The Fathers of Confederation: A Chronicle of the Birth of the DominionColquhoun, A. H. U. (Arthur Hugh Urquhart)
History
The Fathers of Confederation: A Chronicle of the Birth of the Dominion
Colquhoun, A. H. U. (Arthur Hugh Urquhart)
Canada -- History -- 1841-1867
No one can look into futurity and say what will be the destiny of this
country. Changes come over peoples and nations in the course of ages.
But so far as we can legislate, we provide that for all time to come
the sovereign of Great Britain shall be the sovereign of British North
America.
And he went on to predict that the measure would not tend towards
independence, but that the country, as it grew in wealth and
population, would grow also in attachment to the crown and seek to
preserve it. This prophecy, as we know, has proved true.
{89}
The fear of annexation to the United States figured likewise in the
debate, but the condition of the Republic, so recently in the throes of
civil war, was not such as to give rise to serious apprehension on that
score. The national sentiment, however, which would naturally arise
when the new state was constituted, was a proper subject for
consideration, since it might easily result in a complete, if peaceful,
revolution.
There were other uncertain factors in the situation which gave the
opponents of Confederation an opportunity for destructive criticism.
The measure was subjected to the closest scrutiny by critics who were
well qualified to rouse any hostile feeling in the country if such
existed. Weighty attacks came from dissentient Liberals like Dorion,
Holton, and Sandfield Macdonald. A formidable opponent, too, was
Christopher Dunkin, an independent Conservative, inspired, it may be
supposed, by the distrust of constitutional change entertained by his
immediate fellow-countrymen, the English minority in Lower Canada.
Brown bore the brunt of the attack from erstwhile allies and faced it
in this fashion:
No constitution ever framed was without defect; no act of human wisdom
was ever {90} free from imperfection.... To assert then that our
scheme is without fault, would be folly. It was necessarily the work
of concession; not one of the thirty-three framers but had on some
points to yield his opinions; and, for myself, I freely admit that I
struggled earnestly, for days together, to have portions of the scheme
amended.
This was reasonable ground to take and drew some of the sting from the
criticism.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account