Yale University Library 39002003577476 YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY -^^U^Uame kind has been down, absolutely nothing. I therefore contend — and I defy contradiction on this point — that the House cannot take into consideration the motion of the honorable member for North Hastings as long as it has not served on the member for Provencher the order com manding him to appear in his seat, as long as it has not CHALLENGED HIM to defend him? elf. For it is the privilege, the right, in fact, of every British subject that he shall be stripped of nothing Avhich belongs to him, Avithout first being called upon to defend himself . But it will be said, ] primps, on the other side of the House: What is the good of all these purely ab stract objections? What purpose Avould it serve to notify the the member for Provencher of the motion. to be made again.-t him ? Arc not a 11 the facts charged against him true? Is he not guilty? Even though he were tho greatest culprit in the world, the law should be followed and respected. EA'en though he might not have a Avord to say in his own defence, he should not the less be notified. The fundamental principle of all justice is that nobody shall eArer b° condemned, without haA'ing been heard in his own defence or without haA'ing been called upon to defend himself. In numerous cases, decisions, j list in themsehres and perfectly equitable, have been re versed by the higher court; in England, solely because } the party condemned had not been notified to defend himself. 35 I may be permetted to here cite the language of Judge Bailey in a case reported in volume 12 of the Law and Equity Reports, p. 242 : I know of no case, he said, in which a" power exercising judicial functions can deprive a man of any fraction whatever of his property, without his having been previously called upon to present his defence. He who decides a case without having heard tho other side, has not done what is just, even though his decision should be just As for me, Sir, I am of French origin and my education has been French, but I have this of the Briton in me : an ardent love of fair play and of justice. Now, I assert — and nobody can contradict me — that the member for Provencher has not on this occa sion had either justie or fair play. The House is asked to come to an unjust and illegal decision ; but, for my part, I shall never consent, in this instance or any other, to deprive a man of the smallest particle of his rights or property Avithout first having given him the benefit of all the legal forms to defend him self. I therefore believe that, on this point as on the preceding ones, I can conclude in all safety that the allegations on which rests the motion of the honor able member for North Hastings are not supported by sufficient proof- These reasons are certainly conclusive in favor of the amendment of the member for Chateauguay. To that amendment, my honorable friend, the member for Bagot (Mr. Mousseau) has proposed a 'sub-amendment, demanding purely and simply an amnes.ty on the spot, Avithout waiting for the report of the committee of enquiry. It is difficult to corceive a reason to Avarrant this demapd of the honorable member. _ A member on the Ministerial side told the honor able member for North-Hastings yesterday that his 36 SPEECH object in making his motion was much less to expel Mr. Riel than to try to embarrass the Government. I suspect that the object of the honorable member for Bagot, in proposing his amendment, is absolutely the same. There seems to be AN INTIMATE ALLANCE betAveen the honorable member for North Hastings and the honorable member for Bagot, (extremes meet:) both are on the Avar path and bolh are assailing a common enemy ; one directs his attack against the right flank and the other against the left, and both hope that, if the enemy escapes from the bloAvs of the one, he will fall under those of the other and that they will succeed in each planting his flag on the for tress top. Sir, I have not the honor to knoAv the honorable member for North Hastings, and I Avould not Avish to suspect his motives ; I do not Mr BoAvell : — Oh ! don't heritate; I have no scruples. Mr Laurier :¦ — But I have. Once more, I say, I have not the ad\rantage of knoAving the honorable member for North Hastings. I do not Avant to sus pect his motives ; I Avould rather believe in their sin cerity. But. as tor my honorable friend, the member for Bagot, I know him too long and too Avell . to not read his game clearly and I do not hesitate to say that he is far lef s anxious for the amnestying of Mr Riel than he is for compromising the Administration, if possible. I think that Avhen the honorable member for Pro vencher learns Avhat is happening here to-day, he will exclaim : LORD, SAVE ME FROM MY FRIENDS ! As a matter of fact, "could the honorable mem- ON LODIS RIEL'S EXPULSION , 37 ber for Bagot seriously hope that the House would adopt his amendment ? Why then did he' propose It was only last Aveek that the House unanimous ly named a committee to enquire into the Avhole question of the amnesty, and, at this very hour, this committee is sitting and Mgr Tache is giving his evi dence before it. _ Now, Sir, this committee is useful or it is not. If it has no utility Avhatever, Avhy did not the honorable member oppose it Avhen it Avas asked for ? Why did he not propose a sub-amendment, recom mending the immediate granting of the amnesty? Why did he not save to the country the enormous expense that the enquiry Avill entail ? If, On the other hand, the enquiry made by the committee may be useful for the amnesty, AVHY' NOT AVAIT until Mgr Tache and Father Ritchothave given their evidence ? Does the honorable menber for Bagot ima gine that he is doing a service to Mr Riel in striving to deprive him of the benefit of the evidence of Mgr Tache and Father Ritchot? Does the member for Bagot think that the evidence of Mgr Tache and Fa ther Ritchot wiil have less effect towards obtaining the amnesty than his sub- amendment? Well, if all that has been said about the promises made by the ex-Government to Mr Riel be true,I am in favor of the amnesty, and for this reason I shall not hesitate for an instant about A'oting against this sub-amendment. And, if my honorable friend will permit me, I. will tell him that his sub-amendment wiil not have in the province of Quebec the effect he anticipates from it. Because, Sir, I tell the honorable member that from this day forward the province of Quebec will knoAv who are the pretended, friends of Mr Riel and what they are aiming at in shouting so loudly in his 38 SPEECH behalf. I also trust that Mr Riel will understand that he has been made the tool of a feAV intriguers, Avho, in the name of friends, have endeavoured to make him the instrument of their machinations; in fine, I trust that he Avill understand that his best friends are not those Avho most pretend to be such. Yes, I am IN FAA^OR OF THE AMNESTY, and Avhen the time c<">me3, that is to say, when the committee has made its report, Avhen the proof Avhich has been begun has been closed, I will not be the last to demand it. I am in favor of the amnesty for tAvo reasons: th* first is that given, last night, by the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Cameron), that the Canadian Government received the delegates of Mr Riel's gov ernment and treated Avith him as one poAver treats with another power. If this reason exists in fact, the conclusion is inev itable : the amnesty must be granted. Yesterday, the hon. member for South Bruce, (Mr. Blake), replying to the member for South Ontario, seems to have admitted the legality of the proposition emitted by the latter, because he gave for sole ansAver that the proposition did not exist as a que-tion of fact, that Mr Riel'sjdelegates had ever been received by the Canadian Government as delegates of Mr. Riel, but as delegates of ihe people of Red River. Certainly, lAvould think it an honor under almost ail circumstances to adopt the hon. member for South Bruce's way of thinking, but I cannot do so in this instance— the pi oof he offered us in support of his. opinion being anything but conclusive to my mind. In fact. AA'hat proof did he give us? Only an extract from a speech delivered in some part of Ontario by the honorable member for Kingston, in Avhich the latter appears to have stated Avhat I have just repeated, namely : that the delegates sent by Mr. ON LOUIS RIEL'S EXPULSION 39 Riel had not been received as the delegates of Mr. Riel, but as the delegates of the people of Red River. Once more, I say, this proof cannot convince me. For I have yet to learn that the delegates Avere informed of this distinction at the time of their recep tion ; if such a distinction wa3 made, it must have consisted of a mental restriction by which the honor able member for Kingston said to himself, Avhile ostensibly receiving the delegates of Mr. Riel, that, in reality, he only Avished to deal Avith the dele gates of the Red River people. Whatever may be the case, if the honorable mem ber for Kingston received the delegates of the people of Red River, his colleague, Sir George Cartier, received the delegates of Mi-. Riel and they presented to him, as the representative of the Canadian Govern ment, their letters of credit signed Avith Mr. Riel's OAvn hand. If this be the case, and it will probably be estab lished by the evidence before the committe-, then the logical consequence of this act must folluw and the amnesty be granted. I am in favor of the amnesty for still another reason — because all the acts Avith which Mr. Riel is charged are PURELY POLITICAL ACTS. It Avas said here yesterday that the execution of Scott was a crime ; granted, but it Avas a political act. The reason of thU seems evident ; Mr. Riel, in signing the Avarrant for Dcott's execution, did nothing but give effect to the sentence of a court. HoAvever illegal may have been that court, how ever iniquitous may have been the sentence rendered by that court, the fact alone that it Avas rendered by a court and that that court existed de facto Avas suffi cient, to impart an exclusively political character to the execution. It has also been said that Mr. Riel Avas only a 40 SPEECH ON LOUIS RIEL's EXECUTION rebel. Hoav Avas it possible to U3e such language ? What act of rebellion did he commit? Did he ever raise any other standard than the national flag? Did he ever proclaim any other authority than the sove reign authority of the Queen ? No, never. His Avhole crime and the crime of his friends Avas that they wanted to be treated like British subjects and not to be bartered aAvay like common cattle ? If that be an act of rebellion, where is the one amongst us, avIio, if he had happened to have been Avith them, Avould not haAre been rebels as they were? Taken all in all, I Avould regard the events at Red RiArer in 1869-70 as constituting a glorious page in our history, if unfor tunately they had not been stained Avith the blood of Thomas Scott. But such is the state of human nature and of all that is human : GOOD AND EA'IL are constantly intermingled ; the most glorious cau3e is not free from impurity and the vilest may have its noble side. Yes, once more, I say that to ask for the amne3ty now Avill simply render it more difficult to obtain it eventually. Before sitting down, I may be alloAved to sum up in a single Avord : Ave have no proof of the facts on which the motion of expulsion rests and to adopt that motion Avould be not only to commit an arbitrary act, but to establish a precedent Avhich Avill be a perpe tual danger to our free institutions. THE TARIFF QUESTION II 1877 PROTECTION vs A REVENUE TARIFF (HOUSE OF COMMONS) SITTING OF THE 22ND MARCH, 1877 It was during the session of 1877 that Sir John A. Macdo nald, for the first time, raised the famous cry of ¦' a National Policy." Mr Laurier took part in the debate after the late' Mr Mousseau. Unfortunately there exists only a very incomplete and poor version of his speech in the Official Hansard. Mr. Laurier said he would not attempt to follow the honoiable gentleman through the Avhole range of his argument. Were it necessary, he could cap the quotations cited by superior and counter quotations. Every one must admit that the policy of the Admin istration Avas at once comprehensive, definite and clearly mapped out. The First Minister had declared over and over again that, though he was in principle a free-trader, the theory of free-trade could not be adopted in this country in its entirety ; and that we could not collect a revenue except by means of Cus toms duties. The exigencies of the tariff had already increased duties to 17 J per cent., and this Avas as much protection as was necessary for the manufac turer, and as much as the country could bear. What was the policy of the Opposition as revealed in the motions of the honorable members for Centre Wei- ¦ 42 SPEECH lington and Kingston ? The least that could be said in this relation was that it Avas loose, vague and very faintly delineated. The right honorable member for Kingston said that the tariff should be remodelled so as to lost'er the agricultural, mining and manufactu ring interests of the country. No one Avould say that these Avords did not sound well. But the country required something more. It required to know Avhether the means Avhereby this great result Avould be achieved were natural or magical. The right honorable mem ber cannot expected any of his colleague 3 to pledge himself against the policy of the Government unless it Avas known AVHAT THE POLICY TO REPLACE IT WAS TO BE. Of course, the result of the resolution3 Avas a fore gone conclusion — they would be rejected by a large majority. But, if the result was at all doubtful, or the balance of parties was not as it Avas, there Avould only be a more forcible reason that the country should know at once the extent to which the Opposition committed themselves. But the resolution and the arguments of honorable gentlemen opposite had no principle. The resolution of the right honorable mem ber for Kingston contained only one assertion, viz : " That the financial policy submitted by the Govern ment increases the burthen of taxation ou the people, without an3r compensating advantage to Canadian industries. " He (Mr. Laurier) took that assertion to be a fallacy and an error. There Avas no increase of taxation. The tariff Avas adjusted, but the taxation Avas not increased. There was an increase in some respects, but a decrease in other respects, and the tariff was not onerous upon the people. Honorable gentleman opposite should not forget chat some of the changes arose out of their own action. They should not forget that last year one of their own mem bers showed there Avas a grievance is to the existing tariff on petroleum, that that interest was over-pro tected. It was in consequence of the representations ON THE TARIFF QUESTION IN 1877 43 of the honorable member for Stanstead (Mr. Colby) that the Government removed the duty on petroleum. Some hon. members. — Hear! hear! M r Laurier said hon. members might say " hear, hear, " but the fact was to the credit of the Govern ment, for it showed that they were ready to remedy a Avrong whenever it wa3 pointed out to them. But he Avas not at all surprised that hon. gentlemen regretted that justice had been done in the matter; gentlemen opposite ahvays regretted something, no matter Avhat Avas done or Avhat was not done. Three years ago they regretted that the tariff Avas increased from 15 per cent, to 171 per. cent., although this gave some protection to our induttries. Last year, every one expected that the tariff Avould be increased ; but it was not, and the Opposition Avere loud in their regrets. He believed that, if the tariff had been increased, as Avas anticipated, the Opposition Avould have been equally loud in their regrets. And iioav, when the tariff Avas partly increased and partly decreased, the Opposition were, as ever, loud in their expressions of regret. THE CHIEF CAUSE OF THEIR GRIEF was the fact that they had to remain on the Opposition seats. He was quite sure that, if they were on the other side of the House, everything, even though the same as noAv, would be the best in the world. The resolution of the right hon. member for Kingston in toto Avas loose and vague, and Avas prepared with a view to possibilities of future contingencies— that Avas his candid belief. A policy of protection had never occurred to the right hon. gentleman during his long tenureofoffi.ee. The present Government Avould not last forever. Like everything human, it would beuo me a thing of the past; and, therefore, the right hon. member had so framed his resolutions that his party would not be embarrassed when it came into poAver. The resolution would catch the wind, no matter from 44 SPEECH which point of the compass it came. It Avould not be difficult for the right hon. gentleman and his party to drive a coach and six through their resolution, and let the country have, on its basis, either free trade, protection, incidental protection or a revenue policy. The country had a right to demand more than this. It had a right to demand that the gentlemen opposite should state something definite as to the policy they would adopt when they came into office. He Avas justified in saying so, not merely on his own opinion, but on the opinion of a gentleman avIio Avas connected with the party of the honorable gentlemen opposite, a gentleman whom they ahvays justly held in high estimation. He referred' to Mr White, of the Montreal Gazette. At the meeting of the Dominion Board of Trade, Avhich took place in 1874, a resolution was moved by Mr .las. McPherson(St John's,Q.)as follows : That a duty of 15 percent, is fair and reasonable, and no disturbance of the tariff is at present desirable ; but, should a revision of the present tariff take place, it is resolved that the interests of our farmers be thoroughly looked after. Mr White then said : — I rise to a point of order : Motions should be definite in their character. [ submit this one is very indefinite. No one will deny that the interests of the farmer should' be looked after. But the motion should be made in such a way that we would understand what the mover meant by looking after. The President of the Boird of Trade, AAdio Avas a protectionist, said : — I must say I am pleased that Mr White has raised the question of order, because the motion is too indefinite, [t is necessary that, in passing resolutions, we should know what is meant by them. He Avould not go the length of saying that the ruling of the President of the Board' of' Trade ought ON THE TARIFF QUESTION IN 1877 45 to be the riving of Mr Speaker in the present matter ; but he Avould say that the Opposition ought to give A MORE EXACT DEFINITION of their policy. Perhaps,the resolution was so Avorded to produce the result referred to by Talleyrand. Avhen he said to his pupils :" Young men, remember that language has been given to men to conceal their thoughts." The Opposition said they Avere not going to announce their policy ; that they' could constitu tionally refuse to do so. But this Avas not the lan guage Avhich the great Liberal-Conservative party should use. The Liberal party never shrank Irom declaring its policy, denouncing abuses and sugges ting remedies ; and it not only suggested but forced remedies doAvn the throat of the Government which then existed. But, perhaps, it Avas not fair to expect gentlemen opposite to give the House their policy. He thought they had a very great reason why they should not. And that reason was that they had no thing definite ; they had no policy. They had a high- eounding name, Avhich they called the '"National Po licy. " If the motion Avere to carry, and the Govern ment Avere defeated, arid the Opposition formed aneAV Administration, the ve y moment they attempted to carry out their National Policy, there Avould be aeon- fusion worse than that at the Tower of Babel. Each interest would speak a different language, Avhich would not be understood by the other. Even noAV they did not agree. They had the name of a National Policy, but not the substance. The resolution of the right honorable member for Kingston proposed pre tection for three interests— the manufacturing, agricultural and mining. The resolution of the honorable member for Hamilton (Mr Wood) threAV overboard the agricul tural and mining interests, and only advocated pro tection to manufactures. But, the moment theamend- ment to his OAvn motion was made, the right honor able member for Kingston accepted the modification 46 SPEECH of hie policy. The honorable member for Centre Wel lington (Mr Orton) then threw overboard the manu facturing and mining interests, and moved in favor of agriculture alone, and this Avas at once accepted by the Opposition. He believed that, Avere a resolution presented in favour of mining alone, it Avould be sup ported by the gentlemen opposite. The National Po licy had not yet been hatched, and, if ithad any basis at all, it Avas that THE BREAD OF THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE TAXED, and this Avas the remedy proposed for the evils of the present Government by the great Conservative party, Avhich professed to be the friend of the people. He could not speak for any province but his own, but iu Quebec the National Policy Avas held to be a mockery and a farce; it was an inhuman policy, in that it would make fuel and food dearer. As to the charge of inconsistency against the Liberal party of Quebec in this matter, Mr. Papineau Avas a protectionist not so much from reasons of political economy as political reasons. Our country was then struggling to obtain political liberty and responsible government, and the French Liberal party proposed that Ave should close ourselves Avithin our own limits and buy nothing from England. But hoav Ave Avere given most ample justice nnckthe most complete liberty, and the result was that, in all this vast empire over Avhich the sun never sets, there Avere no people more attached to Bri tish institutions than French Canadians. He held, however, that there were some industries Avhich could not be established Avithout the aid of legislative action. He said this openly and in the face of his OAvn poli tical friends. Then it might be asked Avhy he favored the policy of the present Government ? His answer was that it Avas because there Avas ON THE TARIFF QUESTION IN 1877 47 NO NECESSITY FOR MORE PROTECTION than we had ; the party opposite did not so much want increased protection as to arouse the prejudices of the masses against the Government. It must not be forgotten that the tariff Avas adequate. We had a temporary deficit, it was true, but that would be met by increased economy. If the gentlemen opposite were in earnest they would point out the industries which Avanted protection, but instead of that they did nothing but generalize. When they spoke of pro tection they said nothing unless they said everything absolutely definite. Free-trade Avas a principle, but protection Avas not a principle. When they asserted the doctrine of free-trade they Avereatonce understood. They laid doAvn the principle that all the relations of trade must be regulated by the same conditions. But protection could not be treated as a principle, as it did not carry with it any definite idea. It simply affirmed that certain branches of industry ought to be put beyond the ordinary rules of trade, and that the enhanced price of the article Avould be more than compensated by the addition to the labour of the country. He called upon the gentlemen opposite to shoAv that 17 2 per cent. Avas not sufficient protection. The country Avas someAvhat prosperous under the re gime of the gentlemen opposite,but this fact Avas against the argument they noAV used, for the tariff then was lower than at present. But that was not all. His honorable friends from Terrebonne and Bagot, in fact, all Avho had addressed the House on the Opposition side, had insisted upon A RETALIATORY POLICY, thoy declared they wanted reciprocal trade with the United-States, but, if they could not obtain it, they wanted reciprocity of tariffs, Avheieby the duties imposed on American goods would be as high as those levied on Canadian goods entering the United States. SPEECH If any measure could be calculated to do injury to this country that Avould be the very measure. Excess in any thing was a bad thing, and protection Avas not an exception to the rule. Excessive protection to an industry Avould prove the ruin of that industry. He would quote the words of the honorable member for Stanstead, a protectionist, Avho, in referring to the petroleum trade, showed the result of excessive pro tection. They had it from honorable gentlemen oppo site that undue protection Avould destroy the petro leum trade, and, further, that a duty, which Avas esti mated by the honorable member for Stanstead at 25 per cent, had completely destroyed the trade, Avhich had been controlled by an organized '¦ Ring. " What Avas the remedy proposed by honorable gentlemen opposite ? The Americans had to pay a duty on our refined petroleum of 40 c. per gallon ; the Canadian duty was 15c. ; did honorable members opposite pro pose to retaliate ? Did they propose that the Canadian duty should be increased from 15c. to 4()c. ? Instead of that, they proposed that the 15c. duty should be reduced by one half. That was hoAv honorable gentle men opposite practised retaliation, Avhile they de clared that the Government should adopt a retalia tory policy, yet in practice, instead of asking that the tariff on petroleum should be increased to that of the United States, they asked that it should be decreased. If the protection duty of '25 per eent. on petroleum has destroyed that industry, what Avould be the effect of imposing a tariff on trade of 40, 50 or 100 per cent.? The effect Avould be that our industries would be completely annihilated. He could not understand the conduct of honorable gentlemen opposite Avhen they believed the country Avould not see through such pleas. He supposed these honotable gentlemen Avould some day return to power, andhoAV Avould they affirm the policy of retaliation ? He asked them to point out how they Avould retaliate, Avould they reta liate on everything, petroleum included; Avouldthey exclude that article ? It was quited evident that the retaliatory pjlicy Avas ON TARIFF QUESTION IN 1877 49 SIMPLY A CRY', something to suit their purpose for the time, but when they come back to power it would never be heard of again. That retaliatory policy reminded him of the old temple of Janus, the doors of Avhich Avere open during Avar but closed as soon as Avar Avas over. If hon. gentlemen opposite came back to office, the doors of the retaliatory policy would be closed, never to open moie. The theory of retaliation, called a political policy, Avas a theory of the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Masson), as he gave it the other day in his speech. Mr. Masson said it was not his policy, he gave it as the policy of Sir Alexander Gait. Mr. Laurier said the hon. member had, perhaps, quoted it as the policy of Sir Alexander Gait. When a man threAV himself into the absurd there Avas no limit for it ; because, at the same time, his hon. friend advocated that the Government of the day should not only protect the labour of the country, but should also give labour to the labouring class. The hon. member for Terrebonne, (Mr. Masson), had enunciated what Avas characterized aitenvards by the hon. the Minister of the Interior as communism, a doctrine, which was found in the Avorks of Louis Blanc. Such Avas contained in his Avork, published in 1848, called " The Rights of Labour." Napoleon used to say that if they scratched a Russian they were sure to find a Tartar, and if they scratched a Quebec Conservative they Avould find a Radical of the French school. Extremes always met. The hon. member for Bagot had used language which, for subversive doctrine, Avas quite equal to that used by the hon. member for Terrebonne. The hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Mousseau) had attacked the Bench of his country and had spoken of it in derisive and calumnious terms and applied to the Bench a term not found in the French language but by the French press of Lower Canada and applied to the judges. Any man Avho did not respect the Bench of 4 50 SPEECH his country, and who attacked it in such language, could not be proud of such institutions and would never deserve the name of patriot. The hon. member for Bagot had gone still farther and in tones of virtuous indignation had even accused the Government and its friends with fattening on the sweat cf the people. Fattening on thesAveatof the peo ple is a very big word in the mouth of the member for Bagot! The expression is not a ne>v one, but it is something unexpected from the lips of the hon. member. During the French Revolution in the days of Yendemiaire.General Buonaparte had been charged by the Directory with the duty of maintaining order in Paris. He Avas traversing the theatre of the recent insurrection, Avhen, from a threatening group, an enor mously stout fishwoman stepped out, and, Avith raised arm, shouted : " There is one of those Avho are fatten ing on the SAveat of the people ! " The general, who, at that time was extremely thin, answered her : " But, my good woman, if any one here is fattening on the SAveat of the people, Avhich is it — you or I? " The contrast was so striking that the croAvd, although a hostile one, burst out into prolonge 1 laughter. I see no other ansAver to give to the hon. member, Avhose amplitude and language have ferved to recall this incident to my mind. I am one of the friends of the Government ; I am therefore one of those assailed by his virtuous indignation, but I take the whole Avorld to witness, if any one here is fattening on the sweat of the people, which is it — he or I? He would not do the same injustice to the Conser vatives as thev. the Liberals, had to suffer every day. He would not say they were Communists but Conser vatives of Quebec Avould stop short of nothing to obtain position. They would tax the people's bread, they Avould attack the Bench, and, as was said one day by the hon. member for WeutAvorth (Mr. Rymal), the ferocity of a she-bear deprived of her cubs was no thing compared Avith that, of the Tory party when deprived of the spoils of office. POLITICAL LIBERALISM DEFINITION OF THE LIBERAL IDEA MR. LAURIER AN ADMIRER AND DISCIPLE OF THE ENGLISH LIBERAL SCHOOL Lecture delivered at the Academy of Mnsic, Quebec, on the invitation of the Club Canadien, on the 26th June, 1877. [TranslatioE.1 Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I cannot conceal the fact that it Avas with a certain feeling of pleasure that I accepted the invita tion to come before you to explain Avhat are the doc trines of the Liberal party and Avhat the Avord " Libe ralism " means as regards the Liberals of the province of Quebec. I say that it was not Avithout a certain feeling of pleasure that I accepted ; but I Avould certainly have refused if I had looked only to the difficulties of the task. HoAveA'er, if the difficulties of that task are nu merous and delicate, on the other hand I am lso imbued with the importance for the Liberal party of clearly defining its position, before the public opinion of the province, that this consideration was to my mind far above all the others. In fact, I do not deceive myself with regard to the 52 SPEECH position of the Liberal party in the province of Que bec and I have no hesitation in immediately sajdng that it occupies a false position fron the standpoint of public opinion. I knoAv that, in the eyes of a large number of my fellow countrymen, the Liberal party is a party composed of men of perverse doctrines and dangerous tendencies, pressing knoAvingly and delib erately toAvards revolution. I knoAv that, in the eyes of a portion of my felloAV countrymen, the Liberal party is a party of men with upright intentions, per haps, but victims and dupes of principles Avhich are leading them unconsciously, but fatally, toAvards revo lution. In fine, I knoAv that, in the eyes of another, and not the least considerable portion, perhaps, of our people, Liberalism is a neAV form of evil, a heresy carrying Avith it its own condemnation. I know all this and it is because I knoAv it, that I have accepted the invitation to come here. I have not the presumption to believe that anything I might say here to-night Avill have the effect of dissipating any of the prejudices existing at present against us ; my only ambition is to lead the way in the hope that it will be followed by others and that the work thus begun Avill be fully carried out; my pretensions go no farther than this. And let no one say that this manifestation is use less or untimely. It is neither useless nor untimely to combat the prejudices Avhich have been by raised like a barrier everyAvhere betAveen us and public opinion ; it is neither useless nor untimely to clearly define our position as it really is. It is quite true that Ave have been already long enough before public opinion to give it full opportu nity to know and appreciate us. But it is equally true that, if AvehaA^e had our enemies like every other political party, Ave have been more assailed than any- other political party. Of our enemies, the one have systematically slandered us; the others have in good faith calumniated us. Both have represented us as ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 53 professing doctrines, the effect of Avhich, foreseen and calculated by some of us, not foreseen by, but fatal for the others, Avould be the overthroAV of our society, the revolution with all its horrors. To reply to these charges and to defend our position is the object of the demonstration of this evening organized by the Club Canadien. To my mind, the most efficacious, the only Avay, in fact, to defeat these charges, to defend our ideas and principles, is to make them known. Yes, lam convinced that the exposure alone of our prin ciples Avill be their best and mo3t eloquent apology. And Avhen Ave shall have made ourselves knoAvn as Ave are, when Ave shall have made knoAvn our principles as they are, Ave shall have gained. I believe, a double point. The first will be to rally to our side all the friends of liberty, all those, avIio, before 1837 or after it, labored to secure for us responsible government, government of the people by the people, and Avho, on the establishment of that form of government, sepa rated from us through fear that Ave Avere in reality AA'hat Ave were represented to be, and that the reali zation of the ideas ascribed to us Avould lead to the destruction of the government which they had had so much trouble in establishing. The second point Avill be to force our real enemies, all Avho at bottom are- enemies more or less disguised of liberty, to no longer appeal against us to prejudices and fear, but to come forAvard frankly as Ave do before the people Avith their ideas and their acts. And when the fight takes place on the ground of pure questions of principle, Avhen acts are judged according to the thoughts by Avhich they are inspired, when people Avill be no longer afraid to accept the good and reject the bad under the impression thn\ in accepting the one and rejecting the other, strength will be only given to a party of perverse doctrines and dangerous tendencies, it matters little to me on which side victory wi 1 1 then perch. When I state tha£ it matters little to me on Avhich side victory will perch, 54 SPEECH I do not mean to say that I am indifferent to the ¦result of the struggle. I mean this : if the struggle turns against us, the opinion expressed will be the free expression of the people ; but I am convinced that a day Avill come when our ideas, planted in the soil, will germinate and bear fruit, if the seed is sound and just. Yes, I am confident, I am certain that if our ideas are just, as I believe they are, if they are an emanation of the eternal and immutable truth, as I believe they are, they will not perish; they may be rejected, reviled, persecuted, but a clay will come when they Avill germinate, spring up and groAv, as soon as the sun shall have done its work and prepared the ground. I have already noted some of the charges made against us ; I shall return to the subject, as it is the most important point. All the charges made against, us all the objections to our doctrines, may be crystallized into the following propositions : 1 c Liberalism is a neAV form of error, a heresy already virtually con demned by the head of the Church: 2 ° A Catholic cannot be a Liberal. This is Avhat our adversaries proclaim. Mr. President, all who honor me Avith their attention at this moment Avill do me the justice of recognizing that I put the question as it is and that I exaggerate nothing. All will do me the justice of admitting that I reproduce faithfully the reproaches Avhich are day after day cast up to us. All will acknoAvledge that it is Avell and truly the language of the Conservative press. I knoAv that Catholic Liberalism has been con demned by the head of the Church. But I will be a-ked ; Avhat is Catholic Liberalism ? On the threshold of this question I stop. This question does not come within the purvieiv of my subject ; moreover, it is not of my competence. But I know and I say that Catho lic Liberalism is not political Liberalism. IfitAvere true that the ecclesiastical censures hurled against Catholic Liberalism should also apply to political ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 5.5 Liberalism this fact Avould constitute for us, French by origin and Catholics by religion a state of things, the consequences of Avhich would be as strange as they Avould be painful. In fact, we, French Canadians, are a conquered race. This is a melancholy truth to utter, but it is the truth. But, if Ave are a conquered race, Ave have plso made a conquest: the conquest of liberty. We are a free people ; Ave are a minority, but Ave have retained all our righto and all our privileges. Now, Avhat is the cause to which Ave OAve this liberty ? It is the constitution Avhich was conquered by our fore fathers and Avhich avc enjoy to day. We have a con stitution which bases the government on the suffrage of the citizens and which Avas granted to us for our oavii protection. We have not more rights or more privileges, but Ave have as many rights and as many privileges as the other elements, Avhich go to make up the Canadian family. But it must not be forgotten that the other members of the Canadian family are divided into two parties, the Liberal party and the Conservative party. Now, if Ave, who are Catholics, are not to have the right to have our preferences, if Ave are not to have the right to belong to the Liberal party, one of two things must happen, either Ave would be obliged to abstain completely from taking any share in the management of the affairs of the State and then, the constitution — that constitution Avhich was granted to us for our OAvn protection— would be no longer in our hands only a dead letter ; or Ave would be obliged to take a part in the management of the affairs of the State under the direction and to the profit _ of the Conservative party and then, our action being no longer free, the constitution Avould again be in our hands a dead letter and Ave would in addition have the ignominy of being regarded by the other members •of the Canadian family composing the Conservative party as tools and slaves. Do not these absurd consequences, the strict aocu- 56 SPEECH racy of which nobody can question, conclusively show how false is the assertion that a Catholic cannot belong to the Liberal party ? Since Providence has united together on this corner of earth populations of different origins and creeds, is it not manifest that these populations must have together common and identical interests and that, in all that affects these interests, each one is free to follow either the Liberal party or the Conser vative party, according to the- dictates of his con science ? * For my part, I belong to the Liberal party. If it be Avrorg to be a Liberal, I accept the reproach ; if it be a crime to be Liberal, then I am guilty of it. For my part, I only ask one thing — that Ave be judged according to our principles. I would be ashamed of our principles, if Ave were afraid to give expression to them and our cause Avould not be worth the efforts for its triumph, if the best Avay to secure that triumph Avas to conceal its nature. The Liberal party has been for tAventA^five years in Oppoi-ition and let it remain there for twenty -five years more, if the people has not yet been educated up to accepting its ideas, but let it march proudly with its banners displayed, in the full face of the country ! Before all, hoAvever, it is important to come to an understanding upon the meaning, value and bearing of the word " Liberal " and that other Avoid " Conser vative. " I maintain that there is notone thing less under stood in. this country by its assailants than Liberalism and there are several reasons for this. It is only yesterday that we Avere initiated into representative institutions. The English element understand the working of these institution in some way by instinct, as Avell as by long experience. On the other hand, our people hardly understand them yet. Education is only beginning to spread amongst us and, in the case of the educated, our French educa tion leads us naturally to study the history of modern ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 57 liberty, not in the classic land of liberty, not in the history of old England, but among the peoples of the continent of Europe, of the same origin and faith as ourselves. And there, unfortunately, the history of liberty has been Avritten in letters of blood on the most harrowing pages Avhich the annals of the human race, perhaps, contain. In all classes of educated society may bt seen loyal souls, who, frightened by these mournful pages, regard with terror the spirit of liberty, imagining that it must produce here the same disasters and the same crimes as in the countries I have just referred to. In the eyes of such well meaning people, the very Avord " Liberalism " is fraught Avith national calamity. Without blaming altogether these fears, but Avithout allowing ourselves to be frightened by them, let us go back to the fountain head itself and calmly examine what is at the bottom of those two words : Liberal, Conservative ! What idea is hidden under this word Liberal that it should have called doAvn upon us so many anathemas ! What idea is hidden under the word Conservative that it f-hould be modestly applied to everything that is good ? Is the one, as is pretended and, in fact, asserted every day, the expression of a iicav form of error ? Is the other, as it seems to be constantly insinuated, the definition of good under all its aspects ? Doe.- the one mean revolt, anarchy, disorder, and is the other the only stable principle of society ? These are questions which people are putting to themselves daily in our country. Tliese subtle distinctions, Avhich are constantly appearing in our press, are nevertheless not new. They are only the repetition Of the fancies of certain French writers, whose horizon is bounded by the narrow limits of their sanctums and who, only looking to the past, bitterly criticize everything existing in the present for the simple reason that nothing noAV existing resembles anything that existed formely. These Avriters proclaim that the Liberal idea is a neAV idea, but they are mistaken. The Liberal idea 58 SPEECH is no more a new idea than is the contrary idea. It is as old as the Avorld and is found Avritten on every page of the world s history, but it is only in our days that Ave have come to knoAV its force and its law and to understand Iioav to utilize it. Steam existed before Fulton, but it has only been since Fulton that Ave have learned all the extent of its poAver and how to make it produce its marvellous effects. The combi nation of' the tube and piston is the instrument by Avhich Ave utilize steam and the system of represen tative governments is the instrument which has revealed to the Avorld the tAVO principles, Liberal and Conservative, and by which Ave get from that form of government all its, effects. Upon any subject Avhatever, within the range of human things, the truth does not manifest itself equally to all intellects. There are some Avhose gaze pierces further into the unknown, but takes in less at a time; there are others Avhose gaze, even if it be less penetrating, perceives more clearly within the sphere Avhich it embraces. This primordial distinction at once explains to a certain extent the Liberal idea and the Conservative idea. For this sole reason, the same object will not be seen under the same aspect by diffe rent eyes ; for this sole reason, the one will take a route which the others Avill avoid, although both propose to arrive at the same end. But there is a conclusive reason Avhich clearly explains the nature and the Avhy and the Avhere fore of the two different ideas. Macaulay, in his history of England, sets forth this reason Avith admirable clearness. Speaking of the meeting of the Houses for the second session of the Long Parliament (1), the great historian says: From that day dates the corporate existence of the two great parties which have ever since alternately governed the country. In one sense, indeed, the distinction wliich then became obvious had always existed and always must exist; for it has its origin in diversities of temper, ot understanding, ;ij J/Utr.ry of E,i%lund in all societies and which will be found until the human mind ceases to be drawn in opposite directions by the charm of habit and by the charm of novelty. JSot only in politics, but in literature, in art, in science, in surgery and mechanics, in navigation and agriculture, nay, even in mathematics, we find this distinction. Everywhere there is a class of men who cling with fondness to whatever is ancient and who, even when convinced by overpowering reasons that innovation would be beneficial, consent to it with many misgivings and forebodings. We find also everywhere another class of men sanguine in hope, bold in speculation, always pressing forward, quick to discern the imperfection of whatever exists, disposed to think lightly of the risks and inconveniences which attend improvements and disposed to give every change credit for being an improvement: The former are the Conservatives ; the latter are the Liberals. Here you have the real meaning, the true explanation, of the Liberal principle. They are tAVo attributes of our nature. As Macaulay admirably expresses it, they are to be found every Avhere : in the arts, in the sciences and in all the branches open to human speculation ; but it is in politics that thay are most apparent. Consequently, those Avho condemn Liberalism as a neAV idea have not reflected upon Avhat is transpiring every day under their eyes. Those Avho condemn Liberalism as an error have not reflected that, in so doing, they condemn an attribute of human nature. Noav, it should not be overlooked that our form of government is a representative monarchy. This is the instrument Avhich throws into relief and brings into action the tAvo principles, Liberal and Conservative. We, Liberals, are often accused of being Republicans. I do not note this reproach for the purpose of taking it up, for it is not Avorth taking up. 1 merely state that the form matters little; Avhether it be monarchi cal or republican, the moment the people exercise the right to vot -, the moment they have a responsible government, they have the full measure of liberty. Still, liberty Avould soon be no more than an empty HO SPEECH name, if it left Avithout control those avIio have the direction of power. A man, Avhose astonishing saga city has formulated the axioms of governmental science with undeviating accuracy, Junius, has said: ''Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Yes, if a people Avant to remain free, they must like Argus have a hundred eyes and be ahvays on the alert. If they slumber, or relax, each moment of indolence loses them a particle of their rights. Eternal vigilance is the price which thev have to pay for the priceless boon of liberty. Now, the form of a representative monarchy lends itself marvellously — much more, perhaps than the republican form — to the exercise of this necessary A'igilance. On the one hand, you have those Avho govern and, on the other, those who Avatch. On the one hand, you have those avIio are in power and have an interest in remaining there, and, on the other, those avIio have an interest in getting there. What is the bond of cohesion to unite each individual of the different groups ? What it- the principle, the sentiment, 10 range these diverse elements of the popu lation either among those Avho govern or those Avho watch ? It is the Liberal principle or the Conserva tive principle. YoitAvill see together those Avho are attracted by the charm of novelty and you Avill see together those avIio are attracted by the charm of habit. You will see together those avIio are attached to all that is ancient and you -will see together those Avho are ahvays disposed to reform. Now. I ask : between these tAvo ideas Avhich consti tute the basis of parties, can there be a moral diffe rence ? Is the one radically good and the other radi cally bad? Is it not evident that both are what are termed in moral philosophy ind iffc rents, that is to say, that both are susceptible of being appreciated, pon dered and chosen ? Would it not it be as unfair as it would be absurd to condemn or to approve either the one or the other &'< absolutely bad or good ? Both are susceptible of much good, "as they are also of much evil. The Conservative, Avho defends his ON TOLITICAL LIBERALISM 61 country's old institutions may do much good, as he also may do much evil, if he be obstinate in maintain ing abuses, Avhich have become intolerable. The Liberal, Avho contends against these abuses and who, after long efforts, succeeds in extirpating them, may be a public benefactor, just as the Liberal Avho lays a rash hand on halloAved institutions may be a scourge not only for his OAvn country, but for humanity at large. Certainly, I am far from blaming my adA'ersaries for their convictions, but for my part, as I have al ready said, I am a Liberal. I am one of those Avho think that everyAvhere, in human things, there are abuses to be reformed, neAv horizons to be opened up, and neAv forces to be developed. Morever, Liberalism seems to me in all respects superior to the other principle. The principle of Li beralism is inherent to the very essence of our nature, to that desire of happiness Avith Avhich we are all born into the world, which pursues us throughout life and which is never completely gratified on this side of the grave. Our souls are immortal, but our means are limited. We cont-tantly gravitate towards an ideal which Ave never attain. We dream of good, but Ave never realize the best. We only reach the goal Ave have proposed to ourselves, to discover new horizons opening up, Avhich Ave" had not before even suspected. We rush on toAvards them and those horizons, ex plored in their turn, reveal tous others which lead us on eA'er further and further. And thus it will be as long as man is Avhat he is, as long as the immortal soul inhabits a mortal body ; his desires will be ahvays vaster than his means and his actions will never rise to the height of his concep tions. He is the real Sysiphus of the fable: his work ahvays finished has ahvays to be begun over again. This condition of our nature is precisely Avhat makes the greatness of man, for it condemns him irrevocably to movement, to progress : our means are limited, but our nature is perfectible and Ave have the 62 SPEECH infinite for our arena. Thus, there is ahvays room for improvement of our condition, for the perfecting of jur nature, and for the attainment by a larger num ber of an easier life. Here again is Avhat, in my eyes, constitutes the superiority of Liberalism. In addition, experience has established that insensibly, imperceptibly, abuses will creep into the body social and end by seriously obstructing its upward march, if not endangering its existence. Experience has further established that institu tions Avhich, at the outset, Avere useful because they were adapted to the state of society at the time of their introduction, often end by becoming intolerable abuses owing to the simple fact that everything around them has changed. Such Avas the case in our own midst Avith the seigniorial tenure. It is unques tionable that, in the infancy of the colony, that system greatly facilitated the settlement of the soil. But, in 1850, everything bad changed so much amongst us that the system Avould have eventuated in deplorable complications, if our Legislature, upon the initiative of the Liberals, had not had the Avisdom to abolish it. As a consequence of the laAV Avhich I have indi cated as the determining cause of the Liberal and Conservath'e ideas, there will be always men found, who Avill attach themselves with, love to these abuses, defend them to the bitter end, and vieAV Avith dis may any attempt to suppress them. Woe to such men, if they do not know Iioav to yield and adopt proposed reforms ! They will draAv down upon their country disturbances all the more terrible that justice shall have been long refused. History, alas ! supera bundantly shows that very few of those who govern have been able to understand these aspirations of humanity and satisfy them. Indeed, more revolu tions have been caused by Conservative obstinacy than by Liberal exaggeration. The supreme art of government consists in guid ing, directing and controlling these aspirations of hu man nature. The English are, in a high degree, ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 63 masters of this art. Look at the Avork of the great Liberal party of England ! Hoav many reforms has it not brought about, hoAv many abuses corrected, Avithout shock, disturbance and violence ! Understand ing the aspirations of the oppressed and the neAv Avants created by new situations, it has carried out, under the sanction of the law and Avithout other aid than the laAv a series of reforms which has made the English people the freest people and the most pros perous and happy of Europe. On the other hand, look at the continental gov ernments ! The most of them have never been able to grasp these aspirations of their peoples. No sooner do the sufferers raise their heads to catch a few breaths of air and of freedom, than they are brutally crushed back again into a circle which is ever growing more and more hermetically restricted. But the day comes Avhen the obstacles are shivered to pieces, Avhen these peoples break forth from there paralyzing restraints, and, then, in the holy name of liberty, the most frightful crimes are committed. Is there reason to be surprised at this ? Are Ave astonished Avhen the storm clouds, roll ing over our heads, burst forth in hail and lightning? Are Ave surprised at the explosion of the steam-boiler, when the engineer neglects to open the safety valve and relieve it of its superabundant pressure? No, because Ave see in tliese events the Avorking of an ine vitable laAV Avhich is ahvays attended with the same effects, as Avell in the moral as in the physical system. Wherever there is compression, there will be explo sion, violence and ruin. I do not say this to excuse revolutions, as I hate revolutions and detest all attempts to win the triumph of opinions by violence. But I am less inclined to cast the responsibility on those Avho make them than on those Avho provoke them by their blind obstinacy. I say this to illustrate the superiority of Liberalism, Avhich understands the aspirations of" human nature, and, in steal of doing violence to them, seeks to direct them. 64 SPEECH Can it be believed, for instance, that — if England had persisted in refusing emancipation to the Catho lics ; if it had persisted in refusing the fullness of their civil and political rights to the Catholics, the Jews and the other Protestant denominations not forming part of the established church ; if it had persisted in keeping the suffrage limited to a small number ; if it had persisted in refusing free trade in breadstuffs : if it had persisted in refusing the right of suffrage to the working classes — a day would not have come Avhen the people Avould have risen in arms to do themselves the justice that Avould have been obstinately denied to them? Do you think that riot would not have raised its hideous head under the Avindows of Westminister and that the blood of civil war Avould not have reddened the streets of London, as it has so often reddened the streets of Paris ? Human nature is the same all over, and there, as elsewhere, compression Avould have produced explosion, violence and ruin. These terrible calamities, hoAvever, were obviated by the initiative of the Liberals Avho, under standing the evil, proposed and applied the remedy. What is grander than the history of the great English Liberal party during the present century ? On its threshold, looms up the figure of Fox, the Avise, the generous Fox, defending the cause of the oppressed, AvhereA^er there Avere oppressed to be defended. A little later, comes O'Connell, claiming and obtaining for his co-religionists the rights and privileges of EngH«h subjects. Pie is helped in this work by all the Liberals of the three kingdoms, Grey, Brougham, Russell, Jeffrey and a host of others. Then come, one after the other, the abolition of the ruling oligarchy, the repeal of the corn laAvs, the extension of the suffrage to the working classes, and, lastly, to crown the whole, the disestablishment of the church of England as the State religion in Ireland. And note well : the Liberals, Avho carried out these successive reforms, Avere not recruited from the middle classes only, but some of their most eminent leaders ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 65 were recruited from the peerage of England. I know of no spectacle that reflects greater honor on human- nity than the spectacle of these peers of England, these rich and powerful nobles, stubbornly fighting to eradicate a host of venerable abuses and sacrificing their privileges with calm enthusiasm to make life easier and happier for a larger number of their felloAV beings. While on this head, permit me to cite a letter of Macaulay's written to one of his friends on the next day after the \Tote on the famous Reform bill, which put an end to the system of rotten-boroughsll^.Here it is. I ask pardon for making this quotation, as it is someAvhat long : Such a scene as the division of last Tuesday [ never saw, and never expect to see agdin. If I should live fifty years, the impression of it will be as fresh and sharp in my mind as if it had, just taken place. It was like seeing Caesar stabbed in the Senate-house, or seeing Oliver taking the mace from the table ; a sight to be seen only once, and never to be forgotten. The croAvd overflowed the House in every part. When the strangers were cleared out, and the doors locked, we had six hundred and eight members present — more by fifty-five than ever were on a division before. The ayes and noes were like two volleys of cannon from opposite sides of a field of battle. When the Opposition went out into the lobby, an operation which took up twenty minutes or more, we spread ourselves over the benches on both sides of the House ; for there were many of us who had not been able to find a seat during the evening. When the doors were shut we began to speculate on our numbers. Everybody was desponding. " We have lost it. We are only two hundred and eighty at most. I do not think we are two hundred and fifty. They are three hundred. Alderman Thompson has counted them. He says they are two hundred and ninety-nine. " This was the talk on our benches. The House, when only the ayes were in it, looked to me a very fair House —much fuller than it generaUy is even on debates of considerable interest. I had no hope, however, of three hundred. As the tellers passed along our iowest row on the left-hand side the interest was insupportable— two hundred and ninety-one — two hundred and ninety-two— we were all standing up and stretching forward, telling with the tellers. At three hundred there was a short cry of joy— at [1] The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, by Trevelyan. SIEECH three hundred and two another — suppressed, however, in a moment," for we did not yet know what the hostile force might be. We knew, however, that we could not be severely beaten. The doors were thrown open, and in they came. Each of them, as he entered, brought some different report of their numbers. It must have been impossible, as you may conceive, in the lobby, crowded as they were, to foim any exact estimate. First we heard that they were thiee hundred and three ; then that number rose to three hundred and ten ; then went down to three hundied and seven. We were all breathless with anxiety, when Charles Wood, who stood near the door, jumped up on a bench and cried ont, " They are only three hundred and one. " We set up a shout that you might have heard to Charing Cross, waving our hats, stamping against the floor, and clapping our hands. The tellers scarcely got through the crowd ; for the House was thronged up to the table, and all the floor was fluctuating with heads like the pit of a theatre. But you might have heard a pin drop as Duncannon read the numbers. Then again the shouts broke out, and many of us shed tears. I could scarcely refrain. And the jaw of Peel fell ; and the face of Twiss was as the face, of a damned soul; and Hemes looked like Judas taking his neck-tie off for the last operation. AW shook hands, and clapped each other on the back, and went out laughing, crying, and huzzaing into the lobby. And no sooner were the outer doors opened than another shout answered that within the House. All the passages and the stairs into the waiting-rooms were thronged by people who had waited till four in the morning to know the issue. We passed through a narrow lane between two thick masses of them ; , and all the way down they were shouting and waving their hats, till we got into the open air. 1 called a cabriolet, and the first thing the driver asked was, " Is the bill carried ? " " Yes, by one. " " Thank God for it, sir ! " And Macaulay con cludes with a sentence strongly indicative of the Liberal : " And so ended a scene which will probably never be equaled till the reformed Parliament wants reforming. " The man, who wrote in these cheery terms, had just come from voting the abolition of thesystem by virtue of Avhich he held his oAvn seat. Macaulay owed his seat to the generosity of an English peer, Lord Lansdowne, who had him returned for the rotten borough of Calne. I knoAV of few pages that do more honor to humanity then this simple letter Avhich ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 67 shows us these English natures, calm but steadfast in the fight and only kindling into emotion Avhen the battle has been Avon, because an act of justice has been accomplished and an abuse uprooted from the soil of old England. Members of the Club Canadien, Liberals of the province of Quebec, there are our models ! there are our principles ! there is our party ! It is true that there is in Europe, in France, in Italy and in Germany, a class of men, Avho give themselves the title of Liberals, but who have nothing of the Liberal about them but the name and who are the most dangerous of men. These are not Liberals ; they are revolutionaries : in their principles they are so extravagant that they aim at nothing less than the destruction of modern society. With these men, Ave have nothing in common ; but it is the tactic of our adversaries to always assimilate us to them. Such accusations are beneath our notice and the only answer we can with dignity give them is to proclaim our real principles and to so conduct ourselves that our acts will conform with our principles. Now, at this stage of my discourse, I shall review the history of the Liberal party of this country. I am one of those avIio do not fear to scrutinize the history of my party. I am one of those Avho think there is more to be gained by frankly stating the truth than by trying to deceive ourselves and others. Let us have the courage to tell the truth ! If our party has committed mistakes, our denials will not change matters ; moreover, if our party has committed faults, we shall ahvays find in the other party enough of faults to balance ours, and, even if the other party were immaculate, our principles Avould not, for that reason, be either better or worse. Let us have the courage to tell the truth and let it prevent us from falling into the same faults in the future ! Down lo 1848, all the French Canadians were of but one party, the Liberal party. The Conser vative or rather the Tory party, as it was called, only 68 SPEECH represented a feeble minority. But, from 1848, date the first traces of the Iavo parties, Avhich have since disputed power. Mr. Lafontaine had accepted the regime established in 1841. When Mr. Papineau returned from exile, he assailed the neAv order of things Avith his great eloquence and all his elevation of mind. I shall not here undertake to enter into a criticism of the respective policies of these tAvo great men. Both loved their country ardently, passiona tely ; both had devoted to it their lives ; both, in different ways, had no other ambition than to serve it ; and both Avere pure and disinterested. Let us be content witli these souvenirs, Avithout seeking Avhich of the tAvo was right and which Avrong ! There Avas at this time a generation of young men of great talent and still greater impetuosity of cha racter. Disappointed at having come on the scene too late to stake their heads during the events of 1837, they threw themselves with blind alacrity into the political movement of the day. They were among the foremost of Mr. Lafontaine's partisans in his glo rious struggle against Lord Metcalf. They afterwards abandoned him for the more advanced policy of Mr. Papineau, and, though taking their places among his following, as was natural, they soon Avent beyond him. Emboldened by their success and carried away by their enthusiasm, they one day founded L'Avenir in which they posed as reformers and regenerators of their country. Not satisfied Avith attacking the poli tical situation, they boldly attacked the social situa tion. They issued a programme containing not less than twenty-one articles commencing Avith the election of justices of the peace and ending with annexation to the United-States, and, taken as a whole, practically amounting to a complete revolution of the province. If, by the wave of some magic Avand,the tAventy-one arti cles of this programme had been realized in a single night, the country in the morning would have been no longer recognizable, and the person, Avho should have ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 69 left it the evening before and returned the next day, would not have knoAvn Avhere he Avas. The only excuse for these Liberals was their youth. The oldest of them was not more than tAventy- two years of age. Gentlemen, I am stating facts. I have n o intention of reproaching any one. Talent and sincere convic tions are entitled to respect. Moreover, Avho is the one amongst us, avIio, if he had been living at that time, could flatter himself that he Avould haAre been wiser and that he would not have fallen into the same mistakes ? Everything Avas favorable to such exagge rations : the situation of our OAvn country and the situation in Europe. The Avounds of the country from the insurrection were not yet healed : Ave had been granted, it is true, a free constitution, but the new constitution Avas not being applied in good faith by the Colonial Office. There Avas at the bottom of every soul a discontented spirit, Avhich Avas alone kept doAvn by the recollection of the vengeance for Avhich the insurrection had furnished the opportunity. Moreover, from all sides, the effluvia of democracy and revolt came pouring in upon us. Society was already shivering in the first blasts of that great storm, Avhich Avas to break forth a few years later over the Avhole civilized Avorld and which for a moment caused society to stagger. The years preceding 1848 are frightful to contemplate. One feels a thrill of honor at the contemplation of the sinister Avork Avhich Avas being everyAvhere done and which atone time drew into revolt upwards of eighty millions of men. This state of things naturally made a powerful impression on young, ardent and inexperienced ima ginations, and, not satisfied Avith wanting to revolu tionize their OAvn country, our young reformers greeted with transports each fresh revolution in Europe. HoAvever, hardly had they taken two steps in life, Avhen they perceived their immense error. In SPEECH 1852, they brought out another newspaper. They abandoned VAvenir to the demagogues and sought in a new paper, Le Pays — Avithout, however, finding it, it is true — the uqav path Avhich should be folloAved by the friends of liberty under the neAv constitution. One cannot help smiling to-day on reading over again L'Avcnir's programme; one cannot help smiling at finding, mixed up Avith so much good sense occa sionally, so many absurd or impossible propositions. It would be tiresome to revieAV one by one all the incongruous propositions Avhich L'Avenir's pro gramme contained. I shall take one at random: Annual Parliaments. I am satisfied that each of the young Reformers of that day, who is to-day in Parlia ment, is firmly convinced that an election every five years iSjquite sufficient. And moreover is it not obvious that annual Parliaments Avould be a con stant obstacle to all serious legislation and a perma nent source of agitation ? Still, the harm was done. The clergy, alarmed at these proceedings which reminded them of the revolutionaries of Europe, at once declared merciless Avar on the new party. The English population, friend ly to liberty, but also friendly to the maintenance of order, also ranged themselves against the neAv party, and during tAventy-five years that party has remained in Opposition, although to it belongs the honor of having taken the initiative in all the reforms accom plished during that period. It was in vain that it demanded and obtained the abolition of the seignio rial tenure; it Avas in vain that it demanded and obtained judicial decentralization, and it Avas in vain that it Avas the first to give an impetus to the work of colonization; it Avas not credited Avith these Avise reforms ; it Avas in vain that those children, now groAvn into men, disavowed the rashness of their youth ; it Ava3 in vain that the Conservative party made mistake after mistake: the generation of the Liberals of 1848 had almost entirely disappeared from the political scene ere the daAvn of a neAv day ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 71 began to break for the Liberal party. Since that time, the party has received neAv accessions, calmer and more thoughtful ideas have prevailed in it : and, as for the old programme, nothing Avhatever remains of its social part, Avhile, of the political part, there only remain the principles of the English Liberal party. During all this time, Avhat Avas the other party doing ? When the split betAveen Mr. Papineau and Mr. Lafontaine became complete, the fraction of the Liberal party, who followed Mr. Lafontaine, wound up, after some groping, by allying themselves Avith the Tories of Upper Canada, and then, to the title of Liberal which they could not or dared not yet avow, they added that of Conservative. The neAv party took the name of Liberal-Conservative. Some years elapsed and fresh modifications ensued. I know no longer by Avhat name we call this party. Those AA'ho to-day seem to occupy leading positions in it will call them selves the Ultramontane party, theCatholn party. Its principles, like its name, have been modified. If Mr. Cartier were to come back to the earth to-day, he Avould not recognize his party. Mr. Cartier Avas devoted to the principles of the English constitution. Those Avho to-day take the lead among his old parti sans openly reject the principles of the English con stitution as a concession to what they term the spirit of evil. They understand neither their country, nor their time. All their ideas are modelled on those of the reactionists of France. They go into ecstacies over Don Carlos or the Comte de Chambord just as the Liberals admired Louis Blanc and Ledru-Rollin. They shout: long live the King! as the Liberals shouted : long live the Republic ! In speaking of Don Carlo3 and the Comte de Chambord, they affect to always fay only His Majesty the king Charles VII, His Majesty the king Henry V, just as the Liberals, in speaking of Napoleon III ahvays said only Mr. Louis Buonaparte. I have too much respect for the opinion of my 72 SPEECH adversaries to ever insult them ; but I reproach them Avith understanding neither their time nor their coun try. I accuse them of judging the political situation of the country, not according to Avhat is happening in it, but according to Avhat is happening in France. I accuse them of Avantingto introduce here ideas, which are impossible of application in our state of society. I accuse them of laboriously and, by misfortune, too efficaciously working to degrade religion to the sim ple proportions of a political party. In our adversaries' party, it is the habit to accuse us, Liberals, of irreligion. lam not here to parade my religious sentiments, but I declare that I have too much respect for the faith in which I was born to ever use it as the basis of a political organization. You Avish to organize a Catholic party. But have you not considered that, if you have the mis fortune to succeed, you Avill draw doAvn upon your country calamities of which it is impossible to foresee the consequences ? You wish to organize all the Catholics into one party, Avithout other bond, Avithout other basis, than a common religion ; but have you not reflected that, by the very fact, you will organize the Protestant population as a single party and that then, instead of the peace and harmony now prevailing between the different elements of the Canadian population, you throw open the door to Avar, a religious war, the most terrible of all Avars ? Once more, Conservatives,! accuse you in the face of Canada of not understanding either your country or your time. Our adversaries also reproach us with loving liberty and they term the spirit of liberty a dangerous and subversive principle. Is there any justification for these attacks ? None whatever, except that there exists in France a group of Catholics Avho pursue liberty with their impreca tions. Assuredly, it is not the enemies of liberty in France alone Avho regard it with terror. The ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM most ardent friends of liberty often contemplate it with the same feeling. Recall Madame Rolland's last Avords. She had Avarmly loved liberty, she had ardent ly prayed for it, and her last Avord was a sorro wful one: '• Oh! Liberty, hoAv many crimes are committed in thy name ! " Hoav often have the same words been as sincerely uttered by fully as sincere friends of libert3r ! I can readily conceive, without, however, sharing them, the feelings of those Frenchmen, Avho, regarding how much liberty has cost them in tears, blood and ruin, have some times favored for their country a vigorous despotism ; I can conceive their anathemas, but that these anathemas should be repeated in our midst is a thing I cannot understand. What? Is it a conquered race, who should curse liberty ? But what would we be Avithout liberty ? What would be to-day if our forefathers had cherished the same sentiments as the Conservatives of the pre sent time ? Would Ave be other than a race of pariahs ? I frankly admit that liberty, as it ha3 been gene rally understood and practised in France, has nothing very attractive about it. The French have had the name of liberty, but they have not yet had liberty itself. One of their poets, Auguste Barbier, has given us a pretty correct idea of the kind of liberty Avhich is some times in vogue in France and Avhich was last seen at work in 1871. He represents it as a Avoman A la voix rauque, aux durs appas Qui, du bran sur la peau, du feu dans les prunelles, Agile etmarchant a grands pas, Se plait aux cris du peuple, aux sanglantes melees, Aux longs roulements des tambours, A l'odeur de la poudre, aux lointaines volees Des cloches et des canons sourds ; Qui ne prend ses amours que dans la populace. Et ne prete son large fianc Qu'a des gens forts comme elle, et qui veut qu'on l'embrasse Avec des bras rouges de sang. SPEECH If liberty Avas Avell and truly this sinister virago, I could understand the anathemas of our adversaries and I would be the first to join in them. But it is not liberty. An English poet, Tennyson, has sung about liberty, the liberty of his country and of ours. In his poem In Mcmoriam, Tennyson addresses himself to a friend Avho enquires why he does not seek a milder climate in the South Sea islands and Avhy, notwithstanding his impaired health, he persists in remaining under the foggy skies of England? And the poet replies : It i> the land that freemen till, That sober-suited Freedom chose, The land where, girt with friends or foes, A man may speak the thing he will ; A land of settled government, Aland of just and old renown, Where Freedom broadens slowly down, From precedent to precedent ; Where faction seldom gathers head But by degree? to fulness wrought, The strength of some diffusive thoueht Hath time and space to work and spread. This is the liberty Ave enjoy and defend and this is the liberty, which our adversaries, sharing in its benefits, attack, Avithout understanding it. Jean Bap- tiste Rousseau (1 ), in one of his odes, speak of barba rous peoples, who, one day in a moment of inconceiv able folly, fell to insulting the .sun Avith their cries and imprecations. The poet, in a word, characterizes this stupid piece of impiety : Le Dieu poursuivant sa carriere, Versait des torrents de lumiere Sur ses obscurs blasphemateurs. 0) The orator has confounded J.B. Rousseau with Lefranc de Pompig- nan; but th- two great lyric poets arc so often cited together in collec tions of literature that the lecturer, who was quoting from memory, may easily be paidoned this qui pro quo. ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 75 In the same Avay liberty has its assailants among us. Liberty covers them, floods them, protects them and defends them even in their imprecations. Le Dieu poursuivant sa carriere Versait des torrents de lumiere Sur ses obscurs blasph£mateurs. But, Avhile reproaching us Avith being friends of liberty our adversaries further reproach us, with an inconsistency which Avould be serious, if the charge were Avell founded, with denying to the Church the freedom to which it is entitled. They reproach us with seeking to silence the administrative body of the Church and to prevent it from teaching the people their duties as citizens and electors. They reproach us with Avanting to hinder the clergy from meddling in politics and to relegate them to the sacristy. In the name- of the Liberal party and of Liberal principles, I repel this assertion. I maintain that there is not one Canadian Liberal who Avants to prevent the clergy from taking part in political affairs, if they Avish to do so. In the name of what principle, should the friends of liberty seek to deny to the priest the right to take part in political affairs? In the name of what prin ciple should the friends of liberty seek to deny to the priest the right to have and express political opinions, the right to approve or disapprove public men and their acts and to instruct the people in what he believes to be their duty ? In the name of what prin ciple, should he not have the right to say that, if I am elected, religion will be endangered, Avhen I have the right to say that if my adversary is elected, the State will be endangered? Why should the priest not have the right to say that, if! am elected, religion will be inevitably destroyed, when I have the right to say that, if niy adversary is elected, the State will go into bankruptcy ? No, let the priest speak and preach, as he thinks best ; such is his right and no Canadian Liberal will dispute that right. 76 SPEECH Our constitution invites all citizens to take part in the direction of the affairs of the State; it makes no exception of any person. Each one has the right not only to express his opinion, but to influence, if he can, by the expression of his opinion, the opinion of his felloAV citizens. 'This right exists for all and there can be no reason why the priest should be deprived of it. I am here to speak my whole mind and I may add that I am far from finding opportune the inter vention of the clergy in the domain of politics, as it has been exercised for some years. I believe on the contrary that, from the standpoint of the respect due to his character, the priest has every thing to lose by meddling in the ordinary questions of politics : still his right to do so is indisputable and, if he thinks proper to use it, our dutjr, as Liberals, is to guarantee it to him against all denial. This right, hoAvever, is not unlimited. We have no absolute rights amongst us. The rights of each man, in our state of society, end precisely at the point Avhere they encroach upon the rights of others. The right of interference in politics finishes at the spot where it encroaches on the elector's indepen dence. The constitution of the country rests on the freely expressed Avish of each elector. It intends that each elector shall cast his vote freely and Avillingly as he deems best. If the greatest number of the electors of a country are actually of an opinion and that, OAving to the influence exercised upon them by one or more men or owing to Avords they have heard or Avritinga they haA'e read, their opinion changes, there is nothing in the circumstance but Avhat is perfectly legitimate. Although the opinion they express is different from the one they Avould have expressed Avithout such intervention, still it is the one they desire to express conscienciously, and the constitution meets Avith its entire application. If, hoAvever, notAvithstanding all reasoning, the opinion of the electors remains the same, but that, by intimidation or fraud, they are ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 77 forced to vote differently, the opinion which they express is not their opinion, and the constitution is violated. As 1 have already said, the constitution intends that each one's opinion shall be freely expressed as he understands it at the moment of expression, and the collective reunion of the indi vidual opinions, freely expressed, forms the govern ment of the country. The law Avatches Avith so jealous an eye the free expression of the elector's opinion as it really is that, if in a constituency the opinion expressed by a single one of the electors is not his real opinion, but an opinion forced from him by fear, fraud or corruption, the election must be annulled. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to alter the elector's opinion by argument and all other means of persuasion, but never by intimidation. As a matter of fact, persuasion changes the elector's conviction; intimidation does not. When, by persuasion, you have changed the elector's conviction, the opinion he expresses is his OAvn opinion ; but when, by terror, you force him to vote, the opinion he expresses is your opinion ; remove the cause of his fear and he will then express another opinion, Avhich it his oAvn. Noav, it will be understood, if the opinion expressed by the majority of the electors is not their real opinion, but an opinion snatched from them by fraud, by threats or by corruption, the constitution is violated and you have not the government of the majority, but the government of a minority. Well, if such a state of things continues and is repeated, if, after each election, the will expressed is not the real will of the country, once more you do violence to the constitution, responsible government is no longer anything but an empty name and, sooner or later, here as elsewhere, the pressure Avill culminate in explosion, violence and ruin. But people are not wanting Avho say that the clergy have a right to dictate to the people Avhat are its duties. I simply ansAver that we are here under SPEECH the government of the Queen of England, under the authority of a constitution whicli Avas granted to us as an act of justice, and that, if the exercise of the rights Avhich you claim is to have for effect the impe ding of the constitution and our exposure to all the consequences of such an act, then the clergy them selves Avould not Avant it. I am not one of those avIio parade themselves a3 friends and champions of the clergy. How ever, I say this : like the most of my young fellow countrymen, I have been reared among priests and among young men Avho have become priests. I flatter myself that I have among them some sincere friends and to them at least, I can and I do say : see, if there is under the sun a country happier than ours ; see, if there is under the sun a country Avhere the Catholic church is freer or more privileged than it is here. Why, then, should you, by claiming rights incompa tible with our state of society, expose this country to agitations, of Avhich it is impossible to foresee the consequences ? But I address myself to all my fellow country men Avithout distinction and I say to them : We are a free and happy people ; and we are so owing to the liberal institutions by Avhich Ave are governed, institutions Avhich Ave owe to the exertions of our forefathers and the wisdom of the mother country. The policy of the Liberal party is to protect those institutions, to defend and spread them, and, under the sway of those institutions, to develop the country's latent resources. That is the policy of the Liberal party and it has no other. Now, to properly estimate all the value of the institutions by Avhich Ave are ruled to day, let us compare the present state of the country with what it was before the}' Avere granted to us. Forty years ago the country avus in a state of feverish commotion, a prey to an agitation which, a few months later, broke out in rebellion. The British crown was only maintained in the country by the force of ON POLITICAL LIBERALISM 79 poAvder and ball. And yet what were our prede cessors seeking? They Avere asking for nothing more than the institutions which Ave have at present fthose institutions Avere granted to us and loyally applied ; and see the result ; the British flag floats over the old citadel of Quebec ; it floats to-night over our heads, without a single English soldier in the country to defend it, its sole defence resting in the gratitude, Avhich we OAve it for our freedom and the security which Ave have found under its folds. Where is the Canadian who, comparing his coun try with even the freest countries, would not feel proud of the institutions Avhich protect him? Where is the Canadian who, passing through the streets of this old city and reaching the monument raised a feAV steps from here to the memory of the tAvo brave men, avIio died on the same field of battle while contending for empire in Canada, would not feel proud of his country ? In what other country, under the sun, can you find a similar monument reared to the memory of the conquered as well as of the conqueror? In Avhat other country, under the sun, will you find the names of the conquered and the conqueror equally honored and occupying the same place in the respect of the population ? Gentlemen, AAdien, in that last battle which is recalled by the Wolfe and Montcalm monument the iron hail Avas spreading death in the ranks of the French army ; when the old heroe3, Avhom victory had so often accompanied, saw at last.victory snatched from them; when, stretched on the ground with their life-blood fast ebbing aAvay, they saw, as the result of their defeat, Quebec in the hands of the enemy and the country forever lost ; no doubt, their last thought Avas of their children, Avhom they were leaving without protection and Avithout defence ; no doubt, they pictured them as persecuted, enslaved, and humiliated, and then, it is reasonable to believe, they clreAV their last breath Avith a cry of despair. 80 SPEECH But, if, on the other hand, Heaven had lifted the veil of the future from their dying eyes and enabled them for an instant, before these closed forever, to pierce what Avas hidden from their sight; if they could have seen their children free and happy, marching proudly in all spheres of society ; if they could have seen, in the old cathedral, the seat of honor of the French governors occupied by a French governor ; if they could have seen the church steeples rising in every valley from the shores of Gaspe to the prairies of the Red River ; if they could have seen this old flag, wliich recalls the finest of their victories, carried triumphantly in all our public cere monies; in fine, if they could have seen our free in stitutions, is it not permissible to think that their last breath Avould have been exhaled in a murmur of gratitude to Heaven and that they Avould have died consoled ? If the shades of these heroes still hover over this old city, for which they laid down their lives ; if their shades hover to-night over the hall in which we are now assembled, it is free for us, Liberals, to think — at least Ave cherish the fond illusion, — that their. sympathies are all Avith us. THE QUEBEC MIIISTERIAL CRISIS IN 18J8 MR. LAURIER'S REPLY TO THE DETRACTORS OF THE LIBERAL PARTY On the 11th April, 1878, a few weeks after the dismissal of the De Boucherville Cabinet by Lieutenant-Governor Letellier, Sir John A Macdonald, then leader of the Opposition, made the following motion in the House of Commons : " That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that it be resolved that the recent dismissal by the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec of his Ministers was, under the circumstances, unwise and subversive of the position accorded to the advisers of the Crown since the concession of the principle of Responsible Government to the British North American Colonies. " This motion was rejected by a vote of 112 against 70, after a long debate, in the course of which Honorable Mr. Laurier took occasion to define the true principles professed by the Liberal party, as he had done in his lecture of the previous year at Quebec. There exists unfortunately only a feeble analysis of his speech, which we take from the Hansard : Mr. Laurier said the hon. gentleman, avIio had just addressed the House, had endeavored to influ ence the question by casting upon the Liberal party of the province of Quebec what could be termed by no other name than foul slander. He commenced his remarks by quoting Mr. Thiers in favour of constitu tional monarchy, in order to show that in the ranks of the Liberal party in Quehec there Avere men opposed to constitutional government. Such an accusation coming from the member for Terrebonne surprised him very much. It surprised him that a man, Avhom he believed to be the fairest Conservative in Quebec, 6 -82 SPEECH should have made use of such language. Yet i't was not surprising, for it was only a continuation of the tactics Avhich had been used, again and again, in the province of Quebec for the last tAventy-five years, and the day had not yet dawned in that province when it had been their good fortune to discuss any public question upon its merits. When they were discussing any question, his party Avere ahvays met with the taunt THAT THEY AVERE COMMUNISTS or something of that kind. He defied the hon. gen tleman, or any of his folloAvers, to quote any utterance by any member of the Liberal party of Quebec that could justify such an accusation. They were Liberal in the sense in which Liberalism Avas regarded in England. It had ahvays been the tactics of' the hon. gentlemen to throw that accusation against them, it sounded Avell to the people ; it had been repeated again and again, and Avould be all through the elec tions. Upon this question, he would not charge the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Masson), with a deliberate falsehood, but he would make a counter charge. While the hon. gentleman charged them Avith being Communists, he (Mr. Laurier) charged the party Avhich the hon. gentleman led with being HOSTILE TO THE PRINCIPLES of responsible government ; and be made this charge advisedly. Its doctrines could be judged by the tone of its press. He could cite from articles of their most authorized organs in Avhich the principles of respon sible government av ere condemned. It was Avell known that the French charter of 1830 was a close copy of the English constitution. And yet, what was the opinion which a Conservative paper put upon that constitu tion in France ? Under the charter of 1830, the Crown was in amosthumi- ON THE QUEBEC MINISTERIAL CRISIS IN 1878 83 Hating position, and Louis Philippe was reduced to extract from the majority, by means of corruption, tlie principle of authority which had been taken from the Crown. This was the estimation in Avhich honorable gen tlemen opposite held the Britiuh constitution, of which the French constitution of 1830 Avas a copy. But it might be said that this was simply an opinion as to its applicability to the French people. He kneAv this defence Avas made. If that Avere the argu ment, he Avould simply answer that in these quotations the honorable gentlemen opposite shoAved Avhat Avere their ideas of responsible government. But he could give them, also, Avhat Avere the opinions at this very moment of those Avho stood here as the champions of responsible government. He Avould cite from an article published in one of their leading organs, Le Courrier du Canada, on the 13th March last : The electoral contest is now engaged ir. everywhere, and we know that, under the circumstances, it may be extre mely violent. These elections will be follow ed by the Federal elections, these will be followed by school elections, and these by municipal elections ; in fact, we have elections everywhere. We ma3r, therefore, consider that for a long time electoral agitation will be permanent. The friends of tranquillity are, for good reasons, frightened at the system of the age. We must drink the cup to the dregs. Everything indicates that elections will continue to become more and more frequent ; Liberalism is fond of elections. These elections will increase agitation. When we speak of Liberalism, we sjjeak of Libe ralism in Canada, for here as well as elsewhere it has recorded on its programme universal suffrage. This is what the Liberals call the vindication of the rights of the people. For this prero gative, the poor working man is bound to give away many hours from his labor. Here was an organ of Conservative opinion in LoAver Canada stating that this system of respon sible government Avaa an invention of the devil. On the floor of Parliament the Conservative party stood as the champions of free responsible government; in the press .84 SPEECH THEY OPENLY DENOUNCED this same system. Hoav was it that such a contra diction existed ? There was in that article one par agraph Avhich gave the key to the Avhole mystery. It Avas a part of the system Avhich had been ahvays carried out against the Liberal party in LoAver Canada. On the floor of this House, they palmed themselves off as champions of free responsible government, and, in the press, they denounced the same system with the object of merely making political capital against the Liberal party. He was right in charging the party Avith being decidedly hostile to the form of responsible government under Avhich they lived. Of course, they Avould not say so openly on the floor of this House ; he did not expect any of those gentlemen to repudiate the language made use of in their press; but, if they were as devoted as they pretended to be to the principles of responsible government, WAS IT NOT THEIR BOL'NDEN DUTY to repudiate such language ? They had never repu diated it. Mr. Baby :-Did you repudiate Dessaulles' doctrine about annexation ? Mr. Laurier said, if he Avere to name all the gen tlemen who, at one time, held annexationist vieAVS, he Avould find many among the honorable gentlemen opposite. Several honorable members : — No; name them ! Mr. Laurier said he could cite many, but this was an old and dead issue. There Avas another organ of public opinion, the Journal des Trois Rivieres, upon Avhich he could not, unfortunately, lay hie hands just then, as it Avas not received in the Library, in Avhich honorable gentlemen would remember, a series of articles appeared, some four or five years ago, in support of the doctrine that the minority was not bound by the decree of the majority. Under the ON THE QUEBEC MINISTERIAL CRISIS IN 1878 85 constitution under which Ave live, the decrees of the majority, Avhen expressed in the proper channels and in the proper form, must be respected by the minority. He did not mean to say the majority Avould not fall into error, but the remedies for errors were provided by the constitution. Then it became the duty of the minority to agitate and have this error corrected, and he believed they could do it and that justice Avould ahvays in the end prevail. He held that this Avas TRUE AND SOUND DOCTRINE ; but, in one of the papers of the honorable gentlemen opposite, a series of articles Avas published to establish the' proposition that if a by-laAv was passed by the majority it would not be binding on the minority, The circumstance which gave rise to the articles was this : a by-laAv had been passed by a county, according to the terms of'the law, granting a bonus to the North Shore Railway, upon a vote of the majority. These articles claimed that the by-law was not binding upon the minority Avho voted against it, but only on the majority who voted for it. Such language as that was used under a free responsible government by those Avho noAV taunted the Liberal party Avith being Communists. Strange to say, the late Quebec Govern ment passed a law which had not been sanctioned, in which, on frivolous pretexts, they compelled every one to pay the bonuses, whether the conditions were complied with or not. These gentlemen Avere here as the champions of responsible government upon the floor of Parliament and at the same time, in the coun try, they Avere attacking it Avith their own press and Avith all the other Aveapons at their hands. In the country, they denounced the present system of res ponsible government; on the floor of Parliament they defended it. Just hearken to their language to-day. They the champions of civil rights; they the apos tles of the doctrine that all royal power is superior to the people ; they this time reduced the representative 86 SPEECH of the Crown in the province of Quebec to a mere automaton, Avho had nothing to do but what he was told by his Ministers. His (Mr. Laurier's) party were Liberal ; they contended that the majority must govern, that the will of the people must pre vail, and that the Crown had its rights as Avell as the paople theirs. The best regulated State Avas the State in AA'hich the rights of the CroAvn and the rights of the people Avere clearly defined and greatly respected. This was not the doctrine of honorable gentlemen opposite. In connection Avith this he claimed that it was neither their duty nor their province to criticize the conduct of Mr Letellier. HIS PROPER JUDGES Avere the people of the province of Quebec. HeAVOuld not folloAV the honorable gentleman in the controversy respecting the action of Mr. Leteliier; but would leave it to the judgment of the people. But he Avould say this : that it would be the most dangerous prin ciple and the most serious bloAV that could be effected against our institutions if the proposed motion Avere carried. The carrying out of this proposition Avould be a direct invasion of the Federal system under which Ave lived. It was a well knoAvn fact that had the province of Quebec not represented a minority of a different creed, race and language, the union Avould not have been a Federal one. It Avas the federative sys tem that gave to the province of Quebec its autonomy. He Avas especially jealous to keep up the principles of the Federal system under Avhich Ave lived. He submit ted that the Dominion Government had no power to interfere Avith a matter Avhich affected the provincial constitution of Quebec alone. It would be a most dangerous principle for this Parliament to interfere. He agreed with the honorable leader of the Opposition when he said that the provinces were free and respon sible governments. If that proposition Avas a correct one, even though a great wrong had been com- ON THE QUEBEC MINISTERIAL CRISIS IN 1871 87 mitted against the people of Quebec, was it not a fact that they had THE REMEDY IN THEIR OWN HANDS, if they did not approve of the conduct of the late Government ? It Avould, indeed, be better that a wrong committed in the Province of Quebec should remain than that the system of federal government should be jeopardized. He did not mean to lay doAvn the proposition that no matter what changes might take place in the government of Quebec, Parliament should not interfere; he frankly admitted that a wrong might perchance be committed in the province of Quebec which would justify this Parliament to step in. It would certainly be the duty of the Dominion Government to interfere in order to redress a Avrong Avhich the people could not themselves remedy. But if this power was exercised on slight grounds, what would become of our Federal machinery which they had been at such pain to establish ? He submitted that the resolution placed in the hands of Mr. Speaker would, if carried, be an invasion of the rights of the people of Quebec. But honorable gentlemen opposite said that the rights of the people of Quebec had been trifled with and invaded by the action of the Lieute nant-Governor. Well, as he had already pointed out, the people of Quebec could remedy the evil them selves by overthroAving the present legal advisers of the Crown. It Avas not for this Parliament to say whether the Lieutenant-Governor had acted judi ciously or injudiciously, Avisely or unwisely — that was a question which Avould be decided aftenvards. Lieutenant-Governor Letellien Act ANOTHER MOTION OF CENSURE A PLEA WHICH SUMS UP THE AVHOLE QUESTION In 1379, the Conservatives, who had just recaptured power at[Ottawa, returned to the charge against the late Letellier de St Just. But, this time, it was not Sir John, who had become Prime Minister, who proposed the censure ; it was Mr. Mous- seau, a public man since disappeared from the world's stage, who took up the Macdonald motion of the previous session. Mr. laurier, on this occasion, delivered a speech which sums up admirably the whole question. (HOUSE OF COMMONS) SITTING OP THE 12th MARCH, 1879 MR. SPEAKER, I do not rise Avith the vieAV to ansAver the speech of the honorable member for Lincoln, because I do not see anything in his speech to beansAvered. When the honorable gentleman first began his speech, I took a blank sheet of paper and a pen to take up any points made against the Opposition in this House ; but I had not occasion to use my instrument at all. The first part of bis speech Avas on subjects Avhich had 90 SPEECH no reference to the motion before the House, and the last part of it, which had reference to the motion before the House, has been ansAvered time and again. I also Avaited for some time to see if any of the honor able gentlemen on the Treasury benches Avould rise to tell us Avhat would be the policy of the Government on this question. Perhaps the fact that the motion which is hoav before the House Avas last year presented by the leader of the Opposition, the present Premier of this Government, and is not reneAved by him now, may be taken as some evidence by the House that, Avhatever may be the future conduct of the Govern ment upon this question, if their OAvn feelings had been followed, this matter would not have come a second time before this House. I. beg to remind the House of this, that the motion which was made last session, THIS IDENTICAL MOTION which Ave have now before us, Avas negatived by a large majority of this House. I say', at the outset, Avhen this motion Avas negatived by a large majority of this House, the majority did not then assert that the principle involved in this motion avus not true anymore than they Avould assert that it was true ; they did not assert that the conduct of Mr. Letellier Avas Avise any more than it Avas umvise ; that it was constitutional any more than it Avas unconstitutional. The House carefully and distinctly abstained from proifotmcing any opinion upon the conduct of Mr. Letellier. The House held, at the time, that there Avas no occasion for it to interfere in this matter, and that, under the regime under which Ave noAV live, the provinces are free and independent,not only one of the other, but of the central power as Avell. This House affirmed that, Avhenever any provincial differences a- rise, they should be settled by the application of the principles of responsible government with which every province is endowed, and decided that this ON THE LETELLIE,R'S AFFAIR 91 matter, which affected solely the interests of the people of Quebec, should be left to their judgment, AND TO THEM ALONE it appertained to decide whether or not the act of Mr Letellier was wise and constitutional. At hat time, the people of the province of Quebec had not decided upon it ; they had just been seized of the question. The elections had not yet taken place, but Avere in pro gress ; they had since taken place, and, Avhatever may be said by honorable gentlemen opposite, the result had been to uphold the action of Mr Letellier. Several honorable members:— No, no. Mr. Laurier : — What are you here for, if you say no? If your Government had not been defeated, why should you be before this House? Your very motion is the best evi dence of Avhat I say. If your course had been sup ported by the people, you Avould not seek, at the hands of this House, the vengeance which you are now seeking. I affirm what I have already said, that the people of the province of Quebec, avIio alone are interested in this question, have decided that, in their opinion, Avhether that be right or wrong, the act of Mr. Letellier Avasjust and constitutional. If such be the case, if this question has already been once before the House, if this House has already declined to inter fere in this matter, and decided to leave it entirely in "the hands of the people of Quebec, and if the people of the province of Quebec have decided upon it, is it not but proper that this question should be laid at rest forever before this House? I do not hesitate to say that this matter Avould have forever remained at rest before this House, had it not been for another event Avhich has since taken place, namely, the Domi nion elections. We have had it from the mouths of honorable gentlemen opposite. The result of the goneral elections has been to displace the majority from the Liberal to the Conservative ranks, and noAV that a neAv element is brought into the House, a new 92 SPEECH attempt is made to get the neAv majority to do what the old majority Avould not do, TO SUBSTITUTE THE AVILL OF THE DOMINION for the will of the province of Quebec, Even Avithout the language that fell from the lips of some honorable gentlemen opposite, I Avould have taken this motion as a slur upon the majority of the former House. The idea conveyed by it, not, it is true, in language, but as clearly as if expressed in Avords, is that the Liberal majority", which sat on the other side of the House last year, deliberately refused to do justice in the premises; that, since the party ousted from power at Quebec happened to be the Conservative party, and the party called to power happened to be the Liberal party, the Liberal majority in this House allowed their better judgment to be biassed by their political feelings. As one of that majority which ruled last session, I do not object that this accusation should be throAvn at us, provided that that the same standard of measure should be applied this time again. And, if this motion is to be affirmed, if the Conservative majority in this House is to do Avhat the Liberal majority Avould not do last year, if they are going TO RIDE OArER THE PROA'INCES. if either the majority Avhich insisted last year upon respecting the right of the provinces to self-govern ment, or the majority Avhich this year may infringe upon these rights ; if either majority, I say, are to be branded as being actuated by improper motives, I have no objection to that, and Ave Avill cheerfully await the judgment of impartial men and impartial history. Before going further, let me make one obser vation. The elections in the province of Quebec last year took place upon the issue raised by the act ot Mr Letellier, and upon no other issue. At the very outset of the campaign, in a speech delivered in the ON THE LETELLIER'S AFFAIR 93 town of Levis, by Mr Chapleau, the present leader of the Opposition in Quebec, he stated that this question of the dismissal of the Ministry by Mr Letellier was the only question Avhich the people should look at. He used very forcible language. I have not the speech before me, but I kept the exact words in my memory, Avhich has not failed me. He put it, that whatever might have been their failings as Ministers, even if they had been defaulters and thieves, they had been dismissed improperly and illegally, and it was the duty of the people of Quebec to restore them to the place from Avhich they had been dismissed. On the other hand, Mr Joly, the present leader of the Government, accepted the issue upon that ground alone. He said to the people that he fully endorsed AND ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY of the act of Mr. Letellier — that it Avas an extraordi nary act, but that it Avas justified and called for by the circumstances of the case. As I stated, the result was that the act of Mr. Letellier Avas upheld. I need not remind this House that every one of us holds his eeat upon an issue in the consideration ofAvhich the question noAv before the House did not count for any thing. I heard the honorable gentlemen from Card- well say that this question had been voted upon, at least in the province of Quebec, on the 17th September. I take issue Avith this. This is the first intimation I have ever had of it. Whatever may have taken place in the province of Quebec, I am quite sure it never was discussed in the other provinces. Let me new ask it of honorable gentlemen from the sister provinces; let me appeal to their fairness and justice, even if this House had the authority to interfere in this matter, would it be fair and just to the province of Quebec for this House to interfere in the matter, since the people of the province of Quebec are alone affected by this act ; since they alone are to suffer from it,if it has been unwise ; since they alone are to suffer from it, if it be 94 SPEECH unwise ; since they alone are to benefit from it, if it be Avise ; since they have held it, in their estimation, to be wise, Avould it be just, Avould it be wdse, AVOULD IT BE CONSTITUTIONAL for gentlemen of the other provinces to condemn' what those interested in it have approved ? I might ask it also of my more immediate countrymen, of those of felloAV-origin and felloAV language; I might ask them if their conduct, on the occasion, is patriotic ? Is it patriotic in them to ask the aid of the sister pro vinces, since their vieAVS have not prevailed at the polls, in order, under their united action, to crush the expressed Avill of their OAvn province ? What they are driving at is to obtain a mere party triumph, and, to do that, they are ready to sacrifice the vested rights of their native province. In order to obtain a mere party triumph, they ask the aid and co-operation of a foreign power, — because I hold that the Federal poAver, in purely provincial matters, is a foreign poAver — they ask the aid of a foreign poAver, forgetting that, Avhenever a party in any country, in order to obtain a triumph over a rival party, calls in the aid and co-operation of a foreign power, the invariable consequence has always been THE ENSLAVEMENT OF THE AVHOLE COUNTRY, I do not apprehend that so fatal a result Avould follow from the act of honorable gentlemen opposite, but the result would be that a breach Avould be opened in the principle which Ave have always looked upon as the Duhvark of our provincial liberties. And just look at the justice which is meted to Mr. Letellier in this case ! Last year, when the motion was brought up, and Avhen it was asked that it should be brought in the shape of a substantial motion, so that it might be open to an amendment, they Avould not do so, but insisted on bringing on the motion for the House to ON THE LETELLIER's AFFAIR 95 go iato committee of supply, so that the true resolu tion at Avhich the House might have arrived was pre vented from going on the journals of the House. And this time, as soon as the motion is made, my honor able friend from Laval (Mr. Ouimet) stands up and moves the previous question. It is true, in moving the previous question, he was kind enough to say that he did not mean to stifle this question; and he was also so strict as to give a precedent to sIioav that the moving of the previous question would not prevent free discussion. What then did he Avant to prevent ? It Avas that the opinion elicited by this free discussion should not go doAvn upon the journals of the House. He knew that the motion could be met successfully with an amendment Avhich, perhaps, might have been carried by a majority of the House, and, in order to get a verdict, cotite que coi'ite, against Mr. Letellier, he preA'ented THE POSSIBILITY OF AN AMENDMENT being made. No doubt, a good many gentlemen from our sister provinces have given this question but little attention and the papers brought doAvn a very indif ferent perusal, and have derived their knowledge of the case mostly from the indictment of Mr. Letellier draAvn yesterday and to-day. Perhaps they think he has perpetrated a great crime, and proved false to the cause of liberty. If they look at those papers, however, they will find there is another side to the picture which has been exhibited to them. They will find that the honorable gentlemen who have dilated at such length on the conduct of Mr. Letellier, might have dilated, at some length also, on the conduct of his advisers ; they will find that, if the conduct of the Lieutenant-Governor Avas extraordinary, the conduct of his advisers Avas still more extraordinary ; they will find that, if the conduct of Mr. Letellier has but feAV precedents in British parliamentary history, that of his advisers has none at all. They will find that 96 SPEECH his advisers systematically trampled down the royal prerogative, the liberty of the people, and the civil rights of the people ; that the government of Quebec was fast falLing INTO THE HANDS OF AN OLIGARCHY, which completely disregarded the royal authority, and remembered the people only to put neAv burdens upon it. They Avill find that this oligarchy Avas itself ruled by rings, the greedy appetite of which had to be fed from the public treasury ; and that the trea sury had to be replenished by the people at the price of their civil liberty ; that since the days of king John no such attempt Avas ever made on the liberty and civil rights of the people in any part of the British empire, Mr Letellier, to the long array of charges against him, might ansAver in the language of the old Roman, avIio, being brought to the forum to answer an accusation, merely said : " I SAvear I have saved the country. " But the parallel could not go any further; the historical character to Avhom I have just alluded had committed a crime, while Mr Letellier has committed no crime. HE EXERCISED A RIGHT he had the abstract power to exercise. It is said the exercise of it was unwise; but, in the estimation of the people of Quebec, that unwise act has saved the coun try. This opinion is not held simply by a political party, but is shared by the great majority of the people which no one knoAVS better than the Premier himself. He is aAvare that thousands who voted for him in the late elections supported Mr Letellier's view and his present Minister^, and Avould do so again. Before I dismiss this branch of the subject, I will call your attention to the blue-book containing the petition of Messrs. Chapleau, Angers, and Church, asking for his removal. I call attention to this because it may serve ON THE LETELLIER AFFAIR to shoAv the character of Mr Letellier's advisers, and the justice he must have received from them. They set forth that : In his communication to his Excellency the Governor- General, respecting the aforesaid dismissal, Mr Letellier made statements unsupported by and in contradiction with the offi cial documents, to which they relate, and that, in the opinion of the undersigned, viz, the- petitioners,such erroneous statements could not have been made by mistake or failure of memory. No more grievous charge could be made against any gentleman brought up under British ideas of honour, according to Avhich a gentleman's Avord is sacred. Now, what were the facts? These statements Avere submitted in connection Avith those of Mr Letel lier in his memorial to Lord Dufferin, to the effect that his authority had ahvays been completely DISREGARDED BY HIS ADVISERS, and, as an illustration of his charge, he instanced two proclamations Avhich had been published without his signature. The petitioners allege that statement is untrue, as they say Mr. Letellier Avell kneAv, and that, in fact, the proclamations, when they av ere published, bore his signature. What is Mr. Letellier's ansAver to this charge of wilfully and designedly alleging an untruth ? He says his attention Avas called to the publication of those proclamations by his private secretary ; that, thereupon, he Avrote to Mr. De Bou- cherville, Avho came and ackoAvledged the error, and that, in his presence, and in order to set the matter right, he appended his signature to the original pro clamations, Here is a complete defence, Avhich, I insist, shoAVS the bad faith of the traducers of Mr. Letellier. If the charge against him had been true, they were bound, in honour, to call the attention of the House and His Excellency to the fact, and to demand the evidence of Mr. De Boucherville, since Mr. Letellier gave him as having been wdtness to 98 SPEECH his appending his signature to the proclamations. If they could not have maintained their charge, they were bound to admit their error. Their rejoinder Avas unAvorthy of leaders of a great partjr ; their answer Avas a mere quibbling of lawyers, such as Avould not be expected from men of honour. They say in their reply to his explanations : Dealing with that part of the Lieutenant-Governor's answer which bears upon one of the charges contained in the petition, and in which he states in contradiction to official and authentic documents, that he signed the proclamations referred to after their publication, the undersigned represent that this explanation is of no value, in presence of the facts established by the proclamations bearing his signature, and the dates at which they were signed. It is difficult to under stand how the Lieutenant-Governor ca» bear evidence against his own signature, and expect that his statement upon the point can be credited. In their rejoinder, they do not reaffirm their accusation, viz., that the proclamations were signed before their publication, but they say that Mr. Letel- lie could not be admitted to affirm the fact that he had only signed them afterwards. If they had been in earnest in this, they Avould have called for Mr. De Boucherville's evidence ; and now, Avhen it appears that Mr. Letellier signed the proclamations ex post facto, his enemies attempt to deny him the benefit of the fact, and charge him Avith an untruth. If the charge made against Mr. Letellier had been true, it would have been of the most damaging character, but, being not true, the charge must redound Avith equal force against his traducers. But, whether Mr. Letellier's action Avas constitutional or not, a far more important question, to my mind noAV arises : HAS THIS HOUSE AUTHORITY to enquire into that act and condemn it ? If this motion was proposed simply to elicit a purely abstract ON THE LETELLIER AFFAIR 99 expression of opinion Avhich Avould remain barren of result, we might have discussed it to our heart's con tent, just as Ave might discuss any other question which any honorable gentleman might choose to bring ; just as Ave might discuss the recent events in France and the causes which led to Marshal Mac- Mahon resigning the presidency. But, if this motion is intended to be, as indeed it is, a pregnant motion, if it is to be followed up, if passed, by the censure and dismissal of Mr. Letellier, then I submit respectfully and earnestly that this House has no authority to enquire into and condemn his conduct. I affirm that proposition and invite its discussion. Of course, I would not go the length of saying that Ave never could in any case interfere in provincial matters, and no honorable gentleman on the other side of the House Avill affirm that we avouIc! havre that right of interfer ing in every case. Since then, we will agree that this House has the poAver to interfere IN SOME CASES, NOT IN ALL ; where is the land-mark to be found, where is the line to be draAvn, up to Avhich it must be legitimate for this House to interfere and beyond Avhich it Avould be criminal for it to do so. I think the ansAver has been given by the House on several occasions. The Constitutional Act gives the Federal Executive the poAver of disallowing provincial laAvs. This power being given to the Executive, it folloAVS that the exer cise of it is brought Avithin the jurisdiction of this House, to which the Executive is responsible. The doctrine is noAV Avell settled that this power of disal lowing provincial laws is to be confined to those cases only Avhere Provincial Legislatures may have stepped beyond their jurisdiction into prohibited ground; that this poAver is to be exercised only for the protec tion of Imperial or Federal rights Avhich may have been invaded by Provincial Legislatures, but never to afford relief to any section of the community in 100 SPEECH the province which may deem itsely aggrieved by that legislation. The doctrine is uoav Avell settled that, if Provincial Legislatures keep Avithin the jurisdic tion which is allotted to them by the constitution, hoAvever odious their Liavs may be, however despotic and tyrannical, hoAvever desirous both the Executive andtheGovernment might be of affording relief against such laAvs, yet this House will not interfere, because interference in such cases would be A VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE, and, in all such cases, the aggrieved portion of the community must seek, and can find its relief in the application of the principle of responsible govern ment. The people can agitate and they can vote, and a people Avho can vote has in its hands the instru ment Avhereby to redress all its grievances, the Avea- pon to avenge all its Avrongs ; and those Avho believe, as I do, in the efficacity of responsible government know that these weapons are amply adequate, and that, Avith them, truth and justice Avill prevail in the end. If such be the rule for legislative acts, such must be the rule with regard to administration, because administrative acts are, as legislative acts, subject to the judgment of the people, Avho may pro nounce upon them in a regular Avay. Noav, as regards the Lieutenant-Governor, under the constitution, the laws says that he shall be removable for cause; but Avhat can cause be? I believe that these causes of removal can well be offences of a personal character, but never offences connected with the discharge of duties of an official character. If, for instance, the Lieutenant-Governor, by some grossly dishonourable conduct, brings the dignny of the Crown into con tumely, this and similar offences might be causes of removal; but, if he sticks Avithin the circle of his functions, however tyrannical his acts may be, he is not removable, because he is ON THE LETELLIER AFFAIR 101 COVERED BY MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY. He is amenable to the people, who can set him right, if they believe him Avrong,and undo what he has done. If it Avere otherwise, if the House had poAver to inter fere because the Lieutenant-Governor had erred in the discharge of his official duty, it Avould be an in fringement on the principles of responsible govern ment and an abuse of Federal rights. It has been stated, ever since this discussion has been commenced, that the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec acted arbi trarily, without the advice of his constitutional ad visers. If such be the opinion of this House, it was not the opinion of the Legislature of Quebec. The Legislature of Quebec on several occasions expressed its opinion that the act of Mr Letellier was within the exercise of his functions, and covered by Ministerial responsibility. The question has been brought several times before the House, and the opinion in each case has been precisely the same, On the 8th March last, a motion was made for a petition against Lieutenant- Governor Letellier, to be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, the Senate and House of Com mons. A point of order Avas raised upon the ground that the petition Avas injurious to His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor. The Speaker, on that occasion, gave the folloAving ruling : It is an essential principle of monarchical constitutional go veriiment that the Crown can commit no wrong. The Lieute nant-Governor represents the Crown in our Legislatures. It is therefore necessary that there should be, near the Sovereign, near the Lieutenant-Governor, advisers, Ministers, who always bear the responsibility which can never be laid on the Crown, and to the continuance of that responsibility there can be no limit. And although use is made of the term " Lieutenant- Governor " in the Adresses, as also in the measures submitted to the House, from the very nature of our constitution these words are addressed only to the Ministers who are responsible to the Assembly. The person even of the Sovereign, in his representative, is never brought in question. In the present case, the complaints contained, in the motion, apply 102 SPEECH to the advisers of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Go vernor, — and I must, therefore, declare it in order. And to his ruling, BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE ASSENTED. In the month of June last, the Legislative Council of Quebec — and I may say that there is not a more Con servative body under the sun — declared the same doc trine ; it Avas moved and agreed to " That His Excel lency the Lieutenant-Governor Avas advised to dismiss his Ministers in March last, at a time Avhen they en joyed the confidence of both branches of the Legisla ture ". Noav, here Ave have an opinion of both branches of the Legislature of Quebec that Mr Letellier was fully covered by Ministerial responsibility. I ask, therefore, if the act of Mr Letellier, so covered by Ministerial responsibility, is an act subject to the censure of this House? Can Mr Letellier be respon sible at once to his Ministers, Avho are responsible to the House of Assembly, and at the same time to the House of Commons? But it will be said that the res ponsibility of Mr Letellier's Ministers is a pure fiction. This fiction, however, is the very life of responsible government. If you do not acknowledge it this time, Avhat Avill prevent you from acknoAvledging it else- Avhere? If you acknowledge it this time.you are bound to follow it to its legitimate consequence, which is THE JUDGMENT OF THE PEOPLE and no other judgment. Now, it has been said that Mr Letellier's act has not been approved by the people. I desire hoav to say a few words on this question. In approaching this subject, I feel a good deal like a professor of a college, Avho once said he Avanted to prove, by a long disquisition, the light of the sun at noon. One pupil at once said it Avas sufficient for him to look at the sun. In a like manner, it will perhaps ON THE LETELLIER AFFAIR 103 be sufficient for honorable gentlemen to look at what now exists in the province of Quebec, in order to be satisfied that Mr Letellier's Government had a majo rity. When a vote of want of confidence was brought against the Joly Government, upon the Addre33, it is true that the motion was carried by a vote of 32 to 31. This vote, however, Avas taken not in a full House, and at that time another motion was immediately brought in, affirming the confidence of the people in the new Government, Avhich motion Avas affirmed in a full House. But that Avas not yet the best evidence. The best evidence is this : On the 8th March, Mr An gers, the ex- Attorney-General, moved the following amendment to the Supply Bill : — That the Bill be not now read . but that the reading thereof be suspended until such time as justice shall have been rendered to the majority of this House, in as much as, when the resolutions upon which the said Bill is based were adopted, the Cabinet charged with the public business enjoyed the confidence of this House and of the country, whilst the present Administration does not possess that confidence. Noav, Mr. Speaker, that was THE TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY. If an injustice had been done, there was a true legal remedy in the hands of the province. If the supplies had been refused, Mr. Letellier would have been com pelled to take back his old Government or resign his position. But, Sir, Avhen the neAv House, fresh from the people, elected upon this very issue, met again, the supplies were voted. Is there a man in this House who Avill say that justice has not been clone to the late Government of Quebec,since they themselves have been condemned by the tribunal to which they appealed ? I hold, Sir, that this motion, noAv in your hands, cannot be carried if there is any sense of justice in the House. The premises of the motion do not warrant the conclusion. In the language of the mover 104 SPEECH and seconder, it is expected this motion is to be a vote of censure on Lieutenant-Governor Letellier, to be promptly folloAved by dismissal. If Mr. Letellier had committed a crime, Avhat more could you do ? He is not charged Avith having acted arbitrarily, but only Avith having committed an uiiAvise act. Who would believe that an unwise act deserves such punishment as dismissal ? If the motion is carried, it Avill be the first time a great deliberative body shall have attempted to punish a man for an act which is repre sented as nothing but an error, AND NOT A WILFUL CRIME. The matter in dispute at the present time is simply relating to the exercise of the prerogative. Last year, the honorable the Premier did not dispute the prero gative, but he merely argued that the exe rcise of it was, in all cases, unconstitutional. The doctrine o f honorable gentlemen opposite has never yet been formally recorded in the British Parliament, and all the authorities have been, so far, contrary to it. There are numerous authorities to shoAv that the Sovereign, Avhatever his name be, can dismiss his Ministers for cause, and I Avould beg upon this subject to cite the opinion of Lord Brougham. He said this : If they were torn among themselves by endless dissen sions, if they differed from the Sovereign, if their measures were evidently ruinous, if dishonour abroad and disaster at home marked the whole tenour of their government, any of these might be constitutional grounds for their dismissal ; and, above all, if there happened to be a general feeling of distrust, and disapprobation throughout the country, that would be a sufficient ground for such a, procedure. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suppose Mr. Letellier had this authority in vieAV Avhen he dismissed his Ministry. I suppose he had in vieAV this, that he could dismiss his Ministry if there happened to be a general feeling of distrust and disapprobation in the country, and ON TIIE LETELLIER AFFAIR 105 that there was a general feeling of distrust and disap probation, the resul t of the appeal to the country has shoAvn; the fact that the dismissed gentlemen came back from the elections in an actual minority Avas sufficient evidence of it. If Mr Letellier acted upon this authority to j ustify him in what he did, who will dare to censure him? But it is insisted that he Avas not justified in the exercise of the prerogative. This doctrine, however, has not yet been found recorded in the journals of the House of Commons of England. Therefore, I say, Mr. Letellier has acted IN GOOD FAITH, and he has good authority to do Avhat he did. If he acted in good faith, though he may have acted unwise ly and unconstitutionally, Avill there be found a majority in this House to say this man is to be cen sured and dismissed because he may have acted unAvisely, Again, I appeal to the sense of justice and of fairness of honorable gentlemen from the sister provinces. It may be that upon this occasion, I would not be justified in making this appeal, but they have been appealed to in the name of liberty, and it is also in the name of liberty that I appeal to them. It would be a very serious thing for this House to step beyond its jurisdiction. I have cited from Lord Brougham to shoAv that the action of Mr. Letellier Avas justified. You may say that, thongh he has fol lowed the opinion of Lord Brougham, he has acted unwisely. So be it. He has appealed to the people and you may say the people have acted umvisely. I say, so be it again. But Avhat right have you TO SUBSTITUTE YOUR AVISDOM for the wisdom of the people of Quebec ? It may be that our notions of right and wrong may not be equal to the standard of other provinces, though I am not prepared to admit that. But, AA'hatever may be our 106 SPEECH standard in this respect, Avhether Ioav or high, what I ask in the name of the province to which I belong is that we should be governed according to our own standard — that we should be alloAved the privilege of being badly governed, if being governed by our selves meant bad government, but, at all events, to be governed by ourselves. This I ask in the name of liberty and self-government. There can be no doubt, Sir, of one thing, and that is that, if this mo tion is carried, it will be an invasion of the principles of federal government. It is a matter of regret, Sir, that this first attack upon federal government should have come from the province of Quebec. We Avere reminded, yesterday, by the honorable member for Halton, that, if Ave have today a federal form of government, it was OAving in a great measure to the peculiar position of the province of Quebec, Avhichis so different to the other provinces on account of its origin. I remember, at the time this system was put in operation, it Avas extolled to the sky for this very reason, that it gave to the people of Quebec a free, independent and untrammelled government. I have in my hands nOAV a pamphlet which Avas issued in 1867, as the campaign sheet of the Con servative party of the province, for the first general election Avhich took place offer Confederation. The very first page of the pamphlet contains this explosion of enthusiasm : Since the first of July, 1867, Lower Canada is now ruled under a new mode of government ; it is no more Lower Canada, it is the province of Quebec ; with this old French name, which has been restored to us, we have been given a French Gov- vernor, and all truly patriotic souls have thrilled with joy, and with a noble pride, when the newspapers have told us that the cannon in the old citadel of Quebec had roared its great voice to salute the first French Governor since 1760. We have been severed from Upper Canada ; our name is the Pro vince of Quebec ; we have a French Canadian Governor, the second since the establishment of the country ; we shall have our own Government and our own Parliament, where every thing shall be done by and for the French Canadians, and in ON THE LETELLIER AFFAIR 107 the French language. One must be a renegade, or, what is the same thing, an annexationist, not to he moved to tears, not to feel the heart beating with an indescribable joy and with a very legitimate pride, at the thought of those glorious results of the patriotism and the indomitable energy of our statesment of our political leaders, who, one hundred years after the con quest of the country by England, have decided the latter, already impressed by our heroism and our loyalty, to restore us to ourselves, to restore to us our complete antonomy, and to confide the sacred trust of our national traditions to a Gov ernment chosen amongst us and composed of our own people. Who do you think was the author of these lyrical strains ? Why it was no less than my honorable friend, the member for Bagot (Mr. Mousseau) quantum muta- tus ab Mo. Why the very man who thus rejoiced in 1867 that Ave had been restored to ourselves, that the sacred trust of our nationality had been confided to a Government of our own, that we had been separated from Upper Canada, — that very same man is hoav asking not only Upper Canada, but Nova Scotia, NeAv- Brunswick, and the islands of the Atlantic, and the islands of the Pacific, to come to our aid and pro tect the sacred trust with which we had been entrusted. I remember, Mr. Speaker, the time when our alliance with Upper Canada was looked upon AS THE BUGBEAR OF LOWER CANADA ; it was looked upon as a demoniacal alliance, the source of all our evils. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the honorable member for Bagot Avas in earnest at the time Avhen he so rejoiced at being relieved of an alliance with Upper Canada, and if he is in earnest now when he is as,king the people of Ontario, Nova Scotia, NeAV- BrunsAvick, Manitoba, and the other provinces, to take a part in our provincial affairs, he must feel somewhat like the man in the Scripture, Avho, having had a devil expelled from his body, had his body re entered by that same devil, and seven more. Now, Sir, if we, the people of Quebec, in Avhose favor this 108 SPEECH Confederation has been established, are to be the first to attack it; if Ave are to be the first to lay a sacri- legeous hand upon the sacred ark of our liberties, how long can Ave expect that the system will be main tained? If Ave are to be the first to attack the federal system, the gun of the citadel at Quebec Avill have again to roar its great voice, to ring the death-knell of our proAdncial liberty. Sir, I need not repeat here that the federative union of these provinces Avas effected on that principle, on account of our peculiar position in the province of Quebec; for this we are indebted to our felloAV citizens and to the mother country. I have often asserted, and I do so now, that Ave in Quebec will give way to none in our devotion to the mother country. There is not, on the face of the British empire, any class of Her Majesty's subjects MORE DEA'OTED TO THE BRITISH CROAVN than Her Majesty's subjects of French origin. The attachment Ave have for the British flag springs from a different cause from that of other British sub jects. But, if the cause be different it is equally powerful. The attachment of our felloAV- subjects of English origin springs from nature, while our attachment springs from the heart, from gratitude. We love the British flag, because under it Ave have found liberty and happiness. At the same time, Ave are the descendants of France, of that great nation which has placed itself, with England, at the head of modern civilization; we have derived from our origin peculiarities, characteristics, institutions, which Ave look upon as a national inheritance, and to Avhich Ave fondly cling. I am bound to say, Sir, that our na tional institutions have ever been respected by our felloAV-subjects of British origin, and I have no doubt that if the safeguards which we have in the fede ral system were removed, Ave would not experience from our felloAv-citizens any other than the uniform ON THE LETELLIER AFFAIR 109 kind and generous treatment that we have ahvays re ceived. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the circumstances which existed in 1867 STILL EXIST in 1S78 ; those circumstances Avhich induced our statesmen in 1867 to give us a federal form of gov ernment and not a legislative form still exist. Our legislators at that time thought it best to give us a federal form of government, more cumbersome and more expensive though it be, on account of the supe rior liberty Avhich it gives to the people; and so long as the system shall be in operation, it will be the duty of every patriot to see that its principles are main tained in letter and spirit. Looking upon this mo tion as I do, and as, indeed, it must be looked upon, as an invasion of the fundamental principle of Con federation, I deem it to be the duty, upon this occa sion, of every patriot to vote down this motion, Avhich, if carried, would strike a most severe bloAv at the principle Avhich binds these provinces together. AS AFFECTING SCENE IN THE HOUSE FUNERAL PANEGYRIC OF Mr. HOLTON On the 15th March, 1880, the Canadian Parliament was in mourning.Honorable Mr.IIolton,oneof the veterans and most distinguished figures of Canadian politics,had just died, and the Honorable Mr. Mackenzie, leader of the Opposition, attempted to panegyrize the memory of his old friend, but the task was too much for his strength, and, overcome with emotion, he re quested Mr. Laurier to continue in his stead. It is this touch ing scene, which is depicted in the following extract from the Debates : Mr Mackenzie : — I may say, Sir, that every one Avill join heartily in the very just remarks made by the honorable gentlemen opposite, and especially those who have long felt Mr. Helton's influence and known his excellent personal qualities. It is impos sible for those Avho have long been his associates in public life, to estimate the great loss that has been sustained by his own party, by the whole House and by the country. I look upon his death at this mo ment, as it Avould be at any time, as a national cala mity, and I feel that anything we can do, as his old colleagues in this House, to convey a sense of the impression we entertain of his great worth to the coun try, especially toAvards his bereaved family, should be done. I feel myself utterly unable to say (The honorable gentlemen was here so overcome as to be unable to proceed.) Mr Laurier: — If in vieAV of this great calamity, this great national calamity, I Avere permitted to 112 SPEECH speak Avith personal feelings, I Avould say that there is no one in this House Avho has more that myself reason to lament the death of Mr Holton. It Avas my privilege Avhen I Avas a very young man to become a friend of Mr. Holton ; and, from that moment up to the moment of his untimely death, many have been the occasions I have been able to appreciate the many noble qualities Avhich endeared him to all those avIio came in contact with him. Members of this House avIio kneAV him only as a public man, avIio could judge of him only from Avhat took place on the floor of the House, could appreciate his noble public qua lities — they could appreciate the loftiness of mind that prompted him in everything he did — they could ap preciate his entire sense of and devotion to duty, and the noble Avay in which he carried out his convictions of duty. They could appreciate also the vigour, exempt from bitterness, the moderation, exempt from Aveakness, Avith which he ahvays defended his convic tions. But they did not knoAV the whole man. Those, on the other hand, who had the advantage of his per sonal friendship, knew that his private virtues Avere on a par Avith his public virtues. They could appre ciate his unflinching attachment to his friends, his strong domestic affection, his large and tender heart, which revealed itself in everything whether great or small. He is noAV no more, and the best tribute that could be paid to his memory are the Avords which have fallen from the honorable First Minister's lips, '* that his loss Avould be almost as much felt by those Avhose vieAVS he combated as by those whose opinions he upheld." Though engaged all his life in active political struggles, though all his life a strong party man, yet there is satisfaction in the thought that in this country, where political strife entails much bitterness, he has not left one single enemy behind him. His loss will be mourned alike by his friends and politi cal foes, and all feel to-day that there is a gloom in this hall which darkens it and Avhich must darken it not only for this session but for many sessions to ON MR. HOLTON'S DEATH 113 come. Mr. Speaker, by none will his loss be more keenly felt than by his fellow-countrymen of French origin. All French Canadians, irrespective of party, feel that a man has departed from among us Avho was the connecting link betAveen many of the discordant elements in our midst. Our province has been the home of his choice and adoption. He had lived all his life among us, and mingled continually Avith us, and we ahvays looked upon him as as one of our selves. He was a man, Avho, in any station of life, would have naturally sided Avith the few against the many. His nature also prompted him on many occa sions to side with us French Canadians ; and his name in our province has become a household word, as also wherever the French language is spoken in Canada He is noAV no more, and all I can say is that his loss is irreparable. A Toast to tie French Academy REPLY BY MR. LAURIER THE FRENCH CANADIANS AND THEIR ANCIENT MOTHER COUNTRY. Mr. Louis Frechette, the most eloquent of the French poets of America, had been honored with the crowning of one of his works by the French Academy. On this occasion, his Quebec admirers entertained him at a grand banquet on the 17th November, 1880. All the intelligence and the elite of the society of the ancient capital,without distinction of nationality were present. Called upon to reply to the toast of the French Academy, Mr. Laurier spoke as follows : (Translation) Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, As the Chairman has announced, I have noAV the honor to propose the health of the French Academy. In inviting you to drink this toast, I do not think I am called upon to speak of the learned body, the focus of all the glories, the lawmaker of the language, and the supreme arbiter in litera ry matters. I mean the French Academy, as Ave know it. The Academy exists and that is sufficient ; it is needless to say anything more; its history is enough for us. But I Avould like to remind you of 1 16 speech the generosity Avith Avhich the French Academy, setting aside its oavii positive rules and hearkening only to the claims of kindred, has recognized the title of our poet, Mr. Frechette, to be regarded as a Frenchman and admitted him, though an Ens-Hsh subject,to participation in the competition open, accor ding to the Academy'-! rules, to French citizens alone. "Who has read Avithout emotion the account of the memorable meeting at Avhich Mr. Frechette Avas crowned ? Who has, unmoved, pictured to himself that gathering of the representatives of all that is eminent in contemporary France, eagerly scanning the features of the brother from beyond the seas, Avhom the Academy Avas presenting to their sympathies and admiration ? Who has, Avithout feeling the tears rise unbidden to bis eyes, read the speech of Mr. Camille Doucet, the perpetual secretary of the Academy, stating the objections that had presented themselves against Mr. Frechette's admission to the competition and the manner in Avhich they had been passed over. Mr. Fre chette was a British subject and by the rules of the Academy no one Avas permitted to compete unless he Avas a French citizen ; but these positive laws were set aside by the Academy and the foreign poet Avas admitted to the competition, the ground on which this was done being that, if Mr. Frechette Avas not a French citizen, he belonged nevertheless to a people of French origin and Avho, notwithstanding events, had remained French in heart and sentiment. Mr. Camille Doucet's supreme argument to justify the Academy in having admitted Mr. Frechette, in violation of its rules, to all the privileges reserved exclusively for Frenchmen, revived cruel memories, but shoAved that the Academy had Avell judged us. Mr. Doucet recalled a meeting held at Montreal in 1870, at the most disastrous stage of the Avar, to come to the relief of the French AVounded and at Avhich all present gave enthusiastic proof of their French origin AT TIIE FRECHETTE BANQUET 117 and their inviolable attachment to the fortunes of France. Alas ! gentlemen, the example Avas only too Avell chosen. Adversity is the crucible which tests all sentiments, and it Avas in the evil days of our old mother country that we felt how deeply Ave Avere attached to her and hoAv warmly Ave loved her. Gen tlemen, I take you to Avitn ess, if the wound left by that cruel Avar in the hearts of the children of Old France is in any respect more painful than the Avound left by it in the hearts of the children of New France ? It Avas when the first neAVS of the disasters of the French army reached us that Ave felt hoAv French Ave were. Who does not remember the spectacle, in those mournful days, of the whole French population of Quebec massed around the newspaper offices and Avaiting Avith painful anxiety for the telegraph to give them the result of the battles of the previous day on the soil of their ancient mother country ? Who does not remember the enormous crowds quivering with anguish and yet ready to thrill Avith emotion at the slightest ray of hope and only dispersing when the fatal truth was no longer in doubt ? And Avhen the final catastrophe occurred, Avhen we had to yield to the inevitable, and when Ave had to resign ourselves to the conviction that Alsace and Lorraine were to be torn from France, I appeal to your recollections, gen tlemen, if Ave Avere to be deprived of one of our OAvn members, Avas it not the truth that Ave could not have suffered more cruelly ? Since that time, we have Avaited Avith as deep a conviction and as firm a hope as those Avhom Ave persist in calling our brethren over the sea for the day of revenge. The age is no longer one in Avhich populations may be violently torn from their native country and annexed against their will to a government which is not a government of their choice. The time has passed when might can per manently overbear right. Descendants of the French race as Ave are and long accustomed as Ave have been to the amplest liberty as English subjects, though 118 SPEECH loudly and proudly under the shadow of the British flag proclaiming our French origin, Ave also have faith in thi3 inevitable justice of human things, to which an illustrious statesman referred not long since. More than one of us, at the sight of France so calm and so patient, has been led to hope, nay, to believe that the day will come when that old device of our country, which goes back to the early days of the colony and is still to be seen inscribed on one of our public buil dings, will be realized in Europe : Je suis un chien qui ronge l'os En le rongeant, je prencls mon repos ; Unjour viendra qui n'est pas venu Quand je mordrai qui m'aura mordu. As for us, gentlemen, we have our revenge already. After the final cession of this country to the Crown of England, our forefathers loyally accepted the neAv order of things arid made a voav to them selves that, if the occasion ever arose, they Avould spill their blood as freely for their new sovereign as they had done for their old ; but they promised them selves also that never should the French language, to the accents of which they had been rocked on their mothers' knee3, disappear from the continent of Ame rica. At present, after the lapse of a century, the French Academy honors us with the freedom of the city in the republic of French letters and proclaims in the face of the Avorld that not only does the French language still live amongst us, but that it is worthy of the Academy. There, gentlemen, is our revenge ; Ave ask no other. It is complete and Ave owe it to the French Academy. If it Avere possible for our voices to traverse space and cross, the ocean, Ave would send from this very hall to the French Academy the tribute of our grati tude. The thing is impossible, but Avhat is Avithin our poAver is to acknowledge on the spot our indebted- AT THE FRECHETTE BANQUET 119 ness to the valiant poet, Avho knocked at the doors of the Academy, was admitted, and came forth crowned ; for, gentlemen, Mr Frechette's success is not only a personal, but a national success. And a remarkable thing, as stated by our Chairman, Avhich proves the high estimate in which Avehold . liberty, in this country, it is not only those who speak Mr. Frechette's tongue who rejoice in his triumph ; our fellow countrymen of British origin rejoice as Ave do in his glory and claim their share ofit. Ought I to recall, however, that discordant voices were to be found among our own French fellow coun trymen ? I only mention the fact to remind onr gue3t that in, ancient triumphs, any one who felt inclined to do so was alloAved to act as the traducer of the reci pient of the triumph, but that it doe3 not appear that the latter's laurels Avere ever sullied thereby. History has preserved the names of the latter, but it has dis dained to speak of the traducer. I mention this fact as a reminder to all that admi ration of talent has never been and can never be incompatible with divergencies of opinion. This state ment may not, perhaps, carry much Aveight, coming as it does from one who has fought under the same ban ner and belongs to the same school of political .thought as he does ; but, for the benefit of those self-styled Catholics, Avho, in the name of religion, Avhen religion is in no sense in question, insult Mr Frechette's fame, I shall cite one example : Under the Restoration, there was one day, in the prison of Paris, a prisoaer confined for a political offence. He had been condemned for an offence cha racterized by the prosecution as an outrage against morals. His real offence Avas riddling with epigrams someAvhat too keen the reigning dynasty, of Avhich he was a declared enemy. One day a visitor, already advanced in years, but an ardent friend of the reigning dynasty, called to visit the prisoner._ Gentle men, the prisoner Avas Beranger; the visitor Avas 120 SPEECH Chateaubriand. Some years later, a new revolution had placed the younger branch of the Bourbons on the throne of France, and there was also a prisoner detained for a political offence. He had been con demned for publishing a neAvspaper article on the occasion of a press laAv. His real offence avus having manifested too openly his attachment to the fallen dynasty, the elder branch of the same house. One clay, a visitor called to visit the prisoner. This time, the prisoner Avas Chateaubriand ; the visit or was Beranger. Gentlemen, as you know, betAveen Chateaubriand and Beranger, there Avas nothing in common but talent. Both had in common Avhat Napo leon, in speaking of Chateaubriand, had termed the sacred fire. In every other respect, they were dissi milar. Beranger was not a Christian. Chateaubriand Avas profoundly Christian. Chateaub riand had pub lished a book, which, without contradiction, was one of the most eloquent and certainly the most coura geous defences of Christianity since Tertullian. Mr. Frechette's adversaries will admit, perhaps, that it required more courage and more conviction to write the Genie du Chrisiianisme, the clay after the French Revolution, than it does to make on every occasion a parade of orthodoxy in our good province of Quebec, in the year of grace, 1880. rl'^jYet, when Chateaubriand went to visit Beranger, he did not to pretend to thereby abdicate any of his religious convictions or to become responsible for Beranger's opinions. He Avas simply the man of ge nius paying homage to genius. It is a consolation for humanity to knoAV that there are higher spheres in which lofty minds can meet on common ground, Avithout being exposed to the lamentable bickerings and divisions of daily life. Here, gentlemen, is the idea Avhich inspired - this meeting. Those, who are gathered to night around this festive board are here to pay homage to Mr. Fre chette's talents as a poet and to prove that they es teem above all that incomparable French language, AT THE FRECHETTE BANQUET 121 in the use of Avhich, according to the evidence of the Academy, Mr Frechette is the equal of the best in France. Gentlemen, I have again«the honor to propose the health of the French Academv. The Constrnction of the Pacific. CRITICISM OF THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO WITH THE SYNDICATE. (Speech made in English by Hon W. Laurier, in the House of Commons, at its sitting of the 21st December, 1880). Mr. Speaker, The contract now before us, and which the House is asked to sanction, is the last and croAvning conse quence of the principle laid doAvn ten years ago by the Government then in power, when they introduced the Canadian Pacific Railway scheme,and which Avas : that this railway should be built immediately and without interruption until its completion, It must be clear, from the remarks of the member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Ives), with regard to the position of the two great parties, that, at the outset, the ground taken by the Conservative party Avas this : the rail road should be built immediately, and Avithout inter ruption till finally completed ; Avhereas the policy of the Liberals Avas that it should be built gradually as the wants of the country should require and its re sources permit. The reason urged by the leader of the Conservative party for the immediate completion of the road was, that it was a necessity of Confederation which would otherwise remain incomplete. If it was, it was not a necessity of Confederation as primarily established ; nor was it a necessity that sprang from any natural cause. If it Avas, hoAvever, such a neces- 124 SPEECH sity, it is perhaps the severest commentary upon the policy followed some years ago of creating Avhole provinces out of the Avilderness, and of endoAving them with all the institutions and luxuries Avith Avhich pro vinces Avith large populations must be supplied, while in these cases there was scarcely any population. Honorable gentlemen opposite Avill remember that they received ample Avarning not to create that state of things Avhich would bind this country to the imme diate completion of the road. They were reminded that if they did so they would be putting a burden on this country too heaA-y for its strength to bear ; but they did not heed these warnings, they forced their followers to vote for this policy, and now, as a croAvn- ing consequence of that policy, their foiloAvers are asked to consent to the enormous sacrifices involved in this contract. If I recall these facts, it is without any intention to recriminate. This is not the time of recrimination, it is the time of all others Avhen every man should apply himself to discharging his duties to the best of his lights and conscience. Sir John A. Macdonald : — Hear, hear \- Mr. Laurier: — If I recall these facts it is simply to say once more, if such evidence is necessary, that the great principles of a country are never to be tri fled Avith ; that the true principles Avhich should guide the policy of a nation should never be deviated from, because, IF ONCE DEVIATED FROM, the country will be led from consequence to conse quence ending in a most fatal conclusion. In my humble judgment, it Avas in 1871 a fault — I will not say it Avas a crime,though I might say Avithout sever ity it was a political crime — at all events it Avas a fault to blind this country to the immediate construc tion of the road. It was a fault, last session, after the ON THE PACIFIC CONTRACT 125 experience of the previous ten years to persist in that policy. It Avas a fault not then to have adopted the policy suggested by the honorable member for West Durham (Mr. Blake) of commencing in the east, and building. this road gradually as the resources of the country would permit. That the undertaking to build this railway until final completion Avithin a short term Avas a vicious policy, to soy the least, is fully proAred by the conduct of the Government since they have entered office. It is proved by their hesitation and vacillation in carrying out their scheme Avhen the necessity of carrying it out was forced on them, and it is further shoAvnby the present contract. What has been the policy of the present Government ? In less than three years they have CHANGED THEIR POLICY THREE TIMES. The first year after they had resumed poAver, they came before Parliament Avith a great scheme — a neAv idea — and the idea Avas that this road should be hence forth considered as an Imperial work that the Impe rial authorities should be asked to contribute to it, because the surplus population of the Empire Avould find homes in the North- West. This idea was accepted by the followers of the honorable gentleman as a masterpiece of policy. It was represented as such by the party orators and the press ; yet, good as the idea was, it did not last. It Avithered as the flowers of summer, but was immediately replaced by another scheme which Avas submitted last session. The prin ciple of this scheme Avas that the lands should pay for the building of the road. This scheme was accepted by the followers of the honorable gentleman with the same enthusiasm as was the first, yet it also met an early fate. It did not last, and no wonder. When the Government brought doAvn this plan, a feeling- found vent in the resolution moved by the present leader of the Opposition. The resolution, it is true, was voted down, but I think Ave can survive it. Many 126 SPEECH honorable gentlemen opposite, Avhen voting down that resolution, strove hard to conceal under a smiling face a heavy heart. I think we can survive that, because the Government, immediately after the ses sion Avas over, abandoned the very policy which they had called on their folloAvers to support. Yet some thing had to be done. The Government were IN A DILEMMA, for if they went on to carry out the Avork, they might cripple the finances of the country to a degree almost beyond remedy. If they did not go on with the Avork, they Avould be going back on their old policy. What Avas to be done? Like the Avizard in the tale avIio found his oavu life in constant danger from the fangs and claws of the strange progeny Avhich he had reared, they, too, had created a monster that threa tened their oAvn destruction. What Avas to be done? They Avent to Europe. They offered their Avhite ele phant for sale in the markets of Paris and London, but no one Avould accept it even as a gift. Finally, they had to take the beast home, Avhere they gave it a vast territory to roam over, made it impossible for any other being to go into the pasture, and then they found somebody Avho Avas Avilling to relieve them of this ever recurring cause of anxiety. That this pro posed arrangement is a vicious policy is well proved by the language Avhich the Government used to induce their supporters into voting in favor of this contract. What was the answer they gave to the numerous objections raised against it ? It was sim ply this ; do not criticize but accept the contract ; it is the best Ave could get. In order to shoAv this clearly I cannot do better than quote on this subject the very Avords Avhich Avere used the other day by the honorable Minister of Public Works : Well, Mr. Chairman, in this case we have not to deal with only one party, we have to deal with the syndicate. Those ON THE PACIFIC CONTRACT 127 gentlemen are the one party and Ave are the other. We have to make a contract with them for the building of this road,shall we say to them, you must take that or nothing ? That is not the way contracts are made. You have to give and take. You have to take into consideration the exigencies of the case. You have to see whether your terms are acceptable to the other party, and after reasoning the matter Avith the other party you will find that he is right, and your proposal is not sufficient, and if you have to give more lands or money, other conditions, the result is that you have to agree to give aud take on both sides to prepare the contract and sign it. That is what we have done. Here is a contract, and we say it is the best we can do. Is this the language of a free Government, of the executive power of a free nation ? What has seized the Government of this country that they have been compelled to accept this contract from the Syndicate ? Who in the world compelled the Government to nego tiate with the Syndicate? What great calamity has befallen this country that the Government sliould be compelled TO SURRENDER UNCONDITIONALLY to the Syndicate? If there had been a Avar and Ave had been defeated, and the Government forced to accept from the victor such terms as suited him to enforce, and if the Government came here to have the treaty ratified, would their language have been different to that used in order to induce their supporters to accept the contract ? When, in the year 1871, at the termi nation of the disastrous war Avith Prussia, the Provi sional Government of France met the neAvly elected Na tional Assembly and presented to it the treaty con cluded Avith Germany, by Avhich France ceded to that country two of its best provinces, some of the mem bers protested against the clauses of that treaty. And Avhat Avas the language of the French Government in reply? It was exactly the same as used to-day by our Administration ; accept the terms, they are the 128 SPEECH best we could get. France had been defated in war and lay crushed under the iron heel of the victor; our Government had not been defeated, but were bound in the shackle3 of their oavu vicious policy. After having spoken the language Avhich I have just quoted the honorable Minister of Public Works went on to say : " I believe it is to the advantage of the country that Ave should saAre the money of the coun try by adopting these resolutions, and I hope the an swer "will be " Yes "from all our friends ". This is the crowning consequence, and the followers of the Gov ernment are this time asked to give the final " Yes " Avhich Avill plunge this country INTO AN UNKNOWN EXPENDITURE. Yet I am free to confess, since the Government are determined to go on with the construction of this railway at once until completion, the idea that it should be built by a company is one Avhich has a great deal in it to commend itself to the people of this country. But for the very reason given by the honorable Minister in the early part of his speech, there were difficulties in the way. He said : Bat although the country stood by us, and a large majo rity of the members of this House sanctioned the action of the Government, nevertheless, it would be childish to conceal that there was a possibility of apprehension for the future. The feeling was this, that the uncertainty about the amount of money that would be required to build the railway was dis turbing the public mind. Xoboiy could say positively what Avould be the liabilities of the country, or how many millions would be required, not merely to build the road but to work it, and to work it for all time to come. The honorable Minister might have added that the public mind Avas also disturbed by the necessity of the Government having still to go on letting out contracts, and seeing that contracts already made were carried out. Such were, Mr. Chairman, the rea- ON THE PACIFIC CONTRACT 129 sons why the country favoured the policy of handing this Avork over to a company. But have these expec tations been fulfilled by this contract? This contract is a policy Avhich does not meet any of the reasons advanced in its favor by the honorable Minister. The country expected that by this contract the Govern ment would be relieved of the necessity of letting out new contracts and seeing that old ones are carried out. For ten years to come they have TO PURSUE THE SAME SYSTEM which they pursued in the past, and which caused anxiety in the public mind. The people of this coun try expected that their liabilities for constructing this road would be settled. But this, I believe, aho is denied. They cannot be settled for this very rea son that the Government must pursue the same course which it pursued before. For ten years to come it must go on letting out contracts, and the liability will be settled only Avhen ten years hence the Avork has been completed. So that this is a hybrid engage ment which fulfils none of the engagements it Avas expected to fulfil. It would in fact so appear, as it were, a sort of partnership betAveen the Government and the company. There are four sections of the road to build, the company builds tAvo sections, and the Government two sections, and those the most difficult. The company completes in ten years, and the Govern ment completes in ten years, and at the end of the ten years the whole is to be handed over to the com pany. Not only that, but Avhile the Government is doing the Avork of the company, the company is to have all the privileges of the Government. The com pany can import as free as the Government can. The company is exempted from taxation as the Govern ment is. The company has the further privilege of fixing its OAvn tolls almost Avithout the possibility of hindrance or interference on the part of the Govern ment. I say almost the possibility of interference, 9 130 SPEECH for I confess that under the letter of the contract there is a possibility of interference. But when is the Government to interfere? Only Avhen the company has realized ten per cent on the cost of constructing the road, Avhich cost ie estimated on the other side at 878,000,000. As to the privilege given to the company of importing their materials free, that has perhaps more the nature of a family quarrel among honorable gentlemen on the other side of the House, and. there fore, I shall have nothing to say upon it. As to the exemption from taxation, that is A FAR MORE SERIOUS MATTER, and one Avhich should engage the attention of this House. It has been contended on this side of the House that this exemption from taxation, coupled witli the other advantages and privileges given io the company, Avill give almost a monopoly of the North- Weft Territories into the hands of this company. This assertion has been replied to by gentlemen on the other side. But under this contract the road-bed, the station grounds, rolling stock, capital of the company, are to be for all time, for all generations to come, exempted from all sorts of taxation ; from federal taxation, if ever such a contingency should happen, from local taxation Avhen local governments are organized, from municipal taxation Avhen muni cipalities are established. If Ave consider that this company is thereby given an unfair advantage over every other company avIio try to compete Avith them, it will be seen that it Avill be difficult to secure com petition Avith them. Thus the company have, therefore, the privilege to hold these lands and, like the dog in the manger, to prevent any one using them except themselves ; and they have also the privilege of fixing their own tolls so as to obtain extortionate profits out of the settlers of the North- West. It must be evident, Mr. Chairman, to every dispassionate observer, that this is a monstrous monopoly, and one that Avill ON THE PACIFIC CONTRACT 131 make the company landlords of the North-West. I use that term advisedly. It is true that it is not in the poAver of this company to establish such institu tions as Avould amount to feudalism, in the sense in which it exists in Europe, and Avhich it needs almost a convulsion to get rid of ; but feudalism is not the only mode by which populations can be enslaved by a combination ; it is not the only mode by Avhich the many can he made THE TOY OF THE FEW. Nor can it be contended that, on this continent Avhere we claim to be free, Avhere Ave claim to have got rid of feudalism, no large combinations can be attempted Avhereby men can get dishonest terms out of the toil of others. We have the fact already before us; we were told the other day by the honorable leader of the Opposition, that, at this very day, the railway magnates of the North-West extort such enormous profits from the settlers of the country for carrying their goods to market that it practically amounts to their having proprietary interests in their farms, and the settlers are thereby deprived of the best part of their profits. This may not be feudalism in name, but is it not feudalism in substance and in jact? Then, Sir. here is another feature of the vicious policy Avhich has been followed hitherto. Without venturing any expression of positive opinion, it may be a question, Avhether. if the road, instead of being built, as it is noAV contended it must be built, had been gradually and step by step constructed, as the necessities of the country might require, it might not have been a consideration Avhether it should be built by a subsidy of lands and money, or whether the Government of Canada should proclaim to the world that the needy and poor of the Avhole Avorld could find free lands and free soil throughout the whole of the North-West, and that they should be enabled to obtain the best market prices for their products. 132 SPEECH Perhaps, if that system had been folloAved, there might, in a few years, have been A FEAV LESS MILLIONAIRES in this country, but there Avould have been a much greater number of happy and contented homes. But another system has been followed. TAventy-five mil lion acn-s of land are to be given to this company.and are to be locked up at the option of the company. The result of that policy must be the same in the North- West as it has been in every place Avhere Ave have had land companies. The immigrants will first settle upon the lands of the Government, upon the homestead and the preemption lands; but, after a certain Avhile, when they commence to be crowded, both from out side and" within, they will squat upon the lands of the company, and then one of tAvo results must fol low — either 'they will be ejected by the agents of the company, or they will be compelled to submit to the extortionate terms that Avill be forced upon them by_ the company. We know Avell that the majority of the settlers will be poor, that the majority of them will have no other means, no other capital, than their able bodies, and we knoAv well, by experience in the past, Avhat exertions it requires for such settlers to pay up the instalments on their farms, Avhen they have to supply.the requirements of their families and to furnish their farms. Moreover, by-ancl-bye, muni cipal governments Avill have to be organized in that territory, roads Avill have to be laid out and opened, and vet this company cannot be taxed for these roads, Avhich will be a constant source of litigation and bitterness in the country. Against all this, what have we ? What is the safeguard, Avhat is the guarantee, that Ave have against the possible, I should rather say, the certain evils of the proposed system ? We have, ns a guarantee, only the good will of the com pany itself. It has been asserted, on the other side, that the present members of the company are men of ON THE PACIFIC CONTRACT 133 the highest character, and certainly every one may assent to this ; but if the men who noAV constitute the company are men of the highest character, Avho knows who will be the members of the company ten years hence, five years hence, or even six months hence ? Who can say that, six months from to-day, this company Avill not have not gone to JNew-York, and, for a money consideration, bartered its interests TO FOREIGN CAPITALISTS, given them the privilege of locating the line them selves, and of still further oppressing the settlers on the company's lands, in order to recoup themselves for the consideration they have given to the com- pmy? But, Mr. Chairman, Avhoever may be the members of this company, Ave knoAv that they are of the human race, and it is a Avell knoAvn fact, and one illustrated by the Avhole history of mankind, that men in every station of life, where they are not check ed by positive laAVS and regulations, Avill abuse their position to the detriment of others, if they can gain any advantage by it. And Ave have an example of the Avay inAvhich this company will treat the settlers by the manner in which they have treated the Govern ment. They have driven a hard bargain Avith the Government. They, have obtained the most onerous terms from the Government ; and if they have extort ed these onerous terms from the Government, what is it for ? Is it for the pleasure of gaining a moral vic tory over the Government, and making no use of it, or is it not to make the best use they can out of these onerous terms, to make the land they obtained Avorth to them all they can make out of it ? On the Avhole therefore,the position of the settler in the North We^t, Avill be, under this contract, the position of a Tanta lus, before a Avell dressed table, at which he cannot satisfy his appetite. The settlers cannot settle on the lands which are close to them, without submitting to the terms of the company. 134 SPEECH Mr. Plumb — They will settle on the Government lands alongside. Mr. Laurier. — But I presume the honorable gentleman does not suppose the population of this country should be confined only to the Government lands. Look at this matter in any way, and it is this : that you create A MOST MONSTROUS MONOPOLY. We,from the province of Quebec, knowAvhat a mono poly is,and I call the attention of my colleagues from that province to our experience under that monopoly. I knoAV in that province we had a bitter experience of the seigniorial rights, and Ave had to try hard before Ave could get them abolished. There was a monopoly of the right to establish mills held by the seigneurs, and Ave Avanted the right extended to the people at large. I am free to say that if that privilege had been refused us by the legislature, it might have caused a rebellion. I think every province of the Dominion has had its land company. There has been one in On tario, one in NeAv BrunsAvick, one in Quebec, and une in Prince EdAvard Island; and I am quite certain I can appeal to the experience of every honorable mem ber of this House from this province to say that the results of these monopolies have been everywhere and at all times the same, namely, to retard settlement and press heavily upon the energies of the settlers ; that they have everywhere been a curse and a bane. This has been the case Avith regard to land companies Avhich have not one-tenth of the poAvers which have been granted to the Syndicate by the present con tract. It is said : and I have been reminded by the honorable member for Niagara(Mr. Plumb), that there are blocks of land reserved betAveen those which have been granted to the company. We have reports to the effect that Ave have 250,000,000 acres more land in that country, though Ave have not such accurate in formation as yet as will enable us to be absolutely ON THE PACIFIC CONTRACT 135 certain upon that matter. HoAvever, I am quite ready to believe that Ave have 200,000,000 acres space in that country ; but when we deduct from that the land cov ered Avith lakes, streams and marshes, the mountains and hills, the barren lands, and those Avhich are un fit for settlement on account of climatic conditions, lands which are only fit far grazing purposes, and we further deduct the portion Avhich belongs to the Hud son's Bay company and those reserved for school pur poses, AVHAT WILL REMAIN FOR OUR SETTLERS over and above the 25,000,000 acres allotted to this company ? Looked at from whatever point of view you choose, there is not a single redeeming feature in the gigantic monopoly which has been given to this company. There is another objectionable feature in this contract— not perhaps objectionable per se, but rendered so by the nature and condition of the country at the present time. This contract forces us to go on immediately Avith the construction of the road along the north shore of Lake Superior. We are all agreed that a Canadian Pacific Railway must be built on Canadian soil. We all agree on this point. Mr. Langevin :— Hear, hear! Mr. Laurier: — I do not think there are two opinions in regard to that matter. Mr. Langevin : — Your leader differs from you. . Mr. Laurier :— No; he says that Ave should go on Avith the building of the road as the requirements of the country may demand. I have never heard expressed here the opinion that the Canadian Pacific Raihvay should not be built. The only point upon Avhich there is any disagreement is as to the expe diency of building the Avhole road at once, or only as rapidly as the wants of the country may require.^ I think it must be perfectly manifest that this section on the north shore of Lake Superior is not required at the present time, that its construction miglit be 136 SPEECH ADVANTAGEOUSLY POSTPONED Until some future period, and that it would be quite sufficient, at present, to build the eastern section as far as Sault Ste Marie. The fertile plains of the west .-are separated from the east by an extent of barren territory in the region north of the Lake, while it happens that the route along the southern shore Avould pass through some of the best lands on the •continent— through several of the most important States of the Union. Would it not be better, under those circumstances, to bring the road immediately to Sault Ste Marie, tap the American system of rail ways, and secure not merely the trade of our oavii North-West, but a large share of the traffic from those States. This is so evident from a geographical point of vieAV, that I will not stay to discuss it. There are two policies before the House at the present moment. The policy of the Government is : that the road shall be constructed at once on the north shore of Lake Superior. What would be the consequence of carrying out that policy ? There would be no communication by that road Avith the Eastern raihvays for ten years to come ; and though Ave may secure the incipient trade of our OAvn territories we Avould lose the traffic from the North- Western States of the Union. The other policy Avould be to bring the line at once to Sault Ste Marie, thus securing us immediate connection, not only Avith the North-West, but Avith the American raihvays. Can any one hesitate for a moment in the presence of that policy ? What reason can be urged for the adoption of the route along the north shore of Lake Superior ? Though the question has thus far been discussed entirely in an unsectional spirit, I think I might Avell enquire which of these tAvo policies will be_of most benefit to my oavii province ? The immediate connection of the road to Sault Ste Marie Avould at once carry over the railway system of Quebec the trade of our OAvn North-West and of the American North- Western States as well— a state of things which ON THE PACIFIC CONTRACT 137 Avould prove of immense and obvious benefit to the cities of Montreal and Quebec. But this is not the primary reason for the adoption of the line by way of Sault Ste Marie. This road AVOULD HELP OUR PROVINCE to get out of the financial difficulties by which it is at present beset. That province has now a debt which exceeds $15,000,010 ; this year it has been compelled to borroAV $4,000,000 more, and this Avith the pressure of constant and annually increasing deficits. It is a matter of anxiety to every inhabitant of Quebec hoAv these deficits are to be met, but so far it has been found impossible to devise a means by Avhich they can be Aviped out.. Our resources have been pledged, to the fullest extent, and they have not that elasti city which AA'ill enable us to avail ourselves of them in the near future. Our only resource will be the direct taxation of our people unless Ave are so happy as to find a means of increasing the traffic of our rail- Avays. Unless that relief comes within a short period, the financial prospects of Quebec must be held to be critical, indeed. If the road to Sault Ste Marie was constructed, instead of having to Avait for ten years, Ave should have, within a period of tAvo or three years, at the utmost, the benefit of the trade of North- Western Canada and the United States ; and it must be evident to every honorable gentleman from Quebec that that traffic Avould be of material assistance to our province in its present financial condition, I do not say that that assistance Avould be sufficient to lead us out of pre sent difficulties, but it would leave the present and future of our Province not so dark as it is at the pre sent moment. I Avould appeal upon this question to my felloAV-countrymen from Quebec avIio are sup porting the Government. We have often been told, by the supporters of the Government in LoAver Canada, especially by the press, of the immense influence Avhich these honorable members have with the Admin • 138 SPEECH istration, that they have only to come and ask AAdiat thev Avant and they will receive it at once. They would almost have us believe that the Government occupy the position of the servant mentioned in Scrip ture, who came Avhen he was told to come and Avent Avhere ha was told to go. If these gentlemen have so much influence Avith the Government, now or never is their opportunity of exercising it to the great benefit of their province, and for the purpose of avert ing injury to the Dominion, for I hold that the adoption of this contract Avould be a great calamity to the Dominion at large. IT IS A DELUSION, because it Avould not remove any of those inconve niences expected to be dispersed ; because it leaves the Government Avith the same inconveniences that were experienced in the past Avith the former system, and adds to them other and greater. It is a danger, because it threatens to create, upon the free soil of this country, a monopoly Avhich may at some time or another be a cause of trouble to the peace and harmo ny of this country. This is the contract of Avhich Ministers are so proud, that the mere remembrance of connection Avith its inception and execution they feel proud to leave as a legacy to their children. My wish and hope is that the legacy may be as pleasant to their offspring as to the parents. I am quite sure it will, because Ave know it is a law of human nature that Avhere the affections are strong and love prevails even faults are accounted merits. I think it Avas the Minister of Public Works Avho stated that this con tract Avas calculated to enrich our country, increase our population, and secure our free institutions. How it is to achieve all these results is not to my humble perception quite visible. As to its securing British institutions in this country, I Avould be sorry indeed for my country if they Avere dependent upon the con- ON PACIFIC CONTRACT 139 struction of a railway, whether of gigantic or diminu tive proportions. British institutions rest in this country upon a surer foundation; they are impressed upon the minds and hearts of our people, because this land, inhabited as it is by men differing in creed and origin, and whose fathers were once separated by dire national feuds, have secured under those insti tutions freedom, equality, amity and good will. But Ministers should remember the fact, Avhichthey seem to forget, that those institutions that have secured us our present blessings, ARE THOSE OF THE 19TH CENTURY, and not those of an earlier time, the relics of barbari an days. If honorable gentlemen opposite are de sirous of securing British institutions, they must in troduce into the legislation of this country the broad spirit of modern England, and not seek to establish those monopolies which at this day pr,ove so many thorns in the side of England, great asshe'is. Let them look at the country they pretend to admire, and they will see what deep and firm roots abuses will strike into the soil, and Avhat toils, labors, miseries and sufferings, such abuses can produce to the people of that country. They have examples of this kind be fore their eyes at this very day If this contract is to be judged in the light' of modern British ideas and principles, it carries Avith it it3 death -Avarrant, and the only duty that remains for this House to perform is Bimply to reject it on the first opportunity. Tlie Hoa. Edward Blake at Montreal THE MEMORABLE BANQUET OF 1881 MR. LAURIER PAYS HOMAGE TO HIS LEADER On the 29th March, 1881, Honorable Edward Blake receiv ed a great ovation at Montreal. The Young JLn's Reform Club, all the English and French youth of the Canadian metro polis, joined in giving a grand banquet in his honor at the Windsor Hotel. The festivity was attended with extraordinary eclat, the number of guests present being larger at least by a hundred than at any of the finest public banquets previously given in Montreal. Mr. Blake, escorted by Mr. Maelaivn, pre sident of the Y.M.R. Club, took his seat at the table d'honneur, having alongside of him Honorable Messrs. Laurier, Mercier, Huntingdon, Langelier Laflamme, Thibaudeau, Joly, Marchand and a crowd of members, public men and leading citizens: Messrs. Holton, J. Scriver, R. Prefontaine, J McShane, F. ft-. Bouthillier, II. A. Nelson, W.Prevost,Jacques Grenier, Proctor, Hagar. Brown, IT. Lyman, JLHodgson, P. H. Eoy,.Tames Stewart, F. X. Archambault, A. E. Poirier, A. Favreau, Jos. Duhamel, &c. The masterly speech delivered by Mr. Blake on the occasion was reproduced by the whole Liberal press of the time ; we now reconstruct from notes taken at the banquet Mr Laurier's reply to the toast of ¦' the House of Commons." Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen, There have been feAV occasions in my life on Avhich I have felt so much genuine satisfaction as in sitting doAvn at this table to-night. 142 speech You have called upon me to reply to the toast of the House of Commons and I comply Avith the greatest pleasure, for it enables me to give expression to the sentiments Avith Avhich my heart is overflowing. The immense satisfaction I feel does not come from the fact that the city of Montreal, the city which our adversaries have been pleased to ever regard as their stronghold, has been the first to hail the new lea der of the Liberal party ; nor does it arise even from the very legitimate emotion of the personal and political friend at the spectacle of this enthusiastic public ex pression of sympathy for the great ability and the not less eminent character of Mr. Blake. No, this intense satisfaction rather springs from the fact that this demonstration is the inspiration and work of our young men, that the youth of this coun try are the first to hail the neAv leader of the Li beral party, and that that youth, true to the generous instincts of their years, thu3 proclaim their adhesion to the ideas of the Liberal party on the very morrow of a session during which, in Parliament, those ideas Avere crushed by the weight of a compact majority. You have proposed the health of the House of Commons. We are the party of reform and I drink to the reformation of the present House of Commons, in the hope that, Avhen it passes though the crucible of another election, the signal note sounded here to night by the young men of Montreal Avill find an echo and that, in the neAv House of Commons, Mr. Blake's policy Avill be triumphant. This, however, is only a hope. Those present here this evening do not hesitate to believe that that policy is the policy of the future. But should it be victorious at the next elections or should it even not be victorious in our day is another question — a question Avhich is only of secondary importance for us. We do not concern ourselves to knoAV whether we shall gather the fruits of the seed we are noAV soAving or whether they shall be gathered by our successors ? For the moment, Ave only see one thing, that the AT THE BLAKE BANQUET 143 cause which is dear to us all, the cause Avhich Ave believe just and true, is, despite the transcendent ability and character of our chief, in a disastrous minority among the representatives of the people. Once more, this is not Avhat concerns us. Be that cause strong or Aveak numerically, it is the cause of right and justice. The young men Avho hail Mr. Blake on the morrow of the session, do not look to Avhat Avas the success of his efforts. Moreover, it is the the nature of generous souls, of youth especially, to not prize success, but rather the cause and Ave can proudly exclaim with the ancient poet : Viclri.v causa diis placuit, sed vie la Caloni. Young men of the Montreal Liberal clubs, young English Canadians, young French Canadians, you all'the organizers of this demonstration, it Avould be, perhaps, misplaced on my part to offer you thanks. fttill I cannot resist the pleasure of doing so. In this age of universal egotism, Avhen even the young do not ahvays escape the contagion, it is consoling to see that you at least have remained faithful to the enthu siasm and the disinterestedness which from time im memorial have been the glorious appanage of youth. lam happy to note this fact, for, to my mind, the first duty of the Liberal party is to regenerate the public sentiment of the country. Nothing could be more deplorable or more disas trous than the state of degradation into which politics have fallen. As I speak, there is in this province a great party in Avhich each act done or word spoken is only clone or spoken in view of the personal benefit of the doer or speaker. If they go beyond these Avails, the views which I am now expressing will, perhaps, be furious ly assailed and their truth angrily disputed ; and my statements, perhaps, will be treated as a slander. I nevertheless reiterate Avhat I have asserted and for their truth, I appeal not to you, gentlemen, but to 144 SPEECH our adversaries themselves ; I make this appeal, not to Avhat is uttered publicly, not to Avhat is printed for the galleries, but Avhat is fearlessly and frankly ad mitted in the secrecy of friendship, and there, gen tlemen, you know, for Ave have all heard it repeated ten, twenty, a hundred times, those Avho still regard political honor as something, those Avho still believe that patriotism is not a Avord Avithout meaning, those whose hearts are touched and ttrongcst emotions a- roused by the word country, are treated as simple tons, the true policy , in the opinion of the strong, positive minds, who look cIoavii upon them for their guilelessness, being to ahvays speak and act in vieAV of the profit derivable from each word or act. Gentlemen, I have no need to tell you that if in politics Ave only keep in view our individual interests, if each act, each word, has to be measured according to the benefits derivable therefrom, then Ave are not worthy to be a free people. Ala"! if those Avho laid doAvn their lives on the battle-field or this scaffold had shared the views of the contemporary school, had calculated their acts and their Avoids according to the new rule, instead of dying as they died, they would have lived on the favors and largesses which the bu reaucracy of their day would have been only too glad to shower upon them, and our people would still be a p°op.le of slaves. Alas! the times are greatly changed, but is it necessary to repeat that there is no salvation for a country unless its citizens remain faithful lo it and place the public over private interest ? The party, Avhich has governed us almost without interruption for tAveuty-five years, has forgotten these great truths. It has ruled by pandering to cupidity and by putting personal over general interests. Its appeals unhappily have found only too wide an echo. The policy of this province has been shaped not in vieAV of the public interest, Avhich should alone be the pole star of the true patriot, but in view of individual interests. And now, look at the result ? We are on AT THE BLAKE BANQUET 145 the brink of an abyss, the depth of Avhich is unfath omable, and it is evident that, in a few years, the country will find itself face to face with a frightful financial situation. What Avill be the upshot of this fatal state of things ? We see the evil well enough, but Avhere are Ave to look for the remedy ? With a debt of many millions, a limited asset, an exhausted credit and not even the honor, Avhich is the last resource of those who have none, Avhat remains to us Avith Avhich to confront the situation ? I trust I may be mistaken in predicting that the province will probably have to pay with the loss of some of its constitutional liberties for the crime, Avith which I charge the party in poAver, of not having governed for the country, of not having alone consulted the public interest, and of having sacrificed the public cause to personal cupidity. For our part, Ave, Avho claim to continue the work of the men Avho conquered the constitutional liberties which Ave to-clay enjoy, we, Avho claim to be follow ing the path traced out by those grand figures Avho still shine out in our history, by those who loved their country to the extent of dying for it ; Ave only seek, like them, in the share Ave take in public affairs, the greatest possible sum of good for the counlry. What Ave have to contend against at present is this1 dissolving tendency to only consider personal interest, Avhich leads to venality, to the debasement of consciences, to all those infamies of the recent past and to all the dangers Avhich are looming up in the near future. Once more, I say that, if the public cause is not Avorth the greatest efforts of which Ave are capable, Ave are not Avorthy of being a free people. The Liberal party has nothing to hold out to those Avho march in its ranks. We are in the mino rity, and Ave have no favors, honors, lucrative places or high-sounding titles to distribute. We cherish a legitimate ambition to triumph and to see Mr. Blake at the head of this country, but, if Ave hope for its 10 146 SPEECH AT THE BLAKE BANQUET gratification, it is not for the individual profit Avhich each of us may derive from the circumstance, but for the good of the country at large. °1'!Il|I do not pretend to be indifferent to the posses sion of poAver. Under our system of government, the possession of pOAverand its accompanying advantages are the legitimate reward of the victorious; but the first and the principal object is to struggle for what Ave believe to be just and true, whatever-may be the upshot of our efforts. The heroism of those Avho died on the battlefield simply for the honor of their country is remembered Avith emotion. The last charge made at Reischoffen by McMahon's cuirassiers, riding to their certain and, so to say, useless death, is recalled with emotion, be cause it Avas a last sacrifice to the fortunes of France. Well, if the soldier gives up his life for his country, is it too much to expect the citizen to sacrifice a few material advantages for the sake of fidelity to what he believes to be his country's cause ? As for us, once more I repeat that our leaders have nothing to offer individually and Ave look for nothing from them. Our adversaries may not know it, but Ave know Avhat the noble pride of being honor able in our own eyes is worth, and Ave also know the worth of the proud pleasure of owing nothing except to ourselves, of expecting nothing except from our selves, and of being patriots in deed as well as in name. The Ontario Boundary Question THE DECISION OF THE ARBITRATORS IN 1882 FAVORABLE TO ONTARIO, BUT REJECTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ME. LAURIER'S SPEECH IN FAA'OR OF THE AAVARD OF THE ARBITRATORS The following speech deals with a subject of interest not only to the people of Ontario, but also to those of the province of Quebec, whose northern boundary is not yet determined. Before the annexation of the North-West, it was perfectly understood that the territory of Ontario extended to beyond Port Arthur and the Lake of the Woods. But since the annexa tion, the Federal G-overnment disputed the legality of this boundary, which would have taken away Algoma and a vast region fiom Ontario and very nearly provoked troubles and acts of violence in the disputed territory. The Mackenzie Cabinet proposed an arbitration, which was accepted ; but, when the arbitrators made their award, Sir John A Macdonald, who had in the meantime returned to power, refused to submit to it. Recourse had to be had to the courts ; and Honorable. Mr.Mowatt, Premier of Ontario, carried the affair to England, where he pained his cause. .411 these difficulties and judicial expenses would have been avoided, if in 1S.N2 the advice given 148 SPEECH by Mr. Lnuripr in thpse terms, at the sitting of the House of Commons on the 4th April, 1882, had been followed : Mr. Speaker, The resolution is noAv'in your hands, and all the honorable gentlemen avIio have addressed you from the opposite side of the House, strongly insist upon the propriety of treating this question from a purely legal point of vieAV. Acting themselves upon this principle, they have attacked, at great length, the award rendered by the arbitrators to Avhom the deci- ' sion of this question Avas confided by the Governments of Ontario and of the Dominion. They have dissected this aAvard minutely and have come to the conclusion that, had they sat on the commission, they Avould have reached a different decision from the one rendered by the arbitiators. They have piled up arguments, disquisitions and opinions, to establish that the arbitrators greatly erred Avhen they decided that the word " northward " in the act really means toAvards the north, whereas, in their opinion, it means simply north and nothing more. Well, everybody knoAvs that in the past there has been no more prolific cause of discussion than THE SIGNIFICATION OP AVORDS. In listening to-day to the learned and elaborate disquisitions of the honorable gentlemen opposite upon the meaning of the Avords " dowmvards " " nortliAvards ", and " due north," I was strongly reminded of a letter Avhich is to be founa in the appendix of the Avork of the hon. member for Bothwell, Avhich was addressed by the Marquis de Torcy to Lord Bolingbroke, on the 25th December, 1712, at the time when the negotiations for the treaty of Utrecht were going on. The letter of the, Marquis de Torcy complained that too much weight was put by the British plenipotentiary on mere Avords. He wrote: ON THE ONTARIO BOUNDARY QUESTION 149 ':In the name of God, Sir, order your plenipotentiaries to be less excellent grammarians. Ours, who also understand the force of Latin expressions, are out of patience, Avhen they see difficulties Avhich have been long adjusted started again, and the difference be tAveen cession and restitution, and the meaning of those terms. In truth, Sir, such questions ought not to be the amusement of honorable men. They are, at best, excusable in those to Avhom we may apply the epithet amantium inte. Finish those disputes Avhich, if they continue longer, will only profit our enemies. " Well, there is nothing neAv under the sun, and one would really think that this letter Avas written expressly for the purpose of the present discussion, and if Ave substitute the words " north " and " due north " for the words " cession " and '" restitution " it Avould exactly apply to the present case. In truth, such questions ought not to be the amusement of honorable men unless thejr are excusable as being amantium irae. On this side of the House I may say that we have no patience Avhen Ave see difficulties Avhich have been long since adjusted revived again by the honorable gentlemen opposite ON THE FRIVOLOUS PRETEXT that the meaning of the Avords " north " and " due north " Avere not properly understood by the arbi trators. This question has been sett'ed. Why should it be opened up again ? But Avhat Avould be the benefit of opening the question? If, however, it is to be opened, Ave are just as anxious as are honorable gen tlemen opposite that the question should be treated exclusively as a legal one and should be approached in no other spirit except a judicial one. But let me ask tho ie honorable gentlemen, Avho have urged on the House the propriety of treating it as a purely legal one, whether in such an event they have the right to criticize the award rendered. If they are sincere in their opinion, and I believe they are, that 150 SPEECH the question shall be treated simply as a legal one, be approached only in a judicial spirit, can they ignore the great fundamental principle in matters of arbitration that an award is binding on both parties and cannot be questioned, except for cause? And what is the cause in this case— Avhat causes can be ad duced for refusing to submit to the aAvard ? The answer is, that the arbitrators have erred. The only cause adequate to contest the award is this : it lies Avith the party challenging the aAvard to shoAv there has been fraud on the part of the arbitrators or that it is grossly unjust. This is a fundamental principle which no one Avill gainsay. Yet no fraud is charged against the arbitrators — they are above suspicion. No sub stantial injustice is charged. What is charged against them is this : that they may possibly have erred and taken a Avrong vieAV of the case before them. This cannot be brought as a charge against the award and unless honorable gentlemen opposite are prepared to Bay there has been fraud on the part of the arbitrators, or that shocking injustice has occurred, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT to revieAV and criticize the award as they have done. Although no charge of injustice is brought against the aAvard, or fraud against the arbitrators, yet sonae objections are made by honorable gentlemen opposite. What are those objections ? The first is that the refer ence of the question to arbitrators, Avhich was made by the late Government, Avas made Avithout the sanc tion of Parliament ; and this they hold to be a fatal objection. In law and in fact this contention is un founded. The honorable member for BothAvell has shown conclusively that it Avas Avithin the power of the Crown to make such a reference. It may be said that such a prerogative of the Crown would hardly obtain under our constitution ; the most punctilious Avill reply that the reference was made with the au thority of Parliament. It Avas, hoAvever, not made ON THE ONTARIO BOUNDARY QUESTION 151 with the authority of Parliament couched in an Act; but the authority given by Parliament Avas just as if it had been given by an Act. It is Avithin the recol lection of many honorable members that during the late Parliament the question was often referred to on the floor of Parliament. Not only so, but in the ses sion of 1878, $15,000 Avere voted by Parliament for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the commission Avhich had been charged with the settlement of the Ontario boundaries. I ask any fair-minded man if Parliament could have sanctioned anything on more binding terms than it did when it voted the necessary money to carry out the expenses of the commission. Could the authority have been more binding if Parlia ment had passed an Act to refer the case to arbitration ? If these honorable gentlemen will look upon the que3- tion as a purely legal one— if they will look upon it in a judicial spirit, such as they invite us to do, they cannot come to another conclusion than that Parlia ment could sanction the action of the Government, and therefore the argument which we have heard so often repeated in this debate falls to the ground. It remains indisputable that PARLIAMENT GAVE ITS AUTHORITY in the most open and binding manner that it Avas possible for Parliament to do. Another objection made against the aAvard is this : it is said this is a legal question and being a legal question it ought to have been settled by laAvyers and courts. Noav, sir, I cannot concede that the authority of the gentlemen avIio rendered the award is to be questioned because they did not all happen to belong to the legal profession. No one Avill presume to assert that justice, fairness and knowledge are the exclusive endoAvments of lawyers. We saAv a few days ago, in a committee of this House, doctors of divinity arguing questions of laAv as ably and as skilfully as any lawyer could have done, and I am satisfied that every one must 152 SPEECH admit that the arbitrators were endowed Avith all the qualities necessary to render such an aAvard as Avould satisfy the most punctilious. First Ave have Mr. Jus tice Harrison, Avhose lofty character and ele ar and cool legal acumen shone so conspicuously in his career; then Ave haAre Sir Francis Hincks, Avhose fer tile and versatile talents eminently fitted him forsuch a position ; and then Ave have the British Ambassador, who, by his profession, his occupation, by his know ledge and character, Avas just as well fitted to deal with such a question as an)r professional man could havre been. For my oavh part. I protest against the asser tion that questions of law should ahvays be settled by the laAV courts. I say that the interests of society do not require that questions of law should always be so decided. The most trivial disputes that arise be tAveen men involve questions of laAv, but the interests -of society demand that these disputes should be settled, if possible, by the contending parties, or, fail ing in this, by arbitrators appointed by mutual agreement, but that ONLY AS A LAST RESORT should they have recourse to courts of laAV. Another objection is made against the award.lt is said that the arbitrators have not solved the questions, but that they have made a compromise betAveen the questions submitted by the respective parties. Mr. Speaker, it is very strange that such an assertion should be made, and so often made on the floor of the House, Avhen every man should hoav know better than to make such an assertion. Sir Francis Hincks declared in his lecture, delivered at Toronto, that no compromise was made; that the arbitrators had ¦ applied themselves to the task Avhich devolved upon them ; that after hearing the arguments each sepa rately took the case and separately came to the con clusion which was come to in the aAvard, and that award was therefore the unanimous expression of the ON THE ONTARIO BOUNDARY QUESTION 153 conclusions arrived at separately by each arbitrator. I do not cite thiu declaration ol Sir Francis Hincks because it can have any bearing on the case, but simply for the purpose of protesting against assertions which are persistently made when they should not be made, because they have no foundation in fact. It is impossible to carry on the public discussions of this country if honorable gentlemen persist in basing arguments on assertions which are denied by the facts; but what, after all, is there in the assertion, if true, that the arbitrators have made a compromise? Sup posing they made a compromise on the contentions submitted to them, what objection can the honorable gentlemen make to that fact? Honorable gentlemen opposite seem very tender-skinned on that question. They say that the boundaries between Ontario and Canada exist by law, and that ihe Parliament of Great Britain alone is the poAver that can change these boundaries. To this proposition I am disposed to assent, but if this boundary exists by laAV, AVHERE IS IT TO BE FOUND ? It exists by law, but the law is not clear upon that point ; and, supposing the arbitrators made a com promise, does any one pretend to say that they thereby sacrificed the rights of Ontario or the rights of Canada? If the arbitrators had taken the conten tions of either party and had said : "We Avill not admit the one proposition or the other ; but will take a little from one side of the case and a little from the other. " Who can say that they took away any rights that belonged to either? But whether or not this view be correct — whether the question was solved as a compromise or as a question oflaAV -at all events there is the aAvard, and it is binding unless you can shoAv a better objection to it than has yet been brought forward. Of the award itself I will say nothing; it has been so ably defended by my honorable friend from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) that it Avould be prepos- 154 SPEECH terous in me to add a word to what he has said. More over, I do not see the necessity of defending it. It does not require to be defended, and the objections offered against it are of the most frivolous character ; and, supposing the proposition now before the House should carry and that the question should be referred to the Supreme Court or Privy Council, does any one suppose that the decision of whatever tribunal it miglit be brought before Avould satisfy every one con cerned? No, Mr. Speaker ; there are objections to the aAvard ooav, and there Avould be objections brought against the decision of any other tribunal before Avhich it might be carried. I think it is Jean Jacques Rousseau avIio said that no tAvo men ever discussed a question Avithout each remaining more convinced of his own opinion than before the argument began. So it is in every law court. Where is the judge that can satisfy both parties ? The loser ahvays thinks that he has been wrongly treated. So it would be if this ques tion were referred to the Supreme Court. I shall not touch upon the merits of the aAvard, but I say it is an aAvard BINDING ON BOTH PARTIES, and that it is the duty of both parties to receive it and carry it out in its entirety. In speaking thus, I am perfectly Avell aAvare that I shall be violently attacked in my oAvn province by the members of the Conservative party. Honorable Members: Hear, hear ! Mr. Laurier, I see that I have not mistaken the spirit of honorable gentlemen opposite. I see that I have not mistaken the views of my honorable friends opposite. I know their prejudices too well, not to knoAv in advance Avhat their argument will be; I knoAv that it will be an appeal to the baser prejudices of my felloAv-countrymen. But, Sir, I have too much respect for the justice of my countrymen to fear the effect of those appeals. Two years ago, Avhen a motion ON THE ONTARIO BOUNDARY QUESTION 155 was made to appoint a Committee to investigate the award, I, in common with some of my friends on this side of the House, voted against such a Committee, because we believed then, as we believe noAV, that the question had been settled, and that it should not be again opened. We were attacked then, as we shall be attacked now ; it Avas represented that we had sacrificed the interests of our province for the sake of Ontario. It would seem to these honorable gentle men that to do justice to Ontario means to sacrifice the interests of Quebec. It must be remembered that this award grants nothing to Ontario but what Onta rio had before ; it does not pretend to give any addi tional territory to Ontario ; it pretends simply to award to Ontario the territory to which she is entitled. But Ave Avere represented as the enemies of our pro vince. Let me tell honorable gentlemen opposite, what I have often said elsewhere, that THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF TO-DAY are not the party that Avere led at one time by Sir George Etienne Cartier. Some honorable members : — Oh ! oh ! Mr. Laurier : — Will the honorable gentlemen, who now take so strong objection to my language, pretend that on this question they hold the vieAvs that were held by Sir George Cartier? Do they not know that Sir George Cartier, in many State papers signed by himself, granted to the province of Ontario far more territory than is granted to her by this aAvard ? In order that there may be no doubt on that point, let me refer them to the despatch signed by Sir George Cartier and his then colleague the honorable member for Halton (Mr. McDougall) on this very question. As honorable gentlemen remember, when the DaAvson route was opened in 1869, strong objection Avas made by the Hudson's Bay Company against the Canadian Government opening a route through the territory betAveen the Lake of the Woods and Red River 156 SPEECH because they said it was invading their rights. To this Sir George Cartier and Mr. McDougall made a reply, in Avhich they declared that, Avhatever doubt might exist as to the limits of old or French Canada, no impartial investigator could doubt- that they extended to and included the country betAveen the Lake of the Woods and Red River. I have no doubt that if Sir George Cartier Avere still leading his party he Avould bold the same opinion, and I venture to say that this question would never have been raised, but the aAvard Avould have been carried out. If there Avas a quality for which Sir George Cartier deserved to be admired, it Avas his courage, and, next to his courage, his fairness to an adversary ; and, knowing him as Ave once knew him, I say he would not have gone back on his Avord, but would have given whatever justice Avas clue to Ontario ; and I repeat again, that those gentlemen Avho are proposing to erect a monu ment to Sir George Cartier are slapping that very monument Avhenever they raise any objection against the award. I find that the honorable member for Halton, a few months afterwards, as Avell as Mr. Cau- chon, in 1867, Avhen he was a member of the Canadian Government, also took the ground that the territory extended AS FAR AS RED RIVER. If this question is referred to the Privy Council, in what position will the Canadian Government stand? They will stand in this position — that Avhen it was to their interest, when they Avere fighting the Hudson's Bay Company, to claim that territory, they did so, and that noAV, Avhen it is to their interest, they are asserting the very reverse. It may be that the Privy Council Avill hold their position to be legal, but cer tainly, if it is legal, it will be neither honorable nor dignified. But let me refer to the position of my fel- loAv-countrymen from the province of Quebec. When it was asserted Ave were sacrificing the rights of our ON THE ONTARIO BOUNDARY QUESTION 157 province, it was objected that the territory of Ontario was already great and that this aAvard made it still greater; and it Avas added that if a large population settled there Ontario Avould have a large preponder ance of poAver in the Dominion. Now, let us sup pose that the question is opened aneAv. The aAvard may be set aside, and it may be that Ontario will be increased to the extent claimed as her right by the Dominion Government, or it may be ihat the territory of Ontario will be increased to the extent claimed by Ontario, and granted by Sir George Cartier, namely, to Red River — what then? You will have the pro vince of Ontario made greater than it is by the award. As for a large population settling in that territory, does any one suppose that this will be realized for a hundred years to come ? Wh -it immigration will go into the rocky country so long as the vast prairies in the North-West are to be filled up ? The fear is per fectly chimerical. THE WHOLE DISPUTE lies in the interpretation of the Act of 1774. The honorable member for BothAvell argued that the pro vince of Quebec, as constituted in 1774, Avas comprised within the following limits : To the east by the ocean, to the Avest by the Mississippi River, to the north by the Hudson Bay Territories, and to the south by the lines Avhich have been described. On the other hand, it is contended by the honorable members for Niagara, Richmond and Wolfe, and Provencher, and in fact by all' honorable members opposite Avho have spoken on this subject, that the term ''northward "applies to a line to be draAvn due north from the junction of the Mississippi Avith the Ohio; and that this astronomical line Avas to be the western boundary of the province. The honorable member for Bothwell argued forcibly that, if that contention Avere admitted, the province of Quebec, which Avas then constituted, Avas left Avithout any boundary on the north. If this contention be 158 SPEECH ON THE ONTARIO BOUNDARY QUESTION true, where is the northern boundary of Quebec to be found ? If none was provided in the Act of 1774, it must be that established by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. In that case, it Avould be a line passing through the middle of Lake St John. This territory has always been claimed by the Province of Quebec, and at this moment the Government of that province are making great efforts to settle a large population there. I do not say the contention of the honorable member for BotliAvell is right, but I say that, if you deny Ontario the boundary she claims, she may deny Quebec her northern boundary, and those sectional cries, which at one time were thought to be forever destroyed, Avould be reneAved. The question having been settled ought to remain settled. There is no occasion to open it anew. I do not fear the appeal that will be made against me in my own province on the vote I intend giving. I have no hesitation in saying this award is binding on both parties, and should be carried out in good faith. The consideration that the great province of Ontario may be made greater I altogether lay aside as unfair, unfriendly, and unjust. This is not a question of expediency, it is A QUESTION OF JUSTICE I do not grudge to Ontario the extent of territory declared hers under this aAvard, and Avhich does not constitute even the Avhole of Avhat she is entitled to, according to the opinion of one of the most learned and industrious of my countrymen. The eternal prin ciples of justice are far more imiiortant than thousands or millions of acres of land, and I say, let us adhere to those principles of justice, and in so doing Ave will have the surest foundation for securing justice on every occasion. A QUESTION OF AUTONOMY THE RIGHT OF THE PROVINCES TO LEGIS LATE AS REGARDS LICENSES Is Confederation a disguised legislative union ? In 1883, the Federal Government had attempted to take away from the provinces the right to legislate in the matter of licenses for the sale of spirituous liquors. This encroachment upon the rights of the Provincial Legislatures was so self-evi dent that,at the very next session(1884)a supporter of the Gov ernment itself, the late Mr. Houde, proposed the repeal, pure and simple of the usurping law. The following speech by Mr. Laurier on the occasion perfectly sums up the whole debate : Mr. Speaker, In vieAV of Avhat has been stated by my honorable friend from Quebec Centre (Mr. Bosse),I must refer to to the language Avhich Avas made use of last year by the Government and contrast it Avith their language of to-day. It is within the recollection of everybody, and has been mentioned several times to-day,that last year the Government proposed this legislation, which it is now sought to repeal, under the absolute plea of necessity .The Prime Minister stated that there was no SPEECH 160 laAv to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors ; that all the laws Avhich have been passed by the provinces were null and void, and that at any moment any man could open a shop, and there were no power on earth to prevent him from selling liquor. In vieAV of the atti tude taken by my honorable friend, the Avords of the First Minister, though they have been already quoted in this debate, will bear repetition. The Prime Mi nister then said : That subject was not willingly undertaken by the present Government. They were quite satisfied that the law, as it obtains in the different provinces, should be continued. They were quite satisfied that each province should, so far as the law would allow it to enact such statutes, deal with the sub ject of shop, tavern and saloon licences. Then later, the right honorable gentleman, speak ing of the decision in Russell and the Queen, said: Sir, if there be any value in that decision, and there is every value in it, because it is the law of the land, there is no check at the present moment, in the province of Ontario, a- gainst the unlimited, unrestrained sale of intoxicating liquors. This is not a matter we can play with, it is not a matter of policy ; it is a matter of necessity. If we wish te prevent the unrestrained sale of intoxicating liquors we must legislate im mediately ; for I take it, that any man in this city, or in any part of Ontario, can open his saloon and sell liquors,and there is not a court in the world can prevent his doing so. Mr. Speaker, this Avas very stkoxo language. and it Avas owing to this language that that law was put upon the Statute Book. It is Avithin the know ledge of many members of this House that it was with the greatest reluctance that many supporters of the Government, especially those representing Quebec contituencies, voted for that laAV. They looked upon it asan infrigement upon the rights of the provinces, they looked upon it as an infringement of the power which rightly belong to the provinces. But when ON THE LICENSE ACT OE 1883 161 they Avere told by so high a constitutional authority as the Premier ofthis Dominion that all the laws, Avhich had hitherto regulated the trade in liquors, were null and void, that the provinces had absolutely no poAver to legislate upon this matter, that the only power to legislate upon this matter resided with this Parlia ment, that any man could open shop and sell without restraint, the consequences Avere appalling, and the prospect Avas such that they yielded to those considera tions and enacted that laAV. - 1 venture to say, Mr. Speaker, Avithoutfear of contradiction, that had it not been for the strong language used by the Prime Mi nister, had he not given it AS HIS DELIBERATE OPINION — and his opinion was entitled to great credit — that the provinces had no right to legislate upon this mat ter, this bill Avould never have become law. But his authority was great Avith his folloAvers. It Avasso great that it induced a great many of his folloAvers to vote for that bill, against what they believed to be the best interests of the provinces. There can be no doubt, in vieAV of Avhat has since transpired, that that obnox ious legislation has been obtained, as it were, under false pretences. There can be no doubt that the opi nion then expressed by the First Minister Avas Avrong. It is now judicially established that the provinces have the poAver to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors. Thi3 cannot be longer disputed. No one can say, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Hodge, that the provinces have not the power to regulate the liquor trafic. On the contrary, the decision has been rendered upon that very point — it Avas the only ques tion submitted to tbe Privy Council, and upon that verv point the Privy Council has rendered a decision which is clear and manifest; and the decision is to this effect, that the regulation of the liquor traffic is within the poAvers assigned under the constitution to the provinces. It seems to me that, under such cir- 11 162 SPEECH cumstances, when the Government declared last year that the only motive Avhich impelled them to legis late, was that the Legislatures had no such power. they should have been sat sfied to leave the matter within their control. They should declare to the House that they have been in error and AVILL RESTORE THAT POAVER to the provinces. That course Avould seem to be ob viously the correct one ; yet what do we see ? Do Ave see the Government rising in their places and saying : We thought the provinces had no poAver, but now we see that the provinces have the power ? No ; they say : Ave want to test Avhether we have not the same power as is possessed by the provinces. That is the position taken. I venture to say this : the true in- Avardness of this legislation is not to be found in Mi nisterial explanations or in the language of Ministers, but it is to be found in the Conservative press of On tario. Anyone who has followed the Conservative press of Ontario for the last few years is aAvare that since the granting of licenses has been placed in the hands of commissioners appointed by the Provincial Govern ment, complaints have been loud and frequent a- gainst that system. Complaints have been loud and frequent that the commissioners were paitisans. Some honorable members. : — Hear, hear! Mr. Laurier : — I see the complaints are even re peated in this House. I believe that the true inward ness is not only to be found in the Conservative press of Ontario, but also in the folloAving of the First Mi nister from Ontario. If Ave have this law placed on the sta tute book, it is simply because these complaints have been loud and many. I am sure that every disappointed tavern-keeper AAdio has been refused a license has declared that it Avas because he belonged to the Conservative party ; that every Ioav and disso lute man, whose application Avas refused, did not ON THE LICENSE ACT OF 1883 163 place the reason at his OAvn door, but at the door of the commissioners, and complained that the reason accusations were brought against him was because he was a Tory. The reason we have for this measure is SIMPLY FOR PARTY GAIN and advantage. It is to have the issue of licences placed in the hands of commissioners appointed by the Conservative Government. I believe if it Avere not for that consideration, Ave would not have had this law. The placing of the present laAV on the statute book is, in my opinion, an attack on the powers of the provinces. What is the amendment moved by the Minister of Public Works ? It reads as follows : That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that the question of the competency of Pajliament to pass the Liquor License Act of 1883 should be submitted, with all convenient speed, to the Supreme Court of Canada or the Judicial Commit tee of the Privy Conseil, or both. Why is this amendment moved, I ask? Is there any doubt as to the power of the provinces to legislate upon this matter? I could conceive the propriety of the amendment, if it were still an open question as to whether the power to regulate the liquor traffic belongs to the provinces or to the Dominion. That Avas the question last year. But this year, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Hodge, can it be doubted any more, is it not, in fact, determined that the provinces at this moment have poAver to regulate the trade. Is it not now a certain fact that all the legislation passed by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec is laAv withim those respective provinces ? But the aim of the Government, Avhich last year would have been satisfied to let the matter rest with the provinces, noAV wish it to be tested whether they themselves lhave not also the poAver which the pro vinces possess. What is the question involved in 164 SPEECH the amendment ? It is to determine whether the Act passed last session is laAV or not. I say, and I submit it to my colleagues, from Quebec especially, that the amendment is an assault on the rights of the provin ces. We have this fact on the one hand, which should not be lost sight of, that at this moment and according to the decision in the case of Hodge THE LEGISLATION OP THE PROVINCE is laAv. If the amendment is carried, Avhat will be the result? We Avill have the question submitted to the Privy Council as to Avhether the Act passed by the Dominion is not also law. It has been Avell argued by the honorable member for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot) that the poAver to legislate upon this matter cannot be confirmed. If it rests with the provinces it cannot rest with the Dominion, and vice versa. It is noAV deter mined that it rests Avith the provinces. Suppose the question which it is intended to submit to the Privy Council be ansAvered in the affirmative, andjudgment be rendered that the law passed by the Dominion last year is valid and Avithin the poAver of the Dominion Parliament — Avhatthen? The consequence will be that Ave shall have a double power having authority to deal Avith this matter — the power already admitted as being possessed by the provinces, and that which would exist in the Dominion. Then we Avould have tAvo poAvers legislating concurrently in this matter the Dominion power and the Provincial power. If the Dominion has power to legislate in this matter and the provinces have the power also to legislate, what Avill be the consequence? The consequence will be that the legislation of the Dominion Government will override the legislation of the provinces, and the poAvers which the provinces noAV exercise must dimin ish. It is quite manifest that if this law, which it is.in- tended to refer to the Privy Council, is an attribution of the Dominion, Ave will have tAvo concurrent powers t» legislate over this matter, and what Avould the conse- OX TIIE LICENSE ACT OF 1883 165 quencebe? The consequence must necessarily be that the power of the provinces would be curtailed by so much, that all the legislation which now exists in. Ontario, Quebec, and the other provinces of the Do minion, Avould be overridden by this laAV, and the laAvs Avhich are noAV administered by the provinces, to the benefit of those provinces, Avould be superseded by the Act passed last year, on the plea that they Avere compelled to pass that Act. Let us see the road Ave have travelled since last year. Last year the laAV was introduced as a matter of necessity ; it was not a matter of policy. It Avas not the desire that the Do minion should have power to legislate over this matter; the Government Avere Avilling that that poAver should be retained by the provinces. But Ave find that Avhat was last year a matter of necessity is this year A MATTER OF POLICY, and it is sought to have the question determined Avhe ther this Dominion cannot also have legislation in this matter. In my humble judgment, this is an in fringement upon the poAvers of the provinces. It can not be otherwise; and I ask the attention of those who value this Federal system, Avhen I enquire if the ob ject of the amendment is not, in the end, to deprive the provinces of the right Avhich legitimately per tains to them to-day. Now, this is a serious matter, in my humble opinion. Itisastep towards legisla tive union, as has well been said this afternoon. I say that every successful attempt made, on the floor of this Parliament, to deprive any province of any poAver now exercised by that province, hoAvever insignificant that power may be, is a successful step in the direc tion of legislative union. Noav, I am well aAvare that legislative union is more in the favour of many mem bers ofthis House than a federative union. I know that many honorable members would vieAV the change to a legislative union without any alarm Avhatever. 166 SPEECH For my own part, I believe that the federative system is the best of all systems which can be devised to gov ern this large territory. We are all aAvare that the fact of our having the present system of Confedera tion is largely due to the peculiar position of the pro vince of Quebec ; it is largely clue to the fact that the elements to be united Avere not homogeneous. It is possible that if the elements bad been homogeneous, the union would have been a legislative and not a federal one, but, Avhether or not, those elements were all homogeneous, I still submit that the best system, THE ONLY SYSTEM by Avhich to govern this great territory, is a federa tive, and not a legislative union. Upon this question let me quote the opinion of a man Avhose ideas, I am sure, Avill commend themselves to, and Avhose autho rity Avill be respected by all the members ofthis House, and especially the members of French origin. I refer to Montesquieu, Avho, in his "Spirit of the Law " speaks thus : If a republic be small, it is destroyed by a foreign force; if it be large, it is ruined by an internal imperfection. To this twofold inconvenience democracies and aristocracies are equally liable, whether they be good or bad. The evil is in the very thing itself, and no form can redress it. It is, therefore, very probable that mankind would have been, at length, obliged to live constantly under the government of a single person, had they not contrived a kind of constitution, that has all the in ternal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical government. I mean a Confederate' republic. This form of government is a convention by which several petty States agree to become members of a larger one, which they intend to establish. It is a kind of assemblage of societies, that constitute a new one, capable of increasing, by means of further associations, till they arrive to such a degree of power as to be able to provide for the security of the whole body. Now, it is to be remarked that at the time ' Mon- OF THE LICENSE LAAV OF 1883 167 tesquieu wrote these Avords, the woilljiad not seen the large Confederation which has since sprung up on this continent. At the time he thus Avrote, the only Confederacie.3 which he touched upon in his book Avere the Dutch Confederacy, the Swiss Confede racy and the German Empire. Noav all these three put together would not exceed in size one of our pro vinces, and any one of them singly Avould not exceed the size of one of our counties, and the clangei'3 Avhich he then fore3aAV, and which were obviated by this form of government, are magnified by the magni tude of our territory. According to that authority, it Avould be impossible to govern these large territories extending from one ocean to the other, by a single government, unless, indeed, that government were despotic, in which case THERE WOULD BE RUPTURE. But our system obviates all these difficulties ; our municipal and provincial divisions, our Federal system, all these Avheels within wheels constitute a mechanism, Avhich is at once elastic and strong. Therefore, I say that this system is the best which can be devised, and it behooves every man in this Parliament, every friend ofthis country, to see that no attempt is made upon this form of government. I can well understand the conduct of the present Pre mier ; but I confess I am surprised at the attitude taken by the Minister of Public Works and by some of the members from the province of Quebec. I can understand the attitude of the Premier, because I do not think it is slandering him to say that his prefer ences are not in favour of a federative union. I believe it is a matter of history that at the time the provinces were united, if that honorable gentleman had it in his power to stamp the constitution Avith his full mind, the bond of union Avould not have been a federative but a legislative one. It is a matter of history that the men whose ascendancy at the time 168 SPEECH prevailed were Sir George Cartier and the Honorable George Brown. It is a matter of history that it Avas through their combined efforts that the constitution received the federative character which it did receive. They Avere both in favour of a federative union, and they Avere both at the head of large majorities, each one from his OAvn section of the country, and their efforts prevailed in that direction. I believe I can also say that it is a matter of history that ever since, and especially since the honorable gentleman returned to power, he has endeavoured to forward legislation Avhich is GRADUALLY SUPERSEDING the federative character of this union and making it a legislative union. The outAvard forms are main tained : no letter of the laAV is attacked, but gradually and surely neAV principles are introduced, neAv features are added, and, though the superstructure is untouched, there is underneath it an interpretation of the intent of that constitution which makes it just as much legislative in its character as if it had been so made and decreed. You remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Roman legislator never changed one single syllable of the laAV of the tAvelve tables ; but, by means of edicts successively introduced, the Roman legis lator introduced a new code of laAvs which, hoAvever, left the laAvs on the tables intact. The honorable gentleman is following a similar course, though with a less laudable object. The vetoing of numerous laws admittedly Avithin the power of the provinces to enact, the present attempt to take from the provinces legis lation which belongs to them, and which has judi cially been determined to belong to them, the new Franchise bill, which we see looming up in the future, are all attempts in the same direction — in the direc tion of legislative union — and if all these measures are carried we will be nearer and nearer to a legis lative union. If the same course is persisted in, ON THE LICENSE LAAV OF 1883 169 unless it is checked by the members of this Plouse, Ave shall have by-and-by a Confederation in name, but a legislative union in fact; the Local Legislatures will be preserved, but they will be SIMPLY COSTLY ORNAMENTS, and nothing more. As I have said, I am not sur prised at the conduct of the honorable Premier; he is consistent; he is true to himself. Whether acting consciously from design, or moved by the unconscious bent of his mind, I cannot say ; but the fact is there, that he is all the time gradually approach ing towards a legislative union. I am not sur prised at his conduct, but I must say I would be sur prised at the conduct of any member from the prov ince of Quebec who would vote for the amendment noAV before the House. I Avould venture to say that if the great man Avho Avas instrumental in assisting to frame the Confederation, such as it exists, were still in his place, his work would not be demolished as it is now attempted to bs ; and I venture to say that, if the teaching Avhich he instilled into the breasts of his followers remains with them still, this law will be repealed even this evening. It will, perhaps, be vain for me to invoke the testimony of the press. I did it once before, bqt in vain ; but honorable gentle- mean from the povince of Quebec are aware that the whole of their press, with one exception, are opposed to this liquor law. They all declare that it is an in fringement upon Provincial rights. La Minerve, Avhich is edited by my honorable friend from Ottawa, (Mr. Tasse) on the 18th of February, said : It is certain that the Lords of the Privy Council have de clared in their last judgment that a wrong interpretation had been placed upon the decision which they had rendered in the case of Russell, which had been taken as the basis of the law <$ 1883. Sir John A. Macdonald himself declared at the opening of the present session, that he had gone too far last year, adding, however, that he did not pretend to be infallible in 170 SPEECH ON THE LICENSE LAW OF 1883 the matter of constitutional law. The interpretation which was given last year to the judgment rendered in the case of Russell was all the more unfortunate in that it undermined the very basis of our provincial institutions, and that the new law would have, amongst other results, that of depriving the Gov ernment of Quebec, in particular, that Government already so poor, of a revenue of $100,0110, as Mr. Robertson declared at Sherbrooke. Under these circumstances, it is fortunate that the Privy Council now admits either that it had not expressed itself clearly or that its language was wrongly interpreted. This enables us to treat the law of 188,3 in consequence. Then another Provincial paper, Le Canadicn, of the 7th of March, speaks thus : When,for example, concerning the licence law,an undeniable infringement of our powers, we are appealed to on the ground of our party, on the ground of our sentiments of loyalty toward Sir John, we have reason to answer that the most sacred of fill ties is the tie which binds us to our province, and that the want of loyalty would be in those who would persistin taking our rights from us. The License Law and the Franchise Bill, which Sir John has been endeavouring to impose upon us for the last two sessions, show with too much light the end toward which he aims, to make it possible for those who are opposed to legislative union to longer keep silent." I could multiply these citations, but I will not do so. These are sufficient to shoAv the tendency of the Conservative party. I address myself to honorable . gentlemen opposite, and I appeal to them to maintain the constitution. In speaking as I now do,I do not want to be sectional. I would not make ANY SECTIONAL APPEAL on this as on any other occasion. When I ask my col leagues from the province of Quebec to vote in favour of the motion of my hon. friend from Masirinonge, I make no sectional appeal. It is an appeal in favour of the constitution, such as it is. All the provinces are interested in the integrity of the constitution, but no province so much as the province from Avhich I come. PARLIAMENTARY LIFE LECTURE DELIVERED BY HONORABLE W. LAURIER ON THE 19TH MAY, 1884, IN THE ROOMS OF " LA PATRIE " AT MONTREAL Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen : One must needs believe the evidence of his eyes, but, to believe it, he requires the evidence of his eyes. We have met this evening, on the invitation of a Liberal journalist, Avho receives us here, in Montreal, amid the hospitable surroundings of his own moveable and immoveable property. Indeed, nothing less Ava3 needed than the evidence of our oavo eyes to convince us of the existence of a fact so unusual in the history of the Liberal press of our race in this country. Those Avho are aware that, previous to the foun dation of La Patrie by Mr. Beaugrand, the Liberal press in this city only managed to exist through dint of constant sacrifices, as well as those avIio remember the drains on their purses to which it Avas necessary to resort in order to keep the life in Le Pays and Le National, will undoubtedly be as surprised as they are rejoiced at Mr. Beaugrand's success. Still more is he deserving of their thanks for the marked service he has thereby rendered to the Liberal party. He has proved that it is possible not only to publish, but to publish profitably a French Liberal paper. Until lately, the prevailing impression was that 172 LECTURE in this country, where education is still so little wide spread, a French paper could not live save Avith the help of official subsidies and Ministerial favors, and, as the Liberal party, as well in as out of power, has ahvays set its face against such methods, it Avas the general belief that the party's newspapers could only exist through the generosity of the friends of the cause. Once more, therefore, I say that Mr. Beau- grand has clone the Liberal party a signal service by giving the death-bloAV to a humiliating notion and by showing that the be3t and surest resources of jour nalism are to be found among the people themselves. Mr. Beaugrand's success certainly denotes on his part the possession of special aptitudes and first class administrative abilities. The times, hoAvever, have changed, Liberal journalism in this province has noAV greater latitude, enjoys, so to say, a wider field and more elbow room than it had at even a comparatively recent date. Indeed, I doubt Avhether Mr. Beaugrand himself, if he had published Le Pays or Le National, would have been in a position to receive us as he is receiving us this evening. The study of these social changes, Avhich render possible to-day a success whmh Avas impossible only a feAV years back, would furnish an admirable subject for a lecture, but, as it Avould lead me on to one of the most irritating, if not most delicate, grounds of poli tics, I will, with Mr. Beaugrand's permission, reserve it for another occasion. For the present, I propose to go outside of politics, though I may, perhaps, fail to keep Arery far aAvay from them. I propose to speak to you of parliamentary life, not of public life, for the latter is already well enough known. During the three months of the session, Avhich is its usual duration, vvhat is said and Avhat is done are published daily, commented upon, criticized, approved, blamed, by all the voices of modern publi city. I could say nothing on this subject which is not already Avell known by everybody. But there is ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 173 another aspect to the session : the inner or domestic aspect, Avhich the press disdains to notice, Avhich can only be observed on the spot and Avhich is also not Avithout instruction. It is this aspect to Avhich I desire to call your attention. It may, perhaps, not be misplaced, at the start, to say a word relative to the capital. The subject is a delicate one ; I Avould not Avish to say anything disparaging of the capital, but it is hard to say any thing good of it. OttaAva is not a handsome city and does not appear destined to become one either. There is, however, in it one point of great beauty — the site of the Parliament Buildings, on a cliff rising up from the bed of the river, not far from the falls Avhich have been rendered famous by the accounts of every tra veller since Champlain. This is OttaAva's only natural beauty. Behind the cliff, the land sinks into a monotonous plain, with a fiat horizon unbroken by a single line. The Parliament Buildings are in the Gothic style, and, in the opinion of connoisseurs, entitled to rank with the best architecture of Europe. They certainly have an admirable effect either when they break upon the sight bathed in the brilliant light of the summer sun or Avhen seen on a dark winter's night illumi nated from within by the floods of light, which shine in capricious arabesques through their many ogival windoAVS. But, despite their unquestionable beauty, these build ings are badly adapted to the purpose for Avhich they were intended. The Gothic style, ahvays admirable in outAvard effect, renders the interior dark and cold, and it may be said that this style Avas badly suited to the kind of buildings in which air and light should circulate as freely as possible. As Mr. Mackenzie said one clay, these buildings were splendidly adapted for a monastery, but never for a legislative assembly. HoAvever, therein once a year meet the Senate and Commons of Canada. The opening of Parliament is always a great event for OttaAva. It invariably excites 174 LECTURE the whole population, but they by no means mono polize the excitement, as the city is ahvays croAvdedon such occasions Avith strangers from all parts of the country. The official ceremonies are announced to take place at three in the afternoon. But, from eleven in the forenoon, the croAvd begins to gather on the grounds and by three o'clock the latter are comple tely filled. In 1879, a3 early as ten o'clock in the morning, the doors of the Senate Chamber Avere be sieged by a crowd anxious to get a good view of the Princess Louise. Moreover, these opening ceremonies are not lack ing in grandeur and are certainly curious to behold. These old customs and antique solemnities, trans planted from another Avorld to our modern and demo cratic midst, and connecting the middle ages Avith our contemporary epoch, open up all the pages of his tory from the day on which William the Conqueror landed on the shores of England down to the day on which a royal princess, descended from the blood of William, comes to take her place in these old cere monies, Avhicli Avere carried by the Conqueror from Normandy into England and imported from England to this continent, in the midst of a population alarge portion of Avhom have themselves been detached from the land Avhich Avas the cradle of William the Con queror. It is to the Senate Chamber goes the Governor. This chamber is very fine and of the same size and architecture as that of the Commons. but the draperies andfurnituie are in excellent taste and give it a stamp which is altogether missed from the Commons' chamber. On this occasion, hoAvever, the Senate Chamber is resplendent. Ladies are admitted to the floor and appear in full dress ; the judges of the Su preme Court are present in their scarlet robes bor dered Avith ermine ; and the Cabinet Ministers attend in their gold-laced uniforms. I do not admit, how ever, that all this scarlet and gold lace is to my t aste. ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 175 I Avould prefer to see the judges in the ordinary silk robes, which are plain, it is true, but not Avanting in dignity, and, as for the gold-laced uniforms, they may be suited to Westminster, but, in this democratic country, the simple black coat unquestionably ap pears better. I have already said that the ceremony is fixed for three o'clock, and, between the official hour and the practical hour, the old Senators attempt to indulge in innocent flirtations Avith their fair guests. At last, the Governor has arrived amid the usual enthusiastic cheering and taken his seat on the Throne. He desires thepresenceof his " faithful Com mons ". And, during this time, what are the faithful Com mons doing? Having nothing to do, they haveendea- vored to be as noisy as possible. Nothing resembles a school more than Parliament. Nothing is more like the reojjening of the classes than the opening of Parliament. Despite the ten months of confinement to follow, the day of reopening of the classes is ahvays a gay one, and the same may be said of the day of the opening of the session. The pleasure of meeting each other again, the almost ceaseless handshaking, the exchange of more or less spicy jokes, all are to be found in Parliament just the same as in school, on opening day. But, hark ! to the three knocks at the chamber door. The Sergeant-at-Arms goes to see Avhat's the trouble, just as if he Avas not quite well aAvare before hand. He returns grave and solemn to announce to the Speaker that a messenger from the Senate is Avait- ing at the door, and with no less gravity and solem nity the Speaker ansAvers : " Let the messenger enter !" The messenger enters. It is the Usher of the Black Rod, the chief officer of the Senate, who comes to announce that the Governor General desires the presence of the Commons in the Senate Chamber. Before opening his mouth, he advances nine steps, 170 LECTURE making three boAvs as he proceeds, and, having deliv ered his message, he backs out, repeating the same number of steps and of boAvs, wheels on his heels and disappears, invariably accompanied by a formi dable clapping of hands from all parts of the cham ber. John Bull seems to take a perennial pleasure in seeing these bows made by a man paid to make them, and the same remark is repeated every year : i; Well, it is worth the money ! ". Then, like so many unruly boys, the members rush in a troop to the Senate Chamber. Their least anxiety, however, is to listen to His Excellency's speech. They leave that duty to the Speaker, who discharges it mo.-t religiously. I have used the term Speaker in alluding to the president or chairman of the House of Commons. I am not ignorant of the long controversy, which took place in the press over the rendering into French of the English Avord " Speaker, " but it is not my inten tion to mix myself up with it, as I have no desire to add another to the list of snarling critics to whom the country has given birth. It is simply wonderful how many literary critics Ave have, Avhen we have so little literature. But, in spite of all the snarling critics, I persist in translating the Avord " Speaker " by the French word " Orateur ; " to translate the Avord " Speaker" by the word "president" reminds me of the time when I Avas a student here and Avhen it Avas said that an eminent laAvyer, avIio came across the word " by-and- by " in a letter, vehemently maintained that it meant " to-morrow. " The reason assigned for translating the word " Speaker " by the word " president " is that it would be a counter-sense to call him the Speaker, since he takes no part in the debates and since his functions- consist in presiding over the chamber. But those who take this ground do not reflect that, if it Avas a coun ter-sense in French to sav Orateur, it Avould also be a ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 177 counter-sense in English to say " Speaker. " In the English language, there is an absolute equivalent for our Avord President ; it is the word " president " and, if they do not use it to designate the person presiding over the House of Commons, there must be a reason for it. I have noticed that those affected puritans Avho persist in calling the Speaker president usually belong to the school Avhich makes a great display of its principles and systematically curses modern France. I naturally conclude that they must at least have read the good authors of the age of Louis XIV. They are Avell aware that, on every page,there is an allusion to the sovereign of Avhat was then the duchy of Bavaria, and who nevertheless is never styled the " Duke, " but the ;' Elector " of Bavaria. Would it not be also a counter-sense, in the eyes of our critics, to designate the sovereign of this duchy as an elector ? But the reason for it is that the sovereign of the duchy of Bavaria Avas at the same time an elector of the Holy Empire and that this quality took precedence over the other. Under the old organization of the Empire, there was in Germany a crowd of small principalities, whose rulers, like the duke of Bavaria, had the title of Elector as their prin cipal title. This title of Elector formerly carried great weight in Germany, and even yet the Avord has an imposing sound in German ears, if Ave are to credit the capital joke Avhich Henry Labouchere lately played on them and Avhich those worthy Germans seem to have unhe sitatingly swalloAved. Arriving in one of the German towns, the name of Avhich I cannot hoav recall, the editor of Truth boldly entered himself in the hotel register as Henry Labouchere, Elector of Middlesex. I cannot say Avhether it Avas from force of histo rical reminiscence or from extravagant admiration for the parliamentary system which Bismarck never doles out except with a niggardly hand to the subjects 178 LECTURE of King William, but it is certain that the title of Elector Avon for Mr. Labouchere a host of little atten tions, which the German innkeepers are not in the habit of Avasting upon travellers. If the English give the title of Speaker to the pre sident of their legislative assemblies, there is also a good reason for it, namely, that the president of the House is at the same time the interpreter _ Avith the Sovereign of the body over Avhich he presides. He speaks for the members. He is their speaker. Thus, suppose that general elections have taken place. The House of Commons has no Speaker as yet. The members proceed to the Senate Chamber to hear the opening Speech from the Throne; but His Excellency causes it to be intimated to them that he does not deem it advisable to make knoAvn the causes for Avhich he has summoned Parliament until the Commons have elected a Speaker. Summoned again on the folloAving clay to the Senate Chamber, the members troop back to it pretty much in the same disorderly fashion as on the previous clay. The neAvly elected Speaker alone Avears an air of gravity, because he has a speech to make and nothing conduces so much to seriousness as to make a speech in those Arast halls, A\diose severe architecture chills one to the marrOAv. It is hoav that Ave get the opportunity to understand Avhy the Eng lish, avIio are noted for their practical good sense,apply the name of Speaker to the president of the House of Commons. He is, in fact, the speaker of those Avho have elected him. In their name he addresses the Sovereign and his speech is both respectful and dig nified. Here it is : May it please Your Excellency : The House of Commons have elected me as their Speaker, though I am but little able to perform the important duties thus assigned to me. If, in the performance of those duties, I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 179 and not to the Commons, whose servant I am, and who, through me, the better to enable them to discharge their duty to their- Queen and country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges ; especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates, access to your Excellency's person at all ceasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Excellency their most favorable interpretation. At the prorogation of the House, the Speaker a- gain addresses the representative of the Sovereign, in presenting the Supply Bill, and the folloAving is the language Avhich he uses on that occasion : May it please Your Excellency: The Commons of Canada have voted the supplies required to enable the Government to defray the expenses of the public service. In the name of the Common', I present to Your Excel lency a bill intituled "An act to grant to Her Majesty certain sums of money to defray certain expenses of the public ser vice during the fiscal year commencing on the " and to which I ask Your Excellency's assent. The reply is in these terms : " In Her Majesty's name, His Excellency the Governor General thanks her loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this bill." All these old ceremonies may seem absurd ; but in reality they are not. The most of them have a deep meaning and possess historical value,recalling as they do a triumph over absolutism and the progression to Avards that complete liberty noAV involved in our par liamentary system. Thus, Avhen the Speaker of the Commons pre sents the Supply Bill to the Sovereign, he recalls the fundamental principle of the people's right to govern themselves and to permit none other to tax them but themselves. It may be urged, perhaps, that these old ceremo- 12 180 LECTURE nies are only the expression of principles which are not questioned by anyone at present and that the time has arrived to adopt simpler methods of parliamen tary procedure and more in keeping Avith the modern spirit. I am not too sure of this. I am Liberal in principle, but Conservative in sentiment. I confess to this weakness. I cherish a respect for these old solemnities, which are not harm ful in themselves and Avhich have only the demerit of having outlived their time. Nevertheless, my Avords only apply to the Fede ral Parliament. I have already said that, at OttaAva, these ceremonies are not Avithout a certain grandeur. The Legislature there is numerous enough and the pomp rich enough to impart to them a certain splen dor. But, at Quebec, the same ceremonies haA7e al ways seemed tome very grotesque. Moreover, the leg islative body of twenty-four members, which is sup posed to there represent the House of Lords, the house at Spencer Wood, Avhich is supposed to repre sent the royal castle of Windsor, and all those attempts of our Local Government to ape royalty appear to me very comical, to say the least. I am certainly far from wishing to belittle our local legislatures. Quite the contrary. The attributes of the local legislatures are of the highest impor tance. But at the same time their resources are small and their revenues very limited, and, from this stand point, it seems that the local legislatures should glory rather in plebeian simplicity. To imitate royalty at Ottawa is in keeping with the fitness of things; to ape it at Quebec is absurd. Setting aside all political preferences and leaving out Mr. Letellier's grand figure, I hold that, of all our lieutenant-governors, Sir Narcisse Belleau was the one Avho came nearest to perfection. During the five years in which he Avas called to discharge the functions of chief magistrate of the province, Sir Nar cisse Belleau never sought either to pose as a king or to dazzle the ninnies. He would never consent to ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 181 reside at Spencer Wood. He said, perhaps, rightly, that Spencer Wood was too expensive for the means of a private citizen and he disdained to throw the cosf of its maintenance on the State. He lived on St Louis street like a worthy bourgeois of the good city of Que bec. In the morning he made a tour of the markets; in the evening, he went to breathe the fresh air on the Terrace. Like the king of Yvetot, rising late and lying down early, he lived very Avell Avithout glory. These democratic Avays remind one of the gover nors of the NeAv England States Avho spend the fore noon at the Government house despatching the public business and the afternoon. at their OAvn offices attend ing to their own affairs. Sir Narcisse committed only one mistake during his administrative career and that was in going to open the session in a hat decorated with cock's feathers, and a gold-laced coat, betAveen Iavo files of policemen stationed at least thirty feet from each other and supposed to represent a hedge for the pro tection of his person. In my opinion, he would have been perfect, if on opening days he had had the courage to button up his overcoat, take his cane in his hand, and Avalk to the Buildings to read to the two Homes the lesson Avhich in parliamentary language is styled the Speech from the Throne. But lam straying pretty far from my subject. I return to it. The Governor has opened the session by a speech to the two Houses, and they reply by an address, so that there is an exchange ot courtesies. Before the address is presented to the Sovereign it must be adopt ed by each of the two Houses. In the House of Commons the task of proposing and seconding the address is usually entrusted to the younge-t mem bers. I have just used the Avord " second." Here again is a Avord Avhich grates on the nerves of a cer tain class of critics. They Avant U3 to say " appuyer " (support.) I call their attention to the fact that the English verb " to second " comes from the French 182 LECTURE verb " seconder " and that there assuredly cannot be a better translation than the etymological meaning of the Avord to be translated. I would ask them to also note that all those expressions: address, seconded, Speech from the Throne, motion, found their Avay into the parliamentary language of England at a time Avhen the official language of England Avas the French language and that later Avhen the Saxon race had absorbed the conquerors and that English once more became the language of the nation, all these expressions were literally translated from French into English. By a strange fortune, while these expressions have lost in France their technical meaning owing to to the disappearance of the institutions to Avhich they were adapted, the descendants of France on this con tinent are destined to restore them to the language. In fact, is it not a labor of love to revive these old expressions as they were conveyed from France to England by the Normans ? The moving and seconding of the address is an honor alike desired and feared. Indeed, there are feAV more ungrateful tasks. The speaker has to com ment on the Speech from the Throne, Avhich is his text, so to say, and it Avould be difficult to find one more dry or barren— it being one of the usages of Par liament to place in His Excellency's mouth a tissue of commonplaces dressed up in the dullest style imaginable. His Excellency is happy to meet again the members of the Senate and the Commons; he thanks Providence for the bountiful harvest Avith which the country has been blessed ; the Ministerial policy is yielding satisfactory results; bills will be submitted for this or that purpose ; the public accounts will be laid before the Commons, and lastly His Ex cellency invokes the blessings of Heaven on the labors of his Parliament. The drafting ofthis masterpiece is always a subject of joking at the Council board, and when the Premier lays before his colleagues the draft he has elaborated, they are always in humorous vein ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 183 and it is a contest betAveen them to see Avho will make the most laughable remark. The unlucky young man, to wdiom this outline is handed, does not feel quite so much pleasure and des pairingly asks himself Avhat he can find to say on such a subject. He can, however, ahvays count upon an indul gent audience. The old Parliamentarians naturally look for some rambling on his part and some soaring from the earth into the clouds, and smile a little in advance at these ambitious flights; but, if the sub stance of his remarks be sensible and if he escheAV the pompous and the trivial, he wins a legitimate success and is sincerely applauded. Is it hoav the turn of the Opposition leader to speak — his task being to revieAV the Government's po licy as set forth in the Speech from the Throne. He invariably begins by complimenting the movers of the address. This is sometimes difficult, as the movers are not ahvays successful. I have ahvays, however, admired this delicate portion of the Oppo sition leader's speech, whether the speaker was Sir John, Mr. Mackenzie or Mr. Blake, each of them seem ing to knoAv how to aAvard delicate praise Avithout falling into improper flattery. On ordinary occasions, the Opposition leader's tone is one of banter. He does not give battle, but merely contents himself Avith harassing the enemy and affecting to be a good felloAV ; he lays bare the Government's weak points, but does so Avdthout bit terness, seeming to say to the majority : Look at the Government you are supporting ; see it as it is and make the most of it ; there is plenty room to do so. His OAvn supporters are jubilant; they laugh and applaud and every fresh shaft tickles and cheers them. On the other hand, the Ministerialists begin by smil ing, but end by thinking that they are getting too much of that sort of thing. At last, the Premier's turn comes and he replies in the same tone. The laughter and fun are now on 184 LECTURE the Ministerial side. Still, on both sides, the wea pons on that clay are blunt,unless, indeed, the Oppo sition leader deems the occasion opportune to offer an amendment. In that case, the voices become sharp and the Aveapons are cutting. At OttaAva, since Confederation, there has been only one amendment proposed to the address and that was by Mr. Mackenzie in 1873 rela tive to the Pacific scandal, AA-hen the fall of the Gov ernment ensued. I have just referred to the manner in which the leaders of the tAvo parties are greeted. Among the many qualities which render them so apt in parlia mentary government, the English possess one of rare. merit for the application of that form of government. They know hoAv to listen and to be tolerant. It is not in the ardent temperament of the French to respect the convictions of others. What the Frenchman con ceives, he conceives Avith so much intensity that he cannot admit the possibility of others thinking differ ently from him. This is not the case Avith the Englishman. He has his own convictions, but he is neither astonished nor irritated because you differ from him. On the contrary, he is prepared for this eventuality and expects that the diversity of opinions will be as great as the diversity of intellects and of faces. He Avould cordially despise you if he thought you had no opinions of your oavii. In fact. Avhile the Frenchman Avants you to haAre his opinions, the Englishman Avants you to have opinions of your own. See Avhat happens in the legislative body in Paris ! There is an orator in the tribune ! His adver saries cannot keep quiet. From all points of the Chamber arise interruptions and protests and frequent ly the confusion becomes so great that the president cannot control it. Look on the other hand at our House of Com mons ! It supports the most furious attacks without Avincing and no one dreams of interrupting, unless ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 185 the orator permits interruption. Nevertheless, the attack is keen, violent and often bitter. The orator's friends applaud ; his adversaries do not budge ; Avhen they believe that the attack is fair Avarfare and that, from his standpoint, he is right, they endure Avithout Avincing ; but if he exaggerates they emphasize the exaggeration by ironical applause. If he falls into misstatement, the faces relax as there is nothing to fear, and if, lastly, he grows paradoxical, he receives every latitude and the House listens Avith the feeling which the English characterize as " amused Avonder- ment. " This is what happens at OttaAva, where the House is in great part English, but also in part French. Still even in the House of. Commons, Ave French Canadians do not know hoAv to bear contradiction like our fellow citizens of British origin. But, after all, we are in this respect superior to our cousins across the sea. We can listen to an adver sary and sit still, but Ave cannot listen to him with com plete coolness. We can occasionally, but rarely, acknowledge his talents ; but Ave can never render justice to his thesis. According as he speaks in favor or against our opinion, his utterances are absurd or sublime. The English are more sober in expression. When Ave have heard one of Mr. Blake's speeches, Ave give vent to our enthusiasm in metaphors ; but the great orator's Avarmest admirers among his oavji countrymen content themselves with saying : " that Avas a great speech of Blake's. " On the other hand, if an adversary has made a successful hit, instead of saying that his statements Avere absurd, they simply say: " that Avas well put from his standpoint." If the French were gifted with this frankness of expression and tolerance of opinion, the courtesy _ of their discussions Avould be marked. It is not so with the English. Their discussions are never vulgar, but on the other hand they are never gracious and always 186 LECTURE lack that urbanity Avhich respects your feelings as your life. The Englishman respects your opinions ; but he never thinks of your feelings. The capital point on Avhich we differ from our felloAV citizens of British origin is our idea of politics. For us, sons of France, political sentiment is a passion ; Avhile, for the Englishmen, politics are a question of business. The only thought of the English members in going to OttaAva is that they are calledjth ere to discuss and decide the affrirs of the country, just as the share holders of a bank are called to discuss and decide the affairs of the bank. I say the affairs of the country, and I purposely use this unusual expression in our language. When I say the affairs, I use the Avord in its restricted sense, as the equivalent of the Avord " business ". According to the English notion, the affairs of the country, like those of a private individual, com prise the revenue, expenditure and all the cognate questions ; and it is needless to remind my hearers that tliese questions of revenue and expenditure fill the largest place in our Federal politics. We, of French origin, understand politics quite otherwise. Tariff and revenue questions are not our chief preoccupation. We rather incline toAvards the speculative and have a fondness for theories. Noav look at the different results in the case of the tAvo races ! Take an ordinary man in any rank whatever of English society ! He knows the figure of the public expenditure, and of the receipts ; he caa tell you the yield of the customs and excise, and he is conversant with every item of the tariff. Noav, hoAv many are there among us, even among those Avho shout loudest at election time, who have taken the slightest trouble to post themselves on these heads ? We know, however,that they are thoroughly acquainted with all the discussions on the school uestion, on the relative value of the different forms ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 187 of government, on the theories of divine right, on the union of Church and State, and on a host of other abstract questions, which have no application to our politics and which have never been discussed in any of our legislative assemblies. The House of Commons is, above all, a meeting of business men and business questions are theie treated. At least, three fourths of the proceedings are carried on by means of conversations exchanged across the floor of the House, Avithout preparation, and Avithout effort of eloquence. The strangers, Avho come to the capital to hear the debates, are usually disappointed. They expect to hear great eloquence ; they simply hear business discussions. Nevertheless, some of these discussions are really eloquent. For instance, a Ministerial question of great importance is to be treated. Sir Charles Tup per is to explain the Government's policy. He will be followed by Mr. Blake and th^ fight Avill then become general. Unconsciously,the House takes on a particular physi ognomy. Every member is at his post. There is not a vacant seat. The galleries are full and, on every face, sits a look of expectation. The debate is opened by tAvo master speeches, as diametrically different from each other as are the orators themselves and yet visibly of the same school and of a unique style of eloquence. This style of eloquence is what we term English parliamentary eloquence. What Ave, of French race apd education, appre ciate and enjoy the most is that nervous, magnetic eloquence which stirs the soul and brings a choking sensation to the throat and Avater to the eyes, or, again that academic eloquence, pure in language and ¦elegant in diction, which fills the ear with a music that tends more to charm than to convince. * French eloquence is above all aesthetic. English eloquence is above all practical. is The great aim of the English orator is to go 18S LECTURE straight to the point. He has a proposition to uphold and he piles up arguments, figures, comparisons, quotations, everything, in fine, that is calculated to bolster it up. He does not seek to please, but if he succeeds in dazzling your reason, in inundating it with a flood of light, and rendering luminous Avhat was obscure, he has Avon the success he coveted. This eloquence is not soul-stirring and possesses none of those oratorical movements which strike the hearer like an electric shock ; but when an orator like Mr Blake carries you on with him into the intellec tual realms, lifts you to inaccessible heights, and un folds to your eyes new horizons, Avhich are immediat ely replaced by others still higher, emotion slowly, gradually creeps upon you, takes possession of you and finally subjugates you altogether. My hearers may, perhaps, be curious to leara something of the leading orators of the House. I have just mentioned the name of Mr Blake. The leader of the Opposition is beyond question the foremost orator of the House. His eloquence borrows nothing from the ordinary means of the orator; it emanates entirely from a single source: intellectual force. Mr. Blake has Avithout doubt one of the most extraordinary mental organizations that are to be found at present in the Avorld. His powerful intelli gence takes in everything. His grasp covers the whole as well as the details^ All the outlines of the vastest political problem are perfectly clear to him; not one of the microscopic points of the moat diffito". legal problem escapes him. When he treats a subject. he exhausts it ; when he leaves it, there is nothing; more to be said or even to reply, and Avhen at length he resumes his seat, his partisans are jubilant and even his adversaries cannot help expressing then admiration. Sir John Macclonald's style is quite different.Singn- lar to say, in the case of so alert a mind, he lacks hap piness and movement of expression. He hesitates, stammers and repeats himself, he is incorrect, b»V ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 189 in all his speeches, there is ahvays a nail that goes straight home. He excels in seizing upon an adver sary's Aveak point. His highest art, however, consists in saying exactly Avhat should be said to produce the most effect on his own supporters. He knows all their Aveaknesses and their prejudices and all he says is perfectly adapted to them. Sir Charles Tupper's chief characteristics are force and, above all, audacity. He is the Danton of the House. He speaks with all the abundance, vehemence and rush of the torrent. The more desperate is the cause he has to defend, the greater is his audacity. He asserts the most untenable propositions Avith a coolness and an imperturbability Avhich no question, sno interruption, can discountenance. Far from that, rif an interruption to the point demolishes on the spot an over risky assertion, instead of beating a retreat -even to the extent of a hair's-breadth, he invariably exclaims : " I am thankful for the interruption, as it proves exactly what I have just said." And then he goes on to repeat all he has already said, with ' redoubled energy, argument and vigor. Mr. Mackenzie's voice is, unhappily, no longer leard. This is an immense loss for the country and in irreparable one for the Liberal party. Mr. Mac kenzie had all the force of Sir Charles Tupper, Avith- >ut his fire ; but, for that reason, his eloquence Avas, >erhaps, not less effective. In all his words, there ras a concentrated power Avhich went to the very mar- dav. Let us pray that this valiant mind, this blarne ys character, may soon be restored to health and ¦jsume the leading position Avhich he has filled and :-'hich belongs to him of right in his country's legis lature. There is no man less known than Mr. Mac- V 3nzie and there has been none more slandered. While iti: power he was systematically represented as a natic and as a man Avith narroAV and intolerant eAvs. Nothing could be falser. Mr. Mackenzie is a : beral Avith the greatest breadth of ideas. I believe at, Avhile he Avas Premier, he Avas somewhat em- 190 LECTURE bittered by the systematically unfair attacks of which he was the victim and by his superhuman and self-imposed labors, but I can state from a personal knowledge extending over a number of years that there are few men easier and more agreeable to deal or associate with. The savage man, as he was repre sented to the public, is on the contrary full of humor and always has a laughing Avord on his lips. Like Mr. Mackenzie, Sir Richard Cartwright is a man whom the tongue of slander has represented un der false colors. In private life, Sir Richard is one of the most accomplished gentlemen it is possi ble to meet, affable, polite and distinguished by a regular Attic grace. As may be imagined, however, his adversaries do not like him. His tongue is the most formidable in the whole House. On the other hand his eloquence is, perhaps, the most classic. His language is ahvays correct, precise, clear, and eloquent, but at the same time biting and cutting. I said a moment ago that the English knoAV how to listen Avithout wincing, but it is nevertheless not rare to see the British phlegm unable to resist nir Richard Cart- Avright's attacks and I haA'e often seen his adversa ries writhing with anger under his elegant lash. Is it not general y knoAvn that Sir Richard Cart- wright is a lettered man. Indeed. he is not only a lettered man, but a literary dilettante. During the long sittings of the House, Avhen the debate does not interest Sir Richard, a messenger brings him a select volume from the library, aud then,Avith his hat down over his eyes, he becomes absorbed in its perusal and as indifferentto what is going on around him as if he was in his own study. Mr. Blake is also a lettered man ; in fact, he^ may be said to be even a glutton in the matter of litera ture. NotAvithstanding the herculean Avork he under takes during the session, he keeps himself reg ularly posted in current literature and reads _ every- i thing that is published. Said one of the officials of ON PARLIAMENTARY LIFE 191 the library to me last session : — " Mr. Blake is an omnivorous reader; Ave send him everything that comes in. " — " Tell me " — I said to him—" where does he find the time to read ? " — " It is a mystery, Sir, but he reads everything. " What I have thus far stated has shown you that, although there are about fifty French members in the House of Commons, it is exclusively an English assembly. French is its official language as Avell as English, but French is being less and less spoken in it. The reason for this is that it is impossible to take an effective part in the debates unless you use the language of the majority. This fact Avas only lately thrown up to me by a man of great talent, great sense and ardent patriotism, but I do not admit the reproach. Things must be taken as they are. Our parliamentary laws, usages, and customs come to us from England. Moreover, the English are better adapted than Ave are for that system of government. In no matter Avhat deliberative assembly they may find themselves, they are more at home than are the French, and, where they are in the majority, their language must necessarily prevail. On the other hand Ave, of French origin, are ess en- tially an artistic people,and if I had an advice to give to my felloAV countrymen, it Avould be to remain true to their origin and to cultivate that taste for the arts and letters which Ave inherit from France and in Avhich we ought to take on this continent the place filled by France in Europe. The force of circumstances is such that in Ame rica the English tongue Avill ahvays be the language of the million and our ambition should be to make French, here as elsewhere, the language of predilec tion, good company and polite society. Another Question of Provincial Autonomy UNITY OF THE FRANCHISE THROUGH OUT THE DOMINION VIGOROUS STRUGGLE OF THE OPPOSITION AGAINST CENTRALIZATION MR. LAURIER'S PLEA AGAINST THIS ENCROACHMENT The session of the Federal Parliament in 1885 lasted six: months. Opened on the 29th .January, it was only prorogued on the 20th July — its unusual prolongation being mainly due to the Franchise Bill. The Opposition disputed the ground inch by inch and only yielded in the end to the numerical strength of their opponents. Their objections will be found summed up with extraordinary force in the following speech. made by Mr. Laurier at the sitting of the 17th April, 1885 : Mr. Speaker, During the discussion yesterday, the fact Avas brought several times to the memory of the House that this is not the first time the honorable gentleman has endeavored to force this measure upon the people of this country. In fact, during the nearly eighteen years that this Confederation has lasted, the honorable gentleman has made seven attempts to establish a uniform franchise throughout the Dominion, but each time he has been forced to abandon the attempt. 194 SPEECH Six times before has he brought in a bill of this nature, and has either withdrawn it, or been obliged to let it drop after carrying it to a certain stage. Noav it may be asked, Avhat is the reason that he has made these numerous and persistent attempts to force this measure upon the country ? The reason is simply this — that the right honorable gentleman has set his heart upon this measure Avhich, being one of centra lization, and antagonistic to the federal principle of our constitution, is quite congenial to his well known principles. But Avhile he has endeavored to push his folloAvers onward, they have each time failed to pass it for the reason that their hearts were not in the cause. Public opinion never responded to calls that were made upon this measure, though he stated that public opinion is ripe for it. Sir, if public opinion is ripe for it, AVHERE ARE THE EVIDENCES OF IT?' Public opinion generally manifests itself either by petitions at the bar ofthis House, or by resolutions of public meetings, or through the press. Noav, where are the petitions that have been presented in favor of it? Nut one has been presented this session that I am aware of. Where have public meetings been held in favor of a Dominion franchise? I defy the honora ble gentlemen to point out one instance where any public meeting has passed a resolution to that effect, As to the press, Avhile I cannot speak as to the other provinces, so far as my OAvn province is concerned, far from expressing itself in favor of a Dominion franchise,such a scheme has been denounced as ini mical to our institutions— not only by the Opposition press, but by the Ministerial press itself. The fact is that, ever since Confederation, Ave have had a prov incial franchise upon which the members of this House have been elected, and I am not aware that any complaint has ever been made against that arrangement. The steady conviction of the people AGAINST THE FRANCHISE ACT 195 seems to have been, on the contrary, that this pro vincial franchise was the best suited to our institu tions, and under all circumstances was best adapted to the character of our people. I have said that this measure is noAV introduced for the seventh time into this House, but it has been DISCUSSED ONLY ONCE — in 1870. At that time it Avas discussed at some lengtn. The bill Avas carried to its second reading, and taken into Committee of the Whole. But the discussion Avas someAvhat desultory; most of the members Avho spoke upon it did not seem to see their way ver}' clearly. They did not seem to have made up their minds as to what necessity there Avas for it. At that time Confederation was quite recent and the relative functions of the Dominion Parliament and the Prov incial Legislatures Avere not as clearly understood as they are to-day ; and consequently the general dis cussion was someAvhat desultory. But Avhen the measure Avas in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Dorion moved an amendment in favor of a provincial fran chise. His amendment was to this effect : That the electors for the House of Commons shall be those Avho are entitled to vote at any election for the represen tation in the Local Legislatures ; and that opinion seems to have met with the general consent of the House, — at all events, no attempt Avas made to con tradict that amendment or oppose it. The only mem ber, who spoke after Mr. Dorion was my honorable friend, the present leader of the Opposition, who sup ported the amendment. The right honorable gen tleman moved the adjournment of the debate, and that debate never Avas resumed. The" measure was shelved, not again to be resurrected until the dust of twelve long years had accumulated upon it. Noav, Mr. Speaker, the right honorable gentle man again proposes to change the existing state of things, and to substitute a uniformity of franchise. 196 SPEECH Noav, what are the reasons for this change ? _ We should have had some explanations on these points, but the Government have been perfectly dumb. Up to the present day each province has had ITS OAVN FRANCHISE. Quebec has had its oavii franchise, and a very liberal franchise it has been — not universal, but with very large limits, indeed. Ontario has had her franchise, still more liberal, I think, than that of Quebec. Prince Echvard Island has had a universal franchise. Each of the members hoav present in this House has been elected upon the particular franchise of the province from which he comes. And has any complaint ever been made either in this House, or in any other part of the Dominion, that an injustice is being done against the provinces, or against the people of any province by the present franchise? 1 am not aware that any complaint has been made ; if this system has worked Avell and satisfactorily, I ask Avhy is this measure introduced? We, Sir, on this side of the House, are reformers. We do not believe in the immutability of human institutions : Ave believe in their perfectibility ; but at the same time we Avould not alter any existing institutions unless some good Avas to be effected by it, unless some ill was to be remedied. But it seems that gentlemen of the Con servative persuasion — at least in this House — are of a different opinion. I gathered yesterday from a remark made by the honorable member for North Perth (Mr. Hesson) that the Conservative party in this House were ready to vote this measure Avithout the slightest hesitation. I should suppose that a good Conservative, a strong Tory, Avould not like to alter existing in stitutions unless some reasons were given for the change. But the honorable gentleman said that they were waiting for the members of the Opposition to state their objections to the measure. It seems to me that it would have been more proper, first of all, AGAINST THE FRANCHISE ACT 197 for the Government to have given some reason v,'hy the existing state of things should be changed. But it seems that honorable gentlemen opposite are ready to vote for this measure Avithout asking any questions, even before the Liberal members have raised any objection to it ; and I really believe they will be still more ready to vote for it, even after unansAverable objections have been made against it. THE ONLY REASON Avhich has been advanced by the right honorable gentleman in introducing this measure in favor of a Dominion franchise — if it be a reason at all - Avas that our present franchise was an anomaly, that we ought to have a uniformity of franchise all over the Domi nion. Well, I do not admit that it is an anomaly for -each province to have its own franchise. But suppos ing it to be so, I should not suppose that the honor able gentlemen would have been so tender-hearted upon that score, because I believe, and perhaps he will admit himself, that in the course of his long poli tical career he has been guilty of many sins of anom aly. Let me refer him to one glaring instance. Under our constitution Ave have a separation of powers. The local legislatures are properly entrusted Avith the establishment of courts of justice, and they are also to determine the number of judges of Avhich the courts are to be composed, and very properly should, but the judges are to be paid by the Dominion Parliament, and this Parliament has no control at all over the establishment of the courts Avhich it has to pay for, or over the number of the judges for Avhose salaries it has to provide. Can there be A AVORSE ANOMALY THAN THIS? Can there be a more glaring lack of uniformity ? The provincial legislatures establish the courts. It is in their power to appoint one, or two, or three, 198 SPEECH or four, or ten judges, and this House has no control over them, though we are obliged to pay them imme diately after they are appointed by the local legisla tures. Can there be a greater anomaly? Yet the father of this anomaly is the right honorable gentleman himself. Why did he do it? I do not blame the right honorable gentleman for having done it. Per haps it is right that he should have done it. Perhaps the right honorable gentleman remembered at the time the language of Burke, Avhich is to this effect : Government has been deemed a practical thing, made for the happiness of mankind, and not to furnish a spectacle of uniformity to justify the scheme of visionary politicians. Perhaps the honorable gentleman well remem bered that sentence Avhen he created the anomaly which stands to-day in our constitution. But if he remembered it then, why does he not remember it noAV ? If the practical necessities of the government demand such an anomaly as that to which I have just referred, is it inconsistent that the anomaly complained of should still exist in the working of the constitution ? That is the only reason which has been given for instituting the change which it is now sought to introduce. The constitution is not uniform, and Ave cannot have uniformity. Undoubtedly it- would be far preferable if we could have a uniform franchise. But uniformity is not in the spirit of our constitution. We have diversity of franchise as we have diversity of government. There can be no doubt, I suppose, and every one will agree to this vieAV, that the best franchise that could be adopted, the most rational and the most logical, would be one based upon taxation, would be one to make every taxpayer a voter. But such a franchise has never "been adopted, and Avill never be adopted. It would lead to conse quences which would defeat the object of the fran chise. If Ave were to follow it to its legitimate conse quences Ave Avould have to give the right of voting to Avomen, married and unmarried, to minors and all AGAINST THE FRANCHISE ACT 199 other persons Avho Avould otherAvise be deprived of their civil rights. In fact, NO FRANCHISE AVAS EVER ADOPTED on a mere abstract principle. The franchise has been adopted everywhere according to the circumstances of the community Avhere it was applied, according to the wealth, or intelligence, or passions, or prejudices of the community. This bill is an instance of it. You take the bill before the House and it is impossible to find any principle upon which the franchise has been distributed ; there is none. I do not blame the bill for it ; I believe it would not be possible to be other Avise. The right honorable gentleman in framing the bill has given the franchise to unmarried women, and not to married Avomen. He has given the franchise to farmers' sons and not to the sons of ar tisans. He has given the franchise to men Avho are OAvners of real estate in rural parts to the value of one hundred and fifty dollars, and refused it to those Avho are owners of real estate to the value of only $100.00. In cities, he gives it to OAvners only to the extent of $300.00. What is the reason of all these differences ; what is the principle Avhich underlies this bill ? There is none. The honor able gentleman has framed a franchise Avhich he thought best adapted to the circumstances of the community. This Avould be well and right, and there would be no fault to find with the bill, if this Avas a single community But this is the point, and it is the objection to this bill ; Ave have not a single com munity in this country. We have seven different communities, and Avhat the honorable member for North- Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said, yesterday, that we have seven independent commonwealths in this country is a truth which cannot be denied. This is the mistake in this bill; it treats this country as a single community, and in the plan Ave find the Avell knoAvn predilection of the right honorable gentleman 200 SPEECH in favor of a legislative union. He does not admit that it is right to have seven separate communities. His opinion is that it Avould be right to have butoue community, and acting on that vieAV he has devised the franchise Avhich is best adapted to suit the con veniences of a single community. Well, I start on this principle, and it is one Avhich I commend espe cially to my colleagues from the province of Quebec, which is supposed to be more in favor of the federa tive principle than the other provinces ; that Ave have in this country , SEA'EN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES. This is a fact which exists in the face of thelaAv. It may be Avise or unwise, according to the prefer ences and predilections of every one, but this is the basis of our constitution. Our constitution is based upon diversity — diversity is the basis of our constitu tion. If Ave had uniformity of territory, of population, of institutions, perhaps Ave avouIcI have had a uniform franchise. But our constitution recognizes the differ ences of population and of territory, and, as a conse quence, I claim, Ave should also recognize those differ ences AA'hen Ave prepare a franchise for the Avhole Do minion. If it be true that this Dominion is composed of seven different communities, it must follow as a logical consequence that the right to determine the franchise is to be left to each separate community. That seems to follow as a logical consequence. What will suit one community will not suit another com munity. What will suit Prince EdAvard Island, for instance, will not suit Quebec. In Prince Edward Island they have had universal suffrage for a long time, and, as Avas gracefully remarked by the member for Ottawa county (Mr Wright), this franchise ha? worked well. I belieAre the members from the prov ince of Quebec will admit that universal suffrage would not be suitable to the majority of the people of our province. Then why not leave the regulation of the AGAINST THE FRANCHISE ACT 201 franchise to the province of Quebec, if they prefer a franchise of their own ; and Avhy not leave it to the province of Prince Edward Island, if they prefer a franchise of their own? The people of Quebec Avould deem it tyranny if this House were to attempt to im pose on them universal suffrage, and the people of Prince Edward Island would deem it tyranny also if you attempt, as is going to be attempted, to restrict their franchise. This is the reason why this matter had better be left IN THE HANDS OF THE LOCAL LEGISLATURES. The member for St John (Mr.Weldon) said yesterday that the regulation of the franchise was a matter Avhich properly came within the attributes of civil rights, and therefore had better be left in the hands of the provinces. I do not contend that Ave have not the right, constitution ally, to establish a franchise of our own to apply to the whole Dominion ; but I say that, according to the spirit of our constitution, the regula tion of the franchise is a matter of civil rights Avhich comes properly within the attributes of the local leg islatures. What I say now is supported by a a7 ery high authority, indeed. Story, in speaking of the regu lation of the franchise, uses this significant language: The truth seems to be that the right of voting, like many other rights, is one which, whether it has a fixed foundation in natural law or not, has always been treated in the practice of nations, as a stricly civil right, derived from and regulated by each society, according to it own circurhstances and interests. Noav, Mr. Speaker, that is a high authority — that perhaps is the best commentator we have upon fede rative institutions; and can it be properly said that on the contrary the regulation of the franchise is to be in the Federal Government, that it is to be given to the whole Dominion and not to the provinces, or local power ? I claim under this authority that the regula- 20 2 SPEECH tion of the franchise properly come3 Avithin the limits and functions of the local powers. Noav Avhat is the reason given in favor of a Dominion franchise ? It is that OUR PROVINCIAL FRANCHISE LACKS UNIFORMITY. Well I admire the square symmetry of the rectangular lines, but it is not an argument unless it is supported by other reasons. The honorable gentleman attempt- 1 ed to support it — not by reasoning, but by precept, by example and precedent. He says our constitution was derived from the British constitution, and he appeal ed to British institutions as a reason for our having a uniform franchise. Well, the example is certainly poorly adapted to that purpose, for even in Great Britain. Avhere they have legislative union, unifor mity of franchise is not known — in fact, the franchise is much more diversified than our own. Let me quote on this point, from a Avell knoAvn book — one Avhich is in the hands of everybody, the Statesman's Year Book. Speaking of the franchise and its modifications, the au thor speaks thus : The next great change in the constituency of the Ho'ise of Commons, after the act of 183:3, was nnde by the Reform Bill of 18137-08. By this Act England and Wales were allotted 403 members and Scotland 60, while the number of Ireland, remained unaltered. In a borough a man was entitled to vote who was of full age, legally competent, had been an occupier of a house as owner or tenant for 12 mouths previous to July 20th of any year, and had paid his rates ; a lodger- was entitled to vote who had occupied the same lodgings for a year, if these lo Agings, unfurnished, were of the value of at least £10 a year, paid by him. Every freeholder and leaseholder of the annual value of 40 shilings, every copyholder and leaseholder of the annual value of £.">, every householder whose rent was not less than £12, and every tenant whose rent was £50 a year, was entitled to vote for a county representative. In Scotland the ownership franchise for the county was £5 ; householders who had paid their rates and lodgers who paid £10, copyholders or leaseholders having a 60 years' lease, the value of whose copyhold AGAINST THE FRANCHISE ACT 203 or leasehold exceeded by at least £10 the rent or charge upon it, had a vote for the county. Leaseholders having a 20 years' lease of a clear value of £20 had also a county vote. The borough franchise in Ireland was confined to householders rated at not less than £4 a year. So you see, Mr. Speaker, that Great Britain not only has established a separate franchise for each of the three Kingdoms, but in each THERE ARE SEVERAL CLASSES or standards of franchise. But our constitution is not only derived from British institutions ; it is mainly derived from the American constitution, and the American constitution has'a principle exactly similar to that which I noAV advocate. They have not a uniform franchise; they have a State franchise, and the constitution enacts that the electors to the House of Representatives shall have the qualifications requi site for elections to the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. Noav the American constitution is our model in that respect. That constitution has stood the test of a great civil war. It has been amended from time to time, but very sparingly, and there has not been, to my knoAvledge, any complaint made against this provision of the constitution. Yes terday the honorable member for King's (Mr. Foster), speaking on this question, said it Avas the duty ofthis House to regulate its OAvn franchise, and not to leave it to the whim or fancy ofthis one or that one, but that Ave should enact who should be the electors to this House. Well, for my part, I have no objection that this should be done; perhaps it is well after all that the question should be settled once and for all, and that to-day this House should determine avIio should be electors to this House. But if that is to be done, let it be done l2Qi SPEECH AS IT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE UNITED STATES, as it has been in the Dominion since the Confedera tion, and let us determine that the electors to the House of Commons shall be the electors to the seve ral Local Legislatures. Noav, again, the honorable gentleman, addressing himself to this question, said we should be independent of the Local Legislatures. Well, Ave are independent of the Local Legislatures in our OAvn sphere, just as much as the Local Legis latures are independent of us in their sphere. But, at the same time, this House has no rights at all of its own; the only rights Avhich it enjoys are those which are delegated to it by the people of the provinces and it is not for this House to determine what people uf the provinces shall delegate these poAvers to the House or in Avhat manner they shall be constituted for that purpose ; it is the people themselves avIio should determine Avho shall be the constituents of the mem bers of this House, according to the mode regulated by the constitution, speaking through the Local Legis latures. Again, the honorable Minister of _ Public Works (Sir Hector Langevin) speaking to this ques tion, said Ave should have a legislative franchise of our own, independent of the franchise of our Local Legislatures. He said in so many words : Let the Local Legislatures have their "own franchise if they choose, but let us go on and establish our franchise. This Avould be Avell enough if we had two classes of electors, one class for the Dominion House and one class for the Local Legislatures. But the honorable gentleman forgets that it is the same people who are represented in the Local Legislatures and the Domi nion House. Our system of government is a system of divided poAvers. It is the same people Avho are represented in either House, Avhether in the Local Legislatures or the House of Commons. This House has certain powers delegated to it by the people. The Local Legislatures have certain poAvers delegated to them by the people, AGAINST THE FRANCHISE ACT 205 BUT IT IS THE SAME PEOPLE Avho delegate those poAvers in each instance. It is to my mind a fact Avhich cannot be denied that this bill is an attempt' at the federal principle. It is an attempt at centralization. No one ever dreamed that the right honorable gentleman who proposed the bill on this occasion and on former occasions Avould shoAV his hand and declare in so many words that his object in proposing this measure was centralization. In 1870, Avhen the measure Avas discussed for the first time, the honorable gentleman's -most trusted lieutenant, Sir Charles Tupper, used this significant language: He entirely agreed with the centralizing principle of the bill, and he also thought that the franchise should be as near as possible uniform. I commend this language, Sir, to those Avho value the federative principle. They Avill find it to be the true keynote of this measure ; in fact, as the first lieutenant of the First Minister said, this was no less than a measure of centralization and that was the reason he supported it. Noav, in order to shoAv that the franchise is specially a local matter and not a matter of Dominion concern, let us look at the bill itself. The bill, it is said, aims at uniformity, but it does not provide for uniformity. There are two dif ferent standards of franchise in this bill, one for cities and towns, and one for rural constituencies. A man, if he has property or real estate to the extent of $150, if that property is situated in a rural constituency, is a voter, but if the same real estate forms part of a city he is not a voter. Noav, Avhy is this ? I am not going to enquire as to the reason for it ; but this shows that if there can be in the same province two different standards for the franchise, still more there ought to be 206 SPEECH DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN DIFFERENT PROVINCES. As to the question of woman franchise there seems to be a great diversity of opinion in this House. For my part, I say if Ontario Avants to have a woman fran chise, let them have it. Let the legislature of Ontario give it to Avomen if the people of Ontario tay that it is best for themselves. If Nova Scotia, New Bruns wick, Prince Edward Island or any other province wants to give the right of suffrage to women, let it do so; their legislatures have the power to do it; but in the province of Quebec, so far as I know, there is not one single class in the community that would extend the right of the franchise to women, not even to that fair portion of them to Avhom it is intended to give it by this bill. I must say this further: I am really surprised to see the Minister of Public Works, who has ahvays been represented among us as the uncompromising champion of that old, pure, unpol luted Conservatism Avhich would not yield to the abom inations of modern doctrines, promoting in this House a bill which is not only a concession to the wickedness of modern doctrines, but which is far in advance of all accepted modern doctrines, even in the most advanced countries. If this bill becomes law, it will go forth to the world that Ave in Canada are more advanced than most of the States of the Ameri can union ; more advanced than Republican France; more advanced than Italy ; and all this will be due to a Conservative Government of which the Minister of Public Works is a member. Noav, I commend the Minister of Public Works to the tender mercies of the good, pious, Conservative French of the province of Quebec. I am sure of one thing ; if such a measure had come from this side of the House, there would have been thousands of appeals against it, as to the wickedness of the Rouges ; but IT IS A CONSERVATIVE MEASURE, and, being a Conservative measure, I suppose it must AGAINST THE FRANCHISE ACT 207 be accepted by the Conservative party. The right honorable leader of the Government said that he was in favor of the emancipation of Avomen. I am of French origin, and I am a Liberal ; and holding this double title, I claim that I am in favor of the eman cipation of the Avomen as much as he can be; but I do not belieAre that the emancipation of women can be promoted so much by political as by social reform. I believe that the action of women must be most in fluential in politics as in everything else, but I believe that action is more effective if exercised in the circle of home, by persuasion and advice, than if Avoman is brought to the poll to vote. If the right honorable gentleman is really anxious to do something for the emancipation of Avoman, let him give her the oppor tunity for more extensive education, let him open for her more fields of employment, and he will do more for her emancipation than by giving her the right to vote. But there is a greater objection to the pro posal of the right honorable gentlemen in this regard, an objection which was pointed out yesterday by the honorable member for OttaAva county (Mr. Wright). This measure proposes to give the right of suffrage to unmarried ladies only, and it is a premium on ce libacy. The right honorable gentleman said it Avas a measure of emancipation. If it be a boon, therefore, he places unmarried ladies in this dilemma : they have either to choose to remain single and have the right to vote or to marry and lose the right to vote. It is not fair that it should be so. The writers of the past have spoken of the perplexities of a young woman placed between tAvo suitors ; but the writers of the fu ture will have to shoAv the perplexity of the young Avoman Avho has to choose between a husband and the right to Arote. It is not fair that it should be so, and if this measure is pressed it will be a novel method of promoting the emancipation of women. But the mea sure is liable to graver and greater objections. I sub mit to the sense of the House that this measure is 208 SPEECH^ AN INVASION OF POPULAR RIGHTS. Hitherto the voters' lists have been prepared by the people themselves. The assessment rolls have* been prepared by the people themselves through valuators appointed by the municipal councils. The lists have been prepared by the people themselves through secretary- treasurers appointed by the municipal councils ; the lists have been revised by the people themselves through the municipal councils. This system, so far as I know, has worked satisfactorily and Avell. Noav it is proposed that there shall be a change. What reason is given for that change? Why should this right be taken from the people? If I had to make a report upon my countrymen I would say this, that they are too apathetic in the discharge of their public duties — that they do not give to public business all the attention they ought to give. The present system forces them to give their attention to public business. Noav, that system is to be changed. The voters' lists are henceforth to be prepared, not by the people, but by lawyers appointed by the Gov ernment, assisted by clerks and constables. What can be the reason of that change? Can it be for the sake of uniformity ? Uniformity is not alleged in this instance. Is it because of the adoption of a Dominion franchise, and because since Ave have a Dominion franchise Ave cannot allow the lists to be prepared by the municipal councils, but must have them prepared by officials of our own ? But, as long as we give the execution of our laws to the courts of justice, I do not see why Ave should not give the the administra tion of that part of the laAV to the municipal councils. If the change is made as a consequence of the intro duction of a Dominion franchise, this must be A BAD MEASURE, INDEED, if to carry it out you are obliged to deprive the peo ple of a portion of the rights they now exercise. The AGAINST THE FRANCHISE ACT 209 present system has so far Avorked satisfactorily ; I am not aware that the A'oters' lists have not been properly prepared and revised by those who have hitherto had the duty of preparing and revisingthem.Under the laAv, — in the province of Quebec, at all events, — there is an appeal from the decision of the municipal councils to the courts ; I have been curious to knoAV if this right of appeal has been exercised to any degree. Because if it had been exercised to a great degree, that Avould be an evidence that the laAV Avas not properly admin istered by the province ; but if I find that the appeals have been very few indeed, the only conclu sion I can arrive at is that it works Avell. A friend of mine has taken the trouble to enquire how many appeals have been taken in the several districts in the four years, 1881, 1882, 1883 and 1SS4; and as a result of that enquiry I find that in the district of Montreal there have been 16, in Quebec none, in Three Rivers 10, in St Francis none, in Arthabaska 2, in Mont- mag^y 4, in Terrebonne none, in Rimouski none, in Richelieu none, in Beauce none in Ottawa none, in Gatpe none, in Joliette 1, and Bedford 1 ; in all only 40 appeals in the four years, or ten per year. Well, in the province of Quebec there are something like 800 municipalities, so that the number is just a little more than one per cent, and less than two per cent. of the total number of lists prepared each year in all the municipalities. It is therefore evident that THIS SYSTEM HAS AVORKED SATISFACTORILY and you must remember this, that the appeal given under the present laAv is not an appeal of grace such as provided for in this bill, but an appeal which is in the right of every one, and yet there has been, under this system, only an average of a little more than one per cent, of complaints made to the superior tribunals of the regulation of the franchise as estab lished by the municipal councils. The bill is still liable to a giaver objection ; it is a direct invasion of the 14 210 SPEECH AGAINST THE FRANCHISE ACT poAvers hitherto enjoyed by the people. So far the people themselves have had the preparation of these lists, but henceforward that poAver is to be taken out of their hands; and Avhat is the reason given for taking aAvay from the people that duty of Avhich they have had the enjoyment ever since Confederation? I use the Avord enjoyment advisedly, because the exer cise of a duty so precious as this must be an enjoyment rather than an obligation. Yet this precious right is proposed to be taken aAvay from the people ; and I do not imagine that the sturdy yeomen ofthis country Avill submit to this for any length of time; I do not imagine that they will yield Avithout a protest this right TO HENCHMEN OF THE GOVERNMENT, i to the innumerable army of parasites which feed on the Government and Avhose sole object will be to do the bidding of the Government. In every conceiv able point this measure is in my opinion a bad measure, one that will be denounced by all those who believe in popular rights, avIio believe in the sacred- ness of our constitution, as an invasion of popular righic, and as a step towards centralization; and in this view I beg to move the following resolution : — That all the words after " th 1 1 " be struck out and the following inserted : In the opinion of this House it is prefer able to continue the plan which has been adopted ever since Confederation of utilizing for the election of this House the provincial franchise and voters' lists. Tlie Second Insurrection in tie North-West THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHARGED WITH HAVING DELIBERATELY PROVOKED IT MR. LAURIER'S INDICTMENT The following speech by Mr. Laurier created an immense sensation in Parliament.delivered as it was under very solemn circumstances at the time when the Federal volunteers wer,e returning from a campaign of several months in the North West, which had cost the country both blood and millions of money. On the evening previous (6th July, 1885) Honorable Edward Blake had, in four brief lines, foimulated a most formidable indictment against the Government, openly and boldly accusing them of having been the real provokers and authors of the insurrection. In support of his motion, which was in these terms : To leave out all the words after " that " and insert the following instead thereof: It be Resolved,— .That inthe administration of North- West affairs by the present Government, prior to the recent outbreak, there have occuicd grave instances of neglect, delay and mismanage ment in matters affecting the peace, welfare and good government of the country. Mr. Blake had made a long and eloquent speech, which was answered by Sir John A Macdonald, who in turn was replied to by Mr. Laurier : —[Taken from the Hansard of 1885, p. 3119, sitting of 7th JulyJ 212 SPEECH Mr. Speaker, There is an old saying AveU known to all of us that a good laAvyer can make of a bad cause a good one. The speech of the right honorable gentleman yesterday must have convinced everyone of us that there are cases so desperately bad that all the ingen uity of the ablest counsel cannot make ihem appear good. The case must be desperate, indeed, Avhen a gentleman of the high position which the right honorable gentleman occupies in this House, does not scruple to torture the Avords of his opponent, in order to make out a case for himself. In the Arery beginning of his speech, the honorable gentleman adopted that system, and he kept it up to the end. In almost his opening sentence the right honorable gentleman stated that my honorable friend, the leader of the Opposition — in the long, as he characterized it, and as he might have said, the most able speech ever delivered by my honorable friend — Avhile presenting the claims of the half-breeds in the North- West Territories to a special grant of land, had not in a single instance stated that the claim Avas a just one. The honorable gentleman forgot, and he should not have forgotten, that my honorable friend at the very outset of his speech affirmed the justice of the case of the half-breeds in the most characteristic manner, in the following language: Justice is the same everywhere. Justice is the same, whether it be on the banks of the Saskatchewan or on the banks of the Red River; justice demands that the same treat. ment which has been extended to the half-breeds on the banks of the Red River shall also be extended to the half-breeds on the banks of the Saskatchewan. The right honorable gentleman, Sir, forgot that statement, and the case has to be a desperate oue, indeed, Avhen it has to be supported with such a dis tortion of facts. Again, the honorable gentleman, pro ceeding in the same line, in order to clear himself of ON THE NORTH-WEST REBELLION 213 the charge that Avas brought against him of having failed for seven years to dispose of the claims of the half-breeds, stated that the Mackenzie Administration bad not only failed to dispose of those claims, but had actually denied their justice; and in order to prove his statement he proceeded to quote Avith great apparent glee from a State paper of my honorable friend from Both>vell (Mr. Mills) while in the Mac kenzie Government. That paper wa3 addressed to Mr. Laird, at that time Lieutenant-Governor of the North- West Territories, iu answer to an application made by him for seed grain on behalf of the half-breeds. The honorable member for BothAvell Avrote as folloAvs : — The application of the petitioners to be aided by the Government with seed and agricultural implements in their farming operations, I confess I am not disposed to view favor ably. I do not see upon what grounds the half-breeds can claim to be treated in this particular different from the white settlers in the Territories. The half-breeds,who have, in some respects, the advantages over new settlers in the Territories, should be impressed with the necessity of settl' lg down in fixed localities and directing their energies towards pastoral or agricultural pursuits, in which case lands Avould, no doubt, be assigned to them in the same way as to white settlers. But beyond this they must not look to the Government for any special assistance in their farming operations. So that this paper of my honorable friend from BothAvell did not at all apply to the question of the lands and the extinguishment of the Indian title, but it applied to the treatment of the half-breeds and their claim to be aided by being furnished seed and agri cultural implements. That was all, and yet, during theAvhole of the speech of the right honorable gentle man, he insisted that the Mackenzie Government had denied the claims of the half-breeds to a special grant of land in extinguishment of the Indian title. Then again, continuing in the same strain, the right honor able gentleman charged his predecessors with derelic tion of duty, because they had failed, while in poAver, 214 SPEECH to settle the land claims of the half-breeds. Sir, is it possible that the right honorable gentleman had the courage to advance such a plea as this in justification of himself? Hoav long is it since the Mackenzie Admin istration has fallen frompoAver? It is six full years ; nearly seven years have elapsed since then. Well, Mr. Speaker, if it was a crime in the Mackenzie Admin istration to have failed to settle those claims, how can the honorable gentleman defend himself Avhen he has alloAved nearly seven years to elapse Avithout doing so either? The charge against the Mackenzie Administration is perfectly groundless, as I shall demonstrate before I take my seat, but if that pre tended excuse be the only justification whicli the right honorable gentleman can urge in his behalf, I leave it to the judgment of this country to say Avhether it is a sufficient justification or not. Noav, the honorable gentleman proceeded very exultingly to declare that there had been no case of oppression, that there was not even a pretension that the people had been oppressed, that not a single half-breed had been removed from his holding. No cause for oppression ! Why, Mr. Speaker, was it not oppression when men had long been settled upon their lands, even before the country was transferred to Canada, when they had made homes for themselves, Avhen they had put buildings upon their lands, and Avhen, under the policy of the present Government, land surveyors Avere sent among them, who ran lines across their fields, splitting up farms and fields, AA'ho ran their lines so as to put the buildings on one side and the fields on the other; and after these peoplehad sent delegation after delegation to this Government for redress, had been constantly refused redress. If this Avas not a case of oppression, I Avouldliketo knoAV Avhat can constitute oppression in the eyes of the right honorable gentleman? The homes of these people were invaded — not accidentally, but deliberately— under the policy of the Government for the survey of that country ; and yet the honorable gentleman says ON THE NORTH-AVEST REBELLION 215 there was no case of oppression. Sir, what Avas it then that Father Andre protested against when he Avroteto the Government in the folloAving manner, first setting forth that settlers there have settled according to the old custom, ten chains fronting on the river, and trusting the Government would survey accordingly, ho adds : Their surprise may be imagined when they saw the lands along the Saskatchewan me isured off into squares of forty chains, without heed being given to their just claims and pro tests.. What is that Father Vigreville protested against when he wrote to Captain Deville, chief of the sur veys ? I, myself, caused Mr.Duck,the Dominion land surveyor,to write several times to Ottawa and always without success. until finally I became discouraged myself, and several people were obliged to leave the settlement, some selling their land for a nominal price and others abandoning it without any compen sation. in February, 1883, the Rev. Father Leduc and Mr. Maloney were deputed by the settlement to set forth our complaints and present our demand to the Government. They were given v written promise that the lands we occupied should be sur veyed in river lots of 10 chains the autumn following (1 883). I understand you to tell me to have patience; that everything will come out right in the end. These are words which, per mit me to say, I cannot accept ; the time is past. The honorable gentleman then proceeded to say that no half-breed had ever been molested, that no half-breed had ever lost his holding. In an organ of the Government, Le Manitoba of 13th May last, I find the following letter from half-breeds, Avhich was first published in English in the Edmonton Bulletin. I have it here in French, and I Avill re-translate it into the original English. This is Avhat the paper goes on to say : Far from obtaining liberal terms, we have not even ob- 216 SPEECH tained justice. Last summer we had the agent of the Govern ment to settle all questions relating to lands in this locality. If the agent's only object had been to provoke the half-breed rebel lion he could not have done better than by following the course he has done,and giving the decisions he has recorded, which deci sions are always characterized by the most manifest injustice. It would be impossible to state a case of a section of land in dispute between a half-breed and a stranger where the half- breed has not been sacrificecl.In many instances half-breeds,who for a long time have been in possession of these lands, have had their lands taken away from them and divided among strangers newly arrived ; and these unfortunate half-breeds have been thereby forced to leave the place and go and settle elsewhere where the same fate perhaps awaits them in the future. Is it believed we have no grievance ? We have griev ances and we feel them deeply. Signed, SAMUEL CUNNING H AM. OCTAVE BELLEROSE, JOHN" CUNNINGHAM, BAPTISTE COURTEPATTE, JOHN ROWLAND, O. ROWLAND, L. CHASTELLAIRE. L. GORIVEA.U. Then the honorable gentleman proceeded to say that the Avhole blame for the rebellion and its conse quences must be cast upon the Grit party. When the honorable gentleman has made such a statement as I have just refer' ed to, that there are no grievances among the har-breeds in the North-West, he may as well say that the Grit party is responsible for the re bellion and all its consequence. Such rant — for such language is nothing more than rant — is uiiAvorthy of him. Yet, such language is quite in keeping with the language which the honorable gentlemen has used ever since the opening of these troubles. Ever since these North-West troubles arose, the tactics of the honorable gentlemen have been TO WASH THEIR HANDS of all responsibility and proclaim themselves quite ON THE NORTH-WEST REBELLION 217 innocent of the bloodshed, and lay all the blame on the insurgents. To every enquiry made as to the origin of these troubles, the same ansAver is given: The half-breeds have no cause, they have no griev ances. Such has been the language of the honorable gentlemen all through. Speaking on a recent occasion on the same subject, he stated, Avhat he repeated again yesterday, that the half-breeds had no cause, that the rebellion Avas a causeless rebellion ; and he concluded in the following language : We believe, with all the consciousness of being right, that th-* judgment of the country will be that we have acted well, that we have acted to the best of our abilities and that, in this case, our abilities have not been wrongly directed. And again, speaking on the same subject on ano ther occasion, he made anothe: declaration. At that time he believed that the rebellion Avas not clue to the Grit party — that is a new thought, a new grievance — but was due to Louis Riel. He said : From former occurrences in the North-West, he (Riel) is considered a sort of martyr in the cause — a sort of half-breed Mahdi — and they look up to him with a sort of supeistitious regard, and from that feeling he is able to act upon these poor people. Such Avas the language of the honorable gentle man. The only explanation he could give of the re bellion has been this : That the insurgents had no grievances, but that they had been the the victims and dupes of Louis Riel. Such an explanation is ex ceedingly futile. From what Ave knoAV of Louis Riel, he does not appear to be one of those extraordinary men, who can command general SAvay over their fel low countrymen. And there is no man in the Avorld, Avhatever his power may be. who could take men from a state of peace and bring them into Avar, 218 SPEECH SIMPLY BY HIS INFLUENCE, unless there were deep-seated and long- felt feelings of grievances. The honorable gentleman compared Louis Riel to the Mahdi. We knoAV little about the Mahdi. But Ave do know this : That the people of the Soudan avIio Avere brought into rebellion had been suffering for years and years from most despotic rule. They had been for years ground by excessive taxation, and the Mahdi brought them into rebellion by promising to relieve them from the state of suffering in Avhich they were then placed. I can illustrate Avhat I am now Baying, that no man hoAvever powerful, can exer cise such influence as is attributed to Louis Riel, by a page from our oavu history. FeAv men have there been anyAvhere Avho have wielded greater sway over their fellow-countrymen than did Mr. Papineau at a certain time in the history of LoAver-Canada, and no man ever lived who had been more profusely endoAved by nature to be the idol of a nation. A man of command ing presence, of majestic'countenance, of impassioned eloquence, of umblemished character, of pure, disin terested patriotism, for years and years he held over the hearts of his fellow- countrymen almost un bounded sway, and, even to this day, the mention of his name will arouse throughout the length and breadth of LoAver-Canada a thrill of enthusiasm in the breasts of all, men or women, old or young. What Avas the secret of that great poiver he held at one time? Was is simply his eloquence, his commanding intellect, or even his pure patriotism? No doubt, they all contributed ; but the main cause of his authority over his felloAv-countrymen Avas this, that, at that time, his fellow-countrymen Avere an oppressed race, and he Avas the champion of their cause. But Avhen the day of relief came, the influence of Mr. Papineau, hoAvever great it might have been and hoAvever great it -till remained, ceased to be paramount. When eventually the Union Act Avas carried, Papineau viol ently assaulted it, showed all its defects, deficiencies ON THE NORTH-AVEST REBELLION 219 and dangers, and yet he could not raise his followers and the people to agitate for the repeal of that Act. WHAT AA'AS THE REASON? The conditions Avere no more the same. Imperfect as was the Union Act it still gave a measure of freedom and justice to the people, and men who at the mere sound of Mr. Papineau's voice would have gladly courted death on battle field or scaffold, then stood silent and irresponsive, though he asked them noth ing more than a constitutional agitation for a repeal of the Union Act. Conditions Avere no more the same ; tyranny and oppression had made rebels of the people of LoAver-Canada, Avhile justice and freedom made them true and loyal subjects, Avhich they have been ever since. And now to tell us that Louis Riel, sim ply by his influence, could bring these men from peace to Avar ; to tell us that they had no grievances ; to tell us that they were brought into a state of rebel lion either through pure malice or through imbecile adherence to an adventurer, is an insult to the intel ligence of the people at large and an unjust aspersion on the people of the SaskatcheAvan. The honorable gentleman tells us that the people of the Saskatche Avan river have no wrongs ; this is but a continuation of the system Avhich has been followed all along with regard to this people. They have been denied their just rights, and now they are slandered by the same men Avhose unjust course towards them drove them to the unfortunate proceedings they have adopted since. This I do charge upon the Government : that they have for years and years ignored the just claims of the half-breeds of the SaskatcheAvan, that for years and years these people have been petitioning the Gov ernment and always in vain. I say they have been treated by this Government with an indifference amounting to undisguised contempt, that they have been goaded into the unfortunate course they have adopted, and if this rebellion be a crime, I say 220 SPEECH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT CRIME Aveighs as much upon the men Avho, by their conduct, have caused the rebellion, as upon those who engaged in it. The right honorable gentleman said yesterday that the leader of the Opposition had prepared a brief for the laAvyers of Louis Riel. Some honorable members : — Hear, hear ; that is true. Mr. Laurier: — They say now it is true. I say this, that if the conduct of the Government is part of the defence of Louis Riel, then the Government must take the consequences. It Avill not do for them to say : You must not attack us. because by attacking us you will save Louis Riel. The Government have put Louis Riel on his trial for life and death, and I suppose it is not his blood they are looking for. I suppose, if they are looking to anything, they are looking to nothing but substantial British justice, and if, in the facts brought out yesterday by my honorable friend, there is something Avhich Avould go in favor of the defence of Louis Riel, then Louis Riel has the full right to that part of his defence. I say more. I repeat that I do not believe that the men who to-day have put Louis Riel on his trial for his life and death do not desire his blood, that they are only looking for justice ; and if justice requires that in the numerous papei'3 Avhich have been suppressed, which have not been brought down to this House, there is anything which can go in favor of Louis Riel's defence, it is their duty to bring them doAvn, and if they were concealing anything which could serve for the defence of Louis Riel, I Avould charge them with helping his murder, if he were tried in the absence of such portion of his defence. It will not do for the honorable gentleman to attempt to rouse the preju dices of the masses Avith respect to this matter. THERE ARE PREJUDICES IN THIS COUNTRY of many kinds. We are not yet so built up as a nation ON THE NORTH-AVEST REBELLION 221 as to forget our respective origins, and I say frankly that the people of my own province, Avho have a com munity of origin Avith the insurgents, sympathize Avith them, just as the sympathies of the peoole of Ontario who are of a different origin Avould go alto gether in the other direction. Some honorable members : — No, sir. Mr. Laurier : — No ? Why is it then that it Avas repeated yesterday, that it is repeated to-day in the press, that it Avill be asserted and repeated to-morrow, and again that my honorable friend, the leader of the Opposition, has prepared a brief for the laAvyers of Louis Riel. Why, Sir, that is appealing to the Avorst kind and the lowest prejudices of the masses. It is said, and truly said, in your language, Sir, t~at blood is thicker than water. I am of French origin, and I confess that if I Avere to act only from the blood Avhich runs in my veins, it would carry me strongly in favor of these people; but, above all, I claim to be in favor of A\h at is just and right and fair, to be in favor of justice to every man, and I say, let justice be done, and let the consequences fall upon the guilty ones, Avhether on the head of Louis Riel, or on the shoulders of the Government. Sir, the Government are all the more unjustifiable in their conduct, that the experience of the past ought to have made them more cautions. It is an ominous fact that, although this young Confederation has existed only eighteen years, it has already been assailed tAvice by armed rebellion. Of the first rebellion Ave noAV knoAv the causes. Light has been let upon that subject. What Avas the cause of the first rebellion on the Red River in 1869 ana 1870? The cause, as wenowknoAv, is that the Government — this Government, the men Avho are in poAver now,and Avho were in poAver then — attempted to take possession of the country AVITHOUT ANY REGARD to the rights of the people as a whole, Avhilst they invaded the rights of the people as individuals. It 222 SPEECH may be conceived that these people, Avho had been accustomed to the Avild liberty of the prairie, who had been accustomed for generations and generations to rove all over the Avhole continent, who looked upon the country as their OAvn, and regarded as their own every plot of land on which they chose to pitch their tents ; I say it may be well conceived that these people, half Avild as they were, would regard with something like jealousy the doings of a Government which suddenly came in upon them and assumed authority over the territory. Then Avhat took place at that time? One Avould have thought that it would have been at least prudent on the part of the Govern ment to take some conciliatory steps towards these people, but instead of that they went into the country and treated the people as people used to be treated in feudal times, as if they had been part and parcel of the territory which was purchased from the Hud son's Bay Company — treating the people, I tay, as if they Avere serfs in feudal times — part of the ground Avhich was sold. The people resented such a course. But that Avas not .all. The Government attempted a system of survey which was the most odious that could be devised for the people. Some of the people had holdings or properties, with fields and buildings, and the surveyors sent by the Government paid no heed to their holdings, but ran their lines across their possessions, and, as might be imagined, A GREAT DISTURBANCE took place. The facts are well illustrated by the history of the rebellion, and I cannot do better on this subject than quote the folloAving from the report of Mr. Donald A. Smith, who Avas at that time appointed agent to investigate the matter : _ A not inconsiderable number of them remained true to their allegiance during all the trouble through which they have had to pass, and with these will now be found associated many ON THE NORTH-WEST REBELLION 223 others whose minds had for a time been poisoned with gross misrepresentations made by designing men, for their own selfish ends. A knowledge of the true state of the case and of the adv antages they would derive from a union with Canada, had been carefully kept from them, and they were told tojudge of Cana dians generally by the acts and bearing of some of the less re flecting immigrants who had denonced them as cumberers of the ground, who must speedily make way for a superior race about to pour in upon them. It is also true that in the unauthor ized proceedings of some of the recent Canadian arrivals, some plausible ground had been given for the jealousy and alarm with which the contemplated change of government was regarded by the native population. In various localities these adventurers had been industriously marking off for themselves considera ble, and in some cases very extensive and exceptionally valua ble tracts of land, thereby impressing the minds of the people with the belief that the time had come when, in their own country, they were to be entirely supplanted by strangers — a belief, however, I have no doubt, wliich might have been en tirely precluded by the prevention of all such operations, until Canada had fully unfolded her policy and shown the ground lessness of these fears. Upon the same subject, a book Avritten by Mr. Tuttle. " The History of Manitoba, " speaks as follows upon the attitude and the feeling of the French half- breeds : The feeling of the French half-breeds may be briefly expres sed as this : That they questioned the right of the Dominion Government to take possession of what they considered their countrf , without their consent. The feeling was shown in the stoppage of the surveyors, Snow and Webb. More characteristic yet, a pamphlet, written by Louis Riel, in 1874, and published at the office of the Nou.veau Monde, reads thus : The North-West Territorries were transfeved to Canada only on the 15th July, 187U ; but Canada commenced in lsGS-69 public works in its own name, in Rupert's Land and the North- West, without having obtained the authority of the Hudson Bay Company. The arrival of the Canadian agents in the coun try was signalized by the contempt which they affected for 224 SPEECH the authority of the Hudson Bay Company and for the old settler-?. They attempted to take possession of the best lands of the half-nreeds, especi illy at Pointe des Chenes, a parish about 30 milles east of Fort Garry. They pretended that they had bought those lands from the Indians. After Mr. Snow had commenced the work of the Dawson route between the Lake of the Woods and Pointe des Chenes, in 1868, in the name of Canada, another intruder, under the same authority, commenced a survey, in the summer of 1869 around Fort Garry, of the public and private lands as well, under a new system of survey which deranged, without explanation at all, the existing order of things, and disturbed without scruple the old settlers in the peaceful and legal possession of their lands. So, Sir, you see that the grievances of the half- breeds at that t.me Avere two-fold. They complained first that Canada had taken possession of their coun try Avithout respect for their rights as a people ; and they complained, iii the second place, that the Gov ernment, by their system of survey, bad invaded their actual possessions and properties. Well, they rebelled ; they could not stand this ; and the conse quence of this rebellion, whatever it may have been otherAvise, was that the Government Avere forced to grant to the half-breeds what they had denied hitherto, that is, the Government acknoAvledged their right of sovereignty in the land by the distribution of 1,400.000 acres emong them, in extinguishment of the Indian title, an cl abandoned the old system of survey, and adopted a neAv system by Avhich the holdings of the half-breeds Avere respected. Noav, it might have been hoped that the experience of the past would have made the Government more cautious, and Avould have taught them to treat a highly sensitive people like the half-breeds Avith something like fairness and consideration. Indeed, the Government seem to be just like the Bourbons, who, according to Napoleon, neither learned nor forgot anything; in this matter the Government seem not to have learned anything or forgotten anything. I say the present Government are far more open to censure for the uprising on the ON THE NORTH-WEST REBELLION 225 Saskatchewan River than they were for the uprising on the Red River. Guilty as they were in 1869 for their treatment of the half-breeds on the Red River,. this, at least, might be said in attenuation, that they had no time to change their policy — that the rebellion sprang up on them before they had time to retrace their steps and correct the errors Avhich more caution at the outset might have averted. But on this pre sent occasion, if millions of dollars have been expended within a few weeks, if valuable lives have been lost and some of the most precious blood of Canada has been shed, if the horrors of civil Avar, and worse yet of Indian war, have to be deplored, what is the rea son ? Is it because the Government have not had time to mend a vicious policy, to retrace their steps ? Sir, it. is because for years and years the Gov ernment have pursued a system Avhich they are even now pursuing, of denying that the people had griev ances to complain of. It is because for years and years the Government have closed their ears not tu- hear the complaints, because they have closed their eyes not to see the Avrongs, because they have acted like the ostrich which buries its head in the sand so as not to see the danger, and thus ignores the danger;. this is the reason that we have had an uprising on the Saskatchewan; and, as I said, the Government are far more open to censure for this uprising than they were for the uprising of 1869-70. There Avas no dis turbance on the Saskatchewan River in 1869-70, and the reason is obvious ; in 1869-70 the Government had not attempted to assert their authority on the bankg of the SaskatcheAvan River ; they did not push on their authority at that time beyond the Red River, and therefore the people on the Saskatchewan River, not being interfered with in any way, continued to live as they had lived hitherto. But the day came when the Government of Canada undertook to assert their authority on the Saskatchewan, and properly so, in order to open that fine country to immigration from the east, and the half-breeds on that river showed 15 226 SPEECH the same anxiety and made the same claims as the half-breecls on the Red River had done. I have shown you that the claims of the half-breeds on the Red River Avere two-fold — they claimed that their rights to the soil should be recognized in some manner and they were recognized ; and they asked''"that they should not be troubled in their holdings, and those claims were conceded to them. As soon as the Cana dian Government attempted to assert their authority *n the SaskatcheAvan River, the half-breeds there made exactly the same claims. At the outset they demanded NOTHING MORE OR LESS than that their rights to the soil and their rights in the extinguishment of the Indian title should be re cognized and that the lands they held they should be allowed to continue to hold Avithout disturbance, With regard to the first question, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware, though the honorable gentle man said to the contrary yesterday, that the half- breeds of Saskatchewan River ever formulated any demand as to lands before the year 1878,or the last days of 1877. The honorable gentleman said that demands had been made to the Government of my honorable friend from East York (Mr. Mackenzie). I believe that some demands from the Qu'Appelle district were made before 1878, but no demand, so far as I am aware from the banks of the Saskatchewan, came to the Government before '1878; and the reason is obvious. The country had just only been opened for settlement; the Government had not attempted to exercise authority over the territory for more than 3 years; Mr. Laird, who Avas the first Lieutenant-Gov ernor, Avas appointed in 1876, and he only reached Battleford in 1877 ; in fact,it took him several months of travel to get to the seat of government at Battle- ford. In 1877, a petition was formulated by the half- breeds, and it ran as follows : Your petitioners would humbly represent thattheir rights ON THE NORTH-WEST REBELLION 227 to a participation in the issue of half-breeds' or old settlers' scrip are as valid and binding as those of the half-breeds and old settlers of Manitoba, and are expected by them to be regarded as scrupulously as in that Province ; and with a view to the adjustment of the same your petitioners would humbly reqnest that a census of said half-breeds and old set tlers be taken at as early a date as may be conveniently deter mined upon, with a view to apportioning to those of them, who have not already been included in the census of Manitoba, their just allotments of land and scrip. Then, some time in the month of February, a de putation came from St. Laurent to interview Mr. Laird about the same matter, and they presented him a petition, making in substance the same demand. This petition was addressed, not to the Government of Ottawa, but to the Lieutenant-Governor himself; he referred it to his council; the council did not sit until the folloAving month of August ; and in that month the council adopted the resolution Avhich has been several times quoted yesterday, whereby the claims of the half-breeds for an apportionment of land were presented favorably to the Government at Ottawa. The resolution ran as follows : — That in view of the fact that grants of land and issues of scrip were made to the half-breeds of Manitoba towards the extinguishment of the Indian title to the lands of that prov ince, there will undoubtedly be general dissatisfaction among the half-breeds of the said Territories unless they receive some like consideration. When Mr. Laird visited Duck Lake settlement in the following month of September, he Avas again interviewed by a deputation of the St. Laurent settle ment, and they asked him particulars as to Avhat had become of their petition, and Avhat treatment it had received at the hands of the Government. Mr. Laird explained that, the council having sat only in August, the Government had not yet had time to consider their application. They Avere 228 SPEECH SATISFIED AVITH THE EXPLANATION, and their spokesman cordially thanked the Lieutenant- Governor for the kind manner in which he had replied to their enquiries. The half-breeds, it must be said, displayed on that occasion a most gentle spirit ; they could not have acted Avith greater propriety. Then came the fall of the Mackenzie Government and a neAv Government came into power, the Government of the honorable gentleman opposite. In 1879, the Government took poAver to deal with the half-breeds in the same manner as the former Government took poAver to deal Avith the half-breeds of the Red River, and after the manner suggested by the North- West Council; that is to say, the Government took poAver for the extinguishment of the Indian title, in so far as it Avas vested in the half-breeds. Before going fur ther, it is appropriate that Ave should at once, in order to fix the responsibility of the Government in this matter, refer to the whole legislation on this point; the Act of 1870, Avhich Avas the first Act, the Act of 1874, Avhich Avas the second Act, and then the Act of 1879, to see exactly what was the purport and the ob ject and the cause of the legislation then put upon the statute book. The Act of 1870 ran as folloAvs: — And whereas it is expedient, towards the extinguishment of the Indian title to the lands in the Province, to appropriate a portion of such ungranted lands, to the extent of 1,400,000 acres thereof, for the benefit of the families of the half-breed residents, it is hereby enacted, that, under regulations to be from time to time made by the Governor General in Council, the Lieutenant-Governor shall select such lots or tracts in such parts of the Province as he may deem expedient to the extent aforesaid, and divide the same among the children of the half-breed heads of families residing in the Province at the time of the said transfer to Canada. So the object of the Act is perfectly clear; it is an allotment of land to the extent of 1,400,000 acres for the avowed purpose of dividing the same ON THE NORTH-AA'EST REBELLION 229 among the children of the heads of half-breed families, towards the extinguishment of the Indian title. Then, the Act of 1874 ran as follows : — Whereas, by the 31st section of the Act 33 Victoria, chapter 3, it was enacted as expedient towards the extinguish ment of the Indian title to the lands in the Province of Mani toba, to appropriate one million four hundred thousand acres of such lands, for the benefit of the children of the half-breed heads of families residing in the Province at the time of the transfer thereof to Canada ; and whereas no provision has been made for extinguishing the Indian title to such lands as respects the half-breed heads of families residing in the Pro- Aunce at the period named ; and whereas it is expedient to make such provision, and it is deemed advisable to effect the same by grant of land or by an issue of scrip redeemable in Dominion lands. Here, again, the same spirit is apparent, the same object is avowed. The grant is made in extin guishment of the Indian title,in so far as it Avas vested in the half-breeds ; and in 1879 the Act passed by honorable gentlemen opposite upon this question enacted as follows : — ¦ The Government have power to satisfy any claims existing in connection with the extinguishment of the Indian title, preferred by half-breeds resident in the North-West Territories outside of the limits of Manitoba, on the fifteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, by granting land to such persons, to such extent and on such terms and conditions, as may be deemed expedient. So there cannot be any ambiguity. Provision was introduced in the last statute by honorable gen tlemen opposite themselves with the express object of extinguishing the Indian title vested in the half- breeds. This Act NEVER AVAS PUT IN FORCE, it3 provisions never Avere carried out. What Avas the reason ? We do not knoAV yet. The Government never 230 SPEECH told us; I do not believe the Government know themselves the reason. But it Avas important that this provision should be acted upon. As early as 1879, the GoA'ernment appointed Mr. Davin to make a report upon the matter. It does not appear he ever reported, but it appears that several influential persons in the Territories, among them Archbishop Tache, were consulted on the matter. Upon the importance of at once dealing fairly and generously with the half-breeds, His Grace Archbishop Tache wrote as follows : — It must lie freely admitted that the half-breeds of the North-West have a claim t o favorable consideration. Great uneasiness is felt by them in consequence of no steps having yet been taken in their behalf. A liberal policy on the part of the Government would attract to its side a moral and phy sical power which in the present critical relations of the various tribes of Indians towards each other and towards the Government, would prove of the greatest value to the Domi nion. On the other hand the half-breed element, if dissatis fied, would form a standing menace to the peace and prosper ity of the Territories. There is no doubt that the state of affairs in the Territories in relation to the Indians and half-breeds is calling for the serious consideration of the Government, and measures should be adopted to cultivate and maintain rela tions with the half-breed population calculated to attract them to us The half-breeds are a highly sensitive race; they keenly resent injury or insult, and daily complain on that point. In fact they are daily humiliated with regard to their origin by the way they are spoken of, not only in newspapers, but also in official and semi-official documents. Mr. Girouard :— What is the date of that ? Mr. Laurier :— January, 1879. Then at the same time, THE ARCHBISHOP SUGGESTED A PLAN to the Government. He suggested that a certain tract of land be apportioned to them. He goes on to say: Ah the half-breeds, men, women and children, residing iu ON THE NORTH-AVEST REBELLION 231 the North-West on the 1st January, 1879, ought to receive two non-negotiable scrips for 80 acres of land each, to be located? by them in one of the twelve above-mentioned reserves, said lands to be neither sold, mortgaged, nor taxed until they should have passed through the hands of at least the third generation of those who receive them or of their represen tatives. This was the plan suggested by Archbishop Tach 6 to the Government to adopt. The Government did not adopt it ; they would not adopt it ; the right honor able gentleman said he would not adopt it. What wa3 the reason? The honorable gentleman stated yester day that he would not adopt the plan of Archbishop Tache, because, forsooth, the plan of Archbishop Ta che Avould have made the half-breeds wards of the Government ; he would rather trust to them ; he had a plan of his OAvn for their settlement, for their estab lishment. What was that plan of his OAvn ? Where Avas it ? When was it executed ? When was it shown to the country ? Where Avas it published ? When Avas it communicated to the half-breeds themselves ? Sir, I believe the right honorable gentleman, when he says he' had a plan for the settlement of the half-breed claims, i3 boasting — it is a vain and idle boast. The honorable gentleman never had any plan at all for the settlement of the half-breeds, or if he had any, it Avas just like the plan of General Trochu to compel the Germans to raise the siege of Paris ; it Avas a fine plan, according to him, but no one one ever saAV it, he never attempted to execute it ; and the honorable gentleman's plan is in the same manners. And, more than that, I say that if the Government did not carry out the plan of Bishop Tache, did not settle the claims of the half-breeds, it is because the Prime Min ister Avas opposed, in principle and in practice to the extinguishment of the Indian title, in so far as it is vested in the half-breeds. I say that the reason Avhy the Government have not, from 1879- to 1885, settled the claims of the half-breeds to a grant of land, is :J232 speech simply because the Prime Minister held that the half- breeds AVERE NOT ENTITLED to a special grant of land, and this I can prove out of his OAvn mouth. Not later than the 26th March, the Prime Minister, speaking upon this very question, expressed himself as folloAvs: — Asa whole, the half breeds have been told that if they desire to be considered as Indians, there are most liberal re serves that they could go to with the others ; but that if they desired to be considered white men, they could get 160 acres of lands as homesteads. But they are not satisfied with that ; thev want to get land scrip of equal quantity — I think upwards of 2u0 acres — and then get, as a matter of course, their home steads as well. Sir, this Avas the policy to which the honorable gentleman objected, that the half-breeds should get their grant of lands in extinguishment of the Indian title, and then be at liberty to settle on the lands in the North-West. That principle, to Avhich the honor able gentleman objected, is the very principle which has been admitted in our statute books ever since 1870. According to the Act of 1870, and the Act of 1874, Avhich completed it, an allotment of land Avas made to the half-breeds simply in extinguishment of the Indian title, and the half-breed, after he had re ceived the scrip for his land in extinguishment of the Indian title, was at liberty, as every other subject,and even as every foreigner, to go to the North-West and homestead upon any land, and claim it as his oavu. But the honorable gentleman would not give that to the half-breed. In fact, he said, as late as the 26th of March last, that the half-breeds were asking to have 160 acres of land, the same as every homesteader and besides that 200 acres for the extinguishment of their Indian title, and to this he objected; and this then, Sir, is the reason Avhy, from 1878 to 1885, the ON THE NORTH- AVEST REBELLION 233 half-breed question has not been dealt with by the honorable gentleman. I say THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT, as indicated in the statute book, has been that the half-breeds were entitled, just as much as the Indians, to the extinguishment of the Indian title, but as white men, instead of taking compensation for their Indian title collectively, they Avere alloAved to take it individually, and that is the only difference betAveen them and the Indians, so far as the extinguishment of the Indian title was concerned. And, is land such a scarce article in the North-West ? Have Ave not an abundance of land in the North-West ? And will we seriously be told that it Avas not just or fair that the half-breeds should be allotted a lot of the Avide lands of the North-West while the same privileges had been granted to the half-breeds in Manitoba? What reason could there be for not giving to the half-breeds on the Saskatchewan the very same privileges and rights which had been giA'en to the half-breeds on the Red River? As my honorable friend said yesterday, is not justice the same everyAvhere — upon the SaskatcheAvan as upon the Red River? If the half-breeds on the Red River Avere given a special grant of land in extinguish ment of the Indian title, did not justice demand that the same privileges and rights should be given to the half-breeds upon the SaskatcheAvan River? The officers of the Government in the North-West Terri tories, the North-West Council, the settlers them selves, Avere more generous to the half-breeds than the right honorable gentleman. Again and again the people of the North-West called the attention of the Government to this. I have already quoted the reso lution of the council passed in 1879 upon that ques tion. Again, in 1881, Mr. Clarke, a member of the council, presented a resolution : — That the half-breeds have always been recognized as pos sessing rights in the same soil, subject to which the Dominion 234 SPEECH accepted the transfer of the territories, and while ample pro vision has been made for those resident in Manitoba, on the 15th July, 1870, nothing has been done towards extinguishing that portion of the Indian title to lands and territories out side the province of Manitoba, as originally formed by the Act of 1870. Then he goes on to say that THE SAME THING SHOULD BE DONE for the half-breeds in the North-West Territory. I believe the council passed a resolution upon this, and transmitted it to the Government, but the Govern ment paid no heed to it. Later on the people of the North-West Territory held meetings and passed reso lutions advocating the very same course in favor of the half-breeds. A meeting took place at St. Albert, in October of that year, where it was resolved : — Whereas the Indian title in this district or territory has not been'extinct, and the old settlers and half-breed population in Manitoba have been granted scrip in commutation of such title, and such allowance has not been made to the residents in this territory ,resolved that the Right Honorable the Minister of the Interior be requested to grant such scrip to such set tlers, thus placing them on an equal footing with their con freres in Manitoba. This resolution was transmitted to the Govern ment by Mr. Charles Nolin. There was an answer from the Government, Avhich Avas quite in keeping Avith the principle enunciated yesterday by the right honorable gentleman. The answer was as follows : — Resolution JS'o 3 — As by treaty with the Indians, their title to any portion of the Territory included within the Dis trict of Lome has been extinguished, this resolution would need explanation. Well, Sir, that was transmitted to the people of the North-West. Mr. Clarke, Avho had looked into ON THE NORTH-AVEST REBELLION 235 the matter, sent a conclusive answer, setting forth all the legislation from 1871 to 1879, and showing con clusively that the policy of this Government had been the extinguishment of the Indian titles in favor of the half-breeds. Then resolutions were also passed by the people in favor of the same policy, but all without avail. At last Riel Ava3 sent for and brought into the country, and it Avouldseem that then at least the Government would have yielded what they had so far refused, BUT STILL THEY MOVED NOT. And when did they move ? At the time, as was shown by my honorable friend yesterday, when the rebellion Avas ripe in the North-West Territories on the 26th January, they did something ; and what was it ? They simply asked for a census. At that time they had no policy upon the matter. When they issued the Order in Council on the 26th January, 1885, to take a census of the half-breeds in the North-West, at that time they had no policy, because, as I have shown by the language of the right honorable gentleman, on the 26th March following, he would not acknowledge that the half-breeds Avere entitled to a special grant in extinguishment of the Indian title. He simply pretended that they had no more rights than the ordinary settlers ; that all they could do was simply to go on to the lands unsettled and take up a home stead or preemption, and nothing more; so that at that very time, on the 26th March, the Government had no policy whatever. But, Sir, something took place then which gave the Government a policy, and Avhat was it ? Sir, on the very day the honorable gen tleman Avas speaking here in this House, when he stated that the half-breeds of the North- West had no more rights than the ordinary settler, that all they could ask for was a homestead or preemption, on that very day the fight at Duck Lake Avas going on ; and the bullets of the Duck Lake fight did more to 236 SPEECH settle this question than six long years of prayers and petitions had done. Six long years of constant peti tioning had failed to secure justice for these people, had failed to procure a remedy of the grievances of which they complained, but THE BULLETS OF DUCK LAKE immediately set the Government in motion and immediately brought them to terms. On the 30th March, four clays afterwards, the Government came doAvn with an Order in Council in Avhich, for the first time, the rights of the half-breeds were to some extent acknowledged. Not completely acknowledged, how ever ; by this Order in Council the half-breeds Avere allowed a certain grant of land, not, hoAvever, in extin guishment of the Indian title, but with conditions of settlement. Then commissioners were appointed and proceeded to the disturbed districts. One of the commissioners, Mr. Street, being on the spot, looking at the matter, advised the Government that it was necessary in order to satisfy these people to give them a special grant of land, the same as had been given to the half-breeds in Manitoba, irrespective of conditions of settlement ; and since that time, forsooth, the commissioners have been distributing scrip amongst the half breeds in North-West Territory. At last Mr. Speaker, these men avIio have been petition ing for that special grant ever since 1878 and who up to March, 1885, could not obtain it — at last they suc ceeded in their request. Still, Sir, justice is doubly just and doubly precious Avhen it is freely and gently given, but justice loses most of its value when it is tardily and grudgingly conceded as it was on this occasion. Even last night the honorable gentleman would not say that, in so doing, the Government Avere doing justice to the half-breeds of Manitoba ; he avouIcI not say that he recognized their rights; he simply said that he would doit, and did it for the sake of peace. For the sake of peace, Avhen we Avere ON THE NORTH-AVEST REBELLION 237 in the midst of Avar; for the sake of peace, Avhen insurgents were in the field, and Avhen blood had been shed! Does the honorable gentleman suppose that this tardy concession will conciliate the feelings of the half-breeds? No, Sir ; the feeling that will remain in their hearts will be that they were denied their rights Avhile they confined themselves to petitioning for them, but as soon as they took up THEIR OLD RUSTY MUSKETS they brought the Government to their knees and secured what constitutional means could not obtain. This is the feeling which will remain in the hearts of the half-breeds. It is the same Avith regard to the unenumerated claims in Manitoba. There were a certain number of half-breeds who had not been enumerated in Manitoba, who had also a right to a special grant of land. They petitioned the Govern ment ; the North-West Council also petitioned the Government, the friends of the Government in the North- West petitioned, and all Avithout avail. But on the 9th April, after the rebellion had been raging for some time, the Government again came to their knees and granted to threats and violence what had been refused to petitions and prayers. In fact, the Government have not even the courage of Falstaff, for, if I remember rightly, Falstaff said that : " Were reasons as plentiful as berries, I would not give a reason upon compulsion. " But the Government Avould not give anything, except upon compulsion. They resisted the prayers and petitions of the settlers, but when the settlers came with arms in their hands, the Government immediately yielded and granted their requests. Sir, there was, as I said before, another claim which Avas made by the half-breeds- it was that they should not be disturbed in their holdings. It was that they were to be alloAved to occupy their holdings such as they Avere, and keep them on without molestation. The Government had adopted the Ame- 238 SPEECH rican, the rectangular, system of surveying, and a very good system it is — I have not a Avord to say against it — but it seems nothing but fair and right that where there had been settlement in advance of surveys, the Government should have acknowledged that fact, and the surveys should have been made according to the settlements. It is characteristic of all French settlements in America that they have all been made upon the banks of rivers and all the lands divided sothat the people can live close to oneanother. That is a feature of the French race. The French race, it will be admitted Avithout dispute, is of a more sociable disposition than the Teutonic race. The characteristics of the two races are distinctly marked in LoAver Canada. In Lower Canada, if you go through an old country settlement you will find the farm nouses scattered in all directions, wherever is most convenient for the farmer. They may be one mile or more apart ; but the moment you go into the French settlements you will find all the farm houses on the road side, all Avithin a stone's throw of one another, so as to afford the people easy and constant communication. In fact, the people of Lower Canada, in all the French settlements, are in constant and daily communication. THIS IS A CHARACTERISTIC not only of French settlements in LoAver Canada, but of all French settlements in America. It is the same in old France. The rural population in France chief ly dwell in hamlets, and in LoAver Canada as close to one another as the circumstances of the country will allow. And I found this feature in the old Acadian settlements in Nova Scotia. In King's country, for instance, in the old classic land of Evangeline, there was a settlement in the old days that was called Rieiere aux Canards, there the farms have been settled in narrow strips; all are close to each other, and the settlement is called to-day, so far as I know, ON THE NORTH-WEST REBELLION 239 by the suggestive name Canard Street. That, in the eyes of the population, represents a street more than an ordinary farm settlement. The adventurers whose blood now runs in the veins of the half-breed popula tion in the North-West, came from France and Lower Canada. The same trait exists among them. The half-breed population in the North-West to-day, wherever they have a settlement, have taken their lands IN EXACTLY THE SAME AA'AY as have all the French population, whether on the banks of the St Lawrence, in Acadia or in Louisiana. When the Government took possession of the North- West they found those settlements on the Sas katchewan River in exactly the same fashion as all other French settlements. The lands were divided into narrow strips, and the farms Avere all close upon one another. Was it anything but right and fair that the holdings of those people should be respected : that the lands which had been divided by the people among themselves should not be interfered with, and that the retrangular surveys should give way so soon as they came incontact with settlements. This Avas the policy followed by the honorable mem ber for BothAvell (Mr. Mills) when he was in charge of the Department of the Interior. I noticed yester day that the First Minister, when he addressed himself to this subject, passed rather gently, lightly and sweetly over it. He did not say much upon it. He merely said that the honorable member for Bothwell, when at the head of the Department, had not been so diligent as he might have been. But he extolled his own activity. He said that the Government of which he was a member had displayed the greatest diligence in the matter. Not only did the honorable gentlemen make that double assertion, but he said he would prove it. And then, with a someAvhat ostentatious manner, he took a map and had laid it on the Table. 240 SPEECH Look at the map, he said, and it will shoAv how much we have surveyed. And so soon as the House rose I saAV a number of the honorable gentleman's followers, Avho had deep faith and reposed confidence in his word, go to the Table and look for evidences of the energy and activity of their leader ; and, from the blank stare Avhich Avas seen on their faces, it was evident that the map did not shoAv much, that it did not show anything — for the facts are these: the sur veys have been carried on by the honorable member for BothAvell when in charge of the Department. Mr. Hesson : — The honorable member for Both- well surveyed less than 2,000,000 acres. The former Conservative Government surveyed more than 9,000, 000 acres and the present Government more than 55, 000,000 acres. Mr. Laurier: — - The honorable gentleman knows that the Avorld was not created in a day. The first thing to be done in order to make surveys wos to draw the meridian lines, and the reports shoAv that my honorable friend directed his efforts in 1877 TO DRAAVING MERIDIAN LINES in order to proceed Avith the survey of toAvnships. That Avas the first thing to be done. I hope this ex planation Avill satisfy the honorable member for North Perth. In fact, as far back as 1876 my honorable friend had addressed himself to this subject, and ad dressed himself to it in that thorough manner in Avhich he approaches any subject. Governor Laird in 1877 addressed my honorable friend as follows upon the subject of surveys : — The subject is one materially affecting the prosperity of these and other settlements in the Territoiy. I would hope, therefore, that the labors of a special survey party will be continued during the ensuing summer. That was in February, 1877, showing that as far ON THE NORTH-AVEST REBELLION 241 back as the summer previous, that is to say. the sum mer of 1876, the honorable gentleman had commenced the special survey. And Avhat was the answer of the honorable gentleman? He gave an ansAver apposite to the question, not only saying that there Avould be surveys, but that the surveys Avould be made accord ing to the holdings of the people. This is what the honorable gentleman wrote upon that occasion : — The programme of the special survey party provides for the woik being extended during the coming season to intersect the Saskatchewan in the vicinity of the principal settlemerts on that river. It is proposed in all cases where settlements have been formed along the rivers in the territory to adapt the surveys to the farms as existing, that is to spy, giving a frontage of 10 or 20 chains on the river, and running the lots back S'o as to give 160 acres. a THAT AVAS THE POLICY of my honorable friend (Mr. Mills) in 1877, Avhichhacl been inaugurated even in the previous year. But I admit this : the people were impatient. The surveys could not proceed as rapidly as they desired, and the reason is given in the papers brought doAvn to-day. The surveys could not be proceeded Avith because the meridian lines had first to be established. They again approached the Government upon this matter, and as my honorable friend stated — I nf ed not give the au thority, as it was quoted yesterday — that policy would have been pursued as speedily as could be permitted. But in 1878 there Avas a change of Government, and this I charge upon honorable gentlemen opposite, that with the change of Government came a change of policy as well, and that instead of henceforth res pecting the holdings of the people and having special surveys where settlements had preceded survey, they subjected the people, Avhether their lands were settled or not, to the system ofthe rectangular survey. They sacrificed the peace of their country to the Avhim 16 242 SPEECH of having a uniform rectangular survey. Sir, when this new system of survey Avas first commenced, there were, as may be imagined, complaints in that terri tory. The people Avho had settled upon narrow front lots complained of that system, and as far back as March, 1882, Mr. Duck, the agent at Prince Albert, addressed this letter to the Department : — As the majority of the settlers on the south branch of the Saskatchewan River, in the vicinity of the parish of St. Lau rent, have taken up their lands previous to the survey with narrow frontages, similar, to those river claims in other parts of the district, and in view of the difficulty likely to be expe rienced in this office in adjusting the boundaries of these claims, in accordance with the section surveys, I have, at the request of the settlers so situated, the honor to request infor mation as to the possibility of re-surveying these sections into river lots on a similar plan to that adopted in Prince Albert settlement. That Avas on the 11th March, 1882, and, on the 4th September, Mr. Duck had not yet received an ansAver fi om the Department ; and not having received an ansAver to those complaints which he had sent to Ottawa at the request of the settlers, the settlers THEMSELVES TRIED THEIR LUCK in the matter. They petitioned the Government in these Avords : We desire also that you should give orders that the lands should be surveyed along the river in lots 10 chains wide and two miles long. It is the old usage ofthe country to divide the lands in this manner, and it would facilitate us in knowing the boundaries of our respective lands. Then, on the 13th of October, an official answer came from the Department ofthe Interior stating as follows : — But as regards the surveying of the land in question ON THE NORTH-WEST REBELLION 243 all lands in the North-West Territories will be surveyed according to the system now in force. That was the policy adopted and promulgated by the Department ofthe Interior on the 13th October, 1882, that henceforth all lands should be surveyed in the North-West Territories on the neAv system, no matter Avhether they Avere occupied or not, or Avhether they were settled or not. On the 21st of October, Mr. Burgess, the Deputy Minister of the Interior, at last answered the letter of Mr. Duck, Avhich had been written on the 11th of March previously, and this is what he said : j, It is not the intention of the Government to cause any re-survey to be made. Of course, any sub-division, differing from the regular survey, they may desire, they can procure for themselves when the lands come into their possession. You will please, therefore, communicate this decision to the persons interested. When the settlers asked to have the surveys made according to their holdings, the answer was peremptorily : no, you Avill tell the people that if they want their lands sub-divided afterAvards, they can do so, but henceforth the system of survey will be that adopted by the Government. I ask any man in this House, I ask any impartial man, could there be any more vexatious tyranny than that which was thus exercised by the Government over the people of the SaskatcheAvan River, who had laid out their land in narroAV lots, who had built their fences accordingly, who bad placed their houses accordingly, who had tilled the soil, and made improvements accordingly — could there be any more vexatious tyranny than that exercised by the Government when they came fonvard and ran their lines upon these holdings, irrespective ofthe possession ofthe people, or the improvements they had made? Could there be 244 SPEECH ANY GREATER TYRANNY than running their lines across a man's farm and his buildings, as if these lands Avere unoccupied or unsettled upon ? That was a piece of tyranny Avithout excuse. I say there can be no excuse Avhatever for the course of the Government in that matter. I say it Avould have been cheap justice in their hands if they had listened to the prayers of the half-breeds and told them : Ave will respect your possessions such as you have them. Not only so, but the missionaries of the land, the men of peace, Avho as a rule in that country do not interfere Avith the people's business, so far as that goes, thought it their duty to remonstrate time and again. Father Leduc came here and inter viewed the Government; Father Andre wrote letters, and Father Vigreville wrote letters, Avhich were quoted b}T my honorable friend, — as eloquent letters as could be written, letters Avhich Avere pleading for the just rights of the people, but they remained unansAvered. It is asked what are the grievances of the people of the North-West Territories ? I ask any man, could there be a greater grievance, even in the old provinces of Canada, than that, the Government should attempt to re-survey the lands according to a new, regular and scientific system. I say that if such a thing were attempted, there Avould be an outbreak here as there Avas there. Nothing is DEARER TO E\rERY POOR MAN than his poor patch of land, reclaimed from the wilderness by his own toil, and it Avas an unjustifiable and umvarrantable piece of tyranny on the part of the Government to act as they did. I can understand why these people, goaded as they Avere by this syste matic ignoring of their claims, at last resorted to a most unfortunate course. Men have rebelled time and again for less just causes than these people had. Look at the conduct ofthe Government. For 6 long ON THE NORTH-WEST REBELLION years, the people of the North-West have been peti tioning for their rights; for 6 long years they had used every constitutional means which the laAV could place at their disposal in order to get justice. They sent petitions ; they met in assemblies ; they passed resolutions; they sent in delegations. The petitions remained unansAvered ; the resolutions adopted in their meetings were ignored. The delegations were received most courteously, with sweet smiles and SAveeter Avords, which Avere put down in writing, but Avere forgotten as soon .as the delegates had turned their backs for home. For these long years, the Gov ernment never moved. After these long years of useless petitioning, the half-breeds resorted to a most significant course; they sent for Louis Riel, and brought him into the country. This should at last have opened the eyes of the Government. They knew that Riel was a daring man ; they knew that the people of the North-West had their hearts filled with ever accumulating bitterness, and they ¦ must haA_e known that under the circumstances there were all the elements for a sudden conflagration, the results of which might be, as they haATe proved to be, disas trous. Yet the Government never moved, Louis Riel did not remain idle ; he held numerous meetings, which Avere attended, not only by the half-breeds, but by the Avhite settlers: the situation Avas discussed; the people's grievances were set forth ; yet the Gov ernment never moved. The Government COULD NOT PLEAD IGNORANCE, because the press ofthe country, the papers published on the SaskatcheAvan and the papers published in Manitoba, supporting the Government, warned them time and again of Avhat was going on ; yet they never moved. Moreover, the officers of the Government warned them again and again. If you look at the correspondences you Avill find that Mr. Duck, the local agent at Prince Albert, again and again urged 246 SPEECH upon the Government the necessity of remedying indi vidual grievances, and his letters always remained unansAvered. You will find that Mr. Pearce, a most indefatigable officer of the Government, time and again pointed out the dangers ahead, and suggested remedies; but the Government never moved. What was it the half-breeds were asking for ? Anything unjust or unfair? It Avas so just that ithad been granted to the half-breeds of Manitoba ; it Avas so just that it Avas granted by the Government themselves at last, Avhen it Avas too late ; yet Avhen it was time the Government never moved. But if the Government remained passive, public opinion became alarmed. Distant as that country Avas, difficult as was the com munication Avith it, sometimes a faint echo reached here of Avhat Avas going on in that Territory. As far back as 1883 my honorable friend the leader of the Opposition called the attention ofthe Government to the complaints which Avere made by the people ofthe Territories. He Avas met on that occasion by the Prime Minister telling him that all was well. But the member for Provencher (Mr. Royal) then sounded a note of alarm, and pointed out that there Avere pos sibilities of danger. Such warnings coming from such a staunch supporter of the Administration should at least have excited the attention of the -Government; yet they never moved. Again, in the following ses sion, my friend the member for West Huron (Mr. Cameron) set forth the grievances ofthe North-West, and asked for a committee. The Government ansAvered that EVERYTHING AVAS SERENE there ; they Avould not move. This present session my honorable friend again called the attention of the Government to the state of the country Avhen he moved the bill for the representation of the North- West Territories. That bill came on for its second reading on the 11th of March. At that time the ON THE NORTH-AVEST REBELLION 247 atmosphere was already vibrating with the first Avave3 ofthe great storm that was soon to roll over the land. The Government could not fail to be aware of what was going on. In fact, we have proof that at that time their agents Avere sounding the note of alarm in their ears ; yet they never moved. The Minister of Public Works rose up in his place, and very quietly moved the adjournment of the debate. That was ail the encouragement given to those people. Even at that time it Avas perhaps not too late. If the Govern ment had shown any good- will at all, it is possible that the people, hearing of it, would have modified their attitude, and this outbreak would perhap3 have been spared to us. Later on Ave had the speech ofthe right honorable Prime Minister which I have already quoted, telling us that the Government relied on their friends for support, that their consciences told them that they had done everything that could be done to pacify the country. Such boasting ofthe Government on the eve of a rebellion which they had brought on the land by their own misconduct, is I believe unpar- allelled in history, unless indeed we recall the lan guage of Emile Ollivier in the Corps Legislalif in 1870, Avhen he said he was going to Avar Avith a light heart, Avhen he was plunging his country in the greatest calamities that ever befell a nation. And to crown the Avhole we have a letter from the Secretary of State, saying on the 6th of June : If the half-breeds have serious grievances against the Cana dian Government, the ordinary channel of petition was open to them as to all free citizens. They did not avail themselves of it. Sir, this is simply adding insult to injury. The half-breeds did not petition ? AVHAT MORE COULD THEY DO than they haA^e done in a constitutional manner ? To tell the truth, for these long years they have been pe- 248 SPEECH titioning and petitioning, begging and begging, knock ing and knocking at the door of the Government, and the Government never lifted a finger to come to their rescue ; that is the truth of the matter. The Govern ment never did anything to meet the wishes, the prayers of those people. Yes, I beg pardon, they did something; they sent a police force to Carlton. When the people were petitioning for their rights and hold ing meetings to discuss their grievances, the Govern ment became aAvare of Avhat Avas going on, and instead of remedying their grievances, sent a police force to Carlton in order to overaAve the people. That is the sort of justice they got from the Government of Canada until they ro=e in insurrection. Sir, if something more than everything else could condemn the action ofthis Government, it would be this act of sending the police force to Carlton to meet the petitions ofthe people by an armed force. This is not British justice; this is not British administration ; this is not the manner in which a British Government usually meets the de: mancls of its subjects ; but, Sir, this is THE RUSSIAN WAY OF ADMINISTERING LAAV. This is the way Russia meets the demands of Poland. Whenever the Poles rise and claim their rights, the Russians do exactly Avhat has been done by the Cana dian Government — they send armed troops to WarsaAV. Now, there is in connection Avith this matter another point Avhich I have not heard referred to, but which seems to be in the minds of a good many people. It is not expressed, but I think the feeling permeates the very atmosphere, not only of this House, but of the Avhole of this country. I have not heard it stated, but it is in the minds of many that if these men have rebelled, it is because they are, to a certain extent, of French origin. The First Minister stated yesterday that Gabriel Dumont and his friends are and ahvays Avere rebels. It is not to my knoAviedge that Dumont or any one of those, Avho took up arms on the Saskat- ON THE NORTH-AVEST REBELLION 249 chewan any more than on the Red River, ever had the thought of rebelling against the authority of Her Majesty. It Avas not against Pier Majesty the Queen they rebelled, but against the tyranny of the Canadian Government. It is quite possible that the half-breeds, just reclaimed from a nomadic life, having practically been under the authority of the British rule not more than 7 or 8 years, have not yet learned to love the British flag, because so far the flag in the hands of honorable gentlemen opposite has not carried that justice which has gone Avith the British flag every- Avhere for the last fifty years. But this I say, and I say it coming from a province where, less than 50 years ago, every man ofthe race to Avhich I belong Avas a rebel, and Avhere to-day every man of that race is a true and loyal subject, as true and as loyal as any that breathes — I say give these men justice, give them freedom, give them their rights, treat them as for the last 40 years you have treated the people of LoAver Canada, and by-and-bye, throughout those Territories, 3-ou will haA^e contentment, peace and harmony where to-day discord, hatred and Avar are ruining the land THE EXECUTION OF RIEL A RESOUNDING PROTEST ANOTHER INDICTMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNiMENT THE " SILVER-TONGUED LAURIER." (Speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 16lh March 1886) We particularly recommend the careful perusal of this speech, as it is considered the finest ever delivered in Parlia ment and may be regarded, perhaps, as Mr. Laurier's best effort. On the day after its delivery, the English press of the Dominion applied to Mr. Laurier for the first time the epithet of " the silver-tongued Laurier ". It is needless to relate the circumstances under which it was made, as they are known to all and moreover this A'oiume contains a series of speeches, which supply a complete history of the North- West question. The half-breed leader, Louis Riel, had been exe cuted. Mr. Blake, the then leader of the Opposition, and Mr. Laurier undertook to convince their colleagues that the real culprit was not Riel, who had been hanged, but the Govern ment, who had knowingly and deliberately goaded the half- breeds to desperation and revolt. Before an impartial tribunal, 252 SPEECH the undertaking would have been triumphant ; but the power ful orators addressed themselves to a Parliamentary majority, who could not admit the evirlence of facts without repudiating and stultifying their previous record on the subject. Occasions such as these show how deplorably government by party,fkvor- able as it is to the proper working ofthe representative system, too often stifles independence of character. This is the chief impression left by the following remarkable piece of elo quence : Mr. Speaker, Since no one on the other side of the House has the courage to continue this debate, I Avill do so myself. The Minister of Public Works stated that the Govern ment Avere ready and anxious to discuss this ques'tion, and is this an evidence ofthe courage they pretend to possess ? Sir, in all that has been said so far, and that has fallen from the lips of honorable gentlemen oppo site, there is one thing in which we can all agree, and one thing only — Ave can all agree in the tribute which was paid to the volunteers by the Minister of Public Works Avhen he entered into a defence of the Govern ment. The volunteers had a most painful duty to per form, and they performed it in a most creditable man ner to themselves and the country. Under the uniform of, a soldier there is generally to be found a Avarmand merciful heart. Moreover, our soldiers arecitizens Avho have an interest in this country ; but when they are on duty they know nothing but duty. At the same ; time it can fairly be presumed that Avhen on duty the heart feels and the mind thinks ; and it may be fairly presumed that those Avho Avere on duty in the North- West last spring thought and felt as a great soldier, a great king', King Henry IV of France, thought and felt Avhen engaged in battle for many years of his life, in fighting his rebellious subjects. " Whenever his sword inflicted a wound he used these Avords: " THE KING STRIKES THEE, GOD HEAL THEE." It may be presumed that perhaps our soldiers, f ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL when fighting the rebellion, Avere also animated by a similar spirit, and prayed to God that he would heal the wounds that it was their duty to inflict, and that no more blood should be shed than the blood shed by themselves. The Government, hoAvever, thought otherAvise. The Government thought that the blood shed by the soldiers was not sufficient, but that ano ther life must also be sacrificed. We heard tUe Mi nister of Public Works attempting to defend the con duct ofthe Government, and stating that its action in this matter Avas a stern necessity Avhich duty to our Queen and duty to our country made inevitable. Mr. Speaker, I have yet to learn — and I have not learned it from anything that has fallen from the lips of gentle men opposite — that duty to Queen and country may ever prevent the exercise of that prerogative of mercy Avhich is the noblest prerogative of the CrOAvn. The language of the honorable gentleman Avas not the first occasion Avhen responsible or irresponsible advi sers- of the Crown attempted to delude the public, and perhaps themselves as well, into the belief that duty to Queen and country required blood, when mercy was a possible alternative. AVHEN ADMIRAL BYXG Avas sentenced to be shot for no other crime than that of being uniortunate in battle, there Avere men at the time, who said to the King that the interests of the country required that the sentence should be carried out, though the court, Avhich had convicted him, strongly recommended him to mercy. Those evil counsels prevailed, and the sentence was carried out; but the verdict of history, the verdict of posterity — posterity to Avhich honorable gentlemen now appeal — has declared long ago that the carrying out of the sentence against Admiral Byng Avas a judicial mur der. And I venture to predict, Mr. Speaker,_that the verdict of history will be the same in this instance. In every instance in which a Government has carried 254 speech out the extreme penalty ofthe law, Avhen mercy was suggested instead, the verdict has been the same. Sir, in the province to which I belong, and especially amongst the race to Avhich I belong, the execution of Louis Riel has been universally condemned as being the sacrifice of a life, not to inexorable justice, but to bitter passion and revenge. And hoav, Sir, before going rfhy further, it is fitting that, perhaps, I should address myself at once to the state of things Avhich has sprung up in Quebec from the universal CONDEMNATION OF THE GOVERNMENT not only by their foes, but by their friends as well. The movement which has followed the execution of Riel has been strangely misconceived, or I should say, has been wilfully misrepresented. The Tory press of Ontario at once turned bitterly and savagely upon their French allies of twenty-five years ormore. They assailed them not only in their action but in their motives. They charged them with being ani mated Avith nothing less than race prejudices ; they not only charged their former friends, but the whole French race as well, that the only motive Avhich led them to take the course they did in the matter of Riel, Avas simply because Riel Avas of French origin. They charged against the Avhole race that they Avould step betAveen a criminal and justice, the moment the criminal was one of their own race. They charged against the whole French race that they would pre vent the execution of the law the moment the law threatened one of their own. Mr. Speaker, in this matter I am not desirous of following the example which has been set before us by honorable gentlemen opposite of citing copious neAVspaper extracts, al though I could cite extracts ofthe most bitter nature that ever Avas penned, of the Mail newspaper and other Tory organs against French Canadians. I will not import into this debate any more acrimony than can be avoided, but I simply quote a single paragraph ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 255 from the Mail — and one ofthe most moderate — Avhich will show the general spirit ofthe attacks made upon us. On the 7th of December last, the Mail Avrote as follows, speaking of the French Canadians : — Their leaders are paying us back at the present time by asserting that they should have the right of suspending the operation of law against treaEon whenever they choose to de mand its suspension in the interests of a traitor of French origin, even though he may have been twice guilty. Sir, I denounce this AS A VILE CALUMNY. I denounce this as false. I claim this for my felloAv- countrymen of French origin that there is not to be found anywhere under Heaven a more docile, quiet and laAV-abiding people. I claim this for my felloAv- countrymen of French origin — and I appeal to the testimony of any of those Avho know them and have lived amongst them — that Avhatever their faults may be, it is not one of their faults to shield, conceal and abet crime. It is true that upon the present occasion the French Canadians have shown an unbounded sympathy for the unfortunate man who lost his life upon the scaffold on the 16th No vember last. But if they came to that conclusion, it was not because they were influenced by race prefer ences or race prejudices, if you choose to call them such. They were no more influenced in their opinion by race prejudice, than were the foreign papers Avhich deprecated' the execution of Riel. It is a fact that the foreign press, the American press, the English press, the French press, almost withont any exception, have taken the ground that the execution of Riel was un justified, unwarranted and against the spirit of the age. Certainly, it cannot be charged against that press that thev Avere influenced by race feelings or prejudi ces, if ybu choose to call them such. And in the same 256 SPEECH manner, I say, the French Canadians, in the attitude Avhich they took, Avere not impelled by race prejudi ces, but by reasons fairly deducible and deduced'from the facts of the case, But if it had been stated that race prejudices, that blood relations had added keen- ess, and feeling to a conviction formed by the mind, that avouIcI have been perfectly true. I Avill not ad mit that blood relations can so far cloud my judg ment as to make me mistake Avrong for right, but I cheerfully admit add I will plead guilty to that Aveak- ne?s, if Aveakness it be, that if an injustice be com mitted against a fellow-being. the bloAv will fell deeper into my heart if it should fall upon one of my kith and kin. I will not admit anything more than that. That race prejudices can so far cloud my judgment as to make me mistake Avrong from right, I do not be lieve to be true. Before I go further, I desire to say this : It has been stated, time and again, by the Mad newspaper and by other Tory organs, that it was the present intention of the French Canadian leaders TO ORGANIZE A PURELY FRENCH CANADIAN PARTY, to lay aside all party ties and to have no other bonds of party in this House but that tie of race. I protest against any such assertion. Such an assertion is un founded, it is calculated to do harm, it not founded on truth. It Avould be simply suicidal to French Canadians to form a party by themselves. Why, so soon as French Canadians, who are in the minority in this House and in the country, Avere to organize as a political party, they would compel the majority to organize as apolitical party, and the result must be disastrous to themselves. We have only one Avay of organizing parties. This country must be governed and can be governed simply on questions of policy and administration, and French Canadians Avho have had any part in this movement have never had any other intention but to organize upon those party dis tinctions and upon no other. In order to lay this ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 257 question at rest, I cannot do better than to quote the language of the honorable member for Hochelaga (Mr. Desjardins)at a meeting that took place recently at Longueuil. That meeting took place in January, I believe. Mr Benoit, the honorable member for the county, had been invited, but had not put in. an ap pearance, and the fact had been commented on by some speakers who had addressed the meeting. Mr. Desjardins spoke as follows: — Mr. Benoit has perhaps done well to hesitate, because I have myself hesitated, seeing at the head of the invitation I received, '¦ Parti National." If it be understood by " Parti National" that it is a party other than those already existing, I am not of that party ; but if it be understood that Liberals and Conservatives shall unite in the same idea and present a united front when their national interests may be imperilled, I am of that party.In our movements we have not desire.d that a criminal should escape death because he is a French Cana dian ; but because as regards Jackson and Riel, if the first had his life saved, the second should have had it also. We do not want any more privileges ; we are strong enough, but what we want is justice for all. It has been said by sober-minded people that the execution, EVEN IF UNJUST, ofthe man who Avas executed and who is believed to have been insane by those Avho sympathize with him, does nut make this a case for the outburst of feeling which has taken place in Quebec on the occasion of Riel's execution. I differ from that view. In our age, in our civilization, every single human life is valuable, and is entitled to protection in the councils of the nation. Not many years ago England sent an expedi tion and spent millions of her treasure and some of her best blood simply to rescue prisoners whose lives were in the hands of the King of Abyssinia. In the same manner I say that the life of a single subject of 17 258 SPEECH Her Majesty here is valuable, and is not to be treated with levity. If there are members in the House who believe that the execution of Riel was not warranted, that under the circumstances of the case it was not judicious, that it was unjust, I say they have a right to arraign the Government for it before this country, and, if they arraign the Government for it and the Government have to take their trial upon it, it must be admitted as a consequence that certain parties will feel upon the question more warmly than others. It is not to be supposed that the same causes Avhich influenced public opinion in Lower Canada acted in the same manner with all classes ofthe com munity ; that the causes which actuated the com munity at large were identical in all classes of the community. Some there Avere who believed that the Government had not meted out the same measure of justice to all those that Avere accused and who took part in the rebellion. Others believed that the state of mind of Riel was such that it was A JUDICIAL MURDER to execute him ; but the great mass of the people believed that meicy should have been extended to all the prisoners, Riel included, because the rebellion was the result of the policy followed by the Government against the half-breeds. That was the chief reason which actuated them, and it seems to me that it is too late in the day to seriously attempt to deny that the rebellion Avas directly the result ofthe conduct ofthe Government towards the half-breeds. It is too late in the day to dispute that fact. Yet we have heard it disputed in this House. By whom? By the last man who, I should have expected, would have disputed it — by the hon. member (Mr. Royal). He gave us the other day his version of THE ORIGIN OF THE TROUBLE. Everybody is responsible for the rebellion except ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 259 one body. The Globe is responsible for it ; the Far mers' Union is responsible for it ; the white settlers are responsible for it. Everybody you can conceive of is responsible for it, except the Government. The Government is perfectly innocent of it, as innocent as a new-born child ! Such was the statement made by the hon. member the other clay. But if the hon. member is now in earnest as to that matter, how is it that the half-breeds alone have been prosecuted ? If the Globe is the cause of that rebellion, the Globe should have been the first to be indicted. If the Avhite settlers were the instigators of the rebellion, the white settlers should have been indicted also. There is more than that. The counsel for the Crown received authority and even instructions specially to proceed against the instigators of the rebellion, the white settlers, who certainly WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE GUILTY than the half-breeds whom they had instigated to rebellion. Here is part of the instructions given by the late Minister of Justice to the counsel for the Crown : It must be, and from the information which the Govern ment have, it seems piobable — It seems the Government share the opinion ofthe hon. member for Provencher, and they profess to act accordingly — It must be, and from the information which the Govern ment have, it seems probable that the rebellion has been en couraged actively by whites, particularly in Prince Albert. Nothing in the whole duty entrusted to you is, I apprehend, m ore important than that we sliould if possible find out some of the men who, Avith far better knowledge than the half- b reeds, stirred them up to rebellion, and your special atten- ti on is asked to this point. 260 SPEECH The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Royal) does not seem to have given any help to the counsel for the CroAvn, notwithstanding the knoAvledge which enables him to say on the floor of Parliament, with the responsibility attaching to his utterances, that the white settlers are responsible for the rebellion. If they are, how comes it that no white settler has yet been indicted — that every white settler is at large? What are Ave to infer from this ? Are we to infer that the Government has receded from the position which Avas here taken by Sir Alexander Campbell? Or are we to infer that the statement ofthe hon. member for Provencher is only one of those Avild assertions made as a last expedient in the defence of acts otherAvise indefensible? The hon. gentlemen Avent further. He not only charged the Avhite settlers, the Farmers' Union and the Globe neAvspaper, but he also held res ponsible the Mackenzie Administratiou. He said that the administration of that Government, from the time that they took office to the time they left, had been null and that the history of their administration in the North-West had been a perfect blank. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a charge which cannot be made against the present Administration. Their administration was not at all one blank. BLOOD ! BLOOD ! BLOOD! prisons, scaffolds, widows, orphans, destitution, ruin ' — these are what fill the blank in the administratioa ofthis Government of the affairs of the North-West. Mr. Speaker, there might be something to say, as the hon. gentleman will apprehend, upon the administra tion of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Mac kenzie) of the affairs of the North-West Territories, but the present would not be a seasonable time, and the occasion may arise hereafter. Let me, however, tell this to the hon. gentleman: if the administration of Mr. Mackenzie Avas blameable for its treatment of the affairs of the North-West, if they 'Avere remiss in ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 261 their dutie.s, hoAv much more blameable must be the present Administration, which have not yet done that which should have been clone by their predecessors ? But I forget; the honorable gentleman has nothing, or, at least, very little, to say against the present Gov ernment, tt may be possible that they have not been alltogether diligent iu the duties they had to perform, but still they have shown a great deal of good will— at least, so say the honorable gentleman. Here is what he says : — In 1880, Sir John Macdonald took the first opportunity he had, in order to bring in a bill into this House — he himself,the leader of the Conservative pirby, introduced a bill into Parlia ment to extend the same privileges and rights to the half- breeds in the territories as those enjoyed under the Manitoba Act by the half-breeds in the province of Manitoba. This statement is correct, except Avith regard to the date which should have been 1879 instead of 1880. Sir John Macdonald, as he says, introduced a bill to extend to the half-breeds ofthe North- West Territories THE SAME PRIVILEGES as had been granted to those of Manitoba. That Avas done in 1879, and the Act which I hold in my hand reads as follows : That the following powers are hereby delegated to the Governor in Council to satisfy any claims existing in connec-" tion with the extinguishnu nl of the Indian titles preferred by the half-breeds resident in the North-West Territories, out side the limits of Manitoba previous to the 15th day of July, 1870, by granting land to such persons to such extent and on such terms and conditions as may from time to time be deemed expedient. The provisions ofthis statute were repeated in the Act of 1883. But before we proceed further, it may be important to at once define what were those privileges and rights which were extended to the half-breeds of 262 SPEECH Manitoba. By the Act of 1870 it Avas decreed as follows : — And whereas it is expedient towards the extinguishment ofthe Indian title to the lands in the province to appropriate a portion of such ungranted lands to the extent of 1 ,400,00(1 acres thereof for the benefit of the families of the half-breeds residents, it is hereby enacted that the Lieutenant-Governor, under regulations to be from time to time made by the Gov ernor-General in Council , shall select such lots or tracts in such parts of the province as he may deem expedient, to the extent aforesaid, and divide the same among the children of heads of families residing in the province at the time of the said transfer to Canada. And by a further Act, the Act of 1874, the same privileges were extended, not only to heads of fami lies but to minors, the children of half-breeds, as de fined in section 32 of that Act. These Acts, as they were administered, assigned, first, to each head of fa mily the plot of land of which he happened to be in possession at the time of the transfer, to the extent of 160 acres; and besides that THE HALF-BREEDS AVERE ALSO GRANTED, for the extinguishment of the Indian title. 160 acres of land or scrip for 160 acres of land ; and each minor, 240 acre3 or scrip for that quantity. In 1879 the First Minister took poAver to extend the same privileges to the half-breeds ofthe North-West. It Avill be seen that the half-breeds of Manitoba Avere treated as a special class. They Avere not treated as Indians ; they were not treated as Avhites but as participating in the rights of both theAvhites, and the Indians. If they had been treated as Indians, theyAvould haAfe been sent to their reserves ; if they had been treated as Avhites, they Avould have been granted homesteads ; but as I have said, they were treated as a special class, participat ing in both rights of Avhites and Indians; as whites they Avere given a homestead of 160 acres on the plot ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 263 of land of which they happened to be in possession; as Indians, they were given scrip for lands to the ex tent of 160 acres for each head of family,and 240 acres for minors. In 1879, as I have said, the Government passed a statute similar to the statute of Manitoba. Did they act upon it ? When did they act upon it ? When was the first thing done by the Government of Canada to put in force the Act of 1879 ? The first thing ever done by the Government af Canada to put in force the Act they themselves had passed. Avas on the 28th January, 1885. SIX LONG YEARS elapsed before they attempted to do that justice to the half-breeds, which they had taken poAver from Parliament to do, at the time. During all that time the Government was perfectly immovable. The honor able member for Provencher (Mr. Royal) told us the Government have done their duty by the half-breeds. Sir, if the Government had done their duty by the half-breeds, how is it that the half-breeds so often petitioned the Government to grant them their rights? Howisitthat they so often deluged the Department with petitions and deputations ? How is it that they so often appealed to the honorable member for Pro vencher himself? How is it, for instance, that on the 19th of November, 1882, Maxime Lepine, now a pris oner in the Manitoba penitentiary, Baptiste Boucher, wounded in cattle, Charles Lavallee, Avounded in bat tle, Isidore Dumas, killed in battle, and several others addressed Mr. Duck, the agent at Prince Albert, ask ing him to try and induce the Government to grant them their rights, representing at the same time that they had petitioned, and that their petitions had been supported by prominent men, amongst others the honorable Mr. Royal, the member for Provencher, and all Avithout avail ? How is it that these men, in order to obtain the rights which were denied them, have gone through such an ordeal as they have, if the 264 SPEECH Government did justice by them ? An agitation was going on all the time in the North-West, and the Gov ernment Avere perfectly immovable. The honorable member for Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot) stated the other day that the Government during all those years Avere SLUMBERING AND SNORING. I believe that expression Avas none too strong, because we have evidence of its truth in the Govern ment's own blue book. Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, Ave have evidence that the Department had forgotten the laAV Avhich they themselves had placed on the statute book , Ave have evidence that the Government actually forgot that the half-breeds Avere entitled to special privileges. The thing is almost incredible ; yet here is the evidence of it. There was a meeting held at Prince Albert of the settlers of the locality, to take into consideration their own grievances and the grievances of the half-breeds as well ; amongst the resolutions carried was the following, the third one : — 3rd Moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by M. Spencer, and carried unanimously : —Whereas the Indian title in this dis trict or territory has not become extinct, and the old settlers and half-breed population of Manitoba were granted scrip in commutation of such title and such allowance has not been made to those resident in this territory : — Resolved, that the right honorable Minister of the Interior be requested to grant such scrip to such settlers, thus placing them on an equal footing with their confreres in Manitoba. This resolution simply asked that the half-breeds ofthe North-West should be treated just as THE HALF-BREEDS OF MANITOBA were treated — just as the honorable member for Pro vencher said they should have been treated ; and what was the ansAver ofthe Department? The ansAver ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 265 of the Department will shoAV precisely Avhat I have stated, that the Department at that time in 1881 had forgotten the tenor of the statute, they had placed on the statute book before. Here is the ansAver, addressed to the honorable Lawrence Clarke, who had trans mitted the petition : Department of the Interior, Ottawa 22nd Nov., 1881. Sir, By direction of the Minister of the Interior, I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of memorial handed in by yoUi of certain resolutions passed at a meeting of the inhab itants of the district of Lome (.which you represent in the North-West Council), held at Prince Albert on the 18th Octo ber, 1881. In reply to the questions involved in the several resolu tions contained therein, I am to say as follows : — Resolution No. 3. As by treaty with the Indians their title to any portion of the territory included within the dis trict of Lome has been extinguished, this resolution would need explanation. HERE AVAS A RESOLUTION calling upon the Government to give effect to a laAv passed by themselves— to give the half-breeds the special rights to Avhich by law they Avere entitled, and yet the Government declares that this resolution requires explanation. Well, the explanation came, and it Avas not long in coming. Mr. Clarke anaAvered as follows : — Carlton, N.W.T., 25th January, 1882. Sir, I have the honor to aoknowledge the receipt of your letter ofthe 22nd November last, embodying the reply of the right honorable the Minister of the Interior to a memorial, handed in by me, of certain resolutions passed at a meeting of the inhabitants ofthe district of Lome, held at Prince Albert on the 18th October, 1881. With regard to resolution No. 3, it is remarked that : " As by treaty with the Indians, their title to any port ion of 266 SPEECH the territory included within the district of Lorne has been extinguished, this resolution would need explanation." I would respectfully submit that the Indian title no doubt has been extinguished, but evidently not that of the half-breed residents of the North-West Territories. The Government of the Dominon of Canada have repeat edly acknowledged tne ight in the soil of the ha lf-breed in habitants, as is provea oy the Parliament of Canada in 1870, 33 Vic, chap. 3, section 31, as follows. Then he recites all the acts by Avhich the Parlia ment of Canada had declared, time and again, that the half-breeds were entitled to compensation for their Indian title; and goes on : It will be seen, therefore, that from the first enactment, in 1870, to the last, in 1879, the rights in the soil ofthe half- breeds have been recognized by the Government, and provi sion made for the extinguishment of their title. This explanation Avas certainly clear enough, but the Government at once relapsed into the state of immovability in Avhich they had been living, and the Minister fell again into the state of repose which he had been enjoying, for so many years before. The half-breeds petitioned again, they sent their friends upon delegations to Ottawa ; they sent the honorable member for Provencher ; yet the Government never took any action in the matter until the 28th of January, 1885, Avhen the Minister felt hi3 seat shaken by the first Avaves ofthe tempest that was soon to sweep over the country, TOO LATE ! TOO LATE ! TOO LATE ! When the seeds of discontent have long been germi nating, Avhen hearts have long been swelling with long accumulating bitterness, and when humiliations and disappointments have made men discontented and sullen, a small incident will create a conflagra tion, just as a spark dropped on the prairie, under ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 267 certain circumstances, will kindle a widespread and unquenchable fire. Then the Government moved, but it was too late. The incident occurred — what was it ? The honorable member for Provencher told us Avhat it Avas. After the Government had announced a commission, a man had the imprudence to say that commission would not come, but that bullets Avould come instead ; and this statement ofthe honorable gentleman is corroborated by a statement of Arch bishop Tache" in a letter published in December last, in which, speaking of the commencement ofthe rebel lion, he said : The assurance that a commission would be sent was not accepted. People preferred to believe a rumor which went to show that, instead of gran ting them their rights, the authorities were to send irons for their leader and bullets for those who would protect him. That conviction produced the result which was to be expected. The half-breeds thought they would resist and defend themselves. Badly armed, without ammu- nition'or provisions, they took possession of the stores in the vicinity. The unfortunate attack made against them at Duck Lake was a declaration of war. It will strike many minds now that there is a great analogy betAveen the origin of this rebellion and the origin of the rebellion in LoAver Canada in 1837, An agitation had been going on in LoAver Canada for many years, as it had been going on in the North-West for many years, and it was Avhen the Government attempted to arrest the leaders of the movement that the rebellion broke out ; and, Avithout going any further, I am glad to recall the fact that, deplorable as Avas this rebellion in Lower Canada, it secured at once to the LoAver Canadians the rights Avhich they had been vainly seeking for so many years, and it secured this further result: That although the popu lation had been hitherto in favor of rebellion they at once became THE MOST FAITHFUL SUBJECTS England ever had. In the same manner, though the 268 SPEECH last result has not yet been obtained, it may be and Avill be obtained, I have no doubt, in the North-West, because the immediate result of the rebellion there has been to secure to the half-breeds the rights Avhich had been denied to them up to that time. I have charged the Government with not only having been negligent in the duty they OAved to the half-breeds, but Avith denying to the half-breeds the right? to which they were entitled. I charge them again with, not ignoring only, but actually refusing, of design aforethought, the rights to Avhich the half-breed3 Avere entitled. The first order the Government passed under the statute Avas that ofthe 2Sth January, 1835. What Avas that order? Its provisions are IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER, in view of the charge Avhich I have preferred against the Government. The order runs as follows : — On a memorandum dated 26th January, 1885, from the Minister of the Interior, submitting that it is desirable, with a view of settling equitably the claims of the half-breeds in Mani toba and the North-West Territories, who would have been enti tled to land had they resided in Manitoba at the time ofthe transfer and filed their claims in due course under the Mani toba Act, and also of those who, though residing in Manitoba and equitably entitled to participate in the grant, did not do so, to ascertain the number of such half-breeds, and recom mending that he be authorized to obtain an enumeration of them, and to employ three persons to make such enumeration. The provisions ofthe order, you see, were first to cause an enumeration to be made ofthe half-breeds Avho were entitled to compensation, in order to settle equitably the claims of those half-breeds. What was to be that equitable settlement? The order is vague, it is silent. Was the settlement to beNthat which was granted to the half-breeds of Manitoba, as was insi nuated the other day by the honorable member from Provencher (Mr. Royal) ? I sav no ; I say that the ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 269 settlement that the Government then contemplated, and which is called equitable, Avas not the settlement which had been made in favor ofthe half-breeds of Manitoba. T may here recall what was the latter settlement. The half-breeds of Manitoba were given, first, a free grant ofthe plots of land Avhich they occupied, to the extent of 160 acres each, as whites ; they were given, in the second place, in EXTINCTION OF THE INDIAN TITLE, land to the extent of 160 acres for each head of a family, aad land or scrip to the extent of 240 acres for every minor. Was this to be the settlement Avhich Avas to be given by the Government under order of the 28th January ? 1 say it Avas not ; and Icallto Avitness upon this point the language spoken by the First Minister himself on the 26th March last, when this matter came before this House. On that occasion he said : As a whole the half-breeds have been told that if they desired to be considered as Iudians there are most liberal reserves that they could go to with the others ; but that if they desired to be considered white men they could get 160 acres of land as homesteads. Bnt they are not satisfied with that; they want to get land scrip of equal quantity — I think upwards of 200 a.cres and then get, as a matter of course, their home steads as well. You see, therefore, that the Government, on the 26th March, 1885, was not disposed to treat the half- breeds of the North-West Territories as they had treated the half-breeds of Manitoba. If they had been disposed to do so, the First Minister Avould ha v e said : We will give them, as we have given the half-breeds of Manitoba, the plots of land on which they reside, as free grants of 160 acre3 each, this to be their rights as homesteaders ; and as Indians we will give them, in extinguishment of their rights to the Indian title, land scrip to the extent of 160 acres for each head of a family and 240 acres to each minor. No ; the language 270 SPEECH of the First Minister shows that he was opposed to their being treated in this Avay. He said : " If they wanted to be treated as Indians, they could go on the reserves; but if they Avanted to be treated as whites, they could have a homestead like other Avhites." Therefore I CHARGE THE GOVERNMENT with this, that, when they parsed the order of 28th January, 1885, it was not their intention to afford the same justice to the half-breeds ofthe North-West Ter ritories that had been afforded to those of Manitoba. The intentions then .expressed in the language I have just quoted from the First Minister were carried out four days later, on the 30th March, when another Order in Council was passed, and how did that Order in Council read ? It read as folloAVS : — The Minister of the Interior is of the opinion that it is ex pedient that those claims should be satisfied by granting; First, to each half-breed heid of a family resident in the North West Territories, outside of the limits of Manitoba previous to the 15th July, 1 870, the lot or portion of land of which he is at present in bona fide and undisputed occupation by virtue of residence upon and cultivation thereof, to the extent of 160 acres, and if the lot or portion of land for which he is in bona, fide occupation as aforesaid should be less than 160 acres, the difference to be made up to him by an issue of scrip, redeem able in land, at the rate of one dollar ner acre, and in case of each half-breed head of a family residing in the North-West Territories previous to the 15th day of July, 1870, who is not at present in bona fide occupation of any land, scrip be issued, redeemable in land, to the extent of $160. The same provision is thereafter made for the mi nors. Let us examine this Order in Council. What does it provide for ? It provides simply this, that the half-breed shall get a grant of 160 acres as settler or homesteader, but that nothing shall be given him in extinguishment of his Indian title. If the half-breed is in possession of a plot of 160 acres, he is to receive a free grant of it — nothing more; if his lot is nut 160 ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 271 acres, he is to receive the difference— nothing more ; so that it is manifest at that date, under this Order in Council, it was not the intention of the Government to give to the half-breeds of the North-West Territories the same rights that had been given to the half-breeds of Manitoba. The commission being issued under this order, it was not possible for the commissioners to do otherwise than to carry out the provisions contained in the order. They had no authority to go to any greater length than they Avere authorized by that order. THE COMMISSION WAS ISSUED to Mr. Street, Mr. Goulet and Mr. Forget, and as soon as they came to the North-West, as soon as they came to investigate the matter involved, they saAv at once that this proposed settlement would be no settlement at all, that the half-breeds would be still dissatisfied; and upon the 4th April, Mr. Street telegraphed to Mr. Macpherson,then Minister of the Interior, as follows :- If desired by half-breeds, would it not be advisable to grant scrip, one sixty or two forty dollars, permitting them to ac quire title to lands in occupation through possession ? Other wise, Government really gives nothing for Indian title. Do you wish me to give notice that commission will take evidence of claims other than those of half breeds? Pearce concurs in first suggestion. Here is the telegram in Avhich the commissioner at once points out that, if he carries out the Order in Council, the Government gives nothing to the half- breeds for the extinguishment of the Indian title. Then the next day, a letter followed up the telegram from Mr. Street, and it is still more significant:— My Dear Sir David, We arrived here early this morning, and I met my fellow- commissioners at the Dominion Lands Office at 10 o'clock. They introduced the subject as to which I telegraphed you 272 SPEECH yesterday, and spoke very strongly as to its being one which was likely to be a serious stumbling-block in our dealings with the half-breeds. Lest you should not fully have understood my telegram I will shortly state the point. Suppose we find that a half-breed has been upon and, since 15th July, 1870, in occupation of a parcel of say 160 acres, under circumstances which, if he were a white settler, would entitle him to a grant ofthe land under the homestead clauses under the Dominion Land Act, under the authority we now possess we could, if he were the head of a family, allow him nothing more than the 160 acres ; we could allow him nothing for his claim as a half- breed, and, inasmuch as the Government has all along been purporting to deal with the half-breeds as if they had some general rights beyond those of ordinary incoming settlers, my fellow-commissioners say that great dissatisfaction and disap pointment will be created if we give to these occupying half- breeds < nly that which any ordinary settler can claim, and nothing for the extinguishment of his Indian title. Mr. Pearee discussed the matter very fully with us and concurred in the advisability of our obtaining, if possible, the power to enable us to allow the half-breed to claim the land occupied by him under the homestead provisions, and in addition to give him his scrip for the §160 or fr240, as the case may be, for the Indian title. THERE AVAS THE POLICY which Avas suggested by Mr. Street as soon as he had commenced to investigate the matter, and what was the answer? The very folloAving day there was this telegram Avhich should have been sent six or seven years before at least : — W. P. R. Street, Q. C, Chairman, Half-breed Commission, Winnipeg. No objection to your suggestion to give scrip, and allow occupants to acquire title through possession, when desired by them. At last justice have been given to these people. For seven long years they had petitioned, and peti- ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 273 tioned in vain. On the 26th March,the Prime Minister, in his place in this House, gave it as his policy that these men were not entitled to any special privileges, that they had no such rights as were given to their confreres in Manitoba, that they were to be treated not as half-breeds, not as a special class, but either as In dians or Avhites. At last justice Avas coming to them. At last what they had been petitioning for so many years was coming to them, and what was the cause ? In ten days, from the 26th of March to the 6th of April, the Government had altered their policy and had given Avhat they had refused for years. What was the cause? The bullets of Duck Lake ; the rebellion in the North-West. The Government had been refus ing for years, and at last these men took their lives and liberties in their hands, and at last the Govern ment came down and gave them what they were en titled to. I appeal hoav to any friend of liberty in this House; I appeal not only to the Liberals Avho sit be side me,but to any man who has A BRITISH HEART IN HIS BREAST, and I ask, Avhen subjects of Her Majesty have been petitioning for years for their rights, and those rights have not only been ignored, but have been denied, and Avhen these men take their lives in their hands and rebel, will anyone in this House say that these men, when they got their rights, should not haAre saved their heads as well, and that the criminals, if crimi nals there were, in this rebellion, are not those Avho fought and bled and died, but the men who sit on those Treasury benches ? Sir, rebellion is ahvays an evil, it is always an offence against the positive laAV of a nation, it is not always a moral crime. The Minis ter of Militia, in the week that preceded the execution of Riel, stated his sentiments of rebellion in these words: "I hate all rebels; I have no sympathy, good, bad or indifferent, with rebellion." Sir, Avhat is hate ful — I use the word Avhich the honorable gentleman 18 274 SPEECH made use of — AA'hat is hateful is not rebellion, but is the despotism which induces rebellion ; Avhat is hate ful are not rebels, but the men who, having the en- juyment of power, do not discharge the duties of power; the men Avho, having the power to redress wrongs, refuse to listen to the petitions that are sent to them ; the men who, when they are asked for a loaf, give a stone. The honorable gentleman hates all rebels, he says. I wonder if he will extend his hatred to the great rebel Avhose proud statue stands almost at my arm's length. I venture to say that if that man whose statue has been erected here by the Canadian Government had been living to-day, and had occupied his place on the Treasury benches, he would have re membered that he was once a rebel. I have seen the day when the Minister of Militia had not for the rebel lion the horror he noAV professes. I have seen the day when the Minister of Militia had not for rebels the deep hatred which he proclaimed to the Avorld almost within the hearing of a condemned man ; I have seen the day Avhen the Minister of Militia had great sym pathy in his heart for rebellion, Avhen he had deep sympathy in his heart for the very rebel whom he had in his mind, and whose death- knell he was in advance ringing, when he was proclaiming his hatred of rebel lion at Winnipeg. Riel Avas once before a rebel ; he was indicted before, not for rebellion, but for murder connected with rebellion. The honorable gentleman who now has such a hatred for rebels spoke on that occasion. Resolutions were introduced in this House on a certain occasion to EXTEND AN AMNESTY for all offences connected with the rebellion and to all offenders, Riel and a few others excepted, and granting an amnesty even to them, but with certain restrictions. The honorable gentleman spoke on that occasion. Did he then proclaim, as he now does, his hatred of rebellion ? Did he speak the language which ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL he spoke lately in Winnipeg ? Did he say he hated all rebels ? " I have a hatred of all rebels"; I have no sympathy, good, bad or indifferent, Avith rebellion. " No ; but this is Avhat he said : .aiJ''l- . '!.Hr Mr. Caron said that he will vote against the resolution because it does not afford a complete solution of the North- West difficulty. Having voted against the expulsion of Riel from this House, he cannot vote for his banishment from the country. A complete amnesty is the only practical solution, and he is sure that the same difficulties will recur next year. "filTfiMr. Speaker, that Avas the sentiment ofthe honor able gentleman at that time. Well, if on that occasion Riel was entitled to a full amnesty, Avas he not entitled, at least, to a commutation of sentence on this occasion, when this last rebellion had not been darkened by such an act as darkened the pages of the first rebellion ? The honorable gentleman in those days stated again and again that the first rebellion was justified. If the first rebellion was justified, was not the second rebellion equally justified? Where Avould be the half-breeds to-day if it had not been for this rebellion? Would they have obtained the rights which they hoav enjoy ? I say, Sir, that the Canadian Government stands convicted of having yielded only to rebellion, and not to the just repre sentations of the half-breeds, and of having actually forced them into insurrection. Mr. Speaker, such were my sentiments, and I spoke them elseAvhere. I appeal, upon thi3 occasion, as I did elseAvhere, TO EA'ERY FRIEND OF LIBERTY, to all those Avho, during these twenty-five years past, have felt their hearts thrill Avhenever a struggle for freedom was going on in any corner of the Avorld ; Avith the Italians, when they delivered their country from the yoke of Austria ; with the Americans, in their stupendous struggle for national unity and for 276 SPEECH the suppression of African slavery ; with the Mexi cans, in their successful attempt to resist the foreign domination Avhich the French Emperor sought to impose on them ; with the French themselves in their generous though often misguided efforts to establish amongst themselves the bulwark of freedom, parlia mentary and responsible government; with the Danubian populations, when they attempted to rid themselves of the degrading domination of the Turks; and Avhen at last— at last — a section of our own countrymen rose in arms to claim rights long denied them, rights Avhich were immediately acknow ledged to be just, as soon as they were asked with bullets, are Ave to have no sympathy with them? Though, Mr. Speaker, these men Avere in the Avrong; though the rebellion had to be put doAvn ; though it was the duty of the Canadian Government to assert its authority and vindicate the laAv ; still, I ask any friend of liberty, if there is not a feeling rising in his heart, stronger than all reasoning to the contrary, that these men were excusable? Such Avere, Mr. Speaker, my sentiments. I spoke them elsewhere. I have had, since that time, occasion to realize that I have greatly shocked Tory editors and Tory members. Sir, I KNOAV WHAT TORY LOYALTY IS. Tories have ahvays been famous for preaching loyalty to others. Tories have ahvays been famous for beirg loyal, as long as it was profitable to be so. Under the reign of James, the Tories were gushing in their loyalty as long as the tyranny of the king fell upon Whigs and Dissenters ; but when at last the tyranny of James fell upon the Tories themselves and the Church of their heart, their slavish notions received a niost salutary shock. They took side with the Whigs, and horror of horrors, they shouldered the musket, joined the Prince of Orange and put him on the throne; and I believe that to this day the Tories ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 277 Avill sa}' that it was a happy day for England Avhen that rebellion took place. If Ave pass from England to this country, Ave have the same tale to tell. In 1849 the Tories were gushing in their loyalty as long as they expected the Governor General to be disloyal to the people, but Avhen they found the Governor General was loyal to the people, their own loyalty oozed out of their bodies and vanished into thin air. They did not shoulder the musket — that Avould have been too noble a weapon — but with eggs and stones they pelted the representative of Her Majesty. They did not shoulder the musket, but Avith pen and ink they Avrote and signed annexation manifestoes. And, Mr. Speaker, if we continue the story, even down to the days since this Government has been in power, Ave find that when they introduced the National Policy, and when it was objected that that policy was unfair and ungenerous to England, and that it might possibly endanger British connection, the cool Tory answer was : *' So much the worse for British connection. " Sir, this is Tory loyalty. Ready they are to-day to sacrifice British connection, if British connection stands between them and their selfishness ; ready they are to-day to sacrifice British connection if it stands betAveen them and their enjoyment of poAver ; ready they are to sacrifice British connection for mere sordid greed, but they affect, forsooth, to be shocked when Ave profess sympathy for men who, inthe West, have been vindicating their rights long denied. Sir, I will not receive any lectures on loyalty from men with such a record. I am a British subject, and I value the proud title as much as any one in this House. But if it be expected of me that I shall allow fellow- countrymen unfriended, undefended, unprotected and unrepresented in this House, to be trampled under foot by this Government, I say that is not what I understand by loyalty, and I would call that slavery. I am a British subject, but my loyalty is not_ of the lips. If honorable gentlemen opposite will read history, they will find that my ancestors, in all their 278 SPEECH struggles against the British CroAvn in the past, never sought anything else than TO BE TREATED AS BRITISH SUBJECTS, and as soon as they Avere treated as British subjects, though they had not forgotten the land of their ances tors, they became amongst the most loyal subjects that England ever had. Sir, since our loyalty has been impugned by honorable gentlemen opposite, I am inclined to quote the sentiments of my race and of my party, a3 they were expressed by my honorable friend from Megan tic (Mr. Langelier) on an occasion Avhich Avas not political. Last summer certain dele gates from boards of trade in France visited Canada. They Avere entertained by the Corporation of Quebec which presented them an address, and the honorable member for Megantic, in his quality of Mayor, spoke as follows : The fate of arms has decreed that our political destinies should be united with the destinies of England, and when we consider all the advantages which we have reaped from that- state of things, our regret at being separated from France is not without compensation. When Ave can establish with France extended commercial relations, nothing more shall we want. We preserve a political regime of which we are proud, and we obtain at the same time the satisfaction of preserving our interests and sentiments. This is the loyalty of the French Canadians to-day. They are true to their ancestors. And Avho should object? We speak the French language, and if you look at it from a purely utilitarian point of view it is a great disadvantage, because Ave have afterwards to learn a foreign language to take our part in the national movement ofthis country. Every one must learn TO SPEAR IT THE BEST HE CAN in his OAvn poor Avay. It Avould perhaps be best, from ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 279 a utilitarian point of vieAV, to have only one language ; but the French is the language of our mothers, the language Avhich recalls to our minds the most sacred associations which first dawn on the heart of man and which can never die out, and so long as there are French mothers the language will not die. Yet these sentiments are quite consistent with our loyalty to England, and loyal we are to England ; and if I Avere called to illustrate it, I could not do so better than by quoting the remark of a French Canadian lady to Mr. De Belveze, who, in 1855, visited Canada by order of Napoleon III. : " Our hearts are with France, but our arms are to England. " But loyalty must be reci procal. It is not enough for the subject to be loyal to the Crown ; the Crown must also be loyal to the subject. So far as England is concerned she has done her duty nobly, generously ; but this Government has not done its duty towards the half-breeds. The Government are shocked, and their friends profess to be shocked, because those men claim their rights and demanded them with bullets. Have the Government been loyal to those half-breeds ? If they had been loyal to the half-breeds, no such trouble would have occurred. If the Government do not respect the law themselve3, and if aftenvards men, to vindicate their rights, take weapons in their hands and brave the laAvs, I say the Government are bound to search their consciences and see if they have given occasion for rebellion, and if they have to give the benefit to the guilty ones. This is what we, in LoAver Canada, have been claiming, and this is one of the reasons Avhy we have felt so warmly on this question. Such is not, hoAvever, the doctrine of the Government. THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOVERNMENT is not put in that Avay in the memorandum Avhich Avas issued some time after the execution of Louis Riel. Shortly after that execution the Government thought it proper, and I do not blame them for it, to put their 280 SPEECH defence before the country. They did it in a very able paper signed by the late Minister of Justice, Sir Alexander Campbell. In the very first words he speaks as follows: The opponents of the Government have asserted that the rebellion was provoked, if not justified, by their maladminis tration of the affairs of the North-West Territories and inat tention to the just claims of the half-breeds. With this ques tion, which has been made one of party politics, it is not thought becoming to deal here. Upon such a charge, when made in a constitutional manner, the Government will be responsible to the representatives of the people, and before them they will be prepared to meet and disprove it. That the Government should be compelled to submit their reasons for having so acted goes as a matter of course. They Avere to give their reasons — they Avere responsible to the people. This is a matter of course. But this is not what is contended here. The conten tion laid down is that Avhen the people of Canada are to examine the action ofthe Government in executing Riel, the question Avhether or not the rebellion was provoked is not to be taken into consideration. Was there ever a more unconstitutional, more intolerable doctrine propounded? I say it is contrary to the true doctrine, for if there is any occasion when the Govern ment is bound to search into the matter to see if pro vocation has been given for the committal of an offence, which has involved the death penalty, it is when the offence charged is PURELY A POLITICAL ONE. It is ahvays with regret I am sure, that the Minister of Justice finds himself unable to report in favor of the commutation of a death sentence. Whenever in this country a sentence of death is passed upon any of our fellow beings, it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to enquire into the causes ofthe crime in order to see if the requirements of the laAV would not ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 28.1 be equally met if the death sentence were not carried out. Nothing is left behind that can lead to that desired end. And yet Ave are told here that when a man is charged with a political crime, the Govern ment are not to consider Avhether there was provoca tion or not by the CroAvn ? With the Government all rebellions are alike, Avhether provoked or not, and they have all to be treated in the same way. You are to look at all rebellions as utterly bad. You have to look upon the rebellion of Junius Brutus and the attempted rebellion of Cataline as equally bad. I say, on the contrary, that this is one ofthe grounds on which I arraign the Government. It was their duty, Avhen they came to consider whether the death sen tence should be carried out on Riel, to consider whether he had received provocation for the deed which brought him into that situation ; and having failed to do so, the Government, on their OAvn con fession, stand guilty of having failed in a duty, which is one 'of the most sacred that ever can fall upon man . The doctrine of the Government is so untenable that they could not adhere to it to the last. Even before Sir Alexander Campbell had reached the end of his factum, he abandoned his theory, for in the very bottom lines, he says: Whether rebellion alone should be punished with death is a question upon which opinions may differ. Treason will probably ever remain what it always has been among civilised nations, the highest of all crimes; but such conviction for that offence must be treated and disposed of by the Executive Government upon its own merits, and with a full consideration of all the attendant circumstances. In this particular instance, it was a second offence, and, as on the first occasion.... The ex- Minister of Justice commenced by saying that we should not look into the causes which had induced the rebellion ; he had conveniently left aside looking into the causes, but he no less conveniently looked into the fact that this was a second offence. So it was. and for the second time the Government 2S2 SPEECH AVAS GUILTY OF THAT REBELLION ; for the second time Riel was a rebel, and was a rebel on account ofthe conduct ofthe present Government. Sir, I am not of those who look upon Louis Riel as a hero. Nature had endowed him Avith many brilliant qualities, but nature had denied him that supreme quality without Avhich, all other qualities, however brilliant, are of no avail. Nature had denied him a well-balanced mind. At his Avorst he Avas a subject fit for an asylum, at his best he was a religious and political monomaniac. But he was not a bad man — I do not believe at least that he Avas the bad man that he has been represented to be in a certain press. It is true that at the trial a most damaging fact was brought against him ; it is true that he had offered to accept a bribe from the Government. But justice to his memory requires that all the circumstances con nected with the fact, should be laid before the House. If he accepted this money, it is evident that in his OAvn confused mind it Avas not with a view of betray ing the cause of his fellow countrymen — • Some honorable members : — Yes, yes. Mr. Laurier : — Why, Air. Speaker, I do not expect that the members Avho hoav interrupt me, would deal in the same manner, but, Sir, I give them the credit of having BETTER BALANCED MINDS than Louis Riel. In his own dazed mind it is evident that if he accepted the money, it Avas not Avith a ArieAV of betraying his follow countrymen — -it Avas with the vieAV of Avorking for them in another way, since he said, he Avould start a paper in the United States and raise up the other nationalities. An honorable member : — Another rebellion. Air. Laurier : — I grant that if that reasoning had been made by a man in his senses, such as an hono rable gentleman on the other side, it would be enough ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 283 to stifle any sympathy we could have for him ; but Ave must make due alloAvances for the fact that it is proved that if he was not actually insane, no man can deny that upon this subject of politics his mind Avas not right or sound ; and of course in the case of a mind unsound or insane we cannot apply the same tests that we should apply to a reasonable mind — it would be unfair to do so. That he Avas insane, seems to me, however, beyond the possibility of controversy. When the reports first came here last spring and in the early summer, of his doings and sayings in the North-West, when Ave heard that he was to establish monarchies in the North-West, that he was to depose the Pope and establish an American Pope, those avIio did not know him believed he Avas an impostor, but those who knew him knew at once what Avas the matter with him. In the Province of Quebec there was not an instant's hesitation about it. Almost every man in that Province kneAV that he had been several times confined in asylums, and therefore it was mani fest to the people of the Quebec that he had fallen into one of those misfortunes Avith which he Avas. afflicted. When his counsel were engaged and commenced to prepare for his trial, they saw at once that if justice to him and only justice to him was to be done, their plea should be a plea of insanity. It has been said that the trial was a fair one. I deny it. I will not go over some of the arguments which have been put forward on this subject, but I ask the special atten tion of the House to this fact : This man asked for a month's delay for his trial ; he obtained eight clays. Was that justice? AVAS THAT BRITISH JUSTICE? Was that giving fair play to the accused ? When he SAVore that justice to his case demanded a delay of one month, could there be any public reason that militated against that demand? Could there be any public reason Avhy such a request as that should not 284 SPEECH have been granted ? and yet it Avas refused. Again, Avhen he asked for witnesses, Avas the request granted him ? No, it Avas again refused. I again recall the attention of the House to the affidavit which Riel gave, that he wanted several witu esses, amongst others Gabriel Dumont and Michel Dumas and others. I grant at once that to bring Gabriel Dumont and Michel Dumas to this country, both of Avhom Avere fugitives from justice, Avas hardly possible; but remember that he asked as an alternative a thing Avhich Avas perfectly feasible, and it Avas denied him. He asked this alternative under oath : That unless the Government of this country or this hono rable court do provide the means with which to secure the attendance of the above-named witnesses before this court, it is essential to my defence that the various papers, writings and documents taken from me at the time of my surrender to General Middleton, and taken by him and his officers from my house subsequently, should be placed in the hands of my counsel for their examination and consideration, previous to being put upon my trial. Sir, you see the treatment of the accused on that occasion; he asked one of two things. He said either procure me the attendance of certain witnesses, Gabriel Dumont and Michel Dumas and others, or if you cannot or will not do that, give to my counsel the papers taken from me at Batoche. Was there ever a more moderate or reasonable petition presented to a court of justice ? When this man simply said : I do not ask those Avitnesses if you cannot give them to me, but there is one thing you can give to me : you can give me communication of my papers which were taken from me at Batoche. WHY AVERE THEY NOT GIVEN? Reasons of State ! Why,these papers have been moved for in this present session, and the Government granted the motion without any objection. There ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 285 could not, therefore, be any reason of State. True, they have not been brought down yet, but the reason of State which was invoked at the trial is not brought forAvard in this House, and why ? Because such a reason Avould never have stood discussion in this public Parliament. Yet with this imperfect trial the jury recommended him to the mercy ofthe court. The Minister of Public Works said the other day that it was nothing unusual for juries to bring in verdicts Avith recommendation to mercy. No, it is not unusual. but what is very unusual is that the Government should give no heed to this recommendation. That was the unusual thing done on this occasion. After the trial was over, the conviction' Avas so deeply seated in the minds of many friends of the Government that ample and full justice had not been done, that they at once petitioned the. Government to issue a commis sion to examine the prisoner, to see WHETHER HE AVAS SANE OR INSANE in mind. This petition was made, as I am informed, by friends ofthe Government, to the Government, again and again. The Government did not refuse, buttreated it simply as the petitions ofthe half-breeds were treated — put off, put off, until the very week that preceded the execution. And then the commis sion — was it a commission ? I do not know Avhat kind of instructionswere given ; that we do not know. But we do know that upon the 8th November, 1885, just a week before the execution, tAvo medical gentlemen from the east were at Regina and examined the pris oner. Were those gentlemen sent to Regina with the object of advising the Government Avhether or not the sentence should be commuted ? I say emphati cally, no. I charge this against the Government again, that when they sent this so-called commision to Regina to examine the state of mind of Louis Riel, it Avas not with a vieAV of determining the question Avhether the sentence should be carried out or com- 286 SPEECH muted, but it was to throw dust in the eyes of the public and enable the Government to say aftenvards, Ave have consulted specialists and they have reported in favor of sanity. But, Mr. Speaker, Ave have it on record that when this commission Avas sitting in Regina, when on the 6th, the 7th and the 8th of Nov ember, Dr. Lavell and Dr. Valade were examining Riel to see Avhether he was insane or not, at that time the Government, had determined to hang Riel ; and this fact stands to the shame ofthe Government, perhaps more than anything else, because at that time they Avere simply playing a comedy. They Avere not acting with a vieAV to justice; they were simply attempting to blindfold the people - to deceive the people. Why, Sir, the Order in council containing the decision of the Government Avas passed on the 12th of November, but long before that time the Government had come to their conclusion. The honorable Minister of Militia about that time made a trip to the North-West. He arrived at Winnipeg on the 7th or 8th of November, so that he must have left OttaAva about the 3rd or 4th or the 2nd of November ; and before the honorable gentleman had left OttaAva for Winnipeg, the sentence, if not recorded, had been decided upon by the advi sors of His Excellency. We have the EVIDENCE OF THE PREMIER HIMSELF as to that. Here is a letter Avhich was sent by the honorable Prime Minister to the honorable Minister of Militia : Ottawa, 20th November,1885. My Dear Cakon, You say you are charged with having left Ottawa before the decision of the Governor in Council was arrived at with respect to Louis Riel, and as if for the purpose of avoiding being party to the decision. This is not the case, the Council had come to the conclu sion that it was necessary, in the interest of justice, that the ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 287 sentence should be allowed to be carried into effect, in your presence as a Member of the Council, before you left for Winnipeg. Sir, Ave must give the Minister of Militia his due; he has had a full share in the hanging of Louis Riel ; let him have Avhat really appertains to him. Before he left OttaAva, the sentence had been decided betAveen him and his colleagues. Let him have his full share of the merit, if merit there be, or the shame ; let him have also his full share of the comedy which was afterwards played before the public. For, I ask it of any man in his senses — I ask it of any man on the Opposition benches ; I ask it of any man in the coun try — was there ever a more SHAMEFUL THING ENACTED BY A GOVERNMENT, than after they had decided to execute, for the pur pose of blinding the public, to send a commission to enquire Avhether the convict was insane or not? What was the object of enquiring whether he Avas insane or not, if the Government, at that time, had made up their minds and decided that he should be hanged ? The object was to do AAdiat has since been done — to say to the people of Canada : We have consulted me dical officers, and they have reported, and upon their report we have acted. Sir, it Avas not upon this report that they acted ; this report was a false note, and they did not act upon it, because Avhen they got it their decision had been arrived at; and upon this I arraign the Government of the country, not only as being- guilty of a cruel act, but as being guilty of an attempt to deceive the people ofthis country. Sir, if the Gov ernment had been desirous of learning whether Riel was insane or sane, there Avas no need of sending a commission to examine him. It would have been suffi cient to look at his history ; it would have been suffi cient even to look at his record in the rebellion. We have it now as a fact of history that while Riel was 288 SPEECH inducing that rebellion, he chose as his chief adviser and secretary, a man notoriously insane, William Joseph Jackson, who signed his letters and Orders in Council. Will it be pretended by any man that if Riel had been in his senses, if he had had a sane and dis cerning mind, he would have accepted an insane man as his chief adviser ? Why did this not strike honor able gentlemen opposite ? One of the things Avhich we in LoAver Canada have felt a deeply as Ave have ever felt anything, is that Ave have believed that the mea sure of justice Avhich was extended to Louis Riel AVAS NOT THE SAME MEASURE OF JUSTICE which was extended to William Joseph Jackson. Jackson Avas put upon his trial, and I am bound to say this, in duty to the Crown presecutors, that upon that occasion they did their duty. They acknow ledged at once the insanity of the prisoner and di rected an acquittal. The trial of Jackson took place on the 26th of July last. Mr. Osier, counsel for the Crown, in opening the case, spoke as follows : — The prisoner is charged with having participated in the recent rebellion, with having acted in the capacity of private secretary to Louis Riel, the leader of the rebellion. He is charged here now formally with this crime, but it is under stood that the counsel for the prisoner, Mr. McArthur, will be able to give you satisfactory evidence of the insanity of the prisoner, and that he is not really responsible, and was not res ponsible for the acts committed by him. The Crown do not propose to contest that contention on ihe part of prisoner's counsel. The evidence, in fact, comes from the medical men who have examined the prisoner on the part of the Crown, and evidence that has come to the knowledge of counsel for the Crown, during the course of preparation for other trials, is conclusive that, at the time he committed the acts, he was not responsible for them. Now, Sir, it is important to look at the evidence Avhich Avas adduced on that occasion. Dr. Jukes Avas examined : — By Mr. Osier— Q. Is he so insane that it would be unfair to say he was not responsible for his acts ? ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 289 A. — There are occasions when I would consider he would be quite responsible ; to-day he spoke and reasoned with me in a manner that was very clear, but only three days ago he was crazed. His mind seems to be dazed. I do not think that, to bring him at a moment's notice, he would be capable of conducting his trial, or of doing justice to himself in any manner. Q To a considerable extent, your opinion is, that he could not control his actions ? A I have never seen anything about him to give me the impression that his actions were uncontrollable. It is rather his mental hallucinations, his ideas. He holds peculiar ideas on religious matters in connection with this trouble, and in connection with the new religion of which he thinks that Louis Riel is the founder, and which he thinks it is his duty to sustain. Q.. — Would this be consistent with hiscommitting crime? A -If he spoke rationally I would think so, but he does not. Q Then you would not hold him responsible for acts done in connection with these ideas ? A — If he committed any acts in the condition he is now, I would not hold him responsible. The slightest excitement produces a great effect upon him. Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask ANY FAIR-MINDED MAN, if this applies to William Joseph Jackson, would not every line of it apply equally to Louis Riel ? Is it not a fact that these two men were deluded on the same subjects? Jackson spoke rationally, but he had hallu cinations, just as Riel had ; and yet one of these men is acquitted, is sent to an asylum, and is then alloAved to escape, while Louis Riel is sent to the galloAvs. Jackson is free to-day, and Riel is in his grave. I therefore cannot come to any other conclusion than that upon this occasion the same measure of justice which was extended to one man was not extended to the other. I do not want to raise national prejudices, but prejudices are not ahvays the out-groAvth of ignoble passion ; sometimes they are simply the out- 19 290 SPEECH growth of a noble passion ; national prejudices may be the out-groAvth of national pride, and Avhen the people of LoAver-Canada found that the one prisoner Avas treated in one way and the other in a different way, there Avas occasion, at least, Avhy they should feel as they did upon this matter. But we never kneAv, until the Minister of Public Works spoke the other day, what Avas the true reason ofthe execution of Riel. We have it hoav ; he has spoken and Ave knoAV what Avas the true inwardness of it. The Government had Avritten a pamphlet in order to justify themselves. The utility of that pamphlet is gone; it never had any ; not one of the reasons it gave for the execution of Riel was the true reason. It never had any useful ness at all, except, perhaps as affording to the Govern ment job printing to SETTLE THE AVAVERING CONSCIENCES of some of their folloAvers. But now we know the true reason Avhy Riel was executed, and here it is in the language of the Minister of Public Works : We had this before us, we had the fact that Louis Riel had, fifteen years before this, committed an act which was consid ered at the time one that should have been punished in the most severe way. The prisoner, Louis Riel, at that time was not condemned to a severe punishment ; he Ava-. allowed to remain out of the country for five years, and he was not brought before a tribunal to be tried, and punished orabsoh'ed, for the death of Thomas Scott. Here is the reason — the death of Thomas Scott Since I have named Thomas Scott, let me pause a moment. The Minister of Public Works said the other day that those Avho sympathised with Riel could not condemn the Government for his execution, because they excused him for the execution of Scott, and the only defence made in his favor Avas that the act was done by a de facto government. This was not the true raison. Whether the government of Riel was a de f ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 291 government or not, is a question upon which there may be considerable difference of opinion. The death of Scott has not been prosecuted for other reasons, to which I shall come presently, but since I have spoken of the death of Scott, I must say that I have always held the view that it was one of the most painful tra gedies that has ever occurred in the life of any country ; it was one of those acts for which there could be no possible excuse, unless the excuse we noAV have, that the man's mind was unsound. I cannot conceive THAT ANY ONE OF SOUND MIND could have committed so crual an act. Whether the death of Scott was the act of a de facto government or not, does not matter. De facto governments are sometimes guilty of judicial murders, as we knoAV to day. Whether the act of Riel Avas the act of a de facto Government or not, if that man had been respon sible for his acts, as gentlemen on the Treasury ben ches are responsible for theirs, then the execution of Scott would be a stain on the memory of Riel, just as the execution ofthe Duke d'Enghien is a stain on the memory of Napoleon, as the execution of Louis XVI is a stain on the records of the French Convention, as the execution of .Admiral Byng is a stain on the English Government of that day, as the execution of Mary Stuart is a stain on the memory of Queen Eliza beth, and as the execution of Riel will be a permanent stain and shame on the present Government. The death of Scott is the cause of the death of Riel to-day ! Why, if the hon. gentleman thinks that the death of Scott Avas a crime, did he not punish Riel at the time? Scott Avas executed in the early days of 1870, the Government remained in power until the fall of 1873, yet they never did anything to bring that man to justice, who had committed such a crime as they say now he committed. 1870-71-72-73, almost four full years, passed away, and yet the Government, knowing such a crime as it has been represented here 292 SPEECH had been committed, never took any step to have the crime punished. What Avas their reason ? The reason was that the Government had promised to condone the offence ; the reason Avas that the Government were not willing to let that man come to trial, but on the contrary, actually supplied him with money to induce him to leave the country, and, Sir, I ask any man on the other side of the House, if this offence was punishable, Avhy was it not punished then ? And if it Avasnot punishable then, why should it be punished noAV? The language of the hon. gentleman is obvious, it is plain, it is transparent, it was spoken by the Minister of Militia, who shoAved that this offence SHOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY PARDONED at the time. Well, if the offence Avas to be fully par doned at the time, is it fair to bring it as a charge against the offender now ? Is it hoav fair to base a con demnation of death against him, upon it ? Sir, I say it is one of the greatest mistakes — not a mistake alone, but one of the gravest wrongs against the rights of mankind that ever Avas perpetrated by any Govern ment. Yet I must say I was not altogether surprised at the language of the hon. Minister of Public Works. We had heard something of that before. The Secre tary of State visited his county in the month of Jan uary, and he also spoke of this event and the execu tion of Louis Riel. The Minister of Public Works Avould not meet his accusers except upon the floor of Parliament. The Secretary of State did not object to" meet the people, but not his accusers. Still, he went to Terrebonne, and here is the manner in which he spoke ofthe death of Scott : I have my symyathies for the half-breeds, and I have proved it ; I have proved it before to-day. In 1874, when Ambroise Lepine was accused of murder, I travelled over 2,000 miles to defend him. I did noi, go round passing my hat for subscription to pay me for defending the accused. I did it ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 293 manfully, without any hope of reward. (Cheers.) The insurrec tion of 1870 had a color of an excuse. Men higher than I am in politics have gone so foras to say that there was justification for the rebellion of that day. It was the assertion of the rights of nationality against the cession of territory by supreme power. 1 defended my client and during that defence 1 had proof, and the best proof, too, that the killing of the unfortu nate Scott was one of the most atrocious murders ever com mitted. That atrocious murder was without the connivance and without the approval of Lepine, but it was the result of the selfish vengeance of the then dictator of the North-West — Louis Riel. SUCH AVaS THE LANGUAGE spoken by the honorable gentleman on that occasion. He Avas speaking something like ten years after he had gone to the North-West to defend Ambroise L6pine, and after he had acquired that knoAAdedge which enabled him to say that the murder of Scott was one of the most atrocious murders ever com mitted. Yet, scarcely a few weeks after his return from Winnipeg, where he had defended Lepine, the honorable gentleman moved in the Legislature of Quebec, a resolution, in Avhich he thus characterises the act AA-hich he now represents as one of the most atrocious murders ever committed : The troubles in the settlement of the Red River, now the Province of Manitoba, in 1866-70, unfortunately produced a conflict of such a nature as to develop into a rising of consi derable magnitude. The leaders of that movement then cons tituted themselves into a government, and one act to be deplored, perpetrated under the. assumed authority of that government, was the execution of one of the subjects of Her .Majesty. * * * * While bowing to the verdict rendered against one ofthe actors in the movement above mentioned, public opinion in that remote Prevince of Manitoba, as well as in other Provinces of the Dominion, and even in England, has been strongly impressed with the idea that the deplorable act of violence is so interwoven with the political events of that unhappy period as to render it impossible to assimilate it to ordinary cases of murder. * * * With the view of satis- 294 SPEECH tying such sentiment of clemency, and of realizing the ideas of conciliation, peace and tranquility, which presided over the establishment of the Confederation, and further with the view of removing all causes of divisions and hostile sentiments from among the yarious nationalities of the country, and especially with the view of giving effect to the recommendation to mercy which thejury coupled with their verdict, your Excellency is humbly prayed to be pleased to exercise, in favor of Ambroise Lepine, now under sentence, the royal prerogative of mercy, by extending to him grace and pardon. Noav, if in 1874, the honorable gentleman, just fresh from Winnipeg, where he had just defended Lepine, represented this act as one " so imenvoven with the political events of that unhappy period as to render it impossible to assimilate it to ordinary cases of murder, " in order to obtain the life of one man, is it fair and just now to represent the same act as un atrocious murder in older to take the life of another man ? Sir, this issue of the death of Scott HAS LONG BEEN A BURIED ISSUE, and it should not have been brought up again for po litical consideration. There was a time when it was a living issue, too living an issue, before the people of this country. When the administration of my honorable friend the member for East-York (Mr. Mackenzie) came into poAver, that had been for years a living, burning issue before the public. Scott had been executed in the early days of 1870. An amnesty had been promised by the men who now sit on the Treasury benches, but they never had the courage to carry it out ; they never had the courage to stand by their word and deal to the offenders in that rebellion, what they had promised to them. They allowed years and years to pass, and, in the meantime, pas sions were getting more and more bitter. There are prejudices in Ontario, and there are prejudices in Quebec, and upon such a question the people of On tario took one view and the people of Quebec took ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 295 the other vieAV. The people of Ontario demanded that the law should take its course ; the people of Quebec demanded that the promises of the Govern ment should be carried out ; and between the two provinces the government had not the courage to do anything, and they allowed this bitterness of feeling to grow until it became a public danger, which they had not fU - .irage to face. But when the govern- i ... „. my honorable friend the member for East- York came into power, they grappled with the diffi culty and settled it in a way which must ever be a credit to them. They asked their followers from Ontario and from Quebec each to give up a certain portion of their pretentions for the common weal, each to sacrifice upon the altar of their country something of their preventions and to unite upon a common course; and upon that they united and the result has been what was stated by the honorable member for Rouville (Mr. Gigault), THAT AT LAST PEACE PREVAILED which had been unknown for many long years. This is«ue ofthe death of Thomas Scott has been long dead and noAV it is raised by whom ? It is raised by mem bers opposite— the last men who should ever speak of it. Sir, we are a new nation, we are attempting to unite the different conflicting elements which Ave have into a nation. Shall we ever succeed if the Bond of Union is to be revenge, if we are to rake up the old sores and launch them at the heads of one another ? I am sorry that the Government upon this occasion did not take a leaf from the book of our friends to the south of us. After the civil Avar was over, there were men who,when they then fully learnt of the outrages at the Andersonville prison and other places,demanded that, if an amnesty was given to political offenders,at least those who were guilty of those outrages should be brought to justice ; but not a drop of blood was shed, not a trial was had, and it is manifest to-day 296 SPEECH that the nation is the greater for it. I am sorry that the Government did not take another leaf from the book of the American nation. I believe THERE AVAS A REASON —a reason adequate to my mind, at least — Avhy they should have granted, if not an amnesty — I do not say that -at all events a commutation of sentence. On the 13th May, the day after the battle of Batoche, General Middleton, the commander of forces, wrote as folloAvs to Louis Riel : Me. Riel, — I am ready to receive you and your council, and to protect you until your cause has been decided upon by the Canadian Government. Eked. Middleton". Riel surrendered. Did he or did he not surrender in virtue of that letter, of that invitation of General Middleton ? On that point there can be no better evidence than that of General Middleton himself: May, 15th I sent out parties of mounted men, under Major Boulton, to scour the woods. In the afternoon two scouts — Armstrong and Hourie — who had been sent out with Boulton, and had moved away by themselves, came upon Riel, who gave himself up, producing my letter to him,in which I summoned him to surrender and promised to protect him until his case was considered by the Canadian Government. Sir, is there not evidence here that Riel then sur rendered by virtue of the invitation given by General Middleton ? If such is the case, then I submit it to any man's sense of justice and honor if the Canadian Government Avere justified afterAvards in executing a man, their prisoner upon their own invitation? It may be that legally speaking Riel could not bring this as a bar in his trial to any indictment against him, but it seems to me that it is repugnant to any one's sense of honor and justice that a man whom you have ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 297 invited to become your prisoner in order to avoid the death of a soldier upon the battlefield, should after wards be hanged to a gibbet. THE LETTER OF GENERAL MlDDLETON was undoubtedly dictated by the most humane senti ments and not only that, but it is evident also that the course was politic. We see by the report of the General that, after the capture of Batoche, one of his objects was the capture of Riel. As long as Riel was in the field the rebellion was not ended, and there Avas a possibility that he might organise guerilla bands, and more lives and treasure would have to be spent before the rebellion was suppressed. The General states in his report : May, 14th We marched for Lepine's Crossing. Having halted for dinner, I received information that Riel was some where in the vicinity, so determined to make for Guardapui, or Short's Crossing, which was some miles nearer,and camp for the night. You see the General is obliged to alter his course, because Riel is in a certain direction Avhich he had not anticipated. Then Avhen Riel surrendered, the least the Government could do, was not to treat him as they would have done if he had been taken on the field of battle. We have in this matter the precedent of General Lee and General Grant. On the 2nd April, 1865, Richmond, Avhich had so long Avithstood the Union forces, surrendered, and General Lee com menced his retreat with the object of joining his forces with those of General Johnston. He was folloAved closely by the victorious army, and, on the 7th of April, General Grant sent him a letter, not inviting, but simply suggesting to him to surrender. General Lee refused, and continued to fight ; but, two days afterwards, finding that his situation was hopeless, he sought a conference with General Grant, and ac- 298 SPEECH cepted the invitation to surrender. General Grant dictated his terms, and here they are : Appomattox Court House, Virginia, 9th April, 1865. General In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th instant, I propose to receive the surrender of the army of Northern Virginia on the following terms, to wit : Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate, one copy to be given by an officer designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until pro perly exchanged, and each company or regimental commander to sign a like parole for the men of his command. The arms, artillery and public property to be packed and stacked, and turned over to the officers appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by the United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside. U. S. Grant. General R. C. Lee. There vou see that the surrendered army were paroled. They were not confined, but alloAved to go at liberty so long as as they did not take up arms again and violate the laAvs ofthe United States ; but some autho rities in the United States held that this did not pre vent the Government from prosecuting the leaders - for treason ; for guilty of treason they certainly were. The new President of the United States, Andrew Johnson, took steps to bring General Lee, and several ofthe most prominent officers to trial. This Avas stead ily opposed by General Grant. The magnanimity of General Grant's character then came out, and he threatened to resign his position in the army if Gene ral Lee and the other prisoners of Avar were tried for treason. A few months afterwards a committee of ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 299 Congress sat upon the question. General Grant was brought before the committee and gave this evidence : I frequently had to intercede for General Lee and other paroled officers, on the ground that their parole, so long as they observed the laws ofthe United States, protect them from arrest and trial. The President, at that time occupied exactly the reverse grounds, viz. •- that they should be tried and pun ished. He wanted to know when the time would come when they would be punished. I told him not so long as they obeyed the law and complied with the stipulation. Eldridge You looked on that in the nature of a parole, and held that they could only be tried when they violated that parole. Grant Yes,that is the view I took of the question. Eldridge:— Did you consider that that applied to Jefferson Davis ? Grant:— No, Sir, he did not take any parole. It applied to no person who was captured— only to these who were paroled. Eldridge: Did the President insist that General Lee should be tried for treason ? Grant:— He contended for it I insisted that General Lee would not have surrendered his army, or given up their arms, if he had supposed that after surrender, he was goin be tried for treason and hanged. Now, is it not manifest, as was stated by_ the honorable member for West Huron the other night, that if Riel hau supposed that in surrendering he would meet with the same fate as if he was taken pri soner, he would never have surrendered, but Avould have done as Gabriel Dumont and several others did? R' curring to the American case, Avho can doubt that of those two men,Andrew Jonnson and General Grant, the true statesman, the true patriot, wa3 the one who advocated clemency? You see the result to-day. Scarcely twenty years have passed aAvay since that rebellion, the most terrible that ever shook a civilised nation, was put down, and because of the merciful course adopted by the victors, the two sections ot that country are now more closely united t nan ever before, more closely even than they AAere when fight- 300 SPEECH ing for their independence. The Canadian Govern ment SHOULD HAVE FOLLOAArED THIS EXAMPLE, and I repeat again that Ave cannot make a nation of this new country by shedding blood, but only by extending mercy and charity for all political offences. The Government say they were desirous of giving a lesson . In the last paragraph of their written defence, they say : In deciding for the application for the commutation of sentence passed upon the prisoner the Government were obliged to keep in view the need of exemplary and deterrent punishment committed in a country situated in regard to settlement and population as are the North-West Territories; the isolation and defenceless position of the settlers already there ; the horrors to which they have been exposed in the event of an Indian outbreak ; the effect upon intending settlers of any weakness in the administration of law, and the cousequences which must follow such a course in a country if it came to be believed that such crimes as Riel's could b'e committed without incurring the extreme penalty ofthe law, by any one who was either subject to delusions, or could lead people to believe he was so subject. Indeed the Government have convinced all the people here mentioned, the half-breeds, the Indians, the Avhite settlers, that their arm is long and strong, and that they are powerful to punish. Would to heaven that they had taken as much pa'ns to con vince them all, the half-breeds, Indians and white settlers, of their desire and their willingness to do them justice, to treat them fairly. Had they taken as much pains to do right, as they have taken to punish wrong, they never would have had any occasion to convince those people, that the law cannot be violated with impunity, because the laAv would never have been violated at all. But to-day, not to speak of those who have lost their lives, ON THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS RIEL 801 OUR PRISONS ARE FULL OF MEN who, despairing ever to get justice by peace, sought to obtain it by war, who, despairing of ever being treated like freemen, took their lives in their hands, rather than be treated as slaves. They have suffered a great deal, they are suffering still ; yet, their sacri fices will not be Avithout reward. Their leader is in the grave ; they are in durance, but from their pri sons they can see that THAT JUSTICE, THAT LIBERTY which they sought in vain, and for which they fought not in vain, has at last dawned upon their country. Their fate well illustrates the truth of Byron's invoca tion to liberty, in the introduction to the Prisoner of Chillon :— Eternal Spirit of the chainless mind ! Brightest in dungeons, Liberty thou art ! For there thy habitation is the heart The heart which love of thee alone can bind ; And when thy sons to fetters are consigned To fetters and the damp vault's dayless gloom, Their country conquers with their martyrdom. Yes, their country has conquered Avith their mar tyrdom. They are in durance to-day; but the rights for which they Avere fighting have been acknoAvledged. We have not the report of the commission yet, but Ave knoAV that more than two thousand claims so long denied have been at last granted. And more — still more. We have it in the Speech from the Throne that at last representation is to be granted to those Terri tories. This side, of the House long sought, but sought in vain, to obtain that measure of justice. It could not come then, but it came after the war; it came as the last conquest of that insurrection. And again I say that their country has conquered with their martyr dom, and if we look at that one fact alone there was cause sufficient, independent of all others, to extend mercy to the one Avho is dead and to those who live. MR. LAURIER AT TORONTO THE GRIEVANCES OF THE HALF-BREEDS AND RIEL'S EXECUTION A COMPLETE STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION TRE SAME LANGUAGE AT QUEBEC AND AT TORONTO A SPLENDID TRIUMPH OVER PREJUDICE AND SLANDER Mr. Laurier's adversaries having boasted that he would not dare to repeat before the people of Ontario the language he had held in his own province relative to the Half-Breed rebel lion, he seized the first opportunity to take up the challenge. Accepting with honorable Mr. Blake the invitation extended to him by the Young Men's Liberal Club of Toronto, he there delivered, on the 10th December 1886, the following speech, an excellent report of which was published by the Glole next day. The two Liberal leaders spoke to a crowded house in the Hor ticultural Pavilion, the gathering being so large that many could not obtain admission. The chair was taken by Mr. W. D. Gregory, President of the Club, with Mr. Laurier on his right and Mr.Blake on his left, and among the other gentlemen on the platform were Messrs A. A. Marsh, B. B. Hughes, A. F. Chamberland, Patrick Hughes, W.A.Douglass,P.B.CasgrainM. P., 304 SPEECH hon. W. McMaster, Joseph Kilgour, H. H. Dewart, first Vice- President ofthe young Liberal Club; J. II. Gilmore, Treasurer of the Club ; Capt Snelgroove, editor of the Cobourg World; John Dryman. Adam R. Greelman, J. F. Edgar, M. P., H. B. Manley, N, C. Love, George W. Keely, G. W. Badgerow, Alex. Boyd, D- Carlyle, R. B. Hamilton, John Leys, Rev. John J. Shea, Henry Swan, H. Laforce, and R. A. Dickson. Every class of Toronto's population was represented in the audience, which also included large numbers of Tories, but, as remarked by the Globe, the orators' arguments were so convincing and their logic so irresistible, that the only marks of disapproval were a few scattering protests from individuals, which were immediately silenced by the cheers of the crowd. Mr. Laurier spoke as follows : Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is ever with a sense of diffidence that I rise to address an English-speaking audience. I ever feel and realize the great disadvantage of having to make use of a language Avhich is not my own native language, This impresses me noAV — now especially as I am glad ofthe honor of addressing an audience ofthe city of Toronto — of a great city which, by common consent, is aAvarded the palm for intellectual culture in Canada. Yet these considerations, ladies and gentle men, I lay aside, however only for the great question, the momentous issue, on Avhich perhaps the feAV Avords I have to speak might suggest something to you. The fact that a Canadian now comes before you whose mother tongue is not the English tongue, but one Avhose pride springs sharply up in love for our nation, is an ever important fact especially when there are in Canada fully, at this moment, one million and a half of Her Majesty's subjects Avho in their language and other characteristics materially differ from the rest of the population. Up to a recent elate this fact had never been given with other reference than a reference of courteous fellowship, and a mutual feel ing pervaded in certain quarters Avhere the language Avas of a very different description. For several AT TORONTO IN 1886 305 months past the press of this province, the Tory press ofthis province, and especially ofthis city, has been assiduously sending the impression abroad, and time and again making the assertion, that there is in the whole French race of Canada an ever fermenting ele ment of rebellion ; that the Avhole French race are not loyal to the constitution of this country ; that they will not submit to the duties of citizenship except in so far as they tally with their interests and prejudices ; and if I am allowed, and I think I will be on this occasion, I will refer to my own individual standing when I am represented day after day AS A TRAITOR AND A REBEL. I am here this evening ; my chief object in com ing here to this city of Toronto was to meet those accusations, and meet them in the face of the people to whom they are daily addressed. And I am thankful to you, Mr. Chairman; and I thank also the Young Lib erals of Toronto for giving me the opportunity, Avhich I now shall avail myself of, of meeting these charges and repelling them, as I hope, and I am sure I will repel them to your satisfaction. There are several topics of great interest in which we are all interested, and on which I would like to address you. I am a French Canadian . but above all, I am a Canadian, and there are common interests upon which we have the same feeling, but I hope that upon this occasion I shall be permitted chiefly to devote myself to the task of repelling these charges. It is always easy, gentlemen, to make charges. It is always an easy thing to raise prejudices, but I would challenge any man to bring forward anything, either word or fact, AA'hich would tend to show that since the year 1841 the French Canadians have not been the most loval subjects that England ever had. But before I proceed one single step further, let me ask who are the traducers ? Who are they who now proress to be shocked and alarmed at this alleged dis- 20 306 SPEECH loyalty of the French Canadians? Who are they? Why, they are the men, the very men, whose party for thirty long years, Avith scarcely an exception, has been kept in poAver by the votes ofthe very men whom they now hold up to the- execration of their fellow subjects. It is a matter of history that since the year 1855 up to a few years ago the great mass ofthe French Canadians have been almost unanimous in their sup port ofthe Conservative party. It is a matter of his tory that for almost the Avhole of that long period of time the Conservative party HAS BEEN KEPT IN POWER by the votes ofthe French Canadians. It is a matter of history that for the greater part of this period, the Conservative party was led in LoAver Canada, without any objection from Ontario Tories so far as I knoAV, by a man whose memory I respect, Sir George E. Cartier, who at one time was a rebel actually in arms against the Crown of England. It is a matter of his tory that during that time the Roman Catholic Church gave ostensible and most efficient support to the Con servative party, and it is also a matter of history that during all that time, so long as the French Canadians continued solid to keep the Tory party in poAver, the Ontario Tories never found any fault with the French Canadians ; they never saw any danger in the power of the Church. They enjoyed poAver and all the benefit of power, they enjoyed it for all it Avas.A\rorth and more than it Avas Avorth, and the tender, delicate, sensitive Tory conscience never exposed to the outside world any trace ofthe alarms which, no doubt, judg ing from the tone of their press, they ahvays felt. Their press Avas very different in tone from what it is to-day. It was then every day redolent Avith the most fulsome praise of the Church and of the French Canadian people. They wrote column upon column to prove that the French Canadians Avere a very good people. They issued certain circulars to be shoAvn AT TORONTO IN 1886 307 only to certain electors to prove that the Tory party were the true sons of the Church, but as soon as the French Canadians undertook to divide, and so put the Tory Government in danger, THEY CHANGED THEIR TACTICS and bitterly attacked both the race and their Church, which before they had been supporting and flattering. What was the cause ? What Avas the motive ? It was perfectly transparent. The motive is ever the same, the motive ofthe attack and the motive of the adula tion. It is to retain poAver, and the tactics are the same. The sudden appeal to prejudice is of the same kind and the same character. Yesterday in order to retain power these men pandered to the prejudices of my fellow-countrymen in Canada. To-day Avhen they see that, notAvithstand- ing all that, the votes are noAV escaping them, they turn in another direction and pander to Avhat preju dice they suppose may exist in this province. Well, gentlemen, let me go a step further and say that if to-morrow my countrymen were again to unite in support of the Government you Avould find them as active in faAvning upon them as ever. You would find them as sly as mice, and with teeth as sharp to pick the crumbs of office, and not a Avord more Avould you hear of the power ofthe Church, and the so-called disloyalty of the French Canadians. Gentlemen, I am free to admit this, and Avithout any restriction, that previous to the year 1841, that is, to the granting of responsible government to the people ofthis country, every man of the race to Avhich I belong was a rebel, either in arms or in heart. But does it folloAv, because our fathers Avere rebels, that their sons should harbor treason in their hearts ? I am sure there must be in this audience an appreciation ofthe sentiments of those gallant Highlanders avIio fought by the side of Prince Charlie at Culloden, against the British flag, which even then floated in almost all the lands of the 308 SPEECH earth. It is to the testimony of that hour that I ' appeal. Their course, after the rebellion was over, is a living Avitness of the fact that THE MOST FERVENT LOYALTY can take the place of sullenness, and even rebellion. What was true, gentlemen, ofthe Scotch Highlanders, is true also of my fellow-countrymen, the French race in this country. The difference is that the Scotch Highlanders fought for a sentiment, and my French felloAV-countrymen fought for a principle. But before they rebelled against the Crown of England they had proved their loyalty to that country in more manners than one. It i3 a matter of history that as soon as the great contest betAveen Montcalm and Wolfe had been decided in favor of Wolfe, the French Canadians accepted unreservedly the state of things and became loyal British subjects and twice in succession during the course of a few short years their loyalty was put to the test, and in what av ere they found wanting? The country was invaded tAvice by the Americans, and tAvice they Avere repelled, the French Canadians fighting as nobly to accomplish this as any British subjects ofthe time could have done. They repelled all the blandishments ofthe emissaries ofthe French Government in order to induce them to cast off Bri tish rule and throw in their lot with the American people. Why did they rebel? History is a witness of all their struggles against the British CroAvn. The only things they asked for were the rights of British subjects; and as soon as those rights were granted them — I repeat what I said before — they became Avhat they are to-day, the most loyal subjects that England ever had. Sir, the attach ment to British institutions is natural to men of your. origin. It is A MATTER OF TRADITION o you. It must be so, because your very nature is AT TORONTO IN 1886 309 permeated Avith the associations and memories of the old land. Our attachment to the British Crown springs from another cause. Your attachment to the British Crown flows in your blood. With us our attachment to the British Crown springs from gratitude, it springs from the heart. We have learned to love British insti tutions because in British institutions we have found more freedom that we Avould ever had, had we remained the subjects of France, and how many times in that grand old city which I have the honour to represent, looking at the banner of St. George waving over her proud citadel, how many times have I said to myself that that flag represented the defeat of my country men, my ancestors, but at the same time recalled the thought that it was the flag the most precious to the human race, the flag of liberty. It may be that the Tories will not appreciate the sentiments which I now speak — (several cries of " Hear, hear ") — and I see that there are Tories in this audience who may believe me insincere when I speak thus ; but it is not to the cool, calculating Tory that I appeal. I appeal to the Liberals. They Avill understand that freedom has made England dear to our hearts and has made us forever loyal to her cause. There is one reproach which is made to us. We are reproached Avith having kept our individuality as a race. It is said that we are wanting in loyalty because we kept our individuality as a race. I fail to see the justice of the reproach. I admit that Ave retain our language, our religion, and our characteristics, but I cannot see the justice ofthe reproach, and more, it seems to me that we would not have been worthy of any esteem or of the name of French Canadians ifAve had not kept sacred the memories of our forefathers ; so, I repeat, I LOVE ENGLAND. I honor and esteem English institutions ; I do not regret that we are hoav subjects of the Queen instead of France ; but may my right hand wither by my 310 SPEECH side.if the memories of my forefathers ever cease to be dear to ray heart ! It has been said also that the En glish privileges and liberties have been encroached up on ; that we want to put forward our own insti tutions and our language. I do not admit that re proach. It cannot be said of me that I want to do this, and I suppose I am one ofthe greatest sinners. I am said to be so, anyway, by the Tory papers In answer to this charge I cannot do better than to eefer to a speech which I made in the month of May 1884 at the Club National in Montreal, a society com posed, as you probably knoAv, of students. I spoke of the House of Commons at OttaAva, and of the proce dure there, and I spoke as follows : — " What I have told you Avill shoAv that the House of Com mons, though there are about 50 French members, is exclusively an English assembly. The French lan guage is the official language as is the English, but it is impossible to follow the speakers in the debates unless you speak the language of the majority. The remainder of the extract Avent to shoAv that the French were an artistic people, and the force of circumstances in America Avas such that the English language was destined to become the most universal. You see, gentlemen, this is the extent of my im putation I fully admit that the English language is bound to be the language of this country, and no man in his senses will deny it. For I simply confine my self to say that we are the French race and have cer tain duties, and have to fulfil those duties and nothing more. Certainly there is nothing in this to which any Canadian can take exception. I will say this, that we are Canadians. BeloAv the island of Montreal the water that conies from the north from Ottawa unites with the Avaters that come from the Avestern lakes, BUT UNITING THEY DO NOT MIX. There they run parallel, separate, distinguishable, and yet are one stream, flowing within the same banks, AT TORONTO IN 1886 311 the mighty St. Lawrence, and rolling on toward the sea bearing the commerce of a nation upon its bosom — a perfect image of our nation. We may not assim ilate, Ave may not blend, but for all that we are the component parts of the same country. We may be French in our origin — and I do not deny my origin — I admit that I pride myself on it. We may be En glish, or Scotch or whatever it may be, but we are Canadians; one in aim and purpose; and not only Canadians, but we are also members ofthe same Bri tish Empire. This fact, that we are all Canadians, one in our objects, members ofthe British Empire, proud of being British subjects and Canadian, is evidence that we can keep pride of race without any detriment to the nation. As Canadians, Ave have feelings in com mon with each other that are not shared by our fellow- countrymen on the other side of the water. As Cana dians, we are affected by local and national conside rations, which bind us together and so we are led to look back to the land of our ancestors and feel, with all that, to be no less good Canadians. THESE ARE THE FEELINGS of the race to which I belong, and on this question I am true to my race, I am true to Canada. I am true to England, and last, and for this, I have often been reproached with being a traitor. I am above all true to the cause of liberty and justice. Sir, I am of French origin and have the pride of my race ; in politics I am an English Liberal. The principles Avhich I profess, such as they are, are the outgrowth of study and re flection, and did not come to me from the land of my ancestors. They came to me from England, from the great mother of modern liberty. I belong to the schuol uf those men who fill the pages of English his tory, who always faced the great to get the right. 1 belong to the school of Hampden, and Pym, of Rus sell and Somers, and of Burke. And of one who did not hesitate, Ave read, on one occasion to say to the 312 SPEECH Ministers of the CroAvn that they had not behaved as they should have toAvards the Colonies which were then in rebellion and to say that they had provoked that rebellion, just as the Ministers at another time since have provoked a rebellion. I am not a traitor though Tories may howl, but I say that no Govern ment shall ever trample over my living body. As long as I have the breath of life in me, as long espe cially as I have a seat in Parliament, if the rights of men are trampled upon, be they French, Celtic, or An- glo-saxons, I Avould defend their cause Avith all the strength of my being. I am conscious that I could not do this alone ; but this I could and I would do, in the face and in defiance of all opposing clamour, I would call upon the people of this country to stand BY THE OPPRESSED AGAINST THE OPPRESSOR. At this juncture someone in the audience began interrupt - ing and someone cried — " Put him out. " Mr. Laurier :-— Oh, no no, do not put him out, let him stay and hear ; I am coming to the part that may tickle some of the Tories who may be in this audience, and I must say that as I respect all opinions I cannot hope the views I have to express will be those, of every one in this audience, but let us try to have a friendly discussion, if possible ; British fair play is all I ask. I come here to defend myself against certain allegations, and in the name of justice let those who have listened to the attack also listen to the answer. I repeat, Sir, I am not a traitor. I am not a preacher of rebellion. There has been lately, as you are aware, a rebellion in the North-West, and though the men who rebelled committed a great error ; though, as I said, on many occasions, they had to be shot in battle, though they had to be conquered, I repeat before this great audience that in my opinion the guilt of the rebellion does not rest with the miserable Avretches who took up arms, but rests altogether with the Gov- AT TORONTO IN 1886 313 ernment Avho provoked it. I cannot hope to be approved by everybody, but I address myself to every Englishman, not only in name,but Avhohas a British heart in his bosom, is there a man who is prepared to condemn rebellion simply because it is rebellion ? Is it not a fact that the history of England is full of rebellions ? There is not a race on earth which has done as much for the cause of human liberty as the English race, and this En gland, which is to-day so great, has her greatness because no son of England AVOULD EVER SUBMIT TO TYRANNY, and the people of England have again and again been driven into rebellion, because they could not other wise than by rebellion obtain their rights. And if any one of those present Avere to stand up and dis pute this, I could give him the names of rebels Avhose names are cherished in his heart as patriots and the saviours of liberty in England. You may say that the wretched, half-savage half-breecls are not fit to be compared to the heroes of British history. If you say so, so do I. There is no comparison at all betAA^een the two classes of men. But, gentlemen, the spirit of liberty is not the resul s of culture. It may be found in the lowest man. And let a man be ever so low, he has the right to justice whenever justice is denied to him. And remember this -remember this — these half-savage people who rebelled in the North-West did not rebel against the authority of Her Majesty the Queen. They did not rebel through any feel ing of disloyalty to the British Crown or dislike of British institutions. They rebelled Avithout any ap parent plan or order of proceeding. The reason they rebelled is simple enough, and the reason is this : that the meanest worm that crawls upon the earth, when trampled upon, will endeavor to recoil and strike back, and I say that the guilt of the rebellion does not rest with these men so much as Avith those who provoked them. I say that the Government is 314 SPEECH RESPONSIBLE FOR IT J I charge this against the Government, and I will en deavor, I think I will not fail, to prove that the half- breeds Avere denied for several long years rights and justice, rights Avhich were admitted as soon as they were asked by bullets ; I charge against them that they have treated the half-breeds with contempt, with undisguised disdain ; I charge against them that they Avould not listen to their prayers ; I charge against them that they drove them to despair, that they drove them to the madness, to the rashness, to the crime Avhich they aftenvards committed. I have no doubt there are parties here Avho believe this lan guage is too strong. I repeat the charge, gentlemen, and put myself altogether on your judgement. You Avill all admit with me that one of the most precious gifts Avhich Ave enjoy under the constitution is the right of petition. It has ahvays been one ofthe undoubted privileges of the realm of England that, whenever one of Her Majesty's subjects deems himself aggrieved in any particular,he has the right to approach the throne to petition the sovereign, and to explain his grievances whatever they may be. The half-breeds availed them selves of that right. For seven long years they sent into OttaAva petitions, memorials, representations of every kind, setting forth their grievances. For seven long years they never received anything like an ansAver. But noAV to-day we are told by the Govern ment and by the friends ofthe Government that the half-breeds had really no grievances; that though they petitioned, they petitioned for frivolous objects.-? The Government denied everything. They commenced by denying that there Avere any petitions. Mr. Chap leau, some time ago, Avrote a letter saying that the half-breeds had never made any representations; that if there had been any representations they would have been listened to. At the very moment when (Mr. Chapleau Avas writing that letter, there was evi- 'clence in the blue books that seventy different corn- AT TORONTO IN 1886 315 munications had, during a period of seven years,) been sent by the half-breeds to Ottawa. But now they/ cannot stand upon that ground. THEY CANNOT NOW DENY that petitions were sent. But now they say that repre sentations were made.but that they Avere frivolous. Fri volous ! Perhaps, indeed, to the Government, who every day were distributing thousands and thousands of acres of more valuable land to their minions and friends. The grievance of the poor half-breed who was asking for his petty patch of land was a frivolous grievance. But to the half-breed that Avas his all. And, Sir, let the grievances of these men have been ever so frivolous, they had a right to an ansAver. And the moment that, petitioning as they did, they received no answer, that moment, even if their grievances had been frivolous, they became real. And I say hoav, what excuse can be given for that conduct ? For seven long years the half-breeds petitioned and never re ceived an answer. At last they received an ansAver. At last a promise was made, made to a delegation sent in 1883; but as I shall shoAv you hereafter, that promise was broken ; the word pledged by the Gov ernment Avas violated. Is it to be Avondered at that the hearts of these men became embittered ; that they lost faith in the Government ; that they came to the conclusion that for them, at Ottawa, there was no jus tice and no hope ; and that at last they resorted to the last argument which is ahvays resorted to by men who have exhausted every other means ofgettingjus- tice? But some will perhaps say : " Oh, but those who speak in behalf of the half-breeds are carried aAvay by their feelings ; they do not represent facts ; they exaggerate the faults of the Government. I say that in this rather the state of things disclosed by the pe titions is even Avorse than I have yet made out. I charge this against the Government, that not only did they refuse to answer the prayers that were sent to 316 SPEECH them by those people, but I charge against the Gov ernment that they actually CONCEALED THE TRUE STATE OF FACTS, the petitions that were made daily to them ; that they actually concealed them from the public at large, and from the representatives ofthe people at Ottawa. This is a strong charge to make, and I deliberately charge against the Government that they concealed information upon that subject for several years. And again, in regard to . this statement, I place myself upon your judgment. Up to the time of the breaking out ofthe rebellion Ave kneAV comparatively little ofthe position ofthe half-breeds of the North-West Terri tory. We knew that there Avas discontent among the white people. We were not aAvare that there was more general and marked discontent among the half- breeds. But noAV and then faint echo of their com plaints reached us. On the 7th of March, 1883, Mr. Blake made a motion asking for the production of certain papers. He made a motion for a return of copies of all correspondence and memorials relating to the claims ofthe inhabitants of Prince Albert and the neighboring districts in the North-West, in res pect of the land they occupied, and other matters affecting their condition. Now, gentlemen, I see that there are friends of the Government here. I am glad of it. We cannot all hope to be of the same mind. But as I have said, I make a charge against the Gov ernment. It is on the judgment of its friends, that I place myself; and I repeat the charge that I made that the Government actually concealed information from the House. This motion Avas made on the 7th of March, 1883, calling for the production of ce tain papers in connection with the claims ofthe half-breeds. AVHEN AVAS THE ORDER CARRIED OUT? The order of the House was made on the 7th March 1883. A feAv weeks Avould have been sufficient to AT TORONTO IN 1886 317 bring those papers down. When was the order carried out? In 1883? No; not even in 1883. In 1884? No ; not even in 1884. The papers were brought doAvn on the 5th of May, 1885, when the rebellion had broken out ; Avhen insurgents were in the field ; when blood had been shed ; when it Avas too late for the taking of those remedial measures, which public opinion Avould have compelled, if public opinion had been in posses sion of the facts. Two long years had elapsed. Tavo sessions had elapsed before the order ofthe House Avas complied with, before the papers ordered were pro duced. What had we displayed before us here? I put it to the intelligence and fairness of every man not biased by party prejudice. Was it apathetic negligence or wilful concealment of information ? If it was not apathetic negligence or wilful concealment of information, what was it ? And whether it was the one or the other; whether it was neglect or Avilful concealment, I say it was criminal. If my language is deemed too strong, let Ministers themselves explain. Let them say what qualification is to be given to their conduct. That is not all. Those papers produced on the 5th of May, 1885, after the rebellion had broken out, were not produced spontaneously by the Govern ment. They were WRENCHED FROM THE GOVERNMENT by the persistance of Mr. Blake. After the rebellion had broken out there was a general cry for information. Every man wanted to know who were the half-breeds and what they complained of. Mr. Blake made him self the voice ofthe public upon this occasion. Day after clay, after the neAvs ofthe Duck Lake fight had come to us, Mr. Blake stood up asking the Govern ment to bring down those papers for which he had asked two years before, and all other papers that would throw light upon the subject. Day after day it was refused. It was only by dint of great perseve rance that the Government was actually induced to 318 SPEECH bring down some papers, not all. We know hoav that some of the most important papers have been suppres sed and never brought doAvn to the House. You may ask me, Avhat Avere the grievances ofthe half-breeds? What Avere they asking for? Simply this. They were asking to be treated in the same manner that the half-breeds of Manitoba had been treated, and nothing more, and nothing less. The half-breeds of Manitoba had been given titles for the lands Avhich they occupied. The half-breeds of the North-West demanded the same thing. The half-breeds of Mani toba had been given a special grant of land for what we call the extinguishment of the Indian title; the half-breeds of the North-West demanded the same thing. And not only did they demand those things, but the Avhite settlers demanded it for them, the offi cials ofthe Government demanded it for them, and it was refused. It Avas for seven long years refused. It was granted, Avhen the half-breeds had made their demand Avith their guns in their hands. Then for the first time, the Government complied with their demand. But with this branch of the subject I leave Mr. Blake to deal. This Avas certainly a great grievance. Yet, if that had been the only grievance I Avould not sym pathize with their cause as deeply as I do. But I say that the treatment which Avas meted out to them by the Government Avith regard to their lands was inhu-» man and crual ; SO INHUMAN AND CRUAL that no people in the Avorld Avould have submitted to it. You have heard the statement made by Ministers of the Crown, by members of Parliament and by the press that not one single half-breed had ever been ousted from his land. Ministers have made the state ment ; members of Parliament have repeated it; the press has repeated it until it has become a stock phrase in Tory literature. Well, I can understand members of Parliament and the press repeating the AE TORONTO IN 1886 319 statement. They accept the assertions of the Minis ters. But as to the Ministers making that assertion, I am sure I cannot understand it, unless that in trying to convince others they have convinced them selves. You have, perhaps, heard ofthe story of the Frenchman Avho wanted to play a joke on a friend. It was in Marseilles, and he said — " If you go to the harbor you will find a whale. "The friend disbelieved him at first, but finally went to the harbor telling people Avhom he met, until quite a large croAvd Avas gathered to see the whale in the harbour. The joker who had started the story saw the croAvd and said: — " Well, perhaps, after all, there is something in it. I will go and see if there is not'a whale in the harbor.'" When I read speeches of Mr. Thomas White, Mr. Thompson, and Mr.' Foster, telling the people ofthis country that not one single half-breed has been dis possessed of his land, I often think of that story. I think that in trying to convince other people they have convinced themselves. They are very cunning They say, Ave challenge the Opposition to shoAv that a half-breed has been dispossessed. They hav^e confi dence in the fact that it is their privilege to say what papers shall be brought down, and what shall be con cealed. But I accept the challenge to prove that a half-breed has never been dispossessed of his land. , Meagre as they have made the blue-book, there is enough to show that the assertion is true ; that not only was more than one half-breed dispossessed, but that under the policy which Avas adopted by the Gov ernment, THE AVHOLE POPULATION was liable to be evicted one by one. This is the charge that I make. Noav you have often heard the Minis ters say that not one half-breed was dispossessed. Let me at once call your attention to the folloAving extract from a letter written by Father Andre to the North- West Council, in June, 1881 : — I beg of your indulgence to be obliged to make you acquainted with a grievance of mine, which, however, will give 320 SPEECH you an idea of the state of things calling for a prompt remedy. I hold at Duck Lake a tract of land of about 200 acres, of which I have been in peaceful possession for over seven years. The land was fenced in, and cost me a good deal of money, and was always respected as the Catholic mission's property at Dack Lake. I was one of the first settlers at that place, and through my exertions the settlement increased rapidly, and nobody ever troubled me in my lawful possession of that land until last March, when a man by the name of J. Kelly jumped my claim, and, notwithstanding my protestations, claimed the land as his own, and put the frame of a house upon it, depriv ing me in that manner of half my property. And this is not the only occurence of the kind at Duck Lake. Noav, gentlemen, that may have been an ordinary case of trespass, such as might happen in any country, and there Avould have been nothing more to say; but I say this, and this is what I can prove, that this trespass was made upon a state of things AIDED BY A GOA'ERNMENT, and Avhich Government never redressed, having often been applied to. What Avas the origin of them? In 1870 when the territories were annexed to Canada, there were several half-breed settlements on the Saskatchewan. There was a Scoth half-breed settle ment at Prince Albert and a French half-breed settle ment on the south branch at St. Laurent. These men" had taken their lands, these Scoth and French half- breeds, each between three and four acres. Then as is shown in evidence, the particular manner in which all these people had taken their lands, not only the French half-breeds, but the Scotch half-breeds as Avell, all had taken their land fronting on the river, about ten chains and two miles deep. When this Govern ment came into the country, they commenced to survey the Avild land. They adopted the American system of survey. This Avas in sections of a square block forty chains wide and forty chains deep. I haven't the slightest objection to that kind of survey. It is no doubt a more scientific system to apply, AT TORONTO IN 1886 321 but you Avill agree with me it would have been an injustice to thus divide these lands which had been settled upon by these half breeds in this manner, and there was a rebellion in 1869 and 1870. One of the chief causes was that surveyors of the Government, who were instructed to survey lands according to the sectional survey, carried their operations not only on the prairie, which would have been unobjectionable, but they carried their operations upon the settled lands of Red and Assiniboine rivers. There was a rebellion, and after that rebellion was settled it Avas decided that the lands occupied by half-breeds should be surveyed as they were possessed and the titles issued for them accordingly. After several years, as you are aware, they had the authority ofthe Govern ment in the North-West and when Mr. Laird, the Lieutenant-Governor ofthe Territories, appointed by Mr. Mackenzie, reached the Territories in 1877, on^ of the first things which he did was to call upon the Government for a survey of the lands of half-breeds as they were occupied. But before I refer to the voice of Mr. Laird upon the subject, let me cite to you, gen tlemen, A PETITION, Avhich was addressed to the Government at Ottawa in the year 1877 by George McKay and about one hundred and fifty Scotch half-breeds of Prince Albert settlement. In that petition George McKay and his fellow petitioners say this : — The petition of the undersigned settlers and residents of Prince Albert settlement, in the North-West Territories of the Dominion of Canada, humbly represents, etc : Your petitioners, in conclusion, humbly represent that considerable portions of the lands at present occupied on the Saskatchewan River in this settlement were settled upon before the transfer ofthe North-West Territories to the Domi nion of Canada, and in the manner customary to that period, 21 322 SPEECH viz., in a narrow frontage and a depth of two miles. That the homes and other improvements of many of the settlers are situate upon these claims so taken. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Your Excellency will, when instructions are issued to the Dominion surveyors, reserve the same rights and privileges to the aforesaid old settlers, and pioneers of this settlement, as were reserved to the old settlers in the province of Manitoba. What, sir, Avasthe purport ofthis petition? These Scotchhalf-breeds represented thatthey had taken land in the manner customary to the locality; that is to say, in narrow frontages upon the river, two miles deep. They asked that the general system of survey introduced by the Government be not introduced, but that a special survey should be granted, the same as had been granted in Manitoba. In that same year, Mr. Laird, then the Governor of the Territory, Avriting to the Government upon the same subject, expresses the same view. This is the letter of Mr. Laird, dated 12th February, 1877. It is addressed to the Minister ofthe Interior. Sib, I have the honour to transmit herewith extract of a letter from Mr. James Walker, Inspector of the North-West Mounted Police at Battleford, respecting disputes arising out of land claims at Prince Albert and St. Laurent. The subject is one materially affecting the prosperity of these and other settle ments in the teiritories. I should hope, therefore, that the labors of the special survey party will be continued in the ensuing summer, and that points may be fixed which will enable the survey to be prosecuted along the Saskatchewan, where settlements exist or may soon be formed. It appears to me that, wliere there are settlements along the river, a sys tem of survey similar to that adopted on the Reel and Assini- boine Rivers will have to be conceded. Settlers should be allowed their frontage on the river, the lines running back so as to give them an average of 160 acres each. The Minister of the Interior was HONORABLE DAVID MILLS. Mr. Mills complied with the petition, Avith the AT TORONTO IN 1886 very natural demands here set forth, and the A'ery reasonable views propounded by Mr. Laird, and the memorandum Avhich I hold in my hand, dated 14th March, 1877. adopted the proposal in all cases. The programme of the special survey party pro vides for the Avork being extended during the coming season to intersect the Saskatchewan in the vicinity of the principal settlements on that river. It is pro posed in all cases where settlement has been formed along the rivers in the territories to adopt the surveys of the farms accordingly, that is to say, giving an average (where practicable) of ten or twenty chains frontage on the river, and letting the lots run back far enough to make 160 acres each, the lines betAveen lots, as a rule, to be made to conform to the section lines in the regular survey adjoining. Such, you see, Avas THE POLICY OF THE MACKENZIE GOVERNMENT. In the open prairie where the land Avas unoccupied they applied the system of sectional survey to lay out the land in lots of 40 chains long and 40 Avide, but wherever they found the settlements of half-breeds, Scoich or French, occupying their land3 in narrOAV frontages, to divide their lands exactly as they were occupied, and I ask, could anything be fairer of more just? But, as you are aware, there was a change of Government in 1878. And Avith the change of Government, I am sorry to say, came also a change of policy. The policy, which was adopted at the time, is a policy which every man Avho recog nizes justice must call tyrannical. Is there a man who can pretend that when these people had taken up their lands in narrow frontages of ten chains wide and two miles deep, taking their lands before there was Government in the North-West, taking those lands according to the custom of the country ; is there a man who can pretend that to send surveyors to divide the land into square blocks Avas not an act of tvranny ? I ask you, is this British fair play ? I 321 SPEECH refer you to the petition Avhich I have just read, of George Maekay and 150 half-breeds. I am proud to say. AS A REFORMER, AS A LIBERAL, and a partisan of Mr. Mackenzie's Government that the prayer of these Scotch half-breeds was carried out. Their lands Avere surveyed accordingly in the summer of 1878, the last year of the Mackenzie Gov ernment. Mr. Mills caused the lands of the Scotch half-breeds of Prince Albert and the French half- breeds of St. Laurent to be divided as they were occupied, and if they had folloAved any other course, every man not biased by party spirit would say they had committed an act of injustice and tyranny. But, Avith the change of Government, there was a change of policy also, and under the changed policy the square system of survey Avas applied everyAvhere in the terri tory, AAdiether the lands were vacant or whether they were occupied. Again I do say, gentlemen, that this Avas one of the most annoying acts of tyranny that ever could be devised against a free and poor people. It would have been cheap justice, you will admit to me, when these people represented to the Govern ment : " We took our lands before there Avas a Gov ernment here at at all, our lands have been improved greatly, grant us the favor not to divide these lands. But even THIS CHEAP JUSTICE AVAS REFUSED. Let me refer you to another letter of Father Andre. It was addressed to Sir John Macdonald himself, and Avas dated 10th June, 1883 :— Sir : — I write you for the purpose of calling your atten tion to the painful, embarrassing position in which the French half-breeds settled on the southern banks of the Saskat chewan are placed. According to an old custom in Manitoba, they took up their lots ten chains wide in front by two miles in depth, trusting that the Government, acting on the rule already established, would survey these lands into lots ten chains in width by two miles in depth. Their surprise may be AT TORONTO IN 1886 325 imagined when they saw the lands along the Saskatchewan . measured off into squares of forty chains Avithout any heed being given to their just claims and protests. What is the result of this abnormal division ? Our half-breeds were overwhelmed with difficulties on account of their land, and this proceeding will now sow division and discord among our people and will render the Government odious in their eyes, considering it as guilty of a gross injustice towards them. This survey lam entably mixes things. Some lose their land, which is being grabbed by their neighbors ; others see the fruits of their in dustry and their fruits despoiled. This unhappy state of things could be easily made to cease by giving ear to their just claims. And how can this be refused them when you have granted a similar favor to Prince Albert ? AU the lands along the branch of the Saskatchewan have been surveyed in this manner, everybody was satisfied, and not the least complaint was heard about the survey. I cannot understand, sir, why your surveyors should have two different methods of parcelling the public domain, one for. Prince Albert, ten chains in width by two miles in depth, v-hich Ave approve and which we claim as a right, seeing you have granted it to Prince Albert, the other of blocking out the land in squares 40 chains without taking the river oi\ location of the settlers into consideration. The latter method we protest solemnly against, and humbly pray, sir, that you order a new survey, and thus validate our request ; already the people ofthis colony have addressedyou a petition on this subject, but the answer given under your directions is not one calculated to inspire them with the hope that you would right the wrong of which they complain ; knowing the difficult situation in which our people are placed, I have re solved to make another effort, which I trust will bring happy results, and I dare to hope that you wilt accede to their just request, and no later than next summer order a new survey of the lands on the south branch of the Saskatchewan. By your kindly concurrence in this matter you will do an act of justice to our people and render them a service for which they will ever be thankful. I have the honor to be, sir, your humble servant. FATHER ANDRE, Superior of St. Lawrence, N.-W. T. Grandin P. 0. Right Honorable Sir John A. Macdonald, Minister of the Interior, Ottawa. 326 SPEECH This is one of the petitions which were sent in by the half-breeds. Again, you will admit in the most courteous language, in the most reasonable language, setting forth facts, the positiveness of which every body must admit. Yet THAT PRAYER AVAS DENIED. Let me read you here the petition, Avhich was sent about the same time by Gabriel Dumont, whose name has since become famous, Avho has been a rebel, as Ave all know ; and perhaps this Avill shoAv how he became a rebel. This is the petition addressed to Sir John Macdonald on the 4th September, 1882, by Gabriel Dumont and forty-two other half-breeds : We also pray that you would direct that the lots be surveyed along the river ten chaims width by two miles in depth, this mode of division being the long established usage of the country. This would render it more easy for us to know the limits of our several lots. We trust, Sir, that you will grant a favorable hearing to this our petition, and that you will make known your decision as soon as possible. We await it with great anxiety, and pray God to protect you and keep you for the direction of this great country, which you so wisely govern. Sir, this Avas not the language of a traitor, this was NOT THE LANGUAGE OF A REBEL. Gabriel Dumont prayed God that Sir John Macdonald might be spared to the country. Had his just peti tion been complied with, the man who at that time was a loyal subject and prayed God the First Minister might be spared to the country Avould not have be come a rebel. Sir, the thing is so indefensible that the Ministers have not attempted to defend their acts upon their merits. I never yet heard a minister or any friend of the Government say that it Avas just and AT TORONTO IN 1886 327 reasonable and fair that these people, Avhen they occupied their lands in their manner, should have them divided otherwise than as they were occupied. But there is another answer given. The answer given is that the half-breeds, who thus petitioned for new surveys, had settled upon their lands after survey. They say " We do not grant a new survey because they settled upon the lands after they had been sur veyed ; they kneAv what they were and they should have taken their lands accordingly. " That would be perfectly just if the statement was correct, but I take issue upon that statement, and I have the proof that the statement is not correct. What Avitness shall I call to prove the assertion I uoav make ? The wdtness, Sir, which I propose to bring forward to prove the assertion which I have made is Mr. George Duck, the land agent ofthe Government at Prince Albert. I might have taken advantage, also, of the testimony of Father Andre whose letter I have just read to you and which positively shows that the half-breeds who were petitioning the Government had taken the land before the survey according to the manner followed in the country, but here is the letter of Mr. Duck. Mr. Duck wa3 the agent of the Government in the locality. He knew, he was familiar with the facts and all the circumstances. His testimony is of the greatest importance. What does he say ? Does Mr. Duck say that the land had been taken after the sur vey ? Mr. Duck says that the land was TAKEN BEFORE THE SURVEY ; that the land was surveyed in square blocks while they were occupied by these half-breeds. And he advises what? A new survey. He advised a new survey to be satisfactory to these men. Let me read his letter • Dominion Land Office, Prince- Albert, N. W. T, 11 March, 1882. Sir, As the majority of the settlers on the south branch oi the River Saskatchewan, in the vicinity of the parish of St. 328 SPEECH Laurent, have taken up their lands previous to the survey, with narrow frontages, similar to those river claims in other parts of this district and in view of the difficulty likely to be experienced in this office in adjusting the boundaries of these claims in accordance with the section survey, I have, at the request of several of the settlers so situated, the honor to request information as to the possibility of re surveying these sections into river lots on a similar plan to that adopted in Prince-Albert settlement, none of these claims having as yet been entered in this office. (Signed) GEORGE DUCK, Agent, Dominion lands. To the SurveyorGeneral. Ottawa. This is the testimony of Mr. Duck. There is a pretence set forth by the Government that the half- breeds had settled upon the lands after the survey. This is not credited in this man's statement ; he says that the great majority had taken their lands previous to this survey ; that the surveys had been made IN SPITE OF THEIR JUST RIGHTS. He advised that a new survey should have taken place the same as had been granted the half-breeds of Prince- Albert under Mr. Mackenzie's regime. That is not all. There is still more very important evidence to call forth upon this point. I noAV bring fourth the testimony of no less a body than the North -West Council. Here is a memorial addressed to the Government at Ottawa by the North-West Council in the month of October, 1883 : Your memorialists further pray that the half-breeds in the Territories who have not participated in the arrangement to extinguish the halt-breed claim in Manitoba should enjoy the same rights as accorded half-breeds in that province. Your memorialists also pray for more extended surveys in the country of tho North Saskatchewan, that the special settlement survey of the South Saskatchewan, in the parish of StAntoine, made by Mr. Aldons, Dominion land surveyor, be approved, and that the land' agent at Prince-Albert be AT TORONTO IN 1886 329 instructed to receive entries for such lands ; that the lands of the parish of Grandin, St Laurent, and St Louis, and fronting on the South Saskatchewan, be surveyed into ten chain lots, they being occupied by settlers in this manner. Noav, in the face of that testimony, is there a man that can noAV abide by the pretence noAV set forth by the Government, that they refused the resurvey be cause the half-breeds had settled on the land after the survey, the whole of the evidence, not only of half-breeds, not only ofthe missionaries, but of their OAvn officers and the North-West Council '-.shows that the lands were taken by the half-breeds before they Avere surveyed and that the only proper justice would have been to resurvey the lands, as was demanded by Mr. Duck and demanded by the North-Avest Council. What was the answer to all these petitions of these representatives and settlers? The ansAver came once in the month of October, 1883, and it was that no lands Avould be surveyed except upon the ordinary system of survey. Noav, gentlemen, is it any Avonder that these men's hearts Avere embittered when they saw the North-West Council demanded the same jus tice they demanded, and the officers of the Govern ment demanded the same justice that they demanded, that when they found their missionaries, all men_ of grace, demanding for them the same justice Avhich they Avere demanding and all these prayers Avere re fused, IS IT ANY AArONDER that these men's hearts grew bitter and rebellion took place in 1885? It was nearly taking place in 1882. Here aie the circumstances. In 1882, some surveyors Avere operating in the vicinity of a settlement called St. Albert, near Edmonton. They Avere operating and dividing the lands as usual into square blocks of forty chains. They Avere approached by a few settlers, whose object it was to prevent them from carrying out their operations. These surveyors Avent to the mission- r 330 SPEECH ary of the place, Father Leduc, and told that father to advise the people to allow them to go on with their operations, stating that they would come back at a later day and divide the lands so that the people could get their narroAV long blocks. Father Leduc advised them to let the surveyors go on with their operations, after the promises just made to them that one of them would come back in a short time and divide their lands as they occupied them. Then the surveyors Avere not molested. They carried on their operations, and, after surveying out this land in square blocks, a surveyor came back and commenced to divide the land into narroAV strip0. But an order came from Ottawa to have that sur veyor stop his operations and let the system of sur veying land as it had been started go on. This pro mise made to the settlers Avas therefore violated. Well you may imagine the anger and indignation of these people Avhen they found THAT THEY HAD BEEN CHEATED, if I may use that word, at all events, deceived. Still they did not rebel, and they took no violent meas ures. They just assembled together as you are assembled to-night, and discussed their position and decided to send a delegation to Ottawa. They chose delegates consisting of Father Leduc and a gentleman named Maloney. They Avere received at Ottawa in March, 1883. After considerable difficulty they had intervieAvs with the Ministers. They had several inter- vieAvs and at last they Avere promised in so many Avords that their prayer Avould be granted, and that their lands Avould be surveyed as occupied. But Fa ther Leduc wanted to have the promise in writing and not in Avords. To do this he had to persevere and to follow and shadow the Ministers, and at last he ob tained from the Minister of the Interior of that day, Sir David Macpherson, a Avritten paper on which all the prayers of the half-breeds, as set forth in their AT TORONTO IN 1886 331 petition, Avere acceded to. In that writing it was statedA that a special survey would be granted, and "that' lands, occupied or possessed before the annexation of the North-West Territories to the Dominion, will be recognized by the Government." I will not give you any more of the document. This is enough. There J is the promise given by the Minister of the Interior.' With this promise Father Leduc went back to the Saskatchewan. He Avent back to the Forks, Avherethe tAvo branches unite, visiting settlement after settle ment, and informing them ofthe good news that at last a survey would be made. Let me say before I proceed any further that Ave did not find this paper amongst the papers that were brought down by the Government. This paper has been kept in a pigeon hole. The Government has suppressed the informa tion it contained from the people. But Ave found it, and Mr. Blake read it in the House of Commons and charged that a member of the Government, had signed the paper, and his charge was never contradicted, never even challenged. And now, sir, as I said, Father Leduc went up and gave the good neAvs to the settlers and said to them : " We will have justice at last." He told them that a re-survey would be made. And what was the consequence ? What followed ? The solemn promise made over the signature of the Minister of the Interior AVAS BROKEN AND VIOLATED. The word of Her Majesty, as represented by her Ministers, was broken. Is it any wonder, I ask again, that these men's hearts were getting bitter ? If you want any proof of Avhat I now tell you, let me read you a petition sent on the 19th of November, 1883, by William Bremner and some 23 or 24 other half- breeds to Mr. Duck : — St. Louis de Langevin, 19th Nov., 1883, Sir, The undersigned farmers, resident ofthe parish of St. Louis de Langevin, on the south branch of the Saskatchewan, beg SPEECH to set forth, as follows, their grievances in relation to the lands on wbich they are located: Many of us are here since the years 1873'74, and '75; others, in still greater numbers, since 1880. Each and all of us took up our lands in accordance with the method formerly prevailing on the lands of the Red River and the Assiniboine — that is to say, in river lots. In tne autumn of 1880, we petitioned the Minister ofthe Interior at Ottawa for a special survey into river lots, as was granted to the Prince Albert settlement and to a portion ofthe St. Lawrence settle ment, and we all signed that petition, not excepting Michael Canny, who has since entered his lot at your office as a sec tional lot, and against whose action we hereby strongly protest. Since that date we have sent more petitions, at various times, for the same object, supporting the same with the influence of all persons in authority who took an interest in us, such as Messrs. J. Roya', M. P., D. H. Macdonald, member North-West Council, L. Clarkf, His Lordship Bishop Grandin, and Father Leduc. Finally Father Leduc, who had been sent as a delegate to Ottawa by the people of Edmonton and Prince Albert, showed us the answer of the Government promising a special survey for all located lands on the SaskatcheAvan. Since then we have waited in vain for the new survey. As we stated at the beginnmg, many of us have occupied our lots long enough to entitle us to patents, and yet there has been no way, as yet, of getting them entered at your office. We beg of you to repre sent to the Government the grievances herein in part set forth, and urge them to put an end thereto as quickly as pos sible for the welfare and peace of loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen of Englana. That was one abo of the petitions Avhich, along Avith the others, never was heeded, and, gentlemen, what were the consequences of that state of things? The consequence of that state of things was that the half-breeds were, one after another, EVICTED FROM THEIR LANDS. Here is the manner, sir. We have a law, and a very good law. It is that any subject of Her Majesty, 18 years of age, can have a homestead of J.60 acres in the North- We3t Territory. As soon as the title has been made out and the plans have been laid with the agent, AT TORONTO IN 1886 333 any subject of Her Majesty can go to the office of the agent and make an entry for any quarter section which he chooses to take up, and by taking it, he becomes vested Avith the right to it. Does the half- breed possess the same right ? No. They do not possess the right of entry. And why do they not possess it ? The reason is obvious. The land agent has plans of a township, one of those townships Avhere the rebellion occurred. In this plan, the lands are laid down in square blocks 40 cbains long and 40 chains wide. If a half-breed comes to the agent, the latter would tell him, " I will give you an entry for a ' homestead, on any part of the plan you choose. " The half-breed points to a piece of land ten chains wide and two miles long, and says, " I Avant to make an entry for that piece of land. " The agent says, no, I cannot do that ; but I will give you an entry for this piece, forty chains by forty chains, " " But, " says the half-breed, " if you give me a piece of land forty chains wide it will cover part ofthe land already occupied ; and if you give me 40 chains in length it will cover land occupied by some one else; therefore I cannot make the entry. " This is obvious. If there is any necessity of proving it by evidence, let me read to you here a letter sent to Mr. Duck by Louis Schmidt : Grandin, Saskatchewan, N. W. T. 26th april, 1884. Sir, — I beg to lay before you the following facts: — lam one of the settlers on the South Saskatchewan, who, during the last four years have sent petitions upon petitions to your Department tohave the land surveyed in ten or twenty chains frontage by one or two miles long, the same as has been done for the Prince-Albert settlement on both the north and south branches of the Saskatchewan. I regret to say that so far our prayer has not yet been granted, nor even an answer of any kind been given, and I feel bound to say that such a state of things is almost intolerable. The most part of these settlers, and I am among the number, have held on and cultivated their lands for over three years, and ought to be entitled to a patent from the Crown. Yet, as they have taken up their J 334 SPEECH lands close to each other, and in the hope of having them subdivided in river lots, they have not been able to enter them in the Lands Office. You see, sir, in a glance the real state of things, and I need not occupy your valuable time any longer in entering into more details. I pray you, therefore, most earnestly, to have the matter remedied, for the satisfac tion of so many loyal subjects of Her Majesty and of your humble servant. LOUIS SCHMIDT. Honorable the Minister of the Interior, Ottawa. This letter, sir, proves that the half-breeds could not make entries for these lands. But if a would-be settler comes from the outside, from the provinces of Quebec or Ontario or from Europe Avith no such scru ples as entertain the half-breeds, he will go to the agent and make an entry for one of those lands know ing it Avas occupied, and with the title to the quarter section in his pocket, he Avill go and say to the half- breed : '' go; this land is mine." Here is the evidence that such a state of things not only existed, but that facts of that nature took place. The petition Avhich I have just read to you was forwarded J,o OttaAva on the 9th of December, 1883, together with the prayers of Louis Schmidt and John Baptiste Boucher. Then j'ou have the evidence — the ansAver to the challenge throAvn to us by the Govern ment that no half-breed has ever been dispossessed. You have in their OAvn blue book proof that half- breeds have been actually dispossessed. Mr. Laurier then read an extract from a speech delivered by the Honorable Thomas White in answer to the preceding charges made by the present speaker on a previous occasion, Mr. White accused Mr. Laurier of" talking nonsense." " Talk ing nonsense 1 " said Mr. Laurier. This is a very summary way of disposing of the accusations. But everyone must fight with their weapons, and it seems to me that weapons of the AT TORONTO IN 1886 335 Minister of the Interior are not well furbished. They want polish, and may then get a little more victory. In the extract read by Mr. Laurier, Mr. White was reported also as saying that Mr. Laurier had stated in a dispute over lands in the North-West the individual who obtained possession by oust ing a half-breed was named Salter. Salter, Mr. White said, was an English name, and thus Mr. Laurier, he contended, had given the impression that a half-breed had been deprived of his land by an English settler. Mr. Laurier, continuing, said : — Sir, I protest against such an insinuation. Mr. White sought to convey the impression that I had been appealing to race prejudices. I have never been guilty of anything so Ioav as that. I have again and again in the province of Quebec, as I do now, attacked the policy ofthe Gov ernment regarding this question, but Heaven is my Avitness that never did I call upon any race feeling in the province of Quebec. The language Avhich I have used in the province of Quebec is the language Avhich I use here to-night. I have no tAvo languages, one for the French Canadians and the other fol- the English Canadians. We stand here upon the broad ground of British liberty and British justice. But Mr. Salter was one of the original settlers in the parish of St Louis de Langevin, and so Avas his neighbor, the gen tleman with whom he was disputing. The gist of my defence is this :— That the dispute Avas between two half-breeds over a piece of land, and these cases are not uncommon in the North-West Territory. I will go further, and I will say that disputes about the possession of land are not only not uncommon in the North-West Territories, but are common where there are men and neighbors. There will be disputes AS LONG AS THERE ARE MEN. It is not uncommon to have these disputes about land in the province of Quebec, and the province of Ontario, but here is the difference - Mr. White would argue that this was a case of trespass, simple trespass, 336 SPEECH a violation of the law, a half-breed encroaching upon another half-breed. The difference was this : — Thomas Salter did not commit any trespass, did not commit any violation ofthe law; but when Thomas Salter came to dispossess his neighbor, he had in his hand the authority of the Government. He had in his hand an entry Avhich he had made ; he Avas not breaking the laAv ; he Avas acting according to the law made by the Government of Canada. This is the difference, and this is what the people of Ontario will understand that this is the difference in the case to Avhich I have referred. That could not have been remedied in court of justice. If it had been an ordinary trespass such as' Ave see everywhere in human society, he could have settled it in a court of justice, but the man says : — " Here is my title, I have it from the Government of Canada. " This is Avhy these men were so embit tered. They Avere so liable to be evicted not illegally, but legally Avith the sanction of the Government. Is it to be wondered at, again I say, that the hearts of these men grew embittered when again and again they appealed to the Government and got no answer? Here they found themselves evicted one by one. Is it any Avon der that these men at last LOST ALL PATIENCE and faith in the Government? You are told by the Government and by their friends that the rebellion Avas due simply to the agitation of Riel. In the sum mer of 1884, when they had been petitioning for three long years with no avail, they sent for Riel, the only educated man of the race — they sent for him. He com menced the agitation, but Avhat did the Government do ? Did they do a single act to remedy the state of thin gsAvhich then prevailed in these territories, when they knew, as they must have knoAvn, that' Riel Avas a dangerous character? — I never said the contrary. The Government kneAV it. Did they act upon their know ledge ? When this man was brought into theterritory, AT TORONTO IN 1886 337 when he commenced the agitation, a peaceable con stitutional agitation for six long months, what did the Government do to remedy that state of things, to prevent the continuance of that agitation AA'hich might end, as it did end, in rebellion ? They sent a police force to Fort Carlton to overawe the people and to prevent them making their claims. Are Ave in British territory, or are Ave in Russia? That is the way that Russia ever treated poor Poland. Whenever that unfortunate nation asked for liberty, the Russian Gov ernment aid as the Canadian Government in 1884 ; instead of meeting the just demands of the people, it sent military forces to WarsaAV to overawe the people, to put down those Avho had the temerity to raise their voices in favor of their own friends. We are told mow that the rebellion was caused by the malice of Riel. Ltt me bring forward THE TESTIMONY OF THE POLICE FORCE sent to Fort Carlton, Superintendent Gagnon, who wrote on 23rd December, 1884, to Major Crozier :— Sir:— I have to honor to report that during the last month the half-breeds of St Laurent and Batoche settle ments. held a public meeting to adopt a petition drawn up by a committee, and that this petition, signed by the settlers of both settlements, has been forwarded to Ottawa. This meeting, from all reports, seems to have been very orderly. Several other smaller reunions have taken place during the same period, but all had reference to school matters. The half-breeds are pressing Riel to settle among them, and have given him, as a token of their gratitude for services rendered, a house well furnished, and will further, on 2nd January next, present him with a purse. These testimonials are for the good-will of the majority, and would go towards denying certain rumors which say that several are lacking confidence in their leader, that his way of acting and speaking denotes a very hot head, and that he does not agree with their priests. ""As'far'as'i can'see," the'chief grievance of the half-breeds ! is that they are afraid the Government will not sanction the way they amongst themselves have agreed to take their homesteads— ten chains frontage on the river by two miles J back. 22 338 SPEECH Here was the last warning given to the Govern ment by one of their oavu officers at so late a day as 23rd December. The rebellion broke out four months afterwards. But they took no steps in the meantime to give satisfaction to these people, not a step, warned though they were, though they saw the danger, and though the agitation Avas ever increasing, growing more and more bitter, yet in the face of all that they never took a step, they never did an act to remove this state of things Avhich must have ended as it did end in rebellion. Now, gentlemen of Toronto, men of English blood and descent, let me ask this of every one of you: If youhadbeen yourselves fated to be born on the banks of the SaskatcheAvan before there ever Avas a government in the territory, and you had taken youi land according to the manner of the country, and if, Avhen the government Avas founded, they had sent surveyors into the country cutting your land into pieces; if after you had made remonstrances after remonstrances you had been given a promise that justice would be clone and that promise Avas broken ; if after every other means had been tried and found ot no avail, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE? Before I proceed any further, let me quote the lan guage Avhich was spoken upon one occasion by the great Earl of Chatham, the greatest man of his day, the man who first started England in the 18th century on that career of victory and glory Avhich she has been following ever since. Let me tell you Avhat he once said. _ The American colonies to the south of us were then in open rebellion, fighting the British Govern ment. Lord Chatham, old and feeble, came to the House of Lords one day, upbraided the Ministers for being the cause of that rebellion, telling them that they had no right to tax people that were not repre sented in the British Parliament ; that it Avas an act of tyranny on their part. He said " If I were an AT TORONTO IN 1886 339 American, as I am an Englishman, Avhile foreign troops remained in the country I never would lay down my arms ! Never ! Never ! Never ! " If the editors ofthe good loyal Tory newspapers of Ontario had been living in that day, Avhat Avould they have said of that remark of Lord Chatham's ? For my part, gentlemen, I am a loyal subject, but I have the cour age of my convictions, Avhether they are right or wrong. I believe those men Avere GOADED TO REVOLUTION, but when they rebelled they committed a crime against the peace. I was not born on the banks of the SaskatcheAvan, but on those of the St LaAvrence, and when the rebellion took place I had a seat in Parliament, I OAved allegiance to my sovereign, and I knew my rights as a citizen and my duties as a sub ject of Her Majesty. When the volunteers were called out, the Government, for the first time in this whole matter, did its duty. The rebellion had broken out and had to be suppressed. The Government had to be sustained; I sustained it. The Liberal party as a party offered no opposition to the Government in this matter until the back of therebellion had been brok en and all danger Avas passed. Then Avhen the laAV had been vindicated, came the time to arraign the Government and I took another step also. I say it was my vieAV and not that of the whole Liberal party. It Avas a matter upon which everyone took his OAvn side, and my view Avas that since the rebellion had, been provoked clemency should have followed in the steps of victory. This is the course which I took.l If is not the unanimous course ofthe Liberal party* on this question. Every man acts according to his own conscience. Sir, convinced as I am that these men were in the right, that they were defending their just rights,that they had been driven to crime by the Gov ernment, I again expressed my convictions upon that subject in as strong language as Avas at my command. 340 SPEECH AT TORONTO IN 1886 I knew that I had been the cause of scandal to the numerous tribe of Tory editors who have lashed their brains most unmercifully in order to bring against me some grand sentence of scorn and indignation. My native land is not only the province of Quebec, where I was born, but it extends all over portions ofthis con tinent covered by the British flag. My kindred are not only those in whose veins flow the blood that flows in my veins. My kindred are all those of whatever race or creed who on this continent live UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE BRITISH FLAG, and you will certainly all agree with me that the pur pose of God is that all races who are covered by the British flag shall be equal before the law, and when Ave find a Government ill-treating a poor people, sim ply because they are poor and ignorant, Ave resent it. When we find them violating that purpose of God, I say that it behooves us to freely fight for it with -all the means that the constitution places in our hands. u r " VIGOROUS PLEA IN FAVOR OF THE IRISH DEFECTIVENESS OF LEGISLATIVE UNION IN ENGLAND AND IN CANADA PROTEST AGAINST COERCION Twice previously in 1882 and 1886, had the House of Com mons voted addresses to the Queen in favor of Ireland in its struggle for self-government. In 1887, the situation had become still more painful, the right of free meeting and discussion having received a terrible blow from the severe measures instituted by Mr. Balfour, the new Secretary of State for Ireland. On the 21st April, 1887, Mr. Curran moved resolu tions protesting against the '¦' coercion bill." The debate lasted several days and ended in the adoption of the resolutions by a vote of 135 against 47, in spite of the opposition of the Premier and of several of his colleagues and principal supporters, Messrs Bowell, Carling, White, Tupper, Haggart, Foster, and Mc Carthy. But this opposition was powerless against the coali tion of all the Irish members in both parties with the French Canadians and the entire Liberal party. Mr. Laurier supplies the explanation of this patriotic alliance between the Irish, French Canadians and Liberals, in the following speech which we take from the Hansard : Mr. Laurier : — As this House has already tAvice expressed its sympathy with Ireland in the cause of 312 SPEECH Home Rule, there would not be, under ordinary circumstances, any occasion for an additional expres sion of vieAvs and Avishes already well known. But the circumstances to-day are not ordinary; they are even more painful and deplorable than the ordinary circumstances of that unhappy land. A new calamity menaces it, a calamity of so great a character that it calls for an additional expression of the sympathy, not only of those Avho love Ireland, but of those as well Avho love England and fair play and are proud of her name. It must be admitted that it is a most evil day, indeed, not only for Ireland, but for England as Avell, Avhen in this Jubilee year, in any part ofthe British Empire, a civilized people is to be SUBJECTED TO LAAVS SO CRUEL as those contemplated to be imposed upon the people of Ireland. The honorable member for North Bruce (Mr. McNeil), who addressed the House yesterday, concluded an able and moderate speech which was directed mostly to establish the proposition that coercion in Ireland was necessary, by proposing a re solution 'to the effect that the Parliament of Canada should not express any opinion as to the course of Imperial legislation, because our Parliament had not the requisite information upon which to offer an opi nion ; but the honorable gentleman himself must have thought Ave had sufficient information, since he came to the conclusion, in his speech, if not in his mo tion, that coercion was necessary for Ireland. On the other hand, the friends of Ireland, with the same in formation at their command as the honorable gentle man has, may come to a different conclusion, and believe that the true course to be followed is not the course of coercion, but that of freedom. But, more- ever, Mr. Gladstone, fighting on behalf of the Irish people, invites all those who sympathize with Ireland to record their sympathy with the struggle IN FAVOR OF HOME RULE 343 now being made. In a late letter he speaks as follows : — I attach very high value and importance to the manifesta tion, now incessant, of American as well as Colonial sympathy with the Irish people in the crisis created by the causeless, insulting and insidious bill at present before Parliament. Well, if the advice ofthe friends of Ireland may be of value to tho3e who are noAV engaged in fighting her battle, it seems to me that the advice of all those subjects of Her Majesty, Avho have enjoyed THE BENEFITS OF HOME RULE for fifty years, may be of still greater value from their experience ofthe blessings of Home Rule; and in that view I say emphatically that the suggestions of no class of Her Majesty's colonial subjects, as to the blessings of Home Rule, may be more profitable than the suggestions of Her Majesty's subjects of French origin. And, speaking as a French Canadian, I cannot help comparing the history of my OAvn country with the history of Ireland to-day. I see much similitude between the situation of Ireland to-day and the situa tion of Canada, and especially Lower Canada, fifty years ago. It seems to me that the public men who to-day have to deal with the cause of Ireland are hampered by a distrust of the Irish people in the same way as the public men Avhohad to deal with the cause of Canada fifty years ago were hampered by a distrust of the people of Canada. There are only tAvo ways of governing men — by despotism or coercion, if you choose to call it by that name, or by freedom. You can coerce an inferior and an uncivilized race, but never a proud and self-respecting people. Coer cion has been tried, not once or twice, but times almost without number in Ireland, and it has failed every time; and, if tried again, it must fail as it did before. The Irish people would not be the proud people that they are, if they were to be cowed bycoercionmto 344 SPEECH abandoning one single iota of what. they deem to be their just rights. The honorable member for Bruce (Mr. McNeil) said yesterday that coercion had been successful. At least I understood him to say so in regard to the last coercion bill, that it suppressed crime. Hoav can such language be held ? IF COERCION HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL in Ireland, how is it that the state of Ireland is Avhat it is to-day ? The honorable gentleman himself devoted the greater part of his speech to demonstrate that crime to-day is rampant in Ireland. Coercion can punish crime, it can crush out all expressions of public opinion, it can choke in the throat even before they are uttered all words of complaint or remon strance. but it cannot breed contentment and affection inthehearts ofthe people for the Government.it cannot induce that cheerfulness and allegiance which should be the aim toAvards which every Government should tend. What is wanted to-day in Ireland is not a law to punish crime, but a state of things Avhich will suppress crime by suppressing the motive for crime, the motive for agrarian crime, which is the only crime existing in Ireland. What is Avanted is a state of things which will bring contentment to the hearts of the people, a state of things which will make the peo ple happy and proud of their allegiance. This is what is wanted to-day in Ireland, and, since it is proved, and proved, it seems to me, beyond dispute, that coercion has failed as often as it has been tried, I ask of those Avho to-day support coercion, not only in this Parliament but out of this Parliament, if it would not be well to try the other method of governing men, the method of freedom ? Strange to say, all those Avho to-day oppose Home Rule, Avhether on this con tinent or on the other continent, all those who to-day advocate coercion, must admit, and they do admit, Avith more or le3S reluctance, that IN FAVOR OF HOME RULE 345 SOME KIND OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT should be granted to Ireland. Even the honorable gentleman who placed in your hands the amendment you now have, though his speech was devoted to the proposition that coercion Avas necessary, still in this amendment adhered to the resolutions in favor of Home Rule which were passed by this House. This is not unusual. All these statesmen, as far as my knowledge goes, in England or out of England, Avho have treated that subject and have come to the con clusion that coercion was necessary, at the same time have said that, after all, the present state of things was intolerable, and that some kind of local govern ment should be devised for Ireland. At the same time they are misty in their views. While stating that in one breath, they stifle it in the next ; whilst admitting that Ireland should have some kind of local administration, still they all conclude their utterances by stating that, after all, the Imperial Parliament should have absolute control over local matters. And what is the secret of it all ? The secret is that the men Avho deal with that question and oppose Mr. Gladstone at this moment, distrust the people of Ireland, and one and all believe that, if anything like legislative independence were given to the people of Ireland, the people of Ireland would simply make it a stepping stone towards effecting complete separa tion from the Empire. As far as that goes, I am reminded of the history of my own country, of the history of Canada, and especially of Lower Canada. The honorable gentleman Avho seconded the address the other day, the honorable member for Albert (Mr. Weldon), in"an able and well-tempered speech, refer red to the fact, that in the first year of Her Majesty's reign there Avas rebellion in these provinces. He took some pride in saying that there had been no rebellion in the Maritime provinces. That is so. There was no rebellion in the Maritime provinces, but there Ayas discontent in the Maritime provinces, there Avas agita- 346 SPEECH tion in the Maritime provinces, and what Avas the cause of it ? The discontent and the agitation arose from the fact that the people ofthe Maritime provin ces, in common with the people of all the British pro vinces, demanded at that time more extended local liberty. There was the same discontent throughout the length and breadth of Upper Canada. There was even REBELLION IN UPPER CANADA, though it Avas restricted Avithin narrow limits. But there was rebellion throughout LoAver-Canada, rebel lion, which was profound, bitter and deep-rooted. We have heard of late that rebellion may exist Avithout cause, that it may exist out of sheer malice, and mere wantonness ; but the Government of England did not believe so. The Government of England thought that, since the people of the British colonies had risen in arms against the Government, there must be some cause for that uprising, and they sent out one of the most eminent men of his day, Lord Durham, to inves tigate the cause of that rebellion. Lord Durham came here, he did his work, and he did it well ; he investigated the causes Avhich had led to the rebellion in Lower-Canada, and to the rebellion in Upper- Canada, and Avhich had spread discontent all over British territory in America, and he reported to his Government, tt is not my duty to-day to review the report of Lord Durham at length. If that were my duty, I should have to take most seriou3 exception to some of the conclusions at' which he arrived, espe cially as they affected my OAvn countrymen, of French origin ; but I am speaking to-day only ofthe general causes, Avhich, in the opinion of Lord Durham, led to rebellion in tAvo of the provinces, and general discon tent all over the "provinces, and the remedy which he then suggested. Lord Durham laid doAvn as the cause of that rebellion and discontent the fact that the aspirations ofthe people for freedom of local govern- IN FAVOR OF HOME RULE 347 ment were continually checked by the conduct ofthe Colonial Office, and he suggested as a remedy that the provinces should be allowed the most COMPLETE LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE. He said that legislative independence should be even given to those colonies which, at that time, were in the throes of civil Avar. His idea was that, if the aspira tions ofthe people for absolute untrammelled freedom of local government continued to be checked by the Colonial Office, the irritation produced by that course would lead the people to ask not only for local free dom, but for absolute severance from the Empire. Whereas if the wishes ofthe people for local govern ment Avere granted, if they had absolute independence in their local affairs, their local interests and their Imperial pride Avould be at once gratified and the flag which protected their local liberties and recalled to them so many glorious associations, would be made all the dearer to their hearts. It Avas a bold conclu sion, so bold, indeed, that the most liberal-minded statesmen of the day in England shrank from it, in the sarne manner that to day the most liberal-minded men in England shrink from applying the same doc trine to the government of Ireland. Lord John Russell, Avho was at the time Colonial Secretary, and one ofthe most liberal-minded men of his day, had to review the report made by Lord Dur ham. ' He agreed in almost everything that Lord Durham had said, except in the particular of giving free and independent legislatures to the colonies. Upon that subject he spoke as follows : — It does not appear to me that you can subject the Execu tive Council of Canada to the responsibility which is fairly demanded of the Ministers of the Executive Power in this country. And after having dilated at length upon this idea, he concluded as follows : — I know no reason why the Legislative Assembly, whether of each, separately, or of both provinces united, should not be 348 SPEECH listened to with deference ; but I am not prepared to lay down a principle, and a new principle, for the future govern ment of the colonies, that we ought to subject the Executive there to the same restrictions which prevail in this country. Speaking of the impossibility Avhich existed in his mind of granting the same amount of legislative independence to the colonies that existed in the mo ther-country, he made these other remarks: — But the Governor of Canada is acting not in that high and unassailable position in which the Sovereign of this country is plaaed. He is a governor receiving instructions from the Crown on the responsibility of a Secretary of State. Here, then, at once, is an obvious and complete difference between the Executive of this country and the Executive of a colony. The Governor might ask the Executive Council to propose a certain measure, 'they might say they could not propose it unless the members of the House of Assembly would adopt it. But the Governor might reply that he had received iustruc- tions from home commanding him to propose that measure. How, in that case, is he to proceed? Either one power or the other must be put aside. Either the Government must con trol the House of Assembly, or else the Governor must become a mere cipher in the hands of the Assembly, and not attempt to carry into effect the measures commanded by the' Home Government. So, then, such a liberal-minded man as Lord John Russell could not see his way to adopt the con clusion of Lord Durham, and to grant absolute legis lative independence and responsible government to a colony. To him the obstacles seemed to be insur mountable. We are aware that those vievA'3 of Lord John Russell prevailed for some years. The govern ment of the colonies Avas attempted to be carried on the same lines here traced by Lord John Russell, that is to say, upon the old line3, not upon the lines traced by Lord Durham ; not upon the view that responsible government should be granted to the colony. It is a well-known fact that during those years this country had no peace ; it is a well-known fact that during all IN FAVOR OF HOME RULE 349 that time an agitation was constantly kept up, and the country led a miserable life and made no progress. But at last a master-mind came to this country IN THE PERSON OF LORD ELGIN, and he did not shrink from giving us the absolute legislative independence for Avhich the country had been recommended to the statesmen of Great Britain, but which they deemed to be inconsistent with the interests ofthe Empire to grant. Lord Elgin did not hesitate to subject the Ministry of the country to the same responsibilities and the same restrictions that prevailed in England. We knoAv that he did this in spite of all the reports of the Tory party in England, who at that time fought against Canadian freedom with the same bittern ess|and violence with which they are now fighting against Irish freedom. But notwith standing all those efforts Lord Elgin's view prevailed England granted the most complete legislative inde pendence, and responsible government was introduced into the provinces as absolutely and as completely as it is carried out in England. Did any of the dangers which were expected to foliow from this course, arise? Nor did the Imperial interest suffer and the agitation, which had been going on for local freedom, immediat ely ceased ; immediately contentment prevailed where there had beendiscontent,and loyalty followed where there had been disloyalty before. And to-day, Mr. Speaker, as you Avell know, in this the Jubilee year of Her Majesty's reign,there is not in this broad Empire an inch of ground where there is more dutiful and more loving allegiance than in this very country Avhere fifty years ago rebellion was bitter and deep-rooted. That is THE EFFECT OF LIBERTY, that is the effect of local freedom granted to Canada. What would be the condition of Canada to-day if this 350 SPEECH course had not been folloAved, if the old practice had been folloA\-ed of keeping the people under subjection, of refusing them those local liberties for Avhich they were clamoring? Our condition to-day Avould be the condition of Ireland to-day, that of sullen discontent and agitation a constant praying for reforms which were never granted. Sir, there is no rebellion to-day in Ireland, it is true, but is there contentment ? Is there cheerful ness of heart in the allegiance which they owe to the CroAvn of England ? Sir, the condition of the Irish people to-day is about the most miserable of any people in Europe. Must this last forever ? Is there no remedy to such a state of things ? It has lasted already for seven long years, and shall Ave be told to day that there is no remedy for the evil ? I say, in view of our OAvn experience, there is a remedy, and that remedy is not coercion, but freedom. Let the English Government treat the Irish people as they have treated the Canadian people. Let them trust the Irish people as they have trusted the Canadian people. Let them appeal to their hearts, to their gratitude, to their nobler sentiments. Let them loosen the grip in Avhich they now hold that unfortunate land, let them give them some measure of local liberty, let them restore the Parliament to College Green, and I venture to say that this long accumu lated bitterness caused by ages of oppression will melt aAvay in a very few years ; I venture to say that, after that, the bond of union betAveen England and Ireland will be stronger than it ever Avas before. It will not be a bond of union based upon physical force, but it Avillbe a bond of union based upon mutual affection and respect. Sir, Ave will be told perhaps, " Oh, but there are demagogues in Ireland who Avould prevent such a course. " There may be demagogues in Ireland; but demagogues in a free and happy country are not dangerous, it is IN FAVOR OF HOME RULE 351 THE TYRANNY OF A GOVERNMENT that makes demagogues dangerous and powerful. We will be told again : '" But there are men in Ireland Avho would not be content with local liberty, who would aspire to a complete separation of Ireland from the Empire." That may be true , I dare say it is true. But I say again that if there are such men, their power would not last one minute after Ireland had obtained that local liberty Avhich she now asks ; yes, their power would not last, because either they Avould themselves have to be reconciled to the existing state of things, or their power would be gone. Just take the example of Papineau in Lower Canada. There was never a man in any nation who commanded a greater sway over the hearts and minds of his fellow- countrymen than did Papineau before the year of rebellion of 1837. Yet after the rebellion, after Ave had been granted responsible government, Papineau at tempted an agitation with the people of Lower Canada to induce them to repeal the Act of Union, and that agitation fell perfectly flat ; the same men Avho a few years before would have shed their blood at his com mand were no longer responsive to his voice. What was the reason ? The simple reason was, that the people had obtained local liberties Avhich secured and protected them, and they Avere reconciled and satis fied with their condition. Such would be the result, I venture to say, if the same policy were folloAved in Ireland that was folloAved in Lower Canada; and such being the case it behooves us, not only does it behoove us, but it seems to me it is our bounden duty, as members of this great Empire, to strain every nerve in order to strengthen the hands of those struggling in the cause of Ireland, and to sIioav by our living experience that in order to make the government of Ireland strong, it is necessary simply to make the people free. MR. LAURIER, Leader of the Canadian Liberal Party GRAND OVATION IN HIS HONOR THE PIC-NIC AT SOMERSET It was an occasion of great rejoicing throughout the pro vince of Quebec when the Liberal members of the House of Commons, against his own wishes, in 1887, met and chose Mr. Laurier to succeed Honorable Edward Blake as their leader. A great pic-nic. in honor of the event, was organized and took place on the 2nd August of the same year at Somerset (Megantic) and at this pic-nic the admirers of the " future Prime Minister of the Dominion " gathered in thousands. The leaders and principal members ofthe party came from all points ofthe province by the regular trains from Montreal, Quebec, Levis and St Hyacinthe and by special trains from Coaticook, Richmond, Three-Rivers and Arthabaska. On the stand, when the meeting opened, there were at least two hundred Senators, Federal and Provincial members, ex-members, journalists &c. Congratulatory addresses were presented to Mr. Laurier by the inhabitants of the place (.Plessisville) and of Drummond and Arthabaska and by the Club National of St Hyacinthe, the Club National of Coaticook and the Liberals of Richmond. The speaker-! on the occasion were : Honorable Mr. Laurier, Honorable Mr. Mercier, Premier of the province of Quebec ; Mr. John Whyte, ex M. P. P., Mr. Geo. Turcot, M. P. for Megantic, Honorable C. A. P. Pelletier, C. M. G., Mr. G. Amyot, M. P. for Bellechasse, Mr. J. Lavergne, M. P. for Drummond and Arthabaska, Dr. Turcotte and Mr. Ernest Tremblay. The programme speech made by Mr. Laurier aroused extraordinary 23 354 SPEECH «)1hrisiasm, being particularly remarked for the preference -wMcfe the orator gave to a British customs union, if at all jsializable, over the American customs union, which then held the place of unlimited reciprocity before the public eye, and, at a time when French Canadian loyalty was keenly called »t® question by their traducers, this declaration falling from She lips of one of the most authorized representatives of the Stench Canadians was a summary reply to such insinuations. (Translation.") Mb Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, No doubt, I should commence by expressing all She gratitude I feel for the more than cordial reception jou have given to me on the present occasion. Still, J cannot help at the very outset acknowledging the pleasure I experience at finding myself once more in tihis good parish of Somerset. Among the addresses presented to me to day, lam fee to !¦ ay that there is one which has particularly touched me. I refer to that coming from my old fellow citizens, if. I can call them so, from my old Mends of Somerset. In it, there is one sentence espe cially which I can never forget; it is that stating that the citizens of Somerset have always regarded me as a feother. Indeed, I can say that, during the twenty years iiave knoAvn the fine parish of Somerset, I have been always treated rather as a brother than as a stranger. Xi is now twenty years since I put my foot in this Tillage for the first time, and since then I have very ©ften been here on professional business, during the lappy period when my profession alone claimed my attention ; I have also come here many times since I lave embraced the political career, the fact being that, m all the elections since 1867, there was only one in which I did not take part, and that was the last, when my friend, Mr. Turcot, won so glorious a victory. On my arrival at the station some of my old AT SOMERSET IN 1887 355 Somerset friends were good enough to tell me that they very much regretted my absence from the coun-' ty at the last election. This Avas very kind and flattering on their part. But I am certain that no matter what I might have done I could have added nothing to the triumph of my friend, Mr. Turcot. Still, I would have been glad to have been able to be present, if only to revive the old associations Avhich have ahvays boui d me to the parish of Somerset. This is my first visit to Somerset since the disas trous fire which SAvept this village two years ago. And what a transformation has been effected 1 Indeed, no one in the world, unless he was previously ac quainted with the Somerset people, could understand how this fine village, which was only a heap of ashes, has risen so rapidly from its ruins. I am happy to note that, in the rebuilding ofthis village, party spirit was forgotten. I know that, at election times, it has its Liberals and Conservatives, but I also know that, after the elections, there are no more Liberals or Conservatives, ROUGES OR BLEUS. And, in this connection, it occurs to me to ask myself, gentlemen, if by any chance there remain any old Bleus in the township of Somerset ? And this time, if we were speaking at the place Ave used to speak formerly, I Avould place my hands over my eyes and ask myself if there remained any old Bleus ; I do not think there is one remaining. Well, the time has arrived to put our shoulders to. the wheel and to Avork together to raise the country as you have raised this village from ruin. Gentlemen, I OAve you thanks for the welcome you are giving me to-day ; I thank my friends who have flocked here, so to say, from all parts of the country. I see among them people from the old coun ty of Arthabaska, which I long had the honor to re present ; I see friends from my own native place, Avith 356 SPEECH whom I went to school, and I see people from the division which I now have the honor to represent, friends from Quebec East. I thank all for coming here ; I specially thank my friends of Somerset, for having taken the initiative in this magnificent demonstration ; and I also return my thanks to my friends ofthe county of Arthabaska for the beautiful address which they presented to me. In fact, I think it would be impossible for an address to express Avarmer sentiments. I do not blame any one, where every one thought he did his duty, but I do not hesitate to say to the electors of the county of Arthabapka that, when they rejected me in 1877 and that the signal honor Avas con ferred upon me of being called to represent what I be lieve to be the most patriotic constituency in the country, the division of Quebec East, they rendered me, perhaps, a great service. My friends, you all congratulate me upon my selection to henceforward guide the destinies of THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA. You congratulate me, gentlemen, on this circum- stance,but I deplore it and you also, I am sure,deplore the sad event Avhich has deprived the Liberal party of the leadership of a man like the Honorable EdAvard Blake. The loss of Mr. Blake, gentlemen, is an irrepara ble loss to the party Avhich he directed with so much Avisdom, grandeur and brilliancy, irreparable to the party Avhich folloAved him with so much devotion and affection, and irreparable to the country to whose in terests he gave his intelligence, his health and his time and Avhich, I must say, repaid the sacrifice so badly. You congratulate me, gentlemen. I must, how ever. acknoAvledge that itAvasAvith the greatest repug nance that I accepted the position which was offered to me by my friends in the House of Commons. As AT SOMERSET IN 1887 357 Heaven is my witness, gentlemen, I never sought or coveted that position ; my friends, deeming me worthy of it, gave it to me ; but, for my part, I never desired it, not feeling in myself the qualifications for it ; I would have much preferred to continue in the role Avhich I had until then filled, that of a free lance ofthe Liberal party, taking part in the fight when my feelings impelled me in that direction,rather than to accept the heavy responsibility Avhich I must now bear as leader. Nevertheless, I stifled my objections, believing it to be my duty to accept the post since my friends insisted on it. I considered that the services which we owe to one another made it a duty for me to take in my party the most exposed post, since THE MOST EXPOSED POST was assigned to me. You congratulate me, gentlemen, and you con gratulate the French Canadians on the election of a French Canadian as leader ofthe great Liberal party of the Dominion of Canada. I must do this justice to my honorable colleagues ofthe English tongue in the House of Commons, to Sir Richard Cartwright, to Mr. Davies, to Mr. Mills and to a host of others, Avho had more claims than I had to the position of party leaders — I must do them the justice to say that they do not seem to remember that Ave are not of the same origin or, if they do remember it, it is only to affirm, by their acts as by their words, that, in the ranks of the Liberal party, there is no question of race, but that all are equal. Undoubtedly, gentlemen, I am a man. and men, as you know, have their sympathies and their prefer ences. But I will say Avith the Latin poet : " Homo sum et humani nihil a me alienum puto " ; " I am a man and I should be a stranger to nothing human " and, as a friend in the crowd said a moment ago, I am a French Canadian, with all the pride of my race, but all the rights of the British constitution are as dear to me a3 358 SPEECH those of my race — and, if the occasion ever arose that the rights of our separated brethren were assailed, I Avould defend them Avith as much energy and convic tion as I Avould those of my OAvn race. The manner might, perhaps, not be the same, but the impulse most assuredly Avould be. It may seem idle to enunciate truths as certain as this one, but there is now more than ever occasion to recall it, because I regret to say that betAveen us — and I do not confine my remarks to the province of Quebec, but apply them to the entire Confederation — the pre judices of race and creed have increased in bitterness since the tragic events Avhich have ensanguined the North-West. With a zeal worthy of a better cause, a certain portion of the Ontario press has been doing its best to divide the Catholics from the Protestants, and I regret to say that in our own proAdnce these attacks are often repelled by means fully as reprehensible. Whether they come from the Catholics of Quebec or from the Protestants of Ontario, appeals to preju dice are equally deplorable. For my part, I have as much aversion for the man Avho appeals to Catholic prejudices in the province of Quebec, as for the man who appeals to Protestant prejudices in the province of Ontario. The true patriot, gentlemen, is a stranger to -flat tery — he only knows justice. The true patriot ahvays uses the same language, Avhether he addresses himself to the Protestants of Ontario or to the Catholics of Quebec. The true patriot has only one measure, that of justicejustice to whom justice is due. Has not this more than anything else character ized the political career of Honorable Edward Blake? Neither for the possession of power, nor for any other motive, did Mr. Blake ever stoop to appeal to preju dices ; if he had a defect, it Avas the defect of great souls and grand characters, but we do not call it a defect, but a sovereign quality and it dominated his nature. AT SOMERSET IN 1837 THE CAUSE OF THE WEAK AND THE OPPRESSED attracted him, so to say, instinctively. Where is the man of our race Avho has defended Avith more energy and vigor than Mr. Blake the cau3e «f the half-breeds driven to revolt and crime by the in justice of a perverse Government ? Where is the son of Ireland on this continent wh® has defended the cause of that unhappy country with more eloquence and logic ? French Canadians, I ask you one thing — that, while, remembering that I, a French Canadian, have been elected leader ofthe Liberal party of Canada, you will not lose sight of the fact that the limits of our common country are not confined to the pro vine® of Quebec, but that they extend to all the territory of Canada and that our country is wherever the British flag Avaves in America. I ask you to remember this in order to remind you that your duty is simply and, above all, to be Canadians. To be Canadians ! that was the object of Confederation in the intention of its authors ; the aim and end of Confederation was to bring the different races closer together, to soften the asperities of their mutual relations, and to connect the scattered groups of British subjects. This was the programme tAventy years ago. But are the divisions ended? The truth is that after twenty years' trial ofthe system, the Maritime provinces submit to Confederation, but do not love it. The province of Manitoba is in opea revolt against the Dominion Government, gentlemen, not in armed revolt, like the revolt of the half-breeds, but in legal revolt. The province of Nova Scotia demands its separation from the Confederation. In fact, carry your gaze from east to Avest and from north to south, and everyAvhere the prevailing feeling wilt be found to be one of unrest and uneasiness, OF DISCONTENT AND IRRITATION. Such, gentlemen, is the picture which unrolls 360 SPEECH itself to-day to our eyes after tAventy years of the regime of Confederation. It will be said, perhaps, that this picture is overdrawn. I appeal to the sound good sense of my present hearers ; unfortunately, the picture is only too realistic. And yet, it is perfectly true that, if this be the painful state of things Avhich we have to note, the fault does not rest with the insti tutions, but Avith the men by whom we are governed. The fault does not rest Avith ihe institutions under which Ave are governed, because they are excel lent, and, for my part, I at once declare, in my quality as leader of the Liberal party, that I propose to do all in my power to inculcate love and respect for the in stitutions under Avhich we live ; those institutions, gen tlemen, are excellent. I am a British subject; I am of the French race ; I baA'e proclaimed the fact in the province of Ontario and I am happy to proclaim it again to-day before countrymen of my own race and mother tongue. I am proud of my allegiance. I shall not stop to discuss the question so often a subject of controversy among ourselves as to the manner in which we became British subjects. Did Ave become British subjects by conquest or by cession? There is no difficulty in the matter for me, and no more, on history than on contemporary events, have I any desire to conceal my way of thinking. If Mont calm had not lost the battle ofthe Plains of Abraham, the Chevalier de Levis Avould not have capitulated and the treaty of Paris Avould never have been signed. That is the position. But I state here before my brethren of the French language and before my breth ren ofthe English tongue that Ave have made A GREATER AND A MORE GLORIOUS CONQUEST than any territorial conquest; we have conquered our liberties, and, if the event of to-day has aDy meaning, Ave can affirm without fear of mistake that we oAve it to the acquisition of our civil and political liberties. We form part ofthe British Empire, AT SOMERSET IN 1887 361 we are British subjects ; and remember, gentlemen, all the dignity and pride that were involved in the title of a Roman citizen, at the beginning of the Roman era when St. Paul, loaded with chains and on the point of being subjected to unAvorthy treatment, had only to exclaim : " I am a Roman citizen " to be treated with the respect to Avhich he Avas entitled. We are British subjects and should be proud ofthe fact ; we form part ofthe greatest empire on the globe and are governed by a constitution, Avhich has been the source of all the liberties of the modern world. I even go further and make bold to say that I am an admirer of our constitution. Undoubtedly, it is not perfect ; it has serious defects Avhich my friend, Honor able Mr. Mercier, will be called upon to soon correct at the interprovincial conference. And, speaking as I do, I state my personal ideas. For my part, I have no hesitation in saying that the principle of our Con federation, that is to say, the principle ofthe separa tion ofthe legislative powers, is a source of privileges for us if we knoAv how to properly avail ourselves of it. But, unfortunately, gentlemen, we have not known how to do so thus far. However, as I said a moment ago, if there is discontent amongst us, if there is irritation from one end ofthe province to the other, the fault rests Avith the men who have governed us ; the fault rests with the men, who, instead of govern ing According to the spirit of our institutions, HAVE DISREGARDED THE PRINCIPLE OF LOCAL LIBERTIES and local interests, the recognition of Avhich lies at the very ba=is of our constitution. The evil dates from afar, it is true- from the very origin of Confede ration. I referred a short time since to the case of Nova Scotia, which demands to go out ofthe Confe deration, into Avhich it was dragged by force. Well, to bring back Nova Scotia into Confederation, the most elementary principles of justice and of all con stitutional liberty Avere violated. 362 SPEECH Nova Scotia did not want Confederation and desired to remain, as previously, an English colony; but her rights were disregarded and against her will she was forced into the Canadian Confederation. lam therefore not astonished that Nova Scotia still feels just as sore as she did on the first day, though twenty years have elapsed since then, and the reason of this is that all the promises that Avere made to Nova Scotia and New-BrunsAvick, that is to say, to the Maritime provinces, to induce them to enter the Confederation, have been odiously broken. They Avere promised a moderate tariff such as they had until then lived under. And instead ofthe moderate tariff they were promised, the tariff, Avhich existed at that time, has been since doubled, tripled and even in some cases quadrupled. And for what purpose ? For the purpose, gentlemen, of depriving the Maritime provinces of their natural trade, of the legitimate trade Avhich they had enjoyed until then, for the purpose of destroying the trade which they had Avith the United States and to force them to trade Avith the Avest. The Govern ment policy Avas triumphant on this point ; it Avorked to a charm in destroying the trade ofthe Maritime provinces with the United States, but it failed to create a trade for the Maritime provinces with the west, because, if you can legislate on tariff questions, you cannot LEGISLATE AGAINST GEOGRAPHY. The Maritime provinces are very much in the same position as the unhappy Tantalus, who was seated at a table loaded clown Avith delicious meats and yet could not touch them, because every time he stretched out his hand to do so, the table moved aAvay from him. So it is Avith the Maritime provinces. They have a market open to them at their very doors the market of the New England States — and they cannot avail themselves of it. They have a well dressed table before them, but they can never touch it. AT SOMERSET IN 1887 363 But, you Avill tell me that the Maritime provinces support the Government. I regret to say that it is true that they support Sir John's Government. But at Avhat price? At the price of millions taken out of the public chest and distributed among them. In order to carry the Digby election, by a majo rity of 28 to 30 votes. the Government were obliged to spend not less than $58,000 I hold in my hands the documents establishing the fact. The people of the Maritime provinces do not ob ject to the money which the Government distributes among them and ready take the purse Avhich is held out to them, but they continue none the less to reject the hand that is profered to them, saying : Since Ave are in the Confederation against our wi3hes,let us make all Ave can out of it ; but Confederation will never re ceive our love ; it will have our votes, BUT OUR HEART, NEVER ! The end of these prodigalities is noAV drawing near and, when it comes, what will happen ? The existing discontent will continue to exist and when the means which have been used to allay it no longer exist, the discontent wiil then spread more widely and Avhen it has permeated the whole social body, it may be ask ed, to use John Howe's expressions : " What next ?" What will happen ? I do not know, but the question is one Avhich should claim the thoughts of public men and I cannot help believing that the men who are to day at the head, Sir John Macdonald and his collea gues, should give it a thought. But, if Sir John Mac donald does so, it must be after the fashion of Louis XV Avith regard to the State of France, when his throne was tottering and Avhen his reply to those who spoke to him on the subject was : " Oh ! after all, it will last long as I last." This appears to be the policy ot the present Government ; it will last as long as Sir John Macdonald and when Sir John Macdonald disappears, 364 SPEECH AFTER HIM THE DELUGE ! I shall not allude to the causes of the discontent fbat prevails or rather that prevailed not long since in the North-West, as my object is not to indulge in recriminations. I do not allude to the discontent which prevailed in the North- West, because the North- West has done justice to itself. It had grievances and the Government Avas forced t« recognize and redress them. And since the question is ended, gentlemen, all I will say to-day is that it only remains for me to hope that the Government will hereafter give the ful lest satisfaction to the people of the North-West and endeavor to repair all the harm it has done them. But, if there is no longer reason to speak of the cause of discontent in the North-West, there is certainly reason to speak of the causes ofthe discontent nmv prevailing in the province of Manitoba. Gentlemen, the province of Manitoba is not peo pled by half-breeds alone as is the North-West; its population on the contrary is composed ofthe most civilized elements furnished by the most civilized peoples of the Old World. And yet, at this present hour, it is an undeniable fact that the province of Ma nitoba is in revolt against us, not against us as a people, but against the Canadian Government. Legal revolt, if you will, but revolt, certainly, open revolt against the authority of the Canadian Government. And if the province of Manitoba is in revolt to-day against the authority of the Canadian Government, it is because the Canadian Government has not known how or rather has not desired to respect the legisla tive independence ofthe province of Manitoba. Leg islative independence is the basis of our constitution and, to my mind, the principle par excellence, of gov ernment. "We are all Federalists. At the time of Con federation, Sir John Macdonald declared that for his part he Avas theoretically in favor of a legislative union, that is to say, that he wanted, as he said him self, only one Parliament and one Government; but, AT SOMERSET IN 1887 365 in the face ofthe state of things which existed in the provinces and their hostility to a legislative union, he was obliged to accept a federative union. In a coun try like ours, with a heterogeneous population, a sepa ration of powers is absolutely necessary. I go further and say that even to govern a homogeneous people, Avhen that people are scattered over a vast territory, a separation of powers is also necessary. In that case, legislative union would necessarily lead to tyranny ; and A FEDERATWE UNION IS THE ONLY ONE which can secure civil and political liberty. Take, for example, gentlemen, our neighbors of the United States. Suppose that in that country there was only one Parliament, can it be believed for a moment that the neighboring republic would have attained to the present high degree of prosperity, which it has known under its system of federative gov ernment ? The same argument holds good with respect to our own country. Even though climatic influences were the only motive, it is a recognized fact that the ethnographic characteristics of a same race vary according to the climates. The man of the South, the man of the East and the man of the West in the United States exhibit traits and manners peculiar to each, so that it is perfectly obvious that these different classes of men must have different wants, that Texas and Maine, Louisiana and Massachusetts have differ ent local requirements and that California and Rhode Island have not the same local wants. Could a single power satisfy all these local interests ? Would one Parliament be sufficient for the purpose. In fact, i3 it not manifest that to meet all these local wants, local legislatures are an absolute necessity ? Suppose that there Avas only the Congress, and it will be found certain that in some places its legislation would weigh arbitrarily; there would be discontent, and instead of the harmony which we see reigning among our 366 SPEECH neighbors, there Avould be acrimony and, instead of the prosperity prevailing all over, there would be onlj'- poverty and ruin. Now, what is true of the United States is equally true of our own country. Our situation is excellent and we have further what they have not — a less homogeneous people than theirs. It is evident that, in our province, we have not the same Avants as the province of Manitoba. So that it must be perfectly clear to all that the moment local wants arise, the federative principle Avhich makes the distinction betAveen local interests to and general inte rests, is the only system by Avhich men can be gov erned in all liberty. If this principle be true, gen* tlemen, and I think it is so, it necessarily folloAVS that the federative principle, legislative separation, is THE MOST POWERFUL FACTOR IN NATIONAL UNITY. Legislative union does not respond to local wants and must necessarily press tyrannically someAvhere, thus creating the desire for complete separation, while the legislative separation of the provinces respects the rights and conduces to the happiness of all. As I have already told you, gentlemen, Sir John Mac donald Avas theoretically favorable to a legislative union. The necessities of the hour, however, made him a supporter of a federative union, but you know the French poet's saying : Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop. (1) In the case of Sir John Macdonald, the natural came back at a galop, nay, at a triple galop. Since 1878, Sir John Macdonald's natural has got the upper hand and not a year has passed since that date which has not witnessed an attack by Sir John on the autonomy of the provinces. The license act, the rail way act the franchise act, are there to testify to Sir (1) (Chase the natural, and It comes back at a galop.) AT SOMERSET IN 1887 367 John Macdonald's centralizing ideas and to promote his encroachments on the rights of the Local Legisla tures. But fortunately all these attacks have not succeeded; if they had, we Avould have a federative government in name, but a legislative union in reality and Sir John would be absolute master of all the pro vinces, ofthe province of Quebec, ofthe province of Ontario, and of all the other provinces from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Unfortunately, the constitution by Avhich we are governed and for which, as already stated, I have the greatest respect, has placed in the hands ofthe Govern ment a terrible weapon Avhich it has used, when and hoAv it pleased, to astail thelocal liberties ofthe provinces. This weapon is the veto power, which is reserved to the Government by the constitution. Section 56 of the British North America Act provides that the Bri tish Parliament shall have the poAver to disalloAv the acts passed by the Parliament of Canada. And section 90 gives the same power to the Central Government, to the Government of Canada, over the acts passed by the Local Legislature's. Sir John Macdonald has taken advantage of this power to exercise a system of . tyranny over all the provinces. There are tAvo kinds of disallowance: THE JUDICIAL DISALLOWANCE AND THE POLITICAL DISALLOWANCE. The judicial disallowance is exercised Avhen a law is transmitted to the central poAver and the Min ister of Justice is of opinion that it is not Avithin the powers of the Local Parliament; in such case, he makes a report to the Executive Council that it is ultra vires and it is disallowed on that report, that is to say, that, from that moment, it becomes null and void. Gentlemen, this mode is not satisfactory ; indeed, it is one of the most arbitrary things under the sun. When a law has been passed by a Local Legislature, 368 SPEECH there is just as much reason to suppose that it is Avithin the powers of that legislature, as there is reason to suppose that it is not, because it has pleased the central government to declare it so. This provi sion does not exist in the American constitution and the fact is that it very often happens, that it has very of ten happened, that the central government, on the sim ple pretext that a law is not within the powers of a local legislature, has vetoed that law, although it has since been established that it was intra vires of the Provin cial legislature. I see by an extract from the Official Gazette that the Government of Canada has just disallowed the laAv passed by the Quebec Legislature in 1886 and entitled '•' An Act respecting the executive power '' The disallowance of this act is couched in the follow ing terms : GOVERNMENT HOUSE, . OTTAWA Tuesday. 19th day of July, 1887. His Excellency the Governor General in council "Whereas the Lieutenant-Governor ofthe province of Que bec with the Legislative Council and Assembly of that province did, on the 21st day of June, A. D. 1886, pass an act which has been transmitted, intituled " an act respecting the Executive Power. " And whereas the said act has been laid before the Gov ernor General in council, together with a report from the Minis ter of Justice, setting forth that he is of opinion that it was not competent for the legislature to pass such act, and therefore recommending that the said act be disallowed. His Excellency the Governor-General has thereupon this day been pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council to declare his disallowance of the. said act, and the same is h ereby disallowed accordingly. Whereof the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Que- b ec and all other persons whom it may concern are to take notice and govern themselves accordingly. JOHN J McGEE, Clerk, Privy Council. AT SOMERSET IN 1887 369 I, Sir Henry Charles .Keith Petty Fitzmaurice, Marquis of Lansdowne, Governor-General of Canada, do hereby certify that the act passed by the legislature of the province of Quebec on the 21st day of June. 1886, and intituled " an act respectmg the executive power " was received by me on the 20th day of July, 1886. Given under my hand and seal this 16th day of July, 1887. LANSDOWNE. For my part, gentlemen, Avithout knoAving the facts any more than I do, I am inclined as much to believe that the legislation placed on the statute book by Mr. Mercier's predecessor, Mr. Taillon, who was then Attorney General, was Avithin the attri butes of the Local Legislature, as I am disposed to believe that it is not within those attributes because it has pleased Mr. Thompson to declare that it is not. The Minister of Justice may be right or he may be wrong. If he is wrong, gentlemen, he deprives the province of the benefit of a law which its Legisla ture has deemed essential to its administration, and it is not thus that a Confederation should be worked. It would be much better TO ADOPT THE AMERICAN SYSTEM, that is to say, to leave the power of disalloAvance to the law courts. But there is more than this, gentlemen. There is the political veto which is by far the most arbitrary weapon with Avhich tyranny has ever armed a federative government. According to this system, a laAv passed by a Pro vincial Legislature, even when entirely within its powers, may be disallowed and annulled, whenever it pleases the Government of Sir John Macdonald. In a word, it completely destroys the legislative indepen dence ofthe provinces and it is the exercise of such tyrannical powers Avhich has driven the province of Manitoba to revolt. That province is a province whose chief product is wheat, and it therefore has need of railways to forward it to the foreign markets. It 24 370 SPEECH has two roads, both under the control of the Cana dian Pacific Company, which charges exorbitant rates of freight. And the moment that these rates Aveighed so heavily that there was no longer any profit left in wheat-growing in Manitoba and that the entire population rose, as one man, to demand AA'hat they had a right to demand, that is to say, additional rail communications, the Local Legislature ofthe pro vince, to meet their urgent requirements, _ passed a number of charter^ to establish lines of railway be tAveen the city of Winnipeg and the American boun dary line. Thereupon, the Ottawa Government, avail ing itself of the arbitrary poAver I have just de nounced, vetoed these acts as fast as they were passed. This conduct, gentlemen, involved not only an act of tyranny, but A SYSTEMATIC VIOLATION of its Avord by the Government. We have a proverb in French Avhich says : " Frank as the Avord of a King." When it is said that : " The King's Avord has been given, " all has been said. The King's word was given by Sir John Macdonald, but the King's Avord Avas broken by Sir John Macdonald's Government. Sir John had given his Avord in 1881. At that time, the monopoly was to apply simply within the territories controlled by the Government of Canada and not in the province of Manitoba. The law itself on this point is unequivocal, and Sir John Macdonald's OAvn de clarations are not equh'ocal either. On that occasion, Sir John said : In order to give them (the C. P. R.) a chance, we have provided that the Dominion Parliament — (mind you, the Do minion Parliament ; we cannot check any other Parliament j we cannot check Ontario, we cannot check Manitoba) shall, for the first ten years after the construction ofthe road, give their own road, into which they are putting so much money and so much -land, a fair chance of existence. AT SOMEESET IN 1887 371 As you can perceive, Sir John Macdonald did not then pretend that he could control the province of Manitoba, the province of Quebec, or the province of Ontario. On the contrary, he distinctly stated that the Government of Canada had no right to control the legislature of any province, and a gentleman, Avho Avas then one of the most eminent members of the House of Commons and who is now a member of Sir John Macdonald's Government, Honorable Mr. White, declared in still more categorical terms that the Gov ernment had no right to control the Government of Manitoba. He said : — But Ave are told now that because of the fifteen miles' clause there never can be any railway in that country. To what does that apply? Simply to the territories over which the Dominion Parliament has control. There is nothing to prevent Manitoba now, if it thinks proper, granting a charter for a rail way from Winnipeg to the boundary line. At this very mo ment there is a company in course of organization to build a railway from Winnipeg to West Lynn on the boundary and, after this agreement is ratified, this provision does not take away from Manitoba a single right it possesses ; in fact, the Parliament could not take away those rights. It has the same rights as the other provinces for the incorporation of railway companies within the boundary of the province itself and there is nothing to prevent the province of Manitoba from chartering a railway from Winnipeg to the boundary to connect with any southern railway. The only guarantee which this company has under the contract is that their traffic shall not be tapped far west in the prairie section, thus diverting the traffic away from their line to a foreign line, but there is nothing to prevent a railway to be built in Manitoba within the province that would carry the traffic to any railway that may tap it from the American side. That is the position with respect to this matter. What does this clause apply to ? Simply to the territory over which the Government of Canada had control. There is no possible room for doubt on this head. In the minds ofthe authors ofthe Pacific contract themselves, the Government of Canada had no power 372 SPEECH to disallow the laAvs ofthe province of Manitoba and yet, on four or five different occasions, Sir John Mac donald's Government has disallowed laws by which the Manitoba Government sought to establish rail way communications. What happened? The Government of the pro vince of Manitoba, the Government of Sir John Mac donald's friend, Mr. Norquay, was itself obliged to take the initiative in passing a new law to incorpo rate a railway from the city of Winnipeg to the Ame rican boundary line. And, in spite of that law, in spite of the public opinion of the province of Mani toba, Sir John Macdonald's Government again vetoed it. He vetoed Manitoba's right to have RAILAVAY COMPETITION and I call the special attention of all Avho blame the half-breeds for resorting to arms to the actual situa tion in Manitoba. The people of Manitoba, it is true, have not taken up arms, but, at this moment, they are openly break ing and setting at defiance the law ofthe land, since that laAV, as it stands or is defined by the constitution, declares that, by the will and authority of the Gov ernment of Canada, the people of Manitoba have not the right to build raihvays, and yet for all that, at this very hour, they are building one. If this is not revolt, Avhat is it then? If it is not a revolt, gentlemen, _ I want to be told what it is? And, after all, who will blame the people of Manitoba ? The very Government, which has sought to control them and to impose upon them its tyrannical yoke, has been obliged to yield and retreat. Why ? Because it knows that the people of Manitoba are able to take the necessary measures to successfully defend themselves. This right of veto which the Government possesses over the Provincial Legislatures is the same as that possessed by the British Government over the Cana dian Parliament. That is to say, that the British AT SOMERSET IN 1887 373 Government has over the Government of Canada the same rights as the Government of Canada has over the Provincial Legislatures. But, though Confede ration has now been in existence for very close upon twenty years, I have no recollection — and my memory is a pretty good one — ofthe British Government ever having disavoAved a single Canadian law during those twenty years. I make a mistake : I now remember that the British Government disalloAved one law passed by Canada, but it was a law which had been passed by the Canadian Parliament to enable the committee appointed to enquire into the Pacific scandal to examine Avitnesses under oath. That laAV Avas disalloAved by the British Government AT THE DEMAND OF SIR JOHN MACDONALD HIMSELF. It was only when Sir John Macdonald asked the British Government to annul our legislation that that Government intervened, never otherwise. And for a good reason, because the British Government would not be guilty of the tyranny, of which Sir John Mac donald's Government is guilty towards the provinces. More, too, the Government of Canada would never stand from the British Government the tyranny to which Sir John Macdonald's Government is subject ing the people of the provinces. Sir John vetoes the acts creating railways in Manitoba on the ground that those laws are not in harmony with the policy of Canada. But if the Government of Great Britain pro posed to veto a Canadian law on the pretext, gentle men, that it did not square with the policy of Great Britain, I have no hesitation in saying that the Tories themselves would be constrained to protest against the British Government's interference. The Tories are very loyal in this country, at least, as far as lip-loyalty goe3. But, in 1879, the Tory Government adopted a fiscal policy, which not only did not square with the general fiscal policy of Great Britain, but Avas openly hostile to the policy of SPEECH Great Britain. And when the Grits of Ontario con tended that that policy Avould endanger the colo nial tie, the Tory answer was : " So much the worse for the colonial tie ! " From this you can judge what would happen if the British Government thought proper to meddle in the affairs of Canada. We should not do unto others Avhat we Avould not like to have done to ourselves. And just as the Tories would not be very pleased to seethe British Government step ping in to veto their laws, so Ave can demand that the Federal Government shall NOT INTERFERE IN OUR LOCAL AFFAIRS. My friend, Mr. Mercier whom I am glad and Avhom you are all happy to see at my side here to day, Mr. Mercier, who comes amongst us with his laurels still fresh from the Laprairie victory, will tell you in a feAV moments that he is on the point of calling an interproAdncial conference. Without knowing exactly what his programme for that interproviucial conference is, I trust, gen tlemen, that this question of disalloAvance will be among the subjects considered and that he and his colleagues will suggest an amendment to the consti tution Avhich Avill once for all put an end to the abuses of the veto poAver and close the door forever to the tyrannical acts which sir John Macdonald's Govern ment is so prone to in order to attain its ends. There is another question on which the conference will have to pronounce— the question of the provincial subsidies. On this question, I believe, gentlemen, that Iain in accord, indeed, as I have always been, with Mr. Mercier's vieAvs. The provincial subsidies are a cause of ever increasing uneasiness in the different provinces. The root of the evil lies in the fact that the mode of distributing these subsidies is altogether vicious. For my part, I may say that my personal opinion is rather opposed to the provincial* subsidies. AT SOMERSET IN 1887 375 I would like to see the provinces Avith revenues large enough to render them independent of the Federal Government. The principle under which one gov ernment collects the revenues and another govern ment spend3 them is ALTOGETHER FALSE, and must always lead to extravagance. NotAvithstand- ing all the confidence I have in him, I believe that my friend, Mr. Mercier himself, will have all the trouble in the world to contend against the erro- neousness of that system. It is now an established fact that the subsidies granted to the provinces are inade quate ; consequently they have on several occasions been augmented and these successive augmentations, made without any regard to rule, constitute in rea lity a system of corruption in the hands of the Fede ral Government and have been too often used by it to reward political treachery. I have confidence that Mr. Mercier's Government will suggest a better method. But, as the subject is one Avhich will claim attention at the interprovincial conference, I shall not dwell further on it. The Government's fiscal policy is another cause of public uneasiness. You all knoAV the old saying : " Promise more butter than bread ! " This was the tactic of the partisans of Sir John's Government at the elections of 1878. They told you that they had in their pockets an infallible panacea, the application of Avhich Avould cause the land of Canada TO FLOW WITH .MILK AND HONEY J something that would make you sell dearer all you had to sell and enable you to buy all you wanted to buy so cheaply that you might be said to get it for nothing at all; something, in fine, which would put bread in every mouth and money in every purse. Recall, gentlemen, the promises that were made 376 SPEECH to you at that time. You were tolcl that the ills of the country proceeded from foreign competition. It was said : Only try our system, our " National Policy" and, from that moment, all Avho are obliged to seek work in the United States, will find it in plenty at home; manufactures will spring from the ground by enchantment, they will arise on all the rivers, on all the water courses and even on all the brookt and the farmer will have a remunerative local market for all he can sell. I do not blame the people of this country for alloAving themselves to be carried aAvay by these falla cious promises, because they Avere alluring. They took them seriously and in good faith. But what has been the reality ? I ask if it is not true that. THE CANCER OF EMIGRATION is continuing more than ever its destructive Avork. I ask if it is not true — at least, it is my con viction — that there is not 10 per cent of Canadian families, who have not one or more of their members in the United States ? And if I asked all those, who are listening to me at this moment and Avho have re lations in the United States, to raise their hands, how many arms, gentlemen, would be raised, beginning with my own. (Cries of " Every one of us 1 ") Yes, " every one of us ." I therefore believe that I can again assert Avhat I stated a moment ago — that there is not 10 per cent ofthe French Canadian population, Avho do not count some one of their kindred in the United States. As regards agricultural products, you Avere also told that you would find a market here among your selves and that, if you accepted the national policy, you would have markets all around you. Have you these markets at your doors? And with respect to the prices you receive for agricultural products, I venture to say -and on this point I do not fear con- AT SOMERSET IN 1887 377 tradiction — that those products never sold at loAver prices than they are selling at to-day. In fact, they -are not sold; they are given away. Wheat, oats, barley, and other products command no remunerative price and are now, disposed off cheaper than ever. The new order of things was to have produced a reaction. The reaction has come, gentlemen ; it began in the province of Ontario ; it has not stopped within mode rate bounds ; on the contrary, it has gone to extremes, and, at this very hour, the great majority of the Ontario farmers are clamoring for commercial union with the United States, that is to say, the suppression of all customs duties between the two countries. For my pari, gentlemen, lam not prepared to say that the advocates and adepts of commercial union have as yet very clearly defined their vieAvs. What lies at the bottom ofthe idea, Avhat Ave see clearest in it, is the expression of a feeling in favor of reciprocity. The idea is badly defined, perhaps there is the feeling of which it but contains the germ ; there is the conviction that any kind of reciprocity Avith the people of the United States would be to the ad vantage of the people of Canada. The reciprocity idea has always been ONE OF THE ARTICLES OF THE LIBERAL PROGRAMME. Formerly from 1854 to 1865, we had a reciprocity treaty with the United States and all are agreed in saying that that period was the finest and most pros perous in our history. The credit of that treaty belongs entirely to the Liberal parly and on this head I think I cannot do better than cite the evidence of Sir John Macdonald himself, when, three years ago, he said in the House of Commons: In the first place there was the original reciprocity treaty which was finally consummated in 1854 ; the ment of that as far as Canada was concerned rested altogether with the admmistra- SPEECH tion of Sir Francis Hincks, the Liberal Government of that day, although the Government of which I was a member in 1854 had accidentally, from the retirement of Sir Franeh Hincks, the duty of carrying out the treaty to its consummation, by introducing and carrying into law the act which ratified the treaty ; still it was the merit of the Reform party and it was a great merit, for it did a great service to Canada. Thus, even according to Sir John Macdonald's testimony, the merit of the reciprocity treaty with the United States belongs to the Liberal party. And, as he admits, it was no slight merit, because that treaty Avas of immense advantage to Canada. As you are aware that treaty came to an end in 1866. Sir John Macdonald Avas in poAver from 1866 to 1873, to the close of 1873; but did Sir John Macdonald EVER RAISE A FINGER to obtain its renewal ? Never. But, when Mr. Mackenzie came to poAver, the first thing, so to say, which he did, was to send an agent to Washington, Honorable George Brown, to negotiate with the American Government for a neAv reciprocity treaty. Mr. Brown performed the task , he succeeded in making a treaty to Avhich the Govern ment assented, but unfortunately it was not ratified by the American Government. Matters remained in this condition, but reciprocity was so popular that Sir John Mac donald himself, when he proposed the national policy, which, as I have already remarked, was to cause the land of Canada to flow Avith milk and honey, said that he Avas prepared to abandon it for reciprocity. Here are his OAvn words : That the Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that this House is of opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a National Policy which by a judicious readjustment of the tariff will benefit and foster the agricul tural, the mining, the mmufacturing and other interests of the Dominion ; that such a policy will retain in Canada thous- AT SOMERSET IN 1887 379 ands of our fellow countrymen now obliged to expatriate themselves in seai ch of the employment denied them at home, will restore prosperity to our struggling industry now so sadly depressed, will prevent Canada from being made a sacrifice market, will encourage and develop an active inter provincial trade and, moving (as it ought to do) in the direc tion of reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbours so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for this country eventually a reciprocity of trade. As you will perceive, Sir John Macdonald was ready TO ABANDON THE NATIONAL POLICY if, on their side, the American Government would grant us reciprocity. He even went further and de clared to the House that, if we adopted the national policy, that is to say, the retaliation policy, the Uni ted States, Avhether it liked or not, would be obliged to grant us reciprocity. In 1878, he again made the folloAving statement : There is no wrong in a reciprocity of tariffs ifitistoour interests, but 1 am confident that one great object in having something like a retaliatory policy will be that if you are to have reciprocity in trade you will only get it in that way. They will not have anything like reciprocity of trade with us unless we show them that it will be to their advantage. — Why should they give us reciprocity when they have our markets open to them now ? It is only by closing our doors and by cutting them out of our markets that they will open theirs to us. There is Sir John Macdonald's statement. Reta liation alone could open the American market to us and during the same year, Sir Charles Tupper made a tour ofthe maritime provinces, proclaiming the same thing — that if we adopted a policy of retaliation the Americans would be compelled in less than tAVOor three years to open their doors. That Avas the policy of the Federal Government — a policy of retaliation. The Federal Government told the people of Canada, 380 SPEECH and they did so Avithout smiling, though perhaps they smiled inwardly — that if they the people of Canada, numbering five millions of souls, closed their doors against a population of sixty millions, the latter would be soon so starved out that they Avould cry : " mercy ! mercy ! for the love of God, open your doors, or we will die of hunger ! " During the following year, THEY CARRIED OUT THEIR THREAT. You are not without knoAving, gentlemen, that the Americans would sooner suffer from hunger than open their doors to us under compulsion and that they Avould rather have no trade vyith us at all than appear to yield to our bullying ; consequently, they have not been in any great hurry. And when the Gov ernment closed our doors against the American trade, they inserted in the act creating their fiscal policy a clause offering to admit all American agricultural products the moment that the Americans were prepared to admit ours. Here is the clause in question : VI — Any or all ofthe following articles, that is to say; Animals of all kinds, green fruits, hay, straw, bran, seeds ofali kinds, vegetables (including potatoes, and other roots,) plants, trees and shrubs, coal and coke, salt, hops, wheat, peas and beans, barley, rye, oats, Indian corn, buckwheat, and all other grains, flour of wheat and fbur of rye,Indian meal,and oatmeal and flour or meal of any other grain,butter, cheese, fish (salted or smoked) lard, tallow, meats, fresh salted or smoked, and lumber may be imported into Canada free of duty or at a less rate of duty than is provided by this act, upon proclamation of the Governor in council which may be issued, whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar articles from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty or at a rate of duty not exceeding that payable on the same under such proclamation when imported into Canada. For nine years now this bait has been dangling in the water, but the fish has not yet bitten at it; for nine years now, the Government of Canada has been AT SOMERSET IN 1887 381 standing ready to throw open the Canadian markets to the Americans, if the Americans will only recipro cate by throAving open their markets to the Canadians, but the Americans, though they pass for being smart business people with a keen eye to their own interests, have not thought proper TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR OFFERS. Gentlemen, having thrown out their bait, the Gov ernment have since that time folded their arms and refused to make any other move.- Further, they would not even raise a finger to renew the negotiations with the United States for the purpose of securing reciprocity. More than that, in 1884 Mr. Davies, of Prince Edward Island, made a motion, pointing out to the Government the urgency of reopening negotia tions vpith the United States for a new treaty, tt was as follows : That, in view of the notice of the termination of the fishe ries articles ofthe Treaty of Washington given by the United States to the British Goverument and the consequent expira tion on the 1st July, 1885, ofthe reciprocal privileges and exemptions of the Treaty, this House is of opinion that steps should be taken at an early day by the Government of Canada with the object of bringing about negotiations for a new Treaty providing for the citizens of Canada and the United States the reciprocal privileges of fishing and freedom from duties now enjoyed, together with additional reciprocal freedom in the trade relations of the two countries ; and that in any such negotiations Canada should be directly represented by some one nominated by its Government. Now, what was Sir John's reply to this proposal ? They (the United States) know that we are ready at any time; we have told them unmistakeably that we are ready at any time to renew the reciprocity treaty of 1854.They know perfect ly well that we are quite ready to go on with the fishery arrange ments made by the Washington Treaty on the same footing us they were before. They know perfectly well that Canada is 382 SPEECH always open to enter into any reasonable arrangement with them and I think we ought to leave it there. I think it would do no good, I am satisfied it would frustrate any hope of enter ing into an arrangement with them if we passed this resolution. I do not now feel it right to say what the course of the Govern ment would be. I think it would be premature to say what after due consideration and consultation with Her Majesty,s Government may be done between now and July, 1885. I am quite satisfied the passing of the resolution declaring that we must er.ter into immediate negotiations because if that reso lution passes we must do so, it'will be an order ofthis House to enter into immediate negotiations for a renewal of the reci procity treaty, would be simply to bring upon us the same rebuff we have got on so many previous occasions. Such was Sir John Macdonald's declaration. But it went further. Not only Avas A RETALIATION POLICY affirmed by the speech I have just rsad, but it was also praised as an excellent policy. And the Govern ment repeatedly declared that the aim of the tariff of 1879, of their fiscal policy, Avas to lessen and destroy the trade we were doing Avith the United States. Fur ther still, the Ministerial press, the salaried press and consequently the press Avhich reflected the ideas of the Ministers, declared that the people of Canada did not want any trade with the United States. Now, I ask you, gentlemen, if, in the face of this hostile atti tude, it is astonishing that the American Government has never been willing to negotiate Avithus? Moreover, had it been otherwise, our Government would have done the same thing. Under such circumstances, I say that the policy of the Liberal party should be a totally different policy. The policy ofthe Conser vative party is one of retaliation, but the policy of the Liberal party should be one of friendship and good will towards the United States. It is only by acting in this Avay that Ave can obtain an exchange of fair dealing and kindliness. It is admitted — and the fact cannot be disputed— AT SOMERSET IN 1887 383 that, if the reciprocity treaty of 1854 Avas advanta geous to the interests of Canada, it was equally of advantage to the interests ofthe United States. Still the United States have deliberately refused to reneAv that treaty. Why ? The reason is, gentlemen, that, during a period of trial for the American nation, the English people and the Canadian people did not show them THE LEAST SYMPATHY. I hold in my hand a speech made by Sir John Macdonald, on the 24th March, 1884, in which he acknowledges the fact. On the same occasion in 1884 to which I referred a moment ago, on Honorable Mr. Davies' motion, Sir John Macdonald used the folloAV- ing language : We regretted when the Americans, from 1 must say a rather natural feeling of irritation against England, gave notice for the cancellation and the termination of the Treaty. It was no fault of Canada that that Treaty was terminated. Canada during the troub'es which arose in the civil war be tween the North and the South did every thing that she could to entertain friendly relations with the Northern States ; and I can well remember the repeated statement of Mr. Seward who was the presiding genius of the Northern States in those days that he wished the mother country. Great Britain, had been as friendly in her actions towards the Northeui States as the province of Canada had been. As far as I am concerned, I may say that, if Mr. Seward was satisfied with the attitude of the Canadian Government towards the Northern States, during the civil war, it look very little to satisfy him. For my part, I would not have been satisfied with so little, as I do not believe that, on that occasion, the people of Canada did their duty toAvards their neighbors. It is true that we did not do as England did ; that we did not fit out armed cruisers to prey upon and destroy American commerce, but, on the other hand, when 384 SPEECH the filibusterers organized themselves in our territory to raid the frontier towns of Vermont and NeAV-York, we allowed them to escape with singular facility after being arrested. Gentlemen, without holding the Government responsible for that incident I con tend that they are guilty of having FAILED IN THEIR DUTY at that time, by not displaying the slightest sympa thy with the American nation during the terrible pe riod from 1861 to 1865, when the Northern States had on their hands the most formidable civil war the world has ever seen, for the preservation of their na tional unity. Among the public men of the time there was only one— and this fact should be kept Avell in mind — who openly proclaimed his sympathies for the cause of liberty for Avhich the Northern States were fighting from 1861 to 1865. That man was Honorable George Brown. Gentlemen, if at that time the Government of Canada, if the people of Canada — for I think the people of Canada also merit to a certain extent the reproach — had manifested some sympathy — nothing more, for the United States were rich enough and had no need of assistance — if the people and Government of Canada had manifested the slightest sympathy, we especially who had a commercial treaty with them, if Ave had shown that that treaty implied also mutual services, I believe that in 1867 the reciprocity treaty would have been renewed. It was not, and I have just given you the reason why from the lips of Sir John Macdonald himself. It was the hostility ofthe American people to England, a hostility provoked by the attitude of the English people towards the Northern States during the civil war. But time moves on, healing the deepest wounds. We know that there is to-day in the United States a group of men deter mined upon giving us AT SOMERSET IN 1887 385 COMMERCIAL UNION We know that Mr. Butterworth, a member of the American Congress, has brought in a bill for that purpose. We know also that Mr. Wiman has lately visited Ontario to induce that province to adopt the idea of commercial union. We know that Detroit and other cities, as Avell as their trade organizations, have to a certain extent pronounced in favor of com mercial union. If I am asked at present for my own opinion in the subject, I may say that, for my part, I am not ready to declare that commercial union is an acceptable idea. I am not ready, for my part, to state that commercial union should be adopted at the present moment. A great deal of study and reflexion are needed to solve this question, for and against which there is much to be said. The commercial union idea may be realizable and it may also be surrounded by insurmountable difficulties. But I may say this — and it is my actual policy — that the time has come to abandon the policy of retaliation followed thus far by the Canadian Gov ernment, to show the American people that we are brothers, and to hold out our hands to them, with a due regard for the duties we OAve to our mother-coun try. In certain quarters, COMMERCIAL UNION AVITH GREAT BRITAIN has been advoca'ed, which obliges me to refer to that proposition. Commercial union with Great Britain has been suggested as an alternative to commercial union with the United States. As far as I am con cerned, I will say of commercial union Avith Great Britain what I have said of commercial union with the United States. I do not believe that so far the question has been practically discussed. Certainly, if it were realizable and all our interests were pro tected, I would accept a commercial treaty_ of that nature. It is permissible to suppose that this move- 25 386 SPEECH ment would be taken up by all the countries which at the present day recognize the supremacy of Great Britain. Some years ago, in 1883 or 1884, I think, Mr. Rouher, one of the most eminent public men of France, said : At present, the world's equilib rium rests no longer, as on the past, on the Alps and the Pyrenees, but on the tivo hemispheres. What was true at that time in politics, is true to day in trade. The commerce of the world, which was for merly limited to the nations of Europe, noAV takes in the entire globe. There is therefore room to suppose that all the nations recognizing the sovereignty of Great Britain, would agree to rally together by means of commercial treaties. With this object in view, delegates are now being sent to Australia. What Avould be easier than to open up a trade Avith Australia, than to have a commercial treaty with the Australian continent? Gentlemen, I consider the idea as good and fair, and, such being the case, I believe that it will eventually triumph. Gentlemen, there is an infinity of other questions to Avhich I Avould have liked to refer to-day, but, on an occasion like this, it is impossible to review all the political points which merit the attention of the people of Canada. I can do no more at present than touch lightly upon the difficulties, the solution of Avhich seems to me to be urgently called for, and which delay will, perhaps, NOT RENDER MORE REALIZABLE LATER. Nobody can view without alarm the present state of things in this country, the sullen discontent, the growing irritation, at the system under which Ave have been ruled for close upon tAventy years, and I submit to my fellow-countrymen of every origin and race that it is high time to put an end to the policy Avhich has provoked this irritation, Avhich has no other aim than the triumph of a party, and Avhich sacrifices the country's dearest interests to a party triumph. AT SOMERSET IN 1887 ,387 I submit to all my fellow-citizens that it is time to strive for the establishment of a policy Avhich will make all the inhabitants of Canada feel happy to be long to this country. I submit to my fellow-country men that it is time to restore to the Maritime prov inces all their rights, that is to say, their natural market. I submit that it is time to give to the prov ince of Manitoba the exercise of all its privileges, and that it is time to give to all the provinces their com plete legislative autonomy, so that they may exist in fact as they exist in law. In fine, it is time to endeavor to obtain, if/possible, for all the people of this country the most natural and at the same time the most profitable market. Now, I state in concluding as I stated in com mencing : I have faith in my country's institutions and I believe that, if they were well administered, they would engender a prosperity, the like of Avhich Ave have not yet known. For my part, I may say that as long as I shall occupy a place in the confidence of my party, as long as I shall fill a seat in the Legislature and as long as, by word and example, I can preach this doctrine, I shall devote my political life to spreading among my fellow countrymen, THE LOVE OF OUR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. I know that the task is a great one, and that I dare not hope to carry it to a successful issue myself. The most I can do is to trust that I may advance it a step —but at least the work is worthy of our efforts. And for my part, Avhen the hour for final rest shall strike, and when my eyes shall close forever, I shall consider, gentlemen, that my life has not been altogether wasted, if t shall have contributed to heal one patrio tic wound in the heart even of a single one of my fellow countrymen and to have thus promoted, even to the smallest extent, the cause of concord and harmony between the citizens of the Dominion. Unlimited Commercial Reciprocity WITH THE UNITED STATES 1HE 10RTURE OF TANTALUS AN IMMENSE, BUT INACCESSIBLE MARKET AT OUR DOORS THE PROGRAMME OF THE CANADIAN LIBERAL PARTY In 1888, all the questionable schemes of an Americo- Canadian zolverein and of a commercial or customs union had given place to the idea of a renewal of the reciprocity treaty on the widest possible basis. The Liberal party in the Cana dian Commons led for the first time by Mr. Laurier had adopted this policy as the foremost plank in its platform, and one of the finest debates ever heard in the Canadian Parliament had been provoked by a motion of Sir Richard Cartwright, involving a profession of faith in favor of unlimited reciprocity and representing the urgent necessity of resuming negotiations with Washington in order to secure a complete reciprocity of customs' tariffs. After his friends had piled up mountains of statistics, and arguments in support of the party's theory, Mr. Laurier summed up the debate in the following speech, which deserves to figure among the finest pieces of national eloquence : Mr. Speaker, There is one feature which has universally char acterized this debate, in so far as it has been partici- 390 SPEECH- pated in by our colleagues on the other side of the House. Again on this occasion, as on every other occasion, whether in the time of Reformers who have passed away or whether in the time of Reformers still living, the cause of reform has been met with the cry of disloyalty. It might b,e tempting to retaliate and to shoAv Avhat is the true imvardneis of that exuberant loyalty which ever gushes forth from the other side ofthe House when facts or arguments are deficient to meet the case at issue. It might be tempting to retaliate and to sIioav that THE LOYALTY OF THOSE MONOPOLISTS who to-day clamor the loudest, has no other founda tion except the selfish one that the contemplated reform would put an end to a state of things, which, however lamentable it may be to the country, is eminently profitable to some individuals. It might be tempting to show that loyalty has always been, is, and always will be the last refuge, the supreme argu ment of those ingrained Tories who imagine them selves born to rule, and who, having long been asso ciated wdth government, cannot contemplate the dis placement of what government means for them — pat ronage, office, subsidies and monopolies — without thinking such a displacement would be rank treason. On the other hand, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of those prophets of evil who, at every step taken forward by this young country, never fail to see an impending rupture of British connection, and whom a long series of sinister predictions, hitherto not fulfilled, has failed to make wiser or braver. Sir, I consider, it would be perfectly useless to attempt any argument upon those monopolists or ingrained Tories whose supreme end and object in politics is to enjoy the fleshpots of office and whose loyalty springs from the stomach, but to those well meaning though timid men who, inclined to a change, still dread change, I would at once say : You who object to reform because IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 391 you fear the good remits will be accompanied by some evil result — are you satisfied with the condition of this country, that nothing is to.be risked for its advancement ? It is your opinion that, if there be to the south of us accessible fields of wealth, we should be deterred from the ennobling spirit of enterprise by the cowardly consideration that possibly increased prosperity would SEDUCE US FROM OUR ALLEGIANCE? Is yours the position of the man who would star/e himself to death lest by eating food he might swallow poison ? Away, away, I say, with ignoble fears and cowardly considerations. I also appeal to loyalty; I appeal to the loyalty of all Ave owe to our origin, to the blood that flows in our veins, to the example of our ancestors and the memories they have left behind them, and he,, I say, who will stand truest to those examples will also stand truest in his allegiance to Queen and country. Let U3 remember that the great nation from which the greater number among us derive their origin, and from which we have the insti tutions on which we pride ourselves, is so great to-day because, at all periods of her history, her people never shrank from, performing the duty which the hour demanded of them, without fear of the consequences to themselves or to the country. Let us remember that our country, if it has attained the proud position which to-day we claim it occupies, owes it to the unceasing efforts of reformers of former days, whose every effort was assailed with the same taunt of dis loyalty that meets us to-day. Let us look at our position such as it is, let us look at our position squarely and manfully, and if the result is that our position to-day demands reform, let us, I say, strike for the reform, determined in advance that, if in this as in every other matter evil is to be mixed with good, it Avill be time to grapple with the evil when the evil arises. Once more, I say,, let us look at our position, not such as it ought to be, 392 SPEECH BUT SUCH AS IT IS, not such as it is depicted in the speeches of Minis terial orators, but such as we hear it every day depicted in the unvarnished talk of the people. With a varied and fertile soil, with a healthy northern climate, with immense agricultural resources, Avith abundant mineral wealth, with unsurpassed lumber facilities, with the most productive fisheries in the Avorld — this ought to be aland of universal prosperity and contentment. What is the position to-day '? I said a moment ago that we have good reason to be pi oud of our country, proud of her people, proud of her history, proud of her institutions, proud of the position which she has already obtained among the nations ofthe world; but blind would he be who would fail to see that there is in her otherwise young and healthy body a deep wound that is depleting the very sources of life. When Ave contemplate that this young country with all her capabilities is losing her population, that every day hundreds of her sons are leaving her shores to seek homes in a country not more favored by nature than our own, the conclusion is inevitable that something is wrong which must engage the attention of every one for Avhom patriotism is not a vain and empty word. Yet Avith these facts full in vieAV the Government, speaking by the mouth of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, invites Parlia ment to declare that there is absolutely nothing to do but to keep on the policy under which such a state of things is possible; and Ave have seen member after member of Parliament rise in his place and declare indeed that there is nothing to do, that everything is for the best. I will not lose one single moment in discussing that point, but I place the assertions made on this side of the House against those made by honorable gentlemen opposite, and leave the decision to the judgment of the people of the country, in the judgment of all the people without exception, and all, with the exception, perhaps, of the monopolists, IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 393 will say that there is something wrong in the condi tion of this country, THAT THERE IS SOMETHING which demands the attention of Parliament and of every one who claims to be a patriot. We have been told, and it is insisted on, that we are a prosperous country, that we are a happy country ; and one honor able member, my honorable friend from Montreal Centre (Mr.Curran), if I remember aright, in dwelling on the great prosperity of this country, stated we had no starvation amongst us. Well, Sir, prosperity is a relative term applied to nations as well as to indivi duals. A man in private life may have affluence Avith a certain income in a certain condition of life, and yet be in want with the same income in a certain other condition of life; and so it is among nations. If you judge us, if you gauge the condition ofthis country by the standard of older continents, I would be quite ready to admit that we may be said to be a prosperous country. I grant this at once — and gentlemen oppo site are welcome to the admission if they can find any comfort in it. We have no starvation in this coun try. We have not any threat of famine, Ave are not in the condition of China, in which country four prov inces, some years ago, were carried away by hunger, and we are not in the condition of Ireland. We lose our people, but still we have not lost one third of our population, as Ireland did, in the space of two years. But, Mr. Speaker, the objection and the answer do not meet the point, nor do they meet the charge. To a young, healthy, energetic and active population on this continent, it is not sufficient that they should be ABOVE STARVATION. Their aim is higher. The charge is not, Sir, that there is a scarcity of natural productions, but the charge is, on the contrarv, that there is an abundance of natural 394 SPEECH productions, but that there is no issue and no outlet for the surplus beyond what the people consume. The charge is that manufacturing production is limited to our small and limited requirements, and, therefore, far below the producing capacity of the people. Sir, the people of this country have a right to expect that every child belonging to this country will, when he. comes to manhood, find the same labor and returns for his labor, that he would find on the other side of the line. The people of this country, especially the tiller3 of the soil, have a right to expect that their labor will always command the highest price obtain able in the best and most favored markets of the world. They have a right to expect that the money which, by the necessities of their vocation, they are forced to invest in real estate will ahvays retain its value ; and Avhen they find that there is no labor for every child born in this countryt when they find that their labor is insufficiently remunerated, when they find that real estate does not keep up its value, but decreases in value, when they find that notAvith- standing all attempts made we have not yet succeeded in having a population of 5,000,000 of people, and Avhen they find that at least 1,000,000 of Canadian born children are to-day citizens ofthe United States, or are Avorking in the United States, I say, again, that they must come to the conclusion' that there is some thing wrong somewhere which has to be remedied. Under such circumstances there is to-day a sentiment of irritation and discontent which must be checked, or IT MAY BECOME VERY SERIOUS in a short time to come. We have been told by gentlemen on the other side ofthe House that what we say to-day is not new. The honorable the Min ister of the Interior, speaking on that subject in answer to my friend from South Oxford (Sir Richard CartAvright), stated that the statements made by my honorable friend were not new, and that they had. IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 395 been made in the elections of 1882 and 1887. Sir. it is perfectly true that those statements are not new. They Avere made in 1882, and they Avere made in the elections of 1887, and my honorable friend might fur ther have added that they were made in the elections of 1878. He might have added that he and his friends came into power because from 1876 to 1878 they blamed the Government ofthe day for the emigration Avhich, I admit, was then taking place. They blamed the Administration of my honorable friend on my left and stated that if they came into power they would put a stop to this emigration, and when they came into power they were pledged by their own words and their own writings to put a stop to that emigra tion. Now, Sir,in order to make that point more clear, let me refresh the memories of gentlemen on the other side about their speeches anterior to 1878, and I cannot do better than to quote the speech of my honorable friend, the leader ofthe Government and leader ofthe Opposition of that day, delivered at Parkdale, in the month of July, 1878. These are his very words : — Here we are not only suffering, depression in every trade and industry, but our people are leaving the country to seek employment in the mills and manufactories of the United States. An honorable member: — Read that again. Mr. Laurier : — I will not read it again, but I will continue: — Was it not a crying shame that though this country had a fertile soil, a healthy climate, a strong and well educated people, and good laws, 500,000 of our own people should have crossed our borders in those years and taken up their abode in the United States because they could not find employment here for their skill and energy and enterprise, in consequence of the false policy of our rulers. Sir, if it was a crying shame in 1878, that 500,000 of our fellow- men should have crossed our borders to 396 SPEECH the other side of the line, by what epithet strong enough can we characterize THE POLICY OF THESE MEN who, bound to put a stop to that sort of thing, and bound to stop that exodus, have brought it up from 500,000 to 1,000,000. I do not say this, Mr. Speaker, with any view of recrimination. I speak to say that the evil is one of long standing, which must tax our energy and for Avhich we must find some remedy. I have said, Mr. Speaker, that there is discontent pre vailing in this land. The causes are at once political and economical. There can be no doubt at all that, in the political aspect, a great deal of the discontent which prevails is largely due to the manner in which Confederation Avas forced on some sections of the country, and to the manner in which Confederation has been made a tool and an instrument in the hands of gentlemen on the other side to embarrass and to harass some other sections ofthe country. There can be no doubt that in the east of this Dominion the fact that one province at least was dragged into Con federation against her will, opened in the hearts of the people of that Province a Avound which, after twenty years, is as galling a3 it was the first day. There can be no doubt at all. that in the we3t the in- just, the unfair, and the tyrannical manner in which the Constitution has been abused and violated by the Government, in order to force upon the people of that section of the country an abhorred monopoly, has created a bitterness in the hearts of those people which would have had the most fatal consequences, perhaps, if, fortunately, the Government, acting as they did yesterday in the matter of the admission of American importations upon the free list, had not in that other instance also REVERSED THEIR POLICY and surrendered. There is no doubt at all that in IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 397 the Province from which I come the numerous attempts made by the Government upon the political auto nomy of the province have created distrust and dis appointment in the minds of the people. And at the same time there can be no doubt, and Ave can readily believe it, that, if the country had been as prosperous as it is represented to be, a good deal of the discontent Avhich now prevails would have been alleviated ; for political causes alone seldom produce serious discontent, unless they affect inj uriously the economic condition of the people. If our country had been as prosperous as it is represented to be, if Nova Scotia had found in Confederation the prosper ity which was promised to be her lot in it, she Avould long ago have been reconciled to Confedera tion. If Manitoba had continued to enjoy the pros perity with which she opened her career, she Avould be to-day as cheerful a member of the Confederation as she was ten years ago. But all our efforts at increased prosperity have always been baffled. We never have had the measure of success which we expected from our efforts, and what is the reason ? The reason is that we have not yet found the econo mical condition necessary to make the country as abundantly productive as it should be; that the con suming poAver of the nation is no adequate to its pro ducing power ; and that we have not yet found chan nels for the increased energy and activity of our peo ple. Under such conditions, when the labor ofthe people will never yield as much as it would yield under a different economical condition, it is im- impossible to expect that there will be content ment in the land, or pride in the institutions ofthe country. The lumberman, the farmer and the manu facturer toil,but their efforts are comparatively barren ; and if you ask them what is the economical condition they want in order to make their efforts as fruitful as they should be, they will tell you, that it is space,— 398 SPEECH A BROADER FIELD. in Avhich to operate. The fisherman will tell you that if he could send his fish free to Boston and Port land, he Avould ask nothing more: the farmer will tell you that if he could send his productions to the cities and towns on the other side ofthe line, which are almost within arm's length, he would ask nothing more ; the lumberman will tell you that if he had access to that immense range of territory which needs the products of our forest, he Avould ask nothing more; and the manufacturer will tell you— the genuine manufacturer, not the monopolist — that all he asks, is a fair field and no favor, and that if you remove the barriers which stand in his way, he is ready to com pete Avith the Americans in their own market. During the last summer Mr. ButterAvorth, who is well known in this country, and who has taken the same view that we take as to the trade relations that should exist between Canada and the United States, speak ing on this question in Detroit, made a remark Avhich seemed to me at the time to be singularly true histo rically. He said this : The h"story of all nations has been a record of their efforts to broaden the area of their trade and commerce. The more Ave think of this remark, the more we shall be convinced that it is eminently true. Indeed, the records of mankind show that, as soon as a nation has obtained its freedom, the energy of the people, which had hitherto been consumed in political agita tion, is at once turned to labor and industry. Very soon the producing power of the people exceeds their consuming power, NEW CHANNELS HAVE TO BE SOUGHT, and from that time the history of that nation becomes a record of efforts to broaden the area of trade and commerce. Such was the history of the Italian republics in the middle ages, after they obtained their freedom. They gradually extended their trade beyond IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 399 the walls of their cities until it covered all the lands washed by the Mediterranean and the neighboring seas. Such was the history of Holland in the seven teenth century. After she had freed her neck from the yoke of Spain, although having a population of only 2,000,000, she gradually developed the largest trade of the age. Such was the case Avith England. For many years the English people Avere absorbed in political agitation, and during those years their trade did not increase; but having at last curbed the power ofthe Throne, asserted the supremacy of Parliament, and secured her political freedom, from that time the histor}' of England became a record ofthe broadening activity and energy of the British people. The trade of England increased its area until it subdued conti nent after continent, and to-day it has no limits but the limits of the earth. The history of other nations has been our history. For years and years our people Avere absorbed in a political agitation for freedom, and during those years the country made but little progress; but when at last we obtained responsible government and legislative independence, what took place elsewhere happened here. The energy of the people, which had been previously absorbed in fruit less political agitation, was turned to toil and -labor, and from that moment we had to seek for channels and outlets for our surplus energy. The, forest, the mine and the sea are the fields to Avhich the labor of our people has been directed. Ours is ABOVE ALL AN AGRICULTURAL COUNTRY; and, as we have abundance of lands at our disposal, vast tracts have been every year added to the culti vated soil ; and, as the number ofthe tillers ofthe soil increased and the bulk of their productions became enlarged, there arose correspondingly a demand for new channels and outlets, and from that moment the history of this country became a history of efforts to .' broaden the area of our trade and commerce. If there 400 SPEECH is one fact which more than any other has character ized Canadian politics since the concession of respon sible government, it is that it has always been the efforts of the Canadian people to find new outlets and channels for their increasing energy. I do not mean to say that those efforts have been systematic or pre meditated. On the contrary, they have been irregular and spasmodic, noAV in one direction and then in another, but they have been a continual and instinc tive aspiration to pass from an unnatural to a natural economical position, just as a man who finds himself in a vitiated atmosphere will turn in every direction to get a breath of the fresh air without which he cannot live. As soon as the agitation for responsible government had abated, as soon as our friends, the Tories — who, loyal in those days as they are in these days, endeavored by riot, bloodshed and fire to inti midate Lord Elgin and prevent the establishment of the regime — had been forced to submit to the inevi table, the first act ofthe Government of the day — and it was A LIBERAL GOVERNMENT — was to seek new channels for the productive energies ofthe people. The Government found the natural channels of trade blocked and closed. There was to the south of us a great and progressive nation of kindred birth, from which we were separated by mountains of prejudice and some artificial barriers; and the efforts ofthe Government Avere directed to removing some of the barriers, and the result was the reciprocity treaty of 1854, which although limited in its operation and scope, everyone will admit the period of its duration marked "the golden age of our trade and commerce. That was our first effort to Avards broadening the area of our trade and commerce. It was eminently successful. However, the treaty was of short duration. As soon as the limit of its term was reached, the American Government gave IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 401 notice that they would not continue it. Why ? Was it because the treaty Avas not equally advantageous to the Americans ? No ; it is admitted that the treaty was just as advantageous to them as to us. The no tice was given simply on account ofthe irritation caused in the United States by the unfriendly atti tude maintained by England and Canada towards the United State3 during their great struggle for national life. That the repeal of the treaty was a blow to our commerce, no one has denied, and it has been the constant and unvarying effort of Canadian sta tesmen ever since to obtain a renewal of that treaty. Indeed, so much is that the case that, at a later day, when protection was adopted as the policy of this country, one of the reasons for its adoption was that thereby we might FORCE THE AMERICANS to give us reciprocity. The resolution that formu lated the policy ofthe Government upon that occa sion has often been quoted, but it will bear being quoted again, because it is pregnant Avith meaning in the face ofthe amendment of the Government on the present occasion. The resolution is as follows : — That this House is of opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a national policy, which, by a judicious readjustment ofthe tariff, will benefit and foster the agricul tural, the mining, the, manufacturing and other interests of the Dominion ; that such a policy will retain in Canada thous ands of our fellow countrymen now obliged to expatriate themselves in search of the employment denied them;; at home. How far that policy has been successful Ave all know, but no doubt honorable gentlemen opposite will say it has been in that respect eminently suc cessful. Mr. Laoderkin :— It only sent a million away. 26 402 SPEECH Mr. Laurier : — The resolution goes on as fol lows: That it will restore prosperity to our struggling industries, now so sadly depressed, will prevent Canada from being made a sacrifice market, will encourage and develop an active inter provincial trade, and moving — as it ought to do — in the direc tion of a reciprocity of tariffs Avith our neighbors, so far as the varied in teiests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for this country eventually a reciprocity of trade. Now, if I give an unfair construction to the words of my honorable friend, I will ask him to correct me indue time, but ifAvords have any meaning, Avhat Avas the meaning ofthe concluding paragraph ofthis resolution? Did it mean anything else but that, however desirable protection might be for Canada against other countries, reciprocity, so far as the United States Avere concerned, WAS THE THING WHICH AVAS DESIRED and desirable ? Now, Sir, in vieAV of this resolution, I say that the amendment moved by the Government is not logical. What is the object of that amendment? Its object is to keep the national policy intact in its entirety. The final object of the national policy, as declared in the resolution I have just read, Avas to obtain reciprocity. It is evident that in this object it has not succeeded, and, therefore, the conclusion is unavoidable that something else must be tried. So ended our first effort to broaden the area of our trade and commerce. But that time we had something in contemplation. When notice was given of the abro gation of the treaty, the country Avas engaged in the discussion of the great question which ended in the Confederation of the Provinces, and there is no doubt whatever that in the minds of those Avho participated in the bringing about of that great event, the hope existed that Confederation would prove, not only a great political reform, but a great economical reform IN FAA'OR OF RECIPROCITY 403 as well. It Avas urged on the floor of Parliament at that time that the provinces, by adopting among themselves free trade, Avould find an adequate outlet and channel for their surplus energy. The honorable George BroAvn, Avho Avas at that time a member of the Coalition Government, enlarged upon that idea at great length and Avith great force. After having stated in the debate that THE FIRST OBJECT OF CONFEDERATION was to effect a great political reform, he Avent on to say: ...But secondly, I go heartily for the Union, because it will throw down the barriers of trade and give us the control of a market of 4,000,000 people. What one thing has contri buted so much to the wondrous material progress of the United States as the free passage of their products from one State to another? What has tended so much to the rapid advance of aU branches of their industry as the vast extent of their home market, creating an unlimited demand for all the commodities of daily use, anrl stimulating the energy and ingenuity of producers ? Sir, I confess to you that in my mind this one view ofthe Union — the addition of nearly a million of people to our home consumers — sweeps aside all the petty objections that are averred against the scheme. What, in comparison with this great gain to our farmers and manufac turers, are even the fallacious money objections which the imaginations of honorable gentlemen opposite have summoned up ? All over the world we find nations eagerly longing to extend their domains, spending large sums and waging pro tracted wars to possess themselves of more territory, un tilled and uninhabited. Other countries offer large inducements to foreigners to emigrate to their shores — free passages, free lands, and free food and implements to start them in the world. We, ourselves, support costly establishments to attract immigrants to our country, and are satisfied when our annual outlay brings us 15,000 or 20,000 souls. But here, Sir, is a proposal which is to add in one day nearly a million of souls to our population — to add valuable territories to our domain, and secure to us all the advantages of a large and profitable commerce, now existing. 404 SPEECH Noav, everybody will admit that every word spoken here Avas perfectly true, that not one iota can be taken out ofthis passage as containing a single error. Still, the theory here advocated did not suc ceed, and it failed not because of any error that could be pointed at, but because of other circumstances Avhich Avere overlooked at the time. I have quoted this in order to sIioav that as far back as 1865, one of the master-minds, Avhich thd country has produced, Avas of opinion that it was essential to the trade of the country that Ave should add to the consuming power of our population. The same idea was enlarged upon by Mr. Gait in the same debate, and he staled, with all the authority Avhich at that time attached to his name as Minister of Finance, that in Confederation he expected to find A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE AMERICAN MARKET, AA'hich Ave lost by the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty He said: ...If we require to find an example of the benefits of free commercial intercourse, Ave need not look beyond the effects that have followed from the working of the Reciprocity Treaty with the United States. In one short year from the time when that treaty came into operation, our trade in the natural productions of the two countries swelled from less than 82,000,000 to upwards of 810,000,000 per annum, and now when we are threatened with an interruption of that trade- when we have reason to fear that the action of the United States will prove hostile to the continuance of free commercial relations with this country, when we know that the consider ation of this question is not grounded on just views of the material advantages resulting to each country — but that the irritation connected with political events exercises a predo minant influence over the minds of American statesmen, it is the duty of the House to provide, if possible, other outlets for our productions. If we have reason to fear that one door is about to be closed to our trade, it is the duty of the House to endeavor to open another to proA'ide against a coming evil of IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 405 the kmd feared, by timely expansion in another direction ; to seek by free trade with our own fellow-colonists for a conti nued and uninterrupted commerce, which will not be liable to be disturbed at the capricious will of any foreign country. Here, again, there is nothing to say against the theory that was then advanced, but the great expec tations which Avere then entertained did not turn out to be true. Although every Government since that time has endeavored to bring together the east and west of Confederation, to bring about the interchange of the commodities of the east with those of the Avest, to-day we have not succeeded in developing any trade except a very insignificant one betAveen the east and the Avest, and the glowing pictures Avhich the men of 1865 drew as to what was to folloAv their endeavors to bring about that interchange of trade, have remained pictures. What Avas it that was left out, what Avas it that was omitted from their calcula tions '? The fact Avhich was omitted was, as hasoften been pointed out since, the geographical position of the different provinces ofthe Dominion. The men of 1865 forgot that no legislative act, no executive decree, COULD SUPPRESS THE LONG DISTANCES which separate the ea3t from the west ; they forgot that nature had interposed against profitable trade relations betAveen the east and the west obstacles which no legislation could overcome. Sir, experience is the test of all theory, and, in the view of the expe rience Avhich Ave have acquired during the last twenty years, let me show hoAv deluded the men of 1865 were in regard to the hopes which they then entertained. Mr. McGee spoke in the same debate, and he empha sized the same idea Avhich had been already expres sed by Mr. Brown and Mr. Gait, and he particularized his meaning by instancing a particular trade, the coal trade of Nova Scotia. After having depicted, 406 SPEECH in his gloAving language, the coal fields of Nova Scotia, he went on to say : These exhaustless coal fields will under this 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 pro ceed with Confederation would be to entail the loss of the Jsew England market for their coals. I do not quite see how they make that 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 all 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. There is not a Avord to be taken from that pas sage. It is quite true that the population of Canada was as great as the population of all NeAv England put together, and that Canada consumed as much fuel as the whole of New England put together, but Mr. McGee had overlooked the fact that the market of New England Avas at the doors of Nova Scotia, and that the market of western Canada was too far away to be of any service to Nova Scotia coal; and if the valuable life of Mr. McGee had been spared he Avould have lived to see Nova Scotia coal protected by a duty of at least 50 per cent, on the price of that coal at the pit's mouth, carried from the east to the west, carried on Government railways, not at trade rates, but at favored rates, in fact at a loss, and he Avould have seen that NOT ONE LUMP OF COAL from Nova Scotia ever reached Toronto. We have been told we have developed an inter-provincial trade between the east and the Avest. I deny it. I deny that we have succeeded in developing trade between the cast and the Avest. We carry a small amount of IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 407 merchandise between the two sections, but is that the result of Confederation, is it the result of the Union? It is not. What trade we have between the east and the Avest is not a natural trade, but is due entirely to the fact that the country has to pay for the freight required to take it between the east and the west. You cannot legislate against nature, and nature has interposed obstacles in regard to the interchange of trade betAveen the east and the west Avhich no legisla tion can overcome; and, as year has followed year, it became more and more evident that the anticipa tions formed by the men of 1865 Avere mere delusions, that there could never be any profitable trade between Nova Scotia, NeAv Brunswick and Prince EdAvard Island on the one side, and the provinces beyond Quebec on the other. Then it was, seeing that our efforts had been baffled, seeing that the channels were not opened for trade which we had expected, that for the first time protection became a practical issue in this country. The advocates ofthe new idea fondly hoped and, indeed, resolutely asserted that the promulgation of a high tariff Avould stimulate the creation of so many manufactories, that it Avould bring in a large amount of immigration and Avould stop our emigration, that we Avould find the markets here that Ave had hoped to obtain elseAvhere. And al though during the agitation Avhich took place in 1877 and 1878, all classes were promised that they would profit by the adoption of protection, the farmers were the class who were promised the greatest benefit. In deed, the National Policy then was made to do duty all round, like THE CELEBRATED MAGIC BOTTLE in the hands of the juggler, which supplied wine or beer or spirits or water, just as the man to be served was a wine or beer man, a whiskey man, or a cold water man .So the farmers were told that,if we had pro tection, they would find a market for their products 408 SPEECH at their doors. The leader of the Opposition at that time, in the speech Avhich he made at Parkdale in July, 1S78, said : — By having ali kinds of industries we would have a great country ; the industries would be twice blessed, our sons would be prevented from going to a foreign country to add to its wealth and strength and skill. The fruits of their labor would be exchanged for the fruits of the soil, cities would multiply, and not only would there be a demand tor the larger products, such as wheat, flour, cattle, and everything we could raise, but for cheese, butter, eggs, roots and other kinds of small produce. Why was it that land around villages was more valuable than land away from the villages, land about towns more valuable than land in villages, and land about cities more valuable than land in towns ? Land about Toronto was not so good, from an agricultural point of view, as it was 30 or 40 miles away from the city, and yet it was more valuable. The reason was because the farmers living near Toronto could get a market for everything they could raise. They were not obliged to send it away to a distance. The nearer the farmer was to the market the cheaper it was for him to send in his goods, and that single illustration would suffice to show how dependent the workmen, manufacturer and farmer were upon each other. In so far as this language tended to prove that the adoption of protection Avould develop a large ma nufacturing industry it Avas a fallacy, but, in so far as the honorable gentlemen meant to say that a large laboring population is the best market for the agri cultural classes, I agree with him. England to-day not only absorbs all her OAvn agricultural products, but drains the agriculture of many other countries besides. New England is very much in the same po sition. It not only consumes its OAvn agricultural productions, but it absorbs those of many other States, and it even DRAAVS LARGELY FROM CANADA, although the Canadian farmer has to pay a toll on IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 409 the frontier. But the prediction of the honorable gentlemen did not come true. The country Avas not overrun with the manufacturing class. There was no great increase in immigration. Emigration was not stopped. Many dreams were dispelled, many dreams turned out to be mere deceptions, for it is a matter of fact that many of the principal advocates of protection Avho prophecied those great results were the victims of their own preaching. In their great anxiety for the success of this neAv idea, they had repre sented" the country as being overrun by manufactures, with magnificent buildings and tall chimneys throw ing towards the sky the smoke of modern industry. They had represented cities and towns growing out ofthe ground, and teeming with artisans Avho av ould consume everything the farmer could grow, but these expectations did not come out true, and here again there was a failure. What was the cause ? Why Avas it that the great expectations which Avere entertained of the future of the National Policy, were not real ized ? Because the agitators of 1877-78 completely lost sight ofthe fact that MODERN INDUSTRIES CANNOT THRIVE in limited markets. Modern industry in order to thrive must operate in large markets. The principle of modern industry is this : to minimize to an infini tesimal figure the profit upon manufactured articles, and then to increase the aggregate production to an unlimited quantity ; in fact the profit upon the single article is ahvays decreased in proportion as the aggre gate production is increased. Under such circum stances no one can manufacture to advantage unless he manufactures in large quantities, and he who can manufacture in the largest market is ahvays the cheapest manufacturer, and at the same time the man who can reduce the cost of production by ever so small an amount, will ahvays drive his competitors from the field, and will overcome all the barriers 410 SPEECH opposed to him. That is the reason why the National Policy did not succeed, that is the reason why the manufacturers did not multiply. Why, Sir, our manufactures, burdened as they are by the tariff, burdened on their coal, burdened on their raAV mate rial, cannot extend abroad because they cannot meet the products of free trade countries. They are limited to their own market, and within our own market, Avith a population of less than 5,000,000, they cannot expand and therefore they cannot thrive. Take the single article of cotton. It Avas expected that under the favor of the tariff all the great Avater poAvers from Kingston to Montreal would be lined with cotton mills, that Ave Avould have legions of cotton spinners and cotton Aveavers. Yet to-day, Sir, we have only twenty-three cotton mills, with an aggregate of 597,- 688 spindles. These figures may seem large at first blush, but they are in reality insignificant. In the year 1871, England alone had over 22,000 cotton mills and 34,000,000 spindles ; and at this very moment, in the little toAvn of Cardiff, Wales, one single com pany is erecting thirteen mills Avith a capacity of more than 650,000 spindles. Therefore our figures are per fectly insignificant ; our twenty-three cotton mills and -600,000 spindles are A MERE DROP IN THE OCEAN. ' But, Sir, the manufacturers of cotton started out for an immense output; they found themselves very soon Avith an immense surplus which they could not dispose of, and under such circumstances, what did they do? They combined, they agreed to reduce the production, they reduced the working hours, they dismissed their employees, and reduced production simply to the requirements ofthe country ; and, upon the capital Avhich had been invested, they agreed to pocket the large profits Avhich the tariff gave them over foreign competitors. Yet, as I understand, those profits upon the large capital invested are not large. IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 411 Although we have only twenty-three mills and 600,000 spindles, yet these are too much for the requirements of the country. Not one of these mills is Avorking to its full capacity to-day ; they are all working on half time, or at least, not on full time. What is true of cotton is also true of woollens and other industries of the country, so the conclusion is inevitable that the National Policy has not realized the expectations which were entertained at the time. The National Policy has not developed a great national industry, and has not created the home market for our agricul tural products, as we were promised. But, Sir, the necessity of widening the area of our trade and com merce is so great that all these many years Ave have been looking around in this direction and in the other direction to find neAv outlets and new channels for our trade. In the debate on the Address during- the present Session, the mover of the Address told us with pride that the Government had sent a commis sioner to Australia in order to obtain the trade of that country ; he told us that they had opened communi cation with the Argentine Republic in order to esta blish a trade with that country. What will come of these efforts ? What has come of all similar efforts ? What has come of our sending commissioners to Brazil, to the West Indies, and to Spain? Nothing, for the very obvious reason that, burdened as Ave are by our protective tariff, AVE CANNOT MEET FREE TRADE ENGLAND in those markets; so that the conclusion is inevitable that all the efforts we have made so far to develop our trade and commerce, and to broaden their area, since 1867, have been a succession of failures. What, then, is to be done? Is the problem Avithout solu tion? Is the situation Avithout hope? Is there nothing to be done but to fold our arms and to Avait, and to wait, and to wait until something unforeseen and unexpected turns up, that will, perhaps, do for us 412 SPEECH what we have failed to do for ourselves ? No, there is a course open to us, and it is to revert to the only means Avhich, in the past, have not failed — it is to adopt the resolution of my honorable friend to my left (Sir Richard Cartwright), it is to open as ivide as Ave can all the avenues of trade betAveen us and the 60,000,00 of people to the south of us. And here again let us recall the language of Mr.BroAvn. He expected the greatest possible results from the accession of 1,000,000 souls to our market. Here are his words: But here, Sir, is a proposal which is to add not only nearly a million of souls to our population, but to add valuable terri tory to our domain, and secure to us all the advantages of a large and profitable commerce, now existing. Sir, these expectations would have bean realhed if natural obstacles had not interposed. But what Ave expect to-day from the resolution of my honora ble friend, is not only the access of 1,000,000 souls to our market, it is THE ACCESSION OF 60,000,000 of the mo3t wealthy people on the face of the globe, with not even a molehill to separate us. Yet the Gov ernment Avill not accede to our proposition. The Government have no objection to send commissioners to the antipodes, but they will not send commissioners to Washington. They have no objection to open com munication Avith the Argentine Republic and its 5,- 000,000 of souls, but they will not open communication Avith the great nation to the south of us who3e trade is a thousand- fold the trade ofthe Argentine republic. But they have their reasons for it. They do not act on mere caprice. They have their reasons ; they have a standing offer upon the statute-book that they are ready to open our market, to a certain extent, to the United States if that country Avill open its market to us to the same extent. Beyond that they IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 413 will not go, they ttand upon their dignity and they Avill not budge an inch. The offer which is made by the Government to the United States is an offer of a limited character, in natural products only. It is not Avhat Ave ask for. It is not an offer of unlimited trade, such as is asked for by my honorable friend to my left. My honorable friend has proved, at least to the satisfaction of everyone who will take a calm view of the matter, that unlimited reciprocity is pre ferable to limited reciprocity. Now, if the Govern ment had secured the limited reciprocity Avhich they have offered to the American GoATernment, we would have been glad to accept it, and the Government Avould have been entitled to the thanks of the country. But the Government have failed in their efforts. That standing offer has been on the Statute-book for nine year3 uoav and the Americans have not yet chosen to bite at the bait ; but it is not a bait, that is an im proper expression, IT AVAS A THREAT. It was intended as a threat to the American Govern ment to see Avhat evil consequences might fall if they refused to open their doors to us. The bait or threat, whatever it is, however, has been ineffectual, and Ave must try something else. Now, limited reciprocity may be looked upon as an impossible thing. Ibave not heard one single voice raised on the other side of the line in favor of limited reciprocity, while eminent statesmen, members of Congress,influential merchants, boards of trade, have again and again pronounced emphatically in favor of unlimited reciprocity, and to-day there are before Congress two measures in that direction. This sentiment, which is evinced by the propositions before Congre3S, is not of yesterday. It dates as far back as 1861. In that year the Board of Trade in the city of New York petitioned Congress in favor of an enlargement of the Reciprocity Treaty which existed at that time. That petition to Congress 414 SPEECH was acted upon. In 1864, Congress considered a resolution from the Committee oo Commerce in favor of an extension of the treaty and a widening of its provisions. That resolution Avas passed in March, 1864 ; it Avas laid over till December of that year, but nothing came of it, I am sorry to say. And Avhy? Because of the events Avhich took place in the year 1864, because of the unfriendly attitude maintained by England and by Canada towards the United States in the great struggle in which they were engaged at that time. The Alabama cruiser, fitted out in the port of Liverpool, the St. Albans' raid, prepared in Mont real, so far EAIBITTERED AMERICAN PUBLIC OPINION that it would not alloAv that resolution to be carried any further; but ofthe sentiments which were enter tained at that time by the Administration of Mr. Lincoln we can obtain an idea by a letter which Avas written by Mr. Adams, Avho was at that time Minister ,to the Court of St. James', and which Avas addressed to Lord John Russell. It was dated November, 1864, and it said this : The welfare and prosperity of the neighboring British Provinces are as sincerely desired on our part as they can be by Great Britain. In a practical sense they are sources of wealth and influence for the one country only in a less degree than for the other, though the jurisdiction appertain only to the latter. That this is the sincere conviction of my Govern ment has been proved by its consent to enter into relations of reciprocal free trade commerce with them almost as inti mate as those which prevail between the several States of the Union themselves. Thus far the disposition has been to remain content with those relations under any and all circumstances, and that disposition will doubtless continue, provided always that the amity be reciprocated, and that the peace and har mony on the border, indispensable to its existence, be firmly secured. Those were the sentiments of the Administration IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 415 of Mr. Lincoln in 1864, and they are the sentiments ofthe Administration of President Cleveland in 1888. Of the sentiments of the Administration of Mr. Cleve land upon this matter we have ample evidence in the correspondence exchanged betAveen Mr. Bayard and Sir Charles Tupper. In the letter addressed by Mr. Bayard to Sir Charles (although that letter has often been quoted, I quote it again because it seems to me pregrant Avith meaning), Mr. Bayard, after having alluded to the necessity of settling the disputes aris ing out ofthe fisheries question, proposed a settlement in this manner : I am confident we both seek to attain a just and perma nent settlement — and there is but one wry to procure it — and that is by a straightforward treatment, on a liberal and states manlike plan, of the entire commercial relations. These Avords are pregnant with meaning, but their precise meaning is fully made qui by Avhat folloAvs. Mr. Bayard continues : — The gravity of the present condition of affairs between our two countries demands entire frankness. I feel we. stand at " the parting ofthe ways." In one direction I can see a well assured, steady, healthful relationship, devoid of petty jealou sies, and filled, with the fruits of a prosperity arising out of a friendship cemented by mutual interests, and enduring because based upon justice ; on the other a career of embittered rival ry, staining our long frontier with the hues of hostility. What is the meaning of this language : staining our long frontier Avith the hues of hostility ? What was it in the mind of Mr. Bayard? The only way to settle this question was to remove those causes which threatened " a career of embittered rivalry, staining our long frontier Avith hues of hostility." I am glad to find that the gentleman to whom the letter Avas addressed, and who, unfortunately, is not in his seat to-day (Sir Charles Tupper), fully reciprocated those sentiments, and he said in his answer to Mr. Bayard : — I entirely concur in your statement that we both seek to attain a just and permanent settlement— and that there is but 416 SPEECH one way to procure it — and that is by a straightforward treat ment, on a liberal and statesmanlike plan, of the entire com mercial relations of the two countries. Those were the sentiments of two of the gentle men Avho were afterAvards engaged as plenipotentiaries, each for his oavii respective Government. The Ame rican plenipotentiaries made propositions to the Bri tish plenipotentiaries. What Avere those propositions? We have not yet been able to find out, for reasons Avhich have not yet been explained, the proposals made by the American plenipotentiaries, and those proposals have been KEPT FROM THE PUBLIC. But what can they have been ? We can imagine what they Avere ; and Avh at else could they have been ex cept a reflection of the sentiment expressed by Mr. Bayard himself, the Secretary of State, Avhen writing to Sir Charles Tupper ? What else could they have been but proposals to settle the question upon a basis Avhich Avould remove from our long frontier the dan ger of " staining our long frontier Avith the hues of hostility?" What could they be but proposals for the abolition of customs between the two countries? I fail to find they could be anything else, and unless Ave are shown at a future day that I am in the wrong, and that they Avere not such proposals, I think we can fairly infer that such were the proposals emanat ing from Mr. Bayard. Did the British plenipotentia ries ansAver in that spirit ? No. The proposals made by the British plenipotentiaries, and Avhich we have before us, are not in the same spirit which dictated the ansAver of Sir Charles Tupper to Mr. Bayard. Sir Charles Tupper in that answer said that he hoped also that the question would be settled by a " straight forward treatment, on a liberal and statesmanlike plan, of the entire commercial relations of the two countries." What Avas the new proposition by theBri- IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 417 tish plenipotentiaries ? Was it for an entire settlement of the question upon that line? No; the proposal was SIMPLY AN ARRANGEMENT for greater freedom of commercial intercourse. Sir Charles Tupper's proposal to settle the question Avas by an entire discussion ofthe trade relations, but the proposition ofthe British plenipotentiaries was simply for greater freedom of commercial intercourse than now exists. I say the hands of the British plenipo tentiaries were handicapped by some power, either by the British Government or the Canadian Govern ment ; but it is manifest that the intentions of Mr. Bayard were not reciprocated by the British plenipo tentiaries at the discussion of the treaty. So that. Mr. Speaker, the time is eminently well chosen now to move in the sense indicated by my honorable friend on my left, and send a commissioner to the Govern ment at Washington to confirm the principle, if he sees it is possible to confirm it, which would remove hostility from our frontier line. But the Government will not have that. Even if it were offered, as I be lieve it was offered in the negotiation of the treaty, they will not have it. They will not have unrestricted reciprocity. They maintain their line of restricted reciprocity ; they maintain the offer they have put upon the statute-book, of giving reciprocity in natu ral products only. What is the reason that they give for this ? The reason they give is that, at present, unrestricted reciprocity would be fatal to our manu factories. Well, Sir, as to the argument, "unrestricted reciprocity would be fatal to our manufactories," it is admitted that unrestricted reciprocity would include reciprocity in natural products, and gentlemen on the other side are ready to give reciprocity in natural products. They admit thereby that reciprocity in natural products would be favorable and would bene fit the growers of natural products, or, in other words, 27 418 SPEECH that it would benefit the farmers. They say that the interests of farmers in this instance and the inte rests of manufacturers are antagonistic. They admit that unrestricted reciprocity, which includes reciprocity in natural products, would favor the far mers, but they say at the same time that it would injure the manufacturers. I do not admit the argu ment Avhatever, for I think reciprocity Avould be USEFUL ALL ROUND. But if it comes to this : that we are forced to choose betAveen the growers of natural products and the ma nufacturers, for my part my choice is made. I stand by the industry which numbers 70 per cent, of our population. I stand by the industry without which no other industry can live. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not admit the argument at all. I do not for a mo ment admit that reciprocity in manufactured goods would be unfavorable to the manufacturers. What is the objection ? The objection is that our infant industries, as they are termed, are not yet strong enough to compete with the industries ofthe American people. Sir, it is a particularity of these infants,called industries, that they never grow. They are monsters, lusus naturae, their appetite is insatiable, and yet they never get strong. They have to be kept on the feed ing bottle all the time. You have to carry them in your arms all the time, and if you put them on their legs they moan most piteously and are too weak to stand. The poor things are in fact so very weak that they combine amongst themselves to extort from the country, not only Avhat the country will give them willingly, but even what the country will not give them. I can well understand that the monopolist will not have unrestricted reciprocity. He has the market to himself ; the market is not large, it is true, but he has it all to himself without competition, and furthermore if there were competition he would have to exert his brains and muscles as everybody else is compelled to do. But IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 419 THE GENUINE MANUFACTURER not only is_ not afraid of unrestricted reciprocity, but will hail with joy the day that the American market is open to him. What is it that modern industry wants in order to thrive? It wants space, and nothing else but space ; and give to our manufacturers that broad market of 60,000,000 of people and every one with a heart in his bosom and a head on his shoulders will tell you that he is ready and eager to compete with the American manufacturer. My honorable friend the member for Rouville (Mr. Gigault) stated the other day that he Avas opposed to the present move ment, because he thought unrestricted reciprocity would destroy our manufactures, and he spoke from a local point of vieAV. I am sorry that on this occasion I have to sever from him on this question. He said as folloAvs : We know in the cities of St. Hyacinthe and Montreal the number of consumers of agricultural produce is largely in creasing and our farmer goes to this market. Every week dealers go through our district buying eggs, poultry, animals, fruits and other articles of farm produce, and where do those articles go in much larger quantities than in the past ? They go to the markets of St. Hyacinthe and Montreal, where there are a larger number of consumers than in the past. Destroy by unrestricted reciprocity the manufacturing industry of those two cities, throw out of employment the thousands of workingmen who gain their living in those manufactories, and what. would be the result? Our markets for the agriculturists' produce would lose its importance. Sir, I will say to my honorable friend that the opinion Avhich he expresses on the result of unre stricted reciprocity, with regard to the manufacturers of St. Hyacinthe, is not the opinion of the manufac turers of St. Hyacinthe. My honorable friend the mem ber for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Bernier) is a manufacturer and he is in favor of unrestricted reciprocity; and I hold in my hand here a telegram from Mr. Boaz, Avho 420 SPEECH is a large and well-known manufacturer of St. Hya cinthe, and who says if you give him the American market to-morrow, the day after to-morrow he will treble his establishment. This, Sir, is the opinion of a genuine manufacturer. It stands to common sense, and it ftands to reason, that the larger the field is at the present day for the manufacturer, the larger will be his exertions and the larger his profit and his trade. But, Sir, there is another objection, and a most serious objection upon the face of it. We are told that unrestricted reciprocity WOULD LARGELY AFFECT OUR REVENUE. Under present circumstances the importations from the United States yield to our revenue an annual amount of $7,000,000. There is no doubt Avhatever that if unrestricted reciprocity were adopted we would lose that revenue. Sir, I say at once, and I say em phatically, that the prospect has no cause of alarm to me. The prospect Avould be a serious cause of alarm, Sir, if the revenue of the country had been kept to the legitimate expenditure of the country, if the revenue of the country had been kept to the figure indispensable to carry on the legislative business of the country, then, Sir, the necessity of providing the deficiency of such a large amount to be levied every year upon the people ofthe country would be a serious problem. But, Sir under the present high rate of taxation the revenue has been swelled far in excess ofthe legitimate requirements of the country. The equilibrium has been re-established by the Govern ment betAveen revenue and expenditure. But. how? By decreasing the revenue ? No, but by illegitima tely increasing the expenditure. Sir, this fact that Ave are illegitimately incieasing the expenditure of the country beyond the natural requirements ofthe people is a serious matter which should grow on the consideration ofthe gentlemen of this House. It is fruitful of evil consequences. The United States to- IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 421 day suffer from the same state of things. They have also AN ABNORMALLY LARGE REVENUE, and although the expenditure has been kept doAvn to a legitimate expenditure, still all the evils that Ave have to-day, from a large revenue arid a large expen diture, have also arisen in the United States. In a recent number of Harper's Weekly the editor of that most valuable,able and high-toned paper, after having reviewed the policy of President Jefferson — who fav ored a large expenditure, and in order to have a large expenditure would maintain a tariff providing for a surplus — goes on to speak in this Avay, and his lan guage I commend to everyone who thinks of those matters in this Plouse : Experience, however, has proved what Jefferson could not foresee that the course he favored leads to overtaxation, class legislation, a general derangement of commerce and industry, and political corruption. All of these evils Ave have in this country. We have had class legislation, we have had over-taxation, and Ave have political corruption — political corruption so bold that it does not even seek at this day to hide its shame. Let me in this connection quote the words spoken only a feAV weeks ago by the Premier of this country in the city of Quebec. At the dinner given there to the Minister of Militia, he uttered the3e pregnant words: Sandfield Macdonald, a Scotchman, and like all Scotchmen but myself, exceedingly economical, took great pains to save up a surplus. The Opposition abused him, and said he had not the heart to spend the money, but that when they got into power they would divide it. So that he was literally bought out with his own money. No Grit successor of the present Government will find much surplus left after us to spend among his supporters. Our opponents say that we 422 SPEECH bribe the constituencies, but we bribe them with their own money. Sir, this is the level to Avhich the politics of this country has been lowered by the false system which we have been pursuing for so may years. Sir, I will hail Avithjoy the day Avhen it will no longer be in the power 'of this Government or any other Govern ment TO BRIBE THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY Avith their own money. I will hail with joy the day when no more money will be extorted from the peo ple of this country than is absolutely necessary to carry on the business of the country; and if unres tricted reciprocity were to do nothing else than to reduce the expenditure to such a normal figure that it would be impossible for any Government to distri bute money among the constituencies to bribe them, with my both hands I would vote for unrestricted reciprocity. The advantages, Mr. Speaker, of a free, untrammelled commercial intercourse betAveen this country and the great country to the south of us cannot be denied. Indeed, they are not denied. No assertion has been made on the other side ofthe House against the assertion made on this side that great benefits would follow such an interchange. The objections made are not made to the idea itself, but all the objections are based simply on the supposition that this course would be fatal to some interests in our own county. But, Sir, the one great objection which we have heard from all quarters on the other side of the House has been the cry of disloyalty. That cry came as a lugubrious knell in all the speeches we have heard on this question. The objec tion was taken that to admit the importations from the United States free of duty, whileAve tax the impor tations from Great Britain, would be disloyal. The objections made on the subject were crystallised in IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 423 one sentence by the honorable Minister of the Inte rior, in reply to an interruption by my honorable friend from Prince Edward Island : What I said was that a differential duty against England was disloyal to the mother-country and inconsistent with op position. Sir, if this objection means anything it simply means that, if we find it is to be to our advantage to adopt reciprocal free trade with the United States, we should forego that advantage, because we are a colony of England. That is the proposition made by gentle men on the other side. I denounce such a proposition ; I repudiate it ; I denounce it as unmanly, as anti- Canadian, AND EVEN ANTI-BRITISH. To pretend, Sir, that our colonial allegiance demands from us that we should be deterred from the spirit of enterprise, that we should refuse to extend our trade and to increase our prosperity according to the best methods which commend themselves to our judg ment, to pretend that this is loyalty, I deny ; and if I were to characterize the sentiment in the only lan guage in Avhich it ought to be characterized, I Avould say this is not loyalty, but that it is mereflunkeyism. We are a colony of England, it is true ; but we are a colony not by force, but by choice ; and.if we are a colony to-day, it is because we are convinced that at the present day our colonial dependence is quite com patible Avith the largest measure of national advance ment and material prosperity. If you, on the other side, pretend that our colonial relation curtails and limits our possibilities, that England would alloAv us to reach a certain altitude and go no higher, I say you slander England ; and if any man were to rise on the other side and tell us that England would be jealous at whatever we could do to improve our condition, I would say that man does not knoAV England, he mis- 424 SPEECH takes the England of to-day for the England of 100 years ago. I commend to the consideration of these fervent loyalists on the other side, whose mouths are ever full of the word loyalty, the folloAving words spoken by Lord Palmerston, 20 years ago, in refer ence to the British North American provinces : — If these provinces felt themselves strong enough to stand upon their own ground, and if they desire no longer to maintain their connection with us, Ave should say : " God speed you and give you the means. to maintain yourselves as a nation ! " There are THE SENTIMENTS OF BRITISH STATESMEN. They tell us that, whenever we want our political liberty, Ave are free to have it. But what Ave ask, Sir, is not political independence — we want to keep the flag of England over our heads ; but we affirm that we are economically independent as we are legisla tively independent. Sir, colonies have interests in common Avith the mother land, but colonies have interests of their own also. To-day we levy a heavy toll on all imports from Great Britain. We do that not only for the sake of collecting revenue, but also for the purpose of protection, to enable us to manu facture ourselves what Ave had formerly purchased from England, and. to that extent to destroy British trade. There Avas a time when this would not have been tolerated ; there was a time when England would have disallowed such a policy ; but now Ave adopt it as a matter of course; now our policy is never ques tioned — why ? Because England has long ago ad mitted the principle that colonies have interests of their own, and that it is Avithin their right and power to develop and foster and promote those interests, even to the point of clashing with British interests. It was not always so, however. In the last century England lost her American colonies IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 425 BECAUSE THAT PRINCIPLE WAS IGNORED. The American revolution broke out in vindication of the principle that taxation and representation should go together. Principles may lie dormant for genera tions until called forth for the solution of some great issue. And what Avas the issue which called for the vindication of those principles by the American colo nies ? The issue Avas this : At that time there was a trade in the American colonies, and there Avas also a British trade ; and the British Parliament, from Avhich the colonies were excluded, legislated exclusively for British trade against the interests of American trade. In our own country, in the year 1837, a rebellion broke out in the tAvo largest colonies left to England, and in both the provinces the cause of the rebellion was the same. It was that the British Government persistently ignored the interests of the colonies as represented by their Legislatures. The British Gov ernment, at that time, did not hold upon those mat ters the same opinion that it holds to-day ; but Avhen rebellion broke out, not only in Lower Canada, Avhere the population was not of British origin, but even in Upper Canada, the British Government sent a com missioner to investigate the cause of the rebellion. In their selection of Lord Durham they Avere most lucky, for in him they chose a man of great sagacity of mind, great personal courage, and large and liberal views. If it were my duty to review his report, I would be bound to take exception to the conception which he formed of my OAvn countrymen ; but as to the main conception of the report, as to the main idea which governed it, it was one ofthe greatest concep tions of an age fertile in great conceptions. It Avas. INDEED, A REVOLUTION. Lord Durham found at once that the colonies had interests of their own, and that these interests had to be prosecuted to their logical end ; and he came to 426 SPEECH the conclusion that local parliaments were the only parliaments fitted to deal with them. He sugge3ted therefore to give the colonies responsible government. That was indeed a revolution. Every country Avhich, up to that time, had colonies, ahvays thought it was necessary to keep its colonies close in hand; they all believed that to grant the slightest emancipation would generate a desire for complete emancipation. Lord Durham found that the converse proposition Avas true. He found and maintained that coercion generated the desire for emancipation, but that, free dom Avould be a bond of union. That Avas a revolu tion, indeed ; it Avas one of the greatest conceptions of the age, and all the greater because of the circum stances under which it wa3 formed. There Avas a rebellion at the time in which two provinces partici pated. There was a rebellion in the Upper Province of Canada, where the population was of British origin ; there Avas a rebellion, a far more dangerous one, in Lower Canada, where the population was of alien origin, and had only recently been made subjects of England. And at that very moment, when the country Avas in the throes of civil Avar, Avhen the soil was reek ing Avith bloodshed, Avhen British domination had to be maintained by force of arms, at that moment Lord Durham said : MAKE THEM FREE, and you will make them loyal. And we who live to day are the happy Avitnesses ofthe sagacity of his mind and the realization of his prophecy. We who live to-day have seen how his policy has planted deep- felt loyalty where fifty years ago rebellion existed. But. Sir, I ask honorable gentlemen opposite what is the extent of the freedom which was then granted to us? I say it extends as far as Canadian interests extend, and to that extent Ave, on this side, claim it. At that time, it is true, Lord Durham had not one disciple. British statesmen could not conceive that IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 427 responsible government could exist in a colony as it existed at home, and it was not until another master mind, Lord Elgin, came to this country, that the policy of Lord Durham received its full measure of adoption. But Lord Elgin went further. He nego tiated the treaty of reciprocity, and in that treaty he admitted the principle of discrimination against British trade. Is there an honorable gentleman on the other side of the House who will pretend that these great men, Lord Durham and Lord Elgin, did not save the British CroAvn on this continent ? Will any one pretend that the colonies would have long consented to be governed by the Colonial Office, through the instrumentality of a petty family com pact ? Who is not aware that the reciprocity treaty, negotiated by Lord Elgin in 1854, effectually quelled the agitation for annexation which folloAved 1849. I say to our honorable friends opposite : You want to maintain British connection on this continent, and so say I ; but I add this, that if you want to maintain British connection on this continent, British connec tion must Avalk abreast with all the requirements of this country. In this connection, I cannot do better than quote the minute of council ofthe Coalition Gov ernment of 1865, Avhich is pregnant with meaning, in \dew ofthe present circumstances. The minute is as follows : Under the beneficient operation of the system of self-gov ernment, which the later policy of the mother. country has accorded to Canada, in common witn the other colonies pos sessing representative institutions, combined with the advan tages secured by the Reciprocity Treaty of an unrestricted commerce with our nearest neighbors in the natural produc tions of the two countries, all agitations for organic changes has ceased all dissatisfaction with the existing political rela tions of the province has wholly disappeared. Here is the admission that reciprocity with the 428 SPEECH United States effectually quashed the agitation for annexation Avhich followed 1849 :— Although the colonies would grossly misrepresent their countrymen if they were to affirm that their loyalty to their Sovereign would be diminished in the slightest degree by the withdrawal, through the unfriendly action of a foreign Govern- m ent, of mere commercial privileges, however valuable these might be deemed, they think they cannot err in directing the attention of the enlightened statesmen who wield the des tinies of the great Empire, of which it is the proudest boast of Canadians that their country forms a part, to the connection which is usually found to exist between the material prospe rity and the political contentment of a people, for in doing so they feel that they are appealing to the highest motives that can actuate patriotic statesmen, the desire to perpetuate a dominion founded on the affectionate allegiance of a pros perous and contented people. There is no fear of any desire for organic changes as long as the people are prosperous. But the moment the people will begin to believe that their prosperity Avould be increased by an organic change, from that moment danger may arise. As to our moral right to act as Ave have acted in this matter, I have not the slightest doubt. The objection of honorable gentle men opposite Avould have been a much stronger one, at lea3t in my eyes, if it had been made from a differ ent standpoint. If instead of telling us that we have not the right to propose to discriminate against En gland, they had said it would not be generou3 to En gland to discriminate against her, the objection, to my mind, would have been far stronger ; and if 1 am not trespassing beyond the limits of good taste in speaking of my own individual sentiments, I would say that this is a consideration which gave me much concern. We have been told in the course of this debate, in many instances, that sentiment should not be allowed in politics. That vieAV I do not take. My opinion is that sentiment may, as well in politics as in. every thing else, Avell shape our actions to the extent of making us generous if Ave can be generous without IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 429 any sacrifice of duty. Sir, I am a subject of French origin, and I have often stated — and you,Mr. Speaker, agree with me — thatthereis NO MORE LOYAL RACE OF MEN under the British Crown on the American continent than Her Majesty's subjects of French origin. Loy alty is natural to you, men of British origin ; it Aoavs in your blood ; you have inhaled it from the heart of your mothers ; but I tell you that gratitude has worked in the hearts of my countrymen feelings of the same nature which is implanted in your hearts by your origin or your birth. With all my soul I say, let my tongue adhere to the roof of my mouth if it were ever to speak an unkind word of England ; let my right hand wither if it participated in anything which would be unfair to England. But this is not a question of sentiment. This is a question of duty, and if you put it in the light,that I have to choose between the duty I owe to England, and the duty I owe to my native land, I stand by my native land. And there is not an Englishman,with an English heart in his bo som, that will not say the same if he is a true born Briton. Sir, England would treat us with contempt if we Avere to act otherwise than we are acting. England expects from us that we shall do the best we can for ourselves, and she will take care of herself, without any assistance from Canadian Tories. I am quite sure of cne thing. It is quite possible that John Bull may grumble, but in his grumbling there will be as much pride as anger, and John Bull will feel flattered if there is an offspring of his so much like the old gent leman that he will not lose any occasion to earn an honest pennv. John Bull will feel flattered if he finds that scion of his a true chip of the old block. But there is another kind of loyalty which has not been alluded to on the other side of the House, and which should be taken into consideration in this instance. I have not heard from the other side a word about the 430 SPEECH loyalty which Ave OAve to Confederation. Twenty years ago we united the British provinces on this continent with the view of making A NEAV NATIONALITY and with the hope of making them a nation. It Avas then a union on paper. It was expected that it would be made a real union. The union has lasted twenty years, and what is the result to-day ? What have we achieved during those tAventy years ? I say that to day, after twenty years, the union Avhich, in 1867, was a mere union on paper is to-day still a mere union on paper. The hearts of the people by the sea are not in the union. Some honorable members: — They are. Mr. Laurier: — My honorable friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Jones) Avas once rebuked for saying that he was a NovaScotian by birth and a Can adian by act of Parliament. I say, and I think I speak Avith knowledge, that the sentiments which were then uttered by my honorable friend are the senti ments entertained by nineteen-tAventieths of the peo ple of Nova Scotia. Some honorable members: — No. Mr. Laurier : Yes. Perhaps it will be said that I have no cause to speak that way, because Nova Scotia has returned a majority to support the Govern ment. Sir, the reason why Nova Scotia has returned a majority to support the Government is that the issue which the Liberal party placed before the people of Nova Scotia was not repeal. I believe in Confede ration; we believe in Confederation, and we want the people of the Maritime provinces to understand that it is the policy ofthe Liberal party not so much tu induce them to return to support us, but to win them over to Confederation, and to make them not only loyal British subjects, as they are, but loyal Canadians as well. If you want to do that, if you want tu achieve that object, you must revise your policy altogether; IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 431 if you want to achieve that object, you must give to the people of Nova Scotia and the Maritime provinces their natural market. LET THEM TRADE where it is most profitable for them to trade, and their hearts will be won over to the Canadian flag, not only to the British flag. It was our hope at one time to make this country a nation. It is our hope yet. Some honorable members : — Hear, hear ! Mr. Laurier : — I hail that sentiment with joy, with unbounded joy, all the more that it is altoge ther unforeseen. I had expected, from the talk we have heard from these gentlemen on the other side of the House, that they expected that this country would forever and forever remain a colony. I see now that they have higher aspirations, and I give them credit for that. Colonies are destined to become na tions, as it is the destiny of a child to become a man. No one, even on the other side, will assume that this country, which will some day number a larger popu lation than Great Britain, is forever to remain in its present political relation with Great Britain. The time is coming when the present relations of Great Britain and Canada must either become closer or be severed altogether. For my own part, I do not intend at present to carry out this line of thought any fur ther, but I simply say that, if ever and whenever Canada chooses, to use the language of Lord Palmerston, to stand by herself, the separation will take place not only in peace, but in friendship and in love, as the son leaves the house of his father to be come himself the father of a family. But this is not the question of to-day. To-day we "have to face a prob lem of no .small magnitude, which is to provide the best means of developing and broadening the area of our trade to such an extent as to afford to our stug- gling industries the space they require 432 SPEECH TO THRIVE AND DEVELOP. This is the duty of the present hour ; this is the task which has to be faced and met. _ We, on this side of the House, believe that the motion of my honorable friend from South Oxford (Sir Richard Cartwright) exactly meets the case ; Ave believe that the solution of the problem is complete in unrestricted reciprocity Avith the great nation to the south of us. I fully appreciate the objection of our friends on the other side, Avho say that our course is not generous towards England. My ansAver is simply this: I only wish that Ave could offer to England the same propositions that Ave offer to-day to the American people. England has opened to us her doors. Gentlemen on the other side of the Plouse have closed our doors against Eng land. They have done it, I know, not in any spirit of hostility towards England, but because they thought it was in the interest ofthis country. They have adopted protection as their deliberate policy. England has the policy of free trade. England is 3,000 miles aAvay from us. The policy of the United States is a policy of protection, the same as ours. They are our nearest neighbors. There are our channels of trade. Therefore, the course we take is not a matter of choice, it is the dictate of reason. I fully appreciate as well the objection of those who say this is the first of a series of changes which must end in annexation. Sir, I grant at once that there is force in the objec tion if you look only at the surface; but it is the greatest posible misconception in politics to believe that the same mould will reproduce the same casts of events. It is true that history ever repeats itself, but HISTORY NEVER REPEATS ITSELF in identically the same terms. It is true that the same causes always produce the same effects, but those effects are always modified by a variety of con- IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 433 comitant circumstances. Who, for instance, would have expected, fifty years ago, that the concession of responsible government would have resulted, as it has resulted, in a jcloser union between England and Canada? All the wiseacres of that day predicted that the concession which was made at that time would result in the absolute severance of Canada from the Empire, but all the prophecies have been falsified. The result has been to draw the two coun tries closer together than ever. We anticipate on this side ofthe House that the carrying of my honorable friend's resolution will have the effect of bringing about such prosperity to this country that trade will increase, not only between Canada, and the United States, but between Canada and Great Britain herself, and make the bonds of union still stronger than they are. Nor, Sir, would I treat lightly the misgiv ings of those who, on the threshold of a great event, as this is sure to be, stand irresolute, dreading the unknown. I can well conceive that sentiment. Even when the mind is satisfied that a given political situa tion has become intolerable, that a change has to be made, even then the contemplated reform may, per haps, be looked upon with misapprehension. For instance, the most radical reformer amongst us. con vinced though he may be that a revision of the Union Act which binds the three kingdoms together has become necessary, still may not look without anxiety to the impending change. When the past has been so glorious, Avhen the present condition of things, though it has wrought intolerable evils, has made England so great, even he who is determined to amend the present constitution and amend it effectually to remove existing evils — even he, Sir, perhaps would not touch the existing fabric except with a trembling hand. But at the same time the staunchest T"ry must admit that the history of England has been AN UNCEASING TRANSFORMATION. There has not been one century when England did 28 434 SPEECH not change, when England has been the same as in the century before. England moved onward and omvard, from progress to progress, until she has reached her present position. Yet every one of those changes, which have made England what she is to-day, has been met by Tories and by Conservatives with the taunts of disloyalty with which we are met to-day. To go no further back than the present century when Catholic Emancipation had become unavoidable, all the Tories of England, from the King downwards, wept over the fall of England. When the Reform Bill Avas carried, all the Tories of England wept over the downfall of their country; when the Corn Laws were abolished, still the Tories of England had more tears to shed. In our own country, Avhen responsible gov ernment Avas first agitated, all the Tories of Canada Avept over the impending rupture of British connec tion ; and Avhen, a few years afterAvards, responsible government was carried into effect, the Tories no longer Avept, but they raved, they burst out into a torrent of passion. Their rage was perfectly genuine, but the tears they shed Avere merely crocodile tears. What the Tories, British or Canadian, wept over upon those occasions, was not the doAvnfall of England, Avas not the rupture of British connection, but it was i|ie loss of some privilege or some monopoly which, upon all those occasions, was forcibly removed from their grasp. Sir, if the vieAvs of the Canadian Tories had prevailed fifty years ago, Canada would still be a medley of scattered^ provinces, each governed or rather owned BY A SMALL FAMILY COMPACT. If the Tories of to-day, if those whose lamentations we have heard for the last fifteen days, had lived fifty years ago, they, like their ancestors, would have howled _ with loyal yells against the reforms which have raised Canada from the position which she then held to the proud position which she occupies to-day ; IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 435 they would have opposed those reforms with the same cries of loyalty with which they meet us to-day ; and I venture to say, judging of the future by the past, that the Tories fifty years hence will rejoice at the adoption ofthe resolution of my honorable friend, as it must be adopted some day, though, true to their Tory nature, they will shrink from the reforms Avhich will then be necessary. Sir, I am not disposed to treat otherwise than with respect those protests which have been raised against the disturbance of the present state of things. lam reminded, in this connection, of some words written by Armand Carrel, a Frenchman of great power and greater promise, who, unfortuna tely, fell a premature victim of that curse of French civilization, duelling. Armand Carrel had been an officer in the French army, and had deserted to join one of those numerous insurrections which took place in Spain about the year 1820, in favor of Constitu tional government. He was taken prisoner, court- niartialled and sentenced to death ; but after a, series of dramatic incidents he obtained a neAv trial and was finallv acquitted. Referring, some years later, to the events which had brought on those insurrections, the French revolution, the Napoleonic wars, and the organic disturbances created by those events, the new aspirations developed, in consequence, in some classes of society, and,in other classes of society, the intense attachment to the old regime and the intense desire for its restoration, he concluded as follows : Events in their continual and fatal transformation do not carry all minds with them, nor curb all characters with an equal facility, nor take care of all interests ; this must be understood and something must be forgiven to the protesta tions which rise in favor of the past. When a period is er.ded, the mould is shattered, and it is enough for Providence that it cannot be reconstituted. Those words seem to be full of meaning, and they seem forcibly to teach the lesson that it is the duty of Reformers ever to stand up to the duty of the hour, 436 SPEECH AVITHOUT FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES, either to themselves or to the country ; ever respect ing, but still never heeding, those protests which are sure to be raised in favor of the past— in the words of President Lincoln " Avith malice towards none, Avith charity for all, Avith firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right. " Sir, believing that I appeal to all Reformers on the present occasion, I appeal not only to those who belong to the Reform organization, but I appeal to all those who believe that the world cannot remain stationary ; I appeal to all those who believe that new exigencies are always arising which require to be dealt with ; I appeal_ to all those Avho believe that the present economical condition of Canada is false and dangerous ; I appeal to the old men who, in former years, have borne the brunt of many battles in favor of reform, and who have lent a helping shoulder to bring up their country to the high level it occupies to-day ; I appeal to the young men whose aim it is to raise their country still higher — of all I ask their support in the task we have under taken at this time. Sir, our opponents on this occa sion again drag up their old-time weapon of abuse. They tell us that we are disloyal, that we are traitors, THAT WE ARE ANNEXATIONISTS. With such invectives we are not concerned. Those invectives are only an anticipation of those with which we will be assailed by our opponents. Again, they will appeal to all the prejudices that may lie in the people against this policy. They will again tor ture noble sentiments in order to arouse suspicion against thispolicy, they will again probe the narrow corners of the heart in order to awaken what may be found there low and vile against this new policy. But with such tactics we are not concerned. Such tactics have been faced before and we must face them again. They say that without a doubt the people IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY 437 will repel us, that victory will again perch on the banners ofthe Conservative party. With such consid erations we are not concerned. Our consideration are higher, our aim3 are higher than such low, vulgar. vile, selfish considerations, And, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all those Avho believe that politics are neither a trade, nor a gain ; I appeal to all those who believe that politics are a duty which must be discharged, not Avith a view to the gain to be attained, but dis charged simply for duty's sake, and to those, in the language of the poet, I say Onward ! throw all terrors off! Slight the scorns, scorn the scoff. In the race, and not the prize, Glory's true distinction lies. Triumph herds with meanest things, Common robbers, vilest slings, ' Mid the reckless multitude ! But the generous, but the good Stand in modesty alone, Still serenely struggling on, Planting peacefully the seeds Of brighter hopes and better deeds. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my honorable friend to my left has planted the seeds of brighter hopes and better days for this country when he moved this resolution. We may be defeated ; but as my honor able from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Davies) said a few days ago, time is Avith us. Yes, TIME IS WITH US, the cause is true and it will prevail. We are just noAV in the last days of a long and severe Avinter. _ Nature, which is now torpid and inert, will awaken in a feAV days under the penetrating influences of a warmer sun, and the great river at the foot of the cliff on which we stand, noAV imprisoned in the close embrace of fro3t, will throw off her shackles and roll unfettered 438 SPEECH IN FAVOR OF RECIPROCITY and free toward the sea. So sure as thi3 will happen, I say that under the penetrating influence of discussion, of better feelings on both sides of the line, the hosti lity Avhich now stains our long frontier will disappear, the barriers which now obstruct trade will be burst open and trade will pour in along all the avenues from the north, free, untrammelled and without fear of embarrassment or provocation. Deatli of Hon. Thomas White (HOUSE OF COMMONS) Sitting of 23rd April, 1888 Of all the brief addresses ever delivered in the House of Commons on the occasion of the death of a member, the following is, perhaps, the one which produced the greatest effect, and it is consequently regarded in Parliament as a model of its kind : Mr. Speaker, In seconding the motion, I cau scarcely find words to give expression to the very sad emotions which this occasion arouses. Engaged as we are in daily strife, divided as we are in aims and purposes, struggling for our OAvn convictions, we are too apt to forget what we readily realize to-day, that after all there is an universal kin amongst us ; and when a man Mr. White's eminence is removed from amongst us we all individually feel that we have suffered a loss, and perhaps, for the first time, we can see the full meas ure of the man's worth. It is, however, a misfortune of our nature that we never appreciate fully what Ave have until we have lost it, and this feeling comes forcibly to me to-day. In Mr. White's death the whole nation has suffered a great loss, but I realize and understand that to his friends the blow must seem almost unbearable. His untiring energy and indus try, his vast and wide knowledge of all political questions, his aptitude for business, his great admin- 440 SPEECH ON ME. WHITE'S DEATH istrative ability, his skill in debate, his eloquence, all were the happy combination of varied qualities which made him a tower of strength to those Avith Avhom he was associated, and Ave on this side of the House can never forget, as has been said by the Minister of Pub lic Works, that upon all occasions, whether on the floor of Parliament or Avhether in his department as an executive officer ofthe Crown, he was always civil, courteous and obliging. But I am sure that, great as the bloAv must be to the country at large, to his party and to his family, there is no one who feels it more deeply than the veteran Premier. We all can sympathize with him, and we do sympathize with him, and much as we may differ from him in politics on various questions, we all understand that al his time of life the death of a long trusted friend must deal a severe blow. Death with us has been of late unusually cruel; Mr. White is the ninth of our collea gues we have lost since last elections. Death has been unsparing, striking alike on all ages and stations, and this last blow, coming as it does so suddenly and so unexpectedly after so many others, recalls very forcibly the Avords of Burke : "What shadows we are and Avhat shadows we pursue !" Mr. Laurier before tlie people of Ontario THE LIBERAL GATHERING AT OAKVILLE GREAT OVATION IN HONOR OF THE LIBERAL LEADER HIS OPINION ON THE ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE COUNTRY Especially since his elevation to the leadership of the Liberal party, Mr. Laurier has made it an annual practice to address the people of Ontario on the great questions of the day. His tour of 188S was a series of triumphal receptions. The Young Liberals of Toronto set the example by inviting him to speak on the 13th August at Oakville, in the county of Halton, which was then in the throes of an election. The festivity was splen did and the following speech was reported in full by the whole Liberal press of the province : I would vainly endeavor to find words to convey to you the full measure ofthe gratitude that I feel I OAve you for the kind recognition you are pleased to give me on this occasion. I can assure you from the bottom of my heart that my Avords are not mere empty words or the mere perfunctory expressions of conventional formality. I deeply feel what I now say, and, if I were allowed without any impropriety to add one word more in reference to myself, I would say that nothing whatever in the course of my life has 442 SPEECH ever cheered me more than the reception which has been given me by my fellow-citizens of Ontario, in the position which the too partial regard of my friends of the House of Commons has placed upon me. To you, Sir, I feel especially grateful for the kind words you have spoken of me. I am a French-Canadian, as 1 need not repeat to you. You have heard it before, and I need not tell it you again. But while my heart ever feels warm towards the land of my ancestors, MY FIRST ALLEGIANCE is to England, nay, to Canada. I need not tell you that the Liberal party has suffered greatly from the loss of Mr. Blake. He Avas a personality in himself. He is one of those allie3 whose ioss nothing can make up for. If the party has not suffered more than it has since his withdraAval from the leadership, it is due, in the first place, to the example he has left to us, to the strength he has given to the party, and due also large ly, too, to the able men who surround me in the House of Commons, and, above all, to my friend, Sir Richard Cartwright, who during last session produced a policy which, dashed as it may be upon the billoAVS of infu riated faction, assailed as it may be by passionate prejudice, tortured as it may be by greed and avarice, is bound to win, and I hope will win in. this county of Halton not later than next week. We have come hereto-day in reference to an issue which is before us at this moment, and I have come here to talk to you of it. For myself, though I am at this moment the responsible head ofthe Reform party, I claim for myself no other merit than that of belonging to the great body of Canadian Reformers. And by " Re formers " I do not mean alone those who are to be found in tiie ranks ofthe Reform party, but all those Avho believe that the world cannot forever remain stationary. That is to be left behind in the race. Unless the principles which guide a community in clude that of reformation in order to suit the reuuire- AT 0AKVILLE IN 1888 443 ments of the community, it cannot remain for long progressive. These are the principles that actuate us. I see before me a large number of men Avho evidently have been veterans in former Reform struggles, and nothing can give me more pleasure than to see near me on the platform my old friend, Joe Rymal, whose name is a household word in every house in Ontario, and who has been one of these veterans of Reform who have stood the brunt of many conflicts in former times. Sir,Mr. Rymal and others of his generation can testify that there never was a Canadian generation which had not to fight that battle in the cause of Re form, which had not to battle AGAINST SOME NATIONAL EVIL. In their earlier years this country — not only Up per Canada, but Lower Canada, my native province — Avas held as a close corporation by a few favored in dividuals who toiled not, neither did they spin, but Avho yet lived upon the fat of the land. They can re member that it took Robert Baldwin almost a whole lifetime to grapple with this evil and overcome it, and at last to obtain a government by the people and for the people. They can remember that after thi3 evil disappeared another came to the front. The union betAveen LoAver Canada and Upper Canada had been so clumsily draAvn that so fair and honest a principle as representation by population was system atically denied by one province, then by another, be cause it Avas feared that representation by population would prove an instrument of tyranny in the hand of the powerful province. They can remember that it took George Brown also a whole lifetime to obtain jus tice not only for the province of Ontario, but for the whole united province of Canada. It took him a whole lifetime to obtain the remedy of that evil and to sub stitute for the clumsy Legislative union the present Federal union of the British American provinces. Well, Sir, I will say to the Reformers ofthis county of 444 SPEECH Halton, to the Reformers of the province of Ontario, that Ave also, we Reformers of the year 1888, Ave Can adians ofthis day, have a task to perform, a duty to achieve and an evil to grapple with, which, if not grappled with, MUST DRAG DOAVN THIS OUR COUNTRY. Sir, I put it to any of you. It is now twenty-one years since Confederation was established. We started with' the hope — is it not true? — we started with the hope,as it Avas said at that time, that Ave would link together the British provinces on the continent of America, that Ave would bind them together Avith ties of affec tion and mutual pride and that Ave would make them a nation. Such was our dream, such Avas our hope often expressed, often repeated. Now, I ask every one in this audience, no matter what may have been in the past his predilections, no matter whether he has been a Conservative or a Reformer — I a3k every one in this audience, looking back over the time, how far have Ave advanced in the task we set ourselves to perform tAventy-one years ago ? Sir, the painful answer must be that Ave have not advanced one iota, one single jot. And what is the reason ? The reason cannot be other than this, that Canada has not found under the neAv regime the prosperity Avhich Avas the goal we had set out to obtain. I would not compare our lot Avith the lot of European populations, but I ask you if it is not true that Ave have not reached the prosperity which was the goal to which we were look ing ? It is true, Mr. Chairman, that the Ministerial press will not admit that ; I do not expect from them any admission, but I would ask the opinion upon that subject of any Conservative who may do me the honor of listening to me. The Conservative press assert that we are a most prosperous people, but they reason after the manner of Sir John Falstaff ; they take sentiments for facts. Sir John Falstaff had brag ged that the Prince owed him a thousand pounds, AT 0AKVILLE IN 188S 445 and when taken to task by the Prince, Avho said, " Sirrah, do I owe you a thousand pounds ?" he replied, '' Dost thou owe me a thousand pounds, Hal ? Thou owest me thy life and thy love, and thy life and thy love are worth a million." That is the way the Conservative press argue. When we say wre are not prosperous, they say, '' We belong to the greatest Empire in the Avorld." And so Ave do, but, at the same time, we have not under the Empire THAT SHARE OF PROSPERITY that is due to us, which should be our lot as Cana dians, as part and parcel of this great continent. But, sir, there is a criterion which we can ahvays resort to in order to ascertain whether the population is as prosperous as it ought to be. Real estate, in our state of civilization, is a pretty fair criterion of the pros perity of the people. If the value of real estate is going up, that is a fair evidence of prosperity ; if real estate is going down, it seenm to me there must be something wrong somewhere. I venture to assert this much, and I assert it without fear of successful con tradiction, that in the Dominion of Canada, apart from the large railway centres, real estate for the last eight years has not been advancing ; in a great many places it has been retrograding. I do not knoAv how it is in the county of Halton, but I say this for the province from which I come, that there is not in Quebec a single farm which would sell for the price it Avould have sold for eight years ago. I invite reflec tion upon this point by whatever Conservatives there may be in this audience. And the reason is obvious, the reason is not far to seek. What is it that makes real estate valuable in our railway centres? It is because population is bound to resort to those centres in our state of civilization. What is it that makes real estate valuable anywhere? Population. Show me 446 SPEECH A THICKLY-SETTLED COUNTRY and I will sIioav you a country where real estate is valu able, What is the fact about our population ? The fact is that there is going on a serious loss of our population. Hundreds, and Ave might almost say thousands, of our felloAV-countrymen are daily leaving our country to give their labor to the other side of the line. I knoAV that is a statement Avhich will be denied by the Conservative press, but I appeal to the intelligence of this audience. If the Conservative press deny this, why do they not deny that the sun shines, that fire burns, that water runs down hill, that night succeeds the day and clay the night, that tAvo and tAvo make four ? They might as Avell deny any of ' these propositions as to deny that Ave are losing our own population. Sir, Avhat I now say I will not advance any statistics to prove, but I appeal to the intelligence of every man in this audience, to the experience of every man in this audience. And, sir, I may say this in Ontario, as I have often stated it in my own province : there is not a man, not one single man of the race to which I belong, in the pro vince of Quebec, of forty or forty-five years of age, who has not on the other side of the line a near rela tive — a father, a son, an uncle or a cousin. That is a pretty broad statement to make, still I make it as regards my own province without fear of successful contradiction. I reassert that there is not one single French Canadian in Quebec to-day ofthe age of forty- five years Avho has not in the United States some of his oAvn relatives. And if I were tq ask any one of this audience— you, sir, or you, or you— to tell me if you have some relative in the United States, I believe the an3Aver avouIcI be, I have— a son, a cousin, an uncle, as the case may be. Is not that state of things most appalling ? Why is it that Ave should have emi gration from oar country ? I can understand emigra tion from Europe to America, but I cannot under stand emigration from Canada to the United States. AT 0AKVILLE IN 1888 447 I can understand emigration from Ireland, ill-gOA'- erned as it has been for centuries. I can understand emigration from Great Britain where the struggle for food is ever recurring — a subject of anxiety AA'ith millions of our fellow-men. I can understand emi gration from Germany crushed as it is under a mili tary despotism. But I ask in Canada WHAT CAN BE THE CAUSE, Avhat can be the reason for emigration ? Can it be that our institutions are not equal to the American institutions ? There is not a man here in Canada who would say that. We say not merely that our institutions are equal to those of our neighbors, but that they are better, more elastic and more conducive to freedom. Can it be, Sir, that our soil and climate are inferior to the soil and climate of the United States ? Sir, I say this : I am willing to grant, for it is so that the Americans have the advantage of a greater variety of climate, but in everything that makes a great race, in everything that makes a noble and manly race, we have the advantage of climate and production over our American neighbors. Well, then, if the fault is not to be found in the soil or the climate, or in the institutions of the land, Avhere can the fault be, for it must be somewhere ? I invite every one in this audience, whatever may have been his political convictions before, to give me an antAver if he can. The ansAver I give is this, and it seems to me to be manifest that there can be no answer but this : If the fault is not to be found in the institutions, or the soil, or the climate, then the evil must be in the economic policy ofthe Government. A Voice — That's the root of the matter. Honorable Mr. Laurier— That is THE ROOT OF THE EVIL INDEED. I will not be so dishonest as to say that the economic policy of the Government, the national policy, is the 448 SPEECH sole and whole cause of the evil from which we suffer. Sir, I am a Liberal and a Reformer, and I claim to speak ahvays honestly to my felloAV-countrymen, to tell the truth, even when it may not be wholly pala table. I claim this merit— that I speak my own con victions. I do not lay the whole blame upon the national policy, but I charge this upon the Govern ment of the land — I arraign them for this — that they promised, ten years ago, to remove the evil and they have not removed it ; but, on the contrary, their policy has intensified it. Ten years ago, Mr. Chair man, you were quite a young man, but, coming from such a good stock as you do, I am sure you took an active part in politics even then. You remember Avhat took place in those days. It Avas in the last days of the administration of Mr. Mackenzie. You remem ber that, everywhere where there was a stump large enough to hold two feet, there you found a Conserva tive orator preaching that Mr. Mackenzie and his colleagues were flies on the wheel and good for no thing; that if they had a little of the brains ofthe other side they would have devised a plan which would have cured the country of the evil from which it Avas suffering. We were suffering from a severe depression in trade. Mr. Mackenzie told you, Sir Richard Cartwright told you, they could not make Canada right by Act of Parliament, and if ever two men were vindicated they have been vindicated by Avhat has taken place since. But, Sir, the Conserva tive orators who stumped the province of Ontario at that time told you that Sir John Macdonald had A MAGIC WAND IN HIS HAND, and that by simply waving it there would spring from ground the manufactories that would cover Ontario and give work to our sons who were seeking work on the other side of the line. Allow me to recall on this occasion the words that were then spoken. Sir John spoke in many places in that year, but the burden of AT OAKVILLE IN 1888 449 his song was the same everyAvhere, and you may imagine what it was by some words he spoke not very fat from here, at Parkdale. He said : — Here we are, not only suffering depression in every trade and industry, but our people are leaving the country to seek employment in the mills and manufactories of the United States. Was it not a crying shame that though this country had a fertile soil, a healthy climate, a strong and well-educated people and good laws, 500,000 of our own people should have crossed our borders in those years and taken up their abode in the United States because they could not find employment here for their skill and energy and- enterprise in consequence of the false policy of our rulers? The Conservative press tell us there is no exodus. But in those days Sir John admitted that there was an exodus, and he said it Avas a crime and a shame. Well, Sir, I ask : If it was a crying shame in those days that there should be five hundred thousand of our fellow-countrymen on the other side of the line seeking employment, what shall we say of the men who pretended they could cure that evil, and have brought the number up, not merely to five hundred thousand, but to a round million ? But, Sir. I do not want to be hard on Sir John or his friends. It is better to be generous Avhen you have them at your mercy. We have the advantage over him now. We can meet him with his own Avords. And, after all, perhaps he believed that he could, indeed, with the National Policy, which he was about to put on the statute book, provide a remedy for you. _ For, you know, there have been such instances in history — instances of men who, by stating a false proposition and repeating it, AT LAST CONVINCED THEMSELVES that it was true. You remember the story of old George the Fourth. He was fond of donning mili tary clothes, though he never smelt the powder of the 29 450 SPEECH field of battle. After the battle of Waterloo, he com menced to say that he Avas present,and he kept repeat ing it until at last he convinced himself that it was true. And not only did he convince himself that he was at the battle of Waterloo, but he gave examples of his dashing conduct wdiile there. On one occasion he put the Duke of Wellington in a very awkward predicament. The King spoke to a person on one occasion of having been at the battle, and the person to whom he related the story did not seem wholly convinced of the truth of it. So the King turned for confirmation of his statement to the Duke of Wel lington and said : " Is it not true, Arthur, that I was present at the battle of Waterloo ? " But the great Duke was equal to the occasion. He did not either admit or deny the King's statement, but answered : " I have often heard Your Majesty say so. " Or you do not know, perhaps, the story of the theological student who Avas fond of argument. One day, while walking Avith a fellow student, he wanted to have an argument on Christianity and infidelity. " What is the use of attempting that ? " said his friend, " for we are agreed on that point, we are both Christians." But he still insisted and told his friend to argue for Christ ianity, while he himself would argue for infidelity. And so he commenced to argue and he argued so well that he argued himself into infidelity. Well, I Avon't say that Sir John Macdonald wanted to humbug any body, but IF HE DID HUMBUG ANYBODY into the belief that he could cure the emigration evil by the National Policy, I believe, in all charity, he began by humbugging himself. Now ten years have passed since that day, and I ask of all those who in those days believed indeed that the Liberals were flies on the wheel, what has been the result of the National Policy ? Men believed that Sir John could indeed create prosperity by act of Parliament in the AT OAKVILLE IN 1888 451 form of a policy of protection. We had an example a year or so afterwards, in 1880. One of his staunch followers, Mr. Rufus Stephenson, Avho was member for Kent and who is now — Avell I don't know Avhat he is now, but at the last report he Avas drawing $5,000 a year out of the Canadian exchequer for inspecting colonization companies in the North-West that do not exist, — Mr. Rufus Stephenson said in 1880, speak ing somewhere in Western Canada: " I am going to vote for the Government that has raised the price of wheat from 75 cents a bushel to $1.40." Well, as I said a moment ago, Mr. Stephenson is no longer in the political arena. If he was we might ask him : — Are your friends flies on the wheel ? They raised the price of wheat at one time, it appears, from 75 cents to $1.40. Why don't they exert their power to-day ? Why don't they bring up the price of wheat again ? This is the reduction ad absurdum which shows the hollowness of the pretensions and promises which were made to you ten years ago. I blame no one, Mr. Chairman, for having believed those promises. But, as I blame no one for having believed them, he would be entitled to blame who, upon this occasion, would not rise superior to party claims, and express the opi nion which must be in his breast,that their policy has been a failure and we must have a new departure. Sir, what must be the new departure? Sir Richard Cartwright indicated it during last session._ We have tried, the policy of restriction and it has failed, let us try the policy of expansion. The policy propounded by Sir Richard Castwright is that Ave should have unrestricted reciprocity with the sixty .millions of men on the other side of the line. That policy is that we should open as wide as we can open all the avenues of trade between the tAvo nations. Sir, EXPERIENCE IS THE VriST OF ALL THEORY. When we tried the National Pplicy ten years ago we had no experience, and some might assume that 452 SPEECH these prophecies then made would prove true. But we have tried it for ten years and we have found it wanting. Not so, however, with reciprocity. We know what reciprocity can do, for we know what re ciprocity has done in the past. We have had reci procity before, not unrestricted but restricted reci procity, confined only to natural products. And there is not one man in this audience who will not admit that the twelve years of the Reciprocity Treaty were the golden era of the Canadian farmer. Well, what restricted reciprocity did in the past it can do now. It is true that you are told that reciprocity, confined as it was to some natural products, made better times, and what it did before it must do to-day. Remember Avhat you Avere told ten years ago. Ten years ago you were told that the National Policy would give you a local market ; that there would be in the midst of you manufactories Avith thousands of artisans who would consume everything that would be grown by farmers ; that the farmers would sell dear everything they had to sell, and buy cheap everything they had to buy. We had then two cities exceeding each ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND POPULATION — Montreal and Toronto — and we have yet only two cities of over one hundred thousand population. On the other side, you have, in the Northern States alone, twelve cities of population exceeding one hundred thousand and comprising in all a population of four millions. There is your local market. You were told by the National Policy men that reciprocity would be of no benefit to the farmers, because they would have to compete with the American farmers in their own market, and they produce the same things that our farmers do. That is true ; they do produce tbe same things, and the argument can be met in many ways. But I have better than argument to offer you. I did not come here — it may be presumptious in me to say it, but I make it a rule to speak my own mind— AT OAKVILLE IN 1888 453 to address my fellow- Liberals. It is the Conserva tives I Avant to address. If they would take it without offence, I would say it is the sinners I want to con vert. As I want to address myself to the sinners, I will give them an authority that to them will be more than the laAv and the prophets. I will give them the words of the great apostle himself, Sir John Mac donald, and they will be obdurate indeed if they find objection to Avhat he says. In 1860, we were on the eve of an election. Sir John went around Ontario and spoke in many places. Here is something that he said at Hamilton. These are his very words, and I commend then to my fellow countrymen of the Con servative persuasion : — One great cause of the prosperity of the farmer in Upper Canada is the Reciprocity Treaty and the consequent inter change of agricultural commodities and raw materials. lie has found a market where there was none at all before for him. These are pretty conclusive words. We hear it said now by some disciples of Sir John that recipro city Avould be a bad thing because we produce the same kind of goods that are produced on the other side ofthe line. I want you to answer them WITH THESE WORDS OF SIR JOHN. Again, speaking at the other end of the province, at Caledonia, he said the same year : — If there is one measure of late date which benefits the country more than another it is the Reciprocity Treaty negot iated indeed by the Hincks Government, but perfected under Sir Allan's. You know that whereas wheat used to pay 20 cents a bushel to enter the frontiers of the. United States, it now goes in free, and every farmer here is 20 cents a bushel richer for that measure. Instead of being kept out of the United States, and being obliged to go to Montreal to sell his produce, he has now the choice of two markets — he has two strings to his bow — no Collector of Customs stands between him and the 454 SPEECH New England manufacturer or between him and the British consumer. Who says that ? Not The Globe. Sir John himself says that. Instead of being kept out of the United States and being obliged to go to Montreal to sell his produce, as it is now, the Canadian farmer has the choice of two markets. He has tAvo strings to his bow. No Customs officer stands betAveen him and the NeAv England manufacturer and the British consumer. That is the very policy to which we Avish to revert. That Avas the policy that tAventy years ago made the farmer twenty cents richer upon every bushel he had to sell. That language is eloquent enough, but there is something still more eloquent — the figures of the trade which Avas done under the Reciprocity Treaty. In 1853, as you knoAv, our trade with the United States — that was before the treaty — Avas only $21,000,000. In 1866, the last year of the treaty, that trade had increased to $84,000,000, an increase of $63,000,000. Certainly nothing could be more eloquent than these figures. They show one thing more. They show that the treaty was advantageous not only to the Canadians, but also to our American neighbours. It Avas, as every bargain should be, MUTUALLY ADA^ANTAGEOUS. Still the treaty was repealed, much to the regret of the Canadian people It was repealed by our neigh bours to the south, and for Avhat reason ? Not because it Avas not advantageous ; there was not a public man in the United States who ever pretended that the treaty was not advantageous to the American people. But it was repealed, I am sorry to say, from political reasons, on account ofthe unfriendly tone of Great Britain and Canada too, at the time of the great struggle which the Americans had to wage for the preservation of their national unity. It was Avhenthe great democratic nation to the south of us Avas AT 0AKATILLE IN 1888 455 fighting for the abolition of slavery, for human rights, for the preservation of a great people. They never had any friendly response from the neighboring nation. I do not blame very much the people of my own race, for they do not conceive of liberty as people ofthe Anglo-Saxon race do. But if Great Britain is entitled to the reproach, Canada is entitled to it as well. Amongst the public men of Great Britain of that time only two, Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden, openly advocated the cause ofthe North. And among the public men in Canada of that day only one openly championed the cause ofthe North, and that Avas George BroAvn. It is told among the traditions ofthe House of Commons that when upon a certain occasion the North had been defeated in a great battle there were cheers from the Conservative benches in the House of Assembly. The American people resented that course on the part of Canadians and said, if these people will not stand by us in our struggles we will not trade with them. But, Sir, better days have come since that time. Blood is thicker than Avater, and it is English blood that flows on the other side of the line ; and now these feelings of asperity have disappeared, and there are to-day in the United States men who are ready to welcome Canadians to trade with the Americans upon even terms. We have in Congress, Mr. Hitt, Mr. Butter worth, Senator Sherman and Secretary Bayard. All those men have time and again said that they are ready to trade with us on even terms and to remove these customs officers Avho take so much, as Sir John Macdonald says, from the Canadian farmer. Why is it that our Government— Avhy is it that the Government of Sir John do not give the answer to those questions ? Why do they not adopt the policy suggested by Sir Richard Cartwright — the policy of unrestricted reciprocity ? They have given the reason more than once, and the reason they have given is this : That unrestricted reciprocity would not be 456 SPEECH FAVORABLE TO THE MANUFACTURER. Now, as you are no doubt aware, a treaty of unre stricted reciprocity would include natural products, and according to the language of Sir John, which I have quoted, that would be to the advantage of the farmers. But at the same time they say that while this policy Avould be to the advantage of the farmers it Avould be injurious to the manufacturer. Very well, I take issue upon that ground with them. If that policy which we propose, if the policy of unrestricted reciprocity Avould not be equally favorable to the manufacturer and the farmer, if a choice has to be made betAveen the manufacturer on the one hand and the farmer on the other, my choice is made. I have stated it elsewhere and I will state it again. My choice is made, and I stand with the more numerous class, wdth the farmers, Avith that class which numbers at least seventy-five per cent, of our own people. But, at the same time, I do not admit at all that the policy which we propose would be injurious to the manu facturers. We have some manufactures to-day. Why have Ave not more ? The reason is obvious : AVE HAVE NOT A MARKET for those Avhich exist already. You are told that it would be injurious to the manufacturer that the policy of expansion Avhich Ave recommend should be adopted. lam not a manufacturer ; but I can see, as any man of common sense can see, that the greatest possible obstacle to the success of manufactures is the lack of markets. You have some manufactures in Canada to-day — 1ioav many of them are working at their ca pacity ? What we want, Mr. Chairman, is a market not only for the farmers, but for the manufacturers as well. There are Avealthy manufacturers AATho under stand this and who Avill some time or other give their views to the Canadian public ; therefore I say when the Government allege that reciprocity would AT OAKVILLE IN 1888 457 injure manufactures, they do not know the vieAvs of manufacturers ; more than that, the Government do not know their own minds. This is pretty loud talking, you Avill say. Well, I know whereof I speak when I say that the Government upon this question of unrestricted reciprocity do not know their own minds. We had an illustration of this truth last ses sion. We have upon our statute book Avhat is knoAAm as a statutory offer, Avhereby Ave said to the Americans that whenever they Avould put upon the free list cer tain articles exported by us we would do the same with the same articles Avhen exported by them an dim- ported into Canada. Well, the Americans some time ago put upon the free list certain articles included in that statutory offer, namely, fruits and seeds. Our Government last year Avere asked Avhy they did not respond to this action of the American Government and put fruits and seeds upon our free list also. Sir John's answer to Sir Richard CartAvright and to Mr. Mitchell was that those articles would not be put on the free list because such a policy would injure the Canadian seedsmen and fruit-growers. He said : I repudiate the. statement that it is any breach of faith on the part of Canadian Government ; and further, Mr. Speaker, I say that there have been representations made on behalf of the American seedsmen desiring that this should be carried out ; but we know there are seedsmen in Canada also, and we have to consider their interests as well as those of American seedsmen, and in the interests of Canadian seedsmen we have not put seeds upon the free list. Mr. Thompson, the Minister of Justice, Avent further and said that in his judgment it Avould be treason to put those articles on the free list. But Avhat followed ? After such statements had been made on the floor of the House, FIFTEEN DAYS HAD NOT PASSED when Sir John put upon the free list fruits and seeds, 458 SPEECH although there were Canadian seedsmen upon this side ofthe line. Well, Sir, when we found such a change between the words ofthe Government and their action, Sir Richard Cartwright and Mr. Mitchell took the Government to task and asked them what were the reasons Avhich induced them to change their policy. Well, there Avas a scene in the House. Sir Richard Cartwright tried hi3 best to get an answer from the Government, but never an answer could be got. Is it too much to say, then, that they do not know their own mind on this question ? I hope, if Ave cannot get reciprocity in bulk, that we may get it piecemeal and in detail. But this agitation Avhich Ave have com menced, I am glad to say, has already produced very remarkable fruits. It has made the National Policy men very loyal, very loyal indeed. Well, I never thought it very loyal to England to adopt the National Policy, which Avas calculated to exclude British manufactures from our own territory. But I speak my own mind upon this also. I do not blame the Conservatives for having acted that Avay. I believe that loyalty, like charity, begins at home and if they believed that it Avas in the interest of Canadians generally that the National Policy should be put upon the statute book, they did right to act as they did. But now they need not be so very sensitive, after having acted towards England as they did. But I know something of them. I read the prints of Ontario and I know that eVery day these people weep tears because they feel that if unrestricted reciprocity is adopted it must lead us into annexation. Well, I have only this to say : It is a great argument in favor of unrestricted recipro city, because, if it means anything at all, it means that the change will be so advantageous to the people that they will want to go into the still closer union Avith the United States. But I have this to say to the National Policy men: IF THEY AVILL ANSAVER FOR THEMSELVES, I will ansAver for the Reformers, and the Grits. If AT OAKVILLE IN 1888 459 they will answer for their allegiance I will answer for it that there is not a Grit who will be seduced from his allegiance to the Queen by any Yankee blandish ments that Ave can have. Well, as they started upon the loyalty line, they could not but carry it to extra ordinary length. You know it never rains, but it pours. The moment they struck the line of loyalty they became very, very loyal. They Avant to have no reciprocity Avith the United States, the great nation to the south of us, for fear Ave might be seduced from our allegiance to the country. But they are ready, they say, for reciprocity with Great Britain. I have only this to say. I say it openly ; I say it upon my oavii responsibility, and I believe I can speak as well for the Liberal party ; if reciprocity with Great Britain is practicable, I am in favor of it. But Britain is 3,000 miles aAvay, and the Americans are just to the south of us. They are our near neighbors, there is not a natural barrier between us. If Britain Avere where the United States is, I Avould go at once for reciprocity with Great Britain. But, Sir, it is very well to be sentimental, but, after all, sentiment is not business. If I go to one of these National Policy men and Avant to buy a dollar's worth of cotton and tell him I am one of his fellow-subjects, that I believe in the National Policy, that I am a loyal subject, that I am bursting with loyal sentiment and ask him if he Avill take that for his pay, HE WILL REFUSE ME. But if I offer him a Yankee dollar, he will take it just as readily as British cash. Therefore it is not enough to talk sentiment. We must talk business. The United States is just at the end of my hand. Moreover, Ave have the same tariff as it Avere; Avehave a protective tariff and for many years to come ^ we must have a high tariff. Great Britain has a Free Trade tariff. What can we offer Great Britain m exchange if Ave Avant to have reciprocity ? We have 460 SPEECH heard the statement made in the House by Mr. Mc Carthy and others that perhaps Great Britain might resort to protection, might tax foreign products and exempt Canada. Well, if this were offered, I say I am ready for it. If Ave can persuade the English people to put import taxes upon the productions of every other country but Canada, and to admit the products of Canada free, I am in favor of that. But I am afraid it will take some years before we can persuade the British workman to tax his bread, even to oblige his Canadian brother. But I Avill not dismiss that idea altogether. I will tell you what I believe. I do not believe it fo be impossible that there should be a closer political union between Great Britain and Canada. I do not believe it to be impossible that there should be a commercial alliance betAveen all the Anglo-Saxon nations. We know that the Anglo- Saxon race is the great commercial race of the Avorld. It has taken possession of the North American con tinent ; it has taken possession of Australia, of large portions of Africa, of many of the islands ofthe Pacific. I believe a time will come when those British com munities will find it to their advantage to have amongst them universal Free Trade. I do not discuss that as a practical issue, but it is possible, and it is desirable; it Avould be better not only for those coun tries, but for the Avhole human race. And I say that if anything is calculated to bring about that result, it is the establishment of intimate commercial relations betAveen the great English speaking peoples of this continent. I BELIEVE IN CONFEDERATION. I believe it has removed many of the troubles which grew up between Upper and LoAver Canada. I believe that whatever a man's origin may be,he has the right to say that he is a Canadian above all things. Now, to all those who oppose unrestricted red- AT OAKVILLE IN 1888 461 procity, because they believe it would lead to annexa tion, I say, have some faith in human nature, have some faith in the better instincts ofthe human heart, trust the people, don't believe that evil will spring from good, that wrong will spring from right. Believe on the contrary that right will produce right. Trust the people of this country. If you believe the prin ciple of unrestricted reciprocity is wrong, fight it, it is your duty. But, if you believe it is right, do not oppose it for fear it should produce evil. I say again, have faith in the people. Remember the struggles we had for responsible government fifty years ago. There were men in those days who believed that responsi ble government would mean the end of British con nec tion on this continent. But there was a man who had no such fear, and that man was Lord Elgin. He carried out his ideas to the end. He left nothing undone that could be done. The result has been, not what was anticipated by these men, but the result his been to link Canada more closely to Great Britain. In the same manner, I say, let us repeat the same experience. Lord Elgin did more. There was at the time a powerful annexation agitation. These men who afterwards claimed to be so loyal, the Tories of the Tories, were signing annexation manifestoes. What did Lord Elgin do ? Did he attempt to prevent intercourse between the United States and Canada ? On the contrary he opened wide the doors to trade between the two countries, and the result was that the annexation agitation disappeared like a cloud before the sun. I anticipate the same result. I anti cipate that the movement which we inaugurate to-day and which will triumph as sure as day succeeds to night, instead of being a danger to Confederation, will be the means of bringing us nearer the goal, which we started out twenty-one years ago to reach. Speaking as I do now, I beg to repeat that I do not address myself to the Liberals only. I address myself 462 SPEECH AT OAKVILLE IN 1888 TO THE CONSERA'ATIVES AS WELL. I want them to Donder over these facts, and if they can do so, to influence Sir John Macdonald and his Government to take up the movement. I pledge my self that Ave will give them all the help we can. I am very sure it will be hard to convince the Conserva tive Government of to-day. But Ave know, Sir Richard Cartwright, who is the father ofthe movement, knows that no great reform has been carried without a fear ful struggle. We knoAv that no great reform has been carried without struggles, Avithout defeats. We are prepared for those struggles. When Sir Richard CartAvright proposed his resolution last session he knew that it would be defeated. He will renew it next session, and he knows it will be defeated then ; he will renew it the session after that, and he knoAvs it will be de feated ; he Avill renew it again and again, but in the meantime there will be a general election, and we believe the result of that election will be the return of a majority, whether Conservatives or Reforrfiers, pledged to support a treaty of unrestricted recipro city betAveen Canada and the United States. This is the policy which we have to place before the people. There are other issues, there are other questions, but every other question must take a back seat and leave the first place to unrestricted reciprocity. This is theory. This is the reform which we press not only upon the people of Ontario, but especially upon the people of Halton, with the hope that the people of Halton Avill give no uncertain answer, but such an answer as will be a victory for the principles of the Liberal party. REJECTION OF THE TREATY BY THE SENATE AT WASHINGTON PRESIDENT CLEVELAND'S MESSAGE AVHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THREAT OF RETALIATION ? The following extract from the speech delivered at St. Thomas (Ont.) on the 27th August, 1888, sums up in a few words the Liberal leader's opinion on the fisheries' question, as it presented itself, after the complete check received by the negotiations, which had dragged their slow and difficult length throughout the preceding winter. Exceptional importance was given to these declarations by the way in which the Tory press denounced Mr. Laurier as the greatest traitor in the country, because he had dared to trace up to the Canadian Government the original responsibility for all the unfortunate complications : The American Senate has refused to ratify the treaty negociated between the American and British plenipotentiaries in Washington in last December for the settlement of the disputes betAveen the two coun tries arising out of the treaty of 1818. By the fact that the treaty is rejected, the whole question is re- 464 SPEECH opened anew, the whole dispute is coming back to the surface, all the bitterness is again coming to the front, is again revived. President Cleveland, acting upon what he conceived to be the duty imposed upon him by the American Senate, asks poAver to retaliate by suspending the bonding system. This would be a very serious event, which, if it came, would strike the city of St. Thomas as much and perhaps more than any other portion of the Dominion, because it is made AA'hat it is largely by the lines of railway which come here from the United States. But after all we are men and British men. We shall not whine even if the American people deem it advisable — I do not say their duty — to take such a course, such an unfriendly course. No doubt some parties will suffer in Canada, but no doubt, like British men, it is our duty to find elseAvhere what we Avould'lose. The president only asks to retaliate. Why retaliate ? Why, sir, because in his judgement he would be compelled to do so by the unfriendly action of the Canadian Government. If we are met with this state of things with which we are threatened, it is due to the vicious policy of the Canadian Government in the administration of the rights secured to us by the treaty of 1818. If the Canadian Government had followed a more friendly course,there would not have been an unfriendly feeling to-day. The United States would never have con tested those rights, if the rights had been asserted in a friendly manner. It was not so. Those rights had been asserted in a harsh manner. Time and again in the year 1885 American, fishermen were arrested for trivial offences. Nothing, sir, could be more offensive to those people when they came to the British port and found themselves arrested, their vessels detained for the simple violation of Customs laws, which, in all pro bability, they did not know. It is no wonder that their hearts were bitter and that they made complaint at Washington. If, on the contrary, the Canadian Government had administered our laws as they con- AT ST. THOMAS (ONT.) 465 ceived them under the treaty, in a friendly manner, there could not have taken place what has taken place. We are threatened with the possibility 1hat our carrying trade may be taken aAvay from us, and Ave hear the Ministerial press from one end of the country to the. other in a frantic passion on account of the action taken by the American Government. They say it is a loss. If the carrying trade is such a loss to the country, if the carrying trade is such an advantage to the country, is not that a most potent argument that the mo3t unrestricted reciprocity of trade would be of very great advantage to the country ? If the country gained so much by simply carrying goods from one part ofthe United States to another or from one part of the United States to Canada, Avhat Avould not be the gain to the country if we could be admitted without obstruction to the American trade? Sir, I say this — and this is a fact to which I call the attention of my fellow- countrymen to-day — it is high time we should reverse the policy we have been folloAving towards the United States for the past 25 years. For the past 25 years it has not been altogether hostile to the United States, but it has never been altogether friendly. It has not been such as to bind us to those on the other side of the line, who speak the same language'and have the same ability with us. When they were in the great struggle which they had to undergo some twenty years ago, to preserve the unity ofthe nation, when they were engaged in that most expensive war which lasted four years and which taxed all their energies and courage andAvhich cost them millions of lives, vvhat sympathy did they receive from their brothers in England or in Canada ? Not the slightest. Sir, I am ashamed to say for my country, for the civilization of the world, when the Americans were engaged in such a struggle this civil ized world did not rise to sustain them Avith the hand of friendship. Of those Avho favored the cause of the North and championed that of freedom, in England 30 466 SPEECH the names of John Bright and Richard Cobden were about tie only names in that day, ever in the fore most ranks of civilization and freedom, openly to de clare for freedom, and in this country among the public men of that day there was one man and only one man who was ahvays foremost in the ranks of freedom, who openly declared his sympathy Avith the North — George Brown. Is it any wonder, then, wheii this is all the sympathy they met with — that Avhen the victories of the South were reported there Avas sym pathy throughout the country, and even as I am told in the Legislature of Canada is it any . wonder that these men's hearts were embittered, and when they came to this treaty they said :" We will no longer have those trade relations" ? Did Ave at that time enter into anything like friendly relations Avith them ? Sir, I remember again in the days of 1878 we adopted another policy, the braggadocio policy. We Avere told by Sir Charles Tupper that the Government Avould find the Avay to compel the Yankees to grant reciprocity. What did Sir Charles Tupper say in Nova Scotia and New BrunsAvick and in the House of Commons ? He said that we would compel the United States to give us reciprocity. Canada is the land of my birth, of my love; Canada is the land of my heart, and it is enough for me. But it is not equal to the United States in extent ; it has not even five million people and the Americans have a population of sixty millions ; and to say, as was said by the Conservative leaders at that time, that we could compel that great nation to come down to their knees and to force them to give us what they have not been willing to give us so far, was simply the greatest piece of braggadocio that has been enacted within my lifetime. Again what took place? We had disputes with them on that treaty of 1818 with regard to the fisheries. Instead of adopting a friendly attitude, the Government did everything to annoy them. Is it any wonder, then, that they have been refusing to maintain those friendly relations which AT ST. THOMAS (ONT.) 467 would be to their interests and our interests ? Again, I say it is high time we reversed our policy toAvards the United States. After all, blood is thicker than water. Those who live on the other side of the line come from the British Isles, as most of us do. Those who live on the other side of the line have the same literature and the same language. The time has come when there should be closer relations. Let us remain as we are politically, but let us agree that it Avould be for their benefit and for our benefit that there should be no Customs laws, but that Ave should exchange our produce from one side of the line to the other. This is the policy of the Liberal party. For my part, I believe that we look no longer on them Avith jealousy, that we are glad of their success, that Ave are sincere friends and brothers, and that we would have no difficulty in arriving at the object \ye have in vieAV. CANADA'S COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE WITH THE UNITED STATES COMPLETE VIEW OF THE WHOLE QUESTION (HOUSE OF COMMONS) Sitting of 26th February, 1889 Mr. Speaker, I noAV rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the question of the Fisheries, and to the position in which the relations between Canada and the United States stand with reference to this question. I submit at once, and it is a proposition to which no dissent will, I am sure, be offered, that there is not at this moment a more important ques tion to Canada ; and I submit at once also, that it is urgent that upon this question the Government and Parliament should speak promptly and with no uncertain sound. The only reference made to this subject by the Government at all since the opening ofthe session was the paragraph contained in His Excellency's Speech to the effect that since the Wash ington Treaty had not been ratified by the American 470 SPEECH Senate, nothing remained for Canada to do but to continue to exercise her rights as prescribed by THE CONVENTION OF 1818, until some satisfactory adjustment Avas arrived at by treaty between the two nations. In the early days of the session, the honorable gentleman who represents the counties of Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Ives) gave notice of a motion which Avas intimately connected with that subject. One Avould have expected that the Government would have availed themselves of the opportunity thus afforded them, to expose fully and minutely to the House the course they intended to follow and the policy at which they had arrived. But, Avhen this motion was called, it was postponed once, twice, three times, four times and five times, and every time at the request of the Government. A few days later, when my honorable friend from Queen's, Prince Edward Island, (Mr. Davies), put the question to the Government whether they intended to con tinue or not the modus vivendi, the answer he received was the convenient, ever at hand, always serviceable answer : ''under consideration ." It must then have become evident to every man in the House that the Government, upon this question, had no policy to offer, that they hold, as they have held of yore upon that and many other questions, an irresolute, vacillat ing, halting and hesitating policy ,-and that they will continue such policy until the time for deliberation will be passed, until the time for action will wellnigh have passed away, until eArery action, even if taken in the right direction, will be taken too late and prob ably remain barren of result, powerless, perhaps, to repair the possibly irreparable injuries that may have been done in the meantime. Under such circum stances, when the Government refuse to rise equal to the duty of the hour, when they refuse to discharge the duties which are incumbent upon them, it becomes ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 471 THE DUTY OF THE OPPOSITION to come to the front, to clear the way, and to show t he Government what is the duty of the hour and what is the course which should be followed in the inter est of the country at large. Were this a purely do mestic question, the temptation Avould be great, per haps^ to fold our arms and to wait and profit by the ever-increasing embarrassement of the Government ; hut the issues are too great, the consequences are of too serious a character, and it is better, by far, to set aside all party tactics. Sir John A. Macdonald:— Hear, hear! Mr. Laurier :— Yes, better by far to lose all party advantage and to point out at once where the wrong is and where possibly may be obtained the remedy. What is the situation ? At this moment there is an Act, which is the law of the neighboring republic, whereby at any moment the President of the United States is authorized to close to our ships all entry to American ports, nay, more, to prevent importations into the United States of any goods coming from Canada; and when we consider the fact that the ex ports last year of goods from Canada to the United States exceeded the sum of forty million dollars, Ave have the evidence at once of the magnitude of the possible evils which may await Canada, should such a policy be put in force. This is the situation as it now exists. Here are the tAvo principal offsprings of that great mother of nations, England, standing side by side, with every inducement of blood, of common origin and of a common history extending back into ages, to stand together on terms of the most intimate friendship, yet with their relations having reached such a degree of bitterness and hostility that at any moment we may have commercial war. A few days ago, in another debate, the opinion was quoted of an honorable gentleman who occupies a very high rank in the estimation of his party and country, Sir Charles Tupper, to the effect that the line is very thin which separates 472 SPEECH COMMERCIAL AVAR FROM ACTUAL AVAR. His words may again be quoted as perfectly appli cable to our present position. He said : — We stood face to face Avith a bill providing for non-inter course between the United States and Canada. I need not tell you that that bill meant commercial war. I need not tell you that it meant not only the ordinary suspension of friendly feeling and intercourse between the two countries, but that it involved much more. If that bill had been brought into ope ration by a proclamation of the President of the United States, I have no hesitation in saying that Ave stood in relation to that great country of commercial war, and the line is very narrow which separates commercial war between the two ^countries from actual war. Still, even not going so far as Sir Charles Tupper Went on that occasion, the fact remains that the situa tion, even if it means nothing else than commercial Avar, is a most deplorable one. Well, for that situa tion I say that the Government of Canada is largely responsible. I do not say solely, but I say largely responsible. Justice and fairness compel me to say, and I say it frankly, that in many things the Gov ernment of the United States, in their conduct towards Canada, were as blameable as the Government of Canada Avere towards the United States. If I were an American and stood on the floor of Congress, I Avould deem it my duty to say to the American peo ple how, where, and when their conduct has been wanting towards Canada in fairness and generosity. But I am a Canadian, and I stand here on the floor of Parliament,- and I deem it my duty to show to the Government where they have erred, where they have committed wrong, and where in my estimation it is possible to undo the wrong Avhich has been done. Sir, on this side of the House Ave are of the opinion that, from the moment the American colonies severed their connection with the mother land, the most satisfactory relations that ever existed betAveen the mother land ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 473 and the new republic, and between that republic and Canada, were the relations Avhich were created by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. This is our belief, and upon that belief we act. We have made it AN ARTICLE OF OUR PROGRAMME to obtain, if possible, not merely a restoration, but an enlargement of that treaty. We have made it an article of our programme to convince, if possible, the two nations that it would be for their mutual benefit to restore and to enlarge the provisions of that treaty. There was a time not yet far distant, Avhen to a large extent the Conservative party held the same views. They made those very vieAvs the basis of that system which since, by a strange misnomer, has been called the National Policy. The resolution introduced by the right honorable gentlemen, at that time sitting on this side of the House, which has been the gospel of the new doctrine, which has been more than the law and the prophets to his party, has been often quoted to this House, and I might be dispensed from quoting it again, but the memory of honorable gen tlemen on that side ofthe House is so short, so defec tive, so deceptive, and so treacherous, that it may be an act of charity again to quote that motion, and to show them the downward career they have folloAved ever since. The motion, after reciting all the benefits which were to follow from the adoption ofthe vague, indistinct policy which was called the National Policy in those days, went on in the following language:— And moving as it ought to do in the direction of a reci procity of tariffs with our neighbors, so far as the varied inte rests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for this country eventually reciprocity of trade. That was the aim— a reciprocity of trade— and what is the result ? Non.intercourse and a commercial war. Well, we believe that, as far as the honorable 474 SPEECH gentleman meant to have reciprocity of trade, he could not have adopted a worse policy than the policy Avhich he adopted to aclrieve the end he had in view. Be this a3 it may, Ave on this side of the House still believe that THE GOLDEN ERA of the commerce of Canada was the tAvelve years of the Reciprocity Treaty. It was not so only on account of the material prosperity which it assured to the people of Canada, but the treaty was also connected with other advantages, the importance of which no one can deny. First of all, it set at rest, for the time being, that ever vexing question ofthe fisheries. Then it tended to create and cement a grOAving amity betAveen the tAvo peoples. It is the individual expe rience, and it is the national experience as well, that amity will ever follow in the path of mutually advan tageous trade relations ; but, unfortunately, the grow ing amity, consequent upon that treaty, received a rude shock at the time of the civil war in the United States. It is a matter of history that, in that great struggle, Avhen the existence of the republic was trembling in the scales of destiny, the sympathies of the Government of Canada, and of a large number of the people of Canada, were not on the side which fought for right, and which eventually triumphed. In this, however, the Government of Canada were not more remiss than the rest of the civilized world, because, in that great struggle between freedom and slavery, the heart of the civilized world did not beat in favor of the side which was in favor of freedom. Even England, which had only a few years before abolished slavery in her own dominions, abetted the cause of slavery by covert acts, as far as possible, though not by overt acts. It was not that England sympathized with slavery, or did anything but hold it in abhorrence, but there was something which Eng land, or at least the governing class of England, ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 475 dreaded still more than slavery, and that Avas the democratic institutions of which the republic was the embodiment, and which were then on trial. Times move fast in our day. The England of 1889 is no longer the England of 1861. To-day, England is ALMOST A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY. We have recently seen a scion of the English aristo cracy attempting to organize a Tory Democracy. Who, in 1861, would have imagined it possible to see those two words combined ? In that respect, the En gland of 1861 was very much the same as the England of 1775, and the state of feeling in that country in 1775, which led to the rebellion of the American colonies, is spoken of by Mr. Green as follows, in his 'History ofthe English people." Speaking of the tyrannical and despotic measures of the English Government, which finally drove the colonies into rebellion, he says : And behind all these grievances lay an uneasy sense of dread at the democratic form which the government and society of the colonies had taken. The Governors sent from England wrote back words of honest surprise and terror at the levelling principles of the men about them. To statesmen at home the temper of the Colonial Legislatures,their protests, their bickerings with the Governors and with the Board of Trade, their constant refusal of supplies when their remon strances were set aside,seemed all but republican. Those feelings which actuated the English Gov ernment and the English Parliament in 1775 were the ' feelings which actuated the governing classes of England in 1861. It was the same thing with the rest of the civilized world. A French writer said in the early part of this century, referring to the Ame rican republic : "just let that child grow out of her swaddling clothes. " He prophecied that, before she reached maturity, she would be rent asunder by fac tions, and, when the rebellion broke out, the secret 476 SPEECH of the sympathy manifested throughout the civilized world for the South Avas that there Avas a secret hope that the republic would be so rent as to go out of exist ence, and that the fragments Avould .be held as a warning that purely democratic institutions could not be permanently embodied in a government. I can understand that being the feeling in European society, but I am at a loss to understand how it Avas that Canada, which in that day, as noAV, was a purely democratic country, did not throAV its whole sympathy into the cause for which the North was then fighting. Not that Ave could do anything to help it. The North could fight its own battles. But if Ave had shown anything like sympathy with the supporters ofthe American Union in their struggles Avith rebellion, they Avould have given us their friendship in return, as they have always been ready to do to those who sympathized with them. But, finding A HOSTILE PEOPLE ON THEIR BORDER, the first thing they did, when they had the opportu nity, Avas to cut us off from the reciprocal trade rela tions which Ave had with them. This is the first fault which, I think, has been committed by the Govern ment of Canada in our relations Avith our neighbors. With the abolition of the treatry all the old quarrels, all the old difficulties in regard to the fisheries, Avere renewed. An occasion, ruuvever, soon arose which put into the hands of the Government of Canada an opportunity, to some extent, of restoring the facilities of trade between the two nations, and good fellowship at the same time. The close of the war had left many difficulties to be settled betAveen England and the United States, and at last, as we all know, commission ers were appointed to settle those difficulties, and amongst the commissioners was one selected from Canada, the right honorable gentleman himself. Well, the Fishery question was one ofthe first and most important that the commission had to deal with. The ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 477 British plenipotentiary offered to settle that question by a restoration of the reciprocity treaty, but, as Ave can Avell imagine, the feeling of irritation in the United States was still such that that offer Avas re jected. Shortly afterAvards, however, the American plenipotentiaries offered to settle the question by ob taining access to our fisheries in exchange of free trade in coal, salt, fish, and from the 1st of July, 1874, the article of lumber. I am sorry to say that this offer, instead of being accepted, was asked by the British plenipotentiary to be supplemented Avith a money consideration, and that was refu.sed. It is true, however, that the Amer ican plenipotentiaries had before that time offered to settle that question by a money payment.They seem ed to have been willing to settle either by money pay ment or by trade facilities ; our plenipotentiary on the contrary offered to settle with them by trade fa cilities supplemented by a money payment. This Avas refused, and finally, as we knoAV, the question was settled for a time by granting to the Americans, for the space of twelve years, access to our fisheries on the payment of a sum of money to be determined by arbritators, and free trade in fish. Well, Sir, I do not hesitate to say that, in my estimation, of all the ways in which that question could have been settled THE MOST UNFORTUNATE was the way which Avas adopted, the most unfortu nate Avas to settle it by a money consideration. _ It must have been evident that what took place since must necessarily take place ; that is to say, that as the terms stipulated and paid for had expired, the ques tion Avould be re-opened with increased bitterness. However, this Avas done, and this was the second fault committed by our Government in the settlement of that question and the history of our relations with our neighbors. The right honorable gentleman at that time was in power, and shortly afterwards he lost 478 SPEECH power. When my honorable friend beside me Avas in power, the right honorable gentlemen and his friends, being then in Opposition, turned savagely upon the Administration ; they attacked it Avith all the means which a perverted ingenuity could devise, and they thought it honorable warfare, in order, if possible, to make a point against the Government, to open against the United States a compaign of brag and bluster. I have quoted the resolution introduced at that time by the right honorable gentleman. Well, if the matter had gone no further than that, I Avould have not much to say ; but the resolution which was then in troduced was intended to force the United States to give us the reciprocity which they would not give otherwise, and the feeling was intensified by the mo3t violent speeches. Sir Charles Tupper, for instance, went to the Maritime provinces, and stated there that by adopting a policy of retaliation, by Canada building up a tariff wall against the Americans, we would in a few years bring the Americans to their knees and force them to give us reciprocity. In Prince Edward Island, he used the language again and again, and used it with some effect, because at that time the Is landers sent six representatives to this House,to help the Government to build that tariff wall which it was supposed was going to bring the Americans to their knees. I am glad to say, however, that since that time the people of Prince Edward Island have come to take a better view of the situation, and they now understand that in order to have reciprocity they must take some other way. Well, Sir, the least that can be said of our relations with our neighbors is that such language and such conduct was not calcu lated to promote good feeling between the two nations. If the Americans were disposed at that time to enter into negotiations with us, with a view to establishing FREE TRADE BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES, the very moment that Canada pretended to be able ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 479 to force them, that moment the Americans would stiffen their backs, and refuse to give to threats what, they might have been disposed to give to negotiations. But that language had its effect in Canada. The Canadian people, believing the promise held out to them by the Conservative party then in Opposition, returned that party to power, and gave them an opportunity to build their tariff wall and to establish a reciprocity of tariffs. They did so, and what was the result ? Why, the result was that in a few years, instead of opening the American markets to free trade, the first thing the Americans did was to take an oppo site policy and to abolish the fishery articles ofthe Washington treaty, to cut off from us Avhat litle ad vantage we had under that treaty, and to bring back the state of affairs which had before existed. This was a serious matter. When the Americans gave notice to the Government of Canada that they would not continue the fishery stipulations ofthe Washington treaty, the Government had before them a great duty to perform. And how did they perform that duty? They performed it by A POLICY OF MASTERLY INACTIVITY; they never budged ; they never stirred ; they observed upon the question a conspiracy of silence, remaining serenely indifferent as to what might be the conse quences ofthe attitude of the United States. When we on this side reminded them that they had a duty to perform, when they were asked from this side to act, to do something, anything, to meet the new situa tion that had arisen, what was their invariable answer? Their answer always was: " Hush ! hush ! hush ! don't ask for information ; don't ask for anything whatever ; leave the matter to us ; you do not know what harm you may do to an international question of this sort, by asking for infortumation ; do not force our hands ; leave it to us ; everything will all come out right in time." They never stirred a 480 SPEECH finger in order to meet the new situation which was about to face them. Seeing this inaction on the part of the Government, we on this side of the House attempted to do, in 1884; Avhat Ave are doing at this moment ; in face ofthe inactivity ofthe Government Ave attempted to clear the Avay, and to show them the duty Avhich lay before them. My honorable friend behind me, from Queen's, P. E. I. (Mr. Davies), moved a resolution, in 1884, to which I call the special atten tion of the House, because it shows how the Govern ment were guilty in that respect. The resolution Avas couched in the following language : — In view of the notice of the termination of the Fisheries articles of the Treaty of Washington, given by the United States to the British Government, and the consequent expira; tion, on the 1st July, 1885, of the reciprocal privileges and exemptions of that treaty,this House is of opinion that steps should be taken at an early day by the Government of Canada wdth the object of bringing about negotiations for a new treaty, providing for the citizens of Canada and the United States the reciprocal privileges of fishing, and freedom from duties now enjoyed, together with the addition of reciprocal freedom in the trade relations of the two countries, and that in any such negotiations Canada should be directly repre sented by some one nominated by its Government. Here Avas a policy clearly indicated by the Oppo sition, by my honorable friend from Prince Edward Island, that the Government should at once enter in to negotiations in order not only to meet the difficulty, but to meet it by an extension of trade facilities. What was the answer ? The ansAver was just what I said a moment ago : Keep silent, do nothing, leave every thing to us, I cannot do better than quote the language used by the right honorable gentleman on that occasion, He summed up his argument in the following Avords : — But the honorable gentleman says that the United States have shown a desire to extend their trade by having a reci- ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 481 procity treaty with Mexico and the Sandwich Islands, who com menced negotiations in these cases? Was it the Sandwich Islands and Mexico ? No ; it was the Government of the United States in both instances, who was desirous of getting control of the trade of those two nations, inferior in popula tion, inferior in wealth, and very much subject to American influences. They desired to increase that influence aud to ob tain control of the trade of those two nations, but it was not King Kalakaua, it was not the President of Mexico, who wanted the treaty ; it was the Government of the United States that pressed upon those almost auxiliary nations and forced upon them, almost forced upon them, those treaties. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think we must to a certain extent pursue the same course. " I think we must to a certain extent pursue the same course and in the same manner as the Govern ment of the United States," Avas the reply. That Gov ernment went to Mexico and the Sandwich Islands in order to obtain treaties of commerce Avith them ; we must folloAV the same course and wait until the Gov ernment ofthe United States approach us, or, indeed, force the Government ofthe United States to come to us and ask us also to negotiate Avith them new com mercial treaties. I cannot say I was surprised at that language. It was exactly in accordance Avith the policy always pursued by the honorable gentleman and his Government; it was the same policy Avhich had been inaugurated in 1877, to force the Americans to come to us and not alloAv Canada to go to the Ame ricans. The Government had a policy by which they were going to force the Americans to come tous; they have put it into effect piece by piece. First, they erected a tariff Avail around this country ; but that not being sufficient they made an addition. And what was that? The unwarrantable manner in, which they commenced to execute the convention of 1818. I take issue with the right honorable gentleman upon this, and I say that, in my estimation, no greater fault Avas ever committed by his Government than in the Avay they carried out the convention of 1818 in 1885. They refused to ship the fish of Americans in bond. 31 4 82 SPEECH They seized their schooners for alleged or trivial offences of the customs law, and they placed upon the convention of 1818 the narrowest construction it Avas possible to put upon it, a construction so narrow, and in some cases so inhuman, that there are instances where schooners Avere forced back to sea Avithout being allowed the privilege of buying a single article of food in a Canadian port. They expected to bring doAvn the Americans by that policy. What Avas the result ? The result was the Retaliation Bill — the Bill Avhich was passed in 1887, when the American Con gress authorized the President at any moment to sever commercial intercourse between the United States and Canada. The Government had not anticipated that action. Still they did not move. But it is well for Canada that there is in the United states a Canadian with a true Canadian heart, a man who has the honor of being daily abused by the Conservative press of this country, a man whose name, when it was men tioned the other day in connection Avith this very subject, was received Avith jeers, to their shame be it said, by the majority ofthis House. Erastus Wiman stepped to the front, and he did then what should have been done long before by the Government of Canada —he constituted himself ambassador for Canada to the United States, and had an interview with Mr. Bayard. Some honorable members : — Oh ! oh ! Mr. Laurier : — Is there any dissent expressed to that ? Have honorable gentlemen opposite forgotten their own history ? Have they forgotten the language which was used not later than twelve months ago by Sir Charles Tupper in this House ? Have they forgotten the praise given on that occasion to Mr. Wiman by Sir Charles Tupper ? If they have, let me recall the language used on that occasion by Sir Charles. He said : 1 know this, that a mutual friend — I have no objection to mentioning that it was Mr. Wiman— at an early day after ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 483 this speech was delivered, intimated to me that he had had a long couversation with the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr Bayard, and that that gentleman had said that he would be very glad to have an opportunity of discussing the mutual relations of Canada and the United States with either my right honorable friend the Premier of Canada or myse If. Some honorable members : — Chestnuts ! Mr. Laurier : — Chestnuts, says an honorable gen tleman. Sir, I am really surprised that on a subject of such vital importance as this, so much levity should be displayed. But this is quite in keeping with the policy ofthe Government which honorable gentlemen opposite follow. If Mr. Wiman on that occasion had not stepped to the front, what would have been the consequences? I do not know, but the Government, at all events, thought it fit and proper at last to move, and they commenced to act upon the suggestion and the action of Mr. Wiman, and promptly Sir Charles Tupper went to Washington. He did what should have been done years ago, and he had an intervieAv with Secretary of State Bayard. It is proper to refer to the correspondence which was the consequence of that interview between Sir Charle3 Tupper and Mr. Bayard. It originated in a letter written by Mr. Bayard to Sir Charles Tupper, and in which is to be found a very significant paragraph : I am confident we but seek to attain a just and permanent settlement and there is but one way to procure it — and that is by a straightforward treatment on a liberal and states manlike plan of the entire commercial relations of the two countries. I say commercial, because I do not propose to include, however indirectly, or by any intendment, however partial or oblique, the political relations of Canada and the United States, nor to affect the legislative independence of either country To this paragraph Sir Charles Tupper responded in a similar spirit : My Dear Mb. Bayard, „,,.,, I had great pleasure in receiving your letter ot May 61, evincing as it does the importance which you attach to an 484 SPEECH amicable adjustment of the fisheries question and the mainte nance of the cordial commercial relations between the United States and Canada, under which such vast and mutually bene ficial results have grown up. I entirely concur in your state ment that we both seek to attain a just and permanent set tlement — and that there is but one way to procure it — and that is by a straighforward treatment on a liberal and states manlike plan of the entire commercial relations of the two countries. It is a matter of history that, in consequence of that correspondence, commissioners were appointed to meet at Washington to settle that question. And when they met, Sir Charles Tupper, remembering the paragraph which I have just quoted, remembering the spirit which had dictated that correspondence between himself and Mr. Bayard, was prompt in ask ing from the American plenipotentiaries a settlement of the question upon the very basis which had been laid down by Mr. Bayard— that is to say, a commercial basis. He made the following propositions : — Thnt with the view of removing all causes of difference in connection with the fisheries, it is proposed by Her Majesty's plenipotentiaries that the fishermen of both countries shall have all the privileges enjoyed during the existence ofthe fishery articles of the treaty of Washington, in consideration of a mutual arrangement providing for greater freedom of commercial intercourse between the United States and Canada and Newfoundland. Such was the proposition made by Sir Charles Tupper, and this proposition was in conformity with the proposition contained in the letter of Mr. Bayard to him. For what reason and for what cause was this proposition rejected by Mr. Bayard and the American plenipotentiaries ? Simply on account of the policy which honorable gentlemen opposite had followed in regard to the Fishery Treaty, simply on account of the irritation which had been caused in the United States ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 485 BY THE HARSH AND INHUMAN MANNER in Avhich that treaty had been carried out. Perhaps, Sir, that will be disputed also, but, if disputed, I can bring an important Avitnen to support my statement, and my witness on this occasion will be Sir Charles Tupper himself. Speaking of this very fact and explaining the reason why the offer he had made had not been accepted, Sir Charles Tapper used the fol lowing words : — Mr. Bayard and those other gentlemen said that "there is only one way to reach this (for Congress alone can take the duty off any article), and on account of the exasperation that has been excited in this country by those fishery difficulties, you have seen the result, you have an unanimous Bill passed by the House of Representatives and passed by the Senate and assented to by the President, you have to meet what they hold was the inhospitable conduct (they used good deal stronger terms in some of their State papers, I am very sorry to say) of Canada in reference to the treatment of their fishermen, our representatives have said that they would never purchase from Canada any immunity for their fishermen by reciprocal trade arrangements," imbued, as their minds were, ivith the idea that we had adopted that policy to force reciprocity upon them. Now, Sir, you have the opinion of the man best qualified to give evidence upon that subject, that the reason why the free trade relations which were touched upon by Mr. Bayard in his correspondence with Mr. Tupper were not carried out, was just on account of the policy which had been followed by honorable gentlemen opposite upon that very ques tion. The right honorable gentleman and his Gov ernment have always prided themselves upon their superior wisdom and statesmanship, but upon this occasion I ask, where was the wisdom and where was the statesmanship ? If the motion that my honorable friend behind me" (Mr. Davies) made in 1884, when he suggested that the Government should send _ a com missioner to Washington in order to settle this ques- 486 SPEECH tion, had been adopted, then, Sir, does it not follow from what I have stated that there was a chance to be heard and a chance of obtaining what we had in vieAV ? At that time the Government would not yield to the pressure put upon them. They would not send a commissioner to Washington, but three years later they were forced to send one, and upon that occasion,as on many other occasions when they acted, it Avas too late. If the Government had then acted in time they Avould have obtained some result ; but they refused to act in time, and THEY LOST EVERYTHING. To day we see the same policy still pursued, the same policy of procrastination, and we are forced upon this occasion to suggest what, in our judgment, is the true policy that should be followed in the inte rest of Canada. What followed the result of the last negotiation at Washington ? The treaty was rejected, it is true, and rejected by the American Senate, Avhich had the poAver to deal with this question. Then came the celebrated Message from President Cleveland — and there is this to be said in favor of the President's Message, that he simply suggested (since he might be called upon at any time by the action of this Government to put the Retaliation Act in force) that a milder course should be adopted than the course demanded then. President Cleveland simply said to the American nation : " I may be called upon at any moment to put that Act into force, but I cannot put that Act into force without, to a large extent, injuring American trade, There is a better Avay to reach the Canadian people, since they refuse to carry our fish in bond. Instead of shutting out all their im ports it would be better for us to prevent them car rying their goods in bond upon our railways." Such, hoAvever, was the bitter sentiment of the American people against us at that time, that Congress refused to act upon the suggestion of President Cleveland. No- ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 487 thing came of his suggestion ; the Act remains in force and at this moment Ave are just in this position : that to-morrow, or the day after to-morrow, the new ad ministration may at any time, if they choose, cut off altogether the existing commercial relations betAveen Canada and the United States. Again I ask : What is to be done ? What is the policy that ought to be followed by Canada ? I say to the Government, REVERSE YOUR POLICY, give up the policy of harshness which you have been following hitherto, and adopt the policy of concilia tion ; admit that you have been in the wrong, and endeavor, not by threats or by acts of violence, to ob tain reciprocity of trade with thatcountry,but endeav or to obtain it by negotiation and peaceable means. I am aware, from my past experience, that in daring as I do now, upon an international question, to say to the Government that they were in the wrong, and to say that the other nation was in the right, I Avill bring once more upon my head all the thundering indignation ofthe Conservative press and party. Be that as it may, I hold that there is all the more rea son to speak upon the question, because it is an in ternational question. Because the consequences may be graver, there is all the more reason to act, and to act promptly, and to speak in no uncertain tones. I know very well from my past experience ofthe man ner in which the Conservative party ofthis country have always understood party allegiance, that it is an act of disloyalty, that it is an act of treason to attack Ministers who shield themselves behind the sacred name of country ; but, Sir, I say without offence,that I do not care for the Ministers, but' I do care for my country, which may suffer from their conduct. The tactics of the Conservative party are not new, they have always been the same, and it has ahvays been held disloyalty and treason to attack the Conserva tive Ministers, even though it be to save the country. SPEECH There was a time in the history of England when the American people,then colonists of England, were forced into rebellion by the harsh conduct of the British Government and by the tyrannical measures of the Imperial Parliament. There Avas, also, at that time the greatest Englishman of his day — a man who has done more than any man of his time to launch England on that career of military and commercial aggrandize ment Avhich has since signalized her course. Lord Chatham never ceased to call upon the Government, and on the English Parliament, to retrace their steps, and to abandon their policy of harshness ^and adopt THE POLICY OF CONCILIATION. These gentlemen on the other side of the House have such slavish opinions — and I can use no other word but slavish — of loyalty, that it may not be amiss if I put before them the language used by Lord Chatham, the greatest Englishman of his time. He had to speak upon the policy which had driven the American colo nists into rebellion ; and he Avas speaking at a time when those colonists were in arms, fighting against His Majesty King George III. On one riccasion he made use of this language : — Every motive, therefore, of justice and of policy, of dignity and of prudence, urges you to allay the ferment in America — by a removal of your troops from Boston — by a repeal of your Acts of Parliament— and by the demonstration of amicable dispositions towards the colonies. On the other hand, every danger and every hazard impend to deter you from persever ance in your present ruinous measures. On the same occasion he made use ofthe follow ing language : — We shall be forced ultimately to retract; let us retract while we can, not when we must. I say we must necessarily undo these, violent oppressive acts ; they must be repealed; you will repeal them ; I pledge myself for it, that you will in the end repeal them. ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 489 They were repealed tAvo years later, but they were repealed too late. Repealed in time, they Avould have had some effect ; repealed too late, they only en couraged the American colonies to persevere in their action. On another occasion he made use of this no less significant language : — If I were an American, as 1 am an Englishman, while a fereign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms, never I never I never ! Sir, this language Avas held to be treason at that time ; such language would be held to be treason to day. At that time it Avas held to be treason by the whole Conservative party, and still more by that well meaning, short-sighted, thick-headed Tory, King George III. He called Lord Chatham A TRUMPET OF SEDITION ; yet, if the voice of that trumpet of sedition had been heeded at that time, King George III Avould have saved to the British Crown the loss of those royal domains which England has ever since deplored. Well, Sir, the loyalty of that great man Avhich does not pander to prejudices, which does not court the favor of king or mob, but which speaks the truth whenever the truth is called for, this is the loyalty of this side of the House. It is in the name of that loyalty I now speak; and, doubly encouraged by the language of that great man, I say to the Canadian Min istry of this day that they are repeating the same fault which was committed by the English Ministry of 1775, and in the same terms I appeal to them to retrace their steps and take a new course. If you ask me, Mr. Speaker, to come down to practical measures and to say what I would recommend, I answer: The Government themselves admit that a new treaty has be negotiated. They say so in the Speech from the Throne, where I find this language:— It now only remains for Canada to continue to maintain 490 SPEECH her rights as prescribed by the convention of 1818, until some satisfactory readjustment is arranged by treaty between the two nations. That Speech Avas made on the 31st of January. They then contemplated acting under the convention of 1818. I am glad to see that, though to some extent they have not been able since then to come to any different decision, yet they have Avavered a little in their opinion. When they were asked by my honor able friend behind me, a little while ago, Avhether they intended to put into force the modus vivendi, they said it was under consideration. They did not know whether they would or would not. Well, let us help them along a little, and let us say that, in our judgment at least, since they are to negotiate a new treaty, they should not go back and act upon the harsh clauses of the convention of 1818, but rather upon the more generous clauses and dispositions of the modus vivendi. If you are to negotiate anew treaty, it stands to reason, if you commence to harass Ame rican fishermen by the enforcement of the clauses of the convention of 1818, that that would be A VERY SORRY PRELUDE to_ all our negotiations. But if you go to Washington Avith the generous treatment provided under the modus vivendi, there is some reason to believe that an agreeable and satisfactory solution ofthe difficulty may be arrived at, in the only manner Avhich would be satisfactory to both nations, that is to say, upon a basis of freer commercial relations betAveen the two countries. Sir, there is every inducement for that policy. I give it as my deliberate opinion that, ever since the abrogation of the treaty of 1854, the relations of the tAvo countries have never been satisfactory ; they have never been openly hostile, but they have never been avowedly and generously friendly, always characterized by petty annoyances and vulgar bick- ON THE FISHERY QUESTION 491 erings ; and, unfortunately, that state of things has also extended to the relations between the mother land and the republic. Nothing, I am sure, could be more painful to every friend of England than the hostility displayed during the last presidential contest towards England. It is my deliberate opinion that this hostility, displayed at this date towards England by the American people, is a blot on the fair fame of the United States just as much as the hostility dis played during the civil Avar by England towards the United States was a blot on the fair fame of England. It behooves us, situated as we are in this country, having the relations we have to the mother land, and connected geographically as Ave are with the United States, to help to create A BETTER PUBLIC SENTIMENT in the two countries towards each other ; and this view is largely shared, I am glad to say, by the whole Anglo-Saxon race in the two hemispheres. Though there are at this moment these unpleasant characte ristics in the relations between England and the United States, there are no two nations in the world to-day which are so closely allied. Their trade is daily increasing, and to-day it already exceeds the trade of any other two nations. More than this, their intel lectual life is every day getting more and more inti mately interwoven. Books — all those important books which the literary Avorld awaits on the tiptoe of expec tation — are published simultaneously in London and New- York. Actors exchange boards ; preachers exchange pulpits ; there is no artistic or literary fame originated in one country which is safe and secure until it has been sanctioned in the other. While all these facts are healthy, I, for my part, would want Canada to step into the movement, to turn a neAv leaf in her history, to forget the past, and to do her share to reach that which must be, I suppose, and I hope, the ultimate object, namely, closer and ever closer 492 SPEECH union between all countries of British origin and British institutions. With these views, I beg to move : That all the words after the word " That " be left out, and the following inserted instead thereof: — " In view ofthe rejection by the Senate, ofthe United States of the Wash ington Treaty of 1888, and the unfortunate and regrettable differences existing between Canada and the United States on the Fishery and Trade questions, this House is of opinion that steps should be taken, at an early day, by the Government of Canada, for the satisfactory adjustment of such differences, and the securing of unrestricted freedom in the trade relations of the two countries, and that, in any negotiations entered upon for such purposes, Canada should be directly represented by some one nominated by its Government. That, in the meantime, and to permit of such negotiations being favorably entered on, and to afford evidence of the anxious desire of Canada to promote good feeling, and to remove all possible subjects of controversy, this House is of opinion that the modus vivendi proposed on behalf of the British Government to the Government of the United States with respect to the Fisheries should be continued in operation during the ensuing fishing season. MR. MERCIER'S LAW RATIFIED BY PARLIAMENT MR. LAURIER S SPEECH AGAINST THE " VETO On the 26th March, 1889, Mr. O'Brien, member for Mus- koka, made the following motion in the Commons : " That all after the word " That " be left out, and the following inserted in lieu thereof: " Mr. Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that it be resolved, that an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, setting forth : 1. That this House regards the power of disal lowing the Acts of the Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, vested in His Excellency in Conncil, as a prerogative essential to the national existence of the Dominion ; 2. That this great power, while it should never be wantonly exercised, should be fearlessly used for the protection ofthe rights of a minority, for the preservation of the fundamental principles of the con stitution, and for safe-guarding the general interests of the people ; 3. That in the opinion of this House, the passage by the Legislature of the Province of Quebec of the Act entitled ' An Act respecting the settlement ofthe Jesuits' Estates' is beyond the power of that Legislature. Firstly, because it endows from public funds a religious organization, thereby violating the undoubted constitutional principle of the com- ulete separation of Church and State and of the absolute equality of all denominations before the law. Secondly, because it recognizes the usurpation of a right by a foreign authority, namely, His Holiness the Pope of Rome, to claim that his consent was necessary to empoAver the Provincial Legislature to dispose of a portion of the public domain, and 494 SPEECH also because the Act is made to depend upon the will, and the appropriation of the grant thereby made as subject to the control of the same authority. And, thirdly, because the endowment of the Society of Jesus, an alien, secret and poli tico-religious body, the expulsion of which from every Chris tian community wherein it has had a footing has been rendered necessary by its intolerant and mischievous intermeddling with the functions of civil government, is fraught with danger to the civil and religious liberties of the people of Canada. And this House, therefore, prays that His Excellency will be graciously pleased to disallow the said Act. " This motion was, after a long debate, rejected on a divi sion of 188 to 13. MR. LAURIER'S SPEECH (Sitting of the 28th March) Mr. Speaker, It is not often that Ave on this side of the House can have the privilege of supporting the policy of the Government. In this instance, when the action of the Government is assailed by a number of their supporters, Avhen their action has already caused an agitation Avhich unfortunately is not unmixed with religious bitterness, not one word certainly will fall from my lips which would tend to fan those religious flames ; and I may say at once, repeating what was said this afternoon by my honorable friend from Both- well(Mr. Mills), in the admirable speech he delivered, that the course of the Government receives, with a few exceptions Avhich I respect, the entire support of the L,beral party. No other courseiMr. Speaker, than the course which we intend to take on this side of the House, would be consistent with the policy which we have been advocating for the last fifteen or twenty years — nay, ever since Confederation has been in existence. And, Sir, I hasten at once to congratulate the Gov ernment upon the fact that at last they have come to the true policy which they have often fought on Jesuits' estates bill 495 against, that the only basis upon which we can suc cessfully carry on this Confederation is to recognize the principle of provincial rights. And I cannot but say also that if the Government to-day have to face this trouble in their own camp, if they have to meet this agitation which is now going on in the Province of Ontario, and of which the honorable member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) said yesterday we have not seen the last, it is due altogether to the vicious policy which has been followed by the Administration, and before the consequences of which they have at last to recede; it is due altogether to the manner in which they have governed this country, and to the means they have used to obtain a majority to support them. Sir, this is not a party question ; it is at most a family quarrel ; it is simply a domestic disturbance in the ranks of the Conservative party. A section of the Conservative party noAV require the Government to stand up or to stand down, whichever it may be, to the exigencies of the doctrine of disallowance, such as the Government has taught it, and such as the Gov ernment more than once called upon them to act upon. Well, there must always be a day of retribution, and that day I think is coming for the Government. The two chief provinces of which this Confederation is composed are vastly dissimilar. One is French in origin ; the other British. One is Catholic in religion ; the other is Protestant. And in each are to be found the prejudices peculiar to the creed and race of each. I say prejudices, and I use the word advisedly, nor do I use it'in any contemptuous sense, for everybody must recognize the fact that, wherever you find strong convictions, you generally find an exaggeration of feeling very apt to carry men beyond the legitimate consequence of their convictions. Now, ever since the year 1854, I charge against the Government and against the Conservative party that they have been 496 speech able to retain power, almost without interruption, largely by pandering to the prejudices ofthe one pro vince and. the prejudices of the other province, In the good Catholic province of Quebec, to which I belong, the party supporting the Administration have always represented themselves as the champions of the Roman Catholic cause. They have ahvays denounced their opponents, the Liberals of French origin like myself,as men of dangerous doctrines and tendencies. They have always represented the Liberals of Ontario as men actuated in all their actions and inspirations by a hatred of everything French and Catholic. At the same time, in the good Protestant Province of Ontario, the same party has always been held up to the front as the party of unbending and uncompro mising Protestantism and the Conservative press to day represent honorable gentlemen on this side as basely pandering to the influence ofthe French people and ofthe Catholic persuasion. Now this game has been for a long, time successful, but, perhaps, before going further, I may recall this fact, known by all those who are now listening to me, that THE ATTITUDE OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY of Ontario has always been just what I represent it to be. It may not be so well known that, at the same time, the Liberals of Ontario are charged by the Con servatives of the province of Quebec, not with pan dering to the Catholic influence, but with being hostile to Catholic influence — and so the charges work both ways. In one Province the Liberals are charged with one offence, and in the other with another. I could quote columns upon columns of the press which supports the right honorable gentleman to prove what I say, but I shall limit myself to one short paragraph. The school question in Ontario is a burning question. The honorable member for Bruce (Mr. McNeil) yes terday spoke almost of nothing else. A few days ago ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 497 there was in the Legislature of Ontario a debate upon this very question. The Government of Mr. Mowat were charged by the Conservative party with unduly favoring the teaching of the French language in the schools of Ontario. The debate was commented upon in the province of Quebec ; La Minerve, one of the papers which support the Administration, an organ of the Conservative party, referred as follows to this very debate : — The motion of the honorable member for East Durham (Mr. Craig) was followed by a most brilliant reply strongly conceived, broad in view and conclusive, from the Honorable G. W. ltoss, Minister of Public Instruction. Mr. Eoss is a Grit of the clearest water, but we are too much accustomed to the Gallophobic denunciations of that party and to the intempe rance of their language, when the Province of Quebec is in question, not to rejoice at anything which remotely or approx imately can look like a conversion. You see the gist ofthis statement. It was charged that the language of Mr. Ross was an exception, whereas the charge made by the Conservative party in Ontario against the Administration for which Mr. Ross spoke was the very thing which is given him here as an exception. So it has always been. The party has ALWAYS HAD TWO FACES — a rigid Protestant face turning towards the west, and a devout Catholic face turning towards the east. In the province of Ontario, the rallying cry ofthe party has always been : " Protestants, beware ! these Grits are weak Protestants ! " Some honorable members : — No, never. Mr. Laurier -.—Among the Protestants of Quebec, their cry has always been : " Catholics, beware, the Liberals are weak and bad Catholics ! " This game has been successful for a long time, but it cannot alwavs be successful, and I say the day of retribution 32 498 SPEECH is now coming. I say that this motion which we now have is in many senses much to be deprecated,. and I endorse every Avord Avhich fell the other day from the honorable member for Northumberland (Mr. Mitchell). It seems to me that all he said then were Avords of Avisdom, but at the same time I cannot resist the con viction that the Government of to-day are only reap ing Avhat they have been sowing. They have allowed a large class of the Protestant population of Ontario to look upon them as the champions of Protestantism. They have affirmed the doctrine of disallowance among that section of the party and noAV that section cries out : We have always looked upon you as the champions of Protestantism ; here is legislation which Ave deem offensive to the Protestant interest and to the interest ofthe country at large, and Ave call upon you to exercise those poAvers of disallowance which you have so often exercised in the past. Well, as far as the Liberal party is concerned, their attitude upon this question was knoAvn before it was explained in this debate. The Liberal party always endeavors to meet those questions, from a point of view that would include all different religious interests. Among the many questions Avhich divided the tAvo parties, there is no one upon Avhich the policy of the two parties has been so clearly cut as upon this. The Conservative party, led by the right honorable gen tleman, have always held the doctrine that they have the right to revieAv the legislation of any Local Legis lature. We, on the other hand, have always pretended that the only way to carry out this Confederation is to admit the principle that within its sphere, within the sphere allotted to it by the constitution, EACH PROVINCE IS QUITE AS INDEPENDENT ofthe control of the Dominion Parliament, as the Dominion Parliament is independent of the control of the Local Legislatures. On the contrary, the honorable gentleman has ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 499 maintained again and again upon the floor of this House and by administrative acts that he claimed the poAver to review local legislation, to see Avhether it was right or wrong, and, if he found it clashing with his idea3 of right, to set it aside. We all remember the famous Streams' Bill. What Avas the language used on that occasion by the honorable gentleman ? He claimed that it was a question of purely prov incial character, that it was one which Avas clearly within the competence of the Legislature of Ontario, and yet the honorable gentleman took it upon him self to disallow it, and for Avhat reason ? For no other reason than that the act clashed Avith his OAvn opinions of Avhat was right and what was Avrong? He spoke as follows in regard to it : — But here, where we are one country and all together, and we go from one province to another as we do from one county to another and from one town to another, is it to be borne that laws which bind civilized society together, which distin guish civilivation from barbarism, protect life, reputation and property, should be dissimilar ; that what should be a merit in one province should be a crime in another, and that different laws should prevail ? Upon that occasion the honorable gentleman took upon him3elf to review the law of the province, and, finding it was not consistent Avith what he believed to be right, he disallowed it. It shocked the tenderness of the right honorable gentleman's conscience that the Legislature of Ontario provided that Mr. Cald well could not pass his logs through Mr. McLaren's improvements without payingltoll, though the Privy Council afterwards decided that, without the law, Mr. CaldAvell could have used those improvements without paying any tolls at all. The honorable gentle man now comes to the doctrine which has been very many times advocated on this side of the House, that he has not to consider whether this provincial legis lation is good, bad or indifferent; it is altogether within the competence of the Local Legislature of 500 SPEECH Quebec, and therefore, says he, let it pass. Let us read the report of the Minister of Justice of the day on the Streams' Bill and compare it with the report of the Minister of Justice upon the present occasion. The Minister of Justice said : — I think the power of the Local Legislature to take away the rights of one man and vest them in another as is done by this Act, is exceedingly doubtful, but, assuming that such right does, in strictness, exist, I think it devolves upon this Government to see that such power is not exercised, in flagrant violation of private rights and natural justice, especially when, as in this case, in addition to interfering with private rights in the way alluded to, the Act overrides a decision of a court of compe tent jurisdiction, by declaring retrospectively that the law always was, and is, different from that laid down by the court. Now, let us look at the report of the Minister of Justice in the present case. It is extremely short and sweet. The Minister of Justice simply says, referring to some petitions asking for disallowance : — Before the petition in question came before him for his consideration the undersigned had already recommended to Your Excellency that the Act in question should be left to its operation. The memorials referred to have not convinced the undersigned that that recommendation should be changed. The subject-matter of the Act is one of provincial concern only, having relation to a fiscal matter entirely within the control of the Legislature of Quebec. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is SOUND LIBERAL DOCTRINE. This is the very doctrine which has been always maintained and supported on this side ofthe House, and once more I beg to tender my thanks and my congratulations to the honorable gentleman on haA' ing at last come to the true and only basis upon which this constitution of ours can be satisfactorily maintained and supported. It takes a long time, ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 501 however, for a true principle to penetrate the per verted minds, as I might say, ofthe honorable gentle men opposite. No, I beg their pardon, it does not always take so long a time; sometimes the operation is as fast as at others it is sIoav. Only three weeks ago, we tendered advice to the Administration as to the manner in which they should treat our friends to the South in reference to the modus vivendi. Our advice was treated with contempt, and it was stated by honorable gentlemen opposite that the proposal would be received with scorn by the people of this country ; and yet, within three weeks, they have changed their minds and accepted the policy which Ave suggested. I can only say that, as long as the Administration continue to act in that way, first to reject the policy of the Opposition and then to steal our clothes and dress themselves in them, the country Avould not be the loser. I had hesitated, before I resolved to speak on his question, whether I should confine myself to this statement and then sit down, but I Cannot ignore, no one who has at heart the interests of this country, the peace and harmony of this country, can ignore the agitation which is now going on in the province of Ontario. Coming as I do from the province^ of Quebec, being a member of the Catholic persuasion and a supporter of the Government which passed the legislation, I cannot but view with deep concern the. attempt which is now being made to arouse our Pro testant fellow-citizens in the province of Ontario against that legislation. Let me say this, which must be obvious to every honorable member, that, if we approach this question, or any question, from the point of view of the religious opinions whieh any of us profess, we are apt to stand upon very narrow, very unsafe, and VERY DANGEROUS GROUND. I say dangerous ground because it is a matter of his tory, that it is always in the sacred name of religion 502 SPEECH that the most savage passions of mankind have been excited and some of the most shocking crimes have been committed. In this matter, I cannot forget the fact, as I have stated, that an attempt has been made to arouse the feelings of the province of Ontario, but I hope that that attempt will not carry, and that a better sentiment will prevail ; I hope that the tem perate language which we have heard _ to-day, Avill be understood, and, though this legislation may be objectionable to some people, yet that every one will understand that in these subjects we must make allowance for the feelings of others. What is the cause of the agitation which is now going on ? What is the cause of the legislation which has been the source of so much turmoil? Sir, it is simply this : It is a matter of regret that the European nations, France and Eng land, Avhen they came to this continent, brought with them not only their laAvs and institutions, not only their civilization, but brought also their hatreds. At this moment, and for more than seventy years past, France and England have been at peace, and it is given to our generation to witness a spectacle which would have seemed almost improbable, not to say im possible, a few years before. We have seen France and England arrayed together against a common foe ; and to us British subjects of French origin, British subjects who have learned to love England, who ap preciate her benevolent rule, who would not go back to the allegiance of France, but who still ever cherish in our hearts the love of the land of our ancestors, no spectacle could be more consoling than to see THE BANNERS OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND waving together on the banks of the Alma, on the heights of Inkerman and amid the ashes of Sebasto- poh Such is the case to-day. Such was not the case, however, at the time of the discovery of America, at the time of the establishment of English and French posts upon this continent. On the contrary, at that ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 503 time French and English had been arrayed for gene rations and centuries in deadly feuds. They brought over these feuds with them, they brought over with them the enmity which had divided them in Europe, and here on this continent they sought each other across lakes and rivers, mountains and forests, and endeavored to inflict upoo each other all the injury they possibly could. They had before them the bound less space of this virgin continent, but they entered into a deadly war for the possession of the miserable huts which constituted their first establishments. Well, the long duel, as we know, Avas settled on the plains of Abraham. The war, however, wa3 carried on for a year longer by the Chevalier de Levis, and the continuation of the war had no material effect except to extract from the victor most generous terms of capitulation. These terms have been referred to, I need not refer to them again. The religious com munities Avere granted all their possessions as freely as if they had remained under the domain of the French King. It was stated by the honorable member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) when he opened this debate, that the Terms of Capitulation had been mod ified by the Treaty of Paris. For my part I am not able to see the difference, but if difference there be, I am quite willing to admit the interpretation of it Avhich Avas given by the British Government itself. Respecting the treatment by the British Government of those communities which Avere promised special immunity, I can see NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEIR POSITION under the French regime and their condition under the English regime. The British Government treated those communities and the whole population, for that matter, in religious concerns, with the greatest gene rosity. All the religious communities, with the single exception of the Jesuits, Avere maintained in posses sion of their estates. There Avas an exception made 504 SPEECH of the Jesuits. What was the cause of it ? Was it by the right of conquest as asserted by the honorable member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)? Mr. McCarthy : — Will the honorable gentleman excuse me ? I did not make that assertion. It was by the introduction of the law at the Conquest, not by virtue ofthe Conquest at all — the introduction ofthe English law whereby the estates became for feited to the Crown. Mr. Laurier : — So be it ; I accept the correction. I do not intend to discuss the legal aspects ofthe question, because, in my judgment, the legal aspect does not come here. But even if, as stated by the honorable gentleman, the British Government took possession of these estates by virtue ofthe introduc tion of the English laAV into this country, still that might have applied as well to the other communities as to the Jesuit estates. Why Avas that exception made ? Why were these other religious communities maintained in possession of their estates, and the Jesuits excepted ? I think that the Minister of Justice yesterday gaATe the real key of the difficulty when he stated that it was THE COA'ETOUSNESS OF LORD AMHERST, who, in 1770, obtaioe d from the King an actual pro mise of the grant of those estates. Had it not been afterwards for the abolition ofthe order by the Pope, I firmly belieA'e the Jesuits would have continued in the enjoyment of their estates in the same manner as the other religious communities. But the order was abolished, and after the last Jesuit had departed this life the British Government took possession ofthe estates. Then, as we know, the heirs of Lord Amhest claimed these estates in virtue of the promise which had been made in 1770 by the King. But the pro tests were so strong, not only from the old inhabitants, but from the neAv inhabitants as well, not only from the old subjects of the King, but from the new sub- ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 505 jects ofthe King, that the Government could not carry out its intentions of making a grant of these estates to the heir3 of Lord Amherst. On the other hand, though the Government had taken possession of these estates, and though they were promised to General Amherst, the Government could not put them into the general fund, and they erected them into a spe cial fund. But there is this to be remembered, whether the laws of England Avere introduced into the colony or not, whether the old laws continued to be in force or not, the old French laAvs continued to prevail in the country just as before. And there is this also to be remembered, that under the laws of Quebec as they existed under the French regime, property of the nature ofthe Jesuits' estates, when the order had been abolished, would have reverted to the Ordinary ofthe diocese, property of that kind would have gone to the Bishop of Quebec or to the Bishop of Montreal. Such was the contention of the church at that time, and from that clay up to this, the ecclesiastical authorities of tho Province of Quebec have never ceased to claim that property as rightly belonging to them. There has been a continuation of the protests from that moment to the present. Protests Avere made on these dates : 1. 4th February, 1793, by the citizens of Quebec. — 2. 18th November, 1799, by His Grace Jean Francois Hubert, Bishop of Quebec 3. About the year 1835, by His Grace Joseph Signay, Bishop of Quebec ; His Grace Pierre Flavien Turgeon, Bishop of Sydimo, Coadjutor of Quebec ; His Grace Jean Jac ques Lartigue,Bishop of Telmosse,Grand Vicar ofthe district of Montreal.—!. January, 1845,by His Grace Joseph Signay, Arch bishop of Quebec, and by the Bishops of Montreal, Kingston and Toronto 5. June, 1 847, by the clergy of the dioceses of Montreal and Quebec 6. January, 1874, by the Rev. Father Theophile Charraux, Superior General of the Jesuits' Mission in Canada.— 7. 9th October, 1878, by the Archbishop of Quebec and Bishops of Three Eivers, Rimouski, Montreal, Sherbrooke, Ottawa, St. Hyacinthe and Chicoutimi — 8. 2nd January, 1 885, by the Archbishop of Quebec. So you see that from the moment the British 306 SPEECH Government took possession of these estates, the church authorities of the Province of Quebec NEVER CEASED TO CLAIM THEM as their own. Noav, could that matter have remained in that condition ? Could it be said in a Catholic country like the Province of Quebec, that such pro tests Avould remain unheeded? Time and again, as you are aware, the Government of Quebec attempted to dispose of these estates and to settle the question. Mr. Mercier is not the first man in office who attempted to deal Avith this question. Time and again his pre decessors attempted to do the same thing. There was a reason for that. Those estates are valued to day by Mr. Rivard, superintendent of the estates, at the sum of $1,200,000. They yield a revenue of only $22,000, less than 2 per cent. Some of the property is without any annual value. Take for instance the old college of the Jesuits in Quebec, right in the centre of the city, opposite the Basilica. That pro perty to-day does not give one cent of revenue, on the contrary it is a burden upon the exchequer of the Province, whereas, were the property dispo-ed of,it would sell to advantage. Time and time again, the Government of Quebec have attempted to dispose of it, but every time the Government placed it in the market, the religious authorities came forward and claimed the property as their OAvn, and rendered the attempts at sale abortive. Was that forever to remain thus? The question was opened more than once. Mr. DeBoucherville, in 1876, endeavored to enter into negotiations to settle the case with the religious authorities of the Province. He did not succeed. It has been asserted many times in the pre3S, though the fact has never been stated officially, that Mr. Chapleau, Avhen in office, entered into negotiations with the religious authorities, and went so far as to offer 8500,000 for the removal of the claims of the religious authorities on these estates. Ofthis I do ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 507 not knoAV the exact truth. I can only speak from the rumors published in the press. But it is quite certain that Mr. Ross, who succeeded him as Premier a few years afterwards, entered into negotiations for the settlement ofthe estates. Nothing came of the negotiations, and why? Because it required some courage to deal with the question and to settle it, because it was certain that Avhoever dealt with it, Avould have to face much prejudice, as those events have proved. MR. MERCIER HAD THE COURAGE to grapple with this question and to settle it, and, if nothing else in the career of Mr. Mercier remained to stamp him as a statesman, there would be this, that he had the courage to deal Avith this' question, and this would give him that title. The question, I think, had to be settled. In what manner was it settled ? It was settled just in the manner which was most fair to all : it was settled by compromise. Mr. Mer cier in effect said to the religious authorities : I hold these estates as the representative of the Crown; the right belongs to the province of Quebec ; our title to them is legal ;. I do not admit that you have a legal title to them, while on the other hand you pretend you have a legal title. Be that as it may, he said, let us make a sacrifice each of our pretensions; I hold the property and the whole of the estates, and you claim the whole of them; let us compromise, and let us settle the question forever. Now, I ask every man in this House, no matter what his prejudice may be, I ask the honorable member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien) himself, in whose fairness I have the greatest confh dence, was there ever a more fair method adopted of disposing of a public question than that which Avas adopted in this case? Of course, it is quite easy for the editor in his easy chair, it is quite easy for the publisher in his office, it is quite easy for the clergy man in his study, to settle questions according to 508 SPEECH fixed theories, but the public man in office or in Oppo sition cannot settle a question according to fixed theories, but he has to consult the Avishes, not only the wishes, aye, but the passions and the prejudices ofthe people with whom he has to deal. And in a country like the province of (Quebec Avhere there are more than 1,000,000 of Catholic inhabitants, with a regularly constituted hierarchy, Avith such a claim as the Catholic ecclesiastical authorities could present, Avas it to be said that this question SHOULD FOR EVER REMAIN OPEN and ihese lands never be disposed of for the advan tage of the exchequer of the Province ? It seems to me that upon that question I can appeal again with confidence to the testimony of all those who will approach the question with an unbiassed mind. After all, Mr. Speaker, there is but one way Avhich has been invented yet to govern men satisfactorily, and it is to govern them according to the wishes which are expressed by public opinion. I do not mean to say that public opinion is ahvays right, that public opinion always comes up to the standard of eternal justice or truth ; I do not mean to say that public opinion always comes up to the standard of wordly wisdom, but if you govern the people according to public opinion you are sure to have peace and harmony in the land and when this question was settled it was settled according to the wishes of the public opinion in the province of Quebec, and by so doing you have peace and harmony in the land. Now, if you are to attempt to override the well known wishes of the population of the province of Quebec, instead of harmony and peace, you will have probably discord, the consequences of which I would fear to look at. Such is the reason Avhy this question has been settled in the manner in which it has been settled. But it has been insisted by the honorable member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and by some other honorable mem- ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL £09 bers also, that this legislation was offensive from a Protestant point of view. Well, strange to say, the Protestant minority is represented in the Legislature ofthe province of Quebec. They have, if I remember rightly, some 12 members of the" Protestant persuasion in the Provincial Legislature. When this question came to be discussed TWrO MEMBERS ONLY PROTESTED, and they protested very mildly. And they protested against what ? Only against one single feature of the act, against the fact that1 the name of His Holiness the Pope appeared in the preamble ofthe act. Mr. Mercier gave them at that moment the very answer quoted yesterday by the Minister of Justice, and he told them : If you do not want the name ofthe Pope in this matter, you will suggest the name of any one to put in bis place. It was a compromise with the religious authorities of the province of Quebec, and I think Mr. Mercier acted fairly and prudently in dealing directly with the head of the Roman Catholic church. His arguments were so convincing that those objections were not pressed, the act passed unani mously, and Mr. Mercier Avas enabled to speak in the following terms of the attitude of his Protestant col leagues : — I thank the Protestant members for the moderation with which they have discussed this question. It is a good omen. The unanimity which now prevails is a proof that the different races of which our population is composed,have lived in peace and harmony and approach the most delicate questions with that spirit of conciliation which accomplishes wonders when it is properly directed. Well, this legislation is not satisfactory to our Protestant friends, or to some of them at least from Ontario. Still if the Protestants of Quebec are satis fied, who can object ? I understood that it was said a moment ago by the honorable member for Hunt- 510 SPEECH ingdon (Mr. Scriver), that the Protestants of Quebec are not all satisfied. They may not all be satisfied, indeed. It is very seldom that upon any question that may come up men ofthe same creed, ofthe same race, Avill be entirely satisfied ; but if anybody has a right to tpeak for the Protestant minority of the pro vince of Quebec, are they not THOSE AVHO ARE ELECTED by the people of that province to represent them in the Legislature, and if these do not choose to make any representation, if these on the contrary say that after all this question has been settled and approved, no one else has the right to complain. But the honor able member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), it appears, has no confidence in those who represent his fellow countrymen in the province of Quebec. If I am to believe what he said yesterday, he has but a poor opinion of those Avho have been entrusted by his fellow religionists in the province to take charge of their interests in the Legislature. These Avere his words yesterday: Does this look as if the Protestants of the province of Quebec were desirous, and willing, and anxious that this legis lation should remain unchanged, or does it not look as if, were the Protestant minority in that province given reasonable encouragement, they would get justice — and no more than justice are they entitled to, and no more than justice I hope they will ever ask for — from the Parliament of this country. Then they will be up and doing, to get their share of the legis lation, but in the Legislature of that province, composed as it is now, they cannot expect it. There was no Protestant repre sentative in the Cabinet of that province until recently, and, when one was chosen, he had to be elected in spite of the vote of the Protestant minority. Now, without going any further, I wish to take issue upon this point with the honorable gentleman from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), when he says ON JESUITS' ESTATE BILL 511 here that Colonel Rhodes was not elected in Megantic by the Protestant minority. The County of Megantic is a mixed county. Colonel Rhodes, the Minister of Agriculture, was elected two or three months after this Act has been passed, and it was an issue upon which the electors had to pass. Colonel Rhodes polled the majority ofthe French and Catholic votes, but I say that Colonel Rhodes also polled the majority of the Protestant votes. As to this I do not give my own testimony. I have not yet had an occasion to look at the figures. But I give the testimony of Colonel Rhodes himself, who, on the day of the elec tion, telegraphed that he had been upheld by the majority of the Protestant electors of the County of Megantic. Then the honorable member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) goes on to say : I can understand that, if there were a fighting man m that House, like the honorable member who leads the third party here, there might be a chance of obtaining something like justice, but men with that skill and ability, with parlia- - mentary knowledge to back it, are not to be found every day, and we are not to judge the Protestant representatives of the province of Quebec on that high standard. And why not, Mr. Speaker, " of that high stand ard ? " Can it be that the Protestants of the province of Quebec, who have placed themselves at the head of the trade of the country, still are so backward in this respect that they cannot send to the Legislature a man of standing to represent them ? Can it be that the Protestants ofthe province of Quebec have to be taken under the fostering care of my honorable friend from Simcoe ? Can it be that they CANNOT MANAGE THEIR OWN AFFAIRS? Can it be they cannot look after their own interests ? I have more confidence than my honorable friend in the ability of the Protestant representatives in the province of Quebec, because I happen to know they 512 SPEECH are men of merit, men of ability, and some of the greatest ability. But, Mr. Speaker, if that is the opinion Avhich the honorable gentleman entertains of his own countrymen and co-religionists in the pro vince of Quebec ; if he believes that they are not able to take care of their own interests, but that the Pro testants of other provinces mu3t come to their rescue, perhaps he would be interested to know what is the opinion Avhich is entertained by some of the Protest ants of Quebec of those too zealous Protestants ofthe province of Ontario who Avant to take up the cudgels on their behalf. I hold in my hand an extract from a paper published in the Eastern Townships, the Waterloo Advertiser, edited by a disciple and a life long friend of the late Mr. Huntington, as good and as strong a Protestant as ever lived. This is how the paper speaks : Every patriotic Canadian must deplore he intemperate discussion that has been provoked by the Jesuits' Bill. The measure has become law, .and no amount of controversy can alter the fact. It is altogether the domestic concern of' the province of Quebec, and any outside interference is simply meddlesome and impertinent. The parsons and the Orange men of Ontario have joined hands to make war on the Catholics of Quebec. The Legislature has settled the old dispute over the Je?uits' estates in a manner satisfactory to the people. A source of irritation and discontent has been removed once for all. The Jesuits' Bill passed the Legislature, practically, with out a dissenting voice. The chosen representatives ef the Protestant minority accepted it as a fair settlement of a vexed question. The basis of settlement called for an expenditure of public funds, and to obviate any possibility of jealousy on the part of the Protestant minority proportionate sum was at the same time voted for the Protestant education. That was fair and just and it was so understood by the minority. The Protest ant minority in this province is quite able to take care of itself. In the purely domestic concerns of the province, it asks no assistance and expects no sympathy from outsiders. Taking it all in all, the minority has been fairly treated by the majority. There may have been friction at times, but there has not been in the history ofthe province an instance in which the powers of the majority have been used to crush or injure the minority. ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL ' 513 If the Catholics and Protestants are able to get along together peaceably, why should Ontario interfere ? The Protestant minority as a whole has not and does not complain of the Jesuit settlement. It is recognized by broad-minded and patriotic men as being the best thing that could have been done under the circumstances. Such, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion entertained in the Eastern ToAvnships at least by one section of the people. Now, my honorable friend from Huntingdon (Mr Scriver) a moment ago referred to the TREATMENT OF THE MINORITY in the province of Quebec. I have the greatest res pect, as my friend knows, for everything Avhich he utters, and I am sure he will agree with me in one thing — if the Protestant minority in the province of Quebec have anything to complain of — and I listened to what might be called the list of grievances which we heard read to-day by the honorable member for Norfolk(Mr. Charlton)— but if the Protestantminority have anything to complain of, I ask : Are they not themselves responsible for it ? In all that list of griev ances which Avere read, is there an act of legislation against which they have ever protested ? Have they not always supported the Conservative party which has ahvays been in power, and has not every one of these items in the list Avhich we have heard recited a3 grievances, been passed by the Conservative party which the Protestants of Quebec always support ? Sir, I have simply to say thi3, speaking as a Canadian^ of French origin,that if my fellow-countrymen of British origin have any grievances, real or imaginary, let them come before the Legislature of Quebec ; and al though I have not a seat in that I e nslature I can claim that I have some influence there; nay, I do not want any influence, I know that the majority ofthe mem bers in that House.the Conservative minority as well, would be ever ready to give them what remedial le gislation they may think for their benefit. But up to 32 514 SPEECH a few days ago, I never heard that the Protestant minority HAD ANYTHING TO COMPLAIN OF in the treatment which they have received from the majority of the province of Quebec, and if they had any serious grievances, can it be told upon the floor of tbi3 Parliament that these grievances would not have been ventilated before the representatives ofthe people? I repeat what I said a moment ago. It is quite easy for the editor in his chair, or the clergy man in his s-tudy, or for any party who has no re sponsibility to the public at large — it is quite easy for them to determine questions by fixed theories, but it is another thing to fix them according to the will of the people, and I do not admit that there is any serious grievance so long as those grievances are not venti lated upon the floor of the House of the Provincial Parliament. The honorable member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) also said something yesterday about Mr. Joly. He claimed that Mr. Joly had been ousted from public life. I do not knoAv by Avhom, but I suppose he meant by the Liberal party. Mr. McCarthy :— Hear, hear ! Mr. Laurier : — The honorable member says : " hear, hear." Mr. Joly had been in poAver for some eighteen months and he was ousted from power by the most dishonest warfare which ever public man had to suffer in this country. Mr, Joly was ousted from power largely by a violation of the constitution, perpetrated by this Parliament, and in which the honorable member for Simcoe Avas himself instrumental. If Mr. Joly had had anything like fair play, I believe that to this day he Avould have been in power in the province of Quebec. Mr. Joly never had anything to suffer at the hands of the Liberal party ; on the contrary, Mr. Joly is a man for whom we have the greatest respect. We have differed from him upon one question, and one question only, the question which arose out of ON THE 'JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 515 the rebellion in the North-West. Upon that question Mr. Joly took one course, and we took a different course. I am not to argue this question over again, but I have simply to say this to the honorable member for Simcoe, that in the last election Avhich took place in Megantic, where a Protestant representative of the Cabinet of Mr. Mercier was before the people, and when this very question was to be tested at the polls, Mr. Joly came down AND SUPPORTED THE CANDIDATE and the policy of the Government. It is evident, Mr. Speaker, from the discussion which Ave have had in this Parliament since yesterday, that though the Act is objectionable to some people — and I find no fault with the honorable member for Muskoka, I find no fault with my honorable friend for Simcoe, for hold ing the views they hold — I would not attribute to them other than the motive of conscience, that they are doing what they think for the best, they are repre senting what they deem to be in the interest of the people at large — but it is manifest to me that their judgment has been considerably biassed by the fact that the name of the Jesuits has been introduced in that legislation. It seems to me manifest that the appearance of that name has evoked a fresh outburst of hostility which that celebrated order has been sub jected to in many lands and in many ages. Noav, it is said that they are dangerous men. Suppose all that has been said were true, Avould that be any reason to refuse them the justice to which they are entitled? Suppose they were dangerou3 men, as it is represented they are ; that might perhaps be a reason to refuse them civil rights, to refuse them recognition. But they were incorporated by the province of Quebec two years ago, and the act which incorporated them re ceived the approval of one of those weak Protestants, according to the member for Simcoe, who represent the minority in the Legislature of Quebec. Mr. 516 SPEECH Lynch, a fellow Conservative of the honorable mem ber for Simcoe, speaking on that occasion, used this remarkable language : — Mr. Lynch, on the bill to incorporate the Jesuits, said that, notwithstanding what might be thought in some quarters, there was uothing in the bill alarming in its character. We were living in an age when wisdom prevailed, living in an age when freedom was supposed to exist the world over, and no where in the Dominion of Her Majesty did liberty prevail more than in the province of Quebec. In committee, with a consi deration of fairness which characterized members of the House, certain portions of the preamble were struck out. Now is it possible that the intelligent public opinion of the province of Quebec should deny those Jesuit Fathers the civil rights which we have granted to everyone else ? If there is any religious aspect to this question,it should be settled elsewhere than in this House. If there is anything in this bill against civil rights, let us strike it out. Until this is shown, I am prepared to support this bill. , And supported the bill was, and it became law. Under such circumstances, it seems to me that the explosion of bitterness Avhich we have seen to-day and yesterday COMES RATHER TARDILY. But, Sir, any man, be he friend or foe of the Je3uit Order, must at least give them credit for this, that they repel and deny all the charges which are made against them; they repel and deny the dangerous doctrines which are attributed to them. Now, I Avould not enter upon that question for one moment were it not for the remarks which fell to-day from my friend the honorable member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charl ton) ; but I cannot allow such vieAvs as those which have been expressed to pass Avithout some comment, though this is not the proper sphere or time either to defend or attack the Jesuits. Every one familiar with French literature knows that Pascal, in his celebrated "Lettres Provinciales, " has .quoted several para- on the Jesuits' estates bill 517 graphs, which he attributes to the Jesuits, of very ob jectionable character. I have not been able for my part to discover tho3e extracts ; I have often sought for the text books ; but could not find them, and I cannot say whether they are right or wrong. But I know this, that writers of as great eminence as Pascal have asserted over and over again that all the statements upon which Pascal based his accusations have been refuted, time and again, by members of the Jesuit Order. Now, the Jesuits, it is admitted, are a body of able men, and, it must be admitted also, are a body of pure men. and they are characterized by knowledge and high attainments; but they are men, they are fallible, and it would be strange indeed if in such a numerous order some were not found to write objectionable things. But suppose one of an order were found to write objectionable things would it fol low that the whole order ought to beheld responsible, as was said by one member ? So are you to conclude that, because one ofthe order happens to Avrite objec tionable things, the Avhole order are to be condemned ? It would be just as if you were to condemn all the Protestant divines of Ontario because the Rev. Dr. Wild said, a few clays ago, that to kill a Jesuit was no crime. I will not, Mr. Speaker, push this contro versy any further. This is not the place, I say, to attack the Jesuits, nor the place to defend them. The place to attack the Jesuits, in so far as this bill is con cerned, was the Legislature of Quebec ; but, whether a man be a friend or a foe ofthe Jesuits, it seems to me that their history in Canada, Avhatever it may have been in other lands, has been such as to com mand not only admiration, but the greatest admira tion. They have been THE PIONEERS OF THIS COUNTRY. In the language of a great historian, not a cape was turned, not a river was entered, but a Jesuit led the way. Every inch of the soil of Ontario was trodden 51 8 SPEECH by their weary feet at least 150 years before there was an English settler in that province. Nay, the very soil of the province has been consecrated by their blood, shed in their attempts to win over souls to the God of Protestants and Catholics alike. Of the Jesuits I have nothing more to say. The question, as I say, is not one fit for this audience ; if it is lo be discussed it should be discussed elseAvhere than here. But the resolution asserts that'they have been expelled. The honorable member for Simcoe stated yesterday that they have been expelled from several countries ; and the honorable member for North Norfolk, stated to day that they have been expelled from twenty diffe rent countries. Sir, this is true ; but, what is equally true, they have never yet been expelled from a free country. They have been expelled from countries where true principles of human freedom, such as' we understand them in British countries, were not understood. The honorable gentleman told us yes terday that they had been expelled from Germany in 1872. Why is it, in a British Assembly, that the example of Germany will be given to us to imitate ? Does the honorable gentleman hold that because the Jesuits have been expelled from Germany — Germany ruled by a man of genius, but a despot after all — such an example should be followed here? We have been told that the Jesuits were expelled from Franc in 1880. Yes, they were; and to the shame of the French republic be hsaid. But ' THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY MEN who were expelled by that Government. In 1880 six or seven different religious communities were expel led. Sisters of Charity were expelled — angels on earth, if there are any, women who renounce every thing that life can give in order to give their life un to the daily maintenance and succor of those who are poor, helple-s and suffering. Not only those religious communities, but the princes of the House ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 519 of 0rlean3 were also expelled from France — men Avho were the elite of France, men of whom more than forty years ago, Prince Metternich said, when they were in their boyhood : " They are young men such as there are few and princes such as there are none. " The Due d'Aumale, one of them, was expelled, one ofthe noblest soldiers ofthe French army, a man whose soul is so high that the only manner in Avhich he requited the cruel treatment meted out to him was to make a gift to the ungrateful nation of the Chateau de Chantilly with all its art treasures. I have only this to say to an honorable gentleman Avho brings such arguments as these : I feel ten thousand times prouder of my native land, Avhich can deal justly and generously with the Jesuits, than of the land of my ancestors, which, though a republic, is to-day so re- trogade in its constitution |and practice of freedom, that it banishes those who do not come up to the standard of its own citizenship. In this matter, I am reminded that the honorable gentleman from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) yesterday stated that we of French origin sometimes forget that this is a British country. I have his words here and I want to quote them : We must never forget, said he, I am afraid that s ome of my friends from the Province of Quebec do sometimes forget that this is a British country, that by the fortunes of war that event was decided, and the greater half of this continent pas sed over to the British Crown. What did the honorable gentleman mean by that ? I wish he had said a little more or a Httle less. I wish he had not contented himself with making an insinuation, but that, if he had a charge to make, he should have had the pluck and the courage to make it. I tell this to the honorable gentleman. I am of French origin and I am proud of my origin, and I know my fellow-countrymen of Anglo Saxon race too well not to be aware, that if I had not the pride of my origin in my heart they would never think of me but with the contempt which I should deserve. I am of French origin, but 520 SPEECH I AM A BRITISH SUBJECT. The honorable member for North Norfolk (Mr.Charl- ton) said, a moment ago, that there should be but one race here. Mr. McCarthy : — Hear, hear ! Mr. Laurier : — The honorable gentleman says "hear, hear." Well, what Avould that race be ? Is it the British lion that is to swallow the French lamb,or the French lamb that is to swallow the British lion ? There can be more than one race, but there shall be but one nation. Scotland has not forgotten her origin, as far as I know, but Scotland is British. I do not intend to forget my origin, but I am a Canadian be fore everything. Let me state this further to my honor able friend, I have the pride of my origin ; I feel the strength of the blood which Aoavs in my veins, but, in the language ofthe Latin poet, I say : Homo sum ; hunjani nihil a me alienum puto. " I am a man ; nothing that relates to man is foreign to my sympathy ;" but, at the same time, though I would never forget the language of my race, the language Avhich my mother taught me, I say to the honorable gentleman that if I had my choice to return to French allegiance, never would I consent to do so. I do not speak only my own feelings when I thus speak, but I voice the feelings of every one of my countrymen. I do not give utterance merely to the feelings of those who sit beside me, but I am sure I speak the feelings of those French Canadians who sit on the other side as well, when I say that if to-day a poll was taken in the province of Quebec, or all through the Dominion of Canada, giving a choice between allegiance to England or allegiance to France, there would not be one single vote cast in favor of a return to the allegiance to France. We would remain British subjects; but' because we are British subjects, is it to be expected that we shall turn ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 521 TRAITORS TO OUR ORIGIN, traitors to everything that makes life valuable? What would be life if a man had not in his veins and in his heart a feeling for the blood of his own coun try ? The honorable gentleman told us yesterday that he was an Irishman. Would he deny the land of his ancestors? Well, I would pity him from my heart if he would. But, after all, if ever Ave were to forget that we are of French origin, I am sure Ave could not forget it in view of the agitation which is noAV going on in the province of Ontario, because from day to day, from week to week, in a certain press, we have been appealed to — we of French origin — as Liberals of French origin — to vote for disalloAvance against the Jesuits' Act. From day to day in a certain press, the Liberals of the province of Quebec have been ap pealed to vole against the Government on this ques tion ; and in my hand I hold one of the last issues, in Avhich after having recited all the villanies of which the Jesuits are accused, the editor continues as follows : — It is safe to say, therefore, that if the Liberals of England or of France were in the position of Mr. Laurier aud his fol lowers- they would not hesitate a moment in killing this con spiracy in Quebec. Even if they did not hold the Act to be absolutely unconstitutional they would certainly vote for its disallowance as being contrary to the public interest. Well, as far as reference is made to the Liberals of France, I have no doubt the editor is quite correct. No doubt, if the Liberals of France had the poAver to vote on this question, they would certainly disallow this Act ; but I have this to say, that I am not and we are not Liberals of the French school. _ I have not said it once but ten times and tAventy times in my own province, that I am A LIBERAL OF THE ENGLISH SCHOOL, that I and my friends have nothing in common Avith 522 SPEECH the Liberals of France. A short time ago, I was sorry to hear my honorable friend fjom Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) express regret that there was no Protestant party, as far as I understood him. There are men of my OAvn race, who entertain the same view as the honorable gentleman, and would desire to have a Catholic party. I have always raised my voice against that doctrine, and, as far back as 1877, speaking to a French audience in the French language in the city which I have the honor to represent now, the good old city of Quebec, I used to those who, like my honorable friend, Avould separate men upon the ground of creed, this language : You wish to organize all the Catholics in one party, without any other tie, without any other basis than the community of religion, but have you not reflected that, by that very fact, you will organize the Protestant population as one party, and that then, instead of the peace and harmony which exist to day between the different elements of the Canadian popula tion, you would bring on war, religious war, the most disastrous of all wars ? Those Avere my sentiments ten years ago ; those are my sentiments to-day. My honorable friend from Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) stated that we should not allow this Act because the Jesuits are inimical to liberty. Such a statement would not surprise me in the mouth of a Liberal from France^ but it does surprise me to hear it on the floor of this Parliament. Are we to be told that, because men are inimical to liberty, they shall not be given liberty? In our own doctrine and in our own view, liberty shines not only for the friends of liberty, but also for the enemies of liberty. We make no difference whatever : and, as far as the Liberals of England are concerned, I am sure of one thing, that, if they Avere here, they would never vote as the editor of the Mail supposes they would. The Liberals of England have been for the last century and more SPEECH ON THE JESUITS' ESTATES BILL 523 THE CHAMPIONS OF FREEDOM all over the world, and, if Ave have freedom to-day, as we understand it in this country and in this age, it is largely due to the efforts of the Liberal party in England. They understood long ago that liberty is not only for the friends of liberty, but for all. They understood long ago that the security of the State depends entirely upon the utmost freedom being given to all opinions, that no one is to be canvassed for his opinion, right or wrong, but that the utmost freedom shall be given to all opinions, and that the popular judgment will decide between the grain and the chaff, will select the one and reject the other. That is the principle which I have, in my humble way, endeavored to inculcate for many years amongst my fellow-countrymen of French origin. That, with a steadfast adherence to the broadest principles of constitutional freedom, is the guiding star which, in the station I now occupy and in any station I may have in life, I shall ever endeavor to follow. THE m ME, 1889 NATIONAL FESTIVAL OF THE FRENCH CANADIANS MR. LAURIER'S REFLECTIONS ON THE ROLE OF THE RACE IN AMERICA In June, 1 889, 25,000 French Canadians, from all parts of the continent, assembled at Quebec around a monument raised by their subcriptions to the memory of Jacques Cartier, the discoverer, and of De Breboeuf, one ofthe first missionaries, of Canada. The festivities lasted during three days and were marked by great splendor. One of the addresses delivered on the ocsasion and which produced the most effect was beyond question Mr. Laurier's reply to the toast of " Canada " at the patriotic banquet of the 24th June at the Jacques Cartier Hall, in the French quarter of St Roch's, which he represents in the Commons. It was as fellows : Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen : I have often thought, and the idea has been impressed on me more than ever by the brilliancy of this day's festivities, that there should be only one celebration of the St Jean Baptiste in this country and that that celebration should take place in the good old city of Quebec : I have often thought and I now think more than ever that Quebec should be for French Canadians what Mecca is for Arabia, the city par excellence, the holy city among all. It may be said, perhaps, that I am partial 526 ADDRESS towards Quebec, but to this my simple answer is that I have many reasons for being so and that, far from being ashamed ofthe fact, I glory in it. For, it must be conceded, there is only one Que bec. Our Montreal friends, who are with us tonight and Avho are with good reason proud of their own city will, perhaps, protest ; but I do not allow then- protests. This continent swarms with cities like Montreal, and I call to witness our friends here present from the United States. I am far from wishing to say anything disparaging of Montreal, but there is only one Quebec. Cities like Montreal, with wide, straight, regular streets, are, as an Irishman would say, to be found at every door. These things have their value, certainly, but I repeat that there is only one Quebec. What constitutes the great charm of Quebec is its variety, the unexpectedness of its aspects ; at each step you make, the scene changes and a new panorama as ravishing as the previous one, but of a different style, unrolls itself to your sight. This charm of Quebec every one can enjoy : strangers enjoy it as well, and, perhaps, more than Ave do, because men are so constituted that they do not know hoAv to sufficiently appreciate what they have themselves. But Quebec possesses another charm, which can be enjoyed in all its plenitude only by us, French Canadians; it is the charm of memories. Men of Quebec, you are privileged beings. Antiquity has preserved for us the memory of a famous epitaph, calling on the passer-by to stop, as he was treading on the ashes df a hero, but you, men of Quebec, you breathe, live and have your being among the dust of heroes. At each step you make in your city, a monument, a building, a stone, a glimpse of the sky at the end of a narrow street calls to mind a whole world of heroic events. To-day, you have raised another monument, which will forever perpetuate the memory ofthe cross planted by the envoy ofthe king of France, TO THE FRENCH CANADIANS 527 when he took possession ofthis country in the name of his royal master. This country, hoAvever, has not remained French soil. Still we have remained true to the memory of our old mother country. Although separated from France for over a cen tury and differing from her at present in several Avays, we have always Avorshipped her in our hearts, watch- ng from afar, but with ceaseless interest, all the ivicissitudes of her agitated career and sharing in her joys and triumphs, as well as in her disasters and sorrows, still more, indeed, in her sorrows than in her joys- Adversity is the test of affection and I appeal to you all if it is not true that we never realized how dear France was to us as we realized it during the period of her reverses, during the fatal years of 1870 and 1871, when the telegraph brought us the neAvs of defeat instead ofthe victories which we had looked for. And when there was no longer room for doubt, when, having hoped against hope, we had, in order to convince ourselves, to read over and over again the text of the harsh law imposed by the conqueror and when Alsace and Loraine were violently severed from French territory, I ask you, if we had been deprived of one of our own limbs could we have suffered keener anguish? The toast proposed by Mr. Langelier reminds us that our separation from France has imposed new duties upon us has created new interests and opened new affections to us. We are French Canadians, but our country is not confined to the territory over shadowed by the citadel of Quebec ; our country is Canada, it is the whole of what is covered by the British flag on the American continent, the fertile lands bordered by the Bay of Fundy, the Valley of the St. Lawrence, the region of the great lakes, the prairies ofthe West, the Rocky Mountains, the land3 washed bv the famous ocean where breezes are said to 528 ADDRESS be as sweet as the breezes ofthe Mediterranean. Our fellow-countrymen are not only those in whose veins runs the blood of France. They are all those, what ever their race or Avhatever their language, whom the fortune of war, the chances of fate, or their own choice have brought among us, and Avho acknowledge the sovereignty ofthe British CroAvn. As far as I am concerned, loudly do I proclaim it, those are my folio w-country men, I am a Canadian. But I told it elsewhere, and with greater pleasure, I repeat here this evening, among all my felloAA'- countrymen, the first place in my heart is for those in Avhose veins runs the blood of my own veins. Yet I do not hesi tate to say that the rights of my follow-countrymen of different origins are as dear to me, as sacred to me, as the rights of my own race, and if it unfortunately happened that they ever were attacked, I would defend them with just as much energy and vigor as the rights of my own race. I say I: should I not say you, we all of us? Yes, we are too much the sons of France, of that generous nation which has so often shed her blood for the defence ofthe weak, ofthe oppn S3ed, not to be ever ready'to defend the rights of our fellow-countrymen of different nationalities to the same extent as our own. What I claim for us in an equal share of sun of justice, of liberty ; that share Ave have it ; we have it ample, and Avhat Ave claim for ourselves we are anxious to grant to others. I do not want French Canadians to domineer over any one, nor any one to domineer over them. Equal justice. Equal rights. It is Avritten that the sands of seas are numbered. It is written that not an hair falls from one's head without the permission of an Eternal Providence, eternally Avise. Can we not believe that in that supreme battle here, ou the Plains of Abraham, when the fate of arms turned against us, can Ave not believe that it entered into the decrees of Pro vidence that the two races, up to that time enemies, should henceforth live in peace and harmony, and henceforth should form one nation? Such was the inspiring cause of Confederation. TO THE FRENCH CANADIANS 529 When the British provinces were united under the same constitution, the hope now acknowledged was to give to all the scattered elements therein a national ideal, to present to the world the spectacle of a nation diverse in its origins and retaining in all its groups the respect for family and race traditions, but giving thenceforward to all one and the same aspiration. I have not forgotten that, at its inception, Confederation was not accepted without fear by num ber of Canadians of French origin, but there is never theless one thing for which the French Canadians are entitled to universal admiration. The fault of demo cracies is usually to flatter the mob. I do not know ' how to flatter and I shall never stoop to play the part of the flatterer, either to crowds or to individuals ; but it is an act of simple justice to note the admirable pliability with which the French Canadians have adapted themselves to the different regimes through which they have passed, the constitution of 1775, that of 1791, that of 1841 and lastly that of Confederation. I am not ignorant of the fact that there can be no nation without a national pride, nor am I unaware that in almost all cases national pride is inspired by those tragic events which bring suffering and tears in their train, but which at the same time call out all the forces of a nation or of a race, and on this head it has been correctly said that the happiest people are those without a history. Our history under Confede ration presents none of the dramatic facts, which make us so attached to the past ; it has been calm and consequently happy. But peace has also its glories and its heroes. Canada under Confederation has produced men of whom any nation might justly feel proud. I will not speak of the Canadians of French origin, as Mr. Langelier referred to them a moment ago, but I will allude to the Canadians of British origin and mention two as examples. The first name I shall recall is that of a man from whom I differ toto coelo, but I am too much a French Canadian not to glory at all times in doing justice to an adver- 34 530 ADDRESS sary. I refer to Sir John A. Macdonald. I will not astonish my friend, Mr. Chapais, Avhom I see amongst us, if I state that I do not share Sir John Macdonald's political opinions, I may even add that I condemn almost all of them, but it must be acknowledged that, in his long career, Sir John Macdonald has displayed such eminent qualities that he would have made his mark on any ofthe world's stages and that, with the single exception, perhaps, of Mr. Mercier, no one on this continent has excelled as he has in the art of governing men. The other name is that of a man who has been to me not only a friend, but more than a friend. I mean Honorable Edward Blake. Some years ago, speak ing hers of Mr. Blake, I declared that, in my opinion, America, at that moment, did not possess his equal and Europe could not shoAv his superior. That opinion has been confirmed by all that I have since seen of Mr. Blake. I have enjoyed the ad vantage of very close relations with him and have learned that his heart, soul, and character are in keep ing with his splendid intellect. Besides these, many other names, the names of men of the highest emi nence, occur to me; but I shall pass over them in si lence in order to remind you of an event, which sums up in itself all that I could say and which will shoAV you that, while remaining French Canadians, we are Canadians in the broadest acceptance of the term. Only a feAv weeks have elapsed since St. Sau- veur was destroyed by fire. On that occasion, a man came forward to fight the scourge and check the spread ofthe conflagration. With all the smartness, zeal and intrepidity of the true soldier, he rushed into the thick ofthe dan ger and found his death there. On the following day, the Avhole French population of Quebec filled the streets as they filled them to-day, but, instead of a feeling of joyfulness, the feeling in their hearts was one of deepest grief for the gallant Major Short, whose mutilated remains they had congregated to reverently salute on their way to the grave. TO THE FRENCH CANADIANS 531 ' iijdr ~ ~ Major Short did not belong to our race ; but he was our fellow countryman ; and I would ask which one of you, French Canadians, in the midst of the still smoking ruins of your city and the presence of the dead hero, did not feel proud of being a Canadian ? l!l$ Gentlemen, let us have the pride of our race! Let us be just to all our felloAV countrymen, without distinc tion of race or creed ! Let us know hoAv to be not alone just, kbut generous, and let all our actions in the Confederation be characterized by that generosity which has]marked the career of France in Europe i THE RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION TRACED BY A MASTER HAND It may not be amiss to briefly recall the circumstances under which the following speech was delivered. The animo sity and the fires of national and religious hatred, aroused and kept alive, by certain fanatics, had reached their height, and the slightest incident might have precipitated a general con flagration. Who was going to try to allay the storm ? C er- tainly, it was not Mr. McCarthy, the leader of the agitation, who would have dreamt of appearing in the province of Quebec to advocate his hate-breathing views. On the other hand, who was the French Canadian orator, who would have the courage to beard the agitator on his own ground ? Mr. Lau rier's name was mentioned, it is true, but it was said : he will not go. However, the Liberal leader did go and it may be said that he conquered, for his words had a notably appeasing effect. Not only did they crush prejudice on the spot, but, with the rapidity of electricity, they carried thousands of leagues away a clear perception of a situation, with regard to which only a very confused and erroneous idea had until then prevailed abroad. This speech alone won for Mr. Laurier the honor of being compared to the foremost statesmen of the mother-country by the Canadian Gazette, a journal which cer tainly had nothing in common with him. A few days after wards, on the 17th of October, the cable brought us the following passage from the Tory paper's article : ' 'Mr.Laurier's Toronto speech places him at one bound in the front rank of British statesmen. To the eloquence native to the French Canadian, Mr. Laurier's adds honesty, directness of purpose and pure-minded patriotism, which mark him out as a leader. Men of such high mental and moral power were never more needed in the forefront of affairs in Canada than now." 534 SPEECH SPEECH DELIVERED BY HONORABLE WILFRID LA URIER, A T TOR ONTO, ON THE SOTH SEPTEMBER, 1889 AT A MEETING CALLED BY THE YOUNG MEN'S LIBERAL CLUB M. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen : I Avould be only too glad to be able to accept without any restriction the too kind things Avhich you, Mr. Chairman, have been pleased to speak of me on this occasion ; but upon this occasion — though on no other — I have to be a restrictionist. I cannot accept the too generous compliments which your kindness to me has prompted you to speak. You have alluded to the fact that Avhen I last stood before an audience in this great city of Toronto I did not then occupy the position Avhich the too great partiality of my friends in the House of Commons has imposed upon me. I can tell you. gentlemen, if there is anybody Avho regrets to-day that I have to appear before you in that position, no one regrets it more sincerely than I do. It would have been my pleasure — indeed, my too great pleasure — to be able to serve, as I have done many a day, under the leadership OF MY ABLE AND DEAR FRIEND, MR. BLAKE. Fate, however, decreed otherAvise, and I thought that duty compelled me then to accept the position which, unfortunately, disease forced him to forego ; and, in the discharge of the great responsibilities which I then assumed, I claim no other credit, but this which I do claim, that I havre endeavored to discharge them to the best of my judgment, to the best of my con science, without fear, Avithout favor for any man. AT TORONTO IN 1889 535 And it is in this same spirit that I come before yon this evening, and I say at once that I would not respond to the task which I have imposed upon myself, nor respond to the duty Avhich you, Sir, and the Young Liberals of Ontario have entrusted me with, if I did not at once make the statement, as the very basis of everything that I shall feel obliged to say this evening, that the situation of our country at this moment, for causes obvious to all, is such that it cannot be viewed without some degree of anxiety and alarm. In the first place the most sanguine among3t us, viewing the perpetual stream of emigration Avhich depletes our incipient and only incipient population, must admit, whether the admission comes manfully to his lips, or whether the admission remains within the dark recesses of conscience, that the economic position of the country is not satisfactory. Not that the country is wanting in wealth, in vigor, in energy. On the contrary, WEALTH, VIGOR AND ENERGY are every Avhere exuberant, but in an evil hour the country allowed its limbs to be shackled and man acled by vicious fiscal lines under Avhich its growth has been stunted. But the situation is not yet hopeless. Yet there are other considerations, there are other dangers which must be met, and Avhich if not met may threaten the very existence of Confederation, and which can be met only, in my judgment, by a firm and judicious adherence to tho3e principles which you, Mr. Chairman, acknowledge as Liberal prin ciples. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not ignorant that in this province the Liberal party is at this moment subjected to many reproaches and strictures. In fact the dangers and the obstacles with which the Liberal party has to contend at this moment come not from its avowed opponents, but come from this new school of Liberals, AvhoAVould import into the country Liberal principles from Germany, from France and Conti 536 SPEECH nental Europe, altogether unsuited to the position we occupy on this continent. These men tell you that the Liberal party of to-day is composed of effete Liberals, weak Liberals, Liberals only in name. They tell you we have sacrificed the principle's of the great Reform party for the support of a dominant Church. They tell you that upon a late occasion, upon a most important question, we Avent back upon every tradi tion, on every principle, of the great Liberal party. Well, Mr. Chairman, if these reproaches were to come from the ranks of the Conservative party, if these reproaches were to come openly from the friends of the Conservative party, as they are made in fact and in reality ON BEHALF OF THE CONSERA'ATIATE PARTY, I would pass them by ; but, as they come from the so-called advanced Liberals and are addressed to the Liberal party, they cannot be ignored ; and I am here to shoAv, or to attempt to shoAv, and I am sure I can show you that the men who use this language are not loyal to the principles they profess, and are not sup porters of the party they pretend to serve. I call upon the Liberals not to be moved from the paths of duty by such reproaches addressed to them. I call upon all Liberals, those Avho agree Avith us and those who disagree with us, to be true to themselves and to their country on this great question. Let us remember that there is for every question that comes up a com mon ground not always easily discernible, but which will, when found, be found compatible with our interest and at the same time affording a sure solution upon the broadest national lines. Let us re member that when this ground is found it must be adhered to unflinchingly, and that upon every occa sion and for every question, whether our course is approved or AAdiether our course is censured, we must always and ever remain the same — bold without temerity and prudent Avithout timidity ! Again, Mr. AT TORONTO IN 1889 537 Chairman, I say that the situation ofthis country at this moment is full of difficulties AND FULL OF PERILS. We have noAV been under Confederation for the space of some twenty-two years, and the great task we set ourselves twenty-two years ago of building up a na tion in Canada seems to be no more advanced than it Avas twenty-two years ago. New complications arise constantly, Avhich make the hope indulged in tAventy- two years ago almost as far away as it was at that time. And noAV, my felloAV-countrymen, I ask you this — What are the causes of these complications ; Avhat are the causes of these difficulties and perils? Look for them, examine them, sift them well, and you will agree with me that all these causes, what ever shape they may assume, Avhatever mischief they may work, can all be summed up in this one Avord — distrust. Distrust of race against race, distrust of creed against creed, distrust of motives, distrust of intentions which combines a creed or a race within itself instead of moving them forward together all to a common end ; distrust which engenders hostility, the consequences of which are almost appalling. I am now speaking in the province of Ontario. Is it not a fact that to-day, in this great province of Ontario, there is a latent or expressed FEELING OF DISTRUST of the Catholic province of Quebec ? I come from the province of Quebec, and I know it unfortunately for a fact that in the Catholic province of Quebec there is a feeling of distrust of the Protestant province of Ontario. Now, for that state of things, for that uni versal distrust, that general feeling of diffidence which permeates the whole political body, I lay the charge and the blame upon the Conservative party. They have governed this country almo3t without interrup- 538 SPEECH tion since Confederation. And Avhen in poAver they have governed, and Avhen out of power they have sought to govern, not by a broad, uniform, general policy Avhich would have Avelded together all the pro vinces of Confederation, and which would have made every man proud of his citizenship as a Canadian ; their object has been to obtain in every province a majority by appealing to the local prejudices of that province. In the province of Quebec by appealing to the prejudices of my fellow-Catholics, in the province of Ontario by appealing to the prejudices of extreme Protestants. That game was for a long time success ful. It was sure to be successful as long as the con flicting passions of Ontario and Quebec could be kept active. But, Sir, no one can deal with impunity with SUCH INFLAMMABLE MATERIAL as religious and national passions. And I call you to witness, everyone of you, that, on the day when the conflict of passion of Catholic Quebec and Protes tant Ontario came, the whole fabric of Confederation trembled under the shock. And to-day, Mr. Chair man, to-day it is no rare occurence to hear repeated that fatal sentence spoken some years ago by a Con servative organ, threatening that if things did not go as it Avished it would smash Confederation into its original fragments. This is the position, and in the face of this position what is the duty of the Liberal party ? The duty of the Liberal party is plain. It is a duty upon which I appeal Avith great confidence to the young men of the whole Confederation. In the face of this universal distrust, the duty of the Liberal party is to promote, or rather to continue, the policy of hope and exertion for mutual respect and confidence. In the face of disintegration, if disintegration be simply hinted at, it is the duty ofthe Liberal party to stand firm by the principle of Confederation. I do not believe certainly that Confederation is AT TORONTO IN 1889 ' 539 THE LAST AVORD OF CANADA'S DESTINY. It can be looked at simply as a transient state ; but, Avhenever the change come3, the change must be a step forward and not a step backward. We live under Confederation, and it is our duty to stand by Confe deration, to be loyal to Confederation. I am a Liberal and I believe in movement, in progress ; but I do not believe in inconsiderate changes. I believe in changes rendered necessary by the natural evolution of the people's life. Still less would I be of those Avho clamor for a constitutional change, because the state of things that now exists comes into conflict with their personal prejudices and opinions. In the prov ince to which I belong,our leaders at the time of Con federation had not absolute confidence in the scheme. Not that they thought it destroyed the federative principle ; it strengthened it. But they thought it was premature. What was said then may besaid Ayith equal force to-day, namely, that there was in the idea of bringing together the various scattered British prov inces and giving them a common national aspiration, and making of them a common nation, that which would make the heart of any Canadian beat with pa triotism. Sir, I know one thing. What I say now, will be discounted — what I say now, I may say, has been already discounted in a certain press. It will be said that such language as I utter is meant for Ontario, and would not be repeated in Quebec. It will be said that it is all very well in Ontario to speak as a Canadian, but that the language I utter to the people of Quebec is that ofthe establishment OF A FRENCH INDEPENDENT STATE on the banks of the St. Lawrence. Sir, in so far as I am personally concerned, I resent such an imputation, In so far as I am personally concerned I resent the im putation that I would have one language for Ontario and another for Quebec. I call upon my bitterest foe 540 SPEECH ever to quote a word of mine that I have ever uttered in Quebec or wherever I may have spoken that is dif ferent, Sir, from what I have noAV said. I would de spise myself if I had not the courage of my convictions. And whether I stood upon the soil of Ontario.or Avhe ther I stood upon the soil of my native province of Quebec addressing my countrymen of kindred blood, my language has ever been what it is here this even ing. It so happens, Mr. Chairman, that the last time I spoke upon the soil of my native province it was upon this very question. It Avas upon the 24th of June last. The occasion was the celebration of "St. Jean Baptiste," which, you know, is the national holiday of the French Canadians. I spoke in the very heart ofthe city of Quebec,in the division that I have the honor of representing in Parliament. I spoke to an audience that was exclusively French and I spoke ¦ in my native tongue. With your permission, I will read to you what I said on that occasion to my fel low-countrymen of French origin, and which can be read in the columns of L'Electeur of the 25th June. I had to respond to the toast of " Canada.'' I said this : — (Here the speaker cited a passage from the precedmg speech — Seepages 527-2S.) Sir, such was the language which I held to my fellow-countrymen of French origin, in my own native province of Quebec, and such is the language I hold this evening. If any there are amongst my fellow- countrymen of French origin who have ever dreamed of forming themselves into A SMALL COMMUNITY OF FRENCHMEN on the banks of the St. Lawrence, I am not one of them. I am not one of them, I say — let my words be heard by friend or foe. Sir, I will go further. When the fate of arms and the power of treaty made my AT TORONTO IN 1889 541 ancestors subjects of England,it is a matter of history that they continued to wage against England a long struggle. They complained — and in my judgment they complained with justice — that they 'were not fairly treated ; but history attests that in that long struggle the only thing Avhich they claimed was the privileges of British subjects. The concession did not come at once. The concession was long to be made; but it came, and when it came the concession was made without any reservation, in the most ample manner ; and this I say. that it would be the blackest ingratitude if, after we had sought from England the privileges and the rights of British subjects, we were noAV to r'eject the responsibilities of British subjects. I say that it would be the blackest ingratitude if, having sought the protection of Britain to groAv strong, we were, when strong enough, to attempt to stab the friendly hand and to refuse to cast in our lot with those who are fellow-countrymen of ours, whose fellow-countrymen we are in deed, and whose birth right we claim as our own inheritance since Ave be came subject to England. But, Mr. Chairman, atthe same time let me tell you this : I am not here to play the part of a sycophant , I am not here to flatter the peculiar views of those whom I am addressing; I am here as a French Canadian and I am firmly attached to the language of my ancestors. Men there are amongst you, it is true, to tell you that it is dan gerous to Confederation that the French language should be spoken in this great country of ours. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am a French Canadian ; I was brought up ON THE KNEES OF A FRENCH MOTHER; and my first recollections are those recollections which no man ever forgets ; and shall it be denied to me— the privilege of addressing the same language to those that are dear to me ? Shall I not continue to speak French as French was spoken to me in my 542 SPEECH younger days? I know very well, that it is a great disadvantage for a French Canadian not to speak English. I understand that my friend, Mr. Ross, is to compel all pupils in this great country to learn English, and he will do a great service to all the chil dren ofthis country. But I believe that Mr. Ross will not prohibit anybody from speaking the language of his mother if he chooses to speak it. I simply claim the privilege of speaking my own domestic language as I like to speak it. But men who speak only French on this continent are in a great inferiority, and if they are to learn to speak English the consequence will be that they will speak two languages, and the advan tage will be all on their side. When Confederation was established, Mr. Chairman, it was not intended that Confederation should be based upon the humilia tion of any one race. It was not intended that any should give up its characteristic, but it was expected that though every nationality might retain its indi viduality, yet that all Avould be actuated by one aspi ration and would endeavor to form one nation. It is, in this spirit, it is according to the Liberal party, it is in accordance wdth the principle laid down at the outset of Confederation that there should be several provinces, that there should be a division, but a union of the Avhole. That we have acted upon — an action for which Ave have been subjected to too many criticisms. I refer to the act passed by the Legisla ture of Quebec with re3pect to the jesuits' estates. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am here entering upon a delicate statement. I have taken one view, and in stating this I ask one privilege. It is the privilege of of laying my views as I entertain them. I only ask one thing of you. It is what is never refused by a British audience — it is to give me fair play in the statement I intend to make. I know that will be granted whether you agree with my conclusions or AT TORONTO IN 1889 543 not. This bill, in the first place, passed compara tively in silence. It was a long time before the Legis lature. Public attention was not directed to it. Not one word was said against it, and it finally passed and had the unanimous consent ofthe Legislature of Quebec ; but after the act had been passed petitions which had not come to the Legislature were sent to His Excellency, or rather to the Government, and finally to His Excellency to disallow the act. The Government refused, and the motion of censure against that course of the Government Avas introduced into the House of Commons by a well-known sup porter ofthe Government — Colonel O'Brien. Well, I see that the action of Colonel O'Brien meets with approval. Gentlemen, thank God, this is a free country and I do not object. But if it met the approval of a large portion of the people of Ontario, it did not meet the approval of the Government. Noav, gen tlemen, I tell you this: I have no spare love for the Government, and I am willing enough to admit that it will always be a labor of love for me to work and help Colonel O'Brien or any other member when they go against the Government. Upon that occasion, however. I could not. The question was not a neAv one ; it had been debated over and over again between the two parties. The question of Provincial rights, which was involved in that motion, has been an issue between the Conservative party and the Liberal party. The Conservative party, represented at OttaAva by the Government of Sir John Macdonald, had ahvays held the doctrine— and they applied that doctrine here in the province of Ontario -that they had THE RIGHT TO REVIEAV LOCAL LEGISLATION, and to disallow anything they considered in any Avay obiectionable. On the contrary, the Liberal party always maintained that the legislation passed by the ' Local Legislature was amenable, and amenable only, to the people of the province Avhere it had been 544 SPEECH enacted. Upon that occasion — whether right or wrong for good or for ill — we stood by our principles, but the Government did not. They turned a somersault; they turned a somersault noticeable even in a Gov ernment distinguished by the audacity, rapidity and continuance of its antics. Noav, Sir, with regard to this question, I know that our course has not been approved by all Liberals. The great newspaper Avith Avhich you, Sir, are connected, The Globe, the veteran of Reform — (hisses) — why should any man hiss because another has the courage of his convictions ? I do not agree Avith The Globe, and I have no fault to find with The Globe because it disagreed with me. The Globe is Liberal and I am Liberal, and we Liberals are not of the men who do not see any good in others. Now, Sir, with regard to this question, I do not think it would be fitting in me while before such an audience to discuss that question on its merits, except in so far as it relates to the question of disallowance, and in that view I only intend to discuss it. That is the only point from which I intend to discuss this ques tion, which came up in Quebec and which had to be settled in some way or other. Now Mr. Chapleau, the other day, not later than 15 days ago, said, in a speech delivered at St. Hilaire, that, while he was Prime Minister, he had entered into negotiations to settle the question, and that if he had settled it HE WOULD HAVE SETTLED IT to the satisfaction of everybody — to the satisfaction of Catholics, to the satisfaction of Protestants — but he did not settle it, and it does not lie in the mouth of him who confessed that he attempted and failed, to say _ that what was done was not well done. But this was a question that had to be settled. Now, many objections have been taken against it ; there are many objections which I could discuss which have been raised against it, and in dis cussing these you will bear with me. I only ask one AT TORONTO IN 1889 545 thing, fair-play, Avhile I discuss the question. I ask of you simply to be heard. I do not know that I shall be able to convince you ; I de not hope for that. But at least you will not refuse to a fellow-country man coming here to argue an unpopular cause a fair hearing, I hope. Now I believe one thing, that the whole of that act would have passed Avithout any trouble whatever,it would not have aroused any excite ment, but for the fact that the name of the Pope was prominently introduced in it, and that its introduction was construed in such a manner as to mean a thing which I shall presently discuss — that it was putting the supremacy ofthe Pope over the supremacy ofthe Queen. Gentlemen, I think I put the question fairly ; I want to put it honestly and to discuss it manfully. I know one thing — I know enough of my felloAv-coun- trymen of English origin, I know enough of English history, I know enough of English literature, to be aware that when Shakespeare put into the mouth of King John the proud words which he made him address to the Pope's legate : — No Italian priest Shall tithe or toll in our dominion. he touched the British heart in its most responsive chord. I knoAV this, that there is no man of English blood, let his condition in life be ever so humble, let his range of information be ever so limited, but knows this much of English history — that at no time would the English people or English sovereigns allow the sway ofthe Pope in the temporal affairs of England. Now, my fellow-countrymen, allow me to go one step further. The objection which you have to this act is simply this — you say that this act has attempted to do WHAT NEVER WAS DONE IN ENGLAND. Let me tell you, if you allow me to discuss the matter calmly with you, there never was any such intention 35 .... 546 SPEECH on the part of Mr. Mercier ! Let me go again one step further and do not hiss too soon, because I will be forced to tell you that in the discussion which took place when Mr. Mercier introduced that act he stated to the British minority that if they found any objec tion to the preamble, that need be no difficulty, for it could easily be arranged to please them. The, explan ations, hoAvever, which he gave were satisfactory to the British minority and they voted unanimously in favor of the act. Noav, my fellow-countrymen, let me again go one step further. If you believe that it was ever the intention of any Roman Catholic in Lower Canada to put the supremacy ofthe Pope over the supremacy of the Queen, I disclaim in the most emphatic manner any such intention. There is no Christian organization in wdiich Christ's great pre cept " Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's," is so rigidly enforced as in the Roman Catholic persuasion. Now, my felloAV-countrymen, allow me again to go one step further. You say Ave have carried too far the doctrine of no disallowance, that we have introduced the pos sibility of the supremacy of the Pope over the supre macy of the Queen. What would you do now, you ask me, if the Legislature of Quebec were to attempt to substitute the authority of the Pope for the autho rity of the Queen ? Gentlemen, I put this question squarely. This is my answer — there never was such a pretension on the part ofthe Legislature of Quebec. But I go further,and will meet the objection as square ly as it is possible to meet it. Suppose that the Leg islature of Quebec, or any other Legislature — mind you, I speak to you now as one of your fellow-coun trymen from Quebec, I speak to you as one of the majority in Quebec — were ever to attempt to substi tute the authority of the Pope over the authority of the Queen, that Legislature, by that very fact, would place itself beyond the pale of the Canadian Confede ration, would place itself beyond the pale of British citizenship, and that act would be simply treason and would have to be AT TORONTO IN 1889 547 DEALT WITH AS TREASON. Sir, this is simply the answer which I have to give upon this occasion to the many strictures which have been heaped upon the Liberal party for that act, whicli have been heaped upon the Liberal party for refusing to disallow that act. But, Sir, there is an other objection Avhich is made to this act. It is an obj ection which I find expressed in the press of On tario. It is stated that the men in whose favor that legislation was made are enemies of progress, enemies of freedom, that it was a crime on the part ofthe Li beral party, a crime on the part of every one Avho be lieves in freedom and modern progress, not to use the power of disallowance in order to remove such a dan gerous weapon from such dangerous hands. That is the view, undoubtedly, which has been taken by se veral of those of our fellow-citizens who lately organ ized themselves as the Equal Rights Association. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not of those who pretend to dis miss the movement which Avas thus organized by a simple wave of the hand. A movement in which you find eminent divines, prominent members of Parlia ment, men ranking high in every station of life, all eminently animated by strong conviction, is a move ment, which must be met with respect, which must always rouse in every manly heart a recognition OF THE SPIRIT OF CONVICTION. I have followed that movement, though I cannot agree in all its conclusions. I have followed it with great interest, I have followed all the discussion as nearly as ;,I could, and I must say that I have been strongly impressed by the speech delivered recently here in Toronto, at the convention which was held in June last, by a fellow-countryman of yours, Rev. Principal Caven. Now, I have not the honor to know Dr. Caven. But I must say, and I am glad to say, 548 SPEECH that his speech impressed me as the speech of a man of elevated mind, of high views, firm in temper, kind and gentle in disposition. I read his speech, as I said, AA'ith great interest, and I thought I found in the Avords which he then uttered the reason for the attitude which he had taken. His views were express ed in the following language : — The theory that the Church is paramount in the secular as in the religious sphere has come into collision with the theory on which all free public life proceeds, and in accordance with which our modern civilization is being developed. To my own mind it is this fact which lends inuportance to the situation with which we have to deal, and makes it the impe rative duty of those who reject the first of those theories and regard it as dange-ous to the community, to resist legislation such as the Acts of which we complain. The Ultramontane theory of Government is distinctly avowed and constantly proclaimed by its advocates, so that we are not to be charged Avith misrepresenting the Jesuits and others who defend it ; and we need not be surprised when the champions of this theory proceed under favorable circumstances to reduce it to jsrac- tice. These Avords seem to me very pregnant, very expressive ofthe thought in Dr. Caven's mind that the Ultramontanes would take advantage ofthis legis lation to undermine our free institutions. Well, let us meet the case in that Avay. Suppose that indeed the Ultramontanes Avere to use the privilege granted to them to undermine our free institutions, how should we treat them? This question has been put again and again by the Mail. It has been put with great force, Avith great talent, but in my judgment in a manner Avhich is not compatible with THE ETHICS OF ENGLISH LIBERALISM. The views ofthe Mail upon that subject have been thus expressed in a late issue : — In a recent article on the career of John Bright, Karl Blend, a Liberal of Liberals, lays it down that true Liberalism AT TORONTO IN 1889 549 does not consist in furnishing the enemy of human progress and enlightenment with weapons whereAvith he may cut its throat. Karl Blend is a German Liberal, but repeats the formula which the Liberals of all continental countries have adopted in their dealing with Ultramontanism. Well, Mr. Chairman, Hiis may be indeed German Liberalism, but this is not the true" English Liberalism. What is the meaning ofthis Liberalism. It means simply that if an Ultramontane is entitled to an act of justice he must be denied that act of justice because it may, perhaps, he used to the prejudice ofthe com munity. This is not the Avay I have read English Liberalism. I am of French origin, but there never was a time in my life when I did not proclaim myself an English Liberal. I am a French Canadian Liberal and I belong to a party \Adiich for thirty years fought the Ultramontanes in the province of Quebec. But this I do say, consistently Avith those principles of English Liberalism which I profess, that, if an Ultra montane or any other man is entitled to justice at my hands, ample justice he shall receive from me. In the discussion which has taken place, it has been said over and over again that the men who are supposed to benefit most from this legislation have been expelled from all civilized countries, have been expelled from France, from Republican France, as late as the year 1883. Well, Sir, I never could conceive what was the object of making reference to that fact. Can it be possible that those who refer to that fact intend that we should revert TO THE POLICY OF OSTRACISM so long indulged in European countries and yet indulged in the land of my ancestors,France. I do not believe there is a man in this audience who would have us return to the old time when men were ostra cized because their views were not the views of the majority of those Avith whom they happened to live. If not for that purpose, what could the purpose be ? 550 SPEECH Perhaps it was that the3e men were dangerous men. But let them be ever so dangerous, dangerous and bad men have rights which good men are bound to respect. Gentlemen of English origin, let me tell you this, as a man who has nothing but French blood in his veins, that I am ashamed of the land of my ancestors when I reflect that at this dajr, at this time ofthe nineteenth century, still ostracism can be pro claimed in a country Avhich calls itself Republican. Let me tell you this, that that action has been reproved by ail true Liberals in the French Republic. Why, this very question was reviewed only recently in the monthly number of Harper's Magazine, in an article headed " The Religious Movement in France." It was written by Mr. Edniond de Pressense, a member of the French Senate. What gives, in my' judgment, peculiar force to the opinion of Mr. de Pressense is the fact that he is a Protestant. This is the wray in which he speaks of the very fact to Avhich I noAV refer : Besides the secular clergy the Church of France long possessed a very numerous regular clergy, representing the various religious orders of Catholicism. These religious orders — Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits and others were distri buted in congregations recognized by the State, and in con gregations not recognized by the State, of which latter the most important was the Society of Jesus. A few years ago, it will be remembered, the Republican Government revived some old laws, which had their raisond'Ure under the Gallican Monarchy, and issued decrees for the expulsion of all the non-recognized religious orders. Thus many religious houses were closed, not without resistance which occasioned tumul tuous scenes and greatly agitated public opinion. In reality the measure had no great importance. There is THE OPINION OF A PROTESTANT — the opinion of a Liberal. You do not see that he here proposes that the Republican Government should expel the Jesuits. But in another part of his AT TORONTO IN 1889 551 article he condemns that action in unqualified terms : The third Republic, irritated, it is true, by the spirit of opposition which it encountered amongst the clergy at its debut, has often displayed passionate hostility, according to Gambetta's saying. " Le clericalisme, c'est l'ennemi. " The exaggerated manner in which it has applied the principle of secularization, both in the educational laws, where it has not given a legitimate place to that religious teaching which mi'ht have been imparted at special hours without constraining any consciences, and also in pitilessly driving out of the hospitals the Sisters of Charity, has naturally excited the liveliest dissa tisfaction, not only among-st the clergy, but in a considerable portion of the nation as well. This dissatisfaction constitutes at the present moment a real danger for Republican institu tions, and everybody knows only too well by whom it is frau dulently taken advantage of. Here, again, you see the opinion of a Liberal Protestant, and, instead of approving ofthe act ofthe Republic, he condemns it, though he acknowledges that there publican party in France, while acting thus, acted under great provocation. For it is a matter of history that after the elections Avhich folloAved the unfortunate war of 1870, the Catholic party — I say Catholic party because I am sorry to say there is a party of Catholics who have committed THE GREAT MISTAKE (I would say crime) of organizing themselves as a political party — the Catholic party threw its weight against the republic. " Hence the bitter resentmentof the republicans, who, when once they came back with a majority, made the mistake of allowing their policy to be inspired by their anger. " Now, my fellow-countrymen, let me pause here. Here is a country where some old laws — laws of the old monarchy — were revived in order to expel Jesuits. Let us look to the other side of the channel 1 Let us look to England ! There also you will find old laws, still unrepealed — still upon the statute book— which 552 SPEECH might be revived to deal out justice in the same way in which it was meted out in France. But these men, expelled from France, were allowed to go in peace in England. Now, my fellow-countrymen of British origin, I ask you this : I am a Frenchman. You are Englishmen. Which example,of these two countries, do you wish to follow in this country? You are Englishmen. You can go to France for an example. I am French descent, but this time, as always, I go for an example to the great country which first in the world introduced the great principle that no man should be persecuted because of his religion. Sir, if I were looking for an expression of THE VIEAVS OF THE TKUE LIBERALS among my countrymen on this occasion, I should find them in the Avords of one of the most eminent Frenchmen of this century, Mr. Guizot. The occa sion Avas the reception of Father Lacordaire into the French Academy. In France they do these things Avith great ceremony. There are only , forty Acade micians ; when one dies an election takes place ; the neAv member is introduced to the Academy, and he has to deliver a speech, to which another Academician must make an answer. On this occasion that duty fell to Mr. Guizot. That occasion was a very impor tant one, because Father Lacordaire Avrs not only one of the greatest orators of his day, but was also one of the purest men, one ofthe noblest characters,' to be found in any age and in any land. The man who was to answer him was well known as an orator, an historian, and a statesman. But what added to the interest of the occasion was the contrast between the two men, Mr. Guizot being a Protestant, a Huguenot, a descendant of a long persecuted minority, whereas Father Lacordaire was a monk of the Dominican order instituted in mediaeval times to fight heresy. The occasion suggested to Mr. Guizot some noble words which I think should be taught as a lesson for AT TORONTO IN 1889 553 all men who live in such a country as Ave live in — a country of mixed religions : What would have happened, Sir, if we had met, you an d I, six hundred years ago, and if ithad been the lot of both of us to influence our mutual destinies ? I have no inclination to awake recollections of discord and violence, but I Would not respond to the expectation of the generous public who listen to us, and of the larger public outside who have taken such a strong interest in your election, if I were not, as they are, moved by and proud of the beautiful contrast between what takes place to-day iu this hall and what would have taken place in former times, under similar circumstances. Six hundred years ago, if my own people had metyou, full of wrath they would have assailed you as an odious persecutor, and your own people, eager to inflame the victors against heretics, would have shouted. '' Strike and again strike ; God will well know his own." You have taken to heart, Sir, 'and far be it from me to contest it, you have taken to heart to wipe from such atrocities' the memory of the illustrious founder of the religious order to which you belong ; for surely the reproach is not to be addressed to him, but to the age in which he lived, and to all parties during many centuries. It is not my habit, I dare say so, to speak of my own time and to my contempor aries with a complacent admiration. The more warmly I de sire their happiness and their glory, the more I feel inclined to point out to them what they are still wanting in, to comply with their great destinies. But I cannot deny to myself the joy, and shall I say it, the pride ofthe spectacle which'the Aca demy is now exhibiting to all eyes. We are here, you and I, Sir,the living evidences and the happy witnesses ofthe sublime progress which has taken place in intelligence of and' respect for justice, conscience, right and those divine laws so long ignored, which regulate the mutual duties of men concerning God and belief in God. No one any longer smites or is smitten in the name of God : no one now lays claim to assume the rights and to anticipate the decrees of the Sovereign Judge. Mr. Chairman, we are here to-day in this country as they were in Europe — Catholics and Protestants together. Shall we revive those old laws ? Shall we strike in the name of God ? No ; th ose times are past. But this is not enough. Shall Ave 554 SPEECH anticipate the decrees of the Supreme Judge? No, as the motto at least to Avhich the Liberal party shall always adhere, we shall say : let only opinions be free, and let the best prevail, as truth and justice must ever prevail. But, Sir, I shall be asked — we are asked every day — what will you do if the Ultramon tanes ofthe province of Quebec make an attempt against our liberties and free institutions? Why , Sir, Ave shall do as in the past. AVE SHALL FIGHT THEM. This is nothing new for us to have to do — nothing neAV for the party to which I belong. We have waged a long battle against the Ultramontane doctrines. We have Avaged a long battle during the time when the Ul tramontanes in Lower-Canada were doing their very best for the Tories of Ontario, and when the Tories of" Ontario never objected at all. There was an occasion only a few years ago, when an election was fought in the county of Charlevoix. Sir Hector Langevin was a candidate. He was elected and the Tories welcomed his election as a great triumph. His election was con tested on the ground of undue influence on the part of the clergy. The Ultramontanes, and, indeed, the whole Tory party, maintained that the clergy had a right to use undue influence and were not amenable to civil tribunals. But we fought the que3tion before the civil Courts, and before also the ecclesiastical autho rities, and Ave won before both. We fought the question single-handed. Now we are told by those Avho did not object formerly to an alliance with Ul tramontanes that we Liberals to-day are allied with the Ultramontanes. To some extent we are, I am here to speak openly, and have no reason to feel ashamed of what Ave have done. Sir, Avhen Ultramon tane doctrines interfered with our civil rights and liberties, it Avas our duty to fight the issue like men, and Ave did it. In those days I never heard a word against Ultramontanism coming from the Tory press, AT TORONTO IN 1889 555 while at every foot we fought the Ultramontane party. This is not the place to attack Ultramontanes : the proper ground of attack and defense, on this sub ject, is on the soil of the province of Quebec. I will only say here that the Ultramontanes, like all French Canadian Conservatives, had borrowed their political vieAvs not from the British, but from the French school of politics. I may say here, Mr. Chairman, that ever since I have been in politics, now more than twenty-two years, I have always striven in my native province to inculcate TRUE LIBERAL ENGLISH PRINCIPLES. I always repudiated French Liberalism, not my origin, mind you, not the land of my ancestors, but I ahvays repudiated those ideas Avhich have brought the country of my ancestors to its present reduced con dition. I wanted to bring in better ideas. The Ultra montane party now fought us with some reason, now with no reason. But their dogmatic politics will not long remain under the cover of British institutions. For a long time they Avere the mainstay ofthe party of Sir John Macdonald. But there came a time Avhen they could no longer remain so. The first occasion Avhen they found themselves unable to follow the leadership of Sir John Macdonald was in connection with that License Act which you will all remember. They completely severed themselves also from the party and Government of Sir John Macdonald on the outrageous Franchise Bill. At that time I was not in the position that I hoav occupy, but I occupied a position of some responsibility in the representation of my native province. There was a question fronting us. The Ultramontane party had lost confidence in the Government and in the party of Sir John Mac donald, and we had never had any confidence in him. Were the Opposition to refuse the votes of the Ultramontanes because they could not accept all the 556 SPEECH Ultramontane ideas ? Well, Sir, I had several inter views at that time with a man who was one of the leaders of the party. He was a personal friend of mine, although Ave differed in politics. I allude to Senator Trudel, whom I admire for the courage of his convictions, though I do not agree with them all. I a°ked him a few days ago if he Avould alloAv me to make public what had passed between us. He con sented in the following note, which I take the liberty of reading : — Montreal, 19th Sept., 18S9. MT DEAR LAURIER: I perfectly remember that in all our conversations, as you put it very correctly, ¦' agreeing upon some questions, differ ing on many others, we were of opinion that it was preferable that the National Conservatives should be organized as a distinct party, with an acknowledged leader." You might have added that, while agreeing upon the necessity of opposing the parti bleu, for their numerous misdeeds, Ave respectively reserved our perfect freedom to act upon political questions as we might deem best for the good of the country. You have perfect liberty to state the above facts when and where you shall choase. I even desire that you should do so. Because I am of the opinion that as a general rule, truth should see the light of day. If there are any exceptions to that rule they - must be very few, and nothing but good must result from the fact that upon every question the public should have the trnth' and the whole truth. Sir, those are the fact3, and I see nothing but what is perfectly honorable for the Liberal party and for the Ultramontanes of Lower Canada in that respect. I submit this with all confidence to the approval and to the judgment of my fellow-countrymen. Now, Sir, I have dilated perhaps too long upon this question; but when I came to Ontario I thought that I would not discharge my duty fully if I shirked any of the issues which are now agitating the public opinion of Ontario. Sir, now I may say this : These recent events to which I have alluded have created in many minds the impression that we of the Liberal party have AT TORONTO IN 1889 carried too far the doctrine of provincial rights. I submit, on the contrary, that these recent events to which I have alluded — and the Avhole history of Con federation has shown the fact — that the power ot disallowance is the GREATEST DANGER TO CONFEDERATION to-day. The power of disallowance vested in the Central Government is not, mind you, the logical con sequence ofthe federative principle. On the contrary, it is altogether antagonistic to that principle. The fede rative principle is that every Legislature - whether it be the Local Legislature or whether it be the Central Legislature — should be perfectly independent of each other; and, to my mind, if you interfere with the independ-ence of one you completely make away with its utility. I quite understand, Sir, that the Imperial Parliament should keep the power of disallowance over the legislation ofthe Dominion Parliament. This is not the consequence of the federative principle. This is in consequence of our dependency as a colony. Being dependent, it is nothing but right that the supreme power should retain to itself the power of disalloAvance if it so thinks fit. But, Sir,we are a loyal people ; we boast of our loyalty every day ; yet I submit that the people of Canada never would tolerate from the Im perial Government what the Government of Canada is trying to impose upon the provnces. Two or three years ago, when the Inter-provincial Conference met in Quebec, they discussed that subject,and they very properly determined that it would be a proper a- mendment to our constitution that the power of veto,of disallowance of local legislation as well as of the Dominion legislation, should be vested in the Imperial Government. The discussion which then took place has shown this, that in our constitution a great mis take was made, and that when the power of disallow ance was vested in the Central Government,principle Avas sacrificed to expediency. It was then said that 558 SPEECH the power of disalloAvance Avas necessary for the pro tection of minorities. But what has been the result ? The power of disalloAvance has been shamefully made use of by the Conservative party for party purposes. It has been exercised or it has been withheld just AS SUITED PARTY PURPOSES. Sir, there is to-day a sentiment of difference between Ontario and Quebec. This is not of to-day only. This existed in former times. Remember, gentlemen, the old veterans of former times; remember when the people of Upper Canada eomplained that in local ques tions their aviII was superseded by the will ofthe peo ple of Quebec ! Remember the old struggles that were waged by Mr. George BroAvn and by our friend, Mr. Mowat, upon this question ! In fact Confederation was largely the result of the discontent which was aroused in Ontario, in consequence of the fact that the will of the people of Ontario was superseded by the Quebec majority which supported the Government of that time. Do you want, my fellow-countrymen, to see those old days revived ? If you want to see those old days revived, just let this policy prevail of allowing the supreme power in the Government of Canada, to set its will against the will of the people of the prov-. inces. Remember the conflict which was created only a few years ago, when the Government of Sir John Macdonald, shocked and horrified by the injustice of Mr. Mowat passing such a laAV as the streams' bill, disallowed it. Well, Avhat the people of Ontario com plained of at that time the people of Quebec would complain of to-day. Sir I simply say this, that in the sphere which is allotted to every Legislature. THE ONLY TRIBUNAL to which this Legislature is amenable is the people which elected it. But, Sir, it is said that the Legis lature may pass a law which would be prejudicial to AT TORONTO IN 1889 559 the general interests of Canada, and that in such a case such a law should be disalloAved. But are you quite sure that the power of disallowance, thus exercised, will be more in the interest of Canada than the law disallowed? Take the case of Manitoba. The people of Manitoba believed that railway competition was in the interest of their province. The Government of Canada asserted that monopoly in Manitoba was essential to the benefit of Canada, and, in consequence of that assertion, the Government of Canada disalloAved the will of the people of Manitoba Avhich wanted raihvay competition. Will any one tell me here that the Government of Canada, when it set its will against the people of Manitoba, acted for the best interests of Canada? Will any one' tell me that if you create discontent in a province you will promote general welfare in Canada ? Will any one tell me, in fact, when we have a system which allows local questions to be determined by local bodies, that it is for the general good that those local bodies should have their will set aside by a superior poAver? Sir, I am not of this mind ; you cannot be of this mind ; and the peo ple of Ontario have not been up to this moment of this mind ; but you are told every day — and this is what is at the bottom of this agitation— that the majority ofthe people in Quebec are abusing their power to promote legislation which is offensive to the Protestant minority. Sir, this is the statement Avhich has been made, I know. But let me tell you this, my fellow-countrymen: If my fellow-countrymen, the Protestants of Quebec, have any legislation of which they have just right to complain, let me just tell you this — though that is a thing which I am not prepared at this moment to admit— every single piece of that legislation has been passed with their con currence. Sir, the Protestant minority of Quebec, for reasons of their own, for reasons which I shall not at this moment discuss, have invariably since the year 1854 560 SPEECH SUPPORTED THE CONSERVATINE PARTY, and every piece of legislation which is now signalized as being offensive to the Protestant minority has been put upon the statute. book by the Conservative party; and every time Avith the concurrence ofthe Protestant minority. Noav, Sir, it may be — I am not here to deny it — it may be that some ofthis legislation to-day is found to be offensive to the Protestant minority ; but if it is so, Avould it not be fair to ask the Protest ant minority to come before the Legislature of Quebec, and there to lay their complaint ? I ask it of you, gentlemen, in the spirit of fairness which has ever characterized a British audience, is it fair, is it loyal to charge my felloAV-countrymen with tyrannizing the minority ? Never, never, in any one single instance, was a protest ever made to the Legislature of Quebec. Sir, I say more. I belong to a race which is not Avithout faults, but which is, I am sure, as kind- hearted as any race to be found on the face of the earth. I belong to a race which every man of British origin who has known it has always proclaimed as cme of the most peaceable and friendly to be found anyAvhere ; and I make bold to say, in the name of my felloAV-countrymen of French origin, that when ever a just complaint is made to them, that just com plaint will be heard. I ask this, those who complain, if they want to go to the Governor- General, let them go ; if they want to go to the Dominion Parliament, let them go ; but I only ask that, before so doing, they should come to the first Legislature that can remedy their grievances, that is the Legislature in Avhich they have the power to elect some ten or twelve members of their own persuasion and creed and origin. Had it not been for this unfortunate circumstance, that they never made any protest to the local legislature, I am sure that at no time this unfor tunate controversy would have taken place. I am sure that at no time this unfortunate principle of Dominion interference in local legislation avouIcI have AT TORONTO IN 1889 561 been maintained; but, Sir, this is a principle which cannot be trifled Avith. If you once admit that the Dominion Parliament has the right to review and to annul, just by the mere motion of its hand, the legis lation of any local body, JUST AS WELL MAKE AWAY with the whole paraphernalia of Confederation and have legislative union at once — because it will amount to legislative union. This is an issue upon which the Liberal party has fought a long, long battle. I know very well this; that this principle cannot be affirmed without giving offence now in one province and now in another province. But Confederation, Sir, cannot be worked unless we adhere to the principle in which it was conceived, which was a separation of powers between local bodies, supreme in their sphere, and the general body, aho supreme in its sphere. Sir, so far we have been pretty successful. I admit we have these little difficulties, but I trust in the judgment and in the sober reflection of my fellow-countrymen of all creeds, of all races, and of all provinces, again to affirm that what was done in 1867 was good work and should be maintained. Noav, Sir, under that system, since 1867 we have been, I must say, pretty successful. We have not been as successful as we might have been, and there is one thing which, for one, I deeply deprecate. It is that under that system, though we started with the intention of creating amongst us a new_ nation, we have not yet succeeded in creating a national senti ment through the breadth and lengtlinf the Dominion of Canada. This is a thing which we must strive after, and this is a thing for which the Liberal party is every day striving, but we cannot achieve that object unless we are able to show our people that it will brino- them the greatest amount possible of prosperity. I am not of those who would deny— if there beany who would, which I do not believe— that we have made in the way of progress gigantic strides, still 36 _ 562 SPEECH WE HAVE NOT DONE all we should have clone. It was said of a king of antiquity that he said " nothing is done as long as there is something to do. " It is true that the Conser- va'ive party tell us every day that we are the most prosperous people on the face of the earth, that milk and honey flow in the land — though you do not see it much — that everything is for the best in the best of worlds ; but, though the Conservative party every day sing paeans in favor of the present state" of things, their actions, I submit, tell a differen t tale. They Avill not tell you that we should changeany- thing ; they will not tell you that we should reform any thing. Reform is a hateful word to them, but though they do not tell you in so many words, you find in their actions evidences that they are not altogether satisfied with the present state of things. In the very ranks ofthe Conservative party, you have an associa tion formed to promote Imperial Federation. What does this mean? It certainly means that in their esti mation something should be done. Well, I am not one of those who believe in IMPERIAL FEDERATION. What Ave need is not a political reform, at this moment, it is not a change in our political status. What we want is a commercial and economic reform. This thought has been well illustrated in the House of Commons itself within the ranks of the Conservative party in the session of 1888. In the session of 1888, Mr. Marshall, a supporter of the Government, moved a resolution affirming in substance that it Avould be to the advan tage of Canada to have closer commercial relations with the mother country. Such a resolution, couched in such a feAv words could not be satisfactory. Accordingly, Mr. Dalton McCarthy gave notice of another motion which was more proper, and this is what he intended to offer to the House : That it would be in the local interests of the Dominion that such changes should be sought for in the trade relations AT TORONTO IN 1889 563 between the United Kingdom and Canada as would give Canada advantages in the markets of the mother country not allowed to foreign States, Canada being willing for such privileges to discriminate in her markets in favor of Great Britain and Ireland, due regard being had to the policy adopted in 1879 for the purpose of fostering the various interests and industries of the Dominion and to the financial necessities of the Domi- This resolution, I said, was not moved. The author had no occasion to move it, or develop it, but on the motion of Mr. Marshall he indicated that the policy adopted should be that England should receive our cereals free of duty, but tax the cereals of every other country, and if they would do that Ave would be so magnanimous as to lower the tariff by a few inches which we have put in the face of British industries. Well, I may say this at once, I would be in favor of a more close commercial alliance of Canada with Great Britain. I would favor it with all my soul. But, Sir, if there is any man who believes that any such alliance between Canada and Great Britain can be formed upon any other basis than that of free trade Avhich prevails in England, that man is a " Rip van Winkle " who has been sleeping not only for the last seven years, but for the last fourty-four years. Why, Mr. Chairman, the British people will not to-day go back ON THE POLICY OF FREE TRADE which they have adopted, and Canada is not in a posi tion at this moment, Avith the large revenue which she has to collect, to adopt any other tariff than a revenue tariff at best. So that the conditions are not equal upon which you can form a closer commercial alliance between Canada and Great Britain ; but there is alongside of us a kindred nation economically situ ated as we are — the United States — and we claim that that commercial alliance which at this moment is not possible with England is possible with the United States, and the policy which we have advocated, 564 SPEECH which we still continue to advocate, is the removal of all commercial barrier3 between this country and the great kindred nation to the south of us. Now, Sir, there is not a man in this audience, there is not a man in Canada, I venture to say, who, if he were to speak the honest conviction of his heart, would not say that this Avould be a most advantageous policy to Canada. Still that policy is objected to. On what ground? On the same ground of distrust and diffidence to which I alluded at a former stage, and which seems to per meate every feature of our national life. Men there are who tell you that if we had unrestricted recipro city Ave would have annexation. But I ask those men, if they voted for UNRESTRICTED RECIPROCITY, Avould they be disfranchised ? Will they not be able to vote against annexation if that becomes a que3tion ? It is idle to talk about this. I am sorry to say that some of those who started to fight the battle of reci procity have since grown faint-hearted. We are told that our chances of securing reciprocity have been diminished because the Democrats were defeated in the last Presidential election. During Mr. Cleveland's administration, it i3 said, it would have been possible to obtain unrestricted reciprocity ; there would have been some chance. Now, Sir, my good friend, Sir Richard Cartwright, moved his first motion in favor of reciprocity in the year 1888 — in the very year the Presidential election was held, and if there is any man who at thattime, with a knowledge of history, expected that reciprocity would be brought about in. the course of twelve months or twenty months, he has not read history as I have read it. I have read it in this way, that every reform has cost to the reformers years of labor, and those years of labor I for one am prepared to give, and though the Democrats may be de feated in the States and though Canadians may grow faint-hearted in Canada, the Liberal party, as long as AT TORONTO IN 1889 565 I have anything to do with it, will remain true to the cause until that cause is successful. I will not expect ,to win in a day, but I am prepared to remain in the cool shades of Opposition until the cause has triumph ed, and you never shall hoar a complaint from me. But some think that, though unrestricted reciprocity is possible, it is not probable. We are ON THE EVE OF TRIUMPH. The triumph is at our hands if Ave only knoAv how to play our cards. Some men say they are discouraged because the Democrats have been defeated and the Republicans are in power, and they say we cannot have from the Republican party what the Democratic party would have been prepared to give us. Sir, I am afraid with those people the wish is father to the im pression. If any one will read the evidences which are now going on the other side of the line, he will see that there is no cause to be discouraged because the Republicans are in power. Why, in this very month there is to assemble at Washington a Congress of American nations, summoned by the Government ofthe day, to discuss what ? To discuss closer com mercial relations between the United States and those nations. Well, certainly what can be discussed with the southern republics by the American Government can be well discussed by the American Government with the Canadian Government. I can ses no reason why we should not attempt to do the same. This con vention is to meet under a resolution of Congress which reads as follows : — The adoption of uniform patent and copy-right laws ; the establishment of regular and frequent communication between the different countries participating in the conference : the selection of a plan of settling international disputes ; the adoption of a uniform silver coinage, and of a uniform standard of weights and measures ; the adoption of a uniform standard of customs and tariff duties. 566 SPEECH Is that plain enough ? The adoption of a uniform standard of Customs and tariff duties. I am not prepared to say I would be disposed to concur in all Avhich is here asserted, but I do certainly say that the Government of the United States is disposed to dhcuss Reciprocity with Canada, if Canada Avants Reciprocity. I say more ; the question of Reciprocity in the United States has not yet become a party ques tion, and I do hope, on my part — I would prefer — that it should not be made A PARTY QUESTION. I prefer to see it remain what it is — a geographical question, interesting the Northern and Central States ; and if it be kept in those lines I have much hope of an early success. It is quite evident that the Repub lican Government of President Harrison is disposed to discuss to-day unrestricted reciprocity with the neighboring States or Republics, and is therefore disposed to discuss Reciprocity with Canada if Canada only wants unrestricted reciprocity with the United States. We must not lose heart. There is no cause to lose heart. It is most important that we make proselytes not only amongst ourselves, but amongst our American neighbors. There is great encourage ment to the Liberal party, to all who think well of their country and who are disposed to study her best interests, in the fact that Massachusetts, ever forward in the cause of advanced legislation, has almost unani mously pronounced by the mouth of its business men in favor of unrestricted reciprocity with Canada. That being the case, all the more reason there is why Ave should go on Avith the agitation we have com menced not yet two years ago. And, Sir, there is more than that. There are at this moment indications that the Government of Sir John Macdonald are pre paring, as the vulgar phrase goes, " to dish the Libe rals. " What, you Avill say, is the meaning of this ? Well, the literal signification of it is that Sir John, still audacious, intends AT TORONTO IN 1889 567 TO STEAL THE CLOTHES ofthe Liberal party, and is preparing at the next election to present himself in the habiliments so boldly stolen. Well, we can stand it. We are not to be pitied ! Oh, no ! The men to be pitied are the poor Tories who have for so long bawled themselves hoarse on the theme, to them so congenial, ofthe danger to Imperial Confederation which lurks in unrestricted reciprocity with the great nation to the south of U3. The party to be pitied is not the Liberal party, but the party which is compelled to swallow the dose they now aver to be so nauseous to the country and detrimental to Canada. But, nauseous as the dose is, they will, as in the past, swallow it. If it is necessary to retain them in power, it is not at all too sickening for the Tory stomach. But if the Liberals are to be pitied even a little at this time, it is that after all the abuse heaped upon them they have to proAdde clothes for those who have most reviled them. The Tories whenever they get a new suit never attempt to put it off until it is torn and in rags ; and then when the hour of Tory necessity comes, when their nakedness is but too apparent, the Liberals are dished and their clothes are stolen. The Liberal party to-day, as in the past, stands true to its Liberal principles ; above all, it stands true to the country and to the interests that will best inure to its welfare and prosperity. If Sir John Macdonald will adopt our programme and give U3 unrestricted reciprocity, with all my heart, in the matter, I will pledge him that he will have the most emphatic support. I am not sure, however, that he will go as far as that. I am quite prepared to believe that he will take A LITTLE BIT OF RECIPROCITY, and then another little bit of reciprocity, and then say to the people of Canada : Well, we went on our knees to the Yankees, and we could not get any more. 568 SPEECH Even if he goes a little in this way, if he secures even a little bit of reciprocity, it will be so much done; we will take fresh courage and look for more, because I tell you the Liberal party will never cease the agi- ' tation until they triumph and obtain Continental Free Trade. We are asked sometimes, gentlemen, what is the programme of the Liberal party. This is the programme ofthe Liberal party: — To obtain con tinental freedom of trade. That is our programme at this moment. But, gentlemen, others of you will say, is that the only question? Are there no other ques tions pressing for solution ? Yes, gentlemen, there are other questions, and important questions, too, that AAdll soon come into the arena of active politics ; but as I read history, as I read Canadian history, one great reform at a time is as much as a party can effect, and if we fix our eyes steadily on one. reform and de vote all our energies to its accomplishment, success will certainly crown our efforts at no distant day ; fix ing our eyes steadily upon the goal, we shall go on steadily until we reach it — unrestricted continental reciprocity. Mr. Baldwin devoted his life to one single reform, that of responsible government. Mr. Brown gave his life to one single reform, representation by population ; and if the Liberals of to-day can achieve what they noAV have in view, and proclaim the great principles of continental free trade, they will have done a great good to the country, they will have con ferred a boon on the British race, they will have be nefited mankind ; they will have performed a service of which they will have every reason to be proud. Now, Sir, I will say here that THE LIBERAL PARTY ARE UNITED in this : What we want is not the cry of Imperial Fe deration as it has been set forth lately, but political, commercial and economic reform, and an alliance not limited simply to the British Empire, but which will embrace every nation sprung from the stock of Britain. AT TORONTO IN 1889 569 Can there be any good reason Avhy this should not be accomplished ? Can there be any reason why in such a great reform United States should be left out ? I confess I can see none. The British race is the great trading race ofthe world. They are scattered all over the face of this earth. I am a French Canadian, speaking as a Canadian, and I say to my fellow-Cana dians that the course the great Liberal party should pursue is that which will best tend towards the speedy attainment of this great object, an alliance of the whole British race upon the face of the earth ; and if we obtain an alliance, a commercial alliance betAveen Canada and the United States, we shall have fitted one link ofthe chain ; but we should not be satisfied until ring after ring has been added, and until with a strong chain Ave have encircled the whole globe. But I have done. While I have represented that the condition of our country cannot be viewed except with some little degree of anxiety and alarm, yet all of us, wmatever our creed, whatever our race, what ever our province, if Ave only bring ourselves up to the level of trusting each other, of ha\dng confidence in our own better nature and having A BETTER OPINION OF EACH OTHER, we shall have good cause for hope in the future. I shall never be disturbed by wild talk, whether in Quebec or Ontario ; it is onfy wild talk ; it is only the safety valve by which the surplus steam will escape and do no harm. When the excitement has subsided, let us remember that, though divided by different tenets and of different religious creeds, Ave all worship the same God ! Let us remember that, though divided in religious forms, still we all believe in Him who came to earth to bring to men peace and good will, and if we are true to those teachings, if we are ever ready to give and to take, to make all alloAV- ance for the opinions, nay, for the prejudices of my fellow-countrymen, for my part I never shall despair ofthe future of our young country. THE DUAL LANGUAGE QUESTION SPEECH DELIVERED BY Mr. LAURIER IN THE COMMONS ON 11th FEBRUARY, 1890, AGAINST MR. MCCARTHY*S BILL TO ABOLISH THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES. Mr. Speaker, If I, for one, could accept the declaration often made by the mover of this Bill, not only while intro ducing it. but on several occasions before, protesting that to the course which he had adopted for himself, and of which this is only the preliminary step, he was impelled by no other motive than a desire, a lofty desire, of securing the future of this country from dis sension, and of ensuring peace and harmony by re moving all causes of contention, I would be sorry that the honorable gentleman, harboring in his heart aims so high, should have endeavored to accomplish them by means so selfish, and so ungenerous, as those which underlie the measure which he has brought before the House. When, however, the honorable gentleman, in order to find a motive for the measure to which he called the attention of the House, invokes considerations of such far-reaching prudence, he is simply deluding himself. The honorable gentleman, no doubt, may persuade himself, but he will with difficulty convince those to whom he has been address ing himself, that his ultimate object in this matter is 572 SPEECH simply to secure the future peace and harmony ofthis country, Avhile his present action must tend to endan ger the peace and harmony which happily prevail. I can find nothing in this bill, I must say, but the old, OLD SPIRIT OF DOMINATION AND INTOLERANCE Avhich, in this land and in other lands, has alway3 characterized the course of pure, unadulterated To ryism. The measure, taken by itself, disconnected from the motives which inspired it, would not be of very great importance -we are all agreed upon that — but it is of the greatest importance for this reason that it constitutes a declaration of war by the honor able gentleman and those Avith whom he is acting against the French race. It is a declaration of war, I say, against the French race ofthis country, of which the honorable gentleman, in this House, spoke in no disrespectful terms, but of which, in other places in the province of Ontario, he spoke in terms which he would not dare to repeat on the floor of this House ; the hon. gentleman spoke ofthe French race in terms of op probrium, which, I say again, he would not dare to re peat in this House in presence of French Canadians, who, by law, are on a plane of equality with him in this House. He Avould not dare to apply here to my fellow:countrymen of French origin, the terms and epithets which he applied to them on former occa sions in the province of Ontario. He would not dare to say here what he said elsewhere, he would not dare to call that race here as he did elsewhere — A " BASTARD NATIONALITY." I have here his language, which he used not later than the 12th July last, at Stayner, Ont., where he said : In Barrie,last election,I pointed out,in a few simple words, that the great danger which overshadowed Canada was the French national cry, this bastard nationality ,not a nationality which will take us in as we will take them in, but a nationality AGAINST MR. McCARTHY's BILL 573 which begins and ends with the French race,— which begins and ends with those who profess the Roman Catholic faith, and which how threatens the dismemberment of Canada. A "bastard nationality, "a "danger to Canada" ! Why, Sir, the days are not five years distant when this " bastard nationality," to use the choice words ofthe honorable gentleman, was unanimous in their support of the Conservative party to which the honorable gentleman, then as now, belonged ; the days are not five years distant when the honorable gentleman might have counted on his fingers the members of that race'in this House who did not belong to the Conser vative party. And yet in those days, and as long as that race gave his party nearly the whole weight of their influence, we never heard of any danger to Ca nada from this French national cry. In those days the sensitiveness of the honorable gentleman, now so easily alarmed, did not seem to be in the least con cerned. Nay, more, my fellow-countrymen of French origin, on the same side of the House to which he belongs, could appeal, and did appeal, to all prejudi ces of my own race ; but that was a legitimate war fare, because the national cry was made to do ser vice in behalf of the Conservative party,to give them office, and to procure for them the direct and in direct profits of office. The speech delivered the other night by my honorable friend, the Minister of Public Works, and to which, I must say, legitimate objec tion was taken by my honorable friend from North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), was simply, in condensed form, the food which, for the last twen ty-five years, has been served up every day by the Conservative ministerial press of the province of Quebec. Yet in those days not one word was ever heard as to any danger to Canada from this national cry. But matters are altered to-day. To-day the French Canadians are NO LONGER A UNIT in their support of the Conservative party ; and what 574 SPEECH was commendable, or at least unobjectionable,in those days, has now become a danger to Canada. A danger to Canada, Sir ! I venture to say, judging of the fu ture by the past, that if the French Canadians were again to unite and give the whole weight of their in fluence to the party to which the honorable gentleman still belongs, not one word more would we heard about this danger to Canada from the French national cry ; because, though the honorable gentleman affects now to be a free lance, still he belongs to the party commanded by the Prime Minister. He may not be a very disciplined soldier, he may be carrying on a guerilla warfare, according to his methods, but after all, he is working for the benefit of the Conservative party. He has told us himself on more than one oc casion. Not fifteen days ago, he said so in CoUing wood, and he said so on the 12th July last, at Stayner. It is well known that it was on the 12th July last at Stayner, amongst his own constituents, that the hono rable gentleman started on the war path. He then stated that he Avas furbishing his own weapons, and that when Parliament again met he was going to give assault to the French. His ardor was such that he deprecated the unfortunate condition of things which, under the Constitution, did not permit him to attack them wherever his ardor Avould impel him, but under the Constitution, he said he could attack the French language in the North-West Territories, and attack he would as soon as the occasion offered. But at the same time the honorable gentleman, addressing his constituents — all of them, probably, good Tories - was careful to tell them that he was still a Conservative, that he would remain a Conservative, and that A CONSERVATIVE HE HOPED TO DIE ; and I have no doubt that that is true, because I do not think the honorable gentleman has the slightest particle of Liberalism in his composition. After this, some candid souls have asked if the honorable gent- AGAINST MR. MrCARTHY's BILL ""'" | [575 leman was in sympathy with the Prime Minister, or if he was starting a new movement of his own. A most useless question, for whatever may be the aim ofthe honorable gentleman, it is quite certain that he means no harm to the Conservative party, still less to the leader ofthe party. Upon that occasion, he spoke of his attachment to the paity, and to the leader of the party, in terms of gushing effusiveness which, I must say, the honorable gentleman is not accustomed to use. I might quote several expressions of his, but here is one which is characteristic of the whole tenor of his speech: SDJTr I will treat my old chieftain with all tenderness, for I am still a member of the party. I cannot be read out, although I do not know what is in store for me. The hon. member (Mr. McCarthy) is not here, but if he were here I Avould tell him that he can keep his soul in peace. He need not fret nor worry over Avhat is in store for him, for I know the right honorable gent leman's astuteness too well— not to mention his nobler qualities — not to be aware that, if the honorable gent leman brings recruits to the party, he will be forgiven, and' it is for recruits to the party that he is looking now. I regret that the honorable gentleman is not here as I would rather speak in his presence than in his absence, but, in all sincerity, I say that I believe 1 e is looking for recruits for the Conservative party, while, of course, not forgetting himself. The Conser vative party have been in power for a long time; they have been in power nearly continuously for thirty years and it is a matter of history that, during that time, they have been kept in power almost entirely BY THE FRENCH CATHOLTC SUPPORT ofthe province of Quebec. That is a support upon which they can no longer rely, because the people of Quebec are now divided in their political allegiance ; but it must be manifest to everybody that an English 576 SPEECH Protestant united Ontario would be just as effective for party purposes, and this seems to be the task which the honorable gentleman has set before him to accomplish. It is ahvays an easy and a cheap task to arouse and inflame prejudices. Give me a meeting or assembly of men, Avhether it be small or large, and in that meeting I will find passions and prejudices, noble in themselves, but which can be easily excited into dangerous passions and prejudices. The honor able gentleman is now endeavoring to arouse preju dices Avhich old quarrels, religious fervor, and pride of race, may have left in the breasts of his fellow- countrymen of English origin. He tells them that if the country is to be kept British all Canadians of Bri tish origin must unite ; at the same time he states that he is a Conservative, that he will remain a Con servative, that he will not be separated from his leader. If the appeals which he has been making Avere to be successful, to whom would they profit and whom would they affect? They certainly would not affect the Conservatives, because the honorable gen tleman states that he is still in allegiance with them, and that they belong to the same party. If they would affect anybody, they would affect the Liberals of On tario, who, fearing perhaps for British connection, might be induced to follow the honorable gentleman into the Conservative party, for Avhich he could frame a policy and of which then he would be dictator. Well, if this movement of the honorable gentle man were to be terminated here, if it were attempted merely to do service as a party device and to end there, it might not be viewed with much alarm. If this measure of the honorable gentleman were not to be followed by any other, if it were to remain as it appears here, a measure for the PROSCRIPTION OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE confined to the North-West Territories alone, where the French population is small, I say at once that I AGAINST MR. McCARTHY's BILL 577 would be inclined to say : Let the measure pass and let us return to those measures of practical usefulness which demand our attention. But this is not the last movement ofthe honorable gentleman. This is only a preliminary skirmish, soon to be followed by a ge neral onslaught upon the whole French race in Cana da. I have before me the words of the honorable gentleman, and he has more than once told us that his object is a hand-to-hand conflict with the French race of Canada. If he did not say so in so many words, there is no mistaking his meaning that his ul timate object is the annihilation ofthe French race as an individual people in this Dominion. In his speech at Stayner, he unfolded his whole mind, and, address ing himself to the English section of the people of the Dominion, he said : There is a great work cut out for us to do. Let us begin with that which seems most possible of accomplishment. Let us deal with the dual languages in the North-West. In the Local House let us deal with the teaching Of French in the schools. ' When these two matters are settled, we will have accorhplished something, and we may be able to do something better in future. These words are quite significant. This Bill, the introduction ofthis measure, is simply a preliminary step, and when that is accomplished it is to be fol lowed by something better. And what is that some thing better which is to follow ? The honorable gen tleman has not left us in doubt as to that. Here are his words : We must buckle on our armor This is a British country, and the. sooner we take up our French Canadians and make them British, the less trouble will we leave for pos terity, fcv sooner or later must this matter be settled. Nothing can be plainer than this language. The French Canadians are to be deprived of their lan guage, not only in the North-West Territories, but 37 578 SPEECH WHEREVER THEIR LANGUAGE EXISTS. They must be deprived of everything which consti tutes their distinct individuality in this Dominion.and this must be done by legislation now ; but, if not done now by legislation, "in future it will be done by force and violence — by bullets and bayonets. The expres sion is not mine, but that of the honorable gentleman himself. It has been repeated, not once or twice, but several times in different parts of the Dominion. So this is the policy upon which the honorable gen tleman is endeavoring to form a new party, or to re organise an old party. This is the policy the hono rable gentleman offers to his fellow-countrymen of English origin. I denounce this policy as anti-Cana dian ; I denounce it as anti-British ; I denounce it as being at variance with all the traditions of British Government in this country ; I denounce it as fatal to the hope we at one time entertained, and which I, for one,am not disposed to give up, of forming a nation on this Continent. I denounce it as a crime, the con sequences of which are simply shocking to contem plate. The honorable gentleman may mean nothing more than a mere party device, but he is opening the flood-gates to passions which, once aroused, perhaps no human power may be able to restrain. He is appealing to national and religious passions, the most inflexible of all passions, and — whatever may be his motive, Avhatever his end, whatever his purpose — his movement cannot be characterised by any other lan guage than that of a national crime. I do not know Avhat are the motives which are actuating the hono rable gentleman ; I do not know them fully. I look only at the consequences. But, whatever may be the honorable gentleman's motives, he has more than once felt impelled to repudiate the statement that he is actuated by hatred ofthe French race. If he were here, I would tell him that I accept his statement absolutely and entirely. Hatred is so base a senti ment that I would not impute it to him, but, if he is not actuated by hatred, it is evident that he has AGAINST MR. McCARTHY's BILL 579 A VERY STRANGE MISCONCEPTION ofthe character of French Canadians, and must have a very low estimate of their moral standard. In the speech to which I have already alluded, the honora ble gentleman did not hesitate to go considerably out of his way, in order to refer to the agitation whicli, a few years ago, passed over the province of Quebec, consequent upon the rebellion in the North-West and the execution of the chief participant in the same. He did not hesitate then to attribute the storm of indignation which, at that time, convulsed a highly emotional race, to the lowest sentiments which can actuate the human heart, and those expressions were, to a certain extent, reproduced in the House, the other day, by the honorable member for North Bruce (Mr. NcNeill), in the attempt he made to attack my honorable friend beside me (Mr. Blake) for the cour ageous stand which he took upon that question. The honorable member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) did not hesitate to say that, if the people of Quebec took the stand they did at that time, it was from a most dishonest motive ; that it was simply an attempt to stand between a criminal and justice, because the so-called criminal happened to be one of their own race. Those who have done me the honor to pay close attention to my political career, will remember that in the County of Haldimand two or three years ago I raised the warning note. I pointed out that the province of Quebec had been worked up to madness against the Dominion authorities for daring to execute justice upon a Frenchman. " For daring to execute justice upon a French man. " I repeat this sentiment in his OAvn words. Well, I have simply this to say, that whoever declares that the position taken hy the people of Quebec upon this question was not an honest one is 580 SPEECH GUILTY OF SLANDER, and makes a statement the truth of which he cannot prove. The honorable gentleman has not, however, the odium of having invented that charge. It has been a stock phrase of the conservative ministerial press of Ontario for the last three or four years. So long as it was simply confined to some obscure scrib blers, it might be passed in silence, but when th* honorable gentleman did not hesitate to give it the countenance of his name and reputation, and when, moreover, such sentiments are re-echoed in this House, I cannot allow the charge to pass unrebuked. I will meet the honorable gentleman on his own grounds. I will not dispute his expression that the people of Quebec were driven to madness on this question, but as to the motives attributed by him I will state that the people of Quebec believe in their conscience, whether right or wrong, that the execution 11 of that Frenchman " (to use the words ofthe honor able gentleman) was an unjustifiable homicide. The honorable gentleman will not forget that twenty-three of his colleagues, twenty-three of those who supported that administration like himself — most of them who, like himself, will not be read out of the party, but who will remain conservatives— telegraphed to the Prime Minister that the execution would be a crime. This is not all ; there is more than that. The honor able gentleman will not forget that the press of the civilised world decided upon that occasion that " mercy should rule and not severity. " The opinion of the press of the whole world, the London Lancet, the Christian World, the London Daily News, the London Echo, the Pall-Mall Gazette in England, Le National, Le Journal des Debats and Le Telegraphe in France, Harper's Weekly, the Times, the World, the Commercial Advertiser of New-York, and scores of other journals in the United States, gave it as their, opinion that AGAINST MR. M0CARTHY's BILL 581 MERCY SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE RULE upon that occasion. I will tell the honorable gentleman who has interrupted me that if those great organs of public opinion came to the conclusion that mercy should have been the rule upon that occasion, how dare he hoav contest the honesty of the people of Quebec who came to the same conclusion ? If those who av ere Avithout the conflict, if those Avho looked from a calmer sphere came to this conclusion, is it to be wondered at that the people of Quebec came to the same conclusion, though it may be regretted that they expressed their opinion in such violent language ? I say more. There is no one man of English origin, if he be true to the standard of that proud race Avhich never tolerated injustice, and never submitted to tyranny, who, looking at the long tale of Avoe and misery which resulted in the rebellion in the North- West, but must feel his heart indignant — not against the poor Avretches who, goaded to madness and driven to despair by years of careless indifference, at last risked life and limb and freedom, risked the loss of everything dear to man, to get justice, and then alone obtained it — but against those who by their own supineness had brought about such a crime on the fair name of the country. There is more than that. If the history of that rebellion were told, it Avould unfold to the world A TRAGEDY DARKER THAN HAMLET. There was a race of men on the border between savage and civilised life ; advanced enough to understand the value of property, but not advanced enough to defend their property against those unfeeling specu lators who everywhere precede civilisation. Among the whole race then in Canada there was not one who had received the smallest rudiment of education ; but they had heard there was one of their number who had been more favored than they in thi3 respect, and 582 SPEECH he was then an exile. If he were brought back to the Territories, might he not procure for them the act of simple justice which they themselves could not obtain ? To him they appealed ; but, misfortune greater than all their misfortune ! the man to whom they thus appealed to be the eye to see for them, the mind to guide them, the arm to protect them, had been touched by the hand of God, and was the most helpless of them all. In the face of such facts, the judgment of my felloAV-countrymen can be impugned, but their honesty cannot be assailed. It is a vile imputation to attack their honesty of purpose ; and if I have thus alluded to these facts, it is not with a view of recrimination, it is not with a view of perpe tuating the bitterness of these sad days. But since Ave are threatened with a Avar of races, since my honor able friend (Mr. McCarthy) is going to appeal to the people of Ontario to unite together, I want at least fair play in the contest. I cannot allow that such a statement as this made at Stayner should go utire- buked, and I must do my share in the attempt to re-establish perverted truth. I cannot allow the fair name of my countrymen to be assailed by false state ments, and that tho expression should go abroad uncontradicted that the people of Quebec will follow no law but the law of their own selfishness. Since the honorable gentleman (Mr. McCarthy) has taken this attitude, since he has tried to introduce this new policy, which outlines the course he has taken recently, we might have hoped that he Avere im pelled by MOTIVES OF A HIGHER and nobler consideration. lam not ignorant ofthe fact that, among the men who have adopted the same views as the honorable gentleman, there are many who have come to the conclusion which the honorable gentleman has given expression to, from the convic tion that the existence of two separate nationalities AGAINST MR. MCCARTHY'S BILL 583 in Canada is not compatible with the existence of the Dominion. This objection thus presented is one which I Avill not reject. On the contrary, I say this is a question Avhich must engross the serious attention of all those who have at heart the future of the coun try, for no one can close his eyes to the fact that the existence of tAvo distinct nationalities must produce sometimes, as it has produced already, causes of angry friction and, therefore, of danger. But, Sir, Ave must deal with facts as they are, and deal with them as we find them. Here are two different races geographi cally united under the same political allegiance, but separated by numerous ethnical features. With those conflicting elements, it is the object of the honorable gentleman apparently — it is my own object certainly, and it is the object of us all, I believe— to try to form a nation. This is the problem Ave have to solve ; how shall we proceed to solve it? The honorable gentle man has given as his method, the Tory method, and he has once more demonstrated that Tory methods never proceed from the nobler, higher instincts of the human heart and the human intellect, but always from the dread, the- diffidence, and the distrust which everywhere has made the Tory party, wherever it has had sway, suspicious and cruel. The honorable gen tleman, looking around this broad Dominion, sees a population of one and a-half million inhabitants, nearly one third of our whole population, who are of French origin, attached to their language, their laws, their institutions, and their religion— attached _ to everything which characterises their separate indivi duality If the honorable gentleman had stated that this was a cause of possible friction, and that we should endeavor to find some means of alleviating that friction, I would agree with him ; but the hono rable gentleman did not take that view. On the contrary, he coldly asserts that THE EXISTENCE OF TWO SEPARATE RACES here is not compatible with the existence of the Domi- 584 SPEECH nion, and, therefore, one must disappear ; and I have quoted his words in which he appeals to his friends of English origin to buckle on their armor, and see to it that we have only one nationality on this conti nent. Sir, if this policy were to prevail, what Avould be the result ? What is it the honorable gentleman has in view ? It is simply this : that the French Cana dians should feel the yoke on their shoulders, that they should be deprived by legislation, or by force if necessary, of everything which has been granted to them hitherto. If this doctrine Avere to prevail, on Avhat foundation Avould this Confederation rest ? The honorable gentleman, I am sure, would himself admit that pride of race, attachment to the memory of one's nation and ancestors, are noble sentiments ; and yet the honorable gentleman coldly proposes that one and a-half million of Canadians — in order, as he says, that they should become good Canadians — should renounce their origin and the tradition of their race. He proposes that the humiliation of one whole race in this country should be the foundation ofthis Domi nion. Woe to the party which can adopt such degrad ing doctrines as this! Who does not see that the humiliation of one race would be a far greater danger to Confederation than any we have ever yet known? I endorse the words spoken a short time" ago by the honorable member for North Bruce (Mr. NcNeill), that we want to build up a nation on this continent; and we want to establish such a state of things that every citizen ofthis country, whatever his origin may be, Avhether he is English or French, shall feel in his heart a supreme pride to call himself a Canadian. But I would ask the honorable gentleman — I could not appeal perhaps to his heart, though I might to his logical mind — does he believe that to subject one Avhole section of our population to the humiliation of RENOUNCING ITS ORIGIN, of turning its back upon its history, would make them proud of the country ? Who does not perceive AGAINST MR. McCARTHY's BILL 585 that if you should force one section to hate the insti tutions under which they live, those institutions can not live ? Sir, the humiliation of one race, one class, one creed, or one man is not the foundation on which this Confederation can rest. There is but one foun dation for it, that is, to give the fullest scope and the fullest sway to all those sentiments Avhich could not be torn from the heart without causing a loss of pride. The honorable gentleman seems to think that all Canadians should be cast in the same mould. He is proud of his race, and he has every reason to be proud of it; but, Sir, it does not follow that we should all be English-speaking Canadians, that we should all be merged in the Anglo-Saxon element. Certainly no one can respect or admire more than I do the An glo-Saxon race ; I have never disguised my sentiments on that point ; but we of French origin are satisfied to be what we are, and we claim no more. I claim this for the race in which I Avas born, that though it is not perhaps endoAved with the same qualities as the Anglo-Saxon race, it is endowed with qualities as great ; I claim for it that it is endoAved Avith qualities unsurpassed in some respect ; I claim h>r it that there is not to-day under the sun a more moral, more honest or more intellectual race ; and if the honorable gentleman came to Lower-Canada, it would be my pride to take him to one of those ancient parishes on the St. Lawrence or one of its tributaries, and shoAv him a people to whom, prejudiced as he is, he could not but apply the words which the poet applied to those who at one time inhabited the Basin of Minas and the meadows of Grandpre: — Men whose lives glided on like rivers that water the woodj [land Darkened by shadows of earth, but reflecting an image of [Heaven. Sir, I claim no more than Avhat is fairly due to my countrymen, and I say, let 586 SPEECH THE TWO RACES STAND TOGETHER, each Avith its own characteristics ; they will be all the more speedily united in the same aspirations towards a common object — British in allegiance and Canadian in sentiment. But, Sir, if you attempt to rend from one whatever is dear and sacred to it, instead of having peace and harmony, you will have ever in creasing discord. My honorable friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) the other day told us that it was in the interest of the French Canadians to become a part ofthe Anglo-Saxon race; and proceeding to relate the achievements of that great race, both in war and peace, he almost asked permission from and apolo gised to the French Canadians for feeling proud ofthe British feats of arms on the Plains of Abraham, in the Bay of Trafalgar, on the field of Waterloo. Sir, my honorable friend needed not to apologise; his senti ments are quite natural to those who have the same blood as he has in his veins, and they cannot be offen sive to anyone ; but I, who belong to the race which Avas defeated in those battles, claim no permission to say that I lay no claim to that stoical heroism, if he roism it be, which can contemplate without a pang, even retrospectively, the defeat of one's own race, though my judgment is clear that in two, at least, of those battles — -that on the Plains of Abraham and that on the field of Waterloo — the victory of England was a victory of liberty. I have, more than once in this House, told my fellow-countrymen of the province of Quebec, that the day which had severed Canada from France had not been an evil day for the descen dants of France, because they had found under the British CroAvn GREATER LIBERTY than they could have hoped for under the French regime, and after all liberty is the greatest boon of life. But, Sir, while I say that, I do not disguise to AGAINST MR. M0CARTHY's BILL 587 my fellow-countrymen of English origin, who will I hope, understand me, that even at this day, holding the opinions which I hold, whenever I take up our history, as I follow the long, the persistent, the im placable duel between England and France for the possession ofthis continent; as I trace, page by pa^e the fatal climax, dim at first, but gradually taking shape and becoming inevitable ; as I follow the brave army of Montcalm retreating before superior forces, retreating, even after victory, retreating into a circle made every day narrower and narrower; as I come to the last page and the last struggle where that truly great man, the gallant Montcalm,found death with his first defeat, I do not disguise from my fellow-country men of English origin that my heart is clenched and that my French blood runs colderin my veins. Talkto , me not of your purely utilitarian theories ! Men are not mere automatons ! It is not by trampling on the tenderest sentiments of the soul that you will ever accomplish your end if such an end youhavein view. And yet it is in the name of British allegiance, it is Avith the apparent object of securing the future ofthis country, that this new policy is introduced — THIS SO CALLED BRITISH POLICY which is at total variance with the policy ever followed by the British authorities on this continent. This country had but a feAV years before passed under the regime of the English Crown, when the great conflict arose between England and her colonies to the south, which ended in the separation of those colonies from the mother land. England at once realised that, if she was to retain a foothold upon this continent, it was necessary for her to win the affec tions of her new subjects, since she had lost the alle giance of those of her own kith and kin; and that unless she made just concessions she could not hope to do so. In a just and generous spirit she made the concessions necessary to gain this object. To her 588 SPEECH new subjects she gave their laws, their language, and their religion, although at the time that very religion was subjected to many disabilities in England. Does not the honorable gentleman who moved this Bill know, as everybody must know, that these timely concessions saved this colony to England? Does he not knoAV that if the new subjects of England had joined the armies Avhich Congress sent over to force Canadians into the movement of insurrection, the result would have been for Canada what it has been for the rebellious colonies — total separation ? And the honorable gentleman might have known that, though the Marquis de Lafayette and the Count d'Estaing sent their emissaries to wave the old colors of France before the eyes of the old subjects of France, the latter still remained true and fought under the British flag around the walls of Quebec WITH THE SAME COURAGE which they had displayed against that flag but sixteen years before. Supposing the honorable gentleman had been living then and had had a voice in the council of the King, what advice would he have given ? Would he have said : Do not allow these men to talk their oavii language; do not give them any privileges ? If he had, and if his advice had been taken, this country would not be British as it is to-day. I have stated, and I repeat the statement, that the French Canadians having claimed and received from England the privileges of British subjects, it would be the blackest ingratitude on their part if, to-day, they were to reject the obligations which British citizenship entails ; but I also say to the honorable gentleman that it would be ungrateful, unmanly, and ungenerous to repeal at this moment, or to attempt to take from the French Canadians the concessions made to them to win their affections and to secure their support in the day of England's danger. The honorable mem ber for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) stated, a few AGAINST MR. McCARTHY's BILL 589 evenings ago, that he had his doubts as to whether the loyalty of French Canadians upon that occasion had been altogether unmixed ; he had his doubts as to whether, instead of being loyal, they did not only look to their language, their laws, their institutions and their church. I do not understand the doubts of the honorable gentleman. I do not- doubt at all. I am quite sure these were the motives which impelled my countrymen to be loyal. They had to choose between the action of the British Crown and that of the Philadelphia Congress. The British Crown had just granted them the Act of 1774, which secured to them everything they held dear — their language, their laws and their religion — and they had to choose between that and the Act ofthe Philadelphia Congress, which will ALWAYS REMAIN A BLOT on a noble page of American history. The honor able gentleman shows that in the proclamation which the Congress of Philadelphia issued to the English people that very concession was declared to be one of the grievances of which the colonies had to complain. These were the motives that induced my countrymen to take the stand they did. Does the honorable gen tleman find fault with them for being guided by mo tives ? Do not men generally act on motives ? As Mr. Lincoln said, in 1862, in the darkest period ofthe war : Negroes themselves will act upon motives. I would like to know what objection my honorable friend has to that. What are his views of loyalty ? Does loyalty consist only in kissing, the smiting hand ? Is, it meritorious when submissive and slavish ? No; loyalty is meritorious when it proceeds from favors granted and from justice done. And this has been the invariable tradition of the race to which my hon orable friend has the honor to belong, and of which he is justly proud. But there were before to-day men whose memory was short and whose sense of gratitude 590 SPEECH was limited. In the first Parliament, wliich sat in 1791 under the Constitution then granted, there were men like the honorable member for Simcoe(Mr. McCarthy) and the honorable member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who wished to have the use of the French language abolished in the legislative hall. Their at tempts were frustrated, chiefly by the efforts of one man, who upon that subject could speak with author ity. That man was JOSEPH PAPINEAU, the illustrious father of a still more illustrious son ; and his whole life Avas the repudiation of the theory advanced here in the last four days. He was an ex- ample ofthe fact that a man can speak in the lan guage of his ancestors, and still remain a true subject of the Crown of England. At the time Avhen Arnold and Montgomery were invading Canada, despatches had been brought front Lord Howe, who commanded the British forces in the insurgent colonies, to Sir Guy Carleton, Avho commanded the English forces in Ca nada. The despatches reached Montreal. Sir Guy Carleton had been forced to retreat to Quebec before Montgomery's army, and was busily preparing that city against the invaders. The despatches could not be carried further than Montreal, except at the cost of great perils and hardships ; but two young men undertook to carry them through. Joseph Papineau, then a young man, tAventy-five years of age, was one of the two who volunteered for this service. The country was in the hands ofthe enemy ; it was unset tled, and there were great rivers to be crossed, with out bridges, and it was in the fall of the year. Mr. Papi neau and his friend tramped the whole distance.They reached Quebec and delivered their despatches. Then, what did they do ? They enlisted as volunteers "and served in the defence of Quebec, until the enemy was repulsed from Canadian soil. Some few years after wards, in 1791, Mr. Papineau had been elected mem- AGAINST ME. M°CARTHY's BILL 591 ber for Montreal, and when the attempt was made to banish the French language from the walls of the legislature of Quebec,Mr. Papineau could speak Avith some authority, and he asked : Is it simply because Canada forms part of the British Em pire that Canadians, who speak not the language in use on the banks of the Thames, are to be deprived of their natural rights ? , Mr. Papineau's recent services, his fidelity to the cause in danger, were such as to convince the En glish members of the Legislature that his arguments were reasonable and generous ; and I submit that HIS WORDS SHOULD FIND AN ECHO even at this distant day, within the walls of this chamber. The honorable gentleman told us that, at a later date, Lord Durham, in his famous report, ad vised the suppression of the French language in the legislative halls of Canada. It is perfectly true, and his views were incorporated to the Imperial Act of 1840, but five years had not elapsed before the Cana dian Legislature unanimously decided, all shades of opinion united, to petition the Imperial Parliament to remove the obnoxious clause, and it was so remov ed. The union of Upper and Lower Canada had just been consummated, and it was soon perceived, under the guidance of that master mind, Mr. Baldwin, that if the union was to be for the good of the whole peo ple, every section'of the people had to be protected in what was held dear by every one of them. This Act ofthe Legislature has", however, been criticised by my honorable friend from Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). He found nothing in it great, generous or statesman like. On the contrary, he characterised it as a weak concession from politicians in order to capture French votes. I would not do justice to the honorable gen- 592 SPEECH tleman if I did not here quote his words. This is what he said : The Parliament of 1840 did all it could to repair the in jury of 1774; but, gentlemen, it was not very long before our politicians undid it all. Mark the supreme contempt in those words, "our politicians !" The honorable gentleman was on ten der ground when he spoke of '' politicians ", he was at one time a politician, though he informed his au dience that he was no longer of that class. Mr. Mills (Bothwell) :— A statesman. Mr. Laurier:— The honorable gentleman was too hiodest to say that, but he left it to be inferred, that THE GREAT STATESMEN ofthe present day should endeavor to undo the great wrong inflicted on this country, from such base mo tives, by such puny politicians as Mr. Baldwin, Mr Lafontaine, Sir Allan MacNab and Mr. Morin.' The honorable gentleman was proud, he said, to fortify his views with the views of Lord Durham and he was proud to refer to Lord Durham as a Liberal of the Liberals. It is true that Lord Durham was a Liberal but I will show that, while he was a friend of liberty' and was one of the most advanced statesmen of his day, he did not know the force of free institutions and' that, however large the range of his mind, he was not such a keen-sighted statesman, nor even true Liberal as was our own Robert Baldwin. My honorable friend the other day recalled the famous word of Lord Dur ham, wherein, in graphic language, he depicted the state of Lower Canada in the summer of 1838. He had expected, he said, to find here a conflict between' the Government and a people, but he had found two peoples warring in the bosom ofthe same state • he.has found a struggle, not of principles, but of races This language is perfectly true. It cannot be doubted at 593 this day, that the movement which culminated in the rebellion of 1837-38 in Lower-Canada, when it assum ed that acute form, had degenerated into a war of races. My honorable friend did not tell us the cause which had brought about that Avar of races, but Lord Durham told us, and my honorable friend might have quoted his language. The cause was the contest bet Aveen the Legislative Assembly and an irresponsible Government. For almost fifty years the Legislative Assembly passed laws which were deemed estential, absolutely essential, for the welfare of the country, and even for the very existence ofthe Legislative As sembly itself, as a body ; and as often as those laws were passed, so often were they trampled upon BY AN IRRESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT. The Assembly was altogether French ; the Executive was almost entirely English, and its members were recruited by the Colonial Office among its creatures. As may be expected in any such case, the Avhole French population took part with the Assembly, and nearly the whole ofthe English population took part with the Executive. Very few, probably, thought much as to who was in the right or as to who was in the wrong : but if you desire to know who was in the main right in that dispute, I cannot do better than to call in the testimony of Lord Durham himself, as it is couched in his report. And this is what he said : From the commencement, therefore, to the end of the disputes which marked the whole parliamentary history of Lower Canada, I look on the conduct of the Assembly as a constant warfare with the Executive, for the purpose of ob taining the powers inherent in a representative body by the very nature of representative government. Thus you have the admission that, if there was a rebellion, it was forced upon the French Canadians of that day by the action ofthe Executive government, '38 594 SPEECH which had refused to give the Legislative Assembly the powers inherent to a legislative body. Yet, in face ofthat opinion, Lord Durham said that the loy alty of the French Canadians could not be trusted, and that henceforth Lower Canada would have to be governed by an English population, and the method he suggested was the union of the two Canadas, Avith a provision that the English population should have in the House a large majority in members. The rea son he gives for coming to that conclusion is given in very pithy terms. Here it is : Never again will the present generation of French Cana dians yield a loyal submission to a British government. I have already stated that Lord Durham did not know the full force of free representative institutions, and that our own Baldwin was a greater statesman in that respect than Lord Durham. Lord Durham had not imagined, he had not thought, that, if the French Canadians were given all their privileges, they would at once become loyal subjects, that they would not have to be governed by the strong hand of an English majority, that division would not take place on the line of races, but on the broader lines which impel men to move onward or to cling to the past. Mr. Baldwin understood that, and he was the first to sug gest that the French Canadians should have their language restored, and should be treated as the equals of their fellow-citizens of English origin. That was true statesmanship and that view was unanimously adopted by the Legislature : and I ask, in face of subsequent facts, WHO IS THE GREATER STATESMAN, Lord Durham or Mr.BaldAvin?Lord Durham stated that the then living generation of French Canadians would never yield submission to an English Government. At that very time, there was a young man- who Ava3 AGAINST MR. McCARTHY's BILL 595 an exile from his native country,because he had been a few months before a rebel in arms, and the British government had set a price upon his head. There is no doubt that, if he had been captured, he would have met the fate of those who, on the scaffold, paid the penalty of having loved their country not wisely, but too well. Under the policy introduced in 1845, this young man became a member of Parliament and leader of the Conservative party, and he died a baro net ofthe realm. Sir, thi3took place in face of the Avords Lord Durham wrote in 1838, when he said that never again would that generation of French Cana dians yield a loyal submission to the British govern ment. Now, my honorable friend for Simcoe asks us to go back upon this policy. Are we to be told at this day, or is it to be believed by any one at this day, that the policy introduced by Mr. Baldwin has not made Canada what it is? Is their a man living in this land, especially if he is of the Liberal party, who would at this day GO BACK UPON THE POLICY inaugurated by their leader forty years ago ? Sir, there is not a man in this country to-day who must not feel proud ofthe wise and statesmanlike policy which was introduced upon that occasion. I am not ignorant of, nor will I minimize, the danger which arises to Canada from the fact that we have here a duality of language and a duality of race. Bat the fact exists, and ostracism of any kind, instead of removing the danger, would simply intensify it,_ by forcing a section of our population to hate the institu tions under which they live — intensify it, because it would bring a section of our population into conflict with the majority, which would thus abuse the brute power of number. It seems to me that the honora ble gentleman must feel that the policy he is now championing is weak and inferior. Any policy which appeals to a class, to a creed, to a race, or which does 596 SPEECH not appeal to the better instincts to be found in all classes, in all creeds, and in all races, is stamped with the stamp of inferiority. The French Canadian who appeals to his felloAV-countrymen to stand by them selves, aloof from the rest of this continent; the .English Canadian who, like my honorable friend, appeals to his fellow-countrymen on grounds affecting them alone, may, perhaps, win the applause of those whom they may be addressing, but impartial history will pronounce their work as vicious in conception as it is mischievous and wicked in its tendency. We are here a nation, or WE WANT TO BE A NATION, composed of the most heterogeneous elements — Pro testants and Catholics, English,French, German, Irish, Scotch, every one, let it be remembered, with his tra ditions, with his prejudices. In each of these conflicting antagonistic elements, however, there is a common spot of patriotism, and the only true policy is that which reaches that common patriotism and makes it vibrate in all, towards a- common end and common aspira tions. I may be asked: What, then, is to be the future of Canada? The future of Canada is this : that - it must be British. I do not share the dreams or the delusions of those few of my fellow-countrymen of French origin, who talk to us of forming a French nation on the banks ofthe St. Lawrence; and I would say to my honorable friend from Simcoe, if he were here, than these dreams ought not to disturb his sleep. Those who share these delusions are very few; they might be counted upon the fingers of one hand, and I never knew but one newspaper which ever gave them uftf ranee. Yet, while I say that this country is bound to be British, it, does not follow at all that there must be but one language— the English lan guage — to be spoken in this country. I claim that I amas loyal as the honorable gentleman to the insti tutions of this country, and I am the son of a French AGAINST MR. McCARTHY's BILL 597 mother, and I declare that I cling to the language Avhich I learned at her knee as I cling to the life which she gave me. And upon thhs ground I appeal to every man of British origin, to every man of that race in which the domestic affections are so strong ; and I know that in the heart of every one the answer Avill be that, situated as we are, THEY WOULD DO AS AVE DO. But the honorable gentle.aan will revert to the cold, dry argument, that after all, a dualty of race will pro duce friction and that friction will produce danger. "But where is the remedy ? I tell the honorable gentleman that the remedy is not in ostracism, not in harsh methods nor in cruel methods. My honorable friend from North Bruce (Mr. NcNeilh)-who, like many other good men,preaches better than he practices-gave us the other day the true remedy. The true remedy, he said, is mutual forbearance and respect. I altogether agree with my honorable friend from North Bruce. But he complained in his speech that the forbearance should not be all on one 3ide. Sir, is it all on one side ? What he complains of i3 a feAV expressions, I admit very imprudent, that have fallen from the lips of some men in the heat ofthe debate. Well, lam pretty sure that when those expressions are sifted and explained, they readily fall away. The newspapers of Ontario, during the past year, have been full of citations of the words of my honorable friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Amyot), pronounced at the St. Jean Baptiste celebration last year ; and when he took occasion, a few days ago, to explain tho3e Avords, he explained them so thoroughly that my honorable friend from North Bruce immediately wanted to make him a member of the Imperial Federation League. If all the other expressions were so sifted, I do not despair that my honorable friend from North Bruce would try to make Mr. Mercier himself a member of the Imperial Federation League. This is what he 598 SPEECH claims his fellow-countrymen and my fellow-coun trymen of English origin have to bear. Well, I tell him that the French Canadians have also something to bear. What we object to is the meddlesome inter ference of certain men in Ontario in our domestic politics ; what I object to is the whining pity bestowed by some over-zealous and over-good men in Ontario upon the poor, down-trodden, prostrate French Cana dians. Only the other day my honorable friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) complained that the Province of Quebec was making no progress, and he instanced the fact that in that Province we still have THE TITHING SYSTEM, and he said if there was in Quebec a true Liberal party, they would grapple with such an evil as that. There is in Quebec a Liberal party, not without fault, I admit, but a party Avhich has fought as noble a battle as was ever fought by any party in any land. But before I tell him why the Liberal party in Que bec do not grapple with the tithing system, let me remind him that there is in England a Liberal party of which any man ought to be proud, a party led to day by one of the greatest men that England has ever produced, or that any land has ever produced — Mr. Gladstone. Does my honorable friend also know that there is a tithing system in England just as there is a tithing system in Lower Canada — no, not just the same, because the tithing system in England is far more oppressive and unjust than the system in Lower Canada. The tithing system in Lower Canada only affects Roman Catholics and no one else, but in Eng land the tithing system affects every man, whether he is a member ofthe Church of England or of another. And yet never to this day did the Liberal party grapple with that system or attempt to bring the English people to abolish that system. Why ? Because the great majority of the English people would not AGAINST MR. MCCARTHY'S BILL 599 part with it. And for the very same reason the Liberal party has never grappled with that system here, because the people of Quebec are satisfied with it. My honorable friend has read somewhere that the people are oppressed under the tithing sy3tem, that they are compelled to abandon their lands because the oppres sion is such that they cannot pay the tithes. The truth is the people of Quebec to-day GIVE DOUBLE THE AMOUNT to the Church voluntarily than they give by law. I declare, in the name of the Liberal party of Quebec, of which I am an humble member, that so long as the conscience of Quebec is satisfied with the system never will the Liberal party attack that system. I will say this to the honorable member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), that if we could make a com pact between the English and the French, each to mind his own business and not meddle with the business of the other, we would get along tolerably well, not only tolerably well, but perfectly well. Yet the honorable member for North Simcoe (Mr. Mc Carthy) perhaps may say : If you are to bring the two races together, simply by relying upon moral influence and persuasion, the union may be far away. There is force in the objection, because there are in Quebec, as there are in Ontario, extreme men who will not be amenable either to reason or generous con siderations. The extreme men of Quebec talk to-day of forming a French nation on the banks of the St. Lawrence, and the extremists of Ontario talk of driv ing away the French with bayonets. When the very large body of the nation, composed ofthe two races, come closer together and know each other better, I have no doubt that friction of races here will be as rare as it is in Switzerland after hundreds of years of political union. The honorable member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) if he were here,_ would say, perhaps : Is this system ever to remain ? Is there 600 SPEECH nevertobea day when Ave shall have here nothing but the English language ? I Avould tell my honora ble friend that I do not trouble myself with such con siderations as to a dim and distant future. The only thing which troubles me at this moment is, to keep peace and harmony in this land, and not have peace and harmony endangered under the vain pretence of securing the future against feuds and contentions. I Avould have great pleasure in telling the hon. gentle man — and I am sorry he is not present — that, in my judgment, the English language is to-day and must be for several generations, perhaps for several cen turies, THE COMMANDING LANGUAGE of the world. So long as the centre of civilization was on the basin of the Mediterranean, three languages in succession held sway : the Greek, the Latin and the French. At the end ofthe seventeenth century the French language was undoubtedly the dominating language of civilization. It is still the language of diplomacy, the vehicle of communication for inter national exchange in the higher productions of the human mind, but it is no longer the language of the many. That position noAV belongs to the English language. That revolution has been accomplished by the wonderful development of the Anglo-Saxon race during the eighteenth and in the nineteenth cen turies. That race have carried their language with them in their emigration around the Avorld, and now it is the language of more than 100,000,000 of people scattered over Europe, Africa, America, Asia, and the islands and continents of the Pacific Ocean. Sir, the very fact that the English language is to-day the dominating language of this continent of America, makes it imperative on French Canadians, although they will retain their language, to learn and speak English. Nothing was more appropriate, more wise than the words that fell a few days ago from the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Robillard). The AGAINST MR. McCARTHY's BILL 601 French Canadian father who to-day does not give an English education to his son does not do justice to hi3 child, because he compels him to stand back in the hard struggle for life. I would say more. It is imperative for us French Canadians to learn English, but — I have no right to give advice to any other man — if I were to give any advice to my Anglo-Canadian friends, it would be that they would do well TO LEARN FRENCH TOO. The English are a proud race ; but the Romans were a proud race also ; and after they had conquered the world, a Roman acknowledged that the education of his son was not complete unless he was as familiar with Greek letters as he was with Latin letters. Perhaps, however, my honorable friend for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) would not admit such an example for himself or the people of this country, because the object of my honorable friend is not simply to remove the use of the French language _ in the North-West Territories and from every legislative hall in Canada, but his object is to prevent the teach ing of French in the schools of Ontario. There _ are to-day, in the back townships and new concessions in Ontario, schools where a feAV French settlers are attempting to impart some knoAvledge to their chil dren in the language of their ancestors. The eagle eye of my honorable friend has caught sight of that fact. The eye of the eagle can withstand the sun, but the eye of my honorable friend cannot withstand that little light. He spoke, a few days ago in this citv, the Capital of Canada, at a meeting which adopted the following resolution : — And this meeting avails itself of this opportunity of ex pressing the opinion that in our own province the use of the French language as the language of instruction m the public schools should be abolished and for ever prohibited, and that no undecided measure for obtaining this end will be satisfac tory to the people of Ontario. 602 SPEECH The honorable gentleman spoke to that resolu tion and endorsed every word of it. This is what he said: — At the same time, as a citizen of Ontario^— of the Domi nion, I heartily endorse the sentiment which the meeting has given utterance to — that we ought, and ought at once and for all time, to put an end to the teaching of our children, either French Canadian or English, in any other language than the language of the country in which we live. Is this really the measure of my honorable friend? We ahvays knew him to be a restrictionist, but not to that extent, I am sure; Ave always knew him to be a restrictionist in trade, but he is A RESTRICTIONIST EVEN IN KNOWLEDGE. If the honorable gentleman, on that occasion, had said that the people of Ontario would insist that En glish should be taught in all their schools, I would raise both my hands in favor of it. But that is not enough; not only must English be taught, but he ob jects to any other language being taught in Ontario schools. Can it be that an honorable gentleman pos sessing the attainment, power and ability of my ho norable friend should stoop to things so low ? It is a thing low, and vile, and contemptible, to say that the peop'e of Ontario, whatever be their creed or their origin, shall not have the right to teach a second lan guage to their children if they choose. Men are not usually Avantonly cruel ; men do not, as a rule, pur posely degrade their lives, and what is the reason, I want to knoAV, which impels my honorable friend to U3e such language as that? Sir, the reason is, that Torie3 ofthe stamp of my honorable friend never can bring themselves up to the point of trusting the better instincts of the human heart ; they never can divest themselves ofthe base notion that, if they treat their opponents with generosity or with justice, their op ponents will abuse the privilege. They can never divest AGAINST MR. M°CARTHY's BILL 603 themselves ofthe base notion that, if the French Cana dians are to be allowed their language and their cha racteristics as a race, they will turn traitors as a race. They want to make this country British in the same manner they have tried TO MAKE IRELAND BRITISH. For the last seven hundred years, English statesmen have attempted to make Ireland British, not by jus tice, not by generosity, not by appealing to the better instincts ofthe generous hearts of that people, but by every form of violence and cruelty. They have pros cribed her religion, they have killed her agriculture, they have destroyed her commerce, they have done everything to degrade the land and the people. And with what result ? With the result of making Ireland a thorn in the side of England, with the result of fill ing the heart of the people of Ireland with bitterness against England. Sir, Mr. Gladstone has done more in five years to make Ireland British than English statesmen have done for seven hundred years before. Will I show you the different results which can be wrought upon the feelings of a sensitive people by generous treatment ? Let me quote a speech delivered by Mr. John Dillon, M. P. for Tipperary, last year. The occasion was a demonstration in favor of Mr. Dillon on his being released from jail, where he had served a term under the odious Coercion laAV. Noav, I cite the speech because it may be a lesson to the ho norable member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and those who agree with him in this House. Mr. Dillon said : — But it is impossible for me to be blind to the facts that are forced upon my notice as regard the mighty change which have come over the minds of the masses of the people of England, and remembering this, I think it is not wise to be impatient, because the liberty of Ireland is not to be accom pli- hed in a day. I can see no cause for impatience, but cause rather for hope and even exultation. Coming now, as I do, 604 SPEECH from what was meant to be a degradation and an insult to me, and as I hope an honorable man, I can find in my heart not the slightest trace of bitterness against the people of England. 1 recollect the day when the power and when the name of Englishmen were hateful to my heart. It may be that I have been demoralized by the countless acts of kindness I have received at the hands of Enghshmen ; but the feeling has now changed, and I cannot find it in my heart to regret that it is fast passing away. Those last Avords, I am sure, will fill with unbounded joy the friends of Ireland and the friends of England as well. But WITH WHAT TERRIBLE MEANING are not these words prefaced ! It is knoAvn that Mr. Dillon is a man of noble and unstained character. No harsh words would be expected to cross the lips of such a man, yet he tells us there was a time when the very name of England was hateful to him. How terrible these words are ! They are the expression of the bitterness accumulated through centuries and centuries of persecutions in succeeding generations of Irishmen. But, Sir, mark the change. Less than five years of a generous attempt by a great party to do justice to Ireland, to give her the liberty and justice to Avhich she is entitled, has worked Avonders and changed the disposition ofthe Irish people. These five years of generous attempts to do justice to Ireland have erased the sentiment of bitterness" and replaced it by sentiments of affection to the land whose very name was hateful to Ireland only a few years ago. What a triumph this is for the cause of Ireland 1 What a triumph this is for those who, in this House, told the English people that if they were to treat the Irish people generously, they Avould have the same result in Ireland as in this country ! What an evidence also this is that the only manner, after all, in which you can attach a people to their allegiance is to treat them with fairness and generosity ; and what a rebuke AGAINST MR. McCARTHY's BILL 605 his to all those (my honorable friend from North Simcoe included) who believe that the only manner in which to make a people loyal is to trample under foot everything Avhich they hold dear and sacred. Sir, I have just pronounced THE NAME OF HOME RULE. Home Rule with us is local autonomy, and I hope that this principle of local autonomy will some day afford us some solution of the difficulty we have now to deal with. What is objectionable in this Bill is not, as has been often stated, the object ofthe Bill itself, (which is, after all, with some exceptions, a local question), but the tendency of the Bill and the prin ciples Avhich underlie it, for we know that this is only a preliminary step that is to be followed by many- others. We are, to-day, in the fourth day of this debate, and I have to make the reproach that the Government have not yet told us what their policy is on the question. The Government, of late, do not discharge the duty they owe to this House. They can advise us on matters of details and matters of procedure, but when it comes to a question of prin ciple they refuse to discharge the duties for which they are responsible to the House. We had a speech the other day from the honorable the Minister of Public Works. He simply told us he was against the Bill, but he affirmed no principle which we might apply to the situation. We have three propositions before us : the Bill itself, the amendment of my honorable friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Davin) and the amendment of my honorable friend from Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil). I am free to speak of them, but in what I say I declare that I express my own personal opinion. I do not speak here as the leader of a party — I express my own opinion, and nothing more. As to the amendment of the honorable member for Assi niboia (Mr. Davin), I have to say that, in my opinion, it is premature. It is endeavoring to give to the 606 SPEECH people of the Territories upon one question, plenary power, while they are still IN A FORM OF TUTELAGE. We are not prepared to give to the people of the North-West full local autonomy. We cannot expect that a population which in 1885 numbered only some thing like 30,000 souls— the population of a small toAvn, scattered over immense territories, out of which several empires can be carved — can be entrusted with the full power of responsible government. The amend ment of my honorable friend from Berthier (Mr. Beausoleil) is, perhaps, more consistent with our true position. The amendment affirms the proposition that the present Btate ofthings ought to be permanent. With this, hoAvever, I cannot agree, and although I am prepared to vote for the amendment of my honor able friend from Berthier, I cannot do so without tak ing exception to his statements. It is impossible to admit, for instance, that the institutions of the North- West are permanent. On the contrary, they are ex ceptionally temporary : they deal with a state of things Avhich is exceptional in itself : they were de vised at a time when there was no population, and they must be modified from time to time as the neces sities of the case require. But at this moment to say they are permanent, is a thing in which I cannot agree, except so far as they must be permanent in every particular, so long as we are not ready to give these people a more extended form of local authority. My honorable friend also says in this amendment, that since we passed this law and gave this incipient constitution to the North-West territories, nothing has occured to change our views. I cannot agree with that. Everything has occured since that time, not to change our vieAvs, but to set us thinking about what we should do at a future time, not very far off, in re gard to those Territories. What has occured is this : a population has gone into those Territories; they AGAINST MR. MCCARTHY'S BILL 607 have been given a Legislature ; and that Legislature has demanded certain measures— not only on the question of language, but on that of the schools, and on the system of Government. Bearing these facts in mind, it seems to me that the proper time to deal with this question will be when we are prepared to give the Territories, perhaps not absolute, but a more extended form of LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, and when that time comes, Ave must be prepared to deal with this question upon the broad principle of this constitution, which has been devised for the safety ofthe majority and the protection of the mino rity, and in the light of the condition of things Avhich may exist at that time in the Territories. But till then I believe it is better to defer the consideration of this question. There is this remarkable feature in the Bill we have before us : it is not founded on an ex pression ofthe will ofthe people ofthe Territories; it is founded simply on alleged principles applicable to the whole Dominion. This is what I object to in this Bill, and — though it is my own individual opinion only — I submit to all parties in this House, French or English, Liberals or Conservatives, that the best thing for us to do is to defer the consideration of this question to a future time when we shall be prepared to deal with all the questions now affecting the North- West Territories. In the meantime, however, Ave ought to remember this— French, English, Liberals, Conservatives — that no race in this country has abso- tute rights, only the rights which do not invade the rights of any other race. We ought to remember that the expression of race feelings and race sentiments should be well restrained to a point, beyond which, if pressed, though still kept within legitimate limits, they might hurt the feelings and sentiments of other races But when the time comes for dealing with this question, I hope we shall all be prepared, without party differences, to deal with it 608 SPEECH AGAINST MR. M°CARTHY'S BILL ON THE BROAD PRINCIPLES that apply to this Constitution ; that we shall .not, French or English, hesitate to apply true principles under the fear that evil consequences may flow from them, because we must remember that true princi ples are only an emanation of Divine truth, and that there is above us an eternal Providence whose infi nite wisdom knows better than man what is best for man, and who, even when all seems lost, still guides everything for the greatest good. TRIUMPH OF PROVINCIAL RIGHTS CELEBRATION OF THE PROVINCIAL VICTORIES OF 1890 SPEECH AT THE CLUB NATIONAL BANQUET, MONTREAL, ON THE 2nd JULY, 1890 The vindication of Provincial rights, emphasized by the sweeping Liberal victories at the general elections of 1 890 in the four principal provinces of Confederation — in New-Bruns wick on the 20th January, in Nova Scotia on the 21st May, in Ontario on the 5th June, and, last but not least, in Quebec on the 17th June, the Mercier National Government in the last named province being returned to power by the over whelming vote of the people — was fittingly commemorated by a great banquet given by the Club National at Montreal on the 2nd July, to which the victorious Premiers ofthe different provinces and the principal members of the party, both Fe deral ana Provincial, were invited. The festivity was a remar kable success and among the prominent speakers on the oc casion was the leader ofthe Federal Opposition, Honorable Wilfrid Laurier,who replied to the toast of ''Canada" and to whose utterance VElecteur of Quebec referred in the follow ing strain in its issue of the 5th July ; " The address of the leader of the Federal Opposition will be read with the same enthusiasm with which it was greeted by the guests at the banquet. It will be especially read with profit and advantage by all the citizens of this coun try, no matter to what party, race or creed they may belong. How many prejudices, false impressions and misunderstand ings will be dissipated by this noble language ! " It is well that Mr. Laurier's voice should thus be raised from time to time in this country,as his words are like a power ful wind which drives before it the clouds that fanaticism ac cumulates over our heads. His eloquence is eminently pa cificatory, and we trust tohave another calm of a few weeks after his last declarations. " In what magnificent language he lays down the great principles of justice and equality which animate his party ! How his high-minded way of presenting things towers above the clamors and yells of fanaticism ! What is chiefly to be admired in the Liberal leader is the unity, the stability, the unswerving rectitude of his ideas, the mark of profound con- 39 610 SPEECH victions. As remarked by a commentator on his speeches in a volume recently published, "his eloquence is an endless va riation on a single theme "; his work is n system, as his me thod is a synthesis ; all his speeches hang together ; they are like the chapters of a same book or the periods of a demon stration. " Our hope is that this last address may be translated into English and read in all the provinces. This is all we ask in the interest of general harmony." (Translation) Mr. President and Gentlemen, In the first place, I must congratulate the Club National on the happy inspiration which suggested the placing of this demonstration under the patronage of the Prime Ministers of the four provinces, which were the original parties to and still hold the fore most rank in Confederation. It should be congratu lated, I say, because the idea was really an inspira tion. It happens — and the fact is one of good omen for our country — that the Governments of those four provinces are at this moment in the hands of men, Avho, apart from some shades of opinion, belong to the same political way of thinking, who, in the course of the year, appealed to the electorate of their res pective provinces, and who came out of the struggle stronger than they went into it, thus showing that the opinions, of which they are the champions, are now more generally spread, more deeply anchored in the hearts of the populations which they represent than at any time in their past history. Gentlemen, the names which Ave see emblazoned here— Mowat, Mercier, Blair and Fielding, — names Avhich you greet with enthusiasm every time they are mentioned — remind us that there is a community betAveen the provinces of Confederation, that there is a community of sentiment between the races inhabit ing them, and that, if there are amongst us differences of origin and divergencies of opinion, the boundaries AT THE CLUB NATIONAL 611 of our country are, after all, not confined to the boun daries of our provinces. The soil of our country is co-extensive Avith the soil of Canada and,if we are separated on many points, still we form only one nation. We have the pleasure of seeing to-day at this table the one who appealed last to the electorate of his province, our friend, Mr. Mercier, and we can ten der our congratulations to him personally. We do not enjoy the same privilege as regards Messrs. Mowat, Fielding and Blair, as they were unable to give us the honor of their presence. But, gentlemen, I use no metaphor when I say that, if they are not with us, their principles and ideas are with us and fill this hall. I use no metaphor in saying this, for, I appeal to you, if we do not cherish in our hearts the principles which they defend. Those principles constitute the apanage, the pa trimony, so to say, of all who, under any name, form part of the Liberal Opposition in the House of Com mons. I would certainly have been delighted to review, with them, the history of the four victories obtained in the four provinces to which I have just referred. This, however, Avould carry me too far. But I can not resist the temptation to mention one, but not our own, as we are at home. Gentlemen, I appeal to you all if it is not true that, on the night ofthe 5th June last, Avhen the tele graph was bringing us the news ofthe battle which had been fought in the province of Ontario,when each despatch announced a fresh victory, the joy and the enthusiasm of the Liberals of that province could not have exceeded thejoy and enthusiasm ofthe Liberals of the province of Quebec. Yes, gentlemen, Mr. Mowat's victory in Ontario was not only the triumph ofthe Liberal cause in On tario, but the triumph of the Liberal cause in the entire Dominion of Canada. It was the triumph of 612 SPEECH the only principles on which Confederation can safe ly rest. It was alike the triumph of the autonomy ofthe provinces and of the unity of Canada. Once more, then, let us congratulate the officers of the Club National on the happy inspiration which has furnished another opportunity to affirm that our party recognizes Canada in its entirety as our country I This is the best way to refute the slander which is be ing constantly reiterated by the press of another province. It is needless to say that this affirmation would be uncalled for, if Ave were treated with the simplest justice by our adversaries ; but, under existing cir cumstances, far from being useless, it is exceedingly well-timed, for, at the present hour, a powerful orga nization, which even Mr. Mowat has had to contend against, asserts that the French Canadians are the en - emies of the constitution, that they want to isolate themselves and have nothing to do with the other races. By inviting Messrs. Mowat, Blair and Fielding,as you have done, you refute this slander ; you show that their provinces are our country as our province is theirs, and that their fellow-countrymen are our fellow-countrymen. You affirm further that, if they have their aspirations and their traditions,as we have ours, we have together the same idea, that is to say, the moral, intellectual advancement of our common country, Canada. Nevertheless, to-morrow — not later than to-mor row — the Conservative or rather the Tory press, seiz ing for the hundredth time, perhaps, on some isolated Avoids uttered by men without authority, will repeat and repeat that the French Canadians want to isolate themselves, to break up Confederation, and to erect upon its ruins a number of insignificant little principa lities, each living separately like so many oysters within their shells. You have disposed ofthis calumny, but it will be repeated in spite of the most authoritative denials. It will be repeated in spite of the denials of those who AT THE CLUB NATIONAL 613 have the right to speak, because, at the present time, these slanders constitute the poisoned weapon with which the Tory party, in another province, hope to injure the Liberal party. These slanders have been repeated by all the Tory politicians, big and little,from the top to the bottom of the ladder. They have been repeated against Mr. Mowat in the contest through which he has just gone in Ontario, and they will be repeated against us at the first opportunity. You have protested against these slanders, And I myself have been oblige 1 on another occasion and under other circumstances to protest against them. Not later than last session, on the floor of the House of Commons, I reminded those who did me the honor oflisteningtome that,in all the struggles of our ances tors against the government of the mother country, they never asked for more than one thing, for more than one privilege : that of being treated as English subjects. I stated that, if our ancestors demanded this pri- vilege.it was fur their descendants to accept its duties. I recalled that there never had been but one pa per amongst us which had called for the erection of a French republic on the banks ofthe St. Lawrence, and I might add to-day that, during the last elections, that paper did not support Mr. Mercier. When I say that I am not one of those who wish for the separation of the Confederation and favor the creation of little principalities in our midst, I do not mean to say that we should always remain a colony. On the contrary, the day is coming when this coun try will have to take its place among the nations of the earth. But I do not want to see my country's independence attained through the hostility of one race to the others. I do not want my country's independence to be conceived in the blood of civil war. I want my country's independence to be reached through the normal and regular progress of all the elements of its population toAvards the realization of a common aspi ration . 614 SPEECH We, of French origin, have the sentiment of our own individuality. We want to hand doAvn to our children the language we received from our forefathers. But, while cherishing this feeling in our hearts, we do not admit that it is incompatible with our title of Canadians. We are citizens of Canada and intend to fulfil all the duties which that title involves. But, at the same time, the moment we invite to our table men of another race like Mr. Mowat, Mr. Fielding and Mr. Blair, Ave affirm that we acknow ledge them as our felloAV-countrymen as they ac knowledge that we are theirs. Their country is our country. Their political views are our political views. What they Avant, Ave want. What they Avant and what we want is that the rights of the minorities should be respected, that the constitutional guarantees be safeguarded, the provinces sovereign in their author ity, and Canada united in its diversity. Such, from my point of view, gentlemen, are the only theories on Avhich the existence ofthe Canadian Confederation can be maintained. Unfortunately, these theories have been forgotten. Forgotten ! They have been wilfully and systematically violated by the OttaAva Government, and a condition of thing.3 has resulted, which is not without danger. It is not my habit, when the occasion arises, t shut my eyes to an actual danger. See what is happening all around us ; remark the attitude of a certain portion of the press, and I think we shall be compelled to admit to ourselves that the present situation is not without room for alarm, con sidering the uneasy feeling, the constraint, the distrust existing between the British elements and the French race. The cause of this misfortune is to be found in the first place in the tendency ofthe Ottawa Government to encroach upon the rights ofthe provinces. In all the phases of its existence, the Liberal party has protested against this fatal tendency and AT THE CLUB NATIONAL 615 policy, and I am happy to say that in our province the Conservatives who have had the courage of their opinions have joined their efforts to those of the Liberal party on this head. While on the subject. allow me to recall the long, stubborn and determined struggle maintained by a man Avho is unfortunately noAV no more, whose death was, perhaps, accelerated by it, and who has carried with him to the grave the admiration of all who appreciate deep convictions : Senator Trudel. The attitude of the Conservatives of Mr. Trudel's school was attributed at the time tu the narrowest motives, to the most intolerant conception of race exclusivism. Now, the truth was that Mr. Trudel Avas defending the federative principle on Avhich Confede ration rests. The truth is that, even were the people of this country homogeneous, the federative principle, the principle of the division of legislative powers, would be a necessity here as it is a necessity in the United States, where it has never been called in ques tion. There is no other means of working our system of government ; still our adversaries have trampled it under foot, not caring whether or not in this respect they imperilled the institutions of Confederation. Mr. Mowat is not with us to-night ; but, if he was. I would show you the most stubborn champion of Provincial rights. Mr. Mowat is not of our race. He is one of the fathers of Confederation. His devotion tu the con stitution is well known, and his motives cannot con sequently be suspected. But, because we_ are of French urigin, Avhen we defend the same principles as Mr. Mowat. our adversaries have no hesitation in throwing into our faces the insulting reproach that we are actuated by petty jealousies of race, though we are in reality defending the true principles which form the groundAvork of Confederation. The uneasiness to which I have referred was further aggravated by painful circumstances and 616 SPEECH especially by the agitation which followed the rebel lion in the North West and the execution of Louis Riel. When I allude to those unhappy days, fortuna tely now passed away, it is not with any desire to re-open wounds Avhich are hardly yet healed, but I owe it to the cause of truth to reestablish the facts, I owe it to the cause of truth to say that the charges made against us on this head by the Tory press of Ontario are groundless, and that, if Ave took the attitude we did on the Riel question, it was not from any race feeling, as is asserted, but simply because in our opinion the Government had no right to punish a crime which it had itself provoked. And if the Half-breeds revolted, it was not Riel's fault, but the fault of Sir John Macdonald's Govern ment which, for years, had refused to listen to their legitimate complaints and which hastened to listen to them Avhen they Avere formulated by the complain ants Avith arms in their hands. Nevertheless, in spite of all this, the Tory press asserts — and a man ofthe eminence of Mr. McCarthy has also dared to assert — that, in that agitation, the French Canadians were actuated by an unworthy sentiment, that, if they demanded Louis Riel's pardon, it was not because they believed him to be innocent, but simply because he belonged to their race, and that, every time one of their race committed a crime entailing the death penalty, they would endeavur to prevent the law from taking its course. I consider it a task unworthy of ourselves to re fute such charges. On the contrary, I assert that the agitation, which took place, had its origin and basis in the instinct of real Liberal principles. It may be said, perhaps : If the agitation Avas founded on Liberal principles only, why did it not extend to the other provinces ? The reason is very simple. There is an English proverb which says : " Blood is thicker than water." On that occa sion, it was the voice of blood which spoke and which AT THE CLUB NATIONAL 617 breathed life, sentiment, and emotion into the cold abstraction of a principle. All men resent injustice, but the feeling becomes more intense when that injustice comes home to us. It Avas because we felt ourselves assailedthat so much warmth was thrown into that agitation. These are some of the charges made against u?. A war of race is being waged upon us on the pretext that we ourselves are Avaging a race war. We are also attacked by our adversaries in the name of Liberal. principles. It is astonishing how Liberal our adver saries have grown within a feAV years. In the prov ince of Ontario, the principal charge which Mr. Mowat had to fight was the charge of not being Liberal enough, and, if you will run your eye through the Conservative press of Ontario, you will find that all the attacks directed against Mr. Mowat and his friends are on the ground that they are only Liberals in name and that in reality they are under the tutelage and domination ofthe ecclesiastical hierarchy. These attacks are not merely intended for the Li berals of Ontario, but for the Liberals of the whole country. I have but one remark to make on this head and I speak at this moment in the name of my autho rity as leader of the Liberal party in the Dominion of Canada — the Liberal party will not yield any more to the clamors of extreme Protestants than it has here tofore yielded to the clamors of extreme Catholics. Gentleman, I do not desire to reproach anyone, as I respect all convictions, but you will remember that only a few years ago and, during many long years, we had in this province what I might term a religious war. Even our name of Liberals was made a reproach to us by ultra- Catholics. During long- years, Liberalism was represented as a heresy. _ Du ring long years, we had to struggle to maintain the freedom of the electorate and to secure the elector's right to vote Avithout intimidation and without undue influence. 618 SPEECH AT THE CLUB NATIONAL We carried on that struggle both on the civil and on the religious ground, and won a victory on both. And noAV, in the province of Ontario, we have to sus tain a fight of an altogether opposite character. In that province, our assailants are the extreme Protes tants. The extreme Catholics blamed us for being too Liberal and the extreme Protestants now blame us for not being Liberal enough, their chief objection to us being that Ave will not destroy established insti tutions and that we Avant the convictions of minorities to be protected. I repeat that the Liberal party will no more yield to the clamors of the one than to the clamors of the other and is not prepared to revive here the old quarrels and disputes of Europe. The Liberal party will not recede in tOAV of the Liberals of continental Europe ; it will belong to its time and its country. The Liberal principles, as we understand and defend them, do not apply only to one province, one cla^s, one race or one belief, but to all the provinces, all classes, all races and all beliefs. Gentlemen, I once more propose the toast of "Canada." Let us resolve that never shall we introduce into this country the disputes and quarrels Avhich have drenched Europe in blood ; that in this country order and freedom shall forever reign ; that all the races shall dAvell together in harmony and peace ; and that the rights of the strong shall weigh no more in the balance Avith us than the rights of the weak ! From this moment, let us also resolve to organize so that, on the day which is not now far off and of Avhich I already see the dawning, the cause which has just triumphed in Quebec, Ontario, New Bruns wick and Nova Scotia, may also triumph throughout the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. THE END. CONSULTING INDEX Conservative Party : Ho-tile to responsible government 83 Policy based on venality 144, 363, 421 Tory Loyalty 276, 373 Tories and Ultramontanes 554 Tory double game 495, 538, 575, 617 Disallowance : The American system 369 The Manitoba incident, 364, 370 The Imperial Government and the right of veto, 372 How it is abused 367 The streams' bill 499 Dual Representation : Incompatible with the freedom of the elector 13 Incompatible with the federative principle 15 Duality of Languages : Must the French language disappear? 309, 541 Preponderance of the English language 191, 600 Insults and threats of Mr. McCarthy 572, 577, 583 French in the North-West 606 The French in Ontario 496, 601 Electoral Franchise: Freedom of the suffrage 7 A fixed idea of Sir John's 193 Matter within the jurisdiction of the Local powers 195,201 The franchise in the United States, our model on this head 203 Women suffrage 207 Usurpation of popular rights 208 A measure uncalled for 194, 209 Diversity of Franchise 198, 202, 205 620 consulting index Fisheries, affair of the : Vexatious proceedings towards American fisher- ) 464 men J 490 The modus vivendi 470, 490, 500 Proposals at the Washington Conference 415, 483 Home Rule 339, 605 Imperial Federation 562 Jesuit's Estates : Confiscation of these estates. 504 Intervention ofthe Pope 545 Charges made against the Jesuits 516 Expulsion ofthe Jesuits 518 Settlement trie! by Mr. Mercier's Conservative predecessors .506, 544 Settlement approved by the Protestants of Quebec - 508 Jesuits as pioneers in this country 517 Equal Rights Association 547 Letellier Affair : Federal Jurisdiction disputed 88 Letellier calumniated by his ex-advisers 93 Letellier protected by Ministerial responsibility 101 A high authority 104 His act covered by popular sanction 105 Liberalism : Is it a new form of evil ? 54 Distinction between the Conservative idea and the Liberal idea 56 Superiority of the Liberal principles 61 History of the Liberal party in this country 67 English and Continental Liberalism 67, 73, 536, 549 The priest's political rights 75 Where the right of interference in politics ends 76 CONSULTING INDEX 621 Liberal Party : Its programme -„ Nothing revolutionary in it " g2 The youth and the Liberal party .."..... 143 Equal justice, equal rights ; ' 528 Alliance with the National Conservatives 554 615 English Liberals our models 63,67 82 521 552 Reform struggles ^, Liberty : Conciliation of the rights of the people and the rights of society -q Definition of true liberty 73 The struggles of liberty 275 307 False conception of liberty 54g Liberty of opinions , , 553 Freedom the best way to govern men 343 Justifiable rebellions 275, 312, 338, 346 North-West Rebellion : Events of 1869-70 221 The Mackenzie Government and the Half-Breeds 213, 226, 240, 321 The claims ofthe Half-Breeds 214,224, 244, 268 Laws lecognizing these claims 228, 261 Mgr. Tache's'plan 230 Fruitless petitions ofthe North-West ) 233, 237, 242, 246, Council, officials and settlers \ 264, 271, 328 The surveys by square or longitudinal sections 238 Sir John's policy relative to the surveys 243 "Too Late " 266 Sir John's conduct towards the Half-Breeds 232, 235, 247, 260, 323 Death of Thomas Scott 290,294 Mr. Chapleau and the Half-Breeds 247 Suppressed documents 220, 316 Gabriel Dumont 248, 326 Broken promises 315, 330 622 CONSULTING INDEX " Justice the same everywhere," 212 The white settlers' responsibility, 259 The Half-Breeds' numerous petitions and ) 263, 314 deputations $ 324, 331 Half-Breeds dispossessed 319, 332 Justifiable rebellions "41f8 Mercy should have been the rule 580 Pacific Railway : Conservative and Liberal policy ,... 123 Three changes of policy in three years 125 Complete surrender to the Syndicate 127 129 Monopoly of the Pacific 130, 134 371 A fief of twenty-five millions of acres I31 Tyrannized settlers.... 132 Line north of Lake Superior , 135 Personal remarks: Baldwin (Hon. Robt.) 591 Belleau (Sir N.-F) 28O Blake (Hon. Edward) 141, 185,188, 190,530, 534 Brown (Hon. George) 3gg Cartier (Sir G.-E.) 255 Cartwright (Sir Richard) 290 Dorion (Sir A. -A.) 295 Durham (Lord) .'. 343 425 Holton (Hon. L.-H.) ' 221 Joly (Hon. H.-G.) ' '/_'"'" 5]4 Lafontaine (Sir L.-H.) p eg Macdonald (Sir John) igg 53Q Mackenzie (Hon. A.) 289 Mercier (Hon. -H.) 374 jqj Papineau (Joseph) 5g0 Papineau (L. J.) 218, 351 Tupper (Sir Charles) 289 Wiman (Erastus) 4§2 CONSULTING INDEX 623 Province of Quebec : Loyalty of the French Canadians \ 2^ g> ™< f^ 35f6 Their onlyrevenge 118 Did tuey ask pardon for Riel simply because he was French? 254,579,616 Canadian above all , 305,311,359, 442,528 Are the Protestant minority ill-treated ? 513 French Canadians and Tory party, 306 Union on party lines only 56, 60, 72, 256, 596 Tithes 598 Lord Durham's report 591 The French Canadian Republic 539, 569, 613 Provincial Autonomy: Respective independence ofthe Local and Federal Legislature 15, 204, 364, 543, 557, 5(51 Contradictions of the Conservatives on this question 106 Northern boundaries of Ontario and Quebec 14 7 Superiority of the federative system 166 Licenses , • 159 Attempts at Legislative Union 165, 365 Provinces Sovereign in their sphere, Dominion united in its diversity 2, 1'98, 200 Anomalies in the Constitution 197 Monopoly and Manitoba 559 Separation of legislative powers 361 Distribution of subsidies to the Provinces 374 Provincial victories of 1890 610 What they signify 612 The only way to maintain Confederation 614 race and religion- 220,309, 358 Reciprocity : Article of the Liberal programme 377, 467, 563, 568 The old Reciprocity Treaty 377, 452 The statutory offer of 1879 380,401,413, 457 Why the first treaty was not renewed 382, 384, 401,454,474 624 consulting index Commercial union with Great Britain. ..385, 432, 459, 563 Our history from the economic standpoint 398 Obstacles to interprovincial trade 405 Reciprocity favored by the United States 413, 455 Unlimited Reciprocity vs Limited Reciprocity.... 413, 417 The manufacturing mterests 418, 456 Hoav the loss of revenue s"<>uld be supplied 420 The disloyalty cry 390, 422, 434, 458, 564 Commercial independence , 424 The annexation movement of 1849 427 Sir John formerly for Reciprocity 453 The scourge of emigration, 376,395, 446, 449 Modern industry wants large markets 409 Responsible Government 347, 426 Riel: His expulsion from Parliament 22 His amnesty 31,37, 274 His mental condition 282 Riel and Jackson 288 Sir Adolphe Caron and Riel 274 286 Mr. Chapleau and Riel , 292 General Middleton and Riel 296 Riel and the Half-Breeds 235 245 336 A judicial murder 253 258 Sir Alex. Campbells' memorandum ...280 300 Tariff: Variations of Sir John's party 42 True meaning ofthe " National Policy " 46 Retaliation policy 47, 379,464, 472, 480 Excessive protection 4g The tariff and the Maritime Provinces ¦, 362 478 Inanity of the N. P 375 421 473 The N. P. and British connection 277 The " flies on the wheel " , 451 YALE UNIVERSITY i77W6b