MR. NEEDHAM resumed : I shall request the
indulgence of the House, in order that I may fully and fairly explain
my views, and the reasons that induce me to vote as I shall vote on this
question. I was asked by persons outside of this House why I
did not stick to the point when speaking on this question on Saturday
evening. I began to think where the point was. I called to mind the
various speeches on this question, and found they had taken such a discursive range
that it would be unfair not to allow me the same
latitude. I shall take up the different points, and endeavour
to make myself so plain that I cannot be misunderstood either in
the position I assume or the principles I advocate. Before I go on to the main points,
I will refer to what I passed over
on Saturday, on account of my not having any notes before me, as I did
not expect to speak that evening until a few moments before I
arose for that purpose. The few remarks which I will now make on that
subject is for the purpose of disabusing the minds of hon. members
of a wrong impression regarding the York election and its results. That
election was no evidence of a change of public opinion in the County of
York regarding Confederation. True, says one hon. member, it was no
change of opinion on Confederation, yet it was an absolute denouncement nftho present
Government. This I deny, and I shall show
conclusively that the York election was no denouncement of the Government as a whole.
The Attorney General, at the last
session of the Legislature introduced a Bill to Abolish the office of
political Postmaster General. That Bill, as I understand it, contemplated nothing
more than the mere doing away with that
political office, and contemplated no ar
rangements for
removing that or any other office. But the impression got abroad that
it was the intention of the leader of the Government to remove that
office to St. John, which rendered him very unpopular in this County. I voted
against abolishing that office, not because I was a member for York, but
because the measure did not accord with my views of Responsible and
Departmental Government. I considered the idea of having Responsible
without Departmental Government as absurd. The very moment
the impression got abroad in the County of York that it was the intention
to remove that office to St. John, which had caused the expenditure of
twelve or fifteen hundred pounds a year in the city of Fredericton, it
created a feeling of hostility to the man who tried to carry that
measure. It was easy to get up this impression, and it was made a handle of
at the York election. The question was a popular one in a majority of
the Counties outside of the County of York ; but it was
unpopular there, and the election was not based upon hostility to the Government,
but upon hostility to Mr. Smith, the leader of the
Government, and he alone was brought into the contest. There was another
influence brought to bear in this election ; that was the excitement got up about
Fenianism. I do now assert—and there are thousands
who will bear witness to the truth of what I say—that this cry of
Fenianism was got up for an especial purpose on an especial occasion, to
raise the worst feelings of our common nature. It was got up
to carry the election against Mr. Pickard. This cry of Fenianism, and the
opposition to the leader of the Government, was the cause of
a member being returned in opposition to the Governtment. Confederation
had nothing to do with it, for not only the candidate ignored it, but
almost every canvasser ; for I went through the County and heard the canvassers speak,
and almost every one put forth the same cry :
Timothy Anglin has challenged the Protestants, and will you succumb to
him ? A more infamous falsehood never was perpetrated. However unfortunate was the
challenge, Mr. Anglin never challenged the
Protestants of York. His challenge was to the confederates of
York. He asked them would they bring out a Confederation of York in
opposition to on anti Confederate. They did not, and they dare not. They
brought an anti-Confederate to opposo an anti-Confederate. They brought
a stronger anti-Confederate than I am myself, and this is an
undeniable fact. The moment this challenge was explained, it
was seen at once that this was not a religious challenge at
all, but was one any man might have made. I stated that most all the
canvassers for my colleague on that occasion enunciated the same
doctrine. There was one honorable exception ; that was Mr.
Hartley, Deputy Surveyor in Carleton. He put the question
fairly on Confederation. Honor to whom honor is due. I respect my political opponent
who will meet me on fair political grounds. Then we
can make use of the assertion, " free stage and no favor." Then if we
are beaten, we are beaten honorably. But it was not honorable
to get up this cry that religion was in danger. If it was, would it be saved
by holding an election in the County. No ! If it stands on that basis it
is not worth having or promulgating in the world. The very moment this
cry of Fenianism
DEBATES OF
THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 83 had done its work, and
the election was over, the sensation telegrams ceased to arrive from
Canada, New York, and other places. My hon. friend Mr. McClelan read a
squib here which was published some days before the York election. I
tried to get one but could not, so they could not have been very numerous
in the County of York. He must have had it salted down. There were plenty
of squibs in circulation on the other side, one of them speaks of Needham,
Anglin and Co. I never knew of any such company. Talk about a
" hidden hand," or slander. Was that a hit at Anglin ? No ! It was a hit
at Needham. They  were not satisfied with asserting that Anglin had
challenged the Protestants of York ; but they say Needham is going over to
the Catholic Church, and challenges them too. A more able
politician, or a more able, honest, consistent journalist
never put pen to paper than Mr. Anglin, for he is honest to the core, and
despises a mean, low act as much as any man. True, he has his own opinion
in regard to the worship of his God, and where is the man that does not.
Toleration is obliterated from the dictionary. I ask toleration from
no man, and I give it to no man, for it comes from the source of our
existence. I never was ashamed to let everybody know just what I believed.
They know whether I am an Orangeman or a Catholic, for I never was what I
would be ashamed to acknowledge. I do not mean to say that I am always
right, or that I am the man pointed out in Scripture as the
man that has a right to cast the first stone ; but I say, when I believe a
thing to be right I am not ashamed to assert it. My hon. colleague stated
on nomination day, that at the last election a great many lies were thrown
broadcast over the County of York. I said more about
Confederation before that election than any of my colleages, and I
challenge any one to produce one solitary false statement made by
me, or one single bit of exaggeration. Can you do it ? Why then did you
say it ? I never did on any one occasion make one assertion
that was untrue, neither did I exaggerate. I did not even make the case as
bad as it was. The good old Apostle Paul said he had been
beaten, stricken, ship-wrecked and in prison, &c. In this respect I
think he and I resemble each other. While I have not received forty stripes save one,
I have been injured in a more
tender part than the back, for I am, to use an expression made use of by
the late Hon. J. R. Partelow, in St. John, the best abused man in the
country. I take it and fight it off ; yet, whenever maligned, I feel
this consolation, that there is one woe pronounced in
Scripture which I have never felt, that is the woe pronounced when every
man speaks well of you. It is said that everything is fair in war, politics and love.
I do not believe that doctrine. I do not believe my
hon. colleague did right in telling the people of Keswick that
the railroad would go down by the Keswick valley, and telling
the people of Stanley that it would go right by there. Another
point against the Government was, that they did not call the House
together before they did. This, of itself, shows the weakness of the
Opposition, when they are compelled to take up a point like that. Then
regarding the non-appointment of the Auditor General. The Sur
veyor General read you the law, which says, an Auditor
General shall be appointed, or some other person. Some other
person was appointed and the law was fulfilled ; then that being the
case, this charge also falls to the ground. Ah, says my hon. friend, the
office of Auditor General is ministerial, and they can summon witnesses
from any part of the country. Was it ever done ? IÂ never knew it to be
done, neither has my hon. friend (Mr. F.) ever known it to be done. Then
why all this prevarication. It was a mighty charge to
bring against the Government, that they ought to have appointed an officer
to do what never was done and never will be. They have appointed an
officer to do what was essentially necessary, and I do not know but what
the power invested in the Auditor General, would, by
implication, be invest- in the person nominated to be
his deputy, he would have a right to travel and take this evidence as much
as the Attorney General would. Another point in the indictment
is in regard to the sale of public lands. This point my hon. colleague touched very
lightly upon. I know he does not like to hear much
about it, and I do not wonder at it. I do not blame him for speculating in
public lands. When the Government turned him out for this, I believe they
were cowardly. Some gentlemen in that Government were deeper in the mud
than he was in the mire. I heard of one member of the Government who
applied for one hundred acres of land under the Labor Act, declaring he had no land
in the country. Why was not that man turned out of
the Government ? They pronounced upon my hon. colleague and threw him
overboard. They supposed that a human sacrifice would atone
for the wrong done, but York County took him up and returned
him at the head of the poll. I voted for him, and I did it because
I thought they wronged him. I did it, because I expected that when he
came here he would act a man. I did not expect he would come
here and truckle to the Governmant and cry yes, yea, for them. I believe
no wrong was done in the Crown Land transaction at all. The same
transactions had been done time after time by members of the House and the
Government, and when the example was set, why should subordinates
suffer for it. The only way the Government can do justice to Mr. Inches is
to give him the salary which he ought to have— that is $1000 a year. It
was wrong to condemn my hon. colleage and Mr. Inches, as if
they had been guilty of some moral wrong, while members of the House and
Government had perpetrated the same thing, and yet went scot free,
because they did not do it while members of the Government. There was a
charge made against the Crown Land Office that they had sold a piece of
land without putting it up to public competition, but the Surveyor cleared that up
to the satisfaction of the country. What did the late
Til- ley Government do in reference to selling
lands without putting them up to public auction ? Hear, mark, learn
and inwardly digest it. On the 22d of May, 1857, James Buchanan prays
repayment of ÂŁ23 1s. 3d. expenses incurreed in attempting to
make a survey of Crown Land under the late Deputy Mahood's order. To
reimburse him, he was granted 192 acres of Crown Land without bringing it to public
sale, and from this land
$900 was received
as stumpage for lumber. This is a fact which stands
recorded in the Secretary's Office, and cannot be gainsayed. Here is
another case : 200,000 logs were cut by a trespasser, and notice was given
to the office, and a seizing officer was directed to seize them.
Did he put them up to public competition. No ! They were bought in at a
private house for $1.50 per thousand. The Government was
requested to prosecute the trespasser, but declined to do so. If
you want any more of these operations, you can get them to any extent at
the office. I only searched over a dozen to get these. I will not come
back to the squib read by Mr. McClellan, in which it was stated that our
taxes would increase under Confederation. I said I endorsed
it, and I ask hon. members if they do not know that taxes would increase.
I know who wrote it, though I did not know it at the time, and I am
authorized by the gentleman who wrote it to say that not one member in
York knew one word about it. What was the offence? Was it because the
delegates were charged with violating the Sabbath, and signing the
document on Sunday. They denied it. Was it not true ? There is a delegate
here, and his silence gives consent. According to all correct theological views, it
was not a work of necessity, and God
knows it was not a work of charity. Then they must have been guilty of
violating the moral law, and according to the doctrine laid down in
Scripture, he that offendeth in one point is guilty of all, therefore
they should be the last men to preach morality. I opposed this
Confederation Scheme because I thought it would be injurious to New
Brunswick. I urged my colleague to explain the Scheme to the people. I
called a meeting and put forth my views, and the cry was, Needham wants to go to the
House of Assembly. I said some others not
only wanted to come here, but they wanted to go to the far off Ottawa. I
told the ani-Confederates, when they were making up their
ticket, to leave me out, and I would go through the Country, and do as
much for the party as I possibly could. I did not know I was on the ticket
until I was sent for. I attended none of the caucuses, but I was in
earnest and sincere in my endeavors to kill the monster, and I did not
care who aided and helped me so long as I did kill him. If I did not kill
him, I wounded him, and he is bleeding and will bleed to death, for die he
must and die he shall. We may talk about Confederation or not
as we like, but we may be assured that Confederation under the Quebec
Scheme will never take place ; this may be strong language, but it
is true. We are told that we anti-Confederates are all
disloyal men—that we oppose the Queen. We are told this by the men who bow
the knee to the image —not of Baal—but to Mr. Cardwell. This is a new
image set up in 1865 whom men bow down to and worship when they hear the
sound of the sacbut, &c. What did Lord Derby say about Mr. Cardwell
in the House of Lords ? He said he feared that that hon. gentleman had got
the colonies, which he controls, into trouble, equivalent to the same
troubles which he got Ireland into when he was secreatry of that country.
Is it treason to attack Mr. Cardwell or Her Majesty's Ministers ? It is
not. When the Queen asks the people of New Brunswick to do anything,
84
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. no matter what,
unless it is to give up our birthright, we will do it, but in these
despatches we have nothing to do with the Queen, we only have to do with Her
Majesty's Ministers, and I will handle them as I please. I would only
like to have the Colonial Secretary to face me on the floors of the
House, and I would soon show him that the sooner he got out of the
office he now holds the better for himself. News has arrived that
he is going out of the Colonial Secretary's office. " Thank the Lord
for all his mercies." He is going to be Speaker in the House of
Commons, and may he never come back to his present oflice again, and when
you write to him again tell him Needham said so. These Confederates of
York, who boast so much of their loyalty, made out their Confederate
ticket at the general election. Who did they have on it? First was
my hon. colleague (Mr. F.) whose loyalty I do not dispute, so far as his
pluck will allow him. I do not know about his being a
descendant of the Loyalists, for I never could find the name of Fisher in any
history of those times. The next is John A. Beckwith, then
Dr. Dow, can any one dispute his loyalty. Do you remember the Trent
affair, when Dr. Dow said he never would take up arms against the land
of his birth. They denounce me for being disloyal, and call this man
loyal who would not raise his arm against his native country, when that
country was insuling the flag we love. These charges of loyalty and disloyalty should
not be put forth because we entertain these
opinions, for I consider them altogether wrong. My hon. colleague (Mr.
F.) has stated in regard to the Fenian excitement, that it was not right
to send Her Majesty's troops to the frontier because they would desert.
This was a wrong expression at a wrong time. The British troops, when
facing the foe, do not desert. They are sent here to defend us and our
homes, and it is not for us to turn round and tell them they would
desert when they were sent to meet the common enemy of our common land.
Then in regard to the despatches. There may be men of larger talents,
more gigantic minds, and more towering intellects then I am, but as to
more manhood or more independence I yield to no man, and no man on the
other side of the water knows more of what will do my country good than
I do myself. I could teach the whole British Cabinet, so far as the
interests of New Brunswick are concerned. When the Imperial Parliament was called
together, the answer to the speech was moved by the late
Governor of Nova Scotia, the Marquis of Normandy,
and he touched upon every point in Her Majesty's speech but one, that was
the federation of the North American Colonies. We know he was here and
knew about confederation, but while he commented upon every other
sentence in the speech, he wisely and justly held his peace when he came
to confederation. Does not that mean an absolute condemnation
of the scheme. Lord Normanby was a man of talent, and a man that understood his position,
and his silence on that point conveys this
idea. (Mr. Needham then quoted from a speech by Lord Cavendish, commenting upon it
and characterising it as mere
nonsense.) The hon. mover of the amendment said that this Government
was unworthy of the confidence of the people of this country,
because they made him feel humiliated when they sent home
that dispatch to which allusion has been made. I say I
approve of
it, and feel glad that we have men in this country who would write such
a dispatch. Hear what Mr. Cartier, the Attorney General of Canada,
said, and this was before we sent that delegation to England. He says
: " Our whole intention is to lay before the Government of
the mother country our position as it now is, in consequence of the breaking
of the treaty by the Maritime Provinces, in order that they may bring
some pressure to bear on them to bring about the Federal
Union which was designed." And again: " It is of consequence, I say,
that we should show the Imperial Government that Canada, which
contains more than three-fourths of the population of all the
Provinces on this Continent, has not failed to fulfil her part in the
compromise, but that the Maritime Provinces it is who have
broken their sworn engagement." It is exceedingly strange that
the Governor of Nova Scotia, in his Address to Parliament,
never refers to Confederation. Are Her Majesty's commands
not to be obeyed in that Province ? If Her Majesty sent out
certain dispatches that one Government thought would be a benefit to the
country, would they dare withhold them from the Legislature of the country
? If they did, they would soon be hurled from power. Is it not our glory
and pride that, though Colonies, and dependent upon the British Empire, we
are part and parcel of that mighty nation, and are as much bound by the
constitutional usages, laws and customs of that nation as if
we were in London or Edinburgh, for we have the same claim
to British nationality as they have. But were a Legislature or Government
to refuse to receive a message from Her Majesty, it would be open
rebellion. Let it not, then, be said that we are truckling to the Home
Government because we, having received Her Majesty's commands
to lay before the House certain dispatches, we have done so. This dispatch
comes out here with Her Majesty's name appended to it. She expresses no
opinion about Confederation, but commands the Governor to lay
before the Legislature certain correspondence between Lord Monck
and the Colonial Secretary. This done ; and I see no truckling to the
British Government in the Speech. If there was, I would not sustain them.
In speaking of this glorious Confederation scheme, I am reminded of an
anecdote my hon. friend (Mr. Wetmore) got before the people at
the last election. He says : " Suppose my son was to come here and ask me,
" Father, where is your country ?" I should say I had no country ; Mr.
Tilley sold it on the 4th of October, 1864." You see he entertains the same opinion
that I do. I could not let Tilley, Cardwell or
the British Government sell my country. I dissent from the opinion
expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Williston) that this is an Imperial
question which they have a right to legislate upon. I say they have not,
and I want them to hear it on the other side of the water. After they gave
us a Constitution, no power on earth can legislate it away without
our consent, and it is a wrong doctrine to propound on the floors of this
free Assembly. She can only legislate for her own Imperial interest, and
when she comes to interfere with our independent rights, it is
an act of usurpation and tyranny that free men never will
submit
to. A voice once went from this great North American Continent when
tyranny was exercised by the British Ministry at home over a then free
people, and we see the results. When they sought to tax the
North American Colonies without giving them representation in the British Parliament,
the people rose as one
man, and wrested, by rebellion, or, as it is now termed, by
revolution, one of the brightest jewels from the Crown of Great
Britain. Let Mr. Cardwell beware, for the spirit of those men is here,
and the power is here. Let him beware how he attempts to infringe
upon our constitutional rights, for we would be unworthy of the name of
being the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons were we
to submit to such infringement of our rights. That delegation
was sent home to England not only because that despatch was
sent out here by Mr. Cardwell, but because the Canadian
Government had sent delegates home in order that they might induce the
British Government to bring a pressure to bear here. The Maritime
Provinces are accused of having broken their sworn
engagements. I will ask my hon. colleague (Mr. F.) for the honor of York and for the
benefit of the country, did these thirty-three
delegates, when they met in Canada, swear to fulfil the terms
of that engagement. (
Mr. Fisher.—I
never heard of an oath.) You never heard of it—perhaps you were at church.
Mr. Cartier says we have broken our sworn engagements. I do not know what
oath they took, or whether he virtually means an oath, but it is
exceedingly strange language. I was called to account, because I said at
the last election, that politically Canada was corrupt. Mr.
Cartier says some of the members of the House  and all our delegates have
violated their solemn oath and broken the treaty, and was he
called to account ? Our delegates could make but one treaty that would be
binding : that was to call their Legislature together when they got home,
and make their Scheme law without appealing to the people. That was what
they violated, and it was well for them that they did violate it. Another
count in the indictment is, the Government have not taken proper
precautionary measures in reference to the defence of the
Province. My hon. colleague (Mr. F.) said it was wrong to expend that
$30,000 in the city of Fredericton. (
Mr.
Fisher.—I gave no opinion about the expenditure of last year
at all. I said the Government could have had the thirty
days drill in the month of March on the borders of the
Province, and thus complied with all the law requires, without adding to the public
expenditure.) It is a bad time to drill a man
just as you want to use him. Drill your men when you have the time. (
Mr. Glasier.—Half of those
who drilled last summer have gone out of the country.) Name me
a dozen. It is just like the cry got up that the young men were leaving
the country because we have not got Confederation. Young men leave every
country at all times ; therefore it was nonsense to get up this cry. My
hon. colleague says he holds the Government responsible for every act of
the Commander-in-Chief. I do not agree with him in this. (Mr. Needham then referred
to the law concern
DEBATES OF
THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 85 ing the
Commander-in-Chief passed in 1862, and endeavored to prove that the
Governor in Council was only responsible for the money which was
expended for military purposes, an the Commander-in-Chief
was alone responsible for any act of mis-feasance, mal-feasance or the disposition
of the troops ) In regard to Fenianism. I do not
believe there is one native Fenian in the Province connected
with any Circle or any Head Centre, aud I do not believe there
everwill be one in this country. I do not believe it ever was the intention
of any fillibusters in the United States to make raids upon any of the
British Provinces. It is an old saying that "the dog that bites does
not bark." Men don't make such boasts in order to enable
their opponents to be prepared. I do not believe that Roberts or O'Mahoney ever
dreamed of crossing the border line of these
Provinces. If they did, I have faith in the integrity of that great
nation alongside of us to know that whatever wrong she may have
suffered at the hand of other nations, in their opinions and sympathies, she
has too high an opinion ol her dignity as a nation, and of
her standing among the family of nations on the earth, to
allow any fillibustering expedition to cross her land to go to
another country and raise the flag ot rebellion to overthrow the
government of that country. So long as that power stands, so long
will she, in her own integrity and dignity, maintain that
international law which is the life of the world. I do not believe in
the doctrine of Fenianism, but I entertain my views in regard to
the wrongs of Ireland. My hon. friend (Mr. Kerr) spoke of the Union of
Scotland with England. It is a matter of history that the
purse of Queen Anne was drained to the dregs to purchase the members of the
Parliament of Scotland to sell their country, and the names
of the men who sold it are this day in eternal infamy. Scotland at that time was
crippled, for she had just come out of the great
Darien expedition, and her ships and commerce were not protected by
the British flag, but the moment she came into that union her commerce
was extended and her ships protected by the Union Jack of old England. How was the
Union with lreland effected ? By fraud and
rapine. We are told this in history, and it cannot be obliterated. Men in Ireland
sold their parliament for Lords,
Earls, Dukes, and paltry pelf. I do not say it was a natural
consequence, but it stands as a beaccu light that scarely any one of them
died a natural death. Scotland has benefitted by that Union, but let
Scotland have what we now have here, a Parliament of our own, with an
independent local self-government, and you would see where she
would be now.
The Debate was now adjourned, Mr.
Needham to resume at 11 o'clock to-morrow, and the House was adjourned until
10 A. M.
T. P. D.
Fisher,
Charles
Wellington
