was formed, it was essentially necessary to the success of that Government that he should support the gentleman who especially enjoyed the confidence of the people of Lower Canada-he referred to the late Judge Moran-who enjoyed the respect of every one who knew him. There was a very strong feeling in Lower Canada in favor of an elective Legislative Council. Mr. Moran insisted that the principle of an elective Legislative Council should be adopted, and it was with the greatest reluctance that he (Sir Francis Hincks) gave way on that point His old friend, Mr. Baldwin had opposed the principle of an elective Legislative Council. He (Sir F.) had not so strong an opinion, and as other matters of importance were carried out, and concessions made to the Reformers of Upper Canada, at that time, it was considered that the mea-sure for an elective Legislative Council should be brought forward. He had always thought that there was great danger of collision where there were two elec. tive bodies. He hoped the hon. gentleman would withdraw his motion. He was glad of this opportunity to explain his action with a Government of which he was a member, and which proposed to make the Legislative Council elective. At that time he yielded his own opinions with reluctance to opinions which were then entertained by all his colleagues from Lower Canada. Hon. JOS HOWE-In reply to the hon. member for Halifax, said that when that old manifesto was written he believed every word of it, and he was of opinion that the larger number of the representa tives of the Province of Nova Scotia chosen at Confederation did not at that time share the opinions of a majority of the peo. ple. With regard to those gentlemen he had had influence in appointing to the Senate the first vacancy was offered to Mr. Wm. Stairs, brother in-law of the hon. member for Halifax, one of the wealthiest and most liberal minded men in the Province. He regretted that Mr. Stairs had not accepted, as he was chairman of the anti-Confederate League, and had the confidence of the people. Mr. Northrup was next offered a seat in the Senate, and declined, but subsequently accepted another vacancy. He presumed that Mr. Northrup could have got any one of half a dozen seats in Nova Scotia. His father had for thirty years been one of his, (Mr. Howe's) warmest personal and political friends, and by his side, aided by his whole family, had fought the battle of civil and religious liberty and of respon. sible government, long before the mem. ber for Halifax had been heard of as a public man. As to Senator Northrup, when selected, he represented the Metropolitan County of Halifax, and might, had he chosen, have represented Hants long ago: Next came Mr. McLellan, whose father for twenty years represented a constituency of Nova Scotia, advocating all improvements and reforms, and when the old man died young McLellan inherited his father's position, his talents and part of his wealth. The member for Halifax had said that he could not be elected for Colchester, whereas, when selected he represented that county, and after his elevation the county was triumphantly carried in spite of the exertions of Mr. Jones and his friends, Hon. Dr. TUPPER felt it his duty to repel the unjust and unfounded imputa tions cast by the honorable member for the County of Halifax upon a body of gentlemen than whom, he was bound to say, their superiors did not sit in either branch of this Legislature. The hon. gen. tleman had undertaken to say that gentle. men who were recommended for the Senate by the Government of Nova Scoiia of which he (Dr. Tupper) had the honor to be the head, obtaiued those positions in a minner undeserving the high positions to which they were called. The honourable member knew that when the leader of the liberal Opposition in the Lower House in Nova Scotia, following the dignified and exalted example which had been set them by the two great parties in old Canada, joined hands with him (Dr. Tupper) in endeavouring to accomplish the great question of the Union of the Provinces, he (Dr. Tupper) adopted the same course in reference to the party with which they were connected as the first Minister of the Crown had stated he felt bound to adopt with regard to the great liberal party of Canada. When the Senate was chosen, the first thing done was to tender the twelve seats at the disposal of Nova Scotia to twelve members of the Legislative Council. He would ask the hon. member how he dared utter the imputation in this House that he [Dr. Tupper] carried the union in the Legislature of Nova Scotia by the corrupt means which he had insinuated, while he was able to rise in his seat and say that of the two thirds majority that carried that measure in Nova Scotia in the public assembly, not a man was offered a seat in the Senate, until all the twelve seats had been tendered to the members of the Legislative Council. Eight were accepted by those gentlemen, six of these at the nomination of the Liberal party. The hon. gentleman has stated that these [men were unworthy of of the high position. Would he state to this House in the hearing of the gentle men in the Senate, that Sir Edward Kenny was unworthy of his position? He [Sir Edward] was an Irish Roman Catholic, who by his industry, talent, and his manly conduct in every position in life, had raised himself to the position of one of the first merchants in the Province. He was a gentleman who commanded the undivided respect and confidence of men of all classes. He had filled the high and honourable position of President of the Legislative Council, for a long series of years, in Nova Scotia, and when called to the senate it was felt by all that no man in the length and breadth of Nova Scotia was more deserving. John H. Anderson was another Senator who had done credit to himself and country. After long and laborious service in the Legislature, and having attained a position as one of the first merchants in the country, he went down to his grave honoured and respected by all. He was another of the gentlemen upon whose memory this disgraceful and uncalled for imputation was now cast by the member for Halifax. The Hon. T. D. Archibald again was one of the foremost men in the country. A gentle man who dignified the seat which he filled, who had held not only a seat in the Legis. lative Council, but who had been honored by the confidence of a large majority of the people of the country, and had occupied the position of an Executive Councillor. Mr. Weir had also passed away. He was, as the honorable gentleman knew, one of the most enterprising merchants that Nova Scotia ever had, and had represented several constituencies in the Province. And yet this gentleman who had received the confidence of county after county, and who had been held in high estimation by all classes must also have his memory vilified as far as it was in the power of the hon. orable member for Halifax to do so. Mr. Miller was another. He was a Roman Catholic gentleman, second to no man of his creed and class in Nova Scotia in point of talent. He possessed the confidence of the country, and the imputation that he purchased his seat in the Senate by the support that he gave to Confederation was as unfounded a statement as ever passed the mouth of man. He (Mr. Miller), representing one of the constituencies of Nova Scotia, came forward in the interests of his country, and avowed in a manly manner that he was himself convinced that the great measure which it is now known involved the prosperity of the whole Dominion was worthy of his support, and he gave that support without the slightest inducement of any kind. Of all these gentlemen called to the Senate there was not one of them but who had enjoyed the confidence of constituencies in Nova Scotia, except Sir Edward Kenny, Mr. Dickey, and Mr. Archibald. He would not pursue the subject any further, but would merely say that the insinuations of the hon. member were entirely undeserved, and unworthy of him and the occasion. The hon, member for Bothwell had stated to the House that in Canada, where it had been tried, the elective system for the Upper House had been perfectly successful. He would ask the House if it had no significance that the men, not of one party, but of all parties, who met together at the Quebec Conference, and who had sat down and given full consideration to the best system for the Government of the Country-men who had tried the elective system-should have resolved to go back to the nominative system? The honorable gentleman said that the people would have condemned that choice, but he gave no evidence of that. He knew that the men who framed this scheme were sustained by popular sentiment in this country at the elections which followed. The press of the country was silent on the point, and with such evidence as this we had a right to believe, until there was something more than a mere philosophical expression of sentiment to the contrary, that the system adopted was a wise one and in accordance with the wishes of the people. The honorable gentleman had expressed fears that the Senate would become too independent, and that as the Government could not increase their number they would get beyond control, and that the Government would not be able to get a majority in the Senate. He (Dr. Tupper) thought that this result would be more likely to follow the adoption of the elective system when there would be two bodies chosen by the people, with co-ordinate powers, drawing their power from the people directly, and claiming the same privi lege in reference to the initiation of money votes. He concurred with the hon. member for Lambton, that after the discussion which had taken place the wisest course would be to withdraw the resolution, and not bring it forward again until there was some indication that the public sentiment of the country desired it. The people would shortly have an opportunity of saying whether this impor. tant function of the Crown had been entrusted to safe hands or not. Hon. Mr. MoDOUGALL asked what evidence had been adduced to shew that a change of constitution was desired by the people. He thought that ought to be the first consideration. He thought the constitution had been a success, and was not aware that any part of the country desired a change. When the Quebec convention had been held he had advocated an in elective principle the Upper House, but the decision of the large majority of the delegates was against that view, and in favor of the nominative principle; and the great advocate of that principle on that occasion was the political leader of the Opposition. He was not disposed to make a change until the constitution had had a fair trial and until it was shewn that the Senate was an obstruction. Every man who wished well to his country would uphold the constitution. The Federal principle should be restrained and kept within proper bounds and the Dominion House should represent the whole country, standing together, passing laws for the benefit of the whole country. He thought these theoretical questions should not be raised while there were so many practical matters to be dealt with. Mr. MILLS was quite as sincere in his convictions and his desire for the public good as anyone. He believed that though the Quebec Convention decided in favor of the nominative principle, the people at large held a different opinion. It had been said that no change should be made until the necessity arose, as was the case in England. Canada and England, however, were infvery different positions. The constitution of Canada had not grown gradually and naturally as that of England had, and he thought it was not wise to wait for some calamity before making a change. Was there any propriety in giv ing a Province a number of representa. tives in the Senate to protect the interests of that Province, and yet placing the ap pointment of those representatives in the the hands of the Government, which might be in antagonism with that Province ? Hon. gentlemen opposite had upheld the high standing of the Senate, and yet in the beginning they had been compelled to come to the House of Commons for a Speaker. Why should the Speaker of the Senate be appointed by the Crown, while the Commons appointed their own Speaker. In the framing of the constitution, that of England had been copied instead of being adapted to the different circumstances of Canada. He referred to the Speech of the member for Lanark at Hamilton which had been stated to be in favour of Annexation. He believed that if ever there were a change it would be in the direction of a closer change with the Mother Country, and that a state of inde pendence under the circumstances would be the weakest possible position. If the member for Lanark could talk on such an agitating subject, why should not he [Mr. Mills] advocate a constitutional change which he believed would be a great benefit to the country. He withdrew his resolution. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE referred to his statement respecting the Government having outraged the Constitution, and he now desired to state his reason for that remark, about which the Minister of Justice, not now in the House, had taken him to task. He stated that two sessions ago Government had appointed Mr. McLennan to the Senate, so that he might retain a salary of $3,000 as Intercolonial Railway Commissioner, and that the Constitution was outraged and the priviliges of the Senate violated by the appontment. It was with great pain that the occurrences of the last few years had compelled him to modify his opinions. He referred to the speech of the Hon. Mr. Dunkin at Quebec pointing to some other mode of appointments to the Senate than that now in force and stated that he still believed the two Houses should be constituted differently, and only modified that opinion because Government had not properly carried the theory into prac tice. He maintained that so far from the people being altogether in favor of the nominative principle, he had found, in the course of his numerous meetings at the time of Confederation that they were very generally opposed to it. Hon. Mr. CHAUVEAU referred to the statement of the member for Lanark and denied that there had been any outrage in a simple appointment to the Senate. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said that it was never intended that the Senate should be for placemen. Hon. Mr. CHAUVEAU said there was no law to prevent the appointment of place-holders to the Senate. Referring to the elective and nominative principles he said that it was generally agreed at the Convention that the rights of the people would be best protected by having the Upper Chamber nominated. He did not think the hon. member for Lambton had made out any ground for the grave charge he had brought against the Govern. ment. The motion was then withdrawn. Richard Martin, Barrister-at-Law, appeared at the Bar, and gave testimony to the effect of having served certain papers on the respondent at Suspension Bridge, N.Y. The petition of J. Robert Martin for an act of divorce from his wife was then read and referred to Committee on Stand. ing Orders and Private Bills. NARROW vs. BROAD GUAGE. Hon. Mr. BOTSFORD, in accordance with his notice of enquiry, then brought forward a large number of authorities to show the advantages that the country would derive from having the Intercolonial Railway constructed on the narrow instead of the broad guage. In the first place he stated that he deeply regretted that the Government of the day had not graciously yielded to the voice of the majority when this question was brought up in the Commons two years ago. He presumed he was not incorrect in stating that a majority were in favor of changing the guage for the line which had been adopted by the Government. The Government dealt with it as a Government measure and yet there was only a majority of two against a reduction of the guage, that too after a division in which some six or eight members of the Administration voted. It was an undoubted fact that a flood of light had been cast upon this subject of late years, and that the superior advantages of a narrow gauge had been proved beyond aispute. In this connection he referred to authorities which were entitled to the highest respect to the Commission ap. pointed to enquire into the merits of the famous Festining Railway. Gentlemen came from Russia, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, North Germany, and together with celebrated Engineers interested in English Railways met in Wales, and reported on the capabilities of the line; and the results of their examination were ali sec unanimously in favour of the work. The issue of this examination was, that the Government of India adopted a gauge of The Russian Gov. three feet five inches. ernment constructed their railways thenceforth on a gauge of three feet Norway and Sweden adopted the gauge of three feet six inches. There were railways running in France only twentynine inches in gauge-one in Prussia of thirty-one inches. Two of these lines in France were in private hands, and another under the control of the Government, and all had been eminently successful in point of economy of construction and management, while at the same time they fulfilled the requirements of the trade of the tion through which they passed. These gentlemen came to the conclusion that a gauge from 3 feet to 3 feet 3 was the wid est necessary to perform all the work on a railway. The authority of Capt Tyler was quoted to show the great rate of speed at which a line might be worked. The railway in question carried double the quan tity of traffic passing over the Grand Trunk, at a rate of 35 or 40 per cent. less for working the road and maintenance of way. He also read from authorities to show the smallness of cost in constructing the narrow gauge. It had been proved that the gauge of 2 feet 6 was enough for the heaviest traffic, and was the cheapest in point of working. On the ordinary broad gauge, the weight on the engine wheels and rolling stock was something between three and five tons, and the proportion of dead weight which the cars are obliged to carry is some 70 per cent. of the weight carried; but on the narrow gauge all this was reversed. Experience had proved that the extraordinary weight of engines and cars on broad gauge lines would in course of time crush any iron or steel rails. Great stress had been laid on the necessity of having railways of one gauge, but now-a-days mechanical appli. ances were arrived at such perfection that the cost of transfer from one car to another was comparatively little, and would be very insignificant when placed against the cost of a broad as compared with a narrow guage. It had been found, too, by experience that the curves on a line could be made much shorter; on the examination in question, a train eight hundred feet long, laden with minerals and passengers, was frequently running on three different curves at the same time. It was folly to construct a road on the broad principle in a new country, when the same amount of work might be done at a great saving of expenditure. In order, how ever, to arrive a correct conclusion with | Trunk line, Captain Tyler, at the same time, gave a very emphatic condemnation of the policy of the Canadian Government when he stated that the idea of employing the five feet guage for the whole length of the line, and through such a country was little short of madness." In conclusion the hon. gentleman stated that he had been always in favor of the narrow guage and was very anxious to see it adopted in this country. He was at no time opposed to the construction of the Intercolonial road; he had always thought that the northern Counties of New Brunswick were entitled to consideration, but he believed that the Government had adopted an en. tirely wrong principle with reference to its construction. The people of the North Shore of New Brunswick would themselves in the course of time awake to the consciousness that it would have been for their interest had the narrow gauge been adopted. He did not wish to throw any impediment in the way of the speedy completion of the line, but he certainly did desire to save a large amount of public money, which was being thrown away. He concluded by asking whether the Government still adhered to its decision of completing the Intercolonial Railway on the broad gauge, and if not, what width of gauge did it propose to adopt? Hon. Mr. CAMPBELL replied that he had not interrupted his hon. friend, but he had assuredly been out of order in offering such extended remarks, previous to making a mere enquiry of the Government. In making that reference he (Mr. C.) had no other wish except to call attention to the advisability of adhering strictly to those rules which are intended to facilitate the despatch of public business. The question of the hon. gentleman, however, could be very easily answered; the Government were compelled by law to construct--here he quoted from the Statute-the line on the gauge of five feet six inches. He did not propose to follow the hon. gentleman into a discussion of all the points he had raised, but he gather. ed from that hon. gentleman's remarks that they were founded to some extent on a misapprehension. For instance, Cap. tain Tyler was not arguing in favour of the Festiniog gauge, or for three feet six inches, but for four feet eight and a half inches. The idea of that gentleman was to construct the Intercolonial on that guage, and apply a large sum of money to alter the guage of the Grand Trunk Line; but hon. members knew full well how such a proposition would be met in this country. Now if his friend confined his remarks to |