2
THE NEWFOUNDLANDER
THURSDAY, Feb. 11.
The House met at 8 o'clock, pursuant to adjourment.
On motion of
Mr. GODDEN, the House resolved
itself into Committee of the Whole, on the further
consideration of the Address in reply to the speech
of His Excellency,
Mr. KNIGHT in the Chair.
On motion of
Mr. GODDEN, the fifth section of the
address was read as follows:—
"We fully concur with your Excellency that the
time has now arrived for us to take action on the
great question of Confederation; and we can assure
your Excellency that we shall give our earnest
attention to the consideration of our Union with the
Dominion of Canada, on such fair and equitable
terms as many be calculated to serve the interests of
the Colony, be approved of by the Government of
the Dominion, and which we trust may prove
acceptable to all classes of the people, when submitted to the constituencies, and
also recieve the
fianl approval and ratification of Her Majesty."
Mr. TALBOT did not understand the section
which had just been read, and thought it was involved in a good deal of mystery. It
was very desierable
that such a matter should not be misunderstood.
He did not agree that the time had arrived, and did
not think it was well to say so. If it be said that
the time has arrived, it must have reference to something precedent to the fact that
it was stated that action
would be taken at some future time, which time
had now arrived. But he (Mr. T.) was not aware
that such had ever been said. If he understood the
assurance of the hon. and learned Attorney General
no time could arrive to this present House, for the
matter was, in the first place, to be referred to the
people, who were to be asked if they approved of
this, Union. It had not been put before the people
In that light, or in any way beyond that general
view which was given by candidates, who in fact
bound themselves to nothing, and led people to
believe that it was a mere question spoken of and
canvassed speculatively. If this section be
adopted, it would, it appeared to him, assert
that which was not true. The elections were
approaching, and so it might be said that the
time had come when the people should be asked
if they approved of the principle. After that
the House could meet and state certain conditions,and these conditions could be again
referred to
the people, he thought that would be the proper
way to act, or at least that it would be in
accordance with the general understanding of
the hon. and learned Attorney Genereal's premise.
If this paragraph be passed, it will be an agreement for the consideration of the
conditions,
which would be a strong presumption of a previous affirmation of the principle. The
wording
of the paragraph was not clear. and if it be
intended that the House should affirm the principle, it ought to be so expected in
clear and
definite language. Two years ago, the Government attempted by a clause in the address
to
affirm the principle, but the House refused, and
after some consideration and difficulty, amongst
hon. gnetlemen opposite, the
[?] was withdrawn, and one of a doubtless characters substituted.
After that it was said the substituted clause
affirmed the principle, and the present Judge
Hayward, who then represented Harbor Grace
made a great row about it, and said that he for
one did not intend to affirm the principle at all.
Was the House now asked to affirm that principle? If we look at this paragraph, and
ask if
such be the case, we are met by a conclusion of
words which neither says yes nor no. It certainly
implies an affirmation of the principle. That
was an advance towards its affirmation. We
agree it is time to take action. What was the
first act? None hitherto, but now we concur that
it is time to take action. The first step should
be to affirm the principle, and until that be done,
details and conditions cannot be considered. Why
not say distinctly that the time had come for the
affirmation of the principle and consideration of
details? The section implied that affirmation, but
in so deceitful a manner that it did not meet his
(Mr. T's) approval, and he would be very sorry to
vote for it. There is a loophole left here for the
supporters of the Government, by which they may
be caught by the neck, and bound as they pass
through. They are now asked to wheel about like
jim crows, and say to-day what they refused to say
two years ago. That was not treating them properly. Their attention should be directed
to the
precise point, and they should not be asked to
proceed with their eyes bandaged. For himself,
he (Mr. T.) did not affirm the principle at all.
From all he had reflected upon it and seen of it, he
was decidedly opposed to the principle, and did
not think Union would, under all its circumstances,
prove beneficial, and they then knew what Union
meant, and under what leading principles they
must go in. If the Union had not taken place, if
it were still in embryo, and they did not see it
working, there might be a doubt as to whether the
principle was good or not. But now that the
Union was established, the question was—Is the
principle of that Union such as they could approve
of? He (Mr. T.) said it ws not. No matter what
terms you propose, they cannot deviate from the
essential ptinciples on which the Colonies are
already united, and he (Mr. T.) did not approve
of those principles, and do not see what advantage such a Union could be to the country.
It
would not make us better off, because from the
nature of things, it was impossible it could. What
was the meaning of this Confederation? Remove
all the glare and glitter, and what was its naked
meaning? Just this, that by our own act we give
to Canada absolute power and control over our
destinies, over our liberties, and properties and
our lives. That is the exact meaning of Confederation. Throw what dust you like about
it, put
in it all the glittering colors you choose, but take
it in its reality, and that is what it means. He
said liberties, because after the Union was established, they would have no liberty
to rule themselves, and could make no laws without the sec
3
THE NEWFOUNDLANDER.
tion of the Dominion; property, because the
Dominion Parliament could tax them internally
and externally, to any amount they pleased; lives
because the same power could take our people
when they pleased and use their lives for their own
purposes. Such was Confederation. It would be
a very nice thing to congratulate themselves on,
but he (Mr. T.) did not think the people would be
content with it. Was it wise or advisable to yield
up their right to legislate for themselves, to place
their property at the mercy of a foreign power to
tax as they pleased, to submit their lives to them
also, so that they might seize and take every man
from 18 to 60 years of age, to repel any attempts
made upon them by the great Republic? Of course,
the dust will be raised and the picture painted, and
they would be told that though what he had said
might be Confederation, per ipse, yet we would
derive advantages from it which would counter
balance all this; that new channels of trade will
be opened, and the country raised in the scale of
civilization, that agriculture will be awakened,
and bloom in all the luxuriance it exhibits in the
other Provinces. He (Mr. T.) could not understand how Confederation was going to effect
all
this, and did not believe that the Confederates
themselves really understood it either. Would
Canada bind herself on your parchment agreement
to promote our commerce, agriculture and manufactures? No, she could not do it, for
remember
the law is already passed; Confederation established, and she cannot give more than
has been
already arranged amongst themselves. All the
arguments advanced to prove the advantages of
confederation had reference to Commercial treaties
and arrangements, and had nothing at all to do
with the political aspect of the question. If trade
were to be benefited by an equal tariff, it could be
done by some Commercial arrangements. If our
mines were to be worked, it would be done by
capitalists and not by politicians; and they would
work them; not because we were confederated,
but because they would be profitabie. It will be
raid that if we confederate we will have our bread
flour, pork, &c., free of duty. That was a plausible argument. It certainly was strange
that in
all these arguments the political question was
mixed up with commercial matters. The real
question was blinked, so as to throw dust in the
eyes of the people. These articles could be made
duty free by commercial regulations, without Confederation. Such was the case before,
and why should
it not to be so again? He Mir. T.) wanted to
show the knack by which the supporters of Confederation attempted to blindfold the
people. They
keep the political question in the back ground, and
drag forward a very different matter, that is the
question of commercial arrangements. It appeared
very strarge to aim, but perhaps it was because he
was innocent and not up to the tricks, the labyrintial wisdom which sometimes mazes
one. That
House had in itself the power to admit bread,
pork, flour, &c., free of duty, but it would be said
the country was in debt, and could not afford it.
He (Mr. T.) replied, let us, retrench, reduce the
expenditure, and so be able to strike off these
duties. Another argument was that without Confederation we cannot have reciprocity.
Why not? What
is reciprocity? It simply means the mutual exemption from duties of articles the peculiar
produce of particular countries, on mutual terms.
Was it not in our power to make such terms now?
To be sure it was. Then what had Confederation
to do with reciprocity? It was a separate matter,
which should be treated on its own merits, and
not mixed up with the question of Confederation.
Politically, Confederation meant only that Canada
should have the absolute control of the libery, the
property and the lives of the people of this Colouy.
He challenged a denial of thit. It that was not
what Confederation meant, then he was ignorant
of its meaning. He (Mr. T.) could see the truth
though. We must, it seemed, have Confederation;
without it we can't get on at all. We are in such
a crippled state that unless some other country
comes, and in mercy picks us up, we are gone for
we canuot exist by ourselves. But that argament upsets the other argament, for it
goes to
show that the great good of Confederation will
be to save us from ourselves. It if ever appears to
occur to hon. gentlemen that any other mode of
governing the country could be devised, but that
which they themselves adopted, and have pursued
for the past four years, which was to make a
great many offices, and fill them with a great
many people, and make large salaries for them,
and then, in order to get these salaries, put on
heavy taxes on bread, flour, pork, &c., and then,
because tust does not succeed, we must Confederate,
as the country cannot ue ruled by its own people.
But these hon. gentlemen go on the wings of imagination and flash and thunder through
the realms
above. They can't walk upon terra firuma like common people. If we ourselves by a
local system of
Government cannot make the people comfortable,
surely no Government on this side the Atlantic can
do it. When the Imperial Government managed the
affairs of the colony we well remember how they
used to blunder. The general cry was they don't
understand us. With self Government we thought
we possessed everything necessary to make us prosperous. There are now some gentlemen
who think
we ought to have another kick up and place ourselves under some other Empire. What
was the
history of this Confederation! The two Canadas
were fighting and squabbling among themselves, and
in order to keep then quiet they were united. This
then was the first of Confederation. There was a
considerable Annexation party and they got up a big
shindy, not to say a rebellion, which, however, was
quickly quelled. In the United Parliament parties
were equally divided and innumerable deadlocks occurred. That Confederation failed
and four or five
years ago the leading men of both parties hit upon
the happy thought that if they could get the other
Provinces to join them that they might tax them and
make laws for them, they themselves would get on
very well. But all this time they never dreamt that
Newfoundland could be benefitted by the scheme.
At last they united at Quebec, and the then Attorney
General, the present Sir Hugh W. Hoyles, happened
to be travelling in Canada at the time, and he said
perhaps we would send up a couple of men to see
what they were doing there. The Canadian gentlemen said they never thought of Newfoundland
at all,
but they would be very happy to meet our men.
And so, without the appointment of this Assembly,
the hon. Attorney General and the hon. A. Shea were
sent up merely to watch the proceedings of the Convention. He (Mr. T.) would not go
into the proceedings of that Convention, he would not count the
champaign bottles, and the various fetes to which
they were invited, but the conclusion of the matter
was that his two hon, friends were so bamboozled
by these clever Canadians and others that they signed
the document which was the basis of Confederation.
Well, these hon. gentlemen came back, conscious
that they had done something of which they had no
reason to be proud. There was no flourish of trumpets on their return, no guns fired,
no triumphal car
awaiting them to exhibit these two worthies to the
admiring gaze of their countrymen. Well, they
came to this house and they eadeavoured to bring
over to their views every man of influence in the
country! They represented the thing in glowing
colours, they declined that it was the grandest
thing for the country which could be accomplished,
they felt the breath of fame already on their cheeks,
saw in vision the statues to be erected to their
memory 50 years hence, But alas! alas! for the
bright visions of their world! No sooner did this
House entered into the consideration of the scheme
and condemned it, than these two hon. gentlemen
said it would never do and they would never assent
to it. They declared they would never accept Confederation on the terms which they
had solemnly
signed in conclave. They turned their backs upon
their signatures and accounted for them by some
obfuscation of the brain from which at the time they
suffered. They want to persuade us now that they
have in hand some other scheme, and if that were
condemned by the country these hon. gentlemen
would be ready to condemn it themselves. Will
they never cease to bamboozle us with the concoction of new schemes? He (Mr. T.) supposed
that
they fancied that some of their many schemes must
take, and, then the country might sink or swim.
They would proceed to Canada, enthrone themselves
in high places, and look down from their lofty emimences and say, "We are sorry for
you but we
couldn't do more for you." And doubtless the people would say so too. Confederation
would not
lighten the burdens of our people nor relieve their
wants. Assist the people while they are in their
transition state—while they are on the isthmus passing from the ocean of adversity
to the ocean of prosperity—and then you will have done your duty to
them, but till you shall have done that all the confederations you can go into will
be unavailing. It
had been circulated in the nowspapers that Nova
Scotia had accepted the situation. She had found
that she could not extricate herself from it except at
the cannon's mouth and so she had determined to
make the best of a bad bargain. And so because
she can't get rid of it it has been concluded that she
is well pleased with it. One might as well say that a
man with an incurable sore who had given up all
hope of its eradication, was well pleased with his
malady. The Nova Scotian and Irish unions were
both accomplished by the corruption of the representatives of the people who in common
parlance
sold their country. But in Ireland and in Nova
Scotia too the peoples' hands were clean. The people never sanctioned the sales of
their countries, our
hon. members, however, if they can carry our their
plans, will coerce the people themselves into selling
their country. But the people see the plan and will
not be tricked. Surely then hon. members should
pause in their headlong career. Let them strike
down the enormous expenditure and lighten the
burdens of the people. Let them not follow that
ignis futuus of Confederation—that fluttering thing
which must prove illusive to them. He (Mr. T.)
would ask them to lay aside their ambition and allow
their bosoms to swell with fuelings of humanity,
turning their attention to such legislation as would
conduce to the benefit of the people of the country.
If you do less or more, it you attempt to carry Confederation you will get yourselves
into a turmoil from
which you will find it difficult to escape. Beware of
the damage of striking down the liberties of a people.
You may trifle with the liberties and freedom of the
people, but depend upon it they will not suffer such
to be done. The people value liberty, and do not
then sell it for a mess of potage. He feared that the
already trespassed too long upon the House. His
desire was to show that we should not adopt this
section as it stood. Its language was too vague.
If we adopt i,. we adopt the principle of Confederation. This the Government could
not do without
belieing their former pledges to the country; with this
view, then he would put forward the following
amendment:
" That the only terms upon which we have been
asked to go into Confederation are those of the
Quebec resolutions, which have been rejected by the
House and the country. We therefore submit that
in accordance with the pledge given by the
Premier, no further action be taken until the
principle of Confederation be submitted to the
people."
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL—The gentlemen on
the other side of the House, known as Her Majesty's
Opposition, had just put their best leg foremost, and
had selected their man to nake a speech upon this
occasion. That hon gentleman was certainly not a
bad actor. He was able to take his part in a play
with most men. He had a good deal of the
[?]
element in his nature. He (hon. A G) was led to
believe that the speech which had just been delivered
had been recently recited before the whole party,
and unanimously approved of by them. That special
notice had been given that he was selected to play
this part; there had been a full attendance, and the
recitation had been deemed excellent. It was received with wonder and admiration,
that any man
could express all these pretty things which the hon.
member undertook to do. Their advice to him had
been, whatever you do, don't indulge in argument,
because you know we hon metmbers of the West end
have already committed ourselves to an opinion upon
the matter. Draw off their attention from that.
Be as illogical as you can, and if you only succeed in
drawing off the attention of the Government from
that, we may be able yet to outwit them and
possibly leap into their seats. But he (A G) would
inform them that they would find their mistake.
The Government thoroughly understood and was
prepared for them, but hardly appreciated soundly
of their tactics. His observations were too transparent to succeed in influencing
the mind of any
man, or to carry any weight with them. He (hon
A G) found a difficuly in meeting the observations of
the hon member, because he felt that in doing so he
was only buffetting with the wind. If the hon
member had put forth any facts or given us any
data, he (hon A G) could easily meet him. The hon
member however, had failed to do that, and had
merely indulged in a lot of clap-trap and in some
old Irish songs, and thinks that such a serious and
important matter of this kind should be turned off by
a proceeding ouly worthy of men sitting down over a
glass of grog. He (hon A G) had been a little surprised because he had not before
been aware of the
versatility of the hon member. If the object of the
hom member was merely to excite mirth, his success
had been very indifferent. But more that one old
song was required in the discussion of so important a
subject as the present. One could imagine that the
hon member had entertained a hatred tor Confederation during his whole life, that
he had never expressed an opinion favorable to it, and that what he
now says must carry conviction to every unwilling
mind. He was playing his part so that be might it
possible get into power and enjoy some of the sweets
and emoluments of other. He was trying a popularity dodge. He says "will you give
up your
liberty, your lives, and property to Canada?"
Why one would fancy from such expressions that
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada, had no
liberty, no property, and no lives? The hon member
must recollect that long before we had Responsible
Government, that boom had been conferred upon
Canada, that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had
also received it before us, and yet one would fancy
from the argument of the hon member that they had
given up everything that Britons valued, and when
these Colonies had Confederated and were impressed
that it was for their interest and good, could we have
any doubt upon our minds that we would enjoy with
them the same benefits and advantages which they
of present possess? Why, what was the object of
Confederation? Was it not the consolidation and
strengthening of British interests? Was it not the
consolidation of liberty itself? Here when disunited,
each separate Parliament was making laws adverse
to the interests of each other. We had different
tariffs, a different currency, different laws, yet all
expressing to be governed by the constitution of
Great Britain. This then was seen and with one
desire we met together in full liberty and freedom to
prepare a measure which had been commended by
British statesmen on all sides and as having emanated
from enlightened men and statesmen. When that
measure went before the British Parliament, was it
advocated only by one side? All–whatever you
might call them, Radicals, Conservatives, or Whigs,
praised and sustained it as a measure which they believed was calculated to alvance
the prosperity of all the
colonies together. Newfoundland has hitherto been
isolated from the outer world, and according to the
hon member, it was to remain so. Were we to be cut
off from all civilized countries? Were we to stand
still or retrograde that we should, never enjoy the
advantages and progress of civilization? But the
hon member would find that the people would be no
longer cajoled by his absurdities uttered here merely
for the purpose of being tuned to political purposes
on the hustings. Would they prevent the people
from having more extended employment, from
earning a fair days wages and keep then within the
present narrow, area of employment? That may
please hon members opposite, who might chuckle to
see the people in the streets unemployed, wretched and
starving. Oh! says the hon member, will the Canadians
erect manufactories for us,—who were erecting
manufactories now? Who was giving remunerative
labor to the people? Was the hon member doing
it? Would talk do it? Did he believe that we
possessed any means to alleviate their distresse, or
to remove burdensome taxation? Relieve it? No?
and be never did believe it, and there were no man
now in this House more in favour of Confederation,
than the hon. member Mr. Talbot and his colleague,
Mr. Renouf, and they had recorded their opinions
upon the question. These two gifted minds is they
styled theirs to be, were four years ago in favour of
Confederation, and in a celebrated address which
they published, they had stated their opinions upon
the subject. Had they changed since then? Have
they had to recant? Have they been converted by
the hon. member Mr. Glen? Have they by the
hon. member Mr. Hogsett, who all along was in favor
of Confederation, and who now says we shall know
his opinion at the proner time? What however,
did these two gifted minds say? Here was their
celebrated letter addressed to the electors of St.
John's on the 6th of November 1865, in which they
state. "It is true that the principle of Amalgamation
like that of Confederation, cannot be a subject of controversy. The highest, the most
gifted minds acknowledge it." It is in the details, that is to say in
the application of the principle all the danger lies."
These highest and most gifted minds ackknowledge
then that there can be no controversy upon the principle of Confederation. But now
we find the hon.
member Mr. Talbot getting up and moving a resolution repudiating the doctrine which
he paraded in
1865 as the emanation of one of the most enlightened
minds, either aluong us, or any where else. Now
what is the question before the chair. That this
House will at a proper time take into consideration
the details—thus perfectly coinciding with the views
of the hon member. Here in their address they
insisted on what should be done, and what we are
about to do, and yet now they repudiate their own
words. They say "you rejected the question of
Confederation." He (A. G.) would ask, when? He
denied that such had over been done by this House,
and when the amendinent of the Solicitor General
had been put forward, the hon member himself conceived it to be in favour of Confederation,
and said
that it could be viewed in no other light than as an
admission of the principe, if so, the question was
not rejected, but confirined, and this the hon. member admitted at the time. Agin
he says, we, the
delegates, were not authorised to go to Canada to
take any part, but merely to speak. The delegates
had been fully authorised to enter into the discussion
of the question, but not to bind this colony, and that
they never, had professed to do. We had resereved
to the local legislature the final determination of the
matter, and on their arrival had declared what he
(A. G) had always declared and now repeated, that
nothing could or would be definitely settled until the
question went before the various constituencies at a
general election, for them to pronounce upon it. But
he had never said that he would not take any action
upon it. Hon. gentlemen would have been called
upon to discuss this question long ago before this
House, but for the position which one of the other
colonies had assumed. Nova Scotia was turbulent.
The great anti-confederate leader Howe, had stirred
up the country, in one of the phrases peculiar to this
House, from its centre to its circumference. He had
told the people that Confederation had been carried
unconstitutionally, because it had not been submitted
to them—and he opposed then what he had been
supporting his, whole life. Since then he had gone
to Canada, and was now a Cabinet Minister of the
New Dominion. Now what did this prove, not merely
that he was in favour of Confederation as a principle,
but that he believed it would be of immense advantage to his native country. Now,
however, it might
be alleged against Dr. Tupper, that he acted imprudently in not submitting the question
to the constituencies, yet no one can doubt that he was actuated
by the purest patriotism, and that justice will yet
be done him and his memory by his fellow citizens.
whose material interests he had so admirably promoted. Mr. Howe was now reaping the
faits of
Dr. Tupper's planting and nursing. But oh! says
the hon. member Mr. Talbot, the people are being
bribed from Canada, as they were bribed in Ireland.
Where was the evidence of bribery here? If the
hon member has made use of the expression as a hint
or suggestion, he (hon. A G) would say that they
had no money to give him or any body else. But
after all, on whose side was secret service money
used? Did not Nova Scotia in its Anti-Parliament
votes $50,000 secret service money for the purpose
of repealing the Union if possible. And woould any
man doubt that the opposition
would follow the example of Mr. Howe at any moment that they
thought it was their advantage to do so.
And if, when we go to the people at the next election
would the opposition not be the first to carry the
question of Confederation it they got the majority?
Then it is again atteged that we are to be taxed.
Unfortunately we were able to tax ourselves. He
did not think that the people of Canada were more
in love with taxation than we were and whatever
attempt would be made to tax them heavily they
would no doubt raise their voice against it. Look
at their tariff and compare it with our own and see
how much more favourable it was than our present
one is or likely to be. Under the Canadian tariff
there was scarcely an article used in the prosecuting
of the fisher as that was not excepted from taxation,
besides food of all kinds. Then with regard to internal
taxation the hon. member had evidently not read
the Union Act or he woull not hare exhibited the
ignorance he did. Internal-taxation he would find
could only be imposed by the local legislatures of
each colony. The only power the Dominion had
was over the import tax and this brought him to the
question of taxing our exports. This was hardly
possible; they could not impose an export tax on one
particular colony—they would make it general if they
did so, and in that view we would be no worse off
than our neighbours; but apart from this, an export
tax was a doctrine that had long singe bean exploded
and was opposed by every sound political economist,
and was not likely to occur under British rule. This
question of Confederation then had never bean submitted to this House and was never
rejected by it.
The question would be snbmitted to the people at
the polls, but in the mean time we have a perfect
right to express our opinion upon it. Surely when
we went before the people with certain terms, that
was the time for them to examine them. Without
terms being agreed to, in order to submit them to
the people, we could do nothing, Why the hon.
member Mr. Glen, the leader of the opposition has
truly declared that the question was one purely of
terms. Then what is it we now propose? Why
the very course which the hon. members Messrs Talbot
and Renouf advocated and which is also approved of
by their venerable leader Mr. Glen. But there was
one remedy besides Confederation,—Put us, say Her
Majesty's opposition, into power, let us get into the
saddle and ride the house and all will then be right
and fair, there will then be no pauperism, no more
depression, all will go on straight, prosperous, and
smoothed. We however think that we are just as well
able to manage the affairs of this country as the
gentlemen composing Her Majesty's opposition.
We say that in all humility. We have heard no
grand scheme from them for the benefit of the country
altho' they had been talking here for the past three
or four years to the extent of their long powers.
But he (A G) understood now there was something
hatching, an egg was being laid that would contain
everything that was necessary tor the happiness and
prosperity of the people. What was this great secret
that they would not unbosom? Who had concocted
it? Who had the credit of its paternity? Why was
he not pointed out? and why did he not stand up
and declare I am the man.
MR. GLEN—Ecce homo.
[TO BE CONTINUED.]
1
THE NEWFOUNDLANDER.
St. John's, Friday, February 19, 1869.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
Thursday, Feb. 11.
[CONTINUED.]
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL.–No new offices had
been created by his Government, but many hundreds
of pounds of the civil expenditure had been saved
Compare the civil list now with what it had been at
the commencement of Responsible government, and it
would be found to be lower, in the number and
amount of official incomes. Hon. members, say why
don't the Government do this, though in all parts of
the world employment was given to the people without any demand being made on the
Government?
In Spain, where a revolution had just taken place,
the first act of the patriots who led it was to decree
that the corrupt system pursued by former Spanish
Governments, of giving employment to the people
on public works, instead of inciting private enterprise,
should cease. He (hon A G) said that when this
country united with the Dominion, and had the
benefit of free trade, and a uniform tariff and currency, it must tend to increase
that commercial prospersity on which so much of the future of this country
depends. Was a small country like this, with such a
restricted trade as it has, likely to create large commercial relations with any other
country? Was it
likely to have they advantages of reciprocity? Did
hon. gentlemen suppose that Great Britain would
enter into a treaty for Newfoundland alone, or that
Canada would do it for her, when she did not form
part of the Dominion? If then, Newfoundland stays
out, and the Dominion enters into a new Reciprocity
Treaty, will not Nova Scotia have all the advantages
which will flow from the fish trade? If Canada
should impose a duty on our articles of export, would
it not place us in a worse position? And, if we do not
join her she, must treat as she would any foreign
power. With every possible encouragement given
to the cultivation of the soil, it was found that the
people were, but very little better off than before.
Under the Act for the encouragement of Agriculture,
some $2000 had been paid, aud within three or four
years free grants for close on 9000 acres had been
sued, and yet notwithstanding all this cultivation,
the people did not appear any better off. There
was a gentleman who took a great deal of interest in
the affairs of the colony, who had lately written a
great deal in the papers, and was well known as one
of the strongest anti-confederate in the country.
He (hon A G) had a high regard for that gentleman,
and would be sorry to say anything disrespectful of
him, when he asked that gentleman what it was that
would be of benefit to the country, he replied
that it lay with the Government, and on being asked
in what respect, replied "to propose an arrangement
or the prosecution of the fisheries, that there was no
aw to regulate it, and that without such a law the
country could not prosper. He was then asked "what
regulation he would propose," and replied, that
"codnets, codseines and bultows should be abolished
and the people made to go on with the hook and line
Now he (hon A G) would ask if it was at all likely
the people would agree to such a proposal? Those
who had seines and nets would be opposed by those
who had not, and vice versa, in fact no unamnity
would be found to exist. The journals of the House
were loaded with evidences, taken upon that very
subject, yet it would be found that scarcely two
paties were agreed in their views on it. Under
such circumstances, how was it possible for the Government to propose any measure
on the subject?
One would imagine that the use of these articles,
was confined to this country, but such was
not the case, for they were also used in England,
Norway and other countries; and further, it was
found that where laws for the regulation of the
fisheries had been framed, they were since repealed.
He (hon A G) put that forward as the course of
action suggested to the Government by that gentleman, but it was evident to all that
such a course
could not be pursued, with any hope of success. If
cheap Government be what is wished for, there was
no more likely way of obtaining it than by joining
the Confederacy. If we do, then instead of our
Legislature costing as it does some $24,000 a year,
it need not cost more than $6000, and then in that
one item alone $18,000 a year might be saved.
Further, instead of having our present expenses and
diliculties in raising a revenue, we would have one
more certain than tuat which was now raised, and
our labors need not extend beyond its appropriation.
This might be considered as going into the terms.
but he merely mentioned it incideutally, so that hon
members who spoke of reduction of expenditure
mght see that all they could effect now would not
equal what could easily be doue under the new
system. He feared he was taking the matter up too
seriously, and speaking on it in a way which hon
gentlemen opposite did not expect. Their desire evidently was that it should be taken
up in a serio-comic
way, as had been done by the hon member, Mr.
Talbot, who sung a good song and endeavoured to
laugh it all out. The (hon A G) had not heard any;
thing advanced by the other side which one could
well lay hold of to answer. All that was said, was
about as substantial as the wind that whistles by a
man's ears. The hon member had played round and
about the matter, but had carefully avoided touching
it just, as if he desired to lead people off the tru:
scent. He was uncommonly adroit, and had played
his part well, and if he did make a hit now and then,
did it in a most inoffensive way. The hon gentleman
had however made some mistaken statements. For
instance; he said the Quebec Resolutions had
been rejected. Now such was not the case.
For in 1865 the present Chief Justice, then the
leader of the Government, carstully avoided introducing the Quebec Resulutions, and
said that
as they were not agreed among themselves in
the other provinces, and moreover, us the general elections were near at hand, it
would be
recipitate to submit the matter to the House
then, and that it ought to be left to the people.
That was what was now proposed to be done.
They had the advantage of the Quebec Resolutions, and from the changes which had since
then taken place, and from lapse of time and
more mature consideration, their minds were
now more prepared for a review of their position respecting this matter. He (hon.
A.G.)
knew that when the hon. member, Mr. Talbot,
was returned to the House, he was about as favourable to union as any other man. The
hon.
gentleman might have changed his mind since
then, but he could not change the expressions
used in his celebrated letter. He (hon. A. G.)
would (and he considered he was quite in order
in so doing) refer to a letter lately published in
one of the local papers by the hon. member
for Ferryland, Mr. Glen, the leader of the opposition. There is what he says, "It
is fortunate for the country that there are men in the
Legislature of some practical sense—men who
have fought the battle of confederation faithfully for the past four years, and who
will continue to fight it faithfully as they heretofore have
done, having the true interests of their country
solely in view." "Fought the battle of Confederation," not its opponents, and that
from the leader of the opposition. The same practical
men are still fighting the battle of Confederation. Surely no man would deuy that
so clear- headed a man as the hon. member for Ferryland
could not be so obfuscated as to suppose people
would believe he meant the anti-confederates
by these words. He did not. He was a Confederate on the 11th of January last.
Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—And four days
after, being brought to task by an authority to
which he was willing to submit, he recanted
and ate his own words.
Mr. GLEN.—It was those blackguard printers
left out the anti.
Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL.—To show that
such was not the case, that there could be no
doubt but he intended to give all the praise to the
Confederates, he says "the fact is, and there can
be no doubt about the matter, that Mr. Bennett is
afraid it we join the Union that the Dominion Government will make him 'disgorge'
the ten hundred thousand acres of land so shamefully given
him by an Irresponsible Government, to the injury
of the people of Newfoundland. That is the sole
reason of Mr. Bennett's opposition to Confederation—nothing more or less." That was
the only
reason why the hon. member was, so opposed to
Mr Bennett. If he agreed with him, why should
he condemn Mr. Bennett in the way be did. He
(hon. A. G.) had road enough to show what the
hon. member's views on the subject then were, and
of course, unless he had changed his mind, like
as others did, be must be a Confederate still. He
(hon. A. G.) had been accused of signing he
Quebec Resolutions. He did sign them, and both
he and his hon. friend, Mr. Shea felt that they had
doue that which would greatly tend to the advancement of the material interests of
the country.
Mr. HOGSETT.—When the seventh clause of
this reply was moved, it was only natural to
expect that the mover of is would, on so important a question as that of Confederation,
have
explained his views and told the House what
his constituents thought of it. The more so as
the election whcih placed that hon. gentleman in
the House was pointed to by the Government
as a triumph of the principles of Confederation.
But no, the hon. member had not the pluck to
say what the opinions of Harbor Grace were;
it was left for the opposition to combat this
paragraph as they pleased without one, word
of explanation from the other side, until the
hon and learned Attorney General spoke. Wny
was it that the supporters of the Government,
that even the great Confederate gun to which
the hon. member? Mr. Shea, so triumphantly
pointed, did not come forward and support, those
principies which the opposition and the country
were asked to adopt. Did the hon. and learned
Attorney General canvas the
principle while
the House is asked to adopt? Did he bring
forward any argument in support of it? Not
one. He invites them to meet the mater on
fair, equitable, and logical grounds, and yet he
styles the speech of the hon. member, Mr.
Talbot, an old song, and instead of bottling for
the principle, seeks to throw ridicule on the man
who fights against it and endeavours to show
that it is inapplicable to Newioundland. Such
is the course of conduct pursued by one of the
Ministry towards one of the most important
questious that ever came before the country, a
question, which involved the destinies of the
country for centuries to come. Was that the
way in which such an all absorbing question
should be treated? His Excellency says that
the time has arrived when we should take the
matter into our serious consideration. We are
not here to consider that question, because the
public never delegated us to do so. He could
appeal to the records, and to the speech ot the
hon. member, Mr. Shea, who took a leading
part on this question. In 1865, when the late
Premier brought the matter before the House
of that day, that hon. members found fault with
the way in which it was put, because it was not
made a question to come fairly and broadly before the people. (Here the hon. and learned
gentlemen read extracts from the speech of hon.
Mr. Shea, delivered in 1865, when the Resolution of the hon. and learned leader of
the Government was before the House.) It had
been said just now that the Quebec resolutions were never rejected, if they were not
so
in terms, they were at all events impliedly
rejected by the course which the hon. gentleman
then took. In 1865 they were a raid to adopt
the principle and the hon. member, Mr. Shea,
charged them with being so. The Government
did not adopt the principle and no hon. member went to the country on it, by none
was it
made a falling point at the hustings. What is
Confederation? It means the giving up of that
control over our own affairs which we now
enjoy. Can we say that the people of the
country have come to the determination of
doing that. Could he (Mr. H.) or any other
hon. member say that their constituents had
come to the conclusion that they were willing to
give up the constitution which they now had
and band their rights over to any other power?
Can they possibly come to that conclusion
before the matter is put fairly before them? Is
it because the country was in a condition of
temporary misery, and things were not as they
used to be, that we should sell that for which we
had so long fought? Was it because some
difficulties were on us we should "fly from the
ills we have to those we know not of." They
had fought for responsible Government, which
meant self-government, and is it because they
found a little difficulty in working it out and
looked more after their own interests than after
those of the country? Hence that iustitution
which was the boast of every British subject,
and which made the British people what they
are, was to be given up and handed over to the
Cauadians. It may be that the country had
not derived such great advantages from Responsible Government as was expected, but
would any
intelligent man be coatent to give it up and go
back to the days of that Government which was
only responsible to the Imperial authorities. There
was no nation nor no race of men without its difficulties,but were they on that account
to take
their hats in their hands and go and beg of any
other country to take theia under their protection? If when the people of the country
thoroughly understood the question, they would
say they were content to yield up their
rights, then he (Mr. H.) would deal with the
terms. He was not afraid to say that his mind
had undergone various changes on this subject.
Every mind which viewed it calmly must have
these changes, for it was a grave question, one
which involved the rights and liberties of the
country. He as well as others might
have been caught with the glare and
glitter of the statement that they were about to
become part of a great nation. But were they
to form part of a great nation. He (Mr.
H.) was inclined to think so once, but when he
found that the Imperial Government interfered
with the action of the Parliament of the Dominion, he concluded that the Imperial
Government had its paw on them as well as on the
smallest of its colonies. Even with our own
modicum of liberty, could we not if uncontrolled raise a revenue which the people
would not
feel. There was money every day leaving our
shores which was not taxed, and which was
received by persons who did not contribute
one cent towards the improvement of the town.
No, all these taxes were left to fall on the unfortunate tenant, who had to pay the
taxes
from the sweat of his labour. We tried to tax
those absentees but were prevented and told we
could not, because they paid taxes at the other
side. We were told the Dominion Government would help us in this respect.—
Don't they know that the important question of the French Shore was pending, and
have they shown any desire to assist us?
They are a mere Colony, subject to the veto of
the Colonial office and to all that official blundering which has done so much to
retard Colonial
progress, to the ignorance of men who apply
audiquated principles to the circumstances of the
present day. Though we were told thus, the
Dominion would be ruled over by a Prince of the
blood, and that it would have the coutrol of its
own affairs, it is to-day as much in leading strings
as it was twenty years ago. If Newfoundland
then, were to become a part of the Dominion, it
would be doubly subservient, not only to the
Imperial interests, but also to the veto of the
Dominion itself. Why should our poverty be
assigued as a reason for driving us into Confederation? Had the Canadians ever made
us an offer?
Was it in the power of Canada to relieve the Colony? Supposing the Dominion to be
a success;
would they undertake to feed our starving people?
No, but they point us to the glories of the future,
to that day when they will be a great nation, and
able to meet the world in arms. Can our people
afford to live on that glorious vista? Will not the
hon. Attorney General admit that the nationality
of Dominion is a purely speculative question?
Why did the United States purchase Russian
America? Simply because she is drawing her lines
closely around British interests, on this side the
Atlantic. What guarantee could be given that the
Dominion would exist, with the power of the American Republic on the other side? Great
Britain
is reducing her war estimates by a million pounds.
She will constrain the Colonies to defend themselves
What possible chance could these Colonies have of
defending themselves against the formidable power
of the United States? The hon. Attorney General
had said that the tariff of the Dominion would be
equalised. Surely the hon. gentleman was aware
that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are fully two
centuries ahead of us, and a tariff which would be
suitable for them would press very heavily on us
Thus they might be able to contribute to the expense
of an army and Navy, Newfoundland would be powerless to do so. It is true, that in
relation to our
means, we have contributed more wealth to Britain
than any Colony ou this side the Atlautic; and
yet we cannot outain our
[?] territorial right,
through the ignorant
[?] of British officials.
And could it be doubled that if we should join the
Dominion they would be as powerless to secure us
our rights as we oursleves are to-day? The hon.
member, Mr.Shea, said, in a former speech of his,
"but a pregnant question now presents itself"
Have we the unqualified power to decide our own
destinies? It would be idle to suppose that the
meeting at Quebec was not inspired by the Imperial Government." He [Mr. H.) contended
that
the Imperial Government would never drive us into
the Dominion. While Great Britain could keep her
power on these seas, Newfoundland would be protected, and we should not be constrained
to submit
to an oppressive tariff, imposed, not for local but for
national purposes. What possible effect could the
representation of eight men have in a Parliament of
194? Dr. Tupper, in Halifax, had expressed in conversation with him, (Mr. H.) the
very same ideas
as hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have, that the
people of Nova Scotia were too ignorant to be consulted on this question. Let the
hon. member Mr.
Shea, or any other hon. gentleman go before his
constituents and explain to them that by their assent
to Confederation they are giving up their control
over their Revenues, and there was not a constituency in the Island which would return
them. Often
questions of vital importance must necessarily arise,
as to the manner of local Goverminent, and the distribution of districts. Like harlequins
in a pantomime, are we going to jump through a hoop before
we know where we are? This house was never
assembled to decide upon this question. The late
Attorney General knew the responsibility, and he
shirked it. By the Resolutions brought in by him,
it was solemnly declared that it is desirable, before
a vote be taken upon this question that it should be
submitted to the people. The question, then, had
never been submitted to the people, and he (Mr. H.)
contended that that submission must be a condition
precedent to any action upon the matter. We don't
know what effect our affirmation of the principle
might have upon the Imperial Government. Where
you undertake to settle the destinies of a people
without submitting the question to them, it will be
found that they have sufficient resistance to expel
the men who commit so unconstitutional an act.
He (Mr. H.) heartily supported the Resolution
before the chair. He would never assent to a radical change of our Constitution until
the whole question were fairly and honestly put before the people,
to be received or rejected by them.
Mr. PINSENT could not conceive anything clearer
or more explicit than the language of the address.
Here it was unmistakeably declared that whatever
action might be taken by hon. members would not
necessarily bind their constituencies. Hon. members
appeared as representatives, to stand or fall by the
views which they might now express. If rejected
by their constituents, no harm can possibly be done
to the people,for this action is altogether preliminary;
and by no means binding upon the country. What
then was the amendment which hon. members opposite opposed to this reply? [Here the
hon. member
read the amendment.]
Why, on the very face of it, there appeared a fatal
inconsistency. Hon. members assert that the Quebec Resolutions have been rejected
by the people,
and in the next breath they tell us that the people
have never had the matter submitted to them. Now
either the question has been submitted to the people
or it has not. If it have been submitted to then,
the best proof of its acceptance is the overwhelming
majority which here support it. If it had not been
submitted to the people, then the statement that they
have rejected the principle must necessarily be false.
We had been told that the Quebec Resolutions have
been condemned. As a matter of fact, exception
has been taken to them, but there are many who
would accept Confederation on these terms, rather
than not have it at all. He (Mr. P.) did not, however, go so far as that. He had frequently
taken
exception to some of the terms. The hon. member,
Mr.Talbot, says "Let us ask, the people if under
certain circumstances they will accept this change."
That was the very course which by this address the
House was asked to pursue. How can we otherwise arrive at the conditions of Confederation
upon
which we are to go to the people? No two members have precisely the same views upon
the subject;
and it is evident that we must have some broad and
unmistakeable platform upou which to take our
stand. We had been told that the Canadians would
have complete control over our properties, our liberties and our lives. Now hon. members
must recollect that Confederation once accomplished, we shall
all become Canadians, and Canada cannot injure us,
without an equal, nay a larger amount of injury to
herself. What have we to dread with regard to our
property? A law to affect us must necessarily
affect the other provinces, and was it to be supposed
that they would enterprise any suicidal policy, that
they would legislate to the injury of their property,
which is so infinitely superior to ours? How were
our liberties, then, to be affected? Let us see first
what we understand by the expression. The culmination of our liberties appeared to
be the power of
returning a certain number of representatives to this
Assembly. This consummation of liberty was certainly not a subject for any great congratulation;
and when hon. gentlemen opposite considered that
the people had returned to office men so unworthy
as the present Ministry, they surely must consider
the liberty as of very small account. How, then,
were our liberties to be affected? We should still
continue to return representatives and though they
would be fewer in number, if they had within them
any sentiments of pride, they would rejoice in having
a voice in the large and extensive affairs of the
Dominion. Our liberties would, in fact, be vastly
extended, and wa should move in a grander, wider
and nobler sphere. But how were our lives to be
effected? Were hon. gentlemen going to resurrectionise the bugbear of the bleaching
bones? We
should live under equal laws, and no man would be
decapitated in Newfoundland for a crime which
was not so punishable in other parts of the Dominion.
But we were threatened that if war with America
should arise, our people would be carried away to
fight. The prospect of such a war was very remote.
He believed it would never be. But it is should
take place, or any similar catastrophe, were we not
in as much peril as if we were a part of the Dominion,
while less capable of defence? And if the time of
danger should come, was there any man to unpatriotic as to say that he would leave
to
others the defence of his house, his family and
his household gods? The day has gone by
when the public placed faith in such spurious
alarms, or were to be frightened by them, and when
they hear this and such like arguments addressed to
then, and when they bear questions of the highest
gravity made the opportunity for attack and recrimination, he believed they suspected
the lot of them,
and regarded the executive and the opposition as
engaged in nothing but a fight for office; but any
intellident man who listened to then from the
2
THE NEWFOUNDLANDER.
gallery knew that it mattered very little to him and
to the country whether the prosent five or six office- holders or the same number
of gentlemen from the
other side were in the enjoyment of place and enolument, but such a man was quite
capable of understanding, and hon members might depend upon it
the public were intelligent enough to distinguish
between what were earnest solid arguments and the
tactics of politics. The hon. and learned member,
Mr. Hogsett, supports this amendment of Mr.
Talbot's and reproaches the hon, member for Harbor
Grace with not speaking to the motion, and not
giving expression to his views. He (Mr. P.) could
quite understand that a young member but a few
days in this House, and who had never entered the
Building before, might be indisposed to deliver
himself of frequent speeches; but he was at a loss
to concieve how the charge of suppression of his
opinions could be made against the hon member,
who had expressed himself so clearly and decisively
on the first day of the session, and about whose
views upon this address there could be no mistake,
as it bore his, (Mr. Godden's) name at the foot of
it, as Chairman of the Committee that drew it up.
Hon. mambers say, with an asumption of grave sincerity, let us educate and inform
the people on this
question. This was the very course the Government side proposed to take, and was engaged
in
urging; and this was the tenor of its resolution,
while the terms of the amendment are calculated,
and, as he believed, designed to prevent the very
education aud information they professed to be so
anxious about, The opposition will not allow us if, they
can help it, to inform the people. The hon member for St. John's West, Mr. Talbot,
contends that
we are in a position to help ourselves, to develop
our own resources and industries. He asserts this
and uttery fails to prove it. But, he adds, does
Canada say she will help us, that she will come
down with a sum of money for the improvemennt of
this country? Now he (Mr. P.) took up the hon.
member on his own ground, and replied that is just
one of the things we want to find out, by adopting
course proposed in the addess. That hon. member
again says, how are we get out of our isolation, an
into the current of civilization by confederating?
We shall be, and remain an Island, says he, unless
some convulsion of nature throws us into the mainland of Canada. He (Mr. P.) thought
and believed,
with every man who had common sense to understand what they were talking about, that
the very
fact of our being an Island and remote from our
neighbours, was the very reason for
desiring efficient and speedy means of
trade and intercourse, and by such means
and their consequences, we should get into the
more ample current of civilization. As it was, he
doubted if we had the means to continue local
steam itself. We had already begun to feel the
first traits of Confederation, by the fact that an
opportunity would be afforded to 800 heads of
families, if employment could not be got here, to
obtain Railway work in Canada the coming summer, steamers taking them and bringing
them
back, it they chose to return. That was a small
example of what union would do. The union of
the two Canadas was cited as an unfortunate one.
True, there had been some political disaffection,
but the material progress of those fine countries
had not been interrupted, in population, public
works, railways, &c. It showed how little our
people need care about the political changes, if the
substautial blessings of life were to flow
from the proposed union. The hon. and learned
member then proceeued to show that so far from
its being the fact, as Mr. Talbot had said, that Sir
Hugh Hoyles had not been favourable to Confederation, he, Sir Hugh, had been the very
strongest advocate of it, and would have adopted the
Quebec scheme without hesitation, but for the less
bold policy of his associates and tile members of
the House in general. Here Mr. Pinsent cited
at considerable length from the speech of Attorney General Hoyles in 1865, a speech
which he
designated us out of the most powerful ever uttured here upon the subject. That speech
was in
connection with the only Resolution ever passed
by this House in the matter of Confederation, and
the closing language of that Resulution, proposed
by Mr. Hoyles, seconded by the present Receiver
General, Mr. Kent, then in opposition, and carried
unanimously, was "that a final determination
upon this importunt subject be deferred until
the next session of the Legislature." The
session there reterred to was the first
session of this very present Parlialuent, so that
if that resulution had been acted upon, as it might,
in all consistency have been, the question now
before us, for consideration only, might have been
finally determined three years ago, without any
further appeal. But on account of the desire
generally expressed, that it should not be so
ficted upon, but that better terms should it possible, be secured, and the conditious
ascertained
for the information of the people, and a promise
of the premier that there should be no final determination until the improved terms
had been first
submitted to the people, for these reasons a
course, the one now being pursued, was taken.
Here Mr. Pinsent read a long extract from, as he
said, the finest speech, and that was say great
deal, ever delivered by Mr. Reuouf in the Assembly, in which, in 1865, he supported
Mr. Hoyles's
resolution, and pointed out in forcible terms the
propriety of taking the course now proposed by
the government, before sending the question to
the people, also extracts from Mr. Glen's speeches
of that time to the same effect, and part of an
editorial from the Patriot printed by the hon. memer, Mr. Parsons, in Roman letters, which could
almost be read from the gallery, to the effect that
no sane man could for a moment think of rejecting
the consideration of equitable terms. He (Mr. P.)
never could bring himself to believe in the sincerity of Mr. Parsons's subsequent
opposition. It
must have been from fear of a loss of that popularity
of which he was so fond, and which he so deservedly enjoyed; but that hon. member
would
do wisely now in turning with the tide, which had
evidently set the other way. The hon. member
(Mr. Pinsent) then showed that there was no fall
comparison to be made with the Irish union, some
of the terms of which every liberlly minded man
now condemned and endeavoured to remove.
There were no objections of that kind to Confederation, which contemplated perfect
equality, and
civil and religious liberty in its highest development. Would intelligent men be deluded
by the
proposed to take off all duties on the stable
necessities of life this session, as a partial
alleviation of the burthens of the people, when
the financial condition of the government and the
state of the people were such as they now are, and
with a debt considerably exceeding half a million
of dollars to be redeemed in four or five years?
Hon. members who suggested such measures
must be aware of their impossibility, and the
bankruptcy and ruin which must be consequent
on their adoption as we now are, while be an alliance with the Dominionthose objects
they so
much desire to accomplish will be effected. As to
the probability of the future absorption by the
United States of the Canadian Dominion, there
was no such present probability, and if such
were to be its ultimate fate, those who hold
Annexation tendencies are much more likely to
further their designs by promoting that, the first
step to further American unity. This consummation
would never be until the Dominion had been either
natured into strength and power, and declared its
will so to be, or until Great Britain had elected to
throw off the burthen of Colonial dependencies.
At present an alliance with the United States could
only be faught with enormous public debt and taxation amounting to an annual burthen
of $30 per
head. The hon and learned member then proceedded to argue that if the policy of the
Statesmen of
Great Britain to annex this Island and the sister
Provinces, was Confederation, this was a strong additional reason for submitting to
it, and he pointed out
several modes in which an indirect pressure might
be brought to bear upon us, even if the parent state
did not directly force it. He deprecated the
inconsistency of hon. members who, in the same
speech, spoke of Britain as a cruel stepmother, and
then landed alliance with it as so much preferable
to closer connection with the sister Colonies. He
argued that our voice in the Dominion Councils
would be fairly potent. It was not to be supposed
that all the rest were to be banded against us. Was
not the voice of the hon and learned member for
Harbor Main of considerable weight and inportance in this House? And it bore the same
relation to its numbers as our number of Representatives would to the Central Parliament.
The hon. member proceeded to take up other
objections and positions put from the other side,
argued that the amendment was unfounded in fact,
inconsistent in itself, and opposed to the principles
hon. gentlemen opposite contended for. He urged
that the course proposed by the address, far from
being any interference with the rights of the people,
was what the country was anxiously looking for,
that it might know on what to decide. Members
on this side of the House proposed to take the
proper preparatory measures before submitting the
question to the people. They were prepared to
stand or fall by their policy. He felt that they
were candidly and honestly discharging their
duty to their constituents. If they were rejected,
when the basis of terms was submitted, then the
consequences lay with the people; and their present
Representatives would have acquitted themselves of
the grave responsibility of rejecting or dangerously
delaying this measnre. He gathered from the
course proposed by the other side, from the very
language of their amendment, that their policy was
to go again before the country upon indefinite
speculation, to be in a position to asail the government as having offered nothing
preferable to the
Quebec Convention, and then to be in a position to
deal with the matter themselves, without submitting
their own future plans to the country. He concluded
by again summing up the advantages to be derived
from union, and describing the nobler character of
that new political and cominercial life into which we
shall have entered under Confederation.
Mr. RENOUF.—Notwithstanding the bitter
scolding which the Opposition had just received,
he would not be deterred from supporting the
amendment of the hon. member, Mr. Talbot.
The hon. member who had just spoken and
taxed this side of the House with inconsistencies, should have recollected the old
adage relative to the peculiar liability of those who lived
in glass houses. In 1865 the hon. member was
in the Legislative Council, and had there given
notice that he would move the following
resolutions:—
First,—That for Newfoundland to enter into a Confederation of the British North American
Colonies upon the
terms, proposed in the Report of the Quebec Couference,
would be detrimental to the best interests of this Colony,
and ought to be resisted.
Second,—That a humble Address be transmitted to Her
Majesty, embodying the views of the Legislative Council
upon this subject, with their reasons for the adoption of
those views.
Third,—That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to draft the said Address.
But as no further record was to be found of this
resolution, all must conclule what was known
to be the case, that the hon. member thought
better to abandon it. In 1866, he give another
notice, which he also dropped like a hot potatoe.
Then this is the man who talks to us of inconsistencies. He says we have done nothing
to raise
the country. But what has he done? Last
year we had his great bill for the reduction of
the public expenditure, which never even went
to a second reading. Then there was his pamphlet upon Confederation.
The Committee then rose, and the Chairman
reported progres. To sit again to-morrow.
The House then adjourned until 3 o'clock,
to-morrow.
This individual participated in:
