Document Information
Date: 1864-07-29
By: True Witness
Citation: “No title”, True Witness (29 July, 1864)
Other formats: TBA
There is nothing novel in the Federation scheme, now before the country. It is but an old friend—may we not say old enemy?—under a new face. The name indeed is changed; but substantially the proposition for allaying “sectional differences,” now presented to us, is identical with that proposed by the Reform or Clear-Grit Convention of Toronto of 1859, and designated, and then generally scouted as, the “Joint Authority Humbug.”
As we have already stated, we propose to discuss this scheme from a Catholic, and French Canadian point of view, and regardless of parties and Ministries. Whatever may be our opinion of, or antipathy to the Coalition, we look upon it as an affair of very secondary importance, provided only that it result not in injury to Lower Canada; and though we do not profess as do some of our contemporaries, to have no apprehensions as to the results, because of our confidence in the French Canadian members of the Ministry, we certainly entertain hopes from the well known and honorable antecedents of some of those gentlemen, and from the political acuteness of others, that the moral and material interests of Lower Canada will be carefully looked after pending the recess, and the preparation of the important measures to be submitted to Parliament at its next Session. We are very sure for instance, that Sir E. Taché, though he is not infallible, though he is liable to errors of judgment, is a sincere Catholic, as well as an honorable gentleman and a patriotic French Canadian; we are very certain that M. Cartier, with his long and varied political experience, must be aware that power, or political influence, can only be retained by him, on condition of his retaining the confidence and affection of his fellow-countrymen and co-religionists. He must be aware that his every word and action will be closely watched, and unsparingly criticised; and that it is therefore only by unswerving fidelity to Lower Canada that he can hope to secure the confidence of Lower Canadians, or to allay the distrust with which his connection with George Brown has inspired the minds of many certainly not indisposed towards him and his Cabinet.—The sense of duty, and a correct apprehension of their own interests will therefore conspire to keep the French Canadian section of the Cabinet in the right course; and if they will but do their duty fearlessly, and conscientiously, they should assuredly have no cause for fearing any opposition based upon personal motives from those whose boast it is that they belong to no party, and know no interests save those of their Church and their country.
Without therefore committing ourselves in any manner, or in any manner pretending to be in the secrets of the Ministry, we will patiently await the course of events; thus leaving ourselves free to oppose, or give a hearty and independent support to them, according as their conduct deserves censure or applause from Catholics. We would however take the liberty of pointing out what seems to us to be the duty of the people of Lower Canada to insist upon with reference to the constitutional reforms with which the country is menaced.
First, it seems to us that the Lower Canadians should demand an appeal to the country immediately after the matured scheme of Federation shall have been published. When the present Parliament was elected the question of Federation was not before the people, it was not the issue presented to them. It is but just, therefore that the Federation scheme should be discussed, and decided upon by a Legislature chosen especially for that purpose.
Secondly, it seems to us that the people of Lower Canada should insist, as on a condition sine qua non, upon the application of the “Double Majority” principle in this particular instance. In other words, it should be understood that no constitutional changes shall be binding upon Lower Canada, in whole or in part, to every detail of which a majority of Lower, as well as of Upper, Canadian representatives shall not have given their sanction.
These two precautions taken, and they are so obvious and so just that we scarce expect that the French Canadian section of the Ministry will fail to insist upon them, the fate of Lower Canada will be in the hands of the French Canadians. If these be but true to themselves, and to their country they will not allow any man to go to Parliament whose good intentions are even doubtful; who is not pledged to vote against every measure that would have the effect of giving to Upper Canada, directly or indirectly, any the slightest voice in the management of, or control over, any of the internal affairs of Lower Canada. And if they but send good and honest men to Parliament; men determined at all hazards to make no concession, however slight, to the arrogant demands of our enemies, the application of the “Double Majority” principle will put it out of the power of the latter to hurt us. Only this “Double Majority” principle must, by the Cartier section of the Ministry, be plainly laid down as the principle by which, in discussing all constitutional changes, the Legislature is to be guided; and it must be expressly stipulated that every proposal submitted to the Legislature which does not receive the sanction of a majority of the representatives of Lower, as well as of Upper Canada, shall be treated as if rejected by a majority of the whole House. With these precautions it seems to us that we have little to fear for the future, if we be but true to ourselves. Our destiny will be in our own hands. It will be in our power to reject every proposal threatening to the autonomy of Lower Canada: and at all events Lower Canadians will have no one to blame but themselves, should a measure unfavorable to them in principle or in detail obtain the sanction of a Legislature in which they actually enjoy Equality of Representation.
We have said that we have the same objections to the new Federation scheme, as we had to Mr. George Brown’s “Central Authority Humbug.” They are both coins from the same mint, are stamped with the same effigies, are of the same intrinsic value, and differ only in name, even as the twenty-five cent piece differs from the quarter dollar. However it is well that the scheme should be discussed, calmly, and exhaustively, in all its bearings, by the Canadian and the Catholic press; that thereby the people of this section of the Province may have the means afforded them of forming an enlightened opinion upon a measure about to be submitted to their approval or rejection, and on which the future of their country depends. The measure should be discussed, we say, and judged or condemned by its own merits, and not by those of the party by whom it is brought forward. If we should not reject it, without discussion, because it bears on it the image and superscription of George Brown, so neither should we blindly accept it as good coin, because tendered to us in payment by such men even as Sir E. Taché, and his colleagues.