Federal Union. And I am strong in the belief-that we have hit upon the happy medium in those resolutions, and that we have formed a scheme of government which unites the advantages of both, giving us the strength of a legislative union and the sectional freedom of a federal union, with protection to local interests. In doing so we had the advantage of the experience of the United States. It is the fashion now to enlarge on the defects of the Constitution of the United States, but I am not one of those who look upon it as a failure. I think and believe that it is one of the most skilful works which human intelligence ever created; it is one of the most perfect organizations that ever governed a free people. To say that it has some defects is but to say that it is not the work of Omniscience, but of human intellects. We are happily situated in having had the opportunity of watching its operation, seeing its working from its infancy till now. It was in the main formed on the model of the Constitution of Great Britain, adapted to the circumstances of a new country, and was perhaps the only practicable system that could have been adopted under the circumstances existing at the time of its formation. We can now take advantage of the experience of the last seventy-eight years, during which that Constitution has existed, and I am strongly of the belief that we have, in a great measure, avoided in this system which we propose for the adoption of the people of Canada, the defects which time and events have shown to exist in the American Constitution.

In the first place, by a resolution which meets with the universal approval of the people of this country, we have provided that for all time to come, so far as we can legislate for the future, we shall have as the head of the executive power, the Sovereign of Great Britain. No one can look into futurity and say what will be the destiny of this country. Changes come over nations and peoples in the course of ages. we can legislate, we provide that, for all time to come, the Sovereign of Great Britain shall be the Sovereign of British North America. By adhering to the monarchical principle, we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the President by a majority and for a short period, he never is the sovereign and chief of the nation.

But, so far as

He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practice of re-election. During his first term of office, he is employed in taking steps to secure his own re-election, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle-the Sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized, so that we shall have a Sovereign who is placed above the region of party-to whom all parties look up -who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another, who is the common head and sovereign of all.

In the Constitution we propose to continue the system of Responsible Government, which has existed in this province since 1841, and which has long obtained in the Mother Country. This is a feature of our Constitution as we have it now, and as we shall have it in the Federation, in which, I think, we avoid one of the great defects in the Constitution of the United States. There the President, during his term of office, is in a great measure a despot, a one-man power, with the command of the naval and military forces-with an immense amount of patronage as head of the Executive, and with the veto power as a branch of the legislature, perfectly uncontrolled by responsible advisers, his cabinet being departmental officers merely, whom he is not obliged by the Constitution to consult with, unless he chooses to do so. With us the Sovereign, or in this country the Representative of the Sovereign, can act only on the advice of his ministers, those ministers being responsible to the people through Parliament.

Prior to the formation of the American Union, as we all know, the different states which entered into it were separate colonies. They had no connexion with each other further than that of having a common Sovereign, just as with us at present. Their Constitutions and their laws were different. They might and did legislate against each other, and when they revolted against the Mother Country they acted as separate sovereignties, and carried on the war by a kind of treaty of alliance against the common enemy. Ever since the union was formed the

difficulty of what is called "State Rights" has existed, and this had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the United States. They commenced, in fact, at the wrong end. They declared by their Constitution that each state was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belonged to each State, except those powers which, by the Constitution, were conferred upon the General Government and Congress. Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the General Government. We have given the General Legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the General Government and Legislature. We have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of the United States.

I believe that, while England has no desire to lose her colonies, but wishes to retain them, while I am satisfied that the public mind of England would deeply regret the loss of these provinces-yet, if the people of British North America after full deliberation had stated that they considered it was for their interest, for the advantage of the future of British North America to sever the tie, such is the generosity of the people of England, that, whatever their desire to keep these colonies, they would not seek to compel us to remain unwilling subjects of the British Crown. If therefore, at the Conference, we had arrived at the conclusion, that it was for the interest of these provinces that a severance should take place, I am sure that Her Majesty and the Imperial Parliament would have sanctioned that severance. We accordingly felt that there was a propriety in giving a distinct declaration of opinion on that point, and that, in framing the Constitution, its first sentence should declare, that "The Executive authority or government shall be vested in the Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the well understood principles of the British Constitution, by the Sovereign personally, or by the Representative of the Sovereign duly authorized."

SPEECH OF THE EARL OF CARNARVON, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES, IN INTRODUCING THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL. 19 FEBRUARY, 1867.

[Hansard's "Parliamentary Debates," 3rd series, vol. 185 (1867), cols. 557-576b.]

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Tuesday, February 19, 1867.

British North America Bill.

SECOND READING.

The Earl of Carnarvon :

This Bill embraces only the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, of Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. The time, indeed, will come before long, I cannot doubt, when Newfoundland and Prince Edward's Island will gravitate towards the common centre of this Confederation. Every consideration of policy and interest will lead them towards this conclusion. The time also is not distant when the broad and fertile districts towards the west of Canada, now under the rule of a trading Company, will form part of the Confederation-perhaps it is not very far distant when even British Columbia and Vancouver's Island may be incorporated, and one single system of English law and commerce and policy extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. . .

I come now to the Legislature which it is proposed to create under this Bill. It is two-fold-a Central Parliament and Local Legislatures in each Province. I will deal with the Central Parliament first. It will be composed of two Chambers-an Upper Chamber, to be styled the Senate, and a Lower Chamber, to be termed, in affectionate remembrance of some of the best and noblest traditions of English history, the House of Commons. Of all problems to be solved in the creation of a Colonial Constitution, none is more difficult than the composition of an Upper House. . . . There are, in my opinion, two broad principles to be kept in view in the creation of a Colonial Chamber: first, that it should be strong enough to maintain its own opinion, and to resist the sudden gusts of popular feeling; secondly, that it should not be so strong that it should be impenetrable to public

sentiment, and therefore out of harmony with the other branch of the Legislature. These are conditions difficult under the most favourable circumstances to secure; but they are complicated in this instance by a third, which has been made a fundamental principle of the measure by the several contracting parties, and the object of which is to provide for a permanent representation and protection of sectional interests. I will briefly explain how far these three considerations appear to me to have been met in this Bill. The Senate will consist of seventy-two Members, the four Provinces being for this purpose divided into three sections, of which Upper Canada will be one, Lower Canada one, and the Maritime Provinces one. From each of these three sections an equal number of twenty-four Members will be returned. They will be nominated by the Governor General in Council for life. But as it is obvious that the principle of life nomination, combined with a fixed number of Members, might render a difference of opinion between the two Houses a question almost insoluble under many years, and might bring about what is popularly known as a Legislative dead-lock, a power is conferred upon the Crown-a power, I need not say, that would only be exercised under exceptional and very grave circumstances-to add six Members to the Senate, subject to a restriction that those six Members shall be taken equally from the three sections, so as in no way to disturb their relative strength, and that the next vacancies shall not be filled up until the Senate is reduced to its normal number. It may, perhaps, be said that the addition of six Members will be insufficient to obviate the Legislative discord against which we desire to provide. I am free to confess that I could have wished that the margin had been broader. At the same time, the average vacancies which have of recent years occurred in the nominated portion of the present Legislative Council of Canada, go far to show that, even in the ordinary course of events, the succession of Members will be rapid. . . .

I now come to the constitution of the House of Commons. The principle upon which the Senate is constructed is, as I have explained, the representation and the protection of sectional interests. The principle upon which the House of Commons is founded is that of a representation in accordance with population.