Until this great work is completed, our dominion is little more than a geographical expression - Sir John A. Macdonald

Travel through the eras of  history and the development of the various nations that make up Canada today.

George Brown was a radical, fiery, opinionated, orator and editor who grew up in the rough and tumble politics of the Union of the Canada's. He was anti-Catholic and believed that Lower Canada or Quebec had undue power in the Union between Upper and Lower Canada. One of his personal themes was representation by population. He believed that the two Canada's should have a number of representatives in the Union's assembly that would be equivalent to the number of people in the region. Brown was the leader of the reform party who were the forerunners of the Liberals. 

He was a firm believer in the separation of church and state, even though he was a devout Scots Presbyterian. He was the founder and editor of the Globe newspaper and used this media to espouse his opinions. He was a bitter opponent of John A Macdonald and they were famous rivals in the Unions Government. Brown was the last person one would have expected to team up with the Conservatives in Macdonald on anything, yet he had a vision of a British North America. He perhaps saw a greater protection of the British system in that Union and perhaps a way of shifting the balance against the French Canadian Catholics in government.

"For the essential thing about the Globe and the movement it led is that it represented the aspirations and the general outlook on life of the pioneer Upper Canadian farmer. The "Clear Grit" party in Upper Canada was an expression of the "frontier" in our Canadian politics... Though Brown himself sat for one of the Toronto seats from 1857 to 1861, the Grits never succeeded in capturing the main urban centres. Toronto. London, Hamilton, and Kingston pretty steadily elected supporters of the Macdonald-Cartier coalition."

Historian Frank H. Underhill

With Upper Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island all in one government, he could perhaps gain the support he sought to weld power. He also had the greater vision of a British North America which would eventually include the lands to the west of Upper Canada. He was incisive enough and had the courage to put aside a lifetime of personal differences to approach Macdonald to initiate the movement towards bringing the colonies and Canadas together and begin talks which could lead to general union. This solution would also break the deadlock in the politics of the Canada's and activate a whole new alignment of politic forces throughout the Maritimes and both Upper and Lower Canada.

This speech was deliver during the Confederation debates on February 8th, 1865 - In the legislature of the United Province of Canada

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

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

HON. MR. BROWN : My honourable friend dissents from that, but is it possible truthfully to deny it ? Has it not been approved and endorsed by the governments of five separate colonies ? Has it not received the all but unanimous approval of the press of Canada ? Has it not been heartily and unequivocally endorsed by the electors of Canada ? My honourable friend opposite cries “No, no,” but I say “Yes, yes.” Since the coalition was formed, and its policy of federal union announced, there have been no fewer than twenty-five parliamentary elections—fourteen for members of the Upper House, and eleven for members of the Lower House. At the fourteen Upper House contests, but three candidates dared to show them-selves before the people in opposition to the government scheme; and of these, two were rejected, and one—only one—succeeded in finding a seat. At the eleven contests for the Lower House, but one candidate on either side of politics ventured to oppose the scheme, and I hope that even he will yet cast his vote in favour of confederation. Of these twenty-five electoral contests, fourteen were in Upper Canada, but not at one of them did a candidate appear in opposition to our scheme. And let it be observed how large a portion of the country these twenty-five electoral districts embraced. It is true that the eleven Lower House elections only included that number of counties, but the fourteen Upper House elections embraced no fewer than forty counties. Of the 130 constituencies, therefore, into which Canada is divided for representation in this chamber, not fewer than fifty have been called on since our scheme was announced to pro­nounce at the polls their verdict upon it, and at the whole of them but four candidates on both sides of politics ventured to give it opposition.

Was I not right then in asserting that the electors of Canada had, in the most marked manner, pronounced in favour of the scheme ? And will honourable gentlemen deny that the people and press of Great Britain have received it with acclamations of approval ?—that the government of England has cordially endorsed and accepted it?—ay, that even the press and the public men of the United States have spoken of it with a degree of respect they never before accorded to any colonial movement ? I venture to assert that no scheme of equal magnitude, ever placed before the world, was received with higher eulogiums, with more universal approbation, than the measure we have now the pleasure of submitting for the acceptance of the Canadian parliament. And no higher eulogy could, I think, be pro­nounced than that I heard a few weeks ago from the lips of one of the foremost of British statesmen, that the system of government we proposed seemed to him a happy compound of the best features of the British and American constitutions. And well might our present attitude in Canada arrest the earnest attention of other countries. Here is a people composed of two distinct races, speaking different languages, with religious and social and municipal and educational institutions totally different ; with sectional hostilities of such a character as to render government for many years well nigh impossible ; with a constitution so unjust in the view of one section as to justify any resort to enforce a remedy. And yet, here we sit, patiently and temperately discussing how these great evils and hostilities may justly and amicably be swept away forever. We are en­deavouring to adjust harmoniously greater difficulties than have plunged other countries into all the horrors of civil war. We are striving to do peacefully and satisfactorily what Holland and Belgium, after years of strife, were unable to accomplish. We are seeking by calm discussion to settle questions that Austria and Hungary, that Denmark and Germany, that Russia and Poland, could only crush by the iron heel of armed force. We are seeking to do without foreign intervention that which deluged in blood the sunny plains of Italy. we are striving to settle forever issues hardly less momentous than those that have rent the neighbouring republic and are now exposing it to all the horrors of civil war. Have we not then great cause of thankfulness that we have found a better way for the solu­tion of our troubles than that which has entailed on other countries such deplorable results ? And should not every one of us endeavour to rise to the magnitude of the occasion, and earnestly seek to deal with this question to the end in the same candid and conciliatory spirit in which, so far, it has been discussed ?

The scene presented by this chamber at this moment, I venture to affirm, has few parallels in history. One hundred years have passed away since these provinces became by conquest part of the British Empire. I speak in no boastful spirit—I desire not for a moment to excite a painful thought—what was then the fortune of war of the brave French nation, might have been ours on that well-fought field. I recall those olden times merely to mark the fact that here sit to-day the descendants of the victors and the vanquished in the fight of 1759, with all the differences of lan­guage, religion, civil law and social habit, nearly as distinctly marked as they were a century ago. Here we sit to-day seeking amicably to find a remedy for constitutional evils and injustice complained of—by the van­quished? No, but complained of by the conquerors ! Here sit the repre­sentatives of the British population claiming justice—only justice; and here sit the representatives of the French population, discussing in the French tongue whether we shall have it. One hundred years have passed away since the conquest of Quebec, but here sit the children of the victor and the vanquished, all avowing hearty attachment to the British Crown—all earnestly deliberating how we shall best extend the blessings of British institutions—how a great people may be established on this continent in close and hearty connection with Great Britain Where, in the page of history, shall we find a parallel to this ? Will it not stand as an imperish­able monument to the generosity of British rule ?

And it is not in Canada alone that this scene is being witnessed. Four other colonies are at this moment occupied as we are—declaring their hearty love for the parent state, and deliberating with us how they may best discharge the great duty entrusted to their hands, and give their aid in developing the teeming resources of these vast possessions. And well may the work we have unitedly proposed rouse the ambition and energy of every true man in British America. Look at the map of the conti­nent of America. and mark that island (Newfoundland) commanding the mouth of the noble river that almost cuts our continent in twain. Well, that island is equal in extent to the kingdom of Portugal. Cross the straits to the mainland, and you touch the hospitable shores of Nova Scotia, a country quite as large as the kingdom of Greece. Then mark the sister province of New Brunswick—equal in extent to Denmark and Switzerland combined. Pass up the River St. Lawrence to Lower Canada—a country as large as France. Pass on to Upper Canada, twenty thousand square miles larger than Great Britain and Ireland put together. Cross over the continent to the shores of the Pacific, and you are in British Columbia, the land of golden promise—equal in extent to the Austrian empire. I speak not now of the vast Indian territories that lie between—greater in extent than the whole soil of Russia—and that will ere long, I trust, be opened up to civilization under the auspices of the British American confederation. Well, the bold scheme in your hands is nothing less than to gather all these countries into one—to organize them all under one government, with the protection of the British flag, and in heartiest sympathy and affection with our fellow-subjects in the land that gave us birth. Our scheme is to establish a government that will seek to turn the tide of European emigration into this northern half of the American con­tinent—that will strive to develop its great natural resources—and that will endeavour to maintain liberty, and justice, and Christianity through-out the land.

MR. T. C. WALLBRIDGE : When ?

HON. MR. CARTIER : Very soon !

HON. MR. BROWN : The honourable member for North Hastings asks when all this can be done ? The whole great ends of this confederation may not be realized in the lifetime of many who now hear me. we imagine not that such a structure can be built in a month or in a year. What we propose now is but to lay the foundations of the structure—to set in motion the governmental machinery that will one day, we trust, extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And we take special credit to ourselves that the system we have devised, while admirably adapted to our present situation, is capable of gradual and efficient expansion in future years to meet all the great purposes contemplated by our scheme. But if the honourable gentleman will only recall to mind that when the United States seceded from the mother country, and for many years afterwards, their population was not nearly equal to ours at this moment—that their internal improvements did not then approach to what we have already attained, and that their trade and commerce was not then a third of what ours has already reached—I think that he will see that the fulfilment of our hopes may not be so very remote as at first sight might be imagined. And he will be strengthened in that conviction if he remembers that what we propose to do is to be done with the cordial sympathy and assistance of that great power of which it is our happiness to form a part.

Such are the objects of attainment to which the British American Conference pledged itself in October. And said I not rightly that such a scheme is well fitted to fire the ambition and rouse the energies of every member of this House ? Does it not lift us above the petty politics of the past, and present to us high purposes and great interests that may well call forth all the intellectual ability and all the energy and enterprise to be found among us? I readily admit all the gravity of the question, and that it ought to be considered cautiously and thoroughly before adoption. Far be it from me to deprecate the closest criticism, or to doubt for a moment the sincerity or patriotism of those who feel it their duty to oppose the measure. But in considering a question on which hangs the future destiny of half a continent, ought not the spirit of mere fault-finding to be hushed?--ought not the voice of partisanship to be banished from our debates ?—ought we not sit down and discuss the arguments presented in the earnest and candid spirit of men bound by the same interests, seeking a common end, and loving the same country? Some honourable gentlemen seem to imagine that the members of government have a deeper interest in this scheme than others—but what possible interest can any of us have except that which we share with every citizen of the land? What risk does any one run from this measure in which all of us do not fully par­ticipate? What possible inducement could we have to urge this scheme, except our earnest and heartfelt conviction that it will inure to the solid. and lasting advantage of our country ?

There is one consideration that cannot be banished from this discussion, and that ought, I think, to be remembered in every word we utter ; it is that the constitutional system of Canada cannot remain as it is now. Something must be done. We cannot stand still. We cannot go back to chronic, sectional hostility and discord—to a state of perpetual ministerial crises. The events of the last eight months cannot be obliterated ; the solemn admissions of men of all parties can never be erased. The claims of Upper Canada for justice must be met, and met now. I say, then, that every one who raises his voice in hostility to this measure is bound to keep before him, when he speaks, all the perilous consequences of its rejection ; I say that no man who has a true regard for the well-being of Canada can give a vote against this scheme, unless he is prepared to offer, in amendment, some better remedy for the evils and injustice that have so long threatened the peace of our country. And not only must the scheme proposed in amendment be a better scheme—it must be something that can be carried.

I see an honourable friend now before me, for whose opinions I have the very highest respect, who says to me : "Mr. Brown, you should not have settled this part of the plan as you have done; here is the way you should have framed it." “Well, my dear sir,” is my reply, “I perfectly agree with you, but it could not be done. Whether we ask for parliamentary reform for Canada alone or in union with the Maritime Provinces, the views of French Canadians must be consulted as well as ours. This scheme can be carried, and no scheme can be that has not the support of both sec­tions of the province.”

HON. Mr. CARTIER : There is the question.

HON. MR. BROWN : Yes, that is the question and the whole question. No constitution ever framed was without defect; no act of human wisdom was ever free from imperfection ; no amount of talent and wisdom and integrity combined in preparing such a scheme could have placed it beyond the reach of criticism. And the framers of this scheme had immense special difficulties to overcome. We had the prejudices of race and language and religion to deal with ; and we had to encounter all the rivalries of trade and commerce, and all the jealousies of diversified local interests. To assert, then, that our scheme is without fault, would be folly. It was necessarily the work of concession ; not one of the thirty-three framers but had, on some points, to yield his opinions ; and, for myself, I freely admit that I struggled earnestly, for days together, to have portions of the scheme amended. But admitting all this—admitting all the difficulties that beset us—admitting frankly that defects in the measure exist—I say that, taking the scheme as a whole, it has my cordial, enthusiastic support, without hesitation or reservation. I believe it will accomplish all, and more than all, that we, who have so long fought the battle of parliamentary reform, ever hoped to see accomplished. I believe that, while granting security for local interests, it will give free scope for carrying out the will of the whole people in general matters—that it will draw closer the bonds that unite us to Great Britain—and that it will lay the foundations deep and strong of a powerful and prosperous people.

And if the House will allow me to trespass to a somewhat unusual degree on its indulgence, I am satisfied that I can clearly establish that such are the results fairly to be anticipated from the measure. There are two views in which this scheme may be regarded, namely, the existing evils it will remedy, and the new advantages it will secure for us as a people. Let us begin by examining its remedial provisions. First, then, it applies a complete and satisfactory remedy to the injustice of the existing system of parliamentary representation. The people of Upper Canada have bitterly complained that though they numbered four hundred thousand souls more than the population of Lower Canada, and though they have contributed three or four pounds to the general revenue for every pound contributed by the sister province, yet the Lower Canadians send to parliament as many representatives as they do. Now, the measure in your hands brings this injustice to an end ; it sweeps away the line of demarcation between the two sections on all matters common to the whole province ; it gives repre­sentation according to numbers wherever found in the House of Assembly ; and it provides a simple and convenient system for readjusting the repre­sentation after each decennial census. To this proposed constitution of the Lower Chamber, I have heard only two objections. It has been alleged that until after the census of 1871, the number of members is to remain as at present ; but this is a mistake. Upper Canada is to receive from the start eighty-two representatives, and Lower Canada sixty-five ; and what-ever increase the census of 1871 may establish will be then adjusted. It has also been objected that though the resolutions provide that the exist­ing parliament of Canada shall establish the electoral divisions for the first organization of the federal parliament, they do not determine in whose hands the duty of distributing any additional members is to be vested. No doubt on this head need exist ; the federal parliament will of course have full power to regulate all arrangements for the election of its own members. But I am told by Upper Canadians—the constitution of the Lower House is all well enough, it is in the Upper House arrangements that the scheme is objectionable. And first, it is said that Upper Canada should have had in the legislative council a greater number of members than Lower Canada.

MR. T. C. WALLBRIDGE : Hear, hear !

HON. MR. BROWN : The honourable member for North Hastings is of that opinion ; but that gentleman is in favour of a legislative union, and had we been forming a legislative union, there might have been some force in the demand. But the very essence of our compact is that the union shall be federal and not legislative. Our Lower Canada friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they shall have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step ; and for my part, I am quite willing that they should have it. In maintaining the existing sectional boundaries and handing over the control of local matters to local bodies, we recognize, to a certain extent, a diversity of interests ; and it was quite natural that the protection for those interests, by equality in the Upper Chamber, should be demanded by the less numerous provinces. Honourable gentlemen may say that it will erect a barrier in the Upper House against the just influence that Upper Canada will exercise, by her numbers, in the Lower House, over the general legislation of the country. That may be true to a certain extent, but honourable gentlemen will bear in mind that that barrier, be it more or less, will not affect money bills. Hitherto we have been paying a vast proportion of the taxes, with little or no control over the expenditure. But, under this plan, by our just influence in the Lower Chamber, we shall hold the purse strings, If, from this concession of equality in the Upper Chamber, we are restrained from forcing through measures which our friends of Lower Canada may consider injurious to their interests, we shall, at any rate, have power, which we never had before, to prevent them from forcing through whatever we may deem unjust to us. I think the compromise a fair one, and am persuaded that it will work easily and satisfactorily. But it has been said that the members of the Upper House ought not to be appointed by the Crown, but should continue to be elected by the people at large. On that question my views have been often expressed. I have always been opposed to a second elective chamber, and I am so still, from the conviction that two elective houses are inconsistent with the right working of the British parliamentary system. I voted, almost alone, against the change when the council was made elective, but I have lived to see a vast majority of those who did the deed wish it had not been clone. It is quite true, and I am glad to acknow­ledge it, that many evils anticipated from the change when the measure was adopted have not been realized. I readily admit that men of the highest character and position have been brought into the council by the elective system, but it is equally true that the system of appointment brought into it men of the highest character and position. Whether appointed by the Crown or elected by the people, since the introduction of parliamentary government, the men who have composed the Upper House of this legislature have been men who would have done honour to any legislature in the world. But what we most feared was, that the legisla­tive councillors would be elected under party responsibility ; that a partisan spirit would soon show itself in the chamber ; and that the right would soon be asserted to an equal control with this House over money bills. That fear has not been realized to any dangerous extent. But is it not possible that such a claim might ere long be asserted? Do we not hear, even now, mutterings of a coming demand for it ? Nor can we forget that the elected members came into that chamber gradually ; that the large number of old appointed members exercised much influence in maintaining the old forms of the House, the old style of debate, and the old barriers against encroachment on the privileges of the Commons. But the appointed members of the council are gradually passing away, and when the elective element becomes supreme, who will venture to affirm that the council would not claim that power over money bills which this House claims as of right belonging to itself ? Could they not justly say that they represent the people as well as we do, and that the control of the purse strings ought, therefore, to belong to them as much as to us? It is said they have not the power. But what is to prevent them from enforcing it? Suppose we had a conservative majority here, and a reform majority above—or a con­servative majority above and a reform majority here—all elected under party obligations—what is to prevent a dead-lock between the chambers ? It may be called unconstitutional—but what is to prevent the councillors (especially if they feel that in the dispute of the hour they have the country at their back) from practically exercising all the powers that be-long to us? They might amend our money bills, they might throw out all our bills if they liked, and bring to a stop the whole machinery of government. And what could we do to prevent them ? But, even supposing this were not the case, and that the elective Upper House continued to be guided by that discretion which has heretofore actuated its proceedings, still, I think, we must all feel that the election of members for such enor­mous districts as form the constituencies of the Upper House has become a great practical inconvenience. I say this from personal experience, having long taken an active interest in the electoral contests in Upper Canada. We have found greater difficulty in inducing candidates to offer for seats in the Upper House, than in getting ten times the number for the Lower House. The constituencies are so vast, that it is difficult to find gentle-men who have the will to incur the labour of such a contest, who are suffi­ciently known and popular enough throughout districts so wide, and who have money enough to pay the enormous bills, not incurred in any corrupt way—do not fancy that I mean that for a moment—but the bills that are sent in after the contest is over, and which the candidates are compelled to pay if they ever hope to present themselves for re-election.

But honourable gentlemen say, “This may be all very well, but you are taking an important power out of the hands of the people, which they now possess." Now, this is a mistake. We do not propose to do anything of the sort. What we propose is, that the Upper House shall be appointed from the best men of the country by those holding the confidence of the representatives of the people in this chamber. It is proposed that the government of the day, which only lives by the approval of this chamber, shall make the appointments, and be responsible to the people for the selections they shall make. Not a single appointment could be made, with regard to which the government would not be open to censure, and which the representatives of the people, in this House, would not have an opportunity of condemning. For myself, I have maintained the appointment principle, as in opposition to the elective, ever since I came into public life, and have never hesitated, when before the people, to state my opinions in the broadest manner ; and yet not in a single instance have I ever found a constituency in Upper Canada, or a public meeting, declaring its disapproval of appointment by the Crown and its desire for election by the people at large. When the change was made in 1855 there was not a single petition from the people asking for it—it was in a manner forced on the legislature. The real reason for the change was that before respon­sible government was introduced into this country, while the old oligarch­ical system existed, the Upper House continuously and systematically was at war with the popular branch, and threw out every measure of a liberal tendency. The result was that in the famous ninety-two resolutions the introduction of the elective principle into the Upper House was declared to be indispensable. So long as Mr. Robert Baldwin remained in public life, the thing could not be done ; but when he left the deed was consum­mated. But it is said that if the members are to be appointed for life, the number should be unlimited—that, in the event of a dead-lock arising between that chamber and this, there should be power to overcome the difficulty by the appointment of more members. Well, under the British system, in the case of a legislative union, that might be a legitimate provision. But honourable gentlemen must see that the limitation of the numbers in the Upper House lies at the base of the whole compact on which this scheme rests. It is perfectly clear, as was contended by those who represented Lower Canada in the conference, that if the number of legislative councillors was made capable of increase, you would thereby sweep away the whole protection they had from the Upper Chamber. But it has been said that, though you may not give the power to the ex­ecutive to increase the numbers of the Upper House in the event of a dead-lock, you might limit the term for which the members are appointed. I was myself in favour of that proposition. I thought it would be well to provide for a more frequent change in the composition of the Upper House, and lessen the danger of the chamber being largely composed of gentlemen whose advanced years might forbid the punctual and vigorous discharge of their public duties. Still, the objection made to this was very strong. It was said : “Suppose you appoint them for nine years, what will be the effect ? For the last three or four years of their term they would be anticipating its expiry, and anxiously looking to the admin­istration of the day for reappointment ; and the consequence would be that a third of the members would be under the influence of the executive.” The desire was to render the Upper House a thoroughly independent body —one that would be in the best position to canvass dispassionately the measures of this House, and stand up for the public interests in opposi­tion to hasty or partisan legislation. It was contended that there is no fear of a dead-lock. We were reminded how the system of appointing for life had worked in past years, since responsible government was intro­duced; we were told that the complaint was not then that the Upper Chamber had been too obstructive a body—not that it had sought to restrain the popular will, but that it had too faithfully reflected the popu­lar will. Undoubtedly that was the complaint formerly pressed upon us, and I readily admit that if ever there was a body to whom we could safely entrust the power which by this measure we propose to confer on the members of the Upper Chamber, it is the body of gentlemen who at this moment compose the legislative council of Canada. The forty-eight coun­cillors for Canada are to be chosen from the present chamber. There are now thirty-four members from the one section, and thirty-five from the other. I believe that of the sixty-nine, some will not desire to make their appearance here again; others, unhappily, from years and infirmity, may not have strength to do so ; and there may be others who will not desire to qualify under the statute. It is quite clear that when twenty-four are selected for Upper Canada and twenty-four for Lower Canada, very few indeed of the present House will be excluded from the federal chamber ; and I confess I am not without hope that there may be some way yet found of providing, for all who desire it, an honourable position in the legislature of the country. And after all, is it not an imaginary fear—that of a deadlock? Is it at all probable that any body of gentlemen who may compose the Upper House, appointed as they will be for life, acting as they will do on personal and not party responsibility, possessing as they must a deep stake in the welfare of the country, and desirous as they must be of holding the esteem of their fellow-subjects, would take so unreasonable a course as to imperil the whole political fabric? The British House of Peers itself does not venture, à l'outrance, to resist the popular will, and can it be anticipated that our Upper Chamber would set itself rashly against the popular will ? If any fear is to be entertained in the matter, is it not rather that the councillors will be found too thoroughly in harmony with the popular feeling of the day? And we have this satisfaction at any rate, that so far as its first formation is concerned, so far as the present question is concerned, we shall have a body of gentlemen in whom every confidence may be placed.

But it is objected that in the constitution of the Upper House, so far as Lower Canada is concerned, the existing electoral divisions are to be maintained, while, as regards Upper Canada, they are to be abolished—that the members from Lower Canada are to sit as representing the divi­sions in which they reside or have their property qualification ; while in Upper Canada there is no such arrangement. Undoubtedly this is the fact ; it has been so arranged to suit the peculiar position of this section of the province. Our Lower Canada friends felt that they had French Cana­dian interests and British interests to be protected, and they conceived that the existing system of electoral divisions would give protection to these separate interests. We in Upper Canada, on the other hand, were quite content that they should settle that among themselves, and maintain their existing divisions if they chose. But, so far as we In the west were concerned, we had no such separate interests to protect—we had no diver­sities of origin or language to reconcile—and we felt that the true interest of Upper Canada was that her very best men should be sent to the legis­lative council, wherever they might happen to reside or wherever their property was located. If there is one evil in the American system which in my mind stands out as pre-eminently its greatest defect, except univer­sal suffrage, it is that under that constitution the representatives of the people must reside in the constituencies for which they sit. The result is that a public man, no matter what his talent or what his position, no matter how necessary it may be for the interest of the country that he should be in public life, unless he happens to belong to the political party popular for the time being in the constituency where he resides, cannot possibly find a seat in congress. And over and over again have we seen the very best men of the republic, the most illustrious names recorded in its political annals, driven out of the legislature of their country, simply because the majority in the electoral division in which they lived was of a different political party from them. I do think the British system infin­itely better than that, securing as it does that public men may be trained to public life, with the assured conviction that if they prove themselves worthy of public confidence, and gain a position in the country, constitu­encies will always be found to avail themselves of their services, whatever be the political party to which they may adhere. You may make politicians by the other, but assuredly this is the way that statesmen are pro­duced.

But it is further objected that the property qualification of the members of the Upper House from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland may be either real or personal estate, while in the others it is to be real estate alone. This is correct ; but I fancy it matters little to us upon what species of property our friends in Prince Edward Island or in New­foundland base their qualification. In Canada real estate is abundant ; every one can obtain it ; and it is admitted by all to be the best qualifica­tion, if it be advisable to have any property qualification at all. But in Newfoundland it would be exceedingly inconvenient to enforce such a rule. The public lands there are not even surveyed to any considerable extent ; the people are almost entirely engaged in fishing and commercial pursuits, and to require a real estate qualification would be practically to exclude some of its best public men from the legislative council. Then in Prince Edward Island a large portion of the island is held in extensive tracts by absentee proprietors and leased to the settlers. A feud of long standing has been the result, and there would be some difficulty in finding landed proprietors who would be acceptable to the people as members of the Upper House. This also must be remembered, that it will be a very different thing for a member from Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island to attend the legislature at Ottawa from what it is for one of ourselves to go there. He must give up not only his time, but the comfort and convenience of being near home ; and it is desirable to throw no unnecessary obstacle in the way of our vetting the very best men from these provinces.

But it is further objected that these resolutions do not define how the legislative councillors are to be chosen at first. I apprehend, however, there is no doubt whatever as regards that. Clause 14 says : “The first selection of the members to constitute the federal legislative council shall be made from the members of the now existing legislative councils, by the Crown, at the recommendation of the general executive government, upon the nomination of the respective local governments.” The clear meaning of this clause simply is, that the present governments of the several pro­vinces are to choose out of the existing bodies—so far as they can find gentlemen willing and qualified to serve—the members who shall at start­ing compose the federal legislative council ; that they are to present the names so selected to the executive council of British America when con­stituted—and on the advice of that body the councillors will be appointed by the Crown. And such has been the spirit shown from first to last in carrying out the compact of July last by all the parties to it, that I for one have no apprehension whatever that full justice will not be done to the party which may be a minority in the government, but it is certainly not in a minority either in the country or in this House. I speak not only of Upper Canada but of Lower Canada as well

HON. MR. DORION : Ha! ha !

HON. MR. BROWN : My honourable friend laughs, but I assure him, and he will not say I do so for the purpose of deceiving him, that having been present in conference and in council, having heard all the discussions and well ascertained the feelings of all associated with me, I have not a shadow of a doubt on my mind that full justice will be done in the selec­tion of the first federal councillors, not only to those who may have been in the habit of acting with me, but also to those who have acted with my honourable friend, the member for Hochelaga.

Now, I believe I have answered every objection that has come from any quarter against the proposed constitution of the federal legislature. I am persuaded there is not one well-founded objection that can be urged against it. It is just to all parties ; it remedies the gross injustice of the existing system ; and I am convinced it will not only work easily and safely, but he entirely satisfactory to the great mass of our people. But I go further ; I say that were all the objections urged against this scheme sound and cogent, they sink into utter insignificance in view of all the miseries this scheme will relieve us from—in view of all the difficulties that must surround any measure of parliamentary reform for Canada that could possibly be devised. Will honourable gentlemen who spend their energies in hunting out blemishes in this scheme remember for a moment the utter injustice of the one we have at present? Public opinion has made rapid strides in the last six months on the representation question,—but think what it was a week before the present coalition was formed ! Remember how short a time has elapsed since the member for Peel (Hon. Mr. J. Hillyard Cameron) proposed to grant one additional member to Upper Canada, and could not carry even that. Remember that but a few weeks ago the hon. member for Hochelaga (Hon. Mr. Dorion), who now leads the crusade against this measure, publicly declared that five or six additional members was all Upper Canada was entitled to, and that with these the Upper Canadians would be content for many years to come. And when he has reflected on all this, let the man who is disposed to carp at this great measure of representative reform justify his conduct if he can, to the thousands of disfranchised freeholders of Upper Canada demanding justice at our hands. For myself, I unhesitatingly say, that the complete justice which this measure secures to the people of Upper Canada in the vital matter of parliamentary representation alone, renders all the blemishes averred against it utterly contemptible in the balance.

But the second feature of this scheme as a remedial measure is that it removes to a large extent the injustice of which Upper Canada has com­plained in financial matters. We in Upper Canada have complained that though we paid into the public treasury more than three-fourths of the whole revenue, we had less control over the system of taxation and the expenditure of the public moneys than the people of Lower Canada. Well, the scheme in the Speaker's hand remedies that. The absurd line of separ­ation between the provinces is swept away for general matters; we are to have seventeen additional members in the House that holds the purse; and the taxpayers of the country, wherever they reside, will have their just share of influence over revenue and expenditure. We have also complained that immense sums of public money have been systematically taken from the public chest for local purposes of Lower Canada, in which the people of

Upper Canada had no interest whatever, though compelled to contribute three-fourths of the cash. Well, this scheme remedies that. All local matters are to be banished from the general legislature ; local governments are to have control over local affairs, and if our friends in Lower Canada choose to be extravagant they will have to bear the burden of it them-selves. No longer shall we have to complain that one section pays the cash while the other spends it ; hereafter, they who pay will spend, and they who spend more than they ought will have to bear the brunt. It was a great thing to accomplish this, if we had accomplished nothing more, for if we look back on our doings of the last fifteen years I think it will be acknowledged that the greatest jobs perpetrated were of a local character, that our fiercest contests were about local matters that stirred up sectional jealousies and indignation to its deepest depth. We have further com­plained that if a sum was properly demanded for some legitimate local purpose in one section, an equivalent sum had to be appropriated to the other as an offset, thereby entailing prodigal expenditure, and unneces­sarily increasing the public debt. Well, this scheme puts an end to that. Each province is to determine for itself its own wants, and to find the money to meet them from its own resources. But I am told that though true it is that local matters are to be separated and the burden of local expenditure placed upon local shoulders, we have made an exception from that principle in providing that a subsidy of eighty cents per head shall be taken from the federal chest and granted to the local governments for local purposes. Undoubtedly this is the fact, and I do not hesitate to admit that it would have been better if this had been otherwise. I trust I commit no breach of discretion in stating that in conference I was one of the strongest advocates for defraying the whole of the local expenditures of the local governments by means of direct taxation, and that there were liberal men in all sections of the provinces who would gladly have had it so arranged. But there was one difficulty in the way—a difficulty which has often before been encountered in this world—and that difficulty was simply this, it could not be done. We could neither have carried it in conference nor yet in any one of the existing provincial legislatures. Our friends in Lower Canada, I am afraid, have a constitutional disinclination to direct taxation, and it was obvious that if the confederation scheme had had attached to it a provision for the imposition of such a system of taxa­tion, my honourable friends opposite would have had a much better chance of success in blowing the bellows of agitation than they now have. The objection, moreover, was not confined to Lower Canada—all the lower provinces stood in exactly the same position. They have not a municipal system such as we have, discharging many of the functions of government; but their general government performs all the duties which in Upper Canada devolve upon our municipal councils, as well as upon parliament. If, then, the lower provinces had been asked to maintain their customs duties for federal purposes, and to impose on themselves by the same Act direct taxation for all their local purposes, the chances of carrying the scheme of union would have been greatly lessened.

But I apprehend that if we did not succeed in putting this matter on the footing that would have been the best, at least we did the next best thing. Two courses were open to us—either to surrender to the local governments some source of indirect revenue, some tax which the general government proposed to retain, or collect the money by the federal machinery, and distribute it, to the local governments for local purposes. And we decided in favour of the latter. We asked the representatives of the different governments to estimate how much they would require after the inauguration of the federal system to carry on their local machinery. As at first presented to us, the annual sum required for all the provinces was something like five millions of dollars—an amount that could not possibly have been allotted. The great trouble was that some of the governments are vastly more expensive than others—extensive countries, with sparse populations, necessarily requiring more money per head for local government than countries more densely populated. But as any grant given from the common chest, for local purposes, to one province, must be extended to all, on the basis of population, it follows that for every $1,000 given, for example, to New Brunswick, we must give over $1,300 to Nova Scotia, $4,000 to Lower Canada, and $6,000 to Upper Canada, thereby drawing from the federal exchequer much larger sums than these provinces needed for local purposes. The course we adopted then was this : We formed a committee of finance ministers, and made each of them go over his list of expenditures, lopping off all unnecessary services and cutting down every item to the lowest possible figure. By this means we suc­ceeded in reducing the total annual subsidy required for local government to the sum of $2,630,000—of which Lower Canada will receive annually $880,000, and Upper Canada $1,120,000. But it is said that in addition to her eighty cents per head under this arrangement, New Brunswick is to receive an extra grant from the federal chest of $63,000 annually for ten years. Well, this is perfectly true. After cutting down as I have explained the local expenditures to the lowest mark, it was found that New Brunswick and Newfoundland could not possibly carry on their local governments with the sum per head that would suffice for all the rest. New Brunswick im­peratively required $63,000 per annum beyond her share, and we had either to find that sum for her or give up the hope of union. The question then arose, would it not be better to give New Brunswick a special grant of $63,000 for a limited number of years, so that her local revenues might have time to be developed, rather than increase the subsidy to all the local governments, thereby placing an additional burden on the federal exchequer of over eight hundred thousand dollars per annum? We came unanimously to the conclusion that the extra sum needed by New Brunswick was too small to be allowed to stand in the way of union—we also determined that it would be the height of absurdity to impose a permanent burden on the country of $800,000 a year, simply to escape a payment of $63,000 for ten years—and so it came about that New Brunswick got this extra grant—an arrangement which received, and receives now, my hearty approval. It is only right to say, however, that New Brunswick may possibly be in a position to do without this money. The House is aware that the federal government is to assume the debts of the several provinces, each province being entitled to throw upon it a debt of $25 per head of its population. Should the debt of any province exceed $25 per head, it is to pay interest on the excess to the federal treasury ; but should it fall below $25 per head, it is to receive interest from the federal treasury on the difference between its actual debt and the debt to which it is entitled. Now, it so happens that the existing debt of New Brunswick is much less than it is entitled to throw on the federal government. It is, however, under lia­bility for certain works, which if proceeded with would bring its debt up to the mark of $25 a head. But if these works are not proceeded with, New Brunswick will be entitled to a large amount of annual interest from the federal chest, and that money is to be applied to the reduction of the $63,000 extra grant. And this, moreover, is not to be forgotten as regards New Brunswick, that she brings into the union extensive railways now in profitable operation, the revenues from which are to go into the federal chest. A similar arrangement was found necessary as regards the island of Newfoundland—it, too, being a vast country with a sparse population. It was found absolutely essential that an additional grant beyond eighty cents per head should be made to enable her local government to be properly carried on. But, in consideration of this extra allowance, Newfoundland is to cede to the federal government her crown lands and minerals—and assuredly, if the reports of geologists are well founded, this arrangement will be as advantageous to us as it will be to the inhabitants of Newfoundland.

I am persuaded, then, that the House will feel with me that we in Canada have very little to complain of in regard to the subsidies for local government. But if a doubt yet remains on the mind of any honourable member, let him examine the trade returns of the several provinces, and he will see that, from the large quantity of dutiable goods consumed in the Maritime Provinces, they have received no undue advantage under the arrangement. Let this too ever be kept in mind, that the $2,630,000 to be distributed to the local governments from the federal chest is to be in full and final extinguishment of all claims hereafter for local purposes; and that if this from any cause does not suffice, the local governments must supply all deficiencies from a direct tax on their own localities. And let honourable members from Upper Canada who carp at this annual subsidy, remember for a moment what we pay now, and they will cease their grumbling. Of all the money raised by the general government for local purposes in Canada, the tax-payers of Upper Canada now pay more than three-fourths ; but far from getting back in proportion to what they con-tribute, or even in proportion to their population, they do not get one-half of the money spent for local purposes. But how different will it be under federation ! Nine hundred thousand people will come into the union, who will contribute to the revenue quite as much, man for man, as the Upper Canadians, and in the distribution of the local subsidy we will receive our share on the basis of population—a very different arrangement from that we now endure. I confess that one of the strongest arguments in my mind for confederation is the economical ideas of the people of these Maritime Provinces, and the conviction that the influence of their public men in our legislative halls will be most salutary in all financial matters. A more economical people it would be difficult to find ; their prime minis­ters and their chief justices get but £600 a year, Halifax currency, and the rest of their civil list is in much the same proportion.

But there is another great evil in our existing system that this scheme remedies ; it secures to the people of each province full control over the administration of their own internal affairs. We in Upper Canada have complained that the minority of our representatives, the party defeated at the polls of Upper Canada, have been, year after year, kept in office by Lower Canada votes, and that all the local patronage of our section has been dispensed by those who did not possess the confidence of the people. Well, this scheme remedies that. The local patronage will be under local control, and the wishes of the majority in each section will be carried out in all local matters. We have complained that the land system was not according to the views of our western people; that free lands for actual settlers was the right policy for us; that the price of a piece of land squeezed out of an immigrant was no consideration in comparison with the settlement among us of a hardy and industrious family ; and that the colonization road system was far from satisfactory. Well, this scheme remedies that. Each province is to have control of its own crown lands, crown timber and crown minerals, and will be free to take such steps for developing them as each deems best. We have complained that local works of various kinds—roads, bridges and landing piers, court houses, gaols and other structures —have been erected in an inequitable and improvident manner. Well, this scheme remedies that ; all local works are to be constructed by the localities and defrayed from local funds. And so on through the whole extensive details of internal local administration will this reform extend. The people of Upper Canada will have the entire control of their local matters, and will no longer have to betake themselves to Quebec for leave to open a road, to select a county town, or appoint a coroner. But I am told that to this general principle of placing all local matters under local control, an exception has been made in regard to the common schools. The clause complained of is as follows : “6. Education ; saving the rights and privileges which the protestant or catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools at the time when the union goes into operation.” Now, I need hardly remind the House that I have always opposed and continue to oppose the system of sectarian education, so far as the public chest is concerned. I have never had any hesitation on that point. I have never been able to see why all the people of the province, to whatever sect they may belong, should not send their children to the same common schools to receive the ordinary branches of instruction. I regard the parent and the pastor as the best religious instructors—and so long as the religious faith of the children is uninterfered with, and ample opportunity afforded to the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their flocks, I cannot conceive any sound objection to mixed schools. But while in the conference and elsewhere I have always main­tained this view, and always given my vote against sectarian public schools, I am bound to admit, as I have always admitted, that the sectarian system, carried to the limited extent it has yet been in Upper Canada, and confined as it chiefly is to cities and towns, has not been a very great practical injury. The real cause of alarm was that the admission of the sectarian principle was there, and that at any moment it might be extended to such a degree as to split up our school system altogether. There are but a hundred separate schools in Upper Canada, out of some four thousand, and all Roman Catholic. But if the Roman Catholics are entitled to separate schools and to go on extending their operations, so are the members of the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and all other sects. No candid Roman Catholic will deny this for a moment ; and there lay the great danger to our educational fabric, that the separate system might gradually extend itself until the whole country was studded with nurseries of sectarianism, most hurtful to the best interests of the province, and entailing an enormous expense to sustain the hosts of teachers that so prodigal a system of public instruction must inevitably entail.

Now, it is known to every honourable member of this House that an Act was passed in 1863, as a final settlement of this sectarian controversy. I was not in Quebec at the time, but if I had been here I would have voted against that bill, because it extended the facilities for establishing separate schools. It had, however, this good feature, that it was accepted by the Roman Catholic authorities, and carried through parliament as a final com­promise of the question in Upper Canada. When, therefore, it was proposed that a provision should be inserted in the confederation scheme to bind that compact of 1863 and declare it a final settlement, so that we should not be compelled, as we have been since 1849, to stand constantly to our arms, awaiting fresh attacks upon our common school system, the proposition seemed to me one that was not rashly to be rejected. I admit that, from my point of view, this is a blot on the scheme before the House; it is, confessedly, one of the concessions from our side that had to be made to secure this great measure of reform. But assuredly, I for one have not the slightest hesitation in accepting it as a necessary condition of the scheme of union, and doubly acceptable must it be in the eyes of honourable gentlemen opposite, who were the authors of the bill of 1863. But it was urged that though this arrangement might perhaps be fair as regards Upper Canada, it was not so as regards Lower Canada, for there were matters of which the British population have long complained, and some amend­ments to the existing School Act were required to secure them equal justice.

Well, when this point was raised, gentlemen of all parties in Lower Canada at once expressed themselves prepared to treat it in a frank and conciliatory manner, with a view to removing any injustice that might be shown to exist ; and on this understanding the educational clause was adopted by the conference.

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

HON.  MR. BROWN: I would like to know how much “power” the honourable gentleman has now to legislate upon it ? Let him introduce a bill to-day to annul the compact of 1863 and repeal all the sectarian School Acts of Upper Canada, and how many votes would he get for it ? Would twenty members vote for it out of the one hundred and thirty who com­pose this House ? If the honourable gentleman had been struggling for fifteen years, as I have been, to save the school system of Upper Canada from further extension of the sectarian element, he would have found precious little diminution of power over it in this very moderate com­promise. And what says the honourable gentleman to leaving the British population of Lower Canada in the unrestricted power of the local legislature ? The common schools of Lower Canada are not as in Upper Canada—they are almost entirely non-sectarian Roman Catholic schools. Does the honourable gentleman, then, desire to compel the protestants of Lower Canada to avail themselves of Roman Catholic institutions, or leave their children without instruction ? I am further in favour of this scheme because it will bring to an end the sectional discord between Upper and Lower Canada. It sweeps away the boundary line between the provinces so far as regards matters common to the whole people—it places all on an equal level—and the members of the federal legislature will meet at last as citizens of a common country. The questions that used to excite the most hostile feelings among us have been taken away from the general legislature, and placed under the control of the local bodies. No man need hereafter be debarred from success in public life because his views, how-ever popular in his own section, are unpopular in the other, for he will not have to deal with sectional questions ; and the temptation to the government of the day to make capital out of local prejudices will be greatly lessened, if not altogether at an end. What has rendered promi­nent public men in one section utterly unpopular in the other in past years ? Has it been our views on trade and commerce—immigration—land settle­ment—the canal system—the tariff—or any other of the great questions of national interest? No; it was from our views as to the applying of public money to local purposes—the allotment of public lands to local purposes—the building of local roads, bridges, and landing-piers with public funds—the chartering of ecclesiastical institutions—the granting of public money for sectarian purposes—the interference with our school system—and simi­lar matters, that the hot feuds between Upper and Lower Canada have chiefly arisen, and caused our public men, the more faithful they were to the opinions and wishes of one section, to be the more unpopular in the other. A most happy day will it be for Canada when this bill goes into effect, and all these subjects of discord are swept from the discussion of our legislature.

I am further in favour of this scheme as a remedial measure, because it brings to an end the doubt that has so long hung over our position, and gives a stability to our future in the eyes of the world that could not otherwise have been attained.

HON. MR. HOLTON : Hear, hear !

MR. BROWN : The hon. member for Chateauguay cries “hear, hear” in a very credulous tone ; but the hon. member should be one of the very last to express doubts on this point. Has he not, for many years, admitted the absolute necessity of constitutional changes, ere peace and prosperity could be established in our land ? Has he not taken part in the contests to obtain those changes ? Has he not experienced the harsh and hostile feelings that have pervaded this House and the whole country? And did he not sign the report of my committee last session, declaring a federal union to be the true solution of our troubles, political and constitutional? And does the honourable member think these matters were not well known in the United States, and that the hope of our annexation to the republic was not kept alive by them from year to year ? Does he fancy that our discords and discontent were not well known in Great Britain, and that the capitalist and the emigrant were not influenced by our distractions ? Does he fancy that people abroad, as well as at home, did not perfectly under-stand that Upper Canada would not much longer submit to the injustice from which she suffered ; and that until the future relations of the two sections were adjusted, no one could predict safely what our future posi­tion might be ? But when the measure before us has been adopted—when justice has been done to both sections—when all are placed on an equal footing—when the sectional matters that rent us have been handed over to sectional control—when sectional expenditure shall be placed on sectional shoulders—will not a sense of security and stability be inspired which we never before enjoyed, and never could have enjoyed under existing circum­stances? Viewed then from a merely Canadian stand-point—viewed solely as a remedial measure—I fearlessly assert that the scheme in the Speaker's hands is a just and satisfactory remedy for the evils and injustice that have so long distracted the province ; and so strongly do I feel this, that were every word of objection urged against our union with the Maritime Provinces just and true to the very letter, I would not hesitate to adopt the union as the price of a measure of constitutional reform in Canada so just and so complete as now proposed. So far from the objections urged against union with the Maritime Provinces being sound, so far from union with them being a drawback to this measure, I regard it as the crowning advan­tage of the whole scheme. I make no pretension to having been in past years an advocate of the immediate union of the British American colonies. I always felt and always said that no statesman could doubt that such was the best and almost the certain future destiny of those colonies ; but I doubted greatly whether the right time for the movement had yet arrived. I knew little of the Maritime Provinces or the feelings of their people ; the negotiations for a union were likely to be difficult and long protracted ; and I was unwilling to accept the hope of a measure so remote and so uncertain in lieu of the practical remedy for practical evils in Canada which we were earnestly seeking to obtain, and which our own legislature had the power immediately to grant. But of late all this has been changed. The cir­cumstances are entirely altered. A revolution has occurred in Great Britain on the subject of colonial relations to the parent state—the government of the United States has become a great warlike power—our com­mercial relations with the republic are seriously threatened—and every man in British America has now placed before him for solution the prac­tical question. What shall be done in view of the changed relations on which we are about to enter ? Shall we continue to struggle along as isolated communities, or shall we unite cordially together to extend our commerce, to develop the resources of our country, and to defend our soil ? But more than this: many of us have learned, since we last met here, far more of the Maritime Provinces than we ever did before. We have visited the Maritime Provinces—we have seen the country—we have met the people and marked their intelligence, their industry and their frugality—we have investigated their public affairs and found them satisfactory—we have discussed terms of union with their statesmen, and found that no insuper­able obstacle to union exists, and no necessity for long delay. We come to the consideration of the question to-day in a totally different position from what we ever did before ; and if the House will grant me its indul­gence, I think I can present unanswerable arguments to show that this union of all British America should be heartily and promptly accepted by all the provinces.

I am in favour of a union of the British American colonies, first, because it will raise us from the attitude of a number of inconsiderable colonies into a great and powerful people. The united population of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, is at this moment very close on four millions of souls. Now, there are in Europe forty-eight sovereign states, and out of that number there are only eleven having a greater population than these colonies united, while three of the eleven are so little ahead of us that before the next census is taken, in 1871, we shall stand equal in population to the ninth sovereign state of Europe. Then the public revenues of the united provinces for 1864 were $13,260,000, and their expenditures summed up to $12,507,000. And large as these sums may appear, it is satisfactory to know that the taxa­tion of British America—were there no reduction from present burdens, which I am sure there will be—will be one-third less per head than the taxation of England or France. There are only five or six countries in Europe in which the taxation is less than ours will be, and these, moreover, are either petty principalities or states which do not enjoy a very high degree of civilization.

Then, as regards the imports and exports of the united provinces, they summed up in 1863 to the following dimensions : Imports, $70,600,963 ; exports, $66,846,604: total trade, $137,447,567. Now, I should like honourable gentlemen to notice this fact, that in 1793—long after the United States had achieved their independence and established a settled government—their exports and imports did not amount to one-third what ours do at this moment. There are few states in Europe, and those with a vastly greater population than ours, that can boast of anything like the extent of foreign commerce that now passes through our hands.

Then, as to our agricultural resources, I find that 45,638,854 acres have passed from the governments of these colonies into private hands, of which only 13,128,229 are yet tilled, and 32,510,625 acres have still to be brought into cultivation. The whole of these forty-five millions are picked lands—most of them selected by the early settlers in this country ; and if our annual agricultural products are so great now, what will they be when the thirty-two millions yet to pass under the plough have been brought into cultivation? and what will they not he when the vast tracts still held by government are peopled with hardy settlers ? According to the census of 1861, the value of the agricultural productions of the previous year in the united provinces of British America was $120,000,000 ; and if we add to that the garden products, and the improvements made on new lands by the agricultural labourers of the provinces, it will be found that the actual product of the industry of our farmers in that year was $150,000,000. The assessed value of our farms—which is always greatly less than the real value—was $550,000,000 in the year 1861.

Then, in regard to the minerals of the united provinces ; what vast fields of profitable industry will we have in the great coal beds of Nova Scotia, in the iron deposits found all over the provinces, in the exhaustless copper regions of Lakes Huron and Superior and the eastern townships of Lower Canada, and in the gold mines of the Chaudière and Nova Scotia. And if the mind stretches from the western bounds of civilization through those great north-western regions, which we hope ere long will be ours, to the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, what vast sources of wealth to the fur trader, the miner, the gold hunter and the agriculturist, lie there ready to be developed.

Nor can another source of wealth he altogether forgotten. The Presi­dent of the United States is said recently to have declared that the produce of the petroleum wells of the United States will in half a dozen years pay off the whole national debt of the republic. Well, we too have “struck oil,” and every day brings us intelligence of fresh discoveries, and if the enormous debt of our neighbours may possibly be met by the oily stream, may we not hope that some material addition to our annual industrial revenue may flow from our petroleum regions?

Another vast branch of British American industry is the timber and lumber trade. In the year 1862 our saw-mills turned out not less than 772,000,000 feet of manufactured lumber, and our whole timber exports summed up to the value of $15,000,000.

The manufacturing interests of the provinces, too, are fast rising into importance ; agricultural implement works, woollen factories and cotton mills, tanneries and shoe factories, iron works and rolling mills, flax works and paper mills, and many other extensive and profitable mechanical establishments are springing up among us, and rapidly extending their operations. And to add to all, we have already 2,500 miles of railway, 4,000 miles of electric telegraph, and the noblest canal system in the world, but which, I hope, will soon be infinitely improved.

These are some examples of the industrial spectacle British America will present after the union has been accomplished ; and I ask any mem­ber of this House to say whether we will not, when thus united, occupy a position in the eyes of the world, and command a degree of respect and influence, that we never can enjoy as separate provinces? Must it not affect the decision of many an intending emigrant, when he is told not of the fishing and mining pursuits of Nova Scotia, or of the ship-building of New Brunswick, or of the timber trade of Lower Canada, or of the agri­culture of Upper Canada, but when he is shown all these in one view, as the collective industrial pursuits of British America ? I am persuaded that this union will inspire new confidence in our stability, and exercise the most beneficial influence on all our affairs. I believe it will raise the value of our public securities, that it will draw capital to our shores, and secure the prosecution of all legitimate enterprises ; and what I saw while in England, a few weeks ago, would alone have convinced me of this. Wherever you went you encountered the most marked evidence of the gratification with which the confederation scheme was received by all classes of the people, and the deep interest taken in its success. Let me state one fact in illustration. For some time previous to November last our securities had gone very low down in the market, in consequence, as my honourable friend the Finance Minister explained the other night, of the war raging on our borders, the uncertainty which hung over the future of this province, and the fear that we might be involved in trouble with our neighbours. Our five per cent. debentures went down in the market so low as 71, but they recovered from 71 to 75, I think, upon the day the resolutions for confederation, which we are now discussing, reached Lon-don. Well, the resolutions were published in the London papers, with eulogistic editorial articles, and the immediate effect of the scheme upon the public mind was such that our five per cents, rose from 75 to 92.

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

HON. MR. BROWN : I will presently tell the honourable gentleman what has put them down since. But I say that, if anything could show more clearly than another the effect this union is to have on our position over the world, it is a fact like this, that our securities went up 17 per cent. in consequence of the publication of the details of our scheme. The honourable member for Chateauguay asks, “What put them down again?” I will tell him. They remained at 91 or 92 until the news came that a raid had been made from Canada into the United States, that the raiders had been arrested and brought before a Canadian court, and that upon technical legal grounds, not only had they been set free, but the money of which they had robbed the banks had been handed over to the robbers. The effect of this news, coupled with General Dix's order, was to drive down our securities 11 per cent. almost in one day. But, as my honourable friend the Finance Minister suggests, this is but an additional proof of the accuracy of the argument I have been sustaining—for this would not have happened, at all events to the same extent, if all the provinces had been united and prepared, as we are now proposing, not only for purposes of commerce but for purposes of defence.

Secondly, I go heartily for the union, because it will throw down the barriers of trade and give us the control of a market of four millions of people. What one thing has contributed so much to the wondrous material progress of the United States as the free passage of their products from one state to another ? What has tended so much to the rapid advance of all branches of their industry as the vast extent of their home market, creating an unlimited demand for all the commodities of daily use, and stimulating the energy and ingenuity of producers ? I confess that in my mind this one view of the union—the addition of nearly a million of people to our home consumers—sweeps aside all the petty objections that are averred against the scheme. 'What, in comparison with this great gain to our farmers and manufacturers, are the fallacious money objections which the imaginations of honourable gentlemen opposite have summoned up? All over the world we find nations eagerly longing to extend their domains, spending large sums and waging protracted wars to possess themselves of more territory, untilled and uninhabited. Other countries offer large in­ducements to foreigners to emigrate to their shores—free passages, free lands, and free food and implements to start them in the world. We ourselves support costly establishments to attract immigrants to our country, and are satisfied when our annual outlay brings us fifteen or twenty thousand souls. But here is a proposal which is to add, in one day, nearly a million souls to our population—to add valuable territories to our domain, and secure to us all the advantages of a large and profitable commerce now existing. And because some of us would have liked certain of the little details otherwise arranged, we are to hesitate in accepting this alliance! Have honourable gentlemen forgotten that the United States gladly paid twenty millions in hard cash to have Louisiana incorporated in the republic ? But what was Louisiana then to the Americans in comparison with what the Maritime Provinces are at this moment to Canada ? I put it to honourable gentlemen opposite—if the United States were now to offer us the state of Maine, what possible sum could be named within the compass of our ability that we would not be prepared to pay for that addition to our country? If we were offered Michigan, Iowa or Minnesota, I would like to know what sum, within the compass of Canada, we would not be prepared to pay ? These states are portions of a foreign country, but here is a people owning the same allegiance as ourselves, loving the same old sod, enjoying the same laws and institutions, actuated by the same impulses and social customs ; and yet when it is proposed that they shall unite with us for purposes of commerce, for the defence of our common country, and to develop the vast natural resources of our united domains, we hesitate to adopt it! If a Canadian goes now to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, or if a citizen of these provinces comes here, it is like going to a foreign country. The customs officer meets you at the frontier, arrests your pro­gress, and levies his imposts on your effects. But the proposal now before us is to throw down all barriers between the provinces—to make a citizen of one, citizen of the whole; the proposal is that our farmers, and manufac­turers and mechanics, shall carry their wares unquestioned into every village of the Maritime Provinces, and that they shall with equal freedom bring their fish, and their coal, and their West India produce to our three millions of inhabitants. The proposal is, that the law courts, and the schools, and the professional and industrial walks of life, throughout all the provinces, shall be thrown equally open to us all.

Thirdly, I am in favour of a union of the provinces because—and I call the attention of honourable gentlemen opposite to it—because it will make us the third maritime state of the world. When this union is accomplished, but two countries in the world will be superior in maritime influence to British America, and those are Great Britain and the United States. In 1863, no fewer than 628 vessels were built in British America, of which the aggregate tonnage was not less than 230,312 tons. There were built in Canada, 158 vessels, with 67,209 tons ; Nova Scotia, 207 vessels, with 46,862 tons; New Brunswick, 137 vessels, with 85,250 tons; Prince Edward Island, 100 vessels, with 24,991 tons ; Newfoundland, 26 vessels, with 6,000 tons; total, 628 vessels, with 230,312 tons. Now, in 1861—the year preceding the outbreak of the civil war—all the vessels built in the United States, with their vast seaboard and thirty millions of people, were in the aggregate but 233,193 tons—only three thousand tons in excess of the British American Provinces. And I hesitate not to affirm that if the people of British America unite cordially together in utilizing the singular facilities we unitedly possess for the extension of the shipping and ship-building interests, many years will not elapse before we greatly surpass our neighbours in this lucrative branch of industry.

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

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

HON. MR. HOLTON : Don't !

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

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

HON. MR. BROWN : My honourable friend cannot eat his cake and have it too, If we got $9,000,000 for a portion of the ships we built in 1863, it is clear we cannot own them also. It did not require a man of great wisdom to find out that. But I was going on to show the amount of shipping that was owned in these provinces. I hold in my hand a statement of the vessels owned and registered in British America, made up to the latest dates, and I find that the provinces unitedly own not fewer than 8,530 vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of not less than 952,246 tons.

HON. MR. HOLTON : Sea-going ?

HON. MR. BROWN : Sea-going and inland.

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

HON. MR. BROWN : Why is my honourable friend so anxious to depre­ciate ? Is it then so deplorable a thing to own inland vessels ? None knows better than my honourable friend when to buy and when to sell—and yet, I greatly mistake if there was not a time when my honourable friend thought it not so bad a thing to be the owner of ships and steamers on our inland seas. Am I wrong in believing that my honourable friend laid the foundation of his well-merited fortune in the carrying trade of the lakes ? and is it for him, from momentary partisanship, to depreciate such an important branch of national industry? What matters where the ship floats, if she is a good and a sound ship ?—and the inland tonnage includes so many steamers, that in value it will compare favourably with that of the sea-going. On the 31st December, 1864, Canada owned 2,311 vessels, of 287,187 tons; in 1863, Nova Scotia owned 3,539 vessels, of 309,554 tons; New Brunswick, 891 vessels, of 211,680 tons; Prince Edward Island, 360 vessels, of 34,222 tons ; Newfoundland, 1,429 vessels, of 89,603 tons ; total, 8,530 vessels, of 932,246 tons. Now, it is quite true that the United States have a much larger commercial navy than this, and Great Britain a vastly larger one ; but it is equally true that the country next to them in import­ance is France, and that notwithstanding her thirty-five millions of people, large foreign trade, and extensive sea-coast, she owns but 60,000 tons of shipping more than British America. In 1860, the aggregate commercial navy of France was but 996,124 tons. I say, then, that even as ship-owners the British American confederacy will occupy from the first a proud place among the maritime states of the world, and that when her ships hoist a distinctive flag alongside the Cross of Red, there will be few seas in which it will not be unfurled. And let me here mention a fact which came under my notice while recently in the Lower Provinces—a fact of great importance, and from which, I think, we, who are more inland, may well profit. I learned that, as in the British isles, a system of joint-stock ship-building has been spreading over many parts of the Maritime Provinces. Ships are built and owned in small shares—say in sixteenth, thirty-second, or sixty-fourth parts, and all classes of the people are taking small ventures in the trade. Most of the ships so built are sold, but a portion, and an increasing portion every year, are sailed, and sailed with profit, by the original joint-stock holders. I was delighted to be told that some of those clipper vessels which we often hear of as making wonderful trips from China and India and Australia to British ports, are vessels built and owned in New Brunswick, under this joint-stock system. So much for the building and ownership of ships ; now let me show you what will be the strength of the united provinces in seafaring men. By the census of 1861, it appears that the number of sailors and fishermen then in Canada was 5,958; in Nova Scotia, 19,637; in New Brunswick, 2,765; in Prince Edward Island, 2,318; in Newfoundland, 38,578; total, 69,256. Whether reg