Mr BOURINOT introduced a bill to incorporate
the Myra Bay Harbor Company.
Also, two petitions against Confederation.
Mr PRYOR reported favorably on a number of
bills from the committee on private and local
bills, and unfavorably of the bill relative to the
siection of a lock-up at Waverly these objections
being already provided for by existing statutes
SPEECH OF MR. LOCKE.
Mr. LOCKE said :—It was correctly remarked
the other day that the opponents of Confederation are in an unfortunate position in
having
nine lawyers and a doctor worth three more,
opposed to us, We cannot be expected to
exhibit the same ability that will be displayed.
upon the other side, but we stand here backed
by the strong opinions of our constituents.—
Those opinions we believe to be correct and
sound, and we feel that the principles which
we maintain are correct. This is a question of
the deepest moment to the country, we are
bartering away our rights and privileges if we
hand over this fine Province of ours to Canada
and I feel disposed to say,
" Breathes there a man with soul so dead.
Who never to himself hath said.
This is my own my native land."
In adopting this scheme we are giving our
country to Canada to be swallowed up with
grand schemes and projects of aggrandisement,
to a colony notedly disloyal Coming as I do
from a county whose inhabitants have come
from loyalist stock, a country settled by men
who have sacrificed their best interests for the
sake of British connection, I feel at liberty to
express my opinion freely and without fear of
the charge of disloyalty. The question of Confederation has been before the country
now for
two years. and its aspect has recently been
materially changed. What brought. about this
change? We saw gentlemen on both sides of
the House last Session exceedingly hostile to
the scheme, but a. change has come over the
spirit of their dreams. We had the hon. member for Richmond advocating one side of
the
question with all the eloquence at his command, we had the member for Inverness, Mr.
McDonnell, taking the same side with the
242
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
some ability, and all at once these gentlemen
rise and propose that another scheme be resorted to and state that circumstances lead
to the belief that a better scheme can be procured. I ask, then, " what has brought
about this
change? The Prov. Secretary spoke of influences, had we not every reason to suppose
that
influences were at work? What these influences were it was not our business to enquire,
but the suddenness of the change shewd that
there were such and that they were of a strong
kind. Three months ago these gentlemen were
denouncing the Quebec scheme and now they
come forward and advocate a new delegation,
although we know to a certainty that the new
scheme will be the Quebec scheme; there may
be slight variations, but in the main and substantial particulars it will be the same.
Loyalty to the Crown, it has been said, requires
that we should Confederate, because the Lieut.
Governor has been sent here expressly to carry
the measure out. No remarks in reference to
that officer will be constructed, I suppose, into
disloyalty to the Queen, and when the Prov.
Secretary spoke about the scheme being urged
upon us by such impressiveness as Royal lips
alone could evince, and by his mention of the
appointment of Sir W. F. Williams to carry it
out he invited comment. If it be declared to
be disloyal to refer to the action of the Governor I will ask the House to let me
refer to 1861
when an election was being run in Victoria
County. In the Prov. Secretary's own organ I
find this language; and although I quote from
a paper that was particularly under his direction, and the very style. cannot he mistaken,
as
he used the same or nearly the same words on
the floor of the House :—
"Taking into account the position of the Government and the unscrupulous means resorted
to by them we can scarcely imagine the possibility of Mr. Campbell being elected.
lt is
now understood that Lord Mulgrave made it
an express condition with the usurpers that
Mr. Campbell must he unseated and Victoria
carried or he would he compelled in his own
defence to dissolve the Assembly." And further on he says: " Mr. Hugh Munroe was allowed
by Lord Mulgrave to abandon the important duties of his office as Chairman of the
Board of Works and head of the Lunatic Asylum, in order to take part in an election
struggle, contrary to the spirit of the law and policy
of the legislature who had removed that officer
from politics. The Governor and Government
having thus combined against the liberties of
the people and determined to obtain a supporter from Victoria, it is not to be supposed
that
any means would he left untried." He ends
by saying: " If there be any man in Nova Scotia who doubts the completely partizan
character of the Lieut. Governor let him ponder upon
these two recent outrages for which Lord Mulgrave is directly responsible. Sending
the
Chairman of the Board of Works and the
Sheriffs of other Counties to add the Government in the Victoria Election." In another
issue of the paper he says: "That the Chairman
of the Board of Works, who could not leave
the important duties of his office without the
leave of Lord Mulgrave, was immediately despatched with 400 a year of the people's
money
in his pocket to aid the Queen's Printer who
carried the bag in the Cumberland Election in
corrupting and intimidating the Electors of
Victoria. We venture to assert that the history of the Colonies will be perused in
vain to
discover such daring innovations of the liberties of the people by any Governor. Does
Lord Mulgrave think the free spirit of Nova
Scotians is to be trampled out by means so
ingiolous and corrupt ?"
If that is not treasonable language to be used
towards a Governor, then nothing that has been
said in this debate can be considered so. Mr.
Cardwell has taken strong ground us we believe
against the interests of this country, and in delegating a Governor expressly
to carry out the
scheme of Confederation, we have every right to
believe that Her Majesty's Government are working against our interest . There
is no thing disloyal in that statement, because it is well understood the Queen can
do no wrong, her Ministers
being responsible. I may say that it is because I
believe that this scheme of annexation to Canada
will drive us into annexation to the United States
that I oppose it. What are the antecedents of
Canada? One of the gentlemen taking a leading
part in the movement, one who has lectured in
various places in the subject of union, is well
known to have been an Irish rebel. Many of the
leading men of Canada have stood in the same
position, in their conduct during the Canadian
rebellion. These are the people with whom we
are asked to confederate If we yield, their
Orange and Ribbon Societies and other such
principles will circulate amongst us, and we
would become equally disloyal If, then, annexation is to be brought about, would
it not be
better to go in at once to the American Union ?
Because we would thus obtain all the advantages
of a separate State, while if Confederation goes on
probably in a few years more we will have to go
in as a mere County of Canada. It is said that
trade relations are an inducement, but why cannot we obtain them without a political
union?
The moment Canada finds it necessary to have
free trade with this Colony, she will content to
the arrangments being made, it being a sound
principle that trade regulates itself. What will
the position of our credit be if we unite? At this
day our bonds stand higher in the market than
those of Canada. Confederate with Canada, and
let her carry on her canals and other works, and
through the means of her large debt and great
expenditure her bonds will go down and ours
with them, we being a part and portion of the
country. By a political union we must be absorbed and swallowed up We will lose our
identity and be subject to their will. It is well
known that Nova Scotia stood by the Crown
during the American rebellion. Nova Scotia was
loyal then and is now, and by uniting herself to
such a country as Canada she will gain nothing.
We have enjoyed a Parliament of our own for a
hundred years, with all the privileges that a free
people could ask ; we have gone on progressing,
and after obtaining responsible Government
we have become so free that we require nothing more in the way of independence. What
will the people say to this Parliament being
taken from them? We may be told that the
[OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY. 243
local legislatures will remain but who can tell
us anything of their formation? I presume that
nothing that we can urge will prevent the
adoption of the scheme but I contend that it
would be unfair for the British governement to
adopt such a measure without he sanction of
our people. In connection with this subject I
will quote from the London Review of March
17th: —
THE RECALL OF SIR CHARLES DARLING.—
Mr. Cardwell has found it necessary to recall
Sir Charles Darling, the Govornor of the colony of Victoria, and we think it will
be generally admitted that he has not taken this step on
insufficient grounds. It will be in the recol
lection of our readers that the two branches of
the Legislature of the colony came into conflict
upon the financial schemes of the Government
for the time being. The Lower House passed.
the Upper House it was known would reject,
the budget. In order to surmount this difficulty, the Appropriation Bill was tacked
to the
Bill imposing new customs duties. The Legislative Council was thus presented with
the al
ternative of submitting to the dictation of the
House of Assembly, or of leaving the Government without any legal power to levy taxes
or
to defray expenses; but, eventually, they chose
the latter course, as they had a perfect right to
do. Pressed by the difficulties of their situation, the Colonial Ministry, thereupon,
resorted
to more than one irregular and illegal means of
raising the wind. It was clearly the duty of
Sir Charles Darling, as the representative of
the Queen, to refuse his sanction to acts of such
a character. But he not only gave his cordial
and earnest support to the politicians who
were violating the Constitution, he did something even still more objectionable. Commenting
on a despatch to the Colonial Secretary upon an address from the Legislative Council,
he
took it upon himself to express a hope that the
gentlemen who had signed it would never be
designated for the position of confidential advisers to the Crown, because it is "impossible
that their advice could be received with any
other feelings than those of doubt and distrust."
When a Governor thus converts himself into a
partisan, and descends from his constitutional
eminence as the representative of the Crown,
to participate in the party conflicts of the colony
placed under his rule. it is clear that he can no
longer discharge his delicate and dignified duties with success. His usefulness is
at an end,
and nothing remains but to replace him by
some one who can maintain with greater firmness a position of impartiality, and can
hold
himself aloof with greater self-command from
the excited passions which it is his duty to moderate. ln a despatch of stinging but
well-
merited rebuke. Mr. Cardwell has insisted upon these obvious considerations, and has
relieved sir Charles Darling from the further exer.
cise, of functions which he has so grievously
abused.—London Review, March 17.
The cases it may be said are not exactly
similar because that governor went into opposition to the legislature of the Colony
but our
Lieut Governor knows from the petitions that
have been presented that the feeling of the
country is against the scheme, and that if
members would but rise and express the views
of their constituents they would be found in
opposition to the measure. Mr. Cardwell
should surely stay his hand before giving his
assistance to the completion of the union under
these circumstances. I will now read from the
New York Albion a paper well known to be
thoroughly [?] though published on this side
of the Atlantic:—
REMOVAL OF A COLONIAL GOVERNOR—
Careless observers of the working of British
institutions have been in the habit of assuming
that the Imperial Government desired above
all things to maintain its own supremacy in
remote settlements, and that it is always disposed to back up its own local representative.
These erroneous imprchions may perhaps
have been partially disturbed by the strange
spectacle lately patent in Jamaica; and they
will receive another rude shock in the news
that has just reached us from Downing Street.
Mr. Cardwell, the Colonial Secretary, has advised the Queen to recall Sir Charles
Darling,
some time Governor of the Colony of Victoria.
The circumstances of the quarrel that arose
between the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council, in which quarrel Sir Charles
interfered injudiciously, or illegally, or both,
are detailed in extracts from London papers
cited above. We have only to add that Mr.
Cardwell's despatch, displacing the Governor,
most emphatically insists upon the determination of the Colonial Office at home to
leave
the Colonists to manage their own affairs, and
points out most cogently the great blunder of
the Governor in identifying himself irretrievably with any political parties. The
despatch,
we doubt not, will cause a flutter among the
occupants of high places. For us, it has but a
partial interest; because we knew well beforehand that British statesmen, one and
all, have
long since abandoned the idea of ruling freemen by edicts from home. If Jamaica be
under the present melancholy state of things,
an exception to this rule, it is because the free
Blacks have shown themselves unworthy of
free Government.
When the Lieut. Governor ventures to carry
out any scheme of union in opposition to the
wishes of the people he identifies himself improperly with a party. This House is
elected
to legislate according to the well understood
wishes of the people, and this particular
scheme, changing the constitution, it was
never empowered to carry out. In adopting
the scheme we do not carry out those wishes
and if the people, had the opportunity of
expressing their views they would return such
a majority that twelve members would not be
found to support the scheme. The Prov. Sec.
said that it had been used as an argument on
our side, in other places, that if this scheme
were carried out not one of its supporters
would get a seat at Ottawa. This I think very
probable, but it makes our prospects still more
unfavorable. We have in this House supporting Confederation a set of trained politicians
If these gentlemen went to the hustings, in all
probability they would be rejected, and this
would be a positive loss to the country. You
would then have a new set of men. meeting
more astute statesmen, and the interests of the
country would be insecure. I assure the Prov.
Secretary of these facts for his own interest.;
and while I might consider that he would be
no loss to us, we have men who have heretofore acted with and led us to care for the
true
244
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
interests of the countrv, who would be. Taking the first view of the question which
I took—
that annexation to the United States will follow
annexation to Canada, it will be seen that we
are doing a positive injury to Great Britain by
confederating, because the moment she loses
her Colonies England must become a second or
third rate power. It will be recollected that
the celebrated "Junius" said in one of his
letters, "The feathers which adorn the royal
bird support its flight;" strip it of its plumage
and you fix it to the earth." The moment you
take away the Colonies from Great Britain the
feathers which support her flight are taken
away, and she ceases to be a first rate power.
As loyal men, we should stand by our country
in this emergency. It is not certain that New
Brunswick will fall in with the scheme. A
telegram informs us that a majority of the Assembly will move for the recall of the
Governor and that will postpone Confederation for
sometime. It seems to me that the Government are too hot and too hasty in this matter
Give us time to consider the question. I do
not ask them to dissolve and go to the
country, but I think we should have the
chances of one year more to see if the
people will he indoctrinated into favouring
the measure, not that I expect them to willingly
favor such a union, for I want none, we are
prosperous and happy as we are. I ask the
House not to agree to the proposed delegation.
for we very well know that the delegates wil
come back with the Quebec scheme. Mr. Cardwell having taken a decided stand in its
favor.
I, therefore, call upon the government to stay
their hand and to give the country time to consider what is the best course to pursue.
But if
this new scheme to send a delegation to England to settle terms of union there, should
be
carried in this House, I would demand as a
right of the people of this Province, that after
terms being agreed upon by the British Go
vernment and the delegates, that it should be
referred back to this people for their sanction.
If any other course be pursued, you trifle wĂŻth
the liberties and privileges of a free people in
bartering them away without. giving, them a
voice in the matter, and the consequences, be
what they may, will rest upon the men who
have so acted.
SPEECH OF MR. BLANCHARD.
Mr. BLANCHARD said:—The hon. member
who has just sat. down has very forcibiy expressed the opinion that this is one of
the
greatest questions ever presented for our considerations; and I feel that I approach
it under
no ordinary responsibilities, and with the conviction that I am dealing with the great
interests of the Province of Nova Scotia. We have
been told by that. hon. gentleman that in favor
of Confederation are arrayed the chief legal
talent and nearly all the trained politicians of
the country I consider this a strong argument
in favor of Confederation that the trained politicians of all the Provinces—the men
who are
accustomed to look at great questions and to
judge of them. have deliberately made up their
minds that the scheme of Union is favorable to
the interests of the Province and to our connection with the British Crown. Let us
look
at any of the deliberative assemblies, and
will we not find that when the leading men
adopt any particular view of a question, in nine
hundred and ninty-nine cases out of a thousand
they are right. I might refer to a great variety
of instances in support of this position. In the
history of Pitt it is seen that in some cases Fox,
Burke, and Sheridan, his greatest adversaries,
were found coinciding with him, and history
proves that in all such cases they were right.
I do not think the hon member did justice to
himself in saying that the
trained politicians
were all on one side, for his speech showed an
amount. of eloquence and research seldom exhibited on such occasions. That we have
nine lawyers upon this side of the question is
true; but I claim that we occupy the right position, and one which many of the lay
members of the house will willingly endorse.—
The hon. member for Shelburne also told us
that he represented a people truly loyal, the
descendants of those who sacrificed much for
their principles and for their attachment to the
mother country. Sir, I yield to no man in the
loyalty of myself or of my constituents. I too
am a descendant of a loyalist who sacrificed
as much for his loyalty as any of the men who
came to Shelburne at that time; nineteen-
twentieths of those whom I represent are
Scotchmen, and what race have done and
suffered so much for their country, and where
do you find patriotism if not among them?
It has been said that there are influences at
work in reference to this question. Sir they
have no effect upon me. My friend can say
nothing to me upon that score. My position
has all along been different from that. of those
who actively opposed the measure and who,
I presume, are prepared to give good reasons
for their change of mind. I feel that I am not
called on, nor would it be advisable that I
should go into a discussion of the merits of
the scheme recently submitted to the country
or of its details. That theme has been exhausted, and there will be little effort
on my
part to crush down the opposition to confederation. I do not therefore intend to discuss
the details of the question, but to explain the
position which I occupy, which is very different from that of many gentlemen around
me.
I have felt that the question should be ap
proached with great care I have felt it my
duty as a representative of the people seriously to right it before coming to a conclusion,
and no man can say that, up to this time, I am
bound by any pledges or promises to take any
particular position. We have heard about
"traitors" and "treachery," and "Canadian gold;" I feel it is hardly worth
while for me to contradict the statements upon these subjects as far as I am
concerned. I have not come from a school of
traitors, and the reproach cannot fall upon me.
I regret that I am called upon in connection
with this subject, to differ from some of my
friends, and I regret that personal recriminations, private conversations, have been
introduced into this discussion. This is a matter
which ought to be discussed calmly, and without temper. We live in an age in which
progress is not to be measured as it once was, it is
execedingly rapid at the present day, and men
live more in one year now than they formerly
lived in twenty. Changes are rapidly approaching, and it is now our duty to look them
fairly in the face, and honestly to consider the
probable future. The question before the house
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
245
is, in my opinion, whether we shall unite with
the adjoining colonies or remain disunited,
and involved with the chances of annexation.
Mr. Locke has said that Confederation will
lead to the latter—if he could convince me of
that he would find an opponent of the measure
as determined as any man in this country, but
I support it because I feel and believe, and am
convinced in my heart and conscience that if we
remain as we are the time will soon come
when we will be absorbed into the American
Republic. My hon. friend from Halifax, who
is leading the present opposition, published
that which met my approbation a short time
ago, when he declared that a change was approaching, that something must be done,
that.
this country could not remain as it was, and
that our future must be looked in the face. I
felt and still feel that these were the words of
truth and soberness, and I believe that unless
these Colonies proceed to Confederate we cannot long continue dependencies of the
British
Crown. What. has occurred since last session?
When the friends of the measure stated last year
that they believed that the Reciprocity Treaty
was about to be abrogated we were told that
this was nonsense, that American interests
were too deeply concerned, and that they valued reciprocity as much as we—yet have
we
not seen it come to pass in the teeth of offers,
on the part of our government, such as none
of us would have thought of making a few
years ago, and such as few men in this country
would be disposed to concur in. So determined
were the Americans to abolish that treaty that
not only were the arguments of our delegates
treated with disdain, but afterwards, when a
bill was brought into Senate in connection
with the subject, containing propositions that
would be indignantly refused here, they refused to receive . Why did they refuse such
a
measure introduced by their leading minds,
and approved by Mr. Morrill? What answer
do their leading or ans give to the question?
They tell us that it was because they expect.
soon to be able to annex these Colonies,—that
without free trade with them we cannot. exist,
and that we will soon be glad to seek for admission to the Union. The paid officer
of the
American Government in reporting on this
question broadly put to the government and
Senate that the only alternatives were reciprocity or absorption, and while declaring
that
reciprocity was beneficial to them—yet advised its refusal as favourable to Annexation.
They have refused to renew that treaty influenced by these motives. It has been said
that
the United States have no desire to annex
these Colonies Can we believe such a statement? Look at our fisheries at our mineral
resources, at the extent of our wood lands and
can we imagine that they are not most anxious to possess these Provinces, and especially
Nova Scotia. I feel, therefore, in looking
at the question, and for other reasons not necessary to mention, that without confederation
annexation is before us. The abrogation of
the treaty over its origin to the desire of the
American people to bring us within their borders, and I an firmly and honestly convinced
that it is my duty to say to my constituents
and to the people of Nova Scotia that I am
willing to do anything—to resort to almost. any
measure rather than run the risk of such a
consequence as that. I do not mean to say by
this that the scheme before us will not be very
beneficial to the people of this country. My
own opinions have undergone no change on
this subject, but I have resolved to take this
bold and straightforward stand—to declare that
we should confederate, and that we should do
it
now because I feel that the s ep is demanded by the exigencies which surround us, I
trust in God that I may never live to see the
Stars and Stripes floating over Citadel Hill,—I
trust that before we are annexed I ard my
children shall have gone to the land of the
shades, and that not one of us may be left to
see our country in such a position. We have
been told by the gentleman who preceeded me
that Confederation would weaken the ties
that bind us to the parent state,— but have we
its subordinate officers, and the press of that
not the government of Great Britain and all
country, and among ourselves our best minds,
lay and clerical, urging it on us. Do they look
favourably on the scheme because they believe
it, will weaken the ties that bind us to
them? I was sorry to hear one member say
that the English people would be glad to be
rid of us; I do not believe that such a feeling
exists in Great Britain, nor that with few exceptions there are any men in great Britain
willing or anxious to part with us. The only
real question remaining in my mind is whether an appeal to the people should not have
been had. It was suggested by Mr. Annand
that the people be called on to vote on the
question of Confederation alone, but I cannot
think that he seriously proposed that we should
do what no British country ever did before—
resort. to a
plebiscite on this question.
Mr. BLANCHARD continued:—This reference
is to the vote taken upon the Municipal Corporations' bill, but this was simply as
to the
adoption in each county of a purely local
measure; but did any one ever hear of a question of Colonial policy being so submitted?
That precedent is no parallel to
this case, and I challenge gentlemen who
take that side of the question to lay their hands
upon any case in which a question of this kind
was sent in that wav to the people. If such a
mode is un-British, uncertain, and unreliable,
how are we to adopt it? What are we to
depend on for the decision? We recently took
away from a large portion of tho people the
electoral franchise, are we to send this question
to the electors, or to the whole people, and
under what regulations? We have heard a
good deal about appeals to the people, and I
would like to look back at the history of this
country to shew, as I believe I can, that such
an appeal is not desirable or necessary. What
did we do a few years ago? We passed a bill
by which the franchise was nearly doubled in
the numbers of the persons called on to exercise it; and is not the franchise the
source of
all right and power? Did the opponents of
that measure ask an appeal to the people?
Not at all. Afterwards the suffrage was still
further extended and made almost universal
without a word about appeals to the people.
Not long ago, when Mr. Johnston was in
power he introduced a bill altering to a large
extent, the franchise and re-distributing the
246
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
seats; did his worst opponent say anything
then about an appeal to the people? No, the
whole matter was discussed without such a
question being raised. If, when I quote the
acts of the conservative party, I am met with
the answer from gentlemen on this side that
this is poor authority. I ask did we (the liberal
party) not within a short time, feeling that
the franchise was too extensive, and that the
time had come when the property of the country should be represented by the property
holders pass a bill striking down one-
third, if not one half the electors. There was
no appeal to the people in that case, this house
did not ask it, although it was sought. by a gentleman in the Upper House. Am I not
therefore acting in accordance with the policy of
my party, who maintained that the people
were here present by their representatives?—
Let me come now to another time. Had we
not in 1864 a resolution brought into the legislature, by the leading minds upon both
sides,
for the Union of the Maritime Provinces? Not
to confederate them, but to unite them under
one government and legislature. Was anything said about an appeal to the people then?
No; it was said that the delegates should return, in order that we, the legislature,
might
ratify their arrangements. I ask the house
whether or not, if the legislature of the different. Colonies had accepted a scheme
of
legislative union of the Maritime Provinces, there
would have been on appeal to the people? We
have heard about traitors to the country, and
traitors to the party. We are told that the Liberal party are opposed to the scheme,
and my
position is not at all agreeable to my friends
who sit beside me, or to myself, in separating
from them. I got my liberalism very early: I
drew it with my earliest breath and learned
its principles at the feet of such men as Dr.
McCulloch and Jotham Blanchard; and I
claim to have been as consistent a member of
that party as any one in Nova Scotia, here or
elsewhere What was the watchword of that
party? They have always claimed as their
watchword, Reform and Progress,—and that
this movement is a progressive one, I firmly
believe. This is a measure of progress, and if
opposition was to be expected, we had little
reason to look for it among the Liberals of the
country. I feel that I have not forsaken Liberal principles and that it would be as
hard to do
so as for the "Ethiopian" to change his skin or
the leopard his spots." I feel that I am where I
ought to be and where I wish every liberal in
the country was following our principles to
their legitimate end, going forward and not
adhering to the ol fogy and tory principles of
keeping every thing in the old position without making an advance, and opposing every
change, just because it is change. As I said, I
was brought up a liberal, as I advanced in life
I sustained the leaders of the liberal party.
When I first came into this house, under a good
deal of temptation and trial, I sustained William Young and Joseph Howe in their
principles, and if I am to be told that I am deserting
the party now I reply that I do not feel
ashamed to follow the liberal
par excellence of
British American, the hon. George Brown and
Mr. Tilley of New Brunswick, men who ate
liberals at the heart's core, men who have
long fought. for the principles of their party,
and under their flag and in their ranks I am
not ashamed to stand. Coming home I ask
whether when I am in association with the leader of the opposition in this House and
in the
other, and assisting in carrying forward the
question so long and so often proposed by the
liberal party of this country, I am not where
a liberal should be found. It was not my intention to address the house at length,
and I
will not continue longer. The principles which
I now to maintain are those of the party of progress; we have with us the young men
of Nova
Scotia, who are identified with its future progress—the best and most intelligent
men in all
the provinces, and all who look forward to being not merely Nova Scotians, Canadians,
or
New Brunwickers, but citizens of British
North America, and all who desire to see our
country occupying her true position. With
their assistance these objects must be soon attained.
SPEECH OF THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Hon ATTY GENERAL said :—I have been labouring for some days past under a hoarseness,
which is not at all pleasant, and I do not feel
now in a condition to do justice to the important subject before the House; but as
gentlemen appear indisposed to speak on the subject,
I shall endeavour, without preparation, to give
my thoughts as concisely as is possible. The
question is one of such great magnitude that I
feel I am hardly doing my duty in addressing
the House under the circumstances I have
stated. The present question is one which is
fraught with most fruitful consequences to the
people of this province, as well as of all British
North America. We have thrown upon us a
responsibility by the tide of events which we
must assume, unless we are willing to fail in
the duty we owe to the people. It will be for
gentlemen, looking at the whole position
calmly and dispassionately, to deal with the
question as subjects of our beloved Queen,
anxious to perpetuate the connection with the
British Empire. All considerations of party
politics should be laid aside, and no influences
should prevail, except the desire to arrive at a
conclusion that will benefit the people whose
interests we have in charge. I contend that,
as subjects of the Queen of England, as members of the province of Nova Scotia, we
have
duties now to discharge of a most onerous
character. We have been accustomed from
our childhood to take an interest in the great
country from which we have sprung. We
have drawn from that country the principles
that lie at the foundation of all our institutions. We should look at the present
question,
not merely in the capacity of provincial representatives, but as subjects of the great
empire
of Great Britain. I hold this doctrine, and I
believe it is a patriotic one, that we should
consider in our deliberations that we are acting not only for the advantage of Nova
Scotia
but also in the interests of the great empire on
which the sun in said never to set. I have
listened with some interest to the speech just
delivered by the hon. member for Yarmouth
(Mr. Townsed), and although I must condemn
his disloyal sentiments, yet I feel he is at all
events entitled to some credit for the candor
with which he stated them. I can understand
that hon. member coming forward and proclaiming, to the House and country that the
people of Yarmouth have no loyalty except
what puts money into their pockets. We can
understand that argument against the
union of the Provinces, and need not therefore
be surprised that nine-tenths of the people of
that section are opposed to Confederation.—
We therefore see plainly why the hon. gentleman is opposed to a union of British North
America. We can understand gentlemen who
argue this way, who prefer annexation with
the " Stars and Stripes" to England's " Meteor
flag," but what are we to think of gentlemen
who come forward and say that they are
actuated by very different motives —that they
wish to keep up the connection with the
British Crown; they say they are loyal, but
that if we confederate, we must be eventually
annexed to the United States. That is an
argument which requires some explanation
before it can satisfy those who have studied
the question of union and have come to the
conclusion that a union ol the Provinces is
necessary to the continuance ol their connection with Great Britain, and their only
safety
against annexation.
When the resolution was passed in this
House, providing for a Conference to consider
the question of a union of the Maritime Provinces, we all believed that a union with
Canada was impracticable at that time—that she
would not be moved by an appeal from these
colonies—that any movement on our part would
not influence her. That was the sole reason
why Canada is not included in the resolution
in question. We believed that union of the
Maritime Provinces was alone practicable, and
thatit it would lead to the larger Union. A delegation was sent to Charlottetown,
but before it
took place what was announced in all the news.
papers? What was everywhere known and
understoood? What was the understanding of
every man that went on that delegation? Why,
that the delegates of the Maritimes Provinces
were to meet a delegation from Canada at
Charlottetown in reference to a Union of British North America. Gentlemen, now busily
occupied in opposing union, were aware what
was to take place at that convention. I have
no hesitation in saying that the fact was known
to Mr. Howe, and publicly stated in his presence at the dinner given to the Canadian
gentlemen, but who, in a number of articles, has
been obstructing union for the last eighteen
months—who has called these connected with
the Quebec scheme "traitors"; thereby stigmatizing his own political friends and allies
as
well as those who have been opposed to him in
public life, He has charged them with having
sold and bartered away the rights of the people
of the country, and when a gentleman under
his own hand, makes such charges against
others, he need not be surprised that they are
thrown back against the individual who made
them. That gentleman knew that the Delegates were to meet for the purpose stated.
He
did not wait to he asked to join that delegation, but personally solicited the appointment.
248
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
When he was appointed and found that a man-
of-war was ready to take him to Newfoundland,
and that. he could not go to Prince Edward Island, be expressed his deep regret that
he could
not join us. Believing and expecting that
something would grow out of that meeting, he
wrote to the Government expressing regret
that he could not join the delegation, but that
when he returned in October he would be happy to aid them in any scheme that. might
be arranged. It is not necessary for me to go over
the evidence that he was always in favor of a
union of the Provinces. Whilst conducting a
leading public jounal he advocated it for years;
within these walls be repeatedly referred to
the subject in a manner that was calculated to
bring conviction to the people of this country.
Who does not remember the story he told so
often that. when he arrived in Liverpool a consul from the United States, the bearer
of important despatches, was allowed to go ashore,
whilst he had to remain in the ship. Should a
Colonist, he said, be considered so little entitled
to consideration? Should not the Colonies assume a position that would entitle them
to
more respect among the nations of the world?
I am not going to recapitulate what occurred
at Charlottetown, or enter into any elaborate
exposition: of the necessity and advantages of
union ; it has been throughly discussed in the
press and on the platform, and on the floors of
this House. I have yet, to hear, in this debate,
anything on the subject that has not been often
said before. It is complained that. there are
eleven lawyers in this House in favor of the
scheme; but are not the best minds in the country also supporting it ? I need not
tell gentlemen who are opposing this great measure of
intercolonial progress, and who the "head centre" is. He is well known in this House
and
country; he has been receiving pay from the
Imperial Government for the past two years,
but,opposed to the views of that Government,
has been secretly using every means to thwart
them. and at the same time tried to de ude the
people by a letter that he was not opposing the
measure in any shape. Now that his pay has
ceased, the mask in thrown off, and we find
him openly in antagonism to the measure
which he pretended he had not endeavored to
thwart. He, a servant of the British Government, has been for months past insidiously
la
boring to destroy a scheme that he knew had
secured the approval of that Government, of
the British Parliament and people, and the best
minds in British North America. This is a
free country, and every man is at liberty to
write what he wishes; but there are responsibilities thrown upon some persons in reference
to many public measures that should induce
them to act with great discretion. That discretion has not been observed by Mr. Howe.
He
has forgotten the responsibility that he owes to
the people of this country. He was not called
upon as a public man, for he occupied no position in this country that required his
action.
but he has gone out of his way to oppose this
measure, and to slander and villify members of
this House, on both sides. We are told that.
this is the patriot of Nova Scotia, and that
therefore he is entitled to consideration. Let
us see the position that the hon. gentleman occupies before the people of Nova Scotia,
and
scrutinize his claims to the confidence of the
country. He went to England on a railway
mission, three or four years ago, and entered
into an arrangement. by which the people of
this province would have to pay three and a
half twelfths of the entire cost of the intercolonial Railway, and then came back
and, by the
power of a small majority, whilst an employee
of the British Government, passed an act to
carry it out. Now, when the road is to be
built on most advantageous terms, he is found
opposing a scheme of union without which its
construction must be delayed for years He
went to the county of Lunenburg at the general
election in 1863, and the people rejected him by
an overwhelming majority. He has since then
been in the pay of the British Government, but
during that time what evidence did he give of
his patriotism ? Did he serve the interests of
the people on any single occasion? No; his
patriotism was subdued by his salary.
This gentleman, whose ability is undoubted,
whose speeches I have listened to on the floor
of this House with the greatest. interest, assumes to be the guide of the people.
Let us
see what claims he has to that position. We
all know that the Reciprocity Treaty was entered into in 1854. It came to be ratified
in this
House, and where do we find that hon. member?
We found him endeavoring to defeat that measure, and dividing the House on the question.
If the hon. member had been successtul, we
would never have had any Reciprocity Treaty,
as far as Nova Scotia is concerned, and the advantages of that measure and the favorable
position it now so strongly enables us to take
in dealing with that question, would have been
wholly lost. Again, the question of the settlement of the Mines and Minerals came
up for
consideration in l858. It was arranged by a
gentleman taken from each side of the House—
by the present Judge in Equity and the hon.
leader of the Opposition. Mr. Howe led up an
opposition to the measure, and did all in his
power to frustrate the arrangements that the
delegates had made in London. These were
two important questions which have proved
most advantageous to the people, and yet Mr.
Howe, the patriot, was found throwing obstacles in their way. Again, the hon. gentleman
became a railway commissioner, and I need
not remind the House that, in 1856, he was constantly found button-holing members,
and endeavoring to upset the Government of his own
party, whose subordinate officer he was. If
that Government, which he represented as resting over a volcano, was not immediately
broken up, it was not his fault. Things went
on this way until 1857, when the Gourley shanty
riots occurred. We all remember the religious
animosities that were excited. Who was the
origin? This same gentleman. He destroyed
his own political friends by forcing measures
upon them which they could not with safety
adopt, and which divided, as he knew it would,
his own party. He raised religious strife in this
country for his own personal objects, and excited neighbor against neighbor who had
lived
for years in peace and quietude. He managed
by this means to get into power in 1859, but do
you think he endeavored to preserve consistency of action? Nothing of the kind. After
his success, by a. small majority, which was
subsequently melting away. and feeling the
power unrighteously obtained fast slipping
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
249
away, and in order to avert it, he did not hesitate to seek aid from the very men
he had proscribed, and to assert that his professions to
others were false, and that he had only wanted
a little capital by which to get back into power
This is the gentleman who now attempts to
deal with the people of Nova Scotia, and tell
them that they should follow his advice. He
has been opposed to the continuance in office
of the present Government, and he made overtures to Opposition gentlemen likely to
support
the Confederation scheme, asked them not to
allow the present Government to carry it, that
if they would only help him to overthrow the
present Administration he and they might, if
necessary, pass the measure when they got into
power. I am not making this statement, rashly.
I can prove it by what has passed between them
within and without the walls of this building.
His opposition is, I am satisfied, not so much to
Union as that the men in power should carry
the measure. That is the patriotism that influences the hon. member.
There is another gentleman opposite who opposes this measure, and that is the hon.
member
for East Halifax. I regret to say anything severe about that gentleman, for he has
passed
through an ordeal in this house which entitles
him to commisseration. He endeavored to
blacken the character of men connected with
the Quebec scheme. We all know the statement made concerning Hon.George Brown, and
the refutation it has met, even from his attempt
at escape by denying his own words, uttered in
our presence. I ask the hon. member to consider the position he occupies on this question.
I
am prepared to prove by the most conclusive
evidence that the hon member, within the last
two or three weeks, would have been willing to
go for this very resolution, without any stipu
lation as to an appeal to the people. What has
changed the hon member since? Have there
been any new arrivals in this country since he
formed and uttered this intention? Has there
been any influence brought to bear upon him?
A gentleman has written article after article
on the subject, who has stated deliberately that
he would be willing to support this scheme,
now comes here and tells us that he has yet
to hear "the first argument in favor of union
with Canada." He attempted to define his
position the other day, but I am quite sure that
when he was done, nobody knew where to find
him.
On the several occasions that this question
has been before the House, I have not said a
single word on the subject. It was one of those
questions that I did not wish to deal hastily
with; I was anxious to ascertain how it could
be carried out in accordance with the public interests, and how far the measure could
be practically dealt with. We went to Quebec, and I
listened attentively to the arguments in connection with the subject of Union. When,
I
saw that a practicable scheme could he mature
ed which would do justice to all interests, and
believing it was necessary for the welfare and
prosperity of the people of British North America, then alone did I consent to be
a party to
it. As respects the Quebec Scheme, I may
state that I had my doubts as to the correctness
of some of its features. and divided the convention on them. I objected to the pardoning
power given to the local governors, who are
simply delegates from the General Govern
ment, believing that feature would be regarded
by the British Government as against principle.
I objected again to that portion of the scheme
by which the number of the Legislative Council is stereotyped; I held that it was
preferable
to continue the principle of the British Constitution, which allows the Crown to add
to the
number of the Upper House, but I was overruled by the allegation of the difficulty
of arranging the numbers which might be added so
as not to alter the relative numbers from all
the Provinces. I felt, however, although opposed to some of the details, that it would
be
for the interest of the Provinces to adopt it as a
whole. I felt that whilst they remain isolated,
instead of becoming more intimately connected and better acquainted, they were likely
to
become more an more antagonistic to each
other. I had before me the position of two Australian Colonies which came nearly to
war in
consequence of some financial dispute between
them. Some goods were seized by the one, and
attempted to be rescued by the other, and they
were only restrained from the adoption of extreme measures by being Colonies instead
of
independent countries. We have trade relations between the Provinces that are injurious
to all of them.
The hon. member for East Halifax says that
we can have changes, and those relations improved without union. Well, the hon. gentleman
tried that on one occasion, and found that
the difficulties that met him were of a most insurmountable character. We are told
that the
currency could be assimilated, but the hon.
member must have changed his opinions on
this subject very recently, or he would not now
desire to alter or assimilate the currency. A
few years ago I introduced a bill for the purpose of giving the country a decimal
currency,
founded on the basis of the American, Canadian and New Brunswick currency; but he
voted
against it, and he and his party did all they
could to prevent us assimilating our currency
to that of the neighboring States and Provinces.
The hon. member denies that Union can increase our capacity for defence, but no one
is
likely to believe that his opinions are entitled
to greater weight than the eminent statesmen
and generals who have given their views on
the subject. At present each of the provinces
looks to its own safety, and does not trouble
itself much about its neighbour. We can hear
with comparative quietude that the Fenians
are about to land in New Brunswick,but if we
hear that Nova Scotia is endangered and its
soil invaded, our blood is excited, and we feel
we must rise and defend our hearths and
homes. If we were all united in one, if the
Canadian felt that the soil of Nova Scotia is
as dear to him as that of Canada—if Nova
Scotia felt that Canada is a part of itself—we
would all have a greater guarantee of security.
We are told that disunited we can as effectually defend ourselves. I would call attention
to the position of Wellington in Spain. Whilst
trammeled by the orders of the British Government, Spanish Junta, etc., he was powerless,
but the moment he determined to act on his
own responsibility, success crowned his arms
Everybody must see the great advantage that
is derived from the concentration of authority
in one hand. The most powerful government
for speedy action is that which is despotic. If
we have one concentrated authority in the
250
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
country—one general command—our strength
will be vastly increased, by the ability to concentrate force when necessary at any
important point. The hon. member for East Halifax
would have the people of the province pay
pound for pound with those of Liverpool, Manchester and London, and leave the expenditure
to the British Government irresponsible
of any power. We would then have no control over the expenditure, and could no supervise
those who would expend the moneys thus
raised. If we were united under one Government, and had one Central Legislature, then
the money would be under its control; and
our own representatives would see that it was
judiciously expended.
The hon. member for East Halifax told us
that the necessities of Canada forced them to
unite with us. I tell the hon. gentleman Union
was spoken of, and introduced by the gentleman whose mouth-piece he is, long before
it was
thought of seriously in Canada. They had no
necessities that forced them to a union with
the Maritime Provinces. All that they had to
do was to agree to the principle that is introduced into the Quebec scheme, Representation
by population ; and I believe they will be
found ready to adopt that principle in their
own local affairs if this scheme fails. When
this question is settled they have no important
difficulties to disturb them. If the question of
Union has attained its present position rapidly, it has been aided by the resolution
that his
own government introduced and carried in
this House some years ago without a division.
When Canada found that the Lower Provinces
were taking measures for a union among themselves, her public men asked if we could
not
unite in a Confederation of all the Provinces.
When we went to Charlottetown, we found
that, owing to the opposition both of New
Brunswick and P. E. Island ,the smaller Union
was impracticable. Not a word was said about
union with Canada until it was found that
union ot the Maritime Provinces could not be
brought about. I may add, that the question
of a Legislative union of the Maritime Provinces was again brought up at the Quebec
Convention. Canada and Nova Scotia urged
that union, but gentlemen representing the two
provinces named would not consent to that
union. If, therefore the Maritime union has
not been carried, it is not the fault of Nova
Scotia or Canada.
Reference has been made to the financial
necessities of Canada. We know from our
own experience that the revenue will fall off
considerably during some years; one year
Nova Scotia had a deficiency of ÂŁ39,000. Three
or, four years in succession of failure of crops affected the importations into Canada,
and consequently caused a deficiency in the revenue,
but I can assure gentlemen that Canada is not
now in any position to require assistance. Yet
gentlemen who would object to Confederation
with Canada for fear of extra taxation, would
have no unwillingness to annex us to the United States, with its immense war debt
and exhausting taxation. Canada now is as prosperous as any portion of the globe.
The hon. member told us that the Imperial
Government had no policy until after the. report of the delegates. In this he may
be correct. The British government, looking at the
fact that leading men representing both politi
cal parties in the provinces were in favour of
union and had adopted a measure for their
confederation, had every reason to suppose
that they represented the feelings and wishes
of the country when the British public saw
that the Colonies were entertaining the scheme
for Union—that the leading men had concurred in its details, they felt that. this
was a measure that invited their serious consideration
and approval. I tell the hon. member for
Shelburne that it is not only Mr. Cardwell
who has spoken strongly on this question ; if
he did not support it, I believe he could not
remain in his present position. No government could be formed in England unless it
encouraged and stimulated this union, for public
opinion in that country is almost unanimously
in favor of that scheme. I know this from
leading supporters as well as opponents of
that government.
I have already pointed to some of the parties
who are opposing the Union of the British
North American Provinces. I have shown you
that some of these gentlemen profess to be
Annexationists to the American Republic—
But we had on the promulgation of the Quebec scheme opposition from another quarter.—
It will be remembered that there was a paper
published in Halifax under the not. very euphonious title of the Bullfrog, patronised and
encouraged very largely by gentlemen in the
Anti-Confederate interest. This paper was
edited principally by gentlemen in the Royal
Artillery in this garrison, who have since published a work on Confederation, which
I find
reviewed in an English paper. I must. say that,
if the Review expresses their views, these gentlemen have been guilty of the grossest
libel
upon the loyal people of Nova Scotia that was
ever penned. When we look at a man's conduct in all its relations, then only can we
form
a just conclusion as to the motives that actuate
him. I will now read to you from a review of
the work in question :—
The Confederation of British North America. By E.
C BOLTON and H. H. WEBBER, Royal Artillery.—
London: Chapman and Ball.
The authors at this volume go dead against a
scheme which was received with much approval in
this country, and was believed to have been also on
the whole, favourably looked upon in the colonies —
We mean, of course, the proposal for the Confederation of the British North American
Provinces. lt
seems , however, according to the authors of the work
before us that we were all wrong on the subject —
Confederation, they declare, is neither posible nor
desirable—indeed. ls not desired, in the wide sense of
the word, at all. The maritime provinces. while
they are favorable to a federation among themselves,
are bitterly inimical to a union with Canada: while
all the Colonies—Canada, New Brunswick. Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island—are much more inclined to
be annexed to the United States than to the confederation proposed, and only value
British connection for
the sake of Imperial expenditure among them. The
Confederation sheme the authors pronounce to be a
farce; and, if carried out, a ruinous farce. The colonies wish to do nothing. and will do nothing to provide defences for themselves.
The mother country,
they think, cannot do without them— in fact, would
sink into the position of a third-rate power were her
American colonies severed from her, while they
would still retain their trade with the United States,
with England and with the rest of the world. The
people of all the Provinces are we are told far more
Yankee than British in their characters and their habits, and even in their sympathis;
and the loyalty to
the Crown, of which we hear so much is, if we may
trust Messrs. Bolton and Webber, only a mere lip affair, put on to keep up appearances
and induce a con
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
251
tinuance of grants for public works, for fortifications,
audfor the maintenance of troops in the provinces and
of the navy on the station."
Here you see the supporters of the Anti-Confederation doctrines perpetrating this
disgraceful libel upon the people of Nova Scotia. I
hold that these gentlemen are no worse, however, than those who here advocate annexe
tion. We are told that our loyal is only a
more lip service, that we value Brit sh connection only for the advantages it brings
with it—
{or the money it affords us in connection with
naval and military expenditures. I ask the
hon member for East Halifax and those who
are associating with him, ought they not to be
proud of their connection with these gentlemen who hus libel our country?
We are told that we should not go into this
Union—that Nova Scotia is now happy and
prosperous, and does not require union to
make her more so. Let me ask how are we
going to provide for the continuance of that
prosperity? Who of all the Anticonfederates
can show ns where, without union, we will be
in two years?-who can guarantee us our position for that period or less time? We only
jeopardize it whilst we remain isolated as at
present. Look at the geographical position of
Nova Scotia, at her great resources, and ask it
she should not wish to be even more prosperous than she actually is, or without union
can
ever expect to be. What is it that placed
England in her present exalted position
among thenatlons of the world? What is it
that has given her continued supremacy on
the sea, and as a manufacturing country?
Ber mines of coal and iron. What have we in
Nova Scotia? She is partly a fishing and
partly an agricultural country, but she has
also most valuable mineral resources only is
the infancy of their development. If you consider her water power, and mines of coal
and
iron, and her geographical situation you see
all the elements of a rest manu acturiug
country on this side of the country. Whilst
we have no market we cannot expect to see
our manufacturing system develop itself, but
if we had a market of four millions of consumers, then we might expect, in a fair
competition, to see them progress. Give her the population, and I am con dent that
she will take a
position in the manufacturing world that no
country of the same size can far surpass.
We are told that we can have free trade
without union, but that cannot be roved; we
are told it I repeat, but not the slightest evidence is adduced to show how we can
obtain
it. There are intercolonial commercial rivalries that prevent that object being attained
as
applicable to manufactures. Wherever an attempt has been made in this direction, failure
has followed, and will follow hereafter. Nothing is more certain than the truth of the
principle that when you attach a small country having all the elements of manufacturing,
to a greater one th a large population, you
benefit that smaller country. Situated as we
are on the broad Atlantic, with our ports openÂ
at all seasons of the year, with our fisheries,
mineral and other resources, we may become
the entrepot for a large extra trade between the other British North America colonies
and the West Indies and other parts of the world, and only require a union with a
larger country to become great and prosperous to an unli
mited degree. A trade will arise that will
give employment toour shipping, and we may
at (i will no doubt, add largely to that shipping and the amount of our carrying trade.
But sir, if no increased prosperity will result from union, I again ask who can guarantee to Nova Scotia the position she now occupies ? Look at the state of things on.
this continent, and ask yourselves is not the
danger imminent if we remain isolated as at
present. If, on the other hand, we are able to;
get by the union a guarantee of the continuance and increase of this prosperity—if
we can
by it perpetuate the connection with the great
Empire of which we form a part, is it not our
duty as well as interest to do so without delay, and not risk the continuance of that
connection by a selfish and exclusive policy
against the unanimous wish of the people who
protect us.
We are told by the hon. member for East
Halifax that there is a sentiment prevalent in
England in favor of getting rid of these Colonies. I had a better opportunity than
the
hon. gentleman of judging the state of public
opinion, and I travell over the country more
than he did. I can unhesitatingly state that
in no part of the mother country did I discover
any such sentiment as he speaks of. We have
heard of the Manchester school of politicians
who are said to be unfavorably disposed towards those Colonies of the Crown; and desirous
for their separation. That party is
small," it is all, which I very much doubt;
and it certainly does not represent the sentiment of the people. I had the honour
on one
occasion, during my late visit to England, of
sitting down to a luncheon, at Rochdale, a little out of Manchester, with some one
hundred
gentlemen of standinh and influence. I was
presented to them during the entertainment as
having one been of the delegates who went
from Nova Bcotia to the Quebec Conference,to
frame the scheme of the nice of the Provinces. I can only say that the statement was
received with universal applause, and I was called upon torespoud to the toast. I
never felt,
grander in in life than to hear in that very Â
heart of the Manchester district the cheers that
rang from one end of the building to the other;
when I promulgated the opinion that it
would not be longl before the Colonies were
united. A few politicians representing that Â
part of the country may spout such ideas,
but I am certain the hearts of the people are not with them. I believe that Â
a similar feeling prevails among all classes of Â
the people of Great Britain. I any such sentiment entertained by parties in England
as the hon member says, it is perhaps not difficult to account for it. Persons there
may be
deluded into the idea that the Maritime Colonies are opposed to Confederation, thanks
to
the hon member and his associates. But if the
hon member is correct, and England does wish to throw us off, what ten, is to be
our fate? Where are we? What country do we belong to? What must be the fate of $50,000
people left isolated and alone? Annexation must inevitably follow. Therefore admitting
that such a feeling does exist in the mother country, we have an additional argument
in favor of the necessity of Confederation—of a union that will give unity and solidity;
a population of four millions of souls bound toge
252
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
ther by the closest ties, determined to aid and
strengthen one another and perpetuate the
hallowed connection with our honored parent.
If the mother country receives from us a pledge
of earnestness in this matter, and believes that
our great object is to keep up the connection
with her, she will feel doubly bound to give
renewed assurances for the continuance of
that connection, and to sustain and protect us
in the hour of need. She will feel that the colonies united in one great country will
be a
source of strength instead of weakness. If
the colonies are consolidated—if they present
a united population of millions of loyal subjects, England will feel a greater degree
of security than she can possibly do while they remain more isolated communities without
unity
of purpose or design.
We are told that it is unconstitutional to
pass the Resolution before the house—that the
question should be referred to the people at
the polls, but where is the argument that has
been adduced in support of this reposition?
We are told that it is a terrible thing to take
away the rights of the people. Do these gentlemen correctly estimate the position
we occupy? Do they forget that we have certain
responsibilities as forming a portion of the Empire of Great Britain? We have a constitution
of our own, I admit, and have the right
to manage our own local affairs. We had conceded to us years ago the principle of
Responsible Government: but did we also obtain the
right of exercising it against the rest of the
Empire on a question involving Imperial as
well as Inter-colonial interests? Are we to
use it to the detriment of the mother-country
and the sister-colonies? When Responsible
Government was conceded to us, the principle
of total independence did not accompany it.—
We may pass an act here, but it must be ratified by the home government. We are dependent,
and should where necessary, modify our
views and measures to some extent when imperial and inter—colonial interests are at
stake.
Whilst we are a dependency, we have the protection of the mother-country, and she
can at
the same time ask from us the yielding of certain rights as British subjects, for
the benefit
of the whole Empire. We are asked to—(Mr.
Killam—To sell us)-the hon. member says to
sell us; I would tell him that he would not ask
a great deal to sell us to the United States tomorrow. (Cheers in the galleries.)
I contend
whenever overpowering interests of the empire demand it, the Imperial Government may
fairly ask us to modify and amend our constitution, and that the representatives of
the people can constitutionally consider and pass upon;
the subject. Let us then look calmly at the
position we occupy. We are told that this
matter should be submitted to the people. I
would ask these gentlemen to give us examples where such a course has been pursued.
Have they cited one case? Not one. How was
the constitution changed in New Zealand? By
the Legislature first adopting the measures for
Union, and subsequently by an Imperial act.
I can understand why, if a resolution was
moved for Annexation to the United States;
some gentlemen would not see anything improper in it, but when we move one, under
the
authority of the British Government, with the,
view of joining the sister colonies, in order to
give us strength and security, they prate about
the constitutionality of the proceeding. Suppose the British Parliament in the interests
of the Empire should pass an Act for
the consolidation of those Provinces, could
the constitutional right of doing so be impugned? The British Government have not
intimated a desire to pursue that course but no
person can deny its right to adopt that course.
All, however, that they have done is to manifest their desire that we should manage
the
affair in our own way, and to give us their
opinion that it is for own advantage that we
should unite without delay. When gentlemen attempt to introduce a novel doctrine
in this Legislature they should adduce some
argument derived from the practice of other
countries in support of their position. Can
they show us an instance of a question after it
has passed the Legislature, having been sent
to the people? When a government introduces, but fail to carry, a measure, they can
go
to the country and test the public opinion.
When a measure is proposed by a government
and passed, the constitutional doctrine prevails that the gentlemen within these walls
represent the feelings of their constituents. That
must be the constitutional test, otherwise every
measure of importance should be submitted to
the people after its passage through the Legislature. We are told that the people
are opposed to this scheme but that has to be proved. The people are hardly yet aware
of the
exact nature of the resolution, and therefore
cannot be said to be opposed to it. Some persons have objected to the Quebec scheme
; some
have favored a legislative union; others are
in favour of a modification of the former measure. Various opinions prevail, but nearly
all
wish union, of some shape or other. I hold
that it is perfectly constitutional to pass this
resolution—that we have an undoubted right
to do so—gentlemen will remember that it is
only a short time since that the Legislature of
Jamaica passed an act to destroy its own constitution? Did these Anti-Confederate
gentlemen come forward and declare that to be unconstitutional? Not at all.
We propose only to transfer certain powers
to a Legislative body comprising a fair representation of our own, chosen on the principle
of population. It is not a Confederation in the
strict term of the word. it is a Legislative
union to a large extent. The peeple will elect
their representatives as they do now, and
each county will have its member in the General Parliament. Objection has been taken
to the principle of representation based on population, but what else can you have?
We
could not expect to have as large a representation as Canada, nor could Prince Edward
Island ask as many representatives as Nova
Scotia or New Brunswick, and if the numbers
were not to be equal, I ask these gentlemen
upon what principle would they be regulated
except on that of population What was the
cause of the difficulties that have arisen between Upper and Lower Canada? It was
because that principle was not. incorporated in
the Act of Union. After a few years Upper
Canada, at first less than Lower Canada but
subsequently largely increased in population ,
did not consider that it was fully represented,
and demanded that its representation should
be based on numbers. We are told that this
is not a Legislative Union, because all the sub
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
253
jects that come before a Legislature are not
embraced in it. If they are not embraced in it
Nova Scotia has not therefore much cause for
complaint. Education, Roads and Bridges,
the control of our jurisprudence, and other
subjects in which we take the deepest interest
are left to our own controul. Then we have
the same amount per head for our local
government that they have in Canada,
and if we manage to spend more money in
proportion to our population than she does, it
is only right we should pay for it. We go into
that Union on the same terms. Every man,
woman, and child will owe the same debt—
receive the same amount from the general exchequer—as each man, woman, and child in
Canada, and we shall have our full share of
all the expenditures by the General Government for important public objects. We are
told, however, nineteen members will have no
influence in the General Legislature. I contend they will have as much influence relatively
as the eight gentlemen representing
Cape Breton now exercise in this house of fifty-five. That island is felt to be a
part of our
country, and entitled to a share of the general
prosperity, and in Union each of the Provinces
will feel an interest in the prosperity of the
others. There may be some little rivalries, as
we have now, but these will not exist as to local expenditures so much as affecting
general
principles and measures. Talent and energy
will assert their proper positions in the general legislature as it does here and
everywhere
under free institutions. Nova Scotia may be a
small Province, but her men will be able to
hold their own I trust in the United Parliament. The nineteen men she will select
to represent her will, I have no doubt, be able to
protect her interests. As I have just said,
Cape Breton receives a large influence in this
House; her members have received everything
that they can reasonably ask. Party Government must prevail in the new Parliament.—
here must, as in all countries under Responsible Government be a Government and an
Opposition, and Nova Scotia will exercise with
her nineteen members a sufficient influence.—
There is no party, however strong. that can afford to neglect the legitimate local
interests of
any one of their supporters. This government
came into power some years ago, with a majority such as was never seen before in Nova
Scotia, and who can allege that the local interests of any section were neglected.
It is
true that no government can satisfy the
demands of all their followers—nor can they
in adopting a general line of policy satisfy
their friends; but I am now referring to the
local interests that are to be represented. If
any gentlemen have withdrawn their support
from the government it is on general subjects;
no one can say that local interests are disregarded; and I am free to say that the
gentlemen from Nova Scotia will get their fair share
of everything that they require for there is no
party at Ottawa that could refuse it to them
with impunity. We all know that the Irish
party, comparatively few in number, to a large
extent, controlled public matters for years
in the British Parliament.
We have had all sorts of aspersions thrown
upon us. It is said that we are actuated solely by selfish motives. One gentleman
is to be
a governor, another a judge, everybody is to
get something. I believe that the gentlemen
who talk this way have some ideas floating in
their minds that by opposing this scheme they
may become something of the kind themselves. They believe, and the secret was let
out by the hon. member for East Halifax, that
the government is unpopular, in consequence
of the School Bill; that if they can only keep
things as they are for a few months longer,
until a general election, they may come into
power themselves; that when the present government is defeated, and they step out
of office, they can, if necessary, carry Confederation themselves—then, no doubt,
the people
will be in favor of it—nothing will be then
said about the constitutionality of dealing with
it irrespective of an appeal to the people; or,
they will have their choice of leaving things as
they are, and holding an office as long as they
can. Visions of Financial and other secretaryships; offices of Queen's Printer and
others,
are no doubt urging their powerful influences
upon the patriotic minds of these gentlemen.
80 we may fairly suppose that these are
the reasons that sway some hon. gentlemen, rather than these suggestions
of patriotism of which we hear so
much, but in practice see so little. They
wish to have the alternative of choosing or rejecting Confederation, according as
it may suit
their own personal interests. Therefore they
urge delay on the part of the present government in reference to the question. What
unselfish patriots!
The hon member for Halifax has admitted
that he said to gentlemen in this house that he
would go to New Brunswick to see some Anti-confederates for the purpose of ascertaining
whether they would not agree to a resolution
something like the present one. He will allow
me to say that if he had gone to the sister Province he would not have found Mr. Smith
opposed to a union of the Provinces. I am not
taking a liberty with that gentleman when I
say that he has never pronounced himself
against a scheme which would remove the objections he entertains to the Quebec plan
of
Confederation. The state of things in that
Province itself proves that the large mass of
the people entertain similar views on the subject.
I know that I have not dealt with this question as its importance demands, but although
unprepared and not expecting to speak to day
I could not allow the resolution to pass with a
silent vote. Present and aiding in the Charlottetown and Quebec Conventions, I came
to
the conclusion that it was for the interest of
Nova Scotia as well as her duty to the great
Empire to which she belongs, that she should
adopt this Union. I have endeavoured to
give these crude observations in a dispassionate and calm manner. I have given some
of the reasons that influence my
judgment in favour of the resolution before
the house and now say most emphatically that
if there are any persons who prefer annexation
to the United States, let them, in Heaven's
name, follow the example of the hon. member
for Yarmouth, but do not let them attempt
by false representations to thwart the efforts
of those who would bring about a Union of the
Provinces. I say, however, to gentlemen
around these benches, who value the flag that
" for a thousand years has braved the battle
254
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
and the breeze," and that has planted liberty
and freedom in every quarter of the globe—to
all those who are inspired by a desire to perpetuate the connection with the British
Empire, come forward and support the measure,
which will at once achieve this result, and at
the same time give that dignity of position
and security to the Provinces that in their
present isolated position they can never hope
to obtain. (Cheers).
SPEECH OF MR. KAULBACK.
Mr. KAULBACK said :—I feel some diffidence
in addressing the House upon a question of such
importance; but I consider it a duty devolving
on me to express my views upon it, and in
doing so I shall have occasion to refer to the
arguments of some gentlemen who have preceded
me. I conceive that this subject, having been
long before the country, is no new question;
it has been before the people for more than half
a century, and has been agitated by our leading
men for a great span of years. Every man considering the question should surely have
solved
it and matured his mind by this time. In 1814
Judge Sewell, of Quebec, urged the necessity of
a scheme of British North America on the
Duke of Kent. A Union of the Colonies
was urged by the Earl of Durham in 1839 when
a scheme analogous to that now before us was
mentioned. In 1849 a British American League
was formed in Toronto who seemed to have had
the matter fully before them. In 1854 we had
Mr. Johnston moving in the matter, supported
by Mr. Howe and Mr. Young. From 1854 to
1860 we have correspondence on the subject. In
1857 Mr. Johnston was delegated to go to England in connection with Intercolonial
matters.
In 1858 there was a delegation from Canada of
the same kind. In 1860 Dr. Tupper delivered
lectured on a. Union of the Colonies; in 1861
Mr. Howe moved a resolution which was adopted
by the House. In 1862 Mr. Annand, Mr. Howe
and Mr. McCully went to Canada on the subject.
In 1863 Mr. McGee lectured in Halifax, and in
1864 I was present at a banquet in this city
when Mr. Howe gave an eloquent address on
the question. It cannot therefore be said, that
the time has not arrived when the question
should be solved. The hon. member for Shelburne made a reference to some distinguished
Canadian politicians and styled one of them an
Irish rebel. I have only to reply that we find
that Mr. Howe, in 1863, on a platform in Temperance Hall, eulogized Mr. D'Arcy McGee,
and
declared that he "was with him in all he said"
in favor of a Union of all the British North
American Colonies ;—now he ridicules Mr.
McGee, and denounces any Union with Canada:
In 1863 Mr. Howe declared in Temperance Ball
-" Task of the Fall Quebec being a source of sorrow
to the inhabitants of this province. It would be more
if the St Lawrence were in the hands of our enemies.
WE SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO BEG PERMISSION TO
TEAR DOWN THE BRITISH FLAG What he wished for
Nova Scotia was that she may be the frontage of a
mighty Colony upon which it may be truly said, the
sun never sets "
Notwithstanding this we find Mr. Howe writing the Botheration articles, and his public
character is open to much doubt from that time.
As others who were present at the dinner to the
Canadian guests, in 1864, have said, the question
of Union was then in the public mind. I well
recollect the speech made by Mr. Howe on that
occasion ; and as his observations were more
eloquent than anything that I can say, I will
ask attention to a few of his sentences :—
" He was not one of those who thanked God that
he was a Nova Scotian merely, for he was Canadian
as well. He had never thought he was a Nova
Scotian, but he had looked across the broad continent,
at the great territory which the Almighty had given
us for an inheritance, and studied the mode by which
it could be consolidated, the mode by which it could
be united, the mode by which it could be made strong
and vigorous, while the old flag still floated over the
soil. (Loud cheers ) He was delighted to see such a
scene as this, which gave promise to that which was
the dream of his boyhood would he realised betore
he died. "
" Thank God the time had come when Her Majesty's subjects. whether English, French,
Scotch, or
Irish, might meet together under the old flag, and
maintain common sentiments of unity, and look forward to the time when we should make
a new England here; not a new England with republican institutions. but a new England with monarchical institutions.
He had always been in favor of the intercolonist Railway. He wished every now and
again to see
the seething falls of Montmorenci, to see the indians
of Lorette dancing about the silvery stream; he wanted to visit Canada not once in
a lifetime, not once
in five or six years, but once or twice a year "
" With the territory of Canada, with the rivers of
Nova Scotia. with the inexhaustible fisheries what a
country to live in! And why should Union not be
brought about! Was it because we wished to live
and die in our insignificance, that we would sooner
make money rather than that our country should
grow? God forbid! He felt that it was too late to
say much, though there was much to say. (" Go on,
go on.") He knew that the Canadian gentlemen
would take in good par what he was going to say.—
He had always been in favor of uniting any two. three
four, or the whole five of the Provinces. Well, they
knew the history et the past in Canada; they knew
what division had produced there, and how, under
the divine dispensation, they at last became united
into one magnificent colony. There now came rumors across the land that they were
going to split Canada into two parts again; that they were going to
reduce that low country to its low status of two provinces instead of one. O, my friends.
said the hon.
gentleman. go back to your homes, and say that there
is at least one Nova Scotian honest enough to say to
you this,—that, if you do that, you will commit an
act of political suicide, and although I ought not perhaps to give you the advice.
I would rather see every
public man upon both sides of politics crucified, than
I would divide Canada now that Canada is united.
Join the Maritme Provinces if you can; but, at any
rate, stick together —hold your own. Let the dog return to his vomit rather than Canada
to division.
(Cheers.) In conclusion. Mr. Howe said that he was
pleased to think the day was rapidly approaching
when the Provinces would be united with one flag
above their heads, one thought in all their bosoms. with
one Sovereign and one Constitution. (Loud and prolonged Cheers.)
I would ask what is Mr. Howe's position on
this question to-day ? He now appears advocating a new line of policy one day, and
another the
next. The dream of his childhood be told us
was Colonial Union, and now he says that it
would be ruinous to the constitution. In his
recently published letter he has gone far beyond
what any public man should go, and his sentiments I consider a di ace not only to
himself
but to those who accord with them. He tells us
that we have an enemy before us whose number
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 255
and power are not to be despised in the Fenians,
whose views are sympathized in by the Americans, and what does he advise us to do
in the
matter? Does he advise us to stand by our
country and our flag? No, he desires us to
lay down our weapons ; he tells us it is too late
that we cannot defend ourselves, and that we
are at the mercy of the enemy. His statements
are the strongest argument that can be adduced
in favour of a Union of the Colonies—they prove
that the time is at hand for this measure, and
that no time is to be lost. He speaks about putting on a blue-jacket and assisting
in our defence; I consider that a man holding such sentiments as his would be dangerous
in such a
position, for he has been endeavoring to excite
a rebellion throughout the country, telling the
people that they cannot defend themselves, that
our connection with the mother country is unsafe, and that at this moment our better
course
is to lay down our arms on the approach of an
enemy. He tells us that those who advocate the
Union now will not be the men who will go to
Canada, and the meaning of his letter seems to
be that we must wait for him; only bring him
back to power and he will not trouble himself to
enquire whether he has been elected on this
question or not. He will be the first man to
advocate the Union when he returns to office and
position. I am inclined to believe that all the
opposition on this question are in favour of
Union, and that they oppose it because they cannot avail themselves of the highest
positions.
Mr. Howe opens his second letter by saying
" my advice has not been taken"; we have taken
the advice he gave us formerly as to a Union of
the Colonies, but how could his more recent
advice be taken when it is well known that he
is writing disloyal letters injurious to the Province. I say, sir, that we have seen
enough of
this gentleman to know that he has broken faith
on every public question, and that everything he
can say must be received with a large amount
of doubt. When in days gone bye he advocated
Union, did he ask for an appeal to the people?
No, the Legislature was to decide the question,
and yet he tells us it is unconstitutional to take
such a course. That is the position which this
gentleman has aasumed. He declared some
time ago that Halifax would not be safe without
connection with Canada by rail; now he tells
us that Canada is only a source of weakness.
These are inconsistencies which no man can
reconcile. Again he agreed that Nova Scotia
should build three-and-a half twelfths of the
whole cost of the Intercolonial Railway. We
are now to get the Railway built for one-twelfth,
and yet he comes out in opposition to the whole
thing.
Reference has been made to the recent election
in the county of Lunenburg; all I can say is
that the result proves to my mind that there is a
large majority of the people in favour of Confederation. The government were perfectly
indifferent to the election, and it was only the
day previous to the nomination that, to my great
surprise, I received a telegram stating that the
Provincial Secretary was coming down. All
the opposition made most strenuous efforts ;
they came down and made no secret that they
intended to buy the county. Their friends said
at a caucus that they could not carry the county
on the issue of Confederation, for the people
were largely in favour of it. They then resorted to every subterfuge to win the election.
The
result proves that of 3200 voters only 1300 were
in favour of Mr. Hebb. The School Bill was
the question that settled the election. I had
not taken any part in the affair, until I saw that
the hon. member for Richmond had come down.
I did not feel inclined to take any active part
because we had no man up. There were two
men actually on the same side. I preferred Mr.
Zwicker, however, because he declared himself
for PROGRESS; but on Nomination Day be declared against the School Bill and Confederation.
He spoke, then, however, under excitement, and
his card led us to believe he was not as likely to
oppose all measures of improvement and progress
as Mr. Hebb. He was, therefore, in some respects preferable to the latter. We went
into the
township of Chester where the question of Confederation was raised and discussed.
The day
before Nomination Day we had a meeting in the
town, which lasted till a very late hour. And
what was the result at every polling place ? The
friends of the Quebec scheme were two to one.
That was the only township where the scheme
was put to the people I am no new convert to
Union; but from the first hour it has been before
the people I have been in favor of it. I believe
in all sincerity, after the consideration I have
given the subject, that our future prosperity depends largely on the issue of the
present movement. I would be willing to go back to-morrow
to my own county on this question, but I want
to have the same people that sent me here pass
on my acts. I wish to have the same franchise
that returned me to the Assembly. The leading
minds in the county of Lunenburg are in favor
of Confederation. Have you seen more than a
single petition against the scheme from my people? There is one purporting to be signed
by
111 persons, but any one who reviews it will
see that the majority of the names are all
written by one or two persons, and evidently at
the same time. They had to scour the whole
county, too, before they got the names they
have to this document. Every man who got
up the petition is known to be hostile to the
School Bill. This is the way the House is led
to believe that the people are opposed to Confederation. It is the easiest thing in
the world
to get people to sign petitions; that everybody
knows.
I have heard with much regret the expressions that some gentlemen have been using
on
the floor as well as in the lobby of the House
of Assembly. I could hardly control my feelings when I listened to the disloyal statements
of some gentlemen in reference to the Queen and
the representative oi her Majesty in this Province. They have been positively insulting
to
Her Majesty and the ' Hero of Kars " Then
we are told it is better to be annexed to the
United States than to unite with Canada. What
256
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
is the use of our Militia and preparations for
defence, if we are to be handed over to the
American Republic so summarily ? Every man
who loves the flag under which he lives should
sink all personal and political considerations,
and join with those who are laboring to unite
the Provinces more closely to the British
Empire.
It is not necessary that the hon. member for
East Halifax should utter disloyal expressions on
the street; we have only to read the articles in
his own paper. The logic of events for months
past. has been telling us of the danger that is
imminent. We know that the Fenian organization has attained to most formidable dimensions
The President of the United States has himself
deigned to receive deputations from these men.
At so critical a period we have the hon member copying from papers in England (the
Pall
Mall Gazette for instance ) and endorsing their
statements, I prove that we are not safe—that
all the money England could expand upon us
would be spent in vain—that we must be eventually absorbed into the American Union.
Is it
any wonder, then, that men in the States are to
be found in favor of Annexation ? Here is a
specimen of what we read in the hon. member's
journal —
" At present we are arming and drilling expending
money, time and men without stint, that. we may resist invasion of our territories
by the Fenians. Is
this because we are Colonists, or beceuse we are Britons? It might be supposed from
statement of the
Press that it is as Colonists we are arming ; but such
is not the case. We are arming and drilling not so
much to defend our homes, not so much to defend
Canada, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, as such, but
to defend the honor, the integrity, and prestige of
Britons. All the expense annoyance and danger to
which we are exposed is for the sake of Britain, not
for our own. We are free from Britain we should
hear nothing of invasion by the Fenians."
What feeling is a statement like that inclined
to make among our own people ? We are told
that we are in bondage to Great Britain—that
we are endangered by our connection with her,
and that our safety lies in getting rid of her
This is the way that these gentlemen have been
endeavouring to indoctrinate the people with
their Annexation ideas. They would rather
belong to the United States than even remain
Nova Scotians. Shame, I say, upon men who
can come into the presence of this loyal assemblage with sentiments like these in
their hearts!
When the hon member was Financial Secretary in 1862, the government brought up and
carried this very question. He went then on a
delegation to Quebec for the express purpose of
carrying out the resolution passed unanimously
in this House, and uniting us to Canada. Now
he veers round when his former political associates, Mesrs Archibald and McCully wish
to
carry the question, and opposse all Untou. Last
session he stated that the local revenue under
Confederation would be $390 427- the same
years he says in his paper that It would be
only $62 700. Again, last session he admitted
that this province under Confederation would
receive from the General Government (beside
the 80 cents per head of our population) $731,595
On December 12th of same year he says that all
the surplus over 80 cents a head would go to the
Northwest of Canada. Could inconsistency go
further ? Then he spoke to us about taxation in
Canada - that we would have to pay double what
we now pay. The fact is that the people of Canada are not taxed, man for man, as much
as we
are. He tells us Canada is in debt. So are we.
But Canada can point to public works equivalent
to her debt—which is more than we can do. The
hon member should know that if Canada falls, we
fall too ; if she is safe, we are safe. Has not Mr
Howe told us this himself? But what more does
Mr Annand do? He has actually proposed to
tax the people to a larger extent than they can,
by any possibility, be taxed under Confederation.
He is ready to pass a law by which the men of
this country shall be sent to Canada when there
is no Confederation —when we have no legislative
control over her—when we are different countries.
He even goes so far as to express his willingness
to pay in the same proportion for defence as all
other portions of the British Empire. Remember, this is not for the protection of
British North
America alone, but for the whole Empire. Yet
this is the gentleman who objects to Confederation because it may heavily burthen
us. I believe that if we have railway communication with
Canada, it will be the means of making this country safe from invasion. When we feel
we are one
people—when we have a national sentiment—
when we can present a united population of four
millions of people animated by the same interests
and affections, we shall have a guarantee of security and prosperity that we cannot
have now.
Mr. Howe has told the people that the Citadel
of Halifax would not he safe unless we had connection with Canada by means of an Intercolonial
Railway. I think that neither he nor his friend,
the hon member for East Halifax should talk
about persons being bought. I heard the hon
member quite distinctly say that he could have
had money from hon George Brown if he had
wished it, and place and preferment too, if he
would only promise to support Confederation—
If any person should attempt to bribe me with
Canadian or American gold, I would look upon it
as the greatest insult that could be offered to a
man, however humble. Mr. Brown must have
had a very low estimate of the hon member if he
made such an offer; but now the hon member attempts to deny that he ever made the
statement
he did on Friday last on the subject. Well, I
shall not press the matter further, for he has already been very thoroughly exposed,
and all I can
say is, that I think the hon member is the last
person in the house to charge others with being
bought.
The hon. member told us that he had yet to
hear the first argument in favor of union, though
he had been a delegate on the question to Canada
in 1862. Now, I find that in November last,
1865, he expressed another opinion on the same
subject— he wanted another delegation. He
thought then he might have a chance of being
one of the members sent on the mission. He
says:—
" This is our case.
"The Confederation Scheme matured at
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
257
Quebec having fallen to secure the approval of
any one of the four Maritime Provinces, we
would suggest that, with a view to the future of
British America, a convention be summoned,
with the sanction of the Crown to deliberate upon
the many weighty matters and things which
would necessarily be involved in debate upon a
question of such magnitude and importance. That
the convention should be held at such place and
at such time as the Governor General, acting
under the authority of the Crown, shall determine. And that in the selection of delegates
from the several Provinces, due regard shall be
observed, besides allotting to each Province a
like number of delegates, that the views and
opinions of all parties are fairly represented.
" This is our mode of dealing with the question of union. The convention might not,
perhaps, agree to any scheme for the future Government of the North American Colonies
and
their relations with the Mother Country, although
we believe they would. And whatever the result,
every one would feel that the questions of the
deepest importance, involving the present welfare
and happiness of four millions of people, had
been discussed with a full view of their consequences as well to them as to millions
yet
unborn, and with the full benefit of all that has
been said and written to illustrate this truly
great theme since the schem of Confederation
was first proposed a little over a year ago "-
Morning Chronicle Nov 15th 1865
Yet, this is the hon. member who has yet to
hear the first argument in favor of Union with
Canada. The hon. member's inconsistencies are
so glaring that I feel I need hardily pursue further so fruitful a topic.
It has been asked, will Confederation save us
We have been told over and over again that there
is no danger from the United States—that they
do not want these Provinces. The lessons of
history will tell us the reverse. These gentlemen
have proved false prophets for the past, and are
likely to be so for the future. The whole police
of the United States has been the acquisition of
territory. Their ambition is insatiable. They
wish to have dominion from the North Pole to
the Gulf of Mexico, and from the Atlantic to the
Pacific. They have got Texas and California,
and a slice of New Brunswick, within a few
years, and now they yearn after British North
America. If they have had one reason more than
another for abrogating the Reciprocity Treaty, is
is that they think they will force us to come into
the American Union.
The question that we have to decide is, whether
we shall belong to the United States or to Great
Britain. Shall we have the Red Cross of England,
or the Stars and Stripes of the American Republic float over our heads in the future?
Shall we
have the Queen at St. Jame's as our Ruler, or
the President at the White House in Washington ?
What will be the result of annexation I need
hardly tell you. We shall be ruined by most
frightful taxation ; our fishermen, all our industrial class, will be burthened beyond
their capacity
to bear. Our object should be to continue the
connection with the great empire from which we
have sprung, and under whose protecting care
the institutions of this country have grown up, and
our prosperity has been secured. No one, as I
just said, can look at the feeling in the neighboring
Republic without seeing that these Provinces are
at present in a position of great jeopardy. In the
first place, there is the Fenian organization growing up into most formidable pretensions,
and behind them is the great mass of the American
people animated by the most deadly hostility
against England arrising out of the late civil war.
Then there is the question of the fisheries again
looming up, and no one can under-estimate the
difficulties and disputes it may originate. We see
the Senate of the country itself exhibiting a spirit
that looks warlike, and should put us on our
guard. They are ready to support their fishermen, if they should enter our harbours
and bays,
and enfringe upon our rights. Suppose war
should arise out of this state of things; in what
position would Nova. Scotia be, isolated as she is
now? Comparatively defenceless.
Union, then, will ensure us security; will give
us an immense expansion of trade; raise up
manufactures, enlarge the political arena; give us
the Intercolonial Railway; and above all preserve
us from being absorbed by the rapacious American Republic. We have great natural resources.
but they must be dormant whilst we have no population or market to raise up manufactures
in
our midst. As respects the Intercolonial Railway, it is unnecessary for me to repeat
what is
now an established fact that we cannot have it
without union. The futile efforts of public men
of all parties in this Province to obtain its construction are matters of history,
and general notoriety. Complete that railroad, and Halifax becomes one of the greatest
commercial emporiums
of this continent—the New York or Liverpool of
the British North American Confederation. No
one who looks at the map can believe for a moment that Nova Scotia was intended to
remain
politically divided from her sister colonies of British North America. She is destined
by nature —
to quote the sentiment of Mr Howe— 'to become the frontage of a mighty Empire." Give
us
union, and the stream of immigration will be directed to our shores, for then we can
offer those
inducements to capital and labour that we cannot
give in our present isolated condition. If we remain disunited, then the prophecies
of these gentlemen in respect to annexation will be realized.
The time may come when we shall have the British flag lowered beneath the stars and
stripes,
and the last gun fired from the Citadel as a British
fort Let the American peeple feel that there is
no British sentiment among us—let us obstinate
ly reject the advice of the British government and
people, and annexation will be the inevitable issue. Then the wish of the hon. member
for East
Halifax will be realized. The Fenians will have
full sway in these Provinces, and the stars and
stripes shall float over Citadel Hill. But I believe
that there is a better fate awaiting us—that the loyalty of the people of Nova Scotia
is sincere, and
that they will see the necessit of union. I believe Confederation is close at hand,
and that the
258
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
efforts of those who would lead us into annexation, will be effectually foiled by
the loyal people.
As far as I am concerned, all my interests are
bound up with those of this Province—when she
is prosperous then I feel satisfied. I am sprung
from the early pioneers who helped to build up
the prosperity of this country, and all I desire is
to see it progress. I feel I would be recreant in
my duty to those who have preceded me, as well
as to those who may follow me and hear my name
if I stood, at this crisis of our history, opposing a
scheme which the best minds of Great Britain
and British America have declared is indispensable to the continuance ot our prosperity,
and our
connection with the fatherland. On the 24th
June, '65, the British Government told us through
the Colonial Secretary :
" You will at the same time express the strong
and deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Government that it is an object much to be
desired that
all the British North American Colonies should
agree to unite in one Government. In the territorial extent of Canada, and in the
Maritime and
Commercial enterprise of the Lower Provinces,
Her Majesty's Government see the elements of
power, which only require to be combined in
order to secure for these Provinces, which shall
possess them all, a place among the most considerable communities of the world In the
spirit of loyalty to the British Crown of attachment
to British connexion, 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
Provinces on many grounds of moral and material
advantages—as giving a well-founded 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 in regard to 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."
Here you find the British Government imploring us if we are animated by a sincere
spirit of
loyalty, by a desire to remain connected with
Great Britain, to unite without delay. Can any
one read these words unmoved? Let me trust
that the people will respond to the demand made
upon them by those who have the best right to
proffer their advice, and hasten the time when we
shall be united in one grand Confederation, "with
one flag above our heads, one sentiment in our
hearts, with one Sovereigh and one Constitution."
This individual participated in:
