The society, the civilization they were talking about, these theoreti-cians, was evidently theirs; they owned it, they liked it; they were human, fully human, bashing, sticking, thrusting, killing. Wanting to be human too, I sought for evidence that I was; but if that's what it took, to make a weapon and kill with it, then evidently I was either extremely defective as a human being, or not human at all. That's right, they said. What you are is a woman. Possibly not human at all, certainly defective. Now be quiet while we go on telling the Story of the Ascent of Man the Hero

UTILITARIANISM

Ammgeme/11.

waxedand waned

There is a profound disorientation.

Access to gender-responsive substance use disorder treatment services, especially for pregnant women

Overall, recovery studies suggest that subcategories of the recovery process exist. However, different units of analysis (e.g., individual versus group) or different types of groups (e.g., based on ethnicity or social class) may experience the phases of recovery at differing rates. Thus, patterns, phrases or cycles of recovery are not linear.

my proceedings in my days

Our under-standing of the gap is driven by technological exploration through artifact cre-ation and deployment, but HCI and CSCW systems need to have at their corea fundamental understanding of how people really work and live in groups, or-ganizations, communities, and other forms of collective life. Otherwise, wewill produce unusable systems, badly mechanizing and distorting collabora-tion and other social activity.

The gap is also CSCW’s unique contribution. CSCW exists intellectually atthe boundary and interaction of technology and social settings. Its unique intel-lectual importance is at the confluence of technology and the social, and its

Nonetheless, several guiding questions are required based on thesocial–technical gap and its role in any CSCW science of the artificial:• When can a computational system successfully ignore the need fornuance and context?• When can a computational system augment human activity withcomputer technologies suitably to make up for the loss in nuance andcontext, as argued in the approximation section earlier?• Can these benefits be systematized so that we know when we are add-ing benefit rather than creating loss?• What types of future research will solve some of the gaps betweentechnical capabilities and what people expect in their full range of so-cial and collaborative activities?

The final first-order approximation is the creation of technical architecturesthat do not invoke the social–technical gap; these architectures neither requireaction nor delegate it. Instead, these architectures provide supportive oraugmentative facilities, such as advice, to users.

Another approximation incorporates new computational mechanisms tosubstitute adequately for social mechanisms or to provide for new social issues(Hollan & Stornetta, 1992).

First-order approximations, to adopt a metaphor from fluid dynamics, aretractable solutions that partially solve specific problems with knowntrade-offs.

Similarly, an educational perspective would argue that programmers andusers should understand the fundamental nature of the social requirements.

CSCW’s science, however, must centralize the necessary gap between whatwe would prefer to construct and what we can construct. To do this as a practi-cal program of action requires several steps—palliatives to ameliorate the cur-rent social conditions, first-order approximations to explore the design space,and fundamental lines of inquiry to create the science. These steps should de-velop into a new science of the artificial. In any case, the steps are necessary tomove forward intellectually within CSCW, given the nature of the social–tech-nical gap.

Ideological initiatives include those that prioritize the needs of the peopleusing the systems.

Simon’s (1969/1981) book does not address the inevitable gaps betweenthe desired outcome and the means of producing that outcome for anylarge-scale design process, but CSCW researchers see these gaps as unavoid-able. The social–technical gap should not have been ignored by Simon.Yet, CSCW is exactly the type of science Simon envisioned, and CSCW couldserve as a reconstruction and renewal of Simon’s viewpoint, suitably revised. Asmuch as was AI, CSCW is inherently a science of the artificial,

At a simple level,CSCW’s intellectual context is framed by social constructionism andethnomethodology (e.g., Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Garfinkel, 1967), systemstheories (e.g., Hutchins, 1995a), and many large-scale system experiences (e.g.,American urban renewal, nuclear power, and Vietnam). All of these pointed tothe complexities underlying any social activity, even those felt to be straightfor-ward.

Yet,The Sciences of the Artificialbecame an an-them call for artificial intelligence and computer science. In the book he ar-gued for a path between the idea for a new science (such as economics orartificial intelligence) and the construction of that new science (perhaps withsome backtracking in the creation process). This argument was both charac-teristically logical and psychologically appealing for the time.

The HCI and CSCW research communitiesneed to ask what one might do to ameliorate the effects of the gap and to fur-ther understand the gap. I believe an answer—and a future HCI challenge—is toreconceptualize CSCW as a science of the artificial. This echoes Simon (1981)but properly updates his work for CSCW’s time and intellectual task.2

because people of-ten lack shared histories and meanings (especially when they are indiffering groups or organizations), information must berecontextualized to reuse experience or knowledge. Systems often as-sume a shared understanding of information.

Whereas I say, that things as objects of our senses existing outside us are given, but we know nothing of what they may be in themselves, knowing only their appearances, i. e., the representations which they cause in us by affecting our senses. Consequently I grant by all means that there are bodies without us, that is, things which, though quite unknown to us as to what they are in themselves, we yet know by the representations which their influence on our sensibility procures us, and which we call bodies, a term signifying merely the appearance of the thing which is unknown to us, but not therefore less actual. Can this be termed idealism? It is the very contrary.

that experience,

The specter of upcoming departure influenced behavior in a way that removed one from reality — academics in Lyon mattered less at home, new friends would return to their countries of origin and communication would lapse, and why invest for comfort when somewhere so briefly?

Not in Austin, but near, and often visiting. Twenty miles North. Sometimes, further

technical difficulties

Canada is the first case of the expansion of hospital medicine beyond the United States, and as of 2008, Canada had more than 100 hospital medicine programs.7 Currently, the estimated number of hospitalists in Canada has increased to ~3,000 (Colleen Savage, Administrator, Canadian SHM, personal communication, December 6, 2017). Yousef and Maslowski describe several drivers for the development of the hospitalist model, which are related to physicians, patients, and systems. Work–life balance and the desire for non-hospital work among primary care providers (PCPs) were leading physician factors. Two major patient-related factors were the increasing age and complexity of patients and the increasing number of “unattached” patients. Unattached patients are those who either do not have a PCP or their PCP does not have admitting hospital privileges. System drivers included PCP shortages, reduction in resident duty hours, higher need for health system efficiency, and cost reduction. Further, increasing health system complexity led to PCPs withdrawing from hospital care.7

Davis and col-leagues (3) provide useful new data that enhance our un-derstanding of the effects of hospitalists on health sys-tems. In their study of a voluntary hospitalist system at alarge rural nonteaching hospital in Mississippi, theyfound that patients cared for by hospitalists had adjustedhospital stays that were 25% shorter, and costs that were12% less, than patients cared for by nonhospitalist inter-nists. For patients in the highest severity group, these sav-ings were even greater. Annualized, the authors extrapo-late that the hospitalists would have saved $2.5 millionhad they cared for all of the internists’ patients. As withprior studies that found similar reductions in resourceuse (4 –7), these substantial savings were achieved with-out diminishing quality or patient satisfaction. Nor wasthere evidence of cost shifting: hospitalists’ patients wereno less likely to be discharged to home (instead of anotherinstitution such as a skilled nursing facility) than werepatients of primary care internists. We can now state withconsiderable confidence that hospitalists markedly de-crease inpatient costs and lengths of stay with no compro-mise in quality or patient satisfaction.

Hospitalists need to continue to take C-suite positions at hospitals and policy roles at think tanks and governmental agencies. They need to continue to master technology, clinical care, and the ever-growing importance of where those two intersect. Most of all, the field can’t get lazy. Otherwise, the “better mousetrap” of HM might one day be replaced by the next group of physicians willing to work harder to implement their great idea. “If we continue to be the vanguard of innovation, the vanguard of making the system work better than it ever has before,” Dr. Wachter says, “the field that creates new models of care, that integrates technology in new ways, and that has this can-do attitude and optimism, then the sky is the limit.”

At a time of once-in-a-generation reform to healthcare in this country, the leaders of HM can’t afford to rest on their laurels, says Dr. Goldman. Three years ago, he wrote a paper for the Journal of Hospital Medicine titled “An Intellectual Agenda for Hospitalists.” In short, Dr. Goldman would like to see hospitalists move more into advancing science themselves rather than implementing the scientific discoveries of others. He cautions anyone against taking that as criticism of the field. “If hospitalists are going to be the people who implement what other people have found, they run the risk of being the ones who make sure everybody gets perioperative beta-blockers even if they don’t really work,” he says. “If you want to take it to the illogical extreme, you could have people who were experts in how most efficiently to do bloodletting. “The future for hospitalists, if they’re going to get to the next level—I think they can and will—is that they have to be in the discovery zone as well as the implementation zone.” Dr. Wachter says it’s about staying ahead of the curve. For 20 years, the field has been on the cutting edge of how hospitals treat patients. To grow even more, it will be crucial to keep that focus.

Dr. Gandhi, who was finishing her second year of residency at Duke Medical Center in Raleigh, N.C., when the NEJM paper was published, sees the acuity of patients getting worse in the coming years as America rapidly ages. Baby boomers will start turning 80 in the next decade, and longer life spans translate to increasing medical problems that will often require hospitalization.

So what now? For all the talk of SHM’s success, HM’s positive impacts, and the specialty’s rocket growth trajectory, the work isn’t done, industry leaders say. Hospitalists are not just working toward a more valuable delivery of care, they’re also increasingly viewed as leaders of projects all around the hospital because, well, they are always there, according to Dr. Gandhi. “Hospitalists really are a leader in the hospital around quality and safety issues because they are there on the wards all the time,” she says. “They really have an interest in being the physician champions around various initiatives, so [in my hospital tenures] I partnered with many of my hospitalist colleagues on ways to improve care, such as test-result management, medication reconciliation, and similar efforts. We often would establish multidisciplinary committees to work on things, and almost always there was a hospitalist who was chairing or co-chairing or participating very actively in that group.”

And earlier this year, CMS announced that by this time next year hospitalists would be assigned their own specialty designation code. SHM’s Public Policy Committee lobbied for the move for more than two years.

By 2007, SHM had launched Project BOOST (Better Outcomes by Optimizing Safe Transitions), an award-winning mentored-implementation program to reduce LOS, adverse events, and unnecessary 30-day readmissions. Other mentored-implementation programs followed. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) program focuses on preventing hypoglycemia, while the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Collaborative (VTE PC) seeks to give practical assistance on how to reduce blood clots via a VTE prevention program

In 2012, SHM earned the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level, thanks to its mentored-implementation programs. SHM was the first professional society to earn the award, bestowed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) and The Joint Commission.

By 2003, the term “hospitalist” had become ubiquitous enough that NAIP was renamed the Society of Hospital Medicine

John Nelson, MD, MHM, and Winthrop Whitcomb, MD, MHM, founded the National Association of Inpatient Physicians (NAIP) a year after the NEJM paper, they promoted and held a special session at UCSF’s first “Management of the Hospitalized Patient” conference in April 1997

Five years ago, it was accountable care organizations and value-based purchasing that SHM glommed on to as programs to be embraced as heralding the future. Now it’s the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative (BCPI), introduced by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) back in 2011 and now compiling its first data sets for the next frontier of payments for episodic care. BCPI was mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2009, which included a provision that the government establish a five-year pilot program by 2013 that bundled payments for inpatient care, according to the American Hospital Association. BCPI now has more than 650 participating organizations, not including thousands of physicians who then partner with those groups, over four models. The initiative covers 48 defined episodes of care, both medical and surgical, that could begin three days prior to admission and stretch 30, 60, or 90 days post-discharge. <img class="file media-element file-medstat-image-flush-right" height="220" width="220" alt="Dr. Weiner" typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.the-hospitalist.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/images/weinerweb.jpg" title="" />Dr. Weiner “The reason this is so special is that it is one of the few CMS programs that allows providers to be in the driver’s seat,” says Kerry Weiner, MD, chief medical officer of acute and post-acute services at TeamHealth-‎IPC. “They have the opportunity to be accountable and to actually be the designers of reengineering care. The other programs that you just mentioned, like value-based purchasing, largely originate from health systems or the federal government and dictate the principles and the metrics that as a provider you’re going to be evaluated upon. “The bundled model [BCPI] gives us the flexibility, scale, and brackets of risk that we want to accept and thereby gives us a lot more control over what physicians and physician groups can manage successfully.”

“If we can’t build what I think of as a pyramid of care with one doctor and many, many other people supporting a broad group of patients, I don’t think we’re going to be able to find the scale to take care of the aging population that’s coming at us,” she says. Caring for patients once they are discharged means including home nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, dietitians, hired caregivers, and others in the process, Dr. Gorman says. But that doesn’t mean overburdening the wrong people with the wrong tasks. The same way no one would think to allow a social worker to prescribe medication is the same way that a hospitalist shouldn’t be the one checking up on a patient to make sure there is food in that person’s fridge. And while the hospitalist can work in concert with others and run many things from the hospital, maybe hospital-based physicians aren’t always the best physicians for the task. “There are certain things that only the doctor can do, of course, but there are a lot more things that somebody else can do,” Dr. Gorman says, adding, “some of the times, you’re going to need the physician, it’s going to be escalated to a medication change, but sometimes maybe you need to escalate to a dietary visit or you need to escalate to three physical therapy visits. “The nitty-gritty of taking care of people outside of the hospital is so complex and problematic, and most of the solutions are not really medical, but you need the medical part of the dynamic. So rather [than a hospitalist running cases], it’s a super-talented social worker, nurse, or physical therapist. I don’t know, but somebody who can make sure that all of that works and it’s a process that can be leveraged.” Whoever it is, the gravitation beyond the walls of the hospital has been tied to a growing sea change in how healthcare will compensate providers. Medicare has been migrating from fee-for-service to payments based on the totality of care for decades. The names change, of course. In the early 1980s, it was an “inpatient prospective payment system.”

Dr. Bessler says that as HMGs continued to focus on improving quality and lowering costs, they had little choice but to get involved in activities outside the hospital. “We got into post-acute medicines because there was an abyss in quality,” he says. “We were accountable to send patients out, and there was nobody to send them to. Or the quality of the facilities was terrible, or the docs or clinicians weren’t going to see those patients regularly. That’s how we got into solving post-acute.”

Hospitalists are often referred to as the quarterbacks of the hospital. But even the best QB needs a good team to succeed. For HMGs, that roster increasingly includes nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).

Aside from NPs and PAs, another extension of HM has been the gravitation in recent years of hospitalists into post-acute-care settings, including skilled-nursing facilities (SNFs), long-term care facilities, post-discharge clinics, and patient-centered homes.

“The day is upon us where we need to strongly consider nurse practitioners and physician assistants as equal in the field,” he says. “We’re going to find a much better continuity of care for all our patients at various institutions with hospital medicine and … a nurse practitioner who is at the top of their license.”

Recent State of Hospital Medicine surveys showed that 83% of hospitalist groups are utilizing NPs and PAs, and SHM earlier this year added Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, as its first non-physician voting board member

SHM’s Information Technology Committee, believes that hospitalists have to take ownership of health information technology (HIT) in their own buildings.

2003 amid the push for quality and safety. And while the specialty’s early adoption of those initiatives clearly was a major reason for the exponential growth of hospitalists, Dr. Gorman doesn’t want people to forget that the cost of care was what motivated community facilities.

“The role of the hospitalist often is to take recommendations from a lot of different specialties and come up with the best plan for the patient,” says Tejal Gandhi, MD, MPH, CPPS, president and CEO of the National Patient Safety Foundation. “They’re the true patient advocate who is getting the cardiologist’s opinion, the rheumatologist’s opinion, and the surgeon’s opinion, and they come up with the best plan for the patient.”

“My first exposure to hospital medicine was through Drs. Chris Landrigan and Vinny Chiang as an intern in Boston. I was impressed by their clinical mastery and teaching. I then did my first research project with Chris, which led to a publication in Pediatrics. I had previously thought about intensive care or emergency medicine for fellowship, but I was excited about the general nature, growth opportunity, and ability to drive health system change in hospital medicine. I think that growth and ability to drive health system change in hospital medicine has grown exponentially since I finished residency, so the field has more than lived up to its potential and has more room to grow in terms of impact.”

“I’ve been continually surprised at the growth of the field and SHM. My view has evolved from ‘Is this for real?’ to ‘How can hospital medicine make healthcare better for patients on a broad scale?’ The latter view has gone through iterations. We witnessed HM make hospitals more efficient, then we saw hospitalists drive safer, less harmful care. Most recently, hospitalists are embarking on deep change through alternative payment models like bundled payments. In terms of SHM, we endeavored to keep a ‘big tent’ since the many flavors of hospitalists all are united by a deep conviction to make hospitals safer, kinder, and higher-functioning places for the people inhabiting them—patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals. I’m humbled and gratified that we have been able to keep SHM a viable home for all hospitalists after 20 years.”

“I think the future of hospitalists is actually outside of the hospital and helping to keep patients healthy. Hospitalists are really good at taking care of the most sick, complex patients who are at the highest risk of healthcare utilization. While hospitalists predominantly do this for patients in the hospital, hospitalists are starting to play a larger role in post-acute care and trying to target interventions to improve health for high-risk patients. Not surprisingly, we are starting to see extensivist models, including Comprehensive Care Physicians, grow out of existing hospitalist groups.”

“As I was finishing my residency in the mid 1990s, I told folks I wanted to find a job ‘only doing inpatient medicine.’ People laughed at me. Within five years, hospitalist medicine was developing on the East Coast, and people were no longer laughing. … Hospitalists will be at the center of this brave new world [of episodic care] since they assist in the liaising between patient, PCP, specialist, and acute-care provider. It is incumbent upon us to help explain things in a manner easily understood by the patient and to be committed to high-quality care with an eye for value and cost containment.”

“The hospitalist movement has been a remarkable success. I heard of it from my friend Bob Wachter and since then have learned much from him and many others. … Hospitalists have and will continue to play a key role in improving patient safety, quality, patient experience, value, and healthcare equity. SHM has taken a leadership role to help ensure hospitalists have the skills and resources to do this.”

“The emergence of the field of hospital medicine has been one of the most important developments for quality of care in hospitals over the past 20 years. Taking full advantage of this opportunity will require the field to broaden its focus from one that primarily emphasizes the care of patients while they are hospitalized to one that encompasses patients’ full trajectories through the continuum of care. To realize their full potential as quality improvement leaders, hospitalists will need to position themselves as experts in health system quality and safety. Specifically, they will need to take ownership of the vital processes of effectively communicating across transitions of care.”

Many hospitalists have added value as local leaders in quality improvement, safety, and innova-tion, but some have functioned more as shift workers. For exam-ple, many community hospital-ists have a 7-days-on, 7-days-off schedule that focuses mainly on high-volume clinical work and sends an unspoken but clear mes-sage that, at the end of an inten-sive clinical “on” stint, one is “off ” and uninvolved. Our impression is that hospitalist programs pro-vide more value when hospital-ists’ inpatient assignments (clini-cal “systole”) are complemented by a systems-oriented “diastole,” dur-ing which clinical activity is limit-ed but they contribute to key in-stitutional programs. Productive diastole is more likely when hos-pitalists have strong leadership, a robust professional-development curriculum, and a mutual hospi-tal–hospitalist commitment to adding value during specified and structured nonclinical time.

Finally, financial penalties for readmis-sions have led many hospitalists to staff post–acute care facilities to improve coordination with col-leagues at acute care hospitals.

The discipline of hospital medicine grew out of the increasing complexity of patients requiring hospital care and the need for dedicated clinicians to oversee their management. The hospitalist model supplanted the traditional method of caring for hospitalized patients, which was often done by clinicians also seeing ambulatory patients or with other clinical obligations that limited their ability to provide the intensity of care often required by these patients. By focusing their practice on this specific group of patients, hospitalists gain specialized knowledge in managing very ill patients and are able to provide high-quality, evidence-based, and efficient patient and family-centered care in hospital settings.

In the academic setting especially, a premium will beplaced on clinical quality improvement, the develop-ment of practice guidelines, and outcomes research,not only to provide the physician with a creative out-let and a potential source of funding during thenonclinical months but also to give the academiccenter a practical research-and-development arm

on research and clinician-educators concentrating onclinical work and teaching. And the clinician-educa-tors may branch again, with some focusing on out-patients and others on inpatients. We also believethat the relation between quality and volume inthe performance of procedures may lead to anotherschism between medical specialists who primarily per-form procedures and those who do not

Given the parallel pressurefor funding research,32 one can envision fewer triplethreats in the future, with researchers concentrating

. The “triple threat” leader— skilled clinician, researcher, and educator — wasthe paradigm of exceptional faculty achievement (orfantasy) for more than a generation. Balancing aproductive research career with teaching and clinicalcare was easier when academic health centers wereless accountable for the quality and cost of clinicalcare than they are now.

As with intensiv-ists, a major challenge is to link the hospitalist rolesuccessfully with other activities.

Conversely, some traditional programs may develophospitalist tracks that emphasize acquisition of theskills most relevant to inpatient practice. If suchtracks are developed, it will be important not to re-duce training in ambulatory care too aggressively,since the competent hospitalist will need a full un-derstanding of what can — and cannot — be donein the outpatient setting

As with anymajor transition, the medical community must con-tinually reevaluate the new approach to ensure thatany possible discontinuity in care is outweighed byimproved clinical outcomes, lower costs, better edu-cation for physicians, and greater satisfaction on thepart of patients.

For house staff in internal medicine, the introduc-tion of hospitalists may mean a greater likelihood ofbeing supervised by attending physicians who arehighly skilled and experienced in providing inpatientcare. House staff have long enjoyed a certain amountof autonomy, because many of their faculty supervi-sors have been relatively unfamiliar with moderninpatient care. Such autonomy may be diminishedwith the new approach to inpatient care. Althoughthere is bound to be transitional pain, we believethat the potential for improved inpatient teachingwill more than compensate for it. Moreover, thischange will help answer public calls for closer andmore effective faculty oversight of house staff andstudents.34

Oneof the advantages of the hospitalist model is that itcreates a core group of faculty members whose in-patient work is more than a marginal activity andwho are thus committed to quality improvement inthe hospital.

The debate over the role of hospitalists is takingplace against the backdrop of the larger controversyover whether generalists or specialists should pro-vide care for relatively ill patients.11

As hospital stays become shorter and inpatientcare becomes more intensive, a greater premium willbe placed on the skill, experience, and availability ofphysicians caring for inpatients.

First, because of cost pressures,managed-care organizations will reward profession-als who can provide efficient care. In the outpatientsetting, the premium on efficiency requires that thephysician provide care for a large panel of patientsand be available in the office to see them promptlyas required. There is no greater barrier to efficiencyTin outpatient care than the need to go across thestreet (or even worse, across town) to the hospital tosee an unpredictable number of inpatients, some-times several times a day. There are parallel pressuresfor efficiency in the hospital. Since the inpatient set-ting involves the most intensive use of resources, itis the place where the ability to respond quickly tochanges in a patient’s condition and to use resourcesjudiciously will be most highly valued. This shouldprove to be the hospitalists’ forte.

We believe the hospitalist specialty will burgeonfor several reasons.

Equally pressing is the question of value, definedas the quality of care divided by its cost.10

As a result, we anticipate the rapid growth of anew breed of physicians we call “hospitalists” — spe-cialists in inpatient medicine — who will be respon-sible for managing the care of hospitalized patientsin the same way that primary care physicians are re-sponsible for managing the care of outpatients.

Unfortunately, this approach collides with the re-alities of managed care and its emphasis on efficien-cy.

ಅಯ್ಯಾ ನಿನ್ನ ಸಂಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಗಿಯಾದೆಅಯ್ಯಾ, ನಿನ್ನ ಸಂಗದಿಂದ ಕಾಕುತನವ ಬಿಟ್ಟುಬೇಕಾದ ಹಾಂಗೆಯಾದೆ.ಅಯ್ಯಾ, ನಿನ್ನ ಒಲವು ಅನೇಕ ಪ್ರಕಾರದಲ್ಲಿಪಸರಿ ಪರ್ಬಿತ್ತು ಎನ್ನ ಸರ್ವಾಂಗದಲ್ಲಿ.ನಿನ್ನವರೊಲುಮೆಯ ಆನಂದವನು ಎನಗೆ ಕರುಣಿಸುಕಪಿಲಸಿದ್ಧಮಲ್ಲಿಕಾರ್ಜುನಯ್ಯಾ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಧರ್ಮ.

ಅನಾದಿಯಾಗಿ ಪಶು ಪಾಶ ಮಲ ಮಯಾಕರ್ಮಗಳುಂಟಾದರೆ,ಈ ಜಗವನೊಬ್ಬರೂ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಮಾಡಿದ ಕರ್ತುವಲ್ಲ.ಎಂದೆಂದೂ ಜಗವಿದ್ದಿತ್ತು ನಿತ್ಯವೆನ್ನು.ಎಂದೆಂದೂ ಜಗವಿದ್ದಿತ್ತೆಂಬೆಯಾದರೆ,ಶಿವನ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ, ಸ್ಥಿತಿ, ಸಂಹಾರ, ಸ್ಥಿರೋಭಾವ, ಅನುಗ್ರಹವೆಂಬಪಂಚಕೃತ್ಯಗಳು ಹುಸಿಯೆಂದೆನ್ನು.ಶಿವನಿಗೆ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಸಂಹಾರಾರ್ಥವುಂಟಾದರೆ,ಈ ಜಗತ್ತೆಲ್ಲವೂ ಶಿವನ ನೆನಹು ಮಾತ್ರದಿಂದ ಹುಟ್ಟಿತ್ತಲ್ಲದೆ,ಎಂದೆಂದೂ ಉಂಟೆಂಬುದು ಶೈವ ಪಶುಮತವಲ್ಲದೆ,ವೀರಶೈವರ ಮತವಲ್ಲ.ವೀರಶೈವರ ಮತವೆಂತೆಂದಡೆ:ಘನ ಗಂಬ್ಥೀರ ವಾರಿದ್ಥಿಯೊಳಗೆ ಫೇನತರಂಗಬುದ್ಬುದ ಶೀಕರಾದಿಗಳು ತೋರಿದಡೆ,ಆ ಸಾಗರ ಹೊರಗಾಗಿ ತೋರಬಲ್ಲವೇ?ಆ ಪರಶಿವಸಾಗರದಲ್ಲಿ ತೃಣಾದಿ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಾಂತವಾದ ದೇಹಿಗಳುಉತ್ಪತ್ತಿಯಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಅಡಗುತ್ತಿಪ್ಪರು ನೋಡಾ.ಇದು ಕಾರಣ, ಲಿಂಗನಿರ್ಮಿತದಿಂದ ಜಗತ್ತಾಯಿತೆಂದೆ ಕಾಣಾ,ಮಹಾಲಿಂಗಗುರು ಶಿವಸಿದ್ಧೇಶ್ವರ ಪ್ರಭುವೇ.

ಅಸಂಖ್ಯಾತ ಆದಿಬ್ರಹ್ಮರುತ್ಪತ್ಯವಾಗದಂದು,ಅಸಂಖ್ಯಾತ ಆದಿನಾರಾಯಣರುತ್ಪತ್ಯವಾಗದಂದು,ಅಸಂಖ್ಯಾತ ಸುರೇಂದ್ರಾದಿಗಳು ಉತ್ಪತ್ಯವಾಗದಂದು,ಅಸಂಖ್ಯಾತ ಮನುಮುನಿ ದೈತ್ಯರು ಉತ್ಪತ್ಯ ಲಯವಾಗದಂದು,ಓಂಕಾರವೆಂಬ ಆದಿಪ್ರಣವವಾಗಿದ್ದನು ನೋಡಾನಮ್ಮ ಅಪ್ರಮಾಣಕೂಡಲಸಂಗಮದೇವ.

ಅಂಗದ ಮೇಲೊಂದು ಲಿಂಗವು, ಲಿಂಗದ ಮೇಲೊಂದು ಅಂಗವು.ಆವುದು ಘನವೆಂಬೆ ? ಆವುದು ಕಿರಿದೆಂಬೆ ?ತಾಳೋಷ್ಠಸಂಪುಟಕ್ಕೆ ಬಾರದ ಘನ, ಉಭಯಲಿಂಗವಿರಹಿತವಾದ ಶರಣ.ಕೂಡಲಚೆನ್ನಸಂಗಾ ಲಿಂಗೈಕ್ಯವು.

ಅಯ್ಯಾ ಆರೂ ಇಲ್ಲದ ಅರಣ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ, ನಾನಡಿಯಿಟ್ಟು ನಡವುತ್ತಿರ್ದೆನಯ್ಯಾ.ಮುಂದೆ ಬರೆಬರೆ ಮಹಾಸರೋವರವ ಕಂಡೆ.ಸರೋವರದೊಳಗೊಂದು ಹಿರಿಯ ಮೃಗವ ಕಂಡೆ.ಆ ಮೃಗಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊಂಬುಂಟು ತಲೆಯಿಲ್ಲ,ಬಾಯುಂಟು ಕಣ್ಣಿಲ್ಲ, ಕೈಯುಂಟು ಹಸ್ತವಿಲ್ಲ,ಕಾಲುಂಟು ಹೆಜ್ಜೆಯಿಲ್ಲ, ಒಡಲುಂಟು ಪ್ರಾಣವಿಲ್ಲ.ಇದ ಕಂಡು ನಾ ಹೆದರಿ, ಹವ್ವನೆ ಹಾರಿ, ಬೆದರಿ ಬಿದ್ದೆನಯ್ಯಾ.ಆಗೆನ್ನ ಹೆತ್ತತಾಯಿ ಬಂದು ಎತ್ತಿ ಕುಳ್ಳಿರಿಸಿ,ಚಿತ್ತಮೂಲಾಗ್ನಿಯ ಒತ್ತಿ ಉರುಹಿದರೆ, ಇವೆಲ್ಲವು ಸುಟ್ಟು ಬಟ್ಟಬಯಲಾದವು.ಆ ಬಟ್ಟಬಯಲೊಳಗೆ ಅಡಿಯಿಟ್ಟು ನಡೆವಾಗ,ಮುಂದೆ ಇಟ್ಟಡಿಯ ಬಾಗಿಲೊಳಗೆ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಮೃಗವ ಕಂಡೆ.ಆ ಮೃಗಕ್ಕೆ ತಲೆಯುಂಟು ಕೊಂಬಿಲ್ಲ, ಕಣ್ಣುಂಟು ಬಾಯಿಲ್ಲ,ಹಸ್ತವುಂಟು ಕೈಯಿಲ್ಲ, ಹೆಜ್ಜೆಯುಂಟು ಕಾಲಿಲ್ಲ, ಪ್ರಾಣವುಂಟು ಒಡಲಿಲ್ಲ.ಇದ ಕಂಡು ನಾ ಅಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳಹೋದಡೆ, ಮುಟ್ಟದ ಮುನ್ನವೆ ಎನ್ನನೆ ನುಂಗಿತ್ತು.ನುಂಗಿದ ಮೃಗ ಮಹಾಲಿಂಗದಲ್ಲಿಯೆ ಅಡಗಿತ್ತು,ಬಸವಪ್ರಿಯ ಕೂಡಲಚೆನ್ನಬಸವಣ್ಣಾ.

ಅರಿತು ಜನ್ಮವಾದವರಿಲ್ಲ ಸತ್ತು ಮರಳಿ ತೋರುವರಿಲ್ಲ.ದುರಭಿಮಾನವ ಹೊತ್ತು ಅಘಟಿತ ಘಟಿತವ ನುಡಿವಿರಿ.ಈ ದೇಹವಿಡಿದು ನುಡಿವ ಪ್ರಪಂಚಿಗಳನೇನೆಂಬೆ ಗುಹೇಶ್ವರಾ.

ಅನ್ಯದೈವ ಭವಿನಾಸ್ತಿಯಾದಲ್ಲಿ, ಪಾದತೀರ್ಥಪ್ರಸಾದವಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಬಾಯಿದೆರೆದಲ್ಲಿ, ಲಿಂಗಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊಡದೆ ಕೊಂಡಲ್ಲಿ, ಆ ವ್ರತಕ್ಕೆ ಆಚಾರವೆ ಪ್ರಾಣವಾಗಿರ್ಪ ರಾಮೇಶ್ವರಲಿಂಗ ದೂರಸ್ಥನಾಗಿಪ್ಪನು

ಅಂಥ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಾಂಡವ ಎಪ್ಪತ್ತೈದುಲಕ್ಷದ ಮೇಲೆಸಾವಿರದೇಳುನೂರಾ ನಲವತ್ತೆಂಟುಬ್ರಹ್ಮಾಂಡವನೊಳಕೊಂಡುದೊಂದು ಭದ್ರವೆಂಬ ಭುವನ.ಆ ಭುವನದೊಳು ಭದ್ರಕರ್ಣನೆಂಬ ಮಹಾರುದ್ರಮೂರ್ತಿ ಇಹನು.ಆ ರುದ್ರಮೂರ್ತಿಯ ಓಲಗದಲ್ಲಿಎಂಟುನೂರಾ ಎಪ್ಪತ್ತುಕೋಟಿ ಚಂದ್ರಾದಿತ್ಯರು ವೇದಪುರುಷರುಮುನೀಂದ್ರರು ದೇವರ್ಕಳಿಹರು ನೋಡಾ.ಎಂಟುನೂರಾ ಎಪ್ಪತ್ತುಕೋಟಿ ರುದ್ರ-ಬ್ರಹ್ಮ-ನಾರಾಯಣಇಂದ್ರಾದಿ ದೇವರ್ಕಳಿಹರು ನೋಡಾಅಪ್ರಮಾಣಕೂಡಲಸಂಗಮದೇವಾ.

ಅಂಗನೆಯ ಚಿತ್ತ,ರಮಣನ ಸುತ್ತಿಮುತ್ತಿ ಅಪ್ಪಿ ಅಗಲದಿಪ್ಪಂತೆಜಾಗ್ರ, ಸ್ವಪ್ನ, ಸುಷುಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿಶರಣ ಚಿತ್ತರತಿ ಶಿವಲಿಂಗವ ಸುತ್ತಿ ಮುತ್ತಿಅಪ್ಪಿ ಅಗಲದಿಪ್ಪರೆಆ ಮಹಾತ್ಮನ ಏನೆಂದುಪಮಿಸುವೆನಯ್ಯ?ಲಿಂಗಪ್ರಾಣಿಯ, ಪ್ರಾಣಲಿಂಗಸಂಬಂದ್ಥಿಯ?ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ವಸ್ತುವಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಅರಿವರತು ಬೆರಗು ನಿಬ್ಬೆರಗಾದ,ಘನಲಿಂಗಪ್ರಾಣಿಗೆ ನಮೋ ನಮೋಯೆಂಬೆನಯ್ಯಾ,ಮಹಾಲಿಂಗಗುರು ಶಿವಸಿದ್ಧೇಶ್ವರ ಪ್ರಭುವೇ.

ಅಸಿ ಮಸಿ ಕೃಷಿ ವಾಣಿಜ್ಯ ಮುಂತಾದ ಕಾಯಕವ ಮಾಡಿ, ಭಕ್ತರ ಪಡುಗ, ಪಾದತ್ರಾಣ, ಪಹರಿ, ಬಾಗಿಲು, ಬೊಕ್ಕಸ, ಬಿಯಗ ಮುಂತಾದ ಕಾಯಕವಂ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ವ್ರತಕ್ಕೆ ಊಣೆಯವಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಕೃತ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಕಡೆಯಾಗದೆ ಈ ಭಕ್ತನ ಅಂಗಳ ಅವಿಮುಕ್ತಿಕ್ಷೇತ್ರ, ಆತನ ಮನೆಯೆ ಆಚಾರವೆ ಪ್ರಾಣವಾದ

ಅಡವಿಯಲೊಬ್ಬ ಕಡು ನೀರಡಿಸಿ,ಎಡೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೀರ ಕಂಡಂತಾುತ್ತಯ್ಯಾ.ಕುರುಡ ಕಣ್ಣ ಪಡೆದಂತೆ,ಬಡವ ನಿಧಾನವ ಹಡೆದಂತಾುತ್ತಯ್ಯಾ.ನಮ್ಮ ಕೂಡಲಸಂಗನ ಶರಣರ ಬರವೆನ್ನ ಪ್ರಾಣ ಕಂಡಯ್ಯಾ. 376

ಅಯ್ಯಾ ಆರೂ ಇಲ್ಲದ ಅರಣ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ, ನಾನಡಿಯಿಟ್ಟು ನಡವುತ್ತಿರ್ದೆನಯ್ಯಾ.ಮುಂದೆ ಬರೆಬರೆ ಮಹಾಸರೋವರವ ಕಂಡೆ.ಸರೋವರದೊಳಗೊಂದು ಹಿರಿಯ ಮೃಗವ ಕಂಡೆ.ಆ ಮೃಗಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊಂಬುಂಟು ತಲೆಯಿಲ್ಲ,ಬಾಯುಂಟು ಕಣ್ಣಿಲ್ಲ, ಕೈಯುಂಟು ಹಸ್ತವಿಲ್ಲ,ಕಾಲುಂಟು ಹೆಜ್ಜೆಯಿಲ್ಲ, ಒಡಲುಂಟು ಪ್ರಾಣವಿಲ್ಲ.ಇದ ಕಂಡು ನಾ ಹೆದರಿ, ಹವ್ವನೆ ಹಾರಿ, ಬೆದರಿ ಬಿದ್ದೆನಯ್ಯಾ.ಆಗೆನ್ನ ಹೆತ್ತತಾಯಿ ಬಂದು ಎತ್ತಿ ಕುಳ್ಳಿರಿಸಿ,ಚಿತ್ತಮೂಲಾಗ್ನಿಯ ಒತ್ತಿ ಉರುಹಿದರೆ, ಇವೆಲ್ಲವು ಸುಟ್ಟು ಬಟ್ಟಬಯಲಾದವು.ಆ ಬಟ್ಟಬಯಲೊಳಗೆ ಅಡಿಯಿಟ್ಟು ನಡೆವಾಗ,ಮುಂದೆ ಇಟ್ಟಡಿಯ ಬಾಗಿಲೊಳಗೆ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಮೃಗವ ಕಂಡೆ.ಆ ಮೃಗಕ್ಕೆ ತಲೆಯುಂಟು ಕೊಂಬಿಲ್ಲ, ಕಣ್ಣುಂಟು ಬಾಯಿಲ್ಲ,ಹಸ್ತವುಂಟು ಕೈಯಿಲ್ಲ, ಹೆಜ್ಜೆಯುಂಟು ಕಾಲಿಲ್ಲ, ಪ್ರಾಣವುಂಟು ಒಡಲಿಲ್ಲ.ಇದ ಕಂಡು ನಾ ಅಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳಹೋದಡೆ, ಮುಟ್ಟದ ಮುನ್ನವೆ ಎನ್ನನೆ ನುಂಗಿತ್ತು.ನುಂಗಿದ ಮೃಗ ಮಹಾಲಿಂಗದಲ್ಲಿಯೆ ಅಡಗಿತ್ತು,ಬಸವಪ್ರಿಯ ಕೂಡಲಚೆನ್ನಬಸವಣ್ಣಾ.

Koh et al. (11) detailed a cycle of crisis care elaborating the nature of high medical costs, possibly resulting from fear and denial. First, an individual is in need of medical help, so he or she goes to a physician's office where the staff asks the individual to fill out a complex and confusing form. The physician examines the patient and explains the condition and treatment options using medical jargon. Numerous prescriptions, laboratory tests, and referrals are given without confirmation of the patient's comprehension. The staff sends the patient home with complicated instructions. Inevitably, the patient may consume medication incorrectly or miss follow-up appointments, and his or her condition worsens. Eventually, the patient presents to the emergency department, and the hospital staff develops a new treatment plan. Again, no one confirms the patient's understanding. When the patient is discharged, he or she is likely to get sick again and repeat the cycle (11)

ಆಕಾರ ನಿರಾಕಾರವೆಂಬೆರಡೂ ಸ್ವರೂಪಂಗಳು ;ಒಂದು ಆಹ್ವಾನ, ಒಂದು ವಿಸರ್ಜನ,ಒಂದು ವ್ಯಾಕುಳ, ಒಂದು ನಿರಾಕುಳ.ಉಭಯಕುಳರಹಿತ ಗುಹೇಶ್ವರಾ_ನಿಮ್ಮ ಶರಣ ನಿಶ್ವಿಂತನು.

ರಾಕಾರವೆಂಬೆರಡೂ ಸ್ವರೂಪಂಗಳು ;ಒಂದು ಆಹ್ವಾನ, ಒಂದು ವಿಸರ್ಜನ,ಒಂದು ವ್ಯಾಕುಳ, ಒಂದು ನಿರಾಕುಳ.ಉಭಯಕುಳರಹಿತ ಗುಹೇಶ್ವರಾ_ನಿಮ್ಮ ಶರಣ ನಿಶ್ವಿಂತನು.

the fact that bodies like the Wellcome Trust exist is an indication of the power games can have

LESSLEARNING,MORE OFTEN:THE IMPACT OF SPACINGEFFECTINAN ADULTE-LEARNINGENVIRONMENTl

They can spew hate amongst themselves for eternity, but without amplification it won’t thrive.

Canton

A good character can sustain multiple narratives and thus lead to a successful movie franchise. A good “world” can sustain multiple characters (and their stories) and thus successfully launch a transmedia franchise.

Learning is a subversive act.

a design briefing a development methodology or tools an interaction technique an interactive system a reflective analysis results from fieldwork and ethnography, e.g., findings, guidelines, etc. results from laboratory studies, e.g., findings, techniques, methods, etc. theory or model.

A Legislative union of the British North American Provinces is not liable to all the objections which, as I believe, apply. to a Federal or Federative union; but it is liable to the objection that great discontent in the Lower Provinces would follow the centralization in one Government, and in one Legislature, at Quebec or Montreal, of the powers and authority now vested in the Governments and Legislatures of the several provinces; and, moreover, I believe that no single Government or single Legislature could, in present circumstances, satisfactorily govern and legislate for a territory extending over an area so immense, and so sparsely populated as many portions of that territory are.

Again, the establishment of a Federal or Federative union would, as l believe, be immediately followed by an agitation in favour of the election or the Local Governors, instead of their being nominated by the Crown. And it would be the more difficult to resist this application on account of the purely local or municipal character of the powers with which the Governors would he intrusted ; but the compliance with the request would he in my opinion-highly dangerous, not only because it would at once be fatal to British influence in the Local Governments and Local Legislatures, but also because it would, I believe, be followed quickly by a similar application from the United ‘Provinces, with regard to the Gov,ernor-Generalship, still more difficult to resist from the force With which it would be pressed, but the compliance with which would at once practically sever the connexion between the Crown and British North America.

union which they contemplate is not to be necessarily of the same character as that which binds together the several States of the neighbouring Republic. But upon whatever basis a Federative union might be formed, it must, I think, be liable -to one of two objections, either of which ought, as it appears to me, to be fatal to such a scheme. For if the Local Governments and Local Legislatures are still to- continue to exercise the same authority in local legislation and local matters which now appertains to them (and there is comparatively little business of any other description which they are now called upon to discuss), then the result of such a union will be still further to degrade the Local Governments and Legislatures without diminishing their authority while the ‘Central Government and Central Legislature, nominally endorsed with high powers, and proud of their position, but with little or no business of a purely Colonial character to occupy their attention, would, I fear, claim an authority on subjects not purely Colonial, but also of Imperial importance (such as questions of foreign trade, &c.), and shortly be brought into collision with Her Majesty’s Government and with the Imperial Parliament. If, on the other hand, the Local Governments and Local Legislatures were shorn of a large portion or their present powers (to which proposal 1 do not believe that the Lower Provinces would agree), the inhabitants of the Lower Provinces would, in my opinion, very soon, if not immediately, become discontented with an arrangement which would deprive them of -the power they now possess over the management of their own affairs, and render New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward’s Island, Provinces of Canada, instead of being, as they now are, Provinces of the British Empire.

I presume that the word ‘”Federative” has been used ‘in the Memorandum of the Executive Council of Canada to imply that the

should embrace the question of a Legislative, as well as that of a Federal or Federative union, and the expediency of uniting some, as well as that of uniting all the provinces

It is possible that a Federative union of the British North American Provinces would afford to the Canadian Government the – readiest mode of escape from the difficulties and embarrassments which now surround the settlement of the “seat of Government ” question, and I presume that I am right in supposing that, although the ostensible object of the proposed inquiry is the union by Federative bonds with Canada of the other British North American Provinces, the Canadian Government have no less in view the, severance of the bond which now joins the two Canadas in a Legislative Union, and the substitution for that bond of a more elastic tie of a Federal or a Federative character.

ment to this may be added that, by the proposed distribution of the revenue, each province would have a direct pecuniary interest in the preservation of the authority of the Federal Government. In these respects’ it is conceived that the proposed Confederation would possess greater inherent strength than that of the United States, and would combine the advantages of the unity for general purposes of a Legislative union, with so much of the Federative principle as -would give all the benefits of local government and legislation upon questions of provincial interest.

The Local Legislatures would not be in a position to claim the exercise of the same sovereign power-, which have frequently been the cause of difference between the American States and their General Govern-

It will be observed that the basis of confederation now proposed differs from that of-the-United States in several important particulars. It does not profess to be derived from the people, but would be the Constitution provided by the Imperial Parliament; thus affording the means of remedying any defect, which is now practically impossible under the American Constitution.

The Confederation might include the constitution of a Federal Court of Appeal.

It will form. a subject for mature deliberation whether the powers of the Federal Government should be confined to the points named, or should be extended to all matters not specially entrusted to the Local Legislatures.

That the powers of the Federal Legislature and Government should comprehend the Customs, Excise, and all trade questions; postal service, militia, banking, currency, weights and measures, and bankruptcy; public works of a national character; harbours and lighthouses; fisheries, and their protection; criminal justice; public lands, public debt, and government of unincorporated and Indian territories.

When Mr. Galt, therefore, came into office; it was natural that the question of an union of the Colonies should at once be discussed-. I found him and several of the gentlemen about to assume office deeply impressed with the idea that, in some such union alone could be found the ultimate solution of the great question which had been made a ground of agitation by Mr. Brown, and his friends, at the general election, viz., the existing equality of representation -of Upper and Lower Canada, and the alleged injustice inflicted on the former by such equality. This question is one, I need not say, which threatened to touch the root of the present union of the two sections of Canada -as by law established, and might imperil its existence by reviving all the old antagonism of race and religion.

The union of Lower with Upper Canada was based upon perfect equality being preserved between these Provinces-a condition the more necessary from the differences in their respective language, law, and. religion; and although there is now a large English population in Lower Canada, still these differences exist to an extent, which prevents any perfect and complete assimilation of the views of the two sections.

The population, trade, and resources of all these Colonies have so rapidly increased of late years, and the removal f trade-restrictions has made them, in so great a degree, self-sustaining, that it appears to the Government of Canada exceedingly important to bind still more closely the ties of their common allegiance to the British Crown, and to obtain for general purposes, such an identity in legislation as may seem to consolidate their growing power, thus raising, under, the protection of the Empire, an important Confederation on the North American Continent. At present, each Colony is totally distinct in its government, its customs and trade, and its general legislation. To each other no greater facilities are extended than to any foreign State; and the only common tie is that which binds all to the British Crown. This state of things is considered to be neither promotive of the physical prosperity of all, nor of that moral union which ought to be preserved in the presence of the powerful Confederation of the United States.

That the Federal, Government should be composed of a Governor General, or Viceroy, to be appointed by the Queen; of an Upper House, or Senate, elected upon a territorial basis of representation and of a House of Assembly, elected on the basis of population., The Executive to be composed of Ministers, responsible to the Legislature:

more.

General Butt Naked for example

failings of the person here presenting them

BOOK 12 THE ARGUMENT The Angel Michael continues from the Flood to relate what shall succeed; then, in the mention of Abraham, comes by degrees to explain, who that Seed of the Woman shall be, which was promised Adam and Eve in the Fall; his Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and Ascention; the state of the Church till his second Coming. Adam greatly satisfied and recomforted by these Relations and Promises descends the Hill with Michael; wakens Eve, who all this while had slept, but with gentle dreams compos'd to quietness of mind and submission. Michael in either hand leads them out of Paradise, the fiery Sword waving behind them, and the Cherubim taking thir Stations to guard the Place. AS one who in his journey bates at Noone, Though bent on speed, so heer the Archangel paus'd Betwixt the world destroy'd and world restor'd, If Adam aught perhaps might interpose; Then with transition sweet new Speech resumes. [ 5 ] Thus thou hast seen one World begin and end; And Man as from a second stock proceed. Much thou hast yet to see, but I perceave Thy mortal sight to faile; objects divine Must needs impaire and wearie human sense: [ 10 ] Henceforth what is to com I will relate, Thou therefore give due audience, and attend. This second sours of Men, while yet but few; And while the dread of judgement past remains Fresh in thir mindes, fearing the Deitie, [ 15 ] With some regard to what is just and right Shall lead thir lives and multiplie apace, Labouring the soile, and reaping plenteous crop, Corn wine and oyle; and from the herd or flock, Oft sacrificing Bullock, Lamb, or Kid, [ 20 ] With large Wine-offerings pour'd, and sacred Feast, Shal spend thir dayes in joy unblam'd, and dwell Long time in peace by Families and Tribes Under paternal rule; till one shall rise Of proud ambitious heart, who not content [ 25 ] With fair equalitie, fraternal state, Will arrogate Dominion undeserv'd Over his brethren, and quite dispossess Concord and law of Nature from the Earth, Hunting (and Men not Beasts shall be his game) [ 30 ] With Warr and hostile snare such as refuse Subjection to his Empire tyrannous: A mightie Hunter thence he shall be styl'd Before the Lord, as in despite of Heav'n, Or from Heav'n claming second Sovrantie; [ 35 ] And from Rebellion shall derive his name, Though of Rebellion others he accuse. Hee with a crew, whom like Ambition joyns With him or under him to tyrannize, Marching from Eden towards the West, shall finde [ 40 ] The Plain, wherein a black bituminous gurge Boiles out from under ground, the mouth of Hell; Of Brick, and of that stuff they cast to build A Citie and Towre, whose top may reach to Heav'n; And get themselves a name, least far disperst [ 45 ] In foraign Lands thir memorie be lost, Regardless whether good or evil fame. But God who oft descends to visit men Unseen, and through thir habitations walks To mark thir doings, them beholding soon, [ 50 ] Comes down to see thir Citie, ere the Tower Obstruct Heav'n Towrs, and in derision sets Upon thir Tongues a various Spirit to rase Quite out thir Native Language, and instead To sow a jangling noise of words unknown: [ 55 ] Forthwith a hideous gabble rises loud Among the Builders; each to other calls Not understood, till hoarse, and all in rage, As mockt they storm; great laughter was in Heav'n And looking down, to see the hubbub strange [ 60 ] And hear the din; thus was the building left Ridiculous, and the work Confusion nam'd. Whereto thus Adam fatherly displeas'd. O execrable Son so to aspire Above his Brethren, to himself assuming [ 65 ] Authoritie usurpt, from God not giv'n: He gave us onely over Beast, Fish, Fowl Dominion absolute; that right we hold By his donation; but Man over men He made not Lord; such title to himself [ 70 ] Reserving, human left from human free. But this Usurper his encroachment proud Stayes not on Man; to God his Tower intends Siege and defiance: Wretched man! what food Will he convey up thither to sustain [ 75 ] Himself and his rash Armie, where thin Aire Above the Clouds will pine his entrails gross, And famish him of Breath, if not of Bread? To whom thus Michael. Justly thou abhorr'st That Son, who on the quiet state of men [ 80 ] Such trouble brought, affecting to subdue Rational Libertie; yet know withall, Since thy original lapse, true Libertie Is lost, which alwayes with right Reason dwells Twinn'd, and from her hath no dividual being: [ 85 ] Reason in man obscur'd, or not obeyd, Immediately inordinate desires And upstart Passions catch the Government From Reason, and to servitude reduce Man till then free. Therefore since hee permits [ 90 ] Within himself unworthie Powers to reign Over free Reason, God in Judgement just Subjects him from without to violent Lords; Who oft as undeservedly enthrall

The whole of the clauses which refer to the latter are as complete as the most ardent supporters of union could desire, tempered by the lew exceptions by means of which the provinces have wished to shelter their local institutions from attack.

The 34th paragraph of the 29th clause of the scheme reads thus: ” The establishment of a General Court of Appeal for the Federated Provinces.” What is the object—what will be the character of the tribunal?

We ought to look at the question apart from party considerations, and on its own merits: that is to say, we ought to place in the Constitution a counterpoise to prevent any party legislation, and to moderate the precipitancy of any government which might be disposed to move too fast and go too far,—I mean a legislative body able to protect the people against itself and against the encroachments of power. (Hear, hear.) In England, the Crown has never attempted to degrade the House of Peers by submerging it, because it knows well that the nobility are a bulwark against the aggressions of the democratic element. The House of Lords, by their power, their territorial possessions, and their enormous wealth, are a great defence against democratic invasion, greater than anything we can oppose to it in America. In Canada, as in the rest of North America, we have not the castes—classes of society—which are found in Europe, and the Federal Legislative Council, although immutable in respect of number, inasmuch as all the members belonging to it will come from the ranks of the people, without leaving them, as do the members of the House of Commons, will not be selected from a privileged class which have no existence. Here all men are alike, and are all equal; if a difference is to be found, it arises exclusively from the industry, the intelligence, and the superior education of those who have labored the most strenuously, or whom Providence has gifted with the highest faculties. (Hear, hear.) Long ago the privileges of caste disappeared in this country. Most of our ancient nobility left the country at the conquest, and the greater number of those who remained have sunk out of sight by inaction. Accordingly, whom do we see in the highest offices of state? The sons of the poor who have felt the necessity of study, and who have risen by the aid of their intellect and hard work. (Hear, hear.) Everything is democratic with us, because everyone can attain to everything by the efforts of a noble ambition. The legislative councillors appointed by the Crown will not be, therefore, socially speaking, persons superior to the members of the House of Commons; they will owe their elevation only to their own merit.

He said that even if the Lower House were altogether liberal, the Upper House would remain composed of conservatives; this was his fear. He has been a long while trying to gain predominance for his democratic notions, but it is evident he will not succeed.

relative to the constitution of the Legislative Council, and said that he had not looked at the question, while speaking the other evening, in the same light as the honorable member for the county of Quebec. He spoke of the conservatives as a party, and his fear was, not that the Upper House would not be conservative enough, but that it would be too much so.

MR. GEOFFRION—YOU have equality between the two provinces. HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Yes, we have equality, but not as a race, nor in respect of religion. When the leader for Lower Canada shall have sixty-five members belonging to his section to support him, and command a majority of the French-Canadians and of the British from Lower Canada, will he not be able to upset the Government if his colleagues interfere with his recommendations to office? That is our security. At present, if I found unreasonable opposition to my views, my remedy would be to break up the Government by retiring, and the same thing will happen in the Federal Government.

HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Am I not in a minority at present in appointing judges? And yet when I propose the appointment of a judge for Lower Canada, is he not appointed?

the objection of the honorable member for the county of Quebec is well founded, because the Federal Government may appoint all English or all French-Canadians as legislative councillors for Lower Canada. If the honorable member had read the resolutions, he would have found that the appointments of legislative councillors are to be made so as to accord with the electoral divisions now existing in the province. Well, I ask whether it is probable that the Executive of the Federal Government, which will have a chief or leader as it is nowVI ask whether it is very probable that he will recommend the appointment of a French-Canadian to represent divisions like Bedford or Wellington for instance?

Lower Canada is in a peculiar position. We have two races of people whose interests are distinct from each other in respect to origin, language and religion. In preparing the business of the Confederation at Quebec, we had to conciliate these two interests, and to give the country a Constitution which might reconcile the conservative with the democratic element; for the weak point in democratic institutions is the leaving of all power in the hands of the popular element. The history of the past proves that this is an evil. In order that institutions may be stable and work harmoniously, there must be a power of resistance to oppose the democratic element. In the United States the power of resistance does not reside in the Senate, nor even in the President.

a class of men who would not represent the province for which they are appointed, and who could give no pledge that they would maintain its institutions.

he will see that the first nominations are to be made by the existing governments. Thus the Government of Canada, that of New Brunswick and that of Nova Scotia will appoint legislative councillors, but afterwards the Federal Government will make the appointments. The honorable member for Quebec can, with reason, draw the conclusion that there is no guarantee that the views of the provinces will be respected. I for my part have investigated the matter, more in connection with the power that will be vested in the legislative councillors. I asserted that by appointing them for life and limiting their number, an absolute authority would be created, which would be quite beyond the control of the people and even of the Executive; that the power of this body will be so great, that they will always be in a position to prevent every reform if they thought proper, and that a collision between the two branches would be inevitable and irremediable. The danger arising from the creating of such a power is exactly that of being obliged to destroy it if they resist too obstinately the popular demands. In England there is no necessity for breaking down the obstructions sometimes presented by the House of Lords, because the Crown having it in its power to appoint new peers, can overcome the difficulty. Here there will be no means of doing it, when the number of councillors is fixed. Accordingly, I have looked at the question through the medium of the powers assigned to the councillors, whereas the honorable member for the county of Quebec fears lest the Government should make choice of men who would not represent public opinion in the provinces; that they might appoint members all of French origin or all of English origin to represent Lower Canada, or take them all from among

In our Constitution it is the duty of the Legislative Council to exercise the conservative influence, and to modify the legislation too energetic and too full of outside effervescence, which is sent for their consideration from the House of Commons. But when public opinion gains vigor from the obstacles which it encounters, and the reforms demanded are rational and come before them in due course, there is no danger that the legislation which embodies them will be obstructed in its progress; for the people will rise in their majesty and in their sense of justice, as did the people of England in 1832, and the obstacles they might meet with on their way would be swept away as by a torrent. (Hear, hear.) HON. MR. DORION—That is exactly where the danger lies. HON. MR. CAUCHON—That is the danger which assailed the House of Lords in 1832, but no one would venture to confront to the last extremity a danger such as this. But the honorable member for Quebec tells us, if I understand him rightly, that we have not sufficient guarantees for Lower Canada in the appointment of the legislative councillors. The selection of legislative councillors has no bearing whatever on the question we are now considering, viz., whether the appointment by the Crown is or is not preferable to the elective principle. But in answer to him I will say, that the scheme before us seems to be quite clear. According to this plan the candidates for the Legislative Council will be recommended by the local governments and appointed by the General Government, and it is by this very division of powers that the selections are sure to be good, and made in conformity with the desire and sentiments of the provinces. HON. MR. DORION—Only the first nominations are to be made in this manner, not those which may be made afterwards. HON. MR. CAUCHON—The first nominations will be made by the present Governments, and the federal councillors will be taken from the present legislative councillors to the number prescribed, 24, provided so many can be found who will accept the post, and who possess the requisite property qualification. The Conference has engaged, by the terms of the scheme, to respect the rights of the Opposition, and any government who should fail to carry out so solemn an engagement would well deserve to lose the public confidence. (Hear, hear.) I repeat that the mode of appointing the councillors in no wise affects the conservative principle of nomination on which the constitution of the Legislative Council ought to be based.

It is true that the House of Lords, Conservative though it be, finds itself removed from all popular influence; but its numbers may be increased upon the recommendation of the responsible advisers of the Crown, if such a measure were to become necessary to obtain the concurrence of both Houses, or to prevent a collision between them. The position which its members occupy in it establishes a sort of compromise between the Crown and the popular element. But this new House, after Confederation, will be a perfectly independent body; its members will be nominated for life, and their number cannot be increased. How long will this system work without bringing about a collision between the two branches of the Legislature? Let us suppose the Lower House composed in a great part of Liberals, for how long a time would it submit to an Upper House named by Government? Be kind enough to observe, Mr. SPEAKER, that under the old system, the Legislative Council possessed the same elements of existence as the House of Lords, and that the Crown could increase its numbers at need; it augmented it in 1849, as it threatened to augment the House of Lords in 1832. Observe, again, that it is precisely this control exercised by the Crown over the Upper House that the hon. gentleman found so fatal to legislation previous to 1856. But there is a more rational manner of appreciating the part sustained by the House of Lords in the British Constitution. No one denies to the Sovereign the abstract right of increasing at will the House of Lords; but such right has never been exercised but for the purpose of rewarding men distinguished for great national services and when, in 1832, WILLIAM IV. granted Earl GREY the tremendous power to swamp the representative body of the great landed nobility, it was because the country was moving with rapid strides towards revolution, and because there remained to the Sovereign but two alternatives, either to lessen the moral weight of the House of Lords, or to see his own throne knocked to pieces from under his feet.

It must then have been a real revolution, this nomination of one hundred new peers, a revolution as real as that which menaced the Throne; and do we not feel persuaded that if one day our Federal Legislative Council were to place itself obstinately and systematically in opposition to popular will, matured and strengthened by ordeals, it would not be swept away by a revolutionary torrent such as threatened to sweep away the House of Lords in 1832? This Council, limited as to numbers , because the provinces insist on maintaining in it an equilibrium without which they would never have consented to a union, this Council, sprung from the people—having the same wants, hopes and even passions, would resist less the popular will in America, where it is so prompt and active, than could the House of Lords in England, where the masses are inert because they have not political rights; reason tells us thus because they would be a less powerful body socially or politically.

We have accorded the principle of representation based upon population in the House of Commons of the Federal Government, and that is without doubt a great sacrifice; but we ought only to make so important a concession on the condition that we shall have equality of representation in the Legislative Council, and the right reserved to ourselves to appoint our twenty-four legislative councillors, in order that they may be responsible to the public opinion of the province and independent of the Federal Government.—Without this essential guarantee I affirm that the rights of Lower Canada are in danger. For my part I am ready, on behalf of Lower Canada, to give up her right to elect directly her twenty-four legislative councillors, although the retention of the elective principle might perhaps be the surest means of preserving our institutions; but I am anxious that the new Constitution now proposed should give us adequate guarantees that the legislative councillors to be appointed for life should, at all events, be selected by the Local Government of Lower Canada, which would be responsible to the people. These not ill-grounded sources of anxiety I should like to see removed.

in relation to the qualifications and appointment of the legislative councillors. Like him, I am quite of opinion that the conservative element ought, of necessity, to be the basis of the Legislative Council, to counterbalance the popular element. This principle governed the constitution of the House of Lords in England, that of the Legislative Council in Belgium, and that of every well organized representative government.

In the scheme of the Quebec Conference there was no delegation of the supreme authority, either from above or below, inasmuch as the provinces, not being independent states, received, their political organizations from the Parliament of the Empire.

The hon. member for Hochelaga has declared that he was willing to accord to the Protestants the guarantees of protection which they sought for the education of their children; but in this he has been forestalled by the Quebec Conference and by the unanimous sentiment of the Catholic population of Lower Canada. If the present law be insufficient, let it be changed. Justice demands that the Protestant minority of Lower Canada shall be protected in the same manner as the Catholic minority of Upper Canada, and that the rights acquired by the one and the other shall not be assailed either by the Federal Parliament or the local legislatures.

Protestantism dominates in the government and in the legislature, and yet has not Catholicity been better treated, and has it not been better developed, with more liberty and more prosperity than under the regime of the Constitution of 1791. (Hear, hear.) Living and laboring together we have learned to know, to respect, to esteem each other, and to make mutual concessions for the common weal.

On the contrary, did it not emancipate the latter, civilly and religiously, and did it not give that minority privileges which it had not hitherto possessed? If our people are inflexibly attached to our faith, it is also full of toleration, of good-will towards those who are not of the same belief.

Before the union, the parliamentary majority in Lower Canada was Catholic, and although it was long involved in a struggle with power, was it ever guilty of an injustice towards the Protestant minority?

And yet when the honorable member for Joliette asked with much reason of the honorable member for Lotbinière why he did not speak of Confederation based upon monarchical principles, the latter gentleman answered that he could not speak of what did not exist, and of what was absurd.

They did not act wrongly then, those forty chosen men of British North America who came to Quebec to erect a new nation on the monarchical basis, and as much as possible on the principles of the Parliament of Great Britain.

M. DE TOCQUEVILLE has lived too long; his admirable work on democracy in America produces upon our minds, at the present day, only the effect of an heroic poem; it is the Isle of Calypso, so admirably sung by FENELON, but which fades away when you have closed Telemachus.

We have also seen, not far from our own homes, that same democracy wrapped in the mantle of republicanism, moving at a rapid pace towards demagogy, and from demagogy to an intolerable despotism.

vinces, and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the union, would be a General Government, charged with matters of common interest to the whole country; and Local Governments for each of the Canadas, and for the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections. Provision being made for the admission into the union, on equitable terms, of Newfoundland, the Northwest Territory, British Columbia, and Vancouver.

principles which threatened society at large. What the Opposition detest the most in the project of the Quebec Conference, is its monarchical character, as also those words found at the commencement of that remarkable work :— The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a Federal union under the Crown of Great Britain, provided such union can be effected on principles just to the several provinces. In the Federation of the British North American Provinces, the system of government best adapted, under existing circumstances, to protect the diversified interests of the several pro-

It appears therefore that the only alternative which now offers itself to the inhabitants of Lower Canada is a choice between dissolution pure and simple, or Confederation on one side, and representation by population on the other. And however opposed Lower Canada may be to representation by population, is there not imminent danger that it may be finally imposed upon it, if it resist all measures of reform, the object of which is to leave to the local authorities of each section the control of its own interests and institutions. We should not forget that the same authority which imposed on us the Act of Union, or which altered it without our consent, by repealing the clause which required the concurrence of two thirds of the members of both Houses in order to change the representation respecting the two sections, may again intervene to impose upon us this new change.

The example of the neighboring states, in which the application of the Federal system has shown us how fitting it was to the government of an immense territory, inhabited by people of different origins, creeds, laws and customs, has no doubt suggested the idea; but it was only in 1856 that this proposition was enunciated before the Legislature by the Lower Canadian Opposition, as offering, in its opinion, the only effective remedy for the abuses produced by the present system.

The honorable member for Brockville, the Postmaster General, the Speaker, and other members representing Lower Canadian counties, in the present Parliament, have already voted for representation by population. Before long, it will become impossible to resist the demand of Upper Canada in this respect. If representation by population be not granted now, it will infallibly obtain it later, but then without any guarantee for the protection of the French Canadians.

Representation “based upon population was one of the least causes of this project. [And further on] : But, as soon as the Government found itself, after its defeat, obliged either to resign or to appeal to the people, gentlemen on the other side of the House, without there being the slightest agitation on this question, prepared to embrace their most violent adversaries, and said to themselves: ” We are going to forget our past differences, provided we can preserve our portfolios. “

Necessarily, I do not mean to say that I shall always be opposed to Confederation. The population may extend itself, and cover the virgin forests which exist between Canada and the Maritime Provinces, and commercial relations may increase in such a manner as to render Confederation necessary.

Mr. DORION argued that when Lower Canada had the preponderance of population, complaints were of the inequality of the representation of that section. The union of Belgium and Holland, which was somewhat similar to that at present existing between Upper and Lower Canada was dissolved when it was found it did not work advantageously to both countries. He instanced a number of questions on which it was impossible for Upper and Lower Canada to agree; public feeling being quite dissimilar— subjects popular in one section being the reverse in the other. He warned Lower Canada members, that when the time came that the whole of the representatives from the western portion of the province would be banded together on the question, they would obtain representation by population, and secure the assistance of the Eastern Township members in so doing. He regarded a Federal union of Upper and Lower Canada as a nucleus of the great Confederation of the North American Provinces to which all looked forward. He concluded by saying he would vote for the resolution, as the only mode by which the two sections of the province could get out of the difficulties in which they now are. He thought the union ought to be dissolved, and a Federal union of the provinces would in due time follow.

The honorable member for Brockville, the Honorable Postmaster General, the Speaker, and other members representing Lower Canadian counties in the present Parliament, have voted for representation by population. Before long, it will be impossible to resist the demands of Upper Canada in this respect. If representation by population is not granted now, it will infallibly obtain it at a later period, but then without any guarantees for the protection of the French- Canadians. The repeal of the union, a Federal union, representation based on population, or some other great change must in all necessity take place, and for my part I am disposed to consider the question of representation by population, in order to see if it may not be conceded with guarantees for the protection of the religion, the language, and the laws of Lower Canadians. I am equally ready to take into consideration the project of a Confederation of the provinces, leaving to each section the administration of its local affairs, as for example the power of regulating its own civil, municipal and educational laws; and to the General Government the administration of the public works, the public lands, the post-office department, and commerce.

With the control of our public lands in our own hands, we can attract the tide of emigration, retain our own people in the country, and advance in prosperity as rapidly as the other provinces.

It will be said that the national life of Lower Canada is so deeply rooted, that it is impossible to destroy it; but, if we desire to secure its safety, we must accept the present scheme of Confederation, under which all the religious interests of Lower Canada, her educational institutions, her public lands, in fact everything that constitutes a people’s nationality, will find protection and safety.

The Conservative party has always opposed representation by population under the present union, because under this union we are face to face with the population of a country of which the products are different from ours, and of which the interests are not always identical with ours. This question was strongly agitated. The whole people of Lower Canada resisted that demand, and the whole Conservative party firmly refused to consent to it, while the other party—the Opposition party—held out hopes to those who demanded that measure, and allied themselves with them.

The Federal system is the normal condition of American populations; for there are very few American nations which have not a political system of that nature. The Federal system is a state of transition which allows the different races inhabiting the same part of the globe to unite, with the view of attaining national unity and homogeneousness. Spain, Belgium, France, and several other European countries were formerly peopled by different races, who constituted so many different communities; but they became united, they entered into confederations, and in the course of ages all the communities were consolidated into those which we now see—into everything that is held to be beautiful, noble and great throughout the whole world. When the Federal system has been put in practice in an enlightened manner, it has always sufficed for the requirements of those who adopted it.

Without uniformity, without unity, it is impossible to make any serious attempt at defence in case of attack, and the divided country falls an easy prey to the enemy.

These powers of the Federal Government are not, as we understand the matter, to be exercised, except as regards the following subjects, viz., Commerce, comprising purely commercial laws, such as laws respecting banks and other institutions of a general financial character, coinage, and weights and measures; Customs, including the establishment of a uniform tariff, and the collection of the revenue resulting therefrom; great Public Works and Navigation, such as canals, railways, telegraph lines, great seaport works and the lighting of the coast; Post Office arrangements, both in their entirety and in their internal and external details; the Militia in the entirety of its organization; Criminal justice, comprising all offences which do not come under the jurisdiction of the police courts and justices of the peace. Everything else connected with civil law, education, public charities, the settlement of public lands, agriculture, city and rural police, road works, in fact, with all matters relating to the family life, so to speak, of each province, will remain under the exclusive control of the respective Local Government of each one of them, as by inherent right; the powers of the Federal Government being looked upon as merely a concession of rights, which are specially designated.

What hopes may we not be allowed to indulge respecting the material future of the immense country which includes the two Canadas, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, the Hudson’s Bay Territory and Vancouver’s Island, when we reflect on the wealth of a soil which is almost everywhere remarkably fertile, (except the extreme North,) on the resources which the forests have treasured up for the settler in the lapse of ages, on the immense fisheries in the Gulf, sufficient of themselves to feed the whole world with fish of the finest quality; when we consider that the whole of this vast continent offers to us, in its various geological formations mineral wealth of the most precious kinds, and that nature has arranged for us channels of intercommunication of incredible grandeur. The fertile soil of these provinces intersected throughout their entire length by the rivers St. Lawrence and St. John, bathed by the waters of the Gulf and those of the Great Lakes, the superb forests through which flow the immense Ottawa, the St. Maurice and the Saguenay, the mines of copper bordering on lakes Superior and Huron, the iron mines of Canada, the coal measures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the seaports of Quebec, Halifax and St. John, the ores of all kinds dispersed throughout the provinces—all those form an aggregate of means which, if we suppose them to be turned to account by a competent population, governed by a political system based on true principles of order and liberty, justifies the most extravagant calculations of profit, the most extraordinary predictions of growth, as compared with the present state of things.

At most, the resolutions are not a treaty, but the mere draft of an agreement come to between those gentlemen. HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—Oh, yes, it is a treaty, and we are now fighting to uphold it. MR. DUNKIN—Well, it is a draft of a treaty if you like, but it is not a treaty. Plenipotentiaries, who frame treaties, have full authority to act on behalf of their respective countries. HON. ATTY. GEN. CARTIER—It is the same as any other treaty entered into under the British system. The Government is responsible for it to Parliament, and if this does not meet your approval, you can dispossess us by a vote of want of confidence.

Her Majesty says in her Speech from the Throne at the opening of the Imperial Parliament, that she approves of the Conference that framed the treaty. Is not the royal sanction sufficient authority?

We are asking for that authority now

Well, a treaty, I suppose, implies authority on the part of those who framed it to enter into it.

MR. DUNKIN—I think we shall, if we maintain and strengthen our relations with the parent state; but I do not think we shall, if we adopt a scheme like this, which must certainly weaken the tie between us and the Empire. Our language to England had better be the plain truth—that we are no beggars, and will shirk no duty; that we do not want to go, and of ourselves will not go; that our feelings and our interests alike hold us to her; that, even apart from feeling, we are not strong enough, and know our own weakness, and the strength of the power near us; and that the only means by which we can possibly be kept from absorption by that power, is the maintaining now—and for all time that we can look forward to—of our connection with the Mother-Land.

Now, I am not desirous that our acceptance of the scheme should go home to be cited (as it would be) to the people of England, as a proof that we so view it—a proof that we wish to be separated from the Empire. I am quite satisfied separation will never do. We are simply sure to be overwhelmed the instant our neighbors and we differ, unless we have the whole power of the Mother Country to assist us.

The people of England have no desire to snap asunder abruptly the slender links which still unite them with their trans-atlantic fellow-subjects, or to shorten by a single hour the duration of their common citizenship. * * * * We are led irresistibly to the inference that this stage has been well nigh reached in the history of our trans-Atlantic provinces. Hence it comes to pass that we accept, not with fear and trembling, but with unmixed joy and satisfaction, a voluntary proclamation, which, though couched in the accents of loyalty, and proffering an enduring allegiance to our Queen, falls yet more welcome on our eats as the harbinger of the future and complete independence of British North America.

If, as has been alleged, a legislative union is unattainable, because inconsistent with due securities for the rights guaranteed to the French Canadians, by treaty or by the Quebec Act, and Federation is therefore the only alternative, the vital question for the framers of this Constitution is how the inherent weakness of all federations can in this instance be cured, and the Central Government armed with a sovereignty which may be worthy of the name. It is the essence of all good governments to have somewhere a true sovereign power. A sovereignty which ever eludes your grasp, which has no local habitation, provincial or imperial, is in fact no government at all. Sooner or later the shadow of authority which is reflected from an unsubstantial political idea must cease to have power among men. It has been assumed by those who take a sanguine view of this political experiment, that its authors have steered clear of the rock on which the WASHINGTON Confederacy has split. But if the weakness of the Central Government is the rock alluded to, we fear that unless in clear water and smooth seas, the pilot who is to steer this new craft will need a more perfect chart than the resolutions of the Quebec Conference afford, to secure him against the risks of navigation.

What we have to fear, and if possible to guard against, is the constant peril of a three-fold conflict of authority implied in the very existence of a federation of dependencies retaining, as now proposed, any considerable share of intercolonial independence.

We are to buy the Hudson’s Bay territory, and take care of it, and make a grand road all across the continent, which Great Britain shrinks from contemplating herself.

The completion of the Intercolonial Railway, and the probable annexation of the fertile portions of the Great North-Western territory to the new Confederation, form a portion only of the probable consequences of its formation, the benefits of which will not be limited to the colonies alone, but in which Europe and the world at large will eventually participate. When the Valley of the Saskatchewan shall have been colonized, the communications between the Red River Settlement and Lake Superior completed, and the harbour of Halifax united by one continuous line of railway, with the shores of Lake Huron, the three missing links between the Atlantic and Pacific ocean will have been supplied.

The result of these proposals, if carried into effect, would be the creation of a new state in North America, still retaining the name of a British dependency, comprising an area about equal to that of Europe, a population of about four millions, with an aggregate revenue in sterling of about two millions and a half, and carrying on a trade (including exports, imports and intercolonial commerce) of about twenty-eight millions sterling per annum. If we consider the relative positions of Canada and the Maritime Provinces—the former possessing good harbors, but no back country, the former an unlimited supply of cereals, but few minerals; the latter an unlimited supply of iron and coal, but little agricultural produce. The commercial advantages of union between states so circumstanced, are too obvious to need comment. The completion of the Intercolonial Railway, and the probable annexation of the fertile portions of the Northwest territory to the new Confederation, form a portion only of the probable consequences of its formation, but in which Europe and the world at large will eventually participate. When the—

A very important question, on which these papers afford no information, is that relating to the future condition of those territories and dependencies of the Crown in North America, which are not included within the present boundaries of the five provinces. “We allude more particularly to the territories now held by the Hudson’s Bay Company, under the Crown, by charter or lease. The Crown is doubtless bound to take care that the interest of its grantees—[it never seems to have occurred to our friend that we, too, are grantees]—are not prejudiced by these changes; but, on the other hand, an English trading company is ill qualified to carry on the government and provide for the defence of a vast and inaccessible expanse of continental territory.

It is scarcely surprising that any project which may offer a prospect of escape from a political situation so undignified and unsatisfactory should be hailed with a cordial welcome by all parties concerned. But one meaning can be put upon all this. In the opinion of the writer, England does not believe that these provinces are worth anything to her, while the connection with the Mother Country is worth all to us ; and she would hail with satisfaction any way of escape from the obligations and dangers that we are said to cast upon her.

Retainers who will neither give nor accept notice to quit our service, must, it is assumed, be kept for our service. There are, nevertheless, special and exceptional difficulties which beset us in this portion of our vast field of empire.

It might puzzle the wisest of our statesmen, if he were challenged to put his finger on any single item of material advantage resulting to ourselves from our dominions in British North America, which cost us at this moment about a million sterling a year.

It is not unnatural that the desire to maintain a connection with the power and wealth of the Mother Country should be stronger on the side of the colonies than it is on that of the British public, for they owe almost everything to us, and we receive but little from them. Moreover, the existing system of colonial government enables them to combine all the advantages of local independence with the strength and dignity of a great empire. But the Imperial Government in the meantime has to decide, not as of old, whether Great Britain is to tax the colonies, but to what extent the colonies are to be permitted to tax Great Britain—a question which is daily becoming more urgent and less easy of solution.

There are problems of colonial policy the solution of which cannot, without peril, be indefinitely delayed; and though Imperial England is doing her best to keep up appearances in the management of her five and forty dependencies, the political links which once bound them to each other and to their common centre are evidently worn out. Misgivings haunt the public mind as to the stability of an edifice which seems to be founded on a reciprocity of deception, and only to be shored up for the time by obsolete and meaningless traditions.

I am well enough satisfied that Lord DERBY himself has not the most remote idea of falling in with the views of the so-called colonial reformers in England, who desire to see the colonies pay for every thing or be cast off; but he knows the hold that their views have gained at home, and he speaks accordingly.

Under these circumstances I see with additional satisfaction—[Meaning of, course, though courtesy may have disallowed the phrase, “less dissatisfaction,” for he certainly did not see those other matters with any satisfaction at all]—I see with additional satisfaction the announcement of a contemplated important step. I mean the proposed Federation of the British American Provinces. (Hear, hear.) I hope I may regard that Federation as a measure tending to constitute a power strong enough, with the aid of this country, which I trust may never be withdrawn from those provinces, to acquire an importance which, separately, they could not obtain. (Hear, hear.) If I saw in this Federation a desire to separate from this country, I should think it a matter of much more doubtful policy and advantage; but I perceive with satisfaction, that no such wish is entertained. Perhaps it is premature to discuss, at present, resolutions not yet submitted to the different provincial legislatures, but I hope I see in the terms of that Federation an earnest desire on the part of the provinces to maintain for themselves the blessing of the connection with this country, and a determined and deliberate preference for monarchical over republican institutions.

“We are supposed, by one of these noble lords, to bo taking a step analogous to that taken by the authors of the Declaration of Independence ; and by the other, to be moved by the same impulse of empire that has been leading to the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy.

the northern provinces of British America. I heartily concur in all—[the all being as we have just seen, not much]—that has been said by my noble friend the mover of this address in his laudation of that project. It is, my lords, a most interesting contemplation that that project has arisen, and has been approved by Her Majesty’s Government. It is certainly contrary to what might be considered the old maxims of government in connection with the colonies, that we should here express —and that the Crown itself should express— satisfaction at a measure which tends to bind together, in almost independent power, our colonies in North America. We do still believe that though thus banded together, they will recognize the value of British connection, and that while they will be safer in this amalgamation, we shall be as safe in their fealty. The measure will no doubt, my lords, require much prudent consideration and great attention to provincial susceptibilities.

Why should these resolutions suggest to any one’s mind the declaration of independence? Did the gentlemen who signed these resolutions in order to authenticate them—pledge their lives and fortunes, and I don’t know what besides, to anything, or risk anything, by appending their signatures to the document? Was it a great exercise of political heroism? Why, the men who signed the declaration of independence qualified themselves in the eyes of the Imperial Government for the pleasant operations of heading and hanging. They knew what they were about. They were issuing a rebel declaration of war. But this is a piece of machinery, on the face of it at least, to perpetuate our connection with the Mother Country! Why then does it suggest the idea that so great a scheme of self-government, or one shadowing forth so many similar and possible changes, ” hardly ever before occurred?” It is because there is, underlying the speaker’s thought, just that idea of the anti-colonial school in England, that we are going to slip away from our connection with the Mother Country; and in this respect, therefore, it seems to him that it is like the declaration of independence. The remaining sentence indicates a curious misapprehension as to the present posture of this question. ” If the delegates of these several colonies finally agree to the resolutions framed by their committee, and if these resolutions be approved by the several legislatures of the several colonies, Parliament will be asked to consider and complete this federation of our Northern American possessions.” The noble lord, the mover of the Address, seems to take the resolutions for a mere report of a committee which (on their way here) had yet to be submitted to the consideration of the delegates ! Next, I turn to the language of Lord HOUGHTON, the seconder of the Address ; and from his lips too, we have an almost distinct utterance of the idea of our coming independence. He says :—

If it is a declaration that this thing is a treaty, which may not be amended by us without flying in the face of Her Majesty’s Government, I do not understand the meaning of words. (Hear, hear.) In connection with the Speech from the Throne, we had, the other night, some notice taken, on the floor of this House, of language used in discussing the address in the Imperial Parliament. Lords CLAREMONT, HOUGHTON, GRANVILLE and DERBY had something to say in respect of this scheme in the House of Lords ; as also, Mr. HANBURY TRACY in the House of Commons. I do not attach great weight to what was there said, because there really was little said any way, and that little could not indicate any great amount of knowledge upon the subject treated. However, I will quote first what the mover of the address, the Earl of CLAREMONT, said. After referring to the war in New Zealand, he went on :— My Lords, although these operations in India, New Zealand, and Japan, are matters of more or less interest or concern to the nation, and, as such, are fully deserving of notice, yet they are small in comparison to the importance of the probable change in the constitution of our North American Colonies. Since the declaration of independence by the colonies, since known as the United States of America, so great a scheme of self-government, or one shadowing forth so many similar and possible changes, has not occurred.

These delegates adopted resolutions having for their object a closer union of those provinces under a central government. If those resolutions shall be approved by the provincial legislatures, a bill will be laid before you for carrying this important measure into effect”

The language addressed from the Throne to the Imperial Parliament is this: ” Her Majesty has had great satisfaction in giving Her sanction—”to what?—” to the meeting of a conference of delegates from the several North American Provinces, who, on invitation from Her Majesty’s Governor General, assembled at Quebec.”

It is true we are not actually giving up the American colonies,—nay, the despatch we are quoting does not contain the slightest hint that such a possibility ever crossed the mind of the writer; but yet it is perfectly evident—and there is no use in concealing the fact—that the Confederation movement considerably diminishes the difficulty which would be felt by the colonies in separating from the Mother Country. Even now the North American Confederation represents a state formidable from the numbers of its hardy and energetic population, and capable, if so united, of vigorously defending the territories it possesses. A few years will add greatly to that population, and place Canada, Hochelaga, Acadia, or by whatever other name the Confederacy may think fit to call itself, quite out of the reach of invasion or conquest. Such a state would not only be strong against the Mother Country under the impossible supposition of our seeking to coerce it by force, but it might be separated from us without incurring the disgrace of leaving a small and helpless community at the mercy of powerful and warlike neighbors.

“The second point which Her Majesty’s Government desire should be reconsidered”—and this phrase is positively, so far as words can give it, a command on the part of Her Majesty’s Government that it shall be reconsidered :— The second point which Her Majesty’s Government desire should be reconsidered is the constitution of the Legislative Council. They appreciate the considerations which have influenced the Conference in determining the mode in which this body, so important to the constitution of the Legislature, should be composed. But it appears to them to require further consideration whether, if the members be appointed “for life, and their number be fixed, there will be any sufficient means of restoring harmony between the Legislative Council and the popular Assembly, if it shall ever unfortunately happen that a decided difference of opinion shall arise between them. These two points, relating to the prerogative of the Crown and the Constitution of the Upper Chamber have appeared to require distinct and separate notice. Is not that a pretty emphatic dissent ?

Her Majesty’s Government cannot but express the earnest hope, that the arrangements which may be adopted in this respect may not be of such a nature as to increase—at least in any considerable degree—the whole expenditure, or to make any material addition to the taxation, and thereby retard the internal industry, or tend to impose new burdens on the commerce of the country.