MR. WARD ON THE CANADA QUESTION.
TO Tilt toting. OF THE SPECTATOR.
Loudou. 25th January 1838.
Sts—I have been ton long accustomed to regard the Spectator as a paper the independence and impartiality of which I respected, even when I differed from its views, not to have observed with surprise and concern a singular devi- ation from your usual principles of action in the comments which you have been pleased to make upon my speech on the Canada question, iu your paper of Sunday last. I quarrel not with your censure : I quarrel with your misrepre- sentations. You have a perfect right to blame any portion of my public con- duct ; but you have no right to put into my mouth words which I never tittered, and sentiments which I never entertained, in order to found upon them &criticism which is palpably and necessarily unjust. " When men elected upon Radical in inciplee," you say, "rise in the House of Commons, and affirm that because you have virtually abrogated a colony's constitution by violating its privileges, therefore you may as well set it aside firnuelly, for it can snake no practical difference,—when such things are said by the Representative of Sheffield, what hope is there of the majority of the House?" Allow me to assure you that I never said any thing of the kind. The Wert of an argument at once so iniquitous and ea ab- surd never entered my mind. You will not find it, or any thing in any way approaching to it, in any report of my speech. I do not accuse you of having suppressed all extracts from the speech itself in order to justify the version which the Spectator has given of it, for of such disingenuousness I know you t o be incapable; but I do accuse you of having hastily waived at a concluso n, i i which nothing that I have said or done will bear you out. My argument was, not that we had a right to suspend the Canadian constitution, because we had already violated one of its moat important articles, but that the Canadi, no haring, as I think, precipitately and foolishly appealed to arms, in consequenee of the resolution!, of last seasion,—resolutions which I from first to last opposed,— the constituting was already de facto suspended in Canada ; and the only thing that remained for us to do, was to concur in such measures as might tend to substitute a new constitution there, free, if possible, from the defects of the Act of 1791, for a government of military occupation and martial law. I believe that the Government measure will the this. I think it founded on large and comprehensive principles. I regard the idea of inviting the Canadians to elect Representatives to a National Congress, or Convention, for the purpose of adjusting our differences by discussion, and not by arms, as worthy of a Chris- tian country and an enlightened age. And when I see the execution of this plan confided to a man whose abilities are of the highest order, whose mind is deeply imbued with popular principles, and whose future reputation must depend upon the permanency, and consequently the justice, (for nothing unjust can be permanent,) of the arrangements which he may effect, l• am neither nahained of having been amongst the first to give in my adhesion to this plan, which even now (judging by your leading at ticle of Sunday) is very imper- fectly understood, nor afraid of repeating here my sanguine hopes of its success I trust to your candour, Sir, to favour me by inserting this letter in the Spnootor of out week. I have not assured, is any way, the course which you, in conjunction with a small number of those gentlemen with whom I usually have the pleasure of acting in the House of Commons, have pursued upon this question,—a question so singularly complicated, as Mr. RoltBUCK himself admits, (tide his Letter to the People of England in the treaty Chronicle,) that It has required all Mr. GROTE'S talent and industry to master its details, and upon which differences of opinion are, consequently, not only natural but inevitable. I give to those with whom I differ credit for being actuated by a warm and generous sympathy towards the Canadians. All that I seek in return is, that my sentiments may not be misinterpreted, and that I may be held responsible for no opinions but my own.
I have the honour to be, Sir, your verylobedient,
H. G. WARD.
[On referring to the report of Mr. WARD'S speech, we find that we mil. apprehended his argument ; and have to apologize for ascribiog to him sa opinion for which be is certainly not responsible. As Mr. WARD has correctly stated above, he contended that "the Constitution of Canada was already ere facto suspended, and that the Canadian people themselves had repudiated it." This argument is different from that which we criticized; but we are fir from thinking it either sound or sufficient. When Mr. WA RD affirms that the Canadians have themselves repudiated the Constitution of 1791, we perceive that be interprets the fact of their having taken up arms as tantamount to such a repudiation. But is it not a fact, that only a small portion of the population have taken up arms? How then is it proved that the entire Canadian people have repudiated the Constitution? We agree with Sir ROBERT PEEL, that the revolt per se affords no justification whatever for the suspension of the Constitution.
Again, if, with inflexible resistance on the part of the English Government to demands at once reasonable and essential, the Canadian House of Assembly have refused the supplies, are we to treat this act as tantamount to a repudiation of the Constitution of 1791? If it be so, we say that they have been driven to such a repudiation bythe misconduct of the English Cover merit, which by design. edly keeping the Legislative Council in a state of perpetual collision with the House of Assembly, for the purpose of more easily bridling and subjugating that body, has in point of fart rendered the Constitution of 1791 practically worthless and inoperative. The original sin of this refusal of supplies lies at the door of the English Government, not of the House of Assembly. We believe that Mr. WARD agrees in our view of the mismanagement of the English Government in respect to the Legislative Council. We cannot, how. ever, think, that in the most correct and faithful interpretation of his argue ment, he makes out any justifiable case for the suspension of the Canadian Con- stitution.)
Previous page
