Document Information

Date: 1865-02-08
By: Montreal Witness
Citation: “Federal or Legislative Union?”, Montreal Witness (8 February, 1865)
Other formats: TBA

FEDERAL OR LEGISLATIVE UNION?

(To the Editor of the Witness.)

DEAR SIR,—In the copy of your paper that reached me by this evening’s mail, you give expression to the sentiment, that if there is to be a union of the British American Colonies, it ought to be a union based on the legislative principle rather than a federal union, such as has been proposed by the Quebec Conference. I can assure you that in this opinion, you have the sympathy of a very large number of the electors of Upper Canada. Strong reasons can be urged in behalf of the union of the British Provinces of North America. These have been dwelt upon so much of late, that it is unnecessary to resort to them at present. Supposing therefore, it is granted that a union is desirable, the important question then arises as to what mode of union is the most preferable. There are, it is true, some things in our circumstances that demand a mode of union that would leave local questions with local legislatures. The disadvantages, however, of this mode of union—commonly called federal—are so numerous that men should hesitate before rashly committing themselves to it. This mode of union was tried between England, Scotland and Ireland and abandoned, after trial, for the legislative union that has been, under God, the mainspring of British power and prosperity. This mode of union was tried in the Republic of Central America and ended in the disruption of the federated States. It was tried in Mexico and failed. It was tried in the United States, and we are conversant with the result. As regards the British Provinces, such a mode of union is liable to the following objections :—

1. It will increase the expense of Government. I am ignorant of how matters stand with you in Lower Canada, but I have the best opportunity of knowing that in Upper Canada municipal burdens press very heavily on the people. They do so, not simply from the money that is paid to Councilmen for mileage and salary, but from the facility afforded by so many municipal courts for spending money foolishly to promote personal and local interests. So heavily do taxes press, so badly do township councils and county councils discharge their trust that I have heard from intelligent electors a wish that the township council could be abolished and its functions handed over to the county council. When the people are already groaning under the burden of too many governing bodies with their consequent extravagance and irresponsibility the federal system would add another to the number. It is of no use telling Upper Canada that even this will be better for us than the way we were used while we were under the heel of Lower Canada. When men change their position they should aim at making the new position, not simply better than the old one, but the very best circumstances will permit. The fact that half a loaf is better than no bread is surely no argument why a man should not aim at having a whole loaf whenever an honest opportunity offers. But, on the whole, in the long run it might perhaps be cheaper for us to take our chance of bringing Lower Canada to reason in our Legislative union with it, than to groan in future under seven governing bodies, —township council, county council, local upper and lower House, general upper and lower House, (Governors and Governor General, not to speak of Imperial Goverument.—Ed. Wit)— with all the consequent election strife, and the expense of salaries, and the burden of new departments for peculation and extravagance.
2. The federal mode of union will prevent the fusion of the Provinces into one nation. If we have no desire to see this fusion, why take the tremendous risk of a confederation when all the ends we have in view can be secured by a railroad and a customs union ? By building a railroad and establishing free trade between all the Provinces, we would really accomplish all that we can expect to accomplish by a mode of union that gives each Province its local parliament. Self-preservation is the first instinct of human society, as well as of the individual being. No sooner, therefore, is each Province set up in the world with local interests to promote, than it will at heart renounce allegiance to the central and common good, and bend its energies to advance its own particular aggrandizement. On the body politic, therefore, these local Parliaments will act eventually as the ligatures of the surgeon, which, bound tightly round a limb, result in separating that limb from the body.
3. The federal mode of union contains the germ of future collision and disruption. History is clear upon this point. The component parts of a federated republic have as strong a tendency to fly apart as the particles of clay on the potter’s wheel. Here are the usual steps in the progress of the disruption: First, local and general interests come into collision; next, each party in the question struggles for victory; then feelings become alienated; now comes war between the two jurisdictions; there is no court of appeal; and what more natural than that the local legislature, aggrieved, should say: “I am tired of this union; let me go; I can do better out of it.” The Quebec confederation scheme has undoubtedly a better arrangement for putting down attempts at rebellion than was possessed by the United States constitution, but equally with that constitution the Quebec scheme encourages—nay, in a world like this, necessitates the collision sooner or later of the united bodies. The strength of a beam is as the strength of its weakest part. In some points the Quebec constitution is as strong as the oak of the British Island, but here it is weak, weak; and the danger is that it could not long stand the strain that must fall on it ere Popery and Protestantism decide the points at issue between them.

A legislative union has none of these disadvantages. With this mode of union Upper Canada would go in cordially. Some will say that it is impossible to get it. Is it not worth trying for it? You will, therefore, good sir, confer a favor on Upper Canada in advocating this mode of union as far as your influence extends. It could surely do no harm, did the Protestants of Lower Canada and the people of Upper Canada inform the British Parliament that their choice would be a legislative union, could circumstances permit. It is surely granting the Roman Catholicism of Lower Canada too much, when for their sake we are without a struggle to accept a mode of union which is against our traditions, prejudices and interests. Many in Upper Canada will be indebted to you for upholding these views, the more because they feel that in this Confederation business Mr. Brown and the Globe have really abandoned the reform party and the Protestant cause. This conviction is growing in the minds of the more thoughtful around me. The last stab that Mr. Brown has inflicted on the popular cause is thus hurrying forward—as he must have done in England, as he undoubtedly does in his paper—the consummation of a union, of the last importance to us and to our children, without giving us what Napoleon gave to the people of France and Mexico, and Victor Emmanuel to the people of Savoy. Mr. Brown and the Globe were the idols of a party in Upper Canada for a time, and at the shrine of these idols they sacrificed often fairness and courtesy and Christian charity, and it is quite in consistence with the ways of providence that the idols should become the scourge of the worshippers. A politician and a paper that battled for representation by population when the cause might be called hopeless, abandoned the true interests of Protestants (that is a legislative union on the British model) without striking a single blow or uttering scarcely a regret. Thoughtful men, and there are a few such, know how to estimate conduct like this, and their confidence in Mr. Brown and in his paper is shaken.

I am, yours, &c., UPPER CANADIAN.

[We publish the above communication prominently on account of its great importance.]