814
THURSDAY, March 9, 1865.
MR. D. FORD JONES resumed the
adjourned debate. He said— I rise, Mr.
SPEAKER, to address the House on the resolutions which you hold in your hand in
favor of a Confederation of all the Provinces
of British North America. I feel that the
question is one involving such very great
interests, involving a change in the whole
Constitution of the country, and involving
consequences which may plunge us into
great difficulties, or which may have the
very opposite effect— that I feel great
diffidence and embarrassment in approaching
it. But I feel it is a duty I owe to myself
and to those who sent me here, that I should
express my opinions on this proposed union,
before I record my vote on the resolutions
now before the House. I desire to do this,
because I cannot give my approval to the
whole scheme, some of its details being such
that I cannot support them.
815
MR. JONES—The way in which I look at
this question does not at all depend on
whether this hon. gentleman or that hon.
gentleman may be at the head of affairs in this
country; or whether we may have a
Coalition Government or a purely party
Government ; but I consider we should look
at the sheme on its own merits, and deal
with it as a whole, giving a fair and square
vote on the resolutions as a whole. (Hear,
hear.) I think, therefore, that the course
which has been taken by the Government to
obtain such a vote is the wise and honest
course. (Hear, hear.) I think they deserve
credit for the step they have taken with a
view to bringing this debate to a close. We
have been debating this question day after
day for a number of weeks, and I must say
that the opposition given by hon. gentlemen on the other side has been of a very
factious character; time after time they
have risen to make motions on this, that,
and the other thing, keeping the House
from addressing itself to the matter really
under debate, and protracting unnecessarily
the decision of the question. Only the night
before last, when an hon. gentleman had
risen for the purpose of addressing the
House, they cried out that it was too late,
and called for an adjourment of the debate;
and yet, when that was agreed to, they
wasted two or three hours in moving additions to that motion for adjournment. This
was done, too, by hon. gentlemen who were
well conversant with the rules of this House,
and who must have known that these motions
were not in order. At midnight they were
too tired to allow the debate to go on, and
yet they kept the House sitting after that
till three in the morning, discussing
mere points of order. (Hear, hear.) That
has been the course pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite. And what, on the other hand,
has been the course pursued, by the Administration? Did they not put a motion on the
notice paper—a motion which the factiousness
of hon. gentlemen opposite prevented from
being put to the vote—to give further time
for the discussion of this question, by resolving that instead of its being taken
up at
half-past seven, it should be taken up at
three, the whole time of the House being
devoted to it? We have been debating the
question for weeks, and though hon. gentlemen opposite have been in their places,
they
have not proposed a single amendment. And
yet, after this had gone on for such a length
of time, so soon as the " previous question "
is moved, those hon. gentlemen get up and
cry out that they are gagged. Even after
the House began to discuss the question at
three o'clock, these hon. gentlemen day after
day wasted the time by getting in one side-
wind after another, in order to create delay,
to see if something might not turn up against
the scheme. Now, at last, they have got
something. Something has turned up in
New Brunswick, and I suppose they will now
permit us to come to a vote. (Hear, hear.)
In discussing this question, I do not see any
necessity for going back eight or ten years
to the speeches of hon. members. I do not
see why lengthy extracts should be read to
shew that the hon. member for Montmorency
opposed the union of the provinces in 1858,
or that the hon. member for Hochelaga, at
that time, was in favor of it. I do not see
what that has to do with the question before
us. It is now submitted in a practical form
for our decision, and what we have to do
is to give a square vote, yea or nay, that we
are in favor of this Confederation, or that we
are against it. Our circumstances have
changed within the last few years; but it is
not on that account merely that I now support
this union. I have always, upon every occasion, on the hustings, at public meetings
and elsewhere, advocated a union of the
British North American Provinces; and
were our relations with the United States in
the same favorable form that existed some
five or six years since, I would still give my
support to a union. It is, therefore, sir, not
because I think there is a great present
necessity for the scheme being brought to a
speedy conclusion that I now support it.
That present necessity, however, now exists,
and I do not see why other hon. gentlemen,
after a lapse of five or six years, when times
have changed, and a greater urgency has
arisen for such a union, should not be allowed
to change their minds. "Wise men change
their minds; fools have no minds to change."
(Hear, hear.) Shortly before the meeting
of this House, I advertised that I would
hold a series of meetings in the riding of
South Leeds, for the purpose of placing my
views upon this question before my constituents, and to see whether their views
accorded with my own; men of all shades
of politics were requested to attend these
meetings, and they were very numerously
and respectably attended, not only by these
who supported me, but also by those who
were my most bitter opponents at the last
816
election. And at all of those meetings,
some six or seven, not a single voice was
raised against the union of these provinces
with the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island. All appeared to think such
a union advisable and necessary, not only
for commercial purposes, but because it
would tend to strengthen the ties that bound
us to the Mother Country. It has been said
that this union has never been before the
people, that it has never been a test question
at the polls. Now, sir, so long ago as the
year 1826, this union was advocated by Sir
JOHN BEVERLEY ROBINSON, one of the most
able men this country has ever produced;
subsequently, on different occasions, it was
adverted to by Lord DURHAM in his celebrated
report—also by the British American League,
presided over by the late lamented Hon.
GEO. MOFFATT of Montreal, and latterly
in that despatch to the home Government
in October, 1858, over the signatures of the
Hon. Messrs. CARTIER, GALT and ROSS.
Why action was not taken upon that despatch,
I cannot say; I leave this matter in the
hands of those who at that time administered
the affairs of this country, and who are
responsible for the course they pursued in
allowing it to be dropped. Sir, the union
of these provinces would, in my humble
opinion, be of the very greatest advantage
to us in many points. It would strengthen,
and not weaken, as has been said by its
opponents, the ties that bind us to the
Mother Country. It would give us a standing
in the eyes of the world. Instead of being
several small, disjointed and fragmentary provinces, as was so ably expressed in the
Speech
from the Throne, we would form one great
nationality, with a population to begin with
of nearly 4,000,000 people, which would
place us among the list of the first countries
of the world. (Hear, hear.) It would tend
to strengthen our securities both here and
in the Mother Country. Instead of our stocks
and our bonds being quoted as if by accident
on the Stock Exchange in London, they
would be looked for daily, and sought after.
It would give us an increased market for
our produce and our manufactures, and it
would tend more than anything else to
cause a tide of emigration to flow to our
shores. (Hear, hear.) Now the emigrant
in coming to America is preplexed to know
to which of the different provinces he shall
go, and when he speaks of going to America,
the only place he thinks of is New York.
It would create a daily line of steamship
from the different points of Europe to Halifax,
the nearest point and shortest sea voyage
to this country—and with the Intercolonial Railway to bring the emigrant directly
through to Canada, who will say that we
shall not have a tide of emigration to our
shores such as we can scarcely imagine?
The only emigration we now have is that
induced to come by friends who have made
this country a home and have prospered.
These, sir, are the reasons, from a political
point of view, why I support the resolutions
now in your hand. And, sir, in speaking
in a commercial sense, and as a commercial
man, they shall also have my full and
hearty support. (Hear, hear.) Does any
one pretend to say that by the addition of
nearly a million of inhabitants to these
provinces, a thrifty and intelligent people,
that this country will not be made more
prosperous? Does any one pretend to
say, that by taking away the barriers that
exist to trade, with a million of people
living close alongside of us, that this country
will not be advanced? Will we not have
largely-increased markets for our manufactures when those hostile. tariffs that now
meet us st every port in the Maritime
Provinces, restricting our trade with them,
are removed? Will we not have an increased market for our produce when we
are linked together by the Intercolonial
Railroad, and when a free interchange
of all our commodities exists? Can we
remain, as at present, without any highway
of our own to the Atlantic, for ingress or
egress, for five months of the year? (Hear,
hear.) When we see the hostility existing
towards us, and forcibly shown towards us,
by the press, the people, and the Government of the United States, by the enforcement
of the obnoxious passport system, by
the notice of the abrogation of the Reciprocity treaty, by the annulling of the bonding
system, by. the notice given to the Government of Great Britain that the treaty
regarding armed vessels on our lakes is w
be done away with—when our farmers cannot send their produce for five months of
the year to a market; when our merchants,
for the same period, cannot get their stocks
of merchandise for the supply of the wants
of the country; when we are dependent
on the generosity of a foreign country
even for the passage of our mails to Old
England—when that is our position, shall it
be said that this union with the Lower
817
Provinces is not desirable, and that we shall
not, as soon as possible, have a railroad
across our territory to the Atlantic seaboard,
to Halifax, one of the best harbors in the
world? Shall we be indebted, be subservient
to, be at the mercy of a foreign country for
our very existence? (Hear, hear.) Sir, shall
we remain dependent upon that country for
all these things, or shall we not rather put
our own shoulders to the wheel, throwing
off our supineness and inertia, and by
building the Intercolonial Railway, provide
an outlet for ourselves? (Hear, hear.) And
simultaneously with the construction of that
great work, I hold that for the benefit of
the commercial interests of the country we
ought to enlarge and deepen our canals.
(Hear, hear.) I desire now to read a
Minute of the Executive Council, issued by
the SANDFIELD MACDONALD-DORION Government, under date 19th February, 1864.
It is as follows :—
Although no formal action, indicative of the
strength of the party hostile to the continuance
of the Reciprocity treaty, has yet taken place,
information of an authentic character, as to the
opinions and purposes of influential public men
in the United States, has forced upon the committee the conviction that there is imminent
danger of its speedy abrogation, unless prompt and
vigorous steps be taken by Her Majesty's Im
perial advisers to avert what would be generally
regarded by the people of Canada as a great
calamity.
And in another place it is stated :—
Under the beneficent operation of the system
of self-government, which the later policy of the
Mother Country has accorded to Canada, in common with the other colonies possessing
representative institutions, combined with the advantages
secured by the Reciprocity treaty of an unrestricted commerce with our nearest neighbors
in
the natural productions of the two countries, all
agitation for organic changes has ceased, all
dissatisfaction with the existing political relations
of the province has wholly disappeared.
From this Minute it appears to have been
the opinion of the SANDFELD MACDONALD—DORION Government that the abrogation of the
Reciprocity treaty would probably bc a great calamity to this country. But I am not
of that opinion, and
I believe that the people of this country
will never be so reduced as to go on
their knees to pray the Government of the
United States to continue the treaty.
(Hear, hear.) Indeed, for the past year or
two, in consequence of the difference in the
currency between the two countries, we have
felt almost as though that treaty had been
put an end to already. In consequence of
the state of the currency, many of the best
interests of this country have been injured,
the mining interest of the province has been
put a stop to, and the lumbering interest, one
of the most important of our many important
interests, crippled and paralysed. (Hear.)
What much greater injury can befall us,
by the abrogation of the Reciprocity treaty,
than that we now suffer through the derangement of the currency? Instead of
the repeal of the Reciprocity treaty being
a great calamity, it will lead to an agitation
for organic changes which cannot fail to be
of the greatest advantages to the future
prosperity of the country. For my part I do
not at all like the idea of a document of that
kind, emanating from our Canadian Government, falling into the hands of the American
people, and leading them to believe that
in our estimation the repeal by them of the
Reciprocity treaty would be calamitous to
this country. (Hear, hear.) I repeat that
I do not believe that the abrogation of that
treaty will eventually be detrimental to our
interests. It is true that we may suffer for
four or five years, and suffer greatly, but we
will be thrown upon our own resources, and
ultimately become strong and self-reliant.
Our merchants will no longer be denied an
outlet to the ocean during five or six months
in the year, except by the favor or forbearance
of our Yankee neighbors. Let us put our
hands into our pockets to build this Intercolonial Railway, and we will be opening
a
way to the ocean to our merchants and our
farmers for shipping their products over
their own territory. And when we are in
that position, we shall be able to say to the
people of the United States—" You shall no
onger be allowed to participate in the benefits of our fisheries—we will close the
navigation of our canals against you—and we will
cease to permit, wit out the payment of a
heavy duty, the importation into this country
of your coarse grains for the supply of our
distillers and brewers." And, sir, when it is
stated that the importations of these grains
have amounted to nearly two millions of
bushels annually, it will be seen that after
all the reciprocity is not altogether on one
side. (Hear, hear.) I think that they will
then acknowledge it will be better for them
to be on more friendly terms with this province, seeing that we control the navigation
of the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, the
818
natural outlet for the products of the
Western States, which in 1863 amounted to
the enormous quantity of five hundred and
twenty million bushels of grain—they will
be dependent upon us, instead of our relying
upon them. Compared with the St. Lawrence
navigation the Erie canal is but a ditch, and
it is closed by the trust tarlier in the season
than our lake and river navigation. When
all these advantages which we enjoy are
considered, the people of the United States
will see how much better it is to live on terms
of friendship and amity with us, instead of,
to use a vulgar but forcible phrase, " cutting
off their nose to spite their face." (Hear,
hear.) With regard to the proposed resolutions, I stated at the outset that there
were
portions of the scheme to which I objected,
and I may now, sir, be allowed briefly to
advert to them. I would prefer that the
whole power was concentrated under one head
by a Legislative union, rather than a Federal
union. I fear that the machinery will be complex, and that we will find, under the
proposed
system, that the expenses of the Government
will be much greater than if we had one
General Government without these additions
of local legislatures for each of the provinces.
(Hear, hear.) But lam happy to say that
the proposed Federal system is not a reflex
of the old Federal union of the United States.
Notwithstanding some honorable gentlemen
have praised the Federal system in the
States as worthy of imitation, still I think
our proposed system much to be preferred.
It differs in this—the United States Federal
system was formed from a number of sovereign states, with sovereign powers, delegating
to a central power just as much or as
little of their power as they chose; thereby
the doctrine ot state rights obtained, and,
as we have seen within the last four years,
has been the cause of bloodshed and civil
war, it may be to the probable destruction of
that Federal union. Our case is exactly the
reverse. Instead of the Central Government
receiving its power from the different provinces, it gives to those provinces just
as
much or as little as it chooses. Hear what
the 45th resolution says—" ln regard to all
subjects in which jurisdiction belongs to
both the general and local legislatures, the
laws of the General Parliament shall control
and supersede those made by the local legislatures, and the latter shall be void so
far as inconsistent with the former." This
places the whole control in the hands of the
General Government, making the union as
nearly legislative as the circumstances of
the various provinces would admit. So much
is this the case that the hon. member for
Hochelaga fears that it would eventually
result in a legislative union—a result to
my mind most devoutly to be desired. (Hear,
hear.) There are two or three more of the
points of the resolutions to which I have
objection. The public lands are placed at
the disposal of the local legislatures; immigration also is in the hands of the local
legislatures, and the seacoast fisheries are in
the hands of the local legislatures. These
are matters common to the whole, and should,
for many reasons, be under the control of the
General Government. These various interests,
however, are all covered by the 45th resolution of the Conference which I have just
read, and which declares that when consistent with the welfare of the General
Government, their control will be taken from
the local legislatures. (Hear, hear.) I have,
as briefly as possible, shewn thatin my opinion,
in our political and our commercial relations
we would be benefited by the union of Canada
with the Maritime Provinces. I have also
adverted briefly to the objections which I
hold to the proposed mode of carrying out
the union. I shall now endeavor to show
that as a means of defence it is highly desirable. If there is one thing more desirable
than another, it is to have the whole forces
of the country under one governing power.
How might it fare with us, in case of war or
invasion, with the provinces disunited?
Objections could now be made against the
withdrawal of a portion of the militia from
one province to the others, without the
consent of the government of that province,
and before they could be brought into the
field, valuable time would be lost, red-tapeism
would stand in the way, and the delay might
be dangerous. (Hear, hear.) By being united
and controlled under one head, troops could
be thrown upon any point attacked, at a
moment's notice. Objections have been made
by hon. gentlemen to any expenditure for
the purpose of building fortications, at pro
per points, for the defence of the country;
but I am satisfied there is no reasonable sum
that may be required that will be grudged
by the people of Canada; for if there is any
purpose for which they will contribute cheerfully, it is for the defence of their
country,
and to continue the connection and cement
the tie that binds us to the Mother Country.
819
(Hear, hear.) It has been also stated that
we could not defend ourselves against an
overwhelming power such as the United
States. Time was when we did defend ourselves, and that successfully ; and if the
time
should ever come again, the people of Canada
and of the Maritime Provinces will not he
found backward to defend everything they
held sacred and most dear. (Hear, hear.) It
has also been said that we should keep a
strict neutrality; in fact that our neutrality
should be guaranteed by England, France
and the United Siates, in case war should
unfortunately take place between them. But
such an idea is too absurd to be considered
for a moment. Would the people of this
country submit to such an arrangement even
if attempted to be carried out ? Would we
allow England, if forced to go to war with
the United States, want the assistance of her
Canadian subjects? Could we restrain the
people of Canada from doing their duty, when
they saw the Mother Country battling with
her foes? If I thought such would be the
case, I should deny my country, for we should
be held up to the scorn and derision of the
world. (Hear, hear.) On the question of our
defences, I desire to read an extract from the
report of Col. JERVOIS, the able engineer
sent out to report upon the practicability of
defending Canada against attack :—
The question appears to be whether the British
force now in Canada shall be withdrawn in order
to avoid the risk of its defeat, or whether the
necessary measure shall be taken to enable that
force to be of use for the defence of the country.
The sum required for the construction of the
proposed works and armaments at Montreal and
Quebec would only be about one year's expense
of the regular force we now maintain in Canada.
It is a delusion to suppose that force can be of
any use for the defence of the country, without
fortifications to compensate for the comparative
smallness of its numbers. Even when aided by
the whole of the local militia that could at present be made available, it would,
in the event
of war, be obliged to retreat before the superior
numbers by which it would be attacked, and it
would be fortunate if it succeeded in embarking at
Quebec, and putting to sea without serious defeat.
On the other hand , if the works now recom—
mended be constructed, the vital points of the
country could be defended, and the regular army
would become a nucleus and support, round
which the people of Canada would rally to resist
aggression, and to preserve that connection with
the Mother Country which their loyalty, their
interests, and their love of true freedom alike
make them desirous to maintain.
Such is the report of Col. JERVOIS, one of
the ablest men on those subjects in the English service, and I think it can with greater
reason be relied upon than all the mere assertions of hon. members, who are not supposed
to know much, ifanything at all, upon a subject which they have never made a study,
and
upon which they have had no experience
whatever. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. WALSH
also, a few days since, in a speech upon an
Address to Her Majesty for papers and correspondence with the American Government
in relation to the Reciprocity treaty, and the
notice for a finality of the treaty restricting
the number of armed steamers upon our
inland waters, spoke thus :—
There might be some hon. gentlemen who
would contemplate, without shame or regret,
the total and entire severance of the connection
between England and Canada, and who would
say that this country would get rid thereby of a
source of much embarrassment, expense and
trouble. He would, however, tell those hon.
gentlemen that Great Britain could not, if she
would, cut Canada adrift. As long as Canada
retained her desire to be connected with this
country—as long as Canada preserved her spirit
and her resolution to be independent of America,
so long would England be bound by her honor,
by her interests, and by every motive that could
instigate a generous or patriotic nation, to sustain, protect and vindicate the rights
of Canada,
and to guard her, whether as an ally or a dependency, against the aggressions of the
United
States; it was impossible for England to shrink
from the obligation. The day might come when
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would come down,
and in happy phase and with mellifluous eloquence,
congratulate the House upon having emancipated
itself from a source of military expenditure. He
might felicitate the House that Birmingham was
sending admirably finished Armstrong and Whitworth guns to arm the new naval forces
of America
on the Canadian lakes. He might congratulate the
House that Birmingham was sending out a plentiful supply of fetters and handcuffs
to be used in
coercing the refractory Americans. The right
hon. gentleman might, at the same time, be able
to congratulate the House upon a vast amount
of commercial prosperity, and announce that he
was able to reduce the income tax a penny or two
pence on the pound. But if ever that day should
come, and if ever that speech were made,
the whole world would observe that the old
English oak was not only withered in its limbs,
but was rotten at its heart. There was, in fact,
no escape from the obligation which bound Great
Britain, by every tie of national honor and interest, to maintain and defend Canada.
The question was not one merely between England and
Canada, but was one between England and the
United States. It appeared to him that the notice
given by the American Government was an act
of such unmistakable hostility, that it almost,
820
amounted to a declaration of war, and at a much
earlier period of our history, it would have been
so regarded.
When such views are held in England, when
so strong a desire is manifested in Canada to
maintain our connection with England, and
to remain under the sheltering folds of that
flag we love so well, shall it be said that we
have not the spirit left to defend ourselves ?
I know, sir, that the people of Canada will
not be backward, should ever that time arrive.
I feel that there is some of the spirit of 1812
still left among us. I am convinced that the
blood of those men who left the United
States, when they gained their independence,
and who gave up all in order to live under the
protection of the laws of Old England—the
blood of those old U. E. Loyalists, I say , still
courses through our veins. (Hear.) Sir, I trust
that this union may be consummated, in order
that British power on this continent may be
consolidated, our connection with the Mother
Country cemented and strengthened, and that
under this union this country may be made
a happy home for hundreds of thousands of
emigrants from the Mother Country—a happy
and contented home for all now living here,
and for our children and children's children
for generations to come. (Hear, hear, and
cheers.)
MR. CARTWRIGHT, said—Mr. SPEAKER, the turn which this debate has assumed
of late is somewhat remarkable. Up to a
very recent period, hon. gentlemen opposite
have dwelt chiefly on the extreme—I think
they even said the indecent—haste with
which this project has been pushed forward.
They have asserted that this scheme was the
sole, the only bond of union between the
members of the present Ministry, and further, that so rash, so inconsiderate was their
eagerness to effect their end at any cost,
that they have seriously compromised our
interests by undue concessions to the remaining provinces, and notably to Newfoundland
and New Brunswick. Latterly, however,
the question has assumed a new and different
phase. It has been discovered that so far
from being a bond of union, the project of
Confederation is a mere pretext, a blind to
cover their predetermination to maintain
their position at all hazards. Now, sir, passing over the obvious inconsistency of
these
contradictory accusations, passing over the
absurdity of calling the Confederation the
sole bond of union, and yet a sham to cover
that union, I shall have a few words to say
as to the reasons which induced me, in com
mon with a great majority of this House,
and I believe with a great majority of the
people of this country, to support honorable
gentlemen on the Treasury benches, not only
as regards the project we are now discusing, but as to their general policy in
effecting the extraordinary fusion of parties
which took place last summer. Sir,
it is idle to talk of that step as if those
honorable gentlemen were alone responsible
for their conduct on that occasion. What
they did was done with the full knowledge and consent of their supporters, and
reflects on our honor, if wrong, quite as
much as on theirs. But, sir, I am very far
indeed from admitting that we were wrong.
I think the reasons which influenced us
then were strong enough to justify us fully;
those reasons are tenfold stronger now. To
understand them, Mr. SPEAKER, we need
only glance at the parliamentary history of
the last few years, and then ask ourselves
whether any language is too strong, any
sacrifice too great, to put an end to the state
of things which prevailed throughout that
period. But first, sir, let me pause to deal
with the charge of undue haste. Doubtless
the rapidity with which these negotiations
have advanced was as remarkable as it was
unexpected. I believe there is hardly an
instance in which a political project of such
magnitude and delicacy has made such
astonishing progress in so short a time; and
so far from holding it an objection, so far
from allowing that this is any evidence that the
country has been taken by surprise in meeting
to this scheme, I hold that it is, on the contrary, the best possible omen of its
ultimate
success, no matter what temporary checks it
may encounter, because it shows conclusively
not only how zealously and honestly Ministers have devoted themselves to the task
of
carrying it into efi'ect, but, which I think of
even more importance, because it proves
how powerfully the events of the last few
years have contributed to mature men's
views on this subject, and shows that, so far
as this province is concerned, my honorable
friends are but aiding to carry out a foregone
conclusion—a conclusion long since arrived
at by every man among us who desires to
maintain our independence or our connection
with the British Crown; that in this, or
some such scheme as this, lies our best, if
not our only hope of escaping absorption
into the great republic which adjoins us.
Sir, this is an argument which perhaps has
more weight with me than with some hon.
821
gentlemen before me. It may be that there
are some even here who are secretly dazzled
by the magnificent vision, so dear to American statesmen, of an empire which shall
spread from sea to sea, and unite every
scattered state and province from the Gulf
of Mexico to Hudson's Bay under one law
and one rule. Sir, I can understand the
fascination which such an idea can exercise;
I can even sympathise with it to some
extent; and it is just because I do understand it that I am prepared to oppose
it to the utmost, believing that in the
long run the establishment of a power
so gigantic could not fail to be fraught
with the greatest misfortunes to those
who might live under it, if not to the whole
human race. And now, sir, to return to
my subject, I would like to take a rapid
glance at the perils from which we have but
lately escaped; and in so doing, I shall
speak only of those of which I have myself
been cognizant in my own parliamentary
career, brief though it is; and I appeal
again to the consciousness of every honorable gentleman, whether there is anything
in the events of the past two sessions of
which we have much reason to feel proud,
save, perhaps, their closing scene? What
was our position, Mr. SPEAKER ; what was
that position which some honorable gentlemen have the hardihood to affect to regret?
Two dissolutions granted (though in the
latter case the Royal prerogative was not
exercised); three changes of Ministry within
the space of a single twelvemonth; the fate
of cabinets dependant on the vote of a single
capricious or unprincipled individual, in a
House of 130 members; a deficient revenue
and a sinking credit; all useful legislation at
a stand-still -- these, 'sir, were circumstances
which might well have filled us with apprehension, had they occurred in a time of
profound peace; but which, sir, coming,
as they did, at a period when we are
menaced with the gravest danger which
can befall a free people, would have argued
us deaf and blind to every lesson which the
misfortunes of our neighbors ought to teach
us, had we not embraced the very earliest
opportunity to extricate ourselves from such
a position; and the wonder to me is not that
our statesmen should have shown themselves
willing to bury their private grudges and
paltry personal animosities, but rather that
we could have been infatuated enough to
permit such a state of things to continue
at such a crisis for two whole years. It is
not for me to say who has been most .to
blame in the past. I judge no one, still less
do I undertake to defend them; but I speak
of acts patent and known to all, when I say
that the position of parties in this province,
the bitterness and virulence of party
feeling, and the narrowness and acrimony
to which those feelings gave rise, were degrading and demoralizing us all to a degree
which it is not pleasant to look back upon
even now. And so far from regarding the
union of parties which has taken place as a
political misfortune in itself, or as tending to
deprive the people of any safeguard, I say
that it was of the greatest importance to our
people that they should be relieved, if only
for a brief period, from the desperate party
struggles in which they have been engaged
—that a lull of some kind should be afforded,
that they should have some opportunity of
considering the grave dangers which encompass them, some chance of escaping from the
state of practical anarchy into which they
had been drifting. It is to their credit, Mr.
SPEAKER, and to the credit of those who
control the press of this country, that ever
since this project has been fairly before us
a very marked improvement has taken place
in the whole tone and temper of public
discussion. Of the press, in particular, I
must say that the moment they were relieved
from the necessity of supporting party
manoeuvres—the moment a subject of sufficient importance was submitted for consideration,
they seem to have risen at once to the
level of the subject, and to have abandoned
all those unhappy and rancourous personalities which, in times past, were too apt
to
disfigure their pages. Sir, I believe the
people of Canada have learned a lesson
which they will not easily forget. I believe
that henceforward it will not be found so
easy to array citizen against citizen, race
against race, as it has been heretofore. I
believe our people have discovered that men
who rise to be the heads of great parties are
not of necessity villains and scoundrels—that
both sides may have great political principles
to maintain—that the words Reformer and
Revolutionist, Conservative and Corruptionist, are not absolutely convertible
terms, and that men who have given up the
best part of their lives, and sacrificed too
often, the best part of their fortnnes in the
service of their country, have had some better and higher reasons than more love of
822
jobbery and intrigue for doing so. To me,
sir, this appears a matter of great moment.
It is only too notorious how much of the
misery and misfortune which has befallen
the United States, is to be traced to the systematic degradation of their public men.
It
is well for us that the matter is still in our
own power. It is well for us that we have
still the choice whether we will have statesmen or stump orators to rule over us—
whether this House shall maintain its honorable position as the representatives of
a
free people, or whether. it shall sink into a
mere mob of delegates, the nominees of caucuses and of wire-pullers. It is still in
our
power to decide whether we shall secure a
fair share of the best talent we possess to
carry on the affairs of the country, or whether
we will ostracise from our councils every
man of superior ability, education or intelligence—with what practical results we
need
not look far abroad to see ; and I think,
sir, it is fast becoming apparent that
in this, as in other matters, the people
of Canada are well disposed to adhere
to the traditions of their British ancestry.
There is one objection, Mr. SPEAKER, which
has been advanced perpetually throughout
this debate by some hon. gentlemen who,
while unable or unwilling to show an valid
reason against Confederation in itself, profess themselves bitterly scandalised at
the
political combination by which it is likely to
e brought about. Now, sir, I admit at
once that there is a prejudice, a just and
wholesome prejudice, against all coalitions in
the abstract. I admit that that prejudice is
especially strong in the minds of Englishmen, and that, in point of fact, a coalition
is
always an extreme measure, only to be had
resort to in cases of extreme emergency. A
coalition, Mr. SPEAKER, may be a very base
act, but it may also be a very noble one. It
may be a mere conspiracy, for purposes of
revenge or plunder, on the part of men hating
and detesting each other to the uttermost—
or it may be an honorable sacrifice of private
personal enmity before the pressure of overwhelming public necessities, to escape
from
great danger or to carry a great object. Sir,
I shall not insult the intelligence of the
House by enquiring whether this present
existing Coalition has proposed to itself an
object of sufficient importance to warrant its
formation Even those who censure the details of this scheme most strongly are fain
to do
homage to the grandeur of the project, and
are compelled to admit that a union which
should raise this country from the position
of a mere province to that of a distinct nation,
is a project well worthy of the utmost efforts
of our statesmen. To determine the remaining question whether the position of our
affairs were so critical as to require the
utmost energy of all our leaders, and to
justify any union which gave a reasonable
hope of extricating ourselves from our difficulties, I must again revert to the condition
in which we found ourselves during the last
few years, and I ask every hon. member to
answer for himself whether it was one which
it gives him any pleasure to look back upon?
Was it pleasant for us, Mr. SPEAKER, a
young country without one penny of debt
which has not been incurred for purposes of
public utility—was it pleasant for us, I ask, to
find our revenue yearly outrunning our expenditure in the ratio of 20, 30 or even
40
per cent. per annum? Was it pleasant for
us to know that some of our once busiest
and most prosperous cities were being depopulated under the pressure of exorbitant
taxation ? Was it pleasant for us, inhabiting
a country able to sustain ten times its present
population, to find capital and immigrants alike
fleeing from our shores, even if they had to
take refuge in a land desolated by civil war?
Was it pleasant for us, sir, the only colony
of England which has ever vindicated its
attachment to the Empire in fair fight, to
know that our apathy and negligence in
taking steps for our own defence was fast
making us the byword to both friend and
foe? And lastly, Mr. SPEAKER, I ask was
it pleasant for us, needing and knowing that
we needed a strong Government above all
things, one which should maintain a firm
and steady policy, and possess the good-will
and support of at least a large majority of
our people—I say, sir, was it pleasant for
us at such a crisis to find ourselves the
victims of a mere political see-saw—to be
sure only of this one fact, that whatever course
of policy was adopted, the circumstance that
it emanated from one party would cause it
to be viewed with jealousy and suspicion by
the whole remaining moiety of the nation?
I would not have it thought, Mr. SPEAKER,
that in saying this, I am blind to the difficulties with which our statesmen have
had to
struggle. So far from this I believe that it
has been quite too much the fashion to
underrate them in times past. We have spoken
of them as if it were the easiest task in the
828
world to blend together, in less than one generation, two distinct peoples—peoples
differing from one another in race, in language, in
laws, customs and religion—in one word, in
almost every point in which it is possible for
men of European origin, and professing one
common Christianity, to difler from each
other. Sir, this could never have been an
easy task. It is one which has again and
again baffled the ablest statesmen of the
most powerful monarchies of Europe ; and I
will not undertake to say whether it is ever
capable of complete accomplishment. Be
that as it may, I know that in every empire
which has ever existed, from the English to
the Roman, which has held different races
under its sway, it has always been found
necessary to make large allowances for distinctive national traits—has, in fact, been
found necessary to introduce in some measure
the Federal element, though it is equally
true that in every state which deserved the
name of an empire, the supreme authority
of the central power in all that concerns the
general welfare has been acknowledged unreservedly. And, sir, it is just because this
seems to have been effectual in all essential
points in the scheme now before us—because,
while reserving to the General Government
the power of the purse and the sword, it accords
the amplest defensive powers to the various
local bodies—because, even where there
may besome conflict of jurisdiction on minor
matters, every reasonable precaution seems
to have been taken against leaving behind
us any reversionary legacies of sovereign
state rights to stir up strife. and discord
among our children. For all these reasons,
I say, I am disposed to give my hearty support to the scheme as a whole, without
criticising too narrowly the innumerable
details wnich it must inevitably present to
attack. All I hope is that in adjusting our
new constitutions, local and general, we
shall not allow our minds to be warped by
antiquated notions of the dangers which
threaten our liberty. No fear here, Mr.
SPEAKER, for many a day to come at least,
of perils which await us from the tyranny of
hereditary rulers, or the ambition of aristocratic oligarchies. No, sir, no ; and
while it
is true that here as elsewhere, there are
always dangers enough to retard our progress, I think that every true reformer,
every real friend of liberty will agree with
me in saying that if we must erect safeguards, they should be rather for the security
of the individual than of the mass, and
that our chiefest care must be to train
the majority to respect the rights of the
minority, to prevent the claims of the
few from being trampled under foot by
the caprice or passion of the many. For
myself, sir, I own frankly I prefer British
liberty to American equality. I had rather
uphold the majesty of the law than the
majesty of Judge Lynch. I had rather be
the subject of an hereditary monarch, who
dare not enter the hut of the poorest peasant
without leave had and obtained, than be the
free and sovereign elector of an autocratic
President, whose very Minister can boast the
power of imprisoning one man in New York
and another in St. Louis by the touching of
a bell-wire! I said, sir, that there were
many reasons why we should all unite in
furthering this project. It is not merely
because of the barriers to material progress
which it will remove—though I am far from
undervaluiug their importance ; it is not
merely because of the higher prizes which
it will throw open to individual ambition—
though I do not affect to despise this either ;
but it is chiefly, after all, because I believe it
will be found to have the most beneficial
results, in elevating our politics and in
inspiring our people with those feelings of
dignity and self-respect which lie at the
bottom of all real national greatness.
Sir, I can only liken our position for
some time past to that of a youth
who has been allowed to take possession of
his inheritance at an age when he is not yet
legally responsible for his actions. I do not
believe that such a position is good either
tor a nation or an individual, and I for one
rejoice that it is about being brought to a
close. There were several other subjects,
Mr. SPEAKER, which I had intended to
allude to ; but I find my voice is still too
weak to allow more than a few remarks.
Still, sir, I do not wish to sit down without
saying briefly that I am glad to find one
lesson at least, which the British Constitution ought to teach us, is beginning to
be
impressed upon our people. That Constitution, Mr. SPEAKER—though we have not
always been sufficiently alive to the fact-
while it does not require the possession of
those lofty, impracticable virtues which
most republican institutions demand from
their votaries, does nevertheless presuppose
a reasonable amount of discretion at the
hands of those who are intrusted with the
824
carrying out of its details. And, sir, though
it is true that it does recognise the calm, deliberate, just decision of the majority—and
the calm and deliberate decision is almost
always just—as final in the last resort, it
does still so abound with safeguards—with
latent checks of all kinds—checks established, many of them, more by custom and
usage than by positive law—as to make it
all but impossible for any majority, however strong, to perpetrate any gross act
of injustice on a minority, so long as that
minority could command but one or two
resolute representatives on the floor of Parliament. Sir, it is impossible not to
feel
that it is in a very great degree to this fact,
to the instinctive sense of the inherent
powers of self-defence which our customs
give to the weak against the strong—to the
conviction that to drive any party to despair
would create an inevitable dead-lock—that
England owes it that she has contrived to
administer her affairs for near two hundred
years without any overt acts of tyranny or
one direct collision or irregular interference
with the ordinary course of law. Sir, I
rejoice to see that we will continue to adhere
to a system which has borne such good fruit,
as a whole, in the parent land ; and I think
the reflection how difficult, if not how dangerous, it is to oppress a determined
minority
under such a system, may serve to calm the
fears of those honorable gentlemen who
dread the loss of local rights and privileges at the hands of the stronger race.
For the rest, Mr. SPEAKER, though I will
venture upon no predictions—though I know
we must expect many difficulties, many
checks before we can hope to bring so great
an enterprise to a successful issue—I trust I
may be pardoned for expressing my conviction that the loyalty and fidelity of the
early settlers of this country—and I speak
here without regard to any special nationality—is destined to be rewarded in the
way in which they would most have desired
to see it rewarded if they had lived to see
this day, by the establishment of a kingdom
on the banks of the St. Lawrence, which,
without binding itself down to a slavish
adherence to the customs of the old world,
would yet cherish and preserve these time-
honored associations our American neighbors
have seen fit so recklessly to cast away.
Sir, our forefathers may have had their
faults ; but still, in spite of all, I dare affirm
that the brave, self-sacrificing spirit they dis
played—their manful struggle against heavy
odds—and last, but not least, the patient,
law-abiding spirit which has ever induced
them to prefer reform to revolution, even
when engaged in sweeping away the last vestiges of worn-out feudal systems in Church
and
State from their midst—I say, sir, that that
afford us ample proof that the men to whom,
I hope, we shall soon look back as the founders
of a new nation, were ancestors of whom any
people might be proud ; and I trust that
we, their descendants, may prove ourselves
but half as capable of administering and
developing the vast inheritance which awaits
us. Sir, I believe that even we ourselves
are but just beginning to grow aware of the
immense resources, whether in field or forest,
in mine or in minerals, in seas or in fisheries,
with which it abounds ; that we are but
just beginning to appreciate the advantages
which surround us—our all but unparalled
internal navigation ; a healthy and far from
over-rigorous climate, and a country which,
even if it does not present the same
facilities for accumulating enormous fortunes
in the hands of a few individuals which
some other lands may afford, still promises,
and, I think, will continue for many a day
to promise, comfort and competence to every
man who is willing to work for it. Older
nations, Mr. SPEAKER, are working for us
even now. Older nations are accumulating
the skill and the capital which will yet be
transferred to our shores, if our own folly
do not prevent it. Older nations are even
now busied in solving those problems which
advanced civilization is sure to bring to us in
our turn ; and we, if we are wise, may learn
and profit by their example. A little patience,
a little forbearance, a little timely concession
to mutual prejudices, a little timely preparation against possible dangers, and we
may
well hope to establish a state which, in all
essential attributes of power and happiness,
need not fear comparison with any other on
this continent. Let us not be daunted by
any accidental checks—we must lay our
account to meet such in matters of not one-
tenth its importance—this is the time and
this the hour ; never again can we hope to
enter on our task under circumstances better
fitted to remove the natural, the inevitable
prejudices which must exist between so
many different provinces—never again can
we hope to receive a warmer and more
energetic support from the Imperial authorities—never again can we hope to see a
825
Ministry in office which shall command more
completely the confidence of the great mass
of our people, and which shall possess the
same or equal facilities for adjusting those
sectional difficulties which have disturbed
us so long ; and I trust that in this most
important crisis, this House will show itself
not altogether unworthy to be intrusted
with the destinies of three millions of their
countrymen. My own years are not very
many, Mr. SPEAKER, but yet even I can
remember when Canada was but a petty province, an obscure dependency, scarce able
to
make its voice heard on the other side of
the Atlantic without a rebellion ; forgotten
or ignored, as if, as the French Minister said
when he signed the treaty for its surrender,
"it mattered not what became of a few
barren acres of snow !" And yet, sir, in
less than thirty years I have lived to see
Canada expand into a state equal in numbers,
in resources and power of self-government
to many an independent European kingdom
—lacking only the will to step at once from
the position of a dependency to that of an
ally—a favored ally of the great country to
which we belong, and to take that rank
among the commonwealth of nations which
is granted to those people, and to those only,
who have proved that they possess the power
as well as the wish to defend their liberties.
This, sir, is what I think Canada can do ;
this is what I think Canada ought to do;
and if, as I believe, this project of Confederation would contribute most powerfully
to
enable us to do so, there are few sacrifices
which I would refuse to make for such an
object—much more, forgive my honorable
friends yonder for having in time past spoken
somewhat over harshly and hastily of each
other. Let them only persevere, let them
only go on and complete the task which I
will say they have so nobly begun, and they
will have made good their claim—I do not
say to the forgiveness—but to the regard,
the affection, the esteem of every man who
shall hereafter bear the name of Canadian.
(Cheers.)
MR. HARWOOD said—Mr. SPEAKER,
the importance of the proposed measure ; the
fatal consequences which would result to the
country if the plan of Confederation were
rejected by this House ; the sources of social,
political and commercial prosperity with
which the measure of Confederation is pregnant, if it is adapted with a firm determination
on the part of all to contribute their
part towards its perfect working, are such,
that notwithstanding the eloquent speeches
delivered on the subject on both sides, and
which seem to have completely exhausted
it, I consider it my duty to make known to
the country the reasons which influence me
to assist in passing it. Called, as we all are,
to record our votes either for or against this
great constitutional change, it is no more
than right that every one should in his own
way account for the part which he may
take in a measure which will naturally
inaugurate a new era in the parliamentary
annals of Canada. (Hear, hear.) I have
listened attentively to the opponents of the
measure, and read their speeches again and
again, and truly the only effect they have
had on my mind is a stronger conviction that
in the anomalous position of the country, a
Federal union of all the Provinces of British
North America is the only remedy for all
the innumerable difficulties which are shadowed forth on our political horizon.
(Cheers.) The opponents of the measure,
not being able positively to deny the advantages of Confederation to all the five
provinces of British America, endeavor to get
up a cry that this union would involve the
loss to us French-Canadians, and Catholics,
of our nationality, our language, our laws
and institutions. I, for my part, cannot look
upon it in so terrible a light—having all
history before me, I cannot come to that
conclusion. I shall soon shew clearly that
there exists throughout the world confederations in which are included different nationalities,
different religions sects, and in which,
nevertheless, the most thorough equilibrium
prevails of the political, civil and religious
rights pertaining to the different classes
of which they consist. Do we find any
other means of settling our difficulties of all
kinds besides this of Confederation ? No,
I find none ; and none is proposed to us
by the opponents of the plan now before the
House ! Mr. SPEAKER, the country is come
to a political dead-lock ; we have arrived at
a crisis ; ambition, the thirst of power,
political passions worked upon in all ways
and on all sides, have so clogged the wheels
of the machine of government, that it has
been brought to a stand-still ; and those who
guided its movements have had to rack their
brains to find some way of continuing the
transaction of public business---a way by which
we may arrive at a solution of the difficulty,
and escape from the slough of
status quo in
which the wheels of government are stuck
fast, and by which we may return to the
826
high road of progress and improvement.
Truly, Mr. SPEAKER, if the bitterest enemy
of Canada had had it in his power to invent
an inclined plane on which he might place
as to hurry us to ruin, he could not have
done it better than the different political
parties have done it within the last few
years. Elections on elections, one Ministry
succeeding another; one crying out, extravagance, the other issuing commissions of
inquiry to try to make places for its friends
--what, in short, has been the course of
events for the last few years? Since the
21st May, 1862, have we not had four or
five governments who have managed the
affairs of the country? One we had which
seemed to be " the darling of the nations,"
the paragon government of economy and
retrenchment, the MACDONALD—DORION
Government. What did it do for the
country? Nothing, absolutely nothing; it
had not even the moral courage to stand by
its own measures. In the beginning of
February, 1864, it brought in a bill (that
respecting sheriffs). Well, what did it do
in the circumstances? Afraid of its own
work, it stood aghast at the remonstrances
of some of its own partisans, who were contumacious—despair fell upon the leaders—
the camp was a scene of confusion ; and lo!
one fine day this Ministry, which was to
bring back the golden age of happiness and
prosperity, sank placidly to rest—became a
thing of the past, and left " not a wreck
behind" to mark its accession to power. In
a word, that pattern Administration died in
its virginity, died with the famous scheme of
retrenchment in its hand, and a still-born
" budget" on its conscience! (Continued
laughter and cheers.) I ask every man of
sense how many such governments as that
we should require to take the ship of the
country's welfare into port—to redeem us
from our unhappy condition—to calm the
strife of parties—to settle the many questions,
often irreconcilably incompatible with each
other, which had so long agitated the different sections of the country—a strife which
threatened to become perpetual? What
would have become of us if a providential
piece of good fortune had not brought together the men who compose the present
Administration? Ever one can conceive
that the Coalition Government, the only possible one in such circumstances, came in
just
in the nick of time ; and, as a proof of its
fitness for its mission, it "took fortune by
the forelock," as the proverb says, and cleverly made use of opportunity. In fact,
three months after the present Ministry was
formed, three of the Lower Provinces, comprehending the utility of a union among
themselves, conceived the idea of forming
one from which might flow strength and
prosperity to all ; being convinced that a state
of disunion such as theirs had always been—
their commerce paralysed by hostile tariffs—
was a political suicide. They therefore seat
delegates to Charlottetown, to devise a plea
among themselves for the purpose of solving,
in some profitable manner, the diffculties
which beset them, the three provinces.
What course did our Government then take?
The members of the Cabinet—too wise to
disregard the importance of the movement—
too statesmanlike to neglect its advantages—
found means to take part in the proceedings
at Charlottetown; and being convinced that
a Federal union of all the Provinces of British
North America would be the real salvation of
the country, laid before the delegates at
Charlottetown a large, well-digested scheme
based on a regard for justice and equality in
respect of the rights and privil of all;
a scheme by which each origin an each belief
will enjoy full and complete protection; a
scheme of Federal union, in a word, having for
its apex the powerful aegis of England; for its
foundation, social, political and commercial
prosperity; and for its cornerstone, constitutional liberty in all its amplitude and
strength.
(Cheers.) This idea of a Confederation of
the provinces is not a new one. All who are
in the slightest degree acquainted with the
parliamentary history of the country, are
aware that a plan for the Confederation of the
British North American Provinces was one
of the base upon which the programme of the
CARTIER-MACDONALD Administration rested
in 1858. It may be asked—" Why should
we have Confederation ?" " Why should we
not remain as we are ?" It is impossible, and
its impossibility is proved by the past. Let
those who do not see the seasonableness of
the Confederation look at what is going on
on the other side of the line—what do they
see there ? The threatened abrogation of the
Reciprocity treaty. The abrogation of the
transit system is threatened. A passport
system, which throws the greatest possible
obstacles in the way of our free travel
through the States, and does serious injury to
the development of our trade, has been inaugurated. We have no means of com
827
municating during the winter with the Mother
Country, except by passing over American soil,
and our passage over that soil is merely tolerated ; we may at any moment be deprived
of
this privilege, and in that case we should find
ourselves all at once, during the long winter
season, without any possible means of communication with Europe. These reasons are
more than sufficient to cause us to seek to improve our position, and the only possible
means by which to effect that object, is a
commercial, social and political union with
our sister colonies, the Maritime Provinces.
I hear honorable members say—" Why not
rather have the repeal of the union ?"
" Why not leave Upper and Lower Canada
separate as they were previous to 1840 ?"
Such a measure would probably put an end
to the reiterated demands of Upper Canada
for representation based upon population, and
the fears entertained by Lower Canada, the
fear of seeing her institutions endangered,
should that system of representation be conceded ; but that measure would be rather
a
retrograde one, which would throw the
country back, and would place it in the position which it occupied revious to the
union.
That measure would abrogate an agreement
which has long existed—a union which has
proved to the country a well-spring of progress, riches and prosperity. Such a dissolution
would only tend to weaken us still more,
and we should be but two weak and insignificant provinces, whereas our union has converted
us into one province comparatively
strong. We can realize the gigantic works
which have been carried out when we look
upon our canals and our railways. Is there
any one man endowed with ordinary fairness
—any one man who has not completely taken
leave of his senses, who will venture to say that
Upper and Lower Canada would have been
as far advanced, each of them, as they now
are, if they had remained separate, with
tariffs inimical the one to the other ? " Sooner than have Confederation," will exclaim
an
opponent, root and branch, of the scheme proposed, " let us concede to Upper Canada
representation adjusted on the basis of population
wholly and entirely, as the honorable member
for Hochelaga would appear in his celebrated
manifesto of 1865 to desire," but this is
positively absurd—it is a violation of the
spirit and the letter of the Union Act of 1840 ;
it is the principal source of all the difficult es
of a sectional nature which have proved
the source of difficulty, both in this House
and throughout the country, for several years
past. It would be asking for the utter ruin
of the civil and religious rights of the French-
Canadians. Under such melancholy circumstances, Mr. SPEAKER, what is then left for
us ? There is left for us the Confederation
of all the British Provinces in North America. That is the only possible remedy under
existing circumstances. Of two alternatives
we must select one. Either we shall form
part of a Confederation of the British North
American Provinces, or we shall fall into the
unfathomable gulf of the Confederation of
the neighboring States, formerly the United
States. (Hear, hear.) How absurd are they
who believe that the United States do not
want us, with our mineral wealth and our
fisheries, which latter are of themselves an
inexhaustible source of riches to the country !
The United States did not, in 1776, number
more than four millions of inhabitants ; there
were then only thirteen states ; now there are
thirty-one states and seven territories—at
least that was the number before the war—
and a population of more than thirty millions.
We know that the prodigious growth of the
United States is owing to their purchases,
their treaties and their conquests. They
want us, and would stir heaven and earth to
have us in their grasp. (Hear, hear.) Let
us beware ! We stand on the brink of the
yawning gulf of the American Confederation,
falling into which we encounter, first, our
share of liability to pay a national debt of
three thousand millions of dollars, and an annual expenditure of five hundred millions
;
and next, a share of their national quarrels
and civil wars. Exposed to persecution by
the conqueror, and loaded with the heavy
burthen of enormous debts incurred in the
prosecution of a cruel and fratricidal war—a
war of which, be it said, everybody knows the
beginning, but of which nobody knows the
end — the uncalculating opponents of the
measure before us will regret their obstinacy
and their disregard of their country's weal.
Then they will see the naked features of
those democratic institutions which are in
reality inconsistent with true liberty—of those
boasted institutions, under whose influence
the last vestiges of liberty have faded away,
as does the light at the close of a bright day.
Under them the liberty of the press is unknown ; under them, liberty is but a name,
a
dream, an illusion, a mockery, often a snare ;
under them no man can venture to speak
frankly what he thinks, and must take care
828
that what he says is in unison with the opinions of the majority of his audience ;
under
them the rights of the minority are unacknowledged, ignored, as if they had no existence
: the will of the majority is law. For
my part, Mr. SPEAKER, democratic institutions have no charms for me. Liberty,
Equality, Fraternity ! How many sad and
mournful memories are connected with those
three words in France ? In the name of
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, in the year
1793, that country saw the best of kings led
to the guillotine, provinces laid waste, blood
flowing like water ; the standard of rebellion
and insubordination raised and borne triumphantly ; the pillage of churches and monasteries,
the desecration of the altar ; priests,
nuns, old men, women, and even children,
murdered ! Those three magic words were
the signal and vindication of the " drownings
at Nantes," sometimes called by the fine
sounding name of " republican marriages."
Yes, Mr SPEAKER, civil war rages among
our neighbors ; but let us hope that Divine
Providence will guard these new countries
from the disasters and the horrid crimes
which, to the eternal shame of civilization,
stain the history of certain portions of Europe at the close of the last century.
It
was after a civil war that the terrible proscriptions of MARIUS and SYLLA commenced.
Let peace once be made between the Federal and Confederate States, then we shall
see the harvest of rancorous hatred cover
the earth, the fires of revenge burst forth ;
then woe to those who have given offence to
men of the type and character of the famous
General BUTLER. What is incumbent on us,
then, if we would escape sharing the horrors
of the situation ? What but to unite, one
and all—to combine all our means, our resources, our energies, and to have confidence
in ourselves and in one another — to show
England that we intend to emerge from the
state of isolation in which each several province has lain as regards the others ;
that we
intend to organize a system, so as to be prepared to do our part in the hour of danger
?
We have every assurance that England will
spend her last man, her last shilling, in defending and protecting us. Having a Federal
union, all the wealth which abounds in
the five provinces will be most highly developed ; our mineral riches, our timber,
our
fisheries, our commerce, internal and external,
our industrial arts and manufactures, will all
receive a fresh impulse ; capital will flow in,
and with it the means of defence of every
description. I do not pretend to say that
the mere fact of a " Confederation " will render us invincible. No, far from it, especially
when opposed to so formidable, so warlike
a fee as the neighboring Confederation has
now become ; but I do venture to say that if
we do our best, England will never desert us,
and if the armies of the neighboring Confederacy should occupy our country, it would
not be hers to keep it long. It is not essentially a necessity, Mr. SPEAKER, that
a small
Confederation cannot exist by the side of a
large one without being swallowed up and
absorbed. If all great nations are bound to
subject to their yoke all the little ones,
why are there so many small states in
Europe ? (Hear, hear.) It may be that the
mutual jealousies of the great powers are the
cause ; then who shall say that France—
France which fought side by side with
England in the Crimea—France which, looking at Mexico, is so deeply interested in
the
affairs of this continent—would not join with
England in a war between that power and the
neighboring States, if the latter should undertake to drive the English from the banks
of the St. Lawrence ? When a nation, strong
in its rights, is determined to preserve them,
it is often invincible. When XERXES, with
a million of men, fell upon Greece, was he not
driven back with the total loss of his immense
army ? When war was declared against the
South, was not the North, with its population
of twenty millions, going to annihilate the
South in three months ? It is now more
than four years that the war has been raging,
and the South, without friends, without allies,
is not yet conquered and made to pass under
the yoke. The history of Prussia affords a
proof of what bravery can achieve, even when
opposed to an enemy infinitely superior in
numbers. In 1740, the youthful Prince
FREDERIC ascended the Throne of Prussia.
The country contained no more than 48,000
square miles, and had a population of only
two millions and a half, less than the population of Canada alone, as it now is. Her
frontier northward was a wall of ice, all the seaports were closed during the winter
season ;
her only ally was lukewarm ; to the east, west
and south, she was bounded by powerful empires, the population of each of which alone
far exceeded that which she could boast.
The country was long and narrow ; it was flat
and well adapted at all points for the movements of troops ; no country could be more
exposed to an invasion ; nevertheless the
Prince, unchallenged, threw himself headlong
829
into a bloody war—as the aggressor—with all
his neighbors. Alone, and simultaneously,
he had on his hands Austria, France and
Russia. Yet he left to his successor a kingdom of 74,000 square miles, and a people
numbering nearly six millions. The small
and heroic republic of Holland did not hesitate to enter into a war with the mighty
monarchy of Spain, then mistress of the wealth
of the Indies. At this day her vessels are
found in every sea. Java and Sumatra belong
to her. Yet her population is smaller than
that of the Provinces of British North America. Single-handed in 1848, Piedmont dared
to enter on a struggle with Austria. The
King of Piedmont had then four millions of
subjects ; he now reigns over twenty-two
millions. Even poor little Greece, with a
million of inhabitants, must have its share in
revolutions, choose a king, and talk of its
rights, its pretensions, and its aspirations.
No, Mr. SPEAKER, the one, the only means
of safety for us, in the circumstances, is to
have a Federal union of all our provinces—a
social, political, commercial and military
union. Happen what may, when we have
done all that men of courage and energy
can be expected to do to mend our position,
our future will not be so dark as the friends
and advocates of the
status quo would have us
believe. Do these wonderful patriots really
believe in their hearts, that continuing to be
isolated as they are from each other, having
no cordial alliance, almost no relations or intercourse, the Provinces of British
North
America would be either stronger or less exposed to the attacks of the Northern States
than they would be if united ? Are those
persons not original in their ideas who allege
that the endeavor of the Provinces of British
North America to form a Confederation is a
kind of provocation and defiance to the Northern States ? If the Northern States made
this allegation, the most that could be said of
it would be, that it would be a vain pretext,
as futile as it would be absurd. Not less
ridiculous and misjudging are those persons
who pretend that the Confederation of the
Provinces of British North America would be
a step towards annexation to the Northern
States. Truly, there are some minds which
have an odd way of looking at things. If,
indeed, the opponents of Confederation would
only prescribe some other remedy to obviate
the evils which threaten us as an effect of
Confederation, we should have at least the
benefit of a choice ; but no—nothing of the
sort—they attack, criticise, but suggest
nothing. On the other hand, the principa
journals of Europe and several respectable
journals in the neighboring States have recorded their approbation of the scheme of
Confederation submitted by the Government,
and predict a brilliant future for the new
empire which is about to arise on this
side of the frontier line. (Hear, hear.) Referring to history, we find that confederations
have been formed in nearly all ages, and that
the principal cause of their formation has
been, not only the purpose of mutual protection, but a military object. These two
motives combined with a third, that of commercial advantages, suggested the project
which now occupies our attention. Among
the ancient Greeks there were several Federal
unions, the two principal being the Ætolian
and the Achœan ; the former, dating from a
period long antecedent to that of ALEXANDER, was broken up by the subjection of the
states composing the league to Rome, about
180 years B. C. ; the second, which was
formed about 280 years B. C., was destroyed
by the Romans about 150 years before the
vulgar era. The Ætolian Confederation comprised all the northern parts of Greece on
the
confines of Thessaly and Epirus, a portion of
Central Greece, and several of the islands of
the Ægean sea. This was a union rather of
provinces than of cities. It had a " Constitution," " States General," a chief magistrate,
a commander-in-chief, and different public
officers, with different functions or powers ;
the power of declaring war and that of making peace, of levying taxes, coining money
current at that time—all were intrusted to the
Central Government. The Achœan League,
on the contrary, was a union, not of provinces, but of cities or towns—not less than
seventy in number. There was a Federal
capital, a " Constitution," different public
officers, each invested with privileges and certain powers and duties, too many to
be enumerated in this place. Who has not read the
life of ARATUS and that of PHILOPŒMEN,
the latter one of the greatest statesmen, the
other the greatest captain of the Achœan
union ? In reading the history of these nations we shall find that it was their union
which saved them so long from the inroads of
their enemies, and which, for ages, preserved
their autonomy. We next come to the Italian Confederation of the middle ages. Like
those of Greece, they derived their origin from
military necessity. The League of Lombardy, and that of the Tuscans, were projected
principally as a mutual protection
830
against the emperors, who were greedy
conquest, and among them against
FREDERIC BARBAROSSA. In that of the
Tuscans, there was even an ecclesiastical
element of a decided character, inspired by
Pope INNOCENT III., its principal author.
The famous Roman Tribune RIENZI tried to
form a Confederation of all the Italian States,
but perished without realizing this dream of
his existence. Rome was to be the Federal
Capital. RIENZI died in 1352. The Swiss
or Helvetic Confederacy existed from the
twelfth century. In 1474 LOUIS XI. of France
endeavored to subdue it, but lost his trouble.
In 1477 CHARLES THE BOLD of Burgundy
lost his kingdom and life while foolishly assailing this Confederate power. In 1488
the Emperor MAXIMILIAN tried also in vain to subjugate the country. Spain likewise
endeavored
on many occasions to subdue the Confederate
States, but failed. In 1798 the Cantons of
Switzerland became the Helvetian Republic.
In 1803 they fell under the protection of
NAPOLEON I., and in 1813 the allies overran
them. In virtue of the Federal Act signed
at Zurich in 1815, important amendments
were made in their Constitution. The purpose of the Helvetian Confederation is the
protection of the country against foreigners,
the maintenance of peace and tranquility at
home, the preservation of public liberty in the
Confederation, and the increase of its general
prosperity. This Confederation has survived
two European revolutions, without mentioning
internal troubles, and it is now fifty years
old. We must bear in mind that a population the most various, the most mixed in
point of origin, language and religion, lives
under this Constitution. The people number
about two millions and a half ; about one
and two-thirds of a million speak German, half a million speak French, and the
remainder Italian and other languages. One
half of the population is Catholic, the other
Protestant. Their interests arising from
locality, race and faith, are as complicated and
as various as are their manners, language and
customs, and yet they all are free, all live securely, respected, happy and prosperous.
They
all enjoy the greatest and the purest liberty.
There are twenty-two Cantons, and what is
astonishing is that the chief of the Canton of
Neufchâtel is a king, the King of Prussia.
(Hear, hear.) I shall not speak of the Confederation of the United States of the Netherlands,
which had their day, their glory and
their use ; but I shall say a word of the great
Germanic Confederation. This is composed
of forty states of very different size, and contains thirty-four millions of inhabitants.
There belong to it kingdoms, grand duchies,
duchies, principalities and free cities. In
this vast association are Catholics, Protestants, Jews, in short different religions
and
nationalities, and yet none tyrannise over
others ; all live happily under the same Federal union and under the protectorate
of the
Emperor of Austria. Of these states, Austria is, properly speaking, the first in importance
; her army in time of peace is 280,000
men, in time of war she can bring into the
field 800,000. Prussia is the second, with
an army of 200,000 men, and a national militia of 400,000 men. There are, as I have
said, in these states various nationalities and
different sects of religion, and, nevertheless,
the rights of each are preserved in all their
integrity. Why then should not we, French-
Canadians and Catholics, become a component
part of the Confederation of the Provinces of
British North America, without any apprehension of seeing our language, our laws,
our
religion and our institutions endangered ?
It seems to me that we could find no perfect
and complete protection otherwise than by a
Confederation of this nature, inasmuch as it
is a union based on equity towards the inhabitants of the five provinces as its most
vital
and fundamental principle. As to the Confederation of the United States, I shall merely
name them. Every one knows that in 1776,
when the thirteen colonies revolted against
England, they believed that the only means
of securing internal prosperity and of defending themselves against the common
enemy, was to unite together for their mutual protection ; clearly perceiving that
if they remained separate, and without any
bond of union, as the uncalculating opponents of the present plan of Confederation
would wish the Provinces of British North
America to remain, their defeat was certain,
and instead of coming victoriously out of the
struggle, they would be easily conquered. I
shall now, Mr. SPEAKER, ask to be allowed
to say a few words on the other confederations which have existed on the continent
of
America. In the first place I shall mention
that of Central America, or Guatimala. That
Confederation was situated on the shores of
the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.
It consisted of five states—Guatimala, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa
Rica. These states were peopled by Creoles,
Mestizos, Indians and Negroes. Until the
year 1821 this Confederation was rich and
831
prosperous.
Guatemala, then, imitating the
ill-advised example of other Spanish colonies,
declared its independence, and thought fit to
set up as a Federal republic ; but in 1839 an
insurrection detached the state of Honduras
from the Confederation, and shortly after the
other states also declared themselves to be independent (1847) ; and what are they
now ?
They have fallen into complete insignificance,
a prey to the ambition of numerous dictators,
without any common bond, disunited, and
therefore without vitality or strength. (Hear,
hear.) We next come to the united provinces of Rio de la Plata, now constituting the
Argentine republic. The Confederation of
La Plata comprised fourteen states, the greater part of which formed at one time a
portion of the immense Viceroyalty of Peru.
In 1778, being united to the present province
of Bolivia, to Paraguay and Uruguay, they
formed a particular viceroyalty, that of Rio
dela Plata. In 1810 they took part in the
important insurrectionary movement which
shook all the transatlantic dependencies of
Spain ; from that time everything tended to
republicanism ; separate and independent
states became republics. They are now a
prey to anarchy and the confusion which attends such institutions. The industrial
arts
are unheeded, and the commerce limited. If,
sir, that Confederation had proved to be
faithful to the cause which gave it life, if
union had prevailed instead of disunion,
strength, power, prosperity and wealth would
have fallen to the lot of the association, in place
of poverty, misery, and decay, which seem now
to be their inevitable fate. (Hear, hear.)
But some of the honorable members of this
House have maintained that the union would
be beneficial to none but the Maritime Provinces, that they alone would derive advantage
from it, as they are comparatively poor,
while Canada is rich by means of its trade,
through its industrial pursuits, its manufactures and its agriculture. I maintain
for my
part that we are as much in need of them as
they are of us—(hear, hear)—both in regard
to industry, to trade, and to military power.
In the first place, let us consider the various
resources of the several Maritime Provinces.
Nova Scotia is not, certainly, altogether an
agricultural country, but it contains valleys in
which the soil is as deep, as rich, and as well
suited for farming as the best lands of the
West. A large portion of the population are
devoted to fishing, and skilled in drawing
from the bosom of the deep the inexhaustible
treasures which will be a perennial source of
wealth and prosperity to that country ; moreover, such a life tends to form men to
brave
the dangers of the sea, and, in case of need,
these hardy seamen would be ready and willing to lend their aid and do their part
in the
defence of the country. Nor is this all ; the
country exports prodigious quantities of timber of all kinds, which will not be exhausted
for ages to come. Every year they build a
great number ot ships, and, in proportion, to
its population, Nova Scotia has a larger amount
of " tonnage" than any other country in the
whole world. (Hear, hear.) Another source
of wealth is possessed by that country, ever
abounding, never failing. One would say
that nature has especially favored it and endowed it with the most bountiful of her
gifts
—I mean the rich mines of coal which superabound in that country, which the hand of
Providence has placed, as if by express design, not in the interior of the country,
but
along the sea side. Everybody knows that
coal at the present day, when steam does
so much that the hand of man formerly
did, is one of the principal aliments which
nourish the industry of mankind throughout the civilised world. Situated on the
shores of the Atlantic, these mines can be
worked very cheaply, and are easily accessible to ships of all nations. The charges
of loading are small indeed, there is scarcely
any land carriage required to convey it to the
bays and ports to which the different trading
ships resort for their lading. Geologists
celebrated for their knowledge have explored
these regions, and declare that there are
thousands of square miles of coal, and in
some places seventy-six beds or layers of coal
one above the other. What a fertile source of
revenue, of wealth ! And when we reflect that
the main source of the prosperity of England
has been and still is her mines of coal, small
in comparison with those of Nova Scotia, we
shall find that no change of circumstances,
no political ties or relations could ever prevent
that province from possessing in it coal
measures, a source, an element of wealth, incomparably greater than the famous gold
and
silver mines of Peru. Thousands of years
must pass away, no doubt, before they will be
exhausted. I say nothing of the mines of
gold, silver and copper, with which the
country seems to be covered. And now, am
I to be told that Canada, having the benefit
of free trade with such a country, is to be
no better for it ? Does not everybody know
that firewood is beginning to run short in the
district of Montreal and elsewhere in Lower
832
Canada, and that if we have no coal to
take its place, the country people will in thirty
years' time be obliged to abandon their farms
for want of means to enable them to bear the
cold of our long winters ? We shall obtain
wood from a distance, some will tell you ; but
thinking men know very well that firewood is
not to be carried far without great expense,
which must raise the price so as to put it
beyond the reach of the great majority of consumers. Perhaps we shall find coal in
Canada. No, says Sir WM. LOGAN, our
learned geologist—impossible ; science tells us
that it does not exist. (Hear, hear.) Now
every man who has the least idea of public
order, of political economy, must be well aware
that a mere commercial union, a union for
the levying of customs—a " Zollverein," in a
word—would not suffice to create the well-
being and general prosperity of the five provinces. The Maritime Provinces are immensely
important to us in a social, industrial, commercial, political, and especially a
military point of view. New Brunswick has
also considerable resources. Looking at the
seasonableness, and the other points making
for the union of the provinces, we must not
omit to consider it in its relation to our means
of defence. In this point of view, Newfoundland is of paramount importance. Casting
a
glance at it on the chart, we find it lying
across the Gulf of St. Lawrence, commanding
the two straits by which the trade of the
countries surrounding the gulf and the river
reaches the ocean. Let that island but fall
into the hands of foreigners, the trade of Canada would in war time be as completely
stopped as if the ice of winter had erected its
permanent domicile in the middle of the gulf.
(Hear, hear.) These are the reasons which
have led our statesmen to secure, by all possible means, the alliance of that province,
as
they well understood that, that wanting, the
Confederation would lose the benefit of all
other advantages and would be in continual
danger. The seaboard of Newfoundland is
1,200 miles in length, and it possesses the
finest harbours in the world, roadsteads which
might shelter whole fleets. The main source
of her wealth is her fisheries, in which more
than 30,000 men are annually engaged—men
accustomed to brave the waves of a tempestuous sea. Her trade in fish with foreign
nations brings her in contact with nearly all the
maritime countries of Europe, and with the
United States, and yet she has at present
scarcely any such connection with Canada.
What is her position with relation to us at
this moment ? Her merchants are forced to
resort to the States to transact their business,
for, in order to reach Montreal, they must
pass through Halifax and Boston. The establishment of a line of steamers between
that island and Canada would be a great advantage to both provinces ; for Newfoundland
possesses what we want and requires what we
have. It appears that the Island buys from
the United States to the amount of several
millions of dollars yearly, and exactly those
articles which we are able to furnish ; and
that the current of trade having taken its
present direction, is owing to certain fiscal
impediments to trade between the two provinces. With free trade, Newfoundland
would buy from Canada woollen stuffs, cutlery
and hardware—everything, in short, which
she requires. Under Confederation, the town
of St. Johns, in Newfoundland, would be the
most easterly sea-port of the union, and by
making it a port of call for our transatlantic
steamers, it would bring us within six days of
the Mother Country As to Prince Edward
Island, that also has its importance. Its
revenue is well managed ; it is in a prosperous
state, and has no debt ; on the contrary, it has
a considerable reserve fund. Accordingly,
now is the time to take a step in the right
direction. This union of the provinces is a
political necessity, and any delay would entail
the danger of losing the opportunity altogether, which might never occur again. Canada,
with her immense commerce, is indebted
for her access to the seaboard during six
months of the year to the tolerant good-will
of a neighboring nation. If that permission
were withdrawn, our merchants must import
during the summer all the goods which they
require in the year. This would, in the long
run, he the loss of the consumer, because
everything must, of course, be paid for at a
higher rate. Finally—and this is the most
important consideration of all for every one,
and one which would of itself be sufficient to
make us desire the union of the provinces—it
would be the most effectual means of procuring
the building of the Intercolonial Railway—a
road which would open an uninterrupted line
of communication between Sarnia and Halifax,
thus connecting the two extremities of the
Confederation. Three things are necessary,
nay, indispensable, to the prosperity of a great
empire—the personal element, the territorial,
and the maritime element. In Canada we have
the personal and the territorial elements ; the
maritime element alone is wanting, and this we
may obtain by the union of the provinces.
833
(Hear, hear.) As to us, French-Canadians
and Catholics, what have we to fear from Confederation ? Our language, our rights
and
our privileges are guaranteed to us. Look
at the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland ; does it not consist of three distinct
nations, holding several religious creeds ?
Those three nations have fought side by side
on sea and land for ages, against the enemies
of their country. What glorious victories,
what noble deeds in arms have they achieved !
And the most perfect harmony exists among
them. In England, are the Jews persecuted,
deprived of their rights and privileges ? Are
the Roman Catholics ? Is there not residing
in the very capital of England a prince of
the Romish Church—Cardinal WISEMAN ?
And, Mr. SPEAKER, who would have believed
the fact ?—the last census shows that the city
of London contains 100,000 Catholics more
than Rome itself—Rome the seat of the Catholic Church ! And a greater number of
Jews than there are in Judea or all Palestine ! (Hear, hear.) And yet all these people
enjoy their respective rights and privileges, and worship their Creator according
to
the traditions of their forefathers, unmolested, undisturbed by any. (Cheers.) I now
come to the plan of Confederation considered
intrinsically. I shall not enter into a discussion of its details ; four members of
the Administration have given us explanations of it
which were so clear and lucid, that it is useless to enter on the subject anew. There
are, no doubt, certain points which are not
all that we could desire ; there are certain
articles which I should be disposed to reject
if I were not aware that we are to look at
the question from five different points of
view, and not from one sectional point of
view. I can conceive that the Conference considered the plan as a compromise—a treaty
in
which the five provinces were the contracting
parties ; that many concessions were found to
be necessary, to satisfy the interests of individuals or of localities ; that great
conciliation
was an important element, wit a strong
wish, by great concessions on all sides, to
carry forward an important negotiation,
which in their absence would have utterly
failed ! I am, moreover, convinced that the
Ministers of Canada did everything in their
power to promote and guard our general and
local interests ; that their only aim was to
make us a great and strong nation ; that the
dominant idea in their minds was that " a
Federal union," under the protection of
England, would be for Canada a harbor of
refuge from all storms, particularly that
which now assails us, as well as conducive
to advance the best interests and the prosperity of all the provinces ; that this
union
would secure to us the continued enjoyment
of our laws and institutions, of our liberties
and our relations with the Mother Country,
while it would facilitate the development of
our national, social, commercial and political prosperity. If we do not adopt it as
a
whole, if we meddle with its clauses to make
radical changes in it, the other contracting
parties, justly offended, will reject it wholly,
as they understand that we have no right to
depart from its provisions without their
consent ; or if following our example, the
Maritime Provinces should also make changes
in it, the whole plan would be so mutilated
and disfigured, that it would become a
mark for universal disapprobation, and all
the labors of the Conference would be rendered useless and abortive. Moreover, if
in
the meantime the Maritime Provinces, taking up again their old scheme of a union
among themselves, should refuse to listen
to any overtures we might make, we should,
like madmen, have lost the golden opportunity. Nothing would remain for us
but annexation to the United States—
an idea most abhorren' to my feelings,
but one which is, perhaps, in reality,
the cherished desire of the unreasoning
opponents of the present measure. (Hear.)
As a British subject, I find most pleasure in
that article of the scheme which declares
the Sovereign of Great Britain to be the
head of the Executive. The monarchical
element will predominate in the Constitution,
and we shall thus escape that weakness
which is inherent in the Constitution of the
neighboring States. Their President, Mr.
SPEAKER, is no more than the fortunate
chief of a party ; he can never be regarded
as the father of his people ; his reign is but
temporary ; he is, for four years, a kind of
despot, with unlimited power and in mense
patronage ; his favors fall on those only who
have elected him, and who can elect him
anew at the expiration of four years ; none
feel the refreshing dews of his favors, save
his party. Woe to the unlucky ones who
have voted against him at his election ! For
them there is no smile, no gracious acceptance, no favors. Under the working of our
Constitution, on the contrary, as the
sovereign is permanent ("the King is dead—
God save the King ! ") we have at all times
in him a father, whose interest and whose
834
inclination it is to extend his protection
equally over the cottage of the poor and over
the palace of the rich, and to dispense equal
justice to both. (Cheers.) Our Ministers
will still be responsible to the people. In
the States, the President is under no obligation to consult his Cabinet, which is
composed merely of the heads of departments. In the scheme which now engages
our attention, all matters of general interest,
which are not left to be disposed of by the
local legislatures, will be settled by the
General or Central Government, and the
disposal of local matters will belong to the
local governments. Accordingly all necessary power has been assigned to the general
as to the local legislatures ; and that source
of weakness has been avoided which has
been so frequent a cause of trouble in the
neighboring States—the conflict of jurisdiction and authority between single states
and
the Federal or Central authority. It is
really astonishing to see the different means
employed by the journals in the interest
of the unreasoning opponents of the plan of
Confederation. They utter cries of distress,
amidst which the veil of party is easily seen
through. According to their views, no good
can come out of the system for either party in
the commonwealth. " Think twice of what
you are doing, you English Protestants of
Lower Canada ! The Local Government will
swallow you up," cries the
Montreal Witness.
" Take care of yourselves, you French-Canadians of the Catholic Church !" bellows
the
Montreal True Witness ; " if the plan of Confederation is sanctioned by the Legislature,
you will disappear like a dream : the hydra
of the Central Government will poison you
with its pestiferous breath." (Hear, hear.)
And the other journals of the same party,
inspired by the same spirit, open full cry on
the plan of Confederation, as nothing less
than a " political suicide !" Others there
are—and some in the interest of the present
Government—who have some misgivings,
some doubts, touching the clauses relating
to marriage and divorce. With respect to
the provisions of the instrument which bears
on these two important questions, they seem
at first sight, I confess, a little alarming to
Catholics—to us who have learned from the
Church the indissolubility of the marriage
bond, who look upon marriage not only as a
civil contract, but " a sacrament." With
reference to this subject, I answer that the
system on which the new Constitution will
be based is to be considered in the aspect
which it bears to all the provinces. We are
not all Catholics. and the majority are Protestants. Again, if the control of matters
connected with marriage and divorce had
been assigned to the local governments, what
would have been the fate of our co-religionists in Upper Canada, who are in a minority
in
that province ? Add to this, we have not
in Canada at present any divorce law, and
we need not apprehend that the Federal
Government will impose one upon us.
Nothing indicates that the proportion of
Catholic members in the Federal Legislature
will not be about equal to what it is in the Parliament of United Canada. Moreover,
everybody is aware that it was by the help of the
Protestants, who think as we do on this
subject, that we have hitherto escaped the
passing of a divorce law. Divorce is not
looked upon with a favorable eye by all
Protestants ; far from it, and we must hope
that at no distant time that source of disorder
and scandal of every species will be effaced
from the parliamentary records of every
Christian community. (Hear, hear.) We
must bear in mind, also, that there are
Catholics elsewhere besides in Lower and Upper Canada ; they are to be found in all
the
Lower Provinces, and what would be their
position if these questions were left to the
local legislatures ? The Catholics, therefore, of both Upper and Lower Canada, as
well as those of the Lower Provinces, are
directly interested in the removal of these
questions from the local legislatures. It
seems to me that every man who studies
this question in a Catholic point of view,
as it stands in the five provinces, will find
that the Conference was perfectly right in
not leaving the question of divorce to the
control of the local governments. I shall
not enter into all the details of the plan of
Confederation, inasmuch as hereafter each
of its clauses will be discussed. I shall
reserve, however, the right of adding a few
words. I think, therefore, Mr. SPEAKER,
that every man who has the interests of his
country at heart—every man who will take
the pains to read history, the great teacher
of kings and nations, will be convinced that
situated as are the five provinces of British
North America, separated, disunited, with no
social, political or commercial ties to bind
them together, but having tariffs calculated to
injure each other, but no free interchange of
commodities—without railways by which they
might hold communication during the long
winters, when the rivers are obstructed with
835
ice, and taking into consideration the exceptional position of Canada in respect of
its near
neighborhood to the United States, and the
political troubles which have so long wounded
it in its bosom—a Federal union of all the provinces is our only harbor of refuge,
and the
only means of securing to the Provinces of
British North America sure and durable prosperity. (Hear, and cheers.) Now, Mr. SPEAKER,
we have seen that in ancient days, in the
middle ages, and in modern times, states,
provinces and kingdoms desirous of growing
in strength, wealth and prosperity—desirous
of acquiring power internally, and making
themselves formidable to rivals abroad—
desirous of means to repeal ambitious assailants and enterprising neighbors—combined
together—formed confederations with a view
to increase the general prosperity, and the
means of a common defence and mutual protection. We have seen that it was the surest,
the most rational, and the most generally
adopted plan in all ages ; and why should
not we, profiting by the experience of
others, do the same ? How long has union
been a cause of weakness ? Is not England,
united under one ruler, infinitely more
powerful than in the days of the Heptarchy
or Seven Kingdoms ? Are not the forty
states which compose the Germanic Confederation stronger, more powerful, united,
than they would be if isolated and separate ?
Would each individual state, if alone, left to
its own resources, without free trade, with its
neighbors, without social, political or commercial relations, be richer, more prosperous
than it is now, joined, united and allied to
the rest ? And in the United Kingdom of
Great Britain, where a kind of Federal
union is found, is not each nationality, every
sect and every religion fully and entirely
protected and guarded from the attacks of
bigotry and of political and religious intolerance ? After the States had separated
from
England in 1775, would they have done better
to remain in the position of thirteen colonies
detached from each other, without social,
commercial, or political relations, as the
colonies of British North America now are,
than to form a compact as they did ? Is it
not from that union that their strength has
grown, that they have become so powerful,
so rich, so independent of the rest of the
world, and the admiration of modern times ?
So would they have continued to advance
too, with giant strides, in the path of
progress and improvement, if the demon
of civil war had not arisen to break up a
union but lately so happy and so prosperous ! Let us avail ourselves of the
example of others, and of the auspicious
circumstances which seem to have occurred
expressly and opportunely for our benefit,
and let us resolve to become a great empire.
Is it not asserted that, if a union of the provinces should be effected, we should
be, at
the least, the fourth maritime power in the
world ? Are there not kingdoms—confederations—in Europe which would be numerically
inferior to us ? Belgium has no more
than 4,500,000 of inhabitants ; Denmark,
including the Duchies, no more than
2,500,000 ; the Kingdom of Bavaria, 4,500,000 ; the Kingdom of Greece, 1,000,000
the States of the Church, 3,000,000 ; Portugal, 3,500,000 ; Sweden, 3,500,000 ; Norway,
1,500,000 ; the Helvetic Confederation, 2,500,000 ; while the proposed Confederation
will soon contain 5,000,000 ; and
yet these provinces are but in their infancy,
we may say. Any one who has the slightest
knowledge of the natural riches and the
resources of the five provinces, and of the
energy and love of labor which characterise
the different races which people them, may
safely predict a brilliant future for our new
Confederacy. (Hear, hear.) Is there a
single Canadian who does not know that
Canada will always hold the first and most
exalted position in the Confederacy ? Lower
Canada, especially, will be the centre of the
industrial arts and commerce, the point
towards which all the rich produce of the
west, and the oil, fish and coal of the east,
will naturally be brought ; Lower Canada,
especially, which is so rich in mines, ores, and
minerals. Do we not know that certain great
capitalists have recently formed companies
on a vast scale, to work the rich gold and
silver mines of the district of Beauce ? Do
not the geologists, who have explored
that region, tell us that it contains copper,
silver and gold, scattered in rich abundance
over hundreds of square miles. (Cheers.)
Canada possesses a territory of about 360,000 square miles—160,000,000 of acres
of land, of which 40,000,000 are conceded ; 11,000,000 are under cultivation.
Canada possesses above 2,000 miles of railway, which intersect the province in all
directions ; it has 4,500 miles of telegraph
line; it possesses, moreover, 250 miles of
canal, which carried, in 1863, 3,000,000 tons
of freight, and gave a revenue to the Provincial Government of nearly $400,000.
(Hear, hear.) There are hundreds of
836
rivers in Canada, three of which, with
their tributaries, water a surface of 150,000
square miles. Five or six of the lakes cover
a surface of 84,000 square miles. The
mails are carried over 15,000 miles of road,
in which distance there are 2,000 post offices,
which annually distribute 11,000,000 of
letters, besides newspapers. (Hear, hear.)
The mineral wealth of Canada is almost
fabulous, and awaits only the introduction
of English and American capital to astonish
the world. (Hear, hear.) The Acton copper
mine, in Lower Canada, is perhaps the
richest existing. The copper mines of Lake
Superior are already famous for their extent
and the richness of the ore ; and the iron
mines of St. Maurice and Lake Superior are
supposed to be inexhaustible. According
to Sir WILLIAM LOGAN, our learned geologist, there are iron mines of great value in
the seigniory of Vaudreuil and on the outskirts of the parish of St. Martha, in the
county of Vaudreuil. The diggings in the
auriferous river of the Chaudière and the
Gilbert, in the Eastern Townships, have
been very productive during the last two
years. A new company has just been
formed at New York, with a capital of five
millions of dollars, to work on the Chaudière.
The capital stock of the companies and
private persons now engaged in this pursuit
is reckoned by millions. The
Trade
Returns shew that the produce of the mine
exported from Canada has been nearly nine-
hundred thousand dollars. The manufactures of Canada are extensive. Those of
lumber occupy upwards of two thousand sawmills, which turn out annually nearly eight
million feet of timber. There are more
than two hundred distilleries and breweries,
which produced last year more than nine
million gallons of spirituous or fermented
liquors, yielding an excise duty of more
than $700,000. (Hear, hear.) These distilleries and breweries consume more
than 1,500,000 bushels of grain and malt.
The country contains at least 1,000 grist
mills for the grinding of wheat and oats ;
250 carriage factories, nearly 200 foundries,
200 carding mills, 130 cloth mills, and
500 tanneries. Other establishments of less
account are innumerable. Canada produces
annually between 25,000,000 and 30,000,000
bushels of wheat, 12,000,000 bushels of peas,
40,000,000 bushels of oats, more than
1,500,000 tons of hay. 13,000,000 bushels of
buckwheat, 28,000,000 bushels of potatoes,
and 10,000,000 bushels of turnips. Canada
consumes 30,000,000 pounds of beef, shears
5,500,000 pounds of wool, and makes from
42,000,000 to 45,000,000 pounds of butter.
The cattle, milch cows, horses, sheep and
pigs owned in Canada are above two millions
in number. The fisheries yield to the value
of two million dollars annually. It appears
that Lower Canada alone owns 2,500 fishing
vessels. The Magdalen Islands, which
belong to Canada, send out to the fisheries
270 boats. The capital stock of the banks
in Canada, which have a charter, amounts to
$33,000,000. Here is real wealth, and yet
our country is still in its infancy, if I may
be allowed to use the expression ; and the
third part of this beautiful country is still
uninhabited ; what will it be when inhabited,
cleared and settled in every direction ? From
all quarters men will come—some to obtain
a neck of land which they can really call
their own ; others to escape from the horrors
of civil war and the ruinous taxes which bow
them down to the earth. Here we have peace
and tranquillity—good air—room enough—
a superabundance of land—and the virgin
forest wooing the axe of the woodman, to be
converted into fertile farms ; here, above all,
we have the " birth-right of man," liberty
in all its purity. (Hear, hear ) It is time,
Canadians, that we should withdraw from the
political dilemma in which we are involved.
If we reject the plan of Confederation, we fall
back into a species of
status quo ; now, for a
new country like ours, to remain stationary is
to retrogade ! Let us not forget that British
North America contains other provinces
besides these of ours, namely, British Columbia, Vancouver, &c., which will hereafter
form a part of the Confederation ; that those
vast countries are in extent as large as all
Europe ; that the soil in many places is of
marvellous fertility ; that the day will come
when the greater part of all those countries
and provinces will be inhabited ; that there
will be a net-work of railway connecting the
extremities of all those possessions, and
lines of steamboats connecting us, not with
the Mother Country only, but with the
whole of Europe, and that at all seasons of
the year. When we all, without exception,
animated by the same spirit, struggling after
the good, after the prosperity of our common
country, shall see rising around us a vast
empire under the protectorate of England,
we shall then understand the political sagacity of those who, now steering the vessel
837
of State, have brought before us and carried through the scheme of Confederation
proposed. There may be certain faults of
detail in the system : I grant that there are.
But does not every work of man bear the
impress of imperfection ? Is the celebrated
Code Napoléon perfect ? The most celebrated French lawyers do not think it so ; and
yet this production is a master-piece of
legislation in many respects. Does not the
Constitution of the United States contain
faults ? and yet it is said to be a model
work of its kind. I am of opinion that the
plan of Confederation, taken as a whole, is
the best we could desire or hope for, adapted,
as it had to be, to the well-understood
interests of the five provinces. To consider
it from a purely sectional point of view,
would be to misunderstand the position which
a statesman should occupy. If however, Mr.
SPEAKER, the unreasoning opponents of the
proposed measure were able to suggest any
means of meeting eventualities, and point
out a way by which, while rejecting the
scheme proposed, we might find some practical mode of escape from our difficulties,
I should then be disposed to listen to them,
and to compare their scheme with that
which is now before us ; but those gentlemen think it sufficient to blame and criticise.
The celebrated Mr. RAMEAU even (the
author of
La France aux Colonies), from
his retirement in distant France, sends forth
a cry of alarm at the dangers with which
he thinks Confederation is pregnant, but
not a word of good counsel or of a better
remedy of his own. Others cry aloud from
the house-tops that this scheme is not a
" Federal union," but a Legislative one in
every point ! If it were so, Mr. SPEAKER,
I should be the first—and I proclaim it
here before the whole country—I should
be the first to scout and reject the scheme
with all the power which Providence has
given me ; but as it is, on the contrary,
a Federal union, in the full force of the
term, having a Central Government invested
with all the power necessary to obviate and
remedy the weakness which characterises
Federal Government in the American union,
giving, in a special manner, to each province
the management of its own local affairs,
and to its inhabitants full and unrestricted
power to make its own laws, I cannot, for
the interest of my constituents, for my
country's interest, help approving of a measure which, while it respects the rights
and
privileges of all, will have the effect of
increasing the individual and collective
strength of the five provinces, will secure to
us the confidence of the Mother Country,
and make of this section of British North
America, under the powerful ægis of England, another
imperium in imperio. (Cheers.)
I return to those whose cry is, " But our
nationality will be lost ! Our language, our
civil and religious institutions will disappear." O ye who cry so loudly, and who
find such charms in the neighboring republic, do you think that if we fell into
that whirl of divers nations and different
religions composing the American Confederacy, which have no common traditions nor
common history with us, French-Canadian
nationality would long enjoy a separate
existence, or that it would not speedily
be lost amidst so many others ? Answer if
you can, and I will believe you. (Cheers.)
Consider the fate of Louisiania, inhabited
chiefly by French ! Is not the English
element in a majority in the Parliament of
United Canada ? And have I not, nevertheless, the honor to address you at this
moment in French ? in that beautiful language of our ancestors in which JACQUES
CARTIER, in 1535, extolled the glories of
our majestic St. Lawrence ! (Cheers.)
Would you know one of the reasons assigned
against General FRÉMONT when he was a
candidate for the Presidency of the United
States a few years ago ? " Do not vote for
FRÉMONT," was the cry on the hustings and
in the papers of the day ; " FRÉMONT is a
Frenchman"—"FRÉMONT is a Catholic"—
and FRÉMONT lost his election accordingly.
However, FRÉMONT was not a Catholic ! but
they said he was, and it was a crime sufficient in their eyes to disqualify him in
his
candidateship for their confidence, notwithstanding that they proclaim " liberty of
conscience !" (Hear, hear.) Do they reject a
man in England because he is a Catholic ?
Does that fact debar him from enjoying the
confidence of his Sovereign and his fellow-
citizens ? Certainly it does not, and there
are instances to prove it. Have we not often
seen, in Canada, Catholics representing counties essentially Protestant ? Was not
the
county of Vaudreuil, a county in which
Catholics are a majority, lately represented
by an English Protestant ? Why should the
English, under the Confederation, seek to
destroy French-Canadian nationality? What
interest could they serve in doing so ? In
838
1775, and in 1812, the French-Canadians, at
the call of their clergy, rose as one man to
defend the Crown of England. (Hear, hear.)
What interest have the English to induce
them to sweep away our religious institutions ? In what school or college are youth
educated with greater talent or greater
success—where do they receive a more
thorough classical education—than in our
colleges ? Where does a young man
learn his duty to God, to himself, to
his country and to his Sovereign better
than in our Catholic colleges ? (Cheers.)
I passed ten years of my life, Mr. SPEAKER,
in a Catholic college, that of Montreal, and
if I did not profit by the instruction I received, mine is the fault ; in that house,
I
heard none but the counsels of wisdom, saw
only examples of virtue in the venerable
priests who were intrusted with the care of
my youth. (Cheers.) Where is better instruction in agriculture to be had—agriculture,
the source of the prosperity of a country
—than in two or three Catholic colleges in
Lower Canada ? Who has better appreciated
the force of the maxim, " The soil is the
country," than the Catholic clergy ? What
are the model farms founded by the Government compared with the model farms of two
or three of our colleges ? (Hear, hear.) Is
it the Catholic clergy themselves who would
be endangered by the Confederation ? There
is not a single right-thinking Englishman
in the land who will not stand up and testify
to the virtues of our clergy and their usefulness in the country ! Wherever there
is an
asylum to be built, or a house of refuge for
the poor, the insane, the aged or the orphan,
then and there you see the clergy foremost
in the work, first to set the example, and
often defraying all the cost ! (Hear, hear.)
If the Queen of England desires to see a
faithful subject, on this side of the Atlantic,
She will assuredly find him in the ranks of
the clergy ! If the country calls for a zealous citizen, animated by the noblest patriotism,
the call will first be answered unmistakably
by a priest—by one of those men who seek
no other reward for their actions than the
approbation of their own conscience—by one
of those who perfectly comprehend the
maxim that " the poetry of life is the fulfilment of duty"—by one of those wise but
modest men, as humble as they are pious,
who, standing ever constant at the post which
Providence has assigned to them, instruct
the young, encourage the good, seek to bring
back the sinner into the paths of virtue, obey
the laws and teach that obedience to others,
pray daily for the happiness and prosperity
of " Our Gracious Sovereign" and of the
Mother Country, visit the poor in garret
and cellar, soothe the sufferings, moral and
physical, of the sick and dying, and finally
point out the road to heaven—they themselves leading the way ! (Prolonged cheers )
What have such men to fear from Confederation ? Nothing. No, Mr. SPEAKER, such
men have nothing to fear ! England loves
and reveres our clergy, and sees in them
loyal and faithful subjects of the Queen.
(Cheers.) Would you see an instance of
what the Catholic clergy can do when the
country wants a man of courage ? All know
that the country is in a political dilemma,
that the machine of government is at a
stand, that the sound of a mighty tempest
is heard from afar ; that the fate of
the country is traced out in feeble and
wavering lines in an uncertain future, overshadowed with threatening clouds filling
a
void of conjecture and doubt ; that the
moment is come for the true friends of their
country—for men of education—to declare
their views on the course to be taken to save
the country from the danger impending and
the perils of actual events. Well, here too
we have a member of the Catholic clergy
boldly standing forth to give his opinion on
the subject, and counsel us in this melancholy crisis ! I will read to you an extract
of the letter of the Catholic Archbishop
CONNOLLY of Halifax, on the subject of
Confederation :—
Instead of cursing, like the boys in the upturned boat and holding on until we are
fairly
on the brink of the cataract, we must at once
begin to pray and strike out for the shore by all
means, before we get too far down on the current.
We must, at this most critical moment, invoke the
Arbiter of nations for wisdom, and abandoning
in time our perilous position, we must strike out
boldly, and at some risk, for some rock on the
nearest shore—some resting place of greater
security. A cavalry raid visit from our
Fenian friends through the plains of Canada
and the fertile valleys of New Brunswick and
Nova Scotia, may cost more in a single week
than Confederation for the next fifty years ;
and if we are to believe you, where is the security,
even at the present moment, against such a disaster ? Without the whole power of the
Mother
Country by land and sea, and the concentration in
a single hand of all the strength of British America, our condition is seen at a glance.
Whenever
the present difficulties will terminate—and who can
839
tell the moment ?—we shall be at the mercy of
our neighbors; and victorious or otherwise, the
will be eminently a military people, and with all
their apparent indifference about annexing this
country, and all the friendly feelings that may be
talked of, they will have the power to strike when
they please, and this is precisely the kernel and
the only touch-point of the whole question. No
nation ever had the power of conquest that did
not use it, or abuse it, at the very first favorable
opportunity. All that is said of the magnanimity
and forbearance of mighty nations can be explained on the principle of sheer expediency,
as the
world knows. The whole face of Europe has
been changed, and the dynasties of many hundred
years have been swept away within our own time,
on the principle of might alone—the oldest, the
strongest, and as some would have it, the most
sacred of titles. The thirteen original states
of America, with all their professions of self-
denial, have been all the time, by money power
and by war, and by negotiation, extending their
frontier until they more than quadrupled their territory within sixty years ; and
believe it who may,
are they now of their own accord to come to a
full stop? No ; as long as they have the power,
they must go onward: for it is the very nature
of power to grip whatever is within its reach. It
is not their hostile feelings, therefore, but it is
their power, and only their power, I dread; and
I now state it as my solemn conviction, that it
becomes the duty of every British subject in these
provinces to control that power, not by the insane
policy of attacking or weakening them, but by
strengthening ourselves—rising, with the whole
of Britain at our back, to their level, and so,
be prepared for any emergency. There is no
sensible or unprejudiced man in the community
who does not see that vigorous and timely preparation is the only possible means of
saving us
from the horrors of a war such as the world has
never seen. To be fully prepared is the only
practical argument that can have weight with a
powerful enemy, and make him pause beforehand
and count the cost. And as the sort of preparation I speak of is utterly hopeless
without the
union of the provinces, so at a moment when
public opinion is being formed on this vital point,
as one deeply concerned, I feel it a duty to declare
myself unequivocally in favor of Confederation as
cheaply an as honorably obtained as possible—
but Confederation at all hazards and at all
reasonable sacrifices. After the most mature
consideration, and all the arguments I have
heard on both sides for the last month. these are
my inmost convictions on the necessity and merits
of a measure which alone, under Providence, can
secure to us social order, peace, and rational
liberty, and all the blessings we now enjoy under
the mildest Government and the hallowed institutions of the freest and happiest country
in the
world.
This letter is dated in January, 1865. The
Catholic Bishop of the Island of Newfoundland, Monseigneur MULLOGH, has also written
a magnificent letter in favor of Confederation.
Moreover, Mr. SPEAKER, when the time
comes, our Catholic clergy—our Canadian
clergy—will make their voices heard in favor
of the preposed measure, and will show the
whole world that now, as formerly, they can
keep pace with the times—that they can
distinguish the true from the false, and that
their paternal eyes watch with the tenderest
solicitude over the destinies of their children.
(Loud cheers.) Now, Mr. SPEAKER, let us
cast a glance over the English colonies in
Australia. They, like us, are desirous of
taking steps to form a Confederation, to
break from their state of isolation, stretching
forth their arms to each other as beloved
sisters, and making efforts to lay the foundation of a great empire on the distant
shoes
of Oceania. (Hear, hear.) As to ourselves,
let us show England that our hearts yearn
to maintain our connection with her, and she
will spend her last soldier and last shilling
to keep and defend us against all the world,
and to assist us to become a great and
powerful nation Back ! back ! those who
think that England will east us off, and leave
us to our hard fate. Back ! all those who,
like BRIGHT, CORDEN, GOLDWIN SMITH,
and others of that school, weary the ear with
crying that England loses more than she
gains by her colonies ! They are confronted
by the logic of facts. England, without her
colonies, would be a power of the second
class. Let us hear what Mr. LAING, late
Minister of Finance for India, said, in answer
to GOLDWIN SMITH and others :—
I would have you observe, said he, that our foreign possessions are by far our best
customers.
Taken together, they make up nearly a third of
our import trade, and a half of our export trade.
British India holds the first place on the list, and
gives us nearly £50,000.000 sterling of imports,
taking in return £20,000,000 of exports. In the
present year these figures will be greatly exceeded,
and the rate of progress is more distinctly
marked : the imports having been, 10 years ago,
£10,672,000 only, and the exports £9,920,000.
We find in Australia still more astonishing results, if we consider the recent date
of her establishment as a colony, and her limited population.
Besides gold, she sends about £7,000,000 of imports, and takes from us £13,000. 00
of exports.
The North American colonies, with a population
also British, give us £8,00 ,000 of imports, and
take from us nearly £5,000,00 of xports.
The small island of the Mauritius. which enjoys
British Government and thrives with British capital, sends us nearly £2,000, 00 worth
per year,
and takes in return £5,000,000. These figures
clearly show the advantages derived to commerce
840
from colonies, and confute the false theories of
those men who would persuade us to abandon our
distant possessions as useless.
Observe, Mr. SPEAKER, that these enormous
amounts are not in dollars, but pounds sterling : each pound being worth nearly five
dollars of our money. This is information
for those who think that colonies are of no
importance to England ; that they add nothing to her grandeur, her power, or her commerce
! Those who know anything at all
of England, know perfectly well that she is
an essentially commercial nation—perhaps
the most commercial nation in the world—
'that "that nation of shop-keepers," as it
was called by NAPOLEON I., has always
found in its commerce the chief element of
its strength ; for with commerce comes
money, from money men to carry on its
wars. The ancient Romans knew how to
conquer provinces, countries, kingdoms, because their genius was essentially warlike
;
but they did not know how to keep them,
because they had not what chiefly distinguishes England—a genius for commerce.
Accordingly, when the English make themselves masters of any territory, you immediately
see a crowd of traders rush into it,
build stores, find out the resources of the
country, and next come a body of soldiers
to second the authority of justice, and enforce
respect for law and order. In a short space
of time you see a nation, but lately barbarian,
buried in sloth and inaction, shake off the
slough of infancy, assume a different aspect,
grow rich and prosperous, and in turn
coöperate in adding to the greatness of the
Mother Country. (Hear, hear.) Yes, Mr.
SPEAKER, England is bound to keep us.
Losing us, she would, at a future day, lose
her West Indian possessions, and would enter
on the first phase of an eclipse which she is
too far-seeing not to anticipate and avoid.
(Hear, hear.) England sees with pleasure
the efforts which our Government is making
to carry out the union of all the provinces,
and looks upon our future union as a step in
the right direction—the only practical
means of increasing our resources and
strengthening our power. One word, Mr.
SPEAKER, on the appeal to the people.
There are three classes of men in society :
those who deceive, those who are deceived,
and those who are neither deceivers nor
deceived. I take my place advisedly among
the last. I will not rank as a deceiver ; and
as I have promised my constituents that I
would lay before them, and explain the
scheme of Confederation. with all its details
before giving my vote finally, I am at all
times ready to do so. For the present, I
shall vote purely and simply for the "resolutions," because I am in favor of the
principle of Confederation, and because,
hereafter, when the Ministry shall have laid
before us the plan for the local governments
with its details, then will be the time to
demand an appeal to the people, if my county
requires it of me. To ask for it only with
reference to the principle of Confederation,
and to ask for it again when we shall have
the plan and all the details relating to the
local governments, would be an absurdity ;
for it would be a double appeal to the people
on two parts of the same scheme of Confederation, and consequently two elections on
the back of each other—a needless excess of
expense and trouble, both for the country
and the members. We must bear in mind
that after the two elections constituting the
double appeal to the people, we must have
still more general elections to inaugurate the
new Parliament, for the present session is the
third of this Parliament. I would not be
one of the deceived ; and I should be so in
a striking degree if I allowed myself to be
cajoled by the gentle purrings of the
Opposition, who make a show of agitation
for the appeal to the people, only that they
may have an opportunity, at any cost, of
defeating the scheme of Confederation. I
maintain, Mr. SPEAKER, that the Opposition
have not the slightest wish to go to the
country ; and why ? because if the Opposition had really and truly wished for an
appeal to the people, they would at any time,
within this last fortnight at least, have made
a motion in this House expressive of their
desire—as a preliminary—for such an
appeal ! The House has been debating this
measure three or four weeks, but the Opposition have not shewn the least disposition
to move for an appeal to the people ; and,
when it is too late, they will come forward
with such a motion—(hear, hear)—and then,
when they do not carry it, they would go
crying throughout the land, in town and
country, that if the people have had no
voice in the business, it is no fault of
theirs ; that they moved heaven and earth
—but such was the bull-headed obstinacy
of the Ministry, it was not to be obtained ;
and the people will believe them ; and
we, who are the real, the best friends of the
people, we shall be pointed at as the real
841
criminals ! Poor people ! why do you allow
yourselves to be deceived ? If the Ministers
are desirous of pushing on the measure, it
is because of the check which the Ministry
of New Brunswick have just had, and
because it is for us to use all diligence to
show the Mother Country that we do not
hang fire, but are ready to do our part to
carry out the treaty or compromise agreed
on by the delegates at the Conference held
at Quebec. It is time we should do something to improve our position ; for the
intended revocation of the treaty of reciprocity, the probable abolition of the "
transit"
system, and other tokens of ill-feeling with
which President LINCOLN'S Message of the
present year is filled, are enough to warn us
to prepare to meet the storm which is
blowing up on the political horizon, that we
ought immediately to look out for better
shelter than we have at present. (Hear.)
If, hereafter, an appeal to the people, relative
to the plan and details of the local governments, becomes necessary, I am convinced
that a majority of the counties of both
Canadas will understand their true interests,
will be able to distinguish their real friends
from those who aim at deceiving them by
flattering their prejudices, and that we shall
be sent back to this place with full powers to
vote the final adoption of the scheme of
Confederation. (Cheers.) But if I, for
one, am civilly told that I must stay at home,
I shall have the satisfaction of saying that
I have fallen like a man who preferred his
duty to a fleeting popularity ; and although it
may be an easy matter for the fair and
intelligent county of Vaudreuil to send to
this House, as its representative, a member
more competent in many respects than I
am, I venture to affirm that it will be difficult
to find any one who has more at heart than
I have the interests, the happiness and the
prosperity of his country ! (Continued
cheers ) I have abundant reason to believe
that the people will comprehend the position
of the country, will see that a measure of this
kind is necessary—nay, indispensable, and
that when once the union of the five provinces
of British North America has been perfectly
settled, we shall enter on a new era, an era
of progress in all things—industrial, manufacturing and commercial, and shall begin
to
take a prominent place among the nations of
this vast continent ; the people will understand. finally, that the vessel of the
state
has fallen into the hands of able pilots, well
qualified to take it into port, notwithstanding
the storms and rocks with which its course
is beset. ( Cheers.) I for one, Mr. SPEAKER,
have full confidence in our future in the
bosom of Confederation. The day is, I think,
not far distant when the " Good Genius"
who rules over the future destiny of the new
Empire of British North America will cry
aloud, with one foot on the shores of the
Pacific while the other rests on that of the
Atlantic—" All this is ours This wealth,
these fair fields, those pretty hamlets, those
vast cities, in which thousands of people
enjoy the fruits of their toil, and live without
fear under the English flag, belong to us !
See those factories, those works of all kinds,
those canals and railways crossing each other
in every direction, fostering trade throughout
the length and breadth of this vast domain !
We are now a numerous and a mighty people—
our population has grown—Europe has contributed its contingent of brave and courageous
hearts, who have been attracted hither by
the hope of an amount of happiness and
prosperity which their native country had
denied them." Then too, this "Good Genius,"
turning his eyes in the direction of Great
Britain, will say with truth—" Mother, behold
your eldest-born, worthy of such a parent !"
(Cheers.) And posterity, glorying in their
ancestors, will exclaim—" Behold the fruits
of the conscientious and patriotic labors of
that chosen band of thirty-three, who sat in
high conference at Quebec, in October,
1864." (Loud cheers.)
HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—After
hearing the eloquent and talented speech
which the hon. member for Vaudreuil has
just delivered, I have one emotion of regret :
it is, that the venerable ancestor of that gentleman (the Hon. ALAIN CHARTIER DE
LOTBINIÈRE), who was one of the first
Speakers called to the Chair of the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada, whose portrait
adorns this House, has not, from the
tomb, heard the accents—the well-considered,
loyal and heart-felt expressions of his
descendant. How justly would he have been
proud of him ! (Cheers.)
HON. MR. LAFRAMBOISE—Mr. SPEAKER, the honorable member for Vandreuil
asked, a moment ago, what we French-Canadians had to fear under Confederation ?
Well, I will tell him at once, or rather when
his friends have done congratulating him.
The honorable gentleman read us a couple of
letters from bishops of the Lower Provinces
in order to convince us that all must be for
the best under Confederation for our Catholic
842
population; with the permission of this honorable House, I will read for his benefit
the
letter of a Lower Canadian priest, who, having
the advantage of a somewhat closer view of
things than the bishops of the Maritime Provinces, is in a better position to judge
whether
our special institutions and our nationality
will be sufficiently guaranteed under the
Federal system now about to be imposed upon
us. (Hear, hear.) This letter appeared in
the
Canadien :—
To the Editor of the Canadien.
Sir—If the Confederation of the provinces
may be considered a thing decided upon, there is
nevertheless no denying the fact that the minds of
the people are filled with a fear and anxiety which
nothing can remove. I have read the speeches
of our representatives ; I have heard their explanations ; and far from being reassured,
I am more
uneasy than ever. The necessity of Confederation
has indeed been demonstrated, but has there
been any attempt to explain certain clauses of a
dangerous character in a French-Canadian and
Catholic point of view ? Promises, eulogies,
dazzling pictures of our future prospects, figures
more or less successfully grouped, all these we have
had ad nauseam ; but what I have looked for in
vain is a satisfactory explanation as to our future
liberty of action under Confederation. With your
permission, sir, 1 will state as briefly as possible my objections to the scheme of
Confederation, and the features which cause it to be
dreaded so much by almost all those who have
studied it. I leave aside the question of divorce ;
the ecclesiastical authorities being silent upon the
matter. I do not pretend to be more Catholic
than the Pope. Let every one bear his own
responsibility. When, at some future day,
Catholic Lower Canada will be dishonored by
the presence of a divorce court, every one will,
no doubt hasten to wash his hands of the matter,
and repudiate all responsibility for • • • • • the
circumstances in which we are placed. My objections to Confederation as proposed are—
first, the dangerous centralization it establishes ;
second, the enormous expense it entails. Centralization ! Behold the great danger
of modern
governments. In place of endeavoring to confer
on each of our provinces the greatest measure of
liberty compatible with a central power, one
would fancy that our Ministers had done their
best to leave us but the very smallest measure
possible. In endeavoring to avoid the excess of
power vested in the states of the American Confederation, they have given us a scheme
tolerably
closely copied from the Swiss Confederation.
They wished to avoid state independence, which
caused the war between the North and the South,
and they expose us to a new Sonderbund with all
its disasters. Let us see what are the powers of
the Central Government, and the rights of the
provinces, and of Lower Canada in particular,
under our Confederation. The Central Govern
ment will be composed of—first, an elective
Chamber, based on pepulation ; second, a Senate ;
third, an Executive Council, and Responsible
Ministers, and a Governor. The Lower House
will be composed of 194 members. Of these 194
sixty-five will be Lower Canadians, and fifty
French-Canadians. In the House of Representatives we shall therefore be one to three,
or, if we
count as French-Canadians, 1 to 4. How many
Lower Canadians or French-Canadians are we to
have in the Executive Council ? One, perhaps ;
two at most. Such is the measure of our influence in the Central Government. And this
is the
Government that is to appoint our senators after
the first selection is made. lt will appoint, or
rather impose upon us, a governor. lt will have
the power of veto over all our local measures.
lt will also enjoy that power through the governor, its creature ! Was there ever
a more
dangerous centralization ? What liberty of
action, then, is there left to our legislature? An
Orangeman will perhaps be sent to govern
us ; and what can we say ? Our senators will be
selected, if it should please the central power,
from the ranks of our enemies; to whom shall we
apply for redress ? All our most cherished local
measures, our acts of incorporation, will be reserved or vetoed ; and who will redress
our
grievances ? But all these are mere imaginary
dangers ! Imaginary, forsooth ! Heaven grant
that they may be ! But do we not know the Orangemen ? Is not the example of Ireland
before our
eyes ? But the Sonderbund war ! Be quiet, we
are told ; men so well tried, so honorable as our
leaders, would never propose the measure for our
adoption if it could possibly be of a fatal character. 1 do not desire, in any way,
to accuse our
statesmen or to question their motives. But have
our statesmen always avoided contradiction—dangerous measures ? Is it prudent to trust
solely
to men, without scrutinizing their measures ?
What of the experience of the past ? What of
the maxim, " Measures, not men ?" "Fear not,"
we are told again, "none of the dangers you fear
can arise ; the thing is impossible." Impossible !
Why, then, leave a possibility of danger in the
law ? Why so much haste with a measure of
such importance ? The authors of the Constitution of the United States labored for
months and
years at the draft of their Confederation, and
after eighty years it is found defective. Our
statesmen elaborate a Constitution in a few days,
in the midst of the noisy rejoicings of hospitality,
and we are told that Constitution is perfect !
" You must not touch it; you shall not amend
it." But, we say, it contains dangerous clauses,
it gives our enemies power to annihilate us.
The answer is : " Be silent ! It is the creation of
our Ministers, our leaders ! Trust in their honor,
in their talents." Excellent reasons, no doubt !
And yet, strange to say, people are still uneasy,
still distrustful ! But, are not the clergy, are not
the people for Confederation ? As to the clergy,
no ; they are not all for your Confederation as it
is proposed. A great many of them, it is true,
feel no uneasiness, and trust all to our statesmen ;
848
but many of them, also, dread it, and would wish
to see it amended. As to the people they know
nothing about your scheme, and until the time
comes when they shall undergo the ordeal of
taxæ and imposts, they will, I fancy. exhibit the
utmost indifference. But let the Confederation
be carried out. let the fabulous expenses be commenced connected with the defence
of the country, the support of a militia. the creation of a
marine, the construction of the Intercolonial
Railway and other public works, and, as the proverb save, " Time will tell." Yes,
we shall then
perceive the disastrous results of this measure,
but it will be a little too late. I now come to
my second objection to the scheme of Confederation. With your permission I shall treat
it on a
future occasion. A CITIZEN.
Quebec, March 6th, 1865.
Well, Mr. SPEAKER, if I am not mistaken,
that reverenrl gentleman, a member of our
clergy, seems to be somewhat less convinced
than our Ministers and the honorable member
for Vaudreuil of the safety of our religious
interests, and of our nationality. Are not his
expressions sufficiently energetic and significant. But let us now see whether the
reverend gentleman has grounds for his alarm, and
whether he is not somewhat carried away by
his seal and patriotic anxiety for the welfare
of his fellow-countrymen. Let ussee whether,
on the contrary, he does not appreciate more
correctly than our LoWer Canada Ministers
the position in which we shall be placed by
Confederation. I think we shall be enabled
to judge from an article which appeared in a
late number of the organ of the Honorable
President of the Council. The Toronto Globe
of the 6th March inst.,—a paper which is now
one of the principal organs of the present
Government—publiera an article, written
perhaps by the Honorable President of the
Council himself, in which I find the following
kindly expression applied to our honored
clergy :— °
We trust that those well-meaning but mistaken
friends of the Common School system of Upper
Canada, who have been censuring the educational
agreement in the Quebec resolutions, will now
see somethin of its value. Bishop Lvscu's
bold letter s ould bea warning to us all how
utterly unsafe our schools are under the present
Constitution. The Romish Church is ever aggressive—getting to—day concessions with
whic
it professes to be entirely satisfied, only to come
back and demand new ones at the first opportunity. (Under our present arliameutary
system,
it is never safe to say that tile Romish bishops in
Canada cannon with a little labor, get all they
may ask. Under Confederation, while gladly
" crying quits" and leaving them what they now
have and can keep in spite of us, we should be
placed in a position to refuse them anything more.
But let our resent Constitution last five years
longer, and the chances are that the new demands
of the hierarchy will be conceded.)
If the honorable gentleman is not satisfied
new that the fears of the clergy are well
founded, I really cannot see how he can
sibly be convinced. (Hear, hear.) That
honorable member gave-us a splendid and
perfectly just eulogium of the admirable merits
and devotedness of our Lower Canadian clergy
--an eulogium which expresses the thought
of every man who has any feeling of admiration
for deserving merit, wherever it may be found,
and whatever may be his own nationality or
religion—an eulogium which I endorse with
my whole heart. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr.
SPEAKER, I am not the less convinced that
everything foreshadowed by the extract I have
just read from the Globe is destined to occur
one day, if we adopt the measure now before
us. And what is the meaning of the petitions
pouring in every day by thousands, why all
these crosses aflixed to these energetic and
patriotic protests—crosses formed by rude
hands guided by noble hearts? Hear, hear.)
I will tell you, Mr. SPEAKER, why there are
so many crosses; it is because, previous to
the union of the Cnnadas, the Legislative
Council was composed of enemies of the Lower
Canadians, who refused, for a great number of
years, to make even the most paltry grants for
our Lower Canada schools. Thanks to this
tyrannical prescription, the schools were closed
by hundreds, and the children of our people
were unable to obtain the benefits of education, of which they would most certainly
have
availed themselves. Hence it is that the
petitions pouring in upon us from all quarters,
to protest against about to be
established, are in great part signed with
crosses—crosses certainly of equal value with
the magnificent signatures of certain honorable members of this House, who has attempted
to turn into ridicule the signatures of
these petitions. At that period, Mr. SPEAKER,
the Canadian clergy were, as they are to-day,
the leaders of the education movement, and
the British oligarchy did all in its power to
contract the limits of their noble work—the
education of the children of the soil. Hear,
hear.) But thanks to the constant an energetic protests of patriotic men—thanks to
the
struggles they maintained for many a long
year—struggles which culminated at last in
open rebellion against the authority of Great
Britain—we gained the liberties we now enjoy.
And with reference to the rebellion, I think
844
the Honorable Attoruey General East must
remember that he himself was one of those
who raised the flag of freedom at St. Charles,
and donned the cap of liberty. At that
period, Mr. SPEAKER. the Honorable Attorney General East did not shrink from open
rebellion against the Crown, in order to secure
what he considered the legitimate liberties of
his fellow-citizens; to-day he does not shrink
from a baronetcy, the reward of the treason
he is prepared to consummate against his
same follow—citizens. (Hear, hear.) I said
a moment ago that French-Canadians had
every reason to fear for the safety of their
institutions under Confederation, and I will
prove it by quoting a few passages from the
celebrated report of Lord DURHAM—a report
which has been used as a model by the
Government in preparing their scheme of
Confederation—in fact the latter is copied
almost word for word from that able summary of the means to be adopted for the
utter annihilation of French nationality in
this country. (Hear, hear.) To those who
may feel inclined to consider my fears unfounded, I have but one thing to say: you
may rest assured that the English members
will not allow themselves to be led by the
few French-Canadian members of the Federal
Government, and that they will strive conscientiously, and in some sort naturally,
to
carry out the work initiated by Lord DURHAM, and carried on up to this day with a
degree of skill and ability which, though defeated in some instances, was none the
less
calculated to produce the results foreseen and
desired by Great Britain. I will read to
the House an extract from the report in question ; for it is good to remind the representatives
of Lower Canada of these facts :—
Never again will the British population tolerate the authority of a House of Assembly
in
which the French shall possess, or even approximate to a majority.
Such, Mr. SPEAKER, are the expressions used
by Lord DURHAM in his despatch to the English Government; and I will sbow how faithfully
the plan has been carried out. It was
begun by a union of the two Canadas, and it
is to be continued by a Confederation of all
the Provinces of British North America, and
consummated at last by a legislative union,
under which the French race will be absorbed
and annihilated for ever. (Hear, hear.) An
honorable member who addressed the House
during yesterday's sitting, told us that Confederation would be the beginning of the
end, and the destruction of the Lower Canadians. It would have been impossible to
describe more truly the position in which we
shall find ourselves placed under Confederation. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member
for Vaudreuil (Mr. HARWOOD) said there
were as many Catholics in London as there
were in Rome itself, the centre of Catholicity.
Well, what is the value of that assertion?
Does it prove anything in favor of his argument? How many members are there in
the English Parliament to represent the Catholics of Great Britain? If I am not mistaken,
I think there are but two or three.
Now I ask what influence can the Catholic
population have in that Parliament, and what
power have they to protect their institutions and their liberties ? If the honorable
member for Vaudreuil thinks he has brought
forward an unanswerable argument, he is
very much mistaken, for the argument
turns entirely against him. (Hear, hear. )
The honorable member for Vaudreuil also
brought forward, in favor of Confederation, an argument which bears a certain appearance
of plausibleness and weight.
He said that if we adopt Confederation,
Lower Canada will enjoy the rich coal
mines of New Brunswick. Does the honorable member fancy that the coal is to be delivered
to us free of all cost and charges, and
without our having to give anything in exchange for it? (Hear, hear.) Really, Mr.
SPEAKER, it seems to me that when only
such arguments as these are available in sup
port of a case, it would be quite as well to
say nothing about it. It may be that the
praises profusely bestowed by the Honorable
Attorney General East on the honorable
member for Vaudreuil are well deserved. It
may be that the Honorable Attorney General
thinks so; but for my part—I say it in all
sincerity—I consider that the style of elo
quence displayed here by the hon. member
or Vaudreuil was better calculated to win
the applause of a parish meeting; the hollow
tinsel of that styl of eloquence may take
with a certain class of men, but I do not hes
itate to assert that it is hardly the kind of
speech suited to this House. What is required here is a speech calculated to bring
conviction to the minds of those who listen.
No doubt the hon.membcr for Vaudreuil
turned many pretty and elegant phrases, but
for all that, I cannot help thinking that the
Honorable Attorney General's compliments
were somewhat extravagant, and that he only
spoke as he did in order to remove the im
845
pression of the contempt he affects to entertains for his fellow-countrymen holding
seats
in this House, who hold opinions different
from his, and for all the French speeches delivered on this side of the House since
he
brought down his Confederation scheme. After all, the Honorable Attorney General has
a perfect right to pay compliments to any one
he likes, and whenever he likes ; and in making these remarks I do not complain of
his
having formed that opinion of the honorable
member for Vaudreuil. The honorable member also told us that the Government had
done everything in their power, and that they
had examined the question of Confederation
from the stand-point of the five parties to the
contract. I think so too, and I do not hesitate to say that if our French-Canadian
Ministers present at the Conference had examined the question from a Lower Canadian
point of view—since they were charged with
the protection of our interests—it is highly
probable that many things unfavorable to
those interests, which the scheme now presents, would have been removed. But the
honorable member for Vaudreuil must know
that the Lower Canadian Ministers at the
Conference ought to have gone there to represent the interests of their fellow-countrymen,
and to defend those interests if necessary, in the same way that the representatives
of the other nationalities went there to represent those of their fellow-countrymen
; and the
event shows but too clearly how strenuously
the latter worked for their own interests.
The scheme of Confederation shows clearly
that the English race have in this, as in every
other instance, been favored, to the detriment
of the French element. They obtained everything, or nearly everything, they desired.
It being six o'clock, the Speaker left the
chair.
After the recess,
HON. MR. LAFRAMBOISE resumed his
remarks as follows—Mr. SPEAKER, as a prelude to the remarks I proposed making against
Confederation during the first part of this
sitting, I answered some of the arguments
brought forward by the honorable member
for Vandreuil, in support of the scheme
as proposed for the consideration of this
House. I shall now proceed to examine
certain portions of the scheme, and show the
absurdity of the arguments brought forward
in support of it. It has been stated by honorable gentlemen opposite that Confederation
is
a compromise. Well, Mr. SPEAKER, what
is the meaning of the word " compromise" ?
It means an understanding arrived at by
means of mutual concessions ; and in the case
now before us, I find concessions made only on
one side and none whatever on the other. I
find that the concessions have all been made
by Lower Canada to Upper Canada : the concession of representation based upon population,
the concession to the Federal Parliament
of the right to legislate on marriage and
divorce. Not a single concession to Lower
Canada. All the Lower Canadian members
of the Administration have, in their turn, told
us that Upper Canada has made concessions
to Lower Canada, but not one of those honorable gentlemen have pointed out a single
instance of the kind. In looking over a
pamphlet which has become celebrated for
many reasons which I need not enumerate—
I mean the pamphlet of the honorable member for Montmorency—I find that Upper
Canada has made one concession to Lower
Canada. The honorable gentleman says,
with reference to the concession of representation based upon population :—
Every confederation is a compromise, and
where would be the compromise if nothing were
conceded by both sides ? The compromise made
by Lower Canada is representation based upon
population in the Lower House, and the compromise on the part of Upper Canada is the
concession of equality in the Upper House in exchange
for representation based upon population in the
Assembly. The same compromise occurs between
the two Canadas and the Maritime Provinces, and
it is based upon the same principle.
Thus, Mr. SPEAKER, the only concession the
honorable member for Montmorency has succeeded in shewing in favor of Lower Canada,
notwithstanding the eminent talents we all
admit he possesses, and his well-known zeal
for the Ministerial scheme, is that which I
have just mentioned, and in my opinion it is
no concession at all, since Lower Canada had
and still has the right to claim an equal representation in both Houses of the Legislature.
Let us now see what is the nature of the concessions made by Lower Canada to Upper
Canada. In the first place, I find this, the
most important of all, and which by itself is
worth all the rest—I mean the concession of
representation based upon population. No
one has forgotten the animated discussions
which occurred, both in this House and elsewhere, relative to this question. What
means
were not employed and what efforts were not
made by the Conservative party in order to
make political capital out of that question,
and what success have not this same party,
846
who now concede representation based upon
population, obtained in Lower Canada by
loudly proclaiming that the Liberal party,
or rather the "Rouge party," as they were
pleased to style us, were ready to grant to
the Honorable President of the Council
representation based upon population ? Well,
Mr. SPEAKER, the accusation made against
the Liberal party, of being prepared to grant
to the Honorable President of the Council his cherished measure, I shall leave to
that hon. gentleman himself the task of
answering. We heard him declare in this
House that he had offered the hon. member
for Hochelaga to continue to work with him
if he was willing to concede the principle of
representation based upon population, and
that that gentleman having refused to
comply with the demand, he had accepted
the alliance of the Hon. Attorney General
East, who gave him all he asked. (Hear,
hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, there is something still more important than that. A
few days ago, the Hon. President of the
Council, addressing the hon. members for
Hochelaga and Chateauguay, said, "I had
long considered that you were the best
friends of Upper Canada, but I can see to-day
that your are not, and that our real friends
are the Hon. Attorney General for Lower
Canada and his Lower Canada colleagues."
(Hear, hear.) After having granted the favorite measure of the great Clear Grit chief,
the
Lower Canada delegates doubtless considered
that that was not sufficent, since they also
made another important concession to Upper
Canada and to the Protestants of Lower
Canada, by vesting in the Federal Government the power of legislating on marriage
and divorce—(hear, hear)—two questions
upon which the French-Canadians were
united by the bonds of a common faith, and
on which they could not tolerate any discussion ; and the Ministers, therefore, ought
not to have made those concessions, which
are utterly opposed to the religious doctrines
they themselves profess. I say that power
has been given to the Federal Government
to legislate on divorce and to legalize it, and
I am not mistaken in saying it, for the
principle is adopted by the fact or giving to
the Federal Legislature the right of legislating on this question. This power ought
to
have been granted to the local legislatures,
and not to the Federal Legislature, as has
been done ; and I shall prove it in this way :
the other day, the Hon. Solicitor General
for Lower Canada (Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN)
told us, that as regards Lower Canada, there
was no necessity for granting to its legislature the power of legislating on divorces,
because, said he, " the religious authorities
are recognized ; but it was necessary and
proper to grant that power to Upper Canada."
(Hear, hear.) Now, I ask, if Lower Canada
did not require that power of legislating,
why has it been given to the Federal Legislature, which will be composed in great
majority of Protestants, who do not hold the
same opinion that we do on these questions,
when it is evident that that Legislature will
probably grant bills of divorce to all persons
who apply for them, without considering
whether the parties are Catholics or Protestants ? If divorce is condemned by the
Catholic religion, I maintain that it is
wrong to grant that power to a Legislature
which will be composed in great part of
Protestant members, ready to legislate on
divorce, and to grant divorces to those who
bring forward what they may consider
reasonable grounds, sufficient to entitle them
to obtain divorce, without considering
whether the religious faith of the parties
permits or does not permit divorce. If
divorce be condemned by the Catholic Church
—and all the world knows that it is so
condemned in the most formal manner—the
power of the Legislature in this matter ought
to have been restricted, and not made general,
as it is proposed to make it in the scheme of
Confederation submitted to us. Mr. SPEAKER,
I have shown, I think, that Lower Canada
has gained nothing, but that she has conceded everything in this compromise ; true,
in order to cover these guilty concessions,
we are told, "But the protection of our
institutions and the maintenance of our laws
are fully and amply guaranteed to us by the
new Constitution." In the first place, under
the Confederation , our institutions will not be
protected—as it has vainly been attempted to
demonstrate they will ; but, even though
it were the case, does not the Constitution
under which we now live afford us infinitely
better guarantees for all our dearest liberties ?
Let us examine for a moment, what species
of guarantee we have under the present
system, and what guarantees we shall have
under the Federal system. The guarantee
which the French-Canadians have under the
present system, consists in the fact that out
of 65 members, they count at least 51 of
their own origin and faith, and that they
847
possess in the country and in the Legislature
so powerful an influence, that the existence
of any and every government depends on
their good-will, and that no legislation can be
carried on without their consent ; whereas,
under the new Constitution, the General
Legislature will be composed of 194 members, Lower Canada having 65, of whom
14 at least will be English and Protestants, leaving thus 51 French-Canadian
or Catholic members. Now, even if these
51 members act together as one man,
they will have to struggle against 143
members of a different origin and a different faith from themselves. Thus, Mr.
SPEAKER, I am convinced that the guarantees we enjoy under our present Constitution—guarantees
which are assured to us as
long as we do not change our system of
government—are infinitely superior to those
offered to us by the new Constitution which
it is sought to force upon the people. But
we are told that the Federal Government
will have the Catholic minority to deal with,
and that the assistance of the latter will be
absolutely necessary to carrying it on. Well,
I ask, Mr. SPEAKER, what can a minority
composed of 51 members do against a majority of 143 ; and what protection can it
offer to our laws, our institutions and our
language ? No ; it is evident that all these
things which we hold so dear may, under
the Federal system, disappear and be annihilated at any moment ; they will be constantly
at the mercy of our natural enemies.
In order to secure Confederation, you have
granted to Upper Canada representation
based on population—a principle against
which the people of Lower Canada have
always voted as one man, and you have also
granted everything that the Upper Canadian
delegates desired to obtain for themselves
and their co-religionists. It is quite natural
that the English members in Lower Canada
should be nearly all in favor of the scheme,
since they have a sure guarantee in the veto
power of the Federal Legislature. Thus
the Local Legislature of Lower Canada
cannot pass a single law without submitting
it to the sanction of the Federal Legislature,
which can, by its veto, amend, change or
completely annul, if it thinks proper, any
law or any measure so submitted to it. But
what guarantee will the Federal Legislature
offer to the French-Canadian majority of
Lower Canada, and to the Catholic minority
of Upper Canada ? None whatever. How
can the great Conservative party which
boasts so loudly of representing the interests
of the Catholics of Lower Canada, which
takes its stand as the natural protector of
the religion and the faith of Catholics— (hear,
hear)—very absurdly I must admit—how can
that great party, I say, have forgotten, as it
evidently has forgotten, that there are Catholics in Upper Canada who expected and
are entitled to its protection ? How will the
Catholic minority in Upper Canada be protected in the Local Legislature of Upper
Canada, composed of Englishmen and
Protestants ? Shall I tell you how, Mr.
SPEAKER ? Well, they will be protected
by two members only, the hon. members for
Cornwall and Glengarry (Hon. Mr. J. S. MACDONALD and Mr. DONALD A. MCDONALD).
The great Conservative party, which styles
itself the protector of Catholicism, has
simply handed over the Catholic minority of
Upper Canada to the tender mercies of their
enemies. And to give an idea of the kind
of protection they will enjoy under the new
system, it is sufficient to state that a few
days ago, Bishop LYNCH, of Toronto, was
forced to address himself publicly, through
the press, to the citizens of Toronto, to
protest against the insults offercd in broad
daylight, in the public streets of that city
and elsewhere, to revered Sisters of
Charity, and to ask protection for the venerable ladies of that community ; and then
look at the fanatical and intolerant writings,
such as those I read to this Honorable House
before the recess, from an article in the
Globe of the 6th March—a paper which
represents the opinions of the present
Government, and which is the organ and
preperty of the Hon. President of the
Executive Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN).
Can it be said that we have nothing to fear,
that the religious institutions of Upper
Canada will be perfectly safe under the
system sought to be introduced into the
country ? Does not the hon. member for
Montmorency admit, in his famous pamphlet
of 1865, that our religious institutions have
many a time been insulted in this House ?
And has not the Bishop of Toronto just
complained that Sisters of Charity have been
insulted in the streets of the capital of
Upper Canada, and that they have been
turned into ridicule at masquerades and
masked balls, frequented by the best society
of that locality ? And in order that every
one may be convinced of the fact, I take
the liberty of reading his letter, which is as
follows :—
848
TO THE CITIZENS OF TORONTO.
The Sisters of Charity have been from time to
time grossly insulted in this city. Men have
rudely seized hold of them in the public streets
whilst going on their errand of charity ; they
have been pelted with stones and snow-balls.
They have been called the most opprobrious and
insulting names ; their costume has been contumeliously exhibited in masquerades on
a skating
rink. We, confiding in the honor and justice of
the gentlemen of Toronto, most respectfully ask
protection in the premises.
Your obedient servant,
† JOHN JOSEPH LYNCH,
Bishop of Toronto.
But even though many hon. members of this
House doubted the truth of the statements
made in that letter, is not the danger we
shall incur, as Catholics, once we are placed
at the mercy of our enemies, exemplified by
facts which they cannot have forgotten ? I
mean the numberless injuries and insults
offered by an honorable member of this
House to everything Catholics hold dear.
Have we forgotten the infamous charges
uttered by one of the friends and warm
supporters of the Hon. President of the
Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN) on the floor of
this House ? Well, I ask you now—you,
the great Conservative party, the natural
protectors of our religion and of its admirable
institutions—what have you done to secure
protection for the Catholics of Upper Canada in the new Confederation ? Nothing
whatever ! (Hear, hear.) But if Lower
Canada has obtained no new concession, and
if her position is no better under the new
system than under the present one, why are
we to have Confederation ? I can answer
the question, and, in fact, the answer is
patent to every one : our Ministers had recourse to Confederation simply because it
presented a pretext for clinging to office,
and enjoying the sweets of power for a few
years longer. That is the reason, and the
one only reason, for their alliance with a
man who despises them in his heart, and
who joined them only because they advance
his plans and ambitious designs. The Hon.
Solicitor General for Lower Canada explained to us the other evening the intentions
of the Government. It sounded very
well, no doubt ; but every one knows that the
intentions of a government are not unchangable, that they may change them, and
that they have, in fact, already done so. At
the time of the formation of the present
Ministry, did not the Lower Canada Ministers tell their friends in this House, and
was it not repeated in every shape by their
newspapers, " Don't be uneasy, Confederation will not be carried out." The Hon.
Commissioner of Public Works (Hon. Mr.
CHAPAIS) did not deny having stated to
a priest of this district, " that he must be
quiet ; that there was nothing to fear ; that
Confederation would not be carried out ;
that the whole thing was done in order to
entrap the great Clear Grit leader and to get
rid of him for ever, and of the Lower Canada Liberal party." (Hear, hear.) It
seems that our Lower Canadian Ministers did
not take into account the pressure of the
Upper Canada members, nor that of the
delegates from the Maritime Provinces, who,
by combining together, obtained all the
concessions they desired from the infinitesimal Lower Canadian minority representing
us
at the Conference of Quebec. They were
told that Confederation must be carried out
under such and such conditions ; and these
brave patriots, in order to avoid losing their
cherished ministerial places, did not hesitate to sacrifice their fellow-countrymen.
They accepted all the conditions of the
Protestant delegates, and now they are
striving to induce the House, and particularly the Lower Canadian members of it, to
ratify their shameful concessions. Unhappily for Lower Canada, I fear the House
will vote for the destruction of French-
Canadian nationality in this province. There
is one important point which must not be
lost sight of, namely, that the great majority
of the Upper Canadian members are in favor
of Confederation, because everything in it is
entirely to their advantage ; but I cannot
conceive how a majority of Lower Canadian
members can be in favor of the measure.
True, many of these members are repudiated
by their counties, and do not represent the
opinions of the majority of their constituents
on this question, and it is certain that many
of those who will vote for this scheme will
never have an opportunity of voting for the
project, if an appeal be made to the people.
(Hear, hear.) With reference to divorce, I
say that if the doctrines of the Catholic
religion tell us that it is wrong and criminal to grant it, and that Catholics cannot
accept it, it was the duty of our Ministers
at the Conference to do all in their power to
restrict it. True, it was not possible to prevent it in Upper Canada and in the Maritime
Provinces, but it might have been
done as regards Lower Canada ; and if it
was deemed right to grant the power of
849
legislating on this question, it ought to
have been given to the local governments. But divorce was granted in this
way because England had established a
special tribunal for this matter, and England desired that divorce should be granted
in Lower Canada as well as in every
other province of British North America.
Our Lower Canadian Ministers have simply
yielded to the British influence which has
been omnipotent in the Convention. (Hear,
hear.) They say " It is very true that the
Catholic religion prohibits divorce, but vote
in favor of its establishment ; for if you do
not, the Rouge party will return to power
and destroy all your religious institutions, if
you give them the control of the government
of the country." Well, gentlemen upholders
of religion, ought you not to use every means
to prevent these dreadful Rouges from making use of the law, which you yourselves are
about to establish, which will enable them to
obtain divorce whenever they please, and
thus to insult the dogmas and doctrines of
the Catholic Church ? The Hon. Sol. Gen.
East (Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN) gave us, the
other night, what he pretended were satisfactory explanations—satisfactory to him,
perhaps—on the law of divorce. Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, let us examine these wonderful
explanations. That hon. gentleman told us
that it was simply a law authorizing the declaration that a marriage contracted in
any
of the confederated provinces, in accordance
with the laws of the province in which it
was contracted, should be deemed to be valid
in Lower Canada in case the husband and,
wife came to reside there. Well, I ask you,
Mr. SPEAKER, if there was any necessity for
making this provision in the new Constitution ? Would not a marriage, under the
present Constitution, contracted under the
circumstances referred to by the Hon. Solicitor
General for Lower Canada, be as valid as it
would be under the Confederation ? Certainly
it would ! Then what do the Government
mean ? I am well aware that the Catholic
members from Lower Canada will not admit it,
and I know that they refused to believe me
when I made the assertion, but I do not
hesitate to repeat it here, that it is the
intention of the Convention to legalize civil
marriages. The Lower Canadian section of
the Ministry has not ventured to admit it,
because they well knew that they would
draw down upon themselves the disapprobation of the clergy of the country, and of
all
their fellow-countrymen. If the power con
ferred on the Federal Legislature in relation
to this matter means anything at all, it is
that and nothing else, and all the explanations given by the Hon. Solicitor General
for Lower Canada and his colleagues are
utterly valueless, and cannot be accepted by
the Catholic members. Why say that divorce
will be permitted ? If the existing law
authorizes divorce now, it was quite unnecessary to make a new law on the subject,
and to make it an article of the new Constitution. The Government takes every means
in its power to conceal the real intentions of
the Conference on this important point of
the scheme, but I am firmly convinced that
their object is perfectly understood, and the
future will prove whether or not I am mistaken when I assert that it is intended to
make civil marriages legal in this country.
One of the reasons—and the only one which
I have been able to discover—for which the
present Government has granted power to
the Federal Legislature to decree divorce, is
that the Protestants of Lower Canada would
never, but for that provision, have given
their support to the Confederation measure
proposed by our Ministers. I am well aware
that there are certain Protestant denominations whose doctrines forbid divorce, but
I
do not hesitate to say that the only reason of
the concession is the one I have just stated.
Besides, in the pamphlet of the hon. member
for Montmorency, I find a very strong
admission :—
Catholic opinion urged that a question of such
social importance should be left to the local
governments, but let it be understood that in
leaving it as regards Lower Canada to a Protestant majority, we only maintain the
present condition of that important question. By so referring
it to the Federal Government, we avoid many
causes of contention and many violent complaints
which might eventually he listened to by the
Mother Country, where divorce is legalized and
operates as a social institution.
Who can say that the Protestants—who are in
great majority in our present Parliament, and who
will constitute the two-thirds of the Confederation
—would ever have consented to localize legislation
on the subject of divorce ?
The hon, member for Montmorency knows
just as well as I do that the Protestants of
Lower Canada would not have liked it, and
that to obtain their support, it has been said
to them, " Oh yes, let us concede that too ;
we have yielded representation by population, let us also give them divorce and anything
else they like."
850
HON. MR. LAFRAMBOISE—The hon.
member may exclaim " Hear, hear," as loudly
and as often as he likes, but those who
heard him deliver the (I will not say eloquent,
because that would not be true) speech
which he made in opposition to the first
reading of the Benning Divorce Bill, and
who now behold him imposing on Catholics,
who do not desire it, the consequences of a
principle which we then refused to apply to
Protestants who sought for it—those I say
are justified in believing and in saying that
the Hon. Solicitor General for Lower Canada
has either renounced his former opinions on
divorce, inasmuch as he authorizes the
Federal Legislature to legislate on this subject, and to grant divorces either to
Protestants or Catholics, and either to Upper or
Lower Canada, or he could not have been
very sincere in his opposition to the Benning
Bill. (Hear, hear.) There is one certain
fact, and that is that the Protestants of
Lower Canada have said to the Government,
" Pass a measure which shall guarantee to us
the stability and protection of our educational
system and of our religious institutions, and
we will support your scheme of Confederation ; unless you do, we will never support
you, because we do not wish to place ourselves at the mercy of a Local Legislature
the three-fourths of the members of which
will be Catholics." They were perfectly
justifiable in acting as they did, although it
is generally admitted that we Catholics have
much more liberality than the Protestants—
and this is to a certain extent proved by the
fact that several of our Lower Canadian
counties are represented by Protestants.
I do not, however, Mr. SPEAKER, I do
not wish to reproach the Protestant minority of Lower Canada for having protected
its own interests. I admit that in
doing this they have only done their duty ;
for who can say, after all, what ten years
may bring forth ? Ten years hence ideas
may be changed upon this question, and if
it be true, as stated by the Toronto
Globe—and
the Ministry cannot say that this journal
does not speak the truth, as it is the organ
of the present Government—if it be true
that the Catholic clergy are an encroaching
body, that they are never satisfied, and that
they seek to take possession of all they see—
if that be true, Mr. SPEAKER, who will say
that in a few years the Lower Canadians will
not be disposed to say to the Protestant
minority, " We insist that all the schools
should be Catholic," as the majority in
Upper Canada has said to the Catholic
minority there, many and many a time, and
as it will before long say again if Confederation takes place. (Hear, hear.) I need
not say that I do not believe that the
Catholics of this section will ever push
intolerance to that extent ; but on the other
hand, I cannot but approve of the determination of the Protestant minority to protect
themselves from all eventualities of this
nature ; and for the same reason, I say that
we also ought to take every precaution, and
that we ought not to suffer our dearest
interests to be at the mercy of a Protestant
majority in the Federal Legislature. (Hear,
hear.) We are not justified in asking for
any concessions which we are not ourselves
prepared to yield. (Hear, hear.) Before
the House rose at six o'clock, I stated, Mr.
SPEAKER, that the plan of Confederation
was, so to speak, traced word for word upon
the famous report of Lord DURHAM. With
the permission of the House, I will take the
liberty of reading a few extracts from that
report, in which the author, after having
asserted a number of falsehoods in relation
to our race, which I will not trouble the
House with reading. declares that we ought
to be merged into the English nationality.
Observe how similar the ideas of the noble
lord are to those which are expressed in
the plan of Confederation. I cite for the
second time the following paragraph :—
Never again will the British population tolerate
the authority of a House of Assembly in which
the French shall possess, or even approximate
to, a majority.
Here, Mr. SPEAKER, we have a sentiment
which shews that England has followed,
step by step, the advice of Lord DURHAM.
The hon. member for South Leeds said the
other night that he hoped that we should
soon attain to a legislative union. Well, a
legislative union was also one of Lord DURHAM'S dreams. I proceed to read another
extract from his report :—
It will be acknowledged by every one who has
observed the progress of Anglo-Saxon colonization in America, that sooner or later
the English
race was sure to predominate, even numerically,
in Lower Canada, as they predominate already by
their superior knowledge, energy, enterprise and
wealth. The error, therefore, to which the
present contest must be attributed, is the vain
endeavor to preserve a French-Canadian nation
851
ality in the midst of Anglo-American colonies
and states.
A little further, Mr. SPEAKER, I read as
follows :—
These general principles apply, however, only to
those changes in the system of government which
are required in order to rectify disorders common
to all the North American colonies ; but they do
not, in any degree, go to remove those evils in
the present state of Lower Canada, which require
the most immediate remedy. The fatal feud of
origin, which is the cause of the most extensive
mischief, would be aggravated at the present
moment by any change which should give the
majority more power than they have hitherto
possessed. A plan, by which it is proposed to
insure the tranquil government of Lower Canada,
must include in itself the means of putting an end
to the agitation of national disputes in the Legislature by settling, at once and
for ever, the
national character of the province. I entertain
no doubts as to the national character which must
be given to Lower Canada—it must be that of
the British Empire—that of the majority of the
population of British America—that of the great
race which must, in no long period of time, be
predominant over the whole North American
continent. Without effecting the change so
rapidly or so roughly as to shock the feelings and
trample on the welfare of the existing generation,
it must henceforth be the first and steady purpose
of the British Government to establish an English
population, with English laws and language, in
this province, and to trust its government to none
but a decidedly English Legislature.
And further on I find what follows :—
It may be said that this is a hard measure
to a conquered people ; that the French were
originally the whole, and still are the bulk,
of the population of Lower Canada ; that the
English are new comers, who have no right
to demand the extinction of the nationality
of a people, among whom commercial enterprise
has drawn them. It may be said that if the
French are not. so civilized, so energetic, or
so money-making a race as that by which they
are surrounded, they are an amiable, a virtuous
and a contented people, possessing all the essentials of material comfort, and not
to be despised
or ill-used because they seek to enjoy what they
have without emulating the spirit of accumulation which influences their neighbors.
Their
nationality is, after all, an inheritance, and they
must not be too severely punished because they
have dreamed of maintaining, on the distant banks
of the St. Lawrence, and transmitting to their
posterity the language, the manners and the institutions of that great nation that,
for two centuries,
gave the tone of thought to the European continent. if the disputes of the two races
are
irreconcilable, it may be urged that justice
demands that the minority should be compelled
to acquiesce in the supremacy of the ancient and
most numerous occupants of the province, and not
pretend to force their own institutions and customs on the majority.
But before deciding which of the two races is
now to be placed in the ascendant, it is but
prudent to enquire which of them must ultimately
prevail ; for it is not wise to establish to-day that
which must, after a hard struggle, be reversed tomorrow. The pretensions of the French-Canadians
to the exclusive possession of Lower Canada
would debar the yet larger English population of
Upper Canada and the townships from access to
the great natural channel of that trade which
they alone have created and now carry on. The
possession of the mouth of the St. Lawrence
concerns not only those who happen to have
made their settlements along the narrow line
which borders it, but all who now dwell, or will
hereafter dwell in the great basin of that river.
For we must not look to the present alone.
The question is, by what race is it likely
that the wilderness which now covers the
rich and ample regions surrounding the
comparativel small and contracted districts in
which the reach-Canadians are located, is
eventually to be converted into a settled and
flourishing country? If this is to be done in the
British dominions as in the rest of North America,
by some speedier process than the ordinary growth
of population, it must be by immigration from
the English Isles or from the United States—the
countries which supply the only settlers that
have entered, or will enter, the Canadas in any
large numbers. This immigration can neither be
debarred from a passage through Lower Canada,
nor even be prevented from settling in that province. The whole interior of the British
dominions must, ere long, be filled with an English
population, every year rapidly increasing its
numerical superiority over the French. Is it just
that the prosperity of this great majority, and of
this vast tract of country, should be forever, or
even for a while, impede by the artificial bar
which the backward laws and civilization of a
part, and a part only, of Lower Canada, would
place between them and the ocean? Is it to be
supposed that such an English population will
ever submit to such a sacrifice of its interests ?
The French-Canadians, on the other hand, are
but the remains of an ancient colonization, and
are and ever must be, isolated in the midst of an
Anglo-Saxon world.
And is this French-Canadian nationality one
which, for the good merely of that people, we ought
to strive to perpetuate, even if it were possible ?
I know of no national distinctions marking and
continuing a more hopeless inferiority. The
language, the laws, the character of the North
American continent are English, and every race
but the English (I apply this to all who speak
the English language) appears there in a condition of inferiority. It is to elevate
them from
that inferiority that I desire to give to the Canadians our English character.
There can hardly be conceived a nationality
852
more destitute of all that can invigorate and
elevate a people than that which is exhibited by
the descendants of the French in Lower Canada,
owing to their retaining their peculiar language
and manners. They are a people with no history
and no literature. The literature of England is
written in a language which is not theirs, and the
only literature which their language renders
familiar to them is that of a nation from which
they have been separated by eighty years of a
foreign rule, and still more by those changes
which the revolution and its consequences have
wrought in the whole political, moral and social
state of France.
Well, Mr. SPEAKER, Sir EDMUND HEAD,
when he called us an inferior race, without
our French-Canadian Ministers protesting in
any way against this gross and foolish insult
—drew his inspiration from the report from
which I have just cited an extract, and
which, from its first to its last page, breathes
the most bitter hatred of all that bears the
French name or stamp. A little further on
Lord DURHAM continues as follows :—
In these circumstances I should be indeed surprised if the more reflecting part of
the French—
Canadians entertained at present any hope of
continuing to preserve their nationality.
Probably, Mr. SPEAKER, Lord DURHAM was
desirous of alluding to the members of the
present Administration who to-day evince a
disposition to sacrifice their nationality for
the honors and titles which Lord DURHAM
counselled the Imperial Govermenment to
bestow on those of our reflecting French-
Canadians who would not refuse to take the
gilded bait which Great Britain might
dangle before their eyes. I continue my
citations :—
Lower Canada must be governed now, as it
must be hereafter, by an English population ;
and thus the policy which the necessities of the
moment force upon us, is in accordance with that
suggested by a comprehensive view of the future
and permanent improvement of the province.
A little further on Lord DURHAM proceeds as follows :—
It is proposed either to place the legislative
authority in a governor, with a council formed of
the heads, of the British party, or to contrive
some scheme of representation by which a
minority, with the forms of representation, is to
deprive a majority of all voice ln the management
of its own affairs.
The plan of Confederation now submitted
for our adoption is exactly that dreamt of
by Lord DURHAM. Our Ministers have
copied it, so to speak, word for word. Lord
DURHAM indicates all its essential points ;
and if I cite his report, it is with the view
of proving that the real author of the Confederation, which it is sought to impose
upon us, is, in fact, Lord DURHAM himself.
(Hear, hear.) I quote again from his
report :—
The only power that can be effectual at once in
coercing the present disaffection and hereafter
obliterating the nationality of the French-Canadians, is that of the numerical majority
of a loyal
and English population ; and the only stable
government will be one more popular than any
that has hitherto existed in the North American
colonies. The influence of perfectly equal and
popular institutions in effacing distinctions of
race without disorder or oppression, and with
little more than the ordinary animosities of party
in a free country, is memorably exemplified in
the history of the State of Louisiana, the laws
and population of which were French at the time
of its cession to the American union. And the
eminent success of the policy adopted with regard
to that state points out to us the means by
which a similar result can be effected in Lower
Canada.
Lord DURHAM was perfectly correct in suggesting the adoption of this policy. He did
not wish to put his foot on our necks, but
he advised that we should be made to disappear little by little under English influence,
and when we should be weak enough
to be no longer dangerous, then that we
should. have the coup de grâce. As in
Louisiana, our nationality was to disappear
under the influence of foreign elements.
MR. SCOBLE—Will the hon. gentleman
permit me to observe to him, that it is only
justice to the memory of that great statesman to say, that he wrote his report having
only in view a legislative union, and that
circumstances have changed since that day?
Now we are only discussing a Confederation,
and consequently Lord DUBHAM'S views do
not apply to it.
HON. MR. LAFRAMBOISE—I think
that the plan conceived by Lord DURHAM
was that of a legislative union and a Confederation of all the British North American
Provinces. We are about to begin with
Confederation, but we shall finish with a
legislative union. Confederation, as has
been well observed by that eminent statesman, is the first step to a legislative union.
" Act with prudence," he says in his famous
report to the British Government ; " we
must not crush the French race too suddenly
858
in these colonies; they might resist and give
trouble, but make use of diplomacy, lavish
honors and titles on their leading men, and
perhaps you will succeed." I am convinced
that we shall have a legislative union in a
very few years if the plan of Confederation
is adopted, and I am not the only one who
says so, for the other night the hon. member
for South Leeds stated in this House that
in a short time we should have a legislative
union and all its consequences. Well, Mr.
SPEAKER, if we are threatened in this way,
the hon. member for South Leeds ought not
to be surprised that as a Lower Canadian I
have something to say against the opinions
expressed by Lord DURHAM in his report.
I can perfectly understand that he could
not possibly have the feelings of a Lower
Canadian, and that he could not consequently
feel as I can feel, the affront and the wrong
which that statesman inflicted on my fellow-
countrymen. (Hear, hear.) But neither,
on the other hand, does he feel as I do that
the plan of Confederation will bring the
French-Canadian race to the social condition
conceived and predicted by the noble lord
whose report I have just cited. That hon.
member, as an Englishman and a Protestant,
is in favor of a legislative union, in
preference to any other system of government. He would behold with pleasure but
one race—and that the British race—in-
habiting these colonies of Great Britain. I
do not blame him for these sentiments,
which are perfectly justifiable when held by
an Englishman; but, on the other hand, I
am thoroughly convinced that he will not
deem it a strange thing that a French-
Canadian should entertain entirely different
views on these points. (Hear, hear. ) Thus,
Mr. SPEAKER, that great statesman, Lord
DURHAM, the most dangerous enemy of
French nationality, makes use of the following language in his famous report :—
If you are desirous of gaining over the political leaders of the Lower Canadians,
act as follows :—Begin by giving them offiices, titles and
honors of every kind ; flatter their vanity, give
them a vast field in which to satisfy their ambition.
Lord DURHAM came into this country after
the rebellion, and perceived that his predecessors in the government had been guilty
of political errors which had alienated the
French-Canadians from Great Britain, and
he thought that he ought to leave behind
him, to serve as a guide to his successors,
that famous report in which he has collected
together all the means that diplomacy could
furnish him with, to crush out a nationality
which he saw with regret living happily
and contentedly on the soil of its birth, and
from which it drew its sustenance. Lord
DURHAM, like the hon. member for South
Leeds would have preferred a legislative
union of all the British Provinces to the
union of the two Canadas ; but the British
Government considered it more prudent
to begin with this partial union knowing
well that later it would easily find the means
of accomplishing a legislative union. England reasoned in this way : if we give the
English race time to develope itself, we can
easily, at some future period, impose a legislative union on the French-Canadians.
Today the Canadian Government, accepting
the views of Lord DURHAM, come down and
ask us to take this first step towards annihilation. by accepting Confederation, which
they present to us in the most brilliant and
tempting guise. (Hear, hear.) For want
of argument, they say such things as these
to excuse the culpable step which they are
ready to take—"What is the use of resisting?
We must have sooner or later the Confederation now proposed to you, and ultimately
a
legislative union ?" Well, Mr. SPEAKER, I
think, for my part, that we might easily
escape this last danger to our nationality, if
all the Catholics and French-Canadians in
this House were to league themselves together to defeat the measure before us,
which denies to the latter that legitimate
influence which they ought to have in the
Federal Government. Why not concede to
us the guarantees and concessions which we
have given to our fellow-countrymen of other
origins ? The Lower Canadian Ministers, who
have not insisted upon obtaining for us that
protection, have rendered themselves highly
culpable towards their follow—countrymen.
(Hear, hear.) Under the Federal union,
Lower Canada can never have more than
sixty-five members in the Federal Legislature, notwithstanding the explanations to
the contrary made on this head by the Hon.
Solicitor General East. All who have discussed the question in this House could not
do otherwise than admit it. Well, notwithstanding this injustice, and notwithstanding
any increase that our population may attain
under the Federal régime, our representation
will always remain at the same figure, and
we shall pay our share of the public debt in
the ratio of the number of our population.
854
Well, Mr. SPEAKER, is there not injustice
in this provision? We have been told that
we shall have the management of our public
lands. I admit that this would be of great
benefit to us, if we were in a position to
assure those who might settle in our midst
that they would have a voice in the councils
of the nation. But no, Mr. SPEAKER; immigration to this country will always be
impossible under the Confederation perparing
for us, and it will be diverted towards the
territories of Upper Canada, where the
settlers can be represented in the Provincial
Legislature, where the climate is more
favorable and the soil more fertile. But
from another point of view, can we consider
advantageous to Lower Canada the possession
and administration of its public domain
under the circumstances in which we shall
be placed by Confederation? Assuredly
not, and for this reason : each province is to
assume its public lands, with the debts due
upon the lands. On the public lands
situated in Upper Canada, and which she
is to assume, there is a debt of six millions
of dollars due to the province, whilst on
those in Lower Canada there is only a debt
of one million, consequently Upper Canada
will obtain from Lower Canada a claim for
five million of dollars in excess of that which
she yields to Lower Canada. Here we have
one of the few great advantages which have
been pointed out to us since the beginning
of the discussion; and I ask you, Mr.
SPEAKER, whether it is advantageous to
Lower Canada? On the contrary, while
highly advantageous to Upper Canada, it
is grossly unjust to Lower Canada. Is
it not evident that the Confederation is
entirely for the benefit of Upper Canada?
And is not a sufficient proof of it to be
found in the fact that we find in this House
but two or three members from that section
of the province who are opposed to the
scheme? If all the members from Upper
Canada, to what party soever they may belong, unite to-day to support the scheme of
the Government, it is because they perfectly
understand that everything has been conceded to them, and that they have obtained
all that they wished for—all the concessions
that they sought for, and for which they
labored and struggled so energetically and
so long. (Hear, hear.) That is perfectly
well understood. But if influences hostile
to Lower Canada, which worked against us
during the preparation in England of the
law respecting the change in the constitution
of the Legislative Council, had not caused
the removal from the Union Act of the
clause requiring the assent of two-thirds of
the members of the Legislature to effect a
change in the basis of our representation —
if those influences had not worked to remove that safeguard of our interests, Upper
Canada would never have been so persistent
in striving to obtain representation based on
population. She would have seen the impossibility of obtaining it, and the inutility
of asking for it, and would, in consequence,
have abandoned it. But from the moment
when that clause was removed from the
Union Act, it was competent to the Legislature to enact a change in the Constitution
by
a mere majority; and it may consequently
be said that through that influence which
worked against us, Upper Canada now
obtains representation based on population.
(Hear, hear.) The members from Upper
Canada will observe that I do not maintain
that the principle of representation based
upon population is in itself an unjust principle; but I maintain that as they refused
us the application of it when the population
of Lower Canada was in a majority, it is
unjust of them to demand it now because
they are in a majority, and I cannot see by
what right they wish to obtain it now. I
say that if the application of that principle
was unjust twenty years ago, it is also unjust
to-day; and that if it is just to-day, it was
equally just twenty years ago. (Hear, hear.)
A member considered it very extraordinary
that the Rouge party—let us call it by that
name, since it is the one by which the
Liberal party is designated in this country,
and we have no reason to take exception to
it—since the Rouge party in Canada have
washed away from that name all the stains
with which the Rouge party in France had
covered it, and that here the banner of that
party is spotless—(hear, hear)—a member,
I say, considered it extraordinary, and
ridiculed the idea that the Rouge party
should have constituted themselves the
protectors and defenders of the religion, the
nationality and the institutions of Lower
Canada, during the discussion of the scheme
of Confederation. But when we see at the
head of the movement, hostile to that
Confederation, a man like Mr. CHERRIER of
Montreal, who will certainly very favorably
bear comparison with all the members of the
Conservative party of Lower Canada in
respect of devotion, honor, national feeling
and ability—when we see, I repeat, a man
855
like Mr. CHERRIER at the head of the movement hostile to Confederation, I say that
it
is wrong to cast ridicule on that movement,
and to make a pretence of believing that the
members of the Liberal party, or of the Rouge
party, have no religious, national or patriotic
feelings. I say that the Conservative party
were greatly in the wrong in endeavoring to
ridicule Mr. CHERRIER, because he is a man
who is too well known as a man of probity
and of religious sentiments—and the same
cannot be said of several of those who have
attacked him; and I am convinced that that
gentleman sincerely believes that the nationality, the institutions and the religion
of
Lower Canada are in danger. (Hear, hear.)
Besides, admitting, as the Ministerial party
pretend, that the Rouge party were not
authorized to speak for the clergy and to
defend our religious and national rights, it
does not follow that all that the members on
this side of the House stated on this subject
is not strictly true ; and if it had been possible to reply to it, it would have been
better
to meet it by arguments of a serious character than by personal attacks, the latter
means
being only employed as a blind. And those
who exclaim so loudly to-day against the
Liberal party, and who pretend to see in that
party nothing but disloyalty and treason, did
not always hold the monarchical and loyal
ideas which they profess to-day; they were
not always such ardent supporters of monarchical government as they are now. (Hear,
hear.) Thus, all the world knows right well
that the Hon. Attorney General for Lower
Canada (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) was at the
head of the party which stirred up the
troubles of 1837-38.
HON. MR. LAFRAMBOISE—I do not
know whether he was at the head or at the
tail of it; but at any rate, he was in it. He
was at St. Denis a few minutes before the
battle. (Laughter.) I do not know whether
he remained there; but I know that it is
reported that he was deputed by the rebel
camp to go and fetch provisions, although
they could not then have been in any great
need of provisions, for the moment at least.
(Laughter.) At any rate, he was in the
rebel camp. But he has now corrected all
his democratic errors; he has renounced all
ideas of that nature, and has substituted
monarchical ideas for them; he is now in
favor of a great monarchical power on this
continent, and would be prepared to accept
the position of Royal Prince if it should be
offered to him. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The Hon. Solicitor General for Lower Canada (Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN) explained to us
why he had so assumed monarchical ideas,
when he told us that he would receive his
reward. (Hear, hear.) After having assumed monarchical ideas, he is ready to
assume their livery. (Hear.) But why
should he be rewarded as the Hon. Solicitor
General has said he will be? He will be
so, that gentleman says, because the Hon.
Attorney General brought about the passing
of a measure for the abolition of the seigniorial
tenure—because the
censitaires and the
seigniors brought their title-deeds to him,
and he returned them a measure which was
satisfactory both to the seigniors and to the
censitaires. Now, I am really surprised
that the Hon. Solicitor General, who, in
the position which he occupies, ought
to be acquainted with the history of the
laws of this country, is not aware that
it was the Honorable Mr. Justice DRUMMOND who prepared and brought about the
passing of the law for the abolition of the
seigniorial tenure, and not the Hon. Attorney General for Lower Canada at all. (Hear,
hear.) That is, therefore, no reason why
he should deserve a reward. The Hon.
Solicitor General also said that the Hon.
Attorney General was entitled to the gratitude of his country, because he had brought
about the passing of the law for judiciary
decentralisation, and had thereby conduced
to the interests of suitors, advocates, judges,
and every one in general. The Honorable
Solicitor General is free to admire the laws
of his chief, the Hon. Attorney General; but
I may say, that if ever an Attorney General
made crude, incomprehensible and impracticable laws, it was undoubtedly the present
Hon. Attorney General for Lower Canada.
He has never been able to make a single
law which it has not been absolutely necessary to amend and touch up every session,
and the worst in this respect is his judicature
law. "But," says the Hon. Solicitor General, "he has passed a registration law."
Well, his registration law contains similar
defects, and proves his complete inability to
prepare a passable law. And to so great a
degree is this the case, that it has been
impossible to put it in practice, and it has
been necessary to amend it during five consecutive sessions, without that course having
very greatly improved it. (Hear, hear.)
Those two laws, then, do not entitle him to
856
a reward. The Hon. Solicitor General also
says that the Hon. Attorney General deserves
a reward for having introduced the French
law of Lower Canada into the townships.
But here again he awards him praise and
reward which are not his due, for it was
Hon. Judge LORANGER who made that law,
and had it passed and enacted by the House.
For this law, then, also he is not deserving
of reward. (Hear.) These are the three
reasons for which the Hon. Solicitor General
says that the Hon. Attorney General is entitled to a reward ; but I consider that
he hardly
deserves any, as it was not he who brought
about the passing of the first and the last of
those laws, and the other two are so ill-made
that he deserves anything but a reward for
having conferred them upon the country.
(Hear, hear.) Yet I must say that he
deserves a reward, but from whom, and
why? Ah! he deserves a reward from
England for having done exactly what Lord
DURHAM advised the doing of in relation to
the Canadians, in his famous report on the
means to be taken to cause us to disappear; he deserves a reward for having
caused the setting aside of the French
laws and the substitution for them of English laws; he deserves a reward for having
done the will of England in every respect;
and, lastly, he deserves a reward for having
devised the present scheme of Confederation,
and caused it to be accepted by a majority
of this House. (Hear, hear.) While on
this subject, and to show how he has deserved
and received rewards, it will be well to read
a passage from Lord DURHAM'S report, in
which he points out the means to be adopted
to corrupt the leaders and to get the mastery
of the Lower Canadian people. The following is the passage to which I allude :—
While I believe that the establishment of a
comprehensive system of government, and of an
effectual union between the different provinces,
would produce this important effect on the general feelings of its inhabitants, I
am inclined to
attach very great importance to the influence
which it would have in giving greater scope and
satisfaction to the legitimate ambition of the most
active and prominent persons to be found in them.
As long as personal ambition is inherent in human
nature, and as long as the morality of every free
and civilized community encourages its aspirations, it is one great business of a
wise government to provide for its legitimate development.
If, as is commonly asserted, the disorders of these
colonies have, in great measure, been fomented
by the influence of designing and ambitious individuals, this evil will be best remedied
by allowing
such a scope for the desires of such men as shall
direct their ambition into the legitimate chance
of furthering, and not of thwarting their government. By creating high prizes in a
general and
responsible government, we shall immediately
afford the means of pacifying the turbulent ambitions, and of employing in worthy
and noble occupations the talents which are now only exerted
to foment disorder.
Lord DURHAM well knew what he was
about when he recommended the bestowal
of places and honors on the ambitious individuals who made a disturbance, and the
Hon. Attorney General for Lower Canada
made a great disturbance and stir in 1836
and 1837; he was present at the meeting of
the five counties, when he donned the cap
of liberty. (Hear, hear.) Lord DURHAM
says, "Give places to the principal men, and
you will see how they will sacrifice their
countrymen and submit to England." And
indeed it is that course which has met with
the greatest success; and it has been seen
that all those who impeded the movement
in Lower Canada against the union, and all
those who exclaimed, "Hold your tongues;
the union has saved us!" have been rewarded. Some have been knighted; on
others, honors, places and power have been
conferred; and the Hon. Attorney General
for Lower Canada will receive his reward,
as they did, and will be made a baronet, if
he can succeed in carrying his measure of
Confederation—a measure which England so
ardently desires. (Hear, hear.) For my
part, I do not envy him his reward; but I
cannot witness with satisfaction the efforts
he makes to obtain it by means of a measure
of Confederation which I believe to be fatal
to the interests of Lower Canada. I am
determined, therefore, to do everything in
my power to prevent the realization of
his hopes. (Cheers.)
MR. J. B. E. DORION—Before I proceed
to examine the question which engages our
attention, Mr. SPEAKER, I wish to premise
that in any expression of my sentiments, I
speak on behalf of no political party, but for
myself only. In discussing a proposition
which so intimately affects the destiny of
Canada, and all that we value most, I would
rise above personal and party considerations,
in order that I may look at it from a vantage
point removed from party influences. Why,
Mr. SPEAKER, are we engaged this evening
in discussing a Confederation of the Provinces
of British North America? Because we had,
last year, a Ministerial crisis, from which
arose a proposal for the union of the two
political parties who divided public opinion.
857
The MACDONALD-TACHÉ Ministry, who represented the Conservative party in the country,
had just been defeated in the Legislative
Assembly; they were obliged to resign. It
will be recollected that the Government were
beaten on a question of mal-administration of
the public business. I allude to the advance
of $100,000 made to the Grand Trunk Railway without authority of Parliament, for
which act several members of the Cabinet
were responsible. Could you inform me, Mr.
SPEAKER, what has become of the $100,000
question? Alas! it disappeared in the Ministerial crisis, and left us the extraordinary
Coalition which now governs us, composed of
men who for ten years treated each other as
men devoid of political principle! (Hear,
hear.) The Conservative party clung so
tenaciously to power, that they were not
appalled by the position to which they had
brought the country. Any union or coalition
between two political parties, of opposite
principles, proves an abandonment of principle by one or the other. All coalitions
are
vicious in their very foundation: they have
always been held as proofs of political profligacy, in England as everywhere else;
and they
are the more dangerous that they are generally
strong. To the present Coalition we are indebted for the scheme of the Confederation
of the British Provinces in a tangible
form. Had that Coalition never been formed,
we should never have heard of the Quebec
Conference, nor of the resolutions adopted
at that meeting in October last, and now submitted to our consideration. Now, who
authorised the holding of that Conference?
What right had that body to arrogate to itself
the power of proposing a radical change in
our political condition? How was Canada
represented there? Three-fourths of the Canadian delegates were men under the ban
of
parliamentary condemnation. How was the
voting carried on at that Convention? Was
it not by provinces? Have not the four little
provinces below had twice as many votes on
each question as the two large provinces of
Canada? These questions all occur naturally.
If to each of them a categorical answer were
rendered, we should be able to throw some light
on the way in which the interests of the country
have been neglected, overriddcn, and sacrificed.
If we only think that to the last question no
other answer could be rendered than an affirmative, there is no room for wonder that
the
Lower Provinces had all the advantage in the
arrangements concluded at the Conference.
Notwithstanding that the compromise was in
their favor, the great number of the provinces concerned now repudiate its provisions,
according to information which reaches us
every day. They seem to be afraid of us;
and notwithstanding the offers of money
made to them, they will have nothing to do
with a union. Our reputation for extravagance must be very bad to frighten them to
that degree; and, no doubt, when they saw
us spend in the course of a month or two, for
receptions, in traveling and in feasting, sums
equalling in amount the whole of revenue of
Prince Edward Island, they must have gone
back with a sorry idea of our way of managing public business. (Hear, hear.) I do
not mean to repeat what has been said during
the debate; but before proceeding, I may be
allowed to draw a contrast between our
manner of acting and that of our neighbors in the United States when constitutional
changes are in question. In
the United States—that country which people
take so much pains to represent as the hotbed
of all political, social, moral and physical horrors—they do not play with the written
constitutions of the several states, any more than
with that of the American union. There,
whenever a constitution is to be amended,
generally, it requires a vote of two-thirds
of each of the two Houses. If it is the Constitution of the United States which is
to be
amended, the measure must also be sanctioned
by a majority in each of the legislatures of the
several states. If the amendment relates to a
local constitution, besides a two-thirds vote of
the two Houses, the amendment must be ratified by a convention of delegates from the
different parties in the state, selected specially
for the occasion. The United States are now
occupied with the consideration of an amendment of their Constitution, the object
of which
is the abolition of slavery. The amendment
has been adopted by the Congress and by the
Senate of the American union, and must be
ratified by a majority of the local legislatures,
before it forms a part of the Constitution. It
will even be necessary to take into the account
the states which are now in rebellion. We
see at once the guarantees they are provided
with, that no radical change shall be adopted
without the consent of the people, who are
allowed sufficient time to weigh all the considerations which may operate in favor
of any
projected change. This is the method of proceeding among our sagacious neighbors in
matters of importance; and, as a thing of
course, they have established a political status
which leaves far behind it all that human
858
wisdom had previously devised to secure the
peace and prosperity of the nations of the New
World. But in our dear Canada, with all the
English precedents of which so much account
is made, we do not require such precautions. It
is quite enough that men should have been
found guilty of misapplication of the public
money, that they shall have abused each other
as political robbers for ten years, to bring
about a coalition of the combatants, to make
them hug each other till all feeling of personal
dignity is lost, and all regard for principle is
forgotten. It is enough, I say, that we have
a scandalous union—a state of political profligacy—like that perpetrated in 1864,
to
believe in our right to do what we please.
(Hear, hear.) With a majority of thirty
or forty votes, we hesitate at nothing. The
Constitution, which hampers the curvetings
and prancings of our leading chiefs too much,
and rather curbs their personal ambition—
which circumscribes in short the range of
their speculative operations, is found to be
inconvenient. It is assailed with relentless
blows; it is to be thrown down without asking
the leave of those most concerned; and in its
place is to be set up a new order of things
under which there is to be no more regard for
political principles than for the rights and
wants of the people. A simple parliamentary
majority of one will be sufficient with us to
overthrow the entire political order of things,
and we have no appeal from so important a
decision, save an appeal to an authority three
thousand miles off, which may add something to
the scheme to make it less acceptable to us than
it already is. (Hear, hear.) The people may
hereafter condemn their representatives, but
the mischief will be done! This is all the
consolation we shall have. Is not the contrast
between our stupid method of doing things,
and the prudent rational proceeding of our
neighbors, a very striking one? And truly
they are our superiors in all political respects.
Now, let me justify my opposition to the
projected change. I am opposed to the
scheme of Confederation, because the first
resolution is nonsense and repugnant to truth;
it is not a Federal union which is offered
to us, but a Legislative union in disguise.
Federalism is completely eliminated from this
scheme, which centres everything in the
General Government. Federalism means the
union of certain states, which retain their
full sovereignty in everything that immediately concerns them, but submitting to the
General Government questions of peace, of
war, of foreign relations, foreign trade, cus
toms and postal service. Is that what is
proposed to us? Not at all. In the scheme
we are now examining, all is strength and
power, in the Federal Government; all is
weakness, insignificance, annihilation in the
Local Government! I am opposed to the
scheme of Confederation, because, far from
removing the difficulties complained of
between Upper Canada and Lower Canada,
it must, if adopted, simply multiply them
tenfold. There will be a constant conflict of
authorities, particularly as to questions submitted to the double action of the local
and
general legislatures. I am opposed to the
scheme of Confederation, because the Constitution in which it is to be embodied will
be
faulty in its very basis. We are told that
the representation is to be based upon population in one House, and that the principle
of
equality is to prevail in the other; and to-day
that principle is violated as regards Newfoundland, as it will be, no doubt, tomorrow
in favor of British Columbia and Vancouver
Island, should these colonies think proper to
enter into our proposed Confederation. What
is to prevent the smaller provinces forming a
league together, and thus getting the upper
hand of the larger but less numerous provinces,
on purely local questions? That is one of the
great defects of the Ministerial scheme, in my
opinion. But, moreover, the autonomy of
Lower Canada is menaced and placed at the
mercy of a parliament of one hundred and
ninety-four members, of whom forty-seven, or
at most forty-eight only, will represent the
views of the majority of its people. I am
opposed to the scheme of Confederation, because it takes away from the people of this
country political rights which they have won
by many years of struggles; among others
that of electing its representatives in the Legislative Council, as it does its representatives
in the Assembly. Since 1856, we
have enjoyed an elective Council. For
more than half a century that reform had
been asked for. Our claims were urged in
the press, in public meetings, in petitions
to Parliament and to the home Government,
and in the form of direct motions in the
House. The Legislative Council, as constituted previous to the Act of 1856, had become
highly unpopular; it had also fallen into a
state of utter insignificance. By infusing
into it the popular element by means of
periodical elections, it was galvanised into life
and became quite another body in the estimation of the people. The electoral system
completely restored its prestige, entitled it to
859
the respect of the people, and gave it an importance it did not previously possess.
Since
the Council has been made elective, not
a single complaint has appeared against
its new constitution, in the press, or in
the form of public meetings, petitions or
motions in the House. Has it produced
any evil effects in the administration of
the affairs of the country? Has the Government suffered from it? Has the Mother
Country found any bad results from it? Has
the country been the worse for it? And in
what respect? Answer, you who desire to
deprive the people of the right to elect that
House, though they have not asked you to
do so, and though you yourselves hold your
seats by their will? The elective Legislative
Council represents better the character, the
wants and the aspirations of our Canadian
society, than the Council appointed for life
ever did. With regard to the talent of the
country, it has represented it as well as it
was represented under the old system. With
regard to its moderation and its conservative
spirit, experience has shewn that it possessed
these two qualities to a degree surpassing the
expectation of all parties. I do not hesitate,
therefore, to say that the change was a change
for the better in every respect; that it satisfied and tranquillized public opinion,
and that
it secured to the country a more direct control
over public affairs. Lower Canada has tested
both systems of nomination, that by the
Crown and that by the people, and it does
not ask to return to the former. We had a
life-nominated Council for half a century in
Canada. Every one knows that the acts of
that very Council drove the people of Lower
Canada into rebellion in 1837! One of the
great arguments advanced in support of
the proposed scheme is that the electoral
divisions are very extensive, and that
the rich alone, by means of their wealth,
can attain a seat in that House. It costs
so much now-a-days, it is said, to carry
an election! If that argument were of any
value as regards the Legislative Council, it
should have equal weight as regards the
House of Assembly. To be consistent, you
you should have asked also for the appointment of the members of the Assembly, in
place of having them elected by the people!
But that is not the true reason. And besides,
let those who do not wish to spend money
remain at home, if the people refuse to elect
them without being paid. Let corruption
cease; adopt vote by ballot, which will destroy corruption, and there will be no need
of
inventing imaginary grievances in order to
restrict the liberties of the people. This
Tory scheme will throw us back fifty years.
It is nothing else than a plot! (Hear, hear.)
I am opposed to this scheme of Confederation,
because we are offered local parliaments which
will be simply nonentities, with a mere semblance
of power on questions of minor importance.
When we shall have seen the Local Parliament
in operation with its restricted powers (restricted except as regards expenditure,
extravagance, and the power of taxing real property),
it will soon be found, as it is in fact destined
to become, a mere taxing machine. Nothing
more, nothing less! The expenditure of
Lower Canada for justice, education, asylums,
hospitals, courts, prisons, interest on the debt,
&c., &c., added to the expense of a Local Government and Parliament, will exceed $2,000,000.
The revenue will fall far short of that amount.
Direct taxation would be a necessary consequence of the establishment of the new system,
without any compensation for the fresh
burthen which the people must bear. I have
said enough to shew the difference between
the American federal system and that proposed
for our adoption. In the American union
each state is sovereign over all that immediately concerns it. Here, everything would
be
submitted to the General Parliament. Lower
Canada is opposed to free trade in money,
and desires to limit the rate of interest; and
yet this she could not do, inasmuch as that
very ordinary question would be under
the control of the General Parliament.
Whether the principle be a sound one or not,
it is admitted that nine-tenths of our people
desire that the rate of interest should be fixed.
Each state of the American union regulates
questions of this kind as it chooses, without
the intervention of neighboring states, or of
the Washington Government. Thus, the rate
of interest varies in a great many of the
states, and in others it is not fixed. In
Vermont the rate is six per cent.; in New
York, seven per cent.; in Ohio, ten per cent.;
in Illinois, thirty per cent.; and in the other
states, trade in money is free. These are facts
which prove that the real Federal system
resembles in no sense that which we are asked
to adopt. (Hear, hear.) I might give a
host of facts of this kind in support of my
postion; but I shall confine myself to one.
It is well known that the people of Lower
Canada are almost unanimous in repudiating the principle of divorce. Nevertheless,
under Confederation the Parliament of Lower
Canada is not to have the right of regulating
860
that question according to its wishes; but the
Federal Parliament, sitting at Ottawa, will be
empowered to force upon us principles utterly
opposed to our own, and even to establish a
Court of Divorce at Quebec. Under the
Federal system, nothing so unjust, nothing so
revolting to the feelings of the people could
occur. In the American union there are
some states in which divorce is permitted, and
others in which it is not—another proof that
sovereignty may be vested in each state,
without detriment to the union. (Hear, hear.)
I am opposed to the scheme of Confederation,
because the courts of justice of Lower
Canada will be under the control of the General
Government. We should have courts of
justice in Lower Canada, but the judges who
would sit in them would be appointed by the
Government of the Confederation. It would
be the same in the other provinces; but Lower
Canada, with her laws, which are peculiar to
her, ought especially to resist the interference
of the General Government in the administration of justice. It will be said that the
Conference endeavored to cause their intentions
to be suspected, and it has already been urged
that this arrangement is a stroke of the
lawyers, who would prefer to see the nomination of the judges vested in the General
Government, because they would receive higher
salaries, rather than see them appointed by the
local governments, who would be obliged to
have recourse to direct taxation in order to
pay their salaries. But setting aside this
idea, I assert that the appointment of the
judges in each province by the General Government appears to me an uncalled-for interference,
an anomaly which cannot be too
strongly opposed. (Hear, hear.) I am opposed
to the scheme of Confederation, because the
local governors would only be tools in the
hands of the General Government, who would
interfere in the local matters by the continual
pressure they would bring to bear on them
whenever they desired to change the opinions
of the local parliaments, elected by the people
in each province, on any question which they
might have to discuss. Why have the local
governments, with the insignificant powers
which it is proposed to confer upon them—
why, I say, have they not been allowed to
elect their respective governors ? Would there
be any more harm in this than results from
the elections of mayors in our large towns?
There was once a time when even the wardens
were appointed by the Government. Has the
election of mayors and wardens been produc
tive of evil or discontent throughout the country? I am opposed to the scheme of Confederation,
because by means of the right of
veto
vested in the Governor by the 51st resolution,
local legislation will be nothing but a farce.
They may try to make us believe that this
power would be but rarely examined, and that
it differs in nowise from that exercised by the
present Governor when he reserves bills for
the Royal assent; but all the country knows
that it would not be so. From the moment
that you bring the exercise of the right of
veto more nearly within the reach of interested
parties, you increase the number of opportunities for the exercise of the right—you
open the door to intrigues. As, for instance,
a party will oppose the passing of a law, and
not succeeding in his opposition in Parliament, he will approach the Ministers and
the
Governor General, intriguing to obtain as a
favor that the law may be disallowed. Take
an example. I suppose your Confederation to
be established; that a bill is passed for the
protection of settlers, such as we have seen
pass the House six times in ten years without
becoming law, on account of the opposition to
it in the Legislative Council by the councillors from Upper Canada; what would happen?
The few interested parties who were opposed
to the measure would rush to the Governor
General to induce him to disallow the law.
By an appeal to the right of property, to the
respect due to acquired rights, and to other
sophistries, they would override the will of
the people on a measure which is just in itself,
and which is sought for and approved of by
all legal men of Lower Canada in the present
House. The people of Lower Canada will be
prevented from obtaining a law similar to
those now existing in thirteen different states
of the American union, and which would in
no way affect the principles of the existing
law in Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) This
is one instance out of a thousand, and will
serve to illustrate the effect of this right of
veto. I am opposed to the scheme of Confederation, because I cannot see why, on the
one hand, it has been agreed to give all the
public lands to the Government of each province, and on the other hand that the Government
should purchase the lands in the Island
of Newfoundland. The General Government
gives up the fertile lands of Upper and
Lower Canada, but it purchases the barren
lands of Newfoundland at the enormous price
of $150,000 per annum, a sum representing a
capital of $2,500,000. Is not this a grand
861
speculation for the country? The Government
at Ottawa will not possess a single inch of land
in Canada, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia,
but they will have a Land Department for
the management of their superb possessions in
Newfoundland? Is it imagined that if the public lands of that island had been of any
value,
they would have been given up to the General Government for any amount? No, the fact
is that these lands are utterly useless for cultivation, that the whole island does
not produce
hay enough for the town of St. Johns, and
that every year large quantities of it are imported. I know a farmer in Three Rivers
who has sent cargoes of hay to Newfoundland,
and who is now only waiting for the navigation to open to send more—and these are
the
lands which it is proposed to buy for a fabulous price, in order to induce that province
to
come into the Confederation. (Hear.) But
there is also another matter for consideration
with respect to this arrangement regarding
the public lands. I am of opinion that it is
more advantageous to the progress of colonization of our wild lands that they should
remain in the hands of the present Government, rather than come into the possession
of
a local government, which might, perhaps, be
obliged to maintain itself by direct taxation;
for in that case the very uttermost farthing due
on these lands will have to be collected. In
a country like Lower Canada, with its
rigorous climate, colonization must be aided
and encouraged if reasonable progress is demanded. In that view the Government have
made free grants, and have remitted many
claims for interest on the public lands. Had
they not done so, the population in certain
sections would have been forced to leave the
country. Remissions and free grants will disappear with the appearance of direct taxation.
I am opposed to the scheme of Confederation,
because it is most unjustly proposed to enrich
the Lower Provinces with annuities and donations, to persuade and induce them to enter
into a union which will be injurious to all
the contracting parties. I am opposed to the
scheme of Confederation, because the division
of the public debts of the several provinces
has been made in an unjust way, and because
no portion of these debts ought to have been
imposed on the local governments, which, in
the event of the union, ought to have begun
anew without being burthened with debt. I am
opposed to the Confederation, because I foresee
difficulties without number in relation to the
concurrent powers on several points conferred
on the general and local governments. Col
lisions on these points will always be settled
in favor of the stronger party, to the advantage of the General Government, and to
the
detriment of the often just claims of the different provinces. I am opposed to Confederation,
because the premium offered to
New Brunswick is of a most extraordinary
character. It has been agreed to pay her
$63,000 per annum for ten years. The sum
to pay this will have to be borrowed every
year. Interest will have to be paid upon it,
so that at the expiration of ten years the Confederation will have paid to New Brunswick:
| Capital .................... $ |
630,000.00 |
| Interest on capital ........... |
105,000.00 |
|
$735,000.00 |
And what will it have received in exchange?
Nothing whatever! For the sum agreed to
be paid to Newfoundland there is at least a
semblance of direct compensation in the cession which it makes of its barren lands.
But
in the case of New Brunswick, there is nothing to be got from her for these $735,000,
on which interest will have to be paid long
after the ten years have expired. (Hear,
hear.) And that is not all; we are to pay
interest to New Brunswick, at the rate of five
per cent., on $1,250,000, for the difference
between her debt and that of Canada in proportion to their respective populations.
(Hear,
hear.) I am opposed to the scheme of Confederation, because it has been agreed to
construct the Halifax Railway without a notion
of what it will cost, and at a time when we
have already as much to pay as our resources
can bear, without plunging into ruinous and
unproductive enterprises of this kind. There
is no exaggeration in the statement that at
least $20,000,000 will be required for the execution of that enterprise. Of what use
will
it be? Doubly useless in a military and in a
commercial point of view. We are not in a
position to undertake it for the mere pleasure
of having a road which will place us in direct
communication with the sea over English territory. What would the Intercolonial Railway
be worth in a commercial point of view?
In summer we have the St. Lawrence, which
affords means of communication much more
economical in their nature than any railway.
In winter, without taking into account the
difficulties caused by the vast quantity of
snow which falls between Quebec and Halifax, is it supposed that there will be many
travellers who will adopt that route, six hundred miles in length, to reach the seaboard
at
862
Halifax, when they may reach Portland by a
railway not more than one-third as long as
the proposed road? Does any suppose that
a person having flour to export will send it to
Halifax, when he can despatch it by Portland? There is no sentiment in trade; it
takes the road which it finds to be the shortest and the most profitable, and all
your Confederation will not change this immutable law
of trade in all countries. (Hear, hear.) But,
it is said, this road will be of great use in
time of war as a military route. Have those
who talk in this way ever thought of the
trifling distance that separates that road from
American territory in certain places? Have
they ever thought how easy it would be, in a
single night, to destroy enough of it to make
it unserviceable for months together? Have
they ever thought how many soldiers would
be required to protect it and keep it in operation? The experience of the present
American war teaches us that to keep a railway in
operation, nearly as many soldiers are required
as there are lineal feet to protect. (Hear,
hear.) I am opposed to the scheme of Confederation, because it is proposed to ensure,
to guarantee the fulfilment of all engagements which shall have been entered into
with the Imperial Government by all the provinces up to the time of union on the subject
of the defence of the country, without the
nature and extent of those engagements
being known. There is perhaps no question
in all the resolutions of the Conference of
higher importance than this. Yet it is wished
to make us ratify all these engagements with
our eyes shut. What do we know about the
engagements which the Governments of Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and
Prince Edward Island may have entered into
on the subject of their respective defences?
What do we know even of the engagements
entered into by our own Government with
the English Government in relation to the
same question ? Nothing; we can know
nothing of them. We are told that the correspondence on the subject of the defences
cannot be submitted to Parliament under
existing circumstances. Why then should we
blindly vote on questions of such grave importance? I am opposed to Confederation,
because it is wished to make us enter into a
financial arrangement which it is frightful to
consider, and one which is most diametrically opposed to the interests of Canada.
Let us see what is proposed in this respect.
The Confederation would have us to pay—
| For land in the Island of Newfoundland ..... . ................... $ |
2,500,000 |
| Indemnity to New Brunswick ...... |
735,840 |
| For the Halifax Railway .......... |
20,000,000 |
| Difference in the debt of the provinces: |
|
| Nova Scotia .............. . ...... |
3,000,000 |
| Newfoundland ................... |
2,300,000 |
| New Brunswick .................. |
1,250,000 |
| Prince Edward Island ............. |
1,840,000 |
| For fortifications in the six provinces ...... . ................ |
25,000,000 |
| For the North-West road ......... |
5,000,000 |
| For military expenditure .......... |
5,000,000 |
|
$66,625,840 |
| Add the public debt of
Canada ............ |
$73,000,000 |
|
| Other unliquidated liabilities of Canada. . . |
5,000,000 |
|
| Debt of Nova Scotia. . |
8,000,000 |
|
| Debt of New Brunswick |
7,000,000 |
|
| Debt of Prince Edward
Island ............. |
244,673 |
|
| Debt of Newfoundland |
946,000 |
|
|
|
94,190,673 |
|
|
$160,816,513 |
Here we have a pretty balance-sheet, not one
item of which is exaggerated, and which is
offered to us by Confederation. All this is
exclusive of the enormous expense of the
general and local governments. Some of
the sums just mentioned will not be payable at
once, but nearly all of them will be so before
five years have elapsed; sums as considerable
will be payable at once, it may be said, if we
enter in the account the expenses of the Confederation and its unforeseen enterprises.
At
the last census, all the provinces only contained 3,294,056 souls. Supposing them
to
contain 3,500,000 at the time of the union,
the debt, with the foregoing liabilities, would
amount to $45 for each man, woman and
child, and of that debt we should have to pay
the interest. (Hear, hear.) I am opposed
to Confederation, because I cannot see the use
or the necessity of it in a commercial point of
view. Countries yielding different products
may gain considerably by uniting. What do
the Lower Colonies produce? Do they not
live in a climate similar to ours? Do they
not produce similar grain to that grown in
Canada? What trade could there be between
two farmers who produced nothing but oats?
Neither one nor the other would want for
them. They might stand and stare at each
other with their oats before them, without
ever being able to trade together; they would
require a third person—a purchaser. In such
a position are we with regard to the adjacent
863
colonies. Should we go for ice to the Lower
Colonies? I think there is enough of it in
Canada, especially at Quebec, and will be so
long as sufficient spirit of enterprise is not
displayed to export it to hot climates. They
talk to us of fish—but those we have in our
own waters—and of coal as a very great affair.
MR. T. C. WALLBRIDGE—The Lower
Provinces have reserved the right of placing
an export duty on their coal.
MR. J. B. E. DORION—My honorable
friend reminds me that we shall not be able
to obtain coal from the provinces which will
form part of the Confederation, without paying
them a tax. Is not that admirable? We are
to constitute a single people, a single country,
but there will be taxes to pay for trading with
each other in certain articles. (Hear, hear.)
I should understand the commercial advantages which we should gain if the English
Provinces were situated in different climates,
yielding every kind of produce, which should
be freely exchanged. That which built up
the commercial prosperity of the United States
'is their geographical position—their immense
territory, in which is to be found every climate
imaginable, from the north producing ice, to
the south producing the most delicious fruits.
An inhabitant of Maine may load a vessel
with ice, proceed to New Orleans and barter
his cargo of ice for rice, sugar, tobacco, &c.,
with which he may return home without
paying a single farthing of customs duties.
It is this free and continual exchange of their
various products from Maine to California
which has placed the United States in the
first rank of commercial nations in so short a
time. (Hear, hear.) Let us not, therefore,
be lulled with fancies of the great commercial
advantages we shall derive from a Confederation of the provinces. We have wood, they
produce it; we produce potash, and so do
they. All that they would require would be
a little flour, and that Upper Canada can supply to them now without paying any tax
for
doing so. Again, our trade with them cannot
be very considerable, because there are natural
obstacles in the way to prevent its being so. Situated in the same degree as ourselves
in respect
of climate, they produce what we produce, and
what we want they want—a foreign market
wherein to dispose of their surplus products.
Besides, the commercial advantages may all be
obtained by a mere commercial union, apart
from a political union. England concluded a
commercial treaty with the United States, by
means of which we trade freely with them in
all products of the soil and of the fisheries.
What objection could there be to the establishment of a system of free trade between
the
colonies, which are all subject to the same
authority? They would then enjoy all
the advantages that could result, without
entering into a political union, the depths
of which we are not able to fathom.
(Hear, hear.) I am opposed to Confederation, because instead of giving us strength
to
defend ourselves, it will prove to be a source
of incalculable weakness. How can it be
believed that by adding 700 miles to our long
frontier, we shall strengthen ourselves against
the enemy, when the territory to be added
does not yet contain inhabitants enough to
defend it? Is it supposed that if we had a
war with the Americans, they would not attack
the English Provinces at all points? They
would attack Newfoundland, Prince Edward
Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as
well as the two Canadas. A country without
depth, like that which it is proposed to form
here, has not its like under the sun. It
would be vulnerable at all points along its
frontier of 1,600 to 1,800 miles. In geographical form it would resemble an eel. Its
length would be everything, its breath nothing.
Nothing would be easier than to cut it into
little pieces, and none of the parts so sliced off
could send help to the others. The more of
such country as the provinces which it is
wished to unite to us that we have, the
weaker shall we be, and the greater will be
our difficulties in relation to military defence.
(Hear, hear.) I am opposed to the scheme
of Confederation, because I consider that it is
the result of a conspiracy against popular
rights in Canada, and that the hope is to impel
the people into a course fatal to their real
interests, by causing to shine before their
eyes all sorts of wonders which would be
accomplished in the end to the prosperity of
the country, if that country would only
accept the new form of Government which
it is proposed to force upon it. (Hear.)
I am opposed to the scheme of Confederation,
because it is proposed to perpetuate, on a
still greater scale, a state of things which is
not suitable to the populations of America
when they attain to years of discretion—a
state of things which evidently was not intended for a country in which there are
no
castes, no privileged classes and no hereditary aristocracy—in which all are equal,
socially and politically, by force of circumstances. I am opposed to the scheme of
Confederation, because I am desirous that
we should be as untrammelled as possible in
864
the selection of the future form of Government for Canada, when we shall emerge
from the colonial condition. I am free to
admit that I do not participate in the illusions of certain persons in respect to
the
magnificent destinies of the empire to be
founded by us in North America, and that
I am far from believing that it would be to our
advantage. I am opposed to the scheme of Confederation, because I deny that this House
has
power to change the political constitution of
the country, as it is now proposed to do,
without appealing to the people and obtaining their views on a matter of such importance.
These are the principal reasons which
induce me to oppose the scheme brought
down by the Government. But these are
not all ; I have yet many other considerations to urge. The gate of the future
destinies of the country was opened when
this scheme was laid before us, and I too am
desirous of penetrating within its portals. I
have said that the new organization which
it is wished to establish here decs not suit
either our resources or our wants. It would
appear that we cannot attain in Canada a
reasonable limit as regards the administration of public affairs. Our system is not
found to be extravagant enough, and it is
wished to substitute for it one still more
costly. Our neighbors have established an
economical political system, which is much
more advantageous to them than ours would
be to any country. We pay here much
more than is paid in the United States,
although that peeple is infinitely richer than
we are. If we prepare a list of the salaries
paid to the governors of the states in the
union, with a view of comparing it with the
list of salaries which we pay here to our
principal public employés, we shall be surprised at the difference which will be found
to exist to our disadvantage. Here is a
table of the salaries of the governors, together with the population of each state
:—
| States. |
Population. |
Salaries. |
| 1. Maine ............. |
628,276 |
. . . .$1500 |
| 2. New Hampshire . . |
226,073 |
. . . . 1000 |
| 3. Vermont .......... |
315,098 |
. . . . 1000 |
| 4. Massachusetts ...... |
1,231,066 |
. . . . 3500 |
| 5. Rhode Island ....... |
174,620 |
. . . . 1000 |
| 6. Connecticut. . . . . . . . |
460,147 |
. . . . 1100 |
| 7. New York ......... |
3,880,735 |
. . . . 4000 |
| 8. New Jersey. ...... |
672,035 |
. . . . 3000 |
| 9. Pennsylvania . ..... |
2,906,115 |
. . . . 4000 |
| 10. Delaware .......... |
112,216 |
.. . . 1333 1/2 |
| 11 Maryland ......... |
687,049 |
. . . . 3600 |
| 12. West Virginia ...... |
393,234 |
. . . . 2000 |
| 13. East Virginia ...... |
1,261,397 |
.. . . . 3000 |
| States. |
Population. |
Salaries. |
| 14. Kentucky .......... |
1,155,684 |
. .. . 2500 |
| 15. Ohio .............. |
2,339,502 |
. . . . 1800 |
| 16. Michigan .......... |
749,113 |
. . . . 1000 |
| 17. Indiana ............ |
1,350,428 |
. . . 3000 |
| 18. Illinois ............ |
1,711,951 |
. . .. 1500 |
| 19. Missouri ........... |
1,182,012 |
. . . . 3000 |
| 20. Iowa .............. |
674,942 |
. . . 2090 |
| 21. Wisconsin. . ...... |
775,881 |
. . . . 2000 |
| 22. Minnesota .......... |
173,855 |
. . . . 1500 |
| 23. Kansas............ |
107,206 |
. . . . 2000 |
| 24. California ......... |
379,994 |
. . . . 7000 |
| 25. Oregon ............ |
52,465 |
. . . . 1500 |
There are also ten other states which
were in rebellion at the beginning of the
year 1864, the date of the table which
I have given. It will be seen that Vermont pays only $1,000 a year to an elective
governor. That is less than we pay
here to the mayors of our great cities.
The State of New York, which is by itself
more rich and populous than the whole
of Canada, only pays $4,000 a year to her
Governor. I will not compare this salary
with that of our Governor, amounting to
$32,000 ; but by comparing it with that of
our judges of the second-class, it will be
found that the latter receive higher salaries
than the Governor of the State of New
York. (Hear, hear.) The State of Ohio,
more rich and more populous than Canada,
only pays $l,800 to her Governor. If the
salaries are comparatively small in the United
States, it is because it was understood there
that good administration of public affairs
might be obtained by the practice of a wise
economy, without that display of luxury
which is ruining us here. Another comparison, on a smaller scale, might be made
between the State of New York and Canada,
in respect of another matter. It is this :—
The State of New York possesses magnificent canals, which cost her an enormous
price ; but the revenue produced by them
has paid their cost, whilst here our canals,
which also cost us very dear, do not even
pay the interest of the debt which was
contracted for their construction, and that
is a point of difference by no means of small
magnitude. The State of New York contracted a further debt for the enlargement of
her canals after the revenue produced by
them had paid off that which had been
contracted for their construction ; and the
revenue which they yield is sufficient not
only to pay the interest of that debt, but
also to create a sinking fund which will
allow of its liquidation in five years from
the present day. Last year the State of
865
New York received from her canals the sum
of $5,118,501.35 ; the expenses of management amounted to $111,503.78, and those
of repaire to $659,378.74, forming a total
of $770,882.52, which left a net revenue
of $4,347,618.83, after paying all expenses
of management and costs of maintenance.
(Hear, hear.) Do you know what was done
with that surplus ? It was applied as follows :—
| Sinking Fund under 1 Art. 7 . . . |
$1,700,000 |
| do do 2 Art. 7 . . . |
350,000 |
| do do 3 Art. 2. |
1,116,242 |
| To the Treasury towards paying
the expenses of the state. . . . |
200,000 |
|
$3,366,242 |
Leaving a balance of $981,876.17 after having met all engagements in relation to the
Sinking Fund, and paid a sum of $200,000
towards the cost of the government of the
state. Here, when a school or sinking fund
is created, it is expended, or borrowing has
to be had recourse to in order to meet it.
Let us then compare the management of our
canals with that of the canals of New York.
Here the tolls on certain of our canals are
abolished with the view of favoring trade,
instead of a reasonable revenue being levied
from those great works ! (Hear, hear.) The
total debt of the State of New York on the
30th September, 1863, was as follows :—
| Consolidated debt ..... |
$6,505,654 37 |
| Canal debt ........... |
23,268,310 25 |
| Total recorded. . . |
$29,773,964 62 |
In the course of the same year, $3,116,242
was paid into the sinking fund, and there
remained still five and a half millions in hand
produced by the canals, so that in less than
ten years the canal debt and the special debt
of the state will be entirely paid off. Shall
we be able to say as much of our own debt in
ten years time ? (Hear, hear.) I repeat then,
that the financial system of our neighbours
is greatly superior to ours, and that they pay
reasonable salaries to their public officers,
while such payments here are on an extravagant scale, If I speak of all this, it is
because I am opposed to the scheme, and because it is wished to establish a monarchy,
a new kingdom on this continent, and
because a desire is manifested to have a
court, a nobility, a viceroy, tinsel, and so on.
I am alarmed at the position in which it is
wished to place us, for from extravagance it
is proposed, with all these absurd and ridiculous schemes, to pass to folly. (Hear,
hear.)
The commercial crisis through which we
passed in 1846, when England repealed the
import duty on foreign grain brought to
her markets, will be remembered. Before
that period our grain and other produce
were protected on the English markets in
being admitted free of duty, while that from
the Black Sea and the United States was
subject to a duty which was high enough
to afford great protection in favor of ours.
This new policy in relation to the colonies
was productive of disastrous consequences
to Canadian trade. The exportation of
grain to England was completely put a stop
to. There was no longer an outlet for that
produce. To get to the United States markets twenty per cent. had to be paid. Well,
the long and terrible crisis which followed
the abolition of this protection of our produce, and which raged during the years
1847, '48, '49, may be remembered. Beginning in 1847 there was a disastrous commercial
crisis in Canada. Failures followed
each other with rapidity, and difficulty was
everywhere felt. Matters had not greatly
improved in 1848. It was evident that a
fresh outlet for the agricultural produce of
Canada must be found in order to ensure to
her satisfactory relief. Discontent manifested itself, and agitation became apparent.
Arguments and negotiations were had with
the political men of England, but without
any satisfactory result being attained. It
was then thought that a solution of the
commercial difficulties of the country was
to be found in political changes. Hence
followed the annexation movement of 1849.
The obtention of a political change of this
character would at once open to Canada all
the markets of the United States, and
would, without any doubt, have ensured
the material prosperity of the country.
The annexation movement met with considerable sympathy in the Northern States
of the American union, but in the South it
excited alarm. Fear was entertained of the
influence which would have been conferred
upon the North, by the accession of territory
of such considerable extent as the two
Canadas, at first, and subsequently of all the
English Provinces. The Government of
the United States was in the hands of political men from the South. To avert the
danger which threatened their influence,
that Government shewed themselves favorable to a commercial agreement with the
866
English Government. Both were interested
in a commercial connection which left us
nothing to envy in the lot of our neighbors.
In the Canadian Parliament the question of
commercial reciprocity with the United
States was taken up. The Imperial Government approved of the steps taken by the
Canadian Government, which tended to place
their agriculturists on a footing of equality
with the Americans on their markets. On
the 16th March, 1855, the Reciprocity
treaty entered into by the United States
and England, came into force, after having
been ratified by the Canadian Parliament.
Lengthy debates took place in the American
Congress upon the question, but southern
influence carried the measure through. The
Reciprocity treaty was to continue for ten
years, from the 16th March, 1855, without
its being possible to repeal it ; but if one or
the other of the contracting parties should
think fit, after the expiration of the ten
years, they might demand the abrogation of
the treaty, by giving the other party one
year's notice. The question of the repeal of
that treaty has, therefore, for two or three
years, been agitated in the American Congress with some warmth, by those who found
their interests to suffer by it. The opponents
of the Reciprocity treaty succeeded in
Congress for two reasons : first, on account of a feeling of indignation raised
up against Canada, by a part of our press,
which displayed hostility to the Northern
States ; and second, because the rebellious
Southern States were not represented in
the American Government. On the 16th
March next, the President is to give that
notice, and on the 16th March, 1866, the
markets of the United States will be closed
to us. (Hear, hear.) We have seen that
at the time the American Government. which
was then in the hands of politicians from
the Southern States, was not favorable to the
annexation of Canada to the United States,
because those statesmen dreaded the influence which two new free states in the union
would bring to bear in relation to slavery.
The ten years of the treaty consequently
terminate on the 16th March in the present
year, and thanks to the behavior of a very
large portion of the Canadian press in relation to the Government of the United
States. since the beginning of the war which
now desolates the American Republic, the notice of the final abrogation of that treaty
within
a year is to be given to us. It will have
existed for eleven years, and its abrogation
will certainly be a great misfortune to our
country. It may be said that the treaty is
as advantageous to the United States as it is
to ourselves, and that its abrogation will do
as much harm to them as to us ; but the ill
they will undergo in consequence will not
remedy our evil, and will not prevent the
United States markets from being closed to
us, and our being subsequently compelled to
pay a considerable duty for the privilege of
carrying our produce thither, such as our
cats, our horses, our horned cattle, our sheep,
our wool. our butter, &c. The 16th March,
1865, will be a day of mourning for Canada,
but the 16th March, 1866, will be a day of
much deeper mourning, for it will mark the
commencement of a commercial crisis such
as we have never perhaps undergone. and
the disastrous results of which to the future
of the country are beyond calculation. (Hear,
hear.) In order to understand the whole
importance of this treaty to the prosperity
of the country, it is necessary to know what
passes in the country parts, as I myself am
in a position to know through my constant
relations with those parts. All the oats produced in the country from Trois Pistoles
to the
upper extremity of the province are exported
to the United States, where they find a ready
market, because they are wanted there. This
year persons went as far as Three Rivers
for them by way of the Arthabaska Railway.
This branch of trade is now very considerable ; but the very moment we have to pay
an export duty of 25 per cent. upon our
produce on entering the United States, we
shall have a commercial crisis which will
derange all business operations throughout
the land. When the Reciprocity treaty is
declared at an end, our oats will be worth no
more than 1s. or 1s. 3d., as in former times,
instead of 13. 8d. or 2s., as at present ; and
it is clear to all that the farmer can derive
no profit from growing them at that price.
Formerly, before the treaty was made, the
farmer could make something by selling his
oats at that price, because food was cheaper
and taxes less than they now are. The
latter were no more than 2½ per cent. and
5 per cent., whereas they are now 20 per
cent., and will be increased rather than
diminished, under Confederation, as certain
members of this House have alleged. (Hear,
hear.) I am thoroughly acquainted with all
that passes in the country parts ; and when
I think of the consequences of the repeal
867
of the Reciprocity treaty, I say again, I am
alarmed. What is going on at this present
moment? We all know that for several
years past there have been bad harvests;
that of last year was not good, not in Lower
Canada only, but also in Upper Canada;
and since New Year's day, half the country
people in Lower Canada have been buying
the flour necessary for their subsistence.
All they spend in the purchase of flour,
from this time till the harvest is gathered
in, is capital which ought to be applied to
the payment of their numerous debts. It
is capital withdrawn from the working and
improvement of their lands. Trade already
feels the effects of it. The imports are more
limited; a good deal of last year's stock of
goods in the cities remains unsold. The
public revenue will be considerably affected
by it, and the surplus of 1864 will in 1865
become a deficit. It is not necessary to be a
prophet to augur so much. (Hear, hear.)
I say, then, that we are on the brink of a
commercial crisis, and it is not such a scheme
as that before us that will enable us to
avoid it, when we need rather to practise
the strictest economy in our public expenditure. There is a great movement in progress
from Lower Canada to the United
States, notwithstanding the war; that is to
say, people are obliged to leave Canada for
the United States in order to earn money to
pay debts which they have been compelled
to contract for the necessaries of life. In
many country places people are shutting up
their houses and setting off to the States; if
any proof of this assertion is necessary, visit
Acton—Acton which has become a small
city since the discovery of the copper mines
now worked there. Well, Mr. SPEAKER,
half the houses in Acton are now shut up,
although as lately as last year the village
presented every appearance of the highest
prosperity. This year the inhabitants are
driven to leave home and country to support
their families. (Hear, hear.) I say that
a movement of self-banishment like that
which is now going on in the winter season,
is alarming; for when half the country people
are obliged to buy their flour as they now
are, it proves that they must continue to buy
it until next autumn, after the harvest is
gathered in; and as many of them have not
the means of waiting till then, they must
leave the country to try to supply the wants
of their families, by applying for work to our
neighbors. (Hear, hear.) This movement is in progress among the rural popula
tion as well as among the mechanics, in the
new townships as well as in the old. After
the commencement of the war, a considerable
number of Canadians, who had returned
home to escape from its evils, brought with
them a small capital; but seeing the situation
of affairs in this country, and having spent
what they had, they are going back to the
United States, preferring rather to take their
chance of the conscription for the army than
to eke out a miserable existence here. I
repeat, then, Mr. SPEAKER, that a great
many houses are shut up in the new settlements. I can specify them by the numbers
of
the range and lot in the counties which I
represent. An unseen but very extensive
influence is at work in all the country south
of the St. Lawrence, above Nicolet and
as far as the frontier. I shall explain it
to you. In all that part of the country, a
great many young men go to the United
States to look for employment. These children of the people find there a wider field
for their enterprising minds; in fact, they
are forced to leave Canada in order to earn
money. When once they are established in
the United States, they correspond with
their relatives whom they have left behind
them. In all their letters they describe the
treatment they receive, and boast of their
position, the footing they are on in their
social relations with the Americans, the good
wages which they receive, and the state of
prosperity at which they soon arrive. Not
only do they correspond, they visit Canada to
see their families from time to time. On
these occasions, Mr. SPEAKER, their communications are made with greater freedom;
they relate all that they have seen, and heard,
and all they have learned. Be sure of this,
Mr. SPEAKER, these communications, these
intimacies between Canadians established in
the States and their home friends, have
greater effect to produce favorable feelings
towards the Americans in our country than
all the newspapers in the world. It is a
portion of the heart of the country removed
into a strange land by the force of circumstances. The accounts they hear from their
friends prove to them that the Americans
are not such horrible monsters as they are
said to be in certain quarters, and that
their political institutions are far superior
to ours; that every man is on a footing of
equality with his neighbor, and that he
possesses political rights of which he cannot
be deprived. This influence of which I am
speaking is very great, and certainly it is
868
not to be counteracted, nor the feeling of
sympathy for the people and the institutions
of the United States to be repressed in the
minds of those who confess it, by such
changes as those now proposed to be made.
(Hear, hear.) I say that the people of
Lower Canada are alarmed at the scheme
of Confederation, and the unknown changes
which are on foot. I do not say that this
feeling prevails in the district of Quebec,
for in that locality everybody seems to be
fast asleep; but it exists, beyond doubt,
and very warmly, in that of Montreal,
and even as far as Three Rivers, on both
sides of the river. Nothing tends more
to alienate the people from their government, and render them disaffected to
England, than the attempts now made to
impose on them a new Constitution without
consulting them; for we must recollect that
we are no longer in the same social state as
in 1812; we no longer think in the same
manner, and people would be greatly in
error who should believe that the same feelings prevail which then prevailed. (Hear,
hear.) I will not say that the people are
disloyal; far be it from me to express such
an idea!—they are as loyal as those who
accuse them of disloyalty, but they are inclined to form free opinions on the acts
of their government and their own interests,
and there is a great difference between being
loyal to Great Britain and fighting for a
system of government and a principle imposed on us and accepted regretfully. I
maintain, then, that the people are affrighted
at the expense proposed to be made to
organize what is called the defences of the
country, and naturally ask each other whether it is right to call upon them to bear
a
share of the burthen of such defences, in
the event of a war between our neighbors
and England, a war in which they could
neither say anything to avoid it, nor in its
progress take any other part than that of
shedding their blood and paying their
money. They ask, moreover, whether it
would not be better to remain in our present
condition—whether it would not be better,
even, to be smaller than to seek greatness—
to try to compete with our neighbors in
order that we may be the sooner crushed.
They say, moreover, that a struggle between
us and the United States would be a struggle between a dwarf and a giant; for no
man in his senses will say that we could
stand out against them. It is pretended that in case of a war with them, we should
have assistance from England. That is
very well; but to any body who recollects
the Crimean war, it will be very evident,
that when England shall have sent us 30,000
soldiers, she will have given to the extreme
limits of her power, and that she must resort
to Spain, and France, and Germany and the
whole continent of Europe to find soldiers.
When we have 1,600 miles of frontier to
defend, where should we be with our 30,000
English troops? It would not be nineteen
men to a mile. (Hear, hear.) No, we are
not to imagine that a war with the United
States now would be like that of 1812, and
that a company of 60 men would put the
American army to flight, as in the palmy days
of Chateauguay! (Hear, hear.) At this
time, the army and navy of the United
States are the strongest in the world, and
the resources of the country inexhaustible.
In four years they have built 600 vessels of
war; and the number of their soldiers is told
by hundreds of thousands. Now, peace will
be made between the North and South,
although it may happen not to please our
politicians, who are friends to slavery, and
have always despised and depreciated the
Government of the United States; for the
South cannot hold out long now that it has
lost all the towns and cities through which
it could receive assistance from abroad. The
American Constitution will come out triumphant from the trial which it is now undergoing.
It will come out purified and refined,
and stronger than ever in the affections of
the people who live under it. It was not
against the form of Republican Government
that the rebellion was undertaken in the
United States, seeing that the Rebel States
adopted exactly the same system when they
declared their independence. They too have
a President, a Senate, Representatives, a
Government and a Legislature for every
state, just the same as under the American
Republic. (Hear, hear.) When peace is
made between the North and South, should
we be able to resist the combined forces of both
sections of the United States of America?
Should we be able to make a stand against
their ships of war, which would overspread
the ocean and the lakes—their guns which
throw balls of several hundred pounds'
weight a distance of eight or ten miles—
from one end of a parish to the other?
The State of New York, with it four millions
of souls, can turn out more soldiers than all
the colonies of England together; and there
are still thirty-four rich and populous states
869
besides, to help in case of war. (Hear,
hear.) No, we are not to imagine that a
war at this time would be a war of 1812,
and the people know it perfectly well. If a
Confederation like this which is now proposed is imposed upon the people without
consulting them, and even against their
will—if they are forced to bear a burthen
much heavier than they now bear —and if
the treaty of reciprocity is not continued—
if a commercial crisis should ensue, and if
war should break out between England and
the United States, you must not suppose that
the people will fight as they fought in 1812,
when you have driven them to discontent,
and rendered their position harder than it
now is. You may toll off the population
into regiments, and they will not rebel, because they are loyal and submissive, but
their hearts will not be in the cause, and
they will assuredly not fight with the same
spirit as they would shew if they were defending a constitution and a state of things
of their own choosing. They will not fight
with the same courage as the southern rebels
have shewn, for they were fighting to defend
institutions—bad ones it is true, but which
they were attached to, and which they were
desirous of preserving. (Hear, hear.) ln
the event of a war with the United States,
and being under a Confederation, the people
would be called upon to defend a state of
things which they dislike—a Constitution
imposed upon them, to which they would
not be attached—a Constitution in which
they would have no interest. The war
might result from a difficulty originating
in China! They would be compelled to
fight against a people whom they look
upon not as enemies, but as friends, with
whom they keep up daily relations; and,
I repeat it, it would not be possible for
them to fight as they did in the last war.
(Hear, hear.) But I return to the Reciprocity treaty, and I say that we shall feel
its
great value once it has been repealed. It is
like a bridge over a river between two
parishes ; so long as the bridge stands, every
one takes advantage of it without a thought
of its utility, but let the bridge be carried
away or destroyed, and every one feels what
an advantage it was, and the people realize
the loss they have suffered, when they are
once more compelled to resort to the old
system of flats and boats every time they
require to cross the river. (Hear, hear.)
And if the Reciprocity treaty be repealed,
it will be due to the conduct of several mem
bers of the Ministry, and to the papers that
support them, and which they support in return; it will be due to the conduct of Tory
politicians and journalists in Canada, who,
since the beginning of the war, have constantly done everything in their power to
irritate our neighbors and to embroil us
with them, by displaying misplaced sympathy. (Hear, hear.) For my part, Mr.
SPEAKER, I know that the people of Canada
do not ask for annexation to the United
States, for they are in the enjoyment of
peace and contentment as things now stand.
The people do not desire any change; but
if you wish to establish a new order of
things, if you desire to create a new nationality, I fancy we have the right to say
what
we consider suited to us; and if you desire
to establish a new kingdom on this continent,
we surely are entitled to examine what it
is to be, and the basis upon which it is to be
erected. I say it would be a misfortune
for us if we attempted to establish a system
founded upon a political principle contrary
to that of the United States—on the monarchical principle. If we must inaugurate
a policy, let it not be a policy calculated to
give umbrage, a policy of distrust and provocation. Let it rather be a policy of conciliation
and peace. Let it not be a policy
of armies, of useless walls and fortifications—
a policy of ruin and desolation! What
would be the use of all these fortifications,
all these walls, if they load us with an
unbearable burthen of taxation, restrict
our commerce, paralyse our industry, shut
us up within our own narrow limits, with
our vast products cut off from a profitable market? (Hear, hear.) Do you fancy
that the people would then care much
whether the flag floating over them bore a
cross or a stripe? The people are satisfied to
remain as they are; they do not wish for
anything better now; but if you desire to
change their political relations, they have
the right to examine your scheme in all its
phases. They have the right to ask themselves whether what you offer them is not a
permanent state of war for themselves and
their children. (Hear, hear.) The Constitution of the United States is certainly far
superior to that proposed to us, and far better
suited to our habits and the state of society
amongst us. This scheme of Confederation,
this scheme of an independent monarchy,
can lead but to extravagance, ruin and
anarchy! You may decry as much as you
choose the democratic system, and laud the
870
monarchical system—the people will ever
estimate them both at their proper value,
and will ever know that which will suit them
best. And when the farmers of Upper
Canada are compelled to sell their wheat,
after sending it to Montreal, ten cents a
bushel lower than they now sell it at home,
in consequence of the repeal of the Reciprocity treaty, there will be a general demand
throughout the whole of Upper Canada, as
well as of Lower Canada, for a change other
than Confederation. And as to this point,
here is what was said by a gentleman who,
but a few months ago, held a seat on the
Ministerial benches—I refer to the Hon.
Mr. BUCHANAN. He said :—
The continuation of the Reciprocity treaty with
the United States is favorable, not only to the
farmers of Canada, and to all other classes
through them, but also to the English Government; for, without the existence of that
treaty,
the Canadians are in a position to be greatly
benefited, in an industrial and commercial sense,
by the annexation of Canada to the United States,
unless other industrial or intercolonial arrangements should take place.
Annexation is far preferable, in an industrial
point of view, to our "free trade in raw products,"
which is unaccompanied by protection for home
industry.
"Those who speak the truth to the people in
times of crises like the present, are really the
most loyal men," adds Hon. Mr. BUCHANAN;
and he is right; therefore, it is that I take
it upon myself to speak thus frankly and to
tell the truth to the people. (Hear, hear.)
"But," it will be said, "annexation is
national suicide, and the people will never
consent to it! Look at Louisiana, which
has lost itself in the American union!"
The people of Lower Canada will reply, that
Louisiana contained but 30,000 whites
when it was sold to the United States for
$14,000,000, and that Lower Canada counts
more than 1,000,000 of inhabitants; that
there is, therefore, no comparison between
the position of Louisiana at that time and
that we now occupy. Besides, those 30,000
whites in Louisiana were not all French;
for thirty years previous to 1800, Louisiana
had belonged to the Spaniards. No one can
deny that. It was in 1803 that it was
ceded by France to the United States, and
yet its French population has not been
absorbed and has not disappeared. (Hear,
hear.) Since it was ceded to the United
States, Louisiana has always governed itself
as it liked, and in its own way. It is true
that the official use of the French language
has been abolished in its Legislature, but
why and by whom? It was abolished by
the people of the country themselves, to
mark their dissatisfaction at having been
sold by France. But notwithstanding that
fact, and the great influx of foreign population, the original population have remained
French, their laws are published in French,
the judges speak French, pleading is carried
on before the tribunals in French, numerous
journals are published in French; in a word,
the country has remained as thoroughly
French as it was under the domination of
France. (Hear, hear.) To those who tell
our people that annexation would annihilate
them as a people, and destroy their nationality and their religion, they will reply
that
there is no danger of their being transported
like the inhabitants of Acadia, and that
Lower Canada would be as independent as
any of the other states of the union; that
they would, therefore, manage their own
affairs, and protect their interests as they
thought proper, without fear of intervention
on the part of the General Government or
of the other states; for they would possess,
like all the other states, full and entire
sovereignty in all matters specially relating
to their own interests. They would be
obliged to submit to the Federal Government
only as regards matters of general interest,
such as postal matters, the tariff, foreign
relations, defence against enemies, &c., &c.
With regard to local matters, they would be
perfectly sovereign in their own country,
and they could make all the laws they
thought proper, provided such laws were not
hostile to the other states. Thus, as regards
the question of divorce, they might legislate
so that divorce could not be effected within
their limits. At present some of the states
have divorce laws, while others have not;
divorce is not permitted everywhere. (Hear,
hear.) In the same way as regards the
militia; the people will tell you that they
might do like Vermont, which has formed
part of the American union since its foundation, and which never adopted a militia
law until January, 1864, because the political
organization of the United States never
rendered it necessary for the American people to maintain armies in each state in
time
of peace, and each state is perfectly free as
regards the organization of its militia, provided it furnishes the number of soldiers
assigned to its population, in time of war.
(Hear, hear.) They do not ruin themselves
in time of peace to organize the militia. A
871
great obstacle to the political progress of our
country arises from the vast number of persons who arrive amongst us each year from
the British Islands ; they are here, bodily, it
is true, but their minds wander over the sea
between the two hemispheres, and they act
as though they were in England, in Scotland, or in Ireland, without considering our
position, our social and political relations ;
and they think they need only cry out
" Loyalty, loyalty !" to make the people rush
to arms ; but I repeat again, that if it be
attempted to force the people into a change
such as is new proposed, the people of the
rural districts will become hostile to those
who force it upon them, and they will not
fight in defence of such a Constitution, as
they would fight in defence of a principle
they approved of, and of a political position
with which they were satisfied. (Hear, hear )
I have but one word more to say on this
subject, and it is this : it is all very well to
say that the debt of the United States is
enormous ; that will not frighten the people,
for, notwithstanding the war between the
North and the South, if we consider the
wealth and resources of the United States,
that debt will not be by any means so formidable a matter to deal with as we have
been
told In January last, the receipts of
the United States Treasury amounted to
$31,000,000—one million a day ; and notwithstanding that fact, despite the heavy taxes
paid, and paid willingly, by the American
people, commercial prosperity is far greater
in that country than it is here, as those who
now visit the country cannot fail to notice.
On the first of December last, the close of
the fiscal year, the debt of the United States
was $1,740,690,480. With a population of
32,000,000 this debt does not, therefore,
exceed $56 per head. I have already
shewn that under Confederation, our debt
would be $40 per head in Canada. Comparing our resources with those of the
American union, we were much more deeply
indebted than they were at the period of the
last annual report of the Treasury. It is
easier for them to collect two dollars than
for us to collect one. But with their immense resources, their boundless commerce,
their ever-increasing manufactures, if the
war were to end to-morrow, the United
States would pay off their debt in a few
years, if the government continued to levy
the same amount of taxes that they now do.
A revenue of a million a day, $365,000,000
per annum, $3,650,000,000 in ten years !—
double the amount of the national debt at
the beginning of the year, notwithstanding
the terrible four years' war ! If the Government were to reduce the present imposts
by
one-half, the debt would be paid off in ten
years ; whereas in ten years from now our own
debt, which is prepertionably considerable,
will have doubled itself, or, it may be, increased in a much greater ratio, if we
are to
judge by presentappearances. (Hear, hear.)
I repeat, I do not ask for the annexation of Canada to the United States,
nor do the people desire it ; but I assert
that changes such as those proposed in
our social and political condition, are the
surest means of bringing it about, because they are of a nature to create serious
discontent, and a constant conflict between
us and our neighbors ; and the people, far
from being satisfied with that, will be but
ill-inclined to defend such a state of things.
I beg, in conclusion, to call the attention of
hon. members to the fact, that while it is
proposed to change our Constitution, the
Government refuse to give us any details or
explanations as to the proposed changes ;
and I assert that it is our duty not to vote
for these changes blindly. With reference
to what I have said, I have not said it without well weighing the bearing of my words
;
I am ready to abide the consequences that
may follow. I am in a position to speak
frankly, and I have done so ; for I am not
here to represent my own personal interests,
nor the interests of any individual. I have
spoken the language of facts, I have spoken
as the people would speak throughout all the
rural districts on the south side of the St. Lawrence, if they were frankly told how
matters
stand, and if the consequences of the violent
changes sought to be effected in our political
condition were explained to them. (Cheers.)
Mr. DENIS—MR. SPEAKER, for a few
days past we have heard very extraordinary
speeches from the honorable members of the
Opposition, occupying seats on the other side
of the House. Those honorable gentlemen
have taken the interests of the country in
hand, and undertaken to set them right by
such speeches as we have just heard from the
honorable member for Drummond. and
Athabaska (Mr. J. B. E. DORION).
MR. DENIS—I do not wish to crush any
one; but I must say conscientiously what
think of the extraordinary speech which he has
just delivered. The honorable members of
the Opposition have, since the commencement
872
of this debate, held one course—they have
constantly appealed to the prejudices of a class
who, for the protection of their interests,
uniformly depend on those who represent
them here, and who, in order to make sure of
their allegiance and perpetuate it, work secretly
and in the dark to obtain the signatures of
unsuspecting parties to petitions which they
send round the country, and use afterwards
to ensnare the confidence of members of this
House. (Hear, hear.) Fortunately, they
have hitherto had but little success in their
undertakings, and have made but small progress in their attempts to injure us. These
gentlemen make a loud outcry against the
resolutions introduced by the Government;
but if they are as bad as they say they are,
why do they not themselves prepare some
remedy for the troubles and difficulties of the
country, instead of limiting their exertions to
cries and reproaches? But no. It is always
the same thing with them. "Great cry, and
little wool." (Hear, hear.) The Opposition
have always had but one object in view, and
that was, not the good of the country, but the
attainment of power. This has been the aim
of all their actions, and when they did actually, by an accident, acquire power,
their
conduct was far worse than that of which they
accused their predecessors in office. Their
intention is to frighten the people, as they did
on the militia question, by enlisting prejudices
of all kinds against the measure now under
discussion—trying every petty subterfuge and
shabby artifice to bring back the honorable
member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. A. A.
DORION) to power. But it will not work—
their little game will have no luck. To be
sure, we cannot deny the honorable member
for Drummond and Arthabaska, for his part,
the credit of knowing how to work upon
the people, or rather how to agitate them,
while they, good souls, trust blindly to the
integrity of the men who represent them
here. It was in this spirit of truth that he
stated in his strictures on the Militia Bill
introduced by the CARTIER-MACDONALD
Government that it was a measure which
would entail a tax of $20 a head on every
habitant, and it is in the same spirit that he
now tells them Confederation will entail one
of $40 a head. One assertion is as true as
the other—neither of them is worth much.
How can the honorable member venture on
such assertions, since he knows nothing of the
details of the measure—that is, the measures
of detail which are to come after? He can
only talk on supposition, and his hypothesis
is false and unfounded. He declares, for
instance, that the intention of the Government,
in moving for Confederation, is to introduce
monarchy into America, and to create princes,
viceroys, and an aristocracy, and make the
Honorable Attorney General for Lower Canada (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) Governor of Lower
Canada. Such ideas could never enter any
head but those of men who are incapable of
self-government, and who are good for nothing
but to become demagogues. In good truth,
they mean nothing but to agitate—to make
trouble and sow discontent throughout the
land, with relation to the great question
which has for months been the subject of
discussion. For this end, they get up little
petitions, to be signed in the concessions,
saying to the women,—" If you would not
lose your husband, sign. He is sure to be
drafted for the Confederation. Sign, if you
would not have your children deprived of
their religion!" (Hear, and laughter.) It is
by such means that they gain their little advantages. I have just been informed that
these men, who have always cried out that
the clergy ought not to interfere in politics,
are doing all they can to enlist the clergy and
swell the cry against Confederation, by proclaiming that the Church is in danger.
But
the clergy know them too well, and will let
them shout. When I hear these hon. gentlemen
of the Opposition pretend that the clergy are
on their side, because two priests have written
against Confederation in the newspapers, I
cannot help laughing. They are now, forsooth, the saviours of religion and of the
clergy, loving and respecting them above all
things. They spoke another language when
they insulted religion and the clergy in their
journals; when they declared, in their
Institut
Canadien, that priests ought to be forbidden
to talk politics, and not to be allowed to vote
at elections. Let them recollect the famous
parody on excommunication, published in the
Pays, which never existed save in the narrow
and diabolical mind which rules the
Siècle.
But now all this is to be forgotten; now they
say,—"Give up your leaders—the traitors who
intend to sell the country, betray your religion, and drag your nationality through
the
mire—and come, follow us!" You smile, because you know that all these protestations
which you are making in favor of religion, of
the clergy, and our nationality, are a fine
piece of acting. The people know this, and
will not believe you; they will remain true
to their leaders and to those tried friends
who have always served them well and faith
873
fully. Those who are now in power have on
their side the people and the ecclesiastical
authorities, whom you would use as a stalking
horse in our campaign against Confederation. All your efforts, all your tricks, will
not succeed in shaking the confidence of the
people in their representatives. You talk of
public meetings, of the people's opinion, petitions, &c., but why did you not call
these
meetings when the members were at home
in their counties, when they might have
met you face to face? You waited, like
cowards, till they had come here to attend
their duties in this House, and set hireling agents to work to get up those meetings,
expecting an easy victory. We know
perfectly well , for we have proofs, that
agents well paid by a political committee
at Montreal, were sent to all the parishes
to get up meetings against Confederation, at
which they made use of the most contradictory arguments, varied as occasion required,
to suit their object, which was to induce the
people to declare against the scheme, and
sign petitions accordingly. (Hear, hear.)
These petitions bear the names of children,
and, in fact, of sucklings, as was proved the
other day by the honorable member for
Boucherville. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
And if that much is certain, we are justified
in thinking that those agents must have done
something still worse, with which we are not
acquainted, for the purpose of prejudicing
the people against the Government scheme.
Now, I say that in view of all this—in view
of all this underhand trickery and hypocrisy
of the Opposition — all French-Canadians
should unite together in support of a just,
frank and straightforward measure, such as
that now submitted to this House. Was it
not stated, long before the meeting of Parliap
ment, that the measure should receive a calm
and fair consideration ? And yet since the
beginning of the discussion we have had
nothing but appeals to prejudice made by the
adversaries o the measure, in place of discussing it on its merits, as they ought
to have
done. The honorable member for Richelieu
(Mr. PERRAULT) has distinguished himself
in the way of appealing to national and religious prejudices, and in order to attain
his
object he cited facts long past——drawn, in
fact, from ancient history. We all know the
facts he mentioned ; but why cite them as he
did in such a body as this? It is neither
politic nor right. Our duty as members of
this House is to make laws for the well-being
and prosperity of the country and of all
classes of the population, and not to excite
the hatred and prejudices of one section of
the community against another section.
(Hear, hear.) Then, again, what was the gist
of the speech just made by the honorable
member for Drummond and Arthabaska (Mr.
J. B. E. DORION)—who certainly, I must
admit, possesses oratorical ability, as well as
other gifts? It was just simply a comparison between our Goverment and that of the
United States, and of course he gave the
preference to the latter. .The honorable
member is never weary of looking to Washington with one eye. (Hear, hear.) Why
does not the honorable member tell us frankly at once that he desires the annexation
of
Canada to the United States? For, if we
are to believe his statements, the American
Government is an extraordinary government,
a model government, a government unequalled
in the world! But no; instead of giving
us the benefit of his real thoughts, he stops
short at insinuations, and comparisons of the
expenditure attending the two forms of government, in order to leave an impression
on
the minds of the people. (Hear, hear.) Another hon. member of this House, who is not
in the habit of appealing to the religious or
national prejudices of the people—the hon.
member for Bagot (Hon.Mr.LAFRAMBOISE)—
has thought proper, this evening, to join in
the outcry of the Opposition on this subject.
He cited an event which has just occurred at
Toronto, and which everybody regrets, and
used it as an argument against the scheme of
Confederation submitted to us by the Government. Why drag that fact into the discussion
of a great question, and at a solemn
moment like this? I do think that it was
hardly becoming in an honorable ex-minister
of the Crown to say to this House,—" Two
sisters of charity have been insulted in the
streets of Toronto;
ergo, sisters of charity
will not be tolerated under Confederation;
the clergy will be persecuted, and religion annihilate." But this style of argument
is resorted to somewhat too tardily. These protestations of devotedness to religion
and to
the clergy come too late to be believed by the
people of Lower Canada, or to make any impression on them. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member for Richelieu also indulgedl in insinuations against the Honorable President
of
the Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN), and stated
that he was still as great a fanatic as ever
against our religion and our clergy. Certainly, the Honorable President of the Council
was wrong in speaking as he formerly did,
874
when he was in the ranks of the Opposition ;
but how much more culpable was it not in
the
Rouges to support him at that very time ?
The members of the Opposition reproach us
to-day with supporting the Hon. President of
the Council, and blame us for things we have
not done. We blamed the Hon. President of
the Council for attacking our clergy and insulting what we respect most. We opposed
him with all our strength, but at that very
time the Opposition supported him, and approved of everything he said. The people
know that perfectly well ; they know and appreciate thoroughly the difference between
our motives and yours, in opposing the hon.
member for South Oxford, and you cannot
deceive them. The people will say to you,—
" Give us a proof of what you can do ; and if
you are better than those you attack, we will
accept your leadership." What crime are we
charged with to-day by the Opposition ? After numberless fierce struggles, and two
general elections, it had become impossible for
any party to govern the country. The people
were weary of the whole thing, and wished for
a change. It was then that a coalition took
place between the two parties who formed
the majority in either section of the province.
The Opposition should not condemn that alliance ; on the contrary, they ought to continue
to give their support to the honorable
member for South Oxford (Hon. Mr. BROWN),
since he has formed an alliance with the Hon.
Attorney General for Lower Canada, in order
to find some means of carrying on the Government, and of removing the difficulties
by
which we are surrounded. It has been stated
that the delegates to the Quebec Conference
were not empowered to prepare a scheme such
'as that now before us ; but can it be said
that the Government had not the right to do
so ? The Ministry have prepared a scheme
which they now submit to us, and the question is not as to whether they were or were
not empowered to prepare it, but whether the
scheme is a good one, whether it is deserving
of the approval of the people, and for the best
interests of the province. This it is for us to
say, and it is all we have to say ; but it is not
right to accuse hon. Ministers, who have endeavored to discharge their duty and to
relieve the country from its difficulties—it is
not right to reproach them, after they have
labored day and night at their task, and to
tell them they had no right to do what they
have done. We had a right to expect a
serious discussion of the Government scheme ;
but no, we have had nothing of the kind ; we
have had nothing but personal attacks, appeals to prejudice, and underhand attempts
out of doors against the scheme. We have
had a crop of suppositions and insinuations
against this man and that man. It is " supposed " that the Honorable Attorney General
for Lower Canada desires to become a governor ; another is accused of desiring to
be
made a judge of a Federal court, and every
hon. member of this House favorable to the
Government scheme is accused of aiming at
making money, obtaining a place or honors,
by betraying and selling the cause of the
people. This is certainly most unjust, and
every one of these suppositions is utterly unwarranted. Those who indulge in them
have
not a shadow of proof to bring forward in
support of their assertions, and the would,
therefore, be much better employed in a calm
and deliberate discussion of the measure itself. (Hear, hear.) Other hon. members,
with a view of opposing the Government
scheme and depreciating it in the opinion of
the people, have made use of the name of an
honored citizen, now living in the retirement
of private life. The honorable member for
Bagot (Hon. Mr. LAFRAMBOISE) told us
that Mr. C. S. CHERRIER, of Montreal, was
strongly opposed to the scheme of Confederation, and that his opinion should have
great
weight, because he is a " devout " man. Now,
I should like to know, Mr. SPEAKER, what
connection there can possibly exist between
religious devotion and a discussion such as
this ? I was really sorry to hear such language fall from the honorable member for
Bagot, for he is not in the habit of making
use of arguments of that kind. It is
utterly astounding to see the party who
wanted to shut up the priests in their vestries,
and deny them the right to hold any political
opinions, using Mr. CHERRIER'S devotion as a
weapon wherewith to combat Confederation.
(Hear, hear.) But what is the origin of the
great agitation promoted by the hon. member
for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION), since the
alliance of the Conservative party with the
Hon. President of the Council ? Has he
forgotten that he himself carried out implicitly the behests of that hon. gentleman
all
the time they worked together ? And if not,
how can be possibly make it a crime in others
to work with him ? Was he not aware that
his own Government—the Government of the
hon. member for Cornwall (Hon. J. S. MACDONALD)—existed only at his will, that the
875
Hon. President of the Council chastised that
Government for its most trifling backslidings ;
and that whenever he threatened, the Government quickly mended its ways? To-day you
speak of the vast expenditure of the province ;
but you formed part of a Ministry which promised wonders to the country, and what
did it
do after all? The facts are there; and
surely it ill-becomes you to speak of extravagant expenditure. Hon. gentlemen exclaim"
$40 per head!" They do not, it is true,
tell us that the high price of molasses is due
to CARTIER and J. A. MACDONALD—(laughter)—but they everywhere assert that these
gentlemen want to ruin the people, increase
the taxes, and plunge the country into an
ocean of debt. And yet honorable gentlemen
opposite have themselves been in power, and
notwithstanding all their previous denunciations of taxation and extravagant expenditure,
they were forced to admit the necessity of
customs duties, and to work out responsible
government ; they found it necessary to
retract all they had said in former speeches,
when they themselves held the reins of power.
But they did not remain in office long enough
to get rid of the old leaven completely, and
now that they are out of power once more,
we find them taking up their former cries.
We have the honorable members for Chateauguay and Hochelaga, who once had a Confederation
scheme of their own, opposing the
scheme of the Government, simply because it
did not originate with themselves, and opposing the adoption of any measure-for the
defence of the country. These honorable
gentlemen stated, through their organ
Le
Pays, that if England desires to retain
Canada, she should pay for its defences. This
is not said so openly now, but the great wealth
of the United States, the immense number of
their guns, ships of war and armies, are used
as arguments to shew the uselessness of any
attempt on our part to defend ourselves in
case of attack, and also to lead the peeple to
the conclusion that it is better for the country
not to expend anything for defence. When
the CARTIER-MACDONALD Government was
defeated on a question of loyalty towards the
Imperial Government, the whole Opposition
voted against the principle of organizing the
militia for our defence. The leaders of the
Opposition then voted unflinchingly against
a Militia law; but three or four days after,
when they had succeeded in taking the place
of those whom they had defeated, they themselves voted, without scruple or hesitation,
$600,000 for the organization of the militia.
They appointed instructors throughout the
whole country, for they had learned that as
British subjects they had duties towards the
Imperial Government. Today they are
acting as they then acted, and they desire
once more to play a double game. They do
not want Confederation, but they admit that
there is need of a remedy for our sectional
difliculties, of the existence of which there
can be no question. Yet they refuse to say
what reme y they propose for our difliculties.
They keep it all to themselves, shut up in
their own minds, as they did with the celebrated budget of the honorable member for
Chateauguay, which was to be the cure for all
our financial difliculties, but which never saw
the light. Eighteen months of incubation did
not sufiice to bring forth the bantling.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) If the Government should not succeed in inducing all the
provinces to accept the scheme, they, at all
events, will have kept their word and kept
the faith which is due to a treaty solemnly contracted between the Provinces of British
North
America. The hon. member for Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON) has told us that he
had received a telegraphic despatch, by which
he had positive information that the people of
the Lower Provinces had rejected Confeder—
ation, and that they had pronounced against
it in New Brunswick. But what does all
that amount to ? Ought we on that account
also to reject the scheme of the Government?
Are we not bound to this scheme by the word
of our Ministers ? No, we hold to this
great scheme of Confederation, and we want
no little schemes such as are proposed by the
honorable gentlemen on the other side of the
House—schemes by which they would appoint
little judges and divide Canada into little districts. The Opposition, it is true,
have
created a certain amount of distrust in this
scheme among the people, by harping on
direct taxation, and declaring that Canada
will be obliged to tax herself in order to pur
chase and defend the territory of the Lower
Provinces. They hope by these means to
gain the confidence of the people, and to
return to power; but even if they succeeded,
they would be obliged to do later what they
have already done, what they now condemn, and what the men now in power are
desirous of doing in the interest of the people;
they would be obliged to organize the defences
of the country, as the Government propose to
do, and as the Imperial Government desire.
At the present moment we have to choose one
of two alternatives—either we must annex
876
ourselves to the United States, or we must
respect the wishes of England and accept
Confederation with the Maritime Provinces.
If we do not desire either Confederation or
annexation, we must remain as we are and
continue to struggle with Upper Canada; and
in the meantime the people will remain behind
their plough, business will be at a stand-still,
and the debt will be increased by millions.
(Hear, hear.) For several days past, Mr.
SPEAKER, we have listened to pompous
speeches made by honorable members of the
Opposition, appealing incessantly to the religious and national prejudices of the
population of Lower Canada, with the view of defeating the Government scheme. These
honorable gentlemen draw pictures which are
really heartrending. They tell the Protestants that under Confederation they will
lose
all their rights in Lower Canada in respect
of the education of their children ; and, on
the other hand, they tell the Catholics that
their religion is in danger, because the Federal Government will have the right of
veto
in respect of all the measures of the Local
Government. But this right of
veto must of
necessity exist somewhere, in order that the
minority may be protected from any injustice
which the majority might attempt to do them.
We cannot hope to have the majority in the
Federal Parliament, when we French Lower
Canadians and Catholics have never had it
under the existing union. And yet we cannot
but congratulate ourselves upon the relations
which have always existed between us and
our fellow-countrymen of other origins and religions. The Benning Divorce Bill affords
a proof that we are in a minority in the present
Legislature, for the Protestants all voted in
favor of that measure, and the Catholics
against it, and the bill was passed. The
Catholics, then, are wrong when they exclaim
that we ought to unite and carry out our own
religious views and secure the triumph of
French-Canadian nationality ; doing so will
only have the effect of exciting the Protestants
and the British-Canadians to do the same
thing, and then we should fall into a state
of anarchy. One night last week, about
midnight, an honorable member of this House,
an ex-Minister, the honorable member for
Cornwall (Honorable J. S. MACDONALD)
forgot his position so far as to seek to excite
religious jealousies and hatreds ; but I am
happy to see that he has not succeeded in his
attempt, and that Catholics and Protestants
have treated his fanatical appeals with contempt, and have made no response. After
having heard this, can any one believe in the
reality of all these anticipations of danger
paraded in the newspapers, in the House, and
throughout the country ? No, it is impossible to believe in it, and not to perceive
that
it is all hypocrisy, with the view of exciting
the prejudices of the people. (Hear, hear.)
It has been also said that the use of our
language was in danger, and that the French
laws would disappear when Confederation
was accomplished. But is it not a well-known
fact that we owe the protection of our French
laws to the Hon. Attorney General for Lower
Canada (Hon. Mr. CARTIER), and is not the
Code Civil, which he has just laid before us,
a sufficient answer to all that can be asserted
on this head ? The French laws will be
maintained and respected in Lower Canada,
and this we owe to the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. CARTIER). We shall have a
statute to assimilate the law of evidence in
commercial matters in Lower Canada ; but
the French laws will not be abolished. If
there is a man in the whole country who possesses real legal judgment, and who is
perfectly acquainted with the laws and statutes
of Lower Canada, it is certainly the Hon.
Attorney General for Lower Canada, Mr.
GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER. No one will
deny this, and there is not a man who can
compete with him in this respect. Why
come here and tell us that our language is
about to disappear, and that its use is to be
abolished in the Federal Legislature ? Is it
because lies must be told in order to oppose
the scheme of the Government, and real reasons for opposition cannot be found ? A
drowning man catches at a straw, and that is
what the Opposition are doing to-day. But
they ought to be just, and to admit that we
shall have our code, which will guarantee to
us the maintenance of our laws in Lower
Canada, just as the Imperial Act will guarantee to us the use of our language. Why,
too, should personal recrimination be indulged
in, in this discussion ? " CARTIER," they
say, " does this because he wants to be Governor."
MR. DENIS—The honorable member for
Verchères, who cries "Hear, hear," is a man of
too much talent and good sense to approve of
such language, and especially to make use of
such arguments. He ought to leave that to
the honorable member for Richelieu (Mr.
PERRAULT), who openly tells us in this
House that the majority is venal and servile.
Such language as this ought not to be made
877
use of here, out of respect for ourselves and
for the French-Canadians in this House. It
is a great mistake on the part of a beardless
youth, with no more experience than the honorable member for Richelieu, particularly
when he is addressing men of the experience and capacity of the Honorable Attorney
General for Lower Canada. All
parties agree in saying that the Hon. Attorney
General East is capable, honest, and of the
highest integrity ; but all do not approve of his
policy, and that is perfectly legitimate. But
that is no reason for attacking his private
character, and putting in his mouth opinions
which he has never uttered. They say he is
honest and upright, and yet we read in the
newspapers that he is willing to sell his country, his religion and his nationality
for a
title or an appointment as Governor. This
is very unfair. (Hear, hear.) The members
of the Opposition demand an appeal to the
people upon the question of Confederation.
But if it were granted, you would see, Mr.
SPEAKER, to what lengths they would go.
These demands for an appeal to the people
are only made with the view of serving the
purposes of a
clique, who would say to those
who desired to discuss frankly the question
before the country—" Hold your tongues and
vote against the Government !" This is what
they have already attempted to do by means
of meetings which they have caused to be
held in different counties ; but I must say
that in mine they did not succeed in their
designs. They sent three agents there, under
different pretexts, who tried by every possible
means to induce the people to pronounce
against the Ministerial scheme ; but they did
not succeed ; and yet I am the humblest
member of this honorable House. But as I
happened just at that time to be attending to
the duties of my profession at the court of the
district of Beauharnois, I observed that these
agents had been sent by the Montreal committee, and I was enabled to defeat their
little
plans and their little games. They tried to
make little speeches, and hold little meetings,
but as I was on the spot they gained nothing
by it. But all this serves to indicate the
means that have been employed by the partisans of the Opposition to excite the people
against the measure of Confederation. I do
not want to be too hard upon them, because
they naturally were desirous of obtaining a
triumph for their party, and they employed
these means as they might have employed
others, although they do not care a rush for
the holy cause of nationality or religion.
(Hear, hear.) I remember very well what
used to be said and what used to be done in
the
Institut Canadien of Montreal, and I
observe with satisfaction that the present conduct of the honorable members of the
other
side of the House who belonged to that
Institut is a direct protest against what they did
in the
Institut, in which we have had
Suisses
coming and preaching religious toleration.
Then it used to be said—" We must advance
with the times," and they used to read the
Pucelle. (Hear, hear.) Now, the Government does not propose to establish the annual
parliaments, that the hon. member for Hochelaga used to cry out for, but they are
engaged
in settling the difficulties of the country. They
call upon every man of talent to aid them in this
task, or to invent a better remedy for these
difficulties, and to submit it to the country.
But if those who oppose the Government
measure are contented with mere opposition,
without proposing any better measure in its
stead, what will the people say to them if they
present themselves to their constituents, to
ask them to pronounce between them and the
Government ? They will say—" What have
you done ; what have you to offer to compare
with what the Ministers have done and offered
to us ?" They will ask them for their
measure, but they will keep it hidden away
with that famous budget of the honorable
member for Chateauguay, which has not yet
been hatched after eighteen months' incubation. (Hear, hear.) We know perfectly
well that the Government measure is not perfect, and that it has defects, as all plans
made
by men must have. For my part I admit it
most willingly ; but it must be remembered
that it is a compromise, and this the gentlemen of the Opposition take care not to
allow for or to state. In public they say that
the French-Canadians are going to be overwhelmed by the English element in the Confederation,
and that they will lose their language. But do they not know that in Upper
Canada the French language has been preserved as pure and unalloyed as in Lower
Canada, wherever there is the smallest nucleus
of French inhabitants ? The members on the
other side propose giving us lessons in the
art of preserving our language and our nationality —they, annexationists at heart
and in
their actions, who are always looking to Washington. I do not say that it is a crime
to be
an annexationist, but at least let them frankly
admit what they are. Thus the honorable
member for Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON)
is more of a Yankee than any one. He told us
878
to-day he did not like great undertakings,
but it seems to me that certain great undertakings in which he has had a hand, have
not
had the effect of emptying his purse. (Hear,
hear.) Why should the country be prevented
from advancing in the way of progress ; why
prevent the construction of means of communication, which will have the effect of
keeping our French-Canadians in the country ?
You seem to forget your words and deeds of
yesterday. When he occupied a seat on the
Treasury benches, the honorable member for
Chateauguay was constantly rising to tell us
that we were a factious Opposition, a dreadful
Opposition, because we did not allow the
Government to do just what they liked.
But he does not think his own opposition today factious, he who has risen fifty-five
times
in the course of this debate, and who cuts up
every question like fresh butter. He says today that the Government wishes to choke
off
discussion and to prevent the members of the
Opposition from speaking, and yet he has spoken fifty-five times ! The hon. member
for Lotbiniere (Mr. JOLY) told us, the other day, that
the people are in a condition of torpor, and
that they must be awakened. If they are in
a condition of torpor anywhere, they are certainly not so in Lower Canada ; but if
they
were, they would undoubtedly be awakened
by all the fine speeches delivered by honorable members on the other side of the House,
and on observing the great resistance which
they offer to divorce and their fervent energy
in maintaining family ties unbroken. Those
gentlemen loudly proclaim to us that we ought
not to vote for divorce; but it is quite unnecessary for them to tell us so—all Catholics
are perfectly well aware that it is their duty
to vote against divorce. We know that the
laws of Parliament cannot prevail over those
of the Church. And we are not voting for
divorce in voting for the scheme of Confederation ; and the declamations of hon. members
on the other side of the House, on this subject, cannot carry conviction into the
minds
of any one. Nobody asks us to enact a law
to allow civil magistrates to celebrate marriages, and all that is said by the Opposition
in relation to this question only amounts to a
tempest in a tea-pot. At any rate we may
congratulate ourselves upon the conversion of
hen. members, and now they need only tell
the truth for the future, and their past sins
will be forgiven them. However, although
they constitute themselves the protectors of
our religion and nationality, it is evident that
the people do not yet very firmly believe in
their conversion, and that they have not yet
attained the confidence of the country ; for
otherwise the plan of the Government is
sufficiently new and sufficiently little understood to allow of their having a chance
of
returning to power. (Hear.) The people,
in view of all their fine declarations, will
probably think that they are going to ally
themselves with our friends ; but if they do
not do so, it will then be perceived that they
are not sincere, and then so much the worse
for them. In the meantime the people will
consider the scheme which is submitted to us,
and will judge it upon its merits, without
allowing themselves to be led away by
appeals to prejudices and insinuations made by
honorable members on the other side of the
House. I shall, at a later period, upon
the question itself, but I will not follow the
example of the honorable member for Richelieu, who gave us along speech with the help
of
GARNEAU'S
History of Canada, which he read
out nearly from one end to the other. Nor
will I utter threats either, and no one
of us will say, "If matters do not go on in
this way, or in that, you will see." In a
country like ours, we do not say "you will
see !" To do so is to try to create useless
excitement among the people, and all honest
men should reprove such conduct. Besides,
who is the man who has influence enough
to raise the people at the present moment?
Certainly not our worthy fellow-citizen, Mr.
CHERRIER, for he is too peaceable, too devout,
and too good a Catholic to tell the Canadian people to rise and fight against the
scheme of the Government by force of arms.
No, he will rather tell them to respect
authority, and claim their rights if they
consider themselves injured, because he is
aware that it is better to respect one's father
than to fight against him. As to Hon. Mr.
PAPINEAU, that distinguished man has
undergone mortification enough in his public
life, and feels enough regret for his friends
and fellow-countrymen who perished at St.
Denis and elsewhere, to prevent his wishing
to recommence playing that game. The
honorable member for Bagot reproached the
Hon. Attorney General for Lower Canada
with having been present at St. Denis, and
with having returned from thence. Would
he have preferred to have seen him lying
amid the dead and mingling his ashes with
those of the victims who perished there ?
Mr. DENIS — You reproach him with
879
having done this when he was young, and yet
you say that you would do the same if you
were powerful enough to undertake it. That
is no argument, and that is not what we ought
to do. We ought to say to England that it
is our wish to remain under the shadow of her
noble flag ; that we stand in fear of our neighbors, and are desirous of knowing what
she
can do to help us. It is in this way that our
Ministers should approach the Imperial Government, and if the negotiations do not
terminate in a satisfactory manner, then it will
be time to separate and to seek another state
of existence. The debate has taken too
personal a turn, and we have listened to accusations and insinuations against this
person and that person ; but as the Opposition
has nothing better to suggest to us than what
is proposed to us by the present Government, they cannot hope that members on
this side of the House will support them
with the sole object of defeating the Administration. Gentlemen on the Opposition
benches call for the details, but their leaders may be called upon to say what they
suggest to bring the country forth from the
difficulties in which it is plunged. What
they desire is the
status quo. But let them
propose something practical to us ; let them
say what they want and what they can do.
Instead of this we hear from them nothing
but recriminations and perpetual fault-finding. They ask why the Government does not
now state how the local governments are to
be organised ; but the reply to this question
made by the Hon. Attorney General for
Lower Canada, was very just, when he told
them that the Government wished first to
know whether we were favorable to Confederation, and that then they would bring forward
the details. This is perfectly fair, and we
must not mix up the cards. (Hear, hear.)
I do not wish to speak at greater length
at present; but I must allude, however, to
the continual assertion of the. honorable
member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DoRION) with respect to the enormous national debt
which Confederation will entail.
Why does he not take account of the reasons
which induce the Lower Provinces to refuse
Confederation ? Is it because those reasons
are fatal to his arguments ? In fact the
Lower Provinces declare that our Ministers
wished to obtain too much for Canada, that
the burthens to be laid upon them are too
heavy, and that an alliance with us would
ruin them : whilst honorable members on
the other side of the House declare that
they will none of this alliance, because we
grant too much to the Lower Provinces.
'Those provinces say that Confederation will
not be advantageous to them, because they
will be compelled to pay for the canals, the
railways and other improvements in Canada,
and because they would derive no advantage
from an alliance with us. Besides, those
provinces are now in the hands of agents of
the United States, whose great object is to
prevent the success of Confederation, because it would be fatal to their trade with
the provinces. That is why they labored,
and labored successfully, to prevent the
election of the partisans of Confederation
in New Brunswick, just as they would do
all in their power to prevent our elections here, if an appeal to the people
should be had on the question, for they
would work in the interest of the United
States. (Opposition laughter.) I see the
honorable member for Drummond and
Athabaska laughing—
Mr. J. B. E. DORION—I am laughing at
the silly stuff you have been talking to us
for the last hour.
Mr. DENIS—If there is a man in this
House who has talked silly stuff and holds
narrow ideas, that man is undoubtedly the
honorable member for Drummond and
Athabaska—he who has never done anything
but stir up and foment the prejudices of
race—he who writes little letters to get petitions against Confederation signed in
his
county by all the women and children in it.
Although I have not, like the honorable
member, at my command a little newspaper
like the
Défricheur, which never cleared
(
defriché) anything except when the honorable member for Hochelaga was Attorney General for
Lower Canada, and
then the honorable member knew very well
how to make clearings among Government
jobs and advertisements—I am quite able
to reply to the honorable member. It is
truly laughable to hear a man like him talk
of the "silly stuff" of others, when we
think of his newspaper articles in which he
said :—" Pay ! wretched people — molasses
and tea are dear "—and what he said about
the Seigniorial bill and the Municipal bill—
two measures which have called forth the
admiration of the whole world—and about
the Reciprocity treaty, which was, by his
shewing, to do all sorts of harm to the
country, but which has done all sorts of
880
good. Ah ! it is the same school all over.
The instant a man holds a different opinion
from those gentlemen, he is good for nothing,
and all that he says is silly stuff. Truly,
these are the foolish virgins who have no
oil in their lamps.
Mr. DENIS—The honorable member
told us, a short time since, that we were
passing from extravagance to folly; with one
stroke of the pen he sweeps away all the
apices of the country, and declares that they
are merely heaps of fools and simpletons;
but I forgive him, for I believe that he is
not
compos mentis. As to those who set
themselves up here as the defenders of religion, we shall, before believing them,
wait
for an expression of opinion on the part of
those to whom is intrusted the duty of
speaking on the subject; and as to the protection of our nationality, we shall hearken
to the men to whom the peeple have delegated the duty of watching over and protecting
it, and we shall not follow the leading
of men like those who are opposed to the
plan of Confederation. (Ministerial cheers,
and ironical Opposition laughter.)
MR. POULIOT said - Mr. SPEAKER, it
was my intention, before recording my vote
on the resolutions which are now before the
House, to make some remarks respecting
them at much greater length than I shall
now do ; for now we find that this new
being, which was to be brought forth in
order to save the country, has already perished while still in embryo, from the violent
blow which it has received in New Brunswick ; and if we still turn our attention to
it, our doing so is certainly only in order to
relieve the womb of its mother, whom it
greatly inconveniences, and who would ultimately have been destroyed by it. There
is, therefore, nothing left for us to do, Mr.
SPEAKER, but to join in the
libera and to
chant
requiescat in pace—(laughter)—and
that, I think, the whole of Lower Canada
will sing with a great deal of pleasure,
giving, at the same time, thanks to that
Providence which, we love to think, watches
with special care over our beloved Canada,
for having preserved us from being plunged
into the abyss, on the verge of which we
were standing, and to charge the honorable
entlemen who sit on the other side of this
House to go to England and deliver its
funeral oration. (Hear, hear.) Yet, though
such is the case, Mr. SPEAKER, the excep
tional position in which the county which I
have the honor to represent here, and the
position which an effort has been made to
describe me as occupying in this House, by
the assertion that I do not represent the
opinions of my constituents in relation to
this great question, compel me, before voting, to hold up to view the special situation
of my county and to shew that in voting as
I propose to do, I shall be doing no more
than carrying out and executing the wishes
of the electors whom I represent. I should
wish that several of the members who are
going to vote on the opposite side may be
able to shew as good grounds in support of
their votes. (Hear, hear.) It is true that
a meeting, called by myself in my double
capacity as warden of the county and member representing it, was held in my county,
and that at that meeting there was some
disturbance which prevented an expression of opinion in relation to Confederation;
but, Mr. SPEAKER, it is well to know that
that meeting was held only two days before
the balloting for the militia, and that in consequence great agitation had been got
up
among the young men, who are not even
electors, in order to divert the attention of
the meeting from the subject, to discuss
which it had been called together ; and it is
acknowledged, Mr. SPEAKER, that it is
always easy to find a certain number of
people, in any county whatever, who will
be ever ready to create a disturbance if only
they are provided with what is needful, and
such is what took place on the occasion in
question. Since then, however, several of
the principal parishes have pronounced
upon Confederation, as will be seen by the
following resolutions, which I shall take the
liberty of reading to the House :—
At a special meeting of the municipal council
et the parish of St. Arsène, in the county of
Témiscouata, duly called by special and public
notice, and held in the said parish of St. Arsène,
in the public hall, on Monday, the thirteenth day
of the month of February, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five,
in conformity with the provisions of the Municipal Act of Lower Canada of 1860, and
at which
meeting were present : J. PRIME ROY, Esquire,
Mayor, and Messieurs FRANCOIS DUBÉ, J. BTE.
PELLETIER, HECTOR ROY, GERMAIN TERRIAULT,
JOSEPH ROY and CLOVIS BERUBÉ, members of
the said Council and constituting a quorum; the
said J. PRIME ROY, Esquire, presiding as Mayor;
and at which meeting was also present a large
number of the principal inhabitants and electors
of the said parish, Councillor FRANCOIS DUBÉ
moved, seconded by Councillor HECTOR ROY :—
881
That it be resolved that this Council being of
opinion that the scheme of Confederation of the
British North American Provinces now before
the Legislature, would be disadvantageous to
Lower Canada, considers it their duty to request
J. BTE. POULIOT, Esquire, member for the county,
to do all in his power to prevent the adoption of
the scheme in question, or at least to obtain the
postponement of that adoption until after an appeal to the people shall have been
had, in such
way as the Legislature shall think most expedient.—Unanimously adopted.
Mr. CLOVIS ROY moved, seconded by Mr. Jos.
ROY :—
That a copy of the foregoing resolution be at
once transmitted to the said J. BTE. POULIOT,
Esquire.—Unanimously adopted.
(Signed) J. PRIME ROY, Mayor.
( " ) ELIE MAILLOUX, S. T.
I have also other resolutions, identical in
character, adopted in several other parishes
in the county, but I shall abstain from reading them. (Hear, hear.) Now, Mr. SPEAKER,
in order to explain clearly to honorable
members the peculiar position in which the
county which I have the honor to represent is placed, I have to inform them that
whatever line is adopted for the Intercolonial
Railway, if it should be built—and I hope
that it will be built without Confederation—
it must, in any case, pass through the whole
of the county—an extent of more than fifty
miles—and subsequently be carried through
a great extent of virgin forest, to which the
inhabitants of my county are the most nearly
situated. The advantages reaped by the
localities, Mr. SPEAKER, in which works of
such magnitude are being carried out, both as
regards their construction and their subsequent maintenance, and the other advantages
accruing to settlements from the building
of a railway, are well known. All this has
been perfectly well understood by the inhabitants of my county ; that is to say, that
in respect of material interests, Confederation
might be beneficial to us—an opinion which
I also hold myself; but they have also, however, understood that as it is with individuals,
so it is with nations—that the richest
are not always the happiest. And believing that the French-Canadian nationality
would be endangered if Confederation
should be carried out, they did not hesitate
for an instant to pronounce against the scheme,
and charged me, as their representative,
to oppose it here in their name; so that in
acting as I am doing, Mr. SPEAKER, I am
merely carrying out their wishes. (Hear,
hear.) I must say, Mr. SPEAKER, that I
greatly regret that several of the gentlemen
with whom I have worked and with whom I
still work, should have so strongly based
their objections to Confederation on the construction of the Intercolonial Railway.
To
listen to those gentlemen, one would really
believe that Canada ends here at Quebec, or
that the part which is situated below is not
worth occupation. I invite those gentlemen
to examine with a little more attention the
map of the province as far as its lower extremity—the Bay of Chaleurs and Gaspé,
and they will perceive that it contains a
tolerably vast territory and good land adapted for colonization—a fact of which they
may also convince themselves by glancing
at the colonization reports. They will perceive, I say, that if the Intercolonial
Railway were made by the line called Major
ROBINSON'S line, but not by New Brunswick,
as recommended by the resolutions submitted to us, we should, before many years had
elapsed, see an immense population settled
on that territory, which is capable of containing more than 100,000 souls; and several
of the gentlemen who oppose the construction of that road, and who reside in
counties in which there is no room for the
surplus population, might induce that surplus population to go and settle on the territory
in question, and would have no reason to regret having done so. (Hear, hear.)
And, Mr. SPEAKER, besides the advantages
which that road would bring to the trade of
Canada in general, it would, if made to communicate with the Gulf of St. Lawrence
by
way of Ristigouche, have the immediate effect
of imparting an impulse to the working of
our fisheries, which are capable of giving employment to several thousand more persons
than are now engaged in them. The effect
of this would be to keep our young men at
home, and even to bring them back from
the United States, where many of them
now are. I, therefore, invite the gentlemen
who are opposed to the railway in question
to join with us in hurrying the construction
of it, for it will be one of the best means
of restoring equality of population between
the two provinces, and of stifling the cry
which is so deafening to us Lower Canadians
—the cry for representation by population. I
willingly admit, Mr. SPEAKER, that public
opinion below Quebec appeared at first to be
favorable to Confederation, or at least that
there was a disposition to submit to it, be
882
cause the public had been made to believe
that government was no longer possible, and
that Confederation was the only means of
settling our difficulties ; but I believe that
that opinion has greatly changed since the
Ministerial explanations have been made
public; for every one expected, and it was
everywhere asserted, that amendments would
be made, and that we should be informed as
to the nature of the local governments,
and as to the debt of Lower Canada. (Hear,
hear.) With these few remarks, Mr.
SPEAKER, I shall conclude by saying that I
shall vote against the resolutions in order to
carry out and to comply with the wishes of
my constituents. (Cheers)
Mr. J. J. ROSS—I propose, Mr. SPEAKER, that the speech of the honorable member should be printed
in pamphlet form,
apart from the official debates, and that several thousand copies should be struck
off to
be distributed freely throughout the country.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
MR. BIGGAR—As the resolutions on the
Confederation of the Provinces are looked
to with a very great deal of interest by the
country, I think it necessary to make a few
remarks in explanation of the vote which I
intend to give. But before doing so, I think
it necessary for me to state, as briefly as
possible, the position that I hold toward the
present Government, as also the two governments that have preceded them. In my
canvass in 1861, I most distinctly and
unhesitatingly stated to my constituents that
I had no confidence in the CARTIER-MACDONALD Government, who were then in
power, as I considered that they had
managed the finances of the country very
badly, and had, by their extravagance,
brought us to the eve of bankruptcy; and
that if I were elected to the House as their
representative, I should feel it my duty to
vote want of confidence in that Government,
if such a vote was preposed. In 1862 the
Militia Bill was introduced by that Administration. Believing that some legislation
was
necessary in that direction, and admitting
the principle of the bill, I voted with the
Government on it. Some of my political
friends, with whom I was then acting, found
fault with me for the course I then took and
the vote I then gave; but I am happy to say
that they have since been induced to take the
same view of the matter that I did at that
time, and they would now be willing to go a
little farther in the same direction than I
would perhaps feel it prudent to go with our
great public debt. It is gratifying to me,
however, to find that the course I tool: on
that occasion has been approved of now by
them. That Government was defeated on
that vote; and when the new Government
was formed, known as the MACDONALD-
SICOTTE Administration, I was not satisfied
with their policy. I had promised my constituents that I would support representation
by population, and vote against separate
schools; and as that Government proposed
to make representation by population a close
question, and to bring in a Separate School
Bill, I felt that I should have to vote against
them when representation by population
would be moved as an amendment to the
Address. I accordingly voted for the amendment; and when Mr. SCOTT'S Separate
School Bill was introduced, I felt it my duty
to vote against it, in accordance with the
pledges I had made to my constituents. That
Government was defeated, and a new Government was formed, in which I advised you,
Mr. SPEAKER, and my friend the late Hon.
Postmaster General, to take office. I stated
to you, Mr. SPEAKER, and to the Hon. Mr.
MOWAT, that I would not advise you, as my
friends, to take office, unless I would feel it
to be my duty to support you ; and that if
the question of representation by population
was again moved as an amendment to the
Speech from the Throne, I would vote against
the amendment, and that I would go before
my constituents, as a general election was
approaching, and state what I had done,
and if they did not sustain me is what I
had done, I was quite willing to remain
at home. I believe that Government did
right in resigning when they found they
could not carry on the business of the
country in a satisfactory manner; and when
the TACHÉ-MACDONALD Administration was
formed, I decided to give them a test-vote,
but I was willing that they should proceed
without any opposition from me, if they could
control a majority of the House; but when the
reconstruction took place, I felt that I could
not be a party to a government of that kind
—that the demoralizing influence of a coalition such as that Government contained
would counteract all the good they could
ever do, and that the alliance was an unhappy one. (Hear, hear.) I was not willing,
after having voted a want of confidence
in them on the 14th of June last, for having
misapproriated one hundred thousand dollars of the funds of the province, to come
down to the House eight days after and say
883
that I would support them, now that they
had promised to give the Hon. GEORGE
BROWN, on behalf of himself and two other
members of the Liberal party, the selection
of three seats in the Cabinet, when they
had done no act to merit my confidence, but
simply state that they would grant constitutional changes, which they might or might
never do. I was not prepared, however,
to give them any factious opposition, but
was willing to support any good measures
that they might bring forward. That Government met delegates from the Maritime
Provinces, at a Conference in this city, and
agreed upon the resolutions that are now
submitted to this House. In them I find
principles which do not harmonize with my
pledges to the people, and without an appeal
to the people I cannot support the measure
now before the House. (Hear, hear.) I
will not here say anything of the merits of
the resolutions, but simply state that they
embrace principles which I cannot support on
account of the promises that I have made to
my constituents. The people of my county
have been led by the
Globe to believe that
the Intercolonial Railway would be a very
dangerous affair for the country, and that it
would not be useful either as a military or
commercial undertaking. Looking at it
from a military point of view, it is well
known that part of the proposed line would
run within twenty-six miles of the American
frontier, and that communication could be
cut off at any moment by an American army;
and that as a commercial undertaking it
could never compete with the water route
during the season of navigation; and in
the winter it would be comparatively useless
on account of the depth of snow. They
have been told that it would never pay for
the grease that would go on the axles.
(Hear, hear.) When I went before them and
stated that I would support the MACDONALD-
DORION Government, they said that Government should be looked upon with suspicion,
as they had granted ten thousand dollars for
the survey of the Intercolonial Railway; but
I told them that the best guarantee that they
could have that that work would not be proceeded with, was that the Hon. Mr. DORION
was in the Cabinet, and that he had previously resigned his seat as Provincial Secretary
in the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration, rather than agree to the construction
of that railway. Another question that I found
a little embarrassing was that of separate
schools. The present Hon. Solicitor General
for Canada West came into my riding and
very ingeniously told the people that I was responsible for the Separate School Bill
having
been forced upon them, inasmuch as I had
supported the general policy of the Government that had carried the bill, although
I
had voted with the hon. gentleman against
the bill in all its stages from the beginning
to the end. They were satisfied, however,
when I told them that I was prepared to
vote to rescind the amendments to the Separate School Bill as introduced by Mr. SCOTT.
Now, as these resolutions propose to perpetuate separate schools in Upper Canada for
all time to come, I feel that they would conflict with the pledges that I have made
to
the people, and that I cannot support them.
(Hear, hear.) I was a little surprised to
find the Honorable President of the Council
get up and say that he did not fear any of
the evil results that might proceed from the
present Separate School Bill. Was that the
language of the hon. gentleman in 1862?
Was that the way the subject had been treated
in the columns of the
Globe when the bill
was being discussed in 1862 and 1863 ?
Every member of this House will remember
how the thirteeen members, even spoken of
in the
Globe in 1862, for having had the
"courage to vote against the second reading
of Mr. SCOTT's Separate School Bill—when
95 members of the House were willing to
vote for the second reading—and in 1863
when the bill was being passed into law by
the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government—
how the members were warned to be true to
their pledges, no matter what might become
of the Government. Even Dr. RYERSON,
the Superintendent of Education for Upper
Canada, who had devoted twenty years of the
best of his life in perfecting a system of
education, was denounced in the columns
of the
Globe as a deserter of the best interests of education in Upper Canada, for
having consented to the amendments as proposed in Mr. SCOTT's Separate School Bill.
I
cannot help referring to another remark made
by the Hon. President of the Council. He
said—" Let any one vote against these resolutions and dare to go before the people."
Is he not prepared to allow others the same
freedom of thought which he enjoys himself?
(Hear, hear.) I can only say that I for
one will not be coerced into anything of that
kind. (Hear, hear.) I am not responsible
to the Hon. President of the Council for my
votes. I am responsible to the people that
sent me here, and to a higher power, and I
884
am not going to be coerced into giving
a vote which I cannot approve. (Hear,
hear.) I cannot say whether I will ever be
called upon again to represent the county
that I now have the honor to represent;
whether I do or do not, it is a matter of no
consequence to me; but I do say that I will
not, under any circumstances, be coerced by
the honorable gentleman. He should not
forget, however, that his influence in Northumberland is not what he might have
anticipated, and that when he thought proper
to come down from Toronto, in April last, to
oppose the Hon. Solicitor General, when he
was contesting the West Riding with a very
respectable farmer, that notwithstanding the
very powerful speeches of the Hon. President of the Council, the Hon. Solicitor
General was returned for that riding by a
very large majority. I suppose that, had
the Hon. President of the Council anticipated that he was, within two months, to
have had a seat in the same Cabinet with
the Hon. Solicitor General, he would have
acted differently. I myself had a very strong
invitation to go up to the West Riding to
oppose the Hon. Solicitor General, but I
was willing to act upon the principle of
returning good for evil. I was quite willing
to allow the electors of West Northumberland to choose for themselves whom they
would elect for their representative in Parliament ; and in regard to the Hon. Solicitor
General, I must say that, as far as I can
learn, he has discharged the duties of his
office with satisfaction to the Government
and the people that he represents, and with
credit to himself. It is not my intention to
give the Government any factions opposition. I will cheerfully support any good
measures for the benefit of the country which
they may bring forward for our adoption;
but I wish the Government to understand,
as I do not wish to occupy any doubtful
position in this House, I am no supporter
of theirs, and if a vote of want of confidence
is at any time proposed, I am prepared to
vote against them. (Hear, hear.)
MR. JACKSON—I think it right to say
a few words on this question before the vote
is taken; but at this late hour, I will not
detain the House very long. The subject
has been discussed from various points of
view. In the early part of the debate, one
gentleman, the hon. member for Hochelaga
(Hon. Mr. DOBION), objected to the scheme
mainly on the ground that it approximated
too closely to a legislative union, and that it
would interfere with the privileges which
the parties to the union exercise in their
respective localities; and if I remember
rightly, he said that the plan of the Government would have the effect of interfering
with the language and religion of Lower
Canadians. It occurred to me at the time
he was making his speech, that he was taking
untenable ground, and I felt grateful then,
and I do so now, that that hon. gentleman
is not in a position to exercise more power,
at this crisis, than an ordinary member of
the Legislature. I admire the ability of
that honorable gentleman, and I consider it
unfortunate that at this important juncture
he did not rise above narrow and limited
sectional views, and take more statesmanlike
ground. (Hear, hear.) Then the hon.
member for North Ontario (Mr. M. C.
CAMERON) objected to Confederation from
a different point of view, but he arrived at
his conclusions from arguments of an entirely
different character. Strange to say, he did
not regard this with satisfaction, while a
legislative union would meet with his approval. He professed to believe that the Maritime
Provinces would combine with Lower
Canada, and form a union detrimental to the
interests of Upper Canada, placing the
people there in a worse position than that
which they at present occupy with an
equality of representation. As he made
that remark, I asked him what difference it
could make then, whether we had a Federal
or 3 Legislative union, which he professes to
admire, as it would have charge of all the
important general interests. His answer
convinced me that there was nothing to
support his argument. It seemed to me
that he took too much for granted in assuming that there would be a union between
Lower Canada and the Maritime Provinces as
against Upper Canada. It is hardly to be conceived that gentlemen called together
for the
performance of certain high purposes would
attempt to do an injury to one part of the
country over another. (Hear, hear.) If
such a sectional alliance was possible, it
would be much more likely that the union
would be formed with Upper Canada, inasmuch as that part of the proposed Confederacy
has a much larger aggregate business than any or either of the other separate
sections. But I will not dwell upon this, as it
appears to me to carry with it its own refutation. This principal reason for opposing
this
scheme is, I think, founded on the fact that
the hon. gentlemen now united together in
885
the Government do not possess his confidence. He referred to their antecedents,
and spoke of their being opposed to each
other before, and said that it was impossible
for them to unite now for any good object.
I think, sir, it will scarcely be denied that
in looking back upon the antecedents of our
public men, there is hardly one of any note
who has not, during some portion of his life,
found himself in such a position as to render
it necessary for him to abandon views which
he had previously maintained, and that no
government has been successful which has
not been founded upon mutual concessions.
It is necessary that public men on both
sides should unite in great emergencies in
order to promote the general welfare. We
know very well that those who are open to
conviction very frequently change their
course, and it is no disgrace to any one
that under the influence of increased
knowledge he has shaped his conduct in
accordance with the degree of light which
has surrounded him. The honorable gentleman knows very well that we must
judge the actions of individuals not merely
by their motives—for these we cannot often
penetrate—but by the character and results
of their actions. And so we must look upon
the scheme now before us as it really is.
We must examine it for ourselves, and unless we see clear evidence to the contrary,
we ought to give its promoters credit for
honesty and sincerity. I have no sympathy
with those who willingly attribute the actions of public men to the influence of
unworthy motives, when they may fairly
claim to originate in the higher qualities of
the mind and heart. It is the duty, I think,
of all right-minded men to give this Government the credit of acting from high-minded
motives. But supposing, for the sake of
argument, that these honorable gentlemen
had united for dividing among themselves
offices of profit and emolument. It is fortunate that the germs of evil seldom attain
to
their complete development. Professions of
patriotism do not always betoken the absence
of selfishness. He has read history to little
purpose who has not discovered that political
dishonesty has frequently been not only
harmless, but has been practically the minister of public good. The hon. member for
North Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON) stated
the other day, that under Confederation
Upper Canada would contribute an unequally large proportion of the amount
necessary to sustain the machinery of the
Confederacy. He had a large array of
figures before him; but as I took no notes
of these figures, I am not prepared to dispute their correctness. But he forget this,
which is a matter of great importance to
be considered, that under Confederation
there will be a uniformity in the tariffs of
the several provinces, and if the tariff of
Canada is reduced so as to bring it into
conformity with those of the Maritime
Provinces, the disproportion will disappear.
An hon. gentleman who afterwards addressed
the House, and who, I regret, is absent from
the House by reason of indisposition—the
hon. member for Brome (Mr. DUNKIN)—I
understood to say that nations and constitutions and governments owed their origin
to
that creative power to which all are indebted
for existence and the means of perpetuating
it. The idea is well expressed in the words
of a celebrated writer :—" There is a Divinity
that shapes our ends, rough hew them as we
may." He (Mr. DUNKIN) then went on to
question the honesty of the purpose of those
gentlemen, Hon. Messrs. ROSS, GALT and
CARTIER, who signed the despatch of 1858,
which resulted in the Conference of last September. He described all the intermediate
stages as "accidents," and then found
fault with every item of the conferential
arrangement. The hon. gentleman, on his
own principles, should not criticise too severely the action of the Government. They
might be only instruments in the hands of
the Supreme Architect. The reasonable
method would be to examine the arrangements or agreements of the Conference, and
if the scheme is found to be based upon just
and equitable principles, it must recommend
itself to favorable consideration, and the inevitable conclusion is that it ought
to be
adopted. I confess I admire the arrangement, which has no doubt been arrived at
after much care and deliberation. The commercial and financial parts of the scheme
seem to me to be as just as, under the circumstances, they possibly could be. It is
a very
ordinary accomplishment to be able to find
fault. It is much easier to destroy than to build
up. We know that those so disposed might take
up the best schemes ever devised by human
ingenuity, and draw improper conclusions
therefrom. In fact there is no form of
government in the world but what, if badly
administered, would be productive of evil.
On the other hand, a scheme somewhat
defective in itself, if placed in the hands of
good and patriotic men, might be made to
886
conduce to the advantage of the country—
" That which is best administered is best."
Mr. SPEAKER, no scheme can be entirely
perfect. Indeed, it is scarcely desirable it
should be so. There should be room for the
exercise of political virtue, and scope for
the exercise of that executive responsibility
which attaches to our system of government.
There is a great deal of discretion left to
our public men, and they are expected to
use their powers for the general weal and
welfare. I am disposed to place confidence
in the Government, and believe that they
will, so far as their ability goes, work out
this scheme to a desirable result, and in
this I hope and trust they will succeed.
The hon. member for Lennox and Addington
(Mr. CARTWRIGHT), in his speech to-day,
which, like all his other speeches, was of
the most admirable kind, made some
profound observations. He had thought
deeply upon the subject of which he
was treating. He remarked that the
Government were merely giving eflect
to a foregone conclusion. He, no doubt,
recognized that the public sentiment and
public opinion had attained a certain state—
had arrived at such a point, that the Government were compelled to go with the stream,
and endeavor to consummate that which the
peeple had already brought into such a condition of forwardness. And I thought, sir,
that this was the proper and philosophical
view to take of the matter. It is true, to
my mind at all events—and I think that those
who have made themselves acquainted with
political history, and the political history of
England in particular, must come to the
conclusion that those governments act most
wisely who take advantage of existing circumstances, and adapt legislation to the
real
wants and exigencies of the country The
question is not at all times what is best in
the abstract, but what is most useful and
advantageous to the people. My idea of a
statesman is that he should be influenced to
a large extent by motives of expediency.
Abstract propositions can seldom be reduced
to practice. lt is foolish for gentlemen
placed in the position of the Government to
go against the popular stream, and they best
manifest their prudence, their ability, and
their adaptation to the discharge of their important duties, who make use of passing
events for directing the vessel of state into
a secure harbour. The honorable member
for Missisquoi (Mr. O'HALLORAN) said the .
other night that there was too much legislation—that the country was governed to
death, and I admit that to a certain extent
there is some propriety in his remarks ; but
they did not apply to the present subject.
I presume we are not here for the purpose
of discussing the past acts of the Government, but for the purpose of considering
the
scheme now before us, and it will be an
evidence of our good sense and wisdom—it
will show, too, our seriousness—if we give it
our calm and impartial consideration without
reference to extraneous matters. (Hear,
hear ) I think, sir, we are now passing out
of the season of political childhood, and that
we are being called upon, in the course of
events. to enter upon the duties sand responsibilities incidental to the period of
youth.
We are required to practise and inure ourselves to the discharge of important duties,
which require discretion and self-reliance.
And as it is in nature, so it is in communities—there are various stages of pregress
through which we must pass before we can
arrive at the position of manhood. There
are only two kinds of animals that attain to
eminence—things that fly and things that
creep. Things which fly are never secure
—they are frequently brought down ; whilst
things which creep proceed firmly and cautiously, if slowly, and by degrees arrive
at
the topmost point. And so people who pass
at a bound from a state of political childhood
to a. state of political manhood, violate the
order and arrangement observed in nature. We have seen instances where
people have disregarded the various stages
of political existence; but in so doing
they have deprived themselves of the advantages of that experience which is necessary
to a vigorous manhood, and which
previous training alone can secure. I trust
we shall not make this mistake, but that we
shall observe the order and gradations of
nature, and pass through the various political
stages of being, from childhood upwards, in
such a way that we may learn to discharge
the duties of our position in a spirit of self-
reliance; that we shall have been taught
how to make the best of our circumstances,
and prove that the training we have
received during our pupilage has been such
as to fit us for a vigorous and prosperous
future. (fleur.) I think that this view of
the subject is one of some importance—so
much so, that it has been said the logical
conclusion of it would be our independence.
887
Well, I do not think there is anything disloyal, that there is anything improper,
in
supposing that the time may come when
this British North American territory shall
be the abode of a great and independent
people. I do not wish to live to see it. But
I know very well that when the time comes,
there will be no interference on the part
of Great Britain with that which seems to be
a condition of the inevitable order of things;
that the country with which we are now connected and allied—and it is not only a political
alliance, but a social alliance, an attachment
of affection and esteem—would not at all feel
jealous if in the course of events the people
inhabiting British North America should
be prosperous enough and numerous enough
to aspire to independence. (Hear, hear.) Mr.
SPEAKER, the circumstances which have
brought about the contemplated measure—
and I trust it will be a successful one—are
such as have forced themselves on the consideration of the Government. I have already
alluded to one of these circumstances, and
that is the fact that we are passing from the
stage of childhood to a higher and more
responsible position—that the Government
of this country has for some time been in a
state of transition, and that this is the only
relief which the circumstances present to us,
the only way in which an amelioration can
be found. During a number of years, and
especially since 1 have taken an active part
in politics—in the course of my various election contests—I have invariably stated,
that
while I looked upon representation by
population as a remedy for the political
inequalities which existed as between the
two sections of the province, a Federal union
of the British North American Provinces
seemed to me to be the only proper and
legitimate conclusion to be ultimately arrived
at. Therefore, in advocating this scheme and
in giving my vote for it, as I shall do when the
matter is brought to that stage which will
enable a vote to be taken, I am only doing
that which I have for a number of years
looked forward to, and which I believe the exigencies of the country necessitate.
(Hear.)
There are other circumstances besides that
to which I have alluded, which render me
favorable to the adoption of the resolutions
now before the House. The war in the
United States, and the, at one time, apparently imminent disintegration of that
republic, strongly directed our attention to
the necessity and desirability of uniting
with our neighbors for defensive purposes.
I do not say that the desire for a union of
the provinces grew out of the war in the
United States, nor am I going to give any
opinion in reference to that war. We all
regret its existence, and will all be grateful
when it is brought to a close, and the blessings of peace shall again visit our continent.
I hope that the commercial relations as
between us and the United States will be
continued; that we shall have the freest
intercourse with that people, and that the
passport system being removed, the time is
not far distant when our relations with them
shall be as friendly and as cordial as they
have heretofore been. (Hear, hear.) The
threatened repeal of the Reciprocity treaty
is another thing that has led to the strong
feeling that has been aroused in favor of
this scheme. We hope by this union to
obtain a large number of customers for our
products, intercourse with whom will not be
subject to those interruptions that characterise trade with foreign nations. We shall
have a large territory under our own
government, trade with which and through
which will secure to us mutual advantages.
Having made these remarks, I would pass
on to observe that the expressed desire on
the part of the leading men, both of the
Government and of the Opposition, in all
the provinces, for a close connection, is
another strong reason why we should at
once take the necessary steps for enabling
the union to be carried out. It is a most
remarkable and most favorable circumstance
that the best men, the ablest men, the wisest
men and the most patriotic men in all the
provinces—men whose integrity and abilities
have raised them to the highest places in
the regards of the people, and whose wisdom
in the management of public affairs has
sustained them for a long period in those
high and honorable positions—met together
and agreed upon a scheme of union without
any dissension. This agreement in forming
a basis of a Constitution, and a foundation
to what may become a great nation, I look
upon as a most favorable omen indeed. I
look upon this union of sentiment as another
strong reason for our taking the necessary
steps to carry out the union so happily inaugurated, as also a strong evidence of
the propriety and wisdom which characterised the
course of the hon. gentlemen who composed
the respective delegations. The gentlemen
representing the Lower Provinces gave
888
evidence of ability of a very high order,
and I am sure the country will regret that
any of the gentlemen who so well adorned
the Conference, and who occupied such
honorable positions in the government of
their provinces, should have lost those positions through attachment to the scheme,
for I had learned to look up to those men
with a great deal of interest and hope for
the future. (Hear, hear.) They are men
of such a superior order, that they would
grace any legislature in which they might
be called upon to take part, and I trust they
may be soon again placed in the positions of
power and trust from which they have been
.so unhappily ejected. (Hear, hear.) There
are other reasons to which I might refer,
that are pressing the subject upon our
attention. I will first, however, briefly
refer to one important point connected with
the subject, about which a good deal has
been said by those who have spoken against
the resolutions, and it is a matter that will
be made the utmost of among the electors
of Upper Canada. I mean the question of
referring the scheme tea vote of the people,
at a general election or some other way, to
ascertain what their views are upon it before
taking final action in this House. Previous
to the opening of the present session, I took
occasion to visit several townships in the
county I have the honor to represent. I
laid the whole matter as fully before them as
I could well do, and I did not meet with a
single individual who did not recognize it as
the duty of the present House of Parliament to carry the measure into effect as
speedin as possible, so far as it was in the
power of our Legislature and Government
to do. At various meetings resolutions
were voluntarily proposed by individuals in
the audience, instructing me to support the
measure, and further stating that they
would consider it a calamity if a general
election were resorted to for the mere purpose of obtaining the consent of the people
on the subject, nine-tenths of whose
press endorse it. So satisfied were my constituents of the fairness of the scheme
on
the whole, and of the importance of
having it go into operation with the least
delay possible, that I feel that I shall be
sustained in the vote I am about to give,
by the sentiment of those Wth I represent in this House. For these reasons, then,
I am prepared to vote for the proposed
union of all the British American Provinces,
as provided for in the resolutions now before
the House. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER,
I trust the House will not regard me as
desirous of assuming the oflice of a censor, if
I express my belief that many of the speeches
that have been made upon this question
have contained a vast quantity of matter
quite irrelevant to the question under discussion. There may be parts of the arrangement
proposed that are unsatisfactory to
many hon. gentlemen, but it is utterly impossible to devise a scheme that will be
acceptable to everybody, or that will not be
Open to the criticism of seeming to bear
harder on one section of the country than on
another. But it should not be judged in
that manner, but by its general fairness and
by its being calculated to promote the welfare of the entire country embraced and
to
be embraced in the Confederacy. It would
be absurd to suppose that a scheme could be
devised for the purpose that would please
and satisfy every section. The scheme
under consideration should not be treated
and criticised in this narrow, contracted
view. Some portions of the country may
have to make concessions and sacrifices for
the public good, but these should be cheerfully borne, if not of too aggravating a
nature. If Upper Canada is blessed with
more wealth than any of the other provinces,
it ought not to be forgotten that its accountability and its responsibility are greater—
that they are in proportion to its riches—and
while the people of that important section of
the Confederacy may be called upon to concede some things that they have valued very
highly for the general welfare, yet it is not
for a moment to be supposed—and no one
who dispassionately examines the whole subject can come to that conclusion—that Upper
Canada will not receive very important
advantages , in return, in other respects.
There must be conciliation and compromise
between the several conflicting interests
found in so large and so varied a territory,
and we never can have a union without
meeting and accommodating ourselves to
this difficulty. (Hear, hear.) The question
of our defences is another important consideration in connection with the subject;
had
am not going to discuss that, because I am
not a military man. I cannot, however, see
how any hon. gentleman can deliberately
stand up and express as his candid conviction, that the proposed union will not in
any
manner increase our defensive power. To
me, such statements seem most extraordinary.
But this portion of the question has already
889
been quite fully discussed ; and not being, as
I before remarked, a military man, I do not
think anything I could say upon it would
add much to the enlightenment of the House
at this late stage of the debate. I will,
therefore, Mr. SPEAKER, simply say that I
look forward to the union with great hope
for the future of our land. In the first place,
the union will vastly enlarge our ideas of the
greatness and ultimate destiny of these provinces, and give scope for higher aspirations.
It will make the young men of this country
feel that they have a better inheritance than
they now feel to be theirs, and an opportunity
of rising to higher points of distinction in this
the land of their birth or adoption. The same
opportunities will also be open to the young
men of the Lower Provinces, and in this connection I have no hesitation in saying,
from
what I know of them, that the inhabitants
of the Lower Provinces, for enterprise, industry and general intelligence, will compare
favorably with any other portion of the territory that will be embraced in the union.
It will be an advantage to us to have their
cooperation in working out the future of
this country, and our connection with them
will give birth and life to those ideas that
lie at the foundation of a nation's prosperity
and happiness. (Hear, hear.) And now,
Mr. SPEAKER, having thus rapidly glanced
at some of those important particulars that
to my mind render the proposal under consideration a wise and desirable one for our
adoption, I shall conclude, because I do not
desire to protract the debate, by stating,
that for the reasons I have briefly adduced,
and from the process of reasoning I have
been led to adopt, it is my intention to support the motion for the adoption of the
resolutions respecting Confederation, proposed by my friend the Hon. Attorney
General West. (Cheers.)
MR. McCONKEY said —Mr. SPEAKER,
at this late hour of the night I rise to
address you with very great reluctance, but
I feel that I would not be doing justice to
myself and the people who sent me here,
did I allow the vote on this momentous
question to be taken without expressing my
opinion upon it, however briefly. In doing
so, Mr. SPEAKER, I shall not invoke the aid
of history, or exhume old newspaper files to
give the opinions of other men, but shall
simply confine myself to stating a few of the
ideas which have suggested themselves to
my own mind in considering the subject.
The task is the more difficult at this stage
of the debate, as the arguments for and
against the measure have been already so
ably and lengthily elaborated by members
of this honorable House. Mr. SPEAKER,
we have had eventful times in Canada.
The union of the Canadas was an important event in this country; and, sir, although
latterly it has not worked satisfactorily,
I am not one of those who are prepared to
say that under that union we did not prosper.
From a very small population, we have
grown, under the union, to be a very considerable people, comprising a population
of two
millions and a-half. We have also grown
in wealth, intelligence, and everything else
that tends to national greatness. But difficulties between the provinces have sprung
up ; Upper Canada rapidly increased in population and wealth over Lower Canada,
and has for the last ten or twelve years
demanded an increased representation on the
floor of this House. She argued, and very
properly, that her position was a degraded
one—that with a population in excess of
that of Lower Canada by 400,000 people,
and contributing about three-fourths of the
revenue of this country, she was entitled to
such a constitutional arrangement as would
place her on a perfect equality with the
sister province, and that she would not be
satisfied until that was conceded, as the
demand was a just and honorable one. Sir,
just although this was, Lower Canada, with,
I have no doubt, just as much honesty and
quite as much determination, resisted their
demand. Hence the terrific struggles which
ensued between the sections for the last few
years. Within the past three years we have
had no fewer than three Ministerial crises.
Neither the one party nor the other could
govern, so evenly were parties balanced in
this House and the country. The machinery
of government was almost entirely stopped,
and a chronic crisis had set in. Sir, it was
apparent to every discerning mind that some
solution of existing difficulties must be
sought. The present state of things could
not continue. Mr. SPEAKER, I well recollect
the announcement of the Honorable Attorney General West. After the defeat
of his Government, in June last, that
honorable gentleman manfully acknowledged the political difficulty in which this
country was placed. He informed the House
that His Excellency the Governor General
had granted the Government
carte blanche,
890
involving a dissolution of Parliament, if they
chose, but that they, nevertheless, hesitated
to exercise the power; that while individual
changes might be made in the constituencies,
the two great parties would come back nearly
the same; and added, that he had had an interview with the hon. member for South Oxford
(Hon. Mr. BROWN) of a most satisfactory
nature, from which he thought he saw a
solution of our difficulties, and asked an
adjournment of the House. Subsequently,
interviews were bad between the members of
the Government and the member for South
Oxford, which resulted in the present Coalition Government. Sir, after a full consideration
of the subject in all its bearings,
I decided to give the new Government my
support, trusting they would be able, as I
believed they desired, to put the affairs of
this country on a more satisfactory and
enduring basis. But, while I support this
Government, I must not be understood as
approving of coalitions generally. I hold
that to a country enjoying representative
institutions and responsible government, it
is indeed a matter of very little consequence
which of the political parties are in power,
so long as there is a strong party to scrutinise their acts, and exercise a general
surveillance over them. When, however, the
two great parties coalesce, and there is no
strong party in the country to watch them,
there is more or less danger of abuses and
corruption creeping in. I do not, however,
desire that the gentlemen on the Treasury
benches should understand that I apply this
remark to them. They, sir, I believe, are
not only pure, but, like CÆSAR'S wife, above
suspicion. And, if even a necessity existed
in any country to justify a coalition, it was
in Canada; and I rejoice to know that
we had statesmen among us who could rise
above the petty political and personal
squabbles, in which they had been unfortunately too long engaged, to grapple with
a great national difficulty. (Cheers.) I
think, too, it was most fortunate—providential, I might say—that this country had
a
strong, vigorous Government during the
past season, when complications between us
and the United States were gathering. To
the strength of the Government we owe the
prompt manner in which raiders and others,
desirous of creating a difficulty between
England and America, were put down.
(Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, I have read
the resolutions of the Conference, now in
your hands, carefully; and while, in my
opinion, many of the details are objectionable, from an Upper Canadian point of view,
I
have, nevertheless, no doubt they were framed
with a desire to do justice to all the provinces.
No person can read these resolutions without
coming to the conclusion that mutual
concessions must have been made all round.
They clearly bear the impress of compromise. No doubt, sir, much difficulty was
experienced by the gentlemen composing
the Conference, in fitting and dovetailing the
heterogeneous parts or provinces into a
homogeneous whole. I have listened attentively to the speeches of the Opposition,
and have so far failed to hear of a better
proposition than the one before us; and,
indeed, I am not surprised that a better
proposition should not have been presented
to us, considering that this scheme was compiled by the master minds in British America.
(Hear, hear.) I stated, sir, that some of
the details were objectionable, and I now
repeat that had the Government permitted
amendments to the resolutions, I certainly
would have supported them ; but in view of
the very critical position in which this
country stands, I will not assume the responsibility of opposing this scheme as a
whole. (Hear, hear.) Although I admit
the building of the Intercolonial Railroad
to be just as necessary to the proposed Confederation as the spinal column to the
human
frame; nevertheless, in view of the jobbing
and extravagance committed with the Grand
Trunk, I have a dread of the amount its
construction and working will cost this
country. Sir, I am not as sanguine as some
honorable gentlemen in this House in
reference to this road. I have no faith in
it as a commercial enterprise; I look upon
it as a military necessity, and a bond of
union between the Confederated Provinces.
Sir, we have been told that the Imperial
Government has been notified of the intention of the Government of the United States
to abrogate the Reciprocity treaty. To my
mind this will be most unfortunate for
Canada, and I sincerely trust that the members of the Government who will shortly
visit
England will urge the Imperial Government to secure a renewal of it, if it can
be obtained on honorable terms. While
hoping this treaty may be renewed, I
do not participate in the feeling that its
abrogation will drive us into the United
States. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I regret to hear
891
gentlemen speak so glibly of annexation.
One tells us that if Confederation is not
consummated, annexation is the other alternative—that we are already on an "inclined
plane"—and that the abrogation of
the treaty and refusal to adopt the resolutions in your bands will certainly " grease
the ways." Sir, I believe nothing of the
kind. The assertion is a libel on the people
of Canada, who, I believe, are truly loyal to
the British Crown, and have no desire to
change the state of their political existence.
(Hear, hear.) But while provision is made
in these resoutions for the construction of
the Intercolonial Railroad, I am sorry to
see that no decisive provision is made for the
western extension. And I would not be at
all satisfied myself with the resolutions as
they stand, were it not for the positive
assurances of the Government that that matter would be attended to simultaneously
with the construction of that road. For
I hold it to be of essential importance that
we should proceed, as soon as possible, with
the opening up of the North-West country
and the extension of our canal system.
(Hear, hear.) And while on this subject, I
may be permitted to say that I hope, that in
going on with the canals, the Government
will not overlook the necessity which exists
for the construction of the great Georgian
Bay Canal. (Hear, hear.) reside on the
shores of the Georgian Bay, and am satisfied
that that is the best feasible route by which
we can hope to bring the trade of the Great
West through this country. (Hear, hear.) I do
hope the Government will seriously consider
this when they are framing their canal
scheme. I am glad to see the Hon. Attorney
General West listening closely to what I am
saying on this subject, and I trust he will
not overlook it.
MR. McCONKEY—I have no hesitation
in expressing my desire that these resolutions as a whole may be carried into effect,
and that the whole of the other provinces
will come into the arrangement. I hope
they will. I would be sorry to see the
British Government attempt to coerce them
against their will—but I trust that before
many months they will see the prepriety of
coming in—and that before this time twelve
months we shall have been formed into
one great British American Confederation.
(Hear, hear.) I have no doubt that the
consummation of this union will give peace
and contentment to the whole country. I
have no hesitation in stating my own conviction that it will give peace and contentment
to Upper Canada, by giving us the
management of our own local affairs without
let or hindrance, while Lower Canada in
like manner will have the management of
her own local affairs. It will also give Upper
Canada, at least in the House of Commons, what we have so long contended for—
representation according to our population.
I am happy to find that this is fully conceded to us in the popular branch of the
Legislature. (Hear, hear.) I cannot do
otherwise than approve of the roceedings
of the Government the other day, on the
intelligence reaching us of the result of the
elections in one of the eastern provinces.
When I heard that many of those elections
in New Brunswick had gone against the
scheme, I was at a loss to decide what
would be the proper course—whether the
scheme should still be pressed, or whether
we should turn our attention to some other
scheme. On full consideration of the subject,
I have arrived at the conclusion that the Government have acted properly, and that
they
deserve every credit for the prompt action
they have taken to get a speedy decision on
this question. It is clear that the question
of our defences, and that of our commercial
relations with the United States, must be
immediately looked to. Some steps must,
as soon as possible, be taken to put the
country in a proper state of defence. The
season is approaching when we would be in
a very unsatisfactor condition for meeting
a hostile force, and it is the duty of the
Government to take prompt action, that we may
be prepared, should the hour of need arise.
Hear, hear.) A good deal has been said
during this discussion about-the propriety of
an appeal to the peeple. I hold that great
revo utions of this kind ought to receive the
sanction of the people. But, in view of the
fact that it is well known that ninety out of
every hundred, in Upper Canada at least, are
in favor of the scheme, I do not com lain that
it has not been considered advisab e to submit it to a direct vote of the people.
For
my own part, bein fully alive to the great
responsibility I h to assume in voting upon
these resolutions, I felt it my duty, before
coming here, to hold meetings through my
county, in order to consult my constituents.
These meetings were held all through the
892
riding, and at every one of them the people
were unanimous in supporting the scheme.
(Hear, hear.) Some of the details were
objected to, but the scheme as a whole was
approved of. These meetings were attended
by men of all parties, and the resolutions
were moved and seconded in many cases by
my political opponents. I did not find more
than three gentlemen, at all of those meetings, who gave opposition to the measure.
And I may say further, that, when an appeal
to the people was mentioned, the expression
of opinion was, that it was not at all desirable
or necessary, as it was known that the measure was so generally approved of. The
result was, that my constituents instructed
me to support these resolutions, giving me
authority at the same time to propose amendments to such details as I might disapprove
of, if the Government would allow any
amendments to be made. (Hear, hear.) I
find, from conversation with several hon.
members from the west, that I differ from
them with reference to the composition of
the Legislative Council. I hardly approved
of the proposition of the Government when
an innovation was made on the constitution
of the Legislative Council in 1855. I felt it
was a wrong step, and fully sympathized with
the opposition given to it at that time by the
present Hon. President of the Council (Hon.
Mr. BROWN) and the honorable member
for Peel (Honorable J. H. CAMERON). Had
I then been in a position to give effect
to my views, I should have joined those
honorable gentlemen in protesting against
that encroachment upon the Constitution.
I approve entirely of the proposition contained in the resolutions now before the
House,
with reference to this matter. If a necessity
exists at all for a check upon hasty and
ill-digested legislation of the popular branch,
that check should not derive its power from
the same source, and in the same manner. I have, however, for some time inclined to
the opinion that the Legislative
Council might, with safety, be abolished
altogether, and that thereby there would be
effected an immense saving to the country.
In carrying out this scheme, very much, of
course, will depend upon the character of
the local constitutions. If such a system
can be adopted as will render the working
of the local governments simple and inexpensive, it will conduce very much to the
prosperity of the whole Confederation. I
must say, sir, that if I am permitted to have
a voice in the framing of a Constitution for
Upper Canada, I shall insist upon it being
of the most inexpensive kind, dispensing
with a great deal of the paraphernalia that
we see so much of here. (Hear, hear.) In
bringing the new system into operation, and
laying the foundations of the new nationality
of British North America on a permanent
and enduring basis, a weighty responsibility
indeed devolves on the governments of
these provinces, and the most rigid economy
consistent with propriety ought to be, and I
trust will be, a leading feature in their
arrangements. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER,
I am no alarmist, but disguise it as we may,
this country is at the present moment deeply depressed. I entirely dissent from sentiments
enunciated by honorable gentlemen
on the floor of this House as to the general
prosperity of Canada ; the actual state of
matters is not as they represent it. Through
a failure of crops for a number of years back
in Upper Canada, that section of the province is in a state of agricultural and commercial
prostration ; farmers and others are
unable to meet their engagements to the
merchant, who, in consequence, is unable to
meet his liabilities to the wholesale dealers,
and the result is that scores, I may say
hundreds, are obliged to collapse and go into
liquidation ; bank agencies are being withdrawn from the country districts, and banking
accommodation very much curtailed.
Mr. SPEAKER, these are facts that cannot
be gainsayed. Every branch of industry is
almost paralyzed at the present moment, and
a general gloom hangs like a pall over the
land. Under these circumstances, it behoves
the Government to do everything in their
power to revive and foster industry in the
country. Sir, I will not say that this Government does so, but governments have been
too much in the habit of borrowing from
the banks that capital which ought to go
into circulation for the benefit of the trade
of the country. I hold that it is the duty
of all governments to refrain from doing
anything that will bear upon the people's
industry ; and I implore this Government to
turn their attention to the position of this
country just now, and do all they can to
better the condition of the people. While,
sir, there are features in the proposition
before you which, if they stood alone on
their merits, I should certainly oppose,
yet, as I stated before, I do not think them
of sufficient importance to justify me in
rejecting the scheme, which is certainly
calculated to elevate us from the position of
893
mere colonists to that of citizens of a great
British American nation, covering as it
will half a continent, stretching from the
mighty Atlantic on the east, to the golden
shores of the Pacific on the west, bounded
on the south by the great American Republic, and on the north by—sir, I was going
to
say the North Pole—with, not an intercolonial railroad merely, but an interoceanic
communication, stretching from sea to sea.
Mr. SPEAKER, I deeply feel the great res—
ponsibility that attaches to the vote I will
shortly be called upon to give. I have
weighed well this matter, and taking all
things into account, I can arrive at no other
conclusion than that it is my duty to vote
for the resolutions in your hands, and I am
now prepared to do so, believing that I am
carrying out the views of the great bulk of
my constituents. (Cheers. )
This individual participated in:
