Document Information

Date: 1866-11-16
By: Montreal Herald
Citation: “The Confederation Remonstrance: A Second Letter by M.P.P.” Montreal Herald (16 November 1866).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

THE CONFEDERATION REMONSTRANCE.

A SECOND LETTER BY M. P. P.

To the Right Hon. Lord Carnarvon, Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, &c., &c.:

MY LORD,—A remonstrance against the proposed Confederation of the British North American Provinces, signed by twenty members of our Colonial Legislature, addressed personally to you, has been published here. This remonstrance has been replied to by M.P.P. But although this reply is thus far anonymous M.P.P. can be easily identified; and, therefore, as the subject is important, I again propose under the same signature to add a few observations to that reply in the nature of a gloss or interpretation. To this course I am attracted, principally by my knowledge of my own capabilities and personal character—which last, from my arrival on this continent in 1848 to the present time has been more or less prominently before the public of this new world.

I will, therefore, write with my last letter before me, and resume its arguments paragraph by paragraph.

The value, then, of my previous letter must depend upon my “principles, experience, and impartiality.” To those primarily I, therefore, propose to refer.

First then, as to principles: a judge, and in this question I arrogate the judicial position, must be possessed of a wide and extended knowledge of diverse and even of conflicting principles, applicable to every position and capable of adjustment to every variety of human affairs. In this there must be no positivism, no egoistic assurance of the right; but, to use a classic simile, as I pride myself upon my classic knowledge, studied, however, in no University College or School: “The wind that blows warmly upon Chloe at night, must sweetly kiss the cheek of her rival Lydia in the morning.” A Judge, therefore, should have no fixed principles—and I, as a political Judge, have none. I have supported the wildest schemes of M Fourrier’s democracy; I have thrown myself forward as a combatant for Liberty, Fraternity and Equality, in the sense in which these words were understood by the thinkers of 1793; I have wrestled for theories of almost autocratic power; I was a leveller; I am a Monarchist. I shouted for the tri-colour; I shouted for the white flag and lilies, as emblems of the past and the old regime;—I have lauded the ‘Stars and Stripes,’ and did not always bless the “flag of England;” and yet again and again I have paid my vows and offered up my devotions at the shrine of St. George. Lastly, whenever opportunity offered, I have accepted a seat in Canadian Cabinets, without reference to such a changing and floating mirage as political consistency or party faith.

Therefore, my Lord, as far as principles are concerned, I soar above the weakness of petty men, and in serene vacuum look down upon the strife and prejudice of ordinary mortals. I am, being thus dispassionate, eminently qualified to decide upon so important a measure as the one in question. From what I have said of my principles, your lordship may easily gather that my experience is vast, and as to my impartiality, I beg leave to assure your lordship that, although at present on pay with the rest of the Confederate administration, I am quite ready, upon the first proof that they do not enjoy the confidence of Parliament, to take office and pay with the present Opposition.

Now, to advert to the second paragraph of my previous letter. Fifteen rural members have signed the remonstrance, and in their own proper names. When I say they are not “well or generally known” your Lordship will at once perceive my meaning—the representative of a borough, or county, especially in a country where party feeling runs high is seldom or never known beyond his own family. We have no such things as the hustings here; we have no canvassing; and such trifles as elections are rarely if ever noticed in our public press, while the topics of the day are, as a rule, never touched upon by our candidates, who, in fact have consented to adopt the University system and refrain not only from the polling places, but from any association whatever with their constituents and the public. Of course no one in Canada ever heard of those fifteen, they have no share in our Government and even to prove their identity they are compelled to sign their own names, and to trust to an anonymous M. P. P., to inform the public of their position. The other five have signed as ‘late’ possessors of temporary titles—”These even have their zest,”—but what is their ‘late’ to a career like mine? I am a ‘late’ republican, a ‘late’ opponent in Ireland and the United States of the domination of the ‘perjured Saxon,’ I am like Messrs. Holton and Dorion and some other remonstrants a “late” assailant of Cartier and Macdonald. I have denounced ‘the corruptionists’ and have been denounced by them, and I am a ‘late’ member of the Macdonald-Sicotte administration. When I regard their ‘late’ career and my own, I proudly rear my versatile crest and declare that even in their ‘late’ excellence they do not approach my own. As to ‘their double majority principle,’ I denounce in toto that ‘late’ administration which professed it. This ‘double majority’ was their “primary basis”—but although it was so, and although of that administration I was a member, I was ever in secret hostile to its adoption, although my real sentiments have not been until lately expressed. But it was thus that I was enabled conscientiously to enter a Cabinet based upon the contradictory doctrine, and to laugh at the folly of my less far sighted colleagues.

In my third paragraph I have alluded to the pretended moderation of the signers of the Remonstrance, which moderation I have denied. And the truth of my position is sufficiently proved by the fact which I have mentioned, that these men, my late colleagues and political friends, have invariably opposed me, the M. P. P., in my advocacy of my present pet scheme. I am and have been open to conviction I do not require like others to “struggle for office,” for with reverential modesty I am ever willing, as my great career has abundantly demonstrated, to yield up my opinions or convictions to those who from time to time became wiser than myself, and who—knowledge being power—have the purse strings of office. In England, as I have observed, “our obscure intrigues and temporary combinations” are little known, and I therefore rejoice that I am enabled to hold a glass before your Lordship’s eyes, and to expose at a glance this intrigue of Confederation—to exhibit in their true light the temporary combinations of Messrs. Dorion and Holton, and the permanent alliances of Sandfield Macdonald, Sicotte and McGee, John A. Macdonald, Cartier and McGee. The hollow hypocrisy of the friendship between the two first named gentlemen is as well known and appreciated here as the consistent political consistency which has ever ranked under the same banners,—Sandfield Macdonald, Sicotte and McGee, John A. Macdonald, Cartier and McGee. I call this remonstrance my Lord “an imposition” because the signers have presented themselves before your notice under pretences: 1st. As to the personality and 2nd. as to the facts. As to their personality, because they pretend that being members of our Parliament they possess some influence over the destinies of our people; because being in a minority they have nevertheless the assurance to suppose that reasons given by them can be entitled to consideration; and, because in this last assumption they advocate the exploded theories of such antiquated writers upon political economy as John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Mr. Hare. As to the facts, because a change in the constitution of a people spreading over an enormous territory, the amalgamation of the conflicting interests of different races; the harmonizing of conflicting theories of commerce, religion, language and laws can in these days of science be easily effected in a few months, and do not require years as these sciolists affect to believe. These men, myself and the supporters of the scheme, were returned as representatives of the people with well known constitutional powers and instructions, and yet these great remonstrants pretend that being such they are not fully empowered radically to alter the forms and the spirit of this constitution, to withhold from our constituents their mandates and apply our present powers to the advantage of ourselves instead of our principals. They actually ask for time; such a prayer based upon such sentiments is evidently monstrous; such a plea is not for time but only for procrastination, and every mind capable of dealing with political distinctions can easily appreciate the difference. “A reasonable time” cannot be interpreted as a time to appeal to their constituents, for such an appeal “under all the circumstances” is as I have shown unconstitutional and therefore unreasonable. An old acquaintance of your Lordship, one Fabius Maximus, whom I have already informed your Lordship, knowing your long absence from school, “was a great general of antiquity” and was called the Cunctator, which I have again reminded you is the Latin for “Delayer,” has been taken as a model by these Remonstrants. “Fabius Maximus practised delay to save his country: they resort to it to betray and ruin theirs;” and the method by which they pretend to save their country with a real view of destroying it, is to meet their constituents at the hole and corner hustings to which I have alluded, and there to ask the opinion of these men whom they assume to represent. But your lordship Fuere magni ante Agamemnona, to get again back to our latin, for there were other great men as well as Fabius Maximus, and one of the chief of these was Proteus, of all the ancients he is my favourite; and as examples of the political expediency of prompt tergiversation I would beg leave to prefer the policy of Proteus myself, and that statesmanlike animal the Rat to all the Fabii Maximi that ever existed. To proceed, however, with the thread of my discourse: the Remonstrants trust that “some new condition of things will drive us into the meshes of the American Democracy.” Hitherto Canada has been and is loyal to the Queen, British connection and Constitutional Government. We are now, it is true, endeavouring to establish a novelty, alike in local self-government, British principles and the ordinary relations between representatives and constituents. This novelty cannot, however, affect the relations between the Colony and the Mother country; for the age is one of progress, and we can of course afford to disregard the experience of the past, in order that we may at once emerge from the state of chrysalis into the butterfly. I have quoted Mr. Holton, and the assertions of that singularly accurate individual the anonymous correspondent of the New York Herald, that Mr. Holton himself confessed that the “tactics against Confederation were delay, in the hope that something might occur here or in England to defeat the measure, such as a change of Ministry, &c., &c.” This, your Lordship will see, is eminently disloyal. It is preposterous, though we are going to England to legislate, for Mr. Holton to look there and hope that divided sentiment there will ultimately re-echo the wishes of the twenty signers of the Remonstrance. From this reference to England alone it is manifest that Mr. Holton is a believer in the “universal democracy of the new world,” and I have extracted this hypothesis as the natural corollary of his words, since to every honest man and close reasoner they bear the impress of this signification.

To conclude, my Lord, I beg you to believe that I

“Have never been a base self-seeker,

“Have never made a brother weaker;”

as I have already once before expressed myself in my published lyrics. I have written this letter in all humility. The style of my previous letter and of this sufficiently proves, I think, the virulence of my opponents and my own moderation. But as modesty is the leading feature of my character, I will not affix my own signature to either letter, “for sufficient reasons,” by which your Lordship will at once perceive that I conscientiously reserve to myself an opportunity for disavowing these sentiments should their enunciation ever appear inexpedient for the best interests of my country or of one who has the honour to be, &c.,

Your Lordship’s

Most obedient servant,

M. P. P.

Montreal, 13th Nov., 1866.