Document Information

Date: 1858-06-28
By: Province of Canada (Parliament), The Globe
Citation: “Provincial Parliament”, The Globe (30 June 1858).
Other formats:

Provincial Parliament.

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

(Reported for the Globe.)

MONDAY, June 28th.

(Continued.)

REPRESENTATION BY POPULATION

According to the rules of the House for Monday’s mode of proceeding the next order to be taken up was the adjourned debate on hon. Mr. Cameron’s motion for the first reading of the Bill relative to Representation.

Mr. GALT thought it was now too late (nine o’clock) to proceed with so important to subject. He would suggest that the remainder of the evening be devoted to private business.

Mr. BROWN Said the reason of the hon. members little “sifflication” was that he had his Grand Trunk Bill only three or four items forward. (Laughter.) he thought the House could not pass over the order for the adjourned debate on Mr. Cameron’s Bill.

Mr. DUNKIN moved that this order be passed over, and item 39 taken up.

Hon. Mr. SICOTTE Thought this subject should not be taken up in so thin a House. A day should be fixed for the discussion, and a call of the House ordered. In suggesting this, he was not expressing the opinion of the Government, but his own opinion.

Mr. BROWN Hoped the hon. member for Lambton would not give up his privilege. Why had the proposition for a call of the House not being made earlier? He did not believe they could have a better House this session than they had to-night.

Mr. DUNKIN said that, if time was to be occupied with a discussion of his motion, he would withdraw it, with the consent of the House.

Mr. ROBINSON Hope to the hon. member would not be allowed to withdraw the motion. Why was not the Bill press the other night, when they were already to discuss it? To-morrow was a holiday, and many members therefore were absent to-night. It would not be fair to them or to the question itself to proceed with the discussion this evening.

Hon. MALCOLM CAMERON was astonished at the motion of Mr. Dunkin, and especially at the order which he proposed to substitute for this, which hon. Mr. Sicotte called a very important motion. He hoped it would be withdrawn, and if it were not, he should compare the order supposed to be substituted, with every other notion on the paper.

Atty. Gen. CARTIER said that the thing might be discussed on Wednesday.

Hon. Mr. CAMERON said That it must be remembered that this Bill had been meant by a proposal to throw it out on the first meeting. That was not a way to gain the confidence of those who, on a very important question, desire to have their views spread before the country. He hoped that the motion would be withdrawn, for otherwise he must hold that those who voted for it, did so to prevent fair enquiry. There were forty-eight members on the opposition side, and the Bill would certainly bring several more. Besides, the debate could hardly be concluded that evening. He held that representation ought to be based on the numerical strength of the people and nothing else, and it remained to be seen by what argument, as The thing is so universally admitted to be correct, it could be a post, and how the people could be constantly taxed without that representation, which lay at the basis of taxation. He had refrained from entering into many of the arguments which he would have liked to employ, because he did not believe that it was possible the host could behave with so much disrespect to the wishes of a very large part of the people of the country; and he should certainly take every opportunity of showing his resentment, whether the Bill were rejected on the first reading or thrown out on emotion like this.

Mr. FERRES, believing the present Bill to be one that might be very properly discussed, would vote against the motion and for the first reading.

Mr. THIBAUDEAU moved in amendment to the amendment, that No. 39 be erased and No. 2 (the Double Majority) be inserted.

Mr. LANGEVIN hopes that neither the question of Representation by Population nor that of the Double Majority would be taken up. The House must rise at 12 o’clock, as the next day was a holiday; and two hours and a half would do nothing on these questions, while it would do much for Private Bills.

Mr. THUBADEAU would withdraw his motion if the member for Lambton would do so too.

Mr. DUNKIN Press the same considerations on the House. No division could be taken.

Mr. BROWN said He thought there might be.

Atty. Gen. CARTIER said that 20 Members, who were absent, from Lower Canada, we’re altogether opposed to the principle of the Bill, which was said to be that of basing Representation on Population only. Lower Canada to a man was opposed to that plan, and was it probable that such members as were present in the House would allow a division while their numbers were so small? The debate had already lasted a long time; only ten persons had spoken, and there were 30 members from Lower Canada who meant to speak.

Mr. BROWN said that on his side of the host they had always been insisting that there never was so factious a Ministry as the present, and now they were proving it, for the hon. Provincial Secretary said that they would take care not to allow the House to divide till 30 members had spoken. But he would point out to the House that one of the next Bills was the Grand Trunk Bill, which would take a great deal of discussion.

Atty. Gen. CARTIER—No.

Mr. BROWN—Oh, the hon. member is Solicitor to the Company; but we have not all been fed. Mr. Brown continued to say that he saw no reason in the world why Bill should not be rejected on the first reading, if gentlemen were thoroughly determined not to allow any legislation at all.

Mr. LABERGE thought the most convenient plan would be to withdraw the opposition to the first reading, and let the Bill go through to the second reading. The best way to treat such subjects was to discuss them fairly.

Mr. OIMON hoped the hon. member for Port-neuf would not withdraw his motion, but that the Double Majority would be discussed till midnight.

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON defended his opposition to the first reading of the Bill on the ground that when the majority thought no legislation should take place on a Bill, it should not allow it to be read even a first time.

Hon. Mr. MERRITT thought this was a strange doctrine. How did the hon. member know what was in the Bill?

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON—What do I care?

Hon. Mr. MERRITT conceived that as a matter of courtesy the Bill ought to be ready first time.

Hon. M. CAMERON said That when at the beginning of the session he had introduced his Bill in the usual way, he was met by the rejection of his motion on the ground that the Bill was in blank. That was the first instance of a system of annoyance and obstruction with which the measure was Matt, and he thought that such a course would not be found to be very statesmanlike. If the motion in amendment were put, he and his friends must move motion after motion until he could get it brought up.

The motions were then withdrawn.

Mr. JOHN CAMERON then preceded to move an amendment to the amendment, as follows:—that this host resolved that the decenninal census, which must be taken in January 1861, will, in the opinion of this House rendered necessary or readjustment of the representation in in the Assembly, and that this should have for its basis Representation according to Population, without regard to any dividing line. In supporting this amendment, the hon. member said—I beg, Sir, to offer to this House as an amendment to this amendment, of the hon. member for Montmorenci this motion which I have had standing up on the notice paper for the past four months, without a proper opportunity for bringing it up; and conceiving that this may be the only opportunity which may now be offered me, during this session, I beg to avail myself of it, to introduce it. I feel, Sir, that my hon. friend for Lambton has in some respect taken advantage of me, by bringing up his Bill upon this question, which he did after it had been well understood by this hon. House and the whole question should come up for discussion after that of the Double Majority had been finally got through with period I believe, however, that my hon. friend was as much astonished as any one at the reception his motion met with, and the discussion thereupon, by my hon. friend the Provincial Secretary, who met it so warmly, shewing that in his opinion it was wholly unworthy of holding a place in our Statute Book, and he was therefore determined to check it at its inception. Seeing that it is a question that has occupied the attention of so large a portion of the people of Upper Canada, I thought at the time and think so still, that the hon. the Provincial Secretary was to precipitate in refusing even an introduction of the Bill. At the beginning of this session I took an opposite course to that pursued by the hon. the senior member for Toronto, with regard to this question. That hon. gentleman took a course, as he takes on every occasion, and on any measure, however much he may profess to considered essential for the good welfare of the country—he imagined the chance was so good one, and therefore he determined to try it at once am dash to oust the Ministry upon it, by bringing it up in amendment to the speech from the Throne, and get himself placed in the position his whole aim and object is to acquire—a seat on the Treasury Benches. To this object, with that hon. gentleman everything else is secondary, as he began to show up on Representation by Population; and to attain it I think that this House, as well as the whole country has now seen he does not stand upon trifles. If this question, (Representation by Population) was really considered by that hon. gentleman as one of the first importances, he would have taken, I think, the course I took, and have brought it up in a substantive motion in order to secure the support of every member of the House who had pledged himself in favour of it, on whatever side of the House he may sit. I trust now, however, that we shall have a strong vote upon it, and I shall be quite satisfied if we have a mere acknowledgement of the principle, as my motion seeks; But should it fail I shall give my support to my hon. friends Bill, as I should do to any other Biller motion which may come up in a substantive form. It is a question, Sir, of so much importance to the country, that I think of Bill, to settle it properly, cannot be hastily adopted, nor can the principle be carried out before the next census is taken, and then between this and that period of proper an well defined measure will be carried through parliament to give to this great and growing country affair, right and equitable representation, irrespective of a sectional division of territory, or of race, or of creed. It has been stated, Sir, by hon. gentleman from the Eastern section of the Province, when the question was before under discussion, that to force it upon them would be to shew a desire on our part to dissolve the Union of these noble Provinces. But, Sir, I have declared on my own behalf, that this is the furthest from my desire. Far be it for me, Sir, to do one act I would conscientiously believe would have a tendency to weaken the ties which bind us in one; for I sincerely believe, that as a progressive and prosperous people, “united we stand—divided we fall.” are geographical position—our trade—our commerce, and every point, political and commercial considered which now unites us, forbids a separation. I therefore humbly trust, Sir, that no hon. gentleman will for one moment entertain an idea that this question is meant as a measure of hostility towards my hon. friends from Lower Canada, for it is from that spirit that I now place it for consideration before this hon. House. I offer it in peace, and with the most friendly feeling that is possible to be entertained, believing, as I do, it to be the one question more likely to produce the greatest amount of future peace and political contentment to the country at large, than any other that could be brought forward. I, therefore, beseech hon. gentleman from both sections of the Province to pause before hastily rejecting the proposition now humbly submitted for their consideration, as thus to reject it may bring evils upon us which every well high open Witcher of this country would deeply regret. Let me be understood, Sir, that whilst I am recommending population as being a basis of representation, I am neither an advocate for, or and admire of vote by ballot or universal suffrage. No, Sir, there are other interests to be cared for and protected, then the mere wants of a country and rightly adjusting the true representation of a people. But while I contend that the interests of members ought not to be only influence, or the predominating influence, in the representation, I may be allowed to use the word of a late authority upon this subject, ([Illegible] on Representation) when he states: “I am [illegible] from contending that it ought not to have [illegible] , or that that influence should not be extensive. I am not for depriving the mob of all power, though I am resolute in dethroning him. I trust that he may be allowed to exercise his fierce way, but I never will consent to [illegible] him into a despot.” but while this motion, sister, has been termed by some hon. members opposite by that trite and expressive term, a “[illegible] motion,” I presume that hon. gentlemen when they thus spoke of it, we’re measuring my accent principles by the standard which governs their own, and hence I forgive them of the belief that I was guilty of doing that which they themselves might not hesitate to do, viz., placing emotion before this hon. House upon a question that they neither believed in or had any desire to carry out. I tell those hon. gentlemen, however, when they have known me they will find that they have made, on this occasion, a false calculation, and measured me by a wrong standard. I have been charged, also, with a desire to defeat the measure, by the delay in taking the census which my motion recommends, in order to save the Ministry. This assumption is equally incorrect in both particulars, for I hold it to be essentially necessary that do time be given for taking the census, to have it just and fair to all; and meanwhile, after the adoption of this principle by the House, a carefully and well digested Bill should be brought into, and carried through parliament, and that the law upon which should come into immediate operation on the declaration of the decennial census, at the time designated in my motion. I therefore disclaim the intention attributed to me to defeat the measure, and hope that hon. gentlemen, in discussing the question, will calmly and dispassionately consider the whole bearings of it up on the piece, harmony, and future good government of this country. In Great Britain, for some time past, this question of Representation and Parliamentary Reform, has occupied the attention of the people in their representative; but, Sir, every member of the British Parliament who was spoken upon it, has not failed to show the difficulties which beset the question, and the time requisite to properly consider and reconcile those difficulties, and mature a fit and proper measure for the country. Are we then, sister, more fit and able to hastily mature a measure of this kind than they are in the mother country? I say we’re not, and I would urgently recommend hon. gentlemen to pause before adopting the hasty legislation that we here ever seemed to be so very fond of, upon a question of this magnitude. in moving this question, I would not express a desire to deprive one person, city, or country, of the liberty of the franchise which they now enjoy; but I would, when the census is taken, give to either section of the Province, whether it was due to East or West, the greater number of representatives, which showed, unequivocally, that it possessed the majority of inhabitants. This principle being admitted at the correct one upon which representation shall be based, no one, with reason or justice, should have right complain. At all events, I contend it to be the only true principle upon which this country can be rightly and peaceably governed, and I hope that all parties will fairly consider before rejecting it. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, with these few remarks, beg leave to submit to this hon. House the motion now in my hand, and to solicit for it a favourable reception.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH said That after the attacks which had been so repeatedly made against himself in the Government to which he belonged, it became necessary for him to enter upon the defence of his position. It had been said that he was elected on the principles of the opposition. That he denied, and if the views of the member for Toronto were to be taken as the exponents of his party, he thought he could prove from documentary evidence that he was elected on no such principles. At his election in December he had made a speech from the report of which he would now read. First, the hon. member for Toronto had declared that he would vote want of confidence in the Government. He had distinctly declared that he would not, and had asked Mr. Burnham whether he would give a different pledge. Then the hon. member for Toronto had declared himself to be in favour of the immediate abolition of Separate Schools. Well, he said that he would adhere to the opinions put forth by Mr. Cayley in addressing his electors; and the effect of these opinions was to maintain the present school system. yet when he voted to maintain that system the other night, he had been greeted with ironical cheers, as if he had broken his pledge. The only thing upon which he differed from his opponent, was the Maine Liquor Law, for which he had promised to vote if it came up. He had also pledged himself to vote for the incorporation of the Orange Society, and on that too he had kept his pledge. As to the question before the chair he had said: “on the question of Representation according to Population, I will enlighten you a little. Wide mouthed demagogues band for this measure. that it is justice to Upper Canada is clear as the sun; but the towns are increasing faster than the country, and without proper safeguards they might assume a dangerous influence over the rural districts. If they make the laws, they may take the duty off tea and sugar and then the whole taxation must come on the farmer of the country, and it would not be by direct taxation that the public works must be maintained. When the question of Representation by Population came up in reference to the other House, I voted against it, because I looked at the constitution of the United States and saw that Rhode Island had as great representation in the Senate as the State of New York, and because it is dangerous to tamper with the constitution.” he also told the people to look at Montreal with 70,000 inhabitants, which was as large as the counties of Victoria, Durham and Northumberland. He had also explained his votes on the incorporation of religious societies, which he intended always to follow up in the same way. Those were the views he had enunciated in December, and at the next election he had declared that he had changed none of his views. The hon. member for Toronto had read a resolution passed at an Orange Lodge, declaring that he (Mr. Smith) was in favour of Representation according to Population, and he would stand by that that day, but if the Bill of the member for Lambton were that day before the House for a third reading, he could not vote for it, because it would give the cities of preponderance over the rural constituencies. His position had never been misunderstood, for the hon. Crown Lands Commissioner In his speech on the dress had stated that Upper Canadian ministers were in favour of Representation according to Population; but that every member from Lower Canada was against it. Lower Canada would not concede the question at present; nor would she ever concede it, when it was brought forward as an attempt to overthrow her nationality and religion. Yet that was the way in which it was always brought forward by the hon. member for Lambton. He was in favour of preserving that nationality and religion, and that was why he had voted for equality of representation in the Legislative Council. He believed that equality was the only safeguard for Lower Canada, and that was why he would always vote to maintain it. He had been elected three times, and always on that principle. But now he wanted to call the attention of hon. gentlemen from the eastern part of Upper Canada to this fact—that the division line between the parts of Canada West were just West of his country from Northumberland. Before the increase of the representation that part of Upper Canada had nineteen members out of forty-two. now it had only twenty-one members against forty-four, and the effect of adopting the views of the hon. member for Toronto would be to please the Eastern part of Upper Canada as much under the heel of the western part, as it would place Lower Canada under the heel of Upper Canada. The Commissioner of Crown Lands had stated it was a geographical question, as regarded Upper and Lower Canada. Still more was it a geographical question between the Eastern and Eastern sections of Upper Canada. the member for Toronto treated this question to suit his own purposes. Whenever the hon. gentleman spoke of Upper Canada, he always meant the Western Peninsula of Upper Canada, and his one Solon only object was that the western portion of Upper Canada should override the eastern section of Upper Canada, and the whole of Lower Canada. He (Mr. Smith) wished to defeat that object. He was sorry the member for Toronto was not present at the beginning of his speech.

Mr. BROWN—I will read it carefully to-morrow morning.

Mr. SMITH went On to say that he should be prepared to advocate the interests of the eastern section of Upper Canada, against the attempt of the member for Toronto to place it under the heel of the Western Section. In advocating Representation by Population Ain other questions, the members of the opposition took this ground—in the first place, that Upper Canada was under the heel of Lower Canada; that Upper Canada paid most of the taxes, and Lower Canada got most of the money; and in the second place that Upper Canada was ruled by the religious prejudices of the French. But what was the fact? If they added the Lower Canada Anglo-Saxon members who supported the Government to the Upper Canada members, the Government had a clear majority of persons not a French origin. And it was absurd to say that 90 members of Anglo-Saxon origin could be governed by 40 members of French origin.

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON—Are you an Anglo-Saxon? I understood you were an Irishman.

Hon. Mr. SMITH said That the member for Montmorenci might be taken for anything that was outlandish. He could not avoid making impertinent and rude remarks.

Mr. CAUCHON was Not aware that he had said anything offensive to call forth such language.

Mr. SMITH said He was willing to stand responsible for his language here or elsewhere. (Oh! oh.) As regarded religion, was it to be supposed that 30 Protestants could be ruled by 50 belonging to a different religion? He thought the French members had always given disinterested in patriotic votes where the Protestant religion was concerned; as for instance when they voted for the incorporation of the Upper Canada Bible Society. It had been said that he had pledged himself to vote for Representation by Population. He had never denied that fact. It would be disgraceful, not only to himself but to the Government of which he was a member, if he were to take a contrary course. It was perhaps of little importance to the country whether he continued a member for the Government for a week or for a month, but it was of importance that public men should not first make declarations and then break them. But he would not advocate the principle in anyway offensive to the Lower Canadians. the member for Toronto had declared that he would rather see the Union severed then that this principle should not be carried out. He (Mr. Smith) on the other hand, rather than the Union should be sacrificed, would vote against Representation by Population in every shape. His principle was anything, everything, rather than a Dissolution of the Union. it had been said that he had pledged himself at his election, that, if the Government would not go for Representation by Population, and again Separate Schools, he would leave them. He had given no such pledge. And when the Commissioner of Crown Lands stated that the members of the Government from Upper Canada were in favour of Representation by Population, and those from Lower Canada were against it, it would be seen that he (Mr. Smith) had not gone into Government under false colours.

Mr. BROWN—What is the use of your colours?

Mr. SMITH said the use he made for his colours was to stand up for them. He was not like the hon. member for Toronto, who had said, that under all circumstances he would go for doing away with the Sectarian School clause, and the other night told the House, that if the Lower Canadians would not interfere with the school system he would leave it as it was.

Mr. BROWN—No! No!

Mr. SMITH went On to repeat that he would only go for Representation by Population, on condition of it being accompanied by proper safeguards.

Mr. BROWN—Are You to vote for Mr. Cameron’s motion?

Mr. SMITH said That, if the Bill stood for a third reading in its present shape, he would vote against it, as it was directly contrary to the principle he had enunciated. The member for Toronto had been kind enough to say the other night that he (Mr. Smith) had no followers in this House, and had brought no strength to the Government. He was willing to admit that. He regretted to say that he had brought no vote to the assistance of the Government but his own. The hon. gentleman added that the Inspector General also had no following. That too might be true. But he went further and said the Attorney General West had no principle—that the Inspector General and Postmaster General had no interest or influence, and that the Attorney General had no principle. How was it that the Attorney General, who had no principle, could divide Upper Canada with the hon. member? How had he been able to do so little against a Government which had no principle? How great and good a man must be the Attorney General if, with no political principle, he could command the support of nearly the whole of Lower Canada, and had add his back 30 good men from Upper Canada besides! He had enlisted under the Attorney General’s banner, and trusted that he had a proper appreciation of his noble qualities. The gentleman in this House might sneer at him for want of influence, and though he had been sneered at for his language, yet he never should regret that he took service under the Attorney General West. He did not join the Government without a proper consideration of the responsibility of so doing. The hon. member for Toronto told his (Mr. Smith’s) constituents that by joining the Government he (Mr. Smith) would prevent the opposition from getting the Treasury Benches for four years; and now the hon. gentleman told the House that he had neither influence nor power. It was true that he never had any power. He followed the Government when he thought it was right, and opposed it when he thought it was wrong. He had taken service under the Attorney General, and so long as he chose to retain him, so long would he be a loyal and zealous servant. He never would betray him, and he trusted that up to this hour he had not been unfaithful in his discharge of his duties. (Question!) He would not detain the House a moment longer, because hon. members on the other side we’re dealing with him as they dealt with other hon. members—they were not disposed to give him fair play. (Cries of “On no” and “Dispense.”) Well, he would dispense. He had been charged with violating his pledges. Would hon. gentlemen afford him an opportunity of proving what he purposed doing before branding him as a traitor?

Mr. BROWN desired to offer an explanation as to what he said on the school question the other night.

Hon. Mr. SMITH—It was not reported.

Mr. BROWN presumed that the hon. gentleman only read the Ministerial papers, in which he (Mr. Brown) was very seldom reported. What he said on the occasion referred to, was, that so far a Separate Schools had already gone they were no great practical evil in the country, but they were a practical evil in the towns; and he went on to shew that it was utterly impossible that they could remain as they are. He shewed that there was no safe locus standi but by sweeping them away altogether. He entirely in fully maintained the views he had ever held on this question.

Mr. LANGEVIN said that this question was urged to make Upper Canada the master of the Province, and Lower Canada the servants period now, the Lower Canadians never would be the servants of Upper Canadians, and that was the sentiment of all Lower Canadians, no matter what their origin. It was the question of life and death for Lower Canadians, and they were all united. The question was made of the figures; but the figures had not been properly considered. It was true that the census gave a majority of 65,000 souls to Upper Canada. He protested against those figures, for the numbers in many places in Lower Canada, had not been properly given. Thus in one county of Dorchester, the population was set down at 43,000, while the numbers ought to have exceeded 50,000. And at Quebec coma whole streets were left out of the census. It was quite otherwise in Upper Canada, where they had swelled the numbers in some cases by taking into the account immigrant trains, which happened to be found in any of the villages. The city of Quebec, besides the population within its limits, had a great number of people who had overflowed the limits, and which if included, would make 75,000 persons. Within the limits there were at least 55,000 persons. Toronto had 42,000 persons. But the school returns of this two cities were sufficient to show that the population in Quebec must be a fairly set down, much in excess of that shown by the senses. The hon. member contended on a question of this kind it was absurd to think of taking a vote except after the fullest consideration, and after a call of the House. He preceded to compare the senses of the female and male population in Upper and Lower Canada, with A view to show discrepancies which threw doubt on the returns. Again, the emigration which so much swelled the population of Upper Canada was not constant but accidental, and would be checked by the improvement taking place in Ireland, and by immigration to Australia; And as to the national augmentation it is well known that it was relatively inferior in Upper Canada to that of Lower Canada. In 1857 the increase of males in Upper Canada was 16,916 persons; and in Lower Canada, 18,626 persons—a difference of 3000, which by its multiplication in 10 years, would give 30,000, which was half the whole of the present access of population in Upper over Lower Canada period of females the increase in 1857 was in Upper Canada 18,965, and in Lower Canada 18,113; multiplying this by the natural increase in 10 years, and adding it to the increase in males, as he had already shown, Upper Canada would be in a minority. In proof of this he read certain figures from the census tables, showing the difference between the deaths and births in 1857. It was said that the immigration would continue; because it might; but, it was not probable that it would do so in the same proportion, and it was certain that in Lower Canada the increased by immigration for future years has not been greater than before the census.

Mr. BROWN—why not grant Representation according to Population, then?

Mr. LANGEVIN—Because it is unjust in itself. The hon. member then went into some other calculations to show that in Upper Canada the people did not marry as rapidly as in Lower Canada; also that the numbers could not have been properly taken. The fact was that the inhabitants of Lower Canada were afraid of being taxed, and would not give their numbers. Was it upon such doubtful grounds as this, therefore, the Lower Canada should consent to a measure which would ruin her? It was said, indeed, that Upper Canada would do no injustice to Lower Canada; but if that the House had a good specimen on the school law the other day, and it was clear that Lower Canada could, therefore, never submit to the change period at the Union, Upper Canada was in a great minority, yet in equality of representation was secured to her, and that must be preserved. Indeed the people generally were in favour of justice, for the people were just; but nevertheless the people of Upper Canada had at the last election sent to parliament unjust men, with the attempt to force their views upon Lower Canada. He was as much in favour of the Double Majority as anyone; but he would not put a knife into his own heart, and warned the members from Upper Canada who contended for this injustice, that none of them, so long as they menaced Lower Canada, would ever find themselves on the Ministerial side of the House. At the Union, he repeated, that equality was established between the two Provinces. The Lower Canadians had never complained of it. They had accepted an would accept it as a fait accompli; but if the passions of Upper Canada should carry them so far as someday to induce them to say “let us break free from the compact,” Lower Canada would repeat also, “let us break the compact.” Messrs. Chauveau, Papineau and Baldwin had once voted for Representation by Population; but he did not believe that they had done so for the purpose either of giving Upper Canada or Lower Canada a majority in the legislature. But what was remarkable, was that on that occasion, the hon. member for Toronto and the hon. member for Lambton, alike voted against the motion. He could not understand how it was possible that the hon. member for Lambton could now vote for this measure, and especially how the hon. member could have attempted to bring forward the motion when so many Lower Canadians were away, to vote them down. He believed the hon. member was one of the best man in the world; but the best would sometimes err.

The host then at midnight adjourned, till Wednesday (Tuesday being the holiday of St. Peter and St. Paul.)