election. It was the obvious duty, then, of the Upper Canada ministers to seize the opportunity and prepare for any event by reforming the parliamentary representation; and their neglecting to introduce a bill extinguishing some of the small boroughs and rearranging the counties— which they had full power to do by a majority vote-excited the first doubt in my mind as to the firmness of the Hon. Inspector-General and his colleagues on these vital questions. Is it to be wondered at that

the country was becoming dissatisfied, and that a new party was arising who denounced the ministry as faithless to their trust and to their principles? It matters not now to inquire the motives which originally actuated those who commenced the agitation within the reform party against the leaders of that party. "They saw everything with distorted vision, and denounced without measure.

The passage which follows recounted the divergence of views of the advanced wing-Cameron, Hopkirk, and others from those held by Mr. Hincks and his friends, until they united. Reciting extracts from the journals of the House and other documents, Mr. Brown then proceeded :

Here, then, we have an unimpeachable record of the views of the two sections of the reform party; and in the face of all this the Hon. Inspector-General ventures to tell this House that there was no "serious difference of opinion" between them; and, sir, the discordance between them was no less violent than the disagreement as to principles and measures. I hold in my hand extracts from the organs of the new allies of the Inspector-General showing the bitter, the savage hostility with which they regarded that gentleman and his colleagues, using terms towards them which I cannot bring myself to utter. However lax may be the political morality of the Hon. Inspector-General, I gladly disclaim sympathy with such insinuations, and have always been ready to defend him from attacks on his personal integrity, which I believe beyond reproach.

It may be contended that only one member of the administration is identified with the ultra views recorded in our journals; but I contend that to every one of these views the Hon. Commissioner of Crown Lands (Dr. Rolph) is as fully committed as his colleagues. He was the silent instigator and counsel of the new party in its conception—he was in public and in private recognized as the leader of that party—as the representative of that party he was elected by the people, and as the representative of these views he was forced into the government. It is true the hon. gentleman has managed with wondrous skill to cover his real sentiments with an impenetrable mask, and to this moment we know nothing of his sentiments; but silence gives consent; and if the hon. gentleman does not hold the views of the member for Huron (Mr. Cameron), the country has been shamefully deceived.

Thus opened the session of 1851, the ministerialists hoping against hope that their leaders would be true to their party and their principles on the great questions of Upper Canada, and the secessionists eager for war. The ministerial policy was too soon developed, and it became apparent that the western members of the ministry had succumbed to their French Canadian allies, and that reserves, rectories—everything—was to be sacrificed to their demands. How the Inspector-General meant to go to the country in the face of such a course was a mystery to every one, but on the retirement of Mr. Baldwin after the Chancery Court division, the secret was discovered.

That event placed the Inspector-General in the leadership of this House, and on the night of his inauguration he used the following language: “Í regret to say there have been indications given by a section of the party to

which I belong, that it will be difficult indeed, unless they change their policy, to preserve the union. I will tell these persons (the anti-state church reformers of Upper Canada) that if the union is not preserved by them, as a necessary consequence other combinations must be formed by which the union may be preserved. I am ready to give my cordial support to any combination of parties by which the union shall be maintained.”

The gallant knight (Sir A. N. McNab) who leads the opposition replied to this overture: "I will only say, and I want it to go over the country, that I will do all I can to prevent a clear grit party rising through the land, and will support any party to prevent that.”

SIR ALLAN N. MCNAB: That is correct.

MR. BROWN: Of course it is correct, and the most amiable understanding existed then as now between the high contracting parties.

SIR A. N. MCNAB denied that he had held on any occasion any political conversations with any members of the government at any time except in the House.

MR. BROWN Continued: From that day to this not one word of explanation had been given as to the terms of the compromise. Before the general election we strove to get at the secret; not even at the contest was any satisfactory explanation attempted to be offered. The Hon. InspectorGeneral assured his constituents that the composition of the government should be sufficient guarantee to them for the policy to be followed; the Chief Commissioner of Public Works told his constituents that the character of his colleagues must be the guarantee for their measures; and the organ of the union told the country generally that the presence of the members for Norfolk and Huron in the ministry was sufficient guarantee for anything. We were told last session, when we asked for explanations, wait until Mr. Lafontaine resigns; after that event we were told, wait until a full cabinet has met and measures have been discussed; a little later we were told, wait until parliament assembles; and now that parliament has met, we are without a word of explanation.

Sir, I think we should not have been obliged to extort explanation in this way from gentlemen on the treasury benches. I think they should have given them fully and freely long ere this, and I cannot doubt that they will do so without further delay. We have a right to clear information on two points; first, how did two sections from Upper Canada harmonize their antagonistic opinions on so many constitutional questions? and, second, how did these gentlemen overcome the difficulty which the state church principles of the provincial secretary and his country presented to a settlement of the ecclesiastical questions of Upper Canada? Are we to have new constitutions, elective governors, universal suffrage and the political gamut of the hon. member for Huron, or have he and his colleagues sent all these to the winds? Have the lower Canadian portion of the ministry yielded to the just demands of Upper Canada, and agreed to remove every vestige of state-churchism? Or was the assertion that they had done so a delusion, and the position of our allies in this parliament precisely what it was in the last? The country has a right to a clear, unequivocal reply. Such exhibitions as this strike at the root of public morality.

MR. CAMERON : And virtue !

MR. BROWN: Sir, the gentleman may sneer if he likes it, but this is not a matter to be met in such a spirit. If a public man may resign his post in an administration at the risk of breaking up the government; if he can protest before the country that his conscience would not allow him to remain while a useless officer existed; and if he can but a few months later eat up all he said, and that very office, with impunity, the public morals are indeed concerned. If, sir, a public man can avow certain opinions, agitate the country on those opinions, attempt to destroy the government by the influence of those opinions, and the moment office is in

A few

his reach can laugh at his professions and sends all his principles to the winds, it strikes at the root of public morality. And, sir, if a member of a responsible ministry can forget the confidential relations in which he stands to his colleagues, and secretly plot their removal and his own aggrandisement, where shall we look for good faith among men? Our constitutional system is placed in jeopardy by exhibitions so improper. There is no principle in the theory of responsible government more vital to its right working than that parties shall take their stand on the prominent questions of the day, and mount to office or resign it through the success or failure of principles to which they are attached. This is the great safeguard for the public against clap-trap professions, and when strictly enforced it makes men seriously consider ere they commit themselves on leading questions. The conduct of gentlemen on the treasury benches in this view strikes a serious blow at our constitutional system. If a public man can hold one set of principles out of office, another set in office, responsible government is a farce. I readily acknowledge the good service rendered in past years to the cause of ministerial responsibility by the Inspector-General and the Provincial Secretary. But so much the more blamable is their conduct in these transactions. To their hands it was given to guard over it, and they have betrayed that trust. such blows and how shall it be upheld? There are two systems of government now being tested on this continent: the United States system of checks and fetters, which no official can overstep, and the British system of balanced power, with little check but that of public opinion. I believe our own system is the best, but high personal honour and a watchful opposition are necessary to its working; and if such things as we have recently witnessed are to be repeated, we will be driven in self-defence to the severe restraints of republican institutions. Either the present ministers came together without any definite understanding, with the single tie of office, or else there is a mystery yet to be explained. The Inspector-General sees nothing strange in the matter; he says "We are advocates of progressive reform, and that is enough.' Where shall we look for proofs of their progression ? Shall we find it in the votes of last session after the consummation of the union? Do we find it in the speech from the throne, now under discussion? I agree with the honourable member for Frontenac that the suffrage is the only question on which any advance has been made; and even the suffrage movement, as I understand it, is no change of principle but only an extension of the existing system, by which certain classes now unjustly deprived of the franchise shall have it conveyed to them. It be that details of measures promised may exhibit evidence of progression, but it is not found in the speech. It may be that the ministerial measures, like the ministerial principles, are in a state of progression, and that this debate will help to liberalize them. But on the great question of Upper Canada there is no progression whatever, and there is no likelihood of any.

may

The Honourable the Inspector-General made an eloquent appeal on the subject of the reserves. He told us he was the warm friend of their secularization, that for twelve years he had always been so, that he had never varied in his views. I believe every word uttered by the honourable gentleman; but of what avail are his sentiments if we don't get his votes? How can he reconcile such views with the dark record of last session?

But perhaps the hon. gentleman can see no discrepancy in the case, for he says he has never varied. Are we then to have this session a repetition of the scenes of the last? But even if the Inspector-General should have changed his views, and be prepared to reverse his votes, what will it avail? The difficulty in the way of the ecclesiastical question was not with him or his Upper Canada colleagues, bnt with the gentlemen from Lower Canada. And after all the loud trumpetings of harmony in the cabinet,

and promises of united actions on the reserves, what are we told by the Provincial Secretary? That he thinks the present decision of the reserves unfair; that he thinks the present settlement should be broken up; that he will aid us in getting the control transferred to the provincial parliament; but and I pray the House to mark it well-he will not say how the lands should be appropriated. And this was coupled with the declaration that he would never interfere with "acquired rights." What, then, have these combinations gained for us? Are not the sentiments of Mr. Morin precisely those of Mr. Lafontaine? Was it not for taking this very position that the late government was "ostracized?" Was it not for denouncing the faithlessness of the Upper Canadian ministers, in holding office after such a declaration by their colleague, that the members for Norfolk and Huron forced themselves into power. I call on the honourable gentlemen on the treasury benches to tell us now, if they can, in what manner their combinations have benefited the cause of ecclesiastical reform. I challenge them to show that they have advanced one step beyond the ground of the late administration.

I would have been unjust to my party, faithless to responsible government, and false to the highest interests of the country, had I sat silent on this occasion. The vote that I shall give may appear strange to many. If I rightly understand the practice, by voting against the ministerial address, we declare that we desire to see the cabinet ejected from office. Highly improper as I view their proceedings, I confess I am not prepared to say that I would like to see the present ministry out, and the gentlemen opposite in their places. I would try them by their measures. It may be they will take warning by this debate, and yet justify by their action their claim to be advocates of progression. But if they do not-if they trifle with the great questions of Upper Canada-I will not hesitate to prefer an open enemy in power to a faithless friend. I regretted

to hear from gentlemen opposite the allusions to the salary of the highest authority in this province. The appointment of that high authority is the only power which Great Britain yet retains. Frankly and generously she has one by one surrendered all the rights which were once held necessary to the condition of a colony-the patronage of the Crown, the right over the public domain, the civil list, the customs, the post office, have all been relinquished, and the control over the reserves will soon follow with the rest. She guards our coasts, she maintains our troops, she builds our forts, she spends hundreds of thousands among us yearly, and yet the paltry payment to her representative is made a topic of grumbling and popular agitation. I know nothing so contemptible. However gentlemen opposite may view the matter, I am sure I speak the sentiments of the entire reform party when I say, that as long as we have such governors as the present there would be no grumbling from this side of the House were the tribute double what it is. Unlike other governors whom we have had, the distinguished nobleman who now graces the vice-regal throne has confined himself to the legitimate exercise of his authority, and respected the rights and privileges of the people; and for the stability which his wise rule has given to our constitutional system, when he and those who now bear rule have long passed away from the stage of life, His Excellency will live in the grateful affections of the Canadian people.

CHAPTER VIII.

INCREASING INFLUENCE. THE "GLOBE" AS A DAILY.-THE
COALITION.

After Mr. Brown's success in parliament, his influence in the country generally increased very much, while the power and influence of the Globe was constantly growing. The ministry was nominally a liberal ministry, though three of its members, besides the premier, never again acted with the reform party. It was still largely supported by western Canada liberals, though very few had any confidence in it. Indeed, Mr. Brown himself, while freely exposing their course to blame, did not feel at liberty to take the position of a regular opposition member.

66

66

In a letter, written to a friend just before the election of 1851, he says: "The ministry is formed. I have no confidence in it, but of course prefer it to the Tories, and if returned will vote with it whenever I can, but against it on bad measures, and strive to have it reconstructed on more out-and-out principles. This may change "your ideas in regard to my canditature, and if so, I hope you will 'speak plainly." That reconstruction never came. Three years afterwards there was a reconstruction, but not of reform materials. The Premier and a few of his followers had been consciously drifting to the Tory side during the life of that parliament, and when the election of 1854 developed his weakness in the county, like Burke, he "quit the camp," and from thenceforth was identified as having his sympathies with the conservative side. The threatened combinations were made, and when Mr. Hincks (now Sir Francis) returned to Canada, after some years' absence, he found that theunion was not "maintained;" on the contrary, it was broken up as the result of the triumph of principles he refused to acknowledge, and a fresh union established on a foundation more just to his own province. Sir Francis Hincks appeared again as a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, and curiously enough, issued an address as leader of the reform section of the government appointed by Sir John Macdonald, for which he got well laughed at.

The exigencies of commercial no less than political reasons necessitated the issue of the Globe as a daily paper, and in the autumn of 1853 the publication of the Daily Globe was commenced. A vigorous agitation was maintained in favour of the secularization of the clergy reserves, representation by population, and other measures long demanded by reformers, and the effect of the trenchant articles on these subjects was very great on the public mind.