Document Information

Date: 1865-04-07
By: True Witness
Citation: “That Delegation”, True Witness (7 April, 1865)
Other formats: TBA

THAT DELEGATION.

—What is the object of the Ministerial delegation to England? we hear often asked. This is a question that it is not very easy to answer.

To press the Union of all the British North American Provinces upon the Imperial Government can hardly be the object of the delegation, for we now know that the Lower Provinces are by no means desirous of contracting any such Union; and Mr. George Brown, one of the delegates, tells us through his paper, the Globe, that the “Confederation scheme” has entirely broken down, and that we must now adopt a perfectly different policy, to settle the “sectional differences,” as they are called, betwixt Upper and Lower Canada. From this it follows, either that the policy of Mr. George Brown is entirely different from that of his colleagues; or that the latter have also renounced all idea of consummating a Union or Confederation of all the B. N. A. Provinces.

That projected Union may be considered in two lights. As a means for establishing on the shores of the Lakes, along the banks of the St. Lawrence, and on the Gulf a counterpoise to the neighboring Republic; or as a means for setting the sectional difficulties arising out of the incongruous Legislative Union of Upper and Lower Canada, and which difficulties, owing to the nearly evenly balanced state of parties, have for years rendered the political existence of any Ministry extremely precarious. As viewed in the first light, it is a measure in which the Imperial Government is interested, one therefore in which, without consulting the wishes of the Lower Provinces, it may deem itself authorised and bound to interfere, so as to impose, if necessary, the Union to which our Legislature has given its assent, upon the reluctant Legislatures of the Lower Provinces. This would be a high handed act, not at all in unison with the principles by which the Colonial Office of the present day is governed; but in view of the gravity of the crisis, it is one which perhaps the Ministerial Delegates may have it in view to urge upon the Imperial authorities.

As a means for settling the “sectional difficulties” betwixt Upper and Lower Canada it cannot be expected that the Quebec scheme of Union will excite any interest amongst the Imperial authorities. It is as silly, as it is false, to pretend that the latter are actuated by any ill will towards French Canadians, or entertain any designs hostile to the nationality of the Lower Province. On the contrary, all well informed men in England know that the most loyal subjects of Queen Victoria on this Continent are to be found amongst the French and Catholic portion of the people of Canada; and so far from seeking to destroy or diminish, they would seek to perpetuate and extend, the political influence of that section of the population, as a counterpoise to the democratic and Yankee tendencies of the other section. Catholics and French Canadians have nothing to fear, for their religion or their nationality, from Great Britain, and Imperial statesmen; and if the latter look favorably upon the Union scheme which it is pretended that our Delegates are about to lay before them, it will be because they will be led to believe that therein are be found the means of thwarting the hostile designs of the Federal Government upon the British Provinces.

The existing Legislative Union between the two Canadas was, as we all know, framed with the express design of subjugating the Lower to the Upper Province, and of securing Anglo-Saxon and Protestant Ascendency. As in its issue of the 10th ult., the Montreal Herald, a steady advocate of Representation by Population, candidly admits, the “practical men,” who framed the present Union between the two Canadas “wanted only to swamp the French”—and it is simply because their policy has hitherto failed in its object that they are now crying out for “constitutional changes.”

What form these “constitutional changes” will assume, now that by the Globe’s avowal the Quebec scheme is knocked on the head, it is hard to say. That our “practical men,” our George Browns and others will again start some plan “to swamp the French” cannot be doubted; but will the French be themselves parties and assenting thereunto? That is the question.

If they intend to resist further aggression they have, as we have often pointed out, but one course to pursue, but one line of policy to adopt. Upper Canada complains that “Equality of Representation” is unjust towards it, with its larger population, and demands an increase in the number of its representatives proportionate to its greater numbers. The only answer that Lower Canada should vouchsafe to such a demand is this—”Just, or unjust, the principle of Equality of Representation was adopted, not by us, but by you; imposed on us when our population was far in excess of your population; imposed on us for your interest, and, as your organs of the press admit, with the express design of ‘swamping the French.’ Do the terms of that Union which you determined, which you imposed on us, displease you? Then break the Union if you will; but do not expect that we will admit that you have any legitimate cause of complaint against us, or that we will lend you our aid to forge new and heavier fetters for our limbs. If the principle of Equality of Population be unjust, then are we the agrieved party, since you in the day of your power imposed it on us. If it be just, then have you no cause to complain. From this dilemma no escape is possible.