225
THURSDAY, February 16, 1865.
HON. MR. MOORE said —Honorable
gentlemen, it is with a great degree of diffidence that I rise to address this House,
after
the very able speeches that have been made
on both sides of this question, but I shall
endeavor, honorable gentlemen, as briefly as
226
possible—for I do not feel able to address you
at any length—to speak in that moderate tone
in which I conceive the question before us
ought to be dealt with. In the discussion of
so important a question as the change of the
Constitution of the country, the laying aside
of the old Constitution and the adoption of a
new and very different one, we all ought to
endeavor to find common ground of agreement. It is important that no party, or at
least no sectional interest among political
parties, should betray itself in the discussion
of so important a subject. I shall now endeavor to take a brief view of the scheme,
as it is presented, and endeavor to give an
exposition of the views which I entertain
with regard to this matter. (Hear, hear.)
It appears to me, in the first place, that the
origin of this scheme was not what it ought
to have been. It did not emanate from the
people, but from the fact that certain political difficulties existed in Canada, in
conseuence of the political parties being so equally
divided that it was found impracticable to get
on with the government of this province.
The scheme emanated from the Government
of this country in consequence of those political difficulties, and had not its origin
with
any movement among the masses of the people. It is very well known that at the last
general election, in 1863, this was not among
the questions that were brought before the
country. It was not one of those questions
that the people were called upon to decide in
returning members to represent them in the
Legislature. It is very true that the scheme
of a Federal union of all the provinces has
been spoken of for a quarter of a century by
eminent men of all shades of politics. We
may refer to the convention that was held at
Kingston, at which the British American
League was formed. That convention was
convened by the Conservative party of Upper
Canada. Subsequently, the great meeting—
if I may use that expression—that was convened in the city of Toronto, referred to
the
same question. But I go back and appeal to
the fact that at the last general election, it
was not one of those questions that were referred to the arbitrament of the people
to
decide by their votes as to the desirability of
union. I think every honorable gentleman
will agree with me that this was the fact.
Now, honorable gentlemen, I desire to speak
in a temperate tone and manner in regard to
this scheme. I believe the gentlemen that
now constitute the Government of Canada, as
well as the gentlemen who constitute the dif
ferent governments of the Lower Provinces, are
all able men, and I believe they are all honest
and practical men, and it was by and through
the instrumentality of honorable gentlemen
constituting the Government of Canada in
connection with the governments of the Maritime Provinces that this scheme, if it
had not
its origin, at least was by them put before the
people of this country in the shape in which
it now presents itself in these resolutions. I
therefore observe that this is a measure
emanating from the minds of the foremost
men in Canada, and probably the foremost
men on the continent of America. Still, it is
not a measure that has emanated from the
people, and I would ask you all, honorable
gentlemen, in reference to the change of
a country's Constitution, if history does not
bear me out in asserting that all such changes
are preceded by a rising of the people in favor
of the change. The people, feeling oppressed
by the existing state of things, rise in their
majesty and put an end to its continuance,
and demand a new Constitution. But in regard to a change effected in the manner in
which this is proposed, by the united
wisdom of the several governments, without
any convulsion, I hold that under those circumstances the people of the whole country
to
be affected by the change ought to have an
opportunity of considering the great change.
It is not sufficient in my mind that a few of
the leading spirits of the land should be able
to control and bring about so great a change
without the initiatory steps being taken on
the part of the people. Now, honorable gentlemen, I would refer to the representation
in
the first conference—the conference in which
the initiatory steps were taken—at Charlottetown. All honorable gentlemen are aware
that the governments of the several Maritime
Provinces had decreed by resolutions passed
during former sessions of their several parliaments, that they were to send delegates
to
meet at Charlottetown, for the purpose of
uniting their several governments under one
government ; in other words, to consolidate
their governments into what would be termed
a legislative union. We could all understand
from the position of those several local governments that it was a matter of very
great
importance that they should unite their governments under one to obviate the necessity
of having different rates of duty ; and in fac
their interests were so blended that we can
understand that union was of very great im
portance to them. The Government of Can
ada met the delegates at Charlottetown, and
227
by the representations that were made to the
representatives of the Lower Provinces, they
abandoned their project of meeting together
for the purpose of consolidating their governments, and took up the larger question
of a
Federal union of all the provinces. I believe,
honorable gentlemen, that if the inducements
held out to the delegates convened at Charlottetown to abandon their first scheme
were
fully known, it would be found that chief
among them was the construction of the Intercolonial Railway. It strikes me very forcibly
from all that I heard in the Lower
Provinces during a recent tour, that if there
was one thing more than another to which
the people gave prominence, it was the Intercolonial Railway. Now, with reference
to this
subject, the plan previously adopted was, that
Canada was to furnish five-twelfths of the
money, and the Maritime Provinces seven-
twelfths. It appears by the resolutions laid
on the table of this House, that if the Confederation scheme is carried out, the Intercolonial
Railway is to be built. I admit it is
a matter of necessity that it should be built
in that case. There is no doubt about it.
We cannot have union without it. But the
fact does exist, that instead of Canada contributing five-twelfths of the cost of
construction, it will be called upon to contribute
about ten-twelfths. (Hear, hear.) I merely
mention the fact to show that it appears to
me that some strong inducement must have
been held out to the delegates from the Lower Provinces to enter into this great scheme,
when we find, as it is very well known, that
the Intercolonial Railway has been one of those
objects that has been first and foremost in
the minds of the people of almost all the
Lower Provinces. It would open up for
them a vast section of new country, and the
benefits to be derived would certainly be paramount to them above anything Canada
could
derive from its construction. It is therefore
evident to my mind that this inducement has
been held out in order to induce those provinces to come into the proposed union.
Again,
with regard to representation in the Conferference—I refer now to the Conference at
Quebec — there were twenty-one honorable
gentlemen constituting the delegation from
the Lower Provinces. Am I correct ?
HON. MR. MOORE
—There were twelve
delegates from the Province of Canada. We
were told by my honorable friend the Commissioner of Crown Lands that they did not
vote
by numbers but by provinces. Well, in voting by provinces, I think there was nothing
to be gained, so far as the advocacy of certain
measures in the interests of the Province of
Canada was concerned in this Convention.
For if they voted by provinces, the little
Island of Prince Edward, and Newfoundland,
would equal the votes of the Province of Canada. Now, honorable gentlemen, when we
consider the position of Canada, our resources,
and the amount that this province will bring
into the common treasury, it does appear to
me that Canada was not equitably represented
in the Convention. I would not for one moment attribute to the delegates from Canada
neglect of their duty in any particular, but
when there became a necessity that certain
arrangements were to be made with the Lower
Provinces, then I can understand that if they
were more favorable to the Lower Provinces
than to Canada, the vote would preponderate
in favor of the former. There is another
point, honorable gentlemen, to which I would
like to draw your attention, namely, the increase of the expense of government under
the new arrangement. It does appear to me,
that if the scheme is adopted, it will necessarily increase the burdens of the people,
and,
I believe that we will be obliged to resort to
direct taxation to sustain the local governments. It appears to me impossible to have
so many local governments, and, also, a General Government, without greatly adding
to the
expense. There is yet another point on which
I feel more deeply than on any of the preceding. It places Lower Canada in a false
position. The Anglo-Saxon race of Lower Canada is nearly one-fourth of the population,
and
in the Local Government they will be completely under the control of the people of
French origin ; not that I believe but that the
latter would endeavor to give all their just
due, but still it does appear to me that it
places the people of Anglo-Saxon origin in a
false position. Then the French population
in the Federal Government is placed in a false
position, for there they will be in a very small
minority—in the same position, relatively, as
the Anglo-Saxon race in the Local Government. The honorable gentleman who addressed
the House so very ably and eloquently last evening—the honorable member for
Erie—said he preferred taking the scheme as
it was rather than risk any alteration. It has
also been said by honorable gentlemen of the
Government, that they could not permit any
alteration, or suggestion of amendment, to be
made in the resolutions now before the House.
228
But it does appear to me, honorable gentlemen, that inasmuch as there are five different
legislatures to take those resolutions into consideration, if any one branch of either
of those
legislatures should be able to suggest any improvements, and the resolutions should
be
changed before their adoption by that branch,
such a step would not defeat the whole scheme.
It would be only offering so many suggestions
on the part of the representatives of the people. Of course any alterations suggested
in
this manner, would go before the Imperial
Parliament as a basis upon which to construct an Act of Union. It would afford
the Imperial Parliament an opportunity
of knowing the people's sentiments, and
would not in any way really interfere
with the proposed union being carried out.
Therefore I think that any amendment that
may be made in this branch of the Legislature, or in the other branch, or in either
of
the branches of the legislatures of the Maritime Provinces, would only go before the
Imperial Parliament as so many suggestions that
might very properly be considered by the Imperial authorities in dealing with so very
important a subject. Now, admitting, as I do
admit, that the gentlemen who constituted
the delegation from Canada in the Convention, were the first men of our land—I believe
men of patriotism, and who desired to
do only that which was for the best interests
of the country—still they are not infallible.
They may have made mistakes, and may have
omitted some things that, even if they were
again to go into conference after six months
had elapsed, might be placed in the resolutions that would |very much improve them.
My honorable friend from Peel has stated
that although he approved of most of the
resolutions, he desired to see amendments
made, but inasmuch as he saw their introduction by this House would be fatal to the
whole measure, he would take the whole as
it stood. I disagree with that honorable
gentleman, and with the position taken by
the honorable gentlemen representing the
Government in this House. I think it is a
mistake, and it is insulting to both the House
and the country to suppose that, because a
certain number of men met together and deliberated for fifteen or eighteen days, there
should be no improvement made upon the
result of their deliberations. Now, honorable gentlemen, I am one of those who, if
I can be convinced that a Federal union is
going to promote the stability or welfare of
Canada, will go with it most heartily, but I
do think it becomes necessary not to make
out altogether an
ex parte case, because I think
the resolutions that were passed by the delegates, though sent out to the country,
ought
to be accompanied by the other side of the
question, which has not been fairly heard.
There is still another matter to which I wish
to refer, and in doing so I might remark that
I am aware that this is looking at the darkest
side of the picture. I think that the engrafting of this system of government upon
the
British Constitution has a tendency to at
least introduce the republican system. It is
republican so far as it goes, and that is another reason why I do not approve of it.
If
we commence to adopt the republican system,
we shall perhaps get the idea of continuing
the system until we go too far. It is also
said that we are to have a new nationality.
I do not understand that term, honorable
gentlemen. If we were going to have an independent sovereignty in this country, then
I
could understand it. I believe honorable
gentlemen will agree with me, that after this
scheme is fully carried into operation, we shall
still be colonies.
HON. MR. MOORE
—Now, that being the
case, I think our Local Government will be
placed in a lower position than in the Government we have now. Every measure resolved
upon in the Local Government will be subject
to the veto of the Federal Government—that
is, any measure or bill passing the Local
Legislature may be disallowed within one year
by the Federal Government.
HON. MR. MOORE
—I beg to differ slightly
with the honorable gentleman. Any measure
passed by this province may be disallowed
within two years thereafter by the Imperial
Government. But the local governments,
under Confederation, are to be subjected to
having their measures vetoed within one year
by the Federal Government, and then the
Imperial Government has the privilege of
vetoing anything the Federal Government
may do, within two years. The veto power
thus placed in the hands of the Federal Government, if exercised frequently, would
be
almost certain to cause difficulty between the
local and general governments. I observe
that my honorable friend, Sir ETIENNE P.
TACHÉ, does not approbate that remark.
229
HON. MR. MOORE
—It will be conceded
that the question of the veto power was very
ably discussed, at one time, in the United
States Congress, and that discussion led to a
qualification of the veto power in the Constitution of the United States, so that
now any
bill passed by both Houses may be vetoed by
the President within ten days thereafter, by
assigning reasons for doing so. Both Houses
may then, however, again take up the measure,
and if they pass it by a two-third vote, it
becomes the law of the land, independent of
the President's will. Now, I would have the
veto power applied in a similar way in our
new Constitution. Exercising it in an arbitrary manner, as the Federal power is privileged
to do, it must, from the very nature of things,
create dissatisfaction and difficulty between
the two governments. Again, honorable gentlemen, it is said that by this union we
are to
strengthen our defensive capacity. I really
cannot see the force of this argument, unless
it were possible that in uniting with the Lower
Provinces their population was to be brought
nearer to us. If nature were to make the
necessary effort and move their territory up
alongside of us, and thus make a compact mass
of people, I would at once agree that it would
strengthen us in a military point of view. But
the fact is, the union will give an extension of
territory far greater in proportion to the numbers of the population than now exists
in
Canada. From that circumstance, I argue
that it will weaken instead of strengthen us.
(Hear, hear.) Unfortunately, if a war should
take place between the United States and
Great Britain, the Lower Provinces have a
thousand miles of sea coast open to attack,
and I apprehend they would be very jealous
about having their militiamen sent to Canada
for our defence from border incursions. And
it would be very natural for them to desire
that all their own force should be kept at home
for their protection ; and the same with regard
to Canada. If a considerable portion of the
militia of Canada were ordered to proceed to
the Lower Provinces, it would most certainly
weaken and cause dissatisfaction in Canada. But, setting that aside, does it increase
our numbers and our means of defence ? Have
we not the same territory exposed ? We shall
have no additional men by the union for the
defence of Canada. Perhaps, after the union
takes place, emigration will flow into the
country, but I do not know that there would be
any very great inducement, after a union,
above the inducements that now exist. It
appears to me that that question and fact
would remain in very much the same state as
at present. Honorable gentlemen, in conclusion, I would say that I have thus endeavored
to point out some of the objections to the
scheme as presented that have occurred to
me. We have all a common interest in this
matter. (Hear, hear.) I think that no political or party feeling should have any bearing
upon its consideration, and if, after a free
and full discussion of its merits and demerits,
and the people and the members of Parliament come to fully understand the question,
it is found that it is going to be an advantage to the country, I will certainly give
it
my cheerful support. But I do wish to have
some things respecting it made more clear to
my comprehension than they are at present,
and it is for these reasons that I have taken
up the time of the House in making these
few remarks. (Cheers)
HON. MR. MCMASTER said—The resolutions before the House have been so ably
discussed in nearly all their different bearings,
that it appears to me that but little can be advanced on either side in addition to
what has
been already said. I shall therefore only occupy the time of the House for a very
few
moments in explaining my reasons for the
vote I intend to give on the amendment of
the honorable member for Wellington. When
the Confederation of the provinces was first
proposed, I, although favorable to the principle of the scheme, entertained grave
doubts
as to whether, if carried, it would be of any
real benefit to that section of the country in
which I am more immediately interested.
Much, however, depended upon the details,
and after giving them a good deal of consideration, I have been unable to come to
the
conclusion that the scheme, as a whole, will
be a remedy for all the evils complained of
by the people of Upper Canada. (Hear, hear.)
The appropriations to be made annually to
the local legislatures out of the general revenue I regard as being most objectionable.
(Hear, hear.) This, I believe will go far to
neutralize some of the advantages which
would have resulted from the scheme had the
governments of the different provinces been
obliged to provide for all expenditure of a
strictly local character. The building of the
Intercolonial Railway must also be regarded
as a very questionable part of the project ;
indeed to my mind it is the most objectionable of the whole. (Hear, hear.) We are
told by honorable gentlemen that the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty renders
this
road an indispensable necessity in order to
230
secure an independent outlet to the seaboard ;
but, if this view of the case be correct, why
do not our merchants and millers forward
their produce during the winter months to
New York, Boston or Portland, by our or
any of the other different railway lines which
have long been open to these points ? The
reason is obvious. The freight by railway is
so expensive that they find it to for their
advantage to pay interest, storage and insurance on their wheat and flour until the
opening of the navigation. And if they do
not now avail themselves of the shipping ports
referred to, neither of which are more than
six hundred miles from Toronto, will they
send their produce double that distance over
the Intercolonial road to Halifax? Most assuredly not. (Hear, hear.) If the Reciprocity
Treaty even should be abrogated, the
great bulk of our produce in the west will
will then, as now, continue to be stored at the
different places of shipment along our canals
and lakes until the opening of navigation, so
that whatever may be said in favor of the
Intercolonial road in a military point of view,
or however it may be urged as a necessity in
order to furnish easy and convenient intercourse between the provinces in the event
of
their being united, I hold that as a commercial speculation it will prove an entire
failure,
which must necessarily add greatly to our already large unproductive investments.
(Hear.)
And how the honorable gentleman from
Toronto (Hon. Mr. ROSS) could say as he
did the other day, that Upper Canada alone
had better build the Intercolonial Railway
than be without it, is what I cannot comprehend.
HON. MR. MCMASTER—Well, if the
honorable gentleman would resign his seat and
present himself to any constituency west of
Kingston, giving the views he has enunciated
about this railroad a prominent place in his
address to the electors, I fear this House
would be deprived of his valuable services.
(Laughter. ) The change proposed in the
constitution of the Legislative Council, by
which the nominative is to be substituted for
the elective system, I cannot but regard as a
retrograde movement ; and were the resolutions providing change, and authorizing the
building of the Intercolonial Railway, and the
annual subsidy to the different local legislatures,
submitted separately, and under ordinary circumstances, I should, if standing alone
in the
House, feel it to be my duty to record my
vote against them ; but when viewed as part
of a general scheme, embracing other provisions, which may have an important bearing
upon the future interests, the peace and prosperity of the province, I feel bound
to consider
the resolutions in that spirit of compromise
which is absolutely necessary in framing any
measure or constitution that will be at all
likely to remedy our sectional difficulties.
(Hear, hear.) I need hardly remind honorable gentlemen that nothing could be more
unsatisfactory than the state of our public
affairs for a long time past. The Legislature
has been called together year after year, and the
usual sessional expenditure incurred—which
is always very large—but the sectional majorities arrayed against each other in the
other
Chamber, rendered useful legislation almost, if
not altogether, impossible. Whatever government was in power lived, as it were, by
the
day, and being engaged in a constant struggle
for existence, the very natural desire to obtain increased strength frequently led
to the
distribution of patronage and the expenditure
of public money in a way that could not be
justified. All admit we cannot go along as
we have been doing, and that some change is
necessary ; and in the absence of anything better being submitted, I feel inclined
to give the
scheme proposed a trial, believing that there
are reasonable grounds to hope that the
Constitution which is to be based on the
resolutions before the House will, at least to
some extent, remedy those sectional difficulties which have operated so much to the
prejudice of the country. (Hear, hear.) It will
secure to the people of Upper Canada the entire
control of their local affairs, which I regard as
being of the utmost importance. It will put
an end to the system of duplicating in one
section of the province large amounts of money
granted to the other for colonization roads and
other local objects, on which vast sums have
been squandered. It will secure to the people
of Upper Canada representation by population
in that branch of the Federal Legislature
which controls the purse-strings. It will also
give to them all the unsold Crown lands in the
western section of the province. And I trust
the promises made with reference to the
widening and deepening of our canals, and the
opening up of the North-West Territory will
be carried out in good faith. (Hear, hear.)
