Document Information
Date: 1866-10-31
By: The Montreal Herald
Citation: “Dinner to the Hon. G. E. Cartier”, The Montreal Herald (31 October, 1866)
Other formats: TBA
Dinner to the Hon. G. E. Cartier.
In accordance with a requisition by the friends of the Hon. G. E. Cartier, that gentleman was yesterday evening entertained to dinner in the St. Lawrence Hall. As usual with Mr. Hogan, his part was done to perfection, and the splendid dining room of the St. Lawrence was admirably arranged, the room presenting a very fine appearance on entering. The cuisine was everything that could be desired, and the attendance was most satisfactory. The following is the
BILL OF FARE.
SOUP. Mock Turtle.
FISH. Boiled Lake Salmon—Lobster Sauce.
ENTREES. Petits Pates aux Huitres, Cotelettes d’Agneau Panees aux Petits Pois, Supreme de Volaille aux Truffles, Turban de Filet de Perdreaux Pique aux Champignons.
BOILED. Turkey and Celery Sauce, Leg of Mutton and Caper Sauce, Round of Beef with Vegetables.
ROAST. Sirloin of Beef and Yorkshire Pudding. Haunch of Venison and Currant Jelly, Baked Ham and Champagne Sauce, Goose and Apple Sauce.
VEGETABLES. Potatoes, Cauliflowers, Turnips, Celery, Artichokes, Horse Radish.
GAME. Partridges and Bread Sauce. Black Duck, Woodcock, Lobster Salad.
PASTRY. Plum Pudding, Champagne Jelly, Mince Pies, Charlotte Russe, Italian Cream, Apple Pies, Chantilly Nuga, Pears with Cream, Cocoa Pyramids, Ornamental Cakes.
DESSERT. Grapes, Pears, Apples, Walnuts, Almonds, Figs, Raisins, Prunes, Preserved Ginger.
WINES. Sherry, Champagne Moet, Sparkling Moselle, Claret, Coffee, Liqueurs.
The guests were seated at four tables, with a cross table at the head, at which were seated the Mayor, who occupied the Chair, having to his right the guest of the evening, the Hon. G. E. Cartier, Major General Lindsay, Hon. John Rose, Col. Ford, R. E., C. J. Brydges, Major Cook, 100th Regt.; Hon. Charles Wilson, and to his left His Excellency, General Sir John Michel, Commander of the Forces, Hon. T. D. McGee, Col. Elipon, R. A., Hon. James Ferrier, Col. Bell, 23rd R. W. Fusiliers, Adjutant Gen. McDougall, Capt. Clark, 13th Hussars. The vice chairman at this table being Messrs. W. Workman and C. S. Rodier. The other vice chairs were occupied by Hon. Louis Renaud, Messrs. L. Devany, J. L. Beaudry and J. G. McKenzie. The guests present included,
A
Archambault Ls Armand Hon P Anderson John Allan Andrew Auger J D
B
Brehaut W H Bartley W P Brown Alfred Beaudry Louis Belle Joseph Baird A Bowie George Betournay L Bellerose J H Barsalou O Beliveau H Baker J C Beaubien Dr P Beattie D P Beaudry J B Bessette Michel A Bouthillier T Bellemare R Brigham Dr Beliveau L G Boyer Ls M D Bissonnette A Buckland John Beaudry Joseph Benoit Zephirin Belle C B Benning James Beaudry J U Bourgouin N H Brossard Moise Beliveau L J Beaudry J L Burland J B Beaudet G J Brydges C J Bethune Strachan Brennan Patrick Buchanan P T Benoit E Benson H Belle Achille
C
Curran J J Chapman Henry Chamberlin Brown Chapleau J A Cuvillier Maurice Carle Louis Cotte Honore Cartier F X A
D
Denholm George Derome Leon Dufresne Ovide David E D Delisle Nolan Duvernay L D Dominique M Dumouchel Alf Devany L Delorme Pierre Dawes J P Dubord A Doran J J Donelly James Duvernay L N Daly J H Doucet T Delisle A M Donegana John DeNiverville B Dumoulin J Dufresne M Durocher Dr Dumas Norbert Dumouchel Hon L Doran James David Ferdinand Duguay J
E
Ermatinger Col Eaton Richard
F
Fournier Jules Farrell P Fraser John Fauteux L G Ferrier Hon Jas
G
Gault M H Garth C Glassford J U Gauthier F Gorrie D Gagnon Alphonse Giroux J R Gault A F Giard Dr L Giraldi Seraphino Girard M A Gauthier Ls
H
Heward Augustus Hopkins E M Hanley T Hudon V Harwood D L Howard Dr Hughes N Honey John Hubert R A R Hempston James Hurteau Isidore Howley James
J
Judah Henry Jones Joseph
L
Leblanc C A Loiselle Amable Lemoine B H Lewis David Law Andrew Linton Robert Lapierre Andre Laberge Augustin Lowe John Lanctot Magloire Leclaire F A Lesage Simeon Larin Francois Lesperance Edouard Laurent Michel
M
Marchand L McCarthy Thos McFarlane W McCuaig J F McDougall D L McCrae George Murphy P L McKay Robert Macready Thos McCoy Hugh Marsan A T McKay Edward Marchand L W Moreau L A Mercier J O Masson Damase Marchand Med Macdonald Dr R L McKenna Thos Marchand C A McShane Jos Mulholland H McDonald Duncan Mignaud N Moreau E McGibbon A Macdonald Jos Midmay Capt Mackenzie J G Moses Michel Martin P P McEvanue B Mousseau J A
N
Notman Wm
O
Ogilvie A W O’Meara John O’Brien W Ogilvy Thos Ouimet Gedeon Ouimet Adolphe Ouimet Capt
P
Pominville F P Plunkett E W Piche E U Prud’homme Hble Poupart Jos Palmer O Pominville Ls Pelletier David
R
Renaud L jr Rottot Dr Robillard J C Rodier C S Ramsay T K Renaud Hon L Reekee R J Rolland J B Rivard S Renaud Z Royal Jos Rolland G L Ryan M P Rhynas John Rankin John Reynolds Thos Rogers Jos A Robertson Andrew Robillard Jos, pere Robillard U J
S
Starnes H (Mayor) Starnes C W Sincennes C F Smith James Swales H G Swanton John Stephens George Schiller C E St Onge S St Charles F X Sicotte L W Shackell Henry Stevenson J B Smith S G Stephen Wm Stephen John Spicer W J Scott Gilbert Stephens R H Stratton F C
T
Taylor E J Truteau A C Trudel F X A Taylor John Tranchemontagne J G
V
Villeneuve N Villeneuve Octave Vinet C F
W
Workman Wm Wilson Hon Chas Wilson Wm Watts W Waddell Samuel Wright Robert Walsh Thos J Woods Edward Whitney H H Wainwright Wm
The Band of the 25th Regiment was present and as usual gave an excellent selection of music.
The cloth having been drawn the Chairman proposed the usual loyal and patriotic toasts which were received with enthusiasm. Before the next toast was proposed the Chairman read letters of apology from the Hon. John A. Macdonald, Hon. Mr Galt, Hon. Mr. Campbell and Solicitor General Langevin.
The CHAIRMAN called for a special bumper for the Army, Navy and Volunteers referring to the services of each branch of the forces of the country in appropriate terms. In conclusion he named specially His Excellency the Commander of the Forces whose gallant services in India, China and during the Affghan War, would not be readily forgotten. The toast was drunk amidst loud cheers, the speaker being frequently interrupted by applause.
His Excellency Sir JOHN MICHEL rose to reply, but was for some time unable to proceed from the repeated cheers that greeted him. When order was restored, he said he rejoiced to find in the toast which had been proposed, that the volunteers of Canada were associated with the British Army. (Cheers.) He had always found the volunteers of Canada earnestly and zealously co-operating in any work to be done. But he had no intention to return thanks for that excellent body. It was clearly no idle compliment to propose their health. It was almost like the people of Montreal drinking their own. [Cheers.] Their good wishes for the Army he would on its behalf reciprocate. As for the Navy, he regretted to say that he had received a note from the Commander of Her Majesty’s ship, to whom an invitation had been sent, by which he learned that he was obliged to leave. He wished, however, to say something about the gallant Volunteers, and their military prospects.—There were three things absolutely requisite before they would be in such a position, that they need not be afraid of what any neighbouring nation, he did not say would do but might do. When Confederation had taken place, and he took it for granted it would take place, [Cheers] the Militia movement over British North America will require to be largely developed, fortifications must be looked to as not the useless things some supposed, and the great commercial route must be opened up not alone between Montreal and the West, but between Portsmouth and British North America. The British soldiers here were but a small body. What were they here for? Not so much to fight the battles of the country as to form a nucleus for the large army which would be raised here. He knew the spirit which existed, and which must rise still higher in a land of liberty like this. He would recommend the Government and the country to be generous to their volunteers, to see that neither political nor local influences were brought to bear to prevent the best men from being put at the head of the force. Care should be taken that rapid promotion should be given to those who did their duty well. If gallant deeds were done is it not possible to decorate those who had performed them, that as they walked among their countrymen it might be seen that they had earned a title to their thanks? (Cheers.) He had spoken pretty well for the volunteers, but there was something he must mention: The opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the force here and what had been done on the Niagara frontier. An impression had gained ground that the officer in command of the volunteers there had not quite done his duty. An idea prevailed that nothing was necessary but for an officer to go and take command of troops, as if he were a heaven born General. He had examined clearly the ground where the events of the Niagara frontier had taken place, and had given the subject every consideration and he would say that few men here, except experienced soldiers, could have taken command as Col. Booker had done, who knew nothing practically of soldiering, had no staff, and went forward expecting a British force to co-operate with him. (Loud cheers.) The mistake that he had made might have been committed by numbers of military men of years of experience. There was some cry about cavalry, and square was formed, an injudicious move which would not have been made by a soldier who knew his business well. As a soldier he could absolve him from anything but a little want of knowledge. He did not intend personally to defend the officers of Her Majesty’s service from attacks made by some people. But with regard to Col. Peacocke he approved entirely of what he had done, and he said this after having examined absolutely and minutely the whole matter, and therefore he could say so. [Cheers.] Some may say that fortifications are of no importance. Some may think they cost too dear, but if in one fortnight an army could march into Montreal they would charge all in proportion to their means a heavy tax, for that is practically what it would amount to were the country taken. He knew that their neighbours were peaceful, and that commerce was a noble thing for extending the reign of peace, yet it was as well they should be prepared. If they had no fortifications a trumpery army of 30,000 or 40,000 men might march in, but with them it would require a stupendous army to do any serious harm, for Montreal was amazingly defensible. [Loud cheers, amid which part of what was said was indistinguishable.] The General was, however, understood to say that with the short summer and the severe climate of the winter, fortifications might turn the scale as to whether there would be peace or war in contingencies not now thought of. He would urge upon the Ministry and Parliament to consider well the question of fortifications. They should fortify Kingston and two or three points West, but Montreal was the main point, as, that gone, the West had no longer access to the sea, so that whether the places he had referred to were fortified or not, Montreal must be. Without fortifications, the Volunteers would be nothing. By Montreal there was ample communication with England, but they must open free water communication with the West by the Ottawa and French River, which would bring the Western States 650 miles nearer England than by any other route. All the Western communication must come through this channel, and the friendship of the Western States secured they would labour for peace and not for war. He thanked them for listening so quietly to his remarks, and sat down amid loud and prolonged cheering.
Col. McDOUGALL, Adjutant General of Militia, briefly returned thanks for the Volunteers.
The CHAIRMAN proposed the health of the Hon. G. E. Cartier, which was received with settlement of the Seignuorial Tenure, the Codification of Laws, and the improvements of the administration of justice. He also spoke of the sacrifices he had made to devote himself to the service of his country, and reminded the meeting of the testimonial of the Hon. George Brown as to his honest, straightforward course, and the pride which ought to be felt in Mr. Cartier by French Canadians. He defied any man to say that their guest had ever used his position to forward his own private interests. [Loud cheers.]
Hon. Mr. CARTIER, who spoke in French, said that he would ask their attention for a few minutes. He saw friends present from a distance, and in accepting such a demonstration, he naturally asked himself, what had he done to deserve it? In reviewing his parliamentary career it was not difficult to understand the reason for this reception, and he believed that those who were present believed he had done something for his country. (Applause.) He did not present himself before them as a worn out man, but after nineteen years of parliamentary life as still ready for their service. (Applause.) He then gave a rapid sketch of his past career, and of the measures he had introduced and carried through Parliament, among others the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway, the incorporation of the Grand Trunk, the bill for the erection of the Victoria Bridge, the administration of justice and the seignorial tenure act. On the school question for Lower Canada, as now under consideration, he said: I will say here with pleasure what I have already had the opportunity to proclaim in Parliament, that the Protestant minority in Lower Canada need not fear the local Parliament of the Confederation. My word is given, and I repeat, nothing will be done of a nature to restrict the privileges or rights of that minority. I take all Protestants here as witnesses to this statement. The word I have given will be carried out, it is the word of a man of honour. Around me are distinguished military men whose motto is Mourir pour la patrie. What should be the motto of the statesman. Tiens ta parole jusqu’ a la mort. (Keep your pledge to the death.) In saying that the Protestants of Lower Canada shall have all possible guarantees, I must say also that the Catholic minority of Upper Canada shall have the same guarantees, and I give you also my solemn word, the Catholic minority of Upper Canada will be protected like the Protestant minority of Lower Canada. All apprehensions on this subject are as foolish as they are false. Do not listen to them and all will be well. He then spoke of the approaching Confederation, and trusted that when that was accomplished an influx of men from other countries, Americans as well as those from Europe, would settle here, under a free Constitution, and form part of the great Confederation—concluding, amidst loud cheering, by proposing the health of His Worship the Mayor, who had so ably presided over the meeting, and who had done so much for the prosperity of the city.
The MAYOR then proposed “Her Majesty’s Canadian Ministry,” coupling with it the “Confederation of the British North American Provinces.”
Hon. Mr. McGEE replied as follows:—
The Hon. T. D. McGEE, Minister of Agriculture, in rising to reply to the toast, said—Mr. Mayor, Mr. Vice-Chairman, and Gentlemen:—I arise with the utmost pleasure to reply, not for the first time, to the toast you have just drank, and to pay my tribute of respect to your guest (Mr. Cartier), who has done so much to render possible “the Confederation of the British American Provinces.” One main obstacle to any such political union has always arisen from the real or supposed conflicting interests of race, and language, and religion existing in our Canadian population—conflicts which only great firmness and much mutual forbearance, and the most impartial administration of public affairs, could of late years have averted; which impartiality and forbearance and firmness have fortunately averted; and for the happy consequences of which we are all of us so largely indebted to Mr. Cartier. (Cheers.) You honor those civic virtues and services in his person here to-night; and you, his fellow-citizens, and you, his constituents (to use the language of a different state of society from your own), decree, in this manner, that for these long-continued services, which have rendered Confederation possible, “that he deserves well of his country.” As, Mr. Mayor, this will probably be the last occasion, before the passage of the Imperial Act, on which it will be possible for me to speak on the subject of British-American union before any portion of my own constituency, or in any part of Canada, if I do not impose too trying a tax on your patience, I shall endeavor to present you the state of the whole question just as it stands on the eve of presenting itself for the imperial examination and approbation. [Hear] It is not always an easy task, nor always a pleasant position, to stand against the exaggerated pretensions of classes and creeds, in our mixed population. To do so, indeed, is the statesman’s duty—is what best distinguishes the statesman from the demagogue—but it is not always either an easy or a pleasant duty to perform—[Hear, hear.] I had thought we had got the demon of class discord pretty well laid in our own city, till I saw a crazy attempt made to make a national question of a late deplorable homicide, and until I saw also, the cry of suffering humanity issuing from the desolated suburbs of Quebec, received with subtile sectarian allusions to the creed and origin of the sufferers, instead of being met, as Montreal in all other cases has met such appeals by a whole-hearted response, remembering nothing but that the sufferers were our fellow-creatures [cheers] that they had lost their all; that they were in absolute want; and that we had each of us some surplus, however little, which would be great to them. [Loud cheers.] The citizens of Montreal, who know by bitter experience where just such a spirit leads, have good reason to sustain Mr. Cartier, who has been always opposed to such feuds among our population—who has stood up stoutly for the rights of French Canadians, but who has learned while doing so to conciliate and do equal justice to our English-speaking population, whether Protestant or Catholic. (Cheers.) How, then, does the great question stand? After long years of advocacy in all the Provinces—after occupying the thoughts of some of the best minds ever connected with our Colonial affairs—such as, not to speak of the living, Mr. Uniacke and Chief Justices Sewell and Robinson, and Lord Durham among the departed—a plan of Confederate Union for all these Provinces was agreed to and signed by delegates from all at the City of Quebec on the 10th day of October, 1864—just two years ago. I see that the most active of the anti-Unionists of Nova Scotia (Mr. Howe) is of opinion, in his pamphlet, that we ought to have debated the whole matter in “some public hall before the people,” and if we “agreed upon a plan of union we ought to have published it for three months,” and then taken a plebiscitum or popular vote upon it after the three months publicity. Now, as to the question of time, we have done much more than Mr. Howe demands of us. We agreed upon a plan; we published it, and for two years it has been under examination by all British America. (Cheers.) Nothing has been hurried, nothing forced; on the contrary, the last new cry against Canada by the Maritime anti-Unionists is that the we now move too slowly; that we ought to have been in London months ago; that we ought to have snatched at the chance of Imperial legislation in the last days of the last session. (Cheers) Your Ministers are not, I believe, without their justification for remaining in Canada this autumn; but as to the plan of Confederation itself, whatever else it has wanted it has not lacked time for full and fair discussion. Its worst enemies ask for three months, and they have had twenty-four months. All delays that ingenuity could invent, all appeals that imagination could conceive, all arguments that hostility could suggest, have been advanced against the plan of union submitted to these Provinces since 1864, and still it stands unshaken in all its essential provisions. (Cheers) Everything that has lately happened seems to have been overruled in our favor; the delay of the Intercolonial road in 1863; the Canadian Coalition of 1864; the recent repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty; the late Fenian demonstrations against New Brunswick and ourselves—every one of these occurrences has tended to the grand, desired result; events have been our orators, and their arguments have carried conviction to many, formerly careless or lethargic as to the future of these great Provinces. When the bonding system was threatened we felt that the Intercolonial was, for us, a question of life and death; when the Coalition was formed we saw how a great principle and a great interest—like Confederation—extinguished party animosities and swallowed up for the time merely personal politics; when a coercive commercial policy was inaugurated against us, we felt the need of letting down our interior custom’s barriers; when armed forces threated New Brunswick we felt for them, and when our soil was actually invaded, they felt for us, as one people, owing one and the same allegiance, always should feel for fellow-countrymen and fellow-subjects. (Cheers.) Now, as to not having taken a plebiscitum or popular vote, on the proposed plan of Confederate Union, I have only this to say, that those who propose such a method of proceeding, if they are really in earnest, belong to a school of politicians, unknown hitherto in our constitutional history. (Hear, hear.) A plebiscitum, or popular vote, as to a constitution of government, was known to Pagan Rome, and has been revived in our time in France and Italy in periods of anarchy; when the people were wholly without constitutional organs, competent to act otherwise; when all society was resolved into its crude elements; when there was no legal representation of the people, to act legally on their behalf? But no British and no American constitutional change was ever yet submitted in advance to a plebiscitum: neither the Bill of Rights nor the Act of Succession, nor the Scotch nor Irish Unions, nor the Septennial Act, nor Catholic Emancipation, nor the Reform Bill, nor the American Constitution, nor the North-West Ordinance, nor the amendments to the American Constitution: they were all proposed and wrought out through the existing representative institutions of each people, apart from which institutions it is impossible to conceive of the constitutional existence of any people. (Cheers.) On this point there is ever and always this fundamental [distinction?] [between?] [the?] people under the law, acting by and through the law, and the people, as individuals in a revolutionary crisis, each directly and personally cutting himself free from all existing institutions and obligations, in order to be able to operate directly in the creation of a new state of things. (Hear, hear.) But supposing the principles not to be objectionable, unconstitutional and false—how would it have worked practically in our own case. (Hear, hear.) As the question to be submitted concerned the whole of the five Provinces, I presume it will be admitted that, on their own principles, the anti-unionists would be bound by the majority of the whole. The population of P. Edward’s Island is less than, and the population of Newfoundland about equal to, that of this city—the population of Nova Scotia is equal to 10 per cent of that of all Canada,—and it is not to be conceived that a local majority could decide the fate of the general constitution. If, then, the Canadian majority determined the result by its plebiscitum, would there not be the same outcry below that there is now, and with much more reason, that Canada was forcing her will on the Maritime Provinces? (Hear, hear.) Assuredly. And what chance would the matter itself stand of being decided on its merits by such a process? Cries would be found to suit each locality—here there would be one issue—there another; yonder a third: there would be and there could be no judicial or moral sanction in any such decision of so vast and complicated a subject as the best government of the whole, when tried and tested only by local majorities. The very idea of a plebiscitum in this case recalls its revolutionary and Roman applications—the conferring of the imperium—the giving away of supreme power, which nobody pretends to be a question with us at this moment. (Hear, hear.) It recalls the idea of a resort to universal suffrage in an interval of anarchy, which no one pretends to be our case. It implies the conferring of absolute power, the source of which gives away all it has to give, and so by its own act exhausts itself; the giving of unlimited power,—the power of all men to one man; the creation of a monster, to which the creative power is, by necessity, the first victim offered up; it is, in a word, as I said before, an expedient or innovation wholly unknown to the constitutional history of our race, and which no one but a levelling democrat, or absolute despot, would venture to advocate under a government of laws. (Cheers.) Nothing surely can be more inconsistent or more humiliating than the attitude in which the Nova Scotia anti-unionists stand at this moment before the British people. They complain—they make a grievance of the fact, that the local majority of 350,000 should not be allowed to fix forever the destiny of 3,500,000 of their fellow-subjects. They beg for the continued isolation of their local legislature, while they denounce it as having betrayed them. (Hear, hear.) They plead the immunities of responsible government, while they stand, cap in hand, like crown colonists of a former age, in the lobbies of Downing Street and St. Stephens. (Hear, hear.) And what is the prayer of these incoherent suppliants to the Imperial authorities. In plain English just this: ” Let all your vast, interior, North ” American possessions devolve to the United ” States; but keep us—hold on to us,—we are ” on the sea—we may be made use of, as Malta ” or Gibraltar, or Aden, or St. Helena is; the ” only future ambition for ourselves and our ” children, as a naval station and a military ” [band?]; make us a garrison, a dockyard, a coal ” yard, a junk shop, a house of call—(laughter) ” but do not look beyond that, either in your ” own interest, or in ours.” Such is the cowardly council, jumping only too well with the views of the anti-colonial faction in England, such is the slavish attitude assumed by these misrepresentatives of Nova Scotia, in England. (Loud cheers.) Nothing, I repeat, was more humiliating than that attitude, and I do firmly believe that the day is not distant when no man—not even Mr. Howe, will care to acknowledge his participation in so factious, so foolish so unmanly and so unworthy a proceeding as he is now engaged in. (Cheers.) Not only is the general spirit and intent of the anti-unionists servile in the last degree, but the particular grounds on which they go are in every instance false assumptions or gross exaggerations of minor and ephemeral difficulties. I will give you one instance of these exaggerations: in their petition to the Imperial Parliament they speak of Canada as a country ” as far distant from Nova Scotia as Austria is from England.” Even in point of mensuration this is a falsehood of a few hundred miles; or, as we would say in Ireland, ” a bit of a stretch” to the extent that no part of Austria can be nearer to England than five or six hundred miles, while our eastern country of Bonaventure is not above 200 miles from their north-western county of Cumberland; but the gross falsity of the parallel lies not altogether in the disparity of the distance when calculated on an American as compared with a European scale, for it is to be observed that between England and Austria there fly five or six foreign flags—there are interposed five or six foreign powers and fleets and armies and fortresses in Holland, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Prussia, while between Nova Scotia and Canada there interposes neither fleet nor fortress of another power; no territory but our own; no other people but our own; no other flag but our own; so that the position of New Brunswick, instead of being an argument for separation, is one of the strongest geographical arguments the other way. (Loud cheers.) New Brunswick instead of being a hindrance and a barrier to Union, while she unites her frontiers on the one side with Canada, and on the other with Nova Scotia [is an argument?] for union addressed to both—stands as the mediator between us, and is destined to become the keystone of the union arch. (Renewed cheering.) The framers of this Nova Scotia petition against Confederation presumed largely on British ignorance of Colonial geography when they ventured on so rash and false a parallel; and I would undertake to go through the allegations of their petitions one by one, and to demonstrate them to be equally as fallacious as this “Austria and England” figment of the imagination. For my own part, as one of the unceasing advocates of Confederation, I never expected, and I never wished, that great measure to pass sub silentio either here or in England; and if I follow my hon. friend and our other colleagues to London at an early day, it is with the settled intention not only to take my full share in the responsibility of the measure itself, but also, should circumstances render it necessary, in any public discussions which the anti-Union and anti-Colonial faction may venture to bring on. (Cheers.) Before I sit down, Mr. Mayor, perhaps you will allow me to address a few words to that portion of our community in Canada who are still, naturally enough, nervous and uneasy about this new and untried state of governmental existence. [Hear, hear.] I know no better political tonic for their complaint than that which Lord Bacon deduced from the story of history, which he called “philosophy teaching by example.” Without going very far from them, there are two or three examples of political unions and their consequences, to which I beg to direct the attention of those who are not hostile to Confederation, in any active sense, but only unsettled and uneasy in mind as to its possible consequences for themselves and their posterity. And, first of all, there is the Union of Scotland and England, in one legislature, now entering on the 160th year of its existence. At the time of that Union the population of Scotland was about one million and her annual revenue £150,000 sterling; now resident at home—not to speak of the vast numbers of Scotchmen scattered abroad throughout the world—is three millions, and her annual revenue exceeds £7,000,000 sterling: an increase in numbers of 300 per cent., and in revenue of over 4,000 per cent! At the time of the Union by many Scotch patriots all sorts of sinister prophecies were indulged in as to the effects of that measure on Scottish prosperity; the speech of the Earl of Belhaven, quoted by Mr. Alex. MacKenzie in our Confederation debate, was a memorable illustration of that style of anti-Union argument—of those appeals to local pride, and prejudice and passion, which we have had to encounter in our own day and undertaking, just as the promoters of the Scottish Union had in their day and generation. [Hear, hear.] But almost every point raised by Lord Belhaven and his friends in 1707 has been disposed of by time; disposed of directly in the negative; and the gain of England from the Union with Scotland could easily be shown to be not less wonderful than that of Scotland itself. [Hear, hear.] Then, there is another union with which we are all familiar—a union founded and framed, it must be said, on very different principles, and, so far, attended with very different results from the Scottish Union. The Scottish Union recognized the Scottish Church—the Scottish law—the Scottish Banking system—the Scottish school system—but the Irish Union, neither at its origin nor since, has ever been made to extend equal consideration to the Irish people.—[Hear, hear.] I say what I have always said on this subject, that the relation of Ireland to England, in this, the 66th year of their Legislative Union, is the reproach of all Imperial statesmanship, including the Irish members themselves. [Hear, hear.] The Scottish Union, inasmuch as it was a fair union, and has been in the main fairly worked, is an argument for union in general; the Irish Union, [inasmuch?] as it was not fair in its terms and has not been fairly worked, and has, so far, proved a failure, is an argument not against all unions, but only against unfair, one-sided, and ill-conditioned ones. (Hear, hear.) I believe that our British population and our French population are equally capable of making that distinction, and applying the true meaning of both examples to our own peculiar case. Then there is still another union—a confederated union—with which our population are all familiar; I mean the American Union. I do not speak now of the merits or demerits of the American Constitution; it is enough, for my purpose, to point out that, in the third generation from its adoption, the Americans, our cotemporaries, considered that Union so indispensable, so invaluable, that they sacrificed to its maintenance a million of human lives, and burthened themselves and their posterity, for the same object, with an enormous national debt. (Hear, hear.) This is history teaching by example; teaching us, also, if we are wise enough to listen to the lesson [the British?] [table “” not found /]
[which may?] be made to flow from an union among ourselves, wisely formed and fairly administered. (Cheers.) Are we less willing to be just to each other than England and Scotland have been? Have we bitterer memories to conquer, stronger prejudices to overcome, than they had in the reign of Queen Anne? Are our local conditions more dissimilar than those of Massachusetts and Virginia, Louisiana and New York? We cannot, and we must not expect all our future to be plain sailing; but it seems to me no less poetically expressed than strictly true to say of ourselves—
“It is not in our stars, but in ourselves, “If we are underlings.”
Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, the preliminary work is done—the great design is fairly afloat, and it now remains to get our clearance from the only power that can give it, and to see to the proper navigation of the ship. (Hear, hear.) The American times in which we live are eventful and breed events. Oh, gentlemen, do not underrate the importance of the issues they present to the consideration of British America. Whether we, while we still may choose—while we may still decide upon our own destiny—whether we shall choose Confederation or be forced into Annexation—that is the practical question? We go to the seat of Empire—to the source of Sovereignty—[to?] [ask the supreme?] sanction to a plan of government, formed upon “the well understood principles of the British Constitution.” (Cheers.) Men of all descents and all creeds known among us will be there united as one man in making that request; men of French and of English blood; men of Highland and of Lowland stock; men of Irish and of American descent; Catholics and Protestants; natives and emigrants; they will bear to the great metropolis a united prayer for the perpetuation of the Imperial connexion, and the establishment of a general Union, on those constitutional principles which have stood the test of ages, and the burthen even of their own abuses, and have never yet been found deficient in force or irreconcileable with freedom. (Cheers.) That is the grand design on which your representatives are now to proceed to England: and it is because, as I said when I rose, your member and guest has done so much to render these things possible—because he has contributed by his firmness, and forbearances, and [impartiality?] in the conduct of affairs, to bring these results to pass, because you all feel, he has, in so doing—”deserved well of his country”—therefore it is that you are here to bid him a hearty God speed on his journey, and to wish him a safe and speedy return, as the bearer back to all these Provinces, of a free, strong, enlightened, and impartial constitution, for the future government of all British America.
His WORSHIP the MAYOR then proposed the two Houses of Parliament.
Hon. JAMES FERRIER said as a member of the Upper House, he sincerely thanked His Worship for the toast.
Hon. JOHN ROSE also responded. Not only those who were or had been, members of Parliament had important duties to perform, but every man in the community had a duty to perform to his country, and that was to keep down prejudice, whether national, sectional, or religious, or from whatever cause it might spring. [Hear, hear] It was the duty of every man to keep down whatever might give rise to angry feelings. The good and true men amongst them would, he was sure, be willing to respect each others rights and each others privileges, and if those principles guided his hon. [friend’s?] conduct (Cartier’s) which had done so in past years, he would embody in the constitution those generous sentiments which would be acceptable to all classes and creeds.
Hon. Mr. CARTIER begged leave to propose a toast. On Saturday last the very alarming news reached here of the death of the greatest ally England possesses—the Emperor of the French. But this news all turned out to be false. (Cheers.) When he was in England last year he went to France and met several Frenchmen, M. Chevalier and others, who were all of opinion that this Confederation would prove the salvation and prosperity of the British North American Provinces. (Hear.) He would now like to propose the health of the French Emperor. (Cheers.)
The toast was drank with great enthusiasm and the meeting then dispersed about one o’clock.