THE DEBATES OF 1865
In the province of Canada no time was lost in placing the new
constitution before parliament. A dilatory course would have been
unwise. The omens were favourable. Such opposition as had developed
was confined to Lower Canada. The Houses met in January 1865, and the
governor-general used this language in his opening speech:
With the public men of British North America it now rests to decide
whether the vast tract of country which they inhabit shall be
consolidated into a State, combining within its area all the elements
of national greatness, providing for the security of its component
parts and contributing to the strength and stability of the Empire; or
whether the several Provinces of which it is constituted shall remain
in their present fragmentary and isolated condition, comparatively
powerless for mutual {85} aid, and incapable of undertaking their
proper share of Imperial responsibility.
The procedure adopted was the moving in each House of an address to the
Queen praying that a measure might be submitted to the Imperial
parliament based upon the Quebec resolutions. The debate began in the
Legislative Council on the 3rd of February and in the Assembly three
days later. The debate in the popular branch lasted until the 13th of
March; in the smaller chamber it was concluded by the 23rd of February.
These debates, subsequently published in a volume of 1032 pages, are a
mirror which reflects for us the political life of the time and the
events of the issue under discussion. They set forth the hopes and
intentions of the Fathers with reference to their own work; and if
later developments have presented some surprises, some situations which
they did not foresee, as was indeed inevitable, their prescience is
nowhere shown to have been seriously at fault. Some of the speeches
are commonplace; a few are wearisome; but many of them are examples of
parliamentary eloquence at its best, and the general level is high.
The profound sincerity of the leaders of the {86} coalition, whether in
or out of office, is not to be questioned. The supporters of the union
bore down all opposition. Macdonald's wonderful tact, Brown's
passionate earnestness, and Galt's mastery of the financial problem,
were never displayed to better advantage; while the redoubtable Cartier
marshalled his French compatriots before their timidity had a chance to
assert itself. Particularly interesting is the attitude which Brown
assumed towards the French. He had been identified with a vicious
crusade against their race and creed. Its cruel intolerance cannot be
justified, and every admirer of Brown deplores it. He met them now
with a frank friendliness which evoked at once the magnanimity and
readiness to forgive that has always marked this people and is one of
their most engaging qualities. Said Brown:
The scene presented by this chamber at this moment, I venture to
affirm, has few parallels in history. One hundred years have passed
away since these provinces became by conquest part of the British
Empire. I speak in no boastful spirit. I desire not for a moment to
excite a painful thought. What was then the fortune of {87} war of the
brave French nation might have been ours on that well-fought field. I
recall those olden times merely to mark the fact that here sit to-day
the descendants of the victors and the vanquished in the fight of 1759,
with all the differences of language, religion, civil law and social
habit nearly as distinctly marked as they were a century ago. Here we
sit to-day seeking amicably to find a remedy for constitutional evils
and injustice complained of. By the vanquished? No, sir, but
complained of by the conquerors! [French-Canadian cheers.]
Here sit the representatives of the British population claiming
justice--only justice; and here sit the representatives of the French
population, discussing in the French tongue whether we shall have it.
One hundred years have passed away since the conquest of Quebec, but
here sit the children of the victor and the vanquished, all avowing
hearty attachment to the British Crown, all earnestly deliberating how
we shall best extend the blessings of British institutions, how a great
people may be established on this continent in close and hearty
connection with Great Britain.
{88}
In thus proclaiming the aim and intent of the advocates of
Confederation in respect to the Imperial link, Brown expressed the
views of all. It was not a cheap appeal for applause, because the
question could not be avoided. It came up at every turn. What was the
purpose, the critics of the measure asked, of this new constitution?
Did it portend separation? Would it not inevitably lead to
independence? and if not, why was the term 'a new nationality' so
freely used? In the opening speech of the debate Macdonald met the
issue squarely with the statesmanlike gravity that befitted the
occasion:
No one can look into futurity and say what will be the destiny of this
country. Changes come over peoples and nations in the course of ages.
But so far as we can legislate, we provide that for all time to come
the sovereign of Great Britain shall be the sovereign of British North
America.
And he went on to predict that the measure would not tend towards
independence, but that the country, as it grew in wealth and
population, would grow also in attachment to the crown and seek to
preserve it. This prophecy, as we know, has proved true.
{89}
The fear of annexation to the United States figured likewise in the
debate, but the condition of the Republic, so recently in the throes of
civil war, was not such as to give rise to serious apprehension on that
score. The national sentiment, however, which would naturally arise
when the new state was constituted, was a proper subject for
consideration, since it might easily result in a complete, if peaceful,
revolution.
There were other uncertain factors in the situation which gave the
opponents of Confederation an opportunity for destructive criticism.
The measure was subjected to the closest scrutiny by critics who were
well qualified to rouse any hostile feeling in the country if such
existed. Weighty attacks came from dissentient Liberals like Dorion,
Holton, and Sandfield Macdonald. A formidable opponent, too, was
Christopher Dunkin, an independent Conservative, inspired, it may be
supposed, by the distrust of constitutional change entertained by his
immediate fellow-countrymen, the English minority in Lower Canada.
Brown bore the brunt of the attack from erstwhile allies and faced it
in this fashion:
No constitution ever framed was without defect; no act of human wisdom
was ever {90} free from imperfection.... To assert then that our
scheme is without fault, would be folly. It was necessarily the work
of concession; not one of the thirty-three framers but had on some
points to yield his opinions; and, for myself, I freely admit that I
struggled earnestly, for days together, to have portions of the scheme
amended.
This was reasonable ground to take and drew some of the sting from the
criticism.
But all the criticism was not futile. Some of the defects pointed out
bore fruit in the years that followed. As already stated, the
financial terms were far from final, and a demand for larger subsidies
had soon to be met. Friction between the federal and provincial powers
arose in due course, but not precisely for the reasons given. The
administration of the national business has cost more than was
expected, and has not been free, to employ the ugly words used in these
debates, from jobbery and corruption. The cost of a progressive
railway policy has proved infinitely greater than the highest estimates
put forth by the Fathers. The duty of forming a ministry so as to give
adequate representation {91} to all the provinces has been quite as
difficult as Dunkin said it would be. To parcel out the ministerial
offices on this basis is one of the unwritten conventions of the
constitution, and has taxed the resources of successive prime ministers
to the utmost. With all his skill, as we shall see later, Sir John
Macdonald nearly gave up in despair his first attempt to form a
ministry after Confederation. Yet it must be said, surveying the whole
field, that the critics of the resolutions failed to make out a case.
Both in the Legislative Council and in the Assembly the resolution for
a nominated second chamber caused much debate. But the elective
principle was not defended with marked enthusiasm. By the Act of 1840
which united the Canadas the Council had been a nominated body solely.
Its members received no indemnity; and, as some of them were averse
from the political strife which raged with special fury until 1850, a
quorum could not always be obtained. Sir Etienne Tache drew an
affecting picture of the speaker frequently taking the chair at the
appointed time, waiting in stiff and solemn silence for one hour by the
clock, and at last retiring discomfited, since members enough did not
appear to form a {92} quorum. To remedy the situation the Imperial
parliament had passed an Act providing for the election of a portion of
the members. Fresh difficulties had then arisen. The electoral
divisions had been largely formed by grouping portions of counties
together; the candidates had found that physical endurance and a long
purse were as needful to gain a seat in the Council as a patriotic
interest in public affairs; and it had become difficult to secure
candidates. This unsatisfactory experience of an elective upper
chamber made it comparatively easy to carry the resolution providing
for a nominated Senate in the new constitution.
The agreement that the resolutions must be accepted or rejected as a
whole led Dorion to complain that the power of parliament to amend
legislation was curtailed. What value had the debate, if the
resolutions were in the nature of a treaty and could not be moulded to
suit the wishes of the people's representatives? The grievance was not
so substantial as it appeared. The Imperial parliament, which was
finally to pass the measure, could be prompted later on to make any
alterations strongly desired by Canadian public opinion.
Why were not the terms of Confederation {93} submitted to the Canadian
people for ratification? The most strenuous fight was made in
parliament on this point, and in after years, too, constitutional
writers, gifted with the wisdom which comes after the event, have
declared the omission a serious error. Goldwin Smith observed that
Canadians might conceivably in the future discard their institutions as
lacking popular sanction when they were adopted, seeing that in reality
they were imposed on the country by a group of politicians and a
distant parliament. In dealing with such objections the reasons given
at the time must be considered. The question was discussed at the
Quebec Conference, doubtless informally.[1] The constitutional right
of the legislatures to deal with the matter was unquestioned by the
Canadian members. Shortly after the conference adjourned, Galt in a
speech at Sherbrooke[2] declared that, if during the discussion of the
scheme in parliament any serious doubt arose respecting the public
feeling on the subject, the people would be called upon to decide for
themselves. The {94} _Globe_, which voiced the opinion of Brown, said:
If on the assembling of Parliament the majority in that body in favour
of Confederation shall be found so large as to make it manifest that
any reference to the country would simply be a matter of form,
Ministers will not, we take it, feel warranted in putting the country
to great trouble and expense for the sake of that unessential formality.
When challenged in parliament the government gave its reasons. The
question of Confederation had, in one form or another, been before the
country for years. During 1864 there had been elections in eleven
ridings for the Assembly and in fourteen for the Legislative Council.
The area of country embraced by these contests included forty counties.
Of the candidates in these elections but four opposed federation and
only two of them were elected. Brown stated impetuously that not five
members of parliament in Upper Canada dare go before the people against
the scheme. No petitions against it were presented, and its opponents
had not ventured to hold meetings, knowing that an enormous majority of
the {95} people favoured it. This evidence, in Upper Canada, was
accepted as conclusive. In Lower Canada appearances were not quite so
convincing. The ministry representing that section was not a
coalition, and the Liberal leaders, both French and English, organized
an agitation. But afterwards, in the campaign of 1867, Cartier swept
all before him. It was also argued that parliament was fresh from the
people as recently as 1864, and that though the mandate to legislate
was not specific, it was sufficient. The method of ascertaining the
popular verdict by means of a referendum was proposed, but rejected as
unknown to the constitution and at variance with British practice.
Parliament finally adopted the resolutions by a vote of ninety-one to
thirty-three in the Assembly and of forty-five to fifteen in the
Legislative Council. Hillyard Cameron, politically a lineal descendant
of the old Family Compact, supported by Matthew Crooks Cameron, a
Conservative of the highest integrity and afterwards chief justice,
then moved for a reference to the people by a dissolution of
parliament. But after an animated debate the motion was defeated, and
no further efforts in this direction were attempted. That an eagerness
to invoke the judgment of democracy {96} was not seen at its best, when
displayed by two Tories of the old school, may justify the belief that
parliamentary tactics, rather than the pressure of public opinion,
inspired the move.
Fortune had smiled upon the statesmen of the Canadian coalition. In a
few months they had accomplished wonders. They had secured the aid of
the Maritime Provinces in drafting a scheme of union. They had made
tours in the east and the west to prepare public opinion for the great
stroke of state. They and their co-delegates had formulated and
adopted the Quebec resolutions, on which a chorus of congratulation had
drowned, for the time, the voices of warning and expostulation. And,
finally, the ministers had met parliament and had secured the adoption
of their scheme by overwhelming majorities.
But all was not so fair in the provinces by the sea. Before the
Canadian legislature prorogued, the Tilley government had been hurled
from power in New Brunswick, Joseph Howe was heading a formidable
agitation in Nova Scotia, and in the other two provinces the cause was
lost. It seemed as if a storm had burst that would overwhelm the union
and that the hands of the clock would be put back.
[1] See the remark of McCully of Nova Scotia that the delegates should
take the matter into their own hands and not wait to educate the people
up to it--Pope's _Confederation Documents_, p. 60.
[2] November 23, 1864.
{97}