THURSDAY, April 5, 1866
UNION OF THE COLONIES.
Mr. ANNAND said :---I felt, Mr. Speaker,
when the hon. member for Inverness, Mr. McDonnell, addressed the House, that the time
had come when I should define my position on
the question of a Union of the Colonies, and I
shall now invite the attention of the House to
that position. I have alwavs been in favor of
a union of the Maritime Provinces, and my
views upon that subject entirely accord with
views expressed by members on both'sldes. I
need not now recur to the Convention held at
Prince Edward Island, or to what took place
elsewhere when the Convention was dissolved.
These are matters of history, and I will merely allude to the objections which I entertain
to
any union of the Colonies. I have always
thought that the people of Canada were dis—
similar to us in origin and pursuits, and that
the fact of this Province being separated from
communication with the world, excepting
through hostile territory, rendered it politically
impossible that a union in the present state of
affairs could take place. I have also entertained, and have here expressed the opinion.
that all the benefits of which we have heard
can be obtained without union. Let me briefly
refer to three of these,-in the first place, I
maintain that all matters of material advantage relating to trade can be obtained
without
a. political union. What is there to hinder us
to-day from arranging a treaty of free trade
in the manufactures of the different Provinces? I may be told that Canada will not
entertain the proposition now; — perhaps,
having the objects she has at present 'in view,
might refuse, but in 1862 she was pressing
196 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
upon us such a mutual exchange. She felt
then, and her leading manufacturers feel now,
that they are the manufacturing people of
British America. We are lower in the scale
than New Brunswick, and it is therefore to
the advantage of Canada. to have free trade
between the Provinces. As regards the currencies, I take it for granted that these
could
be arranged by the various Financial Secretaries in a week—I said in an afternoon
last
year. It is not necessary then for these purposes to have a. political union. It is
said
again that we must have such a union before
we can obtain the Intercolonial Railway, enabling us to have free and rapid communication
with each other—I deny it, and I
point to the action of Canada in 1862, when
she agreed with our delegates for its construction. Why it was not built it is not
necessary to say, and I will not say, because I do
not desire to create irritation between the governments of these colonies. That railway,
thus bringing us into connection with Canada,
however valuable it may be in time of war, as
affording a passage for troops, I never regarded as of much importance in relation
to trade,
because while communication is open with
Portland, there will be little or no traflic across
the Intercolonial line. Though we may attach
considerable importance to that line, yet I
maintain it is not necessary to our existence.
We live by the sea, and have free access to
other countries,-but it involves the existence
of Canada. She would have no access to the
United States in time of war, and that railway
would afford the only means of communication
which she would have with the mother
country. I therefore hold as I held in 1862 that
however valuable the intercolonial railway
may be to New Brunswick and Nova. Scotia,
it involves the existence of Canada. I say that
no political union is necessary, unless Canadian statesmen, using it as a lever, say
you
shall have no railway unless you unite with
us. Holding these opinions, I ask why is this
union pressed? Two years ago our country
was undisturbed and our people were quiet;
now this Province is a scene of agitation from
Cape Sable to Cape North. These difliculties
did not arise with us, our people were contented and happy until Canada, embarrassed
in her
own condition pressed the proposals for union
upon us, and I can pointto speeches of Canadian
statesmen which show that this was the cause
of the agitation. There is another branch of
the subject to which I will now refer,—the
question of defence. It is said that if all the
questions of trade, of postage, of the currency,
and of the railway, could be arranged, the
great question of defence yet remains. There
would have been some force in the argument
a year ago, but what has transpired since then?
We have seen these two Provinces threatened
by a. lawless set of men, who contemplated an
attack upon us; and what was their programme
of operations? If these Colonies were to be
attacked at all, they wereto be simultaneously
attacked ,-then away goes the argument about
Union as a means of Defence. Does it require
a political union to arm the people of these
Provinces? No, Sir, it is quite sufficient to shew
them a common danger and they rally with one
will in the common defence as is being practically illustrated at this hour. Take
another
view of the question. I will assume that a
union of the Colonies is desired, if not by us, by
the mother country, and in speaking of the
mother country I may say that all suggestions
coming from that quarter I regard with the
greatest respect, one reason tor this is that we
owe her much—we have contributed but little
to our own support and defence, and that government throws its protection over us
whenever
it is required; therefore I say I yield great defence to the opinion of the Imperial
Government but the question after all comes back to
our own country and leak who are the best
judges of the institutions, under which they
should live? The Home Government have
given us institutions of which we are proud,
and which we work out practically,—they have
never shown a disposition to deprive us of these.
It is not necessary that I should repeat my
objections to the Quebec scheme, but I will say,
whether owing to a break-down of the opposition to union, or owing to the opinions
of the
British Government, if a union should become
desirable, and I should give up my own views,
believing as I now do that sucha union is undesirable, which is the best way to bring
that
union about? Assuming it to be desirable, and
that it will not lead to independence of the
mother country as I believe it will; assuming
that the relations between the Provinces should
be changed, I believe and hold that the railway
should precede the union Suppose, for instance, that difiiculty arose from a. Fenian
raid,
or for any other cause, and that a declaration of
war being made, communication between the
United States and Canada was severed—suppose union consummated, and parliament convened
to meet at Ottawa, how would we get there
now? We should have to travel through the
wilderness of New Brunswick, and I therefore
maintain that the railway should precede the
union. Suppose again that on a sudden outbreak
of hostilities it became necessary to suspend the
Habeas Corpus actt, how would Parliament be
assembled? '! The Government might assume the
responsibility, but that responsibility is seldom
assumed by any Gevemmunt, and we saw a few
weeks ago that Sir George Grey introduced a bill
into the Imperial Parliament in reference to that
subject. Then I maintain we should have free
trade before the union,—we ought to know more
of each other—at present the men of Canada
West know more of the people of the United
States than of us—that state of things should be
reversed before going into the union, we should
become familiar with each other and have large
business intercourse, I believe that by a union
with Canada the Maritime Provinces must suffer
largely in treasure, in power, and in influence.—_ /
1 think I may safely say that not one other of
these Provinces will have this scheme, it has
been refused in Prince Edward Island and in
Newfoundland, and they will have nothing to do
with it now in New Brunswick, and need I say
that at present nine—tenths of the people of Nova
Scotia would reject it? Under these circumstances, and yielding deference to the views
of the
Imperial Government, and assuming a union to
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
197
be desirable I ask what is the best mode of
bringing the union about ? I reply, by abandoning the Quebec scheme in the first place.
The
action of our Government can be of no avail in
this particular unless the Government of Canada
express the same determination, because the
gentlemen composing the delegation to Quebec
are bound to carry that scheme it possible, and it
will rtquire the consent of all o them to abandon
it. Supposing the scheme abandoned, there are
three ways of approaching the question. One
mode is to assemble the leading minds of the
Provinces—and when I say the leading minds, I
mean not merely the gentlemen representing the
views of those who went to Quebec, but gentlemen who have taken a prominent part against
the
Quebec scheme, gentlemen opposing any union at
all, with a view to the full conside ation of the
subject, just as that which any question requires.
Public men from all the Provinces should then be
assembled in such numbers that all cause of
jealousy should be removed. Let me here say,
to guard myself from misinterpretation, that any
scheme of union, after being thus considered,
must come back to the Parliaments and to the
people for ratification. I care not how perfect or
how advantageous the scheme may be unless the
Parliaments and the people are consulted, it must
fail to satisfy the country. Another mode would
be to assemble Delegates, composed of the same
elements, at the Colonial Office, where, in presence of Her Majesty's Ministers, the
question
could be discussed ; but even in that case it must
come back to be settled by our people. but there
is a third mode that recommends itselt to me : there
is great diversity between the interests of Canada
and those of the Maritime Provinces while the
latter have many interests in common, I would
therefore convene delegates from the four Maritime Provinces and see if they can agree
on a
platformfor a union with Canada. I maintain
that if the delegates were to assemble at the Colonial office, acting in detached
parties, they wou d
be cut into fragments, they would have no pol ic
in common, and would be at the mercy of the
Canadian influences by which they would be surrounded in London. Any policy, therefore,
recommending itself to the people, must be matured as I think by the representatives
of the
Maritime Provinces. Then would come up this
question: -Should not these four Provinces go in
as one asking for equal representation with either
of the Canadas and claiming it as their right and
throwing overboard the unsound principle of representation by population, - taking
care also,
that their revenues should be properly secured.—
If the Maritime Provinces could thus be brought
to agree upon a platform then let the debate be
adjourned to the Colonial office, and our delegates being thus brought face to face
with Canadan representatives, we might expect Her Majesty's Government to force Canada
to accept such
terms as reason would recommend. Even then
the scheme must come back to us to be ratified,
and do you think that the people, having confidence in the Maritime Convention and
in' the
Imperial Government, would reject fair and
reasonable proposals ? I do not recognize the
necessity for a union, but I believe that in deference to the wishes of the British
Government
a scheme so arranged would be accepted. That
was what I meant when I wrote the article referred to the other day ; but I meant
more—I meant
that our relations with the parent country should
be strengthened What is there in the Quebec
scheme to prevent a separation? I may be mistaken, but I thought I could see in England,
during my recent visit there, a desire to get rid of
these Colonies, and an impres ion that by Confederation England would be relieved
of a portion
of the expense which we cause at present. I was
sorry to see in high quarters a desire that these
Colonies should be got rid of ; and I apprehend
seriously that Confederation, pure and simp e, is
only another name for independence. I wish to
guard against that ; my desire is that British
America should remain British America I wish
to strengthen our relations with the parent state,
and I believe that the only mode of accomplishing
that is by having representation in the Imperial
Parliament. With that connecting link we would
always form a part of the Empire. What is it
that makes California or Texas a part of the
American Union? It is their representation in
Congress and in the Senate. Take away that
representation, and how long will they form a
part of the Union ? They are each large enough
and far enough away to set up for themselves.
The time may come when these Colonies will be
required to come forward in defence of the mother
country ; and if I were an Englishman I
would never consent to any step approaching independence. I saw a calculation the
other day which showed that the coal fields
of Great Britain, upon which her enormous
prosperity to so great an extent depends, will
be exhausted in about 112 years, but at
the present rate of consumption that period
would probably be reduced to fifty years, and
America being in possession of the coal mines of
Nova Scotia, of her fisheries, and of her maritime
facilities, would become immediately the first
maritime power in the world. Looking to her
manufacturing interests alone England should
preserve the colonies, and f she would make
them a part of the Empire, the great field of manufacture might be transferred from
the old world
to the new. Looking at the matter as an Englishman, I would say, suppose Confederation
takes place and the Province: become independent their connection with the mother
country is
gone, and what if annexation should follow ?—
Suppose America were to ally herself with Russia. and she has strong proclivities
in that direction, even the safety of the British islands. would
be imperilled British statesmen should view the
matter in the light of expediency, and instead of
endeavoring to get rid of as on account of our
expensiveness, they should draw us nearer to
England, making us a part of the Empire, and
giving us representation in her Parliarneut. Any
scheme wanting that element will. I believe, be defective, and any scheme which does
not improve
our relations with the Mother country will certainly eventuate in independence. Suppose
that by the
repeal of the reciprocity treaty Canada should
198
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
become impoverished and, as was said the other
day, that she should come begging for annex ation and that we were connected with
her, what
security would we have for our British connec—
tion, I repeat that I am opposed to any scheme
of union that will not contain a provision for an
improvement in the relations of the Empire.—
Looking at it from an English point of view it
will be seen that the Colonies having separated
from the parent state the Empire will become, to
use a common phrase, demoralized, and its extent
will be confined to the limits of the British
Islands. That is the view in which the question
shoud be regarded by British Statesmen. By
such a scheme as that which I have proposed the
onus of a. settlement would be thrown on those
who really oppose it That is the mode in which
I would approach the question of union,—I
would be willing to advocate such a cause if the
subject be pressed upon us, but I have yet to hear
the first substantial argument in favour of Con
federation. lf the policy of union be pressed
upon us by the Imperial Government let us
labour to) procure such a scheme as will be
acceptable to the Colonies, — let it be a union of
the hearts and wills of the people not one forced
upon them. We were elected for a different pur
pose,—the questions before the people at the
time when we were elected were violations of
law and order, questions relating to retrenchment, to the suffrage, the question of
turning
out of office one set of gentlemen who had held
power for four years. The question of a change
in their constitution was therefore not
before them. It would be a rash thing
on the part of this legislature to say
that the men elacted to carry ont the " well
understood wishes of the people " should ratify a
scheme of union against the repeated protests
which have been made. if we are to be united
let us approach the question in a right spirit, and
not in the tone of temper which was indulged in
the other day. Looking at the great future of
these Provinces let us consider, not only what
would be best for us, but what will be best for our
children coming after us.
REPLY 0F HON. PROVINCIAL SECRETARY.
Dr. TUPPER said :—The hon. gentleman has
raised a question of such deep importance and
interest to the people of the Province that I feel
it my duty, as a. member of the Legislature, to
take immediate notice of the observations
which has fallen from him. When an hon.
gentleman undertakes, in the face of this
Legislature, to lead the public sentiment of this
country on a question of deep import to the
whole Province, it becomes necessary that he
should place himself in a position to receive the
confidence and respect of the members
of the House, and the peeple they , represent. I think it there is a gentleman in
this Legislature-I will go further
and say if there is a gentleman in this country,
who, by his own conduct, has forfeited all
claim to the respect and confidence of this
House in relation to a great question of public
policy, it is the hon. member who has just sat
down, and I shall feel it my duty to put briefly
before this House and country the grounds upÂ
on which I assume the responsiblility of mak—
ing this assertion.
The hon. member has just stated to the
House that he has yet to hear the first argument in favor of Union between these Provinces
of British North America. I ask this
House what are they to think of a gentleman
claiming the position, not of a leader of a. party,
but even of an honest and straight-forward representative of this legislature, who
will dare to
utter such a sentiment as that, when they know
that here recorded in the public journals of the
country is the declaration of that hon.member,
as a statesman, as a member of Parliament,
as a member of the Executive Council,
asking the House to confirm the declaration which he had made, that so great and so
many were the advantages of a. union of British North America, that the time had arrived
when it was necessary to clothe the Government of the country with power to deal with
the question? (Hear, hear.)
Dr. Tupper—The hon. member may deny Â
what he likes. It is not a. question of affirmation or denial. The journals under
my hand
have only to be opened, and there upon the
page stands the indelible record that no denial
will wipe away, by which the hon. member
committed himself to the policy of a Union of
British North America.
Mr. ANNAND—Will the hon. gentleman
turn to the journals?
Dr. TUPPER—I shall turn to them for the
hon. gentleman's satisfaction as he seems to
have a very short memory, and show him the
resolution, and the action of the government in
relation to it. He, as a member of the Cabinet,
actually initiated the policy of a Union of
British North America—he called not only the
attention of the House to the subject, but
asked the several governments of British
North America to hold such a Convention as
would ascertain the best mode of dealing with
the question. What are we to think of a gentlemen who, having come forward as a member
of the government and affirmed such a
principle as that, and obtained the support of
the House to that principle, now attempts to
insult the intelligence of the people of this
country by telling them, years afterwards,
" that he has yet to hear the first argument in
favour of a Union of British North America."—
He has professed respect for the British Government—but he has trampled down the
authority of the government under his feet. I
ask him to read the despatches which have
emanated from the Imperial Government, and,
if they are entitled to such respect, do they
not contain arguments enough in favour of a
Union of British North America?
I have shown you in the outset that the hon.
member has treated the Legislature as devoid
of ordinary intelligence when he has under—
taken to say that the action to which he invited
the attention of this House on a former occasion
was invited dishonestly by him. Are we or are
we not to suppose that the views and sentiments
which he placed before the Legislature then
were entirely at variance with those he
actually held? If the hon. member had told us
that like a weathercock be shifted with every
changing breeze—that he changed his views
from hour to hour, then I could feel that
though his views were unworthy of respect,
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
199
yet he had not attempted to insult the intelligence of the House. The hon. member
has a policy for every day in the week—if he
has not a public policy of his own he is the
mouth-piece of every changing wind that
blows.
The hon. member has referred to a question
which is at this moment engaging the attention
not only of the Legislature, but of the best
minds not only in this Province, but in the
whole Empire, and that is, the defence of the
country. He felt, in view of the prominence
this question has now assumed, that it was
necessary that he should show to the House
how he proposed to deal with it. He says we
would he exposed to simultaneous attack, and
therefore Union would be of no avail, inasmuch as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and
Canada would have each to defend themselves.
The Government of which he was a member,
the delegates and representatives of that Government, did not state that the Union
of
British North America would be of no avail
for the security of Nova Scotia. Is he not
bound by the public record of his views, given
as a member of the Government, that the
citadel of Halifax was insecure without an
Intercolonial Railway, which would enable
Canada at the hour of need to come to the
rescue of this Province? Then the hon. member must show this House that he can hold
these sentiments one day and change them the
next, and at the same time ask the Confidence
of any man that sits on these benches. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. ANNAND: I referred to the Intercolonial
Railway as a valuable measure of defence.
Dr. TUPPER: I would ask the hon. member
when he comes here with his story of simultaneous attack, whether 250,000 souls in
New
Brunswick and 350,000 in Nova Scotia are as
secure from the possibility of invasion as four
millions of people sustained by the mightiest
Empire in the world? Is not his story of
simultaneous attack then swept away? But I
will turn that hon. gentleman to his own recorded declaration in another place. The
Morning Chronicle, which has long been the
property of the hon. member, was edited for
years by a gentleman in the other branch of
the Legislature, and it is well known that a
change was suddenly made in the editorial
management of that paper. It was wrested
from the hands of the gentleman in question,
and the sole responsibility of editorship was
assumed by the hon. gentleman who has just
sat down. The hon. member felt that the
question of defence lay at the very threshold.
On the platform, in the press, and in the House
he has proposed that the Legislatures of all
British North America should pass laws by
which they would supply the means to render
defence practicable. He has proposed that
laws should be passed under which the man
on whom might rest the responsibility might
draw the very last man from one Province for
the defence of the other. Who is there that
does not know that, having propounded that
policy—giving the authority to draft our
people to a power in another Province over
whom we had no control—then, in the same
paper, he held up, as a bagbear to frighten the
people against Confederation, that they would
under Confederation be dragged away from
their homes for the defence of Canada. When
I feel that the hon. member propounds statements that are so entirely antagonistic,
I feel
that it is right that I should expose him, and
Show the House and country how worthless are
any views he may offer. I ask him, too.
whether, feeling the deep importance of this
question of defence, he did not propose the
following mode in the pages of his journal, a
year ago last January :—
" We would provide for the defence of the Empire by a general tax, equally levied by
an Imperial statute all over the Empire. This might be
either a tax on property, on polls. or on imports, to take precedence of all other taxes, and to
be paid into the Imperial treasury. About ÂŁ28,000,000 are annually required for naval and
military expenditure. A property tax, if that
were preferred, would raise the whole amount.
But if it was thought better to collect the ÂŁ28,0.000 upon imports, the commerce of the Emire would yield the whole without any portion of
it feeling the burthen."
" Is there a Novascotian that would not, pay
his portion of this tax cheerfully, and turn out,
with arms in his hands, to defend the Empire
besides? Is there one who will not cheerfully
pay pound for pound with the Canadians, or
with his fellow subjects in any other part of
the Queen's dominions? Here is a scheme of
National Defence, of which a statesman need
not be ashamed, and our public men could not
be much better employed than in pressing it on
the notice of Her Majesty's Government."
The man who has made the bold proposition,
that we should pay pound for pound with those
who live in Manchester and London, whose
representatives in Parliament control the expenditure of this money—this man who has
proposed to levy this sum of money—that is, to
place a burthen upon our shoulders by an Im—
perial Statute, for the benefit of the Imperial
Treasury—has, at the same time, in order to
embarrass this great question, urged upon the
.people that they must reject Confederation, because they willhave to pay a few cents
of additional taxation. Am I not right, standing as
I do on the threshold of the greatest constitutional changes,—on the threshold of
a question,
the rightful decision upon which, I believe, is
to decide our very existence as British subjects, to call your attention to these
facts, and
ask you whether the hon. member does not occupy the humiliating position of having
propounded, from day to day, on every feature of
this subject, views as antagonistic to each other
as night is from day.
The hon. member asks how is Union to help
our defence? I shall give him an authority
which he may treat with contempt, but I doubt
if there is any man in this Legislature beside
himself that will endorse the statements that
he has uttered to-day. The hon. member
says he is prepared to yield the most respectful deference to the opinions of Her
Majesty.—
Where is his respect when he tramples down
such a despatch as this and tells you that he,
though the originator of this great question,
has not, down to this hour, heard a single argument in favor of it. The Imperial Govern—
ment said on the 24th day of June, 1865:—
" 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
200
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
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 connexon, 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 recommend itself to the Province on many grounds of moral and material
advantages —as giving a well-found prospect
of improved administration and increased prosperity.
But there is one consideration which Her
Majesty's Government feel it more especially
their duty to press upon the Legislature of
Nova Scotia. Looking to the determination
which this country has ever exhibited to regard
the defence of the colonies as a matter of Imperial concern, the Colonies must recognize
a right
and even acknowledge an obligation incumbent on the Home Government to urge with
earnestness and just authority the measures
which they consider most expedient on the
part of the Colonists with a view to their own
defence.
Nor can it be doubtful that the Provinces of
British North America are incapable, when
separate and divided from each other, of making those just and efficient preparations
for
national' defence which would be easily undertaken by a Province uniting in itself
all the
population and all the resources of the whole."
I will admit, for the sake of argument, that
Her Majesty's Government—composed of the
greatest military and political minds in the
world—which have spent millions upon millions in our defence, are ignorant upon the
subject. I will admit that the hon member's
opinion is worthy of more consideration than
theirs; but there is not an intelligent man in
Nova Scotia today that will not then admit that
our successful defence rests on the Union of
British North America. When Her Majesty's
Government have arrived at the conclusion
that this most vulnerable point in the Empire
is only to be placed in a. position that will enable England to unite successfullyr
with us in the
defence of these Colonies by this Union—that,
our future security depends upon the acceptance or rejection of Union—that this is
a question of Imperial concern, since the honor and
integrity of the mother country are involved in
the security of every portion of the Empire;
when we are told all this by those who have
the best right to advise us, I ask the hon. member whether he has to hear the first
argument
in favor of Union—whether her Majesty's subjects on this side of the Atlantic should
not be
prepared to meet the views of the Parent State,
and adopt such a policy as will enable her to
co-operate successfully with us in measures to
defend British-North America.
The hon. member rose to correct me' in relation to the Intercolonial Railway. He says
that railway should precede the Union. What
has been the past history of the Intercolonial
Railway? The hon. member himself has
laboured for twenty years to obtain the con
struction of that work. Other public men of
all parties have exhausted every means, going
so far as to place a burthen upon our shoulders
beyond the capacity of the country to bear, for
the purpose of securing the railway; but all to
no purpose. Every scheme melted away like
the " baseless fabric of a vision," and there is
not the vestige of a chance to get an Intercolonial Railway except by that means that
secures Union. When the hon. member stated
that the Railway which this Union will give us
was essential to the security of Halifax, he
only said what every man feels. Situated
as we are in the presence of a gigantic power,
the only security that this county can have is
to be found in the fact that the invader does
not trample down the rights and privileges of
330,000 people, but of four millions of freeman
bound together by the closest political and
commercial sympathy, and protected by the
greatest nation in the world. There is not a
thoughtful man in this country, whatever may
be his opinion as to the advantages in industrial an commercial aspects, who will
not feel
that as regards our security, our immediate
Union is not only desirable but absolutely
necessary. I use the term IMMEDIATE UNION
with a full appreciation of its significance.—
His Excellency has laid on the table the
Despatches in relation to the Fisheries. Is
there a member in this House who does not
feel what is the meaning of the silence ot the
British Government on the subject. The Im—
perial Government have been told that the
territorial rights of British Americans are
about to be invaded—that they have every
reason to believe that the hour is approaching
when our soil is to be desecrated by liberties
being taken with it by foreigners. The fishermen of the United States are fitting
out, and in
the Senate of the county public men are
coming forward and saying that the fishermen
are determined to come upon our fishing
grounds and asking the government to protect
them by a fleet. Who is there then, that does
not feel the attitude which we occupy to-day,
when having implored Her Majesty's Government months ago, for the means of protecting
our territory, at this hour we are unable to
put before the House and country the statement that the are prepared to assume that
responsibility? The mperialGovernment are
evidently waiting to see whether we
are prepared to adopt the advice which
she was bound in our interests to offer.—
They have emplored us time and again to combine and put ourselves in a position in
which
they can efficiently defend us; and they are
waiting to see whether we shall respect their
advice before involving Britain in a war with a
great power. The hon. member for Richmond
called attention to the fact, that some 400,000
desperate men, united by the deepest hatred of
British institutions, and assisted by the sympathy of a powerful people, stand in
a position
to do everything that they can to foster and
create a collision between the United States
and Great Britain, if they do not attempt an
invasion themselves. It is no secret that that
organization have taken measures to fill the
fishing vessels with men who are determined to
provoke collision between the two countries.
In view of circumstances like these, is it not
time for every loyal subject to lay aside all
party and [personal considerations and unite
 OF THE HOUSE 0F ASSEMBLY201
for the purpose of preserving the rights and
liberties which we now enjoy?
The hon. member says that the Delegates are
bound to the Quebec scheme. I shal be prepared to answer at an early day the question
put by the hon. member for Richmond , and I
am only surprised that the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Annand) should not have awaited that
answer before addressing the house as he has
to-day. I tell the hon. member that this was
the obligation that rested upon every gentleman that was engaged in that Quebec Conference;
it was by every constitutional and
honorable means in his power to endeavor to
bring about the great results that that scheme
proposed to accomplish. 1 ask him what is the
position of this question to—day? Has it not
changed in its aspect since the House was
called together at this present session? Last
year an appeal was made to the people of New
Brunswick, and an overwhelming majority
was returned opposed to the Quebec scheme;
but what has taken place since? No one can
believe that so great a change has suddenly
taken place as we know has actually occurred.
The fact is this: the question was referred to
the people at the polls; but is there a man here
who believes that the election was decided
squarely and fairly on the question of Union?
No, the Government had been in power for ten
years; they had drawn upon themselves that
unpopularity which all Governments must ex—
pect to encounter, conduct the public affairs as
they may. Â The opponents of Confederation,
combined with the great body of those who
were determined at all hazards to have a
change of government, and the result was that
an immense majority was apparently returned
against Union with Canada. What has occurred since? This Government, thus brought
into power by the action of the people  at the
polls, have modified their opinions on Confederation through the force of circumstances,
and influenced by the legitimate power and influence of the British Government, have
come
forward, and in the Speech at the opening of
the session propounded  a policy of Union of
British North America. It is not a matter of
doubt that whether a dissolution takes place
or not, or whatever may be the result of the
vote of no-confidence that has been moved,
and on which a discussion is proceeding, New
Brunswick is prepared with an unanimity that
cannot fail to produce the deepest impression
on the mind of every man to come forward
and accept the policy of the British Government, and accomplish a union of British
North
America. Â Â Â Â
The hon. member took occasion to outline a
scheme. He has entirely abandoned his
policy of yesterday. In the journal which he
has seized for the purpose of writing down
Confederation, Â he has had as many policies on this as he has in relation to everything
else, and it is only the other day that
he took the attitude that he and the
opponents of confederation would  not propound any scheme whatever.  Let me invite
the attention of the House to the paragraph
from his paper which was read by the hon.
member for Inverness , and ask  whether he
(Mr. Annand)has yet to hear the first argument in; favour of' a Union Of British North
America. On the 24th January, 1866, he says:
" And what then? Are we indifferent to the
future of British America? Have we arrived Â
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 natureof things, always
continue as they are. The may, it is true, go
on for years, and enjoy the r 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 forethon ht 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 countryand 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; it is because we earnestly and fervently pray that our connexion with
England,
instead of being weakened, shall be strengthened, that we repeat the opinion uttered
two
months ago, that, with the sanction of the
Crown, a new Convention shall be held for the
purpose of considering the future of British
America—— what are to be the relations of these
Provinces with each other, what their relations
with the mother country, and what guaranties will be required to secure the unity
of
all."
   _
In the face of this declaration on made in January last—that the time had 'come when
the
people of this colony had to chose between connectionwith the United States of British
North
America or connection with Great Britain—
he now undertakes to tell you that he has yet
to hear the first argument in favor of Union.
I ask the hon. member whether leading
minds of these Provinces have not assembled
already to confer- on this question of Union.
Dr. TUPPER—Did not the Government act in
good faith when they undertook to deal with
the question, as one entirely apart from party
politcs? When they invited Mr. Howe, Mr.
Anderson, Mr. Locke, Mr Archibald and Mr.
McCully to combine with them? If there were
gentlemen in either end of the Legislature that
stood in more deep and strong antagonism to
the present Government than others, they were
the two gentlemen who co-operated with us on
this great question. The hon. member may
say we should have selected him. Why, he
would not have reached Windsor before he
would _change his' opinion half a dozen times.—
(Hear, hear.)) Why he would have signed
his name to a declaration of his opinions, and
repudiated it two months after. All that could
be done in the interests of the people was done,
and although the" Quebec scheme may not
meet with general concurrence, yet I believe,
that the interests of the Maritime Provinces
were pressed to the last point to which they
could be carried in an Intercolonial Conference,
and the only means by which an improvement
could be obtained would be by some measure
that would bring an independent arbitrament
to bear . The hon. member has expressed
great respect for the Imperial Government, and
yet he degrades  Her Majesty's Ministers by
saying that men recognized as the most honorable and able in the civilized world—men
of
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
he most thorough education, calm judgment,
and inflexible integrity—would be mere children in the hands of the Canadian Delegates.
He has placed the statesmen of the Maritime.
Provinces in a position so contemptible that if
he is to be believed it would be better that the.
people should throw themselves, upon the
generosity and fairness of Her Majesty's Government, than send Delegates who will
be so
insignificant in the presence of three or four,
Canadians, and unable to obtain justice at the
hands of the. most excited. and disinterested
tribunal in the world. Â Â Â Â Â
The hon. member says he is against Union
Of what use will he then be in a Conference?
His only object would then he to obstruct and
defeat that which. is the desire of the overwhelming body the people to-day—to carry
out the wishes of Her Majesty's Government.
The hon. member holds a Conference in British
America, and then carries us across the water,
and then sails back again. Having got the
Conference to unite in a common plan—
and it would take ninety-nine years to
effect it if the honorable member had his.
own way—and having obtained the acquiescence of Her Majesty's Government, he would
bring it back for an appeal to the people. I do
not intend to say much just now on this point.
.I have most unswerving confidence in the
patriotism and intelligence of the people of
Nova Scotia and of British North America, but
I tell the hon.member as much clamour as he
has raised, there is not a man in this House
that knows better than himself how impossible it is get a direct verdict on a question
like this. The facts in connection with New
Brunswick prove that they did not get a verdict
on Confederation pure and simple. He knows
right well that let any government, I care not
what party, even the remarkable government
of which he was a member, go to the country
and instead of being able to obtain an issue on
any measure, however loudly they may put it,
they have to face the opposition of every man
that wishes to displaces them.' They have to
meet many of their own former friends and
supporters whose hostility they have provoked
in some particular question. Is there any one
here who does not know that were this government to appeal to the people on the ques-.
tion of Confederation to-morrow so far
from their getting an answer on that question
they would have to meet first? a formidable
combination for the purpose of placing the gen-.
tlemen opposite in power, and again, those who
were supporters of the Administration—and
thousands there are of able and influenttial supporters so situated—entirely at variance
with. them: on the great question of,
Assessment for educational purposes—
Therefore I would defy you in that
way to not get a verdict. But I am, not  Â
going into that question now. No gentleman who was here in the first session of
the House (1864) would dare to say that it is Â
unconstitutional the Parliament to 01181389
the constitution . They recorded a resolution
by unanimous consent on the journals of this Â
Legislature which authorized the charge of our
Constitution without any reference to the
people whatever I moved the resolution myself; it authorized the Lieutenant-Governor
of
this Province, in conjunction with the Govern
ments of the other provinces, to appoint Delegates for the purpose of devising a scheme
of
Legislative Union for the Maritime Colonies.
There is not man who does not know that
this proposition was for a more extreme change
in the constitution of this country than the one
now proposed. |The Quebec scheme proposes
to leave to Nova Scotîa her own Government
and Parliament as far as local questions are
concerned, and to have a General Parliament
with general powers in reference to matters
common to all the Provinces; but the resolution
of 1864 was to surrender the entire constitution
of the country  and take away the seat of Government in all probability from Nova
Scotia
and place it in New Brunswick, or wherever it
might be agreed upon. It provided that scheme
of Legislative Union should go into operation
and become law—not when it had received the
sanction of the people—but the consent of the
Provincial Legislatures, and Her Majesty's
approval. With that resolution recorded on
our journals is there a man who can presume to
rise here and say that it is unconstitutional for
the Parliament of the country to change the
constitution without an appeal to the people.
Mr. McLELAN—The hon. gentlemen knows
that the votes was not taken on the proviso that
the resolution should. not be entered "unanimously" in the journals. Â Â Â
DR TUPPER--Every gentleman who did not
record his name against the resolution is committed clearly to the proposition which
it contains. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr.
Miller) took exception to allowing the resolution to be entered "unanimously." but
it was on
different ground He was not in favor of the
proposed union—he preferred the larger one;
but he did not take exception to the resolution
as embodying an unconstitutional principle.
Mr. McLelan—l was opposed to the resolution, but l did not explain it at the time.
Dr. TUPPER—Then the hon. member is rather late. What will his constituents think of a
member who said nothing on unimportant
constitutional question, and three years after
comes forward and says he was opposed to it ?
 The hon member for East Halifax went on to
say that when he was in England he saw there
existed a great desire to get rid of these colonies.
I was a so in England at the same time the hon.
member I was there. He will admit that I had
as many opportunities as he of meeting and ascertaining the opinions of the statesmen,
and
people of England from the present distinguished
Premier down to the humblest person. I am
proud to say, that if that hon. member came
away with the belief that there was a general
desire on the part of the government and the
press; and leading men among the people that
England should part with these colonies, he
brought back with him an impression totally at
variance with those that other gentlemen, either
from this or the adjoining Province, received
during their visit. There is no question that
there is a party in the House of Commons, famlllarly known as the Cobden and Bright
party,
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
203
sustained by such doctrinaires as Goldwin Smith'
who do not hesitate to say that their policy is
to get rid of these Colonies. and I will tell you
who strengthen their Lands—feeble as they were.
shewn to be when they were struck down by
the independent action of the Palmerston Ministry, who unhesitatingly declared that
thei s was
not the policy of the British. government and
people. It is the hon. gentleman himself who
is now giving weight to that party. It is the
press and people of this country who do not
hesitate to say that they are prepared to treat
with contempt and derision the parental advice
of the Ministers of England, given for the benefit of the colonies themselves. The
only danger Â
is, if these gentlemen are powerful enough to
obstruct the union of the Provinces, and leave
it doubtful to the British Parliament whether
we do do or do not desire to have connection
with the Crown of the mother country.Â
The hon. member for Richmond called attention to the significant fact that the New
York
Herald stated that the object of the Fenian organization was to prevent a Union of British
North America. You find that journal inspired by the utmost contempt of British institutions,
holding the Fenian organization up to the
support of the people of the United States and
telling them that the opponents of Confederation deserve their confidence because
their policy is a United States policy, and that is to
weaken the connection between the Crown and
the Colonies. Be this as it may, it is quite apparrent that the difficulties that
have been thrown in the way of the policy approved and urged upon us by the British
government have led the press of the United States to suppose that the reason why
these Colonies have refused to acceptihis policy is because. they prefer Annexationatoi
the; American Republic to retaining the present connectione with the mothercountry.
Lsay therefore that the hon. member never misrepresented the public more grossly than
when he declared thasgthere is anything
like a pervading desire in Great Britain to get
rid of these Colonies Go to the Ministry, the
Parliament, and the Press —every thing by
which the. public sentiment can be guaged—and
you will find that it is in favour of keeping up
the connection and preventing the dignityof
the Crown being. tarnished in. the slightest degree.
Where is the man in this House or country that will sustain the policy which he propounds
in opposition to this proposed union. The question of representation in the Imperial
Parliament was propounded on the floors of this House with an ability and an eloquence
such as the hon. member himself knows he has not the slightest pretenaion to. He
knows it was put forth in the most attractive manner that it was possible to put it,
but it fell still-born upon the intelligent minds of this country, and never received
the slightest favour in Nova Scotia or any other part of British North America. He
knows it was only a few years ago that the same eloquent speeches were reprinted
and put before the public of England, and down
to the present hour not a man, with the slightest pretension to statesmanship, has
been
disposed to give it a word of encouragement.
I ask, then. in the presence ot the grave emergency,—of the dangers that threaten
British
America—when everything we hold dear is
imperilled, is this the time to revive a project
which has never obtained any favour among
the people of this country ? This same gentleman who considers that 19 of the ablest
men
that this Province can send to Ottawa would be
powerless (though they would constitute a
number greater than is found necessary to decide
the fate of parties in England), would be satisfied with two votes is a Parliament
of 650 members. Suppose we had such a representation, I
ask you is it for that Nova Scotians would be
prepared to place the enormous and oppressive
taxation upon the shoulders that would be required to sustain the army and navy of
England, and the expenses of any wars in which
the mother country might be engaged?Â
When on a former occasion I confronted the
hon. member with the statement that the Reciprocity Treaty was about to be abrogated,
the
country will remember that he entertained no
such fears. Well the hon. member has proved
a false prophet, for the treaty has been abro-Â
gated. The hon. member now tells you that
the United States do not want these Provinces.
I do not require to labour that question. He
tells you himself that the United States, if they could grasp this Province, would
become the
first Naval Power in the world—able to dictate
terms to the world. Does he think that eludes
the scrutiny of the keenest statesmen to be found in that Country—whose policy is
to grasp
where they can gain a foothhold and extend their
dominion. Therefore I ask the hon. member
if he has not himself shown you that there is
sufficient inducement for the United States to
obtain these Colonies; and I do— not require to
take up your time with showing that the only
means we have of resisting their encroachments
is Union. Therefore let every friend of British
institutions, every loyal subject, every man
who is not willing to see our rights and privileges torn from us, combine in this
great work
of elevating these comparatively insignificant
Provinces into a higher position in the eyes of
America and of perpetuating those institutions
which are essential to our happiness and prosperity. Â Â Â
I shall refer, before I close, to a few remarks
which the hon. member has made in another place.
He has taken a liberty with this house, and
proclaimed to the people that there are traitors
within its walls—that there are men who have
treasonable designs upon the rights and liberties of the country._ He would hold up
gentlemen to the execration of the people by one one inflammatoty publication after
the other. I am
now going to make a statement which otherwise I would not feel called upon to make.
The
hon. member for Richmond, in the exercie of
his privilieges as an independent member of this
house, put a question across the floor to the
vernment in regard to one of the most impor
204
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
tant subjec's that was ever before the people. I
answered as I best could in the position in
which I was placed. I listened to the hon.
member as he spoke, and although I was unable to agree with him in his opinions respecting
one of my pet children, the Quebec scheme,
I felt there was a cogency of argument, a reasonableness and solidity in the case
as presented
to the house, that could not but make a deep
impression on the people of this country. The
hon member gave in detail every thought and
feeling which he stated has weighed upon his
own mind, and which had brought him to his
conclusions I am not his judge; I know not
what may animate him ; I am quite free to admit that a gentleman may profess one thing
and
may be influenced by considerations very different to those which he portrays to the
house; I can
easily suppose that possible after the exhibition
we have had to day; but justice to the hon.
member for Richmond compels me notwithstanding the strong antagonism that has existed
between us, to say here solemnly and deliberately that if he was influenced by any
consideration other than that he stated boldly to
the House, it was without my knowledge
If he was looking to place—to a position in any
delegation that might take place hereafter, be
has not intimated it to me. I do not know of
it; I am free to assert that he has never ex
changed a single word with me to that effect,
nor has he down to the present hour. I feel
after the manner in which that hon. gentleman
has been assailed, it is due to this House that I
should make this statement. But from whom
does th a charge of treason come? Who is the
first man to suspect dishonesty in his fellow ?
The man who is himself dishonest! Who is
capable of giving the fullest rein to the basest
suspicions? The man whose own heart tells
him that he could be tempted ! Whoever there
is in this House in a position to accuse any of
his fellow men of being a traitor, it is not the
hon. member for East Halifax. I tell him at
this moment the public sentiment of this town.
as well as of this House, is outraged by the
traitorous declaration made by that hon. member in the open streets in the presence
——
Dr TUPPER—Was it a violation of the orders
of this House when the hon. member rose here
to day and insinuated that the hon. member for
Richmond had been bribed?
Mr. ANNAND—I never said on the floors of
this House that an hon member had been the
subject of a base bribe.
Dr. TUPPER--Nobody could put any other
interpretation on the statement he made. I say
if there is an hon. member in this House who
is not in a position to charge any man with disloyalty, it is the hon member. I tell
him more;
he is known to have reflected the opinions ot
other gentlemen—to be in close alliance with
those who have occupied positions of public
trust—who have recently returned from the
United States; and the most intelligent minds
in this country are deeply excited at the present
moment by the fact that these persons have
openly declared that it is impossible for Great
Britain to defend us. They feel that if they can
indoctrinate the public mind with the sentiment that the safety of these Provinces
lies in
transferring their allegiance to the United
States, the loyalty of our people will be paralyzed
by despair. Is it for these men, for a Press
which reflects their opinions, to accuse any hon.
member of being a traitor? Sir the loyal
spirit of my countrymen will repel such base
and unmanly fears, and united with each other
find a safe position tor these Provinces under
the aegis of the British Crown.
Mr. ANNAND—After the lengthy reply of the
hon. Provincial Secretary, in which he exhibited a good deal of temper unprovoked
on my
past, it will be necessary for me to make a few
remarks That hon. gentleman has referred to
an orginzation in this city with traitorous intent.
Dr. TUPPER—I said no such thing; I referred to traitorous language being used on the
streets.Â
Mr. ANNAND—Gentlemen, he said, of high
position were endeavoring to weaken the allegiance of this people to the mother country.
I
ask the hon. member in view of the dangers
that he says threatens the country—in the
presence of the existing emergency when men
of all parties, in all parts of the country are
arming to resist the common fee, if it is right
for him to come forward to make these rash
statements. The people have become so exasperated at the idea of their privileges
being
swept away, that they are almost ready to come
into conflict with those who would deprive them
of their rights. Is this,.then, the time. to excite
the people, when you require moderation and
calmness? The hon member says that the
town has been excited by observations made on
the street In the first place, I did not believe
that any hon. member, much less the hon. Provincial Secretary, could allow himself
for a single moment to bring up street rumours to this
house. But what are the facts? An old and
esteemed friend of my own—who differs from
me on this question—met me at the corner of
the street, and a good deal excited uttered some
very extravagant opinions—that the people
should be coerced into Confederation; and I, in
the spirit of out-Heroding Herod uttered expressions that may be construed into disloyalty,
but
which passed away with the moment they were
uttered. I say the expression was a hasty one
—it was drawn forth by equally hasty expressions; and I may add I regret that it was
ever
made.Â
The hon gentleman referred to the inconsistency of my position. He charged me with
being a weather cock. I am prepared to say
that in the presence of this great question my
own views, like those at manv others,' have
considerably modified The views that
l entertain today may be modified as these of
the Provincial Secretary himself to-morrow,
before any decision on his question is arrived
at But I challenge him. in the presence of
his House and country. to read from any resolu
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
205
tion passed in the House under a former Government, or from any despatch emanating
from the late Government, of which I was a
member, that commits me to Union with
Canada I might refer to these papers, but I
shall content myself at present with challenging.
the hon. member to show that there was a
member on either side of the House who was
committed to any particular scheme of Union.
Legislative or Federal, by the resolution to
which he referred. What was the object of the
resolution at that time? It proposed a delega
tion should be held with representativeas of the
several provinces to consider the question with
a view of its being set at rest. It was considered, but so little noticed was it by
the delegates
at Quebec that a record was not even kept of
the proceedings relative thereto. It was set
at rest—no one being bound by any resolution.
The hon. gentleman has carried us to New
Brunswick and talked of the change of sentiment in that colony. I have to learn that
the
people of that province are in favour of Confederation—or that they are prepared to
unite
on any terms with Canada. I believe that
they are not. My vîew of the position is this—
that the Government being composed of antagonistic elements does not unite .the confidence
of the people; but as respects the Quebec
scheme the people, I believe are as much opposed to it as ever before  But let us
pass from
New Brunswick to our own Province, and
what do we see. What have we had in
thîs country since the question came up, We
have had three elections! Has any one of them
decided in favour of Confederation  of the
Quebec or any other scheme! 1 sees before me
the hon member for Annapolis (Mr. Ray) who
occupies the seat filled by the late leader of the
Government, was he returned to go for the
scheme? Nay, was he not elected to oppose it! Â
Again, there is my friend Mr.Hebb, from Lunenburg who in spite of the Provlncial Secretary's
exertions, was returned by a two-third
majority against Confederation. Again : in the
county of Yarmouth' the government could not
get a man to run for them—the feeling there in
almost unanimous against Confederation. Every
constituency that has been opened since the
Quebec scheme' was propounded, has decided
against it, and with the full knowledge that
nine tenths of the electors of this Province are
opposed to Union, we are invited to change the
constitution of the country without an appeal to
the people. I am unwilling to easusmn that we
may be compelled by circumstances to accept
some scheme of union, and my object in such
an event is not so thwart any reasonable wishes
that Her Majesty's Government may have on
the subject, but to point out the best mode of
arriving at a result that will be less objectiona
ble to the people of this Provlnce than the Quebec scheme. But this is not the time;
the
question is not sufficiently understood, and the
people are not prepared for its acceptance. Â Â
The hon. member has referred to the Inter-
colonial Railway. I have under my hand the
speeches made by the Canadian ministers last
year in discussing this question. Do we not all
know that whilst Nova Scotia and New Brunswick desired the Intercolonial Railway.
and were
ready to fulfil their part of the obligation,
the Canadians on two occasions shipwrecked the great scheme. These gentlemen would
now give us an Intercoionial Railway, provided
that they can couple it with Confederation?
Does it follow that a union of the Provinces is Â
necessary before the Railway can be built!
We know it is not. Â
We know that the sense of the people is
against all union with Canada. We all know
the character of the public men that have been
dominant in that country for very many years.
We know that the money of the country has
been corruptly squaudered by hundreds of '
thousands—that, they have proved themselves
unworthy of all confidence by their action in
respect to the lntercolonial Railway. The hon.
gentlemen talks about traitors, but let me turn
your attention to the character of some of his
Canadian friends, members of the government
in that province. We find one of the leading
spirits an expatriated rebel; another, the Attorney General, had been found in rebellion
with
arms in his hands; the Minister of Finance was
at one time openly charged with Annexation.
proclivities ; and another gentlemen is said to
be looking towards W ashington. And these are
the loyal men who are to govern this country
in the event of Confederation! With the representation this Province will have, with
the
tremendous influence that the Canadians will
exercise—I would just as soon go into the British Parliament with only two Representatives.
There the people of Nova Scotia might expect
to obtain some justice, for their representatives
would be speaking to a body of noble men, animated by a high sense of honor and justice;
while at Ottawa you would be speaking to corrupt men, some of whose arms have. it
is said,
been plunged up to their elbows in the public
chest.
'The hon member said that both sides of this
house were represented at the Quebec Convention.. I think. differently. The Liberal
and
Conservative sides were represented; but not
the two great parties which on this great question divide the people of this country.
My desire is, in the event of a new Convention. not to
see this house represented as to its political proclovities, but in respect to the
position of the
question of Confederation in this province. Will
the "able statesmen" of British North America say that this question is not now better
understood than when they met at Quebec! Â Will they say that their ability
is so great that they were able in
.the midst of exhaustive festivities, to have a
perfect constitution for these Provinces? They
might give themselves that credit, but the people of this country do not. This question
should
not be dealt with hastily. There is no necessity why his scheme should be forced upon
the people; if it is to come, let it come Â
quietly; let the public mind be educated up to
it; but if you do not wish to make this country
206 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
a second Ireland, to bring these Provinces into
inextricable troubles, do not force Union upon
them. I believe the people might be educated
to accept a scheme of Union at it was just. I
believe, influenced by a desire to meet the
wishes of the {British government, they are
ready to make large sacrifices ; but to force the
measure upon them without their consent would
be a grave; and fatal mistake. It would be
fatal to the success of that Union which gentle
mon are so anxious to bring about. We know
how the Irish Union was accomplished; but I
trust no such influences will prevail in this
country I can suppose a majority of this
House prepared to accept a Union, but unless
they have the people behind them, any measure
they might pass would not be worth the paper
on which it was written. You must carry with
you the-sentiment of the people. Even if you
are entirely wrong on the question you should
defer to their prejudice and give them time to
consider the subject calmly and deliberately, but
not to force it upon them at all hazards..
Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL --I am curious to
know why the hon. member has occupied so
much time to-day. Why should he wish to
define his position ?'
Mr. ANNAND—The hon. member for Inver—
ness made especial reference to me the other
day.
Hon. ATTORNEY GENERAL—Why could not
the hon gentleman wait until the question came
up legitimately? Why all this anxiety on his
part? If I know anything about th hon member his position was defined before or it
remained
undefined now. He did not utter a single new
idea that 1 have not seen in his own paper time
and again. Â I cannot understand his course unless he feels that his position is untenable;
I
will only say at present that it looks to me very
much as if the hon. gentleman all along had
this object in view only wait says he, until,
three or four of us who have been opposing
Union can be convinced by some means or other, then we are all right. That is the
substance
of the hon. member's remarks. If two or threeÂ
gentlemen could only be induced to assist the
friends of Union, then there will be no difficulty about a reference to the people.Â
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. C.J. CAMPBELL moved the second read- Â Â Â
ing of the bill in reference to Church property, Â
but consented to withdraw the motion for the present at the urgent request of Mr.
Archibald, who wished to wait the presence of Mr. Blanchard.
Mr. LONGLEY presented a petition in favor of  Â
assessment for the support of schools. Â Â
Mr. ANNAND presented a petition on the Â
subject of Way Office.
Hon. Mr.SHANNON brought in a bill to amend    Â
the Act to incorporate the Governors of Kings' Â Â Â Â
College, Windsor.
The house then adjourned.
This individual participated in:
