Document Information

Date: 1864-08-05
By: True Witness
Citation: “The ‘Globe’ on the Constitutional Changes”, True Witness (5 August, 1864)
Other formats: TBA

THE “GLOBE” ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.

—It is an axiom that “things which are equal to the same, are equal to one another.” Applying this axiom to the statements of the Globe, we are enabled to arrive at a very correct appreciation of the merits of the Federation policy now impending over us.

The Globe of the 6th ultimo refers to the Reform Convention held at Toronto about five years ago, when it was Resolved, that a remedy for “Sectional Differences” was to be sought for, “in the formation of two or more local governments; to which shall be committed all matters of a local or sectional character, and some joint authority charged with such matters as are necessarily common to both sections of the Province”

The Globe of the same date, 6th ult., quotes from a speech delivered at the Clear-Grit Convention of 1859, to show that this “joint authority” scheme was the basis of the Brown-Dorion alliance. Mr. Brown is reported as having delivered himself on the occasion alluded to, to the following effect:—

“I believe that, had the Brown-Dorion Administration had an opportunity of maturing its policy, and bringing it before the country as we intended to do, it would have been very much like that proposed here to day ; and I feel convinced that it would have proved entirely satisfactory to the people of Upper Canada, and I believe to the people of Lower Canada as well.”

Thus, according to Mr. George Brown, who ought to know the policy, or scheme of the Clear-Grit Convention of ’59 was substantially identical with the policy of the Brown-Dorion Administration.

Next we learn, and still from the Globe of the 6th ult., that the scheme agreed upon betwixt Messrs. Brown and Cartier in 1864 is substantially the same as that of the Toronto Clear-Grit Convention of 1859:—

“The most casual reader can scarcely fail to perceive that the policy of the Administration is substantially that enunciated in the last two of the above quoted resolutions” — (Those declaring in favor of the “Joint Authority Humbug.”)

The Globe continues :—

“The remedy for existing constitutional evils is, according to the Ministerial programme, to be sought in the federative principle. So it was sought in 1859. Then, as now, it was deemed advisable to give local matters to local control, while reserving for general authority matters necessarily common to both sections of the Province. In the same way, both in 1859 and in 1864 the same declaration is made, that under the new system representation according to numbers must be conceded. In all important features, the two proposals are the same; and the strictest comparison will vindicate the consistency of those who accepted the one and are now accepting the other.”—Globe, 6th ult.

Thus, as according to the Globe, the policy or federation scheme of the present Administration is “substantially” the same as that adopted by the Clear-Grit Convention of 1859; and as, again the intended policy or scheme enunciated by the latter was substantially identical with that mutually agreed upon by the members of the Brown-Dorion Cabinet, it follows, that the intended policy of that Cabinet, and that of the present Coalition Administration are also substantially the same. For “things that are equal to the same, are equal to one another.”

And this explains and justifies the opposition of the TRUE WITNESS to the Federation scheme of the actual Ministry. We are in 1864, just what we were in 1859; we hold, as towards the Federal scheme of the present Ministry, the identical language which in 1859 we held as towards the “joint authority humbug,” and the dangerous policy of the Brown-Dorion Administration. In 1860, May 11th, treating of Mr. Brown’s motion on “Constitutional Changes,” and his “joint-authority” scheme, we expressed ourselves as follows:—

“Mr. Brown then moved his second resolution; that the only remedy for existing political evils is to be found in the formation of two local Governments, charged with the control of all matters of a sectional character, and some ‘joint-authority’ charged with such matters as are common to both sections of the Province. This is the resolution that is fraught with danger to Lower Canada ; for, supposing it carried into execution, on whom would devolve the all-important task of deciding what belonged to the ‘local Governments,’ and what to the ‘joint authority’ of limiting and defining, in short, the functions of the latter ? Betwixt Sovereign and Independent States, as are the States of which the American Union is composed, such a political federation as that contemplated by Mr. Brown’s resolution is practicable ; but betwixt Colonies the scheme is absurd. In their case there is no middle ground betwixt a Legislative Union, and its repeal pur et simple, logically tenable.”—True Witness, May 11, 1860.

And again, under the same date, and treating of the same subject we expressed ourselves in the following sense :—

“To what a condition Catholic Lower Canada would quickly be reduced as a member of a Federation of the Protestant British Colonies of North America, it is not difficult to foretell. Her autonomy would in short be more effectually destroyed under such a Federal regime, than it would be under a Legislative Union of the two Canadas, with Representation by Population.”—Ibid.

Thus we can boast that the TRUE WITNESS is to day what it was years ago. Will it be the same with those to whom are entrusted the defence of the national, moral, and religious interests of Lower Canada? Will they also be consistent? or will they turn their coats, and vote to day for a measure which in 1860 they together with the TRUE WITNESS repudiated ? Time will show.

En attendant it can do no harm to remind the defenders of good principles that, in 1860, they voted almost to a man against Mr. George Brown’s motion ; a motion substantially the same as that about to be submitted to them at the next Session of Parliament. In 1859, Mr. Brown’s motion was rejected by a majority of 67 against 26; how will it be when again a motion, substantially the same, will be brought before the House by the Brown-Cartier Ministry?

It would be amusing, and perhaps not an unprofitable labor to search the fyles for May 1860 of some of our French Canadian journals, defenders of “good principles” and to quote the terms in which they then spoke of the “local governments” and “joint authority” scheme. Perhaps the consistency of the Canadian press would not thereby be vindicated.