Document Information

Date: 1865-02-22
By: Montreal Witness
Citation: “Can Parliament Decide a Confederation without Appeal to the People?”, Montreal Witness (22 February, 1865)
Other formats: TBA

CAN PARLIAMENT DECIDE A CONFEDERATION WITHOUT APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE?

Were the members of the present Houses of the Canadian Parliament elected for the purpose of effecting a change in the constitution of the country? Certainly not. They received no such mission. Nor did they ask for it; the thing was not thought of by their constituents one way or other. By framing a new constitution and forcing it upon the country, they are transcending their powers, and perverting to other ends the functions with which they were trusted. It matters little whether there is nothing in the letter of the Imperial Acts concerning our Province, that forbids such action. It is quite enough, that they have received no authority from the people for upsetting the constitution under which they were elected. Common honesty demands that they should make no final change without referring to their constituents, or obtaining from them new authority for this special purpose.

The case, however, is not only one of upsetting an old constitution and revolutionizing the country, it has another still graver aspect. The object as avowed by the leaders of the government, is no less than creating a new nationality, and it is there probably that the usurpation of power by our Legislature is most flagrant. It was certainly no part of the responsibility entrusted to members by the people, either directly or indirectly, to end the existence of the Canadian nation and to create a new one by aggregation and admixture with foreign elements.—Neither our ministers nor our houses of Parliament are competent to do this—except by sheer usurpation and in the utmost contempt of the rights of a free people. The latter were cautious in electing their representatives to inform themselves exactly of their views on matters of ordinary legislation, and the candidates were elected or rejected accordingly. But these issues about which constituencies were jealous of their authority are as nothing in importance compared with questions involving a revolution, a change of constitution, and the suicide of a nationality. And yet grave men are found to maintain the absurdity that while lesser issues can not be decided without special commission from the people, the far greater ones, which involve the fate of the rest, are to be settled without authority and without giving the nation a chance to accept or refuse. To decide the first in ignorance or contempt of the wishes of the people would be deemed a crime against freedom, and what shall be called this taking a nation by surprise with an overthrow of their constitution and a dismemberment and final reconstruction of their nationality unless it be usurpation and despotism?

Four years ago, some of the Southern States gave the example of Legislatures usurping a power which had not been conceded to them by the people, and voting on their sole responsibility changes of constitution and nationality. The experiment has been a bitter one to their constituents. The indecent haste, however, with which these acts of secession were passed was fully explained afterwards. The majority of the people did not want secession, and their politicians knew it; but, supported by party factions, they passed their great constitutional changes, and an unwilling people had to assent. The work of a few politicians, anxious for their own aggrandizement, had to be assumed by their constituents; they became identified with it; and there was no help for them. Truly, our Canadian Coalition Government seem to have borrowed a leaf of Machiavelian wisdom from Jefferson Davis and the leaders of the slave-holding Confederacy, for they are most recklessly hurrying through their new schemes, fearing delay, and dreading an appeal to the people. The new constitution and the new nationality must be forced upon the Canadian minds, before they have time to think, to understand the issues, and to offer resistance. The scheme once affirmed by an obedient Legislature, the conspiracy is successful; the people can no longer help themselves; they must accept it, and make the best of it;—while the lucky schemers keep their seats, and enjoy the spoils.

The only hope left now of checking hasty proceedings is, that the government be compelled by a majority of the Lower Canada members to consent to a popular vote on the contemplated revolution. Of this, there is yet some chance, inasmuch as many French members shrink from the responsibility the government wants them to assume. Only few may vote openly against Confederation, but many more will endorse the government only on condition of the scheme being finally referred to the popular vote; and these two classes united may, form the majority from Lower Canada. If a resort to the people is obtained, whether in the shape of direct vote of yes or no on the question of Confederation, or through a new general election, time is gained, and all delay is held a loss to the ministers and a gain to the opposition — a fact which of itself throws suspicion on the whole scheme. Can the government and their organs be really sincere when they assert on the one hand that the people are unanimous for the change, and on the other refuse an appeal to their constituents, and hurry to put to their policy the finishing stroke, just as the champion who, after stunning his opponent with an unexpected blow, takes care not to leave him time to come again to his senses before a final and easy victory is secured.

The friends of the scheme have a great deal to say about the imminent danger of annexation to the United States. They hold up this phantom to excite terror and present confederation as the only safety against that alternative. To those who dread annexation we would say :—Do not sanction the arbitrary usurpation of our leaders, for those who now dispose so lightly and so irresponsibly of the Canadian nation and of its constitution, will be, perhaps, the very ones some day to decide in favor of annexation without consulting the people.

What certainty have we that the confederation will work well? And in case of a deadlock occurring, perhaps about some corruption money paid without authority to help the international railway, what guarantee have we that the party in power will not re-enact, in order to keep their seats, the solemn mockery of having a great constitutional change? The game of Confederation being used up, they may probably take then to annexation and effect it, in the present fashion, without leave of the people.