The House met at three o'clock.
Order that the petition lie on the table.
Ordered that the petition lie on the table.
Ordered that these petitions lie on the table.
Mr. E. D. SHEA said he had listened with a good
deal of attention to the observations of the gentlemen
who differed from him on the subject of confederation, as he was desirous of discovering
what their
objections were, and whether they had any weight,
that he might modify the opinions he had already
formed, if he found himself in any degree mistaken.
But he had heard nothing to induce him to modify
his views. In saying that, he did not attribute to
these hon. members any lack of zeal and energy in
the discussion of that question. They had laboured
hard to find arguments in support of their views,
only it appeared to him that they expended so much
labour in the endeavour to make the worse appear
the better reason. He (Mr. Shea) believed the
more that question was discussed, the more would
public opinion be influenced in its favour. He had
observed a good deal of inconsistency in the observations of hon members in opposition
to that measure.
They asserted at one time that Canada desired to
get held of us that she might victimise us for her
own ends, and then that Canada thought of us at the
eleventh hour. If the latter assertion was the correct
one, it showed how really indifferent Canada was
whether we joined in the confederation or not. Then
it had been urged that the securities of Canada are
depressed, while ours are at a premium, from which
it was inferred Canada is not in a sound financial
condition. But it did not follow, because money
was in demand in a country, and the rate of interest
high, that it was not in a prosperous condition. The
very reverse was frequently the case. It by no
means indicated a sound state of the money market,
that the rate of interest was low. What was the
present state of the labour market in this colony?
Why 400 able bodied men were at present employed
by the Board of Works at 6s a week, paid in provisions. Why was that? Because there
was no demand for labour; and the same rule which applied
to labour applied with equal force to the state of the
money market. Then the hon. member for St.
John's East, Mr. Parsons, told us not to be anxious
about our defence from foreign aggression, for
England and France had such a deep interest in the
protection of this, country, that they would see to
our defence. He (Mr. Shea) did not see hoy we
could have much confidence in the protection of
France. It seemed to him to be somewhat like the lamb
relying on the wolf for protection. We paid a large
sum annually for the protection of our fisheries against
French encroachments, and why should we do this,
if the French felt such a deep interest in us? And
a few years ago we were in great excitement on account of a convention between England
and France
on the subject of our Fisheries, by which our inter
ests were sacrificed to France; and now the hon.
member told us to rely upon the protection of
France. Again, it was said that while the supporters
of confederation spoke of the openings in Canada
for their children, they had no regard to the interests of
the fishermen's children. If we regarded the present
state of our operative population, they would appear to have the deepest interest
in that question. What had our legislation been for several
years past, but unsuccessful efforts to raise the labouring classes from their depressed
condition?
And what had we accomplished but to join with the
Receiver General in Jeremiads over the distressed
state of the country, without being able to strike out
anything to relieve the general distress? We have
now come to such a state of depression that we can
proceed no further, and it was our solemn duty to
consider whether this proposed confederation offered any means of relieving the people.
No matter that the feelings of those whose interests were
involved in this discussion were excited against the
measure, still it was our duty to enter earnestly into
its consideration. It looked to him as a providential
interposition that these calamities had come upon us,
as if to force us to look beyond precarious fisheries
with the view of finding some means of relieving the
general distress; and that federation seemed to meet
the case. What was the state of the country at
present? Why a third of our population are not
half fed. What did we see in our streets? Those
who once were in comfortable circumstances reduced to the deepest, penury, suffering
from that want
which blanches the cheek, palsies the limbs, and
makes the young suddenly old. And we
were told to rely upon our fisheries to remedy
this. We had relied upon them from year to year, and
our circumstances were becoming worse. Some years
we had good fisheries, but the good was not so much
to the fishermen as to the capitalists who realized
fortunes out of the fisheries and then left the country. He (Mr. Shea) did not blame
them for leaving a country in which there was such frequent and
deep destitution. He merely referred to the fact and
system, if system it might be called. Our fisheries
at their best were only sufficient to keep the heads
of the labouring people over water for the season in
which they were productive, experience had shown
they left to the sons of toil ao permanent fruit.
Again, they had not kept pace with the progress of population,and that was the difficulty
we had to meet.
We want other employment for our people besides the
fisheries. Would confederation give such employment?
He (Mr. Shea) believed it would. One of its first
results would be a line of weekly steamers between
this port and one in Canada. These steamers must
cause an increase of trade, which would give increased employment; and anything that
gave increased employment must benefit the people generally. It would also put an
end to our isolation,
and with increased
intercourse would come the
opening up of new resources and an increase of our
trade. It was said that we wished to drive the people from the country. No such thing.
We wish to
make the country worth their living in; to provide
employment for the labouring classes, and
so to promote their comfort as to make
the country worth calling their home. What
do we find now? That many of our best fishermen and mechanics are fleeing the country.
The
only part of the country from which we did not at
present hear the wall of distress, was that where a
in market was created by reciprocity with the United
States; and in the prospect of the free trade treaty
being abrogated, it behoved us to endeavour to secure a new vent for our exports
in lieu of that trade. The only means by which
we could see our pauperism put an end to
was by providing increased employment for our people, and extended markets for our
produce. Could
we retain our people permanently if they could better their circumstances by leaving
the country? Large
numbers were leaving, and many of those who renamed did so because they had not the
means of going away. If the Government were to charter two
or three vessels to carry emigrants to Canada or
Nova Scotia, they would have applications from
more than they could accommodate. Again, with
regard to the educated classes. There was no field
for many of them here; and under confederation
they would find a fine field in such a growing community as that of Canada. But it
was said why not go
there now? They would be regarded only as aliens.
