" A Bill to revive and continue an Act to amend the law for the relief of insolvent
Debtors."
" A bill relating to the Registry of Deeds and other instruments."
" A Bill to amend the law of evidence.
" A Bill to authorize the Justice of the Supreme Court to preside at trials in which
the City of St. John is interested."
" A Bill relating to Debtors confined in Jail or on the limits."
CONTINUATION OF THE DEBATE ON MR.
FISHER'S RESOLUTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF DELEGATES.
Mr. TILLEY resumed.—I feel that I am trespassing upon the patience of this House in continuing
my remarks upon this resolution, for it is well known that thirty-three of the members
of this House have been elected in favour of the principles of this resolution now
on the table, and some of the remaining eight for Union but against the Quebec Scheme.
My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) has taken exception to a great many of the provisions of
the Quebec Scheme, therefore I feel myself called upon to occupy the attention of
the House for a short time in discussing this question, but before taking up the principle
points in the objections, I desire to reiterate the financial statement made yesterday,
because it has been stated it was imaginary and there was nothing real in it. In the
first place can there be any doubt about our being relieved from paying $420,000 annually,
that being the interest of our debt of $7,000,000 ! Can there be any doubt about the
construction of the Intercolonial Railway that under the arrangement of 1862 we would
have to pay 3 1/2 twelfths, whereas if we go into Union we will have to pay but one-thirteenth
? Can there be any doubt but that the salaries of the Governor and Judges and the
expenses of the collection and protection of the revenue will be paid by the General
Government. The deficiency in the Post Office will be paid by the General Government,
although it may be that there will be a charge upon newspapers the same as in Canada.
My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) has not spoken upon
these points because he knows that they
are unanswerable. If he had had a leg to stand upon he would have used the same arguments
here that he formerly used in addressing his constituents. The very fact that he himself
has given adhesion to Union upon some terms has taken away a great deal of the arguments
which he used twelve months ago. I have just been informed by the Postmaster General
that there is now a proposition before the Canadian Legislature to do away with the
postage on newspapers. (
Mr. Smith—very opporture.) There are many opportune circumstances which have convinced the
public mind of the advantages of Union, while the late Government have not been favored
by Providential circumstances or anything else. Let us look at some of the points
which the late Attorney General considers objectionable. He says we have not a sufficient
number of representatives in the upper branch of the Legislature. There might be some
concessions made to us in this. When the arrangement was made, and representation
by population was conceded, it was considered that there was a great protection given
to the Maritime Provinces, for New Brunswick was to have one representative for every
25,000 of her population, Lower Canada one to every 50,000, and Upper Canada one to
every 75,000. That was twenty-four representatives for Upper and twenty-four for Lower
Canada, and twenty-four for the Maritime Provinces, and Newfoundland was to have four.
In every case the interests of the Maritime Provinces are nearly identical, and there
is scarcely an important question that can come up in which Lower Canada would not
be with us. It has been said that Upper Canada wishes to buy the North West Territory,
suppose such a question came up, and a majority of the people's representatives were
in favor of the measure. It would still have to pass the Upper House, and twenty-four
representatives of Upper Canada would vote for it, and the other fifty-two members
against it. Is there not some protection in this? Again there is a protection in the
fact that the number of representatives in the Upper Branch cannot be increased by
the Crown. Suppose we had not that protection, the Government could come to the Upper
Branch and say, unless you pass this Act we will increase your numbers and force it
through. There were some remarks made in reference to the residence of the Legislative
Councillors. The sixteenth paragraph, in reference to Lower Canada, says :
Each of the twenty-four Legislative Councillors representing Lower Canada in the Legislative
Council of the General Legislature, shall be appointed to
34 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
represent one of the twenty-four Electoral Divisions mentioned in Schedule
A of chapter first of the Consolidated
Statutes of Canada, and such Councillor shall reside or possess his qualification
in the Division he îs appointed to
represent.
This paragraph was proposed. by the
Lower Canadians, because there they
have electoral districts for the Upper
Branch, and their law requires that they
should possess property and be residents
of their several districts. I am quite
sure that the delegates will see that the
Scheme is amended so that the representatives in the Upper Branch will be
required to live and have their property
qualification in the Province, although
I do not think the evil would be so
great as the late Attorney General has
represented it. He says they would go
to Ottawa to reside, and thus become
representatives for Canada, and we may
look for the same result here as has
been produced in Ireland, in consequence of the Irish going to London.
Do they go from Maine, Massachusetts
or Rhode Island and settle in Washington because it is the seat of Government? He
(Mr. Smith) having himself gone for Union should not point
this out as an objection. He objects to
representation by population. I was
surprised to hear him take exception to
that, for he was prepared even to go for
that during the last session of this
House. (
Mr. Smith—It is no such
thing ) He admitted that no Union
could be had if two principles were not
affirmed, they were representation by
population and a Federal Government,
and his language conveyed no other
idea but that he would go for Union,
provided there were sufficient checks.
Mr. SMITH.—I stated distinctly that
I never would go for the principle of
representation by population unless
neutralized by some checks in the
scheme.
Hon. Mr. WILMOT.—I understood
him to say that he would not go for it
unless there were some checks in the
Legislative Council.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—I should like to
know how he is going to neutralize it
except by checks in the Upper House.
He says the revenues collected in the
different Provinces should be for the
benefit of each Province when collected,
except a certain amount to be givin for
the support of the General Government.
That objection might emanate from a
gentleman who had just come into political life, but any person who knows
anything would know that it never
could be acted upon. If New Brunswick and Nova Sootia are to be the
frontage of a great back country they
will collect all the import duties, and
Canada would never consent that we
should take all the duties on imports
collected on articles consumed in Canada, therefore not one check can be had
except in the Legislative Council, and
we thought that was secured No arrangement can be made except upon
the principle of representation by population. Have we heard any objection
to representation by population on the
floors of this House. The members for
King's asked for an increase of representation because the population of their
county is greater than the population
of some other Counties, but you never
saw the members for Queen's rising and
saying, because Westmorland had four
members Queen's should have four
Governments generally try to do justice to all parties in order to hold on
to their power, for they know that
members will come out in opposition if
they do not. In this Union let any injustice be perceived and no Government that permits
it will be able to
stand, for a very few members going
into the Opposition can generally oust
a Government, and in this lies our
safety. It has been said that all the
Provinces should have equal representation in the Upper House. (
Mr.
