Document Information

Date: 1864-05-19
By: Province of Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Province of Canada, Parliament, Scrapbook Debates, 8th Parl, 2nd Sess, 1864 at 152-156.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

THURSDAY, May 19th, 1864.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at three o’clock.

After the presentation and reading of petitions and other routine business—

RUSSELL ELECTION COMMITTEE.

On motion of Hon. Mr. ROSE, leave was granted to the Russell Election Committee to adjourn until Wednesday next, 25th inst.

ESSEX ELECTION.

Mr. DUNKIN said he was not in the House at the Report on the Essex Election case was read, but he observed it contained very strong representations as to the conduct of the Returning Officer, Deputy Returning Officer and Poll Clerk, and he wished to know if it was the intention of the Government to take nay action in the matter. It did not seem to him (Mr. D.) to compact with the dignity of the House that after the Committee had reported in the way it did, that no action should be taken on the subject.

Hon. Mr. CARTIER had not yet read the Report, nor had he listened to it attentively when being read. He would take communication of the Report between this and to-morrow, and look into the matter.

Hon. J. S. MACDONALD was very glad to find that this matter would receive the attention of the Government; and that the Committee had had the courage to bring before this House the alleged offences of the parties named in the Report. It was time the House should mark its disapprobation in some way of the acts alleged to have been committed in this case.

Hon. J. A. MACDONALD said that the Committee had done their duty in directing the attention of Parliament to this matter. In England the practice was for the Committee, through their chairman, to follow it by by motion. He was understood, in conclusion, to say that the action would of course devolve upon the Government in this case.

Mr. DUNKIN said that he had thought it right to direct the attention of the Government to this subject; but in doing so he had no political or partizan feeling.

RETURNS.

Hon. Mr. SIMPSON laid on the table a number of returns, among which were documents relating to the Provincial Buildings at Ottawa; and the correspondence between the Government and the contractors for the said buildings.

UNPAID BALANCES.

Hon. Mr. ROSE moved for an address to His Excellency  the Governor General for a statement of the balances remain unpaid on the 31st day of December last, of the appropriations previously made by any act of the Legislature, distinguishing the act under which any sum remaining unpaid is authorized to be expended, and for what service.—Carried.

VOLUNTEER ARMS AND ACCOUTREMENTS.

Hon. Mr. ROSE moved for an address to His Excellency the Governor General for a statement of the arms and accoutrements at the disposal of the Government, furnished but the Imperial authorities for the use of the militia and volunteers of this Province.—Carried.

Representation by Population

The next order of the day was for resuming the adjourned debate on George Brown’s [Oxford South] motion for the appointment of a Committee on the subject of a certain despatch transmitted to the Colonial Office by Hon. Messrs. Cartier, Galt and Ross, in 1859, relative to the difficulties between the two sections of the Province.

That it be Resolved,

That on the 2nd February, 1859, the Honorable George E. Cartier, the Honorable A. Galt, and the Honorable John, Ross, then Members of the Executive Council of this Province, while in London, and acting on behalf of the Government. of which they were Members, did address a Despatch to the Colonial Minister, in which they declared

that “very grave difficulties now present themselves in conducting the Government of Canada in such a manner as to show due regard to the wishes of its numerous population;”

that “differences exist to an extent which prevents any perfect and complete assimilation of the views. of the two sections;”

that “the progress of population has been more rapid in the western section, and claims are now made on behalf of its inhabitants for giving them representation in the Legislature in proportion to their numbers;”

that “the result is shown by an agitation fraught with great danger to the peaceful and harmonious working of our Constitutional system, and consequently detrimental to the progress of the Province;”

and that “the necessity of providing a remedy for a state of things that is yearly becoming worse, and of allaying feelings that are daily being aggravated by the contention of political parties, has impressed the advisers of Her Majesty’s Representative in Canada with the importance of seeking for such a mode of dealing with these difficulties as may for ever remove “them.”

That a Select Committee of twenty members be appointed to enquire and report on the important subjects embraced in the said Despatch, and the best means of remedying the evils therein set forth, with power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report from time to time; and that the said Committee shall consist of the following Members, of whom seven shall form a quorum, viz: Honorable Messieurs Cameron Attorney General Cartier, Cauchon, Chapais, Mr. Dickson, Honorable Mr. Dorion (Hochelaga), Mr. Dunkin, Honorable Messrs. Mowat, Galt and Holton, Mr. Joly, Honorable Mr. Attorney General John A. Macdonald, Honorable Messrs. Macdonald (Cornwall), McDougall and McGee, Messrs. McKellar, Scoble and Street, Honorable Mr. Turcotte and the Mover[1]

George Brown [Oxford South] had made this motion with the greatest sincerity, and with the desire to bring men of all parties to aid in settling this question—to endeavor to bring forth a remedy for the great acknowledged evil in regard to the insufficient representation of Upper Canada. The moderation which he had exhibited in this matter had led his enemies to declare he had abandoned Representations by Population. He asserted solemnly that he had not abandoned the question to the slightest extent. He believed we could not go on without, in some way, making some provision for the increased representation of the people of the West; and that any change must be made on the principle of Representation by Population. He had put in the Committee men of different opinion, desiring that all should give an honest, candid opinion, without killing off the measure. He believed that something ought to be done to remove this difficulty which had too long remained unsettled. To those gentleman who said the Committee could be of no use, he would reply that depended upon the Committee themselves. His object was to get the country out of a difficulty which did manifestly exist.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George Jackson [Grey] said that with respect to the intention of the mover to have eight hon. gentleman favorable to the measure on his Committee, he would read a portion of the speech of the member for South Oxford [George Brown], on this subject, previous to the recent election for West Northumberland. That hon. gentleman was reported to have said that the reason why he had put upon the Committee gentleman unfavorable to Representation by Population, was as follows: 

(Mr. Jackson proceeded to read the report in a newspaper.)

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] —You are not in order.

George Jackson [Grey] did not desire to do anything that was out of order. But the hon. member for South Oxford [George Brown] was reported to have said that on the Committee, composed of twenty members, there were twelve really opposed to the principle.

George Brown [Oxford South]—That is incorrect. I could not have said this; because I do not know what are the opinions of many of the Committee. I said there were eight of whose opinions I was absolutely certain, and that I was quite sure there were enough tot make a quorum.

