IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 1^ US us 11^ i^ nil 2.0 1*0 1.4 1.8 1.6 V] vl /a .^.4;V ^^-^ V '/ Wf^/-^^ V CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian institute for Historical Microreproductions institut Canadian de mecroreproductions historiques 1980 ■-■ ■ -.:f:!TiF.. Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D n □ D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou peliiculde D I I Cover title missing/ I I Coloured maps/ D Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloure'' ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloiirad plats'* and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Slank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaisscnt dans le texte, iriais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires riuppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages ddcolor^es, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ rri Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6td filmdes d nouveau de fagon d obtenir la meiiieure image possible. □ This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Imed here has been reproduced thanks irosity of: Douglas Library Queen's University L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce d la g6n6ro8it6 de: Douglas Library Queen's University t appearing here are the best quality nsidering the conditio:t and legibility nal copy and in keeping with the tract specifications. pies in printed paper covers are filmed vith the front cover and ending on ie with a printed or illustrated impres- I back cover when appropriate. All lal copies are filmed beginning on the t/ith a printed or illustrated impres- nding on the last page with a printed d impression. ;orded frame on each microfiche n the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- or the symbol V (meaning "END"), applies. Les images suivantes ont 6td reproduites avec Ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originrux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sent filmds en commen9ant par Ie premier plat et en tnrminant soit par la dernidre page qui compoite une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second plat, salon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplairas originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: is symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbole V signifie "FIN". IS, charts, etc., may be filmed at duction ratios. Those too large to be luded in one exposure are filmed n the upper left hand corner, left to >p to bottom, as many frames as le following diagrams illustrate the Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de ri^duciion diffdrents. Lorsqus le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seul clichd, 11 est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 'm s Deliv Mr. 1 iitlenii med 1 ttedfo compl ite un eech, vited, ving t( eral vi pi-ietj gilt ev hour this mei time b were ne and the IS^ow, I j uiau as t( ^ueasure. plain alt part, of M^eait of 1 a ouatrj ) nt of ier t ,€ ssity ssity ral p ao dne or ^^osed, ami, 0f ^mnm^ns ON. EDWARD BLAKE ON liii: FRANCHISE BILL, \ Delivered in the Hotxse of Commoiis, at OttaivQ-, Friday, April 17th, 1885. \ Mr. BLAKE. Mr. Speaker, the hon. ndemau who has just addressed us in- med us that the measure which is sub- ttedfor our consideration is by no means complicated measure. He apologised ite unnecessarily for the length of his eech, he told us that discussion was vited, and he declared to us, after ving to some extent enlarged upon the eral view of the Government as to the plopriety of discussion, that a whole day njight even be exhausted, that eight or ten hours might be given to us to debate this measure, in the course of which time he said, the views which were necessary might be interchanged and the measure properly adjusted. Ifow, I join issue with the hon. gentle- ax^n as to this not being a complicated Measure. 1 say it is, and I do not com- plain altogether that it is, because, in part, of necessity it is a complicated aieasure. A measure for the establish men; of the character of the franchise in a ); atry like ours, and for the establish- 3 ,^L of a mode of ascertaining who, iii»r t e law, are entitled to vote, is of l^sBfisity a complicated measure, is of ssity a ditficult measure, unless some Iral principle is to be adopted, which le on either fide of the Hou^e, has )sed, and which, neither in the feed Kingdom nor here, has as yet been )ted, except in some of those Prov- which the hon. gentleman has svvhat contemptuously, more than this afternoon, alluded to as 6^ say, then the smaller Provinces. I fore, that I do liot altogether attribute the complexity of the measure to the fault of those who framed it. In part, I believe it to be of unnecessary complexity; but, in part also, I admit that any measure for the ascertainment of the franchise, based upon the general views which have regulated such mea- sures in the United Kingdom and in the bulk of the Provinces of Canada, is, in its nature, complicated and difficult. I shall go further to establish the correct- ness of this view of mine, as to the neces- sary complication and the necessary diffi- culty of a measure of this description, than merely setting my opinion against that of the hon. the Secretary of Staie, for I know very well that, by about two to one, if our opinions are set one against the other, in the vote, if not in the heart, his opinion will prevail. I shall therefore, adduce testimonies as to the complexity and difficulty of a measure of this description, and as to the time which a measure such ought to occupy before it is disposed of testimonies, of a character which will ba of gr ater weight with hon. gentle- men opposite than anything that I might hope to say. As has been more than once remarked, we have not before us now, tc day, for the first time, a Government a. asme for the establish- ment of a uniform franchise for Canada. The proposition that such a moisure should be enac:ed was laid before us on m 2 the first day on which, with a Speaker in the Chrtir, the House of Commons of Canada assembled in this chamber. Ou the iirot day aftei* tlie election of a Speaker, when the Sj)eeeh fi-cm the Throne was delivered, in the year 1867, it was annonnc* d, under a Government of which the Premier was the present first Minist* r, that such a measure would be brought forward ; and I neeii go no further than to say tha*^, in the year 1867, it was announced as the policy of tlie Government, that the Government La? been in power ever sincp that time, with the interval ol five ye*ur8 only, and that we are, to-day, engaged in the discussion oi the question whether such a measure is fit or not, to prove that the view of the hon. the Secre- tary of S;a eaa o the simplicity and easi- ness of such a measuie as this must b« wrong, unless we are to imply that the Government which announced that, as part of its policy, in the first S[)eech from the Throne delivered to a Canadian Parliament, was not honest and sincere in the enunciation of that policy. If it was honeat and sincere in the view that a uniform franchise ought to be estab- lished, and es ablished by this} Parlia- ment, for the return of members of this House ot Commons, and if the measure is one of easiness and nimplicity, why han it not been done ? I say, as I have said, that the Speech from the Throne of the first Session proves it ; 1: ut I shall go a little further. That Speech declares thus : " You will alao be asked to consider meas- ures " Among others — " For the establishment of uniform laws relating to elt^ctions aud the trial of contro- verted elections." So that we were promised, in the year 1867, by ihe right hon. gentleman, the meanure which we are now engaged in debating. But why did we not go on with it during that Session ? Why did we not attend to that business during that Session 1 Was it because it was a short and easy and simple busin&ss ] J.et me give you the right hon. gentle- man's own .sfatement of the reason ;!et me give you his views of what, at th vt time, weiv the conditions for projxjr and eflfhc- tual difcnssion of a measure of this des- cription. In March he said in the Houwi. I quote from the report : "That it was not the intention of the Gov- ernment during that Session to submit aviy measures respecting the qualification of elec- tors or elected. " Whv 1 ■*''.■' ' « •''..' "The Reform Bill, when brought forwaiil,] would be found so complete and comprehen- sive as propeily to occupy the attention off an entire Session." Is this mea>3 fruit of eigLteen years of contemplation by the hon. gentleman of this political Juty which he is to discharge. I will not say that it is incomplete, I will not pay that it is not comprehensive. The righr, hon. gen- tleman declares that it is complete, that it is contiprehensive, and that it is the full and effectual fruit of all the wisdom, of all the meditation, of all the consideration that he has been able to give this questi n which he pledged himself to Parliament to settle eighteen years ago, and in tht so tling of which he is now engaged. Well, Sir, if it l>e complet« and com- prehensive, have the ciicuinstancfs so changed as to render that a light duty to be discharged in the eight or ten hours which the Secre^Hrv of State was gracious atid liberal enougli to accord to us ] I say. Sir, has it now become a light and easy duty to settle this question which, eighteen years ago, would have required a whole Sessirm to settle in a satisfactory manner 1 What have the changes been ? Why these have been the changes, tha' wg have had intr duced. since Cimfoderation, t\u' t ovince of Priiice Edward Island, tlif .all 8 )vince of British Columbia, the Pro- r.e of Manitoba, and h?.ve pressirig )n our hands, with an uigf ncy which bon. gentlemen opposite do not rea- , the neoeseity of representation for North- West Territories oi Canada, ly, Sir, that you have got four ques- ^nt on your bands, one of which you tlect for the moment, and three of h) ouetknowiedge are to be dealtwith Iditiou to the questions which you had consider in the year 1867, when ir Reform Bill was going to engage attention of the Hon>e for an entire jbioi). No man can deny that one ol qupstions involved in the slatt nifnt franchise for Canada is the condition [the ^ eople, the staie of public opinion, id the actual results of the existing mchises in each Province of Cana» a. the time the hou. gentleman said it such a measure would pro[>erly occupy tlie attention c f an entire Session, we had to deal with it uncomplicated by the fact that thf re was as there now is a rarieiy of franchise betwe.. ditferonr, position to day, because the franchises of Ontario and Quebec have divei ged ; and today yoxi have to deal, hO far as the old Pra rinces are corcerned, with four franch- ises instead of three, with four conditions of public opinion, with four con- ditions of public life, instead cf ihrce ; and in nddition to that, you have to tving diminished by time, they have increased by time. Th«} area is larger ; the franchises are more numerous and divergeiit, and the people have been accustomed for eighteen years, and at five general and as mary or more local elec- tions, to recognise that they have a com- mi n franchise forbotii Dominion and local elections. It has become their use and wont, their common experience ; and these certainly are consideations which do not diminish, but largely increase the complexity and the difficulty of creating and forging in this Parliament a com- plete and comprehensive measure for a ccmmon franchise, I repeat, then, that if, in the year 1867, the Bill was not even br< ught forward, because a com.- plete and comprthensive Reform Bill would properly occupy the a'tennon of an entire Stssion, these words apply with infinitelv addtd force to the considera- tion of such a measure at this time and under these circumstances, rlow do these words, then, comport with the eight or ten hours which, we are told, we shall be allowed in discussing it? Now, Sir, in the year 1869 we were in'ormed by the Spe( ch from tl e Throne thnt : " Bills will be presenttd to you for 'the establishment of uuifoini and amended laws lespecling Pailiamentary elections^" knd the promise of the previous Session, nd the promise of that Session, were ulfilled by the presentation of a Bill uring that Session. That Bill was pre- ented on the 18th May, 1869, and the rder for the second reading was dis- harged on the 19th Jwne, 1869. At laws vary much in their operatior. What follows ? , , ,. ,ttjjurt« 'ii>> " It is important that a uniform provisic. should be made, sef'ng the franchise ai: regulating elections.*' L » //" ,] , » .v. It is as apostles of the great doctrine c: uniformity, it is as exponents of tL eoster. hat time the hon. gentleman adopted necessity of a uniform provision, that tlu I difierent mode for the preparation and •evision of the lists from that which le has now adopted, and he made a itatemeut of the principles of the Franchise Bill which contrast somewhat with th3 principles which have been announced to- lay. But I shall not at this moment ;rouble the House with those references. [ wish to continue the historical narra- tive of the adventures of the Conservative Sovernment of Canada in search of a Franchise Bill. In the year 1870 the \ Speech from the Throne was more com- prehensive : - . . " The laws in force on the subject of the elective franchise and the regulation of par- iiamentarv elections in the several Pro- vinces of the Dominion vary very much in their operations, and it is important that a uniform provision should be made, settling the francnise and regulating elections to the House of Commons, and measures upon these subjects will be submitted to your con- sideration." , , i ; . , ., , . ; . Now, Sir, growing bold by time, and hav- ing decided to set their hands to the work, a statement of the importance and urgency of the measure was introduced into the Speech. We were told that uniformity was tfle difficulty ; that this want of uniformity w«s a blemish. It offended hon. gentlemen opposite. They did not like it. It is not the as- sertion of our power, of our pres- tige, it is not the badge of our humiliation, while we are elected to this House by a suffrage which is pre- right hon. gentleman induced his ccl leagues to come forward when they, tVi the third time, in the Speech from tl.« Throne, announced Piich a measure The House met on loth February, aiul tho hon. gentleman then fell, contrary tc the view of to-day, that he ought, if Lei was going to carry his Bill, to introduce it early. When did he present it He presented it on the 24th February, nine; days after the House had convened. Thus he did, so far as time was concerned, ottt-r s^X the House the Session. But, of couisi there was other legislative work to ]» done. He moved the second I'eading ci; 10th March. The debate was then a.l journed. It was resumed on 18th Marcii, and it was then adjoumied. It was resumed again on 24th March, upon which occasion the Bill was read tlie second time and ordered to be committed. It was committed on 29th March, and>;^jg progress was reported. It was considered ; ^q\ in committee twice subsequently, and a.s : jjjjj the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Laurier) has pointed out, upon the asser- tion in the committee of the counter|git« proposition by Sir A. A. Dorion, that ' " the provincial franchises should be used, discus>iion in committee closed tn gi« 3rd May, and the hon. gentleman! ^j^j moved the discharge of tiie order. ^ mj Did the hon. gentleman then, v/lien s gjj he brought forward the I'ill, obvi- ously with the intention of passing it through the House, adopt the gen tot mei i< ext sioi in,1 the bro ore sig scribed by the Local Legislatures pleasant and graceful mode of decidin for the election of members to their own Assemblies thatis noted; but the need of a uniform franchise. That is the ground taken. I mark, and I ask the House to mark, the ground that is taken. The ground that is taken is the variation, the differences, that exi«t8 in the laws in iioyrco in the various Provinces. The upon what is adequate discus- sion ind limiting that discussion, as is proposed by the Secretary ot S'ate ! No. What the hon. gentleman said on the lObh of March, when he moved the second reading of • he Bill, was this : " He would have this Bill placed on the pap<"i every Government day, and consider // CO! on it a£j po ha h« tbi on. ior. of :be :l.e tbi ;he re iK to itd oil lie 1 ii.I iiS IS q whenever opportnmty offered. would probably last till near the of the Session." Apd le weni on to in that the discussion would con- ,e till vei'y near to tl e end of the on ; as, no doubt, the Senate tumid not interfere with the Bill, it WH^S ^ Sil^ respei'ting elieotions for the Hq^Ko of Commons. When he made the,* proposition to the House, to read S^ Dill the second time on the 10th wrch, the hon. gentleman thought that the Committee of the Whole would coa- tiiiu«- until nearly the end of the Session , B,b^<^re the Bill would be thoroughly, ^^^ '«x^ustive]y and satisfactorily discus- BeOf How far that accords with one le day, how far that accords, with t or ten hours for a discussion of franchise Bill, I leave the House to 0. Well, as I have said, the hon. ileman failed of his effort. I pass on quire how it happened that, if this ure be not, in its cha»-acter and in provisions, complicated, aifficult and ex^naive, that f r three successive Ses- sions it should be promoted— -not brought in the first time, because it , would take the whole Session to deal with it; bipwght in the second time and the order diediarged ; brought in the third, early ; deVated in the House and in the com- miitee for seven full davs, and then dropped from the Order paper and the orqer discharged. Thefce are not the si^s of an easy Bill ; these are not the si^liK of a simple Bill ; these are not the si^s of a popular Bill ; these are not the si^s of a Bill which public opinion was These are the signs of one (1 and one will animating the Gov- ent and pushing on, as far as he d and as fast as he could, as far as he* ilare, in the direction which he was delirmined to go, and postponing it at one time without action being taken on it^t all, postponing it the second time afjfe^' he had introduced the Bill, post P • poaiiig it the third time after he Ji^ ha^ challenged debate upon it, because '" l^j^jl^und his measure did not receive 1*' tlaRT support from his own followeis < 1 wifich was necessary in order to its being deB|ianding. mil ca,rried. These are the signs which mark the progress of the adventures of the- ho^. gentleman in search of a Franchiee- Bill for the tii-st three years of his reign. In 1871 the Sj^ech from the Throne, an- nounced to us among other measures, that a Bill would be presented relating to parliamentary eleclions. But tht^ only Bill tV'at was presented was a Bill to make temporary provision for the election of members, and this easy, sim- ple, popular and pressing subject was not even mentioned on that occasion. Then, iu 1872, there was an announcement ir^ tlie Speech from the Throne that the decennial census had taken place and that the duty of leadjusting the repre- sentation in Parliament for the fcuv Provinces would devolve upon Parlia- ment, and a measure for that purpose would be submitted. So that while the subject of the representation of the peo-^ pie in Parliament was to attract attention on that occasion, too, the hon. gentle- man had abandoned for the time, it appeared, the idea of pressing upon Parliament and upon the country a uniform franchise. He succeeded in obtaining a majority in the elections of 1872 ; and having succeeded, he renewed his efforts in thia direction in 1873. TL- Speech from the Throne in that year makes this declaration : "It is important that provision .should be made for the consolidation and amendment of the laws now in force in the several Provinces, relatiiiR tn the representation of the people in Parliament. A measure for this purpose, and one for the trial of controverted elections, will be submitted for your consideration." The House met upon the 6th March. The Bill respecting the election of members was introduced on the 21st March, very shortly after the com- mencement of the Session, though not quite so rapidly as upon the occasion in. 1870. The order for the second reading, waj discharged on 20th May. A temp- orary Election Bill was introduced on the 15th May, and read the second and third time on 20th May. Hon. members will see the progress made during that Ses- sion in the discharge of this easy, simple m 6 and popukr duty. Then thnre came, as some of us still remember, a second Session in 1)^73. We had, in that year, two Hossions of Parliament., We met here in the fall of the year, and though some of us had supposed that we met for the simple pur- l>03e of })as8ing judgment upon an arraigned Administration, and deciding whether they should retain the confidence of the House and the country, yet their view was that there were general legis- lative duties to be performed ; and pressed as the hon. gentleman was by many and urgentconsiderationsof another character, that sense ofduty, that earnest persistence in the discharge of what is rsght, that constant attention to the intei-esta of the gublic which be has displayed through career, induced him, even under those hessing circumstances, when his thoughts light be — when it is no undue refl^c- )n to assume they were — largely igaged in another qunrter, to act ; le felt even then that still this aestion, so dear to his heart, must lot be forgotten, and the Sp' ech from lie Throne, even in the fall Session of 1 87 3, contained the old announcement, lat a Bill for the consolidation and Lraendment of the laws in force in the several Provinces, relating to the re- [n-esentation of the people in Parliament, (as to be a.ain submitted. The Si>eech JFiom the Throne added : " By the postponement of this measure from last Session, you will have the advan- tage of including in its provisions the Prov- ince of Prince Edwai-d Island, now happily united to Canada." ^,. , ; ,; , , ,.. W^ell, we did not happen to have that opportunity. Circumstances over which the hon. gentleman had no control pre- vented him from redeeming the p'edge which he advised His Kxcellency to put in the Speech from the Thrme on that occasion, and instead of such answer as he had hoped wov.ld be given by the JCouse to that Speech, an answer was proposed by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Mackenzie), whi.h, after several days of debate, the h n. gentleman found he could not if sist, but which he did not want to sec pass, and cooi quently he retiretJ from office, and I not blame him for not having broaj down a Representation Bill in the tuicoi Session of 1873. The hon. gentleraei] being relieved for a time by an ungratef country and an uiigrateful House Commons from the cares of Statfl was no longer charged in heart, in con] science and in brain, with the great ponsibility of making uniform electio la vs for Canada ; and my hon. frienj who succeeded him, and who took difierent view of his duty to the countr in reference to the policy of Adminiatr tions on the occasion of a general electiorJ propounded his policy on that subject! My hoa fnend did what the hon gentle- man does T ot do — ho issued an addresil to his elector., and he declared m opinion to be — in that address, I thiDk,! but certHinly in his public speeches, m the leader of his party — in favor of tlel proviucial franchises as the rule for elecj tions to this House, and having so de' clared— mt as to all the details of thtij measure, which of course could not anii| ought not to be, because they would lei ir.effectually submitted to the people-! but geneially the principles on which isl that and other particulars in which hel invited the discussion of the people m proposed to c tnduct public aflairs. Mi hon. friend was returned to power iiij January, 1874; a .d true to his pledg he introduced his Bill and asked the! Parliamnnt of Canada to consecrate tha principle for which he had been contend! ing, namely, that the franchises which thftjl Provincial Legislatures adopted for the?j| Legislative Assemblies should bethefran|| chise for the election of members to tliis| House. But in the course ot the prelimJ inary discussion on the debate on the Adl dress, my hon. friend was subjected tol some very severe criticism by the right] hou. gentleman for his improper conduct, He was told that he had been guilty of I an act contrary to the principles of th British constitution, that he had been I guil^^y of an act which assimilated this ] country more to the rule which some- times p-evaih d in France, under its Be- 1 ll' iblican institutions, of a plebiscite — to agarism, and so on, becuuse my hon. liend thought fit to tell the i>eoplo of jlanaJa, w^en he was appealing to them )r their sufii-ages, the general principhts which he pro|X)8ed to conduct pub ic Iffairs; because my hon. friend had iouG;ht fit to say these and such are th« leasnre which I intend, if you jjive me lower, to af^k the Legislature to adopt — because my hon. friend had frankly bated what things he would do if he rtre given power, and askf d the people exercise an intelligent judgment u[>on |hem, the hon. gentleman rebuked him lost severely and said that, although my ion. friend had a precedent, althour^h he lad the precedent of Mr. Gladntone, rho, 01 a late occasion, had taken [ho people into bis confidence, yet the weekly mewspapers had condemned Mr. Gladstone, and had found out that lie wjis guilty of an at in England, a» jy hon. fiiend was guilty of an act in Canada, subversive of the principles of ^he British constitution. The people ^hould have been left in the dark, th^^ir 3turn should have been a question of confidence, and my hon. friend should mve bfcon quite free to decide what leasures to bring down, unfettered and mtramelled by the judgment of the people beforehand, as to the principles )n which he should rule if they allowed lim to rule. The staten-ent my hon. friend mtide had several advantages ; it liid the advantage that the people return- that House with the knowledije that Bill, based on th« lines of a recogni- tion of the Provincial franchises, would the result, and it was after that plain statement of policy that my hon. iriend received the endorsement which gave litn power to put the existing liw on the iStatute Book. Then, Sir, that Bill was very fully discussed, and it passed a second jreaditig without a division. But in Itbe urse of a discussion in committee Ithe light hen. gentleman felt so strongly [on the importance of keeping free from all {influences those who would have the re- jvision of tlie voters' liststhat, whonan hon. [member of the House said he did not see any reason why the county judges should not have a vote, tlui present First Minister pointed out, as a reason against their having the right to vote, that '.hey revised the v'oters' list. Oh ! he said, the county court i udges re vise the votei-s' lists, and that is tbi> roason why they should not have the right to vote. Such weiethe pure, not tosay th^* purest principles — I do not object to them ; I thihk they were right — such were the principles upon which the hon. gentleman was disposed to deal at thit time. It being Six o'clock, the Speaker loft the Chair. Aftkb Recess. MR. BLAKE. I had pointed out, Mr. Speak r, before you left the Chair, that a betrlement of this question was made in 1874, under the Adminiatration of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Mackenzie), and that during the con, tinuance of that Parliament, during all its five Sfissions, no proposal was made by hon. gentlemen opposite, then in Op- position, in contravention of that settle- ment or for the application of the prin- ciples which, in opposition to that settle- ment, they deemed to be right ; that they made no proposal to challenge the atten- tion of the House and the country upon the question wheujer it was fitting that their views should prevail at the election which was get ting nearer every Session. They went to the country, and the hon. gentleman whispered, so far as I have heard, no word of oissatisf action with the arrangement of the franchise. Certainly, it cannot have been said to have been an issue before the electors in the Jlear 1878. The hon. gentleman then triumphed at the polls ; he resumed office ; he held it for a period, not the full term, but the period f r which he thought fit to allow that Pari am«nt to exist, from 1878 to 1882 ; he appeared to have abandoned his proposals; he did not bring them w the consideration of the Legitlature ; he did not even adorn a Speech from the Throne, as far as I know, in any of these four Sessions, with any such proposal. He dissolved the Legislature; in appealing to the country he did not express any dis^atis- ii faction with the condition under which the people were called on to exercise the franchise. Ho could not do so, because for four years he had controlled the ad- ministration bf affairs with a very large majority in Parliament, and during those four years lie had been oblivious of his former views on this subject ; he had nii \'; no attempt even to press the ques- tion upon the consideration of the Legis- lature. He went to the country upon other issues, not averring that he was about to introduce this change, not aver- ring that there was any cause for dissatis- faction, not indicating this as a question to be at all considered by the electors. He succeeded, and the tirst proof 'of his success was th(^ re-introduotion of this proposal in the Speech from the Throne in 1883 ; so that for two Parliaments the question had bden settled ; it had Jjeen settled in the first {Session of the earlier Parliament by my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie) and had never been challenged since that time, although for a whole Parliament the hon. gentleman opposite (Sir John A. Macdonald) had the means, if he chose, had the power, if lie willed, to have redressed this anomaly which grieves his soul so much ; to have put upon a sound footing the principles of the franchise for this House, which, he says, have been false all this time ; to liave made accordant with lue spirit of our constitution a practice which, he says, has been discordant all this time. In 18f<3 he brought the question under our consideration. He announced then : " It is important that the laws relating to the rsbresantatiou of the people iu Parliament should be amended, and the electoral frauch- «e.s in the existiiijij Provinces assimilated. And measures for this purpose wUl be sub- nutted for your consideration." The House met on the 8th February; the Bill was read the first time the 13th April, and the order was discharged the 13th May, the Bill never having gone to a second reading ; but upon the presen- tation of the Bill the hon gentleman said : "The principle is not the principle whicli we have heard stated to-day, which was that ihis Parliament should control the franchise, but thrt the franchise shall be uniform 1 throughout the Dominion, so that the samil classes shall have the franchi.se in the differ-' ent Provinces. So far as Ontario and Que- 1 bee are concerned, the Bill will operate, osl the whole, as an enlargement of the fraihj chise. It will affect other Provinces vari-j ously, according to the principles on which] their various pr39«nt franchises are framed." So that onoe again you find the princi-l pie of uniformity consecrated as the essential principle of the Dominion franchise He also made an observation or two iu reference to other clauses of the Bill at that time, to which T shall not now refer. In 1884 the Sp'^ech from the Throne again contained the state- ment : "The Bill laid before you last Session, for | for the representation of the people in Parliament and the assimilation of the elactoral franchises existing in the several Provinces, has now been before the country for a year. The measure has been introduced and I commend it to your atten. tion." ,:,i,^ The House met tlie 17'h January, the hon. gentleman r sented the Bill the 23rd January, a week after the House had met. But that diligence was not followed by equal diligence in pi-essing the Bill, for the jrder was dischai-ged the 16th April, there having bean no attempt to pre 38 the Bill to a second reading at all. Novr, having fram'jd his Bill in the first Sesaion of this present Parliament, having i troduced it at a comparatively advanced i)eriod of that Session, having brought it forward in the second Session of Parlia- m ^nt, having introduced it Within a week from the opening of that Session, I sh id like to know what excuse there is, when this third Session we are met in the Speech from the Throne with the an- nouncement that this measure will be brought forward, for the late period in which it is brought forward. If he in- tended to press it for settlement, after the statement to which I referred as to the length of time it would take for proi)€r consideration, if he was able, at the opening of last Session, to bi'ing down this measuw, how is it that so many weeks have elapsed before he brought it forward, this Session 1 '»[ [AbcI yet he declares he intended to bring it forward, with a view of bringing it to la final ooncUision. After all that has loccurred on this subject during the past eighteen years, particularly after the early presentatir ? the Bill last [Session, we had ight to conclude, when the hon. gentleman brought it for- ward so late this Session, that his inten- tion was simply sj far to fulfil this pro- mise made in the Speech from the Throne that he would bring down such a measure, but that he had no intention to press it to a conclusion. And the reason given for pressing it bo a conclu- sion to-day, the i-eason given for its being an opportune time for establish^ ing this change, is that there are altera tiouD in the franchise lately made in more than one Local Legislature. Now, I have pointed out that there was no an- nouncoraent by ^-he hon. gentleman of his declinature to accede, to assent to the settlement of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Mackenzie) as to the terms of settlement of the principle on which our franchise should be framed. There was no request on his part for the confidence of the people, either at the election of 1878 or the election of 1882, on the score that he would effect a reform of this description. There was no challenge of the existii^g system and of the verdict of 1874 upon that system, or of the legis- lation based upon that verdict. I think tlere should have been such a challenge ; I think there should have been such an opportunity for discussion before the electorate of this country, if the hon. gentleman intended to proi>ose such a measure. From his own point of view it is a most important measure, it is a vital measux'e ; it involves a funda- mental difference of principle compared with the law of the land ; and I say that when a question, with reference to the re- presentation of the people in Parliament, proposing vital and fundamental changes of principle, is brought forward, i'o ought to be brought forwi^rd after the people have had an opport ^nity of deciding, at a general election, by the representatives they are to return, what shall be the general policy which shall regulate tuo legislation upon that subjeat. AVhat has happened in England, with reference to the Reform Bills? "We know the Reform Bills there have been adopteles held V)y the oonipetitors for their conti lence are upon those large and fundamental questions. I do not deny that there will aiise, that there may arise, in the currency of aay Parliament, very grave (jueetions, un- aiiticipated in the election. I do not seek to shackle the authority of Parliament to deal with those emergent qtioations which may arise. But this is udt an emergent een challenged by the hon. gentleman before he went to the polls, on whi'^h he ought to have asked for the return of a Par- liament of opiuions contrary to those held by that which was elected when the ]>eople previously pronounced upon it. ITnder these circumstances, I maintain that we are entitled to sny that there has iioi been that pO| ular discussion as to the reversal of the views held in 1874 and since, that there has not been that oppor- tunity for consideration by the people which, at this a^e and under our Demo- cratic system of Government, there ought to have been. I do not intend to say a word more than that which 1 have said generally, by my reference to former utterances, i s to the period of the Ser- sion at which the Bill is introduced, and as to the possibility of dealing with the Bill as it ought to be dealt with, con- nistently with the dischnrge of our other businfss. The House has decided, ly a very large majority, that it can fully (Hscuss and deal with this Bill, and also with all the other pressing legislation which is upon the Older paper and wliich, though not upon the Order paper, is expected to come upon the Order paper after a little while. The House has so decided, and we are tnecefore to proceed to that ditcusBiou • but I do maintain that the o^servalionj! of the hon. gentleman which 1 have read, his course of conduct in the past, anil hia professions in the past, sufficientlji indicate that this Bill ought to receive a[ very considerable amount of discussion.! If that is to be to the deti'iment of the 6k-\ cussion which is to tiike place on other I measures, the hon. gentleman will obtain that advantage from this procedure which he has often in the past obtainetl from a similar procedure, in regard to other important measures, and which was reprehended by his independent supporter from Northumberland, N. P. (Mr. Mitchell), the other evening — the procedure of procrastinating the sub- mission of his measures to the House, in the hope that the late period of their introduction might induce u6,a busy people, a j)eople dependent upcn our own exeitioLs for our maintenance, to curtail t.he debates, in order that we might be able to enter upon the discharge of our private duties. I trust that such will not be the ca8«3 now. I have said that, for eighteen years, we have gone on under the provincial franchises, and why should we not continue to go on under the por- vincial franchises] We are a practical people, and our politics, in this par- ticular as in others, must be practical. You know that your franchise is not an artistic franchise, that no franchise that u proposed will fully satisfy the demands of logic and reason. You say it is the best that can be done ; it may not please all the rrtvinces ; we hope it will jJease most of the Provinces, or the larger Prc- \-inces, or the majority of the House. That is all th it we can expect. But I ask where are the practical inconveniences which have resulted from the operation of the existing system '< What difficulty have we found 1 Do hon. gentle- man opi)osite say that the elections under the provincial franchise's have not truly exhibited the popular mind ? We know tliere are defects in all our electoral systems, defects which have affected the composition of this House, which have prevented it? beirgareflection of the popular Mill to so great an a 11 extent as, according to my notion, representative Houses ought to be. But I say these defects are not traceable and cannot be traced to the franchine. They ire traceable to other causes altogether ; ind therefore I say that the experience of jeighteen years and of five general and a [very large number of special elections is I valuable to us and ought not to be lightly thrown aside ; and, if, for these eighteen [years, we have lived without our prestige being dulled or diminished, without practi- cal inconvenience, without its being pos- sible to allege that the operation of the law, as it- has stood for that time, has pre- vented the popul ir will from being reflect ed here to any extent to which it would hive been reflected by any change in the franchifce, if I say we are able to appeal to these results, we have a very strong argument for not disturbing the existing state of things. You may say it is rather a Conservative argument ; but, although 1 am and avow myself a Reformer, and a radical Reformer, I have never been dis- j)0sed to favor change for the mere sake of change, and I am disposed to pay very great respect, in a constitution like ours and in a system like ours, to the practical teachings of experience; I am disposed to acknowledge the merits of a system which has proved itself adequate to the occasion and to whosa working which we are accustomed. I say then, that those who, at this time of day, propose a change, are bound to get beyond theoretic difficulties, are bound to get beyond alleged errors of principle, and to show us wherein a practical wrong is bein^^ done, a i>ractical evil is being incun u, of some considerable extent, and I go further, of an extent which is not more than counterbalanced by the practical advantag(^> of continu- ing the present plan. But I go much further yet. Ours is a federal system, its basis is the federal principle, and this basis of our system, although not a perfect federation, yet a^ a federal constitution, is representation in the popular Chamber, according •^o the population of each Province, fliere is the base. Your fundamental principle "■ti:n>'t is that in the Commons House of Parlia- ment each Province shall be represented by so many members as the population of that Province is, in proportion to those of the other Provinces. It is prov- incial representacion, therefore. It is re- presentation of the Province; it is the popular opinion of the Province, accord- ing to its strength, counted by the num- ber^; of the people; that. is the base of our federal system. In the other Cham- ber there is a recognition, in a peculiar and somewhat maiTed form, of the prin- ciple of State sovereignty, with regard to which the numbers of the Senators are bas>.'l. But here the principle ot provincial representation is recognised in its entirety, and if that be ao, I say that it is more in accordance with the true theory, it is more in accordance with the real spirit, of the federal principle, that the i)cople of the Province should decide what is the best mode in which the sense of the Pro- vince oan be taken as to the public opinion to be represented on the floor of this House. It is the people of the Province, in proportion to their num- bers, that are to be represented here ; it is the i)eople of the Province, I say, who should tell you in what shape your re- presentation is to tike place. Now, I do not argue that the constitution says thib in impt rati ve terms. If I could say .so the question would be at an end. We would not have the power to do this thing. Of course, it is admired that we have t)»e power to do this thing ; but we have many powers which we are bouna to ex- ercise, if the federal constitution is to be preserved, with due regard to the spirit and the principle of federalism. You have got the power of disallowance ; you can disallow every act of a Provincial Legislature. Will you exercise it 1 No. Why will you not exercise it ? Be* cause you know it would be destruotivw of the federal principle altogether. You know that some li. J and some measure must be laid down, and some oondition»^ flamed as to the extent of it. It is a ques- tion between parties what the extent of it^ should be, but it is admitted by both. 12 'parties that some line and some limit fihould be laid down, and that these ai-e to be found in the recognition, more or leas perfect and large, of the federal principle. Some may say we do not choose to recognise the federal prin- ciple so widely as you do, and therefore we will as« not assume an entire and absolute power and control because there has been a partial abuse of power, which you can remedy by the proper and specific appli cation to that abuse. I have said that this principle of a Province establishing a franchise for itself by which the representation in this Parliament shall be governed is the true federal principle. And besides the argument drawn from AH ii r~3 U'tJfM reason, we may draw the argument froul experience. The right hon. gentlenij opposite, has more than once paid a^l erous 9^'AU not underserved compliment t«i the .onstitution of the neighborinjt Republic. He has more than onJ ])ointed out the wisdom with whidi that constitution was framed, and eulol gised the great men who set their hi to that great work. It is true thai those laudations were, perhaps, indirect] ly laudations of the speaker, because hJ has always contended that, great as wasl their ability, larsje their power » of state] manship, and far-seeing their intellects, he has done better yet. He has contend! ed that the constitution under which we) live is a better constitution than their?, I and will do better work. But I say that upon this question of what the true I spirit ot the federal principle demauds,! as to the mode in which the people of| each Province shall be represented in the | general Legislature, you have got,besides the reftpon and the theory, the practice and the experience of the great Republic the largest and on all hands the most glorious application of the federal principle which has yet been known to the world And you do not find tliere that unifor- mity is so much admired. You find there that the basis of representation for Congress is the basis of the franchise in each State for the most numerous body of its Local Legislature. And therefore we have, as I have said, besides our own experience, the experience and the practice of the United States in this regard ; we have the theory and the reason of the thing all point- ing one way. I deny that uniformity is so charming as the hon gentleman declares. I deny that uniformity is essential. I aver on the contrary, that a nominal unifor- mity has been proved to be, in the condition of our country, substantial diversity. I ayer that the conditions of our people differ, that the circumstances differ, and the only way in which the hon. gentle- man has ever been able, in any sense, to grapple with this phase of the subject, haa been by laying down a rule and measure to satisfy the aspirations of none, because 13 j>.e was obliged to give and take sorae- I'w.ing in order to make it tolerable to all. Now this difficulty is shown in the pro- I posaUtlhat have been made from time to t:me. ' Tae truth is that the rpinrons of :he Provinces on this topic differ. The hon. Secretary of State, this evening, in .^ne part of his argument, announced that ihe opinion of the Pro vine 3 of Quebec was hostile to one diBpositi*^!! of this Bill, ind that seemed to him to be a very good reiison for its not being pressed. I tically manhood suffrsge; that British Columbia has manhood suffrage ; that Manitoba has practically manhood suf- frage ; and, thtis as we know, public opinion differs in a very marked degree in those Provinces from that which ob- taids in the other Provinces. The Prov- ince of Ontario has an enlarged franchise. The right hon. gentlemen stated that the general effect of his Bill would be to en- large the franchise in Ontario. The right hon. gentleman was repeating his lare say it was a good reason for its not speech of a year or two ago. A year or two :>eing pressed, but is not the admission fatal to the propositioo, we ought to have ,1 federal franchise at alH Why should A-e not have a franchise that will suit the Province of Quel)ec, expressing, according zo the mind of chat Province, the opinion of the people in this Parliament] You want, for the Province of Quebec, just such a franchise as shall best express the mind of that Province on this floor. ago that speech was, to a certain extent, true ; but it is entirely inaccurate to- day. It haion8 of the respective Bills contrast. In Ontario, in citi s and towns, the qualification of owners is $200, in incorporated villages and town ships, it is $100 only. In this Bill it is $300 in cities and towns, and in town- ships $150. So you find that the qualifications are very different. You find that the franchise which both parties have united upon in Ontario is very much lower than the franchise pro posed by tMs Bill. Then as to the in come franc ise. That franchise is $2f>0 a it year m is $400 ^ntano year. under Then this Bill there is the wage-earners' franchise. The hon. gentleman has adopted pr^ictically the language of his former Bill, as well as I rememV)er it, with respect to the in- come franchise, and he explained in Lis former speech on the subject, his speech in 1870, wh*t he intended the effect to be. He said, with respect to the provision, that parties having an annual income of $400 should have a vote, that it did not apply to day laborers, who might, as a matter of fact, earn $400 in a year. It is not the intention of the Bill, he said, to give votes to such parties, because they have no abiding interest in the country. That was the statement : the franchise was not to apply to men who earned their daily bread by day labor, because they had no abiding interest in the country. And even, although such aman mightearn $400 in a year, he was not to have the franchise. He retained the same pro vision in the present Bill. But in the Provinc«j ul' Ontario, besides an income franchise of $250, there is a wage- earners' franchise. It is provided that every male person entered on the last assessment roll, and who is a resident at the time of election and has resided there continuously since the completion of the last roll and during the twelve months immediately preceding, being an earner of wages to the amount ot not less than $250 in a year, shall be entitled to vote. It is further provided that in esti- mating or ascertaining the amount of wages or income, the fair value of board or lodging received in lieu of wages shall be considered and included. Those are provisions of the franchise in Outario. But hon. gentlemen opposite, the great fri>' ads of the workingmen, the great friends of the wage-earners of the country, who poured forth floods of tears for years while in Opi^sition, as to their unhappy fate, and who have poured torth more lately floods of congratulation and ju- bilation overthe improvement whi* h, they say, they have effected in their condition- those hon. gentlemen told us, in 1870, that the day la^^iorers should not have the franchise, and in 1885 they give an income franchise of $400, but provide no wage-earners' franchise at all. Then there is the householder's franchise, which is a very important franchise. Every householder is entitled to vote, without regard to the value of the house. Ihen there is the land-owner's franchise. The son of a landlord is entitled to vote, entirely independen*; of the value of the land-owner's property. If a land-owner has enough to qualify himself, his eon or sons shall be qualified also, so that the restrictions in this Bill in that regard do not exist in the Ontario law. Such is the Act which has been adopted unanimously by the Legislature of Ontario as the best means of obtaining representation of the minds of the people of the Province, except that the Conser- vative party wish the franchise to be placed still lower, because the Oonserva tive party say it should be still more liberal. They are all agreed it should l>e that far down, and how, with that stat« of things, the hon. gentleman could tell 15 m that his proposal culargcs the Ontario franchise, I am nolly un }\\>le to underetand. I (-hall not then ^'iigage in a diBcussion of itH effect ui)oa the other Pro viuces. I mention I's «ffect in the Piovince cf Catario, as I happen to conie frcm that Province, and us the hon. gentleman in so extraordinary ;i way misconceived the operation of the pj-esent law in that Provirce, But I ol)seive that within a little tinio » mea- sui-e has been introduced m the Legisla- ture of Nova S otia, which has the effect of liberalising the franchise in that Pro- ^•ince also. Now, Sir, the First Minister declared that our present ^ilan was, as he said, anomalous for us, drawing as we tlid our inspiration from British institutions, and it was contrary to the tirst principles of British institutions. Sir, we draw our inspiration from British institutions in so far as British insti- tutions are consonant with ours. The British parliamentary institution is a leg- islative union, not a federal union, and 1 GUI'S must be modified by wliatever ele- ments exist in the spirit of federalism different from those which subsist in the i spirit of legLvlative union. This '{uestion i could nob possibly arise under a legisla- tive union. There you a>e dojling with i one country, with no Local Legislature?, with no local authorities whom anybody proposes to entrust with the power of fixing franchise at all ! How else could you fix it, except by the Central Legisla- ture i Tht-i-e is no other way of doing it ; it is a literal, actual union ; and ytt, even there, p has been pointed out b} an hon. memW, it is only now, under the recent Acts, that the principle of assimilation has become perfected. Up to the prf sent, since the union of Scotland, since the union of Ii-eland, the franchises have been differ- ent in the Unitei Kingdorp, different even in different parts of each Kingdom, so that in practice even there, in a legis- lative union, up to now, for these many yoars, there was not that assimilation which the hon. gentleman has contended for as belonging to the first piinciple of British institutions, and which, as I have said, ii it was the first principle of those institutions, would not apply at all to a federal union which," is so wholly differ- ent. The hon. Secretary of State has said that provincial rigjits are not in question. Of course there is a sense in which provincial rights are not in ques- tion ; iliut is the sense in which I have spoken a while ago, nanulv, teat we have the power, if we choose to exeicisu it, of frauiiiig a franchise of our own. But the h;in. gentleman said t^e mem- bers for Quebac were the representatives of Quebec on the floor of this House, and therefor: they should et>t blish the franchise for •Quthec. True, the fran- chise for Quebec ought to be established by the members for Quebec; I admit the hon. gentleman's stat-^ment. The franchise ought to be established V>y the members for Quebec, but it ought to be establish* d by the members of Quebec in the Provincial Legislature of Quebec, where they need not be troubled by other members in this House in the discharge of their duty ; where they have control even more absolute than that which some of them claim in the deliberations of this Chamber ; where they can decide for themselves just what franchise thpy want, and thus tire hon. gentleman's view would be accom[)li8hed. But it might happen that the meml:>ers f r Quebec, who, as the kon. gentleman says, are the representatives for the Province of Quebec, might have a franchise forced upon them here by others that they do not like. Why, the hon. gentleman him- self, and his colleagues, the Minister ©f Public Works, and the Acting Minister of Railways, and the ^Minister of IM-ilitia, are engaged at this moment in promoting a measure which is opposed to the feelings of the members for Quebec. They are engaged at this moment ia promoting a measure to which the ft eling of the members for Quebec is hostile — the provision of this Bill as to woman suffrage. The hon. gentleman says, for- s oth, I will not express an opinion upon it The hon, gentleman need not express an opinion upon it ; we know his opinion ; do not we see the Bill ? Why, he has brought down the Bill ; it is the Bill of I «4- 16 the Government ; it tells me what his opinion is. What do I oare about his woi-d of mouth. We have hia bond, his Bill, his Legislative Aot ; three Speeches from the Throne, three Bills brought dovm to Parliament declared what is opinion is. We know his opinion. It cannot be that, on a great principle like this, the Bill which these hon. gentlemen have brought forward is not in accord- ance with their own opinions. It is im- possible that they can be resisting this measure. Not even the Secretary of State, whatever his relations to his col- leagues, will say that he is resisting a measure which he himself has joined in bringing down and, therefore, we know their opinions, in a parliamentary sense ; we know their opinions, though the reasons for those opin- ions the hon. gentleman does not now propose to give us. Some other day, perhaps, at some more conve nient season, we may hear his reasons in support of the vote he is to fl[ive in favor of the clause for woman suffrage ; but in the meantime I point out that a Govern- ment containing amongst its members four members from the "^rovince of Que- bec, might bring down to Pai-liament a Franchise Bill to which the Province of Quebec was hostile, and which Franchise Bill might be forced through this Parlia- ment, notwithstanding that hostility; and thus it would happen that the represent- atives of the Province of Quebec, who, as the hon. gentleman truly says, represent that Province in this House, might re- present it hopelessly — betrayed and mis- led by their leaders in the Government — they might find themselves in a position in which they could not resist. We do not know, of course, what steps they have taken. We are not acquainted with the precise process of preparation and elaboration by which the First Minister has made his specific declaration as to the attitude of the Government on this particular clause, to which I am just now about further to refer ; but I use it for the moment, as an illustra- tion of the ineflFective way in which those in that position, from even the powerful Province of Quebec, may be constrained to act, if you establish the principle that the representation of the Province is to be decided here. The question being asked here, how best the members for the Federal Parliament can be chosen from the Pvo- vince of Quebec, that question is to be fairly an^iwored i t this way — it can be V -^st decided V)y the Province of Quebec. And what I have said as to the Province of Queliec applies to each of the other Provinces. I say the question is, how best can the members be chosen to this Parliament, to repre- sent the mind of each Province, and I say it can best bo done by the Province which is going to send the members — best be done by the people who are going to elect the members, and if by them, the Local Legislature is the expo- nent of their views and the representation of their minds. The First Minister said the Local Legislatures might increase or diminish our constituencies. Now, it is not at all proposed that we should call on the Local Legislatures to establish one law and one measure for us and another for theuiselves. That is not the rule in the United States ; it is not tlu) rule here to-day. The rule in the United States has been found a sufficient safe- guard, and it is. Whatever you estab- lish for yourselves locally shall be the measure for your representation here. It is not to be supposed that they will hurt themselves locally in order to hurt us bere, and what interest can they have in hurting us here anyway 1 Their object must always be to have as full, jis powerful and as fair a representation as is possible. And, mark you, although you speak so contemptuously apparently of Local Legislatures, yet the liocal Legislatures are the creation of the same people who send us here; and they speak within their sphere of allotted or assigned power, whether it be assigned under the consti- tution or limited by our action in this matter, they speak with as good a warrant and with as great a popular sanc- tion from the same electors, and as repre- senting the mind of the same people, as we do who sit in this larger Chamber, 17 Now, the First Minister a little bit with- drew from his position of uniformity in his speech. Did I perceive a sign of further party action 1 Did I find a small loophole of retreat from the main baa's which has been for these 18 y(;ar8 allegod as the ground of this m»3afeure, i.amely, that we must not have vari<3iy, that we must have uniformity, that we must have assimilation, that we must have the same franchise for the different Provin- ces, when the hon gentleman said he did not stickle for pedantic unif Dimily 'i Does that mean that we are going to have a franchise to suit the people of Prince Edward Island, for them 1 Or is the later language of the hon. the Secre- tary of State to prevail, who pointed out that under the present system the smallest Legislatures may be allowed, at will, to change the franchise — that little British Columbia and little Nova Scotia might change our law 1 Is little Prince Edward Island to change our law as far as she is concerned, because our law, speaking of that as the law of , the majority, requires uniformity ; and if there is to be variety in the j case of one of the Provinces, because i one of the Provinces complains of the ad- | option of the principle of uniformity, the I whole business is given up, the whole | groundwork of action is is gone. You < say it is contrary to hrst principles that there should be variety ; you say that you ought to pass a uniform franchise, and if a little Province is to say no, for itself, I want to know why a big one should not. Now, the hon. gentleman said that little Nova Scotia or little British Columbia might change our law, and the First Minister said they could increase or diminish our constituency. But I say again, it is the people of the Province who increase or diminish our constituencv ; it is the people of the Province thai lect the Local Legislature ; it is the people ol the Provinces that will undo their work for them if it is undone ; it is the mind of the people that is represented in the Local Legislature. But the hon. gentleman sneered at the Local Legislatures, as if they were not as sacred a representation of the popular will, in their sphere, as this Legislature can be in its sphere. The hon. gentleman I sav, (jneered at these small Provinces. Mr. CHAPLEAU. 1 did not. Mr. BLAKE. Well, his language, I think, was that of sneeiing; but if the hon. gentleman did not intend it as a sneer, I am glad to know it, and glad to have eli- cited this expression from the hon. gentle- man. The hon . gentleman, then, not sneer- ing, pointed to the smallness of the Pro- vinces and asked if they wanted to change our law. They do not ask to change it ; they want to have a free mind, to say how they shall be represented, each in its own sphei'e, and each to the extent of its own membership. They do not want to control the deliberations of this Parlia- ment ; they do not want to decide how any other Province shall regulate its franchise ; each wishes to regulate its ( own. As I said, the decision which is to be taken in small British Columbia, or in small Nova Scotia, is how the quota for British Columbia or Nova Scotia shall be chosen, and no more than that. The hon. gentleman has said that the constitution does not provide for a local franchise ; but that observation I have already answered — I say its spirit does. Then the hon. gentleman referred to the forces of nature, and gave us an elabomte description of those forces ; he told us how they operated, and how we ought to apply the great principles, which he seemed to evolve from that discussion, to the present debate, W ell , Sir, I think we had not better enter into that large domain. The forces of nature and the laws that rule the world and the creatures therein, are vast and mysterious ; they are beyond our ken. We do not apprehend how it happens that the lion and the tiger raven and rend; we do not apprehend the mysteries of the storm and tempest ; we do not understand the mysteries of disease and death, of crime and misery ; yet they are all parts of a great order, and, as I believe, are susceptible of ex- planation, though not to our finite minds, as clearly and as consistently with the great harmonies which, we believe, will — <-■ 18 be evolveJ, as ihcsc gro t nilea which the hon. gouiUinan applifd ; and yet %e would not propose to apply them to our legislatii n or to our action. No, Sii ; we caLnot dispose of this great question en this uroad and myst' rious l*a8i;i which the hon. g«ntleu)an evolved ; aud entirely agreeing with hin» ia the belief Miat booie day or other the mysteries jf those things will be revealed, I decline to acknowledge in the hon. gentleman's argument any practical ai)plication v hich will aid us in the discharge of our duty of today. I believe that, notwithstanding lion and tiger, storm and tompe^t, disease and death, crime and misery, God is good — " That God which ever lives and lovefl, One God, one law, one element, And one far-off, Divine event, To which the whole creation moves." But while I believe that, I do not pro- fess to be able, as the hon. gentleman seems to think he ia able, to solve those various mysteries, or to make a practical application of them to the business of a Franchise Bill. Then the hon. gentle- man declared— T beg the hon. gentlen)an's pardon. Mr. WHITE (Hastings), I say that is great a])plau8e, after those beautiful words you have just npoken. Mr. BLAKE. I may say to the hen. member for North Hastings that [ did not expect him to applaud those words ; they are not the kind of words he likes. If I were making a speech for his ap- plause, it would be in quite a diiiernit tone. The hon. Secretary of State de dared that this Bill recognised the pro- gress of the age, that it recognised the fuller right of the people to act iu the administration of affairs, and that it t^ave a larger ii;terest to the people iu f.hat direction. Does it so for British Columbia] Does it ?o for Manitoba] Does it so for Prince Edward Island? Does it so for Ontario? Does i^, so, in some instances, even for Nova Scotia or New Brunswick i The hon. gentleman will lind that these grand sentences, these rounded periods, eloquent though fhey na^y be, lack the essential element, I will na^ s-^y of truth, but of accuracy. As a rule, and looking oyer this whole Doui- inion, whether you couat the numbers of the Previa et or the numbers of the pbpulatioT', this Til, if it rec^^iaes the progrr S.H of the age, recognises a progress towards a restriction of the franchise iustead of its enlargement ; it recognises a le^8 right than those rights now belong ing to the people to aot in public affairs ; it r^cognists and efctublishes u diminished {X)wer from that which row exists under existing legisldtion. Then the hon. "len- tleman declared that while the Bill went as far as it was possble to go without universal suffrage, to universal sufli-age he was oppoeed. He denied the franchise to tbohe who had no stake in tiie country, and he admitted that some of the Pro- vinces might be disconttnted, but that, he said, was inevitable. They must remember he said that they gave the right to vote to every one who deserved it. That is just the question. The Provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia and Prince Edward Island have b^ilieved, and do believe, that many more people are entitled to the right of fra* chise than are included in this Bill. Why do you decide that point] Why should you take upon yourselves to determine that those who are now exercising the fran- chise in those Provinc es do not deserve it] The Province of Ontdrio has, I have said, with unanimity decided that many thousands, aye, many Unn of thousands of its citizens, aio entitled to the franchise, who, the hon. gentleman says, do not deserve it. But for ihis Bill they would have it. By this Bill you are going to take it from them. Then the hon. gentleman, giving us somemore of the phil ophy which he adorns his speeches, sajo we must choose in practical poLdcfi }>etween what is opportune and wh- 1 is better. Perhaps so ; sometimes the hon. gentleman may have so to choose, and I dare say he is an oppoituniat. But I venture to say to him that you need not now so choose. Why ] That which is opportune is, as in the broad sense and in the long run it always is, better too. That which is better is that which in really opportune, and there is concurrence, 19 aud not divergence, between that which is '>f»portune onid that which ia better. WhHt is uotb opportune and better is not to disturb the existing system, is to leave luls franchise to be regulated as, up to this kiiesaion, it ha»i bee a re.<^ulated ; and if it were not so, I would venture to say in opposition to the hon, gentleman's doctrine of opportunis'n, that he had better assume a new roh and declare himself " too fond of the riyht to pursuo the expedient" But the hon. gentleman said there was a secret reason for the opposition to this measure, and the reason wffs that some Province wanted to rule this Dtiminion. I have no idea to what, Province he referred, but if thwe were a way in w h ich some one Pro vi ace wh > w ish ed itcould ^et the power, and 1 do not believe anyone can get the power, if there were a way in which one Province could dream for itself it would have the power to control this Dominion, I suppose it would be by declaring that in this Parliament it would regulate the franchise for all the other Provinces ; whereas, those who oppose this Bill say : We do not want, whether we belong to a strong or to a weak Province, to interfere with the Provinces at all ; we want each Province to decide for itself, how best its mind will be represented. Is that a desire to centralise 1 Is that a desire to get power here for some strong Province to rule the Dominion ] Is it not rather a desire to leave »o the smaller, the weaker Provinces, the fullest measure of self- control in this as in all other matters. It is the hon. gentleman and his followers who, by their policy, want to make the small Provinces bow to the will of the great; it is they who are pro- posing to do this, and who tell the smaller Provinces, such as Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island— smaU in point of population, though in point of mileage Manitoba and British Columbia outshine a good many of us — it is the who are trlling the smaller Provinces : Gentlemen, we insist upon administering to you such a dose of franchise as we think is good for you ; it may taste bitter, but it will do you good afterwards ; take it on trust ; swallow | your medicine! The hon. gentleman defends his course by saying that those who wish to leave each Province to regulate its own franchise are deHirous that one Province hhall rule. He says we will never build up the country or | consolidate the Union on such lines of argument as th»se ; and by an ui happy illustration, he added, we shall never be like the great nation to the south of ns. But the United States, the great nation to w ich the hon. genleman leferred for an illustration, is great, and consolidat- ed in spite of its adopting the very rule the hon. gentleman denounces as fatal ;o greatness ; nay. Sir. it is great and con- solidated because of the adopting that rule; it is great and consolidated just because of the gnat measure of local libertif 8 which it enjoys. I am not now about to enter iato a discussion of the argumentii advanced sometimes by hon. gentlemen opposite as to the causes which provoked the great war which threa- tened ttt ono time, in the opinion of some people, to rend the Union asunder. I think I know those cauces, having studied them a little. I main- tain, in spite of the arg'xmen^s about State rights, and State sovereignty and all those difficulties, that the principle of wide local liberties is the principle which has made the Union great, which has really consoliHated it as a federal union, which has given such an adaptation of local powers and of federal administration as ei able it, with its vast territory and enormous popula- tion, to regulate its local and general affairs efficiently and harmoniously, and to grow, as that great country is growing, and we are all glad to know that it is jrrowing, in strength and unity as w 11. And those who hope thn brightest hopes, who dreamed the moat glorious dreams^ who are inspired by the most caulted imag- inations, with reff renceto the future of the land for which we are legislating, those who rejoice in its broad domain, in its immense area of territory, in its diver- sified interests, are they to forget that it is in this country, above all countries, by I 20 reason and by experu nee both, that we must preserve to the highetit extent the principle of local liliertiep, if we would indeed accompliBh that consummation which we all so devoutly wish — the con- solidation of the country into a great nation ? We, with our great difficulties, for tliey are serious, with our great", distan- ces, for they are obstacles to contralisation, with our differences of race, our difier- ences of nationality, our sparse jwpula- tions, surely ought to realise from our reason, and, if not, we ought to learn from the experience of oui-selves and of others, how important it is that the principle of local liberties and local ad- ministration should prevail. Here I shall not touch upon topics which would be more appropriately touched later, but 1 am sure no maii can reflect upon that organising and of electing are all iu- creased. Great confusion is inevitable. Whv, in those Provinces, in which a difi'e'-fint ballot law prevails, although you have skilled othcere, whom you appoint presumably because they are ekilled, and are men of intelligence and are men who have had some training in elections, the difficulties and compli cations which ensue from the mis- takes that these men make, because they will apply to a federal election the rules of the local ballot, or to a local election the rules of the federal ballot, are numerous, and thev are within the experience of everybody. And, if a man whora you select, persumably because he is an able and efficient man, to whom you send your papers wiih instruct ions to study them, who ia liable to the penalties if which has largely engrossed the mind and of the Iaw if he does not carry it out, thought of the people of Canada and the this jhosen individual will make mis- members of this House for three weeks takes, as all of us know he repeatedly l^ast, without reflecting upon the import- i does, and will apply the federal provis- ance of local administration, without re- ! ions to the local or the local provisions fleeting upon the difficulties which admin- to the federal, what will you say with istration, thousands of miles from the regard to the ordinary voter, with point at which you administer, involves the Government and tVie country. No person who reflects can doubt that the principle of local franchise and local lib- erties, applied at an early moment, even at a time when you might not be dispos-^d, otherwise to apply it, is after all the sound and just principle for us ; and at this day, in this Parliament, with these ever. :s passing before us, we should pause before consummating the act of respect to the provisions of the election law which affect him ] I say the greatest confusion will ensue. Now, I want to know whether it is not of the last con- sequence, to ensure a true representation of the people, that we should have the lists as full as possible, and the people placed thereon with as little trouble and expense as possible, and as little doubt and uncertainty as possible, as to who have the right to be placed on centralisation which the hon. gentleman ! the lists and who have the right to vote 1 X . . . „ I say that is a practical question of the greate it consequence to those who really value i-epresentative government. I say our first caie ought to be to place as few . „ I obstacles and impediments as possible in It 18 tlie simpkst law you can ! the way of the honest man who is entitled I do not care if the local franchise | to the franchise getting on the voters' list, lias been attempting without success for these last eighteen years. There are great practice advantages in addition to all the considerations to which I have referred, in the retention of the existing law. have. were, though it be not, so complicated as | and as few obstacles as possible in the this one ; for practical purposes, the local | way of his knowing what he is to do in franchise of the Provmee is the simplest | order to get ^ lere ; and I say that, if you franchise you can have. Why ? Because | establish, ^ you inevitably will establish a doub e franchise 18 hard to understand ; by your law, one franchise for the local a double i-egistration is hard to accom- | and another for the federal legislature, plish3 the labor of revising hats, of i because you say you are going to establish :vn%i--. ■'^iir' «} tr * 21 ane for all the Provinces, and because we kno^r that the conditions and the views of the Provinces vary, you will then <>9tabU8h complications and troubles, a double trouble, a double registration, a double enquiry on the part of the voter, and you will thus create, instead of re- movingi obstacles towat da a full and fair representation of the people. Great ex- penses will be caused, too. Why, I suppose everybody knows, who has directed any attention to this subject, that it is an expensive matter to keep the voters* lists right, that it is an expensive matter to see that no improper votes are put on, on the one side, and that all proper votes are kept on, on the other side. It is often neglected now ; it is often neglected by both parties, and, when an nn(')q>ected election takes place, you find sometimes that the real expres- sion of the people's will is thwarted by the circumstance that the lists have not been revised and do not accurately represent their view. Are you going to double all that trouble? Are you going to have two sets of voter's lists to be looked after •every year instead of one set 1 Do you think that is helping the elector on ? Do you think that is making easy the path to a real and true representation of the ?ieople f It cannot be. It is impossible that those who argue for this Bill can contend for that result. Then there is the expense — the expense to the public in this double registration, the work that has to be done, the printing and revising of a separate set of lists. The local auth- -oritiea — in my Province, at any rate, I know not whether in the others — provide you a list now; they provide you a printed list ; they provide you a revision, a framing of it by the municipal oflBcers elected by the people, a revision by the judicial officers you appoint yourselves, the judicial officers that you appoint here, the county court judges ; they give you your list, complete, framed and revised, revised finally by judicial officers appointed by the authority of this Legislature. There is the system. And you are going to take upon your- selves the public expense of framing lists and printing them youraelve.^, and you I are going to impose the private expense on individuals which is involved in the carrying out of this double franchise. I ask this House not to make the franchise more difficult than it now is, and I say you are making it more difficult, perhaps more than if you raised it, by the I practical obstructions you are placing in I the way by a double franchise.! if can, and do Make it easier ii you the easiest thing you can ao i{ just to leave it alone. Now, if we are to have one franchise for this Dominion, to which I object, unless in so far as the mind of each Province shall from time to time approximate to the same j)oiut ol view, if we are to have one franchise, 1 say it does seem to me that the onl) logical view f)r a Dominion franchise wovild be one based on other consider ationa than those which are stated in this Bill. I give my individual opinions and I give opinions which I have ne'v prof>08ed to any Legislature to adopt , be- cause I do not believe they are so gene rally accepted, as yet, that it would be fitting to make them the subject of par liamentary discussion, with a view to parliamentary action, and because I pre fer not to force those opinions upon the consideration of any other Province, at any rate, than that in which I have the principal stake, my own. But I say that this Parliament has naught to do with the real property of the country. We do not regulate the civil rights. TiJe laws of descent of property all the laws which affijct the holding of property are not ours, and it seems to me that, if you are going to establish a Dominion fran- chise, which I do not ask you to do, which I oppose your doing, and which I should not propose myself, the basis for that franchise should be citizenship, resi- dence and intelligence — that intelligence established by an easy test, which has been applied in several self-governinti; states and colonies, the easy test with reference to reading and writing. That, I believe, should be the basis. I have said you have no right to interfere with property and, as to the old British rule. i \ tt that represeniat'on sbould depend upon taxation, your syBUim of taxa- tion strikes evtry man, whether he has real property or not. All of us who live Sir, pay taxes here, and the wage- earner pays very heavy taxes inde* '', and therefore in so far as you resort to the old British rule, anc^ if you say no taxation representation, I would like to find the man, who is not a piiuper living on public charity, who wou d not come within that rule in Canada. .Vow, then, you are proposing a franchise to give a fuller and freer representation, as you Ray, to the p< ople. Let me call your at- tention to the operation of tbe existing franchises, so far as it is poB8iV)le to understand them from the census. In the Province of Nova Scotia the males over twenty-one, are 1 to 4 12 of the whole population ; in New Brunswick, 1 to 411; in Quelxc, 1 to 4'84 ; in Ontario, 1 to 4'04. So that there is a slight variation, the Province of Ontario having a larger lAimVier of males over twenty-one, iu proportion to the popu ation, than any of the other Provin- ces, but the results being nearly the same. Now, then, the voteis on the list in each of the Provinces are, in Ontario, 1 in 4 73 of the population; in Quebec 1 in 5-97 ; in Nova Scotia. 1 in 6-78 ; in New Brunswick, 1 in 5 '94. Of c lurse that is not an accur«te stat<'ment, because we know that the voters on the list comprise a very large number of persons "who are rated lor more than rne pro|ierty ; therefore there is an uncertain element which, in the Province of Ontario, exists, perhaps, to I a larger extent than in the other Pro- vinces, and would diminish the number of separate voters in proj)ortion to the population. But you observe that there is a fair approxima ion in all the other Provinces, The franchise for the Pro- vince of Ontario is more libei-al than the franchise for the other Provinces, and that also in part, and to a large extent accounts, for the circumstance that the voters upon the list num]>er more, in pix)portion to tho population than those in the other Provinces. That being the state of things, I say that you will not establish uniifonmity vad you wiU not produce any better result by your change. Let me now look at one of the most important piopositions, that to whicli I alluded a little while ago; look to tin question of sufirage for women. Now, you found a marked difference in the language of the First Ministor and that of the Secretary of State, with reference te that subject. Tho hon. Minister of Public Works was Isely silent; he said nothing bbcn it. I do not know what he thought. Perhaps it was because he thought po much that he said so little. But at any rate he has kept a profound silence upon the subject of woman suffrage. Tbe hon. gentleman, however, upon some former occasions, was disposed, L remember, when a little badinage w>is passing across the House, rather to take credit for the woman suffrage clause. I recollect he alluded to the ladies in the courteous and pleasant manner in which he spepks of the whole population, whether ladies or gentlemen, and spoke about the action of the right hon. gentleman with reference to it — so I presume that he favors it, too. But the First Minister declared himself strongly in favor of woman su*"- frage, he declared the time waa coming, and that so*m, when it would be granted, and that he would be glad to see Canada take the first final step ; and he referred to Mr. Gladstone, who, he said, was in favor of w. man suffrage, and to Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Noithcote, who had declared themselves in favor of it. Now, I think, I have read all that Mr. Gladstone has ever said on that sub- ject— thougb I have not been able to refer to all his speeches since the hon. gentleman spoke— and my recollection is^ that Mr. Gladstone has not delivered an opinion in favor of woman suffrage. I am quite certain that, in the late debate, when he had to meet Mr. Woodall's motion, he did not express an opinion in favor of it. He declared he would not express an opinion on tli«> subject. He took the line of the Scoi etary of State. But, if I do not greatly err, in a former Ji r i im im mt i ttt 'tmx,. 1 23 debate upon Uio quent ion he exprefuied the view that if the franchise wau to be given to the other sex h'- saw no ground \i|>on which it could l)e limited to unmar- ried women ; he exprenbed the view, if I remeniber rightly, that it must be conferred upon married women, if conferred at all. Now, the hon. gsn- tieman says that ho will adopt Mr. GladRtono's attitude, and that he will i ot imperil this Bill on the question of woman suffrage. But Mr. Glad.stone's attitude was wholly diff« rent. Mr. Glad- iitone had not brought in a Bill with woman suffrage in it. Mr. Gladstone had brought in a Bill that did not give the franchise to women. It wa« a Gov- ernment Bill, and he was handling that Government Bill with a Govtmment in which the question was an open question avowedly. Some members of the Gover- inent were in favor of it ard others op- jKwed tn it. But what Mr. Gladstone, who had not committed himself upon the i^upstion, said, was : I will not imperil this Bill by allowing jou to add the ques- tion ot woman suffrage to it at all. I will express no opinion. It is an open ifiestion, so far as we are concerned, but we have a duty to discharge, and that is to carry this Bill through ; and those of us who aro in favor of as well as those who are opposed to woman suffrage, cake the ground that we are opposed to tack- ing it on to this Bill. But the hon. gentle- man's view is different. He says : I have introduced a Bill. I introduced it in 1883; I introduced it in 1384, and DOW in 1885 ; and T commend it to your attention as a Government propo- sition. It is tlie Government pro[0- sition, but forsooth I will adopt Mr. GladKtone's vie* s, and I will not imi)eril the Bill. The hon. gentleman had better have left it out, if he did not intend to carry it. But the hon. gentleman seerns t© be disposed to think that he will manage the matter. Ha^^ing brought it in in the former Sessions, and having, presuma\iJy, taken the opinion of his friends uf»on it, he still proceeded, this Session, with that clause in ; and pt-e suraably he took some O[>inions again, and in the end he is to be forced to leave it out It cannot be called an open question. Who ever he».rd of any Minis- terial measure being an open question] It is not an open questioi., but he has been forced to relax the tight bonds of party diacipline and graciously to give his followers liberty to vote as they please on this question. Well, the Secretary of State declared that he would not discuss the subject. He said th.-'.t in different Provinces that question was not accepted in the same spirit, and that in Quebec pu^dio opinion was hostile. Now the question is no doubt a very important one. It is one of the most important qn(>stinns which can be raised. I cannot conceive a more im- portant political question than that whi^^ is raised by this clause of this Bill, and I am free to say that I do not think tht First Minister discliarged his duty as leader of the Government by pnM'Osing such a clause in the Bill if he did not mean to pass it, nor did he dis- charge hia duty in the way of exposi- tion of ihe views of the Government in his speech. He said but a word, upon the former occasion — he made the bare statement that the Bill conferred the franchise upon unmarried women, upon spinste'S and widows This time he made a speech, in all of eight minutes and a half, of which two minutes were devoted to the woman qu stion, • and it was devoted to the account of Mr. Glad- stone's and Sir Stafford Northcote's and Lord Salisbury's opinions. That was the nature of his speech upon that question. But of reason, orofargument, or of attemjit to solve the great p/oblems involved, or to if Ate a theory upon which they should be dealt with, we had none fironi the hon. gentleman. This proposal is a halting proposal It admits, it is true, certain spinsters and widows, but not all spinsters and widows of the same chiss as those males who are admitted. For ex- ample, a fanner's son is entitled to be en franchised by virtue of his father having sufficient property in his own right ; but a farmer's daughter, although not married, although not subgectto that disability, is 1 24 i aot entitled to be enfranchised tuough her father owns sufficient property. Now, phere is a distinction without a diflferencp, except the difference of sex. Put for a moment the marriage relation out of the Question. Do as the hon. gentleman does ; Lreat the question on the baaia on which ne treats it ; treat marriage as a disability ; rleal with the unmarried only, and tell me, ^if you please, if it be fitting that some ^pin8ters and some widows should be enfranchised, why you ehould say that those spinsters should remain unenfran- hised who are the daughters of farmers, ndng property sufficient to qualify } I Neo no reason, 1 can understand no ground JEor that. But the hon. gentleman, in effect, says that marriage is a disability. *Now,I ask, who seriously supposes thatyou can stop with this proposition, if it is once accepted 1 Can it be seriously supposed that you are to stop there ? The appoint- ed lot of the great bulk of men and wo- inen is the marriage state. The figures 'of the census cf the Prov"nces indicate chat, in round figures, there are of women, jof the age of twenty-one and over, 1,000, "000. Of those of that age of twenty-one 'there are 655,000 married, 105,000 wid- ows and 245,000 unmarried. But if Vou run to the next point cf the census, ihirty-one years, you find that there are Jjut 85,000 unmarried women of that age. So the great bulk of those who are mar- 'ried at twenty-one are unmarried, as we know, between that age and thir by-one, md most of them between that age and Wenty-five. So we may not unnaturally say that if we take twenty -five years for ■the moment as a datum point, you may take 1,000,000 as the women of that age, 'and say that 800,000, or thereabouts are married, 100,000 are widows, and 100,- bOO are spinsters. Eight- tenths thus are married, and nine-tenths either are mar- ried or have been married, leaving about '3ne-tenth of spinsters at that age. In .hat condition of things, I want to know Why you suppose you can pause at the oint at which the Government Bill roposes you should pause. Why do ou suppose you can give the franchise to those out of this small minority of adult wome. who may be qualified under either class, and refuse it to that great majority of about eight-tenths, who may be qualified also owners of property or income, and so forth. You cannot sup- pose it. Ifp^ou once gi^ant that it is f«r the good of the race that women shonld become political electors, you are driven to treat marriage not as a disability. You talk oi elevating the I'ace — the race of women and of men. You say it is for the good of the race that women should become political electors, I grant your concession for argument's sake. But there is a law higher than your laws, that is the law under which we- live, the natural order under which we live and in which the appointed state of the great 'hulk of us is the marriage state ;. and that is not for the good of \ h4 race which tells us : You ai'e to elevate those who do not happen to be in a married state, and you are to disable them from the exercise of the elevating principle, as soon as they assume that which is the ordinary condition of the race, both as re- gards men and women. Will you be al- lowed, do you think, to say that the daughters may vote and the mothers shall not vote. Our laws u,re every day, and justly so, more fully recognizing the right of women to own property — the right of a woman to have her own property, in- dependent of her husband. These con- ditions Oi amelioration are being generally accepted, anu they are becoming exceed- ingly wide ; I do not know exactly how wide in the different Provinces. "^ They exist in Ontario ; under the old codes, to a very large extent, they exist in Quebec, whicli for very many years, has had more reasonable laws on this subject than for- merly prevailed in others of the Provinces. We do not recognize the old doctrine that the husband may say to the whfe that all she has is his. That IS no longer the doctrine. A woman'* property may be her own. If a woman's property may be Iier own, why should we say It IS for the elevation of the woman that she should have a vote, and yet deny it to eight-tenths of the women, the mothers and the wives, though they 25 tu-e property owners, a- 4 give it to those who are apiuaters or \ idowa, and to those only. How can the question atop even with the right to vote f On what princi- ple will you grant the right to elect, and deny the right to be elected ? On what los[ical and political prirciple will you do that ? I can apprehend inconveniences - of course, but as to thorn, surely the people are to be the judgea. If the people choose to elect a woman, and a woman is eligible to vote, why should she not be eligible to take her seat in Parlia- ment? On what ground can we say 1 hat people shall not have the right to choose a woman as their repsesentative, if women have the franchise? I do not see V>ut all these things are to be opened by this Bill, and that we may, some day or other, under the Government's pro- position when fully developed, have a Speaker in a gown, it is true, but of a different kind and framed on diftei-ent plana from that which you, Mr, Speaker, wear. These questions are all v«nened by this Bill ; it is certain they are not closed. Thev are opened by this Bill ; and even the proposition brought forward is Virought forward with- out popular approbation ? Have we been told by the hon. gentleman at any election that this was his policy ? The hon. gentleman says that he has " "/ays favored it. But he kept it, like many others of his favorites, in his bosom. He did not tell anybody of his secret afiection for the female fran- chise, he did not disclose his hidden love : "Concealment, like a worm iu the bud, preyed on his damask cheek." He alone knew how devoted he wag to the sex. Why did he not W. us know ; why did he not let them know % Why >ject were exhi bited by the few agitators for the women'.' I suft'rage themselves, who met and passed a resolution of thauks to the hon. gentle men for having spontaneously and"' with ■ out request done so much more for them* than they expected. Now, I maintain that that is not the way in which a great idea of this kind should germinate and ripen until it becomes an Act of Parlia- ment. I maintain that there ought to be suggestions by responsible states- men, agitation and discussion, and a fair opportunity for the people at large to decide what they will have upon such a subject, before you propose to legislate at all. Then, I say, that so little did the hon. gentleman discharge what 1 conceive to be his duty, if he were p'oout to propose such a measure, that he bar ^ot e/en really spoken upon it ; we have not really got his reasons for it. Now, that is not the view which the great statesman to whom he' has referred took in his las'^ speech of the natm-e of this question. He did not think- it as a thing so easily settled as to be dispased of in one and abalf or two minutes, as it was in the speech of the First Minis- ter, not backed up by his colleagues. What is the character which he gives this question ? " My own opinions," says Mr. Gladstone, " upon this question, :f I ar- *o describe !, are : thai »«; is a quea- theni in rude outline. 2% \tion of immense difficulty, a question ui>on *which nothing hasty is to be done, a question ■,which requires absolutely to be sifted to the fbottom, a question which should be com- j)letely disassociated from every movement Jof party, and every important political con- sideration, and upon whi.' the House of xJommons can only, by a strict adherence to ^tbese rules, arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.'' 'Now can you conceive a state»tman like VMr. Gladstone, to wLona the hon. gentle- jnan has referred, arriving at a conclusion %o treat this question as a Ministerial ^question, and bringing forward a Bill to '(give it effect ; dealing without a single rargnment with a question, ihe character \)f which he has described in the words tt have quoted. No, Sir; it would iiavo been unworthy of him, and it was "hardly worthy even of thcrighthon. gentle- "(man to touch the subject so lightly if he Was going to touch it at all. N >w, I ugT«e with the view Mr. Gladstone has Jetated, that this question is one of im- inense difQculty, and I dare say it is not *at all necessary thoroughly to attempt Ibo discuss it. In so far as the question bf keenness of intellect is concerned, {fre know that some of the brightest "brains in the world are those of women ; on so far as interest in public affairs ^8 concerned, we know that many of the keenest politicians have be^ n, and i'rom time to time are to be found, in t:^he ranks of women ; and in so far as Vpolitical sagacity is concerned, we know that you have many striking examples in the ranks of women. All these things are not merely to \>e con- ceded, but freely to be stated and rejoiced tn. But they by no means solve the tjuestion. I, riyself, have not infre- 'ajuently stated my earnest de.sire that any fellow- country woi .Aing the to-be, I Self-revertut each and reverencing each, I Distinct in individualiti 8, I But like e ch other ev'o as those who love. i| The-) comes the stat> liur E 'en bick to men ; I Then reign the world's great bridals, chaste I and calm ; I Then spriuKS the growing race of humankind. I May these things be." I Yhs ; may these things be. But I be- 1 lieve that the philosophy which is indi- 1 dicated in those verses is a philosophy I which requires deep stu'Jy before you can I decide that thf^se things are to be by the I hon. gentlman's proposal to confer the I rights of voting upon spinsters and I widows, and to leave out thos'^. to whom I these verses are addressed — the married I women. Now, as I have said, the only I safe process in this matter is discussion — I gradual discussion, thorough discussion j and the result of that discussion may be, I indeed probably will be — for we have toll look far off' — a diversity of opinionil in the different Provinces. The hon. I Secretary of State to-day frankly I admitted that on this branch of the Bill I there are two oi>inions. There ia tht I r 28. ) hostile opinion in the Province of Que- •.lec J there is perhaps a favorable opinion [n some of the ot-hier Provinces ; I argue for leaving each Province to settle its own '/ranchise. If you do not want woman JFranchise in tlfe Province of Quebec, you ikre free not to have it; but leave ^he people to decide whether they ^■;hall have it or not. Woman franchise may be popular in the Province of Dntario, let the Province of Ontario pass fe, law to give women the franchise ; that Vices not hurt Quebec, but gives Ontario ithat which best suits her. And so with Reference to the other Provinces. No Vitvonger argument for the adaptability land convenience of an independent fran- Ichise for each Province can be found than "that provision of this Bill, and the state- "anent of the Secretary of State with refer- Wce to the woman franchise. Now, I Want to touch on one remaining topic, ithat of the revising officers. V pon that "ttopic, I wish to remind you of the First Minister's statement, when, at an early ^period, he proposed this measure. He fthen declared, when proposing the Bill Vwhich should establish revising barristers ithe nominees of the Government, that ^this was analogous to the English system {where, he said, revising officera ai'e Appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who ds a niember of the Administration. That Jwas the hon. gentleman's declaration ; ^nd, he said, here the Government is ■going to appoint them. The hon. gentle- jman was, in two respect?, entirely wrong in that statement. In the first place, the jrevising officer in England is not the Revising officer the hon. gentleman pro- tooses to appoint ; he does not make the lists ; he revises them only. In the pecond place, the revising officer is not appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The revising officer for the county of jMiddlesex is appointed by the Lord Chief Jl ustice, who is not a political officer ; and tu the other constituencies the revisir ai ..ti-J'A^.f: ■ ill I ties ; and that the powers of action of municipal bodies, within their ntrrow sphere of executive woik busi- ness doa**, and of functions and privileges enjoyed, are of the greatest consequence, as educating the people in the general principles of representative government ; and in those restraints, mider constituted authorities, which are essential to the establishment of a Demo- cratic, and yet orderly and stable sjstem of Government, I say, then, that the privileges which the municipalities enjoy in England, of making the lists through their overseers and officers, are ancient and important privileges, and if the hon. gentleman defers to British practice, he had better follow it here. But the hon. gentleman says : Oh, I am making the revising officers entirely in- dependent ; they are to be kept in office ; they are not be dependent on the will of my Government. Of course not. First of all, he appoints them; they do their duty to his satisfaction ; they make the lists as he likes them to be made; they return members to support him ; and then they are not to be turned out by the Parliament. Do vou not think, Mr. Speaker, that the tenure of office will be just as secure without that provisi' n ? Is it at all likely that the Parliament they have made will turn them out '? Surely they will not be so ungrateful ; surely the Parliament will not allow the (ioverhment to turn them out, if they hold their office during these gentlemen's pleasure. This is a perversion, a total misapplication of the supposed benefits of an independent tenure of office. For the discharge of a duty, the most delicate in the world, that of establishing the lists by which it is to be decided whether the Government are to continue in power or not, the Government takes the power of selecting the men, and undoubtedly they will select safe men ; and if any of these do not do the work tilectively, and the Government continue in office, the House of Commons will turn them out, but not otherwise. The hon. gentleman's Bill is worse than his old Bill. His former Bill provided for the making of lists by three mer,, whom he was to nominate, but those lists Were to be revised by the county and district judges ; after the first making of the lists the Government nominees had no more to do with them for all time. All future dealings with the lists were to be in the hands of judicial officers. His present proposal, however, is to put thete revising lists into the hands of his own nominees for all time. He is, in fact, proposing a scheme by which he can take control of the polls. The lists are to be made right for the Conservatives, and the Reformers will have to fight against them. The Secretary of State said that the lists could not be got form the local officers, because we cannot command theirservices. But we can v-ommand their services ; we can command the services of every citizen of this country, whether he be a local officer or not, to do things which are within our jurisdiction as the Fedei'al Parliampnt. We do so in the case of sheriffs and oiher officers. We have got rid of that doctrine, used by the right hon. gentleman many times in early days, that we could not foi'ce judgos and other persons to dis- charge duties we order them to discharge ; we can force any citizen of Canada, we can force any local or municipal officer, to discharge that duty which it is within our province to impose upon him, in that the country may be well governed. The munu ^-al councils do not make the franchise, says the Secretary of State. No ; but the local officers decide, in the first instance, who, under the laws, are entitled to the franchise That is the- course here and i •. England ; and, on the whole, it is the most satisfactory course. The judges, he says, are not more inde- pendent than the revising officers, because they are paid by the Government, and erjually obnoxious because they are appointed by the Government. But are they appointed for this purpose I No ; they are appointed to dispense justice. Their whole character, their standing in the community, their instincts, their lives spent in the dispensation of justice— all these are against the su^o& 80 •tion, and you cannot, you must not iaapjKwe, that they will, when they are ^ealled upon as judges to discharge this tparticular daty, depart from their ordi- )nary rule of life, and degrade themselves jia the eyes of those for whom they are Jacting by acting unjusMy. There is, however, no such safe guard in the case Jof the r^'vising oflBoers, who will be 'selected as political men for a political Jand pai ticular purpose. But, says the 'St<;ret list to be revised by the revising barrister, and he says, we will only use this power where we must. But he may consider one of the cases of necessity (o be the necwhsity of making a list right. That has always been the f>olicy of the hon. First Minister. Ho took to himself the uominati n of the returning officers ; he took hold of the days of election ; he declined to have one day of election, and insist d on having the day of election accordi'g to his will, so that he might tijc them in the way he thought would best help himself anl damage his adversariep ; he insisted that the co'nmittees of Parliament should decide cases of contested elections. In the two latter instances ho was ultimately forced to jield, after a violent and protracted agitation and a decided ex- pression of public opinion. He was forced to give up tlte days of election and the 31 electioa court-*, but nob until we had from him many spcechea, sayincf that it wan most monstk'ous to have the elections on the one day, and outrag - CUB to have them decided by the judges of the land. When, how- ever, it was impossible for him to resist public opinion longer, he yielded to it, and I believe he claims credit for the legislaiiou in these two instances. With reference to the returning officers, he took possession of them, and when my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Mac- kenzie) came in, he restored the provision,' the provision which, according to thu hon. gentleman's view, might woik fairly in in some casps, where the Local Govern- ment was Liberal, but would work ad- versely in others. Take ttte Pioviuce of Quebec, which, at the time ny hon. friend from East York restored the pro- vision, was Conservative. Take the Pro- vince of New Brunswick, which was Conservative, and so on. Y« u find it worked both ways, if it worked at alL My hon. friend restoied it, and there was no complaint ther. Why, I remem^)er an hon. member then, who now occupies a place at the table, complaining across the House, when I was Minis- ter of Justice, because, the law being so, that thert' was a ch')iee between registrar and sheriff, I had not chosen the sheriff, bub th registrar. He Siid I ought to have chosen the sheriff, because he was first. The fact was, the sheriff was the brother of the candidate, and I gave that as a reason ; but, when they were in Op|>osition, they thought it dreadful to Tise the law to that extent that, when there was a choice between the two officers, we sL nild choose the second of the two and should not choose the fiist one, though he was a brother of the candidate. Tliey were so strict then, in regard to the matter, and, having taken ail the benefit of my hon. friend's change when they returned to office they took hold of the ret'.rning officers again and they no v appoint them all. The hon gentleman tojk the money of the public contractors in 1872, and subsequently, when he got bac*< here in lh<82, he took the electoral districts, and now he is takin : the voters' lists. His efforts have been to secure and retain and increase a majority by the use of these powers, powers which ought not to be in the hands of Governmeuts, iu the great contest between the two ix)li- tical parties as to which has the major ty of public opinion; powers which ought, as far as passibie, to be kept out of the hands of Governme ts, wliich, being human, are liable to misuse them. Well, the hon. gentleman may succeed in pro- curing the passage of this clause, as to the ajipointment of revising offi -ers, which he did not say anythmg about, which he did not intimate might be con- sidered an open question, so that any of his supporters who lelt they could not conscientiously accept a revising officer of their own nomination might be free to vote against it. Ht did not make this an open question, and he has not defended it as yet. He may su< ceed in carrying it ; but, at- he has f < om time to time found that many of these efforts to obtain control h tvefrtiled,though many of them hx\e succeeded, I hope and tru t that ths eff at, even if success- ful here, will be I ss successful else- where; that a sprit of fair play and justice will be dominant through the land; that the people at la' ge will 8ay thxt the hon. gentleman « ught to deal as he would be dealt by ; that they will say thi re ought to be a pure and equitable and honest system of making the lists, and that he will not derive at any rate, all the advantage from this disposition which, in his secret heart, h6 hope-* to obtain.