Document Information

Date: 1867-03-20
By: The Montreal Herald
Citation: “The Confederation Bill in the Imperial Parliament”, The Montreal Herald (20 March, 1867)
Other formats: TBA

THE CONFEDERATION BILL IN THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

To the Editor of the Montreal Herald: MR. EDITOR,—Shakespeare truly says: “It is not to our stars, but in ourselves That we are underlings.” Does it never occur to us residents of Canada, that we have never been asked our opinion about this Confederation “dodge” at all. Is it not true that a Ministry was outvoted in the Assembly by a small majority, on a question in which their common honesty was involved? and instead of hiding their heads for very shame, did not that Ministry make overtures to the leaders of their opponents, and straightway was not a Coalition Ministry brought about, not to save their characters, but their pay, with the Confederation hocus-pocus as the quack medicine, the cure for all our ills, the nostrum that would go “right to the spot, &c.”

Sir, the Confederation of the Provinces doubtless had been talked about before, but honestly. Is not this the true history of its being taken up in its present shape? Is it not true, also, that the “medicine-men” who do us the favour to take care of our case, the original inventors of the Confederation lozenge, and who insist upon our swallowing it nolens volens, elect themselves to be the Delegates, the exponents of our opinions and desires on the matter (God save the mark!)?

“We have nothing to do with the law but obey it,” “I am Sir Oracle! let no dog bark, &c.”

And so a Tory Government, which is at its wits end to save its holding of office in England, is to decide upon the fate of “this Canada” for the next generation, why! they would pass a Bill to tar and feather us if it would save their next quarter’s salary. We referred the Question of the Capital “home,” and a pretty mess was made of it! The only result being, as far as we are concerned, the expenditure of several millions of our money, for the Ottawa plaything, and for all practical purposes. Montreal is still de facto the capital, as it ever must remain:

Our Solons at the time persisted in viewing things through green spectacles—and as Mr. Jno. A. McDonald frankly admitted “they never permitted a vote to be taken on the ‘merits of Montreal by itself'”

Now Confederation has passed the Lords:—well, one must not expect to gather “figs from thistles” from an assembly, which could not by any possibility know anything about the question they were debating, (query,) the Lords behaved pretty well, they did not understand it, so they kept quiet. Lord Monck spoke “a piece” and of course it was all “couleur de rose” with him, moreover he know of the nicely balanced state of parties here, and the dead lock they had got into, and so he hoped it would last his time &c, &c.

The Commons apparently agreed to the second reading after a hazy speech from Mr. Adderley, and the only man, of all the legislative wisdom of England, who appears,—

“to rise to the height of this great argument”—

is the “tribune of the people,” John Bright, his sterling common sense steps in, and lays bare the scheme in its nakedness. Mr. Bright speaking of the omission of St. Johns Newfoundland, and Prince Edwards’ Island from the Bill says: the reason why they are left out is, because they are not willing to come in.

Two and two make four! Now, who knows, outside of the brains of our very clever self elected Delegates, whether Canada wants to come in Most distinctly she has never been asked for one object to be bound by an Act of Parliament passed 3000 miles away, without the opinion of Canada having been first asked and obtained. If, after having been asked, the reply of the majority is in favour of the scheme, with its Upper House nominated for life: Amen, so be it!

I cannot help thinking that it is pregnant with mischief Mr. McGee, (who may be regarded as the peripatetic advocate of Confederation, the C.O.D.C.,) which may be interpreted (Chief Organizer of the Dominion of Canada) was present a few months since at the annual meeting of the G.T.R. Literary Institution at Point St. Charles and took the opportunity of recommending to his audience the kind of books which would be profitable to them to read, especially praising “historical novels” which possessed the additional advantage of being in a great measure true; (one does not care to be hypercritical, and say that any one possessing a copy of “Waverly”, might have read Mr. McGee’s speech in the preface to that novel by his “ain fireside” without venturing out that inclement evening to hear the great orator,) but I wonder whether Mr. McGee remembers Cooper’s “Spy” a semi-historical novel, one of those the hon. gentleman was praising,) where Wellmere and Dr. Sitgreaves are talking of the causes of the Revolutionary War between the 13 States and Great Britain :—

“We deem it a liberty to have a voice in the Council by which we are governed. We think it a hardship to be ruled by a people who live at a distance of three thousand miles from us, and who can not, and who do not, feel a single political interest in common with ourselves I say nothing of oppression; the child was of age, and was entitled to the privileges of majority In such cases, there is but one tribunal at which to appeal for a nation’s rights—it is power; and we now make that appeal.”

Again in the same novel, where Lawton says to the chaplain:—

“See you not that broad sheet of water which the eye cannot compass in its range? Thither lies the England you deem worthy to hold dominion over half the world.”

“It’s impossible to behold objects at a distance of three thousand miles,” exclaimed the wondering priest

“No! What a pity it is that the powers of man are not equal to his ambition. Now turn your eyes westward; observe that vast expanse of water which rolls between the shores of America and China.”

“I see nothing but land,” said the priest, “there is no water to be seen.”

“Its impossible to discern objects at a distance of three thousand miles” repeated Lawton gravely, &c, &c.

Perhaps, we may be told, therefore our temperate delegates, elected themselves to go over the sea to explain matters The chief stock piece of abuse heaped upon Mr. Bright is that he would Americanise the institutions of England, as an Englishman myself I must say that the quack medicine of Confederation will do more to Americanise us in Canada, than any other step which our Solons could have hit upon.

I always look upon any medicine with doubt that is said to cure all diseases.

And finally I distrust anything offered by a Cartier-MacDonald Government.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.

Apologizing for troubling you at this length

I am, Mr Editor,

Yours respectfully

A VOICE FROM THE CROWD.

18th, March 1867.