ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MR. FISCHER'S RESOLUTION REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF DELEGATES.
Mr. SMITH resumed - I complained yesterday of the way the Provincial Secretary met this question.
I think his Speech was not of that character which we had a right to expect from the
position he occupies. His object appeared to be to create prejudice against my standing
and position. He charged me with having brow-beat members. I then stated distinctly
that it was not true. I repeat that it is a charge unfounded in fact. But if it were
so, what has it to do with the question? Is not such language undignified when men's
judgements are be ing appealed to, and not their prejudices. I consider that it was
unfair, for I made not attack on him or any other member of the House. I felt impressed
with the importance of the occasion, and having certain objections to the Scheme,
I thought it right to lay them before the House. If they were entitled to any consideration,
the Government should accord that consideration to them. The Provincial Secretary
has enlarged upon the beauties of the Scheme, and I repeat: are we prepared to accept
the Quebec Scheme? Several members of the House have stated they are not prepared
to do so, because they have objections to it. Only two or three gentlemen have stated
they were in favor of it. When Mr. Ryan stated he was in favor of the Quebec Scheme
- (
Mr. Ryan: - I said I was in favor of a better Scheme, if we could get it; but if not, I am
in favor of the Quebec Scheme,) if he has a good bargain now, why does he want any
more. It is of the most vital importance, in view of futrue time, that in adopting
a measure of Union, it should be so prepared that it would work harmoniously, and
do justice to every portion of the Confederacy, or the most disastrous consequences
must result. We are told that we are to get an advantage over Upper Canada, because
her population increases more rapidly
than ours, and she only gets eighty cents
per head on the population of 1861.
That subject would be brought up in the
General Parliament, and it would be said
by the Canadians that New Brunswick
getting eighty cents per head was unjust to their population, and they would make
a great for their proportion out of the public chest. The Provincial Secretary said
I made no objections to the financial affairs in the Scheme. I stated that the principle
of Union had been decided by the people, and the object of all should be to get as
good a Scheme as we can. I stated that it would be unjust to the people of New Brunswick
to have to pay their proportion of the expense of constructing the Canals to open
up the Great West. That is part of the financial question. Every objection which I
made the Provincial Secretary seemed to think no objection. If the speeches made here
are read by the politicians of Canada, they will sai: how can you ask for these alterations?
Your Lower House approved of the Scheme because they have sent you, who thought no
alterations were necessary, here to agree to the Scheme. The Provincial Secretary
said it was unwise to state the policy of the Government. When this information goes
to Canada, will it not excite distrust and suspicion there? Is it not an extraordinary
position for the Government to take to say secresy was the policy of the Government,
lest the members of the Legislature in Canada would find out what we wanted and defeat
their object. The objection to representation by population the Provincial Secretary
has failed to answer. He was asked why it was that this was inserted:
"The number of Members may at
any time be increased by the General Parliament - regard being had to the proportionate
rights then existing."
giving the Government the power of increasing the representation indepently of the
decimal representation; and he passed it over with really no comment at all . When
we are now to have 194 members, and an increase every decimal period: why should there
be a provision made to increase the number of members
ad libitum. This is a most dangerous principle, and would be most disasterous to us. I put it
forward as a proposition that you cannot point to any portion of the British Empire
where the representation is by population. When the Bills have been before the House
to incrase the representation of Counties, the Provincial Secretary has said himself
that representation by population was not right. He has repeatedly stated that it
was not a correct principle. I oppose it as a principle. It is not right as applied
to a federation or Federal Government,
under the English system fo Goverment where the whole Executive power is under the
control of the people's representatives. In a Confederation under that principle the
larger powers often over-ride and swallow the less powerful. Under the principle of
representation by population London would be entitled to send sixty-five members to
the British Parliament, about one-tenth of the whole, whereas now she only sends sixteen.
The principle is applied in the United States, but they have a salutary and sufficient
check in their Senate. The Provincial Secretary has advanced no arguments against
the objection I made, that we ought to have equal representation in the Upper Branch.
If he says we have more than fair play, the Maratime Provinces have one third of the
representatives; how then can he go to England and urge upon the Delegates to modify
the Scheme in that respect? I believe a majority of the members of the House are opposed
to the reasoning of the Provincial Secretary on that question. Statesmen should not
only look to the passsing hour, but they should look to the past, and judge of the
future as to how any measure would practically work. I trust the Government will reconsider
my objections. The Provincial Secretary seemed to take the position of an advocate,
and his policy seemed to be to vindicate himself and show that the Scheme contained
no defects. He arraigned and impugned the report of the Controller of Customs. (
Hon. Mr. Tilley I said his figures were right, but the conclusions arrived at by persons outside
were not reliable.) If he says the report is all right I will read a portion of the
report. (
Hon. Mr. Tilley then explained that some of the calculations were made by estimating what revenue
certain articles would yield if a certain tariff was applied to them, and Mr. Smith
read a portion of the report to prove that our taxation would be higher under Confederation
than at the present, and continue.) The Provincial Secretary says that notwithstanding
Canada has not surplus, Nova Scotia no surplus, New Brunswick no surplus, we are to
have the Inter-colonial Railway built. Millions of money are to be expended on the
Canals. The Hudson Bay Territory is to be purchased and our taxes reduced. (
Hon. Mr. Tilley, I said they would not be increased.) I think the Provincial Secretary is mistaken
in that, but admitting he is not, how is it possible to incur all these expenses,
without increasing our taxes. Will he pretend to say that stamp duties, on every description
of taxation that exists in Canada will not be applied to us. I believe that the taxes
will not only be as high as they are now in Canada, but they will be much higher if
she incurs
52 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
these expenses. The Government of
Canada is driven to the last extremity to get money she borrowed last year $2,000,000
and paid seven per cent. for it. We have never paid over six per cent. except the
discount upon our debentures. The Secretary has failed to show that our finances would
be improved by a Union with Canada, his financial statement in regard to this is utterly
fallacious. He gives Canada the credit of providing for the deficiency in the Post
Office Department. According to Mr. Odell's report the office would be self-sustaining
by the addition of a small tax upon newspapers, and this will be put upon them after
we go into Union. He says we gain by not having to pay so large a proportion for the
construction of the Inter-Colonial Railway, as we would have to do by a former agreement.
I opposed that law, which has not expired, giving 3 1/2 twelfths of the money required
for the construction of the Inter-Colonial Railway, because I considered that Nova
Scotia in that adjustment had the advantage of us, for she is a richer country, has
a larger population, and there would be the terminus of the road. I am not opposed
to Railroads, but I am opposed to recklessly running a country in debt. The Provincial
Secretary is not prudent and cautious enough, he was willing to do it without any
hesitation at all. I said the benefits to be derived from the construction of that
road would not be equivalent to the expenditure, and I resigned my seat as Attorney
General in consequence. When the Provincial Secretary accuses me of not bringing forward
great measures, I want him to point out what great measure he has brought forward
that has not ended in smoke, like the Inter-Colonial Railway and the Prohibitory Liquor
Law. He says my talents are for destruction and not for construction. Is this to be
applied to me because I pointed out the objections to this scheme that suggested themselves
to my mind and opposed the Inter-Colonial Railway? I think it is wring to make these
charges. He says that when they prepared that scheme he saw it would be such an advntage
to New Brunswick, that he thought the people would embrace it at once. This proves
that his judgement is not reliable. he told us after his return from Canada that the
scheme would not be submitted to the people until it had been first debated on the
floors of the House. He told the people of Carleton that the matter would be submitted
to the House.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY - I stated there, as I did at the Institute in St. John, that the measure would not
be submitted to the
Legislature until and election hd taken
place.
Mr. SMITH - Will you deny the statement which appeared in the
Morning News that you had stated to the people of Carleton that before a dissolution took place
the matter would be submitted to the House of Assembly and discussed?
Hon. Mr. TILLEY - The report was
not a correct one. My statement was in answer to a question asked by Mr. Macshane.
Mr. SMITH - That proves how difficult it is to understand his statements. I think he wanted
to evade Mr. Macshane. Will the Secretary undertake to state distinctly that the Government
did not come to a decision not to have a dissolution?
Mr. SMITH - Why then did the election take place in Northumberland?
Hon. Mr. TILLEY - I stated that in
the first place we thought we would meet the House, and at that time we issued the
writ for that election, but subsequently we changed our policy.
Mr. SMITH - That shows their inconsistency; they determined first to meet the House, and then
immediately afterwards to dissolve it. It was an act of tyranny for them to dissolve
the House in mid-winter upon a question of such importance to the country. If the
day appointed for holding the elections had been stormy, men who had to travel thirty
or forty miles would not have been able to have got to the polls. Vast numbers of
the electors were engaged in lumbering operations at that season fo the year, and
could not vote at all. The people should have had time to give a calm consideration
to such a great question. The Government dissolved the House because they expected
to carry the elections, but they were disappointed. Short as the time was for the
people to consider the scheme, they would not submit it to them, because official
etiquette forbade its being published until it was submitted to the eye of the Queen,
and we first received it from Prince Edward Island. It has been said that the Queen
and British Government were in favor of this scheme, and this was given as a reason
why we should adopt it. They have rung changes upon it, that Her Majesty the Queen
wanted the consummation of this scheme of Union. This was prostrating the Queen's
name. We know that in the House of Commons no man dare make use of the Queen's name,
for it is a breach of Parliamentary rule. The Queen can do no wrong, and her name
can be identified with no party, She is ready to award the palm to those who win the
victory. The Queen recommends the "Reform Bill" but in
the discussion upon that bill it was not
used as an argument that the Queen wanted it passed. Although she spoke of it she
only spoke of the will of her ministry. Suppose the Queen did not want Confederation;
with all her virtues she is but a woman, and what value would her judgment be regarding
a country she never saw. What do the British Ministry know about this country? If
they had the same means of knowledge that we have concerning it I would value their
judgement. There is not a man in the British Ministry that has ever been in this country,
and the people of England know little about it. They look upon it as a political matter
for they see the necessities of Canada, and they know that some scheme must be devised
or that country would be in the throes of rebellion. When we are asked to ignore our
own judgment because the Ministry of England, who are men of great intellect, learning
and erudition, are in favor of it I say their judgment in this matter is no better
than ours. The people of England, we are told, want it too. We asked Mr. Cardwell
if it was not be0 cause they assumed that the taxation upon them would cease for this
portion of the Empire. Mr. Cardwell said this was true, but he was not prepared to
admit that this was the only reason why they wanted it, but he acknowledged it to
be one of the leading reasons, and he acknowledged the force of many of the objections.
The people all seemed to think that it was to be a Legislative Union, and when it
was explained to them that there wre to be six seperate Parliaments they seemed to
be astonished, and said it was objectionable and wrong. The scheme has been prepared
with reference to the difficulties of Canada which have existed for the last fifteen
years in regard to representation by population. In 1841 and Act of Union was passed
to unite the two Canadas under one Government, each to have an equal number of representatives.
Lower Canada had then three or four hundred thousand population more than Upper Canada.
If the principle of representation by population is right now it was right then. Mr.
George Brown is the person who has been advocating this principle, and it has been
the apple of discord between the two Canadas. Upper Canada has increased largely in
population and wishes an incrased number of representatives, and this difficulty has
been increasing until the while machinery of Government has come to a dead lock. The
scheme is deficient in not providing some triunal to appeal to in the event of a conflict
between the General Government and the Local Legislature. The Prov. Sec. seems to
think that the General Govern
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1866. 53
ment should determine what out rights
are. Although they might be disposed to do justice, it would be the decision of a
political tribunal, and their decision, though right, would not be satisfactory. I
have no desire to prolong this debate I feel that Confederation isa fixed fact so
far as the people have the power, but I consider it my duty to state my objections
to the scheme, and his is made the subject of a telegram published in large letters
in yesterday's
Telegraph: "Smith speaking against tie. He objects to everything and offers and amendment.
Tilley meets him and crushes him." I do not think I am annihilated yet, neither am
I chargeable with speaking against time, and no hon. member can sustain such a charge.
Mr. STEVENS - My hon. friend spoke
on an important point, that was in regard to the respective Colonies having no right
of appeal. I should liek to know his views, I thought the Governor General presided
over all, and the appeal was to him.
Mr. SMITH - I should prefer having judicial tribunal composed of Judges, and they might make
it a Court of Appeal, for all the local Legislatures. I would not appeal to the Governor
at all or his Council, because it is a matter that requires to be interpreted the
same as other contracts. we ought to have the best judicial minds in the country to
determine such disputes. I suggest this in all fairness. I suppose Canada would be
willing to concede this unless she feels that she has the power and means to exercise
it arbitrarily, and si going to hold the Local Governments in the palm of her hand.
I shall call attention to some of the facts connected with the resignation of the
late Government. The Prov. Sec. takes the opportunity, feeling he is addressing a
sympathetic audience, to make an attack upon me and the late Government. I shall feel
it my duty to vindicate myself so far as I can. I chal lenge him to point to any act
of our administration that will not bear the light of day - to point to a single act
of misappropriation or embezzelment of the public funds, or an wilful act of wrong
done. I challenge him to a strict enquiry. It is well enough to say the conduct of
the late Government was such as to destroy confidence. I deny it. There were charges
brought against us, but the House felt that we had been guilty of no wrong, and had
committed no act of
misfeasance or
mal-feasance. We pled guilty to an act of omission in allowing the export duty law to expire.
We came o the House the first day of April, and the law expired the first of May.
The Provincial Secretary was more to blame than any member of the Government, for
it was his duty to have know that it
was about to expire, and communicated
the fact to his successor. If he knew of it he was very culpable indeed, for it would
not injure the Government, but would injure the country. The country placed him in
a position of power and honor, and it was his duty in justice to the people to make
it known. We did not when leaving the Government appoint a Magistrate or appropriate
a dollar out of the public chest. We had a most determined and reckless opposition
aided by the Provincial Secretary, who was they forty-second member, and knew everything
that was going on. The Governor consulted with the opposition, which it was wrong
for him to do, for every Government is entitled to have the confidence of the Governor,
and he should know no other man so far as the constitution is concerned. This is a
right that belongs to the people, and the popoel were insulted by the Governor when
he took the advice of the opposition. The people delegate to the Government certain
powers, and we were entitled to all the privileges incident to our position, which
were guaranteed to us by the constitution. When the Governor consulted with the opposition
he violated the constitution and the people have sustained him, but I believe the
time will come when they will see their error. The time that the late Governor Manners-Sutton
dissolved the House the people ignored the constitutional question, but in less than
twelve months they asserted their constitutional rights and maintained them. The Governor
sent for Mr. Mitchell to come to Government house before the House met and never communicated
that fact to the Government, and I think it was resolved then to have a dissolution.
The PRovincial Secretary entered the political campaign, and I think told the people
that the House would never meet.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY - We intended to
petition the Governor and get a dissolution.
Mr. SMITH - Why did you not do it? I can prove he said the House would never meet. Is the Provincial
Secretary prepared to endorse such conduct as that? Is not that back stairs influence.
We know that every agency was employed to win from us our supporters. Offers of office
were made, and we were misrepresented in every way in order to overturn the Government.
It was told that I had pledged myself and signed the Quebec Scheme, a statement willfully
false; but the Provincial Secretary now repeats the statement, and says I was committed
to the Quebec Scheme.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY - I put it in this way: If the hon. member learned from Mr. galt and Mr. Howland,
when he was at Washington, that no change could be made in the Scheme, and then came
back
and negotiated with His Excellency concerning Union, he would be said to be in favor
of the Quebec Scheme.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY - I rise to order. There is no evasion about it. It is parliamentary that when a
a member, rising in his place, makes a statement, it is to be taken. If he says it
is an evasion, he is out of order.
Mr. SMITH - I say it was an evasion of the great point in the question, and is unfounded in
fact. He must have seen in the correspondence between the late Government and the
Governor that I did not commit myself to Union or the Quebec Scheme.
Mr. WILMOT - I do not know the meaning of the Speech then.
Mr. SMITH - The Speech says: "I have received Her Majesty's commands to communicate to your
a correspondence on the affairs of British North America, which has taken place between
Her Majesty's principle Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Governor General
of Canada; and I am further directed to express to you the strong and deliberate opinion
of Her Majesty's Government, that it is an object much to be desired that all the
British North American Colonies should agree to unite in one Government." There is
not one singel word in that Speech which attaches the slightest responsibility to
the Governor's Ministry. The Governor himself admitted that point; he wished us to
put something in favor of Union in the Speech, and we rejected it. The Provincial
Secretary says we took all the responsibility. Before the election he did not speak
so boldly, and say he was willing to assume all the responsibility of the acts of
the Governor, but he is very bold after the battle is fought and the victory won.
Mr. SMITH - They said it was a matter between the Governor and his late advisers, and they
had nothing to do with it. I believe His Excellency's Advisers wanted to shirk the
responsibility, but they do assume it. The Governor wrote a memorandum, making an
attack upon his late advisers -- making a charge of felony against the for taking
a paper off the file in the Council Chamber. Does the Council assume responsibility
of that and endorse it? He mae be the scoin of the House of Gordon -
His Hon,
the SPEAKER - You should make no charge against the Governor.
Mr. SMITH - The House will make some indulgence for men who stand here defending themselves
against a charge false and unfounded. This charge was made against me when the elections
were pending, and published in the
Royal
54 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
Gazette, and sent over the country to have an effect upon the elections.
The Paragraph in the Speech attaches
no constitutional responsibility upon the
late Government. The answer to the Legislative Council was the subject of much debate.
His Excellency wished to put something in ti in reference to Union, but we said No,
and he gave way. They say we were committed to Union. I say I stated in my place in
the late House that I was for Union provided we cuold get a Union advantageous for
this Province, for it was my country and I would consent to no Scheme of Union that
did not give protection to the rights and interests of the people of this Province.
This is also stated in the correspondence, and in all my intercourse with the governor.
I always maintained the same principle. When the Provincial Secretary said that I
had pledged myself to Union and consulted my friends upon the subject he did not do
us justice. I asked him if he knows that Mr. Mitchell was sent for a few days before
the House met. (
Mr. Tilley. I do.) The first time he was sent for I was in the United States, and not a single
member of the Government knew that he was sent for. The second time he was sent for
the Provincial Secretary knew of it. Does that look as if the Governor was acting
bona fide with us, when he concealed from us the fact that he had sent for a member of the
Opposition? Was such conduct justifiable? I protested from time to time against the
Governor's acting with the members of the Opposition. The Provincial Secretary knew
every thing that was to take place and every thing that did take place. When the Governor
sent for me about twenty minutes before three, he had his answer prepared for the
Legislative Council. I told him that he had violated his agreement. He said he did
not know that the Legislative Council were going to present this address. No said
I, but we are not responsible for the Legislative Council, he did not pretend to deny
that he violated the arrangement, but tried to justify it. He then told me he would
give me half- an-hour to consult my colleagues. I told him no, the debate on the want
of confidence motion was going on, and they would have to be in the House; he said
"he would send the coaches down for them to come up." I said they could not leave
the House. He replied, "I suppose not;" he then left me but before he did so, he said
very cooly, if you do not like the answer you can relieve yourselves of the responsibility.
I asked him if this was fair. He said had we not better resign, and get out of the
way. I am informed that the Clerk of the Executive Council was there reay to swear
in a new Government. It was a proposition made by this man who boats of his
good name, that we should resign the
seals of office and let our enemies come in and take the Government of the country,
or in other words that we should prove recreant to our trust, and to every principle
of honor which bound us faithfully to fulfil that trust. The PRovincial Secretary
says I was to consult my friends about Union, he knows that is not correct. He knows
that I was to consult my friends about the appointment of a committee to take the
subject of Union into consideration. I said I could not pledge myself as to what the
Committee were to do. They might authorize another Conference or authorize a Conference
of the Lower Colonies. I ask the Attorney General whether it is the intention of the
Government to unite New Brunswick with Nova Scotia and Canada or whether they intend
to make it a
sine qua non that all British North America shall be united. I made certain objections to the
Quebec Scheme, 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 Upper Canada,
and for the purchase money and other expenditures connected with the North West Territory.
4. That the Revenues collected in the 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.
The Governor acknowledged that the
objections were reasonable, but now he is willing to go for the Quebec Scheme. I told
him that if I went into political oblivion for ever, I would never consent to representation
by population, unless it was neutralized by some checks. This I stated to the House
several times during the last session. I told the Governor that I never would go into
Union blindfold, and trust to luck as to what kind of Union we were to get, but I
must know the terms of the Union proposed before I would agree to it. I will be here
at all times to raise my voice in vindication of the people's rights and interests,
and I plead for them that the Scheme may be altered, because I think the country is
opposed to it. I think it is the intention of the Government to appoint men to proceed
to England who were delegates at the Quebec Conference, and as the Provincial Secretary
has undertaken to dissipate every objection made to the Scheme, when this is known
to the Canadian delegates they will not consent to have it modified. Therefore I ask
them to send some men who were not at the Conference at Quebec. I do not think it
would be right to take men from the Opposition, but they should take men who were
not committed to the Scheme so
that we may get a Scheme under which
justice would be done to every member of the Confederacy.
Hon. Mr. FISHER - A large portion
of the speech of my hon. friend is more adapted to another time and another occasion.
We are not here to discuss the question of the position of the late Government in
all its bearings. He complains that the subject was dragged in my the Provincial Secretary.
I think he himself was the first aggressor. He objects to the mode of carrying this
Union measure, and says it was aided by the treacherous conduct of the Governor. I
do not intend to follow him in but very few of his objections. He referred to our
position when the House was dissolved by the late Governor Manners-Sutton, and compared
it with the action of His Excellency, but there is a great difference between the
two. He and I were in the Goverment at that time, and one ground of our complaint
was that the Governor had allowed the members to return to their ordinary business
before the question was raised regarding the Prohibitory Law; had he raised an objection
to it during the Session of the Legislature, the dissolution might have been avoided.
His great paramount object was to oust his Government, and the Prohibitory Liquor
Law was made the stalking horse to accomplish that object. I am not going to follow
him through the mazes of his correspondence, but will only say that after reading
it and reading the speech, I came to the conclusion that my hon. friend's Government
had agreed with the Governor upon some question of Union. I have not had much to do
with the back stairs influence to which he has referred. From the time the Governor
came to the Province until I entered this Government, I have never had five minutes
conversation with him upon any political question. When I entered the late House my
mind was made up that no power on earth would induce me to assist that Government
to carry that Union. I came to the House pledged to oppose them. I believed they acquired
power unfairly, and their opposition was an opposition to the Government more than
an opposition to Union. It was not discussed fairly before the country. Every man
was told that his horses, cows, hens, dogs, and every thing he had, would be taxed
if he went for this Union. Men went from hustings to hustings proclaiming everywhere
that we would be taxed to death.
Mr. SMITH - I said taxation would be
increased. I said nothing about taxing dogs and hens.
Hon. Mr. FISHER - Writings putting
forth propositions of that kind were circulated over the Province, and that int
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 55
end men to vote against Union. The election in the County of York was the commencement
of the " silent rumbling" that hurled the Government from power, and it should that
the minds of the people of the country were against them. My hon. friend speaks of
patriotism and party. I say that it was party that decided the question of Union,
when it was first brought before the people ; the people were humbugged and they felt
it. I believe the Government in November last desired to recast this measure of Union,
but I believed the people had been cheated, and I said I would go to the House of
Assembly to prevent the Government from carrying any Scheme of Union through that
House. I said the question should be again left to the people, and the men who inaugurated
the principle were the proper men to carry it out. The only pledge I ever made to
my constituents in my life was that I would agree to no Union unless there was an
appeal to the people. I differ with my hon. friend in regard to the constitutional
part of the question. I hold when he put the question of Union in the Speech he committed
the Government to Union. He was not obliged to put it in ; he could have said to the
Governor that there was no necessity for putting that paragraph into the Speech, because
those despatches could be laid before the House, but if put in the Speech they would
have to endorse them. My hon. friend said his life had been a burden to him. He felt
the difficulties that surrounded him ; he recommended appointments to office, and
the Governor would not make them ; he held office without responsibility and without
power. He told us the country was in great peril. Who were they in peril of ? He had
succeeded in cajoling the people only fifteen months before, but during that time
the people had time to consider and they went against him by an overwhelming majority.