But with confederation of the Provinces we would
become one people, and with our representatives in
both houses of the Federal Legislature, they would
have influential friends whose aid they would be entitled to rely upon to forward
their views. A further effect of confederation would be to allay those
ascerbities of religious and political differences, which
were the bane, of small communities. Our public
men would have larger questions to grapple with,
and in the choice of representatives to the federal
parliament, talent and integrity would be regarded
more than creed or faction. But it was said by hon.
gentlemen beside him that confederation might suit
the other colonies, but that it was unsuitable for us.
They say that Archbishop Connolly's letter had no
reference to our circumstances, and was unsuitable
for Newfoundland, although it might be very well
for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. If these gentlemen were at liberty to quote Nova
Scotia newspapers of little or no influence, got up metely to set
forth the views of interested parties opposed to confederation, why might not we quote
the opinions of
so distinguished and talented a Prelate as Archbishop Connolly? And if confederation
would benefit Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, why would it
not also benefit us? But he (Mr. Shea) maintained
it would benefit us still more. These countries were
prosperous now, while we were the reverse. We
had the same need of protection that they had, and
we had the sad necessities of our people besides. And
if the opinions of Archbishop Connolly were not to be
quoted here, what would hon, gentlemen say to the
opinions of Dr. Mullock? They could not say
that they were not applicable to our circumstances,
and he was most favourable to confederation.—
Mr. E. D. SHEA.—The hon member assumed that
the present Canadian tariff would be retained by the
Federal Government. Now we had the assurance
of Lord Monck, as well as of Mr. Galt that the Canadian tariff would not be that of
the Confederation,
but a reduced tariff. Our present revenue, for years
past, had been only from £90,000
to £100,000, and
we were to receive £112,000. But supposing we
should have the Canadian tariff, it did not follow
that the revenue should increase in accordance with
the increased duties levied. Assuming that we are
paying 13 per cent now, and that the duties should
be raised to 15 per cent, what was that compared
with what our people are suffering now? We were
suffering taxation in its worst shape, the taxation of
pauperism. As to an increase from 13 to 15 percent.. what was that, if the country
were rendered sufficiently prosperous to bear it? Let us have another
year or two of such fisheries as we have had for
several years past, and no other resource opened up
for the employment of our people, or for the enterprise of our merchants, and what
taxation should we
be able to pay? Taxation was a relative consideration—it will be heavy or otherwise,
according to the ability of our people to endure it.
We were now taxed over 13 percent upon the whole of
our duty-paying imports, and what did we get out of it?
Only the defraying of our civil expenditure and the
support of our poor; and the poor were not half fed,
and it could not be otherwise, while we had such inadequate means of relief. And we
had also to consider
the deterioration, moral and physical, that must
result from this perpetuated pauperism—transmitting not alone its inherent debasement
and
demoralization, but the worst bodily diseases that
could afflict a people. We had not had a road grant
worth naming for years past; but he must remind
the house that under confederation we would have
an annual road grant of from £12,000 to £15,000,
which would be under the control of the local government and Legislature, and would
not be liable as
now to be given, withheld or reduced according as we
had successful fisheries or the reverse. This itself
would be a permanent source of employment for a
number of our people, which would not be subject to
curtailment at the time they would most require it.
He (Mr. Shea) did not know that there would be
any increase of taxation. He saw nothing to induce
him to believe that there would be any necessity to
have any material increase. Hon gentlemen anticipated that we would be under the necessity
of having
recourse to direct taxation on property in the island.
But were not proprietors worse taxed now,in the deprivation of those rents which the
depressed circumstances of many of our people rendered them unable
to pay? If we should have the Canadian tariff, under
confederation, the area of taxation would be narrowed, because we would have a considerable
importation of the manufactures of Canada, of wedlens, leather and other articles
which would come in duty
free. Hon members might sneer at that, but we know
that in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, where they
knew the manufacturing capabilities of Canada better
than we do, it was made an argument against Confederation that they would be flooded
with Canadian
manufactures, to the injury of their own. To listen
to the objections to confederation urged by some hon
members, one would suppose that Newfoundland was
urged to come into the confederation because we
were so important that they could not get on without
us. He (Mr Shea).did not depreciate our resources.
Our fisheries were the most important, the position of
the Island also, as the key to the Gulf and to the
river St. Lawrence was of great value as a strategic
position in the event of war. But the world could,
however, get on without us —and so could the confederation. He had lately read some
observations
in a Canada newspaper, in which it was stated that
Newfoundland had made an excellent bargain, but if
we were dissatisfied with it, we might remain out of
the Confederation. Hon gentlemen said they were
dissatisfied with confederation; but if they rejected
that, what would they suggest to better the condition
of our people?
It was our duty as representatives to give our Constituents the benefit of our judgment;
and they would afterwards exercise their judgment upon their representatives, and reject us, if
they were not satisfied with
our conduct. The question was prejudged by some
hon. members, and it was our duty to express our deliberate opinion upon it, after
that cool and calm consideration which its importance to the country, to its
people, and to those who would come after us imperatively demanded. Let no hon. member
shrink from
the responsibility of his position. Let all speak out
in the face of the country and let the constituencies
afterwards say whether they will accept or reject the
terms of the proposed Confederation.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
Monday, Feb. 6.
(Continued.)
