THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT IN CANADA-
[PROLE A PRIVATE LETTER TO A FRIEND.]
By an accident, I did not get the Spectator containing your notice of the re- moval of the seat of Government in Canada. However, you shall see if weagree. The seat of Government, as long as the Union was to continue, must necessarily have been at Kingston or Montreal. I agreed with the opinions written at the time in favour of the latter city. It might have remained at Montreal if Lord El. gin had been a man of courage. He contributed-to frighten the Members of the Legislature—too fearful to prorogue Parliament himself—and finally ran away from Lower Canada, under pretence of a tour of pleasure. Could anything.be more degrading or humiliating than such conduct?
The reasons given for the removal ef the seat of Government to Montreal-apply against its removal to Toronto. ' For the,presant, both parties, being in -an infernal fright, agree to go to To- roots. The value of property instantly rises 'there. The Upper Canadians, who were really against the Union, are satisfied. What will be the state of things when Parliament is to-meet at Quebec? Won't the Upper Canadians clamour? What will the owners of property say? Flesh and blood won't be quiet when the value of property is to fall at Toronto. When Parliament meets at Quebec, and French votes carry any measure, -*ill there not be an outcry against the Union? All Upper Canada will be in arms against the Union. This will-not happen for four or five years; and perhaps the delay will 'be enough to satisfy official consciences. Looking-to the future is no part of the capacity required in statesmen. The removal of the seat of Government has given the coup-de-grace in the Union. It is as 'clear as the -sun.
I was against the Union,—it was carried by the people of Montreal against the wishes of Upper and Lower Canada. But things could not have remained as they were.
Now, there ought to have been no attempt made to extend the Government. an Canada over one wide district. You were not establishing a sovereign zupreate authority. You had to govern subordinate local districts by subordinate Legis-
latures. You wanted superior municipal with powers regulated,by local requirements. The Montreal district was too nglish to be governed 'iv the .French at Quebec, or by the Upper Canadians at Toronto. It is a powerful dis- trict, full of energy, activity, and nearly all the talent in the country. The Pro- vince should have been divided into three, with one general Council of Delegates from the Legislatures of the three, to regulate the apportionment of customs revenues, &c. If something of this sort is not done, you may consider the Province as gone. The key-stone of the Union has been smashed by making the Government peri- patetic. Everything will now be on the move—nothing constant, fixed, or stable. There can be no.affection for such a system. The population of Upper Canada is now =war equal to that of Lower Canada, and they .already want a new apportionment of Members. If they get the majority they will be entitled to, they will vote to remain at Toronto. This would have been prevented if the seat of Government had remained where it was.
,1■1,••■■•■
Previous page