I do not think there is a man on the floors of this House, or a man in the country,
that would not say, after reading the address in answer to the Speech, that the Government
had agreed to some kind of Union. This paragraph in the address says :
" The correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's Principal Secretary
of State for the Colonies and the Governor General of Canada, on the affairs of British
North America, when laid before us, will receive due attention, and the opinion expressed
by Her Majesty's Government will command that respect and attention which is due to
suggestions emanating from so high a source."
That is a full avowal of their policy of Union, but in order that the world might
know that Mr. Anglin had them in the hollow of his hand, they add the rest of the
paragraph.
Mr. SMITH— When the hon. member speaks of Mr. Anglin having the Government in the hollow of
his hand, he states what is not true.
Hon. Mr. FISHER— The Government could not live with him, and they could not live without him and
were turned out.
Hon. Mr. FISHER— It is easy to say it is not true, but that does not alter the case, for the fact
is indisputable. He helped to prepare that celebrated " Minute of Council," and that
was one of the things that helped to kill them at the election. The paragraph continues,—
" but in any Scheme for a Union of the British North American Colonies which may be
proposed." I ask the House what that means " any Scheme of Union which may be proposed."
Proposed by whom ? By the Government. Did they intend to bring forward any measure
? If the Government had been sustained last year on the " want of confidence motion"
we would have defeated them on this paragraph, for there were constitutional men enough
in the House to have done so. I think that any man with a knowledge of the English
language would say after reading that paragaraph that some Scheme of Union was in
contemplation ; and that Scheme would be a measure and that measure would be a measure
of the Government. For what purpose ? For the purpose of uniting these Provinces,
and providing sufficient safeguards for their protection. There cannot be any doubt
that this was the meaning of that paragraph. The Government complained of the address
of the Legislative Council, and tried to induce the people to believe that they were
a body who represented nobody, and were not a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature.
They have taken the first action on this question as also have the Legislative Councils
of Nova Scotia and Canada. My hon. friend complains that the Governor in answering
the address of the Legislative Council, did not give him time to consult his colleagues
upon the question. He says " a vote of want of confidence was going on." That was
a mighty matter. He had not time to come down and discuss the matter for Mr. Anglin
was speaking and had the lobbies filled to order.
Mr. SMITH— The Governor proposed that I should take half-an-hour to come down and consult my
colleagues.
Hon. Mr. FISHER— I would have taken the half-hour and sent for my colleagues to Government House
and discuss the matter. I do not think they would have been confined to half-an-hour
for if they had come he could not have turned them out. It was Saturday afternoon
and the House would have been
glad to have adjourned until Monday
morning. All he had to do was to tell the House that the Government had important
business to transact with the Governor, and Mr. Anglin would have been willing to
postpone his remarks, and that would have obviated the difficulty. The Government
at that time were holding power against the will of the people. The Government wished
to make certain appointments and the Governor would noy make them.
Mr. SMITH— The hon. member has
made a statement that I have explained
half a-dozen times. The Governor did not refuse to make these appointments. The Governor
did not think it desirable to make any displacements before he went to England, in
view of its effect at the Colonial office, and this met with the concurrence of his
Council.
Mr. SMITH— I have stated it often, and there is no occasion to refer to Mr. Hatheway for he
is not here to answer for himself.
Hon. Mr. FISHER— I was informed that the Government wanted to make these appointments, and it was
more than insinuated that his refusal was one cause of Mr. Anglin's resignation. Mr.
Anglin in order to sustain the
humiliating position the Government was in, said, the country was in great peril, and this corrobates
that idea. The Government were afraid to dissolve the House because they knew the
feelings of the country were against them. They had an evidence of this in the York
election, but they resolved to hold on to power as long as possible. This Union question
should rise above all party questions ; it is a questions of patriotism and its object
is to promote the welfare of our common country. My hon. friend says the policy of
the Government is a policy of concealment. I should not think he would mention it,
after the exhibition the Government made last session. After they came down to the
House, they were silent beyond measure on this important question.
Mr. SMITH— My hon. friend is entirely mistaken. We told the House we had no measure to submit.
Hon. Mr. FISHER— I am not entirely
mistaken. One great object of my motion was to draw them out upon the subject of Confederation.
I tried to get some expression of opinion on the subject from the ex Surveyor General,
but he trerated it in the most child-like way. His reply to my question was : Are
you for the Quebec Scheme ? The present Government have never concealed their action
in this matter. They say that any Union proposed must be based upon the Que
56 DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
bec Scheme, and they are determine to
secure the best terms they can for New Brunswick. Though the thirty-three delegates
agreed to the Quebec Schsme, it was but a compromise, for it is a lot to be supposed
that any one member was perfectly satisfied with all its parts. No Scheme could be
made where there are different interests without a compromise. My hon. friend says
there was a vast amount of haste used in preparing this Scheme, and there was no parallel
case of a constitution being prepared in so short a time. I differ with him. You may
search the history of the Colonial Empire, and you will not find a constitution, the
formation of which has taken more time than this. The constitutions of Upper and Lower
Canada were likely drawn by some second hand lawyer. The constitution of United Canada
aws drawn by the British Government, and all the knowledge they had of what was required
was from Lord Durham, and one element was not introduced into that constitution until
Lord Durham complained of its omission. United Canada is now a flourishing country,
but before the Union there was a dullness and lassitude in the country which contrasted
unfavorable with the United States, where all was life and action. It is in Canada
now that you see the great elements of advancement. Is it not this Union that has
made Montreal the populous city she is? They have built Railroads and Canals, and
their population has increased very rapidly. This has been the result of their Union,
and it will probably be the result of this. How long did my hon. friend want the constitution
to be kept in the political crucible before it could be formed? It was formed by thirty-three
gentlemen, and most of them were men of good education and constitutional knowledge,
and had been occupied in public business during the greater part of their lives. The
realisation of this Union is one of the day-dreams of my live, and I consider it will
prove a great advantage to the country. We have the example of the United States.
There were some thirteen States who saw that it would be for their mutual benefit
to unite, and they have since risen in wealth and prosperity until they have attained
their present position. The model of our Constitution has been the British Parliament.
The head of our Government is to be the Queen's representative. We only apply the
principle of the American Constitution as far as they work out some of the principles
we have adopted as incident to our position. My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) says he cannot
agree with the principle of representation by population. I understood him to assent
to that principle last winter, and only wanted certain
checks. We never can be united without representation by population, because Upper
Canada will not consent to any other basis. Lower Canada will not consent to Legislative
Union. I will ask my hon. friend if he perfers a Legislative to a Federal Union?
Mr. SMITH - I will answer that at
some future time, for it requires a lengthy reply.
Hon. Mr. FISHER - I take it my hon.
friend would prefer a Legislative Union with representation by population, to a Federative
Union, because he says that the principle of representation by population is inapplicable
to a Federative Union, but then he says he is willing to go into a Federative Union
provided he could get the necessary checks. I think the Constitution provides checks
in the Upper Branch. This Branch is entirely distinct from the American Senate. The
Senate together with the people can make treaties , and they require no further action
from the Legislative body, but a treaty made by the Government of Great Britain is
a powerless instrument unless enacted by the
Parliament. He says in the United States Senate each State has an equal representation, and
objects to the Scheme because it does not make this provision. He is in favor of united
the Maratime Provinces with a view of uniting the whole. After they are united he
will have exactly what he wants, for then each Province will have twenty-four members
in the Upper House and four more from Newfoundland. In the United states all power
is in the peeple, and they confer a certain portion of that power upon the Government
of the different States, another portion to the Federal Government, and another portion
they keep themselves. There is no analogy between their Government and ours; they
require a Court of Appeal as necessary to their condition. Our Parliament is all powerful,
all the power that is not conferred upon the Local Legislature is given to the General
Government. The tendency of this arrangement is to a Legislative Union. It will arise
out of this in the future, and be the final result. There is a provision made for
assimilating all the Laws in every part of the Confederacy except Lower Canada. The
provisions made for selecting Judges from any part of the Confederacy is I think a
good arrangement, and will be an advantage to the public interest. I was concerned
in a case where there was only one Judge in the Province that could try it on account
of having an interest in it.
Mr. SKINNER - I will ask my hon. friend if he has any objections at all to the Quebec Scheme,
and if he has I wish him to state what they are.
Hon. Mr. FISHER - My idea is if we
can get any improvements I will go for them. I said before that I did not believe
that there was one gentleman out of the thirty-three but what objected to some of
its provisions, and it is but a compromise, each one giving up certain objections
in order that all might agree. You cannot devise a Scheme that all will agree to each
provision in it. We may acquire some advantage for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in
this controversy, for we know that a few thousand pounds would be an advantage to
us, but it would be very little advantage spread over the whole Confederacy. The hon.
member for Gloucester (Mr. Young) says the great question with this country is regarding
the eighty cents a head, to aid us in supporting our local improvements. In CAnada
they do not get a single dollar from the Government towards local improvements. They
have municipal corporations to attend to those matters, and through their agency they
make theri public improvements. In the United States every improvement is made by
direct taxation, and they receive no money from the public treasury. In the con ference
we took the position that our people had been accustomed to receive from the public
treasury certain sums of money to enable them from time to time to carry on their
schools, roads, and local improvements. The enquiry was then made of waht would meet
our resources in future, and the conclusion arrived at was, that eighty cents per
head, with our casual and territorial revenue, our underdeveloped minerals and unproductive
forests, would make all the improvements we required, to as great an extend as in
the past. There was a remark made by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Skinner) about
giving the delegates some instructions. I think they will be pretty well instructed,
after hearing the discussion in this House. If you send delegates with instructions,
and the delegates from the other Provinces receive pacific instructions, and they
all stand by their instructions, they can never come to an agreement; there must be
a mutual concession and compromise amongst them all.
Mr. SKINNER. - I did not say I
would give the delegates pacific instructions. I said we should discuss and mature
this matter, and have a plan, and instruct the delegates, but allow them a margin
to go upon to better enable them to get what they want.
Hon. Mr. FISHER. - I thought from
the tenor of his speech that he wished to give the delegates positive instructions.
I do not think he is acting consistent;
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 57
he ran his first election upon the Quebec
Scheme, and his second election upon the proposition made by the Government.
Mr. SKINNER - The first election,
was said to be run upon the Quebec Scheme as it stood. At a meeting held at the Institute
previous to the election, Mr. Tilley stated to the people that if they did not like
the Quebec Scheme in its entirety not to reject it, but to sustain Union although
they might not believe in every letter and sentence of the Scheme. So I claim to have
run the election and yet have my own judgment about the Scheme. The Confederate paty
when they come here have still the right to exercise their judgement as to whether
they would suggest any amendments.
Hon. Mr. FISHER - I supposed the
elections were generally run on the proposition made by the Government. I
think the whole representation of our
country will go for the Quebec Scheme if they cannot get a better. They talk about
Nova Scotia not coming in to this Union. Would it not be a good think for us if she
did not come in for a year or two. Look at the advantage we will derive from the construction
of this Inter-colonial Railroad, two-thirds of the money expended to build it will
be circulated in our Province, and all our young men in every station in life will
be employed. It will open up our country and develop our resources. I believe if a
vote was taken to-morrow to build the road under the arrangement of 1862 the pople
would decide to have it built. Under that arrangement we were to build 3 1/2-twelfths
but now we have to contribute but one- thirteenth. They say we will have to pay for
the canals in Canada. I say if I went to Ottawa I would vote for the canals at once,
for I beliee they would be beneficial to us. I was astonished when I was there, at
the progress of that country, and if those canals give us the trade of that vast west
- if the teeming welath of the soil come down to this country, and St. John is made
the vast emporium, who can conceive the greatness and power of that city. The Erie
Canal has made New York the Empire City, and like means produces like effect. If the
Union alone was subject to all the objections made by my hon. friends, I believe this
Inter-colonial Railway would be an answer to the whole of them, for it will cause
towns and villages to be built along its course, and continuous benefits will be
derived therefrom. There has been a desire for many years to make a railway from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, and it is only through British Territory that favourable
passes can be found. Explorers were not aware that they had passed the rocky mountains
till they found the decending waters on the other side. I want to carry this Confederation
to the Pacific Ocean. There are Iron, Gold and other Minerals at the Red River Settlement,
and the Americans are ready to go in there and settle and organize a Government. The
reason the people of England take such an interest in this question is this: they
see by our constitution that we admire the institutions of the mother country, and
that we are going to form a nation which is to be part of themselves; and they further
say, if we wish to separate from them they do not wish to retain us; but if we wish
to remain, all the power of the nation will be put forth to sustain us. A member of
the British Government in speaking of the Fenians said: "the murderers have attacked
these Provinces. What harm have these Provinces done them that they should be attacked.
I have no doubt but that the Provinces will be able to defend themselves, but come
what will the whole power of the Empire will be put forth to defend them." We find
the old feeling is there yet, let us then form one great country and depend upon it
they will respect us. Let us unite, and we will become a powerful nation, our resources
will be developed, our condition improved, our railroads built, and our prosperity
increased beyond any thing we at present anticipate.
The question was then taken whether the amendment should be added to the Resolution,
when there appeared. -
Yeas - Messrs. Botsford, Smith, Meehan, Landry, McQueen, Caie, McInerney, Young, -
8.
Nays - Messrs. Fisher, Tilley, McMillan, McClellan, Williston, Wilmot, Connell, Kerr,
Stevens, Sutton, Johnson, Baveridge, Lewis, Hibbard, Chandler, Dow, Beckwith, Thompson,
Quinton, DesBrisay, John Flewwelling, Babbit, Ferris, Wetmore, Lindsay, McAdam, Ryan,
Perley, Skinner, Herbert, - 30.
The original resolution was then put, when the same division took place, the yeas,
voting nay, and the nays, yeas.
Mr. STEVENS brought in "A Bill to provide for the regulation of connecting lines of Railway in
this Province."
The House in Committee agreed to a Bill introduced by
Mr. CONNELL entitled "A Bill to authorize the municipality of the County of Carleton, to issue
Debentures to a certain amount to aid in paying for the enlarging and repairing the
County Court House.
Also, a Bill introduced by
Mr. PERLEY, entitled "A Bill to provide for the election of councillors, and the appointment
of Parish offices in the municipality of Sunbury."
Also a Bill brought in by
Hon. Mr. McCLELAN entitled "A Bill to incorporate the Albert Bank."
The House then adjourned until Monday morning at 9 a.m.
T.P.D.
This individual participated in:
