LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
THURSDAY, February
9, 1865.
HON. MR. ALLAN said, that if he acquiesced, or thought that the House acquiesced,
in the opinion expressed by the honorable gentleman who spoke at the close of the
debate
last evening, that under the circumstances in
which the resolutions now before them were
presented for their consideration, it was useless to discuss their merits or express
any
opinion upon them; he would not now venture to trespass on the time of the House with
any remarks of his on the great scheme which
had been submitted for their approval. But
believing, as he did, that the Government had
not invited them to express their opinion as a
mere matter of form, but they were really
asked in good faith to examine and discuss
the measure, and then to express their approval or disapproval of it as a whole, he
would venture to occupy their attention for a
few moments, while he stated to the House
the reasons which induced him to give it his
hearty concurrence and support. He would
first, however, premise that he could not see
the force of an objection which had also been
made, that as they were precluded from making any alteration in the details of the
scheme,
they would be betraying their trust and violating their duty to their constituents
if they
116
acquiesced in the scheme as a whole, to
some
of the particular features of which their own
convictions might be opposed, and in reference
to which they perhaps had no opportunity of
ascertaining definitely the views of their constituents. Now, he would ask honorable
gentlemen, did it not constantly happen that in
the business of life they were obliged to delegate to a few the conduct of many matters
in
which they were most deeply interested themselves, but which, from the very nature
of the
interests involved, could not be dealt with advantageously otherwise, and if they
had confidence in the judgment and ability of those to
whom the task had been committed, were they
not satisfied to accept their recommendations,
although their views on all points might not
coincide with their own ? Just so in the ease
of the Confederation scheme—it was one which
required special ability, tact and judgment, to
deal with. It was one in which so many conflicting interests, so many nice questions
were
involved, that it would have been next to impossible to have arrived at any satisfactory
settlement of the question, had the task been
committed to a popular assembly or any other
large body. Now, he was satisfied that the
people of this country were
fully persuaded at
the time of the Conference that the task of
framing a scheme for the union of all the
North American Provinces had been assumed
by those statesmen who, by their ability, experience and judgment were, of
all men, the
best qualified for the duty; and he had
yet to
learn, from any expression of public opinion,
either out of doors or in the press, that this
confidence had been shaken, or that the scheme,
as a whole, had been disapproved of. On the
contrary, the people of Canada had now been
acquainted with all the important features of
the measure for some three months at least,
and he believed the result had been that,
while various opinions had been expressed in
reference to the details of the scheme, the great
majority of the people were perfectly satisfied
to leave the matter in the hands of their representatives, to be assented to by them
as a
whole, if, after a full discussion of its merits,
they were satisfied that they so far outweighed
its defects as to commend itself to their
adoption. If then, in the best exercise of
his judgment, he had come to the conclusion
that the peculiar circumstances of the times,
and the merits of the scheme as a whole, outweighed any of the defects which might
present
themselves in the details, he thought he should
be fully warranted, acting on behalf of his
constituents, in according his support to the
measure, without being in any way
chargeable
with a dereliction of duty or a betrayal of the
trust committed to him. He would new state
to the House what were the considerations
which induced him to give his support to the
measure, and which, to him at least, appeared
of sufficient importance to outweigh all objections that had been brought against
it. They
were twofold—arising in the first place from
our internal condition, and in the second lace
from our position with regard to the neighboring States. And first, with regard to
our internal condition, while he partly agreed with
the remark which fell from the honorable
member for the Brock Division, that our political differences alone could perhaps
scarcely
be said to necessitate such great and important
constitutional changes as those involved in
Confederation; yet taken in connection with
our external relations, he thought no one would
deny that the state of chronic weakness of the
governing body had become a subject of grave
apprehension to every well-wisher of their
country. No one would deny that when storms
were impending, it was doubly necessary that
the ships of the state should be guided by firm
and determined hands—that weakness and
vacillation under such circumstances would be
sure to end in disaster. Yet for the last few
years, when the political horizon had been
growing darker an darker, when fresh causes
of irritation had unhappily sprung up from
time to time between us and our neighbors,
we had seen ministry after ministry break
down, until anything like a stable and vigorous
government seemed to have become a hopeless
impossibility. Who could say that such a
state of things was not fraught with danger to
any community. He believed that in Federation they had found a remedy for those sectional
differences between Upper and Lower
Canada, which had so long agitated the
country, and had been a source of weakness to
so many administrations. Under the scheme
now proposed, all causes of jealousy and distrust between the two provinces would
be
removed, and they might well hail with satisfaction any change which, by removing
these
stumbling-blocks which sectional feeling and
party strife had placed in the way of so man
successive ministries, had enabled the ablest
men of all parties to unite their councils
for the formation of a strong, vigorous and
permanent government. For these considerations, amongst others, the measure
before the House should have his hearty
support, but there were to his mind graver
reasons still why the union of the provinces
117
should, if possible, be brought about
without
further loss of time. No one who had watched
the course of public opinion in Great Britain
in reference to the colonies, as expressed during
the last few years, either in Parliament or in
the public press, could doubt that the feeling
had been gaining ground there that the time
had come for us to assume a larger share than
we had hitherto assumed of those responsibilities which attach to every country
aspiring to any sort of national existence or
political standing. He need scarcely any that
he alluded to the question of defence. This
was a question which would have been forced
upon us sooner or later under any circumstances, because it was neither reasonable
nor just
that we should expect that Great Britain
would continue to give us the protection of
her fleets and armies, unless we showed that
we were willing to hear our share of the burden, and were ready to contribute our
quota
of men and means towards the defence of our
own hearths and homes should war unhappily
threaten us. Under any circumstances, then,
the consideration of this question must necessarily have occupied a large share of
the attention of the Government and the Legislature,
but no one would deny that it had acquired
tenfold importance in view of our present relations with the United States, and that
what
might safely have been left to the unaided resources of Canada alone, had peace and
harmony
continued to prevail on our borders, would now
require all the assistance, all the
material aid
and moral support, which a close and cordial
union with nearly a million of our British
fellow-subjects could alone give to us. Feeling then as he did upon these points,
he could
not help asking himself the question, what
would be the result, as regards the well-being
and prosperity of Canada, if this Confederation scheme should fall through? Should
we
not suffer most seriously in all our relations
both at home and abroad? Would not the
effect on our credit in England be most disasterous? Would they not say that our own
folly and want of patriotism had condemned
us to a state of isolation and weakness, when
union with our sister provinces would have
made us strong, powerful and prosperous?
Some honorable gentlemen had such strong
objections to some of the details of the measure—the alteration in the constitution
of this
House, for instance—that rather than bring
themselves to vote for it, they were willing to
run the risk of imperiling the whole scheme.
For his own part, he thought it would ill become an elected member like himself to
say
anything against the elective system as applie
to this House;
although he earnestly believed
that the majority of his own constituents were
in favor of a Legislative Council
appointed
by the Crown. As for the objection which
had been urged that between an Upper House
composed exclusively of life members, and an
elective Lower House, there might be the
danger of a direct collision in the event of
one rejecting an important measure which the
other had passed, he did not think there was
much danger of such a contingency. Indeed
he would remind honorable members that the
only instance of anything like a dead-lock between the two Houses, which had occurred
within late years, at all events, was since the
introduction of the elective principle, when the
Council in 1859 refused to pass the Supply
Bill on account of certain items contained in
it, providing for the expense of the removal
of the Government to Quebec. The Government on that occasion were left in a minority
in this House although they had a majority
in the Assembly, and it was only after an
adjournment of some days and upon a reconsideration of the question, after bringing
up
some life members from Lower Canada, that
the Government carried the vote be a majority
of two or three. Upon the whole, however,
he thought that the life members of the
Council would admit that the elective members had so far, at all events, comported
themselves in such a way as to maintain
the character of the House as a conservative body, free from all violent party feeling,
and exercising a wholesome check against all
ill-considered or hasty legislation. The real
danger, he thought, was that if the House in
process of time were to become a purely elective body, and party lines became more
closely
drawn, the same partisan spirit which too
often swayed the proceedings of the popular
branch of the Legislature, might find its way
into their chamber, larger powers, such as
originating money bills, might be claimed, and
a collision between the two Houses might then
occur at any time. Another objection raised
by some honorable gentlemen, was, that this
measure was being urged upon the Parliament
and people of this country with undue haste,
and from the language of some honorable
gentlemen it was quite clear that they did not
think that our situation was by any means
such a critical one as to call for an immediate
change. For his own part, he did
not understand how any one could look abroad at what
was passing on our borders and not take into
consideration the fact that our communica118tion
with the sea-board during the winter was
about to be cut off—that our trade and commerce with the United States was hampered
by the most vexatious and needless restrictions—and that, furthermore, measures of
a
military and naval character having special
reference to our frontier relations, had found
favor and countenance with the Government
and people of the United States. Looking at
all these things, he could not conceive how any
Canadian could feel that this was a time for
his country to remain in her present comparatively weak and isolated condition, when
an
opportunity was offered of acquiring that
strength which union with the sister provinces could alone give us. It might be that
there were some honorable gentlemen who
did not view the question, so far as regarded
our relations with the United States, in the
same 1ight that he did. Now, from whatever
point of view he looked at the
question of
Confederation, he was equally convinced of
the extreme desirableness of an early settlement of the question. He would be very
unwilling to follow the example
of some honorable gentlemen in decrying the resources or
underrating the position of Canada; but he
was bound to say, that while be freely admitted and heartily acknowledged the many
sources of material wealth and prosperity
which Canada possessed, in her fertile soil,
her rich minerals, her noble system of canals
and railways, he nevertheless could not shut
his eyes to the fact that our trade and
revenue, our commercial and agricultural interests, had been so injuriously affected
by
the state of things on the other side of the
lakes, that unless we could find new avenues
for our commerce, new markets for our produce, we must inevitably suffer a most serious
check to our prosperity and well-doing. In
this Confederation scheme he believed that a
golden opportunity was offered to us of remedying the evils under which we were now
suffering, and of opening out a new and prosperous career for this country, if we
would
avail ourselves of it. He believed that it
might be said of nations as of individuals:-
There is a tide in the affairs of man
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life is spent
ln shallows and miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat
And we must take the current as it flows,
Or lose our venture.
He would urge then upon the House, not
to allow the opportunity to pass—even should
it be at the sacrifice of individual opinions-
of forming a strong, powerful and prosperous
Confederation, and thus ensure for ourselves,
and our children's children, a national existence as British North Americans, which
may endure for many ages tocome. (Cheers)
HON. MR. SANBORN said he rose for the purpose of moving the resolution of which be
had given notice, and would take the opportunity of offering some observations on
the
general subject. In his opinion
it could not
injured by discussion, and whatever might
be its merits or demerits after going
through
the crucible, the residuum must be
better than
the present condition of the subject, both as
regarded the legislature and the country. On
a former occasion he had expressed himself as
not averse to the question, but as inclined,
from various considerations, to view Confederation favorably; and acting in the same
sense
he would now state certain points, which, in
his opinion, must lead to the conclusion that
such a union would advance the prosperity of
the colonies interested, and their ultimate establishment as a nation. The principle
of association, as exhibited in commercial partnerships and corporations, continued
a secret of
rosperity, the precise nature of which it might be difficult to elucidate and account
for, but
which no one could fail to recognize, and so
far as it applied to nations its potency was
sufficiently established to show that the analogy was presumed and that it was as
operative
as in partnerships and corporations. He was
also prepared to admit that diversity of interests was no sufficient argument against
union,
—(hear)—since in this very particular might
frequently be found the strongest bond of
union. As in electricity, opposite poles attracted each other, so among nations a
diversity of interests which might
a priori be pronounced a bar, was not unfreqnently the most
effectual means of harmony, and thus a diversity of feeling which brought out talent,
might
lead to a comparison of opinions which would
induce an enlarged policy calculated to elevate
and not to depress national energies. He was
prepared to admit that Confederation would
enlarge the minds of all, and make us better
to understand our resources and capabilities. It would make us more enquiring,
and teach us so to use our industrial power
as to secure the best results. (Hear, hear.)
He was prepared to admit that the results of
the union between Upper and Lower Canada
had been beneficial to both, and he argued
that union with the other provinces, inhabited
by a peeple educated under different
circumstances and of different origins, could hardly
119
be without mutual advantage. It would
give
the inhabitants of each province the opportunity of studying each other's habits and
pursuits, and so induce larger and more comprehensive views. He was prepared to admit
that the assimilation of tariffs would be an
advantage of no little moment, and that it
would do away with much chafing in working
the machinery of the government. He also
admitted the advantage of having ocean seaports of our own, though he was not prepared
to attach so much importance to that as some
other honorable members. We were told that
no inland country could ever be great, and
that so long as we had no opening to the sea
we could not expect permanent prosperity.
He was quite proper to say that access to
the ocean through the ports of St. John, N.B.,
and Halifax, was very desirable, but he was
not at all certain that the grand effects proclaimed would be realized. It was no
doubt
very desirable to secure all these advantages,
but the measure contained some provisions
which, if carried out, would, as he believed,
be highly injurious to both the general and
local governments. Then he must say he had a
strong distrust of it on account of the manner
in which it was originated. It was not in
accordance with the analogy of things or with
the lessons taught us by the history of the
world, that a few gentlemen, however wise and
well-intentioned, but self-elected, should meet
together to form a constitution and erect a new
nationality. If we looked to the United States
(the history of whose Constitution he would
presently allude to, and whose Constitution
had been more closely followed in that now
under consideration than the British Constitution) we would see how patiently they
had
proceeded to construct it. [Here the honorable member gave a history of the first
instrument of federation, established for mutual convenience and support, though not
for national
union, which occupied from the 7th October
to the 15th November, 1777, in the discussing.
He then said that this arrangement, not being
found to answer the requirements of the States
concerned, in September, 1787, they commenced deliberating upon the adoption of a
Constitution, which, after being arranged, was for two
years before the individual states
and the people, being only ratified in October, 1789.] This
showed how careful and particular they had
been in this important matter, and a distinguished member of the other branch of our
legislature had said, only a few
evenings ago, that
the greatest statesmen who ever lived had been
engaged in the work. From the
length of the
discussions, and the time given to the
people to study and understand the measure, it was seen how anxious they were that
it should be made perfectly satisfactory to
them. But what was it that gave rise to
the desire for federation first in the States?
They were poor and comparatively helpless.
They had just come out of an exhaustive war
with Great Britain, and the duty fell upon
them of organizing a government for a broad
expanse of country, containing but two and
a half or three million souls. This it was
that led to the first attempt at federation, and
afterwards to a closer union under the constitution of 1789. How was it with us? It
was alleged that we had been led step by step,
according to the strictest method of induction,
to the necessity for the measure now proposed;
that without it there must have been an irremediable dead—lock between the parties
in the
legislature, which would have rendered further
progress impossible. But what was the real
impediment? Want of patriotism—as not
the
want of a good Constitution. If there had
been less virulence of part spirit, and a better
disposition to accommodate
matters, there
would have been no dead-lock. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. MR. SANBORN—If the leading men
had felt as the ought to have felt, there would
have been no dead-lock, for it existed more in
name than in reality. There was no cause for
saying that no government could be formed
which could command a good majority. And
what had the difficulties arisen from? From a
persistent agitation for representation according to population, in consequence of
which the
people had at last come to believe that it was
a fundamental axiom in government. (Hear,
hear.) But did it follow that because there
were difficulties that they could not be arranged
without recourse to such a measure as this, and
was it certain even that Confederation would
remove them? Instead of meeting the diffculties, the Government had travelled away
from them and formed an agreement with
provinces in which they had no existence,
without devising means to relieve themselves.
Federation was forthwith produced, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, fully armed
and we were told it was just what we wanted
to make all things right. We were told we
must take it as presented, without any possible
change; we must lay aside our character as a
deliberative body, and without considering the
country (which had been studiously kept in
ignorance of the scheme) vote to accept or
120
reject it. It was true that soon after
the resolutions had been agreed upon, copies had been
sent to the members of both Houses confidentially, but the people must be kept in
the dark.
If the members had acted up to the implied
requirement of secrecy, and not divulged the
provisions of the scheme, the people were to this
day ignorant of its character, and it could not
be said that it was ever constitutionally submitted to the country. Then we were told
that,
as elective members and as patriots, it was our
duty to accept the measure as it was, even
though portions of it might not be satisfactory,
rather than lose it altogether. It had been
generally represented by the local newspapers
in Upper Canada—fed to do so—that it was
commonly approved; but while the simple idea
of union might find favor, as he believed it
did, it was not less true that the country was
waiting for the details, of which they would
judge when they had been discussed in Parliament. When this had been done, and the
bearing of the manifold
particulars was thoroughly understood it was expected, at least
among the English of Lower Canada, that it
would not be passed until after having been
submitted to the people. If it were passed
through without such an appeal, he had no
hesitation in saying that the Government would
assume a very serious responsibility, and if, in
after times, the union should prove disastrous,
it would bring upon them imprecations instead
of blessings. And he was under the impression that the Government, whenever they had
given their views on the subject, had never
said it would not be so presented, but no doubt
their utterances were very much like those of
the Delphic oracle, susceptible of being understood in two opposite ways. But what
could such an indisposition to speak clearly
indicate, if not a purpose to press the matter
on to a result, even though the people might
not want it. Under this measure the elective
members would have a right to vote themselves, two out of three at least, as members
for life. Now it had been found necessary to
enact a law to ensure the independence of
Parliament, and for the purpose of removing
all temptation to swerve from the right, they
were precluded from occupying even the small
offices of postmasters in the remotest parts of
the count, or acting as security for such
officers. For every day that a member occupied a seat in either House unlawfully,
he was
subject to the extreme penalty of ÂŁ500, and if
this strictness had been found necessary, was
not the spirit of the law violated when this
House was invited to pass a measure by which
the members of the Legislative Council of
the
Confederation would be appointed for life, and
selected from the members of the present
Legislative Council—even allowing that all
the Crown nominated members were to be first
chosen, as the Honorable Commissioner of
Crown Lands had left us to infer from his
remarks.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL said he had stated
nothing of the kind, and the honorable member had no foundation whatever for his assertion.
He (Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL) had used no
such language, but had expressly stated that
due consideration would be given to members
of both sides of politics, and to life and elective members equally.
HON. MR. SANBORN said he had reason
to suppose that what he had stated was a fair
inference from what the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands said.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The honorable
member could not have been in the House
when the statement was made, or how could
he draw that conclusion?
HON. MR. SANBORN said he was ready
to accept the explanation, as it would not affect
his argument. And supposing all the members nominated by the Crown were appointed,
he would say it was but just; nay, it would
be unjust to deprive them of seats which had
been given them for life. The Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands would thus see
that
he (Hon. Mr. SANBORN) had
attributed only
such opinions to him as he himself conscientiously held to be right. Assuming then
that
the Crown members would retain their seats,
there was a direct temptation presented to at
least two out of three of the elective members. This, he thought, exhibited the project
in a very damaging light. Such a measure
was calculated to bias the judgment, and ought
not to be presented to any legislative body.
He held that elective members had received a
sacred trust to exercise ; that they were sent
here by their constituencies to represent them,
and to do that only. Under these circumstances he would ask, whether they could conceive
they had the power to vote away the
rights of their electors ? That was not in their
mandat, and if they did, they would be
doing what the had no authority to do ;
the would be doing what they could not do
without going beyond the authority confided
to them. Coming to the principle of elective
legislative councils itself, he might say it.
had already been adopted in four British
colonies besides Canada. Canada, though the
largest of these, was not the first to
adopt it,
121
though it might claim to be foremost in
establishing precedents—especially as with the
addition of the Lower Provinces we are told
we shall be the third largest
nation in the
world—(hear, hear, and laughter)—since for
a long series of years the demand had been
made the people. They persisted against
many discouragements, and the reform constituted one of the famous ninety-two resolutions
of the constitutional in Lower
Canada, until with other reforms it was at last
conceded and consummated. When the subject was under discussion, objections were
made and fears expressed that there might
be a feeling among the members, who came
from the to claim the right to originate money ills, and that an antagonism
would thus arise between the two branches,
but no such conflict of opinion had ever hap-
and the Constitution had worked as
heretofore. The infusion of the elective
element was made gradually with the view of
anticipating such a result, and the effect was
attained, for there had been no clashing of
interests. The elective principle had been
applied to the Legislative Council of Prince
Edward Island, and he would ask, how,
under the 14th resolution of the Confederation, that body was to be dealt with? He
would read that part of the resolution to which
he referred — " The first selection of the
members of the Legislative Council to be
made from the Legislative Councils of the
various provinces, except as regards Prince
Edward Island, &c. What did this mean?
Were the members from Prince Edward
Island still to be elected ?
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—No; they were
to be appointed. The resolution was so worded
as not to limit the selection in Prince Edward
Island to the Legislative Council now in existence there.
HON. MR. SANBORN—Was it because
the elective principle had worked so badly in
Canada that this change is proposed?
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—No; and therefore in Canada the selection was to be made
from the House itself.
HON. MR. SANBORN—It appeared then,
that Prince Edward Island, dissatisfied with
the elective principle, had dictated terms, and
Canada had yielded to the dictation.
HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The Conference had yielded to Prince Edward Island
only in respect of its own members. They
were so dissatisfied with their Legislative
Council that, with reference to themselves,
a choice from the people at large was
permit
ted, but this had no reference whatever
to
Canada.
HON. MR. SANBORN — Suppose the
elective members should be swept off, what
became of the people's right of representation
by men of their own choice?
glad to learn the reasons which had led
the
delegates to resolve upon the
abandonment of
the elective principle in respect of the Legislative Council. Canada, however, did
not do-
serve to be used in this way. He would now
ask whether the representatives of Canada in
the Conference had any warrant from the
country to justify their action? They had
none whatever. If they had not acted under
the dictation of Prince Edward Island, they
had acted on their own motion, and without
authority of any kind. The conclusion was
legitimate and logical. The position they
had assumed was exceptional and
distasteful.
Coming to the proposal to amend the resolutions, he would say there existed no reason
why the House, if it thought proper, could
not change them in any particular.
He willingly admitted that they were
in the nature
of a treaty, and we must accept them, if accepted at all, so that their essential
character
should not be impaired; but when they were
presented to us, we were bound to decide
whether they were what we wanted or not.
If they were so in the main, there was no
necessity for taking exceptions which would
affect our relations with the other provinces,
but they might be modified and changed in
so far as Canada was concerned, and the other
provinces would have no cause of complaint.
What interest had they in the manner of our
choosing our own representatives? All they
had a right to say in the matter was that
we
should not have more than two-thirds of the
whole number. There was a way of putting
things so as to frighten and convince wavering minds; but he would ask the House to
sift this matter to the bottom—to look at the
reason of things—and to say if his amendment were adopted, which maintained intact
the principle of representation laid down in
the resolutions—only retaining the mode of
choosing the members—the modification could
lead to harm or to anything else than what
had already been declared, viz., that the Imperial Parliament might take the scheme
with
the amendment under consideration, and act
upon said amendment. Mr. CARDWELL
had
122
already remarked upon that very point, and
if it were changed, would it not be to retain
the elective principle? If the Imperial Parliament may do so, may we not ask them
to
do it? May we not record our views? And
would they, upon a measure of such vast
moment and pregnant with such results, proceed to adopt a principle unless they knew
its
operation to be beneficial? Turning to his
proposed amendment, the honorable member
said that if it were adopted, the principle of
federal representation in the resolutions would
be retained; the same members would be
retained (in Canada at least); and to render
the proportion of the Lower Provinces relatively equal, he would allow them to
name ten
life members. Were we to be told that such
a form would be incongruous, and be deterred
from considering the proposition?
Then we
should be reflecting upon ourselves. He and
other honorable members sat under a mandate
from the people, while other honorable members set under a patent from the Crown.
It
would be a reflection both on our past and
present condition. There were the same
reasons now for adopting such a form as there
were when the elective principle was adopted.
It was a domestic matter, and should be left
to domestic arrangement. Each province had
its own peculiar interests, and should be left
to the exercise of its judgment in the management of them. If subsequently a change
were
desired, it could be granted. He maintained
that his views were correct and logical, and
he was at a loss to see the incongruity with
which they were charged. He could not discover any sufficient cause for the proposed
change, and as the people had not asked
for it, and as Canada formed a large majority of the whole, it ought not to have been
granted without reference to their opinions. Representation according to population
was
now looked upon as a cardinal principle, but
it certainly was not observed in dealing with
this important question. We were told the
vote was taken by provinces, not by numbers,
still the Lower Provinces had the majority of
representatives, though they represented but a
minority of the people. Then it was said our
delegates were leading men and men of talent,
which he was quite prepared to allow, yet
they did not compose all the talent or statesmanship of Canada. In this way the one-
third of the populations interested had given
the law to the other two-thirds. We were
told again that the Constitution emanating-
from the Conference was desirable because it
was, modelled on the British Constitution.
The British Constitution was unmatched in
the world, and was not susceptible of imitation. It had grown by the
secretions of ages,
by the independence of the people, and by
their undying love of justice and fair play.
(Hear, hour.) It had been produced by the
strictest inductive method, and stood unrivalled as a monument of the greatest human
wisdom. Except in remote future times, it
could not be imitated—(hear)—and he did
not urge this difference as a
demerit, for it
was in the nature of things that it should
exist. It had reform to
different kinds of
people—to people of different
nine, and to
people of new countries and altered circumstances; but though an able theoretical
composition, it might fail to produce the anticipated malts. It was not a copy
of that horror of our Constitution-makers—the Constitution of the United States—but
he would
show that the delegates had borrowed more
largely from that Constitution than from any
other, though to be sure, in some aspects, it
differed very much from it, as
in the provision
which gives to members of the
Upper House
their seats for life. The resolutions provided
that an equal representation should given
to the three sections of the Confederation as
having separate interests, while in the Lower
House the representation was to be according
to population. Both these provisions were
copied from the American
Constitution. The
life membership was supposed to be in conformity with the British Constitution, but
the limitation of the number of members was
a violation of it. The limitation of the power of the federal, and the power of the
coal
governments, was the old story of federal and
state rights—in fact, the bone of
contention
which had led to the present unhappy war;
an apple of discord which our posterity might
gather in fruits of the most bitter character.
There was another branch of the subject he would fail in his duty if he did not touch
upon, and that was the situation in which the
English of Lower Canada would be placed.
The Honorable Premier had remarked at
some length upon the disposition to
toleration
and the indulgent spirit evinced by his people
in past times, and he (Hon.Mr. SANBORN) was
not prepared to detract from this. He would
freely and fully concede the point. He had
always lived in the midst of a mixed population, and his division was more French
than
English, and it would ill become him to cast
reflections on their liberality and desire for
fair play or justice to others. But this was
the time, when treating of important arrange123ments for the future, to lay aside all unnecessary delicacy, and by our action to
lay down
the guarantees for the perpetuation of these
kind feelings and this spirit of toleration so
long existing, and which he devoutly hoped
would never cease. No greater calamity could
befall the English, or, in fact, both races, than
the introduction of religious
discord among
the people of Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.)
It would, however, be a grievous mistake to
overlook the safeguards and rules necessary
to perpetuate kindly feelings, and to prevent
the disposition to aggressions which existed
more or less in all minds. That principlethe love of power—was found in every human
heart, none were exempt from it, and the
history of the world showed that no people
had ever risen superior to it. The Honorable
Premier had recognized this truth in the remarks he had made in regard of the difficulties
between Upper and Lower Canada. The
French Canadians had persistantly
refused
the demands of Upper Canada for representation by population, because of the terror
they
felt that, if granted, their institutions would be
in danger; and he had told the French members in the house that under the new
Constitution their rights were so effectually guarded
that their autonomy was fully secured—the
safeguards thereof being put in their own
hands. But, at the same time,
the English,
who were a fourth of the population, and who,
by habit and tradition, had their own views of
public policy, were left entirely without guarantee other than the good feelings and
tolerant
spirit of the French. Was this safe? The
only safeguard they were to have was in regard
of education, but in regard of
the rights
of property they were to be left to the
Legislature. And this brought him to the
consideration of that part of the proposed Constitution which had reference to civil
rights
and rights of roperty. It was said that the
civil laws of war Canada were now consolidated into a code, and this would enhance
our
credit; and if based upon sound principles and
rendered permanent, it would undoubtedly do
so, for what is so conducive to
the prosperity
a country as well-protected rights of property and vested interests? This feature
was
engrained in the British mind, and in
that of the United States also, insomuch that
the American Constitution provides that no law
could be passed which would affect the rights of property. This was
exemplified in the celebrated Dartmouth College case, in which WEBSTER so distinguished
himself, when the endowment was maintained and perpetuated. But
to what power were the rights of committed in these resolutions? When the Minister
of Finance appealed to moneyed men
abroad for a loan, could he say the Constitution had provided guarantees against injurious
changes, when it was known that the laws relating to property were left to
the caprice of
the coal governments? Where was the
security of the great religious societies of
Montreal, if a sentiment hostile to monopolies
were carried to extremes in the Local Parliament?
HON. MR. SANBORN—It was a wise power and commended itself to all; it was, however, not an ordinary
power to be com-
manly resorted to, but an extreme power, and
one almost revolutionary. It was
a power
somewhat similar to that which existed in the
second branch of the Legislature to stop the
supplies, but in its very nature not one often
to be exercised; and it could not be frequently
exercised without destroying the
very foundations of society, and occasioning evils of the
greatest magnitude. On the whole he conceived that entrusting such power to the local
governments was illogical and dangerous, and
informing the world at the rights of property
were not made sure. It was urged by some
that, to make the measure now before the
House answer the ends proposed, it must be
immediately adopted, but he did not participate in this opinion. He knew no reason
for
this haste, and could not believe that a few
months would make any material difference.
This union, when formed, was to strengthen
us so marvellously that we would be able to
intimidate all the rest of the world, and guarantee us a lasting peace with all mankind.
It
might increase facilities for communication,
but could not increase our real strength. How
the people of New Brunswick could be expected to come up to Canada to defend us, and
leave their own frontier unprotected, he could
not comprehend. If he had misinterpreted
the statements or explanations on this point,
let the ministers show ow this greater
was to be acquired. There would be three or
four provinces more united together, but the
frontier to be defended would be increased
in
greater proportion than the additional number
of men acquired. It was said by the
advocates of the schemes that the naval power of
124
Great Britain would defend St. John, for
instance, and leave scope for the volunteers to
defend the frontiers; but the Intercolonial
Railway, running as it would along the frontier, would be constantly subject to assaults,
and would require all the force which could be
spared for that purpose. Lower Canada would
continue to be assailable from Maine and
Vermont, and Upper Canada from the state
of New York. Under these circumstances,
each section of the Confederation would have
enough to do to attend to its own affairs. We
were told to love our neighbors as ourselves,
but he was not aware that we were enjoined
to love them better. (Hear.) We were not
told what appropriations were to be made for
defence, indeed pains had been taken to conceal that, and Hon. Mr. TILLEY said that
the
matter was not debated or determined. The
province had already incurred an expense of
$400,000 for the simple purpose
of sending a
few companies of volunteers to our frontier,
and if there were no guarantee in the scheme
of union—and he did not see any—for increasing our strength, where was the use of
haste? Were we not as safe now as we would
be then? The Honorable Premier had stated
we were on an inclined plane, and he (Hon.
Mr. SANBOBN) supposed that like Holland we
must dyke ourselves up, lest we slide away
into the sea of the great American Confederacy. (Laughter.) Whether we were liable
to
be hurled thither by an avalanche or gradually glide down, we could not prevent our
going
there except by Confederation, but Confederation would stop us, and that was
something
to be thankful for. His own impression was
that our position would have been more improved by an agreement with Upper Canada
than by the new nationality. Canada had had
difficulties with the United States, but they
had never exhibited a spirit of aggression
towards us, except in times of war, which had
arisen from issues between Great Britain and
the United States, and he did not believe they
entertained such purposes now any more than
in former times. If we desired to have a
Constitution which would afford good hope of
permanency, it must be planted deep in the
affections of the people—(hear,
hear)—for
until their intellects were convinced of its
excellence, they would not be prepared to
uphold it and resist innovations. But they
must feel and comprehend the obligation.
(Hear.) To render it secure, it
must be in
the hearts of the people. Why was it that
the English had always resisted attempts upon
their Constitution? Because every link of the
great chain had been conquered by
resistance
to oppression, and by sacrifices
of blood(hear, hear)—by resistance to royal exactions
and assumptions—(hear, hear)--and these
achievements were preserved, held dear, understood, valued, and clung to with all
the
tenacity of that great people's nature. (Hear,
hear.) This was the reason why it rested
upon such a solid foundation, why it had
endured so long, and was likely to endure for
ever. (Hear, hear.) The Constitution asked
for was to be built on a flimsy foundation,
consisting of certain ideas in the minds of a
few men, who no doubt wished well to their
country; but that Constitution was new after
all, and they could not, in the small space of
time they had given to the project, view the
whole subject in all its bearings and aspects,
as it was desirable they should. The honorable member closed his remarks by reiterating
his opinion that an appeal on the subject
was due to the people whose voice had not been
heard upon it. The acquiescence
spoken of
was rather the patient awaiting of the details
which were sure to be challenged, and the testimony of a subsidized press was not
to be
taken in evidence of its general acceptance.
He was not prepared for one to take or reject
the measure as presented. He believed the
people would not approve of such a course,
and, even were it infinitely better than it was,
he would not take the responsibility of voting
for it unless after it had been submitted to
the country. (Hear, hear.) He would now
move his amendment, which was as follows:
That the following words be added to the
resolution now under consideration, as an amendment, by submitting for the eighth
resolution the
following:-
Upper Canada to be represented in the
Legislative Council by twenty-four elective members,
and Lower Canada by twenty-four elective members, and the Maritime Provmces by twenty-four
members, corresponding with the twenty-four
elective members in each section of Canada of
which Nova Scotia shall have ten, New Brunswick
ten, and Prince Edward Island shall have four,
and the present members of the Legislative Council of Canada, as well life members
as elective
members, shall be members of the first Legislative Council of the Federal Parliament—the
appointed members to remain for life, and the elective members for eight years from
the date of
their election, unless removed by death or other
cause; their successors to be elected by the same
divisions and electors as have elected them; and
it shall be permitted to the Maritime Provinces to
appoint ten additional members for life, four for
New Brunswick, four for Nova Scotia and two
for Prince Edward Island, to correspond with the
125
present life members from Canada, and that after
the first appointment of members in the Maritime
Provinces, no new appointment shall be made, except to supply the vacancies by death
or otherwise
in the twenty-four members appointed to correspond with the elective members from
the two
sections of Canada.
And that in the eleventh section, after the word
"Council," in the first line, the following words
be added : "in the Maritime Provinces."
And that section fourteen be struck out.
HON. MR. MACPHERSON briefly addressed the House in opposition to the amendment until the hour of adjournment,
six
o'clock, arrived. His remarks will be found
recapitulated in the commencement of his
speech on Friday.
This individual participated in:
