The Honorable Thomas d'Arcy McGee.
Amongst the men, able and earnest, who carried the union of the
British, separated, Provinces, and made the "Dominion," no man gave
more soul and substance to the cause, by his eloquence, than Mr. d'Arcy
McGee. His had been a chequered career. Beginning, like Sir George
Etienne Cartier, in revolt against what he believed to be British
tyranny, he ended his life, one of the most loyal, as he was one of the
most eloquent, of Her Majesty's subjects. In 1848 he was one of the
"Young Ireland" party, and became an exile from his country; and, at
length, a denizen of the United States. From thence he came to Canada.
In Canada he found all the liberty, without very much of the license,
of politicians in the United States. In Canada he could think for
himself; in the United States he must think the thoughts of some secret
organization--or perish. In Canada he was welcomed, and soon made a
position. I first met him, in a casual way, in Ireland, in the time of
O'Connell, I think in 1844; and in 1861 I made his acquaintance, and I
knew him well until his untimely death, by Fenian assassination, at
Ottawa. He had faults--what politician has not? But he was honorable
and kindly; no man's enemy, unless it were his own. He was remarkable
in appearance; of middle height, very dark complexion, and with hair so
curious and curly that he always joked about his popularity with the
negroes of Canada. He told a story of a meeting in Montreal at a little
public-house called "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Here he was addressing an
audience containing a considerable number of dark men. Mr. Holton, his
colleague, had orated about differential duties, very dry and Yankee-
like, as usual. McGee followed in one of his arousing speeches. When he
sat down, the respected negro landlord of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" got up to
move a vote of confidence. And, according to McGee's story, said:
"Bredren, we all on us heah came to dis land on a venter. Mr. McGee he
came heah on a venter. Dis child know nothing bout dem disgreable
duties. All we wants, bredren, is to pick out de best man. How is we to
do dat? Bredren, best way is to follow de hair. Mr. McGee has hair like
good nigger. Bredren, let us follow our hair." The result was McGee was
adopted unanimously.
In 1865 a volume of Mr. McGee's speeches was published by Chapman &
Hall. He did me the favour to dedicate the book to me in these, too
complimentary, terms: "To E. W. Watkin, Esq., M.P. for Stockport, whose
intimate connection with many great enterprises in which the material
future of British America is interwoven, and, still more, whose high-
spirited advocacy of a sound Colonial policy, both in and out of
Parliament, has conferred lasting obligations, upon these Provinces,
this volume is very sincerely and cordially dedicated."
The last speech in this volume was delivered in the Legislative
Assembly of Canada, at Quebec, on the 9th February, 1865. I venture to
record some portion of it in this book:--
"With your approbation, Sir, and the forbearance of the House, I will
endeavour to treat this subject in this way:--First, to give some
slight sketch of the history of the question; then to examine the
existing motives which ought to prompt us to secure a speedy union of
these Provinces; then to speak of the difficulties which this question
has encountered before reaching its present fortunate stage; then to
say something of the mutual advantages, in a social rather than
political point of view, which these Provinces will have in their
union; and, lastly, to add a few words on the Federal principle in
general: when I shall have done. In other words, I propose to consider
the question of Union mainly from within, and, as far as possible, to
avoid going over the ground already so fully and so much better
occupied by hon. friends who have already spoken upon the subject.
"So far back as the year 1800, the Hon. Mr. Uniacke, a leading
politician in Nova Scotia at that date, submitted a scheme of Colonial
Union to the Imperial authorities. In 1815, Chief Justice Sewell, whose
name will be well remembered as a leading lawyer of this city, and a
far-sighted politician, submitted a similar scheme. In 1822, Sir John
Beverley Robinson, at the request of the Colonial Office, submitted a
project of the same kind; and I need not refer to the report of Lord
Durham, on Colonial Union, in 1839. These are all memorable, and some
of them are great, names. If we have dreamed a dream of Union (as some
of you gentlemen say), it is at least worth while remarking that a
dream which has been dreamed by such wise and good men, may, for aught
we know, or you know, have been a sort of vision--a vision
foreshadowing forthcoming natural events in a clear intelligence: a
vision--I say it without irreverence, for the event concerns the lives
of millions living, and yet to come--resembling those seen by the
Daniels and Josephs of old, foreshadowing the trials of the future, the
fate of tribes and peoples, the rise and fall of dynasties. But the
immediate history of the measure is sufficiently wonderful, without
dwelling on the remoter predictions of so many wise men. Whoever, in
1862, or even in 1863, would have told us that we should see even what
we see in these seats by which I stand--such a representation of
interests acting together, would be accounted, as our Scotch friends
say, 'half daft'; and whoever, in the Lower Provinces, about the same
time, would have ventured to foretell the composition of their
delegations which sat with us under this roof last October, would
probably have been considered equally demented. But the thing came
about; and if those gentlemen who have had no immediate hand in
bringing it about, and, therefore, naturally feel less interest in the
project than we who had, will only give us the benefit of the doubt--
will only assume that we are not all altogether wrong-headed--we hope
to show them still farther, though we think we have already shown them
satisfactorily, that we are by no means without reason in entering on
this enterprise. I submit, however, we may very well dismiss the
antecedent history of the question for the present: it grew from an
unnoticed feeble plant, to be a stately and flourishing tree; and, for
my part, any one that pleases may say he made the tree grow, if I can
only have hereafter my fair share of the shelter and the shade. But in
the present stage of the question, the first real stage of its success
--the thing that gave importance to theory in men's minds, was the now
celebrated despatch, signed by two members of this Government and an
honourable gentleman formerly their colleague (Hon. Mr. Ross), a member
of the other House. I refer to the despatch of 1858. The
recommendations in that despatch lay dormant until revived by the
Constitutional Committee of last Session, which led to the Coalition,
which led to the Quebec Conference, which led to the draft of the
Constitution now on our table, which will lead, I am fain to believe,
to the union of all these Provinces. At the same time that we mention
these distinguished politicians, I think we ought not to forget those
zealous and laborious contributors to the public press, who, although
not associated with governments, and not themselves at the time in
politics, yet greatly contributed to give life and interest to this
question, and, indirectly, to bring it to the happy position in which
it now stands. Of those gentlemen I will mention two. I do not know
whether honorable gentlemen of this House have seen some letters on
Colonial Union, written in 1855--the last addressed to the late Duke of
Newcastle--by Mr. P. S. Hamilton, an able public writer of Nova Scotia,
and the present Gold Commissioner of that province; but I take this
opportunity of bearing my testimony to his well-balanced judgment,
political sagacity, and the skilful handling the subject received from
him at a very early period. There is another little book, written in
English, six or seven years ago, to which I must refer. It is a
pamphlet, which met with an extraordinary degree of success, entitled
Nova Britannia, by my honorable friend, the member for South Lanark
(Mr. Morris); and as he has been one of the principal agents in
bringing into existence the present Government, which is now carrying
out the idea embodied in his book, I trust he will forgive me if I take
the opportunity, although he is present, of reading a single sentence,
to show how far he was in advance, and how true he was to the coming
event which we are now considering. At page 57 of his pamphlet--which I
hope will be reprinted among the political miscellanies of the
Provinces when we are one country and one people--I find this
paragraph:--
"'The dealing with the destinies of a future Britannic empire, the
shaping its course, the laying its foundations broad and deep, and the
erecting thereon a noble and enduring superstructure, are indeed duties
that may well evoke the energies of our people, and nerve the arms and
give power and enthusiasm to the aspirations of all true patriots. The
very magnitude of the interests involved, will, I doubt not, elevate
many amongst us above the demands of mere sectionalism, and enable them
to evince sufficient comprehensiveness of mind to deal in the spirit of
real statesmen with issues so momentous, and to originate and develop a
national line of commercial and general policy, such as will prove
adapted to the wants and exigencies of our position.'
"We, on this side, Mr. Speaker, propose for that better future our plan
of Union; and, if you will allow me, I shall go over what appear to me
the principal motives which exist at present for that Union. My hon.
friend the Finance Minister mentioned the other evening several strong
motives for Union--free access to the sea, an extended market, breaking
down of hostile tariffs, a more diversified field for labour and
capital, our enhanced credit with England, and our greater
effectiveness when united for assistance in time of danger. The Hon.
President of the Council, last night also enumerated several motives
for Union in relation to the commercial advantages which will flow from
it, and other powerful reasons which may be advanced in favour of it.
But the motives to such a comprehensive change as we propose, must be
mixed motives--partly commercial, partly military, and partly
political; and I shall go over a few--not strained or simulated--
motives which must move many people of all these Provinces, and which
are rather of a social, or, strictly speaking, political than of a
financial kind. In the first place, I echo what was stated in the
speech last night of my hon. friend, the President of the Council--that
we cannot stand still; we cannot stave off some great change; we cannot
stand alone--Province apart from Province--if we would; and that we are
in a state of political transition. All, even honorable gentlemen who
are opposed to this description of Union, admit that we must do
something, and that that something must not be a mere temporary
expedient. We are compelled, by warning voices from within and without,
to make a change, and a great change. We all, with one voice who are
Unionists, declare our conviction that we cannot go on as we have gone;
but you, who are all anti-Unionists, say--'Oh! that is begging the
question; you have not yet proved that.' Well, Mr. Speaker, what proofs
do the gentlemen want? I presume there are the influences which
determine any great change in the course of any individual or State.
First--His patron, owner, employer, protector, ally, or friend; or, in
our politics, 'Imperial connection.' Secondly--His partner, comrade, or
fellow-labourer, or near neighbour; in our case, the United States.
And, thirdly,--The man himself, or the Province itself. Now, all three
have concurred to warn and force us into a new course of conduct. What
are these warnings? We have had at least three. The first is from
England, and is a friendly warning. England has warned us by several
matters of fact, according to her custom, rather than verbiage, that
the Colonies had entered upon a new era of existence, a new phase in
their career. She has given us this warning in several different
shapes--when she gave us 'Responsible Government'--when she adopted
Free Trade--when she repealed the Navigation Laws--and when, three or
four years ago, she commenced that series of official despatches in
relation to militia and defence which she has ever since poured in on
us, in a steady stream, always bearing the same solemn burthen-
'Prepare! prepare! prepare!' These warnings gave us notice that the old
order of things between the Colonies and the Mother Country had ceased,
and that a new order must take its place. About four years ago, the
first despatches began to be addressed to this country, from the
Colonial Office, upon the subject. From that day to this there has been
a steady stream of despatches in this direction, either upon particular
or general points connected with our defence; and I venture to say,
that if bound up together, the despatches of the lamented Duke of
Newcastle alone would make a respectable volume--all notifying this
Government, by the advices they conveyed, that the relations--the
military apart from the political and commercial relations--of this
Province to the Mother Country had changed; and we were told in the
most explicit language that could be employed, that we were no longer
to consider ourselves, in relation to defence, in the same position we
formerly occupied towards the Mother Country. Then, Sir, in the second
place, there came what I may call the other warning from without--the
American warning. Republican America gave us her notices in times past,
through her press, and her demagogues, and her statesmen, but of late
days she has given us much more intelligible notices--such as the
notice to abrogate the Reciprocity Treaty, and to arm the lakes,
contrary to the provisions of the Convention of 1818. She has given us
another notice in imposing a vexatious passport system; another in her
avowed purpose to construct a ship canal round the falls of Niagara, so
as 'to pass war vessels from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie;' and yet
another, the most striking one of all, has been given to us, if we will
only understand it, by the enormous expansion of the American army and
navy. I will take leave to read to the House a few figures which show
the amazing, the unprecedented, growth (which has not, perhaps, a
parallel in the annals of the past) of the military power of our
neighbours, within the past three or four years. I have the details
here by me, but shall only read the results, to show the House the
emphatic terms of this most serious warning. In January, 1861, the
regular army of the United States, including of course the whole of the
States, did not exceed 15,000 men. This number was reduced, from
desertion and other causes, by 5,000 men, leaving 10,000 men as the
regular army of the United States. In December, 1862, that is, from
January, 1861, to January, 1863, this army of 10,000 was increased to
800,000 soldiers actually in the service. No doubt there are
exaggerations in some of these figures--the rosters were, doubtless, in
some cases filled with fictitious names, in order to procure the
bounties that were offered; but if we allow two-thirds as correct, we
find that a people who had an army of 10,000 men in 1861, had in two
years increased it to an army of 600,000 men. As to their munitions and
stock of war material at the opening of the war--that is to say, at the
date of the attack upon Fort Sumter--we find that they had of siege and
heavy guns 1,952; of field artillery, 231; of infantry firearms,
473,000; of cavalry firearms, 31,000; and of ball and shell, 363,000.
At the end of 1863, the latest period to which I have statistics upon
the subject, the 1,052 heavy guns had become 2,116; the 231 field
pieces had become 2,965; the 473,000 infantry arms had become
2,423,000; the 31,000 cavalry arms had become 369,000; and the 363,000
ball and shell had become 2,925,000. Now as to the navy of the United
States, I wish also to show that this wonderful development of war
power in the United States is the second warning we have had, that we
cannot go on as we have gone. In January, 1861, the ships of war
belonging to the United States were 83; in December, 1864, they
numbered 671, of which 54 were monitors and iron-clads, carrying 4,610
guns, with a tonnage of 510,000 tons, and manned by a force of 51,000
men. These are frightful figures; frightful for the capacity of
destruction they represent, for the heaps of carnage they represent,
for the quantity of human blood spilt they represent, for the lust of
conquest they represent, for the evil passions they represent, and for
the arrest of the onward progress of civilization they represent. But
it is not the figures which give the worst view of the fact--for
England still carries more guns afloat even than our well-armed
neighbours. It is the change which has taken place in the spirit of the
people of the Northern States themselves which is the worst view of the
fact. How far have they travelled since the humane Channing preached
the unlawfulness of war--since the living Sumner delivered his
addresses to the Peace Society on the same theme! I remember an
accomplished poet, one of the most accomplished the New England States
have ever produced, taking very strong grounds against the prosecution
of the Mexican war, and published the Bigelow Papers, so well known in
American literature, to show the ferocity and criminality of war. That
poet made Mr. Bird-o'-Freedom Sawin sing:
"'Ef you take a soaord an droar it,
An go stick a feller thru,
Guv'ment won't answer for it,
God'll send the bill to you!'
This was slightly audacious and irreverent in expression, but it was
remarkably popular in New England at that time. The writer is now one
of the editors of a popular Boston periodical, and would be one of the
last, I have no doubt, to induce a Northern soldier to withdraw his
sword from the body of any unhappy Southerner whom he had, contrary to
the poet's former political ethics, 'stuck thru.' But it is not the
revolution wrought in the minds of men of great intelligence that is
most to be deplored--for the powerful will of such men may compel their
thoughts back again to a philosophy of peace; no, it is the mercenary
and military interests created under Mr. Lincoln which are represented,
the former by an estimated governmental outlay of above $100,000,000
this year, and the other by the 800,000 men, whose blood is thus to be
bought and paid for; by the armies out of uniform who prey upon the
army in uniform; by the army of contractors who are to feed and clothe
and arm the fighting million; by that other army, the army of tax-
collectors, who cover the land, seeing that no industry escapes
unburthened, no possession unentered, no affection even, untaxed. Tax!
tax! tax! is the cry from the rear! Blood! blood! blood! is the cry
from the front! Gold! gold! gold! is the chuckling undertone which
comes up from the mushroom _millionaires_, well named a shoddy
aristocracy. Nor do I think the army interest, the contracting
interest, and the tax-gathering interest, the worst results that have
grown out of this war. There is another and equally serious interest--
the revolution in the spirit, mind, and principles of the people, that
terrible change which has made war familiar and even attractive to
them. When the first battle was fought--when, in the language of the
Duke of Wellington, the first 'butcher's bill was sent in'--a shudder
of horror ran through the length and breadth of the country; but by-
and-by, as the carnage increased, no newspaper was considered worth
laying on the breakfast table unless it contained the story of the
butchery of thousands of men.
'Only a thousand killed! Pooh, pooh, that's nothing!' exclaimed Mr.
Shoddy, as he sipped his coffee--in his luxurious apartment; and
nothing short of the news of ten or fifteen thousand maimed or slain in
a day could satisfy the jaded palate of men craving for excitement, and
such horrible excitement as attends the wholesale murder of their
fellow-creatures. Have these sights and sounds no warning addressed to
us? Are we as those who have eyes and see not; ears and hear not;
reason, neither do they understand? If we are true to Canada--if we do
not desire to become part and parcel of this people--we cannot overlook
this, the greatest revolution of our own times. Let us remember this,
that when the three cries among our next neighbours are shoddy,
taxation, blood, it is tune for us to provide for our own security. I
said, in this House, during the session of the year 1861, that the
first gun fired at Fort Sumter had a 'message for us;' I was unheeded
then; I repeat now that every one of the 2,700 great guns in the field,
and every one of the 4,600 guns afloat, whenever it opens its mouth,
repeats the solemn warning of England---Prepare! prepare! prepare! I
think, Sir, I am justified in regarding the American conflict, as one
of the warnings we have received; and the third warning, that things
cannot go on in this country as they are, is a warning voice from
within--a warning voice from our own experience in the government of
these Provinces. On these internal constitutional difficulties existing
among ourselves, which were so fully exposed last evening by my hon.
friend, the President of the Council, I need say little; they are
admitted to have been real, not imaginary, on all hands. An
illustration was used in another place in explaining this part of the
subject by the venerable and gallant knight, our Premier, than which
nothing could be more clear. He observed that when we had had five
administrations within four years, it was full time to look out for
some permanent remedy for such a state of things. True--most true--
Constitutional Government among us had touched its lowest point when it
existed only by the successful search of a messenger or a page after a
member willingly or unwillingly absent from his seat. Any one might in
those days have been the saviour of his country. All he had to do was,
when one of the five successive Governments which arose in four years
was in danger, to rise in his place, say 'Yea!' and _presto_ the
country was saved. This House was fast losing, under such a state of
things, its hold on the country; the administrative departments were
becoming disorganized under such frequent changes of chiefs and
policies; we were nearly as bad as the army of the Potomac before its
'permanent remedy' was found in General Grant. Well, we have had our
three warnings: one warning from within and two from without. Some
honorable gentlemen, while admitting that we have entered, within the
present decade, on a period of political transition, have contended
that we might have bridged the abyss with that Prussian pontoon called
a Zollverein. But if any one for a moment will remember that the trade
of the whole front of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia gravitates at
present along-shore to Portland and Boston, while the trade of Upper
Canada, west of Kingston, has long gravitated across the lakes to New
York, he will see, I think, that a mere Zollverein treaty without a
strong political end to serve, and some political power at its back,
would be, in our new circumstances, merely waste paper. The charge that
we have not gone far enough--that we have not struck out boldly for a
Consolidated Union, instead of a union with reserved local
jurisdictions--is another charge which deserves some notice. To this I
answer that if we had had, as was proposed, an Intercolonial Railway
twenty years ago, we might by this time have been perhaps, and only
perhaps, in a condition to unite into one consolidated government; but
certain politicians and capitalists having defeated that project twenty
years ago, special interests took the place great general interest
might by this time have occupied; vested rights and local ambitions
arose and were recognized; and all these had to be admitted as existing
in a pretty advanced stage of development when the late conferences
were called together. The lesson to be learned from this squandering of
quarter centuries by British Americans is this, that if we lose the
present propitious opportunity, we may find it as hard a few years
hence to get an audience, even for any kind of union (except democratic
union), as we should have found it to get a hearing last year for a
legislative union, from the long period of estrangement and non-
intercourse which had existed between these Provinces, and the special
interests which had grown up in the meantime in each of them. Another
motive to union, or rather a phase of the last motive spoken of, is
this, that the policy of our neighbours to the south of us has always
been aggressive. There has always been a desire amongst them for the
acquisition of new territory, and the inexorable law of democratic
existence seems to be its absorption. They coveted Florida, and seized
it; they coveted Louisiana, and purchased it; they coveted Texas, and
stole it; and then they picked a quarrel with Mexico, which ended by
their getting California. They sometimes pretend to despise these our
colonies as prizes beneath their ambition; but had we not had the
strong arm of England over us we should not now have had a separate
existence. The acquisition of Canada was the first ambition of the
American Confederacy, and never ceased to be so, when her troops were a
handful and her navy scarce a squadron. Is it likely to be stopped now,
when she counts her guns afloat by thousands and her troops by hundreds
of thousands? On this motive a very powerful expression of opinion has
lately appeared in a published letter of the Archbishop of Halifax, Dr.
Connolly. Who is the Archbishop of Halifax? In either of the coast
colonies, where he has laboured in his high vocation for nearly a third
of a century, it would be absurd to ask the question; but in Canada he
may not be equally well known. Some of my honorable friends in this and
the other House, who were his guests last year, must have felt the
impress of his character as well as the warmth of his hospitality.
Well, he is known as one of the first men in sagacity, as he is in
position, in any of these colonies; that he was for many years the
intimate associate of his late distinguished _confrere_,
Archbishop Hughes of New York; that he knows the United States as
thoroughly as he does the Provinces,--and these are his views on this
particular point; the extract is somewhat long, but so excellently put
that I am sure the House will be obliged to me for the whole of it:--
"Instead of cursing, like the boy in the upturned boat, and holding on
until we are fairly on the brink of the cataract, we must at once begin
to pray and strike out for the shore by all means, before we get too
far down on the current. We must at this most critical moment invoke
the Arbiter of nations for wisdom, and abandoning in time our perilous
position, we must strike out boldly, and at some risks, for some rock
on the nearest shore--some resting-place of greater security. A cavalry
raid, or a visit from our Fenian friends on horseback, through the
plains of Canada and the fertile valleys of New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia, may cost more in a single week than Confederation for the next
fifty years; and if we are to believe you, where is the security even
at the present moment against such a disaster? Without the whole power
of the Mother Country by land and sea, and the concentration in a
single hand of all the strength of British America, our condition is
seen at a glance. Whenever the present difficulties will terminate--and
who can tell the moment?--we will be at the mercy of our neighbours;
and, victorious or otherwise, they will be eminently a military people,
and with all their apparent indifference about annexing this country,
and all the friendly feelings that may be talked, they will have the
power to strike when they please; and this is precisely the kernel and
the only touch-point of the whole question. No nation ever had the
power of conquest that did not use it, or abuse it, at the very first
favourable opportunity. All that is said of the magnanimity and
forbearance of mighty nations can be explained on the principle of
sheer inexpediency, as the world knows. The whole face of Europe has
been changed, and the dynasties of many hundred years have been swept
away within our own time, on the principle of might alone--the oldest,
the strongest, and, as some would have it, the most sacred of all
titles. The thirteen original States of America, with all their
professions of self-denial, have been all the time, by money, power,
and by war, and by negociation, extending their frontier until they
more than quadrupled their territory within sixty years; and believe it
who may, are they now of their own accord to come to a full stop? No;
as long as they have the power, they must go on onward: for it is the
very nature of power to grip whatever is within its reach. It is not
their hostile feelings, therefore, but it is their power, and only
their power, I dread; and I now state it as my solemn conviction, that
it becomes the duty of every British subject in these Provinces to
control that power, not by the insane policy of attacking or weakening
them, but by strengthening ourselves--rising, with the whole power of
Britain at our back, to their level, and so be prepared for any
emergency. There is no sensible or unprejudiced man in the community
who does not see that vigorous and timely preparation is the only
possible means of saving us from the horrors of a war such as the world
has never seen. To be fully prepared is the only practical argument
that can have weight with a powerful enemy, and make him pause
beforehand and count the cost. And as the sort of preparation I speak
of is utterly hopeless without the union of the Provinces, so at a
moment when public opinion is being formed on this vital point, as one
deeply concerned, I feel it a duty to declare myself unequivocally in
favour of Confederation as cheaply and as honourably as possible--but
Confederation at all hazards and at all reasonable sacrifices.
"'After the most mature consideration, and all the arguments I have
heard on both sides for the last month, these are my inmost convictions
on the necessity and merits of a measure which alone, under Providence,
can secure to us social order and peace, and rational liberty, and all
the blessings we now enjoy, under the mildest Government and the
hallowed institutions of the freest and happiest country in the world.'
"These are the words of a statesman--of a mitred statesman--one of that
order of mighty men, powerful in their generation, whose statesmanly
gifts have been cast in the strong mould of theological discipline--
such men as were Ximenes and Wolsey, Laud and Knox. The next motive for
Union to which I shall refer is, that it will strengthen rather than
weaken the connection with the Empire, so essential to these rising
Provinces. Those who may be called, if there are any such, the anti-
Unionists, allege, that this scheme now submitted will bring separation
in its train. How, pray? By making these countries more important, will
you make them less desirable as connections to England? By making their
trade more valuable, will you make her more anxious to get rid of it?
By reducing their Federal tariff, will you lessen their interest for
England? By making them stronger for each other's aid, will you make
her less willing to discharge a lighter than a greater responsibility?
But if the thing did not answer itself, England has answered that she
'cordially approves' of our plan of Union,--and she has always been
accounted a pretty good judge of her own Imperial interests. She does
not consider our union inimical to those interests. Instead of looking
upon it with a dark and discouraging frown, she cheers us on by her
most cordial approval, and bids us a hearty 'God speed' in the new path
we have chosen to enter. But I put it on provincial grounds as well.
When Canada proposed to move, in 1859, Newfoundland alone responded;
when Nova Scotia moved, in 1860, New Brunswick alone agreed to go with
her; at all events, Canada did not then concur. Of late years the
language of the Colonial Office, of Mr. Labouchere, of Sir Bulwer
Lytton, and of the lamented Duke of Newcastle, was substantially:
'Agree among yourselves, gentlemen, and we will not stand in the way.'
Ah! there was the rub--'Agree among yourselves!' Easier said than done,
with five Colonies so long estranged, and whose former negotiations had
generally ended in bitter controversies. Up to the last year there was
no conjunction of circumstances favourable to bringing about this
union, and probably if we suffer this opportunity to be wasted we shall
never see again such another conjunction as will enable us to agree,
even so far, among ourselves. By a most fortunate concurrence of
circumstances--by what I presume to call, speaking of events of this
magnitude, a providential concurrence of circumstances--the Government
of Canada was so modified last spring as to enable it to deal
fearlessly with this subject, at the very moment when the coast
Colonies, despairing of a Canadian union, were arranging a conference
of their own for a union of their own. Our Government embraced among
its members from the western section the leaders of the former Ministry
and former Opposition from that section. At the time it was formed it
announced to this House that it was its intention, as part of its
policy, to seek a conference with the Lower Colonies, and endeavour to
bring about a general union. This House formally gave the Government
its confidence after the announcement of that policy, and although I
have no desire to strain terms, it does appear to me that this House
did thereby fully commit itself to the principle of a union of the
Colonies, if practicable. Everything we did was done in form and with
propriety, and the result of our proceedings is the document that has
been submitted to the Imperial Government as well as to this House, and
which we speak of here as a treaty. And that there may be no doubt
about our position in regard to that document, we say, Question it you
may, reject it you may, or accept it you may, but alter it you may not.
It is beyond your power, or our power, to alter it. There is not a
sentence--not even a word--you can alter without desiring to throw out
the document. Alter it, and we know at once what you mean--you thereby
declare yourselves against the only possible union. On this point, I
repeat, after all my hon. friends who have already spoken, for one
party to alter a treaty, is, of course, to destroy it. Let us be frank
with each other; you do not like our work, nor do you like us who stand
by it, clause by clause, line by line, and letter by letter. Well, we
believe we have here given to our countrymen of all the Provinces the
possible best--that we have given them an approximation to the right--
their representatives and ours have laboured at it, letter and spirit,
form and substance, until they found this basis of agreement, which we
are all confident will not now, nor for many a day to come, be easily
swept away. And first, I will make a remark to some of the French
Canadian gentlemen who are said to be opposed to our project, on French
Canadian grounds only. I will remind them, I hope not improperly, that
every one of the Colonies we now propose to re-unite under one rule--in
which they shall have a potential voice--were once before united as New
France. Newfoundland, the uttermost, was theirs, and one large section
of its coast is still known as the 'French shore;' Cape Breton was
theirs till the final fall of Louisburgh; Prince Edward Island was
their Island of St. Jean; Charlottetown was their Port Joli; and
Frederickton, the present capital of New Brunswick, their St. Anne's;
in the heart of Nova Scotia was that fair Acadian land, where the roll
of Longfellow's noble hexameters may be heard in every wave that breaks
upon the base of Cape Blomedon. In the northern counties of New
Brunswick, from the Mirimichi to the Metapediac, they had their forts
and farms, their churches and their festivals, before the English
speech had ever once been heard between those rivers. Nor is that
tenacious Norman and Breton race extinct in their old haunts and homes.
I have heard one of the members for Cape Breton speak in high terms of
that portion of his constituency; and I believe I am correct in saying
that Mr. Le Visconte, the late Finance Minister of Nova Scotia, was, in
the literal sense of the term, an Acadian. Mr. Cozzans, of New York,
who wrote a very readable little book the other day about Nova Scotia,
describes the French residents near the basin of Minas, and he says,
especially of the women, 'they might have stepped out of Normandy a
hundred years ago!' In New Brunswick there is more than one county,
especially in the North, where business, and law, and politics, require
a knowledge of both French and English.
"I think it is to their honour, that the Highlanders in all the Lower
Provinces preserve faithfully the religion, as well as the language and
traditions of their fathers. The Catholic Bishop of Charlottetown is a
McIntyre; his Right Rev. Brother of Arichat (Cape Breton) is a
McKinnon; and in the list of the clergy, I find a. constant succession
of such names as McDonald, McGillis, McGillvary, McLeod, McKenzie, and
Cameron--all 'Anglo-Saxons' of course, and mixed up with them
Fourniers, Gauvreaus, Paquets, and Martells, whose origin is easy to
discover. Another of the original elements of that population remains
to be noticed--the U. E. Loyalists, who founded New Brunswick (as they
founded Upper Canada), for whom New Brunswick was made a separate
Province in 1784, as Upper Canada was for their relatives in 1791.
Their descendants still flourish in the land, holding many positions of
honour; and as a representative of the class, I shall only mention
Judge Wilmot, who the other day declared, in charging one of his grand
juries, that if it were necessary to carry Confederation in New
Brunswick, so impressed was he with the necessity of the measure, to
the very existence of British laws and British institutions on this
continent, he was prepared to quit the Bench and return to politics.
There are other elements also not to be overlooked. The thrifty Germans
of Lunenberg, whose homes are the neatest upon the land, as their fleet
is the tightest on the sea; and other small sub-divisions; but I shall
not prolong this analysis. I may observe, however, that this population
is almost universally a native population of three or four or more
generations. In New Brunswick, at the most there is about twelve per
cent. of an immigrant people; in Nova Scotia, about eight; in the two
Islands, even less. In the eye of the law, we admit no disparity
between natives and immigrants in this country; but it is to be
considered that where men are born in the presence of the graves of
their fathers, for even a few generations, the influence of the fact is
great in enhancing their attachment to that soil. I admit, for my part,
as an immigrant, of no divided allegiance to Canada and her interest;
but it would be untrue and paltry to deny a divided affection between
the old country and the new. Kept within just bounds, such an affection
is reasonable, is right and creditable to those who cherish it. Why I
refer to this broad fact, which distinguishes the populations of all
the four seaward Provinces, as much as it does Lower Canada herself,
is, to show the fixity and stability of that population; to show that
they are by birth British-Americans; that they can nearly all, of every
origin, use that proud phrase when they look daily from their doors,
'This is my own, my native land.' Let but that population and ours come
together for a generation or two--such are the elements that compose,
such the conditions that surround it--and their mutual descendants will
hear with wonder, when the history of these present transactions is
written, that this plan of union could ever have been seriously opposed
by statesmen in Canada or elsewhere. I am told, however, by one or two
members of this House, and by exclusive-minded Canadians out of it,
that they cannot get up any patriotic feeling about this union with New
Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and that they cannot look with any interest
at those Colonies, with which we have had hitherto so little
association. 'What's Hecuba to me, or I to Hecuba!' Well, I answer to
that, Know them, and my word for it, you will like them. I have made
several journeys there, and I have seen much of the people, and the
more I have seen of them, the more I respected and esteemed them. I
say, then, to these gentlemen, that if you desire any patriotism on the
subject; if you want to stir up a common sentiment of affection between
these people and ourselves, bring us all into closer relation together,
and, having the elements of a vigorous nationality within us, each will
find something to like and respect in the other; mutual confidence and
respect will follow, and the feeling of being engaged in a common cause
for the good of a common nationality will grow up of itself without
being forced by any man's advocacy. The thing who shuts up his heart
against his kindred, his neighbours, and his fellow-subjects, may be a
very pretty fellow at a parish vestry, but do you call such a forked-
radish as that, a man? Don't so abuse the noblest word in the language.
* * * * *
"But there is one special source of wealth to be found in the Maritime
Provinces, which was not in any detail exhibited by my hon. friends--I
allude to the important article of coal. I think there can be no doubt
that, in some parts of Canada, we are fast passing out of the era of
wood as fuel, and entering on that of coal. In my own city every year,
there is great suffering among the poor from the enormous price of
fuel, and large sums are paid away by national societies and benevolent
individuals, to prevent whole families perishing for want of fuel. I
believe we must all concur with Sir William Logan, that we have no coal
in Canada, and I may venture to state, on my own authority, another
fact, that we have--a five months' winter, generally very cold.
"Sir W. E. Logan demonstrated by a laborious survey the thickness or
depth of the whole group in Northern Nova Scotia to be over 2 3/4
miles, an amount which far exceeds anything seen in the coal formation
in other parts of North America; in this group there are seventy-six
coal beds one above the other.
"These exhaustless coal fields will, under our plan--which is in fact
our Reciprocity Treaty with the Lower Provinces--become, hereafter, the
great resource of our towns for fuel. I see the cry is raised below by
the anti-Unionists, that to proceed with Confederation would be to
entail the loss of the New England market for their coals. I do not
quite see how they make this out, but even an anti-Unionist might see
that the population of Canada is within a fraction of that of all New
England put together, that we consume in this country as much fuel per
annum as they do in New England; and, therefore, that we offer them a
market under the Union equal to that which these theorizers want to
persuade their followers they would lose. Sir, another cry raised by
the anti-Unionists below is, that they would have to fight for the
defence of Canada--a very specious argument. What, Sir, three millions
and one million unite, and the one million do the fighting for all! In
proportion to their numbers no doubt these valiant gentlemen will have
to fight, if fighting is to be done, but not one man or one shilling
more than Canada, _pro rata_, will they have to risk or spend. On
the contrary, the greater community, if she should not happen to be
first attacked, would be obliged to fight for them, and in doing so, I
do not hesitate to say, on far better authority than my own, that the
man who fights for the valley and harbour of St. John, or even for
Halifax, fights for Canada. I will suppose another not impossible case.
I will suppose a hostile American army, on a fishery or any other war,
finding it easier and cheaper to seize the Lower Colonies by land than
by sea, by a march from a convenient rendezvous on Lake Champlain,
through Lower Canada, into the upper part of New Brunswick, and so
downward to the sea--a march like Sherman's march from Knoxville to
Savannah. While we obstructed such a march by every means in our power,
from the Richelieu to Riviere du Loup, whose battles would we be
fighting then? Why, the seaports aimed at, for our common subjugation.
But the truth is, all these selfish views and arguments are remarkably
short-sighted, unworthy of the subject, and unworthy even of those who
use them. In a commercial, in a military, in every point of view, we
are all, rightly considered, dependent on each other. Newfoundland
dominates the Gulf, and none of us can afford to be separated from her.
Lord Chatham said he would as soon abandon Plymouth as Newfoundland to
a foreign power, and he is thought to have understood how to govern
men. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are Siamese twins, held together by
that ligature of land between Baie Verte and Cumberland Basin, and the
fate of the one must follow the fate of the other. Prince Edward Island
is only a little bit broken off by the Northumberland Strait from those
two bigger brethren, and Upper and Lower Canada are essential to each
other's prosperity.
"If the honest and misguided would but reflect for a moment the risks
they run by defeating, or even delaying this measure, I am sure they
would, even yet, retract. If we reject it now, is there any human
probability that we shall ever see again so propitious a set of
circumstances to bring about the same results? How they came about we
all know. The strange and fortunate events that have occurred in
Canada; the extraordinary concessions made by the leaders of the
Governments below--Dr. Tupper, the Nova Scotian Premier, for instance,
admitting to his confidence, and bringing with him here as his co-
representatives, the Hon. Messrs. Archibald and McCully, two of his
most determined political opponent--can we ever expect, if we reject
this scheme, that the same or similar things will occur again to favour
it? Can we expect to see the leader of the Upper Canadian Conservative
party and the leader of the Upper Canadian Liberals sitting side by
side again, if this project fails to work out, in a spirit of mutual
compromise and concession, the problem of our constitutional
difficulties? No, Sir, it is too much to expect. Miracles would cease
to be miracles if they were events of every-day occurrence; the very
nature of wonders requires that they should be rare; and this is a
miraculous and wonderful circumstance, that men at the head of the
Governments in five separate Provinces, and men at the head of the
parties opposing them, all agreed at the same time to sink party
differences for the good of all, and did not shrink, at the risk of
having their motives misunderstood, from associating together for the
purpose of bringing about this result. I have asked, Sir, what risks do
we run if we reject this measure? We run the risk of being swallowed up
by the spirit of universal democracy that prevails in the United
States. Their usual and favourite motto is--
"'No pent-up Utica contracts our powers,
But the whole boundless continent is ours.
That is the popular paraphrase of the Monroe doctrine. And the popular
voice has favoured--aye, and the greatest statesmen among them have
looked upon it as inevitable--an extension of the principles of
democracy over this continent. Now, I suppose a universal democracy is
no more acceptable to us than a universal monarchy in Europe would have
been to our ancestors; yet for three centuries--from Charles V. to
Napoleon--our fathers combated to the death against the subjugation of
all Europe to a single system or a single master, and heaped up a debt
which has since burdened the producing classes of the Empire with an
enormous load of taxation, which, perhaps, none other except the hardy
and ever-growing industry of those little islands could have borne up
under. The idea of a universal democracy in America is no more welcome
to the minds of thoughtful men among us than was that of a universal
monarchy to the minds of the thoughtful men who followed the standard
of the third William, or who afterwards, under the great Marlborough,
opposed the armies of the particular dynasty that sought to place
Europe under a single dominion.
"But if we are to have a universal democracy on this continent, the
Lower Provinces--the smaller fragments--will be 'gobbled up' first, and
we will come in afterwards by way of dessert. The proposed
Confederation will enable us to bear up shoulder to shoulder; to resist
the spread of this universal democracy doctrine; it will make it more
desirable to maintain on both sides the connection that binds us to the
parent State; it will raise us from the position of mere dependent
colonies to a new and more important position; it will give us a new
lease of existence under other and more favourable conditions; and
resistance to this project, which is pregnant with so many advantages
to us and to our children, means simply this, ultimate union with the
United States. But these are small matters, wholly unworthy of the
attention of the Smiths, and Annands, and Palmers, who have come
forward to forbid the banns of British-American Union. Mr. Speaker,
before I draw to a close the little remainder of what I have to say--
and I am sorry to have detained the House so long--
I beg to offer a few observations _apropos_ of my own position as
an English-speaking member for Lower Canada. I venture, in the first
place, to observe that there seems to be a good deal of exaggeration on
the subject of race, occasionally introduced, both on the one side and
the other, in this section of the country. I congratulate my honorable
friend, the Attorney-General for this section, on his freedom from such
prejudices in general, though I still think in matters of patronage and
the like he always looks first to his own compatriots for which neither
do I blame him. But this theory of race is sometimes carried to an
anti-christian and unphilosophical excess. Whose words are these--'God
hath made of one blood all nations that dwell on the face of the
earth'? Is not that the true theory of race? For my part, I am not
afraid of the French Canadian majority in the future local government
doing injustice, except accidentally; not because I am of the same
religion as themselves; for origin and language are barriers stronger
to divide men in this world than is religion to unite them. Neither do
I believe that my Protestant compatriots need have any such fear. The
French Canadians have never been an intolerant people; it is not in
their temper, unless they had been persecuted, perhaps, and then it
might have been as it has been with other races of all religions.
"All who have spoken on this subject have said a good deal, as was
natural, of the interests at stake in the success or failure of this
plan of Confederation. I trust the House will permit me to add a few
words as to the principle of Confederation considered in itself. In the
application of this principle to former constitutions there certainly
always was one fatal defect, the weakness of the central authority. Of
all the Federal constitutions I have ever heard or read of, this was
the fatal malady: they were short-lived, they died of consumption. But
I am not prepared to say that because the Tuscan League elected its
chief magistrates but for two months and lasted a century, that
therefore the Federal principle failed. On the contrary, there is
something in the frequent, fond recurrence of mankind to this
principle, among the freest people, in their best times and in their
worst dangers, which leads me to believe, that it has a very deep hold
in human nature itself--an excellent basis for a government to have.
But, indeed, Sir, the main question is the due distribution of powers
in a Federal Union--a question I dare not touch to-night, but which I
may be prepared to say something on before the vote is taken. The
principle itself seems to me to be capable of being so adapted as to
promote internal peace and external security, and to call into action a
genuine, enduring, and heroic patriotism. It is a fruit of this
principle that makes the modern Italian look back with sorrow and pride
over a dreary waste of seven centuries to the famous field of Legnano;
it was this principle kindled the beacons which yet burn on the rocks
of Uri; it was this principle that broke the dykes of Holland and
overwhelmed the Spanish with the fate of the Egyptian oppressor. It is
a principle capable of inspiring a noble ambition and a most salutary
emulation. You have sent your young men to guard your frontier. You
want a principle to guard your young men, and thus truly defend your
frontier. For what do good men who make the best soldiers fight? For a
line of scripture or chalk line--for a text or for a pretext? What is a
better boundary between nations than a parallel of latitude, or even a
natural obstacle?--what really keeps nations intact and apart?--a
principle. When I can hear our young men say as proudly, 'our
Federation,' or 'our Country,' or 'our Kingdom,' as the young men of
other countries do, speaking of their own, then I shall have less
apprehension for the result of whatever trials the future may have in
store for us. It has been said that the Federal Constitution of the
United States has failed. I, Sir, have never said it. The Attorney-
General West told you the other night that he did not consider it a
failure; and I remember that in 1861, when in this House I remarked the
same thing, the only man who then applauded the statement was the
Attorney-General West,--so that it is plain he did not simply adopt the
argument for use the other night when advocating a Federal Union among
ourselves. It may be a failure for us, paradoxical as this may seem,
and yet not a failure for them. They have had eighty years' use of it,
and having discovered its defects, may apply a remedy and go on with it
eighty years longer. But we also were lookers on, who saw its defects
as the machine worked, and who have prepared contrivances by which it
can be improved and kept in more perfect order when applied to
ourselves. And one of the foremost statesmen in England, distinguished
alike in politics and literature, has declared, as the President of the
Council informed us, that we have combined the best parts of the
British and the American systems of government; an opinion deliberately
formed at a distance, without prejudice, and expressed without
interested motives of any description. We have, in relation to the head
of the Government, in relation to the judiciary, in relation to the
second chamber of the Legislature, in relation to the financial
responsibility of the General Government, and in relation to the public
officials whose tenure of office is during good behaviour instead of at
the caprice of a party--in all these respects we have adopted the
British system; in other respects we have learned something from the
American system, and I trust and believe we have made a very tolerable
combination of both.
"The principle of Federation is a generous principle. It is a principle
that gives men local duties to discharge, and invests them at the same
time with general supervision, and excites a healthy sense of
responsibility and comprehension. It is a principle that has produced a
wise and true spirit of statesmanship in all countries in which it has
ever been applied. It is a principle eminently favourable to liberty,
because local affairs are left to be dealt with by local bodies, and
cannot be interfered with by those who have no local interest in them,
while matters of a general character are left exclusively to a General
Government. It is a principle inseparable from every government that
ever gave extended and important services to a country, because all
governments have been more or less confederations in their character.
Spain was a Federation, for although it had a king reigning over the
whole country, it had its local governments for the administration of
local affairs. The British Isles are a _quasi_-Confederation, and
the old French dukedoms were confederated in the States-General. It is
a principle that runs through all the history of civilization in one
form or another, and exists alike in monarchies and democracies; and
having adopted it as the principle of our future government, there were
only the details to arrange and agree upon. Those details are before
you. It is not in our power to alter any of them even if the House
desires it. If the House desires, it can _reject_ the treaty, but
we cannot, nor can the other Provinces, which took part in its
negociation, consent that it shall be _altered_ in the slightest
particular.
"Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have detained the House so long, and was
not aware till I had been some time on my legs, that my physical
strength was so inadequate to the exposition of those few points which,
not specially noticed by my predecessors in this debate, I undertook to
speak upon. We stand at present in this position: we are bound in
honour, we are bound in good faith, to four Provinces occupied by our
fellow colonists, to carry out the measure of Union agreed upon here in
the last week of October. We are bound to carry it to the foot of the
Throne, and ask there from Her Majesty, according to the first
resolution of the Address, that she will be graciously pleased to
direct legislation to be had on this subject. We go to the Imperial
Government, the common arbiter of us all, in our true Federal
metropolis--we go there to ask for our fundamental Charter. We hope, by
having that Charter, which can only be amended by the authority that
made it, that we will lay the basis of permanency for our future
government. The two great things that all men aim at in free
government, are liberty and permanency. We have had liberty enough--too
much, perhaps, in some respects--but, at all events, liberty to our
hearts' content. There is not on the face of the earth a freer people
than the inhabitants of these Colonies. But it is necessary there
should be respect for the law, a high central authority, the virtue of
civil obedience, obeying the law for the law's sake; for even when a
man's private conscience may convince him sufficiently that the law in
some cases may be wrong, he is not to set up his individual will
against the will of the country, expressed through its recognized
constitutional organs. We need in these Provinces, and we can bear, a
large infusion of authority. I am not at all afraid this Constitution
errs on the side of too great conservatism. If it be found too
conservative now, the downward tendency in political ideas which
characterises this democratic age is a sufficient guarantee for
amendment. Its conservatism is the principle on which this instrument
is strong, and worthy of the support of every colonist, and through
which it will secure the warm approbation of the Imperial authorities.
We have here no traditions and ancient venerable institutions; here,
there are no aristocratic elements hallowed by time or bright deeds;
here, every man is the first settler of the land, or removed from the
first settler one or two generations at the farthest; here, we have no
architectural monuments calling up old associations; here, we have none
of those old popular legends and stories which in other countries have
exercised a powerful share in the government; here, every man is the
son of his own works. We have none of those influences about us which,
elsewhere, have their effect upon government just as much as the
invisible atmosphere itself tends to influence life, and animal and
vegetable existence. This is a new land--a land of young pretensions
because it is new; because classes and systems have not had that time
to grow here naturally. We have no aristocracy but of virtue and
talent, which is the best aristocracy, and is the old and true meaning
of the term. There is a class of men rising in these Colonies, superior
in many respects to others with whom they might be compared. What I
should like to see, is--that fair representatives of the Canadian and
Acadian aristocracy should be sent to the foot of the Throne with that
scheme, to obtain for it the royal sanction--a scheme not suggested by
others, or imposed upon us, but one the work of ourselves, the creation
of our own intellect and of our own free, unbiassed, and untrammelled
will. I should like to see our best men go there, and endeavour to have
this measure carried through the Imperial Parliament--going into Her
Majesty's presence, and by their manner, if not actually by their
speech, saying--'During Your Majesty's reign we have had responsible
Government conceded to us: we have administered it for nearly a quarter
of a century, during which we have under it doubled our population, and
more than quadrupled our trade. The small Colonies which your ancestors
could hardly see on the map, have grown into great communities. A great
danger has arisen in our near neighbourhood. Over our homes a cloud
hangs, dark and heavy. We do not know when it may burst. With our own
strength we are not able to combat against the storm; but what we can
do, we will do cheerfully and loyally. We want time to grow; we want
more people to fill our country, more industrious families of men to
develop our resources; we want to increase our prosperity; we want more
extended trade and commerce; we want more land tilled--more men
established through our wastes and wildernesses. We of the British
North-American Provinces want to be joined together, that, if danger
comes, we can support each other in the day of trial. We come to Your
Majesty, who have given us liberty, to give us unity, that we may
preserve and perpetuate our freedom; and whatsoever charter, in the
wisdom of Your Majesty and of Your Parliament, you give us, we shall
loyally obey and observe as long as it is the pleasure of Your Majesty
and Your Successors to maintain the connection between Great Britain
and these Colonies.'"