The free press, 14 novembre 1822, jeudi 14 novembre 1822

[" \"THE FREE PRESS.Vou.1.] MonTreau, \u2018T'uunspar, 14th Nov.1822.[Ne.6.Scrvemus leges patrias ; infirma minoris Vox cedat numeri, parvique in parte silescal.PRUDENTIUS.Still let us our forcfathers' laws uphold; And let the rEW, the\u2019 clariorous and bold, Yield to the many.and in sileucé rest; Nor with their selfish plans, our peace molest, Of the many essays that have appeared in the public prints, on the subject of the union between Upper aud Lower Canada, that which was published, under the signature of Z.in the Canadian Courant of the 2d instant, seems to me to be one most deserving of reply and refutation.Other writers on the same side of the question, have almost entirely coufined themselves to generalities, to vague declamatiou, avd upsupported assertion.Z.however, without that excess of wordiness which characterises the effusions of his party, eters into facts and details, and comes to the point without much ceremony or circumlocution.\u2018I'he hostility of the Gallo-Caasdiaus to the projected union, he ascribes to three motives ; Ist.Because they expect to lose the preponderancy in the assembly.2d.Because thelr religion and laws may suffer innovation.3d.\u2018Because the English language would be to be used in the assembly, in fifteen years.Although there are, in my opinion, others, and far more weighty, motives, such, for iostance, as\u2014 Because they would lose the proper privilge of an English house of commons.that of providing for, and controuling, the public expeuditure\u2014Re- cause the executive part of the government would acquire an exorbitant aud undue influence and power\u2014 Because they would then be still more subjected to the arrogant dominion of a set of needy Scotch adventurers, that are anoually vomited on our shores, for the purpose of being fattened and veturned\u2014 Because the United provinces would be readered infivitely more vulnerable, both in peace-and in war.to thie intrigues and the hostilities, of our cunning and ambitious neighbours\u2014 Because, though they desire not to be independest of Great Britain, they desire to be an independent portion of her empire, subject to her imperial controut, hut not subject to proconsu- 42 lar dominion\u2014with many other Becauses that might be enumerated, yet | will coufine myself at present to those which Z has stated, with the iyteution of shewing that they coygtijuie well- founded apprehersions, and such as ought to be, if pape others existed, sufficient motives for resisting the encroachments aod alterations attempted to be foisted upon the Canadians.The first reason, Because they expect to lose the preponder- ancy in the assembly, is a just and proper one.Who ought to have the preponderaucy in aoy popular assembly ?undoubtedly the majority of the inhabitants of the couutry represented by that assembly.That the French Canadians coustitute a ma- Jority of four to one, supposing both Capades to be united, Dever was attempted to be denied, yet the main hopes of the Uvionist party rest upon the circumstance, that, under the odious arrangements propoged by their delusive bill, that majority would not be represented iu the united legislature, by aoy proportionate number of members.\u2014Now, this is iv itself the acme of political injustice.What is the essence of the representative system ?that whilst every part of the commonwealth shall be entitled to be heard, and haye a vote, yet that the majority of the commupity so represented shall bind the migority.But it is not attémpted to be denjed, that.the regl majority of the inhabitants of the country woyld thus loge their legitimate prepons derance ; but says Z.this wold be for the advantage of that majorily, inasmuch as the minority would engct all these laws, and promote ajl those plans, which they conceive would be most for the interest of that majority.What is this but the very principle of all despotism?Whether the minoity be as 100,000 to 500,000 as ig the case in Canada, or as 1 to 25, -000,000 as was the case in France, under its absolute monarchs, aud under Napoleap, the only difference is that there are 100,000 tyrants ingtead of ope, 'hat one says, 1 kpow best \u2018What is for your interest, therefore you shall obey the mandates 1 give out; the 100,090 say, we kpow hetier than you do, what is fit for yon.thereforz yon shall submit to qur enactments.Tdeny thatiwe have acy ocgesiop to go into the merits of these eugctmente; the only question is, whether they are to be imposed upon a body of men.who claim to be freemen, to be able to judge for themselves, and to be entitled to exercise that judgement, by another set of men (if we look alone at the Scotch faction in Lower Cauada, who are attemptipg this innovation, for I am far from stigmatisiog the Upper Capadiaps in the same manper,) who are not only cumerically so utterly ine ferior, but pre proppriionately even far more inferior than tha in intellect, educatiop, and principle, compared to the Capadiaug.It has beça the fashion to impute ignorance te tbe bulk of the Capadiam.It of course follows, that fn a population of -500,000 souls, especially ina new country, a very large pro- 43 portion of the lower classes must be comparatively ighorant, and uvioformed on-political' questions; but, for argument's sake, strike out of the calculation every Canadian who, cao neither read nor write, and set against those of the Canadians who\u2019 are educated, well-informed; enlightened; and\u2019 learned, those of the Scotch and- Irish; who are so; the proportion will still be inconceivably smally pumericaily\u2019; and: l'an quite sute\u2018thë watat- est advocates-of the union will-not\u2018have the temerity to set in competition, with the\u2019 classical, literaty, and\u2019 liberal, educatioft which is so\u2019 general amongst the upper ranks of the French, the disciples of Cocker, theshop-boys, the uneducated and igiios rant rustics; from which our Scotch\u2019 great folks\u2019 have aribeti'to be legislators and polititiaos, preteaders-who kuow nothing\u2019 but their uative tongue, (and that most defectively,).and therefore, with a spirit of Vandalism, worthy of the barren Highland} whence they sprung, desire to put down all other Intigitaged: = But this belongs to another part of'the argument; atid\u2019 [ have been prematurely hurried into it; by\u2019 the strong convictivi of: my feelings:on the subject; and the sovereign'contempt io\u2019 which?L hold the iotellectual and acquired\u2019 abilities*.of these\" political Quixottes, I will dismiss this: lead) with the \u2018obsetvatiod, iki é- ply to what has fallen from Z: on the-subject, that'it\u2019 is\u201d not to British; but to English customs that the world'is indebted for freedom and elevation of literature.On the second head, I: remark:that'Z: takedit for granted that po restraint upon religious opinion, dot any: controul'id the'ext ercise of religious worship, ill be introdtted>\" but\" the dhess tion is not whethes such will be jotrodaced 4-but whether thèÿ may, or can follow the measures\u2019 that are wished 'ts be adbpted.\"That a-material iunovation in the: disciplide of the church\u2019 of Home was in contemplation, I'have made\u2019 evidéit' in my last number, and that other covert attempts of thé side kind, would.be made, if this first succeeded, there can ' exist no\u2019 doubt.To those therefore, to whom their religion is dea, it 'is'mo%t\" esséis\u2019 tial that they should: keep: guard at thie\" avenues that! miaf- lead to its destruction.1-am a stamich protestit, I'havé beed bred up with a great antipathÿ towards both the doétridés \u2018and the ceremonies of the chureh of Rome; the\u2018convictions \u2018of mÿ later years have confirmed my objection to ifs ciéed, dd: haye move indelibly fixéd me-io: that of the reforaied chapéhs'l KioW therefore I should, with jealous care; endeavoi: to guard\u2019al gaiost whatever would tend to déstroy the protestant\" religidt, and disable the professors of it from enjoying that liberty \u2018ofc: science which is the peculiar birthright of every BitisH hij Hence I thiuk that each\u2019 man whoj along with\u2019 attschdieat t0*his own religion, possesses that spirit of \u2018toleration, whith is\" essén tial both to the christian and the politicidn, ought to praise, rate er than Blame, the Canadian catholics, for feelivg alarm, and 44 endeavouring to ward off every, even\u2019 indirect, attack, that may be made upon their religious liberties.\"l'hey say, and justly.ve want not any further guarantee, we want not any act of parliament, to confirm what is ours inalicnably and of right, and which the boasted omnipotence of the Imperial parliament, -cao not take from us.Every acl or every section of an acl, in which any mention is made of either coufirming, or ionova- ting upon, the Roman Catholic religion in Canada, 8s recognised and exercised agrecably to the capitulation, to the treaty of cession, and to the Quebec act, is utterly void; we can not, we dave wot, 1ecoguize il, as either strengthening our right, or bindivg us by its power.But although they properly deny the right, or the power, of (he Imperial Parliament to effect any alteration in their scligious constitution,or privileges; they know that by their own consent every such alteration may be made, and even the whole hierarchy of their church overthrown ; their coustitution expressly admits it; now, should they have a house of assembly, the majority of which (represeuting a comparatively most insignificant minority of the united population of the two Canadns,) were protestants, aud some of them bigoted, methodistical, enthusiasts, (as would no doubt he the case,) it would be in the power and competency of sucha majority, to make all the alterations, and innovations they chose, aud in that way they would apparently, but most failaciously, by their own consent, be wholly deprived of the free exercise of their religion.Even were this only a possible case, instead of being, as il is, a very probable ove, it would be their duty to withstand the adoption of any measure which would lead to that'contingency.It will be here objected, that the clause of the uvion- bill which seys, that no future act of such uvited legislature, shall, in any wise, affect the free exercise of the religion of the church of Rome, would prevent this; but to this | answer, let but the united legislature of the Canadas, their legislative councils, their governors, and the Imperial parliament of Britain, with the Royal sanction to boot, be but joived in the enactment of any law whatsoever, were it even one of absolute ab- yogation; where is the remedy?where is the guarantee ?I wantno auswer.Every one must feel what the answer must be, ; À great part of the same reasoning will apply to the subject of the French laws, which, in civil cases, prevail in Lower Canada.\u201d They are secured to the Canadians in the same manner as their religion, and may io the same manner, be subverted and abrogated, should a united legislature think fit, and which would then be said to be by their own consent ; nay, that the-al- teration ol those laws and the substitution of the English com- Mon aod statute law, is a main purpose of the Unionists, is either openly avowed, or very thinly veiled.The respective 4b merits of the codes have nothing to do with the case.Almost in the same proportion as 1 disapprove, in my owu person,of the Romao Catholic religion, do I dislike the civil law of Home, and both the French aud the Scotch juris-prudence that ave founded upon it ; but it is uot what 1 prefer, or what any Englishman, or Scotchman, or Irishman prefers.that the Cauadiaus are entitled to ; but what they themselves prefer ; they have their own reasons, their own predilections, their own prejudices if you will, but they are entitled to be governed by those laws, which they themselves approve of; and this is not only the fundamental maxim which the Romaus observed with respect to the vations that became subjected to their power, but that likewise which has most wiscly been adopted, and acted upon by the British government.Do not the French conquered islands in the West Indies, St.Lucia, and Doninica, enjoy their own laws and customs?Are notion Trinidad not only the Spanish laws observed, but-is not the Spanish language that of all the official acts there ?What would the Spanish inhabitants of that island say of British good faith, if, in order to deprive them of the rights secured to them by capitulation aod treaty, they were to be iucorporated with some of the originally British West India Islands, required to send deputies to a general assembly, and when that assemhly had passed an act totally changing all their municipal regulations,be told that they bad themselves cou- sented to the measure ?Such is exactly thie serious farce that is in rchearsal to be acted in Canada.But go home: look at Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderuey, are not the French laws, aud French language, the laws aud legal language of these dependencies ofthe British empire ?Nay is not the Isle of Man go- veroed to this day by the Manks laws, administered iv the Manks language ?And even the little rock of Heligoland is, if 1 mistake not, in the same predicament.\u2018These are all, as it were, small independent commonwealths, living under the protection apd imperial g svernment of Great Britain; and do not all British subjects resorting to them, consider themselves, if they take up their residence there, as bpund to become part of that community, aud abide by their local laws.Shall then an exception be made as to Canada, which in itself so far outweighs the aggregate importance and population of all'the others together ! Look farther on, look at the fouian republic, look at the British possessions in India ; but the subject is so rich io matters of illustration that I must abandoa that part of the field of argument, for fear I should bewilder myself aud my readers in their multiplicity.But Z.is wrong in saying (hat the maxim held up here is that the Freneh laws shall receive no change.No.I'he maxim is, \u201c we will sot have a change of them imposed upon us; if we Judge proper to change them we will, but not upon compulsion. qt Argue (Le point, shew.their defects, and.point out the excelle- cies of your own code; as 5000 as we ate convinced by your arguments.we will adopt them ; but do vot, because either you are deficient in the powors of conviction, or we; if you will have it s0, possessed of an inconvenient degree of obstinacy, force us to be of your opinion, for \u201cHe that\u2019s convinced against his will, Is of the same opimou still.\u201d _ That most of the British, whether settlers, or only sojourners ju Canada, can pot comprehend, aud detest, the Freuch laws; and that in particular the British agricullurists hold them in terror, 1 admit; Nay 1 am ready to add, that, with reference to their own habits, feelings.and perceptions of right and wrong, they are justified in detesting them ; yet the question here again occurs, what right have the few, the transitory.the inexperienced minority, wio have, 01 ought to have, come among us with a knowledge that such were our laws, and which must, in that respect, be said to be laws of their own choice, to dictate to the majority, the many, the permancut, the old inhabitants of the country.Z.is, I see, of the same opinion as [ am, which I expressed in No.4, that in the townships, settled by emigrants from Great Britain or elsewhere, and where the land is granted in free and common soccage, the: French civil laws of Canada, not only ought not to prevail, but that it is improperly, illegally, and contrary tothe constitution that their operation has.been extended heyond the limits of the seignories.On this subject; however, as well as on that relative to the proposed \u2018introduction of the English language as that -of the legislature of Liower Canada, after filteen years, which wilt: deserves.an essay of itself;.my space will vot allow me.to dilate.and limust:therefore défer what 1 have further to say,on.Z\u2019s letter, till another: opportunity.LL.M: The Quebec Mercury, very propprly: asks why ihe intended Union.of.the two provinces,.is spoken of as aRe-union} what has been.contemplated is the union of the: two legisla: tures only ; and when were they ever united, to: justify theiterm re-uvion ?But the unionists.want to cover:their>projacts of innovation apd abolition, uuder the veil: of restoration, and this word is one of their minor.artifices, to: mislead the:public:: A: way with such-mummery; and affectation:!! But we \u2018mustex cuse them, their cause is too rotten not to need \u2018the foreign aid of ornament !\u201d \u2026 Some of the readers of tte Free Press, having.expressed dis: satisfaction at the use made io Nos 2, and.3,- of pioksames:of 47 Scribblerian notoriety, to designate individual political-charac- ters, I beg to say, that I perfectly coincide with their opinion, and shall iu future, avoid stich ivadvertencies, which aruse, first, from my having ço much habitusted myself 10 those appella- tious, that they are \u201cFamiliar in my mouth as house-held words;\u201d and secondly, that they were such as were agtually used in the letter of my corrrespondent, Verité, which appeared io No.3.Should any gentleman desire to have an explanation of who are meat, by all or any of the fictitious designations, so intre- duced, he shall be fully satisfied, upon his addressing a private letter to me on the subject, at Burlington, Vermont.\u2019 LEWIS LUKE MACCULLOH, Quebec, 2d Nov.Mn.Maccuzzon, Political coalitions, between parties who have been opposed to each other, both in principles -and cenduct.however much they may appear surprising to (be vulgar herd, are by vo means uncommon, amongst statesmen whose creed of morality \u2018and honour, is invariably guided by the dictates of interest and\" party.Werenot this exemplified in the history of all political contentions, I should have felt much surptise upon perceiving the conduct of Mr.James Stuart, of Montreal, in now jeiuing .himself to the party of the Hon.John Richardson, who it is well known, always before did whatever he could to oppose Mr.Stuart, and to hold him up to the public, as a man devoid of principle, a disaffected and disloyal demagogue.I will ad: - vert only to what is notorious to all Canada.During the reiga of tyranny, under Sir James Craig, Mr, Stuart being a candidate, at the general election, as a vepresentative of the eastern.quarter of Moutreal, where he had hefore been elected without opposition, Mr.Richardson, with the whole of the North West Company's interest, which was then all powerful, successfully opposed him, and brought in Sewell; at which tîme, it is deserving of remembrance, that when Mr: Stuart tonk occasion, on the .hustings.to make some very just, and severe remarks, upon the shameful conduct of the Executive, Mr.R.was watching with the utmost attention to lay hold of any expression that might have heen tortured ioto sedition, it having been determined, to cast Mr.9.into prison, along with the other victims of oppression, duriog tlie reign of that Scotch precensul Craig, whom we all so much execrate.Mr.Richardson, and his clan, have invariably persecuted the man who isnow hand and glove with them.No longer ago than last year, when the people, (whose cause he ?s now betraying,) agoin, through their repre: 18 dentatives, manifested the coufidence they placed in Mr.Stuart, by desiring to depute him as their ageut of the province in Evgland, Mr.Richardson, in conjunction with the chief justice.defeated the measure, privcipally on account of their personal hostility to Mr.8.What ought we to think now, however, of the man, who thus makes common cause with his greatest enemies, who hate him, as much as he, iu his soul, despises them.One of the papers lately justly observed, that if the impeachment of the two chief justices has failed, it may in a great measure be ascribed to him, for ivstead of repairiug to the assembly in time, helet the Febuary term go hy first, so that it was evident his private interest weighed more with him thau the public good ; and indeed the whole of his conduct on that occasion seemed to indicate that he was actuated alone in the part he took, by personal hatred towards chief justice Sewell.He does pot now scruple to say that a uuion will be the surest means of crushing the chief justice; and should he be sent to England, by the Unionist party, 1 am convinced that he will have that more at heart, than avy thing else.Between you and I.however.there seems good reason to believe that the accusations against the judges were well founded, and that at all events they ought to have been brought to condign punishment, for their acts during the proconsulate of Craig.But again, how can Mr.Stuart reconcile it to himself, to act with Mr.Gerrard ?two men who mutually detest each other.Do we not all recollect the part Mr.G.took some years ago, when he was foreman of the grand Jury, who made a presentment against Mr.S.for contempt of court, and that it required all Mr.S.\u2019s talents aud address to save himself from being committed to gaol, on the occasion ; whilst ou the other hand, 8S.was the prosecutor of G.for perjury, a true bill for which was found by the grand jury, before whom it was laid\u2014this you no doubt know was in the case of Forbes\u2019s succession, and has been hushed up, God koows how.Compare Mr.James Stuarls present conduct, with the behaviour of his brother in this city, who is a man of principle, of liberality, and of information; who too well perceives the machinations that are put in practice by the faction to which his brother has united himself, and who, detesting the measures of the Executive, is a tower of strength to the Canadian aud constitutional parly.I could contrast their private characters too, but 1 refrain; apd remain, Sir, Your obed\u2019nt, serv't.tL CONSISTENCY.mr ConsistEncy may rely upon the utmost discretion as regards both his present and future communications; Such matters as | have not yet noticed, are taken ad notam, probably for some future opportunity."]