lord durham recommended that upper and lower canada be merged and given a sole responsible government.
lord durham recommended that upper and lower canada be merged and given a sole responsible government.
who recommended that upper and lower canada be merged and given a sole responsible government?
lord durham
british government then sent lord durham to examine the situation; he stayed in canada only five months before returning to britain and brought with him his durham report, which strongly recommended responsible government. a less well-received recommendation was the amalgamation of upper and lower canada for the deliberate assimilation of the french-speaking population. the canadas were merged into a single colony, the united province of canada, by the 1840 act of union, and responsible government was achieved in 1848, a few months after it was accomplished in nova scotia. the parliament of united canada in montreal was set on fire by a mob of tories in 1849 after the passing of an indemnity bill for the people who suffered losses during the rebellion in lower canada.
history of canada
why is it that objection is made to a legislative union? the reason why so large a portion of the people of lower canada of french origin will not consent to a legislative union, is the very reason that makes it desirable to the english speaking population of lower canada. we are in favour of a legislative union. we desire that canada should be a united people, ignoring sectionalism, and basing our institutions upon one broad principle of canadian nationality, which shall blend all races, and in time obliterate all accidental distinctions of language, religion, or origin. our french canadian fellow-subjects will not consent to this. if they will not hear our arguments, let them listen to their own. if federalism is necessary for the protection of their rights, it is necessary in a tenfold degree for the protection of the rights of the english-speaking minority. they tell us we may rely upon their well-known liberality and toleration. it would be unworthy of us to submit to such humiliation. in these remarks which are forced from me, and which i am compelled to make in defence of the rights and liberties of those who sent me here, i mean no disrespect to those of another origin — to the french-canadian honourable gentlemen whom i see around me. (hear, hear) in many respects i sympathize with them, and have always sympathized with them. i desire to live among my french-canadian fellow-subjects in peace. i desire to maintain those amicable relations which have always subsisted between the english-speaking and the french-canadian populations of lower canada. as i said before, i sympathize with my french-canadian fellow-subjects in many respects. i respect their character, i admire their laws. but this antagonism is not courted by me. it is forced upon me. let me call the attention of honourable gentlemen, more especially of those from upper canada, to the position in which this proposed constitution now before the house would place the english-speaking people of lower canada. i may say at the outset, that although they number only one-fourth of the population, they possess at least one-third of the property, and pay one-half of the taxes. the french-canadian differs very materially in many respects from the englishmen, or the anglo-saxon. he is more simple in his habits, more frugal in his mode of life, and less disposed to novelty. he is content to ride in a carriage of the same fashion as that of his grandfather. he is wedded to his institutions, his old customs, and old laws. it is different with the english-speaking people. they are, as a people, more extravagant, more eager for novelty, and in many other respects widely different from the french-canadians in their tastes and habits. of course a comparison would be invidious, and i do not desire to institute one. but i am not at liberty to ignore the facts. let us see how, under this proposed constitution, the english-speaking people would be placed in reference to their peculiar interests and their peculiar ideas. in the first place, i would desire to direct your attention to the 14th resolution, by which it is provided how, especially after the local governments are established, the legislative council of the general government is to be constituted — by its members being appointed by the federal government on the nomination of the respective local governments. we must bear in mind that in this local legislature which will be imposed on lower canada, the english element will not certainly be more than one-fifth in number. under these circumstances, and under the peculiar provisions with reference to the powers granted to the local governments, by which the legislative councillors are to be appointed by the general government on the recommendation of the local governments, and in the case of lower canada, when its local government will be four-fifths french-canadian and only one-fifth of english origin, think you how many english members from lower canada would ever find their way to the legislative council? how would it be possible, when the legislative council is to be appointed on the recommendation of the local government, and that local government four-fifths french-canadian, for the english element to obtain fair representation in the legislative council? when, i say, would an english-speaking inhabitant of lower canada ever receive such a recommendation, unless he approved himself more french than english? (hear, hear) again, by the 23rd resolution, it is provided that "the legislature of each province shall divide such province into the proper number of constituencies, and define the boundaries of each of them." how easy would it be, under the provisions of that clause, for the local legislature to snuff out one-half of the english constituencies in lower canada. they might arrange their bounds in such a manner that the english-speaking element would be confined within very narrow limits. there would be a few constituencies left entirely english, but the english population would thus be deprived of the influence which their numbers and wealth should give them in the local legislature (hear, hear) again, the local legislature will have power to alter or amend their constitution from time to time. we today may frame a constitution — the english-speaking majority in this house may frame a constitution which would give proper protection to the english-speaking population of lower canada. but, by this scheme it will be in the power the local legislatures to change that, and to modify it, so as to suit it to the wishes or prejudices of the french majority. we would be powerless, after we leave these halls, any longer to conserve our rights, and the privileges which this parliament might give us may be taken away at the very first session of the local legislature. then look at the powers which, under this constitution, are conferred upon local government. the first i find is the power of direct taxation. in case of all governments, the power of taxation is the most important power they can possess. it is that which concerns all portions and all classes of the community, and which gives rise to the greatest controversy, and the greatest amount of difficulty. it is the most important of all legislative powers, and this power is to be conferred on the local legislature of a province, where one nationality has four-fifths of the numbers, and the other nationality contributes one-half of the taxes. then the local legislature is to have the control of immigration — a very important subject, which deeply interests the english-speaking population of lower canada — but they would have no voice in framing the measures which might be adopted for directing and controlling that important matter. then the local legislature is to have the control of education. and what subject can there be of greater importance? and what subject is there which might be a source of greater strife between two nationalities, which by this provision would be brought into antagonism? even under our present system, with sixty-five upper canadian english-speaking members, who would naturally be expected to sympathise with the english-speaking people of lower canada, it is a crying grievance with the latter that they cannot get legislation on the subject of education as they desire. what, then, would they have to expect if they went into a legislature where four-fifths of the representatives were of a different nationality and a different religion, and whose prejudices and interests were in opposition to the claims of the one-fifth minority? (hear, hear) then the local legislature is to have control of "the establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions." now it is a positive fact, as i have stated before, that the english-speaking population of lower canada, on account of their wealth and expensive mode of living, their extravagant habits, their desire for change and progress, their different ideas generally from the french-canadians, consume more than one-half of the dutiable goods that are brought into this country, and pay one-half of the taxes; and yet the money which they would pay into the public chest would be distributed by a majority over whom they had no control — a majority who would not in any manner sympathise with them; and their taxes would be applied to objects which they might not deem desirable — which they might, perhaps, consider detrimental to their interests. and they would be completely without remedy, should this proposed constitution unfortunately be imposed upon them. (hear, hear) it is painful to me to be compelled to refer to these matters. it is not with pleasure that i bring before the house the antagonism which would inevitably arise between the two nationalities, should they be brought together into one legislature, with such a vast disproportion between their means of taking their own part. we are told, and told very truly — i rejoice that it is the fact — that hitherto the two races in lower canada have lived in peace. but it would be impossible that they could any longer live in peace; it would be impossible that with such a disparity of numbers, and with such antagonistic interests, they should not come into conflict. it would be constant warfare, and this new constitution, instead of settling the sectional difficulties in this country, instead of removing jealousies and heart-burnings, would have the very opposite effect. from the fact that the field of conflict would be smaller, that the arena would be more circumscribed, the strife would be all the fiercer. you are not bringing peace, but a sword. (hear, hear)
james o'halloran