consent. and an influential member who might be dissatisfied with what was being done in his own Province might make an amendment to the Constitution the price of his support. In Quebec there were peculiar ities in the law relating to property and civil rights. Would the members from that Province be satisfied if this Parliament were to say it was inconvenient that Quebec should have such laws, and should proceed to legislate them away? Would Quebec be satisfied if that were done? There was no question of conscience involved in such a course, there was no serious agitation on the question in Quebec, and yet the Province would be very unwilling to surrender its rights in that respect. She would feel that she had no security for any of her local rights if these were taken away from her without her What right could Quebec put forward for the maintenance of these peculiar provisions that New Brunswick could not for hers. The British North America Act favors the Catholic population. It provides that any Province having separate schools before confederation should have them for all time, and also that any Province not having them at the time of the union, but conceding them at any future time shall concede them as a right which can never be taken away. Did any one believe that Parliamentary Government could be carried on for many years in New Brunswick and the Catholic population fail to carry their point? And if they should once succeed in securing what they desired, they would possess those rights and privileges for all time. All they required to do was to exercise patience and forbearance until the proper time, and their triumph would come. CHARLES LAMB, on one occasion, said "it is an expensive business to burn down your house to cook your dinner," and he (Mr. MILLS) thought it was a serious business to destroy the local independence of one Province, which would destroy the independence of all, in order to carry out some measure that was thought to be just and fair. The hon. member for Victoria would see from the despatches from the other side of the Atlantic that, even if he carried his resolution the Imperial Government would not consent, without the sanction, of New Brunswick, to take away any of the rights of legislation which she possessed. He Mr. Mills. did not see what the hon. gentleman had to gain by bringing forward his motion here. As a matter of constitutional right we had no power to legislate upon this subject. The line which separated the powers of the Local Legislatures from those of the Parliament of Canada, was as distinct as if it was a geographical boundary marked out by the surveyor; and when the hon. gentleman came here and asked them to change the Constitution of New Brunswick, he was asking them to exercise the right of the stronger against the weaker party, he was asking them to do towards New Brunswick what he said the people of New Brunswick had done towards the Catholic population of that Province. Now, if the gentlemen who were favorable to this proposition persisted in it, he (Mr. MILLS) could tell them where, in his opinion, it would end. It would end by resuscitating the agitation and discussion upon the question of sectarian schools throughout the whole Dominion; it would end by a demand for the transfer of the subject of education from the Local Legislatures to the Parliament of Canada; it would end by a demand to take away from the Province of Quebec those rights of nationality which he was as anxious as any one they should retain. The line between those parts of the constitution which this House might fairly ask the Imperial Parliament to alter and those which the Local Legislatures might ask for amendment, so far as they could not amend themselves, was perfectly clear. What affected our own powers of legislation, excepting those principles of representation by population which the Constitution established, rested with the Paťliament of Canada; what affected the functions, and powers, and authority of the Local Legislatures, rested with them. Where the Constitution itself put them we had better in this instance allow them to remain. Mr. THOMSON (Welland) said he rose for the purpose of explaining the vote he was about to give. His political creed had always been Provincial Sovereignty. He had given a good deal of study to the history of the United States during the last 30 or 10 years, and that had led him to the belief that the only safety for the perpetuation of the institutions of the United States was State Sovereignty. When Confederation was thought of in would be one of the means of building up our nationality. On the contrary, he believed that nothing would be more likely to break up the Confederation than just such action as was proposed. In his judgement this Parliament had no right even to discuss this question, and its discussion even so far would be productive of great injury to the minority in New Brunswick. It would show to the majority there that there was a feeling in this House not to abide by the compact that had been solemnly entered into by the Provinces and that some of the members were anxious to break it up. The result of this would be to still further excite the illfeeling that unfortunately prevailed in New Brunswick. Reference had been made to the resolution of the member for Bothwell respecting the Senate, but the two cases were clearly distinct. This Parliament undoubtedly had a right to deal with its own constitution, but it had no right to interfere with the exclusive rights of the Local Legislatures. this country he held, and defended the doctrine in Upper Canada, that the Provinces should be jealous of their rights, and should never allow the Dominion Parliament to legislate in any matter for the Province that the Province could do for themselves. The result now before the House struck a blow at the very root of that doctrine. To his mind there was no religious question involved in it. He had no objection to the Catholics of New Brunswick, or of any other Province, having separate schools if they chose, but he would vote against the resolution on the principle of the independance of the Provinces to which he had just adverted. | Mr. SINCLAIR said the question was a very serious one and deserved careful consideration. The member for Halifax had told us to "do to others as we wished others to do to us." We could not go astray in following that golden rule, and he would like to ask the people from the other Provinces how they would like their Provinces to be dealt with by this House as it was proposed New Brunswick should be dealt with. It was not merely that such a course would be interfering with a matter which belonged to the Provinces, but it would be dealing with a matter which was expressly excluded by our Constitution from the control of the Dominion Parliament. In spite of that a motion was now brought forward to compel New Brunswick to grant the liberty of establishing schools. The feeling was bad enough in New Brunswick already, and the discussion of this question here would Mr. PALMER said that as a memonly make it worse. Hon. members ber from New Brunswick, he could would find that if they did not allow New not allow the resolution to go to Brunswick the privileges she enjoyed on the vote without expressing his views. coming into the Union, it would soon be upon it. He admitted that this House found that she was not going to remain in had already affirmed the principle of inthe Union. It would be better to leave terference with the Constitution, which this question to be settled by the people of afforded a sufficient reason for his hon. New Brunswick. Was it doing to others friend from Victoria bringing forward this what we would that others should do to resolution, although he (Mr. PALMER) did us, to take away from New Brunswick his best at the time to prevent the House those rights which, on entering Confedera- affirming such a principle. He still held tion, she believed were forever guaranteed the opinion that the House was wrong in to her. They had very much the same taking that action. It was a misfortune question raised in Prince Edward Island, for both sides in New Brunswick, because and he knew how the feeling would be it could not be denied that this question there if the Dominion Parliament under- had been turned into one of hostility. It took to interfere with the legislation of was almost a pity that the question could that Island on this subject. It had been not be c'ealt with by this House, because stated in the course of this debate that for after the expression of the sentiments of this Parliament to deal with this question patriotism and liberty which he had Mr. Thompson. EE Mr. CURRIER said that whether this question ought to be discussed in this House or not, it was now before them and they would have to vote upon it one way or the other. For his own part he would vote for the resolution for the reason that he would not be so bigoted as to say that he would not grant to the Roman Catholics of New Brunswick the same privileges and laws that the Protestant minority in Quebec and the Roman Catholic minority in Ontario, enjoyed. a House of Commons elected in the manner the Confederation Act pointed out. But if his hon. friend from Bothwell was right, what was there to hinder this Parliament from saying that the House of Commons should be nominated instead of elected. He held, therefore, that even with regard to that part of the constitution, this Parliament had no right to seek the alteration of the constitution without the consent of the Local Legislatures who were the parties to the original compact. The hon. member for Montreal Centre had appealed with a great deal of eloquence and force for justice the to the Roman Catholic of New Brunswick. He (Mr. PALMER) would be prepared to discuss that question at the proper time and on a proper occasion, but this was not a proper form for such a discussion. The hon. member had asked if the constitution was so sacred that it could not be touched. No, it was not; but it was so sacred that it could not be touched except by the same power that created it. If his hon. friend would advocate the removal from the Local Legislature to this Parliament of the subject of education by the same mode that our present constitution was created, he (Mr. PALMER) was not prepared to say that he would not support him, but when he asked this Parliament to apply to the Imperial Parliament for a change in the constitution on a subject unquestionably within the powers of Local Legislatures, he must differ from him. It was true the hon. member for Montreal Centre held that the majority in the Province acted wrongly, but who was to decide that, and were not the rights of the majority to be considered? For his part, when the subject came before the proper forum, he would be prepared to deal fairly by the minority, for it was in the interest of both the majority and the minority that this question should be settled. But when you throw into the scale against the Catholics of New Brunswick, in addition to the fact of their minority, the fact that they asked to take away from the majority of the Province what the Constitution had clearly given them, did not his hon. friends see that they put an immense power into the hands of persons who seek to oppress the Catholics. They would say, here is the minority going to the Dominion Parliament and asking to take away from us the rights secured to us by the Constitution, when they might as well go to the United States, heard in the House to-day, this House so far as any power was concerned. Any one could see what an immense power such a course placed in the hands of those who wished to deprive the Roman Catholics of the Province of the rights they demanded. For the same reason it was to be regretted that this discussion had been brought up here at all, because it would create an impression in his Province, that there was a desire on the part of many members to override the Local Legislature. No matter whether the Local Legislature had acted rightly or wrongly, this Parliament had no right to interfere. This House might as well deplore the state of education in Spain, and discuss some means for improving it, because they had as much power in the one case as in the other to deal with the subject. The hon. member for Montreal Centre had spoken of a higher law, but on a question as to the respective rights of the Federal and the Local Legislatures there was no higher law than the Confederation Act. Supposing the question of education was to be dealt with by this Parliament, New Brunswick would still take the same position, for in the recent local elections out of forty-one members only four were in favor of a repeal of the School Act. If the question were admitted to this Parliament, there would be no improvement in the result. Instead of men of broad and moderate views being sent to represent the people in Parliament, men would be elected who would be imbued with strong prejudices on both sides. He commended the hon. member for Victoria for the dispassionate yet able manner in which he had discussed the question, but he (Mr. PALMER) declared that any one who introduces this subject in the Dominion elec. tions in New Brunswick was acting the part of a demagogue, knowing as they all must know, that this Parliament had no right to interfere. He strongly approved of the resolution of which notice was given by the hon. member for South Bruce, and expressed his willingness to second it. He was glad that the hon. gentleman had came forward with such a resolution, for it appeared to him at the beginning that he (Mr. BLAKE) entirely concurred with the view of the Catholics and the hon. member for Victoria. He thought it would be somewhat difficult for the hon. member for South Bruce, how Mr Palmer. ever, to reconcile his views as expressed in that resolution with the views he had expressed and the vote he gave in 1872. Hon. Mr. BLAKE said his views on the subject were not changed. Any Mr. PALMER said he apprehended that it was the duty of every member of this House to treat the question in such a way as to allay the feeling that existed or the subject. Whatever came within the power of this Parliament, it became them to treat calmly and dispassionately. The harmony of this Dominion, and the future working of the constitution depended on the strict observance of the powers eonferred on each legislative body. attempt to go further must surely result in a collision. Supposing that these grievances did exist, and the Imperial authorities attempted to repeal the law, he held that New Brunswick not having exceeded the power conferred on her by the constitution, was entirely relieved from the terms upon which she entered this Confederation. Everything depended upon the agreement under which Confederation was entered into. It was a great misfortune that there was no mode under the constitution by which it could be amended. All that was required to a change in the constitution was the consent of the power that made it. But nothing short of that would avail. The bargain might be a bad one, but if so all that could be said was that it was a misfortune for the Dominion. While, however, he took this ground, with reference to the law, he felt his mouth was closed. With the Catholic minority it was a matter of conscience that they should have religious instruction imparted along with secular education. On the other hand, it was a matter of conscience with Protestants that no part of their money should be expended for the indoctrination of religious dogmas hostile to their own views. therefore impossible to make any law on the subject of education, by which one party or the other would not consider their consciences violated. He wished that they had remained, in New Brunswick, as they were previous to 1858, up to which time they had no school law at all, and no difficulty about their education. Since then the spirit of religious fanaticism had been abroad, and a state of things existed which was to be deplored, and It was which every man who had the interests of his country at heart would like to see allayed. Take what action the House might, either one party or the other would feel deeply aggrieved. However much the school system of New Brunswick might be opposed to the ideas of the Roman Catholics, it could not be said of it that any particular religious education was authorized by it. The principle upon which it was founded was a very fair one in theory, but in practice according to the peculiar views of the Roman Catholics, it might not be fair. In point of law at least the majority of the people in New Brunswick were right. Their views had been upheld by the Privy Council when appealed to, and this Parliament could neither alter the law nor amend it. He regretted this, because he believed if it were in the power of this Parliament to deal with the subject, a satisfactory settlement would soon be arrived at. He denied that better terms had been granted to New Brunswick as one hon. gentleman stated. What was granted to her was mere compensation for means of local revenue taken away in consequence of the Washington Treaty. He did not consider it necessary upon this occasion to set forth his personal views with reference to the law itself; nor was it necessary for him to state what course he would have thought it just to pursue had the question been within the jurisdiction of Parliament. There was no doubt however that it was beyond the jurisdiction of this House, and that point being settled, he refused to enter into further discussion. Mr. DYMOND said there was no reasonable prospect that a vote could be come to upon this question to-night. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. ORTON said they had heard a great deal of talk on the constitutional question, notably from the hon. inember for Bothwell, but his expressions of opinion sounded rather strangely in view of his action of but a few days ago. Nevertheless the constitutional question was well worthy the consideration of the House. When a great public wrong existed, and when a deep feeling of indignation prevailed regarding it, even our constitution might be approached with a view to its amendment. We could at least petition HER MAJESTY with reference to questions of that character. There had been attacks on our Mr. Palmer. Constitution latterly, but there had been no public clamor for them, and no grievance had been felt which they proposed to remove. With regard to the separate school question, it had been fully discussed and he thought that in Ontario and Quebec we had came to the conclusion that separate schools were for the public good. It was not in the interests of the public that the country should have a renewal of the former struggles on this question. It would be a sorry day for Canada when the demon of religious strife was again raised and for that reason Parliament should adopt the motion of the hon. member for Victoria with a view to the settlement of the New Brunswick school difficulty. Both from a patriotic and a Christian point of view it was desirable that this question which agitated the evil passions of men should be disposed of. The motion for adjournment was carried. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE moved the adjournment of the House. The House adjourned at 11.20. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, 9th March, 1875. The SPEAKER took the chair at three P.M. NEW BRUNSWICK SCHOOL QUESTION. Hon. Mr. BLAKE desired to call atten tion to what occurred at the close of the debate yesterday. When he made the suggestion he did last night, he was under the impression that the result of the adjournment of the debate would be that the motion of the hon. member for Victoria would take its place high up on the. orders. He had since been informed that that result only took place when the adjournment of the debate was caused by the adjournment of the House. He would therefore move, in the absence of the hon. member for Victoria, that the said motion stand first upon the public orders for to-morrow. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said there was scarcely any necessity for this motion, as there was an understanding that the question would be taken up immediately after private Bills. Mr. MASSON hoped the motion would |