The House having met, the Journals were read, and several Bills received a second
reading.
A Bill relating to the Election of Members to serve in the General Assembly, so far
as relates to the County of Gloucester.
The following Bills were read a third
time and passed the House:
A Bill relating to the Export Duty on
Lumber.
A Bill relating to the officer of Receiver General.
REPRESENTATION OF COUNTIES
Mr. LINDSAY moved the House into a Committee of the Whole on "A Bill to repeal certain sections
of a law relating to the election of Representatives to serve in the General Assembly,
and to make other provisions in lieu thereof.
Mr. LINDSAY. — A few days ago, when I was advocating an incrrease of representation for the County
of Carleton, several members thought it would be better to introduce a Bill to reduce
the representation on the floors of the House instead of increasing it. That coincided
with my views, for I thought in view of our altered circumstances we should reduce
our expenses as much as possible. The basis upon which the representation of the Counties
now stand is very unfair. In the County of Carleton, which I have the honor to represent,
the have one representative to 9400 inhabitants; County of Albert one to 4722; Charlotte
one to 5907; Gloucester one to 7519; Kent one to 7927; King's one to 7761; Northumberland
one to 4700; Queen's one to 6600; Restigouehe one to 2437; St. John one to 3085; Westmorland
one to 6311; York one to 5810. This representation is very unfair, and when I had
a Bill before the House to increase the representation of Carleton it was generally
conceded that if a Bill was prepared which would do justice to all sections of the
country it would receive the support of the hon. members of the Legislature. Accordingly
I introduced a Bill which is now befoer the Committee, which provides that there shall
be one member for every 7500 inhabitants. My first idea was to make it for every 8000,
62 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867.
but upon considering the question I
found some of the Counties had about
15000 inhabitants, and the Bill would
deprive them of having two representatives. The principle of the Bill is to
have one representative for every 7500
inhabitants, but in no case to allow any
County to have more than three representatives. St John City should
have two members, and the County
should be represented the same as other
Counties. According to this arangement there will be thirty members in
the House, unless we give the City of
Fredericton one, which would make the
whole ntttnber thirty-one. I would confine the City of St. John to two members, for
I do not believe cities should
be represented according to population.
It is not so in Great Britain, if it were
so the City of London would have one-
sixth of the representation of all England. Having made these few remarks
I shall be glad to hear tlte views of
other hon. members on the floors of the
House.
Mr. RYAN.—If I am rightly informed,
according to this Bill some counties will only have one representative. I think any
Country, however small it may be, should have not less than two members. Suppose a
Country should have but one member, and he should absent, or sick; who would attend
to the affairs of that County? We cannot give the representation exactly on the basis
of population, but even if we did, it would remain so only until the next census,
because one County frequently increases faster than other Counties. I would suggest
that every County that has four members should be reduced to three ; that would take
five members from the floors of the House, and leave a representation of thirty-six.
I have frequently tried to get an increase of representation for King's, but unfortunately
for some cause or other —either from want of being pressed properly, or from a determination
of the House not to do justice to King's—I have never been able to effect it. The
proposition I have just made is a good one, and will do justice to all. We should
decrease our expense under any circumstances, but particularly now when we are going
into Union, for the duties and requirements of the Legislature will not be so great
as they have been heretofore.
Mr. HIBBARD.—I fully agreee with the Bill brought in by my hon. friend, if he can carry it, but
if he cannot carry it I agree with the suggestion of my hon. friend from King's. There
seems to be a dread around the floors of the House of placing the representation upon
the basis of population. Suppose it does give but one representative to some of the
Counties, is not the same provision made for
the representation to the General Parliament, and I do not believe but we will get
our rights at Ottawa. I have always advocated the principle of representation by population,
and I still support it. This Bill must be prospective, for the mover has not power
to dissolve the House. If he carries it he should make it prospective, because it
cannot be carried out until the House dies out by law, or the Government tells us
to go home. If the Government would dissolve the House to carry out the provisions
of this Bill they would meet with the approbation of the country. This Bill brings
us down to thirty-one members. I believe ten members would do all the work we have
done here up to this time. I do not doubt but five men would have done its Thirty-
one men are amply sufficient to legislate upon all the local wants we will require.
I firmly believe that if we husbanded our resources. reduced our expenses, and acted
economically, there would not be a Province in the British Empire that would have
as much for its local purposes as we would have. But if we retain forty-one members
in the House, create new offices, assist Western Extension, while we have no revenue
but what we derive from our Public Domain and what we receive from the General Government,
there will be nothing before us but direct taxation. Representation by population
is the fair, honest principle, and however hard it may bear on some Counties, we must
take something as a basis, and if that basis should reduce the representation of the
County of Charlotte to two, I would agree to it. My colleagues may have something
to say about it, but for myself I would go for it, because I believe ten men could
do all the work we have to do. I hope the members of the Government will give due
consideration to this question, regardless of interested motives, and do all they
can for the reduction of the expenses of the Legislature.
Mr. BABBIT.—I think justice should
be done to all parties, but this Bill is going too far for a good many of the hon.
members. I acknowledge I do not like representation by population. (A member—You supported
the Quebec Scheme.) I never advocated the principle of representation by population,
for I believe it will eventually lead to universal suffrage, (Mr. Tilley,—That is
not the principle in this Bill, for it limits the representation of Counties to three
members.) I do not think we have so many conflicting interests in this Province to
require a strict adherence to this principle, and I do not think it is right to deprive
a county of having two members because it has a few inhabitants less than the required
number. I think those Counties which have four representatives should be reduced to
three, and this would lessen the expense
to the country. It is not right to reduce any County to one member, therefore I cannot
support the Bill, but I would support a Bill to reduce the number in the Counties
that have four members.
Mr. LEWIS.—I think those hon. gentlemen who are favorable to reducing the number of members
must have their faces turned towards Ottawa. We cannot do with one member in each
County, because he might be sick, and the County would not be represented at all.
This Bill will not answer unless we are going to give up New Brunswick and go to Ottawa.
I would go for striking one member from some of those large Counties, for we must
curtail the expense and live within our resources. If our expenditure is beyond our
means bankruptcy must ultimately ensue. I do not think the hon. member was in earnest
when he brought in this Bill ; he only brought it in to have a discussion, and had
no idea of passing it. I will go for letting the representation stand as it is, although
I have no objection to have one member taken from each of the large Counties.
Mr. LINDSAY—I will say for the information of the hon. member who has just sat down that I am
in earnest. I want to reduce the expense of the country, and I want the country to
know who are willing to reduce them. I suppose there will be some difficulty in carrying
it, as the members of those small Counties which are likely to be reduced will go
against it. My hon. friend is very generous ; he wants to take off of the large Counties
; that is "take my neighbour but let me alone." I believe the members of this House
should do their duty and have the interest of their country at heart. My hon. friend
said we should not reduce a County to one member because he might get sick ; if a
man finds he cannot attend to the duties of his constituents he should give place
to another man who can. My opinion is that we must decrease the representation, or
to do justice to some counties we must increase it. My hon. friend from Queen's (Mr.
Babbit) said he did not like the principle of representation in the Bill. I would
like him to introduce a Bill upon juster terms. He said it would lead to universal
suffrage. I showed him how unfair it would be to have population as the basis of representation
in large cities. Hon. members will find fault with the Bill, but I say if it is not
right let them prepare a better one.
Mr. BEVERIDGE—I can agree with some things my hon. friend said, but not with all he said. The County
he represents is only sixty miles in length ; my County is one hundred and twenty
miles long, therefore it would be unfair to take one representative from Victoria.
In that
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. 63
district territory should be taken into account as well as population. If we had but
one representative, and he should live at one end of the County, he would never see
half of his constituents. I would be prepared to go for reduction in the large Counties
if it was necessary to reduce the representation, but would rather not have it reduced.
Mr. FERRIS.—There are always two parties in every County, and if a small County sent but one
representative it would give one man all the power. I do not think a County with one
representative would get fair play in the Legislature, but those large Counties might
be represented by three members as well as four. It is just throwing away so much
money to send four representatives, for I think the Counties would be just as well
represented by two, and there could be a reduction made of four or six in the Legislative
Council.
Mr. BECKWITH.—If a reduction takes place it should be done by some general rule which would do
justice to every County. I am in the happy position, that if either the small or large
Counties are reduced, we in York will have the same representation.
Mr. LINDSAY.—The Bill does not
provide that it was only suggested that
the City of Fredericton should have
one.
Mr. BECKWITH.—I have no doubt but that would be the result, for the Committee would be showing
some little fair play. Although some of our best men will be abstracted from us in
consequence of this Ottawa Legislature, yet I still believe that forty-one good men
will remain in New Brunswick capable of doing the business of the Province. We had
forty- one members when our population was but 170,000, and we have the same number
now when our population was 252,000 five years ago. Some very important features in
the business of the country, such as Education and the settlement of the country,
have still to be attended to. Then again, one member cannot attend properly to the
duties of his County. It would be better to throw two Counties into one than to have
only one representative for a County, but it would be retrorgading to do even that.
Carleton County should have three members, and King's four ; with those two exceptions
I cannot see any alteration we can make which would be advantageous. We should not
go into this question now, as ten or twelve of the members here will legislate upon
this who will not legislate here again, for they will be in Ottawa. Let us get through
with all these changes which must take place in consequence of the General Legislature
being at Ottawa, and then those who are here years after this, can take the question
up cooly and
deliberately, with ample time to consider the question and do justice to the differ-
end Counties. With these opinions I must go against passing the Bill.
Hon. Mr. McMILLAN.—I am opposed to the Bill, not because I happen to represent one of the smallest
Counties, for I believe that that County, in consequence of certain changes at hand,
will contain as large a population as some of the largest
Counties in the Province, but because I
believe there will be no saving of money
effected by the reduction. If you are
going to carry out the principles of Responsible Government you will find they
cannot be carried out in a small Legislature. If you leave nine man in the Executive
and reduce the House to thirty-five,
you could not turn the Government out
at all. There will be talent enough in
the House to carry out the principles of
Responsible Government after the leading men in this House go to Ottawa.
You will have the cleverest young men in
the country come here to receive a political education, with a view to a higher
position in the General Government.
There will be sufficient talent left in this
House to deal with all matters left for
them. Probably fifteen in this House
will offer for Ottawa ; is it fair for them
now to pass a law which will not affect
them at all, but will affect the party responsible for it hereafter. We are on the
eve of great changes, therefore, those who are left should decide with regard to this
reduction, and not those who are going into another sphere, and who, in order to gain
popularity, try to make it appear that there will be a great saving of money. I believe
it is premature to dael with this matter ; we had better leave it to the parties who
are to be affected by it ; they can determine whether they can do with a less representation
than they now have, and they will be responsible to the people for their decision.
Mr. SMITH.—I was rather astonished
by some of the remarks made by my hon. friend, the Postmaster General ; he says because
some gentlemen will go to Ottawa they cannot have any interest here. He expects to
get a seat at Ottawa, but I should not suppose that would prevent him from having
a sympathy for the people he represents. I do not suppose that because a man is going
to Ottawa he should have no voice on this question, for those who go to Ottawa still
expect to
remain citizens of New Brunswick. In
speaking upon the appointment of Delegates last year I moved that the Legislative
Councillors should reside in the Province, but no hon. member here except
the French Brigade sympathized with the
proposition.
Mr. LINDSAY.—I sympathized with the proposition and a great many sug
gestions of my hon. friend I gave him
credit for, but he brought in a resolution to get certain conditions, and if we could
not get them we could have no Union.
Mr. SMITH.—I wished to restrict the power of the Delegates, for I did not approve of the Quebec
Scheme, and I took many objections to it. Some of those objections were adopted, but
other objections, equally forcible to my mind, where not adopted. I took an objection
to the principle of representation by population, but I find this principle is laid
down in this Act of Union as inflexible and immutable. The conflicting opinions on
this small Bill corroborate the opinion I then took. It is wrong in principle, and
not recognized or adopted in any part of the British Empire, but for purposes peculiarly
ultra Canadian that principle was laid down and established and becomes the governing
principle of the country. In the Act of Union it is established, and I will venture
to prophesy that in a few years Upper Canada will have a numerical majority of representatives,
not only over Lower Canada, but over the Lower Provinces, too and we will be at her
mercy. They should have agreed upon a certain number of representatives and not increased
them. We cannot help it now, but what I have seen here to-day in reference to this
Bill has satisfied me of the wisdom of the course we took upon that question.
My hon. friend, the Postmaster General, is wrong to say we have no right to
legislate upon this matter ; the people of
this country expect us to legislate upon
it. Was it not preached in every part of
the Province that the expenses of the
Legislature would be vastly reduced ?
Where is the reduction to be made ? Two
offices created already, and I do not
know how many more the Government
contemplate to carry before the close of
the Session. We resisted their measure
yesterday, in regard to the appointment
of Receiver General, and got the salary
reduced from £590 to £400, and we had
a section struck out which provided for
the appointment of a clerk in the Receiver General's office ; by this means we saved
the country £300 a year for all time to come.
I do not think it would be wise to have
any County confined to only one representative, because he might have imperative business
that would call him home, and he could not attend to his legislative duties. I am
willing to support any hon. member who will bring forward a Bill to reduce those Counties
that have four members to three, leaving other Counties as they are.
Dr. DOW.—My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) has said, in speaking about the Bill for appointing a
Receiver General, that they saved this country three hun
64 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867.
dred pounds a year for all time to come. That will appear very well in the Debates,
but we know the hon. mover of the Bill stated that it would only continue for some
months, and then the Legislature would have the right to legislate upon that Bill
again, and when the vote was taken it was with that understanding, and it may be that
then the Legislature will make the salary £500 and appoint a clerk besides. While
I believe we should keep our expenses as low as possible, I do not believe that you
can get a first class man to take the office of Receiver General and act without a
clerk for $1,600 a year. I have heard it stated here that the President of the United
States received but $25,000 a year. The President, although his salary is $25,000,
gets from the Treasury Department over $100,000 a year to pay his expenses, The Chamberlain
of New York gets $70,000, and ladies in New York offices get $100 a month. For the
office of Receiver General you must have a man who understands the routine of office,
and one who will take the responsibility. To ask a man to give bonds for £10,000 a
year and give him a salary of only $1,600 is perfectly absurd.
I cannot support my hon. friend's Bill,
for I believe one man cannot represent a
County. When Confederation was introduced, I took the position that by the
consolidation of the British North American Colonies on this continent they
would be advanced as an important part
of the British empire, and we would have
an increased population in consequence
of the construction of the Intercolonial
Railway. Why, then, should we go for
reducing the representation in our Legislature when we expect such an increase
of population ? I firmly believe that the
construction of this road and branches
will greatly increase our population.
This is the position I took at the time of
the election, and it is the position l would
take again. You may call it Ottawa on
the brain ; this is a new disease, but I can
cure it. I can give you a recipe that will
kill it dead, and I get it myself I will
take the same remedy. I did not intend
to say anything about this Bill, but I
cannot vote for it. I believe we are to
grow in importance and prosperity, and
we will require just as many and as
zealous men in the Legislature after these
men go to Ottawa as we have now.
Mr. W. P. FLEWELLING.—I do not
think this Bill is exactly what is required
by the members ol the House. I do not
agree with it, from the fact, which has
been stated by some of the members here,
that it will leave some counties with only
one representative. I think the only
way of doing equal justice to all the
Counties is to reduce the number of
members in the large Counties to three,
and there should be an amendment made
to the Bill to carry out that arrangement,
I cannot agree with the hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Hibbard) that the whole business
of the House could be done with fifteen members, for it would require more than that
to carry out the principles of Responsible Government. We are now going to change
the constitution—it is a good time to make a reduction in the number of members. I
have always advocated the necessity of economy, and I think we can do very well with
36 members on the floors of the House to carry out the necessary requirements of the
country. I should like to hear every member present express his opinion in regard
to the best means of bringing about this desirable result.
Mr. KERR.—I think every member on the floors of this House must be aware that this country
expects that there will be a reduction in the number of members in the House, and
a vast amount of retrenchment practised here. The multifarious matters connected with
the legislation of the Province are taken from our hand, and there is no necessity
for the same number of members, the same expenditure, or the same length of Session.
Nova Scotia, with a population of one hundred thousand more than we have, and more
numerous resources, has reduced her Legislature some eleven or twelve, leaving three
members for Pictou, three for the City of Halifax, and two for each of the other Counties.
The proposition made to take one member from each of our Counties having four members
appears reasonable, and ought to be taken into consideration. My hon. friend from
Carleton (Mr. Lindsay) made out a very strong case in regard to Carleton being very
badly used. I heard recently of great injustice being done to the River Counties in
the appointment of Senators, and we find they always vote together on any question
affecting their interest. Now take the population of the five River Counties, that
is the five above King's, and divide them by the number of members, and it will give
you one member for every fifty five hundred inhabitants. Then take the four North
Shore Counties, and divide the inhabitants by the number of members, and it will give
on representative for every five thousand four hundred inhabitants. This shows that
each member from the North represents one hundred inhabitants more than each member
from the River Counties. Therefore, I cannot see that so much injustice has been done
to Carleton as has been represented. I believe that the members from Victoria feel
so much interest in promoting the welfare of Carleton as they do in promoting the
welfare of their own County, and so
vice versa all through the River Counties.
It appears to me to be very desirable
that Counties that have two or three members should be divided off into Ridings, as
they are in Canada ; then candidates would not have to run their election through
the whole County, and this would save trouble, both to the candidates themselves and
those whom they represent. Something should be done, and the question if whether it
is advisable to do it in this short Session. The Bill will not take effect until the
next general election, and until something of that kind is looked forward to, it is
hardly desirable to legislate upon the subject. We should approach the question with
a determination to do justice to every section of the Province. I believe thirty members
on the floors of this House will answer all purposes for many years to come, for our
interests are not so varied that they would not be able to manage our affairs. We
should either reduce the numbers or reduce the pay. It is not so much the number of
members that should be considered as the expense incurred while we are here. We should
be allowed pay for thirty days, and if we stayed any longer it should be at our own
expense. People say, Why do you remain so long at Fredericton, when you might do your
business in half the time? Why do you not retrench your expenditure, in order that
it may be applied to the building of Roads and Bridges, instead of squandering it
away in the House of Assembly ? I have always advocated the principle of retrenchment,
for I felt the necessity for it in our public affairs. I am satisfied it is the wish
of the country that the representation should be reduced, more particularly as politicians
have been stating in every County in the Province that one of the great advantages
we would have by going into Confederation wold be that we would have more money, from
the saving in the expenses of our Legislature than we had hitherto.
I think the representation should be
reduced very materially. If this Bill before the House is not thought to be a correct
one, let some one bring in a better Bill and I shall go for it, but if another is
not brought in, I shall go for this.
Mr. McQUEEN.—When a Bill was
presented the other day to increase the representation of King's, we were told that
it was an annual offering. I did not go for it, because I thought it desirable to
reduce the number of members. I thought King's, Carleton and Kent were each entitled
to an additional member, but as equal justice could be done at all by reducing the
representation, I considered it would be better to reduce the number on the floors
of the
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867. 65
House. Some say they will go for
reducing them one half. I would not
go for that at the present time, for the
simple reason that I believe in a representative Government we ought to have
a deliberative body sufficient to think,
consider and weigh all matters that
come before us.
Mr. STEVENS.— A constitutional
change like this requires us to exercise
mature deliberation. There is not a
member around the House but would
be inclined to give the question a calm
consideration, in order that the best results might be obtained. A great deal
has been said in regard to the expressions of the people of the country. It
is said they expect us to retrench at this
time. If retrenchment is necessary
now it is necessary at all times.
Whatever the people wish me to do in
this question I would do, for it is their
own business ; but I do not know the
minds of the people of Charlotte,
whether they want the representation
reduced or not, for it is a question that
has not been much considered. Should
I, on returning home, find the people
wished this reduction to be made, I
would be well prepared to vote upon
the amendment. I make these remarks
because I do not see the reason for any
hurry in passing a measure of this kind ;
even if the measure was complete there
would be nothing lost by the delay.
What is gained by delaying it ? In
another year you will ascertain the
views of the people upon it. I am not
now in a position to know their views, and
as the people sent me here to carry out
their wishes I cannot say to them when I
return home I consented to take away
one of your representatives without
knowing that you desired it. It would
be much more gratifying to all to have
the matter stand over until another session. It might be very well for those
who no longer expect to sit in the Local
Legislature to vote upon this question,
for they will not be affected by it, as
they expect to go to Ottawa ; but it
would be more graceful for them to allow those who come in after them to
deal with the question, for they would
then have the minds of the people upon
it. The people may say we never asked
you to reduce our representation. We
would then feel that we had not been
acting in accordance with their wishes.
Then again, when you go to alter the
representation you should begin at the
bottom and regulate the whole thing.
You must make some arrangement in
regard to the Executive, for if you allow nine members to hold seats there
it would give the Government such a
predominance that you could not move
them ; therefore, this matter requires
mature deliberation, and this, I think,
is apparent to every one. I desire all economy to be used. The duties of the
House will be curtailed, and there will
be no need for the House to sit so many
days. Instead of sitting two months
the House will be able to discharge its
duties in one month, and this will be a
curtailment of expenses at once, arising
out of the business we have to do, and
there will be no encroachment there
upon the rights of the people. The duties that remain for us to do still require
as much deliberation as they ever did,
for you cannot tell me wherein they require less ; but it will only require half
the time to attend to them, in consequence of their number being less than
formerly.
Hon. Mr. McADAM.—If the people
are in favor of this Bill we should go
for it. ln order to do justice to the
County of King's we should pass a Bill
to reduce the representation, for I do
not think it would be right to increase
the representation under the present
circumstances. I think we should go
for the amendment suggested by the
hon. member from King's.
Mr. QUINTON.—I do not think it
right to be legislating so far ahead, as
there is no necessity for passing this
Bill at present. It would be better to
let it stand over until the House met
next winter, and not be taking up the
time of the House at this short session.
Mr. HIBBARD.—I do not like the
idea of lopping a member off of a County because it has four representatives,
we should adopt a fair basis of representation.
Mr. BABBITT.—My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Smith) in the course of his remarks said, that
in speaking
upon the appointment of Delegates last
year he had moved that the Legislative
Councillors should reside in the Province, but no member here, except the
French Brigade, sympathized with the
proposition. In the few remarks I
made at that time I said. " I agree with
the proposition 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 interests 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."
My opinion then was plain and distinct
on the question.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY.—My hon. and
learned friend (Mr. Smith) was wrong
in reference to the general opinion expressed by the House at that time. The
general feeling of the House was that
the Legislative Councillors should reside in the Province. When the paragraph was
read in reference to the appointment of Legislative Councillors in
Lower Canada there was a general
concurrence in the opinion that the
Legislative Councillors should be required to live in the Province.
Mr. BECKWITH.—My hon. friend
(Mr. Kerr) refers to Nova Scotia as having reduced her representation to two
members for each County. This would
act very unfairly here, as it would give
the small Counties all the advantages.
Neither would it be right to take representation by population, upon the terms
of the Bill, as that would be doing great injustice to the small Counties, for any
County having less than 1500 inhabitants would only have one representative. It is
the length of the Session more than the number of members which causes the increased
expenses of the
Legislature. In 1851 when the representation was the same as it is now the
expenses of the Legislature were $32,000, whilst in 1866 the expenses were
$41,000 ; no doubt but the latter session
was much longer than the former, on
account of the increased business they
had to do. Our business will be much
decreased, and we will have only local
matters to attend to, therefore our session need not exceed forty days. There
will be less expenditure about the House
for Coaches, &c. ; there will be a less
amount of printing done, and this will
reduce our expenditure very materially.
Mr. LINDSAY.— Every hon. member
says retrenchment is necessary, but no
one is ready to begin. All have admitted
that something should be done, but they
do not tell us what that something is.
Some people try to get all they can, and
they have no conscience unless the law
gives it to them. They have their $2,400
a year, and then are off on their pleasure
excursions at $10 a day more. It is a
regular grab game all round. A man
tries to hold on all he can get, and then
get as much more as he can—that principle is carried out in dual representation.
One man wants to have one office here,
and another in Canada, just as if there
was not a man here fit for the office except
the present Attorney General. I never
sought an office, and if I did I would not
get it. So far as the Government is concerned, if they manage the affairs of the
country properly, they shall have my
66 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1867.
support, but if they fail to do that they
shall have my opposition. I believe justice should be done to every section of the
country, and this Bill provides that the representation shall be upon a fair basis,
and I cannot see any force in the objections taken to it, but I shall have no objection
to reporting progress, in order to allow members time to consider the question
Mr. W. P. FLEWELLING moved an amendment to the Bill, which provided that the representation for each County
now having four representatives should be reduced to three, thus reducing the whole
number of members to thirty- six.
Progress was then reported upon the Bill, and leave asked to sit again.
Hon. Mr. TILLEY, by command of
His Excellency the Administrator of the
Government. laid before the House the
Report of the Delegation to England to
arrange for a Union of the British North
American Provinces.
(Report will appear in Appendix.)
Hon. Mr. CONNELL presented a Petition from the Warden and Councillors of the Municipality of Carleton
County, praying that an Act may pass to abolish the office of Secretary Treasurer,
and authorize them to appoint a Secretary and Treasurer in lieu thereof.
Hon. Mr. FISHER brought in a " Bill to amend an Act entitled an Act to incorporate the People's Bank
of New Brunswick."
Hon. Mr. TILLEY brought in a "Bill
to incorporate the Governors of the Wiggins Male Orphan Institution."
Mr. LINDSAY moved that the "Bill
to repeal certain sections of a Law relating to the election of Representatives to
serve in the General Assembly and to make other provisions in lieu thereof," be referred
to a select Committee.
Resolution adopted, and Bill referred to Messrs. Lindsay, Chandler, Wetmore, Young,
Betsford, Sutton, Thompson.
On motion the House adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow.
T.P.D.
This individual participated in:
