THE QUEBEC CONFERENCE
The Quebec Conference began its sessions on the 10th of October 1864.
It was now the task of the delegates to challenge and overcome the
separatist tendencies that had dominated British America since the
dismemberment of the Empire eighty years before. They were to prove
that a new nationality could be created, which should retain intact the
connection with the mother country. For an event of such historic
importance no better setting could have been chosen than the Ancient
Capital, with its striking situation and its hallowed memories of
bygone days. The delegates were practical and experienced men of
affairs, but they lacked neither poetic and imaginative sense nor
knowledge of the past; and it may well be that their labours were
inspired and their deliberations influenced by the historic
associations of the place.
The gathering was remarkable for the varied {57} talents and forceful
character of its principal members. And here it may be noted that the
constitution was not chiefly the product of legal minds. Brown,
Tilley, Galt, Tupper, and others who shared largely in the work of
construction were not lawyers. The conference represented fairly the
different interests and occupations of a young country. It is to be
recorded, too, that the conclusions reached were criticized as the
product of men in a hurry. Edward Goff Penny, editor of the Montreal
_Herald_, a keen critic, and afterwards a senator, complained that the
actual working period of the conference was limited to fourteen days.
Joseph Howe poured scorn upon Ottawa as the capital, stating that he
preferred London, the seat of empire, where there were preserved 'the
archives of a nationality not created in a fortnight.' Still more
vigorous were the protests against the secrecy of the discussions. A
number of distinguished journalists, including several English
correspondents who had come across the ocean to write about the Civil
War, were in Quebec, and they were disposed to find fault with the
precautions taken to guard against publicity. The following memorial
was presented to the delegates:
{58}
The undersigned, representatives of English and Canadian newspapers,
find that it would be impossible for them satisfactorily to discharge
their duties if an injunction of secrecy be imposed on the conference
and stringently carried into effect. They, therefore, beg leave to
suggest whether, while the remarks of individual members of your body
are kept secret, the propositions made and the treatment they meet
with, might not advantageously be made public, and whether such a
course would not best accord with the real interests committed to the
conference. Such a kind of compromise between absolute secrecy and
unlimited publicity is usually, we believe, observed in cases where an
European congress holds the peace of the world and the fate of nations
in its hands. And we have thought that the British American Conference
might perhaps consider the precedent not inapplicable to the present
case. Such a course would have the further advantage of preventing
ill-founded and mischievous rumours regarding the proceedings from
obtaining currency.[1]
{59} This ingenious appeal was signed by S. Phillips Day, of the London
_Morning Herald_, by Charles Lindsey of the Toronto _Leader_, and by
Brown Chamberlain of the Montreal _Gazette_. Among the other writers
of distinction in attendance were George Augustus Sala of the London
_Daily Telegraph_, Charles Mackay of _The Times_, Livesy of _Punch_,
and George Brega of the New York _Herald_. But the conference stood
firm, and the impatient correspondents were denied even the mournful
satisfaction of brief daily protocols. They were forced to be content
with overhearing the burst of cheering from the delegates when
Macdonald's motion proposing federation was unanimously adopted. The
reasons for maintaining strict secrecy were thus stated by John
Hamilton Gray,[2] a delegate from New Brunswick, who afterwards became
the historian of the Confederation movement:
After much consideration it was determined, as in Prince Edward Island,
that the convention should hold its {60} deliberations with closed
doors. In addition to the reasons which had governed the convention at
Charlottetown, it was further urged, that the views of individual
members, after a first expression, might be changed by the discussion
of new points, differing essentially from the ordinary current of
subjects that came under their consideration in the more limited range
of the Provincial Legislatures; and it was held that no man ought to be
prejudiced, or be liable to the charge in public that he had on some
other occasion advocated this or that doctrine, or this or that
principle, inconsistent with the one that might then be deemed best, in
view of the future union to be adopted.... Liberals and Conservatives
had there met to determine what was best for the future guidance of
half a continent, not to fight old party battles, or stand by old party
cries, and candour was sought for more than mere personal triumph. The
conclusion arrived at, it is thought, was judicious. It ensured the
utmost freedom of debate; the more so, inasmuch as the result would be
in no way binding upon those whose interests were to be affected until
and unless adopted after the {61} greatest publicity and the fullest
public discussions.
That the conference decided wisely admits of no doubt. The provincial
secretaries of the several provinces were appointed joint secretaries,
and Hewitt Bernard, chief clerk of the department of the
attorney-general for Upper Canada, was named executive secretary. In
his longhand notes, found among the papers of Sir John Macdonald, and
made public thirty years later by Sir Joseph Pope, we have the only
official record of the resolutions and debates of the conference.
Posterity has reason to be grateful for even this limited revelation of
the proceedings from day to day. It enables us to form an idea of the
difficulties overcome and of the currents of opinion which combined to
give the measure its final shape. No student of Canadian
constitutional history will leave unread a single note thus fortunately
preserved. The various draft motions, we are told by Sir Joseph Pope,
are nearly all in the handwriting of those who moved them, and it was
evidently the intention to prepare a complete record. The conference
was, however, much hurried at the close. When it began, Sir Etienne
Tache, prime minister of Canada, was {62} unanimously elected
chairman.[3] Each province was given one vote, except that Canada, as
consisting of two divisions, was allowed two votes. After the vote on
any motion was put, the delegates of a province might retire for
consultation among themselves. The conference sat as if in committee
of the whole, so as to permit of free discussion and suggestion. The
resolutions, having been passed in committee of the whole, were to be
reconsidered and carried as if parliament were sitting with the speaker
in the chair.
The first motion, which was offered by Macdonald and seconded by
Tilley, read: _That the {63} best interests and present and future
prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a federal union
under the crown of Great Britain, provided such union can be effected
on principles just to the several provinces_. This motion, general in
its terms, asserted the principle which the conference had met to
decide. It passed unanimously amid much enthusiasm. To support it,
one may think, involved no serious responsibility, since any province
could at a later stage raise objections to any methods proposed in
carrying out the principle. But to secure the hearty and unanimous
acceptance of a federal union, as the basis on which the provinces were
ready to coalesce, was really to submit the whole issue to the crucial
test. {64} Macdonald's motion reflects, in its careful and
comprehensive phrasing, the skill in parliamentary tactics of which he
had, during many years, displayed so complete a mastery. To commit the
conference at the outset to endorsement of the general principle was to
render subsequent objection on some detail, however important,
extremely difficult for earnest and broad-minded patriots. The two
small provinces might withdraw from the scheme, as they subsequently
did, but the larger provinces, led by men of the calibre of Tupper and
Tilley, would feel that any subsequent obstacle must be of gigantic
proportions if it could not be overcome by statesmanship. After
cheerfully taking this momentous step, which irresistibly drove them on
to the next, the conference proceeded to discuss Brown's motion
proposing the form the federation was to assume. There was to be a
general government dealing with matters common to all, and in each
province a local government having control of local matters. The
second motion was likewise unanimously concurred in. Having, as it
were, planted two feet firmly on the ground, the conference was now in
a good position to stand firmly against divergences of view, provincial
rivalries, and extreme demands.
[1] Pope's _Confederation Documents_.
[2] There were two delegates named John Hamilton Gray, one whose views
are quoted here, the other the prime minister of Prince Edward Island.
Only one volume of Gray's work on Confederation ever appeared, the
second volume, it is said, being unfinished when the author died in
British Columbia.
[3] A list of the delegates, who are now styled the Fathers of
Confederation, follows:
_From Canada, twelve delegates_--SIR ETIENNE P. TACHE, receiver-general
and minister of Militia; JOHN A. MACDONALD, attorney-general for Upper
Canada; GEORGE E. CARTIER, attorney-general for Lower Canada; GEORGE
BROWN, president of the Executive Council; OLIVER MOWAT,
postmaster-general; ALEXANDER T. GALT, minister of Finance; WILLIAM
McDOUGALL, provincial secretary; T. D'ARCY McGEE, minister of
Agriculture; ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, commissioner of Crown Lands; J. C.
CHAPAIS, commissioner of Public Works; HECTOR L. LANGEVIN,
solicitor-general for Lower Canada; JAMES COCKBURN, solicitor-general
for Upper Canada.
_From Nova Scotia, five delegates_--CHARLES TUPPER, provincial
secretary; WILLIAM A. HENRY, attorney-general; R. B. DICKEY, member of
the Legislative Council; JONATHAN McCULLY, member of the Legislative
Council; ADAMS G. ARCHIBALD, member of the Legislative Assembly.
_From New Brunswick, seven delegates_--SAMUEL LEONARD TILLEY,
provincial secretary; WILLIAM H. STEEVES, minister without portfolio;
J. M. JOHNSTON, attorney-general; PETER MITCHELL, minister without
portfolio; E. B. CHANDLER, member of the Legislative Council; JOHN
HAMILTON GRAY, member of the Legislative Assembly; CHARLES FISHER,
member of the Legislative Assembly.
_From Prince Edward Island, seven delegates_--COLONEL JOHN HAMILTON
GRAY, president of the Council; EDWARD PALMER, attorney-general;
WILLIAM H. POPE, colonial secretary; A. A. MACDONALD, member of the
Legislative Council; GEORGE COLES, member of the Legislative Assembly;
T. HEATH HAVILAND, member of the Legislative Assembly; EDWARD WHELAN,
member of the Legislative Assembly.
_From Newfoundland, two delegates_--F. B. T. CARTER, speaker of the
Legislative Assembly; AMBROSE SHEA.
{65}