Document Information

Date: 1864-11-11
By: Perth Courier
Citation: “The Popular Right”, Perth Courier (11 November, 1864)
Other formats: TBA

THE POPULAR RIGHT.

Several of our cotemporaries are now engaged in discussing a question about which we made some remarks last week, viz: the right of the people to vote on the Constitution under which they will in future be governed. The Montreal Gazette and the Toronto Globe go hand in glove in opposition to the idea, the one because it is anti-British to submit a constitutional measure directly to the vote of the people, and the other because delay might endanger the success of the scheme, and that an election would cause a great deal of expense, and also because the people would insist on raising other issues, and would not vote for the measure on its own merits alone. The question of right is entirely ignored by our big brethren, who seem perfectly satisfied with the power of our leading politicians to make and unmake systems of government, without any consultation whatever with the people who conferred on them the simple power of making laws, without authorizing them to change the Constitution.

With due deference to the judgement of the Globe and Gazette, we respectfully contend for the people’s right to vote on this Constitution manufactured by the Quebec Convention, and under which it is proposed to carry on the future government of the country. The present Legislature of United Canada was elected to make laws for the country in accordance with the principles of the Union Act of 1840, which Act does not give them any authority to adopt a new Constitution, or change the basis of the old one. The Legislature being thus powerless to vote away the Constitution under which it is elected, is passing strange to hear the Globe talking about the supremacy of Parliament, as if it were a power above the people and had its existence totally independent of them. What becomes of responsible government if Parliament has power to change the Constitution of the country in defiance of the people, who elected it merely to make laws? Clearly the idea that the people rule is, under such circumstances, a fallacy, and the sooner we return to the family compact system, or to Downing-street colonial ideas, the better for a proper understanding of our position. But if the idea of responsible government is to be carried out, this change in our Constitution cannot be made without the sanction of the people. If the Globe is afraid of the delay and expense of an election, or that the people would not vote for the new Constitution as represented by candidates for or against the measure, why not submit the measure itself to a direct popular vote, and let the present Legislatures of the several Provinces go into existence under it, if carried? This would be a simple method of overcoming all difficulties about obtaining the popular sanction to the measure, and although somewhat democratic in principle, it is no more so than our very system of government itself, which has its existence solely by the votes of the people. If it is right that our system of government should be maintained by the votes of the people, it is surely right that the principles on which it is proposed to found a new system should be established by the same means, for if one is right the other cannot be wrong. This question of popular rights is entirely ignored by the Globe, and the expediency of obtaining the popular sanction alone discussed. It is never assumed by the organ of the Constitution manufacturers that the people have any rights at all in the matter, and it also forgets to mention where the manufacturers themselves obtained their authority.

It should be distinctly borne in mind, in discussing this question, that our present Parliament having been elected by the people to govern the country under the Union Act, have no right to vote away the Constitution, or to delegate authority to any body of men to change its principles. If the government of the day assumes to itself this power and is allowed to enforce it, there can be no limit placed to their authority hereafter, when the enlarged Constitution of the Confederacy confers on the Administration ten time the authority it possesses at present. The fact of the matter appears to be that these men, carried away by the ambition of founding a system of government, and excited by the unthinking after-dinner applause awarded to their speeches, are entirely overlooking the rights of those who placed them in the positions they occupy. Looking down the vista of time, they see themselves compared to Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, and the other great fathers of the American Union, revered for their wisdom and extolled for their patriotism, and in contemplation of this beautiful image’ they seem a little disposed to carry things with a high hand, in order to realize their magnificent fancies. From the lofty height of their wisdom they see clearly, no doubt, that what they are doing is for the good of the country, and when they are engaged in doing good it seems somewhat ungenerous to place any restrictions on their authority, but as many men quite as wise as themselves are opposed to their scheme, it is best to keep them within the bounds of the Constitution and not allow them to usurp authority that does not belong to them. At any rate, the people should not allow them to usurp their rights, and as it is clearly a matter of right that the Constitution of the country should not be changed without their sanction, they should firmly insist on their authority, and not allow any body of politicians to deprive them of their rights and liberties.