Monday, Feb. 15.
The House met pursuant to adjournment.
The hon. Receiver General, Mr. Prowse, and the
Colonial Secretary also sustained the assertion of the
hon. and learned Speaker, and bore testimony to the
dignity with which he had always upheld his position.
The
hon. A. SHEA was sorry that the hon. and
learned Speaker had taken the trouble to occupy
a moment of time with a matter so paltry. Suppose
he had said Mr. Bennett was the Head Centre of the
Anti-Confederates? What then? Was that gentleman ashamed of being so called? What
then was
there in it that any man should feel thin skinned
about? But the hon, the Speaker had never mentioned Mr. Bennett's name. How then could
he
have spoken disrespectfully of him?. He (Mr S)
had referred to Mr. Bennett in this House and
would do so again when he deemed it uecessary, but
he had never spoken disrespectfully of him. He
was sorry any importance had been attached to this
matter. He would now refer to the paragraph before the Chair, This section then affirmed
that the
time had arrived for considering this question of
Confederation, so that it might be referred to the
various constituencies. Now the hon. member Mr,
Talbot the other evening in a speech of considerable
length, denied this. He (Mr. S.) admitted that the
hon. member had discussed the matter with a great
deal of ability and in language that was certainly
entitled to respect, and he made this admission
freely and readily, altho' both in the premises and
conclusions of the hon. member he entirely disagreed. The hon. member had asserted
that the
time had not arrived for dealing with this question,
and that this House had no authority to deal with it,
He thought that the time had fully arrived for this
question to be considered, and further, that was
in accordance with the existing state of
opinion. Why, what was the reproach that had been
uttered against us time after time? That we did
not bring down the terms, so that the people might
be fully instructed upon them, and now, with a
strange and marvellous inconsistency, they tell us
that we have no right to go into the discussion and
investigation of those very terms, for which they had
so often asked. Now how would it be possible for us
to go into the discussion of terms, unless we assented
to the section before the chiair. There was not a
man in this House, who might not vote for this
Section, and when the terms are brought down with
perfect honesty and consistency dissent from any or
[?]. Hon members opposite had twisted this
[?], and the Government had
never intended that it should be regarded in that
light. Were merely tell you and the country by this
section that we will enquire into the matter, and see
if terms favorable to the interests of this Colony
cannot be agreed to. Why the hon member Mr
Glen, says if we get terms satisfactory, he was ready
to go in for Confederation, and yet the hon member
would debar us by his proceeding from ascertaining
what were satisfactory terms or not. It could not be
too well known, he thought, that no proceeding was
contemplated by this House by which this question
would be finally determined. We simply desired to
show the country what the terms were—so that they
might give them earnest consideration, and be in a
position at the general election to say whether they
were acceptable or not. He could not, therefore,
agree to this paragraph being amended, and he
could not agree to the amendment, because it contained a statement that was untrue.
The question of
Confederation had never been rejected by this Legislature or by the country, because
it had never been
submitted to either. This House would certainly be
open to censure it it permitted such a statement to go
unchallenged. Hon members opposite a few years
ago, when there was a paragraph in the address
relative to Confederation, said, if you pass it, you
affirm the principle of Confederation. The Government declared at the time that that
was not a right
interpretation to place upon it, as the section was one
which pronounced no opinion, and went merely for
delay. But so assured were they that it affirmed the
principle of Confederation, that they proposed an
amendment to it. (Here the hon member read the
same.) Now if that amendment had been carried,
the hon member would have been borne out in his
statement that the question had been rejected. But
the fact was, that that amendinent had been ignominiously rejected by a majority of
eighteen to six.
How then could it be said that the Quebec scheme
had ever been rejected by this House. Now he (Mr
S) did not claim that thut majority aſfirined the
principle of Contederation, he merely claimed that it
rejected the amendment against the principle. His
was indeed somewhat surprised that the hon member
Mr Talbot should deal with so important a question
in the manner he had. The clap trap about our
lives and liberties was not worthy that gentleman's
position or ability. Then he appeals to the natives
not to sell their country. That question of
[?]
could never arise in this case. But assuming for
arguement sake that it did, he (hon Mr S) knew of
few countries that had been sold that had not been
the gainers. Looks at Louisiana when she was purchased by the United States from France—that
was
a sale, and money paid for it, and see how prosperous
Louisiana had been since. Had she not been a
gainer by that sale? He merely referred to this
in reference to the question which had been raised,
and to shew that selling a country was not after all
so terrible a thing, but was a proceeding by which
many countries had been benefitted. The hon
member then referred to Irish encumbered estates
Act, and shewed the advantages it had conferred,
regarding it in the light of a forced sale. The hon
meuber Mr Talbot tells us that the Irish Union was
caused by bribery, and that some three millions were
spent for that purpose. Well, that was true. But
who was it that received that money? Why the
opposition, who then occupied that position in the
Irish Parliament which hon gentlemen opposite do
here. It was to purchase their woes that this money
had been spent.
Hon. Mr. SHEA –Don't let the hon. member's
mouth water too soon, He would not have hon. gentlemen opposite indulge in extravagant
expectations
of what might happen here. The Union of Ireland
was an exception and was not one that should be
quoted. That was a Union between people not, on
an equality. It was a Union of a dominant race
with a slavish and enthralled one. It was the Union
of men who enjoyed civil and religious rights with
men who had neither the one nor the other, was it
then anything surprising that the dominant class
should regard the others as slaves and treat them so?
But were the same conflicting elements to be found
here? Had we not all civil and regious liberty?
Were we not all upon the same footing? Were we
not equal in the eye of one Government and it universal laws? Would the hon gentleman
say that the
Union of the States was a failure? Canadian Union
he says was a failure. Where does the hon. member
get his facts for making such a statement?
The result to the country was great prosperity.
He had not then a hand the statistics of population, produce, &c., but he knew that
they
showed sufficient to justify the assertion that the
Union of the two Provinces had proved a succes.
Was the fact that the people of England last
year demanded a new Reform Bill any proof
that the bill of 1832 was a failure? No it only
showed that the time for further changes had
some, and just so with the question of Union.
The time for change came, and when the question which had agitated the Lower Province,
was ripe for settlement, Canada could scarcely
believe that Nova Scotia, the cradle of Union,
would turn its back on its own offspring. It was
stated that the Delegates had condemned the
Quebec Resolutions. Such was not the case,
neither the hon. and learned Attorney General
nor he (hon. Mr. S.) had ever said so. They
never entertained such opinions as would justify
them in saying so. Having regard to the time
of its origin, he denied that it was a plan which
deserved condemnation. It was most favorably
received, and commended the admiration of the
ablest and most intelligent men in England.
It had since then been slightly modified, but
how? Was it not by making concessions all
round, on the one side as well as the other?
The result of monetary consessions would be
that while we might get more money for our
own immediate purposes, we would not be
benefited to the full extent supposed, because
to the extent of the increase received we lessen
the money which would remain in the hands of
the General Government for general purposes.
The only changes made as yet were monetary
ones. The framework and character of the
constitution, the powers of the general and local
governments, are still the same as adopted in
Quebec, so that in these principal points those
resulutions remain intact. In one other point
only was any change made, and that was by the
British Government in the number of Senators,
so as to provide for the happening at any time
of a deadlock in the Government.
As to the objections
[?]. The only
ones raised by the
[?], were that the people
would be
[?] more than was fair, and that
they would not recieve enough. To no other
[?] plan was any objection raised, and
[?] it would be
[?] to raise objections
3
THE NEWFOUNDLANDER.
to a plan which was so perfect in all its parts.
He (hon. Mr. S.) had taken a very humble
part in the great work; but he was proud to
have it to say that it fell to his lot to take any
part, however humble, in so important a work.
That plan had met with the approval of the
leading men of England of all politics, and were
they blind and incapable of forming an opinion?
Not one of them but spoke in praise of the
Constitution as framed at Quebec, and was not
that a significant fact, which might well influence
the minds of some who ought to feel that they
were incapable of forming an opinion on such
a subject? . A test like that, the opinions of men
well versed in the science of Government,
whose integrity and impartiality cannot be
doubted, who look calmly on from a distance,
and say that this system of Government calculated to advance the interests and secure
the
prosperity of these Colonies, should have due
and great weight with men whose experience
and knowledge of such matters is by no means
so large. He did not mean to say the hon.
gentlemen should not exercise their own reason
on the subject. The duty and the responsibility
lay with them, and they were bound to see and
examine into the matter, for themselves. After
all, what was Confederation? It simply meant
that four or five provinces, having similar institutions and laws, aud owing allegiance
to a
common sovereign, should unite for their common benefit. Those who advocated this
proposition believed that Union would lead to more
beneficial results than isolation. Enlightened
by the example of the United States, they
believed that such a Union would promote
general prosperity and give stability to all, and
that in Co-operation each would find benefits
which individually they could not obtain. To
his (hon. Mr. S's.) mind, Confederation meant
increased means of employment. What was
that the want of which was most severely felt
now? Employment. It had been asked what
good would this country derive from
the expenditure in Canada on Railways.
He (hon. Mr. S.) replied that it would
advauce the value of labor in this country, and that would be most beneficial to
the laboring classes; and though we may not
derive such direct advantages as will the other
Provinces, yet those which we most require we
will have. Hare was a practical proof of what
he said. He was authorised to engage 800 men
to work at the public works in Canada. Would
not the taking of these 800 men off our streets,
where they now wanderr up and down, willing
to work but unable to find it, advance the value
of labor? He did not speak for any party purpose, and would not be so foolhardy as
to make
an assertion which could be contradicted by the
1st of May next. He agreed that it was a misfurtune that the population should be
required to
go away, but it would be a greater misfortune
to have them remain here in the same position
as they were in last year. Nothing would
give him (hon Mr. S. ) greater pleasure than
that the state of the country should be sush as
to enable these men to stay at home. No man
had a greater interest in seeing the people employed than he had, that they should
come as
purchasers and not as beggers. Why then should
he yield to any in hid desire to see the people
prosperous aud happy? Not one of the 800
who would be engaged by him would be paupers
next winter, for all their wages would be kept
here for them. While
[?] were so depressed in the country, he (hon Mr. S.) considered
this as a godsend. He looked on it as the
beginning of a system which would save this
country from future deterioration in the value
of laour. The fact shows that if labor be law
here, it will be taken up for the other colonies.
If we have Confederation, we will have regular
Steamers with Quebec and Montreal, which
would enable the people to go away in bad
time. In this country the labor question underlies all others, and anything which
tended to
advance, the interests of the laboring classes
also tended to the advance of the interests of
the country at large. All that was needed was
a well employed people, and then the country
would be contented and happy. He did not
look on it as at all desirable that the people
should leave the country, but he did think it
desirable that when they were so badly off they
should have some backdoors. Iſe was surprsised to hear it said that our men were not
fit
for this work. Any man who will see the men
going, will acknowledge that no finer body of
men ever left any port. He had never heard
any complaint of the man on the Telegraph line,
and did not think the work on the
Rilway was any harder. Nor did he fear, as
had been imputed to them by those who call
themselves their friends, that were so degraded
as to forget those whom they had left behind.
He thought differently of them, and believed
them to be possessed of social qualities
which attached then to those who had good
and legitimate claims on them. Of course, if
any of them chose to remain away, if they thought
it would be better for them, they would be right
in doing so. They would have the means of
coming home if they chose to come.
There
could be no compulsion. Those who wished to
go would go as volunteers. He could understand that such matters as these would be
distasteful to those who were interested in keeping
down the value of labor. Last year the men
were in such a wretched condition that they
were glad to ship on any terms. Those wuo
desired to perpetuate that state of things
would, of course, be dissatisfied with ant attempt to disturb it. He thought that
in view
of the question which they were now considering, he might with propriety speak of
Mr.
Charles Fox Bennet, who required a large
number of men to work his mines, and would, of
course, try and get them at as low a rate as
possible. He was, of course, right, but in that
his interests and the interests of the people
were directly opposed to each other. He (hon.
Mr. S.) was glad Mr. Bennett had these mines
to work, and wished there were more like
mines in the country. To say that Mr. Bennet
entered into these speculations for the benefit
of the people was arrant nonsense. He entered into it as a commercial matter, solely
for
his own benefit. This was no matter of reproach
to him, for it was the spirit of all commercial
speculations. If the demand of labor be stimulated, all those who give employment
will feel it,
for they will have to pay increased wages. He
mentioned these matters incidentally. It, however,
came in, as an argument, stronger than any
force of rhetoric. A stimulus of the kind was
not needed to procure a majority favourable to
Confederation. The minds of the people had
come to the conclusion that the time had come
when the question should be taken up. The
hon. member, Mr. Talbot, had spoken of his
preference of a commercial union before a
political union. The present measure comprehended both. He would see, on relfection,
that even if practicable, a commercial union
would be of very little advantage. How was
it to be had? There must be consenting parties on both sides, and would Canada be
willing to consent to such a
[?] proposition as
we could make? How could we enter into a
commercial treaty for any purpose, the effect
of which would to deprive us of the power to
legislate with regard to the matter it referrd to?
The former treaty with the United States was not
made with us, but through the agency of the other
Provinces. What we required here was employment,
and the opening up of the resources of the country,
and a commercial union would not do that for is.
We hoped to have our mining interests brought into
life and activity, and no commercial union would do
that. He hoped the day was not far distant when
the Bay of Islands, Porteau Port, and the other
parts of the Western Shore will be filled with flourishing settlements. Commercial
union would not
do that, but political union would, for it would give
us that which is now so much needed, steam communication with these extern Districts.
Last year,
after the fisheries had closed, value to the extent of
£100,000 was shipped form Bay of Islands, and of
that £5,000 did not belong to us, because we had no
steam communication, and that we cannot have
except we form part of the Dominion. When the
United States resolved to from a union, were they
content with a mere commercial union? Did they
not form a political union, believing it to be the best
way of advancing their interests at home and abroad?
And have not the results justified that belief, while
a commercial unoin alone would have left them
thirteen separate and independent States.
Could any of the United States separately treat
with Foreign countries? And was it not by
their combined and concentrated authority that
they were enabled to have weight with diplomatists abroad? Suppose we could effect
a
Commercial Treaty with Canada. To his (hon.
Mr. S's.) mind, it would be a bald, naked, inoperative document, not worth the parchment
upon which it would be written. If, on the
other hand, we combined with Canada, we would
instantly possess these commercial advantages;
bread, flour, pork, butter, and all the Canadian
manufactures would be aduitted duty free.
Besides this, with a creditable liberality, they
had agreed to allow breadstuffs from the United
States to come in free. These advantages
comprehend what no more commercial treaty
could obtain for us. Look again at the effect
of Confederation upon our foreign relations.
Here was Spain, where a revolution was going
on, which must necessarily have the effect of
liberalizing her institutions, and lead her rules
to the cousideration and acceptance of treaties
with foreign powers. Look at Cuba and Brazil,
which are, after Spain, our most important
markets. The Dominion Government have
treaty making powers, and can it be doubted
that seeing the desire of Spain to extend her
trade, they will take steps to place their commercial arraugements with Spain upon
a proper
footing? Already they are contemplating a
commercial treaty with Brazil. We cannot
possibly obtain a participation in these advantages without the co operation of the
Dominion
Government. At present we know that Government will not look with any great favour
upon
us, should we refuse to join the Confederation;
and it is only by an authority greater than
ourselves that we can secure these treaty privleges. He (hon. Mr. S.) urged these
arguments on purely abstract grounds. He would
not take notice of the assertions of hon. members opposite as to the interference
with our
lives and liberties. This was simply a bread
and butter question. The hon. member, Mr.
Hogsett, had asked where would we be if Confederation were accomplished, with 8 members
out of 194, as if the other 186 members must
necessarily be antagonistic to our interests.
Now looking at the United States, which present an analogous case, did we find that
less
consideration was accorded to the smallest State
of the Union than to the wealthy and extensive
State of New York? These 8 men would be
equal to 27 in the British House of Commons,
and when we considered that a compact body of
27 men would, in many cases, be sufficient to
overturn a Government, we must come to the
conclusion that our numbers are not so insignificant. If it could be shown to him
that the
interests of Upper and Lower Canada were
adverse to our, he would say, by all means,
let us keep clear of this Confederation. But
what was the fact? We produce
[?] or
nothing but fish and oil. We want food and
clothes. Canada can give us nearly all that we
require in that respact. If than we were prosperous, we should be good costomers.
If not,
they could gain notning by oppressing us.
Would it, then, be for their interest to damage
us, who would be good customers, and who
would probably spend our surplus means in
the purchase of their productions? In fact it
must be palpable that it would be for their interest to promote our welfare, and that
from
mere selfish considerations, by which all men
and all countries must be more or less actuated.
It had been asserted that at the present moment
we could import nothing from Canada. This
was not the fact. We could now import from
Canada
via Boston, as cheaply as in the month
of November. Our importations would
be made by means of screw steamers, and
thro' the Banking facilities which would be
afforded, extended means of importation would
be given, so that even, at an extra cost, it
would suit our importers better to deal with
Canada. No man could now import from the
United States without money on the spot or credit
on London. The Banking system which would be
established would enable men who in this market
would get credit for £1000, and who could not
now import from the United States, through not
having credits in London,to import from Canada
upon the same terms as it they were purchasing
in this market. He (Mr. S.) had always said
that we could not allow any of our markets to
be shut up. We must be at liberty to buy in
the Canadian or American market as it suited out
purpose. When hon. members say that you
can purchase more cheaply in the American
than in the Canadian market, they are not correct.
At times you can purchase more cheaply in the
one market, at times in the other. When you
consider that a large quantity of wheat grown in
Canada is exported to the United States, was
it likely that you could purchase more cheaply
there than at the fountain head? It had been
stated that this question was brought forward
because the Government were in difficulties.
Hon. members knew well that he had from
the other side of the House spoken as strongly
in favour of Union as he had ever spoken. He
had no changes of sentiment to atone. The
late leader, Sir Hugh W. Hoyles, and the present hon Attorney General were quite
as pronounced in their opinions. They
held to their opinions on this
great question, confident that it would
ultimately find its way to public acceptance. It
was idle to assert that the substitution of one
Government for another could effect any radical
change. The Government could, it they thought
proper, sit down and fold their arms, and no
rational man would admit the probability of
their being disturbed. But they had an interest in the welfare of the country, and
they felt
it a duty to announce their opinions, that in
Confederation alone did the hope of redemption
and regeneration of the country lie. If hon.
members opposite knew that they were correct
in their assertions as to the state of public
opinion, why did they not urge on the Government to its own destruction? Hon. members
on this side were prepared to give their constiuencies an opportunity of putting other
men in
thier places. Could hon. members opposite, by
any artificial means, supply the vacuum created
by the withdrawal of capital from the country?
The only remedy for our evils was capital, and
consequent employment of the people, and he
(hon. Mr. S.) had yet to learn that the people
were so
[?] as willingly to remain in their
present degraded state, and that they would not
enterprise any change rather than that the present state of things should continue.
This individual participated in:
