228 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
FRIDAY, April 13.
The House met at 3 o'clock.
Mr ANNAND presented four petitions from
Wallace against Confederation.
HON. ATTY. GENERAL presented a petition
from Antigonish in favor of assessment for
schools.
UNION OF THE COLONIES.
The adjourned debate was resumed.
Mr. ANNAND said:—In rising to address the
House on a question for transcending in magnitude any measure ever submitted for our
consideration If feel I am under no ordinary responsibility. On this occ sion we have
arrayed against
us a large amount of ability from, we suppose, all
the talent of the government combined with that
of the leader of the opposition. Although I desire that some one more able than myself
was
here to put to the members of the House and to
the people of this country the important bearings
of the question, yet I feel that if the gentlemen
who surround me " speak the truth and feel it,"
it will send an echo throught the Province, and if
there should be a maj rity in the House in favor
of a transfer of our privileges to a gov rnment to
be organized six or eight hundred miles off, yet
the gentlemen who oppose the bargain will go
down honored to posterity. I feel on this occasion the necessity for more than ordinary
calm
ness—I feel it would ill become me to imitate the
p raicious example set on more than one occasion by the leader of the government.
Have we
not seen that gentleman approaching a question
which involves the dearest rights of the
people, which involves the rights of memberss who sit here, have we not seen
him rising to move a resolution which
will sweep away our constitution, not in
the spirit of a statesman dealing with a large
public question, but in the tone and spirit of an
angry, an excited, aud when this debate concludes, it may be found a disappointed
partizan !
I do not intend to approach the question in that
frame of mind, or to follow him in the intemperate abuse of gentlemen not here to
defend themselves. The mover of the resolution spent an
hour and a half in assailing the Pro e of the
country and those who contribute to and conduct
it. Transferring our thoughts to a wider arena,
can we imagine Mr. Gladstone coming to the
House of Commons and prefacing his Reform
Bill hy a tirade against one of the Organs of
pub ic opinion? Could that statesman co descend to such a course, he would be hissed
out of
the House of Commons. And yet that is the
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
229
way in which this question has been approached
by the Provincial Secretary. Let me at the outset invite the attention of the House
to the state
of this country two years ago. There had been
discussions in past years in reference to Union,
and there had been diversities of opinion, some
being in favor of a Legislative and some in favor
of a Federal Union; but I challenge any gentleman to show me that beyond the more
expression
of abstract opinion in favor of Union, any resolution was ever proposed. The country
was then
peaceful, contented and prosperous ; no one here
thought of changing our constitution for the ake
of connection with Canada. Some of us entertained views favorable to a union of the
Maritime
Provinces. But no one dreamed of giving up our
present institutions and accepting a subordinate
status in another country. l then ask, How does
this question of Confederation arise? By what
necessity has it been produced? Does it arise
from the necessities of the people or Legislature
of Nova Scotia? Why, sir, we all know that
but for the necessities of Canada, as admitted by
the Provincial Secretary himself and by his colleague in the delegation, that question
would
never have been pressed upon our attention Am
I to understand , as was said elsewhere, that owing
to the Canadian necessities- owing to the fact
that the Government of Canada had come to a
dead lock, there being three changes of adminis
tration in three years, and Parliamentary Govern
ment having become impossible, therefore it was
that the people of Canada to rid themselves of
their difficulties, financial and political, cast their
eyes upon these Provinces as affording a means of
escape? We all know what took place in 1864.
A resolution passed authorising the appointment
of delegates to confer on the question of a Maritime Union; those delegates proceeded
to Charlottetown, and there they were met by Canadian
speculators in politics, by whom they were
spirited away to Quebec, and were seduced from
their allegiance to this country and from the mission with which we charged them.
In October,
after a fortnight's debate at Quebec, and amidst
exhaustive festivities, they passed resolutions favorable to a union of the Provinces
of British
America. These gentlemen have said that this
delegation, was authorised by the ministers of the
Crown and by the Governor General, but it had
no authority from us. The debate at Quebec
was conducted in secret, all its deliberations were
carried on with closed doors, and there is good
reason to believe that but for the accidental publication of those resolutions the
scheme might have
been passed at last Session. I was in England
when these negotiations were going on, and did
not return until a few days before the resolutions
were received. My opinion as to the scheme was
asked, my answer was ' I have not yet made up
my mind, but will take time to consider." I did
take time. and having occasion to make a journey of some 20 miles I put the papers
in my
pocket, read them, and when I returned l had
come to the conclusion that the scheme was unjust to this Province, politically and
financially and that I would be recreant to my
responsibility to the country if I gave it my sup
port. We may be told that the proposition for
union was received with acclamation by the people of England, -let any man go to England
today, and although the allusion is somewhat dispelled we hear it said: " the Colonies
should unite
because the time has come when you should
assume the burthen of your own defence " That
sentiment will be found in the despatches from
beginning to end, it was the burthen of Mr.
Cardwell's recent speech at Oxford. With reference to the opinion of the Coloniel
Secretary of
State l would say-when the scheme of union
was sent home for approval it was at
once indorsed, in 1864 the Imperial Government had no policy on the subject,
no desire that we should be confederated,
but on the contrary , the Lieutenant Governors
were restricted to the consideration of a Maritime
Union. I will be told that after the receipt of
despatches from this side of the water the Colonial
Secretary consented to delegates proceeding to
Quebec my argument is that Her Majesty's
Government, until these representations were sent
to the Colonial Office, had no policy in reference
to union. What followed ? In consequence of
strong despatches from the Governor General representing that union was popular in
all the Provinces, under this inspiration and believing that
the thirty-three delegates truly represented the
sentiments of the people Her Majesty's Ministers
committed themselves to the policy of union. I
do not hesitate to say, and in saying it I reveal no
confidential communication, that l had an interview with Mr. Cardwell, in which I
gave him the
independent view taken by these Provinces,—
for the first time that gentleman obtained the
opinions held by the opposition in this House, and
the views I gathered from that interview were of
this effect: " Her Majesty's Government have
committed themselves to the scheme and are
therefore bound, if possible, to carry it out."—
That is the true position of the question at the
Colonial Office Mr. Cardwell committed a grave
error which no British statesman in the Colonial
Office ever committed before in expressing his approbation of a scheme which had never
been
submitted to the ratification of the representatives of the people. We have been told
that the public opinion in England is in favor of
union. Not one in ten of the people of England
know that there are such places as Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and
few have heard even of Canada. The first idea
arising in their minds is that the union will be a
good thing because the union of the three kingdoms was good ; but I met only two men
during
my visit to the Mother Country who did not believe that the scheme before us was a
Legislative
union ; and when I mentioned what it really was
—that we were to have a general government and
then five local Governments, there was not an intelligent man with whom I met that
did not treat
it with contempt. The leading and animating
opinion of the people of England was that the
Union scheme was to take from the Mother
Country a large portion of the burthens with
which she has been charged in reference to our
defence. Among others whom I met, was a very
230
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
worthy gentleman who was Warden of Fishmonger's Hall ; and some will hardly credit
me
when I say that this is one of the wealthiest organisations in London. That gentlemen
was the
Warden when the Prince of Wales dined there,
and it was in that Hall that Mesrs. Galt and
Cartier received their first public dinner in England. The first observation of my
friend the
Warden was. " Mr. Annand, I hope you are in
favor of Confederation." I said that 1 was
not. " What " said he, " not in favor of
Confederation, I imagined that all your people
were so". I then explained the reasons of my
opposition, stating that the Provinces were not
connected, that there were four or five hundred
miles of wilderness without there being any
means of communication. His reply was that
he had seen some observation in a newspaper
and that his opinion was that the Railway ought
to precede the union, and when I mentioned the
many prejudices that existed he said: " this is not
a thing to be hurried, satisfy yourselves that
Confederation is right and build your railroad ".
That was the opinion of this gentleman and I
think it is the real opinion of the people of England. But we are told also that the
Queen, (God
bless Her Majesty ) is in favor of the scheme—
Under our constitution  the Queen can do no
wrong, she is not responsible for a word contained in the speech with which Parliament
is opened
but her ministers are charged with that responsibility. The Queen we may imagine,
has some
thing  to think about than the affairs of
British North America  in her household and the
exercises of domestic virtues. I attach no importance therefore to that argument and
gentlemen opposite must be weak indeed for argument
when they bring Her Majesty's name into the
debate. Her name should not be mentioned
here. Then it is said that the British Government are in favor of Union—I have given
some
of the reasons as stated by the Colonial Secretary.
There are fifty or sixty Colonies to be managed
and if five or six of those in British America
could be knocked into one the labours and
responsibilities of the Colonial office would
be lightened. We have also been told
that the British press are in favor of it, the
press are probably animated by the feelings of the Â
Colonial Secretary , and imagine that the change
instead of being forced upon us in defiance of our
wishes, was desired on our part, but tell intelligent Englishmen that the attempt
to unite us will
be contrary to the wishes of nine-tenths of our
people and the knowledge of this fact would
smash the strongest government in England that
attempted to [illegible] the measure. The press believe we desire the change, that
the scheme was
fair and just, and above all, they  believe the scheme
will lead us to assume a great portion of that
burthen will which the mother country has been
charged in connection with our defence. We are
told that the Governor, the Hero of Kars, is in
favor of it. I do not desire to say anything disrespect[illegible]that highly repectable
and able General, I respecthim as a warrior who stood true to
the causes of his country and felt fully served his
Sovereign, a would undertake to find in the
backwood of Musquodoboit men who understand
the bearings of the questions, and the necessities
of the Province as well as he.
(Upon interruptions being caused by disturbance in the galleries they were cleared
at the
instance of Mr S. Campbell, but were subsequently re-opened.)
Mr. Annand continued :—While, as I have
said, I have the greatest possible respect for
the abilities of the officer presiding over the
government of the country, in his military
capacity, on questions of local politics, and relating to the formation of a new constitution
for these Colonies these are not the men to
whom I would look for instruction. The name
of the General and of the Admiral have also
been improperly introduced into the debate to
give weight and authority to the scheme of
Confederation—these are the proper judges in
time of war, we are ready to follow them in the
field and to fight under their flag upon the sea,
but it is highly indecorous to bring the names
of these functionaries here and least of all,
should the clergy be so prominently referred to
within these walls, we respect them, in the discharge of their duties in connection
with their
flocks, but a clergyman is out of place when
mixed up with the excitement incident to
politics and party strife. Then we have been
told " you have all the religious press of the
country against you." Now, do we go for our
political opinions to such newspapers as these?
These are authorities while they confine themselves to the tenets of the doctrines
which they
uphold, but no longer, and I am authorised
here to state, on behalf of many Presbyterian
clergymen and of many leading Wesleyans and
Baptists, that they repudiate the opinions of
these journals. But if it be true, as has been
represented, that all this combination is on the
side of the Government, I ask how is it that
the great body of the people are arrayed against
them. The reference to these religious bodies
challenges this reply. The Provincial Secretary may quote these distinguished names
and refer to these organs of popular opinion, but how
is it that he dare not at this moment open a sinple constituency in the country? There
have
been three elections since the scheme was propounded, and at every one of these the
Government has been " routed horse, foot and artillery." What do I care for the opinions
to which
be has referred, when I know he dare not open
a single constituency, and that the greatest misfortune that could befall him would
be a vacancy in any of the seats? I therefore hurl back
the allusions he has made. My mind can carry
me back to the time when we were struggling
for responsible government, we asked Her Majesty's Ministers for the concession and
we had
them against us, we had against us the press
of England, Her Majesty's Representative, and
the General here, but we were right, we pressed
for the rights and privileges of a free people,
and achieved the system that we now enjoy.—
Therefore away with the arguments drawn
from the opinions of the Admiral, and General,
and Governor,—their feeling is to obey the
Imperial authorities, and their opinions may
be expected to be moulded by their government. We have been referred to the despatch
of the 24th June 1865, in which it is said:—
" Such an union seems to Her Majesty's Government to recommend itself to the Provinces
on many grounds of moral and material ad
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
231
vantages—as giving a well founded prospect
of improved administration and increased
prosperity."
What. are the matters tending to the prosperity of the country? The improvement of
trade and commerce, a large market for the
produce of the country. And can it be said
that Confederation will increase our market?
Will anyone say that we will buy a barrel of
flour more from Canada unless a discriminating duty is imposed? Will Canada buy
any more fish or coal under Confederation?
Can it be said that our productions will be allowed to enter Canada upon terms more
favorable than those imposed on American articles?
I do not give the Canadians credit for so much
love for us. We may have free trade between
the Provinces without a political union. lt
can be effected through our various governments. Would any one hazard a statement
of
the reverse in the face of the evidence upon our
journals? I have entertained some doubts as
to whether free trade in manufactures is at
present desirable. There are manufactures
growing up here which are now so weak as to
require legislative aid; and to bring them into
competition with the more a vanced manufactures of Canada would be to ruin those who
have embarked their capital in such enterprises among us; but if it should prove desirable
I would throw no obstacle in the way.
Then, is it necessary to have the Union to as
similate our currencies? No one will hazard
such a statement. The effort has never been
made; and until it fails, I will not admit
the argument drawn in favor of a political
union. It would be impossible to assimilate
our currencies with that of the United States,
and with the States we have a hundred commercial transactions for one with Canada—
Then comes the question of postage. Our postal system is now nearly the same, the
only difference being, that while in Nova Scotia newspapers pass free, in Canada there
is a tax
which impedes circulation. The question of
the usury laws has been brought here for discussion, but I would suggest that if we
are to
have Confederation we need not discuss the
subject,—in Canada the rate of interest is much
higher than with us, in some instances as high
as from eight to nine per cent. Then there is
the question of the tariffs, there may be no great
difficulty on this subject if Canada is willing to
suffer such a lo s of revenue as would arise
from striking off her twenty per cent duties.—
In that case there could be no difficulty in assimilating our tariffs, and this it
will be remembered was one of the conditions in the arrangements of 1862. Much has
been said about
the Intercolonial Railway,—-this has been the
grand lever used to operate on the people. We
are told that we can have no railway unless we
confederate, but looking at the necessities of
Canada—at the position she would be in if difficulties arose, ice-locked for six months
in the
year, we find how essential it is to her independence. While these are the facts so
little loyal
sentiment is there among the puhlic men of
Canada that they will not make the effort to
secure that road, but will run the risk of severance from the British Emplre while
using it as
a lever to bring about Confederation. Then
comes the question of defence— we are told we
cannot defend ourselves unless Confederated.
I admit the potency of the argument in refer
ence to the Intercolonial Railway as a means
of defence, and I believe that that road will be
exceedingly useful in time of war, but it might
be cut in two or three places in the event of
hostilities. Any one reading the history of Â
Sherman's campaign knows how easy it is to
cut a railway, and how easily these Provinces
could be separated.
The Pro. Sec. read a speech delivered by me
on a former occasion in reference to the question of defence and I am prepared to
reiterate
the same sentiments to day. My mode would
be this: I would have the people contribute
liberally pound for pound with Canada, or any
other portion of the Empire, for the protection
of our homes, I would pay that amount into
the Imperial treasury and would charge the
Imperial government with the defence. I
would be willing to have this levied as a tax
per head or a percentage on our revenue. If
it be true, and I believe it is, that the British
government intend to throw upon Canada. the
expense other fortifications and of her gunboats for the lakes, here will be an enormous
amount that we must pay into the Canadian
exchanges, not. for our defence but: for theirs.
The Prov. Sec. referred on a previous day to
my friend Mr. Howe, and to the opinions that
he uttered in England in advocating the I tercolonial Railway,——tbat gentleman  did
express
strong opinions, but they were not so much on
the subject of the union of the Colonies as in
connection with that railway. Taking advantage of the apprehension existing in connection
with the Trent affair, Messrs. Howe and Tilley
used every argument they could urge. I do
not hold myself responsible for every opinion
expressed upon these matters and I may perhaps admit that Mr. Howe has committed
mistake almost as grave as those of the Provincial Secretary himself. In reference
to the
contribution from the treasury for defence, do
not let me be misunderstood as to the mode in
which the tax should be levied. By the consent of our own Parliament, responsible
to our
own people, we should contribute such an
amount as the country could afford. What do
we require for defence? lt is said that as we
are now situated we cannot march a militia-
man from one Province to another. Then all
that is required in case of an attack is an
authority by which we can ai l each other. Do
we not now see all British America armed to
the teeth and prepared for the conflict without
Confederation? Then there is this difficulty in
the way. When we are confederated the Commander-in-Chief would have his head-quarters
at Ottawa; and we will find that if Canada is
attacked and these Provinces threatened, the
Executive Government at Ottawa will naturally prefer the protection of their own homesteads
to our security, and will withdraw our
men for their defence. What did Ww hear some
of the Canadian statesmen say some time ago?
One of them said, "Look down at the Maritime Provinces; they have 30,000 sailors to
man
our gunboats." Another repeated the remark; Â
but it never occurred to them that we might
also be threatened with attack, and that it
might become necessary to send down some of
the yeomanry of the West in exchange for our
seamen. Th iridea seemed selfish and narrow
and limited only to the defence of their own
country at our expense. It is said that Confederation will make us much more powerful
232
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
for defence. But Confederation does not give
us a man more or a pound more; it adds neither
to the material nor the sinews of war. If I
need refer to any authority on the subject, I
have it under my hand—an authority which
even the Provincial Secretary and the Attorney General will admit to be conclusive.
I
read an ex ract from a leading paper in
Canada, the Toronto Globe, in answer to a correspondent who urged the objection "that
Canada, under Confederation, would be compelled to furnish a quota for the defence
of the
Lower Provinces, whereas they could aid us
none at all, and therefore we should be relatively weakened." The Globe, in reply, said :—
" It so happens. however. that for purposes of defence
we are already Confederated, the Imperial Government being
the centra. power. It is quite true that we could not in
the present state of things be compelled, without the
consent of our Legislature, to send troops to serve in
Nova Scotia; but the home authorities have a most
powerful means of coercion in their hands. They
would tell us at once that if we selfishly refused to aid
them in the concentration of troops at the point where
the Commander—in- Chief judged such concentration to
be most needed for the preservation of the whole of
British North America they would leave us to our
fate." Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
" In fact, we regard the addition of their population as a
clear gain to Canada. New Brunswick might demand
their assistance and ours too—for next to our own
Province she is most open to attack but when the
danger had passed her strength would be thrown in
wherever needed Moreover. the Maritime Provinces,
in consequence of the large proporti n they have of
a seafaring populati n. furnish a most valuable element of defence  hich we do not
possess."
The Prov. Sec. said " if you would only unite
you would be defended by the entire forces of
the Empire." Will he undertake to say that if
we decline to unite we will not be defended hy
Her Majesty's army and navy? Will he
hazard that opinion? No, because he had to
admit that come what would Her Majesty's
Governmcnt could not afford to lose these Provinces. Then away goes the story aboutcasting
us off, and even the leader of the Opposition
said that England was bound to uphold the
Colonies.
There is another view of the question and it
is not the least interesting,—in connection with
finances under confederation as compared
with the present position. I have in my hand
a calculation made from our public documents— from the estimate laid on the table
of
this House at this Session, and I will be pre
pared to show the House, and through the press
the people, the enormous sum we would
sacrifice by Confederation. In the event
of union the taxes known as Customs
duties would be collected and paid into
Ottawa treasury , so with the light duties, our
railroads would become the property of the
General Government, and our revenues would
be derived from the following sources :—
| Casual revenue........................ |
$70,000 |
| Crown lands ............ . |
45,000 |
| Gold mines........................ |
20 000 |
| Hospital Insane................. |
20 000 |
|
$155,000 |
in addition to this there would be the subsidy of 80 cents per head, amounting to
$264000. mak ng in all $419,000. to be appropriated
for the public services of the country. Certain
large services, such as revenue expenses, civil
list, and lighthouses would be tr nsferred.
Accepting the es ima e laid on the table the
other day as correctly representing the actual
requirements of this country for the leading
public services, I assume that the same
amounts will be required under Confederation
as now, and cannot well be performed for less.
Local Expenditure—Estimate 1866
| Agriculture .......................... |
$12 000 |
| Board ststistics...................... |
4000 |
| Criminal prosecutions ................ |
1 600 |
| Coroner inquests .................... |
1 400 |
| Crown lands ......... . . . ......... .. . . . |
18 500 |
| Department mines ...... . . ......... . . . |
17 695 |
| Distressed seamen ........ . ... ........ |
290 |
| Education ................... . |
120 000 |
| Colleges &c ........ |
18 595 |
| Indians ........................................... |
21 200 |
| Immigration........................ . . . |
5 800 |
| Poor's Asylum. . . . ................... |
12 100 |
| Relief .............. . ... . ..... . |
5 010 |
| Roads and bridges.......................... |
274 228 |
| Road compensation .......... . ....... |
200 |
|
$487 518 |
The total cost of these services will be $487518. and I put it to the house can you
afford to
reduce any of them? And if so, where are
you to begin? Then there is another species
of expenditure which refers to the altered
condition of affairs under Confederation; we
have not yet been informed as to the sort of
local government that we are to have,—we
know not whether there will be one or two
branches of the Legislature, or how many
members each will have; but 1 assume
that our Legislative expenses will be $20 000
instead of nearly $50,000, as at presen . We
will require a Prov. Secretary, he may not be
a gentleman of such distinguished talents as
the gentleman before me, because he may be
called to a more exal ed sphere—he may aspire to be Prov. Secretary of the Confederated
Provinces, he may be one of those g vernors Â
who will be sent down to administer our affairs,
cert in it is that all those gentlem n who have
acted as delegates will be spirited away from
us. The expenses of the Prov. Secretary's
office I have put down at $4050. and l have
included in this the cost of the Financial Secretary's department. For our Treasurer
I
have put down $3,100. We will require a
Crown Officer to act as Atty. General, though
I presume we can dispense with the Solicitor
General, and for that officer I have put
down $1,600. Miscellaneous services last year
amounted to $35,044, but I have aimed them
at 10,000, Navigation Securities I have reduced from $80000 to $26,000,-l may be told
that this last will be a charge upon the general
government, but many of our small services
will be entirely lost sight of by that great
government in the extension of her canals, and
in attending to the wants of the Nor h West
territory. For Public works, in reference to the
extension, I have allowed nothing, although
we need extension of the Lunatic Asylum,
-Public works, iucluding Board, maintenance,
Hospital for insane. Penitentiary, &c.., I put
down at $50,600; Printing, $5,000; Packets and
Ferries, throwing ont of consideration the
steamboat service, $11,070. Altogether we
have for Confederation under these services,
$131,420.
| Legislative expences, .............. |
$20 000 |
| Provincial Secretary's Office......... |
4,000 |
| Receiver General..............…........ |
3,100 |
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
233
| Attorney General,.................... |
1 600 |
| Miscellaneous. .. . . . .......... . . .. .. |
10 000 |
| Navigation Securities............. |
26 000 |
| Public Works, ........................ |
50 600 |
| Printing. ............... . ............ |
5 000 |
| Packets and Ferries, .......... . . . . . |
11,070 |
|
$131 410 |
We have, then, for the first class of items a
total of $487,518, and for the second a total
of $131.420—making in all $618,938. Deduct
from this all the revenue to be got this year,
ÂŁ419 l00, and it will leave a balance against
the Province, taking the estimate of the
present year, in round numbers of $200 000.
Do not let the house be mistaken,—this very
year if Confederation existed we would lose
$200.000, as is shown by the estimate laid
upon the table. I put it then to the house, are
you going to throw on the people the burden
of taxing themselves to maintain these works?
Will you enter into a scheme of union that
will take from our treasury $20,000 a year?
And bear this in mind, that while our wants
will go on increasing every year the subsidy
will remain at 80 cents a head according to the
census of 1861 In the event of a war which
would prevent the sale of our coal, our revenue would be $30,000 or $40,000 1ess.
I ask the
gentlemen who went home last year, with
special grants of $10,000 for their counties, how
they are to be provided for when Confederation is accomplished? You must either throw
off the road grant or else deprive the people of
the liberal allowance for education. The Pro.
Secretary on a former occasion charged me
with inconsistency in enunciating here principles contrary to those which I have
placed
upon the journals. I deny ever having committed myself to any scheme of union with
Canada, and I will quote from some of the
journals that he referred to. The resolution
moved in 1801 by Mr. Howe, was as follows;
" Whereas, The subject of a union of the North American Provinces, or of the Maritime
Province of
British American has been from time to time mooted
and discussed to aid the Colonies.
"And Whereas, While many advantages may be
secured by sucha union, either of all these Provinces
or of a portion of them many an' serious obstacles
are presented, which can only be overcome by mutual
consultation of the leading men of the Colonies, and
by free communication with the Imperial Government
"Therefore Resolved, That His Excellency, the
Lieutenant Governor be respectfully requested to put
himself in communication with his Grace the Colonial Secretary and his Excellency
the Governor General, and the Lieutenant Governors of the other
North American provinces. in order to ascertain the
policy of her Majesty's Government and the opinions
of the other colonies with a view to an enlightened
consideration of a question involving the highest interests and union when the
public mind in all the Provinces ought to be set at rest "
Here you have a resolution stating the fact
that a diversity of opinion exists in the Provinces as to union, and that there were
two
kinds of union, one of the Maritime Colonies
and the other including Canada so that the
gentlemen voting for that resolution voted for
the appointment ot Delegates to ascertain
whether the uniou should embrace all the
Colonies or only tha Maritime Provinces.
The resolution suggested an "enlightened
consideration" of the question, and we all
know the result of that consideration, and another object of the delegation of that
period
was to [illegible] Â Â
by the Delegates assembled at Quebec in September, 1862. The chief mission of the
Delegates was in connection with the Intercolonial
Railway. Union was mentioned at the Convention, but only incidentally discussed, no
resolution being moved and no record of the
proceedings being kept So that it merely
amounts to this :—we pass a resolution stating
that there is a diversity of opinion on the subject of Colonial union, which should
be considered and set at rest; but no man in the
House has been committed to any scheme of
union, much less to the Quebec scheme. I am
not, therefore inconsistent in taking my present course, nor is any member who was
then
in the legislature, and I could feel myself at
liberty to vote against any scheme that did
not commend itself to my judgment But. of
all the members of the House, the Prov. Sec'y
is the last who should dare to talk about inconsistency. His whole life has been a
life of
inconsistency, front the first time he took a
seat here. We know how he acted in reference to the construction of railways. What
is
his policy on that subject now ? It is the policy of the gentleman who preceded him.
He
had a policy in reference to retrenchment, by
which $79 000 a year was to be saved; he went
to the country with the cry, and that is the
last we have heard of it, while nearly every
public service has been largely increased under
his administration. The Pro Sec. seems exceedingly sensitive just now; he declares
that
by those shocking appeals from the press we
are disturbing the public mind; why could we
not have been quiet, until the gentlemen accomplishing this measure had been spirited
away to another country. He said, in reference to some remarks which have appeared,
that he would be justified in dealing with me
after another fashion. I understand him to
mean, by that, that he could have brought me
to the bar of the House for these remarks. I
challenge him to shew me his right to do so
even if l wrote the article alluded to; and ĂŹ
challenge him to show anything in the article
to warrant the language he has used. Then
we are told that the press has had the audacity to charge members of this house with
being traitors. Unquestionably the press did so,
but did he ever turn to the meaning of the
word? Webster says a traitor is one who deceives, who betrays his country; and I say,
taking that sense, there are men here who deserve the appellation.
Hon. PROV. SEC.—I think the hon member
is safe in making that assertion.
Mr. ANNAND continued—I hurl back the
charge upon the Prov. Sec., because he is bartering the liberties of the country I
charge
upon him that he is a deœiver, a. betrayer of
his countrv—that he is a traitor. There are
men in this House who, within the last fort-.
night, have corresponded with their considerents, sending them down sheaves of pullout
against Confederation, by which the people implored the House not to pass any measure
on
the subject until it had been referred to them.
There are men in this House who occupied that
position a few days ago, and who today are
found in the rants of those who will pass the
scheme and prevent the people from expressing
their opinion. These men are betraying the
234
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
people. and are acting in diametrical opposition
to their well known sentiments
The Provincial Secretary intimated that there
is one gentleman here who deserves the name
of traitor ; he referred on one occasion to the
apology which I made for using language that
I was sorry for. Any gentleman who has been
betrayed into heated and improper language is
acting an honest and honorable part in acknowledging his error I did that without
hesitation, although the Provincial Secretary did not
state the words to which he alluded; but wh t
did I find in the press ? In a portion of the
press reflecting the views of that gentleman I
saw a most extravagant and distorted account
—a most unwarranted and untruthful version of
what occurred. To put myself right I wrote to
the gentleman to whom the words were used,
and I will let my justification go forth with the
misrepresentation that has been circulated.
(Mr. Annand here read copies of letters from
Mr. B Wier and Mr F. M. McDonald, stating
'that Mr. A.'s remark in reference to a Fenian
attack upon Canada was in reply to an exclamation of Mr Wier )
These, said Mr A , are the naked facts of the
case. I met a worthy friend who is perhaps a
little excitable, and he used exceedingly strong
language to me. I used very strong language
to him in retort, but I remember we left laughing at the extravagant expressions
on both sides
Gentlemen opposite are very sensitive about
remarks made in the press, and if they could,
would probably stifle the press and muzzle
conversations out of doors, but I hold in my
hand the record of language scarcely less forcible than mine, but with this distinction,
that
instead of being uttered in a. moment of excitement in a public street these words
were deliberately placed upon the Journals of the
country, I find here a resolution moved by
hon. Mr. Johnson the leader of the opposition in this house at a time when excitement.
ran high in consequence of the removal of certain magistrates, an extract from which
reads
as follows:
" And this House is of opinion that if such an exercise of executive administration
should be vindicated the most sacred interests of society would be
placed in the power of every corrupt and unscrupulous Government that could command
a subservient
majority in the Legislature, and the people of Nova
Scotia being driven to desire some constitution better
balanced and protected the connection between the
Colony and the Parent State would be weakened and
endangered. Â
I can any more: I recollect, in 1849 when Canada was in rebellion when the Parliament
buildings were burned, when the Governor
General was hunted through the streets, there
was a Journal in this town in the interest of
gentlemen opposite that was so outspoken as
to justify fully the persons who committed
these deeds,, and yet I never heard of any of
them being arraigned here for using disloyal
expressions. We have heard much about loyalty,— what makes loyalty? Is it not the
institutions of a country? Deprive a people of that
which they cherish and every freeman among
them will detest those who do the deed. The
Pro. Sec. made a great complaint about the reference to Canadian gold and talked about
bringing a member to the bar for having published that paragraph. He also more than
insinuated that my friend Mr. Howe had been corrupted by American gold, and by implication
myself also who he said was the mouth-piece
of that gentleman in this house. This is the
paragraph referred to by the Pro. Secretary.
" In the course of the Confederate Debate in the
Canadian Assembly, last winter, the hon George
Brown referred to the large sum that was given for
the purchase of the State of Louisiana, and suggested
that the expenditure of as large or even a larger sum,
in the purchase of the State of the Maritime Provinces, would be a profitable Canadian
investment.
Mr Brown's hint, we have reason to believe, has not
been lost sight of by the Confederates. Canadian
gold, it is said is here, and in sufficient abundance
to overcome the scruples of certain representatives
of the people. The country has a sharp eye on the
House just now, and will duly appreciate the sudden
conversion of members, should any unhappily be
found willing to accept the base bribe,"
I hold under my hand the language of hon.
George Brown to which that paragraph refers and he says:
" He could not understand why we should hesitate
about bringing in a million of people with a great
country and great resources; we might as well hesitate about some petty allowance
of money. There
was no such instance in history he believed ; other nations paid large sums for territory.
Louisiana was
bought tor twenty millions of dollars. What would
we not give for Maine or Michigan or Minnesota,
which it was possible to pay. Others pay large sums
to secure emigrants We spent some $25,000 per annum yet we heard peddling objections
raised now in
a union. to give us nearly a million of people and
vast and rich territories; a few dollars for a few
years ought not to stand in the way."
Does any one need to be told that the meaning of this is that the secret service
money of
Canada, if required might be had? (Cries of
Oh! oh! from government side of house.) Gentlemen need not be so excited, for I tell
them
that 1 had a conversation with Mr. Brown not
very long ago, in which 1 was led to believe
that it I would join the Confederates I might
have had money, and place, and preferment
in Canada as inducements to my supporting
Confederation.
Hon PROV SEC asked that Mr. Annand's
words be taken down as he intended to test their
accuracy by telegraphing to Mr. Brown immediately.
The SPEAKER said he could take down no
words which were not unparliamentary.
Hon PROV. SEC said that he merely desired
that no injustice be done to the hon gentleman
in the representation of his remarks
Mr. ANNAND continued:—My remarks I presume have been already taken down by the
proper officer and it will be unnecessary for me
to repeat them. The Pro. Sec has referred to
the union of Canadas, but l do not wonder that
the scheme was adopted by at two third vote in
the Parliament ot that Colony. We have been
told that we extolled Mr. Smith as " an incorruptable patriot." Whatever Mr Smith's
claims may be on the people of New Brunswick
they appreciate them. and without wishing to
say a word derogatory to the credit of the members oi the learned profession here,
I doubt that
there is one of them who, when the office of
Chief Justice was vacant, and when he was
pressed by friends and foes to take the position,
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
235
would pass it by rather than leave the Legislature when the county needed his services.
Few
men would have made such a sacrifice as that at
which the Provincial Secretary sneers. We
have been asked " what corrupted the Admiral
and the General or the city of Halifax ?" I
made no such charge against any of them. This
city is largely in favour of Confederation, because they believe that they cannot
get the
railway without it. Then we have been told
that we cannot get an expression of opinion
from the country. Sir, I ask why not? It has
been said that the question will be largely mixed
up with others—with the question of education,
the railway, retrenchment, and other subjects,
but I maintain that there is a mode of getting
the opinion of the people—the way in which
their opinion was obtained upon the Municipal
Corporation bill. In that case the vote was taken upon the measure alone, and such
a vote
would settle this question in a single day. It
has been said also that our only object is to upset the Government, but I ask is it
not patent to
every man that if this agitation ceased tomorrow gentlemen opposite would not have
the ghost of a chance of occupying their positions
again. Let them open a single constiuency
and obtain a decision either on this question or
on the general policy of the government, and
that decision will be conclusive. These gentlemen know that their fate is sealed,
and they are
afraid to meet it—for this reason, as much as
for any other has this matter been urged on us
this session. The Prov. Sec. took great liberties with a friend of mine and with me,
for he
counted my name with his as that gentleman's
mouthpiece, in attributing base motives to him.
It is said that when Mr. Howe's salary ceased he
became an agitator from personal motives, but I
happen to know that in taking this step he
is incurring risks which few would run.—
He holds letters from leading men m Eng
land recognizing his claims upon the consideration of the Imperial Government, and
by the patriotic courage he has taken he may have forfeited that consideration I throw
back then the foul insinuation that Mr. Howe has thrown nns- it into the scale because
the indusenments of salary have ceased. The Pro Sec spoke about "button holing" and
" sapping loyalty' in the same connection and this loads me in imagine another scene:
I imagine a mem ber of the House bring sep for by a distinguished and bring addressed
int his isn guing :— my dear sir if you will only move a resolution in the Assembly
asking the House to affi h- policy of union and leaving the details to be gentled
at the Colonial Office your services will be appreciated and recognized by Her Majesty's
Government" I can imagine such an rgenirene and I can imagine the person thus addressed
through a pro-man, wish a ros his fortuanate being thus made, rejecting the proposal.
Yet we are told that we must not speak of corrupt influences. The Pro Sec. cave us
an argument the other day on the anect of an speed to the people, he said it was our
constitutional right to deal with the ques
tion. We may have the abstract right to do so
but I put it to them one and all when we were elected three years ago if members had
told their constituents that they would if elected destroy the constitution of the
country how many of them would have been here? The trust reposed in them was for
a very different purpose, it was that they should transact the public business according
to the well understood wishes of their constituents. The opinions of Merssrs. Howe.
Young and Johnston have been referred to in this connection,—these gentlemen said
that the proposition must be ratified by the legislature as of course it must, but
will any man undertake to say that either of them dreamed of such a change being effected
without an appeal to the people? I have too much confidence in the patriotism of one
and all of them to believe that they ever entertained such an opinion. We have however
pretty good authority for saying that the constitution should not be changed without
submitting the scheme to the people. Mr. Archibald in course of his speech at Temperance
Hall last winter said:
" It is for the people of Nova Scotia to ratify or reject what we have done. It will
not promote their interests—if they believe the result will be injurious and not beneficial,
let them reject it; but it they feel as we have felt that their future prosperity
and happiness are identified with, and inseparable from Union—if the time is now
come for it—let them be equal to the emergency ; let them accept the position which
we believe the progress of events and their own true intrests render necessary for
their future happiness and prosperity.
What did that language mean? Did it refer
to this House or to the people? He knows he
meant the people ol the countrv Mr. Tilley in
addressine an audience at St. John. said :—
" It was not the intention of the Government of
New Brunswick to force the matter up and the people.
It was now bef reihem, and he asked for is a calm and candid consideration. He could
assure them that if there is the least questions as to the opinion of the people upon
it, it shall be submitted to them at the polls"
That was the language of one of the most
enlightened statesmen ot British America,— he
Went to the pPOplt-l people with this question, and went
down gallantly defending his principles Let
me read the opinion of Hon. Mr. Dickey, another of the delegates.
These are surely pretty good authorities. for
here we have three. of those gentleman who are
now pressing the matter on us indorsing the
opinions which we hold I have another quotataion to make on this point from an authority
which the IenflPr leader of the Government will not
venture. to challenge. lt is from the speech of
the. Prov Secretary at Kemville, in reply to a
charge from me that at Windsor he had made
a speech ignoring the people where he denied
that. he ever entertained such an opinion, and
said he recognized their full right in relation to
the question ; and yet we find him to-day bringing forward stale arguments about the
abstract
non: right of this House to deal with the constitution.
"If the people;s representatives are satisfied that the country is oppoed to this
Union they can yet reject it or they can obtain a dissolution by asking for it.
No Government could prevent it. What w
236
 DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
wish is, to submit the broad question on broad
grounds and leave its decision to the independent
notion of the Legislature. No more groundless statement could be made than that there
would be an attempt made to force this scheme upon the people ln
the discharge of my public duty I have felt bound to
go wherever l would and submit myself to the criticism of every man—to give all the
information in my
power—ready to submit as a member of tho Government and as a public man of Nova Scotia.
to what
1 believe to be the great fountain of authority—that
is the clearly understood wishes of the people I am
quite certain that under the present Government and
Parliament no measure will be ever passed that will
be contrary to the public sentiment of the country."
Here then, you have the recorded opinions of
the Delelegates themselves, recognizng the
right of the people to be consulted before such a
radical change in the constitution of our coun
try. And again, the Provincial Secretary recorded his opinion, and it was a sound
one that
the time of peace and prosperity is the time to
consider a change in our institutions, and not
when we know not at what hour our country
may be invaded and our homes desolated :
" The people sent us together not to consider the
moans of aggresslon on the throne ; but to enquire
how far we could advance our interests in connection
with the parent state. and thev wisely sent us at a
tim-. (mark now!) when we were not convulsed by
the throes of civil strife but when we could meet in the
midst of pence and prosperity to consider the means of
securing our privileges."
The House of Lords the other day refused to
consider the state of affairs in Ireland because
that country was in danger of civil war, and we
have the authority upon this point of Earl Russell, who, at the time of the Crimean
war abandoned his Reform Bill, and allowed it to slum
ber until now. These are the examples of the
mother country. and they should challenge our
admiration and respect. How can you ask the
men of Shelburne and Yarmouth, knowing the
strong opinions they hold, to rally with true
enthusiasm and earnestness in defence of the
country, when their most valued institutions
are being swept away ? The government in
taking this course. assume a fearful responsibility.
Members may take this step but they will do an
act bearing no example in the history of modern times, and they will leave behind
them a
riven and distracted country If they borrowed
lessons from the past, and looked at what has
occurred in other countries. they would pause
before they consummate the unholy deed. It
is a serious thing to deprive a people of all the
institutions they hold dear, and I trust that
whatever the government mav do in the matter— whatever the delegates to Quebec and
their
friends may do. I trust there will be found in
this House a sufficient body of men. knowing as
they must that nine-tenths of their constituents
are opposed to the scheme, to stand by the rights
of the country
Mr. MILLER said :—I feel it a duty I owe to
a gentleman occupying a high position in British America who is not here to defend
himself to give the version of the conversation
referred to by Mr. Annand, as he stated it to
me just after it took place. I do not desire to
misrepresent the hon. member for East Halifax in a single word, and if, in what I
am about
to say, I make a mistake, it will be an error of
memory and nothing more. On the occasion
of Mr. Brown's visit to this city, Mr. Annand
and myself were requested to call and see him.
Being very busy at the time I was not able to
have that pleasure, and I could do no more
than leave a card for him a short time before his departure from the city. The hon.
gentleman did see him, and had, as he afterwards informed me, a long conversation
with
Mr. Brown. He (Mr. Annand) afterwards
told me that they took up the question of Confederation, and that he beat Mr. Brown
on
every point of the argument He informed me
that Mr. Brown having been beaten on the argument of Confederation, and the mode of
convincing him had used language something
like this: "You and I have been personal
friends, we have long acted together, and it is
too bad that at this poriod I should be obliged
to throw myself into the hands of our opponents to carry this measure; the liberal
party
to which we both belong are going to rule, if
the provinces are united." These remarks
having no effect, he (Mr. Annand) told me that
Mr. Brown then said that. " the Maritime Provinces, during the present. winter, failed
to do
anything to meet the views of the British Government on this question, Canada would
seek some other mode of settling her difficulties, and leave the Maritime Provinces
to their
fate. At the conclusion of the conversation I
understood the member for East Halifax to say
that Mr. Brown used this language: " Annand,
you should not oppose union ; you have nothing to fear; a man of your ability would
always have his proper position under Confederation." I will not deny that Mr. Annand
remarked that he thought Mr Brown's language
held out an improper inducement to influence
his action, but the words money, place or preferment were never mentioned by Mr. Annand
to me, as I feel confident they would have
been if they had been used. He would have
been too glad to reveal anything of the kind to
me if it were true. This was the extent of the
conversation as the member for East. Halifax
detailed it to me. Mr Brown first arguing
the question of Confederation, then appealing
to Mr. Annand's party feelings, and then using
the words l have already given. Whether the
inference which he has drawn from these expressions is a legitimate one, and whether
he
did or did not colour the facts in relating them
to me, l am not prepared to say. But I will
say the hon. member was disposed to make
the most of Mr. Brown's remarks in his conversation with me. l feel bound to give
this
contradiction to the hon. member, in justice to
an absent man.
Mr. ANNAND—It is unnecessary to say any
thing more than that the hon. member has not
stated correctly what l reported as having
passed.
Hon. PROV. SEC. said he had to request, in
accordance with a well known rule nt Parliament, that the hon member for East Halifax
lay upon the table the letters which he read as
a portion of his speech.
Mr. ANNAND contended that there was no
such rule of Parliament, and that the chair
had previously decided against such a demand.
The SPEAKER reserved his decision.
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
237
Hon. ATTY. GEN. gave notice that he would
move a resolution compelling Mr. Annand to
lay the [illegible] on the table.
The house then adjourned to the following
day at 3 o'clock.
This individual participated in:
