MONDAY, March 21st, 1870.
Hon. Mr RING rose to assume the debate, and said:— Mr.
Chairman, I feel assured that the House will accord me leave to say a few
words. There have been submitted for the consideration of this House two
amendments. and in the observations of the movers, two points of argument
have been adduced,—the first founded on supposed reasoning, and the second in
the way of threats and military argument, grounded on the possibility of the
Government refusing to insert this condition. I desire to disengage myself
from this latter argument. When I hear anything tantamount to a threat from
the people against the Executive, I desire to repudiate it. Hon. Members who
put such a picture of warfare before us talk bunkum. I address my humble
petition to His Excellency, but if his judgment is against us I say to him,
stand to your point and do not give way to threats; listen to no arguments as to
what may happen in the nature of threats; stand to your points. I say to
Executive Members, don't yield to threats; don't be moved by them. I support
the principle of Responsible Government, but I do so constitutionally. I say
to Executive Members, I trust you will yield to reason and argument, but not
to threats. I say we can ask for Responsible Government without the leave of
the Organic Act; but I say let us repudiate all connection with Canada until we
have secured Responsible Government; let us not wait till we are surrounded
by Canadians. With regard to the railway, I say that in the life of the
youngest amongst us we shall not get it; but we must make this the main
Resolution : without Responsible Government let us have no Confederation.
Better bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of. Let us not
run the risk of having to ask Canada for Responsible Government. Make it the
emphatic
sine qua non that we must have
Responsible Government or no Confederation.
106 CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
Â
Hon. MR. HUMPHREYS—Out of deference to the amendment offered by the Hon. Member
for New Westminster (Mr. Robson) , I ask the leave of the House to withdraw my motion,
so
that the amendment, the latter part, of which I like better than my own, may stand.
Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I regret very much that a discussion so
inapposite, so totally unnecessary, should have been forced on by the other
side of the House at a time so inopportune. I am glad that the Hon. Member
for Lillooet has withdrawn his motion ; it leaves the Council to deal with
the amendment of the Hon. Member for New Westminster; and I deeply regret
that the Hon. gentleman did not accept the invitation to give up a special field
day to the discussion of Responsible Government, as suggested by myself
after we had passed clause 15 of the Terms. This, I stated at the time. the
House was quite competent to do. Then Members on this side of the House
might have freely joined in the discussion ; perhaps some might have
supported the principle. But no ! The Hon. proposer of the amendment, with the
light of battle in his eye, had refused every suggestion ; and afterwards,
when he began to find out his mistake, it was too late ; there was nothing
for it but to go on. The melee had begun ; the glove is down ; the visors
are closed, and the lists barred. It cannot be put off. If the Hon. Member
for New Westminster had been opposed to Responsible Government, he could not
have devised a course more adapted, than mixing up the question with terms, for
shelving Responsible Government for the session. One point which requires
special notice and correction is, that nearly all speakers during the debate
seem to think that the Governor alone could grant any alteration of
Constitution that may be required, merely for the asking ; but this is a mistake ;
he cannot. The Constitution can only be changed by the same power that
created it—the Imperial Parliament and the Queen in Council. The Governor
can only recommend it ; it is for the Home Government to say what that
change shall be. As to the able speech of the Hon. Member for New
Westminster, the eloquenceof which I was forced to applaud in spite of
myself, it was an argument based upon fallacious premises throughout, asserting
that we should only have a representative majority of one, which could only
lead to a false conclusion ; and I take it that the Hon. Member is in favour
of Responsible Government as a
sine qua non for
why all this tall talking of blood, wading knee deep in blood? Why this
encouragement of rebellion in defence of our rights, and the like? And yet I
understood the .Hon.Member for New Westminster to say that he does not make
Responsible Government a
sine qua non for
Confederation.
Â
Hon. Mr. ROBSON—I said nothing of the kind. I do not choose
to state whether or not I would make it a
sine
qua non.
Â
Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I have an accurate
recollection, and have a note of it, and I ask the Hon. Member to state
whether he will make it a
sine qua non.
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER —I understood the
Hon. Member for New Westminster to say that Confederation would not be
satisfactory to the Colony without Responsible Government, but he
would not pledge himself to make it a
sine qua
non.
Hon. Mr. ROBSON—I said further That I did not pledge myself that
the people would not.
Â
Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I then understand that the Hon. Member
for New Westminster puts it not as a
sine qua non. Â
Hon. MR ROBSON —No, Mr. Chairman, I never said
that. I will not be placed in such a position. I refuse to have such an
issue forced upon us.
Hon. ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Either the Hon. Member puts it one way
or the other ; one of two opposites must be true I can quite understand and
must prefer the direct and simple issue of the Hon. Member for Victoria
District, for immediate Responsible Government in any case, either with or
without Confederation. Â I say, Sir, that the question is in no way
connected with the discussion of this clause. I said that Responsible Government
ought not to be considered until after the Council is reconstituted with an
increased representation, as shadowed forth in His Excellency's speech. I
have said that we shall have the sole control of the matter in our own hands
if we have Confederation. I say we, because I identify myself with this
country. Â I speak on this matter as a citizen. I say that if we have
Confederation we shall have an opportunity of getting Responsible
Government. If we have not Confederation then we shall have increased
representation, and under that we can get Responsible Government if the
country as a unit goes for it. Honourable Members are complicating this question.
I cannot imagine that it was the intention of the Honourable Member for New
Westminster to complicate the question. I have too much respect for him to
allow myself to suppose so ; it is
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
107 impossible; and that he wished to force a negative is
equally impossible. It is an error of judgment, in my opinion. If it had
been left to the Council separately, it would have left Honourable Members
more at liberty to consider the question freely. I was, in common with other
Members, carried away in admiration of the outburst of oratory of the Honourable
Member. But there was an allusion—a warning. It is said that it was not a
threat; but there was talk of shouldering muskets, and of blood and
bloodshed, as it that was the proper way to get civil rights. I protest
against these threats, these turgid speeches which oppress the ears of those
who wish to listen to argument and reason. As to the opposition of the
Government Members, it arises from no dislike to the system on the part of the
head of the Executive. Responsible Government interposes a barrier between
the people and the Governor, which is most useful to the Governor. I say
that we are not in a position to take advantage of Responsible Government.
If the country thinks it necessary or desirable, what is there to prevent
our getting it when we choose to ask for it? The Honourable Member for New Westminster
himself told us that the Imperial Government were always
ready to step in, and yet he hints at violence and disturbance. When the
Honourable Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works proposed a Resolution last
session, which was seconded by myself, with respect to a change in the
Constitution, asking for a Council with a majority of one of representative
Members, Honourable Members said we don't want the change and voted it down. If we
had secured this, we should have been a step further in advance than we are
in constitutional progress. I say we must hesitate before any body
constituted as this Council is can pass resolutions of such a nature. Any
such resolutions ought to express the full and deliberate opinions of the
country. As to the special merits of Responsible Government itself, it is hardly
necessary to argue it here at such an inopportune time. I shall, therefore,
merely say that I think it totally inapplicable at present to the
circumstances of British Columbia, where population is so sparse,
and lies at the circumference of a circle which contains an area of 300,000
square miles, and where representation is so difficult that the form suggested
would be the most expensive that could be adopted, and instead of preventing
agitation, will be likely to increase it. Much of the population is alien,
and, in any case, this Council is not the proper body to pass upon it. If,
however, the country is of a different opinion, they can say so at the polls, and
there is no power can prevent their getting Responsible Government. But, I
would ask, what makes the system so particularly attractive to Honourable
Members who advocate it? We are told that it is solely because it will be
good for the Colony, but there is no attempt to prove the proposition that
has been set up. Another thing strikes me as coming with a very bad grace
from those who support this recommendation. It presupposes a distrust of Canada,
and assumes that men of the large experience of Canadian statesmen, and so
reliable as they are, are not to be trusted to yield to a general cry from
the country for enlarged representative institutions. I don't think that
this is the time to go into the question. I say, then, that whenever
Responsible Government is wanted it can be had. I need hardly refer to the
position of official Members in this matter. The terms already passed by the
House, so far as this question is in any way connected with Confederation,
leave the officials free to express their opinions. I must, myself, vote
against this recommendation, and I press upon the Honourable Members to do
the same, in order to prevent the complication of the terms with any such
irrelevant question.
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER—I must endeavour in as few words as
possible to state the position of the Government Members upon the subject
now before the House. I fully understand that it was imperative upon some
Hon. Members to bring forward this question of responsibility at some period
of the present session, having advocated it by speech and pen as the
specific remedy for the ills that the Colony was labouring under. Consistency
demanded that the question should be brought up by them for discussion; it
was a logical necessity. Inexorable fate, I say, impelled certain Hon.
Members to advocate Responsible Government. I had, however, hoped that the
Hon. Members who advocated it would have reserved it for separate
consideration. instead of bringing it up as an amendment to this clause now under
consideration. [
Mr. Robson—"No, not an amendment"]
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER Virtually it is an
amendment. If this clause had prescribed that any future alteration in the
constitution should have been dependent on Canada, then I could see the
desirabilitv of Hon. Members on the other side of the House taking exception
to it; but as it is I confess I am at a loss to comprehend their position.
Although, as I said inexorable fate compelled Hon. Members to bring the subject
108
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. forward, it is a mistake to bring it
up in a Council constituted as this is, especially when the Governor has so
distinctly expressed his views in opposition to the inauguration of Responsible
Government at the present time. It would surely have been much more to the
advantage of the cause they advocate for Hon. Members to have postponed the
consideration of the question for the more representative House shadowed
forth in His Excellency's speech. I say shadowed forth, for on reflection it
must be plain to all Hon. Members that His Excellency was not in a position
to tell what the constitution of that House will be. He does not know. He has
recommended certain changes for Imperial sanction; they may or may not be
favourably considered. His Excellency does, however, tell you that
the representative element will be larger; and I think, therefore, that it
would have been wiser on the part of the representative members who advocate
Responsible Government to have left it to the next Council instead of bringing
it forward while the present Resolutions are under discussion. The subject,
if not positively irrelevant, is not connected with this Resolution, which
simply provides, as a matter of form, power to change the constitution, in
accordance with the Organic Act when the people desire it. In common with
the Hon. Attorney-General, I am surprised that Hon. Members who cordially
support Confederation should be afraid to trust the Dominion Government upon this
question. I am' surprised at the inconsistency of those who tell you that
the people could not get Responsible Government under Confederation, and
that the wishes of the people would not be allowed to prevail. I am
surprised particularly at the Hon. Member for New Westminster expressing any
doubt upon this subject. I, as an individual member of this community, would
willingly leave the interests of the Colony to the guardianship of the Canadian
Government. If I did not think that that Govermnent would exercise whatever
power it might have for the benefit of the people, instead of, as suggested
by Hon. Members, for its own aggrandiscment, I would have no Confederation.
If under Confederation there would be no chance of Responsible
Government, how can the Hon, Member expect to get it from a Council constituted as
this is? However, as the subject has been brought forward for discussion, it
behooves us to consider it upon its merits. There were two propositions
before the House. The Hon. Member for Lillooet has withdrawn his, which was
in reality but a vague expression of an abstract  opinion in favour of
Responsible Government—a recommendation in general terms. We have now to
confine our attention to the amendment of the Hon. Member for New Westminster; the
preamble of which states that Confederation will not be satisfactory to the
people without Responsible Government. The resolution itself, although
embodying the same principle as the one which has been withdrawn,
contemplates a practical step towards obtaining the object recommended, by
addressing the Governor. The Hon. Member for New Westminster was careful to
reserve his own opinion, but he very positive that Confederation without Responsible
Government would not be acceptable to the people. Coming now
to the subject and matter of the speeches of the two Hon. Members, I find
that the arguments of the Hon. Member for Lillooet are simply invectives;
his entire logic is abuse of the Government and the persons composing it. I
have always understood that assertion is not fact, and that invective is not
argument. It may be that my inability to appreciate the force of his remarks
arises from my not possessing the qualification which he told us was
essential to a proper understanding of the people and the people's affairs.
It may he that I have not "eaten and drunk and slept with the people," and
cannot, therefore, rightly estimate the strength of demonstration which
general and indiscriminate abuse of Government officials may convey to some minds.
As to the Hon. Member's earnestness of belief in his case, his
conscientiousness in the discharge of his duty to his constituents and to
the Colony, had we ever any doubt of it, his positive and repeated
assurances of the honesty of his intentions in this matter, of his uni-altering
determination to do his duty to those he represents. must have
forced conviction upon us. But, while giving him full credit for singlcness
of purpose, I must take leave to remark on his singular mode of recommending
the subject to the favourable consideration of this Council, since his
argument in its favour is to heap general accusation and vituperation on the
Official Members of this Council, whom he invites to join with him by voting
in favour of his views,—to confirm his view of their utter haseness and
worthlessness. I shall not place myself in opposition to such a
line of argument. But, Sir, the argument of the Hon. Member for New Westminster is
of a very different character. I congratulate him, and I
congratulate the House, on the manner in which the matter was treated by
him, and especially as regards the officials. I acknowledge the courteous
manner in which he touched on those points in his arguments which affected
the members at this end of the table. It is inseparable from the discussion of
this
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
109 question in this House that it must to some extent partake
of a personal character; it must almost mean a vote of want of confidence in
Government officials. The smallness of the community reduces it
almost to a question amongst individuals, and as the Government Members have
been placed. unnecessarily and inexpediently, as I think, to some extent upon
their defence, I must speak plainly on some points, but in doing so I must
deprecate any idea of giving offence. I say, then, that Responsible
Government is not desirable. and is not applicable to this Colony at
present; is practically unworkable. And here I would deprecate the impression
which is being so studiously instilled into the people of this Colony
concerning what has been said of the unfitness of the Colony for Responsible
Government. His Excellency the Governor has never said, nor has any member
of the Government ever said, that the people are unfit, individually, to
govern themselves. 1 say that, man for man. this community will compare favourably
with any people on this coast. ["Hear, hear," from the
Attorney-General.]
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER Nor is it even the smallness of the population that I consider to be the
great objection, although I admit that this is a drawback; but it is the
scattered character of that population. It would be practically impossible
to organize electoral districts so that they should propeer represent the
interests of the separate parts, and of the whole Colony. As Victoria is the
centre of wealth, and intelligence also. it you will, under present
circumstances the Government would be centralized in the hands of
Victorians, who would thus rule theColony, and this would be objectionable ["Hear,
hear," from
Mr. Holbrook];
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER and I say also that there would be a great
difficulty in getting proper representatives to represent the respective
districts. I do not agree with the Hon. Member who has stated that only the
chaff of the people is blown into this House; for 1 say, Sir, that this
Council, constituted as it is. has proved that men fit to represent the people do
come here. Responsible Government will come as a matter of course when the
community is fit for it; but that form of government is not fitted for
communities in their infancy. It has never been so considered. Look abroad
into the world and you will find large populations without Responsible
Govermnent. There is no necessity to look far off to see whether the Anglo-Saxon
race must necessarily have Responsible Government. Look across the Straits,
where there is a population of, I suppose, 30,000 people. and there they
have neither Responsible Government nor representative
institutions. Look at Oregon, also with no representation until the population
exceeded 45,000. Look at the Red River Settlement, also with a population
larger than ours; they do not apply for Responsible Government. It does not
follow, according to the rule of Anglo-Saxon minds, that this form of
government must prevail. I do not think the sort of responsibility which is
advocated would be suitable to this Colony at present, or would promote its true
interests. If T did think it desirable I should be found amongst its most
cordial advocates, as this is a matter open for discussion without
Government direction. But I think, Sir, that our present form of Government
is practically a more real responsibility to the people than that proposed
by the Hon. Member for New Westminster; this form which the Hon. Member for
Lillooet finds it so easy to animadvert upon. For we are in reality. if not
directly, responsible to the people. We, as servants of the Crown, are
directly and immediately responsible to the Governor, and the Governor is
responsible to the Queen, who is the guardian of the people's rights. This
is no mere idea, for the fact of responsibility has been, over and over again,
proved. If you have any good grounds of complaint you know where to lay them
and get redress. This responsibility which we owe is more real, less
fluctuating. less open to doubtful influences, and under it the rights of
the whole country are secured and protected and not those of the majority,
to the prejudice of the minority, as under the so-called Responsible
Government. which really means Party Government, advocated so warmly by the Hon.
Member for New Westminster. Why, Sir. the Hon. Member has admitted to you
that under that system the Government of the day might come down to pass
measures by unfair means.
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER—The Hon. Member
said, and I took down his words. "that under Responsible Govermhent the
Government might come down to the House and carry measures by means not
excessively fair." I say that this cannot occur under the present system;
that no corruption can be charged against this Government. 1 think the House is
capable of being remodelled. i would rather see a larger element of
representative government in this Council, with such a majority
that the Government would have no opportunity of passing a measure
objectionable to the people, as understood by their representatives; such a
majority as I advocated in a resolution submitted to this Council. But the Hon.
Members
110
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. for New Westminster, for Victoria
District, and for Lillooet, tell you that the people desire Responsible
Government ; that they must have it. and will have it. I say, Sir, that if they do
say so. which I very much doubt, it is because the population have been
educated up to it by those who have agitated the subject through the press
and through speeches. Some no doubt press for it from conviction, and some
with a view to serving their own ends; but I believe, Sir, that what the
people really want is such an administration of the Government as will tend
to bring back prosperity to the Colony. You are told that the present oliicials
have no sympathy with the people ; that they are not of the people; that
they move in a different sphere, and constitute a class by themselves. Â Â Is
this true—or is it not rather the fact that persons who have ends to serve
have put us in a class by ourselves? Â The Hon. Member says that the hands
of the benefactors of the people must be callous with labour. Who, I ask, are
those throughout the world who have laboured most for the people by speech
and pen? I say that the great statesmen who have done most to advance the
truest interests of the people, have not sprung from the ranks of those whom
the Hon. Member classes as the people. The Hon. Member for New Westminster
says that the present Government Officials are well enough, able and honest,
but that they cannot enjoy the confidence of the people because they are not
their officials ; they are not elected by them.
And, be as able as we might, and as honest, and work as we might, and do
what we might for the people's good, we could not gain their confidence because we
are not directly responsible to them. And the Hon. Member
sympathized with us for the position. Now, Sir, if it be true, as he says,
that the Government have not the confidence of the community when, he says,
they deserve it, whose is the fault? I say, Sir, it is the fault of those
who, by voice and pen, have for years sedulously prejudiced the public mind
of this community against that Government, not by pointing out faults to be
remedied, but by general and indiscriminate fault finding, descending to
personal abuse, and even to the verge of scurrility. We have striven to do
our duty. Â Hon Members do not advance arguments, but content
themselves with saying that we are unpopular. I tell you why : If false
impressions have gone abroad on this point let the responsibility of those
impressions rest where it ought ; for I say that it has been the business of
certain persons to prejudice the public mind against Government officials.
Let them settle the question of motives with their own consciences and with
the people. If the officials in this House occupied the positions which
would be held by officials under party government, I could understand the
persistent course of the opposition offered by some members present ; but
when I see the changed position, that there is no Responsible Government,
and that our mouths are closed and our pens cannot be used in self-defence,
I feel that we have been struck in a cowardly manner, and let the public
defend the motives of those who have attacked us. I invite all in this House, or
out of it, to aid as to carry on the Government. and to act in a reasonable
way in promoting the general interests of the Colony. Whether we are to have
Responsible Government or not I don't know. I feel that it will come in good
time, when the circumstances of the Colony are so changed as to admit of its
adoption—I think sooner with Confederation than without it. But whether we
have it or not, I ask Hon. Members to assist us instead of endeavouring to
complicate matters and retard the progress of the Colony. I ask them to give
us some credit for good intentions Now, Sir, one remark in conclusion : the
Hon. Member for New Westminster, in his powerful oration, has not only
allured us with the prospects of popularity under Responsible Government, but he has,
I will not say threatened, warned us of the result of our
opposing him in this matter. He tells us that unless Responsible Government
be conceded the cause of Confederation will be ruined ; that the
people would not have Confederation without Responsible Government. This in
fact is embodied in the preamble of his Resolution, Sir, I have cordially
supported Confederation because I honestly believe that it will be for the benefit
of the local interests of this connnunity as well as for the security and
consolidation of Imperial interests; but I believe that this community is
not ready for Responsible Government, 1 will not, therefore, do
what I consider wrong that good may come ; I will not vote for Responsible
Government for the sake of gaining Confederation. I, for one,
say, if the people won't have Confedera» tion without Responsible
Government; if they regard Responsible Government as the main object of
Confederation ; if they do not appreciate the real advantages of Confederation,
let Confederation wait a while. The Governor has sent down Resolutions which
he thinks can be carried out. and we hold that, whether under Confederation
or not, this matter of Responsible Government will ultimately have to be
settled by the vote of the people. When the proper
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
111 time comes we shall, I say, as a matter of course, have
Responsible Government ; and that time will arrive sooner under
Confederation than without it. I trust the Dominion Government ; I
do not think they will go against the will of the people. I believe that in this,
as in other matters, if they exercise influence at all, it will be for the
good of the country. A Government of liberal institutions cannot be expected
to oppose the wishes of the people in proper and reasonable matters.
Responsible Government ought not to be a condition of Confederation ; and I say that
in these Resolutions it is very properly left to be
settled in a new and more fully representative Council, which the Governor
has told us he is going to obtain Imperial sanction to establish. But if
Confederation is to depend on this question of Responsible Government, then
I say let it be the test also of the reality of the supporters of Confederation.
Hon. MR. ROBSON —I expect the privilege of a general reply,
but I desire to explain, now, that the Hon. Chief Connnissioner has made an
unfair use of what I said about "horny hands and patched garments." I
disclaim having used it in that connection attributed to me; his remarks are
unfair.
Hon. Mr. WALKEM—I think on an important question of this kind
every member should give a reason for his vote. I have given the matter
great consideration, and had intended entering somewhat fully into the
discussion, but the Hon. Chief Commissioner has anticipated me. I have been
utterly astonished as I listened to what fell from him. I entirely coincide
with him in his argument and in his views. Indeed, I can hardly help thinking that
either he has copied my notes or I his. I must congratulate myself on coming
to this conclusion. On the same ground I congratulate the House on the good
temper, good taste, intelligence, and ability with which this question has
been launched for discussion. The main speech —for the Hon. Member for
Victoria District did not deign to express his views—has been that of the
Hon. Member for New Westminster. As I listened to that speech, Sir, one of
the best ever uttered in this House. I almost felt that for live long years I had
been wrong,— he almost made a convert of me ; but upon looking a little more
closely into it I find that it is based upon false premises ; his arguments
are fallacious, and his conclusions wrong. The Hon. Member says that
Responsible Government is a principle which may be applied either to the
Great Eastern, or to a dairy churn. or to a lady's watch; that it is a principle
capable of being carried out by three or three hundred. This is utterly
incorrect ; it is not a principle, but a form, one element of which is
responsibility to the people. It is a form adopted by the people, but it
does not follow, as a matter of induction, that it can be used or carried out in
every place or by every community. In 1837 the rebellion in Canada, for the
purpose of acquiring Responsible Government, took place. The rebellion was
raised and the question agitated simply for changing the form of Government,
What was the population ? It was in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000 in 1837.
and of 2,500,000 in 1861. Look at the difference of the population of this
Colony ; after deducting the aliens and females, there is scarcely a voting
population through the whole Colony of 3,000. Have the whole country mapped out
and show me how much further the Governor can go in usefully extending the
representation. We have nine members, and out of these nine, under
Responsible Government, we should have to elect a Colonial Secretary, an
Attorney-General, a Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, and probably two
other Cabinet Ministers ; altogether five in office, and four struggling for
power. Make the whole number eighteen and you then have a constant struggle for
power ; a struggle such as we have not had in this Colony before. and such
as I hope we shall not see. There are virtually two ends of the Colony which
represent all the wealth and property of the community—Victoria and Cariboo.
Cariboo would be contending for the repeal of road tolls, and Victoria would
be contending that they ought to be paid. It may be said that these general
questions of taxation will be left to the Dominion Government, but there are many
other subjects which will create differences between the two ends of the
Colony. The Hon. Member for New Westminster says if we go in without
Responsible Government we shall go in with agitation, Does any one believe
that if we had Responsible Government to-morrow, politicians will have no
subject on which to agitate. Political agitation will never cease. Let us go
further. As the Honourable Chief Commissioner says, we have the United States
advocating Responsible Government, and that form of it which is
said to be the best in theory, a form in reality democratic ; but the people
are not educated to the extent of the principle itself. Americans are averse
not only to granting small but large territories the freedom which we now
ask, They say : "You shall be a Territory until you are properly educated."
112
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
For instance. there is Washington Territory, with a population of 27,000, sends a
Delegate to
Congress, who has no vote. Dakota, another Territory, has been refused admission as
a State
until it has a population larger than it now possesses. I am just reminded about Alaska,
which is not even a Territory yet. General Thomas reported against giving it any other
than
a military form of Government How can we. then, expect Responsible Government with
our
population? I know that there are Honourable Members wavering; their interests tell
them
to vote one way, their conscience points to another. I say. vote according to your
conscience.
I say that a village can never have Responsible Government. I maintain that it would
prove
a curse, through the agitation that would follow, instead of a blessing. I coincide
with the
Honourable Member for New Westminster as to what he says as to callous hands. I believe
there are men with tattered garments in the upper country quite capable of giving
a sensible
vote upon all questions likely to come before a Council in this Colony; but we find
that they
have too much to do; they have no time for politics; they have to earn their own bread.
I
believe that the Honourable Member for Caribou has uttered the true sentiments of
the great
majority of the district. I do not believe that Cariboo is favourable to Responsible
Government. Those gentlemen with the patched garments and callous hands have the same
opportunity that the Member for New Westminster has had of coming into the House.
He has
told us with pride of his hard work as a pioneer on the Fraser River; and today we
hear him
advocating, with most eloquent language, his views upon this great question. His voice
has
had much to do with shaping the councils of this House. and, I ask, are these doors
shut to
any man in the Colony of equal talent with the Honourable gentleman, who can be found
willing to devote their time to the service of their country? I do not feel in the
servile
position or being obliged to vote one way or the other. I am as free to vote as the
Honourable
Member himself. I shall give my vote to the best of my ability. I believe that no
compulsion has been brought to bear upon any Member of this House, official or otherwise.
The
latter part of the speech of the Honourable gentleman (Mr. Robson) is hardly worthy
of the
former. It contains language which I am very sorry he has used; language which makes
me
believe that it is not from conviction, but that it is intended to go forth to the
world to stir
up the people; excellent stump oratory, if, without intending the slightest disrespect.
I may
use the term. I believe it is not the wish of the property owners of Victoria to'
have Responsible Government. Do you suppose, Sir, that property owners are going,
willingly,
to entrust
their interests to persons of whom they know nothing? I do not dread professional
politicians;
I believe they are as useful as any other professional men in their way; but I say,
as a
fact, there are no politicians here with the exception of those who have devoted their
time to
politics Why, I ask, is there so great an antipathy to leaving this question for the
people to
decide at the polls? "' Give us," says the other side, " an opportunity of educating
ourselves,
so that our mistakes, when made, may be remedied." I say that there is no better education
than this Council, in which Hon. Members have education before they Come to Responsible
Government; for under the scheme foreshadowed by the Governor, the position will be
very
little inferior to Responsible Government. Depend upon it, if the Canadian Government
think
we can manage Responsible Govermnent they will give it to us—they will be glad to
get rid
of the question. I say, however, this question is being agitated at an inopportune
time. I,
for one, would not consent to trust my interests to any such change. I do not believe
in the
present form of Government but if the form foreshadowed by the Governor be carried
out, it
will give the people a system very little interior, as l have said, to Responsible
Government,
and infinitely more workable. I trust that, Hon. Members will give due weight to the
remarks
of other speakers who have preceded me upon the question. and will well consider their
votes.
Hon. Mr. DRAKE —Mr. Chairman, I have a
strong objection to this clause being inserted; it never ought to have been
in the terms. It presumes that this Colony is willing to go into
Confederation with the form of Government that we have at present. It seems to
have been put in as a sop to Canada; it ought to have been left out. I
cannot see why it is inserted, or what advantage it can possibly be to us.
If we go into Confederation bound hand and foot with the some form of
Government as now. we shall have no power to change the form. We shall then
have Canada as a Queen Regnant. We shall then have an Executive who will, if
so directed. vote against Responsible Government. This Colony would be a preserve
for Canadian statesmen and Canadian patronage; we shall be no more advanced
then than now. Without going into argument i may be pardoned, I trust, if I
quote three propositions of John
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
113 Stuart Mill on Responsible Government: First, "Do the
people require it; or are they unwilling to accept it?" We are told that
this has not been made a question; I deny this statement. It has been made a
question, more or less, in Victoria at every election. Every election
depends more or less on this point. Second, "Are the people willing to take the
burdens which are imposed on them by such a form? " I say that we have the
answer to this proposition in the fact of there being people willing to come
here where they are practically useless. Do not persons come forward to
represent the people? A very large majority of the people take part in every
election. Third, "Are the people willing and able to do that which will enable the
Government to perform its functions properly?" This, I contend, is the
condition of the Colony. The main argument of the Chief Commissioner in his
very able speech, a broad argument and very well put, is that the
population is scattered. I say this argument cannot be used with effect. We
are told that the Government would fall into the hands of Victoria as the
centre of population and wealth; no great harm if it did. Victoria is dependent
upon all parts of the Colony, and they on her; their interests are
identical, Another objection that has been raised is, that we cannot get men
of proper intelligence and qualifications for positions of honour and trust.
Looking round this Council Board we see men who have come out to this Colony
to make their own fortunes and homes. Out of them the present members of the
Government have been chosen, and out of our present population there can he found
an equal number of men who can properly fulfil the duties of the Government.
I cannot see that it is impossible to find proper men. If we find men
willing to sit in this Council now, we shall find plenty ready and anxious
to share in the burdens of Responsible Government. The sufficiency
or insufficiency of population is not an element in this question. The United
States has been pointed out to us as an example. I say there is no
Responsible Government in the United States; it is an absolute despotic
democracy, absolutely irresponsible to the people, except once in four
years. There is no such thing as responsibi ty in the form of government of
the United States, The only means of getting rid of a minister is by impeachment.
The Hon, Member for Cariboo, in his rambling speech, gives us no new
argument against Responsible Government. He certainly reiterated much that
was forcibly put forward by the Hon. Chief Commissioner. I can well believe
that the wheat was left at Cariboo, and the chaff came here.
Hon. MR. HUMPHREYS —Sir, I have listened to
the speeches of the Hon. Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works and
to the Hon. Government nominee, and I find them difficult to answer, because
there is so little in them, The only way would be to have them printed and
read them. They carry their answers with them. One Hon. Member says that it rests
on numbers. I say that intelligence is the only qualification for
Responsible Government; numbers have nothing to do with it. If I err I am
proud of erring with some of the greatest men that England ever produced.
The Hon. Chief Commissioner has admitted that the population,
taken man for man, is equal to that of any country. Then, I say, we have the
proper qualification. Let us have practical, and not theoretical, means of
governing. What is really the case? Under the present term of Government the
people have to pay for the privilege and benefit of a few gentlemen sitting
round this board. Take away this form of government and make it more
liberal, and what is the danger? All the civil wars and troubles have not arisen
from the uneducated, but from the ambition of the so-called educated
classes. The people have been the conservatives who came forward to keep the
country going. Take away the so-called intelligent and educated classes and
it will be no great loss; the labouring classes can always supply men to
fill their places. But take away the working classes and you kill the world; the
educated classes cannot fill their places. In my opinion, Sir, the people
want practical reality. They have endured too long the law's delay and the
insolence of those in office. Why should we come here, year after year, to
ask for a change in the form of government? I think that Responsible
Government should be a
sine qua non of
Confederation. I shall move an amendment to that effect.
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN—Great heavens! what terrible things are
said and done in the name of the people. To hear Hon. Members talk one would
think that they were the people. But the people are quiet while Hon. Members
are very loud. I intend to support the Government. I do not mean
to say much for or against. I take the position that the people can have
Responsible Government when they want it; and their representatives ought to be
satisfied to take it when the people really and seriously ask for it.
Responsible Government has been one of the watchwords of a certain set of
politicians who wanted to bring on Confederation.
114
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
Government of, from, for, and by the people, without regard to the material interests
of the
Colony. This means government by politicians. These gentlemen will sacrifice every
benefit
to the Colony for Responsible Government. Confederation to me means terms; to them
it
means pickings, office. place, and power. This will be represented, I am well aware,
as being
the result of being in the Executive Council. It is said that there is a great difference
between
the atmosphere of the two Councils. I acknowledge it. There, with closed doors, people
speak
the truth, without any ad captandum arguments addressed to the galleries. There people can
state what their opinions really are. Here popularity ' has to be sought. We are told
that the
people will fight for Responsible Government. That is mere nothing—words only. The
Hon.
Member for New Westminster in his able speech erected a very handsome structure, but,
like
most fancy structures, it will be a very expensive one. He wants a Government like
Ontario;
that is a Government of one House, with eighty members. For a Government of that kind
not
less than forty or fifty would be absolutely necessary.
Hon. MR. ROBSON —I never said like that of Ontario, but that
we wanted the principle of Responsible Government as existing in Ontario.
Hon. MR. HELMCKEN —Then why not bring in a scheme embodying
it? The true principles of Responsible Government can only exist
satisfactorily with forty or lifity members in the House. It would cost very
little short of $20,000 per annum. That, out of the very small amount we are
to get from Canada, would reduce the amount likely to be available for public
works to a fraction. You must have a large number to work Responsible
Government, or, more properly speaking. party government. If we are to have
it, I would not have the heads of departments responsible to the people; at
least not the working heads. If any head of a department is to be
responsible to the people, let it be the political head; but I would make
the working heads permanent. I have found, from my experience of the old Vancouver
House of Assembly, that policy frequently changes and turns round. The same
thing would happen under Responsible Government. If I wished to oppose
Confederation, I believe that I could not do a better thing towards
effecting my object than to vote for Responsible Government; but I want to
see the more material wants advanced by Confederation. I know that material
interests were not the pivot, but that is was place, patronage, and office that
.was wanted. With regard to the present system of Government, it is very
easy to say that it is bad, but I have listened to all the speeches and have
not heard one word of practical fault-finding with the present
Government—merely the assumption that the people desire change. This desire
for change they have been educated to. I acknowledge many faults in the past, but
we have now a new Executive, and we are promised a change in the form of
Government; but this is apart from Confederation altogether, lt appear to me
that the first thing we have to arrange is the money question; to get our
material interests first settled; to make sure that this Colony should be
pecuniarily better off; to make the question of Confederation now turn upon
material interest, and not allow our material interests to be jeopardized by a cry
for Responsible Government; not to allow Responsible Government to
be the sauce to make the public swallow bad and unprofitable terms. All
Members have acknowledged that "money" is the basis of all Govermnents; let
us get that money. I would not have the public vote for Responsible
Government and forget or put in the background the money. Place the question
upon material terms and the Colony will demand profitable terms; but mix it up
with Responsible Government and you got a divided opinion upon it,
and those who think Responsible Government everything will vote for that to
the exclusion of any terms, or, at all events, with unprofitable terms.
There are. doubtless, many who hope to live upon Responsible Government; but, Sir,
Responsible Government is not food and raiment. The people
can live without Responsible Government. but they cannot live upon it. Give
them food and raiment first; the rest will follow in natural succession.
These few words will give you my reasons for consenting to the arrangement
proposed in the conditions. More than this, I am not pledged to Responsible
Government, but I am pledged to representative institutions. The latter have been
granted; my mission thus far is fulfilled. I have always asserted that we
must take our steps to Responsible Government gradually. Having
representative institutions, we can go on to the other. No one ever stated
that the people were unfit to govern themselves; all acknowledge that they
have talent enough. But this I do assert, that thus far the people have shown an
unwillingness to govern themselves—have taken but little interest in the
matter. It is not that they are unfit, but unwilling. They prefer looking
after their own business; it pays them
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
115 better. I need not refer to the difficulty of getting
members; and doubtless some of us sit here from that cause; and it is no
doubt true, as has been said, that better could have been found ouside. If
you have Responsible Government it will fall into the hands of those who wish to
make a living by it. No one has said that it would be economical—it would
not be so. It would require at least thirty members to carry on party
Government for six weeks at least every year, or $150 per diem for
thirty-six days. which would amount to $5,400; and then the mileage would
come to as much more—say, altogether, $10,000. Add to these the salaries of
the political heads, say five at $2,000 per annum, and then you have the nice
little sum of $20,000 a year. Then, I suppose, each Minister would require a
pension when he went out. The real Executive oflicers would remain then as
now, and would have to be paid nearly as much as at present. The truth is,
there would be a great difficulty in getting members, and without a large
body of members it could not be carried on. You would find that the best men
would avoid politics, and soon there would be very great corruption. There is a
great deal of talk about voting away the people's money, but it must be
borne in mind that a part of that money, under Confederation, will come from
Canada, and she will have a right to see it properly expended. There is also
a great deal of talk about Hon. Official Members voting their own salaries,
but would not the same thing be done under Responsible Government? Have not
Hon. Representative Members voted themselves salaries this present session? IIon.
Members say that if Responsible Government is not granted we will agitate. I
thought that everybody was so much in favour of it that the people would
rise if it were not included in the terms; that there would be employment
for every gunsmith in Victoria; and yet we are told " we will agitate."
Hon. DR. HELMCKEN—It is much the same thing; the agitators
will "beat the bush" once more, and they will perhaps be driving the birds
for other people once again. If the people really desire Responsible
Government, why is there any necessity for all this agitation? I admit that
many of the people of Victoria desire it, and think that it can be carried out.
Ask the scattered districts in the country, and they will tell you that they
do not know or care about it. Political opinion does not run high in the
Colony. I intend to support the Government upon this clause, but I leave
myself perfectly free to vote for Responsible Government if I think proper.
I want to secure the material interests of the Colony. Let the people say
whether those material interests will be benefited by Confederation, but not mix
up the question of Responsible Government with it. I am perfectly willing to
abide by the decision of the people on Responsible Government, and on
Confederation on Terms, separately. My sole desire is to see this country
materially benefited. If the people want responsibility I will not say nay,
but we must have good terms. At the polls Responsible Government might carry
Confederation with very indifferent terms. I am perfectly certain that the
Government have acted wisely in not allowing the terms to be clogged with
Responsible Government. 1 say, don't let Responsible Government take the
place of material benefits.
Hon. DR. CARRALL—Sir, I rise to take exception to what the
honourable and learned Member for Victoria City said about being bound hand
and foot to Canada. In my remarks he can find no efforts to catch votes, and
no clap-trap addressed to the galleries, but I advocate what may be
unpopular from conviction.
Hon. MR. BARNARD—Sir, I agree with the Hon. Chief
Commissioner that it is a pity that this question has been brought up now,
for I had made up my mind to vote for Responsible Government in its
entirety; but the Hon. Member for New Westminster put the question to the
Hon. Attorney-General, who said it must go on.
Hon ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I said that as the Hon. Member for New
Westminster and others ii insisted upon opening the discussion, it must go
on.
Hon. MR. ROBSON—I felt regret that it should be brought up
now, but when I asked if we could put it off, the Hon. Attorney-General said
it was too late.
Hon. ATTORNEY-GENRAL—I offered the Hon. Members for New
Westminster and Lillooet every opportunity for discussing the important
question upon a day to be set apart for the purpose.
Hon. MR. HUMPHREYS—What I did was in consequence of what the
Hon. Attorney- General said at the commencement of the debate.
He invited recommendations, otherwise I should not have put my notice on the
board.
116
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
Hon. MR. BARNARD—It was fully impressed on my mind that this
question should not be mixed up with the terms. I am astonished at the
charge against Representative Members of trying to force this question upon
the House at an inopportune time. I will leave it to the Government to say
whether it shall be left for another day or go on.
Hon. ATTONEY-GENERAL—I say, again, now the debate has begun,
now the gauntlet is down, the debate must go on. .
Hon. MR. ROBSON—Sir, this course is most unfair on the part
of the Government Members. Let the House decide whether it will go on with
this question now or postpone it. It seems to me that the Hon.
Attorney-General is resorting to a parliamentary manoeuvre in forcing this
matter on. It is a matter that Representative Members only ought to vote on. We
shall have a large majoriy of Representative Members on this question, and
that is all we want. I say that the Attorney-General did not fairly answer
my question as to whether, by passing this resolution, we should shut the
door to further discussion of the question during the present session.
Hon. CHIEF COMMISSIONER—I should now object to the resolution
being withdrawn. As the question has been discussed, let us take a decision
upon it; it would be unwise to postpone the question.
Hon. MR. HUMPHREYS—I think, Sir, the matter cannot now be
postponed; let us fight it out and have done with it.
Hon. MR. ROBSON—I say, Sir, that this debate may be
postponed, and if the Government vote is given against the postponement we
shall know the reason.
Hon. Mr. BARNARD—The Hon. Chief Commissioner said that he
should take an adverse vote on this resolution as a vote of want of
confidence. I don't want that. Won't Hon. Government Members help
us?
Hon. DR. CARRALL—The opposition say that the Government ought
not to have put such a resolution on the terms. Let us take that issue.
Hon. Mr. BARNARD—lt was not my desire to
hamper the Government; I desired to give a hearty support to the Government,
and, at the same time, to do my duty to my constituents. I have never felt
the weight of responsibility as I feel it to-day. I feel that I am about casting
a vote which will affect, for weal or woe. the destiny of. this fine
Province. I am convinced that if a majority of the elected Members of this
Council vote " aye " to-day on this question, Responsible
Government will be inaugurated conjointly with Confederation. It is beyond a
question that the intelligent portion of the community are in favour of
Responsible Government, but there is a grave question in regard to its
adaptation to the Colony. The words coming from His Excellency are worthy of
careful consideration; they contain strong reasons against the introduction
of Responsible Government. Public opinion is not settled on the Island, The
Hon. senior Member for Victoria City has shown in his remarks that there is a
great want of settled principle in the Colony. The principal men of Victoria
are averse to taking upon themselves the duties and labour of legislating
for the country. Men of standing and wealth stand aloof. The merchants,
manufacturers, and professional men take no interest in the matter of
legislalion. There is a great difficulty in getting good representative men. There
are. I admit. many good reasons which might be urged against the measure,
and I have no doubt that dissatisfaction, to some extent, may ensue. I agree
with the Commissioner of Lands and Works, in his remarks about the press
influencing the public unfavorably to the Government; but the
blame is not in the press, but in that system of Government which keeps the
rulers silent. The members of the Government ought to be in a position {to defend
themselves, both by pen and speech. I have glanced at a few reasons against
the admission of Responsible Government, but I will now look at the other
side. Look at the fact of all the larger subjects, under Union; being dealt
with by the Federal power. This fact, of itself, is as strong an argument as
we need. What Hon. Member can go to his constituents and tell them that he
thinks the local business of this Colony could be managed better at Ottawa than it
can be by ourselves? The Official Members of this Government will, no doubt,
avail themselves of the retiring pension. and appointees from Ottawa will
take their places. Will those latter officials have to be pensioned off by
this Colony when we adopt Responsible Government? This is a strong objection
to entering the Union under a system like the present. This Colony may be
asked to pension another set of officials. Will the people be satisfied with this
sort of Government if we are to have appointees from Ottawa? There are a
class of men who oppose
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
                           Â
117Confederation on this ground. They would prefer remaining as they are,
with the officials nominated from Downing Street, rather than from Ottawa.
It is often asserted that this Colony is not ready. How long are we to wait?
Canada was told the same story when she had a population of 600,000. All the
other Provinces were told the same thing. Must we wait for such an increase,
or must we fight as did Canada? Throw us on our own resources as a Colony,
and we will soon learn valuable lessons in the science of Government. There were
gentlemen of good families and of good education who came here in early
days, who had never suffered privations of any sort before they came here;
sent out to make fortunes, or, at all events, homes for themselves; their
roughing it was rough indeed. Bad news had come from the mines; the avenues
of trade were closed; there were no agricultural pursuits for them to turn
to; the consequence was they had to lie round hotels; after failing to get
Government employment,-for which, as a matter of course, they applied,—some
kept bars whilst waiting for remittances. The reason was that they never had
been taught self-reliance. We shall be in the same position if we are
constantly to have rulers from England, or Canada; but throw us on our
resources and we shall succeed. Self-reliance is the best means of education in
politics as in anything else. If our rulers are sent us from England or
Ottawa we will always lack seltlreliance. Self-reliance is written on every
line of the British North America Act. Rely upon yourselves, is the cry of
the people of England. It is better to grapple with the difficulties now
when the issues are small and comparatively unimportant; and should we make
blunders they will not be so serious when our interests are small; and for what
errors we do commit, the consequences will fall upon ourselves. We will, no
doubt, blunder at first, and there may be chaff blown here. If Responsible
Government will bring the scum to the top, dross will go to the bottom. The
scum will be ladled off—the chart will be blown away by the breath of public
opinion. The Governor's promise of a majority will not satisfy the people,
and we should, therefore. urge upon His Excellency to give us Responsible
Government. I am not in favour, however, of making that condition a
sine qua non of Confederation. I would accept
Confederation with good terms, even without Responsible Government. There may he
a few arguments against it, but there are many in its favour. Under no
circumstances would I like Confederation and Responsible Government to go to
the polls together. I hope the people will sever the two. Let us have
Confederation and we shall get Responsible Government.
Hon. MR. WOOD—In rising to address myself to the motion now
before this Committee, I do so with a double object: I feel myself
challenged to uphold my opinion on the subject of Responsible Government, as
applied to this Colony, and I am desirous to add a few words on the bearing
of the subject, in the matter of Confederation, now before the Council. First,
with respect to the subject of Responsible Government. As to this, Sir, my
views have been for a long time settled, and I shall endeavour to express
them as clearly as I can. The result of them is expressed in a few words. I
am in favour of the extension of representative institutions
little by little, to the utmost verge of safety; but I am opposed, in this
community at least, to the establishment of what is called Responsible
Government. These are my views shortly. I believe them to be the settled
convictions of most moderate and experienced men not bound to flatter
popular constituencies. And I believe I am doing a service to society in
upholding such moderate views against the popular error and the popular bias in
favour of the rash application of Responsible Government in such
communities. I will start, Sir, at once from an historical point of view.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster has, as I understand him,
asserted that Responsible Government is the immemorial birthright ot' Englishmen,
and that the principle of Cabinet Ministers going in and out with votes of a
majority of the House of Commons is a principle of ancient date. My
understanding of the history of my country leads to a different conclusion;
and however much it may be clear and obvious that representative
institutions are our natural and inalienable birthright; however much it may
he established that the power of self-taxation resides and has always resided in
the representatives of the country, in the Commons of England,
carrying with it the overwhelming power of the purse—it is, I believe,
clearly admitted that the principle of Responsible Government, as now
understood, has existed for little more than 100 years, —say from the accession of
George III. and the termination of Lord Bute's administration,— so that I
admit the Hon. gentleman's proposition only so far as this. Representative
institutions are the birthright of the British nations—representative
institutions and the privilege of taxing ourselves. Now, Sir, I believe the
whole scope of representative institutions to be greatly misrepresented. It
118
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. is the fashion for Honourable
Members to say that the Government of this or any other community
are bound to govern according to the well understood wishes of the people; that
the
vox populi is the
vox dei; that Ministries and Governments are responsible to the people.
But: the true principle, as we all very well know, is that Governments and
Ministries are responsible, not to the people as a populace, but to the
representatives of the people, properly and reasonably chosen. Governments
and Ministries are responsible, not to numerical majorities, but to the
country. Now, Sir, representative institutions are liable to this obvious and
well-known danger. I will quote the words of a well-known political writer,
Herbert Spencer: "Whenever the profit accruing to the
representative individually, from the passage of a mischievous measure,
largely exceeds his loss as a unit in the community from the operation of the
injurious law, his interest becomes antagonistic to that of his
constituents, and sooner or later will sway his vote." How true and bow
obvious this is. I might go further, when the private and personal, the
direct and immediate, interest of the representative or of the constituents, whose
advocates and delegates they are, is opposed to any matter of legislative
action, the direct and material interest will, of a certainty, prevail over
the distant and more remote welfare of the, community, in all but very rare
instances. This is the danger that threatens all representative
institutions, and the only safeguard against it is the qualification—the pecuniary
and material qualification of the representative, the pecuniary and material
qualification of the elector; and, accordingly, we see representative
institutions flourishing and successful only when this safeguard practically
exists. Let us turn to the example of England. In England representative
institutions and Responsible Government work smoothly—and why? Because of
the notoriously aristocratic and plutocratic character of the Legislature of Great
Britain. Political life is a sealed book to any but the wealthy classes.
Every member of Parliament is a man of property; no other can afford the
luxury of legislative life; and society is secure in the hands of
representatives whose property would suffer from the results of vicious or
reckless legislation. I say nothing of the question of peace and war, probably
the most momentous and disastrous subject of vicious and reckless
legislation, a question which will not arise in the Colony. The cream of all
legislation is taxation, and my solid conviction is that representative
institutions and Responsible Government will fail whenever the working
majority is in the hands of an unsubstantial class of representatives or of
electors. I have thus, Sir, treated or representative institutions and
Responsible Government somewhat in the abstract. I will now refer more
particularly to its application to this Colony, and this apart from any
question of Confederation;, and I will repeat that I am in favour of the extension
to'the utmost possible limits of the representative elements
of this Council, but adverse to Responsible Government. With respect to the
constitution of the Legislative Council of British Columbia, it might, I
think, hardly be necessary, in the present condition of the Colony, to
advocate a second chamber—a council as distinct from an Assembly. However
advisable this may be in an advanced condition of the Colony, advanced in numbers
and wealth, few, if any, would advocate such an institution as a second
chamber. The elements for forming such a chamber are sadly wanting in the
present state of affairs, and the matter may be dismissed without further
comment—without discussing the advisability in a general way of such an
institution at all, or the constitutional elements of such a body. But with
regard to the Legislature on the supposition of its consisting of one single
House, it will be necessary to speak at somewhat greater length. Of what
elements ought such a legislative body to consist? At present it consists of
official members, heads of departments; official members not heads of
departments, but representing. for the most part, different magisterial
districts; a few nominated members—nominated. I think it is reasonable to presume,
from an impression of their being tolerably intelligent and moderate; and a
few representative members. It is asked whether the constitution
of this Council should be altered so as to establish direct Responsible
Government, or what may be looked upon almost as its equivalent, a large
working majority of responsible members. I leave out of the question at present
all reference to any modification of the constitution of the Council in the
event of Confederation, and I consider the matter at present only in
reference to the Council and the Colony in their actual condition. At
present it is obvious. and must be felt by all of us, by official members no less
than by independent members, that our po on as a Crown Colony is what is
commonly called a
false position. We are
individually as well fitted for self-government as our brothers or our
cousins in the Old Country or in Canada. I will go further: I will say that the
community, taken individually, in this Colony is
better qualified to demand and have repre
CONFEDERATION DEBATE.
119sentative institutions. I say taken
individually—and I mean it in its strict sense.
Man for man, I believe the Colonist a better politician than his English
cousin. The aristocratic class hardly exists, it is true. It is an injustice
to presume for a moment that the Colonist in this, or any other Colony of
Anglo- Saxon origin. is in any way unfit for the enjoyment of the freest
political liberty. Higher class we have none, but the middle and lower classes
are—I do not hesitate to say it—superior to the middle and lower classes at
home. The Colonist is more enterprising and more pushing than the
stay-at-home Englishman. He has better knowledge of the world and of human
nature; he graduates in a school in which politics are prominent, and he is
free from an immense amount of ignorance and prejudice which is thought and
written and acted in the Old World. But then comes the consideration, what
elements are indispensable in the community to form the representative body,
if, as is contended, that element is to be supreme; or, what is the same
thing in point of actual power, when that element constitutes the working
majority? I will answer: (1) Localized and permanent population. (2)
Established diversified interests; wealth, whether capital or regular income,
the well—doing of professions, businesses and industries, agriculture,
substantial industries, staples. Population herein we are deficient—6,500
adult white men-sporadic, scattered, and temporary. How many care to vote?
How many are aliens? Established interests here also are deficient;
isolation our drawback; staples we have, but they are undeveloped or unlucky;
gold mining depressed; agriculture under a disadvantage, and no good market;
coal not much sought after, and minerals a speculation; lumber unfortunate;
fisheries unestablished, and commerce in the way of export killed by the
abolition of the free port, or inferior from the absence of a large home
demand. These are all our material elements of wealth, and we have them in
no great abundance. Now, without them, what have we? A sparse community, in
which the only thriving interest is agriculture, and that only because supply is
not equal to demand; or, in other words. small in numbers and importance,
and no wealthy class at all. Can self-government be trusted to such a
population? I say emphatically no! Now, I am not greatly in favour of a high
qualification for representatives—for Members of the Council. It is
sufficient for me that they represent substantial interests; but when we have
unsubstantial representatives representing unsubstantial and
small constituencies, I can hardly understand anything more
dangerous, and, I might add, more ridiculous or more extravagant. That
representatives should be substantial people is desirable, but that they should
represent substantial interests is indispensable. if
representatives are unfaithful to their trust the remedy is possible; but
where the class of electors is needy and unsubstantial, it seems impossible to
conceive anything more disastrous. Taxation, as before has been observed, is
the cream of legislation; and taxation at the hands of unsubstantial men, or
men forced to advocate the interests of unsubstantial constituencies, will
be nothing but tyranny. Opinions may be divided in many other matters; the
votes of a party may be split on many points; but in the hands of the masses
the substantial class will be heavily and unmeasurably taxed to suit the views
of those who have nothing to lose and all to gain by any contemplated
movement. Take the example of Vancouver Island in old days as an example of
a small and a narrow community; again, the example of Victoria, in
Australia, where legislation is effected by the enormous majority of the
advocates of the interests of constituents elected on a low qualification,-
manhood suffrage. I cannot but understand that if the Government is in the hands
of the representatives of the people. and a working majority of them.
supreme representative Government, if not equivalent to, is, in
effect, equal to Responsible Government. In the hands of the representatives
of the people, supplies would all be voted, except conditions were exacted,
favourable to the popular will. And, Sir, having treated on representative and
Responsible Governments as applied to this Colony, let us see its bearing on
the subject of Confederation; and here I follow in the footsteps of the Hon.
Member for New Westminster; his reasoning is mine, but not his conclusions.
Without Responsible Government, or its equivalent, or its approximate
Government by a representative majority, we have no safeguard against a Government
of Canadian officials. British Columbia will be a Colony of
Canada, a dependency of a dependency, and Canadian interests will prevail.
Dependence on England is bearable; they have no interests apart from ours;
but dependence on Canada would be unbearable; their interests are different
from ours. That is the conclusion that is inevitable; it is but a logical
conclusion. Confederation without Responsible Government, or Government by a
working majority of representative members, is out of the question. Such a
Government cannot be
120
CONFEDERATION DEBATE. had; therefore Confederation is out
of the question. I have thus, Sir, given my opinion on a point which is sure
to meet with popular disfavour, but I am proud to support the Executive when
I think it is right; and I would share the responsibility of a measure which would
make that Executive obnoxious to blame. I have no chronic feeling of
opposition to Government. I have no objection to individuals, nor do I
impute to them sordid motives, but in the matter of Confederation the
Executive of this Colony are in a false position; they act primarily, not for
the good of the Colony, but for the good, or supposed good, of Great Britain; and
they exercise the power of Government in a matter in which the interests of
the Colony are mainly at stake to carry out, and effect an organic change of
great importance to local interests. It is somewhat unfair to me to say I
impute motives to the Executive. 1 only quarrel with them when they place
themselves in a false position, as in the question of education; and in this,
as in education, I say they oppose their own views to the views of, the, well
understood wishes of all classes of the community; and here the carry through a
scheme of Confederation; they start the stone, and it is hard to see how or
where it will roll. I sincerely feel for their position. The Colony will
demand representative institutions, and they will be forced to yield them or
back out of the position they have undertaken. The answer of the Executive
Government to this is as given by the Hon. Attorney-General. The Attorney- General
says that after Confederation we are bound to have what we
require—Responsible Government. This is taking the matter for granted. It may
be attained, but with a struggle. It is impossible to doubt that the
Executive of the new Province will oppose representative Government or any
diminution of their own rights or their own power. He says it is inopportune and beside
the question. The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Dr.
Carrall) says: "If the people of British Columbia want Responsible Government
no power on earth can prevent their having it." This is but a promise for the
future. The Hon. Chief Commissioner says the community is not fit for
Responsible Government, but the matter is to be left to the new Council.
Responsible Government will assuredly come with Confederation. The Hon. Member
for Victoria (Dr. Helmcken) says: "This is the argument of the Government.
But something must counterbalance Canada, otherwise with a working majority
in the House the Dominion Government will keep things as they are when we are
a Province of Canada."
Cet individu a participé aux :