George Jackson [Grey] thought that the hon. gentleman admitted that the majority of those on his Committee were not in favor of his motion, “but,” said that hon. gentleman, “seven forms a quorum, and as there were eight members on the Committee favorable to the principle, a quorum of such can such can always be secured, and besides, the object of getting the committee was not so much to secure the adoption of any policy, as to place Cartier and Galt in a false position.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, and laughter.

George Brown [Oxford South]—It is quite a mistake.

George Jackson [Grey]—The hon. gentleman was further reported to have said—“By putting those men on the Committee they will replaced in the position of witness.”

A Member—What paper is that?

George Jackson [Grey]—The Peterboro Review

Some Hon. Members—Opposition laughter.

• (p. 153)

George Brown [Oxford South]—It is quite a caricature.

George Jackson [Grey] proceeded to read the reminder of the paragraph, when

Luther Holton [Chateauguay] rose to a question of order. He did not believe any member could read newspapers to the House.

George Brown [Oxford South] said that however irregular it might be, he hoped the question of order would not be raised. He (Mr. B.) could only say that although nearly correct the report was not exactly correct. He never said he desired to put Messrs. Cartier and Galt in a false position on this matter. He never perceived such a thing. He stated, on the occasion in question, on being questioned as to why he put those gentleman on the Committer, that he took them in, that if opposed to the question he might bring them up as a witness; and that Messrs, Cartier and Macdonald could not then escape the question; and must answer “yes” or “no.”

Christopher Dunkin [Brome]—Where was the speech made?

George Jackson [Grey]—In the Township of Haldimand.

The question of order being again raised.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] contended that the reading of the extract was in order.

George Jackson [Grey] went on to ask what would be gained by appointing the Committee. It would be putting off or shirking the question altogether. He (Mr. Jackson) held that the very important subject of Representation by Population could not be properly brought before the Legislature by such a motion. He was opposed to anything like “shelving” or giving a quietus to a question founded upon increased representation. Holding these views, he would move in amendment that all the words after “as may for ever remove them,” in the original motion, be struck out, and the following substituted—“That, without offering any option on the expediency of adopting the measure advised in the despatch referred to, it is desirable, in any event, that the number of representatives to the Legislative Assembly for Upper Canada should be increased; and that any other remedy will fail to satisfy the just satisfaction of the inhabitants of that part of the Province.” 

Thomas Parker [Wellington North] seconded the motion in amendment.

John Macdonald [Toronto West] commented upon the original despatch of Messrs, Cartier, Galt and Ross; and argued that it was not at all logically deducible from that that document that a federation of the Provinces would remedy the position of Upper Canada. The duty of the Committee would be to consider all the bearings of the subject, and recommending some cut change in out representation as would remove the injustice under which Upper Canada labored. He was sorry to understand the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Perrault) when this subject was before the House on a past occasion—as saying that, if representing by population were attempted to be carried, the bayonets of the Lower Canada Militia would be turned against the Upper Canadians.

Joseph Perrault [Richelieu]—I never said so.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Macdonald [Toronto West] was very glad, indeed, to hear the hon. gentleman disclaim having given utterance to any such sentiment. Lower Canadians had no reason whatever to fear injustice at the hands of their Upper Canadian brethren—they had no reason whatever to fear that their religion or institutions would be molested. An increased representation for Upper Canada was a matter of simple justice, and it should not be denied. He was understood to say that he did not believe Rep. by Pop. could be carried in the House as at present constituted. He did hope, however, that the Committee would be granted, and that the whole subject would receive the consideration which it deserved, so that some remedy might be applied. He would vote for the motion of the honorable member for South Oxford [George Brown].

Thomas Ferguson [Simcoe South] said he would have a few remarks to make to make on the subject. Reasons innumerable had been given, and could be given to show that the three hundred thousand unrepresented in this House  no objection whatever was offered to the number of Lower Canadian members—there was no desire to lessen that number; but it was a matter of right and justice that we should have more for Upper Canada. We only asked for that which was demanded by common sense.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Thomas Ferguson [Simcoe South]—It would be unjust and unfair to say that, because men lived in a certain locality, or belonged to a certain race, they should be deprived of representation in the Legislature.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Thomas Ferguson [Simcoe South]—Upper Canada did not make the demand in any spirit of selfishness, but in a sincere spirit of even-hundred justice. There was no intention whatever to wrong Lower Canada. Lower Canada had its great mineral wealth; and, no doubt, its population would soon be increased by an influx of hundreds of thousands of persons from all parts of the world. When this was the case, Upper Canadians would not make the slightest objection to an increase of the representation of Lower Canada.

He (Mr. F.) did not, of course, go for universal suffrage, as it obtained in the United States, thinking that, at present, the franchise was rather low. But he did think that something should be done to obtain a fairer representation of property in the country. He deprecated the action of the Macdonald-Dorion Government in making Representation by Population a close question, which course had prevented and retarded the adoption of the measure. He hoped it would yet be carried, and that the House would now consider the matter fairly.

He was sorry the wording of the resolution was not different, as it might, had no dividing line been introduced, obtained a wider supper. But as it stood, it embodied the great principle of Rep. by Pop. which so many of the members had so long contended for and which it was desirable to adopt. He hoped the hon. member for South Oxford [George Brown] would vote for the amendment. He believed that the measure could be carried without doing injury to either Protestants or Catholics, and that without it even-handed justice could not be done to the people of Upper Canada. If the member for South Oxford [George Brown] did not within his following support the amendment, he would be practically abandoning the measure.

George Brown [Oxford South] could not allow this opportunity to pass without stating that he had no supporters in this House; that when he left Parliament, be retired from the leadership he formerly held; that he had not since resumed it, and had no such intention. Speaking therefore, at present for himself alone, he was sorry the amendment had been proposed, but would, however, support it. The main question was—this Rep. by Pop. or not. Nothing short of representation by numbers would satisfy the population of Upper Canada. He could see no difficulty in the matter, and believed that the people of Upper Canada would not have their wrongs remedied until the measure were granted.

Alexander Mackenzie [Lambton] spoke in favor of Representation by Population.

Thomas Street [Welland] said that, when the question of Rep. by Pop. Came before the House in the broad form contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Grey [George Jackson], he had no difficulty in deciding in favor thereof, acknowledging the justness of the principle. He could not altogether concur in the wording of the resolution, particularly the last part of it, not being wedded to any particular plan of settling the representation difficulty. He would accept some modified concession, which would enable the people of Upper Canada to obtain those rights which they so long conceded for.

He proceeded to criticise the conduct of the member for South Oxford [George Brown] and the last speaker, in condemning the amendment and the course of its proposer. Every one who believed in the justice of Rep. by Pop. should—and he (Mr. Street) was one—vote for the amendment, which embodied the broad principle of Rep. by Pop. The member for South Oxford [George Brown] should have been more specific in the plan which he proposed to remove the present difficulties. When he proposed to remove the present difficulties. When he proposed a matter involving the alteration of the Constitution, he should have been prepared with a scheme—a definite men sure in regard to the object in view.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Richard Cartwright [Lennox & Addington] began by saying that he did not think it was necessary to impugn the motives of hon. gentlemen on either side of the House. He had listened with great pleasure to the remarks made by the hon. member for South Oxford [George Brown] in intruding his motion; and he (Mr. Cartwright) could say for himself that he would also have great pleasure in seeing him get his Committee.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Richard Cartwright [Lennox & Addington]—The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brown) said he had no followers, but however this might be, he could not deny that he occupied a position in this House which was occupied only one other hon. gentleman—the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Brown) was the “representative man” of a very considerable section of the population, as was also the hon. gentleman to whom he had referred (Mr. McGee.) In considering this question, therefore, he (Mr. Cartwright) as well as the House generally, would attach much more weight to the opinions which fell from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brown) than to that of other hon. members of this House. That hon. gentleman certainly had the control of this matter – as well, in great measure, as of the sectional difficulty which it involved, in his own hands.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Richard Cartwright [Lennox & Addington]—Now, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Brown) had it in his power to effect a great deal of good. If he devoted himself to the tasks of effecting an armistice between the contending parties—if he contrived to avoid this unprofitable waste of time, he would do more towards carrying his principle into effect than by any other means.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, and cheers.

Richard Cartwright [Lennox & Addington]—Hon. gentleman on the Treasury benches would, be felt sure, be disposed to meet him had way, and the hon. gentleman would not only have an opportunity of effecting his object, but he would also prevent the great waste of public time, and help the progress of public business.

James Dickson [Huron & Bruce] proceeded to speak in favor of Rep. by Pop., and urged to particular the claims of the United Counties of Huron and Bruce, which he represented, and which contained a population of 90,000. 

It being six o’clock, the Speaker left the Chair. 

After the recess—

James Dickson [Huron & Bruce] rushed the debate. He said that the people of Upper Canada, and particularly the inhabitants of Huron and Bruce, had reason to complain of the present condition of affairs. The hon. gentleman proceeded to give statistics of the progress in weight and population of this constituency during the last few years. He contended that Huron and Brice paid a large amount of revenue, and that the farmers of Upper Canada paid more into the exchequer than those of Lower Canada, as they consumed more dutiable goods. The speaker competed the relative populations of various constituencies in Upper and Lower Canada with that of Huron and Bruce, showing that the latter was as large as several of the former, and arguing that his constituency was therefore entitled to larger representation. The people of Upper Canada only wanted Rep. by Pop. as a means to an end—and that to obtain justice. They did not desire to injure the people of institutions of Lower Canada.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

James Dickson [Huron & Bruce]—The hon. gentleman stated that many of the constituencies, though small, were largely indebted to the Municipal Loan Fund, while his constituency, that contributed so largely to the public revenue, received nothing for local improvements. The Cartier-Macdonald Government had not kept faith with the people of Huron and Bruce, who had been encouraged by an Order la Council to settle the land on the understanding, that of the $2-per acre paid for the land, 50 cents should be handed back by the Government for the construction of roads and bridges. Now this pledge had not been kept, though to much was charged the settler for land more than the settler in Lower Canada. The hon. member stated that the Grand Trunk charged Canadians more for the conveyance of grain from the west to the east than they did Americans, and contended that Government did not watch over the interests of Upper Canada to the extent to which it was entitled.

Alexander Morris [Lanark South] said the House was no doubt amused by the speech of the member for Huron and Bruce [James Dickson], but he (Mr. M.) did not believe that that gentleman would carry out that terrible threat of secession which he had uttered in case his demands were not granted. He should have no hesitation whatever in voting for the original motion. He was free to believe that that motion had been introduced on good faith, and with a sincere desire to ascertain whether it was practicable to adopt any measure that would be satisfactory to both Upper and Lower Canada, so as to secure equal rights to both. He considered this was a question of great gravity, involving most important considerations. But while he uniformly voted for every motion proposed affirming the necessity of providing a remedy for the difficulties under which Upper Canada has labored for some years past, he always stated he did not believe in the theory of Rep. by Pop. pure and simple, and that he felt that the representation was, after all, the result of an arbitrary system, and that he felt that the different interests of the country should be adequately represented.

While he was prepared to affirm that Representation by Population would be a present remedy, yet he thought there were other and larger remedies to which we would be in future forced to resort, if we ever interned to attain to such a solution as would be entirely satisfactory to the people of this country. The idea that he had always cherished was that the day might come when they should see it to be the interest of the various provinces of British North America to form such a union as would consolidate the British Provinces and British power on this Continent. The events which had transpired across the lines, within the last few years, were additional reasons why were should set ourselves to look our actual position in the face. When we saw the differences existing between Upper and Lower Canada, and that the various British Provinces were scattered and disunited, it was time we should look forward to a measure which, he believed, would raise us above the petty parish politics is

• (p. 154)

which we were fain to indulge, and place us in such a position, on this Continent as would enable us to hold the balance of power.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

Alexander Morris [Lanark South]—The maritime Provinces comprised a territory of 86,000 square miles, and were capable of sustaining a population nearly as great as that of England. They were as large as Greece, Belgium, Portugal and Switzerland all put together. Canada contained 346,000 square miles, being as large as the whole of Great Britain, France and Prussia. The North West Territory, including British Columbia and Vancouver’s Island, composed three millions of square miles—making for all the sum of four millions of square miles. He trusted these important facts would receive the consideration of the Committee which would be appointed on the motion of the member for South Oxford [George Brown]. The hon. gentleman here cited a passage from a speech of the Hon. Mr. Howe, of Nova Scotia, setting forth the extent and resources of the British North American Provinces, and the importance of a union, and the development of their vast capabilities. He also read the opinion of Lord Durham, on the same subject, to much the same effect, and that respecting the possibility of those Provinces being made to counterbalance the power and influence of the United States. These were true and just sentiments, more applicable now than ever.

The hon. gentleman went on to point out and urge the advantage of cherishing an idea of this kind. He dened any man to prove that we were not in a position in which mutual comprises and concessions were not necessary in Canada at present. He believed that the union of the British Provinces would remedy our present difficulties, and that Rep. by Pop. was not, therefore, the only thing that could be devised for this purpose. The day would come when, under the guidance of the statesman of Britain and those colonies, they would be closely united and formed into a great and prosperous nationality.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

Thomas Parker [Wellington North] expressed himself strongly in favor of Representation by Population. He would vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Jackson); and, if that failed, he would vote for the motion of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Brown.)

Christopher Dunkin [Brome] said he could not complement the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Jackson) on having displayed his usual tact. His motion in amendment was so framed that every Lowe Canadian must vote against it. If the question of Parliamentary reform alone were urged upon the House, a very large number of Lower Canadian members would be disposed to take it up; for there were many cases of inequality of representation in Lower Canada. But, in order to bring the subject into general consideration, it would be necessary to bring it down from its sectional and partisan ground, and place it on the broad ground of Parliamentary reform alone. In conclusion, he expressed himself in favor of referring the matter to a Committee, although not expecting that much could be effected by a Committee this session.

Donald Macdonald [Glengarry] would go in favor of any fair and moderate measure which would afford a remedy to the Western section of the Province under existing circumstances. He did not think, however, with the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Jackson), that Representation by Population was the only remedy; or that, to use the words of his motion, “any other remedy” would fall short.

John Bown [Brant East] said that, for his part, after reading the amendment of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Jackson), he could not approve of all that it contained. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. member opposite, to the effect that Representation by Population was not absolutely our only remedy.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Bown [Brant East]—We should look, in the first instance, to the real source of the evil, and consider what it was. The excess of individual action was the cause of decay in nations. We should, in this case, as one of the true remedies, retrace our steps, and look more to the general interests than to particular party interests.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Bown [Brant East]—Hon. gentleman might talk of disuniting the two sections of the Province; but what would be effected thereby? Why, they would only succeed in removing the difficulty from the Province as a whole, and brining it into sections—they would only succeed in raising up race against race and creed against creed.—The hon. gentleman went on to say that a portion of our press was, to some extent, to blame for the represent state of things, by making appeals to the passions and prejudices of the people.

He (Mr. Bown) was in favor of increased representation and would vote for it; but, as already stated, he had never said it was the only remedy for the existing difficulty. He heartily agreed with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Dunkin) when he contended that our true policy was to nationalize our politics so as to remove all distrust and secure a greater degree of confidence and good feeling between all sections of the Province.—Where there was intolerance or aggression a nation must necessarily retrograde, but where there was confidence and harmony there would an naturally be progress and prosperity.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Bown [Brant East]—So long as passions and prejudices were appealed to, distrust would be created, and there could be no settlement of our difficulties.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John Bown [Brant East]—He would vote for the motion itself, because it was moderate; but, before that, he would vote for the amendment, affirming, as it did, the desirability of increased representation; because, in doing so, he would be carrying out the pledge he had given on the hustings, and to which he was determined to adhere.

George Jackson [Grey] said he altered his motion in amendment in a manner which eh trusted would render it more acceptable to members. The hon. gentleman went on to read his amendment in its altered form, omitting the expression that “any other remedy” than Rep. by Pop. would fall short of the difficulty; but concluding that Rep. by Pop. would be most satisfactory to the people of Upper Canada

George Brown [Oxford South] said that if the hon. member (Mr. Jackson) really desired not to embarrass the main motion, the best course he could pursue would be to withdraw his amendment.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West, Minister of Agriculture and Statistics] said that during the first session he sat in this House he had seconded a motion with the view to institute a Committee of this House to enquire into the feasibility of the union of the British North American Provinces; and it that motion had come forward, he intended to support it with certain facts which appeared to be satisfactory, and with arguments in which he had confidence. In 1860 he put a motion on the paper and moved it; but failing to get that support which would give it a certain degree of importance, he withdraw that motion. He had always advocated the union of those Provinces—both before and since he obtained a seat in Parliament. He would say that, in his judgement, the member for South Oxford [George Brown] would find it far easier to make a re-adjustment of the relations between Upper and Lower Canada, to form a new act of union that would embrace all British America, than to take the 12th clause out of the present act of union.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West, Minister of Agriculture and Statistics]—He would never live to see that clause struck out with the consent of Lower Canada. Though believing that the fears of Lower Canadians in regard to this matter had been greatly exaggerated, and regretting that they had ever conceived such views on the subject as they entertained, if the sectional question were raised he would stand or fall with his section. A more bitterly sectional, anti-Canadian and unpatriotic speech than that of the member for North Wellington, the other night, he had never heard in this House.

He (Mr. McGee) entirely believed in the propriety of giving the member for South Oxford [George Brown] an alternative proposition for his motion on the representation question. He was perfectly willing that he should have his Committee, and would vote for it. But he thought it was to be apprehended that we should have no satisfactory result from this Committee this session. It was to be regretted it was not pushed at an earlier part of the session, for which the friends of the hon. member for South Oxford [George Brown] were themselves responsible, having, on that gentleman’s departure for Upper Canada, at the commencement of the session, refused to go on with his motion for the Committee. So if this question had not occupied the attention of the House at such a period of the session as would enable the Committee to report a satisfactory result, the fault lay with that hon. gentleman alone.

George Brown [Oxford South]—It was my misfortune—not my fault.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West, Minister of Agriculture and Statistics] said that they all sympathised with that hon. gentleman on the cause of his being call away; but there were plenty in the House to take up his motion in his absence. He (Mr. McGee) would call the attention of the members for North South Wellington, and of the members generally, to the spectacle presented by the member for South Oxford [George Brown]. Here was a man sectionally the strongest in his own section, and provincially the weakest man in the House.

Why was this? Because with all his great ability and energy he had attached himself to sectional instead of national politics, because he did not know how to say “Canada” without saying “Upper” or “Lower” Canada, or without putting one qualification or another before it. Because he had never embraced in his heart or brain the country as a whole, the country as a whole had rejected him from its reason from affections; and he was at this moment as powerless in Canada as whole as if he had never any influence in Canada as a part. How melancholy and memorable an example was it for the member for North or South Wellington, not to anchor his hope in sectionalism. And no man ought to prosper in Canada unless he had a heart for the whole country—for the Protestant as well as the Roman Catholic.

He (Mr. McGee) could not agree with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Dunkin) that it was a reason for the British Provinces not uniting, that we had not been able to get on a small scale. He had not doubt that there were some great empires which had been more easily governed than our little Provinces, simply because the variety of interests gave a weight and depth to public discussions and to the minds of the statesmen which we wanted in this country. It was a fact that the Government in North America, in which faction had been bitterest and most intense, was that of the smallest country of all, Prince Edward Island.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Thomas D’Arcy McGee [Montreal West, Minister of Agriculture and Statistics]—People found that in proportion to the littleness of the subject did the minds of those who occupied themselves there with become dwarfed. He (Mr. McGee) would be prepared to sustain, as it touched the question of federation, that our material, commercial and political interests were all deeply at stake in a combination of our several small means in a union of our several populations and resources to work out a great common cause. He should be sorry to choke off enquiry, and would vote for the motion. He was afraid that at present a great subject off this kind could not receive that degree of attention it deserved, and that the views of hon. members of this House could not be so mature and well consolidated as to be put in a form fit for presentation to the country or to advance us at all towards a solution of the great difficulties existing. He would not vote for the motion of the member for Grey, not agreeing with him that the only remedy was Rep. by Pop., but would vote for the motion of the member for South Oxford [George Brown].

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

James Cockburn [Northumberland West, Solicitor General West] said that the change which the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Jackson) had made in his motion would make it clearer than it was before, and must commend it to the consideration of the House. He thought the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Brown) acted erroneously in moving to refer this constitutional question to the consideration of a committee of the House. If the hon. gentleman were really sincere in believing that Rep. by Pop. was the remedy, they should not leave it to be disposed of by others. Now, the great majority of the members of the committee which the hon. member (Mr. Brown) proposed to name were hostile to the principle of Representation by Population.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

James Cockburn [Northumberland West, Solicitor General West]—If the hon. gentleman really believed in the remedy he could hardly believe that he had taken the course best calculated to advance it, inasmuch as thirteen members of the committee were hostile to the principle and eight only were in favor of it.—The hon. gentleman went on to point out that the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Brown) in order to defend himself from a charge in inconsistency in supporting a Government which had thrown Representation by Population overboard, said that he had obtained a distinct pledge from the ex-Premier to the effect that both the police and personnel of the Government in this respect would be changed; and that it was this which induced him to vote confidence in the late Government.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear, and laughter.

James Cockburn [Northumberland West, Solicitor General West]—Coming back to the question as now brought before the House, he would remark that he did not charge the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Brown) with being insincere; but this he did say, that that hon. gentleman was now pursuing the very course which had retarded the question on previous occasions—namely, bringing it before the House at the most inopportune moments—as, for instance, the present case, in which  he proposed to refer it to a hostile Committee. Whatever his motives might be, he had taken a wrong course; for the report of that Committee could not be satisfactory. On the other hand, the motion of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Jackson) was a plain and simple affirmation should be given to Upper Canada,—

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

James Cockburn [Northumberland West, Solicitor General West] thereby proposing a practical solution for the difficulty. He (Mr. Cockburn) would vote for the amendment. In conclusion, he was understood to say that if the amendment failed, he might vote for original motion—although he did not approve of sending the matter to the Committee—rather than vote against the principle which it involved.

Jean-Baptiste-Éric Dorion [Drummond & Arthabaska] moved another amendment to the effect that, in the opinion of this House, there should be an additional member for Huron and Bruce; and that a similar increase should be made with respect to one of the electoral divisions of Lower Canada.

Robert Macfarlane [Perth] spoke at some length on the question, and the issues which it involved.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East] would vote against both the motion and the amendment. So far as the amendment of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Jackson) was concerned, it affirmed the principle of Representation by Population—a principle to which he (Mr. Cartier) was opposed. It did not obtain in England; and it

• (p. 155)

was a wise and proper course, on our part, to look to the example of the mother-country in these matters. Look, for instance at London, the number of representatives of which was far below that of Scotland, although the population of the latter did not come up to that of London.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East]—We should not lose sight of the Union Act, and of the relative populations of the two Provinces at the time of that union. Lower Canada then had 650,000 souls, and Upper Canada 450,000 only, leaving a large preponderance in favor of the former. Did we Lower Canadians complain of this? In 1848 or 1849, it was true that a small party attempted to introduce the principle of Representation by Population, and apply it to the case of Lower Canada, but we resisted it.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East]—Now, what was the difference between the two sections according to the last census? The difference amounted to about 280,000. or one-eighth of the whole, in favor of Upper Canada; and this was much less than the preponderance in favor of Lower Canada at the time of the Union, which was one-fifth.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East]—The statement made in the despatch which the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Brown) quoted was not exaggerated at the time. Since that period, however, the excitement relative tot he representation question was on the decrease—the tide had turned the other way. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Brown), by his speeches and by his statements through the press, had contributed in a great measure to cause this excitement, and to produce the impression that there was a vast preponderance in the population of Upper over Lower Canada—that there was, in fact, a preponderance of 500,000; but the last census had proved that this was not the case.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East]—He repeated that the excitement on this question had decreased of late. Let us wait for a few years more. The rate of increase in Upper Canada was not so great in the last few years as it had been formerly.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East]—He (Mr. Cartier) was averse to one section brutally ruling another section and he would never lend himself to carrying out any such system.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East]—Any such thing as injustice by Lower Canada towards Upper Canada was out of the question.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

George-Étienne Cartier [Montreal East, Attorney-General East]—He was pleased to see such moderation displayed in discussing the question here tonight—even the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Brown) himself displaying a desire to quell the flames. He (Mr. Cartier) would vote against the hon. gentleman’s motion for a Committee. Time would help us solve the difficulty, and he (Mr. Cartier) would do all he could towards its solution.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

William McDougall [Ontario North, Provincial Secretary] said he would have no difficulty in voting “yea” on the motion of the hon. member for Grey [George Jackson], in its present modified motion of the hon. member for South Oxford [George Brown], and he trusted good would come of it.—Some change, no doubt, had taken place in the state of public opinion, in both sections of the Province, within the last few years, with regard to the question now before the House.—There was no doubt but that practical good Government would go far to reconcile people with respect too theoretical difficulties. But, in reply to the statement of the hon. Attorney General East (Mr. Cartier) to the effect that the feeling on the subject now under debate, had decreased, he begged to tell that hon. gentleman, that present circumstances would not at all tend to allay the difficulty. The motion for a Committee on this subject was a step in the right direction—although he had not much confidence in the composition of the Committee—he would vote for it.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Joseph Cauchon [Montmorency] pointed out that the course which the hon. gentleman (Mr. McDougall) proposed to take was illogical in the extreme.—The hon. gentleman then went on, at considerable length, to review the question of Rep. by Pop. since it was first agitated. He conclude by contending that the Committee appointed would not effect anything.

William Webb [Richmond and Wolfe] said that, as a Lower Canadian he would vote against the motion of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Jackson); because he did not believe Rep. by Pop. was the sole and only remedy. He would, however, vote for the motion of the hon. member for South Oxford [George Brown], because it proposed to consider a difficulty which existed, and to deal therewith.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] stated that the hon. member for Huron and Bruce [James Dickson] had pressed very eloquently the case of these counties. He gave as a reason for the reform he asked that in consequence of Huron not having a member of its own, it could not obtain those improvements that were wanted. If the improvements along Lake Huron, spoken of, were general on public, then every member from Upper Canada was as much bound to see them effected as the hon. member for Huron and Bruce [James Dickson]. If merely local, he (Mr. Macdonald) thought that the municipalities interested should undertake those improvements at their own charge. He thought that the motion of the hon. member for South Oxford [George Brown] did not deal with the question in a thorough manner. It did not propose a re-adjustment of the representation.

The other motion (that of the member for Grey) only affirmed a principle—that of Rep. by Pop.—which he (Mr. M.) could not vote for. The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. McDougall) said this evening that he did not consider that Rep. by Pop. was the only remedy for existing difficulties; that he had entertained this opinion since 1859, and that he and a large section of his party were not of the opinion that this was the only remedy. But it was strange that if since 1859 he was convinced of this fact that in 1862, by a motion, he declared Rep. by Pop. was the only remedy for our troubles; that its refusal would be a great injustice to Upper Canada, and would be fraught with a great deal of evil to the whole Province; and he consequently moved for a vote of censure in the Cartier-Macdonald Government for not introducing measures to carry out what he now acknowledged was not the only remedy for existing difficulties.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—That hon. gentleman spoke of one of the reasons why Upper Canada was not agitated so much within the last two years as formerly, as being the good legislation which had been effected. He (Mr. Macdonald) was not aware, however, that there had been any legislation, wither on the part of the Macdonald-Sicotte or following Administration, affecting any interest in Upper Canada (Laughter and cheers.) As to the administrative ability of these Governments, it was not shown in the matter of finance. He believed the financial scheme of the member for West York (Mr. Howland) did not meet with much favor from even the usual supporters of the Government, and there was no scheme at all brought down by late Finance Minister.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—The want of administrative ability and straightforwardness in the administration of affairs by the Governments during the last two years had done more to destroy them in that time than all the sins of omission and commission on the part of the Cartier-Macdonald Government, till 1862, had done to damage it. Hon. gentleman opposite had stated that the present Government had been creating new offices and reappointing officers. That was not the case. This Government had not followed the example of the late Government in dismissing some old officials appointing others in their places. The hon. gentleman here explained the circumstances under which a gentleman was appointed Assistant Postmaster at Hamilton recently, stating that the appointment was merely temporary. It was stated that the estimates which had been brought down afforded another evidence of oppression on the part of Lower as against Upper Canada.

Now, he thought there was not single item which could be shown as indicating any advantage given Lower at the expense of Upper Canada. With respect to the main motion, it was evident that the member for South Oxford [George Brown] had changed his views in regard to the urgent necessity for Rep. by Pop. He was at one time the advocate of this measure to such an extent as to recommend that all Governments should be made impossible that did not adopt Rep. by Pop. as the governing principle of their administration. He had now apparently changed his opinions upon this subject, so as to come round to the chews of a great many of the moderate advocates of the measure—so as to adopt rational, reasonable views upon the subject.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter and cheers.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—The member for South Oxford [George Brown] had certainly changed his opinions as to the urgent and immigrant necessity of that measure, or he would not have objected to the hon. member for Grey [George Jackson] moving his amendment. It had been stated that this motion would be an embarrassment to a party in a favor of Rep. by Pop.?

George Brown [Oxford South]—Not the slightest to me.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—You asked him to withdraw.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West] said that another reason for his belief that the Hon. gentleman had changed his opinions was the fact that he moved for a Committee that would give a hostile majority against the measure. The member for South Oxford [George Brown] did not tell us what he proposed to do to obtain the reform he sought for. He withheld his opinions from the House, and no one knew whether he was in favor of Rep. by Pop., joint authority, or federation of the Provinces, out a legislative union. There were only three remedies to be proposed. The first was to leave things as they are; the second, adopt Rep. by Pop.; third, a union of the Provinces of some kind or other.

The mover of the main motion was, manifestly, opposed to having things as they are. From the nomination of the Committee, thirteen of whose members were opposed to Rep. by Pop., it would only be inferred that he was not in favor of getting a report friendly to. Rep. by Pop. As far, therefore, as the member for South Oxford [George Brown] could do so, by the constitution of the Committee, he ensured a report against Rep. by Pop.; and, as far as he could do, closed that question forever, and pledged the Committee to vote against that principle which he said, formerly, was of so much importance that anarchy was preferable to its being longer delayed.

Some Hon. Members—Cheers.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—He (Mr. M.) was glad the hon. gentleman had entered upon this course at last.

Some Hon. Members—Laughter.

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—He had not informed us distinctly what other remedy he proposed; but it was, no doubt, the union of the Provinces. That was the policy of the Government of which he (Mr. M.) was a member, to which the hon. gentleman had become a convert. This Government had done all in its power to have this federation remedy adopted. They had solicited the Imperial and other Colonial Government aid in effecting this desirable object, and were still of opinion as to its necessity. Recent events in the United States had made him more disinclined to a federation, believing that a stronger form of union and government was requisite. He was still of the same opinion that the only real way to settle the difficulty was to bring about a union of some kind with the Lower Provinces. He was not going, therefore, to vote for the appointment of a committee to consider whether this was the proper remedy or not, having himself made up his mind and pledged himself to this remedy already.

William McDougall [Ontario North, Provincial Secretary]—Do you prosper to take any action?

John A. Macdonald [Kingston, Attorney-General West]—We have taken action already. We have invited the Home Government and the Government of the Provinces to consider and assist in the matter. The former intimated they would not be disposed to take action till the other Provinces had joined us in the invitation. Newfoundland has signified willingness. And for these reasons he would vote to negative all the propositions before the House.

Some Hon. Members—Hear, hear.

Antoine-Aimé Dorion [Hochelaga] was understood to say that he would vote both against Hon. Mr. Brown’s motion and Mr. Jackson’s amendment thereto[2]. The matter should not go to a committee; but some general remedy should be devised.

George Brown [Oxford South] spoke at some length contending that he had not changed his position on this subject; but that, on coming back to this House, after an absence of some time, found the circumstances changed, and he had therefore changed his tactics.

John Sandfield Macdonald [Cornwall] said he would vote for Mr. J. B. E. Dorion’s amendment[3], as it was in keeping with the policy of the Macdonald-Sicotte Government; and he would be stultifying himself were he to oppose it.

The question was then put on Jean-Baptiste-Éric Dorion [Drummond & Arthabaska]’s amendment, which was lost on the following divisions:—

That the words “without affirming any opinion on the expediency of adopting the measure advised in the Despatch referred to, it is desirable, under present circumstances, that the number of Representatives in the Legislative Assembly for Upper Canada should be increased and that such remedy will be most satisfactory to the inhabitants of that part of the Province,” be left out, and the words “in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when the Counties of Huron and Bruce shall be represented by two Members in the Legislative Assembly; and that, at the same time, one additional Member should be granted to one of the present Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada,” inserted instead thereof.[4]

YEAS

Bellerose
Blanchet
Bourassa
Buchanan
Cauchon
Cornellier
Coupal
De Boucherville
Dickson
Dorion (Hochelaga)
Dorion (Drummond & Arthabaska)
Dufresne (Iberville)
Evanturel
Fortier
Gagnon
Gaudet
Geoffroy
Holton
Huot
Joly
Laframboise
Lajoie
Macdonald (Cornwall)
McFarlane
O’Halloran
Paquette
Poulin
Sylvain
Thibaudeau
Thompson
Webb
Wright (Ottawa County).—32. 

NAYS

Archambault
Ault
Beaubien
Bell (Lanark)
Biggar
Bown
Brousseau
Brown
Burwell
Bowman
Carling
Caron
Cartier (Attorney-General)
Cartwright
Chambers
Chapais
Cockburn
Cowan
Carrier
Daoust
Dunsford
Dufresne (Montcalm)
Dunkin
Dunsford
Ferguson (Simcoe South)
Ferguson (Frontenac)
Galt
Harwood
Higginson
Houde
Howland
Jackson
Jones (Leeds & Grenville North)
Langevin
Macdonald (Glengarry)
Macdonald (Toronto West)
Macdonald (Attorney-General)
Mackenzie (Lambton)
Mackenzie (Oxford North)
McConkey
McDougall
McGee
McGiverin
McIntyre
Morris
Mowat
Munro
Notman
Parker
Perrault
Pinsonneault
Pope
Raymond
Robitaille
Ross (Champlain)
Walter Ross
Rymal
Scattered
Scoble
Simpson
Smith (Toronto East)
Tasse
Turcotte
Wallbridge (Hastings North)
Walsh
Wells
White
Wilson
Wright (York East).—74.

The question was next put on George Jackson [Grey]’s amendment, which was also lost on the following division:—

That all the words after “as may forever remove them,” to the end of the Question be left out and the words, “That without affirming any opinion on the expediency of adopting the measure advised “in the Despatch referred to, it is desirable, under present circumstances, that the number of representatives in the Legislative Assembly for Upper Canada should be increased, and that such remedy will be most satisfactory to the inhabitants of that part of the Province,” inserted instead thereof.[5]

YEAS

Ault
Bell (Lanark)
Biggar
Bown
Brown
Buchanan
Burwell
Bowman
Carling
Cartwright
Chambers
Cockburn
Cowan
Dickson
Dunsford
Ferguson (Simcoe South)
Howland
Jackson
Macdonald (Glengarry)
Macdonald (Toronto West)
Mackenzie (Lambton)
Mackenzie (Oxford North)
McConkey
McDougall
McGiverin
McIntyre
McKellar
Morris
Mowat
Munro
Notman
Parker
Ross (Prince Edward)
Rymal
Scatcherd
Scoble
Smith (Toronto East)
Smith (Durham East)
Somerville
Stirton
Street
Thompson
Wallbridge (Hastings North)
Walsh
Wells
White
Wilson
and Amos Wright (York East).—48.

NAYS

Archambault
Beaubien
Bellerose
Blanchet
Bourette
Brouseau
Caron
Cartier (Attorney-General)

• (p. 156)

Cauchon
Chapais
Cornellier
Coupal
Carrier
Daoust
De Boucherville
Denis
Dorion (Hochelaga)
Dorion (Drummond & Arthabaska)
Duckett
Dufresne (Iberville)
Dufresne (Montcalm)
Dunkin
Evanturel
Ferguson (Frontenac)
Fortier
Gagnon
Galt
Gaudet
Geoffrion
Harwood
Higginson
Holton
Houde
Huot
Joly
Jones (Leeds South)
Laframboise
Lajoie
Langevin
McGee
O’Halloran
Paquette
Perrault
Pinsonneault
Pope
Poulin
Raymond
Robitaille
Ross (Champlain)
Simpson
Sylvain
Tasse
Thibaudeau
Turcotte
Webb
and Wright (Ottawa County).—59.

Finally, the question was put on George Brown [Oxford South]’s motion, which was carried on the following division:—

That it be Resolved,

That on the 2nd February, 1859, the Honorable George E. Cartier, the Honorable A. Galt, and the Honorable John, Ross, then Members of the Executive Council of this Province, while in London, and acting on behalf of the Government. of which they were Members, did address a Despatch to the Colonial Minister, in which they declared

that “very grave difficulties now present themselves in conducting the Government of Canada in such a manner as to show due regard to the wishes of its numerous population;”

that “differences exist to an extent which prevents any perfect and complete assimilation of the views. of the two sections;”

that “the progress of population has been more rapid in the western section, and claims are now made on behalf of its inhabitants for giving them representation in the Legislature in proportion to their numbers;”

that “the result is shown by an agitation fraught with great danger to the peaceful and harmonious working of our Constitutional system, and consequently detrimental to the progress of the Province;”

and that “the necessity of providing a remedy for a state of things that is yearly becoming worse, and of allaying feelings that are daily being aggravated by the contention of political parties, has impressed the advisers of Her Majesty’s Representative in Canada with the importance of seeking for such a mode of dealing with these difficulties as may for ever remove “them.”

That a Select Committee of twenty members be appointed to enquire and report on the important subjects embraced in the said Despatch, and the best means of remedying the evils therein set forth, with power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to report from time to time; and that the said Committee shall consist of the following Members, of whom seven shall form a quorum, viz: Honorable Messieurs Cameron Attorney General Cartier, Cauchon, Chapais, Mr. Dickson, Honorable Mr. Dorion (Hochelaga), Mr. Dunkin, Honorable Messrs. Mowat, Galt and Holton, Mr. Joly, Honorable Mr. Attorney General John A. Macdonald, Honorable Messrs. Macdonald (Cornwall), McDougall and McGee, Messrs. McKellar, Scoble and Street, Honorable Mr. Turcotte and the Mover[6]

YEAS

Ault
Bell (Lanark North)
Biggar
Bown
Brown
Buchanan
Burwell
Bowman
Carling
Cartwright
Chambers
Cockburn
Cowan
Currier
Dickson
Dunkin
Dunsford
Ferguson (Simcoe South)
Howland
Jackson
Jones (Leeds South)
Macdonald (Cornwall)
Mackenzie (Lambton)
Mackenzie (Oxford North)
McConkey
McDougall
McFarlane
McGee
McGiverin
McIntyre
McKellar
Morris
Mowat
Munro
Notman
O’Halloran
Parker
Pope
Poulin
Ross (Prince Edward)
Rymal
Scatcherd
Scoble
Smith (Toronto East)
Smith (Durham East)
Somerville
Stirton
Street
Thompson
Wallbridge (Hastings North)
Walsh
Webb
Wells
White
Wilson
Wright (York East)
Wright (Ottawa County)—59.

NAYS

Archambault
Beaubien
Bellerose
Blanchet
Bourassa
Brousseau
Caron
Cartier (Attorney-General)
Cauchon
Chapais
Cornellier
Coupal
Daoust
De Boucherville
Denis
Dorion (Hochelaga)
Dorion (Drummond & Arthabaska)
Duckett
Dufresne (Iberville)
Dufresne (Montcalm)
Evanturel
Ferguson (Frontenac)
Fortier
Gagnon
Galt
Gaudet
Geoffrion
Harwood
Higginson
Holton
Houde
Huot
Joly
Laframboise
Lajoie
Langevin
Macdonald (Attorney-General)
Paquette
Perrault
Pinsonneault
Raymond
Robitaille
Ross (Champlain)
Simpson
Sylvain
Tasse
Thibaudeau
Turcotte.—48

THE SUPPLIES.

In reply to Hon. Mr. HOLTON—

Hon. Mr. GALT stated that he would proceed with the Supplies to-morrow (Friday).

THE STAMP DUTY.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said that before the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, he intended to move a motion declaring the proposed stamp duty unnecessary. His object was to invite the House to negative the proposition—he did not intend to move it as a motion of confidence. (Ironical cheers and laughter form the Ministerial benches.) He begged to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galt) if he would withdraw his stamp duties, he (Mr. Holton) would withdraw his motion.

(Laughter and cheers.)

If he carried his motion, then the hon. gentleman would determine whether he would proceed with his stamps’ or anything else.

(Cheers.)

Hon. Mr. GALT—Whether this is an attack on the stamp duty or a motion of want of confidence, which it manifestly is, the Government will meet it.

(Cheers.)

I thank the hon. gentleman, however, for the notice, he has given, but I am sure the House will maintain the credit fo the country and support the stamp duty.

(Loud cheers.)

The house then, at a quarter past one a. m., adjourned, on motion of Hon. Mr. Cartier.

[1] Journals, 223

[2] That all the words after “as may forever remove them,” to the end of the Question be left out and the words, “That without affirming any opinion on the expediency of adopting the measure advised “in the Despatch referred to, it is desirable, under present circumstances, that the number of representatives in the Legislative Assembly for Upper Canada should be increased, and that such remedy will be most satisfactory to the inhabitants of that part of the Province,” inserted instead thereof. Journals, 223.

[3] That the words “without affirming any opinion on the expediency of adopting the measure advised in the Despatch referred to, it is desirable, under present circumstances, that the number of Representatives in the Legislative Assembly for Upper Canada should be increased and that such remedy will be most satisfactory to the inhabitants of that part of the Province,” be left out, and the words “in the opinion of this House the time has arrived when the Counties of Huron and Bruce shall be represented by two Members in the Legislative Assembly; and that, at the same time, one additional Member should be granted to one of the present Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada,” inserted instead thereof. Journals 223-4.

[4] Inserted for clarity. Not part of originals. Journals 223-224.

[5] Inserted for clarity. Not part of originals. Journals 224.

[6] Journals, 223