Mr. Prowse –I must congratulate the House, Sir, on
the calm and impartial spirit in which this great question
of Confederation has been discussed here already. The
mere debate of the question has produced some beneficial results; already the old
land marks of party have
been destroyed by it.—The lion and the lamb have learnt
to lie down together. We find the hon member, Mr.
Glen, in double harness with Mr. C. F. Bennett, the
Ledger and the
Patriot, newspapers hand in hand;
and a still more wonderful and affecting sight, the merchants, whom hon gentlemen
opposite have spent their
life time in denouncing as the grinders and oppressors
of the poor, have now formed a solemn league and
covenant with their natural enemies the radicals. Is
there not something suspicious in the fact that for once,
at least, the merchants have united as one man on this
question? It has been said that we have no right to
quote the opinion of the Right Rev. Dr. Connolly or
of his Lordship Dr. Mulock; but I tell hon gentleman
that when every sort of misrepresentation has gone forth
to the world, when people who ought to have known
better; talk outside doors of a thousand a year to Councillors and Members of Parliament,
when such villainous
perversions of facts as the bones of our militia bleaching
on the borders of Canada, have been promulgated far
and wide, we have a right to tell the mass of the people,
who won't trouble themselves to investigate the question,
or who possibly cannot understand it in all its various
bearings, that their spiritual teachers, in whom they have
the most implicit confidence, are favorable to this great
project. And I think, sir, when the people knew this,
it will take all the demagogues and all the stump
orators both inside this House and out of it, to make the
people believe that men of such, character and such acknowledged ability as Dr. Mullock
and Dr. Connolly,
went to sell either this country or Nova Scotia to these
Dutch Canadians, as the hon member Mr. March; has
called them, Great political capital is expected to be
made out of that we are selling the country to Canada,
that we want to separate Newfoundland from the mother
country. Now the hon member Mr. March, and every
one else who make such statements, must know that they
are false. One of the leading principles of the scheme
of Confederation is to bind the Colonies more closely to
Great Britain; and I
believe this was one of the primary
objects which animated every delegate at that Conference. We shall certainly be joined
to England in a
different way, if their great idea is carried out. We shall
no longer be so many straggling helpless dependencies.
We shall be joined as one strong united country, an enlightened British Statesmen
with us to be. Like all other
great political questions, this is one which in its very
nature is theoretical and to a certain extent problematical in its effects. You cannot,
by any means at your
disposal, reduce it to a matter of pounds, shillings and
pence. You cannot guage and assay all its advantages
and disadvantges, by any array of figures, or the most
elaborate statement of hard facts. You must reason on
it from the established rules of political philosophy.
You must bring to bear upon it the light of that experience which history teaches
us in the annals of other
countries; or are we so peculiarly situated, so singuar
in our character as a civilized country, that the political
principles which have produced certain results in other
lands will not do so here? The union of England and
Scotland in 1707, was as much opposed as this one we
are now discussing. What arguments could be used than
to shew
an Orkney man; or an inhabitant of the
Western Islands, that the union would benefit them?
How could the railways in the South of Scotland, or its
increased wealth be of any advantage to a poor island
separated so many miles of sea from the main land;
but, I ask, has not the union done so? Is there an
island belonging to the two kingdoms, however barren
or remote, that has not benefitted in an amazing degree
by the connection between England and Scotland?
Look at the union of Upper and Lower Canada. We
have not the repelling circumstances of race and language to contend with. We have
none of those strong
arguments of diversity of religion, language and nationality, which were used against
that union. But what has
been the result, both in Upper and lower Canada ?
Twenty-three years ago Montreal contained 41,000 inhabitants. Now, when its suburbs,
it numbers 108,000. Last
year upwards of 2000 new houses were built there.
Everywhere, sir, both in Europe and Anerica, the same
invariable results have flown from union; but perhaps
the strongest arguments we can deduce from history in
favor of union, is the result of disunion as shown by its
effects on Spain. Does any one who reads history believe that Spain would now be a
second rate power in
Europe, if Philip the Second had planted his capital on
the banks of the magnificent Tagus, instead of on that
wretched ghost of a river, the
Manzanares. But, say hon
gentlemen, tells us what benefits we are to derive from
Confederation, and we will give in out adherence to it.
These gentlemen can find no arguments, no reason whatever in the able and logical
speeches of both the Speaker
and the hon Mr. Shea. No, sir, the logic and the eloquence of Gladstone would be wholly
unavailing with such
men. Local prejudice, local obstinacy, and local stupidity have always been the greatest
obstacles in the way of
progress. It has always been so. Wit, indignation, eloquence, the most forcible logic
sustained by a long train
of unanswerable arguments, are wholly unavailing to
penetrate the wooden headed obstinacy of the local mind.
Logic and arguments all fall back like blunted arrows,
from the impenetrable walls of obstinate ignorance. But,
sir, in considering this question we ought to take into
account the present Colonial policy of Great Britain.
Now, sir, this policy is settled and fixed. It is not confined to any one Ministry,
or one party. From the extreme opinion of Professor Godwin Smith, to the conservative
views of Lord Stanley, all point in the same
direction. All enlightened British statesmen tell you, in
the plainest terms, that English tax-payers won't submit
much longer to bear burdens for the Colonies, which the
Colonists ought to bear themselves. And what do they
tell you in the matter? Why, in plain terms, it is just
this—" Gentlemen, we approve of this scheme of Confederation. We want you to get strong.
We want you to
be united. We won't cast you off. We feel bound; in
honor, to protect you." But supposing you don't take
this advice, and you preter remaining out in
the cold, do you suppose that England, with
her colonies all over the world, will still hug you to
her heart, as the brightest jewel in the Crown? Does
any sensible man believe she will? No, you will be left
to shut for yourselves, and a miserable shift it will be.
And do you also believe, if you remain out of the Confederation, and the Reciprocity
Treaty is rescinded, that
the other Colonies, who are competitors with you in the
fisheries, will not tax your produce? The great obstical, however, to this measure,
is increased taxation. The
Canadian tariff, as we are told, will be much heavier than
our own, and that though the £112,000 given us by the
Confederate Government is a good sum, the Canadian
tariff will give us a revenue of £140,000 or even a great
deal more. Now, sir, we have the statement of Lord
Monck and also of Mr. Galt, that the Federal tariff will
be lowered instead of raised; and as every one acquainted with political economy knows,
in increased tariff does
not...necessarily mean increased revenue, but in many
cases has quite the contrary effect. But, sir, I contend
that we will have more than £112,000. Local, direct,
and intercolonial steam is virtually promised to us, and
that is at least £10,000 more. One of the first effects
of Confederation will be the reduction of your Legislative contingencies. These are
now £7000, and, at least,
we ought to save £3000 a year; here, when the Assembly is reduced to half, and the
Council abolished. But
over and above the money saved, I consider that if Confederation will only put an
end to the sectarian and political differences which are such a bane to our community;
if it will only put down the small fry of newspapers and
petty politicians, who help to fan the flames of religious
strife, and who fatten like political vultures upon our
local sectarian differences, if Confederation will only do
this, as I trust, in time, that it will, I, for one, will hail
it as the greatest boon that could ever be conferred upon
this Colony. As regards the giving away of our wild
lands, I look upon the $37,000 a year as a gift; and, sir,
I consider that the money is the least part of the benefit.
The General Government must do something to meet the
opposition, when enquiries are made as to what the Government has done to develop
these lands in Newfoundland, for which they pay such a tremendous price. And
this must eventually be of the greatest benefit to us. It
must bring capital to our shores, and that capital should
be welcomed amongst us, no matter where it comes from,
whether it is French or American, aye or even Turkish
capital, Sir, I have no desire to press this matter
through the House with undue haste. The longer the
question is discussed the greater will be the number of
adherents to Confederation. Let us have the voice of
the country upon this question Let each member declare his honest opinion up in it,
openly and candidly;
and then let our constituencies deal with us as they
think proper. On such a momentous topic, fir, no member of this House should be silent;
none should meanly
shirk a question involving such tremendous consequences;
none should give a silent vote. My own honest conviction is, that with local and direct
steam assured to us,
and such other more favourable terms, as of course we
must try to get, Confederation with the British North
American Provinces, under ail the circumstances of our
present condition, would be highly beneficial to this colony. I am still open to conviction
that my conclusions are
wrong; but I have heard nothing as yet from the opponents of the scheme which would
induce me to change
my opinion, I want to know from them how they intend to deal with pauperism. I must
confess, with all
respect for their ability and sincerity; that I vainly
believe they would not grapple with this giant evil half
so efficiently as the present leader of the government has
done. There is scarcely another politician in the country
who has more strenously endeavoured to put it down;
and yet he has failed, and even with good fisheries, failures in this respect will
be the lot of every party that
rules in this Colony; unless some radical change takes
place in its condition. I must congratulate this House,
sir, that at last we have a topic to discuss which will raise
us to above the low dead level of our petty local squabbles, and, I trust, sir, that
we will discuss it in a spirit
worthy of its vast importance to ourselves and to our
children.
Mr. Wyatt desired to make a few observations
before this question was put. The Address in reply
to the speech of his Excellency the Governor had
now been before the house tor a week. He deeply
regretted that the debate on this question of confederation had been so premature,
as a day had been set
apart for its full discussion. Now he would ask hon
gentleman if they had approached this subject in that
spirit of calm enquiry which had been recommended by
his Excellency? Had they not gone so far as to impute
personal motives to the hon delegates, for the manner in
which they supported the question. He (Mr. Wyatt)
believed the delegates had done their duty fairly and
honestly. They reflected credit on Newfoundland; and
were in his opinion, entitled to the fullest consideration
from this house.—They had not departed from their
interactions, and had in no way pledged the country. The
question now came before the representatives of the people to confirm or reject, as
they deemed proper. It was
one of grave responsibility, and should be referred to the
people, who had the greatest interest in the matter. He
was sorry to hear the hon the Speaker's attack upon the
merchants, because he (Mr. Wyatt) believed that we had
nothing to consider on the subject except that which
would promote the prosperity of the fishermen and what
conduced to the prosperity of one, necessarily did the
same with the other. He believed that the merchants
did everything in their power to benefit the fisherinen of
the country, and there could be no doubt that ultimately
they would reap the benefit. Of course, the merchants
required a fair return for their capital. He thougnt,
therefore, that the remarks of the hon the Speaker were
uncalled for. He (Mr. Wyatt) knew that it is the settled
determination of the merchants not to let this matter
pass too hastily. He throughly appreciated the praises
which were given to the merchants by some hon members
opposite. These praises, at this time, accorded very well
with their past conduct. Who was it that always raised
the cry against the merchants, about taken the life-blood
from the people? Not hon members opposite. He
could assure these hon members that the merchants perfectly understood them, the hon
member for Burgeo and
LaPoile, Mr. Prowse must have a
[?] at the merchants.
Now he (Mr. Wyatt) would ask him who was it that
gave him a seat in this house? Was it not entirely
owing to mercantile influences? He (Mr. Wyatt) would
simply suggest that the question of confederation should
not be further gone into at present, until the 15th, when
every hon member of this house would no doubt, be fully
prepared to discuss it.
The SPEAKER had already spoken on this matter, and
did not now intend to occupy the time of the house in
again going into it. But as one hon member for Bonavista, Mr. Wyatt, had made some
allusion to the position
which, he had taken on this question he felt it his duty
to reply to him. Like Corporal Trim, the hon member
felt compelled to stand up for his company. He (the
Speaker) came into that house as an independent member, and he would now express independently
his opions, uninfluenced by any man or any set of men. But
when in private and privileged places, personal motives
were attributed to him, he could not be banned if
[?]
privilege, though not private peace, he should endeavour
somewhat to return the compliment. He (the Speaker)
did not intend to make any personal attack upon the
merchants Had he ever done anything to injure the
capital of the country? Had he ever supported them,
and among the members of the commercial body he knew
none that were not his personal friends. But he (the
Speaker must give it as his deliberate opinion, that the
supplying system was ruinous to the best interests of
the country. It was a reckless system, and tended to
throw great numbers upon the Government for support
during the winter? It tended generally to demoralize
the fishermen. It was well known that the outharbour
merchants and planters were made a prey, of by the
piratical boats that went from St. John's, and obtained
from the fishermen, frequently, in the night time, the
fish that they should have turned in to their supplying
merchant. It was this want of mutual confidence between the merchant and fisherman
that occasioned, in a
great degree, such improper proceedings, Then we saw
that our leading merchants engaged in a branch of trade
which should be left in the hands of the middle classes.
If you went up Water Street, you would find them selling hairbrushes, lavender water,
groceries, and such
articles. He thought these things should be imported by
the merchants, and sold to the retail shopkeepers, who
would be enabled to do a very good business by such a
course of dealing. But how could these hope to prosper,
when the merchant, who was the importer,
was also the retailer? These were his (the
Speaker's) true sentiments, and he would always utter
them. Now the merchants, as a general rule, were seldom united. But on this question
of confederation they
seemed to stand wonderfully together. What is the necessary inference to be drawn
from this? If the people
found a number of lawyers putting their heads together
and particularly anxious for the carrying of any measure,
what would be said? "What's up now I wonder?"
Every man, whether planter, merchant or fisherman,
would naturally have his own opinion on the subject,
and so long as that opinion was maintained without ascribing personal interest or
motive -o those who thought
differently, so long would he (the Speaker) respect such
opinions, so held.
Mr. GLEN.—There had been a great deal said about
the distress and misery of the people; but there was
not a single argument put forward to shew us how confederation would ameliorate our
condition, or in any
way confer any substantial benefit upon us. It was well
known that we lived entirely by our fisheries, and how
confederation was going to benefit them he Mr.
Glen was utterly at a loss to conceive. Not being able
to convince us on this point, hon gentleman had resorted
to threats, and have told us that unless we join in this
confederation, Great Britain will withdraw her protection from us, leave us to our
own resources, and to the
mercy of two powerful neighbours. He (Mr. Glen) did
not believe a word of it. It was simply absurd, and
resorting to such an argument only shewed how weak
was the cause which non gentlemen advocated. No
disappointment could possibly have come of it, if that
Report had not been signed by the delegates. It was
well know that the British Navy had been supplied with
men from our shores, and it was these hardy fishermen
who had won for Britain the supremacy of the ocean.
Could we not appeal then on that point? Did hon gentlemen remember what the Earl of
Chatham said about
Newfoundland? He said sooner than a rock should be
taken from Newfoundland by a foreign power, he would,
make it the cause of war with the whole world. He
(Mr. Glen) believed that England would do so now. It
was said that we were to have direct steam. That certainty would be a benefit. But
he (Mr. Glen) did not
see that stipulated for in the Report of the Conference.
It we were to have it, it should be there. But the
General Government would not give us enough to pay
our working expenses. What a miserable position we
were placed in. They tell us that we are to receive
£10,000 for steam. They might just as well say £20,000. One would be just as visionary
as the other.—It
looked very much like the story of the Frenchman whose
book-keeper told him that he was worth £20,000, but
when he put his hand in his pocket he found he was not
worth a cent. The hon member for Burgeo and La
Poile had used as an argument the union between England and Scotland. No one doubted
that that was benefical, though it had been obtained through treachery.
Scotland after the union was enabled to trade with England's Colonies, and had the
protection of the English
fleet wherever she went. Could Canada do that for
Newfoundland? She could do neither the one nor the
other. In his (Mr. Glen's) opinion, she would have hard
work enough to protect herself in a few years, without
thinking of us. He would say nothing futuor on the
matter now, but leave it until the 15th, when it would
be more fully discussed.
Mr. E. D. Shea.—The hon member, Mr. Glen, had
entirely mistaken what he (Mr. Shea) had said. When
he spoke of the numbers of people likely to go to Canada
and seek employment there, he meant our unfortunate
poor, not our mechanics and other trades people, who
are, comparatively speaking, better off. But the hon
member, Mr. Glen, was determined not to believe any
thing, he (Mr. Shea) was fully convinced that if confederation was carried out and
all the benefits which were
spoken of were fully realized, the hon member, Mr. Glen,
would still adhere to his state of unbelief. He says
" can you gaarantee the benefits which you say confederation will counter?" He (Mr.
Shea) could as much
guarantee them as the hon member, Mr. Glen, could
guarantee good fisheries. He (Mr. Shea) thought that
it was a great mistake, that the
people should be so
entirely confined to the fisheries. They relied too exclusively upon them, and that
was the bane of the
country. The great mistake was that hon gentlemen
supposed we were dealing, in this matter, with a government opposed to us. Did they
really apprehend that, the
people of Canada were opposed to us? If they entertained such views they must reject
common sense and
reason. He (Mr. Shea) argued on the presumpuon that
we were to have steam. That should be secured to us,
and it it were not sufficiently secured at present, let it be
made so before the bargain is concluded. As hon member, had referred to the
letter of His Lordship Dr.
Mullock. He (Mr. Shea) must say that the only inference to be drawn from that letter
was that his Lordship
was in favour of confederation. Could it be thought by
any reasoning being that confederation would be
beneficial to the educated, and injurious to the lower orders?
Had his Lordship been opposed to confederation would
he not have gived his opinion upon it? He showed by
his letter that he was heart and soul for it; but simply
abstains from offering an opinion upon its commercial
results. We have been told that we had no right to deal
with the question now. We had a perfect right to do
so, and the country demanded it of us. We would be
shrinking from our duty if we did not do it. Let us
send the matter before the country, not without our
expression of opinion upon it. He (Mr. Shea) saw no
other course that could be properly pursued. He was
opposed to the carrying of the measure at present. Let
all the people he fairly and properly consulted. The
hon member, Mr. Casey, said that if we entered this
confederation, Canada would be sure to tax us. He (Mr.
Shea) thought far differently. Canada would be more
THE NEWFOUNDLANDER
2
likely to treat us with greater consideration, when she
found that our interests were identical with her own;
and that we were prepared to share their burdens. It
was desirable that the public mind should be thoroughly
informed on this great question, at the earliest opportunity, and he (Mr. Shea) therefore
did not agree with
hon gentlemen when they said that this debate was premature. It was the duty of the
Legislature to take up
the matter as early as possible. He did not grudge the
time that had been spent in its discussion,as he believed
it had been turned to very useful account.
Mr. CASEY.—No person who had listened attentively to the observations of hon members, who had
addressed the house on that subject could fail to notice
the anxiety of the supporters of the Confederation to
carry that question through the house, notwithstanding the very general feeling against
it. They had
failed, however, to convince him (Mr. Casey) that the
Confederation would be of the slightest benefit to the
inhabitants of Newfoundland. He saw nothing whatever staring us in the face but taxation
and ruin, if we
consented to that proposal. What similarity was there
between our pursuits and those of Canada? None
whatever. Here we were a little kingdom in ourselves, and if war should arise, we
would be protected
by the army and navy of Great Brftain. Did not Mr.
Brown of Toronto state that one of the first objects
of the Confederation would be to provide for the
military defence of Canada? And did not the delegates, before the conference broke
up, consent to the
expenditure necessery for that purpose? Where was
the means for that? Newfoundland had until lately
sufficient to meet her own expenditure, but could not
furnish the means of paying troops for the defence of
Canada. But we were stricken down, for the time,
by bad fisheries. He trusted, however, that Providence would again smile upon us;
and with the return
of prosperty we would have sufficient revenue for our
requirements, and the people themselves would frown
down pauperism. After the introduction of Responsible Government, a determined effort
should have
been made to put down the demoralisation of pauperism. He did not see why so much
had been expended
of late years. It certainly was not because the people
could not do without it. The present Government
sent poor relief east, west, north and south, and demoralized the people by their
lavish expenditure.
Under pretence of relieving the poor,they sent a large
quantity of Indian
[?] to Harbor Grace, where it was
not required. Something was said by the hon member
for Ferryland, Mr. Shea, about a large sum being expended for the protection of the
fisheries. He Mr.Casey
had read carefully the reports of the persons sent to
protect the fisheries, and he could see nothing in them
to satisfy him that their services were necessary. But
he would like to know, if we were to enter into this
confederation, how the Canadian navy was to give us
protection? It would take time to form such a navy
as would protect the maritime provinces; and where
was the money to come from? It was from the navy
of Briain that we were to look for protection. The
hon member said also that our operative population
would benefit by the union. He (Mr. Casey) did not
see that. When the question of Free Trade was agitated, the people expected that they
would get bread
and flour for nothing. But it was found that bread
and flour were as dear as before we had the treaty.
We were told that when confederation was carried out
we were to have a line of steamers from this port to
Toronto. He had looked carefully over the papers,
and he could see nothing about these steamers. He
would like to have something more than mere rumour
on that matter. He granted the steamers would be
a benefit, if we got them. We were told that the
educated youth of the country had not a field here;
but that they would have a fine field in Canada after
confederation was carried out. But did not our youth
proceed to Canada and Australia now, and did not
many of them do well in these countries, without confederation? The brothers of the
hon the Speaker had
done so, and he (Mr. Casey) was happy to learn that
they had prospered. If the youth of the country could
not find employment in their native land to their
long, and had the enterprise to go elsewhere, he
(Mr. Casey) would admire them for it. But they certainly did not require confederation
to secure success.
A great deal of stress was laid upon the letter of Archbishop Connolly. Certainly
no person who knew that
distinguished prelate, either personally or by reputation, but would pay the greatest
attention to his
opinions. But it did not follow, because he considered
that confederation would benefit Nova Scotia, that it
would prove beneficial to Newfoundland. The opinion of the Right Revd. Dr. Mullock
was also referred
to. He (Mr. Casey) d.d not know what Dr. Mullock's opinions were on the question of
confederation,
but he did know that hon members were not always
so ready to quote the opinions of that gifted prelate
in support of their views. Reference had been made to
the reception given to Mr. Brown in England. But
Garibaldi was also feted in
England; and the Duke of
Sutherland seat his yacht for him. But the sensible
people of England made the country too hot for him,
and he had to retire without the ovation he had anticipated. We were told the local
Legislature would
still be retained for the management of our local affairs; but would any person tell
bim that the tendency would not be to do away with the local Legislature
altogether? Ten years hence we would have no local
legislature in the maritime provinces, if confederation
was carried. Then we were told that we would receive $150,000 a year for our Crown
lands and minerals; and ten years hence it might be found that our
mineral resources were worth a great deal more. It
was not when a geological survey of the country was
undertaken, which promised in the opinion of the
geologist employed, to show that we had valuable
minerals, that we should thus give away our Crown
lands and mines, for what, after all, was our own
money, for we should not receive by any means as
much in the whole as we would be taxed under the
tariff of Canada. It was not fair that we should come
to any decision on that question this session. The
members of the present house were not elected for any
such purpose. Confederation was not thought of
when they were elected. Let them go to the country,
which he (Mr. Casey) hoped would not be until the
fall, and let the people say whether they wished for
confederation or not. Reference had been made to
the sympathy of the other Colonies when the French
convention of 1847 came out, and it was stated that
the convention was in a great measure detested
through that sympathy. He admitted that we ought
to be forever grateful for the sympathy we then experienced; but that was no reason
why we should now
enter into another convention against our interests.
It was said also that such was the anxiety on that
question that property was very much depreciated;
but property was never so much depreciated as now,
owing to a succession of bad fisheries. He (Mr.Casey)
denied that the delegates were justified in signing the
resolutions drawn up by the Conference. He (Mr.
Casey) found that the
Daily Telegraph, a good authority, charged the Delegales with acting illegally in
that proceeding. That journal said those who formed
the Conference at Quebec for the purpose of arranging
the terms of a Convention, had no authority for what
they did.-The union hetween England and Ireland
had been referred to, and it was stated that Scotchmen
went up to England and obtained situations, and that
Irishmen went also. But did not history tell us that
the Irishmen who did so sold themselves, bddy and
soul, to the British Government? The result of the
union between England and Ireland was most disastrous to Ireland, and such would be
the effect with regard to that Confederation, if carried into effect, Newfoundlanders
not yet in being would curse the day that
their country was made over to Canada. —Need he
(Mr. Casey) go one step further to show the results of
this Confederation, if entered into? In the other
provinces, where there might be some beneft derived
from Confederation, there was much opposition by
many, and by some of the most influential of the
newspapers. (Here the hon member read several
extracts from Canada and Nova Scotia newspapers.)
These were the organs of public opinion in the neighbouring provinces, and they showed
any thing but
unanimity of sentiment in favour of the proposed
union. Many of the leading citizens of Halifax were
also opposed to it, although if any city would benefit
by it. It must be Halifax, which was to be the colonial
terminus of the Grand Trunk Railway. He (Mr.
Casey) would say again that it was not competent for
the present House of Assembly to dispose of that question, and hon members ought not
to consent to it, if
they had the interest of the country at heart.
Mr. RENOUF.—Hon members stated that we would
have a larger revenue under confederation than we
have now. But we would also have much heavier
taxation. By a return prepared at the Custom-house,
and of which, therefore, the accuracy would not be
questioned, it was shown that the Canadian tariff, applied to our imports, would give
a revenue of £140,000 a year, while all we would receive under confederation was £132,000,
and no increase for the future,
whatever, the increase of our population might be.
And for this we would be required to give them our
Custom-houses, Government house, our Crown lands,
with all our valuable mineral resources, and the power
to make laws, for the Governor General could disallow
any Act passed here. Now, he (Mr. Renouf) would
ask hon members, were we to sell our country for
£132,000 a year? For his part he would not do so,
We could wait and see what Providence would do for
us. We did not yet know what our resources are.
Our minerals are not yet developed. He regretted
that the late government did not institute a geological survey when they had an abundant
revenue. Could
Canada do more to settle our Crown lands and develop our mineral resources than Newfoundland
could
do? We could have a thorough geological survey,
if we should borrow the money for the purpose, and if
valuable minerals were discovered, there would be
no difficulty in fortning a Company prepared to work
them. Mines must be worked by private enterprise
and private capital. Government could not do it to
advantage no matter what their means might be. We
were told that Mr. Galt had no desire to raise the
tariff; and who was Mr. Galt?. He was but one man,
and he could not speak for a central government not
yet in existence. He might promise that it would not
be increased. But promises made under such circumstances were not reliable. We know
it was promised
to Ireland, when the union was carried, that Catholic
emancipation would follow, and it was not until twenty eight years after, that it
was carried in the Imperial
Parliament. Could we have any confidence, considering what the expenditure of the
Federal Government
must inevitably, be that Mr. Galt's promises would
be better kept? He (Mr. Renouſ) hoped every hon.
member of that, house would exercise his unbiassed
judgment in that matter, and not suffer himself to be
influenced by the supporters of Confederation on either side of the house, to believe
that the cry of taxation was a shadow. The question of taxation was no
shadow, but was a substance, and one which would
come home to every elector in the Colony. The people of Newfoundland were not less
intelligent than
those of others countries, and were not to be misied
by mere professions of economy, which the sightest
reflection must show them could not be realized. Then
we we were told that we would not be called upon to
furnish a militia. The object of the conference at
Quebec was a milotary convention, and not commercial; and if Federation were carried
out, England
would say—"You have now the resources of a great
country ; provide for your own defence. So long as
you were struggling colonies we defended you, but
now you are able to do for yourselves." Now the
existing tariff of Canada would all £40,507 to our
Customs revenue. But that tariff would only allow
a million of dollars for military, and nothing for naval
expenditure. He (Mr Renouf) would be prepared to
show, when the question came up for discussion on
the 15th, that the Federal government would require
two millions of dollars more than the Canadian tariff
would produce. And how was that to be raised ?
Why by raising the tariff; by imposing additional
burdens upon the people. He did not desire to
see the matter passed so hastily. He saw no occasion
to force this question, as it was of the utmost importance that, the matter should
be fully investigated,
and placed in all its aspects before the country. He
(Mr. Renouf) disclaimed saying anything against
the merchants of Newfoundland. He always had the
greatest respect for them, and considered
their interest identical with those of the fishermen. So, it would appear that our
joining in
this Confederation was entirely to be attributed to the
Hon the Attorney General, and that it was through
his influence that we were not left out in the cold.
But what right had the hon the Attorney General to
take upon himself so great a responsibility! Where,
he (Mr. Renouf) would ask, was the official dispatch
ot the Governor General of Canada? Had that been
borked? It seemed to him that our delegates had
received a piper's invitation, for there had evidently
been no desire or intention to ask Newfoundland at
first. Our delegates say that they did not commit us.
He (Mr. Renout) agreed with the opinion of the hon
member, Mr. Glen, that they had. They signed that
Report on behalf of this country, and had it been possible for them to have bound
us they would have done
so. And yet they were invested with no authority
from this Legislature. They were not the delegates
of the people, and did not represent their wishes or
ours, nor aid they even conserve the interest of this
Colony. The wily Canadians were too much for them.
They saw what a capital opportunity it was for them
to get hold of us, and endeavour to relieve themselves
of the difficulties that were pressing them down. It
was taken for granted in Canada that our delegates
represented the feelings of the people of this Island.
But they say, they only bound themselves. Who, he
(Mr. Renouf) would ask, would have to pay their expenses? He presumed the country
would pay the
piper, and that we should very soon hear something
about it in this House. Our position was very different from that of the other provinces.
We had no
large body of agricultural settlers here as tney had.
In the other Colonies gentlemen sold out of the Army
and Navy; purchased estates and settled down to the
cultivation of the soil; and thus a good society was
formed. Here it was far different. The merchant,
as soon as he had made a fortune, left the country and
enjoyed his wealth elsewhere. Our isolation was
complete, and if we entered this Confederation it would
be just the same. Besides, would not Canada have
the benefit of our taxation? And what good were we
to receive in return? Could we receive our flour and
provisions from Canada? During six months of the
year the navigation of the St. Lawrence was stopped
by a barrier of ice that could never be removed.
Would there be a cheaper mode of conveyance
after we were confederated than now? Then it had
been said that our tradespeople and operatives could
go to Canada and during a great part of the year
receive large wages, and return here in comfort
to their families. This was certainly very nice
in theory, but he doubted if it could be practically realised. Would not these people
have to pay
their passages, and would not that swallow up the
greater part of their earnings? Besides, were the
operative population better paid in Canada than they
are here? Certainly not. As regarded the cod
fishery, Canada has her own, and could supply her
own wants; and therefore there would be no market
for our fish there. What increased population
could Confederation bestow upon the people of this
Colony If Canada possesses such great resources, how
was it that in the great exodus that took place
here lately, not one in every hundred went to, Canada? If she offered so fine a field
for our educated
young men, how was it that none of them faced there?
But if this Confederation were passed, he (Mr. Renouf)
supposed that all the Canadian offices would be filled
by Newfoundlanders. Did hon gentlemen really desire
to impose upon this house and the country by such
clap-trap. But after all, supposing that the sons of
our wealthy people were really benefitted, what was to
become of the sons of the fishermen and the tradesmen? But these delegates well knew
that, if this
question was passed this session they would be well
rewarded for it. Most likely they would have an
audience of Her Most Gracious Majesty, and then it
would be—"Rise, Sir Frederick B. T. Carter–Rise,
Sir Ambrose Shea." This would be the result. But
this question should not be affirmed this session. The
people were the judges, and to them it should be submitted.
The question that the section be adopted was then
put and carried.
The remaining sections of the address were then
read seriatim and adopted, and the Committee rose
and the Chairman reported the address without
amendment.
On motion of
Mr. WYATT the address was then
read a third time and passed—to be presented to his
Excellency the Governor by Mr. Speaker and the
whole house.
The SPEAKER informed the House that his Excellency would receive the address at three o'clock
tomorrow.
The hon ATTORNEY GENERAL gave notice that on
to-morrow he would move for leave to bring in Bills
for the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths
in this Colony—For regulating the appointment of
Coroners—For the banishment of Criminal Offenders
-For the maintenance of deserted wives and children
-For the recovery of forfeited recognizances, and for
the amendment of the law of Interpleader.
The House then adjourned until three o'clock; tomorrow.
This individual participated in:
