The Confederation Debates (1865) P. 2 (of 4)

Click here to view the original document (PDF).


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


[Page 270]

dividend of 11 1/2 per cent, on the stock they might subscribe to the Grand Trunk Railway.

HON. MR. ROSS—Was it not 11 1/4? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. CURRIE—No; he was not so modest as to put it at 11 1/4. (Laughter.) It was 11 1/2 per cent. I was charged with attacking the statements of the Hon. Mr. TILLEY. I stated, when last addressing the House, that Hon. Mr. TILLEY informed a public meeting—I think in St. John, New Brunswick—that the tariff of Canada was in . fact an 11 per cent, tariff, and my lion, friend from Toronto said that Hon. Mr. TILLEY was correct in making that statement.

HON. MR.ROSS—What I said was that the average duty on the whole imports of the country, including the free goods, was 11 per cent.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Then I must say that that is a very novel way of arriving at the tariff of a country—to take all the dutiable goods, to add to them all the free goods, and then to average the duty on the whole. It may be a very convenient, but it is not a correct or honest mode in my opinion.

HON. MR. ROSS—It is precisely what Hon. Mr. TILLEY did ; and I did it in the same way.

HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend told us that our present able and talented Finance Minister had stated the tariff of our country to be an 11 per cent tariff. I asked my hon. friend when the Finance Minister stated that ?

HON. MR. ROSS—I said that, taking the statements Hon. Mr. GALT had furnished with reference to the tariff of customs duties, and the amount of imports of dutiable and free goods, and finding the average of the whole to be 11 per cent., Hon. Mr. TILLEY had made a statement based on Hon. Mr. GALT’S own figures.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I find the report makes my hon. friend say, that ” The Hon. Mr. TILLEY had quoted the figures of our own Minister of Finance.” He was wrong in that statement, because Hon. Mr. TILLEY, on the occasion I referred to, had quoted the figures furnished by the Comptroller of New Brunswick.

HON. MR. ROSS—The Comptroller of New Brunswick could not furnish the figures of the trade of Canada.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Surely my hon. friend will remember, that, to give official force to the statement of Hon. Mr. TILLEY, he said that, after the Comptroller of the province had reviewed our tariff, he game to the conclusion that it was but an 11 per cent, tariff. I quote from the report :—

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.

He (Honorable Mr. Ross) desired to be no longer interrupted ; I ceased to interrupt him, aud he did not give me an answer to the question. But, if the honorable member from Toronto will turn to the celebrated speech of the Minister of Finance made only the other day at Sherbrooke, he will find that Hon. Mr. GALT puts the Canada tariff at 20 per cent.

HON. MR. ROSS —But he did not include the free goods ; that is all.

HON. MR. CURRIE — No, he did not include the free goods. But I say that if he had taken the value of dutiable goods, as we find it given in the Trade Returns of 1863 — the last complete returns for a year that we have—instead of arriving at the conclusion that we had a tariff of only 20 per cent., he would have found that the actual duty on the dutiable goods imported in 1863 was 22 1/2 per cent. (Hear, hear.) Then my hon. friend from Toronto came to the assistance of Mr. LYNCH of Halifax. And, not stopping there, he undertook the defence of the present President of the Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN) and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. MCDOUGALL.) I confess I was a little amused, and somewhat surprised to find my hon. friend from Toronto becoming the apologist and champion of those hon. gentlemen, who, I believe, are perfectly competent on all occasions to take care of themselves — even without the assistance of my hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) He next alluded to the propriety and necessity — when the people of Canada were on the point of forming a partnership with the other provinces — of our knowing what the assets of those provinces were—what stock they were bringing into the common concern. I had shewed that we had a great many valuable public works — some of them of a profitable character. My hon. friend told us that the Lower Provinces too were engaging in profitable works. He told us that New Bruuswick had spent eight millions of dollars on railways, and Nova Scotia six millions — and that from those railways those provinces

[Page 271]

were getting a net revenue of $140,000, or $70,000 a year each, which would go into the revenue of the General Governement. Well, hon. gentlemen, when such statements are made on the floor of this House, they of course go abroad, and those who make them ought to be well satisfied that they are based on reliable facts.

HON. MR. ROSS—So they were.

HON. MR. CURRIE —Well, I was very much struck by the hon. gentlemen’s statement. I was surprised to find it stated, in the first place, that those provinces had already spent so much on railways ; and, in the next place, that those railways in the eastern provinces were so much more profitable and paid so much better than the railways in Canada. Now, I find, on looking at the Public Accounts of those provinces —the very latest available — that the New Brunswick railways cost $4,275,000, and that the Ntva Scotia railways cost $4,696,288—that the New Brunswick railways in 1862 paid $21,711 net, and the Nova Scotia railways, $40,739—making together, instead of $140,000 ior the two provinces, as stated by my hon. friend from Toronto, the small sum of $62,450. And this too, hon. gentlemen will bear in mind, was from new railways, or railways comparatively new — and they will find, if they take the trouble to examine the accounts, that the cost of the repairs of those railroads, as of every other railroad after it has become somewhat worn, is increasing year by year.

HON. MR. ROSS—The House will recollect that I took the figures which were prompted to me while speaking.

HON. MR. CURRIE — That is the mistake which, I fear, has been committed during the whole of this discussion. (Hear, hear.) Our public men have been too reckless in making statements—statements in the east, as to the prosperity of Canada ; and statements in the west, as to the wealth, property and resources of those eastern provinces. Now, hon. gentlemen, let uslook at our public works, which my hon. friend in a measure tried to belittle and decry. HON. MR. ROSS — I did not belittle them ; I said that indirectly they were of of great value to the country. HON. MR. CURRIE—Yes ; and directly too. I find, by the Public Accounts of the province, that in 1863 the net revenue of our public works—all of which are going to the Confederate Government—yielded to this province a net revenue of $303,187— and that our public works cost this province, taking the amount set down in the statements of affairs of the province, $25,- 931,168. So much for the stock—so far as the public works at all events are concerned— that this province is prepared to put into the partnership with the other provinces. (Hear, hear.) I shall refer no further to the remarks made by my hon. friend from Toronto in answer to the few words I addressed to the House the other day, beyond expressing my regret that my hon. friend should not merely have been dissatisfied with the statements I made, but that he should have thought fit to take exception to the style and the manner in which my remarks were submitted to the Honorable House.

HON. MR. ROSS—I said, the temper and tone.

HON. MR. CURRIE—From the attention you were kind enough to give me, hon. gentlemen, on that occasion, and from the way in which my remarks were received both by my political opponents and my political friends, I had hoped that I had not exceeded the bounds of propriety — that, neither in my temper nor in my tone had I violated the rules of this House. If I did so I regret it, and I may be allowed to express the hope that when my native land has paid one-fourth as much for my political education as it has paid for that of my hon. friend from Toronto—if my manners still fail to be those of a CHESTERFIELD, or my eloquence that of a PITT—I shall at all events be able to treat my fellow members with courtesy and propriety. (Hear, hear.) But, leaving these little matters to take care of themselves, I shall now allude to the strong pressure which seems, from some source or other, to be urging the representatives of the people of Canada, and the people themselves, to adopt this important scheme without that time for deliberate consideration which a matter of that kind is entitled to. I am satisfied that that pressure does not come from the people themselves. I am satisfied it does not come either from this or from the other branch of the Legislature. I entertain the fear, which has been expressed before, that it has been a pressure from without, which has been urging us to take this step too rapidly, I fear, for our country’s good. It may be that the statesmen of Great Britain,

[Page 272]

and that a great portion of the people of Great Britain are very anxious for this measure, and that the press of that country generally approves of it. But, when they rightly understand it—when parties holding our provincial securities know that Confederation means more debt, more taxation, and a worse public credit—we will have another cry coming from across the Atlantic. And when British manufacturers know that Confederation means a higher tariff on British goods, we shall have different views from them also, crossing the Atlantic. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen, when I left my constituency, I had little idea that this measure was going to be pressed upon the country in the manner in which I see the Government of the day are attempting to press it. I think we should pause before adopting these resolutions. I think we want some more information before we adopt them. Before wo vote away our local constitutions— before we vote away in fact our whole Constitution—we should know something of what we are going to got in place of what we are giving away. Did any hon. gentleman suppose, before he left his home, that we would not have the whole scheme of Confederation brought down to us, and be asked to pass a judgment on it, or to consider it at all events as a whole scheme? I think we ought to be cautions in taking half a measure until we know what is the whole of it. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen will remember the caution with which the Parliament of England proceeded, in 1839, when dealing with the rights of the people of Canada. At that time there was an urgent necessity for a new Constitution for the people of Canada, and a groat necessity for it, particularly in the eastern province. When the Government of the day brought down their resolutions—in something like tho same shape as those now before the House—resolutions embodying the principle of a Legislative Union—the leader of the opposition, Lord STANLEY, claimed that the whole measure should be brought down ; and the Government of the day was actually compelled, by the force of public opinion in and out of Parliament, to withdraw the resolutions, and to bring down their entire measure. (Hear, hear.) And are we to be less careful of our own constitutional rights — are we to guard more loosely the interests of ourselves and those who are to come after us—than the people legislating for us three or four thousand miles away ? Besides, we are asked by those resolutions to pledge our province—to what ? To build the Intercolonial Bailway, without knowing, as I stated the other day, where it is to run, or what it is to cost. Why do we not have the report of the able engineer sent to survey and report upon that work ? Why is it delayed ? Why is it attempted to hurry this measure through the Legislature, while we are in the dark with reference to that great undertaking ? I t may be that it is kept back designedly, and for the purpose of furthering this very measure, not here, but in other parts of British America.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My hon. friend is going too far. The report has not yet been made, and, that being the case, it is somewhat extraordinary to charge the Government with keeping it back.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Certainly ; I think the case is bad enough, when the Government are charged merely with what they have done. And I have no desire to make an incorrect statement, But I will put it in this way : I think we have good reason to be surprised, that the Government should como down with their scheme, ana submit it to the House, before they even themselves know what the work is to cost—(hear, hear)—and ask this House and the country to pledge themselves to the construction of a work of which they do not even know the cost themselves. (Hear, hear.) But, if the report has not been prepared, we have been told in the public prints that the survey is either finished, or very nearly finished. The report, therefore, can soon be furnished ; and, why should there be so much hurry and anxiety to pass these resolutions before we get it ? Then, again, why do the Government not bring down those School Bilis which have been promised ? Why are the people, or why is Parliament, to have no opportunity of passing judgment upon those measures—the School Bill for Upper Canada, and the School Bill for Lower Canada—before this Confederation scheme is adopted ? I cannot see the propriety of keeping back these matters; and I do not think the members of the Government can show any reason whatever why they should not be settled at once. Then, hon. gentlemen, we should know something about the division of the public debt If hon. gentlemen will take up the Public Accounts placed in their hands during the present session, they will find a statement of

[Page 273]

the liabilities of this province, certifying the amount to be no less than $77,203,282. Now it is well known that Canada is only allowed to take into the Confederation the debt of $62,500,000. We have a right to ask how the other $15,000,000 are to be paid ? By whom are they to be assumed ? What portion is Upper Canada to assume ? What portion is Lower Canada to assume ? (Hear , hear.) Then, hon. gentlemen, if we adopt these resolutions, and a bill based on them is brought into the Imperial Parliament and carried—look at the power which is given to the Confederate Parliament. They have the power to impose local taxation upon e ch of the separate provinces I would like to know how that power is to be exercised ; I would like to know whether it is to be a capitation tax, or an acreage tax upon the lands of the province, or whether it is to be a tax upon the general property of the province. I am sure there is no hon. gentleman present who would not like information on these points, before voting for this scheme. (Hear , hear.) Then, hon. gentlemen, there is another very important ques- tion—the question of the defence of these provinces—which within a few months has taken a shape which it never took before in the history of this country. I shall trespass on the attention of the House for a few moments, while I read an extract from a very able report on that question, which ranks, and in time to come too will rank, deservedly high as a State paper. It is a memorandum of the Executive Council, dated October, 1862, at the time the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Administration held office. And, whatever the errors of that Government might have been, however they may have been found fault with in other matters, I believe the people generally were of opinion that the stand which the Government took on that question, was one which entitled them to the respect and confidence of the community at large. The Government say in this memorandum :—

That they are not unwilling to try to the utmost to comply with the suggestions of the Imperial Government is evidenced by the manner in which the projected Intercolonial Railway has been entertained. Their conduct in this matter should relieve them from every imputation. At the same time, they insist that they are and must be allowed to be the best judges of the pressure which the provincial credit can sustain. They are prepared, subject to certain conditions, to encumber this credit with liabilities arising out of the Intercolonial Railway, but they are not prepared to enter upon a lavish expenditure to build up a military system distasteful to the Canadian people, disproportionate to Canadian resources, and not called for by any circumstance of which they at present have cognizance.

That is, the arming and bringing into the field a force of 50,000 men.

His Grace, while promising liberal assistance, contends that any available supply of regular troops would be unequal to the defence ot the province—and that the main dependence of such a country for defence must be upon its own people. Your Excellency’s advisers would not be faithful to their own convictions or to the trust reposed in them, if they withheld an expression of their belief that without very large assistance any efforts or sacrifices of which the people of the province are capable, would not enable them successfully and for any lengthened period to repel invasion from the neighboring republic. They have relied for protection in some degree upon the fact, that under no conceivable circumstances will they provoke war with the United States, and if therefore Canada should become the theatre of war resulting from Imperial policy, while it would cheerfully put forth its strength in the defence of its soil, it would nevertheless be obliged to rely for its protection mainly upon Imperial resources ; and in such an event it is their opinion that they would be justified in expecting to be assisted in the work of defence with the whole strength of the empire. It is not necessary at this stage of their history, to put forwaid assurances of the readiness of the Canadian people to assume whatever responsibilities belong to them as subjects of Her Majesty. Their devotion has been exhibited too often to be open to doubt or depreciation. They have made sacrifices that should relieve them from suspicion, and which Her Majesty’s Government should remember as a pledge of their fidelity. No portion of the empire is exposed to sufferings and sacrifices equal to those which would inevitably fall upon this province in the event of war with the United States. No probable combination of regular troops and militia would preserve our soil from invading armies ; and no fortune which the most sanguine dare hope for would prevent our most flourishing districts from being the battle field of the war. Our trade would be brought to a standstill, our industry would be paralyzed, our richest farming lands devastated, our towns and villages destroyed ; homes, happy in peace, would be lendered miserable by war, and all as the result of events for the production of which Canada would be in no wise accountable.

And, honorable gentlemen, that is not only the language in times past of leading politicians in Canada. Hon. gentlemen may call to mind the writing and sayings to the same effect of men in the eastern provinces–men now holding high position under the Impe-

[Page 274]

rial Government. One hon. gentlemen, to whom I have particular reference (Hon. JOSEPH HOWE) declared it was unreasonable to expect that we should defend ourselves against a foreign power, when we had no voice either in the declaring of war or the making of peace—that while we were quite ready, as in times past, to expose our persons and property to meet the invader at the threshold of our country, we were unwilling to take upon ourselves, as colonists, a duty which belonged to the parent state. But does this correspond with the views that are now adopted by the Ministry of the day ? I hold in my hand an extract from a speech delivered by one of the most prominent members of the Government at a recent banquet in the city of Toronto. And what did that hon. gentleman say ? Speaking of the Conference at Quebec, he stated that “the delegates unanimously resolved that the United Provinces of British North America shall be placed at the earliest moment in a thorough state of defence.” Hon. gentlemen, I was not aware that the Imperial Government had ever cast off the burden of the defence of this province. But we are told by an hon. gentleman, high in the Executive, that this Conference, self-appointed as it was, by a resolution that we do not see laid upon the table, promised to place the province in a thorough state of defence. Hon. gentlemen, what does that mean ? It means an expendeture here of Tour or five millions of dollars annually, or else the statement exceeded the truth. Again the hon. gentleman stated :—” The Conference at Quebec did not separate before entering into a pledge to put the military and naval defences of the united provinces in the most complete and satisfactory position.” Before we discuss this scheme further—before we are called on to give a vote upon it—I say we ought to know something more with reference to this important matter. (Hear, hear). Hon. gentlemen may perhaps argue that there is no necessity for this question going to the people — no necessity for further time being allowed to the people of Upper Canada or of Canada generally to consider this matter. Why, hon. gentlemen, has it not been stated by every hon. member who has taken the floor to address the House on this question, that it is the most important question ever submitted to this or any other British Colonial Legislature? And yet many of those hon. members are unwilling that the people of this country should have any further time to consider this important matter—although, by the laws of our land, no municipality has a right to enact or pass a by-law creating a little petty debt, not to be paid off within a year, without submitting it first to the vote of the people. (Hear.) Hon. gentlemen assign as a reason why the matter should not be submitted to the people—that we have had a number of elections to this House since it was known that the scheme of Confederation was under the consideration of the Government, and that these elections went favorably to the scheme. I would ask, hon. gentlemen, how many elections have we had in Upper Canada since the scheme was printed and laid before the people ? I would like to see the hon. gentleman stand up, who has been elected to come here to vote upon this scheme since it was submitted to the people. It is true we have had one election in Upper Canada since that time— my hon. friend near me (Hon. Mr. SIMPSON) alluded to it yesterday—the election in South Ontario, a constituency until recently represented by one of the hon. gentlemen who entered the Ministry which brings this scheme before us—our present esteemed Vice-Chanceller of Upper Canada, Hon. Mr. MOWAT. What did the candidates say at that election ? Both of them, as stated by my honorable friend, in asking the suffrages of the people, had to promise that, if elected to Parliament, they would vote for a submission of this scheme to the people. (Hear, hear.) And that is the last election we have had in Upper Canada. It is true that many honorable gentlemen now present, in their addresses to their several constituencies, when seeking election last fall, said they were in favor of a union ot the British North American Provinces. But, hon. gentlemen, there is not a man in this chamber, within the sound of my voice, who would not say the same. I am myself as much in favor of Confederation to-day as ever I was in my life ; and I will challenge any one to say that at any time, on any public occasion, I ever said aught against the scheme of the Confederation of the British North American Provinces. (Hear, hear.) But, honorable gentlemen, when I look at this scheme, imperfect as I conceive it to be, it receives my opposition, not because it is a scheme for the Confederation of British North America, but because it is a scheme containing within itself the germs of its

[Page 275]

destruction. The resolution before the House is not, as I said before, aimed at the destruction of the scheme ; and I hope, before the debate closes, the Government will see the propriety aud the advisability of granting the reasonable delay therein asked for. Suppose the Government concedes even the short delay of one month, it can do no possible harm to the measure. If the measure be good—if it be so desirable as the governments of the respective provinces tell us it is—the simple permitting it to stand over for a month will certainly not destroy it. If, on the other hand, it be bad—if it contain within itself the elements of decay— it is better to know it now than hereafter, when the resolutions will have been embodied in a Statute over which we have no control. To shew my own feeling in the matter, all I have to say is this : give a reasonablo delay—allow the section of the country I have the honor to represent to speak on the subject, and if it be found to be the will of my constituents that the measure in its present shape be adopted, honorable gentlemen may be assured that I shall give them no further opposition ; and that instead of doing everything in my power to impede the progress of these resolutions, I will do nothing to impede their progress through the House. ” But,” say hon. gentlemen, ” delay means defeat.” If it be a good measure—if it commend itself to the approval of the people, supported as it is by the most able and brilliant men in Parliament—the scheme is in no danger. And, hon. gentlemen, supposing a month’s delay is granted, we will even then be turther advanced with the measure than the people of the eastern provinces. The writs for the elections in New Brunswick are returnable, if I mistake not, on the 25th March.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL —On the 9th March.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Then it will be at least the 21st or 22nd of March before the Legislature of that colony can be called together.

HON. MB. CAMPBELL—I misunderstood the statement made by my hon. friend. What I meant to say was that the Legislature of New Brunswick is expected to assemble on the 8th or 9th of March.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Then they are going to hurry up matters there, I am sorry to hear, nearly as fast as in Canada, the people of which have not had the same opportunity, at all events, of considering the question as the people of New Brunswick. The people of New Brunswick seem to be fully alive to the importance of this momentous question, and I hope that when their verdict is given it will be a well-considered verdict ; but this we do know, that it will not be given until after a free and fair opportunity has been afforded them of discussing the question on its merits in all its bearings. My hon. friend from the Western Division (Hon. Mr. MCCREA) really surprised me the other day when he declared that an elective Legislative Council was neither asked for nor desired by the people. My recollection is that the Council under the nominative system was a standing grievance in Lower Canada as well as in Upper Canada.

HON. MR. McCREA—That was before the union.

HON. MR. CURRIE—The demand arose that the Council should be elective.

HON. MR. McCREA — Not alter the union.

HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend is, I can assure him, mistaken in stating that there were no petitions in favor of an elective Legislative Council at the time of the change. If my hon. friend will consult the Journals of Parliament, he will find there petitions for the change ; he will find also that from the town of Cobourg a petition was received in favor of representation by population in this as well as in the other branch of the Legislature. But my hon. friend, in his ignorance of the facts of the case—although he certainly handled the subject with a good deal of ability, though not with the ability he usually puts torth when he has a good cause to plead—(a laugh)—made a statement which he could scarcely have considered before bringing it under the notice ot the House. He said that a House appoiuted by the Crown would be more responsible to the people than the present House. That, hon. gentlemen, is cor.ainly a new doctrine to me. If such would be the case, why, I ask, do you not apply the same system to the other branch of the Legislature ? In such an event I feel assured that the Government of the day would have a much more comfortable and pleasant life of it than even the present Government, strong and talented as they undoubtedly are. (Laughter.) But, says my hon. friend, once more, the people of Canada are in favor ot the scheme, in regard to which they have had ample time

[Page 276]

for holding meetings and adopting petitions. But, I would ask what did most of the members even of this House know of the scheme when they first came to Quebec ? Did we know as much about it then as we know now?


HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend from Toronto says, ” Yes.”


HON. MR. CURRIE—Another hon. member replies, ” no.” I may say for myself that I have learned something even from the speech of my hon. friend from Toronto that I did not know before. The people of the country have been waiting, expecting this matter would be discussed in Parliament, and that the whole scheme would be presented so as to enable its being judged of as a whole. Unfortunately, however, it is only a part of the scheme which we have at this moment before the Council. I did not have the pleasure of hearing the whole of the remarks of my hon. friend from Moutreal (Hon. Mr. FERRIER) , but I was greatly interested in listening to the portion I did hear. I refer to whit he said respecting the ministerial crisis in June last. I thought that the celebrated memorandum, which, by the bye, has since been in great part repudiated by the Government of the day, contained all the Ministerial explanations. But that scene, so forcibly described by the hon. gentleman, where the President of the Council met the Attorney General East—

HON. MR. FERRIER—I did not say I saw it. I only heard of it.

HON. MR. CURRIE—When the Hon. Mr. CARTIER embraced the Hon. Mr. BROWN. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FERRIER—I simply said it was so reported on the streets.

HON. MR. CURRIE—And the Hon. Mr. BROWN promised eternal allegiance to the Hon. Mr. CARTIER. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. FERRIER—I was simply giving the on-dit of the day. I said I knew nothing whatever of it further than what I had heard on the streets.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I must have misunderstood my hon. friend. I thought he was a witness of the affecting scene. (Laughter.) But my hon. friend did tell the House something which was new to me, and which must have sounded as new to the country, when he said that the Grand Trunk Railway cost the people of Canada very little. The hon. gentleman seemed to think that I was very much opposed to the Grand Trunk. But never in my life have I spoken a single word against the Grand Trunk as a railway. I believe there is no hon. gentleman who can possibly appreciate more highly the commercial advantages to this country of that work than I do. At the same time, I have taken occasion, and may do so again if the necessity requires it, to speak of some of the transactions connected with that undertaking. Let this work or any other public work come under the attention of this Chamber, and it will receive at my hands in the future, as in the past, that degree of consideration to which as a public work it is entitled. I hope the day is not far distant when the Grand Trunk will become what it ought to be, a strictly and entirely commercial work, and when the people of all classes and parties will look upon it with favor.

HON. MR. FERRIER—It is strictly a commercial work now.

HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend stated that it had cost the country a mere trifle. But unluckily the Public Accounts do not tell the same story, and they do not exactly confirm the views of my hon. friend in relation to this work. If he looks at the assets of the province—the valuables of the province—he will find there is a charge against the Grand Trunk of $15,142,000 for debentures. And besides there is this little $100,000 which has bean used in redeeming the city of Montreal bonds. There is something more besides about subsidiary lines.

HON. MR. FERRIER—I spoke of the first capital investment.

HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend from the Erie Division (Hon. Mr. CHRISTIE) admitted in opening his case that this scheme was very much marred by its details. Admitting this—which is just the whole argument— that the details so greatly mar the scheme, it is much to be feared that the measure will not work so peacefully, usefully, or harmoniously as its originators expected, and I believe sincerely hoped it would do ; because I do these hon. gentlemen the credit of believing that in devising a scheme which should be for the future as well as the present welfare of the country, they were animated by a desire to do the very best they could under the circumstances. Their great error, in my opinion, lay in

[Page 277]

their yielding too much on the part of Canada to gratify the eastern provinces, so as to enable them to bring about this scheme at the present moment. If the scheme is so marred in its details as to destroy the whole measure, why not reject it? Then my hon. friend alluded to the state of the country, just before the present Government was formed, in terms which I hardly think he was justified in using. He claimed that the country was in a state of anarchy and confusion. Now, hon. gentlemen, I must say that for my part I saw none of that anarchy, and I must say very little of that confusion. I assert that there may be witnessed in other lands what was witnessed in this. We saw weak governments staving month after month to keep themselves in power, and we saw these governments daily and hourly attacked by a strong and wary opposition. But, hon. gentlemen, I have yet to learn that the giving of 17 additional members to Upper Canada and 47 members to the eastern provinces will ensure us against the same state of things in the future. I t was very well put by the hon. member for Wellington (Hon. Mr. SANBORN) when he said, if there was more patriotism on the part of our public men, and less desire to sacrifice the country for the good of party, we would not have had that state of confusion to which my hon. friend from the Erie Division has alluded. Then my hon. friend who represents the Brie Division, in order to fortify the position he took in supporting the scheme, took up the resolutions adopted by the Toronto Reform Convention in 1859. He stated that I was a delegate present at that convention ; but I can only say that, although elected a delegate, I took no part in the proceedings, and know nothing more of them than I learned from the public prints. The hon. gentleman, however, conveniently read only a part of the resolutions. But it must be admitted that these resolutions were the identical basis upon which the present Government was organized. This Government was organized for the express purpose of carrying out the arrangements embodied in the resolutions of that body. And, hon. gentlemen, a committee was appointed by the Toronto Convention, and that committee prepared a draft address to the public. That was submitted to the executive committee, and considered on the 15th of February, 1860, I and was revised and sent to the country as the address of the convention, of which the hon. member for Erie was a member, and over which he also presided as one of the vice-chairmen. And what did they say ? That convention never intended that Parliament should change the Constitution or give us a new Constitution without consulting the people and allowing the public an opportunity of passing its judgment upon the proposed new Constitution. And how did this convention propose to secure the people the right of passing judgment upon so important a scheme as the adoption of a new Constitution ? Here it is, in large type—and I have no doubt my hon. friend has often read it in going through his large, wealthy, and prosperous division.

HON. MR. CHRISTIE—It was not presented to the convention.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I wish to put my hon. iriend right. The meeting was held on the 23rd September, 1859, and was presided over by the late Hon. ADAM FERGUSSON ; and my hon friend, the member for Erie Division, and Mr. D. A. MACDONALD were vice-presidents. A special committee was appointed at that meeting to draft an address to the people of Upper Canada on the political affairs of the province in support of the resolutions then adopted. A draft of the address was submitted to the executive committee.

HON. MR. CHRISTIE—I was not a member of that committee.

HON. MR. CURRIE-The public meeting was held on the 15th February, 1860.

HON. MR. CHRISTIE—And when was the address published ?

HON, MR. CURRIE—It was published in this shape in February, 1860. Well, one of the provisions contained in that address was this :—” Secure these rights by a written Constitution, ratified by the people, and incapable of alteration except by their formal sanction.” Hon. gentlemen, I fear the hon. member for Erie Division will hardly be able to justify the course he feels called upon to take on this occasion by anything contained in the address or the resolutions of the Toronto convention. The hon. gentleman would never have thought of preparing such a scheme as this to be submitted to the members of such a convention. But think you that had such a scheme been presented they would not have demanded that it should be left to the people ? Think you, hon. gentlemen, that that scheme would have met the approval

[Page 278]

of that body in its present shape? I am sure that my hon. friend, warm as he now is in support of the scheme, could hardly have accepted such an issue. I am sure that even the present Government, backed as they are by a large majority in both branches of the Legislature, and possessing as they do a large amount of the talent,—I may say a majority of the talent—of Parliament, dare not bring such resolutions down as a Government measure and ask the Legislature to support them in oarrying it through. Then my hon. friend thought that the scheme had gone through the length and breadth of the land. Hon. gentlemen, it is quite true that the resolutions have gone through the length and breadth of the land ; but where has there been that discussion in Canada to which resolutions of so much importance are entitled — except in Lower Canada, where I am told that fifteen counties have repudiated the resolutions when they were submitted to public meetings? And in Upper Canada, where is the single instance of discussion of the facts having taken place except in the city of Toronto, where there was little or no discussion, and where it was promised that that city, like Quebec, should be made the seat of one of the local governments ? I understood my hon. friend from Erie Division to take issue on the fact that the delegates to the Conference were not self-elected, and I heard my hon. friend from Montreal deny it also. But if you take up a copy of the resolutions and the despatches accompanying them, you will find that they were in every sense of the word self-elected. And if they were not selfelected, who deputed them to come and do what they have done ? Did the basis on which the Government was formed authorize them to enter into this compact ? The basis on which the Government was formed speaks for itself. The measure they promised the people of Upper Canada was simply a measure to settle the existing difficulties between Upper and Lower Canada. They were to form Upper and Lower Canada into a Federation upon such a basis as would hereafter allow the other provinces, if agreeable, and if they could agree as to terms, to also enter the Federation. These are the bases on which the present Government was formed, and these are the bases on which the members of that Government went to the country and asked for the support of their constituents. And to bear me out in this assertion, I have only to read the language of His Excellency the Governor General as I find it embodied in His Excellency’s Speech at the close of the last session of Parliament. You will find it in the latter part of the Speech. His Excellency says :—” The time has arrived when the constitutional question, which has for many years agitated this province, is ripe for settlement.” What province is alluded to in this paragraph ? Most certainly the province of Canada. “It is my intention,” proceeds His Excellency, ” during the approaching recess, to endeavor to devise a plan for this purpose, which will be laid before Parliament at its next meeting.” Hon. gentlemen, where is that plan ? Where is the measure so promised in the Speech from the Throne. ” In releasing you from further attendance,” His Excellency goes on to say, ” I would impress upon you the importance of using the influence which the confidence of your fellow subjects confers upon you to secure for any scheme which may be prepared with this object a calm and impartial consideration both in Parliament and throughout the country.” Now, what does this mean ? If it means anything, it means this, that the Government promised to bring down a measure to this Legislature to enable us to ConfederateUpper and Lower Canada. “Well,” hon. gentlemen say, ” they have brought down a larger scheme.” Yes, but who asked them to bring down that scheme ? It is said that it makes no difference which scheme was laid before the House ; but I contend that it makes all the difference, for if these resolutions had reference simply to Upper and Lower Canada, they would be susceptible of amendment by this House. In such a case, hon. gentlemen would not have come down as we now see them shaking their resolutions in the face of the members of the Legislature, and saying, ” Here is a treaty which you must accept in its entirety or not at all.” They would not be warning us at our peril to alter a word or erase a line on pain of being branded as disunionists, or perhaps something worse than that. Had they brought down the resolutions they were pledged to bring down, we would be sitting here calmly and dispassionately, aided by the Government of the day, framing a measure which would be in very deed for the benefit of the two provinces. But why do the Government seek to shelter themselves so completely behind these resolu-

[Page 279]

tions—resolutions which, as they stand, are incapable of justification — resolutions which shew concession after concession to have been made to the eastern provinces, but not one of which (I challenge them to the proof) was made by the Lower Provinces to the people of Canada ? Then look at the representation at the Conference. Both parties, I believe, from all the provinces were represented, except as regards one section of Canada. There was no one representing in the Conference the Liberal party in Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) While in the eastern provinces the Government of the day were magnanimous enough to ask the cooperation and consideration of the leaders of the Opposition in those provinces, the hon. gentlemen in Canada ignored entirely the existence of the Liberal party in Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) My hon. fiiend from the Erie Division tells us that he is strongly opposed to the details of the scheme.

HON. MR. CHRISTIE—I did not say so. I stated in reference to the elective principle that I was opposed to its abrogation.

HON. MR. CURRIE—If the hon. gentleman feels towards the elective principle as strongly as I do, he will oppose its abrogation to the last. I have reason to feel strongly in regard to that principle, being, like himself, indebted for it to a seat in the Legislature ; and I will resist the measure very long before I vote against a principle giving the people power to send me here as their representative. The hon. gentleman also told us that the whole country is in favor of Federation. I have no doubt the whole country is in favor of Federation in itself, but there are many people throughout Canada who are opposed to the present scheme on account of its details. Then the hon. gentleman declared that the country understood the scheme. Now, what better illustration can we have of the falsity of this position than what was witnessed on the floor of this House last night ? We then heard one of the most intelligent and one of the most able members of the mercantile community in Upper Canada, my hon. friend from Ottawa Division (Hon. Mr. SKEAD) tell us it was only within the last twenty-four hours that he had understood the scheme as now submitted to the House. And yetwe are gravely told that the whole country understands it ! Do the people of the province generally know anything in reference to the cost of working the scheme ? Hon. gentlemen, it has been stated in various parts of the country, by leading public men of the country, that the local subsidies proposed in the scheme will be more than sufficient to carry on the local governments of the several provinces. But, hon. gentlemen, we must judge of the future by the experience afforded by the past. If you will look at the Public Accounts of Upper and Lower Canada —take for instance Upper Canada in 1838,– you will find that the expenditure on 450,000 of a papulation was $885,000 for one year. But hon. gentlemen may assert that at that time Upper Canada had to bear the burdens of the militia and pay the cost of collecting the customs, and some other small charges which it is now proposed to throw on the Federal Government. But what were the charges of the militia for that year ? The insignificant sum of £649. 19s. 11 1/2d . Then there was received from fees and commissions £317 15s., thus making the total cost of the militia to Upper Canada no more than £332. 4s. 11 1/2d . Then as to customs. Why, honorable gentlemen, the whole cost of collecting the customs revenue in Upper Canada, during the year 1838, amounted to £2,792. 14s. 2d.—just about one half the cost, hardly one half the cost — of collecting the present duties at the port of Toronto. Then if you come down to Lower Canada you will find that at the time of the union you had a population of 650,000 souls, and that the expense of governing the people was $573,348. And I venture to say that no people in the world were ever more cheaply governed than were the people of Lower Canada before the union. (Hear, hear.) But if you can govern them after the union just as cheaply per head as before, what do you find ? You will require $980,000 to carry on the government of the country, independent of paying the interest upon the large portion of debt saddled upon you. In Upper Canada, we have been told that we really shall not know what to do with the large amount of money about to be lavished on the Local Legislature. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. McCREA—Who said that— that we would have more money than we know what to do with ?

HON. MR. CURRIE—You must have read it in the speeches made in the other House, and particularly in the speeches of the Hon. Mr. BROWN. Well, if we can govern the people of Upper Canada as cheap-

[Page 280]

ly after the union as before, it will cost $2,170,000 or $1,054,000 more than the amount of the local subsidy. I am sure no hon. gentleman will believe that we are going to be more saving of the public money in the future than we were in those early days of our history. Hon. gentlemen, it is said that the people of the country have had those resolutions before them, that they perfectly understand them, and that they are prepared to pass a dispassionate judgment in the matter. It ill becomes the members of the Government to make such a statement. Why, what has been witnessed on the floor of this House ? A simple question was put to the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands as to the manner in which the members of the Legislative Councils of the various provinces were to be appointed. The Hon. Commissioner informed us that the appointments were to be made by the local governments, and he was confirmed in that view by the hon. and gallant Premier, who had the dignity conferred upon him of presiding over the Conference of delegates held in this city.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I do not think that my hon. colleague said anything on the subject.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I understood him to confirm the statement of the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands. But at all events, he heard the statement and did not object to it. But what did you find ? After the absurdity of that position was pointed out, my hon. friend, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, asks a day to give an answer to the question, and he comes down next day and gives a totally different reply. A few days later, the question of the export duty on the minerals of Nova Scotia came under consideration, and I understood the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands as saying that in his opinion only the coal and minerals exported to foreign countries would be liable to duty. But according to the explanations given by the hon. gentleman afterwards, I understand that the export duty will apply to all coal and minerals exported from Nova Scotia. My hon. friend went on to explain the meaning of this export duty. And what is his explanation ? He tells us that it is nothing more than a royalty. The export duty is imposed simply upon the coal which leave the country. In Nova Scotia they now impose a royalty, and that royalty they intend to change for an export duty, and the difference in their favor will be this—that on the coal they consume themselves there will be no duty, but on the coal they send to Canada there will be this barrier of an export duty.

HON. MR. ROSS—My hon. friend will see this, that had all the Crown lands in the different colonies been placed in the hands of the General Government, the General Government would have received all the proceeds therefrom. But those have been given to the local governments, and as in Upper Canada we will have timber dues, BO in Nova Scotia they are entitled to a revenue from their coal.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Any one not acquanted with the subject would naturally fancy from the language of my hon. friend that under Federation we are to have something which we did not possess before. But the Crown lands are the property of Upper and Lower Canada now, and we are entitled to the revenue from them.

HON. MR. ROSS—And so is Nova Scotia entitled to a revenue from their coal.

HON. MR. CURRIE —But you give them a privilege not accorded to the other provinces of imposing export duties. Hon. gentlemen, I would now desire to allude to another matter which I think the people do not thoroughly understand, and that is the apportionment of the public debt. I stated before and I again assert that revenue is the only true basis on which the people should go into Confederation as regards their debt ; and I think my hon. friend from the Saugeen Division (Hon. Mr. MACPHERSON) saw the matter in the same light.

HON. MR MACPHERSON—Not in this case, because we have not the revenue to base it upon.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Why have we not the revenue to base it upon ? Hon. gentlemen, the Trade Returns of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, are in the Library below, and twenty-four hours’ work of a competent accountant would shew what each province would contribute to the general revenue from her trade under our present tariff.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—But does not the hon. gentleman see that when the tariffs are assimilated, they will not bring in the future what they have brought in the past ?

HON. MR. CURRIE—This I can see, that you are giving to the Lower Provinces privileges which we do not enjoy Hon. gen.

[Page 281]

tlemen speak of the imports from the Maritime Provinces. But take the import of coal from Nova Scotia, and we find that in 1863, its whole value amounted to $67,000. Then they refer to the fish trade. But why need we go there for fish, when in our own waters we can have for the catching as fine fish as the world produces ? But Confederation will give us no privileges over the fisheries which we do not at present enjoy. Canadian fishermen can as well go, and have as much the right to go, and fish in the waters below before as after Confederation. We will continue to go there if we desire it, not because we are members of the Confederacy, but because we are British subjects. But I was going to speak of the trade of these countries. We derive now little or no duty from the trade of the Lower Provinces, at the same time much of the revenues of the Lower Provinces is derived from exports from those provinces to each other, all of which will be lost to the General Government, as the Confederation will only be entitled to collect duties on goods imported from foreign countries. We are told, too, that our tariff is to be greatly reduced under Confederation. I am sorry to hear that statement, because it is impossible that it can be correct, and there is too much reason to fear that it was done with a view of influencing legislation elsewhere, by holding out the hope in Newfoundland and in the other provinces, that if they joined us, the tariff would be less burdensome than it is at present. But if the tariff is reduced, the people of Canada may rest assured that they will have $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 to raise in some other way ; so that if you take it off the tariff, you must put it on the land. I wish now, however, to speak of the unfair apportionment of the debt. I have always taken the ground that revenue is the true gauge by which you can measure a nation’s ability to pay debt. Well, taking the tables of the Finance Minister, we find that New Brunswick, with a revenue of 81,000,000, goes into the Confederation with a debt of $7,000,000, while Canada, with a revenue of $11,500,000, is only entitled to go into the Confederation with a debt of $62,500,000. Is this fair ?—is it right ?—is it honest ? Take the revenue as the basis of ability to pay—and it is the only true basis—and instead of Canada going into the Confederation with a debt only $62,500,000, she would be entitled to go in with a debt of $80,000,000, or more than “her present indebtedness. Then it is said that the people understand the whole scheme, and that they are perfectly satisfied with it. If that were so we should have petitions coming down. But I have yet to learn that, when the people, especially of Upper Canada, understand the scheme and how it is going to work, they will be at all satisfied with, it. Take the little Island of Prince Edward, with its population of 80,857 souls, or a less population than a single constituency represeuted in the other branch of the Legislature, and we find it getting $153,728, while it is relieved of a debt of $240,633.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL – And what does it contribute ?

HON. MR. CURRIE—It simply contributes custom and excise duties by the operation of the same tariff and under the same law as the people of Canada.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL — But how much does it contribute ?

HON. MR. CURRIE — I fiud the whole revenue of the island set down at $200,000. But, hon. gentlemen, pray do not run away with the idea that all this comes to the Confederate Government. All that comes to the Confederate Government are simply the duties from excise and customs on goods imported from foreign countries.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL — Which is the whole amount of their revenue, except $31 000.

HON. MR. CURRIE — Surely my bon. friend does not wish to get up and argue that the people of this little island—a frugal and industrious people — contribute more to the revenue per head than the people of Upper Canada ? Well, let us proceed now to Newfoundland, and what do we find ? That with a population of 122,600 souls — less than the population of Huron, Bruce and Grey—less, in fact, than the constituency represented by my hon. friend, the member for Saugeen—they get $369,000 a year for all time, and are relieved of a debt of $946,000.

HON. ME. CAMPBELL—And what do they contribute ?

HON. MR. CURRIE—Simply tne revenue from customs and excise, and nothing more.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—And what does that amount to ?

HON. MR. CURRIE—I am aware that—

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—They will contribute, under the present tariff, $479,000 per annum.

[Page 282]

HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend surely does not intend to say that Newfoundland has no other source of revenue than customs and excise ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—No other ; and that is the reason why they get $150,000.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Newfoundland is to have $106,000 a year, not for this year only, but for all time to come. She gets as well 80 cents per head for all time to come. Then she gets also, what I am sure the Commissioner of Crown Lands can hardly justify, that id a bonus of $165,000 for all time to come ; and this, if capilatized, amounts to $3,000,000—and all this that she may come into the Confederation. And why does she receive so large a sum ? My hon. friend tells us that she gets it in consideration of the valuable Crown lands and minerals which she surrenders to the General Government. But we have yet to learn as a matter of fact that a ton of coal has ever been raised in the island. And what other minerals have they ? “We know of none. Their Crown lands, too, are of no value, as is proved by their not having yielded anything at all for many years past. Then why should we give them $3,000,000, or $165,000 per year for worthless lands ? I will not say, however, that they are altogether worthless ; but I know this, that for years past a statute has been in force, giving the lands free of charge to anybody who will go and settle on them for five years. And these are the valuable lands for which we are to pay an equivalent of $3,000,000. But my hon. friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands, perhaps, when headdresses the House, will tell us these Crown lands and minerals, whatever their value to Newfoundland, are worth $3,000,000 to the Confederation, and will argue as that they give up these lands and minerals, and have no local source of revenue, it is necessary they should receive this subsidy in return. But why have they no local source of revenue ? Why not adopt the same means to raise revenue in Newfoundland that we adopt here ? Why should we he called upon to contribute from the public chest $165,000 for a purpose that we in Canada tax ourselves for ? Hon. gentlemen, I stated that the country was taken by surprise in regard to the manner in which this measure was brought down to the House ; and I think I have good reason for making that statement. Before we came here we had very little explanation of the financial part of the scheme ; and that is a most important part. I am not one of those who, while favorable to Confederation as a principle, would put a few hundred thousand dollars in the scale against it. But my grounds against the scheme are these— that if it is commenced upon a basis which is unjust to one portion of the community, it will be based upon a false foundation, and the tenement thus proposed to be erected will not withstand the breath of public opinion. We had reason to suppose that when we cime here the measure promised at the close of the last session would be submitted; but instead of that we have a very different measure altogether. But supposing this Address passes—supposing these resolutions are carried, and the other colonies do not concur in the same Address as ourselves, what is to be the consequence ? As I understand it, the consent of all the provinces must be had, and if they do not concur, the scheme falls to the ground. What we ought to have had in Canada was the promised measure to put an end to the sectional difficulties between Upper and Lower Canada. But, instead of that, we are placed in consequence of the Quebec Conference in this position—a scheme is brought down which is declared to be in the nature of a treaty, and we are told that we are to have no voice in its alteration. No matter what the details my be—our discussion of them is to be a mere farce. Even the reasonable delay I am now asking for will, I fear, be opposed by the Government of the day. Hon. gentlemen, in order to shew the necessity which exists for the measure being equitable and just to all classes ct the people and all sections of the country about to be affected by it, I will read the remarks of a distinguished statesman—one of the ablest men, perhaps, that Canada can claim. This is his language:—

No measure could possibly meet the approval of the people of Canada which contained within it the germs of injustice to any, and if, in the measure which was now before the people of Canada, there was anything which bore on its face injustice, it would operate greatly against the success of the measure itself.

These were the views of the Minister of Finance as expressed by him only a few months ago, and it is because I feel that there are parts of the scheme which will do gross and wanton injustice to portions of the proposed Confederation, that I feel it to

[Page 283]

be my duty to oppose it. I t may be said that it is not proper for this branch of the Legislature to delay the measure, but I quite concur, on this point, in the views of the hon. gentleman who represents one of the largest and most important constituencies in Canada (Hon. Mr. MACPHEKSON), when he said:—

Although the Legislative Council is precluded by this Constitution from originating money votes or making money appropriations of any kind, they have it nevertheless in their power zealously to guard your interests, protecting them against hasty and ill-considered legislation, and preventing improper and extravagant appropriations of the public funds.

HON. MR. MACPHERSON—I approve of all that.

HON. Mr. CURRIE—I fully concur in all the hon. member from Saugeen stated in his address to his constituents, with reference to this subject, and I hope the hon. gentleman will now, when the opportunity is offered him, act up to the professions he made, and I feel confident he will do so. Now, hon. gentlemen, what have we here before us ? We have a scheme which is calculated to do manifest and untold injustice to that section of the province which the hon. gentleman has the honor to represent. We have a scheme pledging us to construct the Intercolonial Railway without our knowing whether it is to cost fifteen, twenty or thirty millions of dollars. The only estimate is that alluded to by the hon. member from Toronto, who stated that Mr. BRYDGES was prepared to build it for seventeen and a half millions of dollars.

HON. Mr. MACPHERSON—This House has nothing to do with money matters.

HON. Mr. CURRIE—If my hon. friend entertains that opinion, he will very soon learn a very different and important lesson respecting the privileges of this House. It is our duty as honest legislators to protect the country from the baneful effects of hasty and ill-considered legislation. Well, is not this hasty legislation that is now proposed to be transacted by the Government of the day ?

HON. Mr. MACPHERSON.—I do not regard it so, and I tell you why. My constituents have considered the question and are fully satisfied that the proposed legislation should take place.

HON. Mr. CURRIE – It has been said by hon. gentlemen that the whole scheme consists of concessions. I would ask what concessions have been made to Canada ? What concession has been made to the views of the people of Upper Canada ? The people will understand why it is that everything was conceded on the part of Canada, and comparatively nothing on the part of the Lower Provinces, when they know that the little colony of Prince Edward Island, with its eighty thousand people, has as much to say in the Conference as Upper Canada with its million and a half, and as Lower Canada with its million and a quarter of people. (Hear, hear.) When we conceded to them that point, the series of concessions on the part of Canada began. Then we conceded to them the right of depriving us of an elective Legislative Council. (Hear, hear.) Who challenges this statement ? I defy any hon. gentlemen to say that it was not at the dictation of the eastern provinces, that the character of the Legislative Council was chaDged. In order to settle this point, it is only necessary to refer hon. gentlemen to what the Hon. Minister of Finance stated in his celebrated Sherbrooke speech with reference to it. That was concession number two. Then look at the proposed Constitution. The Lower Provinces had only a population of 700,000 people. One would think they would be satisfied with the same representation in the Legislative Council that Upper Canada with double the uumber of people should have, and that Lower Canada with nearly double the population should be given. Rut instead of being satisfied with 24, they must have 28 members. There arc three distinct and most important concessions on the part of Canada to the people of the eastern provinces. And then we go into the Federation with a debt of only $62,500,000, instead of with $82,500,000 as we were entitled to. Then we are to saddle ourselves with a burden of 115,000,- 000, and give them a bonus for coming in, in the shape of an annual payment for local purposes, which we defray in Upper Canada by direct taxation.

HON. MR. MCCREA—That is because they are to help to pay our debt.

HON. MR. CURRIE—My honorable friend from the Western Division says, they have to help to pay our debt ; true they have to help to pay the debts of the Confederation, but that is no reason why they should receive money from us to pay their local expeuscs. Then look at the absurdity of giving each

[Page 284]

province so much per head on its population for the expenses of the local governments. Every ODe knows that the population of the Lower Provinces will not increase nearly so fast as that of this province. We will therefore have to pay a greater proportion of this amount through the increase of our population than we can receive under the proposed arrangement. This is concession number four. The next concession is to New Brunswick. We are to give New Brunswick a bonus of $630,000 in addition to building the Intercolonial Railway through a long section of the country—leading the people to believe that the road is to pass through nearly every town in the province. Then Nova Scotia gets the right to impose an export duty on its coal and other minerals coming into Upper Canada, or going elsewhere. Then Newfoundland, as I have said before, is to have upward of three millions of dollars, if you capitalize the annual gift, as an inducement to come in and join us. Then, hon. gentlemen, my hon. friend from Port Hope spoke of the common schools of Canada, of about one million and a quarter of dollars that is to be abolished by a stroke o the pen—that is another concession, I suppose, made to the people of the eastern provinces. What do we get for all these concessions ? Do we get anything that we are not entitled to as a matter of right. We get 17 additional members of the Lower House for Upper Canada—but that is nothing more than we are entitled to—at the same time that we get 47 added from the east. We are told that the reason for having so large a number of members is to avoid narrow majorities. If everything works well, therefore, under the new constitution, we are told we will always have a strong Government, somewhat similar to that with which we are now blessed. Hon. gentlemen say, that this question is perfectly understood by the people of Canada, and that they arc satisfied with the arrangement ; then what danger, I would ask, can there be in allowing the people a few months to consider the matter still more fully ? In my opinion, it is far better to take the thing up deliberately and proceed cautiously with it, than to attempt to force a measure upon the people, so hurriedly, that they will feel hereafter, if they do not now, that you are doing them a very great injustice. (Hear, hear.) It is most extraordinary, the grounds on which these resolutions are supported by different classes of people. Some hon. gentlemen support them on the ground that the Confederation is to build up an independent nationality in this part of the world. Others, on the ground that it is going to cement us more closely as colonies. And a third party uphold the resolutions on the ground that the injustice of the thing will disgust the people and float our country over to the American Republic. I feel myself that unless the people have due time to consider the matter, and are not driven into it against their will, these resolutions will amount to nothing more than so many withes to tie the provinces together until we all drift like a raft into the American Confederation. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)

HON. MR. DICKSON—Honorable gentlemen,— Every honorable member of this House must be aware of the difficulties which an individual member has to encounter in rising to address the House at this late period of the debate, when the subject, after a fortnight’s discussion, is almost exhausted. I have, however, refrained from offering any observations at an earlier stage, in consequence of a desire to confine my remarks more particularly to the principle embodied in the amendment of my honorable and learned friend from the Niagara Division. I shall now briefly refer to the introductory remarks of the honorable and gallant Knight at the head of the present Government, when he submitted the matter for the consideration of this honorable House. That honorable gentleman told us th at the unsatisfactory state of things which had existed in the politics of this country for the twenty-five months prior to the TACHÉ-MACDONALD Administration, rendered it necessary that some great political exertion should be made to remedy those difficulties. Well, gentlemen, what were those difficulties ? Why, it was that five different administrations had been formed, and five different administrations had been unable to carry on the administration of public affairs, and had either resigned or become so weak, in consequence of their small majority in the popular branch, that they could not conduct the Government in a satisfactory manner. The TACHÉ-MACDONALD Government had arrived at the same state as the five preceding administrations, and finding themselves in this political dilemma, were again about appealing to the country, when a ” still, small voice ” was heard in the distance; and what was that ” still, small voice,” and where did it come from ? It was the voice of a great man, and came from an individual who solicited an opportunity of

[Page 285]

pouring oil on the troubled political waters. (Hear, hear.) Permission was granted, the oil poured on ; the effect was miraculous— the commotion ceased, and a calm succeeded— a circumstance which caused no surprise when it was discovered, as it speedily was, that the magical oil came fresh from the wells of Bothwell. (Great laughter.) The Government, as the honorable and gallant Knight told us, received a communication from the “real chief” of the Opposition. And there is no doubt but that he was the real chief of the Opposition, and by his apostacy—this individual from whom the still, small voice came—is the real chief of the Government party. (Laughter.) Well, he was desirous of making overtures, and he did, as a matter of fact, make overtures, with the view, as the honorable and gallant Knight has told us, of sinking all previous differences. We are told he went into the Government for the purpose of settling this one question of a new political existence, and we are therefore justified in inferring that he is either going out of the Government again at an early day, or else is going up to a higher position. Well, gentlemen, what difficulties have been settled ? None as yet, but the scheme now before the House was to be a panacea for all the difficulties and dissensions that have afflicted the country for the past five and twenty years. From whom does this panacea emanate ? Why, from the very individual who has been more instrumental than any other man in creating those difficulties. (Hear, hear.) The honorable gentleman at one time stated that he was a governmental impossibility, but it does not appear that he has been so in reality. After the oil was thrown on the troubled waters, then came the period for making some little delicate arrangements between the Government and the gentleman possessing the still small voice. Well, what were the little arrangements ? Why, the honorable gentleman insisted on being an outsider. He would not go into the Government under any circumstances whatever. (Hear, hear.) No, no, he would not. (Laughter.) Well, the members of the Government said : ” But we must have you among us ; we are too well aware of the power you can bring us, to consent to your remaining on the outside.” Well now, it is astonishing the sacrifices publie men will sometimes consent to make. (Laughter.) I t is really surprising, gentlemen, what sacrifices they do feel called upon to make for the good of their country. (Laughter.) And here we have a very notable example of it. We have an instance of how much can be sacrificed at the shrine of patriotism for the salvation of one’s country. (Laughter. Towards the last of the delicate arrangements before alluded to, he thought he would go in—this still, small voice gentleman. (Laughter.) Well, this being determined upon, ho thought it would be necessary to go in upon some principle, but that was a most difficult operation. What principle could be found applicable to the case ? (Laughter.) Some inventive genius suggested that he might go in on the homoeopathic principle. Well, he finally went in on that principle, and took with him an infinitessimally small dose of Grits. (Renewed laughter.) And the result of his going in on that principle is that we have now a Government composed of three Clear Grits and nine Conservatives. The honorable gentleman, to whom I have alluded, went to the country and got returned to his seat in the House and Government. My honorable friend from Toronto says he got returned by acclamation. Well, when we look at the individual and consider that he has been for years the leading spirit and guiding gouius of a large political party, made up of a majority of the representatives of Upper Canada, and look at the acknowledged intellect of the man, and take into account the influence of the pen which he has the opportunity of wielding so powerfully—when we take all these things into consideration, it is not at all surprising that he should be returned by acclamation. (Hear, hear.) He came back from the country and has since taken part in the Government ; and here I wish to make a few observations with reference to the Government as it stands to-day. You must recollect, honorable gentlemen, that we are enjoying, or at least have enjoyed, a system of government in this country which has a great many admirers, and which some honorable gentlemen admire a great deal more than the quality of the people. The system is known by the name of Responsible Government. If I understand the subject properly, that system of government is defined in this way—that the Government of the country must be carried on according to the well-understood wishes of the people, as expressed through their representatives on the floor of the House of Assembly. (Hear, hear.) Well now, I take exception to the formation of the present Government, on the ground that it was not established on that principle, because they are not a government emanating from the people. I cannot hold them in the same respect that I

[Page 286]

did before the three Conservative members from Upper Canada, who retired in favor of the three Grit members, left it. The Government then all belonged to one political party, were all consistent members of that party, and taken together, were equal in talent to any Administration that has ever had charge of the affairs of this Or any other province. All holding the same views on leading political questions, even those who opposed them could not but feel a very large degree of respect for them as sincere, honest, consistent Conservatives, and as I believe, entertaining sound political principles. But the introduction of the three other members altered the whole face of the Government. And the first thing this unholy alliance does is to go to work at the suggestion of the chief with the still, small voice to upset our Constitution. (Hear, hear.) When a great constitutional question comes before this House, designed as it is to sweep an entire constitution from our Statute Book, and replace it with another, I think you will agree with me, honorable gentlemen, that this is one of the most important measures that could come from any government on the face of the earth. (Hear, hear.) Well, I would ask those people who are so anxious to see responsible government carried out in this country in its integrity, is this a government that you can recognize as representing the well-understood wishes of the people ? A government claiming to be a responsible government ought to have for its basis returns made from the polls, and ought not to have its origin through the instrumentality of ministerial convenience. (Hear, hear.) I would like to ask if, at the last general election, this subject was mooted to the people in any section of the province ?—whether it was a subject to which the slightest reference wasever made by the votes of the people when they returned their representatives ? I do not think that it could have been, because it is a measure that has emanated from the particular individual to whom I have referred, since the TACHÉ-MACDONALD Government got into that unfortunate political dilemma. The people were not aware at the last general election that any such measure as this was to come before the Legislature. Honorable gentlemen, I would not stand up here and speak in this manner if the subject brought under our consideration was any ordinary measure which could be passed this session and repealed at the next, if found unsatisfactory. But these resolutions, if adopted by all the legislatures, will become embodied in an Imperial Act, and the people of Canada will find some difficulty in having any change made in respect to them. The power that creates Confederation, by passing tHe act for that purpose, will be the only power by which any change can be effected in that act. Therefore, after passing these resolutions, it will be out of our power to alter them in the least degree. This, honorable gentlemen, is one of the reasons why I have refrained from addressing the House until the resolution which has just been proposed by my honorable friend from the Niagara Division should be brought forward. I would take this opportunity of saying that I do not think the observation made by an honorable gentleman, to the effect that it would be in bad taste for this House to suggest a dissolution of the other branch of the Legislature, should have any influence in disposing of the amendment now before us. Why, honorable gentlemen, there is nothing of the kind in the amendment. We argue for delay, and we are perfectly willing you should delay the measure until after the next general election. But, if the Government think that delay will be so dangerous to the measure, there is a constitutional remedy open to them, which, of course, it would not be proper for me to refer to in a more pointed manner. I do not argue for a week or a month’s delay. I think there ought to be a much longer time allowed. I think the question ought to be submittted to the people of this country for their approval. I do not want the thing to be gone about in a peddling kind of style, one honorable gentleman running here and another there, and endeavoring in that way to learn the views of his constituents. If we cannot have the usual constitutional mode of arriving at the true views, opinions, and impressions of the people in relation to the scheme, I do not want any delay at all. I do not want the opinion of the people taken, unless-it can be done in such a manner as will give us something upon which we can depend. If an honorable gentleman consults the electors in one portion of his constituency and they are opposed to the scheme, while those of another section of the same constituency are in favor of it, he is no bettor off than when he began. Nor do I believe in taking a vote of the constituencies, ” yea or nay,” on the measure, in the manner in which the people have to vote with reference to stopping the supply of intoxicating drink under the Temperance Act. (Laughter.) I go for the whole British constitutional mode, or nothing. I have no idea of wishing to see honorable gentlemen going

[Page 287]

round among their constituents, knocking at every door, and asking: Do you go Confederation ? (Laughter.) I would as soon see them going around peddling wooden clocks. (Renewed laughter.) 1 say, honorable gentlemen, that the whole scheme has emanated from the fertile and imaginative brain of one individual. That individual suggested the scheme to the Government ; the Government took that individual in amongst them ; he proposed this arbitrary mode of carrying the scheme through with the assistance of a united following—and it is going to be done. The whole thing, I say again, proceeds from that individual, who has [sown to the storm and reaped the whirlwind long enough, and does not intend to reap it any longer if he can help it. But my opinion is that he is, perhaps, unwittingly sowing a greater storm than ever, and that a whirlwind will ensue of a most fearful character. It is just possible, however, that it will be found the most advantageous measure for the country that has ever been introduced to the Legislature, and if so, the honorable member for South Oxford is entitled to the whole credit of suggesting it, and taking the initiatory steps, without which it could never have been brought about ; while on the other hand, if it should prove the most disastrous to the country that has ever been mooted, as I fear will be the case, unless submitted to the people in the constitutional way, that honorable gen-‘ tleman will be entitled to, and will receive, the most bitter condemnation. (Hear, hear.) Well, I now come to the position which the measure now occupies before the House, and the relation in which I stand to this House in dealing with it. When the proposition was made to change the character of the constitution of this House, I did everything in my power to prevent its becoming law ; but all my efforts, with those of a number of honorable colleagues, were of no avail. And those gentlemen who, on that occasion, agreed with me that it was a most unwise step to alter the Constitution in that respect, when they and I found we could do no more, we filed a protest against it, because—

First,—The Act of Union conferred upon the peeple of Canada a Constitution as nearly similar to that under which Great Britain has attained her place among nations, as their colonial position would admit ; and the Legislative Council, an integral part of that Constitution, was early established on its present basis as a check equally upon the hasty action of the popular branch, as upon the undue influence of the Crown. Secondly—Because the introduction of the elective principle into the Constitution of the Upper Chamber gives an undue preponderance to the popular element ; diminishes the proper influence of the Crown, and destroys the balance that has acted as a proper check upon both since representative institutions were given to the colony. Thirdly,—Because the measure now proposed tends to the destruction of executive responsibility; the adoption of a written Constitution; the election of the highest officer of the Crown, and the separation of Canada from the parent state.—Signed, P. B. DEBLAQUIERE. JOHN HAMILTON, GEORGE J. GOODHUE, WM. WIDMER, JAS. GORDON, J. FERRIER, R. MATHIESON, G. S. BOULTON, WALTER H. DICKSON.

Well, honorable gentlemen, the change took place in spite of all we could do. I condemned the proposed change on that occasion from my own personal views respecting it, for I had no constituency, as some honorable gentlemen now have, to consult, and I now take exception in the same manner to the scheme before the House. I do not take such strong exception to the details of the measure as some honorable gentlemen do, because when I reflect upon the number of individuals that took part in the Conference, and the ability possessed by those individuals, I would not, as a matter of course, have the temerity to rise in my place and proceed to point out an error here and another error there, even if they seemed to me to be errors, as some of them do seem, unless I felt satisfied not only that I possessed sounder judgment than they, but also that I was better acquainted with all the circumstances having a direct as well as indirect bearing upon the question. But, honorable gentlemen, let me ask who is going to be chiefly affected by those changes ? Why, the people of Canada. And therefore it is that I ask, and all I ask is what appears to me to be only what is reasonable, as applied to the every day transactions of life, and that is, that those who are going to be affected should have some voice, at least, in these proceedings. (Hear, hear.) This appears to me to be a sound mode of viewing the question ; and claiming to myself the right of exercising my own personal judgment, with the limited means of doing so which the Almighty has thought proper to place me in possession of, I feel it my duty to stand up in this House and record my views and my vote in such a manner as that, while I live, I may look back with some degree of satisfaction upon the view that I took and advocated upon the floor of this House.— (Hear, hear.) I do not think some honorable gentlemen who have stood up and argued

[Page 288]

against continuing the elective principle in this House, can have done so with as much satisfaction to themselves as if they had not, on a previous occasion, pursued a different course. I well recollect that when I found it was the determination to introduce the electa ive principle in relation to the membership of this House, I said—Gentlemen, if the principle is good in one case, it is good in another ; let us make the Speaker elective. No, no, they said, that will not do ; that is republicanism. They would not have the Speaker made elective. You know there was a little patronage at disposal by keeping the appointment of the Speaker in the Government. At that time I could make no progress in getting the House to go for making the Speaker elective. Since then, however, they made the Speaker elective, and therefore the House must admit that I was right on that occasion. I opposed the House being made elective, but honorable gentlemen made it elective, and now they are going to reinvest the appointments in the Crown. So it is clear that when the first change was made I was also right on that occasion. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) When the proposal was made to grant three millions of money to the Grand Trunk, I saw it was being done for political support, and I therefore opposed it. I also opposed the grants to the Arthabaska, and Port Hope and Peterborough railways, because I considered them only convenient methods of acquiring parliamentary support on the pretence of getting money for the Grand Trunk proper. Those roads were termed ” feeders ” for the Grand Trunk, but I called them Grand Trunk “suckers.” (Laughter.) I take to myself rome little credit for having taken this view of those questions. I am willing to admit that the Grand Trunk is a very great benefit to the province in a material point of view, but I do believe that we paid very dearly for the whistle. (Laughter.) Having paid so dearly for that road, running, as it does, through the very finest portion of the country, I am disposed to be very cautious about entering upon the construction of this Intercolonial Railway. (Hear, hear.) I have often availed myself of a leaf out of the book of my honorable friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) and I like to stick pretty close by him, because if I get off the track he has the happy faculty of putting me on again. Now, I would like to ask him whether or not, in the remarks he made this afternoon, he stated that there had been no demand on the part of the people for an elective Legislative Council since the union.

HON. MR. ROSS—What I said was, that there had been no general demand for the change on the part of the people of Upper Canada. I am well aware that there was agitation on the subject in Lower Canada.

HON. MR. DICKSON—Well, I find here in the Journals of the Legislative Assembly for 1855, that on the 21st of May, when the second reading of the Bill to make this House elective was defeated, the following was entered on the Journals by eight honorable members, in the shape of reasons for their dissent from the vote, viz. :—

DISSENTIENT—Because public opinion has long and repeatedly been expressed on the necessity of rendering this branch of the Legislature elective ; because the almost unanimous vote of the Legislative Assembly, irrespective of party, has, in the most unequivocal manner, ratified the opinion of the people as hereinbefore expressed ; because the opposition of this House to the universal desire of the inhabitants of Canada, unsustained either by a party in the other branch of the Legislature or out of it, is unprecedented, and of a nature to cause the most serious apprehensions.

The first name, honorable gentlemen, signed to that protest is the Honorable JOHN ROSS, and the second is my honorable and gallant friend, Sir E. P. TACHÉ. Then there are the Honorable Messrs. PANET, BELLEAU, ARMSTRONG, PERRY, LEGARÉ, and CARTIER. Well, lean now exonerate all those gentlemen, after observing, as I have done, how well the elective principle has worked in its application to this House. But I cannot understand how honorable gentlemen could have entertained the view that great disaster would be the result of refusing to grant the elective principle, and then inside of ten years, when their ideas had been put into practical effect, and had worked so admirably, they could again rise in this House and advocate a return to the system which then was so bad, and which the people were so determined to have altered. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. ROSS—I was then a member of the Government, and spoke their sentiments.

HON. MR. DICKSON—Well then, honorable gentlemen, it seems I am to understand that the honorable gentleman did not then express the sentiments of Hon. Mr. Ross as an individual, but of Hon. Mr. Ross as a member of the Government. I have never been in the Government, and therefore, perhaps, I am pardonable for not having understood that the gentleman carried about with him a double set of sentiments, either of which could be used as occasion seemed to demand. (Laughter.) But, in furtherance of the argument for delay,

[Page 289]

I desire to say that I am anxious to have the further consideration of the scheme in this House postponed for other reasons than those which I have given expression to. My honorable friend the gallant Knight, in his remarks last evening, made allusion to the burning of the Parliament buildings. I agree with him that that was a thing sincerely to be regretted. But he stated that, if the conservatives in the Legislative Council had had the prudence and good sense to exercise the amount of wisdom that they might have exercised, they would have put off the Rebellion Losses Bill another year, which course of proceeding would, in all probability, have prevented the deplorable occurrence to which he referred. Now, honorable gentlemen, I stand here to ask you to take the advice the honorable and gallant Knight has given, and apply it to the present scheme. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) You do not know what disastrous consequences may ensue, if this huge scheme is carried out without an appeal to the people in a constitutional manner. I do sincerely hope you will allow that powerful argument for delay adduced by the honorable and gallant Knight to bear upon this question. (Hear, hear.) This is a revolution, gentlemen, not a mere payment of a few thousand pounds, that is proposed. A revolution may be carried out by the exercise of political power, as well as by physical force. If the Government of the country is subverted, it makes no difference how it is done. It is a revolution all the same, no matter how it is brought about. The effect is the same upon the country. The proposal is to sweep our present Constitution away, and supply its place with another, which may be better or a great deal worse. As I see by the clock I have only five minutes left before six, and do not desire to speak at aDy greater length, I will have to draw my remarks to a close. (Cries of “go on,” “go on.”) Well, as honorable gentlemen seem to desire it, I will make a few further remarks after dinner.

A message was here received from the Assembly, after which the House took a recess until 8 P.M. That hour having arrived, and the House having re-assembled—

HON. MR. DICKSON said—The great reason for delay I conceive to be that it is proposed by the adoption of the resolutions of the Government to wipe out the present Constitution of the country without consulting the people affected thereby. I have not yet heard one single observation from t:ie Government, or from any honorable member of this House, tending to show that there is any necessity for the unseemly haste with which the matter is being pressed. I think it ought to be laid over until after the next general election ; and I beg honorable gentlemen to observe that I make no suggestion respecting a dissolution of the other branch of the Legislature. But if there is really any necessity for haste, then there is a constitutional mode of hastening an appeal open to the Government. My honorable friend opposite argued that the prerogative of the Crown was taken away, in reference to the appointment of members of this House, without an appeal to the people, and that therefore no harm could result from taking away the boon then given them without any demand on their part or any appeal to them. Gentlemen, we were then experimentalists, and the experiment succeeded well. Then why not stick to it ? We improved on the Constitution on that occasion. And you may give the people privileges they do not ask, very safely. But what is now proposed to be done ? It is proposed to take that power from them without consulting them, and I hold that such a thing ought not to be done. Having raised them to the highest state of political exaltation, without their even asking for it, it is now proposed to reduce them, almost without notice, to the lowest possible position of political degradation. It is the main principle of the Government under which we live, that the people, through their representatives, shall be consulted as to the composition of their Government. As for a mutual understanding between the electors and the elected, in relation to this scheme, there is none whatever, and I have thus urged delay because I do not think there is any need of hurry. There is a constitutional mode of ascertaining the views of the people, and it ought to be made use of. But honorable gentlemen say, ” Oh, don’t throw out any hint about bringing on a general election before the proper period ; we have had elections enough during the past five years.” Why, honorable gentlemen, what is proposed to be done cy the passing of these resolutions? Will their adoption not bring on a new election inside of eighteen months? There is another observation I desire to make with reference to honorable gentlemen endeavoring to obtain the views of their constituents by knocking at their doors, and asking whether they favor the first resolution and the second, and so on, through the entire list. I do not think that even by such a proceeding you could arrive at a thorough understanding of the views of your constituents. The common way of doing it is for a

[Page 290]

member to call his constituents together in s large room in some hotel or other building, and lay the whole subject before them, expressing his opinion on the various clauses as he proceeds. In so doing he is more than apt to imbue their minds with the same view that he himself holds. I have only heard one member allude to having received the resolutions, and he merely opened and sealed them up again in oonsequence of their being marked ” Private,” without endeavoring to ascertain the views of his constituents. I do hope that some course of procedure can be devised by which the spirit of the amendment proposed by my honorable friend from the Niagara Division may be carried into effect. The amendment simply states—

That upon a matter 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.

Well, honorable gentlemen, is this House willing to assume the responsibility of depriving the people of the opportunity of expressing their wishes on so momentous a question as an entire change of their Constitution. Those who are willing to take the responsibility will vote against this amendment, while those who are willing to have the matter referred to the people, will vote for it. My sentiments are well expressed in the amendment, and exercising my own individual judg- ment, having no constituency to be governed by, I shall vote for it, and if it is defeated it will strengthen the hands of the Government in carrying out their great principle of Confederation without an appeal to the people —and, as a matter of course, according to our present system of responsible government, they must assume the responsibility.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL said—I would like, honorable gentlemen, to continue the debate in that excellent and happy spirit in which my honorable friend who has just sat down has addressed the House. I envy my honorable friend very much for the possession of that happy faculty of amusing and instructing the House in combination. I am somewhat grieved to feel obliged to call the attention of honorable members to that which is, perhaps, more of a business character and less interesting than the remarks which fell from my honorable friend. I must say that I very much regret that my honorable friend should have thought that on this particular amendment being proposed, it was his duty to come to its support, because it is evident to my own mind, and must also be so to every honorable member present, that my honorable friend, while giving his support to the amendment, entertains very different views from those which were enunciated by the honorable member for Niagara, who moved it. My honorablefriend says, ” If there is to be delay, let it be a substantial delay ; let it be such a delay as will ensure a dissolution of parliament ; such a delay as will enable the people to speak in that manner, and in that manner only, that is known to the British Constitution.” I can respect that sentiment. There is something real in an argument based on that foundation. I do him the justice to believe that he takes that view with a sincere desire that the delay should not militate against the scheme, but that it should be adopted by the people when referred to them. But, honorable gentlemen, contrast that view with the idea suggested by the honorable gentleman who moved this resolution. What view does he take ? Not that there should be such a delay as would enable the people to express themselves in the manner in which Great Britain and all her colonies speak, but in that sort of way which, as my honorable friend (Hon. Mr. DICKSON) has graphically described, is more nearly allied to the peddling of clocks than to anything connected with British constitutional procedure. What does the honorable gentleman say ? He says, give us twenty days or a month.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I said that was the least time I would ask.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—What could be done with twenty days or a month’s delay ? Is it possible for the people to speak in any constitutional way in twenty days or a month ? The honorable gentleman knows very well that it is not possible, and that under no system of governmeut could such a plan, as his mind has suggested, by any possibility be sanctioned by the Legislature. Would the people of New York state, or any of the States of the Union, sanction a proceeding of that kind ? On the contrary, they would adopt the course at once of having the scheme submitted to a direct vote of the people. If you adopt the British constitutional way, then there will have to be a dissolution of Parliament ; but, if you adopt the American system, the people will be called upon to vote ” yea or nay ” on the scheme as it stands. Let it be expressed in one way or the other, fairly and constitutionally, in accordance with our system of government.

[Page 291]

My honorable friend does not contemplate that. He contemplates a postponement of the subject, in some way or other, for twenty days or a month, and I am sorry that my honorable friend, who spoke last, should have felt himself called upon to adopt a scheme so entirely contrary to what I know are his views as to what is correct and proper, according to those constitutional and British views which he entertains. I am sorry that he should have been led to adopt a scheme which is evidently not advocated by him from the same motives as those which actuate my honorable friend from Niagara.

HON. MR. DICKSON—I approve of the resolution as it stands, and I entertain the views that I have expressed. I have always held that a general election was the proper constitutional mode of learning the people’s views, and I distinctly stated that I did not care to have a short delay.

HON. MR. CURRIE—All I suggested was that the Government might at least give twenty days or a month, if they would grant no more. Of course, I desire to get what my honorable friend Mr. DICKSON has asked.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Then I do hope my honorable friend will withdraw his support to the amendment, when he sees that he does not concur with the mover of it, who evidently contemplates some other course than is known to the British Constitution for ascertaining the views of the people—for instance, by members going from door to door, or by holding meetings in convenient places and making themselves agreeable to their constituents by indulging in hospitalities, &c. I am quite confident that is not the idea which my honorable friend opposite entertains ; nor, I am satisfied, is it the view which any honorable gentleman of this House can entertain who is desirous of promoting Confederation of the provinces—that these resolutions, important as they are, and necessary as it is that we should arrive at some conclusion in reference to them, should be laid aside until my honorable friend from Niagara goes about from door to door throughout his large and intelligent constituency, knocking at each and asking the views of the electors on each separate resolution. My honorable friend is charged with the duty of representing his constituency on the floor of this House, and it is to be supposed that he is well capable of representing them in point of intellect and good judgment, when he is called upon to say whether or not he believes the scheme, I as a whole, to be a desirable one for the country. (Hear, hear.) But he seems to ignore all that. He does not seem willing to pronounce his judgment upon this scheme. He will not say that it is so objectionable that he will vote against it on the merits of the case. If he is unable to come to a decision, he ought to resign his position, and give place to some one who can come to a decision. But look at the position of a man who says in effect, ” I have no opinion of my own ; if the people whom I represent are favorable to the scheme, I have not a word to say ; I will vote for it to please them, though I disapprove of it.” Gentlemen, let him give his constituency the benefit of his best judgment, and consider whether, reflecting upon the fact that there are five different provinces to be consulted, and constituencies upon constituencies to be canvassed, that which he desires can be ascertained in any better way than by this House, considering itself a fair representation of the sentiment of Canada, coming to an immediate decision. He says his constituents have not charged him with the duty of altering the Constitution. Well, but he is charged with the duty of exercising his best judgment upon every subject brought before this House. We are not here for the purpose of altering the Constitution. We have not the power to alter the Constitution if we desired to do so, but we have the sacred duty incumbent upon us of expressing our views in relation to such alterations as may be considered advantageous to the country. (Hear, hear.) Do these resolutions alter the Constitution of the country? Not at all. They merely state that such alterations are desirable. The Constitution itself can only be changed by the Imperial authorities. We are not exceeding what our French Canadian friends called the mandat with which we are charged. We have no power to alter the Constitution, but we have the power of expressing our views in an address to Her Majesty, which it is proposed to adopt in all the legislatures, stating that such and such changes would, in our opinion, prove advantageous to the country. We are exercising exactly the duties which are incumbent upon us. We are giving to our constituents the benefit of our experience and honest convictions upon the topics which are committed to our charge, and which events force upon our attention. Has not the House, on previous occasions, adopted resolutions, the effect of which has been to bring about changes of the Constitution? And has it ever before been argued that this House had no right to debate such resolutions? Nothing

[Page 292]

of the kind. The first alteration asked for, was for the purpose of allowing the use of the French language in the House of Parliament. Honorable gentlemen might have said then that they had not the power to ask for such a change, but such an idea was never mooted.

AN HON. MEMBER —It was carried unanimously.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I had not the honor of having a seat in this House at the time, but I am happy to hear that it was unanimously carried. Next, a change was asked for in the composition of this House. This House was at one time nominative, and was, in 1856, made elective. Was that not a change of the Constitution ? Nobody, however, urged at that time the idea that this House had no power to pass such a resolution. We stand exactly in the same position now, and it seems to me a most futile and illogical argument to say that we have not the power to do what it is proposed to do in passing those resolutions, that is, to pray the Queen so to change the Constitution of this province that we may unite in one Government with the other provinces of British North America. I am quite satisfied that, when honorable gentlemen reflect upon it, they will see that they are not in any way exceeding the powers committed to them by their constituencies. My honorable friend from Niagara suggests this amendment in a spirit that is comparatively poor to that in which it is supported by my honorable friend opposite. He says he is in favor of the union, but is opposed to some of the details. It is painful to me that any honorable gentleman, who professes a desire to advance the union, should yet shelter himself, in opposing it, under an objection to some of the details. Does my honorable friend seriously propose to submit to the country all those various details ? Can he imagine that he could get an intelligent expression from any part of the country on those details? All he could get would be a general opinion in favor of Confederation, and we are all satisfied that he would have that. I believe there are but two or three honorable members in this House who are really opposed to Confederation. Take ten thousand people from ihe country, and you will find nine thousand of every ten in favor of Confederation.


HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—Well, I will submit to the opinion of honorable gentlemen from Lower Canada, for I do not pretend to be SO well acquainted with the feelings of their people, but I am in as good a position to speak for Upper Canada as any other honorable gentleman, and I have no hesitation in saying that the people of Upper Canada are almost unanimously in favor of Confederation. 1 am satisfied that, if the question were put before the people by means of a general election, there would be an unanimous vote in Upper Canada in its favor.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Hear, hear.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My honorable friend from Niagara says ” Hear, hear.” My honorable friend cavils at every statement which is made, attempts to throw doubt and distrust upon the figures which have been produced in advocacy of the measure, and has not restrained himself from using every method of opposition which his imagination could invent or his ability turn to account. I must say that I can hardly believe an honorable gentleman to be in favor of the scheme, who takes every opportunity to attack it, and, when accused of hostility, shelters himself under objections to the details. (Hear, hear.) It shows to me that his feelings are not sincere, but that he desires to upset the very foundations on which Confederation rests, not perhaps because he is opposed to Confederation in the abstract, or a Confederation such as he would like to see established, but because be desires to thwart and defeat the efforts of those who have been honestly and industriously engaged in bringing about the scheme which is now before this House. I say, honorable gentlemen, if the people could express their opinions as we may express ours to-night, they would all concur in the first resolution. (Hear, hear.) Well, gentlemen, it being granted that we are all in favor of union, how are the details to be settled ? Is it possible that the nearly four millions of people who compose the provinces to be affected by the union, should meet together en masse and settle those details ? It is not possible, and those who argue that the scheme should originate with the people, know very well that it is not possible. Well, then, could the parliaments of all these provinces assemble together and agree upon a scheme of Confederation ? Look at the difficulties that we have to encounter on every point of the details in carrying the scheme through this House, and judge tor yourselves whether the parliaments of all the provinces could meet together, and originate and decide upon the details of Confederation. There is no other practicable way than that delegates should meet together as they have done, and frame resolutions on the subject, upon which

[Page 293]

the act constituting the union could be founded. Honorable gentlemen have asked who authorized those delegates to meet together for the purpose of framing those resolutions. Honorable gentlemen know very well that the present Government of Canada was formed for the very purpose of considering and submitting a scheme of this kind. My honorable friend from Niagara again takes shelter under the statement that what the Government proposed to do was to bring down a scheme for the Confederation of Canada alone, and that the bringing of all the provinces into the Confederation was only a secondary idea. The honorable gentleman knows very well that that statement of the case is a mere pretence. Everybody knew that the Government would endeavor to overcome the difficulties which presented themselves in working the government of Canada, either by one project or by the other. The honorable gentleman has quoted from the Speech from the Throne delivered at the close of last session, in which an allusion was made to the formation of a Federal union between the two sections of this province, and not to a Federal union of all the provinces. Why does he not refer to and quote from the Speech from the Throne at the opening of this session ? My honorable friend will find there, and I suppose he will place the expression on even terms with the other, the following :—

At the close of the last session of Parliament I informed you that it was my intention, in conjunction with my ministers, to prepare and submit to you a measure for the solution of the constitutional problem, the discussion of which has for some years agitated this province. A careful consideration of the general position of British North America induced the conviction that the circumstances of the times afforded the opportunity, not merely for the settlement of a question of provincial politics, but also for the simultaneous creation of a new nationality.

Now, my honorable friend says in effect that we were not right, when the opportunity presented itself of endeavoring to carry out the idea, in seizing upon it, and endeavoring to combine these provinces in one nationality, under the common flag of Great Britain, and under the rule of a Viceroy of the British Crown. Every honorable gentleman feels in his heart that we were not only right and patriotic in thus assembling, but that we were doing that which was promised to the Legislature of this province at the close of last session of Parliament. Honorable gentlemen, I am surprised and grieved that my honorable friend from Niagara, whom I know to be a patriotic and loyal subject of Her Majesty, does not feel it his duty to unite with us in bringing about that which is so dear to all of us—a closer connection with the Mother Country, and a better means of perpetuating British institutions on this continent. (Hear, hear.) My honorable friend says the whole scheme is characterized by concessions to the Lower Provinces. Why, honorable gentlemen, place him in any portion of the Lower Provinces and let him listen to the opposition that is made there to the scheme, and he will find that the whole cry of those who, like him, do not reflect on the necessity of yielding something for the common good, is, that everything has been conceded to Canada. It is said, ” We are going to be united with a province which is infinitely beyond us in point of population and wealth, and whose public men are able to command, by their ability, a much larger influence than our public men.” They profess to believe that they are coming under the shadow of Canada, and that everything which they desire for themselves wi l be trampled under foot. My honorable friend, forgetting those duties which he owes to the Government, and forgetting the duty which he owes as a patriotic citizen to his country, contents himself with finding fault with the details of a scheme which he believes will be for the benefit of the country, and picks holes in every part of these details which he does not happen fully to understand. He not only complains that the people of Canada have not been consulted, but that in every respect the interests of Canada have been bartered away. Does he forget that the members of the Government all love their country, and have interests as great and as dear to them as the rest of the people of Canada ? Is it likely that my honorable friend at the head of the Government, the honorable and gallant Knight, would give up everything that is dear to his race and to the people of this province? Is it likely that any of us would ruthlessly throw away any advantage which we could reasonably retain ? On the contrary, if my honorable friend could be brought to look upon the measure with that liberality which ought to characterize a public man, he would concede that, although we had to give away some things, we did that which was best for the interests of our country. Let him find himself surrounded, as we were, by diverse interests—peculiarities here, prejudices there, and strong interests in the other direction, and let him produce, if he can, a scheme which, on the whole, is more advantageous to the people of this province, or which promises better for the country at large than that which

[Page 294]

is now on the table of this House. Let him do this, and then I will forgive him for the illiberality which he exhibits towards those who have honestly endeavored, to the best of their united ability, to arrange the scheme which is now under your consideration. (Hear, hear.) I could forgive my honorable friend altogether, if, like my honorable friend opposite, he took the ground that the scheme ought to be delayed until after a general election. But, instead of that, he leaves no stone unturned to prejudice this House against the measure. I t seems to me that if he could prejudice the House sufficiently against it to insure its defeat, as a whole, he would leave no stone unturned to accomplish it. So far from showing that he is in favor of the scheme, I cannot for one moment imagine how any one can believe him to be a sincere friend of Confederation under any circumstances. I t is all very well to say, ” I am in favor of the scheme, but opposed to some of the details.” Was not every one of those details tested and tried in all its bearings, so far as such a thing was possible, by gentlemen as intelligent and well informed upon the subjects embraced as any honorable gentleman in this House ? Every honorable gentleman now listening to me knows very well that it was not possible to adopt a scheme that could not be found fault with. No matter what scheme was put upon the table of this House, even if my honorable friend had been able to submit a scheme infinitely superior to this, does anybody believe that certain honorable gentlemen in this House would have supported it ? The resolutions may be objectionable here and objectionable there, but it is for honorable gentlemen to consider all the circumstances out of which they have grown, and consider whether, under those circumstances, they ought not to be adopted as a whole by the House. Honorable gentlemen say, where is the advantage to be gained by Canada from Confederation ? Well now, can any honorable gentlemen in his senses believe that the removal of the obstacles to intercourse between the provinces, the doing away with the customs duties, and the developing the trade of the St. Lawrence, is no advantage to Canada ? Can it be said that to open up commerce with three millions of people along the St. Lawrence and the lakes will be of no advantage to the people of the Lower Provinces ? Can any Briton, advocating as he does the continuation of our connection with the Mother Country, say—” I would rather be alone, be an Upper Canadian and be left to myself, and that my fellow-colonists be left to take care of themselves.” Then my honorable friend asks : ” Where is the additional military strength ?” Does my honorable friend pretend to deny that there is no additional strength in union over isolation ? Does any man pretend to say that eight hundred or a thousand men belonging to a regiment are just as strong in units as when they are combined in a regiment and directed by the intellect of one man ? And just so the forces of all these provinces are comparatively weak in their present isolated state. If we could say to the United States that we had the control of four millions of people to guard our frontier and repel attack, would not that form a strong barrier of defence ? Would that be no weapon in the hands of a government desirous to avert an appeal to force of arms ? It is the strength of a large number of people wielded by one mind, affording a power vastly superior to that which Canada alone could bring into the field, and giving the Government, when negotiating, an opportunity to point to what might possibly result from that power being called into active service. How can men be so lost to all that is true and useful and patriotic as to oppose a union of the powers of defence, and to oppose a scheme which is alone likely to afford the means of maintaining, for any long period of years, that connection with Great Britain which we all regard as so valuable ? My honorable friend from Niagara took occasion, in the course of his remarks, to throw doubt upon one or two of my statements, and particularly in regard to the value of the mineral deposits of Newfoundland. I stated that I could satisfy the House that there were mineral deposits in Newfoundland of a valuable character. I will not detain the House by reading it at length, but I hold in my hand a copy of a report that was made on that colony in 1840, stating that those deposits consisted of galena, gypsum, marble, gold, iron, copper, etc. There are most important lead mines in operation, and Professor SHEPHARD states that he saw 3,500 pounds of pure galena thrown from a vein at a single blast, fie goes on in this report to describe the very convenient position of the mines, showing that they can be approached very closely by vessels drawingtwelve or fifteen feet of water. This report plainly shows that my honorable friend was mistaken in supposing that there were no valuable minerals in Newfoundland. But support, for the sake of argument, that there were no minerals there ; suppose we were simply giving the Province of Newfoundland $150,000 a

[Page 295]

year for the purpose of getting that island into the Confederation, would it not be better to have the Confederation complete than to refuse to agree to that condition? One would suppose, from the manner in which some honorable gentlemen treat the question, that the various sums to be annually paid to the Lower Provinces were to be paid by Canada alone ; but it is nothing of the kind,—they are to be paid by the whole Confederation, the population receiving the benefit contributing as much per head to the amount as that of the Province of Canada. What does my honorable friend suppose the Province of Newfoundland gives up to the Confederation in return for the $150,000 ? It transfers to us the whole right of property in its unsold lands, and the whole of its general revenue. In 1862, it had a gross revenue of $480,000, only $5,000 of which was from local sources, and it is calculated that the colony will bring a revenue of $430,000 per annum to the Confederate purse, while the total amount it will receive will be $369,200 per annum out of which to defray its local expenses. Is there anything so marvellously outrageous in that? In addition to the fact that Newfoundland will pay the Confederation $430,000, and receive $369,000, we have a complete yielding to the Federal Government of all her territorial sources of revenue. And so it is with all the provinces. Each of them will contribute to the general revenue, or to the Confederate purse, more than they will receive from it, so that the revenue of the whole country will show a surplus. The honorable gentleman from Niagara evidently contemplates much more by his amendment than my honorable friend opposite, who has so ably supported it, contemplates. My honorable friend who supported the amendment contemplates a delay until there shall be an expression of the people taken through a dissolution of Parliament. Well now, how can a dissolution of Parliament be brought about in a constitutional manner ? Suppose this scheme to receive the support of an immense majority of the Lower House, as it plainly does, and also of a large majority in this House, how, I would ask, under our system of government, can a dissolution be brought about ? A dissolution is unknown to the British Constitution, as carried out in this province, except when a measure, originated by the Government, does not receive the support of Parliament. Receiving the support of more than two-thirds of the representatives of the people, as the present Government does, how is it possible that Parliament could he dissolved to suit the views of a small minority ? That is asking quite too much, even if it were possible to grant it. (Hear, hear.) What, therefore, do honorable gentlemen ask, when they ask that the scheme be submitted to the people ? They ask us as a Government to leave that which we consider the safe, sound, British constitutional mode of procedure, and resort to the American system of obtaining assent to constitutional alterations, by taking the votes, yea and nay, of the individual members of the whole community. What sort of a conclusion could be arrived at by that mode of procedure ? Is it possible that any hon. member of this House desires that the people should have the opportunity of saying yea or nay to each clause of these resolutions ? I am satisfied that that is not what my honorable friend from Niagara desires, because he only asks for a delay of a month ; and my honorable friend opposite does not desire it, because he knows the British Constitution and loves it too well to contemplate such a course for a moment. What conclusion, then, can we arrive at, but that those who oppose the passage of the scheme through this House, by moving and supporting amendments to it, are desirous of defeating it, and make those amendments for that purpose ? (Hear, hear.) I am satisfied, from the best information I can obtain, that the passage of the amendment would have a very great tendency towards defeating the measure. It has to be agreed to in both branches of all the other legislatures, and then in the Imperial Parliament. All the other legislatures are now waiting upon the action of this House. They are waiting to know whether honorable gentlemen of the Legislative Council of Canada concur in the scheme—whether you are satisfied to put on one side small objections to minor matters of detail—to put to one side your individual opinions on this point and on that point, and give it your support as a whole. Every person who reflects upon the subject must be satisfied that that would have to be done under any circumstances. Do you desire to have a union of all the British American Provinces, or do you desire to remain as you are ? That is the issue. For myself, I feel that our connection with the Mother Country cannot be maintained for any great length of time without such a union. What have we found in the utterances of the public men of England from year to year ? Have we not found them asserting, with more and more vehemence every year, that we were not doing our duty on this side

[Page 296]

of the water in relation to our defences ? If Great Britain should get into a war with the United States from circumstances over which we had no control, still our destinies were linked in with those of the great empire of which we form a part, and it is our duty, under all circumstances, to do something more than we have yet done, to prepare for events that may happen from one cause or another. But suppose that during the past summer armed forces from the United States had entered Canada in pursuit of raiders escaping into this province from the other side of the border, as they might have done had not Gen. Dix’s order been withdrawn; and had we found that our integrity as a member of the great Empire was not respected, and Great Britain had coincided with the views of our Government and declared war against the United States, because that country had exercised liberties in one of her provinces to which no foreign power was entitled, where then would have been the cause of the war ? I t would have lain in the assertion of the right of the people of this province to maintain the position of an integral portion of the British Empire. Well, supposing the cause of a war with that nation to have been elsewhere, still we must partake with the Empire in upholding its integrity, and must stand or fall with that Empire. Shall we say that we will contribute nothing towards our defence except to keep up the volunteers, and depend entirely upon what the Mother Country, for prudential reasons, may do for us ? Is that a feeling that any honorable member of this House ought to be actuated by in relation to this or any other question ? I am sure no honorable gentleman would be willing to sit down and fold his arms under the protection which the money and arms of Great Britain give us ; and I am sure my honorable friend from Niagara himself would not unite in such a view plainly expressed. Still, my honorable friend thinks these resolutions ought not to pass this House, but ought to be postponed indefinitely, leaving the colonies in the divided condition in which they now are. I believe, on the contrary, that the interests and destiny of this country are bound up in the union now contemplated taking place. Suppose, as many believe, the end of that unfortunate fratricidal strife in the United States is at hand, and a reconciliation takes place at any reasonable time between the Northern and Southern States, I am quite sure the maintenance of the integrity of these provinces will depend upon this union having been consummated. If the scheme is postponed now, it is postponed indefinitely. For years past the effort has been making to get the Lower Provinces to assent to a union with Canada, and, if the question is now postponed, there is no knowing whether we shall ever be able to get their assent to it again or not. Action in the parliaments of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, is now hanging upon the proceedings in this House. If you pass an amendment, it will indicate to them that the people of Canada are not warmly in favor of the scheme. Honorable gentlemen, are you ready to take the responsibility of declaring that the people of Canada are opposed to Confederation ? There is no knowing when circumstances will allow of its being brought to this forward stage again. Those of you who know what difficulties and objections were met with—the selfish interests of the various sections of this and of the other provinces, which we had to overcome— must feel that a very great advance was made when the measure was brought to the present forward stage. When again will it be likely to happen that the representatives of the various provinces will be brought together to consider the question ? When will it again happen that the governments of the several provinces concerned will be able to lay upon the table of their respective legislatures a scheme so complete in all its details as this is ? It is impossible to say when that happy coincidence of circumstances will again occur. Then my honorable friend from Niagara says, ” You have not given us the scheme in detail. You have not given the whole of it. The House has not before it the proposed Constitution under which Upper and Lower Canada are hereafter to meet. You have not told us what are to be the rights and the powers of the local legislatures.” Well, honorable gentlemen, all I can say is, that it would be impossible, and not only impossible, it would be useless for the Government to have brought down this scheme at the same time that they submitted the scheme now before the House. Until this scheme passes, until it shall be adopted in the other provinces, until we know whether or not we are to form portions of a Confederate Government, there is no occasion for introducing the scheme relating to the local legislatures. But, honorable gentlemen, is it likely or can it be possible for such a scheme to be adopted without the sanction of both branches of the Legislature? The plan, whatever it may be, for the constitution of Upper and Lower Canada, is it a matter

[Page 297]

which the ministers of the Crown can carry in their pockets and put in force without the sanction of Parliament ? No, it is a measure which must hereafter be laid on the table of this House, which must be debated, and upon which we shall all have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion before it comes in force. At the proper time, a full opportunity will be afforded to those who dissent from the views of the Government, in regard to the constitutions of these provinces, of expressing their opinions, and of seeking to give effect to them. The same may be said in regard to the objections taken to the Intercolonial Railway. It is asserted that the Intercolonial Railway is something that we ought never to have agreed to. But honorable gentlemen will acknowledge, as a general proposition, that union is impossible without the railway, and such as believe that union is important and necessary, must be content to take the railway as a condition which is indispensable. But, honorable gentlemen, the Government cannot of itself build the Intercolonial Railway. There is no power either in this Government or the Governments of the other provinces to build it. We must come down to Parliament for the sanction—not to this Parliament, but to the Confederate Parliament, and the Confederate Parliament will have an opportunity of saying upon what terms we shall build the Intercolonial Railway. The fullest opportunity will be afforded for discussion before either the Intercolonial Railway is built, or the constitutions are adopted for Upper and Lower Canada. The former will be submitted to the Confederate Parliament ; the latter, should the resolutions now before the House pass, to the present Parliament of Canada; for that must necessarily be a matter for the disposal of the Legislature of Canada. I am not one of those who would, as suggested, desire to take shelter behind the resolutions before the House for any unworthy purpose ; but this I will say, that the amendment now before the House ought not to receive its sanction. I am quite satisfied that no honorable member of this House, who is really and truly an advocate of this scheme, and who believes that Confederation of all the provinces is important and desirable, will be found voting for this amendment, which would place a barrier in the way of Confederation, such as, perhaps, we could not overcome. Fancy the number of years during which this matter has been contemplated. As my honorable friend who sits near me pointed out, it is a measure which has long been agitated. He shewed you that for years andjyears it has engaged the attention of almost every person who took any kind of interest in the public affairs of this country. I have only one thing to add to my honorable friend’s elaborate statement on this point, and that is, to quote an extract from the resolutions proposed in this House many years ago by an honorable friend of mine, whom I am glad, and whom every one of his fellow members is glad to find still occupying his accustomed place in this House—I refer to my honorable friend Hon. Mr. MATHESON. In 1855, my honorable friend proposed a series of resolutions in this House against the elective principle, the last of which is in language prophetic of the result which now we are testing by actual experience. The resolution ia in these words :—

8. Resolved,— That as the subject of a union of the whole of the British North American Provinces has for years occupied the public attention, it would manifestly be unwise to complicate future arrangements by a change in the Constitution of one of those provinces, which has not been sought for, and which this House believes, would not be acceptable to the others. It is, therefore, the opinion of this Council, that any proceedings on the subject at the present juncture would be premature, unwise, and inexpedient.

My honorable friend at that time looked forward to that which we now see about to take place—a union of these provinces—and he anticipated also that the elective system, if introduced into this branch of the Legislatura, would be fraught with difficulty. It has been fraught with difficulty, and it is a difficulty which we must surmount—-a barrier which we must strive to overcome. The personal objections which my honorable friend from Niagara division has started, are the poorest kind of objections. It is not what my honorable friend near me, or my honorable friend opposite, possibly thought or said at some remote period, that we have now to consider. We are all more or less exposed to this sort of attack ; but fortunately the time during which I have had the honor of being in public life has been so short, and the position I have since occupied has been so obscure, that I am not so much exposed as many others to these accusations ; but I am well aware that this is owing to my comparative insignificance. I must say that for my part I am disposed to put aside all these things. I am disposed to put aside all reference to what an honorable member may have done under other circumstances and in other times, and I would mere-

[Page 298]

ly ask myself this: ” Is this Confederation desirable? Do I wish for it as a lover of monarchical institutions ? Do I desire it as a subject of the British Empire ? Do I wish for the perpetuation of the connection between this country and Great Britain ? ” If I do I shall waive my objections on this point and the other, in my desire for the success of the principle. This Confederation has been sought after for years, but never until now has it approached so near a consummation—never was it a possibility as it is now a possibility. After years of anxiety, after years of difficulty, after troubles here and divisions there, the scheme is found possible, and I will not put it away from me because I object to this point or to that. If this harness of the Confederation of the country is to be put on, we cannot but expect that it will chafe here and chafe there ; but time will give relief and provide the remedy, as it has done in other circumstances before. It was so in regard to the union of 1840. The Lower Canadians had a grievance in the French language being excluded from the Provincial Parliament. That chafed, as was to be expected, and provoked remonstrance. And what was the result? The injustice complained of was done away with, and both languages were thereafter permitted to be used. Then it was the desire of the people that the elective system should be introduced into this House. I believe myself that it was a mistake, but a change was desircd, and a change was brought about. And so it will be in this case.. If change is seriously desired, it will be had. It would be unwise and unstatesmanlike, in my opinion, to declare that because we cannot have our way on this point or on that point—that because the scheme in all its features is not exactly what we would like it to be—we will not have it at all. Where, honorable gentlemen, is the union effected between any two countries, or any two individuals even, which has lasted for any length of time without mutual forbearance and mutual concessions ? Let those honorable gentlemen who have had the good fortune of forming unions, and who can therefore speak from experience, say whether any union can be formed either happy or lasting without forbearance on both sides. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) You must give up all thoughts of union unless you are willing to give and take, and cease persisting for everything you think best. Nobody ever did effect a union upon such terms, and nobody ever will. You must forbear here and give way there. I trust and believe that in the present instance this will be the opinion of the Legislature of this country. I trust and believe we are satisfied that Federation is desirable in itself, and that, without insisting on this point or on that point, we will be looking confidently forward to the future, when we shall witness, in this country, a population of four millions, with a valuable commerce, and, in point of naval power and supremacy, ranking fourth in the world. (Applause.) Particularly am I surprised that any honorable gentleman from Lower Canada should oppose himself to this union, for by union the people of Lower Canada will regain possession of those countries which were once belonging to their race, and in which their language continues to be spoken. I believe that for them, as well as for us, there is a future in store of great promise, to which we can all look forward with the most confident expectations. And shall we set aside all these promising prospects because we cannot obtain this little point or that little point ? I hope honorable gentlemen who favor the scheme see as I see that there is imminent danger in postponing the measure, and I ask them not to pass this amendment, which is brought forward in the poorest of all spirits, which is based on the assumption that honorable gentlemen are not ready to give the country the benefit of their minds and their judgments, but which asks us to wait and go knocking about from door to door, asking what is thought about the scheme upon which we are now called to legislate. Federation is the future safety and salvation of the country. Let us then waive our small objections and vote for Federation. (Applause.)

HON. MR. SEYMOUR—The Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands is right in supposing that I am opposed to Federation I am upposed to it, and particularly on the basis agreed upon at the Quebec Convention. I do not say that I would be opposed to a legislative union on fair and equal terms ; but I am decidedly opposed to Federation on the terms now before the House. My hon. friend has said that in all unions there must be forbearance ; but in this Federation scheme it appears to me the forbearance has been all on one side. The forbearance has not been mutual. When parties enter into a partnership, there ought to be forbearance on the part of each, and mutual concessions. But in this case the concessions as well as the forbearance have been all on the side of Canada. My hon. friend, with all his eloquence and ability, has not answered a single

[Page 299]

objection raised by my hon. friend from Niagara (Hon. Mr. CURRIE) . He has found it convenient to pass them all over for the simple reason that he found them unanswerable. My hon. friend says :—” Was not the French language restored to Lower Canada, and was not this a change in the Constitution?” Hon. gentlemen, it was certainly restored, and by the Conservative administration of that day, and, as my hon. friend opposite (Hon. Mr. BOULTON) has said, unanimously. There was no opposition, for it was considered a right to which our French Canadian fellowsubjects were fully entitled. But is the restoration of the French language to be compared with the resolutions now proposed — with the great constitutional change which is intended to affect, not only ourselves, but our children and our children’s children for all time to come ? Is a change like this to be compared with the restoration of the French language ? Certainly not. It seems to me to be the most extraordinary comparison I ever heard of. Then my hon. friend has referred to the change in the constitution of the Legislative Council. But was not that question over and ever again before the people ? Did not the people at the hustings frequently pronounce an opinion upon that change ? Undoubtedly they did, and it being understood that the people were in favor of it, the change was brought about. My hon. friend says that in the Conference they were surrounded with difficulties. No doubt they were. And why ? Because they allowed for Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland as many delegates as they did for Canada. No doubt they were surrounded with difficulties. No doubt they were overwhelmed by the demands of these gentlemen. The hon. gentleman says that Confederation is necessary to strengthen the defences of the country. In what way ? Can any hon. gentleman tell me in what way ? I have not heard one word to prove, to my satisfaction, how the defences of the country are to be strengthened by Federation, unless indeed it be by placing the whole of the provinces under one head. Why, hon. gentlemen, did I not shew here the other day what was the feeling of the Lower Provinces in regard to the defences of the country ? At a time when our Parliament were proposing to pass an act which would entail the expenditure of millions on the defences of the country, what was being done in the Lower Provinces? Why the Financial Secretary of one of the provinces came down with a proposed grant of $20,000, and he was obliged to apologize to the House that the sum was so large ! And the present Premier of Nova Scotia—the province second in importance in British North America — proposed to strike off $12,000, and leave the appropriation at $8,000. This was proposed by a province next in importance to our own, and at the time of the Trent aflair, when there was an appearance of danger much greater than at present. And what did New Brunswick do ? Appropriate $15,000. The people that did all this are the people to whom we are to ally ourselves that we may be strengthened in our efforts for the defence of the country ! Do hon. gentlemen believe that an alliance with provinces whose leading men hold such views as these would add to our strength ? Certainly not. My hon. friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands has also said that 95 out of every 100 of the people of Upper Canada are in favor of Federation. My hon. friend is mistaken. I once had the honor of representing a portion of his constituents, and I would inform my hon. friend that I know as much of the feeling, not simply of the people of Upper Canada, speaking of them generally, but of his constituents, as he does ; and this I would say that were my hon. friend to go before his constituents and tell them that, in order to get Federation, Upper Canada is to pay two-thirds of the cost of the Intercolonial Railway, and twothirds of the cost of maintenance of the road for all time to come, and that the roads of the Lower Provinces are to be made Government roads, and to be kept up in future at the expense of the Federal Government, and that Upper Canada will have two-thirds of the burden to bear, I will venture to say that my hon. friend would find himself wrong in his estimate of being able to satisfy 95 out of every 100 of his constituents.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Tell them of all the circumstances, and I would be able to satisfy them.

HON. MR. SEYMOUR—My hon. friend is greatly mistaken. If my hon. fiiend is to be one of the life members under the Federation, he would not require so much to satisfy them.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My hon. friend is altogether too fast. I do not look forward to any such thing.

HON. MR. SEYMOUR—My hon. friend has the power in his hands ; but if he does

[Page 300]

not desire the honor, of course he can avoid its being thrust upon him. But my hon. friend could not for a moment go before his constituents— and he represents a constituency which for intelligence is second to none in Upper Canada—and tell them that they are to contribute to the revenue of the Confederation in proportion to their import duties— that they are to contribute according to their wealth—and that they are only to receive back in proportion to their population— that largely as they contribute, the return will only be the same as to the fishermen and lumberers who form the floating population of the Lower Provinces, and carry so large a majority as he has named with him. A doctrine such as this is any thing but conservative. I woald submit to any thing rather than vote for such a scheme. Were I to support it in its present shape I should consider myself as betraying the interests of my country. Hon. gentleman are of course entitled to their own opinions in this matter ; but these are mine, and I shall continue to maintain and uphold them. I assert that the amendment of my hon. friend for delay is a just and reasonable one, and I cannot see how it can possibly be objected to in a matter of this importance, where the dearest interests of the whole country are at stake, and where we are legislating not for ourselves alone but for future generations. Such being the importance of the measure, I cannot conceive how hon. gentlemen can vote against so reasonable a proposition. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. FERGUSSON BLAIR — I seek for information from the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands, as to the scheme respecting the local legislatures. Did I understand my hon. friend to say that it would be submitted to the present Parliament ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—It is so intended.

HON. Mr. FERGUSSON BLAIR —I also understood my hon. friend to say that beiore the House pronounced upon the general scheme of Federation, it would not be proper to submit the scheme for the local legislatures. I cannot see the force of that. But still I will not raise that as an objection to proceeding with the present soheme.

HON. Mr CAMPBELL—Perhaps my hon. friend from Brock is right in the view he takes. But it was throught by the Government that it would be premature to bring in the sheme for the local governments until it was seen hether Parliament was in favor of these resolutions.

HON. Mr. FERGUSSON BLAIR—But many members of this House, before making up their minds as to how they ought to vote on the resolutions, would like to be informed as to the nature of the local scheme, which is to have such an important bearing on the question at issue.

HON. Mr. CAMPBELL—The Parliament of the country will have the fullest opportunity of pronouncing upon it.


HON. MR. CAMPBELL—After these resolutions have been passed. We thought it was unnecessary for us to give our attention to the local constitutions for Upper and Lower Canada until we had ascertained whether Parliament was in favor of Federation. That ascertained, we shall feel it our duty to give our minds to the preparation of the scheme for the constitutions of the two provinces; and these constitutions will be laid before Parliament.

HON. MR. ROSS—I do not know what the views of the Government may be upon this point, but it seems to me that it would have been an extraordinary proceeding had they brought down at this juncture the proposed constitutions for Upper and Lower Canada. There may a great difference of opinion arise as to the constitutions proper to be proposed for these provinces ; and it is quite possible that these differences may occasion the withdrawal of some members of the Government. (Cries of ” hear, hear.”) Hon. gentlemen cry ” hear, hear.” But I say that such may possibly be the case. And it would be absurd and impolitic for the Government to throw the country in a state of confusion as regards the scheme for the local legislatures if they failed in carrying the resolutions here submitted Hon. gentlemen will see that they would be unworthy of the position they hold were they to do so. I am not sure whether I understood my hon friend to say that the scheme for the local legislatures would be brought down on the passing of these resolutions. I hope that I misunderstood him, because I think we should wait the result of the action of the Lower Provinces. We should see if Federation succeeds there, inasmuch as in case of its failure in the Lower Provinces, even if we adopt the reso-

[Page 301]

lutions here, the arrangement would not go into effect, and we would be placing the country in a state of turmoil and confusion in discussing measures which would be altogether unnecessary. We ought, it seems to me, first to carry out this arrangement as far as it is possible to carry it, and if we can secure the assent to it of the two larger provinces below, there will be a reasonable certainty of the scheme being effected. And then, and not till then will the proper time arrive for the discussion of the proposed constitutions of Upper and Lower Canada. I am perfectly amazed at the proposition of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr FERGUSSON BLAIR) , because he is friendly to these resolutions, and gave us the expression of his views thereon in an admirable manner at the opening of the debate. And how the hon. gentleman should desire to have the scheme for the local legislatures quoad this project is beyond my comprehension.

HON. MR. FERGUSSON BLAIR—I think it is only reasonable that, as hon. gentlemen argue, they should see before voting for or against Federation what are the proposed constitutions for the local legislatures. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My hon. friend should a Id this to the reflection—that at all events hon. members will have a full opportunity of pronouncing upon it.

HON. MR. VIDAL said — Honorable gentlemen, you may probably regard it as presumptuous in one so inexperienced as I am in parliamentary debate, to enter the lists against the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands, and to venture to dispute the validity of the arguments adduced by him in his eloquent speech against the amendment njw under consideration ; yet, great as is the existing disparity in point of ability and influence, I do not shrink from the contest, for I believe that I have truth and justice on my side, and have confidence that in its own inherent power, the truth will ultimately prevail. I have listened with delight to the hon. gentleman’s address, and cordially concur with his views on many points, but there are some in which I differ, in none more so than that which regards all who support the amendment of the hon. member from the Niagara Division (Hon. Mr. CURRIE ) as insincere, nay, even as wanting in loyalty to the Crown and to the country.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—What I said was this, that I was slow to believe in the sincerity of those who advocated a measure and sheltered themselves behind details.

HON. MR. VIDAL—It was more pointedly put than that. It was said that the terms of the motion were such as clearly showed that it was made simply for the object of defeating the measure.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—And I repeat that it is so. But that is very different from what you charged me with saying.

HON. MR. VIDAL—The hon. gentleman made the remark that we were not altering the Constitution, but that the question before us was one simply for an address to the Crown. Now, strictly speaking, and taking the words of the motion in their mere literal sense, this statement is correct; but I ask hon. gentlemen if it is fair or candid to endeavor to lead the House to believe that this motion, which is undoubtedly for an address, is not in effect for a change in the Constitution ? Are we not plainly told that no Imperial legislation will take place on this subject, unless such an Address as this receives the assent of the Canadian Legislature ? I hold, therefore, that the motion before us, though it be for an Address to Her Majesty, is in effect a measure, which has for its object a change of the Constitution. Such being the case, the subject is one which demands our most careful consideration, and for which we ought to be allowed all the time requisite to the fullest and freest discussion. The changes which have been referred to, and with which it has been sought to compare this change, cannot with propriety be regarded as similar. I contend, in the language of the honorable gentleman (Hon. Mr. SEYMOUR) who has just preceded me, that this is in fact a revolution : the word is not too strong. So far from its being as has been stated, a simple change, like the mere introducing or reintroducing the use of the French language into the Legislature, or even the more important step of altering the constitution of this House, it is an entire alteration of our political condition and relations, and affects most deeply the whole country in all its varied interests. Whatever may be the correctness or incorrectness of the opinion of my hon. friend as to hon. members covering their hostility to the scheme of Confederation by objecting only to its details, it will not apply to me ; I shall take no shelter under details. My course in voting for the amendment of the hon. member for Niagara is based on broad and constitutional grounds. I differ from that hon. gentleman in regard to some of

[Page 302]

these details, and on the whole, I am not sure if my views do not more nearly coincide with those of my hon. friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I am very glad to hear my hon. friend say so. I would like him also to state if he goes with the hon. member for Niagara in desiring the delay of a month or delay for a longer period.

HON. MR. VIDAL—That question will be fully answered when I come to touch upon that point. But I may state, that instead of offering a factious opposition by the course I intend taking, it is my loyalty to our Sovereign and country which induces me to support the amendment now before the House, not with the object of defeating this measure, but for securing its adoption on a broader and more permanent basis. How singulai are the different views which are taken of our position and powers according to the manner in which we may vote upon this question ! In one breath we are told that we are the representatives of the people, and we have a perfect right to vote upon it as we may see fit ; and in a few minutes afterwards, we are informed that if we do not vote upon it in a certain manner, we do not represent the people. I cannot possibly reconcile the two statements. I t is also said —and it is the only argument I have heard on the point—if indeed it can be called an argument at all—that if the present opportunity of securing the union of the provinces is allowed to pass unimproved, it will be a long time before we may look for another. I admit that the opportunity is one which has been long desired, and one which it will be wise policy to improve ; and it will be my humble endeavor to seek to do so to the best advantage. But if the measure is in reality fraught with the benefits which have been claimed for it, I cannot see how it will be jeopardized by a little delay; because the more its benefits are looked into, the better, it is reasonable to suppose, the people will be satisfied with them. I cannot see how the measure will be endangered by giving both the people and their representatives a little longer time to become acquainted with its principles and its details. Since the commencement of the debate in this House, much light has been thrown on the scheme, and we have had the advantage of the explanations in the other Chanber, and I am sure that the minds of hon. gentlemen must now be much better informed on particular points of the scheme than they were before we came here. For my own part, after having had my mind frequently directed to it, and after having listened attentively to the arguments of all the speakers, I am more and more impressed with the magnitude and importance of the various interests on which our action is invited in thi matter, and I think we should proceed cautiously and slowly in taking the step before us—a change so great as that contemplated by the framers of these resolutions—a change amounting to nothing less than, as I before observed, a revolution in the whole system of governing the country. This is a step which, in order to be permanently successful, must rest on the principles of truth and justice, and these rrinciples must be intelligently apprehended by the people to be governed. Notwithstanding all that h s been advanced in this chamber—all the assertions which have been made—in reference to the information said to be possessed by the people of this country relative to this measure, I must say that I do not coincide in that opinion. I believe that the people of the country, as a whole, are not acquainted with the details. What new light has there been thrown on the resolutions since we assembled here ? Have we not had our attention directed to the fact that even some who assisted in framing the resolutions, did not themselves know precisely what some of them meant? Moreover, is it not the fact that the attention of the country has not to any great extent been called to any arguments against the scheme? Now, in order to a right appreciation of the value and importance of the proposed Confederation, it is right that the people should kuow and understand both sides of the question. They should not be carried away with the pleasing prospect held out to them of the advantages to be derived from forming part of a great Confederation, without being told at the same time of the cost at which these advantages are to be purchased. And this is all the more necessary because the movement did not originate with the people. All great constitutional changes ought to and usually do originate with the people. But this is an anomaly. Here we have a proposed Constitution framed by a self-elected body—I do not use the term reproachfully, because I hold that these hon. gentlemen did perfectly right in so meeting together—this, I say, is a Constitution which was not framed by a body appointed for the

[Page 303]

purpose ; and it is sent down to us as a perfect document, which must be regarded as resembling a treaty which we have no power to alter even in the smallest detail.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My hon. friend cavils at the question of authority. But he must know that the Parliament of this country had sanctioned the formation of a Government with the avowed intention of bringing about Federation ; and therefore there was authority for what was done from the people of this country. But my hon. friend is a monarchist, and recognizes other sources of authority than those vested in the people. There is the authority of the Crown ; and on this point I would beg to refer him to the despatch which was received on this subject from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It says : ” With the sanction of the Crown, and upon the invitation of the Governor- General, men of every province, chosen by the respective Lieutenant-Governors, without distinction of party, assembled to consider questions of the utmost interest to every subject of the Queen, of whatever race or faith, resident in those provinces, and have arrived at a conclusion destined to exercise a most important influence upon the future welfare of the whole community.” So here was the sanction of the Crown so far as the action of the other provinces was concerned ; whilst our own Parliament directly sanctioned the formation of a Government having this object in view.

HON. MR. VIDAL—I have stated clearly and emphatically that I was satisfied with the formation of the Conference and what it did, so why my hon. friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands should have thought it necessary to make the explanations he has just now done, I really do not know. I admitted—I never in the least disputed— that the Conference was properly, legally, and formally constituted. I gave the members composing it all praise for the intelligence and fidelity to the interests of the country with which they carried on their laborious negotiations. But I must still reiterate my former statement, that on account of this movement not having emanated from the people—and the fact of there being no petitions before either branch of the Legislature asking for it establishes this—we ought before us adoption to have some expression of the views of the people, and consequently that the motion in amendment made by my hon. friend the member from Niagara is one which I ought to support. I believe, after this debate has been concluded in both Chambers, and the full report of it which is being prepared has gone forth to the country, the people will be in a position to form a correct judgment on the merits of the case. They will then have before them perhaps all that could be said on one side or the other, and if they cannot then form a reliable judgment, it will be their own fault. There is no reason why this House should be at the very great expense—some $2,000 I believe—of printing so large a number of the debates as is being done, if the people are not to be consulted ; for unless they are to be asked for a decision—if the scheme is to be carried into effect without consulting them—where is the necessity for placing be fore them speeches and arguments which which will only have the effect of disturbing their minds ? In addition to saying that the plan has not emanated from the people, I contend that it has not even emanated from the representatives of the people. Had these resolutions been framed by our own Government, brought down like other Government measures into our Legislature, and there discussed, voted upon, and adopted by the majority, I should not think it necessary that there should be any reference to the people, though perhaps I might still think such reference desirable. But the fact is that the representatives of the people have not been consulted in the matter; there has been no way left open whereby they can effect the amendment of any objectionable feature in the resolutions, or influence the Imperial Legislature on the proposed union. I presume honorable gentlemen will concur with me that if, after all that has been stated, the country should not desire the change— if the people at large should think they are really paying too much and making too considerable a sacrifice to secure the anticipated benefits of this measure—it ought not to be passed. (Hear. ) Where, I would ask, is the danger to be apprehended in submitting the measuie to the country ? Danger is to be apprehended from forcing upon the people a measure of which they may not approve. (Hear.) But nothing can be endangered by submitted this project to the people, if,as has been so strongly asserted and as I believe, the majority are in favor of it. If I thought an immediate reference to the people would jeopardise the scheme, perhaps I might hesitate in urging it as I now do—(hear, and laughter)—but I believe its object is really one desired by the country generally,

[Page 304]

and there would be no risk in submitting it. Where is then the danger of delay ?—and delay is all we ask for. What struck me very much in the eloquent and able address of the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands was, that he never touched upon the real question of the amendment. I t is true he said delays were dangerous, delay would lose the measure, but not a shadow of argument did he advance in proof of this view. I think delay is safety, in that it will enable the country and the Legislature to look into the scheme, to weigh all its advantages and disadvantages, if it has any, and so more certainly secure the passing of it if good, and the rejection of it if the reverse. Of course, honorable gentlemen, divers views may exist as to the way in which the opinion of the people on this question is to be obtained. I am not to be deterred from expressing my views by the taunt of republicanism ; a sneer never disturbs me when I have good ground for what I do or say. I have had to bear with many a sneer on account of my adhesion to the temperance cause, but they never moved me from my course. My belief is thfctr the views of the people may be ascertained without any such delay as will endanger the scheme. It is to be presumed that the debate will not extend beyond a week or two, in both Houses. A very short time after it is concluded, and the pamphlets containing the speeches printed, a direct vote of the people might be taken with propriety and safety. The proposition to submit the plan to the vote of the people seems at the first glance not to be British-—our prejudices rise against it. We are, however, not to be guided by prejudices, but by reason and reflection ; and if wo can find the best means of clearly and satislactorily ascertaining what the people wish, that means ought to be adopted, call it by what name you may. I think that to put the matter to a direct vote in this way is the best plan. The people should be told : ” Here is the measure ; will you take it or will you not ?” We should not ask them to discuss amendments ; we could not bring the people of all the provinces together for such a purpose, snd if we allowed amendments to be discussed, we should have inextricable confusion. The plain question should be proposed : Do you wish for this Confederation or not—yes or no ?

HON. MR. BOSS—No power to alter its details ?

HON. MR. VIDAL—No. That is the way the question is proposed to this House, and if it be wrong to submit it thus to the people, it is also wrong to submit it, in such a manner to the Legislature. (Hear, hear.) An additional motive tor suggesting this mode of proceeding is, that I should be extremely unwilling to subject myself to the censorious remarks of hon. gentlemen in the other Chamber who might reasonably say, if we propose to have a dissolution and a new election on the subject, ‘It is all very well, but you keep your seats, while you send us home.” I do not indeed see why we might not with great propriety wait until the next general election, when, after two years of reflection and discussion, the people would be still better able to give an intelligent vote. I can see no objection to the wish of the people being thus ascertained in this par excellence constitutional way ; but as ministers tell us we cannot wait, then I say, let us rather have a direct vote of the people on the scheme than precipitate a general election. I should prefer a diroct vote to a general election, because during an election other influences are at work besides purely political ones. In many places the personal popularity of a candidate outweighs the political leaning of the electors ; in others, a well-filled purse carries the day, or some local question prejudices a constituency and influences the minds of the voters. But upon a scheme such as this, if submitted directly to the country, none of these considerations would have any effect, and the electors would be guided by patriotism alone. So that while constitutionally the House represents the will of the people, and no fault cculd be found if the House, after a new eleotion, were to pass upon the matter, still the object desired, viz., to know the desire of the people, would be more expeditiously and less expensively attained by a direct vote. I t is of no use to call this method ” Yankee ” or ” Republican.” I t is well known that it prevailed as far back as the days of ancient Rome.

HON. MR. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST —You may call it French, too.

HON. MR. VIDAL—Yes, or, if you please, you may call it imperial ; it has been resorted to in France and in Mexico. It would certainly in this case be fair—no one could have any object for tampering with the votes of the people, or obtaining a decision whioh was not a

[Page 305]

truthful expression of their wish. We could obtain the views of the whole country in a short time—perhaps not within one month, but still in time enough to enable the measure to be adopted within the current year. The Legislature of New Brunswick is not to meet for some time yet; the question therefore cannot be soon settled there ; and if it were, it has still to go home to England, there to be embodied in an Imperial enactment before being acted upon. The Imperial Parliament has assembled and will probably continue in session, as it generally does, some five or six months. Surely then there will bo time to take the vote here. I should like to have some reason adduced to convince me that there is danger in delay. I have heard an indistinct allusion to such danger as being great in case war should suddenly come upon us. Now, hon. gentlemen, I hold this to be an objection which has no weight whatever. How long will it be, if we adopt the resolutions, before this scheme can be got into operation ? I presume it will be twelve months, and if we can wait a twelvemonth, can we not wait two years without risk ? For, what immediate strength is the measure to bring to us ? The mere uniting together of these provinces will not give us one additional soldier ; it will give us no more money ; neither will it lessen the extent of iron tier to be defended, nor give us any increase of military power. As for its placing all the provinces under the direction of one mind—the only argument which I have heard applying to this part of the question—if we were in a state of war to-day, the forces of the whole would be under the direction of one mind. Do we think for one moment, that if a hostile force set foot on the shores of Canada, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, the heart of the Empire would not thrill with indignation, and the whole force of the Empire not be brought to bear against the foe who thus insulted and defied the British Crown, just as readily in our isolated as it would be in our united condition ? I think the danger from war is one on which no argument against submitting this measure to the people can possibly be based. (Hear, hear.) An hon. gentleman has stated that the defences of the country must remain at a stand-still until Confederation is accomplished. I do not know the source from which that opinion came, or whether it was spoken by authority. If it were, it is certainly a startling announcement.

HON. MR. ROSS—We have certainly been given to understand so, in this House.

HON. MR. VIDAL—I do not, and cannot think the British Government is going to leave us unprotected and undefended, even if Confederation should not take place.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—We may assume that the preparations the Imperial Government may make for the defence of these colonies may be materially affected by the result of our deliberations on this Confederation scheme—they may be influenced by our capacity for defence, and the willingness shown to exert ourselves.

HON. MR. VIDAL—They may be eventually, but I am speaking of to-day, and I am sure Her Majesty’s Government will readily send us to-day every assistance we might need.

HON. MR. MACPHERSON—NO progress is being made with our defences—the whole question of defence seems waiting for Confederation—nothing is being done. That fact must be patent to every honorable member of the House.

HON. MR. VIDAL—They may seem to be waiting, but why I cannot conceive, for every argument that can be brought to bear to show that our defences will progress under Confederation, can be equally available for that purpose now. (Hear.) It has been said by the Hon. the Commissioner of Crown Lands, in reply to the member from Niagara, that the country has not been taken by surprise by these resolutions. In this I differ from him. It is quite true that as far as the question of union is concerned, it is not new— the thought of union has long occupied many minds—but I do contend, that with reference to many points comprised in the scheme, the country has been taken by surprise. No thought, no knowledge whatever of the character of many of the changes proposed to be introduced ever entered the minds of the people at large.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—It is a satisfactory surprise. (Hear.)

HON. MR. VIDAL— It may be a satisfactory surprise ; I have no doubt it is to many. It was a satisfactory surprise to find that gentlemen from all the provinces, of different political parties, could meet together in such an amicable way, and make such mutual concessions as to enable this scheme to be presented at all. (Hear, hear.) This is just what ought to have been done. To represent me as opposed to Confederation

[Page 306]

is a great mistake. It is just because I appreciate its advantages, and wish to see them secured without any chauce of danger resulting from the scheme having been too hastily adopted, that I speak as I do. (Hear, hear.) It is said the people were not appealed to when the unions between England and Scotland, and Great Britain and Ireland, were brought about. That is quite true, but it is equally true that these unions were brought about by the Pailiaments of those countries — the representatives of the people. The measures were arranged with them, and the people were represented as to those unions by their Parliaments.

HON. MR. ROSS—That is just what is the case here too.

HON. MR. VIDAL—I beg ihe honorable gentleman’s pardon. If he can find anything in this scheme which has emanated from the Parliament, it is uew to me. Aro we not told that, if even one amendment is passed by Parliament, it will destroy the scheme? HfN. MR. ROSS—The course taken here is exactly that which was adopted in England. Negotiations first, then the submission to Parliament of their result.

HON. MR. FERGUSSON BLAIR—The unions between England and Ireland, and England and Scotland, were not negotiations merely; they were treaties; they were called treaties—

HON. MR. ROSS—They were negotiated first, and submitted to Parliament afterwards.

HON. MR. VIDAL—As it is not my intention to occupy the time of hon. gentlemen on any other occasion during the debate, I shall venture to touch o another point, not directly connected with the amendment before us, on which I said a few words when I last addressed the House on this subject. We have heard much about the proposed new constitution of the Legislative Council. We have been told it was political necessity that first forced the elective system oa minds that were by no means enamoured of it, and this, I think, has been fully established. Now, it would ill become me, as an elected member, to dwell on any merits or excellencies thp elective system may have possessed as applied to this branch of the Legislature— it is a subject we can none of us touch upon with the same freedom which we might if we were not ourselves elected—but I may call the attention of the House to this, that none of the evils that were dieaded, as likely to flow from the elective system, have yet shown themselves, and I do not think it at all reasonable, much less necessary, that they should be anticipated in time to come. My own views were in perfect accord with those of hon. gentlemen who protested against the system when it was first introduced. I did not then consider it an improvement, and my views have not changed since ; I have, consequently, no personal predilections for an Elective Council, but far prefer a Chamber nominated by the Crown. But I am not here to carry out only my personal views or predilections, but to guard the rights and privileges of my constituents ; and I would remind hon. members that it is one thing to concede a privilege, but a very differeut thiog to take it away. (Hear.) A privilege may be conceded unasked, but it is a dangerous thing to take it away unasked or unassented to. (Hear, hear ) I cannot find either that the Canadian Government made any endeavor to maintain the eLctivc principle ; I cannot see that the nomination system was forced on them by the wishes of the Lower Provinces. It may have been the desire of some of the Maritime Provinces to maintain their nomination system, but the change in ours was one which obviously met the wishes of the members of this Government, and no effort appears to have been made by them to preserve to the people of this country the privilege they now enjoy of electing members of this House. (Hear.) I think, also, that there are objectionable features in certain provisions of the scheme for which the Canadian Government are responsible. I speak notas an opponent, but as one of their truest and best friends—one who is desirous to keep them from doing a wrong. It is not as an opponent to them or to Confederation that I support the amendment of the hon. member from Niagara.

HON. MR. ROSS—I think that amendment is a vote of want of confidence.

HON. MR. VIDAL—So it has been said ; but the assertion is not warranted by the facts of the case ; it is merely an arbitrary declaration. I cannot consent to be put in such a position as I should occupy if I thought it were not. It is true, my hon. friends in the Government may say, ” You will not do for us if you vote that way ; ” but I cannot sacrifice my views and vote contrary to my convictions, in order to be counted as a friend.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—My hon. friend

[Page 307]

must see that if all our friends entertained the same views, we could never get our measure through.

HON. MR. VIDAL—In compelling the first selection of legislative councillors from the members of the Chamber, the Conference have put a restraint on the rrerogative of the Crown which they had no right to impose. I am unwilling for a moment to suppose that auy low or unworthy motive actuated the Canadian delegate?, who alone are responsible for this detail, or that they did this in hopes of securing the votes of any members of this House in favor of their scheme, which they could not otherwise have been sure of; still that part of the scheme has an awkward appearance, and some honorable membeis may feel with the member from Wellington (Hon. Mr. SANBORN), that if it be not a bribe, it looks something very like it. I, however, do not see it in that light. I do not think there has been anything worse than a desire to make the system of appointment palatable to the people, by taking a certain number of their representatives, whom they then sent to this House, to be members of the new one. (Hear, hear.) As to the boasted impartiality apparent in the 14th resolution, I do not attach any importance to its provisions. If it were not the understanding that the selection would be made in the manner there laid down, there would be a strong party opposition to the measure, which was a thing to be avoided. (Hear, hear.) One more subject connected with this part of the scheme remains for mo to speak on, and I think it is an important one. Twenty-one members of this Honorable House are to be dismissed. It is quite true we do not know who they may be.

A VOICE—Ballot for them.

HON. MR. VIDAL —I am not speaking of the mode of selection. (Hear, hear.)— Twenty-one members of this Legislative Council are to be told that they are no longer wanted. Are they to be those called by Her Majesty in former times to sit here, or those representing the people? It seems to me only fair that those who hold appointments from the Crown for life are entitled to retain their seats, to go first into the new House, and the rejection will then be of the elected members. It will involve nearly half of these, and it is quite obvious that it places all honorable members of this Chamber in a very anomalous position to be called upon to vote on such a question as this. I may remark that it would have been much the wiser plan, and certainly much mure congenial to the feelings of the members of this House, had the Government thought fit to have passed these resolutions in the Legislative Assembly first, and then, if those who are more especially representatives of the people had chosen to pass this clause, we should have felt less hesitation. As it is, I feel it to be my duty to the constituency I represent to lift my voice against it. I have no right, without their consent, to vote away from them a right they may cherish, a franchise they may value, even though I should thereby vote myself in for life, which would be a betrayal of my trust. Even my hon. friend from Saugeen—so recently sent here as the representative of that division—must admit that a great many of his constituents would vote ” nay,” if they thought the scheme of Confederation was to be purchased at the sacrifice of their representative. (Hear, and a laugh.)

HON. MR. MACPHEISSOX—I believe a large majority of them would vote ” yea.” (Laughter.)

HON. MR. VIDAL—There is a difference of opinion between my honorable friend and myself on this point. (Hear, hear.) Honorable gentlemen, I have said I am favorable to the scheme of union—I say it sincerely and honestly—and notwithstanding the Honorable Commissioner of Crowu Lands may say ” It cannot be so; by supporting the amendment you are destroying the scheme,” I cannot see it so. My course, I think, is that which is most conducive to the success of the scheme. I consider myself one of its best and most faithful friends in seeking to have it more firmly based upon the approval of the people, at the cost of a trifling delay. A great deal has been said, as an introduction to this measure, that was unworthy of it. We have had long accounts of political and party difficulties, which have been spoken of as appertaining to it. These were too small matters to have led to this great constitutional change. I t was clearly seen by the people, as well as by Her Majesty’s representative, that these difficulties were not based upon what they were said to be by some of our politicians What does His Excellency say in a memorandum to the Executive Council, communicated to this House on the 30th of June last?—” During this period, (of the late successive governments since the election of 1861,) no question involving any

[Page 308]

great principle or calculated to prevent politicians, on public grounds, from acting in concert, has been raised in Parliament. The time had arrived when an appeal might, with propriety, be made to the patriotism of gentlemen on both sides of the House to throw aside”—what? Their party measures ? their political interests ? No—” their personal differences ! and to unite in one endeavor to advance the great interests of the country.” A little further on he again mentions ” the absence of public grounds for antagonism between them,” and intimates plainly that ” such a state of things was very prejudicial to the best interests of the province.” As I have already stated, the people were rapidly coming to the same conclusion, and this evil would soon have been removed by their action at the elections, without resorting to any change in the Constitution.— Such were His Excellency’s views, communicated to his Council in a memorandum, and I rejoiced to hear them enunciated by him. They are views which, if held also by the people, would have led to a thorough cure for the evils under which we labored, even without resorting to Confederation, for the people themselves were beginning to see that their political leaders were too much under the influence of bitter personal feelings ; prominence was no longer given to the constitutional difficulty of unequal representation ; it was dropped both by its friends and its opponents. Yet representation by population was a question of such political importance, that its satisfactory solution would justify the bringing about such a ehange as this. That was a sufficient motive to induce statesmen to join together and seek some way of escape from it. I think the scheme now submitted is perhaps the best that could have been found attainable, and I give its framers all credit for it. I am satisfied with nine-tenths or perhaps more than nine-tenths of the whole, and I am willing to take the other tenth, if really necessary, for the sake of the rest. I think the very name, and the prestige of our larger union will have a desirable influence upon our future prosperity. I t will infuse into us that feeling of national pride—those patriotic sentiments connected with our country, which it is worth much to possess. (Hear.) I think, also, that our credit in money matters will be improved by the union, and it is worth some sacrifice to accomplish such results. I believe, further, that when this scheme is completed it will have the effect of attracting emigration, and thus adding largely to our population. As we are, in our presented isolated condition, we either fail to attract emigrants or do not manage to retain them ; but if we were known as one great country, we should find homes for many of those able-bodied, enterprising and industrious men who constitute the great strength and wealth of a State. It would also, undoubtedly, promote our commerce and develope our trade and resources. It is well to weigh all these considerations; they may not promise advantages so great as some of the sanguine advocates of the measure predict, but they are well entitled to fair and honest consideration. (Hear.) As to Confederation cheapening our government, that idea, I think, is a fallacy ; and here is one of the causes which may lead to future dissatisfaction, if the eyes of the people are not opened to it until too late. The proper and the true way to act is to let the fact be known, that so far from Confederation being likely to lessen the expenses of government, it will be directly the reverse, and that to these must be added the cost of those defences which are to be constructed—of this Intercolonial road which is to be a necessary part of the scheme—of these other works on the canals, &c, we hear so much about. Confederation will, doubtless, be expensive ; then why not say so—why not say to the people, ” Hero are great advantages, but they will inevitably cost a large sum.” I for one am willing to take these advantages at that cost. I have-not analyzed the numerous figures set before us by my hon. friend nom Niagara, for profusion and confusion in matters of figures in a speech are very much the same to me. I will not pretend to follow him. But I have such confidence in the financial ability of those who watched over our interests, that I am unwilling to receive, except with great caution, those objections brought in figures against the measure. One honorable gentleman remarked that the hand of an overruling Providence might be observed as bringing about this scheme and reconciling so many conflicting influences. That is very true. I delight to recognize an overruling Providence influencing the lives of individuals and nations. I rejoice that the blessing of an over-ruling Providence on the deliberations of this House is daily asked, and I have faith to believe it will be granted to us. But I should have

[Page 309]

the same comfortable feeling if the question were referred to the people; so that as an argument in favor of our making an immediate decision does not amount to much, and it certainly does not impose on us the duty of hastily taking the whole scheme as it is. (Hear, hear.) I have endeavoured, hon. gentlemen, to show that I am guided by an honest, earnest desire to advance the interests of the country by the course I now propose to take in reference to this amendment, and I have endeavored to disabuse the minds of those who think that in supporting it I am acting in hostility to a scheme which I believe will be advantageous to the country, but the advantages of which I think cannot be secured without referring it to the people. I presume it is altogether likely—perhaps I may consider it a certainty—that this is to be the last time I shall appear as a representative in the Council of my country. I am anxious, short as my parliamentary career has been and is probably destined to be, that it should be unsullied by anything that can even have the appearance of selfishness. I am, therefore, unwilling to record a vote which might either have the effect of making me a member for life, or of helping to take away the privilege which my constituents at present enjoy, of having a representative in the Legislative Council. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. BUREAU—It is not my intention to take part in the debate on the amendment which is now engaging the attention of this Honorable House; but I really do not feel justified in passing over in silence the declaration which has just been made by the hon. member for Toronto (Hon. Mr. Ross.) That gentleman said, with perfect naiveté, that if the Ministry submitted a bill respecting the organization of the local governments, the course would be a bad one ; for, said he, difficulties would probably arise in relation to the matter, which might result in the resignation of several members of the present Cabinet. In those few words the hon. member for Toronto has furnished the best argument in favor of the delay for which we ask ; but such was not his intention. In a similar sense, some other hon. members have, in my opinion, exhibited a degree of force and logic which is truly remarkable. But can it be possible to make a request more essentially legitimate in its character than that of the hon. member for Niagara ? For my part, I do not think so. And indeed, what can be more reasonable than the wish to know, and to be in a position to form a sound, complete and satisfactory opinion, both for ourselves and for our constituents, respecting the scheme which is proposed to us? Has not this House a right to require the present Government, within a reasonable period, to lay before it, not only in a general way, but also and more especially in detail, the various aspects of the Constitution which it is wished to have voted with such strange and imprudent precipitation ? Let us remember that sometimes no difficulty whatever is raised to devoting an entire session to the consideration of a measure of secondaiy importance. Last year no attempt was made to pass a new Militia Bill at railroad speed, as it is now proposed to do with the measure for Confederation; on the contrary, all the time necessary to complete it and to examine it in all its aspects was devoted to its consideration. And yet, how immense the difference between these two measures, in regard to their importance and the solemn consequences which might result from them ! And further, it cannot be denied, the plan which it is sought to make us adopt is as yet but imperfectly known to the Canadian Legislature, and the people hardly know its outlines, not having yet had time to examine into it, so closely have our ministers invested it with mystery and secrecy. I consider that the hon. member for Toronto shewed rather too much zeal in the cause of his friends when he proceeded to make that declaration, which was heard by the House with wellmarked surprise. I am prepared to acknowledge that in so doing he has done us a very great service. I have no doubt whatever, in fact, that as we have been told by the hon. gentleman, the disclosing of the organization of the local governments during this phase of the discussion would, for the Administration of the day, be an act of imprudence, and one which, it is highly probable, would subject it to serious difficulties. I am also of opinion that one of the difficulties, of by no means the least importance, which is feared is that respecting the distribution or division of the part of the public debt which will have to be borne by the different provinces. Indeed it may, with very great reason, be asked whether it will be possible to come to an understanding on this point. With a degree of courage worthy of a better cause, the Ministry now comes to us and says : ” First vote the Address, and afterwards we will lay before you the scheme for the organisation

[Page 310]

of the local governments.” But let us note the contradiction in this on the part of the Government, and how illogical its conduct is. Let us for a moment suppose that this measure gives rise to difficulties in the Cabinet, during the discussion on the details of the scheme, of sufficient importance to entail the resignation of the Administration. What happens ? The Address having been voted by our Legislature, is sent to England, and whilst the Imperial Government is engaged in ratifying it and incorporating it in a bill, which is to become our Constitution, the present Ministry succumbs under the details of the scheme respecting the local governments. A new ministry succeeds them, an appeal to the people probably takes place in the interval, fcnd when the new Constitution comes to us from Great Britain, we have a Government and a Legislature ready to reject it before its promulgation. In view of such a prospect as this, ought we to be in a hurry to accede to the request of the Government and refuse the legitimate delay asked for by the motion now before this Honorable House? I have, then, considered that I ought not to pass over in silence the declaration of the hon. member for Toronto, for I am of opinion that it is of a nature to convince us that precipitation in so highly solemn a matter is most dangerous. The Constitution of a country should not be changed from base to summit until those who are appointed to watch over the public interests, and the very Constitution in qupstion, have had time to see and to ascertain, in a positive manner, that such a change is necessary and called for by the people. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. OLIVIER—Honorable gentlemen, in again rising to address the House, I beg to assure you that I do not propose to repeat the observations I have already nade on a previous occasion ; but being pressed for time, I was obliged to omit to refer to certain aspects of the scheme on which I proposed to offer a few remarks when the present motion should be before the House. I was aware that this motion would come up for discussion, as it appeared upon our Minutes of Proceedings. With these few preliminary observations I shall proceed, honorable gentlemen, to offer a few remarks on some few points in the scheme which I wos compelled to pass over in silence on the occasion of my first address on the plan of Confederation now submitted for our consideration. I must refer here, honorable gentlemen, toa wonderful incident of this afternoon’s sitting. A declaration, novel in every respect to each one of us, fell from the lips of the Honorable the Minister of Crown Lands, who has only had this one sole reason to offer us in explanation of, and excuse for, the precipitate haste with which his Government is endeavoring to obtain the adoption of the new Constitution :—” We are anxious to obtain the-vote of this House, to transmit it to New Brunswick and to the other Maritime Provinces which are to enter into the Confederation.” This, then, is the real reason of this incomprehensible and indecent haste, for 1 cannot believe that the reason given by the hon member who sits immedi- ately opposite to me (Sir N. F. BELLEAU) , in explanation of this haste, can be a serious one. It is difficult, indeed, not to consideras somewhat absurd the reason alleged by the Hon. Sir N. F. BELLEAU:—”The Ministry are anxious that this scheme should be adopted forthwith, because Lord PALMERSTON is already an old man, and might die at any moment.” I would rather accept the reason given by the Hon. Minister of Crown Lands than that of my honorable friend, because I cannot believe he was authorized to give it. Thus this House and the country now know the secret of this precipitate haste on the part of the Government, and I have no doubt they will bear it, in mind. But I will venture to enquire of the Honorable the Minister of Crown Lands, who has given us this very absurd reason, whether he hopes to deceive the people of the Lower Provinces by the vote which he desires to precipitate. I will ask him whether it is to be desired that this House should forthwith give a vote on this question, a vote which will undoubtedly have the effect of leading them into error as regards the feelings and opinions of the people of this country in relation to the project of Confederation. Well, honorable gentlemen, I do not for oue moment hesitate to declare to this House, that the fact alone of the anxiety of the Government to obtain forthwith a vote of this House on this important measure, is that which ought most of all to put us on our guard, and ought to cause us to determine not to give it lightly, and in a manner unworthy of prudent and wise legislators. Indeed, honcrable gentlemen, our vote will have a significance which it will be vain to seek to diminish.

[Page 311]

We constitute the highest branch of the Parliament of this country, and when the Lower Provinces hear that we have voted for this measure in the shape in which it has been laid before us, they will naturally and with reason believe that our vote has been given with a thorough knowledge of the matter, and that we fully indicate the popular feeling on this important question. They will never for a moment imagine that we have set at naught and ignored the opinions of those whom we represent in this House ; they will never believe that the country has been so little consulted in the matter as it in fact has been. I assert, therefore, honorable gentlemen, that the vote which it is sought to make us give to-day is calculated to deceive the people of the Lower Provinces, both as to the views of this Honorable House and as to the opinions of the vast majority of the people of this province, and that we cannot give it with satisfaction either to ourselves or to those whom we represent. I have already taken occasion to state before to-day, that the scheme of Confederation had not been submitted to us complete. I am prepared to prove this statement; I maintain that only one part of the scheme has been laid before us, and under these circumstances, I would ask this Honorable House, if it is prudent to accept and sanction that with which we are but imperfectly acquainted ? When I accepted from my constituents their nomination to the Legislative Council, I did so with the firm determination never to accept blindly the various measures which might be submitted for my approval in this House. This resolution I have adhered to hitherto, and I hope that I shall never forget it in the course of my public career. A few minutes ago I remarked, honorable gentlemen, that the plan of Confederation had not been submitted to us complete; I now propose to prove this assertion. By art. 6 of the 43rd resolution, we perceive that the local legislatures will have the power of making laws in relation to education, saving, however, the rights and privileges enjoyed by the Catholic and Protestant minorities in relation to their separate schools at the time of the union ; so that by this resolution we are to affirm that the minorities shall be bound by the school laws which will be in force at the moment when Confederation will take effect. On the other hand, we are told that a measure will be brought down for the better protection of the rights of the Protestant minority in Lower Canada, whilst at the same time we are not informed whether the same advantages will be accorded to the Catholic minority in Upper Canada. Thus these school laws form a portion of the scheme upon which we are called to vote, and if unfortunately, after we have adopted these resolutions we are unable to obtain justice for the Upper Canadian minority, shall we not be guilty of having voted for the scheme without having known all about it? We ought then to be on our guard. If, as it is pretended, the measure will not endanger the rights of the Catholic minority in Upper Canada, why are we refused the details and the information which we ask to have afforded to us before pronouncing on the msrits of the plan ? I maintain that any one who desires that justice should be extended to the minorities in question, would not know how to vote as we are called upon to do. In the absence of the information which we are entitled to demand from the Government as to the nature ot the guarantees to be offered by the new Constitution to the minorities of the two provinces of Canada, I do not for one instant hesitate to declare that this Honorable House is justified, and indeed fulfils a sacred duty in demanding the delay sought for by the motion of the hoa. member for Niagara. If it should so happen that the people are called upon to pronounce on the merits of the measure, it becomes of the utmost necessity that we, their representatives, should be able to explain and point out to them the details of the scheme. We have then every reason to insist that this information should be supplied to us. The Premier will now permit me to put to him a question. May it not happen, after the adoption of these resolutions, that the Protestant majority of Upper Canada may ally itself with the Protestant minority of Lower Canada in the present Parliament, and deprive the Catholic majority of Upper Canada of the rights which they are entitled to enjoy in relation to the education of their children ? Should such an event occur, I would ask the hon. Premier what means the aggrieved minority might be able to adopt in order to obtain justice ?

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I will inform you when the proper time comes.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—The hon. the Premier ought to give us the details of the measure on this subject. I do not mean to assert that I am opposed to every possible

[Page 312]

form of Confederation ; but what I can never consent to is to vote for a Confederation of which I know neither the exact nature nor the details. The article which I have already q uoted is one of those to which I desired more particularly to draw attention. I will now quote the 67th resolution. I find by this resolution ” that the General Government will fulfil all engagements entered into, previous to the union, with the Imperial Government, for the defence of the country.” Now strange to say, the authors of this document do not even take the trouble to state by whom such engagements must be made. No, they simply assert the obligation in the terms of the resolution I have just quoted. Suppose our Government had entered into an engagement to the extent of fifty millions of dollars, shall we—can we—affirm that the engagement was a necessary one, by voting for the measure without knowing the nature of the engagement ? Coming now to the 68th resolution, I find : ” The General Government will cause to be completed, without delay, the Intercolonial Railway, from Rivière du Loup, through New Brunswick, to Truro, in Nova Scotia.” Now, hon. gentlemen, I maintain that this is another portion of the plan with which we aro not acquainted. We do not know what is to be the cost of this railway thus described in the resolution I have just read. Here, again, we are kept in the most complete ignorance by the present Government. An honorable member of this House has declared, that though the Intercolonial Railway were to cost fifty millions of dollars, we should not hesitate to support a measure for carrying it out; for, even at that price—that exorbitant price—it would be for the interests of the country. Well, I ask you, would this House be acting in accordance with that spirit of wisdom and prudence which ought to characterize it, by voting blindly for such an enormous expenditure as that ? I do not believe it, and for my part, I do not hesitate an instant to say that I would refuse, I am well aware, it is true, that the construction of this gigantic railway cannot cost so large a sura ; but it is generally admitted, both in this House and out of it, that the work cannot be done for less than twenty millions. Moreover, does it not often happen that public works estimated to cost, say one million of dollars, are found to have cost, when finished, double and more than double that amount? This may happen with the Intercolonial Railway, which, it is perfectly clear, will cost more than is supposed ; and I repeat it, this House ought to hesitate before sanctioning such an enormous expenditure out of a public treasury already heavily charged, and which will scarcely be in a more flourishing position when the various British provinces of this continent are united under the Confederation. I am justified, then, in demanding that the details of the plan should be made known to us before we are called upon to sanction it. I have already stated that I do not pretend to be opposed to Federation of the provinces in every possible shape—that I might support a Confederation not of too onerous a character for this country—but it is obviously quite impossible for me to support a project of this kind, with which I am unacquainted, in its details and as a whole. It appears to me that the Ministry cannot complain if, under these circumstances, we vote against a project which we desired to know fully in order to form our opinions concerning it, and to ascertain that of the people we represent. I do not think it can be pretended that this House is not entitled to make so just and reasonable a request. As I have shown, hon. gentlemen, if we accept the resolutions presented to us, we endanger the rights of the minorities in both sections of the province ; we expose ourselves to the payment of enormous sums for the construction of a railway which may prove to be utterly useless for the defence of the country. It seems to me that, before undertaking such onerous charges, we ought to reflect deeply and to weigh well all possible chances of such serious eventualities. I am quite aware that certain hon. members of this House will never yield to the reasons I have advanced, nor shall I undertake to bring them round to my views, for I feel that all my efforts must be useless. The fact that we refuse to accept the measure proposed to us before we are acquainted with it, certainly does not imply, as it is stated and supposed, that we are opposed to every idea of Confederation. Another provision of the project which we cannot approve is that by which the constitution of the Legislative Council is based on the nominative principle, instead of the elective principle which now prevails, as regards that branch of the Legislature, under our own Government. I have already had occasion to express my opinion as to the constitutional

[Page 313]

changes undergone by our own Legislative Council, so that I need not recur to that subject. The Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands has asserted that we are justified in voting on the proposed reversal of the Constitution without an appeal to the people. I beg to differ from that opinion. I know the nature of a trust, whether civil or political; they both entail very much the same duties. Well, what is the charge entrusted to us by our constituents ? That of working out the present Constitution to the best of our understanding and of our judgment. Such is the power entrusted to us ; but never have our electors authorized us, as it is now proposed to do, to destroy the Constitution itself and to enter into apolitical alliance with the other British provinces of this continent. An instance of a similar constitutional subversion, without the authorization of the people, is net to be found in the pages of history. It has been stated in this House that the project of Confederation was known to a portion of the people, and that there was nothing to prevent its adoption being pressed. Here again, I beg to differ with the hon. members who express that opinion. I think that even though the project were, as stated, known by a portion of the people, that would not be a reason for precipitating its adoption, for the plan interests the whole country generally, and it is not sufficient that it should be acceptable to a certain portion of the inhabitants, but to the great mass of the people. Moreover, if the public meetings already held in Lower Canada serve to indicate the popular opinion relative to this question, in this section of the country at all events, it may fearlessly be said that the project has been condemned in fifteen counties. Will any one venture to pretend that Lower Canada is to be of no account in the Confederation, and that Upper Canada alone has a right to make its voice heard ; that only its approval or disapproval of the scheme can entail the adoption or rejection of that scheme ? Most assuredly, I do not believe that any one would ever venture to enunciate such a pretension. I know of but one single county in Lower Canada which authorized its representative to vote on the scheme in question as he should think fit. I therefore consider that I am justified in saying, that the reason which induces the Government to cause this measure to be adopted without submitting all its details, is that it fears to have those details known by the people, who no doubt would have no course left save to reject them. After having displayed Confederation clothed in the most brilliant colors, the Administration fears to allow the people to examine it in its true light, and as it is intended to thrust it upon them. I have already stated that throughout the whole of Lower Canada, but one county has been found which granted to its representative the privilege of voting on this question according to his own judgment. In all the remaining counties in which the people have been called together to pronounce upon it, the scheme of Confederation has been formally condemned.

HON. MR. GUEVREMONT—Several counties pronounced themselves in favor of the scheme; among others, the county of Vaudreuil.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I am not aware that the county of Vaudreuil voted in favor of Confederation. The honorable member for Richelieu had also mentioned the county of Richelieu as one of those which bad not rejected the scheme of Confederation.

HON. MR. GUEVREMONT—The meeting in question did not condemn Confederation. It merely declared itself in favor of certain resolutions which were submitted to it, which demanded that the people should be consulted as to the proposed constitutional changes.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—It is perfectly true that the county of Richelieu never condemned the details of the measure, and for a very simple reason : the Government had never allowed thcin to be known, and still persists at this present time in keeping the country in ignorance of them. But the honorable gentleman admits that the county of Richelieu directed its representative to demand an appeal to the people. To say that Lower Canada is favorable to the scheme of Confederation, is to make an assertion to which the public meetings which have been held within the last month or two give the lie in the most formal manner. I know what to think of the expression of public opinion in the district of Montreal; as to the district of Quebec, perhaps the honorable gentlemen who represent the several divisions comprised in it will be good enough to tell me whether or not there have been any meetings in favor of Confederation ? Until I am shewn that, the project has been approved there, I shall venture to believe that in the district of Quebec, us in the district of Montreal, public opinion has not approved

[Page 314]

of the proposed Confederation. I do not wish to assert that the country at large is averse to any idea of Confederation, but I maintain that it cannot be in favor of a scheme with the details of which it is unacquainted, and of the entirety of which it is ignorant. The most effectual means of providing for the defence of a country is to make the people attached to the Constitution of the country ; to attempt to force a constitution upon them is, in plain language, to impel them towards anarchy. Ah ! we are already surrounded by dangers enough to abstain from aggravating our position. Let us conduct ourselves so that the people may be attached to their constitution, and then we may rest assured that they will be ready to defend it when it is threatened. Undoubtedly, it is not by aeting as we are now doing that we shall attain that result. The reason assigned by the Honorable Commissioner of Crown Lands for urging on this measure does not appear to me to be sufficient. We are not here to please the Maritime Provinces or to legislate in their interests, but we are here to preserve the rights of our fellow-citizens. We did not come here with a predetermined resolution to throw impediments in the way of any plan of union. We are all interested in the prosperity and greatness of our country. The last time I had the honor to address this Honorable House, I stated that with respect to the questions which possessed the highest interest for Lower Canada, the proposed Confederation would be a legislative union, that is to say, that we should be at the mercy of Upper Canada and the Maritime Provinces. I expressed that opinion in good faith, and if I was incorrect in my conjectures, I hope that the members of the Government will be good enough to enlighten me on the subject, and point out my error. Such was not done at the time, for I cannot accept as a satisfactory reply the few explanations given on the subject by the honorable member who sits opposite to me. I say that the Federal Government will have power to declare that religious corporations, for instance, shall not be allowed to hold real estate of more than a certain value—more than is required for the immediate necessities of their establishments. It will also have power to enact that there shall be no connection between Church and State. I say that the powers of the Federal Government will be so great that Lower Canada will be a cypher in the affairs which most concern her.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—Yes ! yes ! of course.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I am glad that the honorable and gallant Knight confesses so much.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—The hon. member must surely understand my meaning in saying “yes.” He must be aware that I mean it in irony.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I f the honorable and gallant Knight says it in irony, I for my part can only tell him that I regret to see, when I ask questions in sober earnest concerning the affairs of the country, when I ask for information on so important a matter, I can get no answer but an ironical one. I ask for information, because I confess, for my part, that I may b’e mistaken in my opinions on this matter. My opinions are not infallible any more than those of the members of the Quebec Conference—any more than those of the Lower Canadian members of the Ministry ; and it is for that very reason that I seek information which may serve to enlighten me and enable me to form a correct judgment on the question. Have those who devised this scheme the presumption to think that they are not liable to mistake ? When I ask for the details of the scheme in the name of my constituents, I am answered ironically. But I know what such answers are worth. I know that some persons have recourse to irony when they have no serious answer to make, when they have no solid reasons to give. I know what discussion is ; and, if I have not often mixed in the debates of this Honorable House, I have argued at the bar, and I am perfectly aware that those who have no valid reasons to oppose to the pleas of their adversaries, endeavor to shift their ground and blink theissue, by calling attention to some minor point and calling in the aid of irony. If I am denied the explanations which I claim in this place, how can I answer the questions which my constituents have a right to ask me ? But I must now address myself to the consideration of the appointment of members by mandamus which is to be introduced into the new Constitution of the Federal Legislative Council. When I heard the honorable and gallant Knight tell the history of the last moments of the Legislative Council sitting under that authority, I took it as the strongest sentence of condemnation of the present scheme. He told us, in effect, that those members who had been appointed for life were honorable men, who by their position

[Page 315]

and their integrity were rightly entitled to carry their heads erect ; whereas, when they passed along the streets, it was with heads drooping. Why is this ?

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I did not say that they hung their heads as they walked the streets. I said they were honorable men who had a right to carry their heads high wherever they went, but that they were averse to coming here to sit in the Council on account of the prejudices of public opinion which had been misguided.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—The unanimous opinion of a country is not so misguided, and the opinion of the country was unanimous in condemning the system of nomination to the Council by the Crown. In order to produce as great unanimity of public opinion as prevailed in regard to that system, the cause which leads to it must be slow and deep-seated—the grounds of dissatisfaction must be real. Both Lower and Upper Canada must have suffered long under that system, to condemn it as they both did ; and I regret deeply to hear from the honorable and gallant Knight that he is willing to return to it. I t may be that as men advance in years they may change their views and opinions; but it seems to me that they ought not to change them in so short a space of time as the honorable-and gallant Knight has changed his in regard to the Constitution of the Legislative Council. I t is not so very long since the document which has been read this evening was signed. I say, then, that the history told us by the honorable and gallant Knight is the condemnation of the system now sought to be introduced. After what the honorable and gallant Knight has said about the councillors appointed by the Crown, with what grace can the new councillors come here to take their seats ? Will not the prejudice against them be stronger than ever ? inasmuch as it will be said that those who have voted for the scheme now before us have done it to keep their seats as long as they live. What respect can the people feel for such a House ?

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—We know that you will not barter the rights of the people for a mess of pottage.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—Nor for a dish of gold either. I ask whether the Government of the honorable and gallant Knight have ever found me among those who ask their favors ?

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I did not accuse you of it.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—No, but you insinuate as much.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I t ia you who say that the seats for life are a bait for councillors.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I see the meaning of the honorable and gallant Knight, and when I am told ironically that I would not barter the rights of the people for a mess of pottage, I have a right to say that I would not sell them even for a dish of gold ; for so far, thank God ! no government have ever reckoned me among those who ask their favors. I live by my labor, and want nothing from the Government. I took notice of an expression made use of by the honorable and gallant Knight in speaking of the last moments of the Legislative Council appointed by the Crown. He told us that to restore the credit of the Legislative Council it had been found necessary to make it elective ; but this was not the sole inducement for the change; there was another motive quite as reasonable for making the Council elective, and this motive was that in causing the Councillors to be elected, they would be taken from among all parties in the country, and would, therefore, represent the public opinion of the different parties in it. There wis a time, under the old order of things, when the opinions of two or three men residing in the cities of Quebec and Montreal formed the public opinion of all Lower Canada. This had a bad effect, for the public opinions of the different parties in the country ought to be represented in this House as well as in the other. It was for the purpose of attaining this end that the country was broken up into divisions, that it was required that the councillors elected should be residents in the divisions, or should be the owners of real estate within their limits of the value of £2,000 ; but under the system of Crown nominations to seats in this House, the choice might fall, as it formerly did, on persons residing in the large cities ; it would not be difficult for them to acquire £1,000 worth of real estate in the divisions, and the country would not be equally represented in this House. Another reason why the elective system is preferable to that of nominations by the Crown, is that on every fresh election the newly elected member represents the opinions of the people then prevailing, whereas councillors appointed for life may sometimes represent public opinion as it existed twenty

[Page 316]

years before The progress of the country requires that from time to time men should enter this House as representatives of the opinions of the day.

HON. MR. ARMSTRONG moved that the House do now adjourn.—Contents, 21 ; Non-Contents, 29.

HON. MR. OLIVIER—I shall now endeavor to answer an objection made by the Hon. the Commissioner of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL) to the motion of the honorable member for Niagara (Hon. Mr. CURRIE). He would make it appear that the motion is inconsistent with the position taken by the honorable member who seconded the motion, because he declared himself as favorable to Confederation. For my part, I can see no inconsistency in the proceeding of the honorable member, who merely asks that time be allowed that the people may give their opinions on the question. He does not care in what manner it is allowed. If the Government do allow time for the purpose, it will rest with them to say whether the question shall be submitted to the people by means of a general election, or some other way. The amendment of the honorable member for Niagara does not suggest any particular way of submitting the question to the country. He only asks that it be so submitted, leaving to the Government to choose the most convenient method of doing it. And this is exactly the position which I have myself taken. I have told honorable members who seemed to believe me altogether opposed to Confederation, that it is not the case, that I only want time to ascertain whether the people are in favor of the scheme or not. Only if the project is submitted to the people, it is desirable that it be presented to them in all its details, and not in the skeleton shape in which it is now laid before us. I have no intention to weary the attention of the House, but I thought it right to express my views and say why I intend to vote in favor of the motion of the honorable member for Niagara. (Hear, hear.)

The amendment moved by the Hon. Mr. CURRIE was then put to the vote, and lost on the following division :—

CONTENTS.—The Honorable Messieurs Aikins, Archambault, Armstrong, Chaffers, Currie, Dickson, A. J. Duchesnay, E. H. J.Duchesnay, Flint, Leonard, Malhiot, Olivier, Perry, Proulx, Read, Reesor, Seymour, Simpson, and Vidal.—19.

NON-CONTENTS.—The Honorable Messieurs Alexander, Armand, Sir N. F. Belleau, Bennett, Blake, Boulton, Bull, Burnham, Campbell, Christie, Crawford, De Beaujeu, Dumouchel, Foster, Gingras, Guévremont, Hamilton (Inkerman), Hamilton (Kingston), Lacoste, McCrea, McDonald, McMaster, Macpherson, Matheson, Mills, Panet, Ross, Shaw, Skead, Sir E. P. Taché, and Wilson.—31.

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

MONDAY, February 20, 1865.

HON. MR. AIKINS said — Hon. gentlemen, when I last had the honor of addressing the House, it will be remembered by thosehon. gentlemen who were present that I spoke very strongly in relation to the changes contemplated by these resolutions in reference to this Chamber. Since then, although I have listened very attentively to the speeches of honorable gentlemen, I have heard no good reason to convince me that the elective principle as regards this honorable House should be abolished. It has been asserted by those who are strong advocates of Confederation, that if any amendment is passed affecting the general principles of the resolutions,it will be considered a defeat ; that the scheme will have to be considered again, and that negotiations with the Maritime Provinces will have to be resumed in order to meet the altered view of the case Had the amendment of the hon. member for Wellington (Hon. Mr. SANBORN) been carried, this might have been the case ; but as the motion which I amabout to move applies only to the Canadas, that would not be so. It will be remembered that that amendment affirmed not only the elective principle for all the provinces, but that the life members who are now sitting in this House should continue to hold their seats. It went further and declared that a number to correspond with the life members should be admitted to the Chamber from the Maritime Provinces. In referring to the voto which was taken on this amendment, I find that in the 41 votes cast against it, 11 of the life members of the House voted against, while only three voted for it ; thus they, by a large majority vote, negatived the principles therein affirmed. I refer to this particularly, for this reason, that the ground may be taken by the life members in this Chamber that my amendment is specially directed against, and if carried, would be applicable to these hon. gentle-

[Page 317]

men. The vote they have already given on the resolution referred to is my vindication, and they, in affirming the general principles of the Confederation resolutions, will vote for that which may deprive them of their seats.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Hear, hear.

HON. MR. AIKINS—The hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands cries ” Hear, hear !” But, after the life members of the House have affirmed by their votes that they do not desire that the elective principle should obtain, I do not think they can find fault with me, an elective member, for affirming that it should prevail. And it does appear to me, hon. gentlemen, that this House, if constituted as foreshadowed by these resolutions, would be one of the most independent and irresponsible bodies that could possibly be created, the Crown possessing no power whatever over it. There is no power of dissolution; the Crown has no power to add to the number ; and whatever difficulties might possibly occur under the elective system, when the opportunity is afforded to the people of correcting those difficulties, it will be found that these difficulties will be largely increased under the proposed system. I t has been stated by some hon. members that a deadlock might occur. That was the impression which prevailed when the elective principle was introduced ; but few have thought proper to use such an argument during the present debate, because it has not been proved by the result. But if it were possible for a dead-lock to occur under the elective system, it is far more probable under the system proposed in the resolutions. If a feeling had been manifestad by this Chamber since the elective principle was introduced—if we had attempted in any one respect to usurp the exclusive privileges of the Legislative Assembly—it might then with truth be affirmed that the introduction of the elective principle in this Chamber was a dangerous one. But such has not been the case. I think that the elsctive principle has worked well, and that so far as the danger of a conflict is concerned, it is as far removed under the present system as under the nominative system. Holding these views, I have thought it proper to place my amendment before the House, and I trust that the question will be discussed fairly on its merits. I beg now to move, seconded by Hon. Mr. BUREAU,—

To resolve, in amendment to the resolutions of the Hon. Sir E.P. TACHE,—That the Legislative Councillors representing Upper and Lower Canada in the Legislative Council of the General Legislature, shall he elected as at present, to represent the forty-eight electoral divisions mentioned in schedule A of chapter first of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, and each such Councillor shall reside or possess the qualification in the division he 13 elected to represent.

The ground may be taken by many hon. gentlemen who are strongly in favor of this scheme, that there is much more symmetry in the scheme presented by the resolutions, and which this motion, if carried, would mar. But really there is very-little harmony in them. Under them the appointed councillors will, in Lower Canada, be required to reside in certain divisions or to hold their property there. In Upper Canada the same property qualification applies, but as to residence there is no restriction ; whilst in one of the Maritime Provinces (Prince Edward) qualification is based on personal property only. Hence there is in reality very little symmetry about the scheme. (Hear hear.)

HON. SIR N.F. BELLEAU raised the point of order that the amendment had in substance been already disposed of by the vote on the amendment of Hon. Mr. SANBORN.

THE HON. THE SPEAKER—The question of order raised by the hon. gentleman is whether the amendment now proposed is not substantially the same as the one voted on by the House and brought forward by the Hon. Mr. SANBORN, and if it is, whether it is in order? Before giving my decision, I wish that the mover of the amendment should himself explain the difference between his motion and that already decided by the House, if he thinks proper to do so.

HON. MR. AIKINS—I contend that it is not the same, in effect, as the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Wellington. It is true that the elective principle is affirmed in both ; but then the motion of the Hon. Mr. SANBORN went further and applied the elective principle to the Maritime Provinces, and was favorable to the retention of the life members, and it also extended the life principle to the Maritime Provinces, and contemplated the addition of ten life members to this Chamber from those provinces. My motion simply affirms the elective principle so far as Canada is concerned, and between the two I think there is a material difference.

HON. MR. ROSS—There is no doubt that the motion of the honorable member for

[Page 318]

Wellington embraced all that this contains, and a great deal more. So that if in the motion that was disposed of the other day, there was embraced what this motion contains, the present motion is out of order, containing as it does a principle which has already been pronounced upon by this House.

THE HON. THE SPEAKER—There may be some difficulty in deciding on a matter of this kind, because the two motions, although not exactly identical, are very nearly so in one particular. The argument that the motion of Hon. Mr. SANBORN contained more than is embraced in this motion does not apply. The question is, does this affirm what was contained in the motion already voted upon ? That in deciding on this particular matter, we have decided on other things connected with it, does not affect the position. Rules on questions of this kind have been made to prevent Parliament deciding one day contrary to another, and to avoid also surprises, by questions being introduced a second time in the absence of members who may have previously voted on them. Were this motion to carry, it would affirm a principle which was negatived when the motion ot the Hon. Mr. SANBORN was before the House. It is not necessary that the two motions should be exactly the same ; it is sufficient if they are substantially alike. I will quote a few words on this point from MAY :—

It is a rule in both Houses not to permit any question or bill to be offered which is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been pronounced during the same session. This is necessary to avoid different decisions being given, and to prevent surprises by a question being resolved first in the affirmative and next in the negative.

Should we pass this motion now before the House, wo should be doing what MAY says the rule of Parliament has been framed to avoid, for it would be affirming a principle on one day, and in another day the contrary. I am bound to say that in my opinion the resolution is substantially contained in the resolution already decided upon, and that therefore it is out of order. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. AIKINS—I must confess that 1 would like to have had the opinion of the House on the motion ; but I am quite willing to abide by the decision of the Speaker. (Hear, hear.)

THE HON. THE SPEAKER—That the decision I have given may be well understood— to remove all apprehension on the score of a motion once negatived not being supposed to be finally disposed of, I may say that we find this in the rules of the Imperial Parliament : ” A question once carried or negatived cannot be brought forward again.”

HON. MR. FLINT said—Honorable gentlemen, I deeply regret that the amendment of my honorable friend could not have been placed before the House, in order to a more direct vote being elicited on the principle therein contained, that of the application of the elective principle to this House. It is true that the honorable member for Wellington embodied the same principle in the resolution which he brought before the House, and which was negatived. I confess I hardly expected, when 1 saw this amendment on the notice paper, that it would be allowed to be proceeded with. Still I was in hopes that the House would have borne with the honorable gentleman, and would have allowed his motion to be placed on the Journals of the House. Having been sent here by a constituency which embraces about 75,000 souls, upon the elective principle, I feel that I should but ill discharge my duty to that constituency, without having received from them their direct and positive instructions to the contrary, were I to stand up on the floor of this House and advocate the taking away from them of the privilege of the elective franchise which has been conceded to them by Parliament. If this principle had not been granted, the position would be altogether changed ; but having once granted to a people the right of saying whom they will have to represent them in this Chamber, they ought also to be asked, before we are called upon to vote, whether they desire to give back the privilege into the hands of the Government. I would not for a moment think of placing them in so false a position. I cannot, therefore, look with favor upon that portion of the resolutions which goes to take away from the people the right to nominate and select members to this Honorable House. So much has been said on this subject that it would be hardly worth while for me to consume the time of the House in going over the ground which so many others have gone over already. I have not heard, however, in all the speeches which have been made in advocacy of this measure, anything to cause me to swerve for a moment from the views I have always entertained after reading this portion of the resolutions. I may say that when I was

[Page 319]

elected, it is true that Federation was before the country, but it was before the country in a very different shape from what it is at the present time. After the Government of the day was defeated last session, and after arrangements had been entered into, it was understood by these arrangements that we were to have Federation of the two Canadas. That was all that was placed before us. In issuing my short address, I stated I was in favor of Federation. I am so still—(hear)—but while in favor of Confederation of all the provinces, I desire it should be carried out in such a way that it will conduce to the best interests of all concerned. I wish that no advantage may be taken by any one of the provinces over the others. When I came before my constituents for election, as hon. gentlemen may be aware, I had no opposition —I was elected by acclamation. All I could say to the people on the measure was simply this, that I approved of the scheme marked out by the Government when the new administration was formed, but I knew nothing as to what had subsequently taken place. I told them that I was in favor of change— that I was in favor of a Federation of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, in order that we might live together in peace, as I was satisfied, from what we had witnessed as transpiring for many years, that it was impossible to live longer together—that it was better to separate, and in separating we would probably be better friends. I also stated that the time must come when the Confederation of all the provinces would take place, and that if Confederation was formed upon a just basis, it would no doubt be the means of a vast amount of good to our common country. (Hear, hear.) The first knowledge I had of Confederation was, as a matter of course, when the delegates met and passed the resolutions which are now before us with a slight alteration or two of no moment. When these resolutions were printed by the Government I received one from the Honorable the Provincial Secretary, marked ” Private,” and I also at the same time received a note from that honorable gentleman, stating that these resolutions were not then intended for the eye of the public. The consequence was, I felt that I could not read these resolutions, and meet my constituents and tell them that I knew nothing in reference to Confederation. Thus feeling my hands tied, I placed the resolutions in my desk, and left them there; and never did I examine them to ascertain what honorable gentlemen had done until I took my seat on the floor of the House. I could not feel free to place myself in a pesition before my constituents, and on being asked from time to time what were the prospects of Confederation and what were its details, give a truthful reply with the restrictions placed upon me, were I to have read the resolutions ; and therefore I did not read the resolutions, so that I might honestly say I knew nothing about them. I feel, honorable gentlemen, that it would be impossible for me, under existing circumstances, to vote away that right which has been granted by the Constitution of our country to those who now have the privilege conferred upon them of exercising the elective franchise so far as regards this Chamber. I feel that I should do a great wrong and perpetrate a great injury to the electors who sent me here, were I to vote for that portion of the scheme which contemplates the taking away of their franchise altogether. I have no objection, as a matter of course, to the life members, if they so desire it, voting away their rights, or of placing their seats in the hands of the Government to be dealt with as they please ; and so far as I am individually concerned, I would have no objection to sacrifice my seat in the House for the good of the country and of my constituents. They have sent me here, not because I was anxious to be placed in this position, however honorable it may be, but because I was their choice. And I must say that it was one of the proudest and happiest days of my life when I found, after having battled politically for so many years on the side of reform, that I could go into a constituency embracing 75,000 souls, of all descriptions and shades of politics, and that I had so far given satisfaction that not a man was to be found who raised his voice against my re-election. (Hear, hear.) I have gained, I may say, all that I desire in the way of earthly honor ; but I feel, like many other honorable gentlemen, that in being placed in this high and honorable position, it is my duty to act faithfully towards those who sent me here; and I feel I should do wrong if, on an occasion like this, I should give my vote for placing that portion of Upper Canada which I am sent to represent in a worse position than they occupied before. Having made these few remarks

[Page 320]

with reference to the elective principle, I desire now to speak about one or two other things in connection with these resolutions. And one thing in particular, I find, has not been spoken of by any member on the floor of this House. I refer now to the sixth clause, with reference to education. Now, hon, gentlemen, it strikes me it was decidedly wrong on the part of the delegates to place anything in reference to the education of the people of Upper and Lower Canada in this scheme. I will give my reasons for it, and I think those reasons are good. I think it should be left fully and entirely to the people of Upper and Lower Canada to decide what is best with reference to this matter. We see already that both in Upper and Lower Canada both parties are actively engaged endeavoring to press upon the attention of both Houses of Parliament the necessity of granting them greater privileges than they already enjoy. They seem to be determined to have nothing less for their Catholic education than a full staff of officers, together with model and normal schools, and all the paraphernalia which attach to the present common school system. That which in Upper Canada was regarded as a finality in school matters is now scouted at, and the advocates of separate schools go so far as to insist upon having a college ; and the object is no doubt to place themselves in a position to be wholly independent of the proposed local government of Upper Canada. So far as I am individually concerned in reference to schools, I would far rather that the school system was worked out in both provinces on the principle of the common schools. I see no reason why in any neighborhood a portion of the children should be sent to one description of school, and a portion of the children sent to another description of school. I believe it is wrong in principle, and that the children of our common country should grow up together and be educated together, in our public schools there should be nothing taught which would have the effect of preventing any person from sending their children to them. These are my views in reference to schools. I believe that the effect of giving exclusive rights and privileges to certain parties has had a tendency to weaken the good feeling which should subsist between all classes of the community, and which is now seen in the demand from both sections for different systems of education. (Hear, hear.) The next thing to which I desire to call the attention of the House is that of the Intercolonial Railway. I am opposed, in toto to that great road. I am opposed to it for the best of all reasons. In the first place, I am not satisfied with it, because I do not know what it is going to cost. There is nothing in these resolutions to indicate what is to be the expense ; nor have I been able to discover from what has taken place on the floor of the House, any data on the subject. Consequently, I do not feel that it would be my duty to vote for a measure which is going to entail upon Upper Canada a large amount of debt, without first knowing what that debt is to be. So far from this being regarded as a commercial undertaking, I cannot for the life of me see how it is possible that it can be worked commercially. The hon. member from Montreal (Hon. Mr. FERRIER) , who spoke in his place the other evening, never touched upou this subject. All he told us in reference to this great scheme was simply this : that there were 100 odd cars lying at Montreal laden with produce, and that they could not go forward because on the other side of the lines they had so much to do that they could not send the cars through. But this was no argument at all in favor of the Intercolonial Railway. But supposing the road were built, do hon. gentlemen believe for a moment that it would pay running expenses ? There is no doubt in my mind that to keep it open a subsidy would be required, like that which is paid to the ocean steamers. It was stated the other day by the hon. member from Montreal that two cents per ton per mile was a very small rate for railway carriage. But taking it at that figure, what do we find ? From Toronto to the seaboard, over the Intercolonial Railway, the distance may be estimated at 939 miles, and to send a barrel of flour that distance by railway, at a cost of two cents per mile per ton, the charges on the flour would be not less than $2.08. But supposing one-half this tariff were charged—one cent per ton per mile—and we are told that at such a rate the road would be run at a loss, the cost would be $1.04; aud by the time the barrel of flour was laid down in Liverpool, there would be charges on it for carriage of eight or ten cents per each bushel of wheat over what was formerly paid. These figures are based on the authority of hon. gentlemen opposite. “Oh! but , ” say they, ” the farmer gets the benefit of his money during the winter.” I do not see that this is any argument at all in a commercial point of

[Page 321]

view. We have the advantage of getting the money in the winter, it is true, but how do we get it ? By losing a large ymount. For my part, I do not believe in getting only 3s. 9d. for a dollar’s worth of produce. (Hear, hear.) And I am satisfied that when our farmers get to understand the question, they never will consent to be taxed for the construction of any such road. Taking the cost of transportation at two cents per ton per mile, and the distance from Halifax to Belleville at 831 miles, we find it would cost $16.62 to transporta ton of goods between the two places. And at such figure s, does any honorable gentleman who has the slightest knowledge of commercial transactions believe for a moment that merchandise could be sent over the road at any such rates ? Supposing you reduce the rate one cent, it would still cost $8.31, which would pre clude the possibility of carrying freight over the road; so that, in a commercial point of view, the road would be perfectly useless. It is true that under our present system of banking, our bankers endeavor to enforce on the purchasers of produce the necessity of immediate shipments and immediate sales, and with that view cause them to draw for their accommodation at short dates; but it is also true that by such a practice the iarnier is in every instance the loser. The reason oí this custom is that the banks want quicker returns. But I contend that ihe banks should be prepared to advance money at such dates as will enable the producer to so sell his produce as to get from it a remunerative return for his labor. But this it not done. It seems that the tendency of everything is to force freight down the railways during the winter season, and to this end n oney is advanced at short dates, the farmer being the chief loser by the transaction. Then the Intercolonial Railway is advocated as a military necessity. It is said that it is essential for the defence of the country, to enable the transportation of troops and military stores. I think, hon. gentlemen, we have only to look across the lines and see what has taken place during the war in the State of Virginia and in other states, to convince us at once that for the purpose of moving troops and heavy supplies, such as artillery and ammunition, these roads are of very little use. You will find that they have been cut in almost every direction, and the facilities they were supposed to possets for transportation have been proved to be well nigh worthless for any practical purpose,—and that, too, in a country where they are able in a short time to rebuild any portions of the roads which may be destroyed. But how would it be on the Intercolonial Railway ? That road is intended to run through a country near the boundary of the State of Maine, over which troops could be distributed at given points so as, iu case of necessity, to break up the Intercolonial Railway in every direction and to prevent the transportation of troops and munitions of war during the winter.

AN HON. MEMBER—They would be unable to reach it so as to cut it.

HON. MR. FLINT—Ihat is a very curious idea: ” They cannot reach it !” I look upon the Americans as a class of persons who can cut their way wherever they wish to go. Nothing would be easier than for them to cut the Intercolonial Railway. But if it were really the case that the country to be traversed by the Intercolonial Railway is of such a nature that no one could get through to it, the sooner we cease saying anything further about it the better. (Hear.) For if the country is in such a state that it is impossible for men to travel through it, I see no benefit in having such a railway. (Hear, hear.) These are my views in reference to the railway. In thá first place I do not feel inclined to pay the large sum of money it is going to cost, without knowing how much will be required. There is no knowing how much it will cost Upper Canada for her proportion— whether it is to be $12,000.000, $15,000,000, or $20,000,000. But taking into consideration the amount of debt we will have to assume, together with our apportionment of the $62,500,000 assigned to Upper and Lower Canada, as also that portion yet unprmded for by the resolutions; I think that by the time the Intercolonial Railway is built, Upper Canada will be saddled with at least $50,000,000 as her shaie of debt. I do not see how it is possible for the people to bear up under such a weight ; nor do I believe that, if they understood this matter as they ought to understand it, they would give their consent to us to vote or it. I t may be thought, perhaps, that I am not in favor of Confederation. But such is not the case I would much desire the Federation of all the provinces ; but while I would desire the Federation of all the provinces, I do desire that that Federation should be based on true and proper principles—- hat every portion of these provinces of Her Majesty’s dominion should share and

[Page 322]

share alike. I do not believe in one portion of the provinces being placed in a position of inferiority to the others. I believe Upper Canada should have its just rights—I believe Lower Canada should have its just rights—and I believe that the other provinces should have their just rights. We should come together not with a feeling of distrust, but with a feeling of mutual good will, ready to take each other by the hand and to press forward to what I would hope might prove an honorable destiny. (Hear, hear.) I am well satisfied that the more this question is discussed—notwithstanding the remarks of some hon. gentlemen to the contrary—the more the question is discussed and ventilated, the gieater will be the dissatisfaction of the people with it. I have received but one letter from my constituents on the point, and the simple reference of that writer is this : ” Do not you vote for the Intercolonial Railway.” He says, ” I should like Federation ; but do not vote for the Intercolonial Railway.” But, hon. gentlemen, whether I had received such an admonition or not, I could not see my way clear to vote for the resolutions as they now stand. I have paid all possible attention to the speeches which have been delivered in this chamber. I have listened with every degree of respectful attention to the hon. and gallant Knight who leads the Government, and also to his hon. colleague the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and I should be happy if it were in my power to go with them in the vote which is about to be cast ; but I do not see how that is possible, it I am at the same time to discharge my duty to my constituents, to myself, and to my country. I can never consent to vote away the rights which belong to the people, without first asking the people for their consent. If the time is given them necessary to make up their minds on this subject, and fhey then say to this House : ” We are willing to try this scheme—we are willing to take it with all its defects, in the hope that it will be found to work well,” I will give my vote for it as it now ttands. But, in the absence of this opportunity being afforded, I must say that if I am in the House when the vote is called on this measure, I shall have to record my name against it, and in so doing I shall be acting conscientiously. I shall do so because I think it a duty incun bent on me, however painful it may be for me to vote contrary to the views of the Government in this respect, and contrary to a large majority of this House. And while I would concede to every hon. gentleman who may differ from me the same freedom of judgment that I claim for myself—while I would look with all charity on the course thought proper to be taken by my fellow members, I feel persuaded that they will not begrudge me the right of discharging my duty in accordance with the dictates of my conscience, and what I believe to be for the good of my constituents. And if my constituents do not agree with me in what I am about todo, they have only to say, ” Mr. FLINT, your conduct does not accord with our views; we desire that you should retire from public life;” and I shall be most happy to conform to their wishes. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. DE BEAUJEU said—Honorable gentlemen, I think it an act of patriotism to support the resolutions submitted to us, having for their object the Confederation of several provinces, so as to bring them into a group, with the view of forming a nationality. This project will not surprise any one, when he recollects that this immense territory is occupied by the descendants of the two first powers of the world, and that the greatest portion of them are of Norman and Breton blood. They will also remember that the Normans were the most adventurous pioneers, fit for all hazardous colonizations, and daring navigators. After having established their dominion over the British Islands, and over a part of France, Naples, Sicily, even in Jerusalem, Antioch, and near Constantinople, they crossed the ocean and established themselves on the Canary Islands, and afterwards came close on the borders of the Saint Lawrence and the Mississippi—a voyage that their ancestors had commenced in the environs of Novgorod, and where a nucleus of their race is yet to be found. The French Canadian countrymen of this Honorable House ought more than others to be proud of the scheme, and it ought to bring to their memory that France had once this object in view, but even on a larger scale (having then a territory of 1,800 leagues), and of making on this continent a second to herself by calling it La Nouvelle France. She was then seconded in this great undertaking by her best military and civil administrators. Among the foremost was the Count DE FRONTENAC, and the Marquis of DENONVILLE, and LA GALISSONNIÈRE, and also the celebrated Intendant TALON. The French Government was then laboring under the same difficulty of seeking for an open sea-port in winter, so as to avoid being shut up by the ice during five months

[Page 323]

of the year, having their powerful neighbors, as we have now, to contend with. The Chevalier D’IBERVILLE, one of the brave sons of Montreal, the equal, as it is admitted by the best navy historians, of the celebrated JEAN BART, after having made, in 1695, two glorious expeditions to the Hudson Bay, Newfoundland, and to some of the other present Maritime Provinces, wrote a Mémoire, in 1701, on the situation of Boston and New York and other coasts of the then British colonies, pointing out the necessity of possessing a seaport during winter. Well, honorable gentlemen, this now may be effected without shedding of blood or money, only by securing the Confederation as agreed at the Convention by the most distinguished parties contractantes of these British Provinces, in extending the present railroad from Rivière du Loup to the Maritime Provinces, so as to connect in winter the most remote parts of Western Canada to the sea. The advantages to be derived from the annexation of these Maritime Provinces have been most ably developed at the beginning of this debate by the brilliant speech and sound logic of the gallant Premier, and also by other able speeches in support of those resolutions. I will, nevertheless, add that the Province of Canada will also derive the immense advantage of beginning the nucleus of our future military being, particularly if you get the great assistance of the Imperial Government that we are entitled to. Let us all recollect that France commenced her Canadian being by sending divers companies of troops by rotation to the present Maritime Provinces, and also to Louisiana. Those companies were commanded by officers who held the rank ofcapitaines des détachements de la marine, equal in rank to a lieutenant-colonel in the army. Those companies were in the habit of being trained for navy purposes. I entertain no doubt that the frequent intercourse with those Maritime Provinces, coupled with the navy ship school that the Imperial Government, as I understand, has the intention of establishing at Quebec, similar to those in England and France,will promote this object ; and especially if England open the door of her academies of Woolwich and Sandhurst to our youths, as France was in the habit of doing when possessed of these colonies—in admitting, as cadets de marine, at Brest and Rochefort, the sons of those colonists who, as military and civilian administrators, had deserved such a reward—and, by so doing, they formed a good colonial navy, and it was from it sprang up those able and bravo officers—the glory of the past history of the French Canadians ; and the honor that they had so acquired reflected also over Old France. Amongst the great number whose memory ought not to be forgotten, not only by the people of this Province, but also by the Maritime Provinces, at the birth and development of a new nation, and to the defence of which those men have contributed by their intelligence and courage, I will name, amongst others, BONAVENTURE, SÉVIGNY, CHATEAUGUAY, D’ALLIGNY, TILLY, GRANVILLE, SOULANGES, VAUDREUIL, BEAUHARNOIS, LONGUEUIL, REPENTIGNY, BOISHÉBERT, ST. OURS, &C, &C. ; and many of those distinguished navy officers became governors not only in the French colonies of America and India, but commanded also seaports in France. BENOIT, CHAUSSEGROS DE LERY, the two VAUDREUILS, and PIERRE BEDOUT rose to the rank of Rear Admiral, and one of them, ROUER DE LA CORDONNIÈRE, was even complimented by Fox in the English Parliament, for his generous and gallant conduct towards his enemies. Now, honorable gentlemen, besides the establishment of the colonial navy, we should also promote the military organization and martial spirit, the natural accompaniment and the best safeguard of freedom, by assuming part of the military defences of this colony, proportioned to our population and revenues, of course with the effective assistance of the Imperial Government. And I hope that England will call out, to exercise the highest functions of statesmanship, such of her subjects in those colonies as will render themselves fit to fill such situations in future. Why should she not even employ them in the diplomatic service, or as governors of her other colonies, as France did formerly, in granting those favors for eminent services? And in spite of the intrigues of those near the soleil levant at Versailles, the daring exploits of those brave colonists, in that glorious struggle from 1698 to 1759, forced the French monarch to do them ample justice, and by so doing the most of the military commands and governorships of the French colonies fell into the hands of Canadian born subjects. I have said so much to show that the policy of England ought to have been directed to promote, in these colonies, the appointments in the civil as well as in the military career to her colonial subjects, as well as those living in the British Isles.— (Hear, hear.) Referring again to the Maritime Provinces, I will say to my French Canadian countrymen that they have too many glorious pages in the past history of America,

[Page 324]

and particularly in relation to these provinces, not to feel a sympathy towards them, as there still exist a large number of the old Acadians who will feel proud to renew old acquaintance, and to live with them as brothers, happy under the protection of the English Government. Let me call to their memory some of the places which were the theatre of the exploits of the brave officers I have already mentioned, such as Port Royal, or Louisbourg, now Annapolis ; Chebucto, now Halifax ; Port Lajoie, now Charlottetown ; L’ Isle Royale, now Cape Breton; Isle St. Jean, now Prince Edward Island, &c , &c. I hope, also, that the construction of a good route to Rivière Rouge, the Rocky Mountains and British Columbia, will bring those places to an easy access for commerce, trading and agriculture, to our growing population, and will prevent them emigrating to the United States, as they will find glorious souvenirs in the former places, where their Canadian brothers have already formed flourishing agricultural settlements, and opened up valuable mines. I trust that my French Canadian countrymen in this House will see the advantage of adopting the resolutions now laid before them, trusting as they should do to the good disposition of the Home Government, as this new Constitution is well calculated to develope the resources of this fine and immense country. And the best proof that we are taking the right steps to secure our happiness, is found amongst other articles hostile to British interests, in an article of the Courrier des Etats-Unis, when the question of Confederation was agitated in 1853, and which runs as follows :—

Notwithstanding all that maybe said, written or spouted about English tyranny and rapacity, we must acknowledge that Great Britain has al ways known how tu keep up with the spirit of the age, and to deal out privileges to her colonies by judicious instalments.

Should this great project be adopted, our importance would rise on the continent of Europe, and we would be on the same footing at least as our American neighbors, belonging to a large and important Confederation, and our credit will rise in consequence. The Lower Canadians will recollect that in 1840, after the temporary suspension of the Act of 1791, England granted u s a new Constitution. They will recollect also the anguish, the pangs felt by them at that period ; but notwithstanding that we had no voice then in the measure as we have now, still the rights and advantages granted us by the capitulation of Quebec and Montreal and the treaty of Paris in 1763, have not been abrogated, and I am of opinion that by adopting those resolutions, our future rights are as safe as they were formerly. (Hear , hear .) Before I close I will answer the remarks made by the honorable member for Lanaudière division, in a speech a few days ago, respecting the Monroe doctrine, alleging that we ought not to legislate upon this delicate subject, or words to that effect. I will quote two letters lately discovered and published by Monsieur PIERRE MERGOZ, Guardian of Archives of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs in France, and his remarks on these two great honored navigators who discovered the Mississippi and other parts of America, and which remarks are as follow :—

We cannot shut our eyes to the affinity of the interests of the present times and those of former days, and which recommend the memory of LA- SALLE and D’IBERVILLE. In 1699 D’IBERVILLE wrote on the subject of Louisiana: ” If France does not take possession of this part of America, which is the finest, to have a colony strong enough to resist those that England possesses in the east from Pescadoue to the Caroline, these colonies, which are becoming very extensive, will increase to such an extent that in less than a century they will be strong enough to seize upon the whole continent of America, and to expel all other nations ” D’IBERVILLE wrote again in November, 1702 : ” What may be said against the establishment that the king has made at Mobile ? It is the only one that could sustain America against the undertakings of the English on this continent. In a few years they will be able to forward in fifteen days, by means of their large navy, more than 20,000 or 30,000 men upon such of the French islands as they would be inclined to attack, the distance not being, at the utmost, more than 500 to 600 leagues, the wind being generally favorable to carry them on those shores, and by land they may reach Mexico.” “These views (says Mr. MERGOZ),together with D IBERVILLE’S remarks, will account for the natural uneasiness felt by the European powers at what is now taking place in South America.”

What I have just quoted is, I believe, sufficient to convince the honorable member for the Lanaudière Division that the European Powers were not disposed, even at those remote times, to favor the doctrine now called the Monroe ; the British colonists of those times being now replaced by our republican neighbors. Having said so much, I will conclude by stating that I shall vote for those resolutions as they are laid before us. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. HAMILTON (Inkerman)– Honorable gentlemen, so much has been said dur ing the course of the present debate with reference to the elected members of this House,

[Page 325]

and the rights of the electors who sent us here, that I desire to make a very few remarks to explain why I, representing a Lower Canadian division, a majority of whom will be amongst the minority of the Lower Canada of the future, have decided that it is my duty to vote for the resolutions of the Quebec Conference as they have been laid before us by the Government, and consequently against all the amendments. I am free to confess, honorable gentlemen, that there are among the resolutions some that I would have gladly seen, as I conceive, amended; but considering, from the nature of the thing itself, and therefore fully concurring in what many of us heard from an eminent and distinguished statesman in another place, that the whole scheme of Confederation partook of the nature of a treaty, into which, as a matter of course, the spirit of compromise must largely enter ; and the Government having, as I also consider they were bound to do, informed us we must accept the scheme as a whole, or reject it as a whole, I conceived it was my duty not to be a bar in the way, however humble, of the passage of the resolutions, and I came to this conclusion the more willingly because I have been for a long time an advocate for a union of the provinces, and I have been so because it is indisputable that a much greater share of our self-defence must rest upon ourselves than heretofore ; and though at the best our means of defence may not be as great as we could wish, yet it must be manifest they must be greater by being consolidated under one head. Some hon. gentlemen, especially my neighbor from St. Clair, have ridiculed the idea of Confederation increasing our powers of defence, inasmuch as under the best of circumstances it must take a long time to perfect our arrangements ; but I would ask hon. gentlemen to consider what will be the effect in England, as to our defences, if we reject or even postpone this scheme of Confederation, coming as it would on the heels of a rejected Militia Bill. During the discussion, we have had, if the term is parliamentary and may be used,many fancy finance statements. Now, without disputing the correctness of any of them, I would ask the honorable gentlemen who have made them, have they made any calculation as to the costs we would be at after we had been gobbled up by our neighbors south of 45°, or, to use the words of the honorable and gallant Knight the Premier, after we had slid down the inclined plane, and become merged in the neighboring republic ? I for one would say that such a position was altogether too contemptible to occupy. With reference to the change doing away with our elective Legislative Council, of which we have heard so much, I for one can say that I consider the delegates came to the only correct conclusion, and this is no new conclusion, and involves no change of opinion on my part, for I can appeal to an honorable member of this House as to whether, within half an hour of taking my seat in it, I did not express the opinion that though it was not right to speak ill of the bridge over which one had crossed safely, yet that I was opposed to the elective system as applied to this House. I also dissent from the sentiments I have heard expressed by many honorable members of this House as to our position here, for I never understood that I came here as the mere delegate of the men of Inkerman, to vote just as the most active village politicians happened to pull the wires for me. No, gentlemen, I came here, as I thought, as the representative of my division, to do my best according to my humble ability in legislating for the benefit of the whole country, and under no other circumstances would I have accepted the position. I shall not occupy your time, honorable gentlemen, in saying that which has been better said by others ; but thanking you for the few moments’ hearing you have so kindly given me, conclude by reducing my explanations as follows : I vote for Confederation because I consider it essential to the maintenance of British connection, and to preserve that, I for one am prepared to make many sacrifices. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. BLAKE—I feel it to be my duty, honorable gentlemen, to make a few remarks upon the general question of Federation before the vote is taken. A great deal has been said about the manner in which the scheme has originated. It has been said that the honorable gentlemen composing the Conference were self-elected. Now I hold that it is most unfair to charge honorable gentlemen who have, as members of a government, entered into this matter at the request of His Excellency the Governor-General, with a sincere desire to do the best that could be done for the interests of Canada, with being too precipitate, especially when the subject was surrounded with so much difficulty. Although I have been an advocate of a union of the provinces for very many years, yet I am fully prepared to admit that there are some matters of detail in those resolutions that are very distasteful to me. I refer particularly to the abandonment of the elective principle in the constitution of this branch of the Legislature.

[Page 326]

I was always in favor of the elective principle as applied to the Legislative Council, and a very large proportion of my constituency is also in favor of it, I am opposed to the building of the Intercolonial Railway, on account of the immense expenditure which it will entail upon the country, not only now, but for all time to come. I think that that expenditure will be so great that it will fall very heavily on our finances, which are now go very poorly able to bear the burden, and that the road will be of very little use to the country. Much has been said about this soheme not being understood by the people. With regard to that, I can only speak of my own locality. Before coming here, I went through my own constituency, and conversed with a great many leading men of all political parties, and all urged me to go for Confederation, without a single exception. (Hear, hear.) I pointed out the objections which I had to the scheme. I told them that I disapproved of the elective principle being ignored— of the building of the Intercolonial Railway—and of the increased expense of maintaining two sets of government. I pointed out all these and other objections, but notwithstanding, they said that it would be far better to take Federation, even as proposed by the resolutions, than to remain as we are. They said : ” The government of the country has come to a dead-lock ; we have seen one strong party pitted against another strong party ; we have seen two or three governments formed that were unable to pass a single important measure, and some change is therefore absolutely necessary.” The question then arises, What are we to do ? Now, I would ask the opponents of this scheme, if they have any other plan to propose that will relieve the country of the difficulties under which it has been laboring ? (Hear, hear.) On the other hand, we have been told by high authority that we were on the brink of ruin. We were told by the honorable and gallant Knight at the head of the Government, that we were on an ” inclined plane,” on which we were fast sliding into the republic of the United States of America. I think it is therefore my duty to vote for the resolutions as they stand, and to vote for no amendments of any kind. (Hear, hear.) We are told that if we adopt any amendments to the resolutions, the whole scheme must fall to the ground. Are we to go back to the position we formerly occupied, or will it not be better to accept these resolutions, on which a new Constitution may be formed ? If it is not formed to suit us, we can alter it hereafter. It is not, I apprehend, to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians, totally unalterable. The Constitutions of Great Britain, of the United States, and of the different civilized nations now in existence have been altered, and why are we to expect that these resolutions are a finality ? Gentlemen, the Constitution of the Confederation can be altered in future as easily as our present Constitution has been altered. I hope this scheme will go into effect at an early period, and I trust it will be productive of a vast amount of good to our country. (Hear, hear.) Honorable gentlemen say it is a revolution. It may be a revolution, but certainly it is not so violent a one as was proposed in 1837 and 1838. (Hear, hear.) There has been a great deal of heavy artillery brought into play since this debate began, but I hope that the revolution will be carried out without the shedding of blood. (Hear, hear and laughter.) I am prepared to give my vote for the scheme. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. READ next addressed the House. He said—Honorable gentlemen, I have voted for delay in the passage of these resolutions, believing that to be my duty ; and if I have been wrong in doing so, it has been through want of judgment. I have had no other intention in so doing than to promote the best interests of the country. As, however, I observe that a large majority of this House entertains a different opinion, I shall no longer attempt to mar the scheme, but shall give it my support when the time for voting upon it arrives. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I never intended to mar it, but I wished to be sure that the country was satisfied with it, and would appreciate it when they got it. (Hear.) I think human nature is the same now as it always was and always will be. As the hon. Premier and the hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands have used some comparisons with reference to the proposed union, I have also a comparison to make. They said that a union could not be effected without some sacrifices—a little giving and taking all round. I think so too, but I think there is a different way in which this proposed union must be viewed. I compare Canada to a young man who has had guardians appointed to take care of his estate; but having arrived at that age that his guardians think it is time he should be married, they arrange a matrimonial alliance for him. He is all the time looking on, and expecting to be asked how the arrangement suits him. But in this case it appears he is not to be

[Page 327]

asked at all. (Hear, hear.) When they have all things in readiness, he says to himself: ” You may have power to marry me, but you cannot make me live happily.” Now, had he been consulted, he would probably have made the same choice and have been fully satisfied with the alliance. As human nature is always the same, I have thought these were sufficiently strong reasons for wishing to have some delay, in order that the people, after the matter was fully before them, might cordially enter into the proposed union. I am favorably impressed with a great many of the resolutions composing this measure. I cannot, however, agree with my hon. friend from Toronto (Hon. Mr. Ross), that Upper Canada would build the Intercolonial Railway herself rather than be without it. Upper Canada does not produce anything tbat can be profitably taken over ti e road. There is no alternative, however, but to build it, if Confederation is to be carried out. In 1862, we had a good bargain thrown open to us, but as we refused to accept it at the time, we cannot now get it without paying a higher price. Along with the matrimonial alliance into which we are about to enter, there will be fresh responsibilities, and I really do not think the country is quite prepared for them. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) It seems we are pretty certain to form the alliance, and it is equally certain that those little responsibilities will immediately spring up. (Laughter.) I think, however, that we must call them great responsibilities, and I repeat, much greater than we are prepared for. I would make a great sacrifice for the defence of the country, but if England tells us we must do more than the country is able to do, I do not think we will be willing to submit to it. We are prepared to do all. we can, but I am not prepared to go to such an enormous expense as to involve our country in such debt as will render it an undesirable place to live in. With Confederation we will have to go to great expense, not only for our defences and our militia, but also for a navy ; because I believe that, as soon as the Americans put an increased number of gun-boats on the lakes, we will have to put on an equal number, and it is very doubtful to me if we can afford it. (Hear, hear.) Where is the money to come from ?

HON. MR. CURRIE—Yes—where is the money to come from ?

HON. MR. READ—We are now very heavily tazed, and have a heavy bill to pay for interest on our large debt. I would like to see the Government adopt some method by which this interest should not go out of the country. I do not like to see so much borrowed from abroad. Interest is a thing that accumulates very rapidly, and it has to be paid regularly. If some system could be devised by which this borrowing from abroad could be stopped,the Federation scheme would suit me much better, especially when we consider that the taxes of the people of this country, per head, have been running up at an alarming rate—from one dollar to three— since the union, in 1841. It seems that the Confederation is to increase our taxes ; that fact is generally admitted, independent of the expense of building the Intercolonial Railway. I do not see where all the money is to come from, but I dare say the Finance Minister will find out some means of raising it by increased taxation. When the final vote comes on, I shall be prepared to support the motion rather than have it rejected altogether, and shall press my opposition no further. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. REESOR—Honorable gentlemen, I rise to move—

That the following words be added to the main motion : ” Provided always, that His Excellency the Governor General be prayed to withhold the transmission of the said Address until the said resolutions shall have been approved of by the electors of this province, qualified to vote under th Act 22 Vic, cap. 6, to be signified by a direct vote on the said resolution, to be taken in the various municipalities throughout Upper and Lower Canada.”

HON. MR. DICKSON—I am desirous of calling to the notice of the House the fact that this amendment appears on the face of it to embody the same principle as the amendment proposed by the honorable member opposite (Hon. Mr. CURRIE), and seconded by myself, and which, after a long and somewhat tedious discussion, was decided in the negative. I would like to know, therefore, whether the amendment is in order. I do not oppose it, but if it is not in order, time will be saved by disposing of it at once, and I rise to obtain the SPEAKER’S decision upon the point.

HON. MR. ROSS—The objection of the honorable member is, I think, conclusive with regard to the amendment. I t appears to be the same in principle as that moved by the honorable member for Niagara, and seems to me to be out of order.

HON.MR. BUREAU—I think the motion is in order. It declares that before the scheme is finally adopted, it shall be referred to the people, for them to vote yea or nay upon it,

[Page 328]

No such amendment has before been offered in this House.

THE HON. THE SPEAKER—The motion proposed in amendment to the main motion by Hon. Mr. CURRIE was in the following words :—” That in a matter 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.” Now, the present motion is— ” That His Excellency the Governor General be prayed to withhold the transmission of the said Address until the said resolutions shall have been approved of by the electors of this province, qualified to vote under the Act 22 Vic, cap. 6, to be signified by a direct vote on the said resolution, to be taken in the various municipalities throughout Upper and Lower Canada.” Although there may be some similarity, still it is not substantially the same motion. (Hear, hear.) The ” further manifestation of the public will ” may be quite a different thing from the manifestation of that will by a direct vote, as provided for by this amendment. I believe, therefore, that the motion is in order ; and, as in a case of this kind it is my opinion that a liberal interpretation of the rules and practice of the House should be made, I cannot declare that the amendment is included in the motion decided by the House yesterday. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. REESOR—It will have been observed that the course of this debate has taken a most extraordinary turn. At first, honorable members addressed the House in favor of the resolutions—members of the Government more especially, and then some honorable gentlemen supporting them ; but latterly we^have heard several honorable gentlemen expressing their views very strongly and emphatically against many of the resolutions embraced in the scheme of Confederation, but while expressing themselves so strongly, they seemed to feel it to be their duty to support it as a whole. (Hear, hear.) Now, it strikes me, and I trust it will strike some other honorable members, also, that we have been elected to this Legislature with a view to perfect as far as possible every scheme or proposition that may properly come before it. If we have views on a particular measure which would lead us to propose amendments for the purpose of making it different in shape or scope from what it is when first introduced, I maintain that it is our duty to express our views in that direction—not taking the measure without looking fairly and impartially into it, or accepting it in the belief that we have no right to dispute or alter any portion of it. For my part, I look upon the scheme now before the House as upon the whole very different from what we had a right to expect from the members of the present Government. They have been strongly supported in both Houses of Parliament and in the country, and I do not desire to see any difficulty thrown in their way, or anything done calculated to lessen their support in the Legislature ; but at the same time I do say that, with the support and confidence they have received, they ought to have brought forward a better scheme than that which they have presented to the House and country. Why, take the question of the Intercolonial Railroad involved in these resolutions, and what do we find ? More than two years ago the governments of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia made a proposition to the Canadian Government to build this road and pay seven-twelfths of the cost, Canada to pay the remaining fivetwelfths. Well, what arrangement have we now—what has time brought about—what advantages have these two years gained for us? This, that the Government of Canada come down to the Legislature with a scheme according to which Canada will have to pay towards the construction of this road ninetwelfths of the entire amount, and the other provinces the balance—thus involving additional expense on the part of Canada to the amount of several millions of dollars—certainly not less than six millions to build the Intercolonial Railway alone—more than was demanded of us two years ago—and a total additional expenditure that will add to the annual taxation of Canada more than a million and a half of dollars for all time to come. This heavy expenditure over the proposition made two years ago has, therefore, been needlessly undertaken. It is admitted, even by the promoters of this scheme, that the eastern provinces will benefit far more largely than Canada by the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. It is admitted by the best commercial men who have spoken upon the subject, that as a commercial undertaking it will not pay. It is admitted that it will be of little or no value whatever as a defensive work. This being the case, why then rush into this large expenditure with such precipitancy ; why not, at least, postpone its passage in order to get a measure of a more perfect character, and one more in harmony with the

[Page 329]

wishes of the people chiefly interested ? Honorable gentlemen who betray such anxiety to press this scheme at once should remember that we are not voting away our own but the people’s money, and that this should not be done to the extent that is now proposed, without consulting their wishes in the matter. This the law requires before a municipal council can make any special grant of money. In such cases a vote of the people has to be taken, which is conclusive as to whether the proposed expenditure shall be incurred or not ; and yet we are here passing a measure of vastly greater importance to them, a measure involving a revolution in our political affairs—a measure involving an immense outlay of money without asking whether the people are favorable to it or not. (Hear, hear.) I maintain, honorable gentlemen, that before it is finally passed upon, the whole question should be submitted to the people, and that the law which requires a reference to them in minor matters, should be extended in a matter which so nearly concerns their future condition and prosperity. The people of the eastern provinces have very little to complain of in the plan of Confederation proposed. The fact is, they will be largely the gainers by it, if it is carried out. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the members of the governments of those provinces, and other public men, see the great advantage they have gained over Canada, and are not slow to set them before the people. They are naturally anxious that the scheme shall be carried as speedily as possible, and are making every effort in this direction, for under it unprofitable local works in those provinces are assumed and paid for by the General Government; such, for instance, as the railways of New Brunswick, which, before five years go round, will, I have no doubt, be run at very considerable cost beyond the returns they will yield to the General Government. The Hon. Mr. TILLEY, in a speech to the electors of St. John, sets forth the advantages to be gained by New Brunswick by the union, as follows :—

New Brunswick is allowed to enter the Confederation with a debt of seven millions, and Nova Scotia with a debt of eight millions. Now, what was the nature of the arrangement by which we came in ? It was found that the debt of Canada was not much larger per head than that of New Brunswick. We came in on better terms than that province.

Mr. TILLEY then proceeds to show how New Brunswick gained a clear advantage of $610,000 a year for all time to come on the Intercolonial Railway alone. So much better are the terms to that province under the Intercolonial scheme than those upon which they offered themselves to join us in building that road, two years ago, Hon. Mr. TILLEY says :—

Of the cost of that road (the Intercolonial Railway) New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had guaranteed the provincial credit for seven-twelfths, and Canada for five-twelfths. Now, if the Confederation would build the road, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would be relieved of the interest on the s?ven millions, amounting to $420,000, as well as upon the interest of the three and a half-twelfths of the three millions sterling, amounting to $190,000, making in all $610,000 provided for by the General Government.

This liberal bribe to bring New Brunswick into the union, one would think, was quite enough to satisfy the little province ; but Hon. Mr. TILLEY adds :—

Over and above all these advantages, we get for ten years a subsidy of $63,000 per annum. Our local expenditures summed up amount to $320,630, and we get from the General Government, without increased taxation, $90,000, in lieu of our import duty and casual territorial revenue, 80 cents per head on the population, making $201,637, and a special subsidy of $63,000 a year for tea years, making in all $354,637, being $34,000 over and above osr iresent necessities.

These (says Hon. Mr. TILLEY) are the principal points looked to. Hon. Mr. TILLEY is very candid, and acknowledges these advan tagesin the name of “subsidies.” He further assures his audience in the following words :—

But we are asked, what guarantee have you that you will continue to receive these subsidies promised by the General Government? Most unquestionable security—we are not at the mercy of the Canadians. * * So close is the contest between parties in the Canadian Legislature, that even the five Prince Edward Island members by their votes, could turn victory on whatever side they choose, and have the game entirely in their own hands.

This is the success with which Hon. Mr. TILLEY has acted on behalf of the people of New Brunswick, and I think the Commissioner of Crown Lands, when he reflects upon the advantages that the eastern provinces have received over those obtained by Canada, will admit that I was not far astray the other day when I said that our public men had acted with a great deal of recklessness. It appears to me that they went to work with the determination to get Confederation—to get it on fair terms if they could, but to get it on any terms that might be found necessary to con-

[Page 330]

cede to the Lower Provinces. (Hear, hear.) Another of the delegates to the Quebec Conference, Hon. Mr. WHELAN, of Prince Edward Island, enumerates all the advantages that will be secured to that province by Confederation, and winds up by saying, that that little island will have $40,000 a year more than necessary to carry on its local aifairs. (Hear.) Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I do think the Government ought to have given more time to deliberate upon and perfect this measure ; and, at any rate, to leave it over till another session of Parliament before demanding a final decision upon the question. Failing to do that, and failing to consent to any alteration in any one of the resolutions, however objectionable, I think it it is our duty to refer it to the people for their decision upon it. I know I will be met with the objection that this is contrary to British practice—that a reference to the people in the manner I propose is unknown to the British Constitution. We may say the same thing in regard to every branch of legislation and public business in this country, that it differs in some respects from the mode of conducting it which prevails in England; but we must remember that we are differently situated in this country from the people of England, and that our feelings and habits of thought upon public affiirs are altogether different. And since we have adopted the principle in the conduct of our municipal affairs, to refer all matters involving the expenditure of money for special purposes to the people, it will do no possible harm to apply it to this measure ; and if the people adopt it, and it should afterwards prove that they had entered into a bad bargain, they would have no one to blame but themselves, and I have no doubt would, under such circumstances, bear it more patiently. But if we take the opposite course, if we close this arrangement on terms disadvantageous to us, it will be many years before a change can be effected. Would Prince Edward Island, at the demand of Canada, give up the lien, the constitutional right she will have obtained under this scheme, to the money she receives over and above what is necessary to meet her local requirements? Not at all. Would Newfoundland give up her bonus of $160,000 a year for all time, should the looked for coal not be found to pay ? Not a bit of it. Would Nova Scotia give up her right to impose an export duty on coals and other minerals, because Canada found that this right gave her undue advantages? Certainly not. Would New Brunswick surrender her right to levy an export duty on timber, or, at the call of Canada, give any extra assistance towards the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, which will benefit her far more largely than any of the other provinces, inasmuch as it will open up a large tract of country within her borders, and render the land and timber it contains far more valuable ? Undoubtedly she would not ; we would have to abide by our agreement, no matter how invidious might be the advantages it conferred, no matter how unfavorably it might affect western interests. (Hear, hear. ) The complaint that has been made against the working of the present union is that in Lower Canada the people do not pay as much in taxes to the general revenue, man for man, as the people of Upper- Canada. It was contended, I believe, by the present Attorney General East, at a speech delivered some years since to his constituents at Verchères, that the expenditure for the redemption of seigniorial rights did not affect Lower Canada very much, because Upper Canada paid two-thirds of the revenue of the country ; and all the advocates of the we;tern section, who have urged its rights before the people, have taken the ground that it contributed in that proportion to the public exchequer. Now, if there be any truth in this statement, it must follow that under this arrangement Canada, at all events, will have to pay more, man for man, than the eastern provinces to the general revenue, because it cannot be contended, I apprehend, that Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, or either of the other Maritime Provinces, however pros- perous their condition may be, have a population as wealthy as that of Upper Canada, or one that will contribute as much in taxes to the General Government. If then, during the past, Lower Canada has paid less than Upper Canada to the revenue, while enjoying the benefit of as large or perhaps a larger expenditure than that section, what is proposed to be done now? Why, to remove that difficulty which led almost to a dead-lock in our legislation, to get rid of the embarrassments that have beset the Government of this country for many years past, we are asked to adopt a scheme that will perpetuate them on a larger scale than before, and involve, in the construction of the Intercolonial Railway alone, the expenditure of a million or a million and a half annually for over. (Hear, hear.) How absurd then to urgo on this scheme without at least sharing the responsibility of it with the

[Page 331]

people ? Why not take time and maturely consider it ? Why not submit it to the verdict of those who have to pay its cost, and if they accept it, let them bear the consequences. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the constitution of the Upper House of the proposed General Legislature, a good deal has been said, but I think the main point has too often been lost sight of. The course of the debate upon these resolutions has seemed to run in some instances as though we regarded a membership of this branch of the Legislature a position which we ought to occupy by right, as though we had some sort of a constitutional right to remain here, and as though governments and parliamentary bodies were instituted by the people, not for the benefit of the community, but for the advancement of those who compose them. We would seem to have overlooked a fundamental principle of all free governments, that governments should be carried on for the good of the governed ; and the principle of responsible government, according to which government must be carried on according to the well-understood wishes of the people.

HON. MR. MCCREA—As expressed by their representatives.

HON. MR. REESOR—AS expressed, my honorable friend says, by their representatives. Very well ; we must remember that those who constitute the Government of this country have brought down here a very curious scheme, and have held out to you the inducement that if you support it you have a chance of being appointed for life to the seat you occupy ; and there is thus a probability of your being blinded to what you owe to the people, of your ignoring the constituencies that sent you here, and of your forgetting the duty you owe to the country. Now, I hold with regard to the elective principle in this House, that the oftener a man is brought in contact with the people in a legitimate way, to learn their wishes as constitutionally and properly expressed, the more likely he is to use his influence and talent in conducting the government in such a manner as to secure the happiness and prosperity of the country. (Hear, hear.) It is said that, as you have a responsible government, the Government of the day will be held responsible to the people, through their representatives in the lower branch of the Legislature for the appointments, it may make to this House. Admitting this to be the case, we know what the tendency is in England, and what it was in this country when the Government had the appointment of the members of the Legislative Council ; the effect will be to find a place in this House for men distinguished for the aid they have given at elections to certain men or parties, and not as a reward of true merit or legislative ability. Furthermore, if this House is to be of any value at all, it is as affording a wholesome check over hasty and unwise legislation. But if you place the whole legislation of the country in the hands of a single man or body, I care not whether it is democratic or aristrocratic in its tendencies, a power like that in the hands of the Executive to create the Legislative Council is a dangerous one. Unrestrained or unchecked action by a single elected body of the most democratic character is apt to go astray if they feel they have only themselves to consult. This is what is proposed to be done under this scheme ; but let this House be elected, as before, by the people ; let them be returned for a period of eight years as at present, or even longer if desired, and then, if there is a demand for legislation of a selfish or ill-considered character—a demand which, founded on ignorance or passion, is likely to right itself after the lapse of a few years—the members of this House would take the responsibility upon themselves of rejecting it, and public opinion would eventually sustain them and acknowledge that they have done some service to the country. But inasmuch as you appoint these members for life, you have no check over them, nor are they so likely to check legislation of an immature and ill-considered character. While the Ministry of the day which appoints them remains in power, it will expect and receive a cordial support from them ; but let it be defeated, and a ministry, formed out of the opposite party, obtain office, there will certainly be difficulty —there will be a tendency to dead-locks between the two branches of the legislature, and a repetition of those scenes which were witnessed in this country some years ago, and which formed one of the principal causes that brought about the rebellion of 1837. Honorable gentlemen say that we will have the power to remedy those defects in the scheme if they are found to be injurious in their action, but it is well known from the experience of the past that no power can be brought to bear to bring about any change that may be required, without a great deal of agitation and labor. What has been the agitation to secure a change in the representation of the two sections of Canada in Parliament ? It has been going on for ten or twelve years,

[Page 332]

and yet, on the eve of accomplishment, those who have advocated it have not effected a change of the nature that was desired, but have jumped into a new and totally different scheme, that really seems to me to have been brought about for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal aims, rather than satisfying any demand on the part of the people. (Hear, hear.) The honorable and gallant Knight at the head of the Government stated that we were on an inclined plane, and in danger of sliding into the republicanism of the United States. This phrase has been referred to so often by honorable members who have spoken, and so many deductions have been drawn from it, that I may perhaps be permitted to say a few words upon it. I think all must see that the tendency of the scheme now before the House will be in a few years to impose direct taxation upon the people for the support of the local governments. Let us then have direct taxation, and what will be the result ? If there is a large expenditure on the part of the General Government, in addition to this taxation, political agitators will arise, who will cry out that the public burdens are unequally borne —(hear)—that two-thirds of the revenue is borne by the people living west of Quebec— that is, the population west of this city will, man for man, pay twice as much to the public exchequer as the population east of it. There will undoubtedly be the same tendency, under such a state of things, as has been charged to exist on the part of the Lower Canadian representatives since the union was formed—namely, a tendency on the part of those who pay the smaller portion of the revenue to spend the public money freely and extravagantly. They will naturally say when any appropriation is proposed for their own section—” We will go for this expenditure, for it will benefit us ; and we will support a corresponding expenditure in the other section, because we have not so much to pay of it as the people of that section—we will have only fifty cents to pay of it, while they will have to pay a dollar.” This argument will be used in support of all extravagant and wasteful expenditures, and you may depend upon it that they will soon be incurred. Then you will have political agitators who will constantly keep these things before the people, who will demand a dissolution of the union of the provinces as a remedy for the evil. Then a further difficulty will be found in the fact that breadstuffs, the American market for which will probably be closed, cannot be transported to the Lower from the Upper Provinces without being protected by a heavy import duty. Will the representatives from the Lower Provinces allow that import duty to be imposed ? No, undoubtedly they will not. Attempt to carry it in the interest of Upper Canada and you will at once transform the whole of them into advocates for the repeal of the union. Thus you create cause for agitation in all the sections, and it will not long continue until you will again see another dead-lock. You will again have three administrations formed and three general elections occurring within two years, and again you will have sufficient excuse for another change in the Constitution. And you may rely upon it, that before such an agitation goes on five years it will be made an excuse for sliding further down the inclined plane than would have been afforded if we had remained as we were. (Hear, hear.) I cannot help coming to the conclusion, honorable gentlemen, that these resolutions contain the seeds of our destruction as colonies. There can be no political advantage in the proposed union, unless we assume the rights and responsibilities of an independent country. We are not yet prepared for that step. Our population is not numerous enough ; we are too young and too weak to assume those rights and responsibilities. We have no commercial advantages to gain by the union. Why then force it upon us ? Let it rexain for more mature consideration, and the evils you have will be borne the more quietly ; but if you force it upon the people prematurely, and the evils I fear spring from it, depend upon it that the public men who press it forward will be as seriously condemned as they are BOW highly lauded. The fact is, the people of-the countrydo not understand this scheme. How can it be expected that they should understand it in all its bearings ? Why, the honorable member from the Rideau Division said he heard the explanations of it and was here a couple of weeks before he understood it, and that he had sent 2000 circulars to his constituents that they might have a knowledge of it. How can he expect them to understand it from these printed documents, when he himself, with the advantage of hearing all the explanations upon it, was two weeks in gaining an understanding of it? Honorable gentlemen, I am in the abstract in favor of the union of these colonies—( hear, hear)—but I do not wish to force on this scheme in a way that is unfair and un-

[Page 333]

just, that will lead to future difficulties of even a graver character than those we are now laboring under, and that will give cause for the advocacy of such a change in our position as few in this country would desire to see brought about. (Hear, hear.)

The House then divided upon the amendment, with the following result :—

CONTEXTS.—Honorable Messieurs Aikins, Archambault, Armstrong, Bennett, Bureau, Chaffers, Currie, A. J. Duchesnay, Flint, Leonard, Leslie, Malhiot, Moore, Olivier, Proulx, Reesor, Seymour, Simpson, Vidal.—19.

NON-CONTENTS —Honorable Messieurs Alexander, Allan, Armand, Sir N. F.Belleau, Blake, Boulton, Bossé, Bull, Campbell, Christie, Crawford, DeBeaujeu, Dickson, E. H. J. Duchesnay, Dumouchel, Foster, Gingras, Guévremont, Hamilton (Inkerman), Hamilton (Kingston), Lacoste, McCrea, McDonald, McMaster, Macpherson, Matheson, Mills, Panet, Price, Read, Ross, Ryan, Shaw, Skead, Sir E.P. Taché, Wilson.—36.

So the amendment was negatived.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ said—I am anx- ious that honorable gentlemen should have a full opportunity of expressing themselves upon the measure which is now before the House, and as I am the mover of the resolutions, I think it is but just and fair that I should close the debate. (Hear, hear.) If no other honorable gentleman desires to speak upon them, I think that before the vote is taken I should have an opportunity of answering the arguments that have been advanced against the scheme, and of explaining certain expressions that have fallen from me. I believe the House will be disposed to give me that fair play which has always been given under circumstances similar to these—(hear, hear)— and I purpose, therefore—no other honorable gentleman desiring to address the House—to close the debate this evening.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I would ask if it is the intention of the Government to explain the resolutions more fully than has been done ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The members of the Government will be happy to afford any information the honorable member may desire. The House then adjourned till eight o’clock in the evening, and on reassembling,

HON. MR. RYAN said—The importance of the vote we are about to give on these reso- lutious is very great, as the future of the country is so largely dependent upon it, and representing as I do the division ot Victoria, which is one of the most important in the country, containing a large representation of those sections or divisions of races which make up the population of Canada, I think it due to my constituents to make a few observations upon the subject before us. (Hear.) If the constituency I represent is, perhaps, not quite the most numerous in the country, it possesses a large share of the wealth, business and manufacturing energy and commercial enterprise of the province. It also contains, in not very unequal proportions, people of the different nationalities, religions and languages which most largely prevail amongst us. You have the French element, with the Roman Catholic religion and French language ; you have the English, Scotch and Irish Protestant element, and you have the Irish Roman Catholic element, which I may be said more especially to represent, and which is by no means an unimportant one. Go through Canada, and you will find that these, with a few European foreigners, such as Germans and Norwegians, make up nearly the whole population. My division is, in fact, an epitome of Canada. (Hear, hear.) It may not be too much to say that the opinion and feeling of Montreal will be a fair representation of what the opinion of the country generally is, and that if Montreal has come to a nearly unanimous conclusion, it is very likely the different sections of the country will have arrived at a very similar one on the subject of Confederation. I am happy to be able to state with confidence, that I have taken pains to ascertain the opinions of each of the different sections of my constituency to which I have alluded, and that I believe they are in consonance with the votes I have given in this chamber. (Hear, hear.) I have alluded to the energy of my constituents, to their great commercial enterprise. I believe that energy is one of their leading characteristics, and I may say this, that if that energy has led them, on rare occasions, a little further than their own interest and that of the country required, they, nevertheless, on such ocoasiocs acted on an honest and generous impulse, or were prompted by the feeling that some injustice had been done to them. I was greatly gratified with the remarks of the honorable aud gallant Premier at the commencement of this debate, when alluding to events which long since took place in Montreal ; he put the blame where it really should rest— on the Legislature of the day, which was pressing on the people a measure distasteful to them, and which was vainly remonstrated against by numerous portions of the country. The same impulsive character which led

[Page 334]

them at that time into a course which is certainly much to be regretted, afterwards led them to countenance a movement of which I disapproved at the time, and which I opposed with all my might—the movement towards annexation. They favored that movement, because they thought they had been aggrieved and maltreated. But I n.ay tell you now, that this feeling has completely vanished, and that their wish now is to place Canada on a footing in which, united with the Lower Provinces and in close connection with Great Britain, she may be thoroughly independent of her neighbors, and free from any need of looking again towards Washington. (Hear, hear.) In considering the project of Confederation, one of the principal subjects which has undergone discussion in this House has been the proposed Constitution of the Council, and the most prominent question oonnected with it has been the question of the elective versus the nominative, principle. Although an elected member, I voted without the least hesitation against the elective principle, and I believe that in doing so I represented the views of my constituents as well as my own—I mean the great majority of my constituents, for there may be some exceptions with regard to this point, as there are no doubt with respect to the general question of Confederation. I based my vote on what is, I think, a true principle in politics, which is that if you wish a check to be established, such as I think this Council is intended to establish on the legislation of the other branch, you must not have the two Chambers returnable by the same constituents. If the constituents of both Houses are nearly the same, you lose the power of check, or at least you will not have it effectual, because you will have the same sentiments and feelings represented in this House as in the other. I am not singular in this opinion, but were I to cite the opinions of men who are of a conservative turn of mind, and who have always upheld the privileges of the aristocracy and the prerogative of the Crown, I should, perhaps, give you opinions which would carry less weight with the opponents of this measure than will that of a gentleman whose views I will ciie, who has written a great deal, and very ably, and who belongs to the ranks of the advanced Liberal party in England—I mean Mr. JOHN STUART MILL. In his chapter on the Second Chamber (Considerations on Representative Government, page 212), be says :—

That there should be in every polity a centre of resistance to the predominant power in the Constitution—and in a democratic constitution, therefore, a nucleus of resistance to the democracy— I have already maintained, and I regard it as a fundamental maxim of government. If any people who possess a democratic representation are, from their historical antecedents, more willing to tolerate such a centre of resistance in the form of a Second Chamber or House of Lords than in any other shape, this constitutes a strong reason for having it in that shape.

Now, honorable gentlemen, I think a Second Chamber, constituted nearly in the same way as the Lower Chamber, would be wholly ineffectual to stop the current of legislation coming from that Chamber; the point, indeed, admits of very little question. (Hear, hear.) The objections which have been raised to nomination by the Crown or the Executive Government arc of very little effect at this time of day. For myself I should have preferred to have the nomination of legislative councillors vested in the Crown independently cf the recommendation of the Local Government, so as to have left die prerogative unfettered. Theie is no doubt that abuses formerly existed in Canada when the nominative system was in force—before responsible government was established and when the Colonial Office meddled a good deal with the affairs of the province; but now every honorable gentleman with any knowledge of historical events in Canada will say at once the case is altogether altered. So far from interfering in our internal matters, the Colonial Office now leaves us a great deal to ourselves and lets us do as we please. There never was a freer Constitution than ours. Under these altered circumstances, I should have preferred, I say, that in order to avoid all appearance of nominations for party purposes, the direct nomination of legislative councillors should have been left to the Crown or the Crown’s representative in the Confederation. (Hear.) There was one remark made by the hon. member for Wellington in reference to Mr. CARDWELL’S letter, which I think was made in error. He inferred from that despatch that Mr. CARDWELL was opposed to the nominative system. Now, the passage he alluded to was this : —

The second point which Her Majesty’s Government desired should be reconsidered is the Constitution of the Legislative Council. They appreciate the considerations which have influenced the Conference in determining the mode in which this body, so important to the constitution of the Le-

[Page 335]

gislature, should be composed. But it appears to them to require further consideration whether, if the members be appointed for life, and their number be fixed, there will be any sufficient means of restoring harmony between the Legislative Council and the popular Assembly, if it shall ever unfortunately happen that a decided differ ence of opinion shall arise between them.

Now the point of this (Mr. CARDWELL’S) objection clearly is to the number being fixed, not to the principle of nomination, nor to members being appointed lor life. (Hear, hear.) Like many honorable gentlemen in this House, there are certain of the clauses in these resolutions which, I think, might have been improved. I, for instance, might have preferred the Confederate seat of government being established elsewhere than at Ottawa; and, with reference to this subject, I have been much struck with a remark, which I will cite, from a recent writer, who says that—”Any country compelled to forego the use of its natural chief city, and make some inferior and ill-placed town the seat of its government, labors under incalculable disadvantages.” Everybody, however, has his own little bantling, and thinks it the handsomest in the world ; and I doubt very much if, after all, we should have made the plan of Confederation much better, had every one of us been consulted and taken into the Conterence, at Charlottetown or Quebec, to urge our own special views. (Hear, hear.) I rather infer, from the differences of opinion I have heard arouud me in these debates, that the compromise system would not have been so easily adopted by us as by the gentlemen who composed those conferences. I hope, however, that we shall adopt that system now, and get through the debate in the faith that they have done what is best for the interests of the country, and that the measure is so important, as a whole, as to render it unwise to place minor impediments in its way to interrupt its course. (Hear, hear.) I have marked several sections of the resolutions which I think are open to objection or susceptible of improvement, and I hope the honorable and gallant Knight at the head of the Government will give some explanations respecting the views which animated the Conference in reference to them. One of them is a matter in which Lower Canada is somewhat peculiarly interested— the system of marriage and divorce, which, I see, is to be left in the hands of the Federal Government. I hope nothing will be done by the General Government, in relation to this question, which will outrage the feelings of Lower Canada, or lead to the laxity, in deiling with the marriage tie, which prevails south of the line 45°. (Hear, hear.) Again, emigration is a subject which is left to the Local as well as the General Government to deal with. I think it should be under the care of the General Government entirely. Then, as to the question of education, I hope the Government will secure to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada the same rights which will be extended to Protestants in Lower Canada. To have the same privileges is only equal justice, which I trust and believe will be granted. Having been iu communication with several of the Roman Catholic clergy, I can say that they desire to have every justice done to their Protestant fellow-subjects, but expect to have the same privileges granted to Roman Catholics in Upper Canada (who are the minority there,) as will be given to the Protestant minority in Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) I must also refer to the clause which gives to local governments the right of dividing the sections of the Confederation into constituencies and electoral divisions. This power may become very dangerous and lead to great practical injustice, and should, I think, be placed in the hands ot the General Government. I come now to the question of railway extension, and this is a matter which seems to have been a serious stumbling-block to a great number of those who are really favorable to the measure of Confederation. Now, I do not think the Intercolonial Railway will be a profitable concern, all at once; but I think I can remove a few of the objections which have been raised to this part of the scheme. In the first place, I think a mistake prevails is to what will be the cost of carrying freight on this railway. I have here the annual Trade and Navigation Returns of New Brunswick for 1863, in which I find the following statement :—

If New Brunswick was connected with Montreal and Quebec by direct railway communication through British territory, our importations from the States would decrease immediately, and much of our flour and other supplies would come direct from Canada ; and in the event of the Reciprocity Treaty and the bonding system of the United States, which allows British goods to pass through their territory free of duty under bond to Canada, being abolished, Saint John would probably become the Atlantic shipping port of Canada for the winter months.

People may suppose the rates of freight

[Page 336]

would be so very extravagant that this could not come to pass ; but in the same report, which has very opportunely come to hand, as it corroborates the remarks I made during the debate on the Address as to the fact that we should have some offset in the trade of the Lower Provinces, under Confederation, for what we should lose if the Reciprocity Treaty were to be annulled, I find the following statement :—

The cost of transportation of flour from Montreal to Portland, Maine, by rail, has been reduced to the low figure of 35 cents per barrel, and from Portland, Maine, to this port, it can be conveyed for 25 cents by steamer, or 15 cents by sailing vessel, making altogether 60 cents for conveying a barrel of flour, weighing 200 lbs., by rail and steam, a distance of 585 miles, and it could be delivered at this port (St. John, N. B.) within five or six days from the time of loading at Montreal. Of course these low rates of railway freight apply to large quantities only.

Well now, gentlemen, the distance from Montreal to St. John, by railway, is at a rough estimate about 600 miles.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Not so much— about 500 only.

HON. MR. RYAN—So much the better for my argument, but I will give my hon. friend the benefit of the 600 miles, isow, the further a barrel of flour is carried the loss the freight per mile is, because you get rid of the cost of handling it at successive stages. If you can carry it from Montreal to Portland, say 300 miles, for 35 cents, you can certainly carry it 600 miles for less than twice that sum, or let us say for 60 cents, not more than what it now costs by the combined rail and steamboat route via Portland, while the flour conveyed all the way by rail will be the better’ for not being moved about from one means of conveyance to another. I have indeed reason to believe, from a very good railway authority, that it would pay a railway company well to carry flour from Montreal to St. John for from 60 to 70 cents per barrel, and that if it were necessary, the work could be done at a profit at 50 cents per bairel. (Hear, hear.) I want to shew by this, that the carrying of flour over the Intercolonial Railway will not be so difficult of accomplishment as people who have not gone into the calculation closely may bo disposed to imagine. (Hear, hear.) I have here, too, a statement of the imports of flour into New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It is as follows :—

Imports of Flour. Barrels.
New Brunswick 243,000
Nova Scotia 328,000
Newfoundland 226,000

If we now look at our imports and exports for 1863, we shall find that we imported into Canada 4,210,942 bushels of wheat, while we exported only 3,030,407 bushels. Well, this may appear strange, considering that we are an agricultural and exporting country; but we come next to the article of flour, and find that while we imported only 229,793 barrels, we exported 1,095,691 barrels.

HON. MR. CURRIE—We imported wheat to grind it into flour.

HON. MR. RYAN—Exactly so. The excess of flour exported was 865,898 barrels, which, taken at 4 1/2 bushels to the barrel, would be equal to 3,836,541 bushels of wheat. Deducting from this the excess of our imports over our exports of wheat, viz., 1,180,535 bushels, will leave us 2,716,006 for export, which at the same calculation, viz., 4J bushels to the barrel, gives us 603,557 barrels of surplus flour, ground from wheat in Canada, with which to supply the demand of the three Maritime Provinces mentioned of 797,000 barrels. (Hear, hear.) Thus, if the Reciprocity Treaty be repealed. we can just about supply what they annually require.(Hear, hear.) Their importations aie moreover very constant, for the return says :—

Our importations of wheat flour in 1863 amounted to 243,391 barrels, against 232,237 barrels in 1862; 210,676 barrels in 1861, 198,323 barrels in 1860 ; 295,356 barrels in 18 9, 226,649 barrels in 1858 ; and 153,515 barrels in 1857.

That is as far as wheat or wheaten flour is concerned They consume also a large quantity of pork, a large quantity of beef and other produce ; but I do not wish to trespass longer upon the time of the House.

VOICES—” Go on.”

HON. MR. RYAN—I will just read from the New Brunswick return. It says :—

Our importations into the Province in 1863, of all kinds of agricultural produce, amounted in value to $2,060,702,the description of which was as follows :—Flour and meal of all kinds, bread, beans, peas and pot barley, $1,333,786 ; grain of all kinds, bran, horse and pig feed, $148,413; vegetables, including potatoes, $76,769 ; meats

[Page 337]

viz., salted, cured and fresh, including poultry, $242,933 ; butter, cheese, lard and eggs, $75,235 ; animals, including horses, oxen, cows, sheep and pigs, $58.7 5 ; apples, pears, plums, cranberries, &c., $60,257; tallow and soap grease, $29,973, hops, $5,226 ; hay, $3,142 ; malt, $4,719; shrubs, trees, Ac, $2,188 ; seeds, $10,815; wool, $8,531 ; amounting altogether in currency to £515,175. the value of the agricultural produce imported in 1862 was £476,581 currency; in 1861 it was £427,083 currency ; and in I860 it was £447,341 currency.

The Nova Scotia and Newfoundland returns also show that large quantities of agricultural produce of all kinds are imported into these colonies, as well as immense quantities of pork and other meats which we could easily and profitably supply. Now all these articles Canada will be able to supply, and this is another item in the return which is very noticeable. The Lower Provinces import large quantities of boots and shoes. The New- Brunswick return states that—

The value of boots and shoes imported in 1863 was $59.851—duty, $7,521; against $57,957— duty, $9,105, in 1862 ; $101,967—duty, $16,385, in 1861 ; and $131,424—duty, $20,832, in 1860.

These under Confederation would go duty free from Canada. There is a large manufacture of such articles, and with them, as with some other articles we make, we might supply the Lower Province markets. (Hear, hear.) If there is one feature in our connection with the Lower Provinces which we must not lose sight of, it is their possessing coal in large quantities; this is sure eventually to create manufacturing communities amongst them, to increase their population, and cause a larger home demand than at present, for the agricultural productions of Western Canada. (Hear, hear.) I may now recur to the Intercolonial Railway question, and express a hope that it will be gone about by the Government in the most economical manner possible. This much may be said, that whatever money is spent on it will be spent in the country, that is, in our new country, will be spent among ourselves, and will attract a great army of laborers ; and I do hope and trust the Administration will so arrange the prosecution of the work, that these laborers shall be induced to settle on the lands traversed by the line, which, I am told, are very favorable to settlement, so that another market for our manufactures and productions may be formed; and that if the Reciprocity Treaty should be lost to us (an event which I deprecate as much as anyone), we may have something to fall back upon—which we shall have, hon. gentlemen, if we look at our position boldly and energetically, and take advantage of circumstances as they arise (Hear, hear.) With respect to the statement that the road will not be valuable for purposes of defence, not being a military man, that is, nothing more than a militia officer, I do not pretend to offer a very valuable opinion : but it appears to me that, re/noved a certain distance from the frontier as it will be, an attack on the railway must be next to impossible in the winter time ; besides, it will be our duty to guard our frontier in such a way that incursions cannot be made upon us with effect, and I hope we shall be able to do so. (Hear, hear.) It has been remarked that the English Government would not think of sending a military force from Halifax to Canada by railway, but I confess I differ from this view. In the war which is now going on in the United States, if it has been proved that railways can be easily broken up, it has also been proved that they can easily be relaid, and the value set upon them by military men is clearly exemplified by the struggles they make to gain or to retain possession of them. If a railway is partially broken up, they have appliances at hand quickly to repair it. I t is a part of modern warfare to lay railways and lines of telegraph, and armies have corps attached to them whose special duty this is. (Hear, hear.) There is another thing, important in a military point of view, which has been lost sight of—which is, that although soldiers might walk over the snow, military munitions and the heavy articles used in war, such as cannon and mortars, cannot be put on snow-shoes. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think the railway would be of incalculable value for transporting such things as these if there were occasion for it, which I hope there never will be. It is, however, meet to be prepared for such an eventuality as war, for that is the best way to avoid it. (Hear, hear.) I may here refer to what some honorable gentlemen have remarked in this debate, that the circumstance of certain portions of the population of the Lower Provinces being occupied in maritime pursuits, diminishes to that extent their power of aiding Canada in case of war. In this opinion I am unable to concur ; for if there be one arm more than another in which they can assist us, it is by- the aid of their hardy seafaring- population, who will swarm the seaports of the Confederacy and the

[Page 338]

Empire, and act with great effect upon the commerce and sea-board towns of any foreign foe. It has been said, honorable gentlemen, that this measure is being hurried through the House, and complaint has been made that it has not been referred to the country for arbitrament. But, look at the consequences ot so referring it to the country. Look at the consequences of delay. You have read the telegram to-day which gives the news of the assembling oí the British Parliament, and I am glad to see a statement in Her Majesty’s Speech, that She has approved of the measure which is now under our consideration. Well, gentlemen, the Parliament of Great Britain will not sit for an unlimited time. Its session, this year, may be shorter than usual, for the natural dissolution of this and the assembling of a new Parliament are drawing near, and conlending parties generally make an effort, towards the close of a Parliament, to make a change in the Administration. Any one who reads the English papers and political documents will see that a change of Ministry is confidently expected by some people ; and if a defeat of the present Ministry takes place, and Parliament is dissolved, their own affairs will occupy the minds of British statesmen, so that when again called together, for a short time in summer, it may be merely to legislate on local matters, and our Confederation project may thus be indefinitely delayed.

HON. MR. CURRIE—So much the better.

HON. MR. RYAN—I think any man with his eyes open will see that events are marching on upon this continent with great strides Event follows event in such rapid succession that we can hardly tell whither the tide will flow next. Already we hear the great anticipated successes of the North. If the news be true that Charleston has been evacuated, it will be a severe blow to the cause of the South; and if the South be conquered, we know what have been the sentiments towards Canada expressed in the United States for the last three years. They will, perhaps, turn north for further conquests, and try to humble a power which has not in every way met their wishes. We should, at all events, be prepared to meet such a contingency, prepared to repel attack, prepared to defend our homes and the free Constitution under which we live. I will conclude by saying that if the citizens of Montreal have been accused in former times of energy in a wrong direction, they are prepared now, and I speak it advisedly, to use that energy for the defence of the province. For the people of the nationality to which I belong, I will further say they have come to this country to find a home and they have found one, where they are not oppressed by any wrongs, where there is no invidious distinction between races and creeds. They appreciate the blessing and value of the institutions under which they live, they are ready to defend them, and they look on the union of the British North American Provinces as the surest means of preserving and perpetuating them. (Cheers.)

HON. MR. PRICE—Honorable gentlemen, being one of the newly elected members of this House, I would like to say a few words, by way of defining my position, before the vote is taken. Although I have said that I was in favor of Confederation as the only means by which we could make proper provision for our defence, yet, until I understood the details more clearly than what I could learn from the resolutions, I could not make up my mind to vote for it. Previous to the declaration at the election in my division, the press had circulated the views of the Conference, and I went over the details so far as I was in possession of them, and the verdict of the people at the hustings was unanimously in favor of the scheme. (Hear, hear.) I would like to enter into a discussion of the details, clause by clause, but it is impossible to do so at the present time. It is not surprising that almost every member of the House is opposed to one or more of the resolutions ; it is impossible for us, even when we go into committee on almost any subject, to unanimously agree on all the clauses. Before going further I wish to thank my honorable friend the gallant Knight at the head of the Government, for his kind remarks with reference to my father and myself, at the opening of this debate. For the last twenty years I have been known and resided in the constituency which sent me here, and if I have been elected without much opposition, it was from friendship towards me on the part of my constituents. Although I represent people having different religious views, yet I believe only twenty-six Protestant votes were given ior me. I have had a great deal of personal friendship and intercourse with the Roman Catholic clergy of Lower Canada, and must say I have always found them liberal and loyal in their views, and, aï a body, almost

[Page 339]

unanimous in supporting the scheme of Confederation, being convinced that it is the only sortie from our present political troubles, and of our continuing under the British Crown, knowing well the liberty that all subjects enjoy under it ; and I feel certain that if ever the day comes to defend the British flag on this soil, while a shred is left on the staif they will be there to defend it. Being an elected member of this House, who by this scheme may be offered a seat for life, I beg to say that I care little for the chance ; but I have been congratulated by my constituents, on all sides, upon the prospect before me, and if I vote for the measure as it stands I shall not, therefore, in any way displease them. Although I voted for rendering this House elective, in 1856, yet I did so, contrary to my own convictions, for the sole purpose of sustaining the Government, believing that this House should be a conservative body. I consider that this should be a special branch, where we should judge measures without reference to popular prejudices, if such a thing were possible. I think we are here to judge without that political partiality which actuates most of the members of the Lower House, some of whom got their seats by a majority of one. I am sure persons elected in that manner can hardly claim to represent the popular feeling of the country. For my part, I intend to vote for these resolutions, for it becomes a matter of choioe with us either to support them and thus become one strong Confederacy, or else go by driblets into the American Union. (Hear, hear.) I am fully convinced that we are tending rapidly towards annexation, and that the only thing that can save us is the formation of a strong Confederacy. And if that is not done immediately, I firmly believe that we shall let the golden opportunity slip, and will not again have the opportunity. Honorable gentlemen say that our debt will be rapidly increased under Confederation. Well, that is hard to say, but I think it quite likely it may increase slightly. But what would be our debt if we were annexed to the United States ? What would our taxes be if we had a proportion of the enormous war debt of that country to pay, in addition to our own ? For my part, believing as I do that this is the only hope of the country, and the present the only opportunity we shall have of carrying it through—and so far as I know it is the only one—I should feel myself unworthy the position I hold if I did not vote in favor of it. It is the only practicable scheme that has ever come before the country for settling the difficulties that have afflicted the country. For the past ten years, during which I have had the honor of being a representative of the people, there has always been a running fight between the ins and outs—first one side and then the other, contending for office, and the result has been anything but satisfactory to the country. I think if honorable members would take ¡in impartial view of this question, and consider that we cannot alter the details, if we desired to do so, without defeating the whole, they would not hesitate to vote for it. As I understand it, the details in reference to the formation of our own local governments will be brought before us, and we shall then have ample opportunity of considering and amending them if we think it necessary. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. REESOR—I do not wish to make any lengthened remarks ; but there are one or two points to which I wish to call the attention of the House before the vote is taken. (Cries of “Question,” “question !”) If I am out of order, I will take my seat.

THE HON. THE SPEAKER—The honorable gentleman is perfectly in order.

HON. MR. REESOR—I wish to call the attention of the House to the opinion of the celebrated author quoted by my honorable friend from Victoria Division (Hon. Mr. RYAN). My honorable friend quoted some part of a work by Mr. JOHN STUART MILLS, a celebrated writer on Representative Government, but he did not go far enough. Mr. MILLS says :—

The consideration which tells most in my judgment in favor of two Chambers (and this I do regard as of some moment), is the evil effect pruduced upon the mind of any holder of power, whether an individual or an assembly, by the conaeiousness of having only themselves to consult.

This is perfectly true. But what does my honorable friend advocate? He advocates that the whole power shall be concentrated in the General Government; that they shall have the power to create this House, so that the whole power shall be legally centred in ” one body.” The writer he quoted goes on and condemns that principle in the following words :—

If the writings by which reputation has been gained are unconnected with politics, they are no evidence of the special qualities required, while, if political, they would enable successive ministries to deluge the House with party tools. That is the position to which my honorable

[Page 340]

friend would drive us. He would give the ministry the power ” to deluge this House with party tools.” He then went on and proved too much with regard to the trade between the provinces. He said New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would take our manufactures, that already we had large manufactures of boots and shoes, and that the Lower Provinces would take these and other manufactures from us. And then he told us that they had coal in Nova Scotia, and that where there is coal,mannfactures will spring up.

HON. MR. RYAN—Coal is not used in the manufacture of boots and shoes.

HON. MR. REESOR—But coal makes a manufacturing country, and there is no reason why Nova Scotia, as a manufacturing country, should not manufacture boots and shoes as cheaply as they can be manufactured at Montreal. I have lately learned from good authority that the very articles to which my honorable friend refers (boots and shoes) are now being largely manufactured in the city of St. John. Labor is quite as cheap in New Brunswick as in Canada, and there is no reason why they could not supply themselves with the articles named, and with many others, even cheaper than they can be supplied from Canada.

HON. MR. RYAN—As regards Mr. MILLS’ opinions, the extract I read was this :—

That there should be in every polity a centre of resistance to the predominant power in the Constitution—and in a democratic Constitution, therefore, a nucleus of resistance to the democracy— I have already maintained ; and I regard it as a fundamental maxim of government. If any people who possess a democratic representation are, from their historical antecedents, more willing to tolerate such a centre of resistance in the form of a Second Chamber or House of Lords, than it; any other shape, this constitutes a strong reason for having it in that shape.

He admits that a check can be used, and properly used, by a House of Lords or a Legislative Council. Then he goes on to say that he does not think this the best check, and prescribes a plan of his own ; but his statement on this point is too long to enter upon now.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I wish to ask the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands a question with reference to the meaning of the 5th sub-section of the 29th clause, which commits to the General Parliament ” the raising of money by all or any other modes or sysemi of taxation.” Am I to understand that he General Governmeat are to have the power of imposing local taxation upon the lands of the provinces ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL —The general national power of taxation is to be in the General Government.

HON. MR. CURRIE—The 34th sub-section of the same clause commits to the General Government ” the establishment of a general Court of Appeal for the Federated provinces.” Is that to be in lieu of the Courts of Appeal we now have ? Is it intended to do away with the present Court of Appeal and to establish a new one ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I do not think my honorable friend has caught the meaning of what is intended. It does not say the general Court of Appeal shall be established, but that the power to establish it shall be in the General Government.

HON. MR. CURRIE—New Courts of Appeal?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—If a statute of the Parliament of the United Provinces shall be passed creating a Court of Appeal, it will state whether it is in lieu of, or in addition to, the present Courts of Appeal. I should suppose it would be in addition.

HON. MR. CURRIE—I think that point is one which we ought to understand before giving a final vote ; and I do not think the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands, with reference to it, has fulfilled his promise to give an explicit answer to any question which might be put, to elicit further information about the scheme. Then the 43rd clause gives the Nova Scotia Legislature power to make laws respecting export duties on coal. What is the meaning of that ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I thought I had explained that the export duty there was almost synonymous with our royalty. I t is levied in lieu of a royalty at the mine ; and we therefore permit the Nova Scotia Government to exact it on coal coming to this country.

HON. MR. CURRIE—The honorable gentleman must see it cannot be a royalty, because the royalty must apply to all coal consumed in the Province of Nova Scotia, while the export duty only applies to coal exported from that province. The 9th sub-section of that clause imposes on the local governments, ” the establishment, maintenance and management of penitentiaries, and of public and reformatory prisons.” There is but one penitentiary in Canada, which is situated in Upper Canada. Does this clause impose on

[Page 341]

the Local Legislature of Lower Canada the construction and maintenance of a new Penitentiary, leaving to Upper Canada the Penitentiary now in existence in that province ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—No doubt ; but Lower Canada may arrange with Upper Canada for the temporary use of the Penitentiary, so long as she requires it, or for its permanent use, if that is thought better.

HON. MR. CURRIE—By the 6th subsection the local legislatures have the control of ” 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.” I do not know whether the representations which have been made in some portions of the country are correct—that, under this section/ the Roman Catholics would be entitled to no more schools than they have at the passing of the act ? Will the Commissioner of Crown Lands please explain ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—By this section it is affirmed that the principle of action with reference to those schools which may be in existence at the time the Confederation takes effect, shall continue in operation. Should this Parliament and the other legislatures adopt the scheme, and if the Imperial Parliament adopts an act giving effect to it, there will be found in existence certain principles by which the minorities in Upper and Lower , Canada will be respectively protected, and those principles will continue in operation.

HON. MR. CURRIE—But suppose no alteration is made in the Common School Law of Upper Canada—and, as I understand, none is promised—would the Roman Catholics be entitled to establish more separate schools ?

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The present Act would continue to operate, and the honorable gentleman knows what are the rights of Roman Catholic schools under that Act.

HON. MR. CURRIE—That is the way in which I understand it. With reference to the 61st clause, I would ask is it proposed, at this session of the Legislature, to arrange the balance of the debt—not taken into the Confederation— between Upper and Lower Canada.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—It is proposed, before any Federation scheme goes into opertion, that the debt shall be arranged between Upper and Lower Canada.

HON. MR. CURRIE—In the 64th section t is provided that, “in consideration of the ransfer 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.” Would the Commissioner of Crown Lands state why the population of Newfoundland is to be estimated at 130,000, while the population of the other provinces is taken according to the census of 1861—Newfoundland thus being allowed 8,000 of a population more than it would be entitled to under the census, and being allowed to take in on that basis $200,- 000 more of debt, and also receiving more subsidy than it would otherwise be entitled to ? If we are to assume that the population of Newfoundland increased 8,000 between 1861 and 1864 or 1865, why should not a similar increase be allowed to Canada ? Assuming that the population of Canada increased at no more rapid rate, we would have an increase of 160,000, which would entitle us to go into the Confederation with a debt exceeding that with which we now go in of upwards of $4,- 000,000, and which would give us $130,000 a year more of subsidy. I cannot understand why the population of Newfoundland should be taken at 130,000, when all the other provinces— most of them, at all events, increasing in population much more rapidly than Newfoundland— go in with the population ascertained by the census of 1861.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The reason is just this, that there happened to be no census taken in Newfoundland in 1861. The last census there was some years before—I think in 1857. The estimated increase, if I recollect rightly, was based on the increase which had taken place during the period between the previous census and that of 1857 ; and, taking that ratio of increase, it was found that the population, at the time of the union, would be close upon 130,000. We therefore put it at that figure.

HON. MR. CURRIE—The honorable gentleman is right in saying that the last census of Newfoundland was taken in 1857 ; but the increase should have been reckoned only for a period of four years, and I can scarcely believe that Newfoundland could be entitled to an increase of 8,000 in its population in four years, giving to that colony the benefit of four years’ increase more than Canada. Our census was taken in 1861.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—Not at all; we all go in with the amounts of our respective populations estimated at the same time ; 130,- 000 was the estimated population of New-

[Page 342]

foundland at that date. We had no desire to give Newfoundland any advantage. Its population was estimated at 130,000 at the time at which the populations of the other provinces were taken.

HON. MR. CURRIE—Perhaps the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands will inform us whether, in stating the revenues of the various provinces, the customs revenue raised on goods exported from one province to another was taken into account ? Prince Edward Island, in 1861, paid customs duties amounting to £17,769 sterling; of that, only £11,096 was paid on goods imported from foreign countries, or countries other than those which, it is proposed, shall form part of this union ; so that the people of that island paid only about 70 cents per head in duties on goods brought in from countries outside the proposed Confederation.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—What do you make the total customs revenue of Prince Edward Island for that year ?

HON. MR. CURRIE—Seveenteen thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine pounds sterling. Great Britain furnished the largest proportion of the imports; then Nova Scotia; then the United States ; then New Brunswick. The whole duties, as I have said, paid on goods coming from other countries than the British Provinces, were £11,096, or about two-thirds of the entire customs revenue.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL—I suppose the person who was probably the best informed about the state of the revenue in Prince Edward Island, was the Secretary of the Treasury, Hon. Mr. POPE ; and our estimate of the revenue of that island was based on a printed return which Mr. POPE handed round among the members of the Conference, informing us what had been the revenue of Prince Edward Island in 1863, and for a series of years before 1863. In the same way Hon. Mr. TILLEY furnished the statement of revenue for New Brunswick, Dr. TUPPER for Nova Scotia, and Hon. Mr. GALT for Canada ; and on these statements furnished by the Ministers of Finance for the various provinces the estimates were based. I observe that the Minister of Finance, Hon. Mr. GALT, in a speech delivered elsewhere, puts down the total revenue of Prince Edward Island at $197,000, all of which is from customs and excise, save about $32,000.

HON. MR. ALEXANDER —My hon. friend from Niagara (Hon. Mr. CURRIE) in his own speech stated the revenue of Prince Edward Island at $153,000.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ then rose to wind up the debate, with a general reply. He said:—Hon. gentlemen, I was very anxious that ample opportunity should bo given to the members of this Honorable House to express their opinions on the matter which has been for the last two or three weeks under debate. And now as I see no member disposed to rise, with the view of offering any further remarks, I think the time has come when the debate may be closed, if such is the pleasure of the House. I commenced, hon. gentlemen, to take notes—pretty copious notes—with the view of answering the statements and arguments of hon. gentlemen who have spoken in opposition to the scheme. But, at the suggestion of some of my friends, I have taken my pen and crossed out all those notes— (hear, hear)—by way of compromise, if I may so express myself—(laughter)—and in order that I might not provoke further discussion. 1 hope that this sacrifice of mine— for it is a sacrifice—(laughter)—will be taken in good part, and that the few remarks I have now to make will not be of a nature to provoke any reply. In the first place, I must answer a question that was put to me, I think by my hon. friend from St. Clair Division (Hon. Mr. VIDAL). He said he did not understand exactly what I meant by the province being at the top of an inclined plane. It is true that in going over very rapidly the different topics on which I touched, I did not explain that figure very fully. But I stated that the province stood in a twofold danger—of being dragged violently into the American Union, and, in the next place, as we stood on an inclined plane, of supping down gradually, and without our being aware of it, into the vortex below. It seems to me that the thing was plain enough. Still, as I am a Frenchman, and cannot express myself in English in the manner I would like, I think I should be allowed the privilege which is conceded to persons belonging to certain foreign nationalities. For instance, they say that an Englishman is allowed to speak once, an Irishman twice—

AN HON. MEMBER—Three times. (Laughter.)

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—Well, three times be it ; that is still better. And a Dutchman as long as he finds it necessary, until he can make himself understood. Well, I want to have the privilege allowed to the Dutchman. (Laughter.) As to being drawn violently into the American Union, if this scheme of Confederation does not take place, it seems to me that that might be a very pro-

[Page 343]

bable result of our position. Suppose war was declared late in autumn, at the close of navigation— with the little means we have here of defending ourselves, we would be placed for five months in a very disagreeable and trying position, having no opportunity of obtaining the powerful suecour of the Mother Country. (Hear, hear.) That must be so easily understood, that I shall make no further remark upon it. But, my statement about the province being placed upon an inclined plane may require some little comment and explanation. I say that, if we do not cultivate with our sister provinces—the Maritime Provinces—a close commercial, political, and social intercourse— being all of us British subjects, all of us monarchists, owing allegiance to the same Crown—if we neglect the cultivation of that intercourse, we run a great danger. We are, in our present position, small, isolated bodies, and it may probably be with us, as in the physical world, where a large body attracts to itself the smaller bodies within the sphere of its influence. If we do not make those alliances with the Lower Provinces—if we do not open with them those communications, political, social, and commercial, which are essential for our own interest, we shall little by little lose some of those principles we now esteem so much ; we shall lose little by little our attachment to the Mother Country, and the interesting reminiscences which, with many of us, now give intensity to that attach- ment; and we shall become—you may depend upon it, hon. gentlemen—more and more democratised, before we are aware of it. (Hear, hear.) And really, hon. gentlemen, if I were to form my opinion by some of the speeches which we have heard in this Honorable House since this debate was opened, I think there are some hon. gentlemen who, from the way in which they have expressed themselves, might be supposed to be—although I hope in reality they are not—already half way down the inclined plane. (Hear, hear and laughter.) Well, hon. gentlemen, I say that if we want to avoid that, we must have a Federal union with our fellow-subjects of the British Provinces, and that besides we must have easy means of access to the seaboard, so that, in case of danger, help can be immediately forwarded to Canada and to all parts of this Federal union, and that we may have a powerful army of Great Britain coming here as an auxiliary to the defence which I hope we shall be able to make ourselves. (Hear, hear.) An honorable gentleman has stated that I expressed myself to the effect that, if this Confederation did not take place, Canada could not become prosperous. I never said anything of the kind. I said expressly the contrary. Perhaps I may not precisely apprehend the meaning of the word ” prosperous.” But I said this, that Canada had within itself all the means to become populous, to become wealthy, to become a great people. But on the other hand, I said that Canada and the other British American Provinces, without union, could not become a ” powerful,” as distinguished from a prosperous people. I said that we in Canada could not become a powerful people unless we had some maritime elements, unless we had the means, by having harbors and ports of our own open at all seasons, of communicating freely with all the nations of the world. (Hear, hear.) That is what I said. I never stated that Canada could not become prosperous, make money, and so forth. No ; I think Canada can do that; but Canada, even though its population should reach forty millions— which it may in a century hence—can never be a powerful nation, unless its power is felt all over the world ; and how can its power be so felt, unless it has its seaports opea all the year round ? (Hear, hear.) And I said— ” Point out to me the nation in this world which is powerful, that has not some maritime elements.” I say there is no one in the world. Every nation whose power has been felt over the globe, has been a nation that had some maritime outlet. But Canada, situated as it is, is in great want of free access to the sea; and, as long as we are shut up, during five months of the year, without being able to communicate with the rest of the world — for, notwithstanding our fine river, we cannot be said to have a real maritime element—we are in truth a dependent people. (Hear, hear.) I have some notes in French, made with the intention of answering honorable gentlemen who spoke in that language ; but I think, having commenced, that I will go on in English. I t has been asked by several honorable gentlemen how we were to make provision for the protection of the minorities in Upper and Lower Canada respectively. We have in Upper Canada a Catholic minority, in Lower Canada a Protestant minority. Well, those minorities are now in possession of certain rights ; and, if we were not to legislate at all upon those rights, my interpretation of the soheme is, that they would still, under the local governments, enjoy the rights which they now possess. But it has been provided that, if necessary, addi-

[Page 344]

tional protection shall be afforded ; and in that case, I say, without hesitation, that what will be done for one portion of the country will also be done for the other portions—justice égale distributive. Hear, hear.) Honorable gentlemen have said that we have merely submitted the general scheme of the Government, and they have called upon us to give details—details about the School bill, details about the local governments, and the immense string of other details embraced in the amendment moved the other day by my hon. friend from Grandville (Hon. Mr. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST) , which I am sure was at least a fathom long, and a very long fathom too. (Laughter.) Now, suppose we had all these matters before us, could we really digest such a mass of information as hon. gentlemen have asked for ? It seems to me it would be like introducing liquids into a vessel whose mouth is very small ; if you throw in the liquid rapidly and in two great quantities, the vessel will be overflowed, and the fluid won’t be got into it. I think we have enough before us at present, when we have the principal matter, without the accessories. For, what would be the use of the accessories if you reject the principle ? (Hear, hear.) Depend upon it, as soon as these resolutions are concurred in, then the details will be given one after the other ; and I trust they will be of such a nature as to meet with the approval of the majority of this Honorable House. (Hear, hear.) Some hon. gentlemen have told us that this was not a Federal union—that the project before you, hon. gentlemen, was in point of fact a project for a Legislative union. One hon. gentleman who took this view read the 29th section, in order to shew that the General Government, if it chose, could repeal any of the local acts of the different local legislatures—that the General Government, for instance, could do away with our religious and benevolent corporations, or deprive them of their property. I think the honorable gentleman must have been rather short-sighted when he read the 29th resolution, for he omitted a very important part of it ; and, if he had not omitted that part, I do not think he would have said that this Federal schjme was really a scheme for a Legislative union. I have no doubt my honorable friend acted in good faith ; but being rather short-sighted, he did not read the whole clause ; otherwise he must have arrived at a different conclusion. The 29th section says : ” 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.” Then follows a list of all the subjects committed to the General Government. But the resolution does not finish there. There is something that comes after all that, and it is this : ” And generally respecting all matters of a general character, not specially and exclusively reserved for the local governments and legislatures.” Now I would ask honorable gentlemen if an act incorporating a religious body or benevolent society here in Lower Canada is a subject of a general character ; is it not a subject purely local ? (Hear, hear.) Take, for instance, the sisters of charity. Could the General Government, under this clause, interfere with the privileges of those ladies ? I say they could not. I suppose the honorable gentleman who used the argument advanced it conscientiously and in good faith. But I think it is quite evident from a reading of the resolution that, if Confederation takes place, the General Government will have no power to interfere with such matters. (Hear, hear.) I must say positively, if I am competent to draw any conclusion at all from what I read, that the General Government will have no right to meddle at all with those religious and benevolent corporations, none in the world. (Hear, hear.) Remarks have also been made about the laws of divorce and marriage, and the honorable member for the division of DeLanaudière (Hon. Mr. OLIVIER) told us that the Conference had done well in transferring the power of divorce to the General Government. On his part, I think this was a wise view of the question, and I am glad to have the opportunity of now telling him so. He was, however, very uneasy about the word ” marriage.” Well, I will try to put him right and at his ease on that point; and I will give him the answer as I find it put down in writing, so that no possible misunderstanding may continue to exist. If the honorable gentleman will but take his pen, he will be able to note my answer :—” The word ‘ marriage’ has been inserted to give the General Legislature the right to decide what form of marriage will be legal in all parts of the Confederation, without in any way interfering with the rules and prescriptions of the Church to which the contracting parties belong.” Another honorable gentleman—I think the honorable member for DeLorimier (Hon. Mr. BUREAU)—asked me if the General Government would be responsible for the debts contracted by Canada

[Page 345]

prior to the Federal union ? I replied ” Yes, the General Government would be liable for all the debts contracted before this date.” ” But,” says he, ” there are certain sums above the sixty-two and a half millions of dollars which will have to be settled as between Upper and Lower Canada. And what will become of the amount due to the seigniors ? I t may be that Lower Canada will repudiate that portion of the debt so allotted her.” Well, I reply, Lower Canada cannot do that, if she were disposed to do so ; but I do not believe that Lower Canada would be disposed to repudiate a debt which she has herself contracted—a debt of honor—a debt which is, as it were, sacred. But even if Lower Canada were disposed to do so, the General Government are liable for the amount of that debt ; and as the General Government has to give to Lower Canada a subsidy of 80 cents per head, it would, of course, take very good care to substract from the amount allotted to Lower Canada the interest which is to be paid to the seigniors. (Hear, hear.) So that on that score—-I do not know if the hon. gentleman is himself a seignior or not, but he seems to take a great interest in the seigniors— the hon. member need not be uneasy at all.

HON. MR. BUREAU—What I stated was, that under the authority of a public act, special appropriations have been made for the redemption of the debt due to the seigniors, and that the putting aside of that act I consider an act of repudiation. Then, for the sake of argument I stated this, that you are shewing an example of repudiation. But I added that if you were going to pay to Lower Canada what you state, for her Local Government ; in the event of her refusing to pay the seigniors, probably the General Government would retain sufficient from the 80 cents per head apportionment for that purpose. I do not wish to push the argument further ; and I may state that it was only for the sake of argument that I advanced the proposition.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—No law has been repealed—no repudiation taken place. The seignors, as it appears to me—I may not have understood the law, for I am no lawyer —will have addititional security. That, it seems to me, is a plain fact. (Hear, hear.) Then the hon. member from DeLorimier found a great deal of fault with the manner—I must say the able manner in which the gallant Knight (Hon. Sir N. F. BELLEAU) explained the action of responsible government in this country. The honorable Knight shewed how responsible government protected the French Catholics in Lower Canada under Confederation, saying that if ever an act of flagrant injustice was to be attempted in the Federal Government, the whole of the Lower Canadians would join as one man, and by uniting with the minority against the Government — because honorable gentlemen must know that there always will be minorities—by means of thus strengthening the minority any Administration could be ousted out of their places in twenty-four hours. My honorable friend stated this, and he stated it justly ; he said so, well aware of what he was saying. But the honorable gentleman from DeLorimier comes forward and says : ” Don’t you recollect that at one time the Upper Canadians, with the minority from Lower Canada, united to impose upon Lower Canada their will?” I tell you, honorable gentlemen, that they never did harm to Lower Canada, and that they never could do harm to Lower Canada had they so chosen. And why ? The French had the use of their own language conceded to them in order to bring them to support the Government, and much more would have been done to accomplish the same end. I am referring now to the Government of the day from 1844 to 1848. That Government would have given you, what was passed afterwards, an act to secure to the sufferers the payment of their losses, the Rebellion Losses Bill.— They would have given every shilling of those losses, and they would have given you more if you would have consented to become their followers. The honorable gentleman made out no case at all, and he could not have studied parliamentary history since 1841 correctly. Had he done so, he would have found that at that period what was called responsible government was not worked out. Sir CHARLES BAGOT, it is true, had lent himself to the views of his advisers, and responsible government had been going on perfectly under him ; but then he died here, and honorable gentlemen must understand that Lord METCALF was opposed to responsible government.

HON. MR. BUREAU—Still we had responsible government.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—You had it in name only, but not in practice ; otherwise Hon. Mr. BALDWIN and Hon. Mr. LAFONTAINE would never have left the Cabinet. They resigned their seats in Council because they held themselves responsible to Parliament, while Lord METCALF chose to appoint persons to office without consulting them, as his constitutional

[Page 346]

advisers. Well, then, I assert that the case the honorahle gentleman has cited to show that my honorahle friend on the other side was wrong, is no ease at all. It is not applicable in any respect to present circumstances, because, I repeat it again, we had not responsible government at that time.

HON. MR. BUREAl —We have not responsible government yet, then.

Hon. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—How does the honorable gentleman make that out ?

HON. MR. BUREAU—The honorable gentleman has stated that since the death of Lord BAGOT we have not had responsible government.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—The honorable gentleman cannot surely have understood me. I think I said that under Lord METCALF there was responsible government in name but not in deed. And if the honorable gentleman will study our parliamentary 1 istory a little closer, he will admit that such was the case. The consequence was, as I have already stated, the resignation of Hon. Messrs. LAFONTAINE and BALDWIN. Still the Lower Canadian party was unbroken. It is true the new advisers of Lord METCALF coquetted much with that majority to obtain adhesion ; but it was in vain. They remained firm to the last, until the general election of 1848 brought back the parties to Parliament in much about their natural strength. I have already stated that I have destroyed my notes, and I am ready to await the verdict of this honorable House. (Applause.)

HON. MR. VIDAL said—Honorable gentlemen, as I consider it my duty to vote for the motion now before the House, I think it desirable to clear myself from the imputation of inconsistency in having supported the amendments which have been proposed, and which the House has rejected. I may state that my views as to the desirableness of submitting the question to the people are unchanged ; the plan has been voted down, but no argument has been adduced to demonstrate that it was wrong in principle, or likely to destroy the scheme. I have previously expressed my general approval of the Confederation, and that my desire was to secure its permanency by having its foundation broad and deep in the expressed approval of the people. Submission of the proposal to them has been refused, and the only question now for me to decide is whether I should accept the scheme as it is, or vote for its rejection altogether. Under these circumstances, I have no difficulty in deciding that I must support the motion for its adoption. (Hear, hear.) The question was then put on the main motion, which was carried on the following division :—

CONTENTS.—Honorable Messieuis Alexander, Allan, Aimand, Sir N F. Belleau, Bennett, Ferguson Blair, Blake, Boulton, Bossé, Bull. Burnham, Campbell, Christie, Crawford, De Beaujeu, Dickson, A. J. Duchesnay, E. H. J. Duchepnay, Dumouehet, Ferrier, Foster, Gingras, Guévremont, Hamiiton (Inkerman), Hamilton (Kingston), Lacoste, Leonard, Leslie, McCrea, Mc- Donald, McMaster, Macpherson, Matheson, Mills, Panet, Price, Bead, Renaud, Ross, Ryan, Shaw, Skead, Sir E. P. Taché, Vidal, and Wilson —45.

NON-CONTENTS.—Honorable Messieurs Aikins, Archambault, Armstrong, Bureau, Chaffers, Currie, Flint, Letellier de St. Just, Malhiot, Moore, Olivier, Proulx, Reesor, Seymour, and Simpson. —15.

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. FERGUSSON BLAIR, that a select committee be appointed to draft an Address founded on the said resolution, and that the committee be composed of Honorable Messrs. CAMPBELL, FERGUSSON BLAIR, ROSS, CHRISTIE, Sir N. F. BELLEAU, and the MOVER.— Carried.

The House adjourned during pleasure ; and on resuming,

HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ reported the Address, and moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. FERGUSSON BLAIR, that it be agreed to.—Carried.

It was then ordered that the Address be engrossed, signed by the SPEAKER, and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by the whole House. Tt was also ordered that such members of the Executive Council as are members of this House, do wait on His Excellency the Governor General, to know what time His Excellency will please to appoint to be attended with the said Address.

The House then adjourned.


MONDAY, February 20, 1865.

MR. JOLY said—Mr. SPEAKER, when it is proposed to change the Constitution of the country, it beecmes our duty to study with the greatest care, and from every distinct joint of view, the new Constitution which it is proposed to substitute for the existing one; and in doing so we ought not to disdain the experience of past ages

[Page 347]

History is the statesman’s safest guide ; it ought to be the basis of all his conceptions ; indeed it would be treating its lessons with contempt, were we to attempt to dispose of the future without first knowing how Providence has disposed of the past. To make use of a maxim, common, but yet most truthful : ” There is nothing new under the sun;” the history of the world is a constantly revolving scene ; the same events pass and repass before our eyes under aspects varied enough, it is true, to deceive the superficial observer, but the man who thinks and investigates will have no difficulty in discovering that at all periods of the world’s history, men have allowed themselves to be controlled by the same motives and cassions, and will arrive at the inevitable conclusion that like causes produce like effects. The honorable ministers who have unfolded to us the scheme of Confederation have based all their arguments on the future ; thsy have tried to prophecy, but tor them the history of the past is a dead letter. Before attempting to predict the fate of our future Confederation, they should first have told us what had been the fate of past confederations. It does not suffice to paint a splendid picture of grandeu: and prosperity; let it first be ascertained that the foundations on which the edifice is to be erected are sure and proved, and that established, we may then begin to build with safety. As has been said by one of the great professors of political science : ” The wisdom of a statesman is the result of experience and not of theory.” I am by no means astonished, however, at the repugnance evinced by the advocates of Confederation to make allu-iou to the past. The Minister of Agriculture alone has had the courage to open the volume of the world’s history, and he hastily closed it with the significant remark, especially so falling from his lips :—

In all the constitutions in which the Federal principle has been adopted, it cannot be denied that the same fatal vice is to be discerned—the weakness of the central authority. This has been the fatal disease in all confederations of which I have heird, or whose histories I have read. They have died of consumption.

What the Government has not been willing to do, I now propose to do. Let us take counsel of those nations which have adopted federative constitutions, and may the recital of their unhappy experience be of use to us by placing us on our guard against the same dangers. I propose to cast a brief glance on the history of each Confederation. I do not propose to lay before you my own views, and ask you to adopt them, but rather those of men of eminence, who have made the art of good government the study of their lives. I shall indeed make use, as nearly as I possibly d u , of the very language which they have used. Lord BROUGHAM, who is listened to with profound respect in the Imperial Parliament, thus expresses his views in the third part of his work on Political Philosophy :—

Besides the other defecte of the Federal union, its manifest tendency to create mutual estrangement, and even hostility, between the different parts of the same nation, is an insuperable objection to it.

And further on he adds:—

Whoever would see further proofs of this position, may be referred to the ancient commonwealths of Greece. As a Florentine hated a Siennese worse than a German or a Spaniard, or even an infidel, in modern times, so of old did an Athenian hate a Spartan or a Theban worse than a Persian. Now, the Federal union, by keeping up a line of separation among its members, gives the freest scope to these pernicious prejudices— feelings which it is the highest duty of all governments to eradicate, because they lead directly to confusion and war.

Passing from tbe confederacies of Greece and Italy to those of the Seven United Provinces (now Holland and Belgium), we there find the same state of things. Lot us hear what Lord MACAULAY says in the first volume of his History of England :—

The union of Utrecht, hastily established amid the throes of a revolution, with the view of providing for the exigencies of the moment, had never been considered with calmness, nor brought to perfection in a period of tranquillity. Each one of the Seven Provinces, which this union bound together in one cluster, retained nearly all the rights of sovereignty, and exacted from the Federal Government the most absolute respect of its rights. As the Federal authorities had no means of enforcing prompt obedience from the Provincial authorities, so these latter were equally powerless as regarded the Municipal authorities.

The advocates of Confederation take pleasure in citing the result of the Swiss (or Helvetic) Confederacy as an exception to the disastrous fate awaiting all confederations; but Switzerland possesses all the germs of this fatal malady, as witness the civil and religious war of the Sonderbund. Here, however, the symptoms are less violent than in other confederations, on account of its

[Page 348]

exceptional position ; France, Prussia and Austria are deeply interested in maintaining the existence of Switzerland as a neutral and independent state—it is indispensable to their safety. Were it not go, the last hour of the Helvetic Confederacy would have sounded long ago. If we pass from the confederations of the old world to those of the new, we shall find that the climate of America appears to be still more fatal to confederations than that of Europe. Let us begin with the Central American Confederacy or Republic of Guatemala. It was established in 1821, and was composed of five states : Guatemala, Honduras, San Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. In 1829, that is to say, after an interval of eighteen years only, Honduras set the example by seceding from the Confederation, en example which was very soon followed by the four other states, and that Confederation has ceased to exist, after a brief existence, in the midst of revolutions and civil wars. The Confederation of Columbia was formed in 1819 of the twelve provinces freed by Bolivar from the dominion of Spain. After endless troubles and revolutions, they separated in 1831 (after an existence of 12 years) into three independent republics, though reunited under the name of Confederation of the United states of South America —New Grenada, Venezuela and Ecuador. I hold in my hand a volume of the Annuaire des Deux Mondes, containing a general history of the different states during the years 1853 and 1854. I will not occupy the time of the House by entering into the details of that history; I shall epitomize it by reading a few lines from the table of contents, in which we find mention made of the principal events in the most succinct form. I read from this table as follows :— ” Venezuela—General condition of Venezuela— Insurrection of 1853—Insurrection of 1854.” One per annum, one would soon become used to insurrections and think but little of them in that happy country. ” Compulsory Loans “—I suppose one may get used to these operations in coarse of time, however disagreeable they may be. At all events, if matters turn out well with the compulsory borrowers, as I have no doubt they do, they do not leave enough to their compulsory creditors to make it worth their while to renew the operation annually, and thus we see that compulsory loans are not effected every year in Venezuela with the same regularity in which the insurrections there are carried out. “New Grenada —movements of parties ;” I augur nothing good from this movement. ” The Golgothas and Draconians”—probably the liberals and conservatives, who have had the singular taste to assume these villainous titles and who discuss the question of the day by musketry practice—”struggles of parties and threats of military revolution ; movement of 17th April.” Still another movement— ” uprising of the Provinces;”—here, at all events, we have an unmistakable movement, as to the nature of which there can be no doubt whatever. ” Present state of the civil war.”—In New Grenada civil war figures in the quotations just as in Canada; we quote transactions in flour or lumber ; it is their normal condition I hear an honorable member exclaim “Oh,but they are savages !” They are not savages ; but I am free to confess they behave like savages. This is but the ordinary effect of civil war ; as witness what is passing amongst our neighbors in the United States. But let us proceed to another confederation. Bolivia and Lower Peru formed,themselves into a Confederacy in 1836. This Confederacy was born and lived and died, the whole in three years, between 1836 and 1839, hardly allowing time to begin to write its history. Next we have the confederation of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata or Argentine Republic, established in 1816, by the union of fourteen independent provinces. BOUTILLET, after having referred to the promulgation of the new Constitution, continues in the following terms :—

This Constitution, however, does not prevent the united provinces of Rio do la Plata from being a prey to anarchy. The federalists and the anti-federalists are continually at war. Manufactures there are none ; and the trade is very limited.

In that same table of contents of the Annuaire des Deux Mondes, I read * * * “Civil war and raising of the siege of Buenos Ayres— separate Constitution for Buenos Ayres * * * —Struggle between the parties, and financial distress—Disturbance (echauffourée) of the 18th July 1853.” I suppose this word means something half-way between a movement and an insurrection, ” Revolution of the 25th September.” Events succeed each other rapidly. ” Civil war—Intervention of Brazil.” But all this passed in 1853 and 1854. It is ancient history. Let us look at a few journals of last week or the week before. What do we find ? Here is a specimen or two : “The President of San Salvador in his speech at the opening of the House defends

[Page 349]

himself indignantly against the imputation of a wish to annex Central America to Mexico;” or take another article : ” Hostilities have recommenced between the Empire of Brazil and the Republic of Uraguay,” one of the States of the Argentine Confederation. ” Paraguay, an ally of Uraguay, has also declared war against Brazil. The latter is assisted by the revolutionary party in Uraguay, under the orders of General Flores. A Brazilian fleet assisted by General Flores and the revolutionists of Uraguay, has burned Paysandu, the capital of Uraguay * * * so that Uraguay is torn at the same time by civil war and a foreign war.” This is a lamentable state of affairs ! How prudently ministers have acted in omitting all mention of these sad scenes, in asking us to vote for Confederation ! They would have spoiled their brilliant picture by too great a depth of shadow. Passy, in his Mémoire sur les formes de Gouvernement et les causes qui les déterminent, (Mémoires de l’Institut, Sciences morales et politiques, 2e série, vol. 3,) expresses himself as follows, speaking of all these South American Confederations:

Seldom does a year pass, without fresh rebellions breaking out among them ; very seldom do the heads of the governments reach the legal term of their functions. The presidentships are ephemeral dictatorships, the prize of generals who, exiles one day, are at the head of armies the next, while the states themselves sometimes confederate, agaia independent, are constantly changing their forms of government and their aspect.

PASSY assigns two main causes for these occurrences. The absence of homogeneity or common origin, and the want of knowledge. As to this want of knowledge, I must observe that there are few nations in the world, if any, the population of which is generally as enlightened as that of the United States of North America, and yet, at this very time, we see the dogs of civil war let loose among them and raging as fiercely as ever they did among the confederate governments of South America. As to the absence of homogeneity talked of by PASSY, if it exists to such an extent as to lead to these sad results among the confederations of South America, in which all the citizens are, without exception, Catholics, speaking the same language, and who all within a few years fought side by side against their common enemy, Spain, to achieve their liberty,—if they are deficient, I say, in homogeneity, what is the case with us ? Protestants and Catholics, French, English and Irish speaking two different languages. The strongest bond of union among the citizens of a state is a community cf language and religion. We have neither in common. The confederations of South America have both, and yet, as PASSY says, they have not sufficient homogeneity to afford a hope that they can ever live in peace under a federal regime. Mexico was constituted a Confederation in 1824. In 1837 it was united, and the union subsisted till 1846, except three years of dictatorship. In 1846 the Federal principle again prevailed, but disappeared in 1853, since which period the history of Mexico is too generally kuown to need repetition in this place. It is written with the blood of its citizens. I shall merely mention the United States of North America. I do not pretend—I do not possess the ability —to trace out the real sources of the immense civil war by which they are now rent in pieces. Enough for me to say, that nobody is to consider slavery as the only cause of the civil strife. More than thirty years ago upon a question of tariff whicti went to protect the manufacturers of the North at the expense of the planters of the South, South Carolina sounded the signal of insurrection, as she since did in 1861 ; and had it not been for the firmness of General JACKSON, who overstepped his powers to save his country, the civil contest would have commenced at that time. It was sure to come on ; it was only delayed for a while. These were all trials of the Confederate system.

MR. CORNELLIER—All the confederations which you have mentioned were or are republican, and had the common fate of republican institutions. You have not said a word about monarchical confederations.

MR. JOLY—I have made no mention of monarchical confederations, because none have ever existed, and none can exist. The principle of a monarchy is that the power resides in one person; the principle of confederation is that it resides in all the members of the confederation. A confederation would, therefore, always be a republic, even if formed of several states subject to a monarchy; because the power would not be vested in one person, but in each of the several states, of which no one would acknowledge a head ; it would be a republic consisting of a very small number of members. Before I take leave of all the confederations, the names of which I have mentioned, I intend to say one word, at least, in their favor. We understand that states

[Page 350]

perfectly independent of one another, and not subject to any authority bearing equally on them all, may have agreed (notwithstanding the inconveniences of confederation) to become confederate for the purpose of strengthening themselves to resist a common enemy. So much they may have done. But we do not understand how provinces like ours, which have no existence independent of each other, but are all subject to the same authority, need have recourse to confederation for the purpose of cementing a union which already exists. Confederation, by marking more strongly the lines of demarcation between them, spoken of by Lord BROUGHAM, renders any more intimate connection between them for the future impossible. We are like bars of iron strrmgly welded together, which men should try to unite more strongly to each other by tearing them asunder to reunite them with shoemaker’s paste. Some will answer, ” True ! the Federal principle has always and in every case proved a failure, but the cause lay in the weakness of the central power. We shall obviate that inconvenience, by establishing a central power strong enough to preserve our Confederation from that danger.” But then it will be no longer a Confederation ; it will be a legislative union—a union which the most zealous advocates of Confederation reject as incompatible with the various interests of the different provinces. If you succeed in establishing this central power, with strength enough to bear sway over the local powers, the latter will no longer have an exclusive existence ; they will become the authorized delegates of the central power, their officers and every vestige of confederation will disappear from your Constitution. If you absolutely resolve to adopt the Federal principle, you cannot do it without adopting at tho same time all its inconveniences. The weakness of the central power is not the fruit of the Federal system ; it is its root, it is itself. This is the reason why states which are perfectly independent of each other, adopt the Federal principle solely as a means of defence against foreigners, because the central power in a confederation cannot be other than weak. We already possess, under our present Constitution, and without confederation, a central power stronger than any power which you can create, and to which we submit without complaint, because it is perfectly compatible with the existence of our local powers—I mean the power of England. It is exercised by men who live too far from us to hearken to the bickerings of race or of party, or to be mixed up with them in any way. But if that central power was wielded by men taken from among ourselves, men who have taken part in our quarrels and animosities, and who would make use of it to give effect to the views of their party, it would become insupportable. As it now exists, we feel it only by the benefits it confers. Having thus shown the serious inconveniences innate in the Federal system, let us see whether there be anything exceptional in our position, operating in our favor, and allowing us to hupe for immunity from those evils which have befallen all former confederations. What is our position ? In what respects is it more favorable than that of other confederations ? Let us begin with Lower Canada ; its population is composed of about threefourth;; French-Canadians, and of one-fourth English-Canadians. It is impossible, even for the blindest admirers of the scheme of Confederation, to shut out from their view this great difference of nationality, which is certainly fated to play an important part in the destinies of the future Confederation. When Lord DURHAM wrote his celebrated report in 1839, he said, when speaking of the English-Canadians of Lower Canada :— ” The English population will never submit to the authority of a parliament in which the French have a majority, or even the semblance of a majority.” A little further on, he added :—” In the significant language of one of their most eminent men, they assert that Lower Canada must become English, even if to effect that object it should be necessary that the province should cease to belong to England.” Whatever errurs Lord DURHAM may have fallen into in judging the French-Canadians, he certainly cannot be reproached with having shewn too great severity towards the English-Canadians. He merely depicted their sentiments, as they manifested themselves in his day. Since then, things have undergone a change. And last autumn, at Sherbrooke, the Honorable Minister of Finance presented to us a very different picture, when he said :—” For five and twenty years harmony has reigned in Lower Canada, and the English and French populations have entered into a compact to labor together to promote the common interests of the country.” This picture is a true one at the present time, as was also

[Page 351]

that drawn by Lord DURHAM in his day ; things have ohanged ! In the Parliament of the United Canadas, the English are in a majority ; they have not to deal with a French majority. But, if circumstances have altered, men have not ; place them in the same position in which they were previous to 1839, and again you will perceive in them the same sentimeuts as were depicted by Lord DURHAM. The seed lies hid in the soil, it does not shew itself on the surface ; but a few drops of rain are all that is necessary to cause it to spring up. If such sentiments did not exist between the two natiun alities, why this resolution, to be submitted to the House by the honorable member for Missisquoi, which I am now about to read :—

Resolved, That assuming the Federal system of government to he a political necessity in a union of the British North American Provinces, any Confederation of those provinces which ignores the difference of race, language and religion of theinhabitants of the respective states or territories gousht to be thus united, and is not framed with a view to secure to the inhabitants of such slate or territory the management of their own local affairs, in accordance with their own peculiar views and sentiments, is unwise and inexpedient, and not conducive to good government or to the peace and tranquillity of those for whom it is framed ;

Resolved, That with a view to secure to that portion of the inhabitants of Lower Canada speaking the English language, the free exercise and enjeyment of their own ideas, institutions aud rights, in any proposed Confederation of the provinces, Canada should be divided into three civil divisions, to wit : Western, Central and Eastern Canada.

At the mere idea of a legislature in which the French element is to be in a majority iu Lower Canada, the passions described by Lord DURHAM are evinced. It is true that the Ministry are doing their best to reassure both parties, and to each party, separately, they make promises at the expense of the other. French-Canadians ! do not allow yourselves to be led away by those brilliant promises. An Italian poet describes the endeavors of a mother to induce her child to swallow a draught, which is intended to restore him to health; to tempt him, she covers the edge of the cup with honey ; in like manner, the edge of the cup which is presented to you has been covered with honey, but instead of containing a health-restoring draught, that cup contains poison and death. I do not believe that the French-Canadians will abure the power of their majority in Lower Cajada by striving to oppress the English- Canadians; but there are too many points on which they disagree to allow of their living long in peace together, in spite of their sincere wish to do so, under the system of local government which is proposed to us. The Honorable Prime Minister said in the Council :—

I believe the French Canadians will do all in their power to render justice to their fel low-subjects of English origin ; and it should not be forgotten that, if the former are in a majority in Lower Canada, the English will be in a majority in the General Government, and that no act of real injustice can take place without its being reversed by the Federal Parliament.

But who is to decide whether any act of the Frenoh-Canadians is really an act of injustice ? The Federal Parliament, in which the English element will be all-powerful ! Iu political matters, a disinterested opinion is but seldom come to ; the sympathies of the majority in the federal Parliament will be against us ; I see in this the prospect of a position which may prove to be a most dangerous one for us ; if the strife should commence, no one can tell when it will end.

DR. BEAUBIEN—I have confidence in the conscience of the Federal Parliament. We ought not to attribute evil intenlions to men, but rather suppose that they will treat us as they desire to bo treated i hemselves, with justice, and in a cmscicitious manner.

MR. JOLY—Despite the honorable member’s sermon—I beg his pardon, I mean despite the honorable member’s observation— I am of opinion that we ought not to leave interests so precious as those which are confided to us to the mercy of men with whom we are not always certain of living on good terms, without any other guarantee than their conscience. Confederation, by changing the state of things which established harmony between the English and French races in Lower Canada, will destroy that harmony, and the consequences may be only too easily foreseen. In Upper Canada there is much more homogeneity, and, by consequence, the danger of intestine trouble there is much less great; true it is, that the enormous power of the Orangemen and the law respecting separate schools may give rise to difficulties, but I fear more for the relations of Upper Canada with the other provinces, and especially the Atlantic Provinces. Upper Canada objects, in general terms, to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. Its wish is to see the resources of the future Confederation applied to opening up the immense territory of the North-West, and to the enlargement

[Page 352]

of its canals. The Atlantic Provinces desire the Intercolonial Railway ; but they hold in dread the expenditure which would be entailed by the opeuing up of the North-West territory and the enlargement of the canals. Upper Canada already fears lest the Atlantic Provinces should unite with Lower Canada against her ; the French-Canadians fear for their nationality, threatened by the English majoirty from the other provinces, and yet Confederation so far only exists as a scheme. If our relations with the other provinces are not at present very intimate, at least there is nothing hostile in them. We regard them with interest and friendship as members of one and the same family with ourselves We all grow together under the shelter of the English flag, and in case of war with the United States, we are all ready to unite in our efforts, in good faith, for our common defence. But when the different provinces shall meet together in the Federal Parliament as on a tield of battle, when they have there contracted the habit of contending with each other to cause their own interests, so various and so incompatible with each other, to prevail, and when, from repetition of this undying strife, jealousy and inevitable hatred shall have resulted, our sentiments towards the other provinces will be no longer the same ; and should any great danger, in which our safety would depend upon our united condition, arise, it would then perhaps be found that our Federal union had been the signal for our disunion. In such a position the greatest danger would result from the neighborhood of the United States, a nation which for a long time has looked on our provinces with a covetous eye, and which has an immense army which the end of the war, probably not far distant, will leave without occupation. They will follow up our political struggles closely, will encourage the discontented, and will soon find an opportunity for interfering in our internal affairs, being called in by the weaker party ; history is full of similar occurrences. The Attorney General for Lower Canada pretends that the opponents of Confederation desire annexation to the United States. I find it difficult to believe in his sincerity when he expresses that opinion ; it is usually by such arguments as this that he replies to his opponents when he has no other answer to make them. One of the most justly respected men in Lower Canada, a man who enjoys universal esteem, Mr. CHERRIER, who had long withdrawn from public life, determined, despite his repugnance to entering the lists, to raise his voice in order to warn his fellow-countrymen against the dangers of the Confederation project. The purity of his motives could not be questioned ; being connected with no political party, he was perfectly disinterested in the course he took. It appears to me that the opinion of such a man deserved at least a respectful hearing. Instead of answering his argument, the honorable the Attorney General attempted to make him the laughing stock of this House. The Government stifles the voice of those who wish to enlighten the people ; but it takes upon itself the task of enlightening them. Here is a work ” in favor of Confederation,” published in 1865, entitled : L’Union des Provinces de l’Amérique Britannique du Nord, par l’Hon. Joseph Cauchon, membre de Parlement Canadien, et Rédacteur en-chef du Journal de Québec ; and also author of a work published in 1858, ” against Confederation.” If the Government were generous, they would distribute the work of 1858 at the same time with that of 1865, in order to afford to every one the advantage of a choice, more particularly as the honorable author cannot be right in both. In bringing these two works into contrast, I do not wish to make a personal attack on the honorable member ; the fact that he first wrote against Confederation and then in favor of it, is perfectly foreign to the debate. I should not have mentioned the matter, were it not that the Government make use of the work of 1865 (the second) in order to propagate in every direction their doctrines on Confederation ; they are distributing thousands of copies of the work throughout Lower Canada, and in order to influence the Euglish-speaking population, they are having it translated into English. It is, therefore, right to warn the people that they must distrust the arguments contained in that book ; they are diametrically opposed to the opinions enunciated by the author in his work of 1858, in which he says, in express terms, that the consequences of Confederation would be the ruin of Lower Canada. Of course the author, in his work of 1865, attempts to explain his change of opinion ; it is none the less true that he was wrong either in 1858 or else in 1865—which ? It may be said in behalf of the book of 1865 that it is four times thicker than the other ; this perhaps may seem a disadvantage to the

[Page 353]

minds of some readers. The Government, knowing well how much the people fear direct taxes, tell them that Confederation involves them in no such risk. “What new method are they going to invent then for raising money ? It is perfectly clear that Confederation will largely increase our expenditure. Then, for instance, Canada, which has now but one Government to maintain (and it is as much as she can do to maintain it), will have three to maintain, or nearly so : the Government of Upper Canada, the Government of Lower Canada, and nine-twelfths of the Federal Government; it will be the same as regards the legislatures. Canada, with a population forming nine-twelfths of the Confederation, will have to build nine-twelfths of the Intercolonial Kailway, in place of the five-twelfths she was to have been charged with, under the arrangements of 1863. With reference to the opening of the all but boundless territory of the North-West, and the construction of the fortifications which are spoken of only in whispers as yet, lest we should become alarmed, it is impossible to calculate the expenditure these works will involve. And, in face of this increased expenditure, our chief source of revenue is to be considerably diminished. I refer to the import customs duties. Here is the justification offered by the Minister of Finance for the reduction :—

It is evident since the Atlantic Provinces consume a far larger quantity of articles paying import duties than we do, that we shall be compelled, in order to assimilate all the customs tariffs, to diminish the import duties we pay in Canada. The Atlantic Provinces cannot adopt a customs tariff so high as ours.

I think I have shown that our expenditure must infallibly increase ; and as our revenue will diminish, to what new tax will the Government have recourse in order to make up the deficit ? We are told that Lower Canada will have a revenue of nearly a million and a half to meet her local expenditure ; with what shall we meet our proportion of the Federal expenditure, which will be far larger ? But I shall now deal with the advantages which we are told must certainly result from Confederation. They may be divided into three classes — political, military and commercial. The honorable member for Montmorency tells us that we are to have the advantage of a seat at the banquet of nations. The perspective is a highly flattering one, I admit, but we must be permitted to take a common-sense view of it. The Honorable Minister of Finance, faithful to the doctrine that the greatness of a State is proportioned to the greatness of its debt, announces to us that our credit will be considerably increased, and that we shall be enabled to borrow much more extensively than we have hitherto done, a prospect at which he seems greatly to rejoice. This facility of borrowing is not always an unmixed good ; but it must be remembered that our credit will depend entirely on the success of our Confederation. If it should not succeed, if any serious difficulty should arise within it—a thing which is possible — public opinion will be more prompt to take alarm, in that our Federal form of government does not afford strong guarantees for the maintenance of order and peace, and our credit will soon be worth less than the credit of a single province is worth to-day. The Honorable the President of the Council enumerated all our provinces, comparing one after another, as regards superficial extent, with the great states of Europe. He finished with the Hudson’s Bay territory, stating that it is as large as European Russia ; but will it ever be capable of supporting, like European Russia, a population of sixty millions, and feeding, with its surplus corn, a great part of Europe ? The vastness of territory in which the honorable minister takes so much pride is precisely what inspires me with uneasiness; we shall have the outward form of a giant, with the strength of a child ; we shall be unable to stand up. Hasty and premature growth is as fatal to states as it is to men ; a state should extend its limits only in proportion as its strength increases. The Roman Empire did not attain in a day its colossal proportions ; its growth, like that of the oak, was slow but sure. Let us not allow ourselves to be dazzled by the ambition of becoming all at once a great people ; the United States are a groat people, but where is the people, however small it maybe, that now envies their greatness ? Let us be content with our lot ; few nations have a better one. The territorial formation of the future Federation will also be an insurmountable obstacle to the establishment of a strong government ; it amounts to a deformity. I give the following passage in support of this proposition :—

What may the geographical advantages of the Union be ? We speak more as regards the future than as regards the present. If the provinces it

[Page 354]

is proposed to unite were grouped in a compact mass as are the majority of the states of the American Union, if their geographical position were such that they needed one another in order to prosper, in order to attain an outlet on the sea, we should say—here, at all events, is a motive for the sacrifices demanded of us. But no, they are scattered over the surface of the Gulf. The nearest to Canada, New Brunswick, is connected with us solely by a narrow strip of territory at most but a few leagues in width, and bordered throughout by the menacing frontier of the American Union. And even at this moment, pending the carrying out of the works of improvement we have just referred to, the shortest route from the provinces to Canada is by way of the United States. While the union of the Canadas was odious in its formula, it was at all events justifiable in a geographical point of view; Upper Canada required the use of the St. Lawrence in order to reach the sea, and the two provinces together form a compact body, a fact which is the strongest possible condemnation of the Constitutional Act of 1791, and on which they were separated.

If the readers of the work published by the Hon. Mr. CAUCHON, in 1865, in favor of Confederation, desire to know where I found that passage, I answer, in the work published by the Hon. Mr. CAUCHON, in 1858. It is probably the portion of the honorable gentleman’s work of 1858, which he will find it most difficult to get over. He may, indeed, allege in explanation of his change of opinion on other points, that the political position is altered, that our relations with the provinces and our neighbors of the United States are no longer the same; but I apprehend he will hardly go the length of asserting that the geographical configuration of the country is changed. He will perhaps endeavor to show that the Intercolonial Railway, the construction of which forms part of the plan of Confederation, will obviate the defects of our geographical position ; but I would remind him that in 1858, when he wrote his first work, the building of the Intercolonial Railway was proposed as it is proposed now ; this will appear from the passage I have just quoted : ” And at this moment, pending the carrying out of the improvements we have just referred to, the shortest way to come from the provinces to us is by way of the United States.” Mr. SPEAKER, with the best possible desire to assist the honorable gentleman, I find it utterly impossible to extricate him from his unfortunate position, and I shall not make the attempt. The Hon. Attorney General promises us that Lower Canada will be the sun of the Confederation. Since we cannot find a comparison on this poor earth emblematic of our future greatness, let us borrow one from the heavens at the risk of losing ourselves in the clouds with the advocates of Confederation ; I propose the adoption of the rainbow as our emblem. By the endless variety of its tints the rainbow will give an excellent idea of the diversity of races, religions, sentiments and interests of the different parts of the Confederation. By its slender and elongated form, the rainbow would afford a perfect representation of the geographical configuration of the Confederation. By its lack of consistence—an image without substance —-the rainbow would represent aptly the solidity of our Confederation. An emblem we must have, for every great empire has one ; let us adopt the rainbow. Mr. SPEAKER, the fact of .our provinces being all at once erected into a Confederation will not give us a single additional man ; battalions cannot be made to spring forth from the earth, armed from head to foot, by a stamp of the foot as in the mythological ages. The Hon. Attorney General for Lower Canada has developed a plan of strategy which I take the liberty of seriously recommending to the Commander-in- Chief. The honorable gentleman sums up in the following terms the advantages of the Confederation in a military point of view : ” When we shall be united, the enemy will know that if he attacks any part of our provinces, the Island of Prince Edward or Canada, he will have to meet the combined forces of the Empire.” There was no need of the Confederation to convince our neighbors of that ; they are, as a general rule, sufficiently sharpwitted to discover, without being told it, that if they content themselves with attacking us at a single point at a time, of course they will have to meet all our strength. Would it not be well to enter into a contract, binding them to attack us at a single point only at one time —say Quebec ? We might, in fact, give them the free use of the Grand Trunk Railway to bring their troops to Point Levis. Of what benefit to the United States would be their vast armies, their great fleets, their abundant means of transport in every direction, if they were to attack us only at one point at a time, as the Hon. Attorney General seems to hope ? In the war of 1812, they attacked us simultaneously at different points, though their troops were far less numerous in proportion to ours than they would now be in case of war, and though their means of transport were then far inferior to what they now are. Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada, would

[Page 355]

be attacked simultaneously, and each province at different points. The provinces will help one another sufficiently if each of them can maintain the integrity of its own territory, so that the enemy may not be enabled to take the adjoining province in flank ; in the same way that a soldier in line of battle assists his comrade at his side by simply keeping his own place in the ranks. We do not need Confederation to give us that unity which is indispensable in all military operations— unity of headship. A commander-in-chief will direct the defence of all our provinces ; he will forward troops, and, if he can, vessels of war, to the points most seriously threatened, and will assist each province to defend the post which Providence has already assigned to each in our long line of battle. Moreover, in the event of war with the United States, if we were to trust to numbers we should be sadly disappointed. What we need above all is enthusiasm ; our citizen soldiers must be convinced that they are risking their lives for something worth while ; that they are happier in being under the flag of England than they could be under that of the United States, and that they must lose by an exchange. In the present position of the United States it is not difficult to make them understand that ; the taxes alone with which the Americans are now crushed down, and of which the vast volume is growing from day to day, suffice to shew, at a first glance, how far our position is superior to theirs in a material point of view. But if, in order to meet the extravagant expenditure the Confederation must bring with it, the people find themselves taxed beyond their resources, the Government need not be surprised, if they should ever appeal to the courage of the people and call upon them to meet the enemy, to receive the answer the old man got from his donkey in LAFONTAINE’S fable. When, at the approach of the enemy, the old man wished to mount and fly, the donkey refused to boar him, and commenced the following dialogue with his master :—

Me fera-t-on porter double bât, double charge ?
Non pas, dit le vieillard, qui prit d’abord le large.
Et que m’importe donc, dit l’âne, à qui je sois ?
Sauvez-vous, et me laissez paître.
Notre ennemi, c’est notre maître,
Je vous le dis en bon françois.(2)

LAFONTAINE, it will be seen, found means, two hundred years ago, of saying serious things in a laughing way. If the Government treat the people as a beast of burthen, to be pitilessly overladen, the people will one day make them the same answer that the donkey made to his master, in LAFONTAINE’S fable. Lord BACON, in his essays, expresses the same thought in more serious terms. But apart from purely material interests, which are nevertheless highly important, for happiness and poverty rarely go hand in hand, there are other interests of a higher order which rouse the courage of a people and sometimes render it capable of sustaining the most unequal struggles. Deprive the French Canadians of their nationality, and you deprive them of the enthusiasm which would have doubled their strength. I concur with the Government in their desire to form more intimate commercial relations between the different provinces ; but when it is attempted to use the immense advantages which would result from these relations as an overwhelming argument in favor of Confederation, it is as well to form a proper appreciation of those advantages, and see whether we cannot secure them without Confederation. The Gulf Provinces possess timber, coal and fisheries ; our own two great articles of export are timber and wheat. With regard to timber, the Gulf Provinces have no more need of ours than we of theirs. As to coal we import from England what we need for our present wants, in ballast, on board the numerous ships which come here for our timber, and we thus get it cheaper than we could import it from the Gulf Provinces. When this supply becomes insufficient to meet our growing wants, it will be necessary to look somewhere for a supply of coal. If the Lower Provinces can furnish it to us at cheaper rates than we can get it in the United States, we shall buy it from them. Upper Canada will probably get its coal from the Pennsylvania mines, which are in direct communication with Lake Erie, on the north shore of which the richest and most thickly settled portion of Upper Canada is situated. As regards fisheries, Canada has a stock of fish in its waters sufficient not only to supply all its own requirements, but to enable it to export largely from Gaspé to Europe. Now as to wheat. The Honorable President of the Council told us that in a single year the Atlantic Provinces paid $4,440,000 to the United States for flour, and that a portion of that flour came from Upper Canada ; and the honorable gentleman asks why should not we

[Page 356]

ourselves sell our flour to the Lower Provinces ? For the simple reason that, instead of having to pay four millions four hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars to the United States, they would have to pay us five millions of dollars, and they would therefore refuse to buy from us. There is no such thing as sentiment in matters of business ; men buy in the cheapest market. The Gulf Provinces will buy their flour from the United States so long as they can obtain it at a lower price there than in Canada ; and the fact that they do obtain it cheaper from the United States is clearly demonstrated by their buying from the Americans and not from us. But a single glance at the map will account for the difference in price. I do not believe that the Intercolonial Railway can be advantageously employed for the transport of flour from Rivière du Loup to Halifax; the cost of transport over five hundred miles of railway would be too great ; the water route must therefore be adopted. Kingston and Halifax are in the same latitude, between the 44th and 45th parallel. From Kingston the St. Lawrence flews undeviatingly towards the north-east, and falls into the Gulf in the 50th degree of north latitude. From that point, in order to reach the Gut of Canso, you must not only make five degrees of southing, but also make nearly three degrees of longitude to the east, and then nearly three more towards the west before reaching Halifax. Moreover, the navigation is more or less dangerous throughout. When you compare this circuitous route with the far more direct one of the United States, it is quite easy to understand why the United States can sell even our wheat to the Gulf Provinces at lower prices than we ourselves are able to do. I have attempted to reduce the commercial advantages we are promised to their proper proportion. I will now endeavor to show that we can secure every one of these advantages without the Confederation. I shall cite, for that purpose, the very words of the Honorable Minister of Finance :—

If we look at the results of the free interchange of produce between Canada and the United States, we shall find that our trade with them increased, in ten years, from less than two millions to twenty millions of dollars. If free trade has produced such results in that case, what may we not expect when the artificial obstacles which hamper free trade between us and the provinces of the Gulf shall have disappeared ?

But this fine result was not obtained by means of a Confederation with the United States. What hinders us from having free trade with the Gulf Provinces ? In support of this view, I shall quote the work of the honorable member for Montmorency, not that of 1858, but that of 1865, written in favor of Confederation, pages 32 and 33, where he shews in the most conclusive manner that we have no need of Confederation to improve our commercial relations with the Gulf Provinces. It is under this head of commercial advantages that the Intercolonial Railway fitly comes in. The Honorable President of the Council tells us that he is favorable to Confederation, because it will give us a seaport at all seasons of the year—a most powerful argument, he adds, in its favor. We stand in great need of a seaport in the winter season, more especially if the United States abolish the right of transit. Absolutely, without reference to that, we require it in order to perfect our system of defence. But is Confederation necessary in order that we may build the Intercolonial Railway ? Certainly not. The hon. minister, in the same speech, gives an answer to the representatives from Upper Canada complaining that the Intercolonial Railway is to be built before any scheme is entertained for opening up the North-West Territory,—” The reason is that the necessary means of constructing the Intercolonial Railway are already secured to us by the guarantee of the Imperial Government, which will enable us to obtain money at a very advantageous rate of interest.” These means were secured to us a long time since, long before the question of Confederation was agitated. I see also in a report laid before the House in a return to an address moved for last year by the Honorable Minister of Agriculture, that as soon as it became known in England that Mr. FLEMING had been appointed to report upon a plan for the Intercolonial Railway, two offers were at once made for the building of it, uncalled for by us. One is contained in Mr. C. D. ARCHIBALD’S letter of 27th August, 1863, and the other in that of Mr. C. J . BRYDGES of 4th March, 1864. Our credit is good enough to procure us the means of building the railway without having recourse to Confederation. To sum up all in few words : all the advantages are negative, that is to say, Confederation will do no harm to our interests, military or commercial, but neither do they require it. As to the inconveniences of which it may be productive, I leave them to the judgment of the House, who will decide whether they are positive. I am asked: ” If you will have nothing to do with Confederation, what will you have ?”

[Page 357]

I answer, we would remain as we are. That, I am told, is impossible, in our present position ‘ with respect to Upper Canada. The Hon. Premier, in introducing the scheme of Confederation to the Legislature, said,—” 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.” All the ministers following him, used expressions of the same tenor, nothing caring for the incalculable wrong which they were doing to the country, they whose duty it was to watch for the preservation of its good name, and the safety of its interests. How will the world be astonished, who look upon Canada as one of the most favored countries on earth, in which the people enjoy more liberty and more perfect tranquillity than is to be found in any other —how will they be astonished to hear that we are ” a country bordering on civil strife?” How will such tidings affect our credit ? The world will not understand the motives of our ministers in painting the condition of our country in such gloomy colors. It will not be aware that they must have Confederation to keep their places, and that this threat of war is uttered for the nonce as an unanswerable argument to force us to accept it. What a discrepancy there is between this declaration of the Ministry that we are ” bordering on civil strife,” and the opening of the Speech from the Throne, which expresses ” thankfulness to a beneficent Providence for the general contentment of the people of this province,” or the address voted by the Legislature in answer to the Speech from the Throne, which is the faithful echo of this grateful sentiment ! What would the members of the Ministry have said, if a member had risen to move an amendment to the Address in the words made use of by the Hon. Premier, ” That the country is bordering on civil strife, and that therefore the House cannot admit that there is general contentment among the people?” It is on reasons widely differing from these that the Speech from the Throne takes ground in recommending the adoption of the scheme of Confederation. But are we really bordering on civil strife ? Of course it is representation based on population which is the exciting cause. Do the people of Upper Canada demand representation based on population as a condition sine qua non of the continuation of our peaceful relations with them ? Has this desire to obtain representation based on population taken such deep root in the bosom of Upper Canada, that it is ready to plunge us and itself into the horrors of civil war in order to achieve it ? Or is not representation by population rather one of those political clap-traps which ambitious men, who can catch them no other way, set to catch the heedless multitude? We, Lower Canadians, who at this distance cannot judge of the sentiments of Upper Canadians by our own observation, must depend for the formation of our opinions respecting them on the Upper Canada newspapers, and on the speeches of their members in this House. They are the only sources of information whieh we possess. Well, in 1862, we saw the Upper Canada leaders, except the President of the Council, who was wise enough to keep aloof, who are at the same time connected with the principal newspapers there, either as proprietors, editors or co-editors, accept office under the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government, the fundamental principle of which was equal representation of the two sections, a principle which entitled it to the cordial support of Lower Canada. These gentlemen we saw reelected, notwithstanding their abandonment of their principles, and we found them voting against representation by population. From this I conclude that Upper Canada is much more indifferent, and its leaders much less sincere touching this question of the representation, than they would have us believe. Were it otherwise, Upper Canada would have taken the opportunity, afforded by the election, of punishing the men who had betrayed her. But who are those two men who now pitch their voices in harmony (formerly so discordant) to predict civil war, if we do not vote for Confederation ? They are the Attorney General for Lower Canada, and the President of the Council (Hon. Messrs. CARTIER and BROWN !)—the one demanding representation by population, the other refusing it : both took their stand as the champions of their sections, and became their chieftains respectively. When they found out that that game was unprofitable to both, as the President of the Council seemed to be excluded for ever from the ministerial benches, and the Attorney General could not maintain himself in his position on them, the Attorney General gave way : he agreed to representation by population, trying to disguise it under the name of Confederation; and to reward him for this complaisance, the President of the Council saved him—him and his colleagues— and condescended to take a seat among them. They hold over us a threat of civil war to

[Page 358]

force us to ratify their bargain. There is only one man in Canada who could have done what the Attorney General for Lower Canada has done, and that man is himself. Thanks to his energy, to his intimate acquaintance with the strong and the weak points of his fellow-countrymen, the Attorney General for Lower Canada has succeeded in attaining an elevation which no one can dispute with him —that of chief of the French Canadian nationality. To attain this eminence, he has crushed the weak, cajoled the strong, deceived the credulous, bought up the venal, and exalted the ambitious ; by turns he has called in the accents of religion and stimulated the clamour of interest—he has gained his end. When Lower Canada heard of his alliance with the President of the Council, there arose from all quarters one universal cry of indignation. He managed to convert the cry of anger into a shout of admiration. When his scheme of Confederation became public, a feeling of uneasiness pervaded all minds; that instinct forewarned them of the danger which impended. He has hushed that feeling to a sleep of profound security. – I shall compare him to a man who has gained the unbounded confidence of the public, who takes advantage of it to set up a Savings Bank, in which the rich man deposits his wealth, and the day laborer the small amount which he has squeezed out of his wages, against a day of need—both without a voucher. When that man has gathered all into his strong box, he finds an opportunity to purchase, at the cost of all he holds in trust, the article on which he has long set his ambitious eye ; and he buys it, unhesitatingly, without a thought of the wretches who are doomed to ruin by his conduct. The deposit committed to the keeping of the Attorney General is the fortune of the French-Canadians—their nationality. That fortune had not been made in a day ; it was the accumulation of the toil and the savings of a whole people in a whole century. To prolong the ephemeral existence of his administration for a few months, the Attorney General has sacrificed, without a scruple, this precious trust, which the unbounded confidence of his fellow-countrymen had confided to his keeping.

HON. MR. CARTIER—And what have I received in payment for that ?

MR. JOLY—A salary of five thousand dollars per annum, and the honor of the position.

HON. MR. CARTIER—That is not enough for me.

MR. JOLY—I am well aware of it ; that is why the honorable member is desirous of extending the circle of his operations. But he will not long enjoy the fruits of his treason ; by crushing the power of the French- Canadians he has crushed his own, for upon them his existence depends. Does he believe in the sincerity of the friendship of the Liberals of Upper Canada ? They fought with him for too long a time to allow of the existence of any sympathy between them and him, and now he has lost even their respect. They consented to ally themselves with him in order to obtain their object—representation by population ; but when they no longer stand in need of him, they will throw him aside like a worn-out tool. I look upon this threat of civil war as resembling a farce played by two comrades ; they shout out to us, ” Take care, we are going to fight; we shall do some mischief if you don’t hold us.” Do not put yourselves out of the way to stop them ; you need not be alarmed, they will not fight. It is also said to us, ” See how many changes of Ministry there have been since 1862 ; can such a state of affairs continue any longer ?” I am free to admit that all those changes must have been very unpleasant for the different ministers who have succumbed under them, but has the country suffered much by them ? The condition of the finances of a nation is the touchstone of its prosperity. In 1862, the Minister of Finance, before resigning, declared a deficit of five millions one hundred and fifty-two thousand dollars (page 20 of his speech) ; for the year ending the 30th June last, there was a surplus of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. If all these changes of ministries had not taken place, it is impossible to say how large the deficit would have become by this time, as for several years previous to 1862 it had gone on steadily increasing. These two reasons advanced by ministers are merely intended as a veil to conceal the true motive for this complete revolution in our Constitution; that true motive is simply a desire on their parts to remain in power. Without wishing to enter into all the details of the measure proposed to the House, which have been so ably handled by the honorable member for Hochelaga, more especially those relating to the Legislative Council, there are some which I cannot pass over in silence. The following are the paragraphs of the resolutions of the Quebec Conference which regulate the organization of the Lower House of the Federal Legislature, principally in respect of the number of representatives :—

[Page 359]

17. The basis of representation in the House of Commons shall be population, as determined by the official census every ten years. and the cumber of members at first shall be 194, distributed as follows :

Upper Canada 82
Lower Canada 65
Nova Scotia 19
New Brunswick 13
Newfoundland 8
Prince Edward Island 5

18. Until the official census of 1871 has been made up, there shall be no change in the number of representatives from the several sections.

19. Immediately altor 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 sama 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 entitled, 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. I object to the 21st clause, because it contains provisions which are unjust to Lower Canada. The full scope of that clause is not generally understood ; that proportion of five per cent, appears to be a very small affair, and yet, under certain circumstances, it might produce considerable results, which are not taken into consideration in the explanations given on that subject in the work written by the Honorable Mr. CAUCHON, which the Government has caused to be distributed (pages 72 to 87). It is difficult to foretell what the exact numerical increase of the several provinces will be from the present time to the next census in 1871. The Honorable Mr. CAUCHON assumes, as the basis of his calculations, a rate of thirty per cent. Let us suppose the case to prove that in all the provinces (with the exception of Lower Canada) the population increases, by thirty per cent, between 1861 and 1871, and that that of Lower Canada increases by thirty-four per cent. It may, perhaps, be objected to this that it is improbable. My reply is, that when we are discussing a scheme of such importance as that which is now under our consideration, we should provide for all possible contingencies; but this one is far from being impossible if the predictions of the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General, who promise to Lower Canada so brilliant a future under the Federal system, are fulfilled. If Lower Canada becomes the heart of the commercial life of the Confederation ; if the mines of copper, lead, silver, and gold which we have lately discovered should produce the same results that they produce everywhere else, that of attracting a great influx of population, I cannot be accused of any very great exaggeration in supposing that the population of Lower Canada may, between the years 1861 and 1871, increase by four per cent, more than the population of the other provinces. In the case which I have supposed the increase would be as follows :—

Upper Canada 418,827
Lower Canada 377,625
Nova Scotia 99,257
New Brunswick 75,614
Newfoundland 39,000
Prince Edward Island 24,227
Total increase 1,034,550

According to this calculation, Lower Canada would have, in 1871, a population of 1,488,- 289 souls, which would have to be divided by 65, that being the invariable number of representatives assigned to Lower Canada, in order to ascertain what will be the number of constituents for each representative in the Federal Parliament ; the result will be found to be 22,896. Upper Canada would have a population of 1,814,918 souls, which, divided by 22,896, would give her seventy-nine representatives instead of eighty-two. Nova Scotia would have a population of 430,114 souls, which would give her nineteen representatives as at present (eighteen and a fraction over the half). New Brunswick would have a population of 327,661 souls, which would give her fourteen representatives instead of fifteen. Newfoundland would have a population of 169,000 souls, which would give her seven representatives instead of eight. Prince Edward Island would have a population of 104,984 souls, which would give her five members as at present (four and a fraction over the half). It will be seen that if the five other provinces were represented on the same scale as Lower Canada, they would, in 1871, lose among them five members ; but as the total population of each will not have decreased by five per cent., relatively to the total population of the Confederated Provinces,

[Page 360]

there will be no reduction in the number of their representatives, in accordance with the provisions of this 21st clause. It is the interest of Lower Canada, more than of any other province, to watch with a jealous eye over the mechanism adopted for the organization of the Federal Legislature. In case of a vital question arising, we should have to counteract the votes of these five members (who ought, in justice, to be deducted from the representation of the other provinces) by those of five of our members, whose votes would thus be lost to us, as would also be the weight which their five united counties, with a total population of 114,480 (or 22,896 for each county), would throw into the scale. Other combinations of circumstances might arise which might prove even more disadvantageous to us. This subject naturally leads me to address myself to my French Canadian colleagues ; I fear that my remarks may not be well received by all, but I hope that honorable members will be good enough to excuse my frankness in consideration of the great importance of the question. I have no right to maintain that all those who are favorably disposed towards Confederation are not acting in good faith; it is not my wish to reproach them for acting according to their convictions, but in so acting they should not forget the duties which their charge imposes on them. It a well known fact that when the scheme of Confederation was laid before the public, all the newspapers, and most of the members who support the Administration, declared themselves in favor of the scheme, but, in nearly every instance, with an express reservation of the right to introduce certain amendments which they considered indispensable. But the Honorable Attorney General for Upper Canada declared, some days ago, that the Government would accept no amendment, and that the resolutions must be adopted exactly in the shape in which they were brought down. Are honorable members going to submit to this decree ? Is it not their intention at least to make an effort to have those amendments, which they looked upon as indispensable, adopted ? Their position in relation to the Government confers upon them an influence which they can never exert more usefully than at present ; it is their duty to exert that influence ; they are responsible for the results of this measure, which cannot be adopted without their concurrence. Their principal argument in support of Confederation is that we have now an excellent opportunity of obtaining; favorable conditions—an opportunity which will probably never occur again, and one of which it is their duty to avail themselves. But have the honorable members made those conditions ? Have they taken as great precautions to preserve intact the interests of nearly a million French Canadians entrusted to their care, as they would have taken in making an agreement for the sale of a farm, or even the purchase of a horse ? Have they made any conditions at all ? If they have made no conditions, do they at least know what the fate is that is reserved for us ? Do they know the nature of the form of Government which will be imposed on Lower Canada? Can they say whether we shall have Responsible Government ? No ! for the Ministry refuses to speak ; it will only speak when the measure of Confederation shall have been adopted, and when it is too late to raise any objections. Responsible government would not be a very efficacious remedy for the evils which I foresee, but it would, at all events, be a means of defence for us, and we ought not to reject it. It is true that, according to the 41st article of the resolutions, ” The local governments and legislature of each province shall b3 constructed in such manner as the existing legislature of each such province shall provide.” But the English element is at present in the majority. We are told that the English are naturally favorable to responsible government. That is true when it relates to themselves ; for how many years did Canada remain without responsible government ? The painful events of 1837 and 1838 were the result of that anomaly in the parliamentary system. Upper Canada will not need, as we shall, a local responsible government ; it will not have, as we shall have, to defend a nationality which will be in a minority in the Federal Parliament, but which, at least, ought to enjoy in Lower Canada those powers which parliamentary authority everywhere accords to the majority. Upper Canada only desires to make of her local legislature a municipal council on a large scale ; she will fight out her party quarrels in the wider arena of the Federal Parliament. The English of Lower Canada, who will gain nothing by having a responsible local government, because that government is the government of the majority, will unite their votes with those of Upper Canada to impose upon us the same system of government as in the other section. The local parliaments, in the event of that system being adopted, having no part in the government, will soon become perfectly useless, and

[Page 361]

they will soon be dispensed with, just as in a machine we do away with useless and expensive wheelwork. Nothing will then be left to us but the legislative union which the honorable members have not ventured to propose, because they are compelled to admit it would be an act of crying injustice to Lower Canada. But we are told to rely on article 42, which gives to the local legislatures the right of amending or changing their Constitutions from time to time, and it is said that when Lower Canada is separated from Upper Canada, she may alter her Constitution if she pleases, and adapt it to her own views. It must not be forgotten, however, that the Lieutenant-Governor, who will enjoy the right of reserving the bills of the Local Parliament for the sanction of the Governor General, will be appointed by the Governor General in Council, that is to say, by the Federal Government, and, as a matter of course, it must be expected that he will act in conformity with the views of the Federal Government. Any bill reserved by him will require to be sanctioned by the Federal Government, which may refuse such sanction if they think proper, as they undoubtedly will as regards any bill the object of which might be to give responsible government to Lower Canada, whilst all the other provinces would only have governments which were not responsible. And the militia,—it will be exclusively under the control of the Federal Government. Have the honorable the French-Canadian members, to whom I more particularly address myself at this moment, reflected on the danger to us that is contained in this provision ? It is with reluctance that I once more allude to the difficulties which may arise between the different sections of the Confederacy, but it would be wrong to shut our eyes to the future for fear that it may appear too threatening. Did we not, a few days ago, hear one of the honorable members, who most warmly supports the Government, complain in this House that Upper Canada was going to have four military schools, whilst Lower Canada would only have two ? Why should we vest in the Federal Government the right of giving instruction in the military art and of arming the other provinces at the expense of Lower Canada ? Why, while there is yet time, should we neglect to take those salutary precautions on which our existence as French-Canadians depend ? Our Local Government ought to have the same active part in the organization, instruction and equipment of our militia which belongs to all local governments which form part of other confederacies. But I was forgetting that this is to be a model Confederation, which is to unite within itself all the evils of the Federative system without including one of its advantages. I read in the work in favor of Confederation, to which I have referred on more than one occasion, page 25, as follows : ” With them we offer protection to your religion, to your institutions, and to your civil laws,” &c, &c. They offer to protect the French-Canadians; but when, under the present Constitution, they can protect themselves, why should they abdicate the right of so doing ? Now they are strongly entrenched in their citadel, and they are advised to raze the walls in order to secure their safety. The French Canadians, at the present day, are in a better position than they were at the time of the union. They are at the same time both judges and suitors. They are asked to adopt a new form of government ; it is not imposed upon them ; and, to induce them to do so, thehon. Minister of Agriculture tells them that this new form of government was recommended successively by Chief Justice SEWELL, Judge ROBINSON, and Lord DURHAM. The names alone of these three men ought to suffice to open our eyes; their avowed object always was to obliterate French-Canadian nationality, to blend the races into one only, and that the English ; and to attain that end they recommended, as the Minister of Agriculture has told us, the system of government now submitted for our approval. In the last passage, a few lines of which I have just cited, we find at page 25 a phrase upon which I have reflected seriously ; it is as follows, and is placed by the author in the mouths of the English-Canadians of Lower Canada, ” Remember that we, too, are inhabitants of Lower Canada, and that we, too, aspire to other and nobler destinies.” I asked of myself, with all seriousness, what then are the aspirations of the French-Canadians? I have always imagined, indeed I still imagine, that they all centre in one point, the maintenance of their nationality as a shield destined for the protection of the institutions they hold most dear. For a whole century this has ever been the aim of the French-Canadians; in the long years of adversity they have never for a moment lost sight of it ; surmounting all obstacles, they have advanced step by step towards its attainment, and what progress have they not made ? What is their position to-day ? They number nearly a million, they have no longer,

[Page 362]

if they are true to themselves, to fear the fate of Louisiana, which had not as many inhabitants, when it was sold by NAPOLEON to the United States, as Canada had in 1761. A people numbering a million does not vanish easily, especially when they are the owners of the soil. Their number is rapidly increasing. New townships are being opened in every direction, and being peopled with industrious settlers. In the Eastern Townships, which it was thought were destined to be peopled entirely by English settlers, these latter are slowly giving way to the French-Canadians. There is a friendly rivalry between the two races, a struggle of labor and energy ; contact with our fellow-countrymen of English origin has at last opened our eyes ; we have at last comprehended that in order to succeed, not only labor is needed, but well-directed and skilled labor, and we profit by their example and by the experience they have acquired in the old countries of Europe. Agriculture with us is now becoming an honorable pursuit ; the man of education is no longer ashamed to devote himself to it. Our farmers feel the necessity and desire of attaining peifection in the art. We possess magnificent model farms, in which we can learn the science of agriculture. We are entering a new era of prosperity. The French-Canadians hold a distinguished position in the commerce of the country ; they have founded banks and savings banks ; on the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal, they own one of the fhiest lines of steamboats in America ; there is not a parish on the great river which has not its steamboat ; the communications with the great towns are easy ; we have railways, and we now measure by hours the duration of a journey which formerly we measured by days ; we have foundries and manufactories, and our shipbuilders have obtained a European renown. We have a literature peculiarly our own ; we have authors, of whom we are justly proud ; to them weentrustour language and our history; they are the pillars of our nationality. Nothing denotes our existence as a people so much as our literature ; education has penetrated everywhere ; we have several excellent colleges, and an university in which all the sciences may be studied under excellent professors. Our young men learn in the military schools how to defend their country. We possess all the elements of a nationality. But a few months ago, we were steadily advancing towards prosperity, satisfied with the present and confident in the future of the French-Canadian people. Suddenly discouragement, which had never overcome us in our adversity, takes possession of us; our aspirations are now only empty dreams; the labors of a century must be wasted; we must give up our nationality, adopt a new one, greater and nobler, we are told, than our own, but then it wiil no longer be our own. And why? Because it is our inevitable fate, against which it is of no use to struggle. But have we not already struggled against destiny when we were more feeble than we are now, and have we not triumphed ? Let us not give to the world the sad spectacle of a people voluntarily resigning its nationality. Nor do we intend to do so. Let the people have time given them to understand the question ; let their opinion on the subject be obtained at the polls. It is but their right, unless our form of government is a delusion and a snare. If the measure is a good one, what danger is there in discussing it ? If the new Constitution it is proposed to give us is to last for centuries, why should we not at least endeavor to make it as perfect as possible ? Why press its adoption before it is understood? In conclusion, I object to the proposed Confederation, first, as a Canadian, without reference to origin, and secondly, as a French-Canadian. From either poiut of view, I look upon the measure as a fatal error ; and, as a French-Canadian, I once more appeal to my fellow-countrymen, reminding them ot the precious inheritance confided to their keeping —an inheritance sanctified by the blood of their fathers, and which it is their duty to hand down to their children as unimpaired as they received it. (Cheers.)

The debate was then adjourned.

TUESDAY, February 21, 1865.


—It is not without some degree of hesitation that I rise to address the House on this occasion ; for I see before me the representatives of two millions and a half of people, who are called together to settle the most weighty matters which concern them, and more particularly to take into consideration a question involving the destiny, not only of the two Canadas, but also of all the Provinces of British North America. I must confess that I experience a strong feeling of hesitation and great diffidence of my own powers, when I consider the importance of the measure submitted to us for discussion, and the consequences which may result from

[Page 363]

our decision, both to ourselves and our posterity. The measure is so vast in its bear ings, the interests affected by it are so considerable, that no one can be surprised at my diffidence and hesitation. This question of Confederation is bound up with the common interests of empires and the general policy of nations, for it is no unimportant matter for the great nations who bear sway among mankind, to know into what hinds the Provinces of British North Ameiica may fall. We need only look back into the pages of history to learn how greatly nations are moved by the creation of a new people ; and on the present occasion, the thousand voices of tho press proclaim the interest which the question of Confederation excites both in America and in Europe itself, and how closely the governments observe our proceedings; and this interest which they feel and proclaim is legitimate and natural, for the measure is destined to malee us rank among the nations of the earth. More than all, this question particularly concerns England and the United States, and in an equal degree with ourselves. England is interested in seeing these provinces well governed, prosperous, free, contented and happy She is interested in their having a good government, and that it should be so administered as to be no burthen to her as the Mother Country ; that, on the contrary, they should become powerful and in a position to assist her in certain eventualities. On the other hand, the United States must feel a degree of satisfaction in seeing the Provinces of British North America become a powerful nation. They will see it without a feeling allied to jealousy. They must wish us to be strong enough to maintain our neutrality, our good understanding with them, and those friendly relations which should ever subsist between neighboring nations. But if this question is interesting to England and the United States, itis still mure so to ourselves— to us, whose destiny is at stike, to us whose position is a lofty one as compared with the ordinary lot of nations ; for the faculty is not granted to all nations to choose their own lot in the full leisure of a time of peace, without the taint of a single drop of blood shed— to fix upon a Constitution which will set them at once on the high road of progress, and enable them to take such ground for their career as may seem good in their own eyes. In 18 0, when the union of the two Canadas was under consideration, we occupied no such position, for that union was imposed upon us in our own despite, and we were never consulted on the subject. It will be remembered that for a certain time our very language was proscribed, and our position rendered as unfortunate as it could be made. True, we had an equal uunber of representatives in this House, but as a people wo were manifestly held to be inferior. I grant that the attempt to fix the yoke permanently on our necks proved a failure, but this was no fault of those who imposed the union on us. We have won the position which we now occupy by our own energy and perseverance, assisted by some of the representatives of Upper Canada. At this day things are greatly changed. We are in the midst of a great revolution, but a revolution of which peace is the guiding spirit ; we are free to deliberate whether we will change our position, and to dictate the terms on which the change is to be made. We are invited to shape out our future destiny, and we should not be true to ourselves, or to our constituents, if we refused this day to avail ourselves of the resolutions adopted at the Conference of Quebec. The hou. member for Hochelaga (Hon Mr. DORION), whom I regret not to see in his place—

HON. MR. HOLTON—He will be here in a moment.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—The hon. member for Hochelaga told us the other day that the plan ot a Confederation was adopted and moved by the present Administration for the mere purpose of stifling the cry of representation by population. Well, and if it really were so, where does the hon. member find the harm in it ? Is it not most important that we should stop that cry for representation based on population, in our present condition ? Representation by population would have left us, Lower Canadians, in au inferior position relatively to that of Upper Canada—would have conferred on the latter the privilege of legislating for us, not only in general, but in local matters. The hon. member lor Hochelaga ought to have been the last to reproach the present Government with having, by this measure of Confederation, stopped the cry for representation based on population. In 1854, the hon. member admitted, as he himself acknowledges, that representation based on population was just in principle, and the consequence of that admission was fatal. The consequence was that the hon. member was compelled to keep in the same track until the formation of the BROWN-DORION Administration in

[Page 364]

1858—an Administration which had no very long existence. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. HOLTON–Unfortunately. (Laughter.)

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—That Administ rat ion had no very long existence, and I rejoice that I did my part in upsetting it, for it is probable that , if it had stood, representation based on population would have been forced upon us, and we should not be now in our present position—in a position to make our own terms as freely as Upper Canada, and take part, on a footing of equality, in negotiating a treaty with the Lower Provinces. This is why I rejoice that I contributed to overthrow that government. The hon. member for Hochelaga told us the other evening that in 1856 he spoke as follows :—

In 1856, when Parliament was sitting at Toronto, I first suggested that one means of surmounting our difficulties would be the substitution of a Confederation ofthe two Canadas in placeof a legislative union. By that arrangement local questions would be debated in the local legislatures, and the Central Government would have the control of commercial and other questions of general interest. I said that considering the differences of race, religion and laws now existing between the two sections of the country, it would be the best means of surmounting them. That is to say, I would leave to a central government questions regarding commerce, banking, the currency, public works of a general character, &c., and to the local legislatures all local questions. At the same time I said that if these views were not accepted, I should certainly be in favor at representation based on population, with conditions and guarantees which would secure the interests of Lower Canada, and preserve to Lower Canada the institutions which are so dear to her.

Well, we see that in 1856, the hon. member for Hochelaga was desirous of forming a new Constitution for the express purpose of stifling the cry for representation based on population. In 1858 he formed, together with the present Hon. President of the Coun- cil (Hon. Mr. BROWN), the BROWN-DORION Government; and again, he stipulated that the question of representation based on population should be taken into considera- tion, and that the Government should con- sider the means of settling the difficulties which it involved. In 1859 he signed a document, which also bore the signatures of Hon. Mr. DRUMMON, Hon. Mr. DES- SAULLES, and Hon. Mr. MCGEE, in which he said with his colleagues, that a change in the Constitution of the country was necessary :—

If Lower Canada insists on maintaining the union intact ; if she will neither consent to a dissolution of the union, nor consider the project of a Federation, it is difficult to conceive on what reasonable grounds the demand for representation according to population can be resisted. The plea for such resistance has hitherto been that danger might arise to some of her peculiar and most cherished institutions ; but that ground will be no longer tenable if she rejects a proposition, the effect of which would be to leave to her own people the sole and absolute custody of those institutions, and to surround them by the most stringent of all possible safeguards, the provisions of the fundamental law of the land, unalterable save by the action of the people affected by them. The logical alternative now presented to the people of Lower Canada would, therefore, seem to be dissolution or federation on the one hand, and representation according to population on the other.

Here, again, he intended to stifle the cry of representation based on population, and intended to do it by founding a new Confederation. In 1861 it was just the same ; he declared that he was desirous of settling that question of the representation ; that it was not expedient that it should remain an open question ; that it was a difficulty to be got rid of one way or another. In 1862, also, he went into the Government with the same object in view But how did he set about carrying it out ? He made it a close question, and adopted, with his colleagues, the plan of the double majority. The hon. member doubtless had forgotten that in 1859, when he penned the manifesto which I have just quoted, he had condemned the double majority. Here is, in fact, what he said in that document :—

In each section there would still be minority and majority parties, and unless the principle of the double majority could be enacted as a fundamental law, we should be exposed to an endless round of the same complaints that we now hear, of one section ruling the other contrary to its well known public opinion, and to see reproduced in our politics the same passions, the same intrigues, the same corruption and insincerity. The enactment of the double majority is not advocated in any quarter. The impossibility of clearly defining the cases to which it should apply, and of distinguishing them from those to which it should not, is felt by all ; but were it even possible, it would only lead to new phases of difficulty, by compelling majorities professing opinions and principles diametrically opposed to each other, to unite, and thereby effectually to extinguish the influence

[Page 365]

of one or the other minority, or of both. It is difficult to conceive one single legislature composed of two majorities and two minorities ; these two majorities without any identity of principle, acting nevertheless together by common consent, so as to never trespass the one on the other, and so that each section of the province would always be governed by a majority of its representatives. On many questions this course could not be carried out without alternately forcing the majority of the representatives of each section of the provinceto abstain from voting, or to declare themselves in favor of measures which their judgment and their conscience would disavow. The com plications of such a system amounting to nothing short of an application of the Federal principle to a single legislature, would render it impracticable.

Then the honorable member had changed his opinion on this subject ! I do not say this as a reproach ; but it proves that the always acted with the same object in view— that is to say, to stifle the cry for representation based on population. How, then, does it happen that he finds fault with the present Ministry for br inging forward a measure to put an end to these difficulties, and to prevent our being placed in a position of infer iority? Bu t the objectof the Confederation is not merely to do away with existing difficulties. It has become a necessity, because we have become sufficiently great,—because we have become strong, rich, and powerful enough,—because our products are numerous enough and considerable enough,—because our population has become large enough to allow of our aspiring to another position, and of our seeking to obtain an outlet through some seaport tor our products. At the present day we stand in a position of vassalage to the United States, with respect to the exportation of our products to Europe ; we are at their mercy. If we should have any difficulty with our neighbors to-morrow, they would close the Portland route to us, and we should find ourselves, during nearly seven months in the year, cut off from all communication with the seaboard, save by means of the usual long and difficult land journey. This is not a tenable position, nor one worthy of a people such as that which inhabits the Provinces of British North America. It is a position which mus t be emerged from, for such is the interest of Canada, of the Lower Provinces, and of the Western States. The honorable member for Hochelaga told us that he was in favor of a plan which would settle existing difficulties, and would place Lower Canada in a suitable position ; but he never told as what that plan was. The only thing he ever proposed was his plan of 1859 for the Confederation of the two Canadas ; but that plan would only have settled one difficulty, and would have allowed others of the greatest importance to arise—and among others , that respect ing our communication with the seaboard. That plan, for instance, would not have allowed us to construct the Intercolonial Railway; for it is almost impossible that so great an enterprise should succeed unless it is in the hands of a great central power, and if it is necessary to consult five or six governments before commencing it. But the question of the Confederation of the two Canadas is not the only one which is presented as a means of escaping from our difficulties; there are different plaoswhich I shall enumerate. Some propose, for instance, that we should remain in the position in which we now are ; others wish for annexation to the United States ; some would, perhaps, be in favor of complete independence; others would favor a Confederation of the two Canadas ; and, lastly, the Confederation of all the British North American Provinces is proposed. Well, let us cursorily examine these various propositions. It may be that there are some members who are desirous that we should remain as we are. The honorable members for Hochelaga and Lotbinière (Hon. Mr. DORION and Mr. JOLY) consider our position an excellent one, and so, in their speeches, they have told us. They consider that we are extremely prosperous, and that we have nothing to wish for. For my part, I consider that in our present position we are under a great disadvantage ; it is that if we remain isolated and alone, we cannot communicate with the metropolis, except through the United States ; if we remain alone we can aspire to no position, we can give rein to no ambition as a people. Again, we have at the present time as many systems of judicature as we have provinces; with Confederation, on the contrary, this defect will be removed, and there will be but two systems: one for Lower Canada, because our laws are different from those of the other provinces, because we are a separate people, and because we do not choose to have the laws of the other populations—and the other for the remainder of the Confederation. All the other provinces having the same laws, or their system of law being derived from one and the same source, may have one and the same system of judicature ; and, in fact, a resolution of the Conference allows them to resolve that they will have one code and one

[Page 366]

judicial system ; but an exception is made in favor of Lower Canada and our laws. There are also as many different tariffs as there are different provinces, as many commercial and customs regulations as provinces. I t is true that there are now many free goods, but it is also correct to say that theie as many customs systems as there ar? provinces. And with respect to great colonial works, is it not true that it is impossible at the present day to undertake them, because the interests involved are too considerable, and because it is necessary to consult three or four legislatures ? By this it will be understood that it is almost impossible to reconcile so many different interests, except by uniting in one and the same legislature the representatives of those interests and of the people affected by them, and this object we cannot attain by remaining by ourselves. Currency and the interest of money are aiso regulated by different systems in the several provinces. There is one curicncy here, another in Newfoundland, another in Prince Edward Island, and so on. The shilling and pound of this province are different from the shilling and pound of Newfoundland and those of the other Maritime Provinces. But, with Confederation, all these matters would be placed under the control of oue central legislature; the currency would become uniform throughout, and capital might be everywhere invested without obstacle. So also it will be with respect to the rights of authors, patents for mechanical inventions, &c. When speaking of the Intercolonial Railway, I made no mention of the Pacific Railway, because I consider that we ought to devote our attention to accomplishing the works of which we at present stand in ueed. At a later period, when our resources and our population shall have sufficiently increased, we may direct our attention to the Pacific Railway. And should it become necessary, we can, with Confederation, hope to build it in less than ten years, whereas by remaining by ourselves as we are, we could not hope to have it for perhaps one hundred years. I think that I have now held up in a salient point of view the disadvantages of the status quo. The necessary consequence of what I have just demonstrated is that we cannot remain in the position in which we now are, whether we will or not. The question of representation based on population must be met; that question must be settled. To say that we will grant it is to wish to place us in a position of inferiority, and I, for my part, will never consent to place my section of the province in that position. Then there is another alternative that is proposed—annexation to the United States. I do not believe, there is a single member in the House or out of the House who would consent to the annexation of Canada to the United States But it is a question which must be examined when discussing that of Confederation, because it is one of the alternatives offered to us, and out of which we have to make a selection. What then would be our position in case we were annexed to the United States ? It is true that we should become an independent State in the American Confederation, but with the advantages accruing from such a state of affairs, we should likewise have the disadvantages. We should have to contribute towards the liquidation of the enormous debt which the United States have contracted in consequence of the war which is desolating one of the finest portions of the land; we should have to pay the interest, and subsequently the principal itself, for I do not suppose that the Americans have the slightest intention of repudiating their debt. The debt would have to be paid, and to effect that, heavy imposts would have to be paid for a great number of years to provide the interest and sinking fund. Those who talk of the debt which is going to result from the Confederation should remember that it will be but a mere trifle compared with that for which we should become responsible under annexation. For one dollar that we shall have to pay under Confederation, we should have to pay six under annexation. It is said that the debt will be enormous, but it will only be as one dollar to four dollars in England, and six dollars in the United States. That is the financial aspect of annexation. But what would be the fate of the French-Canadians in the case of annexation to the United States ? Let us profit by the example of the French race in the United States, and enquire what has been the fate of the French in Louisiana ? What has become of them ? What has become of their language, their customs, their manners and their institutions ? After the war, hardly a trace will remain to show that the French race has passed that way. So far as religion is concerned, we might not find ourselves so badly off; but we live in peace at the present day and are perfectly comfortable ; Catholics and Protestants have the same rights and religious liberty, and they live as peacefully together

[Page 367]

as if there was but one religion in the land.

MR. DUFRESNE(Iberville)—We are well off, us remain so.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—Yes, but we cannot remain in the position iu which we are. The hon. member tor Hochelaga has said so for ten years past, and undertook to change it. He said the position was no longer tenable in 1854, and if it was Dot tenable then, it is still less so in 1865. I now iome to the other alternative proposed to us —that of independence. Men may be found, both in the House and out of the House, who would be disposed to say that we had better have independence than Confederation. For my part, I believe that the independence of the British North American Provinces would be the greatest misfortune which could happen to them ; it would be to leave us at the mercy of our neighbors, and to thiow us into their arms. Independence would make us masters of our position, but at the same time we should be deprived of the protection of England, and without that it is by no means difficult to foresee what would become of us. The hon. member for Hochelaga may think it to our advantage to be weak, but in that opinion I do not coincide ; I consider that it is better to be in a position to meet the enemy in case of his attacking us. Let it be well understood that without the protection of England we can do nothing. And besides the outlay which would be entailed by our providing for our defence, there would also be enormous expenditure in order to keep up in a suitable manner our relations with foreign powers. With independence, and without the support and assistance of England, we should have to maintain an army and a very expensive government, we should have to keep up diplomatic relations with other countries, and provide means to defray a host of other expenses which we should not have to do under Confederaticn. Independence is, therefore, out of the question for the present. Lastly, we have the fourth alternative— the Confederation of the two Canadas, proposed by the honorable member for Hocheliga. In his manifesto of 1881 he told us iu what position we should then be. The following passage is from the manifesto in question :—

It would have been easy at any time to satisfy Upper Canada, by giving her four or five members more than Lower Canada, preserving at the same time equality in the Legislative Council. To avoid the danger which this increase of members might entail, it is proposed to give Upper Canada seventeen members more than Lower Canada, and there are added besides forty-seven members more for the Maritime Provinces ; in all sixty-four members are added to the British element besides the twenty-eight additional members which are given to the Legislative Council; and this is the way in which it is pretended tbat the rights of Lower Canada are to be protected.

The hon. member for Hochelaga according to his own plan would have preferred–

HON. MR. DORION—It is not a plan, it is an argument.

HON SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—Then it is a very bad argument—an argument by no means advantageous to Lower Canada. The hon. member says in that manifesto that it would be quite an easy matter to secure the silence of Upper Canada, by granting it four or five more members than Lower Canada. But the hon. member very well knows that if we were to grant representation based on population, it would not be four or five members we should have to give to Upper Canada, but the seventeen members which it is now proposed to give Upper Canada by the plan of Confederation. The increase would not be based on an imaginary number. But even with four or five members more in the present union, Upper Canada could impose its decision on all questions which might come before the House The hon. member for Hochelaga has told us that under the proposed system Upper Canada will have seventeen members more than Lower Canada, and that the English element will be increased by the addition of all the members from the Lower Provinces, and tbat they will enter into a league against us Lower Canadians. I must say, I do not think the hon. member pays a very high compliment to his ex-colleague the Hon. Mr. HOLTON, when he says that because the members will be English, they will be against us French- Canadians. So great was his confidence in the hon. member for Chateauguay, that he took him into his Government, and would take him again to-day if he had the opportunity; and yet the hon. member for Hochelaga speaks of the English as though they were our natural enemies. For my part, I do not think they are; moreover, the question before us is not the formation of a Local Government only. We are considering the establishment of a Confederacy—with a Central Parliament and local parliaments. The Central or Federal Parliament will have the control of all measures

[Page 368]

of a general character, as provided by the Quebec Conference; but all matters of local interest, all that relates to the affairs and right s of the different sections of the Confederacy, will be reserved for the control of the local parliaments. The position in which Confederation will place us is very different from that which we should have occupied uuder the system proposed by the honorable member, inasmuch as the seventeen members, which Upper Canada will have more than Lower Canada, will have nothing to do with our local affairs, our religious questions or particular institutions, and the hon. member for Hochelaga, by his scheme, would have entrusted all that to the good-will of the Upper Canadian majority; but for my part, I would rather entrust the management of these matters to my own people than to them. As regards the seventeen additional members which Upper Canada will have in the Federal Par – liament, I am not alarmed at their presence any more than at that of the members from the Lower Provinces, because in Parliament there will be no questions of race, nationality, religion or locality, as this Legislature will only be charged with the settlement of the great general questions which will interest alike the whole Confederacy and not one locality only. Our position then is excellent, and all those who frankly give expression to their opinions must admit that the representatives of Lower Canada at the Quebec Conference have carefully guarded her interests. I may say that the basis of action adopted by the delegates, in prepar ing the resolutions, was to do jus – tice to all—justice to all races, to all religions, to all nationalities, and to all interests. For this reason the Confederation will be accepted by all, in the Lower Provinces as well as here. Under Confederation there will no longer be domination of one race over another, and if one section should be desirous of committing an act of injustice against another section, all the others would unite together to prevent it. But, supposing that an unjust measure was passed in the House of Commons ot the Federal Legislature, it would be stopped in the Legislative Council; for there we shall be represented equally with the other sections, and that is a guarantee that our interests will be amply protected. In the Legislative Council we shall have 24 members like Upper Canada and the Lower Provinces. I assert, then, that there is a vast difference between the argument s of the hon. member for Hochelaga and the measure of the Government ; our interests will be protected by the Legislative Council, and the measures of general interest will come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament. When the matter under consideration is a great public enterprise, such as a railway, a canal or a telegraph line, our religious and national interests will not be endangered. It will be the duty of the Central Government to see that the country prospers, but it will not be its duty to attack our religion, our institutions or our nationality, which, moreover, as I have just proved, will be amply protected. While on this point, I will draw the attention of the honorable member for Hochelaga to the fact, that in 1859 h e expressed himself as follows :—

Whatever may be the number of provinces or of subdivisions which it may hereafter be deemed necessary to adopt, the separating Hue between Upper and Lower Canada must be maintained. In defining the powers of the local and federal sovernrnents, those only must be delegated to the latter which would be absolutely necessary for the purposes of Confederation, and, as a necessary consequence, reserve to the subdivisions powers as ample and as varied as possible. The customs, the mail service, the laws respecting the currency, patents and copy-rights, the public lands, and such of the public woiks as possess an interest common to all parts of the country, ought to be the principal, if not the only objects which would be placed under the control of the Federal Government, whilst all that would relate to improvements purely local—to education, the administration of justice, the militia, the laws of property, and of internal police—would be under the control of the local governments, whose powers, in a word, would extend to all matters not specially delegated to the General Government.

Thus we see that the honorable member was willing to give up the control of the public lands to the Federal Government. He considered that it would be better to leave the control of colonization and the public lands to the Federal Government, in which, nevertheless, he was prepared to give a preponderance to Upper Canada. By the plan of Confederation brought down by the present Government, the control of these matters is given up to the local legislatures, and I earnestly hope that the honorable member will not endeavor to take them away and transfer them to the control of the Federal Government. If his plan or his argument had ever been put into operation, he

[Page 369]

would have abandoned the control of our public lands to the British element, of which he now pretends to stand in mortal fear. I repeat the declaration that it is impossible for us to continue in our present position ; that annexation to the United States would be the greatest disaster that could befal us ; and that it is impossible, that it would be disastrous to think of the independence of the country; that the project for the Confederation of the two Canadas as proposed by the honorable member for Hoehelaga is not desirable, and would not offer any guarantee for the institutions of Lower Canada, but that the Confederation of all the Provinces of British North America would be preferable, and is our only remedy. The Confederation would have the effect of giving us more strength than we now possess ; we should form but one nation, one country, for all general matters affecting our interests as a people. But when I speak of a great and powerful nation, far be it from me to wish that we should form an independent nation, and that we should abandon the protection of the British flag ; on the contrary, I earnestly hope that we shall long remain under the protection of that flag. What I would say is, that with Confederation we shall be in a better position for self-defence, and to aid the Mother Country under certain exigencies, than we are at the present time. Having Confederation, the Central Government will be in a position to have its orders carried out over its whole territory ; and when the question of defence comes up, it will not be obliged to consult four or five different legislatures, but it will be able to organize our defences immediately and without obstruction. Besides, we shall have acquired a standing which we have not hitherto attained in our relations with other countries with which we have dealings. It is of no small importance for the inhabitants of a country to have a standing in foreign countries, and not to be treated as men of inferior position. When Canadians go to London or elsewhere out of their own country, they have no recognized position, because we are only a simple colony. But under the Confederation we shall be protected by England, and besides we shall have a position in foreign lands, the portion which every man enjoys who belongs to a great nation. On this very point a public writer wiote some few years ago in a London newspaper an article from which I will ask permission to read an extract to the House. The matter under consideration was the cession of the right of fishery on the Banks of Newfoundland by England to France. He says :—

Now, see the effect of this want of association and representation here. The basis of a treaty is agreed upon between Great Britain and France, by which Great Britain agreed to give to Prance the exclusive right of fishing upon a great portion of the coast of Newfoundland, a thing unjustified by any former treaty, Newfoundland no sooner heard of it than she remonstrated, and denied the right of Great Britain to sign away to a foreign nation the property of the people of Newfoundland ; and, in fact, set at defiance the action of the Imperial Government. Now, this is not only derogatory to us as a nation, but it illustrates the danger which may arise to the colonies from the Imperial Government not being properly informed on such subjects. For, from a careful perusal of all the treaties on the subject in question, we cannot but believe that Newfoundland was right.

It is evident that, if the Confederation had existed ut that period, England would not have acted without consulting us ; but in those days they used to say, ” They are Canadians, mere colonists, &c.;” and as we were then separated, of course we had to submit ; our rights were not protected as they will be when we are united. Under Confederation, England will consult us in all matters which affect our interests, and we shall be able to make ourselves effectually heard in London. In proof of this I cite from the same writer :—

Here is another question which especially affects Canada. In the course of last year, the subsidy of £176,340 per annum, paid to the Cunard vessels plying between Liverpool and the United States, was renewed for a period of six years by the Imperial Government. Another postal subsidy of £78,000 was just being granted by the Imperial Government to a new line of steamers between Gal way and the United States, in this case also without consulting the interests of British North America. This is a great injustice, particularly to Canada, for that province has expended laige sami in the opening of water communication in the valley of the River St. Lawrence, canals which have become valueless from having to compete with the United States routes, encouraged by a subsidy from the Imperial Government of nearly £300,000 per annum , while Canada on the other hand receives no aid whatever from the Imperial Government, but is compelled to subsidize a line of its own (to attract a feeble share of the trade) to the extent of £50,000 per annum.”

If all the Provinces of British North America had then been united under one

[Page 370]

single government, we should have been informed that the Imperial Government intended to make that treaty, and our rights would have been respected ; but as we were but a simple colony, and as there were many interests brought to bear, we could do nothing to protect ourselves. I do not desire to weary the House with quotations, but I trust I shall be allowed to cite another author, who in addition to showing how limited are the objects of ambition presented to the inhabitants of a colony, demonstrates that, though British subjects, we are almost on the footing of foreigners in England :—

Here again the contiguity of the colonies to the United States suggests disagreeable eompari sons. In that great republic, the scope for individual exertion is immense ; and although the rewards of success in the higher walks of life are not generally so great as under most monarchical governments, some of the ” prizes open to all,” in that country, are of a very high order. Many a British North American has seen individuals upon the United States side of our boundary, whom he knew from personal acquaintance to be inferior to him in natural abilities, education, wealth, and social standing, raised in a short time to the pre sidency of that republic, a position which would entitle him to rank with the proudest monarchs of Europe. At the same time that British American could not reasonably aspire even to become the governor of his native province ; and if he were to go to England, all the influence which he could command would probably not procure him a presentation to his Sovereign.

Does not that show that the position of a Canadian, or of any other inhabitant of the colonies, in England is a position of inferiority ? We desire to remove that inferiority by adopting the plan of Confederation now submitted to the House. The honorable member for Hochelaga stated that Confederation had not been asked for by the people, but that it was adopted as the last resource of a falling party. He referred, of course, when he expressed that opinion, to the vote of censure he had proposed last year against the TACHÉ-MACDONALD Ministry. After all his efforts against that ministry, the honorable gentleman could do no more than reproach them with an act committed, or supposed to have been committed, five years before by another government; and by that means he had succeeded in overthrowing the ministry. The result of the vote, brought about by the houoiable member, was very different from what he expected ; it resulted in the Coalition, and the project of Confederation now before the House. The honorable gentleman saya that the people have not asked for it, but when the Government announced to the House that the basis upon which the new ministry had been formed was the Confederation of the provinces, the opposition did not declare that the measure was a bad one. On the contrary, the great majority of the members from Upper and from Lower Canada pronounced themselves in favor of the plan, and promised their support to the Government. The honorable gentleman also asks, who empowered the delegates to meet and prepare a plan of Confederation, and submit it to this House ? I answer, that the power was derived from the expressed sentiments of the House when it consented to the formation of the Government on that basis. The Government felt that they had a perfect right not only to assist at the Quebec Conference, but to bring it about. And even though there had been no other reason but the dimeulties which had arisen in Canada some years before ; even though there had been no other reason than the care of the interests of the country, we should have been justified thereby in assisting at the Charlottetown Conference, and in caling the Quebec Conference, at which the measure was adopted by the thirty-three delegates. The honorable gentleman let fall the accusation that we consented that Canada should have but one vote in the Conference. In making a charge against the Government, as leader of the Opposition, the honorable gentleman ought to have sought to base it on more correct information.

HON. MR. DORION—I understood it to be so, from what the President of the Council stated.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—Canada had more than one vote ; and the President of the Council never stated the contrary.

HON. MR. DORION—How many were there? Two?

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—Yes, two ; one for Upper and one for Lower Canaia. We could have had more, but that was not the question. We did not go to the Conference to discuss simple matters of form, nor did we go there to force our views upon others ; we desired to come to an understanding with the Lower Provinces. It was not our object to frame a feeble and unjust Constitution, destined, from the very fact, to last but a day. Hence it would not have been right, and we did not desire to take advantage of our position, but we treated

[Page 371]

with the provinces on a footing of equality, not wishing to force our views upon them, but anxious to come to an understanding, and to extend justice to all.

HON. MR. DORION—The statement I made is not denied, that the votes were given by provinces.

HON. SOLICITOR GEN. LANGEVIN—It is true ; the Lower Provinces had each one vote, as had Upper and Lower Canada, and it is for us a matter for congratulation. I may be permitted to remind the House, in connection with this matter, of the saying of the first NAPOLEON to one of his ambassadors, whom he sent to a prince who was feeble, poor, and without an army—that prince was the Pope: “Treat with him as if he had an army of two hundred thousand men at his back ! ” Now, that is what we did ; we treated Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the other provinces as we desired to be treated ourselves, that is to say, with justice and consideration, and the result shews that we were right. The honorable gentleman ought to have confined himself to publishing, in his own way, the secrets of the Conference, and refrain from divulging those of the committee appointed last year with respect to constitutional difficulties. I understood that everything was to have remained secret in that committee, except the report made to the House.

HON. MR. DORION—Does the hon. gentleman accuse me of divulging the secrets of that committee ?

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—The hon. gentleman stated that the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. J . A. MACDONALD) had constantly acted and voted in that committee against the Confederation project, and that now he presents one himself; and I maintain that he ought not to have said that, for the action of the members of the committee was to have remained secret. If the deliberations of the committee were to have remained secret, the hon. gentleman must see that he is in a difficult position. The object of that secrecy is evident; it was the same object we had in view in preserving secrecy in the proceedings of the Quebec Conference ; to give increased freedom of opinion to each member, and not, as has been said, to deprive the people of information to which they were entitled. We knew that if our proceedings were presented day by day to the people, through the press, we should not have enjoyed that liberty of action and of discussion which we required. It is easy to understand, that during the deliberations, a member might one day pronounce against a resolution or some important point, and that the arguments of another member in a contrary sense might make him change his opinion ; but that this might be, it was necessary to be free from all outside influence, and therefore it was that the Conference sat with closed doors.

HON. MR. DORION—Will the hon. member allow me to say a few words ? He has stated that I divulged the secrets of the committee on sectional difficulties. I assert that I never attended the sittings of that committee, that I merely went there on the first day to state that I would not take part in its proceedings, and that I then withdrew and did not again attend. I was opposed to the proceedings of that committee, and I did not attend it ; but I learned that the Hon. Attorney General voted, on the last day the committee sat, against Confederation ; and that was all I stated. So that if the secrets of the committee have been revealed, it has nor been done by me.

HON. MR. CAUCHON.— The hon. member for Hochelaga has quite forgotten what passed in the committee. He was present, with the hon. member for Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON), at the commencement of the proceedings of the committee, when it waa stated and agreed that everything that passed in the committee waa to be kept secret. I admit that the hon. gentleman refused to take part in the proceedings of the committee, but at the same time he knew perfectly well that they were to be secret, and he was bound to respect that secrecy. He was aware that the representatives of the press had been excluded.

HON. MR. DORION.—The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken, for I was not present.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN.—The hon. member for Hochelega must understand that not being myself a member of that committee, and knowing that he was a member of it, and that it had been stated in the House that the proceedings were to be secret, I was perfectly justified in blaming him for having spoken.

HON. MR. DORION.—I never knew that the proceedings, of the committee were to be secret.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN.—I knew it, and I feel that I was perfectly justi-

[Page 372]

fied in saying what I said ; but after the explanations which the hon. gentleman has just given, I cannot accuse him of having done it otherwise than inadvertently. The honorable member for Hochelaga stated that the memorial submitted by the Government at the time of its formation spoke of a Confederation other than the one which it now proposes. It will be well to refer to the document in question in order to ascertain its contents. The memorial consists of two parts, of which the following is the first :—

The Government are prepared to state that immediately after the prorogation, they will address themselves, in the most earnest manner, to the negotiation for a Confederation of all the British North American Provinces.

That failing a successful issue to such negotiations, they are prepared to pledge themselves to legislation, during the next session of Parliament, for the purpose of remedying existing difficulties by introducing the Federal principle for Canada alone, coupled with such provisions as will permit the Maritime Provinces and the North-Western territory to he hereafter incorporated into the Canadian system.

In other words, the Government promises, in the first part of the memorial in question, to direct its attention to a Confederation of all the British North American Provinces; and, in the event of its not succeeding in carrying out that object, to turn its attention to a Confederation of the two Canadas. And now here are the contents of the second part :—

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 permit the Maritime Provinces and the North-West territory to be incorporated into the same system of government.

And the Government will seek, by sending representatives to the Lower Provinces and to England, to secure the assent of those interests which are beyond the control of our own legislation, to such a measure as may enable all British North America to be united under a General Legislature based upon the Federal principle.

Well, where is the contradiction between these promises and the present action of the Government? We begin with a plan of Confederation for the two Canadas, and subsequently, finding that the Maritime Provinces are ready to enter upon the consideration of a more extensive union, we have made arrangements to bring them at once into the Confederation. There is no contradiction in that, but it is the same measure and the same plan ; the only difference is, that, instead of admitting them into the union some six or nine months hence, we have admitted them at once. When we approached the question, we found the Maritime Provinces in process of deliberating upon a union amongst themselves ; but the Charlottetown delegates peiceived that the Confederation which we proposed to them would be much more advantageous to all the provinces than that upon which they were engaged, and they at once consented to accept our proposition. Accordingly they came to Quebec, and the result of their visit was the plan which has been submitted to this House, The hon. member for Hochelaga has, therefore, no right to reproach us with having altered the plan promised to the House, since it is word for word that which we promised. This measure, as I observed a short time ago, cannot last, unless it protects the interests of all. Now, we have different interests in Lower Canada, in which reside two populations differing in origin, differing in religion, and speaking different languages. On the other hand, Upper Canada has a homogeneous population, but one professing different religions, and so it is with respect to the several Maritime Provinces. In these latter provinces, also, we have more than one hundred thousand fellow countrymen of French origin. Well, Mr. SPEAKER, we have taken care to protect these different interests, and to preserve the rights of this population, by uniting them in the Confederation to a people numbering a million souls of the same origin as themselves. But we are told : ” You wish to form a new nationality.” Let us come to an understanding on this word, Mr. SPEAKER. What we desire and wish, is to defend the general interests of a great country and of a powerful nation, by means of a central power. On the other hand, we do not wish to do away with our different customs, manners and laws ; on the contrary, those are precisely what we are desirous of protecting in the most complete manner by means of Confederation. Under the new system there will be no more reason than at present to lose our character as French or English, under the pretext that we should all have the same general interests ; and our interests n relation to race, religion and nationality will remain as they

[Page 373]

are at the present time. But they will be better protected under the proposed system, and that again is one of the strongest reasons in favor of Confederation. Not only indeed did we assure ourselves of that protection, but the provinces who were parties to the Confederation desired it also. All local interests will be submitted and left to the decision of the local legislatures. There will be other exceptions with respect to Lower Canada, and, in fact, all the exceptions in the scheme of Confederation are in favor of Lower Canada. These restrictions in favor of Lower Canada were obtained by the delegates from that province ; but they seek no thanks for their conduct, as they consider that in so doing they only performed a duty—a duty incumbent on all true patriots and good citizens. All that they now come to this House and ask for, is its sanction to the measure which ensures these privi – leges to the populations which they represent. I may add that, under Confederation, all questions relating to the colonization of our wild lands, and the disposition and sale of those same lands, our civil laws and all measures of a local nature—in fact everything which concerns and affects those interests which are most dear to us as a people, will be reserved for the action of our local legislature ; all our charitable and other institutions will be protected by the same authority. There is also the question of education. Upon this question, as upon all others, the Lower Canadian delegates have seen to the preservation of certain privileges, and that question has been lift to our Local Legislature, so that the Federal Legislature shall not be able to interfere with it. It has been said that with respect to agriculture the power of legislation would bu exercised concurrently by the Federal Legislature and the local legislatures. But the House is perfectly well aware for what reason that concurrent power was allowed. Everyone, indeed, is aware that certain general interests may arise respecting which the intervention of the Central Legislature may be necessary; but , Mr. SPEAKER, all interests relat ing to local agriculture, everything connected with our land will be left under the control of our Lower Canadian Legislature, and this is a point upon which we invariably insisted, aud which was never denied us in the Conference. It is thus clear that under Confederation as proposed, the inhabitants of distant parts of the Confederacy, having the privilege of laying their claims before their respective local legislatures, will not bo put to the great trouble of betaking themselves to the central seat of government , when, for instance, they wish to obtain authority to build a bridge or open a road. I now come, Mr. SPEAKER, to the subject of the details of the measure, and I shall reply to the observation of the honor- able member for Hochelaga on that subject. That honorable gentleman objects to the appointment of the legislative councillors by the Central Government, and adds that those councillors will be appointed by a Tory government, and will necessarily be selected from among the tories. In making that assertion the honorable member did not act with that frankness which we are entitled to expect from him. (Hear, hear.) He hardly alluded, if he did so at all, to the clause in the resolutions by which the opposition, in the different parts of the Confederation, are protected. In that clause it is provided that the Central Parliament, in making the appointments in question, shall be careful to watch over the interests of the Op- position, as well as over those of the Ministerial party. Now, Mr. SPEAKER, when a govern- ment binds itself in this way, is it reasonable and fair to believe or to suppose that it will break its word which has been so solemnly pledged? For my part, I am convinced that the members of the present Government, should they form part of the Central Gov- ernment, would fulfil what has been promised, and would watch over the rights of the Oppo- sition as over those of the other part. The honorable member for Hochelaga also pre- tended that the Maritime Provinces had foruced upon us the clause which provides that the legislative councillors in the Gen- eral Parliament shall be appointed by the Crown. Yet, the honorable member right well knows that the elective principle in our existing Legislative Council was mere- ly an experiment, and that in Lower Ca- nada we have become tired of the system, not because the councillors who have been elected by the people are unworthy of the position which they occupy, or because their selection was an unfortunate selection, but because the very nature of the system prevents a large number of men of talent, of men qualified in every respect and worthy to sit in the Legislative Council, from presenting them- selves for the suffrages of the electors, in con- sequence of the trouble, the fatigue and enor- mous expense resulting from these electoral contests in enormous divisions. We know that the system has wearied Lower Canada,

[Page 374]

and that that province will approve of our having inserted the clause in question in the resolutions. The vote which took place last night in another place, shews that I am not mistaken in what I assert on this subject. One of the greatest objections which the honorable member for Hochelaga raises to the appointment of the legislative councillors by the Crown, is that their number will be fixed, and that, by consequence, it will prove an obstacle to the decisions and legislation of the Commons House of the Federal Parliament. In a word, the honorable member declares that the Legislative Council, so constituted, will be, to use an English expression, a nuisance. The honorable member should glance back at the past to consider how many councillors appointed for life there were in the Legislative Council at the time of the concession of the elective principle, and how many of those said councillors remain at the present day. He would have ascertained that in eight years the number had diminished by one-half. Of the forty-two or forty-three members which there were then, there now remain but twenty-one or twenty-two. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for Hochelaga should also have admitted that in those eight years there had been such considerable changes among the elected councillors, that there was no danger of the Legislative Council not being at least accessible to the people. This diminution gives an average of three members a-year, and if we take the proportion between this diminution and that which would necessa rily prevail among a larger number of councillors, we shall find that there will be at least five vacancies in each year. The honorable member must then perceive that, if it should happen that the Legislative Council should be so opposed to the views of the Lower House as systematically to reject the measures of the popular branch of the Legislature, at the end of a year or perhaps less, such changes would be effected by death or otherwise, that we should immediately have such an infusion of new blood, that any attempt of this kind could not be repeated for a long time. Besides, the Legislative Council will not constitute a separate class like the House of Lords in England. The councillors will come from among the people, with whom they will have interests in common, and it is absurd to suppose that they will be induced to oppose systematically and constantly the measures which the Lower House may enact in favor of the people and at their instance. The hon. member for Hochelaga, when on this subject, reproached the Attorney General for Upper Canada with having stated in his opening speech, that if he had to preside over the selection of the legislative councillors, he would see that the best qualified men were appointed. Now, Mr. SPEAKER, I see nothing in that declaration which is not in the most perfect accordance with the interests of the country, and it is important that the best men from each section of the Confederacy should be called to sit in this important branch of our General Legislature. The honorable member has taken occasion to find fault with the clause of the resolutions which provides that the lieutenant-governors shall be appointed by the Central Government, and sees in it great danger, especially to Lower Canada. Mr. SPEAKER, I should very much like to know what protection the population of the different provinces derive from the fact that the governors of the British North American Provinces are sent out to us from England. Under the existing system, our governor is responsible neither to the people nor to the House ; he depends entirely upon the English Government, to whieh he is responsible. Under the system proposed the lieutenant-governors will be appointed by the Central Government, to which they will uecessarily be responsible for their actions. And in that Government we shall have more than one vote ; we shall be represented in it by our ministers, who will be there to cause every encroachment or arbitrary act which the lieutenant-governor may allow himself to commit, to be condemned. If the Central Government should refuse to do us this justice, and should persist in not recalling any lieutenant-governor who should have so failed in his duty to the population which he governed, we should have our sixtyfive representatives to protest and to vote at need against a government which should dare to act in such a way. In that respect we should have much bettor guarantees than at present ; and in very truth this is a new privilege that we have obtained, as the people will have a voice in these appointments, from the fact that we shall have our responsible ministers in the Central Government, who will be sustained and supported by the members from our section. In allusion to the appointment of the lieutenant-governors, the honorable member for Hochelaga thought proper to make a violent attack upon the Conservative party. He asserted that that party continually sought to diminish the liberties and the privileges of the people, whilst the Liberal party labored to extend and ensure those same

[Page 375]

liberties. Well, Mr. SPEAKER, I believe the people know their interests as well as the honorable member for Hochelaga, and that they will not heap reproaches upon us for having given them a Constitution, the object of which is to protect their local and general rights in a much more effectual manner than they are protected under the present system. While thus attacking the Conservative party, the honorable member for Hochelaga did not neglect also to make a slight insinuation against the delegates to the Conference. In fact, he says :—

The Speaker of the Legislative Council will also be appointed by the Crown. This is another retrograde step, and a bit of patronage more for the Government. We have all heard talk of a speech delivered lately in the Island of Prince Edward or in New Brunswick—I forget which—in which the speaker enumerated the advantages which had been flashed in the eyes of the delegates, while they were here, in the shape of appointments which were to be looked for, as those of judges in the Court of Appeals, of Speaker of the Legislative Council, of local governorships, as one of the causes of the unanimity which prevailed among the members of the Conference.

The honorable member must have a very mean opinion of human nature, to suppose that public men, having such great interests entrusted to them, and their own and their country’s honor to guard and to keep pure and unsullied in the eyes of the world, would agree to betray and deliver up their country for the love of a poor appointment, even if it were the post of lieutenant-governor or of chief justice. I am willing to believe that that insinuation was a slip of the tongue, and that he is already sorry that it ever escaped from his lips. Another point on which the honorable member for Hochelaga enlarged, is the militia question and the defence of the country. On this head, the honorable member declares that he cannot understand how the union of the provinces is to increase our strength. The experience of the honorable member for Hochelaga and the teachings of history ought, however, to have taught him that a disunited people, scattered over a vast extent of territory, must be an easier conquest than one which is united under a single strong and respected government. This brings me to speak of another observation made by the honorable member, who declared that our best policy, in order to avoid all difficulty with our neighbors, and escape the evils of a war, would be to remain quiet and sit with our arms across. The House will permit me to quote the very expressions of the honorable member on this subject :—

It would be a piece of folly for us to raise a standing army, by way of keeping off an invasion of our frontier. Our best plan is to remain quiet, and to give no pretext to our neighbors for making war on us. Let a healthy state of public opinion be our shield ; let not the press violently assail the northern authorities ; then if war comes without any fault of ours, it will be our duty to do our best to assist the Mother Country in the struggle which would ensue.

I think, as the honorable member does, that we ought not to give any just cause of dissatisfaction to our neighbors, and still less attack their frontier ; and the present Government have given proof, on all occasions, that they are disposed to respect the rights and opinions of the American people. But, on the other hand, the honorable member is the first to inform us that the best means of defending ourselves is, not to be ready and accustomed to the use of arms, but to remain unarmed, with our arms across like men of peace—in plain terms, to give ourselves up, bound hand and foot. Now, I will ask him a plain question. If he were apprehensive of an attack from a neighbor of his, would he go to him and say, “Here I am, do what you please with me,” or would he not rather be prepared to meet an attack ? I rather think that the honorable member would not be long in making up his mind as to which course he would take. Now, that which is wise and politic in an individual is equally wise and politic in the case of a nation. We are not desirous of assuming a threatening attitude towards our neighbors. On the contrary, our wish is to live with them in peace and quietness. We are anxious not to do the least act whioh can be construed into a threat ; but we should be lamentably blind if, with the enormous military armament of our neighbors before our eyes, we looked at this formidable military display with our arms across, and a careless disregard of its greatness in our hearts. Such an attitude would neither be patriotic nor worthy of a nation of free men. The most certain way to avoid an attack and subjugation by our neighbors, to have our independence and our privileges respected, is to shew them that we are prepared to defend them at any cost. The honorable member for Hochelaga has declared that he is prepared to make some sacrifices to defend the country, but he has not told us how much he is ready to do in that behalf. Perhaps he will let us know at a future time, if we are called upon to spend money for the purpose. However that may be, I must animadvert on the remarks which he has made with regard to the volunteers.

[Page 376]

Speaking of the expense which the Government were incurring for the defence of the frontier, he said that 30,000 militiamen would cost thirty millions of dollars ! The honorable member has a singular way of calculating. The fact is, if we were under the necessity of raising an army of 30,000 men, we should not pay them at the rate of a dollar, nor even three-quarters of a dollar, a head. The honorable member for Hochelaga knows as well as I do that the militia force now on foot and doing duty at the frontier, or in garrison in the interior, was called out in circumstances altogether exceptional, and that the Government were quite unable to control, to the extent they would perhaps have desired, the rate of pay which was to be allowed. The honorable member must likewise be aware that those brave militiamen gave the greatest proof of their love of country, and in many cases made very great sacrifices to the detriment of their own interest and that of their families. Many of them were employés in commercial houses, some in counting-houses, others in workshops, which gave them much higher remuneration than they are now receiving from the Government, and I consider it very bad taste indeed that any should grudge them their paltry pay, under the pretence that it will be a heavy item on the budget. (Hear, hear.) They did not hesitate, when the country claimed their services, to risk their health and to give up the comforts and delights of home, and I am well assured that the people will not grudge them the miserable half crown which they receive in exchange, and will approve of what the Government has done under the circumstances. The honorable member for Hochehma reproaches the Government with another misdeed. The truth is that he finds something wrong, some short-comiug, in every action of the present Administration. Accordingly, alluding to the right of veto permitted to the General Government, the honorable member expresses himseli in this manner: ” Thus, if a measure were passed by a majority of a local legislature, and if, nevertheless, the majority of the section of the General Government representing that particular province were opposed to it, would not that section use all their influence in the General Government to throw out that measure ?” Before answering the honorable member, Mr. SPEAKER, I think it will be well to refer to the two clauses which relate to that matter. In these clauses we find :—

1. 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.

2. Any bill passed by the General Parliament shall be subject to disallowance by Her Majesty within two years, as in the rase 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.

Well, I ask the House, what is wrong in those two clauses ? At present, what is our position when a bill has passed the two Houses of our Legislature ? I t is this : the bill is submitted for the sanction of the Governor General, and in nearly all cases is sanctioned without being referred to the Imperial Government. But if, for instance, the bill relates to a divorce, or to any question which concerns the Imperial Government, or if again it is a measure affecting our relations with our neighbors or any other nation, it is then reserved for Her Majesty’s sanction. When a measure is thus reserved, does the honorable member for Hochelaga suppose that the members of the English Government meet to take it into consideration ? Not at all ; there is in the Colonial Office a second or a third class elerk whose particular business it is, and who makes his report to the minister. This report decides either the sanction or the disallowance of the measure in question. If the measure is highly interesting to the country and is disallowed, we cannot blame any one and must submit, as the English ministry are not responsible to us. Under the Confederation this danger and inconvenience will no longer exist. In a case wherein the Local Government of Lower Canada should pass a law which the Lieutenant-Governor might think fit to reserve for the sanction of the Central Government, if the latter refused their sanction, although it was demanded by the people of the section, and there were no reason for this refusal, we should have our sixty-five members in the Central Parliament to protest against it, and who would unite and make combinations to turn out the ministry who should act in that manner. And you are not to say thai those sixty-five members would be powerless against the rest of the House. United in a compact phalanx, they would, without doubt, find support among the members of the other provinces, who would have every reason not to allow our rights and privileges to be infringed, lest they should one day experience the same treatment themselves in

[Page 377]

regard to their own. On the other hand, Mr. SPEAKER, the disallowance of a measure sanctioned by the local governments is limited as to time, and must be declared within twelve months, whereas, under the present system, it can be done within two years. This is a restriction which has been granted in favor of Lower Canada and of all the other provinces of the Confederation ; it is a restriction favorable to the people, but the honorable member will refuse, no doubt, to acknowledge that this concession to the people is our work. Moreover, why should we be afraid of this veto ? In our Looal Legislature we assuredly have no intention to be unjust towards a portion of the population, but propose to act towards them, as in times past, as towards equals ; we intend, in short, to be as just to that part of the population as we were when they were a feeble clement in it. This has not prevented the honorable member for Hochelaga from telling the English members from Lower Canada that they must be on their guard and take care of themselves. Well, Mr. SPEAKER, I shall not offer such an insult to the race to which I belong. The French-Canadians have always acted honorably towards the other races who live among them, and they will certainly not take advantage now, any more than they have done in times past, of the majority they may have in the Local Legislature to molest or persecute the minority. This is the reason why we have no fear nor misgiving relative to the right of veto. Moreover, we are not to suppose that the intention of the two clauses which I have already quoted, is that every bill passed in the local legislatures will be reserved for the sanction of the Central Government. That reservation will take place only in respect of such measures as are now reserved for Her Majesty’s sanction. So that the honorable member for Hochelaga is widely mistaken when he reproaches the present Government for having agreed to those two clauses. Another question on which the hon. member has also called us to account, relates to the export duties on timber and coals. In clause 29, which relates to the powers of the Federal Parliament, the third section reads as follows :

Ths imposition or regulation of duties of customs on imports or exports, except on exports of timber, logs, masts, spars, deals, and sawn lumber from New Brunswick, and of coal and other minerals from Nova Scotia.

The fact that this power has been conferred on the Government does not imply that it will be exercised. The power was granted simply because it might be necessary in certain cases mentioned. Now this is the reason for the second part of the clause which I have just read to the House, and which I cannot better explain than by citing some expressions of a speech by the Hon. the Minister of Finance on the subject. Nevertheless, as there are several honorable members in the House who do not understand English, I think it will perhaps be better to explain them in French. Here then was the thought of the Convention : as in New Brunswick the Government had found that it was a great disadvantage to collect the duties on timber according to the system formerly adopted, and they had substituted an export duty which superseded all other dues on that product, it was no more than right that this source of revenue should remain in New Brunswick, to which province it was an object of absolute necessity to defray its local expenses. In Canada we retain, under the new Constitution, our own method of collecting similar duties. As to New Brunswick, the duty on the article in question is their principal revenue, as coal is almost the sole revenue of Nova Scotia ; and if they had been deprived of them, they would have peremptorily refused to join the Confederation. (Hear, hear.) Their demand was perfectly just, and could not therefore be refused. Moreover, we have no right to complain, for they leave us all our mines and our lands, and we shall now, as heretofore, collect the proceeds for our own use and profit. The honorable member for Hochelaga says that it will be impossible to administer the affairs of the local legislatures without having recourse to direct taxation ; but a man of his experience ought not to have made that assertion. Instead of attempting to trade on popular prejudice, he ought to have admitted at once that the right granted by the new Constitution of levying direct taxes, is the same that already exists in the present Constitution ; it is the same right that all our municipalities possess. It does not follow that the right will be exercised. But the honorable member knows well that the people are not in favor of direct taxation, and that they would be unwilling to adopt it as a system, in place of indirect taxes ; hence his attempt to use it as a bug-bear in order to alarm the people of Lower Canada. “We must bear in mind that the proceeds of the local revenue of Lower Canada will be employed in defraying local expenses. The Hon. Minister of Finance has stated that in Lower Canada the local revenue will be $557,000, besides the 80 cents per

[Page 378]

head of the population to be paid each year, in half-yearly payments in advance, by the Federal Government. This subsidy will, therefore, amount to $888,000, making a total of $1,440,000 for the local requirements of Lower Canada. I am aware that the honorable member has cast a doubt upon the accuracy of the figures set down by the Hon. Minister of Finance, and attempted to show that the local revenue would not be as large ; but the figures I shall give are taken from the Public Accounts, and I think it will be admitted that they must be considered to be correct. At all events, here are the figures I have gathered from an examination of the official documents :—

Expenses other than those of the legislature and of the local debt of Lower Canada $ 997,000
Cost of legislation 150,000
Interest on local debt 90,000
Total $1,237,000

Now the revenue of Lower Canada will be as follows, taking the present figures and without adding the probable increase :—

Slide dues $ 49,040
Casual 4,000
Quebec Fire Loan 294
Fines, &c 341
Tax on judicial proceedings 91,731
Cullers’ fees, measuring timber 79,900
Interest on Municipal Loan Fund 114,889
Court houses, Lower Canada 25,392
Jury and building fund, L. C 29,710
L. C. municipal fund 38,752
Common school lands 128,340
Tavern licenses applied to L. C. municipal fund 3,962
Crown lands 205,512
Total revenue 771,823
80c per head of population 888,888
LESS :—Interest on municipal loan fund, and proceeds of school lands 243,129
Leaving a net revenue of $1,417,582

Now it is evident that these figures agree with the calculations of the Honorable Finance Minister, less a difference of $20,000 to $25,000. Lower Canada will have a revenue of nearly $1,500,000, and the excess of its revenue over expenditure, according to the calculations of the Honorable the Finance Minister, will be $209,000.

HON. MR. DORION—Why do you deduct the revenue from the Municipal Loan Fund ? Is it because Lower Canada is to be charged with the payment of the Municipal Loan Fund debt?

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—I strike out the item of revenue from the common school lands, because in the course of time the lands will become exhausted, and the revenue cannot be considered as permanent. Besides, the amount must be added to the Common School Fund, and cannot really be considered as an ordinary source of revenue. It is the same as regards the Municipal Loan Fund, which cannot be considered as permanent revenue, and I wish to count only the ordinary items of revenue. But, on the other hand, it must be seen that many of the items of revenue will increase in course of time, so that the surplus of revenue over expenditure in Lower Canada will always be considerable.

HON. MR. DORION — The honorable member did not understand my question. I asked him whether Lower Canada will be compelled to pay the municipal debt, and he has not answered.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—I understood the honorable gentleman perfectly well, but I make it a rule never to allow myself to be turned aside by interruptions, and I shall not depart from that rule now. (Hear, hear.) The figures I have given are highly important, for they demonstrate that Lower Canada will have a real revenue under the new Constitution—a revenue which is not calculated upon the probable increase and prosperity of the country, but upon the present revenue—of nearly $1,500,000, to meet local expenses. And yet, in the face of these figures, which are based upon the most evident facts, honorable members talk ot direct taxes. They simply want to frighten the country. But the people will see that there is no danger of direct taxation with the surplus revenue we shall have. Direct taxation must be resorted to if Lower Canada should give way to extravagance and spend more than her means, but not otherwise. Lower Canada will have a revenue sufficient to meet all its expenses, unless it follow the example of a person with an income of £-400, who should expend £1,000. The total expenses of Lower Canada for all purposes, less the cost of legislation and the payment of interest on the local debt, will be $997,000, calculating the expenditure upon the present basis. But it is evident that Lower Canada will reduce its expenditure, such for instance as the expenditure connected with the Crown Lands department, and that economy will be prac-

[Page 379]

tised in order, at a future period, to meet the expenses of local works, without rendering it necessary to defer other necessary items of expenditure. The expenses of the local legislation of Lower Canada may be set down at $150,000, and that is a reasonable estimate if we remember that all questions of general interest are to be discussed and regulated by the Federal Parliament, and that the local legislatures will only have to deal with questions of local interest. It is clear that the sessions will be far shorter than they are at present, and far less expensive. Every one will admit that under the present system long discussions do not take place in the House on private bills and measures of local interest, which are discussed in committees, but that such discussions occur on questions of a general interest, such as railways, taxation, the tariif, Confederation, and that these are the discussions which prolong the session. I say, moreover, that the interest on the portion of the public debt to be assigned to us will be about $90,000, and that our total yearly expenditure will reach $1,237,000, leaving us a surplus revenue of $209,000. I trust Lower Canada will have the prudence to set apart a large portion of the $209,000, in order to carry out hereafter local works and improvements without being compelled to touch its yearly revenue.

MR. DUFRESNE (Iberville)—The surplus can be put out at interest ! (Laughter.)

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN — The honorable member for Hochelaga feigns great uneasiness as to the position of Lower Canada in the Confederation, as well as to the matter of direct taxes. He spoke at great length as to the prosperous financial position of Lower Canada when she entered the union in 1841 ; but we must remember that before the union the revenue of Lower Canada was but $580,0,00, and that, nevertheless, she was compelled to provide for all local expenses and many items of general expense which, under the Confederation, will fall within the domain of the Federal Government, such, for instance, as the payment of the salaries of the judges, etc. Under the Confederation Lower Canada will have a surplus of over $200,000 on its local expenditure, even though the present expenditure should not be reduced. The honorable member for Hochelaga also said that the share of the debt apportioned to Lower Canada, apart from the general debt, would be $4,500,000. He must have made serious errors in his calculations in order to arrive at such a result. The debt of the two Canadas at the present moment, deducting the Sinking Fund, is $67,263,000 ; comparing the calculation of the honorable member with that put forth by him in his address to his electors in 1863, I find he has arrived at a perfectly different result, and he has no right to accuse others of being in error. Thus, in his address he states that apart from the then debt, $16,000,000 would be required for the Intercolonial Railway, and yet he now asserts that it would take twenty millions.

HON. MR. DORION—It was the President of the Council who said it.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—The honorable member should not trust to the calculations of the. President of the Council, since he himself has stated that nothing good can come from this side of the House. But the fact is the honorable member was anxious not to frighten the people at that time, and therefore it was that he spoke of sixteen millions, whereas now ho speaks of twenty. With regard to the amount of the public debt, the Hon. Minister of Finance has given us figures taken from the most reliable sources, and I prefer adopting his figures to following those of the honorable member for Hochelaga. The Hon. Minister of Finance told us that the total debt of the two Canadas, without counting the Sinking Fund, was $67,263,000, and that the Federal Government would undertake $62,500,000. There will therefore remain about $4,763,000 to be divided between Upper and Lower Canada, and if Lower Canada takes for its share $4,500,000 as the honorable member stated, there will only remain about $263,000 for Upper Canada ! I do not see how the honorable gentleman has managed to arrive at such a result, for it is clearly erroneous.

HON. MR. DORION—Let the Honorable Soliticitor General apply to the Honorable Minister of Finance, and he will get the explanation.

HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL LANGEVIN —It is evident that the honorable member for Hochelaga, in his calculation of the apportionment of the residue oi the debt between Upper and Lower Canada, has put a 4 in place of a 1 or 2, in the same way that he put 20 in place of 16 in the matter of the Intercolonial Railway. In his anxiety to find fault he sees double, and instead of seeing five millions to be divided, he s es nine. The debt devolving upon Lower Canada will not be $4,500,000. Lower Canada will have only its just share of the five millions to be divided.

HON. MR. DORION— The honorable member has forgotten the explanations of the Honorable Minister of Finance, who stated

[Page 380]

that the debt incurred for the redemption of the seigniorial tenure, which amounts to three millions, was not included in the general debt.

HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL LANGEVIN —The Minister of Finance stated the whole debt, in his speech at Sherbrooke, at $67,- 263,994. The amount of the debt is $75,- 578,000 ; but it is necessary to deduct the Sinking Fund and cash in bank, $7,132,068, reducing it to $68,445,953 ; the Minister of Finance also deducted the Common School Fund, which amounts to $1,181,958, and he arrived at the result I have just given, that is to say, that the real debt of Canada is $67,- 263,994. I do not give all the items of the public debt, for I do not think it devolves upon me to prove that the calculations of the Finance Minister are not correct ; that is the task of those who accuse him of error ; and the Public Accounts are there to shew that the Finance Minister has stated nothing but the truth. The honorable member for Hochelaga has manifested excessive anxiety respecting the financial position of the Confederation ; but in this case also we have the same guarantees as for that of the local governments. He asserted, for instance, that Newfoundland was too poor to contribute to the revenue of the Confederation, and that, in place of receiving anything from that province, we shall be compelled to send down money to prevent the people of the island from perishing by cold. The honorable gentleman is, nevertheless, well aware that Newfoundland has a large revenue, a revenue of $480,000, and that its expenses are less than its income. Newfoundland will receive its share from the Federal chest, but it will also contribute to the general revenue. While I am considering this portion of the honorable gentleman’s speech, I must admit that it is the strongest argument in behalf of Confederation, from the standpoint of the Lower Provinces, that could be brought forward ; and, for my part, I desire to see thousands of copies of his speech sent to those provinces, for his object clearly is to shew that the measure would be entirely to their advantage. He has attempted to shew that they will have a larger revenue than they have at present ; but he omitted to state that Lower Canada would have $200,000 over and above her expenses. He knows perfectly well that the total revenue of the provinces forms a sum of $14,223,320, for 1864, and that the total expenditure amounted only to $13,350,832, so that there is a surplus of $872,488, apart from the revenue from increase of imports in 1864. The financial position is therefore highly favorable for the formation of a Confederation. The honorable member for Hochelaga stated that New Brunswick would have a surplus of $34,000 over its expenditure, and he complains, upon that ground, of the subsidy of $63,000 it is proposed to pay that province during ten years. But every one is aware that the subsidy is to be paid because that province gives up all its revenues to the Federal Government, except that derived from its export duty on timber ; that was the reason its delegates insisted on the payment of the subsidy during ten years, and they were right. The honorable member also stated that Prince Edward Island was to receive $48,000 more than its expenses. But how comes it then that Prince Edward Island has hitherto exhibited reluctance ? It must be that that province takes a different view from the honorable member. The truth, however, is that Prince Edward Island, like the other provinces, was treated with justice and equity by the Quebee Conference, that its local requirements were considered, and that a sufiicient revenue to provide for them was awarded to it. The honorable member for Hochelaga, who spoke in English, took that opportunity to make a violent appeal to the members from Upper Canada, and told them that there would bo enormous imposts, and that two-thirds of the revenue and of the taxes would be paid by them. He did well to speak in English, for I am certain that he would not make the same assertion in French in the presence of the members from Lower Canada ; he would make no appeal of that nature, and I regret it, for that would give us the best of reasons for entering into the Confederation ; but I must acknowledge that that statement of the honorable member is not exactly correct, for the basis of the Confederation is justice to all. The honorable member for Hochelaga also said, in order to produce an effect upou the members from Upper Canada, that the extension of the Confederation westward was a farce, ” an absurd affair,” because the western provinces do not even think of it, and because we have no communication with that territory.

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—We must go round Cape Horn ! (Laughter.)

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—Since the question of Confederation has been raised, papers have arrived from Victoria (Vancouver’s Island) and from British Columbia, and they all agree in saying that it is to their

[Page 381]

advantage to unite themselves with the provinces for all general business, reserving to themselves the management of their local affairs. I quote as follows from one of the journals in question :—

Whatever may be the result of the present attempts to form a Confederation of the North American Colonies, we may be certain of one thing, and that is, that but few years will pass away before the accomplishment of a plan of this nature. Half a dozen provinces lying adjacent to each other, and subject to one and the same power, having different tariffs, exhibit a state of affairs which, from its very nature, cannot continue long. However, setting aside this anomaly, we find North American Colonies for which a more vast political career must be provided. The people have too long labored under the weight of disabilities which, by wounding their pride, have placed them in a humiliating position before the eyes of the whole world. With all the advantages of responsible government granted to him by the Imperial authorities, after years of strife and trials, the colonist hardly possesses one half the national privileges enjoyed by an Englishman. He is deprived of his share of patronage even in cases in which he is entitled to it and is eminently worthy of it. The position of Colonial Governor is seldom or never granted to him, and in many parts of Her Majesty’s dominions he is forbidden to practise his profession in the courts of justice. We therefore hail this initiative taken by the Canadian Government as the commencement of the regeneration of the colonists, who have hitherto remained in pupilage. With a confederation of colonies extending from one ocean to the other, what limits shall we assign to our greatness, our material progress and our political aspirations? Instead of seeing th talent of our statesmen fettered, harassed and restrained within the narrow limits of local politics, we shall find its scope extended to a whole continent, while a more vast and natural field will be thrown open to the active and enterprising spirit of the North American Provinces. Want of space prevents our entering upon this question at greater length to-day ; but we hope that the movement will succeed, and will allow us at no distant day to emerge from the isolated and feeble position in which we now are, to become a part of the great British North American Confederation.

That is the language of one of the newspapers of those colonies. What has the hon. member to say to it ? I hope I shall be forgiven for reading some more extracts from these journals, which we do not read here as much as we ought to do, al though they are of a nature to give us information respecting that part of British North America. Another paper says :—

There is then but one course left for the English colonies, and more especially the North American and Australian colonies. Before ten years have passed over our heads, the population of the colonies comprised between Vancouver’s Island and Newfoundland will be hardly less than six millions of souls, occupying a territory as large as that of the United States before the civil war, and in extent greater than three-fourths of the continent of Europe. With telegraphic communication and railways from one ocean to the other, with a Federal union, in which will be combined and concentrated all the talent of the colonies, and the object of which will be to represent the various interests of those colonies, what country has before it a more splendid future than this immense Confederation, with its innumerable and inexhaustible resources ?

I shall not occupy any fur ther time in quoting from these journals, but I wished to demonstrate that the plan of Confederation is not only a plan of political men in their extremity, as was said by the hon. member for Hochelaga, but that the provinces give in their adherence to it, because they perceive that it will be advantageous to them. As to the facilities for communication, I shall quote an excellent authority—Professor HIND—to show that they are not so limited as the hon. member declares them to be. The following is from an essay by Professor HIND on the subject of the North- West Territory :—

The Canadian emigrant party assembled at Fort Garry, in June, 1862, travelling thither by Detroit, La Crosse, St. Paul, and Fort Abercrombie, by rail, stage and steamer. At Fort Garry they separated into two parties ; the first division contained about one hundred emigrants, the second division, sixty-five persons. The first party took the northern route, by Carlton to Edmonton ; the second, the southern trail. At Edmonton they all changed their carts for horses and oxen, and went thence in a straight line to the Leather Pass (lat. 54 °) , through which they took 130 oxen, and about 70 horses. They suddenly found themselves on the head waters of the Fraser river, and so gentle was the ascent that the only means they had of knowing that they had passed the dividing ridge of the Rocky Mountains was by unexpectedly observing the waters of the rivers flowing to the westward. When in the mountains they killed a few oxen for provisions ; others were sold to the Indians at Tête Jaune Cache, on the Fraser river, and others were rafted down the Fraser to the forks of the Quesnelle. At Tête Jaune Cache a portion of the party separated from the rest, and, with fourteen horses, went across the country by an old well-worn trail, to Thompson’s river, and thus succeeded in taking their horses from Fort Garry through the Rocky Mountains— through a supposed impassable part of British Columbia—to the wintering station on Thomp-

[Page 382]

son’s river for the pack animals of the British Columbia gold-seekers. With this party of more than 150 people were a womau and three little children. The little children were well cared for, for the emigrants took a cow with them, and these iufant travellers were supplied with milk all the way on their long journey to the Leather Pass in the Rocky Mountains. I look upon the successful journey of the Canadian emi grants in 1862, across the continent, as an event in the history of Central British America of unexampled importance. It cannot fail to open the eyes of all thinking men to the singular natural features of the country which formed the scene of this remarkable journey. Probably there is no other continuous stretch of country in the world, exceeding 1,000 miles in length, and wholly in a state of nature, which it would be possible for 100 people, including a woman and three children, to traverse during a single short season, and successfully, and indeed easily overcome such apparently formidable obstacles as the Rocky Mountains have been supposed to present.

On a review of what is now known of Central British America, the following facts cannot fail to arrest the attention and occupy the thoughts of those who think it worth while to consider its future, and its possible relation to ourselves during the next and succeeding generations.

We find in the great basin of Lake Winnipeg an area of cultivable land equal to three times the area of this province, and equal to the available land for agricultural settlement in the province of Canada. It is watered by great lakes, as large as Lake Ontario ; and by a vast river, which in summer is navigable to within sight of the Rocky Mountains. It contains inexhaustible supplies of iron, lignite, coal, salt, and much gold. It has a seaport within 350 miles, via the Nelson River, of Hudson Bay, which is accessible for three months in the year for steamers.

This great basin contains the only area left on the American continent where a new nation can spring into existence.

This is a complete refutation of the statement made by the hon. member for Hochelaga, that communication with those colonies is impossible. In a part of the lecture from which I have just quoted, Professor HIND says that, between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods, the distance is only about 200 miles, and when once that is got over, an immense valley more than a thousand miles in length is attained—a magnificent valley, which may form part of the Confederacy and provide an outlet for our population. The hon. member for Hochelaga also told us, that if we accepted Confederation we should subsequently be drawn into a legislative union ; but he well knows that by the Constitution which is submitted to this House, the question of a Federal union only is mooted. If at a subsequent period our descendants should choose to have a legislative union, that will be their affair and not ours ; if they do choose to have it, it will be because they will then be strong enough to have nothing to fear. Further, without entering into all the details relating to the position, as to religion, of Lower Canada in the Confederation, I must call attention to the fact that the total population of all the provinces, in 1861, was 3,300,000 souls, and of these the total number of Catholics amounted to 1,494,000. Thus they will be numerous enough to protect their religious and other interests ; and those interests will be in a position of safety in the local legislatures. We do not seek to be allowed privileges which others have not; we only wish that our rights may be respected as we respect those of others. French-Canadians are not, have never been, and will not become persecutors either in political or religious matters under the Confederation. I appeal to men belonging to other religions to say whether we have ever proved unjust or persecutors to them. That part of the population of Lower Canada which is of foreign origin will have nothing to fear under the Local Government, any more than we shall have anything to fear under the Federal Government. But in consideration of what has been said by the honorable members for Hochelaga and Lotbinière, and of the mistrust which they have endeavored to create in the minds of the French-Canadian and Catholic population of Lower Canada, I think the House will allow me to read an extract from a letter written by His Grace the Archbishop of Halifax, who is likely to understand the interests of the Catholic population quite as well as the two honorable members m question. This is the reply which he makes to those who pretended that we had reason to fear invasion of the country by the Fenians :—

If there be fifty thousand men already prepared to invade this country, as you admit, instead of laboring to keep us in our present disjointed and defenceless position, you should rather call on all to unite where a single man cannot be dispensed with, and gird on our armor for the rencontre. If responsible government, which the great and good men of this country won for us, be a precious heirloom on the lilliputian scale on which we now find it, instead of bartering it away for nothing by Confederation, as you say, we shall rather, in my opinion, add to its lustre and value, and ennoble and enrich it, and make it boundlessly grander and more secure for ourselves and those who are to come after us. We obtained

[Page 383]

responsible government from the Mother Country, in whose legislative halls we had not a single member to represent us. We are now, on the contrary, asking to transfer the rich and prized deposit to a place which will be a part only of our common country, where our voice must be heard, and where we will have a fuller and fairer representation than the city of London or Liverpool, or Bristol, can boast of in their English House of Commons; and this is the great difference between obtaining from England what we had not, and transferring what we now have, in order to make it more valuable and more available for our own purposes, and by far more secure. Confederation, therefore, instead of depriving us of the privileges of self-government, is the only practical and reliable guarantee for its continuance. We are too small to be warranted in the hope of being able to hold it always on the strength of our own resources ; and England, if not too weak, is certainly too prudent and too cautious to risk her last shilling and her last man in a country where, instead of a population of four millions, she will have scarcely one-tenth of that number to help her against the united power of a whole continent. To deny, therefore, the obvious advantages of Confederation, you must first prove that union is not strength—that England under the heptarchy, and France under the feudal chief and barons, were greater and stronger and happier than they now are as the two greatest nations of the world.

Here , again, is what he says in answer to those who will have nothing to do with defence, under the pretext that we have nothing to fear from our neighbors :—

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 expediency, as the world knows. Tke 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 states of America, with all their professions of self-denial, 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.

In reply to those who declare that the best defence we can have is no defence at all, he says :—

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 favour 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 the 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.

I will now draw your attention to a short letter from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Newfoundland, which has not yet been read in the House, but which has just been published in the newspapers :—

ST. JOHNS, Jan. 5th, 1865.

MY DEAR SIR,—In reply to your communication of this date, I beg to state that I took no notes of the observations I made at the last examination of the youth of St. Bonaventure’s College. I distinctly remember, however, that among other arguments I used to impress on parents and scholars the necessity of education, one was, that according to the tendency of the age, a union of all the British North American Provinces would take place, if not immediately, by the force of circumstances in a few years ; and that such a union would have an extraordinary influence on the rising geneiation in Newfoundland. People were in the habit of saying that education of a high class was useless in this country, as the field was too limited. I repudiated that idea altogether. Newfoundlanders were not confined to this island, the British Empire and the States were open to them. Wherever the English language was spoken, there was an opening for an educated Newfoundlander. But independently of that, the Confederation of the Provinces would open up a home-market for education and talent—a market increasing every year, and of which at present we can form no conception. The bar, for example, would be open to all ; the Cential Legislature would open up a great field for political ability ; the highest offices of the law and the government would be open to Newfoundlanders as well as to Canadians or Nova Scotians ; and I hope that they would be found perfectly qualified by education to take their places, side by side, with their fellowconfederates, and compete for the prizes the Confederation would hold out to them, on terms of perfect equality. I sincerely believe that they could do so, as, from my experience, I considered that the youth of this country have as fine talents,

[Page 384]

and as great an adaptability for learning, as I have seen in any part of the world ; and that I never saw, in any part of Europe, boys acquitting themselves better (and in many eases not so well) than they did at the preparatory examinations and the present exhibition. This, so far aa I recollect, was the substance of the remarks I made on the fact, immediate or prospective, of the Provincial Confederation.

Thus, whilst some honorable members seek to alarm Lower Canada by asserting that our religion and our nationality are in danger, here we have an Archbishop and a Bishop declaring themselves strongly in favor of Confederation, and who do not see in it any danger for their flocks. And it is well known, even here, that the whole of the estimable and most respected body of the clergy, from those of the highest rank down to the very humblest of their followers, are in favor of Confederation. But the honorable member for Hochelaga, for the purpose of frightening Lower Canada, has told us that we should very soon have a legislative union, and that in that case the fifty French- Car&dian members from Lower Canada would coalesce with the minority of the Federal Parliament, with the view of obstructing the working of the Government. Well, what better proof could we have that we have nothing to fear, and that we shall not be exposed to danger under Confederation ? History is before us to prove that there will always be an opposition, and that if an attempt is made to oppress any one section of the Confedeiation, its representatives would unite in a body with the minority, and having thereby constituted a majority, would prevent any injustice on the part of the Federal Government. I beg to thank the hon. member for having, against his will, furnished me with so strong an argument in favor of Confederation. The hon. member then appealed to the national passions and the prejudices of race. He told us that the Protestant minority in Lower Canada would have to seek protection against the majority of that section. I repeat it, he made that assertion in English, and would not repeat it in French. But what treatment did the minority receive in Lower Canada when she had a separate Parliament ? Did not the French-Canadian majority always exercise liberality towards our fellow-countrymen whose origin and religion was different from ours ? Thank G od, our race is not a persecuting race ; it has ever been liberal and tolerant. The hon. member for Lotbinière (Mr. JOLY) has alsd appealed to the religious and national prejudices of the English minority of Lower Canada, but he ought to remember that there is no more danger for the English race in Lower Canada than for any other, and that he was the very last member of the House who ought to appeal to religious or national prejudices.

MR. JOLY—Mr. SPEAKER, I beg leave to correet the honorable member.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEYIN — The hon. gentleman can apeak presently.

MR. JOLY—But any member may correct another when he has been made to say the very reverse of what he did say.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN —Mr . SPEAKER, I call the hon. gentleman to order. I have not found fault with his having spoken for three hours. I did not interrupt him whilst he spoke, and consequently I do not choose to be interrupted myself. I do not wish to put words into his mouth which he has not uttered, but I wish to have it understood that he made an appeal to the English of Lower Canada, calling upon them to reflect on the fate of their race and their religion, when he read an extract from the report of Lord DURHAM, the hon. gentleman took very good care to read it in English only—

MR. JOLY—I protest against the language of the hon. member, and I claim the right to explain.

MR. J . B. E. DORION—It is not so; the hon. member for Lotbinière did not appeal to religious prejudices.

MR. JOLY — I desire to know, Mr. SPEAKER, whether the hon. member is to be allowed to assert that I said what I did not say?

MR. SPEAKER—The hon. member for Lotbinière is entitled to explain his language, or to correct the Solicitor General after he has finished speaking.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—I have the floor, and I claim to be heard without further interruption.

MR. J . B.E. DORION—Goon; but state correctly what a member may have said.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN —The hon. gentleman is not pleased that an attack should be made on one of his friends, and yet he was by no means displeased at the language used by the hon. member for Lotbinière last night when speaking of my colleague the Hon. Attorney General. At all events I will not be interrupted.

[Page 385]

MR. J . B. E. DORION—This is the sort of justice to be expected from the other side of the House.

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER — You may speak when you like ; you can speak when your turn comes, but we shall not listen to you.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—I assert then that the hon. member for Lotbinière has appealed to the passions, seeking to have it believed on the one hand that French Canadian nationality and the Catholic religion would be endangered by Confederation, and on the other hand that English nationality and the Protestant religion would be exposed to danger in Lower Canada under the local government. He cited in the English language the report of Lord DURHAM, to induce the belief that the English of Lower Canada would never consent to submit to a legislature, the majority of which would be French- Canadian ; but for my part I am not of that opinion, and I think that they will submit to it, because they are sure that they will be treated with justice. It ill became that hon. gentleman to make this statement, when he is himself elected for a county exclusively Catholic, which has not hesitated to entrust him with its interests. He ought not to have made this appeal, as he himself is a living proof of the religious tolerance and liberality of our compatriots. Neither did it become the hon. member for Hochelaga to speak as he did to the same effect, when we have seen a large and important electoral division—the division of Laurentides— reject a venerable gentleman who presented himself for reelection to the Legislative Council, a man who had been in political life for more than twenty-five years, to elect in his place an English Protestant, Mr. PRICE, although there were not 1,500 Protestants in the whole division, out of a population of 50,000 souls. The election of the member for the county of Megantic (Mr. IRVINE) is yet another evidence of the liberality of our fellow-countrymen, the majority of the residents in that county being French-Canadians and Catholics.

MR. J . B. E. DORION—It was not they who sent him here.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—On the contrary, but for their votes he would not have been returned to Parliament for that county. I may further say, Mr. SPEAKER, that the presence here of the hon. member for Shefford (Hon. Mr. HUNTINGTON), that of the member for Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON), and the presence of several other members afford abundant proof of the liberality of our fellow-countrymen, because those honorable members, although English and Protestant, represent counties the great majority of the population in each of which is French-Canadian and Catholic. The English have always been dealt with more liberally than the hon. member for Hochelaga himself would, perhaps, treat us were he in power. We did not require the aid of the hon. members for Hochelaga and Lotbinière for the protection of the minorities in the Conference. We were the first to demand that justice should be extended to the Catholics of Upper Canada and the Protestants of Lower Canada, because we desired to establish a solid work, and not to build on the sand an edifice which would crumble to dust the next day. The English of Lower Canada will not be excited by the appeals of the hon. members, because they know that whatever they can justly claim will be conceded to them without difficulty and with all good will. Mr. SPEAKER, although, it is with great regret that I have to ask the continued attention of the House, at this late period of the evening, yet such is the great importance of the question before us, that I venture to hope that the House will pardon me for presenting at such length my views on this matter. I may be permitted, I hope, to refute another assertion made by the honorable member for Hochelaga. That honorable member, who has found something to censure in every article of the scheme of Confederation, conceived that he produced an argument that would be irresistible by asserting that the distribution of the debt was unfair and burdensome to Lower Canada. To give a greater force to this argument, he stated that Lower Canada entered into the union with a debt of $400,000, and that she would leave it with a burden of $30,000,000, after having only expended in the interval the sum of $12,000,000 for public works within her limits. This argument is most specious. Supposing that our debt was $40u,000, and that to-day it is $30,000,000, the honorable member must at all events admit that the circumstances also have very much changed. At the time of the union our population was only 630,000, and to-day it is 1,250,000. The honorable member, too, must not forget that at the time of the union our territory only produced 21,000,000

[Page 386]

bushels of grain, whilst to-day it produces more than 50,000,000 bushels. At the time of the union we had only 1,298 schools, and to-day we have 3,600. At the time of the union these schools were attended only by 39,000 children, whilst to-day they are attended by more than 200,000. At the union the exportations from the ports of Quebec and Montreal amounted to $9,000,- 000; to-day they exceed $18,000,000. At the union the number of vessels built annually in our shipyards was 48 only ; now we have 88, and the tonnage is quadrupled. At the time of the union our importations amounted to $10,000,000, and to-day they reach $45,000,000. At the time of the union our exportations and importations amounted to $16,000,000 ; to-day they reach the enormous sum of $87,000,000. And it is with such figures as these before us that we are to be told that we are leaving the union with a debt of $30,000,000 ! At the time of the union the revenue arising from the tax on bank-notes, which affords a fair indication of the extent of business done, amounted to $2,200 ; to-day it amounts to $15,800. At the time of the union the number of merchantmen arriving in Quebec every year was 1,000 ; now it is 1,660, and the number of vessels arriving at all the ports in Lower Canada is 2,463 At the time of the union the tonnage of these vessels was 295,000 tons, and now in the port of Quebec it is 807,000 tons, and for the whole of Lower Canada 1,041,000 tons. At the time of the union 25,000 sailors arrived here annually; now we have 35,000. In 1839 the revenue of Lower Canada was $588,000; when we enter the Confederacy, although we are not called upon to pay any of the expenditure for general purposes, our revenue will be $1,446,000, that is to say that we shall have, under the Confederation, a revenue three times as large as it was at the time of the union ; and instead of having, as we then had, an excess of expenditure amounting to about $80,000, the total expenditure of Lower Ca’ada, under the Confederation, will be about $1,200,000, leaving a surplus of more than $200,000 ! If then our debt has increased, we have made most rapid progress, and we have received the full value for our money. Nor must it be forgotten that at the time of the union of Upper and Lower Canada the country had not a single railway, and now it is traversed from end to end by one of the finest railways on this continent ; and ere long, let us hope in the interest of our commerce and our safety, that this iron band will connect the extreme west with the Atlantic ocean. (Hear, hear.) We entered the union when the Welland canal had hardly been begun ; we leave it with one of the most magnificent canal systems the world has ever seen. And then the telegraph lines. At the time of the union the only telegraph we had was that one with balls, which so many of us remember, and which used to connect the citadel with the Island of Orleans, and thence communicated with Grosse Isle by a telegraph of the sa ne kind ; now an immense network of telegraph wires places us in daily and immediate communication with the most remote districts in the different provinces. We leave the union with a debt greater than that with which we entered it, but we leave it with a most perfect system of lighthouses, wharves, piers, slides, in fact with a large number of other public works, which have mainly contributed to the settlement and the prosperity of the country, and which have more than doubled its resources since the union. The Grand Trunk Railway alone, for the sixteen millions which it has cost us, has contributed to increase the value of our lands by millions and millions of dollars, by enhancing the value of our agricultural productions, which are by its means brought with greater ease to the different markets, and has moreover entailed an expenditure in our midst of more than seventy millions of dollars for its construction alone. Yes, Mr. SPEAKER, if we entered the union with a debt of four hundred thousand dollars, and if to-day we leave it with a debt of thirty millions of dollars, we can at all events show what we have done with the money, by the immense extent of territory, then uncleared, which is now covered with abundant crops, and which have served to keep in the country, not indeed all the children of our farmers, but at least a very great number of them, who but for these improvements would have emigrated en masse to the neighboring councry. Under the Confederation we shall have the control of our lands, and we can settle them so as to retain in our midst all those of the rising generation of both origins who too often take to a foreign land their strong right arms, their energy and devotion. Our mineral lands, so rich and so productive, the opening up of which has

[Page 387]

hardly been begun, will also be a source of enormous revenue to the country, and will largely contribute to increase the sum of our population, by keeping in Canada many men who would have gone in search of fortune elsewhere, and it inspires me with still greater confidence that Providence has been pleased to join to His other blessings conferred upon us, the possession of mines the richest and perhaps the most abundant in the world. As regards our fisheries, they were hardly opened up at the time of the union ; and now, although much more may be done with them, it is, nevertheless, undeniable that every year they are more and more developed, and that they are destined, at no distant period, to be a source of immense revenue to ihe country. (Hear, hear.) There are many other points of view, Mr. SPEAKER, from which we might examine the advantages we have derived from the union of the Canadas, in return for the sacrifice we have imposed upon ourselves. We might look at the political position we occupied at that period. We should see that we had just come out of a terrible crisis, during which blood had been spilt on battle-fields and elsewhere ; our Constitution had been suspended, and the whole country had witnessed scenes such as its inhabitants, hitherto happy and prosperous, had never seen before. Now we enjoy responsible government, one of the most glorious of England’s institutions, and one that has stood the test of ages. This great constitutional guarantee we take with us into the Confederation, into which we are about to enter in a state of peace and prosperity, with happiness in our midst, and with the conviction that this peace, this prosperity and this happiness will be made more lasting than ever. We enter it with the legitimate and patriotic aim of placing our country in a position more worthy of our population and of greater importance, and meriting higher consideration from foreign nations. The hon. member for Hochelaga, not content with calling up past events, has also alluded to the constitution of the courts of law in Lower Canada under the Confederacy. He declared that he did not understand the meaning of that article of the resolutions which leaves to the Central Government the appointment of the judges, whilst by another article it is provided that the constitution and maintenance of the courts was entrusted to the Local Parliament. The honorable member should have observed that by the powers conferred on the local governments, Lower Canada retains all her civil rights, as prescribed by the 17th paragraph of article 43, as follows :—

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.

This is a privilege which has been granted to us and which we shall retain, because our civil laws differ from those of the other provinces of the Confederation. This exception, like many others, has been expressly made for the protection of us Lower Canadians. It was our desire, as the representatives of Lower Canada at the Conference, that we should have under the control of our Local Legislature the constitution and organization of our courts of justice, both civil and criminal, so that our legislature might possess full power over our courts, and the right to establish or modify them if it thought expedient. But, on the other hand, the appointment of the judges of these courts had to be given, as it has been, to the Central Government, and the reason of this provision is at once simple, natural and just. In the Confederacy we shall have a Central Parliament and local legislatures.— Well, I ask any reasonable man, any man of experience, does he think that, with the ambition which must naturally stimulate men of mark and talent to display their powers on the theatre most worthy of their talents, these men will consent to enter the local legislatures rather than the Federal Parliament? Is it not more likely and more reasonable to suppose that they would rather appear and shine on the largest stage, on that in which they can render the greatest service to their country, and where the rewards of their services will be the highest ? Yes, these men will prefer to go to the Central Parliament, and among them there will be doubtless many of our most distinguished members of the legal profession. The members of this profession are often accused of going into Parliament for the purpose of monopolizing the representation. If this be the case at the present time, is it not to be supposed that they will do the same thing under Confederation ? Were the appointment of the judges left to the local legislatures, the local governmente would be subjected to a pressure which might be brought to bear upon them by the first advocate who would attain influence in the Local Legislature. To get rid of an inconvenient member who might have three or four followers, the Local Government would have to take

[Page 388]

this troublesome advocate of the second, third or fourth order of talent, and place him on the bench, whilst by leaving these appointments to the Central Government, we are satisfied that the selection will be made from men of the highest order of qualifications, that the external and local pressure will not be so great, and that the Government will be in a position to act more freely. It may be remarked, in passing, that in the proposed Constitution there is an article which provides that the judges of the courts of Lower Canada shall be appointed from the members of the bar of that section. This exception was only made in favor of Lower Canada, and it is a substantial guarantee for those who fear the proposed system. Besides, the honorable member for Hochelaga, who fancies that he sees danger in the powers given to the Central Government, knows by experience, as having himself been a minister of the Crown, that in respect of every appointment of a judge the Cabinet always consults the ministers for the section in which the appointment is to be made, and accepts their choice. The same practice would necessarily be followed by the Central Government, who would be forced to respect it, because behind the ministers from each section would be found the members from that section, and behind our ministers for Lower Canada will be found the sixty-five members whom we shall have sent to represent and protect our interests in the Federal Parliament. It is then advantageous, and there could be no danger in the provision that the judges should be appointed by the Central Government; indeed, it is for our interest, and the interest of all, that it should be so. And although it may be looked upon as a secondary consideration, yet it may as well be mentioned now, that by leaving the appointment of our judges to the Central Government, we are the gainers by one hundred thousand dollars, which will have to be paid for their services by the central power. This consideration will perhaps have some weight with the honorable member for Hochelaga, who makes such an outcry to alarm the people that we shall be obliged to have recourse to direct taxation to defray the expenses of our Local Legislature. Notwithstanding the advanced hour of the evening, I cannot pass over in silenee another observation made by the honorable member, and I beg he will accord me his undivided attention at the present moment. The honorable gentleman has asked the Government what meaning was to be attached to the word ” marriage,” where it occurred in the Constitution. He desired to know whether the Government proposed to leave to the Central Government the right of deciding at what age, for example, marriage might be contracted. I will now answer the honorable gentleman as categorically as possible, for I am anxious to be understood, not only in this House, but also by all those who may hereafter read the report of our proceedings. And first of all I will prove that civil rights form part of those which, by article 43 (paragraph 15) of the resolutions, are guaranteed to Lower Canada. This paragraph reads as follows :—

15. Property and civil rights, excepting those portions thereof assigned to the General Parliament.

Well, amongst these rights are all the civil laws of Lower Canada, and among these latter those which relate to marriage; now it was of the highest importance that it should be so under the proposed system, and therefore the members from Lower Canada at the Conference took great care to obtain the reservation to the Local Government of this important right, and in consent-‘ ing to allow the word ” marriage ” after the word “divorce,” the delegates have not proposed to take away with one hand from the Local Legislature what they had reserved to it by the other. So that the word ” marriage,” placed where it is among the powers of the Central Parliament, has not the extended signification which was sought to be given to it by the honorable member. With the view of being more explicit, I now propose to read how the word marriage is proposed to be understood :—

The word marriage has been placed in the draft of the proposed Constitution to invest the Federal Parliament with the right of declaring what marriages shall be held and deemed to be valid throughout the whole extent of the Confederacy, without, however, interfering in any particular with the doctrines or rites of the religious creeds to which the contracting parties may belong.

This is a point of great importance, and the French Canadian members ought to rejoice to see that their fellow-countrymen in the Government have not failed in their duty on a question of so serious a nature. On many other points many of them will doubtless claim that we have not thoroughly fufilled our duty, but as regards the matter in question there can be no difference of opinion, as I we have all a common rule to guide us ; and I repeat that they ought to rejoice that their co-religionists in the Conference have not been found wanting on this occasion. The whole

[Page 389]

may be summed up as follows :—The Central Parliament may decide that any marriage contracted in Upper Canada, or in any other of the Confederated Provinces, in accordance with the laws of the country in which it was contracted, although that law might be different from ours, should be deemed valid in Lower Canada in case the parties should come to reside there, and vice versa.

HON. MR. DORION—There was no necessity for that provision.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—I have just proved that it was necessary.

MR. ARCHAMBEAULT—I would ask of the Hon. Solicitor General if a marriage contracted in the United States, before a magistrate, and not according to canonical laws, would be deemed valid in Lower Canada ?

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—It would be so, from a civil point of view, if it were contracted in accordance with the laws of the state in which it was celebrated.

MR. GEOFFRION—If a marriage contracted in the United States is valid here, as a matter of course a marriage contracted in a British colony in conformity with the laws of the country must be valid ; therefore the explanation of the Hon. Solicitor General is inadmissible, or the resolution is useless.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—The honorable member for Verchères does not choose to be convinced ; so I will make no further attempt to convince him. The resolution in question signifies just what I have stated.

HON. MR. DORION—That is to say, it means nothing at all.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—I beg your pardon, it means that a marriage contracted in no matter what part of the Confederacy, will be valid in Lower Canada, if contracted according to the laws of the country in which it takes place ; but also, when a marriage is contracted in any province contrary to its laws, although in conformity with the laws of another province, it will not be considered valid. Let us now examine the question of divorce. We do not intend either to establish or to recognize a new right ; we do not mean to admit a thing to which we have constantly refused to assent, but at the Conference the question arose, which legislature should exercise the different powers which already exist in the constitutions of the different provinces. Now, among these powers which have been already and frequently exercised de facto, is this of divorce. As a member of the Conference, without admitting or creating any new right in this behalf, and while declaring, as I now do, that as Catholics we acknowledge BO power of divorce, I found that we were to decide in what legislative body the authority should be lodged which we found in our Constitutions. After mature consideration, we resolved to leave it in the Central Legislature, thinking thereby to increase the difficulties of a procedure which is at present so easy. We thought then, as we still think, that in this we took the most prudent course. The following illustration will prove this still more forcibly. I t is known to the House how zealous a partisan the honorable member for Brome (Mr. DUNKIN) is of the cause of temperance. Well, we will suppose that the honorable gentleman were present as a member of a municipal council in which it was to be decided whether all the taverns in a very populous part of the parish, which could not be suppressed, should be banished to a remote corner of the parish, where they would no longer be a temptation and a stumbling-block ; would he not vote for such a measure ? Would he not send them to a place where they would be least accessible to the population, and would he not think he had done a meritorious act, an act worthy of a good friend of the temperance cause ? Just so in a question of divorce ; the case is exactly analogous. We found this power existing in the constitutions of the different provinces, and not being able to get rid of it, we wished to banish it as far from us as possible. One thing it would be vain to deny, namely, that although we, as Catholics, do not admit the liberty of divorce, although we hold the marriage bond to be indissoluble, yet there are cases in which we both admit and require the annulling of the marriage tie—in cases, for instance, where a marriage has been contracted within the prohibited degrees without the necessary dispensations. An instance of this occurred very recently. A few months since, an individual belonging to my county, who had married a young girl of a neighboring parish, without being aware at the time of his marriage of the relationship which existed between him and his wife, found out several months afterwards that they were related in such a degree that they required a dispensation from the bishop. That dispensation had not been obtained. He spoke of it to his wife, who refused to apply for a dispensation, as a step towards the legal celebration of their marriage. It became necessary, therefore, to have the marriage annulled. The affair was brought before the Ecclesiastical Court, and, after a minute investigation, the diocesan

[Page 390]

bishop gave judgment, declaring the marriage null in a canonical sense. Regarded in a civil point of view, the marriage was still valid until it should have been declared null by a civil tribunal. It became necessary, therefore, to carry the cause before the Superior Court, and my honorable friend, the member for Beauce, who took the case in hand with his usual zeal and legal address, obtained from the court, after a suitable inquiry, a judgment declaring the marrhge null in a civil sense, and ordering that it should be registered as such in all places where it should be needful. If this affair had occurred in Upper Canada, what recourse would the parties have had ? The parties being Catholics, the case would have been brought before the bishop, who would also have declared the marriage null after suitable inquiry; but the cause would not have had the same conclusion in the civil court, particularly had it depended on certain impediments which have force in Lower Canada, but none in Upper Canada. It would have become necessary to go to Parliament to pray for an act, which, in a Catholic point of view, would be a mere decree of separation, but which the Parliament would have termed an act of divorce. This power to grant a separation is therefore necessarily vested in the Parliament, by whatever name such separation may be designated, and we are not to be reproached for the interpretation which others may give to such name, different from that which we assign to it. I thought it right to make myself understood on this point, because I do not choose that people should be able to say we are afraid of explaining our position with regard to the question of divorce and marriage, and I believe that I have shown that our position is consistent with our religious laws and our principles as Catholics. I regret that I have dwelt so long on the matters touched upon by the honorable member for Hochelaga ; but after his speech, and considering the position he assumed, he must have expected an answer. And, having done with him, I come to the honorable member for Lotbinière (Mr. JOLY) . That honorable member has endeavored to prove that all confederations die of consumption, and has cited, in support of his argument, the political condition of the Spanish republics of South America. Why did he say nothing of the Germanic Confederation ? If he had mentioned that, he would have had to confess that it had proved a success. He would have said also that it is a monarchical confederation consisting of thirty-one states, the chiefs of which are almost all kings, princes, or electors. There are not more than four or five states which are not monarchical, and, nevertheless, that confederation works well.

MR. GEOFFRION—Are they sovereign states?

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—Yes, but they have done what we are now about to do. In order to hold their own among the great powers, and not to be at the mercy of the first who might choose to assail their rights, they have united their strength because they conceived that ” union is strength.” When the honorable member for Lotbiniere was talking about the weakness inherent in confederations, he ought to have recollected late events in Italy, as they happened a few years ago. He should have called to mind the conquests of Garibaldi, and reflected that if he had succeeded in overcoming a number of petty states and even the kingdom of Naples for the benefit of the king of Sardinia, it was because the Italian States, being divided as he found them, were too weak to resist an invasion, and that, had they been confederated, neither Garibaldi nor Victor Emmanuel would ever have succeeded in getting the upper hand of them. And what happened when the little states of Italy were banded together with Piedmont ? This happened — when Garibaldi aimed at making conquests on his own account, he soon found out that the small states no longer existed, and that a large state had been formed out of their fragments, the consequence of which was that he was beaten at Aspramcnte. The honorable member says that our connection with the Mother Country, under the Confederation, would be one of paper, and that the Upper Canadians would detest the Lower Canadians.

MR. GEOFFRION—He did not say that such things would be, but that such might be the effect of Confederation.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN —Why should such be the effect of Confederation ? îslo questions will be decided in the Federal Parliament but such as relate to general matters. Local matters will not be treated of, nor questions of race, of religion, or of institutions peculiar to the several provinces, and consequently there can be no collision of opinions on such questions. Such a fear, therefore, is quite unfounded. The honorable member says, moreover, that the Confederation would lead rather to divide than to unite us, that civil war would be the result, and that the Upper Canadians would rather be annexed to the United States than subjected to Lower

[Page 391]

Canadian rule. For my part, I believe no such thing. I believe that the Upper Canadians are too loyal to wish to be annexed to the United States. They are quite disposed to trade with their neighbors, to keep up a good understanding with them, but they do not wish to be annexed. The honorable member for Lotbinière, getting over his fears and predictions and speaking of the sixty-five members from Lower Canada, put the following question—” Suppose the population in Lower Canada should in ten years increase thirty-four per cent., while that of the other provinces increases only thirty per cent., would it not be unjust to Lower Canada that the number of its representatives should remain the same, should still be sixty-five, while that of the other provinces will be increased ; while in any case the number of representatives from the other provinces is not to be diminished unless their population should diminish five per cent ?” This point is very important, but we must observe that whatever the increase of the population in the other provinces, the part from Lower Canada is fixed and known. Thus, for instance, if the population of Upper Canada should increase more than that of Lower Canada, the latter will always have sixty-five members, the other provinces receiving such increased number of representatives as their increased population would entitle them to. But the resolutions do not prevent Lower Canada from having more than sixty-five representatives, if its population should increase faster than that of the other provinces. The French translation of these resolutions is erroneous, for it says that ” for the purpose of determining the number of representatives from each province at the end of every decennial census, Lower Canada shall never have either more or less than sixty-five representatives,” whereas the English version of the resolutions, which is the official version, says : ” Lower Canada shall always be assigned sixty-five members.” This does not mean that Lower Canada can never have more than sixty-five members, but that it can not have less than sixty-five members. That is, I think, a categorical answer to the honorable member’s objection. If the honorable member for Lotbinière were here, I would answer him on other points ; but I will not attack him as he last night attacked the Honorable Attorney General. The honorable member compared the conduct of the Honorable Attorney General, in moving the scheme of Confederation, to that of a man who, presiding over a savings bank in which every one came to deposit his savings, having confidence in his honesty, should some fine day turn defaulter, betray their confidence and ruin them. He said that the honesty of the Honorable Attorney General for Lower Canada had yielded to the temptation of honors, titles and places, and that he had forgotten all his obligations and duties and sold his fellow-citizens. I shall not retort on the honorable member, but I shall take upon me to continue the comparison made by him and tell him that the Honorable Attorney General has in fact opened a savings bank and has invited every one to deposit in it his title deeds and his savings. Accordingly we find one day the seigniors and the censitaires coming and dopositing in his keeping their title deeds, their lands and all they have. These the Honorable Attorney General takes and deposits in his bank, and when he is called upon to restore them, when he is required to account for them, he pays as never man paid before him ; to the censitaires, instead of their title deeds burthened with mortgages, lods et ventes, corvées and all sorts of services and duties, he restores their lands free from all burthens ; while to the seigniors he tenders the full value of their seigniorial rights ; and if this day there are seigniors holding a hundred thousand acres of land in full right of property, which they can safely estimate as worth eight dollars per acre, they may thank the Honorable the Attorney General for Lower Canada for it. The suitors in our courts come next; they were oppressed with enormous costs, which amounted almost to a denial of justice ; they went and deposited their briefs, declarations and pleas in the Honorable Attorney General’s savings bank, and he returned them, giving them at the same time judicial decentralisation and diminished costs of suit. Thus it is that he has earned the respect and gratitude of his fellow-citizens. It is the same as regards the inhabitants of the townships ; in place of their ambiguous civil law, he gave them a civil law applying to the whole of Lower Canada, the townships as well as the seigniories; and all are now unanimous in expressions of gratitude towards the Hon. Atty. General for extricating them from the judicial chaos in which they were involved. Pleaders, advocates, in fact the whole country, deposited their complaints in the Hon. Atty. General’s hands, and at the end of five years he has given them a civil code which will do honor to Lower Canada, honor to the three distinguished Codification Commissioners selected by the

[Page 392]

Hon. Atty. General, whose name it will transmit to posterity. Yes, his name is attached to that work, and the attacks of the honorable member for Lotbinière will hardly prevent that name from going down to our descendants surrounded with the respect of all those who know the services he has rendered to his country. But the Hon. Attorney General for Lower Canada was not satisfied with these services. In the midst of a terrible crisis his country confided to him all its interests, all its rights, all its institutions, its nationality, its religion, in a word everything it held most dear. The Hon. Attorney General received the whole trust into his safe and faithful keeping, and when called upon to render an acoount, he exhibited all these interests, rights, institutions, our nationality and religion, in fact everything that the people held dear, and restored them guaranteed, protected and surrounded by every safeguard, in the Confederation of the British North American Provinces. He has been a faithful banker, and has not betrayed the trust reposed in him, he has honestly paid his debt ; rich and poor, seigniors and censitaires, advocates and pleaders, ail have received their due, and the banker is blessed from one end of the province to the other. The honorable member says that the Hon. Attorney General will have his reward. He is right ; my honorable colleague will have his reward—his day will come as did that of the late Sir Louis HYPOLITE LAFONTAINE. When that eminent citizen held the position occupied to-day by the Hon. Attorney General, the opposition heaped upon him the same reproaches, the same insults that are now offered to my honorable friend. He was acoused of being a traitor to Ms country ; it was broadly asserted that he was selling his fellow-citizens, and that he was the enemy of his race. Nevertheless, that defender of the rights and institutions of Lower Canada had but one ambition, namely, to secure for his fellowcountrymen the splendid position they have ever since occupied. He let the disaffected continue to assail him, and before descending into the tomb, he had the happiness of seeing his patriotic efforts and the purity and nobleness of his intentions acknowledged ; and when his mortal remains were carried to their last resting place, all classes of his fellow-citizens were eager in doing honor to that great man, and all united in blessing the memory of one who was no longer accused of being a traitor, but whose name was universally admitted to be deserving of a place among the very highest in parliamentary history. It will be the same as regards the present Hon. Attorney General for Lower Canada. He will have his reward ; his day will come, not in the sense of the honorable member for Lotbinière, who makes use of the expression as a menace, but by retaining that confidence of his fellow-citizens which appears so completely incomprehensible to the honorable member for Lotbinière. That he should enjoy the confidence of his fellow-citizens appears to me a thing perfectly natural, and not by any means difficult to understand. During his whole life, like Sir Louis HYPOLITE LAFONTAINE, the present Honorable Attorney General for Lower Canada has devoted himself to protecting and promoting the material and religious interests of his fellow-countrymen, and he has now crowned his gigantic labors by the important share he has had in the framing of the new Constitution, which is destined to govern one of the greatest empires in the world, a Constitution beneath which all races and all religions will find protection and respect. He will have his reward, and like his predecessor, his name will go down to posterity as one of the greatest benefactors of his country. I regret, Mr. SPEAKER, having spoken at such great length, but the importance of the question must be my excuse for having, perhaps, wearied the House. After the long speeches delivered by the honorable member for Hochelaga and the honorable member for Lotbinière, it was impossible for me to curtail my remarks, when I had to refute and destroy all the hazardous assertions of the two honorable members. I think I have said enough to show that the honorable member for Hochelaga made a false prediction when he said that the day on which Confederation was accomplished would be an evil day for Lower Canada. No, Mr. SPEAKER, the Confederation, I am perfectly convinced, will afford the best possible guarantee for our institutions, our language and all that we hold dearest in the world ; under its protection we shall be strong against the common enemy, we shall advance rapidly in the way of prosperity, and when we withdraw from the arena it will be with the consolation of leaving to our descendants an inheritance worthy of a free people. (Cheers.)

MR. JOLY—While the Honorable Solicitor General was speaking, I twice asked permission to explain what I had stated, because I thought he had not understood me; but from the manner in which he has acted towards me, twice refusing me the opportunity of explaining myself, I am now convinced that he perfectly well understood what I wished to

[Page 393]

say, and that he merely pretended not to understand it. I am not willing to bear the onus of the charge he has brought against me. I shall take the opportunity of setting him right, and of explaining what I said yesterday. I am quite ready to bear accusations of imprudence or ignorance, but I will not stand a charge of cowardice, and that is the accusation I find in the Journal de Québec of this day. The honorable member charges me with having appealed to the religious prejudices of the French-Canadians. I did not appeal to their religious prejudices ; I made an appeal to their national prejudices. I look upon this measure of Confederation as fatal to the interests of Lower Canada, and I consider that that was the only means of breaking the bands by which the French-Canadians are bound, and of arousing them while it is yet time ; that is what 1 have done and ever will do. But I am not the man to appeal to the national prejudices of the English after my appeal to the French-Canadians, as the honorable member has stated. I shall now state the manner in which I explained the passage from Lord DURHAM’S report. I said it was impossible that both races should long continue to live in peace ; that some day or other the two nationalities would come into collision; that judgment would be given by the Federal Parliament, in which the English were to have the majority, and from which the French-Canadians could not hope to obtain justice. I did not state that the French- Canadians would act unjustly towards the British ; but I said that the latter might complain, and that the Federal Legislature would be called upon to decide as to whether injustice had been done ; and that its sympathies must be distrusted. I added that the Federal Parliament being composed of a majority of English members, would be inclined to give ear to the English of Lower Canada rather than to the French-Canadians. I then quoted Lord DURHAM’S report to prove that English-Canadians would never willingly submit to the majority in Lower Canada. And in citing the two extracts from Lord DURHAM’S report, I first read them in English and then translated them into French. How can it be asserted, therefore, that I made use of the English language in order to make an appeal to the prejudices of the Anglo-Canadians ? The charge is absurd. Far from desiring to influence them in that sense, I read the passages with hesitation, because I felt that the British ought to blush for them. There was no need of quoting the passages referred to in order to tell the English of Lower Canada what their sentiments were ; I cited them in order to make them known to the French Canadians. With regard to the second passage, I could not cite it in order to attract the sympathies of the British, since it was an extract against them. How can it be shown that I cited that passage for the purpose of exciting the national prejudices of the English ? I appealed neither to the religious prejudices of the Canadians, nor to the national prejudices of the English.

HON. MR. CAUCHON—I did not say that the honorable member for Lotbinière was a coward ; I found fault with him for treating the question incompletely and putting it in a wrong light. With reference to the quotations, the honorable member did not translate into French that part in which it was stated that the English will never submit to a French Canadian majority.

MR. JOLY—I translated it word for word.

HON. MR. CAUCHON—I did not hear it, but I am quite willing to take his word. The honorable member has said that he wished to excite the national prejudices of the French- Canadians, but that is quite as bad as exciting religious prejudices. All I said was, that he was wrong in exciting the prejudices of the one race against the other.

HON. SOL. GEN. LANGEVIN—After the explanations given by the honorable member for Lotbinière, and though he has stated in a moment of excitement that he felt convinced that when I made an accusation against him I knew it was not well founded, I must conclude that I was mistaken, and that he translated his quotations from Lord DURHAM’S report unknown to me. I take his word in the matter, but I am quite sure that if he had not been excited at the moment, he would not have charged me with wilfully misrepresenting him.

MR. JOLY—I am the more clear in my recollection of having translated the passage from Lord DURHAM’S report, from the fact that I had great difficulty in translating it, as the House will remember.

MR. DUNKIN—And in fact your translation was not quite correct, particularly as to the word British.

MR. JOLY—But since the Honorable Solicitor General has given explanations and has withdrawn what he had said against me, I feel it to be my duty to state that I regret to have expressed myself so strongly with reference to him.

The debate was then adjourned.

[Page 394]

WEDNESDAY, February 22, 1865.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Before the debate is resumed, I would enquire whether it is the purpose of the Government to bring down the promised measure on the subject of education in Lower Canada, before the House is invited to pass finally the scheme of Confederation now under discussion ? I need not say to honorable gentlemen that this is a matter which is regarded with a great deal of interest by a very large portion of the people of Lower Canada, and I think that before my honorable friend for Montreal Centre (Hon. Mr. ROSE) proceeds to take part in this debate, the position of the Government upon that question should be clearly defined.

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER —Al- though the question is not put regularly, I have no hesitation in answering the honorable gentleman. My answer is the answer which has already been given by my honorable friend the member for Sherbrooke (Hon. Mr. GALT).

HON. MR. HOLTON —The honorable member for Sherbrooke has not stated to the House—


HON. MR. HOLTON—I think I am quite in order, on the calling of the Orders of the Day, to put a question of this kind. But I rise agaiu, simply to give notice to the honorable gentleman that I shall renew the question on the Orders of the Day being called to-morrow evening. I do think it is dealing slightingly with the House and with the country for honorable gentlemen to refuse to state explicitly what are their purposes with regard to this important question —whether or not their measure is to be brought down before a final vote is taken on Confederation. I shall renew the question to-morrow.

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—The question has been answered twice, but the Government are ready to answer it again, if the honorable gentleman so desires.

HON. MR ROSE then resumed the adjourned debate He said—Before I proceed, Mr. SPEAKER, to offer any observations on the motion in your hand, I wish to acknowledge very cordially the considerat’on which the House evinced last evening during my absence, and especially to acknowledge the courtesy of my honorable friend from Lambton (Mr. A. MACKENZIE), my honorable friend from Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON), and my honorable friend the member for Brome (Mr. DUNKIN) . I certainly feel indebted to them for the manner in which they yielded me precedence, at the request of the honorable member for Montmorenci (Hon. Mr. CAUCHON) ; and I shall endeavour to shew my sense of the kindness of the House, by not trespassing on its indulgence any longer than I can possibly help. And, before I offer any remarks on the question itself, I would premise this, that I hope in the course of them I shall not give utterance to a single expression which would seem to reflect upon those who entertain strong opinions adverse to the proposition now before the House. Far be it from me to deprecate discussion—discussion of the amplest, widest, and most searching character, on this important question. And far be it from me, by the use of a single word, to impute to those honorable members, who ieel it their duty to oppose this measure, any absence of patriotism. I believe they are actuated by the same ardent desire for the good of the country, which I claim for myself. (Hear, hear.) I t is right that the question should be considered in all its details—not merely in its bearings on the present state of parties, but as respects its influence in all time to come on the country at large. And with that view I think it ought to be calmly, deliberately and patiently investigated, and instead of deprecating the fullest and most ample discussion, I trust the opportunity will be afforded to every honorable member of this House to speak ou it in his own way and at his own time. (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, I presume there are few who, in the abstract, would not favour the idea of a union between a number of small states adjoining each other, rather than that they should remain isolated under separate governments. To the idea of union in the abstract between states so circumstanced, I take it no one would be opposed. But the principal ground of the opposition which is made to the present scheme by a not unimportant class, is this—that the mere abstract principle of union does not apply with full force to colonies circumstanced as Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland—the five colonies that are parties to this scheme. I t is feared by many that it is the first step towards independence—that it must tend to loosen the ties now existing between this aud the mother country—that it changes our relations, and will produce a strength incom-

[Page 395]

patible with Imperial sovereignty—that it may probably result in not only severing our connection with the Mother Country, but in forcing us to a union with the neighbouring republic. That I have heard urged as the greatest and most important objection which strikes at the root of the proceedings of the Quebec Conference. I know that many of the opponents of the scheme entertain the apprehension—perhaps the conviction—that that will be the result. (Hear, hear.) Far from deprecating, then, the discussion of that question in its broadest aspect, I think all of us who desire to perpetuate our connection with England, should listen calmly and anxiously to the objections which are urged by those who conscientiously entertain those opinions which are not only blameless, but entitled to respect. (Hear, hear.) Now, I do not deny that the effect of the present movement may be to change the character of the actual relations which subsist between this province and the Mother Country.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Hear ! hear !

HON. MR. ROSE- I do not deny that the result may be to change the character of these relatious. But I maintain, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy the House of the soundness of the position I take, that the change will be of that character, that, instead of loosening or weakening or diminishing the connection with the Mother Country, it will tend to put it on a footing which will make it stronger and more enduring. (Hear, hear.) Though I believe these relations will be somewhat changed, and we may have to consider what new aspect they will present, I believe this measure is forced upon us by the necessities of our position. The irresistible force of passing events will not allow us to stand still But, whether by this inevitable change the country shall gradually lose its dependent or protected character and assume more of the Federal relation, constituting this a territorial division of the Empire, I believe it will result in placing those relations on a surer and more steadfast footing, and that we will still acknowledge the same Sovereign, owe the same fealty, and maintain the same veneration for the English Constitution and name. (Hear, hear.) It cannot be denied that there is a state of public opinion growing up in England just now —not confined, as it was a few years ago, to a class of extreme theorists—that the connection which subsists between the colonies— Canada especially—and the Mother Country, is a source of expense and danger. It cannot be denied that that kind of opinion has obtained a good deal more force within the last few years, than those of us who desire to maintain the connection between these colonies and England would like that it should have obtained ; and we cannot ignore the consequences which that increasing volume of public opinion may have upon the legislation of England. Then there is another consideration which makes this subject stand out more prominently before the people of England at the present time than otherwise it would do, and that is, the state of its relations with the republic adjoining us, and the enormous military power which the United States have shewn, within the last two or three years, that they possess. In consequence of this, the state of opinion in England which might have been confined for many years perhaps to mere theory, has been brought to a head. It is not now merely a question of abstract opinion, whether under such and such circumstances it would be better for this and other colonies to assume a more independent attitude towards England. But it has been pressed with unexpected abruptness to a practical issue before the people of England, and they have now to consider what the relations of Great Britain to these colonies would be, in the event of war with the United States ; how far, in that event, it would be possible to protect this remote dependency of the empire, to avoid disaster to the English flag, and at a distance of 3,000 miles to maintain the prowess of the English name. It is this which has forced public opinion so strongly in England to a consideration of the actual relations between this country and the Mother Country, and it is this state of facts with which we must deal now. It is, I repeat, past discussing as a mere abstract matter of doctrine. We must look our situation in the face. We must consider the eventualities which press themselves on our notice, and it is our bounden duty to see whether we cannot find in the union of these colonies security to ourselves and a source of strength to the Empire at large. (Hear, hear.) With respect, then, to the objections urged by those who consider that this scheme may be leading us along a new and nntrodden path towards independence, or at least to a more independent relation with reference to England than that in which we now stand towards her, I say we cannot forget that our

[Page 396]

surroundings are of a peculiar kind. I would grant that there would be much force in the argument that it might sever our ties with England, if we were circumstanced as some of the smaller states of Europe—if we had, for example, a state like Switzerland on the one side and any of the German Princi palities on the other. If we had, as our neighbours, states like Belgium or Denmark— if, so situated, we were one of a number of small states, I grant you that, if a union of all these provinces were to take place, it might lead possibly to that independence which those who oppose the scheme now fear, and which for one, I hope from my heart, may never occur. (Hear, hear.) No doubt, if situated in that way—if wc had no powerful and over-awing neighbor, such a political combination as we now propose might lead to practical independence of England. If we were a mere congeries of small states, with no powerful neighbor, that result which we so much deprecate might possibly follow. We should, probably, in time aspire to have foreign relations of our own, to have our own army and navy, and to seek for that complete emancipation which with communities as with individuals, maturity prompts. But independence in a state must always be relative, and none of us can expect to live to see the day when the British dominions in this part of the world will be peopled to such an extent, and become so powerful, that they can afford to be independent of England. We must, from the necessities of our geographical position—so long as the United States continue to be as powerful as they are ; and even if they were divided into two or three portions—we must always find in them a source of danger which must force upon us a dependence on England. We find, I repeat, in our position towards the United States, and in the great preponderating power they possess, a guarantee that we need not apprehend that there will be anything like practical independence of England asserted by the colonies of North America ; because, from the very necessities of our position, we shall always have to look up to her for protection and aid. I say nothing of the sentiment of loyalty, of that attachment to the British Crown, that love for the person of the Sovereign which we all possess so strcngly and try to instill into our children. I do not speak for the moment of the pride we all have in the constitution of England, and in our being identified, in all our associations and feelings, with the glory of the English name. I put aside, for the moment, the instinct of attachment to the Mother Country, and I put the case on this ground alone, that the necessity of self-preservation will for centuries—for generations at all events— prevent the possibility of these colonies asserting their independence of England, unless it were, indeed, to become a portion of the republic which adjoins us, and to which, I think, it is neither the interest nor the inclination of any member of this House to become united. (Hear, hear.) Whatever fate may be in store for us, that is a destiny to which no one looks with favor. The genius and instincts of our people are monarchical and conservative—theirs levelling and democratic. But, sir, though I have said that I was disposed to look upon this question—the danger of Federation rendering us independent of England, quite apart from the considerations that spring out of sentiments of loyalty, yet I believe that those attachments will be increased tenfold by this proposed union. We will have a sentiment of nationality among ourselves ; and I consider it to be one of the first duties of a statesman to inculcate that national feeling that gives the people a strong interest in their country’s welfare. We will feel that we have something here, in the way of constitutional blessings due to our union with England, and that we have stable material interests which we can transmit to our posterity. We shall feel very differently from what we now do as colonics, apart and alienated from each other, and in some respects jealous of one another. With a stable government and a strong central power controlling an immense territory, we shall be able to enter upon a well considered, well devised and attractive system of immigration. (Hear, hear.) We will be enabled shortly, I trust, to commence to bring from the Mother Country a constant stream of immigration by which those sentiments of attachment to home and devotion to the Crown will be perpetuated. And in this continuous recruiting of our population I see one of the great elements we will have to look to for the perpetuation of the attachment of this country to the Crown We have not, in time past, been able to devise or carry out any extensive system of immigration. We eould not, in our divided and isolated condition, offer those attractions which we

[Page 397]

will be enabled to offer to emigrants when we can throw open to them the choice of a large country, a country which will have a name and a nationality—a country in which they and we can all feel an honest pride. (Hear, hear.) They will not feel as we have hitherto done, doubtful how long our system of constitutional government, and the blessings flowing from it, were to last. I trust, therefore, that the formation of a stable government, and the devising of a system of emigration that will be attractive to the people of England, Ireland and Scotland, will do a vast deal to keep up that constant attachment to the Mother Country which we all desire to see strengthened. (Hear, hear.) We shall then not only have the ordinary motive to present to emigrants, of self-interest— the opportunity to make money merely, but the other interest cf attachment in a permanent way, to the soil, without a desire to go back to the Mother Country after a competence shall have been gained—for the sentiment of nationality will soon take root among us. Now, sir, I think that so far as the danger of union leading to independence is concerned, those who are most earnest in desiring to perpetuate the union, need not have much apprehension. But, it may be said, that from the necessity of our position there is danger that we shall feel our material and commercial interests so strongly bound up with the United States, and feel so reliant in our own strength as a great country, that we will eventually form a closer alliance with that republic than any of us desire, and that the formation of the present union is the first step towards annexation. I do not think we need have any fears on that score. I do not think our interests would lead us in that direction. At the present time we are almost entirely dependent upon the United States commercially. We are dependent upon them for an outlet to the ocean during the winter months. If they choose to suspend the bonding system, or by a system of consular certificates make it practically useless ; if they abolish the reciprocity treaty, and carry the passport system to a greater degree of stringency, we should feel our dependence upon that country even in a greater and much more practical way than we do at the present time. And perhaps, sir, it is worth our while to consider whether this may not be the real motive which dictates the policy they are now pursuing ! (Hear, hear.) But, give us this Intercolonial Railway, affording us communication with Halifax and St John at all seasons of the year,- and we shall be independent of the United States commercially as we now are politically. We may not find this route to the ocean more economical, especially in the winter season, than to go through the United States, but if we have a route of our own to which we may resort, in case of necessity, our neighbors will find it to their interest to give us the use of their channels of communication at a cheaper rate. (Hear, hear.) They will not do that if they find we have no other outlet ; but if we are prepared with an opening for our produce, all the year round, they will not act so foolishly as to deprive themselves of the opportunity of carrying our goods through their territory. If we had this railway built, we should have no need to fear the withdrawal of the bonding system, or the continuance of the passport system, because they would be inflicting upon themselves a greater injury by so doing than upon us. Let me say then once more that I can perceive no one element of danger to us in this union. I certainly did try, during the many months in which the process of incubation of Federation, if I may so speak, was going en—I certainly did try to bring as unprejudiced and dispassionate a consideration to its various phases as I possibly could. I looked upon it, I confess, with suspicion at the outset ; I felt it was launching us into an unknown future, and that we were changing a system, that we got along with in comparatively a satisfactory manner, for one that was, in some of its aspects, new under the British Constitution. I say now, however, after giving to it the fullest consideration I am capable of giving, that I do not see, in any one respect, how the cementing of these colonies together in the bonds of government can tend to make us independent of Great Britain If I did, I should feel it my duty to offer it a most uncompromising opposition, and to endeavor to defeat it by every means in my power. But, sir, I do see a great danger the other way. I see that if we remain a mere congeries of isolated colonies, hostile in some degree to each others’ interests, there is danger ahead. I see that danger existing and threatening us in the United States. I see that if we do not unite and form one Central Government, giving it the power to direct all the physical energies of this country in whatever direction may be necessary, that we are liable to be overrun by that power. And this I con-

[Page 398]

ceive to be one of the very strongest arguments in favor of the Confederation of the provinces, that it enables us to prepare appropriate defences along the whole frontier of our country. I believe I shall be able to show in a very few words, that if we are united, we shall afford to England sufficient inducements for undertaking those works of defence that are essential to our own security and to the maintenance of her flag on this continent for all time to come, and that if we do go into this union, as I believe we will we shall be placed in a position to defend ourselves successfully from attack. And this, sir, unfortunately, is not a contingency which we can hope will never occur. It is not now a mere vague possibility in a far distant future which we have to consider. So long as the present civil war continues, it is impossible tor any man to foresee that such national complications will not arise as may at any day or hour involve us in actual hostilities. It is impossible for any prudent man to disregard that dark threatening cloud that has been gathering upon our borders, ready at almost any mom ent to burst upou us. It behoves us therefore to lose no time, if we believe that union oifers a guarantee of safety against the dangers that threaten us—it becomes important that we lose no time to consummate the proposed union, in order that the General Government may put us at once in a proper state of defence. The public opinion of England, as we unhappily know, does not at the present time tend very much to warrant the Imperial Government in making any large expenditure for colonial purposes. There must be some reasonable prospect, that if expenditure is incurred in erecting necessary works of defence, those works will be actually available, when constructed, to protect the country upon whose frontier they are established. We cannot expect England to enter upon a course of expenditure for fortifications on our frontier, unless she has the assurance of our ability with her aid to hold those works against attacks from a hostile power. I believe that if the prop >sed plan of union breaks down—fails to get the assent of the several provinces—and we go back to our old condition of separate colonies, we shall so discourage the statesmen of England in reference to us, that they will feel very much embarrassed with the prospect before them. (Hear, hear.)


MR. DUNKIN—What reason have you to think so ?

HON. MR. ROSE—I believe that the formation of a government, having the power to direct the whole strength of five colonies would greatly add to our security. Who doubts that there is greater security in such a union than in isolation, each with separate interests and having no common action ? I think the advantages of union for purposes of defence are not properly appreciated. (Hear, hear.) What would be the strength of Great Britain if there was a separate government for England, another for Wales, another for Ireland, and another for Scotland ; each directing its owns military and naval power ? If one national government had not called forth all the national materials and elements of strength, would the prowess of her fleet or of her armies have been what it is ? Is there no benefit in having a power that can bring to bear the whole military strength at any point desired ? If there is not, then I am willing to say that this argument which carries conviction to my mind is of no value whatever.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Are we not all connected with the Mother Country ?

HON. MR. ROSE—Certainly.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Then what stronger could we be by merely having a mere political connection with others ? It would give us no more men.

HON. MR. ROSE—Does my honorable friend think that if each province had control of its own militia force, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island control over the seamen, and Canada the direction of her own militia, that the military forces of these five provinces could be brought to bear with the same advantage as if they were under the control of one central power ? We could not take them out of their own provinces contrary to the laws of those provinces. Is it of no importance to make the hardy seamen of Newfoundland, or the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick feel, that if a hostile force lands at Sarnia in Upper Canada, their territory and their soil are invaded, or their independence threatened ! We should have embroilment and difficulty among ourselves at the very moment when united action in presenting a bold front to the enemy was necessary to our safety. If we go back to our old condition of isolation, now that the solemn approval of the Mother Country has been

[Page 399]

given to this proposition of Federation (and her statesmen see in this a great source of strength in enabling her to avert a war, and a ready means of defending the country)— do you believe that those statesmen will look kindly upon the act ? Even my honorable friend from Hochelaga has admitted that there must be in that case a dissolution of the union between Upper and Lower Canada. That honorable gentleman stated in his speech the other night, that if this measure failed there must be Federation between the Canadas ; and what, I would ask, is that but a dissolution of the present union ? I t is certainly a dissolution of the present union to adopt some new Federative system as between Upper and Lower Canada. But does the honorable gentleman think that he will find in the separation of these provinces an element of strength ?

HON. MR. HOLTON—That is what you propose to do now.

HON. MR. ROSE—NO, Mr. SPEAKER, I do not propose to do anything of the kind, as my honorable friend will acknowledge, if he will but bring his mind, dispassionately and earnestly, to the consideration of the question. There is no one more capable of seeing and appreciating the important features of this scheme than he. But my hon. friend has strong feelings, and sometimes is led away by preconceived jealousies or fears; I say that if my honorable friend will bring his strong intellect to bear on this scheme, he will find in it none of those dangers which ordinarily attach to the Federal form of government. I must now say a few more words in reference to the question of our ability to provide for the defences of the country. I have already stated—and I must apologise to the House for the digression which has been forced upon me—that I do not believe that, if we reverted back to our original condition, the Imperial Government would be as much disposed to aid us in the construction of the works necessary for our defence, as if they found that in the presence of a common danger we were united together to repel the common enemy. I say the Imperial Government would not in such a case be actuated simply by a regard to the expense of constructing these works—in which I understand the Lower Provinces will have to bear a share—but she would be deterred from so doing by the further consideration, that when built, these works would be less likely to serve the purpose they were designed to accomplish, namely, to enable the country to be efficiently defended. It is one thing to have a population of four millions united under one common head, and enabled to direct all their energies to the point of danger ; and i( is another thing to have a number of separate units, with uo common action—each under a different government, and distracted and separate at the very time when they ought to be most united. (Hear, hear.) What we have to guard against is this : a sudden conquest or surprise, for which we might be unprepared. I believe myself that, if works can be constructed, by means of which we can effectually defend the country against sudden attack, no one will grudge the expense. Of course they will cost no inconsiderable sum ; but I hope, as I believe my hon. friend the Finance Minister, although he may be pressed for other purposes, will not hesitate to recommend the appropriation necessary for the purpose, and to impose increased taxation for that purpose. (Hear, hear.) For I am sure that no member of this house, nor man in this country, would hesitate, if need were, to put their hands in their pockets and give a tenth of their substance for the construction of the works required to protect the country from the ravages of the aggressor, and to secure to ourselves a perpetuation of the inestimable blessings derived from our living under the British flag. (Hear, hear.) I am the more earnest in this question on account of the observations which have been made by my honorable friend the member for Hochelaga, (Hon. Mr. DORION) observations which I am sure he did not mean to have such an effect, but which nevertheless have a most mischievous tendency. That hon. gentleman stated that our true policy was, in fact, neutrality ; that it was hopeless for us to attempt to defend ourselves against the overwhelming force which the United States could bring to bear against us, and that with our small population we would be very much in the same position as Denmark when opposed to the armies of Austria and Prussia. Indeed, he almost went as far as a gentleman who uo longer holds a seat in this House, when he said that “the best armament for Canada was no armament at all.” I am sure that had the honorable gentleman felt that any injuiy would be done—any false impression produced on the public mind—by the use of observations like these, he would not have employed them at all. But I may say that they all tended to this end—the taking away

[Page 400]

of that confidence we should have in our energy and resources, by telling us that the prospect before us is practically a hopeless one—that there is no use undertaking public works for our defence—no use in organizing, training, and arming our militia—that all attempts to hold our own would be fruitless on account of our inability to bring sufficient able-bodied men in the field to cope with the force to which we might be opposed. Why, sir, is it by such a tone as that, that you can keep up the spirit of the people for the defence of the country, by telling us that four millions of British subjects could offer no resistance whatever, even when backed by the power of England, against the United States or the greatest military nation on earth ? I assert that even were we to be put in the unfortunate position of Denmark, ninety-nine out of every hundred of our population would be prepared to make a stand, hopeless though it might be for them, and to resist until the last foot of ground was wrested from us. (Hear, hear.) But if England, in case of war, should, for the first time in her history, decline to come to the aid of her colonies, future generations would not glory in the name of being Englishmen, as the past had such just reason to do. Sure I am, however, that we should occupy no hopeless or isolated position. It is in order that the observations of my honorable friend the member for Hochelaga may in some respect be counteracted, that I would yet trespass upon the indulgence of the House Jor a few minutes more on this head. We know that in modern warfare, if you can erect certain works which will compel an enemy to sit down before them, so as to prevent him from making progress into the country, you may by such means defend it for many months. I do not know what the scheme of the defence commissioners may be. But it is well known that they express the conviction that by the construction of certain works at various points, the manning of which is quite within the compass of our power, we can arrest the progress of an invader for many months, we can compel him to expend and exhaust his strength before these works, and we could throw embarrassments in his way such as would take an invading force many months to overcome. Because honorable members must remember that it is impossible to have more than a six months’ campaign in this country. And supposing you were to erect works before which an enemy was compelled to sit down in the month of May, it would take him fully three months before he could bring up his supplies and siege train and protect his communications, and by the time he was ready to make a determined attack, he would be overtaken by winter, be compelled to raise the siege and go into winter quarters. In truth our winters are our safeguard and defence. Such, at any rate, is the opinion of military men. During six months only are military operations practicable in this country, and thus whatever is done one season has to be abandoned on the approach of winter and begun again the following spring. If therefore we can only, by manning certain salient points in the country, prevent the progress of invasion, we are safe. Sudden conquest would be impossible— delay and impediments are everything. Every one knows the history of the celebrated lines of Torres Vedras, which extended thirty miles, and by means of which the invasion with which Napoleon terrified Europe was first rolled back. These lines were defended by but a small number of men, and they compelled Napoleon to retire before them. Then, on this continent we have the experience of Richmond, which has forced the army of General Grant to become a mere corps of observation, and of Charleston which has fallen at last, but after what delay and at what cost ! Going to the Crimea, we see Sebastopol defying for months and months the joint efforts of England and France. If we therefore can keep the invader from our doors for a certain number of months, our Canadian winter will do the rest, whilst English ships would be engaged in harassing their coasts and in the destruction of American commerce in every sea. I, therefore, entreat those who are disposed to take a desponding view of the question to consider these things. An aggressive warfare in this country is one thing, and a defensive warfare another, and a very different. (Hear, hear.) Our country is well adapted for defensive purposes, and it is next to impossible to subdue us. The badness of our roads, the difficulties presented by our winters, our deep, broad and unfordable rivers, and the means we could establish for keeping an enemy in check at certain points for the necessary time, would enable us to resist the United States with all their power and resources. No man can have a greater appreciation of the enormous re-

[Page 401]

sources, of the courage, of the varied appliances, of everything in fact which tends to success in war than I have of the American nation. I have seen them in the field, and seen them at sea. They certainly have come out as a military nation in such a way as almost to astonish the world. But, sir, let us consider a little more closely what their oircumstances are in other respects. No doubt they have an enormous navy, but that very navy would not be more than sufficient to defend their harbors in case of a war with England. It is not because I imagine their ships could not cope singly with British ships—it is not beoause I believe their men are lacking in skill or courage, or that they are unable to build sufficient vessels—but they lack this—and it is a consideration which we cannot and ought not to forget— that they have not a single harbor in any sea, except on their own coast, to refit their vessels. (Hear, hear.) Supposing them to send a fleet of 20 or 30 ships to England.

An HON.MEMBER—Or Ireland (Laughter.)

HON. MR. ROSE—If they went to Ireland, they would have a very warm reception indeed. (Hear, hear.) No doubt they could get there with the coal they could carry ; but where would they get the coal to bring them back or to carry on operations there ? Sailing vessels now-a-days can do nothing; all vessels of war have to be propelled by steam ; and there is no neutral port in the world where in time of war with England, the navy of the United States would be able to obtain assistance. For I take it for granted that in the event of a war with England the United States would have few allies. And, as I before remarked, theie is not a port in the world where they could get an ounce of coal or any addition to their armament. In this would cousist our great safety. They have no ports in the Indian Sea, in the east Atlantic, the Mediterranean or China seas, and it is simply because men of war could not exist without coaling and refitting that the navy of the United States would be placed at so great disadvantage. It is contrary to international law, as the House is well aware, that the ships of a belligerent nation can be received in a neutral port and assisted, beyond what is requhed by the dictates of humanity, to enable them to face the clements. They would be unable, I say, to get a single man, a ton of coal, an ounce of gunpowder, or a pound of iron, in any neutral port, and I would like to know what the United States could do in a war with England so circumstanced? (Hear, hear.) Well, sir, this is one state of things. But there is yet another view to be taken of the question. Do we not know that in the event supposed, we should find the Atlantic coast swarming with English vessels carrying moveable columns of troops, menacing and landing at every point. The navy of England, the arsenals of England, the purse of England, and all the appliances and requirements of war would ba brought to bear upon and be available to us in such a struggle. We should not suffer from the lack of the material of war, which is perhaps the very thing of all other things the most essential. In all respects we should be in a very different position from the Confederate States at the present day. We should simply be required to hold our own, while the United States were being harassed on the seaboard, and then when the winter came we should be comparatively safe. Think of the exhaustion to the United States of such a war ! I have ventured to say thus much with a view of counteracting, so far as my feeble observations will enable me to do, the remarks of the hon. member for Hochelaga the other night, because I thiuk it was a most pernicious, unmanly, and unpatriotic view of the case to be allowed to be disseminated, when we ought to do all we can to encourage and evoke a military spirit on the part of the youth of this country. Neutrality has been spoken of. But how could neutrality be possible in a struggle between England and the United States ? The country which cannot put forth an effort to defend itself occupies a despicable position, and forfeits on the soore of weakness, even the wretehed privilege of being neutral. How is it possible, I again ask, that we could maintain a neutral position in such a war ? We could not. We should have to make common cause with one or the other. Do you suppose the United States would allow us to stand aside ?

HON. MR. HOLTON—It is the Minister of Agriculture’s opinion that we should hold a neutral position.

HON. MR. MCGEE—Not at all.

HON. MR. ROSE —I have listened with pleasure to many speeches from my bon. friend the Minister of Agricuture, but I have never heard one in which it was

[Page 402]

implied that we ought to remain neutral in the event of a war between England and the United States. My hon. friend is well able to speak for himself; but I must say I have no recollection of hearing him utter so unpatriotic a sentiment.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Hear ! hear !

HON. MR. ROSE—I have no doubt that what my hon. friend meant by neutrality was this, that we, as part of the British Empire, were bound to remain neutral as between the two warring sections of the neighboring states.

HON. MR. HOLTON—NO; the hon. gentleman expressly gave it as his opinion that the neutrality of this country should be guaranteed by treaty, the same as is the case with Belgium and Switzerland.

HON. MR. MCGEE—I had this idea once. It was shortly after my hon. friend opposite (Hon. Mr. HOLTON) declared in favor of annexation. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HOLTON—The sentiment has been expressed by the hon. gentleman within the last two or three years.

HON. MR. ROSE—Events have changed very much within the last two or three ears, and we have got to deal now, not with mere party questions only, but with events that are transpiring. I will not say anything further on this point, however, as my hon. friend from Hochelaga is not in his place, although the hon. member for Chateauguay chivalrously defends him in his absence. I say then, Mr. SPEAKER, that while I do not wish to exaggerate the danger, I cannot be insensible to it. It is a danger, dark, imminent and overwhelming, and if it was on that consideration alone, I say that I find in this question of defence sufficient not only to justify me iu voting for the scheme now before the House, but to demand of me every effort to carry it into effect. (Hear, hear.) If we show that we are in earnest on this question of defence, England will be encouraged to come to our assistance iu time of danger, knowing that she can look to us not only to contribute towards the construction of works, but effectually to defend them when constructed. (Hear, hear.) If we show England that she can depand on a population of four millions, with a strength wielded from a common centre, she will be encouraged to aid us with both men and material of war, and will lend us the assistance necessary to protect ourselves both now and iu time to come. Let me repeat then, sir, that were there nothing in addition to the great considerations to which I have adverted, I should go heartily for these resolutions, and I should be disposed to overlook many inequalities and some objectionable features which I see in the scheme. I do not intend to advert in detail to these, for I feel that I have to consider this question as a whole, and that unless I see objections to it, so great and numerous as to make me vote against it as a whole, it is useless to criticise that which I cannot mend. The scheme is in the nature of a treaty. It will not do to cavil at this or at that ; we must either accept it or reject it. (Hear, hear.) I see the difficulties of the scheme, and the inequalities of it ; but we must not complain if one colony gets a few thousand dollars more than another, or if one colony has to assume more of the debt than another. Unless I saw enough in the whole scheme to make me vote against it, I think it would be a mere waste of time to cavil at these small matters. Because without the consent of all the other colonies they cannot be altered, and on the whole there is no reason why the whole scheme should be rejected, and these slight inequalities will soon right themselves. (Hear, hear.) There is one thing I would ask the House to consider —apart from the higher consideration of defence ; apart from the cementing of our union with England, which I believe is involved in the adoption of this measure, and apart from the chance of our falling a prey to the United States— and it is this : are we prepared, looking at Canada alone, to go back to the old state of things of twelve or eighteen months ago ? Are we willing to revert to the chronic state of crisis in which we constantly found ourselves for years past? (Hear, hear.) This House and the whole Government had lost the confidence of the country, and the most lamentable recriminations and difficulties existed on the floor of this chamber. Indeed at the time of which I speak affairs were in such a state as to make every man with any feeling of self-respect disposed to abandon public life. I think we see in this alone enough to reconcile us to the change, and I believe I should see sufficient cause in this to induce me to vote for a change in our political system. The dread of going back to the past, the apprehension lest old party cries should be revived, and the fear lest difficulties in which we found ourselves might be perpetuated, would impel me to vote for the scheme now in our hands.(Hear,hear.)

[Page 403]

Having said so much on the general policy of the union, I might have been disposed to enter at greater length into it, were it not that I wished to keep faith with my honorable friend from Lambton ; but, having said so much on the higher grounds which recommend this scheme, I will now say a few words in referenco to the objections which have been urged against its character, viz., because it embraces those elements of disruption which are to be found in every federal union. That is the objection of many who, while they would be willing to go for a purely legislative union, object to one of a federal character. They see in it that which tends to a disruption, and collision with the Central Government. Now, sir, I do not deny that if a legislative union, pure and simple, had been practicable, I, for one, would have preferred it ; but I cannot disguise from myself that it was, and is at present, utterly impracticable, and I cannot help expressing my astonishment and extreme gratification, that five colonies which had been for so many years separate from each other, had so many separate and distinct interests and local differences, should come together and agree upon such a scheme. Remembering the difficulties that had to be encountered in the shape of local interests, personal ambition, and separate governments, I certainly am surprised at the result, and I cannot withhold from the gentlemen who conducted these negociations, the highest praise for the manner in which they overcame the difficulties that met them at every step, and for the spirit in which they sunk their own personal differences and interests in preparing this scheme of Confederation. (Hear, hear.) It is remarkable that a proposition having so few of the objections of a Federal system, should have been assented to by the representatives of five distinct colonies, which had heretofore been alien, practically independent, not only of each other, but almost of England, and almost hostile to each other. (Hear, hear.) There had been very much to keep these colonies apart, and very little to bring them together, and the success which has attended their efforts speaks well for those statesmen who applied their minds earnestly to the work of union. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. HOLTON—The necessity was urgent.

HON. MR. ROSE—I quite understand the ironical spirit of my honorable friend— but the work of Confederation was no less one of vital importance to the country. I cannot help saying that I had HO sympathy with the hon. member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION), the other evening, in his historical detail of all the antecedent difficulties which existed in our political position. That honorable gentleman told us what were the opinions of this member and of that one at different periods,—commented on their inconsistency, and claimed that he himself had always been firm in his opposition to the project. Well, sir, I do not care what may have been the views of one member or of another, or how inconsistent he may have been. What we have to consider is the scheme which is now presented to us. Let us forget the past; let us forget former differences ; do not let us revive former animosities ! Let us consider that we are starting fresh in life, or as the term has been used, that we are entering upon a new era of national existence. (Hear, hear.) Let us cast aside past recriminations and look at the merits of this scheme. I have only to say that a man who does not change his opinions is a very unsafe man indeed to guide the affairs of a nation. Such a man is like an old sign-post on a road that is no longer used for travel. The sign-post is consistent enough, it remains where it had been placed, but though a type of consistency it is an emblem of error. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Hochelaga spoke of his consistency and the inconsistency of others, but he was like the sign-post which pointed out a road that existed twenty years ago, but which no one could now pass over. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) I think, therefore, that instead of endeavoring to find objections to this scheme because it does not give as a legislative instead of a federal union, we ought to acknowledge the sacrifices of those men who came together and prepared it. (Hear, hear.) Whatever may be said of our desire to get out of our own constitutional difficulties in Canada, that objeotion cannot be urged against the public men of the Lower Provinces. Newfoundland has not been in a state of crisis like us, and New Brunswick has been tolerably faithful to Mr. TILLEY for the last ten years ; a short time ago the Premier of Nova Scotia had a majority of thirty in a very small house— everything went on swimmingly there, and even Prince Edward Island was not much embarrassed.

[Page 404]

A VOICE—It wanted a railway.

HON. MR. ROSE—Let us attribute no motives, but rather give to every man who has had anything to do with this measure the credit of being actuated by the utmost patriotism and singleness of purpose. Such, I believe, is the feeling of nine-tenths—yes, ninety-nine hundredths of the people of this country. What inducement, except those of a public kind, had my hon. friend the President of the Council, or the Attorney General West to enter the same Government, if it was not with a view to bring about a union of the colonies ? And even if they had only in view to heal the constitutional difficulties of the past, we ought to be deeply thankful to them. (Hear, hear.) I stated that I would not criticise many of the features of this scheme; but there are two main features which to my judgment commend themselves to the attention of every one who has any doubts as to the stability of the system, and which give us a sufficient guarantee, that guarantee which federal unions have heretofore wanted, namely : that it establishes a central authority which it will not be within the power of any of the local governments to interfere with or rise up against. It appears to me that they have avoided the errors into which the framers of the American Constitution not. unnaturally fell. They have evidently learut something from the teachings of the past, and profited by the experitnee afforded in the case of our American neighbors They have established this Central Government, giving it such powers, and so defining the powers of the local governments, that it will be impossible for any Local Parliament to interfere with the central power in such a manner as to be detrimental to the interests of the whole. The great advantage which I see in the scheme is this, that the powers granted to the local governments are strictly defined and circumscribed, and that the residuum of power lies in the Central Government You have, in addition to that, the local governors named by the central authority— an admirable provision which establishes the connection of authority between the central power and the different localities; you have vested in it also the great questions of the customs, the currency, banking, trade and navigation, commerce, the appointment of the judges and the administration of the laws, and all those great and large questions which interest the entire community, and with which the General Government ought to be entrusted. There can, therefore, be no difficulty under the scheme between the various sections—no clashing of authority between the local and central governments in this case, as there has been in the case of the Americans. The powers of the local governments are distinctly and strictly defined, and you can have no assertion of sovereignty on the part of the local governments, as in the United States, and of powers inconsistent with the rights and security of the whole community. (Hear, hear.) Then, the other point which commends itself so strongly to my mind is this, that there is a veto power on the part of the General Government over all the legislation of the Local Parliament. That was a fundamental element which the wisest statesmen engaged in the framing of the American Constitution saw, that if it was not engrafted in it, must necessarily lead to the destruction of the Constitution. These men engaged in the framing of that Constitution at Philadelphia saw olearly, that unless the power of veto over the acts of the state legislatures was given to th9 Central Government, sooner or later a clashing of authority between the central authority and the various stated must take place. What said Mr. MADISON in reference to this point ? I quote from The Secret Debates upon the Federal Constitution, which tiok place in 1787, and during which this important question was considered. On the motion of Mr. PINKNEY ” that the National Legislature shall have the power of negativing all laws to be passed by the state legislature, which they may judge improper,” he stated that he considered ” this as the corner stone of the system, and hence the necessity of retrenching the state authorities in order to preserve thegood government of the National Council.” And Mr. MADISON said, ” The power of negativing is absolutely necessary —this is the only attractive principle which will retain its centrifugal force, and without this the planets will fly from their orbits.” Now, sir, I believe this power of negative, this power of veto, this controlling power on the part of the Central Government is the best protection and safeguard of the system ; and if it had not been provided, I would have felt it very difficult to reconcile it to my sense of duty to vote for the resolutions. But this power having been given to the Central Government, it is to my mind, in conjunction with the power of naming the local governors, the appointment and payment of the judiciary, one of the best features

[Page 405]

of the scheme, without which it would certainly, in my opinion, have been open to very serious objection. (Hear, hear.) I will not now criticize any other of the leading features of the resolutions as they touch the fundamental conditions and principles of the union. I think there has been throughout a most wise and statesmanlike distribution of powers, and at the same time that those things have been carefully guarded which the minorities in the various sections required for their protection, and the regulation of which each province was not unnaturally desirous of retaining for itself. So far then as the objection is concerned of this union being federative merely in its character, and liable to all the difficulties which usually surround federal governments, I think we may fairly consider that there has been a proper and satisfactory distribution of power, which will avert many of those difficulties. (Hear, hear.) But, sir, there is another objection made to it, and one upon which, from my stand-point, I desire to make some observations, and that is with reference to the manner in which the rights of the various minorities in the provinces have been protected. This is unquestionably a grave and serious subject of consideration, and especially so to the minority in this section of the province, that is the English- speaking minority to which I and many other members of this House belong, and with whose interests we are identified. I do not disguise that I have heard very grave and serious apprehensions by many men for whose opinions I have great respect, and whom I admire for the absence of bigotry and narrow-mindedness which they have always exhibited. They have expressed themselves not so much in the way of objection to specific features of the scheme as in the way of apprehension of something dangerous to them in it— apprehensions which they cannot state explicitly or even define to themselves. They seem doubtful and distrustful as to the consequences, express fears as to how it will affect their future condition and interests, and in fact they almost think that in view of this uncertainty it would be better if we remained as we are. Now, sir, I believe that the rights of both minorities—the French minority in the General Legislature and the English speaking minority in the Local Legislature of Lower Canada—are properly guarded. I would admit at once that without this protection it would be open to the gravest objection ; I would admit that you were embodying in it an element of future difficulty, a cause of future dissension and agitation that might be destructive to the whole fabric ; and therefore it is a very grave and anxious question for us to consider —especially the minorities in Lower Canada —how far our mutual rights and interests are respected and guarded, the one in the General and the other in the Local Legislature. With reference to this subject, I think that I , and those with whom I have acted—the English speaking members from Lower Canada—may in some degree congratulate ourselves at having brought about a state of feeling between the two races in this section of the province which has produced some good effect. (Hear, hear.) There has been, ever since the time of the union, I am happy to say—and everybody knows it who has any experience in Lower Canada—a cordial understanding and friendly feeling between the two nationalities, which has produced the happiest results. Belonging to different races and professing a different faith, we live near each other ; we come in contact and mix with each other, and we respect caoh other ; we do not trench upon the rights of each other ; we have not had those party and religious differences which two races, speaking different languages and holding different religious beliefs, might be supposed to have had ; and it is a matter of sincere gratification to us, I say, that this state of things has existed and is now found amongst us. (Hear, hear.) But if, instead of this mutual confidence; if, instead of the English-speaking minority placing trust in the French majority in the Local Legislature, and the French minorityplacing the same trust in the English majority in the General Legislature, no such feeling existed, how could this scheme of Confederation be made to work successfully ? (Hear, hear.) I think it cannot be denied that there is the utmost confidence on both sides; I feel assured that our confidence in the majority in the Local Government will not be misplaced, and I earnestly trust that the confidence they repose in us in the General Legislature will not be abused. (Hear, hear.) I hope that this mutual yielding of confidence will make us both act in a high-minded and sensitive manner when the rights of either side are called in question—if ever they should be called in question—in the respect-

[Page 406]

ive legislatures. This is an era in the history of both races—the earnest plighting of eaoh other’s faith as they embraoe this scheme. It is remarkable that both should place such entire confidence in one another; and in future ages our posterity on both sides will be able to point with pride to the period when the two races had such reliance the one on the other as that each was willing to trust its safety and interest to the honor of the other. (Hear, hear.) This mutual confidence has not been brought about by any ephemeral or spasmodic desire for change on the part of either ; it is the result of the knowledge each race possesses of the character of the other, and of the respect each entertains for the other. (Hear, hear.) It is because we have learnt to respect each other’s motives and have been made to feel by experience that neither must be aggressive, and that the interests of the one are safe in the keeping of the other. And I think I may fairly appeal to the President of the Council, that if, during the ten years in which he has agitated the question of representation by population, we the English in Lower Canada had listened to his appeals—appeals that he has persistently made with all the earnestness and vigor of his nature—if we had not turned a deaf ear to them, but had gone with those of our own race and our own faith, the people of Upper Canada, who demanded this change, where, I would ask him, would have been our union to day? Would not a feeling of distrust have been established between the French and English races in the community, that would have rendered even the iair consideration of it utterly impracticable ? (Hear, hear.) Would the French have in that case been ready now to trust themselves in the General Legislature, or the English in the Local Legislature of Lower Canada ? No ; and I pray God that this mutual confidence between two races which have so high and noble a work to do on this continent, who are menaced by a common danger, and actuated by a common interest, may continue for all time to come ! I pray that it may not be interrupted or destroyed by any act of either party ; and I trust that each may continue to feel assured that if at any time hereafter circumstances should arise calculated to infringe upon the rights of either, it will be sufficient to say, in order to prevent any aggression of this kind—” We trusted each other when we entered this union ; we felt then that our rights would be sacred with you; and our honor and good faith and integrity are involved in and pledged to the maintenance of them.” (Hear, hear.) I believe this is an era in our history to which in after ages our children may appeal with pride, and that if there should be any intention on either side to aggress upon tha other, the recollection that eaoh trusted to the honor of the other will prevent that intention being carried out. (Hear, hear.) Feeling as I do thus strongly that our French fellow-subjects are placing entire confidence in us—in our honor and our good faith—we, the English speaking population of Lower Canada, ought not to be behind hand in placing confidence in them. I feel that we have no reason as a minority to fear aggressions on the part of the majority. We feel that in the past we have an earnest of what we may reasonably expect the future relations between the two races to be. But although this feeling of mutual confidence may be strong enough in our breasts at this time, I am glad to see that my hon. friend the Attorney General East, as representing the French majority in Lower Canada, and the Minister of Finance, as representing the English speaking minority, have each carefully and prudently endeavored to place as fundamental conditions in this basis of union such safeguards and protection as the two races may respectively rely upon. (Hear, hear . ) I feel that it has been carefully considered and carried out, and with the same amount of mutual confidence in the future working as in the past, we need not have any apprehension in trusting the interests of the two races either in the Federal or Local Legislature. (Hear, hear.) But although we here, and as members of this House, feel this confidence in each other, no doubt those who propared these resolutions were conscious that the powers must be so distributed, and the reservations of power so made, as to commend them to the people of the country at large. You must carry the people with you in this movement, for you cannot force a new Constitution, a new state of political being, upon a people, unless their own judgment and their own convictions as to its safety go along with it.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Hear, hear.

HON. MR. ROSE—You cannot, I say, force a new Constitution upon an unwilling people, but in this instance I believe a very great majority approve of, and are earnestly desirous of the change. I know you must

[Page 407]

satisfy them that their interests for all time to come are safe—that the interests of the minority are hedged round with such safeguards, that those who come after us will feel that they are protected in all they hold dear; and I think a few observations will enable me to show the House that that has been well and substantially done in this case. (Hear, hear.) Looking at the scheme, then, from the stand-point of an English Protestant in Lower Canada, let me see whether the interests of those of my own race and religion in that section are safely and properly guarded. There are certain points upon which they feel the greatest interest, and with regard to which it is but proper that they should be assured that there are sufficient safeguards provided for their preservation. Upon these points, I desire to put some questions to the Government. The first of these points is as to whether such provision has been made and will be carried out that they will not suffer at any future time from a system of exclusion from the federal or local legislatures, but that they will have a fair share in the representation in both; and the second is, whether such safeguards will be provided for the educational system of the minority in Lower Canada as will be satisfactory to them ? Upon these points some apprehensions appear to exist in the minds of the English minority in Lower Canada, and although I am free to confess that I have not shared in any fear of injustice at the hands of the majority, as I consider that the action of the past forms a good guarantee for the future, yet I desire, for the full assurance of that minority, to put some questions to my hon. friends in the Government. I wish to know what share of representation the Englishspeaking population of Lower Canada will have in the Federal Legislature, and whether it will be in the same proportion as their representation in this Parliament ? This is one point in which I think the English inhabitants of Lower Canada are strongly interested. Another is with regard to thoir representation in the Local Legislature of Lower Canada—whether the same proportion will be given to them as is now given to them in this House, that is to say, about oue-fourth of the Lower Canadian representation, which is the proportion of the English speaking to the French speaking population of Lower Canada, the numbers being 260,000 and 1,100,000 respectively. Now, the spirit of the resolutions as I understand them—and I will thank my hon. friend the Attorney General to correct me if I am in error in regard to them—provides that the electoral districts in Lower Canada for representatives in the first Federal Legislature shall remain intact as they now are ; and, although the resolution is somewhat ambiguously expressed, I take that to be its spirit.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Have the kindness to read it and see.

HON. MR. ROSE—The 23rd resolution reads : ” The Legislature of each province shall divide such province into the proper number of constituencies, and define the boundaries of each of them.” Then the 24th resolution provides that ” the Local Legislature may from time to time alter the electoral districts for the purpose of representation in such Local Legislature, and distribute the representatives to which the province is entitled in such Local Legislature, in any manner such legislature may see fit.” In these resolutions I presume that power is given to the Legislature of each province to divide the province into the proper number of constituencies for representation in the Federal Parliament, and to alter the electoral districts for representation in the Local Legislature. Now, to speak quite plainly, the apprehension which I desire to say again I do not personally share in, but which has been expressed to me by gentlemen in my own constituency, is this, that with respect to the Local Legislature, it will be competent for the French majority in Lower Canada to blot out the English-speaking minority from any share in the representation, and so to apportion the electoral districts that no Engish speaking member can be returned to the Legislature. That is an apprehension upon which I would be very glad to have an expression of opinion by my hon. iriend the Attorney General East. As I read the resolutions, if the Local Legislature exercised its powers in any such unjust manner, it would be competent for the General Government to veto its action, and thus prevent the intention of the Local Legislature being carried into effect—even although the power be one which is declared to be absolutely vested in the Local Government, and delegated to it as one of the articles of its constitution.

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—There is not the least doubt that the Local Legislature of Lower Canada should apportion the electoral districts in such a way as to do injustice to the English-speaking population, the General Government will have the right to vet

[Page 408]

any law it might pass to this effect and set it at nought.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Would you advise it?

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Yes, I would recommend it myself in case of injustice. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. ROSE—I am quite sure my hon. friend would do it rather than have an injustice perpetrated. There is another poiut upon whioh I would like to have from the Attorney General East an explicit statement of the views of the Government. I refer to the provision in the 23rd resolution which I have just read ; what I wish to know is whether the Legislature therein spoken of means the Legislature of the province of Canada as it is now constituted, and whether it is contemplated to have any change in the boundaries of the electoral districts for representation in the first session of the Federal Legislature ?

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER —With regard to Lower Canada, it is not the intention to make any alteration in the electoral districts, because there will be no change in the number of representatives sent to the General Parliament. But with regard to Upper Canada, there will be a change in the electoral districts, because there will be an increase of members from that section.

HON. MR. ROSE—So that I clearly understand from the statement of the hon. gentleman that in Lower Canada the constituencies, for the purposes of the first e’ection to the Federal Legislature, will remain as they are now ?

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Yes, as they are now.

HON. MR. ROSE—And that as regards the representation in the Local Legislature, the apportionment of the electoral districts by it will be subject to veto by the General Government.

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Yes, in case of injustice being done. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. ROSE—I have to thank the hon. gentleman for the manner in which he has answered the questions, and for the assurances he has given on these two points— assurances which, I feel persuaded, will remove some apprehension felt in the country with regard to them. An hon. gentleman who sits near me (Mr. FRANCIS JONES) asks me to enquire who is to change the electoral districts in Upper Canada.

HON. MR. GALT—The Parliament of Canada. (Hear, hear )

HON. MR. ROSE—The hon. gentleman wants to know if it is the present Parliament of Canada ; but I am quite willing to let Upper Canada take care of itself, and I think its representatives are able to do so. One minority is quite enough for me to attend to at present. (Laughter.) I trust the Attorney General East, from my putting these questions to him, will not infer that I have any doubt as to the fair dealing that will be accorded to the minority by the majority in Lower Canada. But it is very desirable, I think, that we should receive a clear, emphatic, and distinct declaration of the spirit of the resolutions on these points, in order that the minority may see how well their rights and interests have been protected. (Hear, hear.) I am fully persuaded that in the past conduct of the majority iu Lower Canada there is nothing which will cause the minority to look with doubt upon the future ; for I will do my hon. friend the justice of saying that in the whole course of his public life there has not been a single act on his part either of executive, administrative, or legislative action, tinged with illiberality, intolerance, or bigotry. (Hear, hear.) I say this to express my Delief that in the future, wherever he has control, there will be no appearance of bigotry or illiberality, and I feel that the confidence I repose in him in this respect is shared in by many others in this House and throughout the country. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. HOLTON—Will my hon. friend allow me to interrupt him ? Perhaps it would be well, while he is asking questions of the Government, to elicit an answer to the question I have put once or twice touching the proposed measure of the Administration on the subject of education in Lower Canada, as it affects the English-speaking minority. Perhaps he will ascertain whether it will be submitted to the House before the final passage of the Confederation scheme.

HON. MR. ROSE—I intend to come to that presently, and to put a question to my hon. friend the Attorney General East in reference to that subject. What I wish to do now is to point out the objections I have heard on the part even of some of my own friends to this scheme—objections which, as I have said, are grounded on an undefined dread of evil rather than on anything that they actually now see obnoxious in the scheme itself. These fears, I have said, are vague and undefined, and difficult therefore to combat. If I go among one class and ask

[Page 409]

them what they fear, I am told—” Oh, you are going to hand us over to the tender mercies of the French ; the English influence will be entirely annihilated ; they will have no power in the community; and all the advantages we have gained during the past twenty-five years by our union with the people of our own race in Upper Canada will be entirely lost.” I can but answer–“What are you afraid of? Where is the interest affecting you that is imperilled ? Xou have, in conjunction with a majority of your own race, power in the General Legislature to appoint the local governors, administer justice and name the judges, to control the militia and all other means of defence, and to make laws respecting the post office, trade, commerce, navigation ; and you have all the great and important interests that centre in the community I represent—all matters that affect the minority in Lower Canada—within your control in the Federal Legislature. The French have surrendered the questions relating to usury, to marriage and divorce, on which they hold pretty strong opinions, to the Central Government. What, then, are you afraid of in the action of the Local Legislature ?” ” Well,” I am answered, “all that may be true enough; but we shall not get a single appointment ; the administration of local affairs in Lower Canada will be entirely in the hands of the French majority, and they will control all the patronage.” You say to them again—” Is it the exercise of patronage you are afraid of ? Is not the appointment of the judges, the patronage of the post office, the customs, the excise, the board of works, and all the other important branches of the administration in the hands of the Federal Government ? What is there, then, but a few municipal officers to be appointed by the local legislatures; and for the sake of this petty patronage, are you going to imperil the success of a scheme that is fraught with such important consequences to all the Provinces of British North America ? Is it for this that you will oppose a measure that contains so many merits, that possesses so much good, and that is calculated to confer such lasting benefits upon these provinces, if not to lead to the formation of a territorial division of the British Empire here ?” Well, these questions I have put, and these explanations I have made, but some still seemed to entertain an undefined dread that they could not realise to themselves—a dread which to a great extent appears to be shared by my hon. friend opposite (Hon. Mr. DORION) in regard to the General Legislature. Well, if we look to the history of the past twentyfive years and see how we have acted towards each other, I think neither party will have any cause for apprehension. Has there been a single act of aggression on the part of my hon. friend the Attorney General East on us the English minority, or a single act of aggression on our part towards the race to which he belongs? (Hear, hear.) Has there not been mutual respect and confidence, and has there been an act on either side to destroy that feeling ? (Hear, hear.) I think the past gives assurance to us that no such difficulty will arise in the future, and that we shall continue to live and work harmoniously together, each holding the other in respect and esteem. (Hear, hear.) But we are told—and it is urged as an objection against the scheme—that works of improvement will be obstructed by the Local Government in Lower Canada. Now, I think the day has long gone by when acts which were formerly committed could possibly be repeated— when, for instance, before the union, the work carried on by the Montreal Harbor Commissioners could not be proceeded with because Mr. PAPINEAU opposed it. The days of progress and advancement have come since that time. This is an age of progress, the very spirit of which is hostile in the strongest degree to such a state of things. It is impossible for either race to treat the other with injustice. Their interests are too much bound up together, and any injustice committed by one would react quite as injuriously upon it elsewhere; and I believe that the mutual confidence with which we are going into this union ought to and will induce us all to labor together harmoniously, and endeavor to work it out for the best. (Hear, hear.) I do not disguise from myself that the minority in Lower Canada has always been on the defensive. That is a condition which is natural under the circumstances ; for we cannot be in a minority without being more or less on the defensive. But I thiuk that under this scheme the French minority in the General Legislature and the English minority in Lower Canada, will both be amply and satisfactorily protected. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I come to the question adverted to by the hon. member for Chateauguay, in reference to the education measure which the Government has promised to bring down to the House. I believe this is the first time aimost in the history of

[Page 410]

Lower Canada—and I call the attention of my hon. friends from Upper Canada to the fact—that there has been any excitement, or movement, or agitation on the part of the English Protestant population of Lower Canada in reference to the common school question. (Hear, hear.) It is the first time in the history of the country that there has been any serious apprehension aroused amongst them regarding the elementary education of their children. I am not aware that there has ever been any attempt in Lower Canada to deprive the minority of their just rights in respect to the education oí their youth. I do not state this simply as my own opinion, or as the result of observations which I have made alone. I have received letters from those who have been cogniaaut of the educational system in Lower Canada for many years, confirmatory of this in the strongest degree. It was also observed and commented upon by the three commissioners who came out from England to this country in 1837, and who in their report said it was one of the most remarkable circumstances that came under their notice, that they found two races, speaking different languages and holding different religious opinions, living together in harmony, and having no difference or ill-feeling in respect to the education of their children. Now we, the English Protestant minority of Lowe Canada, cannot forget that whatever right of separate education we have was accorded to us in the most unrestricted way before the union of the provinces, when we were in a minority and entirely in the hands of the French population. We cannot forget that in no way was there any attempt to prevent ua educating our children in the manner we saw fit and deemed best ; and I would be untrue to what is just if I forgot to state that the distriuution of State funds fur educational purposes was made in such a way as to cause no complaint on the part of the minority. I believe we have always had our fair share of the public grants in so far as the French element could control them, and not only the liberty, but every facility, for the establishment of separate dissentient schools wherever they were deemed desirable. A single person has the right, under the law, of establishing a dissentient school and obtaining a fair share of the educational grant, if he can gather together fifteen children who desire instruction in it. Now, we cannot forget that in the past this liberality has been shown to us, and that whatever we desired of the French majority in respect to education, they were, if it was at all reasonable, willing to concede. (Hear, hear.) We have thus, in this also, the guarantee of the past that nothing will be done in the future unduly to interfere with our rights and interests as regards education, and I believe that everything we desire will be as freely given by the Local Legislature as it was before the union of the Canadas. (Hear, hear.) But from whence comes the practical difficulty of dealing with the question at the present moment ? We should not forget that it does not come from our French-Canadian brethren in Lower Canada, but that it arises in this way—and I speak as one who has watched the course of events and the opinion of the country upon the subject—that the Protestant majority in Upper Canada are indisposed to disturb the settlement made a couple of years ago, with regard to separate schools, and rather to hope that the French majority in Lower Canada should concede to the English Protestant minority there, nothing more than is given to the minority in the other section of the provinoe. But still it must be conceded that there are certain points where the present educational system demands modification—points in which the English Protestant minority of Lower Canada expect a modification. I would ask my honorable friend the Attorney General East, whether the system of education which is in force in Lower Canada at the time of the proclamation is to remain and be the system of education for all time to come ; and that whatever rights are given to either of the religious sections shall continue to be guaranteed to them ? We are called upon to vote for the resolutions in ignorance, to some extent, of the guarantees to be given by subsequent legislation, and therefore my honorable friend will not take it amiss if I point out to him where the Protestant minority desire a change, with a view of ascertaining how far the Government is disposed to meet their views by coming down with a measure in which they may be embodied. The first thing I wish to mention has caused a good deal of difficulty in our present system, and that is, whether non-resident proprietors shall have the same right of designating the olass of schouls to wùich their taxes shall be given as actual residents. That is one point—whether a person living out of the district or township

[Page 411]

shall not have the same privilege of saying that his taxes shall be given to a dissentient school as if he resided upon the property. A second point is with reference to taxes on the property of incorporated companies. As it is now, such taxes go in a manner which is not considered satisfactory to the minority of Lower Canada What I desire to ascertain is whether some equitable provision will be made, enabling the taxes on such property to be distributed in some way more satisfactory to the owners—perhaps in the same way that the Government money is. Some have urged that it should be left to the directors of such companies to indicate the schools to which such taxes should be given, while others think that each individual shareholder should have the power to say how the taxes on his property should be applied. I am inclined to think the latter method would be found utterly impracticable. I confess it is an extreme view, and I do not think we could expect that. But I do think there ought to be some more equitable way of appropriating the taxes on such property These are two points, of perhaps inferior importance to the third, and that is, whether a more direct control over the administration and management of the dissentient schools in Lower Canada will not be given to the Protestant minority ; whether in fact they will not be left in some measure to themselves. I am quite well aware that this is a question that concerns both Catholics and Protestants, for I believe that about onethird of the dissentient schools are Catholic schools.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Dissentient on account of language.

HON. MR. CARTIER—There are none dissentient on account of language.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Well, what for then?

HON. MR. CARTIER—Well, not on account of language ; there is no difficulty on account of that.

HON MR. ROSE—The question relates to all dissentient schools, from whatever cause they may have been led to dissent. The remedy can be made to apply equally to all. I do not ask what precise measure will be brought down, but I do think they ought to have more control than they now possess. The final question is one relating somewhat to the finances, and therefore belongs more properly to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. GALT—You shall have an answer immediately.

HON. MR. CARTIER—Mr. SPEAKER, as usual, I am ready to answer categorical questions, and I will answer my hon. friend in such a way as to satisfy both the House and my hon. friend. With regard to the first point, respecting non-residents in the townships, I may say that it is the intention of the Government, in a meosure which is to be introduced, to give those who are in a minority power to designate to what dissentient schools their assessment shall be paid.

HON. J . S. MACDONALD—Only in townships ?

HON. MR. CARTIER—Everywhere. Not to Catholics alone either. With regard to the second question—the distribution of money raised from commercial companies—I am well aware that to this day there has been a complaint with regard to the distribution of those moneys. It is the intention of the Government to have in the measure a provision which will secure a more equitable distribution of thoso moneys, distributing them in such a way as to satisfy everyone. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Now, with regard to the third enquiry, I am ready also to answer my honorable friend from Montreal Centre, that it is the intention of the Government that in that law there will be a provision that will secure to the Protestant minority in Lower Canada such management and control over their schools as will satisfy them. (Laughter and cheers.) Now, with regard to my Hon. frind from Chateauguay, who said that there were dissentient schools on account of language.

HON. MR. HOLTON—The hon. gentleman must have misunderstood what I said. The honorable member from Montreal Centre was saying that there were dissentient schools on account of religion. I merely suggested that there might be dissentient schools on account of language. There was nothing in the law to prevent it. There might be Catholic dissentient schools in municipalities where the majority was Protestant.

HON. MR. CARTIER—The honorable member for Chateauguay has the laws of Lower Canada in his possession. Well, he will not find there that there is any such thing as Catholic or Protestant schools mentioned. What are termed in Upper Canada separate schools, come under the appropriate word, in Lower Canada, of dissentient. It is stated that where the majority

[Page 412]

is of either religion, the dissentient minority —either Catholic or Protestant—have the right to establish dissentient schools. In the cities the majority being Catholics, the dissentient schools are Protestant, but in the townships, the majority is sometimes Protestant and the dissentient schools Catholic.

MR. POPE—What will be the provision made, where the population is pretty sparse, as in some parts of my county ? Will you allow the minority of one township to join with a neighboring township for the purpose of establishing a dissentient school ?

HON. MR. CARTIER—Yes. There will be a provision enabling the minority to join with their friends in a contiguous municipality in order to make up the requisite number.

HON. J.S. MACDONALD—While the Government is in a communicative mood— (laughter)—I think it is of some importance that we should know whether it is the intention of the Government to extend the same rights and privileges to the Catholic minority of Upper Canada that are to be given to the Protestants of Lower Canada ?

HON. MR. CARTIER—I cannot do my own work and the work of others. The Hon. Attorney General for Upper Canada is not present, but I have no doubt that on some future occasion he will be able to answer my honorable friend from Corawall. HON. J . S. MACDONALD—In the absence of the Hon. Attorney General West, perhaps the Hon. President of the Council will be kind enough to give us the desired information ?

BON. MR. BROWN—If my hon. friend wants an answer from me, I can only say that the provisions of the School bill relating to Upper Canada have not yet been considered by the Government. As soon as a bill is framed there will be no delay in laying it before the House.

HON. MR. ALLEYN—I sincerely hope that the Government feel disposed to grant to the Catholics of Upper Canada the same privileges they have just promised to the Protestants of Lower Canada.

HON. MR. ROSE—The manner and spirit in which the Government have given explanations on the subject ought to be satisfactory to the people of Lower Canada of the Protestant religion. The liberal manner in which they have been dealt with in the past gives us every reason to be oonvinced that we will receive justice. (Hear, hear.) I have no hesitation in saying that I have full confidence that the Lower Canada section of the Administration will deal with us in a fair and liberal spirit. I have confidence in my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and in my hon. friend the Attorney General East, and I am glad to learn that he will give all proper consideration to that financial question, the distribution of the assessment of commercial companies in a satisfactory manner. I hope the Minister of Finance will be disposed to go further, and deal in a similar spirit with the endowment of colleges.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Bring the pressure to bear, and you will get it. Now is the time, before the Confederation scheme comes to a vote.

HON. MR. ROSE—Well, it happens that my honorable friend from Cbateauguay and myself hold very dissimilar views respecting the importance of Confederation. If I were disposed to follow such tactics, I might possibly profit by his advice. But I am inclined to overlook a great many things on which my honorable friend would hesitate, for the purpose of seeing so important a measure carried out. While I have every confidence in the present Government, I feel that we may expect as much justice at the hands of the Lower Canada Local Parliament as from any Government of United Canada that we ever had. We have never yet had occasion to appeal to the Protestant majority of Upper Canada for help, and if we ever should deem it proper to do so, I have no reason to believe that we should receive more attention than our wants received at the hands of the Catholic majority of Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, so far as the three questions to which I have made allusion are concerned, the apprehensions of being shut out from the General Government—being handed over to the French in the Local Parliament of Lower Canada, and our educational rights being interfered with, I feel every assurance that the spirit of the answers just given will be carried out. I will now say a few words respecting the argument presented by my hon. friend from Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DO- RION) in the course of his speech the other evening—that the plan for Federation would inflict great financial injustice upon Canada, and that it would, through the Intercolonial Railway and works of defence, entail such enormous burdens upon the people of Canada

[Page 413]

as to ultimately lead them to rise up against and overthrow it. Well now, for the life of me I cannot see how it is to increase our expenditure. I cannot see how it can go beyond what the Minister of Finance stated —that it could not in any case add to the present cost more than the expenses of the General Government. The Local Governments cannot be more expensive than the present Government, and therefore all we need to add at the very most is the expense of the General Government. I do not see how it is possible to add any more. I would, however, ask the attention of the House to another statement made the other evening by the hon. member from Hochelaga. He said that we were making a mistake in supposing that we were discussing a question of colonial union. Confederation, he said, was simply tacked on to the Intercolonial Railway at the suggestion of Mr. WATKIN, and that the whole arrangement was merely a nicely planned scheme for the benefit of the Grand Trunk Railway.

MR. WALLBRIDGE—That was the very motive.

HON. MR. ROSE—Well, does any one suppose that my hon. friend the President of the Council could be duped in that way ? Is it possible that my hon. friend from Hochelaga believes he has so little astuteness as not to see through such an attempt as that ? The argument was used to get the support of the opponents of railways in this House against the Federation. Sir, it would appear that the hon. President of the Council, and the hon. Provincial Secretary and the other members of the Government, who are antirailway in their views, have been altogether mistaken, and that we are merely going to build up another gigantic railway monopoly for fraudulent purposes They may all be deceived by this imaginary project, and it would seem too, sir, that Mr. WATKIN, possessing the wiles of MEPHI-TOPHELES, had hoodwinked the Governor General, and the Colonial Secretry, and caused them to fall into the trap also. Nay, further, it would appear that his wiles had reached the Throne itself, for Her Majesty has expressed herself in the speech to Parliament in favor of the scheme. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. HOLTON— Order, order.

HON. MR. ROSE—Can it be supposed that a grave and important matter of this kind would have received such consideration from the Home Government, if it were nothing more than a Grand Trunk job ? My hon. friend opposite sonorously cries “Order,” when I come to deal with his late colleague’s arguments as the only answer he can give. Does he suppose I am going to allow a grave charge of such a nature to go unanswered ?

HON. MR. HOLTON—If I called “Order,” it was because I considered that Her Majesty ought not to have been mentioned in connection with the term ” hoodwink.” Her advisers were the responsible parties. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. ROSE—I repeat that the Speech from the Throne which we have received today, and to which I have a perfect right to refer, does not treat this measure as anything akin to a Grand Trunk job. It is really presuming too much on the part of my hon. friend from Hochelaga to get up and say in effect to the members of this House : ” You know nothing about this scheme ; you cannot see or understand what it really is ; but my astuteness enables me to see that it is nothing more than a mere railway job.” (Laughter.) Does the hon. member really believe what he has stated ? Does he really believe that the whole project is for the benefit of the Grand Trunk ? It is a most unworthy course for him to pursue to endeavor to bring old prejudices against the Grand Trunk Company, to bear in the manner he has been doing; prejudices and animosities based upon stories that have been repeated until a further reference to them seems almost childish. But it is not possible that any honorable member’s judgment can be carried away by those little appeals to side issues, on a question of this important nature. What does the Speech from the Throne say :—

Her Majesty has had great satisfaction in giving her sanction to the meeting of a conference of delegates from her several North American Provinces, who, on an invitation from Ser Majesty’s Governor General, assembled at Quebec. These delegates adopted resolutions having for their object a closer union of those provinces under a Central Government. If those resolutions shall be approved by the Provincial Legislatures, a bill will be laid before you for carrying this important measure into effect.

(Loud cheers.) This is the language used by our Sovereign when addressing the Imperial Parliament, and are we now to be urged to under estimate the value of the great project by mere appeals to the prejudices of the people at large against the threatened monopoly of the Grand Trunk Railway. The opinion of Her Majesty is shared in, too, by some of the

[Page 414]

greatest statesmen of England, whose names are identified with the history of the nation. What said Lord DERBY in referenoe to Confederation ? Does he consider it to emanate from a mere clique of railway speculators? Speaking of the relation of Canada to the United States—and his remarks come in most opportunely in connection with the observations I made at the outset— speaking of defending the upper lakes with armed vessels, the noble lord says :—

I do not ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken, but I do say this, that they will be deeply responsible if they are not fully awake to the position in which this country is placed by these two acts of the United States. If the preponderating force upon the lakes should be in the hands of the United States, it could only be used for purposes of aggression. (Hear, hear.) An attack on the part of Canada upon the United States is a physical impossibility. The long frontier of Canada is peculiarly open to aggression ; and assailnble as it is by land, unless there be a preponderating force upon these lakes, you must be prepared to place the province of Canada at the disposal of the United States.

I prefer the appreciation of Lord DERBY, and his opinion of the state of these affairs, to the ironical cheers or opinion of my honorable friend from Chateauguay. I place what the noble lord has said as to the Confederation question in its relation to the defence of these provinces and the strength to be thereby added to the Government of England, before anything which he or the other opponents of this scheme can express. The noble lord says with regard to the great measure itself:—

Under the circumstances I see, with additional satisfaction, the announcement if a contemplated step— I mean the proposed Federation of the British North American Provinces. I hope I may regard that Federation as a measure tending to constitute a power strong enough, with the aid of this country, which, I trust, may never be withdrawn from these provinces—to acquire an importance which separately thev could not obtain. If I saw in this Federation a desire to separate from this country, I should think it a matter of much more doubtful policy and advantage ; but I perceive with satisfaction that no such wish is entertained. Perhaps it is premature to discuss at this moment resolutions not yet submitted to the different legislatures ; but I hope I see in the terms of that Federation an earnest desire on the part of the provinces to maintain for themselves the blessing of the connection with this country, and a determined and deliberate preference for monarchical over republican institutions.

(Hear, hear, and cheers.) Now, sir, could there be anything more opportune ? This is the language of one of the ablest statesmen of England. Be united, he says, that you may be strong, and depend upon it you will have the whole power of England to sustain you. Can there he anything more cheering or encouraging to those who have taken an interest in the subject, than the language I have just quoted, and which was uttered in the House of Lords not three weeks ago ? (Hear, hear.) And yet my honorable friend from Hochelaga presumes to stand up here and tell us, in effect, that we are so many children—that we are deceived with the idea that we are going to establish a great nation or Confederation of provinces, and that there is nothing of that kind in it ; and he appeals to prejudices formerly entertained by members on this side of the House, in order that he may induce them to withdraw their support from the important measure which the Government has brought down, and which the greatest statesmen of England have stamped with their approval. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps the House will indulge me if I read a few more words from the discussion in the House of Lords upon the Speech from the Throne. Earl GRANVILLE, the President of the Council, said :—

And what ought to make us still more proud of the good government which must undoubtedly have prevailed amongst us, is to find that our North American colonies, in expressing their wish to continue their connexion with this country, and in adopting the new institutions they have been considering with such calm and prudent statesmanship, have thought it desirable to keep as close as possible to the constitution and institutions under which we so happily live.

(Loud cheers.) He does not belittle the men who have sacrificed so much, as honorable gentlemen opposite are inclined to do. He does not sneer at those who have gone into the matter with the honest view of carrying it out ; but, on the contrary, he praises their ” calm and prudent statesmanship,” and says that it is a matter of which they may feel proud, and I say that those who have taken part in originating and bringing this project to the present advanced stage, may well feel proud of their work, when the greatest statesmen of the world commend it as a thing of wonderful perfection, considering the difficulties with which it is surrounded. And these opinions were not confined to any one party, but were uttered by both liberals and conservatives. Lord HOUGHTON said in the course of the same debate :—

On the other side of the Atlantic the same impulse has manifested itself in the proposed, amal-

[Page 415]

gamation of the Northern Provinces of British America. I heartily concur with all that has been said by my noble friend the mover of this address in his laudation of that project. It is, my lords, a most interesting contemplation that that project has arisen and has been approved by Her Majesty’s Government. It is certainly contrary to what might be considered the old maxims of government in connection with the colonies, that we should here express, and that the Crown itself should express saiisfaction at a measure which tends to bind together in almost independent power our colonies in North America. We do still believe that though thus banded together they will recognize the value of British connection, and that while they will be safer in this amalgamation we shall be as safe in their fealty. The measure will, no doubt, my lords, require much prudent consideration and great attention to prevent susceptibilities. It will have to deal with several British provinces, but with a race almost foreign in their habits and origin. I do hope it will ultimately succeed, and that the French-Canadians forming part of this great integral North British American empire will have as much security and happiness as they can attain.

Those who say that the people throughout the country are opposed to this measure, I am satisfied, know very little what the sentiment of the country is. I believe there is a deeprooted sentiment of approbation of the steps that have been taken. I know that those who are perhaps most fearful with reference to it, and whose interests are perhaps most in jeopardy—the English speaking minority in Lower Canada—have considered it carefully, and with all their prejudices against it at the outset, are now warmly in its favor. I speak particularly of those who have great interests at stake in the community which I represent —the great and varied interests of commerce, trade, banking, manufactures and material progress generally, which are supposed to centre in the city of Montreal. These men— and there are none more competent in the province—have considered the scheme in a ealm and business-like way, and have deliberately come to the conclusion that it is calculated to promote the best interests and greatly enhance the prosperity of this country. (Hear, hear.) Well knowing th it they are to be in a minority in the Local Legislature, and to be cut off, as it were, from those of their own race and religion in Upper Canada, yet, after considering how the change is to affect the important interests which they have at stake, they are prepared to cast in their lot with the measure, and endeavor to make it work harmoniously. (Hear, hear.) And I believe, Mr. SPEAKER, that we have not a day to lose in carrying out the project. I believe the question of preparing for the defence of this country is an imminent one. (Hear, hear.) There is not, I repeat, a day or an hour to be lost, and I believe that if this country is put into a proper condition of defence, the union will be the best safeguard we can have. If our neighbors see that we have the means of causing them to sit down on our frontier and spend a summer before they oan hope to make any impression upon the country, we will then be in a pretty good condition to defend ourselves. I trust that the blessings of peace may long be preserved to us, that the good feeling which ought to subsist between Canada and the United States may never bo interrupted ; that two kindred nations which have so many ties, so many interests, and so many associations in common, may never become enemies,and I think that we ought to make every honorable concession in order to avert the calamities of war. No man can appreciate the blessings of peace more than I do, and no one is more alive to the horrors of war than I am. But at the same time we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that within the last three or four years we have several times been seriously threatened. It is not in the power of any man to say when the cloud, which so darkly overshadows us, may burst in full fury on our heads, and those who have the direction of the destinies of this country ought to be prepared to do all that in them lies to place it in a position to meet that event. We cannot recede from the position we have assumed. We cannot go back, we must go forward ; and it is certain to my mind that if what has now been undertaken is not consummated, we will regret it in years to come. I have but to add one word more, and I must apologize to the House for the time I have already occupied. (Cries of ” Go on.”) I am afraid I have very much transgressed the limits I had assigned to myself. There is but one point more, and I have done. My honorable friend opposite (Hon. Mr. DORION) says that this scheme is going to ruin us financially—that it is financially unfair. But he has failed to point out in what feature this can be regarded as financially injurious to any particular section. There can be nothing fairer to my mind than that, in forming a partnership between these five provinces, the amount of the debt should be equalised at the time the partnership is formed, and that whatever one is short should be made up by an annual grant to the other, not an increasing one but a fixed

[Page 416]

sum. There can be nothing unfair in the application of such a principle as that. Of course the interest on the debt, whatever it may be, must be met by taxation. ” And,” says my honorable friend, ” the Lower Provinces are less “able to pay taxation than we are, and therefore the great bulk of the taxation will have to come out of the inhabitants of Upper and Lower Canada, and particularly the merchants of the city of Montreal.” Well, sir, is not this just? Is it not fair that the richest portion of the community should pay the most taxes ? Does my honorable friend mean to say that those who consume most ought not to pay most to the revenue ? And if the people of Upper and Lower Canada are larger consumers than the people of the Lower Provinces, ought they not to contribute according to their consumption to the revenue ? “But , oh,” says my honorable friend, “the people of the Lower Provinces get their 80 cents per head, and we get no more, although we are much larger contributors to the revenue.” And, he adds, ” the amount to be derived from the contributions to the revenue by the Lower Provinces will be very infinitesimal.” But granted, for argument’s sake, that this is so, I think we ought not to undervalue in this discussion the collateral advantage which the control of the fisheries will give to the united government in the union to be formed. Remember that these fisheries will form an important part in the future negotiations with the United States in inference to reciprocity, which Upper Canada attaches so much importance to. Hence Canada in this union will have the control of the policy in regard to the concession of fishing rights to the American Government. And it is in this respect that the future commercial position of the Upper Canada farmer and the Lower Canada merchant will be enhanced by the fact that the concession of the fisheries will procure for them advantages in other branches of trade ; for I repeat that the future policy will be directed in a great measure by the influence wielded by Canada in the Confederation.— (Hear, hear.) My honorable friend, however, goes on to say, ” But you are about to incur a large amount of debt. Lower Canada entered into the present union with a debt of only $300,000 or $400,000, and the united debt of the two provinces is now $67,000,000.” Well, sir, this is quite true. But Lower Canada, when she entered the union, had only a population of 600,000, and Upper Canada a population of 400,000. There was not at that time a mile of railway; now there are upwards of 2,000. (Hear, hear.) There was hardly a light-house, and see how the St.Lawrence and lakes are lighted now from Lake Superior to Belleisle. (Hear, hear.) She went into the union without a canal, and she has now the finest canal system in the world. (Hear, hear.) She had no educational system, and look at the state of education among us at the present time. (Hear, hear.) She was without a municipal system, and look at the municipal institutions of Lower Canada as they are to be found to-day. (Hear, hear.) She went into the union with the seigniorial tenure grinding as it were the people, and weighing down the industry and enterprise of the country ; and has not the seigniorial tenure been abolished ? (Hear, hear.) Does not my honorable friend see the advantages of all these reforms and improvements ? And does not my honorable friend know that of the $62,000,000 which is regarded as Canada’s proportion of the joint debt, $49,000,000 and more have been actually expended in and are now positively represented by public works of that value ?

HON. MR. DORION—Not in Lower Canada.

HON. MR. ROSE—My honorable friend says ” Not in Lower Canada.” But does he not see that the chain of canals which have been constructed to bring down the trade of the West to Montreal and Quebec, is a benefit of the most substantial kind to Lower Canada ? (Hear, hear.) What but these very facilities have increased the shipping of Montreal some five hundred per cent, within the last few years. Does my honorable friend mean to say that the connection of the Grand Trunk with the western railways of the United States is not a benefit to Lower Canada ? Does he mean to assert that the slides constructed on the Ottawa so as to bring lumber to Quebec is of no advantage to Lower Canada ? Surely he does not measure everything that is done in the way of improvement by a petty, narrow, sectional standard, which would exact that unless a pound of money laid out in a particular spot or locality benefited that particular place, it was thrown away. Is this the policy which he would like to see introduced into the new régime ?

HON. MR. CARTIER—We have, too, the Victoria Bridge.

HON. MR. ROSE—Yes, we have also the Victoria Bridge. And does my honorable friend think that we would have had this

[Page 417]

great work had the views–he enunciates been acted upon ?

HON. J.S. MACDONALD—Leave us as we are.

HON. MR. ROSE—We cannot be left as we are. I should be content, Mr. SPEAKER, were I to live for twenty-five years after the union now contemplated is consummated, I should be content to know that I had taken a humble part in bringing it about, if the prosperity of the country during the next twentyfive years under it were only as great as during the twenty-five years that have past. (Hear, hear.) My honorable friend seems to think that the Intercolonial Railway is an undertaking of doubtful advantage, if it is not one of positive uselessness. But does my hon. friend think we can safely continue in our present position of commercial dependence on the United States ? Shall we be denied access to the seaboard for a bale of goods or a bag of letters ? Are we to be for all time to come dependent on the fiseal legislation of the United States ? Is it to come to this, that in the winter season the Upper Canada farmer shall have no means whereby he can send a barrel of flour, or the Lower Canada merchant a bale of goods, to the seaboard, without the leave of the United States ? Is my honorable friend disposed to leave us in this condition of commercial dependency for ever ? I can hardly believe he will deliberately say that we are to continue in such circumstances as these—that under no conditions shall the expense of constructing the Intercolonial Railway be incurred. I believe with him that that work is a great and grave undertaking, and one that will involve a serious charge on the wealth of the country. Rut then I contend that it is one which we cannot avoid— it is a necessity. We must have it. It is called for by military reasons and commercial necessity, and the date of its construction cannot safely be postponed. Why, what have we not seen within a very recent period ? Restrictions have been put on goods sent through the United States, by the establishment of consular certificates, to such an extent that you could not send a bale of goods through the States without accompanying it with one of these certificates, the cost of which I am told was nearly $2—perhaps more than the worth of the package, or more than the cost of the freight. (Hear, hear.) Still further, the Senate of the United States had also before them a motion to consider under what regulations foreign merchandise is allowed to pass in bond through the neighbouring country ; and this was evidently done with an in tention of abolishing the system under which goods were permitted to pass in bond from England through the United States. I do not hesitate to say that if the bonding system were done away with, half the merchants in Canada would be seriously embarrassed if not ruined for the time. (Hear, hear.) In the winter season you could not send a barrel of flour to England—you could not receive a single package of goods therefrom. The merchants would have to lay in a twelve months’ stock of goods, and the farmer would be dependent on the condition of the market in spring, and would be compelled to force the sale of his produce at that moment, whether there was a profitable market for it then or not, instead of having as now a market at all seasons, as well in England as the United States. So that whatever sacrifices attach to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, we must have it, seeing that it is impossible for us to remain in our present position of isolation and suspense. It is one of the unfortunate incidents of our position which we cannot get rid of. It will be a costly undertaking, but it is one we must make up our minds to pay for, and the sooner we set about its construction the better.

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—We must always expect to pay for what is good.

MR. WALLBRIDGE—But when it is good for nothing, what then ?

HON. MR. ROSE—I have just done. I do not hope to convert my honorable friend ; but I desired to show how indispensable and how desirable those communications are, and how necessary it is that they should be effected. No one can foresee what the future of the neighboring States will be—whether they will be reconstructed as one union, or split up into two or more confederacies. They have a dark and uncertain future before them, for no one can doubt that no matter what their condition as regards reconstruction may be, they will have an enormous load of debt weighing upon them, and that they will have to encounter great difficulties before they finally settle down into the same state of permanent security as formerly. If we are alive to the natural advantages of our position, unless we deliberately throw them away, we can, whatever that future may be, secure a profitable intercourse with them. Unless the St. Lawrence and Ottawa cease to flow, and the lakes dry up, those roads to the ocean are the nutural outlets for the west, and we can turn them to good aooount. We know some-

[Page 418]

thing of the great productiveness of the Western States. There is, in fact, no limit to that productiveness, and the necessity of their having another outlet to the sea, without being altogether dependent upon New York and Boston, is to my mind very plain. This necessity of the powerful western interests must have a controlling influence in the commercial policy of the United States ; and if we can direct the trade of the Western States down the St. Lawrence by giving them additional facilities, it cannot be doubted that we shall find therein a great element of security for the future peace of the two countries. This House will remember the resolutions, of a couple of years ago, of the states of Wisconsin and Illinois in reference to this question. These resolutions contained one or two facts which are of the greatest importance, as showing the necessity existing in the Western States for a channel of communication through the St. Lawrence. The memorial founded on it stated these facts :—

With one-tenth of the arable surface under cultivation, the product of wheat of the North-Western States in 1862 is estimated at 150,000,000 of bushels ; and from our own State of Illinois alone there has been shipped annually for the last two years, a surplus of food sufficient to feed ten millions of people. For several years past a lamentable waste of crops actually harvested has occurred in consequence of the inability of the railways and canals leading to the seaboard to take off the excess. The North-West seems already to have arrived at a point of production beyond any possible capacity for transportation which can be provided, except by the great natural outlets. It has for two successive years crowded the canals and railways with more than 100,000,000 of bushels of grain, besides immense quantities of other provisions, and vast numbers of cattle and hogs. This increasing volume of business cannot be maintained without recourse to the natural outlet of the lakes. The future prosperity of these states bordering on the great lakes depends in a great measure on cheap transportation to foreign markets ; hence they are vitally interested in the question of opening the t. Lawrence, the great natural thoroughfare from the lakes to the ocean, through, and by which the people of England may enlarge their supplies of breadstuffs and provisions, greatly exceeding the quantity heretofore received from the United States, at one-fourth less cost than it has heretofore been obtained. From actual experience derived from shipments of Indian corn from Chicago to Liverpool, it is shown that the freight charges often covered seven-eighths of the value of the bushel of corn at Liverpool ; more than one-half of the cost of wheat is also often consumed by the present very inadequate means of transportation. The European customer for our breadstuffs determines their price in all our markets. The surplus of grain derived from the North-West is fifty or sixty millions of bushels beyond the demand of the Eastern States, and when that surplus is carried to their markets, the foreign quotations establish the value of the entire harvest. The interior of North America is drained by the St. Lawrence, which furnishes for the country bordering upon the lakes a natural highway to the sea. Through its deep channel must pass the agricultural productions of the vast lake region. The commercial spirit of the age forbids that international jealousy should interfere with great natural thoroughfares, and the governments of Great Britain and the United States will appreciate this spirit and cheerfully yield to its influence. The great avenue to the Atlantic through the St. Lawrence being once opened to its largest capability, the laws of trade, which it has now been the policy of the Federal Government to obstruct, will carry tbe commerce of the North-West through it.

I say, then, give us the Intercolonial Railway, give us the command of the St. Lawrence, give us a government by which we can direct our national policy, give us the control of the fisheries, and we will be able to secure such reciprocal trade with the United States for Upper Canada as it requires. But if we are disunited—if the Lower Provinces retain the control of the fisheries, and Canada has nothing to give in exchange for the concession she seeks from the United States in the way of commercial intercourse, in breadstuffs and otherwise—I say that in such a case as this we are very much hampered indeed. I have detained the House very much longer than I intended, and I fear that I have exhausted the patience of honorable members. (Cries of ” No, no,” and “go on.”) I have fallen into the same error which has been attributed to others. But there is a single observation I desire to otter in conclusion, and it has reference to the demand made by some honorable members, that there should be a dissolution before the question is finally decided. Well, sir, time presses. We have, and I cannot repeat it too often, not a day or an hour to lose in undertaking those great works of defence which may be absolutely necessary to our existence.

HON. J . S. MACDONALD—What works of defence ?

HON. MR. ROSE—The works to which I have alluded.

MR. WALLBRIDGE—Where are they?

HON. MR. ROSE—Does any honorable gentleman know, or, if he does know, ought he to say publicly where they are to be ? All we know is that there must be a large outlay

[Page 419]

on the defences of the country, of which the Lower Provinces will bear their share and the Imperial Government will bear its share ; but how do I know, or ought any honorable gentleman here to enquire if I did, whether these works will be at Point Levis, at Montreal, at Kingston, at Toronto, or where? But that there are to be works, and extensive works necessary to be constructed, so as to check sudden conquest or invasion, does not admit of a doubt. Does not the honorable gentleman know that there have been out here time and again eminent military officers, under directions from the Imperial Government, to ascertain where would be the best points for the erection of those fortifications ?

HON. J.S. MACDONALD—And how much of the cost are we to contribute ?

HON. MR. ROSE—I hope as much as may be necessary and fair. (Cheers.) For my part—and I know that this feeling is shared in by every honorable member who hears me—I am prepared not only to stake the money of others, but, if necessary, to expend my last shilling on these works, if they are declared to be essential for the defence of the country. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I consider such precautions as much a necessity as insuring one’s house against fire. If the honorable gentleman means to say that, in providing for the continuance of our national existence, the people would bargain whether they should give a hundred pounds or a thousand pounds, I can assure him he knows very little of the spirit of the country. The people are prepared to tax themselves to the extent of their last shilling in order to defend themselves against aggression. (Hear, hear.) I do not pretend to know anything of military operations, but any man with a head on his shoulders must see that there must be works of some kind constructed to enable us to resist aggression.

MR. WALLBRIDGE—I pretend to have a head on my shoulders as well as the honorable gentleman, and I would ask him whether the railway, which is made part of the Constitution, is considered part of the works he alludes to or not ?

HON. MR. ROSE—I do not think the Intercolonial Railway is part of the Constitution, but its construction is provided for, and a railway from such point as shall be considered on the whole best, both in reference to commercial considerations and military considerations, is indispensable; and what is more, I believe the country will cheerfully bear the expense. (Hear, hear.) But in regard to the question of an appeal to the people, I would just ask, is there a single member of this House who does not already know what is the feeling of his constituents on this question, who is not aware whether they are for the union or against the union ? Is there a member who does not kn ow what his constituents desire in respect to it, and who is not himself prepared to take the responsibility of his vote ? I believe there is not. And does any honorable gentleman think that if there was to be a dissolution and an appeal to the country on this question, the elections would turn upon the scheme itself, that there would not be individual predilections, personal questions, and local questions affecting the elections, far more than Confederation ? And would it not be most anomalous to elect a Parliament, the first vote given by which would be its own death ? The sole business of the new Parliament would be to agree upon a Constitution which should annihilate itself. There is something so anomalous, almost unconstitutional and absurd in such a step, that I think it could not commend itself to the common sense of the country. I think we are already sufficiently aware of what the feeling—the mature and dispassionate feeling—the calm conviction and views of the country are, and that too after an intelligent appreciation of it in all its bearings, and I do not think there is anything to be gained, but on the contrary much to be imperilled, by the expense and delay of an election. I know that in my own constituency —not the least important in the province—this conclusion has been come to, not from any inconsiderate love of change—not from any ardent and temporary impulse or vague aspirations to be part in name of a future nation, at the risk of imperilling their relations with England or of injury to their interests, but I believe the scheme is stamped with their approval, because their reason and judgment convince them that it is not only desirable but a necessity of our condition. (Hear, hear.) I again apologise for the time I have occupied the attention of the House, and express my thanks for the kind consideration honorable members have extended to me. (Loud cheers.)

MR. A. MACKENZIE moved the adjournment of the debate.

HON. MR. HOLTON—I would like to say a word, and only a word, before the motion to adjourn the debate is put. I have listened with very great attention to the speech of my honorable friend from Montreal Centre, a large portion of which was devoted to the

[Page 420]

subject of the defences of the country. I admit to the full the importance of that subject, but I maintain that as yet we are not in a position to give the proper weight to the arguments of my honorable friend and of other honorable gentlemen on that question, that in fact we are hardly in a position to consider the subject at all ; and I do maintain that it is hardly fair to introduce it as an element into this discussion, so long as the Government withhold from us the official information which may be assumed to be in their possession on that subject. I have risen, therefore, to express the hope that the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches will see the propriety of submitting to this House the fullest possible information on that subject. (Hear, hear.) I am sure my honorable friend who has just taken his seat will himself admit the force of what I am now urging, and that we cannot give the consideration he asks to that branch of the general subject of Confederation without having the amplest information that the Government can give us with regard to it. I would, therefore, express the desire—which I am sure is shared by a large number of the honorable members who sit around me—that at once, before we proceed further in this debate, this important information should be submitted to the House in a distinct form. (Hear, hear.)

HON. J.S. MACDONALD—My honorrable friend from Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON) has very properly called the attention of the Government to the necessity of having laid before this House information as to the amount we shall have to appropriate for the defences of the country. It is well known that Imperial officers were sent out some time ago to make a survey, and report on the defensive condition of this country, and the best points at which to build fortifications— the points d’appui, where in cases of disaster we should be obliged to take shelter, if the enemy drove us into our garrisons. The report of those officers was made before I left office, more than a year ago. Surely during that time, with such a loyal administration as that composed of the honorable gentlemen now on the Treasury benches, the secret of the amount of the appropriation that will be required at our hands has not been kept from them. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me that this is a branch of the question to which we must address ourselves, before we are in a condition to deal satisfactorily with the general subject. It is a principle of the British Constitution that the appropriation of any moneys from the taxes paid by the people, shall beat the disposal of Parliament. We have a right therefore to know, at the earliest possible period, before we go blindly into this scheme of Confederation, what we are called upon to appropriate in connection with this matter. (Hear, hear.) And there is another point on which, as yet, we have had no information, beyond what was given to-night when the hon. member for South Oxford answered me in his curt way. The Government may as well at an early date—I mean the portion of the Government who will have to speak for Upper Canada, and who are especially responsible for the acts of the Administration with reference to that section of the province— give their attention to the question how far the Catholics of Upper Canada are to be placed in the position of maintaining their schools and claiming their portion of the publio funds, and enjoying generally the same privileges which are to be enjoyed, according to the declaration of the Honorable Attorney General East, by the Protestants of Lower Canada. I express no opinion at this time as to the propriety of the demands made by the Protestants of Lower Canada, or as to what I shall be prepared to do when that question comes up. Nor do I express now any opinion as to the propriety of giving the Catholics of Upper Canada more rights than they have got. But I say the Government ought to address themselves at once to the question, whether they are to make the same provision for the Catholics of Upper Canada, as for the Protestants of Lower Canada. This is a matter which comes home to the feelings of the Catholics of Upper Canada, and they have here at this moment delegates to express their opinions. No doubt, to enforce what they conceive to be their own rights, they will use as a lever the proposition to extend to the Protestants of Lower Canada the privileges which they claim as their due. And depend upon it, that when the time comes for the Protestants of Lower Canada to ask what they assert to be their rights, they will be expected to stand up also for the Catholics of Upper Canada, and to deal out to them the same justice which they expect the Catholics of Lower Canada to extend to them.

HON. MR. BROWN—My honorable friend from Cornwall does not of course agree himself with the views he is now urging. I think he ought to wait till the parties he speaks for ask liim to express their views, or allow them to get as their advocate one who does share their views. He surely does not want to urge

[Page 421]

views upon us in which he does not sympathize himself.

HON. J.S. MACDONALD—Is my honorable friend ignorant of the resolutions which have been passed by the Catholics of Upper Canada ? Is he ignorant that Vicar-General MCDONNELL of Kingston is here at the Palace, to give effect to them ? And does he say that whatever opinions I may entertain on the question, I must not presume to ask the Government to state their intentions with regard to it ? Their answer should not be delayed on the plea set up to-night by the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN), that they are to consider the matter. It is a matter worthy of consideration, and I press it on the attention of the Government in order that they may be prepared, for it must come.

MR. A. MACKENZIE—What must come?

HON. J . S. MACDONALD—The question must be brought up in this House.

HON. MR. BROWN—Well, bring it.

HON. J . S. MACDONALD—I want the gentlemen on the Treasury benches, when the question is brought up and put to them, to be prepared to say what they are to do with reference to the Catholic minority of Upper Canada, as the Attorney General East has manfully stated what he will do for the Protestant minority of Lower Canada. (Hear, hear.) I have never come to this House to act as the champion of any religious sect. I have come to do justice to all parties, and I claim that we are entitled to understand, when it is intended to make distinctions for the benefit of the minority in one section of the province, whether similar distinctions are to be made also for the benefit of the minority in the other section. (Hear, hear.) The motion for adjourning the debate was then agreed to.


THURSDAY, February 23,1865.

THE SPEAKER reported that the House had that day waited on His Excellency the Governor General, with their Address to Her Majesty the Queen, on the subject of uniting the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island in one government, with provisions based on the 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 ; and also, the Address to His Excellency the Governor General, requesting him to transmit the same to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in order that the said Address to Her Majesty may be laid at the foot of the Throne,—and that His Excellency was pleased to return the following gracious reply :—

” MR. SPEAKER AND HONORABLE GENTLEMEN :—I shall have much satisfaction in transmitting your Address to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in order that it may be, by him, laid before Her Majesty the Queen.”


THURSDAY, February 23, 1865.

MR. A. MACKENZIE resumed the adjourned debate. He said — Before proceeding, Mr. SPEAKER, to discuss the measure of Confederation itself, I think it desirable to revert for a moment to the position which we have occupied, in discussing those constitutional questions that have so long separated parties, and involved the two sections of the province in serious dissensions I do this to meet the charges of inconsistency biought against myseli and others, because we support the present Coalition Government with a view to obtain the solution of the difficulties with which we have had to contend—in a way not perhaps hitherto advocated very extensively, especially in that part of the province to which I myself belong. Since I had the honor of having a seat in this House, I have never advocated representation by population as the sole measure I would accept as a settlement of those difficulties. In the first speech I ever made in this House, I used the following language :—

I am not myself bound down to representation by population as the only possible measure. If the oppoaents of that measure can suggest any other remedy, I am quite willing to give it a candid consideration ; and I am quite sure that the large constituency I represent will support me in considering any measure which will place it out of the power of the Government of the day to perpetrate sectional injustice ; but until such a remedy is suggested, I feel bound to advocate

[Page 422]

reform of the representation on the basis of population as one remedy I believe to be an effective one.

(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION) asserted that we had advocated this measure merely as a means of remedying the financial injustice of which we complained. That was not the case. It is quite true that we urged very strongly—and I am not prepared at this moment to withdraw a single statement I have made with reference to that we urged very strongly the injustice of the position in which we were placed, in contributing largely to the public revenue, and finding that that revenue was expended without due consideration being given to that part of the country which contributed most heavily towards it. But, at the same time, we felt that we were treated unjustly in another respect. We felt that it was not fair—that it could not be just—that four men in Lower Canada should be equal, politically, to five men in Upper Canada. We complained that our laws were framed by an eastern majority, in spite of our protestations. It was this which aggrieved us much more deeply than the mere loss of a certain sum of money. (Hear, hear.) Up to the beginning of 1862 the agitation for a redress of this grievance had been carried on throughout the whole of Western Canada ; and I am convinced that at that time there was not an individual who could appear in public in Canada West, and take any share in the public discussions of the day, with any chance of getting a favorable hearing, unless he asserted that he was in favor ot representation by population.

HON. J . S. MACDONALD—Oh ! oh!

MR. A. MACKENZIE—The hon. member for Cornwall cries ” Oh ! ” Well, I will except him.

HON. MR. BROWN—No ! no !

MR. A. MACKENZIE—It is true, perhaps, that even that hon. member cannot be excepted ; for no one spoke more strongly than he did of the injustice perpetrated on Upper Canada.

HON. J . S. MACDONALD—Hear, hear.

MR. A. MACKENZIE—He went even further in his assertion of the rights of Upper Canada, and of the justice due to it, than I would be disposed to do. He asserted on the floor of this House that he would not submit to any legislation, good, bad or indifferent, that came from the Administration of the day, simply because they would not accord justice to Upper Canada.

HON. J . S. MACDONALD—Any Upper Canada legislation.

MR. A. MACKENZIE—The hon. gentleman could not have taken stronger ground than that. I shall come to speak presently of his own Administration. The hon. member for Hochelaga seemed to think that, because the people of Canada West conducted their agitation with a good deal of system and order, there was nothing very alarming or dangerous about it. But the hon. gentleman should have remembered that it is a characteristic of the British people, that they on all occasions conduct a political agitation with due decorum and due respect to the laws, and that it is not the less serious on that account. When they have a deep-seated feeling that injustice is being perpetrated upon them, they will not sit still under it, although they will at the same time, while conducting the agitation against it, íespect the rights of other parties. (Hear, hear.) I am free to confess that, when I first came into this House, I labored under some slight misapprehension of the position which the Lower Canadians occupied towards us of Western Canada. There is, or there was then, a popular opinion that the Lower Canadians were only afra d of representation by population, because they dreaded that the people of Canada West would use the larger power they would thereby obtain for the injury, if not the destruction, of their religious institutions. That is entirely an error. I am convinced that the people of Lower Canada have no such opinion and no such fear. In speaking the other day on that subject, the honorable member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION) quoted nom a speech of mine delivered in Toronto a few days before this sesssioa commenced ; and I do not think the hon. gentleman shewed his usual candor or fairness in making the representation he did. He represented me as having stated at that meeting, that I had abandoned representation by population, as a thing that was not advisable, or possible, or something of that sort. Now what I did say was this :—

Having taken some part in public affairs, he (Mr. MACKENZIE) had long felt it would be almost impossible, by representation by population, to obtain 1o the full extent the justice that Upper Canada should receive with a legislative union as the basis of our power.

HON. MR. BROWN—Hear, hear !

[Page 423]


He had looked at it in this way. The time had been when the people of Upper Canada imagined that the Lower Canadians were afraid to grant representation by population lest western reformers should interfere with their religious institutions. He was fully satisfied that that idea was entirely erroneous—that the French people never had the slightest fear of the kind, because they knew it would be political suicide, it would be absolute ruin to any political party having the administration of affairs in their hands, to perpetrate injustice on any section of the people, to whatever church they belonged. (Cheers.) There was one element, however, which always entered largely into the discussion of all our national questions, and that was that the French people were a people entirely different from ourselves in origin, and largely in feeling. We all had a cettain pride in our native country, and gloried in the deeds of our ancestors. The French people had that feeling quite as strongly as any of us ; this reason, and also because they were a conquered people, they felt it necessary to maintain a strong national spirit, and to resist all attempts to procure justice by the people of the west, lest that national existence should be broken down. He (Mr. MACKENZIE) felt for one that mere representation by population, under such circumstances, would perhaps scarcely meet the expectations formed of it, because although Upper Canada would have seventeen more members than Lower Canada, it would be an easy thing for the fifty or fifty-five members representing French constituencies to unite with a minority from Upper Canada, and thus secure an Administration subservient to their views.

These were the sentiments that I uttered at that meeting, and the sentiments to which I am prepared now to give utterrance again. (Hear, hear.) I believe that tbat feeling of nationality hasbeen our sole difficulty, in working our present political system. But I do not believe for one moment that it would be possible or perhaps desirable to extinguish that strong feeling of nationality. Break down that feeling and all patriotism will be broken down with it. (Hear, hear.) I do not think it would be fair, or kind, or honorable, to attempt to do so. When Britain conquered the country, she accepted the responsibility of governing a foreign people in accordance with their feelings, so far as consistent with British policy. That feeling of nationality obtains so strongly in all countries, that, where attempts have been made, as in Austria, to break it down, they have signally failed. When such an attempt failed, though made bya despotic government, with a powerful army at its command, how could we expect it to succeed in a free country. In Austria, at this moment, eighteen different nationalities are represented in the national councils ; and, notwithstanding all its military power and prestige, Austria has been compelled to accord local parliaments or assemblies to every one of those eighteen nationalities. (Hear, hear.) I have felt, therefore, that it would be utterly impracticable to obtain representation by population so long as the French people believed, as I came to find they did believe, that this concession, to us would involve destruction to them as a separate people

HON. MR. HOLTON—That is what they fear will be the result of the scheme now proposed.

MR. A MACKENZIE-No ; I have yet to learn that they have any such fear. The Attoney General East (Hon. Mr. CARTIER), in his speech, a few evenings ago, adverted to the position taken by the French inhabitants of Lower Canada at the time of the French revolution, and claimed credit for them, because they remained loyal to the British Crown, when all the other North American Colonies threw off the British sway. The honorable gentleman’s claim was perfectly just. But I believe that they were actuated by another feeling beyond the feeling of loyalty—that they felt their only safeguard as a distinct people—the only way to preserve their nationality, was to remain attached to Great Britain. Their existence for twenty years as a French colony under British rule, was not perhaps sufficient to give that attachment which they have now to the British Government. But it was perfectly clear to them that, if they entered the American Union, they would be absorbed and lost, just as the French colony of Louisiana has since been. (Hear, hear.) I have been charged, and others with me, who have held the same political views, with deserting our party, because we have ceased to act with the gentlemen from Lower Canada with whom we formerly acted. I think there is no fair ground for such a charge. For what, after all, is party ? it is but an association of individuals holding opinions in common on some grounds of public policy, or some measures which they may believe to be necessary for the conduct of the government of the country to which they belong Looking at the matter in that light, there is no part of our party politics in the west, that we have insisted upon so strongly as that which concerns the representation of the people in Parliament.

[Page 424]

HON. MR. BROWN—Hear, hear !

MR. A. MACKENZIE—And, as soon as our former political friends in Lower Canada ceased to take advanced ground on that question, while the other party, hitherto opposed to us, became willing to take that advanced ground, it became clearly our duty to unite with that party who held opinions in common with us on matters that coneerned us above all others. (Hear, hear.) At the time of the formation of the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government, I was, with many others, strongly blamed, because we allowed that Government to come into existence at all. It is quite possible we were wrong; but I think after all it was fortunate that the hon. member for Cornwall (Hon. J . S. MACDONALD) had a fair opportunity to try his favorite remedy for our constitutional difficulties—the ” double majority principle.” That principle had been pressed on the attention of the country for ten years as one amply sufficient as a remedial measure, under which the existing political system could be harmoniously worked. In the MACDONALD-SICOTTE Government it had a fair trial and a speedy death. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The existence of that Government, if it served no other purpose, showed the utter impracticability of the one means, by which my hon. friend hoped to accomplish what he, in common with ourselves, had long aime at (Hear, hear. Now, supposing the Liberal party of the west had refused the terms offered by the present Administration— if we had declined to support a government which was really giving us nearly all we demanded—I do think we would have been fairly chargeable with creating if not advocating a state of anarchy. I think it would have been a most suicidal thing, if, having obtained—if not to the full extent, yet to a very great extent— the concession of the principle we had contended for so long, we had refused to accept the settlement offered, merely because a certain number of gentlemen, to whom we had been strongly opposed before, were among the leaders of the new movement. I for one felt it would be quite impossible for me to maintain my ground in Canada West, if I took the responsibility of acting in that way. Some honorable gentlemen have asserted, and truly asserted, that this measure is not as perfect as it might have been—and that it is not as complete as some of us might have desired it to be. It is not perhaps, considering everything, in the exact form in which we demanded it. But, where there are two great parties in a nation—as there have been with us—it is quite clear that, whet, they agree to effect a settlement of the constitutional difficulties which have separated them, this can only be accomplished by mutual compromise to a greater or less extent And the true question to be determined in this discussion, and by the vote at the close of this debate, is this—whether this a fair compromise or not. I am prepared to say it is perhaps as fair as could reasonably be expected, and I have therefore no hesitation in giving it all the support in my power. (Hear, hear.) In its main features it is the very scheme which was proposed by the Toronto Convention—only carried to a greater extent than the convention thought advisable or possible at the time. The speeches which were delivered at that convention, as well as the resolutions which were passed, shewed clearly that it was the opinion of the delegates there present, that a Confederation of the whole provinces would be desirable, it it were possible to attain it as speedily, as they expected they could obtain a Federation of the two Provinces of Canada. That, I believe, was the sole reason why resolutions were not moved and adopted in favor of the larger instead of the smaller scheme. But we have been told by the two hon gentlemen beside me—the hen. member for Chateauguay(Hon. Mr. HOLTON) and the honorable member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION)—that the scheme of the Toronto Convention took no hold upon the public mind. As to this I have to say that having had as fair an opportunity perhaps as most men to ascertain the feelinas of the people in Western Canada, I can assert, without any fear of contradiction by hon. gentlemen irom that part of the country, that no scheme ever took a greater or more complete hold upon the publie mind in Upper Canada than the scheme of the Toronto Convention. (Haar, hear.) And for the very reason that the present scheme is merely an expausioa of that one, it has received almost universal approval in Canada West. (Hear, hear.) It is true that after the Toronto Convention was held, there was not any very strong agitation in its favor. But I have observed this, that at all the elections which have been held subsequent to the convention, gentlemen who have taken the same side of politics as myself have been accustomed to say that as soon as the Lower

[Page 425]

Canadians who were opposed to representation by population would agree to the scheme of the Toronto Convention, they were ready to meet them on that ground. Personally, I have always been in favor of a legislative union, where it can be advantageously worked. If it could be adapted to our circumstances in these colonies, I would at this moment be in favor of a legislative union as the best system of government. I believe that is the general opinion of the people in the west. But it is the duty of every public man to shape his course with reference to theoretical principles of government, according to the circumstances which may prevail locally. And it is quite clear that, if the legislative union could not be worked well with Upper and Lower Canada, it would work still worse with the other provinces brought in. There remained, therefore, in my opinion, no other alternative than to adopt the Federal principle, or to dissolve entirely the connection which exists between Upper and Lower Canada at the present moment ; and that I would look upon as one of the greatest calamities which could befall these provinces. Even if this scheme were more objectionable than it is, had I the alternative put before me to accept dissolution of the union or to accept this, I would without hesitation accept Confederation rather than dissolution. (Hear, hear.) In the scheme as propounded, we have all that we could possibly demand in the way of representation in the Lower House. And, besides that, we have provision made for extending the representation east or west, as occasion may require, according to the increase of our population shown at the decennial periods for taking the census. Any thing fairer than that could not possibly be demanded. And if Lower Canada increases more rapidly in population than Canada West, she will obtain representation accordingly. For, although the number of her members can not be changed from sixty-five, the proportion of that number to the whole will be changed relatively to the progress of the various colonies. On the other hand if we extend, as I have no doubt we will do, westward, towards the centre of the continent, we will obtain a large population for our Confederation in the west. In that quarter we must look for the largest increase of our population in British America, and before many years elapse the centre of population and power will tend westward much farther than most people now think. The increase in the representation is therefore almost certain to be chiefly in the west, and every year will add to the influence and power of Western Canada, as well as to her trade and commerce. The most important question that arises relates to the constitution of the Upper House. It is said that in this particular the scheme is singularly defective—that there has been a retrograde movement in going back from the elective to the nominative system. I admit that this statement is a fair one from those who contended long for the application of the elective principle to the Upper House; but it can have no weight with another large class, who, like myself, never believed in the wisdom of electing the members of two Houses of Parliament with coordinate powers. I have always believed that a change from the present system was inevitable, even with our present political organization. (Hear, hear.) The constitution of an Upper House or Senate seems to have originated in the state of society which prevailed in feudal times ; and from being the sole legislative body—or at least the most powerful—in the State, it has imperceptibly become less powerful, or secondary in importance to the lower chamber, as the mass of the people became more intelligent, and popular rights became more fully understood. Where there is an Upper House it manifestly implies on the part of its members peculiar duties or peculiar rights. In Great Britain, for instance, there is a large class of landed proprietors, who have long held almost all the landed property of the country in their hands, and who have to pay an immense amount of taxes. The fiscal legislation of Britain for many years has tended to the reduction of impost and excise duties on articles of prime necessity, and to the imposition of heavy taxes on landed property and incomes. Under such a financial system, there are immense interests at stake, and the House of Lords being the highest judicial tribunal in the kingdom, there is a combination of peculiar rights and peculiar duties appertaining to the class represented which amply justify its maintenance. We have no such interests, and we-impose no such duties, and hence the Upper House becomes a mere court of revision, or one of coordinate jurisdiction ; as the latter it is not required ; to become the former, it should be constituted differently from the House of Assembly. The United States present the example of a community socially similar to ourselves,

[Page 426]

establishing an Upper House. They have— reasoning doubtless from the same premises —not only given the legislatures of the respective states the power of nominating the members of the Senate, but have also given that body powers entirely different from those possessed by the elective branch. It is a remarkable fact that there is only one other government in Europe which has a system similar to Great Britain, and that is Sweden. There is another class, represented by a number of the German nations. There are Wurtemburg, Hesse Darmstadt, Prussia, Saxony, Hanover, Baden and Bavaria, with an aggregate population of about 30,000,000, whose Upper Chambers are partly hereditary, partly nominative, and partly ex-officio. The purely hereditary principle, as found in Great Britain and Sweden, obtains among a population of some 32,000,000. Then there is another class nominated by the Crown for life from a list chosen by intermediate bodies. The councils choose three lists and the Sovereign nominates therefrom. In this way, Spain, Brazil and the new nation of Roumania, composed of the Turkish principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, appoint their Upper Houses—Spain, with a population of 16,301,850; Brazil, 7,677,800 ; Roumania, 3,578,000; altogether 27,556,650. There is another class where the members of the Senate are nominated for life, where the number is limited, and where some few members of the royal family have the privilege of sitting as members. Italy, with a population of 21,777,334; Portugal, 3,581, 677; Servia, 1,098,281; Austria, 34,000,000. This class represents altogether a population of 61,460,292. Then there is another class where the members are elected for a term of years, and it is a remarkable faet in this connection that the countries I refer to are, with the exception of three British colonies and one monarchy, entirely republican. The one monarchy in the list that elects its Upper Chamber in this way, is Belgium ; but Belgium, although a monarchy, is well known to be one of the most democratic countries in Europe. This list includes Switzerland, whose people number 2,534,242 La Plata, 1,171,800; Chili, 1,558,319; Peru, 2,865,000; United States, 30,000,000; Liberia, 500,000 ; Belgium, 4,529,000 ; South Australia, 126,830; Tasmania, 89,977; Victoria, 540,322 —having a total population of 43,915,490. In Nassau we find the Upper Chamber partly nominative and partly ex-officio, the population being 457,571. Then there is Denmark, with a partly nominative and partly elective system, the elections being held by the Provincial Councils, the population being 1,600,000 ; while in the Netherlands, with a population of 3,372,652, the members are elected entirely by the Provincial Councils. In one of the British colonies, New South Wales, the members are nominated for a term of years ; whilst in two of the youngest and most enterprising of the British colonies, New Zealand and Queensland, they have the system which we propose to adopt, of nominating a limited number of members for life. There is evidently room here for great latitude of opinion as to the constitution of the Upper Chamber, and I do not think we can be fairly charged with retrogression because we choose to make the members of our Upper House nominative instead of elective. Our people comprise but one class, and if the members of the two chambers are to be chosen by the same electors, it is very clear that it will be extremely difficult for both to maintain their individuality, possessing similar powers and privileges, and avoid collisions. It is evident that two chambers which have originated in precisely the same way, will claim to exercise the same rights and privileges, and to discharge the same functions ; but were the Upper Chamber nominative, instead of elective, the jurisdiction of that chamber would be, of course, correspondingly changed, and the chances of collision made more remote. There are quite a number of states (some of them very considerable in size and population, and of recent origin) which have dispensed with an Upper Chamber altogether. I confess my arguments would lead to the adoption of this system, as the ono most suited to our circumstances. (Hear, hear.) The nations which have adopted this system are Hesse Cassel, with a population of 726,000; Luxemburg, 413,000; Saxe Weimar, 273,000; Saxe Meiningen, 172,000; Saxe Altenburg, 137,000 ; Saxe Cobourg, 159,000; Brunswick, 273,000 ; Mecklenburg Schwerin, 548,000 ; Norway, 1,328,471 ; Mecklenburg Streilitz, 99,060; Oldenburg, 295,245; Anhalt, 181,824; Lippe-Detmold, 103,513; Waldeck, 58,000; Schwarzburg, 71,913 ; and in the kingdom of Greece, with a population of 1,096,810, where a new constitution has been recently adopted, the statesmen of that country have, after some experience of the duplicate system, resolved to legislate with a single chamber. But while it is my opinion that we would be better without an Upper House, I know that the question is

[Page 427]

not, at the present moment, what is the best possible form of government, according to our particular opinions, but what is the best that ean be framed for a community holding different views on the subject.

HON. MR. BROWN—Hear, hear. That is the point, and therefore I acoept, as a fair compromise, a second chamber nominated by the Confederate Cabinet.

MR. A. MACKENZIE—One honorable member—I think the honorable member for Lotbinière (Mr. JOLY)—used the argument that the Federal system was a weak one. I do not think the Federal system is necessarily a weak one ; but it is a system which requires a large degree of intelligence and political knowledge on the part of the people, and I think it was entirely unfair on the part of the honorable member to compare our probable prospeots in the future, under Confederation, with the past history of the Spanish republics in South America. We have in this country a population habituated to self-government, and this entirely destroys the parallel sought to be instituted. For my part, I hold it would be altogether impossible for the honorable member for South Oxford, for instance, or some other honorable members we know of, to Carry on the same agitation in any of the South American republics—(laughter)—that we have seen them doing in Upper Canada, without producing a complete revolution, and iastead of my honorable friend (Hon. Mr. BROWN) finding himself at the head of a newspaper, controlling his columns, he would find himself at the head of an army marshalling its columns. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. GALT—He would, perhaps, be found issuing a pronunciamento. (Laughter.)

MR. A. MACKENZIE—Yes, a pronunciamento would undoubtedly be the legitimate result in such a state of society. The fact is, we cannot compare such a population with those who are educated to our own form of government. I have time and again attended political meetings with my honorable friends opposite, and after seven or eight hours indulging in strong language, and sometimes bitter enough speeches, the people have separated quietly without any personal feeling being entertained the one against the other, fore, then, asserting that the people of this country are incapable of governing themselves, or that the Federal principle is a weak one, it is necessary to prove that we are not more civilized than were the people of South America thirty years ago. (Hear, hear.) I assume, therefore, that it is necessary to prove that our people are less civilized than the populations of the South American republics were thirty yeaas ago, or that they have already shown an incapacity for governing themselves before we can receive the assertion that the Federal principle as proposed to be applied in our case is a weak one. If the honorable member based his argument against the Confederation on the question of weakness or strength as exemplified in existing governments, he would be bound to accept Russia as the model for his government, there being no stronger government on the face of the earth. But a despotism is only possible where the people are ignorant, and an attempt to establish a republic among such a people would be out of the question,—it would only produce weakness. Were a republic to be established at this moment in Russia, it would occasion a state of anarchy, because the people are too ignorant to exercise intelligently the franchise bestowed upon them. It is for this reason unfair to institute comparisons between these unfortunate republics and the proposed government for the people of British North America. I am certain that, if there were a Federal union between all the colonies of British North America, extending even across the continent to our western confines, although great inconvenience might be experienced by such an extension, we would find a law-abiding people capable of self-government, in all parts of the Confederacy. (Hear, hear.) The example of the United States has been appealed to, and it is true that when the war commenced, when they found themselves unable to enforce their laws in some portion of the states, that it did seem to prove to the minds of those who did not understand the people, and to the writers of certain newspapers in England, that there was an inherent weakness in the system. There is no doubt that there were some indications of such weakness, and the conflict of sovereignty between states and the Federal Government did produce weakness. But I think the attitude of the people of the Northern States fully shows that even with the imperfections of their system, which will be admitted, and which imperfections are avoided in the scheme now before the House—even with these imperfections, a strength, a power, and a vigor have been displayed, which have silenced even the attacks of hostile criticism. (Hear, hear.) The Federal system, then,eaunot be said to be a failure with our race, neither can it be said to be a failure in Switzerland. This was admitted in a measure by

[Page 428]

the honorable member for Lotbinière, but that honorable gentleman gave as a reason for its apparent success, that Switzerland was surrounded by a number of powerful nations. I think, on the other hand, that the reason assigned would be the very cause of a failure of the system in Switzerland. The government of that country would have broken down long ago if there was any inherent weakness in the form of the constitution, in consequence of the hostile systems which surrounded it. The fact of the Swiss maintaining their independence so long and conducting the adminis tration of their affairs so well and cheaply, is an evidence to my mind that the Federal system of government is not weak where the people are trained and educated to understand and appreciate the benefits of self-government. (Hear, hear.) Then, sir, we are assured that all sorts of calamities will overtake us if we change our Constitution, and many of the honorable gentlemen who prophecy these evil results will no doubt, like many other prophets, do all they can to bring their predictions to pass. (Hear, hear.) This is not the first time in the history of the world that prophecies of this kind have been -indulged in. I was a good deal amused the other night in reading the discussions which took place in the Scottish Parliament on the occasion of the proposed union with England in 1707; and in perusing one of the speeches in particular, I could not help remarking the coincidence betwen the tone therein assumed and that adopted by Her Majesty’s loyal Canadian Opposition. The speaker, Lord BELHAVEN, used this language in depicting the dire calamities which he imagined would befall Scotland by joining her fortunes to England:—

MY LORD CHANCELLOR,—I think I see our learned judges laying aside their practiques and decisions, studying the common law of England, gravelled with certioraries, nisi priuses, writs of error, verdicts in dovar, ejectione firmae, injunctions, demurs, &c, and freighted with appeals and avocations, because of the new regulations and rectifications they may meet with. I think I see the valiant and gallant soldiery either sent to learn the plantation trade abroad, or at home petitioning for a small subsistence as the reward of their honourable exploits, while their old corps are broken, the common soldiers left to beg, and the youngest English corps kept standing. I think I see the honest, indusirious tradesman loaded with new taxes at d impositions, disappointed of the equivalents, drinking water in place of ale—(laughter;—eating his saltless pottage—( renewed laughter)—petitioning for encouragement to his manufactories, and answered by counter petitions. In short, I think I see the laborious ploughman, with his corn spoiling upon his hands for want of sale, cursing the day of his birth, dreading the expense of his burial—(laughter)— and uncertain whether to marry or do worse. (Much laughter.) I think I see the incurable difficulties of landed men, fettered under the golden chain of equivalents, their pretty daughters petitioning for want of husbands—(laughter)—and their sons for want of employment. I think I see our mariners delivering up their ships to their Dutch partners, and what through presses and necessity, earning their bread es underlings in the royal English navy.

And here, Mr. SPEAKER, comes the climax, and if I were asked to point to one of the dramatis persona, in our Canadian House of Assembly fitted to take part in a similar scene as is here depicted, I should unhesitatingly turn to the honorable member for Chateauguay (Hon. Mr. HOLTON), who could more suitably than any one else I know personate Lord BELHAVEN when he exclaims : ” But above all, my Lord, I think I see our ancient mother Caledonia, like CAESAR, sitting in the midst of our Senate, ruefully looking round about her, covering herself with her royal garment, attending to the fatal blow and breathing out her last with et tu quoque mi fili.” (Laughter.) It must have seemed very strange for the statesmen of Scotland, who saw in the union of the two kingdoms all the evidences of coming power and grandeur, to have heard expressed such desponding sentiments as these. (Hear, hear.) No doubt the majority saw in the union which they were then about to consummate, the strength which subsequently grew out of that union, and the influence and greatness by which it would be attended. At the time of the union Scotland had only a revenue of £150,000 per annum, and last year she contributed to the British exchequer nearly £7,000,000. (Hear, hear.) This, however, is but one instance of the benefit of the union, which has worked to the fullest extent as well as could possibly be desired. If necessary I could bring forward many arguments to prove that, in the same manner, union between different peoples who are geographically situated so as to favor it, adds to their strength, and makes them greater and more powerful than they could possibly hope to become in their several states of separation and isolation. (Hear, hear.) I am quite aware, sir, that in a matter of this kind it is exceedingly easy to make objections. There can be nothing easier than to carp at a set of resolutions like these. It would not be diffi-

[Page 429]

cult to spend hours in captious criticism as to the details of such a soheme as is proposed. But I think we may fairly call on those gentlemen who criticise in a hostile spirit a measure of this character, to say what else they propose to do ; for, if we cannot oarry this into practical operation now, it is quite evident something else must be devised. I recollect that last year, when the present administration came down to the House proposing such a plan for settling our difficulties, and received, as I for one imagined, the sanction of this House, I remarked that the course of the House was a revolutionary one, the revolution to be a peaceable one certainly, but still a revolution. I t implied the opinion on the part of our public men, that our present system could not be gone on with ; and if our present system cannot be continued, we ought not to attempt to throw out this measure merely because it does not entirely meet the views of every member of this House. (Hear.) I think it would have been desirable that all the members from Lower Canada should have united with us and studied out a new system, and gone to work earnestly to give it effect by the necessary legislation. (Hear.) I did hope that when the measure came down and we met this session to discus’s it, it would not have been thought necessary by any one to organize a regular opposition. Certainly I did not expect that honorable gentlemen like the honorable members for Hochelaga and Chateauguay, who have hitherto appeared to recognize the gravity of our constitutional difficulties, or have at least asserted that they did, would have found it necessary to go into unqualified opposition. I rather thought they would have endeavored to give effect to the measure as the only remedial one within our reach. (Hear, hear.) I t is not because I think the measure entirely faultless that I propose to give it my utmost support, but because I believe every other measure to be impossible now, and because, under the proposed government, the country has a great future before it. Looking at the matter commercially, as a question of comparative cheapness, we shall not be, to say tiie least, any worse off than at the present moment. I believe we shall be able to govern as cheaply united as we now do separately. I apprehend there will be no necessity in the Local Legislature for more than one chamber, and although this branch of the subject has not been discussed in the House, and we do not know what the propositions of the Government are to be, I may take occasion to say that I hope they will not think of adopting tha double system in our local legislatures, for it will cause a serious increase of expenditure, not attended with a corresponding benefit. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for Montreal Centre devoted a large portion of his speech last night to the military side of the question, and argued very strongly, from the position of the neighboring republic, that it was absolutely indispensable for us to become a military power. Now while I am not at all disposed to take the view that gentleman does of the position of the United States relatively towards ourselves ; while I do not think that any large proportion of the people of the United States have hostile inclinations towards ourselves—though they are apt to indulge in language that is undoubtedly unbecoming and certainly threatening ; while I do not at all anticipate they will adopt, in so unjustifiable a manner as he seemed to expect, any hostile measures towards us, it is not to be denied that with a population of three millions and a half, it will be absolutely necessary for us to take some steps that will place us in a more independent position. It is not honorable, it is not manly for so powerful a colony as this is to depend entirely on the Mother Country for protection. (Hear, hear.) I took occasion to express these views last year, when discussing the estimates, and said I hoped the Government would bring down a measure to pay a large portion of the expenditure attendant on the maintenance, by the Imperial Government, of British troops among us. (Hear, hear.) Portugal, with a population as nearly as can be equal to our own, has a standing army of 17,000 men. Holland, with about the same population as ourselves at home, but with extensive colonies abroad, has a standing army of 57,500 men. Denmark, with a population not quite equal to one half what the Confederacy will possess, has an army of 22,900 men. Now I do not think it will be at all necessary for us to maintain a standing army like these nations. I do not think we are in the same position as these countries, because our wealth is, to a great extent, not realized. It would be hardly fair to assess some of our new counties, where people own nothing but their land, at the nominal value of that land, for the purpose of paying a large standing army ; and besides we have no colonies, no outside sources of wealth. I think, however, we are nearly as well able, man for man, to maintain a force necessary for our defence as the people of Great Bri-

[Page 430]

tain, and whatever measure the Confederate Government may propose of a moderate, reasonable nature, will, I am convinced, receive the support of the majority of tho people of this country. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I apprehend it is not looking at all too far forward to think of the day when another colony to the westward of Canada West will come into the union. I am of course unaware what papers may be brought down by the Government in reference to the North-West and the Hudson’s Bay Territory, but I hope when they do come down they will show some progress in that direction, in raising that magnificent country from the state in which it now is. I hope some system will be put into operation for extending roads and telegraphs to that country, so as to open it up for settlement by our own young men and immigrants coming from Europe. The question of the North-West is most intimately connected with our prosperity as a people, and some exception has justly been taken to the 68th and 69th paragraphs in tho resolutions, which say :—

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 sea-board, 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 tho finances will admit.

MR. T. C. WALLBRIDGE—That is the point.

MR. A. MACKENZIE—Yes, that is the point my hon. friend is very much exercised over, but he is quite as much in favor of Confederation as I am. In this paragraph, while it is pronounced indispensable to have the Intercolonial Railway built at once, it is only promised that as soon as the state of the finances will permit, the North-West is to be taken in hand. I think it is absolutely necessary for the prosperity of this colony that our canal connection with the upper lakes should be perfected as early as possible. Our canal system must be improved so as to accommodate the large trade that is coming from the North-West. On the northern shores of Lake Superior we have sources of wealth that are perfectly inexhaustible. We read only the other day that a mountain of iron had been discovered close to the coast, quite sufficient to supply the demands of the world for 500 years. We have in that locality an abundant supply of minerals of all kinds, and unless our canals are made capable of carrying that traffic, it will necessarily find channels in another direction. (Hear.) There is an agitation among a portion of the community for making a new canal from Toronto to the Georgian Bay, and I admit it is very desirable it should be constructed, though I do not think it ever can be ; and even if itcould be, it is entirely beyond our resources at the present time. I am convinced that the true route for a canal (if a new one should be undertaken) to the Georgian Bay is up the Ottawa, because that would be giving a great backbone to the country. If we had a fine canal, capable of carrying vessels of war in that direction, it would be a splendid means of defence, as well as a great highway for the commercial products of the west. Of course I know this to be impossible at the present time, but I think it exceedingly desirable that we should press on the attention of the Government, with all the influence that can be brought to bear, the necessity for having this 69th article attended to, though I am not inclined to go farther th an that now. (Hear.) The importance of perfecting the present and other highways to the centre of the continent must be so apparent to all parts of our common country, that I see no reason to fear that the subject will not receive due attention from the Confederate Government at the earliest moment. As regards the Intercolonial Railway, I have taken some little interest in that, as I knew that I would be compelled to discuss it on approaching this subject, and, in examining the maps and reports of Major ROBINSON, I find that there is no difficulty whatever in arriving at a conclusion as to the comparative cost. The route that is most feasible—that alluded to by the honorable member for Richelieu—the northern or eastern route by the Bay of Chaleurs, is about 655 miles from Halifax to Quebec. It is already constructed to Truro, some 55 miles from Halifax, and from Quebec 140 miles to Rivière du Loup. This will leave nearly 400 miles to be built. Major ROBINSON estimates the cost of the road at about £7,000 per mile, or about £2,800,000 altogether. I do not think, judging from the statement he gives of the grades in the road, the bridges to be built, and the material to be found along the line, that it is a fair-inference that the cost would equal the amount he sets down. The character of the ground over which the road will pass is very similar to the railways of Canada.

[Page 431]

It is represented to be very much of the nature of the country through which the Great Western runs westward of Hamilton over a great portion of tho line. The best portion of the line is equal to the worst portions of the Great Western. Even at the cost of £7,000 per mile the expense of constructing the entire road would be a little over fifteen millions of dollars. The proportion of that payable by Canada would be about nine millions. I think it is extremely probable that when we obtain the report of the engineers sent out by our Government, it will be found that a very large portion can be constructed for much less than £7,000 per mile. But, whatever the sum may amount to, it is perfectly clear that without the road there can be no union of the provinces. (Hear, hear.) It is equally clear that on that road there is a very large proportion of the country that is exceedingly desirable for settlement, and that only awaits the opening up of some means of communication with the markets. Major ROBINSON reports that on one portion of it— and I confess that I was not aware of the fact until I examined the report more closely today— that there is a tract of country along tho New Brunswick portion of the line not excelled for timber or land in any part of the world that he ever saw. (Hear, hear.) I do not propose taking up the time of the House by reading from this valuable report, but estimates are given showing the amount of population that these districts will support when properly settled. He shows that the country, if the road is once carried through, will be settled very rapidly. I do not, however, expect that that road can possibly pay as a commercial enterprise for a long time to come, and I do not desire to deceive myself or deceive any other person on that point. That it will be of importance more as a military work thau for any other purpose, nobody can deny. In 1862, when I opposed the proposition to construct the road, I then felt that this was an argument that could fairly be used in its favor. Military authorities are still unanimously of opinion that its construction would be of great importance as a means of protection in ease of hostilities. The most important reason, however, why it should be constructed, in addition to the military reason, is, that without its construction there can be no union of the provinces, and without a Federal union of the provinces we cannot hope to obtain a settlement of our sectional difficulties. The one is dependent upon the other, and I believe the people of Canada are willing to accept the conclusion that this argument necessarily leads us to engage in the construction of that road. (Hear, hear.) I do not propose to-night to indulge much in figures relative to what our condition will be, financially, after this measure is carried out ; but the honorable member for Hochelaga made some statements that I can scarcely allow to pass. He was understood to say that Lower Canada came into the union without any debt, and was to go out with thirty millions of dollars of debt, while only some twelve millions of dollars were expended in that section of the province. Now, sir, there has been spent altogether on the canals of Canada $20,813,304.03; on roads and bridges in Canada West, $562,866, and on roads and bridges in Canada East, $1,163,829.34; on the government buildings at Ottawa there have already been paid over $1,513,412.56; and on railroads there have been spent altogether $29,910,825.16, or altogether about $53,964,236.79. Now, I think that one-half of this enormous amount is fairly chargeable to Lower Canada. One-half or a little more than that of the works on which the money was spent are situated in Lower Canada, and, if we include the Victoria Bridge, it is considerably more than one-half. Besides these, however, there are quite a number of other items which I do not take into account. There is the Quebec Fire Loan, and a deficiency in a number of special funds that I will not take any notice of at this time. Then take it from another point of view. From a return made to Parliament, we find that the entire cost of improving the navigation in Upper Canada, including the cost of light-houses, canals, &c, altogether amounted to $7,022,665.61 ; that the revenue derived from Upper Canada harbors and canals has been $4,887,291.73 ; leaving a balance against Upper Canada of $2,145,- 373.88. In Lower Canada, during the same period, the expenditure has been $4,484,- 566.52, while there was a revenue of $708,086.80, leaving a balance against Lower Canada of $4,176,479.72. I give these figures simply to prove that the position taken by the honorable member for Hochelaga was entirely incorrect ; but it would be superfluous to do that if I were to allude to one item which he gave when ho was comparing the amount of debt that we would have to pay per head of our population, compared with that of Great Britain. The amount per head with us is about $25, and he gravely told the House that the amount per head in Great Britain was only $37, when every person

[Page 432]

knows or ought to know that it is about $140. Nevertheless he drew a comparison showing that while the comparatively poor people of Canada would have to pay $25 per head, the rich people of Great Britain had only $37 to pay. It is very remarkable, however, that the whole of this portion of the honorable gentleman’s speech was omitted from the report given in the papers next morning. I do not propose to go into these figures, but merely to refer to a few facts to place the assertions mado by that honorable gentleman in their true light before the House. Our debt is indeed very large, and we could all wish that it was very much less than it is, but we have got to bear it and to pay it, and must do the best we can under the circumstances. The measure of Confederation, in my opinion, will not add to nor yet lessen it, except what may be incurred for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. It is quite possible, of course, that we may undertake enormous expenditures for public works calculated to open up and develope the resources of the country, and thus soon render our debt much heavier than at present, and it will be a question for the Govenment that may be established after Confederation, to decide how far it will be wise or prudent to undertake works of great cost until we shall have a good surplus in hand. (Hear, hear.) One of the objections urged by the opponents of the measure is, that it is being hurried through too fast—that in a matter of so much much importance to present and future generations, more time for consideration should be given. We have been disoussing this question for many years in Canada West. Since the Toronto Convention of 1859, the question has been continuously before the people. It is now nearly a year since it was proposed in something like its present shape in this House, and since that time the whole of our newspapers have been writing upon it continually. We have nearly 300 newspapers in the country— and they have been carrying on a constant argument for or against the scheme, until I do not think it is possible to say or write much more upon the subject with any advantage. If the question is not now fully understood, I fear it will not be much better understood by any delay that can be now accorded. (Hear, hear.) Another objection raised is, that a measure of such vast importance ought not to be carried through without its first being submitted to the people. I have mixed with the people a good deal, and I have found the opinion all but universal amongst them, that it was expedient to put the measure into practical operation as soon as possible. The people consider it utterly impossible to carry on the former violent political agitation with any benefit to the country, and the desire is general that we should get rid of the present constitutional difficulties and get settled down to some quiet and permanent way of managing our governmental business and political discussions. (Hear, hear.) The charges that are made against members of this House about inconsistency in advocating this measure, are very easily met. In a country like ours, so full of change, with a constant agitation going on fer constitutional changes and for new laws, both local and general, it is utterly impossible that a man can remain long in public life without being open to charges of inconsistency ; but if these are caused by a strong effort to settle the difficulties under which the country has been laboring, like the present one, I feel certain that the success of the measure in hand will render the charges of only eyanescent existence. I think it exceedingly desirable, even for the sake of those people who might reasonably feel the strongest objections to it—I mean the English minority of Lower Canada, and the Catholic minority of Upper Canada—that it should be settled at once. So long as the question remains in its present state, there will be a constant agitation going on, and much injury may be done by the misrepresentations that will be indulged in, and the misapprehensions which will exist ; but if these people can be assured that the scheme provides a perfect remedy for any injustice that they might apprehend, they will immediately concur in it. As regards the people of Lower Canada of French origin, and who are Roman Catholics, I have always heard it said in their favor, that a large degree of liberalism characterises their conduct toward their Protestant neighbors. (Hear, hear.) Lower Canada, I believe, was the first portion of British territory to give political freedom to the Jew. I believe that a person of this persuasion sat in the Lower Canada Legislature thirty years before the same privileges were accorded in Great Britain. People who charged the French Canadians with intolerance should remember this with some degree of favor. With regard to the people of British origin, over the whole Confederacy, I do not think it is at all necessary to defend them from any charges of this kind. I do not think they will be inclined to persecute the people of Lower Canada if they had it in their power ; but I ad-

[Page 433]

mit that it is reasonable and just to insert a provision in the scheme that will put it out of the power of any party to act unjustly. If the power that the central authority is to have—of vetoing the doings of the Local Legislature— is used, it will bo ample, I think, to prevent anything of that kind. But the veto itself is objected to. I t is objected that the elected Legislature will be rendered powerless by the influence of the appointed Upper House exercised over them. Well, sir, under the British Constitution, in all British colonies, and in Great Britain itself, there is a certain elasticity to be presumed. Everything is not provided for, because a great deal is trusted lo the common sense of the people. I think it is quite fair and safe to assert that there is not the slightest danger that the Federal Parliament will perpetrate any injustice upon the local legislatures, because it would cause such a reaction as to compass the destruction of the power thus unjustly exercised. The veto power is necessary in order that the General Government may have a control over the proceedings of the local legislatures to a certain extent. The want of this power was the great source of weakness in the United States, and it is a want that will be remedied by an amendment in their Constitution very soon. So long as each state considered itself sovereign, whose acts and laws could not be called in question, it was quite clear that the central authority was destitute of power to compel obedience to general laws. If each provinee were able to enact such laws as it pleased, everybody would be at the mercy of the local legislatures, and the General Legislature would become of little importance. It is contended that the power of the General Legislature should be held in check by a veto power with reference to its own territory, resident in the local legislatures, respecting the application of general laws to their jurisdiction. All power, they say, comes from the people and ascends through them to their representatives, and through the representatives to the Crown. But it would never do to set the Local above the General, Government. The Central Parliament and Government must, of necessity, exercise the supreme power, and the local governments will have the exercise of power corresponding to the duties they have to perform. The system is a new and untried one, and may not work so harmoniously as we now autieipate, but there will always bu p ¡wer in the British Parliament and our own to remedy any defects that may be discovered after the system is in operation.. Altogether, I regard the scheme as a magnificent one, and I look forward to the future with anticipa- tions of seeing a country and a government possessing great power and respectability, and of being, before I die, a citizen of an immense empire built up on our part of the North American continent, where the folds of the British flag will float in triumph over a people possessing freedom, happiness and prosperity equal to the people of any other nation on the earth. If there is anything that I have always felt anxious about in this country, it is to have the British possessions put in such a position that we could safely repose, without fear of danger from any quarter, under the banner which we believe after all covers the greatest amount of personal freedom and the greatest amount of personal happiness that is to be found in the world. (Hear, hear.) And when we look to the vast territory we have in the North-West; when we know that the great rivers which flow through that territory, flow through immense beds of coal, and that the whole country is rich in mineral deposits of all kinds—petroleum, copper, gold and iron ; that the land is teeming with resources of wealth calculated to build up an extensive and valuable commerce, and support a powerful nation ; that all this we can touch and seize upon the moment we are prepired to open up a way to reach them and allow the settler to enter ; when we remember this, I say, I think we can look forward with hope to a prodigious increase in our population and an immense development of strength and power. (Hear, hear.) So far our people have had to contend with the usual difficulties common to the people of all new countries like ours ; but now Canada is beginning to assume a position of commercial importance, and in proportion as that importance increases we will be able to devote ourselves to the opening up and settlement of the interior, and to the development of a new nationality — to use the term that has been so sharply criticised—in that vast western country where there is hardly a white man living to-day. (Hear, hear.) I do not propose, sir, to follow the example that has been set of speaking four or five hours upon this subject. I proposed at the beginning briefly to give my own views in reference to the Confederation of these provinces, and then to leave the ground to other honorable gentle- men. I am exceedingly desirous of seeing the debate proceed as rapdily as possible; and believing it will be necessary for us to

[Page 434]

speak briefly upon the question rather than indulge in long set speeches, I determined to give an example in this respect and bring my remarks within reasonable bounds. (Hear, hear.) I believe then, sir, in the first place, that Confederation is desirable ; in the second, that it is attainable ; and, in the third place, that it is the best thing we can get, and this last is perhaps the strongest reason of all for accepting it. It is quite clear that we must have a settlement of our difficulties in some way, and I think the scheme proposed is a very favorable settlement of them. I think it is more than perhaps some of us expected at the time when the present Government was formed to bring about a settlement ; and I do think, sir, that it would be the greatest act of madness that western members of this House could perpetrate to vote against it. (Hear, hear.) I am not, however, afraid that it will be voted against by them. I believe that under it we have obtained representation by population, that we have obtained what we have long contended was justly due to us, that we have obtained our legitimate influence in framing the financial policy of the country, and that beyond this we have obtained the prospect of building up a great British Union on this continent. We should, therefore, I think, in view of these great advantages, overlook those objections which may be regarded as antecedent to the scheme, and endeavor heartily to carry out the work successfully. I shall willingly yield my support to the scheme, and I believe it will be acceptable to the people I represent—not only to the people of the locality, but to those who surround me in Upper Canada. (Cheers.)

MR. MORRIS said—Mr. SPEAKEB, the member for Lambton has, I think, set a good example, and I shall endeavor if it be possible to follow it. I desire to state at the outset that this, as has been well observed by many who have spoken upon the subject, is no new question ; but that in one phase or another, as was very properly stated in the narrative given to the House by the honorable member for Montreal West, it has been before the people of this country from time to time for many years past. It is not my intention to follow that honorable gentleman in his interesting narrative of the history of this question, but I desire to ask the attention of the House to the fact that this is the third time that this question has been formally brought before Parliament by the Government of this country. The first occasion was, I believe, in 1858, when the then Governor General, in closing the session of Parliament for that year, used in the Speech from the Throne the following words :—” I propose, in the course of the recess, to communicate with Her Majesty’s Government and with the government 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.” That formal statement was followed by the despatch which has been referred to frequently in this House and during this debate, and which was made the basis of the motion laid before the House last session by the honorable member for South Oxford—which motion has had the effect of causing present and, as I believe, future great results. (Hear, hear.) I believe the appointment of the committee moved for by that honorable gentleman will be looked back to as an era in the history of this country. (Hear, hear.) Now, as to the second occasion on which this question was formally brought before the attention of the House and country, we have heard from those who object to this scheme, that the people of the country have been taken by surprise, that they do not understand it, and that they are not prepared to discuss it. I would ask, sir, in reference to that, if this present Government was not formed on the very basis and understanding that it would bring about a settlement of this question, and if the people of the country did not know this to be the fact ? I hold in my hand the basis upon which the Government was formed, in which the following is stated as the result of a long negotiation between the leading members of it:—

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

HON. MR. HOLTON—Hear, hear !

MR. MORRIS—I trust the honorable gentleman will say ” Hear, hear,” with the same emphasis when I read the next paragraph :—

And the Government will seek, by sending representatives to the Lower Provinces, and to England, to secure the assent of those interests which are beyond the control of our own legislation to such a measure as may enable all British

[Page 435]

North America to be united under a general legislature baaed upon the Federal principle.

This, sir, was the pledge given to this House and country by the present Government on its formation. It was pledged to introduce the Federative system into the Government of Canada, with speoial provisions for the incorporation into this Federation of the Maritime Provinces, and it was also pledged to send delegates to those provinces and invite thern to join us in this Federation. (Hear, hear.) And yet we are told forsooth that these delegates, who were thus appointed in conformity with the pledge of the Government, were ” a self-constituted junta,”—we were told that they had no authority for their action in the face of the distinct obligation resting upon the Government to send delegates to those provinces and to England with a view of bringing about this Confederation. No self-constituted junta were those delegates who framed these resolutions; but they met in accordance with a pledge given by this Government, and must be held to have been called together with the sanction of the Parliament of Canada, because Parliament gave the Government, formed to effect the Federation, its confidence. They met also with the sanction of the Imperial Government, as now appears from statements and despatches in possession of this House. (Hear, hear.) But coming now to the present aspect of the matter, I feel that this country has reason to be satisfied with a scheme of so practical a nature as that now under the consideration of the House. I believe that the plan of union proposed will be found to meet the exigencies of our local position, give latitude to loeal development, and due protection to local interests, and yet secure that general control which is essentially necessary for the proper government of a country placed under the dominion of the British Crown. (Hear, hear.) And while I thus look upon the plan, I desire to state emphatically and clearly that it is no new principle that the people of this country and the members of this House are asked to give their sanction to. The question of colonial union, in one shape or another, is one that hag engaged the attention of high intellects and able statesmen in England ; and I think I will be able to show to the House that the very principle we are now endeavoring to introduce as a principle of government in these British North American Provinces, is one that has received the sanction of eminent men in England, and more than that, the sanction of a solemn act of the Imperial Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I will go back a few years, when the condition of the Australian colonies rendered it necessary for the statesmen of Great Britain to endeavor to find a practical solution of the difficulty of governing those great and growing dependencies of the British Crown. What was the practical mode adopted when events made it necessary that they should form a new Constitution for the more perfect government of those colonies ? Why, the Imperial Government revived an old committee of the Privy Council, called the ” Committee on Trade and Foreign Plantations,” and referred the question to it, calling in to its aid, as new members of the committee, Lord CAMPBELL, then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Sir JAMES STEPHEN and Sir EDWARD RYAN. The result of the deliberations of that committee was a report in which the eminent men who composed it recommended the formation of a general assembly, to which the control of the geneial affairs of the Australian colonies should be entrusted, with local governments having local jurisdiction and certain defined powers granted to them. I hold in my hands a series of letters on the colonial policy of England, addressed by Earl GREY to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, which contain the report of the committee of the Privy Council that I have referred to, and I find that the plan there suggested is analogous to the one we are now asked to give practical effect to in this country. (Hear, hear.) The proposition of the committee was that there should be a Governor General to administer the affairs of the Australian colonies, and that he should convene a body, to be called the General Assembly of Australia, on receiving a request to that effect from two or more of the Australian legislatures; and it was recommended that this General Assembly, so convened, should have the power to make laws respecting the imposition of duties on imports and exports, the post office, the formation of roads, canals and railways, and a variety of other subjects. The advantages of this plan were so manifest, as uniting those colonies together and securing for them a better and more satisfactory form of government than they had before enjoyed, that the report at once adopted by the Privy Council, embodied in a bill and submitted to Parliament. The bill passed the House of Commons and reached the House of Lords ; but while before that body the two clauses which introduced into the government of the Australian colonies the same system that in effect it is proposed to

[Page 436]

introduce here were dropped, and why ? Not because of any change of opinion on the part of the Government on the question, nor because the House of Lords was opposed to the principle, but because it was found on examination that they were liable to practical objections, to obviate which amendments would have to be introduced which there were no means of arranging without further communications with the colonies. The Imperial Government would not make these changes in the measure without the consent of the colonies, but Earl GREY by no means changed his mind in regard to the advantages to be derived from the plan proposed, as the following extract from one of his despatches, written in 1850, to the Governor of New South Wales, will show :—

I am not, however, the less persuaded that the want of some such central authority to regulate matters of common importance to the Australian colonies will be felt, and probably at a very early period ; but when this want is so felt, it will of itself suggest the mean» by which it may be met. The several legislatures will, it is true, be unable at once to give the necessary author ty to a General Assembly, because the legislative power of each is confined of necessity within its territorial limits; but if two or more of these legislatures should find that tuere are objects of common interest for which it is expedient to create such an authority, they will have it in their power, if they can settle the terms of an arrangement for the purpose, to pass acts for giving effect to it, with clauses suspending their operation until Parliament shall have supplied the authority that is wanting. By such acts the extent and objects of the powers which they are prepared to delegate to such a body might be defined and limited with precision, and there can be little doubt that Parliament, when applied to in order to give effect to an arrangement so agreed upon, would readily consent to do so.

Some may say, Mr. SPEAKER, that this is very true, but that the British Government dropped the plan and did not proceed with it. I think I shall be prepared to meet that argument, and show that it only rested in the plan to learn the wishes of the people of the colonics ; for you find it following the very same principle, reported upon favorably by the Committee on Trade and Foreign Plantations, in the Constitution which was subsequently granted to the New Zealand provinces. In 1852, the plan suggested by that committee, in regard to Australia, was carried into effect in New Zealand, and it must be remembered that at that time the population of New Zealand was very small, so small indeed that one cannot help contrasting the position of that country with that of British North America at the present day ; but the statesmen of Great Britain looked into the future of the colony, and they decided that it would be advisable to confer on it powers analogous to those now sought for by us. The New Zealand Constitutional Act created six provinces, with superintendents, provincial councils of nine appointed by the governor, and a general government of three estates. In the debate on that bill, Earl GREY said that this was the only form of government which could be conferred on a colony situated as that one was. He remarked :—

It was impracticable and must for many years continue to be so, for any general legislature to meet all the wants of so many separate settlements at a great distance from each other ; hence it seemed absolutely necessary to constitute provincial legislatures on which a great portion of the public business must devolve.

The very difficulty which was met with there is the one we have to overcome here. It was found absolutely necessary to create in every province a Local Legislature, and in addition one central power, to whom matters common to all might be referred. Earl GREY, in the course of the same debate, speaking of the importance of this arrangement, said: — ” There wore some subjects on which extensive inconvenience would arise, if uniformity of legislation among the several provinces were not insured, which could only be accomplished by a General Legislature.” And that, sir, is what this Government now asks us to adopt. They ask us to invite the Imperial Parliament to create for us provincial legislatures, to whom shall be referred all local matters, and that we shall have a General Legislature for the care of those subjects of a general character which could not be so well looked after by the provincial legislatures. And I say, sir, that finding as we do that this is no new question, we can, therefore, understand why this measure met with such ready approval from the statesmen of Britain and the high commendation of Her Majesty by her advisers. (Hear , hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I will now pass from the consideration of the history of this important movement—and I assure you that I feel the difficulty of addressing the House on this subject, in consequence of the sense I entertain of the gravity of the question itself and the momentous character of the issues it involves. The subject, sir, is one of the very highest importance. The destinies of this great country are bound up in it. (Hear, hear.) The

[Page 437]

Upper House has already sanctioned the scheme, and I would take the opportunity of remarking that I do not think that the members of that House can be rightly charged with not having given it that deliberate consideration which its importance demands. I think that they have shown a very proper example in their discussion of the question, and one that we may well follow. They debated with leisure, deliberation, and a thorough appreciation of its gravity, day by day, during four weeks, and I therefore think that the members of the Upper House ought not to have been charged with ” indecent haste.”

HON. J. S. MACDONALD—Who said so ?

MR. MORRIS— The honorable member from Cornwall was one of those who said so.

HON. J . S. MACDONALD—I said it was unsuitable haste.

Mr. MORRIS—I have somewhat of a recording memory, and I think the words he unfortunately used were ” indecent haste.” However, I have no intention of disputing with my honorable friend as to the particular words he used. I have only to express my opinion that the time which has been already spent on this question here and elsewhere has not been lost. I think it is our duty to consider this subject in all its aspects, and believing as I do that the scheme will be adopted by this House, I feel the importance of a full and free discussion, in order that its merits may be put before the country. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, I desire now to state that I support the proposal at present under our consideration, because in my honest and deliberate judgment I believe that this union, if accomplished, is calculated in its practical effects to bind us more closely to Britain than we could be bound by any other system. (Hear, hear.)

A VOICE—It would put an end to the connection.

MR. MORRIS—-An honorable member says ” it would put an end to the connection.” Well, I would say to that honorable gentleman and this House, that in my opinion there are but two destinies before us. We have either to rise into strength and wealt.i and power by means of this union, under the sheltering protection of Britain, or we must be. absorbed by the great power beside us. (Hear, hear.) I believe that that is the only conclusion we can arrive at.

A VOICE—But the people are against it.

MR. MORRIS—An honorable gentleman says the people are not in favor of a Federal union. But we know on the contrary, that the people are in favor of the change. When the public mind is excited against any measure, is there not a means open to the people to make known their opposition, and how is it that the table of this House is not covered with petitions against the scheme, if it is so unpopular as honorable gentlemen would have us believe ?

AN HON. MEMBER—There are no petitions for it.

MR. MORRIS—An honorable gentleman says “there are no petitions for it.” And why is it that there are not ? Is it not because the Government was constituted on the basis of union ? (Hear, hear.) The people, through a vast majority of their representatives in this House, are in favor of it. If they are opposed to it they have the remedy in their own hands, they have the means of opposing, but they do not oppose it because they feel that a change of some kind is absolutely essential, and they have confidence in the wisdom of those entrusted with the destiny of the country in this crisis of its history. But I say that the great reason why this scheme has taken the hold that it has done upon the public men of the province, is that they see in it an earnest desire to perpetuate British connection.

HON. MR. HOLTON—It will turn out a delusion.

MR. MORRIS—I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I am willing to place my prediction against that of the honorable gentleman who says it will be a delusion. (Hear, hear.) A fear has been expressed that the Confederation will lead to the severance of those links which bind us to the Mother Country. But I believe it will be our own fault if the ties between us are broken. With entire freedom and the right of self-government in the fullest sense of the word, together with the great advantage of an improved position, and the strength and power of Great Bntiau to foster and protect us, why should we seek to change our connection, what object could we have to induce us to form other ties ? (Hear, hear.) What have we to envy in the position of the neighboring country, burdened as it is with the heavy load of taxation arising from the cruel war raging there, that we should covet that flag ? Why then should our coming together for the purpose of union weaken our position or diminish the tie that links us to Britain ? It will be for honorable gentlemen who do not believe that the union of these scattered colonies will give them strength, to prove that,

[Page 438]

contrary to all precedent, union is not strength. (Hear, hoar.) But I will state why this union is c:ilculated to prolong our connection with Britain. I t is well known that there has been an entire and radical change of late in the colonial policy of England. That policy has been to extend to us the utmost liberty in our relations to the Empire. What is after all the nature of the bond which links us to Great Britain, apart from our allegiance and loyalty ? What is it but a Federative bond ? That is what links us to Britain,and I feel quite satisfied, in the words of an English publicist of some eminence, that ” the new colonial policy is calculated to prolong the connection of the colonies with the Mother Country.” I believe it will raise these provinces as part of the British Empire, and so secure to us the permanency of British institutions, and bind us more closely to the Crown. (Hear, hear.) I believe it will, in the words of that far-seeing statesman, Lord DURHAM, ” raise up to the North American colonist a nationality of his own by elevating those small and unimportant communities into a society having some objects of national importance, and give these inhabitants a country which they will be unwilling to see absorbed into that of their powerful neighbors.” And, sir, our neighbors so see it. Shortly after the visit of the Duke of NEWCASTLE to this country, attention was directed to the question of the union of the colonies, not only in this country, but in England and in the United States. The New York Conner and Inquirer, in an article published at that time, came to the conclusion “that the union would, in fact, be an argument for a continuance of the existing relations between the two countries :is a matter of policy and gratitude, and that such a change of government could be met with no objection of any weight.” (Hear, hear.) I invite the attention of the honorable member for Chateauguay to that statement. But, Mr. SPEAKER, it is a singular study, looking back over the history of the past, to see how this question has come up in the experience of the various colonies. Before the American revolution, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN suggested a plan for a Federation of the old colonies of Britain on this continent, which, he afterwards said,would, according to his deliberate opinion, have prevented the severance of the connection between the colonies and the Mother Country. I will quote a passage written by him after the revolution, in which he makes allusion to this project. He said :—

I proposed and drew up a plan for the union of all the colonies under one government, so far as might be necessary for defence and other important general parposes. By my plan, the General Government was to be administered by a President- General, appointed and supported by the Crown, and a General Council, to be choseu by the representatives of the people of the several colonies, met in the respective assemblies. The plan was agreed to in Congress, but the assemblies of the provinces did not adopt it, as they thought there was too much prerogative in it, and in England it was judged to have too much of the democratic. The different and contrary reasons of dislike to my plan made me suspect that it was really the true medium, and I am stdl of opinion it would have been happy for both sides if it had been adopted. The colonies so un ted would have been strong enough to have defended themselves; there would then have been no need of troops from England ; of course the subsequent pretext for taxing America, and also the bloody contest it occasioned, would have been avoided.

It is singular that nearly a hundred years ago, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, looking at the difficulties then existing between the colonies, should have suggested a plan of union similar to that now proposed to us, and it is a strong proof of the wisdom of the plan now before this House, that seeing the difficulties under which the other colonies labored for want of a central power, just as we now see them, proposing this Confederation, he should have declared that if such a plan had been adopted then it would have prevented the severance of the British connection.

HON. MR. HOLTON—This scheme is looked upon as equal to independence.

MR. MORRIS—Is that the opinion of the honorable member? I think that far different views prevail in Britain. In 1858, when British Columbia was erected into a colony, it was found then that the Commons of Britain had no intention of surrendering the fair possessions of Britain on this continent, and Her Majesty was advised to say :—

Her Majesty hopes that the new colony in the Pacific may be but one step in the career of steady progress, by which Her Majesty’s dominions in North America may ultimately be peopled in an unbroken chain from the Atlantic to the Pacific by a loyal, industrious population of subjects of the British Crown.

(Hear, hear.) I say, sir, that there is no evidence whatever that the statesmen of Britain look upon this great scheme as involving the severance of our connection with the Empire ; but these utterances, as read here the other night by the honorable member from Montreal Centre, prove directly the contrary. If breaking off from the Mother

[Page 439]

Country were its tendency, then I, for one, would not support it, nor would it be supported by any of those honorable gentlemen who so strongly advocate it. I am not afraid to say that any government which dared to bring down such a measure would be hurled from their places. (Hear, hear.) But, Mr. SPEAKER, I have been led into the discussion of this question of connection with the Mother Country at much greater length than I had intended, by the suggestions of hon. members, and I will take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to a passage from a work I have already referred to, and in which we find an exposition of the policy which governed the administration of Lord JOHN RUSSELL. I find there an elaborate argument to prove that the colonies are an advantage to Britain, and that Britain of course is an advantage to the colonies ; and on the mere ground of material interest, if there were no other—if deeper and stronger ties did not exist as they do—I feel satisfied that this country would not be prepared to take the first step towards the severance of our connection with England, and the loss of that prestige and power which go with every British subject to every civilzed part of the globe, enabling him to say, like the old Roman, ” I am a British citizen.” EARL GREY states that :—

The possession of a number of steady and faithful allies, in various quarters of the globe, will surely be admitted to add greatly to the strength of any nation ; while no alliance between independent states can be so close and intimate as the connection which unites the colonies to the United Kingdom as parts of the Great Britith Empire. Nor ought it to be forgotten, that the power of a nation does not depend merely on the amount of physical force it can command, but rests, in no small degree, upon opinion and moral influence. In this respect British power would be diminished by the loss of our colonies, to a degree which it would be difficult to estimate.

Passing on a little, we find him saying :—

To the latter [i. e. the colonists] it is no doubt of far greater importance than to the former, because, while still forming comparatively small and weak communities, they enjoy, in return for their allegiance to the British Crown, all the security and consideration which belongs to them as members of one of the most powerful states in the world. No foreign power ventures to attack or interfere with the smallest of them, while every colonist carries with him to the remotest quarters of the globe which he may visit, in trading or other pursuits, that protection which the character of a British subject everywhere confers.

(Hear, hear.) But to view the subject in another aspect. I believe it will be found that all the conditions are combined in the scheme now before us, that are considered necessary for the formation on a permanent basis of a Federative union. I hold in my hand a book of some note on Representative Government, by JOHN STUART MILL, and I find that he lays down three conditions as applicable to the union of independent states, and which, by parity of reasoning, aie applicable to provinces which seek to have a closer alliance with each other, and also, thereby, a closer allianoe with the Mother Country. The conditions he lays down are first,—

That there should be a sufficient amount of mutual sympathy among the populations.

And he states that the sympathies which they should have in common should be—

Those of race, language, religion, and, above all, of political institutions, as conducing most to a feeling of identity of political interest.

HON MR. HOLTON-Hear , hear.

MR. MORRIS—We possess that strong tie of mutual sympathy in a high degree. We have the same systems of government, and the same political institutions. We are part of the same great Empire, and that is the real tie which will bind us together in future time. The second condition laid down is :—

That the separate states be not so powerful as to be able to rely for protection against foreign encroachment on their individual strength.

That is a condition which applies most forcibly in our case. (Hear, hear.) The third condition is :—

That there be not a very marked inequality of strength among the several contracting states.

HON. MR. DORION— Hear, hear.

MR. MORRIS—Allow me to proceed with the extract :—

They cannot, indeed, be exactly equal in resources; in all federations there will be a gradation of power among the members ; some will be more populous, rich, and civilized than others. There is a wide difference in wealth between New York and Rhode Island.

Just as there is between Canada and Prince Edward Island. I trust I have satisfied my hon. friend from Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION), that Mr. MILL’S views are entirely applicable to our position. (Hear, hear.) I now proceed to state my belief that we will find great advantages in the future, in

[Page 440]

the possession of a strong Central Government aud local or municipal parliaments, such as are proposed for our adoption. I believe the scheme will be found in fact and in practice—by its combination of the better features of the American system with those of the British Constitution—to have very great practical advantages. I shall read an extract from an article in the London Times, written in 1858, bearing on this subject, and which brings very clearly into view the distinction betwetn the system which has been proposed for our adoption, and that which has been adopted in the States. The great weakness of the American system has lain in the fact that the several states, on entering the union, claimed independent jurisdiction ; that they demitted to the Central Government certain poweis, and that they claimed equal and sovereign powers with regard to everything not so delegated and demitted. The weaknesses aud difficulties of that system have been avoide in the project now before us, and we have the central power with defined and sovereign powers, and the local parliaments with their defined and delegated powers, but subordinated to the central power. The article says :—

It is quite clear that the Federal Constitution of the United States of America form3 a precedent which cannot possibly be followed in its principles or details by the united colonies, so long as they remain part of the dominions ot the Imperial Crown. The principle of the American Federation is, that each is a sovereign state, which consents to delegate to a central authority a portion of its sovereign power, leaving the remainder which is not so delegated absolute and intact in its own hands. This is not the position of the colonies, each of which, instead of being an isolated sovereign state, is an integral part of the British Empire. They cannot delegate their sovereign authority to a central government, because thej do not possess the sovereign authority to delegate. The only alternative as it seems to us would be to adopt a course exactly the contrary of that which the United States adopted, and instead of takiug for their motto E Pluribus Unum, to invert it by saying In Uno Plura. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. HOLTON–What are you reading from?

MR . MORRIS—From the London Times, and I quote the article on account of the force of the remarks themselves, apart from the standing of the journal in which tbey appear :—

The first steps towards a Federation of the American Colonies would thus bs to form them all into one state, to give that state a completely organized government, and then to delegate to each of the colonies out of which that great state is formed, such powers of local government as may be thought necessary, reserving to the Central Government all such powers as are not expressly delegated. The Government of New Zealand forms a precedent well worthy the attention of those who are undeitaking this arduous negotiation.

And I cannot doubt that the framers of this Constitution have studied the precedent as well of the proposed Constitution of Australia, as that of the Constitution of New Zealand which has been in use for ten years past.

HON. MR. HOLTON—How does it work ?

MR. MORRIS—I have not been there— (laughter)—but I know that from a small population of 26,000 in all the New Zealand provinces when that Constitution was given, them, they have risen in ten years to a population of 250,000—indicating certainly growth and progress.

HON. MR. HOLTON–As we have grown in spite of that terribly bad union you wish to do away with.

MR. MORRIS—True, we have grown and progressed under the preseut union. But the hon. gentleman knows the heart-burnings we have had in the past. I have not been in Parliament so long as that honorable gentleman. But I recollect, when I first took a seat in thi s House, the state of excitement which then prevailed, and which cont inued, making government practically impossible. For we had governments maintaining themselves session after session by majorities of one or two — shewing that it was impossible for any government to conduct public affairs with that digni ty and success with which a government ought to conduct them. But, as I have stated, I think the Conference has been exceedingly happy in the plan they have submitted for our adoption A community of British free- men as we are, deliberately surveying our past as well as our present position, and look- ing forward to our future, we in effect resolve that we will adhere to the protection of the British Crown; that we will tell the GOLDWIN SMITH school–these who are crying out for cutting off the colonies– that we will cling to the old Mother Land –(hear, hear)–we desire to maintain our connection; we have no desire to withdraw

[Page 441]

ourselves from that protection we have so long enjoyed ; but we desire, while remain- ing under that protection, to do all that lies in our power for our self-defence, and for the development of all the great interests which Providence has committed to our trust; and we seek at the hands of the British Parliament such legislation as will enable us to accomplish these great ends for the whole of British America. (Hear, hear.) Why, what a domain do we possess ! We have over three millions of square miles of territory—large enough, certainly, for the expansion of the races which inhabit this country ; and our desire is, in the language of a late colonial minister—language which, I believe, well expresses the views and sentiments of the people of all these provinces— we would approach the British people, the British Government, and our Sovereign, with this language : ” We desire, by your aid, with your sanction and permission, to attempt to add another community of Christian freemen to those by which Great Britain confides the records of her Empire, not to pyramids and obelisks, but to states and communities, whose history will be written in her language.” That was the language of the Colonial Secretary, Sir BULWER LYTTON, when he proposed and carried out the setting off of a new colony on the Pacific shore— language certainly which indicated a firm and sure reliance in the power and efficacy of British institutions—that these institutions would be found capable of all the expansion requisite to meet the circumstances of a new country, and of any body of British freemen to whom the care of these institutions may be entrusted. (Hear, hear.) But I fear I have been tempted to forget the excellent example of my honorable friend from Lambton. (Cries of “No, no,” “go on.”) I desire very briefly to notice two or three immediate advantages which, in my judgment, would be derived from the consummation, under one central power with local municipal parliaments, of a union of the Canadas with the Maritime Provinces. Let us glance at what is their position, in relation to the great military power which is rising on the other side of the lines. Let us see what they are thinking of us there. One of their eminent statesmen suggested some years ago, that they should cultivate our acquaintance, while we were still ” incurious of our destiny.” But we have passed that state. We have become curious of our destiny, and arc seeking, as far as we can, to place it on a sure and certain basis. (Hear, hear.) Here is the view taken of our position by an American writer :—

They have now no comprehensive power that embraces the interests of all—that acts on the prosperity of the seacoast and interior —of commerce and agriculture where they are seemingly rivals—that gives uniformity in tariffs and taxes, and the encouragement that shall be entrusted to the fishing, mining and other great interests.

That is a view of the position of these provinces to which I commend to the attention of my hon. friends from Chateauguay and Hochelaga. I ask, is it not a correct view ? Is not that the position in which we have long been ? And I believe the result of this union will be to do away with that state of things. (Hear, hear.) I believe that when these colonies are combined, acting in concert, and quickened and invigorated by a feeling of mutual dependence and interest, the tendency will be to increase their wealth and manufactures, and general strength. And, sir, I am satisfied one of the great advantages cf this union will be found in this that wc will be raised above our sectionalisms, and come to feel and to act as the citizens of a great country, with destinies committed to us such as may well evoke the energies of a great people. But I desire to point out another practical advantage which, I think, is of no mean or slight moment ; and it is this :—Bound as we are to England, by the closest ties, and yet enjoying our own government, England is still compelled to act for us in all matters of an international nature. But, when we have for all these British provinces one General Government, able to take an oversight of the whole, and to attend to all their various interests, we will be able to represent to Britain on behalf of the whole, with a force and power we have never before been able to use, what these interests are ; we will be able to press them home on the attention of British statesmen in such a manner as will lead them to appreciate, and seek to protect those interests in their negotiations with foreign powers. I would allude, as an illustration of what I mean, to the Reciprocity Treaty, and I cannot refrain from reading a very striking extract from a report presented to the United States House of Representatives, in 1862, from the Committee of Commerce on the Reciprocity Treaty. I ask the attention

[Page 442]

of the House to this extract, as shewing how the United States have been able to take advantage of our isolated condition—ourwant of central power and authority—to gain for themselves advantages in the negotiation of that treaty, such as they could not have obtained or even sought, had we been in a position to present all the advantages, in negotiations with the United States, which Canada and the Maritime Provinces as a whole could present. Instead of the American statesmen having to negotiate with the separate governments of separate provinces, they would have to negotiate with the combined interests of British North America. I read this extract as a very striking one, and as entitled, on account of the source from which it comes, to some weight. In the report I have referred to. the natural results of the treaty and of its abrogation are thus spoken of :—

A great and mutually beneficial increase in our commerce with Canada was the natural and primary result of the treaty. Many causes of irritation were removed, and a large accession to our trade was acquired, through the treaty, with the Maritime Provinces. Arguments founded upon the results of the treaty as a whole, with the varioui provinces, have a valid and incontrovertible application against the unconditional and complete abrogation of the treaty, so far as it refers to provinces against which no complaint is made. The isolated and disconnected condition of the various governments of these provinces to each other, and the absence of their real responsibility to any common centre, are little understood. No fault is found with the acts of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These separate provinces and that of Canada have each a separate tariff and legislature, and neither of them is accountable to or for any other. An abrogation of the treaty, as a whole, would therefore be a breach of good faith towards the other provinces, even if it were expedient to adopt such a course towards Canada, but no advantages gained by the treaty with the Maritime Provinces can be admitted as offsets in favor of Canada. Each province made its own bargain, aud gave and received its separate equivalent.

(Hear, hear.) This is an instance of some moment, and I believe the same principles will be found to apply to all those questions on which, in the future history of this Confederation, it will be found necessary to confer with foreign governments, through the Mother Country. No longer detached and isolated from each other, we will bo able to present a combined front, and to urge the advantages which may be derived from the exhaustless fisheries of the Lower Provinces, as well as those afforded by Canada. (Hear, hear.) The defence question has been alluded to very frequently in this debate. I think there really cannot be a question that it would be for the advantage, Dot only of Britain, but of each one of these provinces, that on such subjects as the militia, and on all kindred questions, such as those relating to aliens, the observance of neutrality and like subjects, there should bo a general and uniform action ; that, seeing the action of any one of the colonies might involve the parent state in war, there should not be separate and distinct action, but one uniform action, on all that class of national and international subjects, throughout the whole of the British Provinces. I cannot help thinking that in practice an immense advantage would be derived from the introduction of such a system. It is not my forte, as that of some hon. gentlemen, to speak with regard to the defence question. There are other hon, members who understand that subject thoroughly, and will no doubt deal with it in a satisfactory manner. But I cannot help thinking that a uniform system of militia and marine for British North America would be powerfully felt in the history of this continent.

HON. MR. HOLTON—Are we to have a navy ?

MR. MORRIS—The hon. gentleman no doubt listened with interest to the speech of the President of the Council, and he might have learned from that, that we had a navy of which any country might be proud, devoted to the pursuits of honest industry, and which causes us to rank even in our infancy as the third maritime power in the world. And should the time of need come—as I trust it never may—I am satisfied that in the Gulf, on the St. Lawrence, and on the lakes, there would be enough of bold men and brave hearts to man that navy. (Hear, hear.) I would further remark, that under the proposed system, local interests would be much better cared for. I am satisfied the local interests of all the separate provinces would be better cared for, if their legislatures were divested of those large subjects of general interest which now absorb —and necessarily so—so much of our time and attention. (Hear, hear.) I will now only mention briefly one or two incidental advantages which I believe will bo found to accrue in the future from our position as

[Page 443]

united provinces of the British Empire. I will not at this late hour of the night, as I see the House is wearied—(cries of “No, no, ” ” Go on.” )—I will not quote any figures to shew the extent of intercolonial trade that will spring up with the Maritime Provinces and with the West India provinces. Some years ago there was, as mercantile men well know, a large trade conducted with the West India Islands, which, from various circumstances, has almost entirely ceased. I believe that, when the provinces are united, not only will a large trade spring up in those agricultural and other products which are now supplied to the Lower Provinces from the United States, but a trade will also be established with the West India Islands. Some time ago I took the trouble to look into the figures, and I was surprised to find how large a trade was conducted twenty-five years ago with those islands ; and I believe that , by carrying out this uniou, we will have facilities for establishing such commercial relations as will lead to the reopening of that valuable trade.

HON MR. HOLTON—You should bring in the West India Islands also.

MR. MORRIS–The hon. gentleman is very anxious to extend the Confederation. (Laughter.) I have known him for long years as a Federalist, and I believe he is only sorry that we do not go a little faster. I am satisfied that when Confederation is accomplished, he will be one of its most hearty supporters. (Hear, hear. ) I would now, Mr. SPEAKER, desire to quote a few words from a lecture delivered some years ago by Principal DAWSON, of Montreal, a well-known Nova Scotian, and who is distinguished for his thorough acquaintance with the Maritime Provinces, He says :—

Their progress in population and wealth is slow, in comparison with that of Western America, though equal to the average of that of the American Union, and more rapid than that of the older states. Their agriculture is rapidly improving, manufacturing and mining enterprises are extending themselves, arid railways are being built to connect them with the more inland parts of the continent. Like Great Britain, they possess important minerals in which the neighboring parts of the continent are deficient, and enjoy the utmost facilities for commercial pursuits. Ultimately, therefore, they must have with the United States, Canada and the fur countries, the same commercial relations that Britain maintains with western, central, and northern Europe. Above all, they form the great natural oceanic termination of the great valley of the St. Lawrence ; and although its commerce has hitherto, by the skill and industry of its neighbours, been drawn across the natural barrier which Providence has placed between it and the seaports of the United States, it must ultimately take its natural channel ; and then not only will the cities on the St. Lawrence be united by the strongest common interests, but they will be bound to Acadia by ties more close than any merely political union. The great thoroughfares to the rich lands and noble scenery of the west, and thence to the sea-breezes and salt-water of the Atlantic, and to the great seats of industry and art in the old world, will pass along the St. Lawrence, and through the Lower Provinces. The surplus agricultural produce of Canada will find its nearest consumers among the miners, shipwrights, mariners, and fishermen of Acadia ; and they will send back the treasures of their mines and of their sea. This ultimate fusion of all the populations extending along this great river, valley and estuary, and the establishment throughout its course of one of the principal streams of American commerce, seems in the nature of things inevitable ; and there is already a large field for the profitable employment of laborers and capital in accelerating this desirable result.

Such, I believe, Mr. SPEAKER, will be found to be the results of the steps now being taken. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, I would desire to call attention to the advantages we will enjoy in consequence of our being able to do something to secure the development of the immense tract of country lying beyond us—Central British North America, popularly known as the Great North West. If Canadians are to stand still and allow American energy and enterprise to press on as it is doing towards that country, the inevitable result mubt be that that great section of territory will be taken possession of by the citizens of the neighboring states. The question is one of great interest to the people of Canada. Years ago Canadian industry pushed its way up the valley of the Ottawa to the Great North West. In 1798 the North-West Company had in its employment not less than 12,000 persons ; and there is no reason in the world why the trade which was then carried on should not be reestablished between the North-West and Canada. No insuperable obstacles stand in the way. A practicable route exists which can be used by land and by water, and there is no reason why the necessary steps should not be taken to secure the development of the resources of that country and making them tributary to Canada. (Hear, hear.) I think it was a I wise foresight on the part of the gentlemen

[Page 444]

who prepared the plan now before us, that they laid this down as one of the principal features of the scheme—that they regarded the development of the North-West as necessary for the security and the promotion of the best interests of British North America. (Hear, hear.) If the House will bear with me, Mr. SPEAKER, I would ask hon. members to consider for a moment the extent of the territory there possessed. An American writer, who estimates it at 2,500,000 square miles, puts it in this way :—

How large is that? It is fifteen and a half times larger than the State of California; ahout thirty-eight times as large as the State of New York ; nearly twice as large as the thirty-one States of the Union ; and, if we omit the territory of Nebraska, as large as all our states and territories combined.

Between the settled portions of Canada and the Red River country, there are areas of arable land, ranging from 200,000 acres downwards, with facilities for opening up communication by land and water ; and I do not wonder that the late Sir GEORGE SIMPSON, while making his celebrated journey round the world, in passing from Montreal to Red River, and thence overland to the Pacific, should be struck with the extraordinary advantages of this country, and that on one occasion, when surveying the magnificent expanse of inland lake and river navigation, in the midst of a fertile country, he should exclaim—

Is it too much for the eye of philanthropy to discern through the vista of futurity this noble stream, connecting, as it does, the fertile shores of two spacious lakes, with crowded steamboats on its bosom, and populous towns on its borders ?

(Applause.) Sir GEORGE SIMPSON was not a man likely to be carried away by mere impulse; but viewing the prospect before him, bo could not refrain from breaking forth in the glowing language I have quoted. Then glance for a moment at the Saskatchewan, the Assiniboine and the Red River country, with the Red River settlement of 10,000 people, forming the nucleus for a future province—a nucleus around which immigration could be drawn so as to build up in that distant region a powerful section of the Confederation. I t is a country which embraces 360,000 square miles, and the Red River, Lake Winnipeg, and the Saskatchewan afford a navigable water line of 1,400 miles. And what is the character of the country ? On this point I would quote Professor HIND, who describes the valley of the Red River and a large portion of the country on its affluent, the Assiniboine, as ” a paradise of feitility.” He could speak of it in no other terms ” than of astonishment and admiration.” He adds that as an agricultural country the character of the soil could not be surpassed, affirming in proof of this assertion :—

That all kinds of farm produce common in Canada succeed admirably in the District of Assiniboia, and that as an agricultural country it will one day rank among the most distinguished.

Nor are there any difficulties of climate. If any hon. member will take the trouble to examine that excellant work in our library, Blodgett’s Climatology, he will find it stated as having been ” demonstrated that the climate of the North-West coast, and of the interior towards Lake Winnipeg, is quite the reverse of that experienced in the same latitude on the Atlantic, and is highly favorable to occupation and settlement.” (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, I desire now to place before the House the extent of the territory we possess in the Atlantic and Pacific Provinces. The Atlantic Provinces comprise Canada East, with an area of 201,989 square miles ; Canada West. 148,832; New Brunswick, 27,700 ; Nova Scotia, 18,746; Prince Edward Island, 2,134; Newfoundland, 35,913—together 435,314 square miles, to which add the territory of Labrador, 5,000 miles, making a grand total of 410,314 square miles, embracing a population of something like 4,000,000 of souls. The Pacific Provinces are British Columbia, containing 200,000 square miles, and Vancouver’s Island, with 12,000 square miles; and there is the territory of Hudson’s Bay (including Central British North America), with 2,700,000 square miles. (Hear, hear.) I desire now, sir, to thank the House for the patience with which hon. members have listened to my remarks. I rose at a late hour in the evening, and seeing that the House was wearied when I commenced, I did not wish to prolong the debate. I have thus shortened very much the remarks I intended to offer, and have treated only hurriedly and casually on many points which might have engaged further attention under other circumstances. I desire to express my confident opinion, before closing, that

[Page 445]

this great scheme is not one which ought to be factiously met. For if ever there was a plan submitted to any legislature which deserved to be treated with an avoidance of party feeling, it is this. (Hear, hear.) It is evident that in the House there are a large majority in favor of the plan, and while it is their duty to concede to the minority— what is the right of the minority—the opportunity of stating their objections to it , it is, on the other hand, an evidence of the strongest kind that the majority, in supporting this measure, believe they are doing the best for their country, and that it is a measure which meets the popular sanction and approval, when they avow by their own act their readiness to return to the people for their approval of the steps they have thought proper to take. (Hear, hear.) It is the duty of those who are in favor of the scheme—and I believe there are a very large majority who see in it advantages of the most substantial kind—I am firmly persuaded that it is a duty they owe to those who sent them to th’s House, it is a duty they owe to the country, it is a duty they owe to the great empire of which we form a part, to bring this scheme to a speedy consummation. I am glad, sir, in taking a retrospect of the three eventful years during which I have had a seat in this House, to reflect that on the first occasion I had the honor of addressing the House, in 1861, I declared myself in favor of an analogous scheme to that we are now discusing ; that I then expressed myself in favor of a general government of the British North American Provinces, with separate local legislatures, in the following terms, when speaking of the question of representation by population :—

He had confidence that men would be found able to meet the question fairly and to come down with a measure satisfactory to the country. It might be that that measure would be one which would bring together the different provinces of British North America into a union, formed on such a basis as would give to the people of each province the right to manage their own internal affairs, while at the same time the whole should provide for the management of matters of common concern, so as to secure the consolidation of the Britannic power on this continent.

I have held this opinion ever since I have had the capacity of thinking of the destiny of this country, and I would beg to be allowed further to quote language I used in 1859. Reviewing at that time, as I have done hurriedly to-night, the extent of our possessions, and the great advantages we would be able to obtain by the union now proposed to be carried into effect, I spoke as follows, in a lecture on the Hudson Bay and Pacific territory, delivered in Montreal :

With two powerful colonies on the Pacific, with another or more in the region between Canada and the Rocky Mountains, with a railway and a telegraph linking the Atlantic with the Pacific, and our inland and ocean channels of trade becoming a great thoroughfare of travel and of commerce, who can doubt of the reality and the accuracy of the vision which rises distinctly and clearly defined before us, as the great Britannic Empire of the North stands out in all its grandeur, and in all the brilliancy of its magnificent future ! Some hard matter-of-fact thinker, some keen utilitarian, some plodding man of business, may point the finger of scorn at us and deem all this but an empty shadow—but the fleeting fantasy of a dreamer. Be it so. Time is a worker of miracles—ay, and of sober realities, too ; but when we look east and west and north ; when we cause the goodly band of the north-men from Acadia, and Canada, and the North-West, and the Columbia, and the Britain of the Pacific, to defile before us, who are the masters of so vast a territory, of a heritage of such surpassing value ; and when we remember the rapid rise into greatness, as one of the powers of the earth, of the former American colonies, and look back over their progress, who can doubt of the future of these British Provinces, or of the entire and palpable reality of that vision which rises so grandly before us of this Great British Empire of the North— of that new English-speaking nation which will at one and no distant day people all this northern continent—a Russia, as has been well said, it may be, but yet an English Russia, with free institutions, with high civilization, and entire freedom of speech and thought—with its face to the south and its back to the pole, with its right and left resting on the Atlantic and the Pacific, and with the telegraph and the iron road connecting the two oceans?

(Applause.) Such, Mr. SPEAKER, is the vision which is present to myself and to many others who, like myself, whether in Upper or Lower Canada, are “to the manor born,” and whose all and whose destiny is here. I know and feel, and am assured that if the people of these British Provinces arc but true to themselves, and if the statesmen of Britain now act aright their part in this great crisis of our national history, this vision will be realized. We will have the pride to belong to a great country still attached to the Crown of Great Britain, but in which, notwithstanding, we shall have entire freedom of action and the blessings of responsible

[Page 446]

self-government ; and I am satisfied we will see as the results of this union all that we could possibly imagine as its fruits. ^Hear, hear.) Thanking the House for their kind attention, I have only to say further, that I believe the plan under which we seek to ask the Parliament of Great Britain to legislate for us is a wise and judicious ome, and which not only deserves, but which I am confident will receive, the hearty support of the representatives and of the people of this province, and to which I, for one, shall feel it my duty to give my warmest and most cordial sanction. (Loud cheers.)

MR. M. C. CAMERON moved the adjournment of the debate, which was agreed to.

FRIDAY, February 24, 1865.

MR. BURWELL, in resuming the debate upon Confederation, said—Mr. SPEAKER, before allowing a measure of this importance to go through the House, I feel it my duty to offer a few words upon it. The question of Federation is not a new one to my constituents. Ever since the Reform Convention in Toronto, in 1859, they have been quite familiar with it. At the general election, in 1861, in an address to my constituents, I stated that in case we should not be. able to get representation by population, I would be in favor of Federation of the two provinces of Canada, with a Local Government in each province and a Central Government to administer matters common to both, provision to be made to admit the Eastern Provinces and the North-West territory, should they see fit to enter the union, of course with the sanction of Great Britain. And at the last general election in 1863, I addressed them in precisely the same language. (Hear, hear.) The agitation for constitutional changes had been so general and persistent for a leDgth of time in Upper Canada, that it was impossible to all appearance to stave off much longer some action in reference to the difficulty. Efforts were made at different times to secure represention by population as a remedy, but without success. The nearest approach to a remedy for the difficulty under which Upper Canada labors, is, in my opinion, the resolutions of the Quebec Conference now before the House, and the question for consideration is whether thoy are acceptable to us and our people, or not. The principle of Federation, in my view, has been a great success on this continent. I think that, if we look to the history of the United States, it cannot bo denied that there, as a principle of free government, it has been successful ; and I doubt whether history records a like example, under ordinary circumstances, of such great success and prosperity. The present trouble in that country—the war now raging there—is not in my opinion attributable to the federative form of government adopted there. I attribute it to different causes altogether, which might have existed, had it been a monarchical or a despotic government that prevailed. Slavery existed there and was the cause of the war. It was opposed to the spirit of the age, and had to be eradicated. (Hear, hear.) There were, no doubt, other causes which had some influence ia bringing it about; such, for instance, as the desire of the North for a high protective tariff to encourage its domestic manufactures, and the opposing interest of the South in favor of free trade, so that, manufacturing nothing itself, it might have all the benefit of cheap importations. These, sir, I conceive were the two great causes of the difficulty in the United States. Now, in forming a Federal Government in these provinces, I think we should look for an example to a people who are similar to us in situation, habits and customs. I find that example in the people of the United States. (Hear, hear.) My honorable friend from Lambton cited the example of a great many other countries, but they were not not perhaps accustomed so much to free government as the United States ; for it was not Federation that first gave them liberty, the old colonies of New England enjoyiog a largo share of liberty long before the adoption of Federal Government by them. (Hear, hear.) The plan proposed by the Conference at Quebec is, in my opinion, too restrictive, as regards the power of the Local Legislatures. It gives too much power to the General Government. I am one of those, sir, who believe that the appointment of the deputy or lieutenant governors should not be in the gift of the General Government, but that they should be elected by the people. (Hear, hear.) I believe, too, that the members of the Legislative Council should be elected by the people. (Hear, hear.) There is no element in this country—no class in this country, nor do I think it possible to create a class—the counterpart of

[Page 447]

the class that composes the House of Lords in England. The British Government is undoubtedly the best-balanced government in the world ; but we cannot exactly copy tho system here, because of the absence of the class to which I have referred. The nearest approach that we can have to the House of Lords is, in my opinion, an elective Legislative Council, the members of which shall hold office for an extended period. My hon. friend from Lambton, in the very excellent speech he made to the House yesterday, said that if both Houses were made elective their circumstances and powers would be so similar that neither would be a check upon the other; but I contend that if wo had an elective Upper House, with the members representing larger constituencies and elected fora longer period than the members of the Lower House, it would be less liable to be influenced by every change of public opinion, and conservative enough in its character to he a wholesome check upon rash and hasty legislation. (Hear, hear.) But although the scheme now proposed does not make these provisions, there are many things in it that I can approve of. That the General Government should have control over many matters committed to it by the scheme is, I think, quite right. The customs is a branch of the administration that has ramifications througkout the whole country, and it and the appointments connected with it should be in the hands of the General Government. So, too, with regard to the post office, which affects the whole country, and should be under the same control. The militia and all matters connected with the defence of the country should also be placed under the control of the Central Government; and the scheme would bo defective if it were otherwise. I think there is no question more important now to us than that of defence. A military spirit seems to have seiaed the people all over the continent, and promises to control their action for a long time. I think it wise, therefore, that provision should be made by which the General Government can put the country into a state of preparation for whatever may occur. It is well also, in my opinion, that the judges should be appointed by that government. I like to see an independent judiciary, and believe that this will be secured to us by the mode proposed in these resolutions. (Hear, hear.) It is hardly necessary for me to make allusion to the local governments ; there are so many propositions connected with them, and so little is known of what their constitution will be, that it is hardly possible indeed for me to refer to them. I would like to be informed as to their character and authority before speaking of them. My opinion is, that they should have certain poweis defined in written constitutions, so that beyond these powers they would have no right to legislate, and if they did, that their legislation should be set aside and rendered null and void by the superior courts. I believe that the British Constitution is of that elastic character that the institutions which exist under it can be made most popular and still work well. I think history has proved this to be the case. Under it we have kept sacred the great principle of responsible government which we now enjoy, and under which ministers of the Crown hold seats in and are responsible to the Legislature. Well, we want no change in that principle ; for I think it is the greatest safeguard to liberty, not only in England, but the world. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the executive head ot the General Government, appointment by the Crown as at present is the only mode that is desirable. It will not do to tamper with or change this provision of our government ; for if we become detached from and cease to be a dependency of the British Crown, what do we become ? We must necessarily become independent, and when that state of political existence is reached, we know not what will follow. (Hear, hear.) The question may be asked, is the Constitution foreshadowed in these resolutions such as can be accepted by tho people of this country ? Is there a possibility, if it be defective, of bettering or amending it ? I think that in many of its details it has a great deal that is good ; and if, in portions where it is desirable, it cannot be amended, I think, nevertheless, that the people of this country would hardly be justified in rejecting it. (Hear,hear.) There is no doubt that all history shows that nothing in the way of government is ever considered a finality. Changes are continually going on in all forms of government The political history of our own country even is proof of this fact. At the time of the union of these provinces, the members of the Legislative Council were appointed by the Crown, but since then there has been a change, and they are now elected by the people. At that time, too, the wardens of

[Page 448]

our district councils were appointed by the Crown ; that principle was subsequently changed, and they are now elected by the popular vote. It is impossible, sir, to take this question of Confederation into consideration,without also taking into account the question of the Intercolonial Railway. I have on several occasions spoken against the construction of that road ac the expense of Canada. I never could see that any advantage would be derived from it, unless in a military point of view; and as a military work I did not think it worth the large sum it would cost. But if commercial advantages could be pointed out equivalent to the cost of it, then I admit its construction might become a subject of consideration. (Hear, hear.) I think that free intercourse and free trade with 800,000 of our fellow-subjects in the Lower Provinces are not light and unimportant considerations. They are, in my opinion, something like an equivalent for the expenditure—(hear, hear)—and if there are no graver difficulties than the building of this road in the scheme of the Quebec Conference, then they may all be easily surmounted. (Hear, hear.) That there will be great expense in the construction of the road, and in connection with Confederation, admits scarcely of a doubt. But we have orne to a period in our history when, for various reasons, expense has become necessary. We must have some change in our Constitution, and whether it be attended by additional expense or not, it is indispensable in order to remove the evils under which the country has so long labored. (Hear, hear.)

MR. M. C. CAMERON said — Mr. SPEAKER, I approach the discussion of this subject in no degree of diffidence or temerity, because I apprehend that it signifies very little what I or any other hon. member may say, it will receive but little attention, so far as tending to change in the slightest degree the opinions that hon. members may have in reference to the project of Confederation. (Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, though no weight may attach to anything that I may say, I feel it my duty to the constituency that I represent, and to the province at large, to enter my protest against the passage of this resolution in its present shape. (Hear, hear.) I am in favor of a union of the provinces, but it must be such a union as will benefit and protect the interests of the provinces at large ; and I feel that those interests cannot be protected and benefited if we are going iuto the extravagances that must necessarily follow such a union as is now contemplated. (Hear, hear.) The question has been considered in its political, in its commercial, in its defensive or military aspects, and in its sectional aspects, and very little that can be said by any hon. gentleman now will be considered new ; and he who speaks at this stage of the discussion will speak at a disadvantage, because he can say very little that is new. He may speak on those matters that have been discussed in new language, and so make some little change, but as for the material positions, they have been already discussed, and by honorable gentlemen very ably discussed. I understand that the position which the Government of this country assumes, in introducing this measure with the haste in which they are doing it, declining to allow the people to have anything to say upon it, except through their representatives, who were not sent here to vote on any such measure as this, is that this country had arrived at such a stage that it was impossible for the affairs of the Government to be carried on, unless some change took place, and that of a radical character. In that assertion I do not agree. I dissent from it entirely, and I feel that it was not the necessities of this country that have brought about these resolutions, but that it was the factious conduct of honorable gentlemen on the floor of this House. If that factious conduct had not been persevered in, there would have been no necessity for the consideration that we are now undertaking. (Hear, hear.) I feel that I am making a statement the correctness of which cannot be denied; and I shall refer to the language of the Hon. President of the Council, even since this matter has been under consideration, to establish it. (Hear, hear.) I t has been stated by him that the affairs of this country had come to a dead-lock. I t has been stated that we were drifting into inevitable ruin ; that our debt was so fast increasing, that it was absolutely impossible to stem the torrent, or close the flood-gates of the treasury that that had been opened by the mismanagement of hon. gentlemen sitting alongside of the President of the Council at the present time. Understand me : I am not charging those hon. gentlemen with extravagance; I am simply referring to the language used by the Honorable President of the Council. But on a recent occasion he spoke of this union as a matter to be proud of, and

[Page 449]

said that every one of the provinces that was entering into the union would enter it with a surplus of revenue, and were, therefore, not obliged to go into it from necessity; that they did not enter into the partnership as a bankrupt concern, but, on the contrary, would commence business in a most prosperous condition. Now, if that were the case, what is the necessity for this change—a change that will render so much more extravagance necessary to carry on the government, even under the guidance of the Hon. the President ofthe Council ? It was said that the people of the section of the province to which I belong had become satisfied that there was extravagance in the Government, that the people of Lower Canada were absorbing too large a proportion of the revenue that was paid by the people of Upper Canada. It was asserted that the people of Upper Canada were paying seven-tenths ofthe whole revenue of the country ; that we had not sufficient representation in Parliament ; and that there was ruin staring us in the face, because we had not our proper voice in the Legislature, by means of which we might resist the extravagance of Lower Canadians. It was said that for every appropriation made for Upper Canada, a corresponding one had to be made for Lower Canada, and thereby the people of Upper Canada were paying more than their fair share into the common purse of the country. Taking that view of the case, I would ask the Honorable President of the Council, who is so warm in advocating these resolutions, how much the people of Upper Canada will be called upon to pay more than Lower Canada in the new scheme ? I understand that Lower is to receive $888,- 531 from the Federal Government. As Upper Canada has been paying two-thirds, nay, as much as seven-tenths into the general revenue, how much are we granting to Lower Canada out of the pockets of the people of Upper Canada towards paying the expenses of managing their local affairs—-affairs of which we in the Upper Province will have not one word to say ? By the arrangement that is to be entered into, suppose that the Lower Provinces constitute about one-fifth of the whole—which, I presume, is all that they will contribute. This would make $177,706. Upper Canada, on the principle of paying two-thirds, would contribute $473,884, and Lower Canada only $236,941. For the support of the Local Government of Lower Canada from the Federal exchequer, Upper Canada would, therefore, have to pay no less a sum than $473,884, which is nearly double the amount that Lower Canada itself will pay for the same purpose. The amount that Upper Canada will have to pay in excess of Lower Canada, for exclusively Lower Canada purposes, is $175,859. (Hear, hear.) Now that is the position in which that branch of the question stands ; but it is said that we are to become a great people, third, I think, in rank of the nations of the earth. It is said that, because we unite with a people who have less than a million of inhabitants, while we have nearly two and a half millions, we are to become this vast nation, and to hold a position in the world above that of all nations except three on the face of the globe. Well, it does not strike me that the mere fact of our joining the Lower Provinces to this province by the Intercolonial Railway is going to give us that position. We need a vast population as well as a vast country to acquire that greatness. It is said that we will be stronger by this union; that we will be better able to protect ourselves in the event of hostilities breaking out between this country and the United States. But is that true ? (Cries of ” Yes, yes,” and ” No, no.”) Are we to become at once an independent nation that will make treaties with foreign nations, orare we still tobe dependent on the British Crown—a dependency that I hope will never be done away with ? (Hear, hear.) Let it be understood that I am not to be dazzled by those ideas of greatness that are being held out to us. We can never be so great in any way as we can by remaining a dependency of the British Crown. Every one of these provinces is true and faithful in its allegiance to the British Crown, and if that power makes war, each will do all that lies in its power to defend its own territory and assist the Mother Country. But how do we gain strength from the scheme ? We obtain many hundreds of miles of additional frontier, and we do not get men in proportion. (Hear, hear.) We shall build a railway that cannot possibly be of much use to us, but that will be subject to destruction by the enemy, and will be indefensible and difficult to keep open. The armies that will be brought against us by the United States will be too great to be resisted along the entire frontier, and no ordinary force will be sufficient to protect so long a line of communication. I therefore argue that the

[Page 450]

Confederation will not make us a stronger or a greater people than before. Then it is said that in our present exigencies we must look out for other markets for our produce than those we have been depending upon ; that we must endeavor to become a manufacturing country, obtaining minerals from the Lower Provinces and sending them our produce in return. That is all very fine, but it can be accomplished without entering into au extravagantly expensive arrangement such as this is. We could have a legislative union with one Legislature or Central Government, that would manage all our affairs on a scale as economical as the affairs of the province of Canada have been conducted; but when you provide for a General Government, and then for a Local Government in each province besides, it stands to reason that the expenditure must be far in excess of that which would result from having a single legislature. The Hon. President of the Council has said that he is not, although all his other colleagues who have spoken on the floor of the House have admitted that they are, in favor of a legislative union, if this union could be accomplished. The Hon. President of the Council thinks, perhaps, that this would be too damaging an admssion, so he says ; ” I would not have a legislative union if I could. There is nothing but a Federal union for me, because our country is so extensive that it would be impossible to control it with a Legislature sitting at Ottawa.” Now, is this so ? Would four or five hundred additional miles of territory make all the difference ?

HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. gentleman is mistaken. I never used any such expression.

MR. M.C. CAMERON—Of course it is very unpleasant to have to say it, but my ears must have deceived me very grossly indeed, if the hon. gentleman did not assert in the hearing of persons in this House, when delivering his address on these resolutions, that he preferred a Federal union, and assigned as a reason for his preference the extent of the country.

HON. MR. BROWN—The hon. gentleman will see that this is a very different thing from the statement he previously made. What I did say was this, that it would be exceedingly inconvenient to manage the local affairs of so widely extended a country. I did not say that we could not exercise a general control over the country. I said that it was impossible to attend to the mere parish affairs of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island,- New Brunswick and the North-West. That is what I said.

MR. M. C. CAMERON—Well, one reason assigned by the hon. gentleman for a Federal union was that in attending to the private business of the Lower Provinces, under a legislative union, we would be kept sitting at Ottawa for nine months of the year. It is, however, the case that the affairs of United Canada can be transacted in a period of three or four months, while according to the Hon. the President of the Council, the affairs of the federated provinces would not be attended to in less than nine months in consequence of the private business which would be added to the legislation from a people numbering only seven or eight hundred thousand. (Hear, hear.) The business of two and a half millions can be disposed of in three months, whilst it is alleged that the business brought by the addition of seven or eight hundred thousand more would prolong the sessions of Parliament by six months. (Hear, hear.) I think that the position which the hon. gentleman took in reference to that, is just as untenable as his position that a Legislative union in itself would not be better than a Federal uuion. Now, it is said that our commercial affairs will be very much advanced by this arrangement. It is said that the Reciprocity treaty is going to be abrogated. No doubt we have received notice of it. It is also said that it is possible — although the Hon. President of the Council does not think it is so—that the bonded system is to be done away with between Canada and the United States, and that, therefore, we would have no means of reaching the Atlantic except during the summer months of the year, in consequence of which it is very desirable that this great work of the Intercolonial Railway should be accomplibhed, and that this union of the provinces should take place. I presume it is a well understood fact that a people will always find some channel into which to direct their energies—that there will be a channel for their commerce—that there will be a channel for their produce. Now, it the Reciprocity treaty is abrogated, and if the bonded system is put an end to, it will be done long before the Intercolonial Railway can be established, and we must then remain suffering for a number of years until

[Page 451]

that work is accomplished and before we get communication with the Lower Provinces, except through the medium of the St. Lawrence, which is only accessible during the summer time. Then it would be absolutely necessary for us to resort to some other means, to devise some other scheme, by which we might not allow the affairs of these provinces, in the meantime, to be injured, to lag and to suffer; and when our commerce flows in such new channel, it will not be easy to divert it. But is it not the fact that we have been in existence a number of years as a colony here ? Is it not the fact, too, that we have been far removed from the sea? Is it not the fact, that when Upper Canada was subject to duties to Lower Canada, and when we had no connection with the United States except by paying high restrictive duties, Upper Canada progressed rapidly and became a large and prosperous province ? Did we then complain with all these restrictions weighing upon us ? Por my part, I have yet to see, if the reciprocity treaty is put an end to and if the bonding system is discontinued, that we would be unable to find means by which the energies of the people of this country would find development. We would still go on in material prosperity, if we fouiid hon. gentlemen forgetting their faction, and allowing the wheels of government to progress without being unnecessarily impeded. (Hear, hear.) In one view of the case, if I were satisfied that the people of this country fully approved of the scheme, I would give it my support, although I disapprove of it in its present shape. But I cannot understand why those hon. gentlemen who have professed, at all events heretofore, to be the advocates of the rights and liberties of the people, should so far forget those rights and liberties as to set them aside, and allow half a dozen gentlemen in this province to combine with a number of gentlemen from the Lower Provinces to completely ignore and set aside the views of those they profess to represent. (Hear, hear.) It has been said that the people of this country have fully endorsed and approved of his measure. But where is the evidence of it ? It has been asserted that this is a matter which was under consideration in the year 1S58, and that it has been mooted at different times since. But this very fact shews that it has never taken a deep hold on the people, and certain it is that it has never been made a question up to this time at the polls. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, the people have not pronounced an opinion upon it. And I mean to say this, that if the people understood it was going to cost so much more than the present form of government, they would not be inclined to approve and to accept it as readily as hon. gentlemen seem to think. I hold that, if the hon. gentlemen who occupy the Treasury benches were really sincere in their views of the benefits to result from this measure, they would allow the question to go to the people for the fullest consideration. In 1841 the people of this country obtained responsible government, and it was declared to them then that they should have a controlling voice in the affairs of the country— that no important change, in fact, should take place without their having an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. And yet hon. gentlemen now disclaim the right of appeal to the people, and arrogate to themselves an amount of wisdom to suppose that the tens of thousands of people of this province have not the capacity to understand ihe meaning or the magnitude of this question. They exclude from these men the right of pronouncing an opinion ; and is it not singular that it is the people of the province of Canada who are treated in this way ? It is not so in the Lower Provinces. New Brunswick, for instance, dissolves its House, and goes to the people. And why should New Brunswick do that which is denied to Canada? Why should the people of New Brunswick be treated as more able and more capable of understanding and pronouncing an intelligent opinion than the people of Canada? (Hear, hear.) The people of Canada, I apprehend, are just as capable of comprehending a measure of this importance as the people of New Brunswick, and they ought to have the same opportunity of pronouncing upon it. (Hear, hear.) The Honorable President of the Council has said that a hostile feeling had arisen between both sections of the province to such a degree, that the government and legislation of the country had almost come to a dead stand. Now, was there such a feeling of hostility existing between the people of the different provinces? Was such the fact? Did honorable gentlemen of French extraction meet honorable gentlemen of British extraction upon the floor of this House with any feeliug of hostility whatever ? Did we not meet as

[Page 452]

friends ? They considered that they had peculiar interests to serve, and we considered that we had a larger population than they, and which population had not a sufficient representation on the floor of this House, and we sought a change in order to give them the representation to which they were entitled. The President of the Council claims that he has accomplished a great work in gaining for the people of Upper Canada that representation on the floor of Parliament. Now, I beg to join issue with him on that point. I assert that, instead of having gained for the Upper Province that boon, he has arrayed thirty additional votes against Upper Canada. He makes Upper Canada stand not as she is now, but with thirty additional voices to contend against. (Hear, hear.) We shall pay in the same proportion, in fact, that we paid before to the whole revenue of the country. Let us see if I am singular in this view—let us see whether the gentlemen who compose the governments in the Lower Provinces do not entertain the same opinion. Hon. Mr. TILLEY made this representation in a speech which he delivered on the 17th November last :—

So close is the contest between parties in the Canadian Legislature, that even the five Prince Edward Island members by their vote could turn victory on whatever side they chose, and have the game entirely in their own hands. Suppose that Upper Canada should attempt to carry out schemes for her own aggrandizement in the west, could she, with her eighty-two representatives, successfully oppose the sixty-five of Lower Canada and the forty-seven of the Lower Provinces, whose interests would be identical ? Certainly not ; and she would not attempt it.

MR. H. MACKENZIE—What has that to do with representation by population ?

MR. M. C. CAMERON- , ” What has that to do with representation by population ?” asks the hon. gentleman. Representation by population was agitated, so far as Upper Canada is concerned, because we are paying so large a proportion of the revenue of the country ; and should the Lower Provinces have a corresponding voice, we should still pay the same proportion of revenue—instead, in fact, of standing on an equality, we would have thirty voices more to contend against. (Hear, hear.) Now, let us see whether, in another point of view, it is going to benefit us. It is represented by this same gentleman in the Lower Provinces that, when this change takes place, thty will be relieved from the burdens they now bear ; because, as asserted in the speech to which I have referred, they have paid $3.20 per head of taxes ; and, when the change was brought about, tbey would only pay $2.75—that is, they would be gainers by the arrangement by 45 cents a head. Is that so, or is it not so ? If not, then there is dishonesty at the bottom of this scheme, when it requires arguments of that kind to further it. If it is so, then these gentlemen who assert that they are looking out for the interest and the advantage of Canada, are proving traitors to the trust reposed in them, are doing a wrong to their country, and are doing that for the sake of their own self-aggrandizement.

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Allow me to make a remark. A little while ago the honorable gentleman quoted from a speech of Hon. Mr. TILLEY, in which that gentleman supposed the case, that on some evil day Upper Canada, actuated by selfish motives, would endeavor to obtain the passing of some measure that would be conducive to her exclusive aggrandizement. ” In that event,” said Hon. Mr. TILLEY, addressing himself to his people below, with the view of meeting that hypothetical case, “you will have the sixty-five members from Lower Canada and the forty-seven from below, to unite in resisting any attempt of the kind.” On that account the honorable member for North Ontario has stated that he is opposed to this scheme of Federation. He prefers a legislative union ; but of course with a legislative union there would be the same ratio of representation, and his opposition, on this particular ground, ought to apply to the one system as much as to the other.

MR. CAMERON—-I will give you a practical illustration of how this may affect our interest. It is a part of this scheme, or ought to have been a part of it, that the opening up of the North-West should be included in it ; that improvements should be made in that direction so that we might have the advantage of the vast mineral wealth which exists there, and of the great stretch of territory available for agricultural purposes as well. But this is not given to us now. The Intercolonial Railway is made a portion of this scheme. It is made, so to speak, a part of the Constitution—a necessity without which the scheme cannot go on. Now, suppose we ask in the Federal Legislature for the improvement of the North-West, because we consider it for our interest to have that territory opened up and improved,

[Page 453]

shall we not find a verification of the language of this gentleman—sixty-five members from Lower Canada and forty-seven from the Lower Provinces, whose interests are identical, will be united against us, and we will not be able to accomplish a work of that kind. (Hear, hear.) In considering a question of this nature—in considering a change of the Constitution—I presume every man ought to have the interest of the whole at heart, and not the interests merely of individual parts—that every man from the Lower Provinces who seeks this union should desire it, not because it is going to advantage the Lower Provinces merely, but because it is going to advantage Canada as well. The argument should be, that it is to be for the advantage of the whole. It should not be an argument that $2.75 is the sum that will be paid by the Lower Provinces under the arrangement, when they are paying now $3.20 a head to the public revenue. Arguments of that kind should not be used to show that an advantage is gained by one portion of the proposed Confederation at the expense of another ; for example, that the subsidy obtained by the Lower Provinces from the Federal Government will be so great, that it will meet all their expenditures, and leave them $34,000 the gainers. (Hear, hear.) Now, I ask, are we contributing to that in the same proportion that we are contributing to the subsidy to Lower Canada —and is that honorable gentleman who has taken the advocacy of Upper Canadian interests so peculiarly under his own control, acting for the interests of Upper Canada when he consents to an arrangement of this kind ? (Hear, hear.) The President of the Council has used this language with reference to the matter. He says :—” It is not a question of interest, or mere commercial advantage ; no, it is an effort to establish a new empire in British North America.” That is the honorable gentleman’s statement. But, for my own part, I think it would be better to get out of the debt which now burdens us,—to reduce the expenses the people are suffering from,—to lighten the taxation we are laboring under—than to endeavor to establish an empire such as my honorable friend the President of the Council speaks of. It would be much better for us to endeavor to reduce our expenditure, and live within our means, than to attempt to establish a new empire ; because, unless he means by that that we are going to establish our independence, we are already, as subjects of the British Crown, sharers in all the glories of the British nation. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman also said— and this was the argument he addressed to the House as a reason why his friends from Upper Canada should unite with him in supporting this scheme—” We complained, that immense sums were taken from the public chest and applied to local purposes, in Lower Canada, from which we of Upper Canada derived no advantage.” Now I ask, have we ever seen an attempt made by Lower Canada to obtain so great a subsidy as $175,000 a year in perpetuity ? And yet, that is what the hon. gentleman, by this scheme, actually concedes to them, apart from the greater expenditure we will have to pay in connection with the administration of the general affairs of the whole Confederation. Let us see what the seventeen additional representatives we of Upper Canada are to obtain, will cost us. I make it that for each representative we will have to pay only $16,397 per annum. I make that out in this way. The contribution by the Lower Provinces to the General Government is $1,929,272. The contribution of Lower Canada is $2,208,035. The contribution of Upper Canada is $4,416,072. I am speaking now of the contributions that go to meet the expenditure of the Federal Government. The contribution of Upper Canada is thus in excess of the Lower Provinces, $2,486,800 ; in excess of Lower Canada, $2,208,037; and in excess of both, $278,765, which, divided by 17, will give $16,397 as the cost of each additional member we are getting.

HON. J.S. MACDONALD—Hear, hear.

MR. CAMERON—Well, this matter is not left to us either, as the representatives of the people, to pronounce an opinion upon it. We are to take the scheme as a whole. We are not to be allowed to amend it in any particular. But the Government come down and tell us, that in consequence of the union of political parties which has taken place, they feel themselves so strong that they can say to the representatives of the people : ” Just take this, or you shall have nothing, and revert back to inevitable ruin.” That is the position in which they put us. Yet, if the statement made by the Hon. Finance Minister is correct, our revenue has increased, so that we have a surplus of $872,000, after making up the deficiency of the previous year. He tells us the revenue of Canada has increased by a million and a half of dollars ; and that the revenues of New Brunswick and Nova

[Page 454]

Scotia have increased $100,000 each—being an increase for the whole provinces of 81,700,000. Would we then revert back to ruin, if these statements be correct ? If our income has really increased so much as has been represented, would we, if we remain as wo are, go back to ruin ? (Hear, hear.) It has been said that there has been a deadlock in the affairs of the country for a considerable length of time ; but I think the province has not been going to ruin, if it has been getting an increase of revenue to the extent of a million and a half, notwithstanding that dead lock. I am not sure but the province would do better if this House were closed up for ten years and hon. members sent about their business. (Ironical ministerial cheers.) Then it has been said that we are bound to accept this scheme, if we cannot show some better means of getting out of our difficulties. With reference to that, I would say that if any of those hon. gentlemen were really the patriots they represent themselves to be, let them exemplify the virtue of resignation—-let them leave their places in the front ranks of the ministerial benches, and let new men be introduced to take their places—let them do this, and I have no hesitation in saying that parties in this country are not so bitterly hostile but a government or any number of governments could be formed to carry on the affairs of the country. (Hear, hear.) Hon. gentlemen who have been in the front of the political affairs of this country for years back, have fancied that the whole of the political wisdom of the country was centred in them, and that this country must of necessity go to ruin, if tbey were not at the helm ot affairs. This, I think, is claiming too much. However, I do not mean to say that they are not exceedingly able men. But I would say that the Attorney General East, and his colleague the Attorney Genral for Upper Canada, who have been so much opposed and vilified by the honorable gentlemen who are now associated with them in the Government, must have felt exceedingly gratified when they found that after all the charges of corruption which had been brought against them, these pure patriots from our section of the country were willing to place themselves side by side with them to carry on the affairs of the country. (Hear, hear.) I t was represented by the Honorable Provincial Secretary in a political contest that he and I had together—and which ?—when we were in the field, we carried on pretty pleasantly, notwithstanding there had been some rather sharp passages at arms on the floor of this House between us — that honorable gentleman, in excusing himself before the electors for the change he had made in his views on the question of representation by population, said the financial crisis of the country had become so much more imminent than the constitutional, that it was absolutely necessary to take office—in fact, to join the gentlemen of Lower Canada, who made representation by population a close question. We must look after the purse-strings, he said, or the country will go to ruin. It is very gratifying now to find that honorable gentleman now in a position in which he is going to create so much larger a debt than before. It is quite gratifying to find him now seated on the Treasury benches advocating the additional burdens, to the extent of millions of dollars, that will be cast upon us by this union and the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. At one time, and it was not long since, this country was agitated from one end to the other with the statement that the public debt was so great as to amount to a mortgage of $25 upon every cleared acre of land in the province, and now those who made this statement wish to add millions more to the debt by this railway, and to add as it were $5 more to the debt per head of every man in the land. (Hear, hear.) Now, if the Honorable Provincial Secretary was sincere in his argument that retrenchment was necessavy to save us from ruin, how can he reconcile it with his sense of duty and propriety that he should be found advocating this vast extravagance at this time, when there is no imminent danger to call for it, but, on the contrary, a degree of prosperity that should make us exceedingly careful how we adopt experimental changes. I find honorable gentlemen complaining of the incapacity of our railways to meet the commercial requirements made upon them— to do the business of the country properly. It is true the crops arc not so abundant as they were ; no foresight or management will ensure us a plentiful harvest, but still, even according to these honorable gentlemen, the trade of the province is growing, and their statements altogether in this respect do not show that we are going to ruin. A people who are increasing in population as we are increasing, who are growing in wealth as we are, and who, over and above all our expenditure, have a million and a half surplus revenue, are not rushing to ruin in the manner that has

[Page 455]

been represented by some honorable gentlemen. I say, then, that we ought not to hasten on a change that may prove injurious tous, without asking the peopie themselves whether they approve of it or not. (Hear, hear.) So anxious are the honorable gentlemen on the Treasury benches to have it carried, that they even quarrel amongst themselves as to the parentage of the scheme ; and the House was amused the other day when the Hon. President of the Council took the Hon. Attorney General West to task because that honorable gentleman presumed to say that it was his Government that had first brought the matter up. (Laughter.) They appear to take great pride in the child, but this country of ours, the mother of the bantling, is travailing in agony from fear of the burdens that these honorable gentlemen arc endeavoring to put upon it. (Hear, hear.) The Honorable Minister of Agriculture the other evening called our attention to the affairs that are occurring in the United States, and spoke of the army of contractors and tax-gatherers that was springing up there. He said that the cry of ” Tax, tax, tax!” came up perpetually from the tax-gatherers, and the cry of ” Money, money, money!” from the hordes of contractors who are fattening upon the miseries of the people ; and while he was talking of the message conveyed to us in the sound of every gun fired in the United States, he may have thought perhaps that in the formation of this union and the building of this Intercolonial Railway, we too shall hear the cries of “Tax, tax, tax! money, money, money !” in the same way. (Hear, hear.) It is said again, in reference to this scheme, that every line of it shows a compromise. The Hon. Minister of Agriculture, if I remember right, used an expression of that kind. But I would ask the President of the Council and those who with him have been advocating the interests of Upper Canada, where is there any concession to Upper Canada in it ? If they can point out one solitary instance, with the exception of the seventeen additional members given to the west, where anything has been conceded to that section, then I will say the scheme is deserving of my support. But I hold that the additional number of representatives given to Upper Canada is no boon or concession. The differences between the two provinces of Canada were not merely national differences, but were of a sectional character. I t was the West arrayed against the east, rather than nationality against nationality, for was it not a fact that the sixteen English-speaking members from Lower Canada united themselves with the French-Canadian majority, and not with the majority of their own race in Upper Canada ? The English members from Central Canada did the same ; and I contend, therefore, that the differences we had were sectional in their nature, and that we had no national differences that rendered a change at this time necessary. Are we going to get rid of these sectional differences by this scheme ? Will not the thirty additional members called into this legislature from the east unite with the Lower Canadian majority, and will not the same preponderance of influence he cast against Upper Canada as before ? (Hear, hear.) Now, if a union of free people is to be brought about, it should be because the people desire it and feel that it is advantageous on the whole ; and I am quite satisfied that if, in these provinces, we are to have a union that will confer any advantage upon us, it ought to be a Legislative and not a Federal union. We should feel that if we are to be united, it ought to be in fact as well as in name ; that we ought to be one people, and not separated from each other by sections ; that if we go into a union, it ought to be such a union as would make us one people ; and that when a state of things arises favorable to such a union, we will have an opportunity of forming a union that will give us strength and protect our interests in all time to come. The Honorable President of the Council thinks that we should enter the union proposed for the purpose of protecting and defending ourselves. I would like to know of that honorable gentleman if he thinks that we, with a population of two millions and a half, can create a sufficient armament, and raise a sufficient number of men to repel the millions of the United States, should they choose to attack us? (Hear, hear.) I do not suppose, Mr. SPEAKER, that there would be any more ready to defend the honor and integrity of Great Britain in this country than those who feel as I do in reference to this matter ; and I am satisfied that, even with the knowledge of certain destruction before us, if attacked by the United States, we would have defenders springing up at any moment—defenders to sell their lives as dearly as possible, and to fight inch by inch before they would be compelled to surrender the honor of the British Crown. But still, sir, we cannot help feeling the vast disparity of numbers between us and the United States ; we can form no armament that could repel them from every portion of our territory, and spending millions now

[Page 456]

in that direction is but crippling our resources and weakening us for the time of need. If these moneys we now propose to spend in that way were carefully husbanded, we will have them when the necessity arises, and be able to use them to better purpose than in defending ourselves. (Hear, hear.) Some say that Canada is defensible, and others say that it is entirely defenceless ; but I apprehend that there are certain points in the country which could be so fortified that they could be held against any foe. While so held, the rest of the country would probably be under the control of the enemy, and would remain so until the fate of war decided whether we were to remain as we were or be absorbed in the neighboring union. Now, it was said by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture that we are to have fortifications at St. John, New Brunswick ; and if this union is to be brought about in order that we may be taxed for the purpose of constructing fortifications in New Brunswick, it will certainly be of little service to the people of Canada in preventing their country being invaded and overrun by an enemy. Fortifications in St. John, New Brunswick, would not protect us from the foe, if the foe were to come here. They, of course, would be an advantage to the country at large and aid in sustaining the British dominion in this part of the continent, and so far we would not object to contribute to a reasonable extent to an expenditure of that kind ; but I do say that it would be quite impossible by fortifications to make the country so defensible that we could resist aggression on the part of the United States at every point. To endeavor to make it so would be a waste of money.

MR. McKELLAR.—What would you do then ? Surrender to the enemy ?

MR. CAMERON.—NO, I would not.

MR. McKELLAR.—What would you do if you neither spent money nor surrendered ?

MR. CAMERON—We would do as many brave people have done before when they were attacked ; and the country from which the honorable gentleman comes is a marked example of what a small nation can do against overwhelming numbers, without fortifications, such as it is here proposed to put up. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. BROWN—It is something new that a country can be defended without fortifications. (Hear, hear.)

MR. CAMERON—I do not know whether honorable gentlemen mean that this country is capable of undertaking the expenses that would be necessary to put it in such a state of defence as to enable it to resist the aggression of the United States. I want to know whether with two and a half millions of people, we could cope with an army of millions—because the United States have shown that they are capable of raising such an army—or make fortifications that could resist it. (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Provincial Secretary has spoken on the floor of Parliament as well as to the electors in the country, to the effect that it was retrenchment we needed more than constitutional changes ; and yet now he says that the people are not to have one word to say in reference to these vital changes that are proposed, and the vastly increased expenditure that is to take place. In addressing this House in 1862, he said—” The finances of the country are growing worse and worse, and a check must be applied. It was chiefly for this cause that the people of Upper Canada desired a change in the representation.” Now, I should like to understand how a union with 800,000 people, with immense expenditure, is going to improve our finances, which, according to the honorable gentleman, are “growing worse and worse.” (Hear, hear.) I have not heard in what has been yet said on the subject of these resolutions, anything to show me how this great increase and improvement is going to take place by a union with less than a million of people ; but arguments for the union, when directed merely to the material interests that will be served by it, are arguments ten-fold stronger in favor of union with the United States. (Hear, hear.) The arguments of honorable gentlemen all point that way, because they say it is to our interest to be joined with the 800,000 people of the provinces, who will furnish us with a market for our produce, when we have on the other side of the line thirty millions of people to furnish us a market. Arguments of this kind, urgiog the measure because our material interests will be promoted by it, are, therefore, arguments for union with the United States rather than with the Lower Provinces ; but union with the United States, I hope, will never take place. (Hear, hear.) Still I cannot help believing that this is the tendency of the measure ; for when we have a legislature in each province, with powers coordinate with those of the Federal Legislature—or if not possessing coordinate powers, having the same right at least to legislate upon some subjects as the General Legislature—there are certain to arise disagreements between the Local and the General Legislature, which will lead the people to demand changes that may destroy our connection

[Page 457]

with the Mother Country. The Federal character of the United States Government has been referred to to prove that it has increased the prosperity of the people living under it; but in point of fact the great and relentless war that is now raging there—that fratricidal war in which brother is arrayed against brother, filled with hatred toward each other, and which has plunged the country into all the horrors of the deadliest strife—is the strongest comment upon the working of the Federal principle—the strongest argument against its application to these provinces. (Hear, hear.) The French element in Lower Canada will be separated from us in its Local Legislature and become less united with us than it is now ; and therefore there is likely to be disagreement between us. Still more likely is there to be disagreement when the people of Upper Canada find that this scheme will not relieve them of the burdens cast upon them, but, on the contrary, will subject them to a legislature that will have the power of imposing direct taxation in addition to the burdens imposed by the General Government. When they find that this power is exercised, and they are called upon to contribute as much as before to the General Government, while taxed to maintain a separate Local Legislature—when they find that the material question is to weigh with them, they will look to the other side of the line for union. I feel that we are going to do that which will weaken our connection with the Mother Country, because if you give power to legislate upon the same subjects to botli the local and the federal legislatures, and allow both to impose taxation upon the people, disagreements will spring up which must necessarily have that effect. (Hear, hear.) Then again, by this scheme that is laid before us, certain things are to be legislated upon by both the general and the local legislatures, and yet the local legislation is to be subordinate to the legislation of the Federal Parliament. For instance, emigration and agriculture are to be subject to the control of both bodies. Now suppose that the Federal Legislature chooses to decide in favor of having emigration flow to a particular locality, so as to benefit one province alone—I do not menu this expression to be understood in its entire sense, because I think that emigration in any one portion will benefit the whole, but it will benefit the particular locality much more at the time—and if provision is made by the General Legislature for emigration of that kind, and grants are made from the public funds to carry it out, it will cause much complaint, as the people who are paying the greatest proportion of the revenue will be subject to the drafts upon them as before. Suppose again, for instance, that arrangements are made for emigration to a particular part of Lower Canada or New Brunswick, and a grant is made for the purpose, who is to say whether it is for the local or general good ? It is the Federal Legislature that has to pronounce upon it. The expenditure and the benefit would be received by a portion of the province lying remote from that which pays the largest proportion” of the money, and so we would not be relieved from the difficulties that have existed between Upper and Lower Canada. This being the case, the reasoning on which this whole scheme is based falls to the ground. (Hear, hear.) But this question has been of some service. It has enabled us to ascertain what our debt is. This we have never previously been enabled with certainty to find out. Our highest authorities have widely differed in footing it up. I recollect the Hon. President of the Council asserting that our debt was eighty-five millions of dollars.

HON. MR. BROWN—When did you hear that ?

Ms. M. C. CAMERON—I heard it in one of the speeches which you made on the floor of this House. You remarked that you had gone to the Auditor that very morning and found the debt to be eighty-five millions.

HON. MR. BROWN—The honorable gentleman is mistaken in the first figure. It was seventy-five millions that I stated.

MR. M. C. CAMERON—I think the honorable gentleman has made a mistake. I will show him that his memory is short on this occasion.

HON. MR. BROWN—Very good.

MR. M. C. CAMERON—YOU said the debt was $85,000,000, but that there was the Sinking fund and the Municipal Loan indebtedness which together would amount to some fourteen or fifteen millions of dollars, which would reduce the amount to about $70,000,000 of direct debt.

HON. MR. BROWN—(Hear, hear.) Why did you not say that at first?

MR. M. C. CAMERON—Well, I did not design to catch the Hon. President of the Council in the trap that he had laid for himself. (Hear, hear.) We have now found that our debt is not so much as that honorable gentleman led us to suppose it was. The fourteen or fifteen millions did not belong to us at all. But the honorable gentleman, since

[Page 458]

he has been so closely connected with those old corruptionists, has discovered that it is only sixty-seven and a half millions. Well, the Hon. President of the Council has also said, and has acknowledged it too, that lie was very much, opposed to the Intercolonial Railway, and when the Hon. Attorney General West made the observation that he learned from a brief paragraph in a paper called the Globe, that Messrs. SICOTTE and HOWLAND were about to return, having accomplished the object of their mission, viz : to throw overboard the Intercolonial Railway, the Hon. President of the Council remarked, that that was ” a very sensible thing—the most sensible thing they ever did.” But now the honorable gentleman goes so heartily into this matter, that he will build this vast railway which it was so sensible to throw overboard at that time, and I think he went so far as to say he would build five intercolonial railways rather than that the scheme should fail.

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS—Six; he said six.

MR. M. C. CAMERON—Will, we will give him the benefit of one, and yet I have not been able to hear him express in pounds, shillings an pence the practical benefit there is to be derived by this country as compensation for the expense of building that useless thing that it was so sensible to throw overboard two years ago ; sensible even though the persons who went home were charged with acting falsely by the people of the Lower Provinces, and the honorable gentleman commended their throwing it overboard at the risk of our being charged with a breach of good faith. (Hear, hear.) Now, looking at this scheme politically, I do not see that we gain any advantage from it. I do not see that it secures to us peace for the future. I do not think that it secures us against the Honorable President of the Council coming forward again as the member for South Oxford or for some other constituency, and shaking our whole political fabric by his violent agitations. I do not think it prevents our having political firebrands in this country such as we have had. I do not think it prevents our having the same difficulties on the floor of the Federal Legislature as we have had on the floor ol this House. (Hear, hear.) We may have, with all the additional expense we shall have gone to in order to obviate it, the same thing enacted over again. (Hear, hear.) Commercially, it does not promise to give us an advantage that will warrant the expenditure. We are only to supply 800,000 people with our products. But it is said the Lower Provinces will have lands of a fertile character, and that when the railway is built they will be able to grow enough produce to support themselves, and we must find a market far beyond the market that the Lower Provinces could possibly give us. And it is said that it would be desirable to create a trade with the West Indies ; but that may be done just as well without going to the expense of a union with the Lower Provinces and a double set of parliaments. Let us have a union in which we are each looking out for the common interest, and not each for his own individual benefit. Commercially, then, it does not hold out such inducements that we need to have all this haste in pushing it through and preventing the people from pronouncing upon it. In a military sense it does not hold out the inducement that we will get by it from the Lower Provinces either such assistance in men or money as to make it an object to unite with them. (Hear, hear.) In a sectional point of view the people of Lower Canada can see what they are to get. I cannot see that the people of Lower Canada are to be any better protected from the means that honorable gentleman has made use of to create all the difficulty between Upper and Lower Canada that has existed so long, and to get rid of which this expensive scheme is proposed. Upper Canada, it is said, will have the control of the expenditure, because they will have seventeen members more in the Federal Legislature than Lower Canada; but how easily their influence can be checked and completely swamped by the addition of forty-seven members from the Lower Provinces ! (Hear, hear.) Looking at it in all these aspects, I am at a loss to understand what great benefit there is in the Confederation scheme to call for its being put through in such a hurried manner. Hon. Mr. GREY said in the Lower Provinces that it might be years before the change would come into effect ; that it would take years to think about it. He said, ” It is not intended to hurry the proposed scheme into actual life and operation ; it is not to be carried out to-day, but years may roll by before it is carried into effect.” This quotation occurs in a speech made by Hon. Mr. GREY at St. John, on the 17th November last. Now that honorable gentleman also takes a very different view of what is being boasted of here, the imposing of direct taxation for the support of the local governments, of which he disapproved. Honorable gentle-

[Page 459]

men here, however, have said that they were in favor of direct taxation for the support of the local governments, because it would lead those who have to pay the taxes to look more ctosely into what was going on, and the manner in which their money was expended. (Hear, hear.) There seems also to have been a feeling in the Lower Provinces in favor of a legislative union, and the Hon. Mr. GREY seems to be combatting that idea. He says that with a legislative union, municipal institutions, and direct taxation in every province, would be the only means of getting along. He expressed himself as opposed to that and in favor of a Federal union, which he thought would afford them all the advantage that could be attained, commercially, by union, and would allow each province to retain control over its own local affairs. The local legislatures, he said, were to be deprived of no power over their own affairs that they formerly possessed. But in Canada it was represented that the local legislatures were to be only the shadow of the General Legislature—that they were to have merely a shadow of power, as all their proceedings were to be controlled by the Federal Government. That is the position taken by the advocates of the measure on this floor. So it seems that those gentlemen who have represented to us that they acted in great harmony, and came to a common decision when they were in conference, take a widely different view of the questions supposed to have been agreed upon, and give very different accounts of what were the views of parties to the conference on the various subjects. (Hear, hear.) In the Lower Provinces they were strongly opposed to direct taxation, while here it was present ed as one of the advantages to accrue from the Federation. (Cries of No, no.) Well, Mr. SPEAKER, I say yes. That view of the case has been taken. If the amount allowed for the expenses of local legislation—the 80 cents per head—was found insufficient, the local parliaments must resort to direct taxation to make up the deficiency, while in tlie Lower Provinces, it seems, nothing of that kind was to follow. Now, all the gentlemen who have spoken on the Government side of the House have declared that this scheme was a gre-it scheme ; but they have declined to allow us to understand what sort of a local legislature we are to have They will not tell us how our Executive is to be formed. They will not tell us whether we are to have hgislative councils in Upper and Lower Canada, and whether or not they will be elected councils. They will not tell us what number of members will constitute the Executive Council of the Confederation, nor what influence each individual province will have in that government. They will not bring down the scheme for the local legislatures. They tell us that it is better to withhold those details—that we are dealing with Federation alone, and have no business discussing local governments What is the object of all this vagueness ? Is it politic or statesmanlike to tell us that we, the representatives of a free people, are not to know anything about these things, but vote with our eyes shut ? I hold that wt ought to have the whole scheme before us, but they say we shall know nothing about it. And yet they continue to say it is a great scheme. Well, if it is a great scheme, and they continue to deal with it and with this House in this way, are not they, the aiehitects and fabricators of this great scheme, fairly entitled to be called great schemers ? (Laughter.) Are they not treating us as a lot of school-boys ? As an evidence of the excellence and popularity of their scheme, they point to the circumstance that they have formed a strong government upon the question, with a majority of seventy in this House, while two governments preceding them could each only muster a majority of two. And because they are so strong they feel themselves at liberty to deny to the people’s representatives the right to have information on a most important matter of this kind—information they would not have dared to withhold if they were weak. (Hear, hear.) When a motion is placed on the notice paper of this House for several days, requiring a statement of the portion of the debt which Lower Canada and Upper Canada respectively will have to pay, they tell us that they cannot submit to the House any information of that kind. Is it possible that the hon. gentlemen composing the Government have not determined that question at this stage of the proceeding, and that they have not yet made up their minds respecting it ? If they have not, it shows that they have been trifling with their position, and have not been discharging the duties devolving upon them. I t has also been represented that this matter has been so fully before the country for a great length of time, that it is not necessary to submit it to a vote. I would ask in what way has n been before the country ? Why, it was declared, in the first instance, by the

[Page 460]

press, that it was not possible the measure could be passed until it had been submitted to the people ; it was looked upon as a thing which was quite impossible. There is no doubt the organ of the Ministry in Toronto —the organ more particularly of the President of the Council—did declare from the first, as if throwing out a feeler, that it would not be necessary to submit it to the people. But the press generally took a different view of the question, when out came that remarkable circular from the Provincial Secretary’s office—(hear, hear)—which had such a magical effect, that at once the story was changed, and the advocacy was begun of disposiug of the question without submitting it to the people, although the people themselves never dreamt that it could be carried through this House and become a fixed fact until that step was taken. I do not see how any man, who does not desire to make himself amenable to the charge of a breach of the trust reposed in him, can come here, and without consulting those who sent him, change a Constitution affecting the well-being of millions. (Hear, hear.) Those who have to pay for all this—who provide the revenue for carrying on the affairs of the country—are not at liberty to express their views on the subject in the legitimate way known to the Constitution. It is argued that there have been no petitions presented against Confederation; but where, I ask, has there been any agitation in reference to the question ? Where has it been contested at the polls? I stand here an elected member, who ran against the Provincial Secretary, when, as a member of the government formed for the purpose of carrying out this scheme, he returned to his constituents for reelection, and I succeeded in defeating him. So far, therefore, as the people of North Ontario have spoken at all, their pronouncing, in one way, has been against it.

HON. MR. BROWN—Hear ! hear !

MR. M. C. CAMERON- I do not mean to say, Mr. SPEAKER, that they did pronounce definitely against it—

HON. MR. BROWN—Hear ! hear!

MR. M. C. CAMERON—For when it was being discussed, I told them I was not prepared to pronounce against it myself—

HON. MR. BROWN—Hear ! hear !

MR. M. C. CAMERON—I said that I must know what the scheme was before I could say whether I would vote for it or against it.

HON. MR. BROWN—Hear ! hear !

MR. M. C. CAMERON—But this muoh is certain, that the President of the Council who took the trouble to go into the riding, to stump it, to hold meetings there, and to speak against me at every meeting he held, took the opportunity of declaring that unless the Provincial Secretary was returned, it would seriously damage and endanger the scheme. And notwithstanding all these warnings, the people thought fit to return me (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR MACDOUGALL-Will the hon. gentleman allow me to interrupt him ? Does the hon. gentleman mean to convey to this House the impression that he did not declare himself in favor of the policy of the Government on the subject of Federation ?

MR. M. C. CAMERON—I mean very distinctly to say that I did not declare myself in favor of the policy of the Government. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. BROWN—Oh ! oh !

MR. M. C. CAMERON—I declared there as I declare here, that I was in favor of a union of the provinces. But whether the union contemplated was a union which could be approved of, or whether it wculd be to the advantage of the country, I was unable to say until I more fully understood the scheme, and the hon. gentleman was not in a position at that time to explain the scheme, or to say what it was.

AN HON. MEMBER—How about the elections to the Upper House ?

MR. M.C. CAMERON—I think there were two elections only for the Upper House in which the question was a test one.

AN HON. MEMBER—Which were they ?

MR M. C. CAMERON—I think Saugeen was one.

MR. THOMAS FERGUSON—Oh, but Saugeen would have been carried by us, no matter whether there was Confederation or no Confederation. (Laughter.) Everybody knows that.

MR. M. C. CAMERON—Be that as it may, I am quite satisfied the people were under the impression, and that the candidates who appeared before them were also under the impression, that this thing would never become law—that this Constitution of ours would never be changed, without the constituencies having an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. It was never supposed that the people’s representatives, sent here for an entirely different purpose, would presume or assume to set aside the Constitution, to make a complete revolution in the affairs

[Page 461]

of the country, to involve them in a much larger expenditure, to change the constitution of the Upper House completely, to bring in an additional number of representatives from Upper Canada, and to add a new element of forty-seven members altogether to the Lower House. I say I am persuaded the people did not understand that this was to be done without their having an opportunity of speaking upon it, and of saying whether they approved of it or not. (Hear, hear.) And I scarcely can believe that we will be able to find, at this late day of the world’s history, in a free country such as Canada, among a people who understand what are their rights and liberties, a government prepared to act in so unconstitutional a manner—a government ready to tyrannize and to assume the part of an oligarchy. (Hear, hear.) But this Government is prepared to act thus. They tell their followers that they are at their peril to accept the scheme just as it is, that they are not at liberty to change a single word of it, and if they do so they will defeat the whole project. That, however, is not the way in which hon. gentlemen in the Lower Provinces deal with this question. Hon. Mr. TILLEY, in Nova Scotia, only two or three days ago,made the declaration that if the people’s representatives choose to alter the resolutions, they were at liberty to do so. (Hear, hear.) And yet we in Canada are gravely told that we are not to be allowed to exercise any judgment or to pronounce any opinion upon it. (Hear, hear.) I regard the scheme itself as having been got up hastily, for it bears upon its face the evidence of haste and of compromise. Indeed, it is a complete piece of patchwork, and as we are all aware, it is a piece of patchwork in which we are not to be’ at liberty to change the patches in any respect so as to make it look better to the eye or more enduring to those who will have to wear it. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) On the subject of the Legislative Council, it does strike me that the language is not such as to convey the idea that hon. members of this House have said it ought to convey. The 14th section reads thus :—

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.

You will observe the language—” From the legislative councils of the various provinces.” That is, from the legislative councils now in existence. ” So far,” the clause goes on to say, ” 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 Government, upon the nomination of the respective local governments.” Honorable gentlemen say that means, upon the nomination, so far as Canada is concerned, of the present Government. I presume that in the nature of things, the hon. gentlemen who are at present administering our affairs anticipate that they will be the controllers of our destiny, for some time at all events, in the Federal Government. So that they are going themselves to nominate to themselves. Is that the object of the clause? In point of fact, would it be such in its operation, because beiore these nominations can take place, I assume that the Executive Government must be in existence, and that when the Federal Government comes into existence, the present Government will cease co-instanti I take it that so soon as the Imperial Act passed, there would be an end to the present arrangements, and that the local legislatures and the General Legislature would be brought into existence at the same moment. The present Government of United Canada would cease to exist. And how then would the nominations to the Legislative Council take place, from this Government to the Executive Government of the Confederation ? (Hear, hear.) In one way, these resolutions maybe considered as only an outline of the Constitution. But they seem to have descended to very small details. For instance, they say that a member who is absent from the Council for two sessions shall vacate his seat. This is a very small piece of detail, and I regard it also as a very unjust piece of detail, because the cause of a member’s absence may be sickness, and it may be the case that a member would bo sick during the period of two sittings of Parliament and well immediately afterwards.

An HON. MEMBER—In that case he might be excused

Another HON. MEMBER—Or he could be re-appointed.

MR. M. C. CAMERON—There is no provision for any such thing; and I hold that when they went into detail such as this, the details ought to be full enough to prove what is meant. But if it is not detail—if it is mere skeleton—why did they introduce this at all ? Why not simply say that the

[Page 462]

Legislative Council should be nominated for life ? We are also told that we are to have under the control of the federal and local governments the sea-coast and inland fisheries. Of course it is impossible for me to say what they mean to do with these things, but this is a clause out of which, at all events, disagreements might arise. To shew what little care has been exercised in the wording of these resolutions, in one place they speak of the seal of the General Government, and in another place they speak of the seal of the “Federated Provinces.” I presume there is no such thing as a seal of a general government. It is the seal of the nation—of the country in its entirety ; the same as we speak of our own seal as the Great Seal of the province. There may not be much in this ; but it shews, at any rate, a want of care in the compilation of this document ; it shews that they have not studied each resolution with a desire to make it a perfect thing. Then it is said :— ” The Local Government and Legislature of each province shall be constructed in such manner as the existing legislature of each such province shall provide.” I do not understand from this whether it is competent or not for us in this Legislature, before there is a Federal union, to make provision for the Local Government and Legislature, or whether we are to await the action upon the subject of Federation of the Imperial Government. Our action, one should suppose, ought to be taken after the Imperial Government has pronounced. Perhaps this is the intention. Mr. SPEAKER, they refuse to tell us anything about it. It may be that, as soon as these resolutions are carried, we will be sent about our business ; that the Imperial Legislature will be invited to pass an act, and that they will convene us again, provision being made for that course, and so in point of fact, having once affirmed the principle of Federation, we will have to accept such local legislalatures as they choose to give us. (Hear, hear.) I find the Finance Minister, in speaking of the construction of the local legislatures, saying : ” It was known, at all events in the Lower Canada section of the province, that there would a Legislative Council as well as a Legislative Assembly,” constituting thereby a very expensive machinery of government for the local administration. I do not understand that this is the view Upper Canadians take of this matter. If we are really to have a Local Legislature, we want it to be as inexpensive in its character as possible—we want to construct it as muoh as possible with a view to economy, in order to the public burdens being lessened to the lowest practical point. (Hear.) Giving this question the best attention in my power, desirous if possible of seeing something accomplished by which the semblance of a cause for faction may be done away with, I would have been willing to support this scheme had I seen that the Government in forming it had an eye to the true interests of the country, and not an eye to the creating of a number of legislatures, and the carrying on of works most expensive and burdensome in their character —works which will be of but little value as a commercial undertaking, and of very little value for military purposes, but which, no doubt, are absolutely necessary tor bringing us into contact with the people of the Lower Provinces. I t seems to me that it would be much better had this Intercolonial Railway been built without forming this union at all. (Opposition cheers.) Had wc gone on building the railway without a union, it would have been less expensive in its character to us ; we would have gained more by it, and we would have had the control of our affairs, without being swamped, so far as Upper Canada is concerned. (Hear, hear.) As it is, we shall get no more benefit from it, commercially, than if it had been built without a union of the provinces.

MR. WALLBRIDGE—We should have had the railway, without bringing in those who may limit our western extension.

MR. M. C. CAMERON—I do not know what will be done under the new arrangement. But under the old arrangement we were to have paid five-twelfths of the cost, and the charge upon us now will be at least double that sum. So that in whatever way this matter is looked at, it will be seen that there has been no design for the purpose of advantaging Upper Canada, whose people are to find the means by which all this extravagance is to be carried on. In the formation of this scheme, it has been truly admitted that compromises have been made. The Lower Provinces have laws which are not in accordance with our own in Upper Canada, and it has been thought very desirable that they should be brought into unison and, if possible, consolidated. Well, provision has been made for the consolidation of these laws; but observe how religiously the laws of Lower Canada are guarded from interference. The

[Page 463]

33rd sub-section gives to the Greneral Gov- ernment the power of ” rendering uniform all or any of the laws relative to property and civil rights in Uppor Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, and rendering uniform the procedure 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.” So that in reality no such law will be binding until it has the sanction of the Local Legislature of the province particularly affected thereby. Such being the guarded terms of the resolution, why is it not made applicable to Lower Canada as well as to the other provinces ? Nothing could be done respecting its peculiar laws without the consent of its Local Legislature, and it is quite possible to my mind, that there are some laws which it would be advantageous to all parts of the Confederation to assimilate. But they emphatically declare in these reso- lutions that there shall be no interference with the laws of Lower Canada. So that while it is proposed to assimilate the laws of the other provinces, there is a large section of intervening country which is to have, for all time to come, laws separate and distinct from the rest. (Hear, hear.) There is a great deal of difference in making a provision of this kind, which is to give the people the option, and which is not to be binding for all time to come unless sanctioned by them, and declaring that a law shall be forced upon the people whether they liked it or not. (Hear.) I can easily understand the feeling of the French people, and can admire it—that they do not want to have anything forced upon them whether they will or not. But that they will not allow you to contemplate even the possibility of any change taking place for the general weal, and with their own consent, in their laws —that they will not allow anything to be introduced into this measure by which, under any circumstances whatever, we can meddle with the laws of this particular section of the country—I do not understand. And having feelings of this kind, and manifesting them so strongly as they do in this document, it appears to me that in going into this union, we do not go into it with the proper elements. We go into it with elements of strife and dissension, rather than of union and strength. (Hear, hear.) That is to be regretted ; for if a change is to be made affecting the destinies of the people of this country, it is lamentable that we do not find patriotism enough among the representatives of the people to be willing to give and take, so that we may have such a union as will be beneficial to the whole, and not one burdensome to the whole, because one portion of the country says, ” We have peculiar institutions which we dare not entrust to the care of you, gentlemen, who are to be united with us.” Having given this whole matter the best attention I could, with the most earnest desire that any man could have to come to a just conclusion, I have not been able to satisfy myself that there are not the elements of ruin rather than of safety and strength in this scheme ; that there are not the elements of the dismemberment of this country from the Empire to which we belong, and have pride in belonging ; that there is not the means here of causing us to drift right into the vortex of annexation to the United States, whether we will or not. So far as I am concerned, I should sooner see perish root and branch everything belonging to me, than I would become a party to a union with that power. Feeling no hostility to the people there—feeling as friendly to them as to any other people, still I have that attachment to British institutions—I have within me that feeling of allegiance to the British Crown, which would not allow me to throw off British connection under any circumstances whatever, or even to accept the disruption of that connection, if it were offered to us by Great Britain. I feel it would be a curse to this country, if we were forced into that union—forced to adopt the licentiousness of conduct which we find there, and habits and manners totally distasteful to us. To be brought into that union would seem to me the greatest injury which by possibility could happen to us. In adopting the scheme before us, I feel we would be sowing the seeds of discord and strife, which would destroy our union, instead of its being cemented by this measure. I am therefore opposed to the scheme, because I believe that politically, commercially, and defensively, as a matter of economy or of sectional benefit, it will not be one tittle of service to this country, but on the contrary will inflict on it a vast and lasting injury. (Cheers.)

MR. DUNKIN said he desired to take part in the debate, but did not wish to commence at this late hour, and if no other honorable gentleman was disposed to speak, he would move that the debate be adjourned.

[Page 464]

MR. MCGIVERN–As I know the honorable member for Brome (Mr. DUNKIN) is unwell, I am willing the relieve him by taking the floor. At the same time, I rise with much diffidence to make the few remarks I intend to offer on this occasion, after the able and eloquent speech to which we have just listened. But, although I may not be able, perhaps, to place before this House any views on this subject which have not already been ably placed before the House and the country by honorable gentlemen who have preceded me, still I feel I would be wanting in my duty to my constituents were I not to explain the reasons which induce me to take the course which I propose to take with reference to this question. The subject is certainly a very important one, and, from the momentous character of the interests involved in this proposed change of our Constitution, deserves the earnest attention of every true Canadian. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, I feel some explanation should be given of the reasons which have induced myself, in common with a large number of the liberal members of Upper Canada, to take the course we have seen fit to take with reference to the present Government, and the policy they have laid before the country. In Upper Canada—I believe in almost every constituency—there has long been an agitation having reference to the sectional difficulties between Upper and Lower Canada. This agitation, instead of diminishing, has continued to gather strength. Ever since the union of 1841, Western Canada has felt—and I think justly felt—that it did not receive that justice to which its wealth and population entitled it. On the other hand, the French population of Lower Canada believed, or professed to believe, that an increased representation of Upper Canada in the Legislature would tend to destroy their language, their laws, and their religion. The difficult position into which we were brought by this antagonism was such, that when the proposition came from the Government that the Honorable the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. BROWN) should unite with them to see if some means could not be devised by which these unfortunate sectional difficulties might be arranged, I felt it my duty—however unpleasant, however strange it may have seemed that we should alienate ourselves from the liberal section of Lower Canada—yet, satisfied that some change was necessary in the management of the public affairs of this country, I felt it my duty, as an Upper Canadian— I may say as a Canadian—to do, as far as I possibly could, what might tend to remove from our country the unfortunate difficulties under which we have labored. (Hear, hear.) I believe that the people of Upper Canada at least—I may say of Canada generally—have become tired of the strife in which we have been involved for many years, and which has put a stop to that practical and useful legislation which the country required for the development of its resources. I believe the people of this country, in consequence of the position in which we found ourselves, had become earnestly desirous of a change ; but the change they looked to was not in the direction of a union with the United States. (Hear, hear.) The change they looked for was in the direction of a union with the other British provinces ; one which should embrace—I hope at no distant day— the British colonies on the far Pacific coast, as well as those to the east of us, bordering on the Atlantic. (Hear, hear.) I believe that this scheme of union now proposed— though I feel that it has many imperfections —is still a step in the right direction. It is perfectly impossible that the people of this country should be satisfied to remain in the agitated state, politically, in which they have hitherto been, and which might ultimately land them in difficulties, for which no other solution could be found than that to which our neighbors on the other side of the line have uniortunately been compelled to resort. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. DORION) truly said, so long ago as 1858, that the country was then almost verging on revolution, and that a change was necessary. The necessity for such a change, instead of diminishing since, has increased. (Hear, hoar.) As far as I have been able to ascertain the feelings of the members of this House, I have not as yet understood one honorable gentleman to state that he was opposed to a union with the other provinces. Even the honorable gentleman who has preceded me has stated that he advocates such a union, and believes it would be beneficial to this country ; only he did not like the manner and the details of the present scheme. But, while he and other honorable gentlemen have condemned that scheme of union which is now submitted to the House, while professing to be in favor of union in the abstract, I have as yet failed to find one of them offering anything as an improvement upon it. (Hear, hear.)

HON. MR. HOLTON—We have a right to amend this scheme.

[Page 465]

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—You had better print your amendments.

MR. McGIVERIN—The honorable member for North Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON) has stated, that while he is an advocate of union, he believed that a Legislative would be preferable to a Federal union. It is easy for honorable members to make that assertion. There are few, at least, of the English-speaking of this country who would not also be favorable to the principle of a legislative union. But can we get it ? We have tried year after year to obtain representation by population, with a view to bettering our condition in the western section of the province, by getting a fair and equal distribution of the public moneys of the country, according to our wealth and population, and the measure in which we contribute to the public revenue. Few, I think, will deny that the western section—for whatever reason, whether because of its being more favorably situated, and having a better climate and more fertile soil, or from whatever other cause—the fact is indisputable that the western section of this province produces more and consumes more than the eastern section. And this formed the ground of complaint, the reason of the agitation, that notwithstanding this fact, we of Upper Canada were not placed on an equal footing with the Lower Canadians in the legislature of the country, and in the administration of its affairs. Hence it is that popular opinion in Upper Canada has declared so emphatically that a change is necessary. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for North Ontario favors a kind of union which, though desirable in many respects, most people believe to be impracticable. Are the French population, who are entitled to claim just and equal rights, willing to concede it ? I believe not. Even the liberal section of Lower Canada refused to concede to us a fair legislative union. The honorable member for Hochelaga—a gentleman for whom I entertain the highest respect—I believe a more liberal or high-minded man does not sit in this House—even he, whilst we were acting with him politically, when appealed to time after time to join with the Liberal section of Upper Canada in some policy that would remove these unfortunate difficulties, constantly refused to do so, and told us it was impossible for him and his friends to meet us on that ground. Therefore, when at the close of last session, the people of Upper Canada were met, as they were met, by the other political party of Lower Canada, telling us—” Here, we are willing to yield you what you desire, only instead of conceding representation by population pure and simple, we believe a Confederation of the whole British American Provinces, with that principle recognised in the General Government, would be preferable ; or, failing that, we are willing to have a Federation of the two provinces of Canada,”—when that was offered us, would we have been justified in rejecting it, simply because in accepting it we were compelled for the time to allow party feelings to remain in abeyance, or because we had to work in harmony for a time with the men to whom we had been opposed politically, whom perhaps in time past we had strongly denounced ? Should we, when offered that for which we, as a party and as a people, had worked and agitated year after year, have refused it, sijnply because it was not offered by those with whom we had hitherto acted politically ? (Hear, hear.) I for one felt—whatever opinions any might entertain of my conduct— I felt that, as an Upper Canadian and in justice to my country, 1 was bound to set aside party feeling and take that course which was for the best interests of our common country. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for North Ontario has stated with reference to this Confederation—and similar language was held by the honorable member for Hochelaga—that commercially, politically and defensively the union of these provinces, constituted in the way proposed, would be a failure. It was also stated by the honorable member for North Ontario, that instead of our preparing ourselves for the contingency of difficulties arising with our neighbors, we should remain quiet ; we should, in other words, lie down and allow them to ride over us and trample us in the dust. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER, that was not the sentiment, those were not the feelings which actuated the noble veterans of 1812—(hear, hear)—who, though few in number, with a country sparsely settled and an immense extent of frontier, bravely did all that lay in their power to resist the foe ; and they not only resisted but repelled him. (Hear, hear.) Though we are still comparatively few in number, we have nevertheless increased since that period in wealth and in population in an equal ratio with the United States. And though this war has developed great military resources on their part, I think I shall be able to show that with the resources we have— with the force we can bring into the field of at least six hundred thousand armed men if needed — (hear, hear) — and with, the aid

[Page 466]

Great Britain will always extend to us, if we show that we on our part are prepared to do our duty—I believe that we are in quite as good a position to hold our own as those who successfully resisted the invader in the war of 1812. (Hear, hear.) On this point we can take an encouraging lesson from history. When the American colonies which now form the United States rebelled against Great Britain, their population was not over one or two hundred thousand in excess of the population of the five colonies that are to form our proposed Confederation. (Hear, hear.) At that time they had certainly iewer resources in every respect than the people of this country now possess, and yet they resisted, and successfully resisted, one of the greatest powers in the world, and wrested from it their independence. Here, in the event of an attack, we are placed in a precisely similar position. One man in this country is equal to three invaders. (Hear, hear.) It has been demonstrated in the struggle now pending between the North and the South, that on account of the difficulties the country attacked presents to the enemy, and the advantages it gives to those defending it, one man is equal to three in resisting an invading army. The South—although they have been blockaded on the sea-cost—although they have had an immense extent of frontier to defend—although they have had the internal weakness of four millions of slaves to contend with— and although the white population is little more than that now possessed by the provinces which are to form this Confederation ; have nevertheless resisted for four years—I may say successfully—all the power and influence and available resources which the United States have been able to bring against them. (Hear, hear.) I sincerely trust and pray, and it should be the desire of every true Canadian, that we may continue in peace ; but to say that it is impossible for us to contend against a force that may be brought against us, is to say that from which I for one must dissent. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I believe that in a commercial, agricultural, and defensive point of view, the union would be desirable. Placed as we are now, with the abrogation of the Reciprocity treaty threatened, does it not become our duty, I ask, to make some effort to change and improve our condidition ? As I stated, sir, the subject has been so ably placed before this House by honorable gentlemen who have preceded me, and who are so much more capable of dealing with it than I am, that I wiU not attempt to repeat the arguments in favor of this scheme, commercially, financially, and politically, which have already been adduced. But there are one or two points as to the resources of the whole of British North America, to which I would for a moment invite the attention of the House. The union is desirable with a view to the development of our mineral resources. In British Columbia and Vancouver’s Island the gold fields equal, if they do not exceed in value, those of any other part of the world. Iron we have in that vast extent of country lying between the Rocky Mountains and Lake Superior, a country equal if not superior, for the purposes of settlement and cultivation to any we have in Canada, and whose area is estimated at from eighty to one hundred million acres. Then, again, we have magnificent iron and copper mines in Canada, while the Lower Provinces possess vast mineral resources, extensive coal fields, and valuable fisheries. We have all the natural wealth to make us a great people if we pursue a course to develope it. (Hear, hear.) To illustrate my argument, I will mention some of the figures showing the resources of the different countries adjacent to and forming part of that great district, with an identity of interest. (Hear, hear.) In Nevada, in 1860, the population was 6,857, and in 1863, 60,000. About eleven millions of dollars have been invested in the opening up of roads and in other improvements, and the resources of the country in 1863 amounted to $15,000,000. Victoria, in Australia, in 1861, had a population of 540,322, and they have constructed 350 miles of railway. The revenue was $15,000,000, and they have their magnificent cities and splendid homesteads, with every comfort and luxury. In Utah, where perhaps there are many difficulties to retard the growth of the country, we find that in 1860 the population was 41,000—an increase in ten years of 254 per cent. The value of property in 1850 was $986,000, and ten years afterwards, in 1860, it was five and a half millions—an increase in this period of 468 per cent. Iron and copper mines have been more developed in that territory than gold, although they possess gold as well. In 1864 the population was estimated at 75,000. Colorado has a population of 60,000, and the production of gold in 1864 was fifteen millions of dollars. Agriculture also is being rapidly developed. I wished to mention these facts to show what we may look forward to if we carry out this union honestly and fairly, as I believe the Gov

[Page 467]

ernment intend to carry it out; not simply a union with the Maritime Provinces, but a union of all the British colonies in America from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. (Hear, hear.) If I felt that honorable gentlemen who have now the control of the public affairs of this country did not intend honestly and faithfully to carry out the union in this sense, and to take measures for the openingup of the great North-West territory, for the enlargement of our canals, and for the general improvement of our internal water communications, I for one would not hesitate to give my voice, and whatever influence I possess, to oppose them. (Hear, hear.) I wish to be understood that I mention these gold-bearing countries, and countries possessing mineral wealth, to illustrate that we have all that wealth in our own possession if we only develop it. The gold produced from Australia, British Columbia and California during the last six years has been estimated at nearly two thousand millions of dollars. The political divisions of British North America are as follows : Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Vancouver’s Island, British Columbia, Red River Settlement, and the Hudson Bay Territory. The combined territory is equal to a square of 1,770 miles, or more than three millions of square miles. This vast area is peopled by about four millions of inhabitants, of whom nearly three millions are contained in the Canadas. That, Mr. SPEAKER, is what I understand to be the contemplated union ; that is the union which I understand the Government are pledged to this House and to the country to carry out, and I say that if I did not believe it was their honest intention to carry that union into effect, I would not have the slightest hesitation in giving my vote against them. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I would allude to British Columbia and its resources. British Columbia embraces an area of 213,500 square miles. Its exports in 1862 amounted to $9,257,875, chiefly in gold and furs, and its imports were valued at $2,200,000. Vancouver’s Island embraces an area of 16,000 square miles, with a population of 11,463. In 1862 its imports amounted to $3,555,000. The Hudson Bay Territory embraces an area of 1,800,000 square miles, with a population of 200,000. Now we come to the Lake Superior region, which has been entirely or almost entirely neglected by the people of Canada, whilst our neighbors on the American side, more energetic and more enterprising I must confess than we have been, have built up an immense trade. In 1863 the amount of capital employed to work the mines on the American side was $6,000.000. The amount of copper produced in 1863 was nine thousand tons, and of iron a hundred and eighty-five thousand tons. The total exports were $10,000,000, and the imports $12,000,000. But whilst this vast trade has been produced on the American side, little or no attention has been given by the people of Canada to the mineral section on our side, and I mention these figures to show what wealth we possess still in an undeveloped state. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER. I regret that I am not able to place my views so clearly before the House as other honorable gentlemen who have addressed it. I regret that on this occasion, not having intended to speak to-night, I have not been able to interest the House more than I have done. (Cries of “Go on.”) But I think that what should occupy the attention of this House, and of the people of the country, is the practical consideration of the question now under discussion. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the resources of Canada it is unnecessary for me to allude to. They are well known to every member of this House. But it has been said, in reference to those of the Lower Provinces/ that the people will not bring into the union a reasonable proportion of wealth. Mr. SPEAKER, it has been stated that they have nothing to bring us but fish and coal. I believe that their resources will compare favorably with those of this province or of the United States. (Hear, hear.) The revenue of New Brunswick in 1850 was $416,348; in 1860, $833,324 ; and in 1862, $692,230. Now, sir, I think that these figures will show that New Brunswick was increasing in an equal, if not greater, ratio than this country. Being isolated from this province, being almost entire strangers, and having little or no intercourse with each other, we find that nearly all the trade has gone to a foreign country. The trade in 1862 was, with Canada— imports, $191,522; exports, $48,090. Nova Scotia—imports, $861,652; exports, $341,027. Prince Edward Island—imports, $82,240; exports, $80,932. Newfoundland– exports, $11,855. United States—imports, $2,960,703; exports, $889,416. Under the union, Canada might expect to get the trade of all these provinces. The trade with Canada is almost entirely in flour, shipped through the United States to these provinces. The agricultural products of New Brunswick in 1851 and 1861 Were as fol-

[Page 468]

lows :–Wheat , 1851, 206,635 ; 1861, 279,778. Barley, 1851, 74,300 ; 1861, 94,679. Oats, 1851, 1,411,164; 1861, 2.656,883. Buckwheat, 1851, 689,004; 1861, 904,321. Maize, 1851. 62,225; 1861, 17,420. Peas, 1851, 42,663; 1861, 5,228. Hay, 1851, 225,083 tons; 1861, 324,160 tons. Turnips, 1851, 539,803; 1861, 634,360. Potatoes, 1851, 2,792,394 ; 1861, 4,011,339. Butter, 1851, 3,050,939 lbs. ; 1861, 4.591,477 lbs Horses, 1851, 22,044 ; 1861, 35,830. Meat Cattle, 1851, 157,218; 1861,92,025. Sheep, 1851,168,038; 1861,214,096. Swine, 1851, 47,932; 1861, 74,057. The area of New Brunswick is 27,710 square miles, or 17,600,000 acres, of which 14,000,010 acres are fit for profitable cultivation. Prince Edward Island embraces an area of 2,131 square miles, or 1,365,400 acres. Its population has been increasing steadily. In 1798 it was 5,000; in 1833,32,292; in 1841,47,034; in 1851, 55,000 ; in 1861, 80,552. In I860, its imports amounted to $1,150,270 ; in 1861, $1,049,675; and in 1862, $1,056,200. The exports in 1860 amounted to $1,272,220; 1861, $1,085,750 ; 1862, $1,162,215. The agricultural products in 1860 were— Wheat, 346,125 rninot5; barley, 223,195 ; oats, 2,218,578; buckwheat, 50,127; potatoes, 2,972,235; turnips, 348,784; hay, 31,100 tons; horses, 18,765; meat cattle, 60,015; sheep, 107,242 ; hogs, 71,535. The area of Newfoundland is 40, 2 0 square miles, or 25,728,000 acres. In 1857 the total number of inhabitants was 119,304. In 1862 its trade was as follows : With Canada, imports, $50,448, exports, $19,001; Nova Scotia, imports, $90,596, exports, $37,019 ; New Brunswick, imports, $2,351 ; Prince Edward Island, imports, $11,720, exports $909; United States, imports, $345,797, exports, $47,729. The total imports iu 1857 amounted to £1,413,432 ; in 1858, £1,17″,862; in 1859, £1,324,136; in 1860, £1.254,128; in 1861, £1,152,857; in 1862, £1,007,082. The total exports were, in 1857, £1,651,171; in 1858, £1,318 836; in 1859, £1,357,113; in I860, £1,271,712 ; in 1861,£1,092,551; and in 1862, £1,171,723. The principal export is fish. Nova Scotia is 350 miles in length by 100 miles in breadth. Its population in 1838 was 199,028; in 1851, 276,117; and in 1861, 330,857. The revenue in 1852 was $483,522 ; expenditure, $483,895 ; imports, $5,970,877, exports, $4,853,903? In 1862, the revenue was $1,127,298 ; expenditure, $ 1,009,701 ; imports, $6,198,553; exports, $5,646,961. The agricultural products of 1851 and 1861 were as follows :— Wheat, 1851, 297,159; 1861, 312,081. Barley, 1851,196,007; 1861, 269,578. Oats, 1851, 1.384,437; 1861, 1,978,137. Buckwheat, 1851,170,301 ; 1861,195,340. Maize, 1851, 37,475; 1861, 15,592. Peas, 1851, 21,633; 1*61,21,335. Rye, 1851, 61,438; 1861, 59,706. Hay, 1851, 287,837 tons; 1861, 334,287. Turnips, 1851, 167,125; 1861,554,318. Potatoes, 1851, 1,986,789; 1861, 3,824,864. Butter, 1851, 3,613,890 lbs.; 1861, 4,532,711. Cheese, 1851, 652,069 lbs.; 1861,901,296. Horses, 1851, 8.789; 1861, 41,927. Meat cattle, 1851, 243,713; 1861, 151,793. Sheep, 1851, 282,180; 1861, 332,653. Swine, 1851, 51,533; 1861, 53,217. Coal, 1851, 83,421 tons; 1861, 326,429. I merely allude to these figures to show hon. gentle:nen that these colonies have other and very valuable resources besides those which have been stated by some members, namely, fish and coal. (Hear, hear.) It was stated by the honorable member for North Ontario (Mr. M. C. CAMERON)—and I think ingeniously stated—that this union would produce an enormous increase of taxation on the people of Canada ; that the partnership would be a very unprofitable one to us. Now I think he failed to make a point on that. I t has been shown that we enter into this union with a debt of twenty-five dollars a head, and that the Lower Provinces, instead of bringing a load upon us by coming into the partnership, occupy a decidedly favorable position with regard to this country. (Hear, hear.) The hon member for North Ontario also stated that the union of the provinces would involve this country in a great local debt, a statement which I think is also erroneous. He is favorable to a uuion, but would prefer a legislative one. But does he pretend to say that such a union would tend less to the swamping of Upper Cacada, which he fears under the Confederation ? His financial argument, that our debt and our taxation would increase, has failed, except thus far, that the machinery of the Government may be too expensive. If the present Government fail to discharge their duty and adopt an unduly expensive machinery, it is by that means alone that an increased expenditure can arise. It does not depend on the fact of the union ; it rests entirely on this, whether this union is carried out fairly and properly. (Hear, hear.) The next point is the construc-

[Page 469]

tion of the Intercolonial Railway, and to that the hon. member for North Ontario is favoratle, except that he would rather see it built without the union than with it, because the union will add so much to the expenses of the country. In reference to that, the increase of the expenditure will depend entirely on the hon. gentlemen who have now the charge of the government of the country. If they are extravagant ; if they have a governor with a retinue, and for each of the provinces an expensive staff, and ill the appliances of royalty, then I believe that the union would add greatly to the expenses of the country. But I do not understand that such is their opinion. I believe their desire is—and I am satisfied that if they have not this desire the people will require it of them—that it shall be conducted on principles of economy, and in such a manner that increased taxation will not necessarily be the result. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, in reference to this great country which I have briefly adverted to, I wish it to be distinctly understood by the members of the Government that I for one support them on this understanding, and on this understanding only—that the union of the provinces and the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, the opening up of the North-West and the enlargement of our canals, shall be considered part of this scheme, with a view to developing our great natural resources and placing this country in a prominent position, not only as a colony but as a community, that will command the respect of nations. (Hear, hear.) We must have these promises respecting the North- West and the canals fairly carried out, and not be placed in such a position that after the Intercolonial Railway shall have been constructed, there will be a combination of eastern interests to prevent the accomplishment of these other works and swamp the great North-West. If there is to be a doubt upon that point, I for one, without any hesitation, will state that I will not support a scheme that will admit of it. (Hear, hear.) I am most decidedly opposed to the Intercolonial Railway as a commercial undertaking. I believe it never can be made a profitable commercial work. But this I do believe, that situated as we are, with the probability of being shut out from the markets of the United States by the abrogation of the Reciprocity treaty—of being restricted in our commercial intercourse with the world by the repeal of the bonding system—of being crippled by every step the Americans may take with the view of forcing us into closer political relations with them, it is our duty for purposes of self-defence, and with a view of placing ourselves in an independent position and having our resources developed, fairly, properly and honestly to carry out this scheme with the construction of the Intercolonial Railway as part of it. As a commercial work, I have looked into it in all its bearings, and have failed to see the advantages it will confer. The farmers of the grain-producing districts of Upper Canada have the same market to sell their surplus products as the farmers of the States, that is, the English market. Now, I think it is impossible to show that the produce of Upper Canada can be conveyed by this Intercolonial Railway to the seaboard, and thence to Liverpool, as profitably as the Americans can carry it to the seaboard at New York and thence to the English market. If by the one route the grain cannot be carried as cheaply as by the other, it is impossible for the Canadian farmer or merchant to be placed in as good a position as the American. But if, having constructed the Intercolonial Railway, our Government says, ” We will compete with the Americans ; we will put the rates of transportation so low as to offer our farmers as cheap a route by it as by the States,” then the cost of this will have to be borne by the people in another way, for the road failing to pay even expenses, the excess of expenditure will become a charge upon the country for years. View it then in any light, and the proposed road cannot be made profitable. But for purposes of defence, and as a means of communication, if we desire to be united with the Lower Provinces and retain our connection with Great Britain, the construction of the road is a uecessity. (Hear, hear.) I desire, Mr. SPEAKER, to state what in my opinion will be some of the commercial results of this union. If the North-West contains land, as I believe it does, equal to almost any on this continent, it should be placed in precisely the same position as regards Canada that the Western States occupy in relation to the Eastern. I believe we should endeavor to develope a great grain producing district ; for whatever may be said, there is not any appreciable quantity of grain-producing land in the hands of the Government not now under cultivation in Canada, for the benefit of our increasing population. It is a melancholy fact that for the want of

[Page 470]

such a country, our youth seek homes in a foreign land, who would remain under the British flag if homes were open to them there. (Hear, hear.) If we had that country open to them, to say nothing of the foreign immigration it would attract, it would aiford homes for a large population from amongst ourselves now absorbed in the Western States. Again, we shall have the trade of that country carried through our midst, and profit by the transportation to the seaboard of the produce of a land which I look upon as one of the greatest grainproducing countries on the continent, equal in this respect to any of the fertile states of the west. (Hear, hear.) If we look at the marvellous growth of those states, we may form some idea uf what our North-West territory may become, if properly developed. In 1830 the whole of that vast country was a wilderness. Now we find its exportation of grain, in addition to the quantities consumed, amounting to 120,000,- 000 annually. The population within a short period has increased from 1,500,000 to upwards of 9,000,000. We find it now, in fact, an empire of itself, possessing all the resources of wealth that any country could desire. What then may we not expect, our great North-West to become ? If we had it opened up, Canada would be the carriers of its produce, as the Middle States are the carriers of the Western States, ;md the manufacturers of its goods as the Eastern States are now the manufacturers of the goods consumed by the west. We would occupy towards it precisely the samé position as the Eastern States occupy towards the Western ; the produce of the North-West would find a profitable market amongst us, while our manufactories would increase and prosper, and we would be placed entirely independent of the United States in our commercial relations. (Hear, hear.) As we are now situated, the United States afford us a market, especially for our coars r grains, which will not bear the expense of long transportation. They have taken of our produce twenty millions annually since the Reciprocity treaty was negotiated. That trade must necessarily seek other channels. If we can open up the North-West ; if we enlarge and improve our inland water communication—if we can build up a fleet of vessels to ply on our inland waters and owned by this great empire of provinces, then, instead of being dependent upon the United States, we would be in a position of entire independence ; we would then have in ourselves the substantial elements of progress ; and we would have the advantage of loading our vessels at any of our own ports, and sending them direct to the Lower Provinces, the West Indies, and Europe. Then the Lower Provinces would have a profitable trade with us in oil, fish and other products, and a large fleet of vessels which would be employed in valuable commerce and increase the common prosperity of the whole country. (Hear, hear.) The union, if based on correct principle’s and carried out in honesty of purpose, will be for the advantage of all ; and if our statesmen approach and finally consummate the work as enlightened and patriotic statesmen should do, their names will be handed down in the history of the Confederation with honor. (Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, they fail to carry it out in this spirit ; if by the union they entail an enormously increased expenditure, with extravagance and wild speculation, then they will do much to injure the country and check its prosperity. There is doubtless room for extravagance and speculation in connection with this scheme. The history of our railways shews beyond a doubt, that a large portion of the immense sum expended was spent in a very unsatisfactory manner—(hear, hear)— and that they might have been constructed without entailing such a large indebtedness upon the country ; and if, guided by the experience of the past, the work now proposed is carried out in a proper manner, they will deserve the gratitude of the people. (Hear, hear.) In looking over the life of FRANKLIN, I found this passage, which occurs to me as illustrating a position very similar to that in which we are now placed :—

No sooner had it become clear to FRANK