Smith.—How is it in the United States.)
The Senate in the States is an Executive power, and is altogether different
from ours. They are in a position to
exercise executive functions, therefore
in their executive position it is necessary for each State to have an equal
representation. Their is no appointment, even to a subordinate in the
army, but has to go to the Senate and
be ratified by them. We now come to
another objection, and considering the
long time the hon. member had to consider the scheme : the time he has devoted to
it, and the number of addresses he has delivered upon the subject, and we admit that
he has great
ability, but his ability lies in taking to
pieces rather than constructing ; he is
an admirable member of the Opposition,
but as a member of the Government he
is not so successful. After fifteen months
study of the subject, he has come to the
House and presented his objections to
the Scheme, and they amount to very
little. The mountain has brought forth
but a mouse. He objects to the General Government and the local Legislatures each
having power to legislate on
the same subjects, for instance on the
seacoast and inland fisheries, immigration and agriculture. And he says the
same power being given to each Government there would be no right of
appeal at all. It was desirable that the
seacoast fisheries should be under the
direction of the General Government,
because the cost of protecting them
should be borne by the General Government, but the local Governments should
have the power to make laws for the
fisheries in the rivers of their respective
Provinces. If, however, any one of the
local Governments do not make laws
sufficient to protect the fisheries in the
rivers, where all this wealth originates,
it was considered expedient that the
General Government should have power
to enact laws to protect them. Again :
it was thought necessary that there
should be an Agricultural Bureau for
the General Government, and the local
Governments should control and regulate their own Agricultural Societies.
Then it was thought necessary for the
General Government to have the control of immigration, while, at the same
time, it was desirable that the local
Governments should have the power of
arranging the locality of the immigrants, therefore this power was given
to both. The forty-fifth paragraph
says :
In regard to all subjects over which
jurisdiction belongs to both the General and Local Legislatures, the laws of
the General Parliament shall control
and supersede those made by the Local
Legislature, and the latter shall be void
so far as they are repugnant to or consistent with the former.
This was prepared for the purpose of
protecting the Fisheries, so that if the
laws were not sufficient to secure the origin
of the great wealth of the country, the
General Government could enact laws for
that purpose. The next objection is to
this paragraph.
All such works as shall, although lying
wholly within any Province, be specially
declared by the Acts authorizing them to
be to the general advantage.
This produced considerable discussion
at the Conference, and a decision was arrived at different from this, but the subject
was reconsidered upon the motion of
the present Attorney General because we
found that New Brunswick would get
more benefit from it as it is, then if it was
put in a different way. Then in regard to
beacons, buoys and lighthouses. we now
collect this money and expend it among
ourselves, and it is charged upon the shipping. In the Union you do not suppose
the General Parliment will charge the
shipping with anything more than is necessary for this purpose ; if they brought
foward a measure for that purpose Lower
Canada would go against it as well as the
Maratime Provinces. There might be a
law passed by our combined influence to
place this expense upon the General Government, as it is in the United States. He
(Mr. Smith) also takes exception to the
37th section.
" And generally respecting all matters
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 35
of a general character, not specially and
exclusively reserved for the local governments.
There can be no reasonable objection
taken to this. We had the experience of
the United States before us, and had seen
the working of their constitution. We had
seen the difficulties that had arisen and the
clashing of interests that had taken place
between Congress and the State Governments. The people had delegated a portion of
their power to the State Legislature, another portion to Congress, and
certain powers remained to the people
themselves ; the States claiming certain
rights which they did not possess in the
Constitution, and this led to the United
States war. The hon. gentleman (Mr
Smith) has expressed himself in favour of
a Legislative instead of a Federal Union.
Then how can he object to this power
being given to the General Government,
for much more power would be given
them under a Legislative Union. He has
spoken of this Legislature becoming a
mere corporation, with but limited powers,
but under a Legislative Union all these
towns and counties would be municipalities, but they would have powers given
them which would be clearly defined. St.
John has certain corporate powers given
to it, but there is no clashing with ours.
He says that when Acts are passed by
each Government which conflict there is
no power to appeal to. Does not the
Scheme say that the laws of the General
Parliament shall control and supersede
those made by the Local Legislature.
Suppose they attempted to interfere with
the rights and privileges of the Local
Legislature, the Local Government would
at once appeal to the Imperial Government, and say, the General Parliament
have exceeded their powers and ask them
to interfere. This is the protection in
this matter. Then he says we have to
send the Bills we pass here to a political
body for their approval. Do we not send
them to a political body when we send
them to the British Government, and no
difficulties occur. Can it be supposed
that more difficulties will arise in getting
the assent of the General Parliament to
our Bills, when we have representatives
there who will make and unmake Governments, than will arise in the Imperial
Government where we have no direct
voice in the matter. He takes exception
to this :
34. Until the consolidation of the laws
of Upper Canada, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island, the judges at these Provinces appointed
by the general Government shall be selected from their respective bars.
35. The Judges of the Court of Lower
Canada shall be selected from the Bar of
Lower Canada.
He says this implies that Judges might
be selected from other Bars in any of the other Provinces. I ask legal men if they
do not consider it an advantage for gentlemen to be taken from the Bar of New Brunswick
to be made Judges in Nova Scotia, and vice versa. Cases have occurred here where there was only one Judge on the Bench who was not
interested in the matter. It was put down as one of the most desirable propositions
that could be made, for it secures Judges who have no local interests or political
bias in the Province to which they are appointed. Is it to be said that the members
of the profession in New Brunswick are to be confined simply to New Brunswick. If
you can put them in a better position they have a right to it. But this cannot take
place unless our laws are assimilated. If our laws are different from those of Canada
and Nova Scotia there would be a difficulty in having Judges appointed from other
parts to decide upon laws they are not conversant with. The Judges of Lower Canada
have to be selected from the bar of Lower Canada, for they are under a code of Laws
secured to them at the time of Union and they will not change it. The French language
being used there it was the wish of the Lower Canadians that they should be selected
from Lower Canada. He then objects to the way in which the basis of representation
by population was arranged. The basis made was that Lower Canada was to have sixty-five
members upon which there should be no increase. That was to prevent the number of
representatives increasing in the General Parliament. There is to be one representative
for every 17,000 of the population. If the population of Lower Canada increases so
that she will have but one representatie for every 20,000 of her population, none
of the other Provinces can get any increase unless they have 20,000 in addition to
her average of 20,000.
Mr. SMITH—Suppose you increase
the representation thirty per cent., does
not that give Canada a larger majority ?
There is a provision that the number of
members may at any time be increased
by the General Parliament.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY—If that would be
for the benefit of Upper Canada alone
the representatives for Lower Canada and
the Maritime Provinces would not support it, and it could not be carried.
Then again, Railway stock shall be the
property of the General Government.
Our Railway yields but three-fourths per
cent., while the Railways of Canada,
combined with the Canals, yields them
one and a quarter per cent. The hon.
member says that there is no protection
that the different Provinces will receive
this eighty cents per head which is to be
secured to them by an annual grand of
the General Parliament, for he says they may incur liabilities, and this eighty cents
per head might not be left for the Local Governments. This might be made a first charge
upon the revenues of the country. Do you imagine that a
Parliament representing the Provinces,
the population of which are to get this
eighty cents a head, would vote away
the money that was to be appropriated
for that purpose. Again, all engagements
that may before the Union be entered
into with the Imperial Government for
the defence of the country, shall be assumed by the General Government. We
will have to pay some $105,000 for the
defence of New Brunswick during the
late danger of a Fenian raid. In regard
to the opening up of the North West
Territory, there have been no arrangements made. The Hudson Bay Company have bought
that territory, and have
£500,000 worth of property there, and
those people will contribute not to the
revenue of Canada, but to the revenue of
the Union. He says that after communicating with Mr. Galt, he was satisfied that
there could be little or no change made
in the Quebec Scheme. I entertain a
different view. I would have been willing to go into Union upon the terms
named, but a large number of the people
of New Brunswick think we should have
a better scheme, and I am willing and
anxious that we should get the best terms
we can. He says that after a conversation he had with Mr. Galt and Mr. Howland at
Washington, he came to the
conclusion that no changes could be
made. Then I claim him an advocate
for the Quebec Scheme. How was it
that after he came back he had a conference with His Excellency and agreed to
go into Union.
Mr. SMITH—I told His Excellency
that I was opposed to the Quebec Scheme.
The correspondence explains how far I
was in favour of Union, and I never committed myself to any Scheme.
We also discussed the question as to
whether it had better be a joint committee of both Houses or seperate committees
of each. He told |me at one of our interviews that he thought he would go to
Canada. When I saw him again, I think
the next day, I asked him it he had determined to go to Canada ; he replied
that he had, and asked me what objections I had to the Quebec Scheme, and
said that he would try and ascertain when
there what modifications they would make.
He rose and took the Journals of 1865,
containing the Scheme, and I proceeded
to enumerate the following as some of
the objections, viz :
1. Representation by Population.
2. That each Province should have an
equal number of Legislative Councillors.
3. That the Lower Provinces should be
exempt from taxation for the Canals of
36 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
Upper Canada, and for the purchase money and other expenditures connected with the
North West Territory.
4. That the Revenues collected in the different Provinces should be for the benefit
of each Province when collected, except a certain amount to be given for the support
of the General Government.
Here was an understanding had with His Excellency immediately after his return from
Washington. When His Excellency put the acceptance of Mr. Wilmot's resignation on
the grounds of Union, he (Mr. Smith) told him that he would go and consult his friends
and colleagues upon the question of Union.
Mr. SMITH.—I never was to consult my friends with regard to Union. I was to consult my friends
as to whether they would consent that a Select Committee should be appointed to take
the subject into consideration after the despatches had been laid before the House.
They were to take the whole subject into consideration, and make such suggestions
as they thought proper. I stated distinctly in the House that we had no Union policy
to submit to the House. This the Governor knew well, and so did every member of the
House.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY—I think if you were to poll the country North and South on this question of whether
the late Attorney General had committed himself to Union or not, there would not be
one in fifty but would say that he had.
Mr. SMITH—That impression has been created by speeches which have been made not founded on
fact.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY—I will take the Speech and the Address in answer to the Speech as evidence.
Mr. SMITH—The Government in preparing that Speech did not commit themselves to Union. The Governor
wanted us to put in something that would have committed us, but we did not. The Governor
did not pretend to say that we were committed to Union.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY—Then we have no constitution in this country. It is the opinion of every one who
knows anything about Responsible Government that they were committed to Union. Some
years ago the Governor had a despatch from the Colonial Office which he wished referred
to in the Speech. The Government objected to refer to it, because it would make them
responsible, and they waited upon His Excellency, and had it struck out. This Union
was also referred to in the Address in answer to the Speech, which was moved by Mr.
Boyd, a representative from Charlotte. In that it is stated that any measure for Union
submitted to the House should receive attention.
Mr. SMITH—It is not any measure submitted to the House. It is any
measure that should be proposed. I want the Secretary, when he quotes from these records,
to read them.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY—Is there any difference whether they used the word propose or submit ? The way they
dealt with the subject was enough to destroy any Government. To throw the question
upon a Committee with the understanding that they should report favorably when the
hon. and learned member would be in a position to brow-beat every member.
Mr. SMITH—I will not take such
insinuations, for they are false. That
language is unparliamentery. I have
ever treated this House in a respectful
manner.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY—If what he says
was correct that at Washington he was told by members of the Canadian Government that
no important change could be made in the Scheme, what position would he occupy entering
into a negotiation for a change, when he was told no change could be made ? I do not
want to create any ill-feeling, but I want to put the matter just as I understand
it. Was it treating His Excellency with candour to negotiate for changes when he knew
those changes could not be made. I think they can be made. When I read the correspondence
relative to the resignation of Mr. Wilmot, I felt the blood rushing to my cheek to
hear his motives impugned—to hear them say that they never heard him say anything
about Union until he went to Canada. But to come down further in Mr. Smith's speech.
He says :
The Council met at Fredericton about
the third of March. His Excellency in the meantime had returned from Canada. He told
me that he had seen Lord Monck and some of the members of the Canadian Government,
and he said he thought they would be willing to make concessions.
This was after Mr. Smith had been told that no concessions would be made. Therefore
there is some chance of getting concessions. I have taken up every objection referred
to by the ex-Attorney General. I have taken up the finances and shown that in Union
with a uniform tariff New Brunswick will not pay more, if not as much, duties as other
parts of British North America, because we do not consume as many dutiable goods.
It will give us more money for local purposes. It will secure the construction of
the Intercolonial Railway. $9,000,000 of the money necessary to build this Railway
will be expended in New Brunswick thereby developing the resources of the country.
It gives us $1,400,000 for Railway Extension, without costing us a cent more than
we paid in 1864. It
was these facts known by the great bulk of the people that caused them to go for Confederation.
If the population of Kent Westmorland, and Gloucester had been a reading people, we
would not have had the pleasure of seeing some of the hon. gentlemen who represent
those Counties, here in opposition to the Government. They have been returned because
the French do not read as much as the English population. The press does not have
the same influence upon them, and public opinion does not reach them.
The late Attorney General comes here
and appeals to the House upon this question, and tells the members that if they
invest so much power in the delegates
they cannot go back to their constituents and say they have done their duty. I doubt
whether the leader of the Opposition—the great anti-Confederate, now a Unionist, can
lead them astray. There are a thousand reasons why he should not, although he has
made some suggestions which may be acted upon. The country has declared against him
both with reference to his administration of the Government, and with reference to
his policy on this question. A more inconsistent politician does not live in New Brunswick.
When he was in the Government of which I was a member we constructed a railway but
when he went out of the Government there was not a man who denounced his own act with
as much power and force as he did. When a proposition was before the House to provide
for the extension of our railways, he opposed it, and said £200 a day was sent out
of the Province as interest, and the country could not bear it ; but now he says build
these extensions and our railway will pay six cent. His vote is recorded against the
Subsidy Act, but he has put those extensions through and even in one respect exceeded
the authority given him by law. He brought in an Act to appropriate $10,000 for Military
purposes when he was in the Government, and when out of it he voted that that money
should not be appropriated for that purpose, but should be given to the bye-roads.
The next year he comes in and asks for $30,000, for military purposes, and is there
not a letter published in which he tells us that after Union with Canada we will have
to heep up an army and navy, and yet he came down to the House when a member of the
Government and asked for a navy. He is now a Unionist, although a short time ago he
was against any Union with the Canadas. Great as may be his abilities he is more successful
when he is seeking to break down, than when he is endeavoring to build up. He is endeavouring
to delay this question with the hope that something might possibly grow out of the
delay.
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 37
Mr. SMITH—Is the thing in that state
that it cannot stand the delay of a few hours.
HON. Mr. TILLEY—The proposition
is not for a delay of a few hours but for
a delay which will render it impossible
for that Act to come into the present Imperial Parliament. The object of the proposition
is that it shall come back and be
confirmed by the people before it goes to
Parliament, with the hope that a European war, .or a change of ministry might
delay or defeat it, or that it might come
into other hands to carry it out, so that it
could be moulded and shaped to suit the
purposes of those who are now in the Opposition.
Mr. SMITH—Do you expect the Government will break down ?
HON. Mr. TILLEY—We do not. If
we were to act as the late Government
acted we would soon break down. We
have made up our minds that when
changes are to be made we will make
them. I will not say as my hon. and
learned friend said to me after we were
defeated—" Tilley we have got you by
the hair of the head for four years," for I
do not consider it a party victory, but a
national one.
Mr. SMITH—If any man says anything
in a joke is it to be brought up in a serious debate. I have no recollection of
making this remark at all. If I did he
must have understood it to be in a joke.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY—I was not speaking of it seriously. He asked me if I
was afraid the Government would break
down, and that remark brought it up.
We are not going to make it a personal
conflict, for it is a national question,
inasmuch as the people of this country
have felt that their connection with the
British Empire depended upon this
question. Canada is for it, and Nova
Scotia is for it, and this brings to my
mind a statement made by the ex-Attorney General that there was hope for them
yet, and the hope was that the Imperial
Parliament, when Mr. Howe appears before them, will not consent to pass this
Scheme. Whatever may be said in reference to the policy of Canada in this
matter, I should like to know from him if,
when he was in England, he heard any
expression of dissatisfaction on the part
of the British Government that it had
passed through the Canadian Legislature
without being left for the approval of the
people. Did Mr. Cardwell say it could
not be passed in the Imperial Parliament
until the people of Upper Canada had
passed upon it. Whatever may be the
policy in Nova Scotia in regard to the
question, it is perfectly constitutional. I
have no doubt of the course the Imperial
Parliament will pursue, even though
Mr. Howe present all the arguments of
which he is capable. It was thought
a majority of the people of this country
that if they did not go into Confederation Annexation would follow. Those who have
been engaged in negotiating for the extension of the trade of British North America,
know that peculiar difficulties exist when negotiating out of Union, compared with
the facilities which would exist in negotiating when united. It has been said that
the Reciprocity Treaty could not be renewed with the United States, because a large
portion of the members of Congress and members of the Senate thought it was only necessary
to cripple the trade of British North America to bring about Annexation. Will we not
let them know that we are for Union, and that our intention is to increase the power
of the British Government. We are not as likely to have difficulty with the Fenians
as if we had gone against Union, because if we had gone against Union, the opinion
of the people of the United States would have been that we were in favor of annexation,
and we would have had hordes of men down here, and had difficulties which will not
now exist, because the moral effect of this Union is, that both the whole power of
the British Government and the whole force of the nation will be put forth to maintain
our integrity. The people have spoken emphatically that they desire this Union to
be consummated, and their representatives will not accept any proposition to delay
this Union, but knowing the principles upon which they were elected, they will speak
the opinions of the electors who sent them here.
Mr. BABBIT.—I shall take up very few moments, for the subject has been discussed over and over
again, and the people of the country have expressed their opinion upon it. It would
be entirely out of place for me, even if I had the ability, to take up time in reviewing
it. We are informed that Government intend to take the Quebec Scheme as a basis, and
delegates are to be appointed to go to England to get the best terms they can. When
the subject was brought before the people, after the Quebec delegates had returned,
the first objection in our country was representation by population, but after this
subject was ventilated, it was ascertained that we could not get anything else, and
the public mind was directed to ascertain if a check could not be provided. it was
believed that an increased representation would provide that check, and my constituents
now ask to have the delegates instructed to endeavor to secure increased representation
in the Legislative Council. I agree with the remark made by the ex-Attorney General,
that if the Legislative Councillors appointed to seats at Ottawa are simply to have
a property qualification here, it
will not amount to a great deal, because some of them would remove to Canada, and
instead of looking after our interests they would be looking after the interest of
the Canadians, for it is natural to suppose that a man would be most interested in
the place in which he resides. We should instruct our delegates
in unmistakable terms, that it should be
provided in the Scheme, that our Legislative Councillors should both reside
and have their property qualification in
this Province. If this idea is not carried out I shall think it was the fault of
our delegates and not of the Canadians,
because it is immaterial to them whether
they reside here or there. The next
question the people have mentioned to
me is the eighty cents question ; we feel
that there should be some advance upon
the eighty cents per head. I do not
want this advance to apply to Canada,
let it remain as it is there, but give us
more. I may have narrow views upon
this question, but I say if you increase
it in Canada as well as here we will
have to pay our proportional part of it,
and there will be no gain ; but if you
stop it there and give us the increase
we will gain something. The next
really important question is to define
the action of these two Governments.
I do not believe you can so define the
power but what some little difficulties
will arise, but it should be so defined
that no difficulties should arise which
can be prevented. The delegates should
give that subject every consideration,
so that there may not be a constant turmoil and strife between the two powers.
If we want to prosper, the Legislature
must work in harmony with the General
Government. I cannot agree with the
remarks made by my hon. friend from
Westmorland, (Mr. Smith,) that the
Canadians are prepared to give us
everything rather than not have Confederation, and that we should demand
everything from them. I only ask that
the bargain shall be fair. These are
some of the main things that should be
taken into consideration by the delegates, and I trust they will go unbiassed
and agree to a Scheme calculated in
their judgment to promote the welfare
of the country.
Mr. STEVENS —I am not sorry that
this discussion has taken place upon
this question. I think that if we had
passed the resolution without any discussion it would not have been so satisfactory
to the country. Whether we
adopt the Scheme in its entirety or have
it modified, the country expects a discussion to arise to give them information in
regard to the details of the
Scheme. Those of us who were rejected fifteen months ago for having
supported Confederation, now come
38 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
from the great battle, and I feel proud to take my place here where another conflict
is going on. If there is one man who should feel more proud than another, it is that
man who from conscious merit, when he sees that the people are running against the
views which he is conscious are right, takes his stand and breasts the tide, and when
after the lapse of time these people who were against him come round and embrace his
views, that ought to be the proudest day of his life. We come here after a conflict
with renewed vigor, because when this Scheme was rejected before, it was enough to
daunt the hearts of any one, that the ablest men in the Province were rejected upon
that question. These men were strong in their belief that this question was sound
in principle, had truth as its basis, and that it must come in and prevail. Though
the trial might have been severe, though you could not see through the cloudy vista
any ray of the sunlight of promise breaking in upon that gloom, yet we believed that
the time would come when if it was a proper principle it would prevail. "Truth crushed
to earth will rise again."
So it is in every question that has taken place in history, I refer you to the great
emancipation of slaves ; when Britain was agitated from its centre to its circumference.
Still men stood strong in the belief that Britain would at last accede to the justice
of their cause and that the manacles of the manumitted slaves would fall powerless
to the ground. Need I refer to the Reform Bills, and the repeal of the Corn Laws.
Though they were supported only by a few leading men of the day, they knew their principles
to be correct, and their glory was, what we now ourselves can experience, when the
tide of public opinion turned in their favour. History in these questions but repeats
itself, and it is repeating itself at this moment. Strange as it may appear, fifteen
months ago the people rose in their might and rejected Union, but now they come round
and adopt it by large majorities ; just as we have seen and experienced in past time.
Let us enquire for one moment into the causes of this change, for certainly there
must hve been a reason for it. Had it been a neck and neck race so to speak, then
it might have been said that those who possessed the greatest amount of means and
money at their command would have had the advantage, and by this means accomplished
their purpose ; but when we find that it was not carried by a neck and neck race,
but by an overwhelming majority, we must believe it was because the people had an
attachment for the institutions of their country. Did they adopt a scheme of Union
which they once rejected. I deny
that the scheme of Union as such was what they rejected. Any why ! Because we all
know that many of us who had taken the Scheme in our hand, wanted time to consider
it in detail, and how were we to expect the people of the country to be more ready
to understand the Scheme than we were. What was the result ? The people being frightened,
and thinking they were well enough as they were took the wisest and best course for
them to take. That was to reject the Scheme, and they did this from the act that it
was hurriedly brought upon them, and there were many of those who were unprincipled
enough to take advantage of that, to circulate throughout the country the most falacious
stories, and taxation was a hobby which they rode to death. Our hens would be taxed
and the very eggs they laid would be taxed. They told the poor man who had ten children
that he would have to pay $30 because the tax would be three dollars a head ; was
it to be wondered at that they rejected it upon those representations. The cry was
raised throughout the Province that we were going to sell ourselves to Canada : we
were going to be connected with a set of political rogues. If all that was said about
them were true, they would be the most horrible people upon the face of the earth.
We had men among us who would go to the humble abode of a poor woman, and clap her
child upon his head, and say, what a pity that son of yours will have to be sent to
Canada as a soldier to fight for her defence. One of the great reasons brought forth
why this Scheme should be looked upon with abhorrence was because it was originated
by designing men who were seeking their own aggrandizement, and that Mr. Tilley wished
to be Governor, and Mr. Gray Judge of Appeals. Whilst these things were being said,
people began to suspect the originaors of the crime, and they rose up in their wrath
and almost desired to annihilate them. Such was the fearful daubing that was given
to this Scheme, that it has taken fifteen months for intelligent men, with all the
scrubbing brushes they could get together, to wipe away the dust from it. The opponents
of the Scheme said it could not have been the wish of Her Majesty that we should adopt
this Scheme, for we could not put our hand upon any despatch to show that the Imperial
Government desired it. It was called the Quebec Scheme, and this provided arguments
for our opponents, simply on account of its name. If it had been called the New Brunswick,
or the Nova Scotia Scheme, it would not have met with so much opposition. As it was
called the Quebec Scheme, they said it had its origin and emanated from those reckless
men in Canada, and people looked upon it with suspicion, and said
if that is the case, we had better remain as we are. It was said let well enough alone,
and it was amusing to find all those fossil putrefactions in the shape of human beings
rise up in those days, and take advantage of all the old fogies who felt they were
well enough as they were, in the Province of New Brunswick, as hewers of wood and
drawers of water, and ought to be content with their position. I am drawing no picture
of fancy when I say these were some of the reasons why the Scheme of Confederation
was rejected. When the people had these reasons urged upon them, and believed them
to be true, it is unfair to say that fifteen months ago this Union was rejected. I
find that fifteen months has made a great change in the minds of the people. What
has been the cause of this change ? Within the last fifteen months there has been
a discussion within these walls, and printed matter circulated throughout the country,
and people have read for themselves. This victory is not one party triumphing over
another, but it is the noblest victory human nature can achieve. It is the victory
of sound reason and mature judgment, that is the triumph that does honor to humanity.
If the people have considered this and given their verdict in favor of Union, I say
we stand here responsible to carry that out, and not to allow any delay to take place
to thwart that great principle. If we were to clog the delegates who go home with
instructions, and require them to return and report to the Assembly or people, we
might be taking what we consider a desirable course if practicable, but we would be
doing what the people did not send us here to do, that is, to endanger the passage
of Union. Let us look at some of the other causes which have produced this change
in the people's minds. We know that there is a large revolving wheel in the world
moving onward, we cannot know all the details of what is reolving on that revolving
wheel. If there is anything to be accomplished, at the very nick of time when it does
come round, all the power of man is powerless to arrest its force. We are just in
that position at present, while we might desire to be let alone, and think we would
be better off as we are, there is a pressure of surrounding circumstances that impels
us to take to the ship, or lie down and be destroyed. My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) has
said the people were in a state of political intoxication. If that is the case now
what were they fifteen months ago ? Has it been one continual drunk, or has there
not been time to sober off during the intervals. Is it not generally found that when
the drunk is over that reason returns. He
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 39
says again that Fenianism had much to do with this change in the people's minds. I
agree with him. It had much to do with it in this way : Mr. Killian and his brother
would tell the people within the neighboring border, that if the people of New Brunswick
did not wish to go into Confederation they had only to call upon him, and he was ready
to come with his band to do the bidding of the disaffected. This sunk into the hearts
of loyal people, and if ever New Brunswick did honor to herself, she did it when she
threw aside all considerations of mere dollars and cents, and said that rather than
join herself to them, or sail in the same boat with those that held their doctrines,
she would sacrifice a great deal and go in for Union under any circumstances. I have
heard people say, that now the elections are over we will hear no more of Fenianism
in the Province. If we do not, its death blow was struck when we showed unmistakably
that we were in favor of Confederation. Another reason for this change was the repeal
of the Reciprocity Treaty. We found that we were to be placed at the mercy of our
neighbors across the border, and that our supply of flour and breadstuffs might easily
be cut off, but if we were united we would be independent of them. We found that many
of those people in the Province who had annexation proclivities and desires were most
violently opposed to the Scheme, while those who desired to maintain British connection
were in favor of it. The ex- Attorney General alludes to back-stairs influence in
carrying these elections, and speaks of what he calls the treachery and unconstitutional
conduct of the Governor. Any man who brings a charge against the Queen's representative
ought to see that his own garments are perfectly clear. The Government found they
must adopt a Union policy or resign their seats. When that confidential memorandum
came out, we found that the Government had had several communications with the then
Premier of the Government, and that His Excellency was desirous of espressing his
views on Union at the opening of the House. This correspondence discloses what the
policy of the Government was, that these despatches were to be submitted to a Committee
who were to report in favor of Union. The Government did not desire to take the responsibility
upon their own shoulders, but that they might more easily effect their purpose and
relieve themselves from embarrassments, they were going to throw the responsibility
upon the House. They call themselves constitutionalists, because they say the Governor
acted in an unconstitutional manner
in not consulting with his Council. If
he had consulted his Council, and they had not endorsed his reply to the Legislative
Council, they would have had to resign, and His Excellency would have had to diasolve
the House in consequence ; but if they had endorsed it, this Union policy would have
been carried out, and the leader of the late Government would have received honor
for it. When Sir Robert Peel, who occupied a high position at home, found it necessary
to alter his policy, and stood forth ready to sacrifice place, power, and position
for the time being, conscious of his own rectitude, there never was a time when he
stood higher as a statesman than when he came manly forth with no covered scheme and
no desire to shirk responsibility, but took it upon himself, with a few followers,
to advocate his changed policy. Had this been the policy of the late Attorney General,
there is no doubt but that he would have made himself one of the foremost men in the
Province ; but instead of this he adopted what might be termed a cowardly policy.
We came here not to act in that cowardly spirit, but determined to advocate Union,
and to carry out the principle of Union in all its integrity. We have been cautioned
to act with solemnity, and not to surrender our judgment to the guidance of others.
I think it was scarcely necessary to ask us not to surrender our judgment and follow
a leader who would leave us wandering in an inconsistent path, one who was opposed
to this
Scheme of Union, and whose policy
was a vacilating policy. We will
follow these statesmen on the floors of
the House who have been an honor to
the country, and the country have honored them, and are only climbing that steep
ascent where their names shall rest when they are no more. We are told that our Local
Legislatures will dwindle away. Are we to remain as we are, and never increase in
population ? Has it not been shown that there would be very few bills that we would
not still have to discuss here ? Suppose our Local Legislature
were to fall into comparative insignificance, must we sacrifice this grand idea
for the sake of a Local Legislature ?
Are we to sacrifice the interests of three
millions of people for the sake of a Local Legislature. All we want of it is to
manage the affairs of the Province. It
was said that the Legislative Councillors
would reside in Canada. Could they
imagine that men with a property qualification of $4000 would remove to Canada and
reside among men whom they termed French Canadians and reckless and corrupt politicians.
A man would not take all his equipage and remove to Ottawa
for the sake of being there three months with a paltry salary of about £250.
There is another objection made to the
Scheme which really has much force in it.
