Province of Canada, Legislative Assembly, [Globe version], 8th Parl, 3rd Sess, (8 February 1865)

Document Information

Date: 1865-02-08
By: Province of Canada (Parliament), The Globe
Citation: “Legislative Assembly,” The Globe (9 February 1865) & “Legislative Assembly,” The Globe (10 February 1865)
Other formats:
Note: All endnotes come from our recent publication, Charles Dumais & Michael Scott (ed.), The Confederation Debates in the Province of Canada (CCF, 2022).



George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council] continuing the debate on Confederation said—It was no ordinary gratification that he rose to address the House upon this occasion. He could not help feeling that the political contests of almost half a lifetime, and the strife, the obloquy, the general elections, and the Ministerial crises in which so many of those around him had been engaged for the last fifteen years, were compensated for, in a great measure, by the scheme contained in the Resolutions now in the Speaker’s hands.

His hon. friends, the Attorney-General West [John A. Macdonald] and East [George-Étienne Cartier], in making their remarks upon the scheme, had told the House that it was not exactly Representation by Population—that it was something different from that—that it was something different from joint authority, and that, in fact, it was the scheme proposed by their Government in 1858. Now, it was very well for his hon. friends to take that view of the subject, but he could not help regretting as he listened to them, that we had not heard more of the scheme in 1858, and that we had had to wait till 1864 before it was finally arranged.

As far as he was personally concerned, he had not the slightest feeling or desire to test the claim of any one to be the parent of this scheme, but could truthfully say that the only feeling he had room for in his mind at this moment, was one of gratification that the country should have the benefit of this measure; and he could not help rejoicing that men had been found who were willing to put personal and political feelings aside for the good of the country, and to unite to carry such a measure as this now before the House.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—It was a bold step for the leading members of the House on both sides, under the feeling that had existed in the country, to meet together and vote on the Constitutional Committee that was appointed last year. It was a still bolder step for them to sign the report that had gone forth from that Committee, but it was a far bolder step for himself and his hon. friends behind him to join the Cabinet with all the risks of imputation being cast upon their conduct; but he felt they were justified and rewarded by the results of the step they had taken. He felt that the resolutions before the House fully justified that step, and rewarded them for having set aside political and personal considerations in order to obtain the public good.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—It was now seven months since the Coalition had taken place, and in that short time they had framed a scheme which he might say had almost universal approval.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Hear, hear, and ironical cheers.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—He [Mr. Brown] saw that his hon. friend opposite laughed at this statement, but he appealed to him if the scheme had not received the approval of the press and of the electors of this country.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—There had been thirteen elections for the Upper House since the Coalition was formed, and its policy announced. Out of these thirteen, but three candidates who were opposed to the scheme had dared to show themselves before the people. Two of them were rejected at the polls, and one of them managed to gain a seat. In that time, too, there had been eleven elections for this House, and out of the whole of them, but one single gentleman—one single candidate on either side of politics who had been returned—had dared to avow opposition to the scheme, and he [Mr. Brown] hoped that that gentleman would yet be found casting his vote for the measure. This being the fact, he was sure he would be sustained by the opinion of the House when he said, that so far as he could tell from these elections, the people of this country approved of the scheme; and would the hon. gentleman opposite deny that the whole press of England, and the people and Government of England, had approved of the scheme also—aye, and that even the people and press of the United States had indorsed it more heartily than anything British that had occurred in our day.

No scheme that had ever been out before the world, involving such important interests as were involved in this, had received such high eulogiums and met such universal approbation; and he was proud to say, that he had heard himself from the lips of one of the foremost of British statesmen, the declaration that we had succeeded in making a happy compound of the best features of the British and American systems of Government. He felt when he heard it, that this statement was the simple truth, and he was prepared to sustain it before the House to-night.

Observe how remarkable had been the whole proceeding. What were they doing now? They were proposing by this scheme to remedy evils which existed in the country; to remedy what one section of the country conceived to be injustice and wrong; to remedy evils admitted by all sections of the Province—evils that were of such a serious character as to have brought the Legislature of the country almost to a deadlock. They proposed to rectify these evils, and even to do something more than that—and how were they doing it?

They were of two different races, speaking different languages and having different social institutions, and yet they say peacefully and quietly together here considering how this remedy could be found; and more than this, the representatives of five colonies had met together peacefully and quietly—one of the most remarkable things that had ever occurred in the history of the world—for the purpose of considering how the interests of half a continent could be provided for—how they could raise our country and improve our institutions while other nations were fighting about matters of even less importance, and deluging their country with blood from one end to another. The representatives of these Provinces, and the members of this House, were doing all this quietly and peacefully, and to the satisfaction of the country. What Belgium and Holland could not do we were doing quietly. What the people of Schleswig-Holstein could not do we were doing peacefully. What Italy could not do without a bloody contest, in which powerful nations fought it out to the end, we here were doing, tranquilly and harmoniously.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—It was true that the interests of the United States, which had brought about war, were greater than ours. Yet the social interests at stake in this country were of such a character that the hostile feelings in the United States, which finally carried the people into war, were not greater than might have been involved in this country, had the former state of affairs been allowed to continue. He thought members of the House, seeing how peacefully this great work was proceeding, might well rejoice that they were placed in such a position as they were placed in such a position as they were in to-day; and they might well also reflect upon the responsibilities of their position, and approach this question in the spirit in which it had been dealt with hitherto. Would the House pardon him if he continued this theme? Would his hon. friend opposite pardon him if he asked him to go to the page of history and show him a parallel for such a scene as this?

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—I cannot do it.

Some Hon. MembersLoud laughter.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—One hundred years ago these Provinces passed into the possession of the British Crown, and here, at the end of that period of one hundred years, were they sitting together, the descendants of those who had fought on the victorious side, and of those who had fought on the other side. He spoke not this disrespectfully or reproachfully with regard to the vanquished side, or with the view of exciting any feeling. It was the fortune of war that brought these Provinces under the British Crown, and what had happened to the French—the brave French nation—on that occasion might have happened to the British on another. He had alluded to the fact, to remark that, at the end of a hundred years, the descendants of both parties who had then fought against each other were sitting together. The language institutions and laws of the country preserved intact as they were at that time.

Here they were sitting to-day endeavouring to find a remedy for the abuses and evils complained of by whom? The vanquished? No! but complained of by the conquerors, who asked the vanquished to do them justice, and settle their constitutional difficulties; and the descendants of the former possessors of the country were found here discussing the subject with the descendants of their adversaries in a grave, statesmanlike manner. That did honour to them as well as to the British nation. Here they say, the representatives of both sides in that contest—equally attached to the British Crown—equally desirous of preserving connection with it—and equally desirous of raising and improving this country. He thought this was one of the most remarkable things that had ever occurred in history.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—And it was equally remarkable that the representatives of four other Provinces had met and sat together in the same way, all perfectly satisfied that their interests would be perpetuated by drawing closer the bonds that connected them with the mother country, and deliberated together ho they might best discharge the solemn duty that had been entrusted to them by the mother country. This was a spectacle they might well be rejoiced to see, and one that redounded to the justice and benignity of British rule.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—The work in which they were employed at this moment was not a mere question of interest or commercial advancement. It was much wider in its scope than that—it was the erection of a new nation on this continent—it was to bring together Newfoundland, with its 40,000 square miles, equal in size to Portugal; Nova Scotia, which was equal to Greece; New Brunswick, equal to Switzerland and Denmark; Lower Canada, equal to France; Upper Canada, 20,000 square miles larger than England, Ireland, and Scotland together; the Pacific colonies, equal to Austria, and the vast territories of the North West, larger than Russia—and it was to unite all these into one country, equal in extent to the whole continent of Europe.

Thomas Wallbridge [Hastings North]—When?

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East]—Very soon.

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council] said that it was a scheme which they could not perhaps carry out to-day or to-morrow, but they would now lay foundations of it which would eventually extend their influence over the whole country. They did not seek to do this themselves alone, but in connection with that great power that had extended its influence over the entire world; and he believed they would have the cordial assistance and approval of that power in the work they had undertaken.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—It was a scheme that ought to raise the ambition of our people, at any rate of every member of this House, for it lifted them above the petty politics of our little localities, and presented to them a great prospect which might well engage the attention of the best men among them. They ought to approach its consideration free from any party feeling—free from any desire to make party influence or any other feeling of that kind—and discuss it gravely and in a spirit of patriotism, as matters in which all were interested for the good of their common country.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—Some seemed to imagine that the Government was more interested in this matter than other members of the House. He denied this, because they could have no greater interest in it than anyone else who had regard for the welfare of the country. He thought it a most fortunate thing that it would be considered in a House in which there was little or no par ty spirit, and he hoped party spirit would be sunk until it was disposed of. In approaching it this could not be left out of mind, that something had to be done. It was perfectly impossible that we could go back to the state of things as they were. The scheme might not be perfect. It no doubt had its faults, but he held that no man should regret it unless he had something tangible and better to propose in its stead, and something, too, that would carry.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—It was no use to propound a scheme that would not carry both sections of the Province with it.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East]—Hear, hear—that is the question.

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council] entirely agreed with his hon. friend that this was the question, and the whole question; but let him add this also, that though this was the case yet he set that question altogether aside and was prepared to say he went cordially and enthusiastically for the scheme without the slightest reservation.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—He was free to say he had exerted his utmost influence to have some things different from what they were, but it was clear that in order to obtain any agreement, concessions must have been made by one and by all.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—He said it without hesitation, however, that it accomplished all and more than all that he and his friends had contended for years—justice to their section of the Province. It would protect local interests while at the same time it would give full scope in general matters for the will of the whole people to be carried out. There were two lights in which the scheme might be regarded.

In the first place it might be regarded in the light of the evils it remedied, and in the second place as regarded the natural advantages it brought to our Country. He would endeavor to speak to these two points separately. He was in favor of the scheme in the first place because it provided, in his opinion, a complete and satisfactory remedy for the evils of which the people of Upper Canada complained in the representation of that section in Parliament. It provided that representation in the Lower House of the General Legislature should be adjusted according to population. It was true it had been objected that it contained no provision for the arrangement of the constituencies, after the first arrangement, and it had not stated to what body this power of arrangement would be entrusted. He thought anyone reading the resolutions would see this power was to be entrusted to the body itself, as in all representative bodies which necessarily had power to regulate their own numbers.

There had also been objections to the constitution of the Upper House, because Upper Canada had not more representatives in it than the Lower Chamber. This objection might have force if the union of the Provinces was legislative instead of federal; but under the scheme proposed equity of representation in that House was necessary to protect local interests. It was right such protection should be given when there were local bodies, where local matters were to be dealt with, and general matters only were to be considered by the Federal Legislature. Upper Canada would obtain now but its preponderance in the Lower House what it never had before—the control of money bills—and it was well it should not have the power by preponderating in the Upper Chamber also to force the passage of measures injurious to Lower Canada. He thought the bargain was equal, and he had no doubt it would work justly to all.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—It had been further objected that members of the Upper House were to be appointed by the Crown, and not elected. His views on the subject had long been known. He did not believe it was consistent with the spirit of British institutions that there should be two elective legislative bodies.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—He had never any hesitation in saying that they were inconsistent with the British Constitution. It was quite true and he was glad to confess it, that the evils of the elective principle, which he anticipated in 1855, had not been realised. Men had been elected to the Legislative Council who were eminently fitted for the position, but he felt bound to say that under the appoint system men of the highest character and standing had been chosen as members, and who would have done credit to the legislature of any country. He had always felt there was a greater danger of a dead-lock between the two bodies when the Legislative Council was elected by the people.

Supposing there was a Reform majority in the Lower House, and a Conservative majority in the Upper House, what was to prevent the latter from standing out, if they felt they had the country at their back? He had heard it said that they should not take the power out of the hands of the people that they now possessed. Nothing of the kind was proposed, but that appointments to the Upper House should be made by the representatives of the people in this House. It was, therefore, as much a popular appointment as if they were elected as now; for the people, through their representatives, would at all times have the matter under their control.

He had never yet heard, at any public meeting in Upper Canada, any expression of opinion in favour of the elective principle, but it had been carried without a single petition in its favour. It was objected that even although the Upper Chambers were appointed, the numbers should not be limited. Now, this was striking directly at the base of the compact, for if they did not limit the members in that chamber, they would take away all the protection which the different sections had in Parliament; so that, for instance, measures might be passed in the Lower House injurious to Lower Canada, which could be carried against the wishes of its representatives in the Upper Chamber, if an unlimited number could be appointed to outvote them. He felt that this safeguard to their interests was only right and just. It was a part of a compact into which the Conference entered, and recognizing its justice, he was prepared to sustain it.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.[2]

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council][3] said no injustice would be done to the present members of the Legislative Council, for of those elected but very few would be left over, and he thought it not unlikely some plan would be devised for giving an honourable position in the Legislature of their country to all those gentlemen who now occupied a place in that body. The result would be that we would have a body in which the people would have confidence, and which would do credit to any country. It had been objected that it was not clear how the Legislative Councils were to be chosen, but the 13th clause provided for their being taken from the existing bodies.

Composed as the present Government was, and from the spirit which he was bound to say had been exhibited, he had no hesitation in saying that he had no fear whatever that in the selection full justice would be done to the party which might be in a minority in the House. He thought these were all the objections which had been taken against the system as regards the presentation of the people in the Parliament. Looking at the scheme as a matter of compromise and settlement, he believed no man could make a solemn objection to it. It was just, it was workable, and would give justice to both Upper and Lower Canada. We had not to look at the scheme standing as we do now, but as we did six months or a year ago. Great changed had taken place in this time. He was in favour of the scheme because it removes that financial injustice of which those in Upper Canada had complained.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—In Upper Canada, with a much larger population than in Lower, they had to bear their share of the annual taxation, while they had not a fair share of the control of the public chest. Under the scheme both Provinces would stand in the same position in this respect. Upper Canada had got no advantage over Lower, but only that which justice demanded. General funds had been applied for local purposes, and to these funds Upper Canada had contributed the largest share.

Now local works would be paid for by the respective Provinces in which they were constructed. It was a great thing to accomplish this alone. All that he had ever asked was that one man in Upper Canada should stand on the same footing as one in Lower. But they were told that although local matters had been separated, an exception had been made a subsidy was to be paid from the general fund for local purposes. This might have been otherwise, and he was opposed to the arrangement but there was this difficulty in the way that nothing else could be done.

In the first place, the people in Lower Canada would not like the idea of direct taxation. If Confederation had imposed a direct tax a more effective opposition have been made to it. Lower Canada was not alone in this respect. They could not go to the Lower Provinces and ask them to increase their customs duties, and in addition to put on direct taxes for the working of the machinery of local legislation. Each Government had been asked what sum would be absolutely necessary to carry on the local machinery, and when it was first presented it was something like five millions. It was clear this was too much. Some of the Governments were more expensive than others, but the local subsidies had been cut down to the lowest possible point. This was the great object in view, and they succeeded in getting it down to a little over two millions. In both Upper and Lower Canada there would be a very large surplus for local purposes.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—It was said New Brunswick was getting more than her share, but it was absurd to oppose the adoption of a scheme such as this for the sake of a paltry sum. It could not be weighed in the balance against it, and the subsidy was granted for only ten years. For the debt we have assumed for New Brunswick, we acquire valuable railway facilities. The Lower Provinces had received no more than was their due. We would get a large additional population to assist us in bearing our burdens—a most economical population too. Why, the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia only gets six hundred pounds a year. He was in favour of the scheme because it gives each Province the control of its own local affairs. Public works would not be carried out in one section when the other would have them done in another way. Local enterprises would be paid for by those benefitted by them. They were told they had made an exception in favour of education. As far as he was concerned, he had always been opposed to sectional education. He never could see why children could not be educated together in general subjects.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West, Minister of Agriculture and Statistics]—Wait till your children grow up.

Some Hon. MembersLaughter.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—What he had always felt was that if Roman Catholics had Separate Schools, those of other creeds would be entitled to the same, and this might extend till the whole country was covered with the schools of different creeds. He felt that this would be a ruinous system which it would take the whole revenue of the Provinces to sustain. Had he been in the House when the Bill passed in 1862, he would have voted against it. But when a clause was put into the scheme to propose that that would be a final settlement, he was ready to accept it as a whole. He looked upon the complain upon this score as one not worthy of consideration in adopting the scheme.

Thomas Wallbridge [Hastings North]—It deprives the Local Legislatures of the power of legislating on it.

George Brown [Oxford South, President of Executive Council] would like to know what influence the hon. member had heretofore? Practically, he or others had little or no influence at all. Nothing could have been more fair than the tone of the discussion which took place in the Conference on this subject. No extreme views were sought to be carried out. He was in favour of the scheme, because it brought to an end sectional discord. The Local Legislatures would deal with matters relating to their own sections, and the General Legislature would meet as citizens of one great country, and could discuss public business in a temper which had never been exhibited before; No man would be debarred from public life because he was unpopular in any one of the Provinces. The unpopularity of himself and his hon. friend (Mr. Cartier) had been owing to discussions on sectional matters, but he challenged any one to say that he had ever made a motion which interfered with the local interests of Lower Canadians. What did complain of was that Upper Canada had not the control of her own local affairs. He was in favour of the scheme, because it would give stability to our future.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council] was quite sure his hon. friend would be the last to express any doubt on this point. He [Mr. Holton] had always been one of the boldest in constitutional reform, and he was sure he saw the present system could not be continued.

Luther Holton [Chateauguay]—This is worse.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—Our system is bad. Change had to come. His hon. friend knew what discussions had taken place in the House, and he knew the people of the States and England must see this also, and it must be apparent that a feeling of insecurity was hanging over us, and that it could not be told where the struggle might end. He was in favour of the scheme if it was for Canada alone: he had no hesitation in saying that, as far as Upper Canada weas concerned, it would be accepted as a remedy for the evils of which they complained. He fully corroborated what the Minister of Finance [Alexander Galt] had said the previous night with regard to the desirability of union with the Lower Provinces.

He [Mr. Brown] was in favour of union with the Lower Provinces, because it would raise us to the position of a great and powerful people. The population of the united Provinces would amount to every close on four millions of souls. Now there were forty-eight sovereign states in Europe, and out of them there were only about eleven that would be greater than united British America.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Brown [Oxford South, President Executive Council]—And there were two of them so small a way ahead of us, that we will stand ninth in respect to population with the whole of the sovereign states of Europe. Mr. Brown went on to allude to some of the material considerations, quoting the figures given by Mr. Galt last night. In 1793, some years after the United States achieved their independence, their experts did not amount to one-third of what ours do at this time. There were very few States which had anything like the trade of ours.

He then alluded to the great extent of the public lands, to our agriculture, to our railways, canals, &c. The Union would throw down the barriers to trader and make a market for our people. He could not understand why we should hesitate about bringing in a million of people with a great country and great resources. As well hesitate about some petty allowance of money. There was no such instance in history he believed. Other nations paid large sums for territory. Louisiana was bought for $20,000,000. Would we not give for Maine, Michigan, or Minnesota, all which it was possible to pay? Others pay large sums to secure immigrants. We spend some $25,000 per annum, yet we heard peddling objections raised now to a union to give us nearly a million of people and vast and rich territories. A few dollars for a few years ought not to stand in the way. The objections raised were utterly unworthy of the greatness of the occasion. What a change for the better in the tone of public men might be expected when a greater field was opened up to them, with great national topics for consideration, and a wider field for professional men to attain eminence.

He was, further, in favour of union as making us at once the third maritime power in the world. In 1861, before the war, the United States only built 3,000 more tons than British North America. That year the colonies exported and sold vessels worth of $9,000,000. The colonies own 8,530 vessels, of 932,000 tons burden. France has only 60,000 tons more. Sixty-nine thousand men and boys are employed in fisheries and as seamen. Whether as producers of wealth, or as a means of defence, this was most important as giving us rank in this world. The fisheries produced over $10,000,000 over $7,500,00 of exports, besides food for the people employed with the ships, making a total of over sixteen and a half millions of dollars. In the face of the effort to develope such great interests, how petty were the objections raised. The sea-going tonnage employed was nearly five and a-half millions, and the inland nearly seven millions of tons—altogether over twelve millions. The United States had only sixteen millions—only one-third more—although we have only the population they had seventy years ago. France, with a population of thirty-eight millions, at the same time only employed eight and a half millions tons. We become, therefore, the third maritime power, ranking next after Great Britain and the United States.

He was in favour of union as likely to stimulate immigration. He was in England when the details of the scheme became known there, and he saw at once that it gave us a newer and higher rank in the eyes of all people. With more immigrants would come greater wealth, greater production, and greater revenues to enable us to make further improvements.

The Conference was clearly pledged to open up the great West and deepen the canals. The Maritime Provinces wanted back country, and wanted avenues for their commerce as well as we. It was urged that they were pledged directly to the Intercolonial Railway, and that these other improvements will be dependent on the state of the revenue. They were as much pledged to one as the other, only we had the Imperial guarantee to get cheap money for the one and not for the others. He had been charged with the negotiations about the North-west in England, and hoped to lay the papers on the table in a very few days. He was in favour of Union as enabling us to meet the hostile commercial policy of the United States. Doubtless some injury would result to us as from the commercial changes of 1847, but the chief profit had been to the United States, and theirs would be the greater loss, when shut out of our waters and fisheries. They were carriers and brokers for us, gathering two profits even on the trade between Upper Canada and the Lower Provinces, who took four and a quarter millions of breadstuffs from the United States per annum, and seven millions of dollars altogether of products we ought to have furnished to them. Hereafter our own commercial enterprise would open up for itself new fields, gather in new profits, and be placed on a firmer and broader basis.

He was in favour of union as furnishing a better means of defence. He had never had the war fever, or been in favour of keeping up great armaments; but a warlike spirit was part of the character of a great nation, and there was no use of denying that the time had come when they must do more, and assume a greater burthen. England could fairly ask this of us, and while the present Government was willing to approach the subject with the utmost fairness, he met no public man in Britain who, whatever his opinion might be about colonial policy, did not say that in case of an attack on us, it would be made a point of honour to resist by the mother country with the last pound and the last soldier. He argued in favour of the Intercolonial railway as necessary for defence.

He thought a federal union better than a legislative one. How could we legislate for the parish local affairs of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island at Ottawa? But if we desired it, we could not get it. Mr. Cartier for Lower Canada, Dr. Tupper for Nova Scotia, Mr. Tilley for New Brunswick, and the representatives of the other colonies, said they could not assent to it. How could they be forced to do so? He proceeded to refute the arguments that they were self-constituted delegates without authority, and that the people were taken by surprise, and not ready for the scheme. He showed how the [word missing] were pledged to the adoption of the federal principles as a remedy for constitutional difficulty, with a provision for extension to the other colonies—showed how for years the subject had been almost constantly before the people, and concluded by urging that such an opportunity for union on favourable terms was not likely to recur. It would be a sufficient reward to him and those who had battled with him in the Reform ranks, if they lived to see the redress of constitutional grievance accompanied by this Union, fraught with so many blessings to all the northern portion of the continent. The hon. gentleman sat down amid loud applause, having spoken over four-and-a-half hours.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East] announced that Mr. McGee would close the Government statement of the case to-morrow, after which the debate would be adjourned for one week.

The House adjourned at 12 40.


[1]      Source: The Globe (Feb. 9-10, 1865).

[2]      This ends the coverage of Brown’s speech from The Globe’s February 9th edition. The rest of the speech is covered on the following day.

[3]      This, The Globe’s February 10th edition, begins the coverage of the rest of Brown’s speech not covered in the previous day.

Leave a Reply