Macdonald, still sitting in the opposition benches, applied his legal reasoning and grasp of historical precedent to argue that Canada West should not be called upon to compensate the seigneurs of Canada East when legislation abolishing seigneurial tenure was debated. Later in his career, he would explain the close economic connection he saw between the two provinces, but here he is focused upon the nature of the scheme, not the principle of it. The Reformers, still dominant, sought to modernize the social-economic system of Canada East by abolishing the seigneurial system and bringing property law in line with that of Canada West.18
The Globe reported on May 12, 1853:
The Chairman of the committee of the whole to which was referred certain resolutions to provide for indemnity to Seigniors, and for other purposes, reported the following resolutions:—
1. Resolved—That it is expedient to appropriate for the payment of the Indemnity to be awarded to Seigniors, and other expenses to be incurred under the bill to define Seigniorial rights and to facilitate the redemption thereof, a sum equal to that coming into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of this Province [i.e., the United Province of Canada] from the following Lower Canadian sources of revenue; that is to say:—From Quint, and other dues which are now or hereafter shall become payable to the Crown in or upon the Seigniories in Lower Canada, of which the Crown is the Seignior Dominant, as well as from all arrears of such dues:—From the revenues of the Seigniory of Lauzon, and the proceeds of the sale of any part of the said Seigniory which may hereafter be sold and all arrears of such revenues:—From all monies arising from action duties and auctioneer’s licenses in Lower Canada:—From all monies arising in Lower Canada from licenses to sell spirituous, vinous or fermented liquors by retail in places other than places of public entertainment, commonly called shop or store licenses.
2. Resolved—That it is expedient that the sums required to pay the said Indemnity and expenses, be raised by debentures to be issued under the authority of the Governor in Council and chargeable on the Consolidated Revenue Fund; but that separate accounts be kept of the monies coming into the said Consolidated Revenue Fund from the several Lower Canadian source of revenue aforesaid; and that if the sums payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the principal and interest of such debentures, shall exceed the amount arising from the several source of revenue men mentioned in the preceding resolution, it will in the opinion of this House, be expedient to appropriate a sum equal to such excess for some local purpose or purposes in Upper Canada.
HON. MR. MACDONALD moved in amendment thereto, “That is it inexpedient and unjust to the tax payers of Canada to appropriate any portion of the territorial revenues of this Province to the payment of the Indemnity to be awarded to the Seigniors of Lower Canada, inasmuch as the proposed legislation under the bill as now framed is of local interest only, and such Indemnity should be paid by the parties immediately benefitted thereby.”
A vote was taken for “concurrence in the amendment” and it was 14 “Yeas” and 35 “Nays” so that the 1st Resolution was agreed to. The 2nd Resolution was read.
HON. MR. MACDONALD moved in amendment thereto, “That it is expedient and unjust to the people of Canada to charge the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the whole Province with the payment of any portion of the said Indemnity to Seigniors, and that such indemnity should be paid by that section of the Province immediately benefitted by the proposed measure.”
A discussion and vote followed. The count was nearly the same, 14 “Yeas” and 36 “Nays.”
HON. MR. MACDONALD again moved in amendment to the 2nd Resolution, “That the proposition to pledge the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of the said indemnity, or any portion thereof, and thereby to increase the Provincial Debt and taxation to an unknown and unlimited amount, is improper, unprecedented and dangerous; that it deprives this House of the necessary check over the Public Expenditure and the Public burdens; and that this House will fail in its duty to the people of Canada if it assents to any such proposition.”
MR. MACDONALD [the reporter continued] in proposing this amendment went on to say, that is was a most unprecedented course that was now proposed by the Government with regard to this matter. That the Legislature of this country who are the guardians of the public purse, should be called on to impose upon the people and their children a burden, the amount of which they did not know, was a most objectionable as well as inconsistent course of procedure. They had no security whatever that the amount they were now called upon to secure for this purpose might not be one hundred thousand pounds, or that it might not be twice as much as that sum. He would ask the Inspector General if he could find a precedent for the course he now proposed?
It was true that a vote of credit had been given on occasion, but that was under extreme circumstances, and for one year only. Again they had undertaken great public works to advance the material interests of the country, and how could they go on with their undertaking with a burden of this kind upon their resources, the amount of which could not be told, which the Government themselves did not know, and which they said they could not find out.
The hon. gentleman then went on to allude to the slavery question in England, which he contended was analogous to this. When it was proposed to indemnify the slaveowners for their property, the Government did not ask Parliament to pledge the revenues of the country to an unlimited extent, but the Secretary of the Colonies, Lord Stanley,* came down with minute and elaborate calculations of the value of each slave, and an exact estimate of the sum required, and the Inspector General should have done the same in this case. He should have formed an estimate of the amount required for every seigniory, and then come down with an exact statement of the whole sum that would be required. A finance minister in England would be laughed at if he proposed to tax the people for an unlimited amount; and then what a miserable proposition was this that was laid down in these resolutions. Two-thirds of the whole taxation of the country is paid by the people of Upper Canada and here they talk of asking [for] a certain amount out of the Consolidated Fund for the benefit of Lower Canada, and then remunerating Upper Canada by paying her a similar sum out of her own resources. The Government have already refused to reduce the customs’ duties on account of the present burden arising from the public works, and yet they ask us to take on ourselves another burden the amount of which we do not know; and as far as the remuneration to Upper Canada is concerned it just amounts to telling her to tax herself for her own benefit.
* Macdonald is referring to Edward George Geoffrey Smith-Stanley (1799–1869) who was the secretary of state for war and the colonies between 1833 and 1834, and who drew up the Abolition of Slavery Bill that offered £20 million to plantation owners in compensation for freeing their slaves. Smith-Stanley served again as colonial secretary between 1841 and 1845 and as Britain’s prime minister for three separate terms in the 1850s and 1860s. (Hawkins, “Edward George Geoffrey Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby,” ODNB)