It is said we should have an increased
representation in the Legislative Council. This, if it can be obtained, would
provide the necessary cheeks against any
action taken in the Lower House detrimental to our interest ; but as it is, the
terms are more favorable to New Brunswick than to Canada, because, according
to population, we have two representatives in the Upper House to Canada's
one. It is said that in the United States
each State sends an equal number of representatives to the Upper House, and
that it should be the same here. The
Senate of the United States exercises the
functions of an executive body, and therefore the same reasons for an equal representation
does not apply here.
Were we elected to support Union in
the abstract, or Union under the basis of
the Quebec Scheme, hoping to get improvements ? The main question which
agitated the minds of the people of New
Brunswick was this : was it Imperial
policy ? If we cast our vote, will we not
be casting our vote for or against that
policy ? The people believed the Queen
and the British nation desired it, and they
said they would not cast their votes
against the policy of the British Empire,
lest the construction might be put upon
it that they were disloyal to the British
Crown. The cry has been raised throughout the country that the Quebec Scheme
was not a good Scheme. Many people
said they would agree to Union, but
could not agree to the Quebec Scheme,
and when I asked them to point out their
objections to it they could not do it.
This was an easy way of letting themselves down; they had formerly opposed all
Union, and now they would go for Union
but would oppose the Quebec Scheme.
They do this because they think it degrading to change their views. Why
should a man be always crying out against
a building when he has the power to remove it, and build better superstructure
if he can. Any fool can cry down but it
is the part of a wise men to build up. If
the ex-premier does not like the Scheme
why does he not bring in a better. If he
would bring in a Scheme we should bind
it round with silks and ribbons, and crown
it with a high cocked hat. If he would
only bring it in and present it as his firstborn, in the present emergency we would
render it due obeisance. It may show
itself but until, it comes we will take the
liberty of dealing with the one we have.
We have been told that if we went for
this Scheme of Union we would be cutting the last connecting link which binds
us to the mother country. If it is simply the appointment of our Lieutenant
40 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
Governor that binds us to the British
Crown our connection must be weak indeed The ex-premier would have had
no objections to have had a Governor appointed even from our own Province, for
it would have relieved him from embarassing difficulties, having come in contact
with the present Governor. The Governor-General will still be appointed by the
Home Government and the Local Governors will be appointed by him. How
easy it is to raise the warning voice—to
act upon people's sympathies, and even
frighten them out of their very senses.
The eloquent voice and the deep tone will
affect the heart and reach even the understanding. I am told that the reason given
for this warning is, that we will bitterly
regret our adoption of this Scheme which
is fraught with ruin to our country. Is
he certain of this ? Has he lived so in
the future as to know it. True he is justified on the floors of the House in doing
all he can to frustrate what he believes to
be fraught with ruin to the country. But
whilst he believes this measure to be attended with such disastrous consequences,
it has occurred to me that instead
of regretting the action now taking place,
the time is not distant when the people of
this Province will praise the men who
aided in raising this mighty fabric. Why
is it that it looms so brightly in the future,
and has a response in every heart that desires to see the country rise from its state
of isolation. It is because we are to
have free intercourse in commercial commodities ; and having our mines, minerals and
all that make a country great, is
there not reason for any one to judge that
what has taken place in other countries
will take place in our own, when that Union takes place. Is it to be wondered at that
in our isolated position the country does not grow as rapidly as other countries.
Our manufacturers will tell you they want a larger market. I need not enter into this
subject which has been travelled over so often and so well. I ask this House should
we not consummate that Union immediately ? Why should be delay when we have been sent
here for that purpose ? We should go for Union as speedily as possible, and endeavor
to get the best terms we can. Who are to be the Delegates ? I trust they will be men
true to their trust, carrying out the wishes of the people, expressed through their
representatives, and endeavor to get a larger representation in the Legislative Council,
and as many other improvements as possible, but I for one, on behalf of my constituents,
say that if by insisting upon them, you fail in obtaining a Scheme, then abandon your
insistance and go for the Quebec Scheme. I will refer for one moment to what is said
about Canada ; it has been called a bankrupt country, and then again
we have been told that the Canadians
have given $50 a head to every Fenian
that came to our borders, in order to aid
the Confederate cause. I heard an election story, wherein it was urged that
we should not go into Confederation
because Canada was a poor country,
and contained more fiddles than
ploughs. We find that the agricultural
implements of Canada is more than sufficient to pay the debts of the Lower
Provinces. It is a country that will
draw the weaker Provinces towards it,
and give strength to them. The geographical lines of distinction between
the Provinces will be swept away, and
we shall be amalgamated as one people.
We shall all be bound together, so that
if you touch the smallest member of the
body the heart will feel the throb, and
send forth all its power to protect it.
We look with ardent hope for the establishment of this glorious Empire, whose
greatness shall be measured only by
comparison, and who in a few short
years shall rival the parent stem from
which it sprung.
Mr. HIBBARD—I intend to vote
against the amendment. This is a measure that rises above all party considerations.
All party lines should be obliterated, and every man should come
here to help in every reasonable way
he can to bring about a measure so well
calculated to promote the general good.
If the Delegates from the different Provinces were here we might have some alterations
made ; but I think it would be
asking too much to ask three million
people to do just as we say. I had the
opinion that the Constitution agreed
upon by the Delegates should not be
finally consummated until it had been
submitted to the Legislature, but I think
now that as the people have decided in
favor of Confederation, and ask that a
constitution may be consummated, it
would be unwise to delay the matter by
such a course. There is a difference of
opinion on this question between two
of the ablest speakers in the Province,
and their arguments confuse my mind,
for I am not as well versed in the workings of that Scheme as I ought to be.
My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr.
Smith) says the object of Canada is to
get the Lower Provinces into connection with them in order that their revenue may
be applied to the improvement of the canals of Canada. I
think that when we enter into Confederation the Canals and Railroads of Canada will
belong as much to New
Brunswick as they will to Canada. I
believe the day is not far distant when
from the first of May until the last of
September the working capacity of the
Canals of Canada and the Intercolonial
Railroad will be taxed to the fullest ex
tent. I say New Brunswick ought to
bear its portion of the tax necessary
for the general improvement of British
North America. I have made this a
matter of calculation, and have not
come blindfolded into the Confederation Scheme. I have looked at too vast
opening that lies before us in the consummation of this Union, and asked
myself what benefit will it be to New
Brunswick. I look around, and see
our public domain teeming with the
treasures of the forest, the vast mineral
wealth, the fisheries, and the agricultural capabilities of the Province, and I
say that entering into Union would develop those resources and increase our
wealth. Under Union we would advance more rapidly in science and literature, in railroads
and telegraphs,
in civilization and religion, than
we do at present. I believe that
when the General Assembly meets
at Ottawa they will not infringe
the rights of New Brunswick, for
we will form one people, and our interest
will be their interest. We will start in
the race of national greatness, and go out
to the world as competitors with those
who will compete with us. I feel a diffidence in addressing this Assembly, for I
have not the necessary legislative education, or legal knowledge, that the members
of the profession have, but I do not
envy them. I am going to vote for the
appointment of delegates to meet with
other delegates, and I hope they will
never leave London until they have settled the constitution of this Confederation.
My hon. friends who oppose this
Scheme are going to shake off the responsibility but at the same they will reap all
the benefits. This is a very comfortable
position to be placed in, and if we should
err how nicely they can take the advantage of us. If we should unfortunately
commit an error, it will be a fearful one.
I will not take the responsibility of it, but
will throw it back upon my constituents.
Though I endorse their sentiments they
have an equal responsibility. But presuming the constitution is made, will
there never be a means of amending it.
Mr. SMITH—The American Constitution has a provision for amendment.
Mr. HIBBARD—Perhaps the delegates will see that a provision for that is
inserted in ours. It has been said that
Fenianism has had something to do with
the result of the elections. I believe it
has, but if this Fenian excitement had not
occurred we would still have had a majority. Am I colouring the picture too
highly when I say that thousands of the
surplus population of Europe will be glad
to find a home in British North America,
and at the end of eighty-eight years is it
unreasonable to suppose that our population would be 20,00,000. If a man
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 41
had said eighty-eight years ago that the
neighboring republic would have been
what it is now, he would have been
stamped as a fanatic. Would New
York ever have stood in the rank of
cities which she now does, if it had
not been for the great western country ? If we can get these inland lines,
and compete for a portion of that trade,
and pass it through our canals and from
thence to Britain will it make any difference to us if the tolls go into the Canadian
revenue. The Welland Canal a year
or two ago after paying working expenses
yielded $200,000 revenue to the Government. I think Canada will reap no more
from us than we will from them.
Mr. BOTSFORD.—The hon. gentleman who proceded me has said, that in
speaking on a subject of such vital importance to the country, we should divest ourselves
of party spirit and party
feelings. It would be desirable not to
have such observations made in the
course of this discussion as were made
with reference to my hon colleagues in
the late Government and mysel f; when
he applies to that body the word
treachery, he may be familiar with the
epithet, but I think it more applicable
to his political actions and the actions
of the late Government, of which he
formed a part. The late Government,
of which I was a member. acted both
politically and sociably a fair, honorable course with the Governor, and they
treated him with respect and courtesy.
I have yet to learn that when His Excellency chooses to enter the arena of
the public press and brand his Council
with feloniously pilfering a paper from
the archives of the Council, that they
have not a right to hurl that imputation
back, no matter how high the source it
comes from. I would be wanting the
the feelings of a man, if I did not reply
to so gross an imputation. As the
previous speakers have chosen to take
ground that the late Executive
Council have acted with treachery in
their intercourse with the Lieutenant-
Governor, I will draw the attention of
the House to a few preliminary facts.
The Provincial Secretary told us that
we, in endorsing the answer to the address of the Legislative Council, bound
ourselves to a Union policy, and that it
made no matter whether the Governor
consulted us or not, he was justified in
answering the address of the Legislative
Council, praying tor the Imperial Parliament to pass an Act for Union based
upon the Quebec Scheme. If I understand the Constitution of the country, it
is simply this, that when the Governor
speaks on behalf of Her Majesty the
Queen, or with reference to the Imperial policy, it is not binding upon the
Executive of the Province, but if he
chooses to speak on behalf of himself or
his Government, then the Executive
Council become responsible, under our
Constitution, for what he says. In the
first reply to the Legislative Council he
speaks on behalf of Her Majesty, but
in the second reply he speaks on behalf
of himself, and makes his Government
responsible when there was no need
for his doing so, for the address was for
the Queen and not an address to the
Governor at all. I am accused of purloining a paper. (
Mr. Speaker.—The
Governor is not responsible for what
he says ) If the Governor chooses in
the
Royal Gazette to blacken my character and parade his name, not in connection with his Executive
Council, I
think I have a right to make use of
such language as will clear my skirts.
I shall make use of the word intrigue,
unless the House says I am not in
order. (
Mr. Speaker.—That is not
Parliamentary language.) Then I will
qualify it by saying political intrigue.
His Excellency charges his late advisers
with having improperly taken from the
files of the Executive Council a document which should have been there.
That document was what? It was the
absolute acceptance of our resignation,
and the moment that paper was given
to us we ceased to be Executive Councillors, and we had no rght to go to
the Executive Council Chamber, and it
was our paper. I say that was a gross
charge against us.
His Honor the SPEAKER.—This is
contrary to Parliamentary rule. The
communication in which the expression
was made was addressed to his present
advisers, and they are responsible.
Mr. BOTSFORD. —If the Governor
in Council had laid that communication
before the Council, that would have
been the view to take of it. But this
was published in the
Gazette and signed
by Arthur Gordon, therefore I treat
him as an individual. I wish to give
the representative of Her Majesty all
due deference, and I shall try to keep
within the bounds of Parliamentary
language, so as not to give offence to
you and the House, and shall err in
judgment alone.
The debate was then adjourned until
after the Journals were read to-morrow.
The House in Committee agreed to a
Bill introduced by Mr. Kerr, entitled
" A Bill to incorporate the Provincial
Oil Company "
The following Bills were then brought
in :
"A Bill to amend a law relating to
water supply and sewerage in the City
of St. John, on the Western side of the
Harbor."
" A Bill to incorporate the Caulkers'
Association in the City and County of
St. John."
" A Bill relating to Warehousing
goods "
" A Bill to incorporate the Shipwrights' Union in the City and County
of St. John."
The House adjourned until 9 A. M.
tomorrow.
J. P. D.
This individual participated in:
