Document Information

Date: 1858-06-09
By: Province of Canada (Parliament), The Globe
Citation: “House of Assembly” The Globe (10 June 1858).
Other formats:

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

(Reported for the Globe)

WEDNESDAY, June 9.

REPRESENTATION BY POPULATION

Hon. Mr. CAMERON moved for leave to introduce a bill to alter, amend, and regulate the Representation of the Province. He said he had attempted to introduce this bill at an early period of the session, but it was not then written out in full, and its introduction was objected to. Considerable time had since elapsed, during which he had had a good deal of correspondence on the subject, and he was now prepared to introduce a measure, which did not, however, go much further than to lay down the principle. There was no doubt that a much more elaborate Bill might be, and would be produced before any measure on the subject could become law; but the question was surrounded by so many difficulties, that in the first instance, it was best to take it up in its most simple form period from both sides of the House they had the declaration that Representation by Population ought in some way or other to be connected with, or have relation to territory. He acknowledged it was beyond his capacity to adopt any standard, which could with consistency and reason base Representation on Territory. It could only be done by some very arbitrary method which he did not think could be defended. He had therefore sought only to lay down the great principle that the representation of this Province ought not in any way to have reference to the boundary line between Upper and Lower Canada. He looked upon this as the first step towards the more harmonious working of all the machinery of Government, and the first step towards a complete union of all sections of the population. It had been given out for political purposes that he himself was not anxious about this question, that no more would be heard of it, and that he did not desire to press it. He did not care for such remarks, but desired to be judged in all matters, political and private, by his acts. He had adopted this, as he had done every other political principle, because it was a liberal and true one, and because it was based on sound and constitutional principles, and because he felt that it conduced to the true interests of every part and portion and section of this Province, from one end of it to the other period he had adopted this principle for the same reason that he had voted to extend the elective principle to the Legislative Council and all the departments of the Government. If this measure did not obtain the support of the hon. gentleman from Lower Canada, he was sorry for it, but that was no reason why he should cease from advocating a measure, which, he had no more doubt than he had of his own existence, was for the true interests of Lower Canada. In all matters affecting the religious and peculiar institutions of Lower Canada, he would defend their rights as he would his own, but in this matter he must take up a different position, believing that the denial of Representation by Population only kept up the difficulty and was a constant source of annoyance which gave a handle to those who were opposed to Lower Canada institutions. if all they wanted was equal rights, why should they be opposed to this? He was an earnest about this matter, should press it in every way he could, and should endeavor to get the largest possible vote for it. He had opposed the member for Toronto when that hon. gentleman moved an amendment to the Address, in favour of this principle, because if he could not carry a vote of want of confidence in the Government, it was of no use proposing such emotion. And he regretted that hon. gentleman’s abilities and talents, and the power he wielded through the press, had thus been employed, not to promote, but to damage this great measure. The Bill he (Mr. Cameron) now beg to introduce, laid down the principle that Representation should be based on Population, so far as any distinction between Upper and Lower Canada was concerned, but he did not propose to interfere with the privilege which small towns, such as Brockville, Cornwall, and Niagara, at present possessed of sending representatives. He proposed that all constituencies, having a population under 15,000, now entitled to elect a member, should still have that privilege—that all constituencies with the population between 15,000 and 30,000 should elect two members—those between 30,000 and 45,000, three members—those between 45,000 and 60,000, four members,—and those above 60,000, five members.

Mr. CHAPAIS considered Representation according to Population was not an injustice but a perfect impossibility. The equality of representation was based on the Union Bill itself, and from the moment the union was touched he appealed to the hearts of the Lower Canadian members, whether they were disposed to yield one iota on this subject. when England passed the Union as she not only established this equality of representation as the sole safeguard of the Union; but they inserted a clause by which they asserted that a vote of two-thirds on the members of the House should be required before that principle could be altered. just in order to prevent such a Bill as the one now under discussion from passing, that that clause was inserted; but it was inserted on the interests of Upper Canada, at that time in the minority as to population; And the British government quickly changed its mind when Lower Canada became the section of country that required the protection. Lower Canada was deeply injured when that clause was a faced from the law, and when a simple majority received power to change the representation. The Union could not exist after the equilibrium of the two sections ceased to be maintained. He saw the line of demarcation between Upper and Lower Canada was attacked from both sides of the House. He would not make any menaces; but he would say, notwithstanding, that that line was not to be easily blotted out. The men who in 1812 would not suffer the line to be faced between Canada and the United states were still there to protect the line between Upper and Lower Canada. What would be the effect on Upper Canada of the complete assimilation of the two provinces whs too clear. no sooner did any measure come up to protect the interests of the people of Lower Canada than the member for Toronto Roseanne attempted to prevent it from passing, and this though he wanted to do away with the line of separation and to regard both parts of the provinces one period look at the Fisheries Bill—it was from his treatment of such a subject that Lower Canadians would know how to regard the real designs of the hon. member for Toronto. When it was proposed to create an immense industry in favour of Lower Canada; but not of Lower Canada exclusively, since Canada as a whole must derive an immense advantage from it, the hon. gentleman became positively furious and at once denounced the measure, and this not only in the House, but through his journal. it was by such conduct that members from Lower Canada replaced on their guard. The member who presented this bill ought to know, that it touched, not merely the constitution of the country; but that it affected the very existence of Canada as at present constituted. Wherefore, then, propose a measure which, if carried, would amount to a resignation of the rights of Lower Canada, and its equality in the government. The hon. mover of the bill talked of his sympathy for Lower Canada. That was all very well; but when he saw what took place on the Opposition side of the House and the secret sympathy which was manifested by the other side, he had reason to speak strongly and he should certainly vote against the second reading of the bill. He would reserve himself for a more length and statement of his views till another stage of the Bill.

Hon. Mr. LORANGER would also reserve himself for an ulterior discussion of this question. At present he would only say, that the moment there should be an end to the equality between Upper and Lower Canada, from that same moment there would be an end of the Union. England in imposing this union, gave equality of representation, and that equality broken, the compact would be likewise ruptured. yet he held it to be the interest of both parts of the Province to maintain the union as it existed, and if he opposed the present measure, it was not because he believed in or feared the loud boasts which were made for Upper Canada of the superiority in numbers of her population. He maintained it as a fundamental—and absolute principle. He maintained a quality, not only in Parliament, but in the administration and in the executive. He believed the mover of the present bill to be a friend of the institutions of Lower Canada as well as of those of Upper Canada. He believed there were a great many friends of Lower Canadian institutions in the House—friends of the prosperity of the two portions of the province. But, unfortunately, there were some enemies of Lower Canadian institutions—some who desired nothing better than the occasion to place their feet on Lower Canada, in order to give her the coup de grace. it was not merely organic clauses that these gentlemen saw it. They wanted to destroy all the institutions peculiar to Lower Canada, and therefore no member from Lower Canada could sign the act which would make such a change in the constitution. When the conditions of the question were other than they were now supposed to be, Lower Canada had not desired to force this change on Upper Canada, because Lower Canadians having accepted the union, they did not choose to violate its principles. In like manner they would not consent that these principles should now be violated against their interests. There were persons in Upper Canada who had desired to impute to a member of that House from Lower Canada, hostile pretensions towards Upper Canada. They had sought to represent him as declaring that Lower Canada had the advantage, and as exhorting them to profit by it but that speech he had repudiated and denied in the presence of all the House who heard what he said. He had never imputed any superiority to Lower Canada. He had demanded nothing but equality; But that equally he and all Lower Canadians would insist on, and would maintain by all constitutional means the present constitution, instead of one in which the Parliamentary Representation of the country would be based on Population.

Hon. J. S. MACDONALD Said that the hon. member for Lambton had, on a former occasion, asked leave to introduce a bill to change the Representation. He (Mr. MacDonald) objected then to its introduction, because it was in blank—because there was, in fact, no Bill. The hon. member then said he would withdraw his motion, and introduced the bill on an early day and another shape period two months had elapsed, and now, almost at the close of the session, he introduced it at so late a period, that it was impossible to discuss, much less to pass, a measure affecting so great public interests as this. But the matter had not lost any of its importance by the delay which had occurred; and to-day they had just listened to an hon. gentleman, a supporter of the government, who actually warmed himself into a war fever, and warned the House that, if Representation by Population was forced upon Lower Canada, the spirit which maintained the division line between Lower Canada and the United States in 1812, would be manifested again in 1858, to maintain the old boundary line between Upper and Lower Canada, which members of this House declared did not exist, and ought not to exist.

Mr. CHAPAIS said that the hon. gentleman had misapprehended him, and repeated in French what he had meant to say.

Hon. Mr. J. S. MACDONALD said that, if the hon. gentleman’s remarks were not a declaration of war, he did not know what was. But, after the hon. member for Kamouraska, they had had a speech from the hon. Provincial Secretary. And to the hon. member for Lambton, in introducing this measure, and to the hon. gentleman on that side who supported it, the member for South Simcoe, the member for South Waterloo, the member for Victoria, and the member for Lanark, (Messrs. Ferguson, W. Scott, John Cameron, and Playfair,) and others on that side, it must have been very satisfactory to hear the Provincial Secretary declaring, on behalf of the Government, that they would oppose, coute qui coute, any measure carrying out Representation by Population.

Hon. Mr. LORANGER—I only spoke for myself.

Hon. J. S. MACDONALD said that the Government must have an opinion on this great question which had so much agitated Upper Canada, and would it be said that so prominent a member of the Government as the Provincial Secretary did not speak that opinion? It had showed little tact, however, on the part of the Provincial Secretary, to declare that opinion so prematurely. He might have let the first reading pass, knowing that the Bill could not come back this session for a second reading, instead of making a speech which would let the whole of Upper Canada see that the Government had declared war to the knife against Representation by Population, and which would alarm members on that side who had declared that they would not support any Government which should not go for that principle. the Provincial Secretary had taken it upon himself to speak for the whole of Lower Canada; But he (Mr. MacDonald) although not himself in favour of the principle, had no hesitation in saying that a large number in Lower Canada desired Representation by Population, looking forward to the carrying of that measure as to a day of Jubilee, when they would be able to assert their rights in the townships. The administration ought to say whether they sanctioned the declaration made by the Provincial Secretary. He believed the hon. gentleman had committed a faux pas, and placed his colleagues in an awkward position, when he might have let the first reading pass, knowing that there was no chance of a debate on the second reading. He had not heard the whole of the explanations given by the hon. member for Lambton, but he understood him to say that his Bill would leave such constituencies as Cornwall and Brockville in the same position as they were in now. But how could he bind the action of a future Parliament? The member for Haldimand and the member for Toronto had endeavored to do away with the right of those places to have representatives, and they would do so again. But what would be the effect of this Bill? Suppose they got in five or ten additional members from Upper Canada, a sufficient number might still be found, like the member for Lambton and his friends, to sustain in office an Administration which legislated for Upper Canada with a Lower Canada majority.

Mr. BROWN—what are you frightened for then?

Hon. J. S. MACDONALD Said he was not frightened, and did not believe Representation by Population could be carried. He coincided a good deal in what had been said by the Provincial Secretary—(laughter)—only he had taken the wrong time to say it, and had let the cat out of the bag too soon. But if there was to be any settlement of the question, it could only be after a proper census had been taken, and it was discovered that there was in Upper Canada a large preponderance of population, and not a miserable majority of one or two hundred thousand. If the agitation was to be kept up, there must be a rearrangement of territorial surface, and that would be an occasion for a war of races, much to be deplored. At the same time he could tell hon. gentleman on the other side, that, if they carried on the present system of forcing legislation on Upper Canada, they would raise a spirit in Upper Canada which would not be easily laid. If they continue to impose laws on Upper Canada, against the will of the majority of its representatives, there would be war. Hon. gentleman from below might like to retain equality in the way they had it now, of legislating not only for Lower but for Upper Canada, but that was not an equality which Upper Canadians would put up with. He had supported Lower Canada at a time when the Provincial Secretary had no voice in the councils of the country, but when his compatriots were put down and oppressed, and it was on the same grounds that he could not brook the present system, when Lower Canada, retaliating for past injuries, was attempting to rule Upper Canada. He hoped the member for Lambton would take a lesson from the speech of the Provincial Secretary, which might convince him that the majority of the House would be against his Bill, and that the Government themselves, whom he supported, would oppose it tooth and nail.

Hon. Mr. CAMERON said the member for Cornwall was always disposed to attack the government as much when they sustained his views as when they opposed them. Just now, because a member of the government appeared to agree with him, the hon. gentleman got into a great passion, and declared there would be war about it. Mr. Cameron then repeated that, in his view, the member for Toronto had made an inopportune an unstatesmanlike move when he brought up Representation by Population as an amendment to the address, and asked what right that gentleman and his friends had to say that he (Mr. Cameron) was not sincere in the matter?

Mr. BROWN—I will tell you presently.

Hon. Mr. CAMERON Said that the hon. gentleman could speak well and long and loud, but he could not prove that those who had put motions on the journals for the purpose of carrying them were not sincere. The member for Kamouraska, and the Provincial Secretary, had declared that the basis of the Union was equality of representation. That was not the case. The arrangement was made by the British Government for the purpose of punishing Lower Canada, which had been in rebellion, and of giving Upper Canada the rule. He (Mr. Cameron) was opposed to that injustice being done to Lower Canada, and voted them for Representation by Population, at a time when the population of Lower Canada greatly preponderated. The member for Kamouraska had spoken of the War of 1812, and had gone as far as 1776, to show that his forefathers then were on the side of British authority, because they took the part of those whom he (Mr. Cameron) respected, though he did not think they were politically right, and to seconded Great Britain against the descendants of the Puritans, whose politics were much more in favour of liberty and consonant which his (Mr. Cameron’s) own sentiments. The member for Kamouraska said that if any people on his continent had been true to British institutions and monarchy it was the French Canadians. He (Mr. Cameron) admired the gallantry of those French Canadians who had shed their blood on the theoretical question. But to say that they would shed their blood, to prevent a closer union between Upper and Lower Canada than now subsisted, was like putting a twenty-four pounder at the door of a hen roost. (Laughter.) it was not because Upper Canada had a larger population than Lower Canada, that he introduced this Bill. If it should turn out that Lower Canada had the larger population, let it have a majority of representation. He believed it likely, that, with the development of manufacturers, Lower Canada would have the larger population. But, however that might be, he was satisfied the system of Representation by Population could not work injuriously, but would be beneficial for the whole Province.

Hon, Mr. CAUCHON said that, if it had been the intention of England, at the time of the Union, to punish Lower Canada, they would have given them an inferiority, instead of an equality, of representation. So his argument went for nothing. It was considered an injustice, being united against their will, that they should not be represented according to population; but how were they met? They were told by those who had a numerically inferior population—“we have the equality, and we shall keep it.” as to fighting, he thought the member for Kamouraska was right in saying that they would do, if an emergency arose putting in jeopardy their dearest rights. He hoped the emergency would not arise; but it was well now to say clearly what they should do, if any such injustice was attempted against them. The hon. member went on to say that a new interpretation of a clause in the union act had suggested itself to his mind—the clause which required a two-thirds vote to alter the representation. Liberty had afterwards been given to change it by a majority vote; but, though the intention was bad, he contended that the clause was so where did that only the number of the representatives could be changed, and not the apportionment between the two sections of the Province. He thought the double majority was the true principle to regulate the relations between the two sections of the province. He was not disposed, by granting Representation by Population, to place the care of the interests of Lower Canada, of its laws, of its institutions, of its nationality, in the hands of those who might take the lash and punish them, as the member for Lambton had said it had said it was sought to punish them at the time of the union. He moved, in amendment—“That the Bill be not now read a first time, but that it be read a first time this day three months.”

Mr. BROWN said that, though he differed altogether from the hon. member who had just taken his seat, in the view he took of this question, yet he was bound to admit that the course he had taken in reference to this Bill, as an opponent of the principle, was the right one period when an objection was taken in limine to the objects of a Bill, the right course was to oppose the first reading, and thereby to declare that the subject was not one to be legislated upon at that. The member for Montmorenci, by his amendment, had put the question into a proper shape for the decision of the host, whether or not Representation should be based upon Population. The member for Lambton was so fond of having a fight, that he must needs fight even with those who were going to support him in his measure. One would have thought that the hon. member would rather have tried to conciliate those whom he wished to vote with him, instead of throwing out accusations to irritate them. He (Mr. Brown) should not follow the example of the hon. member. He came there to support Representation by Population, and in order to secure the success of that measure, he would leave the matters referred to by the member for Lambton till some other occasion when it would be less hurtful to discuss them. At the same time he must say that the provisions of the Bill were of a most extraordinary character, and he trusted the House, in voting for the Bill, would look, not to its contents, but to the principle it involved. It would from the outset doubled the number of the members of the House, making the number at least 250 or 300. This fact showed that, when the hon. member accused the Opposition of not knowing how to manage the question, he did not himself know what he was speaking about. The hon. member attacked the course which was pursued on this question by the Opposition at the commencement of the session, and said they were only actuated by factions motives. he (Mr. Brown) asked if the speech made to-day by the Provincial Secretary was not a clear justification of the course they then took? could this measure ever be carried by an Opposition? Not at all. It could never be carried until an administration was formed, pledged to the principle. The ground, therefore, which he and his friends took up at the commencement of the session, was that Representation by Population was the foremost measure of the country, and that they were prepared to sacrifice every other consideration, and make or unmake any Administration, for the sake of it.

Hon. M. CAMERON—But you were in a minority.

Mr. BROWN—And we will always be in a minority, if members from Upper Canada, who profess great anxiety for reformed representation, act as does the member for Lambton, who supports an administration, of which the Provincial Secretary rises and declares that not only is Representation by Population wrong, but that the moment it is granted, there must be war to the knife between Upper and Lower Canada. Could he suppose that Representation by Population would ever be granted, while he, and others like him, sustained such an Administration? While those who were elected specially to carry this principle, supported the Administration, not because they would carry a measure like this, but because they were the Government of the day, and had the disposal of the patronage of the country, so long would the triumph of this principle be delayed. The hon. gentleman had often declared that this measure lay at the very foundation of a sound political system, that the want of it was the Upas Tree which blighted the progress of our country,—and holding such ground, he was not true to the principle he advocated, when he sat there supporting a Government, a member of which gave utterance to such sentiments as had come from the Provincial Secretary. If desirous of carrying this measure at all hazards, and not wishing to send the question adrift for the purpose of maintaining the ministry, he was bound to get from them a clear declaration in favour of the measure, or else to leave them, in order to carry it. Let him and his friends who were in favour of Representation by Population, step over to this side, and say they would support no Administration which did not go for it—and within one week they would have an Administration pledge to the principle.

Mr. TURCOTTE—It is impossible!

Mr. BROWN said the hon. member for Lambton knew very well the truth of what he was saying. Some of those hon. gentleman had declared just as strongly that it was impossible to carry Clergy Reserve secularization, but the day came when they themselves voted for it. (Hear, hear.) The Provincial Secretary said that Lower Canada had always been in favour of equality of representation, of each section of the Province having the same number of representatives. This was quite contrary to the fact. At the time of the Union the whole of the Provincial Secretary’s friends were in favour of Representation by Population.

Atty. Gen. CARTIER—Only three voted for it.

Mr. BROWN said that, the Attorney General spoke of a period long subsequent to the Union. But the hon. gentleman would not deny that at the time of the Union the Lower Canadians contended that giving equality of representation to Upper Canada was unfair to Lower Canada, and that they claimed Representation by Population.

Atty. Gen. CARTIER said that the Union was forced on the Lower Canadians, and at meetings which were held over Lower Canada, they resolved that they would take no part at all in the arrangements of what they considered an act of injustice.

Mr. BROWN said he was not in Canada at the time of the Union, but he was here shortly afterwards, and he recollected well the discussions which took place, and Mr. Papineau’s repeated speeches in favour of Representation by Population. The Attorney General would not deny that that was the principle which he and his compatriots then held.

Atty. Gen. CARTIER—One of my first votes in Parliament was to vote against the Bill presented by Mr. Boulton in 1849.

Mr. BROWN—That was long after the union, when it was understood that Upper Canada had reached an equality of population, and was fast progressing. But what he asserted was the Representation by Population was a leading principle of the hon. gentleman’s party at the time of the Union, and previous to it. If he recollected rightly, one of the celebrated 92 resolutions was in favour of this principle.

Mr. FOLEY—And more than that, one of the grounds taken by Upper Canada Reformers at the election of 1841, was that injustice was done to the people of Lower Canada, in not giving them Representation by Population.

Mr. BROWN said there could not be the least out of the fact, and it was clear that Representation by Population was the only principle on which the Union between Upper and Lower Canada could be preserved. The whole question amounted to this, was Canada to be treated as one country or as two countries?

Mr. TURCOTTE—Two,

Mr. BROWN—If two, then it should be made two indeed. But it could not be treated as one, and as two at the same time period how could two countries go together with an equality of representation, while one had an excess of population of 400,000, and contributed three-fourths of the revenue? For purposes of representation could they treat Canada as two, while as represented taxation they held it to be one? The thing was ridiculous.

Mr. THIBAUDEAU—That is just what we want.

Mr. BROWN—Surely they must fancy that Upper Canadians were a most mean spirited people, when the hon. gentleman from Lower Canada dared to get up and threatened that if they demanded a fair representation, they would fight them, as they had fought the Americans in 1813. They said they would take the bayonet rather than give up their advantage. Could they fancy that Upper Canadians were so poor spirited that they would submit to being met with arguments like that? The Provincial Secretary asked, how did they know that the population of Upper Canada was greater than that of Lower Canada? A man who did not know that was in a state of unhappy ignorance. He arrived at the number, 400,000, by calculating the regular arithmetical ratio in which the two sections of the Province had progressed in population for very many years back. Lower Canada had been doubling every twenty-five years, and Upper Canada every ten years.

Mr. CHAPAIS—You have not the same emigration now.

Mr. BROWN said that, putting aside 1847, there had never been the same amount of immigration into Upper Canada as during the last two or three years, well, on the other hand, there had been a greater immigration from Lower Canada of late years than formerly.

Mr. CHAPAIS—That is stopped now.

Mr. BROWN was happy to hear it. This measure was not urged from any desire to do injustice to Lower Canada, but as an act of simple justice to the whole Province. All they asked was that they should stand on an equality; that the absurd dividing line should be swept away; that the whole province should be treated as one country; that one man in Upper Canada should stand up on the same political level as one man in Lower Canada. The hon. member for Kamouraska talked about war and bloodshed. He perfectly understood the fanfaronade of the hon. gentleman, and notwithstanding all the hon. gentleman’s threats, he had not the slightest doubt that the day was not far off when Representation by Population would be granted, and that his hon. friend would sit as easily under it as he had done under the secularization of the Clergy Reserves, and other matters about which he had been as fierce as about this. The principle was so just, that it was impossible for anyone much longer to resist it. Did the hon. gentleman think the United States could hang together for a year, if representation there was not on this principle? It was not, of course, found in the Senate of the United States, because it was not applicable to that body. And he observed that this bill did not propose to introduce the principle as regarded the Legislative Council. This was a serious defect, as there was no analogy between our Upper House and that of the United States. But, if he could not get the whole loaf, he would take half, and would vote for the measure as at least a partial active justice to the inhabitants of Upper Canada. It was quite impossible that the administration could hold a doubtful position on the question now under discussion period if they believed with the Provincial Secretary, that were it carried it would lead to a dissolution of the union, and the ruin of the country, or if they agreed with the hon. member for Kamouraska when he said that it would give rise to violence and bloodshed—

Hon. Mr. SICOTTE denied that any such interpretation could be placed upon the words of the hon. member for Kamouraska.

Mr. BROWN said the hon. gentleman’s statement was, that the people of Lower Canada would resist the application of the principle in the same way that they resisted the inroads of the Americans in 1814.

Hon. Mr. SICOTTE—The hon. member for Kamouraska meant a fair constitutional resistance.

Atty. Gen. CARTIER—The hon. gentleman stated that align existed between Upper and Lower Canada as a line existed between Canada and America in 1814. The Lower Canadians fought for the maintenance of that line, and they would be ready now to maintain the line between Upper and Lower Canada. He argued that there was more reason for maintaining the dividing line between the two Provinces, because he considered Lower Canada had greater enemies in the parties represented by the hon. member for Toronto, then they had in the Americans in 1814. (Oh! oh!)

Mr. BROWN—The hon. gentleman has come to the rescue of his friend with a vengeance! Does the hon. gentleman except the explanation?

Mr. CHAPAIS—That is the meaning of what I said.

Mr. BROWN—Then, we have it that the Lower Canadians not only intend to resist the abolition of the line as they resisted the attempt to do away with the line between Canada and the United States in 1814, but that they are prepared to use the same means now as they then used. And not only this, but that to give the people of Upper Canada Representation by Population would be a much greater evil than that which was threatened in 1814, and that they would resist it much more strongly. (“No, no,” and (Yes, yes.”) I appeal to gentleman from Upper Canada supporting the Ministry, if they are content to be told by their friends and allies that they regard their demand for equality in the same light as the attempt to annex Canada by the Americans? Shall the attempt to obtain Representation by Population, be regarded as a claim to be resisted as strongly by the people of Lower Canada as they resisted the inroads of the Americans in 1814?

Hon. Mr. SICOTTE said this was not what the Attorney General East had stated. He simply rose to explain what had been said by the hon. member for Kamouraska.

Mr. FOLEY—He said he considered the majority of the people of Upper Canada greater enemies than the Americans. (Hear, hear.)

Atty. Gen. CARTIER—These words were not used. I stated in English what had been said by the hon. member for Kamouraska in French. I made no statement of my own.

Mr. BROWN appealed to the House if the hon. gentleman did not get up and make this statement in mitigation of the speech of the hon. member for Kamouraska? (Hear, hear.)

Atty. Gen. CARTIER—No, no.

Mr. BROWN—The Commissioner of Crown Lands rose to say that the hon. member for Kamouraska did not hold such extreme views, and the Attorney General East stated what he had done in mitigation of the language of the hon. member for Kamouraska. But did hon. gentleman think that the people of Upper Canada would be at all alarmed by the tone of this language or by the fierceness of the Provincial Secretary? Not at all. The people of Upper Canada would continue to demand until they had obtained political equality, even though the Provincial Secretary said that it would be opposed to the knife. (Hear, hear.) No hon. member present, who knew anything of Upper Canada, would deny that there was a strong feeling on the matter in Upper Canada and that the people were loudly crying out for justice. (Hear, hear.) it was not for the Provincial Secretary to tell the House that a statute was passed in 1841 granting equality to both sections of the Province. The conditions of that statute were simply meant to apply so long as they were consistent with the condition of the people. Power was given to Canada to alter the provisions of the statute to meet the requirements of the times, and that power had frequently been exercised. It was absurd for the Provincial Secretary to contend that the passing of that act was a finality. Mr. Brown then quoted resolutions passed by the committee of the whole in Lower Canada, in 1834, showing that before the union the people of Lower Canada strongly contended that Population should be made the basis of Representation. He would now call the attention of the House to the effect of the present state of things upon the public men of Canada. The Union had only lasted seventeen years, and yet there were hardly any of the men who had during that time held the control of the government now left in public life. Besides the gentleman now on the Treasury Benches, forty-four persons who had been in the Government since the Union, twenty-four from Upper and twenty from Lower Canada period of these eight from Upper Canada had been tempted to take office. These were Mr. Harrison, who took a county Judgeship, Mr. Sullivan, who took a Judgeship, Mr. Draper, also a Judge, Mr. Killaly who had retired from the government into a non-political office; Mr. Hinks removed to another position; Mr. Small who accepted a Judgeship; Mr. Richards now on the bench; and Mr. Spence who had taken a Collectorship of Customs. the nine had voluntarily retired or had been driven into private life. These were Messrs. Baldwin, Price, Draper, Morrison, Rolf, MacNab, done, and Jno. H. Cameron. the only persons who remained of those who had been in official life in the Upper Canadian portion of the Government were Mr. Jas. Morris, Mr. Merritt, and Mr. Malcolm Cameron. What was the reason for this? Why, simply that these gentlemen got upon the Treasury Benches they deemed themselves compelled to act in a manner opposed to the views of their constituents, and that the position necessary to be assumed by persons who had carried out the existing arrangements between Upper and Lower Canada was not one, which any man could long desire to hold. It was this that made so many willing to accept offices with far less emolument, honour, or power, then those which attached to the executive council. Then in Lower Canada the following gentleman had accepted office, Messrs. Daly, Lafontaine, Morin, Day, Aylwin, Smith, Badgley, Chabot, Bourret. And Chaveau; and the following seven gentlemen had retired into private life, Messrs. Ogden, W. Morris, D. B. Papineau, D. B. Viger. Brudeau, L. M. Viger. And Young. was this state of things to be found in England, the United States, France, or any other country in the world? Was it anywhere else known that men would thus one after the other except office and go out of public life after only five or six years of service? Undoubtedly the explanation was to be found in the difficulties which now perpetually record between the two sections of the Province. A great many of these gentlemen had been driven into private life, because they found themselves unable to carry out the great questions desired by the people of Upper Canada. And this did not apply alone to the gentleman on the Treasury Benches. What had become of the host of members from Upper Canada who had supported the Government in the last Parliament? If you recollected rightly, there were seventeen of the supporters of the late Government, who were rejected at the hustings, simply because of their aid to a Ministry opposed to the desires of the people of Upper Canada—because they were ready on all occasions to vote down measures like the bill of the hon. member for Lambton. And just so sure as hon. members now record their votes in the same manner, just so sure will they on a future occasion receive the same verdict.

Mr. DUFRESNE—How will it be in Lower Canada?

Mr. BROWN—I suppose the gentleman means to say that if they did not act in this way they would be rejected by the Lower Canadians.

Hon. Mr. LORANGER—He means to say that in Lower Canada, everybody was rejected who was ever so little suspected of having followed the lead of the hon. member for Toronto.

Mr. BROWN—Suspected of having some leaning to Representation according to Population; the separation of Church and State; non-sectarian education.

A VOICE—Of being hostile to Roman Catholic institutions.

Mr. BROWN—Exactly. Now he called attention to the fact, to show what a farce it proved the Government of Upper Canada under the present system to be. Did the hon. member deny—did any men deny that and advocating his (Mr. Brown’s) principles, he truly represented the opinions of the people of Upper Canada? Did not those who constantly supported the Ministry, as constantly vote for those very principles? Did not the Bill he was then speaking in favour of, come from the other side of the House?

Hon. Mr. LORANGER—That does not answer my remark.

Mr. BROWN—No, it does not answer the hon. member’s remarks; but it does something better. It shows that the reason why the Lower Canadian members prefer the Upper Canadians who are now found with them, to those who were found with him (Mr. B), was not that they felt his (Mr. B’s) friends would not give up their principles, while the gentlemen on the other side were ready to do so for the sake of office. What did the hon. Secretary tell the House? That though his Upper Canadian supporters advocated this Bill, they were known to be friends to Lower Canada! Why, most of them were at the hustings no more friends of Lower Canada than himself. Even the Attorney General West, where he free from the official shackles which bound him, would be with the Opposition. The Postmaster General came in on Opposition principles, and when the hon. gentleman spoke that night, he would no doubt explain his views in favour of Representation by Population, Non-Sectarian schools, and against the connection between Church and State. He knew the opinions of gentlemen opposite, and that the only difference between them was as to the mode of carrying those opinions out. He and his friends declared they would affect what they professed a desire without regard to office; on the other side of the House, they said they would do so as soon as they could accomplish it without lose of office!—

CRIES of “Oh, oh.”

Mr. BROWN—Why, that act was undoubted. There were Lower Canadians in the House who did not scruple to say that they saw only this difference—that on the one side were men who would do what they said, and on the other, men who would not risk the loss of their offices to do anything—and therefore they would cling to the subservient section. He did not complain so much of the Lower Canadians, though he thought their conduct unjust; Because as the hon. Provincial Secretary had said, they had got their advantage and they meant to keep it. True, one might have hoped that they would take a higher stand, and would say, here are the two sections of the country brought together, placed upon the same Legislature,—we will make them one people, will give each the same rights as the other period true, they all regretted that course being taken by Lower Canadians; but what could they say to members from Upper Canada, when they sat by and heard the Provincial Secretary, whom they supported, say that he would never allow Upper Canada to have an equality with Lower Canada—that though possessed of a larger population, and though contributing vastly more money to the public treasury, Upper Canada should have no fair share in the Government, but that Lower Canadians would choose from that section whom they pleased for its Governors, and would select only such persons as would contend the man keep their own section in a state of inferiority. The hon. Provincial Secretary told the House distinctly that this was no question of time. He said in effect “we are told that Upper Canada possesses 400,000 people more than Lower Canada—I don’t believe it, but let her possess 500,000, 1,000,000, 2,000,000 more than Lower Canada we will always leave them in their present state of unjust reputation,”—and there sat the Upper Canadian colleagues of the hon. Secretary, saying nothing—objecting nothing to this argument which he laid down as something quite incontrovertible and never to be shaken! So long as a member of the government dare get up and thus openly declare that Upper Canadians are to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water to Lower Canada, so long it was plain that Upper Canada must look to her own representatives, and if there were not on this bill a strong declaration of opinion from Upper Canadian members, especially from those who usually supported the government, it would excite an intense indignation throughout the country. He could not help being surprised that the hon. Attorney General did not rise in protest against such sentiments, especially when he recollected that years ago that gentleman like every other man of note in this country, had declared himself in favour of the object of the present Bill.

Mr. DUFRESNE—We are not ruling Upper Canada.

Mr. BROWN—The hon. gentleman says he is not ruling Upper Canada. Mark, then, the hon. Inspector General sitting there and controlling the public treasury—has that hon. gentleman a single supporter in the House? He formerly represented one of the noblest constituencies in the country; but though he went up to it for re-election singing pœans of victory, he came back again rejected and glad to purchase a constituency. Every member from the Ottawa knew that this was true. The bribe was the Seat of Government. The hon. gentleman told the people that if the Opposition got into power the Seat of Government would never go to Ottawa, and he was elected on that ground. Then there was the hon. Postmaster General—had he a single supporter in that House? Would any man say that he got to his present position for his political standing or for his ability? No. No one would say so. The Government wanted someone to fill a vacancy and they took the only man who could secure a seat by the force of local interests. But did the hon. Postmaster General get in to support the principles of this Government? Did he get in to vote against the present Bill?

Hon. S. SMITH—Yes; to vote against this very Bill. I have it in black and white.

Mr. BROWN—Did not the hon. gentleman say that he would never vote against Representation according to Population, except it were moved as an amendment to the Speech from the Throne? True the hon. member put a limit to his declaration, for he said that while he (Mr. Brown) wanted to give the representation equally to all parties, he (Mr. S.) would not consent to put the refuse population of the towns on the same footing as the yeomanry of the country.

Mr. S. SMITH. Is not that in this Bill, (Cheers from the Ministerial side.)

Mr. BROWN expected that was the quibble? but he asked members from Lower Canada what the people of Upper Canada must think of such mean equivocation? here was a bill brought into effect the object to which the hon. member was pledged—no detail being settled and yet upon the quibble of a detail, the hon. member breaks his pledge. Did not Lower Canadians see that Upper Canadians must be shocked when they saw one of their representatives thus keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to the hope? This was the very same gentleman, who though he talked in that House of the no popery cry—who became an Orangeman in order to get elected—and said he wanted “no Dogan votes.” here in the resolution of an Orange Lodge passed in his favour. (Here the hon. member read a copy of a resolution passed at an Orange Lodge, in which the member agreed to support the Post Master General, because he was favourable to Representation according to Population.) If the hon. member had not given that pledge he would never have been here, and yet though he knew that when the Bill came on any necessary amendment would be accepted, here at the first reading he rejected it on a quibble about details. He asked the members from Lower Canada whether they believe the hon. member should act thus, if he were free from the shackles of office?

Hon. S. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. Yes! well if the Postmaster General said yes, there is not another person in the House who would so say. Everyone knew that he made his speeches on these subjects for the hon. Provincial Secretary. He had to do this or he would get into the black books of Lower Canada, and lose his office, and rather than do that he was willing to sell his country.

Hon. Mr. CARTIER. That’s rich!

Mr. FOLEY—That’s true.

Mr. BROWN recollected what took place at the hustings. He told the people that the hon. Postmaster General would go for Representation by Population as a principle; But that whenever it came up in the House, he would vote for the Government, and send it to the wall. He then said he would vote for Representation according to Population in the teeth of any Government, and I call on his colleague to say whether that is true or not.

Mr. CLARK said that the Postmaster General had declared he would vote for Representation according to Population in the face of any government; only not in an amendment to an answer to the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. BROWN—Of course the hon. gentleman did; and thus, as he had before declared, he gave a new occasion to the complaint that members of the government representing Upper Canada, we’re constantly setting the principles and interests of Upper Canada at defiance, in their desire to retain their places. Another member of the government was the hon. Jno. Ross. Would any one say that that gentleman had any support in that House or in the country? Why, he never had a constituency, nor one single sympathy in unison with the people of Upper Canada. He was only there because he was in the Upper House, and was therefore under no necessity of finding a constituency. Was it surprizing that Upper Canadians were dissatisfied, when they saw such men wielding the control of every thing in the country, and voting constantly against the wishes of their constituents? Aye, more, when they saw that after their constituents had sent them to Coventry, and returned others, the new members went through the same process. The moment they came to that House they were tempted to sacrificed their principles for the sake of the advantages which such a course bestowed, and they were taught that if they refused to do so they must continue indefinitely in the cold shade of Opposition. Members were induced to make some false step at first; then their constituents called on them for explanation; they were put on the defensive, and thus they went on sinning from day today, till they lost all hope of reconciliation, and finally all self-respect; and then begun a course of such disreputable transactions as we’re being constantly brought to light in that. Did the attorney general West get support from one man on account of his principles? Why who knew the hon. gentleman’s principles? There was indeed a time when, in all position, he had principles and stood manfully by them; but that time had ceased to be the moment he occupied his present post, and had become willing to sacrifice everything rather than incur what he unfortunately considered the dishonour of a retreat from office. Inconsequence of that position, the hon. gentleman was one day found voting to retain in his seat a man returned by three hundred fraudulent votes, and the next day sustaining the propriety of a transaction, in which $20,000 was paid for the purchase of a high an important office. It was lamentable to hear the highest officer of the crown thus contend that places of great trust might be put up for sale; but he asked if the hon. attorney general had been on his (Mr. Brown’s) side of the House, or if Upper Canada had been under a government of its own, whether he would have made so scandalous speech? Did he say that this purchase was a proper thing—that he would like to do it himself? No, he declared that he would consider the motion as a censure on himself, and he called on his followers to vote for the simple and noble purpose of keeping him in office a few weeks longer period this measure was not, therefore, as had been said a theoretical measure. It was a practical one period the hon. member for Cornwall thought that it would work no immediate cure for the evils which were complained of; but at any rate it would bring some hope for the future—it would tend to create a homogeneous people, and make us to feel that our law is cast together, and that it is desirable to remove the difficulties existing between the two sections. Nor did the only complaint arise from the fact that the views of the people of Upper Canada were not respected. Another series evil was the great increase of the public burdens rendered necessary by the wholesale system of bribery and corruption, such as no other country had ever seen, and such as the hon. gentleman on the Treasury Benches could never palliate, but on the plea of the necessity of their position. In 1854, the public debt was only half the amount to which it is reached last year. In 1853, the estimates of the predecessor of the present Inspector General we’re under £800,000, while they last year reached the amount of £1,550,000. had repudiation ever been heard of until the present government came into power? The hon. Attorney General looked surprised; but what was it but repudiation when corporations got rid of their liabilities, and when the finance minister permitted them to do so? There was the £125,000 which the hon. Postmaster General got for his town, was not that debt virtually repudiated?

Mr. SMITH—I did not get it at all. It was all before I was in Parliament.

Mr. BROWN—But the hon. member’s brother was in Parliament, and he himself was an active politician, and came into Parliament soon after to support Mr. Hincks’ Government. it was the same thing with Niagara, and Port Hope which had also repudiate it their liabilities, and every body knew that their debt was created like all the rest, only for purposes of corruption. Private parties had also been allowed to incur debts, and to retain the public money in their hands to speculate with, so long as they supported the Government. In the city of Quebec £90,000 was in that condition only because the people were always ready to support the gentleman opposite. All this arose from the fact that these gentlemen could not stand before the country on their principles or measures, and had to maintain themselves by indirect dealings with the representatives of the people and then beyond them with their constituents. He thought there was no one in the House, but must feel that the system lead directly to evils of the gravest character. How were these evils to be met? Some hon. members thought they might be cured by adopting the Double Majority. But in his opinion nothing could be more demoralizing than such a system. It would be impossible that the majority could coalesce with the minority on the other side. Such an arrangement would be worse than the one which prevailed; for it would involve the voting, by representatives, for one set of principles in Lower, and another in Upper Canada. Some person said that was not a necessary consequence; but he submitted that it was an impossibility; for the gentleman on the Treasury Benches kept their seats only because they ignored the views of the people of Upper Canada. If they would adopt Representation according to Population, the separation of Church and State, and a non-sectarian system of schools, undoubtedly they would be supported on that side of the House, at least till those measures should be carried out. The reason they were not sustained was that they did not represent Upper Canada; and if they resigned, and if gentlemen of the Opposition should step across the House, without meeting these questions in their arrangements, those who did so must either speedily resign their offices, or must place themselves exactly in the position of the gentleman who were now in office. He looked upon this theory as a mere “Will o’ the Wisp,” which, the moment it was sought to be enforced, would elude the grasp. Besides, he wanted something a great deal more secure and substantial. There was, of course, great excitement on this as so many other questions; but, after all, there was no necessity for going to war, since nothing unjust was required. The hon. member for Kamouraska even would not say—

Mr. CHAPAIS, as we understood, said he did not think that Lower Canada was in a minority of population.

Mr. BROWN—Then Why deny this demand? Did the hon. member mean to say that his race was unfit to compete with the Anglo-Saxons in the race of life upon fair terms, and that without special privileges they must succumb?

Mr. CHAPAIS—I do not.

Mr. BROWN—Then what ground does the hon. member take? Suppose that in Lower Canada the ministers had not the confidence of the people of their own section of the province—that the member for Vereberes, and the Commissioner of Crown Lands had not a supporter in the House—suppose that some of their colleagues had been hardly able to get into the House, and that they held principles opposed to more than one-half of their own section of the province, and by another half of their own supporters—suppose they had not been able to fill up the Solicitor Generalship for three months, because no one would take it, and that they were kept in their place solely by the help of the members of Upper Canada, having as the representative the hon. member for Kingston—in such a case would there not be an agitation in Lower Canada, such as has never been witnessed here?

Mr. CHAPAIS—We had the same thing for a long time in Lower Canada.

Mr. BROWN—That was in Lord Metcalfe’s time and was brought about by the tyranny of the Government of the day—by an improper exercise of executive power—not by the people themselves. The elections of 1844 were carried by fraud, and by the use of the most unblushing means Lord Metcalfe’s Government got a majority in their favour. But mark! Did the people of Upper Canada approve of it? Did they not sustain the views of the people of Lower Canada? (Hear, hear.) They did; and what was the result? Why, at the very next election, the people sent a majority from both sections of the Province in favour of the Reformers. (Hear, hear.) The gentlemen who sat in the House at the time he had referred to got possession of their seats by double returns and by quibbles about qualifications, and those men and the men who now wrongly held their seats in the present Parliament were the same. But there was no further analogy between the two cases. The men who now came to the House impugned the principles which they professed at the polls. They found such men as the hon. member for South Lanark (Colonel Playfair) voting systematically for those very measures which at the polls he denounces his opponent for advocating. (Hear, hear.) What made them act thus? Simply a desire to support the Administration of the day—they forgot their pledges and sustained the Government. (Hear, hear.) Then, the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Ferguson) came there professedly in favour of Representation by Population, and of all those principles which the people of Upper Canada hold dear; and yet he sustained the Administration by whom these principles were ignored. Then, too, the hon. member for the city of London at the hustings held views as sound as those maintained by any man upon Upper Canadian principles—not principles of a partizan character, but principles upon which the people of Upper Canada were almost unanimously united—and though he had hitherto supported the Government, he (Mr. B) hoped he would to-night come forward like a man and maintain by his votes those great principles which he had always professed. The Postmaster General might endeavour to get rid of these questions by quibbles and evasion; but the day would come, and could not long be delayed, when the representatives of Upper Canada could be united in carrying out the principles which were now contended for by the Opposition members from Upper Canada. They had been asked whether Representation by Population would be a cure for the existing evils. He wished hon. gentleman to understand that it would be a cure for many of these evils. But if it came down to this—that this motion was voted down; the next course to be pursued would be to make change in the constitution. The question then arose, what change of the constitution would secure that which Upper Canada demanded an give that security to Lower Canada which they insisted upon. He had never said that he would not consider any proposal that might be made; but he really believed that if the representatives of Lower Canada voted down Representation by Population to-night, and to-morrow preceded to inquire into the best means of relieving the country from the position in which she now stood, they would find that no change would be so advantageous or effectual as that of granting Representation by Population. It were far better that they swept away the division altogether than to adopt any other system that could be devised for removing the difficulties under which the country labobred [sic]. the Provincial Secretary had said that if the Opposition prevailed, they would sweep away the religious institutions of Lower Canada; but he defied the hon. gentleman to mention a single motion, speech, or vote, of a member on that side of the House which went beyond this, that the only way they could hope to get along was by not allowing religious stripes to come up in the Legislature. They said that religion was far too sacred a thing for a Legislature to interfere with—that every man should be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and that religious institution should not be allowed to come there an ask for public money. [Hear, hear.]

Mr. TURCOTTE—They never did.

Mr. BROWN—The hon. gentleman cannot be ignorant of the fact that their religious institutions of Lower Canada annually get large sums of money from the public chest.

Mr. TURCOTTE—They are not religious institutions.

Mr. BROWN—Hon. gentlemen Might call them what they pleased—if they were not religious institutions, they were institutions for nursing and fostering religious prejudices. Let not the public monies be granted to uphold the religious tenets of any denomination; but, when they met in the House, act for the general benefit of the country. The people of Upper Canada had not the slightest wish to deny one advantage to the Lower province; but they strongly desire to protect themselves from Lower Canadian encroachments upon their rights. He would refer to one or two remedies which had been suggested to remove the causes of discontent which now prevailed. There was the proposal originally made by the hon. member for Montreal; and it was this—that if Lower Canada would not submit to Representation by Population under our present constitution, the country should be divided into two, three, or four provinces, with the Legislature, elected on the principle of Representation by Population, to act for the country generally—the right being reserved to each section to manage its own local affairs. He was prepared to consider that, although he did not by any means think that when the advantages of two systems—this system and the system proposed in the bill now under discussion—were compared, it would be found nearly as good as that now contended for. Still, rather than continuing their present degraded condition, he was sure the people of Upper Canada would adopt such a system as he had referred to. Then a proposal was made to unite the British North American provinces; whilst another party were decidedly in favor of a disillusion of the union at once. He would admit that he was not one of this latter party, though he must confess that a large number of members from Upper and Lower Canada, and sitting on both sides of the house, were in favor of the dissolution of the union. [“Hear, hear,” and “no, no.”] He regretted to say it, but he feared it was so; and this feeling appeared to have arisen from the belief that there was no other way of getting over the evils to which the country was now subjected. Whilst saying this, he was bound to aid that the members in favor of a dissolution, were far less in proportion to their numbers then the people out of doors. The yeoman of the country had lately come to the conclusion that there was no other mode by which the difficulties which had arisen could be set at rest; and their representatives found a very difficult indeed to restrain the people of the country in their anxious desire for dissolution of the Union. [Hear, hear.] But he apprehended that if the advantage which might accrue from the Union, if the inhabitants of both sections could become a homogeneous people, were looked too, it would be admitted that it would be far better to yield Representation by Population and for the provinces to remain united. Representation by Population must come; And it was impossible to continue voting it down by a large majority from Lower Canada, and a small party minority from Upper Canada. It was one of the first duties of the government to grapple with the question in a manner worthy of statesmen, before it got beyond their control, and they were obliged to yield to the clamorous demands of the people period of this he was quite certain, that if the Bill which had now been presented by the hon. member for Lambton—defective as it was in its details, but which defects could be amended in its passage through the House—were thrown out by the votes of the Upper Canadians who had been returned to support it, there would prevail a state of excitement in the country such as we had never witnessed, and such as he feared to contemplate. [Hear, hear.] The Wishes of the people ought to be can curd in by the people’s representatives, and it was a dangerous thing to drive the community to a conviction that their constitution did not afford them protection from wrong and injustice, and did not enforce their wishes constitutionally expressed. The people were even now more excited upon this subject then upon any other, and if their representatives did not now grapple with the difficulty, they would soon find themselves in a position which would prevent their acting in the same temperate way they could now follow. Let it not be considered that this matter was got up for a party purpose the advocates of the measure had no such purpose. Did they think that if the Opposition were desirous of a crossing over to the other side and of sharing in the trappings of office, they could not take assure course than they were now pursuing? The way in which the hon. gentleman opposite got into their seats was as clear as a line chalk down the middle of that chamber would be. The Opposition had seen the way in which hon. gentleman for years had got onto the Treasury Benches, and the reason they had not followed was because they felt they could not in honor pursue the course taken by the hon. gentlemen—because they felt that if they did so, it must be at the sacrifice of their principles, and by renouncing those reforms for which the people of Upper Canada had so long and so earnestly contended. (Hear, hear.) It was to the triumph of these principles that they had pledged themselves—it was for that they had nailed their colours to the mast—and certainly they would not now abandon their convictions and prove false to the people by whom they were elected. Hon. gentleman opposite from Upper Canada might not now express themselves as strongly as they choose in favor of Representation by Population; but if they professed views for 20 years, and they trembled to turn out the administration, they would never obtain the justice they demanded. Let those hon. gentleman do their duty to the country, and Representation by Population would be no longer denied. Let them rise up and say that the people of Upper Canada demand Representation by Population, and are determined to have it; That they will no longer support the administration unless the principles be conceded. Let them say that they will cross the chamber to-morrow if such a change be not made as will secure to Upper Canada Representation by Population, and, my word for it, their demand will be at once conceded. (Hear, hear.)

(To be continued.)