Document Information

Date: 1864-11-11
By: True Witness
Citation: “No title”, True Witness (11 November, 1864)
Other formats: TBA

The Montreal Herald having been for many years a zealous champion of Upper Canada, and an advocate of its claims for representation by population, is well entitled to a hearing from Lower Canadians, upon the merits of the proposed “constitutional changes” as revealed to us through the columns of the Toronto Globe, the Montreal Gazette, and by the President of the Council himself at the banquet given to the delegates in Toronto on Thursday the 3rd inst. The Herald then accepts these changes as a payment in full of all Upper Canada’s demands, and even as something more—as concessions so liberal as to leave nothing more for Upper Canada to claim, or for Lower Canada to give up. Here is what the Herald, in this case a competent because impartial judge, says upon the matter:—

“Taking this constitution in reference to past controversies, it manifestly involves very liberal concessions by those who have hitherto refused to admit a readjustment of the representation in the sense now adopted. Hitherto from a fear which we have thought exaggerated, in what we may call both its branches—fear that the French element would be swamped numerically in United Canada, and fear that being so swamped it would be treated unjustly —a resolute stand has been made against every concession of increased representation to Upper Canada: In the present scheme however, instead of sixty-five members from Lower Canada, that is chiefly from French Canada, being confronted with eighty-two members from Upper Canada, which would have placed them in a minority of forty-one, reckoning twelve English speaking members from Lower Canada, they will now, if we still assume twelve English speaking members to be sent from Lower Canada be in a minority of one hundred and thirty-seven; or if we consider the sixty-five Lower Canadians as all French Canadians as all French members, in a minority of one hundred and twenty-five. Taking either of these proportions it places the French element in the joint Legislature in a position of very inferior importance to that which it would have held in the Legislature of United Canada, under any equitable scheme of representation, and this fact becomes of still more importance when it is coupled with a consideration of the numbers agreed upon for the Legislative Council. Equality there would have been at any time cheerfully accepted by the Upper Canadians, and Lower Canada would then only have been tied as to numbers with Upper Canada, whereas, taking Lower Canada to represent the French element, it will now, even supposing every Lower Canadian Councillor be a French Canadian, find itself in a minority of one to two. We acknowledge very readily that this scheme of Confederation is not ours,—is perhaps the last one we should have tried in order to get rid of existing difficulties; but it having been adopted as the remedy, we are bound to say that the necessary concessions have not been made in any niggardly spirit. If again the form adopted be not so directly a legislative union as we should have desired it to be, it cannot be doubted that the nomination of the Lieutenant Governors by the Central Government, will confer upon the latter very large powers of influencing the local legislatures—perhaps it will be found in practice,—we do not say too large, for we do not think that possible—but too direct. What we mean is this—that the Lieutenant-Governors are almost certain to be political officers, and that their change with changes of Ministry, or for other purposes, may be found an inconvenient interference with legislatures, which, while acting within their own sphere, ought to be as perfectly independent of the general government as our Municipal Councils are at present.

Yes! “which ought to be as perfectly independent of the general government as our Municipal Councils are at present;” but which, as the Montreal Herald by implication admits, will not be so independent. This it is that in the eyes of the Clear Grits and of Mr. George Brown constitutes the chief merit of the scheme just elaborated by the delegates at Quebec; but this also, if there be aught of manhood, of intelligence, and of honesty amongst the Lower Canadians should ensure its rejection in this Province.

And that it will be so rejected we have every reason to believe, if any credit can be given to the pledges, if any reliance can be placed on the promises, of the Ministerial section of the Lower Canadian press. Over and over again these journals have assured their readers and the public of their firm resolve to oppose such a scheme of union as that upon which it now is certain that the delegates at the late Conference have agreed; a scheme which if carried out would not only give to the central government supreme authority over the local legislatures, but which would not even leave to the latter the independence actually enjoyed by our Municipal Councils. That which some few weeks ago the Journal de Quebec, for instance, dealt with as an hypothesis, has now become a certainty: or rather it is now certain, not only from the quasi official utterances of the Globe and the Gazette, but from the formal statements of the President of the Council himself, that the scheme actually agreed upon by the Conference contains provisions more fatal to the autonomy of Lower Canada than those which our Lower Canadian contemporary above indicated denounced in the following strain:—

“If we are to understand by the article in the Gazette that the central parliament will have supreme authority and that the local legislatures will be delegations from this authority—the guarantees given in local legislatures would be but idle words and those things that the Province seek to defend would be subjected helplessly to the will of the majority.

“Were we compelled to select we would prefer a single legislature, to a central parliament and local parliaments in case the former should have sovereign control over the others; we should be spared at least the inconvenience of an expensive tyranny. It might be despotism, but at all events it would be cheap despotism, whilst the other whilst oppressing would beggar us.”—Journal de Quebec, 6th September, 1864.

We cannot, we will not until compelled to do so by the clearest of evidence, believe that the French Canadian section of the Ministry approve of, or in any manner intend to countenance the policy now fully made known to the public by their colleague Mr. George Brown.—We have been by their organs asked to have confidence in them, in the honesty of their intentions, and in their ability and determination to protect the rights of Lower Canada committed to their care by a generous and confiding people; and we reply that that confidence we are prepared to give, but on one condition—to wit, that they now speak out and act as becomes honest men, patriotic French Canadians, and loyal Catholics, worthy of the trust that has been reposed in them. No man, however blinded by prejudices, can now fail to see that a scheme of Union which if carried out would leave the local governments more dependent upon the central or general government, than are our actual Municipal Councils, would be the ruin of State autonomy, and that to accept such a scheme would be basely to sacrifice the interests of Lower Canada in particular; that it would in the words of the Journal de Quebec, impose on us a tyranny which whilst oppressing, would beggar us. Assuming then the honesty and good intentions of the French Canadian section of the Ministry, and their right to demand our confidence, we must necessarily assume that they are heart and soul opposed to the scheme as divulged by the President of the Council, that they are determined at all hazards to oppose that scheme, and thus to maintain the State rights and autonomy of Lower Canada. If our assumptions be correct then, we should waive our paltry party disputes, and rally round our Ministers to a man, and we should seek to strengthen their hands to resist our enemies and their enemies. Yes, if they would but boldly and frankly appeal to their fellow countrymen in this crisis of our fate: if they would throw themselves confidently on the people of Lower Canada for support—pleading that though fully prepared to accede to any reasonable terms for settling the long outstanding differences betwixt Upper and Lower Canada—that though ready and willing to consider the question of a league betwixt all the British North American Provinces — they were determined never — no matter what the consequences of their refusal — to accept such monstrous terms as those which Mr. George Brown tells us have been agreed upon; never to give their assent to a Union such as that of which their President of the Council in his official speech at the Toronto banquet, and through the columns of the Globe, has divulged the conditions—Yes, we say, if our French Canadian Ministers would but do this, they would merit and they would receive the confidence and support of their countrymen, and of all lovers of constitutional liberty throughout the Province.

But if they will not act thus: if they will not follow the path of honor and of prudence; if they will not speak out and detach themselves from Mr. George Brown and his schemes for our degradation—how, and with what show of reason can they ask us to place confidence in them? or to look upon them in a different light from that in which we look upon Mr. George Brown and the Clear Grits of Upper Canada?