The Confederation Debates (1865) P. 1 (of 4)

Click here to view the original document (PDF).


Pages 1-269
Pages 270-512
Pages 513-770
Pages 771-1032







3rd Session, 8th Provincial Parliament of Canada.






February 3.—Hon. Sir E.P. TACHÉ moved that an Address be presented to HER MAJESTY, praying that a measure be submitted to Imperial Parliament, based on certain resolutions, 1.

February 9.—Hon. Mr. SANBORN moved an amendment with reference to the Constitution of the Legislative Council, 124.

February 13.—Hon. Mr. REESOR moved that the debate be adjourned for ten days, 162. Negatived by 37 to 19.

February 14.—Hon. Mr. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST moved an amendment to Hon. Mr. SANBORN’S amendment, that the debate be adjourned until certain information be laid before the House, 189. Negatived 38 to 20.

February 16.—House divided on Hon. Mr. SANBORN’S amendment, 245. Negatived by 42 to 18.

February 17.—Hon. Mr. CURRIE moved in amendment to the main motion, that the House should not assent to the measure without a further manifestation of the oublic will than has yet been declared, 269. House divided on said amendment, 316. Negatived by 31 to 19.

February 20.—Hon. Mr. AIKINS moved an amendment with reference to the Constitution of the Legislative Council, 317. A question of order being raised, the Hon. the SPEAKER ruled the said amendment out of order, 318. Hon. Mr. REESOR moved in amendment, that the transmission of the Address should be delayed, until the resolutions should be approved by a direct vote of the electors of the province, 327. A question of order being raised, the SPEAKER ruled the said amendment to be in order, 328. Houses divided on said amendment, 333. Negatived by 36 to 19. House divided on main motion, 346. Carried by 45 to 15. Committee appointed to draft an Address. Draft Address reported, agreed to, and order to be engrossed. Ordered that an Address be presented to the Governor General by the whole House, requesting him to transmit said Address to HER MAJESTY, 346.

February 23.—The House waited on His Excellency with their Address to HER MAJESTY. His Excellency’s reply, 421.

*** The names of the Electoral Divisions represented by elected members are given in Italics. Life members are distinguished by [L] following the name.

AIKINS, Hon. JAMES C. [Home], 154-159208217316-317.
ALEXANDER, Hon. GEORGE [Gore], 80-82207-208.
ALLAN, Hon. GEORGE W. [York], 115- 118.
ARMAND, Hon. JOSEPH F. [Alma], 209- 210.
BELLEAU, Hon. Sir N.F. [L], 180-186189317.
BENNETT, Hon. THOMAS [Eastern], 206-207.
BLAIR, Hon. A.J. FERGUSSON [Brock], 11300.
BLAKE, Hon. OLIVER [Thames], 325-326.
BOSSÉ, Hon. J.N. [De La Durantaye], 208.
BOULTON, Hon. GEORGE S. [L]. 152-154156.
BUREAU, Hon. J.O. [De Lorimier], 189- 193309-310327346.
CAMPBELL, Hon. A. Commissioner of Crown Lands [Cataraqui], 20-24,45156159160161175178202223272281290-298303340341342512.
CHRISTIE, Hon. David [Erie], 212-222224277279.
CURRIE, Hon. JAMES G. [Niagara], 45-58208-209210-212218269-284340341342512.
DE BEAUJEU, Hon. GEORGE S. [L], 205322-324.
DICKSON, Hon. WALTER H. [L], 284-290327.
FERRIER, Hon. James [L], 193-198233276.
FLINT, Hon. BILLA [Trent], 318-322.
GUÉVREMONT, Hon. J.B. [Saurel], 313.
HAMILTON, Hon. JOHN [Inkerman], 324-325.
LETELLIER DE ST. JUST, Hon. L. [Grandville], 12,13186-189.
MACPHERSON, Hon. DAVID. L. [Saugeen], 125149-152200201204283.
MCREA, Hon. WALTER [Western], 16 173277279.
MCMASTER, Hon. WILLIAM [Midland], 229-231.
MOORE, Hon. PHILIP H. [L], 83160162225-229.
OLIVIER, Hon. L.A. [De Lanaudière], 173-180189310-316.
PRICE, Hon. DAVID E. [Laurentides], 338- 339.
READ, Hon. ROBERT [Quinté], 326-327.
REESOR, Hon. DAVID [King’s], 158161162163-167327328-333339-340.
ROSS, Hon. JOHN [L], 71-80160213270271280300-301327.
RYAN, Hon. THOMAS [Victoria], 333-338340.
SANBORN, Hon. JOHN S. [Wellington], 118 -125222-225244-245.
SEYMOUR, Hon. BENJAMIN [L], 199-206298-300.
SIMPSON, Hon. JOHN [Queen’s], 160231- 234.
SKEAD, Hon. JAMES [Rideau], 242-244.
SPEAKER, The–Hon. U.J. TESSIER, [Gulf], 208317318>328421.
TACHÉ, Hon. Col. Sir E.P. Receiver General and Minister of Militia [L], 1-117683175177210211234-242333342-346.
VIDAL, Hon. A. [St. Clair], 82-83301- 309346.



February 3.–Hon. Atty. Gen. MACDONALD moved that an Address be presented to HER MAJESTY, praying that a measure be submitted to Imperial Parliament, based on certain resolutions, 18. Hon. Mr. HOLTON objected that the motion was not in order, inasmuch as the Address should be founded on Resolutions originated in Committee of the Whole, 18. The SPEAKER ruled that the motion was in order, 19.

March 7.–Hon. Atty. Gen. MACDONALD moved the previous question, 703. Hon. Atty. Gen. CARTIER having moved the adjournment of the debate till the first sitting of the House, to-morrow, after routine business, Hon. Mr. HOLTON moved in amendment that the debate be adjourned till the 13th instant, and that an Address be presented to the Governor General, praying him to cause to be laid before the House, in the meantime, various information relating to the subjects embraced in the resolutions, 767. Objection being taken, the SPEAKER ruled the amendment out or order, 768. The SPEAKER’S decision appealed from, 768. Sustained on a division of 59 to 20. Hon. Mr. DORION moved in amendment that the debate be adjourned for one month, or until such time as the people of the Province should have an opportunity of constitutionally pronouncing their opinion, 769. Objection being taken, the SPEAKER ruled the amendment out of order, 770. Hon Mr. CARTIER’S motion agreed to, 770.

March 10.–Objection having been taken by Hon. Mr. HOLTON, the SPEAKER ruled that the motion for the “previous question” was in order, 893. The House divided on the motion for the “previous questions,” 962. Agreed to by 85 to 39. The House divided on the main motion, of the Hon. Atty. Gen. MACDONALD, 962. Agreed to by 91 to 33.

March 13.–Hon. Atty. Gen. MACDONALD moved that a Committee be appointed to draft an address founded on the resolutions, 962. Hon. J. H. CAMERON moved in amendment an Address to the Governor General, for an appeal to the people before the resolutions should be submitted to the Imperial Parliament for their final section, 962. Objection being taken, the SPEAKER ruled the amendment to be in order, 963. House divided on Mr. CAMERON’S amendment, 1020. Negatived by 84 to 35 Hon. Mr. HOLTON moved an amendment, that the measure should not go into operation, until approved by the Parliament of Canada, after the next general election, 1021. House divided on said amendment, 1025. Negatived by 79 to 31. Hon. JOHN SANDFIELD MACDONALD moved an amendment with reference to the subject of Education in Upper Canada, 1025. House divided on said amendment, 1026. Negatived by 95 to 8. Mr. BOURASSA moved an amendment that Roman Catholic minority of Upper Canada be placed on same footing as Protestant minority of Lower Canada, 1026. House divided on said amendment, 1027. Negatived by 85 to 20. Main motion agreed to on a division and Committee appointed, 1026. Draft Address, reported, 1027. Agreed to and ordered to be engrossed, 1032. Ordered that an Address be presented to the Governor General by the whole House, requesting him to transmit said Address to HER MAJESTY, 1032.

March 14.–The House waited on His Excellency with their Address to HER MAJESTY. His Excellency’s reply, 1032.

ALLEYN, Hon. CHAS. [Quebec West], 641642669-673.
ARCHAMBEAULT, Mr. LOUIS [L’Assomption], 544-545.
BEAUBIEN, Dr. J.O. [Montmagry], 351550-551.
BELLEROSE, Mr. J.H. [Laval], 476-482.
BIGGAR, Mr. JAMES L. [East Northumberland], 882-884.
BLANCHET, Dr. JOSEPH G. [Levis], 545-550.
BOURASSA, Mr. FRANCOIS [St. Johns], 1026.
BOWMAN, Mr. I.E. [North Waterloo], 803-805.
BROWN, Hon. GEORGE, President of the Council [South Oxford], 84-115412450474476663664709-710711739752753754757758989- 995.
BURWELL, Mr. L. [East Elgin], 447-448.
CAMERON, Hon. J.H. [Peel], 14662716962-9759951006.
CAMERON, Mr. M.C. [North Ontario], 448- 463645681716-719744-747770975-986.
CARTIER, Hon. G.E., Attorney General East [Montreal East], 1953-62407408411412452, 5 0, 540571576642692713-7157317708419329451022.
CARTWRIGHT, Mr. R.J. [Lennox and Addington], 820-825.
CAUCHON, Hon. J. [Montmorency], 15, 371393554-584695-702778.
CHAMBERS, Mr. F.H. [Brockville], 770- 775.
COCKBURN, Hon. JAMES, Solicitor General West [West Northumberland], 810.
COWAN, Mr. JAMES [South Waterloo], 742957-958.
DENIS, Mr. PAUL [Beauharnois], 644871- 880986.
DENIVERVILLE, Mr. C.B. [Three Rivers], 947-952.
DORION, Hon. A.A. [Hochelaga], 15245-269378379570571584654- 657664682-695731-734767769944, 9479861021.
DORION, Mr. J.B.E. [Drummond and Arthabaska], 856-871929987.
DUFRESNE, Mr. JOSEPH [Montcalm], 554608922-9311017.
DUNKIN, Mr. CHRISTOPHER, [Brome], 19482-512512-544.
EVANTOREL, Hon. FRANCOIS, [Quebec County], 569576711-713943.
FERGUSON, Mr. THOS. R. [South Simcoe], 958-9611013-1015.
FORTIER, Mr. MOISE [Yamasaka], 941-943.
GAGNON, Mr. A. [Charlevoix], 952-953.
GALT, Hon. A.T., Minister of Finance, [Sherbrooke], 1962-71661662947.
GROFFRION, Mr. FÉLIX [Verchères], 389390580775-783.
GIBBS, Mr. THOMAS N. [South Ontario], 668810-814987-988.
HARWOOD, Mr. A. CHARTIER DE LOTBINIERE [Vaudreuil], 825-841.
HAULTAIN, Col. FREDERICK W. [Peterborough], 627-648.
HOLTON, Hon. L.H. [Chateauguay], 141718, 147-148394408411419440475660661664704-709725730731767768893937-944994996- 99710071021.
HOWLAND, Hon. W.P. [West York], 766.
HUNTINGTON, Hon. LUCIUS S. [Shefford], 953-9571015-1017.
JACKSON, Mr. GEORGE [Grey], 884-889988.
JOLY, Mr. H.G. [Lotbinière], 346-362384392393679998-1000.
JONES, Mr. D.F. [South Leeds], 814-820.
LAFRAMBOISE, Hon. MAURICE, [Bagot], 742-744841-856.
LANGEVIN, Hon. H.L., Solicitor General East [Dorchester], 362-392579691781.
MACDONALD, Hon. J.A., Attorney General West, [Kingston], 1314161825-45648-650658665703705725-7309449621000-100710271031.
MACDONALD, Mr. JOHN, [Toronto West], 760-765766.
MACDONALD, Hon. J. SANDFIELD [Cornwall], 13251, 420421642650-654662663666667720-725734-7421008-10131025.
MACFARLANE, Mr. ROBERT [Perth], 1022- 1024.
MACKENZIE, Mr. A., [Lambton], 421-43473876710091017-10181025.
MACKENZIE, Mr. HOPE F. [North Oxford], 673-6811009.
MAGILL, Mr. CHAS. [Hamilton], 997-998.
MCCONKEY, Mr. T.D. [North Simcoe], 889-893.
MCDOUGALL, Hon. WILLIAM, Provincial Secretary [North Lanark], 492538719-720985.
MCGEE, Hon. T. D’ARCY, Minister of Agriculture [Montreal West], 125-146, 643653669.
MCGIVERIN, Mr. W. [Lincoln], 464-475.
MCKELLAR, Mr. ARCHIBALD [Kent], 765- 766.
MORRIS, Mr. ALEXANDER, [South Lanark], 434-446.
O’HALLORAN, Mr. JAMES [Missisquoi], 792-799.
PAQUET, Dr. A.H. [Berthier], 789-792.
PARKER, Dr. T.S. [North Wellington], 668936-9371018-1020.
PERRAULT, Mr. JOSEPH F. [Richelieu], 559585-626926.
POULIOT, Mr. J.B. [Temiscouata], 880- 882.
POWELL, Mr. W.F. [Carleton], 715-716.
RANKIN, Col. ARTHUR [Essex], 657912- 922.
REMILLARD, Mr. EDOUARD [Bellechasse], 783-789.
ROSE, Hon. JOHN [Montreal Centre], 394- 419.
ROSS, Mr. JOHN J. [Champlain], 882.
ROSS, Mr. JOHN S. [Dundas], 799-803.
RYMALL, Mr. JOSEPH [South Wentworth], 932-9369931020.
SCATCHERD, Mr. THOS [West Middlesex], 747-760.
SCOBLE, Mr. JOHN [West Elgin], 852906- 912.
SHANLY, Mr. WALTER [South Grenville899-906.
SMITH, Mr. ALEXANDER M. [Toronto East], 897-899.
SPEAKER, The Hon. LEWIS WALLBRIDGE [South Hastings], 19559664703, 7687708939631032.
STIRTON, Mr. DAVID [South Wellington], 738.
TASCHEREAU, Mr. HENRI E [Beauce], 893- 897.
WALLBRIDGE, Mr. T.C. [North Hastings], 419657-660672.
WALSH, Mr. AQUILA [Norfolk], 805-810.
WEBB, Mr. WILLIAM H. [Richmond and Wolfe], 931-932.



His Excellency The Right Honorable CHARLES STANLEY, Viscount MONCK, Baron MONCK of Ballytrammon, in the County of Wexford, Governor General of British North America, and Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Island of Prince Edward, and Vice Admiral of the same, &c., &c., &c.


Hon. Sir ETIENNE PASCAL TACHÉ, Receiver General, Minister of Militia, and Premier.
Hon. JOHN ALEXANDER MACDONALD, Attorney General West.
Hon. GEORGE ETIENNE CARTIER, Attorney General East.
Hon. ALEXANDER TILLOCH GALT, Minister of Finance.
Hon. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, Commissioner of Crown Lands.
Hon. THOMAS D’ARCY MCGEE, Minister of Agriculture and Statistics.
Hon. JEAN CHARLES CHAPAIS, Commissioner of Public Works.
Hon. GEORGE BROWN, President Executive Council.
Hon. WILLIAM MCDOUGALL, Provincial Secretary.
Hon. WILLIAM PEARCE HOWLAND, Postmaster General.
Hon. HECTOR LOUIS LANGEVIN, Solicitor General East. 
Hon. JAMES COCKBURN, Solicitor General West.


The Honorable URLIC J. TESSIER, Speaker.

Residence. Names of Members.
Kingston Hon. John Hamilton.
Philipsburg Philip H. Moore.
London, C.W. George J. Goodhue.
Brockville James Morris.
Toronto James Gordon.
Montreal James Ferrier.
Perth Roderick Matheson.
Cobourg George S. Boulton.
Montmagny Sir Etienne P. Taché
Montreal James Leslie.
Montreal Frederick A. Quesnel.
Côteau du Lac. George Saveuse de Beaujeu.
Toronto John Ross.`
Hamilton Samuel Mills.
Quebec Louis Panet.
Quebec Sir Narcisse F. Belleau.
Montreal Charles Wilson.
Port Hope Benjamin Seymour.
Sorel David M. Armstrong.
Cobourg Ebenezer Perry.
Niagara Walter H. Dickson.


Electoral Divisions Names of Members.
Alma Hon. Joseph F. Armand.
Bathurst James Shaw.
Bedford A.B. Foster.
Brock A.J. Fergusson Blair.
Burlington Harcourt Burland Bull.
Cataraqui Alexander Campbell.
De La Durantaye Joseph Noel Bossé.
De Lanaudière L.A. Olivier.
De Lormier J.O. Bureau.
De Le Vallière J. Bte. G. Proulx.
De Salaberry Louis Rénaud.
Eastern Thomas Bennett.
Erie David Christie.
Gore George Alexander.
Grandville. Luc Letellier de St. Just.
Gulf Ulric Joseph Tessier.
Home James C. Aikins.
Inkerman John Hamilton.
Kennebec Charles Cormier.
King’s David Reesor.
La Salle Antoine J. Duchesnay.
Laurentides David Edward Price.
Lauzon Elzéar H.J. Duchesnay
Malahide E. Lenoard.
Midland Wm. McMaster.
Mille Isles Léandre Dumouchel.
Montarville Louis Lacoste.
Newcastle Asa A. Burnham.
Niagara James George Currie.
Queen’s John Simpson.
Quinté Robert Read.
Repentigny P. Urgel Archambault.
Rideau James Skead.
Rigaud East. Prud’homme, Jr
Rougemont William Henry Chaffers
Saugreen David L. Macpherson.
Saurel Jean Bte. Guévremont.
Shawenegan Charles Malhiot.
Stradacona Jean Elie Gingras.
St. Clair Alexander Vidal.
St. Lawrence George Crawford
Tecumseth Donald McDonald.
Thames Oliver Blake.
Trent Billa Flint.
Victoria Thomas Ryan
Wellington John Sewell Sanborn.
Western Walter McCrea.
York George William Allan.


THE Honorable LEWIS WALLBRIDGE, Speaker.


Constituencies. Names of Members.
Argenteuil Hon. John J. C.Abbott.
Bagot Hon. M. Laframboise.
Beauce Henri E. Tasehereau.
Beauharnois Paul Denis.
Bellechasse Edouard Rémillard.
Berthier Anselme H. Paquet.
Bonaventure Théodore Robitaille.
Brant (East Riding) John Young Bown.
Brant (West Riding) Edmund Burke Wood.
Brockville (Town.) Fitzwm. II. Chambers.
Brome Christopher Dunkin.
Carleton William Fred. Powell.
Chambly Charles Boucher de Boucherville.
Champlain John Jones Ross.
Charlevoix Adolphe Gagnon.
Chateauguay Hon. Luther H. Holton
Chicoutimi & Saguenay Pierre A. Tremblay.
Compton John Henry Pope.
Cornwall (Town) Hon. J. S. Macdonald.
Dorchester Hon. H. L. Langevin.
Drum’d & Arthabaska. Jean Bte. Eric Dorion.
Dundas John Sylvester Ross
Durham (East Riding) John Shuter Smith
Durham (West Riding) Henry Munro.
Elgin (East Riding.). Leonidas Burwell.
Elgin (West Riding.). John Scoble.
Essex Arthur Rankin.
Frontenac William Ferguson.
Gaspé John Le Boutillier.
Glengarry Donald A. Macdonald.
Grenville (South Riding) Walter Shanly.
Grey George Jackson.
Haldimand David Thompson.
Halton John White
Hamilton (City.) Charles Magill.
Hastings (North Riding) Thomas C. Wallbridge.
Hastings (South Riding) Hon. Lewis Wallbridge.
Hochelaga Hon. Antoine A.Dorion.
Huntingdon Robert B. Somerville.
Huron and Bruce James Dickson.
Iberville Alexandre Dufresne.
Jacques Cartier Guillaume G. Gaucher.
Joliette Hip.C. dit Grandchamp.
Kamouraska Hon. Jean C. Chapais.
Kent Archibald McKellar.
Kingston Hon. J. A. Macdonald.
Lambton Alexander Mackenzie.
Lanark (North Riding) Hon. Wm. McDougall.
Lanark (South Riding.) Alexander Morris.
Laprairie Alfred Pinsonneault.
L’Assomption Louis Archambeault
Laval Joseph H. Bellerose.
Leeds and Greenville (North Riding) Francis Jones.
Leeds (South Riding) David Ford Jones.
Lennox and Addington. Richard J. Cartwright.
Levis Jos. Goderic Blanchet.
Lincoln William McGiverin.
L’Islet Louis B. Caron.
London (City.) Hon. John Carling.
Lotbinière Henri Gustave July.
Maskinongé Moïse Houde.
Megantic George Irvine.
Middlesex (E. Riding.) Crowell Willson.
Middlesex (W. Riding.) Thomas Scatcherd.
Missisquoi James O’Halloran.
Montcalm Joseph Dufresne
Montmagny Jos. Octave Beaubien.
Montmorency Hon. Joseph Cauchon.
Montreal (City) Centre Hon. John Rose.
East Hon. Geo. B. Cartier.
West Hon. T. D’Arcy McGee.
Napierville S. Coupal dit La Reine.
Niagara (Town.) Angus Morrison.
Nicolet Joseph Gaudet.
Norfolk Aquila Walsh.
Northumberland (E.Riding.) James Lyon Biggar.
Northumberland (W. Riding) Hon. James Cockburn.
Ontario (North Riding) Matthew C. Cameron.
Ontario (South Riding) Thos. Nicholson Gibbs.
Ottawa (City) Joseph Merrill Currier.
Ottawa (County) Alonzo Wright.
Oxford (North Riding) Hope F, McKenzie.
Oxford (South Riding) Hon. George Brown
Peel Hon. John H. Cameron.
Perth Robert Macfarlane.
Peterborough Fred. Wm. Haultain.
Pontiac John Poupore.
Portneuf Jean Docile Brousseau.
Prescott Thomas Higginson.
Prince Edward Walter Ross.
Quebec (City) East Pierre Gabriel Huot.
Centre Hon. I. Thibaudeau.
West Hon. Charles Alleyn.
Quebec (County) Hon. F. Bvanturel.
Renfrew Robert Maclntyre.
Richmond and Wolfe William Hoste Webb
Richelieu Joseph F. Perrault.
Rimouski George Sylvain.
Rouville Joseph N. Poulin.
Russell Robert Bell.
St. Hyacinthe Rémi Raymond.
St. Johns François Bourassa.
St. Maurice Charles Lajoie.
Shefford Hon. L. S. Huntington.
Sherbrooke (Town) Hon. Alex. T. Galt.
Simcoe (North Riding) Thomas D. McConkey,
Simcoe (South Riding) Thomas R. Ferguson.
Soulanges William Duckett.
Stanstead Albert Knight.
Stormont Samuel Ault.
Témiscouata Jean Baptiste Pouliot.
Terrebonne Louis Labreche-Viger.
Three Rivers (City) Chas. B. De Niverville.
Toronto (City) East Alex. Mortimer Smith.
West John Macdonald.
Two Mountains Jean Baptiste Daoust.
Vaudreuil Antoine Chartier de Lotbinière Harwood.
Verchères Félix Geoffrion.
Victoria James Wicks Dunsford
Waterloo (N. Riding) Isaac Erb Bowman.
Waterloo (S. Riding) James Cowan.
Welland Thomas Clark Street.
Wellington (N. Riding) Thomaa S. Parker.
Wellington (S. Riding) David Stirton.
Wentworth (N. Riding) William Notman.
Wentworth (S. Riding) Joseph Rymal.
Yamaska Moïse Fortier.
York (East Riding) Amos Wright.
York (North, Riding) James Pearson Wells.
York (West Riding) Hon. Wm. P . Howland.

[Page 1]




Third Session, Eighth Provincial Parliament of Canada, in the Twenty-eighth year of the Reign of Her Majesty QUEEN VICTORIA.


FRIDAY, February 3, 1865.

HON. SIR E.P. TACHÉ moved, “That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be submitted to the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of uniting the Colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, in one Government, with provisions based on the following Resolutions, which were adopted at a Conference of Delegates from the said Colonies, held at the city of Quebec, on the 10th of October, 1864 :”

1. The best interests aud present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union under the Crown of Great Britain, provided such Union can be effected on principles just to the several Provinces.

2. In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of Government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interest of the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the Union, would be a General Government, charged with matters of common interest to the whole country ; and Local Governments for each of the Canadas, and for the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections. Provision being made for the admission into the Union, on equitable terms, of Newfoundland, the North-West Territory, British Columbia and Vancouver.

3. In framing a Constitution for the General Government, the Conference, with a view to the perpetuation of our connection with the Mother Country, and the promotion of the best interest of the people of these Provinces, desire to follow the model of the British Constitution, so far as our circumstances will permit.

4. The Executive Authority or Government shall be vested in the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the well-understood principles of the British Constitution, by the Sovereign personally, or by the Representative of the Sovereign duly authorized.

5. The Sovereign or Representative of the Sovereign shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia Forces.

6. There shall be a General Legislature or Parliament for the Federated Provinces, composed of a Legislative Council and a House of Commons.

7. For the purpose of forming the Legislative Council, the Federated Provinces shall be considered as consibting of three divisions : 1st, Upper Canada ; 2nd, Lower Canada ; 3rd, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island ; each division with an equal representation in the Legislative Council.

8. Upper Canada shall be represented in the Legislative Council by 24 Members, Lower Canada by 24 Members, and the three Maritime Provinces by 24 Members, of which Nova Scotia shall have 10, New Brunswick 10, and Prince Edward Island 4 Members.

9. The Colony of Newfoundland shall be entitled to enter the proposed Union, with a representation in the Legislative Council of 4 Members.

10. The North-West Territory, British Columbia and Vancouver shall be admitted into the Union on such terms and conditions as the Parliament of the Federated Provinces shall deem equitable, and as shall receive the assent of Her Majesty ; and in the case of the Province of British Columbia or Vancouver, as shall be agreed to by the Legislature of such Province.

11. The Members of the Legislative Council shall be appointed by the Crown under the Great Seal of the General Government, and shall hold office during life : if any Legislative Councillor shall, for two consecutive sessions of Parliament, fail to give his attendance in the said Council, his seat shall thereby become vacant.

12. The Members of che Legislative Council

[Page 2]

shall be British subjects by birth or naturalization, of the full age of thirty years, shall possess a continuous real property qualification of four thousand dollars over and above all incumbrances, and shall be and continue worth that sum over and above their debts and liabilities, but in the case of Newfoundland and Prince Edwaid Island, the property may be either real or personal.

13. If any question shall arise as to the qualification of a Legislative Councillor, the same shall be determined by the Council.

14. The first selection of the Members of the Legislative Council shall be made, except as regards Prince Edward Island, from the Legislative Councils of the various Provinces so far as a sufficient number be fonud qualified and willing to serve ; such Members shall be appointed by the Crown at the recommendation of the General Executive Government, upon the nomination of the respective Local Governments, and in such nomination due regard shall be had to the claims of the Members of the Legislative Council of the opposition in each Province, so that all political parties may, as neaily as possible, be fairly represented.

15. The Speaker of the Legislative Council (unless otherwise provided by Parliament), shall be appointed by the Crown from among the Members of the Legislative Council, and shall hold office during pleasure, and shall only be entitled to a casting vote on an equality of votes.

16. Each of the twenty-four Legislative Councillors representing Lower Canada in the Legislative Council of the General Legislauue shall be appointed to represent one of the twenty-four Electoral Divisions mentioned in Schedule A of Chapter first of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, and such Councilor shall reside or possess his qualification in the Division he is appointed to represent.

17. The basis of Representation in the House of Commons shall be Population, as determined by the Official Census every ten years ; and the number of Members at first shall be 194, distribted as follows :

Upper Canada 82
Lower Canada 65
Nova Scotia 19
New Brunswick 15
Newfoundland 8
Prince Edward Island 5

18. Until the Official Censu- of 1871 has been made up, there shall be no change in the number of Representatives from the several sections.

19. Immediately after the completion of the Census of 1871, and immediately after every decennial census thereafter, the Representation from each section in the House of Commons shall be readjusted on the basis of Population.

20. For the purpose of such readjustments, Lower Canada shall always be assigned sixty-five Members, and each of the other sections shall, at each readjustment, receive, for the ten years then next succeeding, the number of Members to which it will be entitled on the same ratio of Representation to Population as Lower Canada will enjoy according to the Census last taken by having sixty-five Members.

21. No reduction shall be made in the number of Members returned by any section, unless its population shall have decreased, relatively to the population of the whole Union, to the extent of five per centum.

22. In computing at each decennial period the number of Members to which each section is entitiled, no fractional parts shall be considered, unless when exceeding one-half the number entitling to a Member, in which case a Member shall be given for each such fractional part.

23. The Legislature of each Province shall divide such Province into the proper number of constituencies, and define the boundaries of each of them.

24. The Local Legislature of each Province may, from time to time, alter the Electoral Districts for the purposes of Representation in such Local Legislature, and distribute the Represetatives to which the Province is entitled in such Local Legislature, in any manner such Legislature may see fit.

25. The number of Members may at any time be increased by the General Parliament,—regard being had to the proportionate rights then existing.

26. Until provisions are made by the General Parliament, all the laws which, at that date of the Proclamation constituting the Union, are in torce in the Provinces respectively, relating to the qualification and disqualification of any person to be elected, or to sit or vote as a Member of the Assembly in the said Provinces respectively ; and relating to the qualification or disqualification of voters and to the oaths to be taken by voters, and to Returning Officers and their powers and duties,—and relating to the proceeding’s at Elections,—and to the period during which such elections may be continued —and relating to the Trial of Controverted Elections and the proceedings incident thereto,—and relating to the vacating of seats of Members, and to the issuing and execution of new Writs, in case of any seat being vacated otherwise than by a dissolution— shall respectively apply to elections of Members to serve in the House of Commons, for places situate in those Provinces respectively.

27. Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs choosing the same, and no longer; subject, neveitheless, to be sooner prorogued or dissolved by the Governor.

28. There shall be a Session of the General Parliament once, at least, in every year, so that a period of twelve calendar months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the General Parliament in one Session, and the first sitting thereof in the next Session.

[Page 3]

29. The General Parliament shall have power to make Laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the Federated Provinces (saving the sovereignty of England), and especially laws respecting the following subjects :—

1. The Public Debt and Property.

2. The regulation of Trade and Commerce.

3. The imposition or regulation of Duties of Customs on Imports and Exports,— except un Exports of Timber, Logs, Masts, Spars, Deals and Sawn Lumber from New Brunswick, and of Coal and other minerals from Nova Scotia.
4. The imposition or regulation of Excise Duties.

5. The raising of money by all or any other modes or systems of Taxation.

6. The borrowing of money on the Public Credit.

7. Postal Service.

8. Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals and other works, connecting any two or more of the Provinces together, or extending beyond the limits of any Province.

9. Lines of Steamships between the Federated Provinces pnd other Countries.

10. Telegraph Communication and the Incorporation of Telegraph Companies.

11. All such works as shall, although lying wholly within any Province, be specially declared by the Acts authorizing them to be for the general advantage.

12. The Census.

13. Militia—Military and Naval Service and Defence.

14. Beacons, Buoys and Light Houses.

15. Navigation and Shipping.

16. Quarantine.

17. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.

18. Ferries between any Province and a Foreign country, or between any two Provinces.

19. Currency and Coinage.

20. Banking—Incorporation of Banks, and the issue of paper money.

21. Savings Banks.

22. Weights and Measures.

23. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

24. Interest.

25. Legal Tender.

26. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

27. Patents of Invention and Discovery

28. Copy Rights.

29. Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians.

30. Naturalization and Aliens

31. Marriage and Divorce.

32. The Criminal Law, excepting the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the procedure in Criminal matters.

33. Rendering uniform all or any of the laws relative to property and civil rights in Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward sland, and rendering uniform the procediue of all or any of the Courts in these Provinces; but any statute for this purpose shall have no force or authority in any Province until sanctioned by the Legislature thereof

34. The establishment of a General Court of Appeal for the Federated Provinces.

35. Immigration.

36. Agriculture.

37. And generally respecting all matters of a genetal character, not specially and exclusively reserved for the Local Governments and Legislatures.

30. The General Government and Parliament shall bave all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of the Federated Provinces, as pait of the British Empire, to foreign countries arising under Treaties between Great Britain and such countries.

32. The General Parliament may also, from time to time, establish additional Courts, and the General Government may appoint Judges and officers thereof, when the same shall appear necessary or for the public advantage, in order to the due execution of the laws of Parliament.

32. All Courts, Judges, and officers of the several Provinces shall aid, assist and obey the Geneial Government in the exercise of its rights and powers, and for such purposes shall be held to be Courts, Judges and officers of the General Government.

33. The General Government shall appoint and pay the Judges of the Superior Courts in each Province, and of the County Courts in Upper Canada, and Parliament shall fix their salaries.

34. Until the Consolidation of the Laws of Upper Cunada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, the Judges of these Provinces appointed by the General Government, shall be selected from their respective Bars.

35. The Judges of the Courts of Lower Canada shall be selected from the Bar of Lower Canada.

36. The Judges of the Court of Admiralty now receiving salaries shall be paid by the General Government.

37. The Judges of the Superior Courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall be removable only on the Address of both Houses of Parliament.

38. For each of the Provinces there shall be an Executive Officer, styled tie Lieutenant Governor, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council, under the Great Seal of the Federated Provinces, during pleasure : such pleasure not to be exercised before the expiration of the first five years, except for cause: such cause to be communicated in writing to the Lieutenant Governor immediately after the exercise of the pleasure as aforesaid, and also by Message to both Houses of Parliament, within the first week of the first session afterwards.

[Page 4]

39. The Lieutenant Governor of each Province shall be paid by the General Government.

40. In undertaking to pay the salaries of the Lieutenant Governors, the Conference does not desire to prejudice the claim of Prince Edward Island upon the Imperial Government for the amount now paid for the salary of the Lieutenant Governor thereof.

41. The Local Government and Legislature of each Province shall be constructed in such manner as the existing Legislature of each such Province shall provide.

42. The Local Legislature shall have power to alter or amend their constitution from time to time.

43. The Local Legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects :

1. Direct taxation, and in New Brunswick the imposition of Daties on the Export of Timber, Logs, Masts, Spais, Deals, and Sawn Lumber ; and in Nova Scotia, of Coals and other minerals.
2. Borrowing money on the credit of the Province.
3. The establishment and tenure of local offices, and the appointment and payment of local officers.
4. Agriculture.
5. Immigration.
6. Education ; saving the rights and privil which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools at the time when the Union goes into operation.
7. The sale and management of Public Lands excepting Lands belonging to the General Government.
8. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries.
9. The establishment, maintenance and management of Penitentiaries, and Public and Refoiinatory Prisons.
10. The establishment, maintenance and management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions.
11. Municipal Institutions.
12. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer and other Licenses.
13. Local Works.
14. The Incorporation of Private or Local Companies, except such as relate to matters assigned to the General Parliament.
15. Property and Civil Rights, excepting those portions thereof assigned to the General Parliament.
16. Inflicting punishment by fine, penalties, imprisonment or otherwise, for the breach of laws passed in relation to any subject within their jurisdiction.
17. The Administration of Justice, including the Constitution, maintenance and organization of the Courts,—both of Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction, and including also the Procedure in Civil matters.
18. And generally all matters of a private or local nature, not assigned to the General Parliament.

44. The power of respiting, reprieving, and pardoning Prisoners convicted of crimes, and of commuting and remitting of sentences in whole or in part, which belongs of right to the Crown, shall be administered by the Lieutenant Governor of each Province in Council, subject to any instructions he may, from time to time, receive from the General Government, and subject lo any provisions that may be made in this behalf by the General Parliament

45. In regard to all subjects over which jurisdiction belongs to both the General and Local Legislatures, the laws of the General Parliament shall control and supersede those made by the Local Legislature, and the latter shall be void so far as they are repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the former.

46. Both the English and French languages may be employed in the General Parliament and in its proceedings, and in the Local Legislature of Lower Canada, and also in the Federal Courts and in the Courts of Lower Canada.

47. No lands or property belonging to the General or Local Governments shall be liable to taxation.

48. All Bills for appropriating any part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any new Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons or House of Assembly, as the case may be.

49. The House of Commons or House of Assembly shall not originate or pass any Vote, Resolution. Address or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost to any purpose, not first recommended by Message of the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor, as the case may be, during the session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address or Bill is passed

50. Any Bill of the General Parliament may be reserved in the usual manner for Her Majesty’s Assent, and any Bill of the Local Legislatures may, in like manner, be reserved for the consideration of the Governor General.

51. Any Bill passed by the General Parliament shall be subject to disallowance by Her Majesty within two years, as in the case of Bills passed by the Legislatures of the said Provinces hitherto ; and, in like manner, any Bill passed by a Local Legislature shall be subject to disallowance by the Governor General within one year after the passing thereof.

52. The Seat of Government of the Federated Provinces shall be Ottawa, subject to the Royal Prerogative.

53. Subject to any future action of the respective Local Governments, the Seat of the Local Government in Upper Canada shall be Toronto ; of Lower Canada. Quebec ; and the Seats of the Local Governments in the other Provinces shall be as at present.

54. All Stocks, Cash, Bankers’ Balances an

[Page 5]

Securities for money belonging to each Province at the time of the Union, except as hereinafter mentioned, shall belong to the General Government.

65. The following Public Works and Property of eaeh Province shall belong to the General Government, to wit :—

1. Canals.
2. Public Harbours.
3. Light Houses and Piers.
4. Steamboats, Dredges and Public Vessels.
5. River and Lake Improvements.
6. Railway and Railway Stocks, Mortgages and other debts due by Railway Companies.
7. Military Roads.
8. Custom Houses, Post Offices and other Public Buildings, except such as may be set aside by the General Government for the use of the Local Legislatures and Governments.
9. Property transferred by the Imperial Government and known as Ordnance Property.
10. Armories, Drill Sheds, Military Clothing and Munitions of War, and
11. Lands set apart for public purposes

56. All lands, mines, minerals and royalties vested in Her Majesty in the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, for the use of such Provinces, shall belong to the Local Government of the territory in which the same are so situate ; subject to any trusts that may exist in respect to any of such lands or to any interest of other persons in repect of the same.

57. All sums due from purchases or lessees of such lands, mines or minerals at the time of the Union, shall also belong to the Local Governments.

58. All assets connected with such portions of the public debt of any Province as are assumed by the Local Government’s shall also belong to those Governments respectively.

59. The several Provinces shall retain all other Public Property therein, subject to the right of the General Government to assume any Lands or Public Property required for Fortifications or the Defence of the Country

60. The General Government shall assume all the Debts and Liabilities of each Province.

61. The Debt of Canada, not specially assumed by Upper and Lower Canada respectively, shall not exceed, at the time of the Union, $62,500,000 ; Nova Scotia shall enter the Union with a debt not exceeding $8,000,000 ; and New Brunswick with a debt not exceeding $7,000,000.

62. In case Nova Scotia or New Brunswick do not incur liabilities beyond those for which their Governments are now bound, and which shall make their debts at the date of Union less than $8,000,000 and $7,000,000 respectively, they shall be entitled to interest at five per cent, on the amount not so incurred, in like manner as is hereinafter provided for Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island ; the foregoing resolution being in no respect intended to limit the powers given to the respective Governments of those Provinces, by Legislative authority, but only to lint it the maximum amount of charge to be assumed by the General Government ; provided always, that the powers so conferred by the respective Legislatures shall be exercised within five years from this date, or the same shall then lapse.

63. Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, not having incurred Debts equal to those of the other Provinces, shall be entitled to receive, by half-yearly payments, in advance, from the General Government, the Interest at five per cent, on the difference between the actual amount of their respective Debts at the time of the Union, and the aveiage amount of indebtedness per head of the Population of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

64. In considera’ion of the transfer to the General Parliament of the powers of Taxation, an annual grant in aid of each Province shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head of the population, as established by the census of 1861 ; the population of Newfoundland being estimated at 130,000. Such aid shall be in full settlement of all future demands upon the General Government for local purposes, and shall be paid half-yearly in advance to eaeh Province.

65. The position of New Brunswick being such as to entail large immediate charges upon her local revenues, it is agreed that for the period of ten years, from the time when the Union takes effect, an additional allowance of $63,000 per annum shall be made to that Province. But that so long as the liability of that Province remains under $7,000,000, a deduction equal o the interest on such deficiency shall be made from the $63,000.

66. In consideration of the surrender to the General Government by Newfoundland of all its rights in Mines and Minerals, and of all the ungranted and unoccupied Lands of the Crown, it is agreed that the sum of $150,000 shall each year be paid to that Province, by semi-annual payments ; provided that that Colony shall retain the right of opening, constructing and controlling Roads and Bridges through any of the said Lands subject to any Laws which the General Parliament may pass in respect of the same.

67. All engagements that may before the Union be entered into with the Imperial Government for the defence of the Country, shall be assumed by the General Government.

68. The General Government shall secure, without delay, the completion of the Intercolonial Railway from Rivière du Loup, through New Brunswick, to Truro in Nova Scotia.

69. The communications with the North-Western Territory, and the improvements required for the development of the Trade of the Great West with the Seaboard, are regarded by this Conference as subjects of the highest importance to the Federated Provinces, and shall be prosecuted at the earliest possible period that the state of the Finances will permit.

70. The sanction of the Imperial and Local

[Page 6]

Parliaments shall be sought for the Union of the Provinces, on the principles adopted by the Conference.

71. That Her Majesty the Queen be solicited to determine the rank and name of the Federated Provinces.

72. The proceedings of the Conference shall be authenticated by the signatures of the Delegates, and submitted by each Delegation to its own Government, and the Chairman is authorized to submit a copy to the Governor General for transmission to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Having read the motion, the hon. gentleman commenced to speak in French, when Hon. Mr. Ross requested he should address the House in English.

HON. MR. LETELLIER thought, as there were two members of the government in the House, one who spoke best in French (Sir E. P. TACHÉ), and one who did the same in English, it would be better for the Hon. Premier to speak in French, and then his colleague could do the same in English ; but Hon. Sir E. P. TACHÉ concluded that as there were English members who did not understand French at all, while the French members all understood English, it would be best for him to speak in the latter language, and proceeded to do so.

HON. SIR. E. P. TACHÉ then said that in moving the resolution he felt it his duty first to make a few preliminary remarks, and to give fully and thoroughly the reasons which had induced him to assume the grave responsibility of laying this measure before the House and the country. The reasons were two-fold. They related first to the intrinsic merits of the scheme itself, divested of all other considerations, and next, to the settlement of the domestic difficulties which for some years had distracted the country, and the means we might and ought to employ to restore good feeling, harmony and concord therein. He would, then, first address himself to what he considered the intrinsic merits of the scheme of Confederation, and he would therefore say that if were anxious to continue our connection with the British Empire, and to preserve intact our institutions, our laws, and even our remembrances of the past, we must sustain the measure. If the opportunity which now presented itself were allowed to pass by unimproved, whether we would or would not, we would be forced into the American Union by violence, and if not by violence, would be placed upon an inclined plain which would carry us there insensibly. In either case the result would be the same. In our present condition we would not long continue to exist as a British colony. To sustain this position he thought it was only necessary to look at the present state of Canada, its extent, its agricultural and mineral resources, its internal means of communication—natural and artificial,—its geographical position and its climate. The extent of the Canadian territory was, perhaps, not defined, but it was sufficiently well known to enable him to state that it was as large as many empires in Europe, larger than France or Austria. He knew that the portion cultivated was, in respect to its superficial area, only as to the seacoast to the sea itself. We had vast forests not yet opened or occupied, and yet we had a population numbering over two and a half millions of souls. With such an extent of territory and so fertile a soil, he had no doubt whatever that in less than half a century Canada would embrace a population equal to that of the large empires of the old world. Then with regard to our internal communications, natural and artificial, there was the noble St. Lawrence, which, with great propriety, might be called the father of rivers, for this stream, in point of navigable extent, was longer than any other river in the world. Some of its tributaries which would help to people the interior, were larger than the first-class rivers of Europe, and as to its lakes, none such are to be found elsewhere, especially in view of the facilities they afford to trade. Then the minerals of Canada, which were only now beginning to attract attention, were of the most valuable character, and as practical men asserted, much more valuable than the richest auriferous regions could be. The honorable member then referred to the artificial commucations of the country, viz.. our Canals, which, he said, were on a scale unequalled in America, or, indeed, in the world. Our Railway system too. in proportion to our means and population, was as extensive as could be found anywhere else; yet with all these advantages, natural and acquired, he was bound to say we could not become a great nation. We labored under a drawback or disadvantage which would effectually prevent that, and he would defy any one to take a map of the world and point to any great nation which had not seaports of its own open at all times of the year. Canada did not possess those advantages, but was shut up in a prison, as it were, for five months of the year in fields of ice, which all the steam engineering apparatus of human ingenuity could not overcome, and so long as this state of things continued, we must con-

[Page 7]

sent to be a small people, who could, at any moment, be assailed and invaded by a people better situated in that respect than we were. Canada was, in fact, just like a farmer who might stand upon an elevated spot on his property, from which he could look around upon fertile fields, meandering streams, wood and all else that was necessary to his domestic wants, but who had no outlet to the highway. To be sure he might have an easy, good-natured neighbor, who had such an outlet, and this neighbor might say to him, ” Don’t be uneasy about that, for I will allow you to pass on to the highway, through my cross road, and we shall both profit by the arrangement.” So long as this obliging neighbor was in good humor everything would go on pleasantly, but the very best natured people would sometimes get out of temper, or grow capricious, or circumstances might arise to cause irritation. And so it might come to pass that the excellent neighbor would get dissatisfied. For instance, he might be involved in a tedious and expensive law suit with some one else ; it might be a serious affair—in fact, an affair of life or death, and he might come to the isolated farmer and say to him, ” I understand that you and your family are all sympathising with my adversary ; I don’t like it at all, and I am determined you will find some other outlet to the highway than my cross road, for henceforth my gate will be shut against you.” In guch a case what is the farmer to do ? There is the air left, but until the aerostatic science is more practically developed, he can hardly try ballooning without the risk of breaking his neck. (Laughter.) Well, that was precisely our position in reference to the United States. Since the Atlantic and St. Lawrence Railway was opened we have bad a very convenient outlet to the sea, and he, with other hon. members now present, would remember the joyful jubilee which was held on the occasion of its opening at Boston in 1851 or ’52. For one he was perfectly delighted, as being a man of a different origin, to mark how the two branches of the Anglo-Saxon race fraternised. How they did shake hands to be sure ! How they did compliment each other as possessing qualities superior to all other people. They were indeed very affectionate and almost swore eternal friendship and fidelity, and he (Sir E. P. TACHÉ) had no doubt whatever of their perfect sincerity at the time. The consequences of this great work had, no doubt, been highly advantageous to both sides, for their commercial relations had enlarged very much, no much indeed that now the transactions with the United States were, as he believed, more extensive than those with Great Britain. If the advantages had been all on one side this increase would, of course, not have taken place. But how were we situated now ? Difficulties had supervened, in which we were in no wise concerned, but which originated with themselves. It was North against South solely, yet these difficulties had affected the good feeling between them and this country. To be sure there had been no misunderstanding at all between our respective Governments, but the minds of the people on both sides had been considerably affected. The people of the Northern States believed that Canadians sympathized with the South much more than they really did, and the consequences of this misapprehension were : first, that we had been threatened with the abolition of the transit system ; then the Reciprocity Treaty was to be discontinued ; then a passport system was inaugurated, which was almost equivalent to a prohibition of intercourse, and the only thing which really remained to be done was to shut down the gate altogether and prevent passage through their territory. Would any one say that such a state of things was one desirable for Canada to be placed in ? Will a great people in embryo, as he believed we were, coolly and tranquilly cross their arms and wait for what might come next ? For his part he held that the time had now arrived when we should establish a union with the great Gulf Provinces. He called them great advisedly, for they had within themselves many of the elements which went to constitute greatness, and of some of which wo were destitute.— Canada was unquestionably wanting in several of these important elements, and he had been very sorry a few days ago to hear an hon. member of this House make comparisons unfavorable to those countries. That hon. member had said the Lower Provinces were poor and needy, and that like all other poor people they would no doubt be glad to connect themselves with a wealthy partner. He had also said their product of wheat was very small, and that one of the inferior counties in Upper Canada yielded more than the whole of New Brunswick. Well, the allegations in respect of the produce of wheat might be true ; but that did not necessarily constitute them poor provinces. Let the honorable member look at Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire, which, in respect of agricultural produce, might be said to be poor, so poor that an American had once told him (Sir E. P. TACHÉ) that they did not even grow

[Page 8]

grass, and their inhabitants had to file the teeth of their sheep in summer to enable them to get a subsistence. (Laughter.) Yet were these states poor ? Had they no resources from their trade and manufactures ? If they did not produce wealth in one way they certainly did in others, and so it was with New Brunswick. If it did not produce wheat, it produced timber in immense quantities. It had a very extensive fishing coast which was a source of great wealth. Some honorable gentlemen would perhaps remember what an eminent man from Nova Scotia—the Hon. JOSEPH HOWE—had said at a dinner in this country in 1850, that he knew of a small granite rock upon which, at a single haul of the net, the fishermen had taken 500 barrels of mackerel. That was a great haul no doubt—(laughter) —but the honorable gentleman had not given the size of the barrels. (Laughter.) Still no one could deny that the Gulf Provinces were of immense importance, if only in respect of their fisheries. Then they were rich in minerals. Their coal alone was an element of great wealth. It had been said that where coal was found the country was of more value than gold. Look at England, and what was the chief source of her wealth if not coal? Deprived of coal, she would at once sink to the rank of a second or third rate power. But Canada had no coal, and notwithstanding all her other elements of greatness, she required that mineral in order to give lier completeness. What she had not, the Lower Provinces had ; and what they had not, Canada had. Then as to ship-building, it was an industry prosecuted with great vigor and success in those provinces, especially in New Brunswick, and some of the finest vessels sailing under the British flag had been built in the port of St. John, which annually launched a considerable number of the largest class. They were not beggars, nor did they wish to come into the union as such ; but as independent provinces, able to keep up their credit, and provide for their own wants. They would bring into the common stock a fair share of revenue, of property, and of every kind of industry. As to their harbours, he (Sir E. P. TACHÉ) had had the good fortune to visit them personally, and would say they could not be surpassed anywhere ; in fact he believed they were unequalled in the world. He would especially refer to that of Halifax, and would ask honorable members to imagine an extensive roadstead, protected by several islands standing out in the sea, so as to break the waves and quiet the waters in the worst of storms. This most beautiful harbour could accommodate, in perfect safety, more than 100 of the largest vessels ; but this was not all, for at the east end where it diminished into a gully, but with very deep water, you enter into a large natural basin, rounded as it were by the compass, and of an extent sufficient to take in all the navies of the world. The entrance to this magnificent inner harbour was rendered inaccessible to any foe by the fortifications erected at the mouth, and the entrance could, moreover, be so barred that no hostile fleet could ever get through. He did not suppose the fleets of England would ever need to take refuge there—(hear, hear)—although it had been loudly alleged that they could be blown out of the water in an incredibly short space of time—(laughter)—but it might afford shelter to isolated vessels, in case they were hard pushed by superior numbers. Well, under the union, Canada would become a partner in these advantages, and with the harbours of Halifax and Quebec, they might well feel proud of their country. On the whole, he thought that the Confederation of all the Provinces had become an absolute necessity, and that it was for us a question of to be or not to be. If we desired to remain British and monarchical, and if we desired to pass to our children these advantages, this measure, he repeated, was a necessity. But there were other motives and other reasons which should induce us to agree to the scheme. Every honorable gentleman in the House knew the political position of the country, and were acquainted with the feelings of irritation which have prevailed for many years. They knew it happily not by their experience in this House, but by the tone of the public press, and by the discussions in another place where taunts and menaces were freely flung across the floor by contending parties. They knew what human passions were, and how, when bitter feelings continued for a long time, the distance between exasperation and actual conflict was not very great. They had now before their own eyes an example of the effects of such disagreements. It was persistently believed by many that the rival interests would never come to a rupture, but for throe years they had been waging a conflict which had desolated and ruined the fairest portion of the country, and in the course of which acts of barbarity had been committed which were only equalled by the darkest ages. We in Canada were not more perfect, and the time had arrived when, as he believed, all the patriotic men in the country ought to unite in

[Page 9]

providing a remedy for the troubles we had to contend with. It might be said that the remedy proposed was not required, but he would like to know what other could be proposed. Legislation in Canada for the last two years had come almost to a stand still, and if any one would refer to the Statute Book since 1862, he would find that the only public measures there inscribed had been passed simply by the permission of the Opposition. This was the condition of things for two years, and if this were an evil there was another not less to be deplored ; he referred to the administration of public affairs during the same period. From the 21st May, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, there had been no less than five different Governments in charge of the business of the country. The honorable member here gave a history of the several changes until the MACDONALD-DORION Administration died, as he stated, of absolute weakness, falling under the weight they were unable to carry. Their successors were not more successful, and being defeated were thinking of appealing to the country, which they might have done with more or less success, gaining a constituency here, and perhaps losing another elsewhere. They had assumed the charge of affairs with an understanding that they would have a right to this appeal, and while they were consulting about it they received an intimation from the real chief of the Opposition, through one of their own friends, to the effect that he was desirous of making overtures to them, with the view of seeking to accommodate the difficulties. The honorable gentleman and some of his friends then came into contact with the leaders of the Government, and it was agreed between them to try to devise a scheme which would put an end to the misunderstandings, and at the same time secure for Canada and the other provinces a position which would ensure their future safety and procure them the respect and confidence of other nations. They arranged a large scheme and a smaller one. If the larger failed, then they were to fall back upon the minor, which provided for a federation of the two sections of the province. At the time these measures were resolved upon, the country was bordering on civil strife, and he would ask if it was not the duty of both sides to do all they could to prevent the unfortunate results which would have followed. An honorable member opposite (Hon. Mr. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST) had said, a few days ago, that it would have been easy to have prevented the necessity for a Confederation of all the provinces, by granting to Upper Canada the increased representation, or the demand of representation according to population, which they had been contending for.

HON. MR. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST begged to say that the Hon. Premier must have misunderstood him. What he had said was that if the proposition had been made to the people whether they should have a Confederation of all the provinces, or give Representation according to Population to Upper Canada, they would have chosen the latter ; and when he had alluded to some other mode of accommodating the difficulties, he meant that if the Government had applied to other parties in the Legislature than those they had had associated with themselves, they might have succeeded without having recourse to Confederation.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ said that he had not been alone in interpreting the honorable member as he had done, for two city journals had taken the same view of his remarks.

HON. M. LETELLIER said he was aware of it, but they were mistaken for all that.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—Well, it did not much matter ; but the honorable member should recollect that Lower Canada had constantly refused the demand of Upper Canada for representation according to population, and for the good reason that, as the union between them was legislative, a preponderance to one of the sections would have placed the other at its mercy. It would not be so in a Federal Union, for all questions of a general nature would be reserved for the General Government, and those of a local character to the local governments, who would have the power to manage their domestic affairs as they deemed best. If a Federal Union were obtained it would be tantamount to a separation of the provinces, and Lower Canada would thereby preserve its autonomy together with all the institutions it held so dear, and over which they could exercise the watchfulness and surveillance necessary to preserve them unimpaired. [The honorable member repeated this portion of his speech in French, for the express purpose of conveying his meaning in the clearest and most forcible manner to his fellow-members for Lower Canada, who might not have apprehended so well the English.] But there might be a portion of the inhabitants of Lower Canada who might at a first glance have greater reason to complain than the French Roman Catholics, and these were the English Protestants. And why ? Because they were in a minority ; but

[Page 10]

he thought that if they took the trouble fully to consider the subject, they would be reassured and satisfied with the scheme. First a great event had taken place ; the law of Lower Canada had been consolidated, and the English-speaking people residing in that section had got reconciled to it; in fact they were well satisfied therewith. In this respect, then, they were secure. But they might say that the majority in the Local Legislature might hereafter be unjust to them, but lie thought that, on looking at the past, their fears might be allayed. Before the union of the provinces, when the large majority of members in the Legislature were French, the English inhabitants had never found cause of complaint against them. In no instance had injustice been attempted. The difficulty was that the minority w. nted to rule and wanted to possess the whole power of the state in their hands. That the people of Lower Canada always acred towards the English with liberality was best exemplified by facts. Before the union wile the constituencies were almost exclusively French, English Protestant gentlemen were frequently returned to Parliament, and he had now opposite to him an honorable member who had tor twenty years represented an entirelv French and Roman Catholic county. He doubted if in the course of those twenty years that honorable member had ever been asked whether he were Scotch or Protestant. They took the man for his sterling worth. It was even a fact that the Fiench had elected members with extraordinary names, and as everybody knew, there was sometimes a good deal in a name. (Hear, hear.) Now if there was one name which French Canadians disliked more than another, it was that of Luther, (Hear , hear, and laughter.) Yet they had elected a gentleman bearing that significant appellation. He was glad they had, and he had no doubt lie had been elected because of his personal worth ; but it unquestionably showed a great deal of liberal feeling on the part of the electors. (Hear hear.) But if an English Protestant was bad in the eyes of a French Canadian, a Frerch Protestant was infinitely worse, and yet the county of Lotbinière a French Canadian Protestant without even questioning his religion. That gentleman was as a most worthy, able and well educated person, and every way well qualified for the important trust. But again, quite lately, in a division in Lower Canada numbering over fifty thousand soals, of which only one thousand four hundred were English, an election of a member to this Chamber had taken place, the candidates being a French Roman Catholic gentleman, long and well known, and an English Protestant—and with what result? Why, that the English Protestant had beaten the French Canadian Roman Catholic by one thousand votes. (Hear.) Could any greater proof of a tolerant and liberal feeling be exhibited ? These examples should show, as he thought, that the Protestants of Lower Canada were sure to meet with not justice simply, but with the largest toleration. It might perhaps be said that Mr. PRICE who had been elected for the division of which he spoke, being a large merchant doing business in Chicoutimi, had used the influence which his position gave him over many electors who were in his debt to obtain success ; but whatever might be said of Chicoutimi, it could not be said of the county of Charlevoix, where he had no such business relations, and yet he obtained a majority there too. The fret was, the result might be considered not only as a mark of confidence in Mr. PRICE, the son elected, but as a token of respect and gratitude to Mr. PRICE, senior, who had by his energy and enterprise opened up the Saguenay country, and who, in a certain sense, might be said to be the father of that region. Much had been said on the war of races, but that war was extinguished on the day the British Government granted Canada Responsible Government, by which all its inhabitants, without distinction of race or creed, were placed on a looting of equality. (Hear, hear). The war of races found its grave in the resolutions of the 3rd-September, 1841, and he hoped never to hear of it again. We were so situated that there must needs be mutual forbearance. This life was one of compromise. Not only was forbearance needed in public life, but in domestic life. If one member in a family insists upon having all his own way, there will be trouble, and so through all possible relations of humanity. He believed the French Canadians would do all in their power to render justice to their fellow-subjects of English origin, and it should not be forgotten that if the former were in a majority in Lower Canada, the English would be in a majority iu the General Government, and that no act of real injustice could take place even if there were a disposition to perpetrate it, without its being reversed there. He had now given to the House the motives which had led him to take the responsibility of introducing this important measure, and he trusted they would be viewed as sufficient. When the proper time for the discussion of the details came, he would be

[Page 11]

prepared to give such explanations as might seem requisite, and as to the mode and time of the discussion he would leave that to the decision of the House.

HON. MR. FERGUSSON BLAIR—[Owing to some noise in the House, the reporter did not clearly understand the opening remarks of the hon. member, except so far as that he desired to convey the impression that what he was about to say was not to be regarded as committing any one but himself; that he did not speak for any party or as representing any party in the House. The hon. member was also understood to allege he did not think the political struggles and difficulties alluded to by the Hon. Premier could be taken as sufficient to justify the great constitutional change now proposed]. He thought that in the course of party struggles for supremacy, the Opposition had erred in seeking to oust the Ministry before they themselves were prepared to assume the charge with a reasonable prospect of being able to carry on the Government with success. This was the British system, and an instance had lately occurred in the Imperial Parliament exemplifying it. On the Danish question Mr. D’ISRAELI could have defeated the Ministry, but, being aware that he could not form a strong Administration, many of his party abstained from voting. Such a condition of things could happen just as well in an assembly of 300 as in one of 600, and he did not think the change proposed would guaran¡ee immunity from future difficulties of the same kind, therefore they might happen in the General Government as well as in that of Canada alone. But looking at the scheme as presented, and forgetting all past party disputes and the charges against the public men concerned, it came before the House in such a shape as to make it necessary to accept or reject it. He must say he could not but attach great weight to a scheme prepared by men of different political opinions, by eminent men who had met together for the express purpose of arranging it, and who had agreed upon its provisions. If it were obstructed by any serious amendments, involving a prolonged delay, such delay might be fatal, and if it were to pass, he thought it should be allowed to do so at a sufficiently early period to permit of its being laid before the Imperial Parliament this year. (Hear, hear. ) He could not shut his eyes to the fact that whether or not the union added strength to the provinces interested, it would unquestionably add to their respectability and standing, both at home and abroad. (Hear.) The people of England were evidently looking to the proposed change with confidence and hope, and as likely to perpetuate the connection of the provinces with the empire for a long time to come. But it was well known that there was an anti-colonial party in England persistently urging that it would be an advantage to the nation to get rid of the colonies. The question of defending them was an embarrassing one, and unless some such scheme as this were adopted, it might present grave difficulties. If the scheme were rejected, the effect would be very injurious upon our credit. (Hear.) But if adopted, the reverse would be the ease. Its acceptance would also improve our position in the eyes of our neighbors in France and other nations ; indeed it would, in all probability, give us a national standing, without the necessity of separating from the mother country. For these reasons he had come to the conscientious conclusion that it would be highly injurious to reject the scheme, and that it was our duty to pass it as soon as was consistent with a due consideration of what was due to so important a subject. He did not think it necessary to express, at greater length, his reasons for giving the motion his support, but he again desired it to be well understood that he spoke only tor himself, and not in concert with any one else. At the same time lie might say, that from what he knew personally of the feeling of his section of the country, it was highly favorable to the measure. There might be sonic matters of detail upou which there was a difference of opinion, and when the resolutions came up in their order, he would indicate what the) were. The proposed submission of the scheme to the electors would involve a delay which could not be compensated for by any benefit proposed to be derived from such a course ; but if there should hereafter be any very impoitant publie movement and numerous petitions in favor of an appeal to the people, then the subject would present a different aspect. Or if the majority in favor of the scheme in the other branch of the Legislature should be very small, that might be deemed a sufficient reason for submitting it to the country. As to the course to be pursued in the decision on the merits, he did not know whether it would be best to have it in Committee of the Whole or with the Speaker in the chair. HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ thought it would be better that the Speaker should continue in the chair, but with the understanding that every honorable member should be at liberty to speak as freely md frequently as if the House were in committee.

[Page 12]


HON. ME. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST said, that if he were sufficiently master of English he would address the House in that language, but not being so would have to use the French. The difficulties to which allusion had been made were produced by two causes. They were not constitutional, however, but parliamentary, and, as he believed, could have been surmounted without recourse to the constitutional change which it was proposed to adopt without appeal to the country. It was true that difficulties had succeeded to difficulties, and that legislation was stopped, but if the leaders had sought in the Legislature itself for the means of removing them, he believed they would have been found. Who would guarantee the Government under the new Constitution from the recurrence of similar troubles? There would of course be an Opposition as in the smaller House. If similar difficulties happened, would the Confederation seek relief in another change of Constitution. On the contrary, would not relief be sought in the means he had suggested. At any rate he did not think such a change as the union of all the British provinces was required. In 1820, when a union of Upper and Lower Canada was proposed, it was objected that if it did not work a larger union would follow, and then, lastly, a legislative union of all the provinces. Two of these steps had already been taken, and we were going on with rapid strides towards the last. In such a case it was not hard to conceive what would be the position of Lower Canada. It was a misfortune that we had to contend with national prejudices, but it was impossible to forget them. In the event of a legislative union would the guarantees proposed to Lower Canada under the federation system be found ? Would it not then be at the mercy of those they now feared ? He admitted we had a rich country as represented ; we had wheat fields, mineral resources, forests, rivers and lakes, but to make them available did we require an increase of territory? We had territory enough, and an increase would be a source of weakness, not of strength. Would it not add to our already large frontier, and make us more vulnerable to invasions. The union would not increase the power of England to protect us, and England would have the same interest in protecting the colonies without as well as with the union. New Brunswick might be rich in coal, in wood and in fisheries, and do a large business in ship building, but these things would seek the best markets under any circumstances, and he did not see that a union with us would increase their value, and if it did it would be no advantage. Then, as to Nova Scotia with its small population and fine harbour—where would be the advantage of connection with her? Though not united, would not the harbour be equally available to our vessels ? He would now say he preferred to Confederation a legislative union of Upper and Lower Canada with inequality of representation in the Lower House and equality in the Upper. This would not add to the expenses of the province, and would be more consonant with our interests and the sentiments [ideas] of the people. Though there should be inequality in the Assembly, the equality in the Legislative Council would act as a counterpoise, and prevent one section from invading the interests of the other. Then did not Confederation consecrate [establish] the principle of representation according to population ? It would give larger to one of the nationalities, and, as the General Government would be able to veto the acts of the Local Government, would there be no danger to Lower Canada ? If representation by population had been so much opposed in this part, it was doubtless because there was cause of fear, yet this very power was to be conferred upon the Federal Government. If it could not be given with safety under our present regime, how could it be safer to give it to the Confederation. The advantage of the plan to Upper Canada was well understood, for immediately alter the coalition they all agreed to say they had gained what they had so long contended for.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—Well, alter all, they only got what the honorable member himself proposed to give them.

HON. MR. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST said he always preferred a short direct course to a long tortuous one. The friends of the new movement had tried to conceal the fact that representation according to population was to be conceded to Upper Canada, but they had failed, and the avowal had come out at last. The resolutions not being before the House, it would be improper to go into the merits of the details, but he could not avoid alluding to one point which was of profound interest. It was clear that the constituencies had not sent honorable members to this House for the purpose of electing themselves members for life, as they were invited to do. They were not sent here to change the Constitution, but to uphold it. (Hear.) You were, in fact, about to declare that the local governments would have power to recommend to the

[Page 13]

General Government that you should be appointed for life. If so, then let the people say whether such power should be conferred. Take the means to make sure that the members of the Assembly shall appeal to the country. In New Brunswick the question was about to be submitted to the people through a general election. To be sure, it was said that the term of Parliament there had expired ; but if the Ministers in New Brunswick had understood they could force a vote, as was about to be done in Canada, he doubted whether the general election would have taken place immediately. He believed, too, that the Conference generally had regarded this as the most proper mode. Then he did not think that such a change should have been brought about under a Coalition Government. This was contrary to British usage, and he believed that if a petition was numerously signed, and forwarded to the Imperial Government, representing that this important change had been brought about by a coalition, the act would be declared unconstitutional. The scheme was practically unknown to the people. Under some pressure it had been sent confidentially to the members, but what did the country understand of it ?—little or nothing. It had been said that if the scheme were not adopted now it would be in danger ; but would it not keep good for a little while ? Was it feared that the people would find out that it would occasion increased expense, and so refuse to have it ? If only for the reason that it was not known to the people, he would vote against it. When the details came to be discussed, he believed some of them would not be approved; and he also thought that the project did not embrace all the provisions which it should embrace. Finally, he thought the Government should not set its face against some changes in the scheme, were it only in the matter of the election of members to the Legislative Council, and he hoped the House would lead them to cousent to that alteration. When the resolutions came up, he would make it his duty to speak more positively to the particulars in question. The honorable member then sat down, saying he approved of the mode of discussion proposed. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. CURRIE then moved that the debate be adjourned until Monday, which was carried.


FRIDAY, February 3, 1865.

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said the Speaker having desired that he should not go on with the Address about the union of the colonies, he proposed not to take it up till Monday next, but as the matter was one of the utmost importance, he thought it would be well now to settle the mode of conducting the discussion. He would propose that after the discussion commenced, it should continue day after day, and that for the purpose of greater regularity the Speaker should remain in the chair. At the same time he would propose that the rule which prevented members speaking more than onee when the Speaker was in the chair should be suspended, in order that every member might have the same liberty of free discussion as he would have in Committee of the Whole.

HON. J. S. MACDONALD said the Attorney General’s proposition that discussion should continue day after day, was one which, in his opinion, ought not to be entertained by the House. This was a very gravo question, and he thought the people of this country had a right to consider maturely the sentiments promulgated by their representatives with regard to it. He was sorry, therefore, to have heard it announced by the Attorney General that the Government were to hurry the measure through, to the exclusion of all other matters.

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said he had not stated this. His idea was that after the debate commenced it should go on each day after half-past seven, leaving the afternoon sitting for other business. If the discussion was to be confined to government days, the debate of Tuesday would be forgotten by Friday, the same arguments would be gone over, and they would sit the whole year round to finish it.

HON. J.S. MACDONALD said other changes of no less importance than this, with reference to Clergy Reserves, Legislative Council, Seignorial Tenure, &c, had been before the people for a quarter of a century, and fully discussed session after session before being finally disposed of. Public opinion in that way was fully matured on these questions, but here they were called on at a few days’ notice to change entirely the Constitution we lived under, and time was not to be allowed for public opinion to be expressed on it. He objected also to the suspension of the rules of Parliament, so as to make the discussion take

[Page 14]

place with the Speaker in the chair, instead of in Committee of the Whole. If there was any question on which the House should adhere to its forms, it was a question like this—when the Government was so strong, so outrageously strong—(laughter)—the minority should be protected by the rules of the House being fully maintained. He observed the President of the Council laugh. He had learned a good deal from that gentleman in standing up for the rules of the House. But now, forsooth, the lion and lamb were lying together, and the Government, knowing that they had it in their power, were now to carry the measure through by brute force—the force of the majority.

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said there was nothing irregular in his proposing that discussion should go on with the Speaker in the chair. The suspension of the rules he proposed was for the protection of the minority, by allowing each member to speak and state his objections as often as he pleased.

HON. J . H. CAMERON approved of the proposition that discussion be conducted with the Speaker in the chair. With reference to the other proposition that it should go on from day to day, he suggested that after Attorney General MACDONALD had stated his views at length on Monday, the debate should bo adjourned for at least one week, that people in the country might have the views of the Government fully before them, before the debate fairly commenced. After that it might go on day after day.

HON. MR. HOLTON said he had not regarded the Attorney General’s proposition in exactly the same light as the member for Cornwall, but was willing to accept it as indicating a desire on the part of the Government to afford facilities for a full and free discussion. He thought, however, it would be advantageous if, after the general discussion took place with the Speaker in the chair, the House went into Committee of the Whole, to consider the details. He thought three days in the week sufficient for the discussion.

HON. MR. BROWN said the member for Chateauguay had rightly apprehended the object of the Attorney General when ho treated his proposition as dictated by a desire to afford the fullest opportunity of discussing this great question. Nothing could be further from their intention than to hurry the measure through by brute force, as charged by the member for Cornwall. Although the Attorney General had proposed that the discussion should continue day alter day, he had not suggested for a moment that the whole should be hurried on ; the debate at any period might be adjourned, if deemed necessary, to allow time for the expression of public opinion. There were 130 members, and almost every member would desire to speak on the question, and he thought clearly the proper course was to devote every day after half-past seven to the discussion, to allow all the members on both sides to state their views, that they might go to the country and be fully considered. He thought there was a good deal of force in the suggestion of the member for Peel, that after the views of the Government had been stated distinctly to the House the debate should be adjourned for a short time. Of course the Attorney General East, as well as the Attorney General West, would desire to explain the scheme from his point of view, so would the Minister of Finance ; and probably he also (Mr. BROWN) from his own particular stand point would like to say something about the scheme. After the views of the Government had thus been put before the House, there could be no difficulty about adjourning the debate for a time, that the country might distinctly understand what they were about.

After some remarks by Hon. Mr. CAUCHON and Mr. DUNKIN,

Mr. POWELL asked whether the House was expected to adopt the scheme in its entirety, or would it be open to the House to adopt one portion of it and reject another portion of it ?

HON. MR. HOLTON—That is not a fair question.

HON. MR. BROWN—Perfectly fair.

MR. POWELL thought Mr. Holton’s regard for fair play excessive, when it even impelled him to interfere on behalf of the Administration.

HON. MR. HOLTON—I think it would be unfair to answer such a question.

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said he agreed that Mr. Cameron’s proposition was a reasonable one. The Government would, in the first place, lay their case before the House, and through the press before the country, and then allow a reasonable time for the country to judge of the case as presented by the Government. It would not, of course, be presented by himself alone, as the President of the Council had said. The subject was so large in itself and comprehended so great a variety of details, that he fancied all the members of the Government would find it necessary to express their views on particular portions of this great scheme. In answer to the member for Carleton, the Government desired to

[Page 15]

say that they presented the scheme as a whole, and would exert all the influence they could bring to bear in the way of argument to induce the House to adopt the scheme without alteration, and for the simple reason that the scheme was not one framed by the Government of Canada, or by the Government of Nova Scotia, but was in the nature of a treaty settled between the different colonies, each clause of which had been fully discussed, and which had been agreed to by a system of mutual compromise. Of course it was competent to the House to vote against the Address as a whole, or to adopt amendments to it, but if they did so, it would then be for the Government to consider whether they would press the scheme further on the attention of the House. It was obvious that unless the scheme were adopted as it had been settled between the different provinces, if they prosecuted it further, they would have to commence de nove. and he had no hesitation in expressing his belief that if the scheme was not now adopted in all its principal details, as presented to the House, we could not expect to get it passed thig century. It had been only in consequence of a very happy concurrence of circumstances, which might not easily arise again, that the different provinces had been enabled to arrive at the conclusion now presented, and he should exceedingly regret in the Interests of Canada and of the future of British North America, if anything should delay beyond this year the completion and conclusion of this great scheme. The resolutions on their face bore evidence of compromise ; perhaps not one of the delegates from any of the provinces would have propounded this scheme as a whole, but being impressed with the conviction that it was highly desirable with a view to the maintenance of British power on this continent, that there should be Confederation and a junction of all the provinces, the consideration of the details was entered upon in a spirit of compromise. Not, one member of the Canadian Government had his own views carried out in all the details, and it was the same with the other delegates. But after a full discussion of sixteen days, and after the various details had been voted on, the resolutions as a whole were agreed to by a unanimous vote ; every one of the delegates, whatever his view to any of the details being satisfied to adopt the whole scheme as adopted by a majority for each individual resolution, and to press it upon his own Legislature as the only practicable scheme that could be carried ; such being the cage, he trusted the Government would have the support of a very large majority of the House in carrying the scheme just as it stood, members sacrificing their individual opinions as to particular details, if satisfied with the Government that the scheme as a whole was for the benefit ard prosperity of the people of Canada.

HON. MR. HOLTON would like to inquire whether, according to the course of proceeding proposed by the Attorney General, the seveial resolutions of the Conference would be submitted separately to the House as affirmative propositions ?

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said “no. ” The proposition submitted to the House is that an Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a bill should be passed based on these resolutions. All amendments might be moved to that one resolution. It would be the same thing, in fact, as to move them upon each resolution separately.

HON. MR. HOLTON held that the Government ought to ask for an affirmative vote from the House on each of those resolutions. They had been prepared and passed by a self-constituted body, without the House or the people ever having been consulted on the subject. Unless the House were a sham altogether, the least reference that could be paid to it would be to obtain a direct affirmation of each of the basis on which the projected Constitution which was hereafter to govern us wore to be founded.

HON. MR. CAUCHON wished information as to whether the scheme was to be discussed as a whole, or whether there would be an opportunity given to consider each part of it separately ? There were part of the resolutions about which there might be some misunderstanding and difference of opinion, as for example those clauses by one of which it was stated that the civil laws of the country were to be under the control of the local governments, and by the other of which the law of marriage was placed under the control of the General Government. The law of marriage pervaded the whole civil code, and he wanted to know how it could be placed under a different legislature from that which was to regulate the rest of the civil law. He did not, however, see why an affirmative vote on each resolution would enable the House to pronounce with more freedom on these details than the course proposed by the Attorney General.

HON. A. A. DORION said the member for Montmorency misapprehended the scope of the objection made by the member for Chateau-

[Page 16]

guay. That objection was that the freedom of Parliament would be better consulted, and more opportunity would be given to learn tho sense of the House by the different clauses of the Address being moved seriatim, in the same way as supplies were voted. This was the manner in which the Irish Union Act had been passed, as well as the bill to change the Government of India, the Canadian Union Act of 1840, Legislative Council Act, and other important measures. This was the uniform course of Parliament, and there was no precedent to be found for any contrary mode of proceeding. He thought the course proposed on the Opposition side of the House the most reasonable—that there should be a general discussion on the scheme, in which Members of the Government should state their views ; that then there should be an adjournment for a week to enable the public to consider these speeches, and that then the subject should be discussed three whole days each week till disposed of. This would, in fact, be devoting more time to it than the plan that was proposed by the President of the Council, and would secure more fair, open and full opportunity for discussion.

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD could understand the object of the hon. member for Hochelaga. That hon. gentleman was opposed to Confederation, and the course he proposed was just that which was calculated to throw the scheme to another Parliament and till another conference was held, so that Confederation might not be effected till the day of judgment. These resolutions were in the nature of a treaty, and if not adopted in their entirety, the proceedings would have to be commenced de novo. If each province undertook to change the details of the scheme, there would be no end to the discussions and the conferences which would have to be held.— Then, as to having a debate three days a week, it would extend the session beyond all bounds, especially as after the Confederation scheme was disposed of, there would be a measure for organizing the local governments under that

HON. MR. HOLTON—Why not bring that measure down with this?

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said that they were two different propositions, and they coulcl be only dealt with separately. If the House declared, by its vote, that Confederation was desirable, then it would be proper to consider the nature of the local governments ; but if it failed to accept the principle of Confederation, then it would be entirely useless to bring up the other measure. Besides, to bring down both measures at once would make confusion worse confounded, because members would, of necessity, introduce their views upon local governments into the consideration of the Confederation question.

HON. J . S. MACDONALD commented upon the declaration that the resolutions of the Conference were tantamount to a treaty, and asked by what authority the Government had undertaken to negotiate a treaty. He contended that all forms of the House should be strictly observed, so that there should be no infringement upon the rights of the minority.

MR. THOMAS FERGUSON asked whether it was the intention of the Government to carry this measure into force without submitting it to the people ?

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said he could answer his honorable friend at once. If this measure received the support of the House, there would be no necessity of going to the people. If, however, the measure were defeated, it, would be for the Government to consider whether there should not be an appeal to the country. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)

MR. SCATCHERD asked whether it was intended to make any amendments in the scheme to meet the suggestions contained in the despatch of the Colonial Secretary.

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD, in reply, said of course he could not answer what the policy of the Imperial Government might be ; all he could say was this, that the representatives of the various colonial governments, after this treaty had been made, agreed to go home and press upon the legislatures of their respective provinces this measure as a whole, and to present in all the colonial legislatures addresses identical in their nature to Her Majesty, asking Her to pass an Act based upon these resolutions, such address being an expression of the deliberate opinion of the colonies. It would then become the duty of the Imperial Government and Legislature to act as they pleased in the matter. He hoped and believed they would not make any alterations in the scheme adopted by the Conference. He was quite satisfied that if the local legislatures asked them to pass the scheme as it stood, they would leave us to be the best judges of our own affairs and carry the measure through.

HON. MR. HOLTON said he had given notice the other day of three questions he intended to put to the Government before going

[Page 17]

into Committee of Supply, but as the present was an equally favorable opportunity, he trusted there would be no objection to his putting them now.


HON. MR. HOLTON said the first question had a reference to the subject to which the Attorney General had alluded in the course of his remarks just now. It was, whether it was the intention of the Government to bring down their projects for local constitutions for the two sections of Canada before inviting the House to proceed with the discussion of this question of Confederation. The honorable gentleman had already answered that question by saying it was not the intention of the Government to introduce this measure, and had given reasons for this course. Upon these reasons he (Hon. Mr. HOLTON) desired to say one word. He maintained that the question now before the House was, should they revolutionize the country, should they revolutionize the government of the country? (Hear, hear.) That was undoubtedly the question, and he would like to know distinctly whether the form of the proposed new government, local as well as general, formed part of the same scheme ? He felt that the House could not be in a position to consider the proposed forms of the Constitution until they had before them, at least in a general way, the forms of government which were to obtain between the two sections of the province, of the union of which a dissolution was to be wrought by the measure before the House. Then another question which he had proposed to put had reference to the educational system of Lower Canada. The Minister of Finance, in a speech at Sherbrooke, had promised that the Government would introduce a bill to amend the school laws of Lower Canada. The honorable gentleman must be aware that this was a question on which there was a great deal of feeling in this section of the province amongst the English-speaking, or the Protestant class, of the population. He did not like to introduce anything of a religious character into discussions of this House, but in debating the great changes which it was proposed to effect in our system of government, the effect of them upon that class to which he referred must be considered. Among that class there was no phase or feature of these threatened changes which excited so much alarm as this very question of education. Well, the Minister of Finance had said, with great solemnity, as having the authority of his colleagues for it, that this session the Government would bring down amendments to the school laws of Lower Canada, which they proposed enacting into law before a change of government should take place, and which would become a permanent settlement of that question. The question hie then desired to put was whether they intended to submit these amendments before they asked the House to pass finally upon the other scheme of Confederation, and if so, to state when the House might look for that measure, as it would undoubtedly exercise very considerable influence upon the discussion of the Confederation scheme, and probably in the last resort from several members from Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) Then the third question of which he had given notice had reference to the Intercolonial Railway. It was a novelty that, perhaps, might not be found in the constitution of any country, to introduce a provision for the construction of a railroad, canals, turnpike roads or other public works. (Laughter.) But the novelty existed in this case, and we are told that a part of the proposed Constitution was to build the Intercolonial Railway, as to the usefulness of which there had been a great difference of opinion amongst members of the House and in the country.

After the dinner recess,

HON. MR. HOLTON, continuing his remarks, said it appeared now to be proposed to make the construction of a railway part of the Constitution of the country. The President of the Council, who had formerly strongly opposed the Intercolonial Railway, had now become so enamoured of it and its adjuncts that he was reported to have declared in a speech at Toronto, that rather than nat have those adjuncts, to wit, the union of all the provinces, which he had also previously opposed as vigorously as the railway itself, he would consent to building six intercolonial railways. (Laughter.) He thought the House was entitled to know what was to be done with reference to that railway before they were asked to consider the gveat question of whioh it formed a part. He desired also some information as to the position of the North-West question on which the President of the Council had always taken strong grounds, maintaining that Canada had a territorial right extending over all that region. He took it for granted the President of the Council still maintained his position, but he wished to know from him authoritatively the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with the question. He desired, also, some information on the subject of the defences, and what wis to be the measure of our con-

[Page 18]

tributions under the proposed scheme for that important object.

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said the Government would cheerfully give an answer to Hon. Mr. HOLTON’S questions. As to the local constitutions of Upper and Lower Canada, when subordinate provinces of the Confederaation, Government proposed to submit to the House a scheme or schemes to be considered by members of Upper and Lower Canada, respecting the constitutions, of their respective governments. But the action with regard to them must be the action of Parliament. That action would only be asked after the Confederation scheme was adopted, for until it was settled that there was to be Confederation, it was idle to discuss what should be the constitutions of the several provinces. As to the school question, it had been announced by Hon. Mr. GALT, at Sherbrooke, that before Confederation took place, this Parliament would be asked to consider a measure which he hoped would be satisfactory to all classes of the community. There was a good deal of apprehension in Lower Canada on the part of the minority there as to the possible effect of Confederation on their rights on the subject of education, and it was the intention of the Government, if Parliament approved the scheme of Confederation, to lay before the House this session, certain amendments to the school law, to operate as a sort of guarantee against any infringement by the majority of the rights of the minority in this matter.

HON. A. A. DORION—Will it apply to both Upper and Lower Canada ?

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said he believed, as regarded Upper Canada, the matter would remain in statu quo, as the present law there was quite satisfactory to the minority. As regarded the Intercolonial Railroad, the resolutions shewed precisely what was the intention of the Government in that matter. The railroad was not, as stated by Hon. Mr.HOLTON, a portion of the Constitution, but was one of the conditions on which the Lower Provinces agreed to enter into the constitutional agreement with us. The North-West question lie would leave in the hands of the President of the Council, who understood it thoroughly, and could, no doubt, give Hon. Mr. HOLTON a satisfactory answer. With rebpect to the defences of the province, they were now the subject of negotiations with the Imperial Government, and the fullest information would be given to the House on that subject. He might mention that the Maritime Provinces, recognizing the peculiar position of Canada geographically, and its danger in case of hostilities, had most cordially agreed that any sum this Parliament might vote for the defence of Canada, they would undertake their share of.

MR. WALLBRIDGE asked if he was to understand that a guarantee was to be given in the Constitution of the Federal Government to Roman Catholic separate schools ?

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—I only said this, that before Confederation is adopted, the Government would bring down a measure to amend the school law of Lower Canada, protecting the rights of the minority, and which, at the same time, I believe, would be satisfactory to the majority, who have always hitherto shown respect for the rights of the minority, and, no doubt, will continue to do so.

HON. MR. BROWN said Hon. Mr. HOLTON had done no injustice to him in supposing he held now precisely the same sentiments on the North-West question he formerly did. He believed it of vast importance that that region should be brought within tha limits of civilization, and vigorous measures had been taken to ascertain what could be done with that view. It was not long since he returned from England, where the matter was very fully discussed, and he had not as yet had an opportunity of submitting the thing so fully to the Council that a decision could be had upon it, but he had no doubt that in a very short time they would be able to communicate to the House ample information as to their intentions.

The discussion was then made regular by Atty. Gen. MACDONALD formally proposing that an Address be presented to Her Majesty.

HON. MR. HOLTON said that the universal law of Parliament with respect either to bills or addresses looking to the disposal of public property or funds, or additions to the burdens of the ouut ry, was that the measure must originate in Committee of the Whole. This Confederation scheme disposed of the whole assets of the couutiy, and established burdens which were to be applied to the purposes of the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland, besides paying eighty cents per head of population to all the various provinces. This appropriation of property indeed ran throughout the scheme. Not only so, but the usage on all si ilar occasions was to introduce the measure in Committee of the Whole. The act of union between England and Ireland was originated in this way, and so was our own act of union in the legislature of Upper Canada under the management of Mr. POULET THOMPSON, who was well known to be an able English parliamentarian. The

[Page 19]

same course was taken on our own Reform Bill under the HINCKS Government.

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said that any measure appropriating money must originate in Committee of the Whole, but it was otherwise with an Address to the Crown, asking to recommend a grant of money. This was an address asking the Crown to make a great constitutional change. Now, supposing that it was asking to have the Constitution done away with altogether, must such an address originate in committee ? Clearly not. The money to be appropriated was to be granted by legislatures which did not yet exist.

HON. A. A. DORION—There is nothing more plain than that, according to the standing order of the House of Commons, any measure appropriating money or any Address to the Crown asking for a grant of money, or that expenses may be incurred, must originate in Committee of the Whole. Our own 80th rule was in a similar sense, setting forth that motions tending to grant an aid or to make any charge upon the people must originate in committee. Now, surely these resolutions tended to create a charge upon the people. Among other things they bound the country to make a railway.

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—That will be made by the Confederate Government, not by this Government. We are not granting any money.

HON. A. A. DORION—Nor do you ever grant money when you ask the Crown to recommend the grant, since the Crown may refuse ; surely if a matter involving $5 or $50 must originate in committee, so large a matter as this must do so.

ATTY. GEN. CARTIER spoke of Hon. Mr. DORION’S remarks as absurd, as not a farthing of money was being appropriated. It wasquitetrue the rule of the Imperial Parliament might seem to go as far as Hon. Mr. DORION said, but wehad no such rule. Ours was founded on the Union Act, which merely said that no appropriation could be made, except after a Message from His Excellency, which must be referred to a committee. The Union Act was our law, and to-morrow the British Parliament, with the sanction of the Queen, might abolish the Constitution.

MR. DUNKIN—The Attorney General was the very BAYARD of defenders of every little corporation which had received its charter from that legislature ; that was of every corporation or company which enjoyed his favor, from none of which he would take away the smallest part of the privileges ever conferred upon them, and yet he asserted that the whole privileges and rights of this great colony could be taken away to-morrow by the Imperial Parliament. He (Mr. DUNKIN) denied that all our rights were held at pleasure, but, if they were, that had nothing to do with the matter. If we were precluded from giving away small sums of money, except in a particular way, surely we were debarred from giving away all our rights. The British Parliament could declare that a man is a woman, and he must thereafter legally be called a woman, but that did not make him one.

HON. MR. GALT said clearly no charge was put on the people by this Address ; not a penny could be taken out of the public chest in consequence of it. He thought also the spirit of the rules was no more infringed than their letter, by taking the course proposed by the Attorney General West ; because, if the Address passed, the Imperial Act would refer again to the people the power of disposing of this property by their votes.

Mr. SPEAKER decided as follows :—

The honorable member for Chateauguay has submitted that the motion is not in order, ” inasmuch as the proposed Address prays the Crown tu recommend to the Imperial Parliament the passage of an Act laying new burdens on the people of this Province, and making dispositions as to the public property and money of this Province, the law of Parliament requires that it should be founded on Resolutions originated in Committee of the whole House.” Now, the 4th clause of the 14th section of the Consolidated Statutes ot Canada, ” The Legislative Assembly shall not originate or pass any Vote, Resolution or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the said Consolidated Revenue Fund”, or of any other tax or impost, to any purpose which has not been first recommended by a Message of the Governor to the Legislative Assembly, during the Session in which such Vote, Resolution or Bill is passed ;” and the 88th Rule of this House, ” If any motion be made in the House for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereof may not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned till such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint ; and then it shall be referred to a Committee of the whole House before any Resolution or Vote of the House do pass thereupon,” which seems to be based thereon, refer to Resolutions or to an Address upon which some future action of this House is to be based. I fail to see in this motion that the action of this House is to be involved any further after passing this Resolution. As this mattar was discussed before I left the chair, at six o’clock, I took occasion to put in writing my opinion upon the subject. I will read : “The motion is for an Address to Her Majesty, in which

[Page 20]

the Resolutions on Confederation of the Provinces are set out. How does this differ from an Address moved to His Excellency, which always comes on motion upon a two days’ notice given as in this case ? I cannot see how, as a point of Order, I can treat the matter other than as in the ordinary case of an Address. The argument is that it will be inconvenient so to discuss it. That is not addressed to a question of Order, but to one of convenience. The case cited by the honorable member for Chateauguay of Resolutions upon the question of a Bill for the Government of India was not one of Resolutions for an Address, but of Resolutions simply, containing the proposed principles of the Bill intended to be introduced. It is not pretended here that this House has any right to pass such a Bill, or that it is intended to present one on that subject here. The reasons why it is convenient to diBcuss matters in the form of a Resolution on which a Bill is afterwards to be introduced, is that Resolutions more easily admit of alteration. The Government have expressed their determination not to admit of any alterations in these Resolutions. Thus it is obvious that the same reasons for going into Committee do not hold. The member who moves an Address can force the vote on his motion in the manner he has put it, unless the form of it be changed by amendment, and this appears to be the only course open here. In truth the word ‘Resolutions’ might very well have been omitted altogether from this motion. Whatever might have been the result on a mere question of convenience, it is certain that the Speaker does not decide that matter. His duties are to preserve order and decorum, and to decide questions of Order.”

ATTY. GEN. MAC DONALD moved that the debate be adjourned and made the first order for Monday after half-past seven o’clock, P.M.

HON. MR. HOLTON raised the objection that this motion could not be put without two days’ notice

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD said if this was the sort of tactics to be pursued, and an attempt made to embarrass the Government at every step, he must withdraw the concession made to the member for Peel, and would give notice that he would move on Tuesday, that the debate be continued from day to day until the Address was finally adopted or rejected by the House.

After some discussion, Hon. Mr. HOLTON withdrew his objection, and Atty. Gen. MACDONALD his notice.


MONDAY, February 6, 1865.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL said that, with the permission of the honorable member who had the floor (Hon. Mr. CURRIE), he would offer a few remarks upon one portion of the scheme of Confederation, to which allusion had been specially made in the House, and which, to a limited extent, had occupied the attention of the country. He referred to the proposed constitution of the Legislative Council under that scheme ; and in offering the reasons which had led the Canadian Government and the other members of the Conference, which, as honorable members knew, was composed of the leading men in the legislatures of the several provinces — the leading men in opposition as well as the leading men in office—to decide as they had done, he begged the House to believe that the decision had not been arrived at hastily, but after prolonged and anxious discussion, and after a full and careful consideration of the subject. It was not to be supposed that the Government of Canada had itself laid down the scheme of the constitution as embraced in the resolutions on the table of the House. Honorable gentlemen must not misunderstand him. He did not mean to say that the Government did not heartily concur in and adopt the scheme, but that it was not its work alone, but that of the delegates from the other provinces as well. It was the result of deliberation, accommodation and compromise. When it became necessary for the Government to press the resolutions, he trusted honorable members would not suppose that they did so out of that love which people have for the creation of their own intellect, but would remember they were the joint production of the gentlemen to whom he alluded, and that any pertinacity on his part arose from a sense of the sacrifices they had made to secure an agreement, and the difficulties which any failure now would create. He felt it had been impossible for the Conference to arrive at any other understanding, and he only wished that those who looked with disfavor upon their plan, could have witnessed the anxious debates held at Charlottetown and Quebec before it was finally settled. The result arrived at would, he hoped, promote the welfare of the provinces interested, and be remembered with gratitude by their inhabitants many long years hence. And supposing this Chamber and the other were to come to a different opinion

[Page 21]

and reject the resolutions, what would be the effect ? The sacrifices and compromises submitted to by the representatives of the several provinces would go for nothing ; the efforts of the eminent men who had put aside personal and party differences to accomplish what they deemed a great and good work would be futile, and yet, by such men only could such a scheme have been devised and matured. Considering then the earnest efforts made to secure this agreement, and the improbability that, if rejected, any other could be attempted with better hope of success, he felt he had a right to ask the House to give the subject a fair, patient, and favorable consideration. If an amendment were proposed here, and another there, and especially if the provision respecting the constitution of the House were changed, it was pretty certain that the whole thing would miscarry, for he well knew that in respect of this point the legislatures of the Lower Provinces would come to a different conclusion. If the elective principle were insisted upon in Canada, and its Government bound over to maintain it, even though another Conference were called, no agreement could be expected, for as he had already said, the delegates from the other provinces would be sure to be charged with exactly different instructions. And as of this particular point, so of a hundred others, until it would be utterly impossible again to arrive at anything like unanimity. As the honorable member for Brock had so well said on a previous evening, any failure now would be extremely damaging to our credit abroad. It was well kown that the fact of our public men having thrown aside their political partizanship for the purpose of advancing the welfare of the country, the holding of the Conference, and the agreement secured, had already done us a great deal of good at home. But not only would this first fruit of the work be forfeited, but an injury more than correspondingly great would follow. (Hear, hear.) [The honorable member elaborated this idea at some length with the view of showing the beneficial effect the adoption of the scheme of Confederation had produced, and the disasterous consequences which its rejection by Parliament must inevitably entail.] He did not propose to follow his honorable friend the Premier in the discussion of the merits of the project as a whole ; the able manner in which that honorable member had presented it could not but have commended itself to every candid mind. (Hear, hear.) He (Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL) would, however, take up the point to which he had alluded at the commencement, and from which he had for a moment digressed, and give the reasons which had induced the Conference to determine as they had done, upon the constitution of the Upper House. And the main reason was to give each of the provinces adequate security for the protection of its local interests, a protection which it was feared might not be found in a House where the representation was based upon numbers only, as would be the case in the General Assembly. The number of representatives to the Legislative Council under the Federal constitution would be limited, and they would be appointed for life instead of elected by the people. For the purpose of securing equality in that House, the Confederation would be divided into two sections, viz. : Upper Canada, Lower Canada, and the Maritime Provinces, and each of these sections would send twentyfour members to the House. In Upper Canada, as had been stated lately by an honorable member, the population has increased very rapidly, and would probably go on increasing in a much larger ratio than that of Lower Canada or the other provinces, and if the Legislative Council were elective, the time might come when the people of that section would fancy themselve entitled to an increased representation in the Council, and commerce to agitate for it. They might object to the fishing bounties paid the Lower Province, to the money expended there in forti âcations, or to something else, and claim a representation in the Council, more in accordance with their population to enforce their views ; and in view of such contingencies the delegates from those provinces conceived it would not be safe to trust their rights to an elective House. It was then determined that in one branch there would be a fixed number of members nominated by the Crown, to enable it to act as a counterpoise to the branch in which the principle of representation according to population would be recognized. It might be said that the principle of limitation of numbers could have been adopted, and that of election preserved. Well, he did not say the scheme was perfect, but it was the best that could be devised, and as the Lower Provinces felt the danger from their inferiority of numbers, being only 800,000 against double that number in Upper Canada alone, it was essential that the security which a fixed representation in the Council afforded to them should be acceded to. The Conference acted upon the conviction that they were not building a structure for a temporary purpose, but,

[Page 22]

as they hoped, for centuries, and knowing how the doctrine of representation according to population had operated in distracting the popular branch of the Legislature in Canada, they endeavored to provide against a similarly disturbing cause in the Confederation. And their precaution appeared to him to be founded in wisdom and justice. For the sake of argument let it be supposed that the elective principle is maintained, and that the limit of numbers now proposed, viz., 24 members for each of the three grand sections in the Council is also fixed ; let it be supposed further, that the population of Upper Canada continues to augment as in the past, what may not be that of the Saugeen, Tecumseth and Eastern Divisions (which now have 130,000, 90,000 and 60,000 respectively) forty or fifty years hence ? And is it not possible, nay, would it not be likely, that these great con stituences, when comparing them with the divisions in Prince Edward Island, numbering some twenty thousand to twenty-five thousand souls, would be disposed to set up claims for additional representation ? Who that looks to the future will say that with an elective Upper House the Constitution will last? It was the apprehension of danger to its permanency that decided the Conference to adopt the principle of nomination to the superior branch, and it was the only way which suggested itself for averting it. And he must say for himself, that he fully and entirely concurred in the decision. He felt that the principle of election kept alive a germ of doubt as to the security of the Lower Provinces, and he was glad that a way was found of removing it altogether. It was well known that even in the United States, where there was so prevalent a disposition to submit everything to the decision of the people, the principle of limitation to the Upper House was so fully recognized and settled by the Constitution, that no attempt was ever made to change it. In this way the smallest state, like Rhode Island, was as fully represented as the state of New York. And if that was considered necessary in a country so compact together as the United States, how much more would it not be proper in a Confederation, some of the sections of which were separated from each other by long, narrow strips of land, or wide estuaries, with small representation in the popular branch, and looking chiefly to their equality in the Upper Chamber for security for local rights and interests and institutions. He was gratified, upon another ground, that this decision had been attained, and this was on the ground of the respect he bore to the life-members of this Chamber. In the law which had made the House elective there was no wiser provision than that which had guaranteed the seat of the members appointed by the Crown, who then composed it. He had always felt the great advantage of the presence of those honorable members hero. If the elective system had entirely superseded the nominated House, removed those gentlemen and brought together forty-eight entirely new members, the country would have suffered a grievous loss ; but the old members kept their places and the new ones came in twelve at a time, two years apart, so that the change from one system to the other was effected without any injury. The nominated members had retained their influence, and the tone of calmness and gravity which had obtained in their deliberations was insensibly acquired by the elective members as they came in, to the manifest advantage of the House. We (speaking of the elected members) had picked up the spirit of, and the instruction the Crown members were so fully competent to give us, and so had been enabled to discharge our duties in a way we could not possibly have done if had we been loft to ourselves. If the life-members had been deprived of their seats, it was not probable that many, if any of them, would have sought a restoration to them by the elective process, for they were generally gentlemen of wealth, position, and delicacy of feeling, whose habits of mutual deference, quietness and order, would have unfitted them, or made them averse to face the turmoil and excitement of the unfavorable electioneering contests. These honorable gentlemen, under an elective system, must have been deprived of their seats, and their services have been lost to the country ; whilst under the nominative system they will stand on the same footing as the other members of this House, and have a fair representation along with the members holding their seats by election in the Legislative Council of the Confederate Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Passing on to another point, he would remark that some persons had asked what would be done if the two Chambers of the Confederation came into collision ? He had already remarked that the Legislative Council was intended as a counterpoise to the weight of numbers in the Assembly, but such a counterpoise did not necessarily imply the probability of collision. It was not likely that the two branches would come into such collision upon minor subjects, or subjects of minor importance, for two such bodies should not, for

[Page 23]

the mere sake of resistance, oppose each other in such a way ; they would not venture to do it. He did not remember that there had been any really difficult matter of this kind for a long time. This House had rejected the Squatters’ Bill, as it was called, seven or eight times after it had been passed by the Assembly, but that had not impaired the good understanding between them. Indeed the effect had been of the best. The hon. life-member from Cobourg [Hon. Mr. BOULTON], whom he did not see in his place, had, by the force of reasoning, convinced the House that the bill was destructive of the rights of property, and the consequence was that, year by year, the measure had been pruned of its most offensive features, until now, as he was informed, it was hardly open to objection. He could not recall another instance of persistent difference of opinion between the Chambers. The real danger of collision would be where one Chamber invaded the prerogatives of I he other, and that danger, if it existed at all, would be greatly increased were the Legislative Council made elective. (Hear, hear.) If the members were elected they might say, ” We come from the people just as directly as the members of the Assembly do, and our authority is, therefore, as full and complete as theirs. Nay,uiore,fbr where we each represent 1000 electors, they only each represent 300, and we have, therefore, as much right to initiate money bills and impost bills as they have.” Make the Council purely elective, and he would not promise that an agitation of this kind would not spring up. It had not been a theme as yet on the floor of the House, but it was well known that it liad been freely discussed in th corridors, and if the subject had not been formally introduced, it was probably because it was thought by those who debated it that they could not rely upon the life-members. (Hear, hear.) Let the Council propose to deal with taxation and the elective system would be sure in the course of time to urge it on to do so, and immediately the spirit of the Assembly would be aroused to resistance. This would be the way to provoke collisions, and with an elective Council it was not unlikely at all to be resorted to. In England, where the Upper House was composed of a class entirely distinct from the Commons, and having interests, as a general thing, diverse from those of the people, even there the collisions between the two branohes had been but infrequent. Indeed there had been only one very serious collision in the course of centuries. When, howovei, such conjunctures arose, the crown overcame them by the appointment of a sufficient number of peors whose political views aocorded with those of the government. The right to sit in the House of Lords being, however, hereditary, the son generally inherited the politics of his father, and so the charaoter of the body was always pretty well understood; but be it what it might, and as muoh as possible removed from influences, it had yet learned so far to respeot the will of the people as to know when to make concession of its own opinions He did not say that it bowed to every breeze and instantly yielded to every demand, nor did he think that any Legislative Upper Chamber should do so, and be content merely to reflect the temper and complexion of the other branch. On the contrary, he held that when it had good and sufficient evidence, sufficient to satisfy itself that a proposed measure was unjust, it was bound to resist, and public opinion which generally came out right in the end, would sustain it in such an attitude. But there was very much less danger in countries like this that difference of opinion would even be as frequent between the Legislative Chambers as between the Lords and Commons in England, and the reason was clear : our Legislative Councillors would not come from so different a class of society to the general population, as the peers of the British nation, compared with the people of that nation. The lords had ideas of caste and privileges which none of our people were imbrued with, and the common sympathy existing between all classes here would be felt equally by the Legislative Councillors and the Members of the Assembly. Both would be equally subjected to popular influences and be more or less controlled by them. The interests of the Legislative Councillor, though a nominee of the Crown, would be the same as those of the mass, and the legislation which would be good for them would, as a general thing, be good for him too. He would have no ancestral estates, privileges, immunities and titles to protect, like the peers of England. He would be affected by the social changes which affected others, and would be moved by the same aims and aspiratious as his friends around hiin. This being the case, it was not very probable that his opinions would even be set in opposition to those of other men as to make it likely that he would come in collision with them, or that, as a House, the Council would be in danger of a serious quarrel with the Assembly. Then the changes whioh time would inevitably bring about in a body like the proposed Legis-

[Page 24]

lative Council, would be sufficiently great to prevent the possibility of a continued antagonism between it and the other branch, if unhappily it should arise. The demise, the resignation and the loss of seat from other causes, would do this, and afford the Government of the day the opportunity of so reconstructing the House as to bring it more in harmony with public sentiment. He did riot say it was desirable that at all times the Legislative Council should be a reflection of such opinion, though it was, of course, desirable that it should not continue violently to shock it. He would have that House conservative, calm, considerate and watchful, to prevent the enactment of measures which, in its deliberate judgment, were not calculated to advance the common weal. Any more rapid changes in the composition of the House than those he now indicated, he did not consider wholesome or desirable. From the history of the present Chamber for the last few years, it would be seen that such changes, whether among the life members or the elected members, were much more frequent than might be generally supposed. According to the present elective system twelve members went out and twelve came in every second year. Supposing that a collision had taken place between the two branches of the Legislature, and that it was desirable to bring the Council more in accord with the representatives of the people, under this system, the same members might be returned, not because of the soundness of their political opinions on the topic which had brought about the collision, perhaps without the slightest reference to it, but from their position and their exertions. One might come back because he was a wealthy man and had a social position which gave him a large influence, another because he was an able canvasser and well versed in election tactics, and others from causes equally removed from the political question upon which the two Houses of Parliament were in antagonism. But suppose the twelve seats were at the disposal of the Government, and that an irreconcilable difference had existed between the two Houses, would they not have the opportunity of redress at once and thoroughly by bringing in twelve members who would harmonize better in opinion with them and the country ? Undoubtedly. Well, within eight years the changes among the life-members had been as follows :—When the House was made elective, there were 40 such members in it ; two years afterwards, at the call of the House, the number was found reduced to 31 ; two years after that again to 26 ; in two years more, to 24 ; and to-day to 21, of which 21, one honorable member was now seriously indisposed. In eight years, then, the number had been diminished by half. Then changes nearly as great had occurred among the elected members. There had been 24 removals and changes by death and otherwise among these 48 ; and it should be remembered, that as the elected members came in by twelves, two years apart, the average time had been only four years. This was sufficient to show the opportunity which, even among younger men than the life-members, the Government would have of keeping the House in accord with the true interests of the country, or of overcoming any unfortunate misunderstanding between the two branches. [The honorable member here went minutely into a statement of the changes effected by death, acceptance of office, and defeat at elections, among this class of members, which, however, we do not deem it necessary to specify.] These changes had certainly altered, to some extent, the complexion of the House, and the future would, no doubt, be like the past in this respect. The Conference had taken all these things into consideration, and wisely concluded, as he believed, that while the chances of collision were much less under the nominative system, the opportunity of restoring harmonious action was infinitely more prompt and effective, and that there was no such danger of collisons between the two branches of the General Legislature, as to make it a bar to the principle of nomination, which principle, in their judgment, offered the compensating advantage he had endeavored, in the earlier part of his observations, to point out. He sincerely hoped the House would coucur in the views he had expressed, and would accept the measure now before them, as one which he believed calculated to promote the best interests of this country and the other provinces, and to hand down to posterity a constitution analogous, as nearly as might be, to that of the empire under whose protection we had the happiness to live—a Constitution calculated further, as he was fully convinced, to perpetuate the connection between these colonies and that mighty nation, to the mutual benefit of both. (Hear, hear, and applause.)

HON. MR. VIDAL here inquired from the honorable member why it was that the selection of Legislative Councillors from Lower Canada, in the Confederation scheme, was to be left to the Local Government of that section of the province, while no such provision existed with

[Page 25]

respect to Upper Canada or the Lower Provinces.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL said it was out of deference to the interests of the British Canadians of Lower Canada, who had some fear that they might not be sufficiently protected otherwise.

HON. MR. RYAN objected to this mode of selection, as calculated to perpetuate differences of nationality and creed, and thought it would be better to leave the selection unconditionally to the Crown.

[After this a number of questions were put to Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL upon various points of detail, and a cross fire was kept up from both sides of the House, which made it next to impossible to keep track of the proceedings.

Among the questions asked was one as to whether the local governments should be constituted before the Constitution of the Confederation became law. The resolution concerning this point seemed involved and contradictory, as it supposed some part of the plan to be in force, which depended upon the action of local governments not themselves in existence.]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL promised to give an explanation at the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. SANBORN then addressed the House for a few minutes, it being then nearly six o’clock. He did not declare himself directly opposed to the scheme as a whole, but believed that the abandonment of the elective principle in respect of the Legislative Council was a step backward and an unwise one. He quoted as a proof the opinion of the Premier of the Government expressed two years ago, and thought it not a little strange he should so readily have changed his views— Cries of six o’clock. Further debate was then postponed until the morrow, and the House immediately afterwards adjourned.


MONDAY, February 6, 1865.

ATTORNEY GENERAL MACDONALD moved, ” That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She may be graciously pleased to cause a measure to be submitted to the Imperial Parliament, for the purpose of uniting the Colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, in one Government, with provisions based on certain Resolutions, whioh were adopted at a Conference of Delegates from the said Colonies, held at the city of Quebec, on the 10th October, 1864.”(1) He said:—Mr . Speaker, in fulfilment of the promise made by the Government to Parliament at its last session, I have moved this resolution. I have had the honor of being charged, on behalf ot the Government, to submit a scheme for the Confederation of all the British North American Provinces — a scheme which has been received. I am glad to say, with general, if not universal, approbation in Canada. The scheme, as propounded through the press, has received almost no opposition. While there may be occasionally, here and there, expressions of dissent from some of the details, yet the scheme as a whole has met with almost universal approval, and the Government has the greatest satisfaction in presenting it to this House. This subject, which now absorbs the attention of the people of Canada, and of the whole of British North America, is not a new one. For years it has more or less attracted the attention of every statesman and politician in these provinces, and has been looked upon by many far-seeing politicians as being eventually the means of deciding and settling very many of the vexed questions which have retarded the prosperity of the colonies as a whole, and particularly the prosperity of Canada. The subject was pressed upon the public attention by a great many writers and politicians ; but I believe the attention of the Legislature was first formally called to it by my honorable friend the Minister of Finance. Some years ago, in an elaborate speech, my hon. friend, while an independent member of Parliament, before being connected with any Government, pressed his views on the Legislature at great length and with his usual force. But the subject was not taken up by any party as a branch of their policy, until the formation of the CARTIER-MACDONALD Administration in 1858, when the Confederation of the colonies was announced as one of the measures which they pledged themselves to attempt, if possible, to bring to a satisfactory conclusion. In pursuance of that promise, the letter or despatch, which has been so much and so freely commented upon in the press and in this House, was addressed by three of the members of that Administration to the Colonial Office. The

[Page 26]

subject, however, though looked upon with favor by the country, and though there were no distinct expressions of opposition to it from any party, did not begin to assume its present proportions until last session. Then, men of all parties and all shades of politics became alarmed at the aspect of affairs. They found that such was the opposition between the two sections of the province, such was the danger of impending anarchy, in consequence of the irreconcilable differences of opinion, with respect to representation by population, between Upper and Lower Canada, that unless some solution of the difficulty was arrived at, we would suffer under a succession of weak governments,— weak in numerical support, weak in force, and weak in power of doing good. All were alarmed at this state of affairs. We had election after election,—we had ministry after ministry,—with the same result. Parties were so equally balanced, that the vote of one member might decide the fate of the Administration, and the course of legislation for a year or a series of years. This condition oí things was well calculated to arouse the earnest consideration of every lover of his country, and I am happy to say it had that effect. None were more impressed by this momentous state of affairs, and the grave apprehensions that existed of a state of anarchy destroying our credit, destroying our prosperity, destroying our progress, than were the members of this present House ; and the leading statesmen on both sides seemed to have come to the common conclusion, that some step must be taken to relieve the country from the dead-look and impending anarchy that hung over us. — With that view, my colleague, the President of the Council, made a motion founded on the despatch addressed to the Colonial Minister, to which I have referred, and a committee was struck, composed of gentlemen of both sides of the House, of all shades of political opinion, without any reference to whether they were supporters of the Administration of the day or belonged to the Opposition, for the purpose of taking into calm and full deliberation the evils which threatened the future of Canada. That motion of my honorable friend resulted most happily. The committee, by a wise provision,—and in order that each member of the committee might have an opportunity of expressing his opinions without being in any way compromised before the public, or with his party, in regard either to his political friends or to his political foes,—agreed that the discussion should be freely entered upon without reference to the political antecedents of any of them, and that they should sit with closed doors, so that they might be able to approach the subject frankly and in a spirit of compromise. The committee included most of the leading members of the House,—I had the honor myself to be one of the number,—and the result was that there was found an ardent desire—a creditable desire, I must say,—displayed by all the members of the committee to approach the subject honestly, and to attempt to work out some solution which might relieve Canada from the evils under which she labored. The report of that committee was laid before the House, and then came the political action of the leading men of the two parties in this House, which ended in the formation of the present Government. The principle upon which that Government was formed has been announced, and is known to all. It was formed for the very purpose of carrying out the object which has now received to a certain degree its completion, by the resolutions I have had the honor to place in your hands. As has been stated, it was not without a great deal of difficulty and reluctance that that Government was formed. The gentlemen who compose this Government had for many years been engaged in political hostilities to such an extent that it affected even their social relations. But the crisis was great, the danger was imminent, and the gentlemen who now form the present Administration found it to be their duty to lay aside all personal feelings, to sacrifice in some degree their position, and even to run the risk of having their motives impugned, for the sake of arriving at some conclusion that would be satisfactory to the country in general. The present resolutions were the result. And, as I said before, I am proud to believe that the country has sanctioned, as I trust that the representatives of the people in this House will sanction, the scheme which is now submitted for the future government of British North America. (Cheers.) Everything seemed to favor the project, and everything seemed to shew that the present was the time, if ever, when this great union between all Her Majesty’s subjects dwelling in British North America, should be carried out. (Hear, hear.) When the Government, was formed, it was felt that the difficulties in the way of effecting a union between all the British North Amer-

[Page 27]

ican Colonies were great—so great as almost, in the opinion of many, to make it hopeless. And with that view it wag the policy of the Government,if they could not succeed in procuring a union between all the British North American Colonies, to attempt to free the country from the dead-lock in which we were placed in Upper and Lower Canada, in consequence of the difference of opinion between the two sections, by having a severance to a certain extent of the present union between the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and the substitution of a Federal Union between them. Most of us, however, I may say, all of us,were agreed—and I believe every thinking man will agree—as to the expediency of effecting a union between all the provinces, and the superiority of such a design, if it were only practicable, over the smaller scheme of having a Federal Union between Upper and Lower Canada alone. By a happy concurrence of events, the time came when that proposition could be made with a hope of success. By a fortunate coincidence the desire for union existed in the Lower Provinces, and a feeling of the necessity of strengthening themselves by collecting together the scattered colonies on the sea-board, had induced them to form a convention of their own for the purpose of effecting a union of the Maritime Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, the legislatures of those colonies having formally authorized their respective governments to send a delegation to Prince Edward Island for the purpose of attempting to form a union of some kind. Whether the union should be federal or legislative was not then indicated, but a union of some kind was sought for the purpose of making of themselves one people instead of three. We, ascertaining that they were about to take such a step, and knowing that if we allowed the occasion to pass, if they did indeed break up all their present political organizations and form a new one, it could not be expected that they would again readily destroy the new organization which they had formed,—the union of the three provinces on the sea-board,—and form another with Canada. Knowing this, we availed ourselves of the opportunity, and asked if thoy would (receive a deputation from Canada, who would go to meet them at Charlottetown, for the purpose of laying before them the advantages of a larger and more extensive union, by the junction of all the provinces in one great government under our common Sovereign. They at once kindly consented to receive and hear us. They did receive us cordially and generously, and asked us to lay our views before them. We did so at some length, and so satisfactory to them were the reasons we gave ; so clearly, in their opinion, did we shew the advantages of the greater union over the lesser, that they at once set aside their own project, and joined heart and hand with us in entering into the larger scheme, and trying to form, as far as they and we could, a great nation and a strong government. (Cheers.) Encouraged by this arrangement, which, however, was altogether unofficial and unauthorized, we returned to Quebec, and then the Government of Canada invited the several governments of the sister colonies to send a deputation here from each of them for the purpose of considering the question, with something like authority from their respective governments. The result was, that when we met here on the 10th of October, on the first day on which we assembled, after the full and free discussions which had taken place at Charlottetown, the first resolution now before this House was passed unanimously, being received with acclamation as, in the opinion of every one who heard it, a proposition which ought to receive, and would receive, the sanction of each government and each people. The resolution is, ” That the best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal Union under the Crown of Great Britain, provided such union can be effected on principles just to the several provinces.” It seemed to all the statesmen assembled—and there are great statesmen in the Lower Provinces, men who would do honor to any government and to any legislature of any free country enjoying representative institutions—itwas clear to them all that the best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America would be promoted by a Federal Union under the Crown of Great Britain. And it seems to me, as to them, and I think it will so appear to the people of this country, that, if we wish to be a great people ; if we wish to form—using the expression which was sneered at the other evening—a great nationality, commanding the respect of the world, able to hold our own against all opponents, and to defend those institutions we prize : if we wish to have one system of government, and to establish a commercial union, with unrestricted free trade, between people of the five provinces, belonging, as they do, to the same nation, obeying

[Page 28]

the same Sovereign, owning the same allegiance, and being, for the most part, of the same blood and lineage : if we wish to be able to afford to each other the means of mutual defence and support against aggression and attack—this can only be obtained by a union of some kind between the scattered and weak boundaries composing the British North American Provinces. (Cheers). The very mention of the scheme is fitted to bring with it its own approbation. Supposing that in the spring of the year 1865, half a million of people were coming from the United Kingdom to make Canada their home, although they brought only their strong arms and willing hearts ; though they brought neither skill nor experience nor wealth, would we not receive them with open arms, and hail their presence in Canada as an important addition to our strength ? But when, by the proposed union, we not only get nearly a million oí people to join us—when they contribute not only their numbers, their physical strength, and their desire to benefit their position, but when we know that they consist of old-established communities, having a large amount of realized wealth, — composed of people possessed of skill, education and experience in the ways of the New World — people who are as much Canadians, I may say, as we are— people who are imbued with the same feelings of loyalty to the Queen, and the same desire for the continuance of the connection with the Mother Country as we are, and at the same time, have a like feeling of ardent attachment for this, our common country, for which they and we would alike fight and shed our blood, if necessary. When all this is considered, argument is needless to prove the advantage of such a union. (Hear, hear.) There were only three modes,—if I may return lor a moment to the difficulties with which Canada was surrounded,—only three modes that were at all suggested, by which the dead lock in our affairs, the anarchy we dreaded, and the evils which retarded our prosperity, could be met or averted. One was the dissolution of the union between Upper and Lower Canada, leaving them as they were before the union of 1841. I believe that that proposition, by itself had no supporters. It was felt by every one that, although it was a course that would do away with the sectional difficulties which existed,—though it would remove the pressure on the part of the people of Upper Canada for the representation based upon population,—and the jealousy of the people of Lower Canada lest their institutions should be attacked and prejudiced by that principle in our representation ; yet it was felt by every thinking man in the province that it would be a retrograde step, which would throw back the country to nearly the same position as it occupied before the union,— that it would lower the credit enjoyed by United Canada,—that it would be the breaking up of the connection which had existed for nearly a quarter of a century, and, under which, although it had not been completely successful, and had not allayed altogether the local jealousies that had their root in circumstances which arose before the union, our province, as a whole, had nevertheless prospered and increased. It was felt that a dissolution of the union would have destroyed all the credit that we had gained by being a united province, and would have left us two weak and ineffective governments, instead of one powerful and united people. (Hear, hear.) The next mode suggested, was the granting of representation by population. Now, we all know the manner in which that question was and is regarded by Lower Canada ; that while in Upper Canada the desire and cry for it was daily augmenting, the resistance to it in Lower Canada was proportionably increasing in strength. Still, if some such means of relieving us from the sectional jealousies which existed between the two Canadas, if some such solution of the difficulties as Confederation had not been found, the representation by population must eventually have been carried ; no matter though it might have been felt in Lower Canada, as being a breach of the Treaty of Union, no matter how much it might have been felt by the Lower Canadians that it would sacrifice their local interests, it is certain that in the progros of events representation by population would have been carried ; and, had it been carried — I speak here my own individual sentiments—I do not think it would have been for the interest of Upper Canada. For though Upper Canada would have felt that it had received what it claimed as a right, and had succeed in establishing its ight, yet it would have left the Lower Province with a sullen feeling of injury and injustice. The Lower Canadians would not have worked cheerfully under such a change of system, but would have ceased to be what they are now — a nationality, with representatives

[Page 29]

in Parliament, governed by general principles, and dividing according to their political opinions— and would have been in great danger of becoming a faction, forgetful of national obligations, and only actuated by a desire to defend their own sectional interests, their own laws, and their own institutions. (Hear,hear.) The third and only means of solution for our difficulties was the junction of the provinces either in a Federal or a Legislative Union. Now, as regards the comparative advantages of a Legislative and a Federal Union, I have never hesitated to state my own opinions. I have again and again stated in the House, that, if practicable, I thought a Legislative Union would be preferable. (Hear, hear.) I have always contended that if we could agree to have one government and one parliament, legislating for the whole of these peoples, it would be the best, the cheapest, the most vigorous, and the strongest system of government we could adopt. (Hear, hear.) But, on looking at the subject in the Conference, and discussing the matter as we did, most unreservedly, and with a desire to arrive at a satisfactory contusion, we found that such a system was impracticable. In the first place, it would not meet the assent of the people of Lower Canada, because they felt that in their peculiar position—being in a minority, with a different language, nationality and religion from the majority,— in case of a junction with the other provinces, their institutions and their laws might be assailed, and their ancestral associations, on which they prided themselves, attacked and prejudiced ; it was found that any proposition which involved the absorption of the individuality of Lower Canada— if I may use the expression—would not be received with favor by her people. We found too, that though their people speak the same language and enjoy the same system of law as the people of Upper Canada, a system founded on the common law of England, there was as great a disinclination on the part of the various Maritime Provinces to lose their individuality, as separate political organizations, as we observed in the case of Lower Canada herself. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, we were forced to the conclusion that we must either abandon the idea of Union altogether, or devise a system of union in which the separate provincial organizations would be in some degree preserved. So that those who were, like myself, in favor of a Legislative Union, were obliged to modify their views and accept the project of a Federal Union as the only scheme practicable, even for the Maritime Provinces. Because, although the law of those provinces is founded on the common law of England, yet every one of them has a large amount of law of its own — colonial law framed by itself, and affecting every relation of life, such as the laws of property, municipal and assessment laws ; laws relating to the liberty of the subject, and to all the great interests contemplated in legislation ; we found, in short, that the statutory law of the different provinces was so varied and diversified that it was almost impossible to weld them into a Legislative Union at once. Why, sir, if you only consider the innumerable subjects of legislation peculiar to new countries, and that every one of those five colonies had particular laws of its own, to which its people have been accustomed and are attached, you will see the difficulty of effecting and working a Legislative Union, and bringing about an assimilation of the local as well as general laws of the whole of the provinces. (Hear, hear.) We in Upper Canada understand from the nature and operation of our peculiar municipal law, of which we know the value, the difficulty of framing a general system of legislation on local matters which would meet the wishes and fulfil the requirements of the several provinces. Even the laws considered the least important, respecting private rights in timber, roads, fencing, and innumerable other matters, small in themselves, but in the aggregate of great interest to the agricultural class, who form the great body of the people, are regarded as of great value by the portion of the community affected by them. And when we consider that every one of the colonies has a body of law of this kind, and that it will take years before those laws can be assimilated, it was felt that at first, at all events, any united legislation would be almost impossible. I am happy to state—and indeed it appears on the face of the resolutions themselves — that as regards the Lower Provinces, a great desire was evinced for the final assimilation of our laws. One of the resolutions provides that an attempt shall be made to assimilate the laws of the Maritime Provinoes and those of Upper Canada, for the purpose of eventually establishing one body of statutory law, founded on the common law of England, the parent of the laws of all those provinces. One great ob-

[Page 30]

jection made to a Federal Union was the expense of an increased number of legislatures. I will not enter at any length into that subject, because my honorable friends, the Finance Minister and the President of the Council, who are infinitely more competent than myself to deal with matters of this kind— matters of account—will, I think, be able to show that the expenses under a Federal Union will not be greater than those under the existing system of separate governments and legislatures. Here,where we have a joint legislature for Upper and Lower Canada, which deals not only with subjects of a general interest common to all Canada, but with all matters of private right and of sectional interest, and with that class of measures known as “private bills,” we find that one of the greatest sources of expense to the country is the cost of legislation. We find, from the admixture of subjects of a general, with those of a private character in legislation, that they mutually interfere with each other ; whereas, if the attention of the Legislature was confined to measures of one kind or the other alone, the session of Parliament would not be so protracted and therefore not so expeasive as at present. In the proposed Constitution all matters of general interest are to be dealt with by the General Legislature ; while the local legislatures will deal with matters of local interest, which do not affect the Confederation as a whole, but are of the greatest importance to their particular sections. By such a division of labor the sittings of the General Legislature would not be so protracted as even those of Canada alone. And so with the local legislatures, their attention being confined to subjects pertaining to their own sections, their sessions would be shorter and less expensive. Then, when we consider the enormous saving that will be effected in the administration of affairs by one General Government—when we reflect that each of the five colonies have a government of its own with a complete establishment of public departments and all the machinery required for e transaction of the business of the country—that each have a separate executive, judicial and militia system— that each province has a separate ministry, including a Minister of Militia, with a complete Adjutant General’s Department— that each have a Finance Minister with a full Customs and Excise staff—that each Colony has as large and complete an administrative organization, with as many Executive officers as the General Government will have —we can well understand the enormous saving that will result from a union of all the colenies, from their having but one head and one central system We, in Canada, already know something of the advantages and disadvantages of a Federal Union. Although we have nominally a Legislative Union in Canada—although we sit in one Parliament, supposed constitutionally to represent the people without regard to sections or localities, yet we know, as a matter of fact, that since the union in 1841, we have had a Federal Union ; that in matters affecting Upper Canada solely, members from that section claimed and generally exercised the right of exclusive legislation, while members from Lower Canada legislated in matters affecting only their own section. We have had a Federal Union in fact, though a Legislative Union in name ; and in the hot contests of late years, if on any occasion a measure affecting any one section were interfered with by the members from the other—if, for instance, a measure locally affecting Upper Canada were carried or defeated against the wishes of its majority, by one from Lower Canada,—my honorable friend the President of the Council, and his friends denounced with all their energy and ability such legislation as an infringement of the rights of the Upper Province. (Hear, hear, and cheers). Just in the same way, if any act concerning Lower Canada were pressed into law against the wishes of the majority of her representatives, by those from Upper Canada, the Lower Canadians would rise as one man and protest agaiust such a violation of their peculiar rights. (Hear, hear.) The relations between England and Scotland are very similar to that which obtains between the Canadas. The union between them, in matters of legislation, is of a federal character, because the Act of Union between the two countries provides that the Scottish law cannot be altered, except for the manifest advantage of the people of Scotland. This stipulation has been held to be so obligatory on the Legislature of Great Britain, that no measure affecting the law of Scotland is passed unless it receives the sanction of a majority of the Scottish members in Parliament. No matter how important it may be for the interests of the empire as a whole to alter the laws of Scotland—no

[Page 31]

matter how much it may interfere with the symmetry of the general law of the United Kingdom, that law is not altered, except with the consent of the Scottish people, as expressed by their representatives in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Thus, we have, in Great Britain, to a limited extent, an example of the working and effects of a Federal Union, as we might expect to witness them in our own Confederation. The whole scheme of Confederation, as propounded by the Conference, as agreed to and sanctioned by the Canadian Government, and as now presented for the consideration of the people, and the Legislature, bears upon it face the marks of compromise. Of necessity there must have been a great deal of mutual concession. When we think of the representatives of five colonies, all supposed to have different interests, meeting together, charged with the duty of protecting those interests and of pressing the views of their own localities and sections, it must be admitted that had we not met in a spirit of conciliation, and with an anxious desire to promote this union; if we had not been impressed with the idea contained in the words of the resolution— ” That the best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America would be promoted by a Federal Union under the Crown of Great Britain,”—all our efforts might have proved to be of no avail. If we had not felt that, after coming to this conclusion, we were “bound to set aside our private opinions on matters of detail, if we had not felt ourselves bound to look at what was practicable, not obstinately rejecting the opinions of others nor adhering to our own ; if,we had not met, I say, in a spirit of conciliation, and with an anxious, overruling desire to form one people under one government, we never would have succeeded. With these views, we press the question on this House and the country. I say to this House, if you do not believe that the union of the colonies is for the advantage of the country, that the joining of these five peoples into one nation, under one sovereign, is for the benefit of all, then reject the scheme. Reject it if you do not believe it to be for the present advantage and future prosperity of yourselves and your children. But if, after a calm and full consideration of this scheme, it is believed, as a whole, to be for the advantage of this province— if the House and country believe this union to be one which will ensure for us British laws, British connection, and British freedom—and increase and develope the social, political and material prosperity of the country, then I implore this House and the country to lay aside all prejudices, and accept the scheme which we offer. I ask this House to meet the question in the same spirit in which the delegates met it. I ask each member of this House to lay aside his own opinions as to particular details, and to accept the scheme as a whole if he think it beneficial as a whole. As I stated in the preliminary discussion, we must consider this scheme in the light of a treaty. By a happy coincidence of circumstances, just when an Administration had been formed in Canada for the purpose of attempting a solution of the difficulties under which we laboured, at the same time the Lower Provinces, actuated by a similar feeling, appointted a Conference with a view to a union among themselves, without being cognizant of the position the government was taking in Canada. If it had not been for this fortunate coincidence of events, never, perhaps, for a long series of years would we have been able to bring this scheme to a practical conclusion. But we did succeed. We made the arrangement, agreed upon the scheme, and the deputations from the several governments represented at the Conference went back pledged to lay it before their governments, and to ask the legislatures and people of their respective provinces to assent to it. I trust the scheme will be assented to as a whole. I am sure this House will not seek to alter it in its unimportant details; and, if altered in any important provisions, the result must be that the whole will be set aside, and we must begin de novo. If any important changes are made, every one of the colonies will feel itself absolved from the implied obligation to deal with it as a Treaty, each province will feel itself at liberty to amend it ad libitum, so as to suit its own views and interests ; in fact, the whole of our labours will have been for nought, and we will have to renew our negotiations with all the colonies for the purpose of establishing some new scheme. I hope the House will not adopt any such a course as will postpone, perhaps for ever, or at all events for a long period, all chances of union. All the statesmen and public men who have written or spoken on the subject admit the advantages of a union, if it were practicable : and now when it is proved to be practicable, if wo do not embrace this opportunity the present favorable time will pass away, and we may never

[Page 32]

have it again. Because, just so surely as this scheme is defeated, will be revived the original proposition for a union of the Maritime Provinces, irrespective of Canada ; they will not remain as they are now, powerless, scattered, helpless communities ; they will form themselves into a power, which, though not so strong as if united with Canada, will, nevertheless, be a powerful and considerable community, and it will be then too late for us to attempt to strengthen ourselves by this scheme, which, in the words of the resolution, ” is for the best interests, and present and future prosperity of British North America.” If we are not blind to our present position, we must see the hazardous situation in which all the great interests of Canada stand in respect to the United States. I am no alarmist. I do not believe in the prospect of immediate war. I believe that the common sense of the two nations will prevent a war ; still we cannot trust to probabilities. The Government and Legislature would be wanting in their duty to the people if they ran any risk. We know that the United States at this moment are engaged in a war of enormous dimensions—that the occasion of a war with Great Britain has again and again arisen, and may at any time in the future again arise. We cannot foresee what may be the result ; we cannot say but that the two nations may drift into a war as other nations have done before. It would then be too late when war had commenced to think of measures for strengthening ourselves, or to begin negociations for a union with the sister provinces. At this moment, in consequence of the ill-feeling which has arisen between England and the United States— a feeling of which Canada was not the cause —in consequence of the irritation which now exists, owing to the unhappy state of affairs on this continent, the Reciprocity Treaty, it seems probable, is about to be brought to an end—our trade is hampered by the passport system, and at any moment we may be deprived of permission to carry our goods through United States channels—the bonded goods system may be done away with, and the winter trade through the United States put an end to. Our merchants may be obliged to return to the old system of bringing in during the summer months the supplies for the whole year. Ourselves already threatened, our trade interrupted, our intercourse, political and commercial, destroyed, if we do not take warning now when we have the opportunity, and while one avenue is threatened to be closed, open another by taking advantage of the present arrangement and the desire of the Lower Provinces to draw doser the alliance between us, we may suffer commercial and political disadvantgaes it may take long for us to overcome. The Conference having come lo the conclusion that a legislative union, pure and simple, was impracticable, our next attempt was to form a government upon federal principles, which would give to the General Government the strength of a legislative and administrative union, while at the same time it preserved that liberty of action for the different sections which is allowed by a Federal Union. And I am strong in the belief—that we have hit upon the happy medium in those resolutions, and that we have formed a scheme of government which unites the advantages of both, giving us the strength of a legislative union and the sectional freedom of a federal union, with protection to local interests. In doing so wc had the advantage of the experience of the United States. It is the fashion now to enlarge on the defects of the Constitution of the United States, but I am not one of those who look upon it as a failure. (Hear, hear.) I thiok and believe that it is one of the most skillful works which human intelligence ever created ; is one of the most perfect organizations that ever governed a free people. To say that it has some defects is but to say that it is not the work of Omniscience, but of human intellects. We are happily situated in having had the opportunity of watching its operation, seeing its working from its infancy till now. It was in the main formed on the model of the Constitution of Great Britain, adapted to the circumstances of a new country, and was perhaps the only practicable system that could have been adopted under the circumstances existing at the time of its formation. We can now take advantage of the experience of the last seventy-eight years, during which that Constitution has existed, and I am strongly of the belief that we have, in a great measure, avoided in this system which we propose for the adoption of the people of Canada, the defects which time and events have shown to exist in the American Constitution. In the first place, by a resolution which meets with the universal approval of the people of this country, we have provided that for all time to come, so far as we can legislate for the future, we

[Page 33]

shall have as the head of the executive power, the Sovereign of Great Britain. (Hear, hear.) No one can look into futurity and say what will be the destiny of this country. Changes come over nations and peoples in the course of ages. But, so far as we can legislate, we provide that, for all time to come, the Sovereign of Great Britain shall be the Sovereign of British North America. By adhering to the monarchical principle, we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the President by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of re-election. During his first term of office, he is employed in taking steps to secure his own re-election, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle—the Sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized, so that we shall have a Sovereign who is placed above the region of party—to whom all parties look up—who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another, who is the common head and sovereign of all. (Hear, hear and cheers.) In the Constitution we propose to continue the system of Responsible Government,which has existed in this province since 1841, and which has long obtained in the Mother Country. This is a feature of our Constitution as we have it now, and as we shall have it in the Federation, in which, I think, we avoid one of the great defects in the Constitution of the United States. There the President, during his term of office, is in a great measure a despot, a one-man power, with the command of the naval and military forces— with an immense amount of patronage as head of the Executive, and with the veto power as a branch of the legislature, perfectly uncontrolled by responsible advisers, his cabinet being departmental officers merely, whom he is not obliged by the Constitution to consult with, unless he chooses to do so. With us the Sovereign, or in this country the Representative of the Sovereign,can act only on the advice of his ministers, those ministers being responsible to the people through Parliament. Prior to the formation of the American Union, as we all know, the different states which entered into it were separate colonies. They had no connection with each other further than that of having a common sovereign, just as with us at present. Their constitutions and their laws were different. They might and did legislate against each other, and when they revolted against the Mother Country they acted as separate sovereignties, and carried on the war by a kind of treaty of alliance against the common enemy. Ever since the union was formed the difficulty of what is called ” State Rights ” has existed, and this had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the United States. They commenced, in fact, at the wrong end. They declared by their Constitution that each state was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belonged to each state, except those powers which, by the Constitution, were conferred upon the General Government and Congress. Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the General Government. We have given the Goneral Legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upsn the local governments and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the General Government and legislature.—We , have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of the United States. We have avoided all conflict of jurisdiction and authority, and if this Constitution is carried out, as it will be inifull detail in the Imperial Act to be passed if the colonies adopt the scheme, we will have in fact, as I said before, all the advantages of a legislative union under one administration, with, at the same time the guarantees for local institutions and for local laws, which are insisted upon by so many in the provinces now, I hope, to be united. I think it is well that, in framing our Constitution— although my honorable friend the member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION) sneered at it the other day, in the discussion on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne—our first act should have been to recognize the sovereignty of Her Majesty. (Hear, hear.) I believe that, while England has no desire to lose her colonies, but wishes to retain them, while I am satisfied that the

[Page 34]

public mind of England would deeply regret the loss of these provinces—yet, if the people of British North America after full deliberation bad stated that they considered it was for their interest, for the advantage of the future of British North America to sever the tie, such is the generosity of the people of England, that, whatever their desire to keep these colonics, they would not seek to compel us to remain unwilling subjects of the British Crown. If therefore, at the Conference, we had arrived at the conclusion, that it was for the interest of these provinces that a severance should take place,I am sure that Her Majesty and the Imperial Parliament would have sanctioned that severance. We accordingly felt that there was a propriety in giving a distinct declaration of opinion on that point, and that, in framing the Constitution, its first sentence should declare, that ” The Executive authority or government shall be vested in the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the well understood principles of the British Constitution, by the Sovereign personally, or by the Representative of the Sovereign duly authorised.” That resolution met with the unanimous assent of the Conference. The desire to remain connected with Great Britain and to retain our allegiance to Her Majesty was unanimous. Not a single suggestion was made, that it could, by any possibility, be for the interest of the colonies, or of any section or portion of them, that there should be a severance of our connection. Although we knew it to be possible that Canada, from her position, might be exposed to all the horrors of war, by reason of causes of hostility arising between Great Britain and the United States —causes over which we had no control, and which we had no hand in bringing about— yet there was a unanimous feeling of willingness to run all the hazards of war, if war must come, rather than lose the connection between the Mother Country and these colonies. (Cheers.) We provide that ” the Executive authority shall be ad- ministered by the Sovereign personally, or by the Representative of the Sovereign duly authorized.” It is too much to expect that the Queen should vouchsafe us her personal governance or presence, except to pay us, as the heir apparent of the Throne, our future Sovereign has already paid us, the graceful compliment of a visit. The Executive authority must therefore be administered by Her Majesty’s Representative. We place no restriction on Her Majesty’s prerogative in the selection of her representative. As it is now, so it will be if this Constitution is adopted. The Sovereign has unrestricted freedom of choice. Whether in making her selection she may send us one of her own family, a Royal Prince, as a Viceroy to rule over us, or one of the great statesmen of England to represent her, we know not- We leave that to Her Majesty in all confidence. But we may be permitted to hope, that when the union takes place, and we become the great country which British North America is certain to be, it will be an object worthy the ambition of the statesmen of England to be charged with presiding over our destinies. (Hear, hear.) Let me now invite the attention of the House to the provisions in the Constitution respecting the legislative power. The sixth resolution says, ” There shall be a general legislature or parliament for the federated provinces, composed of a Legislative Council and a House of Commons.” This resolution has been cavilled at in the English press as if it excluded the Sovereign as a portion of the legislature. In one sense, that stricture was just—because in strict constitutional language, the legislature of England consists of King, Lords and Commons. But, on the other hand, in ordinary parlance we speak of ” the King and his Parliament,” or ” the King summoning his Parliament,” the three estates—Lords spiritual, temporal Lords, and the House of Commons, and I observe that such a writer as Hallam occasionally uses the word Parliament in that restricted sense. At best it is merely a verbal criticism. The legislature of British North America will be composed of King, Lords, and Commons. The Legislative Council will stand in the same relation to the Lower House, as the House of Lords to the House of Commons in England, having the same power of initiating all matters of legislation, exceptthe granting of money. As regards the Lower House, it may not appear to matter much, whether it is called the House of Commons or House of Assembly. It will bear whatever name the Parliament of England may choose to give it, but ” The House of Commons” is the name we should prefer, as shewing that it represents the Commons of

[Page 35]

Canada, in the same way that the English House of Commons represents the Commons of England, with the same privileges, the same parliamentary usage, and the same parliamentary authority. In settling the constitution of the Lower House, that which peculiarly represents the people, it was agreed that the principle of representation based on population should be adopted, and the mode of applying that principle is fully developed in these resolutions. When I speak of representation by population, the House will of course understand, that universal suffrage is not in any way sanctioned, or admitted by these resolutions, as the basis on which the constitution of the popular branch should rest. In order to protect local interests, and to prevent sectional jealousies, it was found requisite that the three great divisions into which British North America is separated, should be represented in the Upper House on the principle of equality. There are three great sections, having different interests, in this proposed Confederatien. We have Western Canada, an agricultural country far away from the sea, and having the largest population who have agricultural interests principally to guard. We have Lower Canada, with other and separate interests, and especially with institutions and laws which she jealously guards against absorption by any larger, more numerous, or stronger power. And we have the Maritime Provinces, having also different sectional interests of their own, having, from their position, classes and interests which we do not know in Western Canada. Accordingly, in the Upper House, —the controlling and regulating, but not the initiating, branch (for we know that here as in England, to the Lower House will practically belong the initiation of matters of gieat public interest), in the House which has the sober second-thought in legislation—it is provided that each of those great sections shall be represented equally by 24 members. The only exception to that condition of equality is in the case of Newfoundland, which has an interest of its own, lying, as it docs, at the mouth of the great river St. Lawrence, and more connected, perhaps, with Canada than with the Lower Provinces. It has, comparatively speaking, no common interest with the other Maritime Provinces, but has sectional interests and sectional claims of its own to be protected. It, therefore has been dealt with separately, and is to have a separate representation in the Upper House, thus varying from the equality established between the other sections.— As may be well conceived, great difference of opinion at first existed as to the constitution of the Legislative Council. In Canada the elective principle prevailed ; in the Lower Provinces, with the exemption of Prince Edward Island, the nominative principle was the rule. We found a general disinclination ,on the part of the Lower Provinces to adopt the elective principle ; indeed, I do not think there was a dissenting voice in the Conference against the adoption of the nominative principle, except from Prince Edward Island. The delegates from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, as one man, were in favor of nomination by the Crown. And nomination by the Crown is of course the system which is most in accordance with the British Constitution. We resolved then, that the constitution of the Upper House should be in accordance with the British system as nearly as circumstances would allow. An hereditary Upper House is impracticable in this young country. Here we have none of the elements for the formation of a landlord aristocracy— no men of large territorial positions—no class separated from the mass of the people. An hereditary body is altogether unsuited to our state of society, and would soon dwindle into nothing. The only mode of adapting the English system to the Upper House, is by conferring the power of appointment on the Crown (as the English peers are appointed), but that the appointments should be for life. The arguments for an elective Council are numerous and strong; and I ought to say so, as one of the Administration responsible for introducing the elective principle into Canada. (Hear, hear.) I hold that this principle has not been a failure in Canada; but there were causes—which we did not take into consideration at the time—why it did not so fully succeed in Canada as we had expected. One great cause was the enormous extent of the constituencies and the immense labor which consequently devolved on those who sought the suffrages of the people for election to the Council. For the same reason the expense—(laughter)—the legitimate expense was so enormous that men of standing in the country, eminently fitted for such a position, were prevented from coming forward. At first, I admit, men of the first standing did come forward, but we

[Page 36]

have seen that in every succeeding election in both Canadas there has been an increasing disinclination, on the part of men of standing and political experience and weight in the country, to become candidates ; while, on the other hand, all the young men, the active politicians, those who have resolved to embrace the life of a statesman, have sought entrance to the House of Assembly. The nominative system in this country, was to a great extent successful, before the introduction of responsible government. Then the Canadas were to a great extent Crown colonies, and the upper branch of the legislature consisted of gentlemen chosen from among the chief judicial and ecclesiastical dignitaries, the heads of departments, and other men of the first position in the country. Those bodies commanded great respect from the character, standing, and weight of the individuals composing them, but they had little sympathy with the people or their representatives, and collisions with tho Lower House frequently occurred, especially in Lower Canada. When responsible government was introduced, it became necessary for the Governor of the day to have a body of advisers who had the confidence of the House of Assembly which could make or unmake ministers as it chose. The Lower House in effect pointed out who should be nominated to the Upper House; for the ministry, being dependent altogether on the lower branch of the legislature for support, selected members for the Upper House from among their political friends at the dictation of the House of Assembly. The Council was becoming less and less a substantial check on the legislation of the Assembly; but under the system now proposed, such will not be the case. No ministry can in future do what they have done in Canada before,—they cannot, with the view of carrying any measure, or of strengthening the party, attempt to overrule the independent opinion of the Upper House, by filling it with a number of its partisans and political supporters. The provision in the Constitution, that the Legislative Council shall consist of a limited number of members —that each of the great sections shall appoint twenty-four members and no more, will prevent the Upper House from being swamped from time to time by the ministry of the day, for the purpose of carrying out their own schemes or pleasing their partisans. The fact of the government being prevented from exceeding a limited number will preserve the independence of the Upper House, and make it, in reality, a separate and distinct chamber, having a legitimate and controlling influence in the legislation of the country. The objection has been taken that in consequence of the Crown being deprived of the right of unlimited appointment, there is a chance of a dead lock arising between the two branches of the legislature; a chance that the Upper House being altogether independent of the Sovereign, of the Lower House, and of the advisers of the Crown, may act independently, and so independently as to produce a dead lock. I do not anticipate any such result. In the first place we know that in England it does not arise. There would be no use of an Upper House, if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. It must be an independent House, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill considered legislation which may come from that body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people. Even the House of Lords, which as an hereditary body, is far more independent than one appointed for life can be, whenever it ascertains what is the calm, deliberate will of the people of England, it yields, and never in modern times has there been, in fact or act, any attempt to overrule the decisions of that House by the appointment of new peers, excepting, perhaps, once in the reign of Queen Anne. It is true that in 1832 such an increase was threatened in consequence of the reiterated refusal of the House of Peers to pass the Reform Bill. I have no doubt the threat would have been carried into effect, if necessary ; but every one, even the Ministry who advised that step, admitted that it would be a revolutionary act, a breach of the Constitution to do so, and it was because of the necessity of preventing the bloody revolution which hung over the land, if the Reform Bill had been longer refused to the people of England, that they consented to the bloodless revolution of overriding the independent

[Page 37]

opinion of the House of Lords on that question. (Hear, hear.) Since that time it has never been attempted, and I am satisfied it will never be attempted again. Only a year or two ago the House of Lords rejected the Paper Duties Bill, and they acted quite constitutionally, according to the letter and as many think, according to the spirit of the Constitution in doing so. Yet when they found they had interfered with a subject which the people’s house claimed as belonging of right to themselves, the very next session they abandoned their position, not because they were convinced they had done wrong, but because they bad ascertained what was the deliberate voice of the representatives of the people on the subject. In this country, we must remember, that the gentlemen who will be selected for the Legislative Council stand on a very different footing from the peers of England. They have not like them any ancestral associations or position derived from history. They have not that direct influence on the people themselves, or on the popular branch of the legislature, which the peers of England exercise, from their great wealth, their vast territorial possessions, their numerous tenantry, and that prestige with which the exalted position of their class for centuries has invested them. (Hear, hear.) The members of our Upper House will be like those of the Lower, men of the people, and from the people. The man put into the Upper House is as much a man of the people the day after, as the day before his elevation. Springing from the people, and one of them, he takes his seat in the Council with all the sympathies and feelings of a man of the people, and when he returns home, at the end of the session, he mingles with them on equal terms, and is influenced by the same feelings and associations, and events, as those which affect the mass around him. And is it, then, to be supposed that the members of the upper branch of the legislature will set themselves deliberately at work to oppose what they know to be the settled opinions and wishes of the people of the country ? They will not do it. There is no fear of a dead lock between the two houses. There is an infinitely greater chance of a dead lock between the two branches of the legislature, should the elective principle be adopted, than with a nominated chamber —chosen by the Crown, and having no mission from the people. The members of the Upper Chamber would then come from the people as well as those of the Lower House, and should any difference ever arise between both branches, the former could say to the members of the popular branch—” We as much represent the feelings of the people as you do, and even more so; we are not elected from small localities and for a short period ; you as a body were elected at a particular time, when the public mind was running in a particular channel : you were returned to Parliament, not so much representing the general views of the country, on general questions, as upon the particular subjects which happened to engage the minds of the people when they went to the polls. We have as much right, or a better right, than you to be considered as representing tho deliberate will of the people on general questions, and therefore we will not give way.” (Hear, hear.) There is, I repeat, a greater danger of an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two branches of the legislature, if the upper be elective, than if it holds its commission from the Crown. Besides, it must be remembered that an Upper House, the membei s of which are to be appointed for life, would not have the same quality of permanence as the House of Lords; our members would die; strangers would succeed them, whereas son succeeded father in the House of Lords. Thus the changes in the membership and state of opinion in our Upper House would always be more rapid than in the House of Lords. To show how speedily changes have occurred in the Upper House, as regards life members, I will call the attention of the House to tho following facts :—At the call of the House, in February, 1856, forty-two life members responded ; two years afterwards, in 1858, only thirty- five answered to their names ; in 1862 there were only twenty-five life members left, and in 1864, but twenty-one. (Hear, hear.) This shows how speedily changes take place in the life membership. But remarkable as this change has been, it is not so great as that in regard to the elected members. Though the electivelprinciple only came into force in 1856, and although only twelve men were elected that year, and twelve more every two years since, twenty-four changes have already taken place by the decease of members, by the acceptance of office, and by resignation. So it is quite clear that, should there be on any question a difference of opinion between the Upper and Lower

[Page 38]

Houses, the government of the day being obliged to have the confidence of the majority in the popular branch—would, for the purpose of bringing the former into accord and sympathy with the latter, fill up any vacancies that might occur, with men of the same political feelings and sympathies with the Government, and consequently with those of the majority in the popular branch ; and all the appointments of the Administration would be made with the object of maintaining the sympathy and harmony between the two houses. (Hear, hear.) There is ohis additional advantage to be expected from the limitation. To the Upper House is to be confided the protection of sectional interests ; therefore is it that the three great divisions are there equally represented, for the purpose of defending such interests against the combinations of majorities in the Assembly. It will, therefore, become the interest of each section to be represented by its very best men, and the members of the Administration who belong to each section will see that such men are chosen, in case of a vacancy in their section. For the same reason each state of the American Union sends its two best men to represent ity interests in the Senate. (Hear, hear.) It is provided in the Constitution that in the first selections for the Council, regard shall be had to those who now hold similar positions in the different colonies. This, it appears to me, is a wise provision. In all the provinces, except Prince Edward, there are gentlemen who hold commissions for the Upper House for life. In Canada, there are a number who hold under that commission ; but the majority of them hold by a commission, not, perhaps, from a monarchical point of view so honorable, because the Queen is the fountain of honor,—but still, as holding their appointment from the people, they may be considered as standing on a par with those who have Her Majesty’s commission. There can be no reason suggested why those who have had experience in legislation, whether they hold their positions by the election of the people or have received preferment from the Crown—there is no valid reason why those men should be passed over, and new men sought for to form the Legislative Council of the Confederation. It is, therefore, provided that the selection shall be made from those gentlemen who are now members of the upper branch of the Legislature in each of the colonies, for seats in the Legislative Council of the General Legislature. The arrangement in this respect is somewhat similar to that by which Representative Peers are chosen from the Peers of Scotland and Ireland, to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In like manner, the members of the Legislative Council of the proposed Confederation will be first selected from the existing Legislative Councils of the various provinces. In the formation of the House of Commons, the principle of representation by population has been provided for in a manner equally ingenious and simple. The introduction of this principle presented at first the apparent difficulty of a constantly increasing body until, with the increasing population, it would become inconveniently and expensively large. But by adopting the representation of Lower Canada as a fixed standard —as the pivot on which the whole would turn—that province being the best suited for the purpose, on account of the comparatively permanent character of its population, and from its having neither the largest nor least number of inhabitants—we have been enabled to overcome the difficulty I have mentioned. We have introduced the system of representation by population without the danger of an inconvenient increase in the number of representatives on the recurrence of each decennial period. The whele thing is worked by a simple rule of three. For instance, we have in Upper Canada 1,400,000 of a population ; in Lower Canada 1,100,000. Now, the proposition is simply this—if Lower Canada, with its population of 1,100,000, has a right to 65 members, how many members should Upper Canada have, with its larger population of 1,400,000 ? The same rule applies to the other provinces—the proportion is always observed and the principle of representation by population carried out, while, at the same time, there will not be decennially an inconvenient increase in the numbers of the Lower House. At the same time, there is a constitutional provision that hereafter, if deemed advisable, the total number of representatives may be increased from 194, the number fixed in the first instance. In that case, if an increase is made, Lower Canada is still to remain the pivot on which the whole calculation will turn. If Lower Canada, instead of sixty- five, shall have seventy members, then the calculation will be, if Lower Canada has seventy members, with such a population,

[Page 39]

how many shall Upper Canada have with a larger population ? I was in favor of a larger House than one hundred and ninety-four, but was overruled. I was perhaps singular in the opinion, but I thought it would be well to commence with a larger representation in the lower branch. The arguments against this were, that, in the first place, it would cause additional expense; in the next place, that in a new country like this, we could not get a sufficient number of qualified men to be representatives. My reply was that the number is rapidly increasing as we increase in education and wealth ; that a larger field would be open to political ambition by having a larger body of representatives ; that by having numerous and smaller constituencies, more people would be interested in the working of the union, and that there would be a wider field for selection for leaders of governments and leaders of parties. These are my individual sentiments,—which, perhaps, I have no right to express here— but I was overruled, and we fixed on the number of one hundred and ninety-four, which no one will say is large or extensive, when it is considered that our present number in Canada alone is one hundred and thirty. The difference between one hundred and thirty and one hundred and ninety-four is not great, considering the large increase that will be made to our population when Confederation is carried into effect. While the principle of representation by population is adopted with respect to the popular branch of the legislature, not a single member of the Conference, as I stated before, not a single one of the representatives of the government or of the opposition of any one of the Lower Provinces was in favor of universal suffrage. Every one felt that in this respect the principle of the British Constitution should be carried out, and that classes and property should be represented as well as numbers. Insuperable difficulties would have presented themselves if we had attempted to settle now the qualification for the elective franchise. We have different laws in each of the colonies fixing the qualification of electors for their own local legislatures ; and we therefore adopted a similar clause to that which is contained in the Canada Union Act of 1841, viz., that all the laws which affected the qualification of members and of voters, which affected the appointment and conduct of returning officers and the proceedings at elections, as well as the trial of controverted elections in the separate provinces, should obtain in the first election to the Confederate Parliament, so that every man who has now a vote in his own province should continue to have a vote in choosing a representative to the first Federal Parliament. And it was left to the Parliament of the Confederation, as one of their first duties, to consider and to settle by an act of their own the qualification for the elective franchise, which would apply to the whole Confederation. In considering the question of the duration of Parliament, we came to the conclusion to recommend a period of five years. I was in favor of a longer period. I thought that the duration of the local legislatures should not be shortened so as to be less than four years, as at present, and that the General Parliament should have as long a duration as that of the United Kingdom. I was willing to have gone to the extent of seven years; but a term of five years was preferred, and we had the example of the New Zealand carefully considered, not only locally, but by the Imperial Parliament, and which gave the provinces of those islands a general parliament with a duration of five years. But it was a matter of little importance whether five years or seven years was the term, the power of dissolution by the Crown having been reserved. I find, on looking at the duration of parliaments since the accession of George III. to the Throne, that excluding the present parliament, there have been seventeen parliaments, the average period of whose existence has been about three years and a half. That average is less than the average duration of the parliaments in Canada since the union, so that it was not a matter of much importance whether we fixed upon five or seven years as the period of duration of our General Parliament. A good deal of misapprehension has arisen from the accidental omission of some words from the 24th resolution. It was thought that by it the local legislatures were to have the power of arranging hereafter, and from time to time of readjusting the different constituencies and settling the size and boundaries of the various electoral districts. The meaning of the resolution is simply this, that for the first General Parliament, the arrangement of constituencies shall be made by the existing local legislatures ; that in Canada, for instance, the present Canadian Parliament shall arrange what are to be the constituencies of Upper Canada, and to make such changes as may be necessary in arranging

[Page 40]

for the seventeen additional members given to it by the Constitution ; and that it may also, if it sees fit, alter the boundaries of the existing constituencies of Lower Canada. In short, this Parliament shall settle what shall be the different constituencies electing members to the first Federal Parliament. And so the other provinces, the legislatures of which will fix the limits of their several constituencies in the session in which they adopt the new Constitution. Afterwards the local legislatures may alter their own electoral limits as they please, for their own local elections. But it would evidently be unproper to leave to the Local Legislature the power to alter the constituencies sending members to the General Legislature after the General Legislature shall have been called into existence. Were this the case, a member of the General Legislature might at any time find himself ousted from his seat by an alteration of his constituency by the Local Legislature in his section. No, after the General Parliament meets, in order that it may have full control of its own legislation, and be assured of its position, it must have the full power of arranging and re-arranging the electoral limits of its constituencies as it pleases, such being one of the powers essentially necessary to such a Legislature. (Hear, hear.) I shall not detain the House by entering into a consideration at any length of the different powers conferred upon the General Parliament as contradistinguished from those reserved to the local legislatures; but any honorable member on examining the list of different subjects which are to be assigned to the General and Local Legislatures respectively, will see that all the great questions which affect the general interests of the Confederacy as a whole, are confided to the Federal Parliament, while the local interests and local laws of each section are preserved intact, and entrusted to the care of the local bodies. As a matter of course, the General Parliament must have the power of dealing with the public debt and property of the Confederation. Of course, too, it must have the regulation of trade and commerce, of customs and excise. The Federal Parliament must have the sovereign power of raising money from such sources and by such means as the representatives of the people will allow. It will be seen that the local legislatures have the control of all local works ; and it is a matter of great importance, and one of the chief advantages of the Federal Union and of local legislatures, that each province will have the power and means of developing its own resources and aiding its own progress after its own fashion and in its own way. Therefore all the local improve- ments, all local enterprizes or undertakings of any kind, have been left to the care and management of the local legislatures of each province. (Cheers.) It is provided that all “lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals and other works, connecting any two or more of the provinces together or extending beyond the limits of any province,” shall belong to the General Government, and be under the control of the General Legislature. In like manner ” lines of steamships between the Federated Provinces and other countries, telegraph communication and the incorporation of telegraph companies, and all such works as shall, although lying within any province, be specially declared by the Acts authorizing them, to be for the general advantage,” shall belong to the General Government. For instance, the Welland Canal, though lying wholly within one section, and the St. Lawrence Canals in two only, may be properly considered national works, and for the general benefit of the whole Federation. Again, the census, the ascertaining of our numbers and the extent of our resources, must, as a matter of general interest, belong to the General Government. So also with the defences of the country. One of the great advantages of Confederation is, that we shall have a united, a concerted, and uniform system of defence. (Hear.) We are at this moment with a different militia system in each colony—in some of the colonies with an utter want of any system of defence. We have a number of separate staff establishments, without any arrangement between the colonies as to the means, either of defence or offence. But, under the union, we will have one system of defence and one system of militia organization. In the event of the Lower Provinces being threatened, we can send the large militia forces of Upper Canada to their rescue. Should we have to fight on our lakes against a foreign foe, we will have the hardy seamen of the Lower Provinces coming to our assistance and manning our vessels. (Hear, hear.) We will have one system of defence and be one people, acting together alike in peace and in war. (Cheers.) The criminal

[Page 41]

law too—the determination of what is a crime and what is not and how crime shall be punished—is left to the General Government. This is a matter almost of necessity. It is of great importance that we should have the same criminal law throughout these provinces— that what is a crime in one part of British America, should be a crime in every part—that there should be the same protection of life and property as in another. It is one of the defects in the United States system, that each separate state has or may have a criminal code of its own,—that what may be a capital offence io one state, may be a venial offence, punishable slightly, in another. But under our Constitution we shall have one body of criminal law, based on the criminal law of England, and operating equally throughout British America, so that a British American, belonging to what province he may, or going to any other part of the Confederation, knows what his rights are in that respect, and what his punishment will bf if an offender against the criminal laws of the land. I think this is one of the most marked instances in which we take advantage of the experience derived from our observations of the defects in the Constitution of the neighboring Republic. (Hear, hear.) The 33rd provision is of very great importance to the future well-being of these colonies. It commits to the General Parliament the ” rendering uniform all or any of the laws relative to property and civil rights in Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, and rendering uniform the procedure of all or sny of the oourts in these provinces.” The great principles which govern the laws of all the provinces, with the single exception of Lower Canada, are the same, although there may be a divergence in details ; and it is gratifying to find, on the part of the Lower Provinces, a general desire to join together with Upper Canada in this matter, and to procure, as soon as possible, an assimilation of the statutory laws and the procedure in the oourts, of all these provinces. At present there is a good deal of diversity. In one of the colonies, for instance, they have no municipal system at all. I a another, the municipal system is merely permissive, and has not been adopted to any extent. Although, therefore, a legislative union was found to be almost impracticable, it was understood, so far as we could influence the future, that the first act of the Confederate Government should be to procure an assimilation of the statutory law of all those provinces, which has, as its root and foundation, the common law of England. But to prevent local interests from being over-ridden, the same section makes provision, that, while power is given to the General Legislature to deal with this subject, no change in this respect should have the force and authority of law in any province until sanctioned by the Legislature of that province. (Hear, hear.) The General Legislature is to have power to establish a general Court of Appeal for the Federated Provinces. Although the Canadian Legislature has always had the power to establish a Court ot Appeal, to which appeals may be made from the courts of Upper and Lower Canada, we have never availed ourselves of the power. Upper Canada has its own Court of Appeal, so has Lower Canada. And this system will continue until a General Court of Appeal shall be established by the General Legislature. The Constitution does not provide that such a court shall be established. There are many arguments for and against the establishment of such a court. But it was thought wise and expedient to put into the Constitution a power to the General Legislature, that, if after full consideration they think it advisable to establish a General Court of Appeal from all the Superior Courts of all the provinces, they may do so. (Hear, hear.) I shall not go over the other powers that are conferred on the General Parliament. Most of them refer to matters of financial and commercial interest, and I leave those subjects in other and better hands. Besides all the powers that are specifically given in the 37th and last item of this portion of the Constitution, confers on the General Legislature the general mass of sovereign legislation, the power to legislate on ” all matters of a general character, not specially and exclusively reserved for the local governments and legislatures.” This is precisely the provision which is wanting in the Constitution of the United States. It is here that we find the weakness of the American system— the point where the American Constitution breaks down. (Hear, hear.) It is in itself a wise and necessary provision. We thereby strengthen the Central Parliament, and make the Confederation one people and one government, instead of five peoples and five governments, with merely a point of authority connecting us to a limited and insufficient extent.

[Page 42]

With respect to the local governments, it is provided that each shall be governed by a chief executive officer, who shall be nominated by the General Government. As this is to be one united province, with the local governments and legislatures subordinate to the General Government and Legislature, itis obvious that the chief executive officer in each of the provinces must be subordinate as well. The General Government assumes towards the local governments precisely the same position as the Imperial Government holds with respect to each of the colonies now; so that as the Lieutenant Governor of each of the different provinces is now appointed directly by the Queen, and is directly responsible, and reports directly to Her, so will the executives of the local governments hereafter be subordinate to the Representative of the Queen, and be responsible and report to him. Objection has been taken that there is an infringement of the Royal prerogative in giving the pardoning power to the local governors, who are not appointed directly by the Crown, but only indirectly by the Chief Executive of the Confederation, who is appointed by the Crown. This provision was inserted in the Constitution on account of the practical difficulty which must arise if the power is confined to the Governor General. For example, if a question arose about the discharge of a prisoner convicted of a minor offence, say in Newfoundland, who might be in imminent danger of losing his life if he remained in confinement, the exercise of the pardoning power might come too late if it were necessary to wait for the action of the Governor General. It must be remembered that the pardoning power not only extends to capital cases, but to every case of conviction and sentence, no matter how trifling— even to the case of a fine in the nature of a sentence on a criminal conviction. It extends to innumerable cases, where, if the responsibility for its exercise were thrown on the General Executive, it could not be so satisfactorily discharged, Of course there must be, in each province, a legal adviser of the Executive, occupying the position of our Attorney General, as there is in every state of the American Union. This officer will be an officer of the Local Government ; but, if the pardoning power is reserved for the Chief Executive, there must, in every case where the exercise of the pardoning power is sought, be a direct communication and report from the local law officer to the Governor General. The practical inconvenience of this was felt to be so great, that it was thought well to propose the arrangement we did, without any desire to infringe upon the prerogatives of the Crown, for our whole action shews that the Conference, in every step they took, were actuated by a desire to guard jealously these prerogatives. (Hear, hear.) It is a subject, however, of Imperial interest, and if the Imperial Government and Imperial Parliament are not convinced by the arguments we will be able to press upon them for the continuation of that clause, then, of course, as the over-ruling power, they may set it aside. (Hear, hear.) There are numerous subjects which belong, of right, both to the Local and the General Parliaments. In all these cases it is provided, in order to prevent a conflict of authority, that where there is concurrent jurisdiction in the General and Local Parliaments, the same rule should apply as now applies in cases where there is concurrent jurisdiction in the Imperial and in the Provincial Parliaments, and that when the legislation of the one is adverse to or contradictory of the legislation of the other, in all such cases the action of the General Parliament must overrule, ex-necessitate, the action of the Local Legislature. (Hear, hear.) We have introduced also all those provisions which are necessary in order to the full working out of the British Constitution in these provinces. We provide that there shall be no money votes, unless those votes are introduced in the popular branch of the Legislature on the authority of the responsible advisers of the Crown—those with whom the responsibility rests of equalizing revenuo and expenditure—that there can be no expenditure or authorization of expenditure by Address or in any other way unless initiated by the Crown on the advice of its responsible advisers. (Hear, hear.) As regards the financial features of the scheme, the arrangements made as to the present liabilities of the several provinces, and the future liabilities of the Confederation, on these and kindred matters, I have no doubt that my honorable friends, the Finance Minister and the President of the Council, will speak at full length, and that they will be able to shew you that this branch of the subject has received the fullest consideration. I feel I would be intruding myself unnecessarily on the House if, with my inferior knowledge of those subjects I were to detain you by venturing to speak of them, when I know that they will be so ably

[Page 44]

it will never be the deliberately expressed determination of the Government of Great Britain. (Hear, hear.) The colonies are now in a transition state. Gradually a different colonial system is being developed— and it will become, year by year, less a case of dependence on our part, and of overruling protection on the part of the Mother Country, and more a case of a healthy and cordial alliance. Instead of looking upon us as a merely dependent colony, England will have in us a friendly nation—a subordinate but still a powerful people—to stand by her in North America in peace or in war. (Cheers.) The people of Australia will be such another subordinate nation. And England will have this advantage, if her colonies progress under the new colonial system, as I believe they will, that, though at war with all the rest of the world, she will be able to look to the subordinate nations in alliance with her, and owning allegiance to the same Sovreign, who will assist in enabling her again to meet the whole world in arms, as she has done before. (Cheers.) And if, in the great Napoleonic war, with every port in Europe closed against her commerce, she was yet able to hold her own, how much more will that be the case when she has a colonial empire rapidly increasing in power, in wealth, in influence, and in position. (Hear, hear.) It is true that we stand in danger, as we have stood in danger again and again in Canada, of being plunged into war and suffering all its dreadful consequences, as the result of causes over which we have no control, by reason of their connection. This, however, did not intimidate us. At the very mentien of the prospect of a war some time ago, how were the feelings of the people aroused from one extremity of British America to the other, and preparations made for meeting its worst consequences. Although the people of this country are fully aware of the horrors of war—should a war arise, unfortunately, between the United States and England, and we all pray it never may —they are still ready to encounter all perils of that kind, for the sake of the connection with England. There is not one adverse voice, not one adverse opinion on that point. We all feel the advantages we derive from our connection with England. So long as that alliance is maintained, we enjoy, under her protection, the privileges of constitutional liberty according to the British sys tem. We will enjoy here that which is the great test of constitutional freedom—we will have the rights of the minority respected. (Hear, hear.) In all countries the rights of the majority take care of themselves, but it is only in oountries like England, enjoying constitutional liberty, and safe from the tyrany of a single despot or of an unbridled democracy, that the rights of minoritieb are regarded. So long, too, as we form a portion of the British Empire, we shall have the example of her free institutions, of the high standard of the character of her statesmen and public men, of the purity of her legislation, and the upright administration of her laws. In this younger country one great advantage of our connection with Great Britain will be, that, under her auspices, inspired by her example, a portion of her empire, our public men will be actuated by principles similar to those which actuate the statesmen at home These although not material, physical benefits, of which you cau make an arithmetical calculation, are of such overwhelming advantage to our future interests and standing as a nation, that to obtain them is well worthy of any sacrifices we may be called upon to make, and the people of this country are ready to make them. (Cheers.) We should feel, also, sincerely grateful to benificent Providence that we have had the opportunity vouchsafed us of calmly considering this great constitutional change, this peaceful revolution—that we have not been hurried into it, like the United States, by the exigencies of war—that we have not had a violent revolutionary period forced on us, as in other nations, by hostile action from without, or by domestic dissensions within. Here we are in peace and prosperity, under the fostering government of Great Britain— a dependent people, with a government having only a limited and delegated authority, and yet allowed, without restriction, and without jealousy on the part of the Mother Country, to legislatr for ourselves, and peacefully and deliberately to consider and determine the future of Canada and of British North America. It is our happiness to know the expression of the will of our Gracious Sovereign, through Her Ministers, that we have her full sanction for our deliberations, that Her only solicitude is that we shall adopt a system which shall be really for our advantage, and that She promises to sanction whatever conclusion after full deliberation we may arrive at as to the best

[Page 45]

mode of securing the well-being,—the present and future prosperity of British America.— (Cheers.) It is our privilege and happiness to be in such a position, and we cannot be too grateful for the blessings thus conferred upon us. (Hear, hear.) I must apologize for having detained you so long—for having gone perhaps too much into tedious details with reference to the questions bearing on the Constitution now submitted to this House.—(Cries of ” no, no ” and ” go on.”) —In conclusion, I would again implore tho House not to let this opportunity to pass. It is an opportunity that may never recur. At the risk of repeating myself, I would say, it was only by a happy concurrence of circumstances, that we were enabled to bring this great question to its present position. If we do not take advantage of the time, if we show ourselves unequal to the occasion, it may never return, and we shall hereafter bitterly and unavailingly regret having failed to embrace the happy opportunity now offered of founding a great nation undet the fostering care of Great Britain, and our Sovereign Lady, Queen Victoria. (Loud cheers, amidst which the honorable gentleman resumed his seat).

The House, at eleven, P.M., adjourned.


TUESDAY, 7th February, 1865.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL said that yesterday he had promised to give to the House to-day an explanation of the provision contained in the 14th resolution relating to the selection of members for the Legislative Council of the General Legislature. This resolution read as follows :—

14. The first selection of the Members of the Legislative Council shall be made, except as regards Prince Edward Island, from the Legislative Councils of the various Provinces, so far as a sufficient number be found qualified and willing to serve; such members shall be appointed by the Crown at the recommendation of the General Executive Goverment, upon the nomination of the respective Local Governments, and in such nomination due regard shall be had to the claims of the Members of the Legislative Council of the Opposition in each Province, so that all political parties may as nearly as possible be fairly represented.

And under it the first recommendation for the appointment of Legislative Councillors from Canada would, should the Confederation scheme bo adopted, come from the existing Government of this province. In making such recommendations, the spirit of the resolution would be carefully observed, and both sides in this House and as well life as elected members, bo equally considered and fairly represented in the new Parliament.

HON. MR. FLINT begged to inquire whether the resolutions before the House were in all respects the same as those sent to the members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL said they were not in one particular precisely as first printed, there being a clause in those before the House to allow New Brunswick to impose a duty on timber and logs, and Nova Scotia on coal, which was not found in the first ; as for the other provinces, the imposition of such duties was reserved to the General Legislature. (Hear, hear, from Mr. CURRIE.)

HON. MR. CAMPBELL said he hoped that honorable members would rather aid in furthering the scheme than take pleasure in detecting the supposed causes of opposition. (Hear.)

HON. MR. CURRIE asked whether the difference between the two sets of resolutions was merely a misprint.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL could not say whether it was owing to a misprint or to an error in the manuscript.

HON. MR. CURRIE again asked whether the members of the Conference had not signed the instrument containing its resolutions ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL could only say that the resolutions now before the House truly and expressly represented the conclusions the Conference had arrived at. (Hear, hear.) Those conclusions had not been changed.

HON. MR. CURRIE then rose and said that the measure now before the House was the most important one ever submitted to a Colonial Legislature, and he hoped to be able to approach it with entire freedom from party spirit, and without the purpose of finding out unnecessary objections. He hoped he would, at all times, be able to judge of the measures presented with the fairness and candour of a Canadian and a British subject. At the outset he would, however, say, that the project now before the House had taken the country by surprise. The first time he had ever addressed the House he was reported to have spoken thus :—-

That by a course of legislation alike moderate, prudent and upright, it will yet be the lot of some present to live and see the day when Canada will be the centre of a noble British North American Confederacy extending from tha Atlantic to the

[Page 46]

Pacific—a Confederacy not born in war, or baptised in blood, but a Confederacy united by the bonds of friendship, held together by the strong ties of friendly commerce and mutual interests, and cemented by a common allegiance to the throne of Great Britain.

From this quotation it would be seen that then he was in favor of a Confederation of the several British North American Provinces, but he little thought then that within two short years such a scheme would be submitted to Parliament. He was still in favor of Confederation— (hear)—but it must be a Confederation founded on a just and equitable basis, upon principles which would be alike advantageous to all parts and injurious to none. If any other kind of Confederation were agreed upon, it would contain within itself the seeds of decay and dissolution. The project had been elaborately presented to the House by the gallant knight at the head of the Government and by his able colleague, the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands, and what reasons had they alleged in favor of it? He confessed he had been quite surprised at some of the arguments of the former. That hon. gentleman had stated that if the scheme were rejected, whether we would or would not, Canada would be forced by violence into the American Union, or placed upon an inclined plane which would carry us there. Now when men occupying high positions like the hon. member, assumed the responsibility of giving utterance to such startling opinions, they ought to be prepared to support them with very cogent reasons.

Hon. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I am quite ready to give them.

HON. MR. CURRIE—If the case were as represented, it must be because we are quite defenceless, and that except in union with the Lower Provinces we were at the mercy of the United States. But what did the honorable member mean by the inclined plane ? For his part he had not heard of any desire on the part of the people of this province to change their political institutions and turn from the glorious flag under which many of them had fought and bled. Had anything been heard from abroad, to the effect that unless we accepted this scheme, England would cast us off or let us slide down the inclined plane ? (Laughter) Yet these were the sole, or at least the chief, reasons alleged by that honorable member. Let us then ask ourselves whether the scheme provided a remedy for the threatened evils. Would Canada indeed be so physically strengthened sea-ward and land-ward by this alliance, that in the event of aggression on the part of the United States, we would be rendered quite safe? It was easy to say that union gave strength, but would this union really give us strength ? He could understand that union with a people contiguous would do so, but union with provinces 1,500 miles apart at the extreme points, was a very different thing, and more likely to be a source of weakness. In his mind it was like tying a small twine at the end of a large rope and saying it strengthened the whole line. When the honorable member said that Canada would be supported by all the military power of the Lower Provinces, we should not run away with the idea that this meant anything. What were the facts ? Upon looking at the census of those provinces he found that the male population between the ages of 21 and 50—the extreme limits at which men bore arms—was 128,457, of which number 63,289 were chiefly employed on the water, that is, in the coasting trade and the fisheries, leaving 65,000 to assist in the defence of Canada. (Hear, hear.) Now, suppose a draft of one-third of these was made for military exigencies—and one-third would be a large proportion—we would have less than 22,000 men available for the service. Why, that would not be enough to defend their own frontier from aggression. Without referring to the causes which had led to the formation of the present Government, or to the extraordinary conduct of some of the public men composing it, he must nevertheless allude to the express objects they professed to have in view in coming together. And the principal object was a scheme of federation, but not the scheme now offered to the House. If he understood the matter at all, the Government was organized on the basis of a Confederation of Upper and Lower Canada first, in which Confederation the Lower Provinces might afterwards be admitted if they wished it.


HON. MR. CURRIE—He was not surprised at the dissent of the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands, for the leaders in both Houses had placed the larger object, that is the organization of a general Confederation, as the primary one. But the basis of the organization had been reduced to writing, and he held in his hand the paper which recapitulated the conditions. They were as follows :— ” The Government are prepared to pledge themselves to bring in a measure, next session, for the purpose of removing existing difficulties by introducing the Federal principle into Canada, coupled with such provision as will

[Page 47]

permit the Maritime Provinces and the North-West Territory to be incorporated into the same system of Government.”

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The resolutions on the table fulfilled that promise.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Well, the honorable member’s colleague, the Provincial Secretary, did not mention the Lower Provinces otherwise than incidentally at the great meeting in South Oxford, and the Intercolonial Railway not at all. If his position (Hon. Mr. CURRIE’S) was correct, that the Confederation of Canada alone was the basis of the coalition, then they had not carried out their pledge, and he pronounced the scheme now propounded as the authorized production of a number of self-appointed delegates, and not the measure the country expected. Then he had been surprised to find that in the Conference Canada had so small a representation. He very willingly admitted that we had very able men there, but they were few compared with the whole number of the Conference, and did not fairly represent the population and wealth of the country. The Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands had said, to be sure, that it did not make much difference as the votes were not taken by numbers but by the provinces ; in other words, that Prince Edward Island, with its population of 80,000 souls, had as much to say as Canada with its millions.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The two sections of Canada voted separately.

HON. MR. CURRIE—That was not much better, for it made Prince Edward Island equal to Upper Canada, with nearly 1,500,000 of population. But all this apart, he maintained the country was not prepared to pass judgment upon this momentous question. It was the greatest matter that had ever been presented for its consideration, and it should be the aim of all to have it perfectly understood and approved of before it was adopted. We should seek to frame a Constitution which would last for ages. If any portion of the country were seriously opposed to the project, and it were carried through in spite of them, a wrong would be inflicted which would perpetuate itself in all coming time. If passed against the sense of a majority of Upper or Lower Canada, the act might lead to an agitation such as had never been witnessed, and which might be fraught with the most disastrous consequences. To prove that the country was not prepared for this sudden change, he would ask how many public meetings had been held in Upper Canada for the purpose of discussing it? He had heard of but one, and that not very influential, where both sides of the question were discussed. The people had in fact been waiting for the programme, and to this moment it had not been supplied—certainly not in all its details. In a matter of this momentous importance, upon which the well-being of millions in the future might so much depend, he sincerely trusted the country would not be hurried, but that full time for discussion would be given to enable it to arrive at a safe verdict. (Hear.) It was said that all the Governments interested were in favor of the project, and it was well known that there was to be a dissolution of Parliament in one of the provinces ; if so, where was the necessity for haste in Canada, unless indeed it was tor the purpose of unduly influencing the other provinces ? When the union between Upper and Lower Canada was effected, there had been no such impatience of delay. The Imperial Government had brought in a bill, copies of which were sent out, and submitted to the Parliament of Upper Canada—Lower Canada then had no Parliament to consult, and in its case there was less need of delay than now—the bill was sent home again approved, though meetings were held in Lower Canada strongly opposed to the measure, and to this day it is said it was forced upon an unwilling people. (Hear, hear, from some of the French members.) If time was then allowed, why should not time be allowed now, when a much more important union was in question ? (Hear, hear.) Had the views of such eminent men as Lord Ellenborough and Lord Durham been duly appreciated in 1839, this Parliament would not now be met for the purpose of dissolving a union which had been unprofitable to one section, and unsatisfactory to the other. (Hear, hear, derisively.) He would now take the liberty to quote the views of Lord Durham, to which he had just alluded. They were as follows :

I am averse to every plan that has been proposed for giving an equal number of members to the two Provinces, in order to obtain the temporary end of out-nurabeting the French, because I think the same object will be obtained without any violation of the principles of representation, and without any such appearance of injustice in the scheme, as would set public opinion both in England and America strongly against it; and because, when emigration shall have increased the English population in the Upper Province, the adoption of such a principle would operate to defeat this very purpose it is intended to serve. It appears to me that any such elective arrangement founded on the present Provincial Divisions

[Page 48]

would tend to defeat the purpose of Union, and perpetrate the idea of disunion.

He cited these pregnant words to indicate the danger of resorting to temporary expedients for the purpose of overcoming grave difficulties. If hon. members desired to establish a union under which the provinces would grow in wealth, power and importance, they must endeavor to make it as nearly infallible as fallible men could. He had already remarked that there had been but little discussion in Upper Canada on this subject, and he felt it ill became him, representing, as he did, a large constituency, to vote approbation before the people understood what the vote involved. In the Lower Provinces the people and the press seemed alive to the subject, for the latter teemed with articles for and against, all tending to give information which our population had not received, But speaking of the Lower Provinces, he was really afraid that some public men down there were disposed to exaggerate the advantages of a union with Canada, just as some of ours seemed prone to magnify the riches of the Lower Provinces. If we were going into a partnership, which he hoped would last if entered into—(hear, hear,) —we should not attempt to deceive each other, for if the people found they had been deceived, the compact would be short-lived. To give honorable members some idea of the manner in which the subject was presented by leading men in the provinces, he would read them an extract from the speech of a Mr. LYNCH, at a large meeting in Halifax, as reproduced by one of the organs of the Government there.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—What organ?

HON. MR. CURRIE—They had so many organs they did not seem to know them all. (Laughter.) He would now read from the speech in question :—

But we are told by others that we had better have nothing to do with Canada, because she is bankrupt. Canada bankrupt! I wish we were all such bankrupts. She it overflowing with wealth. This is now rapidly developing itself, and must eventually place her among the first nations of the earth. I have travelled over and examined that great country, and it would take more than all the time allotted to me to tell you of her wealth and resources. Her rivers are among the largest in the world, and her lakes are mighty inland oceans. I never had any idea of their extent until I stood on the shore of Lake Erie, saw before me a large square rigged ship, and was told that such was the class of vessels that navigated those waters. Why, sir, 7,000,000 tons of shipping trade upon those mighty lakes. Again, look at the growth of the population. Sixty years ago it was 60,000, now it is 3,000,000. Upper Canada doubled her population in ten years, and Toronto, in the beginning of this century the abode of the red man of the forest, is now one of the finest cities of British America, with a population of 40,000. The soil is of the richest description, indeed it is only too much BO. In some places rich alluvial deposit is found to the depth of 50 feet, and in many instances lands have yielded their crops for years without the aid of a spadeful of manure. Canada has not only the greatest yield but the best wheat in America. It is a well-known fact that the people of the United States in exporting their best flour mix it to a large extent with Canadian wheat, and in order to give you an idea of the increased growth of t I would inform you that while in ten years the wheat crop increased in the States 50 per cent, (an immense increase), it in the same time in Canada increased 400 per cent. The average crop is equal to that of the best wheat growing countries in Europe, while some places have yielded the almost incredible quantity of 100 bushels to the acre. The vield of last year was 27,000.

He only wished that this honorable gentleman alone had been mistaken, but even the Hon.Mr. TILLEY, one of the most distinguished statesmen of New Brunswick, had made the statement that our tariff was in fact only an eleven per cent, tariff. But all the errors were not on that side, for they need but turn to a celebrated speech of one of our own leading men—a speech regarded almost as an important state paper—and there it was stated that the United Provinces would become the third maritime power in the world. (Hear, Hear.) England, it said, was first, then the United States, and the speaker doubted if France could take the third rank before us. Our sea-going tonnage would be five millions, and our lake tonnage seven millions. These were vast figures, and it almost bewildered the mind to conceive their magnificent proportions. (Laughter.) Now supposing all these vessels were 500 tons each, it would require 14,000 to make up the sum, but unfortunately the census showed that we had but 808 sailors to navigate them—rather a small number it must be admitted for 14,000 ships, (Great laughter.) The way the mistake—to use the mildest expression—was made, was simple enough. The vessels were entered at the Custom Houses every time they came in and left port, and as some of them came into port 200 times in the year, as at Toronto for instance, their tonnage was counted 200 times. I t was easy in this way to run up our inland marine to seven millions of tons. But then if the products of Canada were as great as Mr. LYNCH represented, why of course we would require

[Page 49]

all those ships to cany away all that wheat. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would bo glad if he could tell as fine a story, but he could not do that and at the same time tell the truth. Then the Lower Provinces were told that our tariff averaged eleven per cent., but was it so ? [The honorable member was here quoting from a speech of Hon. Mr. TILLEY, to which he had before alluded.]

HON. MR. ROSS—Read on.

HON. MR. CURRIE, reading on, immediately came to a paragraph explaining the 11 per cent, to mean the average of duties on the value of all imported goods, a large proportion of which were duty free.

HON. MR. ROSS—The statement was correct. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. CURRIE then proceeded to show the truth in regard to the duties on staples and articles in domestic use in Canada. He said if honorable gentlemen would turn to the Trade and Navigation returns for 1864, they would find that in the first half of that year we imported and paid the following duties on eight kinds of commodities :

Value. Duty.
Cottons $3,277,985 $644,381
Woolens 2,537,669 499,084
Tea, lbs., 3,048,567 1,059,674 275,126
Iron and hardware 776,225 151,422
Linen 421,543 84,136
Hats and Caps 281,197 55,546
Sugar 779,907 376,189
Sugar, refined 9,980 6,260
Coffee, green 89,016 20,449
—- —-

Thus hon. gentlemen would see we pay more than fifty per cent, on our sugar, nearly twenty-three per cent, on coffee, while upon tea we pay about twenty-six per cent. He was afraid that if the present condition of Canada was calmly considered wo would be found going into the union in a state far different from the glowing representations of Hon. Mr. LYNCH. Let hon. members look at the trade of Canada for half of the year 1864, and they would find that the balance against us was $9,999,000. Then there was the interest upon the public debt ; interest upon loans to private individuals; bank dividends payable abroad, for much of the stock of our banks was held out of the province ; the interest to loan companies and others ; all to be added to the debit balance, and the picture of wealth conjured up would present a very different aspect. Indeed, he wondered how, with all these burdens, the country had borne up so well.— In the next place, he objected to the manner in which the scheme had been brought down. Why, if the Government desired the House to vote favorably, did they not act and speak understandingly ? Why did they not at once bring in the schemes for the local governments and the estimated cost of the Intercolonial Railway ? He (Hon. Mr. CURRIE) did not object to the principle of Confederation. (Hear, hear.) No, and he believed there would be the most perfect unanimity on the subject, as there was among the delegates as to the principle of Confederation, but he asked to have, as part of the scheme, the cost of the railway, which seemed to be part and parcel of it. We knew little of this project, where it was to commence and where to end, or how many ends it was to have. We heard there was to be one branch from Truro to Pietou ; and then it was said again that tho road must pass through the valley of tho St. John, and end in that city. Were we to accept the project without information ? Were wo to have a road to Halifax ? to purchase the Grand Trunk to Rivière du Loup and the link from Truro to Halifax, all of them to enter and form part of the national railway ? Notwithstanding the admitted talent of the delegates, he extended that a manifest injustice had been dono to Canada, and especially to Upper Canada, in the distribution of the subsidies to the local governments. Hon. gentlemen must bear in mind that the subsidies change not with population, but remain fixed. They were as follows :—

Upper Canada $1,116,873 00
Lower Canada 889,248 00
Nova Scotia 264,000 00
New Brunswick $201,000
—- 264,000 00
Prince Edward Island 64,035
—- 153,728 00
Newfoundland 98,110
—- 369,000 00
$3,056,849 00

If a person was proposing to enter into a partnership he would naturally inquire into the assets of the other members of the intended firm. We knew what our assets were. We had the finest canals ia the world, which had cost many millions.

HON. MR. ROSS—And they pay.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Place tolls on the St. Lawrence Canals and you will see what they pay. There was one canal that did pay, the Welland. In 1861 this work alone earned

[Page 50]

a net revenue of $184,289 50, over and above the costs of repair and management ; and if you add to that amount the tolls unwisely refunded, $56,474 63, you have an amount equal to five per cent, on the total expenditure on the Welland Canal, as shewn in the Report of the Commissioner of Public Works, up to the 1st January, 1862, and a margin of $7,436 to the credit of this work. Then we had the St. Lawrance Canals, and if they did not pay it was because of the extravagance of the management and the system of toll on those works. (Hear.) It was reported that some people believed if we could only get Confederation we would have enough to pay for both the general and local governments, and so much more to spare that we would not know what to do with our money. What would be the revenue of the Confederation ? Taking the year 1863 as the basis, we find the revenues of the proposed Confederation for that year, from customs and excise, to be as follows :

Canada $5,999,320 98
Newfoundland $496,890
Prince Edward Island 153,520
Nova Scotia 861,989
New Brunswick 768,353
——– 2,28,0,752 00
$8,280,072 98

We will now consider the burdens to be assumed by the Confederation. Interest on the debt of Canada, $3,812, 514 01 ; interest on the debts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, of $15,000,000, say $750,000; interest on the debt of Newfoundland, of $946,000, and the debt of Prince Edward Island, of $240,673—$59,333. Add to this the interest on the cost of constructing the Intercolonial Railway, not less than $1,000,000 yearly, supposing it were to cost us but $20,000,000, and the amount to be spent yearly for defensive purposes, $1,000,000. And assuming that civil government and the cost of legislation should be no more for the Confederation than for Canada, which is certainly a reasonable view, we have for civil government, $430,572 47 ; for legislation, $627,377 92 ; judges’ salaries, Lower Canada, $115,755 55; judges’ salaries, Upper Canada, $157,690 33 ; emigration and quarantine, $57,406 32 ; ocean and river service, $511,356 40 ; lighthouses and coasts, $102,724 75 ; fisheries, $22,758 41 ; cost of collecting revenue and excise in Canada, $401,561 41 ; local subsidies to provinces, $3,056,849. Thus shewing a balance against revenue of $3,825,781 89 ; and if the canals are to be enlarged, as promised, an additional debt must be created of $12,000,000 for such purpose,—another annual charge of $600,000,—or a total balance against revenue of $4,425,781 89. These gentlemen from the east were going to give us the Intercolonial Railway and enlarge our canals, but if to enlarge the canals, why were f not the canals put in the Constitution ?

HON. MR. DICKSON—They did not want to throw cold water upon it. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. CURRIE— Why not give a guarantee for their enlargement ? He found that the desirable improvement would entail an expense of $12,000,000. As to the local subsidy, he regarded it as a farce, or as honey spread out to catch flies. As to the argument that the rejection of the scheme would injure our credit, he would ask whether the bondholders would not much prefer our present financial condition to one of fifteen millions of increased indebtedness, with nothing of value to show for it. If the people of England knew that Confederation and the Intercolonial Railway meant an increase of fifty par cent, on our tariff, they would not be so anxious for it. As to the representation in the Confederated Legislative Council, it was proposed to give Upper Canada and Lower Canada twenty-four members each, and to the Lower Provinces twenty-eight. That is, the 780,000 souls in the Lower Provinces would have four members more than Upper Canada with its million and a half. This proved that though Canada had talented men in the Conference, they either forgot our interests or sat there powerless. When the Legislative Council of Canada was made elective, his honorable friend near him (Hon. Mr. CHRISTIE) had stood up for the right of Upper Canada, as the Delegates should have done in the Conference. On the second reading of the bill to change the constitution of the Legislative Council, on the 14th March, 1856,—

Mr. BROWN moved, seconded by Mr. FOLEY, That it be an instruction to the Committee to amend the bill, by providing that the members of the Legislative Council shall be elected for four years, one-half retiring every second year.

Mr. GOULD moved, seconded by Mr. WRIGHT, That it be an instruction to the Committee to amend the bill by providing that the constituencies shall be arranged according to population, without regard to the division line between Upper and Lower Canada.

This amendment was supported by the Hon. Messrs. ATKINS, BROWN, CAMERON, CHRISTIE, FOLEY, FREEMAN, WILSON, and many leading reformers in Upper Canada.

[Page 51]

And on the third reading of the bill on the 27th March,—

Mr. HARTMAN moved, seconded by Mr. CHRISTIE, That the bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House, with a view to arraage the electoral divisions so as to embrace within each, as nearly as practicable, an equal population, and without regard to a division line between Upper and Lower Canada.

This amendment, although supported by Messrs. BROWN, CHRISTIE, and twenty other Upper Canada members, was not carried.

If representation by population were right in 1856, was it not equally right in 1865 ? But it might be said that the union was to be a federal one, whereas it was no such thing. It was neither federal nor legislative, but a mongrel between both. If the representation had been properly arranged, there would have been no necessity for honorable members vacating their seats. In that case, Upper Canada would have had 30, Lower Canada 24, and the Lower Provinces 18. Yesterday the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands had given reasons for abolishing the elective principle as applied to this House ; but not over a year ago he had lauded the system, and he (Hon. Mr. CURRIE) had not heard the life members say a word in opposition. The system had got a fair trial of eight years, and had proved satisfactory, and would a few self- constituted delegates, with a dash of the pen, destroy that which had received the sanction of the country? He was never sent to this House to vote away its constitution—(hear, hear)—and before endorsing any such proposition he would wish to go to his constituents, and if they suid yes, he would not oppose— (hear, hear)—but without that permission, he was not going to give a vote which might have the effect of giving him his seat for life. (Hear, hear.) He had heard of Lower Canada domination, but if this was the first taste of eastern domination, he wished no more of it. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—It was not a peculiarity of Canada, but the judgment of the whole Conference. (Hear.)

HON. MR. CURRIE—He then presumed it was not the proposition of the honorable member that the seat the people had given him should be given to the Crown; but it seemed he had passed under the domination of the Lower Provinces. (Laughter.) In 1849, the Legislature had made provision for the support of common schools in Canada, and had set aside one million acres of the best lands for that noble purpose. The lands, all situate in Upper Canada, had been sold, and a fund of a million and a quarter accumulated, but with another stroke of the pen this, too, was to be scored out. In 1862, the Government of the day had brought down a bill to amend the Separate School Act of Upper Canada, and without expressing an opinion as to its merits, he might say it had produced a very strong feeling of indignation, A mass meeting was held in Toronto to condemn the bill, and the people were so exasperated that they had called upon certain members of the Government to resign. Other meetings were held, viz. :—

Meeting at Harrington, North Oxford, 25th March, 1863 :

Resolved,—That the Hon. W. MACDOUGALL has betrayed the interests of his constituents for the sake of office.

Meeting at East Missouri, 6th April, 1863

Resolved,—That this meeting, while viewing the manner in which the Hon. WM. MACDOUGALL has betrayed the interests of his constituents in supporting Mr. SCOTT’S Separate School Bill, belives it to be his duty to resign his seat in the Provincial Parliament as member for the North Riding of Oxford.

He had read these resolutions to show the feeling which then prevailed, and he might have quoted articles to prove that the measure was regarded as a most iniquitous one. He would give one or two from the Globe:—

We can hardly believe that a government based on the double majority, will permit an alteration in our common school system in defiance of the vote of an Upper Canadian majority.

March 20th.—The prospects of Mr. SCOTT’S bill in the Upper House are not very bright. When it was brought up from the Assembly, nobody rose to move the first reading, and Sir ETIENNE TACHE, who, it will be remembered, introduced this last Upper Canada Separate School Bill, which passed into law, was about to assume this responsibility, when Mr. MCCREA, the newly elected Councillor for the Western Division, came to the rescue.

The SPEAKER then very improperly suggested Mr. AIKINS as the seconder, an office which the member for the Home Division promptly declined. No one else appearing, Mr. LETELLIER, a French Canadian, seconded the motion. This is French domination with a vengeance. We are not astonished to find that there is a disposition to give the bill strong opposition, regardless of the consequences to the government.

April 11.—The bill passed the second reading in the Legislative Council, 11 to 13 from Upper Canada.

In spite of every temptation, Upper Canada stands true to her school system. The bill may pass as other infamies have passed our Legisla-

[Page 52]

ture before, but it will not be by Upper Canada votes. If our school system is destroyed, Lower Canada must bear the shame of it.

April 21st.—Although the bill has passed both Houses, and no number of meetings can stay its progress, it is well for the people of Upper Canada to pronounce upon its merits. They are deeply hurt and mortified by this treatment they have received from Lower Canadians and traitors among their own representatives. A sense of personal wrong and injury exists which we have never witnessed in so great a degree before. The iron of Lower Canada domination seems to have touched the soul of the people and the wound rankles. The word contempt does not express the feeling which is manifested. There is a spice of bitterness about it which takes it out of that category.

But, notwithstanding these evidences of dissatisfaction, the act became law, and it remained for the present Government, by this scheme, to perpetuate the law. He was surprised that the Government, framed as it was, should become parties to such a scheme. They had not yet done with the sehool question. They proposed to protect the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, and a petition was on the table exhibiting what was desired. This was proof enough that the people were not satisfied ; and whether or not the scheme of Confederation were adopted, the Government should bring in a measure to do the petitioners justice. Then from Upper Canada the Roman Catholics asked to be placed in a position precisely similar to that which the Protestants of Lower Canada were seeking, and if each of these minorities were suffering injustice, why should not their complaints be redressed before a Confederation took place ? Let these measures prelude Confederation, and let not Parliament be asked to proceed blindfold. He was satisfied that if the Intercolonial Railway project were taken out of the scheme, we would not hear much about it afterwards. Some leading men in Halifax had said, ” the Railway first, and Confederaion next.”

HON. MR. SANBORN—Hon. Mr. TILLEY had said that.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Then it would be better to try the Confederation without the railway. It would, after all, be much easier for the members from the Lower Provinces to come to Ottawa than it used to be for the members from Sandwich to go to Montreal at the time of the union. The Grand Trunk Railway had cost the province a vast sum, but then it had been of vast service to the country. But where is the company that would keep the Intercolonial Railway running for its earnings, the road and the rolling stock being made over to them as a gift ? Suppose a merchant from Montreal wants to go to England, which road will he prefer ? Why, he would go by way of Portland. Would any produce be sent over such a road ? How much wheat was there sent over the Grand Trunk, even in winter ?

HON. MR. FERRIER—A great deal.

HON. MR. CURRIE—HOW much from Montreal ? And why did we hear complaints from Huron and Bruce ?

SEVERAL VOICES—They have no railway there. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. CURRIE—Was there not the Buffalo and Lake Huron Railway passing through Huron ? It was our duty to hesitate and not to press on at railway speed, but to act like prudent men. We were sent here to place a check upon hasty legislation. But was there ever such hasty legislation as this ? Yet as the Government were strong in Parliament, they might attempt to press the measure without the consent of the people. If they do, however, pursue such a course, they will perhaps, receive a check in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, for in these provinces they had no intention to pass the measure without a free and. full discussion.

HON. MR. ROSS—Why, if it was good for them as the bon. member said, they might be glad to do it.

HON. MR. MCCREA–If it was so unfavorable for Canada it must be in the same degree favorable to the Lower Provinces.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Oh, that does not by any means follow ; they are a frugal, industrious and intelligent people, and it may be considered inadvisable by them to join a people who, in the short term of ten years, by a course of extravagance and prodigality increased the expenses of their government nearly four hundred per cent., independent of the increase of the public debt. They might also call to mind the Grand Trunk swindles.

HON. MR. ROSS—When the hon. member said that there had been Grand Trunk swindles, he said what was not correct.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Perhaps he used a wrong term. He meant Grand Trunk frauds. Those people might hesitate about connecting themselves with a people that had almost brought themselves to the verge of national bankruptcy, and loaded themselves with such a heavy tariff, they might recall to mind the political dishonesty of our public men, men who had so maligned and blackened the public character of each other as to require a I wider stage and a new audience to witness

[Page 53]

their future acts. They would also observe that all formerly’connected with the Grand Trunk were urging this scheme forward. He then accused the Government of bad faith in bringing down these resolutions, instead of a measure simply for the Canadas ; that the reform party only committed themselves to the latter scheme when Mr. BROWN entered the Cabinet, but now it was only secondary. To bear this out he read the following resolution adopted by that party :—

Moved by Mr. HOPE MCKENZIE, and seconded by Mr. MCGIVERIN— That we approve of the course which has been pursued by Mr. BROWN in the negotiations with the Government, and that we approve of the project of a Federal union of the Canadas, with provision for its extension to the Maritime Provinces and the North-Western territory, as one based on which the constitutional difficulties now existing should be settled.

He was not personally opposed to Confederation in itself, but this measure was so defective that he could not support it, bearing, as it did, the seeds of decay apparent in its details. He heartily concurred in the views expressed recently at Halifax,by a distinguished Upper Canada Statesman—(MR. BROWN):—

“On a survey of the whole case, I do think that there is no doubt as to the high advantages that would result from a union of all the colonics, provided that terms of union could be found just to all the contracting parties, and so framed as to secure harmony in the future administration of affairs. But it were wrong to conceal for a moment that the whole merit of the scheme of union may be completely marred by the character of its details.” He asked who would not say that the details of this measure did not so mar as to spoil the scheme. If we are to have a Confederation, let it be put upon a proper and permanent foundation, one that will be of advantage to this young and vigorous province, and he expressed the hope that only such a scheme would be sanctioned by Parliament. (Hear, hear, and applause.)

It being nearly six o’clock, HON. MR. Ross moved to adjourn the debate till the morrow, which was carried.

The House then adjourned.


TUESDAY, February 7, 1865.

ATTY. GEN. CARTIER rose to continue the debate on Confederation. He said that he approached this subject with a certain amount of diffidence, knowing it was not the first time he had had the honor of speaking upon it in the Lower Provinces and elsewhere. He felt that this was a momentous occasion, as for anything that he said on this grave question, he was responsible to his constituents and the country. Respecting this grave question, it had been said that the TACHE-MACDONALD Government had taken upon themselves the solution of a problem which was not at the time of its formation before the country, and had not even been mooted. Those saying so were ignorant of the parliamentary history of the past few years. He would briefly refer to the history of this great question, as far as it had been brought before the Parliament and country. When the CARTIER-MACDONALD Government was constructed, after the downfall of the BROWN-DORION Administration, a programme of the policy of the former was laid before Parliament. Among the subjects contained in this programme of 7th August, 1858, was one referred to in the following terms : “The late Government felt themselves bound to carry out the law of the land respecting the scat of Government, but, in the face of the recent vote on that subject, the Administration did not consider themselves warranted in incurring any expenditure for the public buildings, until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the whole question in all its bearings ; and the expediency of a Federal Union of the British North American Provinces will be anxiously considered, and communication with the Home Government and the Lower Provinces entered into forthwith on the subject ; and the result of this communication will be submitted to Parliament at its next session. The Government will, during the recess, examine into the organization and working of the public department?, and carry out such administrative reforms as will be conducive to economy and efficiency.” Here was this scheme of a union of the provinces mentioned in the programme of the CARTIER-MACDONALD Government, in 1858: He merely quoted this passage to show that neither Parliament nor the country was now taken by surprise with regard to this scheme. (Hear, hear.) We had had general and special elections since 1858, and to pretend that

[Page 54]

this subject, which had been so often canvassed, was new to the country, was to assert an untruth. At the close of that session, Sir EDMUND HEAD, in his Speech proroguing Parliament, made use of the following language :—” I propose, in the course of the recess, to communicate with Her Majesty’s Government, and with the Governments of the sister colonies, on another matter of very great importance. I am desirous of inviting them to discuss with us the principles on which a bond of a federal character, uniting the Provinces of British North America, may perhaps hereafter be practicable.” In accordance with that announcement of policy, a deputation was sent to England, composed of his then colleagues, Hons. Messrs. GALT and Ross and himself. We pressed the matter before the Imperial Government, whom we asked to authorize a meeting of delegates from the British North American Governments, to consider this subject and report upon it, said report to be communicated to the Colonial Secretary. Of course we wanted, at that time, to act with the sanction and approval of the Imperial Government. We pressed the matter as strongly as we could before it. Of all the provinces that responded to the call of the Imperial Government, Newfoundland, he thought, was the only one which professed her readiness to appoint delegates when the opportune moment arrived. (Hear, hear.) Although the other provinces were not opposed to Confederation, still, as the question had not been brought conspicuously before their people, they did not like then to join in the measure and in the proceedings which the Canadian delegates had urged upon the Imperial Government in 1858. At this time the Canadian Delegates had a duty to perform towards the illustrious Administrator of the Government, Sir E. HEAD, to fulfil the promise he had made, on proroguing Parliament, by pressing the measure upon the attention of the Imperial Administration. The Canadian Government also kept its promise to report to the House the result of the mission to England, at the next session of Parliament. The hon. gentleman here read the despatch dated October, 1858, which was transmitted to the Imperial Government, setting forth the sectional difficulties which had arisen between Upper and Lower Canada, principally on account of the former’s demand for increased representation in Parliament, on the ground of its much larger population. Every one who knew anything of his past public course was aware that he was opposed to the principle of representation by population while Upper and Lower Canada were under one Government. He did not regret his opposition. If such a measure had been passed, what would have been the consequence ? There would have been constant political warfare between Upper and Lower Canada. True it was that the members from Upper Canada, being in the majority, it might have been imagined they would have carried everything before them ; but as far as justice to Lower Canada was concerned, such might not have been the case. The consequence of representation by population would nave been that one territory would have governed another, and this fact would have presented itself session after session in the House, and day after day in the public prints. (Hear, hear.) The moment this principle had been conceded as the governing element, it would have initiated between the two provinces a warfare which would have been unremitting. (Hear, hear.) He wished that Upper Canada should understand him in this matter. He was accused of being opposed to Upper Canada’s rights, because during fifteen or twenty years he had to oppose his honorable friend the President of the Council (Hon. MR. BROWN). His honorable colleague took the ground that representation should be arranged according to population in each section of the province. He (Hon. MR. CARTIER) had resisted that position, believing that the moment such a principle was applied, his honorable friend, who, no doubt, wanted to maintain the peaceful government of the country, would have been disappointed in his wish. I t would have given rise to one of the bitterest struggles between the two provinces that ever took place between two nations. He did not mean to say that the majority from Upper Canada would have tyrannized over Lower Canada ; but the idea that Upper Canada, as a territory, had the preponderence in the Government by a large number of representatives, would have been sufficient to generate that sectional strife to which he had alluded. In 1858 he first saw that representation by population, though unsuited for application as a governing principle as between the two provinces, would not involve the same objection if other partners were drawn in by a federation. In a struggle between two—one a weak, and the other a strong party—the weaker could not but be overcome ; but if three parties were concerned, the stronger would not have the same advantage ; as when it was seen by the third that there was too much strength on one side, the third would club with the weaker

[Page 55]

combatant to resist the big fighter. (Cheers and laughter.) He did not oppose the principle of representation by population from an unwillingness to do justice to Upper Canada. He took this grouud, however, that when justice was done to Upper Canada, it was his duty to see thatno injustice was done to Lower Canada. He did not entertain the slightest apprehension that Lower Canada’s rights were in the least jeopardized by the provision that in the General Legislature the French Canadians of Lower Canada would have a smaller number of representatives than all the other origins combined. It would be seen by the resolutions that in the questions which would be submitted to the General Parliament there could be no danger to the rights and privileges of either French Canadians, Scotchmen, Englishmen or Irishmen. Questions of commerce, of international communication, and all matters of general interest, would be discussed and determined in the General Legislature ; but in the exercise of the functions of the General Government, no one could apprehend that anything could be enacted which would harm or do injustice to persons of any nationality. He did not intend to go into the details of the question of Confederation, but merely to bring before the House the most conspicuous arguments in order to induce members to accept the resolutions submitted by the Government. Confederation was, as it were, at this moment almost forced upon us. We could not shut our eyes to what was going on beyond the lines, where a great struggle was going on between two Confederacies, at one time forming but one Confederacy. We saw that a government, established not more than 80 years ago, had not been able to keep together the family of states which had broke up four or five years since. We could not deny that the struggle now in progress must necessarily influence our political existence. We did not know what would be the result of that great war—whether it would end in the establishment of two Confederacies or in one as before. However, we had to do with five colonies, inhabited by men of the same sympathies and interests, and in order to become a great nation they required only to be brought together under one General Government. The matter resolved itself into this, either we must obtain British North American Confederation or be absorbed in an American Confederation. (Hear, hear, and dissent.) Some entertained the opinion that it was unnecessary to have British North American Confederation to prevent absorption into the vortex of American Confederation. Such parties were mistaken. We knew the policy of England towards us—that she was determined to help and support us in any struggle with our neighbors. The British Provinces, separated as at present, could not defend themselves alone, and the question resolved itself into this : shall the whole strength of the empire be concentrated into Prince Edward Island, or Canada, as the case may be, in case of a war with the United States—or shall the provinces be left to fight single-handed, disunited ? We were not sufficiently united. We had our duties, with regard to England, to perform. In order to secure the exercise of her power in our defence we must help her ourselves. We could not do this satisfactorily or efiiciently unless we had a Confederation. When all united, the enemy would know that, if he attacked any part of those provinces—Prince Edward Island or Canada—he would have to encounter the combined strength of the empire. Canada, separate, would be, although comparatively strong in population and wealth, in a dangerous position should a war ensue. When we had organized our good defensive force, and united for mutual protection, England would send freely here both men and treasure for our defence. (Cheers.) He had stated before audiences in the Lower Provinces that, as far as territory, population and wealth were concerned, Canada was stronger than any of the other provinces, but at the same time was wanting in one element necessary to national greatness—the maritime one ; and that, owing to the large trade and commerce of Canada, extensive communication with Great Britain at all seasons was absolutely necessary. Twenty years ago our commerce for the year could be managed by communication with Great Britain in the summer months only. At present, however, this system was insufficient, and for winter communication with the sea-board we were left to the caprice of our American neighbors, through whose territory we must pass. Ho had also alluded to the bonding system, which if the Americans were to withdraw, Canada would be left in winter without any winter harbors. Canada, having two or three elements of national greatness—territory and population—wanted the maritime element ; and as he had said,— the Lower Provinces had this element and a sea-board, but not not a back country or large population, which Canada possessed,—and for the mutual benefit and prosperity of all the provinces, all these elements ought to be united

[Page 56]

together. Those who pretended that the British North American Provinces would be in as safe a position, remaining separate, while they belonged to the British Crown, as under Confederation, were under great misapprehension. Now was the time for us to form a great nation of the several provinces. Now was the time to look the matter in the face and adopt the only safe and prudent course open to us in the shape of Confederation. He maintained it was necessary for our own commercial interests, prosperity and efficient defence. That was what we had now to discuss, and not the manner in which Confederation was to be brought about, which would be discussed when the details of the schema eame up for consideration. At present the question was : Was Confederation of the British North American Provinces necessary in order to increase our strength and power and secure to us the continuance of the benefits of British connection ? He had no doubt that the measure was necessary for those objects. I t would be observed that the English speaking opponent» of the scheme, in Lower Canada, pretended a fear of this element being absorbed by the French Canadian ; while the opponents, composed of the latter origin—of men who might be called the old Papineau Tail—whose sole idea was annexation to the United States—said they were afraid of the extinction of French Canadian nationality in the great Confederation. The annexation party in Montreal, including the followers of Mr. JOHN DOUGALL, the proprietor of the Witness, opposed the scheme on the ground of supposed danger to the British of Lower Canada. The annexation party could not, however, be supposed to be sincere in their opposition to the scheme— except in so far as they desired to carry Canada into the American Union. The absorption of this province into the United States had long been contemplated, as would be seen from the 7th article in the original draft of the American Constitution, which ho would read. It was as follows : ” Art. 7. Canada, according to this Confederation and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union ; and shall be equally with any other of the United States, solemnly bound to a strict observance of, and obedience to, these articles ; as shall be also any other colony which shall be admitted into this Confederacy. The eleven votes in Congress shall be increased in proportion as the Confederacy is extended. But, except Canada, no other colony shall be admitted into the Confederacy without the assent of eleven or more votes, as the case may require, by the Confederation being extended.” By that article, no new state could go into the union except by the vote of the number of states required to admit a new partner. But, as regarded Canada, no such assent was required ; on knocking at the door of the union, she would, as a matter of course, be admitted. (Hear, hear.) The honorable gentleman went on to say that the papers lately contained a report of a meeting at the Institut Canadien of Montreal, where it was resolved that it was for the interests of Lower Canada—in the interests of the French Canadians, were the province to become a part of the American Union.

HON. MR. DORION said that was not the case. The honorable gentleman had misquoted what had passed there.

HON. MR. CARTIER said he was right. If resolutions were not passed, sentiments were expressed to that effect. Then the organ of the Institute—L’Ordre, he thought—had set forth that the interests of Lower Canada would be better secured by annexation to the United States than entering into a Confederation with the British American Provinces. It was no wonder, then, that the French Canadian annexationists betrayed their purpose in opposition to British North American Confederation, and that their English-speaking colleagues pretended a fear of the rights of their class being jeopardized under Confederation. We knew their object in this—that they were aware that as soon as this project was adopted, there would be no avail in any cry of separation to form a part of the American Union. (Hear, hear,) There had been a good deal of fault-finding and complaint as to the proceedings of the delegates having been conducted with closed doors. Such a course was an absolute necessity. Every one could understand that if all the difficulties arising among the representatives of the five colonies, during the Conference, had gone every morning to the public, it would have been impossible for the delegates to continue to meet, or compromise any of the difficulties that might be expected to spring up. Besides, the proceedings of the American Congress of 1782 was held with closed doors, and their proceedings were not published while matters were progressing. With regard to this, he would quote from a letter of Col. MASON, a member of the Convention :—” All communications of the proceedings are forbidden during the sitting of this Convention ; this, I think, was a necessary precaution to

[Page 57]

prevent misrepresentations or mistakes ; there being a material difference between the appearance of a subject in its first crude and indigested shape and after it shall have been properly matured and arranged.” On the same principle the Conference at Quebec very properly sat with closed doors. (Hear, hear.) We wished, however, that the British Canadian public should know the result of our labors when concluded, and that result the Parliament and people of Canada had before their consideration, and it was for them to discuss its merits. We, on this side of the House— the members of the Government and their supporters—had come to the conclusion that Federation was desirable and necessary ; and we were ready to hear the honorable gentlemen on the other side who necessarily, from their standing, were supposed to have devoted their attention to it and appreciated their position, stating what in their opinion would be sufficient in order to maintain ourselves as a British colony on this side of the Atlantic, and to increase in wealth and power. He was aware that some members of the House, and a number of people in Upper Canada, in Lower Canada and in the Lower Provinces, were of opinion that a Legislative Union ought to have taken place instead of a Federal Union. He would say, however, at the outset, that it was impossible to have one Government to deal with all the private and local interests of the several sections of the several provinces forming the combined whole. (Hear, hear.) The next question to be considered, therefore, by those who had set to work to discover a solution of the difficulties under which we had labored, was—what was the best and most practicable mode of bringing the provinces together, so that particular rights and interests should be properly guarded and protected ? No other scheme presented itself but the Federation system, and that was the project which now recommended itself to the Parliament of Canada. Some parties—through the press and by other modes—pretended that it was impossible to carry out Federation, on account of the differences of races and religions. Those who took this view of the question were in error. I t was just the reverse. It was precisely on account of the variety of races, local interests, &c., that the Federation system ought to be resorted to, and would be found to work well. (Hear, hear.) We were in the habit of seeing in some public journals, and hearing from some public men, that it was a great misfortune indeed there should be a difference of races in this colony —that there should be the distinction of French Canadian from British Canadian. Now, he (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) desired on this point to vindicate the rights, the merits, the usefulness, so to speak, of those belonging to the French Canadian race. (Hear, hear.) In order to bring these merits and this usefulness more prominently before his hearers, it would be only necessary to allude to the efforts made by them to sustain British power on this continent, and to point out their adherence to British supremacy in trying times. We were all conversant with the history of the circumstances which had brought about the difficulties between England and her former American colonies in 1775. Lower Canada,—or rather he should say, the Province of Quebec, for the colony was not then known by the name of Canada, but was called the Province of Quebec,—-contained the most dense population of any British colony in North America at that time. The accession of Lower Canada was of course an object of envy to the other American colonies, and strenuous efforts were made by those who had resolved to overthrow British power on this continent to induce Canada to ally herself to their cause. As early as 1775, the French Canadians were solemnly addressed in a proclamation by General WASHINGTON, who called upon them to abandon the flag of their new masters, inasmuch as they could not expect anything from those who differed from them in language, in religion, in race, and in sympathies. But what was the conduct of the French Canadian people under these circumstances—what was the attitude of the clergy and the seigniors ? It was right in treating this chapter of our history, to render justice to whom justice was due, and it was truth to say that the seigniors, forming, as they did, the educated class of our population at that early epoch, had fully understood that the object and aim of those who appealed to them was the downfall of the monarchical system in America. (Hear, hear.) A few years only had elapsed at that time since the transfer of the country and its population from the Crown of France to the Crown of Great Britain ; but even within that brief interval of time, they were enabled to appreciate the advantages of their new position, notwithstanding the fact that they were still struggling and complaining. The people, as well as the clergy and aristocracy, had understood that it was better for them to remain under the English and Protestant Crown of England, rather than to become republicans. (Hear, hear.) They were proof against the insidious offers of

[Page 58]

GEORGE WASHINGTON ; and not only so, but when the Americans came as invaders, they fought against the armed forces of ARNOLD, MONTGOMERY and others. (Cheeis.) Attempts were made to excite hostility to Federation on the ground that, under the regime of a local legislature, the English Protestant minority would not be fairly dealt with. He thought the way in which the French Canadians had stood by British connection, when there were but few British in the province, was a proof that they would not attempt to deal unjustly now by the British minority, when their numbers were so much greater. On this point, appealing to the evidence of history, he would quote from the work whicli he had already quoted. At a time when there were, perhaps, hardly a few hundred English Protestant residents in Lower Canada, the address in the name of WASHINGTON, to which he had already briefly referred, was circulated throughout the country by ARNOLD’S invading army. The hon. gentleman here read a number of extracts from General WASHINGTON’S proclamation, addressed to the inhabitants of Canada. It made the most earnest appeals to the Lower Canadians to join the other colonies. ” We rejoice,” said General WASHINGTON, ” that our enemies have been deceived with regard to you ; they have persuaded themselves—they have even dared to say—that the Canadians were not capable of distinguishing between the blessings of liberty and the wretchedness of slavery ; that gratifying the vanity of a little circle of nobility would blind the people of Canada. By such aitifices they hoped to bend you to their views, but they have been deceived. * * * Come then, my brethern, unite with us in an indissoluble union ; let us run together to the same goal. * * * Incited by these motives, and encouraged by the advice of many friends of liberty among you, the grand American Congress have sent an army into your province, under the command of General SCHUYLER—not to plunder but to protect you—to animate and bring forth into action those sentiments of freedom you have disclosed, and which the tools of despotism would extinguish through the whole creation. To co-operate with this design, and to frustrate those cruel and perfidious schemes, which would deluge our frontiers with the blood of women and children, I have desp itched Colonel ARNOLD into your country, with a part of the army under my command. I have enjoined upon him, and I am certain that he will consider himself, and act as in the country of his patrons and best friends. Necessaries and accommodations of every kind which you may furnish he will thankfully receive and render the full value. I invite you, therefore, as friends and brethren, to provide him with such supplies as your country affords ; and I pledge myself not only for your safety and security, but for an ample compensation. Let no man desert his habitation—let no one flee as before an enemy. The cause of America and of liberty is the cause of every virtuous American citizen, whatever may be his religion or descent. The united colonies know no distinction but such as slavery, corruption and arbitrary dominion may create. Come then, ye generous citizens, range yourselves under the standard of general liberty—against which all the force of artifice and tyranny will never be able to prevail.” It appeared by this address that the most tempting offers and promises had been made by the republican general ; but they had failed, nevertheless, to accomplish the desired effect. This, however, was not the only trait of this nature in the history of the French Canadian people. There was another despatch, or rather proclamation, issued in 1778, by Baron D’ESTAING, commander of the French fleet, which was acting in aid of the American revolutionary party. The honorable gentleman read some extracts from this proclamation, as follows :—” I shall not ask the military companions of the Marquis of LEVIS, those who shared his glory, who admired his talents and genius for war, who loved his cordiality and frankness, the principal characteristics of our nobility, whether there be other names in other nations among which they would be better pleased to place their own. Can the Canadians, who saw the brave MONTCALM fall in their defence—can they become the enemies of his nephews ? Can they fight against their former leaders, and arm themselves against their kinsmen ? At the bare mention of their names, the weapons would fall out of their hands. I shall not observe to the ministers of the altars, that their evangelic efforts will require the special protection of Providence, to prevent faith being diminished by example, by worldly interest, and by sovereigns whom force has imposed upon them, and whose political indulgence will be lessened proportionably as those sovereigns shall have less to fear. I shall not observe that it is necessary for religion that those who preach it should form a body in the state ; and that in Canada no other body would be more considered, or have more power to do good than that of the priests, taking a part in the Government, since their respectable cenduot has merited the

[Page 59]

confidence of the people. I shall not represent to that people, nor to all my countrymen in general, that a vast monarchy, having the same religion, the same manners, the same language, where they find kinsmen, old friends and brethren, must bo an inexhaustible source of commerce and wealth, more easily acquired and better secured by their union with powerful neighbors, than with strangers of another hemisphere, among whom everything is different, and who, jealous and despotic sovereigns would, sooner or later, treat them as a conquered people, and doubtless much worse than their late countrymen, the Americans, who made them victorious. I shall not urge to a whole people that to join with the United States is to secure their own happiness, since a whole people, when they acquire the right of thinking and acting for themselves, must know their own interest. But I will declare, and I now formally declare in the name of His Majesty, who has authorized and commanded me to do it, that all his former subjects in North America, who shall no more acknowledge the supremacy of Great Britain, may depend upon his protection and support.” D’ESTAING had appealed to their ancestry and their prejudices ; he had invoked the names of LEVIS and MONTCALM, and endeavored to influence their clergy ; but the French Canadians understood their position too well. If they had their institutions, their language and their religion intact to-day, it was precisely because of their adherence to the British Crown. Had they yielded to the appeals of WASHINGTON and Baron D’ESTAING, it is probable that there would not have been now a vestige of British power on this continent. But, with the disappearance of British power, they too would have disappeared as French Canadians. (Hear, hear.) These historical facts taught that there should be a mutual feeling of gratitude from the French Canadians towards the British, and from the British towards the French Canadians, for our present position, that Canada is still a British colony. (Hear, hear.) He had had occasion, a moment ago, to refer to the French Canadian clergy in connection with D’ESTAING’S address, and he would say this, to their honor and credit, that, if to-day Canada was a portion of the British Empire, it was due to the conservatism of the French Canadian clergy. (Cheers.) I t was a pleasure to him thus to be able to quote from these old documents proofs of the honor, loyalty, and liberality of the French Canadian people. He (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) was as devoid of prejudice as any honorable gentleman in this House ; but when he heard or read the statements occasionally made, that there was some danger that, under the Federation system, the French Canadians would have too much power, and that the power thus obtained would be used to the prejudice of the British and Protestant minority—the history of the past, in many instances, was the best reply to such attacks. (Hear, hear.) Baron D’ESTAING issued his tempting proclamation in 1778, and it was sent into Canada frequently afterwards, and circulated at the instigation of ROCHAMBEAU and LAFAYETTE; but our clergy and our aristocracy, the leaders of our people in these days, saw that it was not their interest to cast their lot with the democratic element— they knew the hollowness of democracy. (Hear, hear.) We found ourselves at the present day discussing the question of the Federation of the British North American Provinces, while the great Federation of the United States of America was broken up and divided against itself. There was, however, this important difference to be observed in considering the action of the two peoples. They had founded Federation for the purpose of carrying out and perpetuating democracy on this continent; but we, who had the benefit of being able to contemplate republicanism in action during a period of eighty years, saw its defects, and felt convinced that purely democratic institutions could not be conducive to the peace and prosperity of nations. We were not now discussing the great problem presented to our consideration, in order to propagate democratic principles. Our attempt was for the purpose of forming a Federation with a view of perpetuating the monarchical element. The distinction, therefore, between ourselves and our neighbors was just this :—In our Federation the monarchical principle would form the leading feature, while on the other side of the lines, judging by the past history and present condition of the country, the ruling power was the will of the mob, the rule of the populace. Every person who had conversed with the most intelligent American statesmen and writers must have learned that they all admitted that the governmental powers had become too extended, owing to the introduction of universal suffrage, and mob i ule had consequently supplanted legitimate authority ; and we now saw the sad spectacle of a country torn by civil war, and brethren fighting against brethren. The question for us to ask ourselves was this: Shall we be content to remain separate—shall we be content to maintain a mere provincial existence, when, by combining together,

[Page 60]

we could become a great nation ? It had I never yet been the good fortune of any group of communities to secure national greatness with such facility. In past ages, warriors had struggled for years for the addition to their country of a single province. We had too, for instance, in our own days, the case of NAPOLEON III, who, after great expenditure of blood and treasure in the Italian difficulty, had acquired Savoy and Nice, by which he bad obtained an addition of nearly one million inhabitants to France—only one million souls, and if any person were for a moment to make a calculation of the value of the provinces acquired on one side, and the great cost on the other, he would at once see the great disproportion between the one and the other, and so ascertain the fact that the territory acquired did not compensate the outlay. Here, in British North America, we had five different communities inhabiting five separate colonies. We had the same sympathies, and we all desired to live under the British Crown. We had our commercial interests besides. It was of no use whatever that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland should have their several custom houses against our trade, or that we should have custom houses against the trade of those provinces. In ancient times, the manner in which a nation grew up was different from that of the present day. Then the first weak settlement increased into a village, which, by turns, became a town and a city, and the nucleus of a nation. It was not so in modern times. Nations were now formed by the agglomeration of communities having kindred interests and sympathies. Such was our case at the present moment. Objection had been taken to the scheme now under consideration, because of the words ” new nationality.” Now, when we were united together, if union were attained, we would form a political nationality with which neither the national origin, nor the religion of any individual, would interfere. I t was lamented by some that we had this diversity of races, and hopes were expressed that this distinctive feature would cease. The idea of unity of races was Utopian—it was impossible. Distinctions of this kind would always exist. Dissimilarity, in fact, appeared to be the order of the physical world and of the moral world, as well as in the political world. But with regard to the objection based on this fact, to the effect that a great nation could not be formed because Lower Canada was in great part French and Catholic, and Upper Canada was British and Protestant, and the Lower Provinces were mixed, it was futile and worthless in the extreme. Look, for instance, at the United Kingdom, inhabited as it was by three great races. (Hear, hear.) Had the diversity of race impeded the glory, the progress, the wealth of England ? Had they not rather each contributed their share to the greatness of the Empire ? Of the glories of the senate, the field, and the ocean, of the successes of trade and commerce, how much was contributed by the combined talents, energy and courage of the three races together ? (Cheers.) In our own Federation we should have Catholic and Protestant, English, French, Irish and Scotch, and each by his efforts and his success would increase the prosperity and glory of the new Confederacy. (Hear, hear.) fie viewed the diversity of races in British North America in this way : we were of different races, not for the purpose of warring against each other, but in order to compete and emulate for the general welfare. (Cheers.) We could not do away with the distinctions of race. We could not legislate for the disappearance of the French Canadians from American soil, but British and French Canadians alike could appreciate and understand their position relative to each other. They were placed like great families beside each other, and their contact produced a healthy spirit of emulation. I t was a benefit rather than otherwise that we had a diversity of races. Of course, the difficulty, it would be said, would be to deal fairly by the minority. In Upper Canada the Catholics would find themselves in a minority; in Lower Canada the Protestants would be in a minority, while the Lower Provinces were divided. Under such circumstances, would any one pretend that either the local or general governments would sanction any injustice. What would be the consequence, even supposing any such thing were attempted by any one of the local governments ? It would be censured everywhere. Whether it came from Upper Canada or from Lower Canada, any attempt to deprive the minority of their rights would be at once thwarted. Under the Federation system, grants ing to the control of the General Government these large questions of general interest in which the differences of race or religion had no place, it could not be pretended that the rights of either race or religion could be invaded at all. We were to have a General Parliament to deal with the matters of defence, tariff, excise, public works, and these matters absorbed all individual interest. Now, he would ask those self-styled nationalists who accused him of bartering fifty-eight

[Page 61]

counties in Lower Canada to John Bull, and his honorable colleague beside him (Hon. Mr. BROWN)—he would ask them, under what supposition could they think it possible for any injustice to be done to the French Canadians by the General Government ? (Hear, hear.) He came now to the subject of Local Governments. We could easily understand how a feeling against the Federation project was raised in the minds of a few of the British residents of Lower Canada by fears of such difficulties as those which occurred in the days of Mr. PAPINEAU, relative to the passing of laws relating to commercial matters. (Hear, hear.) These difficulties had been of a very inconvenient nature, Mr. PAPINEAU not being a commercial man, and not understanding the importance of these measures. He considered Mr. PAPINEAU was right in the struggle he maintained against the oligarchy at that time in power ; but he had never approved of the course he took with reference to commercial matters, and in opposition to measures for the improvement of the country. But this precedent could not be urged as an objection to Federation, inasmuch as it would be for the General Government to deal with our commercial matters. There could be no reason for well-grounded fear that the minority could be made to suiFer by means of any laws affecting the rights of property. If any such enactments were passed, they would fall upon the whole community. But even supposing such a thing did occur, there was a remedy provided under the proposed Constitution. The magnitude of the scheme now submitted was, perhaps, the reason why those who had not made themselves conversant with the question felt some apprehension in contemplating it ; but, when we came to discuss it clause by clause, he would be ready to state that no interest would be harmed in any way if Federation took place. I t was true that opposition was being offered in Montreal, by Mr. JOHN DOUGALL, of the Witness. (Hear, hear.) And, while referring to the opponents of Federation, he could not help adverting to the strange manner in which extremes met and worked in unison to oppose Federation. (Laughter.) For instance, we had the party who formerly composed what might be styled Mr. PAPINEAU’S Tail—the extreme democratic party—joined with Mr. DOUGALL’S Tail. (Hear, hear, cheers, and laughter.)

MR. PERRAULT—And members of the clergy oppose it. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. CARTIER said the honorable gentleman was mistaken. The clergy were for it. But the honorable gentleman would have an opportunity of speaking afterwards. This scheme, he repeated, met with the approval of all moderate men. The extreme men, the socialists, democrats and annexationists were opposed to it. The French Canadian opponents of the project were, it appeared, afraid that their religious rights would suffer under the new arrangement. Fancy the celebrated Institut Canadien, of Montreal, under the lead of citizen BLANCHET, taking religion under their protection I (Laughter.) Mr. DOUGALL loudly proclaimed that the British Protestant minority would be entirely placed at the mercy of the French Canadians. He (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) thought the arguments of the young French gentlemen belonging to the national democratic party who cried out that their religion and nationality would be destroyed, ought in all reason to be sufficient to satisfy the scruples and calm the fears of Mr. DOUGALL. The True Witness, which was also one of the enemies of the scheme, said that if it were adopted the French Canadians were doomed ; while his brother in violence, the Witness, said that the Protestants wore doomed. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) At a meeting recently held in Montreal on the subject, he (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) observed that Mr. CHERRIER had enrolled himself among the enemies of the project. Well, this fine, quiet, old gentleman announced that he had come out of his political retirement for the purpose of opposing Federation. All he (Hon. Mr. CARTIER) could say was that he never knew Mr. CHERRIER was a strong politician. However, it appeared that he had come out once more on the political stage for the purpose of opposing this villainous scheme, which was intended to destroy the nationality and religion of the French Canadians—- all brought about by that confounded CARTIER! (Laughter and cheers.) Allusion had been made to the opinion of the clergy. Well, he would say that the opinion of the clergy was for Confederation. (Hear, hear.) Those who were high in authority, as well as those who occupied more humble positions, were in favor of Federation, not only because they saw in it so much security for all they held dear, but because it was just to their Protestant fellow-subjects as well, because they were opposed to political bickering and strife. This opposition to a state of political dissension and trouble was the general feeling of the clergy, and because they saw in Confederation a solution of those difficulties which had existed for some time, due regard being had to just

[Page 62]

rights, they were favorable to the project.— The fact, however, was that when we saw such extreme opponents as Mr. CLERK, of the True Witness, Mr. DOUGALL, of the Witness, and the young gentlemen of the Institut Canadien combined to resist Confederation, because each party argued it would produce the most widely different results—we might look upon this fact, he repeated, as one of the strongest arguments in favor of Confederation. (Hear.) We had, on the other hand, all the moderate men, all that was respectable and intelligent, including the clergy, favorable to Federation. (Hear, hear, and oh, oh.) He did not, of course, mean to say that there were not respectable opponents to the project—what he did mean, however, was that it met general approval from the classes referred to. He was opposed, he might as well state most distinctly, to the democratic system which obtained in the United States. In this country of British North America we should have a distinct form of government, the characteristic of which would be to possess the monarchical element. When we had Confederation secured, there was not the least doubt but that our Government would be more respectable— that it would have more prestige, and command more respect from our neighbours. (Hear, hear.) The great want under the American form—the point which they all admitted formed the great defect—was the absence of some respectable executive element. How was the head of the United States Government chosen? Candidates came forward, and of course each one was abused and villified as corrupt, ignorant, incapable and unworthy by the opposite party. One of them attained the presidential chair ; but even while in that position he was not respected by those who had opposed his election, and who tried to make him appeal the most corrupt and contemptible being in creation. Such a system could not produce an executive head who would command respect. Under the British system, ministers might be abused and assailed ; but that abuse never reached the Sovereign. Whether we were made a kingdom or a viceroyalty— whatever name or grade was assigned to us—we would undoubtedly have additional prestige. He would now conclude his remarks by asking honorable gentlemen to consider well this scheme. It was his hope, his cherished hope, that it would be adopted by the House. The time was opportune, as his honorable colleague (Atty. Gen. MACDONALD)had so ably stated last evening ; the opportunity might never offer itself again in such a facile and propitious manner. We knew we had, in all our proceedings, the approbation of the Imperial Government. So if these resolutions were adopted by Canada, as he had no doubt they would, and by the other Colonial Legislatures, the Imperial Government would bo called upon to pass a measure which would have for its effect to give a strong central or general government and local governments, which would at once secure and guard the persons, the properties and the civil and religious rights belonging to the population of each section. (Loud cheers.)

HON. MR. GALT said,—Mr. SPEAKER, I trust the House will, on this occasion, extend to me the indulgence with which I have often previously been favored when I have addressed it on subjects relating to the commercial and financial interests of this province ; for I am now required to follow the very,able and eloquent speeches of the two Attorneys General, East and West, who have discussed, as none were more able than those gentlemen to discuss, the most important political and philosophical questions which are involved in the Confederation of the British North American colonies; and the material interests of the country upon which it is my province this night to dwell, though unquestionably those which are intended to be served through the political alterations we have to consider, are, nevertheless, likely to prove tedious to the House. Explanations respecting them are, however, imperatively called for when we are considering the question now at issue. (Hear.) There is one advantage which I feel that I enjoy on this occasion, and it is that this House is not called upon, in dealing with the commercial and financial interests involved in the proposed changes, to consider the form or mode of government by which such interests are to be promoted. It makes little difference to the consideration of this branch of the subject whether the Constitution of the new Government be that of a Legislative or Federal Union—the points with which I am about to deal, are those which concern the public at large, and bear no reference to what may be the creed, nationality or language of portions of the people. The subjects on which I propose to address the House are those connected with the trade, resources and financial condition of the several provinces of British North America, and certain questions present themselves for decision, upon a satisfactory ansvver to which the determination of the House upon the whole plan that is submitted should depend, I

[Page 63]

will divide my remarks into five distinct heads :—

First.—Do the commercial and material interests of the several provinces point to their union as an advantageous measure ?

Secondly.—Is their financial condition such as to permit of this union being carried into practical effect at this moment, with justice to them all ?

Thirdly.—Are the measures proposed in the resolutions before the House fair to each and to all ?

Fourthly.—Is there a reason able prospect that the machinery through which these interests are proposed to be governed, will work smoothly and harmoniously ?

Lastly.—Does the proposed system for the Government of the United Provinces appear likely to prove so expensive as to render it impossible for the people of Canada to consent to it?

In dealing with the first question, whether the material interests of the provinces wi 1 be promoted by their union, it may be well for me to offer, to the House some few remarks as to the resources of British North America. Possessing as we do, in the far western pavt of Canada, perhaps the most fertile wheat-growing tracts on this continent,—in central and eastern Canada facilities for manufacturing such as cannot anywhere be surpassed,—-and in the eastern or Maritime Provinces an abundance of that most useful of all minerals, coal, as well as the most magnificent and valuable fisheries in the world ; extending as this country does for two thousand miles, traversed by the finest navigable river in the world, we may well look forward to our future with hopeful anticipation of seeing the realization, not merely of what we have hitherto thought would be the commerce of Canada, great as that might become, but to the possession of Atlantic ports, which we shall help to build to a position equal to thit of the chief cities of the American Union. (Hear.) But it is not so much by the extent of a country that its power and real greatness are to be estimated, as by its containing within itself the elements of different interests, for it is in the diversity of employment that security is found against those sad reverses to which every country, depending mainly on one branch of industry, must always be liable. (Hear.) A most remarkable illustration of this has recently occurred in our own Mother Country. No one would have ventured to say, a few years ago, that England could have lost its immense cotton supply without having its system of commercial industry almost entirely overthrown, and having its people sunk into the deepest misery. Yet we have seen, within the last few years, the cotton supply cut off. We have seen, it is true, a considerable portion of the people reduced to great want, but, at the same time, the wonderful diversity of employment which exists in the country opened new channels for the employment of the distressed operatives, and though there was great pressure for a time, it was only temporary in its operations ; and at this moment, after a short pause, we see the industry of England greater than it was at the beginning of the American war. (Hear.) We may therefore rejoice that, in the proposed Union of the British North American Provinces, we shall obtain some security against those providential reverses to which, as long as we are dependent on one branch of industry as a purely agricultural country, we must always remain exposed. (Hear, hear.) The resources of these great colonies, and the extent to which the industry and intelligence of their inhabitants have developed them, are most significantly shewn in the Trade and Navigation Tables, which are in the possession of the public. I am afraid to weary the House by going at any leugth into statements relating to them, but I feel that in order to place the question of union fairly before the House and the country, I am called upon to glance, however briefly, at the position in which the trade and tonnage of each of the British North American Provinces at the present moment stands. The returns of the trade of Canada in 18C3, taking exports and imports conjointly, shew an aggregate of $87,795,000. Taking the census of 1861, this trade represents thirty-five dollars per head of the population. The value of the import and export trade of New Brunswick, for the sane year, reaches $16,729,680, amounting to sixty-six dollars per head of its population. The aggregate trade of Nova Scotia for the same period, amounted to $18- 622,359, or fifty-six dollars per head of its people. And in the case of Prince Edward Island, the import and export trade amounted to $3,055,568, representing thirty-seven dollars per head of the population of that colony. The value of the total trade of Newfoundland was $11,245,032, or eighty-six dollars per head. The whole of these figures represent an aggregate trade of all the provinces amounting to” $137,447,567. Notwithstanding the large population and the very large amount represented by the trade of Lanada, when it is divided par head it falls considerably short

[Page 64]

of the trade of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, being a little more than half por head of the former, and not more than two-thirds of that of Nova Scotia. All the statistics to which I have had access show that the commercial and financial position of our sister colonies is such as to enable them creditably to seek an alliance with any country on earth ; and it cannot be said that, in seeking or consenting to an alliance with Canada, they have any local, or sectional, or selfish object in view. (Hear, hear.) Passing from trade, I will turn to another subject — the ship building and tonnage of those colonies— and will take the returns of 1863. In that year, the numbe of ships built in all those colonies was no less than 645, with a tonnage amounting to 219,763 tons. This statement of the enormous amount of tonnage built in one year is as good evidence as can be offered of the facilities we possess for becoming an important maritime power. The industry represented by those figures shows an export value of nearly nine million dollars! The sea-going tonnage of Canada, including that of the inland lakes, a mounts to about nine million tons, a great portion of which, however, represents the tonnage of vessels performing coasting service, many of which frequently clear and arrive in the course of one day. It is gratifying to know that the trade between Canada and the States on the other side of the lakes is of a nature to give employment to a large portion of this lake tonnage — amounting to 6,907,000 tons — but it cannot be classed in the same category as the tonnage arriving at Quebec and Montreal, which in most cases can make only two or three trips per annum. The sea-going tonnage of Canada amounted to 2,133,000 tons; of New Brunswick, 1,386,000 ; of Nova Scotia, 1,432,000 tons. Consequently the amount of sea-going tonnage, subject only to a small deduction, was actually about five million tons, of which about 2,133,000 was that of vessels trading between the St. Lawrence and foreign ports. In making this statement it is due to the House that it should be made aware that some portion of this trade will not be represented after the contemplated union has taken place. At present, the internal commerce between these colonies appears in the returns of each as imports and exports, but I should be glad if I were able to make on this account a large deduction from the figures I have given. It is matter for regret on the part of all of us that the trade between these colonies— subject all to the same Sovereign, connected with the same empire—has been so small. Intercolonial trade has been, indeed, of the most insignificant character ; we have looked far more to our commercial relations with the neighbouring—though a foreign country,—than to the interchange of our own products, which would have retained the benefits of our trade within ourselves ; hostile tariffs have interfered with the free interchange of the products of the labor of all the colonies, and one of the greatest and most immediate benefits to be derived from their union, will spring from the breaking down of these barriers and the opening up of the markets of all the provinces to the different industries of each. (Hear, hear.) In this manner we may hope to supply Newfoundland and the great fishing districts of the Gulf, with the agricultural productions of Western Canada ; we may hope to obtain from Nova Scotia our supply of coal ; and the manufacturing industry of Lower Canada may hope to find more extensive outlets in supplying many of those articles which are now purchased in foreign markets. For instance Newfoundland produces scarcely anything by agriculture, manufactures hardly an article of clothing, and a considerable trade may thus be expected to arise ; while, instead of having payments made, as they are now, through Lombard street, they will be made through our own bankers in Montreal and elsewhere. If we require to find an example of the benefits of free commercial intercourse, we need not look beyond the effects that have followed from the working of the Reciprocity Treaty with the United States. la one short year from the time when that treaty came into operation, our trade in the natural productions of the two countries swelled from less than $2,000,000 to upwards of $20,000,000 per annum, and now, when we are threatened with an interruption of that trade—when we have reason to fear that the action of the United States will prove hostile to the continuance of free commercial relations with this country—when we know that the consideration of this question is not grounded on just views of the material advantages resulting to each country—but that the irritation connected with political events exercises a predominant influence over the minds of American statesmen, it is the duty of the House to provide, if possible, other outlets for our productions. If we have reason to fear that one door is about to be closed to our trade, it is the duty of the House to endeavor to open another ; to provide against a coming evil of the kind feared by timely expansion in

[Page 65]

another direction ; to seek by free trade with our own fellow-colonists for a continued and uninterrupted commerce which will not be liable to be disturbed at the capricious will of any foreign country. (Hear, hear.) On this ground, therefore, we may well come to the conclusion that the union between these colonies is demanded alike on account of their extensive resources, and because of the peculiar position in which they stand relatively to each other, to Great Britain, and to the United States. All these are questions which fall within the province of the General Government, as proposed in the resolutions before tho House, and whatever may be the doubts and fears of any one with respect to the details of the organization by which it is proposed to work the new system of Confederaation, no one can doubt that the great interests of trade and commerce will be best promoted and developed by being entrusted to one central power, which will wield them in the common interest. (Hear, hear.)

I now come, Mr. SPEAKER, to the consideration of the second, and perhaps I may say the third division of my subject also—whether the material condition of these provinces is such as to make the union practicable, and whether the details of the measures proposed arc equitable to each and to all. In considering this point, it is necessary for us first to review the liabilities of each province, the reasons why they were incurred, the objects which have been sought. In doing so, the House will not fail to remark that the same policy has animated the legislatures of all the provinces, or perhaps I should speak more exactly in saying those of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The public debt of all these provinces has, with some slight exceptions, been incurred for public improvements, intended to develope the resources of the country, to attract immigration and wealth to their respective shores, to cheapen the means whereby the products of their farms were to be taken to market, and to reduce the cost of freight of articles which enter largely into the consumption of their inhabitants. Nor will any one fail to observe the intimate connection which all these public works have with each other—a connection which singularly illustrates the natural union which exists between these several provinces. If we consider the public improvements of Canada, her great canals intended to bring the trade of the vast countries bordering on the lakes down to the Gulf of St. Lawrence ; if we look at the railway system forced upon us in our competition with American channels of trade, stretching from the extreme west to the extreme east of the province ; and if we then look at the public works that have been undertaken in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we find that, practically, they form parts of one great whole. It is through the St. Lawrence that the people of the Lower Provinces will send their fish, oils and other exports to the west, and it is through our canals and river that they will import the necessaries they require from the west. Through these canals and the river St. Lawrence, and along the railway systems of all the provinces, when hereafter connected, a great trade will flow in one uninterrupted stream, enriching in its course not only the cities of Canada, but also swelling tho tide of a new commerce we may hope to see called into being in the open Atlantic ports of St. John and Halifax. (Hear, hear.) I will now proceed, sir, briefly to lay before the House a statement of the present engagements of the several provinces, beginning with Canada. I find that our whole debt, exclusive of the Common School Fund, which does not form a portion of our engagements relatively to the Lower Provinces, amounts to $67,263,995. Tho debt of Nova Scotia is $4,858,547, and that of New Brunswick $5,702,991 ; and I may notice, with reference to tho debts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, that in the case of Nova Scotia a portion of their liabilities, to the amount of nearly half a million of dollars, consists of treasury notes, while the policy has been pursued both in that province and in New Brunswick of retaining in the hands of the Government the Savings Bank deposits of the people, which form, therefore, a part of the liabilities I have named to the extent of $1,167,000. It must, therefore, be observed that the rate of interest on the debts of these two colonies is not, on the whole amount, higher than that which the bulk of the Canadian debt now bears. Newfoundland has only incurred liabilities to the extent of $946,000, bearing interest at five per cent., while Prince Edward Island owes $240,073. The total liabilities of those provinces are, therefore, $11,748,211, against the interest on which may be placed the net revenues of the railways which are the property of those provinces, and which produced last year a net amount of about $100,000. In addition to the existing liabilities of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, there aie certain further engagements they have incurred for the extension of their railway system requiring future provision to the extent, in the case of Nova Scotia, of

[Page 66]

$3,000,000, and in that of New Brunswick of $1,300,000. I t must be evident to the House that, in entering into such a partnership as is proposed, some common basis must be arrived at on which each province must enter into the Confederation. Taking all the engagements, present and future, of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, it was found that, relatively to their populations, they amounted to about 825 per head, and this amount, as applied to Canada, would entitle us to enter the union with a debt of $62,500,000. Some difficulty might have occurred in reducing our debt to this amount had it not been apparent, on examination, that a considerable portion of it was connected with local advances, such as the Municipal Loan Fund, which does not properly belong to the same category as debt contracted in connection with our system of public improvements, and the management of which is intended to be confided to the General Government, but rather partakes of a local character, and should more properly be left in the hands of the local legislatures. I t will therefore be found provided in the resolutions, that in assuming for itself, apart from the General Government, the surplus of debt of about five millions ($5,000,000), the Province of Canada became entitled to withdraw from the general assets all those items which were of a local character, and for which a portion of its debt had been incurred. Had not this means been adopted, it would have been necessary to permit all the Lower Provinces to increase their obligations beyond those for which their legislatures have hitherto had to provide, and bring in larger debts to the Confederation than they will now do, and a most unnecessary and prodigal expenditure of public money would have been the consequence. It was wise, then, to confine the liabilities of the General Government simply to those debts which had been incurred for purposes of general improvement, and to provide locally, in this country, for the assumption of the surplug, together with the assets which had been created by it.

HON. ME. DORION—DO the $67,263,995, stated as the debt of Canada, include the original seigniorial indemnity given to Upper and Lower Canada, under the Act of 1854?

HON. MR. GALT—Yes; that amount does include the indemnity, and among the arrangements contemplated by the Government, assuming that Confederation does take place, they will submit, for the consideration of this House, a project for the assumption by Lower Canada of the seigniorial indemnity provided by the Act of 1859, whereby it will be rendered unnecessary to give an equivalent indemnity to Upper Canada, thus saving upwards of three millions of dollars. (Hear, hear.) I would desire again, Mr. SPEAKER, to refer to the position of the Lower Provinces, and to call the attention of the House to the fact that both in the case of Newfoundland and in that of Prince Edward Island, their liabilities are very much less in proportion to the population than those of the three larger provinces ; and in order to permit of their entering into the union upon fair terms, it was necessary to provide that they should be allowed to receive from the general exchequer a sum equal to the interest upon the amount of debt which they had not been obliged to contract. By this means provision was in fact made for the maintenance of their local governments, while at the same time a cause of future complaint was removed. (Hear, hear.) It now becomes my duty to submit to the House a statement of the resources which the several provinces propose to bring into the common stock, and I may add that for the purpose of this statement being more readily verified, the financial returns of 1863 have been taken as the standard. From these returns it would appear that the income and expenditure of the several provinces stood in that year as follows: Nova Scotia, with a population of 338,857, had an income of $1,185,629, her outlay being $1,- 072,274 ; New Brunswick, with a population of 252,047, had an income of $894,836, and an outlay of $884,613; Newfoundland, with a population of 130,000, had an income of $480,000, ,the outlay being $479,420 ; Prince Edward Island, with a population of 80,000, had an income of $197,384, the outlay being $171,718. The total revenue of all these colonies amounted to $2,763,004, and the total expenditure to $2,608,025—the united surplus over expenditure for 1863 being $154,979. I t will be observed that as regards these provinces their income and expenditure are such that they will enter the Confederation with a financial position in no respect inferior to that of Canada. If an objection were made with respect to any province in regard to its financial position, it would be against Canada. The Lower Provinces have been and are now in a position to meet, from their taxation, all their expenses, and cannot be regarded as bringing any burthen to the people of Canada. I t is not necessary for me to say anything in reference to the financial position of Canada in 1863, but it must be gratifying to the House to know that the de-

[Page 67]

ficiency which unfortunately existed during that year was removed in 1864, and that, therefore, we are not obliged now to propose to enter the Confederation in an inferior position, in this respect, to that of our sister colonies. (Hear, hear.) The revenues of each of these provinces are, as the House is well aware, collected under different systems of taxation, suited to the local industry and the wants of their several populations. It is, therefore, manifest that one of the first duties of the General Legislature will be to consider the modes by which the burden of taxation can be most easily borne by the industry of the whole country, and to assimilate the several sources of revenue which are now in existence in such manner as will least interfere with the profitable exercise of the industry of the people. It would be entirely out of place for me, sir, to attempt on this occasion to indicate what the policy of the General Government may be, but one thing must be evident to all, and that is, that where the taxation is about equal per head, the adjustment of it cannot be attended with any injustice to the people of any of the several provinces. Reductions may be made in our customs, on the one hand ; and, perhaps, on the other, some portions of our commerce may be relieved from the exactions to which they are now subjected. Apart from the advantages which will manifestly flow from the free trade which will hereafter exist between us, it must be clear to every member of the House that the credit of each and all the provinces will be greatly advanced by a union of their resources. A larger fund will be available as security to the public creditor, larger industries will be subjected to the action of the Legislature for the maintenance of public credit, and we will also see removed some of those apprehensions which have latterly affected the public credit of this country. (Hear, hear.) It must be evident, for it is proved by the fluctuating quotations of the securities of these provinces in London that the apprehension of war with the United States—which has, unfortunately, affected the prices of Canadian bonds—has not to the same extent effected those of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which are less exposed to hostile attack ; and we may therefore hope that the union, while it affords us greater resources, will, at the same time, carry with it a greater sense of security. (Hear, hear.) I must now enquire whether the proposed system of general and local governments, as regards the interests to which I have already alluded, is likely to work beneficially ; and this brings me to the consideration of the question of the means that will be at the disposal of the general and local governments. It must be admitted that having the power of taxation in their own hands, it will be the fault of the General Legislature if any embarrassment is felt in meeting the expenditure of the General Government. Before, however, passing to the consideration of the means at the disposal of the local governments, I would take this opportunity of replying to the honorable member for Hochelaga, in reference to the export duty on timber in New Brunswick, and the royalty in Nova Scotia on the produce of the mines. This has arisen from the circumstance that in the former province it was found both expensive and inconvenient to attempt to levy their timber dues in the forest, and they therefore adopted the plan of causing them to be paid in the form of an export duty upon the clearances of vessels at the custom house. If, therefore, provision had not been made for securing to New Brunswick the payment of these dues, that province would have been deprived of the large amount which its territorial timber contributes to the revenue, and the General Legislature would have been required to increase the proposed grant to that province by an amount equal to those dues—somewhere about $90,000 per annum. In the case of Nova Scotia—not possessing any public lands or timber to any extent—-her territorial revenue is almost wholly derived from her mines, and collected in the form of royalty. Her representatives at the Conference pointed out that if the policy of the General Government should be to impose an export duty on her coal, it would virtually oblige her either to relinquish the royalty, which now forms a large source of her revenue, or submit to be placed in a most disadvantageous position in competing in the American markets with the coal of that country. For these reasons an exception was made in the case of both of these provinces, such as has been alluded to by the honorable member. (Hear, hear.) In the case of Newfoundland, an arrangement has been made whereby the whole of the territorial rights of that colony have been ceded to the General Government, and I will take the opportunity, when adverting to the means of supporting the Local Government of that colony, to explain the manner and the consideration for which these rights were so ceded. (Hear.) I now propose, sir, to refer to the means which will be at the disposal of the several local governments to enable them to administer

[Page 68]

the various matters of public policy which it is proposed to entrust to them, and it is evident that unless ample provision is made in the arrangements, great danger will arise that the machinery whereby the local wants of the people are intended to be met will speedily become impaired, causing complaint on the part of the inhabitants of the respective localities, and involving considerable danger to the whole machinery of government. (Hear, hear.) In the case of Canada it will be remembered that the sum of nearly five millions of the public debt has to be borne by Upper and Lower Canada. I t will hereafter be for the House to decide how this sum shall be apportioned, but the probability is that the Government will recommend that it shall be divided on the basis of population. (Hear, hear.) It must be remembered that Canada will have at its disposal a large amount of the local assets, including especially the sums due to the municipal loan fund, which will produce an income for the support of their local institutions. As a matter of account between Upper and Lower Canada and the General Government, they will be charged with the interest on their respective proportions of the five millions against the subsidy which it is proposed shall be given to them, while they themselves will collect from the municipalities and other local sources all the revenue and amounts which now enter into the general revenue of the Province of Canada. The question of the sub-division of the local assets of Canada is not, however, before the House. What we have now to consider is whether the bargain as between Canada as a whole and the Lower Provinces ought to be assented to. If it be assented to the question will arise, how shall we deal with the local matters between Upper and Lower Canada ? and a proposition will be brought down which I hope and believe will satisfy both sections, and do them substantial justice.

HON. MR. DORION—Will Lower Canada be charged with the municipal loan fund, the seigniorial indemnity, and the educational indemnity ?

HON. MR. GALT—I must repeat that, no matter what views the Government may have on the distribution of the liabilities as between Upper and Lower Canada, they will be susceptible of alteration in any way the House may see fit, this being a matter solely of local arrangement, and in no respect involving the agreement entered into with the other provinces ; but I must point out that, as regards the original seigniorial indemnity and the municipal loan, they are both included in the sixty-seven millions already stated as the liabilities of Canada, and cannot, therefore, form any additional charge against Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, as regards the Municipal Loan Fund, instead of being stated as a liability, it appears that the sums due under it are, in connection with the question as I now view it, to be regarded in the light of assets, because we are considering now the sums received as assets by Lower Canada. The Municipal Loan Fund being one of them, the sums due to it under the existing provincial arrangements will become payable as an asset to that section of the province. (Hear.) It will be observed that in the plan proposed there are certain sources of local revenue reserved to the Local Governments, arising from territorial domain, lands, mines, &c. In the case of Canada, a large sum will be received from these resources, but it mav be that some of them, such as the Municipal Loan Fund, will become exhausted in course of time. We may, however, place just confidence in the development of our resources, and repose in the belief that we shall find in our territorial domain, our valuable mines and our fertile lands, additional sources of revenue far beyond the requirements of the public service. If, nevertheless, the local revenues become inadequate, it will be necessary for the local governments to have resort to direct taxation ; and I do not hesitate to say that one of the wisest provisions in the proposed Constitution, and that which affords the surest guarantee that the people will take a healthy interest in their own affairs and see that no extravagance is committed by those placed in power over them, is to be found in the fact that those who are called upon to administer public affairs will feel, when they resort to direct taxation, that a solemn responsibility rests upon them, and that that responsibility will be exacted by the people in the most peremptory manner. (Hear, hear.) If the men in power find that they are required, by means of direct taxation, to procure the funds necessary to administer the local affairs, for which abundant provision is made in the scheme, they will pause before they enter upon any career of extravagance. Indeed, I do not hesitate to say, that if the public men of these provinces were sufficiently educated to understand their own interests in the true light of the principles of political ecoaomy, it would be found better now to substitute direct taxation for some of the indirect modes by which taxation, has been imposed upon the industry

[Page 69]

of the people. (Hear, hear.) I do not, however, believe that at this moment it is possible, nor do I think the people of this country would support any government in adopting this measure unless it were forced upon them by the pressure of an overwhelming necessity —the necessity of providing, by extraordinary means, against dangers by which the peace, happiness and prosperity of the country may be threatened, in fact, by some of those great disturbing causes which are frequently the beginning of the most important financial changes. (Hear, hear.) The local revenue of Upper Canada during the last four years has averaged the sum of $739,000, and that of Lower Canada, $557,239; together they amount to nearly $1,300,000, independent of the eighty cents per head which it is proposed to allow the local governments out of the general exchequer, for the purpose of meeting their local expenditures. These local expenditures include such items as the administration of justice, the support of education, grants to literary and scientific societies, hospitals and charities, and such other mat- ters as cannot be regarded as devolving upon the General Government. The whole charge, exclusive of the expenses of local government and legislation, on an average of the last four years, has in Lower Canada amounted to $997,000, and in Upper Canada to $1,024,- 622 per annum. In addition to these sums, will have now to be added such amounts as may be required to meet the cost of the Civil Government of the country and of the Legislation for local purposes. It may be difficult to form any reliable estimate of the sums required for this purpose, but when the House considers that, according to the statements given of the expenditure during the last four years, there will be available in the whole Province of Canada the sum of no less than $1,043,015, it must, I think, be admitted that if those charged with the administration of local affairs in Upper and Lower Canada exceed this amount they will be guilty of a degree of profligacy and extravagance for which a speedy remedy will be found by the people. (Hear, hear.) With reference to the Lower Provinces, the delegates from them to the Conference were asked what reductions they could make in the existing cost of the government of their several colonies, and the figures I am about to give will be found most satisfactory, as showing their disposition to reduce their requirements to the lowest possible sum. In the case of Nova Scotia, the estimate of outlay in 1864 for objects of a local character required an expenditure of no less than $667,000. Some portion of this expenditure was for services that did not require again to be performed, but it is gratifying to observe that they have undertaken to perform the whole service in future for $371,000. (Hear, hear.) In the case of New Brunswick, in 1864 the estimated expenditure was $404,000, which they have undertaken to reduce to $353,000, and at the same time they have further undertaken within ten years to make an additional reduction of $63,000, thus reducing the whole expenditure in the future to $290,000. iHear, hear.) Prince Edward Island, with an expenditure of $124,000, proposes to perform the same local duties that formerly required $170,000 ; and in Newfoundland an outlay of $479,000 has been similarly reduced to $350,000. (Cheers.) The House must now, sir, consider the means whereby these local expenditures have to be meó. I have already explained that, in the case of Canada, and also in that of the Lower Provinces, certain sources of revenue are set aside as being of a purely local character and available to meet the local expenditure ; but I have been obliged in my explanations with regard to Canada to advert to the fact that it is contemplated to give a subsidy of 80 cents per head to each of the Provinces. In transferring to the General Government all the large sources of revenue, and in placing in their hand with a single exception, that of direct taxation, all the means whereby the industry of the people may be made to contribute to the wants of the state, it must be evident to every one that some portion of the resources thus placed at the disposal of the General Government must in some form or other be available to supply the hiatus that would otherwise take place between the sources of local revenue and the demands of local expenditure. The members of the Conference considered this question with the most earnest desire to reduce to the lowest possible limits the sum that was thus required, and I think the figures that I have already given to the House afford the best possible evidence that no disposition existed, at any rate on the part of our friends from the Lower Provinces, to take from the public exchequer one shilling more than the necessities of their respective communities absolutely demanded. (Hear, hear.) In the ease of Canada, perhaps it will be said that a smaller sum would have met our immediate wants, but it was felt that it would be impossible to justify any distinction being drawn between subjects of the same

[Page 70]

country. And if in Canada we receive perhaps a somewhat larger amount than we absolutely require, it ought rather to be a subject of gratification to this House that it will possess the means of giving greater encouragement to our educational system, and greater development to those interests which are peculiarly entrusted to the charge of the local governments, and this, too, without making any greater demand than is at this time made upon the resources of the people. (Hear, hear.) A subsidy of 80 cents per head was provided, based upon the population according, to the census of 1861. The amount, if taken upon the basis of the present population, would undoubtedly be considerably less ; and it must be observed that the agreement does not contemplate any future extension of this amount. It is hoped that being in itself fixed and permanent in its character, the local governments will see the importance —I may say the necessity—of their exercising a rigid and proper control over the expenditure of their several provinces. We thus obtain one of the greatest securities that can be offered to us that those influences which, in such a Legislature as we now possess in Canada, are brought to bear for the purpose of swelling the public expenditure, will not exist in the local legislatures, but will meet with such a resistance, from the mere fact of the inability of the local governments to obey them, as to produce a very considerable saving in the general expense of the whole country. (Hear, hear.) I have now, Mr. SPEAKER, only to advert to the last question which I have stated is necessary to be decided on the present occasion ; and that is, whether under the proposed Confederation such additional expenses will be incurred as to render it undesirable. In considering this point, I must state that in my opinion the question of expense alone is by no means a fair criterion by which to judge of the advantages of a measure such as that now before the House. If it be looked at in its most restricted sense, the only point in which additional expense can be incurred, must be that of the simple cost of governing the country. In no other way that I am able to see, can there be additional expense charged upon the people ; and looking at it in this point of view, we may well doubt whether the aggregate charge will be greater for the General Government, caring for the general interests of the whole, and for the local governments, attending merely to the local business of each section,—we may well doubt, I say, whether that expense will be greater, in any considerable degree, than that which is required for our Government under the present system. (Hear, hear.) On the one hand we shall be free from the empty parade of small Courts entailed by our present system on each of these provinces, keeping up a pretence of regal show when the reality is wanting ; we shall have the legislation of the General Government restricted to those great questions which may properly occupy the attention of the first men in the country ; we shall not have our time frittered away in considering the merits of petty local bills, and therefore we may reasonably hope that the expenses of the General Legislature will be considerably less than even those of the Legislature of Canada at the present moment, —while, on the other hand, the local legislatures having to deal rather with municipal than great general questions, will be able to dispose of them in a manner more satisfactory to the people, and at infinitely 1 ss expanse than now. I believe, therefore, the himple cost of the Government of the country will not be in reality any greater under the new than under the old system : hut there are other items of expenditure for great public objects, the absence of which from the estimates of any country is an indication rather of weakness and of dependence than a subject that ought to form a source of satisfaction. If such items are not now found in the public expenditure, either of Canada or the Lower Provinces, it is the best proof that could be given that our position is one of inferiority, and that we do not possess either the power or the means to undertake such works as make such items necessary. Let me give one or two points as examples of my meaning ; and first I will instance the great question of defence—(hear,hear)—the absence of items of expenditure for which can only be an indication that we are lacking in one of the chief elements of national greatness, that we do not properly value the institutions under which we live, and that we are not willing to make the sacrifices that every free people must make if they are desirous of preserving them. The same argument applies to public works, in connection with which it might be said that great advantage would arise from large expenditure ; but with limited resources and an undeveloped territory it might be impossible for any small country to undertake the necessary outlay. Many works of this kind are not directly productive of revenue, although indirectly of the utmost advantage, and if the resources of a country generally cannot

[Page 71]

be applied to that outlay, the absence of such expenditure ought to be a subject of regret in the community, and not of rejoicing. (Hear, hear.) In this view let us look at the immense extent of territory that stretches away west of Upper Canada. The reason why we have not been able to assume possession of that territory and open it up to the industry of the youth of this country who, in consequence of the want of some such field for the employment of their energies, have been obliged to go off to the States in thousands, especially to those states possessing the boundless resources of the great North-West, is because there sources of Canada— great as they have been, considering the disadvantages under which she has labored— have been inadequate for the development of this great district. Now, one of the resolutions of the scheme before the House refers to this same question, and I believe that one of the first acts of the General Government of the United Provinces will be to enter into public obligations for the purpose of opening up and developing that vast region, and of making it a source of strength instead of a burden to us and to the Mother Country also. (Hear, hear.) Looking, however, to the whole question of expense, I must say that if the benefits of Confederation are to be weighed against the loss of three or four hundred thousand dollars, the House had better carefully consider whether the people of this country will not accept the former at such comparatively trifling cost—whether they will not feel that a union with a million of their fellow colonists is worth much more to them than any small pecuniary question of this kind that may arise. (Hear, hear.) I trust the House will not permit the question to be judged of in a small, contracted manner. I trust it will keep in view the desire the country manifests for the utmost possible development of its resources. Let us endeavor by this measure to afford a better opening than we now possess for the industry and intelligence of the people. Let us seek by this scheme to give them higher and worthier objects of ambition. Let us not reject the scheme with the bright prospect it offers of a nobler future for our youth, and grander objects for the emulation of our public men. Let us not refuse it on small questions of detail, but judge it on its general merits. Let us not lose sight of the great advantages which union offers because there may be some small matters which, as individuals, we may not like. Let us trust that this machinery, however faulty it may be, will yet under Providence open up for this country a happy career ; while at the same time the House must not forget that it will for ever remove the great, and crying evils and dissensions which have existed in Canada for the last ten years, and which have threatened to plunge the country into the most disasterous and lamentable state of discord and confusion. (Cheers.) Surely this last fact alone will commend the project to the House. It should induce the Legislature and the people to make every allowance for the men who have been engaged in the work, and lead them to approach the result of their labors as now submitted, not in a hypercritical spirit so that the public mind may be led astray on mere matters of detail. Let the House frankly and kindly look at it as a great measure brought down for the purpose of relieving the country from distress and depression, and give it that consideration which is due, not to the arguments of the Government, feeble as they may be in view of the great interests involved, but to the fact that the country desires and cries for, at the hands of the House, some measure whereby its internal prosperity, peace and happiness may be developed and maintained. (Loud cheers.)

On motion of Hon. Mr. BROWN, the debate was then adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, February 8, 1865.

HON. MR. ROSS continued the debate as follows:—Honorable gentlemen will remember that I yesterday moved the adjournment with the intention of replying to the remarks of the hon. member from Niagara Division (Hon. MR. CURRIE), who engaged the attention of the House durirg most of its sitting. From its commencement to its conclusion, the speech of that honorable gentleman was of a most remarkable character. At its very outset he took the opportunity of quoting some parts of the first speech he made in this chamber, two years ago, in which he strongly approved of the principle of a Confederation between Canada and the Lower Provinces, and in some portions of his yesterday’s speech he reiterated in a very decided manner his approval of such a scheme. But other parts of his speech were of such a character that if any of the promoters of Confederation had been at first inclined to number him among the friends of

[Page 72]

Intercolonial Union, they might afterwards have said “save us from our friends.” (Hear.) He took the very singular course of first decrying the credit of the Lower Provinces, and then decrying that of Canada itself, endeavoring to show first that we were making a very bad bargain in uniting our destiny with such poor provinces as they were, and afterwards that such was our staie of bankruptcy that they would be very foolish indeed in joining their fate with ours. (Laughter.) It would, indeed, be almost a sufficient answer to the honorable mem- ber to take his speech in separate paragraphs and to place certain of them opposite to others as the reply, for a more illogical and inconsequential address I hardly over heard. Nor was he content with doaling in what he thought was irony or sarcasm, but ventured to attack important statements of fact made by the public men of this and the other provinces. Now, if we are to have a Confederation at all, I think we should be careful what language we use with respect to such men, and what statements we place before the public. If language such as the hon. member permitted himself to use be encouraged, it will be impossible to secure the good feeling and harmony which are indispensably necessary to the well-working of the contemplated union. I am, however, satisfied that the sober sense of the House will condemn such language, not only when it comes from the hon. member for Niagara, but when falling from any other hon. meinbor. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member commenced his attacks upon the public men of the provinces by quoting from a speech of Mr. LYNCH, recently delivered at Halifax, and did his best to turn it into ridicule, as well as to excite contemptuous laughter at the expense of that gentlen an. Now the statements Mr. LYNCH made are facts, not foolish inventions, as the hon. member preteuded. That gentleman spoke by the book, and relied for his information upon the official report of one of our public departments, and if the hon. member will turn to the census of 1852, he will find, at page 32, a table comparing the produce of Canada and the United States, from which it appears that, while that of the latter increased 48 per cent., that of Canada increased 400 per cent, during the previous decade. This is what Mr. LYNCH stated, and what the hon. member for Niagara asserted to be untrue.

HON. MR. CURRIE —That was between the years 1841 and 1851, while the remarks of Mr. LYNCH had reference to the subsequent decade,

HON. MR. ROSS—It is not so ; Mr.LYNCH spoke of an increase of ten years ; he read from our official records in proof, and read correctly. The hon. member probably derived his information from some newspaper, and the error he has committed should teach him to be more cautious how he assails public men on such evidence. (Hear, hear.) He then turned from Mr. LYNCH to the Premier of New Brunswick, a gentleman of the highest character and ability, who is so strong in the esteem and confidence of the people of that province that it seems impossible to displace hiin. Now I maintain that, to say the least it is in extremely bad taste to attack high-placed public men, especially those of other countries, and more especially those of the sister colonies, as the hon. member has done.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I did not attack them.

HON. MR. ROSS—The hon. member has attacked their veracity ; he has denied the correctness of the statements they made openly as public men. The Hon. Mr. TILLEY quoted the figures of our own Minister of Finance, and the hon. member represented him as not speaking the truth, but as, in effect, attempting to deceive those whom he addressed.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I beg to know when the Finance Minister of Canada stated that the average duties collected in Canada were 11 per cent. The figures—

HON. MR. ROSS—The honorable member will find it in the Finance Minister’s speech, and while I do not think it proper in him to interrupt me for the purpose of going into calculations just at this moment, I maintain that by taking all the imports, including those free of duty, the honorable member will find that the rate stated is exactly correct. The imports in 1863 amounted to $45,964,493, and the duty collected was $5,169,173, which is just 11 per cent, of the whole. I repeat, honorable gentlen: en, that, instead of making such attacks on great public men, I conceive it to be more properly our duty to defend them. (Hear.) Having thus disposed of the remarks the honorable member made on the veracity of Mr. LYNCH and Hon. Mr. TILLEY, I will now advert to that portion of his remarks in which he endeavored to show that Hon. Mr. GALT’S statemen s were incorrect. He referred to the figures respecting the tonnage of the proposed Confederation, as quoted by Hon. Mr. GALT, and pooh poohed his remarks in a way which was no doubt in tended to be very amusing. The Minister of Finance declared that when the Union was effeted, we should be, he be-

[Page 73]

lieved, the third largest country in the world, as regards the tonnage of our commercial marine, though possibly France might be about on an equality with us. England, he said, was the first, the United States the second, and either France or the contemplated Confederation would be the third ; and this is true. I will read the statement of that honorable gentleman :—

The sea-going tonnage of Canada, including that of the inland lakes, amounts to about nine million tons, a great portion of which, however, represents the tonnage of vessels performing the coasting service, many of which frequently clear and arrive in the course of one day. It is gratifying to know that the trade between Canada and the States on the other side of the lakes is of a nature to give employment to a large portion of this lake tonnage—amounting to 6,907,000 tons. I cannot class that in the same category as the tonnage arriving at Quebec and Montreal which, in most cases, can only make two or three trips per annum. The seagoing tonnage of Canada amounts to 2,133,000 tons; of New Brunswick, 1,386,000 tons ; of Nova Scotii, 1,432,000 tons. Consequently the amount of sea-going tonnage, subject only to a small deduction, is actually about five million tons.

The way the honorable Minister of Finance made up his statement was exactly similar to that in which the same kind of statistical statements were made up in England, the United States, and other great maritime countries, the object being to show the actual amount of tonnage employed during each year in the carrying trade. It does not matter whether a vessel is encaged in long or short voyages ; if it be employed merely as a ferry, the fact of its being so employed in carrying goods inwards or outwards is a proof that its tonnage capacity is required by the trade of the countries to and from which it plies. (Hear.) But the honorable member made it appear untruly that the statement of the honorable the Minister of Finance with respect to the tonnage employed on the Canadian lakes was put forth for the purpose of misleading the public and inducing them erroneously to believe that the Confederation will have a prominent place among the great maritime nations by reason of the tonnage employed in its trade. Mr. GALT’S statement was that the sea-going tonnage of the proposed Confederation would be the third largest employed in the trade of the world, and the statistics regarding the tonnage of the inland waters of Canada were superadded to those of the seagoing tonnage of the Union. The two statements were made perfectly distinct, in every table and every speech emanating from the Minister of Finance or his department. I t is thus the honorable member has availed himself of his position for the purpose of trying to throw dirt upon our leading statesmen— of endeavoring to asperse the characters of our most distinguished public men, and I repeat, for I cannot too strongly urge it upon the House, that we ought to discountenance such attempts, for we should consider the character of our public men as public property, not to be lightly attacked and damaged. If we are to enter into this scheme, we should at least do so unassailed by our own people, and with as good a public reputation as we deserve. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member next proceeded to read extracts from old Globesand other newspapers, in which, with the characteristic features and bitter feelings of the times in which they were written, certain things were stated not specially commendatory of some of the Canadian ministers now concerned in the preparation of the Confederation scheme. I am not here to defend these gentlemen—the Hon. Messrs. BROWN and MCDOUGALL, his own party leaders, whom he attacked—nor do I intend to make remarks upon past events, but this I will say, that the parties alluded to have entered upon their present work with the sincere intention, I believe, of putting an end to the grave difficulties which have so long distracted the country. This they have done with the full concurrence and approbation of their political friends, whose advice they sought before entering the Administration; and I think that, under the circumstances, instead of being reproached and held up to public censure, they ought to be treated with confidence and generosity. I have hitherto always listened to the honorable member with pleasure, even when I could not agree with him, and even in certain parts of the speech to which I am now referring, the honorable member exhibited considerable ability ; but I do think, considering it as a whole, that a more illogical, self-contradictory, and generally objectionable address has seldom been made in the Canadian Legislature. Upon reviewing the general eifect of this remarkable effort, I can only compare it with the performances of the Parrott guns discharged against Fort Fisher, six of which, we have been told, slightly wounded two of the enemy, but killed and disabled about fifty of the men who served them. I take it that Hon. Messrs. TILLEY and LYNCH have got oif with very slight wounds indeed, and that

[Page 74]

any damage done is to the honorable member’s own friends. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I will now come more closely to the subject under debate, the proposed Confederation of Canada and the other British North American colonies, and in doing so I feel I am dealing with a matter in which is bound up the happiness and prosperity of the country, not for the present only, but for a long course of years to come. I only wish the honorable member for the Niagara Division had read the debates which preceded the establishment of the. American Constitution after the United States had gained their independence. I especially advert to the debates in the Councils of Virginia, which at that time, by reason of its wealth and population, bore a similar relation to the other colonies to that which Canada now bears to the Lower Provinces. If he had read the speeches of the MADISONS, the MARSHALLS, the RANDOLPHS, the HENRYS, the LEES and others, he would have found no passage in keeping with the sentiments he uttered yesterday. Those great patriots evidently met under a deep sense of the responsibilities of their work, and instead of bringing into the debates the small village feelings and animosities tending to embarrass and to destroy harmony, they acted like great men, true and noble men as they were, and applied themselves to their task with the purpose of bringing it to a successful issue. The confederation which they first established, in the year 1781, did not work well. It remained poor, without respect abroad, or prosperity at home, and so in 1789 they abandoned that condition of existence and adopted the Constitution which lasted until the commencement of the present unfortunate war, and now governs the North. In speaking of the Constitution prepared by our delegates, the honorable member for Niagara said it was neither one thing nor another, it was neither legislative nor federative, but a mongrel nondescript scheme between the two ; a Constitution for which there was no precedent in all the world’s history. Such, at least, was the effect of the words he used. It happens, however, to be a fact, that in opposition to the profound and enlightened opinion of the honorable member, the work of the delegates has received the approbation of some of the most eminent statesmen of England, as well as that of the most distinguished and able writers for the press of that country, which is at any rate some small consolation. I will say that if the delegates who met at Quebec and prepared that instrument were incompetent for the task, I do not know where others can be found to do it better ; and, after all, I think that, notwithstanding the remarks of the honorable member, the disinterested testimonies to the value of the work done, coming from the quarters I have indicated, will be considered in Canada as having some weight. (Hear, hear.) But since the honorable member regards this as a mongrel constitution, unworthy of acceptance, ought he not to have been ready to suggest something better ? Should he not as a patriot have given the country the benefit of his superior wisdom ? I t is of no use to look for a better form to the constitution of the ancient republics which have passed away, their having ceased to exist being of itself proof enough of their not being adapted to our wants. The honorable member might perhaps have cited the Swiss and Dutch republics, or the constitutions of the United States of 1781 and 1789, and if he had, the House would perhaps have been able to compare them with that now proposed, and arrive at some definite conclusion which might after all have been that ours, as now proposed, is that which promises best to secure freedom to those who are to live under it, and stability for the political condition of our country. With respect to the Swiss Confederation, however well it may be considered to have worked, it is a fact that within our own time a civil war has existed among the cantons, and that republic has been upon the brink of destruction. As regards the Dutch republic, it is a matter of history how it fell. During the whole of its struggle against PHILIP II., the provinces comprising it never had that centralized power which is necessary to the stability of a government, especially one assailed by enemies from without, for two provinces, Guelderland and Overyssel, contributed nothing all that contest through— each standing upon its state rights—while among the remaining five, by far the largest proportion was contributed by the one Province of Holland. The natural result was that the republic fell, and became a monarchy. The same evil lay at the root of the American Constitution of 1781, and after it had been adopted, so ill concerted and disunited were the efforts of the thirteen states, that the arrangement would not work at ail, so that General WASHINGTON was obliged to ask for and actually obtained dictatorial powers, to enable him to carry on the contest against Great Britain. The difficulties between the North and the South which now prevail, arose wholly upon the question of state rights, and had provisions existed, in the Constitution of the American

[Page 75]

Union, similar to those which, it is proposed to introduce into ours, the probability is the States would have remained united. (Hear, hear.) But the hon. member said further that the scheme has taken the country by surprise. Now, I really beg to ask whether there is any foundation for such a statement? I most deliberately say that there is not. I t must be well known to hon. members that the late Chief Justice SEWELL, who enjoyed the friendship of the Duke of KENT, the father of Her Majesty the Queen, so far back as 1814, addressed a letter to the noble Duke, recommending an union, for this fact is adverted to in Lord DURHAM’S report on the affairs of the British North American Provinces. Some ten or twelve years before even that, the Hon. Mr. UNIACKE, of Nova Scotia, had made a similar suggestion, and from time to time, since then, the importance and desirability of the project has been openly advocated by leading public men in all the colonies. Amongst others, I may mention Archdeacon STRACHAN, the present venerable and Right Reverend Bishop of Toronto, whose enlightened opinions upon great public questions, have always commanded the utmost respect, and who, writing to Mr. CHARLES BULWER, the able Secretary of Lord DURHAM, in 1838, expressed himself as follows :—

I have only to add that it will be a pleasure to me to contribute everything in my power to the prosperous issue of Lord DURHAM’S Administration ; and if Mr. PITT considered the Constitution which he conferred upon the Canadas one of the glories of his life, what glory must redound to the statesmen who give a free Constitution to the British North American colonies, and by consolidating them into one tsrritory or kingdom, exalts them to a nation acting in unity, and under the protection of the British Government; and thus not ouly ensuring their happiness, but preventing for ever the sad consequences that might arise from a rival power getting possession of their shores.

Then it was formally presented and recommended in Lord DURHAM’S remarkable report on Canada and British North America generally, so often quoted as a high authority, and only yesterday by the honorable member himself. Well, what did that distinguished nobleman say on the subject. He said :—

How inseparably connected I found the inters ests of Your Majesty’s Provinces in North America, to what degree I met with common disorders, requiring common remedies, is an important topic, which it will be my duty to discuss very fully before closing this report.

Again— On my first arrival in Canada, I was strongly inclined to the project of a Federal union, and it was with such a plan in view that I discussed a general measure for the government of the colonies with the deputations from the Lower Provinces, and with various leading individuals and public bodies in both the Canadas.

But I had still more strongly impressed on me the great advantage of an united government, and I was gratified by finding the leading minds of the various colonies strongly and generally inclined to a scheme that would elevate their countries into something like a national existence.

Lord DURHAM, after expressing his opinion in the report as on the whole in favor of the Legislative Union, and referring to the influence of the United States as surrounding us on every side, goes on to say :—

If we wish to prevent the extension of this influence, it can only he done by raising up for the North American Colonist some nationality of his own, by elevating these small and unimportant communities into a society having some objects of a national importance, and by thus giving their inhabitants a country which they will be unwilling to see absorbed even into one more powerful.

An union for common defence against foreign enemies is the natural bond of connection that holds together the great communities of the world, and between no parts of any kingdom or state is the necessity for such an union more obvious than between the whole of these colonies.

The whole of this branch of this remarkable report on the subject of an union of the British American Provinces should be read by every man in the several provinces, the arguments in its favor are so able and so unanswerable. (Hear, hear.) I will honestly say, as many others have said before me, that if it could have been attained, I would have preferred a Legislative Union, but it is well understood that Lower Canada would never have agreed to it.

HON. SIR B. P. TACHÉ—Nor the Lower Provinces.

HON. MR. ROSS—Nor, as my honorable and gallant friend the Premier states, would the Lower Provinces have consented to it. He may well be supposed to know, for he was in the Conference, presiding over its deliberations, and had the very best opportunity of ascertaining the opinions of the delegates. (Hear.) But coming down to later times— the times so well described by the hon. Premier in his excellent speech—when difficulties between Upper and Lower Canada began to thicken, the Hon. Mr. GALT brought up the scheme of Colonial Federation as the best mode of overcoming those difficulties, and made a most able speech on the subject in his place in Parliament. Subsequently, in

[Page 76]

1858, that honorable minister entered the Government with the express understanding that the question would be dealt with. I t is well known that he carried his point so far, that the subject was alluded to at the close of the session of 1858, in the Speech of Sir B. HEAD, the Governor General, and communication with the Imperial Government for permission to negotiate with the Lower Provinces on the subject was then undertaken. Shortly after this, three members of the Government, viz., Hon. Messrs. CARTIER, GALT, and myself, went to England, and on the 25th of October, 1858, we laid our request before the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir E. B. LYTTON, but difficulties, not of our creation, intervened and caused delay—Lord DERBY’S Government was defeated, and the matter continued in abeyance. To say, in the face of the facts I have stated, that the project is unknown and has taken the country by surprise, is to say what is not the case. Even last year it was distinctly referred to in His Excellency’s Speech at the close of the Session, and Hon. Messrs. BROWN, MCDOUGALL and MOWAT entered the Government with the express understanding that negociations were to ensue to bring about the proposed Federation. Hon. Messrs. BROWN and MOWAT went back to their constituents and were re-elected by acclamation, and although Hon. Mr. MCDOUGALL was defeated, he too was subsequently elected for another constituency by acclamation. These gentlemen, instead of being decried and assailed for the part they have acted, should be honored for their patriotism. There has been no such thing as surprise. The resolutions were sent to all the members of the Legislature shortly after they were fully settled upon, and even before that the plan was published in all the newspapers of the province, and I am at a loss to know how it could have been made more public. It is true the Opposition have not held public meetings to consider or object to the scheme, but the reason of this is, that the majority in its favor is so enormously large that they did not venture to do so. (Hear.) The next piece of disingenuousness on the part of the honorable member was in stating the military power of the Lower Provinces at 65,000 fighting men, or in limiting to that number the men competent for military service—

HON. MR. CURRIE—NO ; I said 128,000, of whom 65,000 only were available, the rest being engaged on the water.

HON. MR. ROSS—Why did not the honorable member candidly state their census population, which at this time cannot be much short of a million souls ?

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—With the permission of the honorable member I will state the result of my experience in this matter. I have been for some time attached to the Adjutant General’s office, where I had the opportunity of examining the particularly correct returns of the Militia for Lower Canada, and it always appears that out of a given population of both sexes the one-fifth paît shews the exact number of men, between the ages of 18 and 60, fit for military duty. This is the case all the world over. The law is as uniform as that which determines the relative numbers of the two sexes; in all Christian countries the males being 21 and a fraction to 20 females, while in countries where polygamy exists the case is exactly reversed, the females being 21 and a fraction, and the males 20. I hare verified the fact that one-fifth of our population shows the correct number of militiamen, and if the honorable member (Hon. Mr. CURRIE) will apply to the Adjutant General he will find it was so.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I have taken the figures as furnished by a colleague of the honorable member.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—Then my colleague must be in contradiction with myself. The number of militia-men in Upper Canada, by the last census, was 280,000, which, multiplied by 5, gives the population, with a few to spare.

HON. MR. ROSS—I think it is now unnecessary for me to say anything else on this subject, as the honorable member has been fully answered by my honorable friend the Premier. All that I need add is that according to the rule now stated, the million of souls in the Lower Provinces would produce 200,000 instead of 65,000 men, all capable of bearing arms, those employed on the water being as liable to serve as those employed on the land. I trust we shall never require to muster our fighting men from any part of the proposed Confederation ; but the best preventative of danger is preparedness to meet it. (Hear.) The honorable member next came to the question of the Intercolonial Railway, which after all seems to be his great peculiar horror—the great pillar which overshadows and oppresses him. Well, I will turn again to Lord DURHAM’S report, in which the following passage, remarkably apposite to the subject, appears:—

[Page 77]

The completion of any satisfactory communication between Halifax and Quebec would, in fact, produce relations between these provinces that would render a general union absolutely necessary. Several surveys proved that a railway would be perfectly practicable the whole way. * * * * * * The formation of a railroad from Halifax to Quebec would entirely alter some of the distinguishing characteristics of the Canadas. Instead of being shut out from all direct intercourse with England during half the year, they would possess a far more certain and speedy communication throughout the winter than they now possess in summer.

This passage greatly impressed the public men of the day—the LAFONTAINE-BALDWIN Administration—in which Mr. HINCKS and the honorable Premier each had a place. It was under them that the railway legislation of the province received its first impulse, and last session I remember to have had occasion to quote the preamble of an act passed in 1851, which recites:—

That, whereas it is of the highest importance to the progress and welfare of this province, that a Main Trunk line of railway should be made throughout the length thereof, and from the eastern frontier thereof through the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to the city and port of Halifax; and it is therefore expedient that every effort should be made to ensure the construction of such railway.

The second clause of the act

Authorizes the Government, for the time being, to negotiate with the Imperial Government and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, for the construction of the line, and to bargain therefor ; the funds to be obtained under Imperial guarantee.

This act, honorable gentlemen, is still in force, and from the time of its passing there has always been an anxiety among the public men of Canada to accomplish the construction of a railway to Halifax. All our governments, without exception, have felt in the same way, and the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration took steps towards such an end. But the difficulties which followed stopped further progress, and, in fact, had almost stopped legislation altogether. Now, however, the Hon. Mr. BROWN himself has made the construction of this railway a part of the proposed Constitution, and has said, at a great meeting in Toronto, that if the project contained half-a-dozen intercolonial railways he would go for them all. (Hear, hear.) I feel morally certain that if the subject were fairly discussed in every town in Upper Canada, nine-tenths of the people would go heartily for it. Indeed, the railway is absolutely necessary and we cannot do without it. Upper Canada alone, not to speak of Lower Canada at all, requires it, and so well is this understood in the Lower Provinces that an opponent of the Hon. Mr. TILLEY— Hon. Mr. SMITH—has lately said it was quite unnecessary for New Brunswick to spend any money on the work, as Upper Canada must build it for its own sake. As to the cost of this road, which has been so greatly exaggerated, Mr. BRYDGES, who must be supposed to know something about the matter, has offered, on behalf of an English company, to undertake the construction of the Une for £3,500,000 sterling. Everybody knows how much that is, and when reciprocity is gone, Upper Canada will do well to build the road on its own account, if all the other provinces refuse. They will however not refuse, for the line is equally necessary for Lower Canada and the other provinces, and it is a great advantage to all parties that it should be so. New Brunswick requires it to open up its rich interior country which contains, as I have learned from advanoe reports of subordinate surveying engineers, some of the finest lands in the world. Halifax wants it, in order to bring freight to her greatseaport when those of Quebec and Montreal are closed. I t should have been commenced three years ago, and if it had it would now be built, and we should have heard nothing about the abolition of the Reciprocity Treaty. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member then asked why, since there was to be a dissolution and an appeal to the people of New Brunswick on the subject, there should not be one in Canada? The answer to that has already been given. The term of Parliament would have expired in that province on the 1st of June, and as the members would then have had to go to their constituents to give an account of their conduct during the previous four years, it was thought better to anticipate the time of its dissolution by three or four months. In Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, however, where the elections were more recent, there are to be no elections. I will add that this mode of appealing to the people is not British but American, as under the British system the representatives of the people in Parliament are presumed to be competent to decide all the public questions submitted to them. When the unions between England and Scotland, and between England and Ireland were effected, there were no appeals to the people, it being assumed that the people’s chosen representatives were quite competent to judge of the measures. (Hear, hear.) Yet the members who have recently gone to the country have found public opinion to be de-

[Page 78]

cidedly in favor of the project. One honorable member (Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON) who represents 130,000 souls, has told the House that he has held meetings all over the vast Division for which he sits, and that in every oase he has explained the subject to them without finding a single person to oppose it. (Hear.) The honorable member for Niagara also said, that the project has been unfairly brought down. Now, I contend that it was brought down in the only way in which it could bo submitted to us or to the people. Such a censure as this is beyond my comprehension, and it has certainly not been shewn to my satisfaction, nor I should imagine, to that if any body else, in what the unfairness consists. (Hear.) Next the honorable member attacked the financial terms of the scheme, and rolled up a mass of figures which I strongly suspected the honorable member himself did not understand. (Hear, and laughter.) The Minister of Finance fully and lucidly stated the case last evening, and I will read part of his speech to show how satisfactorily the matter was explained. Hon. Mr. GALT said:

With reference to the trade of this country, he had taken the returns of 1863. The returns of the trade of Canada, in that year, taking exports and imports conjointly, showed an aggregate of $87,795,000. Taking the census of 1861, this trade represented thirty-five dollars per head of the population. The value ol the import and export trade of New Brunswick, for the same year, reached $16,729,680, amounting to sixty-six dollars per head of its population. The aggregate trade of Nova Scotia, for the same period, amounted to $18,622,359, or fifty-six dollars per head of its people. And in the case of Prince Edward Island, the import and export trade amounted to $3,055,568, representing thirty-seven dollars per head of the population of that colony. The value of the total trade of Newfoundland was $1 ,245,032, or eighty-six dollars per head. The whole of these figures represented an aggregate trade of all the provinces, amounting to $137,447,567. (Hear, hear.)

With respect to the revenue and expenditure of the provinces, I find a succinct statement in the speech delivered by Mr. GALT, at Sherbrooke, as follows :—

Revenue. Expenditure.
Nova Scotia $1,185,629 $1,072,274
New Brunswick 899,991 884,613
Newfoundland (1862.) 480,000 479,420
Prince Edward Island 197,384 171,718
Canada 9,760,316 10,742,807
——– ——–
Total, 1863 $12,523,320 13,350,832
Total, 1864 14,223,320 13,350,832
——– ——–
Estimated Surplus,1864 $872,488

The Hon. Minister of Finance made some admirable remarks, at Sherbrooke, with reference to the indebtedness of the colonies, where he gave to a public meeting the following table :

Nova Scotia (1863) $ 4,858,547
New Brunswick 5,702,991
Newfoundland (1862) 946,000
Prince Edward Island 240,673
Total, Maritime Provinces $11,748,211
Canada, (1863) 67,263,994
Grand Total $79,012,205

Reasoning from these figures, Mr. GALT stated that the debt of Canada amounts at the present time to about $27 per head, and that to enter into an equitable arrangement with the other provinces where the debts were about $25 per head either ours had to be reduced or theirs increased ; that is, when made chargeable to the Confed eration—and as the former is the preferable course, the surplus or excess of ours over $25 per head has to be locally assumed by Canada. He also explained that the debts of Prince Edward Island and of Newfoundland being less than $25 per head, an allowance had to be made to them to place them on an equal footing with the rest of the colonies. I will add, for the information of the honorable member for Niagara, the following official figures, which are instructive as showing that the people of the Maritime Provinces are a people who contribute, under their present tariffs, a considerable sum to their respective treasuries :

Newfoundland $3.53
Nova Scotia 2.46
New Brunswick 2.81
PrinceEdward Island 1.69
Canada 1.85

Looking at all these facts together, the conclusion appears to me irresistible that the arrangement proposed is in every respect an equitable one, and that it has been made with a view to give to each province as nearly as possible what is right and fair, as far as what is right could be discovered. No honorable member could wish that Canada should have undue advantages over the other parties to the compact. The spirit in which the deliberations of the Conference were conducted was the correct one, and had its members tried to overreach each other—had they not been impressed with the necessity of mutual concessions for the common good—no result could ever have been arrived at. (Hear, hear.) The next point the honorable member touched was the

[Page 79]

assets of the Lower Provinces, and he asked very emphatically what they had to bring into the partnership. He said we had our valuable canals, but what had they ? Well, they have their own railways, built with provincial money. New Brunswick has 200 miles, equal in value to eight millions of dollars ; and Nova Scotia 150 miles or thereabouts, equal to about six millions of dollars—though I am not sure of the exact extent.

HON. MR. CURRIE—What do they pay?

HON. MR. ROSS—What do our canals pay ? That, however, is not the question ; our canals are assets and valuable assets too, even though they do not pay much directly, for they cheapen transport to an extraordinary extent. I remember the time when the freight of a barrel of flour from Toronto to Montreal cost one dollar, and now it is 10d ; and one cwt. of merchandize brought back also cost one dollar then, but now only 1s. It is in this way that great public works are valuable to a country. As to the earnings of the Lower Province railways, the net profits—not the gross receipts —are stated, I believe, at $140,000 ; $70,000 in New Brunswick, and $70,000 in Nova Scotia, which, at any rate, is something. The Welland Canal, of which the honorable gentleman spoke so much, did not pay even the interest on its cost ; and if the canal on the American side of the Niagara is constructed, as we learn from the American press it is to be, the chief source of its revenue will be cut off, and so far from being the best of the canals in a paying point of view, it will be the worst of all those connected with the St. Lawrence navigation. Let me not be understood, however, as depreciating the value of the Welland Canal. None is more ready than I am to admit that its construction was wise, and that it has proved and will continue to prove beneficial in the highest degree. (Hear.) The honorable member, living as he does on the very banks of the Welland Canal, very naturally asked how the canals are to be enlarged ? Well, they will be the property of the General Government, and when the trade requires it, that Government will, no doubt, appropriate money for the work. (Hear.) As to local taxation, all the provinces will be put upon the same footing, and nothing can be fairer. If Upper Canada, which it is asserted is so much wealthier than the other portions of the Confederation, requires more than the eighty cents per head allowed to all the provinces, its greater wealth will cause it feel the taxation so much the less. (Hear.) The honorable member next attacked the proposed constitution of the Legislative Council, and insisted not only that it should have remained elective, but that the principle of representation according to population should also have prevailed. But who ever heard that in a Federal Constitution the Upper House should be arranged on that principle? If that view be the sound one, the better way would be to have but one House, for the only effect of having two Houses, both elected on the basis of population, would be that one would constantly be combating the other, and the wheels of government would unavoidably be brought to a stand-still. In such a case the more powerful members of the Confederacy would be wholly unrestrained, and would completely overwhelm the weaker. This was fully considered on the adoption of a Constitution for the United States, according to which it is well known that the smaller States are represented in the Senate by the same number of senators as the larger ones—there being two members for each. The same principle has been adopted in arranging the terms of this proposed union, and for the same reason ; viz., to protect the weaker parties to the compact. (Hear.) The next point referred to by the honorable member related to the Common Schools and the fund proposed to be created by the Act of 1849, but as the honorable member has been informed,one of its provisions, that relating to this fund, has never been carried out ; with respect to the other, my honorable friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands has already explained that the million of acres have been set apart and a fund year by year created, while Parliament has annually set apart about $100,000 for the support of the schools. Upper Canada then has suffered no injustice in this. ( Hear.) The honorable member at last concluded his remarks by drawing a sorry picture of the condition of Canada. According to him, it was about bankrupt when a number of self-appointed delegates met and devised this scheme for its further embarrassment. So far from this being the case, it is a matter of history that the Government was formed expressly for the purpose of considering and framing this very scheme, and getting rid of the dead-locks which have so injuriously affected the legislation of the country. It appeared that by the time the honorable member came to this part of his speech he became so excited that he hardly knew what he was saying. (Hear, hear.) I will conclude by reading an extract from a remarkable speech delivered by His Honor the Speaker (the Honorable U. J .

[Page 80]

TESSIER) at a public meeting held in Quebec in 1858, when the three delegates were in England pressing for Confederation. It is as follows :—

In 1849 and 1852 there were passed acts of our Provincial parliament to give some kind of guarantee for the construction of this (the Intercolonial) Railway. As a member of the Canadian Legislature, I pledge my best support to help this enterprise, and as to the Canadian nationality, distinct from the English or French nationality, composed of the best qualities of both, to which allusion has been made, I share in this sentiment, and I hope to see growing a Canadian Empire in North America, formed by a Federal Union of all the colonies connected and linked together by this Intercolonial Railway, that may hold a position able to counterbalance the grasping power of the United States on this continent.

I refer to this able speech to show the enlightened views which that honorable member held on the subject, in common with many other distinguished public men. I have now done with the speech of the honorable member for Niagara, and will only say further that I hope the important subject before the House will be fully and completely discussed, so that the fine merits of the scheme may be thoroughly understood. I know it will be discussed calmly, with mutual forbearance and kindness, and with the excellent dispositions which honorable gentlemen usually bring to the consideration of the matters submitted for their judgment. (Hear, hear, and applause.) I feel satisfied that after such discussion the House will complete its share of this great work by assenting to the resolutions submitted for its approval. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. ALEXANDER said—I am sure that the members of the Government desire that this great question should be freely and fully discussed—I am sure they will be glad to see any members of this House frankly state wherein they conceived any of its details to be defective—I am sure that the suggestions by the honorable gentlemen who represent the divisions of Victoria and Wellington will be duly weighed by the present Administration, as any other suggestions made in the spirit to accomplish good. But some members in both branches of the Legislature appear to be opposed to the Confederation scheme in toto.— They hold that the constitutional changes proposed are unwise, and are fraught with great evil. The honorable member for Niagara Division (Hon. Mr. CURRIE) appears to be of that number, from the very strong appeal which he has made to this House against the whole measure, and I desire to reply to some of the arguments which he pressed, no doubt with very great force and ability, upon our attention. He objects to the whole manner in which the Convention was formed ; he has no faith whatever in the result of their deliberations. He maintains, in the boldest manner, that the proposed union will be found disadvantageous and burdensome to all the provinces uniting. He produced figures, prepared beforehand, to show that our burdens will be increased to the extent of at least $3,000,000 per annum—-an increase which will be found oppressive to the industry of the province of Canada. I cannot understand from what source he has obtained his figures to arrive at such a conclusion. There is no difficulty in our being able to form a reliable idea as to the future financial position of the proposed federal and local governments. If we make an estimate of the whole revenue of those provinces from their financial returns, taking the basis of 1863, we find that there will be a net revenue, available for the purposes of the General Government, after paying the subsidy of eighty cents per head to the local governments, amounting to the sum of $9,643,108, while we are justified in assuming that the ordinary expenditure of the General Government will not exceed $9,000,000. But, of course, there are always certain grants which are not classed under ordinary expenditure, and we shall have to provide for the Intercolonial Railway, and the widening and deepening of the St. Lawrence canals ; and suppose that we allow the very liberal item of $25,000,000 for those great objects, it will be admitted on all sides that we shall be enabled to obtain this amount under the Imperial Guarantee at four per cent., thus throwing upon the federal treasury the additional annual burden or charge of $1,000,000, which we may, with perfect right, say will be met in the following manner. It can be clearly shewn that it rests entirely with ourselves, whether we cannot meet all the claims of ordinary expenditure and interest on the federal debt with the amount, already named, of $9,643,108 ; while I am sure that most commercial men will allow that, with the power which we shall have of imposing uniform tariff and excise duties throughout the whole united territory of these united provinces, we shall raise sufficient additional revenue to meet this large item. But as I have, on a former occasion, said, we must inaugurate the dawn of our infant national career with the utmost care and prudence. All jobbery and lavish expenditure must be carefully avoided ; and if we do so, I venture to

[Page 81]

prophesy that the anticipations of my honorable friend from Niagara will never be realized. I venture to say, in the face of all his evil forebodings of increased burdens and debt, that we shall find our position greatly improved. He appeared in the delivery of his able and powerful speech, very desirous to make out the strongest possible case, raking up even the public condemnation of the Provincial Secretary at the famous Harrington meeting. I was one of those who voted against Mr. SCOTT’S Separate School Bill, valuing, in common with the earnest electors at Harrington, our noble sehool system of Upper Canada, which carries the blessings of education throughout the width and breadth of the land ; but the people generally are not prepared to reject the proposed Confederation, because of the position of that question, although there are individual electors who have strong convictions on the subject. My honorable friend also dwells upon the amount which will require to be appropriated for the militia. He appears to think that soldiers can be formed by magical influence in a day, and to effect a small saving he would elect to leave this magnificent territory, with its valuable homesteads, exposed to be swept at any moment by a ruthless aggressor ; or should not mind that our Canadian people should run the risk of being subjected to share the liability of three thousand millions of debt, in addition to their own burdens. The great body of the people of Upper Canada have great faith in the expansion and growth of a young country such as this. (Hear, hear.) They do not forget the remarkable fact, that after experiencing a large deficiency in the revenue of the country for several years, with also, in addition, two very indifferent harvests, we are in a position to announce a eonsiderable surplus of revenue at this moment ; and we look forward to this consolidation of other great interests, full of hope, that it will give Ha, a higher standing in the world —that it will give a great impetus to the growth of our population, our commerce and our revenue; and if the expenditure to be made on those great public improvements should swell the debt, we shall find ourselves in a condition of such prosperity that it will fall lightly upon us. There are so many conspiring circumstances to make us regard this great scheme with favor, the offspring, as it is presented to us, of the large experience and matured judgment of the political leaders of all these provinces. (Hear, hear.) “We may venture to accept it and give it a fair trial as the best solution of the difficulties we have experienced in working out our present Legislative Union. It is very true that we have all opposed until now the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, because we have had grave doubts as to the commercial value of that work, and the prospect of its being self-sustaining ; but it certainly cannot be denied that the unfriendly attitude assumed towards us by the neighboring republic in respect to the trade relations between the two countries, makes it more prudential for us thus to secure a winter road to the great highway of the world’s commerce—(hear, hear)—and it will certainly place us in a stronger position to negotiate fair and just terms in a renewal or modification of the Reciprocity Treaty. Whilst that public work is accepted as an indispensable part of the scheme, we are glad to be assured by the members of the Government, that the deepening and widening of the St. Lawrence canals will be carried out simultaneously. Good cannot fail to flow from the union if justice is thus done to all its component parts. As regards the question of finance, the proposition to assume the debts upon a certain basis on the one hand, and to impose a uniform tariff on tho other, with certain reasonable stipulations, is perhaps the nearest approximation to dealing out common justice to all, which could be arrived at, with so many varied interests there represented. We know that our own delegates contended, as we now contend, that it would only have been fair and just that the future subsidy to be paid to each province of eighty cents per head should be based upon the census returns to be made every ten years. But this is not the moment to enlarge upon this point, or upon those details, to which, as I have before stated, the great body of my constituents take exception, and I will reserve myself, therefore, until we discuss the details seriatim. I would only, in conclusion, observe, that our most enlightened citizens see nothing but weakness and insecurity in our present fragmentary position, while they regard the proposed union as calculated in every way to give us importance, standing and strength—improve our credit—inspire a feeling of confidence in our future, and bring emigration to our shores. If we can look back with just pride to our giant growth during the last quarter of a century, so may we enter upon the extended relations now proposed full of hope, that with an accession of territory, population and power—commencing our career with a volume of trade exceeding $137,000,000, with such boundless resources to develop, and a country capable of sus-

[Page 82]

taining any extent of population, there is no barrier to our extension and material progress. (Hear, hear.) We must feel that such a field or human enterprise and such a position is calculated to give our people higher aspirations, and to make them cherish what may at the present moment be pronounced at this stage of our infancy but a dream ; that just as the Russian Empire extends its powerful sway from the Black Sea to the polar regions, so may the people of British North America aspire to raise up a great Northern Power upon this continent, which shall be distinguished for the wisdom and stability of its institutions, which shall emulate the parent countries from which its races have sprung, in developing their manly virtues, and in diffusing the blessings of a higher civilization’wherever its population may flow. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. VIDAL said he cordially agreed with the honorable gentleman who had spoken in desiring a union of the provinces, and with the Honorable Premier in believing that if such union oould be arranged to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, it ought to be effected. Without exactly committing himself to the opinion of the Honorable Premier that this eountry was upon an inclined plane which, if the proposed scheme of Confederation were rejected, would land us in the United States, he nevertheless thought that the arguments which he had advanced to demonstrate the necessity of some change which would secure our future exemption from the difficulties by which we were now beset were unanswered and unaswerable. Yet he was obliged to express his disapproval of the manner in which the scheme had been submitted to Parliament, as the course adopted entirely precluded the Legislature from suggesting any improvement or modification of its details. He felt, in common with all other honorable members, that the subject was one of vast importance ; that we were not legislating for the mere purpose of escaping from unpleasant party political difficulties, but for the safety and prosperity of our country and the welfare of our children and descendants, and therefore could not agree with the honorable member for Brock (Hon. Mr. BLAIR) , that immediate action was necessary and that any delay was dangerous. Notwithstanding all that had been said of this country being acquainted with the scheme and prepared to adopt it, he did not and could not believe that such was the case ; in arranging its details no advice or assistance had been sought from the representatives of the people, and the people themselves were to have no voice in the matter. The scheme was as sumed to be perfect, and being perfect, must be adopted by the House without change or modification of any kind. I t was said that nine-tenths of the people were in its favor ; he believed that a very large majority approved of the general principle of union, but there were details of the plan which did not pass unchallenged. It was much to be regretted that the resolutions had not been introduced in such a way as would have permitted the House to place upon record its views in respect to any part of them which might be unacceptable, and to suggest to the Imperial authorities who might frame the bill, such amendments as it considered desirable. He thought the honorable member for Wellington (Hon. Mr. SANBORN) was in error in proposing the amendments of which he had given notice,—the resolutions before, them were not, properly speaking, resolutions of the House, they must be regarded as a mere statement of certain agreements entered into by other parties and communicated to us for our information, and consequently could not in any way be altered or amended. Honorable members were thus placed in an anomalous position—invited to discuss the whole subject freely and their assistance requested, and at the same time informed that no change would be effected—that in fact the only assistance wanted was the voting for the adoption of the scheme as a whole. Whatever doubts may exist as to the change the proposed union might effect either for good or for ill, he thought there was no doubt that thero would necessarily be a vast increase of expense in carrying on the Government: without mentioning specific sums, it must be obvious that Canada would have to maintain two local legislatures with all their appurtenances, in addition to her share of the expense of the Federal Legislature, which latter could scarcely be expected to be less than at present. With regard to the proposed change in the constitution of the Legislative Council, he was far from considering it a wise step ; like the honorable member for Niagara (Hon. Mr. CURRIE), he had great regard for the right of the franchise as now enjoyed by the people, and felt that it would be improper to vote away that privilege of his constituents without their authority or assent. He had been sent here by them to assist in legislating under the Constitution we now have, and not to change it. It was admitted by all that the elective system had operated advantageously, and why then should it be abandoned?— why initiate a retrograde move

[Page 83]

ment unsought for by the country ? Much had been said about the risk of collision between two elective Houses, that legislation might come to a dead-lock ; now it was a remarkable fact that under the present system there had been no such difficulties, while both in England and in Canada, previous to the introduction of the elective system, they had occurred, and on several occasions the power of the Crown had been called in to overcome them by appointing additional members. What would be the position of the House under the new scheme? It would be the most irresponsible body in the world ; and if a dead-lock should occur there would be no way of overcoming it, for the casualties of death, resignation or acceptance of office, which had been so strongly insisted upon as sufficiently numerous to enable the Government of the day to modify the character of the House, would not in his opinion be adequate to meet such an exigency. Such was apparently the view of the Colonial Secretary ; and it would in all probability be found necessary to leave the Crown unfettered in the exercise of its prerogative of apppointment. The honorable gentleman concluded by saying that he would not now comment upon any other details of the scheme, as he understood the resolutions were to be discussed seriatim, but he did not very clearly see the advantage of such a discussion when it was so distinctly stated that the only question for the House to determine was whether the scheme as now submitted, unchanged and unchangeable, should be rejected or adopted. (Hear, hear.)

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ said the scheme, it was true, must be taken as a whole, or rejected, since it was not the property of the Government of Canada alone, but of all the other provinces as well. But it did not therefore follow that honorable members who might dissent from some parts of it might not inscribe that dissent on the journals. If the amendments proposed were passed, the motion for an Address would not be pressed ; but, if they did not carry, then the votes of the honorable members who had supported them would be on record. In former days, before the yeas and nays were taken, it was the practice for members who objected to any particular measure, in conformity with the practice of the House of Lords, to enter a protest on the journals exhibiting their reasons for dissent, and he knew of no rule which would prevent such a course from being pursued on the present occasion. It was quite in the power of honorable members, if they chose, to propose amendments, and so secure the advantage of placing their views before the country.

Cries of ” adjourn ! adjourn !”

HON. MR. MOORE said, as there was an evident desire for an adjournment, he would not occupy the time of the House for more than a few minutes, his intention being merely to refer to a portion of the remarks made by the honorable gentleman (Hon. Mr. VIDAL) who had just sat down. Though he generally agreed in what had been said by that honorable member, there was one particular in which he (Hon. Mr. MOORE) thought he was in error. He (Hon. Mr. VIDAL) seemed to have become impressed with the idea that it was not competent for the House to amend the resolutions, but that they should either be adopted or rejeoted as a whole. I t was true the Government had so laid it down, but he (Hon. Mr. MOORE) held that the question could be dealt with in the same manner as any other that might come before the House. His honorable friend was also of opinion that, if no suggestions or amendments were to be adopted, it was wasting time to discuss the scheme. In this respect he (Hon. Mr. MOORE) begged to differ with the honorable gentleman, holding that it was not only useful, but essentially necessary that the details of a measure fraught with such grave and momentous importance to the country should be thoroughly discussed. A calm and considerate discussion—and every latitude for discussion—were necessary, and he hoped the Government would not press the measure with any unseemly haste, for they not only owed it to the Legislature, but to the country, that ample opportunity for consideration of the project should be afforded to the people’s representatives. He also considered it important that members should have an opportunity to confer with their constituents on the subject, in order to vote advisedly when the time came ; and he trusted the Government would not press the matter, nor hinder the expression of views, even if those views extended to amendment in certain particulars. The honorable gentleman then sat down, repeating that he thought the House might deal with the question as with any other that might come before it.

The debate was then adjourned until the morrow.

[Page 84]


WEDNESDAY, February 8,1865.

The Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Resolution for a Union of the British North American Colonies, having been read,—

HON. GEORGE BROWN rose and said: Mr. SPEAKER, it is with no ordinary gratification I rise to address the House on this occasion. I cannot help feeling that the struggle of half a life-time for constitutional reform—the agitations in the country, and the fierce contests in this chamber—the strife and the discord and the abuse of many years,—are all compensated by the great scheme of reform which is now in your hands. (Cheers.) The Attorney General for Upper Canada, as well as the Attorney General for Lower Canada, in addressing the House last night, were anxious to have it understood that this scheme for uniting British Ameriea under one government, is something different from “representation by population,”—is something different from “joint authority,” —but is in fact the very scheme of the Government of which they were members in 1858. Now, sir, it is all very well that my honorable friends should receive eredit for the large share they have contributed towards maturing the measure before the House ; but I could not help reflecting while they spoke, that if this was their very scheme in 1858, they succeeded wonderfully in bottling it up from all the world except themselves— (hear, hear)—and I could not help regretting that we had to wait till 1864 until this mysterious plant of 1858 was forced to fruition. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) For myself, sir, I care not who gets the credit of this scheme, —I believe it contains the best features of all the suggestions that have been made in the last ten years for the settlement of our troubles ; and the whole feeling in my mind now is one of joy and thankfulness that there were found men of position and influence in Canada who, at a moment of serious crisis, had nerve and patriotism enough to cast aside political partisanship, to banish personal considerations, and unite for the accomplishment of a measure so fraught with advantage to their common country. (Cheers.) It was a bold step in the then existing state of public feeling for many members of the House to vote for the Constitutional Committee moved for by me last session—it was a very bold step for many of the members of that committee to speak and vote candidly upon it—it was a still bolder thing for many to place their names to the report that emanated frem that committee, —but it was an infinitely bolder step for the gentlemen who now occupy these treasury benches, to brave the misconceptions and suspicions that would certainly attach to the act, and enter the same Government. And it is not to be denied that such a Coalition demanded no ordinary justification. But who does not feel that every one of us has to-day ample justification and reward for all we did in the document now under discussion ? (Cheers.) But seven short months have passed away since the Coalition Government was formed, yet already are we submitting a scheme well-weighed and matured, for the erection of a future empire, —a scheme which has been received at home and abroad with almost universal approval.

HON. MR. HOLTON—(Ironically) hear! hear ! !

HON. MR. BROWN—My hon. friend dissents from that, but is it possible truthfully to deny it ? Has it not been approved and endorsed by the governments of five separate colonies ?—Has it not received the all but unanimous approval of the press of Canada ?— Has it not been heartily and unequivocally endorsed by the electors of Canada ? (Cries of hear, hear, and no, no.) My honorable friend opposite cries ” no, no,” but I say “yes, yes.” Since the Coalition was formed, and its policy of Federal union announced, there have been no fewer than twenty-five parliamentary elections— fourteen for members of the Upper House, and eleven for members of the Lower House. At the fourteen Upper House contests, but three candidates dared to show themselves before the people in opposition to the Government scheme; and of these, two were rejeeted, and one—only one—succeeded in finding a seat. (Hear, hear.) At the eleven contests for the Lower House, but one candidate on either side of politics ventured to oppose the scheme, and I hope that even he will yet cast his vote in favor of Confederation. (Hear, hear.) Of these twenty-five electoral contests, fourteen were in Upper Canada, but not at one of them did a candidate appear in opposition to our scheme. And let it be observed how large a portion of the country these twenty-five electoral districts embraced. It is true that the eleven Lower House elections only included that number of counties, but the fourteen Upper House elections embraced no fewer than forty counties. (Hear, hear.) Of the 130 constituencies, therefore, into which Canada is divided for representa-

[Page 85]

tion in this chamber, not fewer than fifty have been called on since our scheme was announced to pronounce at the polls their verdict upon it, and at the whole of them but four candidates on both sides of politics ventured to give it opposition. (Cheers.) “Was I not right then in asserting that the electors of Canada had, in the most marked manner, pronounced in favor of the scheme ? (Hear, hear.) And will honorable gentlemen deny that the people and press of Great Britain have received it with acclamations of approval ?—that the Government of England have cordially endorsed and accepted it ?—aye, that even the press and the public men of the United States have spoken of it with a degree of respect they never before accorded to any colonial movement ? Sir, I venture to assert that no scheme of equal magnitude, ever placed before the world, was received with higher eulogiums, with more universal approbation, than the measure we have now the honor of submitting for the acceptance of the Canadian Parliament. And no higher eulogy could, I think, be pronounced than that I heard a few weeks ago from the lips of one of the foremost of British statesmen, that the system of government we proposed seemed to him a happy compound of the best features of the British and American Constitutions. And well, Mr. SPEAKER, might our present attitude in Canada arrest the earnest attention of other countries. Here is a people composed of two distinct races, speaking different languages, with religious and social and municipal and educational institutions totally different ; with sectional hostilities of such a character as to render government for many years well-nigh impossible ; with a Constitution so unjust in the view of one section as to justify any resort to enforce a remedy. And yet, sir, here we sit, patiently and temperately discussing how these great evils and hostilities may justly and amicably be swept away forever. (Hear, hear.) We are endeavoring to adjust harmoniously greater difficulties than have plunged other countries into all the horrors of civil war. We are striving to do peacefully and satisfactorily what Holland and Belgium, after years of strife, were unable to accomplish. We arc seeking by calm discussion to settle questions that Austria and Hungary, that Denmark and Germany, that Russia and Poland, could only crush by the iron heel of armed force. We are seeking to do without foreign intervention that which deluged in blood the sunny plains of Italy. We are striving to settle forever issues hardly less momentous than those that have rent the neighboring republic and are now exposing it to all the horrors of civil war. (Hear, hear.) Have we not then, Mr. SPEAKER, great cause of thankfulness that we have found a better way for the solution of our troubles than that which has entailed on other countries such deplorable results ? And should not every one of us endeavor to rise to the magnitude of the occasion, and earnestly seek to deal with this question to the end in the same candid and conciliatory spirit in which, so far, it has been discussed ? (Loud cries of hear, hear.) The scene presented by this chamber at this moment, I venture to affirm, has few parallels in history. One hundred years have passed away since these provinces beeame by conquest part of the British Empire. I speak in no boastful spirit—I desire not for a moment to excite a painful thought—what was then the fortune of war of the brave French nation, might have been ours on that well-fought field. I recall those olden times merely to mark the fact that here sit to-day the descendants of the victors and the vanquished in the fightof 1759, with all the differences of language, religion, civil law, and social habit, nearly as distinctly marked as they were a century ago. (Hear, hear.) Here we sit to-day seeking amicably to find a remedy for constitutional evils and injustice complained of—by the vanquished ? No, sir —but complained of by the conquerors! (Cheers by the French Canadians.) Here sit the representatives of the British population claiming justice—only justice ; and here sit the representatives of the French population, discussing in the French tongue whether we shall have it. One hundred years have passed away since the conquest of Quebec, but here sit the children of the victor and the vanquished, all avowing hearty attachment to the British Crown—all earnestly deliberating how we shall best extend the blessings of British institutions—how a great people may be established on this continent in close and hearty connection with Great Britain. (Cheers.) Where, sir, in the page of history, shall we find a parallel to this ? Will it not stand as an imperishable monument to the generosity of British rule? And it is not in Canada alone that this scene is being witnessed. Four other colonies are at this moment occupied as we are—declaring their hearty love for the parent State, and deliberating with us how they may best discharge the great duty entrusted to their hands, and give their aid in developing the teeming resources of these vast

[Page 86]

possessions. And well, Mr. SPEAKER, may the work we have unitedly proposed rouse the ambition and energy of every true man in British America. Look, sir, at the map of the continent of America, and mark that island (Newfoundland) commanding the mouth of the noble river that almost cuts our continent in twain. Well, sir, that island is equal in extent to the kingdom of Portugal. Cross the straits to the main land, and you touch the hospitable shores of Nova Scotia, a country as large as the kingdom of Greece. Then mark the sister province of New Brunswick—equal in extent to Denmark and Switzerland combined. Pass up tffe river St. Lawrence to Lower Canada—a country as large as France. Pass on to Upper Canada, —twenty thousand square miles larger than Great Britain and Ireland put together. Cross over the continent to the shores of the Pacific, and you are in British Columbia, the land of golden promise,—equal in extent to the Austrian Empire. I speak not now of the vast Indian Territories that lie between— greater in extent than the whole soil of Russia —and that will ere long, I trust, be opened up to civilization under the auspices of the British American Confederation. (Cheers.) Well, sir, the bold scheme in your hands is nothing less than to gather all these countries into one —to organize them all under one government, with the protection of the British flag, and in heartiest sympathy and affection with our fellow-subjects in the land that gave us birth. (Cheers.) Our scheme is to establish a government that will seek to turn the tide of European emigration into this northern half of the American continent—that will strive to develope its great natural resources—and that will endeavor to maintain liberty, and justice, and Christianity throughout the land.


HON. MR. CARTIER—Very soon!

HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. member for North Hastings asks when all this can be done ? Sir, the whole great ends of this Confederation may not be realized in the lifetime of many who now hear me. We imagine not that such a structure can be built in a month or in a year. What we propose now is but to lay the foundations of the structure—to set in motion the governmental machinery that will one day, we trust, extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And we take especial credit to ourselves that the system we have devised, while admirably adapted to our present situation, is capable of gradual and efficient expansion in future years to meet all the great purposes contemplated by our scheme. But if the honorable gentleman will only recall to mind that when the United States seceded from the Mother Country, and for many years afterwards their population was not nearly equal to ours at this moment; that their internal improvements did not then approach to what we have already attained ; and that their trade and commerce was not then a third of what ours has already reached ; I think he will see that the fulfilment of our hopes may not be so very remote as at first sight might be imagined —(hear, hear.) And he will be strengthened in that conviction if he remembers that what we propose to do is to be done with the cordial sympathy and assistance of that great Power of which it is our happiness to form a part. (Hear, hear.) Such, Mr. SPEAKER, are the objects of attainment to which the British American Conference pledged itself in October. And said I not rightly that such a scheme is well fitted to fire the ambition and rouse the energies of every member of this House? Does it not lift us above the petty politics of the past, and present to us high purposes and great interests that may well call forth all the intellectual ability and all the energy and enterprise to be found among us ? (Cheers.) I readily admit all the gravity of the question —and that it ought to be considered cautiously and thoroughly before adoption. Far be it from me to deprecate the closest criticism, or to doubt for a moment the sincerity or patriotism of those who feel it their duty to oppose the measure. But in considering a question on which hangs the future destiny of half a continent, ought not the spirit of mere faultfinding to be hushed ?—ought not the voice of partisanship to be banished from our debates ? —ought we not to sit down and discuss the arguments presented in the earnest and candid spirit of men, bound by the same interests, seeking a common end, and loving the same country? (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Some honorable gentlemen seem to imagine that the members of Government have a deeper interest in this scheme than others—but what possible interest can any of us have except that which we share with every citizen of the land ? What risk does any one run from this measure in which all of us do not fully participate ? What possible inducement could we have to urge this scheme, except our earnest and heartfelt conviction that it will inure to the solid and lasting advantage of our country ? (Hear, hear.) There is one consideration, Mr. SPEAKER, that cannot be banished from this discussion, and that ought, I think, to be remembered

[Page 87]

in every word we utter ; it is that the constitutional system of Canada cannot remain as it is now. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) Something must be done. We cannot stand still. We eannot go back to chronic, sectional hostility and discord—to a state of perpetual Ministerial crises. The events of the last eight months eannot be obliterated ; the solemn admissions of men of all parties can never be erased. The claims of Upper Canada for justice must be met, and met now. I say, then, that every one who raises his voice in hostility to this measure is bound to keep before him, when he speaks, all the perilous consequences of its rejection,— I say that no man who has a true regard for the well-being of Canada, can give a vote against this scheme, unless he is prepared to offer, in amendment, some better remedy for the evils and injustice that have so long threatened the peace of our country. (Hear, hear.) And not only must the scheme proposed in amendment be a better scheme—it must be something that can be carried. (Hear, hear.) I see an honorable friend now before me, for whose opinions I have the very highest respect, who says to me : ” Mr. BROWN, you should not have settled this part of the plan as you have done ; here is the way you should have framed it.” ” Well, my dear sir,” is my reply, ” I perfectly agree with you, but it could not be done. Whether we ask for parliamentary reform for Canada alone or in union with the Maritime Provinces, the French Canadians must have their views consulted as well as us. This scheme can be carried, and no scheme ean be that has not the support of both sections of the province.”

HON. MR. CARTIER—Hear, hear ! there is the question !

HON. MR. BROWN—Yes, that is the question and the whole question. No constitution ever framed was without defect; no act of human wisdom was ever free from imperfection ; no amount of talent and wisdom and integrity combined in preparing such a scheme could have placed it beyond the reach of critieism. And the framers of this scheme had immense special difficulties to overcome. We had the prejudices of race and language and religion to deal with ; and we had to encounter all the rivalries of trade and commerce, and all the jealousies of diversified local interests. To assert, then, that our scheme is without fault, would be folly. It was necessarily the work of concession ; not one of the thirty-three framers but had, on some points, to yield his opinions ; and, for myself, I freely admit that I struggled earnestly, for days together, to have portions of the scheme amended. But, Mr. SPEAKER, admitting all this—admitting all the difficulties that beset us—admitting frankly that defects in the measure exist—I say that, taking the scheme as a whole, it has my cordial, enthusiastic support, without hesitation or reservation. (Hear, hear.) I believe it will accomplish all, and more than all, that we, who have so long fought the battle of parliamentary reform, ever hoped to see accomplished. I believe that, while granting security for local interests, it will give free scope for carrying out the will of the whole people in general matters—that it will draw closer the bonds that unite us to Great Britain—and that it will lay the foundations deep and strong of a powerful and prosperous people. (Cheers.) And if the House will allow me to trespass to a somewhat unusual degree on its indulgence, I am satisfied that I can clearly establish that such are the results fairly to be anticipated from the measure. Mr. SPEAKER, there are two views in which this scheme may be regarded, namely, the existing evils it will remedy, and the new advantages it will secure for us as a people. Let us begin by examining its remedial provisions. First, then, it applies a complete and satisfactory remedy to the injustice of the existing system of parliamentary representation. (Hear, hear.) The people of Upper Canada have bitterly complained that though they numbered four hundred thousand souls more than the population of Lower Canada, and though they have contributed three or four pounds to the general revenue for every pound contributed by the sister province, yet the Lower Canadians send to Parliament as many representatives as they do. Now, sir, the measure in your hands brings this injustice to an end ;—it sweeps away the line of demarcation between the two sections on all matters common to the whole province ; it gives representation according to numbers wherever found in the House of Assembly ; and it provides a simple and convenient system for re-adjusting the representation after each decennial census. (Cheers.) To this proposed constitution of the Lower Chamber, I have heard only two objections. It has been alleged that until after the census of 1871, the number of members is to remain as at present; but this is a mistake. Upper Canada is to receive from the start eighty-two representatives, and Lower Canada sixty-five ; and whatever increase the census of 1871 may establish will be then adjusted. It has also been objected that though the resolutions provide that the existing Parliament

[Page 88]

of Canada shall establish the electoral divisions for the first organization of the Federal Parliament, they do not determina in whose hands the duty of distributing any additional members is to be vested. No doubt on this head need exist ; the Federal Parliament will of course have full power to regulate all arrangements for the election of its own members. But I am told by Upper Canadians—the constitution of the Lower House is all well enough, it is in the Upper House arrangements that the scheme is objectionable. And first, it is said that Upper Canada should have had in the Legislative Council a greater number of members than Lower Canada.—

MR. T. C. WALLBRIDGE—Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BROWN—The honorable member for North Hastings is of that opinion ; but that honorable gentleman is in favor of a legislative union, and had we been forming a legislative union, there might have been ¡some force in the demand. But the very essence of our compact is that the union shall be federal and not legislative. Our Lower Canada friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they shall have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step ; and, for my part, I am quite willing they should have it. In maintaining the existing sectional boundaries and handing over the control of local matters to local bodies, we recognize, to a certain extent, a diversity of interests ; and it was quite natural that the protection for those interests, by equality in the Upper Chamber, should be demanded by the less numerous provinces. Honorable gentlemen may say that it will erect a barrier in the Upper House against the just influence that Upper Canada will exercise, by her numbers, in the Lower House, over the general legislation of the country. That may be true, to a certain extent, but honorable gentlemen will bear in mind that that barrier, be it more or less, will not affect money bills. (Hear, hear.) Hitherto we have been paying a vast proportion of the tixes, with little or no control over the expsnditure. But, under this plan, by our just influence in the Lower Chamber, we shall hold the purse strings. If, from this concession of equality in the Upper Chamber, we are restrained from forcing through measures which our friends of Lower Canada may consider injurious to their interests, we shall, at any rate, have power, which we never had before, to prevent them from forcing through whatever we may deem unjust to us. I think the compromise a fair one, and am persuaded that it will work easily and satisfactorily. (Hear, hear.) But it has been said that the members of the Upper House ought not to be appointed by the Crown, but should continue to be elected by the people at large. On that question my views have been often expressed. I have always been opposed to a second elective chamber, and I am so still, from the conviction that two elective houses are inconsistent with the right working of the British parliamentary system. I voted, almost alone, against the change when the Council was made elective, but I have lived to see a vast majority of those who did the deed wish it had not been done. I t is quite true, and I am glad to acknowledge it, that many evils anticipated from the change, when the measure was adopted, have not been realieed. (Hear, hear.) I readily admit that men of the highest character and position have been brought into the Council by the elective system, but it is equally true that the system of appointmentbrought into it men of the highest character and position. Whether appointed by the Crown or elected by the people, since the introduction of parliamentary government,the men who have composed the Upper House of this Legislature have been men who would have done honor to any legislature in the world. But what we most feared was, that the Legislative Councillors would be elected under party responsibilities ; that a partisan spirit would soon show itself in the chamber; and that the right would soon be asserted to an equal control with this House over money bills. That fear has not been realised to any dangerous extent. But is it not possible that such a claim might ere long be asserted ? Do we not hear, even now, mutterings of a coming demand for it ? Nor can we forget that the elected members came into that chamber gradually ; that the large number of old appointed members exercised much influence in maintaining the old forms of the House, the old style of debate, and the old barriers against encroachment on the privileges of the commons. But the appointed members of the Council are gradually passing away, and when the elective element becomes supreme, who will venture to afiirm that the Council would not claim that power over money bills which this House claims as of right belonging to itself ? Could they not justly gay that they represent the people as well as we do, and that the control of the purse strings ought, therefore, to belong to them as much as to us. (Hear, hear.) It is said they have not

[Page 89]

the power. But what is to prevent them from enforcing it? Suppose we had a conservative majority here, and a reform majority above— or a conservative majority above and a reform majority here—all elected under party obligations,—- what is to prevent a dead-lock between the chambers ? It may be called unconstitutional—- but what is to prevent the Councillors (especially if they feel that in the dispute of the hour they have the country at their back) from practically exercising all the powers that belong to us ? They might amend our money bills, they might throw out all our bills if they liked, and bring to a stop the whole machinery of government. And what could we do to prevent them ? But, even supposing this were not the case, and that the elective Upper House continued to be guided by that discretion which has heretofore actuated its proceedings,—still, I think, we must all feel that the election of members for such enormous districts as form the constituencies of the Upper House has become a great practical inconvenience. I say this from personal experience, having long taken an active interest in the electoral contests in Upper Canada. We have found greater difficulty in inducing candidates to offer for seats in the Upper House, than in getting ten times the number for the Lower House. The constituencies are so vast, that it is difficult to find gentlemen who have the will to incur the labor of such a contest, who are sufficiently known and popular enough throughout districts so wide, and who have money enough — (hear) — to pay the enormous bills, not incurred in any corrupt way,—do not fancy that I mean that for a moment—but the bills that are sent in after the contest is over, and which the candidates are compelled to pay if they ever hope to present themselves for re-election. (Hear, hear.) But honorable gentlemen say—” This is all very well, but you are taking an important power out of the hands of the people, which they now possess.” Now this is a mistake. We do not propose to do anything of the sort. What we propose is, that the Upper House shall be appointed from the best men of the country by those holding the confidence of the representatives of the people in this Chamber. It is proposed that the Government of the day, which only lives by the approval of this Chamber, shall make the appointments, and be responsible to the people for the selections they shall make. (Hear, hear.) Not a single appointment could be made, with regard to which the Grovernment would not be open to censure, and which the representatives of the people, in this House, would not have an opportunity “of condemning. For myself, I have maintained the appointed principle, as in opposition to the elective, ever since I came into public life, and have never hesitated, when before the people, to state my opinions in the broadest manner ; and yet not in a single instance have I ever found a constituency in Upper Canada, or a public meeting declaring its disapproval of appointment by the Crown and its desire for election by the people at large. When the change was made in 1855 there was not a single petition from the people asking for it—-it was in a manner forced on the Legislature. The real reason for the change was, that before Responsible Government was introduced into this country, while the old oligarchical system existed, the Upper House continuously and systematically was at war with the popular branch, and threw out every measure of a liberal tendency. The result was, that in the famous ninety-two resolutiors the introduction of the elective principle into the Upper House was declared to be indispensable. So long as Mr. ROBERT BALDWIN remained in public life, the thing could not be done ; but when he left, the deed was consummated. But it is said, that if the members are to be appointed for life, the number should be unlimited— that, in the event of a dead lock arising between that chamber and this, there should be power to overcome the difficulty by the appointment of more members. Well, under the British system, in the case of a legislative union, that might be a legitimate provision. But honorable gentlemen must see that the limitation of the numbers in the Upper House lies at the base of the whole compact on which this scheme rests. (Hear, hear.) It is perfectly clear, as was contended by those who represented Lower Canada in the Conference, that if the number of the Legislative Councillors was made capable of increase, you would thereby sweep away the whole protection they had from the Upper Chamber. But it has been said that, though you may not give the power to the Executive to increase the numbers of the Upper House, in the event of a dead-lock, you might limit the term for which the members are appointed. I was myself in favor of that proposition. I thought it would be well to provide for a more frequent change in the composition of the Upper House, and lessen the danger of the chamber being largely composed of gentlemen whose advanced years might forbid the punctual and vigorous discharge of their public

[Page 90]

duties. Still, the objection made to this was very strong. It was said : ” Suppose you appoint them for nine years, what will be the effect ? For the last three or four years of their term they would be anticipating its expiry, and anxiously looking to the Administration of the day for re-appointment ; and the consequence would be that a third of the members would be under the influence of the Executive.” The desire was to render the Upper House a thoroughly independent body—one that would be in the best position to canvass dispassionately the measures of this House, and stand up for the public interests in opposition to hasty or partisan legislation. It was contended that there is no fear of a dead-lock. We were reminded how the system of appointing for life had worked in past years, since Responsible Government was introduced ; we were told that the complaint was not then, that the Upper Chamber had been too obstructive a body—not that it had sought to restrain the popular will, but that it had too faithfully reflected the popular will. Undoubtedly that was the complaint formerly pressed upon us—{hear, hear)—and I readily admit that if ever there was a body to whom we could safely entrust the power which by this measure we propose to confer on the members of the Upper Chamber, it is the body of gentlemen who at this moment compose the Legislative Council of Canada. The forty-eight Councillors for Canada are to be chosen from the present chamber. There are now thirty-four members from the one section, and thirty-five from the other. I believe that of the sixty-nine, some will not desire to make their appearance here again, others, unhappily, from years and infirmity, may not have strength to do so ; and there may be others who will not desire to qualify under the Statute. It is quite clear that when twenty-four are selected for Upper Canada and twenty-four for Lower Canada, very few indeed of the present House will be excluded from the Federal Chamber ; and I confess I am not without hope that there may be some way yet found of providing for all who desire it, an honorable position in the Legislature of the country. (Hear, hear.) And, after all, is it not an imaginary fear—that of a dead-lock ? Is it at all probable that any body of gentlemen who may compose the Upper House, appointed as they will be for life, acting as they will do on personal and not party responsibility, possessing as they must, a deep stake in the welfare of the country, and desirous as they must be of holding the esteem of their fellow-subjects— would take so unreasonable a course as to imperil the whole political fabric ? The British House of Peers itself does not venture, à l’outrance, to resist the popular will, and can it be anticipated that our Upper Chamber would set itself rashly against the popular will? If any fear is to be entertained in the matter, is it not rather that the Councillors will be found too thoroughly in harmony with the popular feeling of the day ? And we have this satisfaction at any rate, that, so far as its first formation is concerned—so far as the present question is concerned—we shall have a body of gentlemen in whom every confidence may be placed. (Hear, hear.) But it is objected that in the constitution of the Upper House, so far as Lower Canada is concerned, the existing electoral divisions are to be maintained, while, as regards Upper Canada, they are to be abolished—that the members from Lower Canada are to sit as representing the divisions in which they reside or have their property qualification; while in Upper Canada there is no such arrangement. Undoubtedly this is the fact ; it has been so arranged to suit the peculiar position of this section of the province. Our Lower Canada friends felt that they had French Canadian interests and British interests to be protected, and they conceived that the existing system of electoral divisions would give protection to these separate interests. We, in Upper Canada, on the other hand, were quite content that they should settle that among themselves, and maintain their existing divisions if they chose. But, so far as we in the west were concerned, we had no such separate interests to protect—we had no diversities of origin or language to reconcile—and we felt that the true interest of Upper Canada was that her very best men should be sent to the Legislative Council, wherever they might happen to reside or wherever their property was located. (Hear, hear.) If there is one evil in the American system which in my mind stands out as preeminently its greatest defect, except universal suffrage, it is that under that Constitution the representatives of the people must reside in the constituencies for which they sit. (Hear, hear.) The result is that a public man,—no matter what his talent, or what his position—no matter how necessary it may be for the interest of the country that he should be in public life, unless he happens to belong to the political party popular for the time being in the constituency where he resides, cannot possibly find a seat

[Page 91]

in Congress. And over and over again have wo seen the very best men of the Republic, the most illustrious names recorded in its political annals, driven out of the legislature of their country, simply because the majority in the electoral division in which they lived was of a different political party from them. I do think the British system infinitely better than that, securing as it does that public men may be trained to public life, with the assured conviction that if they prove themselves worthy of public confidence, and gain a position in the country, constituencies will always be found to avail themselves of their services, whatever be the political party to which they may adhere. You may make politicians by the other, but assuredly this is the way that statesmen are produced. But it is further objected that the property qualification of the members of the Upper House from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland may be either real or personal estate, while in the others it is to be real estate alone. This is correct ; but I fancy it matters little to us upon what species of property our friends in Prince Edward Island or in Newfoundland base their qualification. Here in Canada real estate is abundant ; every one can obtain it ; and admittedly by all it is the best qualification, if it be advisable to have any property qualification at all. But in Newfoundland it would be exceedingly inconvenient to enforce such a rule. The public lands there are not even surveyed to any considerable extent; the people are almost entirely engaged in fishing and commercial pursuits, and to require a real estate qualification would be practically to exclude some of its best public men from the Legislative Council. Then in Prince Edward Island a large portion of the island is held in extensive tracts by absentee proprietors and leased to the settlers. A feud of long standing has been the result, and there would be some difficulty in finding landed proprietors who would be acceptable to the people as members of the Upper House. This also must be remembered, that it will be a very different thing for a member from Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island to attend the Legislature at Ottawa from what it is for one of ourselves to go there. He must give up not only his time, but the comfort and convenience of being near home—and it is desirable to throw no unnecessary obstacle in the way of our getting the very best men from these provinces. (Hear.) But it is further objected that these resolutions do not define how the legislative councillors are to be chosen at first. I apprehend, however, there is no doubt whatever as regards that. Clause 14 says : “the first selection of the members to constitute the Federal Legislative Council shall be made from the members of the now existing legislative councils, by the Crown, at the recommendation of the General Executive Government, upon the nomination of the respective local governments.” The clear meaning of this clause simply is, that the present governments of the several provinces are to choose out of the existing bodies—so far as they can find gentlemen willing and qualified to serve—the members who shall at starting compose the Federal Legislative Council; that they are to present the names so selected to the Executive Council of British America when constituted—and on the advice of that body the Councillors will be appointed by th«- Crown. (Hear.) And such has been the spirit shown from first to last in carrying out the compact of July last by all the parties to it, that I for one have no apprehension whatever that full justice will not be done to the party which may be a minority in the Government, but is certainly not in a minority either in the country or in this House. I speak not only of Upper Canada but of Lower Canada as well—


HON. MR. BROWN—My honorable friend laughs, but I assure him, and he will not say I do so for the purpose of deceiving him, that having been present in Conference and in Council, having heard all the discussions and well ascertained the feelings of all associated with me, I have not a shadow of a doubt on my mind that full justice will be done in the selection of the first Federal Councillors, not only to those who may have been in the habit of acting with me, but also to those who have acted with my honorable friend the member for Hochelaga. (Hear, hear.) Now, Mr. SPEAKER, I believe I have answered every objection that has come from any quarter against the proposed constitution of the Federal Legislature. I am persuaded there is not one well-founded objection that can ba urged against it. I t is just to all parties ; it remedies the gross injustice of the existing system ; and I am convinced it will not only work easily and safely, but be entirely satisfactory to the great mass of our people. But I go further ; I say that were all the objections urged against this scheme sound and cogent, they sink into utter insignificance in view of all the miseries this scheme will relieve us from,—in view of all the difficulties

[Page 92]

that must surround any measure of parliamentary reform for Canada that could possibly be devised. (Cheers.) Will honorable gentlemen who spend their energies in hunting out blemishes in this scheme, remember for a moment the utter injustice of the one we have at present ? Public opinion has made rapid strides in tho last six months on the representation question,—but think what it was a week before the present coalition was formed ! Remember how short a time has elapsed since the member for Peel (Hon. Mr. J. HILLYARD CAMERON) proposed to grant one additional member to Upper Canada, and could not carry even that. Remember that but a few weeks ago the hon. member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION), who now leads the crusade against this measure, publicly declared that five or six additional members was all Upper Canada was entitled to, and that with these the Upper Canadians would be content for manj years to come. (Hear, hear. ) And when he has reflected on all this, let the man who is disposed to carp at this great measure of representative reform, justify his conduct, if he can, to the thousands of disfranchised freeholders of Upper Canada demanding justice at our hands. (Cheers.) For myself, sir, I unhesitatingly say, that the complete justice which this measure secures, to the people of Upper Canada in the vital matter of parliamentary representation alone, renders all the blemishes averred against it utterly contemptible in the balance.— (Continued cheers.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, the second feature of this scheme as a remedial measure is, that it removes, to a large extent, the injustice of which Upper Canada has complained in financial matters. We in Upper Canada have complained that though we paid into the public treasury more than threefourths of the whole revenue, we had less control over the system of taxation and the expenditure of the public moneys than the people of Lower Canada. Well, sir, the scheme in your hand remedies that. The absurd line of separation between the provinces is swept away for general matters ; we are to have seventeen additional members in the house that holds the purse ; and the taxpayers of the country, wherever they reside, will have their just share of influence over revenue and expenditure. (Hear, hear.) We have also complained that immense sums of public money have been systematically taken from the public chest for local purposes of Lower Canada, in which the people of Upper Canada had no interest whatever, though compelled to contribute three-fourths of the cash. Well, sir, this scheme remedies that. All local matters are to be banished from the General Legislature ; local governments are to have control over local affairs, and if our friends in Lower Canada choose to be extravagant, they will have to bear the burden of it themselves. (Hear, hear.) No longer shall we have to complain that one section pays the cash while the other spends it ; hereafter, they who pay will spend, and they who spend more than they ought will have to bear the brunt. (Hear, hear.) I t was a great thing to accomplish this, if we had accomplished nothing more, —for if we look back on our doings of the last fifteen years, I think it will be acknowledged that the greatest jobs perpetrated were of a local character—that our fiercest contests were about local matters that stirred up sectional jealousies and indignation to its deepest depth. (Hear, hear.) We have further complained that if a sum was properly demanded for some legitimate local purpose in one section, an equivalent sum had to be appropriated to the other as an offset,—thereby entailing prodigal expenditure, and unnecessarily increasing the public debt. Well, sir, this scheme puts an end to that. Each province is to determine for itself its own wants, and to find the money to meet them from its own resources. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, I am told that though true it is that local matters are to be separated and the burden of local expenditure placed upon local shoulders, we have made an exception from that principle in providing that a subsidy of eighty cents per head shall be taken from the federal chest and granted to the local governments for local purposes. Undoubtedly this is the fact—and I do not hesitate to admit that it would have been better if this ha’1 been otherwise. I trust I commit no breach of discretion in stating that in Conference I was one of the strongest advocates for defraying the whole of the local expenditures of the local governments by means of direct taxation, and that there were liberal men in all sections of the provinces who would gladly have had it so arranged. But, Mr. SPEAKER, there was one difficulty in the way—a difficulty which has often before been encountered in this world—and that difficulty was simply this, it could not be done. (Hear, and laughter.) We could neither have carried it in Conference nor yet in any one of the existing provincial legislatures. Our friends in Lower Canada, I am afraid, have a constitutional disinclination to direct taxation, and it was obvious that if the Confederation scheme had had attached to it a provision for the imposition of such a

[Page 93]

system of taxation, my honorable friends opposite would have had a much better chance of suceess in blowing the bellows of agitation than they now have. (Laughter, and cheers.) The objection, moreover, was not confined to Lower Canada—all the Lower Provinces stood in exactly the same position. They have not a municipal system such as we have, discharging many of the functions of government; but their General Government performs all the duties which in Upper Canada devolve upon our municipal councils, as well as upon Parliament. If then the Lower Provinces had been asked to maintain their customs duties for federal purposes, and to impose on themselves by the same act direct taxation for all their local purposes, the chances of carrying the scheme of union would have been greatly lessened. (Hear, hear.) But I apprehend that if we did not succeed in putting this matter on the footing that would have been the best, at least we did the next best thing. Two courses were open to us—either to surrender to the local governments some source of indirect revenue, some tax which the General Government proposed to retain,—or collect the money by the federal machinery, and distribute it to the local governments for local purposes. And we decided in favor of the latter. We asked the representatives of the different, governments to estimate how much they would require after the inauguration of the federal system to carry on their local machinery. As at first presented to us, the annual sum required for all the provinces was something like five millions of dollars—an amount that could not possibly have been allotted. The great trouble was that some of the governments are vastly more expensive than others—extensive countries, with sparse populations, necessarily requiring more money per head for local government than countries more densely populated. But as any grant given from the common chest, for local purposes, to one province, must be extended to all, on the basis of population, it follows that for every f 1,000 given, for example, to New Brunswick, we must give over $1,300 to Nova Scotia, $4,000 to Lower Canada, and $6,000 to Upper Canada—thereby drawing from the federal exchequer much larger sums than these provinces needed for local purposes. The course we adopted then was this: We formed a committee of Finance Ministers and made each of them go over his list of expenditures, lopping off all unnecessary services and cutting down every item to the lowest possible figure. By this means we succeeded in reducing the total annual subsidy required for local government to the sum of $2,030,000— of which Lower Canada will receive annually $880,000, and Upper Canada$l,120,000. But it is said that in addition to her eighty cents per head under this arrangement, New Brunswick is to receive an extra grant from the federal chest of $63,000 annually for ten years. Well, this is perfectly true. After cutting down as I have explained the local expenditures to the lowest mark, it was found that New Brunswick and Newfoundland could not possibly carry on their local governments with the sum per head that would suffice for all the rest. New Brunswick imperatively required $63,000 per annum beyond her share, and we had either to find that sum for her or give up the hope of union. The question then arose, would it not be better to give New Brunswick a special grant of $63,000 for a limited number of years, so that her local revenues might have time to be developed, rather than increase the subsidy to all the local governments, thereby placing an additional burden on the federal exchequer of over eight hundred thousand dollars per annum ? We came unanimously to the conclusion that the extra sum needed by New Brunswick was too small to be allowed to stand in the way of union—we also determined that it would be the height of absurdity to impose a permanent burden on the country of $800,000 a year, simply to escape a payment of $63,000 for ten years—and so it came about that New Brunswick got this extra grant—an arrangement which received and receives now my hearty approval. (Hear, hear.) It is only right to say, however, that New Brunswick may possibly be in a position to do without this money. The House is aware that the Federal Government is to assume the debts of the several provinces, each province being entitled to throw upon it a debt of $25 per head of its population. Should the debt of any province exceed $25 per head, it is to pay interest on the excess to the federal treasury ; but should it fall below $25 per head, it is to receive interest from the federal treasury on the difference between ita actual debt and the debt to which it is entitled. Now, it so happens that the existing debt of New Brunswick is much less than it is entitled to throw on the Federal Government. It is, however, under liability for certain works, which if proceeded with would bring its debt up to the mark of $25 a head. But if these works are not proceeded with New Brunswick will be entitled to a large

[Page 94]

amount of annual interest from the federal chest, and that money is to be applied to the reduction of the sixty-three thousand extra grant. (Hear, hear.) And this, moreover, is not to be forgotten as regards New Brunswick, that she brings into the union extensive railways now in profitable operation, the revenues from which are to go into the federal chest. (Hear.) A similar arrangement was found necessary as regards the Island of Newfoundland—it, too, being a vast country with a sparse population. I t was found absolutely essential that an additional grant beyond eighty cents per head should be made to enable her Local Government to be properly carried on. But, in consideration of this extra allowance, Newfoundland is to cede to the Federal Government her Crown lands and minerals—and assuredly, if the reports of geologists are well founded, this arrangement will be as advantageous to us as it will be to the inhabitants of Newfoundland. I am persuaded then, Mr. SPEAKER, that the House will feel with me that we in Canada have very little to complain of in regard to the subsidies for local government. But if a doubt yet remains on the mind of any honorable member, let him examine the Trade Returns of the several provinces, and he will see that, from the large quantity of dutiable goods consumed in the Maritime Provinces, they have received no undue advantage under the arrangement. Let this too ever be kept in mind that the $2,630,000 to be distributed to the local governments from the federal chest is to be in full and final extinguishment of all claims hereafter for local purposes ; and that if this from any cause does not suffice, the local governments must supply all deficiencies from direct tax on their own localities. (Hear, hear.) And let honorable members from Upper Canada who carp at this annual subsidy, remember for a moment what we pay now, and they will cease their grumbling. Of all the money raised by the General Government for local purposes in Canada, the tax-payers of Upper Canada now pay more than three-fourths ; but far from getting back in proportion to what they contribute, or even in proportion to their population, they do not get one-half of the money spent for local purposes. But how different will it be under Federation ! Nine hundred thousand people will come into the union, who will contribute to the revenue quite as much, man for man, as the Upper Canadians, and in the distribution of the local subsidy we will receive our share on the basis of population. A very different arrangement from that we now endure. (Hear, hear.) I confess to you, sir, that one of the strongest arguments in my mind for Confederation is the economical ideas of the people of these Maritime Provinces, and the conviction that the influence of their public men in our legislative halls will be most salutary in all financial matters. A more economical people it would be difficult to find ; their prime ministers and their chief justices get but £600 a year, Halifax currency, and the rest of their civil list is in much the same proportion. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, there is another great evil in our existing system that this scheme remedies ; it secures to the people of each province full control over the administration of their own internal affairs. We in Upper Canada have complained that the minority of our representatives, the party defeated at the polls of Upper Canada, have been, year after year, kept in office by Lower Canada votes, and that all the local patronage of our section has been dispensed by those who did not possess the confidence of the people. Well, sir, this scheme remedies that. The local patronage will be under local control, and the wishes of the majority in each section will be carried out in all local matters. (Hear, hear.) We have complained that the land system was not according to the views of our western people ; that free lands for actual settlers was the right policy for us —that the price of a piece of land squeezed out of an immigrant was no consideration in comparison with the settlement among us of a hardy and industrious family ; and that the colonization road system was far from satisfactory. Well, sir, this scheme remedies that. Each province is to have control of its own crown lands, crown timber and crown minerals,—and will be free to take such steps for developing them as each deems best.— (Hear, hear.) We have complained that local works of various kinds—roads, bridges and landing piers, court houses, gaols and other structures—have been erected in an inequitable and improvident manner. Well, sir, this scheme remedies that, all local works are to be constructed by the localities and defrayed from local funds. And so on through the whole extensive details of internal local administration will this reform extend. The people of Upper Canada will have the entire control of their local matters, and will no longer have to betake themselves to Quebec for leave to open a road, to select a county town, or appoint a coroner. But I am told that to this general principle of placing all local matters under

[Page 95]

local control, an exception has been made in regard to the common schools. (Hear, hear. ) The clause complained of is as follows:—

6. Education; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their Denominational Schools at the time when the Union goes into operation.

Now, I need hardly remind the House that I have always opposed and continue to oppose the system of sectarian education, so far as the public chest is concerned. I have never had any hesitation on that point. I have never been able to see why all the people of the province, to whatever sect they may belong, should not send their children to the same common schools to receive the ordinary branches of instruction. I regard the parent and the pastor as the best religious instructors— and so long as the religious faith of the children is uninterfered with, and ample optunity afforded to the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their flocks, I cannot conceive any sound objection to mixed schools. But while in the Conference and elsewhere I have always maintained this view, and always given my vote against sectarian public schools, I am bound to admit, as I have always admitted, that the sectarian system, carried to the limited extent it has yet been in Upper Canada, and confined as it chiefly is to cities and towns, has not been a very great practical injury. The real cause of alarm was that the admission of the sectarian principle was there, and that at any moment it might be extended to such a degree as to split up our school system altogether. There are but a hundred separate schools in Upper Canada, out of some four thousand,” and all Roman Catholic. But if the Roman Catholics are entitled to separate schools and to go on extending their operations, so are the members of the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and all other sects. No candid Roman Catholic will deny this for a moment ; and there lay the great danger to our educational fabric, that the separate system might gradually extend itself until the whole country was studded with nurseries of sectarianism, most hurtful to the best interests of the province, and entailing an enormous expense to sustain the hosts of teachers that so prodigal a system of public instruction must inevitably entail. Now it is known to every honorable member of this House that an Aet was passed in 1863, as a final settlement of this sectarian controversy. I was not in Quebec at the time, but if I had been here I would have voted agains that bill, because it extended the facilities for establishing separate schools. I t had, however, this good feature, that it was accepted by the Roman Catholic authorities, and carried through Parliament as a final compromise of the question in Upper Canada. When, therefore, it was proposed that a provision should be inserted in the Confederation scheme to bind that compact of 1863 and declare it a final settlement, so that we should not be compelled, as we have been since 1849, to stand constantly to our arms, awaiting fresh attacks upon our common school system, the proposition seemed to me one that was not rashly to be rejected. (Hear, hear.) I admit that, from my point of view, this is a blot on the scheme before the House, it is, confessedly, one of the concessions from our side that had to be made to secure this great mi asure of reform. But assuredly, I, for one, have not the slightest hesitation in accepting it as a necessary condition of the scheme of union, and doubly acceptable must it be in the eyes of honorable gentlemen opposite, who were the authors of the bill of 1863. (Cheers.) But it was urged that though this arrangement might perhaps be fair as regards Upper Canada, it was not so as regards Lower Canada, for there were matters of which the British population have long complained, and some amendments to the existing School Act were required to secure them equal justice. Well, when this point was raised, gentlemen of all parties in Lower Canada at once expressed themselves prepared to treat it in a frank and conciliatory manner, with a view to removing any injustice that might be shown to exist ; and on this understanding the educational clause was adopted by the Conference.

MR. T.C. WALLBRIDGE —That destroys the power of the local legislatures to legislate upon the subject.

HON. MR. BROWN—I would like to know how much “power” the honorable gentleman has now to legislate upon it ? Let him introduce a bill to-day to annul the compact of 1863 and repeal all the sectarian school acts of Upper Canada, and how many votes would he get for it ? Would twenty members vote for it out of the one hundred and thirty who compose this House ? If the honorable gentleman had been struggling for fifteen years, as I have been, to save the school system of Upper Canada from further extension of the sectarian element, he would have found precious little diminution of power over it in this very mod erate compromise. And what says the hon

[Page 96]

orable gentleman to leaving the British population of Lower Canada in the unrestricted power of the Local Legislature ? The Common Schools of Lower Canada are not as in Upper Canada—they are almost entirely non-sectarian Roman Catholic Schools. Does the honorable gentleman, then, desire to compel the Protestants of Lower Canada to avail themselves of Roman Catholic institutions, or leave their children without instruction? (Hear hear, and cheers.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I am further in favor of this scheme because it will bring to an end the sectional discord between Upper and Lower Canada. It sweeps away the boundary line between the provinces so far as regards matters common to the whole people—-it places all on an equal level—and the members of the Federal Legislature will meet at last as citizens of a common country. The questions that used to excite the most hostile feelings among us have been taken away from the General Legislature, and placed under the control of the local bodies. No man need hereafter be debarred from success in public life because his views, however popular in his own section, are unpopular in the other,—for he will not have to deal with sectional questions ; and the temptation to the Government of the day to make capital out of local prejudices will be greatly lessened, if not altogether at an end. What has rendered prominent public men in one section utterly unpopular in the other in past years? Has it been our views on trade and commerce—immigration —land settlement—the canal system—the tariff,—or any other of the great questions of national interest ? No, sir, it was from our views as to the applying of public money to local purposes—the allotment of publie lands to local purposes,—the building of local roads, bridges, and landing-piers with public funds—the chartering of ecclesiastical institutions— the granting of public money for sectarian purposes—the interference with our school system—and similar matters, that the hot feuds between Upper and Lower Canada have chiefly arisen, and caused our public men, the more faithful they wero to the opinions and wishes of one section, to be the more unpopular in the other. A most happy day will it be for Canada when this bill goes into effect, and all these subjects of discord are swept from the discussion of our Legislature. (Hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I am further in favor of this scheme as a remedial measure, because it brings to an end the doubt that has so long hung over our position, and gives a stability to our future in the eyes of the world that could not otherwise hare been attended. (Repeated marks of approval, but ironical cheers from Hon. Mr. HOLTON.) The hon. member for Chateauguay cries “hear, hear ” in a very credulous tone ; but the hon. member should be one of the very last to express doubt» on this point. Has he not, for many years, admitted the absolute necessity of constitutional changes, ere peace and prosperity could be established in our land ? Has he not taken part in the contests to obtain those changes ? Has he not experienced the harsh and hostile feelings that have pervaded this House and the whole country ? And did he not sign the report of my committee last session, declaring a Federal union to be the true solution of our troubles, political and constitutional ? And does the honorable member think these matters were not well known in the United States, and that the hope of our annexation to the republic was not kept alive by them from year to year ? Does he fancy that our discords and discontent were not well known in Great Britain, and that the capitalist and the emigrant were not influenced by our distractions ? Does he fancy that people abroad, as well as at home, did not perfectly understand that Upper Canada would not much longer submit to the injustice from which she suffered—and that until the future relations of the two sections were adjusted, no one could predict safely what our future position might be ? But when the measure before us has been adopted —when justice has been done to both sections— when all are placed on an equal footing—when the sectional matters that rent us have been handed over to sectional control—when sectional expenditure shall be placed on sectional shoulders—will not a sense of security and stability be inspired, which we never before enjoyed and never could have enjoyed under existing circumstances ? (Cheers.) Viewed then, Mr. SPEAKER, from a merely Canadian stand-point—viewed solely as a remedial measure— I fearlessly assert that the scheme in your hands is a just and satisfactory remedy for the evils and injustice that have so long distracted the province—(cheers)—and so strongly do I feel this, that were every word of objection urged against our union with the Maritime Provinces just and true to the very letter, I would not hesitate to adopt the union as the price of a measure of constitutional reform in Canada, so just and so complete as now proposed. (Cheers.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, so far from the objections urged against union with the Maritime Provinces being sound, so far from union with them being a drawback to this

[Page 97]

measure, I regard it as the crowning advantage of the whole scheme. (Continued cheering.) Sir, I make no pretension to having been in past years an advocate of the immediate union of the British American Colonies. I always felt and always said that no statesman could doubt that such was the best and almost the certain future destiny of these colonies ; but I doubted greatly whether the right time for the movement had yet arrived. I knew little of the Maritime Provinces or the feelings of their people ; the negotiations for a union were likely to be difficult and long protracted, and I was unwilling to accept the hope of a measure so remote and so uncertain in lieu of the practical remedy for practical evils in Canada which we were earnestly seeking to obtain, and which our own Legislature had the power immediately to grant. But of late, sir, all this has been changed. The circumstances are entirely altered. A revolution has occurred in Great Britain on the subject of colonial relations to the parent state—the Government of the United States has become a great warlike power—our commercial relations with the republic are seriously threatened —and every man in British America has now placed before him for solution the practical question, what shall be done in view of the changed relations on which we are about to enter ? Shall we continue to struggle along as isolated communities, or shall we unite cordially together to extend our commerce, to develope the resources of our country and to defend our soil ? But more than this—many of us have learned, since we last met here, far more of the Maritime Provinces than we ever did before. We have visited the Maritime Provinces—we have seen the country—we have met the people and marked their intelligence and their industry and their frugality— we have investigated their public affairs and found them satisfactory—we have discussed terms of union with their statesmen and found that no insuperable obstacle to union exists, and no necessity for long delay. We come to the consideration of the question to-day in a totally different position from what we ever did before—and if the House will grant me its indulgence, I think I can present unanswerable arguments to show that this union of all British America should be heartily and promptly accepted by all the provinces. (Cheers.) Mr. SPEAKER, I am in favor of a union of the British American Colonies, first, because it will raise us from the attitude of a number of inconsiderable colonies into a great and powerful people. (Cheers.) The united population of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, is at this moment very close on four millions of souls. Now, there are in Europe forty-eight Sovereign States, and out of that number there are only eleven having a greater population than these colonies united—(hear, hear)—while three of the eleven are so little ahead of us, that before the nest census is taken, in 1871, we shall stand equal in population to the ninth Sovereign State of Europe. (Hear.) Then, sir, the public revenues of the united provinces for 1864 were $13,260,- 000, and their expenditures summed up to $12,- 507,000. And, large as these sums may appear, it is satisfactory to know that the taxation of British America—were there no reduction from present burdens, which I am sure there will be—will be one-third less per head than the taxation of England or France. There are only five or six countries in Europe in which the taxation is less than ours will be—and these, moreover, are either petty principalities or states which do not enjoy a very high degree of civilization. (Hear.) Then, sir, as regards the Importe and Exports of the united provinces, they summed up in 1863, to the following dimensions :—

Imports $70,600,963
Exports 66,846,604
Total trade $137,447,567

Now, sir, I should like honorable gentlemen to notice this fact, that in 1793—long after the United States had achieved their independence and established a settled Government— their exports and imports did not amount to one-third what ours do at this moment. (Cheers. ) There are few states in Europe, and those with a vastly greater population than ours, that can boast of anything like the extent of foreign commerce that now passes through our hands. (Hear.) Then, sir, as to our agricultural resources, I find that 45,638,854 acres have passed from the governments of these colonies into private hands, of which only 13,128,229 are yet tilled, and 32,510,625 acres have still to be brought into cultivation. The whole of these forty-five millions are picked lands—most of them selected by the early settlers in this country ; and it our annual agricultural products are so great now, what will they be when the thirty-two millions yet to pass under the plough have been brought into cultivation ?—and what will they not be when the vast tracts still held by Government are peopled with hardy settlers ?

[Page 98]

(Hear) According to the census of 1861, the value of the agricultural productions of the previous year in the united provinces of British America was $120,000,000 ; and if we add to that the garden products , and the improvements made on new lands by the agricultural laborers of the provinces, it will be found that the actual product of the industry of our farmers in that year was $150,000,000. (Hear, hear.) The assessed value of our farms—which is always greatly less than the real value—was $550,- 000,000 in the year 1861. (Hear.) Then, sir, in regard to the minerals of the united provinces—what vast fields of profitable industry will we have in the great coal beds of Nova Scotia—in the iron deposits found all over the provinces—in the exhaustless copper regions of Lakes Huron and Superior and the Eastern Townships of Lower Canada—and in the gold mines of the Chaudière and Nova Scotia. And if the mind stretches from the western bounds of civilization through those great north-western regions, which we hope ere long will be ours, to the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, what vast sources of wealth to the fur trader, the miner, the gold hunter and the agriculturist, lie there ready to be developed. (Hear, hear.) Nor can another source of wealth be altogether forgotten. The President of the United States is said recently to have declared that the produce of the petroleum wells of the United States will in half a dozen years pay off the whole national debt of the republic. Well, sir, we too have ” struck oil,” and every day brings us intelligence of fresh discoveries— (hear, hear, and laughter)—and if the enormous debt of our neighbors may possibly be met by the oily stream, may we not hope that some material addition to our annual industrial revenue may flow from our petroleum regions? (Hear, hear.) Another vast branch of British American industry is the timber and lumber trade. In the year 1862, our saw-mills turned out not less than 772,000,- 000 feet of manufactured lumber.and our whole timber exports summed up to the value of fifteen millions of dollars. (Hear, hear.) The manufacturing interests of the provinces, too, are fast rising into importance ; agricultural implement works, woollen factories and cotton mills, tanneries and shoe factories, iron works and rolling mills, flax works and paper mills, and mauy other extensive and profitable mechanical establishments are springing up among us, and rapidly extending their operations. (Hear, hear.) And to add to all, we have already 2,500 miles of railway, 4,000 miles of electric telegraph, and the noblest canal system in the world, but which, I hope, will soon be infinitely improved. (Cheers.) These, Mr. SPEAKER, are some examples of the industrial spectacle British America will present after the union has been accomplished ; and I ask any member of this House to say whether we will not, when thus united, occupy a position in the eyes of the world, and command a degree of respect and influence that we never can enjoy as separate provinces ? (Hear, hear.) Must it not affect the decision of many an intending emigrant, when he is told not of the fishing and mining pursuits of Nova Scotia, or of the ship-building of New Brunswick, or of the timber trade of Lower Canada, or of the agriculture of Upper Canada, but when he is shown all these in one view, as the collective industrial pursuits of British America? (Hear, hear.) I am persuaded that this union will inspire new confidence in our stability, and exercise the most beneficial influence on all our affairs. I believe it will raise the value of our public securities, that it will draw capital to our shores, and secure the prosecution of all legitimate enterprises ; and what I saw, while in England, a few weeks ago, would alone have convinced me of this. Wherever you went you encountered the most marked evidence of the gratification with which the Confederation scheme was received by all classes of the people, and the deep interest taken in its success. Let me state one fact in illustration. For some time previous to November last our securities had gone very low down in the market, in consequence, as my honorable friend the Finance Minister explained the other night, of the war raging on our borders, the uncertainty which hung over the future of this province, and the fear that we might be involved in trouble with our neighbors. Our five per cent, debentures went down in the market so low as 71, but they recovered from 71 to 75, I think, upon the day the resolutions for Confederation, which we are now discussing, reached London. Well, sir, the resolutions were published in the London papers, with eulogistic editorial articles, and the immediate effect of the scheme upon the public mind was such that our five per cents, rose from 75 to 92. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR.HOLTON—What has put them down since ?

HON. MR. BROWN—I will presently tell the honorable gentleman what has put them down since. But I say that, if anything could show more clearly than another the

[Page 99]

effect this union is to have on our position over the world, it is a fact like this, that our securities went up 17 per cent, in consequence of the publication of the details of our scheme. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for Chateauguay asks, ” What put them down again ?” I will tell him. They remained at 91 or 92 until the news came that a raid had been made from Canada into the United States, that the raiders had been arrested and brought before a Canadian Court, and that upon technical legal grounds, not only had they been set free, but the money of which they had robbed the banks had been handed over to the robbeis. The effect of this news, coupled with General Dix’s order, was to drive down our securities 11 per cent, almost in one day. (Hear, hear.) But, as my honorable friend the Finance Minister suggests, this is but an additional proof of the accuracy of the argument I have been sustaining—for this would not have happened, at all events to the same extent, if all the provinces had been united and prepared, as we are now proposing, not only for purposes of commerce but for purposes of defence. (Hear, hear.) But secondly, Mr. SPEAKER, I go heartily for the union, because it will throw down the barriers of trade and give us the control of a market of four millions of people. (Hear, hear.) What one thing has contributed so much to the wondrous material progress of the United States as the free passage of their products from one State to another ? What has tended so much to the rapid advance of all branches of their industry, as the vast extent of their home market, creating an unlimited demand for all the commodities of daily use, and stimulating the energy and ingenuity of producers ? Sir, I confess to you that in my mind this one view of the union—the addition of nearly a million of people to our home consumers— sweeps aside all the petty objections that are averred against the scheme. What, in comparison with this great gain to our farmers and manufacturers, are even the fallacious money objections which the imaginations of honorable gentlemen opposite have summoned up ? All over the world we find nations eagerly longing to extend their domains, spending large sums and waging protracted wars to possess themselves of more territory, untilled and uninhabited. (Hear, hear.) Other countries offer large inducements to foreigners to emigrate to their shores—free passages, free lands, and free food and impl ments to start them in the world. We, ourselves, support costly establishmente to attract immigrants to our country, and are satisfied when our annual outlay brings us fifteen or twenty thousand souls. But here, sir, is a proposal which is to add, in one day, near a million of souls to our population— to add valuable territories to our domain, and secure to us all the advantages of a large and profitable commerce, now existing. And because some of us would have liked certain of the little details otherwise arranged, we are to hesitate in accepting this alliance ! (Hear,hear.) Have honorable gentlemen forgotten that the United States gladly paid twenty millions in hard cash to have Louisiana incorporated in the Republic ? But what was Louisiana then to the Americans, in comparison with what the Maritime Provinces are at this moment to Canada? I put it to honorable gentlemen opposite—if the United States were now to offer us the State of Maine, what possible sum could be named within the compass of our ability that we would not be prepared to pay for that addition to our country ? (Hear, hear. ) If we were offered Michigan, Iowa or Minnesota, I would like to know what sum, within the compass of Canada, we would not be prepared to pay ? These are portions of a foreign country, but here is a people owning the same allegiance as ourselves, loving the same old sod, enjoying the same laws and institutions, actuated by the same impulses and social customs,—and yet when it is proposed that they shall unite with us for purposes of commerce, for the defence of our common ountry, and to develope the vast natural resources of our united domains, we hesitate to adopt it ! If a Canadian goes now to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or if a citizen of these provinces comes here, it is like going to a foreign country. The customs officer meets you at the frontier, arrests your progress, and levies his imposts on your effects. But the proposal now before us is to throw down all barriers between the provinces—to make a citizen of one, citizen of the whole ; the proposal is, that our farmers and manufacturers and mechanics shall carry their wares unquestioned into every village of the Maritime Provinces ; and that they shall with equal freedom bring their fish, and their coal, and their West India produce to our three millions of inhabitants. The proposal is, that the law courts, and the schools, and the professional and industrial walks of life, throughout all the provinces, shall be thrown equally open to us all. (Hear, hear.) But. thirdly, Mr. SPEAKER, I am in favor of a union of the provinces because–and I call the attention of honorable

[Page 100]

gentlemen opposite to it—because it will make us the third maritime state of the world. (Hear, hear.) When this union is accomplished, but two countries in the world will be superior in maritime influence to British America—and those are Great Britain and the United States. (Hear, hear.) In 1863, no fewer than 628 vessels were built in British America, of which the aggregate tonnage was not less than 230,312 tons. (Hear, hear.) There were built—

Vessels. Tons.
In Canada 158 with 67,209
Nova Scotia 207 46,862
New Brunswick 137 85,250
Prince Edward Island 100 24,991
Newfoundland 26 6,000
——– ——–
Total 628 230,312

Now, sir, in 1861—the year preceding the outbreak of the civil war—all the vessels built in the United States, with their vast seaboard and thirty millions of people, were in the aggregate but 233,193 tons—only three thousand to is in excess of the British American Provinces. (Hear, hear.) And I hesitate not to affirm that if the people of British America unite cordially together in utilizing the singular facilities we unitedly possess for the extension of the shipping and ship-building inteiests, many years will not elapse before we greatly surpass our neighbors in this lucrative branch of industry. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. HOLTON—How much of the shipping built in that year do we own now ?

HON. MR. BROWN—How much of what the Americans built in 1861 do they own now ? Why is my honorable friend so anxious to decry the industry of his country ? If we have not the ships it is because we sold them, and the money is in our pockets, and we are ready to build more. In 1863 we sold ships built by our mechanics to the large amount of $9,000,000 in gold. (Cheers.) But if my honorable friend from Chateauguay will permit me, I am going on to indoctrinate him upon the point of the ownership of vessels—-


HON. MR. BROWN—Ah ! my honoroble friend does not require to be instructed ; well, will he tell us how many tons of shipping are now owned by British America ?

HON. MR. HOLTON—I am aware that most of the vessels my honorable friend speaks of, and the building of which he cites as a proof that we will be a great maritime power, were sold abroad. Building ships is a good thing, and selling them is a better, but that does not prove us to be a great maritime power.

HON. MR. BROWN—My honorable friend cannot eat his cake and have it too. If we got 89,000,000 for a portion of the ships we built in 1863, it is clear we cannot own them also. I t did not require a man of great wisdom to find out that. (Laughter.) But I was going on to show the amount of shipping that was owned in these provinces. I hold in my hand a statement of the vessels owned and registered in British America, made up to the latest dates, and I find that the provinces unitedly own not fewer than 8,530 vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of not less than 932,246 tons.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Sea-going ?

HON. MR. BROWN—Sea-going and inland.

HON. MR. HOLTON—(ironically)—Hear, hear !

HON. MR. BROWN—Why is my honorable friend from Chateauguay so anxious to depreciate? Is it then so deplorable a thing to own inland vessels ? None knows better than my honorable friend when to buy and when to sell—and yet, I greatly mistake if there was not a time when my honorable friend thought it not so bad a thing to be the owner of ships and steamers on our inland seas. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Am I wrong in believing that my honorable friend laid the foundation of his well-merited fortune in the carrying trade of the lakes ?—and is it for him, from momentary partisanship, to depreciate such an important branch of national industry ? What matters where the ship floats, if she is a good and a sound ship ?—and the inland tonnage includes so many steamers, that in value it will compare favorably with that of the sea-going. On the 31st December,—

Vessels. Tons.
1864, Canada owned 2,311 287,187
1863, Nova Scotia 3,539 309,554
1863, New Brunswick 891 211,680
1863, Prince Edward Island 360 34,222
1863, Newfoundland 1,429 89,603
——– ——–
Total 8,530 932,246

Now, sir, it is quite true that the United States have a much larger commercial navy than this, and Great Britain a vastly larger one—but it is equally true that the country next to them in importance is France, and that notwithstanding her thirty-five millions of people, large foreign trade, and extensive sea-coast, she owns but 60,000 tons of ship-

[Page 101]

ping more than British America. (Hear, hear.) In 1860, the aggregate commercial navy of France was but 996,124 tons. I say then, that even as ship-owners, the British American Confederacy will occupy from the first, a proud place among the Maritime States of the world—and that when all her ships hoist a distinctive flag alongside the Cross of Red, there will be few seas in which it will not be unfurled. And let me here mention a fact which came under my notice while recently in the Lower Provinces—a fact of great importance, and from which, I think, we, who are more inland, may well profit. I learned that, as in the British Isles, a system of joints stock ship-building has been spreading over many parts of the Maritime Provinces. Ships are built and owned in small shares—say in sixteenth, thirty-second, for sixty-fourth parts, and all classes of the people are taking small ventures in the trade. Most of the ships so built are sold, but a portion, and an increasing portion, every year, are sailed, and sailed with profit, by the original joint-stock builders. (Hear, hear.) I was delighted to be told that some of those clipper vessels which we often hear of as making wonderful trips from China and India and Australia to British ports, are vessels built and owned in New Brunswick, under this joint-stock system. (Hear, hear. ) So much for the building and ownership of ships. Now let me show you what will be the strength of the united provinces in seafaring men. By the census of 1861, it appears that the numbers of sailors and fishermen were then—

In Canada 5,958
In Nova Scotia 19,637
In New Brunswick 2,765
In Prince Edward Island 2,318
In Newfoundland 38,578
Total 69,256

Whether regarded merely as a lucrative branch of industry, or as affecting our maritime position before the world, or as a bulwark of defence in time of need, this one fact that British America will have a combined force of seventy thousand seamen, appears to me an immense argument in favor of the union. (Hear, hear.) And let us look at the produets of the labor of a portion of these men —-the fishermen. From the latest returns I have been able to meet with, I find the joint products of our sea-coasts and inland lakes were, in the years named, estimated at the following values;—

Upper Canada, 1859 $ 380,000
Lower Canada, 1862 703,895
Nova Scotia, 1861 2,072,081
New Brunswick, 1861 518,530
Newfoundland, 1861 6,347,730
Total $10,022,236

(Hear, hear.) I was unable to find any estimate as regards Prince Edward Island, but fancy the amount there must be about $200,000. But, be this as it may, so valuable a fishing trade as this of the united provinces does not exist in any part of the world. And no doubt these estimates are far under the fact, as a large portion of the delicious food drawn by our people from the sea and inlaud waters could not possibly be included in the returns of the fishery inspectors. (Hear, hear.) And let us observe, for a moment, the important part played by this fishing industry in the foreign commerce of the provinces. The exports of products of the sea in the year 1863 were as follows:—

From Canada $ 789,913
Nova Scotia 2,390,661
New Brunswick (1862) 303,477
Newfoundland 4,090,970
Prince Edward Island 121,000
Total exports $7,696,021

Add to this, nine millions of dollars received in the same year for new ships, and we have $16,696,021 as one year’s foreign exports of our ship-building and fishing interests. (Hear, hear.) With such facts before us as the result of only a partially-developed traffic, may we not fearlessly look forward to the future in the confident hope of still more gratifying results, when, by combined and energetic action, a new impetus has been given to these valuable branches of industry ? But there remains a still more singular comparison to be made. The Minister of Finance referred to it last night — but he scarcely did justice to our position, because he excluded altogether the inland shipping. I refer to the statement of ships annually entering and leaving our ports. Of course every oue comprehends that a large amount of the tonnage entering and leaving ports on the upper lakes is repeated in the returns over and over again. This is the case, for instance, with the ferry boats between the American and Canadian shores, that carry passengers and a small quantity of goods. It would be unfair to put down the tonnage of such boats every time they enter or leave a port, as foreign commerce. Still there is a

[Page 102]

large amount of valuable shipping engaged in the inland trade, and a vast amount of freight is carried between the countries ; and the only just plan is to state separately that which is sea-going shipping and that which is inland. Acting on this plan, I find that in 1863, the tonnage between Canada and foreign ports was as follows :—

Inwards. Outwards. Total.
Canada 1,041,309 1,091,895 2,133,294
Nova Scotia 712,939 719,915 1,432,854
New Brunswick 659,258 727,727 1,386,983
P. E. Island, 1862 69,080 81,208 150,288
Newfoundland 156,578 148,610 305,188
——– ——– ——–
2,639,164 2,769,355 5,408,519
Inland Navigation. Canada 3,538,701 3,368,432 6,907,133
——– ——– ——–
Total tons 6,177,865 6,137,787 12,315,652

Now, sir, the United States are in the same position as we are in respect to this inland traffic, and they include it in their returns as is done here. And what, sir, do you think is the difference between their tonnage and ours ? Why ours is over twelve millions and theirs is but sixteen millions. There are not four millions of tons of difference between the two. (Hear, hear.) And let it be recollected that the United States have had seventy years start of us. As regards France, the whole amount of shipping that entered and left the ports of that great country in one year was but 8,456,734 tons— four millions of tons less than that of the British American Provinces. May we not then, when this union is accomplished, fairly claim to be the third maritime state of the world ; and may we not even entertain the hope that, at some future day, a still higher position is not beyond our reach, when the days of puberty have been passed and the strength of manhood has been reached? I ask honorable gentlemen, in looking at these figures, to consider what the effect must be when they are set down thus collectively, side by side, in official commercial returns, in comparison with the commerce of all the great maritime states ? Will it not strengthen our position abroad ?—will it not give us a degree of influence and importance to have it known that British America wields so large a snare of the world’s commerce?—And if honorable gentlemen will still further consider the deep importance to Canada, in her inland position, of exercising her just influence in the control of so valuable a maritime interest, I think they will come to the conclusion that all the objections urged against this union are, in the balance of its advantages, utterly contemptible. (Cheers.) But, in the fourth place, Mr. SPEAKER, I go for a union of the provinces, because it will give a new start to immigration into our country. It will bring us out anew prominently before the world—it will turn earnest attention to our resources, and bring to our shores a stream of immigration greater, and of a better class, than we ever had before. I was in England when the first public announcement of this scheme was made, and witnessed, with pleasure, the marked impression it produced. You could not go abroad, you could not enter into any company, in any class of society, where Canada or the British American Provinces were mentioned, but you heard this union movement spoken of almost with enthusiasm. And I say it is desirable that this scheme should not be delayed, but be carried through promptly and vigorously. I hesitate not to say that it should be accompanied with a vigorous effort to give a new impetus to our industrial enterprises, to open up fresh lands for settlement, and to cheapen the transport of our produce to the sea-board. With the consummation of this union, I trust we will have a new immigration and a new land settlement policy—that we will ascertain every lot of land we actually own, so that a printed list may be placed in the hands of every immigrant—that the petty price we have been heretofore exacting will no- longer be exacted, but that to actual settlers, who come among us to hew out for themselves and their children homes in the forest, no burthen or condition will be demanded, beyond resident occupation for a certain number of years, and a fixed amount of improvement on the land.—

HON. MR. HOLTON—Unfortunately for your argument, the lands will be in the hands of the local governments.

HON. MR. BROWN—So much the better. My honorable friend can manage his public lauds in Lower Canada as he likes, and we will manage ours. And, speaking for the western section, I am bound to say there are very few shrewd men in Upper Canada who do not feel that far more public benefit is to be gained from the industry of a hardy actual settler upon 100 acres of land given to him free, than the trumpery $150 that can be squeezed out of him as its price, the payment of which keeps him in trouble perhaps for years, and retards the progress of the country. On this question of immigration turns, in my opinion, the whole future success of this great scheme which we are now discussing. Why, sir, there is hardly a political or financial or social problem suggested by this union that

[Page 103]

does not find its best solution in a large influx of immigration. The larger our population, the greater will be our productions, the more valuable our exports, and the greater our ability to develop the resources of our country. The greater the number of tax-payers, and the more densely they are settled, the more lightly will the burden of taxation fall upon us all. And in this question of immigration is found the only true solution of the problem of defence. Fill up our vacant lands, double our population, and we will at once be in a position to meet promptly and effectually any invader who may put his foot with hostile intent upon our soil. (Hear, hear.) And this question of immigration naturally brings me to the great subject of the North-West territories. (Hear, hear.) The resolutions before us recognize the immediate necessity of those great territories being brought within the Confederation and opened up for settlement. But I am told that, while the Intercolonial Railroad has been made an absolute condition of the compact, the opening up of the Great West and the enlargmement of our canals have been left in doubt. Now, sir, nothing can be more unjust than this. Let me read the resolutions :—

The General Government shall secure, without delay, the completion of the intercolonial Railway from Rivière du Loup, through New Brunswick, to Truro in Nova Scotia.

The communications with the North-Western Territory, and the improvements requiied for the development of the trade of the Great West with the seaboard, are regarded by this Conference as subjects of the highest importance to the Federated Provinces, and shall be prosecuted at the earliest possible period that the state of the finances will permit.

The Confederation is, therefore, clearly committed to the carrying out of both these enterprises. I doubt if there was a member of the Conference who did not consider that the opening up of the North-West and the improvement of our canal system, were not as clearly for the advantage of the Lower Provinces as for the interests of Upper Canada. Indeed, one gentleman held that the Lower Provinces were more interested—they wished to get their products into the west—they wanted a back country as much as we did—they wanted to be the carriers for that great country—and they were, therefore, to say the least, as much interested in these questions as we were. But honorable gentlemen lay stress upon the point, that, while the one enterprise is to be undertaken at once, the other is not to be commenced until the state of the finances will permit. No doubt this is correct, and the reason for it is simply this — the money has already been found for the Intercolonial Railway. They must be well aware that the late Govemment(the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration) agreed to build the Intercolonial Railway, and obtained from the Imperial Government a guarantee of the debentures for building it—so that that money is ready at a very low rate of interest, whenever required. We know where to find the money for one enterprise at a rate we are able to bear, and can thus at once go on with a work which must be gone on with if this union is to be consummated. But we don’t know this of the other great work—and we all felt that it would be exceedingly indiscreet—I, myself, as the special advocate of opening up the Great West and of the enlargement of our canals,—felt that I could not put my name to a document which declared that at all hazards, while our five per cent, debentures were quoted at 75 or 80 per cent, in the money market—we would commence at once, without an hour’s delay, any great public work whatever. (Hear, hear.) Honorable gentlemen opposite must not imagine that they have to do with a set of tricksters in the thirty-three gentlemen who composed that Conference. What we have said in our resolutions was deliberately adopted, in the honest sense of the words employed, and not for purposes of deception. Both works are to go on at the earliest possible moment our finances will permit, and honorable gentlemen will find the members of the Cabinet from Lower, as well us from Upper Canada, actuated by the hearty desire to have this whole scheme carried out in its fair meaning.

HON. MR. CARTIER—Hear, hear !

HON. MR. GALT—Hear, hear !

HON. MR. BROWN—When recently in England, I was charged to negotiate with the Imperial Government for the opening up of the North-West territories. In a few days the papers will be laid before the House, and it will then be seen whether or not this Government is in earnest in that matter. Sir, the gentlemen who formed the Conference at Quebec did not enter upon their work with the miserable idea of getting the advantage of each other, but with a due sense of the greatness of the work they had on hand, with an earnest desire to do justice to all, and keeping always in mind that what would benefit one section in such a union must necessarily benefit the whole. (Cheers.) I t has always appeared to me that the opening up of the North-West ought to be one of the most cherished project

[Page 104]

of my honorable friends from Lower Canada. During the discussion on the question for some years back I had occasion to dip deep in North- West lore—into those singularly interesting narratives of life and travels in the North-West in the olden time, and into the history of the struggles for commercial domainancy in the great fur-Bearing regions,—and it has always struck me that the French Canadian people have cause to look back with pride to the bold and successful part they played in the adventures of those days. Nothing perhaps has tended more to create their present national character than the vigorous habits, the power of endurance, the aptitude for out-door life, acquired in their prosecution of the North- West fur-trade. (Hear, hear.) Well may they look forward with anxiety to the realization of this part of our scheme, in confident hope that the great north-western traffic shall be once more opened up to the hardy French Canadian traders and voyageurs. (Hear, hear.) Last year furs to the value of £280,000 stg. ($1,400,000) were carried from that territory by the Hudson’s Bay Company —smuggled off through the ice bound regions of James’ Bay, that the pretence of the barrenness of the country and the difficulty of conveying merchandise by the natural route of the St. Lawrence may be kept up a little longer. Sir, the carrying of merchandise into that country, and bringing down the bales of pelts ought to be ours, and must ere long be ours, as in the days of yore—(hear, hear)— and when the fertile plains of that great Saskatchewan territory are opened up for settlement and cultivation, I am confident that it will not only add immensely to our annual agricultural products, but bring us sources of mineral and other wealth on which at present we do not reckon. (Hear, hear.) While speaking on this question of immigration, I would remind the House, and it is impossible to urge it too strongly, that these provinces are now presented to the world in a very disadvantageous aspect, as different communities. When a party in Europe thinks of emigrating here, he has to ascertain separately all about New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia, and Upper and Lower Canada; and if by chance he meets a party from some one of these provinces, he has to listen to a picture of the merits of that one section in high contrast to the demerits of all the rest, and the result is the poor man’s ideas about us become a mass of confusion. On the other hand, if he seeks to know the inducements for emigration to New South Wales, or New Zealand, he gets it in one picture—in an official form—and the offer is made to pay his passage to these lands of hope. A large amount of emigration, and of money which the emigrant takes with him, are thus carried off to a much more distant land than this, and one that does not offer equal inducements to the settler. But how different will all this be when these provinces stand united, and present to emigrants a combination of so many branches of profitable industry ? In turning over some United States statistics I recently fell upon a very curious official calculation made by the United States Government, as to the value of immigration. By the census of 1861 the population of the United States was over thirty millions ; and this calculation was to ascertain what the population would have been had there been no immigration into the country, but had the population been left to advance solely by its own natural increase. And what do you think, sir, was the result? Why, it is shewn that if the United States had received all the immigrants that came to them up to 1820, and then stopped receiving them—the population, at this moment, instead of thirty millions, would have been but 14,601,485. (Hear, hear.; I t is shewn that if immigration had gone on until 1810, and stopped then, the population now would have been only 12,678,562. Had it stopped in 1800, the population now would have been 10,462,944; and had it stopped in 1790, the population now, instead of thirty millions, would have been but 8,789,969. (Hear, hear.) These, sir, are most valuable facts, which should be impressed on the mind of every public man in British America. If we wish our country to progress, we should not leave a single stone unturned to attract the tide of emigration in this direction ; and I know no better method of securing that result, than the gathering into one of these five provinces, and presenting ourselves to the world in the advantageous light which, when united, we would occupy. (Cheers.) But, fifthly, Mr. SPEAKER, I am in favor of a union of these provinces, because it will enable us to meet, without alarm, the abrogation of the American Reciprocity Treaty, in case the United States should insist on its abolition. (Hear, hear.) I do not believe that the American Government is so insane as to repeal that treaty. But it is always well to be prepared for contingencies— and I have no hesitation in saying that if they do repeal it, should this union of British America go on, a fresh outlet for our commerce will be opened up to us quite as advantageous as the American trade has ever been.

[Page 105]

I have never heretofore ventured to make this assertion, for I know well what a serious task it is to change, in one day, the commercial relations of such a country as this. When the traffic of a country has passed for a lengthened period through a particular channel, any serious change of that channel tends, for a time, to the embarrassment of business men, and causes serious injury to individuals, if not to the whole community. Such a change we in Canada had in 1847. But as it was in 1847, so it will be in 1866, if the Reciprocity Treaty is abolished. Our agricultural interest had been built up on the protective legislation of Great Britain, and in 1847 it was suddenly brought to an end. We suffered severely, in consequence, for some years ; but, by degrees, new channels for our trade opened up—the Reciprocity Treaty was negotiated—and we have been more prosperous since 1847 than we ever were before. And so, I have not a doubt, will it be in the event of the Reciprocity Treaty being abolished. Profitable as that treaty has unquestionably been to us—and it has been more profitable to the Americans—still, were it brought to an end to-morrow, though we would suffer a while from the change, I am convinced the ultimate result would be that other foreign markets would be opened to us, quite as profitable, and that we would speedily build up our trade on a sounder basis than at present. A close examination of the working of the Reciprocity Treaty discloses facts of vital importance to the merits of the question, to which you never hear the slightest allusion made by American speakers or writers. Our neighbours, in speaking of the treaty, keep constantly telling us of the Canadian trade— what they take from Canada and what Canada takes from them. Their whole story is about the buying and selling of commodities in Canada. Not a whisper do you ever hear from them about their buying and selling with the Maritime Provinces—not a word about the enormous carrying trade for all the provinces which they monopolize—not a word of the large sums drawn from us for our vast traffic over their railways and canals—and not a whisper as to their immense profits from fishing in our waters, secured to them by the treaty. (Hear, hear.) No, sir, all we hear of is the exports and imports of Canada—all is silence as toother parts of the treaty. But it must not be forgotten that if the treaty is abolished and this union is accomplished, an abolition of reciprocity with Canada means abolition of reciprocity with all the British American Provinces—means bringing to an end the right of the Americans to fish in our waters ; their right to use our canals ; their right to the navigation of the St. Lawrence ; and that it also implies the taking out of their hands the vast and lucrative carrying trade they now have from us. (Hear, hear.) I t must be always kept in mind that though the United States purchase from Canada a large amount of agricultural products, a great portion of what they purchase does not go info consumption in the States, but is merely purchased for transmission to Great Britain and the West India markets. (Hear, hear.) They merely act as commission agents and carriers in such transactions, and splendid profits they make out of the business. But beyond this, another large portion of these produce purchases, for which they take so much credit to themselves, they buy in the same manner for export to the Maritime Provinces of British America, reaping all the benefit of the seagoing as well as the inland freight—charges and commissions. (Hear, hear.) The commercial returns of the Lower Provinces show not only that the Americans send a large quantity of their own farm products to those provinces, but a considerable amount of what they (the Americans) receive from us, thereby gaining the double advantage of the carrying trade through the United States to the seaboard, and then by sea to the Lower Provinces. (Hear, hear.) I hold in my hand a return of the articles purchased by the Maritime Provinces from the United States in 1863, which Canada could have supplied. I will not detain the House by reading it, but any member who desires can have it for examination. I may state, however, in brief, that in that year the breadstuff’s alone bought by the Lower Provinces amounted to no less than $4,447,207 — that the import of meats, fresh and eured, amounted to $659,917— and that the total value of products which the Lower Provinces might have bought more advantageously from us, summed up to over seven millions of dollars. (Hear, hear.) The Americans must, therefore, bear in mind, that if they abolish the Reciprocity Treaty, they will not only lose that seven millions which they now receive for their products, but the carrying trade which goes with it. But on the other hand, when we have this union, these products will, as they naturally should, go down the St. Lawrence, not only for the advantage of our farmers—but swelling the volume of our own shipping interests. (Hear, hear.) The Americans, hitherto, have had a large portion of our carrying trade ; they have

[Page 106]

brought us our goods—even our European goods—and taken our produce not only to Europe but even to the Lower Provinces ; and I say one of the best features of this union is, that if in our commercial relations with the United States we are compelled by them to meet fire with fire—it will enable us to stop this improvidence and turn the current of our own trade into our own waters. Far be it from me to say I am an advocate of a coercive commercial policy—on the contrary, entire freedom of trade, in my opinion, is what we in this country should strive for. Without hesitation, I would, to-morrow, throw open the whole of our trade and the whole of our waters to the United States, if they did the same to us. But, if they tell us, in the face of all the advantages they get by Reciprocity, that they are determined to put a stop to it, and if this is done through a hostile feeling to us—deeply as I should regret that this should be the first use made by the Northern States of their newfound liberty—then, I say, we have a policy, and a good policy of our own, to fall back upon. And let me say a word as to the effect of the repeal of Reciprocity on the American fishing interest. The Americans, in 1851, had engaged in the cod and mackerel fishing, in our waters, shipping to the extent of 129,- 014 tons—but under the influence of the Reciprocity Treaty it rose, in 1861, to 192,- GG2—an increase, in ten years, of upwards of 63,000 tons, or fifty por cent. (Hear, hear.) The repeal of Reciprocity will give us back all this increase, and more, for it will be a very different thing in the future from what it was formerly, to poach on our fishing grounds, when these provinces are united and determined to protect the fisheries of the Gulf. This fishing interest is one which may be cultivated to an extent difficult, perhaps, for many of us to conceive. But we have only to look at the amount of fish taken from our waters by the Americans and other nations, and the advantages we possess, to perceive that, if we apply ourselves, as a united people, to foster that trade, we can vastly increase the great traffic we now enjoy. (Hear, hear.) On the whole, then, sir, I come firmly to the conclusion that, in view of the possible stoppage of the American Reciprocity Treaty, and our being compelled to find new channels for our trade, this union presents to us advantages, in comparison with which any objection that has been offered, or can be offered to it, is utterly insignificant. (Hear, hear.) But, sixthly, Mr. SPEAKER, I am in favor of the union of the provinces, because, in the event of war, it will enable all the colonies to defend themselves better, and give more efficient aid to the Empire, than they could do separately. I am not one of those who ever had the warfever ; I have not believed in getting up large armaments in this country ; I have never doubted that a military spirit, to a certain extent, did necessarily form part of the character of a great people ; but I felt that Canada had not yet reached that stage in her progress when she could safely assume the duty of defence ; and that, so long as peace continued and the Mother Country threw her shield around us, it was well for us to cultivate our fields and grow in numbers and material strength, until we could look our enemies fearlessly in the face. But it must be admitted— and there is no use of closing our eyes to tho fact—that this question of defence has been placed, within the last two years, in a totally different position from what it ever occupied before. The time has come—it matters not what political party may be in power in England—when Britain will insist on a reconsideration of the military relations which a great colony, such as Canada, ought to hold to the Empire. And I am free to admit that it is a fair and just demand. We may doubt whether some of the demands that have been made upon us, without regard to our peculiar position at the moment, and without any attempt to discuss the question with us in all its breadth, were either just or well-considered. But of this I think there can be no doubt, that when the time comes in tho history of any colony that it has overcome the burdens and embarrassments of early settlement, and has entered on a career of permanent progress and prosperity, it is only fair and right that it should contribute its quota to the defence of the Empire. What that quota ought to be, I think, is a matter for grave deliberation and discussion, as well as the measure of assistance the colony may look for, in time of war, from the parent state—and, assuredly, it is in this spirit that the present Imperial Government is desirous of approaching the question. (Hear, hear.) I am persuaded that nothing more than that which is fairly due at our hands will be demanded from us, and anything less than this, I am sure, the people of Canada do not desire. (Hear, hear.) In the conversations I had, while in England, with public men of different politics—while I found many who considered that the connection between Canada and England involved the Mother Country in some danger of war with the powerful state upon our borders, and that

[Page 107]

the colonial system devolved heavy and unreasonable burdens upon the Mother Country —and while a still larger number thought we had not acted as cordially and energetically as we ought in organizing our militia for the defence of the province, still I did not meet one public man, of any stripe of politics, who did not readily and heartily declare that, in case of the invasion of Canada, the honor of Great Britain would be at stake, and the whole strength of the Empire would be unhesitatingly marshalled in our defence. (Hear, hear.) But, coupled with this, was the invariable and most reasonable declaration that a share of the burden of defence, in peace and in war, we must contribute. And this stipulation applies not only to Canada, but to every one of the colonies. Already the Indian Empire has been made to pay the whole expense of her military establishment. The Australian Colonies have agreed to pay £40 sterling per man for every soldier sent there. This system is being gradually extended—and union or no union, assuredly every one of these British American Colonies will be called upon to bear her fair share towards the defence of the Empire. And who will deny that it is a just demand, and that great colonies such as these, should be proud to meet it in a frank and earnest spirit. (Cheers.) Nothing, I am persuaded, could be more foreign to the ideas of the people of Canada, than that the people of England should be unfairly taxed for service rendered to this province. Now, the question presented to us is simply this : will these contributions which Canada and the other provinces must hereafter make to the defence of the Empire, be better rendered by a hardy, energetic, population, acting as one people, than as five or six separate communities ? (Hear, hear.) There is no doubt about it. But not only do our changed relations towards the Mother Country call on us to assume the new duty of military defence—our changed relations towards the neighboring Republic compel us to do so. For myself, I have no belief that the Americans have the slightest thought of attacking us. I cannot believe that the first use of their newfound liberty will be the invasion, totally unprovoked, of a peaceful province. I fancy that they have had quite enough of war for a good many years to come—and that such a war as one with England would certainly be, is the last they are likely to provoke. But, Mr. SPEAKER, there is no better mode of warding off war when it is threatened, than to be prepared for it if it comes. The Americans are now a warlike people. They have large armies, a powerful navy, an unlimited supply of warlike munitions, and the carnage of war has to them been stript of its horrors. The American side of our lines already bristles with works of defence, and unless we are willing to live at the mercy of our neighbors, we, too, must put our country in a state of efficient preparation. War or no war—the necessity of placing these provinces in a thorough state of defence can no longer be postponed. Our country is coming to be regarded as undefended and indefensible— the capitalist is alarmed, and the immigrant is afraid to come among us. Were it merely as a measure of commercial advantage, every one of these colonies must meet the question of military defence promptly and energetically. And how can we do this so efficiently and economically as by the union now proposed ? (Hear, hear.) I have already shewn that union would give us a body of 70,000 hardy seamen ready and able to defend our sea-coasts and inland lakes ; let us now see what would be the military strength of the Confederation. By the last census (1861) it appears that the men capable of bearing arms in British America were as follows :—

Upper Canada, from 20 to 60 308,955
Lower Caaada, from 20 to 60 225,620
Nova Scotia, from 20 to 60 67,367
New Brunswick, from 20 to 60 51,625
Newfoundland, from 20 to 60 25,532
Prince Edward Island, 21 to 60 14,819
Total 693,918

With the body of efficient soldiers that might be obtained from this vast array of men, the erection of defensive works at salient points, and the force of British troops that would soon come to our aid—who can doubt that the invasion of our country would be successfully resisted? But, seventhly, Mr. SPEAKER, I am in favor of this union because it will give us a sea-board at all seasons of the year. (Hear, hear.) It is not to be denied that the position of Canada, shut off as she is from the sea-board during the winter months, is far from satisfactory—and should the United States carry out their insane threat of abolishing the bonding system, by which our merchandise passes free through their territory, it would be still more embarrassing. The Maritime Provinces are equally cut off from communication inland. Now, this embarrassment will be ended by colonial union. The Intercolonial Railway will give us at all times access to the Atlantic through British terri-

[Page 108]

tory. (Hear, hear.) As a commercial enterprise, the Intercolonial Railway has not, I apprehend, any considerable merit ; as a work of defence it has, however, many advocates ; but, if the union of the provinces is to go on, it is an absolute necessity ; and, as the price of union, were there no other argument in its favor, I heartily go for it. (Hear, hear.) The advantage it will confer on the Maritime Provinces can hardly be over-rated. I t will make Halifax and St. John the Atlantic seaports of half a continent—it will insure to Halifax, ere long, the establishment of a line of powerful steamers running in six days from her wharves to some near point on the west coast of Ireland—and it will bring a constant stream of passengers and immigrants through those Lower Provinces that never otherwise would come near them. Mr. SPEAKER, I could go on for many hours piling up arguments in favor of this scheme, but already I have detained the House too long—(cries of “no, no;” “go on!”)—and must draw toa close. But I think I have given reasons enough to satisfy every candid man who desires the advancement of his country, why this House should go unanimously and enthusiastically for ” the union, the whole union, and nothing but the union !” Before sitting down, however, there are one or two general objections urged against the scheme which I am desirous of meeting, and I will try to do so as briefly as possible. And first, sir, I am told that we should have made the union legislative and not federal. Undoubtedly this is a point on which different opinions may be honestly held by men sincerely seeking the same ends—but, speaking my own views, I think we came to a most wise conclusion. Had we continued the present legislative union, we must hava continued with it the unjust system of taxation for local purposes that now exists—and the sectional bickering would have gone on as before. And can any honorable gentleman really believe that it would have been possible for a body of men sitting at Ottawa to admininister efficiently and wisely the parish business of Red River and Newfoundland, and all the country between ? Only think of bringing suitors and witnesses such distances to promote a bill for closing a side-line or incorporating a club ! And if such a thing were desirable, would it be possible for any body of men to go through such a mass of work ? Why, sir, the Imperial Parliament with 650 members sits for eight months in the year, and even our Parliament sits three or four months,—how then would it be possible for the legislature of all the provinces with a thousand or twelve hundred bills before it, to accomplish it all ? The whole year would not suffice for it—and who in these colonies is able to sacrifice his whole time to the duties of public life ? But there is another reason why the union was not made legislative — it could not be carried. (Hear, hear.) “We had either to take a federal union or drop the negotiation. Not only were our friends from Lower Canada against it, but so were most of the delegates from the Maritime Provinces. There was but one choice open to us—federal union or nothing. But in truth the scheme now before us has all the advantages of a legislative union and a federal one as well. “We have thrown over on the localities all the questions which experience has shown lead directly to local jealousy and discord, and we have retained in the hands of the General Government all the powers necessary to secure a strong and efficient administration of public affairs. (Hear, hear.) By placing the appointment of the judges in the hands of the General Government, and the establishment of a central court of appeal, we have secured uniformity of justice over the whole land. (Hear, hear.) By vesting the appointment of the lieutenant governors in the General Government, and giving a veto for all local measures, we have secured that no injustice shall be done without appeal in local legislation. (Hear, hear.) For all dealings with the Imperial Government and foreign countries we have clothed the General Government with the most ample powers.— And finally, all matters of trade and commerce, banking and currency, and all questions common to the whole people, we have vested fully and unrestrictedly in the General Government. The measure, in fact, shuns the faults of the federal and legislative systems and adopts the best parts of both, and I am well persuaded it will work efficiently and satisfactorily. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I am told that the cost of working this Federation scheme will be enormous. Now, it would be a very rash thing of me, or of any other person, to assert that the expense will not be great ; for we all know that any system of government may be made either economical or extravagant, precisely according to the discretion of those who administer it. But this I am confident of, that with ordinary discretion, far from being more costly than the existing system, a very considerable reduction may be readily effected ; and one thing is quite certain, that no ingenuity

[Page 109]

could make it a more costly or extravagant system than the one we have now. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) Undoubtedly the mode in which the local governments shall be constructed will very much affect the cost of the whole scheme ; but if we adopt (as I earnestly hope we will) simple and inexpensive machinery for local purposes, I am quite satisfied that there will be a reduction to the people of Canada on the amount they now contribute. I have great confidence in the economical effect of placing local expenditures on local shoulders, and in the salutary influence in the same direction, of the representatives of the Maritime Provinces when they come among us.

HON. MR. HOLTON—The trouble is that they will spend our money—not theirs.

HON. MR. BROWN—The honorable gentleman is entirely wrong, and I am amazed at his making such a statement. There is no portion of the community that will pay more money, per head, to the revenue than the people of the Maritime Provinces. If the honorable gentleman had turned up the commercial returns of those Lower Provinces and calculated the effect of our tariff, if applied to them —or even a tariff less than ours, for our tariff must be reduced, he would have known that they will bear their full proportion of the national burdens. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I am told that the arrangement as to the debt is unfair—that we have thrown on the Federal exchequer the whole of the debts of the Maritime Provinces, but only a portion of the debt of Canada. There is not a particle of force in this objection. The whole debt of Canada is $67,500,000, but five millions of this is due to our own people, to meet which there are certain local funds. Now, if we had thrown the whole $67,500,000 on the Federal treasury, we must also have handed over to it the local revenues, which, so far as these five millions are concerned, would have beeu precisely the same thing. But, as regards the public debt with which the Federal Government would start, it would not have been the same thing. By restricting the debt of Canada to $62,500,000, we restricted the debt oi the Maritime Provinces to the same proportion, or $25 per head of their population ; but had we thrown our whole debt of sixty-seven and a half millions on the Confederation, the proportion of debt for the several Maritime Provinces must have been increased, and the whole debt very greatly augmented. (Hear.) But in throwing these five millions on the local governments of Upper and Lower Canada, do we impose a burden on them they are unable to bear ? Quite the contrary—for with the debt, we give them the corresponding sources of revenue from which to meet it. The local governments of Upper and Lower Canada will severally not only have funds from the subsidy and other sources, to meet all expenditure, but a large surplus besides. But, Mr. SPEAKER, I am told that this Federation scheme may be all very right—it may be just and the very thing the country needs—but this Government had no authority from Parliament to negotiate it. The honorable member for Cornwall (Hon. JOHN S. MACDONALD) particularly pressed this objection, and I am sorry he is not in his

HON. MR. HOLTON—It is quite true.

HON. MR. CARTIER—No, the reverse is true.

HON. MR. BROWN—I am astonished to hear such a statement repeated. No one knows better than the honorable member for Chateauguay and the honorable member for Cornwall that in the Ministerial explanations brought down to this House, at the time of the formation of this Government, it was distinctly declared that the Government was formed for the special purpose of maturing a scheme of Federal union, and that it would take means, during the recess, for opening negotiations with the Maritime Provinces, to bring about such a union.

HON. MR. HOLTON—But not to conclude them.

HON. MR. BROWN—What we have done is entirely subject to the approval of Parliament. The honorable member for Cornwall is the very last man who should have raised such an objection, for he attended a caucus of the liberal members of the Assembly, heard the whole plans of the Government explained, precisely as they have been carried out, and he was the very person who moved that I should go into the Government to give them effect. (Hear, hear.)

MR. DUNKIN—And I heard something more said—that nothing should be done which did not leave the House perfectly free.

HON. MR. BROWN—I can assure my honorable friend that, as far as that goes, he never was more free in his life than now. (Laughter.) We do not pretend to say that anything we have done binds this House ; any member may object if he pleases ; but I do say we received the approval of the House for opening negotiations, and it is a miserable pretence to say anything to the contrary. (Hear, hear.) We did no more than has been done by every Government, under the

[Page 110]

British system, that ever existed. We have but made a compact, subject to the approval of Parliament. So far as this Government is concerned, we are firmly committed to the scheme ; but so far as the members of the Legislature are concerned, they are as free as air ; but I am confident that this House will almost unanimously accept it, and not with changes and amendments, but as a whole—as the very best compromise arrangement that can be obtained.

HON. MR. HOLTON—We have not the treaty-making power.

HON. MR. BROWN—I remember a Government formed from that side of the House, and the honorable member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION) will remember it too, which made a treaty respecting the building of the Intercolonial Railroad. The honorable member for Cornwall was Premier of that Government, and it does not lie in his mouth now to object to what he himself did. But the honorable gentleman is entirely wrong when he says we had no power to make this compact with the Maritime Provinces. We had full power, express instructions to enter into it.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Did the Parliament of England give you that power ?

MR. BROWN—No ; the honorable gentleman ought to know that the treaty-making power is in the Crown—the Crown authorized us specially to make this compact, and it has heartily approved of what we did. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I am told, that the people of Canada have not considered this scheme, and that we ought not to pass it without appealing to the electors for their approval. Now, sir, a statement more incorrect than this, or more injurious to the people of Canada, could not be made. They not only have considered this scheme—for fifteen years they have been earnestly considering it—but they perfectly comprehend it. (Hear, hear.) If ever question was thoroughly debated in any country, the whole subject of constitutional change has been in Canada. There is not a light in which it could be placed that has not been thoroughly canvassed ; and if the House will permit me, I will show from our historical record how totally absurd this objection is. The question of a Federal union was agitated thirty years ago, and here is the resolution adopted by both Houses of the Imperial Parliament so far back as 1837 :—

That great inconvenience has been sustained by His Majesty’s subjects inhabiting the provinces of Lower Canada and Upper Canada, from the want of some adequate means for regulating and adjusting questions respecting the trade and commerce of the said provinces, and divers other questions wherein the said provinces have a common interest ; and it is expedient that the legislatures of the said provinces respectively, be authorized to make provision for the joint regulation and adjustment of such their common interests.

In the instructions given to Lord DURHAM by the Imperial Government in 1838, this passage occurs :—

It is clear that some plan must be devised to meet the just demands of Upper Canada. It will be for your Lordship, in conjunction with the Committee, to consider if this should not be done by constituting some joint legislative authority, which should preside over all questions of common interest to the two provinces, and which might be appealed to in extraordinary cases, to arbitrate between contending parties in either; preserving, however, to each province its distinct legislature, with authority in all matters of an exclusively domestic concern. If this should be your opinion, you will have further time to consider what should be the nature and limits of such authority, and all the particulars which ought to be comprehended in any scheme for its establishment.

In Lord DURHAM’S admirable report of 1839, I find this passage :—

The bill should contain provisions by which any or all of the other North American colonies may, on the application of the legislature, be with the consent of the two Canadas, or their united legislature, admitted into the union on such terms as may be agreed on between them. As the mere amalgamation of the Houses of Assembly of the two provinces would not be advisable, or give at all a due representation to each, a parliamentary commission should be appointed, for the purpose of forming the electoral divisions and determining the number of members to be returned on the principle of giving representation as near as may be, in proportion to population. The same commission should form a plan of local government by elective bodies, subordinate to the general legislature, and exercising a complete control over such local affairs as do not come within the province of general legislation. The plan so framed should be made an act of the Imperial Parliament, so as to prevent the general legislature from encroaching on the powers of the local bodies. A general Executive on an improved principle should be established, together with a supreme court of appeal for all the North American Colonies.

And here is the statement of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in 1839, while introducing the original bill founded on Lord DURHAM’S report :—

The bill provides for the establishment of a central district at Montreal and its neighbourhood, at which the Government shall be carried on, and

[Page 111]

where the Assembly shall meet. The other parts of Upper and of Lower Canada are each to be divided into two districts. It is proposed that these districts should be formed for the purpose of becomiug municipal districts, for the imposition of taxes and rates, for all local purposes.

My next quotation shall be from the proceedings of a body of gentlemen who made a great commotion in their day and generation —the British American League. I hold in my hand the proceedings of the League of 3rd November, 1849, and among other names mentioned I find those of the Hon. GEORGE MOFFATT, THOMAS WILSON, the Hon. GEO. CRAWFORD, the Hon. ASA A. BURNHAM, JOHN W. GAMBLE, Mr. AIKMAN, of Barton, OGLE R. GOWAN, JOHN DUGGAN, the Hon. Col. FRASER, GEORGE BENJAMIN, the Hon. P. M. VANKOUGHNET, and last, though not least, the Hon. JOHN A. MACDONALD—of whom, however, I find it recorded that he spoke in a very jocose manner. Here is the resolution of the League :—

That whether protection or reciprocity shall be conceded or withheld, it is essential to the welfare of this colony, and its future good government, that a Constitution should be framed in unison with the wishes of the people, and suited to the growing importance and intelligence of the country, and that such Constitution should embrace a union of the British North American Provinces on mutually advantageous and fairly arranged terms, with the concession from the Mother Country of enlarged powers of self-government.

I pass on to 1856 when we had the motion and speech of my honorable friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. GALT) in favor of a union of all the British American Provinces, but, as the whole House is familiar with it, I shall not read the document. But in the Votes and Proceedings of this House, of 25th April, 1856. I find a very remarkable document. I t is a notice of motion to be made in this House —and its contents are as follow :—

Resolved—1. That the inconveniences arising from the Legislative Union between Upper and Lower Canada, render desirable the dissolution of that union.

2. That a committee be appointed to enquire into the means which should be adopted to form a new political and legislative organization of the heretofore provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, either by the establishment of their former territorial divisions, or by a division of each province so as to form a confederation having a Federal Government, and a local legislature for each one of the new provinces, and to deliberate as to the course which should be adopted to regulate the affairs of united Canada in a manner which would be equitable to the different sections of the pro vince.

HON. MR. CARTIER.—Whose notice was that?

HON. MR. BROWN.—This notice of motion was given by my honorable friend the member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION.) (Cheers.)

HON. MR. DORION.—It was in amendment of that of the honorable member for Sherbrooke, which I did not exactly like.

HON. MR. HOLTON—and which that honorable gentleman did not venture to move, so that the House did not pronounce upon it.

HON. MR. BROWN—But my honorable friend (Hon. Mr. DORION) made a speech, which I perfectly remember. He held this motion in his hand while he spoke.

HON. MR. DORION—I made a speech on the motion of the honorable member for Haldimand, Mr. MACKENZIE, not on my own.

HON. MR. BROWN—That does not signify. I seek not to fasten down my honorable friend to the views he then held. Much light has been thrown on the whole subject since 1856, and I trust we will all act on our conscientious convictions of what is best for the country now—without regard to any opinions we may at other times have held. (Hear, hear.) But when my honorable friend and others allege that there never has been in Canada an agitation in favor of a Federal system, and that the people have never considered such a proposition, I think it directly in point to prove the contrary by my honorable friend’s own proceedings. (Hear, hear.) The next step in the constitutional agitation of the country was the formation of the BROWN-DORION Administration. That was in 1858— and to show how serious my honorable friend opposite (Hon. Mr. DORION) and myself and our ten colleagues viewed the position of the country from the denial of constitutional reform, I will read the official statement of the basis on which the Government was formed. I read, sir, from the Journals of the Legislative Council for 1858 :—

For some years past, sectional feelings have risen in this country, which, especially during the present session, have seriously impeded the carrying on of the administrative and legislative functions of the Government. The late Administration made no attempt to meet these difficulties or to suggest a remedy for them, and thereby the evil has been greatly aggravated. His Excellency’s present Advisers have entered the Government with the fixed determination to propose constitutional measures for the establishment of that harmony between Upper and Lower Canada

[Page 112]

which is essential to the prosperity of the province. They respectfully submit that they have a right to claim all the support which His Excellency can constitutionally extend to them in the prosecution of this all-important object.

(Hear, hear.) Here, sir, was a Government formed seven years ago for the express purpose of doing that which wc are now engaged in— a Government distinctly telling the Governor General that the peace and prosperity of the country were endangered because constitutional remedies were deferred ; and yet my honorable friends opposite, who with me were responsible for that document, tell us that we are not now in a fit position to legislate upon this question. (Hear, hear.) But I come next to the famous despatch to the Colonial Minister, signed in 1858 by my honorable friend the Minister of Finance, the Attorney General East, and the Hon. JOHN ROSS. It stated that ” very grave difficulties now presented themselves in conducting the Government of Canada “—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”—that “this state of things is yearly becoming worse”—and that ” the Canadian Government were impressed with the necessity of seeking for such a mode of dealing with those difficulties as may for ever remove them.” What must have been the state of public feeling when the Conservative Government of 1858 ventured to use such language as this ?—and how can any one pretend that the people do not comprehend this question, when seven years of agitation have passed since that document was penned? (Hear, hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I come to a still more important document—one that goes into the details and the merits of just such a scheme as that before the House. I refer to the manifesto issued, in 1859, by the Lower Canada members of the liberal party in this House. (Hear, hear.) It is very long, and I will only read from it a few extracts :—

Your committee are impressed with the conviction that whether we consider the present needs or the probable future condition of the country, the true, the statesman-like solution is to be sought in the substitution of a purely Federative for the present so-called Legislative Union ; the former, it is believed, would enable us to escape all the evils, and to retain all the advantages, appertaining to the existing union.

* * * * *

The proposition to federalize the Canadian union is not new. On the contrary, it has been frequently mooted in Parliament and in the press during the last few years. It was, no doubt, suggested by the example of the neighboring states, where the admirable adaptation of the Federal system to the government of an extensive territory, inhabited by people of divers origins, creeds, laws and customs, has been amply demonstrated ; but shape and consistency were first imparted to it in 1856, when it was formally submitted to Parliament by the Lower Canada Opposition, as offering, in their judgment, the true corrective of the abuses generated under the present system.

* * * * *

By this division of power the General Government would be relieved from those questions of a purely local and sectional character, which, under our present system, have led to much strife and ill-will.

* * * * *

The committee believe that it is clearly demonstrable that the direct cost of maintaining both the federal and local governments need not exceed that cf our present system, while its enormous indirect cost would, in consequence of the additional checks on expenditure involved in the new system, and the more direct responsibility of public servants in the province to the people immediately affected by such expenditure, be entirely obviated.

* * * * *

The proposed system could in no way diminish the importance of the colony, or impair its credit, while it presents the advantage of being susceptible, without any disturbance of the Federal economy, of such territorial extension as circumstances may hereafter render desirable.

Now, sir, who were the signers of the address?— on whose special responsibility was this manifesto sent forth to the world? Why, it was signed by my honorable friend opposite, Hon. A. A. DORION—(cheers and laughter) —Hon. T. D. McGEE,Hon. L. T. DRUMMOND, and HON. L. A. DESSAULLES, four of the most able and most popular leaders of the Lower Canada liberal party—the party now virulently opposing the resolutions before the Chair. (Hear, Lear.) So my honorable friend opposite (Hon. Mr. DORION) not only agitated the country for constitutional changes, but insisted that it should take the shape of a Federal union, because- of the cheapness of that system and the facility it afforded for bringing within the federation the other British American Provinces—(cheers and laughter)—and yet, six years after the promulgation of this document, my honorable friend gets up and repudiates a Federal union

[Page 113]

because of its frightful cost and because it does bring within the Federation the other British American Provinces ! (Continued cheering.)

MR. POWELL—Who wrote that document ?

HON. MR. BROWN—I cannot exactly say who did the composition ; but will not my honorable friend from Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON) permit me to ask if his hand is not discoverable in it? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) If so, he well may be proud of it, for it is a masterly exposition.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Will my honorable friend accept it as an amendment to his scheme ?

HON. MR. GALT—No ; ours is better than that!

HON. MR. BROWN—I come now to the great meeting of the Reformers of Upper Canada, known as the Toronto Convention of 1859, and at which 570 delegates were present from all parts of the western province. Here are the two chief resolutions :—

5. Resolved,—That in the opinion of this as sembly, the beat practicable remedy for the evils now encountered in the Government of Canada is to be found in the formation of two or more local governments, to which shall be committed the control of all matters of a local or sectional character, and some joint authority charged with such matters as are necessarily common to both sections of the province.

6. Resolved,—That while the details of the changes proposed in the last resolution are necessarily subject fur future arrangement, yet this assembly deems it imperative to declare that no Government would be satisfactory to the people of Upper Canada which is not based on the principle of representation by population.

Here we have the very essence of the measure now before us for adoption—deliberately approved of by the largest body of representative men ever assembled in Upper Canada for a political purpose ; and yet we are to be told that our people do not understand the question, and we must go to them and explain it, letter by letter, at an immense cost to the country, and at the risk of losing the whole scheme! (Hear, hear.) But let us see what followed. A general election was ordered in 1861—there was a fierce contest at the polls —and the main question at every hustings, was the demand for constitutional changes. The result of that contest was the overthrow of the CARTIER-MACDONALD Ministry and the formation of the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration in its room. But so bitter had been the struggle for and against constitutional changes, and so clearly defined were party-lines upon it, that it was found impos- I sible to construct that Government without a distinct pledge that it would resist every motion made upon the subject—

HON. MR. HOLTON—Did you recognize the propriety of that course ?

HON. MR. BROWN—NO, indeed, I did not. I but cite the fact to show how thoroughly the whole question has been agitated,’ and how perfectly its bearings have, for years past, been understood. Well, sir, mark what followed. One short year had not passed over the heads of the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Ministry before they tottered to their fall— and so repugnant to the House and to the country was their conduct on the constitutional question, that they dared not appeal to the country until they had changed their avowed policy upon it, and replaced the men who had forced upon them the narrow polioy of the year before, by gentlemen understood to be more in favor of constitutional changes. The Government (MACDONALD- DORION), SO reconstructed, went to the country in 1863, but in the year following it, too, fell in its turn, simply because it did not deal boldly with the constitutional question—

HON. MR. DORION—We had the support of all who were in favor of the question.

HON. MR. BROWN—Indeed, you had not.

HON. MR. HOLTON—We should have fallen if we had attempted to deal with it.

HON. MR. BROWN—I entirely deny that ; had you pursued a bold policy upon it you might have been in office up to this hour. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, the MACDONALD-DORION made way for the TACHÉ-MACDONALD Administration—but it, too, soon fell by a majority of two, simply because it did not deal with the constitutional question—

A VOICE—Oh, oh !

HON. MR. BROWN—My honorable friend cries “oh, oh,” and I am perfectly amazed at his doing so. I am about to offer my honorable friend the most complete proof of the correctness of my statement—proof so conclusive that if lie does not accept of it as such, I do not know how he can be convinced of anything. In one single day the TACHÉ-MACDONALD Administration, by taking up the constitutional question boldly, turned their minority of two into a majority of seventy. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) Could anything prove more unanswerably than this the deep hold this question has on the public mind, and the assured confidence of the members of this House that their constituents understand its whole

[Page 114]

merits, when, in one day, such a startling political revolution was brought about ? Was it, think you, a doubtful consideration that could have induced the Upper Canada Opposition, almost as one man, to cast down their party intrenchnients and make common cause with their opponents? Could there have been the slightest doubt as to the sentiments of our people and the imperative necessity of immediate action, when such men as now sit on the treasury benches, were forced, by their supporters, to unite for the settlement of this question ? And could there be a more conclusive proof of the ripeness of public opinion than the unanimous and cordial manner in which our so uniting has been sustained by the press of all parties, and by the electors at the polls? (Hear, hear.) Never, I venture to assert, was any great measure so thoroughly understood, and so cordially endorsed by the people of Canada, as this measure now under consideration. (Hear, hear.)— The British Government approves of it—the Legislative Council approves of it — this House almost unanimously approves of it— the press of all parties approves of it— and though the scheme has already been directly submitted to fifty out of the one hundred constituencies into which Canada is divided, only four candidates ventured to appear at the hustings in opposition to it — all of them in Lower Canada—and but two of them were elected. (Cheers.) And yet, sir, we are to be told that we are stealing a march upon the country ; that it is not understood by the people ; and that we must dissolve the House upon it, at a vast cost to the exchequer, and at the risk of allowing political partisanship to dash the fruit from our hands at the very moment we are about to grasp it! (Hear, hear.) Sir, I have no fears whatever of an appeal to the people. I cannot pretend to speak as to the popular feeling in Lower Canada, but I think I thoroughly understand the popular mind of the western province, and I hesitate not to say that there are not five gentlemen in this chamber (if so many) who could go before their constituents in Upper Canada in opposition to this scheme, with the slightest chance of being returned. (Hear, hear.) I t is because I thoroughly comprehend the feelings of the people upon it, that I urge the adoption of this measure at the earliest possible moment. The most gross injustice is to be rectified by it ; the tax-payer is to be clothed with his rightful influence by it ; new commercial relations are to be opened up by it ; a new impulse to the industrial pursuits of the country will be given by it— and I for one would feel myself false to the cause I have so long sustained, and false to the best interests of my constituents, if I permitted one hour unnecessarily to pass without bringing it to a final issue. (Cheers.) It was only by the concurrence of most propitious circumstances that the wonderful progress this movement has made could have been accomplished. Most peculiar were the circumstances that enabled such a coalition to be formed as that now existing for the settlement of this question—and who shall say at what hour it may not be rent asunder ? And yet, who will venture to affirm that if party spirit in all its fierceness were once more to be let loose amongst us, there would be the slightest hope that this great question could be approached with that candor and harmony necessary to its satisfactory solution ? (Hear, hear.) Then, sir, at the very moment we resolved to deal with this question of constitutional change, the Maritime Provinces were about to assemble in joint conference to consider whether they ought not to form a union among themselves—- and the way was thus most propitiously opened up for the consideration of a union of all British America. The civil war too, iu the neighboring republic ; the possibility of war between Great Britain and the United States ; the threatened repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty ; the threatened abolition of the American bonding system for goods in transit to and from the provinces ; the unsettled position of the Hudson’s Bay Company ; and the changed feeling of England as to the relations of great colonies to the parent state ;—all combine at this moment to arrest earnest attention to the gravity of the situation, and unite us all in one vigorous effort to meet the emergency like men. (Hear, hear.) The interests to be affected by this scheme of union are very large and varied—but the pressure of circumstances upon all the colonies is so serious at this moment, that if we cannot now banish partisanship and sectionalism and petty objections, and look at the matter on its broad intrinsic merits, what hope is there of our ever being able to do so ? An appeal to the people of Canada on this measure simply means postponement of the question for a year—and who can tell how changed ere then may be the circumstances surrounding us ? Sir, the man who strives for the postponement of this measure on any ground, is doing wha t he can to kill it almost as effectually as if he voted against it. (Hear, hear.) Let there be no mistake as to the mann r in which the

[Page 115]

Government presents this measure to the House. We do not present it as free from fault, but we do present it as a measure so advantageous to the people of Canada, that all the blemishes, real or imaginary, averred against it, sink into utter insignificance in presence of its merits. (Hear, hear.) We present it, not in the precise shape we in Canada would desire it, but as in the best shape the five colonies to be united could agree upon it. We present it in the form in which the five governments have severally adopted it—in the form the Imperial Government has endorsed it —and in the form in which we believe all the legislatures of the provinces will accept it. (Hear, hear.) We ask the House to pass it in the exact form in which wo have presented it, for we know not how alterations may affect its safety in other places, and the process of alteration once commenced in four different legislatures— who can tell where that would end ? Every member of this House is free as air to criticise it if he so wills, and amend it if he is able—but we warn him of the danger of amendment, and throw on him all the responsibility of the consequences. (Hear, hear.) We feel confident of carrying this scheme as it stands—but we cannot tell what we can do if it be amended. (Hear, hear.) Let not honorable gentlemen approach this measure as a sharp critic deals with an abstract question, striving to point out blemishes and display his ingenuity ; but let us approach it as men having but one consideration before us—the establishment of the future peace and prosperity of our country. (Hear, hear.) Let us look at it in the light of a few months back— in the light of the evils and injustice to which it applies a remedy—in the light of the years of discord and strife we have spent in seeking for that remedy—in the light with which the people of Canada would regard this measure were it to be lost, and all the evils of past years to be brought back upon us again. (Hear, hear.) Let honorable gentlemen look at the question in this view—and what one of them will take the responsibility of casting his vote against the measure ? Sir, the future destiny of these great provinces may be affected by the decision we are about to give to an extent which at this moment we may be unable to estimate—but assuredly the welfare for many years of four millions of people hangs on our decision. (Hear, hear.) Shall we then rise equal to the occasion ?—shall we approach this discussion without partisanship, and free from every personal feeling but the earnest resolution to discharge conscientiously the duty which an over-ruling Providence has placed upon us ? Sir, it may be that some among us will live to see the day when, as the result of this measure, a great and powerful people may have grown up in these lands— when the boundless forests all around us shall have given way to smiling fields and thriving towns— and when one united government, under the British flag, shall extend from shore to shore :—but who would desire to see that day if he could not recall with satisfaction the part he took in this discussion ? Mr. SPEAKER I have done. I leave the subject to the conscientious judgment of the House, in the confident expectation and belief that the decision it will render will be worthy of the Parliament of Canada. (The honorable gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and continued applause.)

On motion of the Hon. Mr. MCGEE, the debate was further adjourned till Thursday evening.


THURSDAY, February 9, 1865.

HON. MR. ALLAN said, that if he acquiesced, or thought that the House acquiesced, in the opinion expressed by the honorable gentleman who spoke at the close of the debate last evening, that under the circumstances in which the resolutions now before them were presented for their consideration, it was useless to discuss their merits or express any opinion upon them ; he would not now venture to trespass on the time of the House with any remarks of his on the great scheme which had been submitted for their approval. But believing, as he did, that the Government had not invited them to express their opinion as a mere matter of form, but they were really asked in good faith to examine and discuss the measure, and then to express their approval or disapproval of it as a whole, he would venture to occupy their attention for a few moments, while he stated to the House the reasons which induced him to give it his hearty concurrence and support. He would first, however, premise that he could not see the force of an objection which had also been made, that as they were precluded from making any alteration in the details of the scheme, they would be betraying thoir trust and violating their duty to their constituents if they

[Page 116]

acquiesced in the scheme as a whole, to some of the particular features of which their own convictions might be opposed, and in reference to which they perhaps had no opportunity of ascertaining definitely the views of their constituents. Now, he would ask honorable gentlemen, did it not constantly happen that in the business of life they were obliged to delegate to a few the conduct of many matters in which they were most deeply interested themselves, but which, from the very nature of the interests involved, could not be dealt with advantageously otherwise, and if they had confidence in the judgment and ability of those to whom the task had been committed, were they not satisfied to accept their recommendations, although their views on all points might not coincide with their own ? Just so in the case of the Confederation scheme—it was one which required special ability, tact and judgment, to deal with. I t was one in which so many conflicting interests, so many nice questions were involved, that it would have been next to impossible to have arrived at any satisfactory settlement of the question, had the task been committed to a popular assembly or any other large body. Now, he was satisfied that the people of this country were fully persuaded at the time of the Conference that the task of framing a scheme for the union of all the North American Provinces had been assumed by those statesmen who, by their ability, experience and judgment were, of all men, the best qualified for the duty ; and he had yet to learn, from any expression of public opinion, either out of doors or in the press, that this confidence had been shaken, or that the scheme, as a whole, had been disapproved of. On the contrary, the people of C&aada had now been acquainted with all the important features of the measure for some three months at least, and he believed the result had been that, while various opinions had been expressed in reference to the details of the scheme, the great majority of the people were perfectly satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of their representatives, to be assented to by them as a whole, if, after a full discussion of its merits, they were satisfied that they so far outweighed its defects as to commend itself to their adoption. If then, in the best exercise of his judgment, he had come to the conclusion tnat the peculiar circumstances of the times, and the merits of the scheme as a whole, outweighed any of the defects which might present themselves in the details, he thought he should be fully warranted, acting on behalf of his constituents, in according his support to the measure, without being in any way chargeable with a dereliction of duty or a betrayal of the trust committed to him. He would now state to the House what were the considerations which induced him to give his support to the measure, and which, to him at least, appeared of sufficient importance to outweigh all objections that had been brought against it. They were twofold—arising in the first place from our internal condition, and in the second place from our position with regard to the neighboring States. And first, with regard to our internal condition, while he partly agreed with the remark which fell from the honorable member for the Brock Division, that our political differences alone could perhaps scarcely be said to necessitate such great and important constitutional changes as those involved in Confederation ; yet taken in connection with our external relations, he thought no one would deny that the state of chronic weakness of the governing body had become a subject of grave apprehension to every well-wisher of their country. No one would deny that when storms were impending, it was doubly necessary that the ships of the state should be guided by firm and determined hands—that weakness and vacillation under such circumstances would be sure to end in disaster. Yet for the last few years, when the political horizon had been growing darker and darker, when fresh causes of irritation had unhappily sprung up from time to time between us and our neighbors, we had seen ministry after ministry bre^k down, until anything like a stable and vigorous government seemed to have become a hopeless impossibility. Who could say that such a state of things was not fraught with danger to any community. He believed that in Federation they had found a remedy for those sectional differences between Upper and Lower Canada, which had so long agitated the country, and had been a source of weakness to so many administrations. Under the scheme now proposed, all causes of jealousy and distrust between the two provinces would be removed, and they might well hail with satisfaction any change which, by removing these stumbling-blocks which sectional feeling and party strife had placid in the way of so many successive ministries, had enabled the ablest men of all parties to unite their councils for the formation of a strong, vigorous and permanent government. For these considerations, amongst others, the measure before the House should have his hearty support, but there were to his mind graver reasons still why the union of the provinces

[Page 117]

should, if possible, be brought about without further loss of time. No one who had watched the course of public opinion in Great Britain in reference to the colonies, as expressed during the last few years, either in Parliament or in the public press, could doubt that the feeling had been gaining ground there that the time had come for us to assume a larger share than we had hitherto assumed of those responsibilities which attach to every country aspiring to any sort of national existence or political standing. He need scarcely say that he alluded to the question of defence. This was a question which would have been forced upon us sooner or later under any circumstances, because it was neither reasonable nor just that we should expect that Great Britain would continue to give us the protection of her fleets and armies, unless we showed that we were willing to bear our share of the burden, and were ready to contribute our quota of men and means towards the defence of our own hearths and homes should war unhappily threaten us. Under any circumstances, then, the consideration of this question must necessarily have occupied a large share of the attention of the Government and the Legislature, but no one would deny that it had acquired tenfold importance in view of our present relations with the United States, and that what might safely have been left to the unaided resources of Canada alone,had peace and harmony continued to prevail on our borders, would now require all the assistance, all the material aid and moral support, which a close and cordial union with nearly a million of our British fellow-subjects could alone give to us. Feeling then as he did upon these points, he could not help asking himself the question, what would be the result, as regards the well-being and prosperity of Canada, if this Confederation scheme should fall through ? Should we not suffer most seriously in all our relations both at home and abroad ? Would not the effect on our credit in England be most disasterous ? Would they not say that our own folly and want of patriotism had condemned us to a state of isolation and weakness, when union with our sister provinces would have made us strong, powerful and prosperous? Some honorable gentlemen had such strong objections to some of the details of the measure— the alteration in the constitution of this House, for instance—that rather than bring themselves to vote for it, they were willing to run the risk of imperiling the whole scheme. For his own part, he thought it would ill become an elected member like himself to say anything against the elective system as applie to this House ; although he earnestly believed that the majority of his own constituents were in favor of a Legislative Council appointed by the Ciown. As for the objection which had been urged that between an Upper House composed exclusively of life members, and an elective Lower House, there might be the danger of a direct collision in the event of one rejecting an important measure which the other had passed, he did not think there was much danger of such a contingency. Indeed he would remind honorable members that the only instance of anything like a dead-lock between the two Houses, which had occurred within late years, at all events, was since the introduction of the elective principle, when the Council in 1859 refused to pass the Supply Bill on account of certain items contained in it, providing for the expense of the removal of the Government to Quebec. The Government on that occasion were left in a minority in this House, although they had a majority in the Assembly, and it was only after an adjournment of some days and upon a reconsideration of the question, after bringing up some life members from Lower Canada, that the Government carried the vote by a majority of two or three. Upon the whole, however, he thought that the life members of the Couneil would admit that the elective members had so far, at all events, comported themselves in such a way as to maintain the character of the House as a conservative body, free from all violent party feeling, and exercising a wholesome check against all ill-considered or hasty legislation. The real danger, he thought, was that if the House in process of time were to become a purely elective body, and party lines became more closely drawn, the same partisan spirit which too often swayed the proceedings of the popular branch of the Legislature, might find its way into their chamber, larger powers, such as originating money bills, might be claimed, and a collision between the two Houses might then occur at any time. Another objection raised by some honorable gentlemen, was, that this measure was being urged upon the Parliament and people of this country with undue haste, and from the language of some honorable gentlemen it was quite clear that they did not think that our situation was by any means such a critical one as to call for any immediate change. For his own part, he did not understand how any one could look abroad at what was passing on our borders and not take into consideration the fact that our communica-

[Page 118]

tion with the sea-board during the winter was I about to be cut off—that our trade and commerce with the United States was hampered by the most vexatious and needless restrictions— and that, furthermore, measures of a military and naval character having special reference to our frontier relations, had found favor and countenance with the Government and people of the United States. Looking at all these things, he could not conceive how any Canadian could feel that this was a time for his country to remain in her present comparatively weak and isolated condition, when an opportunity was offered of acquiring that Strength which union with the sister provinces could alone give us. It might be that there were some honorable gentlemen who did not view the question, so far as regarded our relations with the United States, in the same light that he did. Now, from whatever point of view he looked at the question of Confederation, he was equally convinced of the extreme desirableness of an early settlement of the question. He would be very unwilling to follow the example of some honorable gentlemen in decrying the resources or underrating the position of Canada ; but he was bound to say, that while he freely admitted and heartily acknowledged the many sources of material wealth and prosperity which Canada possessed, in her fertile soil, her rich minerals, her noble system of canals and railways, he nevertheless could not shut his eyes to the fact that our trade and revenue, our commercial and agricultural interests, had been so injuriously affected by the state of things on the other side of the lakes, that unless we could find new avenues for our commerce, new markets for our produce, we must inevitably suffer a most serious check to our prosperity and well-doing. In this Confederation scheme he believed that a golden opportunity was offered to us of remedying the evils under which we were now suffering, and of opening out a new and prosperous career for this country, if we would avail ourselves of it. He believed that it might be said of nations as of individuals :—

There is a tide in the affairs of man
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune ;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life is spent
In shallows and miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat.
And we must take the current as it flows,
Or lose our venture.

He would urge then upon the House, not to allow the opportunity to pass—even should it be at the sacrifice of individual opinions— of forming a strong, powerful and prosperous Confederation, and thus ensure for ourselves, and our children’s children, a national existence as British North Americans, which may endure for many ages to come. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. SANBORN said he rose for the purpose of moving the resolution of which he had given notice, and would take the opportunity of offering some observations on the general subject. In his opinion it could not be injured by discussion, and whatever might be its merits or demerits after going through the crucible, the residuum must be better than the present condition of the subject, both as regarded the legislature and the country. On a former occasion he had expressed himself as not averse to the question, but as inclined, from various considerations, to view Confederation favorably ; and acting in the same sense he would now state certain points, which, in his opinion, must lead to the conclusion that such a union would advance the prosperity of the colonies interested, and their ultimate establishment as a nation. The principle of association, as exhibited in commercial partnerships and corporations, continued a secret of prosperity, the precise nature of whieh it might be difficult to elucidate and account for, but which no one could fail to recognize, and so far as it applied to nations its potency was sufficiently established to show that the analogy was presumed and that it was as operative as in partnerships and corporations. He was also prepared to admit that diversity of interests was no sufficient argument against union, —(hear)—since in this very particular might frequently be found the strongest bond of union. As in electricity, opposite poles attracted each other, so among nations a diversity of interests which might a priori be pronounced a bar, was not unfrequently the most effectual means of harmony, and thus a diversity of feeling which brought out talent, might lead to a comparison of opinions which would induce an enlarged policy calculated to elevate and not to depress national energies. He was prepared to admit that Confederation would enlarge the minds of all, and make us better to understand our resources and capabilities. It would make us more enquiring, and teach us so to use our industrial power as to secure the best results. (Hear, hear.) He was prepared to admit that the results of the union between Upper and Lower Canada had been beneficial to both, and he argued that union with the other provinces, inhabited by a people educated under different circumstances and of different origins, could hardly

[Page 119]

be without mutual advantage. It would give the inhabitants of each province the opportunity of studying each other’s habits and pursuits, and so induce larger and more comprehensive views. He was prepared to admit that the assimilation of tariffs would be an advantage of no little moment, and that it would do away with much chafing in working the machinery of the government. He also admitted the advantage of having ocean seaports of our own, though he was not prepared to attach so much importance to that as some other honorable members. We were told that no inland country could ever be great, and that so long as we had no opening to the sea we could not expect permanent prosperity. He was quite prepared to say that access to the ocean through the ports of St. John, N.B., and Halifax, was very desirable, but he was not at all certain that the grand effects proclaimed would be realized. I t was no doubt very desirable to secure all these advantages, but the measure contained some provisions which, if carried out, would, as he believed, be highly injurious to both the general and local governments. Then he must say he had a strong distrust of it on account of the manner in which it was originated. I t was not in accordance with the analogy of things or with the lessons taught us by the history of the world, that a few gentlemen, however wise and well-intentioned, but self-elected, should meet together to form a constitution and erect a new nationality. If we looked to the United States (the history of whose Constitution he would presently allude to, and whose Constitution had been more closely followed in that now under consideration than the British Constitution) we would see how patiently they had proceeded to construct it. [Here the honorable member gave a history of the first instrument of federation, established for mutual convenience and support, though not for national union, which occupied from the 7th October to the 15th November, 1777, in the discussing. He then said that this arrangement, not being found to answer the requirements of the States concerned, in September, 1787, they commenced deliberating upon the adoption of a Constitution, which, after being arranged, was for two years before the individual states and the people, being only ratified in October, 1789.] This showed how careful and particular they had been in this important matter, and a distinguished member of the other branch of our legislature had said, only a few evenings ago, that the greatest statesmen who ever lived had been engaged in tho work. From the length of the discussions, and the time given to the people to study and understand the measure, it was seen how anxious they were that it should be made perfectly satisfactory to them. But what was it that gave rise to the desire for federation first in the States ? They were poor and comparatively helpless. They had-just come out of an exhaustive war with Great Britain, and the duty fell upon them of organizing a government for a broad expanse of country, containing but two and a half or three million souls. This it was that led to the first attempt at federation, and afterwards to a closer union under the constitution of 1789. How was it with us ? It was alleged that we had been led step by step, according to the strictest method of induction, to the necessity for the measure now proposed ; that without it there must have been an irremediable dead-lock between the parties in the legislature, which would have rendered further progress impossible. But what was the real impediment ? Want of patriotism—not the want of a good Constitution. If there had been less virulence of party spirit, and a better disposition to accommodate matters, there would have been no dead-lock. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. ROSS hoped the honorable member felt this.

HON. MR. SANBORN—If the leading men had felt as they ought to have felt, there would have been no dead-lock, for it existed more in name than in reality. There was no cause for saying that no government could be formed which could command a good majority. And what had the difficulties arisen from ? From a persistent agitation fot representation according to population, in consequence of which the people had at last come to believe that it was a fundamental axiom in government. (Hear, hear.) But did it follow that because there were difficulties that they could not be arranged without recourse to such a measure as this, and was it certain even that Confederation would remove them ? Instead of meeting the difficulties, the Government had travelled away from them and formed an agreement with provinces in which they had no existence, without devising means to relieve themselves. Federation was forthwith produced, like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, fully armed ; and we were told it was just what we wanted to make all things right. We were told we must take it as presented, without any possible change ; we must lay aside our character as a deliberative body, and without considering the country (which had been studiously kept in ignorance of the scheme) vote to accept or

[Page 120]

reject it. It was true that soon after the resolutions had been agreed upon, copies had been sent to the members of both Houses confidentially, but the people must be kept in the dark. If the members had acted up to the implied requirement of secrecy, and not divulged the provisions of the scheme, the people were to this day ignorant of its character, and it could not be said that it was ever constitutionally submitted to the country. Then we were told that, as elective members and as patriots, it was our duty to accept the measure as it was, even though portions of it might not be satisfactory, rather than lose it altogether. It had been generally represented by the local newspapers in Upper Canada—fed to do so—that it was commonly approved ; but while the simple idea of union might find favor, as he believed it did, it was not less true that the country was waiting for the details, of which they would judge when they had been discussed in Parliament. When this had been done, and the bearing of the manifold particulars was thoroughly understood it was expected, at least among the English of Lower Canada, that it would not be passed until after having been submitted to the people. If it were passed through without such an appeal, he had no hesitation in saying that the Government would assume a very serious responsibility, and if, in after times, the union should prove disastrous, it would bring upon them imprecations instead of blessings. And he was under the impression that the Government, whenever they had given their views on the subject, had never said it would not be so presented, but no doubt their utterances were very much like those of the Delphic oracle, susceptible of being understood in two opposite ways. But what could such an indisposition to speak clearly indicate, if not a purpose to press the matter on to a result, even though the people might not want it. Under this measure the elective members would have a right to vote themselves, two out of three at least, as members for life. Now it had been found necessary to enact a law to ensure the independence of Parliament, and for the purpose of removing all temptation to swerve from the right, they were precluded from occupying even the small offices of postmasters in the remotest parts of the country, or acting as security for such officers. For every day that a member occupied a seat in either House unlawfully, he was subject to the extreme penalty of £500, and if this strictness had been found necessary, was not the spirit of the law violated when this House was invited to pass a measure by which the members of the Legislative Council of the Confederation would be appointed for life, and selected from the members of the present Legislative Council—even allowing that all the Crown nomiuated members were to be first chosen, as the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands had left us to infer from his remarks.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL said he had stated nothing of the kind, and the honorable member had no foundation whatever for his assertion. He (Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL) had used no such language, but had expressly stated that due consideration would be given to members of both sides of politics, and to life and elective members equally.

HON. MR. SANBORN said he had reason to suppose that what he had stated was a fair inference from what the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands said.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The honorable member could not have been in the House when the statement was made, or how could he draw that conclusion ?

HON. MR. SANBORN said he was ready to accept the explanation, as it would not affect his argument. And supposing all the members nominated by the Crown were appointed, he would say it was but just ; nay, it would be unjust to deprive them of seats which had been given them for life. The Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands would thus see that he (Hon. Mr. SANBORN) had attributed only such opinions to him as he himself conscientiously held to be right. Assuming then that the Crown members would retain their seats, there was a direct temptation presented to at least two out of three of the elective members. This, he thought, exhibited the project in a very damaging light. Such a measure was calculated to bias the judgment, and ought not to be presented to any legislative body. He held that elective members had received a sacred trust to exercise ; that they were sent here by their constituencies to represent them, and to do that only. Under these circumstances he would ask, whether they could conceive they had the power to vote away the rights of their electors ? That was not in their mandat, and if they did, they would be doing what they had no authority to do ; they would be doing what they could not do without going beyond the authority confided to them. Coming to the principle of elective legislative councils itself, he might say it had already been adopted in four British colonies besides Canada. Canada, though the largest of these, was not the first to adopt it

[Page 121]

though it might claim to be foremost in establishing precedents—especially as with the addition of the Lower Provinces we are told we shall be the third largest nation in the world—(hear, hear, and laughter)—since for a long series of years the demand had been made by the people. They persisted against many discouragements, and the reform constituted one of the famous ninety-two resolutions of the constitutional party in Lower Canada, until with other reforms it was at last conceded and consummated. When the subject was under discussion, objections were made and fears expressed that there might be a feeling among the members, who came from the people, to claim the right to originate money bills, and that an antagonism would thus arise between the two branches, but no such conflict of opinion had ever happened, and the Constitution had worked as heretofore. The infusion of the elective element was made gradually with the view of anticipating such a result, and the effect was attained, for there had been no clashing of interests. The elective principle had been applied to the Legislative Council of Prince Edward Island, and he would ask, how, under the 14th resolution of the Confederation, that body was to be dealt with ? He would read that part of the resolution to which he referred — ” The first selection of the members of the Legislative Council to be made from the Legislative Councils of the various provinces, except as regards Prince Edward Island,” &c. What did this mean ? Were the members from Prince Edward Island still to be elected ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—No; they were to be appointed. The resolution was so worded as not to limit the selection in Prince Edward Island to the Legislative Council now in existence there.

HON. MR. SANBORN—Was it because the elective principle had worked so badly in Canada that this change is proposed ?

HON. Ma. CAMPBELL—No; and therefore in Canada the selection was to be made from the House itself.

HON. MR. SANBORN—It appeared then, that Prince Edward Island, dissatisfied with the elective principle, had dictated terms, and Canada had yielded to the dictation.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL —The Conference had yielded to Prince Edward Island only in respect of its own members. They were so dissatisfied with their Legislative Council that, with reference to themselves, a choice from the people at large was permitted, but this had no reference whatever to Canada.

HON. MR. SANBORN — Suppose the elective members should be swept off, what became of the people’s right of representation by men of their own choice?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—No such thing was intended.

HON. MR. SANBORN said he had only put the case hypothetically, but had been glad to learn the reasons which had led the delegates to resolve upon the abandonment of the elective principle in respect of the Legislative Council. Canada, however, did not deserve to be used in this way. He would now ask whether the representatives of Canada in the Conference had any warrant from the country to justify their action ? They had none whatever. If they had not acted under the dictation of Prince Edward Island, they had acted on their own motion, and without authority of any kind. The conclusion was legitimate and logical. The position they had assumed was exceptional and distasteful. Coming to the proposal to amend the resolutions, he would say there existed no reason why the House, if it thought proper, could not change them in any particular. He willingly admitted that they were in the nature of a treaty, and we must accept them, if accepted at all, so that their essential character should not be impaired ; but when they were presented to us, we were bound to decide whether they were what we wanted or not. If they were so in the main, there was no necessity for taking exceptions which would affect our relations with the other provinces, but they might be modified and changed in so far as Canada was concerned, and the other provinces would have no cause of complaint. What interest had they in the manner of our choosing our own representatives ? All they had a right to say in the matter was that we should not have more than two-thirds of the whole number. There was a way of putting things so as to frighten and convince wavering minds ; but he would ask the House to sift this matter to the bottom—to look at the reason of things—and to say if his amendment were adopted, which maintained intact the principle of representation laid down in the resolutions—only retaining the mode of choosing the members—the modification could lead to harm or to anything else than what had already been declared, viz., that the Imperial Parliament might take the scheme with the amendment under consideration, and act upon said amendment. Mr. CARDWELL had

[Page 122]

already remarked upon that very point, and if it were changed, would it not be to retain the elective principle ? If the Imperial Parliament may do so, may we not ask them to do it ? May we not record our views ? And would they, upon a measure of such vast moment and pregnant with such results, proceed to adopt a principle unless they knew its operation to be beneficial? Turning to his proposed amendment, the honorable member said that if it were adopted, the principle of federal representation in the resolutions would be retained; the same members would be retained (in Canada at least) ; and to render the proportion of the Lower Provinces relatively equal, he would allow them to name ten life members. Were we to be told that such a form would be incongruous, and be deterred from considering the proposition ? Then we should be reflecting upon ourselves. He and other honorable members sat under a mandate from the people, while other honorable members sat under a patent from the Crown. It would be a reflection both on our past and present condition. There were the same reasons now for adopting such a form as there were when the elective principle was adopted. It was a domestic matter, and should be lei’t to domestic arrangement. Each province had its own peculiar interests, and should be left to the exercise of its judgment in the management of them. If subsequently a change were desired, it could be granted. He maintained that his views were correct and logical, and he was at a loss to see the incongruity with which they were charged. He could not discover any sufficient cause for the proposed change, and as the people had not asked for it, and as Canada formed a large majority of the whole, it ought not to have been granted without reference to their opinions. Representation according to population was now looked upon as a cardinal principle, but it certainly was not observed in dealing with this important question. “We were told the vote was taken by provinces, not by numbers, still the Lower Provinces had the majority of representatives, though they represented but a minority of the people. Then it was said our delegates were leading men and men of talent, which he was quite prepared to allow, yet they did not compose all the talent or statesmanship of Canada. In this way the onethird of the populations interested had given the law to the other two-thirds. We were told again that the Constitution emanating from the Conference was desirable because it was modelled on the British Constitution. The British Constitution was unmatched in the world, and was not susceptible of imitation. I t had grown by the accretions of ages, by the independence of the people, and by their undying love of justice and fair play. (Hear, hear.) I t had been produced by the strictest inductive method, and stood unrivalled as a monument of the greatest human wisdom. Except in remote future times, it could not be imitated—(hear)—and he did not urge this difference as a demerit, for it was in the nature of things that it should exist. I t had reference to different kinds of people—to people of different genius, and to people of new countries and altered circumstances ; but though an able theoretical composition, it might fail to produce the anticipated results. I t was not a copy of that horror of our Constitution-makers—the Constitution of the United States—but he would show that the delegates had borrowed more largely from that Constitution than from any other, though to be sure, in some aspects, it differed very much from it, as in the provision which gives to members of the Upper House their seats for life. The resolutions provided that an equal representation should be given to the three sections of the Confederation as having separate interests, while in the Lower House the representation was to be according to population. Both these provisions were copied from the American Constitution. The life membership was supposed to be in conformity with the British Constitution, but the limitation of the number of members was a violation of it. The limitation of the power of the federal, and the power of the local governments, was the old story of federal and state rights—in fact, the bone of contention which had led to the present unhappy war ; an apple of discord which our posterity might gather in fruits of the most bitter character. There was another branch of the subject he would fail in his duty if he did not touch upon, and that was the situation in which the English of Lower Canada would be placed. The Honorable Premier had remarked at some length upon the disposition to toleration and the indulgent spirit evinced by his people in past times, and he (Hon.Mr. SANBORN) was not prepared to detract from this. He would freely and fully concede the point. He had alw.iys lived in the midst of a mixed population, and his division was more French than English, and it would ill become him to cast reflections on their liberality and desire for fair play or justice to others. But this was the time, when treating of important arrange-

[Page 123]

ments for the future, to lay aside all unnecessary delicacy, and by our action to lay down the guarantees for the perpetuation of these kind feelings and this spirit of toleration so long-existing, and which he devoutly hoped would never cease. No greater calamity could befall the English, or, in fact, both races, than the introduction of religious discord among the people of Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) It would, however, be a grievous mistake to overlook the safeguards and rules necessary to perpetuate kindly feelings, and to prevent the disposition to aggressions which existed more or less in all minds. That principle— the love of power—was found in every human heart, none were exempt from it, and the history of the world showed that no people had ever risen superior to it. The Honorable Premier had recognized this truth in the remarks he had made in regard of the difficul- ties between Upper and Lower Canada. The French Canadians had persistently refused the demands of Upper Canada for representation by population, because of the terror they felt that, if granted, their institutions would be in danger; and he had told the French members in the House that under the new Constitution their rights were so effectually guarded that their autonomy was fully secured—the safeguards thereof being put in their own hands. But, at the same time, the English, who were a fourth of the population, and who, by habit and tradition, had their own views of public policy, were left entirely without guarantee other than the good feelings and tolerant spirit of the French. Was this safe ? The only safeguard they were to have was in regard of education, but in regard of the rights of property they were to be left to the Legislature. And this brought him to the consideration of that part of the proposed Constitution which had reference to civil rights and rights of property. It was said that the oivil laws of Lower Canada were now consolidated into a code, and this would enhance our credit; and if based upon sound principles and rendered permanent, it would undoubtedly do so, for what is so conducive to the prosperity of a country as well-protected rights of property and vested interests ? This feature was deeply engrained in the British mind, and in that of the United States also, insomuch that the American Constitution provides that no law could be passed which would affect the rights of property. This was exemplified in the celebrated Dartmouth College case, in which WEBSTER so distinguished himself, when the endowment was maintained and perpetuated. But to what power were the rights of property committed in these resolutions ? When the Minister of Finance appealed to moneyed men abroad for a loan, could he say the Constitution had provided guarantees against injurious changes, when it was known that the laws relating to property were left to the caprice of the local governments ? Where was the security of the great religious societies of Montreal, if a sentiment hostile to monopolies were carried to extremes in the Local Parliament ?

HON. SIR. E. P. TACHÉ—The General Legislature had power to disallow such acts.

HON. MR. CURRIE—This would be an interference with local rights.

HON. MR. ROSS—It would preserve local rights.

HON. MR. SANBORN—It was a wise power and commended itself to all ; it was, however, not an ordinary power to be commonly resorted to, but an extreme power, and one almost revolutionary. I t was a power somewhat similar to that which existed in the second branch of the Legislature to stop the supplies, but in its very nature not one often to be exercised ; and it could not be frequently exercised without destroying the very foundations of society, and occasioning evils of the greatest magnitude. On the whole he conceived that entrusting such power to the local governments was illogical and dangerous, and informing the world that the rights of property were not made sure. It was urged by some that, to make the measure now before the House answer the ends proposed, it must be immediately adopted, but he did not participate in this opinion. He knew no reason for this haste, and could not believe that a few months would make any material difference. This union, when formed, was to strengthen us so marvellously that we would be able to intimidate all the rest of the world, and guarantee us a lasting peace with all mankind. It might increase facilities for communication, but could not increase our real strength. How the people of New Brunswick could be expected to come up to Canada to defend us, and leave their own frontier unprotected, he could not comprehend. If he had misinterpreted the statements or explanations on this point, let the ministers show how this greater strength was to be acquired. There would be three or four provinces more united together, but the frontier to be defended would be increased in greater proportion than the additional number of men acquired. It was said by the advocates of the scheme that the naval power of

[Page 124]

Great Britain would defend St. John, for instance, and leave scope for the volunteers to defend the frontiers; hut the Intercolonial Railway, running as it would along the frontier, would be constantly subject to assaults, and would require all the force which could be spared for that purpose. Lower Canada would continue to be assailable from Maine and Vermont, and Upper Canada from the state of New York. Under these circumstances, each section of the Confederation would have enough to do to attend to its own affairs. We were told to love our neighbors as ourselves, but he was not aware that we were enjoined to love them better. (Hear.) We were not told what appropriations were to be made for defence, indeed pains had been taken to conceal that, and Hon. Mr. TILLEY said that the matter was not debated or determined. The province had already incurred an expense of $400,000 for the simple purpose of sending a few companies of volunteers to our frontier, and if there were no guarantee in the scheme of union—and he did not see any—for increasing our strength, where was the use of haste ? Were we not as safe now as we would be then ? The Honorable Premier had stated we were on an inclined plane, and he (Hon. Mr. SANBORN) supposed that like Holland we must dyke ourselves up, lest we slide away into the sea of the great American Confederacy. (Laughter.) Whether we were liable to be hurled thither by an avalanche or gradually glide down, we could not prevent our going there except by Confederation, but Confederation would stop us, and that was something to be thankful for. His own impression was that our position would have been more improved by an agreement with Upper Canada than by the new nationality. Canada had had difficulties with the United States, but they had never exhibited a spirit of aggression towards us, except in times of war, wbich had arisen from issues between Great Britain and the United States, and he did not believe they entertained such purposes now any more than in former times. If we desired to have a Constitution which would afford good hope of permanency, it must be planted deep in the affections of the people—(hear, hear)—for until their intellects were convinced of its excellence, they would not be prepared to uphold it and resist innovations. But they must feel and comprehend the obligation. (Hear.) To render it secure, it must be in the hearts of the people. Why was it that the English had always resisted attempts upon their Constitution ? Because every link of the great chain had been conquered by resistance to oppression, and by sacrifices of blood— (hear, hear)—by resistance to royal exactions and assumptions—(hear, hear)—and these achievements were preserved, held dear understood, valued, and clung to with all the tenacity of that great people’s nature. (Hear, hear.) This was the reason why it rested upon such a solid foundation, why it had endured so long, and was likely to endure for ever. (Hear, hear.) The Constitution asked for was to be built on a flimsy foundation, consisting of certain ideas in the minds of a few men, who no doubt wished well to their country ; but that Constitution was new after all, and they could not, in the small space of time they had given to the project, view the whole subject in all its bearings and aspects, as it was desirable they should. The honorable member closed his remarks by reiterating his opinion that an appeal on the subject was due to the people whose voice had not been heard upon it. The acquiescence spoken of was rather the patient awaiting of the details which were sure to be challenged, and the testimony of a subsidized press was not to be taken in evidence of its general acceptance. He was not prepared for one to take or reject the measure as presented. He believed the people would not approve of such a course, and, even were it infinitely better than it was, he would not take the responsibility of voting for it unless after it had been submitted to the country. (Hear, hear.) He would now move his amendment, which was as follows :

That the following words be added to the resolution now under consideration, as an amendment, by submitting for the eighth resolution the following :—

Upper Canada to be represented in the Legislative Council by twenty-four elective members, and Lower Canada by twenty-four elective members, and the Maritime Provinces by twenty-four members, corresponding with the twenty-four elective members in each section of Canada, of which Nova Scotia shall have ten, New Brunswick ten, and Prince Edward Island shall have four, and the present members of the Legislative Council of Canada, as well life members as elective members, shall be members of the first Legislative Council of the Federal Parliament—the appointed members to remain for life, and the elective members for eight years from the date of their election, unless removed by death or other cause ; their successors to be elected by the same divisions and electors as have elected them ; and it shall be permitted to the Maritime Provinces to appoint ten additional members for life, four for New Brunswick, four for Nova Scotia, and two for Prince Edward Island, to correspond with the

[Page 125]

present life members from Canada, and that after the first appointment of members in the Maritime Provinces, no new appointment shall be made, except to supply the vacancies by death or otherwise in the twenty-four members appointed to correspond with the elective members from the two sections of Canada.

And that in the eleventh section, after the word ” Council,” in the first line, the following words be added : “in the Maritime Provinces.”

And that section fourteen be struck out.

Seconded by Hon. Mr. BUREAU.

HON. MR. MACPHERSON briefly addressed the House in opposition to the amendment until the hour of adjournment, six o’clock, arrived. His remarks will be found recapitulated in the commencement of his speech on Friday.

At six o’clock the debate was adjourned, Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON having the floor.


THURSDAY, February 9, 1865.

The order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed Address to Her Majesty, on the subject of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces having been called ;

The HONORABLE MR. MCGEE said—Mr. SPEAKER, I rise to endeavor to fulfil the promise made in my name last evening by the Lower Canadian leader of this House. After the four speeches that have already been delivered from this quarter of the House, it may very well be supposed that little of essential importance remains to be said. On Monday the Attorney General West, in exposing the case for the Government, in moving this Address to Her Majesty, went very fully through all the items of the resolutions agreed upon at the Quebec Conference, and gave us a full analysis of the whole project with his own constitutional commentaries upon the proceedings of that body. On the next evening, the Attorney General East gave us his views also, treating chiefly of the difliculties in Lower Canada. The same night, my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, gave us a financial view of the whole subject; and last evening the Hon. President of the Council gave us another extended financial and political address, with some arguments from ” the Upper Canadian point of view,” as the phrase is. It may well therefore seem that after these speeches little of essential importance remains to be stated. Still this subject is so vast, the project before the House is so vast, and comprehends within it so many objects of interest, the atmosphere that surrounds a subject of this importance is so subtle and fluctuating, that there may be, I am feign to believe, a little joiner-work still left to do—there may be a hiatus here and there to fill up ; and although, as far as what is called ” the preliminary case” is concerned, the question might perhaps very well have rested with the four speeches already delivered—there may be some slight additional contribution made, and, such as it is, in my own humble way, I propose to make it to-night. (Hear, hear.) We all remember that in the nursery legendof the Three Kings of Cologne, CASPAR brought myrrh, and MELCHIOR incense, and BALTASSAR gold, but I am afraid my contribution will be less valuable than any of these, yet such as it is I cheerfully bring it, particularly when there are so many in this and the other provinces who would like to know what my own views are in relation) to the present crisis. (Hear-) With your approbation, sir, and the forbearance of the House, I will endeavour to treat this subject in this way :—First, to give some slight sketch of the history of the question ; then to examine the existing motives which ought to prompt us to secure a speedy union of these provinces ; then to speak of the difficulties which this question has encountered before reaching its present fortunate stage ; then to say something of the mutual advantages, in a social rather than political point of view, which these provinces will have in their union, and lastly to add a few words on the Federal principle in general, when I shall have done. In other words, I propose to consider the question of union mainly from within, and as far as possible to avoid going over the ground already so fully and so much better occupied by hon. friends who have already spoken upon the subject. My hon. friend, the member for Hochelaga, thought he did a very clever thing the other evening when he disentombed an old newspaper article of mine, entitled ” A New Nationality,” and endeavored to fix on me the paternity of the phrase—destined to become prophetic—which was employed by a very distinguished personage in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the session. I do happen to remember the article alluded to as one of my first essays in political writing in Canada; but

[Page 126]

I am quite sure that the almost forgotten publication in which it appeared was never known, even by name, to the illustrious person who delivered the speech on that occasion. But I will own when I saw my bantling held up to the admiration of the House in the delicate and fostering hands of the hon. member for Hochelaga, I was not ashamed of it ; on the contrary, perhaps there was some tingling of parental pride when I saw what ten years ago I pointed out as the true position for these colonies to take, about to be adopted by all the colonies under such favorable circumstances. I do not think it ought to be made a matter of reproach to me, or a cause for belittling the importance of the subject, that ten years ago I used the identical phrase employed in the Speech from the Throne. The idea itself is a good one, and it may have floated through the minds of many men and received intellectual hospitality even from the honorable member for Hochelaga himself. One is reminded by this sort of thing, of Puff in the Critic. “Two people” happened ” t o hit upon the same thought, and SHAKSPERE made use of it first—that’s all.” (Laughter.) My honorable frieüd is in this respect, no doubt, the SHAKSPERE of the new nationality. (Renewed laughter.) If there is anything in the article he has read to the House which is deserving of disapprobation, he is particeps criminw, and equally blameable if not more blameable than myself. He is indeed the older sinner, and I bow to him in that character with all proper humility. (Renewed laughter.) Really, Mr. SPEAKER, the attempt to fix the parentage of this child of many fathers is altogether absurd and futile. It is almost as ridiculous as the attempt to fix the name of this new Confederation, in advance of the decision of the Gracious Lady to whom the matter is to be referred. I have read in one newspaper published in a western city not less than a dozen attempts of this nature. One individual chooses Tuponia and another Hochelaga, as a suitable name for the new nationality. Now I would ask any hon. member of this House how he would feel if he woke up some fine morning and found himself, instead of a Canadian, a Tuponian or Hochelagander. (Laughter.) I think, sir, we may safely leave for the present the discussion of the name as well as the origin of the new system proposed ; when the Confederation has a place among the nations of the world, and opens a new page in history, it will be time enough to look into its antecedents, and when it has reached this stage there are a few men who, having struggled for it in its earlier difficulties, will then deserve to be honorably mentioned. I shall not be guilty of the bad taste of complimenting those with whom I have the honor to be associated ; but when we reach the stage of research, which lies far beyond the stage of deliberation in these affairs, there are some names that ought not to be forgotten. (Hear, hear.) So far back as the year 1800, the Honorable Mr. UNIACKE, a leading politician in Nova Scotia at that date, submitted a scheme of Colonial Union to the Imperial authorities. In 1815, Chief Justice SEWELL, whose name will be well remembered as a leading lawyer of this city and a farsighted politician, submitted a scheme. In 1822, Sir JOHN BEVERLEY ROBINSON, at the request of the Colonial Office, submitted a project of the same kind; and I need not refer to the report of Lord DURHAM on Colonial Union in 1839. These are all memorable, and some of them are great names. If we have dreamed a dream of union (as some hon. gentlemen say), it is at least worth while remarking that a dream which has been dreamed by such wise and good men, may, for aught we know or you know, have been a sort of vision—a vision foreshadowing forthcoming natural events in a clear intelligence. A vision ( I say it without irreverence, for the event concerns the lives of millions living, and yet to come) resembling those seen by the DANIELS and JOSEPHS of old, foreshadowing the trials of the future ; the fate of tribes and peoples ; the rise and fall of dynasties. But the immediate history of the measure is sufficiently wonderful without dwelling on the remoter predictions of so many wise men. Whoever, in 1862, or even in 1863, would have told us that we should see, even what we see in these seats by which I stand—such a representation of interests acting together, would be accounted, as our Scotch friends say, ” half-daft ;”—and whoever, in the Lower Provinces about the same time, would have ventured to foretell the composition of their delegations, which sat with us under this roof last October, would probably have been considered equally demented. (Laughter.) But the thing came about, and if those gentlemen, who have had no immediate hand in bringing it about, and therefore naturally felt less interest in the project than we who did, will only give us the

[Page 127]

benefit of the doubt, will only assume that we are not all altogether wrong-headed, we hope to show them still farther, as we think we have already shown them, that we are by no means without reason in entering on this enterprise. I submit, however, we may very well dismiss the antecedent history of the question for the present : it grew from an unnoticed feeble plant, to be S, stately and flourishing tree, and for my part any one that pleases may say he made the tree grow, if I can only have hereafter my fair share of the shelter and the shade. (Cheers.) But in the present stage of the question, the first real stage of its success—the thing that gave importance to theory in men’s minds—was the now celebrated despatch, signed by two members of this Government and an hon. gentleman formerly their colleague, a member of the other House ; I refer to the despatch of 1858. The recommendations in that despatch lay dormant until revived by the Constitutional Committee of last Session, which led to the Coalition, which led to the Quebec Conference, which led to the draft of the Constitution now on our table, which will lead, I am fain to believe, to the union of all these provinces. (Hear, hear.) At the same time that we mention the distinguished politicians, I think we ought not to forget those zealous and laborious contributors to the public press, who, although not associated with governments, and not themselves at the time in politics, addressed the public mind, and greatly contributed to give life and interest to this question, and indirectly to bring it to the happy position in which it now stands. Of those gentlemen I will mention two. 1 do not know whether hon. gentlemen of this House have seen some letters on colonial union, written in 1855, the last addressed to the late Duke of NEWCASTLE, by Mr. P. S. HAMILTON, an able public writer of Nova Scotia, and the present Gold Commissioner of that province ; but I take this opportunity of bearing my testimony to his well-balanced judgment, political sagacity and the skilful handling the subject received from him at a very early period. (Hear, hear.) There is another little book written in English, six or seven years ago, to which I must refer. I t is a pamphlet, which met with an extraordinary degree of success, entitled Nova Britannia, by my hon. friend the member for South Lanark (Mr. MOBRIS) ; and as he has been one of the principal agents in bringing into existence the present Government, which is now carrying out the idea embodied in his book, I trust he will forgive me if I take the opportunity, although he is present, of reading a single sentence to show how far he was in advance and how true he was to the coming event, which we are now considering. At page 57 of his pamphlet—which I hope will be reprinted among the political miscellanies of the provinces when we are one country and one poople—I find this paragraph :—

The dealing with the destinies of a future Britannic empire, the shaping its course, the laying its foundations broad and deep, and the erecting thereon a noble and enduring superstructure, are indeed duties that may well evoke the energies of our people, and nerve the arms and give power and euthusiasm to the aspirations of all true patriots. The very magnitude of the interests involved, will, I doubt not, elevate many amongst us above the demands of mere sectionalism, and enable them to evince sufficient comprehensiveness of mind to deal in the spirit of real statesmen with issues so momentous, and to originate and develope a national line of commercial and general policy, such as will prove adapted to the wants and exigencies of our position.

There are many other excellent passages in the work, but I will not detain the House with many quotations. The spirit that animates the whole will be seen from the extract I have read. But whatever the private writer io his closet may have conceited, whatever even the individual statesman may have designed, so long as the public mind was uninterested in the adoption, even in the discussion of a change in our position so momentous as this, the union of these separate provinces, the individual laboured in vain—perhaps sir, not wholly in vain, for although his work may not have borne fruit then, it was kindling a fire that would ultimately light up the whole politioal horizon, and herald the dawn of a better day for our country and our people. Events stronger than advocacy, events stronger than men, have come in at last like the fire behind the invisible writing to bring out the truth of these writings and to impress them upon the mind of every thoughtful man who has considered the position and probable future of these scattered provinces. (Cheers.) Before I go further into the details of my subject, I will take this opportunity of congratulating this House and the public of all the provinces upon the extraordinary activity which has been given to this subject since it has become a leading topic of publie discussion in the maritime, and what I may

[Page 128]

call relatively to them, the inland provinces. It is astonishing how active has been the public mind in all those communities since the subject has been fairly launched. I have watched with great attention the expression of public opinion in the Lower Provinces as well as in our own, and I am rejoiced to find that even in the smallest of the provinces I have been able to read writings and speeches which would do no discredit to older and more cultivated communities— articles and speeches worthy of any press and of any audience. The provincial mind, it would seem, under the inspiration oí a great question, leaped at a single bound out of the slough of mere mercenary struggles for office, and took post on the high and honorable ground from which alone this great subject can be taken in in all its dimensions,—had risen at once to the true dignity of this discussion with an elasticity that does honor to the communities that have exhibited it, and gives assurance that we have the metal, the material, out of which to construct a new and vigorous nationality. (Cheers.) We find in the journals and in the speeches of public men in the Lower Provinces a discussion of the first principles of government, a discussion of the principles ot constitutional law, and an intimate knowledge and close application of the leading facts in constitutional history, which gives to me at least the satisfaction and assurance that, if we never went farther in this matter, we have put an end for the present, and I hope for long, to bitterer and smaller controversies. We have given the people some sound mental food, and to every man who has a capacity for discussion we have given a topic upon which he can fitly exercise his powers, no longer gDawing at a file and wasting his abilities in the poor effort of advancing the ends of some paltry faction or party. I can congratulate this House and province and the provinces below, that such is the case, and I may observe, with some satisfaction, that the various authors and writers seem to be speaking or writing as if in the visible presence of all the colonies. (Hear, hear.) They are no longer hole-and-corner celebrities : they seem to think that their words will be scanned and weighed afar off as well as at home. We have, I believe, several hundred celebrities in Canada — my friend Mr. MORGAN, I believe, has made out a list of them—(laughter)—but they are no longer now local celebrities; if celebrities at all they must be celebrities for British North America ; for every one of the speeches made by them on this subject is watched in all the provinces, and in point of fact by the mere appearance of political union, we have made a mental union among the people of all these provinces ; and many men now speak with a dignity and carefulness which formerly did not characterize them, when they were watched only by their own narrow and struggling section, and weighed only according to a stunted local standard. (Hear, hear.) Federation, I hope, may supply to all our public men just ground for uniting in nobler and more profitable contests than those which have signalized the past. (Hear, hear.) We on this side, Mr. SPEAKER, propose for that better future our plan of union ; and, if you will allow me, I shall go over what appear to me the principal motives which exist at present for that union. My hon. friend the Finance Minister mentioned the other evening several strong motives for union—free access to the sea, an extended market, breaking down of hostile tariffs, a more diversified field for labor and capital, our enhanced credit with England, and our greater effectiveness when united for assistance in time of danger. (Cheers.) The Hon. President of the Council also enumerated several motives for union in relation to the commercial advantages which will flow from it, and other powerful reasons which may be advanced in favor of it. But the motives to such a comprehensive change as we propose, must be mixed motives—partly commercial, partly military, and partly political; and I shall go over a few—not strained or simulated—motives which are entertained by many people of all these provinces, and are rather of a social, or, strictly speaking, political, than of a financial kind. In the first place, I echo what was stated in the speech last night of my honorable friend, the President of the Council—that we cannot stand still; we cannot stave off some great change ; we cannot stand alone, province apart from province, if we would ; and that we are in a state of political transition. All, even honorable gentlemen who are opposed to this union, admit that we must do something, and that that something must not be a mere temporary expedient. We are compelled, by warning voices from within and without, to make a change, and a great change. We all, with one voice, who are unionists, declare our conviction that we can

[Page 129]

not go on as we have gone; but you, who are all anti-unionists, say—” Oh ! that is bagging the question; you have not yet proved that.” Well, Mr. SPEAKER, what proofs do the gentlemen want ? I presume there are three influences which determine any great change in the course of any individual or state. First—his patron, owner, employer, protector, ally, or friend; or, in politics, ” Imperial connection.” Secondly — his partner, comrade, or fellow-laborer, or near neighbor. And, thirdly,—the man himself, or the state itself. Now, in our case, all three causes have concurred to warn and force us into a new course of conduct. What are these warnings ? We have had at least three. The first is from England, and is a friendly warning. England warned us by several matters of fact, according to her custom, rather than verbiage, that the colonies had entered upon a new era of existence, a new phase in their career. She has given us this warning in several different shapes— when she gave us “Responsible Government”— when she adopted Free Trade—when she repealed the Navigation laws—and when, three or four years ago, she commenced that series of official despatches in relation to militia and defence which she has ever since poured in on us, in a steady stream, always bearing the same solemn burthen—” prepare ! prepare ! prepare !” These warnings gave us notice that the old order of thiDgs between the colonies and the Mother Country had ceased, and that a new order must take its place. (Hear, hear.) About four years ago, the first despatches began to be addressed to this country, from the Colonial Office, upon the subject. From that day to this there has been a steady stream of despatches in this direction, either upon particular or general points connected with our defence ; and I venture to say, that if bound up together, the despatches of the lamented Duke of NEWCASTLE alone would make a respectable volume—all notifying this Government, by the advices they conveyed, that the relations—the military apart from the political and commercial relations of this province to the Mother Country had changed ; and we were told in the most explicit language that could be employed, that we were no longer to consider ourselves, in relation to defence, in the same position we formerly occupied towards the Mother Country. Well, these warnings have been friendly warnings; and if we have failed to do our part in regard to them, we must, at all events, say this, that they were addressed to our Government so continuously and so strenuously that they freed the Imperial power of the responsibility for whatever might follow, because they showed to the colonies clearly what, in the event of certain contingencies arising, they had to expect. We may grumble or not at the necessity of preparation England imposes upon us, but, whether we like it or not, we have, at all events, been told that we have entered upon a new era in our military relations to the rest of the Empire. (Hear, hear.) Then, sir, in the second place, there came what I may call the other warning from without— the American warning. (Hear, hear.) Republican America gave us her notices in times past, through her press, and her demagogues and her statesmen,—but of late days she has given us much more intelligible notices— such as the notice to abrogate the Reciprocity Treaty, and to arm the lakes, contrary to the provisions of the addenda to the treaty of 1818. She has given us another notice in imposing a vexatious passport system ; another in her avowed purpose to construct a ship canal round the Falls of Niagara, so as ” to pass war vessels from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie ;” and yet another, the most striking one of all, has been given to us, if we will only understand it, by the enormous expansion of the American army and navy. I will take leave to read to the House a few figures which show the amazing, the unprecedented growth, which has not, perhaps, a parallel in the annals of the past, of the military power of our neighbors within the past three or four years. I have the details here by me, but shall only read the results, to show the House the emphatic meaning of this most serious warning. In January, 1861, the regular army of the United States, including of course the whole of the States, did not exceed 15,000 men. This number was reduced, from desertion and other causes, by 5,000 men, leaving 10,000 men as the army of the States. In December, 1862—that is, from January, 1861, to January, 1863, this army of 10,000 was increased to 800,000 soldiers actually in the field. (Hear, hear.) No doubt there are exaggerations in áome of these figures— the rosters were, doubtless, in some cases filled with fictitious names, in order to procure the bounties that were offered; but if we allow two-thirds as correct, we find that a people who had an army of 10,000 men in 1861, had in two years increased it to an

[Page 130]

army of 600,000 men. As to their ammunition and stock of war material at the opening of the war—that is to say, at the date of the attack upon Fort Sumpter—we find that they had of siege and heavy guns 1,952 ; of field artillery, 231 ; of infantry firearms, 473,000 ; of cavalry firearms, 31,000 ; and of ball and shell, 363,000. At the end of 1863—the latest period to which I have statistics upon the subject—the 1,052 heavy guns had become 2,116 ; the 231 field pieces had become 2,965 ; the 473,000 infantry arms had become 2,423,000 ; the 31,000 cavalry arms had become 369,- 000, and the 363,000 ball and shell had become 2,925,000. Now, as to the navy of the United States, I wish to show that this wonderful development of war power in the United States is the second warning we have had, that we cannot go on as we have gone. (Hear, hear.) In January, 1861, the ships of war belonging to the United States were 83 ; in December, 1864, they numbered 671, of which 54 were monitors and ironclads, carrying 4,610 guns, with a tonnage of 510,000 tons, and manned by a force of 51,000 men. These are frightful figures for the capacity of destruction they represent, for the heaps of carnage that they represent, for the quantity of human blood spilt that they represent, for the lust of conquest that they represent, for the evil passions that they represent, and for the arrest of the onward progress of civilization that they represent. But it is not the figures which give the worst view of the fact—for England still carries more guns afloat even than our war-making neighbors. (Cheers.) I t is the change which has taken place in the spirit of the people of the Northern States themselves which is the worst view of the fact. How far have they travelled since the humane CHANNING preached the unlawfulness of war —since the living SUMNER delivered his addresses to the Peace Society on the same theme ! I remember an accomplished poet, one of the most accomplished the New Kngland States have ever produced, took very strong grounds against the prosecution of the Mexican war, and published the Bigelow Papers, so well known in American literature, to show the ferocity and criminality of war. He thus made Mr. BIRD-OF-FREEDOM SAWIN sing :—

Ef you take a soaord an’ draor it,
An go stick a feller thru,
Guv’ment wou’t answer for it,
God’ll send the bill to you !

(Laughter.) This was slightly audacious and irreverent in expression, but it was remarkably popular in New England at that time. The writer is now one of the editors of a popular Boston periodical, and would be one of the last, I have no doubt, to induce a Northern soldier to withdraw his sword from the body of any unhappy Southerner whom he had, contrary to the poet’s former political ethics, ” stuck thru.” (Laughter.) But it is not the revolution wrought in the minds of men of great intelligence that is most to be deplored—for the powerful will of such men may compel their thoughts back again to a philosophy of peace ; no, it is the mercenary and military interests created under Mr. LINCOLN—which are represented, the former by an estimated governmental outlay of above $100,000,000 this year, and the other by the 800,000 men whose blood is thus to be bought and paid for ; by the armies out of uniform who prey upon the army ; by the army of contractors who arc to feed and clothe and arm the million; by that other army, the army of tax-colle:tors, who cover the land, seeing that no industry escapes unburthened, no possession unentered, no affection even, untaxed. Tax ! tax ! tax ! is the cry from the rear ! Blood ! blood ! blood ! is the cry from the front ! Gold ! gold ! gold ! is the chuckling undertone which comes up from the mushroom millionnaires, well named a shoddy aristocracy. Nor do I think the army interest, the contracting interest, and the taxgathering interest, the worst results that have grown out of this war. There is another and equally serious interest—the change that has come over the spirit, mind and principles of the people, that terrible change which has made war familiar and even attractive to them. When the first battle was fought—when, in the language of the Duke ot WELLINGTON, the first “butcher’s bill was sent in”—a shudder of horror ran through the length and breadth of the country ; but by and by as the carnage increased, no newspaper was considered worth laying on the breakfast table unless it contained the story of the butchery of thousands of men. ” Only a couple of thousand killed ! Pooh, pooh, that’s nothing ! ” exclaimed Mr. SHODDY as he sipped his coffee in his luxurious apartment ; and nothing short of the news of ten, fifteen, twenty thousand human beings struck dead in one day would satisfy the jaded palate of men craving for excitement, and such horrible excitement as attend-

[Page 131]

ed the wholesale murder of their fellow creatures. Have these sights and sounds no warning addressed to us ? Are we as those who have eyes and see not ; ears and hear not; reason, neither do they understand? If we are true to Canada—if we do not desire to become part and parcel of this people— we ccnnot overlook this the greatest revolution of our own times. Let us remember this, that when the three cries among our next neighbors are money, taxation, blood, it is time for us to provide for our own security. I said in this House, during the session of the year 1861, that the first gun fired at Fort Sumpter had ” a message for us ; ” I was unheeded then; I repeat now that everyone of the 2,700 great guns in the field, and every one of the 4,600 guns afloat, whenever it opens its mouth, repeats the solemn warning of England—prepare—prepare— prepare ! (Cheers.) But I may be told by some moralizing friend, Oh ! but when they get out of this, they will have had enough of it, and they will be very glad to rest on their laurels. They ! Who ? The shoddy aristocracy have enough of it ? The disbanded army of tax-gathers have enough it ? The manufacturers of false intelligence have enough of it ? Who is it possible will have had enough of it ? The fighting men themselves ? I dare say they would all like to have a furlough, but all experiences teach us, it is not of war soldiers tire but of peace ; it is not of the sea sailors tire, but of the land. Jack likes to land, and have a frolic and spend his money, so does Jack’s brother the fighting landsman—but the one is soon as much out of his element as the other, when parted from his comrades; when denied the gypsy joys of the camp, when he no longer feels his sword, he looks up to it where it hangs, and sighs to take it down and be ” at work” again. He will even quit his native country, if she continues perversely peaceful, and go into foreign service, rather than remain what he calls ” idle.” (Hear.) This is experience, which I beg respectfully to cite in opposition to the seductive, disarming fallacy of my moralizing friend. (Hear, hear.) The Attorney General East told us in his speech the other night, that one of the features of the original programme of the American Revolutionists was the acquisition of Canada to the United States. They pretend to underrate the importance of this country, now that they are fully occupied elsewhere ; but I remember well that the late Mr. WEBSTER—who was not a demagogue—at the opening of the Worcester and Albany Railway, some years since, expressed the hope that the railways of the New England States would all point towards Canada, because their influence and the demands of commerce would in time bring Canada into the union and increase the New England element in that union. (Hear, hear.) I think, sir, I am justified in regarding the American conflict as one of the warnings we have received ; and the third warning, that things cannot go on in this country as they are, is a warning voice from within—a warning voice from our own experience in ths government of these provinces. (Hear, hear.) On these internal constitutional difficulties existing among ourselves, which were so fully exposed last evening by my hon. friend the President of the Council, I need say little ; they are admitted to have been real, not imaginary, on all hands. An illustration was used in another place in explaining this part of the subject by the venerable and gallant knight, our Premier, than which nothing could be more clear. He observed that when we had had five administrations within two years, it was full time to look out for some permanent remedy for such a state of things. True— most true—Constitutional Government among us had touched its lowest point when it existed only by the successful search of a messenger or a page, after a member, willingly or unwillingly absent from his seat. Any one might in those days have been the saviour of his country. (Laughter.) All he had to do was, when one of the five successive governments which arose in two years, was in danger, to rise in his place, say “yea!” and presto the country was saved. (Laughter.) This House was fast losing, under such a state of things its hold on the country ; the administrative departments were becoming disorganized under such frequent changes of chiefs and policies ; we were nearly as bad as the army of the Potomac, before its ” permanent remedy” was found in General GRANT. Well ! we have had our three warnings. One warning from within and two from without. I dare say, sir, we all remember the old class-book story of Mrs. THRALE’S ” Three Warnings ;” how Death promised not to come after a certain individual he had unintentionally intruded on, on his wedding day. I say, unintentionally— for Death is a gentleman, and seldom walks in, unannounced—(laughter)—but he promised not to call upon this particular per-

[Page 132]

son, without giving him three distinct warnings. Well, the honorable gentleman in question—I dare say he was honorable, and a member of some House,—he, like all the rest of us expected to outlive everybody. But in process of years he fell lame, then afterwards, he became deaf, and at last he grew blind : then Death’s hour had come and in spite of some admirable pleading on behalf of the defendant in the case, he had his ” three warnings” like a Parisian editor, his case was closed, his form was locked up, and his impression was struck off the face of the earth, and Death claimed and had his own. (Laughter.) Now, sir, we have had three warnings, and if we do not take heed of them and prepare for the possible future condition into which we may be plunged, woe to us if we are found unprepared when the hour of destiny strikes ! (Cheers.) We have submitted a plan preparing us for such a contingency, and the Attorneys General East and West have analysed its constitutional character, while the Minister of Finance and the President of the Council have treated it in its financial aspects. There are some objections taken to the plan, I understand, but I do not believe that any member will get up in this House, and declare that he is an anti-unionist, that he is opposed to all union, and that he considers union unnecessary and inexpedient. (Hear, hear.) I do not know that there is one man out of the one hundred and thirty who compose this House, in view of the circumstances in which we are placed, who will declare that he is opposed to any sort of union with the Lower Provinces. One may say that he does not like this or the other clause—that he does not like this or that feature of the proposed scheme ; but still all admit that union of some kind would increase our protection and be a source of strength. Some honorable gentlemen, while admitting that we have entered, within the present decade, on a period of political transition, have contended that we might have bridged the abyss with that Prussian pontoon, called a Zollverein. But if any one for a moment will remember that the trade of the whole front of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia gravitates at present along-shore to Portland and Boston, while the trade of Upper Canada, west of Kingston, has long gravitated across the lakes to New York, he will see, I think, that a mere Zollverein treaty without a strong political end to serve, and some political power at its back, would be, in our new circumstances, merely waste paper. (Hear, hear.) The charge that we have not gone far enough—that we have not struck out boldly for a consolidated union, instead of a union with reserved local jurisdictions, is another charge which deserves some notice. To this I answer that, if we had had, as was proposed, an Intercolonial Railway twenty years ago, we might by this time have been, perhaps, and only perhaps, in a condition to unite into one consolidated Government ; but certain politicians and capitalists having defeated that project twenty years ago, special interests took the place great general interests might by this time have occupied ; vested rights and local ambitions arose and were recognized ; and all these had to be admitted as existing in a pretty advanced stage of development, when our Conferences were called together. (Hear, hear.) The lesson to be learned from this squandering of quarter centuries by British Americans is this, that if we lose the present propitious opportunity, we may find it as hard a few years hence to get an audience, even for any kind of union (except American union) as we should have found it to get a hearing last year for a Legislative union, from the long period of estrangement and non-intercourse which had existed between these provinces, and the special interests which had grown up in the meantime in each of them. (Cheers.) Another motive to union, or rather a phase of the last motive spoken of, is this, that the policy of our neighbors to the south of us has always been aggressive. There has always been a desire amongst them for the acquisition of new territory, and the inexorable law of democratic existence seems to be its absorption. They coveted Florida, and seized i t ; they coveted Louisiana, and purchased it ; they coveted Texas, and stole it ; and then they picked a quarrel with Mexico, which ended by their getting California. (Hear, hear.) They sometimes pretend to despise these colonies as prizes beneath their ambition; but had we not had the strong arm of England over us, we should not now have had a separate existence. (Cheers.) The acquisition of Canada was the first ambition of the American Confederacy, and never ceased to be so, when her troops were a handful and her navy scarce a squadron. Is it likely to be stopped now, when she counts her guns afloat by thousands and her troops by hundreds of thousands ? On this motive, a very powerful expression of opinion has

[Page 133]

lately appeared in a published letter of the Archbishop of Halifax, Dr. CONNOLLY. Who is the Archbishop of Halifax ? In either of the coast colonies, where he has labored in his high vocation for nearly a third of a century, it would be absurd to ask the question ; but in Canada he may not be equally well known. Some of my honorable friends in this and the other House, who were his guests last year, must have felt the impress of his character as well as the warmth of his hospitality. (Hear, hear.) “Well, he is known as one of the first men in sagacity as he is in position, in any of these colonies ; that he was for many years the intimate associate of his late distinguished confrere, Archbishop HUGHES, of New York ; that he knows the United States as thoroughly as he does the provinces, and these are his views on this particular point ; the extract is somewhat long, but so excellently put that I am sure the House will be obliged to me for the whole of it :—

Instead of cursing, like the boy in the upturned boat, and holding on until we are fairly on the brink of the cataract, we must at once begin to pray and strike out for the shore by all means, before we get too far down on the current. We must at this most critical moment invoke the Arbiter of nations for wisdom, and abandoning in time our perilous position, we must strike out boldly, and at some risk, for some rock on the nearest shore—some resting place of greater security. A cavalry raid or a visit from our Fenian friends on horseback, through the plains of Canada and the fertile valleys of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, may cost more in a single week than Confederation for the next fifty years; and if we are to believe you, where is the security even at the present moment against such a disaster ? Without the whole power of the Mother Country by land and sea, and the concentration in a single hand of all the strength of British America, our condition is seen at a glance. Whenever the present difficulties will terminate—and who can tell the moment ?—we will be at the mercy of our neighbois; and victorious or otherwise, they will be eminently a military people, and with all their apparent indifference about annexing this country, and all the friendly feelings that may be talked, they will have the power to strike when they please, and this is precisely the kernel and the only touch point of the whole question. No nation ever had the power of conquest that did not use it, or abuse it, at the very first favorable opportunity. All that is said of the magnanimity and forbearance of mighty nations can be explained on the principle of sheer inexpediency, as the world knows. The whole face of Europe has been changed, and the dynasties of many hundred years have been swept away within our own time, on the principle of might alone—the oldest, the strongest, and as some would have it, the most sacred of all titles. The thirteen original states of America, with all their professions of selfdenial, have been all the time, by money, power and by war, and by negotiation, extending their frontier until they more than quadrupled their territory within sixty years ; and believe it who may, are they now of their own accord to come to a full stop ? No ; as long as they have the power, they must go onward : for it is the very nature of power to grip whatever is within its reach. It is not their hostile feelings, therefore, but it is their power, and only their power, I dread ; and I now state it, as my solemn conviction, that it becomes the duty of every British subject in these provinces to control that power, not by the insane policy of attacking or weakening them, but by strengthening ourselves—rising, with the whole power of Britain at our back, to their level ; and so be prepared for any emergency. There is no sensible or unprejudiced man in the community who does not see that vigorous and timely preparation is the only possible means of saving us from the horrors of a war such as the world has never seen. To be fully prepared is the only practical argument that can have weight with a powerful enemy, and make him pause beforehand and count the cost. And as the sort of preparation I speak of is utterly hopeless without the union of the provinces, so at a moment when public opinion is being formed on this vital point, as one deeply concerned, I feel it a duty to declare myself unequivocally in favor of Confederation as cheaply and as honorably as possible—but Confederation at all hazards and at all reasonable sacrifices.

After the most mature consideration, and all the arguments I have heard on both sides for the last month, these are my inmost convictions on the necessity and merits of a measure which alone, under Providence, can secure to us social order and peace, and rational liberty, and all the blessings we now enjoy undsrthe mildest Government and the hallowed institutions of the freest and happiest country in the world.

These are the words of a statesman—of a mitred statesman—one of that order of mighty men, powerful in their generation, whose statesmanly gifts have been cast in the strong mould of theological discipline—such men as were XIMENES and WOLSEY. NO one more deprecates than I do the interference of clergymen in mere party politics, and I think such is the sentiment also of His Grace of Halifax ; but when it is an issue of peace or war, of deliverance or conquest, who has a better, who so good a right to speak as the ministers of the gospel of peace, and justice, and true freedom? Observe once more these two closing sentences, ” I feel it a duty” says the illustrious Archbishop, ” to declare myself unequivo-

[Page 134]

cally in favor of Confederation as cheaply and as honorably obtained as possible, but Confederation at all hazards and at all reasonable sacrifices. After the most mature consideration, and all the arguments I have heard on both sides for the last month, these are my inmost convictions on the necessity and merits of a measure which alone, under Providence, can secure to us social order and peace, and rational liberty, and all the blessings we now enjoy under the mildest Government and the hallowed institutions of the freest and happiest country in the world.” (Hear, hear.) The next motive for union to which I shall refer is, that it will strengthen rather than weaken the connection with the empire, so essential to these rising provinces. Those who may be called, if there are any such, the anti-unionists, allege, that this scheme here submitted will bring separation in its train. How, pray? By making these countries more important, will you make them less desirable as connections to England ? By making their trade more valuable, will you make her more anxious to get rid of it ? By reducing their Federal tariff will you lessen their interest for England ? By making them stronger for each other’s aid, will you make her less willing to discharge a lesser than a greater responsibility? But if the thing did not answer itself, England has answered that she ” cordially approves” of our plan of union, —and she has always been accounted a pretty good judge of her own Imperial interests. (Hear, hear.) She does not consider our union inimical to those interests. Instead of looking upon it with a dark and discouraging frown, she cheers us on by her most cordial approval and bids us a hearty ” God speed” in the new path we have chosen to enter. (Hear, hear.) But I put it on provincial grounds as well. We are not able to go alone, and if we attempted it we would almost certainly go to our own destruction—so that as we cannot go alone, and as we do not desire union with the United States, it is the duty of every man to do all in his power to strengthen the connection with Great Britain. And how shall we do it? Is it by compelling the Imperial Government to negotiate at Charlottetown, for every man and musket required for our defence, to negotiate again at Halifax, and again at Frederickton, and again at St. John, and again at Quebec? Is it by having these five separate governments that we are to render the connection desirable and appreciated, or is it by putting the power of these colonies into the hands of one General Government and making the negotiations between two parties only, thereby simplifying the whole transaction and expediting whatever is to be done between the two countries. (Hear, hear.) I will content myself, Mr. SPEAKER, with those principal motives to union ; first, that we are in the rapids, and must go on ; next that our neighbors will not, on their side, let us rest supinely, even if we could do so from other causes; and thirdly, that by making the united colonies more valuable as an ally to Great Britain, we shall strengthen rather than weaken the Imperial connexion. (Cheers.) Let me now, sir, call your attention to the difficulties, past and present, which this great project had to encounter, before it reached the fortunate stage in which we now find it. When it was first advocated by individuals, however eminent, of course it had but scanty chance of success. (Hear, hear.) That was the first stage; when, as in 1822 and 1839, it found favor with Downing street, it excited the suspicions of the colonists ; when it was identified with the Quebec and Halifax railway project, it shared the fate,—it was sacrificed to the jealousies and dissensions which destroyed that particular undertaking. When, as in the case of my hon. friend (Mr. GALT’S) motion in 1858, and my own motion in 1860, the subject was mooted in this House by a private member, the Ministry of the day could not allow so grave a measure to succeed in other hands than their own ; when, as was the case in 1858, the Ministry committed themselves to it, the Opposition complained that Parliament had not been consulted. When Canada proposed to move, in 1859, Newfoundland alone responded ; when Nova Scotia moved, in 1860, New Brunswick alone agreed to go with her ; at all events, Canada did not then consent. (Hear, hear.) Of late years the language of the Colonial Office, of Mr. LABOUCHERE, of Sir BULWER LYTTON, and of the lamented Duke of NEWCASTLE, was substantially : “Agree among yourselves, gentlemen, and we will not stand in the way.” Ah ! there was the rub—” Agree among yourselves !” Easier said than done, with five colonies so long estranged, and whose former negotiations had generally ended in bitter controversies. Up to the last year there was no conjunction of circumstances favorable to the bringing about of this union, and

[Page 135]

probably if we suffer this opportunity to be wasted we shall never see again such a conjunction of circumstances as will enable us to agree, even so far, among ourselves. By a most fortunate concurrence of circumstances —by what I presume to call, speaking of events of this magnitude, a providential concurrence of circumstances—the Government of Canada was so modified last spring as to enable it to deal fearlessly with this subject, at the very moment when the coast colonies, despairing of a Canadian union, were arranging a conference of their own for a union of their own. Our Government embraced among its members from the western section the leaders of the former Ministry and former Opposition from that section. At the time it was formed it announced to this House that it was its intention as part of its policy to seek a conference with the lower colonies, and endeavor to bring about a general union. This House formally gave the Government its confidence after the announcement of this policy, and although I have no desire to strain terms, it does appear to me that this House did commit itself to the principle of a union of the colonies if found practicable. That is my view, sir, of the relations of this House to the Government after it gave it expressly its confidence. Other members of the House take another view of that matter, they do not think themselves committed even to the principle, and they certainly are not to the details of the scheme. (Hear.) After the Coalition was formed an incident occurred, which, though not of national importance, it would be most ungrateful of me to forget. An intercolonial excursion was proposed and was rendered practicable through the public spirit of two gentlemen representing our great railway, of which so many hard things have been said that I feel it my duty to say this good thing—I refer to the Honorable Mr. FERRIER and Mr. BRYDGES. (Cheers.) Forty members of this House, twenty-five members of the other House, and forty gentlemen of the press and other professions, from Canada, joined in that excursion. So many Canadians had never seen so much of the Lower Provinces before, and the people of the Lower Provinces had never seen so many Canadians. Our reception was beyond all description kind and cordial. The general sentiment of union was everywhere cheered to the echo, though I am sorry to find that some of those who cheered then, when it was but a general sentiment, seem to act very differently now, that it has become a ripened project, and I fear that they do not intend to act up to the words they then uttered. They may, perhaps, intend to do so, but they have a very odd way of going about it. (Laughter.) Well, sir, this was in August ; the Charlottetown Conference was called in September, the Quebec Conference in October, and the tour of the maritime delegates through Canada took place in November. Four months of the eight which have elapsed since we promised this House to deal with it have been almost wholly given up to this great enterprise. Let me bear my tribute, Mr. SPEAKER, now that I refer to the Conference, to the gentlemen from the Lower Provinces, who sat so many days in council with us under this roof. (Cheers.) A very worthy citizen of Montreal, when 1 went up a day or two in advance of the Montreal banquet, asked me, with a curious sort of emphasis—” What sort of people are they ?” —meaning the maritime delegates. I answered him then, as I repeat now, that they were, as a body, as able and accomplished a body as I thought any. new country in the world could produce,—and that some among them would compare not unfavorably in ability and information with some of the leading commoners of England. As our Government included a representation both of the former Opposition, and the former Ministry, so their delegations were composed in about equal parts of the Opposition and Ministerial parties of their several provinces. A more hard-working set of men ; men more tenacious of their own rights, yet more considerate for those of others ; men of readier resources in debate; men of gentler manners ; men more willing to bearand forbear, I never can hope to sec together at one council table again. (Cheers.) But why need I dwell on this point ? They were seen and heard in all our principal cities, and I am sure every Canadian who met them here was proud of them as fellow-subjects, and would be happy to feel that he could soon call them fellow-countrymen in fact as well as in name. (Cheers.) Sir, by this combination of great abilities—by this coalition of leaders who never before acted together—by this extraordinary armistice of party warfare, obtained in every colony at the same moment —after all this labor and all this self-sacrifice —afterali former impediments had been most fortunately overcome—the treaty was concluded and signed by us all—and theie it lies on your table. The propositions contained in

[Page 136]

it have been objected to, and we were reminded the other evening by the honorable member for Chateauguay, that we are not a treatymaking power. Well, in reference to that objection, I believe the Imperial Government has in certain cases, such as the Reciprocity Treaty, conceded to these provinces the right of coaction ; and in this case there is the Imperial Despatch of 1862 to Lord MULGRAVE, Governor of Nova Scotia, distinctly authorizing the public men of the colonies to confer with each other on the subject of union, and writing them to submit the result of their conferences to the Imperial Government. (Hear, hear.) We assembled under authority of that despatch, una acted under the sanction it gave. Everything we did was done in form and with propriety, and the result of our proceedings is the document that has been submitted to the Imperial Government as well as to this House, and which we speak of here as a treaty. And that there may be no doubt about our position in regard to that document we say, question it you may, reject it you may, or accept it you may, but alter it you may not. (Hear, hear.) It is beyond your power, or our power, to alter it. There is not a sentence— ay, or even a word—you can alter without desiring to throw out the document. Alter it, and we know at once what you mean—you thereby declare yourselves anti-unionists. (Hear, hear.) On this point, I repeat after all my hon. friends who have already spoken, for one party to alter a treaty, is, of course, to destroy it. Let us be lrank with each other ; you who do not like our work, nor do you like us who stand by it, clause by clause, line by line, and letter by letter. Oh ! but this clause ought to run thus, and this other clause thus. Does any hon. member seriously think that any treaty in the world between five separate provinces ever gave full and entire satisfaction on every point to every party ? Does any hon. member seriously expect to have a constitutional act framed to his order, or my order, or any man’s order ? No, sir, I am sure no legislator at least since ANACHARSIS CLOOTZ was ” Attorney General of the Human Race” ever expected such ideal perfection. (Laughter.) It may be said by some hon. gentleman that they admit the principle of this measure to be good, but that it should be dealt with as an ordinary patliamentary subject in the usual parliamentary manner. Mr. SPEAKER, this is not an ordinary parliamentary measure. We do not legislate upon it—we do not enact it,—that is for a higher authority. Suppose the Address adopted by this House to-morrow, is the act of this House final and conclusive ? No. It is for the Imperial Parliament to act upon it. (Hear, hear.) It will be that body that will cause the several propositions to be moulded into a measure which will have the form of law, and these resolutions will probably be the ipsissima verba of the measure they will give us and the other provinces. But some hon. gentlemen opposite say, that if there be defects in this measure they ought to be remedied now, and that the Government ought to be glad to have them pointed out. Yes, surely, if this were simply the act of the Parliament of Canada ; but it is not to be our act alone. I t is an Address to the Throne, in the terms of which other colonies are to agree, and even if we were to make alterations in it, we cannot bind them to accept them. If we were weak and wicked enough to alter a solemn agreement with the other provinces, the moment their representatives had turned their backs and gone home, what purpose would it serve except that of defeating the whole measure and throwing it as well as the country back again into chaos. (Hear, hear.) I admit, sir, as we have been told, that we ought to aim at perfection, but who has ever attained it, except perhaps the hon. member for Brome. (Laughter.) We, however, did strive and aim at the mark, and we think we made a tolerably good shot. The hon. member for Chateauguay will not be satisfied—insatiate archer !—unless we hit the bull’s eye. (Laughter.) My hon. friend is well read in political literature—will he mention me one authority, from the first to the last, who ever held that human government ever was or could be anything more than what a modern sage called ” an approximation to the right,” and an ancient called ” the possible best.” Well, we believe we have here given to our countrymen of all the provinces the possible best—that we have given it to them in the most imperative moment— their representatives and ours have labored at it, letter and spirit, form and substance, until they found this basis of agreement, which we are all alike confident will not now, nor for many a day to come, be easily swept away. Before I pass to another point, sir, permit me to pay my tribute of unfeigned respect to one of our Canadian colleagues in this work, who is no longer with us ; I mean the present Vice-Chancellor of Upper Canada (Hon. Mr. MOWAT), who

[Page 137]

took a constant and honorable share in the preparation of this project. (Cheers.) Now, sir, I wish to say a few words in reference to what I call the social relations which I think ought to exist and will spring up between the people of the Lower Provinces and ourselves if there is a closer communication established between us, and also in reference to the social fitness of each of the parties to this proposed union. And first, I will make a remark to some of the French Canadian gentlemen who are said to be opposed to our project, on French Canadian grounds only. I will remind them, I hope not improperly, that every one of the colonies we now propose to re-unite under one rule—in which they shall have a potential voice—were once before united, as New France. (Cheers.) Newfoundland, the uttermost, was theirs, and one large section of its coast is still known as ” the French shore;” Cape Breton was theirs till the ‘final fall of Louisburgh; Prince Edward Island was their Island of St. Jean, and Charlottetown was their Port Joli ; in the heart of Nova Scotia was that fair Acadian land, where the roll of LONGFELLOW’S noble hexameters may any day be heard in every wave that breaks upon the base of Cape Blomedon. (Cheers.) In the northern counties of New Brunswick, from the Miramichi to the Matapediac, they had their forts and farms, their churches and their festivals, before the English speech had ever once been heard between those rivers. Nor is that tenacious Norman and Breton race extinct in their old haunts and homes. I have heard one of the members for Cape Breton speak in high terms of that portion of his constituency, and I believe I am correct in saying that Mr. LE VISCONTE, the late Finance Minister of Nova Scotia, was, in the literal sense of the term, an Acadian. Mr. COZZANS, of New York, who wrote a very readable little book the other day about Nova Scotia, describes the French residents near the basin of Minas, and he says especially of the women, ” they might have stepped out of Normandy a hundred years ago ! ” In New Brunswick there is more than one county, especially in the north, where business, and law, and polities, require a knowledge of both French and English. A worthy friend of ours, Hon. Mr. MITCHELL, of Chatham, who was present at the earlier meetings of the Conference, owed his first election for one of these counties, because he was Pierre Michel, and could speak to his French constituents in their own language. I will, with leave of the House, read on this interesting subject a passage from a very capital sketch of the French district of New Brunswick in 1863, by Lieutenant Governor GORDON [it is in GALSTON’S Vacation Tourist for 1864], and is exceedingly interesting throughout :—

The French population, which forms so large a proportion among the inhabitants of the coun ties of Westmoreland, Kent and Gloucester, appears to me as contented as the habitants of Victoria, but hardly equally as well off. There was an air of comfort and bien-être about the large timber two-storied houses, painted a dark Indian red, standing among the trees, the numerous good horses, the well-tilled fields and sleek cattle, which is wanting on the sea coast. We stopped after a pleasant drive, affording us good views of the beautiful peak of Green Eiver Mountain, at the house of a Monsieur VIOLET, at the mouth of Grand River, which was to be our starting point. The whole aspect of the farm was that of the métairie in Normandy—the outer doors of the house gaudily painted—the panels of a different color from the frame—the large, open, uncarpeted room, with its bare, shining floor—the lasses at the spinning-wheel—the French costume and appearance of Madame VIOLET and her sons and daughters, all carried me back to the other side of the Atlantic. After a short conversation with the VIOLETS, we walked down to the bridge, where two log-canoes, manned by Frenchmen—three CYRS and a THIBADDEAU—were waiting for us, and pushed off from the shore. A turn in the river very speedily hid from us the bridge and farm, our empty carriage, and the friends who had accompanied us from Grand Falls standing on the bank, in the evening sunshine, waving us their farewells, and it was not without pleasure that we felt that the same turn which screened them from our view,!separated us for some time to come from civilized life.

It will be observed Governor GORDON speaks of four counties in the north of New Brunswick which still bear ,a marked French character. Well, gentlemen of French origin, we propose to restore these long-lost compatriots to your protection : in the Federal Union, which will recognize equally both languages, they will naturally look to you ; their petitions will come to you, and their representatives will naturally be found allied with you. Suppose those four New Brunswick counties are influenced by the French vote, and two in Nova Scotia, and one in Newfoundland, you will, should you need them, have them as sure allies to your own compact body, to aid your legitimate influence in the Federal oouncils. (Cheers.) I shall proceed with my outline analysis of the maritime population, in order to establish the congruity and

[Page 138]

congeniality of our proposed union. In point of time, the next oldest element in that population is the Irish settlement of Ferryland, in Newfoundland, undertaken by Lord BALTIMORE and Lord FALKLAND (Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the time), immediately after the restoration of King CHARLES I., soon after 1660. Newfoundland still remains strongly Irish, as is natural, since it is the next parish to Ireland—(laughter)— and I think we saw a very excellent specimen of its Irish natives at our Conference, in AMBROSE SHEA. (Cries of hear, hear.) To me, I confess, it is particularly grateful to reflect that the only Irish colony, as it may be called, of our group, is to be included in the new arrangements. (Hear.) Another main element in the Lower Province population is the Highland Scotch. Large tracts of Prince Edward Island and. Cape Breton were granted after the Peace of Paris, to officers and men of FRAZER’S Highlanders and other Scottish regiments, which had distinguished themselves during the seven years’ war. If my hon. friend from Glengarry (Mr. D. A. MACDONALD) had been with us last September at Charlottetown, he would have met clansmen, whom he would have been proud to know, and who could have conversed with him in his own cherished Gaelic.

MR. D. A. MACDONALD.—They are all over the world. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MCGEE-So much the better for the world. (Cheers.) And I will tell him what I think is to their honor, that the Highlanders in all the provinces preserve faithfully the religion, as well as the language and traditions, of their fathers. The Catholic Bishop of Charlottetown is a MCINTYRE; his Right Rev. brother of Arichat (Cape Breton) is a McKINNON; and in the list of the clergy, I find a constant succession of such names as MCDONALD, MCG- ILLIS, MCGILLIVRAY, MCLEOD, MCKENZIE and CAMERON—all ” Anglo-Saxons ” of course, and mixed up with them FOURNIERS, GAUVREAUS, PAQUETS and MA TELLS, whose origin is easy to discover. (Cheers.) Another of the original elements of that population remains to be noticed—the U. E. Loyalists, who founded New Bruaswick, just as surely as they founded Upper Canada, for whom New Brunswick was made a separate province in 1794, as Upper Canada was for their relatives in 1791. Their descendants still flourish in the land, holding many positions of honor, and as a representative of the class, I shall only mention Judge WILMOT, who the other day declared in charging one of his grand juries, that if it were necessary to carry Confederation in New Brunswick, so impressed was he with the necessity of the measure to the very existence of British laws and British institutions, he was prepared to quit the bench for politics. (Cheers.) There are other elements also not to be overlooked. The thrifty Germans of Lunenberg, whose homes are the neatest upon the land, as their fleet is the tightest on the sea, and other smaller subdivisions ; but I shall not prolong this analysis. I may observe, however, that this population is almost universally a native population of three or four or more generations. In New Brunswick, at the most there is about twelve per cent, of an immigrant people ; in Nova Scotia, about eight ; in the two islands, very much less. In the eye of the law we admit no disparity between natives and immigrants in this country ; but it is to be considered that where men are born in the presence of the graves of their fathers, for even a few generations, the influence of that fact is great in enhancing their attachment to that soil. I admit, for my part, as an immigrant, of no divided allegiance to Canada and her interests ; but it would be untrue and paltry to deny a divided affection between the old country and the new. Kept within just bounds, such an affection is reasonable, is right and creditable to those who cherish it. (Hear, hear.) Why I refer to this broad fact which distinguishes the populations of all the four seaward provinces as much as it does Lower Canada herself, is, to show the fixity and stability of that population ; to show that they are by birth British Americans; that they can nearly all, of every origin, use that proud phrase when they look daily from their doors, ” this is my own, my native land.” (Cheers.) Let but that population and ours come together for a generation or two—such are the elements that compose, such the conditions that surround it—and their mutual descendants will hear with wonder, when the history of these present transactions are written, that this plan of union could ever have been seriously opposed by statesmen in Canada or elsewhere. (Cheers.) I am told, however, by one or two members of this House, and by exclusively-minded Canadians out of it that they cannot entertain any patriotic feel

[Page 139]

ing about this union with New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, and that they cannot look with any interest at those colonies, with which we have had hitherto so little association. ” What’s Hecuba to me, or I to Hecuba?” Well, I answer to that, know them and my word for it, you will like them. I have been os seven or eight journeys there, and have seen much of the people, and the more I have seen of them, the more I respected and esteemed them. (Hear, hear.) I say, then, to these gentlemen, that if you want to feel any patriotism on the subject; if you want to stir up a common sentiment of affection between these people and ourselves, bring us all into closer relation together, and having the elements of a vigorous nationality with us, each will find something to like and respect in the other; mutual confidence and respect will follow, and a feelitg of being engaged in a common cause for the good of a common nationality will grow up of itself without being forced by any man’s special advocacy. (Hear, hear.) The thing who shuts up his heart against his kindred, his neighbors, and his fellowsubjects, may be a very pretty fellow at a parish vestry, but do you call such a forked-radish as that, a man ? (Laughter.) Don’t so abuse the noblest word in the language. (Hear, hear.) Sir, there is one other argument for this union, or rather an illustration of its mutually advantageous character, which I draw from the physical geography and physical resources of the whole territory which it is proposed to unite ; but before I draw the attention of the House to it, I may perhaps refer to a charge that probably will be made against me, that I am making what may appear to be a non-political speech. If it be non-political in the sense of non-partisan, then I plead guilty to the charge ; but I think that on some of the points to which I have alluded the country is desirous of being informed, and as many hon. gentleman have not had time to make a tour of the country to the east of us, those who have had the opportunity of doing so cannot, I think, better subserve the interest of the community than by giving what appears to them a fair, just and truthful sketch of those provinces and their people, and thus informing those in Canada who have not had the opportunity of making observations for themselves on the spot. (Hear, hear ) I t was remarked by the late Sir JOHN BEVEKLEY ROBINSON, in his letter to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in 1839, that if the British Government had attempted to maintain the ancient boundaries of New France, in the treaty which acknowledged the United States, it would have been impossible to do so. Those boundaries extend to Ohio on the south, and included much of what is now called by our neighbours ” the North-West.” There is great force, I think, in this observation. But in relation to what I may call the ground-plan on which we propose to erect our constitutional edifice, its natural oneness is admirable to contemplate. There is not one port or harbour of all the provinces now proposing to confederate, which cannot be reached from any other by all vessels, if not of too great draught, without ever once leaving our own waters. From the head of Lake Superior the same craft may coast uninterruptedly, always within sight of our own shores nearly the distance of a voyage to England— to St. John, Newfoundland. (Cheers) We sometimes complain of our inland navigation, that we have it free but half the year round, but what it lacks at one season, it amply compensates by its vast capacity. (Cheers.) Last summer, when we visited Halifax in the Queen Victoria, which tht) good people of that blockade running stronghold mistook for a Confederate cruiser, we were the better part of a week steaming away, always in British American waters, within sight of the bold and beautiful coasts, which it was our privilege to call our own. (Cheers.) While we were thus following our river system to the open sea, I could not help often recurring to the vast extent of the whole. If any hon. gentleman who has never made, and who cannot find time to make, a journey through his own country, will only go to the library he will find an excellent substitute for such a voyage in KEITH JOHNSTON’S Physical Atlas, a book that when one opens its leaves his brain opens with the book. (Laughter.) He will find that our matchless St. Lawrence drains an area of 298,000 square miles, of which only 94,000 are occupied by the five great lakes taken together. I shall not attempt to tread in the path of my two friends who sit next me (Hon. Messrs. GALT and BROWN) by exhibiting in any detail the prospects of mutual commercial.advantages opened up by this union. I have prepared a statement on this subjeot, giving certain general results,— which I do not present as complete, but only as proximately correct—and which I now beg to read to the House :—

[Page 140]

[Page 141]

But there is one special source of wealth to be found in the Maritime Provinces, which was not in any detail exhibited by my hon. friends—I allude to the important article of coal. I think there can be no doubt that, in some parts of Canada, we are fast passing out of the era of wood as fuel, and entering on that oí coal. In my own city every year, there is great suffering among the poor from the enormous price of fuel, and large sums are paid away by national societies and benevolent individuals, to prevent whole families perishing for want of fuel. I believe we must all conclude with Sir WILLIAM LOGAN that we have no coal in Canada, and I may venture to state, on my own authority, another fact, that we have—a five months’ winter, generally very cold. Now, what are the coal resources of our maritime friends, to whose mines Confederation would give us free and untaxed access forever ? I take these data from the authority in my hand— from the highest authority on the subject— TAYLOR’S Coal Fields of the New World :—

Dr. A. GESNER, in a communication to the Geological Society of London, 1843, states that the area of coal fields in New Brunswick has been recently determined to be 7,500 square miles; 10,000 square miles, including Nova Scotia, but exclusive of Cape Breton. Since his first report he has explored the whole of this vast region, and has found the area covered by that coal formation to be no less than 8,000 square miles in New Brunswick. He says the most productive coal beds prevail in the interior, while those of Nova Scotia occur on the shores of her bays and rivers, where they offer every advantage for mining operations. The coal fields of the two provinces are united at the boundary line, and belong to the carboniferous period. The developments of almost every season illustrate more clearly the magnitude of these coal fields, which extend from Newfoundland by Cape Breton, Prince Edward Tsland, Nova Scotia, and across a large portion of New Brunswick into the state of Maine. Mr. HENWOOD, a geologist of high standing, observes that the beauty and extent of these coal treasures it is impossible to describe. In Nova Scotia, Dr. GESNER’S statements exhibit an area of coal formation of 2,500 square miles, while Messrs. LOGAN, DAWSON and BROWN greatly exceed even that area. Sir W. E. LOGAN demonstrated by a laborious survey the thickness or depth of the whole group in Northern Nova Scotia to be over 2 3/4 miles, an amount which far exceeds anything seen in the coal formation in other parts of North America; in this group there are seventy-six coal beds one above the other.

I must say, sir, that this is a cheering statement of facts, coming to us on the very highest authority, and I feel wanning with the subject, even while making the statement. (Laughter.) These exhaustless coal fields will, under this plan— which is in fact our Reciprocity Treaty with the Lower Provinces—become, hereafter, the great resource of our towns for fuel. I see the cry is raised below by the anti-unionists that to proceed with Confederation would be to entail the loss of the New England market for their coals. I do not quite see how they make that out, but even an

[Page 142]

anti-unionist might see that the population of Canada is within a fraction of that of all New England put together, that we consume in this country as much fuel per annum as they do in all New England ; and, therefore, that we offer them a market under the union equal to that which these theorizers want to persuade their followers they would lose. (Hear, hear.) Sir, another cry raised by the anti-unionists below is, that they would have to fight for the defence of Canada—a very specious argument. What, sir, three millions and one million unite, and the one million must do the fighting for all. In proportion to their numbers no doubt these valiant gentlemen will have to fight, if fighting is to be done, but not one man or one shilling more than Canada, pro rata, will they have to fight or spend. On the contrary, the greater community, if she should not happen to be first attacked, would be obliged to fight for them, and in doing so, I do not hesitate to say, on far better authority than my own, that the man who fights for the valley and harbour of St. John, or even for Halifax, fights for Canada. I will suppose another not impossible case. I will suppose a hostile American army, on a fishery or any other war, finding it easier and eheaper to seize the lower colonies by land than by sea, by a march from a convenient rendezvous on Lake Champlain, through Lower Canada, into the upper part of New Brunswick, and so downward to the sea—a march like SHERMAN’S march from Knoxville to Savannah. While we obstructed such a march by every means in our power, from the Richelieu to Rivière du Loup, whose battles would we be fighting then ? Why the seaports aimed at, for our common subjugation. (Hear, hear.) But the truth is, all these selfish views and arrangements are remarkably short-sightod, unworthy of the subject, and unworthy even of those who use them. In a commercial, in a military, in every point of view, we are all, rightly considered, dependant on each other. Newfoundland dominates the Gulf, and none of us can afford to be separated from her. Lord CHATHAM said he would as soon abandon Plymouth as Newfoun land, and he is said to have understood how to govern men. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are Siamese twins, held together by that ligature of land between Baie Verte aud Cumberland Basin, and the fate of the one must follow the fate of the other (Hear, hear.) Prince Edward is only a little bit, broken off by the Northumberland Strait from those two bigger brethren, and Upper and Lower Canada are essential to each other’s prosperity. Our very physical outline teaches us the lesson of union, and indicates how many mutual advantages we may all derive from the treaty we have made. Mr. SPEAKER, while we in Canada have no doubt of the ratification of the Intercolonial Treaty, by this House and country, I cannot conceal from myself that our friends in the Lower Provinces are fighting a battle with narrow views and vested interests which are always most bitter in the smallest communities. There are coasting trade interests and railway interests at work ; and there are the strong interests of honest ignorance and dishonest ingenuity. What can these men mean, who are no fools ? Do they, too, fancy they can get a government made to their own private order ? Do they think they can go on on the old system ? Do they mean to give up the country to the Americans ? Why not hang up at once the sign, “these provinces for sale—terms cash ! —’ greenbacks ‘ taken at fuil value !” I rejoice to see the unionists of the Maritime Provinces so resolved, so high spirited and so united—and though their victory will not bo won without work, yet I feel assured it will be a victory. If the honest and raisguided would but reflect for a moment the risks they run by defeating, or even delaying this measure, I am sure they would, even yet, retract. (Hear, hear.) If we reject it now, is there any human probability that we shall ever see again so propitious a set of circumstances to bring about the same results ? How they came about we all know. (Hear, hear.) The strange and fortunate events that have occurred in Canada; the extraordinary concessions made by the leaders of the Governments below—Dr.TUPPER, the Nova Scotian Premier, for instance, admitting to his confidence, and bringing with him here as his co-representatives, Hon. Messrs. ARCHIBALD and MCCULLY, two of his most determined political opponents—can we ever expect,if we reject this scheme, that the same or similar things will occur again to favor it ? Can we expect to see the leader of the Upper Canadian conservative party and the leader of the Upper Canadian liberals sitting side by side again, if this project fails to work out, in a spirit of mutual compromise and concession, the problem of our constitutional difficulties ? No, sir, it is too much to expect. Miracles

[Page 143]

would cease to be miracles if they were events of every day occurrence ; the very nature of wonders requires that they should be rare ; and this is a miraculous and wonderful circumstance, that men at the head of the Governments in five separate provinces, and men at the head of the parties opposing them, all agreed at the same time to sink party differences for the good of all, and did not shrink, at the risk of having their motives misunderstood, from associating together for the purpose of bringing about this result. (Cheers.) I have asked, sir, what risks do we run if we reject this measure ? We run the risk of being swallowed up by the spirit of universal democracy that prevails in the United States. Their usual and favorite motto is—

No pent up Utica contracts our powers,
But the whole boundless continent is ours.

That is the paraphrase of the Monroe doctrine. And the popular voice has favored— ay, and the greatest statesmen among them have looked upon it as inevitable—an extension of the principles of democracy over this continent. Now, I suppose a universal democracy is no more acceptable to us than a universal monarchy in Europe, and yet for three centuries—from CHARLES V. to NAPOLEON— our fathers combatted to the death against the subjection of all Europe to a single system or a single master, and heaped up a debt which has since burthened the producing classes of the Empire with an enormous load of taxation, which, perhaps, none other except the hardy and ever-growing industry of those little islands could have borne up under. (Hear, hear.) The idea of a universal democracy in America is no more welcome to the minds of thoughtful men among us, than was that of a universal monarchy to the mind of the thoughtful men who followed the standard of the third WILLIAM in Europe, or who afterwards, under the great MARLBOROUGH, opposed the armies of the particular dynasty that sought to place Europe under a single dominion. (Hear, hear.) But if we are to have a universal democracy on this continent, the Lower Provinces—the smaller fragments—will be ” gobbled up” first, and we will come in afterwards by way of dessert. (Laughter.) The proposed Confederation will enable us to bear up shoulder to shoulder; to resist the spread of this universal democracy doctrine; it will make it more desirable to maintain on both sides the connection that binds us to the parent State ; it will raise us from the position of mere dependent colonies to a new and more important position ; it will give us a new lease of existence under other and more favorable conditions ; and resistance to this project, which is pregnant with so many advantages to us and to our children, means simply this, ultimate union with the United States. (Cheers.) But these are small matters, wholly unworthy of the attention of the SMITHS, and ANNANDS, and PALMERS, who have come forward to forbid the banns of British American union. Mr. SPEAKER, before I draw to a close the little remainder of what I have to say—and I am sorry to have detained the House so long-*— (cries of ” No, no”)—I beg to offer a few observations apropos of my own position as an English-speaking member for Lower Canada. I venture, in the first place, to observe that there seems to be a good deal of exaggeration on the subject of race, occasionally introduced, both on the one side and the other, in this section of the country. I congratulate my honorable friend the Attorney General for this section on his freedom from such prejudices in general, though I still think in ma ters of patronage and the like he always thinks first of his own compatriots—( laughter)—for which neither do I blame him. But this thoory of race is sometimes carried to an anti-christian and unphilosophical excess. Whose words are those—” GOD hath made of one blood all the nations that dwell on the face of the earth ?” Is not that the true theory of race? For my part, I am not afraid of the French Canadian majority in the future Local Government doing injustice, except accidentally ; not because I am of the same religion as themselves ; for origin and language are barriers stronger to divide men in this world than is religion to unite them. Neither do I believe that my Protestant compatriots need have any such fear. The French Canadians have neverbeen an iutolerant people; it is not in their temper, unless they had been persecuted, perhaps, and then it might have been as it has been with other races of all religions. Perhaps, on this subject, the House will allow me to read a very striking illustration of the tolerance of French Canadian character from a book I hold in my hand, the Digest of the Synod Minutes of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, by my worthy friend, the Rev. Mr. KEMP , of the

[Page 144]

Free Church, of Montreal. The passage is on page seven of the introduction :—

About the year 1790 the Presbyterians of Montreal of all denominations, both British and American, organized themselves into a Church, and in the following year secured the services of the Rev. JOHN YOUNG. At this time they met in the Recollet Roman Catholic Church, but in the year following they erected the edifice which is now known as St. Gabriel Street Church—the oldest Protestant Chjrch in the province. In their early Minutes we find them, in acknowledgment of the kindness of the Recollet Fathers, presenting them with “One box of candles, 561bs., at 8d., and one hogshead of Spanish wiue at £6 5s.”

(Laughter.) I beg my hon. friends, who may have different notions of Christian intercourse at this time ot day, just to fancy doings of that sort. (Hear, hear.) Here, on the one hand, are the Recollet Fathers giving up one of their own churches to the disciples of JOHN KNOX to enable them to worship GOD after their own manner, and perhaps to have a gird at Popery in the meantime—(great laughter)— and here, on the other hand, are the grateful Presbyte) ians presenting to these same Seminary priests wine and wax tapers in acknowledgment of the use of their church, for Presbyterian service. Certainly a more characteristic instance of true tolerance on both sides can hardly be found in the history of any other country. I cite this little incident to draw from it this practical moral —that those who are seeking, and, in some particulars, I believe justly seeking, the settlement of Protestant education in Lower Canada on firmer ground than it now occupies, mighc well afiord to leave the two great Seminaries of Montreal and Quebec at peace. No two institutions in Christendom ever more conscientiously fulfilled the ends of their erection ; and whoever docs not know all, but even a little, of the good services they have rendered to both the people and the Government of Lower Canada, to the civilization and settlement of this country, has much yet to learn of the history of Canada. (Hear, hear.) To close this topic, I have no doubt whatever, with a good deal of moderation and a proper degree of firmness, all that the Protestant minority in Lower Canada can require, by way of security to their educational system, will be cheerfully granted to them by this House. I, for one, as a Roman Catholic, will cordially second and support any such amendments, properly framed. I will merely add in relation to an observation of my friend (Hon. Mr. BROWN) last night on the subject of the Catholic Separate Schools of Upper Canada, that I accepted for my own part, as a finality, the amended act of 1863. I did so because it granted all the petitioners asked, and I think they ought to be satisfied. I will be no party to the re-opening of the question ; but I say this, that if there are to be any special guarantees or grants extended to the Protestant minority of Lower Canada, I think the Catholic minority in Upper Canada ought to be placed in precisely the same position—neither better nor worse. (Hear, hear.) At present I shall not add another word on this subject, as I am not aware of the particular nature of the amendments asked for at present, either east or west. (Hear, hear.) All who have spoken on this subject have said a good deal, as was natural, of the interests at stake in the success or failure of this plan of Confederation. I trust the House will permit me to add a few words as to the principle of Confederation considered in itself. In the application of this principle to former constitutions, there certainly always was one fatal defect, the weakness of the central authority. Of all the Federal constitutions I have ever heard or read of, this was the fatal malady : they were short-lived, they died of consumption. (Laughter.) But I am not prepared to say that because the Tuscan League elected its chief magistrates for two months and lasted a century, that therefore the Federal principle failed. On the contrary, there is something in the frequent, fond recurrence of mankind to this principle, among the freest people, in their best times and worst dangers, which leads me to believe, that it has a very deep hold in human nature itself—an excellent basis for a government to have. But indeed, sir, the main question is the due distribution of powers—a question I dare not touch tonight, but which I may be prepared to say something on before the vote is taken. The principle itself seems to me to be capable of being so adapted as to promote internal peace and external security, and to call into action a genuine, enduring and heroic patriotism. I t is a fruit of this principle that makes the modern Italian look back with sorrow and pride over a dreary waste of seven centuiies to the famous field of Legnano ; it was this principle kindled the beacons which burn yet on the rocks of Uri ; it was this principle that broke the dykes of Holland and overwhelm-

[Page 145]

ed the Spanish with the fate of the Egyptian oppressor. It is a principle capable of inspiring a noble ambition and a most salutary emulation. You have sent your young men to guard your frontier. You want a principle to guard your young meD, and thus truly defend your frontier. For what do good men (who make the best soldiers) fight ? For a line of scripture or chalk line—for a pretext or for a principle ? What is a better boundary between nations than a parallel ot latitude, or even a natural obstacle ?—what really keeps nations intact and apart ?—a principle. When I can hoar our young men say as proudly, ” our Federation” or ” our Country,” or ” our Kingdom,” as the young men of other countries do, speaking of their own, then I shall have less apprehension for the result of whatever trials the future may have in store for us. (Cheers.) It has been said that the Federal Constitution of the United States has failed. I, sir, have never said it. The Attorney General West told you the other night that he did not consider it a failure ; and I remember that in 1861, when in this House I remarked the same thing, the only man who then applauded the statement was the Attorney General West—so that it is pretty plain he did not simply borrow the argument for use the the other night, when he was advocating a Federal union among ourselves. (Hear, hear.) I t may be a failure for us, paradoxical as this may seem, and yet not a failure for them. They have had eighty years’ use of it, and having discovered its defects, may apply a remedy and go on with it eighty years longer. But we also are lookers on, who saw its defects as the machine worked, and who have prepared contrivances by which it can be improved and kept in more perfect order when applied to ourselves, And one of the foremost statesmen in England, distinguished alike in politics and literature, has declared, as the President of the Council informed us, that we have combined the best parts of the British and the American systems of government, and this opinion was deliberately formed at a distance, without prejudice, and expressed without interested motives of any description. (Hear, hear.) We have, in relation to the head of the Government, in relation to the judiciary, in relation to the second chamber of the Legislature, in relation to the financial responsibility of the General Government, and in relation to the public officials whose tenure of office is during good behaviour, instead of at the caprice of a party—in all these respects we have adopted the British system ; in other respects we have learned something from the American system, and I trust and believe we have made a very tolerable combination ot both (Hear, hear.) The principle of Federation is a generous principle. It is a principle that gives men local duties to discharge, and invests them at the same time with general supervision, that excites a healthy sense of responsibility and comprehension. It is a principle that has produced a wise and true spirit of statesmanship in all countries in which it has ever been applied. It is a principle eminently favorable to liberty, because local affairs are left to be dealt with by local bodies and cannot be interfered with by those who have no local interest in them, while matters of a general character are left exclusively to a general goverment. It is a principle coincident with every government that ever gave extended and important services to a country, because all governments have been more or less confederations in their character. Spain was a federation, for although it had a king reigning over the whole country, it had its local governments for the administration of local affairs. The British Isles are a confederation, and the old French dukedoms were confederated in the States General. It is a principle that runs through all the history of civilization in one form or another, and exists alike in monarchies and democracies; and having adopted it as the principle of our future government, there were only the details to arrange and agree upon. Those details are before you. It is not in our power to alter any of them even if the House desires it. If the House desires it cau reject the treaty, but we cannot, nor can the other provinces which took part in its negotiation, consent that it shall be altered in the slightest particular. (Hear, hear. ) Mr. SPEAKER, I am sorry to have detained the House so long, and was not aware till [ had been some time on my legs that my physical force was so inadequate to the exposition of these few points which, not specially noticed by my predecessors in this debate, I undertook to speak upon. We stand at present in this position : we are bound in honor, we are bound in good faith, to four provinces occupied by our fellow-colonists, to carry out

[Page 146]

the measure agreed upon here in the last week of October. We are bound to carry it to the foot of the Throne, and ask there from Her Majesty, according to the first resolution of the Address, that She will be graciously pleased to direct legislation to be had on this subject. We go to the Imperial Government, the common arbiter of us all, in our true Federal metropolis—we go there to ask for our fundamental Charter. We hope, by having that Charter that can only be amended by the authority that made it, that we will lay the basis of permanency for our futuro government. The two great things that all men aim at in any free government, are liberty and permanency. We have had liberty enough—too much perhaps in some respects—but at all events, liberty to our heart’s content. There is not on the face of the earth a freer people than the inhabitants of these colonies. But it is necessary there should be respect for the law, a high central authority, the virtue of civil obedience, obeying the law for the law’s sake; even when a man’s private conscience may convince him sufficiently that the law in some cases may be wrong, he is not to set up his individual will against the will of the country expressed through its recognised constitutional organs. We need in these provinces, we can bear, a large infusion of authority. I am not at all afraid this Constitution errs on the side of too great conservatism. If it be found too conservative now, the downward tendency in political ideas which characterizes this democratic age, is a sufficient guarantee for amendment. That is the principle on which this instrument is strong and worthy of the support of every colonist, and through which it will secure the warm approbation of the Imperial authorities. We have here no traditions and ancient venerable institutions ; here, there are no aristocratic elements hallowed by time or bright deeds ; here, every man is the first settler of the land, or removed from the first settler one or two generations at the furthest ; here, we have no architectural monuments calling up old associations; here, we have none of those old popular legends and stories which in other countries have exercised a powerful share in the government; here, every man is the sor of his own works. (Hear, hear.) We have none of those influences about us which, elsewhere, have their effect upon government just as much as the invisible atmosphere itself tends to influence life, and animal and vegetable existence. This is a new land—a land of pretension because it is new ; because classes and systems have not had that time to grow here naturally. We have no aristooracy but of virtue and talent, which is the only true aristocracy, and is the old and true meaning of the term. (Hear, hear.) There is a class of men rising in these colonies, superior in many respects to others with whom they might be compared. What I should like to see is—that fair representatives of the Canadian and Acadian aristocracy, should be sent to the foot of the Throne with that scheme, to obtain for it the royal sanction— a scheme not suggested by others, or imposed upon us, but one the work of ourselves, the creation of our own intellect and of our own free, unbiassed and untrammelled will. I should like to see our best men go there, and endeavor to have this measure carried through the Imperial Parliament—going into Her Majesty’s presence, and by their manner, if not actually by their speech, saying—”During Your Majesty’s reign we have had Responsible Government conceded to us ; we have administered it for nearly a quarter of a century, during which we have under it doubled our population and more than quadrupled our trade. The small colonies which your ancestors could scarcely see on the map have grown into great communities. A great danger has arisen in our near neighborhood Over our homes a cloud hangs, dark and heavy. We do not know when it may burst. With our own strength we ave not able to combat against the storm, what we can do, we will do cheerfully and loyally. But we want time to grow—we want more people to fill our country, more industrious families of men to develope our resources—we want to increase our prosperity— we want more extended trade and commerce— we want more land tilled—more men established through our wastes and wildernesses. We of the British North Amencia Provinces want to be joined together, that if danger comes, we can support each other in the day of trial. We come to Your Majesty, who have given us liberty, to give us unity, that we may preserve and perpetuate our freedom ; and whatsoever Charter, in the wisdom of Your Majesty and of Your Parliament, you give us», we shall loyally obey and fulfil it as Ions; as it is the pleasure of Your Majesty and Your Successors to maintain the connection between Great Britain and these Colonies.” (The hon. gentleman then sat down amid prolonged cheers.)

[Page 147]

ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD moved that the debate be adjourned till Thursday, 13th instant, and be then the first Order of the Day, after half-past seven.

HON. MR. HOLTON said ;—MR. SPEAKER, we on this side had some doubt lest the Opposition might be placed at a disadvantage, by allowing the speeches of the Government to go to the country, without any comment on them. But if these five speeches, to which we bave now listened, contain all that can be said in favor of this scheme, we have no fear of letting them go unanswered. I listened to the speech of the Attorney General West with great disappointment. The cause of that disappointment was simple enough. The hon. gentleman was, in that speech, giving the lie to twenty years of his political life. He was offering to the cause he is now advocating one speech against his continuous voice and vote for twenty years. He was struggling, all through that speech, against the consciousness of the falseness of his political position, and what every one conceived would be the brightest effort of his life was the feeblest address he ever delivered on any important question, during the twenty years he has sat in this House. The Attorney General West was followed by the Attorney General East. I know not how to characterize the speech of that hon. gentleman, further than to say that it was quite characteristic. I t was perfectly characteristic. I doubt whether any attorney general who ever existed, since attorneys general were first invented, besides that hon. gentleman, could have delivered, on an occasion like this, the speech which he delivered. It may be said of that hon. gentleman, as the poet said of a very different style of man—one who was not an hon. gentleman in the sense in which we are now speaking—”None but himself can be his parallel.” (Laughter.) No attorney geueral, I repeat, since attorneys general were first invented, could have delivered a speech at all like that pronounced by the Attorney General East, in opening his side of the great question now submitted to the consideration of Parliament. Then followed the singularly able speech of my hon. friend the Finance Minister, which was delivered with all that ease and grace that mark all his efforts in this House, and with that fluency of diction which we all admire, and which I am always ready to acknowledge. But I think it will also be admitted by that hon. gentleman’s own friends, that his speech was chiefly remarkable for an adroit avoidance of the very topics on which he was expected, or might have been expected, to address the House, and for a very adroit assumption of those very things which he might have been expected to prove. Such, at least, was the impression which that speech made upon my mind. Then oame the speech—the herculean effort—of my hon. friend, the President of the Council, who, I am sorry to see, is not in his seat, and with reference, therefore, to whose speech I shall not make the remarks I might have done, if he were in his place. I must say, however, that that speech was a disappointing speech. (Cries of ” oh ! oh !” and ” hear, hear.”; I did expect, from the conspicuous part which that hon gentleman has so long played in the politics of the country—from the leading part he has had in all the proceedings which have conducted to the project now before the House— that we should have had from him, at all events, some vindication of the steps which he has seen fit to take—some vindication of the principles of the proposed union, so contrary to all those principles which he has hitherto advocated. I say, we did expect that we would have had something of that kind from that hon. gentleman. But, instead of that, his whole speech was mainly an apology for his abandonment of all those objects for which he has contended through his political life, saving only the shadow of representation by population, to attain which shadow he seems to have sacrificed all the material objects, all the real objects, for the attainment of which the agitation for that change has proceeded on his part. Then we have had, tonight, the speech of my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, a speech which I admit was one of very great interest, as a historical essay—one which will read very nicely in those reports which we are to get in a few days—one which does very great credit to his literary research and literary taste—but one, which I do venture to say, had very little practical bearing on the question that is now before us. Well, I repeat, I am not afraid that these speeches should go to the country unanswered. The country will see that these hon. gentlemen have utterly failed to establish a cause for revolution. They are proposing revolution, and it was incumbent upon them to establish a necessity for revolution. All revolutions are unjustifiable, except on the ground

[Page 148]

of necessity. These bon. gentlemen were, therefore, bound to establish this necessity. The country will see too, that they have failed to explain, to vindicate and to justify the disregard of parliamentary law and of parliamentary usage by which they are attempting to extort from this House an assent, not merely to the principle of union— which would be perfectly proper—but to all the clumsy contrivances adopted by that self-constituted junta which sat in Quebec a few weeks since, for giving effect to that union, and to all those huxtering arrangements by which the representatives of the Lower Provinces were induced to give in their adhesion, and, so far as they could, the adhesion of their provinces to this scheme. I say, they quite failed to explain this and to vindicate it. The country too will seo that these hon. gentlemen have carefully refrained from entering into any explanation of the concomitants of this scheme—of the proposed I constitutions of the local governments for instance, which are, at least, as important as the Constitution of the Federal Government. It is quite manifest that a union, even if generally desirable, might become undesirable from the bad, or inconvenient, or expensive arrangements incident to the adoption of that union. And that really explains the position of many hon. gentlemen in this House, who, like myself, are not opposed to the Federal principle, but who find themselves obliged to go counter apparently to their own convictions, because they cannot accept a union clogged with such conditions as this union is. (Hear, hear.) Then it might have been expected that some further, some more distinct, information might have been given than has been given, on the all-important question of education, in respect of which, we have been given to understand, that some final and permanent system will be enacted by this Legislature, in view of the proposed federation of the provinces. We might also have expected that some information would have been vouchsafed to us in respect to the Intercolonial Railway— which wearein fact votingfor, withouthaving gone into Committee of the Whole. Without having in point of fact any information with regard to it whatever, we are voting the cost of that road, so far as this Legislature can do so—a road which will certainly cost us $20,000,000, and, for aught we know, may cost us $40,000,000. I do think we should have had some information with respect to that road from those hon. gentlemen, in order that the whole case might have gone to the country. (Hear, hear.) And then, with respect to the defences of the country— what sort of utterances have we had on that subject ? We were told by the Presiden t of the Council that the subject was engaging the attention of the Imperial Government, and he vindicated union, because defence can be better given by united, than by separate colonies. And what have we been told tonight by the Minister of Agriculture ? That despatches are received by every second mail from England telling us that we are entering on a new era with reference to the question of defence. What does all this mean ? It means that, in connection with this union, we arc to have entailed upon us untold expenditures for the defence of the country. (Hear, hear.) Ought they not to place this information, these despatches, before the House and the country, before any final and irrevocable action is taken with regard to the scheme ? These are a few, and but a few, of the leading topics which constitute the contents of this scheme of Federation, in respect to which we had a right to expect the fullest possible information, but in respect to which hon. gentlemen have either maintained a studied reserve, or have spoken, like the Delphic oracles, in language which defies interpretation. (Laughter.) I say, then, let these speeches go to the country, and if the country, by perusing them, is not awakened to the dangers which threaten it from the adoption of this crude, immature, ill-considered scheme of hon. gentlemen—a scheme which threatens to plunge the coun- try into measureless debt—into difficulties and confusions utter y unknown to the pres- ent constitutional system—imperfect as that system confessedly is—if the country is not awakened to a sense of its danger by the perusal of these speeches—I do not say I will despair of my country, for I will never despair of my country—(cheers)—but I ; anticipate for my country a period of calamities, a period of tribulation, such as it has never heretofore known. (Cheers and counter cheers.)

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and the House then adjourned.

[Page 149]


FRIDAY, February 10, 1865.

HON. MR. MACPHEKSON, continued his speech commenced yesterday, as follows :— In the remarks I offered to this House yesterday, hon. gentlemen, I desired to state my reasons for voting against the amendment of my hon. friend from Wellington, and for the resolutions of Hon. Sir E. P. TACHÉ. I stated that I believed the Confederation scheme was desired by an overwhelming majority of the people of this country, certainly by a very large majority of my own constituents. I stated further that as the resolutions had been before the country for a long time—for a number of months—and as there was no evidence whatever before us of their being disapproved of as a whole, or indeed any one of them, we had good reason to assume that the people were satisfied. The press had published them in full, and there was not one petition against the measure. We have every right to assume that the people are in favor of Confederation. I went on further, and said that during last autumn, I was constantly and daily bringing the matter before a very large constituency, where it was always approved of. During a portion of that canvass, one of my opponents mooted what I may call the smaller Confederation—that is, the Confederation of the two parts of Canada, and the people rejected and scouted it, while approving of the larger one. (Hear.) I went on to say, with respect to the proposed change in the constitution of this House, that I did not look upon it as a disfranchisement of the electors, although the nominative was to be substituted for the elective principle, because while the nomination was not to be made by the people directly, it was to be made on the recommendation of their representatives in the other House of Parliament,—in fact in a manner analogous to the mode adopted for selecting the Senate of the United States— two senators being elected by the Legislature of each state. In our case the monarchical principle was strictly preserved, and the Legislative Council was to be appointed by the Crown, on the advice of the Government of the day. If I viewed it as a measure of disfranchisement, then, looking at my obligation to maintain the franchise of the people, I should have more hesitation in voting for it. An hon. gentleman has said that the change, from the nominative to the elective plan, was made at the demand of the people. That assertion is not historically correct ; it is not correct as far as Upper Canada is concerned, and I think not with respect to Lower Canada either. There was, at one time, a desire in Lower Canada, for the election of its legislative councillors, but the public men who carried out the change, did so more out of respect to the traditions of the country than from any pressure that existed then. In Upper Canada, I am quite sure, that so far from the people desiring it, they were either lukewarm or opposed to it. The liberal and reform party of Upper Canada were all opposed to it. It is well known that the late Hon. ROBERT BALDWIN, so many years the leader of that party, was always opposed to the change. And it is also well known, that the hon. gentleman who is and has been for years the leader of that party, and who now holds in the Government the position of the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN) , opposed the change to the very last wherever his influence extended, in the press which he controlled, and in his place in Parliament I myself saw him stand up to vote against the third reading of the bill. I t cannot, therefore, be said that the alteration was made at the earnest desire of the people. (Hear, hear.) I went on further, and stated that I looked on the measure as one which did not admit of amendment, since if we were to amend it, there were nine other houses which might claim the right to do the same, and it could, perhaps, never be carried out. I then expressed approval of the financial arrangements contemplated, and differed from my hon. friend from Port Hope (Hon. Mr. SEYMOUR), who said the revenues of the provinces in past times should have been made the basis on which they should bring their debts into the Confederation. Inasmuch as we are not to continue separate, provinces, and not to contribute separate revenues to the treasury, but are to be subject to the same imposts and to have one tariff, a capitation basis is the proper one, and not that desired by my hon. friend. (Hear.) I went on to say that the trifling amount to be paid to New Brunswick by the Confederation, for ten years, was necessary under the circumstances, and ought not to be allowed to weigh for one moment against the benefits to be derived from the proposed arrangement. The hon. gentleman from Niagara (Hon.

[Page 150]

Mr. CURRIE) said our expenditure would be greatly increased. I said that would depend upon ourselves, for we should continue to have the management of our own affairs, and the economy with which they are conducted will depend upon those who administer them. If great improvements are carried out—if the Intercolonial Railway is built, and our canals enlarged—if harbors are constructed on Lake Huron, as they must be— and if further aid should be granted to extend a railway to those harbors —if all this is done, it will be impossible to effect it and not increase our present expenditure—but those improvements will be amongst ourselves in Canada,and we shall enjoy the benefits they will confer ; and Canada, it should be remembered, will have a just voice in the Confederate Legislature. I myself hope these great improvements will be carried on in the west, simultaneously with the Intercolonial Railway, although this is the only one specifically referred to in the resolutions— the enlargement of the canals being only spoken of generally. The Intercolonial Railway, hon. gentlemen, must be constructed if we have Confederation ; but I hope western improvements will be carried on at the same time. (Hear, hear.) I think, honorable gentlemen, we should be governed in our votes by the consideration of the effect of this measure upon the prosperity of the provinces. If it is to do us good, we should adopt it without unnecessary delay. What is it that we expect ? Have we not reason to believe that it will settle the sectional difficulties which have so long agitated and distracted the country ? Will it not be the means of extending our influence over a large and most valuable territory ? Will it not open the way for us to two of the finest harbors on the Atlantic—St. John and Halifax ? Will it not give us access to the ocean at all seasons of the year ? Will it not open to us the coal fields of the Lower Provinces ? Will it not add nearly another million to our present population, and place under one government four millions of souls? (Hear.) But if the measure fails, what will our position be ? I believe that our position in Upper Canada would be one of hopelessness, one bordering on despair—with none of the questions settled that have been agitating us, and which have checked the progress of the country ; with representation by population not granted, and no prospect of it being granted for a long time to come, while the agitation for it could not possibly cease until it was granted. (Hear, hear.) Furthermore, hon. gentlemen, you all know the influence that the agreement arrived at in the Conference had upon our credit in England ; that it had the effect of raising the price of our securities 15 to 17 per cent. But if we fail to agree upon the measure here in Parliament, what will be the effect in Britain ? Would there not be a feeling of disappointment—would not our friends there almost despair of our ever placing ourselves in a position to carry on our affairs with credit, and acting for ourselves in a statesmanlike way? Some hon. gentlemen speak of dreading to take the responsibility of a vote on a question which is to make a change in the constitution of this House, without consulting the people. Why ! what are we here for if it is not to take responsibility ? The people send us here for that purpose, to act as we think best upon all measures that may be presented to us. But under existing circumstances, I think the responsibility of postponing the adoption of the scheme, of putting Confederation off, is very much greater than the responsibility of sanctioning it. (Hear, hear.) I cannot help thinking that if we postpone the measure— and to adopt any amendment would have the effect of postponing it, and perhaps, of losing Confederation for ever—our conduct will be considered extremely factious and unpatriotic. A good deal has been said about a possible dead-lock between this House and the other House, but there has been little of that in past times, and nothing of a serious nature. If, however, the amendment passes, I can imagine a dead-lock which might be extremely prejudicial to this House —prejudicial to its influence in the country ; nay, almost destructive of it. Suppose these resolutions to be carried in the other House by a large majority, which I have little doubt will be the case, and we carry an amendment here—suppose all the legislatures of the Lower Provinces adopt the resolutions, and this House stands alone in rejecting them— do you believe the British Parliament will be turned aside from what it believes to be the best interests of British America by the action of this House ? I can imagine a dead-lock occurring then, and one in consequence of which the opinion of this House might be set aside and its vote disregarded. Until this measure is carried out it. is impossible the

[Page 151]

defences of the country can be properly attended to, while all must admit it is most important they should be proceeded with. Is it patriotic, honorable gentlemen, in the presence of such a state of things , and in view of circumstances which all thinking men admit to be most serious, is it wise to delay unnecessarily the passing of these resolutions ? Honorable gentlemen may feel that they do not meet the views of every one in all particulars, but they must see the beneficial tendency of the whole, and they cannot fail to see the importance of getting them passed without delay, for if they are to receive the sanction of the Imperial Parliament at its next session, there is no time to be lost. (Hear, hear.) One honorable gentleman has said the people are not satisfied with the measure. I believe they are perfectly satisfied. It has been before them for a long time, and they are possessed of sufficient intelligence to have made their disapprobation known if it was felt. But, to shew the feeling in reference to the matter, I will read two or three extracts from a report which I received this morning of the proceedings of the Counties Council of York and Peel. These counties send four representatives to the other House of Parliament, and they comprise portions of three of the divisions represented in this Chamber— Midland, Peel and York. Mr. GRAHAM, a member of the council, moved that a select committee be appointed to draft a petition to the Legislature as to the advisability of the people being consulted before the scheme of Confederation should be carried into effect. I will now read from the report :—

Mr. GRAHAM, Vaughan, argued that he did not introduce the resolution with any such intention, for he did not regard it as political. The Administration was composed of men of different shades of politics, and hence the question was not one cf any particular party. The present Parliament was not elected to consider this question, and should theiefore not pronounce on the scheme without first consulting the people. On questions of far less interest they had gone to the country, and he thought they should on this, as it involved large interests, and was of the greatest importance. The Attorney General had said, in his place in Parliament, that the scheme must be adopted without any amendments, but he (Mr. GRAHAM) thought it needed amendment so far as the people of Up er Canada were concerned.

Mr. HARTLEY said the whole scheme was now before the country, and the people who were interested in the matter were aware of its provisions. In the very riding represented in part by the very mover of the resolution, the people gave expression in favor of Confederation by the election of the Hon. W. P. HOWLAND ; and in fact at every election held since the scheme was proposed, the candidates elected have declared in its favor. He considered the Attorney General perfectly right in declaring that the resolutions must pass without amendment. The measure, as it stood, had received the sanction of all the delegates representing.

Mr. GRAHAM, Gore, stated that some of the members looked upon the resolution as being of a political character. However, be that as it may, the resolution was now before the chair, and had to be disposed of. He thought the question of Confederation was in the hands of the best judges, and they would decide whether it would be advantageous to Canada or not. These representatives of the people were all well posted up in the resources of the provinces, and how such could be best developed, and therefore he thought the question should be left with them for decision. As to an appeal to the people, he could not see what good results would flow from it. The resolutions passed at the Quebec Conference on Confederation were before the people and their representatives, and it is for the latter to decide for or against them ; and they are undoubtedly in a good position to form correct conclusions concerning them. He could not see what reasons the statesmen of Canada would have in sacrificing the interests of our country. They all had a common interest with ourselves, and hence would not be likely to do anything detrimental to the best interests of Canada As regarded the submitting of the question to the people, Mr. GRAHAM thought that ample time had been given the representatives during the recess, to ascertain the feelings of the people on the subject, and that, therefore, they went to Quebec perfectly prepared to deal with the question without putting the country to the expense of a general election. An appeal to the people would be a useless expenditure, and, therefore, he would oppose the resolution.

On being put to the council, the motion was lost on the vote of 6 to 25.

This, honorable gentlemen, is the opinion of the Municipal Council of York and Peel, and I hope this House will do as that council desire, and decide upon the measure without resorting to any course.that can produce any delay whatever. (Hear, hear.) So impor tant is this scheme considered in England, as well as in our own country, that I believe the vote taken on it will be regarded as a test of our desire to remain in connection with the British Empire, to maintain our allegiance to our beloved Sovereign, or of our indifference to the prospect of being merged into another country. This might be an unjust conclusion to arrive at, but we have recent examples in our own history of

[Page 152]

the way such conclusions are formed abroad. I remember a vote which was misconstrued, much to the prejudice of this country—I refer to that on the Militia Bill rejected in 1862. There is no doubt the rejection of that bill gave rise to the opinion which prevails in England—and you cannot convince the people there to the contrary—that Canadians are unwilling to defend themselves. Nothing could be more unjust to our people than to entertain such an idea, nothing more unjust even to the majority who voted against that bill ; but still that was the conviction arrived at, which it took a long time to modify, and which is not entirely removed to this day. I believe that vote has cost the country a very large sum of money in various ways. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, let me just say that we cannot remain any longer as we are ; we have to advance in some direction, and I believe we are going in the right direction when we proceed towards Confederation. I am very much disposed to agree with the honorable and gallant Premier, that we are on the top of an inclined plane, and that if we do not adopt Confederation, we shall very likely find ourselves descending it against our wish, and plunged intos a malstrom of debt, democracy and demagogism. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. BOULTON said he rejoiced to find, in the accession to the House of the honorable member who had just spoken, a gentleman so well calculated to sustain its credit, and to assist by his enlightened and thoroughly patriotic views in the disposal of the many and important questions with which it had to deal, in a manner worthy of the House and beneficial to the country. With respect to the measure in debate, he must state he was delighted at the principles it embodied. He was strongly in its favor, and so far from regarding it as imperilling the interests of the province, thought it eminently adapted to advance its prosperity and welfare. He was not a young man, having numbered more than half a century of years, during the greater part of which period he had filled a seat in either one or the other of the Houses of Parliament, but he had never yet known a measure of equal importance brought under discussion. He might possibly not live to see it carried, but hoped and expected he would, and if it were, he had no doubt it would realize all the anticipations of its framers, and issue in the greatest advantages not to the colonies alone, but to the Mother Country likewise. During the time he had been in Parliament he could safely say he had been guided by an earnest purpose to vote rightly, but yet he had two or three votes to regret, and that which he most regretted, was the one he gave against the union of Upper and Lower Canada. In this he felt now, as he had felt before, that he was wrong, but his consolation was that he had acted independently and conscientiously, not allowing himself to swerve from what he regarded as his duty even by the earnest entreaties of one of his most valued friends, the then Attorney General for Upper Canada, who had taken a different view of the case. He now recognized the wisdom of the measure, and was glad his fears had been disappointed, and that great benefits had resulted from it to both sections. He viewed the union now proposed as fraught with the largest advantages to all the British North American Provinces, and believed his anticipations would be realized. He had often crossed the Atlantic and travelled extensively in England and the United States, but it was not until last summer, as he acknowledged with shame, that he had paid a visit to the Lower Provincos, now proposed to be united with Canada. This ignorance of sister colonies so near to our own country, he thought, was not creditable to any legislator, and he hoped other honorable members would feel it their duty to acquire for themselves information which was so necessary to their position. Well, he had been there last summer, and his opinions respecting those countries had immediately undergone a very sensible change. He had not expected to see such a beautiful city as St. John, N. B., or such a place as Halifax. He had conceived the people as poor and struggling for existence, but was delighted to find merchants doing a great business, and exhibiting as high a standing and as much enterprise as any in Canada. Then, these provinces were distinguished by the most devoted attachment to the British Empire and loyalty to the British Crown, sentiments which he was unfeignedly delighted to observe. He hoped these sentiments would continue to prevail and even be strengthened by the Confederation now contemplated. (Hear, hear.) When he represented a constituency in Upper Canada and had to seek reelection, he had always hung out his flag with ” British supremacy ” inscribed thereon — (hear, hear,) — and he hoped that the sentiment would continue to be cherished in the country so long as he lived. As to the allegations of some honorable members that the people were ignorant as to the merits of the measure proposed, ho could say that, so far as the locality from which he

[Page 153]

came was concerned, it was a serious error. It had engaged the attention of the people more or less for many years, and especially of late. After alluding to the favorable consideration of a Confederation of the British North American Provinces by many distinguished British statesmen, such as the late Earl of DURHAM and the late Sir WILHOT HORTON, formerly Under Secretary of State, many years ago, the hon. gentleman spoke of the opinion of a particular friend of his own, a distinguished member of the other House, Mr. MORRIS, son of the late Hon. WM. MORRIS, with whom he (Honorable Mr. BOULTON) had had the pleasure of acting for many years in the House of Assembly of Upper Canada. Mr. MORRIS, the present member for South Lanark, in a pamphlet published by him, in 1858, expressed himself clearly and distinctly in favor of the union of the British North American Provinces, and in that pamphlet quoted the views of the present American Secretary of State, Mr. SEWARD, and which he (Hon. Mr. BOULTON) read as follows. Mr. MORRIS introduces those views thus :—

That day may be and I trust is far distant, but sure I am that whatever, in the upheavings of the old world and the restless whirl of events may betide, yet the connection between our country and the parent state will not he rudely severed, but fostered by the power and might of Britain, and, rising in strength and power, thousands of strong hands and bold hearts within our borders will cherish towards Britain sentiments of warm affection and attached loyalty, and will be ready, if need be, in the contests for liberty that may arise, to stand side by side in the foremost rank with the armies of Britain.

There is, indeed, vast room for speculation as to the future of this great British Colonial Empire, and its consideration has engrossed and is engrossing the energies of many minds. Amongst others, hear what Senator SEWARD thinks of us : ” Hitherto, in common with most of my countrymen, as I suppose, I have thought Canada, or, to speak more accurately, British America, to be a mere strip lying north of the United States, easily detachable from the parent state, but incapable of sustaining itself, and therefore ultimately, nay right soon, to be taken on by the Federal union without materially changing or affecting its own condition or development. I have dropped the opinion as a national conceit. I see in British North America, stretching as it does across the continent from the shores of Labrador and New foundland to the Pacific, and occupying a considerable belt of the temperate zone, traversed equally with the United States by the lakes, and enjoying the magnificent shores of the St. Lawrence, with its thousands of islands in the river and gulf, a region grand enough for the seat of a great empire.”

Secretary SEWARD (who was known to be one of the principal men in the American Government) once regarded this country as a poor one, but it was clear he no longer thought so, but had formed a very high opinion of our resources and capabilities. There was no doubt that Canada was a great country and destined to be much greater still, and he held that if wc were true to ourselves we could well sustain ourselves, especially as in the effort (if effort ever were needed) we were sure to enlist the sympathies, co-operation and support of the Empire. (Hear, hear.) Then he was satisfied that as the project of Confederation was favorably received at home, as calculated to strengthen our position, we might expect all the aid that we needed. He regretted not being prepared to support his views by statistical statements, but other honorable members who were much more competent than himself, had done so, and no doubt others would follow. Of this, however, he was convinced, that we would lose nothing by the union, but would considerably improve our revenue. The Lower Provinces possessed ad- vantages which we had not, and among them their coal and their gold fields might be regarded as of great value. We would soon require a large and constant supply of coal, a mineral which, so far, had not been found in Canada. It was really melancholy that there should have been so little commercial intercourse between us and those provinces. They were constantly needing large supplies of provisions, which we had to sell, and it was a pity that the money expended in procuring them was not paid to us. He hoped that there would be a great revolution in the state of things before long, and that we would profit largely by it. In every point of view, he conceived this union to be most desirable, though he must confess he would not desire to see it carried out if he thought there was the remotest probability of its leading to a separation from the Empire. (Hear.) The Mother Country had done much for us ; mistakes had arisen, but, on the whole, we had been most kindly and generously treated by her ; we had been materially assisted by loans on the guarantee of the Imperial Government, and that very fact had greatly enhanced our credit. In this way it was that our great and valuable public works had been constructed. It had often been a matter of surprise to him that we had shown so little care and anxiety with regard to our own defence, but the time had now come when we would be obliged to do something for ourselves in that direction.

[Page 154]

The people of England very truly said we had now grown up so as to be able, to some extent at least, to protect ourselves, and while they did not expect us to maintain the whole struggle unaided, they yet demanded that we should do our part. This done, according to the measure of our ability, we would have nothing to fear, and the union would enable us to do better than we otherwise could. There might still be a feeling among a few of our people in favor of annexation to the United States, but it was limited to a very small number indeed, if it existed at all. (Hear, hear.) Some years back he thought the feeling prevailed to some extent, but the unhappy war in the adjoining country had led to a very great change in this respect. He deplored that dreadful war, and would deprecate the possibility of a rupture of our present peaceful relations with that country. He hoped we would still continue to live upon amicable terms, and was convinced that if war did arise, it would not be proyoked by us. They were a great and a powerful people, and he hoped they would continue in the future to treat us kindly as they had done in the past ; but it could not be denied that of late they had shewn a different disposition. They had passed a measure to repeal the Reciprocity Treaty, which had been of so much advantage to the two countries ; a repeal which, two or three years ago, they had no purpose whatever to bring about ; but he. thought a change might yet take place, and that after all the treaty would not be abolished. At the same time, if it were abolished, he did not think we would be ruined altogether, but expected that intercourse with the Lower Provinces would, in a great degree, make up the loss. It might be, however, that we could yet pass through the States, but if not, and we were restricted to our own channels of communication, we must do the best we can. He trusted the amendment of the honorable member for Sherbrooke (Hon. MR. SANBORN) would be voted down, and that the measure as it was would pass in its integrity. The Constitution of the Federal Legislature had been adopted in a council of our leading politicians, some of whom had all along been opposed to elective legislative councils, amongst others, the Honorable President of the Council, (Hon. GEORGE BROWN). And the people, he verily believed, did not wish to see the principle prevail. He had no doubt the Crown would make wise selections as it had generally done before, and though mistakes might in some cases have been made, for his part he was perfectly willing to trust it. He was willing to give the people all the power they could reasonably ask, but it was a fact that the power granted had in many instances been abused. Many municipalities have been nearly ruined. They contracted loans, and instead of applying the money in a way to forward the public weal, a good deal of it had gone into the pockets of the borrowers. (Hear, hear.) He desired to prevent a recurrence of such things. When the Municipal Loan Fund Bill was passed, great advantages had been expected from it, and great improvements had been projected, some of which, he was free to say, had been carried out, but some of the municipalities had misapplied and wasted the money, and now they were asking the Government for delay to enable them to pay the interest. In making these remarks he had no intention of saying aught that could be disagreeable, and if he had done so he prayed it might be overlooked. He had taken an active part in the legislature, especially in the other branch, in years gone by, and had always acted independently, and he thought it was the duty of public men to follow the dictates of their own convictions in preference to the solicitations of friends. Having done so in the past, he would try to do so in the future. He would close by expressing the hope that the resolutions would pass by a large majority, as he had no doubt they would. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. AIKINS said :—I do not believe, honorable gentlemen, that what occurred in the Counties Council of York and Peel, to which the honorable member for the Saugeen Division referred, can bear the interpretation that honorable gentleman placed upon it. The honorable member stated that a large majority in that council had declared themselves unfavorable to an appeal to the people on the subject now before the House—the Confederation of the Provinces. Now, I am personally acquainted with most of the members of that body, and think a fuller reading of the proceedings to which the honorable member referred will place the matter in a different light—

HON. MR. MACPHERSON—I read the whole of the report.

HON. MR. AIKINS—Well, I shall read it for myself and draw my own conclusions. [Here the honorable gentleman read the report again, remarking that there was nothing in the speeches of any of the members of the Counties Council to show that they were opposed to an appeal to the people, and then proceeded] :— The members of the Counties

[Page 155]

Council were not elected on political grounds, but to administer the affairs of the municipality. Any expression of opinion that they may offer on political subjects is therefore but the expression of their own individual opinions, and however much it may be entitled to respect from the character of the gentlemen composing the council, it can in no way be regarded as the expression of their constituents’ wishes on the subject. But I contend, moreover, that the vote in the council was not even an expression of opinion on the part of the members ; for we find from the report that several members opposed the motion for an appeal to the people, simply on the ground that the question was one that ought not to have been brought before them, it being of a purely political character, and they rejected it without expressing any opinion upon its real merits. Then, combined with them were the gentlemen who really oppose the appeal to the people, and of these two classes was the majority composed, of which the honorable gentlemen spoke so exultingly. (Hear, hear.) But apart from the expression of opinion of the Counties Council referred to, in whatever light it may be regarded, I object to the resolutions being submitted to Parliament and pressed upon the consideration of this House in the same way as the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They are said to be passed or rejected as a whole, without alteration or amendment, just as if the Government were bound to stand or fall by the decision. The Government, it appears, has pledged itself to the other governments to abide by these resolutions, and in that case it should have been a condition that they should stand or fall with them. Ministers are opposed further to any expression of opinion on the contents of these resolutions, other than what may be stated in the speeches of honorable members; the resolutions cannot be changed, modified or amended in any particular, and yet the chambers are asked to consider them ! What is the use of considering them if we cannot come to our own conclueions and give them effect in the shape of amendments ? I stand here as the representative of, if not one of the largest, at least one of the most intelligent constituencies in Upper Canada, and I have no hesitation in saying the people are generally in favor of the principle of the resolutions ; in other words, of a Confederation of Canada and the Lower Provinces, but I do not believe they are in favor of all the details of the project. The Honorable Premier, in moving the resolutions, said they would be productive of two special advantages to Canada ;—they would give us strength and durability, and at the same time settle the difficulties under which the province has labored for some years. That honorable member also stated that if this union is not accomplished there will be a danger of our being forced by violence into the United States ; that, if not forced therein by violence, we will insensibly slide thither ; and that we are upon an inclined plane which must of necessity land us there, and whether by violence or by sliding, we must reach that result. (Hear, hear.) If the Honorable Premier had shown that the proposed union would in reality give us strength, and place us in a position to improve our defences, then I would admit he had made a good case. I have anxiously waited to hear his reasons and explanations, for I wanted better reasons for adopting the resolutions than any I was acquainted with. I am anxious to have them carefully analyzed and scrutinized, and desire that they may be found in the interest of Canada. If the Government, in bringing them down, had stated that after a thorough canvass and examination, if deemed desirable, they might be amended in some particulars, I would have accepted the declaration with satisfaction and hope ; but no, though allowed to debate them, we cannot proceed any further. They are submitted, as I have already said, like an opening Speech from the Throne, an amendment to which is treated as a motion of want of confidence, and I can see no great use in discussing them at all. I desire, however, prior to the taking of the vote, to know how much the Intercolonial Railway will cost. Only a short time ago public opinion in Upper Canada was adverse to this enterprise, but if new light has dawned upon the subject, I would be glad to share in it. I would like to know also what the route will be, and how many millions it will cost ; and if it should be shown that its construction will be a real advantage to the country, I will be prepared to go for it. There are other points upon which I desire information, and one is as to the proportion of the debt which Upper and Lower Canada will be called upon respectively to bear. If the sixty-two and a-half millions of debt the Confederation is to assume is to be divided according to the extent of the two populations, will Lower Canada, over and above its share, assume the amount paid for the abolition of the Seigniorial Tenure ? These questions, in my opinion, need answers before this scheme is carried.

[Page 156]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—There is no disposition on the part of the Government to withhold any information the House may desire to have;—on the contrary, they are anxious to afford all in their power,—but the points suggested by the honorable member are not yet before the House for discussion. As to the Seigniorial Tenure debt it will be assumed entirely by Lower Canada. Then as to the five millions reserved for a certain part of the debt, the matter will be disposed of by a fair division between Upper and Lower Canada ; and I beg to add that Parliament will have the opportunity of fully considering the arrangement which the Government may propose for that division. An affirmative proposition will be laid before the House, upon which members will of course have the opportunity of pronouncing.

HON. MR. AIKINS—I am very much pleased, indeed, to hear the statement of the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands; but I must say I am at a loss to perceive how we shall have an opportunity of considering any of these resolutions if we now affirm the substantive proposition.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The opportunity will be afforded when these five millions of debt come to be distributed between Upper and Lower Canada, and when bills or propositions are brought before Parliament for that purpose. The intention of the Government is to offer propositions which it considers fair to both sections of the country, and it will be in the power of Parliament, of course, to speak and decide in regard to the scheme.

HON. MR. AIKINS—I am quite willing to give the Government credit for sincerity on this question, but before I am called upon to vote for Confederation, I would like to know, and I am sure this House would like to know, not only how much the Intercolonial Railway is to cost, but how this amount of debt is to be diffused or distributed between Upper and Lower Canada. I t does appear to me very important that we should have all these explanations prior to being called upon to vote these resolutions.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—AS to the Intercolonial Railway, the honorable gentleman will see that it is a matter for the Government of the Confederation to deal with. The only question for this House to consider is as to how the five millions of debt is to be distributed between the two ections, and as to that every member will have an opportunity of assenting to or differing from the proposition of the Government. The question of the railway stands on an entirely different footing, being for the consideration only of the General Legislature of the union.

HON. MR. AIKINS—I am quite well aware that the Intercolonial Railway is to be constructed by the General Government, but I would like to know now how much it is to cost. I t does appear to me that this is a very important question, and one that lies at the root of the whole matter in the minds of many honorable gentlemen. I know that it affects me very much. (Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to the Constitution of this Chamber, the honorable gentleman who has just taken his seat (Hon. Mr. BOULTON), and who comes from Cobourg, has indulged in a general attack upon the elective system, because, forsooth, several municipalities throughout the country have borrowed largely from the Loan Fund, and because the money they so borrowed has not been properly invested. He argues from this that the principle of election by the people should be done away with in this House. It does appear strange that any hon. gentlemen should take the narrow and contracted ground that this Chamber should be appoint ed by the Crown, because certain loans have not been properly distributed by municipal bodies —especially strange that an honorable gentleman should take it who represents a municipality that is very heavily in arrears to the Loan Fund.

HON. MR. BOULTON—I did not allude to the town of Cobourg at all, but to other municipalities, where the councils squandered the money borrowed from the Loan Fund and put large sums of it into their own pockets. Cobourg expended the money properly in connection with a great public work, and acted honestly, uprightly and properly in the matter.

HON. MR. AIKINS—Well, I do not see why a good thing should be put past the honorable gentleman himself; and when he indulges in an attack upon the elective system, because certain municipalities have failed to meet their obligations, I do not see why I should not point out that Cobourg is a defaulter to a large amount. The honorable member from the Saugeen Division argues that the appointment of members of this House by the Crown is not a disfranchisement of the people.

HON. MR. MACPHERSON—The honorable gentleman is mistaken. What I said was that, inasmuch as the appointments are to be made in the way that has been described— that is, on the nomination of gentleman re-

[Page 157]

presenting the people in the other House—the change does not amount to a disfranchisement. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. AIKINS—If the honorable gentleman had not been quite so sensitive, I would have saved him the trouble of making his explanation.

HON. MR. MACPHERSON—I did not wish to be misrepresented.

HON. MR. AIKINS—It certainly is not my desire to misrepresent the honorable gentleman in any manner. I think the conclusion one would arrive at, after hearing his remarks upon the point, is that the people would still, after this proposed change in the Constitution, have the power to make appointments to this House.

HON. MR. MACPHERSON — No, but through their representatives.

HON. MR. AIKINS—The honorable gentleman says they will have the power, through their representatives, to make their appoints ments. Well, after reading the fourteenth resolution, it does appear to me that, after the first election of the Chamber, the people will have nothing at all to do with it. (Hear, hear.) The honorable gentleman says, however, that the representatives of the people will have the power of making these appointments. Who are the representatives of the people he refers to? The members of the Government, who will have this power ; or, in other words, the Crown will make the appointments.

Hon. MR. MACPHERSON—With the advice of the representatives of the people.

HON. MR. AIKINS—Yes, undoubtedly; but the people, nevertheless, will have nothing at all to do with the matter ; we advert again, in fact, to the old principle when the Crown made all the appointments. (Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to this question, I feel myself in this position, that although I may be in favor of the Crown making these appointments— upon which principle I express no opinion at this moment—if I voted for these resolutions I would give a vote, and every member of this House would give a vote, by which they would give themselves seats in this House as long as Providence thought fit to let them îcmain. (Hear, hear.) I came here, honorable gentlemen, to conserve certain interests, to represent certain classes, and to reflect the views of those who sent me here so far as they accorded with my own judgment. But they did not send me here to change the Constitution under which I was appointed, and to sweep away at one dash the privileges they possess, one of which is, to give a seat in this House to him in whom they have confidence. It does not appear right to me that the members of this House should declare, by their own votes, that we shall remain here for all time to come. (Hear, hear.) The reasons given for the proposed change are various, and to some extent conflicting. We find one member of the Government telling us that it is because the Maritime Provinces are opposed to an elective Chamber, and hence we in Canada—the largest community and the most influential—give way to them, and set aside a principle that was solemnly adopted here, and so far has worked without prejudice to our interests. We find another gentleman, who, when the question came up years ago, Strongly opposed the elective principle, quite as strongly opposes it now, because since then certain municipalities have borrowed more than they are able to pay ! These are somewhat extraordinary reasons, and I trust the House will give them their due weight. I think, honorable gentlemen, that prior to the proposed change taking place, we ought not to declare by our own votes that we are entitled to permanent seats in this House,— without, at any rate, knowing whether the people consent to it or not ; and I do not think I am wrong in using this line of argument, when we have reason to believe that, even if the Crown-appointed members remain here, a large number of the elected members will also remain.

HON. MR. ROSS—How would you act if you were satisfied that the whole public opinion was in favor of it ?

HON. MR. AIKINS—I can very easily answer the honorable gentleman. If I did not and could not reflect the views of my constituents on such an important subject as this, there is one thing I could do, return to them the power they placed in my hands. (Hear, hear.) That is the course I should feel compelled to take under such circumstances. (Hear, hear.) With regard to this scheme altogether, I think that a very great deal depends upon the resolutions themselves. If we are to have framed a new Constitution upon them as a basis, all of them, in my opinion, should be thoroughly canvassed and examined ; and this House, as well as the other branch of the Legislature, ought not to be prevented by the Government of the day from expressing its opinions with regard to their merits. (Hear.) It is said by many honorable gentlemen that the people arc in favor of this scheme. I think the people are in favor of a scheme

[Page 158]

of Confederation, but I think it depends altogether upon the details of that scheme whether they will give it their approval or not. I have no hesitation in declaring what is the opinion of the people of my division. I meet and mingle with them almost daily, and have had ample opportunities of ascertaining their views and sentiments. I believe that a very lame proportion of them have no fixed and definite opinions with regard to this scheme. They are in favor of Confederation, but they have no definite distinct ideas in regard to the details of the scheme proposed. If they knew that their taxation would be largely increased by it, and that it would add heavily to the public burdens, they would not support it. (Hear, hear.) I think, then, that we who are placed here to conserve and protect the interests of the public, should be extremely careful and analyse these resolutions thoroughly, and ascertain, as nearly as possible, what their effect is likely to be, before we take the responsibility of voting for them. I have no hesitation in declaring that there never was a period in the history of Canada when the people suffered more than they do at present. (Hear, hear.) In consequence of the personal, municipal and national indebtedness, the farmers of the country were never placed in a worse position than that which they now occupy. (Hear, hear.) When we find that property has depreciated in value within the last five years, twenty, thirty, forty, ay, and even sixty per cent. ; when we find that the crops of the country have been steadily decreasing in quantity and value within that period ; when we find that the people are dissatisfied with the manner in which the country has been governed during the last eight or ten years ; when we find all this, we may believe that they are prepared to accept almost any change that promises a relief from their present difficulties. But we were placed here to conserve their interests, to look after their welfare, and should not hastily adopt any scheme, proposed by any Government — whether all of one party stripe or not — without fully examining it and weighing the results likely to flow from it. (Hear, hear.) It is said that the public is well acquainted with the nature of the scheme. I demur to that statement in toto. The public is not acquainted with it in all its bearings, and if there is one thing I regret, it is this, that it has not been made a party measure. (Hear, hear.) I regret this because, although perhaps no party could have carried it as a party measure through this Legislature, it would have been better if proposed as a party scheme, for then its merits would have been more thoroughly canvassed and its demerits more thoroughly exposed. Our public men would have ranged themselves on either side ; some would have favored it. and others would have opposed it ; they would have pointed out its defects as well as its good points; the whole subject would have been fully ventilated, and the result would have been that, if passed at all, the scheme would have been as perfect as it was possible to have made it. But what do you find now ? You scarcely see a newspaper from one end of the country to the other that is not full of laudations of the scheme. And why ? Because the leading public men of the country have thought proper to make a fusion ; the leading daily journals on both sides applaud the step and the scheme that followed, and the small papers through _ out the province, as in duty bound, follow in their wake.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—They only express public opinion.

HON. MR. AIKINS—Public opinion, the honorable gentleman says. I say that public opinion has not sufficiently weighed this scheme, and that we should be influenced here by our own matured opinion in regard to it. (Hear, hear.) As I have already stated, I am in favor of the confederation of these provinces, framed on a proper basis ; and all I desire is that we should have the opportunity of examining all these resolutions, and if we object to any of them, finding them imperfect or unsuitable, that we should have power to amend them. (Hear, hear.) So far as the amendment that has been proposed is concerned, there are portions of it with which I cordially agree. After it has been thoroughly discussed, I shall, like other honorable members, make up my mind as to what course I shall pursue in reference to it. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. REESOR—As no one has taken the floor to continue the debate, I beg to enquire of the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands why it is that certain export duties are allowed under this scheme to be collected by the local governments in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but which in Canada are collected by the General Government ? It is part of the forty-third resolution, which reads:—”The local legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects: Direct taxation, and in New Brunswick the imposition of duties on the export of timber, logs, masts, spars, deals and sawn lumber; and in Nova Scotia, of

[Page 159]

coal and other minerals.” That, it appears to me, is leaving very valuable material to be subject to taxation by these local governments, for they comprise a very large proportion of the exports of the country. This is giving a great preference to the eastern provinces in regard to powers of taxation. (Hear, hear.) Then, again, as stated by the President of the Council, in another place, the sum of $63,000 a year is to be given as a sort of gratuity to New Brunswick for a period of ten years. When these things are taken into consideration, certainly it seems that our public men representing Canada in the Conference have gone to work in a rather reckless manner. They have apparently been regardless of expense on the part of Canada, whüe particularly careful to meet every objection to union on the part of the Lower Provinces. It would appear that because Canada is the largest colony, they were willing to grant everything that the other colonies asked. (Hear, hear.) It seems extraordinary too that these gentlemen should have passed a scheme binding the Government to construct the Intercolonial Railway without any understanding or knowledge as to what it will cost. (Hear.)

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—It will be somewhat inconvenient for a member of the Government to answer at once the questions put by the honorable member, but I have no objection to answer those which he has now asked. The House understands, of course, that the Crown lands of the provinces are retained under the Confederation scheme by each individual province. It was found necessary that they should be retained in order to provide each province with the required funds to carry on the local government. In the province of New Brunswick the duties that are levied in Canada as “stumpage dues” on cutting down timber, are not levied in the woods but collected at the ports as export duties, this being in that province a more convenient and less expensive mode of obtaining revenue from the timber trade. Now, the honorable gentleman will see that if we do not allow the Local Government in New Brunswick to collect these dues in this way, the revenue which is derived in Canada from ” stumpage dues,” would be lost to New Brunswick. That is the reason why the exception he refers to was made. In the same way, with reference to Nova Scotia, was allowed the royalty on coal, that is the percentage of the produot of the mines reserved for the use of the Government, which is collected as a duty ou the export of the article. There also the export duty is reserved as a source of revenue to the Local Government, it being necessary in both cases that they should have the advantage of their territorial revenue in the same way as the local governments in Canada, which will collect the same revenue in a different way. At the first glance it may seem that this clause gives especial advantages to the Lower Provinces not conferred upon the local governments here, but this is not the case. (Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to the subvention of $63,000 a year to New Brunswick for a period of ten years, it was found necessary because during that time it would be impossible for New Brunswick out of its local revenue to carry out the undertakings upon which the province had entered. The honorable gentleman said, and I regret to hear the statement, that the representatives of Canada must have been reckless, and that as the Lower Provinces made demands conditional upon entering the union, we had to submit with what grace we could. All I can say is that I wish very heartily that those gentlemen who thus find fault had been at the Conference, and then they would have had an opportunity of judging whether indeed we were reckless or not; and I must say to my honorable friend, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for some years, that if he had truly known the representatives of Canada on that occasion, he would have spared us to-day the imputation made against them that they were reckless. (Hear, hear.) The $63,000 were given to New Brunswick because it was found that with the local revenue allowed her it would have been impossible for her to fulfil her engagements. It would of course have been idle to have gone into a confederation and find that the revenues of that colony had been so far ceded to us that she was unable to meet the obligations into which she had entered, and that the Confederation would be responsible for the claims of her creditors. The engagements into which she had entered involved a subvention of the railways of the province. In New Brunswick they thought it better, rather than take the shares or mortgages of a railway for the encouragement of railway enterprise, to give a certain sum at once for railway purposes. Any company constructing a railway became entitled to a certain sum per mile out of the public funds. Thus liabilities were incurred which of course it was necessary to redeem. Well, New Brunswick having ceded all her ordinary revenues to the General Government, means had to be provided by it to enable her to meet these

[Page 160]

liabilities. And I may say that these railways, which are among the public works ceded to the General Government, are not valueless. They yield a revenue to the public exchequer. I do not remember the exact sum, but it is about $6,000 or $8,000 per annum.

HON. MR. CURRIE—That is exactly three-eighths of one per cent, of their cost.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Well, I said they yielded a revenue—I did not say what proportion it bore to their cost—and when we give this sum we know that we are not entirely without a return for it. Unless we made some provision for this payment we would have been unable to carry out the scheme, and there is a fair probability of these works becoming more productive. Of course, some gentlemen may say that it was possible to have given the other provinces equivalents for this expenditure in New Brunswick, but we all know how unfavorable to our finances has been this system of equivalents. (Hear, hear.) A similar sum might have been granted to the other provinces, but that would have been nothing but extravagance, which, I am sure, the country would be slow to sanction, in view of the past experience in this province in the system of equivalents. (Hear, hear.) This, we all felt convinced, was the most economical and prudent course to have followed in order to obtain the end of Confederation.

HON. MR. SIMPSON—I would like to ask the Commissioner of Crown Lands whether, supposing I sent a vessel from Montreal with flour to a lower port, and it returned with a cargo of coal, there would be an export duty upon it in Nova Scotia ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I am not aware that there would be, but upon this point I speak under correction. That is a question which, if the honorable gentleman desires explicit information, I would like to reserve for a future occasion. If questions are put, not to embarrass the passage of the scheme before the House, but to elicit information on particular points, I shall prepare myself to answer them as fully as possible. (Hear, hear.) I am sure, however, no honorable gentleman would put questions with a view of embarrassing the subject, but simply to obtain information on certain points.

HON. MR. SIMPSON—I have no desire to ask questions in order to create embarrassment, but this is a question forced upon me by the explanations that have been made, and while I am up I may ask another. I will not discuss how much Upper Canada gives to the General Government under this scheme, but it strikes me as singular that in making these compensations the Conference gave them all to the Lower Provinces, Why was not this money required by New Brunswick raised by direct taxation, and the colonies thus placed on an equal footing ? (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. ROSS—Because the income of these railways in New Brunswick accrues to the General Government.

HON. MR. SIMPSON—But they pay nothing.

HON. MR. ROSS—They do pay something now, and in future they will pay more. I, however, speak only from my own individual point of view, and not from any knowledge other than that in possession of the House.

HON. MR. SIMPSON—And I speak from the same, and think the objection I have made good.

HON. MR. ROSS—As to the export duty on coal from Nova Scotia, it appears from the resolutions that the equivalent given to Upper Canada for this revenue is the duty on Crown timber.

HON. MR. SIMPSON—Well, what about the fishery dues given to the Lower Provinces ?

HON. MR. ROSS—We will have that by and by. I am only answering one question now. It is in lieu of the duty we levy on timber, and known as ” stumpage dues,” that Nova Scotia is allowed to levy an export duty on coal. The honorable gentleman shakes his head, but it is a fact.

HON. MR. SIMPSON—It is not on the stump that we levy dues, but as the hewn timber passes through the slides.

HON. MR. ROSS—Well, it is not an export duty at any rate ; but in New Brunswick it pays a duty when exported, either as sawlogs or square timber. In both cases it pays a duty to the Local Government, and it only seems reasonable that Nova Scotia should enjoy a revenue from her coal wherever it goes. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. MOORE—If the coal were exported to a foreign country, then I could understand why a duty should be imposed, but when a ship is laden in one port of the Confederation, with coal, for another port in the same country, it does not appear much like a free Confederation if an export duty is levied upon the eargo. (Hear, hear.) There would seem, then, to be a distinction—a preference for one portion over another—within the limits of the Confederation. If we are to have a union, I hope we shall have it in fact and

[Page 161]

not in name alone. I should like to be fully informed as to whether an export duty is to be levied on coal in Nova Scotia, no matter whether it is intended for another part of the Confederation or for a foreign country.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The royalty collected on coal in Nova Scotia is similar to the stumpage duty on timber in Canada, which is paid no matter where the timber is exported to. It may well be, therefore, that when coal is exported from Nova Scotia to another province it will contribute to the revenues of the Local Government of Nova Scotia. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. REESOR—There are several other provisions in the proposed Constitution which seem to be ambiguous in their meaning, and before discussion upon them it would be well to have them fully explained. In the eleventh clause of the twenty-ninth resolution, for instance, it is declared that the General Parliament shall have power to make laws respecting ” all such works as shall, although lying wholly within any province, be specially declared by the acts authorizing them to be for the general advantage.” It would appear from this, that works like the Welland canal, which yield a very large revenue, will be given over to the General Government; and this being the case, surely this is a sufficient setoff, five times over, for the railways given by New Brunswick, without the annual subsidy proposed to be given to that province of $63,000.

HON. MR. MACPHERSON—The cost of these works forms part of the public debt of Canada, which is to be borne in part by the Lower Provinces under the Confederation.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The honorable gentleman will see that there are some works which, although local in their geographical position, are general in their character and results. Such works become the property of the General Government. The Welland canal is one of them, because, although it is local in its position, it is a work in which the whole country is interested, as the chief means of water communication between the western lakes and the sea. Other works, in the Lower Provinces, may be of the same character, and it is not safe to say that because a certain work lies wholly in one province, it is not to belong to the General Government.

HON. MR. REESOR—I do not object to the General Government having the control of these works. It is, I believe, a wise provision to place them under such control. But I do say that it is unfair that an express stipulation should be made to pay one province a large sum per annum for certain works, while, at the same time, we throw in our public works, such as the Welland and St. Lawrence canals, without any consideration whatever. This, I think, is paying quite too much for the whistle. Then the answer of the Commissioner of Crown Lands about the export duty on minerals in Nova Scotia is not at all satisfactory. Whatever dues may be levied on minerals in Canada—and Canada, although it may contain no coal, is rich in gold, silver, copper, iron, and other ores—in the shape of a royalty or otherwise, go to the General Government, while in Nova Scotia they accrue for the benefit of the Local Government.

HON. MR. ROSS—NO, they will not go to the General Government.

HON. MR. REESOR—Well, there is nothing to the contraiy in the resolutions, and you may depend upon it that whatever revenues the General Government may claim, under the proposed Constitution, will be fully insisted upon.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My honorable friend, referring a moment ago to the Welland and other canals, objected to certain works being considered as belonging to the General Government, because they are local in their geographical position.

HON. MR. REESOR—I do not say that they should not go to the General Government, but what I do say is that they are a sufficient set-off for the works given by the Lower Provinces, without paying them a special sum from the general revenues of $63,000 per annum.

A Message from the Legislative Assembly interrupted further discussion upon the subject, and the House afterwards adjourned without resuming it.

MONDAY, February 13, 1865.

HON. MR. REESOR—Honorable gentlemen, as the question now under consideration involves a change in the constitution, not only of this House but of the whole of the British American Provinces, I think that more time ought to be given to it ; and my object in now rising, is to urge upon this Honorable House the propriety of adjourning this debate— say for ten days. (No! no!) Many new features have been developed since the

[Page 162]

discussion opened that were not before properly understood. The question has not been sufficiently understood in the country, and even now I doubt whether the proposed changes are thoroughly comprehended in both branches of the Legislature. Constitutions are not usually made in a day, and they should not be passed in a week ; they are matters of too grave a character. I trust, if we make a new Constitution, it will be one that will be sustained not for ten or twenty years, but for centuries. It is to be hoped that every change which is made will be of the right character, and in accordance with the interests of the country ; not such a change as will have to be repealed again in a few years.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL.—Will the hon. gentleman make a motion on this subject, or shall we continue the debate without that motion ?

HON. MR. REESOR.—I have in my hand a resolution, which I propose to submit to the House shortly.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL.—Does the hon. gentleman intend to choke off discussion now ? Surely that is not desirable.

HON. MR. REESOR.—The hon. gentleman knows we do not desire to choke off discussion. If any persons arc anxious that the discussion should be choked off, they are those who are desirous of pushing through thi3 measure with undue haste. There are many reasons why the discussion of this question should be delayed. First, its very great importance; secondly, to enable us to obtain more information upon it. It is well known that very eloquent and effective speeches have been made in the other branch of the Legislature, which have not yet been published in full, and without which we cannot so thoroughly understand what arguments are made in favor of the measure, as is desirable. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned for ten days.

HON. MR. MOORE—I agree with the hon. gentleman who has made this motion that the question now before us is a very important one, and should be fully considered in all its bearings, both by this House and the people of the province at large. I think, with him, that we ought to have the benefit of the perusal of the able and eloquent speeches which have been made in the other branch of the Legislature, and in this branch also ; and inasmuch as they have postponed the discussion in the other branch of the Legislature, I apprehend there would be nothing improper in our doing so too. Again, there are other contracting parties to this measure, viz., the Lower Provinces, which are equally interested with ourselves. In Nova Scotia the Legislature, I understand, is in session, and by telegraphic communication, from day to day, we could ascertain the feeling of the people there. This would not at all retard the action of this House, for it is known that business is usually despatched with more rapidity here than in the other. Nothing, it seems to me, will be lost, but, on the contrary, much gained by a temporary postponement of the debate. (Hear, hear.) I desire to place my views on the whole subject before this House, but I desire to give them only after the matter has been calmly and deliberately discussed. The question is one which concerns us all. I do not think the discussion of it should be entered upon with any party spirit or any party feeling. Our interests are all the same, whether for weal or woe. If the measure be a good one—if the project for our Confederation be a salutary one—if it be a panacea for all the existing evils of our body politic—a little time given for reflection can do it no harm. (Hear.) When we come to the discussion of the scheme, there are several important points to be cleared up. We have yet to ascertain the respective and relative powers of the federal and local governments, and it is desirable that ample time should be given to the Government for the answering of questions upon this subject. Then we have to receive explanations about the export duty on coal and other minerals—whether this export duty is to be levied by or on behalf of the Local Government of Nova Scotia after Confederation, and whether it is to be levied on all coal exported, or not upon coal exported to other sections of the proposed union. Again, in regard to the export duty on the lumber of New Brunswick, is it to be applied, as I understand it, to the local revenue of that province ? Then, as to the stumpago duty on that portion of the Crown domain appertaining to Lower Canada, is that to be applied to the purposes of the Local Government of Lower Canada ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I shall be very happy to give my hon. friend, from time to time, as the questions may be put, all the information he may desire.

HON. MR. MOORE—It is certainly desirable that they should be answered, either by the hon. the Premier or the hon. the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and it does appear to me that it would be profitable for the House to postpone the debate, to afford time for doing so fully.

[Page 163]

The question being put, the amendment was lost on the following vote :—

CONTESTS :—Honorable Messieurs Aikins, Archambault, Armstrong, Bennett, Chaffers, Cormier, Currie, A. J. Duchesnay, Flint, Leonard, Leslie, McDonald, Moore, Olivier, Perry, Proulx, Reesor, Seymour, and Simpson.—19.

NON-CONTENTS :—Honorable Messieurs Alexander, Allan, Armand, Sir N. P. Belleau, Fergusson Blair, Blake, Boulton, Bossé, Bull, Burnham, Campbell, Christie, Crawford, De Beaujeu, Dickson, E. H. J. Duchesnay, Dumouchel, Ferrier, Foster, Gingras, Hamilton (Inkerman), Hamilton (Kingston), Lacoste, McCrea, McMaster, Macpherson, Matheson, Mills, Panet, Prud’homme, Read, Boss, Shaw, Skead, Sir E. P. Taché, Vidal and Wilson–37.

HON. MR. REESOR—I shall be very brief in the remarks I have now to make to the House. I do not object to the objects of these resolutions, or to the measure per sc, but I do object to some of its details. I hope to see a union of the British North American Colonies effected, but what I am anxious for is that the conditions of the union may be so satisfactory and well considered, tint there will not be embraced therein the seeds of future disruption, or anything that will give rise to a desire on the part of any of the provinces to separate from the union, or prevent other portions of British North America coming in hereafter and forming parts of this proposed Confederation. I hope we shall be some day a great British North American Confederacy, but that is the greater reason why the terms of the agreement should be of such a character that we can all, or nearly all, approve of them. We must bear in mind, also, that one reason why those who were heretofore the exponents of the views of two great political parties are all on one side at the present time, arises from the very peculiar circumstances in which the country has been placed for the last eight or ten years. Those who support this measure have given as reasons for it that we have had so many political crises, and the changes have been so varied, that it becomes necessary for some great constitutional change to be made. They have at the same time carefully enumerated the political changes that have taken place during the past four or five years. First we had the CARTIER-MACDONALD Administration, which was sustained in the Assembly by a very small majority for two or three sessions. Then we had the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government sustained by a very slim majority. Then the MACDONALD-DORION Government,scarcely any stronger. Then again the TACHÉ-MACDONALD Government with an equally slim majority ;—so that we were really in a state of political crisis like that of a merchant, who, having suffered many losses in business affairs, yet, with his credit still good, at last becomes confused, and, incapable of exercising his judgment, launches into some scheme that proves ruinous, whereas calmness and deliberation might have retrieved his situation. We had three governments formed within as many years, each failing in turn to administer affairs to the satisfaction of the people. We had, in the TACHÉ-MACDONALD cabinet, a Finance Minister on whom a vote of censure of the most serious character was passed, which amounted to a vote of want of confidence in the whole Government. At that time we had in opposition the gentleman who is now the President of the Council, who had contended for ten years for a change of the constitutional relations between Upper and Lower Canada. He failed to accomplish his object. He could not consistently ally himself with his opponents without some new scheme to lay before the country. To form a government, he could not. The Finance Minister being condemned, the government was bound to reconstruct or resign. Each party desired to rule, but neither was able. Out of political adversity grew political desperation. It was called by some a political millennium, and perhaps it was ; but matters were just in that shape to induce parties to take up almost any new scheme, as in this case, in which I think they have gone on quite too rapidly. They have not deliberated sufficiently to propose a measure of that mature character which the country had a right to expect. Perhaps as good a measure has been brought out as could have been, considering the short time that has elapsed, and the disadvantages under which they labored during the discussion of the scheme. But it must be admitted that when this measure was agreed to by our Government, they adopted a hasty course. The country heard only one side of the question. (Hear.) They had the great daily newspapers, the chief organs of public opinion of both political parties, all on their side, and there was only a small portion of the country press, and that not widely circulated, that gave the opposite side of the question. And so it has been going on up to the present time ; and now we have the scheme brought before us in its present shape. I consider that, under these circumstances, it is our duty to give very serious attention to the question, before we adopt it as it is. (Hear, hear.) I fur-

[Page 164]

ther think, and I know many others agree with me, that these resolutions may be amended in some points, and yet without in the slightest degree endangering the whole scheme. But the Government say, “you must take the whole measure, or no part of it.” I very much fear that the determination of the Government in this respect is, if I may so speak, father to their wish. That they have fallen in love with their scheme. I t is their pet measure—their bantling—and they wish to get it through, without any amendment, just as it is. Suppose amendments are proposed that really can only affect Canada, and cannot affect our relations with the other provinces at all ; what reason is there that these amendments should not be made ? The Government can surely communicate with the other provinces, and get their assent. At the same time, while I am speaking on these particular points, I must express my dissent from certain other features of the resolutions, but they are features, I fear, that we can do nothing to alter now, for we shall be obliged, as the Government say, to adopt the whole of the resolutions or none.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—That is the point.

HON. MR. REESOR—Yes, that is the point in reference to certain of these resolutions, but not with regard to others. Two years ago the Government of Canada had a conference with members of the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and in that conference agreed that upon certain conditions, if the money could be obtained, with the guarantee of the home Government, at a certain rate of interest, the Intercolonial Railway should be built, and they further agreed that Canada should only have to pay five-twelfths of the cost, which was then estimated, as it was stated, at twelve millions of dollars. I believe, on good authority, that a company offered to build the road for twelve millions of dollars, and undertook to run it, without any additional charge, for twelve years.

HON. MR. CURRIE—It was three million pounds sterling, or fifteen millions of dollars.

HON. MR. REESOR—Perhaps it was; but let us suppose that the estimates should be as high as they are at present ; let us conceive the fact as possible that the company might fail to complete the road without more aid ; and that it might have cost as much as is now estimated, namely, eighteen millions of dollars,—still Canada would only have had five-twelfths of this to pay. But here, in the short space of two years, we have had such a change, such a sudden change, that one statesman of Canada, a man of very great influence, and who now presides over the administration of affairs in this country, the President of the Council, who opposed that scheme because it involved too large an expenditure for Canada to incur—

HON. MR. ROSS—He does not preside over the administration of affairs.

HON. MR. REESOR—We call president the man who presides, and he presides because he is president — who opposed that scheme because it was alleged Canada was paying far more than her just proportion but is now in favor of it. Had it not been so strongly opposed by a man in such a position, and had the Government not been so weak, I believe the scheme would have been carried out. He who opposed it was one who had been twenty years in public life ; his opinion was justly considered valuable, and many were disposed to agree with it. Had the ministry gone to the country then, taking the Intercolonial Railroad on their backs, I venture to say they would have been totally defeated. They would have had a large majority against them in Upper Canada, and I think a majority against them in Lower Canada also. But how is it now ? Why, this Intercolonial Railway is to be built out of the funds of the Intercolonial Government that is proposed to be established, so that instead of Canada having to pay only five-twelfths of the whole cost, she will have to pay ten-twelfths. (Hear, hear.) This will involve five to seven millions of dollars of an expense more than we had any occasion for incurring, for the other provinces were all willing to have been responsible for the rest, and there is very good reason why they should. The countries to be benefited by the Intercolonial Railway are New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but especially the former. In that province there is an extensive wilderness, with some valuable timber limits, if not much farming land, through which this road will have to pass, and every acre of land within twenty or thirty miles of the road will be largely increased in value. New Brunswick would gain that advantage, while as for Nova Scotia, Halifax, its chief port, will be made an outlet by the construction of the line, and will of course be largely benefited, so that they were only proposing what was fair and equitable ; but in coming down with a scheme which involves us in twice as great an expenditure as was formerly contemplated, they seem not to have been

[Page 165]

satisfied, unless we handed over to the Federal Government our public works. These, hon. gentlemen, are of immense value to Canada. By imposing tolls on our canals to an extent which they would easily bear, and which would not prevent our carrying on the same immense trade as at present, we could readily raise half a million a year. The Welland canal alone has produced a revenue of $200,- 000 a year. Well, all such sources of income are to be thrown into the hands of the Federal Government, while New Brunswick is to give us a railway which only pays three-eighths of one per cent, over its working expenses. This small sum, remember too, is what is paid now —two or three years after the construction of the line—but when the rolling stock gets out of repair, the rails want renewing, and other matters usual after a railroad has been sometime working have to be attended to—the expense of the line to the Federal Government will constantly increase. The road will be a drag ; and I say to hon. gentlemen that we are opening an account without knowing when it will be closed. (Cheers.) By engaging in the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, and the assumption of the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia lines, we are entering upon indefinite liabilities—the whole being nonpaying property in which we shall find a heavy bill of expense. (Hear, hear.) Then, as if not satisfied with this, we are giving a sort of Regium donum of $63,000 for ten years to the Province of New Brunswick. Again, we are to purchase for $160,000 a year the mines and minerals and Crown lands of Newfoundland. Now, I venture to say, we shall not realize $40,000 a year out of these minerals and Crown lands. We have a large mining country ourselves, which we find no very fertile source of revenue, and though it is true we have no coal in Canada, we can get that from Nova Scotia by paying an export duty and the cost of freight. In the face of these disadvantages we are entering a union which, by judicious management, might have been brought about without involving us in this immense expense. As I said before, I desire to see a union, but I want to see it effected on fair terms. (Hear, hear.) Now, in regard to the increased trade which it is said we are likely to get after the union is effected, I think there will be much disappointment. It strikes me that it will be almost impossible to alter the present course of trade, except by imposing duties on articles imported from other countries. The Intercolonial Railway will be too long, and therefore freight by it will be too expensive to divert trade, unless it is run by the Government at the cost of the country, and people are allowed to carry their goods almost free of charge. It can hardly be expected that we shall send breadstuff’s over this railway. Even now it is not pretended that the railway can bring breadstuff’s down as far as Quebec.

HON. MR. ROSS—They get them by water in the autumn, and store them for winter use.

HON. MR. REESOR—They will be able in winter time to get their supplies cheaper at St. John or Halifax by water than by the Intercolonial Railroad. If they are to buy our produce, there must be some pecuniary inducement, for they will not give us half a dollar a barrel more because the flour comes from Upper Canada ; and what that inducement is to be I fail to understand, unless it be the effect of a heavy customs duty on foreign breadstuff’s. As the channel of trade now is, the Lower Provinces can buy their flour cheaper in Boston and New York than in Canada, and would it be right to compel their people to take our produce at a greater cost than they can purchase elsewhere ? It has been said that they consume $4,000,000 worth of breadstuff’s in a year, and many other articles that might be produced or manufactured in great part in Canada, and is it likely the 60,000 fishermen of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick will consent to have a duty of 20 per cent., or any other high duty imposed on breadstuff’s, for the sole purpose of driving them out of the American and into the Canadian markets ? (Hear, hear.) I question whether they are not apprehending a difficulty of this kind now, and on that account unwilling to accept all the inducements we have held out ; unwilling to take the revenue we have offered them ; unwilling to yield to the temptations put before them; because they are afraid of the imposition of duties on breadstuff’s, to which they would be liable if they were to place themselves in the power of a country represented by so large a vote in the General Government as Canada will have. (Hear, hear.) Leaving this question of trade, we come to the consideration of the constitution of this House. Now, no one has petitioned against the continuance of the elective system —no one has complained that it does not work satisfactorily. We do not see that many of the elected members are so very much inferior to the nominated members of this House— there has been no serious ground for fearing a dead-lock—yet there is to be a change in the constitution of the Legislative Council,

[Page 166]

in conformity, we are told, with the desire of the Lower Provinces. But we must look a little further than this. If you canvass the views of the honorable gentlemen who represented this province at the great Confederation meeting, you will find that most of them were inclined beforehand to concur in the views of the representatives of the eastern provinces, for they have always entertained views in opposition to the elective principle as applied to this House. They acted quite consistently, but it does not follow that they are right in making this change. We know that in former times, when our Legislative Council was nominated by the Crown, difficulties did arise. In old times, bills passed by the Assembly were thrown out almost by the hundred.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—That was before responsible government was adopted.

HON. MR. REESOR—I was about to add that it was before the introduction of responsible government, and that responsible government is a cure for many evils, but not to such an extent as it should be. But under the system of appointment there is another evil—the government of the day is particular in appointing those who are political friends of their own, and have aided them either at elections or in ways which may not be very creditable. (Laughter.) My honorable friend (Hon. Mr. CRAWFORD) may laugh, but if he reflects he will remember that he has himself known men in high positions whose career was not creditable in all particulars. However patriotic and anxious to discharge their duties rightly they might be, their views were sometimes warped by circumstances. Looking across the ocean, my honorable friend will remember that during the Administration of WILLIAM PITT, who wielded almost the sole control of Parliament in England for seventeen years, he appointed, during this period, 140 members to the House of Lords, subservient to his own wishes and intent on carrying out his views. I will just read to this House a short extract relating to him, written by a man capable of judging. In MAY’S Constitutional History we read :—

When Mr. PITT had been eight years in power he had created between sixty and seventy Peers, the greater part of whom owed their elevation to the parliamentary support they had themselves given to the Ministry, or to their influence in returning members to the House of Commons.

Now, when motives of this kind can be attributed to Mr. PITT, we need not say that similar motives may prevail here.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Does the honorable gentleman suppose that the members of this House will owe their nomination to the political services they can render in this House ?

HON. MR. REESOR—Not solely, but rather to their political services at elections and otherwise, before their nomination. The honorable gentleman will remember a certain little domestic arrangement he made on the other side of the House, while in opposition, in which he had many warm friends. Does he expect to forget those ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I hope not. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. REESOR—Well, there it is. The honorable gentleman acknowledges his determination to reward his political supporters. Is this the way to obtain an independent branch of the Legislature, one that will operate as a wholesome check on hasty legislation? Those who receive favors from a political party are not likely to turn their backs upon that party. I think we are not likely, under any circumstances, to have a more independent House under the proposed system than we now have, or one which will better advance the interests of the country. If you wish to raise the elective franchise, for elections to the Upper House—if you would confine their election to voters on real estate of $400 assessed value, and tenants holding a lease-hold of $100 annual value, and thus place these elections out of the reach of a mere money influence that may sometimes operate upon the masses—if you think this body is not sufficiently conservative—let them be elected by a more conservative portion of the community— that portion which has the greatest stake in the community—but do not strike out the elective principle altogether. The late Duke of NEWCASTLE, than whom few British statesmen have had more to do in establishing new and liberal constitutions in the various colonies in the Empire, and whose opinions are very valuable on this point, wrote as follows to the Governor of Prince Edward Island, on the 4th of February, 1862:—

Nor do I think it any way objectionable, but the contrary, that the Council (as in Canada, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania) be incapable of being dissolved by the Governor. An Upper Chamber is valuable as an element of stability, and the principal value of an elective Upper Chamber I conceive to be this,—that while in virtue of its elective character, it may claim equally with the Assembly to speak the voice of the community, it may yet be so composed as to reflect their settled wishes and principles rather

[Page 167]

than their transitory impulses. But this advantage -would be wholly lost if the whole body were chosen or could be removed under the influence of such an impulse. The first of these dangers is obviated (or intended to be so) by providing that half only of the Council shall be elected at one time. The second, by giving to each Councillor a fixed tenure of office, independent of any popular or governmental influence.

Thus, it will be seen, lie would place the Council out of the reach of Government, while they should be under the influence of the settled convictions of the people and not their mere transitory impulse. He would have them elected by a conservative body of electors. The next clause of the instructions runs thus :—

In Prince Edward Island, I would enforce a tolerably high property qualification in the case of the electors, but of the candidate I would only require that he should be a British subject, resident in the colony, and thirty years of age.

This, I think, would be a wise provision here, because it would give the electors an opportunity, which they do not now possess, of selecting their candidates from any part of the country, so that they could choose the ablest and most trustworthy men in it, and being elected by a class who had a deep interest in the country, you might rely on their not being too vacillating, but on their proving a proper, healthy and valuable check on the lower branch of the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) Some honorable gentlemen have urged that the people should not elect their representatives to the Upper House, because it involves a very great expense on the part of the elected, and because they cannot judge who is worthy of their confidence so well as the Government of the day. Now, I argue that if the people are unfit to choose members of this House, they are unfit to choose members of the other House too. If three counties united are not able to make a good selection, how can one-third part of that constituency make a good one ? And with regard to the corrupt influences that may be brought to bear, will it be for a moment said that a large constituency of three counties can be as easily corrupted as a constituency composed of only one county ? I think not. I think a more independent vote is brought to bear on the election of a member of the Upper House than of the Lower. Yet the members of the Lower House want to assume the power of dictating who shall compose the Legislative Council. A few years ago, at the general elections, when two men were running, though they were both conservative, we always found one taking the ground that no money should be spent by the Government of the day without the consent of Parliament, and all the liberal party, without exception, took that view ; yet now we find that as some of these men have got into the Government they have unlimited confidence in the wisdom of the Executive ; they say our very Constitution can be amended within a period of six months without the people having anything to say about it ; they now think governments can do no wrong. Of course, this is in accordance with human nature —what they themselves do must be right; they themselves can do no wrong. (Hear, hear.) To sum up, honorable gentlemen, I complain that this arrangement for bringing about the Confederation of the British North American Provinces is being made on terms of great disadvantage to Canada, that a fair agreement has not been settled upon as between the several colonies. I complain that in making such an arrangement with the other provinces, the constitution of this House should have been interfered with ; and I complain, finally, of the manner in which the whole measure is being forced through the Legislature, without first being submitted to the people for their sanction ; and I cannot but feel that these proposed changes so rashly adopted, carry with them the seeds of their early dissolution—a result that all should regret who desire the permanent consolidation and well-being of these colonies. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. McCKEA—Honorable gentlemen, so much has already been said on the subject of the Confederation of the British American Provinces during the course of this debate, which has now occupied the House for several days, both here and in the Assembly, by the ablest men in the province, that I do not hope to add anything of great weight or importance to what has been urged on the question now submitted to our consideration ; still, I feel that I should neither do justice to my constituents, who have sent me here, nor to myself, if I do not upon this occasion state, with what force I may, the reasons which induced me to give my hearty approval to this measure for the Confederation of all these provinces under one government, upon the basis of these resolutions which Ministers have laid upon the table of this House. Very much has been said, by almost every speaker who has preceded me, upon the importance of the subject now before us, and the consequent responsibility which attaches itself to every

[Page 168]

individual member of this Honorable House for the course which he may adopt. I quite concur with honorable gentlemen that the present juncture in our affairs is big with the future destiny of our country, and that our fate for weal or woe depends upon the course we shall now pursue, and I, for one, feel not the slightest desire to shift one single atom of the burthen of that responsibility from my shoulders. I am fully prepared to assume it at once upon the merits of the scheme as it is evolved in these resolutions, and I do not wish to shield myself behind either an adjournment, such as has been proposed by my honorable friend the member for the division of King, and which, I am glad to say, has just been rejected by an unmistakable vote of this House, or the larger motion, of which my honorable friend from Niagara has given notice, for an appeal to the people, and to which I shall presently again refer. An objection has been taken in limine by the honorable member from Niagara to the constitution of the Conference which sat at Quebec, that they were, in the first place, self-appointed ; and, in the second place, that the great principle of representation based upon population was not carried out, because although the Lower Provinces possessed each, and even collectively, a much smaller population than Canada, yet they had a much larger number of members in the Congress than we had. As to the first objection, of their being self-appointed or self-constituted, some one had to take the initiative in the matter, and no one had better authority than the different governments to say who should represent their respective provinces in the Conference. Will honorable gentlemen contend that the delegates were selfappointed when they were appointed by the Ministry of the day, who are responsible to the Legislative Assembly, which, in its turn, is responsible to the people at large ? Then, as to the second objection, that the numbers were unequal, the honorable gentleman ought to know that the principle of representation by population does not apply to the Conference in the same way that it does to the representation in this and the other House of Parliament. Here the vote of every individual member counts upon a division on any question, and so numbers become of the utmost importance. But in the Conference the votes were counted by provinces, and not by single votes, so that it was impossible that any one province could be swamped by the others by reason of their having a larger representation. The only effect of an undue representation from any province would be to increase the difficulty the delegates from that one would have in agreeing among themselves to any single proposition, or to the propositions as a whole, and it could not, in any way, work any injustice to the other provinces. I have no doubt the Conference found their greatest difficulty in bringing the members of each section to agree among themselves. (Hear, hear, from the Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL.) If the delegates from any province felt that they could not agree to any of the questions submitted to them, they had but to say so, and the scheme of Confederation, so far as they were concerned, would have been at an end. The argument of unfair representation is, therefore, quite fallacious. There could really be no danger from the number of representatives not being in proportion, so long as each province had the power of protecting itself from any injustice which might be attempted to be perpetrated against it by the others. (Hear, hear.) It has also been objected that the present Canadian Administration was formed upon the avowed policy of forming a Federal union between Upper and Lower Canada only, and that the Government has exceeded their constitutional powers by substituting an union of all the provinces instead of what they had promised. Do we not all remember that the avowed policy of the Government was a Federal union of these provinces, I mean Upper and Lower Canada first, leaving it open to the Maritime Provinces and the colonies of the great west to fall into the union whenever they might find it their interest to do so ? Ministers, no doubt, had not the slightest idea that the larger scheme could be accomplished as soon if not sooner than the smaller one. I told my constituents, on coming before them for re-election, that there was an urgent necessity for a different union between Upper and Lower Canada from that which now exists, and that there was not time to include the Lower Provinces in the first scheme. But the movement has outrun my expectation, and I believe that of every member of the House. And is the House to reject the larger scheme when it is the easiest of accomplishment, simply because it had a secondary place in the ministerial programme ? I think the Charlottetown Conference was a good opportunity, and that the Government has acted wisely in putting themselves in communication with it, and in taking up the whole union first. But the honorable member from the Wellington Division complains

[Page 169]

that sufficient time has not been given to the consideration of the resolutions by the Conference, and cites the case of the American Constitution, when its framers took, I (Hon. Mr. MCCREA) know not how many months longer than our own Conference. But the honorable member should recollect that we had all their experience. We could commence where they left off.. Their work was ready to our hands. We had also the experience of the working of their Constitution, and knew what to avoid. Besides, the honorable member should recollect that we live in an age of railroads and lightning telegraphs, of which the revolutionary fathers knew nothing; and there is no doubt that speed in travelling and communication has a great deal to do in quickening the perceptions of mankind. Instead of its being made a ground of accusation against the Government that they have accomplished so much in so short a time, it ought rather to redound to their credit. And yet the honorable member for the Niagara Division complains that the measure was not infallible.

HON. ME. CURRIE—I did not make that complaint.

HON. MR. MCCREA—Well, the hon. gentleman said that it ought to have been ” as infallible as fallible men could make it,” and that “it should do complete justice to all and injustice to none.” I took down the exact words of the honorable gentleman at the time, and if the last words do not imply infallibility, they certainly come very near it. I venture to assert that if the honorable gentleman were employed to draw up a simple document of a few pages, without the interference of any one to control him, and should refer it to the revision of any competent person, it would be found subject to some criticism. How much less then must we expect a State document like this, the work of so many hands— where so many conflicting elements were to be reconciled—where so much had to be insisted upon on one side and resisted on the other— should do complete justice to all and injustice to none, according to the notions of my honorable friend from Niagara ? The wonder is, not that some fault can be found, but that the opponents of the measure can find so little. But it is a little singular that all the gentlemen who have yet spoken against the resolutions of the Conference have declared themselves in favor of Confederation, and yet, by their motions and their speeches, they are doing everything in their power to delay and embarrass the measure—certainly a very left-handed way of shewing their support. Honorable members argue against the details from both a Canadian and the Maritime point of view, and still tell us they are favorable to Confederation. Some honorable members declare that the question is not opposed in Upper Canada because it is not understood. It is certainly paying a very poor compliment to the intelligence of their constituents. The question has been propounded by eminent statesmen both in the old country and on this side of the Atlantic both time and again since the commencement of the present century, and has been in the minds of the people ever since. The reason why it has not been consummated is that no opportunity has ever presented itself like the present. It had but to be mentioned to take complete possession of the minds of the people. Out of thirteen elections for both branches of the Legislature which have taken place in Upper Canada since the scheme of union has been proposed, every single one, with but one exception, has resulted in its favor; and out of six elections for members of this House, whose original term of office had expired, four, my own among the number, I am glad to say, were by acclamation—I believe chiefly on account of their declared sentiments in favor of the scheme. But it is a little inconsistent, I cannot help saying, that at the same time some honorable gentlemen complain of the ignorance of Upper Canada on the details of the measure—by their votes the other day they refused to allow five hundred extra copies of the resolutions to bo printed for the use of members, that they might distribute them among their constituents, proclaiming their ignorance, and yet withholding the means of information. But honorable gentlemen attempt to frighten us with the expenses of the Intercolonial Railway ; and my honorable friend from Niagara, arguing from the eastern provincial point of view, declared they would remember the Grand Trunk frauds, and avoid a union with those who had perpetrated them. The Grand Trunk used to bo made an excellent stalking horse for gentlemen to ride into Parliament upon, and so pleased have honorable members become with the seat, that eveu after having arrived hero, they find it very difficult to dismount. My honorable friend from the division of King, has just now told us that we Upper Canadians, by the scheme proposed by Ministers, will be compelled to pay tentwelfths the cost of the railway. Well, I thought I had read the resolutions with a great deal of care, and I did not remember anything which said a single word about the

[Page 170]

proportionate expense, or about the expense at all. But, thinking I might be mistaken, I have taken the trouble to turn them up, and find there is not one word in them about the railway except the following. It will be found in the sixty-eighth resolution, and reads thus :—” The General Government shall secure without delay the completion of the Intercolonial Railway, from Rivière du Loup through New Brunswick to Truro, in Nova Scotia.” Is there anything here about Upper Canada having to pay ten-twelfths of the expense ?

HON. MR. REESOR said he had not declared that by the resolutions Upper Canada should pay ten-twelfths, but that upon calculation, taking into account numbers and revenue, that would be the effect.

HON. MR. McCREA—Well, I take the honorable gentleman’s explanation. Docs he wish to enter into a compact with the Maritime Provinces by which we shall not pay our fair proportion of our expenses according to our numbers and our means ? Is he so unjust as to ask so unfair an advantage ? The fact is, that the talk about the expenses and stringing together long rows of figures, is only calculated to bewilder and frighten the friends of the scheme. Three millions of dollars a year, exclaims the member for Niagara, without making it very plain how, will be added to our expense for all time to come.

HON. MR. CURRIE—More than that.

HON. MR. McCREA—More than that. Well, what of that ? The amount of debt is nothing to him who has the means and is willing to pay. I t is only unpleasant to the bankrupt who cannot pay, and to the miser who hates to part with his gold. Some one has said that it was a very great drawback to the morals and prosperity of London, that there should be fifty-thousand thieves within its walls. But it was well replied, that it was rather a source of congratulation that the metropolis should be able to support so many. So instead of regretting that we shall have so much to pay, we ought rather to rejoice that we shall be able to pay it. Instead of complaining that in the construction of the railway, we shall have to pay ten-twelfths, according to the estimate of my honorable friend from the division of King, it ought to be rather a source of pride and satisfaction to us that we have a large population and greater resources than our eastern neighbors. I am as much opposed to needless and extravagant expenditures as any member of this honorable House, but if the Intercolonial Railway has become a necessity, we must not be afraid to undertake it. I am free to admit there was much needless waste and expenditure in the construction of the Grand Trunk Railway, but I question whether there is a single honorable member of this House who would to-day, if he could, place us back where we were before the first sod was turned in that great undertaking. If war be imminent between us and the United States, and actually ensues, the railway will become an absolute military necessity. And who can tell but that, at any moment, the turning of a hand, looking at what has already happened, we may not be launched into the very midst of a war. It is, I believe, very well known, that as soon as it was learned in Washington that the St. Alban’s raiders had escaped through the bungling and incompetency, to say the least of it, of the Montreal officials, the first order of Mr. SEWARD was one of non-intercourse, but it was afterwards modified to the passport system. What, honorable gentlemen, would have been our situation had that order been sent out, and what guarantee have we that it may not be sent out at any moment ? But my honorable friend from Niagara says that the union of these provinces would not tend to strengthen our means of defence if, unfortunately, we should be invaded by the United States forces, because our frontier would be extended more than in proportion to the increase of our numbers. Does not every one know that it is the settled conviction of the military authorities of the States that their mistake in the last war was invading these provinces in different places at the same time, and that, in the event of a second war, their policy will be to concentrate all their strength on some one given point—Montreal for instance ? And will my honorable friend contend that the union and the railway will not enable us to concentrate a greater force, and more rapidly, on whatever point danger may be threatened, and also that they will not enable us to obtain aid from the British troops more quickly at any season of the year ? Then, as to the commercial necessity of the railway, it does seem to me plain that when our own Grand Trunk has a connection with Halifax ; when the Cunard and other steamers will discharge their valuable freight and their passengers destined for the far west at Halifax; when Toronto will be brought, in point of time, as near to London and Liverpool as New York ; it must not only increase the business of the Grand Trunk, but also the business of the railways in Nova

[Page 171]

Scotia and New Brunswick, which are to be made the property of the General Government. When the connection becomes complete there must be a mutual advantage to all. I believe the child is now born in Canada who will live not only to see an Intercolonial but an Interoceanic Railway, if this scheme of union shall be honestly and fairly carried out. The necessity of the railway has time and again been admitted by the several governments of these provinces, but, owing to a want of some power to control all, and a natural jealousy of each other, together with our own political differences, the scheme for its construction has always fallen through. When visiting the Maritime Provinces last summer, I told our friends there that the railway could only be had by a union—the union first, and the railway was sure to follow. I come now to consider the amendment of my honorable friend from the Wellington Division, and to which, according to the strict rules of debate, this discussion should have been confined; but I have taken the same course as honorable gentlemen who have preceded me have done, namely, to consider the whole scheme. The amendment brings up the question of members being appointed for life by the Crown, or elected for a term of years by the people. I am among those of the reform party who think that making the members of this House elective was a step in the wrong direction; and though I am free to admit that but for the elective principle having been applied to this House, I should never have had the honor of a seat within its walls, yet I am prepared to re-affirm that opinion on the floor of this House by my voting, as I shall do, against this amendment of my honorable friend from Wellington, and to sanction a return to the nomination of members for life by the Crown, under the advice of Ministers responsible to the people through the Legislative Assembly. I deny that the extension of the elective principle to this House was ever sought for, or petitioned for by the people at the time of its consummation. It is quite true, honorable gentlemen, that before the union of Upper and Lower Canada, and during the palmy days of the Family Compact and the irresponsibility of the Government, when the Assembly had no control over the Executive, except by stopping the supplies, the Legislative Council was chosen for the mere purpose of opposing the public will, and they did it most effectually. Every measure calculated to elevate the people and promote their best interests wai sure to be tomahawked, as the phrase went, by that very obstructive body. Short-sighted politicians of those days, who did not very well understand the working of the British Constitution, fancied the only remedy was by making this House elective. But the memorable resolutions of the 3rd September, 1841, at Kingston, established the true British principle of responsible government, and I maintain that since that time the people never demanded that this House should be made elective. I apprehend that my conservative friends and I, who agree with each other on this point—the nomination of members to this House—come to the same conclusion by a very different process of reasoning. They hold that the elective principle applied to this branch of Parliament gives too much power to the people, while I, on the other hand, argue that they have not by it as quick and as sharp a remedy against a stubborn Council as they had under the system of nomination. The great beauty of the old system was the promptness with which at the critical moment it could be brought to bear, and the history of its operations, both in this country and in England, clearly shews its superiority. My honorable friend from the division of King has cited the case of the greatest commoner of England, the celebrated WILLIAM PITT, having appointed so many members to the House of Lords within the first few months of his ministerial career. Did not PITT at that time command the confidence of the people of England? Does not my honorable friend know, if he has read the history of those times, that this great statesman steadily refused to accept office until he saw that public opinion was ripe for his schemes ? And was not PITT, at the commencement of his parliamentary career, the great advocate of parliamentary reform ? It is true that subsequent causes, over which he had no control, led him to pursue a very different course. What if at the times of tlie achievements by the people of those two great victories of civil and religious liberty in England, I mean Catholic emancipation and the passage of the Reform Bill, the Crown, through its ministers responsible to the House of Commons and the English nation, had not had power to coerce the Lords into consent, but had been obliged to wait for two years for the doubtful issue of a certain number of elections. Such have been my opinions with regard to the comparative merits of the nominative and elective principles as applied to this House, and I have not hesitated to express them among my constituents, both before and since

[Page 172]

they honored me with this seat. I admit that the proposed system is not the same as the old one, because it limits the numbers, and to this limitation I have the most serious objections ; but I am not going to hazard the success of the union scheme, as I sincerely believe I would, by voting for the amendment, but I shall take it as it is, with the hope and belief that in the new Parliament, when the union is consummated, the constitution of this House may be set right. Honorable gentlemen seem to talk as if this scheme and the Imperial Act to be founded upon it, are finalities. I do not look upon any human act as a finality, and I have no doubt a way will be found by which this amendment may be made. Was not the Constitutional Act of 1840 amended ? And will honorable gentlemen tell us that the act to be founded upon these resolutions cannot be amended in the same way ?

HON. MR. LETELLIER—Will the honorable gentleman tell us how the Act of 1840 was amended ?

HON. MR. MCCREA—Does the honorable member from Grandville not remember the increase of members in the representation of the other House, in 1853, and the amendment of the constitution of this House in 1856, the very question I am now debating ? Surely these measures were amendments of that act, and who knows but under the new Constitutional Act—the favorite measure of my honorable friend—the election of members of this House, may not again be resorted to, if the nominative principle shall not be found to work well ? But let us examine for a moment what the amendment of my honorable friend from Wellington is intended to effect. It will be seen by referring to the amendment itself, that the honorable gentleman proposes that the members of this House from Canada and from the Maritime Provinces shall have a different origin or, as it were, a different parentage, elected by the people with us, and appointed by the Crown from the eastern provinces. I take it that it is very desirable that in whatever way the members of this House may be chosen, there should be uniformity in the system. By the honorable gentleman’s plan we shall have one-third of the members from below representing the Crown, and two-thirds from above, representing the people ; a curious sort of incongruity which I think should by all means be avoided. I may be answered that our present House is constituted in that rery way ; but honorable gentlemen must remember that the life member» are not the sole repreientatires of any particular section of the province, but are chosen indiscriminately from all parts of the province. This is not likely to lead to a sectional collision like the scheme of my honorable friend, and be sides that, the appointment of life members in this House is not to be continued after the seats of the present members shall have become vacant from any cause whatever. I think the scheme of my honorable friend the most objectionable of all. The honorable member from Niagara has given us notice that he intends to move a resolution to the House that this question shall be delayed until an appeal shall be had to the people—

HON. MR. CURRIE—The honorable gentleman is quite mistaken. I have given notice of no such motion.

HON. MR. McCREA—What notice have you given ?

HON. MR. CURRIE—If you read it you will see.

HON. MR. MCCREA—Will you give it to me that I may see what it really is ? [Upon being handed the notice by the Hon. Mr. CURRIE, the Hon. Mr. MCCREA proceeded.] Ah ! Here it is ! It reads as follows :—

That upon a measure of such great importance as the proposed Confederation of this and certain other British colonies, this House is unwilling to assume the responsibility of assenting to a measure involving so many important considerations without a further manifestation of the public will than has yet been declared.

How is the honorable gentleman to get this manifestation of the public will unless it be through a dissolution of the other House and a new election ? Surely the honorable gentleman does not mean to shelter himself from the legitimate consequences of his resolution by its technical phraseology. It certainly comes with a very bad grace and taste from any member of this House to propose a dissolution of Parliament and send the members of the Assembly packing to their constituents to undergo the wear, tear, expenses and turmoil of an election, while we can sit here firmly in our seats, and with folded hands look quietly on. As to the true state of public opinion upon this important subject in this province, it will be time enough to consider it, when my honorable friend from Niagara comes to press his resolution. If our own political situation required a remedy, I think this union is an excellent opportunity, but I do not mean to urge that our own political exigency should be the only reason for the union. We should settle our own political difficulties. But that and everything else

[Page 173]

seems to conspire to this union. The imminence of war with the United States, the certainty of the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty, the danger of non-intercourse, the opportunity of the Charlottetown Convention, and the consequent necessity of the Intercolonial Railway—all point to this Confederation. But the expense is the bugbear of the opponents of this scheme. If the great social and political interests of the country are to be served, if we are to have laid broad and deep in the hearts of the people the foundations of a great nationality, as my honorable friend from Wellington has expressed it, the financial part of the scheme is but a secondary consideration. To-day, the balance of advantage may be against us ; to-morrow, it may be in our favor. Who can say, when the railway shall be established, and when by the union we shall have incited new enterprises and energies, and developed the whole resources of the eastern provinces, with whom the financial balance may rest ? I cannot close my remarks better than by saying, that had a union of all these provinces existed in fact as it has existed in the minds of statesmen since the commencement of the present century, the man who, in the face of our present critical position, with civil war raging in our vicinity, and even national war threatening ourselves, should now propose to dissolve that union and scatter us again into disjointed fragments, would be looked upon as an enemy to his Queen and a traitor to his country. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. OLIVIER—Honorable gentlemen, a French journal in Montreal, in reporting the proceedings of a meeting recently held at Berthier, to consider the proposed project of the Confederation of Canada and the Lower Provinces, and to which meeting, in the capacity of representative of the division in which the county is situated, I was invited, stated that I had expressed myself against that project, and I therefore take this, the first opportunity, of declaring that the journal in question was in error, and that I did not so express myself. I did, however, say at that meeting, that there were provisions in the project upon which I could not look with a favorable eye. but that I could not then pronounce an opinion, but would wait until I came to Parliament, when I expected the details would be placed before the members fully and in good faith. I must, however, say, honorable gentlemen, that in this I have been much disappointed, for until now, the information so much desired and asked for has not been supplied, and the House is left in the dark in respect of several important matters upon which it is asked to decide. For instance, it was stated in the resolutions, that means would be taken to effectually protect the minorities and preserve to them the rights they now possess, but we were not informed as to what those rights were, or as to the means to be used for preserving them untouched and unimpaired. If we had known what these means would be, we would have come prepared to assent to, or to dissent from them, in an intelligent manner, and to express our opinions as we ought to do, but this information was not vouchsafed. I understand that a bill, to assure to the Protestants of Lower Canada the uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of their rights, is to be brought down and passed before the scheme of Federation itself is fully adopted and sanctioned ; but I have not heard that any similar measure is to be passed in favor of the Roman Catholics of Upper Canada. I have no objection, whatever, to grant to the Protestants of Lower Canada, for all future time, the rights they now enjoy, or any other rights and guarantees which may be deemed reasonable and equitable, but I cannot vote to adopt the resolutions until I am informed whether the Roman Catholics of the west are to be dealt with in the same manner. By refusing us information on this important subject, the Government has placed us in a false position, from which, I think, it is their duty to extricate us. I shall not now address myself to the inquiry of whether the Confederation scheme be really desirable or not, but cannot help saying that the long-standing difference between the two sections of the province might have been arranged, if during the last difficulty between the respective parties the leading men on either side had been willing to sink their personal differences and make mutual concessions. But as it is of no use now to refer to that subject, I will not argue the matter further. I maintain again, however, that the House has a right to expect the Government will give us all the information in respect of the details of the Confederation sheme as may be necessary to understand thoroughly all its provisions. My opinion is, that as much power as possible should have been entrusted to the local governments, and as little as is consistent with the functions it will have to discharge to the Central Government, and my reason for entertaining this opinion is, that the Supreme Government, with its power of purse and its control of the armies, will always

[Page 174]

be more disposed to stretch its prerogatives and to trench upon the domain of the local governments than to narrow down and retain its authority. The scheme then, in my opinion, is defective in that it inverts this order and gives to the General Government too much power and to the local governments too little. As it is now, if the scheme goes into operation, tlie local governments will be in danger of being crushed (écrasés) by the General Government. The tendency of the whole scheme seems to be one of political retrogression instead of advancement.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHE— Hear! hear !

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I am glad the Hon. Premier seems so strongly to approve of what I say.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—Ah! but it is exactly the contrary.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—Then I am sorry not to obtain his approval—(laughter)—but nevertheless I hold that the policy disclosed in the scheme is a backward policy. I want to progress, I want to see the country advance, I want to see the liberties of the country unfolding and expanding; but instead of this our rulers are narrowing them down and restricting their free exercise. (Hear.) They are now proposing to take away the elective principle in its application to this Chamber, and that too, without even having received a petition or sign of any kind from the people that such is their wish. If this is not a policy of retrogression I can hardly imagine what would be. I was not sent here to assist in doing any such thing, and am not aware that there has been any evidence of a desire in the country for a return to the old mode of appointment by the Crown. I am not aware of one complaint, or of any dissatisfaction whatever with the present constitution of the Legislative Council, and I therefore regard it as not a little strange that a few gentlemen, without mission or warrant, should have devised such a change, and should be trying to press it upon the Legislature and the country. I cannot say what is the general feeling in the public mind in favor of a Confederation of Canada and the Maritime Provinces, and so far, perhaps, from being opposed to it personally, I would be glad if it could be accomplished upon principles I can approve. I do not wish, however, to see the local governments crushed under a great central power, and I am sure the people cannot wish, and do not wish, to give up the principle of election in respect of this House. They had fought too long for the privilege to do that, and one thing was quite clear, we were not sent to Parliament to destroy our present Constitution. There is a great difference between making machinery work and breaking it to peices, and I maintain that we were elected to legislate within the Constitution, not to legislate away the Constitution. When I was elected I expected to go back to my constituents to give them an account of the manner in which I had fulfilled the duty entrusted to me, not to take advantage of my position to provide for myself a seat for life. No, my constituents never gave me this right, nor was any elected member entrusted with it, and whoever assume to vote away the liberties of the people in this manner, betray their mandate. If it was desired that the people should surrender this right they should have been informed of such desire in good time, so that they might have considered the question ; but without warning them, or consulting them, this most highly-prized principle was bartered away to the Lower Provinces for a Confederation which could not last. The Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands had told the House that the repartition of Lower Canada according to the present electoral divisions had been retained for the purpose of protecting the British population of Lower Canada. I think that if, with the retaining these electoral divisions the elective principle was also retained, the French population of Lower Canada would also find in it their protection. For then each division would be free to choose for its representative in the Federal Legislative Council a man attached to the institutions of Lower Canada, while, in giving the nomination of the legislative councillors to the Federal power, the latter would be at liberty to choose whomsoever it thought proper, and, unfortunately — a circumstance which I do not anticipate, but which may occur — the General Government, when formed, might be surrounded by coteries inimical to Lower Canada interests, and be led by them to choose members for the Legislative Council hostile to the views of Lower Canada. I consider, therefore, an elective Legislative Council in the Confederation as essential to the interests of Lower Canada. Nothing is gained politically by the scheme any more than financially. The honorable member for Niagara has abundantly proved that all the results to Canada would be a sacrifice of prinples and of money. To assure the advantages to themselves of the scheme of Confederation, the Lower Provinces had stipulated first for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway,

[Page 175]

and we would in consequence have to expend twenty millions for that object, besides paying $63,000 a year to New Brunswick for ten years, and $150,000 a year to Newfoundland forever. To be sure, in the latter case we would have the produce of the mines of that island, but I would ask any one who knows the value of those mines, how much they would be worth to us ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL said, with respect to the Newfoundland mines, that he had had communicated to him a note from Sir WILLIAM LOGAN, the provincial geologist, which would probably throw some light upon the subject. The note was written unofficially and without the remotest reference to the question under debate, and therefore might be taken as good evidence in the case. I t was as follows :—

There is no part of the whole surface, according to my present impression, which deserves more attention than Newfoundland. There is, in that island, a great development of the formations which promise so considerable a mineral result in the Eastern Townships The coast of the island abounds with good harbors, and the available minerals would, in very many cases, extend to the coast. Newfoundland is the part of the area nearest to Europe. The surface of the island, not being in general very favorable for agriculture, mining might become the means of giving employment to labor and attracting population, while the island requires an increase of inhabitants to make the more available the im portant position it occupies for the defence of the St. Lawrence and the country beyond on its banks.

After the dinner recess,—

HON. MR. OLIVIER continued his remarks. He said : When the Council adjourned at six o’clock, I was speaking of the Island of Newfoundland, to which we grant a subsidy of $150,000 per annum, and not for one year only, but for ever. I was saying, moreover, that I was apprehensive that some of us were ignorant of the facts which might have led the delegates at Quebec to grant that sum to the Island of Newfoundland. But it seems, if I perfectly understood what was said, that that sum was granted as an indemnity for giving up the produce of the public lands, mines and forests. We are told by the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL) that he had been informed by the provincial geologist, Sir W. LOGAN, that there really are mines in the Island of Newfoundland. I was anxious to learn from the Hon. Commissioner whether an official exploration of the country had ever been made, whether it had ever been ascertained what kind of mines existed in Newfoundland. The information which he gave was not derived from official reports, and I am extremely anxious to know whether there is any documentary evidence of the existence of the pretended riches of Newfoundland, in woods, mines and public lands.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—The honorable member may go on ; in the course of the debate he will receive satisfactory information.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—Very well ; but I see by the statistics, on the contrary, that there is no timber on the island beyond what is necessary for the building of the huts or cabins of the fishermen who inhabit it, and that there is no land fit for cultivation belonging to the Crown ; and, as to mines, I do not believe any official exploration has been made to ascertain their existence in the island.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—It is a well-ascertained fact that there are mines in the Island of Newfoundland of great value. As to the grant of $150,000 yearly subsidy, I must observe to the honorable member that it was intended to make up for the revenue given up by Newfoundland to the Confederation, amounting at present to $400,000.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—Another reason why I cannot approve of the plan of Confederation, as it is now presented to us, is that I consider it as a retrograde step in the polititical progress of the country. The spirit of modern society is to give to the people as much political liberty as possible ; and it is my belief that by this plan of Confederation we shall sacrifice whatever liberty is already possessed by the people of this country. When I expressed this idea, a short time since, the Honorable Premier seemed to give an ironical assent to it, as if he considered my notions exaggerated. I am bound to tell him that I neither love nor approve of mob-rule any more than he does, but I have always held as a political principle, that as much political liberty as possible should be conceded to the masses, combined always with a Government strong enough to maintain order and administer the laws ; and herein I consider that I conform to the principles of modern society, without giving in to the dictates of demagogy. I am favorable to democracy, but not to demagogy, and in this sense I spoke. I say, then, that in taking from the people for all time, the right which they acquired after long struggles of electing members to this House, we are retrograding, making a step backward, and I am sure the people will not look upon this project with a favorable eye. We are

[Page 176]

told that Confederation is become necessary for the defence of the country. For one moment I will admit that it might increase our means of defence, but that is assuredly no reason for urging the adoption of the measure, as now attempted to be done. With Confederation, neither the number of men in the several provinces, nor the pecuniary resources now at their disposal, will be increased. I cannot see what vast increase of strength this Confederation is to give forthwith, for England is fully entitled at this moment to dispose, without let or hindrance, of all the resources, both in men and money, possessed by the colony, just as well as she will be after Confederation is effected. That is therefore no reason to make us urge on the adoption of the measure, especially as we risk nothing by giving the people time to study, examine and understand the new Constitution of which we are desirous to make them a present. They tell us that the Intercolonial Railway is to be a military road. But if it be so, how happens it that nobody has thought of another part of the country in which a military road is much more called for. I can hardly believe that anybody can be serious in this, while they overlook the real military road which would be wanted in the event of hostilities,—I mean a railway between Quebec and Montreal, on the north shore of the River St. Lawrence. In order to render the Intercolonial Railway of any avail as a military road, the North Shore Railway must also be built, for the present road on the south shore may be easily cut and occupied by the enemy. Leaving Quebec it takes the direction of the United States, and leaving Montreal it takes the same direction to meet the other branch at Richmond. In case of war the Americans would have but a short distance to advance to take possession of either one or the other of these branches. I shall now proceed to examine whether the plan of Confederation is really what it seems to be. I hear it said that Confederation, as it is proposed, will be a Federal union—but it seems to me that it will be rather a Legislative union, at least as far as regards the most important interests of Lower Canada. The 29th section of the scheme submitted to us says : ” The Federal Parliament shall have the power of making laws for the peace, the well-being, and the good government of the Confederate provinces, and in particular in respect of the following matters.” The powers of the Federal Government will be in reality unlimited. The fact of the enumeration of these thirty-seven heads does not in the least restrain the power of the Federal Government from legislating on everything. The exceptions are few. I would ask the Honorable Premier, for instance, whether the Federal Government has not the power to enact that marriage is a civil contract ? He cannot deny it, and I do not believe that that clause will in any way suit Lower Canada. In a matter of divorce, I consider that the power of legislating upon it ought to be vested in the Federal Government ; but as to the passing of a marriage act, we have the authority of the past to convince us that Lower Canada will never be satisfied with what is proposed in the plan of Confederation. On a former occasion, when a member of the Parliament of Canada moved to enact that marriage should be made a civil contract, all the members for Lower Canada voted against the motion, and the whole country was opposed to it. I shall also inquire whether the Federal Government will not have the right to enact that religious corporations shall no longer exist in the country, or that they shall not be allowed to hold real property, except what is absolutely necessary for their lodging accommodation. According to the resolutions which have been submitted to us, the Federal Government would certainly have this right. It has been said that article 15 of the 43rd resolution replies to this objection, but I can see nothing in that article which restricts the right of the Federal Government to legislate on this matter. The 43rd resolution defines the powers of the local governments, and article 15 of that resolution declares that they may make laws respecting ” property and civil rights, excepting those portions thereof assigned to the General Parliament.” That article reserves to the local legislatures nothing relative to religious corporations, and the Federal Government would have full power to decree that those corporations shall not hold immovable property. The supreme power is that which has the right to legislate upon, and regulate the existence of, the corporations in question, and they can only possess civil rights so long as the Government permits them to exist. The same might be said of most of the institutions to which Lower Canada is attached. I am therefore right in saying that, so far as those things which Lower Canada most holds to are concerned, Confederation is in fact a Legislative union, because upon the Federal Government is conferred the right of legislating upon those subjects which Lower Canada holds most dear. It appears to me that it is the more important not to proceed

[Page 177]

so rapidly as it is proposed to do, because it is extremely difficult to foresee what will be the bearing of the platform which it is proposed to erect. I have just cited the rights which Confederation would confer upon the Federal Government in respect of certain points ; but there are other interests which may perhaps be imperilled by this measure—I will cite, for instance, the rights of the creditors of the provinces.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—They will have the guarantee of the Confederation.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—The rights of the creditors of the province will form the subject of an arrangement between Upper and Lower Canada at a later period, but the creditors will have the guarantee of the whole Confederation.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I see nothing of that in the resolutions.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—All the details are not included in the resolutions ; but as to the balance of $5,000,000 which will have to be divided between Upper and Lower Canada, and which constitutes the difference -between the $62,000,000 of debt which will be assumed by the Confederation, and the $67,000,000 which Canada owes, a division will be made before Parliament is dissolved.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I understood that the debts were to be divided and that the indemnity to the seigniors, for instance, for the abolition of the Seigniorial Tenure was to be imposed entirely on Lower Canada. If there are any verbal explanations beyond what is contained in the resolutions, I am quite willing to receive them from the Government, but that is just the reason why we should not be in a hurry to adopt these resolutions until we have those explanations, for it might be dangerous not to have all these questions settled before voting for Confederation ; who can say whether we can settle them as well after as before ? These promises of explanations shew that, since all the facts are not submitted, we may easily mistake the meaning of the resolutions which we are called upon to adopt. In any case, I certainly see nothing in these resolutions which gives the seigniors the guarantee of the Confederation as security for their claim, and I can only judge of the resolutions by what they contain, especially in the absence of any explanation of the details. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. GALT) stated that the debt due to the seigniors would fall on Lower Canada alone, and this does not agree exactly with what the Prime Minister has just said. As I said a short time ago, when speaking of the school question, I would not vote for a Constitution which would not confer on the Catholics of Upper Canada the same advantages as are possessed by the Protestants of Lower Canada, and I consider that this is a matter that should be settled before taking a vote on the resolutions, for when Confederation is once voted it may easily happen that we shall not be able to obtain what is promised us now. We therefore are in a position which may make us sacrifice the minority of Upper Canada by voting Confederation now, or make us vote against a principle which we might perhaps accept, if we were acquainted with all its details. For my part, 1 acknowledge that I would not cause the plan of Confederation which is proposed to us to miscarry, if it is possible to make it just, acceptable and useful to all parties. But for this I will not sacrifice the interests of a portion of the population. Another point upon which we require explanations, and respecting which we have none, is that relating to the constitution of the local governments. Now, for instance, some journals which usually express the views and opinions of the present Government, have stated that in all the local governments the system of responsibility of the ministers to the people or their representatives would not exist, but that an irresponsible system would be substituted for it. I ask which of you would accept such a system, and what part of the people would approve of such an alteration in our political institutions? You are told ” vote for the plan submitted to you, and the details will be explained to you at a later period.” But at a later period neither Upper nor Lower Canada will be master of the position, and able to obtain the system of government which may suit them, should that imposed upon them not meet their views. But, yet once more, why hurry you so much ? Why, for instance, should this House be called upon to sit twice a-day on this question before even its details are known ? Why depart from our custom of examining matters in a calm and deliberate manner. Certainly, up to the present time, not one valid reason has been given to justify the hurry in which it is proposed to carry this measure. Mention has indeed been made of defence, but this is no valid reason, for it is perfectly well known that all the resources of Canada are now at the disposal of England in case of need ; this precipitate action is then neither justified nor justifiable. I ask whether we know the plan of Confederation which is submitted to us,

[Page 178]

and, unfortunately, I must answer my question in the negative. Surprise has been expressed in certain quarters at the opposition which has arisen to this measure after all the advantages which we were promised should result from it. Thus it was said that under Confederation we should obtain coal from Nova Scotia without having any duty to pay. This reasoning might appear to carry a certain amount of force with it, but I must say that it is in fact captious, for we find at the present day that we can indeed get this coal, but by paying the export duty exactly like foreign countries. Would there, then, be no real free trade between the different parts of the same Confederation ? Would the position of the provinces, in this respect, remain as it is to-day ? The proof of what I state here is found in Hon. Mr. GALT’S speech to his constituents :—

In Nova Scotia a considerable revenue was derived from a royalty en coal mines, and its representatives at the Conference stated that if the General Government imposed an export duty on coal it would annihilate one of their most important resources, and, therefore, Nova Scotia has been allowed to regulate herself the export duty on coal, precisely as New Brunswick enjoys that right as regards its timber.

This duty which Nova Scotia may impose on the export of its coal, whatsoever it may be styled, is then in reality an export duty, and the result, as regards ourselves, is to leave us still in the same position if we must pay the duty in order to get the coal of that province. The argument based on the fact that we could obtain coal from Nova Scotia without paying an import duty, is thus destroyed, since the duty will still exist. I have already stated that the plan submitted for our approval is exceedingly complex, and that it is not easy to foresee the difficulties that will arise between the local governments and the Federal Government. It may, perhaps, be asserted that these difficulties cannot be very serious, inasmuch as the local governments will not possess any large powers ; but if it is designed to make them real governments, and not mere municipalities, they may be opposed to the Central Government on a host of questions. Take, for instance, the question of the fisheries. Article 17, of the 29th resolution, gives to the Federal Parliament the power of legislating on the ” sea coast and inland fisheries.” Under the 8th article of the 43rd resolution, the local legislatures will also have the right of legislating on the ” sea coast and inland fisheries.” Thus the local legislatures and the Federal Legislature will have the right to legislate on the same subjects. And if the laws they make are in opposition the one to the other, what will be the result ? And this may well happen, for we know that in the Gulf, for instance, there are fisheries which are of the highest importance for the people of Lower Canada, as well as for the people of the adjoining colonies, of which the latter have taken possession, and sought to exclude our people from them. Now, if the Local Government of Lower Canada made laws to protect its subjects and insure to them the right to these fisheries, would it not be in the power of the Federal Government to interfere and prevent it? And if this were to happen, would it not give rise to endless antipathies and struggles between the two governments? Lower Canada would not suffer such an interference without feeling it very strongly ; and what I have just said with reference to the fisheries might also occur with reference to a large number of questions. And it is quite evident that if the Local Government, acting in the interests of a province, were arrested in its action by the Federal Government, the people would take sides with their Local Government and become disaffected towards the Central Government.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—This question of the fisheries is, no doubt, divided between the local governments and the Federal Government, but it is evident, that in order that justice may be done to each part of the Confederation in an impartial manner, the general legislation must be left to the General Government, while the application of the internal details within the limits of the fisheries of a province, must be left to the local legislatures.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—The argument I have brought forward, with reference to fisheries, is applicable to other questions, and is merely to show that the present plan is complex, that there are conflicting interests in the different colonies, and that the settlement of them, in one sense or in another, might be productive of discontent in the country, and create a spirit of dissatisfaction among the people. Some one has said that this project is viewed favorably in England, and that for that reason we ought to accept it in order to prevent the evil consequences that might arise from our opposition to the project. For my part, I do not believe that England would insist so strongly on the details as they are insisted on here, but I believe her desire is, that the plan should be just and acceptable,

[Page 179]

and that it should be thoroughly understood by the people before it is adopted ; she is less anxious to enforce the details of the project than to see the people of the provinces content and satisfied with it. If a large portion of the people were opposed to the project, I do not think that England would approve of forcing this project upon them without giving time to examine it or to pronounce upon it. The opinion of the country upon this plan is, to-day, quite unknown. I am quite aware that certain members can vote in favor of the project with tho certainty of their course meeting the approval of their constituents ; for instance, those whose elections have taken place since the plan was submitted to the country. But in those parts of the country where no elections have taken place, it is impossible to say that the people will be satisfied or that they will endorse the action of their representatives in voting for Confederation, because we have not been enabled to make it known. Thus when my constituents invited me to a public meeting to discuss the subject, I was compelled to admit that I could not tell them what the plan of Confederation was ; that I could not communicate it to them, because the resolutions I had received were private. I also told them that I did not wish to form my opinion before hearing the discussion and learning the details ; but to-day we are refused the details, and the adoption of the project is pressed without affording us time to study it as it is. An attempt will probably be made to injure us in the opinion of our electors if we vote against this project, and we shall be accused of having opposed Confederation ; but I trust the people will see that we cannot vote for a thing with which we are not acquainted, and that we shall have their approval in the course we shall adopt. When the project of Confederation is submitted to the English Parliament, they will take it for granted that the people of this country approve of it; but they will never suppose that the measure has been forced upon the people without affording them the opportunity of pronouncing for or against it. But there is another thing ; it is not surprising that this project should be looked upon with a favorable eye in England, for public opinion is composed specially of that of the industrial and commercial classes, and it is the interest of those classes to favor Confederation. But let us well consider whether the interests of those classes is ours also. I consider that our present political course should be to see to the interest’s of the agriculture, the trade and the industry of our country, before laboring to build up that of English traders and artisans. If by Confederation we unite provinces, the inhabitants of which find it their interest to have a very low tariff adopted, it might very well happen that the agricultural interest of Canada might not find itself so well off, and in such a case what would be the result ? The result would be that we should very soon have an enormous debt, and that, should the customs revenue not suffice to meet it and provide for the expenditure, the deficit would have to be made up by means of direct taxation, which would weigh upon the agriculture and industry of the country. If we have a tariff of twenty per cent., it protects the industry of our native land, and is a source of revenue wherewith to provide for the public expenditure ; but if we make it too low, real property will suffer, for on it will be laid the burthen imposed to meet the deficit. Confederation would appear to me to be very costly, for money is scattered on all Sides in handfuls. Thus it is proposed to construct the Intercolonial Railway, which will cost at least $20- 000,000 ; to Upper Canada is given $16,000,- 000 to improve its canals ; $150,000 a year is given to Newfoundland, as a compensation for mines which perhaps do not exist, and $63,000 to New Brunswick; and after all this the Local and Federal Governments have the power conferred on them of adding new taxes to those which already exist in order to meet the expenditure ; and I have no doubt whatever but that they will avail themselves of that permission. All this is deserving of consideration, and these are reasons which should induce the Government to submit the question to the people, instead of wishing to have it decided at once ; for, even allowing the measure to be absolutely a good one, the people will always regard it with mistrust if it is thrust upon them. What ! we are told that we are perhaps on the eve of a war with our neighbors, and we run the risk of dissatisfying the people by imposing a system upon them to which they are perhaps opposed. It is not only in the district of Montreal that the submission of the question to the people is called for—the Toronto Leader says that the people ought to be consulted, and this appears to me to be most reasonable. For my part, I am in favor of an appeal to the people, and I cannot approve of Confederation being thrust upon them without their being consulted. Let it be well understood, if it is wished that the population should make sacrifices for its

[Page 180]

government in case of war, we must not begin by rendering them discontented and disaffected. Let a fair and equitable system of Confederation be proposed, and let the people have an opportunity of examining into it and approving of it, and then no man will shrink from the necessity of making the greatest sacrifices to defend the Constitution which has been freely accepted by the people. It may be said that the people would be compelled to march at the point of the bayonet ; but the risk of such a course is great, for the arm is but feeble when it is not animated by the heart, and to defend a country effectually the heart of the people must be in the cause. The Prime Minister stated that the object of Confederation was to strengthen the monarchical principle in this country. I do not see that it is necessary to confer upon the Crown greater privileges than it already possesses in England itself. In England the members of the House of Lords are not appointed by the Crown ; succession in the peerage goes down hereditary from father to son ; but here it is proposed that the members of the Legislative Council, which body corresponds to the House of Lords, should be selected by the Crown. Why should this be ? Why go beyond what is done in England itself? Is it that the Crown complains that it has not sufficient power here ? As to the statement that it is proposed to establish in America, by means of Confederation, a counterpoise to the influence and power of the United States, I would ask whether that would not in itself constitute the best pretext which the Government of the United States could wish for upon which to declare war against us. At the present time, I am not of opinion that the American people are desirous of seeking a quarrel with us; just now they have quite enough to attend to. But if their Government should think it to their interest to declare war against England, the best pretext which they could bring forward to excite the American people against us would certainly be this pretended counterpoise which it is sought to establish. It is well known that the MONROE doctrine is a principle to which all the people of the United States are attached, and, should we give them an opportunity, they would avail themselves of it to put that doctrine into practice. Since Confederation does not in reality increase the strength of the colonies, why should we give umbrage to the Government of the United States, and provide them with the means of animating their people against us in case of the breaking out of hostilities ? If the means for the defence of the country were increased, I would say, let us throw aside all these considerations, but such, in my opinion, is not the case. In conclusion, I would implore the Government to grant to the people the time and the opportunity of convincing themselves that the Constitution which it has prepared is a good one, and that it has really been planned with a view to their interests ; and, in that case, I predict that when the time for defence comes, the people will march like one man. But if it is intended to thrust it upon them by main force, and without consulting them, we must not, we cannot, expect them to defend their land with the like zeal. I consider that this demand is no more than just, both to ourselves and to the people whom we represent. So far as I myself am concerned, I did not come here to fight against Confederation and destroy it at any price, but I certainly will not vote for it without being acquainted with it in all its details. (Cheers.)

The debate was then adjourned till tomorrow.

TUESDAY, February 14, 1865.

HON. SIR N. F. BELLEAU said—Hon. gentlemen, the discussion on the scheme of Confederation has already been protracted, and little really remains to be said, for all the objections to the scheme have been made by the one side and replied to by the other. I may, however, be permitted to offer a few remarks on one or two of the objections which were urged again yesterday. For the last three years the country has witnessed a state of things which by many persons has been designated governmental anarchy. Government after government in rapid succession have grasped the helm of state. A state of conflict existed between political parties which was hourly on the increase; a conflict which threatened to arrest the progress of public business, and which drew the minds of our statesmen to consider whether any means could be adopted to remedy this state of things. The men of influence throughout the country at length decided to unite, and have come to the conclusion that a remedy was to be found in a Confederation of the British American Provinces. It is not to be wondered at that this plan should have attracted the attention of the present Administration, for it was not a new one, and the question had already been brought before the country

[Page 181]

on several occasions. In the Confederation of these provinces are to be found elements which give promise, nay, contain the germ of a power which will one day take its place among the nations of the world. And in considering this Confederation of the British North American Provinces, I am reminded of the fable of the bundle of sticks, which I learned in my childhood, and which so exactly applies to the present circumstances. This fable tells us that the sticks when bound together were strong enough to resist all the efforts made to break them, but that when separated they were broken one by one with but little effort. It seems to me that the lesson afforded by this fable may be well applied to the question of Confederation— separated we are weak, united we shall be strong. Commerce, population, manufactures, progress, in a word, all the elements requisite to constitute a powerful nation are contained in the united colonies ; but these become of little consequence if allowed to be utilized by each separate colony. And not only would the union of these elements constitute the Confederation a great power amongst the other nations of the world, but there would be found amongst its population a number of sturdy arms, sufficient, with the aid of Great Britain, to repel foreign aggression. I do not belong to that school which pretends that in case of invasion on the part of the United States, the best thing we could do would be to remain passive with folded arms. That is not my idea. Such notions may flatter the opinions and desires of those who have republican leanings, of annexationists and of anti-Canadians, who are nothing less than enemies of the monarchical system in this country. I have no sympathy with those who place themselves at the head of the republican and annexationist school, for I see in them none of those national aspirations of which every man is always proud. “With these few remarks to shew the necessity of Confederation, and that its first result will be the production of a new and powerful people, I propose to consider the terms and conditions of the scheme, and whether Lower Canada will find in them the protection its interests demand. The first point to which I directed my attention was to ascertain what guarantees Lower Canada would find in Confederation for its laws, its religion and its autonomy. I find the guarantee of all these things in that article of the scheme which gives to Lower Canada the local government of its affairs, and the control of all matters relating to its institutions, to its laws, to its religion, its manufactures and its autonomy. Are you not all prepared, hon. gentlemen, and you especially members from Lower Canada, to make some few sacrifices in order to have the control of all those things to which I have just referred, and which are all to be within the jurisdiction of the local governments. Are you not ready to make some few sacrifices to see an end put to those struggles which have been constantly recurring during the last few years, to the imminent peril of Lower Canada and of its institutions—dangers which still exist and which might even now become only too apparent were the friends who have sustained the combat to grow weary, or to give way and leave the field to their adversaries ? If we persist in striving to obtain too much, if we are unwilling to make any sacrifice, we may lose the whole result of these struggles and the advantages now offered for our acceptance. For my part the consideration that we shall have the control of our local affairs in Lower Canada, under the Confederation, is a sufficient inducement to vote in favor of the scheme now submitted to us, even although it offered us no other advantage. But, without entering into the details, I now propose to reply to certair. objections which have been urged, and prove that it is for our interest to adopt this plan. One of the very first objections raised has been offered by the honorable member for the Wellington Divison (Hon. Mr. SANBORN). He has stated that he could not vote for Coniederation because he had not received the sanction of his constituents to change the Constitution of his country. Whilst, however, he makes this statement, the same honorable gentleman proposes, nevertheless, to change the Constitution which he declares his electors have not given him authority to change in any particular. This is the resolution which he proposes in amendment:

Upper Canada to be represented in the Legislative Council by twenty-four elective members, and Lower Canada by twenty-four elective members, and the Maritime Provinces by twenty-four members, corresponding with the twenty-four elective members in each section of Canada, of which Nova Scotia shall have ten, New Brunswick ten, and Prince Edward Island shall have four, and the present members of the Legislative Council of Canada, as well life members as elective members, shall be members of the first

[Page 182]

Legislative Council of the Federal Parliament, the appointed members to remain for life, and the elective members for eight years from the date of their election, unless removed by death or other cause ; their successors to be elected by the same divisions and electors as have elected them.

Well, honorable gentlemen, if the honorable member from Wellington has not received authority to change the Constitution of this country, certainly he has not the right to make the amendment which he proposes, an amendment which is full of contradiction. The honorable gentleman says that he has no objection to vote for Confederation after having consulted his electors. Well, although he may not have much faith in the maxim Vox populi, vox Dei, the honorable member has declared that the rule of his conduct has always been, Salus populi suprema lex. I have no doubt, however, that he would say, Salus meus suprema lex est, if he were appointed a life member, and that he would have no scruple as regards amending the Constitution. The game argument has been urged by the honorable member for Lanaudière (Hon. Mr. OLIVIER) . Well, I think that that honorable gentleman will not, without difficulty, extricate himself from the dilemma in which I am about to place him. He has also stated that he had received no authority from his constituents to alter the Constitution. If he has not received this authority, he ought to vote against the amendment which is now proposed, the object of which is to alter the Constitution. If this objection were a serious one, why do not members who are desirous of consulting their electors resign their seats, and seek re-election on this question, instead of setting the whole country in a blaze by a dissolution ? But no, they fold their arms and say that a dissolution does not affect them, the Council would not be affected by it. They are not, then, serious in asking for an appeal to the people. The hon. member for Grandville (Hon. Mr. LETELLIEB. DE ST. JUST) has also read something to the same purpose. I call upon him, then, to resign his seat and to consult his constituents ; but as he has already tried the experiment lately in two important places in his division, he knows that the ground trembles under his feet. I do not think he would care to make the trial, as the result might be very far from gratifying.

HON. MR. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST –I am ready to resign to-morrow, if you will come and contest the division with me.

HON. SIR N. F. BELLEAU—I will not go myself, but others will, and I venture to predict that you will be left at home. I trust, then, that we shall hear no more about this want of authority to alter the Constitution, for it is only a roundabout way of defeating the scheme of Confederation, out of pure party feeling. It has also been said that the electors were taken by surprise, and that they did not know what was being done—that they did not know what the plan of Confederation was until it was discussed here ; but those who have taken part in public affairs since 1858 cannot say this, for the question has been laid before the country for discussion several times since that period, and always by official acts. No one has forgotten the celebrated speech made by the Hon. Mr. GALT, in 1858, when he joined the CARTIER-MACDONALD Ministry, in which he declared himself to be in favor of a Confederation of the provinces. It has not been forgotten that Hon. Messrs. GALT, CARTIER and Ross then made a voyage to England to lay before the Minister for the Colonies their views on the subject of Confederation. It is true that from that period up to last year, but little was said about it, because there had been a change in the English Government, and it was necessary to recommence all that had been done ; but if the question was not talked about in England, it was not allowed to sleep here. No one has forgotten the Speech from the Throne, delivered in Toronto in 1858, by Sir EDMUND HEAD, in which he spoke of the necessity of enquiring into the matter, and laying it before the country. Most certainly no better means of submitting it to the people could have been adopted. Subsequently the question was mooted again and again in the House of Assembly up to the time when, governments succeeding each other like flashes of lighting, it became necessary to have recourse to a coalition, in order to put an end to the anarchy which prevailed in the political affairs of the country. The coalition in question was based on the principle of Confederation. The members of that Government, by a happy and unusual concurrence of circumstances, had an opportunity of meeting at the Charlottetown Conference to discuss the question, and enter slightly upon the subject of a general Confederation. They again met at Quebec,

[Page 183]

together with all the delegates from the Lower Provinces, and the result of their labors is the plan which is now laid before us. But there is more to be said, for before the present Ministry had entered upon the consideration of the plan, with their colleagues of the Gulf provinces, His Excellency had alluded to it in his Speech, and had said that it was absolutely necessary that a conclusion on the subject should be come to. And besides, the leading papers of this province and of the Lower Provinces, have long been engaged in the discussion of the question. The details have been examined in all their bearings to satiety. In view of all these facts, I would ask how it can be said that the people do not know what the question is ? No ; this is merely a pretext which is made use of to overthrow the plan. But another fact which goes to prove that the people have not been taken by surprise in this matter is, that within the last ten months, there have been twelve elections of legislative councillors, and it cannot be said that when those elections took place, the question of Confederation was not before the public. This would be to state a falsehood in the full glare of noonday. The hon. member for Lanaudière (Hon. Mr. OLIVIER) , yesterday said that a Montreal paper had stated that he had declared himself opposed to Confederation, and he hastened to contradict the assertion. But I must say that when he appeared before his constituents and talked of retrograde steps —when he said that, for his part, he should consider it a step back in civilization, if he voted against the election of members of this House, I consider that it was idle cf him to say that he had not declared himself opposed to Confederation.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—The details.

HON. SIR N.F. BELLEAU—Details and principle. I say then that at the elections which have taken place, the members elected, unless they did not choose to do their duty, must have spoken of the Confederation, and above all, of the manner in which tho Legislative Council would be treated in that Confederation. And if these details were entered into, the people are acquainted with the subject in question. And not only have there been elections, but there have been public meetings in large numbers throughout the whole country,— that is to say, wherever the opponents of Confederation could get them up without danger to themselves ; and at all these meetings they did not require to be forced to speak of Confederation, and that in the most unfavorable terms possible. I t is true that matters were not represented on those occasions in their true light, but the people at any rate knew what subject was under discussion. The honorable member for Wellington (Hon. Mr. SANBORN) laid great stress on the danger which might be incurred by the Protestant minority in the local legislation of Lower Canada. He fears that they may not be sufficiently protected by the Catholic majority in respect of their religion, their schools and possibly their property. I am astonished to hear such language from the lips of a man who, like myself, represents a division more than one-half of the population of which is French Canadian and Catholic, for that fact in itself is a proof of the liberality of our fellow-countrymen. I heard that remark with pain ; but I can tell him that the Protestant minority of Lower Canada have nothing to fear from the Catholic majority of that province : their religion is guaranteed by treaty, and their schools and the rights which may be connected with them, are to be settled by legislation to take place hereafter, and when that legislation is laid before the Houses, those members who so greatly tremble now for the rights of the Protestant minority will have an opportunity of protecting that minority ; they may then urge their reasons, and insist that the Protestants shall not be placed in a position of the slightest danger. But even granting that the Protestants were wronged by the Local Legislature of Lower Canada, could they not avail themselves of the protection of the Federal Legislature ? And would not the Federal Government exercise strict surveillance over the action of the local legislatures in these matters ? Why should it be sought to give existence to imaginary fears in Lower Canada ? I say imaginary, because the liberality of the inhabitants of Lower Canada— a liberality of which they gave proof long, long ago, by enacting the emancipation of the Jews before any other nation in the world had dreamed of such a measure— is well known. No; far from wishing to oppress other nationalities, all that the French Canadians ask is to live at peace with all the world ; they are quite willing that they should enjoy their rights, provided that all live peaceably together. (Hear.)

[Page 184]

I cannot refrain from saying a word as to the Protestants of Lower Canada, and as to the liberality evinced towards them by the French and Catholic population. It is feared that we may combine together in order to treat them unjustly. I may be wrong in referring to the fact, but it is true that the French Canadians have always lived on more cordial terms with the English Protestants than with the Irish, who are nevertheless of the same religion, and of the same belief as themselves. If this good feeling has always existed, what is there to fear ? Thehon. member for Lanaudière (Hon. Mr. OLIVIER) has said, that the plan of Confederation was not necessary, and in that he agreed with the hon. member for G-randville (Hon. Mr. LETELLIER). He has stated that it would have been possible to regulate the difficulties which we have witnessed, without having recourse to Confederation, from the fact that many of these difficulties arose from the hatred existing between certain individuals. Now, for my part, I do not believe that our political men were actuated by motives of mutual hatred. When I witnessed the struggles which occurred in the House of Assembly, the votes of want of confidence which were proposed, I always felt that those who proposed them gave good reasons for so doing. But I was not aware of the existence of hatred or personal jealousy between the parties, and that upon the removal of such feelings, the difficulties might e easily overcome. But the statement is made simply for want of any sound arguments against Confederation. The same hon. member also stated, that the minorities in Upper and Lower Canada wished to know the fate reserved for them, before voting for Confederation. If he had reflected a little, he would have learned that the fate of the minorities will be defined by the law, that their religion is guaranteed by treaties, and that they will be protected by the vigilance of the Federal Government, which will never permit the minority of one portion of the Confederation to be oppressed by the majority. The hon. member also contends that the local governments ought to have larger powers than those proposed to be conferred upon them, and that the Federal Government ought to have fewer powers. To hear him, one cannot help thinking that the experience of history is entirely lost on certain individuals. He must have been aware, however, that it is in reference to the rights of particular states, that civil war now exists in the United States; nevertheless, he would implant in this country the same germ of discord. He would have more power below and less authority above. For my part I say the very contrary, if we wish to have a strong Government capable of enforcing respect for its authority when it shall be necessary to enforce it. The hon. member also stated that he has no confidence in the exercise of the powers of the Federal Government, because it would be surrounded by a clique.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I did not say that would be the case, but that, theoretically, it might occur, and that if it were surrounded by a clique, the rights of Lower Canada would be in danger.

HON. SIR N. F. BELLEAU—That makes no difference ; for he stated that he feared the Government would be surrounded by a clique. But is it not the national representation that will surround the Federal Government ? Is that a clique ? To say that our Government is a clique, is to vilify the institutions of the country. The Government will be responsible to the Legislature. Let us never lose sight of the fact, that our national representatives will always see that Lower Canada shall have in the Federal Government one, or perhaps two, representatives— the number is not of importance. What is of importance is, that such one, or such two members, should represent in her Executive Council the national representation, which will be composed of 65 members, in the Federal Legislature. And this, forsooth, is called a clique ! I insist somewhat at length upon this paint, because the operation of the principle of responsible government in the Federal Legislature is lost sight of. I beg to call the attention of Lower Canada members to this. Suppose it were proposed to adopt a law in the Federal Legislature calculated to injure Lower Canada, our 65 representatives in the House of Commons discuss the law, and decide that they must oppose it ; they at onse communicate with the members of the Government representing Lower Canada, and inform them that they cannot accept tho measure, and that if it be passed, they will coalesce with the minority, which always exists under responsible government, and that they will overthrow the Ministry. Such is the weight of our influence in the Federal Government ; and if this were not lost sight of, there

[Page 185]

would be no grounds for fear. The influence of Lower Canada will enable her to make and unmake governments at pleasure, when her interests shall be at stake or threatened. And if the importance of this responsibility of the Federal Government were well understood, there would be no anxiety about our institutions. The hon. member also stated that he did not want to make a backward step in relation to the election of the members of the Legislative Council. In reply to that, I would state that the elective principle, as applied to the Legislative Council, becomes unnecessary in view of the numerical strength of Lower Canada in the Federal Parliament, for the House of Commons is the body that will make and unmake ministers. Why have the elective principle for the Legislative Council, since we shall have it for the House of Commons, since we shall have a responsible Government and a Federal Government, composed of members elected by the people ? The hon. member has stated that he desired to advance with the intellect of the people, and not to take a backward step. These are great words—the intellect of the people ! progress ! But for my part, I do not hesitate to assert, that the people will gladly sacrifice the election of the members of the Legislative Council, in view of the control of all the matters I mentioned before. The hon. member has said that the elective principle would have been the safe-guard of Lower Canada. I can understand this to be the case in a House which is able to make and unmake administrations, but in a House which is indissoluble, I cannot discover its importance. The safety of Lower Canada depends, not on the elective principle, but on the responsibility of the members of the Executive to the House of Commons. I may be permitted to say one word on the subject of the elective right, as it is the grand panacea for all the ills incident to humanity. We must not shut our eyes against evidence. Have we, since the union of several counties to form electoral divisions, seen persons of independent fortune and character, who do not seek to make a gainful pursuit of politics, offer themselves for election to the Legislative Council ? I acknowledge that the elections to seats in the Legislative Council which have taken place so far have had excellent results : the members sent hither by their constituencies have added new lustre to the body ; but has it not now become almost impossible to get an independent man to stand ? The contested elections in the large divisions have disgusted many who would do honor to the country, but who will not risk their fortune in an election ; and if we see such a result already, what is it likely to be hereafter ? We shall see political intriguers making their own of the electoral divisions as a living—living by politics and for politics only. We shall see what has been seen in other countries—people embracing political life as a shield against their creditors, sheltering themselves under its segis against the law. Such men will fill this House, to the exclusion of honor and honesty. I say again, those who now compose this House are honorable men, who are a credit to their country — in time, their seats will be filled by political intriguers. Another, and a final objection to Confederation has been made, namely, that having it, we shall not have increased the means oí defence, nor the resources of the country. If those who talk thus had taken time to consider the matter more carefully, they would not hold this opinion. I t is evident that with the means of communication already provided, and the Intercolonial Railway, if a section of Upper Canada should be invaded by the enemy, the combined forces of the Confederation might be transported to the point threatened in a very short time, and we would be in a position to show the enemy that united we are strong. We should be wilfully blind not to see this. It has also been alleged that in order to increase our means of defence, we should build the North Shore Railway, and that the Government who do not this are inefficient and renegades to their country.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I never made use of that expression.

HON. SIR N. F. BELLEAU—True, you did not make use of the expression, but what you said amounted to that in meaning. According to the hon. member, the North chore Railway would be the salvation of the country. I believe the hon. member resides somewhere in the north, on the line of that road. (Hear, and laughter.) I believe that his motto is, Salus mea suprema lex est,— (All for myself, nothing for others.) The North Shore Railway has had, and may again have, its advantages ; and as a channel of communication I should be glad to see it built, but at present the building of it would cost too dear. When the military defences

[Page 186]

projected by the present Administration for the protection of the South Side Railway are completed, the north side road will not be required. The hon. member has also said that he is desirous of giving the inhabitants of the country time to reflect on and study the scheme of Confederation, and that he does not see why we should wish to urge on the passing of the measure so strenuously. I have already observed that a plan was submitted to the Mother Country some years ago, but that a change of ministers then had rendered the scheme abortive. The same thing may happen again ; and if we consider the age of the Premier of England, and the uncertain position iu which his Cabinet would stand if he should die, it will be plain that we have no time to lose. This is a very sufficient reason for urging on the measure in the minds of those who hold that ic is destined to save the country. One more remark and I have done. The hon. member (Hon. Mr. OLIVIER) has adjured us not to wound the susceptible feelings of our neighbors,—not to give umbrage to their sensitiveness,—by entering into a Confedration which might give them a pretext for carrying out the Monroe doctrine. This is, I think, the most paltry reason that could be alleged in discussing the most important question of legislation which has ever arisen on this continent, so far as the fate of Canada is concerned. L think that the measure is in every respect suitable and advantageous to Canada. Any attempt to obstruct it by such considerations, is a proof of pusillanimity, and I almost feel ashamed to hear the expression of them from the lips of a French Canadian. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST —Honorable Gentlemen, after the speech which we have just heard, I hope a few words will be allowed to me, for I have been, I must say, perfectly astonished to hear such statements fall from the lips of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat ; and if my object was to reply to him, I might satisfy myself with saying :—

ORLANDO, in his frenzy, I saw,
Expend all his strength and toil,
From the hold of their mother earth to draw,
Trees that clave not to the soil.

It is most certainly my right, I consider, when I see an honorable member rise in his place, and say that we, the councillors elected by the people, are nobody because our pouches are not so well lined as those of certain honorable members, to express my astonishment at the use of such language ; for we should be permitted to hold the opinion, that the value of the man is not to be measured by the amount of money which he may happen to possess. There is such a thing as a nobility of education and of intellect, as well as a moneyed aristocracy, and for my part, I consider that the former is quite equal to the latter. In all countries in the world education has produced a feeling of devotion to the country, while riches alone have often produced but sordid avarice. The hon. member pretends that if the elective principle continues to be applied to the Legislative Council, the result will very soon be that all those adventurers who seek to live in political life and by political life, will drive from our midst all men of merit, and will then control the affairs of the country. For my part, I by no means stand in dread of such a result, for I know that there is too much good sense among the people to make it possible that they will ever consent to serve as a stepping-stone to political adventurers in pursuit of the advancement of their own personal prospects and fortune in public life. I am well aware that some political adventurers do occasionally sucoeed in imposing upon tho people by means of fine promises and a hypocritical exterior ; but the political life of such individuals has never been of long duration, and the results of the election of legislative councillors by the people remain to prove the complete absence of foundation for the fears expressed by the honorable member. I think, moreover, that the results which have hitherto obtained from the application of the elective principle to this House, and from the election of the members who now sit in it, are satisfactory and do no dishonor to this honorable House. At any rate I never yet heard such a thing asserted. The hon. member maintains that it is not necessary that the Legislative Council should be elective, because that body is intended, or has for its mission, to act as a counterpoise between the Executive and the Lower House. But that state of affairs exists at the present day,—and when all acknowledge it,—when none complain of the present system—we are told that this privilege is to be taken away from the people in order that it may be restored to the Crown ! Now, I say that such a proceeding is a step in a backward direction, and a retrogression from

[Page 187]

the advancement of the age. Is it because certain members of the Council have never been successful in their efforts to be elected for any county whatever, that they wish to deprive the people of the right of electing their representatives ? But is it supposed that by giving the Crown the right of appointing legislative councillors, the services of more able, more upright, and more honorable men will be secured, than if the people were allowed to elect them ? When the Legislative Council was made elective, those who prepared the law were of the same opinion as the honorable member (Hon. Sir N. F. BELLEAU) that a rich man must of necessity be a man of greater talent than one less blessed with this world’s goods, and, in order that the people night not err in their selection, they enacted that every member elected to the Legislative Council should possess at least one thousand pounds in real property ; but now, in the scheme of Confederation, that amount is reduced by one-half, and it is thereby admitted that the possession of riches is not an indispensable condition to the possession of talent. The honorable member endeavored to justify the haste with which it is sought to push the scheme of Confederation through, by declar ing that Lord PALMERSTON is a very aged man, and that his Ministry is quavering in the balance. So, because the Prime Minister of England is old, we are to be compelled to swallow the pill without even being allowed time to enquire whether it is suited to our case or not. I t must be acknowledged that this is a very poor argument. As to the fear of seeing the scheme of Confederation thrown out in England, in case of any change ta