polls and the main question at every hustings was the demand for constitutional changes. The result of that contest was the overthrow of the Cartier-Macdonald ministry and the formation of the Macdonald-Sicotte administration in its room. But so bitter had been the struggle for and against constitutional changes, and so clearly defined were party lines upon it, that it was found impossible to construct that government without a distinct pledge that it would resist every motion made upon the subject— HON. MR. HOLTON: Did you recognize the propriety of that course?

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

HON. MR. DORION: We had the support of all who were in favour of the question.

HON. MR. BROWN: Indeed, you had not.

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

HON. MR. BROWN: I entirely deny that; had you pursued a bold policy upon it you might have been in office up to this hour. Well, the Macdonald-Dorion made away for the Taché-Macdonald administration, but it too soon fell by a majority of two, simply because it did not deal with the constitutional question

A VOICE: Oh, oh !

HON. MR. BROWN: My honourable friend cries " "Oh, oh," and I am perfectly amazed at his doing so. I am about to offer my honourable friend the most complete proof of the correctness of my statement-proof so conclusive that if he does not accept of it as such, do not know how he can be convinced of anything. In one single day the Taché-Macdonald administration, by taking up the constitutional question boldly, turned their minority of two into a majority of seventy. Could anything prove more unanswerably than this the deep hold this question has on the public mind, and the assured confidence of the members of this House that their constituents understand its whole merits, when, in one day, such a startling political revolution was brought about? Was it, think you, a doubtful consideration that could have induced the Upper Canada opposition, almost as one man, to cast down their party intrenchments and make

common cause with their opponents? Could there have been the slightest doubt as to the sentiments of our people and the imperative necessity of immediate action, when such men as now sit on the treasury benches were forced, by their supporters, to unite for the settlement of this question? And could there be a more conclusive proof of the ripeness of public opinion than the unanimous and cordial manner in which our so uniting has been sustained by the press of all parties, and by the electors at the polls? Never, I venture to assert, was any great measure so thoroughly understood, and so cordially endorsed by the people of Canada, as this measure now under consideration. The British government approves of it, the legislative council approves of it, this House almost unanimously approves of it, the press of all parties approves of it; and though the scheme has already been directly submitted to fifty out of the one hundred constituencies into which Canada is divided, only four candidates ventured to appear at the hustings in opposition to it-all of them in Lower Canada—and but two of them were elected.

And yet we are to be told that we are stealing a march upon the country; that it is not understood by the people; and that we must dissolve the House upon it, at a vast cost to the exchequer, and at the risk of allowing political partisanship to dash the fruit from our hands at the very moment we are about to grasp it! I have no fears whatever of an appeal to the people. I cannot pretend to speak as to the popular feeling in Lower Canada, but I think I thoroughly understand the popular mind of the western province, and I hesitate not to say that there are not five gentlemen in this chamber (if so many) who could go before their constituents in Upper Canada in opposition to this scheme, with the slightest chance of being returned. It is because I thoroughly comprehend the feelings of the people upon it, that I urge the adoption of this measure at the earliest possible moment. The most gross injustice is to be rectified by it; the tax-payer is to be clothed with his rightful influence by it; new commercial relations are to be opened up by it; a new impulse to the industrial pursuits of the country will be given by it; and I for one would feel myself false to the cause I have so long sustained, and false to the best interests of my constituents, if I permitted one hour unnecessarily to pass without bringing it to a final issue. It was only by the concurrence of most propitious circumstances that the wonderful progress this movement has made could have been accomplished. Most peculiar were the circumstances that enabled such a coalition to be formed as that now existing for the settlement of this question; and who shall say at what hour it may not be rent asunder? And yet, who will venture to affirm that if party spirit in all its fierceness were once more to be let loose amongst us, there would be the slightest hope that this great question could be approached with that candour and harmony necessary to its satisfactory solution?

Then, at the very moment we resolved to deal with this question of constitutional change, the Maritime Provinces were about to assemble in

joint conference to consider whether they ought not to form a union among themselves; and the way was thus most propitiously opened up for the consideration of a union of all British America. The civil war too in the neighbouring republic; the possibility of war between Great Britain and the United States; the threatened repeal of the reciprocity treaty; the threatened abolition of the American bonding system for goods in transitu to and from these provinces; the unsettled position of the Hudson's Bay Company; and the changed feeling of England as to the relations of great colonies to the parent state; all combine at this moment to arrest earnest attention to the gravity of the situation, and unite us all in one vigorous effort to meet the emergency like men.

The interests to be affected by this scheme of union are very large and varied; but the pressure of circumstances upon all the colonies is so serious at this moment, that if we cannot now banish partisanship and sectionalism and petty objections, and look at the matter on its broad intrinsic merits, what hope is there of our ever being able to do so? An appeal to the people of Canada on this measure simply means postponement of the question for a year; and who can tell how changed ere then may be the circumstances surrounding us? The man who strives for the postponement of this measure on any ground, is doing what he can to kill it almost as effectually as if he voted against it. Let there be no mistake as to the manner in which the government presents this measure to the House. We do not present it as free from fault, but we do present it as a measure so advantageous to the people of Canada, that all the blemishes, real or imaginary, averred against it, sink into utter insignificance in presence of its merits. We present it, not in the precise shape we in Canada would desire it, but as in the best shape the five colonies to be united could agree upon it. We present it in the form in which the five governments have severally adopted it—in the form the Imperial government has endorsed it and in the form in which we believe all the legislatures of the provinces will accept it. We ask the House to pass it in the exact form in which we have presented it, for we know not how alterations may affect its safety in other places; and the process of alteration once commenced in four different legislatures, who could tell where that would end? Every member of this House is free as air to criticise it if he so wills, and amend it if he is able; but we warn him of the danger of amendment, and throw on him all responsibility of the consequences. We feel confident of carrying this scheme as it stands, but we cannot tell what we can do if it be amended. Let not honourable gentlemen approach this measure as a sharp critic deals with an abstract question, striving to point out blemishes and display his ingenuity; but let us approach it as men having but one consideration before us-the establishment of the future peace and prosperity of our country. Let us look at it in the light of a few months back -in the light of the evils and injustice to which it applies a remedy-in the light of the years of discord and strife we have spent in seeking for that remedy-in the light with which the people of Canada would regard this measure were it to be lost, and all the evils of past years to be brought

back upon us again. Let honourable gentlemen look at the question in this view, and what one of them will take the responsibility of casting his vote against the measure? The future destiny of these great provinces may be affected by the decision we are about to give to an extent which at this moment we may be unable to estimate, but assuredly the welfare for many years of four millions of people hangs on our decision. Shall we then rise equal to the occasion?-shall we approach this discussion without partisanship, and free from every personal feeling but the earnest resolution to discharge conscientiously the duty which an overruling Providence has placed upon us? It may be that some among us will live to see the day when, as the result of this measure, a great and powerful people may have grown up on these lands-when the boundless forests all around us shall have given way to smiling fields and thriving towns--and when one united government, under the British flag, shall extend from shore to shore; but who would desire to see that day, if he could not recall with satisfaction the part he took in this discussion?

I have done. I leave the subject to the conscientious judgment of the House, in the confident expectation and belief that the decision it will render will be worthy of the parliament of Canada.

THE RECIPROCITY NEGOTIATIONS.

The following speech was delivered in the senate during the session of 1875, being the one immediately following the reciprocity negotiations at Washington in 1874, and was intended to be a semi-official account of these negotiations-conducted by Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Brown as joint plenipotentiaries—and also a general review of the whole trade relations of Canada with the United States, and a history of the former negotiations, including the Washington treaty of 1871. The speech also contains many statistical statements which Mr. Brown had prepared for his work at Washington.

MR. BROWN said: In rising to make the motion of which I have given notice, I am sure you will all feel that it is right and fitting, and will be expected by the country, that I should take this earliest opportunity of laying before the House such a statement of the recent negotiations between the United States government and Great Britain in regard to commercial reciprocity between the United States and Canada, as may be in the public interest and befitting my position. I have the more pleasure in doing so because I feel that in dealing with this matter before the senate, I shall be sustained by the honourable gentlemen who compose this body in taking an enlarged view of the whole question, in leaving aside many frivolous criticisms that have been made by political partisans, and in contending that because a commercial treaty is very advantageous for one party it does not follow that it may not be equally good for the other. It is very easy to fancy things that might advantageously have been included or omitted in any such arrangement, but it must be always borne in mind that when two parties sit down to make a bargain the result arrived at cannot be what each desires to obtain, but what both will consent to. The merit or demerit of every such compact must therefore be tested by looking at it in its bearings as a whole, and not by minute dissection of minor points.

I shall not waste time by entering into any elaborate argument as to the advantages which must flow from throwing down the barriers in the way of international commerce between two countries so contiguous to each other as are the United States and this Dominion. We have ample proof of this in the commercial history of Great Britain since the union of the three kingdoms. We have it still more markedly in the great material results directly flowing from the free interchange of products between the several states of the neighbouring republic. And nowhere can be found a more gratifying illustration of the grand results that flow from commercial