and that sight, I must say, did not
tend to induce me to accept the scheme of
Confederation without carefully considering
all its details. I repeat, Mr. SPEAKER,
these are facts which must not be forgotten.
(Laughter, and whispering on the right.)
To see the manner, Mr. SPEAKER, in which
certain members of this House receive the
account contained in one of the saddest
pages of the history of New France, one
would really believe that the facts which I
have cited never occurred, and do not convey any instruction for the future. However,
I am not surprised at such conduct on their
part, when they can approve of a plan of a
Constitution which contains a cause by
which the Imperial Government is enabled
even to change our name of Canadians to give
us any one they may think proper. The
recollection of our struggles cannot be very
vivid in their memory, and the love of their
nationality must be very weakly rooted in
their hearts, to allow of their consenting to
lose, with the name of Canadians, the
memory of an heroic past. (Hear, hear.)
Under Confederation, Canada will be no longer
a country possessing a distinct individuality,
and her own history and customs, but she
will be a state in the Confederacy, the general name of which will cause the special
name of each province of which it is composed to disappear. Look at the states of
the American Union; the name of the
_United States does away with that of the
individual states. So with Canada; the
name of the Confederacy will be that by
which we shall be known in foreign lands.
For my part, I am proud of our history and
of my designation of Canadian, and I wish
to keep it. I am not one of those who can
listen without interest to the recital of the
heroic struggles of the French race in
America, as the hon. member for Rouville
(Mr. POULIN) can do; for I am of opinion
that considerations of nationality, of family,
of language, and of origin ought to be most
dear to a people, although they would appear
to possess no importance or interest whatever
in the eyes of the hon. member. (Hear,
hear.)
[It being six o'clock, the House rose, to
resume at half-past seven, P.M. At that hour
Mr. PERRAULT continued.]
Mr. SPEAKER, at the time when I broke
off in my observations in consequence of the
adjournment at six o'clock, I was engaged in
shewing what was the spirit of antagonism
and strife which prevailed on the American
continent up to 1755. We saw Acadia
made a prey to the attacks of New England,
and lastly, we saw her population dispersed
over the inhospitable shores of this continent
which border on the Atlantic ocean. New
France had thus lost the greater part of her
territory in America. The seven years'
war advanced with the strides of a giant,
and every day saw the French element confined within narrower boundaries. After a
prolonged contest, during which handfuls of
men struggled with armies of ten times their
number, when they were without bread, without munitions of war and almost without
hope,
the battle of the Plains of Abraham struck the
last blow to the French power in America.
In the following year the battle of Ste. Foye,
which took place on the 28th April, 1760,
soon compelled the Canadians to capitulate,
although they were the victors in that battle,
and the English were compelled to take
shelter behind the walls of Quebec. In the
treaty of capitulation, England guaranteed to
the French-Canadians the free exercise of
their form of worship, the preservation of
their institutions, the use of their language
and the maintenance of their laws. After
this struggle on the field of honor, which
called down upon the French-Canadians a
most magnificent tribute of praise from their
Governor, we shall find them engaged in a
new struggle, a political struggle, yet more
glorious than that which had preceded the
cession of Canada to England. But permit
me here, Mr. SPEAKER, to quote the eulogium pronounced on the Canadians by Governor
VAUDREUIL in a letter which he wrote
to the ministers of LOUIS XIV. :—" With
this beautiful and extensive country France
loses 70,000 souls, who are of a nature so seldom found, that never yet were people
so docile,
so brave, and so attached to their prince."
These qualities, for which the French-Canadians were distinguished at that period,
still
exist in the hearts of the population at the
present day. At the present day still they
are loyal, brave and attached to monarchical
institutions; they love firmly-established
institutions, and the guarantees of peace
accorded by a great power, and the struggles
through which they have had to pass under
English domination have been the best proofs
of their loyalty. If we study the history of
our struggles since the cession of Canada, we
604
shall find that our public men were always
attached to the Crown of England up to the
time when they were compelled by the arbitrary and unjust conduct of the Imperial
Government to have recourse to arms to obtain respect for our political rights and
our
liberties; and it was thus in 1837 that we
gained responsible government. (Hear,
hear.) But in order to hold up to view the
spirit of aggression and encroachment which
has always characterised the English population in America, I shall give an historical
sketch of the struggles through which we
had to pass, in the course of a century, to
attain at last our present Constitution, which
it is my wish to preserve, but which our
Ministers wish to destroy in order to
substitute for it the scheme of Confederation.
This historical sketch will demonstrate to us
that we owe no gratitude to England for
those political reforms which were obtained
for us only through the unyielding patriotism of our great men, who, with intelligence,
energy and perseverance, valiantly strove
for the constant defence of our rights. We
shall also see that, if they obtained the
system of government and the political
liberty for which they struggled, it was because we had for our neighbors the states
of
the American Union, and that side by side
with the evil was its remedy. We shall see
that whenever England stood in need of us
to defend her power, she made concessions
to us; but that when the danger was once
over, colonial fanaticism always attempted to
withdraw those concessions and to destroy
the influence and the liberties of the French
race. Each page of the parliamentary history of our country offers a fresh proof of
this. But we then had men who knew how
to struggle for a noble cause, and who did
not shrink from the danger which that
struggle entailed. I hope, Mr. SPEAKER, that
we have still some of those men without
fear and without reproach in Lower Canada;
I hope the present Ministry are sincere at
the moment when they are giving up the
guarantees of the existing Constitution. If
they can arrive at a happy conclusion with
their scheme of Confederation, I shall be
the first to congratulate them, and posterity
will thank them for having had the hardihood to propose so vast a scheme. But I
must say that there are men as intelligent
and as devoted to the dearest interests of
our country as the hon. gentlemen who are
sitting on the Ministerial benches, who are
convinced that this scheme, far from being
a remedy for existing difficulties, is but a
new engine prepared by our natural adversaries more easily to destroy the influence
of the French race in America, an influence
for the preservation of which we have had
to fight step by step ever since the commencement of English domination in Canada.
(Hear, hear.) The first political struggle
between the French and the English elements in the country occurred only a few
years after the treaty of capitulation had
been signed. The general then commanding in Canada established a system of military
government. There may have been
ground for such a system after so long and
bloody a war as that which was just over,
and which had left behind it so much
legitimate animosity in the hearts of the
conqueror and the conquered. However,
the treaty of capitulation declared that the
Canadians should be " subjects of the king,"
and as such they were entitled to representative government. The faith of treaty was
therefore violated from the commencement
of the English domination in Canada, and as
I shall have the honor of shewing, this was
but the first link in the long chain of arbitrary acts to which we have been subjected
since that period. The following, Mr.
SPEAKER, is the first aggressive act that I
shall cite in support of my statement :—
In 1764 General MURRAY, in accordance with
his instructions, formed a new council, uniting the
executive, legislative and judicial power, and
composed of the lieutenant-governors of Montreal and Three Rivers, the chief justice,
the inspector of customs, and eight influential persons.
But one obscure man of the country was taken to
make up the number.
This was the first act that had to be complained of.—
It was proposed to take possession of the
bishoprie of Quebec, together with the property
attached to it, and to confer it on the Bishop of
London, and to grant to the Catholics only limited
toleration, to exact from them the oath of allegiance, and to declare them incapable,
as Catholics,
of holding any public office. Justice was administered by men ignorant of the laws
of the country,
and in a language with which the Canadians were
unacquainted.
It is unnecessary to make any lengthened
comments on the entirely unjust manner in
which the Canadians were thus treated, and
on the flagrant violations of the conditions
of the treaty of capitulation of Montreal.
605
But we shall soon see that the fear of impending danger was alone effective to obtain
for us political liberty, for at that time the
French element alone could sustain the
English power in America :—
The English partisans assembled at Quebec in
October, 1773, to prepare an address with the
view of obtaining a House of Assembly.
And this was the reply made to them by the
Imperial Government through one of the
Ministry :—
As to an Assembly of Protestants only, I see
no objection to the establishment of one; but the
danger of disobliging the Catholics of the Province, who are so much superior in number.
This was the sole consideration which was
effective to prevent the carrying out of the
proposition of 1773, to establish a Canadian
House of Assembly composed of Protestants
only, and yet out of a population of 80,000
souls, 500 families only were at the time
English and Protestants. What greater injustice could be done us? But the English
element made yet other propositions to the
Imperial Government :—
Six different suggestions were made in relation
to the new forms of government which it was
wished to introduce: 1st—The establishment of
a House of Assembly composed exclusively of
Protestants, as the English understood the proclamation of the month of October, 1873,
to provide, was asked for. 2nd—An Assembly composed of equal numbers of Catholics
and Protestants. 3rd —An Assembly composed almost
entirely of Protestants, with a limited number of
Catholics. 4th—To delegate to the Governor
and his council sufficient power to control the
province by increasing the number of the members
who should be all Protestants; or, 5th—Protestants and Catholics. 6th—Or again, Protestants
with a restricted and limited number of Catholics.
Thus, from the very first attempt made to
give to French Canada a political organization, we find the most shameless exclusiveness
forming the basis of the propositions
suggested. There were hardly 3,000 English colonists against 75,000 French, and
already we were denied any representation
in the Governor's Council, there to set forth
the requirements of the country and to
watch over the defence of our rights.—
The Cursitor Baron (MASERES) prepared a bill
by which he suggested the raising of the number
of the members of the Council to thirty-one; that
the latter should be independent of the governor,
instead of being subject to suspension; that the
quorum should fixed at seventeen; and further
that it should not have the power of imposing
taxes; that it should be appointed for seven
years, and should be composed of Protestants;
provisions which were calculated to exclude from
the management of affairs and from office the
French and Catholic element.
Always exclusion of Catholics, and consequently of the French element. But what
resulted? Did the French remain unmoved
in view of the danger which was impending
over them? No! On the receipt of the
news they signed petitions, and obtained
from England the justice which was refused
to them here :—
Our unfortunate ancestors, however, did not
remain idle under the threats and injustice of
their adversaries—the colonies were possessed of
men capable of judging and of foreseeing events.
Petitions were prepared and signed, in the month
of December, 1773, of which the tenor was as
follows: "In the year 1764 Your Majesty was
pleased to terminate the military government in
this colony and to introduce civil government
into it, and from the date of those changes we
began to be aware of the inconveniences resulting
from the British laws, which up to that time had
been unknown to us. Our old citizens who had,
without cost, settled our difficulties, were thanked;
that militia, which considered it glorious to bear
that great name, was suppressed. We were,
indeed, allowed the right of being jurors, but at
the same time we were shewn that there were
obstacles to our holding office. The introduction
of the laws of England was talked of—laws which
are infinitely wise and useful for the Mother
Country, but which could not be made to coincide
with our customs without overturning our fortunes
and entirely destroying our possessions.
Deign, illustrious and gracious Sovereign, to
remove these fears by granting us our ancient
laws, privileges and customs, with the limits of
Canada such as they used to be.
Deign to distribute equally your benefits to all
your subjects, without distinction
And to grant us in common with the rest, the
rights and privileges of English citizens: then
we shall be always ready to sacrifice
them for the glory of our prince and the well-
being of our country."
And such has always been the sentiment of
the French population in America; it has
always been loyal to authority, from the
moment of obtaining that protection to which
it was entitled. In view of the difficult
position in which England was placed, the
requests of the Canadians having been
favorably received, constituted the basis of
the Act of 1774. Circumstances were indeed
difficult. The policy of the Mother Country
had alienated her subjects in New England.
The idea of taxing the colonies to provide
606
for the requirements of the Imperial Treasury had given rise to deep indignation on
this side of the Atlantic. And that ill-
advised colonial policy it was that lost to
England her American colonies. Taught
by this revolt, England perceived that she
must grant greater political liberties to her
French colonists in Canada. They would
not withdraw themselves from English domination ; on the contrary, they wished to
remain under her flag, for they feared being
drawn into the neighboring republic, the
future greatness of which was not at the
time foreseen. Impelled by the dread of
losing what possessions remained to her in
America, England had to yield the concessions which Canada asked for from her at a
time when the war of independence called
for the cooperation of the French element.
GARNEAU says :—
When war with the English colonies in America
was apprehended, prejudice was overcome in
order to make the Canadians favorably disposed,
by granting them the Act of 1774, known as the
"Act of Quebec." This imperial statute, establishing a Legislative Council, entrusted,
together
with the Governor, with the duty of making laws,
again guaranteed to us the free exercise of our
religion, maintained our laws and our customs,
and released the Catholics from the necessity, in
order to become members of the Council , of
taking an oath contrary to their religion.
This was what the war of the independence
of the United States was worth to us. England saw that if she dissatisfied the Canadians
there would be an end to her power in
America, and then only did she grant to
French Canada the Quebec Act, which
was a step towards the obtaining of greater
liberties. The other day, the Hon. Attorney
General for Lower Canada read us several
passages from our history, to prove to us
that French-Canadian hands had alone prevented the annihilation of English domination
on this continent. But he did not
draw all the conclusions which he might
have derived from the premises which he
adduced, and the facts which he cited. He
ought to have told us whether, in the face
of those services valiantly rendered, it is
just that the English element, supported by
its number, should to-day impose upon us
representation based on population; ought
the English element, by this aggressive
measure to shake our loyalty to England
by creating a system of government which
is repugnant to us, and in which the French
element will lose its just share of influence
in the administration of the affairs of our
country? At this period it was that an
address was sent to the Canadians by the
American Congress, calling upon them to
unite with them in the insurrection against
the Mother Country:—"Seize," said the
Congress, " seize the opportunity which
Providence itself affords you; if you act
in such way as to preserve your liberty,
you will be effectually free." Mr. SPEAKER,
everyone knows the reply made by the
Canadians to this appeal. Armies invaded
our territory, and took possession of a
part of the country. Quebec alone held
out, thanks to a garrison composed in part
of French-Canadians. And if we are now
sheltered beneath the folds of the British
flag, it is to French-Canadians that we owe
it, and it is them that England ought to thank.
But if it is proposed now to thrust upon us a
political system, the sole object of which is
to submerge us in a hostile majority, we have
to thank the English for it—the English for
whom our fathers saved the country in 1775.
After the defeat of the Americans before
Quebec, Congress did not lose courage. A
second manifesto was despatched to Canada,
promising fresh reinforcements; eminent
men even came into the country; FRANKLIN,
CHASE and CARROLL in vain solicited the
Canadians to unite with them. Dr. CARROLL,
who died in 1815 Bishop of Baltimore, was
sent among the Canadian clergy with no better success, and all hope of obtaining possession
of this important colony had at last to
be relinquished. These facts necessarily
tended to enlighten public opinion, and England perceived that it would be better
for her
to comply with the just demands of the
Canadian people, in order that reliance
might be placed upon them in the day of
danger, and that they might be used as a
rampart against the United States. Then it
was that a more liberal Constitution was
granted to us, that of 1791 :—
PITT, taught by the former faults of England
in the administration of the United States, and by
the great example of his father, Lord CHATHAM,
presented to the House of Commons a bill for
granting to Canada a new Constitution, sanction—
ing the elective principle and dividing the colony
into two distinct provinces, Upper and Lower
Canada. The bill, after undergoing some amendments (one of which was to increase the
representation from thirty to fifty members). passed on
a division in both Houses. The celebrated statesman BURKE, when giving in his assent
to the bill,
607
said: "To attempt to unite people who differ in
language, in laws and in manners, is very absurd.
To do so is to sow the seeds of discord, a thing
most undoubtedly fatal to the establishment of a
new government. Let their Constitution be
adapted to their nature, the only solid basis of
every government." The no less celebrated
leader of the Whig party, Fox, opposed to the
division of the provinces, spoke to obtain an elective Legislative Council for Canada.
"With such
a colony as this," observed that orator, "which
is susceptible of progress, it is important that no
ground should be given her to envy her neighbors.
Canada ought to remain attached to Great Britain by the choice of her inhabitants;
it cannot
be preserved in any other way. But that this
may be so, the inhabitants must feel that their
situation is not worse than that of the Americans."
This Constitution of 1791 was a great concession to Lower Canada. At last it had an
elective chamber, in which the people might
express their views, and through which they
could convey their wishes to the foot of the
Throne. And also at once was seen a generation of eminent men, of whom history will
honorably preserve the sainted names, representing the interests which were entrusted
to them with wonderful skill and most
uncommon success :—
The elections were fixed for the month of July,
and the meeting of the Houses for the month of
December. Of the fifty members elected sixteen
were English, notwithstanding the constant opposition which these latter had displayed
to French-
Canadian interests.
Thus on the organizing of the first elective
chamber, and in spite of all the opposition
which the French-Canadian party had met
with from the English party, we find sixteen
English members elected in great part by
the votes of individuals of our nationality.
In this House, some days since, we heard
Upper Canadian members, praising our
liberality, and acknowledging that never had
national or religious fanaticism been displayed by us. That is true ; we are essentially
liberal and tolerant, and a sufficient proof of
it, is given in the most striking manner, by
the number of members of this House who,
although of religion and origin differing from
ours, yet represent counties in great part or
exclusively French and Catholic. This is a
subject of pride for us. Unfortunately we
have no return in kind made to us, and we
do not meet with the like liberality from the
English population. Whenever it is in a
majority, it closes to us the door of honors
and of office; it excludes us everywhere,
where it is powerful enough to do so. From
the very first Parliament of Lower Canada,
the English, although in an insignificant
minority, endeavored to proscribe the use of
the French language, and from that day
began between the two races the same contests of which we are to-day witnesses. We
are told that times have changed; it is true,
but if the attempts at oppression are less
barefaced, if they are concealed under an
exterior better calculated to deceive us, it is
only because we are more numerous now
than we were then, and that greater dread
than ever is entertained of the vicinity of
the American Union, in which, now more
than ever, it would be easy for our population
to find a powerful remedy for the evils of
which it might have to complain. But let
us see, Mr. SPEAKER, what occurred at the
opening of our first House of Assembly. I
quote an author who has always supported
the party of the Honorable Attorney General
East :—
Parliament opened on the 17th December, in
the Episcopal Palace, which had been occupied
by the Government since the conquest. A Speaker
had to be chosen, and Mr. J. PANET was proposed.
Then it was that the English members were
found to renew their attempts to obtain the supremacy and to slight the interests
of those by whom
they had been elected. Without the least delicacy
and in spite of their being in a minority, they
proposed in opposition to Mr. PANET, Messrs.
GRANT, McGILL and JORDAN. Mr. PANET'S election was carried by a majority of 28 to
18, two
Canadians having voted against him. The hatred
which the English party bore to the name of
Canadian manifested itself again when a proposition was made that the minutes of the
proceedings
of the House should be prepared in both languages. A lively and animated debate arose
between the two opposite parties, and this very
reasonable demand was treated as a species of
rebellion against the Mother Country. The
French members were accused of insubordination;
the motives which induced the act seemed to be
misunderstood, and attempts were even made to
intimidate them; but it was in vain. The unassailable arguments upon which the Canadians
rested their claim, and their words, like their eloquence, bearing the stamp of dignity,
finally
triumphed over the attacks of their fanatical opponents.
Thus the French element demanded the
preparation of the proceedings of the House
in its own language, but we find that the
English element opposed it with all the
power at its command. This was regarded
as rebellion against the Mother Country! It
can hardly be believed. Here was a legislative body almost entirely French in its
com
608
position, and at the very first sitting the few
English members which it contained, after
having attempted to force on the very great
majority a Speaker of their own origin, subsequently refused to nine-tenths of the
population of the country the imprescriptible
right to their language as the official language. But they were counting without
taking into consideration the resolute firmness of which the Canadians of old so often
gave proof in the defence of their rights;
and I can convey to the honorable members
of this House no higher opinion of the lofty
sentiments of these great patriots of the
olden time, than by quoting the remarks made by one of the members, Mr.
DELOTBINIÈRE, during the debate in question:—
The second reason, which is to assimilate and
attach more promptly the Canadian race to the
Mother Country, ought to set aside every other
consideration, if we were not certain of the fidelity
of the people of this province; but let us do justice to their conduct at all times,
and especially
let us remember the year 1775. These Canadians,
who spoke nothing but French, showed their attachment to their sovereign in a manner
which
admitted of no doubt being cast upon it. They
assisted in the defence of the province. This
city, these walls, this very House in which I have
the honor to raise my voice, were, in part, saved
by their zeal and their courage. We saw them
unite with the faithful subjects of His Majesty
and repulse the attacks made by people who
spoke very good English, upon this town. It is
not uniformity of language, therefore, Mr.
SPEAKER, that makes people more faithful or more
united among themselves. To convince ourselves
of this, let us glance at France at this moment
and at all the kingdoms of Europe. No, I repeat, it is not uniformity of language
that maintains and ensures the fidelity of a people; it is
the certainty of its present good fortune, and of
this our people are at present perfectly convinced.
They know that they have a good king— the
best of kings. They know that they are under a
just and liberal government; and, lastly, they
know that a change or a revolution would entail
certain loss upon them, and they will ever be
prepared to oppose any such proceeding with
vigor and courage.
MR. DUFRESNE(Montcalm) — Mr.
SPEAKER, I hope the honorable member for
Richelieu will excuse my interrupting him
for a moment. I wish to ask a simple question. Will the hon. member inform me
what difference there is between a member
who reads his speech and another who reads
the history of Canada to the House?
MR. PERRAULT—I reply to the hon.
member for Montcalm, that the speech read
to us by the hon. member for Montmorency,
the other evening, was written out from the
first line to the last. Not only did he read
to us the passages which he took from history
or the quotations which he made from the
speeches of other members of this House,
but also his own remarks on those extracts. I only read here quotations from
authors, which serve as vouchers upon which
to base my arguments. If I did not read
them, it might be supposed that I only
expressed my own private opinions, whereas
they are those of a friend of the present
Government. Although I coincide in the
ideas and opinions which I quote, yet I do
not choose to appropriate them as my own,
but wish to leave all the merit and the
responsibility of them to the author of them.
MR. DUFRESNE (Montcalm) —The
only difference I can discover between the
hon. member for Montmorency and the hon.
member for Richelieu, is that the former
read his own work, and that the latter
is rendering himself guilty of plagiarism.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
MR. PERRAULT— Everyone knows,
Mr. SPEAKER, that the hon. member for
Montcalm has no reason to fear a similar
accusation, for the excellent reason that his
writings and his speeches are nowhere to be
found. At the time when the member for
Montcalm interrupted me so very inoffensively,
Mr. SPEAKER, I was quoting a passage from
M. DE LOTBINIÈRE's speech on the subject of the opposition offered to the publication
of the proceedings of the House of Assembly in 1791 in French, in order to demonstrate
the spirit of exclusiveness which animated the English element from the commencement
of our parliamentary system, notwithstanding the insignificant minority in which
they were at the time. But that barefaced
attempt was unsuccessful, and the amendment
proposed, having for its object the proscription of the French language, was refused
by two-thirds of the House. It was finally
resolved that the minutes of the proceedings
of the House should be in both languages, and
that the English or the French version should
be the text of the Legislative acts according
as they related to the English or the French
laws. Thus opposition to the French element
manifested itself from the commencement of
our parliamentary system in this country, by
the refusal to adopt the French as the official
language. But, thanks to our sturdy resistance, the use of that language has always
been
one of our privileges, a privilege which has
609
always been preserved in all its integrity until
its introduction into the scheme of Confederation which is proposed to us. Had it
not
been for the courage and energy displayed by
the men of those days, the French element
would have lost ground, and its importance
would have diminished, so that at last it would
have been assimilated by the English element.
At that time, our public men already wished
for responsible government, and we shall see
that the struggle which they carried on for
half a century in order to obtain it, was productive of no important result, until
they had
recourse to rebellion; and it is since that
gloomy period of our history that we have
our present Constitution and responsible government. Now that we have obtained our
most sacred political rights after passing
through a century of persecution and through
rivers of blood, shed on honorable fields of
battle and on the scaffold, are we going to relinquish them in order to accept a new
Constitution, the evident object of which is to do
away with our influence as a race in this
country? Has not the French majority, for
fifteen years, always carried its point in the
Executive and in the Legislature, thanks to
sectional equality in the representation ?
Why should we then relinquish the advantages conferred upon us by our present Constitution,
for a scheme of Confederation in
which we shall be in a minority, and which is
fraught with danger to us and to our institutions? The responsibility assumed by the
French section of the Ministry in uniting the
whole of Upper Canada with the English
minority of Lower Canada is enormous. And
now, at this very time, should that section
wish to withdraw from the struggle, perceiving the danger for the future, it could
not do
so; it would be carried away by the torrent
of the English element. It is to shew the
danger that exists for the future, Mr. SPEAKER, that I am now presenting a sketch
of the
struggles of the past. The circumstances
which gave rise to them still exist, and will
entail the same attempts at aggression ; I must
say this to stay my countrymen, while there
is yet time, on the verge of the abyss towards
which they are allowing themselves to be
drawn. From 1809
Le Canadien discussed,
in an animated manner, the question of responsible government, and took to heart the
interests of its fellow-countrymen. A cry of
violence and treason was raised. But, says
GARNEAU the historian :—
We have carefully perused the journal in ques
tion, page by page, up to the time of its seizure
by the authorities, we found combined with a
demand for rights which were perfectly constitutional, an ever-recurring expression
of the
most unbounded loyalty and attachment to the
English monarchy.
The important question of the voting of the
supplies was also the subject of the most
violent debates. Mr. BÉDARD insisted on this
imprescriptible right of every legislative body
under the Crown of England. But it was
constantly refused by the English minority in
the House and by the Mother Country. Led
with greater strength by Mr. BÉDARD, the
House by a large majority declared itself in
favor of the voting of the supplies by the
representatives of the people. In the division which was taken, we find the English
element on one side, and the French element
on the other. I ask you, Mr. SPEAKER, what
rights are left to the British subject if that of
voting the supplies is taken from him; if he
has not the control of the funds levied from
the people for the administration of the affairs
of state,— if he is thus deprived of the
most important of the privileges which are
secured by constitutional government? Is
this great injustice to be consummated?
Shall the most precious of their rights be
refused to the representatives of the people?
Yes, Mr. SPEAKER, there will be no shrinking
from this infamous proceeding. Our most
eminent patriots, those whose eloquent voice
on every occasion demanded our threatened
liberties, were the first to be accused of treason
for having made such a demand, and then
confined for fourteen months in the gloomy
cells of a prison, regardless of the articles of
the capitulation of Montreal, which guaranteed to us the rights and liberties of British
subjects. That proposal to vote our public
expenditure, which now appears to us so
simple, then raised throughout the country a
violent tempest, which was never entirely allayed until the annihilation of the existing
Constitution. In spite of the rage and calumny which was displayed, Mr. BÉDARD's
proposition was carried, and the following
is the division upon it:—
IN FAVOR.—Messrs. Bédard, Durocher, T. L.
Papineau, Lee, Borgia, Meunier, Taschereau,
Viger, Drapeau, Bernier, St. Julien, Hébert, Duclos, Robitaille, Huot, Caron, C. Panet,
Le Roi,
Blanchet, Debartzch, and Beauchamp—21.
AGAINST.—Messrs McCord, Bowen, Mure, Bell,
DENECHAUD, Jones of Bedford, Blackwood, Gugy,
and Ross Cuthbert—9.
A single English name, that of Mr. LEE,
610
appears among the French-Canadian phalanx,
but in compensation we find a French-Canadian name in the list of those who voted
for
that inexcusable denial of a right which we
were to purchase so dearly. It is not my
desire, Mr. SPEAKER, to make any comments
on this division, but I cannot refrain from
observing that it demonstrates that on every
occasion we have had to struggle against the
encroachments and antagonism of the English
element in Canada. Yet there was no cessation in the demand for the voting of the
supplies so long as it was not obtained, and it is
a remarkable fact that during the whole time
that the French-Canadians were in a majority
in our country. England systematically refused us our most just demands and the
control of the general administration. Still
more, the most arbitrary acts were thrust upon
us by the Mother Country, aided in every way,
moreover, by colonial English fanaticism,
which lost no opportunity of turning its well-
known exclusiveness to our disadvantage. But
so soon as their countrymen exceeded us in
number, so soon as the English element obtained a preponderance in the House of
Assembly by means of the union of 1840, the
English authorities granted us all the political
rights for which we had asked in vain for a
century. They perfectly well knew that those
rights would be controlled, and in case of
need utilised against us by an essentially hostile representative majority. But, thanks
to
the patriotism of our men of that day, we
succeeded in baffling the schemes of the British Government. Up to the union those
men
had had to keep up a constant struggle,
marked by a degree of heroism worthy of the
cause which they served, against the English autocracy, which was banded together
against our countrymen. We, their descendants, are ready to recommence the same struggle
with the same energy, to maintain our
rights so dearly purchased, and to preserve
the inheritance which we have received and
which it is our wish to transmit intact to the
children of the soil. (Hear, hear.) Let us
now see what was the condition of the liberty
of the press and of the liberty of the subject
at this gloomy period of our parliamentary
history. The Canadien having dared to ask
for responsible government, and Mr. BÉDARD
having obtained in the House a majority of
twenty-one'against nine in favor of the voting
of the supplies, the Executive Council resolved at any cost to injure the influence
of
the Canadien, and to paralyze the efforts
of the Canadian leaders. It kept a watch on
the Canadien to find grounds of accusation, and on the deposition of two individuals, caused the
printing office to be
seized by a squad of soldiers, its contents
to be conveyed to the vaults of the
court, and Mr. BÉDARD to be imprisoned on
a charge of treasonable practices. And this
act of tyranny was grounded on the fact that
these political martyrs had had the courage
to demand for Canada the right of voting the
supplies! The Canadien gave an account of
this atrocious imprisonment in the following
paragraph :—
The infamous conduct of the Council did not
end here. The latter, with the view of striking
terror into the great national party, caused Messrs.
LAFORCE, PAPINEAU (of Chambly), CORBEIL, TASCHEREAU and BLANCHET to be imprisoned.
Thus, Mr. SPEAKER, at this period a representative of the people was cast into prison
for having asked for the granting of a right
which was unjustly withheld, and to crown
the act of tyranny, he was left to rot in his
cell for fourteen months, and was refused a
trial before the courts in which he could
have easily justified himself, and proved that
he had acted in a constitutional manner. I
cannot pass over this page of our parliamentary history without quoting it :—
The leaders, however, who had been basely imrisoned, did not stoop before the storm.
Mr.
BÉDARD, from the depths of his cell, braved the
fury of the enemies of his country; his great soul
remained calm and undisturbed, and he did not
give way to despair. Proud of his rights and
confident of the justice of his cause, he in vain
demanded from his persecutors a justification of
their conduct The ears of his jailer: were deaf
to his demand, and refusing the liberty which they
wished to grant him, he even insisted on being
brought to trial. The new elections caused no
change in the national representation. The Governor, in his speech, made no allusion
to the severe measures which he had taken with respect
to Mr. BÉDARD and his companions, and the session passed over without the noble prisoner
having been liberated. It was not until after a captivity of thirteen months, and
after having contracted a mortal disease, that this great man left
the prison to go and rejoin a beloved family, who
were deprived of their all and who were indebted
for their means of existence to the honorable
generosity of the citizens of Quebec.
Notwithstanding these crying injustices, Mr.
BÉDARD did not complain ; he considered
that it was not too high a price to pay for the
liberties of the people, and that a few months'
imprisonment was a mere nothing in view of
611
the great liberties for which he struggled and
suffered. Listen to the noble utterances of
that great patriot, in presence of his electors,
after regaining his liberty :—
The past must not discourage us, or diminish
our veneration for our Constitution. Any other
form of government would be subject to the same
drawback, and in fact to drawbacks far greater ;
the peculiarity of our present system is, that it
furnishes the means of remedying its own defects.
[And he added]: We must, moreover, be prepared
to make some sacrifices for the securing of these
great advantages."
Such was the language of that great patriot ;
not a word of bitterness, complaint, or recrimination, but dignity of expression and
a
sincere conviction of the advantages of the
Constitution. What a contrast, alas! between
those days of devotedness and civic courage,
and the egotism and frigid indifference of our
own, in which self-interest overrides everything, and patriotism has ceased to exist.
The
page of our history I have just read, is
one which certainly should not remain unnoticed; it is a page which our legislators
would do well to consult. They would there
find an example of patriotism well deserving
of imitation. It is well to contemplate and
study the great struggles of our forefathers,
to see how victory crowned the efforts of those
noble patriots—a victory dearly purchased,
and of which we have up to our own day
preserved the precious fruits. (Hear, hear.)
But the war of 1812 broke out, and England
—who has never granted us any liberties or
privileges except when she needed us for her
own defence on this continent—changed her
tactics. She trembled for her supremacy in
these British provinces, and immediately she
deemed it prudent to secure our good-will, and
coöperation in the struggle then about to
commence—in the first place, by calling Mr.
BÉDARD to a seat on the judicial bench. She
understood clearly that she could do nothing
against the United States without the assistance of the French-Canadian element. And
the Imperial Government also hoped to recover
the control of the influence and the services of
the race it had treated so tyrannically.
Thus it was that the man who had been cast
into prison, and whom the Government had
accused of treason, became the judge of the
highest court in the country. The adoption
of every base means of gaining adherents constituted the tactics of the Government
at that
period. They hoped that by thus giving a
place to the man who had been the most
valiant defender of our rights and of our
nationality, they would secure the adherence
of the children of the soil, and they were not
mistaken. In adopting that means, Mr.
SPEAKER, the Imperial Government showed
that they understood the character of the
nation they thus sought to gain over to their
cause. For it must be admitted—and it is
perhaps our misfortune—that it is the peculiar
characteristic of the French element, that they
very often too soon forget the persecutions of
which they have been the victims, and which
ought to inspire them with an honest indignation when they reflect on the past. Over-confident
of the sincere good will of our adversaries, we are always taken unawares at each
new attempt at aggression. And even now,
a few years of prosperity has been enough to
dazzle us and make us anticipate a brilliant
prospect in a measure which involves nothing
short of the annihilation of our influence as a
race, which is in fact decreed in the scheme of
Confederation now sought to be forced upon
the people. (Hear, hear.) But the American
army threatened the frontier, and it was
necessary to think of defence. With a view
of being prepared for an attack, the Governor
assembled Parliament twice in 1812, and
measures were taken for arming the militia and
voting the sums required for the organization
and defence of the province. Sir GEORGE
PREVOST, at the opening of Parliament in
1813, complimented the people for their
courage and energy, and the proceedings were
less stormy than usual; fresh supplies were
voted for the war, and a good understanding subsisted between the Government
and the two Houses during the session.
At that heroic period of our history, we
find our French-Canadian fellow—countrymen, to whom fresh concessions had been
made, obedient to the voice of their chiefs,
rushing to the frontier and driving back the
invader. But in 1812, as in 1775, the devotedness and patriotism of our people were
destined soon to be forgotten. The moment
of danger had scarcely passed away when
those who had saved the power of England in
America, at the price of their blood, were
once more made the object of incessant attacks on the part of the English oligarchy,
as
I shall shortly shew. GARNEAU gives the
following graphic sketch of the conduct of his
countrymen at that critical period of our
history:—
A second time was Canada preserved for England by the very people whom it was sought
to
annihilate; by their bravery the colony was pre
612
served from the inevitable woes of a frightful
war. For a moment the hatred entertained towards the Canadian name was stifled ; the
Colonial
Office, sensible of the difficulties of the moment,
silenced the fanatical yells of its trans-atlantic
minions; but once the danger over and Canada
safe, the old antipathies were soon again to burst
forth, the war upon our language, our institutions
and our laws to recommence, and ingratitude to
take the place of gratitude in the hearts of the
children of Albion.
Forbearance, it was evident, had been thus
used solely because circumstances rendered it
impossible to give grounds of discontent to so
important a portion of the population, by
whom alone the country could be saved.
England has never been liberal except in
presence of danger. At this moment she is
endeavoring to attain the same end by attempting to destroy our nationality by means
of the Federation scheme submitted to us.
But she finds at her back now an element of
strength which she did not then possess, to
aid her in the task—the support of a French-
Canadian majority. (Hear, hear.) In the
following year occurred the glorious battle of
Chateauguay. On that memorable day a
handful of brave men, commanded by DESALABERRY, confronted an enemy thirty times
superior in number to themselves, arrested the
advance of the invader, and by their devotedness and bravery saved this rich province
for
the Crown of England. Now, Mr. SPEAKER,
what the French-Canadians did in the war of
1812, that they are once more prepared to do
under the Constitution as it is at this moment.
It was because they felt at that time that they
had something more precious to defend than
a Confederation which can afford no better
protection to their material interests than to
their institutions, their language, their laws,
and their nationality, that they took no account of the numbers of the enemy, but
fought
valiantly when they were outnumbered in the
proportion of ten to one. And now again,
in defending the Constitution as it is, with the
rights and privileges it guarantees to us, the
Canadians will not hesitate a moment to sacrifice themselves for the safety of the
precious
deposit entrusted to their keeping. Surely,
Mr. SPEAKER, it is not necessary to go far
back into our history for an instance of this.
In 1862, at the time of the affair of the Trent,
when a rupture with our neighbors seemed
imminent, the French-Canadians rushed to
arms with the eagerness and irresistible impulse of the heroes of New France. It is
not,
Mr. SPEAKER, that the French-Canadian
desires war, but he loves to nerve his arm by
calling to mind the battle-fields of former
days; and if the present generation were called
upon to meet the enemy, they would show the
whole world that their blood has not degenerated, and that they are worthy in every
respect
of their heroic ancestors. (Hear, hear.)
After the war of 1812, which had so greatly
imperilled the possessions of England on this
continent, the same attempts at aggression
were renewed without delay; so true is it
that danger alone could interrupt them. The
troops having gone into winter quarters, the
Governor, Sir G. PREVOST, went down to
Quebec to open Parliament, and the disagreements between the popular branch and
the Legislative Council soon broke forth
again little by little. STUART again brought
up the question of the rules of practice, and
made the most serious accusations against
Judge SEWELL—charging him, for instance,
with having attempted to enforce his rules of
practice without the authority of Parliament;
with having dismissed the Solicitor General
from his place in order to instal therein his
own brother, E. SEWELL; with having violated the liberty of the press, by causing
the
Canadien to be seized without any plausible
grounds; and the liberty of Parliament, by
imprisoning several of its members. These
accusations, some of which were true, were
transmitted to England, but STUART having
been unable to cross the sea in order to follow
them up, SEWELL got rid of the charges.
The same occurred as regards Judge MONK,
who was accused at the same time of sundry
malversations; and, as Mr. F. X. GARNEAU
remarks, Judge SEWELL determined that the
best revenge he could take for the accusations
brought against him was to suggest to the
Prince Regent the union of all the British
provinces, with a view to compass the destruction of French-Canadian nationality.
Such,
Mr. SPEAKER, were the circumstances under
which the scheme of Confederation was first proposed. And it must be admitted that,
bearing
in mind the recommendation of Mr. SEWELL,
it ought to excite many fears on the part of
every true French-Canadian. Who was the
first man to pronounce the word "Confederation" ? A man who violated the liberty of
the press and the liberty of Parliament! A
man who had for years longed for the destruction of the French-Canadian race! At a
subsequent period, after the revolution of
1837, Lord DURHAM proposed Confederation
as the political organization best adapted for
our annihilation. And at this moment our
613
fellow-countrymen in office submit, nay, propose, to the people this scheme of annihilation,
specially prepared for our destruction, and
which must destroy us, Mr. SPEAKER, if the
people outside this House do not protest in
every constitutional way against the political
suicide of the French race in Canada. At
the prorogation of Parliament in 1814, the
Speaker, L. J. PAPINEAU, addressed the
Governor, Sir GEORGE PREVOST, in the following words :—
The events of the late war have drawn closer
the bonds of connection between Great Britain
and Canada. These provinces have been preserved for England under circumstances of
great
difficulty.
These words are, in many respects, deserving
of serious consideration ; and I call the attention of honorable members of this House
to
this remarkable passage :—
When the war broke out—continued Mr. PAPINEAU—this country had neither troops nor
money, and Your Excellency commanded a people in
whom, it was said, the habits acquired during
more than half a century of peace had destroyed
all military spirit. Despite these predictions, you
succeeded in deriving from the devotedness of a
brave and faithful, though calumniated people,
sufficient resources to defeat the plans of conquest of an enemy great in numbers
and full of
confidence in his own strength. The blood of
the children of Canada was shed, mingled with
that of the brave men sent here to assist in our
defence. The repeated proofs of the powerful
protection of England and of the inviolable fidelity of her colonies, constitute for
the latter fresh
titles, in virtue of which they claim to enjoy the
free exercise of all the rights and advantages
guaranteed to them by the Constitution and the
laws.
The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly,
then twenty-six years of age, who struggled
so heroically to secure our political rights
and liberties, is the same whose name, during
a recent sitting of this House, was ignominiously dragged forward by the hon. member
for Montmorency and the Honorable Attorney General East (Hon. Mr. CARTIER). His
name, venerated by the entire country as that
of its liberator, has been cast as an insult in
the teeth of honorable members of this House,
who deem it an honor to own his leadership,
and who still continue to carry on his work—
the protection of our political rights against
the underhand plots of a hostile majority.
But, Mr. SPEAKER, that venerable old man,
who has grown grey in the service of his country, is sheltered from base insinuations,
which
can as little penetrate his peaceful retirement
as they can the hearts of the sincere friends
of our country. In that quiet retreat the
great patriot of our evil days, after having
nobly fulfilled his task, enjoys in peace and
with pride the esteem of those he successfully
defended with his powerful voice in the darkest hour of our political history. Gross
insults, shameless calumnies, when uttered
against such a man, redound with double
weight upon those who thus basely vilify a
citizen justly admitted to be an honor to
our country. The name of the Hon. L. J.
PAPINEAU is surrounded with a luminous
halo which malignant calumny can never succeed in tarnishing. His memory is safe from
these envious assaults, for it is under the
protection of the people whom he rescued
from the systematic colonial oppression which
I am attempting to describe. Really, Mr.
SPEAKER, the cause of the Honorable Attorney General East must be in very great straits
when he is compelled to resort to such means
in order to save it. The Honorable Attorney
General East must have very little confidence
in thc success of that cause, when he endeavors
to excite the prejudices of his supporters by
heaping insults on one of the greatest names
in our history. Such language on the part
of the Honorable Attorney General East is
the more culpable in that he himself was one
of the rebels of 1837-'8, and one of the
most zealous partisans of that great patriot whom he now insults. Did he not
himself vote in favor of the ninety-two resolutions—that imperishable monument of
Canadian rights ? Yes, Mr. SPEAKER, the man
upon whose head a price was set, the man
who was compelled to fly from his country
and to seek from a neighboring country that
right of asylum, which he refuses to-day to
the Southern refugee, has the audacity, now
that he is Attorney General, to call that great
statesman "Old Mr. PAPINEAU," and the opposition in this House, " 01d Mr. PAPINEAU'S
tail." I do not hesitate to assert, Mr. SPEAKER, that such expressions are unworthy
of this
House, and unworthy of the position occupied
by the Honorable Attorney General East, who
has had the questionable courage to pronounce
them. (Hear, hear.) Such expressions, if
they are to be tolerated anywhere, find their
proper place in the common streets, and
the standard of this House must have fallen very low, when such language is permitted
here. All sense of dignity must be
lost, when the Hon. Attorney General is permitted to insult, on the floor of this
House, the
name of a man whom every true French-
614
Canadian holds in veneration. Let the honorable gentleman not deceive himself—opinions
and ideas tending to promote the happiness of
the people, and the men who sustain and
struggle for their interests, will ever be victorious over the assault of calumny
and envy.
And what has been the aim of the Hon. Attorney General and the honorable member for
Montmorency, in their attack upon the Hon.
Mr. PAPINEAU ? Their object, in the first
place, was to injure the Opposition, who represent him ; and next, to elevate themselves,
by dragging down to their own level one of
the great men of our history, beside whom
they are but pigmies. For there are two
ways of being great : the first is by rendering
to one's country eminent services, and by exhibiting undeniable superiority ; but
inasmuch
as the Hon. Attorney General and the honorable member for Montmorency possess neither
the material nor the superiority that go to
make great men, they adopt the second mode
of attaining greatness. It consists in depreciating and crushing all those who are
superior to one's self. Thus they hope to rise
over the ruined reputation of those they enviously calumniate and unceasingly attack.
They recklessly carry on their work of demolition ; they are not arrested in their
course
even by the names that personify a whole
epoch in our history, and when one of the
great figures of the past confronts them in all
its dignity, like a statue of glory, their sacrilegious hands are eagerly raised to
mutilate it ;
then, standing alone upon its scattered fragments, they contemplate with pride the
prostrate victim of their vandal labors ! Such,
Mr. SPEAKER, are the motives which explain
the efforts made by those who thus attempt
to injure one of the greatest men of our race.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) But we have not
yet reached the termination of our struggles.
At the opening of Parliament in 1816, a message was communicated to the House stating
that the charges brought against Judges
SEWELL and MONK had been dismissed. The
bitter words in which the message was couched
greatly incensed the House, and a proper
answer was just about to be adopted, when a
dissolution was resorted to in order to prevent a manifestation of the feelings of
the
House. And what was the position taken
by the Imperial Government with reference
to those difficulties ? We find it stated in
the letter written by Lord BATHURST to Governor SHERBROOKE, who pointed out to them
the false step taken by the Colonial Office in
thus oppressing our race :—
Hitherto the Government has found, on all ordinary occasions, an abiding resource
in the firmness and disposition of the Legislative Council,
and there is no reason to doubt that the Council
will continue to counteract the most injudicious
and violent measures of the Legislative Assembly.
In truth, the measures of the Legislative
Assembly of that day were very injudicious,
very violent ! They demanded that the people should have a voice in the disposal of
the
moneys contributed by themselves! And
hence it was that the Legislative Council
counteracted all the measures demanded by
the people. I continue the quotation :—
It is therefore in every way desirable that you
should avail yourself of its assistance to counteract
any measures of the Assembly you may deem objectionable, instead of placing your own
authority or
that of the Government in direct opposition to that
of the House, and thus affording them a pretext for
refusing the supplies necessary for the service of
the colony.
Yes, Mr. SPEAKER, the nominative Legislative Council was always the stumbling-block
in the way of the French-Canadians whenever they endeavored to carry any measure of
reform. The elective House invariably met,
on the part of that body, a systematic opposition to every measure desired by the
people—
an opposition it was impossible to overcome.
It was in 1856 that we succeeded, after a
constant struggle of fifty years, in introducing the elective principle into the Upper
House. At this moment, despite lessons
of the past, recorded unfortunately in letters of
blood, an attempt is made to return to the
old system ; we are about basely to abandon
a privilege, a political right, which was the
reward of so many struggles and so many
woes. Yes, Mr. SPEAKER, such is the scheme
of the present Government ; they intend that
in the Confederation the members of the Legislative Council shall be appointed by
the
Crown, as in the darkest period of our history. Happily, the people thoroughly understand
the value and bearing of life nominations. They know that the great majority of
the men so appointed by a General Government, numerically hostile to our race, would
ever be ready to reject measures the most
favorable to our interests as a nation. The
Legislative Council under Confederation will
be what it was in the days of oppression,
when Lord BATHURST, in pursuance of the
instructions of the Imperial Government,
said to Governor SHERBROOKE—" Be careful to make use of the Legislative Council
to counteract the measures of the elective
615
body." That is just it—they shield themselves behind a Legislative Council composed
of their own creatures brought back
to life, and then while lauding to the
skies the colonial liberality of England,
they pull the strings and make their puppets
play the part of oppressors. It is precisely
the same political organization that is proposed in the scheme of Confederation. In
a
Legislative Council composed of life-members,
we shall have men prepared invariably to refuse the people the measures they require,
if
such measures in any way affect the privileges of the aristocratic classes. However
eager may be the efforts of the members of
the elective body, it will be constitutionally
impossible for us to obtain such measures.
Moreover, these councillors, of whom the
majority will be hostile to us, will do everything in their power to gratify the Imperial
Government, by whom they are to be appointed—a Government which has ever liberally
subsidised its creatures. Such, Mr.
SPEAKER, are the dangers in our path if we
return to the old system of life-appointments
proposed by the Government in the Confederation scheme. (Hear, hear.) But the
first instructions given by Lord BATHURST to
Governor SHERBROOKE were not sufficiently
explicit, apparently ; for shortly afterwards he
transmitted the following—" I strongly recommend you to see that the Legislative Assembly
does not dispose of public moneys without the
consent of the Legislative Council,"—thus
unscrupulously violating the very essence of
the Constitution, evidently under the impulse
of rabid national feelings. It is a principle
of the Constitution of England that the
popular House, which represents the opinions
of the people, has alone the right of voting
supplies for the administration of the government, and that moneys levied for that
purpose from the people can be expended only
with the consent of that House and not
otherwise. Well, Mr. SPEAKER, what do we
find in this instance ? We find the Imperial
Government expressly instructing Her Majesty's representative in Canada not to allow
the supplies to be voted without the consent of
the Legislative Council, appointed for life
by the Crown, and whose constant efforts
were directed to resisting the just demands
of the French-Canadians. This question
of the supplies, the chief cause of all
the difficulties by which we have been
beset, both previous to and since that period,
was not to be thus disposed of. We
then had men who were not to be baffled by
difficulties or rebuffs. And thus it is that we
find those noble champions of our rights and
liberties coming forward, year after year, with
the same demands ; never disheartened by defeat, and struggling on until at last their
legitimate claims were acceded to. In January, 1819, the Houses were opened, and the
first question which brought on an animated
debate was, once more, the question of the
finances. A discussion arose as to whether
the Lower House, after having obtained the
annual vote of supply, could moreover obtain
a detailed civil list and vote on each item
separately. The majority desired this in
order to assure themselves of the integrity of
the public officials, and to hold in check the
members of the Executive Council, over whom
they had no control. Others opposed it
strongly, as a new principle and violating the
rights of the Crown. A committee, appointed
to examine into the question, reported in
favor of a reduction of the expenditure—
which they declared to be far too great in proportion to the revenue—and the abolition
of
pensions, which tended to grave abuses.
Adopting a middle course between the two
extremes, some wished to vote the supplies
under certain heads, giving a gross sum for
each department. But the supporters of a
detailed vote carried the day. The bill was
passed, sent up to the Council, and, as was
anticipated, rejected by that body in the following terms :—
That the mode adopted for the granting of the
civil list was unconstitutional, unprecedented, and
involved a direct violation of the rights and prerogatives of the Crown ; that if
the bill became
law, it would not only give the Commons the
privilege of voting supplies, but also of prescribing to the Crown the number and
character of
its servants, by regulating and rewarding their services as they thought proper, which
would render
them independent of their electors, and might
lead to their rejecting the authority of the Crown,
which their oath of allegiance bound them to
sustain.
Thus, Mr. SPEAKER, the Council nominated
for life rejected that eminently just measure
—the voting, item by item, of the supplies
by the Lower House ; that is to say, the distribution of the moneys levied from the
people—and even went the length of declaring
the measure unconstitutional. Is it possible
at this time to understand how servility could
be carried to such an excess ? At that period
the population of Upper Canada had increased to a proportionately considerable
extent, and the British population of Lower
616
Canada was sufficiently numerous to suggest
the scheme of uniting the two Canadas under
one government, and in 1823 the proposal
was made in England. It was, therefore, at
that period of trouble and agitation, and rivalry
between the Houses, that a plot was entered
into in England to annihilate at one blow
French-Canadian nationality. The war only
postponed the scheme for the union of the
two provinces ; for the assistance of the
French-Canadian people was needed. Peace
having been established, it was resolved to
carry out the measure, and a bill for the purpose was presented to the Imperial Legislature,
unknown to the parties whose fate was
being decided, and without their being consulted, for it was known that they were
opposed to
that act of oppression. Yes, without consulting the people of Lower Canada, it was
sought
to force upon them a Constitution under which
they were to have a smaller representation
than Upper Canada ; moreover, Lower Canada was to be charged with the debt of the
other province, which was a considerable debt,
and the language of Lower Canada was to be
banished from the Legislature. Happily, the
scheme found opponents in the Imperial Parliament, and, despite all the intrigues
and
efforts of our enemies, the bill was thrown out
at the second reading. Then, as at the present
day, those who aimed at our destruction were
loud in favor of passing the bill, at any price,
before the peeple had an opportunity of protesting. At the present moment, those who
desire to force us into Confederation, in the
face of the petitions against the scheme, tell
us that we must accept the new Constitution
before the people are made aware of its monstrous details. " I beg of you to pass
this
bill at once," said Mr. WILMOTT ; " if you
wait until next year you will receive so many
petitions protesting against the measure, that
it will be very difficult to adopt it, however
useful it may be to those who oppose it through
ignorance or through prejudice ; moreover,
it is essential to the removal of the difficulties
existing between the Executive and the Assembly." When the news of those unjust,
but happily abortive, attempts reached Canada, the greatest agitation was produced,
and
the whole Canadian people felt indignant at
such proceedings. Several meetings were held
at Montreal and Quebec to protest against the
bill, and petitions to the English Government
were signed by 60,000 persons. At that
period, as in this instance, the union was to
be carried without consulting the people,
and the Imperial Parliament submitted to the
Legislature a measure against which 60,000
French-Canadians protested. Mr. SPEAKER,
I have no hesitation in asserting it, the
scheme of Confederation which it is now
attempted to force upon the people is destined
to be rejected, not by 60,000 French-Canadian signatures merely, but by 100,000.
Yes, our people are waking up, and in this
united and general protest we shall not lag
behind those who showed us the example of
an effective protest whenever it was sought to
inflict injustice upon them. We will send to
England thousands of signatures to protest
against the Constitution we do not desire,
and if justice is then refused, well "fiat
justitia ruat cœlum," we shall have employed
every constitutional means, and the 'responsibility for the consequences of that refusal
of
justice will fall on the heads of those who
labor to bring about such a state of things.
The Hon. DENIS BENJAMIN VIGER, one of
the boldest champions of our rights, said of
the bringing forward of the scheme of union
in the Imperial Parliament, without consulting the people :—
After fifty years of peace and prosperity, when
the generation that witnessed the conquest has
passed away ; when there remains hardly a living
witness of that event among the present generation ; when the memory and the impression
of it
has died out in the breast of French-Canadians ;
when, in fine, there no longer remains in the Province any but British born subjects,
enjoying all
their rights in that capacity alone—now it is that
a scheme is concocted, under which we are to be
treated—I will not say as a conquered people, for
the public laws of civilized nations no longer permit the vanquished to be robbed
of their institutions and laws, any more than of their property—
but like a barbarous race to whom the enlightenment and the arts, the principles and
the duties
of social life, are unknown.
And in truth, Mr. SPEAKER, those words were
not too strong to qualify justly the conduct of
the lmperial Government at that period.
Blood had to be shed at St. Denis and St.
Charles, and heads to fall by the axe of the
executioner, before justice could be obtained.
It was only then, when it was found that the
people did not hesitate to sacrifice the lives of
their noblest children, in order to secure their
political rights and liberties, that we received responsible government as we now
enjoy it and as we desire to preserve it. At
the opening of the ensuing Session it was expected that the debate on the finances
would
be resumed ; but the Governor having separated, in the estimates, the civil list from
the
other expenses, the supplies were voted.
617
Thus it was that whenever the struggle for
rights was persevered in, the result was success; and why is it, I ask, that our statesmen
who have struggled since the union to
preserve the Constitution as it is, with such
signall success, now give way to the demands of
Upper Canada ? Let us, then, maintain
our presentation, the most fruitful in advantages
to French-Canadians. The question
of finance had been for some time looked
upon as disposed of, but on DALHOUSIE's return the question arose again in a more
threatening form than ever, and the supplies
were refused (1827). The Governor on the
following day prorogued Parliament, insulting
the dignity of the Commons and eulogizing
the Legislative Council. This act of tyranny
caused great excitement amongst the people.
The press attacked the Government, and in
order to show the exasperation of men's
minds at the time, I quote an extract from
one of the newspapers of that period :—
Canadians, chains are being forged to bind
you; it would seem that we are to be annihilated
or ruled with a rod of iron. Our liberties are invaded, our rights violated, our privileges
abolished, our complaints despised, our political existence menaced with utter and
complete ruin.
The time has now come to put forth all your resources and to display all your energy,
so as to
convince the Mother Country and the horde who
for half a century have tyrannized over you in
your own homes, that if you are subjects you
are not slaves.
The elections resulted favorably for the popular party. At the meeting of Parliment,
Mr.
PAPINEAU was elected Speaker, but the Governor refused to sanction the choice, and
told
the Legislative Assembly to elect another.
What was the proper course for the House of
Assembly to pursue in the face of such conduct? To give way ? No, Mr. SPEAKER;
there were at that time men in our House of
Assembly, men who did not shrink from their
duty, nor from the responsibility of their just
opposition On motion of Mr. CUVILLIER
it was resolved that the election of the
Speaker must be made freely and independently of the Governor; that Mr. PAPINEAU
had been so elected; that under the law, no
confirmation was needed, the latter being,
like the presentation, a simple matter of form
and usage. Mr. PAPINEAU having been reinstated in the chair, the Governor refused
to approve the selection made, and the same
evening Parliament was dissolved. Thus,
MR SPEAKER, Parliament existed but one
day because the Speaker was a man who
valued his independence too highly to sub
mit to the dictates of an ill-advised government. In truth, if these are the 1iberties
we owe to the colonial system, I need not
stop to prove their utter hollowness. The
people understood the position in which it
was sought to place them, and took steps
to repel these fresh attempts at aggression. The question created increased agitation
; public meetings were held in city, town
and country; the speeches made betokened
the disturbed state of the public mind; proceedings were taken against the press,
and Mr.
WALLER, editor of the Spectateur of Montreal, was arrested for the second time. Addresses, bearing over 80,000 signatures,
were
forwarded to England in the hands of Messrs.
NELSON, CUVILLIER and D. B. VIGER. Mr.
GALE took the petition of the partisans of the
oligarchy. A great meeting of the inhabitants
of the counties of Vercheres, Chambly, Rouville and St. Hyacinthe was held at St.
Charles ; the people protested energetically
against the existing state of things, and in
fact it was broadly declared that the natural
consequences must be expected to follow upon
so flagrant a violation of the most sacred
rights of the French-Canadians. Mr. SPEAKER, the Canadian people in the person of
their leaders, at that period traversed the
ocean in order to obtain justice from the British Government, and laid at the foot
of the
Throne the protest of 80,000 of our fellow-
countrymen, a people who, in the trying days
of our history, had not hesitated to sacrifice
their lives to maintain British power on this
continent; and once more, in this instance,
when an attempt is made to force upon us a
Constitution we have never asked for and
which the people of Lower Canada energetically condemn, the same means of protesting
is open to us, and the Government may rely
upon it that we shall be as firm in defence of
our political rights and liberties as were the
representatives of the ople in former days.
Our protest will be, if anything, still more
energetic against the proposed scheme of Confederation which it is sought to impose
on us:
The Houses met in 1831, and the Governor, in
the course of the session, communicated to Parliament the reply from England relative
to the
question of the supplies. The Imperial Government gave to the representatives of the
people the
control of the revenue, with the exception of the
casual and territorial items consisting of the
Jesuits' Estates, the King's Posts, the droit du
quint, the lods et ventes, woods and forests, &
for a civil list of £19,000 voted for the lifetime
of the king.
In 1831 power was granted for voting, item by
618
item, a part only of the supplies. The restriction was not consented to by those who
represented the people in the Legislative Assembly.
Such a state of things could not continue without leading to a collision; and the
events of
1837 justified the apprehension of those who
had all along warned the Government that it
was impossible for the people any longer to
endure so flagrant a violation of their rights,
and that there was imminent danger of exhausting their patience. Events followed
each other rapidly, and the clergy then, as
at this time, were opposed to any energetic
demonstrations. Monseigneur LARTIGUE,
Bishop of Montreal, published a pastoral letter, in which he said : " Who will dare
assert
that the whole people of this country desire
the destruction of the Government?" Mr.
SPEAKER, no one desired it; but the minority at that period, like the minority at
present, complained of the injustice they suffered,
and the clergy were opposed to them. The
minority of that day struggled for the political rights of the people as they are
struggling
now, and they found arrayed against them
every powerful influence and all established
authorities. This contrast points to a fact
deserving of notice. To-day the Government
constantly insult us by crying out: " You
represent nothing in this House; public
opinion is against you! " Well, Mr. SPEAKER, I ask the Hon. Attorney General for
Lower Canada whether he himself and his
honorable colleague the Prime Minister, had
the majority of the Lower Canada people
and clergy with them when, in 1837, they
protested energetically against the injustice
done to their fellow-countrymen? No, Mr.
SPEAKER, at that time they formed part of
the little phalanx who went so far as to raise
the standard of rebellion on the plains of
St. Denis and St. Charles! How times are
changed! At the present moment the same
men, the revolutionists of former days, strain
every nerve to deprive the people of the right
of pronouncing for or against the constitutional changes sought to be forced upon
them.
So complete a forgetfulness of their own past is
extremely deplorable. Mr. SPEAKER, for
weighty reasons, I do not desire to dwell
on the events of 1837. In 1838 there
remained to be brought on the trials of
those who had been implicated in the
troubles. Lord DURHAM found himself
placed in an embarrassing position, for it is
alwa s difficult for a government to carry on
political prosecutions; by such a course it
frequently loses its strength and its popularity.
To escape from the difficulties of the moment,
the Governor resolved to adopt a great measure.
On the day of the coronation of Queen
VICTORIA he proclaimed a general amnesty,
and granted pardon to all the Canadians, except twenty-four of the most earnest of
the
revolutionary party. It is important, Mr.
SPEAKER, to know who were the twenty-four
daring revolutionists against whom the British
Government displayed so much severity, mid
against whom the clergy had pronounced so
strongly. These men were Messrs. WOLFRED
NELSON, R. S. M. BOUCHETTE, BONAVENTURE VIGER, SIMEON MMARCHESSAULT, H.
A. GAUVIN, T. H. GODIN, ROD. DESRIVIERES, L. H. MASSON, LOUIS J.PAPINEAU,
C. H. COTE, JULIEN GAGNON, ROBERT NELSON, E. B. O'CALLAGHAN, ED. ET. RODIER,
T. S. BROWN, LUDGER DUVERNAY, ED.
CHARTIER, Ptre., G. ET. CARTIER, J. RYAN,
Jr., Ls. PERRAULT, P. L. DEMARY, J. F.
DAVIGNON, and Ls. GAUTHEIR. Thus, Mr.
SPEAKER, among those sanguinary men I
find the Honorable Attorney General for
Lower Canada (Hon. Mr. CARTIER). (Hear,
hear.) Far be from me the thought of reproaching him with his conduct at that period.
I have always looked upon it as that of a
patriot and of a true friend of his country.
Besides, that honorable member has declared
to us on many occasions that he did not regret
the struggles which he had formerly maintained in order to claim the political liberties
of his country, and I can perfectly understand
that he does not waver in those sentiments,
for it is now an historical fact that all those
who took part in those struggles nobly staked
their lives for their convictions, and the minority then, like the present minority,
could
expect nothing but misinterpretation of their
opposition to power. It is not for me to
decide how far this insurrectionary movement
was excited by the deplorable circumstances
of the time, but I am perfectly satisfied that
those who were at the head of it were impelled
by sentiments of patriotism, by the generous
desire of obtaining for their fellow-countrymen the political liberties which were
refused
them. They have therefore laid their country under a great debt of gratitude for the
sacrifices which they made. Now see, Mr.
SPEAKER; the men who, twenty years ago,
constituted a revolutionary minority, braved
the clergy and raised the standard of revolt
against Great Britain, are to-day in a majority and supported by the powerful influence
of England and of the clergy, whose entire
confidence they possess. They have their
619
little entries to Windsor, they fill the highest
and most lucrative oflices in our country, and
are even decorated with the titles with which
Her Majesty is used to reward Her most
loyal subjects. To-day, as in 1837, the minority do not wish to have recourse to the
means furnished by revolutions, after having
exhausted those which the Constitution affords, but they have an inward conviction
that in twenty years, when the people have
succeeded in appreciating what that minority
is doing for them to-day, they will feel for the
opposition to which it is devoting itself, a sentiment of gratitude, the result of
which will
be, that on it they will confer their entire
confidence, after having refused it in the day
of trial. Yes, Mr. SPEAKER, as the minority
of 1837 constitutes the majority of to-day, so
will the present minority constitute the majority at some day which is more or less
near.
I will not, Mr. SPEAKER, follow the victims
of that melancholy period of our history to
the seafold. With their lives they paid the
price of their devotion to the cause of their
country, and if, to make a people deserving of
the rights of existence, life's blood and devotion are necessary, we have theirs to
show
that French Canada freely and nobly sacrificed her noblest descendants to the genius
of
Liberty. (Hear, hear.) But before concluding this sketch of our struggles, from the
conquest to the melancholy occurrences of
1837-38, it is important to show that it is to
our heroic resistance in the Parliament and to
force of arms that we owe the political liberties which are secured to us by the present
Constitution. I am unwilling to leave. this
review of the colonial system of England in
Canada without destroying the false impression which exists, that that colonial system
was sensibly improved by the liberality of the
news of the statesmen of Great Britain, that
the struggles through which we passed were
owing to the ideas of other days, and that
now all the liberties which we enjoy extend
to all the English colonies, to which the colonial system of our day secures the advantages
and the benefits of responsible government.
I believe, Mr. SPEAKER, that I shall be able
easily to controvert these erroneous arguments,
and to do so I have only to consider the colonial system of England at the Mauritius.
That
French colony, which is not of such old standing
as ours, and which became a conquest of England, fell under the yoke of Great Britain
in
1810. It was then the Isle of France; since
the conquest its name has been changed to
the Island of Mauritius. It contains a pop
ulation which is almost entirely French, but
unfortunately for their political rights it has
not, as we have, the advantage of living in
the immediate vicinity of a great republic,
like the United States, serving, so to say, as a
guarantee for the protection of its liberties.
The Isle of France, in consequence of its isolated position, is precisely in circumstances
which allow of our forming an opinion of what
the pretended liberties of the colonial system
are worth when there is nothing to fear from
the weakness of the colonists or the intervention of a neighboring power in favor
of the
oppressed. Thus, Mr. SPEAKER, we have a
splendid opportunity of judging whether the
colonial system, applied under such circumstances, possesses that liberal character
which
is attributed to it. Well, I say it with regret,
we see there, as we saw in Canada, the same
aggressive and tyrannical policy against which
we had to strive for a whole century. The
colonial system gave rise here to deep dissatisfaction. I shall enumerate the grievances
which are complained of, grievances for which
there is but too great foundation. When the
Isle of France was ceded to England, it was
stipulated, as in the case of Canada, that the
French population should retain the use of
their language and their religious institutions,
together with the laws under which they had
up to that time been governed—three liberties of great value to the descendants of
old
France. Well, Mr. SPEAKER, we shall now
see whether England respected these three
articles of the treaty. I hold in my hand a
correspondence of no older date than the 6th
May, 1862. It is written by a French colonist in the Mauritius, and contains an account
of the colonial system under which his
countrymen are governed. Before reading
this correspondence, I must premise that the
population of the island consists of two hundred thousand souls; that population is
governed by an Executive Council and a Legislative Council appointed for life, consisting
of
eighteen members, eight of whom are public
officers appointed and paid by the Government
of the colony. The other ten are nearly all of
English origin. Thus the French element in
the Legislative Council of the Mauritius is in
the proportion of about one to five, although
the population is nearly entirely French :—
To the Editor of the Economiste Français.
You promise to the ancient colonies of France
aid and protection in your columns; it is therefore natural, that relying on that
promise, I
should apply to hold up to the view of our
readers, and to lay before an intelligent public,
620
before impartial judges, the acts of a government
which, since 1810, has exercised the most absolute
despotism over us, concealed under the great
name of liberty. We have indeed the liberty of
the press, but it is not listened to. Vain are all
cries; the Government "stop their ears and let
us cry." Then they tell us that we shall never
have a more wise, a more paternal, a more liberal
government. "What would you have more than
the liberty of thinking and writing?" they ask.
What we would have is that the liberty of the
press should be of some use to us; that the
Government should listen to the mouth-pieces of
public opinion; that they should not waste our
funds in spite of the protestations of the press;
*
that they should cause the laws, as they were
made, to be observed, and by all alike; that
among other laws, that of quarantine should
be faithfully observed, and that no exception
should be made in favor of H. B. M.'s ships
of war and transports with troops; that more
attention should be paid to the subject of communication with the ships arriving from
India ;
that we should be more effectually protected from
the epidemics which decimate our population;
that the cholera should be prevented from becoming endemic in the country, so that
the French
and Creole population of the Mauritius may be
preserved ; that enquiry should be made as to the
causes which may have brought the cholera upon
us; that insufficient laws may be revised; that
our reserves should be kept at home instead of
being lent to the Mother Country or to other
colonies; that our treaty of capitulation should
be respected; that no attempt should be made to
introduce here English laws, when it is agreed
that by the French codes only are we to be
governed; that the use of the French language,
of which we have been deprived in defiance of
sworn faith, should be restored to us; that no
flagrant injustice should be committed in favor of
the English and to the detriment of the Creoles;
that the latter may be appointed to the different
offices, and that these should not be conferred on
incapable favorites ; we would have the Legislative
Council and self-government, &c., &c. This is
what we would have. You see that we wish for
a great many things. But are they not all just
and reasonable? Let us now proceed to the
enumeration of some of them, and, in chronological order let us begin with the French
language.
The deed of capitulation, signed in 1810 by the
representatives of France and England, contained
the following articles, which we, the conquered
people, imposed on our conquerors:—
1st. Respect for our religion.
2nd. The maintenance of our laws.
3rd. The guarantee that we should be allowed
to speak French.
Well, of these three principal articles (inscribed
in large characters in our deed of capitulation,
accepted and promised under the faith of an oath,
signed and approved by England), one has been
already violated, and the work of undermining
another is going on! Setting at naught all
scruples, the English Government first robbed us
of the use of the French language before the high
courts of justice. We have expressed our claim,
but a deaf ear has been turned to them. This
first step taken, what bounds will be set to this
great work of destruction of all that we hold from
France? On the application of a few English, the
revisal of our code is already being considered;
and when the whole population apply to the
Mother Country for the revocation of an order
which renders the transaction of business impossible, without the very costly intervention
of legal
men and translators, and which, moreover, inflicts
a deep wound on the Creole heart, they are told
to hold their tongues! When they loudly call for
the revision of insufficient laws which facilitate
the propagation of mephitic miasmata they are
not listened to! When they demand an enquiry
into the circumstances which have caused the
introduction into their midst of the cruel epidemic,
which for more than four months has carried
death into their ranks, they are told that they are
indulging in idle fancies! At the same time, and
as though to turn the public mind from this fixed
idea, there is a semblance of bringing up a question already decided upon and voted—that
relating to railways! Another grievance. Whilst
the epidemic is raging among us, and whilst our
municipality stands in need of money for the
relief of the poor classes, the Government has
none to lend, because the financial reserves of the
colony are lent to the Cape, to India, to Ceylon,
and to the Mother Country itself.
Thus, Mr. SPEAKER, the Mauritius, which,
by the terms of her treaty of capitulation,
was to have preserved to her the use of her
language, her peculiar institutions and her
laws, has soon found herself deprived of the
use of her language; her laws have been
changed, and her institutions have been subjected to oppression. This, Mr. SPEAKER,
is the sort of liberty which a French colony
may enjoy under the colonial system of
England, when the colony is weak and is not
situated, as Canada is, in the vicinity of a
powerful republic such as the United States.
I think, Mr. SPEAKER, that I have now
shewn what has ever been the spirit of antagonism between the two races of English
and French origin, on the two continents,
and what has been the spirit of aggression
of the English element against our population, from the founding of the colony up
to
our own time; we have seen colonial fanaticism attacking our institutions, our language
and our laws, and we have seen that our
annihilation as a race has been the evident
621
object of those constant efforts. Can we
to-day believe that the case is otherwise;
and ought not the unanimity of the English
element in favor of Confederation to fill us
with terror? Is not our loss concealed under
this outward. semblance of conciliation?
Yes, let us consult the history of our country
before effecting so radical a change in our
Constitution. Let us remember with terror
the strife and antagonism which prevailed in
days gone by, and let us endeavor to judge
with certainty what will be the necessary
consequences of a constitutional change of
such serious importance as that which is
proposed to us. Let us now consider, Mr.
SPEAKER, the disastrous consequences of the
adoption of the scheme of Confederation. The members of the Government
have told us that Confederation would
constitute us a military power of the
first class, and would enable us to resist
the aggressions of the American Union.
The defence of our frontier is certainly a
question of the highest importance, for no
one is unaware that our relations with our
neighbors are in a position of extreme tension. They have established a passport
system, the sole object of which is to hamper
our trade. A resolution has been adopted
by Congress, almost unanimously, for the
repeal of the treaty of reciprocity which
exists between the two countries. In a few
months the waters of our lakes will be
ploughed by vessels of war, the armaments
of which can only be directed against Canada.
Such, Mr. SPEAKER, is the position of the
United States with respect to us, and to meet
this danger the Government proposes to form
a Confederation which will, they tell us,
constitute a first class power, able to
maintain on this continent the supremacy of
Great Britain. But will the object proposed
be attained? Shall we be stronger under
Confederation than we are now? Cannot
the Governor General of the Provinces of
British North America raise troops throughout the whole extent of the provinces placed
under his jurisdiction? Is not the militia
of all those provinces under his immediate
command? We are told, Mr. SPEAKER,
that Confederation will give us a more uniform military organization than that which
we now possess But there is nothing to
prevent the formation of that organization
under the present Constitution, and I have
no hesitation in saying that under that Constitution the several provinces will defend
themselves to better advantage than under
Confederation. Is it not precisely by creating
here a military power, hostile to the adjoining
powerlul republic, that we shall bring on war
and its attendant calamities? The moment
the United States perceive in this Confederation an organization, the object of which
is
the establishing of the balance of power in
America, they will not wait until our fortifications are constructed, or until the
Inter-
colonial railway is built, but they will attack
us at once. On another hand, we offer
defiance to the American republic by creating
here a political organization which is contrary
to the principles of the democratic government which prevails there, and contrary
to
the famous Monroe doctrine, which, as is
well known, is opposed to the establishment
of monarchical governments on this continent.
The plan of the present Government is,
therefore, to establish here a political system
which is essentially hostile to the United
States, as it will be essentially monarchical,
and instead of proving to us a means of
defence, it can entail nothing but war and
the disastrous consequences attendant upon
it. To promote the security and prosperity
of our country, the Government, instead of
bleeding the people as they propose to do, to
erect here and there ruinously expensive,
and after all insufficient fortifications, ought
to apply the revenues of the treasury to the
establishment of new industries, the improvement of our public highways, and the
colonization of our wild lands. These inexhaustible sources of wealth, if wisely managed,
would double our numbers, our revenue and
our power, and would in that way confer upon
us means of defence much more effective
than those which we should receive from
Confederation, which would crush the people
under taxes imposed to meet the expense
of imperfectly defending our frontier. And
is it supposed for a moment that when we
have in so urgent a manner decreed the
fortification of our frontier, the arming of
our militiamen, and the establishment of a
fleet on our inland seas, that the United
States will do the same and that they will
follow the example set them of such ruinous
folly? Is it supposed that the American
statesmen will not immediately perceive, as
we are desirous of raising ourselves up as an
enemy on their frontier, and of entailing upon
them an enormous outlay in order to hold us
in check, that it will be for them a mere
question of economy to attack us now and to
take possession of the country, before it is in
our power to oblige them to keep up that
622
ruinously expensive war footing? And what
could we do against an invading army of two
or three hundred thousand men, with our
treasury exhausted by the fortifications, and
with hardly any assistance from England,
whose policy at this moment is anti-colonial?
I cannot understand how, in face of the danger
which is impending over us, and for which
we are so little prepared, the Government
can thus cast defiance in the teeth of
the powerful nation who are adjacent to
us, and whose armies now in the field
could set at naught any resistance to
immediate invasion. I assert it positively,
Mr. SPEAKER, the United States have not
the least intention of attacking us, so long as
we remain peaceable spectators of their fratricidal struggle, and so long as we continue
to confine ourselves to peaceful occupations.
But if, on the contrary, we create here a
hostile military power, if we establish here
the throne of a viceroy or of a foreign monarch, in defiance of the principles which
form
the groundwork upon which rests the political system of the United States, we may
then
rest assured that the neighbouring republic
will sweep away that monarchical organization, established in rivalry to its own democratic
system. (Hear, hear.) Such, Mr.
SPEAKER, is the question in its most serious
aspect. I shall not enlarge upon the details
of the scheme of Confederation, which have
been so ably criticised by the hon. members
who have preceded me; and besides I shall
have an opportunity of discussing them
when the amendments to the scheme are
submitted to the House. But I may now
say that those details cannot be accepted by
the people. We have already received numerous petitions praying for the rejection
of
the measure, and those petitions continue to
reach us every day. Now, I ask you. Mr.
SPEAKER, what the sentiments of the people
will be if that scheme is adopted, and if in
the course of two months it is returned to
us from England, after having received the
sanction of the Imperial Parliament, without
its having been possible for us to alter the
most trifling of its details? Is it supposed,
after a Constitution shall have been forced
on the French-Canadians, which they have
opposed to the utmost, that they will be
very enthusiastic in the defence of that Constitution which shall have deprived them
of
a part of the political rights which they enjoyed? And, it cannot be denied, by adopting
the proposed Confederation, we yield up
some of the privileges which we now enjoy;
have not our Ministers themselves told us
that under the pressure of the demands of
Upper Canada it was necessaryto make concessions at the Quebec Conference, in order
to ensure the adoption of the present scheme?
The hostile majority of Upper Canada have
obtained representation based on population,
against which Lower Canada has so
energetically struggled for fifteen years,
because she saw in that concession the
annihilation of our influence as a race.
Under these circumstances, Mr. SPEAKER,
is it supposed that reliance is to be placed
on the assistance of the French—Canadians,
who were formerly so terrible in the attack,
and who fought, without hesitation, one
against ten, a proportion in which we shall
again find ourselves opposed to the Americans
in the probable event of a war? To hope
that they will fight with the same impulse
now, when they are being deprived of the
surest guarantees of their natural existence
and of their most sacred political rights, is
greatly to deceive ourselves, and to betray
ignorance of what has always been the cause
of their heroism in the conflict. Under the
Constitution as it is, they would again fight
with similar courage, regardless of numbers,
because they love that Constitution which
secures to them all that they hold most dear,
and because they wish to preserve it. Under
Confederation, on the contrary, we have
nothing left to defend; our influence as a
race is gone, and sooner than be absorbed in
a Confederation, the existence of which will
prove a source of constant strife without
bringing with it compensating advantages,
the people dissatisfied will seek other and
more advantageous political and commercial
alliances, and for this reason it is that I
consider that the scheme of Confederation
will lead us directly to annexation to the
United States. When the commissioners
from the North and the South recently had
an interview in order to decide the possible
conditions of an honorable peace, one of the
three propositions submitted by the North
was to the effect that the two armies should
not be disbanded after the cessation of
hostilities, but should be united for the
purpose of carrying on a foreign war. Now,
Mr. SPEAKER, what does the expression,
"foreign war," when used by the United
States, mean, except war upon Canada?
And what could the fifty battalions which
England could send us do against the combined armies of the North and the South,
the strength of which amounts to a million of
623
men ? Situated at a distance of a thousand
leagues from us, Great Britain, with all her
material of war and our militia, could not
defend Canada against so powerful an enemy,
except at the cost of the greatest sacrifices.
It is not, therefore, at a time when we are
placed in such great straits, that we should
exclaim loudly that we do not fear the struggle,
and that we are ready to measure our strength
against that of the States of the American
Union. It is equally absurd to give umbrage
to their institutions by creating beside them
a political organisation to which they are
fundamentally opposed. Is it believed that
our monarchical pretensions and our threats
are of a nature to intimidate the American
statesmen? In their eyes we are but pigmies hurling threats at giants. Let the
war come with the Constitution as it is, and
we shall find a hundred thousand volunteers
ready to defend our frontier. But if the
Government impose on the French-Canadians the scheme of Confederation, from
which they have so much fear, and which
may prove to be productive of the most
disastrous consequences to their institutions,
their language and their laws, then, I am
bound to say, there will be hesitation in our
ranks at the time when every man will be
marching towards almost certain death for
the defence of a flag which will no longer
confer upon our race the guarantees of protection which it to-day secures to us. I
say, then,
that the time is ill-chosen to make such
serious changes, and to lay the foundation
of an Empire the existence of which, threatened both from the interior and from the
exterior, will be of but a few days' duration.
For with dissatisfaction among the French-
Canadians, deprived of their rights and
privileges, it is impossible for England
to maintain her power here against three
hundred thousand men invading our territory at ten different points along our frontier.
The wisest policy which we can
pursue, at this critical moment, is therefore
remain peaceable spectators of the struggle between our neighbors, to open our
forests to colonisation, to turn to account
our mines and water-powers, to clear our
wild lands, and to labor without ceasing to
to recall our unfortunate countrymen who
are now scattered over American soil. Let
us construct railways, let us double our
manufacturing industry, let us enlarge our
canals, let us extend our network of railways to the Maritime Provinces; and when
we have attained great proportions as a peo
ple, when our prosperity shall have increased
fivefold, and, above all, when the terrible
hurricane which threatens to destroy everything in North America shall have terminated
its work of ruin, and finally when
we shall be strong enough to protect
ourselves from external attacks, and the
French-Canadians especially shall have obtained sufficient power to have nearly
equality of representation in the General
Parliament, it will be time enough to lay
the foundation of a great Confederation of
the British North American Provinces,
based on the protective principle of the
sovereignty of the states. Under these
circumstances Confederation will produce
abundant fruits, and will be welcomed by
the people of this country, and especially by
the French-Canadians, who, having doubled
in number in .the interval, will be in a
position to demand infinitely more advantageous conditions than those which are
forced upon them to-day. We shall not then
have our present political rights, which were
so dearly obtained by the struggles of a
century, replaced by local governments,
which will be nothing more than municipal
councils, vested with small and absurd
powers, unworthy of a free people, which
allow us at most the control of our roads,
our schools and our lands ; but we shall
then obtain local governments based on the
sovereignty of states, as is the case under the
Constitution of the United States. The
fact is not to be denied: the American
Constitution was created by great men in
face of a crowd of considerable and opposite local interests, and it cost them
several years of deep study to reconcile
these various interests, and finally to build
up that admirable Constitution which, as the
hon. member for Brome has so well said,
defies the most severe criticism in relation to
its most important bases. With a Constitution like that of the United States, based
upon state sovereignty, Lower Canada
would elect her own governor and her
representatives in the Federal Parliament
and Legislative Council, and also all the
Executive Ministers.
MR. DUFRESNE (Montcalm) — We
should also appoint the judges.
MR. PERRAULT—If the hon. member
for Montcalm had listened attentively to the
remarkable speech of the hon. member for
Brome, he would have learned that in
the majority of the states composing the
American Union, the judges are not ap
624
pointed by the people, but by the Executive branch of the local government, in
precisely the same way as in Canada, and
that they are in every respect as upright
and as distinguished as our own judges.
If our French-Canadian Ministers had not
been in so powerless a minority in the
Quebec Conference (four to thirty-two), they
would certainly not have accepted a scheme
of Confederation so fraught with danger to the
French race as that which has been submitted
to us. They would have obtained more
favorable conditions than those which are
imposed upon us, among which is the
appointment for life of the legislative
councillors, by the Executive branch of the
General Legislature. For my part, Mr.
SPEAKER, I am not in favor of the appointment for life of men taken from the crowd
to be converted into the instruments of
oppression, and ten often to serve to cast
impediments in the way of the most important liberties and rights of the peeple. The
appointment for life of the legislative
councillors by a majority which is hostile
to our race is as dangerous to-day as it was
in the most evil days of our history, and to
accept it is to place our most precious liberties at the mercy of the enemies of our
race.
With such provisions in the Constitution
which it is proposed to force upon us, it is
impossible that the French element should
be protected in the Legislative Council. It
is equally impossible that the aggressive
tendencies, of which I gave an historical
sketch in the first part of my remarks, will
not produce their effect in the Federal Executive, when the question of the appointment
of those members is being settled.
We have been told, " The French Canadian
section will resign if the Federal Executive
attempt to practice injustice to the detriment
of their fellow countrymen." Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, I would willingly believe that
they would resign, and that no successors
could be found for them, which is still more
improbable, and I should like to know to
what such a resignation would lead, and
what sort of a remedy it would provide for
our humiliating position. We shall have
forty-eight members in the Federal Parliament against one hundred and forty of
English origin ; in other words, we shall be
in the proportion of one to four. What
could so weak a minority do to obtain justice?
Evidently the resignation of the French
section would make it still more powerless,
and it would have to accept the tyrannical
dictates of its opponents. The French
members of the present Government themselves give as the ground of the necessity of
the proposed changes, the fact that the
existing Constitution does not afford us sufficient guarantees. But then, what sort
of
guarantees shall we have under the Confederation which it is proposed to force upon
us and
under which we shall be in a minority twice
as great? Let us suppose the very probable
contingency of a collision between our Local
Legislature and the Federal Government, in
consequence of the rejection of a measure
passed by the Province of Lower Canada and
thrown out by the General Parliament ; in
what position shall we be? Let us remember
that the Federal Executive appoints the
Legislative Council, presides over the criminal legislation of the country, and appoints
the judges who administer it ; in a word, that
in the Federal Government are vested all
sovereign powers, to the exclusion of the
local governments. Well, Mr. SPEAKER, I
say without hesitation that in the case of a
collision, we shall find ourselves completely
at the mercy of the hostile Federal majority,
and that it may oppress us, assimilate our
laws, suspend our judges, arm the militia
against us, and send us to the scaffold or into
exile in any way they may think proper, notwithstanding our protestations and those
of
the French-Canadian minority in the Federal
Parliament. Such has already been found
to occur; the past is there to prove the fact,
and everything leads us to believe that the
same attempts at fanatical aggression will be
renewed in our day, if the scheme of Confederation is adopted. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member for Brome, whose loyalty will certainly not be called in question, himself
declared in this House that this scheme
would give rise to difficulties and entail
deplorable collisions. Supposing, Mr. SPEAKER, that those collisions and difficulties
arise,
what shall we do ? Will not all power be in
the hands of the Federal Government and of
a hostile majority? Is it not because the
people understand it that they reject this
measure with threats on their lips and in
their eyes ; that every day they send us
numerous petitions in which they prophesy
the most serious dissatisfaction? How long
will the eyes and the ears of the members of
this House remain closed, that they may not
be cognisant of this protest of their alarmed
fellow-countrymen? The Hon. Atty. Gen.
East himself refuses to communicate to us a
single one of the details of the scheme of
625
Confederation, and he would have us give up
all the rights which the existing Constitution
confers upon us, by voting in favor of a Local
Legislature of which the powers will be
naught, and of a General Parliament in which
we shall be in the proportion of one to four.
Mr. SPEAKER, it is not surprising that the
French-Canadian population of Lower Canada is unanimous in rejecting a Confederation
which presents to us so gloomy a future—
(hear, hear)—and I do not fear to declare
that our Ministers are committing an act of
very great imprudence in forcing upon the
people constitutional changes of so serious a
character, and so loudly denounced as an
attack on their rights and their privileges.
Never, at any period of our history, have
there been seen such changes of constitution under such extraordinary circumstances.
And exactly at the moment when we are
preparing to resist the invading army of a
powerful neighbor, we are deprived of the
liberties which we enjoy after having secured
them by a century of struggles. But it
seems to me that new guarantees of security
ought rather to be given us, in order to induce us to fight with warlike antagonists
ten times more numerous than ourselves, and
whose political organization is perhaps less
hostile to our race than the proposed Confederation. Have not the present Ministry
taught us to look upon the semblance of
local government, which they propose to us,
as a sufficient protection for all that we hold
most dear, and to accept the position of a
powerless minority in the General Government, because commercial interests only
will be brought in question there? If this
proposition is a just one, the Constitution of
the United States, with the recognized sovereignty of Lower Canada, affords much
greater security for our institutions, our language and our laws. For the sovereignty
of
the state implies their preservation in the
state, which yields up nothing to the General Government except a very restricted
number of powers. Yes, Mr. SPEAKER, in
proposing a change of Constitution the Ministry have committed a serious fault, and
they have no right to endeavor to prevent
the people of this province from examining
the question of possible changes in all its
bearings. Scarcely six months ago the
French-Canadians lived happily, relying
upon the security given them by the existing Constitution. Now such can hardly be
the case, when the proposed changes threaten
their existence as a race. Impose these
changes upon them, and then let danger
come, and England will find out, but too
late, that her most loyal subjects are lost to
her. Our people will have learned that
of two evils they must choose the least,
and that on a comparison between Confederation and annexation, the least evil
will not, unfortunately, he found to be Confederation. Before marching on to certain
slaughter, the soldier will ask himself for
what he is going to fight, and whether the
Constitution which he is going to defend is
worth the sacrifice of his life's blood. The
day upon which the French-Canadian soldier
puts this question to himself, will be the last
day of the English power in America. I hope
I may be mistaken, Mr. SPEAKER, and I
would wish to believe that the views of the
Government are sounder than mine, at a
time when they propose a measure so full of
danger as that which is submitted to us. I
would wish to believe, above all, that they
have no intention of skilfully leading us into
a collision with our neighbors, which would
tend to carry us directly into annexation, and
would strike a mortal blow at English
domination on this continent. I shall conclude, Mr. SPEAKER, by summing up my
remarks. The union of the two Canadas
has not yet done all its work. There is
still room for progress under it, and it must
be continued. The Hon. Attorney General for
Lower Canada (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) maintains on the contrary that it has no longer
any grounds of existence, and that we must
have a new political organization. Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, I venture to hold an opinion different from that of the hon. member for Montreal
East, and I have no hesitation in saying that under the union we can yet double
our prosperity and our numbers, if we introduce into the administration of affairs
a little
less party spirit and a little more patriotism.
(Hear, hear.) I say, further, that the demand
for representation based on population has
no cause of existence, that it was repudiated
by Upper Canada, at first by the Conservative party, and afterwards by the Liberal
party under the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration. When we have seen the most
energetic and most since partisans of
representation based on population abandon
that principal basis of their politics, and
make of it, in their government, a question
against which they engaged to vote, I say
that it is very wrong to use it as one of the
reasons to compel us to accept the scheme
of Confederation. That cry, raised by fan
626
aticism in the west, will naturally be stifled
by the more rapid increase of the population
of Lower Canada and the annual diminution
of immigration. With the assistance .of
these two causes our population will, in
ten years, equal that of Upper Canada. I
say, Mr. SPEAKER, that the scheme of Confederation is not expedient. But even if
the scheme of Confederation was expedient,
I maintain that the object of it is hostile.
I gave an historical sketch of the encroaching spirit of the English race on the two
continents. I pointed out the incessant
antagonism existing between it and the
French race. Our past recalled to us the
constant struggle which we had to keep up
in order to resist the aggression and the
exclusiveness of the English element in
Canada. It was only through heroic resistance and a happy combination of circumstances
that we succeeded in obtaining the
political rights which are secured to us by
the present Constitution. The scheme of
Confederation has no other object than to
deprive us of the most precious of those
rights, by substituting for them a political
organization which is eminently hostile to
us. The hostility of the scheme of Confederation being admitted, I maintain that its
adoption will entail the most disastrous
consequences. To impose upon the French-
Canadians this new Constitution, which they
do not want, is to tempt their anger and to
expose ourselves to deplorable collisions.
(Hear, hear.) It must necessarily be submitted to them before it is adopted : if they
accept it, then will be the time to send it to
England to be sanctioned. But the Government, and especially the Hon. Attorney General
East, cannot ignore the petitions which
are presented to us against the scheme, and
especially so imposing a petition as that from
the city of Montreal, which contains 6,000
French-Canadian signatures, and which is the
most numerously signed petition which has
ever been presented to our legislature by a
city. I say, further, that those who vote for
the scheme of Confederation take the shortest
way to lead us into annexation to the United
States. I am not the first to express this opinion; several hon. members from Upper
Canada have expressed it before me within the
precincts of this House, and it is because
those members from Upper Canada desire
annexation to the United States that they
vote in favor of the scheme of Confederation.
The hon. members from the west, whose
words are so loyal, will be the first to pass
over to the enemy with arms and baggage,
should an invading army ever appear on
the frontier. Such, Mr. SPEAKER, is the
position as it is. If His Excellency the
Governor General thinks he ought to follow
the advice of those who look to Washington,
let him even do so; but I think it is high
time to speak plainly here, and to warn him
of the danger. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER,
I am not an old man with one foot already
in the grave, and on the verge of eternity,
and I adopt my course in view of the future.
Our Ministers, who, in the course of a long
career, have exhausted the supply of honor
and of dignity in our country, are perhaps
tempted to risk the future of their country
for titles, honors and larger salaries under
Confederation, perhaps for the sake of being
governor of one of the Federated Provinces.
We know that England nobly and royally
rewards those who serve her without scruple.
Besides, the prospect of founding a vast
empire is well worth the sacrifice of some
months of a worn out career, at the risk of
not succeeding entirely in so gigantic a project. (Hear, hear.) But for my part, Mr.
SPEAKER, I who belong to the coming
generation, and who have twenty years of
future before me, cannot approve, by my
vote, of a scheme of Constitution which presents itself to us in such a gloomy perspective
as regards our nationality, and all that we
hold most dear as Frenchmen. If I am thus
severe in my remarks, Mr. SPEAKER, I hope
it will be understood that they proceed from
profound conviction; and it is well known
that those who have honey on their lips are
not always the most sincere at heart. I
know also that sometimes those who state
boldly what they think pay very dearly for
their boldness and independence, but no
dread of this, Mr. SPEAKER, shall ever
cause me to shrink from expressing my convictions, when I consider that my doing so
may be of any use to my country. (Hear,
hear, and prolonged Opposition cheers.)
Cries of "Adjourn, adjourn! " from the
Opposition.
HON. A. A. DORION said he had moved
the adjournment of the debate last evening,
to have an opportunity of replying to the honorable member for Montmorency (Hon. Mr.
CAUCHON). But as that honorable gentleman was not in his place in the afternoon, he
627
had yielded the floor to the honorable member for Richelieu Mr. PERRAULT). The
honorable member for Montmorency, he observed, was still out of the House, and he
should like to defer his remarks till the honorable gentleman should be in his seat.
(Cries
of "Adjourn," and "Go on.")
COL. HAULTAIN then rose to address
the House. He said— If the House will
permit me, I shall relieve the honorable member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION). It
is not surprising to me, Mr. SPEAKER, that
there should be this hanging back on the part
of honorable members with regard to expressing their views on this subject, as so
much
has been said about it, that it is now, I won't
say thoroughly, but very nearly worn out.
And for my own part, in common, I suppose,
with all who will have to speak at this stage
of the debate, I feel reluctant to trespass on
the time of the House. At the same time,
I cannot properly call it a trespass, but
must rather consider it a duty. On a matter of this very great importance, involving
the interests of so large a portion of this continent, I think it behoves most of
us to express our opinions with the best ability that
we can bring to the subject. (Hear, hear.)
We have had this question discussed from so
many points of view, and, I presume, by the
ablest men who occupy public positions in
Canada, that a humble individual like myself
must feel great diffidence in saying another
word on the subject. But it is no small encouragement to know—at any rate I feel it
to
be an encouragement in speaking in advocacy
of the scheme—that I am in such good company, that the leading men in this province,
the leading men in the British Provinces generally, and I may even say the leading
men in
the British Empire, are all agreed as to the
desirableness of what is now proposed, and as
to the wisdom which has been displayed in
the framing of the scheme now submitted for
our adoption. 1 do not expect to say anything
new, and the fear of repeating what has already
been said makes me reluctant to say anything
at all; and were I to consult my own feelings,
I have no doubt I should be silent, and would
rise only when you call on us, Mr. SPEAKER, to
give our votes either for or against the resolutions in your hand. I think every honorable
member who has spoken in this debate
has expressed his sense of the responsibility
resting upon him, when addressing the House
and the country on a matter of such vast importance to us all. I feel equally with
others
how great is this responsibility, and have en
deavoured to bring the best powers of my
mind to the consideration of the question.
The more we consider it, the more we look
into the future in connection with our present
movement, the larger the importance, I believe,
it must assume in our minds. It not only
affects the interests of Canada, but of all the
British Provinces of this continent. Its probable results will materially affect the
future,
both of the British Empire and of the neighbouring republic, and, therefore, more
or less
the future of the world at large. I do not
think that I am using language at all exaggerated. From the best consideration I have
been able to give to this subject, I believe
there are under-lying the question now before
us principles of the greatest importance to
the world. I believe there are principles involved in our present action that must
very
much determine the character of the institutions that will generally prevail. The
impression upon my own mind is, that if successful, we shall give greater stability
and a
more permanent foothold to the principles that
obtain in the British Constitution; but that
failing in our present object, we shall see the
decadence of these principles on this continent, and the advance of those principles
which
obtain in the neighbouring republic. (Hear,
hear.) The more I consider it, the stronger
am I of the opinion, that at the present time
the principles of democracy and of monarchism—if I may so express it—are at stake;
and, considering it in this view, I look upon
the scheme before us as calling for the most
cordial and earnest support of every man who
has learned to value the stability, the moderation, and the justice which have characterized
the British nation as compared
with any other nation that exists on the
face of the globe. The great question
before us is that of union—a practicable
and attainable union—a union of provinces owning allegiance to the same Crown,
possessing, generally, similar institutions,
similar systems of government, the same language, the same laws, the same dangers,
the
same enemies. Our institutions are generally
similar, although, no doubt, from having been
isolated for so great a length of time, and
having had no intercourse one with the other
to speak of, there is an idiosyncracy attached
to each of the provinces as they now exist,
and the longer we remain separate the greater
the divergence must be, and the more difficult
union between us will be of accomplishment.
The advocates of this scheme propose the
union of all these provinces. It is a trite
628
proverb that " union is strength, and division
is weakness." So universally accepted is this
statement, that no man can venture to deny
its correctness. And I feel, as an advocate
of union, that our position is one which is
unassailable, and the arguments must indeed
be strong which would convince me that we
are not going in the right direction when
moving towards union and consolidation.
(Hear, hear.) Apart from the intrinsic force
and power of union, which would be in itself
sufficient to call us in that direction, Canada
has special reasons for desiring that the British provinces should draw together more
closely than they have yet done. By such a
step we may remove one great cause of our
own political difficulties. I do not think that
this is at all a necessary part of the argument
for our uniting together. But it so happens
that by our union we hope to remove these
difficulties, and that is an additional argument
for union, although not at all necessary to
induce the adoption of the scheme. I believe
that if we had no difficulties whatever in
Canada, if we were perfectly satisfied with
our political position, union would still be
desirable on the broad ground of the advantages we would derive from it. But, in addition
to those advantages, and the force and
strength which union will give us, it will assist
us in surmounting and removing those great
difficulties under which we labor; and it is a
most happy circumstance that, while we are
carrying out a principle so excellent in itself,
we are at the same time enabled to remove
difficulties which might prove most disastrous
to our prospects. And, in addition to these
reasons, we have evidently the wishes of the
Mother Country for the success of this scheme.
(Hear, hear.) No one can with reason question the reception which the scheme has met
with from the press and from men of all shades
of political opinion in the Mother Country.
It has met with universal approbation there.
(Hear, hear.) There has been no jealousy
of it that I know of. There has not proceeded from any quarter one word of disapprobation
or of doubt as to the prudence and
the wisdom which have dictated our advances
towards union. The good wishes of Great
Britain are thoroughly with us. (Hear,
hear.) An additional reason, I may say
necessity, for union exists in the hostility of
the United States so palpably manifested
during the past few months. In fact, sir,
looking at all our interests—our interests
socially and commercially—our interests of
defence—our internal harmony—our very
existence as an independent people—all
bid us go forward in the direction of
union. I shall allude but briefly to the political difficulties of Canada, as this
part of
the subject has been most ably handled by
honorable gentlemen who have preceeded me.
Our difficulties, I had fancied, were palpable
to all, and yet we have heard honorable gentlemen who are opposed to the scheme-almost
ignoring their existence, or treating them as
though they did not weigh in the scale of the
arguments on this question at all. I am sorry
my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. DUNKIN)
is not here, as I will have to refer to some of
his remarks. That honorable gentleman, as
well as others, intimated to the House that
our difficulties had disappeared; that since
1862 Upper Canada had been satisfied with her
position ; that agitation had been laid aside;
that there was no more mention of any sense of
injustice on the part of Upper Canada. This
line of remark only shews me how ignorant
those honorable gentlemen were of the subject
on which they were speaking; how entirely
they had remained in the dark as to the feelings
which existed in the minds of the people of
Upper Canada; manifesting a degree of
ignorance on one very important feature of our
position, that rendered them to a great degree
incompetent to deal with this question. From
much that I have heard relative to the cause
of the dissatisfaction known to prevail in
Upper Canada, I think it well not to be altogether silent about it. We must look deeper
than the displeasure felt and manifested at the
passing of certain measures obnoxious to the
majority of that section, or at the unjust
principle of an equal distribution of the public
revenues between the two sections. It is true
that these tended to draw attention to, and
make more prominent the real cause of
discontent. It lay deep in the chafing of the
minds of men whose national characteristic is
impatience of intolerance and injustice. It
dwelt in the abiding sense of the unfair position that the terms of the union of 1840
now
imposed upon them, and obeying their national
instincts, they could never cease to insist upon
a representative reform. (Hear, hear.) I
suppose there are no people on the earth who
feel more strongly or who will resist more
determinedly the perpetration and continuance of any injustice. It was that sense
of
injustice, weighing heavily on the minds of
the people of Upper Canada, that rendered
our position one of difficulty and of danger so
long as relief was denied them. I have been
surprised, therefore, to hear the statement
629
which has been made by some hon. gentlemen
in this House, that the feelings of dissatisfaction which existed in Upper Canada
have
disappeared. The formation of the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government has been mentioned
as a proof that we have become indifferent to the question of representation by
population, which had been so repeatedly and
so strongly urged, and that the people of
Upper Canada were quite willing, for the sake
of some small material advantages, to cast
aside that for which they had been agitating
for so many years. In opposition to this, I
must state that there was the strongest disapprobation felt and expressed throughout
Upper Canada at the formation of that Government. The only excuse made for it was,
that it was simply a provisional government,
and that its formation was nothing more than
a temporary measure. I would not hesitate
or fear to appeal to any constituency in Upper
Canada, where the question of representation
by population had been agitated, and ask them
to say whether they did not cherish the
strongest feelings of disapprobation that that
question should have been ignored at the time
of the formation of that Government.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—But in North
Ontario a member of the Government came
who had not been the member for that constituency before, and defeated one who was
in
favor of representation by population.
COL. HAULTAIN—In alluding to this
matter, I would wish to guard myself against
rousing anything like party questions or party
feelings. (Hear, hear.) I desire, in dealing
with the important subject now under debate,
to remember that the question before us now
is not who was right or who was wrong in
1862 or 1863. The question is, are we right
in advancing towards union, or are we making
a great mistake; but where it is necessary for
me to allude to the course pursued by either
party, it is for the purpose of argument alone,
and not in any way to raise the question who
was right or who to blame. I stated, sir, that
there was the strongest disapprobation—I
might more correctly say disappointment—
felt in Upper Canada that the question of
representation by population should have
been laid aside by the MACDONALD—SICOTTE
Government. I felt as strongly as any
man could have done the unfortunate posi
tion in which we were then placed; but
giving it the best consideration I could, and
believing that a change of government was
desirable under almost any circumstances,
I most unwillingly consented. I believed
nothing else could have been done at the
time. It was the opinion of most, though
not of all, with whom I then acted—we might
have been wrong, that is not the question.
Believing, therefore, that we could not then
secure the success of the measure for which
we had been agitating and which we had been
seeking, we thought it necessary to form and
acknowledge and support a provisional government, for I do say that the Government
then formed was in my estimation, and in the
estimation of Upper Canada generally, a provisional government—nothing more; a Government
which was simply tolerated, and
which could not possibly exist for any length
of time. It was a government formed for a
certain purpose, and Upper Canada sanctioned
it only because of that purpose, which was
regarded at the time as of primary importance. He knows little of the mind of Upper
Canada who sees in it any indifference to the
question of parliamentary reform. It was a
position that neither party has anything to
boast of ; the apparent inconsistency of the
one resulted from the felt misgovernment of
the other. It is no small pleasure to be able
cordially and consistently to act with honorable gentlemen whom I strongly opposed
before, and I so acted because I thought it my
duty under the circumstances so to do.—
(Hear, hear.) Well, sir, how long did this
provisional government last ? Within one
year it was defeated, and before it could shew
itself to Upper Canada, there was an entire
reconstruction of the Cabinet—and why? Because the principal measure which Upper Canada
had demanded was lost sight of.
COL. HAULTAIN—There can be no
stronger evidence of this fact, than that it was
necessary to bring into the Cabinet men who
truly represented the views and wishes of
Upper Canada, and men also in Lower Canada who were thought to be more friendly to
Upper Canada demands. Had that government, without reconstruction, gone to Upper
Canada, where would they have been? Had
they gone to Upper Canada as they were, and
without admitting other elements into the
Cabinet, they would have met with a very
general hostility. The Premier himself was
made fully aware of this, and he wisely bowed
630
to the wishes of Upper Canada. There cannot, therefore, be a stronger evidence than
this of the fact that the question of reform in
the representation was not laid aside, neither
had it lost one iota of its importance in the
minds of the great majority of the western
section. The Government that had ventured
to lay it aside was virtually swept away, and
another formed who made it an open question.
This, sir, lies at the very foundation of our
difficulties. It has been the source of our
difficulties, and no doubt would have continued
to be, had no remedy been provided. I have
said before on another occasion, and I repeat
it, that the minds of men in Upper Canada
were filled with foreboding as to the future.
They feared that Lower Canada would resist
their demands; they feared that Lower Canada would continue to deny to them what
appeared to them to be palpably just and
right, and what the end of it all would be
they did not know. I confess that I shared
this feeling in common with others; and it
was a matter of common conversation that
things could not continue as they were; that
it was impossible for Upper Canada, with her
superiority in numbers and in wealth, to
consent to remain in the united Legislature
in the inferior position she then occupied. If
the attempt had been persisted in to deny to
that section what was so reasonable and just, no
man could have foretold the serious difficulties
which might have followed. Hon. gentlemen from Lower Canada, who have expressed
an opinion that this question had ceased to
be considered as of importance in the west,
manifest a very great ignorance of the character, the feelings and the intentions
of the
men they had to deal with. My hon friend
from Brome was one of those who wished to
make light of our present difficulties. He
said, towards the close of his speech, that it
only needed a little patience, that very little
was wanted to make everything quite smooth.
But, sir, even he was obliged to admit that
a slight measure of parliamentary reform
was necessary in order to remove the difficulties by which we were surrounded, and
he evidently intimated his willingness to
concede it. And there have been hints
thrown out by certain Liberal members from
Lower Canada that it would not be such an
impossible thing, if we would give up this
scheme of union, for Upper Canada to obtain her right position, and what she has so
justly claimed. But if this be their feeling,
I ask them why they did not come boldly
out before and avow it? I would ask my
hon. friend from Brome—and I regret extremely that he is not in his place—why did
he not, in 1862, speak of concessions to
Upper Canada, instead of, by vote and by
argument, do his best to convince us that
we could expect no relief from him
and from those acting with him, from
the same section. Very different language
is now used by Lower Canada members of
all shades of opinion, to that we have been
accustomed to hear. Those who now admit
the justice of the demands of Upper Canada,
and yet in time past have resisted them,
ought to be the last to oppose this scheme,
which settles the difficulty on a basis accepted
by all. The honorable member for Brome
and the British members from Lower Canada,
who resisted the reform asked for, ought to
be foremost in supporting the scheme before
us; and I am sorry to find that my hon.
friend appears to me to occupy a very
inconsistent position. Had he always
advocated parliamentary reform, he might
with consistency have opposed the proposed
union. In some such position, and even in
a stronger point of view, do the French
Liberal members appear to be. They were
the professed allies of the Reform party in
Upper Canada, and were, of course, aware
that no reform government could stand that
did not deal with the representation question.
Now, it appears to me, sir, that the Liberal
French party have been singularly untrue
to their Upper Canada allies——
COL. HAULTAIN—I repeat, sir, that the
Liberal French members have pursued a
course that if continued in, could only have
terminated as it has done. I speak of what
has come under my own observation since
1862. A new Parliament had been convened.
The question of representative reform had
attained great prominence. The Reform
party had spoken distinctly on that question.
Had their Lower Canada allies contemplated
a continuance of the alliance, we might
suppose that they would have forborne
raising unnecessary difficulties. But, sir,
what was the course pursued? It will be
remembered that an amendment to the address was moved, asserting that the principle
of equal representation was essential to the
union. This was a gratuitous though most
significant expression of the divergence that
was inevitable. This was made more palpa
631
ble still, when, at the formation of the
MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government, the Reform party were obliged to pay, as a price
for their alliance, the surrender of the principle most prominent in their political
creed.
An alliance based upon such terms could not
possibly last. And what must we think
when we hear hon. gentlemen intimating
that this principle might now be conceded?
Had the same principles been then enunciated, had a bold, straightforward course been
adopted by the Liberal members of Lower
Canada, they might now be occupying the position of settling our very serious difficulties.
I have alluded, sir, to the wishes of the
Mother Country relative to the movement
upon which we have entered, and I assert
that the feeling there is one of universal
approbation. Still, so much has been said
relative to the opinions existing in the
Mother Country as to the connection with
her colonial dependencies, and especially
with those in British America, that I think
it right to remark on this branch of the subject rather more fully than I should otherwise
have done, for I feel the great importance ot it. I know of nothing that would
so much tend to discourage the people of
this country as that an impression should go
abroad that the Mother Country was intending to cast us adrift—to sever the connection.
I have no doubt myself, sir, that did such an
opinion really exist in the Mother Country,
and were it to be carried into effect at the
present time, or within any short period of
time, the only alternative—I fear, the only
alternative—would be our annexation to the
United States. (Hear, hear.) Therefore,
I feel it to be of great importance that no
doubt should exist in the minds of the people
of this country relative to the feelings entertained towards us at home. My hon. friend
the member for Brome dwelt at considerable
length on the subject. He expressed, and I
am quite sure he entertains the strongest
desire for the perpetuation of this connection; yet it did seem to me that he dwelt
with peculiar satisfaction upon every word
he could extract from speeches and pamphlets, which appeared to him to point to a
desire to sever that connection, and I cannot
but remember that he was frequently cheered
with " Hear, hears " corresponding with the
sentiments he expressed. The remarks made
by the hon. member from Brome were, to my
mind, most extraordinary. The deductions
he drew from the speeches of certain noble
men and gentlemen in the Imperial Parliament, were so directly opposite to what
appeared to me the design and tendency of
those speeches, that I cannot account for it
in any other way, than by presuming that
my hon. friend was not in his usual health,
and that his mind did not possess that degree
of clearness which he generally brings to
bear on every subject he investigates.
(Hear, hear.) It seemed to me that
he looked at everything relating to
this question through a distorted medium.
I listened with the greatest pleasure to the
dissection the hon. gentleman made of these
resolutions, and to the microscopic analysis
to which he subjected the smallest part of
their provisions. It shewed the great acuteness of his observation, as well as the
large
and extended information of his mind. But
I could not help feeling that he was looking
at this subject through the discoloured lens
of a powerfully microscopic mind. (Laughter.) I have no doubt whatever that this
also was the impression made by his speech
on other hon. gentlemen. His talents
and his ability I fully recognize, and
I have no doubt that every hon. gentleman
listened, equally with myself, with pleasure
to what I may call the excruciating dissection to which he submitted these important
resolutions. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
But I must at the same time say that the
result of all his analysis, and the summing
up of all his observations, only proved to me
that the ground on which the advocates of
this scheme stand is well nigh immovable
and unassailable, and convinced me of the
smallness of the objections which have yet
been urged against it. Of course my hon.
friend from Brome, considering the temperament of his mind, dwelt at length and with
much force upon the article which lately
appeared in the
Edinburgh Review. I must
acknowledge that in that article there are
passages of extreme offensiveness, such as I
regret to see in any British publication, and
which were uncalled for and imprudent.
If I thought that the article reflected
the views of either of the parties now dividing the political world in Great Britain,
I
should indeed say that our connection with
the Mother Country was precarious, and that
it behoved us to ask with pertinacity what
really was the intention of the statesmen
and the people at home with regard to us.
But, sir, we have happily the most conclusive evidence that could be afforded, that
632
that article does not represent the views of
either of the great parties in the British
Parliament. It may be the mind of a few
isolated individuals; it may represent what
is called the Manchester School ; and I am
not surprised at all that they should utter
sentiments of that character. I believe that
the Manchester School, being in a measure
republican in their political tendencies,
would not be sorry to see us joining the
great republic to the south, and that it
would not be a matter for much sorrow to
them to see us forsaking our allegiance to the
British Crown, and joining our fortunes
with those of our neighbors. It behoves us
to see if there are not some grounds of
complaint—if there is not some reason
why the Manchester School should wish to
get rid of us. It has been well observed that
the remarks made upon us by our enemies
are generally more valuable than those
emanating from our friends. We cannot
very well afford to despise the opinions
of our enemies, and we would do well to
consider, if we desire to perpetuate the
connection with the Mother Country, whether
we cannot consistently with our interest
and honor conciliate every party in Great
Britain. Believing as I do that our independence and prosperity depend upon
preserving the connection with the Mother
Country, I would be willing to remove
every just cause of complaint which may
be found to exist. I believe, further, that
no man should take part in the government of these provinces who is not alive to
the importance of this question. And what
is the ground of complaint made by those
who hold loosely the connection of the
colonies with the Crown? The complaint
is that they are taxed with our defence,
while we tax the industry of the Mother
Country, and go directly in opposition to
the policy adopted by that country ; and
surely there is some force and truth in this
complaint. There is no doubt that, as we
are growing in wealth and numbers, these
men feel it as an oppression that they should
continue to be taxed as heavily in order to
provide means for our defence, and especially as, in times past, we have done so little
ourselves in that direction. As from year
to year, or decade to decade, we grow in
numbers and wealth, we ought to consider,
if we value the connection, in what manner
we can relieve the Mother Country of the
expenses entailed upon her for our defence.
I also hold that, in so far as our financial
position admits of it, we should seek to
adapt and assimilate our financial policy to
that of Great Britain. If we would continue
an integral part of that country, we ought
not to have high tariffs intervening as so
many barriers to that commercial intercourse
which should exist between the two countries, for these must be provocative of
soreness and dissatisfaction. I am, however,
well aware that there are circumstances
which, at the present time, do not admit of
such a commercial policy with the Mother
Country. I merely say we ought constantly
to keep the matter in view, and that those
who desire to maintain the connection
should consider it their duty to decrease the
tariff as much as it can be done with justice
to our own position, and thus remove the
great cause of complaint on the part of the
people at home. (Hear, hear.) I have
alluded, sir, to the
Edinburgh Review and
to the extreme offensiveness of some of its
passages referring to the colonies. But at
the same time, there are sentiments enunciated in the very same article, which
seem to me to contradict the drift of the
article itself. As we have heard so much
of this article, and as it has been made the
ground on which to base the supposition
that there is a growing desire in England to
bring to an end her connection with the
colonies, I beg to call the attention of hon.
gentlemen to this suggestive paragraph, as
I find it in the same article :—
The people of England have no desire to snap
asunder abruptly the slender links which still
unite them with their transatlantic fellow-subjects, or to shorten by a single hour
the duration
of their common citizenship. On the contrary,
by strenghtening the ties which still remain, they
would convert into a dignified alliance an undignified, because unreal, subserviency.
This is a remarkable passage to find in such
an article, because, as I said before, the
whole drift of the article seems to imply a
desire on the part of the writer to see the
connection severed ; and yet, while expressing this sentiment, he says there is no
desire to shorten by a single hour the duration of our common citizenship! Why,
this article which has been made so much of,
which has been dwelt upon so forcibly, and
which has been sent forth to the country as
indicative of the future policy of England—
I say this very article has strong language
633
manifesting a desire for the maintenance of
the connection.
COL. HAULTAIN—I do not mean to
say that there is nothing in the latter part
which contradicts the former. But the
article points to a position the writer would
desire to see us occupy.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—No ; the
latter part of the article expresses the satisfaction felt by the writer at the prospect
of
our becoming independent.
COL. HAULTAIN—I have not the
Review
by me, and it may be as my honorable friend
says. But the general drift of the article is
as I have stated it to be. I do not mean to
say that there are not apparently contradictory sentiments therein expressed—sentiments
which are absolutely and altogether
contradictory. To resume my argument, it
seems to me that if we evinced a desire to
remove the existing causes of complaint,
even the Manchester School, even such men
as GOLDWIN SMITH, would not be unwilling
to see the connection between these provinces
and the Mother Country continue. My
honorable friend the member for Brome,
not only alluded to this article in the
Edinburgh Review, but he thought there were
speeches uttered by certain noblemen and
gentlemen in their places in the British
Parliament, from which, looking at them
through his discolored lens, he could extract
sentiments of a similar character. The hon.
gentleman would admit nothing whatever in
favor of this scheme, and seemed determined
that England, whether she liked it or not,
should cut the connection. He said the
Mother Country eulogised the scheme, but—
that Lord GRANVILLE approved, but—that
Lord DERBY spoke in favor of the connection, but—All the virtue to his mind was
in the " buts. " Nothing would satisfy him,
and nothing would satisfy England whatever
was done, and the sooner she got rid of us
as a bad bargain, the better she would be
pleased. ( Laughter.) But what was really
the tone of the speeches from which the
hon. gentleman quoted? Lord HOUGHTON,
in seconding the motion for the Address in
the House of Lords, on the 7th of February,
said, " He hoped and believed that these
colonies would still recognize the value of
the British connection, and that their amalgamation would render them more safe,
without in any way weakening their fealty.
(Cheers.)" What language, I ask, could
more clearly express the feelings of the person
speaking than this, and, as the seconder of
the Address, the desire also of the party
connected with him, that "our fealty to
the British Crown should in no manner
be weakened." And yet my honorable
friend from Brome thought, with that
discolored view he took of it, that he
detected some uncertainty—some " but."
(Laughter.) Lord DERBY was even more
strong and emphatic in his language :—
If I saw in this Confederation a desire to separate from this country, I should consider
that a
matter of so much more doubtful policy; but I see
it with satisfaction—perhaps, however, it is too
soon to discuss resolutions which have not yet
been finally adopted—but I hope I see, in the
terms of this proposed Confederation, an earnest
desire to retain the blessings of the connection
with this country—an earnest feeling of loyalty,
and a determined and deliberate preference for a
monarchical form of government over republican
institutions, and a desire to maintain, as long as
it can be maintained peaceably—and no human
being can wish to see it maintained longer—the
amicable connection which at present exists between this country and the colonies.
(Cheers.)
I notice that on both occasions when Lord
DERBY and Lord HOUGHTON expressed these
sentiments of attachment to the colonies,
cheers were given in the House of Lords ;
and yet the hon. member for Brome, laboring
under some extraordinary mental hallucination—(laughter)—thought he could detect
evidences of a desire to abandon us to our
fate—a willingness on the part of the two
great parties represented in the House
of Lords by Earl GRANVILLE and Earl
DERBY, that this connection should cease !
When we consider the position Lord DERBY
occupies; when we consider that he spoke
from his seat in Parliament—and we all know
the significance attached to the utterances
of even the men of least note, when they
speak from their places in the Legislature,
how their words will be noted down and
become a matter of record to be referred to
five or ten years hence perhaps, as I dare
say has more than once been found to be the
case with regard to honorable gentlemen
634
occupying seats on the floor of this House—
when Lord DERBY, I say, the leader of the
greatest political party in Great Britain—
and I do not hesitate to assert that it stands
to-day the most numerous party—gives
utterance in the strongest terms to his desire
to see perpetuated the connection with the
Mother Country, I hope we see in that an
evidence, that so long as we discharge the
duties properly devolving upon us, England
will never fail us in our hour of need.
(Cheers.) Lord GRANVILLE said :—
It was gratifying to see the good feeling which
existed between this country and the North American colonies, which, while they strove
to carry
out their own wishes, desired to continue the
connection with England.
Why, air, if my hon. friend from Brome
(Mr. DUNKIN) was right, Earl GRANVILLE, so far from saying that he desired to
see this connection perpetuated, should have
expressed his regret that we were desiring
to maintain this connection. Notwithstanding the strength of the language I have
quoted, my hon friend from Brome was
determined to see in it some desire in the
minds of these noble lords that the connection should cease—some desire on the part
of the people of England that they should
no longer hold, as appendages of the British
Crown, these valuable Provinces of British
America. He said even, with reference to
the language of Lord DERBY, that his lordship " hoped" and " trusted" that so and
so
would be the case—and that the very fact of
Lord DERBY's expressing a hope that we
were not going to sever the connection, was
in his mind tantamount to saying that a
separation was inevitable. (Laughter.)
What would happen, sir, if my hon. friend
were to carry out these extraordinary views
in the common intercourse of life? It struck
me, while he was speaking, that in his state
of mind, there might be danger in the interchange of the casual civilities of social
intercourse. He is unfortunately laboring
under a severe cold. Suppose I were to meet
him to-morrow morning, and in the exercise
of that friendly regard that I cordially feel
for my hon. friend, I were to express a hope
that his malady was decreasing. If he were
to interpret my " hope " in the same strange
manner in which he as taken the " hope"
of Lord DERBY and others, he would very
likely tell me that he was not so near his
dissolution as I imagined, and that he had
no intention yet of ordering his grave to be
dug. For it must be evident, that acting
under the mental delusion that has characterized his remarks on this subject, he would
interpret my " hope" that he was better, to
a persuasion on my part that he had but a
precarious tenure of his life. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) And to illustrate farther
how incapable his mind had become of dealing impartially and correctly with the important
subject before us, I would call
the attention of the House to the fact
that when Lord DERBY expressed " a
hope," he was not speaking at all of the
feeling in England, but he was speaking of
the feeling in this country. He said he
hoped we should continue the connection.
But when he spoke of the feeling in the old
country, he did not even use the word
" hope," but spoke positively and with assurance, saying: " I am sure " that the aid
of
Great Britain will never fail them when they
require it. (Hear, hear.) We have had
his remarks quoted to us before, but I make
no apology at all for extending the discussion
upon it, for I feel strongly how important it
is that this country should understand what
the feeling in England is with regard to us.
We have also had quoted to us the words
used in Her Majesty's Speech, at the time
that Columbia was formed into a British
province. I will read it again :—
Her Majesty hopes that this new colony on the
Pacific may but one step in the career of
steady progress by which Her Majesty's dominions
in North America may ultimately be peopled in
an unbroken chain from the Atlantic to the Pacific, by a loyal and industrious population
of sub
jects of the British Crown.
(Hear, hear.) These utterances from high
official quarters, which are generally very
reticent, are remarkable for their force, and
for the unmistakable language in which they
are couched But, if there was any doubt
as to the feeling which existed among the
leading men of the political parties of the
Empire, ought not that doubt to be removed by
the visit of His Royal Highness the PRINCE
OF WALES to this country? Was that a mere
sham, an make-believe, on the part of England
and the English Government, that Her
Majesty desired to retain, and Her Government and the people of England desired to
retain, the allegiance and the homage of Her
people in the west? I do not believe it for a
single instant. I have had recalled to my mind
the language used by the PRINCE OF WALES,
which I remember struck me very forcibly
635
at the time. It occurred in his address to the
Canadian regiment in the year 1858, or the
beginning of 1859. After its arrival in England, colors were presented to that regiment
by H.R. Highness. It was his first public act,
after he had been appointed to a commission
in the British army. I will read the words
which fell from the lips of His Royal Highness on that occasion, and which made amost
gratifying impression on my mind, having
spent, as a British officer, previous to that
time, many years of my life in these provinces. His Royal Highness, in presenting
the colors to the regiment, used these words :—
The ceremonial on which we are now engaged
possesses a peculiar significance and solemnity,
because in confiding to you for the first time this
emblem of military fidelity and valor, I not only
recognize emphatically your enrollment into our
national force, but celebrate an act which proclaims and strengthens the unity of
the various
parts of this vast empire under the sway of our
common Sovereign.
While on this subject, I may refer to one or
two of the answers which His Royal Highness made to the various addresses presented
to him in passing through this country. One
of the most gratifying to my own mind, and
to the mind of every man who desires to see
our connection with the Mother Country perpetuated, is his answer to the Address from
the
Legislative Council, in which he said—" Most
heartily do I respond to your desire that the
ties which bind together the Sovereign and
the Canadian people may be strong and enduring." (Hear, hear.) But it is not necessary
for me to quote further from the answers
made by His Royal Highness. The whole
aspect of his visit to this country—the utterances of the leaders of the two great
parties
in the British Empire—the well-known wishes
of our Sovereign and of the Heir-Apparent to
the Throne—all these intimate, so far as acts
and language can intimate anything, that there
is still an unanimous desire on the part of
the British people for the continuance of
the connection of these provinces with the
British Empire. And I believe it rests
with us—altogether rests with us—whether
that connection shall be perpetuated. (Hear,
hear.) I have no doubt that this prevailing
desire for the perpetuation of the connection
is one main ground of the satisfaction with
which the people of England view our movement towards union. They are well aware
—not looking at it from the view of our sectional jealousies and party conflicts,
but looking at it from a broader point of view—that
our union must tend to the consolidation of
our power and our strength, and to the development of our resources. I see no absolute
necessity why, as we grow in strength,
we should think, for many long years to come,
of severing the connection; but as we increase in wealth and in numbers, we ought
gradually, in the time of peace, to relieve the
Mother Country of the expense to which we
now put her for our defence. (Hear, hear.)
Another reason why we should earnestly desire a union of the British provinces, in
order to develope our nationality, in order
that we should become better acquainted, in
order that new channels of commerce should
be opened up, is because of the hostility of
the United States, evidently manifested to
this country during the past few months.
What has been the policy of the United
States towards Canada during that time?
We have seen adopted the passport system—
a remnant of despotism which even the despotic governments of the old world have
abolished. We have seen that democratic
people embarrassing and restricting the intercourse between us; they have given notice
of the termination of the convention limiting
the lake naval force; they have, I believe,
given notice of the abrogation of the Reciprocity treaty; we have seen the committee
of ways and means reporting a bill for putting the frontier defences in order, and
recommending the expenditure of upwards of
a million of dollars on those defences.
They have given notice, or propose to give
notice, of the abrogation of the Extradition
treaty. They have proposed the construction
of a ship canal around the Niagara Falls for
gunboats and vessels of war. This is the
policy of the United States towards Canada.
(Hear, hear.) And it makes us consider
what steps they will take next. It must
make every man consider the position of this
country, should she be cut off from a communication with the ocean through the United
States by the bonding system being suddenly
terminated. It makes us feel the humiliating
position we occupy, that our very national
existence at the present time is in a great
measure dependent—most humiliatingly dependent—upon a foreign and an unfriendly
power. (Hear, hear.) The people of the
United States have recently manifested no
good-will towards us, and the steps that have
been taken to exhibit their ill-will are perhaps
only a foretaste of what we may expect before
long. But whether they take extreme measures or not at the present time, does our
636
present position offer any guarantee for independence, or for the continuance of our
connection with England? Rather, do not the
condition of this continent and the earnest
advice of British statesmen call aloud upon us
to be prepared, unless we intend to form part
and parcel of the great republic ? I can
readily understand how men with annexation
tendencies, and who are inclined towards
republican institutions, would rejoice at our
present position. I can understand how men
who wish to see the whole continent converted
into one great republic, are pleased at difficulties being created between the Empire
and the
provinces. But those who entertain different
views see plainly that some steps must be
taken, that we must go to work earnestly to
build up a nationality independent of the
United States, though not in hostility to it,
to counteract the tendency so evident on every
hand to drive us into their arms. We know
very well what must be the result of the steps
which they are now taking—unless we ourselves
take measures in another direction—unless we
find another outlet to the ocean— unless we
find some other channels for our trade and
commerce, they knew that we must inevitably
fall into their arms. That is another reason
why I wish to see no delay in the union and
in the amalgamation of the British provinces,
in order that we may at once consolidate ourselves into one people, and at once endeavor
to
abolish those barriers which now exist between
us, and develope the feeling that we have common interests, and that we are dependent
the
one upon the other, which can never be the
case so long as division walls exist. It seems
really astonishing to my mind that any man
who really desires to see built up on this continent a nationality independent of
the United
States, should offer any opposition to the proposal now before us. (Hear, hear.) So
much has been said with regard to our
financial and commercial position and prospects, that I think it is quite unnecessary
for me to say anything further on the
subject. I am quite sure that I could not place
the matter before you as well as it has been
submitted by those who have preceded me.
But it is natural that each speaker should
dwell upon that which most impresses his own
mind. I am persuaded that in every point of
view—in view of our dependence upon, and
precarious relations with the United States,
in view of a desired union with the British
provinces ; in view of our connection with the
Empire—we should be culpably lacking in our
duty, did we any longer delay to seek and to
create new channels for our trade and commerce. It is well known that at the present
time our productions are actually passing
through the hands of the New York merchants before they reach the Maritime Provinces.
These merchants are deriving all the
benefits of that trade, which, with all our disadvantages, does exist to a considerable
extent, and is evidently capable of an enormous
extension. It is only necessary to refer to
the position and characteristics of the different
provinces, to see at once how exactly they
supply the wants and deficiencies of each
other. Suffice it to say that we are agricultural and manufacturing, whilst they are,
and
must remain, principally a maritime population, requiring for consumption that with
which we can supply them. I know it is said
that these channels of commercial intercourse
may be opened up without union. But we
need to feel ourselves to be one people, with
identical interests, dependent upon each other;
and what can do this as well as a political
union, bringing us together into one legislature and under one government? Perhaps
it
is not too much to say that our commercial
interests would be furthered more in ten years
under a political union, than it would be in
thirty years without it. (Hear, hear.) In
connection with this subject, I am naturally
reminded of the Intercolonial Railway. Now,
sir, it appears to me, although the Intercolonial Railway has been dragged into this
question—although the expense of that undertaking has been dwelt upon by the opponents
of
this scheme as if it were part of the scheme and
of this scheme alone—I believe that whatever
the event, whether there be a Confederation
of the provinces or not, the Intercolonial Railway is an indispensable necessity.
The expense of that railway is, therefore, a question
altogether apart from this scheme, and cannot be allowed to enter into the arguments
pro or con. I do not look upon the Intercolonial Railway, at the present time, in the
light of a profitable commercial undertaking,
neither, to any great extent, as a valuable
military undertaking. (Opposition cries of
"Hear, hear.") There is not the least doubt that
when we are not actually engaged in hostilities, it would be of the greatest advantage
in
furnishing us with an outlet at all seasons
of the year. Before actual hostilities, as in
the Trent affair, we need it to secure our independence of the United States in bringing
rapidly troops and munitions of war into the
provinces. When actually at war, we are
aware that railways are easily destroyed, and
637
rendered of little use, unless we have the
means of protecting them. But as a great
social and political engine, it seems to me absolutely necessary, if ever we are to
have a
union ; and if a union does not come to-day,
but is looked forward to ten years hence, I
still hold that we ought at the present time,
and without unnecessary delay, to commence its
construction. Union, sir, is desirable, because
undoubted it will add to our means of
defence. It is true we shall not have any
territory added to us which will increase our
strength ; neither shall we add to the number
of battalions in the provinces generally. But
it does not, I apprehend, require a military
man, or a man with military experience or
military education, to be aware that there is
no combination which so much needs one head
and one guiding mind as the management of
military organizations, and the guidance of
military operations. What, I ask, would be
our position in the event of war, should there
be no union? We have at present five distinct provinces, with as many independent
governments. The people are but little known
the one to the other, and consequently have
but the slightest possible interest in each
other. In the event of war, circumstances
might frequently occur where concerted action
on the part of two or more of the provinces
might be required. Immediate cooperation
might be essential to the success of the proposed project. Should we not have the
most
serious difficulties thrown in the way of the
undertaking, simply from the fact that so
many independent governments must be consulted, each jealous of its own rights, and
concerned only about its own safety. (Hear,
hear.) Such a state of things demands a
change, were there no other argument in
favor of it. If we are to remain independent
of the United States, we must unite, in the
most effective manner possible, our available
means of defence. We must become acquainted with one another, and do all we can
to call into existence a feeling of oneness, and
of interest not only in one section or province,
but in British America generally. Canadians
should cease to think that they are interested
alone in the defence of Canada, and Nova
Sootians must learn to look beyond the limits
of Nova Scotia. If we are to offer anything
like a united resistance, we must have a common interest in the whole country. And
how
can we so surely effect this, how effect it at
all, without union? But let us carry out
the scheme that is proposed for our adoption, and in course of time we shall
all learn to feel interested in the integrity of every part of the Confederation.
If
we are united we shall find the people of the
Maritime Provinces admirably suited for the
work required to be done on the lakes—the
key to the defence of Upper Canada. If,
therefore, we can be united as one people, if
we are brought under one head and one mind,
we shall have Nova Scotians assisting in our
defence, and very likely we shall assist in the
defence of Nova Scotia. (Hear, hear.) I
cannot too strongly impress on the minds of
those who hear me the strong convictions of
my own mind with reference to the importance of immediate and thorough union. Our
own interests demand it, the interests of the
Empire require it, that we may be able to hold
our own against the strong and energetic
power to the south of us. For these important objects we must learn to throw aside
all
our sectional disputes, and to place ourselves
in the hands of men who would have to guide
us when the time of difficulty may arrive. No
one more earnestly desires the continuance of
the blessings of peace; but should the reverse
come, we must all learn to obey orders with
zeal and promptitude, to stand in readiness
for service in any part of British America
where our presence may be required. This
can never be done so long as Nova Scotia is
building up a nationality for herself, and New
Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island are each remaining in a state of
isolation, and Upper and Lower Canada are
far removed in sentiment and feeling from
either. So long as this is the case, we are
diffusing our strength and are weakening ourselves. From no point of view can union
be
more strongly urged as a necessity than in
the case of our defence. The defence of Canada, although we have such an extended
frontier, is not so difficult as might at first sight
appear. There a few prominent points which
must be defended, and which we must make
up our minds to hold. It is true we have an
extensive frontier, but the frontier of the
United States is not the less so. It is true
also that we have many towns on the frontier,
but they are not to be compared to the wealth
and importance of those of the United States,
and therefore we are not placed at so great a
disadvantage in that respect. There are certain points which are the key or the gates
to
Canada, and which, if properly defended, we
may reasonably hope to hold the country,
without fear of any number that may be
brought against us, and it is of the first importance that the people of Canada should
638
awake to the necessity of having these posts
defended. If we are to remain independent,
if we really desire a nationality apart from
that of the United States, it is necessary that
we should think of these things, and look them
fully in the face—to consider it well, and to
see the absolute necessity of coming to some
arrangement with the Imperial Government
as to the proportion we are mutually to bear.
If we are really in earnest in our professed
desire to maintain our independence, I believe we shall be willing to tax ourselves
and
submit to the necessary sacrifices. The very
fact that there is an uncertainty existing in
the minds of many whether Canada will consent to be taxed for her defence, is one
of
the strongest grounds, to my mind, why we
should lose no time in completing the union
of the British American Provinces. I feel
that so long as Canada is separated from the
rest of British America, so long will she be
without any feeling of nationality. She cannot exist here alone. We need to feel that
there is a nationality on this continent to
which we are attached; and I know of nothing more likely to extend our ideas and views,
so as to embrace the whole of British America, than the present project. We are likely
to view a country such as the Confederation
would include, as something worth struggling
for and defending. All other countries of
the world are satisfied to tax themselves for
their defence, and we find countries not so
numerous in population, and with revenues
and commerce inferior to ourselves, maintaining comparatively large standing armies.
And
yet when we talk of our defences—when we
speak of the taxation which will be necessary
in order to erect and defend these works
and to instruct the militia, we hear doubts expressed, uncertainties floating about,
whether
Canada will really consent to bear her
share of it. It shows to me that there is
among some a want of a deep-seated feeling
of nationality, and that that necessary sentiment has yet to be called out and developed.
Where this does exist the people do not hesitate to make any sacrifice necessary for
the
maintenance of their independence. Other
countries have manifested their attachment
to their nationality and their flag by the
sacrifice of almost everything they possessed.
Sometimes, however, it is urged that when
the time arrives Canada will show to the world
that she is willing to spend her last drop of
blood in defence of the soil. This is a very
proper sentiment, and sounds exceedingly
well, but I cannot help thinking that if those
who give expression to it wish to shew that
it can stand the test of trial, they would now
urge the expenditure necessary to give effect
to it. They would then be doing some real
practical good, and not be so liable to be
regarded as mere sentimentalists. The
question is an eminently practical one, and
the sentiment that has no practical issue
may be regarded as spurious and useless.
We may be sure of this, that if we are not
willing to spend the money that is necessary
for our defence, when the time comes there
will be a great unwillingness to spend the
blood. (Hear, hear.) We ought to consider
that it is not sufficient that we should be
willing to spend our lives, for these alone
cannot defend us. If we make no preparation, what will the destruction of life avail
us? It is unreasonable and foolish to say
that we will leave everything undone—the
training of our men, and the strengthening
of our positions—until the very time when
our only chance must depend upon our
having trained men and fortified positions
ready to our hand. It would be as reasonable
for a man to say, "I will learn to swim when
I am drowning." Every reasonable man
exposed to drowning would certainly take
every means to learn to swim beforehand, so
that when exposed to the danger he would
be able to extricate himself. It seems to
me quite as reasonable for us to say that
when the time comes we will spend our
lives in defence of the country, and neglect
all precautionary measures beforehand. I
have no sympathy with such a sentiment, and
very little confidence in it. I should like
rather to see a little practical sense manifested
in a question of such vital importance. I
have read with attention the report of Col.
JERVOIS, who was sent out by the Imperial
Government, and, I presume, most other
hon. members of this House have also seen
it. That officer points out certain places
which must be defended, and he closes his
report with this remark: "That unless these
works are constructed, it is worse than useless
to continue any British force in Canada"
COL. HAULTAIN—The hon. gentleman
says " Hear! hear!" Of course, sir, I cannot pronounce absolutely what may be passing
in his mind, but I have noticed this—
the hon. gentleman will know whether it
justly applies to himself or no—that when
the expenses of our defence were mentioned
by my hon. friend the member from North
639
Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON), in a manner
deprecating the expenditure, there was a
very significant " Hear! hear !" intimating
a hearty concurrence in such sentiments.
But, sir, when my hon. friend in his usual
forcible manner, expressed his willingness,
when the time arrived, to spend the last
drop of his blood in the defence of this land,
we heard no more of the responding and
concurring "Hear! hear!" I alluded to.
(Laughter.) My hon. friend, if I understood him rightly, deprecated the idea that
any expense should be entailed upon us for
defensive works. But, sir, he spoke like
a true Briton, and I am quite sure that he
was in earnest, and did not utter a mere
barren sentiment, when he said that he
would spend his last drop of blood in the
defence of his country. And I am sure he
would do so. But I would put it to my hon.
friend if it is more reasonable that he should
spend this blood, or spend a few pounds?
Who can tell the thousands, ay, the hundreds of thousands of human lives that may
be spared by the judicious and timely expenditure now of a few hundreds of thousands
of pounds? I wish to impress upon my hon.
friend what is the clear conviction of my
own mind, that in every point of view it is
economy—economy of treasure, and economy
of useful lives, to spend some money now to
place our country in a state of defence. I
think a great change has taken place within
the last few years in reference to this subject.
The ventilation of the subject has drawn
men's minds towards it, and we are beginning
to feel that here we are a people considerable in numbers and considerable in wealth,
and it is incumbent upon us to do more than
we have been doing in times past. I would
call attention to a very important work which
can scarcely be overestimated. I allude to
the Ottawa canal. I regret that the state of
our finances will not permit us to think of
its construction at the present time, but I
refer to it that we may think of it; that
the representatives of the people may
think of it; that the statesmen of the
country may think of it. In order to
secure the future defence of the country,
and especially the western section of it,
and to maintain its independence, the
Ottawa canal must be built. The Ottawa
canal would be worth 50,000 men to us.
With that canal, and the aid of the Mother
Country, which we are assured will never be
wanting when we require it, we will be able
to maintain and hold our own on the
lakes, and thus make our own territory
secure, and threaten our opponents at many
important points. At the present time we
are in a sad condition as regards our canal
communication, looked at from a defensible
point of view. Our St. Lawrence canals are
almost entirely useless. I am glad to see
that the American Government have given
notice of their intention to terminate the
convention for not keeping armed vessels on
the lakes. I am glad to see that this is to
be put an end to, for it was decidedly prejudicial to our interests, and I have no
doubt we
shall have gunboats on our lakes before the
end of the present year. Had it continued
otherwise, we might have been very much
at the mercy of the United States. There is
no question that, should they determine upon
going to war with us before the opening of
navigation, we might not be able to get a
British gun-boat on our waters by the St.
Lawrence canals, as they are so easily
accessible to our opponents, and, without
much difficulty, could be rendered useless for
navigation. As regards the Rideau canal,
how are we to get gun-boats through it?
There is a certain class of gun-boats that
might pass through it.
R. H. MACKENZIE was understood to
express doubt on this point.
COL. HAULTAIN—Yes; the locks of
the Rideau canal are, I believe, 130 feet
long, and would admit a certain class of gunboats. But, as my hon. friend seems to
remark, the Rideau canal would, nevertheless, be useless, because the only way by
which we can reach it is through the Grenville canal, and the locks of the Grenville
canal are only 70 feet long. Therefore,
we should be entirely at the mercy
of the United States. because, unless
we held Lake Ontario, the Upper Province would be inevitably gone. Well,
sir, it appears to me that all our interests—commercial, political and defensive—
and the peculiar circumstances in which we
are placed, urgently call for the union of
the British Provinces. The reasons are of
that force and the interests of that magnitude, that it is surprising to me that any
hon. gentleman, who really desires that
these provinces should be independent of
the United States, should hesitate for a
single moment about adopting the scheme,
not that it is perfect, but because it is the
only one within our reach. (Hear, hear.)
640
I have now to make a few remarks on the
character of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
The composition of that Opposition strikes
me as somewhat remarkable. It is certainly
heterogeneous. The great difference between the Opposition and the Government
seems to me to be this, that while the
Government are anxious to build up, to
consolidate, to strengthen, the only object of
the Opposition, the only object which keeps
them together, appears to be to pull down,
to weaken, to divide. (Hear, hear.) Many
of the remarks which which have fallen
from the various members of the Opposition,
they might have made with equal force
against each other as against the Government.
To use a military phrase, they seem to have
been firing at one another, but as it is only
awar of words and arguments, they may still
fire away, although logically hors de combat.
One says it is necessary we should have a
change. Another says he desires no change,
but wishes us to remain as we are. A third is
against Confederation, because he thinks
the Federal principle is one which in all
time past has been proved to be weak and
powerless. Another member of the Opposition bases his hopes of the world's future
on the principles of Federalism. Another
says he will have nothing but a legislative
union ; while, I believe, there are not a
few of those with whom he acts who would
threaten fire and sword if a legislative
union were attempted to be carried. We
have surely here an extraordinary display
of anything but unanimity. As I said
before, they present the spectacle of a most
heterogeneous company, with power only to
destroy.
COL. HAULTAIN—The members of the
Government have a common object. They have
come together, not to assail one another with
their opposite principles and views and opinions, but they have come together to combine
—they have come together, like reasonable
men, for the accomplishment of a great common object—and they have considered how
best they can meet one another's views by
mutual concession, which is the law that
binds society together, without which society
would be at an end. They have united in
this way and in this spirit to strengthen the
position of these provinces, and the position
of the Empire to which they belong. But I
do not hear one word of this, with regard to
the hon. members forming the Opposition.
I do not hear that they have met together,
and are prepared to propose to the country
some scheme that will be better than the one
that is now offered for our adoption. I do
not hear a word of anything of the kind, and
this I do most seriously complain of. I
maintain that the importance of this matter
is such, that it is their duty not to avail
themselves of what is ordinarily called
the latitude of parliamentary opposition.—
The circumstances of this country are
too grave for us to trifle with such a
question. If we present to the House
and to the country something to meet the
difficulties of our position, then I say that
honorable gentlemen who oppose that scheme
are wanting in their duty to their country,
and are wanting in the appreciation they
ought to have of those difficulties, if they do
not on their part present something to us,
and ask us to accept from them what they
suppose better than is offered to them by us.
I cannot but express my regret at the course
they have pursued. (Hear.) I will now
allude, sir, to an opposition to this scheme,
which has been very decidedly expressed
by a certain section of the Protestant
minority of Lower Canada. I am aware,
from personal intercourse with many gentlemen belonging to that section of the
community, that they do feel a very
strong aversion to this scheme, because, as
they say, it will place them at the mercy of
the French-Canadians. On this point I
desire to assure my honorable friends from
Lower Canada, that whilst I consider that
our present circumstances require us all to
speak openly and honestly one to the other,
it is and shall be my earnest desire to speak
with all kindliness of feeling towards them.
I feel compelled to say that there is no part
of this scheme that I feel more doubt about,
than the effect it will have upon the education and political interests of the Protestants
of Lower Canada. It has been said that
there is and always has been a spirit of
toleration and generosity on the part of the
French-Canadians towards their Protestant
fellow-countrymen. I have heard it said that
they have on every occasion furthered to
the utmost of their ability, and in the fairest
and most just manner, the educational
interests of the Protestant minority. But
on the other hand, gentlemen who have paid
a great deal of attention to the subject, have
641
also said that, in time past, although there
has not been an open hostility to the education of the Protestant minority, there
has
been a very decided under-hand obstructiveness. This is stated by gentlemen who have
taken a particular interest in the matter, and
who, I am confident, would not make such
a statement if they did not think it to
be the case. And I must say, for my
own part, that I do think the Protestant
minority have some grounds for this fear.
And this is my reason: the religious faith
of the majority in Lower Canada is, as we
know, Roman Catholic, and they receive
from the head of the Romish Church their
inspiration ; they are guided by the principles that are laid down, and that are from
time to time publicly promulgated by the
head of that Church. Now, I do not think
that my Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen
can be surprised—and I would ask their
attention to what I am saying, I desire to
speak honestly, but, of course, courteously—
I do not think they can be surprised at these
suspicions and fears of their Protestant
brethren. And why? Because they must
themselves be aware what are the principles
of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
COL. HAULTAIN—They are not tolerant.
(Murmurs of disapprobation from various
parts of the House.)
HON. MR. ALLEYN—Are Presbyterians
more tolerant? The hon. gentleman has
stated that the principles of the Roman
Catholic hierarchy are not tolerant. Will
he explain whether he means that they are
not tolerant with regard to civil liberty, or
with regard to religious liberty. We wish
to understand precisely what the honorable
gentleman means.
COL. HAULTAIN—And that is precisely
my object. I believe that civil and religious
liberty are so bound up that you cannot
separate them.
COL. HAULTAIN—I think I have only
to refer to the letter recently issued from
Rome, to find a complete and absolute answer
to the question which the hon. member for
Quebec has put to me. I see in that letter,
which is invested with all the gravity and
authority that necessarily surround a message
from the head of the Roman Catholic Church
—I see, amongst other things, that it is
there stated as an error to be condemned,
"that emigrants to Catholic countries
should have freedom of worship." (Hear,
hear.) I do not think there can be any
one more anxious than myself to avoid
anything like religious discussion in this
House, or to avoid rousing anything like
religious animosity. But when we are
discussing a scheme of the greatest importance, involving the interests of various
sections of the community, I do think it behoves
every man to speak honestly. (Hear, hear.)
I have said that the Protestant minority in
Lower Canada fear lest they should not have
full justice done to them. They know the
great power of the Romish hierarchy in
Lower Canada. They know how much
everything is shaped according to the wishes
of that body. They know that that hierarchy receives its inspiration from Rome,
and within the last few weeks we find what
is the character of that inspiration. (Renewed murmurs of disapprobation.) Now I
ask my Roman Catholic friends to consider
this candidly. When there comes from the
Pope, the head of the Roman Catholic
Church, a letter clothed with all the authority that we know the French Canadians
attribute to that source, and when we have
it declared here that it is an error to
say that in some countries called Catholic, emigrants should enjoy the free
exercise of their own worship—(Hear!
hear !)—I hear some of my honorable
friends say " Hear, hear," in rather a jeering
tone. But I ask you to think honestly
about it. Suppose it were possible for the
Protestants of Canada to speak in a manner
similar to that in which the head of the
Romish Church has spoken, and that we
were to declare it to be a principle that
should guide us, that we ought not give to
those who differed from us the freedom of
religious worship, would not the Roman
Catholics in Upper Canada have good reason
to be alarmed ? Now, I ask you to do me
the justice, my hon. friends, to think of it
in a just light, and not in the light of an
attack upon your religion. I ask you to
think of it fairly, especially at such a time
as this, when the Protestants of Lower
Canada are called to put themselves into the
power of the Roman Catholic hierarchy; for
I believe it is simply tantamount to that. I
ask you to think what must be their feelings
when they read, as emanating from the head
and ruler of the Romish hierarchy, such a
642
sentiment as that contained in the passage I
have quoted.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Will the
hon. gentleman allow me to say a word ? The
Protestant minority of Lower Canada have
always lived in harmony, not only with the
Catholics, but with the Catholic clergy of
Lower Canada. And I may say also, on
behalf of the Protestants of Lower Canada—
the majority of them at all events—that they
are so convinced that there is true liberality
in the hierarchy, in the Catholic clergy of
Lower Canada, as well as in the great
majority of the Roman Catholics of Lower
Canada, that they have no such fears as the
hon. gentleman entertains. (Hear, hear.)
COL. HAULTAIN—Of course, it must
be perfectly obvious, that in a matter of this
kind, what emanates from my hon. friend
the Hon. Attorney General East will have
very little weight, in comparison with what
emanates from the head of the Roman
Catholic Church. Now, I do not accuse my
French-Canadian fellow-subjects of anything
like intolerance. But what I say is
this, that there is round for suspicion
on the part of the Protestants of Lower
Canada, knowing what is the position in
which they will be placed, with regard to
the Roman Catholic hierarchy, when they
find emanating from the head, the very inspiration and fount of that hierarchy, the
intolerant sentiments I have alluded to.
Why do I mention this? Is it with the
view of raising any difficulty about the
scheme now before us? Quite the reverse.
I speak in time—I speak to assure my coreligionists in Lower Canada—to elicit the
declaration of tolerant and generous sentiments on the part of Roman Catholic members
; I speak in earnest warning now, that
there may be no necessity for it hereafter.
I need scarcely declare what are my own
sentiments—those of every British Protestant; we grant cheerfully to our Roman
Catholic fellow-countrymen that which we
also demand, the freest liberty of conscience,
the freest exercise of every political right.
(Hear, hear.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—The Hon.
Attorney General East rose and spoke for
the Protestants of Lower Canada. My hon.
friend from Peterborough (Col. HAULTAIN)
also speaks for them. How shall we decide
between the two ?
HON. MR. MCGEE—The hon. gentleman
from Cornwall is like the blank leaf between
the Old and New Testaments, belonging
neither to the one nor to the other.(Laughter.)
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I really
think this is a very important matter. The
hon. member for Peterborough speaks for
the Protestants of Lower Canada, and the
Hon. Attorney General East also says he
speaks the feelings of the same class. What
shall we say between them?
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—I can say
this. I have seen, as the hon. member is
aware, a considerable amount of political life,
and during all that time I have always stood
by the cause, when it was attacked, of the
Catholic hierarchy of Lower Canada ; but at
the same time I have always stood up on
behalf of the rights of the Protestant minority, and it has been my lot always to
have
the confidence of that body.
HON. MR. ALLEYN—I propose that this
part of the discussion be postponed till
Sunday. (Laughter.)
COL. HAULTAIN—I think, sir, this is
a matter too serious to be made the occasion
of unmeaning jokes. I speak what I know
when I say there is a feeling of distrust on
the part of a great many of the Protestants
of Lower Canada. And I speak what I
know, when I say that what I have quoted
as emanating from the head of the Roman
Catholic Church, has tended to increase that
distrust. It must be evident, that if we are
in the future to progress amicably and well,
it is better we should speak honestly before
we enter into this compact, and that we
should all strive to guard against any system
being carried out, or any course pursued,
that would tend to create difficulties in the
future. What do my hon. friends from
Lower Canada say with regard to what I
have quoted? One hon. gentleman rises
with a jeer about deferring this discussion till
Sunday. (Hear, hear.) I should like to
know what the hon. gentleman thinks of
the passage I have read. Does he agree
with it?
HON. MR. ALLEYN—I am in favor of
liberty of conscience to the fullest extent.
COL. HAULTAIN—I think, in justice to
themselves, hon. gentlemen of the Roman
643
Catholic faith should make themselves acquainted with what has emanated from Rome.
I feel there is ground for the remarks I have
made, and that I would have been failing in
my duty to the Protestants of Lower Canada,
had I not made them—had I not stated on
their behalf the grounds of their fears for
the future. I hope hon. gentlemen will
make themselves acquainted with what I
have alluded to. I do not know whether
the long list of errors was read out in the
Roman Catholic churches, but I do know
that the Encyclical letter which accompanied
it was communicated to those who attend
church. I do not know whether my hon.
friend is in the habit of going to church.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—I would like
to know how my hon. friend from Peterborough will satisfy those for whom he speaks,
if he votes for this Confederation scheme.
COL. HAULTAIN—I have sufficient confidence that my honorable friend the Attorney General East would
oppose anything
like an oppression of the Protestant population of Lower Canada. I am quite satisfied
he will faithfully carry out the assurances
he has given from his seat in Parliament
with reference to the amendments to the
Education Act of Lower Canada.
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—And I may
say that my fulfilment of those pledges will be
easily performed, because it has never entered the minds of the Catholic clergy in
Lower
Canada, or of the majority of the Catholics
of Lower Canada, to oppress their fellow-
subjects the Protestants. Hear, hear.)
COL. HAULTAIN—Well, after all that
has been said to me, I ask honorable gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion to
look at what the head of their Church has
written and published to the world, and then
to say either the one thing or the other—
either that they have no confidence in what
the head of their Church says, or that they
have confidence in it, and will act accordingly.
HON. MR. McGEE—I hope the honorable
gentleman will be found willing to extend
to the Roman Catholic minority of Upper
Canada the same privileges which we are
ready to extend to the Protestant minority
of Lower Canada.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—The honorable member for Peterborough admits that
the intentions of the Hon. Attorney General
East are sincere, and says he relies on them.
But, on the other hand, he reads to this
House an edict which supersedes any promises which the Hon. Attorney General can
make. That is the difficulty in which the
honorable gentleman is placed.
HON. J. S. MACDONALD—All I wished
to say was, that I think the honorable member for Peterborough has put the case very
fairly.
COL. HAULTAIN—Whether I put it
fairly or not, or whether honorable gentlemen approve of what I have said or not,
matters not in the least to me. I have
simply discharged what I conceived a duty
to my fellow-religionists in Lower Canada. I
bring to the knowledge of honorable gentlemen of the Roman Catholic persuasion what
many of them seem to have been ignorant of.
And it is all nonsense to endeavor to ignore
the fact that I have brought before them.
We know that in some Roman Catholic countries absolute intolerance prevails. In Spain,
for instance, not a Protestant church is allowed to be erected throughout the whole
length and breadth of that country. It is of
no use, therefore, for honorable gentlemen to
jeer at what I say ; and when an edict of intolerance is again promulgated aud sent
out
to the world, emanating from the very head
of the Romish Church, is it surprising, when
the Protestants of Lower Canada are in a
small minority, and know that they will be at
the mercy of the hierarchy entertaining those
views, that they should feel some reluctance
to be left in that position. I know this very
well, that the generality of Roman Catholics
in this country would avow, as they have
done, their opposition to the sentiment I have
quoted. I call upon them practically to disavow it, and I have confidence that they
will
do so. Whether they like the dilemma in
which they are placed, or not, is another matter. (Hear, hear.) Composed, as our society
is, of those different elements, when we have
to discuss matters similar to that before us,
when we have to adopt a scheme involving
the interests of minorities and sections, it is
right that we should do so frankly and honestly one to the other, and face to face.
I
have spoken with every desire to avoid being
644
offensive, uncourteous and unkind, and I have
done it, I trust, in a manner befitting the occasion and my own character.
MR. DENIS—Will the honorable member
allow me to put to him a question ? Since the
honorable member has referred to this letter
from the head of the Church, does he entertain the opinion that any honorable member
has a right to come here and criticise in a
similar way the mode of procedure of Protestant clergymen? If so, how are we to get
along at all? The honorable member may
have his own opinions in regard to this letter,
but he ought not to state them on the floor of
the House, for if he does so any other honorable member has the right to come here
and
critise the conduct of respectable clergymen
of the Free Church, of the Episcopal Church,
or of any other Protestant Church, and make
such comments as he thinks fit. This ought
not to be. Then, the honorable member said
the letter ought to be looked upon with suspicion. Well, all I can say is, that if
we go
into a chapter on suspicions, every man ought
to be suspicious. We might bring suspicions
to bear upon everything, however respectable
it may be, and in this way it would be impossible with frankness to deal with anything.
My hon. friend uses the word "hierarchy."
Well, a word even does damage sometimes.
My honorable friend may have his opinion
upon these things, and that opinion ought to
be respected, because I believe it to be an
honest opinion ; but if he has a right to speak
of " Romish" and all that sort of thing in
connection with our Church, we will have a
right to speak in a disrespectful manner of
ministers of the Free Church, of the High
Church, of the Low Church, and of all the
other kinds of churches, and bad feeling will
be created to no purpose.
COL. HAULTAIN—Mr. SPEAKER, whenever any one who has the right or authority
to speak for Protestants enunciates such a
doctrine as that which has emanated from the
Pope of Rome, I am quite willing it should
be thrown in my teeth on the floor of this
House. I will tell my honorable friend who has
just addressed me, what he ought to have been
aware of, that there is no analogy whatever—
no similarity whatever—between the Pope of
the Church of Rome and any minister of any
other body of Christians. I would dismiss
this subject, sir, by simply stating that I have
used terms ordinarily employed and have
been anxious to do so in no offensive manner.
Some of the reasons given for the opposition
which has been offered to the scheme now
before the House are, that it is not perfect,
and that it embraces principles which would
endanger the working of the projected Constitution. Now, of course, sir, the scheme
in
one sense is not perfect.
COL. HAULTAIN—Any Constitution
drawn up to meet the circumstances under
which the five, I may say the six, provinces
were situated must necessarily present appa
rent inconsistencies. Concessions and mutual
compromise must inevitably be consented to
if we are to have union at all. It does not
manifest any extraordinary degree of acuteness in order to be able to discover the
possible difficulties that may arise from it. Honorable gentlemen who have spoken
against it
have magnified the dangers of collision, and
especially has the honorable member for
Brome done so. I am of opinion, sir, that if
the same rigid and hostile analysis were made
of any form of government, or of any constitution, monarchical or republican, originated
for uniting separate and distinct peoples together, it would not be difficult to foresee
dangers of collision as likely to flow therefrom.
Were the British Constitution itself subjected
to the same kind of dissection, flaws and compromises might be detected, and possible
dangers be foretold. In the Constitution proposed for our adoption, as with all others,
the
successful working of it must mainly depend
upon the characters and principles of the men
who have to work it. The honorable member
for Brome certainly attempted to make the
worst of these resolutions, and endeavored to
point out, in almost every feature, defects
which he thought might endanger the interests
of the people. He dwelt particularly upon
the apparent facilities for the development of
what is called in this country "log-rolling."
He said we might find the Maritime Provinces
working with each other, and with Lower
Canada against Upper Canada, and vice versa.
Well, it must be obvious, sir, that the honorable gentleman's objections in this respect
applied with as much force to a Legislative
union as to a Federal union, and yet my honorable friend is himself in favor of a
legisla—
tive union.
HON. MR. HOLTON—I must set my hon.
friend right. My honorable friend from
Brome—who is now absent—said he was opposed to any other union than that at present
existing between the provinces ; and his whole
argument went to show that he was opposed to
any other tie than that now existing.
HON. MR. McGEE—If the honorable
645
gentleman will permit me, I may say that I
followed the honorable member for Brome
very closely, and that according to my understanding he expressed himself in favor
of Federation, but without a union such as that now
proposed. His argument was that we should
federate with the imperial Government, and
that there should be a Council in London.
HON. MR. HOLTON—That was another
point.
HON. MR. McGEE—No, it was this point :
His proposal was—and he is the only member
on the other side who has ventured to put
forth a counter-proposition to that now before
the House—that we should have a Council
similar to that for the East Indies. I intend
to reply to this proposition when the proper
time comes. But my honorable friend from
Peterborough is quite right in what he has
stated.
COL. HAULTAIN—I am of opinion that
the honorable member for Brome, if he did
not desire it at the present time, at any rate
expressed himself in favor of union at some
future time.
HON. MR. HOLTON—A legislative union,
if a union at all. But he really did not want
any other than that now existing.
COL. HAULTAIN—That is precisely
what I said, and I maintain that the very
same arguments which I have alluded to as
used against a Federal union, might likewise
be urged against a Legislative union—that
there would be the same amount of " logrolling " in the latter as in the former.
HON. MR. BROWN—And a great deal
more.
COL. HAULTAIN—Certainly as much.
I think my honorable friend from North
Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON) used the
same argument, and yet I believe he is in
favor of a legislative union.
COL. HAULTAIN—But my honorable
friend must see that this argument against
the Federal union might be urged with equal
cogency against any union at all.
MR. M. C. CAMERON—I may, perhaps,
be allowed to say that my position is just this,
that a legislative union would be preferable,
because the people would enter into it with
the design of working for the harmony and
advantage of the people ; whereas, if a Federal union were entered into, the local
interests
of each province would predominate over the
interests of the whole.
COL. HAULTAIN—I think in this point
of view the argument is rather in favor of
the Federal principle, which does remove
some of the causes of the difficulty, in so far
as local matters are removed from the jurisdiction of the General Government, and
are
left to that of the local governments. But
looking at it in every point of view ; considering the greater expense, the danger
of collision between the governments, and the comparative division of sovereignty
under the Federal system, I am decidedly in favor of the
closer and more simple form of government
secured by a legislative union. (Hear, hear.)
But I would remark to those who oppose the
former because of their professed desire to see
the adoption of the latter, that in attacking
the Federal scheme in the manner alluded to,
they are only putting arguments into the
mouths of those who are opposed to any union
at all. They should also take into consideration, that it is admitted on all sides
that a
legislative union is unattainable, and therefore, practically, we need not now discuss
their comparative merits. It appears to me
but a useless waste of time to advocate a certain system of union with others, and
to make
such advocacy the ground for opposing a practicable union, when those with whom we
are
to unite, and who are free to make their own
choice, pronounce against it. (Hear.) We
have to consult the wishes of six independent
provinces ; and if five of them oppose a legislative union, what sense or justice
is there in
making our preference for it an argument
against the only union that all will consent to,
unless indeed it is urged that no union is
better than a Federal one. In again referring
to the remarks of the honorable member for
Brome, I feel bound to say that I listened
with great pleasure to the microscopic
analysis to which he subjected the proposed
scheme. He was, however, only satisfied with
picturing all the possible dangers to which we
might be exposed in the working of it. He
dwelt with a certain kind of satisfaction on
the succession of knaves and fools to whom
might be committed our future destiny under
it ; the possibility that its very adoption
would call into existence a race of public men
devoid of all moral worth and ordinary intelligence. But, sir, I wish to take a practical,
common sense view of this question,
and I think the country will be inclined to do
the same. Were a similar dissection made of
the provisions or institutions regulating human
society in any of its diversified combinations,
dangers and difficulties might be magnified,
and all patriotism, virtue and justice consigned
to the grave of the past ; this would apply
646
equally to all associations, whether of a commercial, political or national character.
Apply it to our own position at this moment.
We meet here to conduct the affairs of the
country ; the forms and rules laid down for
our guidance are the result of the wisdom
and experience of centuries, and yet half a
dozen unprincipled men, if so determined,
might obstruct all business and prevent the
working of our system of government. The
only practical conclusion I can draw from
such an analysis would be to abolish all government and abandon all association. My
honorable friend went too far ; he strengthened
the position of those it was his avowed object to assail. It was obvious to my own
mind that every day experience, under approximately similar circumstances, swept away
the
array of dangers and disasters he conjured up,
and happily gave us hope that men might
arise equal to the occasion that in the future
might arise. Our own political difficulties
may be pointed to as the opposite to this
experience. The essential difference lies in
this. Felt injustice creates our present difficulties, whereas, with all the supposed
defects
of the scheme before us, palpable injustice to
any section cannot be charged against it ; and
in our dilemma have we not had the men
equal to the occasion ? If we have men at the
head of our affairs, desirous of acting justly
and uprightly, there is nothing that I have
heard from the honorable member for Brome,
the chief opponent of the measure, to create apprehension for the future. It certainly
is incumbent upon the Opposition, if they are dissatisfied with this scheme, considering
all the
circumstances of our position, to lay before the
House and country some proposition in lieu
of it.
HON. Mr. HOLTON — What do you say
to the maintenance of the status quo?
COL. HAULTAIN—I need hardly remind
my honorable friend, who is now one of the
leaders of the Opposition, of his own admissions that it is neither just nor possible
to
remain in statu quostatus quo. He has before said that
the union, as at present constituted between
Upper and Lower Canada, could not continue.
And he is quite right. We cannot remain as
we are. So said also my honorable friend the
member for Hochelaga (Hon. A. A. DORIAN),
the present leader of the Opposition. He
has expressly stated that some change was
necessary. So far we are agreed. A new
political combination has been accordingly
devised, and the advocates of it say to the
Opposition that if they do not like the scheme,
then they are bound on their own admission, as patriotic men, to submit something
else. Then only will they have a sufficient excuse for rejecting what is proposed
as a solution of our difficulties. (Hear, hear.) The only honorable gentleman who
has offered anything in substitution for Federal union is the honorable member for
Brome. I confess, sir, that it was with surprise and something akin to disappointment,
that I heard the conclusion, the summing up, of my honorable friend's very able speech.
No one can deny to him acuteness of intellect and great analytic powers of mind, and
it was without doubt an intellectual repast to which he for some hours treated us.
But, sir, what a waste of mental energy, how fruitless his intellectual toil ! What
has his country profited by his exertions ? Has he proposed something worthy the elaborate
dissection we had listened to ? Did he address himself to the difficulties in which
his country is placed, and propound a Constitution harmonious and faultless ? What
did he, sir, propose for drawing together these isolated fragments of the British
Empire, consolidating them into one, and thereby adding to their future strength and
prosperity ?
To meet all those urgent wants and diversified
interests, he proposes to appoint " a Colonial
Council in London, something like the Indian
Council, to which our Ministers from the
various colonies might be sent to consult with
Her Majesty on affairs concerning those provinces." (Hear, hear.) And what is this
Indian Council that my honorable friend
would prefer to the broad union we propose
in order to bring those provinces together,
which have been too long separated ? What
is the position of India, and what the object and
composition of the Council of India ? That
vast country is a conquered appanage of the
British Crown. It is governed by a Governor
in Council, who acts under the orders of the
Secretary of State, the president of the
Indian Council in London. The revenue
and expenditure of the Indian Empire
are subjected to the control of the Secretary in Council, and no grant of such
revenue can be made without the concurrence of a majority of the Council. Such,
sir, is the Council that my honorable friend
proposed for our consideration, and in the
adoption of which " we would be taking the
best means of developing our relations in a
proper connection with the Mother Country." He further says that " in the present
scheme there was no step of the kind contemplated." And who, sir, in his sober
senses would venture to propose such a step ?
It is diflicultto conceive that my honorable
friend was serious when recommending it for
our adoption. A more crude and ill-digested
scheme (using his own words) could scarcely
have emanated from his mind. What had
become of all the acuteness and microscopic
power he brought to bear upon the resolutions
of the Quebec Conference ? " A Colonial
Council in London, something like the Indian
Council !" Does he mean that we ought to
have a Council in London which is to direct us
as to our proceedings; which is to send out
governors general to this province from time
to time to dictate the course of ourlegislation,
and instruct us in regard to the expenditure
of our money ?—because the Indian Council,
under the presidency of a Secretary of State,
has control of the whole expenditure of the
means of the East India Company, and the
Governor General of India acts under their
direct supervision and command. I mention
this to shew what position the opponents of
the resolutions now before us are in, what
they are reduced to in order to provide something as a substitute for what is proposed
for
their acceptance.
HON. MR. HOLTON—Surely my honorable friend does not wish to misrepresent the
honorable member for Brome—to say that he
purposed to substitute for our present governmental machinery a council similar to
the
Indian Council. My honorable friend surely
does not want to impute to the honorable
member for Brome, in his absence, such an
idea as that.
COL. HAULTAIN.—I find it difficult to
impute anything at all. (Laughter.) I have
given his own words and their legitimate
meaning. I could not understand what was
passing in my honorable friend's mind, which
certainly appears to have been in a most extraordinary state. (Renewed laughter.)
From
beginning to end my honorable friend seemed
to be labouring under some hallucination.
(Laugher.) And I cannot help thinking that
my honorable friend from Chateauguay (Hon.
Mr. HOLTON) is also labouring under the
same hallucination. (Laughter.)
COL. HAULTAIN—In making these remarks I do not seriously wish to impute to
the honorable member for Brome a desire that
we should put ourselves into the hands of a
Secretary of State and a council at home. I
do not suppose that his mind had quite deserted him. But applying something of the
same kind of analysis to the remarks of that
honorable member, which he applied to the
scheme now before the House, it would be
quite legitimate and fair to conclude that
such was his meaning. I do not think my
honorable friend from Brome or the Opposition
have any reason to pride themselves on the
scheme he has suggested for our guidance.
And it is most extraordinary that a man of
his acuteuess of mind, and of his extended
information, should so far forget himself as
seriously to propose for our acceptance, in his
place in Parliament, after a labored, lengthened and able analysis of these resolutions,
this animalcule which he announced as the
result of his protracted incubation of eight
hours' duration. (Laughter.) I am sorry
my honorable friend is not here to listen to
what I have thought proper to reply. I need
not sa that I have made these remarks in the
most riendly spirit, befitting the friendliness
and respect that I cordially entertain towards
him. When, Mr. SPEAKER, I think of the
smallness of the objections and of the greatness
of the subjects involved, I cannot help seeing
that it is much to the interest of the British
Empire, as certainly it is altogether to our
interest, that the scheme now before us should
go forward to fruition. I should have liked, had
time permitted, to have said a few words as to
the remarkable concurrence of circumstances
which has taken place in connection with the
present movement, and to the no less remarkable unanimity which on the whole prevailed
at
the Conference. At the time of the assembling
of that body, we heard from all quarters of
the extreme difficulty—the almost impossibility of getting so many men of widely different
opinions, and representing so many
diverse interests, to come to a mutual understanding. It could only have been accomplished
by the unanimous desire that seemed
to prevail to accomplish the object that
brought them together. And now that we
have secured a scheme, to which the leading
men of all the provinces have assented, are
we to throw it on one side, and adopt
some such miserable thing in its stead as
that proposed by my honorable friend the
member for Brome? We have yet to learn
what other members of the Opposition may be
able to produce; but I hope, for their own
credit's sake, they will submit something more
suited to the gravity of our position. As
between the two schemes yet suggested, I can
have no difficulty in making my selection.
648
Much has been said, and I believe felt also,
about the uncertainty of our future. We are
forcibly reminded that the future is not in our
own hands; neither by any prudence or wisdom
of our own, can we determine it. We are
from day to day debating upon our present
position, devising new arrangements for the
future, and discussing the probabilities of their
success or failure. It proclaims our own impotence and our absolute dependence upon
a
higher Power. I feel deeply, sir—and I make
no apology for expressing it—that we ought
to look above for Divine guidance; and I
regret that our religious differences should so
operate as to prevent our performing together
a public act of invoking God's blessing on our
proceedings, without which all our deliberations
will fail of success. (Cheers.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER moved in
amendment, that the debate be adjourned, and
be resumed immediately after routine business
on Monday.
After discussion, the amendment was carried
on a division.
The House then adjourned.
MONDAY, March 6, 1865.
HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—
Before the debate on the resolutions in your
hands, Mr. SPEAKER, is continued, I wish
to say a few words. The Government is
well aware that the House must naturally feel
anxious and desirous of information—and
that no doubt questions will be asked—as
to the course which the Government will
pursue in consequence of the news that has
been received from the Province of New
Brunswick, with reference to the result of
the elections in that province. (Hear, hear.)
The Government are quite prepared to state
their policy on the question before the
House, in view of that information. Although
we have no official information as to the
result of those elections, and would not be
justified, constitutionally, in making up our
minds as to that result, until the Legislature
of New Brunswick has declared itself either
for or against the Confederation scheme;
yet we know, as a matter of fact—and we
cannot shut our eyes to the fact—that the
Premier and several of his colleagues
in the Government of New Brunswick
have been defeated, and that so far
there has been a declaration against
the policy of Federation. Of course,
in a general election, it is not to be supposed
that the question of Confederation is the
only one discussed at the polls. Being a
general election, there was the usual fight
between the ins and the outs, the Ministerialists and the Opposition; and, of course,
a
lot of other influences were at work, such as
questions between the Intercolonial Railway
on the one hand, and lines of railway to
connect with the United States on the other.
Still, we should not be treating the House
with candor if we did not state that we must
consider the result of those elections as a
check upon the Confederation project. The
Canadian Government however, I may say
at once, do not consider that the result of
these elections should in any way alter their
policy or their course upon this question.
(Hear, hear.) They wish it to be most decidedly understood, that instead of thinking
ita reason for altering their course, they
regard it as an additional reason for prompt
and vigorous action. (Hear, hear.) We
do not consider that in these events to which
I have alluded, there is any cause whatever
for the abandonment of the project, or for
its postponement. In fact, the only reason
why we should consider them to be a matter
of grave import is, that they form the first
check that the project has received since
the question was submitted to the people of
these provinces, at the time of the formation
of the present Government of Canada. If
we only look back to June last, and then
regard the present condition of the question, we cannot but feel surprise at the
advance which has been made. In June
last we would have been satisfied if we could
have contemplated that so soon as this the
question would even have been favorably
entertained by the governments of the different provinces. But, within the short
period which has since elapsed, a conference
has been held, and the measure framed by
that conference has received the sanction of
the governments of all the provinces, and
each of the governments of the five colonies
is pledged to submit, not only the question
of Confederation, but the scheme as prepared by the Conference, to the legislature
of each of those provinces. And we have
gained more than this. Not only has every
government of every colony been pledged
to the scheme, and pledged also to use all
its legitimate influence as a Government to
This individual participated in:
