|
My LORD,—The next passage of the speech of the 3rd of
June, which I am bound to notice, is that in which you say :
" 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 instructions
from home commanding him to propose that measure. How in that case is he to
proceed ? Either one power or the other must be set aside ; either the Governor
or 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 which he is commanded by the Home Government to do."
This objection is based upon the assumption that the interests of the mother
country and those of the colonies are not the same ; that they must be continually
in a state of conflict ; and that there must be some course of policy necessary
for the Imperial Government to enforce, the reasons for which cannot be
understood in the colonies, nor its necessity recognized. This may have been the
case formerly in the West Indies, where the conflict was one between the ideas
engendered by a state of slavery and a
state of freedom ; but it is not true of the North American Provinces, to the
condition and claims of which
my observations are chiefly confined. Of all the questions which have agitated
or are likely to agitate Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or Prince Edward Island,
how few, when rightly understood, can be said to involve any imperial interest
or trench upon any principle dear to our brethren at home or the concession of
which could disturb the peace of the empire ? Have any of these colonies claimed
a right to regulate the foreign trade or foreign policy of the empire? Have they
ever interfered, except to carry out the views of Her Majesty's Government, with
any of the military or naval operations? Have they exposed a grievance,
the continued existence of which is indispensable to the well-being
of the British Islands ; or demanded a right the concession of which would not
be serviceable to themselves without doing the least injury to the people of
Britain ? For what have they asked ? For the control of their own revenues and
the means of influencing the appointment and acts of the men who are to dispense
them, and who are besides to distribute hundreds of petty offices and discharge
functions manifold and various within the colony itself. The people of England
have no knowledge of these matters, nor any interest in them, to give them the
right to interfere. Interference does much mischief to the colonists and can do
no good to their brethren across the water. If British statesmen would let these
things alone—and it is over these only that we claim to enforce responsibility
— and confine themselves to those general arrangements affecting the whole
empire, of which we admit them to be the best judges and in the conduct of which
we never asked to take a part, it would be impossible to conceive how such a
case could arise as that supposed by your Lordship, or how the Governor could be
charged with "a measure which his Executive Council would not dare to
propose." Admitting that there might be some subjects requiring discussion
in the Provinces, but which the colonists were not prepared to adopt, surely an
Executive Councillor could be got, even if he were opposed to the views of
ministers, to submit the measure and explain those views to the popular branch;
or might there not be " open questions "
in the colonies as' at home?
The conclusion at which my mind arrives then, after the best
attention that I can give to this branch of the subject, is that if the duties
and responsibilities of government are fairly and judiciously divided
between the imperial and colonial authorities, no such case as that assumed by
your Lordship can occur; and if it should, surely the good sense of all
parties concerned may safely be trusted to avoid any violent or unpleasant
collision. But did it never occur to your Lordship to inquire whether the very
evil anticipated as an in-superable objection to the new system does not
disfigure and annually occur under the old? What else were the Executive
Councillors in Upper and Lower Canada doing for a series of years but
"proposing certain measures" to be as certainly rejected by the
popular branch ? What else are they about now in Newfoundland ? What but this
were they doing in New Brunswick down to the close of Sir Archibald Campbell's
administration ? In all these Provinces a
state of constant collision between the Executive and the popular branch,
which could by no possibility arise under the system I contemplate, would
answer the objection, even if the difficulty suggested could be fairly taken
into account. If it be said that the Councillors now do not refuse to propose
measures, I answer, But if the Legislatures invariably reject them, does
government gain anything or is public business advanced by the system ? What a
figure did the Executive cut in Nova Scotia in 1838 when the Councillor who
brought down from the Governor a grave proposition led the opposition
against it ? And how stand things in this Province now ? Are not all the
Councillors selections from a lean minority of the Commons, in which body
almost every debate terminates in a vote of implied want of confidence in them
; and where the Governor they surround has on several occasions only been
saved from an insulting vote of censure by the good temper and moderation of
the majority ? This is a state .of things too ridiculous to be long continued.
To me it seems essential that Her Majesty, in every colony, should be
represented by an Executive not only willing " to attempt " but
" able to carry" any measures that it may be necessary to propose.
The next objection taken by your Lordship to the introduction of Provincial
responsibility, one eminently calculated to have weight with the body you
addressed and to alarm the timid everywhere, was drawn from an application
of the principle to the management of foreign affairs. " If," says
your Lordship, " the Assembly of New Brunswick had been disposed to carry
the point in dispute with the North American States hostilely and the
Executive Council had been disposed to aid them, in my opinion the Governor
must have said that his duty to the Crown of this country and the general
instructions which he had received from the minister of the Crown, did not
permit him to take that course, and therefore he could not agree with the
Executive Council to carry into effect the wish of the Assembly. That is
allowed. Does not then its very exception destroy the analogy you wish to draw
when upon so important a point as that of foreign affairs it cannot be
sustained ? " Your Lordship in delivering this passage, of course was not
aware that without the alteration of a single syllable you answered the very
objection that yourself had raised. If the Executive Council of New Brunswick
advised Sir John Harvey to declare war upon the State of Maine, " he must
have said that his duty to the Crown and his instructions did not permit him
to take that course." Most certainly he would, if a measure so ridiculous
had been attempted in New Brunswick, which nobody who knows anything of that
Province could for a moment imagine. I do not believe that there are ten men
in it—certainly there are not fifty in all the lower Provinces put together
— who do not know that the Sovereign alone has the right to declare war upon
foreign powers ; and who are not willing that upon all the relations of the
colonies with these and with each other, the Imperial Government shall decide.
A few of the New Brunswickers blamed Sir John Harvey for not acting upon Her
Majesty's instructions, to maintain
disputed
territory, not-withstanding the advice received from the Minister at
Washington; but if those instructions had not existed and had not been
positive, no one would have been idiot enough to suppose that Sir John Harvey
would have been bound
to make war, on a point of honour or policy newly discovered by his Executive
Council and upon which Her Majesty's Government had had no opportunity to
decide. Suppose when Parliament was granting a charter to Hull, it was
objected that the Mayor might be advised to make war upon Sweden (and in the
case of an elective officer, the danger would be greater than if he were
appointed by the Crown), would not the same House of Commons that thought it
unsafe to let a colony manage its internal affairs for fear it would engage in
foreign wars, laugh at the possibility of such an absurdity being committed by
any body of Englishmen out of Bedlam? Why then should it be taken for granted
that we are not English in our habits and opinions, our education and
training, our capacity to discern the boundaries of authority, and that
therefore it would be unsafe to depend upon our wisely exercising powers which
in the British Islands millions exercise for their own security and without
danger to the state ? In the case of Hull, if the objection were gravely
urged, the ready answer would be, "No greater powers can be exercised
than are granted in the bill, and if there is the least danger of the city
authorities doing anything so ridiculous, put in a clause that shall restrain
them." And I say—after soberly protesting that the very suspicion of
such an attempt is an insult to the under-standing and an imputation upon the
character of our population, which they do not deserve—that if you wish
"to make assurance doubly sure," put a clause into the bill which
concedes the principle of responsibility so far as relates to domestic affairs
and by which all such belligerent councillors shall be expressly restrained.
Whether
this point were or were not thus defined, that any Executive Council, merely
because they were responsible to the people, would, after receiving such an
answer as your Lordship admits a British Government must give, proceed in
defiance of his authority to levy war upon a friendy state,
I cannot for a moment believe. If they did, they certainly would so completely
fail and render themselves so supremely ridiculous that the attempt would not
be likely to be repeated, at least for a century to come. Let us suppose the
case to have occurred in New Bruswick: that the Executive Council, being
responsible, had advised Sir John Harvey to proceed hostilely, and that on his
declining they had levied war. In the first place, as all the regular troops
were at Sir John's disposal, as commander-in-chief within the Province and not
merely as civil Governor, they not only could not have moved a soldier, but
would have had the whole military force of that and the adjoining Provinces
against them. As the Governor's order to the colonels and officers commanding
the militia is indispensable before a single step can be taken,
under the laws by which that force is embodied, of course no hostile order
would have been given, nor could those laws have been modified or changed
without Sir John's assent. And if
it be urged that volunteers would have flocked to the aid of the
Executive Council, may I not inquire where they would have obtained arms and
ammunition, when all the military munitions and stores were deposited in
military warehouses, under the care of commissaries and officers of ordnance
responsible only to the Crown. Oh no, my Lord, whatever effect such imaginary
cases as these may have upon men at a distance, unacquainted with the state
of society in British America and the general intelligence which prevails,
here they are laughed at as the creation of a fertile imagination taxed to
combat political improvements that were feared without being understood. If,
even under the federative government of the United States, in which each state
is much more independent of the central authority than any colony would be
under the system I contemplate, this right of private war has only been once
asserted by a single state, in more than half a century, and then was scouted
all over the continent, is it to be supposed that British subjects will pay
less respect to the authority of their Queen than do Republican
Americans to that of their President.
There
is one bare possibility, which your Lordship has not suggested, in opposition
to the new system, and yet it is scarcely more ridiculous than some that have
been urged : that the colonial councillors might claim the control of the
squadron upon the North American coast, as well as of the land forces, in
their anxiety to engage in foreign wars. The danger in this case would be
nearly as great as in the other ; for in modern warfare a fleet is nearly as
necessary as an army; and yet it is certain that the admiral upon the station
would know how to treat such a claim, should it be preferred by a Council, who
in the wanton exercise of authority were disposed to transgress all
bounds?
The next objection which I am bound to notice is thus given in the report
" Let us suppose that an officer of the militia in Upper Canada, after an
action, was to order that the persons taken in that action should be put to
death on the field. I can conceive it possible, in a state of exasperation and
conflict with the people of the neighbouring states, that the Assembly might
applaud that conduct, and might require that it should be the rule and not the
exception,—that all invaders of their territory should be treated in that
manner and that the parties should be put to death without trial. Supposing
that to be the case, could the Government of this country adopt such a rule?
Could the Secretary of State for the Colonies sanction such a rule, and not
decide as my honourable friend the under-secretary has done, that the practice
would meet with his decided reprehension ?"
Now, my Lord, admitting that such a case might occur once in half a century
under the new system, let me remind your Lordship that it has already occurred
under the old. If it is to have any weight, the fact of its occurrence in a
Province in which the Executive Council is irresponsible and the Colonial
Secretary is in the exercise of his full powers, makes in favour of my argument
; while I have a right to deny, until proof is furnished, that it could occur
if matters were more wisely ordered and a more rational system established by
which all temptations to foreigners to make inroads into British Provinces,
speculating upon the disaffection of the people, would be removed. But, my
Lord, life has been taken under your system—" death " has been
inflicted "without trial," illegally, as you infer—and has any
punishment followed? Have the laws been vindicated? No!—Then why not?
Simply, I presume, because your beautiful mode of government has produced such
a state of things in a British Province, that the ministers of the Queen dare
not bring the man charged with this high offence to trial. Under a system of
responsibility, by which the population were left to manage their domestic
affairs, I hold that no such violation of law would be likely to occur ; and
that if it did, investigation would be as safe and punishment as certain, as
though a crime had been committed in Middlesex or Surrey.
I
have thus disposed, my Lord, of the military questions ; and, as I have left
Her Majesty and her representatives in full command of the army and navy and
of the militia force of British America, and have asserted no claim of the
colonists to interfere with foreign treaties and diplomatic arrangements
affecting the empire at large ; I think if peace be not maintained with
foreign states, the punishment for offences strictly military be not
awarded, the blame will not rest with the Executive
Councillors, who are to exercise no jurisdiction
over these matters, and cannot be responsible if others fail in their duty.
Let
me now turn to another class of objections, arising out of our colonial and
foreign trade. "Again," says your Lordship, "neither could
this analogy be maintained with regard to trade between Canada and the
mother country or Canada and any other country. How then can you adopt a
principle to which such large exceptions are to be made ? If you were to do
so, you would be continually on the borders of dispute and conflict; the
Assembly and the Executive, on the one hand, requiring a certain course to
be pursued, while the Governor, on the other hand, would be as constantly
declaring that it was a course he could not adopt ; so that instead of
furnishing matter of content and harmony in these Provinces, you would be
affording new matter for dispute and discontent if you were to act upon
this supposed analogy." Now, my Lord, I feel it my duty to state, that
you may take from any part you please to select, of England, Ireland, or
Scotland, two hundred thousand persons, and among them you will not find a
larger number than are to be found in Nova Scotia well informed as to the
degree of authority in matters of trade, which for the good of the whole
empire and the preservation of the advantages in which all are to
participate, it is necessary to confide to the care of the Sovereign and the
wisdom of the Imperial Parliament. The great corporations of London, of
Bristol, and of Liverpool do not presume to interfere with these, except by
petition and remonstrance ; neither do we. Each of these cities has the
right to levy small duties within their own limits, for matters of internal
regulation or to aid public improvements; and these rights they exercise, in
common with us, when they do not contravene any British statute necessary
for the protection of the trade of the empire. But, if it can be shown
that
a law bears unequally upon London or Halifax, and that a flagrant case of
hardship exists ; or if the industry of any portion of the people either in
England or the colonies is taxed, while no corresponding advantage is reaped
by any other portion ; or that, if reaped, it is an unfair and illegitimate
advantage,—an appeal is made to Parliament. We have hitherto been
con-tented, although not directly represented in that Assembly, to abide the
result of that appeal ; or to pass bills, taking our chance of their being
assented to in England. The same thing would occur, even if the Executive
Council was responsible ; for, upon this point, there is no part of our
population prepared to set up absurd or irrational claims. If Parliament
should undertake to legislate directly against our interests ; to cut up our
commerce and prevent the growth of domestic industry ; and after fair notice
and ample proof of injury, were to persist in such a course ; why then a
state of things would arise which similar policy produced elsewhere' in
other times, and upon the results of which either responsible or
irresponsible Councils could exercise but little influence. But as political
economists at home are every day becoming convinced that the more liberty
they afford to the colonist to conduct his commercial operations the
greater will be his demand for British manufactures ; and as under the
guidance of this enlightened policy, the laws of trade and navigation are
annually becoming less restrictive, it is not probable that difficulties
which were never insuperable will all of a sudden admit of no rational
remedy ; or that the boundaries of colonial and imperial authority, now so
well under-stood and the recognition of which is so easily enforced, will
often be called in question on either side. If the colonists assert rights
which do not belong to them, and persist in their contumacy, disturbing
solemn treaties and setting Acts of Parliament at naught, why then they have
broken the social compact, it is a case of rebellion and they must be put
down.
Let us reduce the difficulty to practice, for the purpose of illustration.
Suppose that both branches of the Legislature pass a law by which a heavy
duty is laid upon British broadcloths and those from the United States are
admitted duty free ; and that the Executive Council, being responsible,
advise the Lieutenant-Governor to assent to it. Such an absurd piece of bad
faith as this could never be attempted in the lower Provinces; for public
opinion would never sanction any interference with the general laws not
intended to remedy abuses, or that struck at colonial without promoting
British prosperity ; nor would any changes be popular which violated the
fraternal comity by which British subjects everywhere are bound to encourage
and protect each other. But I have supposed the law passed and presented.
The Governor would say in this case, as he now invariably says—as your
Lordship admits he must say, if urged to provoke a
foreign war : "Gentlemen, you are exceeding your powers. To legislate
for your own advantage is one thing ; to legislate directly against your
brethren at home, for the advantage of foreigners, is another. This bill
must be either modified or rejected, or reserved
for her Majesty's assent before it can go into operation." If the
parties urging it persisted, a dissolution might
be tried, and an appeal to British subjects, in a case where the Governor
was clearly right and his advisers wrong, would never be made in vain ;
particularly when aided by the constitutional opposition, which under a system of responsibility and manly competition, would
exist in every colony.
But if it failed; if such an almost impossible thing were upon the cards as
that a majority could be found in Nova Scotia to sustain such an act or
anything bearing a resemblance to it, then a case would have occurred for
the interference of the imperial authorities, who should say to us frankly:
"If you will come into unnatural and hostile collision, the weakest has
the most to fear."
Had
your Lordship been as familiar with the mode of dealing with such subjects
as most colonists are who have watched the proceedings of colonial
Assemblies, you would have been satisfied that no danger was to be apprehended
from violent collisions about matters of trade. When a new duty is proposed
in Nova Scotia or a reduction suggested, the first question asked on all sides is, Will the proposition
violate the letter or does it even run counter to
the spirit of the imperial Acts ? If it does, in eight
cases out of ten, the person
bringing the measure forward drops it on being assured of the fact. In the ninth
case, where a doubt exists as to the policy and wisdom of imperial legislation,
it is found on inquiry that the clause which seemed to press upon us
originated in a wide view over the whole field of commerce, which British
statesmen, often better than others whose positions afford fewer advantages,
are enabled to take and that its repeal would inflict an injury and not
confer a benefit. The tenth case is perhaps one in which the Imperial
Parliament, either from haste or prejudice or insufficient information, has
committed an error in political economy or
inflicted a wound upon colonial without benefiting
British industry. In this case (and they only occur once in a great while)
no one ever dreams that, as your Lordship expresses it, the Imperial
Legislature is to be "overruled" by that of the colony. We never
doubt but that an appeal to the good sense and justice of our brethren over
the water will be successful. A bill is passed, perhaps, to meet the
difficulty ; and an explanation of the facts and reasoning in which it
originated is sent with it in the form of an
Address to the Throne, and in most cases is found to be successful.
This
is the mode at present. What reason is there to suppose that it would be
much changed if we had an Executive Council whose powers and
responsibilities did not extend to matters of general commerce, already provided
for by imperial legislation ? If we are so fond of violent conflicts and
factious opposition, what hinders us from indulging our propensities now?
Shall we be less considerate the more kindly we are treated? Shall we have
less respect for imperial legislation, when we see that it leaves us the
entire management of our domestic affairs and only deals with those great
interests which transcend our authority and are beyond our control? Suppose
twelve Nova Scotians, who are not responsible to any authority under Heaven,
are made
accountable to the rest of their countrymen, shall we have
a man the
more for forcible resistance than we
have now—or a gun, a pike, a bomb or a barrel of powder ?
I have thus,
my Lord, gone over the arguments urged by your Lordship in the speech of the
3rd June. I have omitted none that appear to me to have the slightest
bearing upon the great question at issue and I trust I have given to each a
fair and satisfactory answer. I have written not only under a solemn sense
of duty, but with a full assurance that sophistry, woven around this
question, either on one side of the Atlantic or the other, would be torn to
shreds in the conflict of acute and vigorous minds now engaged in its discussion.
Had your Lordship, in announcing the decision of the Cabinet, for-borne to
state the reasons upon which that decision was founded, I might like counsel
at the bar under similar circumstances, have felt myself compelled to
acquiesce in a judgment, neither the justice nor the policy of which I could
fathom. But when the arguments were stated and when I saw a question
involving the peace and security of six extensive Provinces and the freedom
and happiness of a million and a half of British subjects, disposed of by a
mode of reasoning which I knew to be deceptive and unsound,—when I saw, in
fact, that the parties claiming their rights were to be turned out of court,
with all the arguments and all the evidence upon their side, I felt that to
remain silent would be to deserve the social and political degradation which
this unjust decision was to entail on my countrymen and myself ; to earn the
helot mark of exclusion from the blessings of that constitutional freedom
which our forefathers struggled to bequeath and which we should never cease
to demand, as a patrimony that runs with our blood and cannot be rightfully
severed from our name.
|