Indeed no Government can afford to treat with
entire neglect works of so much importance to
Upper Canada, and at the same time incur the
large expenditure required for the Intercolonial
Railroad. (Hear, hear.) When I look at
these advantages, and think of the critical
231
position in which the province is now placed,
and the serious consequences that might possibly follow, should the Confederation
scheme
be rejected, I shrink from the responsibility of
becoming a party to any amendment which
may have the effect of defeating the measure.
(Hear, hear.) Holding these views, and
looking upon the resolutions of the Quebec
Conference in the light of a treaty entered
into by five provinces, which must be either
approved as a whole or rejected, I feel that in
giving them my support, I am, all things considered, acting in the interest of the
province
generally, and doing what is best for my constituents. (Cheers.)
Hon. MR. SIMPSON said—I think it
was said by a wise man that there is nothing
new under the sun. But had SOLOMON
the scheme now before the House presented
to him, he would probably have changed his
opinion. Possibly nothing new can be said
on the subject of representation by population, or even on the scheme now before the
House ; but representing, as I do, one of the
and wealthiest constituencies in
Upper Canada, I think it necessary for me
to give my reasons for the position I have
felt it my duty to take in reference thereto.
It has been stated that the elections which
have lately taken place have gone in favor
of the Government ; but, even if such were
the case, how could it possibly be otherwise,
seeing that men of all shades of politics have
united in forming a happy family. We have
seen those who have been for almost a lifetime antagonistic to each other opening
their
arms, as was so well and eloquently depicted
the other evening by the honorable member
from Montreal (Hon. Mr. FERRIER), and
embracing each other; and we have been
led to imagine that the millennium, so long
predicted and anxiously looked for, has,
so far as Canada is concerned at all events,
at length arrived. (Laughter.) We are to
have no more discord and no more strife, but
are henceforth to live in harmony the one
with the other. It has been asserted that
in regard to myself I owe my return without
opposition to the fact that I avowed myself
in favor of the Confederation of the provinces on the basis submitted. This is not
correct. I held no meetings—I made no
speeches—and in no instance was I asked
what were my views in regard to the scheme;
and, if honorable gentlemen will permit me,
I will read a portion of my short address to
the electors. It is as follows :—
You will reasonably expect me to give my
views on the important constitutional changes
that are now contemplated. No one at all acquainted with the effects produced upon
our legisgislation and on the general prosperity of the
country, by the unhappy sectional difficulties
existing between Upper and Lower Canada but
must have felt that some remedy should be found
for those evils. Whether the very able gentlemen who have so strangely united to solve
and
remove these difficulties will be able to accomplish
their praiseworthy task, time alone can tell. We
need the details before being able to pronounce
an opinion; but heartily (and I hope in common
with every well-wisher of their country) I most
earnestly pray that they may succeed.
It will be seen that here I simply state
that the gentlemen who had so strangely
come together would be entitled to the thanks
of the country if they were able to agree
upon a scheme which would solve the admitted difficulties between Upper and Lower
Canada. But as I have read from my
address, so I still maintain that, before we
can be expected to express an intelligent
opinion, we ought not simply to have half a
scheme, but the details of the scheme in its
entirety. If we refer to the election in
North Ontario, where the Honorable Provincial Secretary had been the representative,
and who returned for re-election after accepting ofiice in the present Government,
we
find that he was defeated by a gentleman
(Mr. M. C. CAMERON). who is known to be
an opponent to the project. And if we take
the more recent election which occurred in
South Ontario, we find the contest between
two gentlemen, both personal friends of my
own, and both of whom were favorable to
the principle, but who pledged themselves
that before it became an accomplished fact,
it should, so far as their vote would extend,
be submitted for the approval of the people.
And I would be greatly deceived if the gentleman who has now the honor to represent
that riding in the other branch of the Legislature (Mr. GIBBS) shall be found supporting
the scheme unless that course be first
taken. We need the details before it is
possible that we can pronounce upon the
scheme and consider it on its merits.
HON. Mr. SIMPSON—The details are
unfortunately the very things that are wanting - they are the marrow of the whole
affair. (Hear, hear.) When the agitation
for representation by population was first
started in Upper Canada, I stated that I had
no confidence in it as a cure for the evils
232
we complained of, and I then, and have
ever since, felt that it would be better
for the two provinces to separate than
to create sectional jealousies and strife by
the demand for an increased representation,
and the religious cries associated with it.
For my part, I have never, like some honorable gentlemen of this House, attended and
presided over that kind of political organizations known as conventions, not believing
these to be the proper means of redressing
the grievances under which the country
labored. The effect of those conventions
was to add fuel to the agitation which was
already sundering the country. That such
should be the result I deeply regret, inasmuch
as some of the dearest friends I have in the
world are not only Lower Canadians, but
adherents of a different faith. The fruit
of this sectional hostility and discord we now
see in the demand which has sprung up for
Federation with all its concomitant burdens.
I can lay no blame to my conscience for
having assisted to bring about so unnatural
a state of things, and whatever may be the
consequences of the new condition of political existence towards which we are apparently
drifting, my skirts, I rejoice to say,
are clear, for I have had no hand or part in
it. We are told that if this scheme is carried out, Upper Canada will be entitled
to the
great advantage of having in the House of
Commons of the Federal Government 17
additional members. But what real advantage is this to be to the country ? Do we desire
17 additional members for the purpose of
crushing Lower Canada—is that what is
meant? I answer, no. But even supposing we
have 17 additional members—supposing representation by population is conceded in the
new order of things—what will be the gain
to Upper Canada? Will these 17 new
members cure the evils of which we
complain ? Will they be able to reduce the
excessive expenditures under which we are
now laboring, and which have been one of
the causes of the agitation for constitutional
changes? I do not believe a word of it.
Supposing Upper Canada has a larger representation by that number than Lower
Canada, you must remember that Lower
Canada, with the eastern provinces, is entitled to 112 members ; so that Upper
Canada would still be in a large minority of
the whole House. My honorable friend the
member for Niagara (Hon. Mr. CURRIE) has
brought before the House a number of valu
able statistics bearing on this question, and
I must say I deeply regret that the members
of the Government sitting in this Chamber
have not attempted to refute them. If
these figures were wrong, they were easily
susceptible of being so proved, especially
by so able a gentleman as the Honorable
Commissioner of Crown Lands. But he has
not attempted the task, inasmuch as he
knows it would be a hopeless one. I hold in
my hands a statement furnished by the
Auditor General to the Minister of Finance,
from which it appears that our debt amounts
to $75,578,000, and deducting sinking fund
and bankers' balances, 87,132,000, leaves
a balance of 868,446,000 as the actual debt
of Canada, to be borne by the people of this
province under any scheme that can be concocted. If we assume that the cost of the
International Railway will be $20,000,000
—and from the experience afforded by the
Grand Trunk there is too much reason to
fear it will be double that amount—the proportion which Upper Canada would have to
bear would be $15,000,000, and this added
to the already existing debt, would make our
direct debt 883,446,000. This increase in
our debt will be one of the fruits of Confederation. But it may be said that the road
will yield a revenue, though 'every member
of the House who knows anything of railway statistics, and the character of the country
to be traversed by the Intercolonial Railway, must know that this is impossible.
My honorable friend from Toronto (Hon.
Mr. Ross) when he issued his flaming prospectus to the capitalists of England fondly
hoped that the Grand Trunk would pay 11 1/4
per cent. on the investment. But we know
how these expectations have been disappointed by the actual result, and so far from
there being grounds to hope that the Inter
colonial Railway will occupy a better position,
there is too much reason to fear that it will
.be still worse. Why, the cost of its maintenance could hardly be less than $500,000
per annum beyond all its receipts. How
then could such a work be considered to be
of benefit to the country?
HON. MR. ROSS
—In the same way as the
canals—by cheapening the cost of transportation.
HON. Mr. SIMPSON—This is impossible.
It costs two cents per ton per mile to move
freight by rail, and as the distance from Toronto to Halifax is 1168 miles, it would
cost
$2.23 per barrel to move flour from Toronto
233
to that port ; while a barrel of flour can now
be sent
via the St. Lawrence at 50 cents or
under, and
via New York at 53 cents. Taking another view of the scheme, in its financial aspect,
we find that Canada now contributes, in all forms, to the support of the
General Government, over $10,000,000 per
annum. No one will say that we shall be
called upon to contribute less under Confederation. And if we add to this sum the
interest, at five per cent., on the additional debt
of $15,000,000 created by the proposed railway and the expense of two local governments,
assuming them to cost $1,000,000
each, which is below the mark, with $1,000,000 to be expended annually on the militia,
as well as our share of maintaining and running the railway, we will find that the
people
of the two Canadas will be called upon to
contribute $14,200,000 annually, instead of
the $10,000,000, as at present. And I would
ask honorable gentlemen if the country is in
a position to bear this additional burden ?
(Hear, hear.) Really, looking at the question of expense, I am not sure whether I
would not be in favor of returning to the
primitive system of administering the affairs
of the country—in preference to having this
scheme—by a Governor in Council. (Laughter.) For there is no question that our annual
expenditure will be, under Confederation, at least many millions more than at
present, with the cost added thereto of maintaining and running the Intercolonial
Railway—a work which can never pay.
HON. MR. FERRIER—It was predicted
when it was proposed to build the Rivière
du Loup section of the Grand Trunk that it
would never pay, but the fact is that for the
last two years it has not only paid expenses,
but has given a profit.
HON. MR. SIMPSON
—I should not contradict the honorable gentleman, because he
knows more about Grand Trunk matters
than I do, or most other people ; but my late
respected friend, Mr. FREER, who was the
lessee of that section during two or three
years, told me that, while receiving a subsidy
of $18,000 per annum for running it, with
the free use of four engines, and with a
suitable equipment of rolling stock, it would
have ruined him had he continued to work
the line even on those apparently favorable
terms.
HON. MR. FERRIER
—It is perhaps useless for me to say anything more, as the honorable gentleman will
not believe what I say,
—(Hon. Mr. SIMPSON—Hear, hear)—but
all I can state is, that a premium was offered
for the lease of the line, but the company
determined to take possession of it.
HON. MR. SIMPSON
—But the real question is, what was the cost of original construction, the interest
on that amount, and
the cost of maintenance ? Take these charges
into account, and it would require a pretty
large rental to cover them, much larger, I
think, than any responsible person would
offer for a lease of the line. As to the Intercolonial Railway, we have no information
from the government respecting the route
to be followed or the length or cost of the
road ; but from figures I have been able to
obtain, the following may be taken to be
nearly correct :—
|
Miles built |
To Be built. |
| From Halifax to Truro ......... |
65 |
.. |
| . . Truro to Shediac .......... |
. . |
90 |
| . . Shediac to St. John ....... |
108 |
. . |
| St. John to St. Andrews (under contract) ......... |
.. . |
75 |
| St. Andrews to Woodstock… |
50 |
. . |
| Woodstock to Rivier du Loup |
. . |
160 |
|
223 |
325 |
The total length of road from Rivière du
Loup is 548 miles ; add from Rivière du
Loup to Quebec, 120 miles ; Quebec to Montreal, 170 miles ; Montreal to Toronto, about
330 miles ; so that we have a total of 1,168
miles over which it is gravely proposed to
send flour and other heavy produce during
the winter months. (Hear, hear.) As has
been already stated, before a barrel of flour
could reach Halifax from Toronto, it would
be nearly eaten up in expenses. [An honorable member—There would be nothing
left but the hoops. (Laughter).] It has
been urged that under Confederation an
active trade would spring up between Canada
and the Maritime Provinces. A trade in
what ? What have we to send them excepting flour and the coarser grains ? The
former, as has been shown, cannot be sent,
and the latter they do not require. The
principal articles of export from the Lower
Provinces are fish, timber and ships. We
can take a moderate quantity of fish ; but
our forests supply us with an abundance of
timber, and the ship yards of Quebec turn
out some of the finest sailing ships in the
world. The true markets for the principal
staples of export for these provinces are
New York and Boston. Small vessels from
234
thirty to fifty tons, laden with fish, run from
the Maritime Provinces to these ports,
where they dispose of their cargoes and
purchase with the proceeds, corn meal, flour,
pork, molasses and other necessaries. But
it has been left for our Canadian statesmen
to propose new political alliances in order
to divert trade and commerce from their
natural channels. It is yet further said in
favor of Confederation that it will increase
our power of defence. In the ordinary acceptance of the term, union undoubtedly is
strength; but there are cases in which
union, instead of being a source of strength,
is in reality an element of weakness. If we
could attach the territory possessed by the
moon to these provinces, and obtain the assistance for our joint defence of the man
who is popularly supposed to inhabit that
luminary, we might derive strength from
the Confederation. (Laughter.) But although John Bull is accused of doing many
foolish things, I am persuaded that the
Mother Country is far too wise to entrust
the lives of her valuable soldiers when sent
to our defence—as in case of need I feel
well assured they would be—in passing over
a road so liable to attack and so easy of
destruction by our neighbors on the other
side, should we unfortunately ever become
involved with them in war, which I sincerely
pray may never occur. (Hear, hear.) In
conclusion I have simply to say that I cannot
possibly vote for the scheme before the
House, and thereby deprive the wealth and
intelligent freeman, who have twice elected
me unanimously, of a Constitution obtained
by long years of struggle, without knowing
what we have to offer them in its stead.
(Cheers)
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—Before the
question is put, I have a few remarks to make
on the general question, and particularly on
the motion of amendment which is now before
the House. I have copious notes which I
will not refer to now, but which I will make
use of at another stage of the debate. Questions have been put to me by several members,
which I will answer in due season; and explanations have been asked, which I hope
also
to be able to give. But, at present, my object
is merely to make a few remarks in reference
to the amendment which has been brought
forward by my honorable friend from Wellington ( Hon. Mr. SANBORN). When the
gentlemen who composed the onference met,
they had to lay down a broad basis, as it were,
for the foundation of their superstructure.
Well, it so happened that the corner-stone
was that which concerned the representation
in both Houses. It was agreed on the one
hand that in the House of Commons of the
Confederate Government representation should
be according to numbers, and that in the other
branch of the Legislature it should be fixed
that this representation should be equal for all
the provinces—that is to say, Upper Canada,
and Lower Canada, and the Maritime Provinces, grouped into one, should each be
allowed to send the same number of representatives, so as to secure to each province
its
rights, its privileges , and its liberties. We
acted upon this principle, because we felt that
if the House of Commons' representation was
based upon population, equality should be
secured in the other branch of the Legislature.
My honorable friend from Wellington has
gone over almost every detail of the scheme of
Federation, and he thought also he would try
his hand a little at constitution-making, by
improving that part which has particular
reference to the Legislative Council. Well,
honorable gentlemen, I think the saying is
pretty correct that it is easy to find fault, but
it is not so easy to do better. (Hear, hear.)
The honorable gentleman no doubt thought
in his own mind that he was going to improve
the scheme of the Conference, but I think he
has made it so bad that I believe I can shew
in the course of the few observations I have
to offer, even if we had the power to make amendments, no member of this House either
from Upper or Lower Canada would consent to
them for a moment. I have just said the agreement was that there should be equality
in the
representation in the Legislative Council.
But the honorable gentleman has moved that
the elective members as they now stand should
form the Legislative Council in the Federal
Government, and that also the life members
should continue for the remainder of their
days; and, as a set-off against the life members, he proposes to allow the other provinces
a certain number of new members who should
have the right to sit in the Legislative Council
of the Federal Government. But what does
he do ? Does he preserve the proportion as
laid down at the Convention ? Not a bit of
it. The proportion agreed upon at the Convention was one-third to the Maritime Provinces;
the Lower Provinces grouped together
had a right to send one-third of the representatives. The honorable gentleman, however,
I suppose out of the fulness of his good dis
235
position—I am sure it was not pressed upon
him by the delegates from the Maritime Provinces—comes forward and says, " I will
give
you ten members as a set-off against the
twenty-one members who are now members
for life in the Canadian Legislative Council."
If I am not wrong in my arithmetic, ten are
not a third of twenty-one. If the honorable
gentleman had given seven members to the
Lower Provinces as a set-off against the life
members of this House he would have acted
with strict justice, but he is generous enough
to give them three more—ten, or nearly one half.
Hon. Sir E. P. TACHÉ—I think the
honorable gentleman is wrong in his calculation. I say we have 21 members sitting
here
for life, and if the other provinces are entitled
to one-third of that number, it is clear to my
mind that they would have a right to no
more than seven. (Cries of "no, no," and
"yes, yes") .
HON. MR. CURRIE—They are entitled
to a third of the whole. Do you refer to the
elective members ?
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—The elective
members are a fact accomplished. On the
elective principle it is proposed to give a third
of the members of the Legislative Council of
the Federal Government to the Maritime
Provinces. But there are twenty-one life
members of this House, and you want to give
the Maritime Provinces an equivalent for them.
HON. Sir E. P. TACHÉ —We will have
to get a schoolmaster. (Laughter.) If seven
is not a third of twenty-one, I do not know
what a third is. (Laughter.) I am not
very fluent in speaking the English language,
and when I am met right and left, behind
and before, with interruptions like this, I
assure you I feel it a hard trial, and if honarable gentlemen have remarks to make,
I
trust they will wait until I have delivered
mine. (Hear, hear.) Well, honorable gentlemen, admitting that the third of twenty-
one are not seven - (laughter)—I say admitting, for the sake of argument, that ten
are
the third of twenty-one—(laughter)—I have
another objection, and a very serious objection,
which I do not think will advance very much
the case of the honorable gentleman who has
moved this amendment. Many of us have
been appointed for life in this House, and
some of us were so appointed many years
back. Here, for instance, is my honorable
friend on the left (Hon. Mr. HAMILTON)
who has been a member of the House some
twenty-four years—who was among the first
appointed by Lord SYDENHAM ; and I see
on the other side, honorable gentlemen also
far advanced in years—men who, in the ordinary course of life, cannot expect to be
very
long with us. Will the honorable gentleman
propose to give to the provinces below the
right to appoint old gentlemen ? Not a bit of
it. They would send here young men—men
who are in the prime of life—and when we
shall have gone to our last home, these
young men from below will be found sitting
in your places and in my place. Where,
then, would be the equilibrium ? The equilibrium would be lost, and lost for ever.
(Hear, hear.) And the honorable gentleman
thinks that his amendment would be a great
improvement to the scheme of the Conference.
Well, for my part, honorable gentlemen, I
believe it is a great failure in the way of improving the scheme of the Confederation—
a very great failure indeed. The honorable
gentleman has had the opportunity of speaking several times in this House, and very
often he has made allusion to me since the
opening of Parliament. He has endeavored
to place me in contradiction to myself. He
has stated that, in 1856, I was a member of
the Government conducting the affairs of the
House, and that I was the party who brought
in the measure to extend the elective principle to this honorable House, and he says
that
I am here again, nine ears later, endeavoring
to destroy that which I had a hand in erecting so long ago as I have stated. But,
honorable gentlemen, I think that when I shall
have explained the circumstances which then
forced the Government to bring forward the
measure to render this House elective, you
will agree with me that it was not on account
of any fancy or predilection on their part that
the elective system was proposed, but that it
was necessitated by the circumstances in
which the country found itself placed. It is
from no levity in the minds of the members
of the Government, or in my own mind; nor
is there any inconsistency in what I then did
and in what I am now doing. But we will
have something more on that point in the
course of a few moments. The honorable
gentleman, the other day, said we ought to
speak freely on this subject, the measure
236
being one of very great importance. He did
speak freely himself, and gave expression to
the fear that the Protestant English element
of Lower Canada would be in danger if this
measure should pass. He said as much as
this, that in the Legislature of Lower Canada
acts might be passed which would deprive
religious educational institutions there of
their rights, and even of their property.
Another honorable gentleman, who spoke yesterday , also gave expression to the fear
that
vested rights and privileges might be wrested
from the hands of the English-speaking population of Lower Canada—that there was nothing
secure to them under the new Constitution. Well, the honorable gentlemen who
could see, in the future, such dreadful consequences flowing from this union, and
who
make such sinister predictions, must make
them upon some
data. But I would ask honorable gentlemen if since 1791, when the
Constitution was given to Lower Canada,
there is, in all the records of the Legislature
of Lower Canada, a single act to be found in
which it can be shown that the Lower Canadians
—the Papists of Lower Canada—ever attempted to commit a single injustice towards their
fellow subjects of English origin professing the
Protestant religion ? I say, honorable gentlemen, that the act is not to be found.
But
acts of generosity, acts of liberality, acts of
tolerance are to be found everywhere. (Hear,
hear.) When you predict things of the future
you ought to have at least an inch of ground
to stand upon. You ought to be able to say
that at such and such a time you did such
and such unlawful acts. But I defy the honorable gentleman to point to one such act.
(Hear, hear.) As it was well asked by my
honorable friend, Sir NARCISSE F. BELLEAU,
who was it that emancipated the Jews in
1808 much earlier than they were emancipated in England ? Why, a Lower Canada
House of Assembly. Who gave Protestant
dissenters the right to keep records of marriages and burials ? Well, it was a French
Canadian—a Papist—House of Assembly.
And that House had a great deal of difficulty,
and why ? Because they were opposed in
the Legislature of Lower Canada by the
Protestant English minority.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—Perhaps it is
well that we have now responsible government,
because responsible government is a cure for
many evils. Well, the bill to give Protestant
dissenters in Lower Canada certain rights was
opposed again and again in the Legislative
Council of Lower Canada, and opposed by
English Protestants. But this was no less a
proof of the liberality of the French Canadians. (Hear, hear.) The honorable gentleman
behind me is not at all satisfied with the
electoral divisions as they stand in Lower
Canada. He says there is no security whatever afforded by them to the Protestant community.
But I wish that honorable gentleman had taken the trouble to look a little
into the facts upon which he had based his
conclusions in regard to these very electoral
divisions. Honorable gentlemen, I feel warm
on this subject. And why ? Because the
limits of the counties in Lower Canada were
devised by one of the most intelligent, upright
and liberal men it has ever been my fortune
to meet with. If a model of human perfection can be found in Canada, it must be
in the person of the honorable Judge MORIN.
(Hear, hear.) Before laying his project before the Executive Council, that gentleman
did me the honor to consult me in the matter,
and on two occasions I attended by appointment at his office to advise with him on
the
details of his scheme. The divisions of the
other branch of the Legislature were worked
out so as to give our Protestant English fellow subjects everything which could be
considered fair in every sense of the word. I
say also that the same spirit was manifested
in regard to the working out of the divisions
of the Legislative Council. I assisted to
work them out in conjunction with the Hon.
Mr. CAUCHON, and I do assert here most
solemnly that our whole trouble and study
was to try and devise some means so as to
give the English portion of the community
of Lower Canada something like fair play.
And when I am conscious of having done
these things, I feel it comes hard on me to hear
honorable gentlemen say that there is no security for them in the future, but that
the
French—the Papists—may do anything they
choose in the lower branch of the Legislature.
But, honorable gentlemen, if the lower branch
of the Legislature were insensate enough and
wicked enough to commit some flagrant act of
injustice against the English Protestant portion of the community, they would be checked
by the General Government. But the honorable gentleman argues that that would raise
an issue between the local and the general
governments. We must not, however, forget that the General Government is composed
of representatives from all portions of the
country— that they would not be likely to
237
commit an unjust act—and that if they did
so they would be met by such a storm of
opposition as would sweep them out of their
places in a very short time. But, honorable
gentlemen, to come back to the electoral divisions—I wish to look at them a little
more
closely, to show the results already produced.
I will be obliged to make a comparison, but
believe me, I do not wish to make invidious
comparisons. When, however, honorable gentlemen complain that they have no guarantee
for the preservation of their rights and liberties, I act on the suggestion of the
honorable
gentleman and speak my mind freely. Now,
how does the population of both Canadas
stand in reference to religious creeds? We
have in Upper Canada 1,396,090 souls, according to the last census, and of that number
there are 258,141 Roman Catholics. I
should like to know how many Roman Catholic representatives these 258,000 Roman Catholics
return to this House? I don't know
one. I say that there are 258,000 Roman
Catholics in Upper Canada who are not represented by one of their own faith on the
floor of this House—except, indeed, there
are those of the Roman Catholic faith of
whom I am not aware. (Laughter)
HON. MR. CRAWFORD was understood
to my in a jocose way that he was a Catholic.
(Laughter.)
Hon. SIR E. P. TACHÊ said—No; you
are an Orangeman—we have shaken hands
together already, and I hope we may shake
hands again, but when the honorable gentleman says he is a Catholic, I fancy he must
be
joking. (Laughton) I wish, honorable gentlemen, for you to pay a little attention
to
what I am saying, because it is facts that
always tell. A tree is known by its fruits, and
it is the fruit I wish to place before this House
and before the country. The total population
In Lower Canada at the last census was
1,110,000, and of these 942,7 24 were Roman
Catholics, leaving of all other religious persuasions, know-nothings, if any there
are,
heathens and other unbelievers, 167,940.
That is to say, honorable gentlemen, that the
Protestants in Lower Canada are less in number than the Catholics in Upper Canada,
by
91,201. Here, then, we have Protestants in
Lower Canada to the number of 167,000, and
the question arises how are they represented
in this House ? Well, they are represented
by three members; besides, there are two other
honorable gentlemen from Lower Canada who
have English names, but I really do not know
Whether they are Protestants or Catholics. I
do however know, as I before stated, that
there are three honorable gentlemen, Protestants, representing in this Council the
167,000
Protestants of Lower Canada. The honorable gentleman by my side, who has moved
these amendments, is one of them; an honorable gentleman who sits opposite to me is
another, and an honorable gentleman who sits
behind me, is the third; and there are two
other honorable gentlemen with English names
whom I do not know whether to classify as
Protestants or Catholics. I therefore say that
in comparing the representation of the two
sections of the province, the hon. gentleman
has no cause to complain. I have ever
labored to secure to my fellow subjects of
English origin, of the Protestant faith, in
Lower Canada, their rights and their liberties; and that my labors have not been in
vein
is proved by the fruits I have adduced. But
that is not all.
HON. MR. MOORE
—There are five Protestants in this House from Lower Canada.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I speak of the
elective members, because the argument has
reference to the electoral divisions. Now let
us look at the other branch of the Legislature; and I assert that the principle has
worked equally well there. There are 258,000
Roman Catholics in Upper Canada represented
in the other branch of the Legislature by only
two Roman Catholics, and one of these, I am
told, like my honorable friend opposite who
has avowed himself a Roman Catholic, never
goes to mass. (Laughter.) He is, however,
a good Catholic, because he has an accomplished and charming wife and most beautiful
daughters, the whole of whom are zealous
Christians and good Catholics, who go to
church and confess regularly; so that I am
bound to take the head of the family as a
good Catholic also. (Laughter.) Then, how
does the case stand for the Protestants in
Lower Canada ? In Upper Canada we have
just seen that 258,000 Catholics are represented by just two members of their own
faith
in the lower branch of the Legislature.
How are the 160,000 Protestants in Lower
Canada represented ? Well, honorable gentlemen, they are represented by no less than
14
members. (Hear, hear.) That is to say
more by fifty per cent. than they would be
entitled to according to strict rule of three.
(Hear, hear.) I would ask are all these
things more matters of accident ? Is it
chance or Dame Fortune that brings about
238
all these things ? I believe not. (Hear, hear.)
Causes invariably produce effects ; and they
are the effects mainly—I do not say entirely—
of the pains we have taken to give our fellow-
subjects of English origin the whole of their
rights and fair play in every respect. The
rest is due to French Canadian liberality.
After stating these facts, I really do not think
the honorable gentleman who represents the
division of Wellington has much cause to
complain. We judge of the tree, by its fruit,
and the fruit I have endeavored to place before you. If I have made any mistakes in
my facts, I am ready to be corrected. But
besides these 14 gentlemen representing the
Protestant element in Lower Canada in the
other branch of Legislature, I find three other
English names, but whether they are Catholics or Protestants I cannot say, and therefore,
not being certain of their creed, I have classed
them as doubtful ; but added to the 14, they
would make the number 17. I think all this
is pretty good proof of the liberality and the
spirit of justice of the Lower Canadians ; and
if they have acted so for three quarters of a
century, how is it to be supposed, now that
they are about to form the majority again in
the Lower Canada Legislature, they will all at
once change their mode of acting, and become
ready to tyrannize over and commit acts of
injustice on their fellow-subjects of English
origin in Lower Canada ? I do not believe
it. I do not believe there is such a thing as
vandalism in their minds, and I believe they
are as ready as ever to render equal and impartial justice to their fellow-men and
fellow-
subjects. (Hear, hear.) I must now pass
to another portion of my remarks. Honorable
gentlemen say I was inconsistent in that at
one time I erected a monument, and since then
I have been trying to pull it down. Well,
honorable gentlemen, to understand how we
stood in 1856 it is necessary we should take
the history of the Legislative Council a little
further back—from the time of its formation
immediately after the union. We had not
responsible government at the time of the
union, but then it was that the whole system
was put in practice. The first batch of councillors were appointed in 1841, and were
25
in number ; but two of them never attended.
Out of these 25 there were 18 conservatives
and five reformers. In 1842 seven new
councillors were added, five conservatives and
two reformers. In 1843 the Government
changed, and the change made a little difference in the political bearing of the appointments,
so that in 1843, there were appointed
one conservative and five reformers. In 1844-
45 there were two appointments—two reformers. In 1846 there was one conservative.
In 1847 there were four conservatives. Therefore, in 1848, when the Liberal Government
came into power—the LAFONTAINE-BALDWIN
Administration—the fact was that their partisans in the Legislative Council were fifteen
less than the opposite party. (Hear, hear.)
What were the Reform Government to do ?
They were forced to appoint a large batch
this time. They appointed no less than
twelve gentlemen. But still it left a majority
to the conservative party of three. And if
the conservatives had been true to themselves
—and I wish to God they had been, and I
will tell you, by and by, why—they could
have prevented a good deal of trouble and a
good deal of agitation in the country. Supposing that what is called the Rebellion
Losses Bill had not been passed in 1849,
would the country have suffered a great deal
from it ? But if the conservatives had been
true to themselves they would have stopped
the bill. It would have been discussed in
all the public prints. The Montrealers would
not have been entirely reconciled to the measure, but they would have waived their
opinions as dutiful subjects of the Queen, and we
should not have witnessed the scandal we had
in Montreal—the burning of the Parliamentary buildings and the Representative of the
Queen pelted with stones and almost murdered, followed by the annexation movement.
But I say if the conservatives had resisted
and just postponed the bill for another year,
all this trouble might have been avoided.
Now, honorable gentlemen, what was the
spirit which actuated the appointments to the
Council from 1841 to 1848 ? It was a spirit
of partisanship, and where there is partisanship there can be no justice. (Hear, hear.)
Where there is partisanship there can be no
stability — you can depend upon nothing.
(Hear, hear.) It is only when justice is rendered to all parties that you can reckon
upon
stable and permanent governmental institutions. (Hear, hear.) To shew the difference
between the spirit which actuated these nominations, from 1841 to 1847, and the spirit
which exists now, it is only necessary to refer
to the resolutions of the Conference. The
fourteenth resolution says :
The first selection of the members of the Legislative Council shall be made, except
as regards
Prince Edward Island, from the Legislative
Councils of the various provinces, so far as a
sufficient number be found qualified and willing
239
to serve ; such members shall be appointed by
the Crown at the recommendation of the General
Executive Government, upon the nomination of
the several local governments, and in such nomination due regard shall be had to the
claims of
the members of the Legislative Council of the
Opposition in each province, so that all political
parties may, as nearly as possible be fairy represented.
This shows you the spirit in which these resolutions were framed. Certainly the gentlemen
who composed the Conference were, like ourselves, liable to err, but there is no doubt
in
my mind that they acted conscientiously from
beginning to end. Well, honorable gentlemen,
after the burning of the Parliament House in
Montreal, the greatest possible excitement was
created all over the province. Those who
were most displeased at the passing of the
Rebellion Losses Bill, condemned in the most
violent terms the swamping, as they called it,
of the Legislative Council, though after all it
was nothing to be condemned, seeing that it
simply, to some extent, re-established the
equilibrium. But it was called, in the furor
of the moment, the disgraceful swamping of
the Legislative Council, and there was great
agitation all over the country. Well, by
means of the press constantly hammering
any upon what had been done by the Government, and representing those who had
been appointed as mere machines and tools
of the Executive, although they were really
among the most respectable and intelligent in
Canada—but party passion does not reason—
the people were led to believe that the Legislative Council had been disgraced by
the appointment of these twelve additional members.
But during the time that the conservatives
were, on hand, thus battering down
the Legislative Council, what had we on the
other hand? We had the old Reform party
in Lower Canada beginning to recall their old
hatred to the Legislative Council. Although
there was no reason to complain after the
introduction of responsible government, yet
people followed not their reason but their prejudice. So that the LegislativeCouncil
received cross-fire from both sides. It was
being battered down by public opinion on
either hand, and what could it do ? Nothing,
but come down lower and lower in public estimation. Although the consciences of the
members reproached them nothing—although
they could walk the streets with their heads
erect, yet the Legislative Council had been so
much reduced in public opinion, that those
gentlemen were really, I will not say ashamed
but reluctant to attend their places. But,
by besides, they came not to receive remuneration
or salary. From the time they were appointed
in 1841, they sacrificed their time and their
money, and gave their services gratuitously to
the public ; and they were met, as I have
already stated, by this universal deluge of
abuse which was levelled against them. (Hear,
hear.) There was therefore no great encouragement for them to attend in their
in the Legislative Council. But what
have we seen since? Session after session,
day after day, week after week we saw the
Speaker come into the Council with great
pomp, as the Speaker always does come into
the Council—(hear, hear, and a laugh)—preceded by the mace ; and after the Speaker
had made his usual dutiful bow to the Throne,
he would take his seat and remain quietly in
the chair for the space of one hour. At the
end of the hour, he would consult his watch,
and saying there was no quorum present—
although surely the quorum was a very small
one, being ten members only—he would
declare the House adjourned until the following day.
It being six o'clock, the SPEAKER left the
Chair.
After the dinner recess,
Hon. SIR E. P. TACHÈ continued his
remarks. He said—Honorable gentlemen,
when the clock struck six, I was stating that,
in one session after another, the SPEAKER of
this honorable House had day after day to
declare that there was no quorum, and the
Government of the day had to employ all sorts
of means to induce honorable gentlemen to
attend in their places. The
prestige of the
Legislative Council had gone, and the members, notwithstanding the offer to pay their
expenses, &c., remained at home, and the
business of the country suffered very much.
Towards the end of the session, we, could
muster a few gentlemen. But they did not
take much interest in the business of the
country—in fact, they were disgusted with it,
and they got through legislation at railroad
speed. Under those circumstances, what had
the Government to do? They were obliged
to resort to some means to restore, if possible,
the
status and
prestige of this House. There
was one unanimous cry on the subject from
one end of Lower Canada to the other—both
conservatives and reformers being as one in
pointing to the elective principle as a cure for
the state of things in which this province was
placed; and the Government, in consequence,
consulted with the English authorities with a
view of obtaining leave to extend to this House
240
the elective principle. This was not, as I
have stated already, because of any predilection
on our part for the elective principle. It was
not because we thought that the elective principle was much better than the stem of
appointment by the Crown—at all events
before the introduction of responsible government. Before that, the gentlemen who
nominated members of this House were responsible to no one. The appointments then
were
all made on one side. Even after the union,
but before responsible government was established, or before it was put in a thoroughly
tactical working state, the appointments had
been made in a partial manner. (Hear, hear.)
And it is not surprising that we experienced
the difficulties we did until that period. After
the establishment of responsible government
the position was very different—the resolutions
of the 3rd September, 1841, having declared
that no Government could be carried on except
by heads of departments having the confidence
of the representatives of the people in the
lower branch of the Legislature. If, from
that moment, bad appointments happened to
be made to the Legislative Council, then the
Government for the time being was responsible
to the people for those apporntments. And,
when the people wanted an elective Council at
that time, they did not base the demand upon
constitutional principles, but were led by their
passions, which had been excited by their
recollections of the past. They did not reason
the thing out; and, in fact, the great majority
of the people here, as everywhere else, are not
able to reason out constitutional points—they
are led by those who are at the head of the
different parties. In saying this, I have no
wish to be unjust to my countrymen. For
even in countries like the United States, which
boast much of their education, the immense
mass of the people are led by prominent men.
They do not reflect, they do not think for
themselves—and so it was with our people.
The Government for the time being were thus,
by the force of circumstances, obliged to bring
forward the measure for altering the constitution of the Legislative Council. The
measure
was passed by a pretty large majority ; and
I think that until now the elective principle
has worked remarkably well indeed, and that
the electors have sent to this House gentlemen
who would do honor to any deliberative body
in the world—I care not where, whether in
England, or on the continent of Europe, or in
America. But difficulties have arisen since
the passing of the Act of 1856, and the Government of the country came almost to a
dead-lock. Some remedy had to be found,
and gentlemen of opposite parties wisely
came together with the view of devising a
plan which would not only cure our domestic
difficulties, but give greater power and force
to the British North American colonies. To
bring this about we determined that we would
endeavor to obtain a Federal union of all the
British American Provinces. Delegates from
below, and the gentlemen composing the Administration of Canada met together. Some
of us might have preferred still to retain the
elective principle, but then we had to meet
those gentlemen from below, and we had to
give and take. We could not carry everything our own way. (Hear, hear.) The gentlemen
from the Lower Provinces were opposed to the elective principle, and went
strongly for the system of appointments by
the Crown. At the same time some among
ourselves were not very much enamoured
with the present system—(hear, hear)—and
those who were anxious. to retain the elective
principle, were obliged to yield. Thus, honorable gentlemen, what is now proposed
comes
before you, not as the act of the Government
of Canada— (hear, hear)—but as the mixed
work of the delegates from all the provinces,
in the form, as it were, of a treaty. I do
not think, after the explanations I have given
that I can be accused of a great deal of inconsistency, or of that levity which would
make a man build up something to-day which
he would be anxious to demolish to-morrow.
No, honorable gentleman—but circumstances
forced the Government in 1856 to bring on
their measure for rendering this House elective; and the circumstances of the country
in
1864 required that we should have recourse
to some other means to put an end to the
dead-lock in which the Province was placed.
(Hear, hear.) I am sorry that I do net see
the honorable gentleman from Grandville
(Hon. Mr. LETELLIER) in his place. The
Hon. Sir NARCISSE F. BELLEAU the other
night made some remarks as to the difficulty
of finding candidates for the Legislative
Council. Now, for my own part, I should be
exceedingly sorry to say anything that would
wound the feeling of any one. And where
could I look—before me, or behind me, or at
my side—to find. any one against whom I
could bring the least reproach? No—I repeat it again—that those whom the elective
principle has sent here are gentlemen who
would come well with the members of any
legislative body that could be mentioned. But
then there are difficulties inherent to the
241
working of the principle itself. I would especially mention the difficulty which arises
from the constituencies being so large. I
know not whether this has been felt in Upper
Canada, but I know that it has been felt in
Lower Canada. Many of you, honorable
gentlemen, have spent laborious days and
laborious nights in canvassing these immense
divisions, where sometimes the internal communications are exceedingly difficult.
You
know the wear and tear thus imposed on
the human body, and that some gentlemen
after canvassing these immense divisions,
have found their graves in consequence of
the exhaustion brought on by these efforts.
(Hear, hear.) But, honorable gentlemen, it
is not merely this tear and wear of the human
constitution which you have had to encounter.
This country, I need not say, is not very
wealthy. In point of wealth it does not resemble the Mother Country. There are gentlemen
there with £200,000 or £300,000 a
year, who think nothing of spending several
thousand pounds, provided that by that expenditure they can put themselves in a conspicuous
position before the country. But
here our fortunes are limited. That is the
case in Lower Canada. I hope it is not so
in Upper Canada.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—Your fortunes
in Upper Canada may be much greater than
ours. (Cries of "no, no.") But I can tell
you how it is generally among ourselves—
speaking not so much for the district of Montreal as for the portion of the country
in which
I live myself, the district of Quebec. Where
I reside, some forty or fifty miles below Quebec, the fortunes are not very large,
and the
farmer who by his industry has been able
to accumulate some £8,000 or £10,000 is a
very wealthy) man. My honorable friend
beside me ( Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL) suggests
that it is the Ottawa gentlemen who are able
to afford a contest. (Laughter.) If so, I
tell honorable gentlemen that we cannot afford
it below. It is but few whose fortunes reach
£6,000 or £8,000—perhaps half a dozen in a
large parish. It is true that some of our
merchants in Lower Canada, by their industry and aptitude in trade, have accumulated
very handsome fortunes—but these are
the exceptions. Well, a man who, after fifteen
or twenty years of hard labor, has accumulated
£6,000 or £8,000 for his family, or for his
old age— knowing how a candidate is bled—
(laughter)—is not very willing to go and
spend half of it in an election. You cannot
persuade such a man to come forward—but
you may engage other parties who have not
got much money to lose to do so. These men
will be ready to promise a great deal, though
they may not be able to fullfil their promises,
an are thus more likely to be elected than
those who have fortunes. My honorable friend
from Grandville, I think misapprehended the
honorable Knight on his left (Hon. Sir N. F.
BELLEAU,) when he understood him to speak
slightingly of the talent of honorable members
of this House. We have no aristocracy here
in the sense of a family aristocracy, but we
have an equally influential aristocracy, that of
intellect. (Hear, hear.) And a man of
intellect and education, though not a rich man,
I consider is in every way worthy of respect,
and would be a most desirable addition to this
House. But, suppose we have a man of
respectability, of education, and of intellect,
and one who is highly esteemed by his neighbors—suppose he has a little fortune besides,
he is not the worse man for that. (Hear,
hear.)
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—But, as I was
remarking, what I am afraid of is, that men
who are well qualified for the position, after
having gone through one or two elections, in
which they have lost one-half, or two-thirds,
or the whole of their fortune, are not likely to
stand another contest, and we lose the happiness of meeting them here again. And I
fear
that the longer the elective system is continued,
the greater would be the difficulty in that
respect. Let us take a lesson from history,
and from what goes on around us. I recollect that, in 1855, when on board the
Canada, going to Europe, I made the
acquaintance of some most respectable American families, and particularly of a most
interesting American woman. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.)
Boni soit qui mal y pense. (Continued laughter.) I met with a very interesting American woman, and, as she
was conversing with me and mentioning some very
preposterous laws that had been passed in her
state, I said—" Madame, have you not some
people of good common sense and respectability to oppose such absurd laws ?" She replied,
" Sir, I am an American woman, and
—I am ashamed to say it—the respectable
people, the people of standing in our state,
have no voice in the government of their
country." (Hear, hear.) Many of you,
honorable gentlemen, are familiar with the
242
state of things in the United States, which
has resulted from carrying the elective principle too far ; and the fact that that
principle,
carried too far has worked much mischief,
ought to place us on our guard. Some years
ago, in Canada, there was quite a rage for the
elective principle, and an agitation was got up
with the view of rendering the judiciary
elective. Well, a statesman of the United
States, with whom I am well acquainted, and
who now occupies a high position in that
country, once remarked to me: " You have
quite enough of the democratic element in
your Constitution already, and, above all, do
not make your judiciary elective, for that
would be one of the greatest curses you could
inflict on your country." (Hear, hear.) The
elective principle, kept within proper bounds,
is very good indeed, and hitherto, no doubt,
has worked well in this House. But I doubt
whether, in the course of time, this House
would not lose its present high
status if the
elective principle was continued in it for ever.
As regards this, however, I merely state
my own opinion, and other honorable gentlemen may hold contrary opinions, as they
are
perfectly entitled to do. (Hear, hear.) Having thus, honorable gentlemen, explained
the
reasons which induced the Government, in
1856, to propose that the elective principle
should be extended to this House, with the
concomitant circumstances which assisted in
bringing that about—and having also explained the reasons which have induced the
Government now to look for another state of
political existence, as we may call it, by Conederation with the Maritime Provinces,
I
think I am clear from any imputation of
inconsistency or levity of purpose. Before
sitting down I have a personal explanation to
make. When I speak, honorable gentlemen,
I speak with sincerity, but, like any other
man, I may commit a mistake. The moment,
however, that I find I have committed a mistake, I am ready to admit it, as any honest
man should do. (Hear, hear.) I find that
I took a wrong view of the proportions of appointed members that were to be allotted
to
each province, in case the amendment of my
honorable friend from the Wellington Division should pass. I have since been convinced
that I was wrong, and that it was really carrying out the principle of distribution
.adopted in the scheme, to allot to the Lower Provinces other ten members. I am glad
to admit
that my honorable friend was right in correcting me. But I still maintain that he
was
wrong—very wrong—in bartering old men
for young ones, because, no doubt, the old
men would soon disappear from their seats,
while the young men from below would long
retain their places, and we would thus destroy
the equilibrium upon which the whole fabric
of the proposed Constitution is based. I say
the honorable gentleman was wrong in that,
and that, if his proposal were adopted, it
would certainly be no improvement on the
scheme as it has come from the Conference.
(Cheers.)
HON. Mr. SKEAD said—Honorable gentlemen, I claim the indulgence of the House
for a few moments while I state from my point
of view, as one of the representatives from
Central Canada, the way in which I regard
the measure now under consideration. I am
an advocate of the union of the British North
American Provinces. (Hear, hear.) When I
came here a few weeks ago, my mind was
scarcely made up as to the course I should
pursue. At the same time I was desirous of
taking that course which should be approved
by the majority of my constituents. In November last I received the document which
was sent to members of both Houses throughout the province; but as it was marked "
Private," I felt bound by every consideration of
propriety not to make it public. Having at
that time been reelected by my constituents,
I had no occasion to use it in connection with
securing my return to this House. But,
speaking of my reelection a few months ago,
I may remark that a number of my constituents felt disposed at that time to pledge
me to
oppose this union of the British North American colonies. For my own part I felt it
would be wrong for me to do so, not knowing
what was the programme that was about to
be laid; I refused, therefore, to give a pledge.
Probably I felt more independent on account
of there being no opposition. (Laughter.)
But be that as it may, I have the same desire to act in accordance with the deliberate
views of my constituents as if I had canvassed
every vote in the division. I pledged myself
on the hustings on the day of my election,
that as soon as the scheme was published. I
would give it my earnest attention, and form
a judgment upon it to the best of my ability.
After the document was formally laid on the
table of the House, I waited til1 it was put
in type, and having ordered two thousand
copies of it, I sent them, some fiteen days
ago, to my constituents, with a circular calling upon them to state any objections
they
might have to the scheme if they considered it objectionable, and to indicate what
243
course they wished me to pursue with reference to it. I am up to this evening without
any answers to that circular, with one
or two exceptions which I need not take up
the time of the House by further alluding to.
I now take it for granted, having given such
an ample opportunity to my constituents to
express their opinions, that I am at full liberty
to pursue that course which I think myself
to be for the interests of the country. (Hear,
hear.) My feeling in the first instance was
that the matter was being pressed too rapidly in
this House—that we might have waited for a
little—that we should have allowed the other
House to go on and adopt the resolutions first,
if they did adopt them, before we were called
on to pronounce a final decision upon them.
But I have somewhat changed my mind from
hearing the able speeches of honorable gentlemen both for and against the amendment
now under the consideration of the House ;
and I have come to the conclusion to give an
independent vote, according to the best judgment I can form, since my constituents,
after
being invited to express their opinions, up to
this hour have not responded to the request. I
speak here as a representative of Central Canada, and particularly of the Ottawa country.
The people there are engaged mainly in one
trade, the lumber trade ; and, with reference to
that trade, the promulgation of this scheme has
caused us some feelings of apprehension, not
to say gloom. Till within the last few hours,
as late as yesterday, I was still in the dark
as to the bearings of the scheme in that
respect. But I have now had assurances from
the Government—and particularly from one
or two members of it—that the scheme is not
going to inflict that injury upon the lumbering
interest which we imagined. In fact the
clause relating to that subject has been so explained to me, that I am now perfectly
satisfied. (Hear, hear.) My feeling formerly
was that our trade was treated in a manner
which it did not deserve. Here we have a
trade employing many thousands of people—
employing a large amount of shipping to carry
away the produce of our forests, which
exceeds the amount of the exported agricultural produce of the country by a value
of
some two millions of dollars. We naturally
felt that such a trade had some right to be
considered. (Hear, hear.) However, accepting the assurances of honorable gentlemen,
in
whom I have the utmost confidence, who
compose the present Government, I am now
quite prepared, as one of the representatives
of the Ottawa section of country, to leave that
matter in their hands. A great deal has been
said in this debate on the general question of
the Confederation of these provinces, and as
to that I shall say but little. As I have already
stated, I am an advocate of union. I would
even say that the scheme of the delegates to the
Quebec Confererence does not go far enough.
I contend that, instead of merely taking in
the provinces to the east of us, the scheme
should have embraced British Columbia and
the whole of the territory to the west. An
honorable friend near me says that will come
in good time. But I am afraid that some
Downing-street or other influence may prevent
it. (Cries of "no, no !") I should like to
see the Pacific as the western boundary of this
young Confederation, in the same way as the
Atlantic is its eastern limit, so that we should
have one country stretching from ocean to
ocean. (Hear, hear.) A great deal has been
said in this debate on the subject of railways.
Honorable gentlemen have spoken of the cost
of building our railways, of the damage the
Grand Trunk has done, and of the profits
certain gentlemen have made out of it. For
the life of me, I cannot see the force of their
arguments. True, the Grand Trunk has cost
a great deal of money, but how should we
feel if we had to go back to the state of
things which existed when we had no railroad?
What should we do if the Grand Trunk were
now taken from us ? I believe we could not
do without it. It has become a necessity.
Every man within the range of its influence,
has had his land enhanced in value—and the
debt of $15,000,000 or $16,000,000, while of
course in itself a great deal of money, is nothing when we reflect on the ability
of the provinces to bear it. If spared to continue here during my term of eight years,
I shall still advocate the Intercolonial Railway as a line necessary to connect us
with the seaboard. It will
cost us some little money no doubt, but it will
yield us compensating advantages. There are
large forests to the east of us, which have
still to yield up their wealth, and no one can
tell how much may come out of that country,
when its resources are developed. The subsidy
we are now paying the ocean steamships will
go a good way to pay the interest on our share
of the cost of the railway. Besides we
are new spending a great deal of money to
bring population into these provinces—an
object that will be promoted to a large extent
by the building of that road. To build it
will take some four or five years, and we cannot tell how much that section of the
country
will be settled in that time. It will no doubt
244
prove of great advantage to us. We shall
then be ready, I hope, to commence the railroad to British Columbia, and the improvement
of the Ottawa river to the upper lakes—
(hear, hear)—and the navvies and others who
have been employed on these works will find
employment on the road-leading to the Pacific,
and will ultimately become settlers in the
great Red River country. (Hear, hear.)
Such are my sentiments in connection with
the subject now before the House. My experience may not have been as great as that
of some honorable members, but I have been
in the habit of observing what was going on
around me, and I have come to the conclusion
that the union of these provinces is desirable
and necessary. (Hear, hear.) It has been
said that the gentlemen forming the present
Ministry have held such opposite opinions
that no good can be expected to result from
their coalition. I have not such a poor opinion
of human nature as to feel disposed to question
in any way the sincerity and patriotism of
those honorable gentlemen. The have seen
the necessity of some change being brought
about, if the good of the country was to be
promoted. Whatever may have been the
antagonism of their views formerly, they now
occupy the same wigwam, and, it is said, the
same blanket covers them—(laughter)—and,
so long as the country receives the benefit, I
am satisfied to support them, no matter what
their politics may have been during the last
twenty years. (Hear, hear.) No doubt the
country has been suffering—a cure had to be
found, and I think we are now on the highway
to get it. (Hear, hear.) Honorable gentlemen composing the Government will permit
me to repeat that our lumber trade deserves
their earnest and best attention on account of
the employment it gives to so large a number
of persons, the way in which it swells the
exports of the country, the market it affords
for the produce of the agricultural portion of
the community, and the manner in which it
forwards the settlement of our wild lands.
To the Ottawa district it is, of course, of
special importance, but it has an interest for
the whole province, inasmuch as it makes for
us a back country. A country that is all
frontier must always be a little country.
(Hear, hear.) If a check is in any way put
upon the lumber trade, as the consequence of
its being placed under the separate control of
each local government, it would be a result
much to be regretted. But it is to be hoped
that the Government will give this matter
their most earnest consideration, and that they
will do what in their opinion is best for the
interests of all concerned. It has been said by
some in our section that Central Canada is to
be made the footstool of Upper Canada, and
that it is also to be made the footstool of
Lower Canada. For my own part I am quite
unable to see how we can be made the footstool of both. (Hear, hear.) That was the
idea expressed in a letter sent me the other
day, begging me to give the scheme all the
opposition in my power. It may be true that
the western part of the province is a little
covetous, and a little ambitious of controlling
everything ; still, I have that faith in the
good feeling of the western people, and in our
ability to protect ourselves, that I do not believe our lumbering interest is to be
destroyed
all at once, even though the Local Government
of Upper Canada should have its seat in Toronto. Whoever may compose the Local Government,
I think they must see the importance of the lumber trade, and will do what
they can to foster and encourage that which
is essential to the good of the whole country.
I do not believe they will adopt the policy of
killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
(Hear, hear.) I see there is a disposition to
have the vote taken, and I will not detain the
House longer. (Cries of " go on.") I have
only this to say in conclusion, that when these
scattered provinces are united together, as is
now proposed, and when the bond of that
union has been sealed with the great Imperial
seal of Great Britain—with the blessing and
favor of an all-ruling Providence—I, for one,
have no fear of the result. (Cheers)
HON. MR. SANBORN said—I desire, before the vote is taken, to offer a single explanation. The Honorable
Premier ( Hon. Sir E.
P. TACHE) attributed to me certain remarks
on which he based the early portion of his
speech. He said I complained of the arrangement of the electoral divisions in Lower
Canada. I made no such complaint. I made no
allusion to that. What I had reference to
was the appointment of Legislative Councillors for divisions, and their having property
qualifications in those divisions. I am sure
the Honorable Premier did not desire to attribute to me anything I did not say.
HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—If my honorable friend says he did not use the argument,
of course my remarks upon it go for nothing.
HON. MR. SANBORN —Another point,
too, I may notice. The Honorable Premier
based his argument on my having drawn a
245
distinction between Papists and Protestants.
Now, I never used the terms "Papist," or
" Catholic," or " Protestant." (Hear, hear)
The distinction I drew, and the remarks I
made, were with regard to the English and
the French of Lower Canada. And honorable
gentlemen will remember that I distinctly admitted what the Premier had claimed for
his
countrymen—namely, their well-known liberality. I have always admitted that, and have
never had any disposition to deny it. But
my argument was that, in establishing a Constitution, our rights and interests should
be
protected by distinct provisions in that Constitution—that these would form the only
satisfactory assurance we could get—that we
could not rest upon the liberality of any class
of men, but must have the assurance of distinct guarantees. That was the line of argument
pursued. (Hear, hear.) I do not
think the Premier should have been so hard
upon me for not stipulating that the ten men
who should, be chosen in the Maritime Provinces should be old men, so that they might
not have the advantage of putting in young
men as an offset to our old ones. When I
see, in the case of the Premier himself, at
his advanced years, the youthful fire burn
up so brightly, and that age does not at all
detract from the vigor he manifests, I think
he must excuse me for not having made
an invidious distinction between old men and
young ones. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
HON. MR. WILSON begged to state that
he was opposed to the amendment, but was
precluded from recording his vote, in conseequnce of having paired off with Hon. Mr.
Moore.
The House then divided on Hon. Mr. SANBORN'S amendment, which was negatived by
42 to 18.
CONTENTS—The Honorable Messieurs Aikins,
Archambault, Armstrong, Bureau, Chaffers, Cormier, Currie, Flint, Leonard, Leslie,
Letellier
de St. Just, Malhiot, Olivier, Perry, Proulx,
Reesor, Sanborn, and Simpson.—18.
NON-CONTENTS—The Honorable Messieurs
Alexander, Allan, Armand, Sir N. F. Belleau,
Bennett, Blake, Ferguson Blair, Boulton, Bosse,
Bull, Bnmham, Cam ll, Christie, Crawford,
DeBeanjen, Dickson A.J. Duchesnay, E. H. J,
Duchesnay, Dumouchel, Ferrier, Foster, Gingras,
Guevremont, Hamilton (Inkerman), Hamilton
(Kingston), Lacoste, McCrea, McDOnald, Mc—
Master, Macpherson, Matheson, Mills, Panet,
Price Prud'homme, Read, Ross, Ryan, Shaw,
Skead, Sir E.P. Tache, and Videl.—42.
This individual participated in:
