Document Information

Date: 1864-09-23
By: True Witness
Citation: “No title”, True Witness (23 September, 1864)
Other formats: TBA

We much regret that we have not been able to make ourselves understood by the Courrier du Canada, because in our article of the 9th instant to his address, we did our best to make ourselves intelligible; and because we are very anxious that there should be good and perfect understanding betwixt so respectable a journal as the Courrier du Canada, and the TRUE WITNESS. Our contemporary however in his rejoinder of the 12th instant, says that he does not understand us; and since it is so, we will suppose that it is the TRUE WITNESS that is in fault; and we will therefore, even at the risk of being tedious, endeavor to explain our position to our contemporary.

So far from its being hostile to Federation, or to Confederation, that position is, in one sense, eminently favorable to it; and indeed, no one who opposes us can be a friend to the measure. Our position is this: that repeal of the existing union betwixt Upper and Lower Canada, and the restoration to both of their respective legislatures and autonomy, is the indispensable preliminary to any Federation betwixt Upper and Lower Canada—without which in short Federation is not possible or even conceivable; seeing that in the words of the Canadien of Quebec of the 26th ult.:—

“In order that there be a Confederation there must be a certain number of sovereign independent States, delegating to a central government a definite portion of their rights and their power.”

In other words, so long as Upper and Lower Canada remain a political unit, it involves a contradiction in terms to speak of Federation betwixt them. When again they shall be politically two, then only will a Federation be possible or conceivable.

Now it does not appear that the Ministerial scheme of constitutional changes embraces the essential preliminary of the restoration to Upper and Lower Canada respectively, of a distinctive political existence; and therefore without further investigation we oppose the Ministerial scheme in so far as announced by the President of the Council—not because it embraces the Federal principle, but because it does not embrace it; not because we are opposed to Federation, but because we think that in no very remote future, and under the proper conditions, Federation would be possible, and might be perhaps desirable as “the best possible”—though on this latter point we would not at present commit ourselves.

We care not, however, in what terms the Ministerial measure of “constitutional changes” miscalled Federation, may be couched, but we insist that it cannot give us the Federal principle; and we fear that the acceptance of it by Lower Canada would render a real Federation impossible, when Federation would be possible, and might be desirable. This is our second objection to the Ministerial scheme.

We look forward sorrowfully to the day— not very distant if the recall of the Guards from Canada, if the language of the London Times, and other organs of public opinion, have any meaning—when the tie hitherto existing between Great Britain and the Canadas shall be severed. It may be five or ten years hence; it may even be the end of the present century when the beards of the young men of to-day shall be falling white beneath the hands of the barber—before this painful but inevitable change shall be accomplished. But whether at hand or remote, it is the part of wisdom and sound policy to prepare for it, and to make of it an important element in all our political calculations. Our enemies, the Liberals and Clear-Grits of Upper Canada see this clearly enough; and hence their anxiety to compromise Lower Canada now, by procuring her acceptance of such a position as towards their section of the Province, as shall put it out of her power, to insist at a future day upon her State Rights, and her distinctive political existence. Mr. George Brown’s object is plain enough; his interest as the leader of the “francophobes,” and No-Popery men of Upper Canada in urging on a bogus federation at the present moment, is easily discernible.

Look you. Whatever form of Government, or constitution you accept now, will adhere to you when the Imperial tie shall have been severed; when the only reliable guarantee for the faithful observance of the terms of the Union, which you now propose contracting with Upper Canada — when the only barrier against the encroachments of the Central Government, shall have ceased to exist. That Central Government which you propose to create and to invest with sovereign attributes, will, when the hour of independence strikes, occupy towards you the same position as that now occupied towards you by the British Government; with this difference —that whilst the latter is bound by its Treaties with France to respect your peculiar institutions, the other will be untrammelled by any such engagements. Of what avail will it be then to urge?—”Oh, the Constitution guarantees to us such and such rights.” The reply would be—”You hold from us, not we from you. What we gave we may take away; what we delegated we may rightfully resume.

And in this case the sovereign central government would have right and sound reason as well as might on its side. Only upon the hypothesis, sustained by facts, that it holds from the several States, can a federal government in any case be reproached with exceeding its legitimate functions. But this hypothesis would be out of the question, false in theory, as well as in fact, in the case of a federal government deriving its authority in the first instance, not from the delegation of sovereign and independent States, but from the Imperial Government—and into whose place it would naturally step the moment that the authority of the latter should have been suspended by the recognition of Canadian Independence. The central government in such a case we say, would be served heir to the defunct or abdicated Imperial Government; heir of all its rights and privileges, and fully competent to modify or rescind all guarantees, or concessions of power that its predecessor might have been pleased to make to the subordinate local or municipal governments. Does it require the gift of prophecy to foretell what, under such circumstances would be the fate of Lower Canada, and her religious institutions? Listen to the sounds of greeting with which the Globe and our other Liberal allies receive the tidings of each fresh act of sacrilege and church robbery perpetrated by Victor Emmanuel, and his excommunicated accomplices.

Therefore is it that we oppose the proposed plan of Colonial Federation, since no matter in what terms it may be conceived, it proposes to saddle us with a sovereign central government which in our actual position must derive its authority, not from within, or from the States over which it is to bear rule; but ab extra, and from an Imperial Government with which our connection must cease ere many years be past; and to which, and to the plenitude of whose authority the said central government would then inevitably succeed. Our position would then be that of a subject Province, not that of a State, or independent member of a Confederation.

In conclusion we will give expression to the sincere hope that our friend the Courrier du Canada will take these explanations in good part, and as a proof of our desire to co-operate with him in the good cause. We have no ill will to his Ministerial friends; on the contrary, amongst them there are men of whose hearts we entertain the highest opinion, though we presume to differ from them in opinion on certain political questions. Yet therefore do we not accuse them of bad motives, or evil designs. God forbid.

Nor is the difference of opinion very great, if we may take the Courrier as an exponent of Ministerial views. In his issue of the 16th, our contemporary distinctly says that:—

“Lower Canada will never consent to a Union such as the Montreal Gazette (and we may add the Toronto Globe) proposes. Never will it accept a Union in which the legislative element shall predominate, because such a Union would be certainly the most fatal blow to the nationality, and the institutions of French Canadians.”—Courrier du Canada, 16th inst.

To this we add. But in any conceivable union contracted betwixt Colonies, all whose external affairs are managed for them by the Imperial Government, the legislative, not the federal, principle must necessarily predominate—if the central or federal government is to have any real power at all.

Therefore from these two premises—of which the Courrier furnishes the minor—Lord Durham, Mr. G. Brown, and J. A. Macdonald furnish the major premiss, we conclude that,—

The proposed Union of the North American Colonies, though called a Confederation would be virtually a legislative Union, or one in which not the Federal but the legislative principle would predominate; and that therefore such a Union would deal a severe and deadly blow to French Canadian nationality, and the peculiar institutions of this Province.