a class of men who would not represent the province for which they are appointed, and who could give no pledge that they would maintain its institutions.

he will see that the first nominations are to be made by the existing governments. Thus the Government of Canada, that of New Brunswick and that of Nova Scotia will appoint legislative councillors, but afterwards the Federal Government will make the appointments. The honorable member for Quebec can, with reason, draw the conclusion that there is no guarantee that the views of the provinces will be respected. I for my part have investigated the matter, more in connection with the power that will be vested in the legislative councillors. I asserted that by appointing them for life and limiting their number, an absolute authority would be created, which would be quite beyond the control of the people and even of the Executive; that the power of this body will be so great, that they will always be in a position to prevent every reform if they thought proper, and that a collision between the two branches would be inevitable and irremediable. The danger arising from the creating of such a power is exactly that of being obliged to destroy it if they resist too obstinately the popular demands. In England there is no necessity for breaking down the obstructions sometimes presented by the House of Lords, because the Crown having it in its power to appoint new peers, can overcome the difficulty. Here there will be no means of doing it, when the number of councillors is fixed. Accordingly, I have looked at the question through the medium of the powers assigned to the councillors, whereas the honorable member for the county of Quebec fears lest the Government should make choice of men who would not represent public opinion in the provinces; that they might appoint members all of French origin or all of English origin to represent Lower Canada, or take them all from among

In our Constitution it is the duty of the Legislative Council to exercise the conservative influence, and to modify the legislation too energetic and too full of outside effervescence, which is sent for their consideration from the House of Commons. But when public opinion gains vigor from the obstacles which it encounters, and the reforms demanded are rational and come before them in due course, there is no danger that the legislation which embodies them will be obstructed in its progress; for the people will rise in their majesty and in their sense of justice, as did the people of England in 1832, and the obstacles they might meet with on their way would be swept away as by a torrent. (Hear, hear.) HON. MR. DORION—That is exactly where the danger lies. HON. MR. CAUCHON—That is the danger which assailed the House of Lords in 1832, but no one would venture to confront to the last extremity a danger such as this. But the honorable member for Quebec tells us, if I understand him rightly, that we have not sufficient guarantees for Lower Canada in the appointment of the legislative councillors. The selection of legislative councillors has no bearing whatever on the question we are now considering, viz., whether the appointment by the Crown is or is not preferable to the elective principle. But in answer to him I will say, that the scheme before us seems to be quite clear. According to this plan the candidates for the Legislative Council will be recommended by the local governments and appointed by the General Government, and it is by this very division of powers that the selections are sure to be good, and made in conformity with the desire and sentiments of the provinces. HON. MR. DORION—Only the first nominations are to be made in this manner, not those which may be made afterwards. HON. MR. CAUCHON—The first nominations will be made by the present Governments, and the federal councillors will be taken from the present legislative councillors to the number prescribed, 24, provided so many can be found who will accept the post, and who possess the requisite property qualification. The Conference has engaged, by the terms of the scheme, to respect the rights of the Opposition, and any government who should fail to carry out so solemn an engagement would well deserve to lose the public confidence. (Hear, hear.) I repeat that the mode of appointing the councillors in no wise affects the conservative principle of nomination on which the constitution of the Legislative Council ought to be based.

It is true that the House of Lords, Conservative though it be, finds itself removed from all popular influence; but its numbers may be increased upon the recommendation of the responsible advisers of the Crown, if such a measure were to become necessary to obtain the concurrence of both Houses, or to prevent a collision between them. The position which its members occupy in it establishes a sort of compromise between the Crown and the popular element. But this new House, after Confederation, will be a perfectly independent body; its members will be nominated for life, and their number cannot be increased. How long will this system work without bringing about a collision between the two branches of the Legislature? Let us suppose the Lower House composed in a great part of Liberals, for how long a time would it submit to an Upper House named by Government? Be kind enough to observe, Mr. SPEAKER, that under the old system, the Legislative Council possessed the same elements of existence as the House of Lords, and that the Crown could increase its numbers at need; it augmented it in 1849, as it threatened to augment the House of Lords in 1832. Observe, again, that it is precisely this control exercised by the Crown over the Upper House that the hon. gentleman found so fatal to legislation previous to 1856. But there is a more rational manner of appreciating the part sustained by the House of Lords in the British Constitution. No one denies to the Sovereign the abstract right of increasing at will the House of Lords; but such right has never been exercised but for the purpose of rewarding men distinguished for great national services and when, in 1832, WILLIAM IV. granted Earl GREY the tremendous power to swamp the representative body of the great landed nobility, it was because the country was moving with rapid strides towards revolution, and because there remained to the Sovereign but two alternatives, either to lessen the moral weight of the House of Lords, or to see his own throne knocked to pieces from under his feet.

It must then have been a real revolution, this nomination of one hundred new peers, a revolution as real as that which menaced the Throne; and do we not feel persuaded that if one day our Federal Legislative Council were to place itself obstinately and systematically in opposition to popular will, matured and strengthened by ordeals, it would not be swept away by a revolutionary torrent such as threatened to sweep away the House of Lords in 1832? This Council, limited as to numbers , because the provinces insist on maintaining in it an equilibrium without which they would never have consented to a union, this Council, sprung from the people—having the same wants, hopes and even passions, would resist less the popular will in America, where it is so prompt and active, than could the House of Lords in England, where the masses are inert because they have not political rights; reason tells us thus because they would be a less powerful body socially or politically.

We have accorded the principle of representation based upon population in the House of Commons of the Federal Government, and that is without doubt a great sacrifice; but we ought only to make so important a concession on the condition that we shall have equality of representation in the Legislative Council, and the right reserved to ourselves to appoint our twenty-four legislative councillors, in order that they may be responsible to the public opinion of the province and independent of the Federal Government.—Without this essential guarantee I affirm that the rights of Lower Canada are in danger. For my part I am ready, on behalf of Lower Canada, to give up her right to elect directly her twenty-four legislative councillors, although the retention of the elective principle might perhaps be the surest means of preserving our institutions; but I am anxious that the new Constitution now proposed should give us adequate guarantees that the legislative councillors to be appointed for life should, at all events, be selected by the Local Government of Lower Canada, which would be responsible to the people. These not ill-grounded sources of anxiety I should like to see removed.

“The second point which Her Majesty’s Government desire should be reconsidered”—and this phrase is positively, so far as words can give it, a command on the part of Her Majesty’s Government that it shall be reconsidered :— The second point which Her Majesty’s Government desire should be reconsidered is the constitution of the Legislative Council. They appreciate the considerations which have influenced the Conference in determining the mode in which this body, so important to the constitution of the Legislature, should be composed. But it appears to them to require further consideration whether, if the members be appointed “for life, and their number be fixed, there will be any sufficient means of restoring harmony between the Legislative Council and the popular Assembly, if it shall ever unfortunately happen that a decided difference of opinion shall arise between them. These two points, relating to the prerogative of the Crown and the Constitution of the Upper Chamber have appeared to require distinct and separate notice. Is not that a pretty emphatic dissent ?

In order to protect local interests, and to prevent sectional jealousies, it was found requisite that the three great divisions into which British North America is separated, should be represented in the Upper House on the principle of equality. There are three great sections, having different interests, in this proposed Confederation.

To the Upper House is to be confided the protection of sectional interests ; therefore is it that the three great divisions are there equally represented, for the purpose of defending such interests against the combinations of majorities in the Assembly.

But the very essence of our compact is that the union shall be federal and not legislative. Our Lower Canada friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they shall have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step ; and, for my part, I am quite willing they should have it. In maintaining the existing sectional boundaries and handing over the control of local matters to local bodies, we recognize, to a certain extent, a diversity of interests ; and it was quite natural that the protection for those interests, by equality in the Upper Chamber, should be demanded by the less numerous provinces.

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

establishing an Upper House. They have— reasoning doubtless from the same premises —not only given the legislatures of the respective states the power of nominating the members of the Senate, but have also given that body powers entirely different from those possessed by the elective branch.

And, besides that, we have provision made for extending the representation east or west, as occasion may require, according to the increase of our population shown at the decennial periods for taking the census. Any thing fairer than that could not possibly be demanded. And if Lower Canada increases more rapidly in population than Canada West, she will obtain representation accordingly. For, although the number of her members cannot be changed from sixty-five, the proportion of that number to the whole will be changed relatively to the progress of the various colonies. On the other hand if we extend, as I have no doubt we will do, westward, towards the centre of the continent, we will obtain a large population for our Confederation in the west. In that quarter we must look for the largest increase of our population in British America, and before many years elapse the centre of population and power will tend westward much farther than most people now think. The increase in the representation is therefore almost certain to be chiefly in the west, and every year will add to the influence and power of Western Canada, as well as to her trade and commerce. The most important question that arises relates to the constitution of the Upper House. It is said that in this particular the scheme is singularly defective—that there has been a retrograde movement in going back from the elective to the nominative system. I admit that this statement is a fair one from those who contended long for the application of the elective principle to the Upper House; but it can have no weight with another large class, who, like myself, never believed in the wisdom of electing the members of two Houses of Parliament with coordinate powers. I have always believed that a change from the present system was inevitable, even with our present political organization. (Hear, hear.) The constitution of an Upper House or Senate seems to have originated in the state of society which prevailed in feudal times ; and from being the sole legislative body—or at least the most powerful—in the State, it has imperceptibly become less powerful, or secondary in importance to the lower chamber, as the mass of the people became more intelligent, and popular rights became more fully understood. Where there is an Upper House it manifestly implies on the part of its members peculiar duties or peculiar rights. In Great Britain, for instance, there is a large class of landed proprietors, who have long held almost all the landed property of the country in their hands, and who have to pay an immense amount of taxes. The fiscal legislation of Britain for many years has tended to the reduction of impost and excise duties on articles of prime necessity, and to the imposition of heavy taxes on landed property and incomes. Under such a financial system, there are immense interests at stake, and the House of Lords being the highest judicial tribunal in the kingdom, there is a combination of peculiar rights and peculiar duties appertaining to the class represented which amply justify its maintenance. We have no such interests, and we-impose no such duties, and hence the Upper House becomes a mere court of revision, or one of coordinate jurisdiction ; as the latter it is not required ; to become the former, it should be constituted differently from the House of Assembly. The United States present the example of a community socially similar to ourselves,

and that that province will approve of our having inserted the clause in question in the resolutions. The vote which took place last night in another place, shews that I am not mistaken in what I assert on this subject. One of the greatest objections which the honorable member for Hochelaga raises to the appointment of the legislative councillors by the Crown, is that their number will be fixed, and that, by consequence, it will prove an obstacle to the decisions and legislation of the Commons House of the Federal Parliament. In a word, the honorable member declares that the Legislative Council, so constituted, will be, to use an English expression, a nuisance. The honorable member should glance back at the past to consider how many councillors appointed for life there were in the Legislative Council at the time of the concession of the elective principle, and how many of those said councillors remain at the present day. He would have ascertained that in eight years the number had diminished by one-half. Of the forty-two or forty-three members which there were then, there now remain but twenty-one or twenty-two. (Hear, hear.) The honorable member for Hochelaga should also have admitted that in those eight years there had been such considerable changes among the elected councillors, that there was no danger of the Legislative Council not being at least accessible to the people. This diminution gives an average of three members a-year, and if we take the proportion between this diminution and that which would necessarily prevail among a larger number of councillors, we shall find that there will be at least five vacancies in each year. The honorable member must then perceive that, if it should happen that the Legislative Council should be so opposed to the views of the Lower House as systematically to reject the measures of the popular branch of the Legislature, at the end of a year or perhaps less, such changes would be effected by death or otherwise, that we should immediately have such an infusion of new blood, that any attempt of this kind could not be repeated for a long time. Besides, the Legislative Council will not constitute a separate class like the House of Lords in England. The councillors will come from among the people, with whom they will have interests in common, and it is absurd to suppose that they will be induced to oppose systematically and constantly the measures which the Lower House may enact in favor of the people and at their instance. The hon. member for Hochelaga, when on this subject, reproached the Attorney General for Upper Canada with having stated in his opening speech, that if he had to preside over the selection of the legislative councillors, he would see that the best qualified men were appointed.

The honorable member for Hochelaga also pretended that the Maritime Provinces had forced upon us the clause which provides that the legislative councillors in the General Parliament shall be appointed by the Crown. Yet, the honorable member right well knows that the elective principle in our existing Legislative Council was mere- lee an experiment, and that in Lower Canada we have become tired of the system, not because the councillors who have been elected by the people are unworthy of the position which they occupy, or because their selection was an unfortunate selection, but because the very nature of the system prevents a large number of men of talent, of men qualified in every respect and worthy to sit in the Legislative Council, from presenting them- selves for the suffrages of the electors, in con- sequence of the trouble, the fatigue and enormous expense resulting from these electoral contests in enormous divisions. We know that the system has wearied Lower Canada,

filature, should be composed. But it appears to them to require further consideration whether, if the members be appointed for life, and their number be fixed, there will be any sufficient means of restoring harmony between the Legislative Council and the popular Assembly, if it shall ever unfortunately happen that a decided differ emcee of opinion shall arise between them. Now the point of this (Mr. CARDWELL’S) objection clearly is to the number being fixed, not to the principle of nomination, nor to members being appointed lord life.

The objections which have been raised to nomination by the Crown or the Executive Government are of very little effect at this time of day. For myself I should have preferred to have the nomination of legislative councillors vested in the Crown independently cu the recommendation of the Local Government, so as to have left die prerogative unfettered. They is no doubt that abuses formerly existed in Canada when the nominative system was in force—before responsible government was established and when the Colonial Office meddled a good deal with the affairs of the province; but now every honorable gentleman with any knowledge of historical events in Canada will say at once the case is altogether altered. So far from interfering in our internal matters, the Colonial Office now leaves us a great deal to ourselves and lets us do as we please. There never was a freer Constitution than ours. Under these altered circumstances, I should have preferred, I say, that in order to avoid all appearance of nominations for party purposes, the direct nomination of legislative councillors should have been left to the Crown or the Crown’s representative in the Confederation. (Hear.) There was one remark made by the hon. member for Wellington in reference to Mr. CARDWELL’S letter, which I think was made in error. He inferred from that despatch that Mr. CARDWELL was opposed to the nominative system. Now, the passage he alluded to was this : — The second point which Her Majesty’s Government desired should be reconsidered is the Constitution of the Legislative Council. They appreciate the considerations which have influenced the Conference in determining the mode in which this body, so important to the constitution of the Le-

In considering the project of Confederation, one of the principal subjects which has undergone discussion in this House has been the proposed Constitution of the Council, and the most prominent question connected with it has been the question of the elective versus the nominative, principle. Although an elected member, I voted without the least hesitation against the elective principle, and I believe that in doing so I represented the views of my constituents as well as my own—I mean the great majority of my constituents, for there may be some exceptions with regard to this point, as there are no doubt with respect to the general question of Confederation. I based my vote on what is, I think, a true principle in politics, which is that if you wish a check to be established, such as I think this Council is intended to establish on the legislation of the other branch, you must not have the two Chambers returnable by the same constituents. If the constituents of both Houses are nearly the same, you lose the power of check, or at least you will not have it effectual, because you will have the same sentiments and feelings represented in this House as in the other. I am not singular in this opinion, but were I to cite the opinions of men who are of a conservative turn of mind, and who have always upheld the privileges of the aristocracy and the prerogative of the Crown, I should, perhaps, give you opinions which would carry less weight with the opponents of this measure than will that of a gentleman whose views I will cite, who has written a great deal, and very ably, and who belongs to the ranks of the advanced Liberal party in England—I mean Mr. JOHN STUART MILL. In his chapter on the Second Chamber (Considerations on Representative Government, page 212), be says :— That there should be in every polity a centre of resistance to the predominant power in the Constitution—and in a democratic constitution, therefore, a nucleus of resistance to the democracy— I have already maintained, and I regard it as a fundamental maxim of government. If any people who possess a democratic representation are, from their historical antecedents, more willing to tolerate such a centre of resistance in the form of a Second Chamber or House of Lords than in any other shape, this constitutes a strong reason for having it in that shape.

It is said that, as you have a responsible government, the Government of the day will be held responsible to the people, through their representatives in the lower branch of the Legislature for the appointments, it may make to this House. Admitting this to be the case, we know what the tendency is in England, and what it was in this country when the Government had the appointment of the members of the Legislative Council ; the effect will be to find a place in this House for men distinguished for the aid they have given at elections to certain men or parties, and not as a reward of true merit or legislative ability. Furthermore, if this House is to be of any value at all, it is as affording a wholesome check over hasty and unwise legislation. But if you place the whole legislation of the country in the hands of a single man or body, I care not whether it is democratic or aristocratic in its tendencies, a power like that in the hands of the Executive to create the Legislative Council is a dangerous one. Unrestrained or unchecked action by a single elected body of the most democratic character is apt to go astray if they feel they have only themselves to consult. This is what is proposed to be done under this scheme ; but let this House be elected, as before, by the people ; let them be returned for a period of eight years as at present, or even longer if desired, and then, if there is a demand for legislation of a selfish or ill-considered character—a demand which, founded on ignorance or passion, is likely to right itself after the lapse of a few years—the members of this House would take the responsibility upon themselves of rejecting it, and public opinion would eventually sustain them and acknowledge that they have done some service to the country. But inasmuch as you appoint these members for life, you have no check over them, nor are they so likely to check legislation of an immature and ill-considered character. While the Ministry of the day which appoints them remains in power, it will expect and receive a cordial support from them ; but let it be defeated, and a ministry, formed out of the opposite party, obtain office, there will certainly be difficulty —there will be a tendency to dead-locks between the two branches of the legislature, and a repetition of those scenes which were witnessed in this country some years ago, and which formed one of the principal causes that brought about the rebellion of 1837.

With reference to the change doing away with our elective Legislative Council, of which we have heard so much, I for one can say that I consider the delegates came to the only correct conclusion, and this is no new conclusion, and involves no change of opinion on my part, for I can appeal to an honorable member of this House as to whether, within half an hour of taking my seat in it, I did not express the opinion that though it was not right to speak ill of the bridge over which one had crossed safely, yet that I was opposed to the elective system as applied to this House.

to vote away that right which has been granted by the Constitution of our country to those who now have the privilege conferred upon them of exercising the elective franchise so far as regards this Chamber. I feel that I should do a great wrong and perpetrate a great injury to the electors who sent me here, were I to vote for that portion of the scheme which contemplates the taking away of their franchise altogether.

When these resolutions were printed by the Government I received one from the Honorable the Provincial Secretary, marked ” Private,” and I also at the same time received a note from that honorable gentleman, stating that these resolutions were not then intended for the eye of the public. The consequence was, I felt that I could not read these resolutions, and meet my constituents and tell them that I knew nothing in reference to Confederation. Thus feeling my hands tied, I placed the resolutions in my desk, and left them there; and never did I examine them to ascertain what honorable gentlemen had done until I took my seat on the floor of the House. I could not feel free to place myself in a position before my constituents, and on being asked from time to time what were the prospects of Confederation and what were its details, give a truthful reply with the restrictions placed upon me, were I to have read the resolutions ; and therefore I did not read the resolutions, so that I might honestly say I knew nothing about them.

It is true that the elective principle is affirmed in both ; but then the motion of the Hon. Mr. SANBORN went further and applied the elective principle to the Maritime Provinces, and was favorable to the retention of the life members, and it also extended the life principle to the Maritime Provinces, and contemplated the addition of ten life members to this Chamber from those provinces. My motion simply affirms the elective principle so far as Canada is concerned, and between the two I think there is a material difference.

Under them the appointed councillors will, in Lower Canada, be required to reside in certain divisions or to hold their property there. In Upper Canada the same property qualification applies, but as to residence there is no restriction ; whilst in one of the Maritime Provinces (Prince Edward) qualification is based on personal property only. Hence there is in reality very little symmetry about the scheme.

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

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

It was for the purpose of attaining this end that the country was broken up into divisions, that it was required that the councillors elected should be residents in the divisions, or should be the owners of real estate within their limits of the value of £2,000 ; but under the system of Crown nominations to seats in this House, the choice might fall, as it formerly did, on persons residing in the large cities ; it would not be difficult for them to acquire £1,000 worth of real estate in the divisions, and the country would not be equally represented in this House. Another reason why the elective system is preferable to that of nominations by the Crown, is that on every fresh election the newly elected member represents the opinions of the people then prevailing, whereas councillors appointed for life may sometimes represent public opinion as it existed twenty

He told us that to restore the credit of the Legislative Council it had been found necessary to make it elective ; but this was not the sole inducement for the change; there was another motive quite as reasonable for making the Council elective, and this motive was that in causing the Councillors to be elected, they would be taken from among all parties in the country, and would, therefore, represent the public opinion of the different parties in it.

changes undergone by our own Legislative Council, so that I need not recur to that subject. The Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands has asserted that we are justified in voting on the proposed reversal of the Constitution without an appeal to the people. I beg to differ from that opinion. I know the nature of a trust, whether civil or political; they both entail very much the same duties. Well, what is the charge entrusted to us by our constituents ? That of working out the present Constitution to the best of our understanding and of our judgment.

Another provision of the project which we cannot approve is that by which the constitution of the Legislative Council is based on the nominative principle, instead of the elective principle which now prevails, as regards that branch of the Legislature, under our own Government. I have already had occasion to express my opinion as to the constitutional

I cannot see that the nomination system was forced on them by the wishes of the Lower Provinces. It may have been the desire of some of the Maritime Provinces to maintain their nomination system, but the change in ours was one which obviously met the wishes of the members of this Government, and no effort appears to have been made by them to preserve to the people of this country the privilege they now enjoy of electing members of this House.

We have heard much about the proposed new constitution of the Legislative Council. We have been told it was political necessity that first forced the elective system of minds that were by no means enamoured of it, and this, I think, has been fully established. Now, it would ill become me, as an elected member, to dwell on any merits or excellences the elective system may have possessed as applied to this branch of the Legislature— it is a subject we can none of us touch upon with the same freedom which we might if we were not ourselves elected—but I may call the attention of the House to this, that none of the evils that were dreaded, as likely to flow from the elective system, have yet shown themselves, and I do not think it at all reasonable, much less necessary, that they should be anticipated in time to come. My own views were in perfect accord with those of hon. gentlemen who protested against the system when it was first introduced. I did not then consider it an improvement, and my views have not changed since ; I have, consequently, no personal predilections for an Elective Council, but far prefer a Chamber nominated by the Crown.

Now, I would like to ask him whether or not, in the remarks he made this afternoon, he stated that there had been no demand on the part of the people for an elective Legislative Council since the union. HON. MR. ROSS—What I said was, that there had been no general demand for the change on the part of the people of Upper Canada. I am well aware that there was agitation on the subject in Lower Canada. HON. MR. DICKSON—Well, I find here in the Journals of the Legislative Assembly for 1855, that on the 21st of May, when the second reading of the Bill to make this House elective was defeated, the following was entered on the Journals by eight honorable members, in the shape of reasons for their dissent from the vote, viz. :— DISSENTIENT—Because public opinion has long and repeatedly been expressed on the necessity of rendering this branch of the Legislature elective ; because the almost unanimous vote of the Legislative Assembly, irrespective of party, has, in the most unequivocal manner, ratified the opinion of the people as hereinbefore expressed ; because the opposition of this House to the universal desire of the inhabitants of Canada, unsustained either by a party in the other branch of the Legislature or out of it, is unprecedented, and of a nature to cause the most serious apprehensions. The first name, honorable gentlemen, signed to that protest is the Honorable JOHN ROSS, and the second is my honorable and gallant friend, Sir E. P. TACHÉ. Then there are the Honorable Messrs. PANET, BELLEAU, ARMSTRONG, PERRY, LEGARÉ, and CARTIER.

Because the introduction of the elective principle into the Constitution of the Upper Chamber gives an undue preponderance to the popular element ; diminishes the proper influence of the Crown, and destroys the balance that has acted as a proper check upon both since representative institutions were given to the colony.

He said that a House appoiuted by the Crown would be more responsible to the people than the present House. That, hon. gentlemen, is cor.ainly a new doctrine to me. If such would be the case, why, I ask, do you not apply the same system to the other branch of the Legislature ? In such an event I feel assured that the Government of the day would have a much more comfortable and pleasant life of it than even the present Government, strong and talented as they undoubtedly are.

My recollection is that the Council under the nominative system was a standing grievance in Lower Canada as well as in Upper Canada. HON. MR. McCREA—That was before the union. HON. MR. CURRIE—The demand arose that the Council should be elective. HON. MR. McCREA — Not alter the union. HON. MR. CURRIE—My hon. friend is, I can assure him, mistaken in stating that there were no petitions in favor of an elective Legislative Council at the time of the change. If my hon. friend will consult the Journals of Parliament, he will find there petitions for the change

In the Upper House doubts were expressed as to who should recommend the appointment of the members composing the Legislative Council. It was thought in many quarters that the appointment of these members was to be made by the local governments after the scheme should come into operation.

two branches of the Legislature ? Suppose the Lower House turns out to be chiefly Liberal, how long will it submit to the Upper House, named by Conservative administrations which have taken advantage of their temporary numerical strength to bring about such a change as is now proposed ? Remember, sir, that, after all, the power, the influence of the popular branch of the Legislature is paramount. “We have seen constitutions like that of England adopted in many countries, and where there existed a nobility, such as in France in 1830, the second chamber was selected from this nobility. In Belgium, where the Constitution is almost a facsimile of that of England, but where there are no aristocracy, they adopted the elective principle for the Upper House, and no where in the world is there a fixed number for it, unless it is also elective. It must be fresh in the memory of a great many members of this House how long the House of Lords resisted the popular demand for reform, and great difficulties were threatened. At last in 1832 the agitation had become so great that the Government determined to nominate a sufficient number of peers to secure the passage of the Reform Bill. The members of the House had to choose between allowing the measure to become law, or see their influence destroyed by the addition of an indefinite number of members. They preferred the first alternative, and thereby quieted an excitement, which if not checked in time, might have created a revelation in England. The influence of the Crown was then exerted in accordance with the views of the people ; but here we are to have no such power existing to check the action of our Upper Chamber, and no change can be made in its composition except as death might slowly remove its members. I venture to prophesy, sir, that before a very short time has elapsed a dead-lock may arise, and such an excitement be created as has never yet been seen in this country. (Hear, hear.) Now, if this Constitution had been framed by the members of our Government, we could change some of its provisions—this provision would most certainly be altered— there is not a man in the Liberal ranks who dare vote for such a proposition as this, that could go before his constituents and say, ” I have taken away the influence and control of the people over the Upper Chamber, and I have created an entirely independent body, to be chosen by the present governments of the several provinces.” But no, the Constitution is in the nature of a compact, a treaty, and cannot be changed. (Hear.) But, sir, the composition of the Legislative Council becomes of more importance when we consider that the governors of the local legislatures are to be appointed by the General Government, as well as the Legislative Council ; their appointment is to be for five years, and they are not to be removed without cause. I will venture upon another prediction and say we shall find there will be no such thing as responsible government attached to the local legislatures.

If the two Canadas were alone interested, the majority would have its own way—would look into the Constitution closely—would scan its every doubtful provision, and such a proposal as this about the Legislative Council would have no chance of being carried, for it is not very long since the House, by an overwhelming majority, voted for the substitution of an elected for a nominated Upper Chamber. In fact, the nominated Chamber had fallen so low in public estimation—I do not say it was from the fault of the men who were there, but the fact is, nevertheless, as I state it— that it commanded no influence. There was even a difficulty in getting a quorum of it together. So a change became absolutely necessary, and up to the present moment the new system has worked well; the elected members are equal in every respect to the nominated ones, and it is just when we see an interest beginning to be felt in the proceedings of the Upper House that its Constitution is to be changed, to return back again to the one so recently condemned. Back again, did I say ? No, sir, a Constitution is to be substituted, much worse than the old one, and such as is nowhere else to be found. Why, even the British House of Lords, conservative as it is, is altogether beyond the influence of the popular sentiment of the country. Their number may be increased on the recommendation of the responsible advisers of the Crown, if required to secure united action or to prevent a conflict between the two Houses. From the position its members occupy, it is a sort of compromise between the popular element and the influence or control of the Crown. But the new House for the Confederation is to be a perfectly independent body —these gentlemen are to be named for life— and there is to be no power to increase their number. How long will the system work without producing a collision between the

to be believed that, as promised in the document we are considering, such a Government as we have ” will take care of the Opposition, or consider their right to be represented in the Council?” (Hear, and laughter.) Sir, I thank the delegates for their kind solicitude for the Opposition, but I do not believe they will do anything of the kind. Have we not heard the Honorable Attorney General West, a few nights ago, state, turning to his followers, ” If I were to advise the nomination, I should advise the selection of the best men I could find—and of course of my own party ?” (Hear.) So it will be, sir ; and, if this precious scheme is carried, we shall have a Legislative Council divided in the following proportion :—For Upper Canada, we should probably have liberals in the proportion of three to nine ; for I suppose the honorable member for South Oxford has made sacrifices enough to deserve at least that consideration, and, as his friends compose one-fourth of the Executive Council, I dare say we should get one fourth of the Upper Canada Legislative Councillors liberal too. HON. ATTY. GEN. MACDONALD—Hear, hear HON. MR. HOLTON—Just 25 per cent. HON. MR. DORION—Just 25 per cent, of liberals for Upper Canada. Then, in addition, we should get from Nova Scotia ten conservative, from Prince Edward Island four more, and four from Newfoundland. Thus we shall have eighteen conservatives from the Lower Provinces, which, added to thirty-six from Canada, would make fifty-four conservatives against twenty-two liberals, taking the ten New Brunswick councillors to be all liberals. Now, supposing three per cent, as the average number of deaths per annum—the average proportion of change— it would take nearly thirty years to bring about a change in the character of a majority of the Council, even supposing all the additions made to it to be from the liberal ranks. But, sir, that will hardly be the case. In some of the Lower Provinces there will be Conservative governments now and then, and there may occasionally be conservative governments in Canada. (Hear, and laughter.) So this generation will certainly pass away before the views of the Liberal party will ever find expression in the decisions of the Upper House.

Were we not expressly told that it was the Lower Provinces who would not hear of our having an elective Legislative Council ? If, instead of going into Conference with the people of the Lower Provinces, our Government had done what they pledged themselves to do, that is, to prepare a Constitution themselves, they would never have dared to bring in such a proposition as this which is now imposed upon us by the Lower Colonies —to have a Legislative Council, with a fixed number of members, nominated by four Tory governments. Why, taking the average time each councillor will be in the Council to be fifteen to twenty years, it will take a century before its complexion can be changed. For all time to come, so far as this generation and the next are concerned, you will find the Legislative Council controlled by the influence of the present Government. And is it

I find that whether they be purely political ones, such as the proposal to restrict the influence and control of the people over the Legislature of the country by substituting a Chamber nominated by the Crown for an Elective Legislative Council, or whether they are purely commercial in their character, such as that regarding the Intercolonial Railway, or the larger question of Confederation itself, I still hold the same views that I held, in common with others who have now changed their opinions, when the subjects were first mooted. (Hear, hear.) And as I have not heard, since the first opening of this debate, any reason for substituting a nominated for an elective Upper Chamber that was not fully argued out in 1856, when, by an overwhelming majority of this House, it was decided that the elective principle should prevail—as I have not heard any reason why we should pledge our credit and resources to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, even previous to any estimate of its cost being made, that was not urged in 1862 when the question was before the country—nor any reason for intercolonial union that was net raised in 1858, when the present Hon. Finance Minister pressed the question on the attention of the Imperial authorities—I do not see on what ground these several subjects which were then so unpopular, and those views which were then almost universally repudiated, should now be more favorably considered by the people of this country—I fail to perceive why those once unpalatable measures, now

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.

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.

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, m 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 Confederation with the Maritime Provinces, I think I am clear from any imputation of inconsistency or levity of purpose.

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.

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.) Honi 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

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.

The gentlemen from the Lower Provinces were opposed to the elective principle, and went strongly for the system of appointments by the Crown.

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.

This was not, as I have stated already, because of any predilection on our part for the elective principle. I t was not because we thought that the elective principle was much better than the system 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 practical 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 appointments. 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.

to serve ; such members shall he 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 fairly 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 away 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 the one 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 Legislative Council received a cross-fire from both sides. I t 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 in their places. But, 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 places 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.

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 memo. ers 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.

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 fullness of his good dis-

When the gentlemen who composed the Conference 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.

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

the proposed Federal Parliament is not in fact an abandonment of the elective principle, because the appointments are to be by the Ministry of the day, who must have the confidence of the people. That is certainly a most extraordinary argument. If it held good at all, it should apply equally to both Houses, and the Legislative Assembly should be appointed by the Ministry, because the Ministry have been selected by those who have been elected by the people. This is the clear, logical deduction from my hon. friend’s argument, if it is good for anything —because, if appointment by the Ministry is not an abandonment of the elective principle, you would still have an elective Legislative Assembly, although its members were appointed by the Government (Hear, hear.) But this was also well answered on a former occasion by my hon. friend behind me (Hon. Mr. AIKINS.) It is not simply the first appointment that we oppose. I t is the appointments afterwards, as the first members die out or resign, and their successors are appointed on the nomination of the future local governments. Instead of this producing a favorable result, it appears to me it will have just the opposite effect. The reason is plain. If, in the very first instance, the prerogative is exercised, not by the Sovereign or the Sovereign’s representative, unbiased, but is exercised by a party government, you have a House constituted at its very first meeting of a party character. In the other branch that particular Government has a majority. But it is possible, that that party may not long retain power. In the nature of things it is not probable that they will. No party does. But the Upper House remains permanent, and you provide by your very first operation for that dead-lock—that conflict between the Upper and the Lower House, which has been spoken of.

If we gained anything by introducing the elective principle, we propose to keep that advantage, by retaining it just in the same form, and bear: ing the same relation to the proposed Legislative Council as it is retained in and bears relation to this House. HON. MR. CAMPBELL—But, under the present union, there is no federative necessity tor relative equality of numbers in the Legislative Council, as there will be under the proposed union. HON. MR. SANBORN—I admit no necessities of the kind. These necessities are entirely artificial. In that respect, I think hon. gentlemen are entirely in error in the position they take. And, though I concede to my hon. friend from Erie Division (Hon. Mr. CHRISTIE) every credit for great candor and soundness of judgment, still L must say that, when he enters into the province of law, he is travelling a little, as we say in the profession, out of the record—and that any one who is familiar with the doctrine of trusts eould not fail to see the falseness of his reasoning in that particular. As regards a trust, of course, the person who has a mandate given to him, must aet according to his discretion under the circumstances. But then he must do so within the trust that is given him, and not beyond the trust. HON. MR. CHRISTIE—Of course. HON. MR. SANBORN—My hon. friend cites the act empowering the Legislature of Canada to change the constitution of the Legislative Council, and on this act he bases his whole argument. If I convince him that that act does not cover his argument, will he then concede the point ? That act, to which my hon. friend refers, was passed for a specific purpose, to enable Parliament to reconstruct this House. It had answered its purpose when the constitution of this House was changed, but it cmnot properly be invoked as giving authority with reference to bringing in other provinces to form a new Confederacy. HON. MR. CHRISTIE—But my hon. friend will observe, that we are not legislating now—that we are merely passing an Address.

given to the elective principle, and the House remains now a visible memento of the carrying out of the very position which I take on the present occasion.

the election of members to the Legislative Council—and that it was of no consequence to the other provinces how those members were elected, if they had relatively the same number as we. My hon. friend accuses me of being inconsistent in taking ground in favor of the elective principle, while proposing still to retain the nominated members in their seats, and also to add ten new members from the Maritime Provinces. To this, I would answer that it is an exceptional condition in which we are placed. We cannot obviate the difficulty. A similar difficulty presented itself to those who sought the change when the elective principle was introduced into this House, and they met it just in the same manner in which we propose to meet it here. The life members were retained while recognition and sanction were

There will be no more difficulty in excising the nominative principle from the future Legislative Council, than there was in excising it from the former body. I might say there were greater difficulties in the one case than in the other. (Hear, hear.) Looking then at the advantages likely to result from the adoption of the resolutions—the establishment of peace and harmony among the people of this country— the getting rid of those terrible difficulties and conflicts which have beset our path, we ought not to hesitate. Whatever hon. gentlemen may say now, they did not estimate them slightly when they were complaining of the conduct of the governments of the day, and my hon. friend from Niagara (Honorable Mr. CURRIE) inveighed against the evils which then existed as strongly as any man could do. Looking, then I say, at the abuses and difficulties which have arisen under a legislative union; and, thence arguing the impracticability of going on with that kind of union, and believing that the great advantages likely to result from this scheme of Federal union will much more than counterbalance the evils likely to arise from it, I do say it is our duty as honest and patriotic men to adopt the resolutions presented to us by the Conference. (Cheers.)

According to that position he is bound to the elective principle, and he is therefore on principle bound to do all in his power to remove obstructions to its well-working. He is bound even to remove the present nominated members from the House. What does his resolution propose ? It proposes not merely to allow the nominated members to remain tor life, but to add ten to their number ! This is surely not giving free scope to the elective principle. Were the Lower Provinces to have the power which my hon. friend proposes to give them, they would appoint ten of their youngest men to seats in this House, who might be hero for years after those to whom they were an offset had been removed from the House. (Hear, hear.) Besides, he proposes to give the present elected members seats for eight years, and then, of course, the whole of them would go back for re-election at once. I am not convinced by any argument which I have heard that the elective principle, exercised in some way, is not the best mode to compose this House. I t has worked well so far. All the fears which were entertained in reference to it have proved groundless, and I believe it would continue to work well, and therefore, I disapprove of the change proposed in the resolutions.

I hold that the substitution of appointment by the Crown for the elective principle, in this Chamber, is a great objection. I have always been an advocate of the elective principle; still I shrink from the responsibility of voting against the scheme because of that objection.

solutions were devised because they were better calculated in this shape to be palatable, if not to this Chamber, at least to other houses of the legislatures of British North America.

had the right of making selections from all over the country. If that had been proposed, I think many honorable gentlemen would have found fault with it. (Hear, hear.) It was due to courtesy that the members of this House should not be overlooked, and not only that, but there were acquired rights which had to be respected. My honorable friend appears to dissent from this statement. Well, the last choice of the people are now in this House, and by the fact of their election they have acquired a right to a seat ; and I think those gentlemen who have been appointed for life have gained rights which should not be overlooked. (Hear, hear.) HON. MR. CURRIE—The honorable and gallant gentleman says we have an acquired right. I admit we have a right to sit here during the term for which we have been elected ; but what right have we to seat ourselves here for the remainder of our lives ? The people did not send us here to make this change in the composition of this House. (Hear, hear.) And what right even have the appointed members of this House to seats here during their lifetime? I have a despatch here, written by the late Duke of NEWCASTLE, who will be considered pretty good authority upon the point, to the Lieutenant-Governor of Prince Edward Island, on this very question. I need not read the words of the despatch, but the sense of it is, that legislative councillors have no right of property in their position, but simply a naked trust which the Legislature may at any time call upon them to surrender to other hands, if, in their opinion, the public interest shall require such transfer. HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—That is merely a matter of opinion. That may for a time have been the view of the Imperial authorities, but previous to 1856 they held and said directly the contrary. (Hear, hear.) They then said that they had granted certain privileges to certain gentlemen for life, and that they would not commit the injustice of withdrawing those privileges when the gentlemen had done nothing to forfeit them. (Hear, hear.) HON. MR. CURRIE—I am surprised at the honorable and gallant Premier questioning the ability of the distinguished gentleman who wrote the despatch to which I have just referred. Whatever may have been the opinion of the Colonial Office in 1856, this is a later opinion, for the despatch is dated the 4th of February, 1862, The honorable and gallant gentleman says they do not propose to take from any honorable gentleman the rights he now enjoys. I could understand this argument if they did not propose to take away the rights of any honorable member of this House ; but I cannot understand it when you propose to drive from this House faithful subjects who have served their country honestly in the Legislature, and I am afraid we have not yet had from the gallant Premier that explanation to which the House is entitled. (Hear, hear.) Why is it that the legislative councillors from Prince Edward Island are excepted ? In that province, as we know, the Legislative Council is elective, and it is an elected Chamber that is now in existence there, but the members of it are excepted from the provisions that apply to the legislative councils of the other provinces. Why is this ? I think there must be some reason, in the first place, for breaking the good rule that in no way shall the prerogative of the Crown be restricted ; and, in the second, for making an exception in regard to one that does not apply to the others. I think a reason may be found for this in the fact, that it was doubted whether the resolutions in a different shape would have passed through some of the chambers that compose the legislatures of the different provinces. (Hear, hear.) I would like to know what justice will be done if this change is carried out ? What, for instance, will be done with regard to two honorable members who come from the city of Hamilton ? One of them (the Hon. Mr. MILLS) is an appointed member ; the other (the Hon. Mr. BULL) was the almost unanimous choice of the people only a few months since. Under the working of the resolutions, one of these honorable gentlemen will forfeit his seat. HON. MR. ROSS—Why ? (Hear, hear.) HON. MR. CURRIE—If it does not follow that one of these honorable gentlemen will lose his seat, it must follow that some other portion of Upper Canada will be unrepresented in this House. (Hear, hear.) Let honorable gentlemen take either horn of the dilemma they please. It may be quite true that the gentlemen who have been sent here possess the confidence of their constituents, but it does not follow that they will be retained in their seats. It is plain that a great injustice will be done these honorable gentlemen, some of whom have served their country faithfully, without, in any way trenching upon the rights of the Crown or infringing on those of the people; and I think the conclusion this House and the country, as well as the other branch of the Legislature, will arrive at, is that those re-

I feel that there is something extraordinary in the fourteenth of these resolutions before the House, and I would like to hear the Government give a full explanation as to the manner in which that resolution was arrived at in the Conference. Bear in mind, honorable gentlemen, that the eleventh resolution declares that ” the members of the Legislative Council shall be appointed by the Crown under the great seal of the General Government, and shall hold office during life.” Thus the House will see that by this resolution the Crown has the right for all future time to select the legislative councillors in Upper Canada from any part of the country which the Crown sees fit; but in Lower Canada there is this difference that, according to the sixteenth resolution, ” each of the legislative councillors representing Lower Canada in the Legislative Council of the General Legislature, shall be appointed to represent one of the twenty-four electoral divisions mentioned in schedule A, of chapter 1st of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, and such councillor shall reside or possess his qualification in the division he is appointed to represent.” Then the fourteenth resolution declares that ” the first selection of the members of the Legislative Council shall be made, except as regards Prince Edward Island, from the legislative councils of the various provinces, so far as a sufficient number be found qualified and willing to serve.” Now, honorable gentlemen, I have always understood— my reading of books on constitutional law has given me to understand—that the greatest of England’s statesmen who have spoken on the question of the Royal prerogative, have always broadly laid it down as a rule that the prerogative should never and could never be limited. How is it then that these thirty-three individuals, talented, able and gifted, as no doubt they were, who met in the room behind me and sat with closed doors, saw fit to hamper and cripple the operation of that good rule ? (Hear, hear.) Should the prerogative of the Crown in the selection of members of this House be limited ? It may be true that, residing in many of the divisions in Lower Canada represented in this House, there may be good men, competent men, well qualified men; but it is equally true that there may be just as good, able and talented men, outside of them as in it. Why, then, should the doors of this House be closed against these men ? Why is it, I would like to know, that the prerogative of the Crown is to be restricted so as to prevent the choice of these men ? HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I can give explanations to the honorable gentleman. He must be aware that Lower Canada is in a different position from Upper Canada, and that there are two nationalities in it occupying certain portions of the country. Well, these divisions have been made so as to secure to both nationalities their respective rights, and these, in our opinion, are good reasons for the provision that has been made. HON. MR. CURRIE—I do not think my honorable and gallant friend sees the point of my remarks. I would ask why in the first selection the choice of the Crown is restricted to the members of this Chamber, when probably others out of it could be found whose presence here would be of more advantage to the public ? HON. SIR E. P. TACHÉ—I do not know what advantage would be derived if the Crown

That the legislative councillors representing Upper and Lower Canada in the Legislative Council of the General Legislature, shall be elected as at present, to represent the forty-eight electoral divisions mentioned in schedule A of chapter first of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, and each such councillor shall reside or possess the qualification in the division he is elected to represent.

They appreciate the considerations which have influenced the Conference in determining the mode in which this body, so important to the constitution of the Legislature, should be composed. But it appears to them to require further consideration, whether, if the members be appointed for life, and their number be fixed, there will be any sufficient means of restoring harmony between the Legislative Council and the popular Assembly, if it shall ever unfortunately happen that a decided difference of opinion shall arise between them.

We are asked to sacrifice the election of the Legislative Council ; but is the system proposed a better one ? I do not think so, for to my mind the mode in which it is proposed to constitute that House appears to be unsound in every way. Not only are the people to be deprived of an important right, but the prerogative of the Crown is to be infringed by limiting the number of members to be appointed. It is painful to take a backward step of this kind, and to abandon a reform, the fruit of the persevering struggles of so many eminent men ; and I believe that if we consent to this change, the consequences of the act will soon be seen.

Had it not been for the nomination of these members, and the adhesion given by some others, it would have been impossible to reform the Legislative Council. But what results may be anticipated from the proposed constitution of the Federal Legislative Council ? By limiting the number of the members of this House, the prerogative of the Crown is, in fact, restricted, and a system is adopted, exactly the reverse of that which exists in England. And in the event of serious difficulties arising between the House of Commons and the Upper House, what would happen ? The same thing would happen which has already occurred before, but with this difference, that the Crown would not have the power of infusing new elements, and legislation would thus be at a stand-still. The only course to be pursued under those circumstances will be to ask the Imperial Government to amend the constitution of the Council, as the people will be powerless from our having deprived them of the right of electing councillors. For my part, I am convinced that this new system will not be productive of beneficial results. I do not propose to repeat here all the arguments which have been already urged against the projected changes; but I must say, as holding my authority from the people, that the question of Confederation has never been adverted to during the two elections which I have passed through, and that, therefore, I do not think that my constituents expressed their opinion on this question when they elected me, or that they conferred upon me the right of changing the constitution of the Legislative Council, without consulting them in the matter.

The LAFONTAINE-BALDWIN Administration, seeing that there was no possibility of obtaining reforms on account of the obstacles raised by the Legislative Council as then constituted, had recourse to the appointment of new liberal councillors ; and by the adhesion of the older ones, they succeeded in carrying their measures.

The hon. member pretends that if the elective principle continues to be applied to the Legislative Council, the result will very soon be that all those adventurers who seek to live in political life and by political life, will drive from our midst all men of merit, and will then control the affairs of the country. For my part, I by no means stand in dread of such a result, for I know that there is too much good sense among the people to make it possible that they will ever consent to serve as a stepping-stone to political adventurers in pursuit of the advancement of their own personal prospects and fortune in public life. I am well aware that some political adventurers do occasionally succeed in imposing upon the people by means of fine promises and a hypocritical exterior ; but the political life of such individuals has never been of long duration, and the results of the election of legislative councillors by the people remain to prove the complete absence of foundation for the fears expressed by the honorable member. I think, moreover, that the results which have hitherto obtained from the application of the elective principle to this House, and from the election of the members who now sit in it, are satisfactory and do no dishonor to this honorable House. At any rate I never yet heard such a thing asserted. The hon. member maintains that it is not necessary that the Legislative Council should be elective, because that body is intended, or has for its mission, to act as a counterpoise between the Executive and the Lower House. But that state of affairs exists at the present day

The hon. member also stated that he did not want to make a backward step in relation to the election of the members of the Legislative Council. In reply to that, I would state that the elective principle, as applied to the Legislative Council, becomes unnecessary in view of the numerical strength of Lower Canada in the Federal Parliament, for the House of Commons is the body that will make and unmake ministers. Why have the elective principle for the Legislative Council, since we shall have it for the House of Commons, since we shall have a responsible Government and a Federal Government, composed of members elected by the people ? The hon. member has stated that he desired to advance with the intellect of the people, and not to take a backward step. These are great words—the intellect of the people ! progress ! But for my part, I do not hesitate to assert, that the people will gladly sacrifice the election of the members of the Legislative Council, in view of the control of all the matters I mentioned before. The hon. member has said that the elective principle would have been the safe-guard of Lower Canada. I can understand this to be the case in a House which is able to make and unmake administrations, but in a House which is indissoluble, I cannot discover its importance. The safety of Lower Canada depends, not on the elective principle, but on the responsibility of the members of the Executive to the House of Commons. I may be permitted to say one word on the subject of the elective right, as it is the grand panacea for all the ills incident to humanity. We must not shut our eyes against evidence. Have we, since the union of several counties to form electoral divisions, seen persons of independent fortune and character, who do not seek to make a gainful pursuit of politics, offer themselves for election to the Legislative Council ? I acknowledge that the elections to seats in the Legislative Council which have taken place so far have had excellent results : the members sent hither by their constituencies have added new lustre to the body ; but has it not now become almost impossible to get an independent man to stand ? The contested elections in the large divisions have disgusted many who would do honor to the country, but who will not risk their fortune in an election ; and if we see such a result already, what is it likely to be hereafter ? We shall see political intriguers making their own of the electoral divisions as a living—living by politics and for politics only. We shall see what has been seen in other countries—people embracing political life as a shield against their creditors, sheltering themselves under its segis against the law. Such men will fill this House, to the exclusion of honor and honesty. I say again, those who now compose this House are honorable men, who are a credit to their country — in time, their seats will be filled by political intriguers.

The Prime Minister stated that the object of Confederation was to strengthen the monarchical principle in this country. I do not see that it is necessary to confer upon the Crown greater privileges than it already possesses in England itself. In England the members of the House of Lords are not appointed by the Crown ; succession in the peerage goes down hereditary from father to son ; but here it is proposed that the members of the Legislative Council, which body corresponds to the House of Lords, should be selected by the Crown. Why should this be ? Why go beyond what is done in England itself? Is it that the Crown complains that it has not sufficient power here ?

I think that if, with the retaining these electoral divisions the elective principle was also retained, the French population of Lower Canada would also find in it their protection. For then each division would be free to choose for its representative in the Federal Legislative Council a man attached to the institutions of Lower Canada, while, in giving the nomination of the legislative councillors to the Federal power, the latter would be at liberty to choose whomsoever it thought proper, and, unfortunately — a circumstance which I do not anticipate, but which may occur — the General Government, when formed, might be surrounded by coteries inimical to Lower Canada interests, and be led by them to choose members for the Legislative Council hostile to the views of Lower Canada. I consider, therefore, an elective Legislative Council in the Confederation as essential to the interests of Lower Canada.

No, my constituents never gave me this right, nor was any elected member entrusted with it, and whoever assume to vote away the liberties of the people in this manner, betray their mandate. If it was desired that the people should surrender this right they should have been informed of such desire in good time, so that they might have considered the question ; but without warning them, or consulting them, this most highly-prized principle was bartered away to the Lower Provinces for a Confederation which could not last.

I do not wish, however, to see the local governments crushed under a great central power, and I am sure the people cannot wish, and do not wish, to give up the principle of election in respect of this House. They had fought too long for the privilege to do that

I was not sent here to assist in doing any such thing, and am not aware that there has been any evidence of a desire in the country for a return to the old mode of appointment by the Crown. I am not aware of one complaint, or of any dissatisfaction whatever with the present constitution of the Legislative Council, and I therefore regard it as not a little strange that a few gentlemen, without mission or warrant, should have devised such a change, and should be trying to press it upon the Legislature and the country.

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

they honored me with this seat. I admit that the proposed system is not the same as the old one, because it limits the numbers, and to this limitation I have the most serious objections ; but I am not going to hazard the success of the union scheme, as I sincerely believe I would, by voting for the amendment, but I shall take it as it is, with the hope and belief that in the new Parliament, when the union is consummated, the constitution of this House may be set right.

They hold that the elective principle applied to this branch of Parliament gives too much power to the people, while I, on the other hand, argue that they have not by it as quick and as sharp a remedy against a stubborn Council as they had under the system of nomination. The great beauty of the old system was the promptness with which at the critical moment it could be brought to bear, and the history of its operations, both in this country and in England, clearly shows its superiority. My honorable friend from the division of King has cited the case of the greatest commoner of England, the celebrated WILLIAM PITT, having appointed so many members to the House of Lords within the first few months of his ministerial career. Did not PITT at that time command the confidence of the people of England? Does not my honorable friend know, if he has read the history of those times, that this great statesman steadily refused to accept office until he saw that public opinion was ripe for his schemes ? And was not PITT, at the commencement of his parliamentary career, the great advocate of parliamentary reform ? It is true that subsequent causes, over which he had no control, led him to pursue a very different course. What if at the times of tlie achievements by the people of those two great victories of civil and religious liberty in England, I mean Catholic emancipation and the passage of the Reform Bill, the Crown, through its ministers responsible to the House of Commons and the English nation, had not had power to coerce the Lords into consent, but had been obliged to wait for two years for the doubtful issue of a certain number of elections. Such have been my opinions with regard to the comparative merits of the nominative and elective principles as applied to this House, and I have not hesitated to express them among my constituents, both before and since

resolutions of the 3rd September, 1841, at Kingston, established the true British principle of responsible government, and I maintain that since that time the people never demanded that this House should be made elective.

The amendment brings up the question of members being appointed for life by the Crown, or elected for a term of years by the people. I am among those of the reform party who think that making the members of this House elective was a step in the wrong direction; and though I am free to admit that but for the elective principle having been applied to this House, I should never have had the honor of a seat within its walls, yet I am prepared to re-affirm that opinion on the floor of this House by my voting, as I shall do, against this amendment of my honorable friend from Wellington, and to sanction a return to the nomination of members for life by the Crown, under the advice of Ministers responsible to the people through the Legislative Assembly. I deny that the extension of the elective principle to this House was ever sought for, or petitioned for by the people at the time of its consummation. It is quite true, honorable gentlemen, that before the union of Upper and Lower Canada, and during the palmy days of the Family Compact and the irresponsibility of the Government, when the Assembly had no control over the Executive, except by stopping the supplies, the Legislative Council was chosen for the mere purpose of opposing the public will, and they did it most effectually.

Some honorable gentlemen have urged that the people should not elect their representatives to the Upper House, because it involves a very great expense on the part of the elected, and because they cannot judge who is worthy of their confidence so well as the Government of the day. Now, I argue that if the people are unfit to choose members of this House, they are unfit to choose members of the other House too. If three counties united are not able to make a good selection, how can one-third part of that constituency make a good one ? And with regard to the corrupt influences that may be brought to bear, will it be for a moment said that a large constituency of three counties can be as easily corrupted as a constituency composed of only one county ? I think not. I think a more independent vote is brought to bear on the election of a member of the Upper House than of the Lower. Yet the members of the Lower House want to assume the power of dictating who shall compose the Legislative Council.

than their transitory impulses. But this advantage -would be wholly lost if the whole body were chosen or could be removed under the influence of such an impulse. The first of these dangers is obviated (or intended to be so) by providing that half only of the Council shall be elected at one time. The second, by giving to each Councillor a fixed tenure of office, independent of any popular or governmental influence. Thus, it will be seen, lie would place the Council out of the reach of Government, while they should be under the influence of the settled convictions of the people and not their mere transitory impulse. He would have them elected by a conservative body of electors. The next clause of the instructions runs thus :— In Prince Edward Island, I would enforce a tolerably high property qualification in the case of the electors, but of the candidate I would only require that he should be a British subject, resident in the colony, and thirty years of age.

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

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

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

their views were sometimes warped by circumstances. Looking across the ocean, my honorable friend will remember that during the Administration of WILLIAM PITT, who wielded almost the sole control of Parliament in England for seventeen years, he appointed, during this period, 140 members to the House of Lords, subservient to his own wishes and intent on carrying out his views. I will just read to this House a short extract relating to him, written by a man capable of judging. In MAY’S Constitutional History we read :— When Mr. PITT had been eight years in power he had created between sixty and seventy Peers, the greater part of whom owed their elevation to the parliamentary support they had themselves given to the Ministry, or to their influence in returning members to the House of Commons.

the government of the day is particular in appointing those who are political friends of their own, and have aided them either at elections or in ways which may not be very creditable.

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

Leaving this question of trade, we come to the consideration of the constitution of this House. Now, no one has petitioned against the continuance of the elective system —no one has complained that it does not work satisfactorily. We do not see that many of the elected members are so very much inferior to the nominated members of this House— there has been no serious ground for fearing a dead-lock—yet there is to be a change in the constitution of the Legislative Council,

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

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

Then, with regard to the Constitution of this Chamber, the honorable gentleman who has just taken his seat (Hon. Mr. BOULTON), and who comes from Cobourg, has indulged in a general attack upon the elective system, because, forsooth, several municipalities throughout the country have borrowed largely from the Loan Fund, and because the money they so borrowed has not been properly invested. He argues from this that the principle of election by the people should be done away with in this House. It does appear strange that any hon. gentlemen should take the narrow and contracted ground that this Chamber should be appointed by the Crown, because certain loans have not been properly distributed by municipal bodies —especially strange that an honorable gentleman should take it who represents a municipality that is very heavily in arrears to the Loan Fund. HON. MR. BOULTON—I did not allude to the town of Cobourg at all, but to other municipalities, where the councils squandered the money borrowed from the Loan Fund and put large sums of it into their own pockets. Cobourg expended the money properly in connection with a great public work, and acted honestly, uprightly and properly in the matter. HON. MR. AIKINS—Well, I do not see why a good thing should be put past the honorable gentleman himself; and when he indulges in an attack upon the elective system, because certain municipalities have failed to meet their obligations, I do not see why I should not point out that Cobourg is a defaulter to a large amount. The honorable member from the Saugeen Division argues that the appointment of members of this House by the Crown is not a disfranchisement of the people. HON. MR. MACPHERSON—The honorable gentleman is mistaken. What I said was that, inasmuch as the appointments are to be made in the way that has been described— that is, on the nomination of gentleman re-

A good deal has been said about a possible dead-lock between this House and the other House, but there has been little of that in past times, and nothing of a serious nature. If, however, the amendment passes, I can imagine a dead-lock which might be extremely prejudicial to this House —prejudicial to its influence in the country ; nay, almost destructive of it. Suppose these resolutions to be carried in the other House by a large majority, which I have little doubt will be the case, and we carry an amendment here—suppose all the legislatures of the Lower Provinces adopt the resolutions, and this House stands alone in rejecting them— do you believe the British Parliament will be turned aside from what it believes to be the best interests of British America by the action of this House ? I can imagine a dead-lock occurring then, and one in consequence of which the opinion of this House might be set aside and its vote disregarded.

The liberal and reform party of Upper Canada were all opposed to it. It is well known that the late Hon. ROBERT BALDWIN, so many years the leader of that party, was always opposed to the change.

I went on to say, with respect to the proposed change in the constitution of this House, that I did not look upon it as a disfranchisement of the electors, although the nominative was to be substituted for the elective principle, because while the nomination was not to be made by the people directly, it was to be made on the recommendation of their representatives in the other House of Parliament,—in fact in a manner analogous to the mode adopted for selecting the Senate of the United States— two senators being elected by the Legislature of each state. In our case the monarchical principle was strictly preserved, and the Legislative Council was to be appointed by the Crown, on the advice of the Government of the day. If I viewed it as a measure of disfranchisement, then, looking at my obligation to maintain the franchise of the people, I should have more hesitation in voting for it.

although he earnestly believed that the majority of his own constituents were in favor of a Legislative Council appointed by the Crown. As for the objection which had been urged that between an Upper House composed exclusively of life members, and an elective Lower House, there might be the danger of a direct collision in the event of one rejecting an important measure which the other had passed, he did not think there was much danger of such a contingency. Indeed he would remind honorable members that the only instance of anything like a dead-lock between the two Houses, which had occurred within late years, at all events, was since the introduction of the elective principle, when the Council in 1859 refused to pass the Supply Bill on account of certain items contained in it, providing for the expense of the removal of the Government to Quebec. The Government on that occasion were left in a minority in this House, although they had a majority in the Assembly, and it was only after an adjournment of some days and upon a reconsideration of the question, after bringing up some life members from Lower Canada, that the Government carried the vote by a majority of two or three. Upon the whole, however, he thought that the life members of the Council would admit that the elective members had so far, at all events, comported themselves in such a way as to maintain the character of the House as a conservative body, free from all violent party feeling, and exercising a wholesome check against all ill-considered or hasty legislation. The real danger, he thought, was that if the House in process of time were to become a purely elective body, and party lines became more closely drawn, the same partisan spirit which too often swayed the proceedings of the popular branch of the Legislature, might find its way into their chamber, larger powers, such as originating money bills, might be claimed, and a collision between the two Houses might then occur at any time.

The elective principle had been applied to the Legislative Council of Prince Edward Island, and he would ask, how, under the 14th resolution of the Confederation, that body was to be dealt with ? He would read that part of the resolution to which he referred — ” The first selection of the members of the Legislative Council to be made from the Legislative Councils of the various provinces, except as regards Prince Edward Island,” &c. What did this mean ? Were the members from Prince Edward Island still to be elected ? HON. MR. CAMPBELL—No; they were to be appointed. The resolution was so worded as not to limit the selection in Prince Edward Island to the Legislative Council now in existence there. HON. MR. SANBORN—Was it because the elective principle had worked so badly in Canada that this change is proposed ? HON. MR. CAMPBELL—No; and therefore in Canada the selection was to be made from the House itself. HON. MR. SANBORN—It appeared then, that Prince Edward Island, dissatisfied with the elective principle, had dictated terms, and Canada had yielded to the dictation. HON. MR. CAMPBELL—The Conference had yielded to Prince Edward Island only in respect of its own members. They were so dissatisfied with their Legislative Council that, with reference to themselves, a choice from the people at large was permitted, but this had no reference whatever to Canada. HON. MR. SANBORN — Suppose the elective members should be swept off, what became of the people’s right of representation by men of their own choice? HON. MR. CAMPBELL—No such thing was intended.

Assuming then that the Crown members would retain their seats, there was a direct temptation presented to at least two out of three of the elective members. This, he thought, exhibited the project in a very damaging light. Such a measure was calculated to bias the judgment, and ought not to be presented to any legislative body. He held that elective members had received a sacred trust to exercise ; that they were sent here by their constituencies to represent them, and to do that only. Under these circumstances he would ask, whether they could conceive they had the power to vote away the rights of their electors ? That was not in their mandate, and if they did, they would be doing what they had no authority to do ; they would be doing what they could not do without going beyond the authority confided to them. Coming to the principle of elective legislative councils itself, he might say it had already been adopted in four British colonies besides Canada.

It is said they have not [Page 89] the power. But what is to prevent them from enforcing it? Suppose we had a conservative majority here, and a reform majority above— or a conservative majority above and a reform majority here—all elected under party obligations,—- what is to prevent a dead-lock between the chambers ? It may be called unconstitutional—- but what is to prevent the Councillors (especially if they feel that in the dispute of the hour they have the country at their back) from practically exercising all the powers that belong to us ? They might amend our money bills, they might throw out all our bills if they liked, and bring to a stop the whole machinery of government. And what could we do to prevent them ? But, even supposing this were not the case, and that the elective Upper House continued to be guided by that discretion which has heretofore actuated its proceedings,—still, I think, we must all feel that the election of members for such enormous districts as form the constituencies of the Upper House has become a great practical inconvenience. I say this from personal experience, having long taken an active interest in the electoral contests in Upper Canada. We have found greater difficulty in inducing candidates to offer for seats in the Upper House, than in getting ten times the number for the Lower House. The constituencies are so vast, that it is difficult to find gentlemen who have the will to incur the labor of such a contest, who are sufficiently known and popular enough throughout districts so wide, and who have money enough — (hear) — to pay the enormous bills, not incurred in any corrupt way,—do not fancy that I mean that for a moment—but the bills that are sent in after the contest is over, and which the candidates are compelled to pay if they ever hope to present themselves for re-election. (Hear, hear.) But honorable gentlemen say—” This is all very well, but you are taking an important power out of the hands of the people, which they now possess.” Now this is a mistake. We do not propose to do anything of the sort. What we propose is, that the Upper House shall be appointed from the best men of the country by those holding the confidence of the representatives of the people in this Chamber. It is proposed that the Government of the day, which only lives by the approval of this Chamber, shall make the appointments, and be responsible to the people for the selections they shall make. (Hear, hear.) Not a single appointment could be made, with regard to which the 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 appointed principle, as in opposition to the elective, ever since I came into public life, and have never hesitated, when before the people, to state my opinions in the broadest manner ; and yet not in a single instance have I ever found a constituency in Upper Canada, or a public meeting declaring its disapproval of appointment by the Crown and its desire for election by the people at large. When the change was made in 1855 there was not a single petition from the people asking for it—-it was in a manner forced on the Legislature. The real reason for the change was, that before Responsible Government was introduced into this country, while the old oligarchical system existed, the Upper House continuously and systematically was at war with the popular branch, and threw out every measure of a liberal tendency. The result was, that in the famous ninety-two 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 honorable gentlemen must see that the limitation of the numbers in the Upper House lies at the base of the whole compact on which this scheme rests. (Hear, hear.) It is perfectly clear, as was contended by those who represented Lower Canada in the Conference, that if the number of the Legislative Councillors was made capable of increase, you would thereby sweep away the whole protection they had from the Upper Chamber. But it has been said that, though you may not give the power to the Executive to increase the numbers of the Upper House, in the event of a dead-lock, you might limit the term for which the members are appointed. I was myself in favor of that proposition. I thought it would be well to provide for a more frequent change in the composition of the Upper House, and lessen the danger of the chamber being largely composed of gentlemen whose advanced years might forbid the punctual and vigorous discharge of their public [Page 90] duties. Still, the objection made to this was very strong. It was said : ” Suppose you appoint them for nine years, what will be the effect ? For the last three or four years of their term they would be anticipating its expiry, and anxiously looking to the Administration of the day for re-appointment ; and the consequence would be that a third of the members would be under the influence of the Executive.” The desire was to render the Upper House a thoroughly independent body—one that would be in the best position to canvass dispassionately the measures of this House, and stand up for the public interests in opposition to hasty or partisan legislation. It was contended that there is no fear of a dead-lock. We were reminded how the system of appointing for life had worked in past years, since Responsible Government was introduced ; we were told that the complaint was not then, that the Upper Chamber had been too obstructive a body—not that it had sought to restrain the popular will, but that it had too faithfully reflected the popular will. Undoubtedly that was the complaint formerly pressed upon us—{hear, hear)—and I readily admit that if ever there was a body to whom we could safely entrust the power which by this measure we propose to confer on the members of the Upper Chamber, it is the body of gentlemen who at this moment compose the Legislative Council of Canada. The forty-eight Councillors for Canada are to be chosen from the present chamber. There are now thirty-four members from the one section, and thirty-five from the other. I believe that of the sixty-nine, some will not desire to make their appearance here again, others, unhappily, from years and infirmity, may not have strength to do so ; and there may be others who will not desire to qualify under the Statute. It is quite clear that when twenty-four are selected for Upper Canada and twenty-four for Lower Canada, very few indeed of the present House will be excluded from the Federal Chamber ; and I confess I am not without hope that there may be some way yet found of providing for all who desire it, an honorable position in the Legislature of the country. (Hear, hear.) And, after all, is it not an imaginary fear—that of a dead-lock ? Is it at all probable that any body of gentlemen who may compose the Upper House, appointed as they will be for life, acting as they will do on personal and not party responsibility, possessing as they must, a deep stake in the welfare of the country, and desirous as they must be of holding the esteem of their fellow-subjects— would take so unreasonable a course as to imperil the whole political fabric ? The British House of Peers itself does not venture, à l’outrance, to resist the popular will, and can it be anticipated that our Upper Chamber would set itself rashly against the popular will? If any fear is to be entertained in the matter, is it not rather that the Councillors will be found too thoroughly in harmony with the popular feeling of the day ? And we have this satisfaction at any rate, that, so far as its first formation is concerned—so far as the present question is concerned—we shall have a body of gentlemen in whom every confidence may be placed.

As to the representation in the Confederated Legislative Council, it was proposed to give Upper Canada and Lower Canada twenty-four members each, and to the Lower Provinces twenty-eight. That is, the 780,000 souls in the Lower Provinces would have four members more than Upper Canada with its million and a half. This proved that though Canada had talented men in the Conference, they either forgot our interests or sat there powerless. When the Legislative Council of Canada was made elective, his honourable friend near him (Hon. Mr. CHRISTIE) had stood up for the right of Upper Canada, as the Delegates should have done in the Conference. On the second reading of the bill to change the constitution of the Legislative Council, on the 14th March, 1856,—

The protection of the Indians, and the naturalization of aliens were matters which necessarily fell to the general Government.

It would not become them to object to the nominative plan, because the members for the Upper House would be nominated by the Crown on the recommendation of the General Government. He might say it here, because it was said by everybody outside, that in the event of any thing like injustice being attempted towards the British population of Lower Canada by their French Canadian fellow-subjects, —they would moat unquestionably look for remedy and redress at the hands of the General Government, who would hare the power of causing their interests to be represented in the Upper House of the General Legislature.

Under these circumstances it was believed that the nominative plan in some respects offered greater advantages than the elective principle, and it was decided that we should again revert to nomination by the crown.

Therefore, as far as Canada was concerned, he was not aware that they could say that the principle of an elective Legislative Council had proved in any degree a failure. There was no doubt that, in some respects, the elective principle was attended with difficulties and objections. It had been found that complaint was made that the expense connected with the elections in many districts was such as to debar many able men from attempting to come forward as candidates. There was no doubt that to canvass a district composed of three constituencies, each sending a member to the Lower House, was a most formidable undertaking, and one from which many excellent and worthy men naturally shrank. An election for one was bad enough, but to have an election for three constituencies, certainly must be three times as bad.

He did not think that in Canada they had any cause to regret the change which had been made from the nominative to the elective plan. The circumstances under which that change took place were probably familiar to most of them. The Leg. Council had, from one cause or another, under the nominative system, fallen into public discredit.

In the constitution of the Legislative Council it would be observed that the principle which now obtained in Canada, of electing be members of that branch, was proposed to be done away with and that we would again revert to nomination by the Crown.