TUESDAY APRIL 3.
UNION OF THE COLONIES.
SPEECH OF MR. MILLER.
MR. MILLER said—I rise, Mr. Speaker, to
address the House on a question of the deepest
importance to the people of this country—a
question in comparison with which all other
public questions may be truly said to sink into
insignificance—I mean the great question of
British Colonial Union. If, sir, the subject
was less important than it is, I would not venture, as I now do, to trespass on the
attention
of hon. gentlemen in reference to it, in the absence of any motion before this House.
The
course I am about to adopt is the result of
much deliberation, and I shall bring myself
within the rules of the House by making an
enquiry of the Government before I resume
my seat. Sir, on no occasion during my comparatively short professional and public
career, have I risen to address any body of men
impressed with a deeper sense of the grave
responsibilities of my position than I now feel
But, on the other hand, I can truly say, on no
occasion, involving public responsibilities,
have I been animated by stronger convictions
of the propriety of the step I am about to take
than I am at this moment.
For the past two years, Mr. Speaker, the
question of an Union of the British North
American Provinces has been before the people of this country, and I need hardly state
my
views have obtained some publicity, and myself some prominence, in opposition to the
Quebec scheme of Confederation. To that
scheme, I am now as hostile as I have ever
been. I believe it to be unjust to the people of
the Maritime Provinces in some of its most
important features. I believe to force it upon
us without important modifications, would
frustrate the end it is intended to promote—
the permanency of British Institutions on this
continent. These were my opinions in 1864.
They have undergone no change. They are
my opinions to-day. Â
But, Sir, it is well known to this house and
to the people of the country, that, not withstanding the strenuous and unwavering
oppo
sition I have given to the Quebec scheme of
confederation, I have invariably declared
myself in favor of an equitable union of these
colonies. During the agitation of this question,
I have spoken on it in Parliament and at Public meetings, in several counties of this
Province, and nowhere have I failed to express in
unequivocal language my desire for union on
fair terms. I can appeal to those who have
listened to me in both extremes of Nova Scotia,
whether in Cape Breton or in Lunenburg, in
support of this assertion. But, Sir, I can
appeal to something stronger, if the consistency of my conduct in this Legislature
is
called in question,—I can appeal to the official
records of this House. I can go even further
and appeal to the gentlemen with whom I
have co-operated for the last eighteen months
in opposition to the scheme of the Quebec
Conference, many of whom are opposed to all
union, and who will hear me ready witness
that my co-operation in the anti-union movement in this Province, has only extended
to
the details of that scheme. The subject of an
union of British America, since I have been
capable of forming a judgment on the question,
has found favor with me. Apart from the
material advantages of such an union, there is
something in the assurance of national
strength and greatness to be derived from it,
which is in sympathy with the best feelings and
aspirations of every British American whose
future is wrapped up with the future of this
country. For years past I have entertained a
strong opinion on the subject,—an opinion that
the period was fast approaching when these
North American colonies must cast off their
present political habiliments, and assume
others more consistent with their advanced
position, their surroundings, and their altered
relations to the Empire. I was in favor of their
political union before the subject was presented to the country in any tangible shape.
I am in favor of it now, after having given the
question much attention and thought, and
after the bitter and prolonged agitation it has
produced in this Province. The first opinion
I publicly expressed in favor of it, was in the
debate in this House on the resolution introduced in 1864, by the hon. Provincial
Secretary
for a union of the maritime provinces, when I
am correctly reported to have used this language:—
"If the resolution before the House contemplated
an union of all the Provinces of British North America on equitable terms no one could
hail it with more
satisfaction than himself. Such an Union he trusted
ta no distant period would become both a commercial and political necessity. He looked
forward hopefully to the day when the inhabitants of these noble
Provinces, united under one government, might
stand before the world in the proud national character of British Americans. From
such an association
they would indeed derive national strength and dignity worth some sacrifice to obtain.
they would
then possess a population and country whose immediate status and inevitable future
destiny would command respect. An union of the Maritime Provinces
and the great territory beyond would give us a country extending from the Atlantic
to the Pacific, with
all the diversified resources necessary to the most
unlimited material progress. In favor of such a proposal most of the arguments urged
in this debate
would have real point and force, and not appear, as
they now did, absurd or inapplicable."
From the above paragraph, Mr. Speaker it
will be seen, and indeed the fact is one of noto
186
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
riety in this House, that before the Quebec
scheme of Confederation was in existence, I
had placed on record my decided approval of
an union of British America on equitable
terms. I think I will have no difficulty in shewing that though prominent in my opposition
to
the Quebec scheme of Union, I have always
been favorable to the abstract idea of Union.—
My first appearance before the public in opposition to that scheme was at a mass meeting
of
the Citizens of Halifax in December, 1864, about
nine months after the above declaration in
Parliament, and although I spoke under circumstances of much irritation, I did not
allow
any personal annoyance to draw me into antagonism to the great principle of Colonial
Union. Looking back, sir, to that occasion,
and recollecting the excitement that marked
it, I find no ordinary degree of satisfaction at
the emphatic manner in which I preserved my
consistency on the great principle involved in
that discussion. I said :—
"I do not wish, Mr. Mayor, that my appearance on
this platform to-night should be construed into opposition to an Union of British
America on fair terms.
I am not opposed to, but on the contrary, would support an Union based on sound principles
and equitale terms. But the more I investigated the subject,
the more reason do I find to fear that an equitable
Union with Canada is not easily attainable. I am not
willing to purchase Confederation on conditions disastrous to the people of Nova Scotia.
These are the
reasons why I oppose the measure by which Confederation is now to be secured. I cannot
ratify the improvident bargain our delegates have made, because
it is unjust to this Province. It is a bargain in which
the advantages are all on one side, and all against
us."
I repeat, sir, when I look back to the period
at which these remarks were uttered—when I
remember the excitement and personal
acrimony that marked, in some instances the
discussion of this subject in Temperance Hall,
I am exceedingly gratified to-day, that no
temporary provocation could induce me to denounce all union, as others did; but that
I
wisely contented myself with hostility to the
particular scheme then under consideration. I
do not deny that in the warmth of an exciting
platform discussion I may not here used language that I in times of greater coolness
would not have uttered. But no candid man
would think of binding another too strictly to
every expression used before an excited
popular assemblage, amid the cheers of his
friends and the hisses of his opponents. It is
only proper to recollect that everything I then
said—every argument I advanced—was directly solely to the end of defeating the Quebec
Resolutions. When the question came before
the Legislature at a late period last session, I
intended to have fully explained my position
and views, but in common with a number of
gentlemen on both sides—for reasons which
will be found in the reported debates—I denied myself the pleasure of speaking on
it at
any length. In the few remarks I did make,
however, I find the following decided reiteration of all my previous declarations:—
"If I have any desire for an union, it is for the larger one. The opinion I held last
year I hold now.
My opposition has not been to union in the abstract,
but to the terms on which it was secured. I defy
any one to find a single passage in anything I have
said which proves that I am opposed to an Union on
equitable terms."
Sir, I do not think I require to say a single
word in addition to what is contained in the
official records of this House to show that from
my first appearance in this Legislature up to
the present time, I have been favorable to an
union of these Provinces. I am chargeable
with no sudden conversion to that opinion—
nay, more, I am chargeable with no inconsistency in regard to it. Every one who understands
the difference between the principle of
a measure and its details, is well aware that
in supporting the principle of any scheme a
party does not commit himself to its details.
The absurdity of any other assumption is too
apparent to call for comment. In the same
way, in opposing the details of a measure, it
does not follow that we oppose its principle. I
do not make these obvious remarks for gentlemen in this House, but for those elsewhere
who may not as readily appreciate the distinction.
What, then, has been my position on this
great question up to the present time? My position has been that of an uncompromising
opponent of the Quebec scheme, yet an advocate
of Union. While, however, my hostility to the
Quebec resolutions has not diminished during
the last eighteen months the subject has been
agitated, I am not prepared to assert that my
attachment to the principle of Union during
the same period, has not increased. Sir, I
frankly admit that it has increased. I am
more firmly convinced at the present moment
than ever, of the desirability of an Union of
British America. There are many reasons today that did not exist two years ago why
every British American who is not insensible
to the logic of events, should desire an Union
that would tend to consolidate the strength, develope the resources, protect the rights,
and
and promote the mutual interests of these provinces. Sir, the Provinces of British
North
America are in no ordinary period of their history—and that man is heedless of the
signs of
the times—is heedless of events that are daily
and hourly transpiring around him, who exhibits indifference to, or affects to disregard
danger in, the present state of public affairs on this
continent. I need not remind hon. gentlemen
that the whole aspect of things around us have
been changed within one short year. The
neighboring republic, twelve months ago, was
in the throes of a death-struggle, which threatened its disruption, has since emerged
from the
ordeal, claiming the reputation of one of the
first military nations of the world. Her military
prestige will not diminish the characteristic
arrogance of her international policy. It will
certainly not lessen her disposition to offensiveness in her intercourse with foreign
nations, as it has increased her necessities; it will
not lessen her desire to aggrandize herself at
the expense of her neighbors. We have
grounds of apprehension in this respect peculiar to ourselves. We know that the late
war
in America has created a feeling of animosity
for some fancied grievances, among some
classes of the American people towards Great
Britain and these colonies. I need not specify
these assumed grievances; they are familiar
to every one. They may culminate at no distant day in a war between the two countries.
They have already culminated in a species of
commercial warfare, aimed at the prosperity
of British America. Does any one doubt that
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
187
the repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty is intended
partly as a punishment of these provinces for
their sympathy with the Southern States during the late struggle, and partly as an
annoyance
to Great Britain for her alleged bad faith as a
neutral power. But sir, there can be less
doubt that it is chiefly relied on—I mean the
repeal of the treaty, as a great means of
fostering annexation sentiments in British
North America. I shall prove this assertion presently beyond the possibility
of doubt. Assuming it to be correct, is it not
our duty to adopt such steps as may frustrate
any such design? Now, Sir, I ask what step
is so likely to conduce to the result we have in
view, as an union under one Government,
which will give all these colonies a common
policy, and a common platform of action?
Isolation in relation to reciprocal trade, in the
present crisis, has peculiar dangers. It gives
the Washington authorities complete command of the whole situation. It gives them
the power of playing us off against each other, of
exciting jealousies, producing dissensions, and
creating interests which can have but one tendency. No Government under the sun more
thoroughly understands that game than the
Government of the United States. They will
play it to our ruin and their own advantage,
if we leave the cards in their hands, I do not
wish to go further in connection with this
view of the subject, but it has had a powerful influence on my mind. It affords a
most
weighty argument in favor of immediate
union.
I have said that the repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty is intended to produce annexation
tendencies in British America. I think I
can adduce evidence on this point so conclusive as to amount to a moral demonstration.
Allow me, in the first place, to revert to the
history of the Commercial Congress held last
summer in Detroit, representing the great
mercantile interests of the U. States and B.
America. Need I remind hon. gentlemen that
on that occasion an important functionary
of the Washington government—a gentleman
occupying the high position of American Consul at Montreal, the first city in British
America, declared that he attended that Congress at
the request of his goverment, and with authority to express their views and wishes
with
regard to reciprocal trade. He earnestly advised the abrogation of the treaty, and
openly
and insultingly told the colonial members of
the Convention that the object of this policy
was to produce the annexation of British
America to the Republic. We have, then, the
fact that Mr. Potter went to Detroit, declaring
himself in the confidence of his government,
and the exponent of their views, and we all
know that his utterances have never been disowned by his masters, and we have the
further
most important fact that on the first meeting
of Congress, the policy that gentleman foreshadowed as that of the Washington governmeet
was carried out. If, then, Mr. Potter was
correct in foreshadowing the policy of his
government, is not the conclusion irresistible
that he was equally correct as to the wishes
and motives that were at the foundation of
that policy? These significant facts cannot
fail to make a due impression on the mind of
every man who desires to maintain our connection with the Empire; and they strongly
confirm my convictions not only of the desirability but of the necessity of Union.
We know from the newspaper press of the
United States that the question of an union
of British America has attracted considerable
attention in that country, and that the proposal is generally received with little
partiality.
Those journals especially noted for their violent antipathy towards everything British
do
not conceal their hostility to the measure, and
the grounds of that hostility. We find that those
who oppose union are applauded as the friends
of annexation, while those who advooate it receive very different treatment. Let me
treat
the house to an extract from a journal marked
for the vileness and virulence of its abuse of
Great Britain and these colonies—the N. Y.
Herald—as indicative of the hopes entertained
in that quarter as the inevitable result of a
refusal on our part to unite, and concentrate
our strength. The Herald of the 10th of March
last, referring to the repeal of the Reciprocity
Treaty, says :—
"Meantime, the Provincials who have had a taste
of the blessings of free trade with the ' Yankees' under this expiring Reciprocity
Treaty, are called upon
to consider the question of their 'manifest destiny'
in the proposition from Queen Victoria for a North
American Confederation under the vice-royalty of a
member of her family. This movement contemplates
a consolidation, which has already been declined by
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; but it is not thus
to be abandoned. AN AGITATION WILL BE APT TO
FOLLOW, WHICH IN DUE TIME WILL GRAVITATE T0
THE EASY, NATURAL AND ADVANTAGEOUS SOLUTION
OF ANNEXATION TO THE UNITED STATES."
Sir, there is something in this language that
should arrest the attention of every man not
blinded by party or other unworthy feelings.
What is the meaning of this "agitation" with
which we are threatened? Is the repeal of the
Reciprocity Treaty merely the initiation of a
systematic design to undermine our allegiance
and annex us? Have the Government of the
United States their agents in this country for
this purpose, as insinuated by the Herald? If
they have, it will not long remain a secret, for
the hour of action is at hand, when we all must
be judged by the sympathies we avow, and the
company we keep. I am aware that no man
would dare openly advocate annexation, but
if there be any among us who desire it, they
will take the more safe and insidious means
of attaining their end by exciting disaffection
on any pretext that will offer itself. The language of the Herald affords reasonable grounds
for watchfulness, and it is only right that the
country should be on its guard. Â
Now, sir, there is another consideration that
has its just weight with me. The Imperial
Government has spoken on this subject in
terms not to be mistaken, and firmly and persistently urges on the people of British
America the necessity for Union. I know there are
persons who talk very flippantly of the interference of Colonial Secretaries or the
British
Government, in our affairs. For my part, sir,
while I would as readily as any one resist improper interference from any quarter
in the
public affairs of this Province. I would be sorry to deny the right of the Queen's
Government to use its just influence and authority in
all matters of Imperial concern. Much less
would I dream of anything so absurd
as to dispute its right to deal with any measure
affecting the integrity of the Empire. On all
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
questions of this character, I, for one, am
ready to yield the most respectful deference to
this high authority. The desire of Her Majesty's Government for an union of the Colonies
has received the most emphatic expression
that could be given to it—it has been declared
in three consecutive speeches from the Throne.
Now, I ask this House, is there a colony under
the crown that has greater reason to shew
deference to the just wishes of the British
Government than the province of Nova Scotia?
Sir, do I require to point to the evidences of
Imperial solicitude for our safety and welfare
that are before everybody's eyes? Walk out
some fine morning and view the fortifications
of this city, and get, as you can only get, an
imperfect estimate of the immense treasure
Great Britain has spent for the protection of
this people. Visit that citadel, under whose
shadow even now our slumbers are undisturbed—visit Point Pleasant, George's Island,
and a half dozen other places I could name.
Extend your wanderings to the north end of
of this city, and see those magnificent structures—the Wellington Barracks,— visit
the
Ordnance and Dockyards—and then you will
have only a very faint idea of the amount of
treasure Great Britain has lavished upon us.
How much does the army, supported here for
our protection, spend among us? In a few
short weeks the harbor of Halifax will be alive
with the wooden walls of England. Her brave
tars will be on the spot to protect our interests,
and leave their last dollar with our people.
Should these things be forgotten or winked
out of sight at the present time?
But, sir, it is not alone in this way Great
Britain has shown us favor. She has not only
done every thing for our protection and security, but she has given us the entire
control of
our local affairs—Responsible Government,
and every liberty we enjoy having been got
for the asking. Therefore, sir, as a Nova Scotian, I am ready to yield that deference
to the
wishes of the Imperial Government they have
a right to expect. Their past treatment of this
province is a guarantee that they desire to improve our condition by union. I have
no hesitation in saying, that of all the dependencies
of the Crown, Nova Scotia should be one of
the most disposed to yield a deferential ear to
Imperial counsels.
It may be said, sir, that my practice is inconsistent with my professions—that for
the last
eighteen months I have been opposing the policy of the British Government. I deny
the
imputation. I have never opposed that policy
—on the contrary, I have advocated it. I consider there are only two classes in the
Provinces who are in antagonism to the Imperial policy: those who are opposed to all
union, and
those, unwittingly so, yet equally hostile to
that policy, who would force a scheme of
union on the Maritime Provinces, which its
opponents believe to be unjust, and its supporters know to be obnoxious to the great
body of the people. Against that scheme public
opinion has unmistakeably pronounced, and if
forced upon us the result will be the opposite
to that desired. The British Government
have no especial partiality for the Quebec
scheme; they desire an equitable union of
British America, and instead of opposing, I
have always advocated such an union.
There are one or two other matters to which
I shall allude before turning my attention to
the question I intend to ask. A few days ago
this House went through all the solemn forms
of a Conference with the other branch of the
Legislature on a subject, the importance of
which is admitted by every one—I allude to
the protection of our Fisheries. What was the
result of the deliberations of the joint committee of both Houses on that occasion
?—
What means did they suggest for that great
service? Their report has been placed on our
table, and what does it advise? An humble
petition to the Queen's Government, praying
for assistance. In our necessities we rush to
the Colonial Offîce for aid and protection, and
yet there are those among us who deny any
reciprocal duty on our part—any obligation
even to listen respectfully to the wishes of British Ministers. We know that although
we
may buy a blockade runner, and vote a few
thousand dollars for the service, our Fisheries
can have no adequate protection if England
refuses us her aid. Now, I ask, is it reasonable
to expect a favorable answer to our petition if
we refuse to comply, at such an important period in our history, with the request
of Her
Majesty's Government?
Mr. Speaker, there is another subject to
which I must refer, because its bearing on the
question of Colonial Union is too palpable to
escape the commonest observation. Every one
will admit that the clouds impending over our
political horizon at the present time may justly
excite the most serious apprehensions. An
organization, at first regarded with contempt,
has been called into existence on this continent
which has lately assumed very formidable dimensions—I mean the Fenian Brotherhood.
A part of the avowed policy of this organization is the severance of the connection
between these Colonies and Great Britain.
The termination of the civil war in the United States has thrown loose on that country
nearly half a million of daring and reckless
men, with a taste for the license and excitement of military life, and a disrelish
of the
pursuits of peace. These men, from whom
the Fenian recruits are chiefly drawn, are ready to embark in the most lawless and
hazardous enterprises. The organization extends
throughout the Northern and Western States,
and boasts of having at its command any number of men and any amount of money for
operations against the British Empire, which it
seeks to dismember. It is not concealed that
the vulnerable point through which this object
to be attained is British America. Now, sir,
perhaps this House will be astonished to learn
that in the published platform of the Fenian
organizatlon, it is laid down as a leading object and duty of that body to
prevent the consolidation of British power
on this continent by the proposed union of these
Provinces under one government. This fact has
only some to my knowledge within a few weeks.
I repeat, sir, it is laid down in the platform of the
Fenian body as the paramount duty of every Fenian
either in the United States or the British Provinces,
to oppose and frustrate any union among us. Therefore, l say that the man who now
opposes union—l
don't mean the Quebec scheme—but who sets his face
against all union actually endorses the leading principle of Fenianism! I do not believe
there are a dozen
men in Nova Scotia who would knowingly occupy
this position, and I feel confident that when this fact
is understood it will do much to popularize the Union
sentiment in this Province, whose loyalty is prover
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
189
bial. If there is a single argument that will more
than another touch the hearts of our loyal population, it is that the enemies of British
power
everywhere are hostile to this movement, and the
fact should cause many of us to hesitate and enquire
what is our true position? If we have any regard
for our present happy condition, or any desire to continue our connection with Great
Britain, it behooves
us to set our house in order, and to see that we are
not, in more ways than one, in the words of the New
York Herald "gravitating towards annexation."
No one can doubt the patriotism of the people of
Nova Scotia, and if a hostile raid were made upon
any portion of our country, the invaders would meet
with a reception they would not soon forget. But who
does not know that the favor and protection of Great
Britain would be to us a source of greater security
than maintaining a standing army of 100,000 men?—
With the power of the greatest Empire under the sun
at our backs we could present a fearless front to all the
world. If it were desirable for no other cause that
these Provinces should be consolidated— than that we
would thereby disappoint the enemies of our country.
it should be a strong inducement to union. But when
in addition to this fact by that step we would secure
the protection of the mother country—when she only
asks from us an act of just filial obedience to induce
her to stretch forth her powerful arm to guard our
property and rights—this ought certainly to be sufficient. I say, therefore, in view
of these facts—in
view of the dangers which have developed themselves
within the last few months. If we can obtain an equitable union, it is the duty of every man who desires
to uphold British connexion —who is opposed to annexation—who has no sympathy with
Fenians, and
who does not wish to be consigned to the tender mercies of the lawless gang, to promote
such an union of
those provinces.
Now sir, holding the opinions I do in reference to
this great question—advocating the principle of
Union and opposing the Quebec Resolutions, I have
been asked by the press of this country, and I admit
not unfairly. asked, to define my position. 1 have
been asked to justify my conduct in opposing a
scheme embodying a principle to which I am commited, without offering any other means
of attaining
the end I profess to have in view. Well, sir. I am
here to-day to define my position, and to answer the
other objections urged against me. I am also here to
make an important enquiry of the Government. As
to my position, I am in favor of an Union—a Federal
Union of these Provinces. I believe such a Union
best suited to the exigencies of our situation. It a
Legislative Union were practicable I would prefer
adopting the Federal principle in forming an union
of British America. among the admirable speeches
delivered some years ago, in this House, on this subject, that of the present Chief
Justice, in which that
able lawyer and shrewd politician contended that a
Federal Union was best suited to our circumstances,
appeared to me the most statesmanlike and sound.
Accepting, then, as I do, the principle of a Federal
Union, 1 desire to ask the Government if there is no
common ground on which the supporters of the
Quebec schemes—abandoning that scheme—can meet
the friends of an Union on more advantageous terms,
and arrange the details of a measure that will be just
and satisfactory to the people? I think there is a
common ground,—a ground on which I am willing
to take my stand regardless of who follows me
If the Government will publicly abandon the
Quebec scheme, and introduce a resolution in favor
of a Federal Union of British America—leaving the de
tails of the measure to the arbitrament of the Imperial
Government properly advised by delegates from all
the Provinces, I promise them my cordial support.
This would be commencing rightly. By getting the
endorsement of the Legislature, in the outset, of the
principle of Union, and its authority to enter on the
settlement of the details of a scheme, the friends of
the measure would occupy a very different position
from that occupied by the delegates to the Quebec Conference, who went to Canada,
in 1864:, without any
authority from Parliament. No small amount of opposition was at that time excited
against confederation from this cause. It had much weight with myself
and many others, who looked upon the action of the
delegates as an improper usurpation of power. Another conference on this side of the
water has been
suggested in certain quarters, but if we really desire
a practical result, it cannot be entertained. To reopen negociations here at the present
time would be
only to retard Union for some years to come. Besides I believe the most certain means
of obtaining
justice for the Maritime Provinces, would be to leave
the settlement of details to the Imperial Government.
I ask is there a tribunal in the world to which Nova
Scotia might more confidently appeal for justice than
to that august and impartial body? Its integrity—
its wisdom—its intelligence are beyond dispute. I
say that if there be a tribunal, where might will not
prevail against right, it is the one I indicate. If we
can get justice any where we will get it from that
tribunal, and I ask does any Nova Scotian desire
more than justice? This subject has engaged the attention of the public men of Great
Britain. It is well
known in that country that the difficulties in the
way of union are principally with the Maritime
Provinces, and if we throw ourselves confidingly on
the justice of the British Government, I believe we
will receive even a partial arbitration of our rights. I
know of no means by which we can more effectually
conciliate the affections and secure the favorable consideration of the Queen's Government
than by thus
proving our confidence in its justice, and our anxiety
to meet its wishes. I therefore ask the leader of the
Government, and through him the advocates of the
Quebec scheme, whether they are so wedded to that
scheme as to be unable to entertain the proposition
I, as a friend of Colonial Union, now frankly make?
I will not deny that the extraordinary reaction that
has taken place in New Brunswick in regard to Union,
and the admitted partiality of a large majority of the
people of Nova Scotia for the abstract principle, coupled with the firm but constitutional
pressure of the
Imperial authorities, afford grounds to apprehend
that before very long even the Quebec Resolutions
may be carried in the Maritime Provinces. The object of my present movement is—and
l fearlessly avow
it—to defeat the Quebec scheme before it is too late
—before we are borne down by the powerful influences against which we are now contending—while
yet
we have a formidable army in the field—while our
opponents respect our strength and hesitate at an engagement—is it not wise to seek
the most advantageous terms of compromise? Men of extreme views—
men who desire to make this great subject a stalking
horse on which to ride into office—in short, individuals
" with other ends to serve," may condemn the course
I have taken, but no one values the censure or approval of such men. I shall lose
nothing in severing in
connection with them, while I feel my conduct, wi 1
be generally sustained by the intelligent portion of
my countrymen. But I do confess that this step may
sever me politically and personally from a few gentlemen, sincere in their opposition
to all union—whom
I respect, and whose friendship I value. I shall regret it, but must frankly say,
I desire to maintain no
connexion. I am prepared to throw away any friendship, that can only be pr served
at the sacrifice of
my convictions. If I have been marked for anything
while I have been in this Assembly. it has been for
independence of action, and fearlessness in the expression of my thoughts. I have
never acknowledged
allegiance to any leader or party in this House. I
have never attended a party caucus in my life.
Among the gentlemen I address, no one within the
past two years has come more frequently into keen
collision here and elsewhere with the occupants of
the Treasury Benches than myself. I am certainly
indebted to these gentlemen for no favours, and 1 can
point to more than one act of personal and political
injustice received at their hands. But, sir, I would
be unworthy of my position in this Legislature, if I
could allow considerations of this nature on one side
or the other to controul my action in the presence of
a question of the highest magnitude. I will not deny
that I have some ambition as a public man, but my
highest ambition will be gratified, if I can contribute
an humble stone to the edifice of Colonial Union.
Before, however. I can yield any assistance to the
builders, the model of the proposed structure must
190
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
be altered, and the whole design undergo the revision of an architect in whom I have
confidence.
Sir, the hostility I have all along evinced to the
Quebec scheme of Confederation has frequently been
attributed to a desire to defeat the government, and
thus promote my own political prospects. I trust
that the course I have this day taken will be a sufficient answer to this charge.
If such were my desire
my end would be most certainly attained, in the present wide-spread hostility to that
scheme, by maintaining the position I have occupied for the last
eighteen months, without committing myself to any
proposal for the solution of our difficulties. But as
an avowed Unionist, such a course would be indefensible, and I am not willing to pursue
any course
I cannot defend. Nor do I seek any temporary triumph over my political opponents at
the expense of
the highest interests of my country. If the government are animated by sentiments
of moderation,
justice and sound policy, they shall have my humble
aid in the great work in which they are engaged. I
hope we may find a common ground of co-operation
in our efforts to improve our present condition of isolation and obscurity, and elevate
Nova Sootia to the
position nature intended her to occupy. But, sir, do
not let me be supposed to underrate the present position of this Province. Far from
it. Even as she is,
I am proud of my country, and grateful for the happy
homes she affords her sons. Yet proud, sir, as I am
of the little sea—girt province I call my native land:
proud as I am of her free institutions—her moral
status—her material wealth; proud as I am of the
name of Nova Scotian—a name which the genius and
valour of my countrymen have inscribed high on the
scroll of fame; proud, I say as I am, and may well be
permitted to be of these things, I have never ceased
to entertain the hope, expressed in this legislature
in 1864, that the day was not far distant, when you,
sir, and I, and those who listen to me—in common
with the inhabitants of these noble Provinces, united under one government, might
stand before the
world in the prouder national character of British
Americans.
Hon. PROVINCIAL SECRETARY replied:—
I have listened with much gratification to the
address which has just been delivered to this
House by the hon. member for Richmond, and
I confess that I am not surprised that, distasteful as the Quebec scheme of Union
has been
to many persons in this country, in the
existing condition of public affairs in British
North America, the attention of the strongest
opponents of that scheme should be directed to
the great question of what solution may be
found for the difficulties of the position in which
we are placed. Having taken a part in maturing that great measure—having, on former
occasions, felt it my duty to vindicate the
scheme that was propounded for the consideration of British North America, I cannot
be
supposed to enter into the feelings of the hon.
member for Richmond in his denunciation of
that scheme. I believed then, and I believe
now, that the plan of Intercolonial Union that
was propounded by the Conference at Quebec
and which has obtained so marked a degree of
favour and approval from Her Majesty's Government, did afford the people of British
North America the most ample guarantee for
the rights and privileges of all sections. But I
am not insensible to the fact that many objections have been raised against that scheme,
and
that many gentlemen who have taken a most
prominent part in opposing various features of
the measure, have in the Press, as the hon.
member has in his place in Parliament, declared themselves in favour of a Union of
British
North America, that would be acceptable to
the people of this county. I am not, standing in the peculiar position I do, able,
how
ever, to give a direct and unequivocal statement of the views of the government or
of the promoters of the Quebec scheme. The
House is well aware that this question has
from the first been submitted to the people as
one in which the government divided the
responsibility with gentlemen who were
politically opposed to them. Occupying this
position the government would have been not
only wanting in courtesy to the gentlemen who
had supported them, but would have failed in
their duty in respect to a great public question,
if they had ever treated it in a party aspect.—
In dealing with this question the government
have always consulted the wishes and inclinations, and carried with them, the co-operation
of the gentlemen who are politically opposed
to them. Under these circumstances it would
be impossible for me to state the views of the
government, except on consultation with those
who have acted with us, and are parties to the
scheme of Union. But as far as I may
state without consultation, I believe that
all the gentlemen who have been
engaged in maturing the Quebec scheme
have had no other desire than to meet
the wishes and consult the best interests of
their countrymen. They have always looked
upon this question as too solemn in its character to allow it for a single moment
to be influenced by any considerations except the welfare of the country. I am not
at all surprised
at the statements made by the hon. member.—
The last twelve months have been pregnant
with circumstances that must give an importance and an urgency to this question of
Colonial Union such as it has never obtained before. In view of the altered condition
of things
I am not at all surprised that the most strenuous opponents of the Quebec scheme are
ready
to co-operate on some common ground on
which they and the promoters of that scheme
will be prepared, at any sacrifice that they can
make consistently with the great objects to be
obtained, to deal with this question with the
gravity that its importance demands, and arrive at a consummation that will be acceptable
to the great body of the people.
Mr. ANNAND—After the very remarkable
address delivered by the hon. member for
Richmond, I think it right at once to declare
openly that the question asked by the hon. gentleman has taken this side of the House
by surprise. When he comes to us and propounds a
delegation to the Colonial office—invites the
interposition of the Colonial Government to
settle a question involving the rights and liberties of this people—asks the Home
Government
to arrange the question without reference to the
people, I look at this hon. member with surprise, and recall the sentiments that he
uttered
on former occasions. I feel strongly on this
subject. It is an attempt to barter away, to
sell the rights and liberties of the people. I do
not know the influences that are at work, but
I can imagine them. I never expected to live
to see the time when, on the floors of this Parliament, a gentleman could arise and
ask that
our condition should be decided—where? not
in your own Parliament, but by gentlemen
sent across the water with
carte blanche to settle the whole matter. The hon. member says
he is in favor of the abstract principle of
Union. I may or may not be in favor of it, but
I cannot be a party to send the question for a
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
191
final decision to the Colonial office. We know
that the Canadian element is predominant
there, and these Maritime Provinces, however
largely represented, would have little influence. The scheme that would come back
would
be substantially that of Quebec. I could have
understood the hon. member had he proposed
—and the proposal may be in harmony with
my own views—a Convention of all the Provinces, called with the sanction of the Crown,
in British North America. Such a Convention
would consider the whole question, and come
to an agreement, which could then be submitted
to the people. If he had proposed some such
scheme as that, I could have understood the
hon. member; but to take the whole question
from this House is what can never be agreed
to by the people. I do not misinterpret the
feeling of this country when I say that there is
a universal feeling against any union with
Canada. I do not say that this feeling is wise,
—there may be a good deal of prejudice mixed
up with it; but to follow the course proposed
would be to destroy all hopes of unity. I am
surprised at the motion of the hon. member,
but I apprehend the result. The Government
are only too glad to see a way of getting out
of their present difficulties. However, I know
if there is a lack of patriotism and intelligence
in this House, it is not the case elsewhere.
Feeling that, I do not hesitate to say this: A
Union of these Provinces, consummated in this
way, contrary to the wishes of the people, will
not be worth the paper upon which it is recorded.
Mr. MACDONNELL said,—I would not, Mr.
Speaker, undertake the task of addressing the
House upon this occasion and without more
preparation upon so important a subject, were
it not for the sentiments which have just fallen
from the Hon. Prov. Secretary. Neither do
I do so without a full conviction of the responsibility I assume in the course I intend
to pursue. I felt happy, Sir, to observe the position
taken by the hon. leader of the Government,
and I trust that this position will be approved
of and endorsed by his hon. colleagues, and by
those associated with him at the Quebec conference. The hon. gentleman has at length
shown a disposition to abandon that pet
scheme of Union, which, for such a length of
time he and his friends appeared determined
to fasten upon the people,—a scheme, in my
opinion, as obnoxious and distasteful to the
country, as it would prove injurious to its best
interests. I rejoice to find the spirit in which
the enquiry of the hon. member for Richmond
has been met, and I feel I would be wanting
in the performance of duty, if I did not avail
myself of this, the first opportunity of expressing my satisfaction.
The question before us, I need not say, is one
which demands mature and deliberate
consideration, and should not be determined in a day; but it is now before this
house for the second time, and since it
was first brought under our consideration it has engaged the attention of our
press, wherein it has been canvassed in all
its features. It has been debated at length
in this Legislature and on the public platform.
And it has brought our ablest an leading
minds into desirable contact in its discussion..
Taking the results of its agitation in these different arenas together, with a glance
at the
events which have transpired within the last
year, and which are daily being enacted under
our view, there is but one conclusion that can
he arrived at by every honest man—by the admirer of British institutions, and that
is, that
Union we must have. This is a fact which is
admitted almost on every hand—by the opponents of the Quebec scheme as well as its
supporters. I was indeed surprised when I saw
the course taken by the hon. member for East
Halifax, who has just set down. When I saw
that hon. gentleman rise to address the house,
I expected it was to approve of the proposition
made by the hon. member for Richmond, and
which was so satisfactorily met by the leader
of the Government.
How could I expect differently, when I read
the paper which I hold in my hand? Can that
hon. gentleman pretend to deceive this House
as to his own opinion on the subject? How
dare he say that he "will not inform the House
whether he is for Union in the abstract or not?
He must first deny his connection with one of
the leading organs of opposition to the Quebec
scheme, before he can ask this house to entertain a doubt as to his real position.
Let me
read an extract from the editorial column of
the Morning Chronicle of the 24th of January
last, of which that gentleman is Editor:
"And what then? Are we indifferent to the future of British America? Have we arrived
at the
conclusion that nothing should be done?—that we
can remain forever in our present condition? On the
contrary, while we claim that these Colonies—at all
events the Maritime Provinces—never can be bettered by any change in their political
situation, we
feel that they cannot, in the very nature of things,
always continue as they are. They may, it is true,
go on for years and enjoy their present prosperity, but
after all the time must come when they will be required
to form new relations, whether with each other and
the mother country will largely depend upon the exercise of great tact, wisdom, and
forethought on the
part both of British and Colonial statesmen."
"But it is because we feel that we must sooner or
later make our choice between the mother country
and the United States, that we desire to see this
question of Colonial Union, now that it is fresh in
the minds of the people, set at rest."
This journal then, sir, the leading one of this
Province in opposition to the Quebec scheme
—the organ of the hon leader of anti-Confederation in this country—is, as you see,
not only
a strong advocate of union, but urges that the
question be immediately, while fresh on the
minds of the people, set at rest, and recommends the means for doing so. If, then,
these
are the sentiments and opinions of the great
leader of anti-Confederation, are we not to assume, that his followers entertain the
same opinion, but like their leader, have an
object - yes, too apparent an object in offering
a factious opposition. The union of these
Provinces is desired because it is a necessity.
Considering the present happy, peaceful and
prosperous state of this Province I should feel
happy indeed did this necessity not exist; but
while circumstances do exist which to every
sensible man leaves no room to deny this necessity, we in the position of the representatives
of the people, holding the destiny of our
common country in our hands, are bound by
the highest duty we owe to the people of this
Province to set this question at rest immediately, to use the words of the great leader
of
the anti-Confederate party. These circumstances are to well known to every gentleman
192
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
in this house, and many of them have been too
eloquently descanted upon by the hon.
member for Richmond to require that I
should refer to them at length.
Whatever my opinions on this great subject
were a year ago, occurrences transpiring in
the interim, and events which mark the present as a time for action rather than words
to be
our duty, leave no room for doubt in my mind
as to what this House owe to the country.—The
repeal of the Reciprocity Treaty is no longer a
matter of doubt, as it was when we last sat here.
The cause of its repeal is ominous of a state
of things and of a feeling which should make
us active for Union. It was not for advantage
to themselves, because there was none, that
the United States determined this treaty; but,
as is well known, to evince the hostility that
the great majority of the people of that country entertain toward us as British subjects,
and to injure and embarrass us in the channels of our trade. The position of these
Provinces could not but be regarded as humiliating, when obliged to send delegates,
in detached parties to Washington, to beseech the continuance of that treaty. Severed,
we are obliged to apply to foreign and hostile countries
for leave to trade and interchange articles of
commerce with them, while if united as proposed, we could cultivate and have within
ourselves all these resources. Since we last met
here, the British Government have declared
and given most unequivocally to us their policy
and advice on this subject. In the despatch
from the Colonial Secretary of the 24th June
last, we find the following expression of that
policy:
"You will at the same time express the strong and
deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Government that
it is an object much to be desired that all the British
North American Colonies should agree to unite in
one Government. In the territorial extent of Canada, and in the maritime and commercial
enterprise of
the Lower Provinces, Her Majesty's Government see
the elements of power. which only require to be combined in order to secure for these
provinces, which
shall possess them all, a place among the most considerable communities of the world.
In the spirit of
loyalty to the British Crown, of attachment to British connection, and of love for
British institutions, by
which all these Provinces are animated alike, Her
Majesty's Government recognize the bond by which
all may be combined under one Government. Such
an union seems to Her Majesty's Government to commend itself to the Provinces on many
grounds of
moral and material advantages,—as giving a prospect of improved administration and
increased prosperity. "
Again in a despatch from Mr. Cardwell of
26th Sep., 1865, relating to the appointment of
our present Lieutenant Governor, and in the
appointment of this distinguished officer we
observe in the choice made, which affords all
Nova Scotians connected with that appointment just pride, and in other circumstances
the desire of the Home Government
for this Union, spoken in a most significant
manner. In this despatch I find the following:
But as he, (Sir R.MacDonnell,) has been appointed
to Hong Kong, expressly on the ground that the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government will, if
successful, lead to the abolition of the office of Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia,
it would be evidently inconsistent with that policy to appoint in his
place another Lieutenant Governor in the ordinary
way.
Here we have the policy of the British Government plainly declared. There may be gen
tlemen in this house, desirous of frustrating
that policy, but I will not be found among
them. I consider it our bounder duty to aquiesce in the wishes of those to whom we
look
for protection, who, during the past year, has
expended in our defence an amount not exceeded by our entire revenue. The Quebec
scheme being to a certain extent abandoned,
the only question remaining is, to what tribunal can we appeal for a settlement of
the
terms of Union? I think that the proposal
made by the hon. member for Richmond to
refer the question to the arbitrament of the
Colonial office or of some other tribunal in the
mother country would afford us a guarantee
of our rights, and this proposition emanating
from us must entitle us to peculiar consideration by any such tribunal. I did not
rise to
address the house at any length, but I desired
to take the first opportunity of expressing
these views.
I trust gentlemen will not hesitate to admit it
if they experience a change of opinion on this
great question. Besides the events which have
occurred within the last twelve-month, the
question being of itself of such magnitude, and
contemplating changes so great in our situation
and constitution, is one which would naturally
be looked upon with caution at first, and it is
not inconsistent that these gentlemen should,
after due examination, if it be found to alter
their views act on this convictions. In this
connection, I may read the following from Mr.
Cardwell's despatch, already referred to:
"I am aware that this project, so novel as well as
so important, has not been at once accepted in Nova
Scotia with that cordiality which has marked its acceptance by the Legislature of
Canada; but Her Majesty's Government trust, that after a full and careful examination
of the subject in all its bearings, the
Maritime Provinces will perceive the great advantages which, in the opinion of Her
Majesty's Government, the proposed union is calculated to confer upon them all "
I feel it to my duty to support [?] Â Â Â
for such a union of these Provinces as will be
found to be based on principles of equity and
justice. I care not how much my personal position may suffer in taking this stand,
this is
the duty I owe to the country; and every
member who regards the events which are
transpiring among us should seize the opportunity offered if the proposition made
be accepted.
Mr S. CAMPBELL—If a gentleman, speaking
with his brief before him, feels inadequate to
the occasion, I, coming here unprepared for the
debate, must have some excuse for the crudeness of my observations. This question
is one
of the deepest moment to the people of this
country and to this legislature, and I would
not be worthy of a seat within these walls if I
were not prepared on the instant to express
my sentiments upon a matter so pregnant with
weal or woe to the province. I listened with
interest and pleasure to the hon member for
Richmond, because I felt that he was sincere
in his observations,—I will not attribute any
unworthy motives for the course which he has
taken, but notwithstanding that I give him
credit for candor and sincerity, I am not prepared to acquiesce in the result at which
he
has arrived until the people express themselves
in a different tone and manner from those in
which they have been expressing themselves
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
193
for two or three years past. I do not believe
that they desire a change in the constitution,
or that they are willing to have their rights
transferred to any quarter. We have had during the present session, petitions from
every
part of the province, praying that the house
will not sanction a scheme of union without a
reference to the people at the polls—that tribunal alone having the power to change
our constitution, and the hon. member who has addressed the house himself presented
petitions
to that effect within a few hours. Such petitions have come from my constituents and
I
will not be a traitor to their rights and feelings
by consenting to such a change as is proposed.
I consider that there is another difficulty in this
case: the Quebec scheme was entered into by
several parties. they all concurred in its ratification, and must all be applied to
in its abrogation. It is not in the power of the government to say yes or no to the
demand which has
been made,—they may express their individual views but it is not in their power to
cancel
and destroy that scheme. I feel that no action
should be taken on this question until the
people have passed upon it and until then I
will not go even with the proposition made by
the hon. member for Richmond.
Mr. MILLER:——The hon. member for Halifax
in the course of his speech threw out some
insinuations which I can safely regard with
contempt. There is not a man in the House
from whom I should be more willing to
receive such insinuations. He says I am
acting inconsistently in attempting now to
pass a scheme of union without an appeal to
the people,-—I omitted accidentally to refer to
that subject in course of my remarks, when I
explain my position in that respect my reasons
will I think be satisfactory to the country, but
it is not under the influence of such inuendoes
and taunts as have been thrown out by that
hon. member that I will he induced to express
my views—that is a matter of courtesy and
he has placed himself beyond the bounds of
courtesy by the remarks which he has made.
Mr. ARCHIBALD:—I trust we will not approach a question of so grave a character with
any exhibition of temper, and while I am not
surprised at the feelings of the gentleman who
has just spoken, I depecrate such expressions
upon this occasion. I will say in reference to
some observations that have been made, that
it is going too far to speak of the Quebec
scheme being abandoned. I was not surprised
when the Prov. Sec. rose and stated that he
was not in a position to give an answer to the
question because he can hardly be said to
represent even Nova Scotia, for he was but
one of those who represented this Province.—
It is not very agreeable to gentlemen interested in the Quebec scheme to hear the
allusions that have been made; I am
prepared to advocate that scheme as conferring upon these Provinces everything that
they should ask. At the same time, no
one would be more pleased than I if further
concessions could he obtained; but any such
concession must be obtained at the expense of
some other Province. I agree with the hon.
member for Richmond that no new scheme
would place us in a worse position. The reticence with which the Prov. Sec. approached
the question was due to the gentlemen, in this
country and beyond, who were connected with
the formation of the present scheme of union.
Mr. TOBIN: I was greatly astonished on
coming into the House to hear the hon. member for Richmond addressing the House on
this
subject. I would not do anything distasteful
to the great body of the people; and until proper consultation is had, I think the
discussion
out of place.
Mr. LOCKE: We sometimes read of villages
while in a state of apparent security, being
overturned and overwhelmed by an avalanche.
But the surprise of persons in that situation
could not be greater than that of some gentlemen with whom I sit at what has occurred.
It
was astonishing to hear the remarks of the
hon. member for Richmond, who, though he
always favored a union of some sort, was an
uncompromising opponent of the Quebec
scheme; but how much more so to hear the expressions of the hon. member for Inverness,
Mr. McDonnell, who was an uncompromising
opponent of any species of union.
The discussion then ceased.
This individual participated in:
