4
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
UNION OF THE PROVINCES.
MONDAY, March 18.
The House met at 3 o'clock.
The adjourned debate on the Answer to the
Address was resumed and all the clauses excepting the last were adopted.
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY. 5
Mr. Stewart Campbell's Speech.
Mr. S. CAMPBELL said :—In accordance with
the intimation given by me on a previous day
—on the first occasion when I had an opportunity of doing so, I now proceed to move
an
amendment to the last clause of the Address
in answer to His Excellency's Speech, and I
will at once read the paragraph which I propose to substitute.
We regret that we are unable to perceive any
grounds whereon to reciprocate your Excellency's
congratulation upon the assumed success of the Delegation, commissioned by your Excellency
under
the resolution of this House to confer with Her Majesty's Government on the subject
of the Union of
the Colonies.
On behalf of the free people of Nova Scotia we
would respectfully submit that in relation to that
question the present is in our opinion a most important crisis in the history of this
Province, and imperatively demands the exercise of the wisest discretion
in the administration of its public affairs. Thus firmly impressed, we deem it to
be our duty to convey to
your Excellency our solemn protest against the
action of the Delegates referred to, and most distinctly to claim and demand, on behalf
of Nova Scotia, that no such measure as that proposed should
have any operation in this Province until it has been
deliberately reviewed by its Legislature, and sanctioned by the people at the polls.
Mr. Speaker, it is with no ordinary feelings
that I view my position in regard to the topic
of to-day. Gladly would I exchange the prominency in which I have been placed for
one
of less responsibility, one calling upon me in a
more subordinate capacity to advocate the
principles which I am prepared to avow.
Truly would I have rejoiced if the occasion
which has rendered my election necessary
had not arisen—if in short there had not been
the necessity for presenting to the house the
views of the people of this country as we conceive them to exist. But although on
personal grounds I would have preferred the substitution of another state of things,
yet being
placed in such a position, and feeling called
upon as I am for action in this matter, I do
not hesitate to approach this subject as a member of a free legislature representing
a free people
In answer to His Excellency's Speech, I feel
that we are called on to say that we cannot
reciprocate the language in which it is couched,—we cannot see that there is any ground
for congratulating ourselves upon the success
of a measure in which the people have no
sympathy or concurrence. In ransacking the
pages of history it is exceedingly difficult to
find a case parellel to this. There are records
of wrong, and spoliation, and injustice, in comparatively modern times, but we must
go
back, very far back indeed to find an instance
such as that which calls for this amendment.
It is true we need only go back a hundred
years to find an unhappy state of things subsisting between the mother country and
her
colonies on this side of the water, and we know
the results of the disaffection then induced by
arbitrary enactments affecting the integrity of
the Empire as it then existed, but I can find
no record of rejoicing in such a condition as
that in which we are placed until I extend my
retrospect and revert to a history of a tyrant,
Emperor though he may be called, who fiddled while Rome was burning. In that case
alone can I find a similarity of circumstances
and a paralleled contempt and disregard of na
tional feeling. The delegation referred to in
the Address was constituted under a resolution
of this Legislature at its last session, which
reads as follows:
Resolved, That his Excellency the Lieut. Governor
be authorized to appoint delegates to arrange with
the Imperial Government a scheme of union which
will effectually ensure just provision for the rights
and interests of this Province; each Province to have
an equal voice in such delegation, Upper and Lower
Canada being for this purpose considered as separate
Provinces.
That delegation was commissioned as I understand it to arrange with the Imperial Government
a scheme of union, but was it even contemplated by the people or the house that that
delegation was empowered to be parties to an
Imperial act of Parliament, an arbitrary act?
I am convinced that no such idea could have
entered into the minds of gentlemen around
these benches. Did we, the Parliament of Nova Scotia entrusted with and empowered
to
decide on the weal or woe of our country, and
charged with the protection of the interests of
the people, part with a right so deeply affecting their welfare as this Union will?
No, sir.
I conceive then that this delegation has exceeded its authority, and that the commission
under which they probably acted was not authorised by this resolution. We had delegates
in connection with this subject on a previous
occasion, and the resolution under which they
were appointed was similar in its terms to
this, but was it supposed that the delegates
sent to Charlottetown and Quebec were empowered to do anything but prepare a scheme
to be submitted {or the ratification of this
house? Not by any means, and therefore
when those gentlemen went across the water
and became parties to an imperial act, when
they were engaged in the lobby of the British
Parliament promoting that act, they exceeded
the authority conferred upon them by this
house and by their commission. In that view
I think that the action of the delegation is such
as the house and the people should not sustain.
This is a matter which should have been
brought back here and subjected to the consideration of the legislature. But they
have
consummated the act as far as it was in their
power to do so, and under what circumstances
have their proceedings transpired? It is well
known that the people of this country in every
section petitioned by thousands praying that
the scheme should not receive any consummation at the hands of the Imperial Government
until it had been submitted
to them at the polls, but how have these petitions been treated? Have we heard that
they
have even been read or even presented, in order that the wishes of the country should
be
known? Then this bill, framed by the delegates, under an authority which they assumed
but had not, was introduced into the House of
Lords, a body composed, I think, of between
300 and 400 members, and how was it there received when presented for consideration?
Of
the hundreds of members, there could not be
found one to witness its formal presentation
one round dozen, and that important bill,
touching the rights, the property and persons
of our people for all time to come, was not
even read. It was read by its title only, and
the important details it embodied never
6
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
reached the ears or the hearts of the members
composing that branch of the Imperial Legislature. It passed the House of Lords with
more facility than a bill imposing a tax on
dogs would have done. It was hurried through
in indecent and disgraceful haste, and sent to
the House of Commons. How was it received
there? I cannot imagine how it should have
met with any other reception than it did when
I read the observations of members of that
house—observations which must have proceeded from information coming from a quarter
from which sounder information should
have been supplied. It was there stated by
prominent members that this matter had been
before the people just previous to the last election; that the Premier had gone to
every hustings, and at every polling booth in the Province had preached on the question
of Union.
It was on information such as that that the
enlightened House of Commons proceeded
and I need scarcely ask members whether
that information was true or false. Is there a
member of this house or a man in the country
who will venture to say that previous to the
last election—at the time when the canvass
was taking place—this question was presented
to the people, or that on any hustîngs it was
even mentioned. And if not, I care not
whether it had been at any previous time. In
the course of my professional training I have
learned this principle: that the last will which
a man makes is that which must; be recognized. Whatever his previous dispositions
may
have been, they are cancelled and annulled by
his subsequent wishes. When, therefore, at
the last election, the matter was altogether
ignored I am right in saying that it was not
before the people, and that they did not then
express their views upon it. But let me be
more particular. I have in my hand a copy of
the London Times, an authority which will be
especially acceptable to members of government, and it contains the debate on this
question. This report contains so many amusing
pieces of misinformation that I must trouble
the house with a few extracts. Mr. Watkins
who, for many good reasons, but none of them
referable to the interests of Nova Scotia, took
a deep interest in the proceedings and action of
the delegation is reported to have said in reference to this Province: " There was
a general election in 1863, and the Prime Minister
went through the country preaching this Confederation of the provinces. It was brought
under the notice of the electors at every polling booth, and at every hustings the
issue was
distinctly raised " I am willing to give the
leader of the government credit for great versatility of talent, but I never knew that he had
the qualifications of a, preacher, unless it
be true which I do not assert, that a great sinner is likely to be most successful
in converting man from sin. If I read on further it
would be still more apparent that the Parliament of England has been grossly deceived
at
a time when there were present about them
men who ought to have taken care that the
subject should be looked into most carefully.
I find also that the debate embodied the idea
that this measure was a treaty of peace between these Provinces. I am rather disposed
to view it as a declaration of war—war on the
rights, the feelings, the interests and the liberties of the people of this country.
Those gen
tlemen who, since the last session, have visited their constituencies must be well
satisfied
of that opposition for no man with open eyes
and ears could have travelled through the rural districts without seeing and hearing
that
the measure was obnoxious to the feelings of
the people. If it were a measure good instead
of bad, if it had merits instead of demerits
without number, I conceive that the people
who are to be affected by its operation should
be heard upon it in a constitutional manner at
the polls, and until they are so heard you may
pass this Act of Parliament, calling it an Imperial Act if you will, but it will be
a blank
piece of paper until the hearts and sympathies
of the people rally round it to give it effect.
By the amendment which I have submitted we
ask to obtain for the people the liberty to speak
on the subject, and why should they not speak.
According to the constitution of this house
the day is not far distant when under any circumstances the House would be dissolved,—
its existence can last but for a few weeks and
why this haste? I must say that we have
approached a crisis of a momentous character
in our history. This Province until a recent
period was a loyal and happy Colony, having
every reason to be loyal, every reason to be
happy until this unfortunate and unhappy
measure was brought in and cast among us.
Shall I be told that loyalty exists now
in the same richness among us as it once and
recently did? Mr. Speaker, I strenuously
opposed the measure last Session on the ground
that the course about to be taken would endanger the allegiance and undermine the
loyalty of the people and since that time I have
seen that that result is but too probable. We
are told by members of the Imperial Parliament that it is desirable we should be separated
from the British Empire and further we are
told that it is not alone for the interests of
Nova Scotia that the scheme has been projected—that there are reasons making it desirable
that we should be connected with a large
country. To secure Canada from foreign invasion the right of Nova Scotians are to
be interfered with and trampled upon I conceive
that Nova Scotia has at least as just a claim
to the protection of England as Canada, Nova
Scotia has been truly loyal, and in every hour
of danger she had exhibited a disposition, to
the uttermost extent of her resources to stand
by and maintain the honor and integrity of the
Empire. I conceive that the transactions of
the past few months are exhibiting a poor return for that loyalty and that allegiance.
The
loyalty which I desire to see is the loyalty of
the heart, not the loyalty pampered and fed
and fattened by the contents of the treasury
The loyalty of the heart, springing from just and
honorable motives—that is the loyalty which
is desirable, and anything else is unworthy of
the name. In this amendment we beg to approach His Excellency with the respectable,
submission that this is a most important crisis
in our history. The men who best know the
country feel this as they travel through its
length and breadth. Pass this act without reference to the people whose rights are
to be
affected, and do you make them its friends?
Do you not rather create in them feelings precisely the reverse? Do you not make them
enemies and disloyal? Those who are in opposition have been denounced as disloyal,
but
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 7
that reproach can hardly come from men who
by their conduct have brought about this state
of feelings. The men who are open to the
charge are those who are forcing it on the
country. I have said that the country was.
peaceable, loyal and happy before,—if it is not
so now it is because of t is measure, and for no
other reason whatever. The amendment suggests a solemn protest against the action
of
the delegation. For the reasons I have mentioned, I think the house should concur
in that
protest. The delegates have exceeded their
authority : they were delegates from the house
for the purpose of preparing a scheme, not for
converting that scheme into an Act of Parliament, while we had within our own borders
a
legislature with a right to exercise its own
judgment, and one that has never done aught
to induce an abridgement of its rights. I
need hardly repeat that I desire to see the
scheme of Union submitted to the people.
That is the view that I have always maintained and expressed, and I should view
with sorrow rather than with anger,
the adoption of any other course for I believe
that any other course would endanger the happiness, the loyalty, and the best interests
of
our people. It is not my intention now to
press upon the House any. other view than the
necessity which exists for preserving this Province in a peaceful and happy condition,
and I
think it is our bounded duty to adopt the
course which I have urged. I wish before detaining the House further, to hear reasons
why that course should not be pursued. I
ask those gentlemen who stand in the the positions
of guardians of the public liberties why they
are not prepared to submit the measure to the
people? Why this haste? What is the pressing necessity? The more the subject is discussed,
the more averse are the people to its
features. During the past summer the feeling
was comparatively mild and moderate to what
it is to-day, and the reason was that in the
trustfulness of their hearts the people never
could have supposed that a measure so seriously to aflfect them would have reached
the
point it has without their voice being heard in
a constitutional manner. But the awful note
has lately sounded in their ears telling them
that their fate is approaching, that their constitution is about to be a thing of
the past, that
their liberties are to be abridged forever, and
they now feel excited if not enraged. If that
be their feeling they have just cause for it.
Men in whom they trusted- men who held
their positions and ate their bread by the
breath of the people- these were the men who
stood between them and their liberties. and
sought to cut of their freedom forever.
It is a painful thing to receive an
injury at the hands of friend—it is a gall
ing thing to receive the blow, of ingratitude, and that is the state of feeling existing
in the breasts of the people of. this country,
They are indignant that the men whom they
elevated to power for other and noble purposes, should have been the instruments of
the
annihilation of their freedom. What should
be the feelings of a representative? There
should be some regard for the feelings of the
men who sent him here and elevated him to
so honorable a position, and if any among us
should disregard these feelings, the day
cannot be distant when their consciences
will be grievously disturbed. I trust none
of these individuals will suffer from the remorse which such considerations will induce;
for my part I shall have the satisfaction of
having in a humble way asserted the rights of
the people on this question. I think that the
friends of England and the friends of Nova
Scotia should require and acquiesce in no other course then t at which 1 have advocated,
for he is no friend to this country and an enemy
to England who would force this measure on
the necks and hearts of an unwiiling people
Mr. S. CAMPBELL continued:—The hon. gentleman says hear! hear! I wish he would hear
and act in conformity with the views I expressed. What placed him in the position
he
occupies? It was the voice of the people of this
city of the metropolis, and for what? To destroy the rights and sacrifice their liberties?
No, not for that, and when he next appeals to
his constituents for their suffrages if ever he
ventures to do so, I hope they will tell him so.
He was placed here to preserve the the constitution of the country and to perpetuate
its
loyalty, and I hope he will he told in a voice
of thunder that he is one of those who have
forfeited the pledges which he gave. I trust
that gentlemen will carefully consider this
amendment, they will see that it contains no
idea that it is not founded in justice and truth,
and is in all respects entitled to their concurrence and support.
Speech of Mr. Killam.
Mr. Killam :—I rise for the purpose of
seconding the amendment which has just been
moved by the hon. member for Guysboro,
with whose remarks I fully agree. It is well
known in this house that I do not make any
pretentions to the eloquence of other gentlemen, but the views I entertain on this
question
are the result of deep conviction. I may not
be able to express these views as I would wish,
but I feel them very strongly. The hon. gentleman has referred to the recent delegation
and the manner in which the authority given
by this house has been exceeded, but he hardly
went deep enough into that, matter in my opinion. He must recollect that when the
Provincial Secretary was pressing his resolution
upon the house, last session, he referred some
years back for the purpose of strengthening his
argument. He stated that the leaders of the
political parties in this Legislature had moved
resolutions in favour of this scheme of Union
but did he ever hear of a single resolution that
had not coupled with it the condition that the
question would be referred back to the Legislature, and that means the people. Mr.
Johnston, Mr. Young, Mr. Howe were all quoted
in illustration of his argument, but can he assert that the question was ever treated
by them
in a practical point of view. The hon. gentleman has in England quoted these gentlemen
as
the advocates of this scheme and tried to make
the public men of that country believe that the
people of Nova Scotia are in favour of a Union
of these provinces with Canada. These delegates were to go and see if they could agree
on
some measure that would suit the members of
8
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
this Legislature better than the Quebec scheme.
There has never been any measure of Union
submitted to this house for its deliberation. Instead of bringing back what they agreed
on they
have put their hands to an Act of Parliament.
We are hereafter to be bound by a paper constitution which has never been submitted
to us
for our consideration. No more important
question than this was ever before the people of
this country. If this bill is passed we are deprived of the power of hereafter legislating
for
ourselves. We shall certainly have a voice in
the General Parliament, but that the people
don't want at all. Nothing can reconcile the
people to the manner in which this measure is
being forced upon them. They might have
submitted to an Act of Union, if the British
Parliament and people had declared that it was
positively necessary for Imperial purposes, but
that has not been the case. It appears by the
papers that Her Maiesty's Ministers have all
the time been under the delusion that in promoting the measure they are pleasing the
people of Nova Scotia—a delusion created and fostered by the delegates. It is not
difficult to
understand the motives that have prompted the
delegates to take the course they have. These
politicians wish to put themselves out of the
power of the people—to obtain place and emolument without the wishes of the people
being
at all consulted. The public men ot New
Brunswick dissolved the legislature when they
returned from Quebec, and the people returned
a large majority opposed to Union with Canada.
Another election subsequently took place. and
the people, for some reason or other, reversed
the verdict they had given previously. So the
the people of New Brunswick have been appealed to twice on this question, whilst the
people of Nova Scotia have not been consulted
even once. The course pursued by these gentlemen is, as far as I know. unprecedented
in
the history of legislation. Even Napoleon did
better than they have done. I look upon this
Act of Parliament, if it is passed, as destroying
the colonial system
If British colonies anywhere find that their
rights and privileges can be transferred at any
time to another country against their wishes—
to some other people with whom they can have
no sympathy—thev will feel that their security
and prosperity rest upon a very insecure basis.
The people of Nova Scotia are not the only
ones opposed to that measure ; for we have reason to believe that a large number of
the Lower
Canadians entertain similar views. Nearly one
half of the people of New Brunswick are opposed to the measure. We know how few people
it takes to turn the scales in an election. It
is quite true that measures often pass the Legislature which are very objectionable
to the
people, but they know that the time will come
when they will be able to express their opinions
on these obnoxious measures, and have them
repealed. Now. however, you are to fasten a
measure upon them which will fetter them for
all time—hand them over to Canada for ever.
I agree with the hon. member for Guysboro',
that this scheme states a fatal blow at the connection between these colonies and
the mother
country. Nova Scotia has always hitherto been
considered a loyal province. I feel as loyal as
any person in this house ; I have not been
ready to bow down to the authority of every
person, but I pay respect to the laws and the government under which I live. I have
British
feelings in my breast, I feel proud to see England great and prosperous, but a measure
of this
kind must create discontent among the whole
population of this province. The majority in
this house who decide against the people assume a very grave responsibility Many of
them will regret it deeply if they act contrary
to the sentiments of the people. We are too
near a great country to be trifled with in a matter of this kind. Let no one attempt
to make
the people believe that the British government
would barter away their rights unfairly. Let
gentlemen consider, therefore, the great responsibility that rests upon them in the
present
important emergency, and decide wisely before
it is too late.
Speech of Hon. Prov. Secretary.
Dr. Tupper replied as follows:—I feel by no
means disposed to find fault with the mode and
temper in which this subject has been approached. No doubt the hon. mover of the amendment,
in confining himself mainly to the con.
stitutional point which he has raised, felt that
the peculiar circumstances under which the
House meets—the very advanced period of the
session and the necessity of dealing immediately
with certain portions of the public business
which will not admit of postponement—induced
him to limit his remarks to the range he has
done. The hon. member who has seconded the
resolution, with that due regard to the public
time which he has always shown, felt also that
this was not an occasion when a great deal of
debateable matter should be opened up. I intend to follow the example of these hon
gentlemen, and shall as succinctly as possible deal
with the constitutional point that has been raised, without going into any lengthy
observations
on the great subject which is brought under the
consideration of the House.
It would have been perhaps too much to expect that the hon. members opposite who entertain
very strong opinions on this question
should not have availed themselves of the present opportunity ot putting upon record
their
views and opinions in reference to the Address.
As one of the advisers of His Excellency I
would have been glad, had it been possible, if a
different course had been pursued and no debateable issue had been raised on the Address.
That course on the present occasion seems to
have been impossible, and I must frankly admit that I was fully prepared for an amendment
from the hon. gentlemen. I may say
with a great deal ot pride and pleasure that I
feel I can approach this question under circumstances upon which I may congratulate
the government, the Legislature. and the
country. As far as I am individually
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
9
concerned, I need hardly tell the house that
from the first hour I felt it necessary as a public
man to give my earnest consideration to public
matters—from the first hour I felt it due to the
people, the management ot whose affairs I had
undertaken, to express my opinion on public
questions—I have never hesitated openly, at all
times and everywhere, to avow my deep and
settled conviction that in a union of British
North America lay the only great future for
any portion of these provinces. True to these
principles, whether in power or in opposition,
to the best of my ability I advocated and sustained these views,—I pledged myself
to my
countrymen, at all times and under all circumstances, that whatever power and influence
they might place in my hands, I would feel bound
to use for the purpose of advancing the interests, elevating the character and promoting
the
security of our common country, by a union of
British North America. Believing as I do that
not only the most marked prosperity would
have followed, but that the only security and
guarantee for the continued possession of British principles in any portion of British
North
America, was involved in that great question, I
have never hesitated to declare my opinion that
it would have been wise on the part of Nova
Scotia to have entered into that union under the
terms propounded by the Quebec scheme.—
There were many gentleman around me, however—many for whom I entertain great respect—who
felt that better terms should be obtained for the Maritime Provinces than were
contained in that scheme. To-day I stand
in the proud position of being able to claim confidently the support of gentlemen
who were unable to give it to me before because whilst their
general principles were in favour of Union they
did not consider that the scheme of Union devised at Quebec gave to these provinces
all the advantages and consideration to which they are
entitled. The position, therefore, that we occupy on this question is one of no little
pride
for we are able to say that we have not only obtained everything which was granted
at Quebec, but that very important concessions have
been made in the arrangements that are now
being consummated, and that all these alterations are most favorable to the interests
of these
Maritime Provinces The narrow range taken
by those gentlemen who have opened up this
question precludes me from dwelling on this
particular feature of it, but an occasion will offer itself later for discussing the
scheme in all
its bearings Then gentlemen in this house
will have ample opportunity to place before the
legislature and country an expression of their
opinion on this great question. It will be therefore only necessary that I should
briefly call the
attention of the house to the position that this
question now assumes, and deal with the constitutional point which has been raised
by gentlemen on the opposite side.
I need not remind the House that no man
can pretend that this is one of the occasions on
which a great surprise is attempted. No man
can contend that this question of a Union of
British North America is not one to which the
public mind and consideration of all classes of
the intelligent people of this country have not
been again and again turned, until it has become perfectly familiar to all. I need
not go
into any lengthy review of circumstances that
took place on this question, but twenty-five years
ago the whole subject, in all its bearings, was
placed in the report of Lord Durham before the
people of British America and of the whole British Empire, and attracted an amount
of attention that few other great public measures
ever received. We might claim the proud distinction that this question has been examined
and discussed within these walls with an acumen and ability that did the greatest
honor to
gentlemen on both sides. If there was a section of British America ready to come to
the
consideration of this question and pass upon it
intelligently, it was the Province of Nova Scotia, familiarized as the people have
been with it
in all its aspects. So far as I am personally
concerned I have never hesitated to express my
sentiments whether as a member of the Government or Opposition. When opposed to the
administration of the day in 1860 I was invited
to deliver a lecture at the Mechanics' Institute
of St. John, and I was permitted the privilege of choosing the subject upon which
I would
address them. I took that occasion to proclaim
not only to the people of my own province
but of British North America, that all the power and influence that I might ever obtain
should
be exerted to accomplish and consummate the
great scheme of British American Union which
had been so ably discussed in previous days. I
returned from the neighbouring province, and
what was the first thing that met me ? Some
gentlemen opposite who perhaps felt that the
eulogiums which that address had received
might make me a little giddy, immediately
declared that after all there was nothing novel in these sentiments, that
they were borrowed from my political
opponents, and that the gentleman then at
their head, Mr Howe, was one of the originators—as I have never denied he was—
of this great scheme of Union. I felt
there was no originality in my views,
that all I had endeavored to do was to give
favor and substance to the question—to pledge
myself as a public man, devoted to the service
of the country, to promote the consummation of
this great scheme. I came back to this city,
and at one of the largest assemblages that I
have ever addressed, repeated these sentiments and pledged myself, in the face of
my
country, that, it entrusted with power by the
people of this Province, I would use that power
as energetically as I was able for the accomplishment of this great project. I went
up, then,
into the neighbouring counties of Hants and
Kings, and Colchester. and there proclaimed
plainly to the people of this country my sentiments on the same great question; I
did so by
public invitation, and delivered these sentiments
amid the united plaudits of men of all shades of
politics. Everywhere I was proud to find that
10
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
this great scheme which I was advocating was
received as an open question, upon which all
political parties could co-operate. After I had
thus re-opened this question, the leader of the
government to which I was opposed, recommitted himself to the principles of British
Colonial
Union, by moving a series of resolutions on the
subject. These resolutions originating with the
government, of which he was the leader, broadly stated that so manifold and so great
were the
advantages that would result from union, that
the government asked for power from this
House to have a conference for the purpose of
taking it up and placing it in a position so that
it might receive the solemn ratification of the
Legislature of this country. Consistent with
the views I had always entertained, I gave my
earnest co-operation to the government on this
question, and a similar course was pursued by
every Conservative sitting on the benches with
me. The Lieutenant Governor was requested
to appeal to the British Parliament on this question. Mr. Howe having received the
authority
from the Imperial Government immediately,
under his own hand, urged upon Canada and
the other British North American Colonies the
importance of dealing with the question. In a
statesmanlike spirit he pointed out to them that
there was only one mode in which this question
could be dealt with—that the only true constitutional course was not to refer it to
the
people at the polls, but to the Legislature. I challenge the gentlemen opposite, instead
of indulging in mere empty declamation addressed not to members inside this
House but to uninformed persons outside—to
point out a single authority here or elsewhere,
in this province or in the mother country whence
we obtained our system of government, that has
ever propounded such a principle as the resolution lays down ; and when they are able
to do
so, I shall be prepared to extend to this
amendment an amount of consideration that
I feel now it is not entitled to. In Mr. Howe's
letter, under his own hand, he says there is only
one way of dealing with the matter—that there
should be a conference of the different provinces to arrange a scheme of Union—but
there
is not one word said about submitting the question to the people, but on the contrary,
he proposed that it should be disposed of by the legislature.
Mr. Howe, sustained by all his colleagues in
the government, claimed for the Legislature of
this country the right of dealing with this question—a principle which the hon. member
for
Yarmouth has himself just acknowledged as the
correct one, though it conflicts with the position
he has taken in seconding the present amendment. That hon. gentleman said that he
was
imbued with a love for British principles. He
was one of the earliest and strongest advocates
of colonial responibility, and true to his principles what has he to-day told you?
"The
Legislature represents the people." That is the
reason when Mr. Young led that side of the
House—when Mr. Howe led the government
of the Liberal party,—when Mr. Johnston, on
this side, led the Conservative party, each and
all, recognizing the fact that we enjoyed
responsible government in all its completeness,
on every occasion when this question came up,
maintained the indisputable right of the Legislature to deal with this question. When
Mr.
Howe and Mr. Killam were demanding that
the people should have the principle of responsible government extended to them, they
affirmed the responsibility of the Ministry to the
people—that the Ministry should have the people's representatives to sustain them,
and that
whilst they had that support, they were quali
fied to discharge all the duties of legislation in
such a manner as they thought was consistent
with the interests of the country.
The hon. member (Mr. Killam) has referred
to Napoleon, and given us the only precedent
that these gentlemen can adduce in support of
their position. The hon. member for Guysboro', a gentleman of legal attainments—who
has sat in the chair you, sir, now occupy.—who
has, therefore, held the highest constitutional
position in this Legislature, was obliged to sit
down without having been able, from the whole
range of constitutional history, to bring forward
a single example in support of his course. The
hon. member for Yarmouth, who has himself a
pretty wide acquaintance with the constitutional system we enjoy, did at last find
a precedent; but was it under the constitutional
principles which it is our pride and glory to
have received from Englang ? Did he find it
in Great Britain or in any portion of her colonial empire ? No; but he had to travel
to despotic France, where the universal popular franchise had placed the country under
the heel of
the most iron despotism that ever existed. All
the public men in this house, Liberal or Conservative, have placed on record their
deliberate sentiment that the Legislature of the country is the place where this question
should be
discussed and decided. But that is not all. The
Duke of Newcastle was appealed to, and what
did he reply ? You have only to go to the journals and you will find him endorsing
the same
principles. Mr. Cardwell was subsequently appealed to, and you see that gentleman
himself
taking the same view of the question, and declaring the right of the Legislature to
deal with
it. The present Marquis of Normanby, reflecting the views of the government of the
day as
he does now his own, embodied in a state
paper his opinion that the Legislature is the
proper place to deal with the matter.
It was stated that if the British Government
had only proper information on this question—
if that dark cloud which prevented them from
seeing the real facts of the case was only blown
away, they would sustain the views of gentlemen opposite. Well all that has been done
; I
hold in my hand the statement of the late Colonial Secretary, the Earl of Carnarvon,
who submitted this question with great ability to the
House of Lords. But first let me ask when
these gentlemen were advocating responsible
government in this country, what did they tell
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
11
us they were going to give us? The institutions of Republican America? No. The despotism
of France ? No. They said that they
intended giving us Responsible Government,
the British system of government, so that the
people of this country might be governed in
precisely the same manner that the people of
the British Islands are governed Who are the
best interpreters of the British system ? When
gentlemen raise an issue upon constitutional
practice, they should sustain their course by reference to the authorities of that
country from
which we take our system. Now this whole
question was put fully before the statesmen and
people of England by a gentleman second in
ability to none in this country—who is one of
those who can almost make the worse appear
the better reason—who can put his views before
the public in the most conclusive manner that it
is possible to place them. Now when this gentleman had exhausted months in enunciating
his views, before the statesmen of the mother
country, what did Lord Carnarvon say after full
consideration of the whole question? Lord
Carnarvon said:—
" Then the noble lord has founded an argument on
the franchise of Nova Scotia, but really if this House
is to go into all the intricacies and details of colonial
government there can be no end to the matter. Such
a course would have the effect of raising questions on
every clause of the bill. The House has simply to ascertain who are the constituted
authorities of Nova
Scotia, whom we are bound to listen to and whose
opinion we are bound to accept. Now, what have
they said? In 1861 the then parliament of Nova
Scotia passed a resolution in favour of confederation
in general terms. In 1863 that Parliament was dissolved and a fresh Parliament was
elected and is in
existence at the present moment. Well, it was only
in April last that that Parliament came to a distinct
resolution in favour of confederation—a resolution as
distinct as words could express it. That resolution
empowered certain gentlemen to proceed on their behalf to England to negotiate with
her Majesty's Government. These accredited envoys were accordingly
sent and the terms have been negotiated and embodied in this measure. It appears to
me that it is not
competent for us to look behind that vote of the Nova Scotia Parliament, and to inquire
what other parties may be in the colony and under what circumstances the colonial
local authorities and legislatures
were elected. If responsible government means anything, it means this—that you not
only give to a colony free institutions and enable the inhabitants to
elect their own Parliament, but you also undertake,
in matters of colonial policy, to deal only with that
colony through the legally constituted authorities.
Any other view of the case would lead us to endless
difficulty."
This is the opinion of a gentleman to whom the
whole press, irrespective of party, has awarded
unqualified praise for the able and perspicuous
manner in which he dealt with this question.
In fact, we have the opinion of the statesmen
and press of all parties in England in support of
the principle—that our Legislature has the authority of legislating on all matters
touching
the constitution for this country save where it
conflicts with Imperial interests. I confess I
feel mortified when we enjoyed the great principles of responsible government—when
these
principles had been worked out so as to reflect
the highest credit upon all parties—when Nova
Scotia had advanced to that position of intelligence that she could be entrusted with
the ma
nagement of her own affairs; I felt mortified, I
say, to see the very men who had laid claims to
having given us this constitutional system,going
to the foot of the Throne and attempting to
prove, as far as all the evidence they could gather would prove, that this province
was unfit
for the government she enjoys—that we were in
that condition of corruption and ignorance that
the Parliament of the country could not be
trusted to discharge thoae legislative duties
which had been entrusted to them under our
constitutional system. If these petitions had
any effect—if the British Government had accepted such statements as true, they would
have
been greatly misled, and would have estimated
the character, education, and intelligence of this
country at a very low standard indeed. We
can point with pride to evidence that under the
institutions we have enjoyed the people have
chosen the best men they have as their representatives, whose acts may challenge the
closest
scrutiny of the mother country and of the world.
If it had been shown that the action of the Legislature had been unworthy of the confidence
of Parliament and Government of England,then
we would have occupied a position that would
indeed be most humiliating to us all. But we
have another construction of this resolution besides Lord Carnarvon's. Here is the
declaration not of the late Colonial Secretary only but
the Queen's Speech, in which the United Cabinet of England give expression to their
sentiments :-" Resolutions in favor of a more intimate union of the provinces of Canada,
Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick have been passed
by their several Legislatures, and delegates duly
authorized and representing all classes of colonial
party and opinion have concurred in the conditions upon which such a union may be effected
in accordance with their wishes. A bill will be
submitted to you which by the consolidation of
colonial interests and resources will give
strength to the sovereign Provinces as members
of the same empire, and animated by feelings of
loyalty to the same sovereign." I have given
you the authority of the leading men of this
country — of the Colonial Minister, of
the British Ministry — and in addition
you have the authority of the Houses
of Peers and Commons of Great Britain.
Let detraction assail that parliament as it may,
the hon. member may endeavour to throw
odium upon it, but there is not a freeman
through the length and breadth of the British
Empire who can fail to admire and respect the
body which, amid the convulsions that have
shaken nations from centre to circumference,
has maintained the proud pre-eminence of England. It does not become a colonial public
man, at a time when the Parliament of Great
Britain is attracting the admiration of the
civilized world — when it is the great
object of other nations to assimilate
their institutions as nearly as possible to
those of the mother country, to attempt to
cast obloquy upon such a body. But they require no defence at my hands; the proud
position that they occupy—the eminent character of
12
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
the statesmen who are called upon to discharge
the functions of legislation in that country need
no eulogium from me. It is with pride that I am
able to state that having sat in the one House
and stood in the other, I listened to the discussions on this great question, and
not only the
constitutional points which are at issue, but the
true character of this union were clearly and ably
propounded by the Parliament and statesmen of
Great Britain. Having had both sides of
this question before them they were able to render such a verdict as they never gave
before on
a great public measure. We are able to stand
here and claim that the friends of Union were
sustained by the friends of British institutions
everywhere—that they have had the support and
co-operation of the friends of the colonial empire in the Parliament of England ;
and what
do you find to-day ? In the " Morning Chronicle"—the organ of the gentlemen opposite—
the debate on the question has been given in
full, as I am happy to see, and what
do you find in the House and Commons?
You find this striking fact to which I wish to
call the attention of gentlemen opposite who
have said that this Union would weaken the
connection with the Crown, that the statesmen of Great Britain, without regard to
party,
Liberal and Conservative, Whig and Tory,
united in one common acclaim that the colonies would not only be rendered more prosperous,
but that the ties that now bind them to the
Empire would be strengthened. The very few
members who could be induced by gentlemen
opposite to reflect their sentiments did so on the
ground that the colonies were a burthen, and
that the sooner they were got rid of the better.
These are the views of Mr. Bright who complained that if this Union was accomplished
the
result would be to burthen the Empire with the
defence of these provinces and what position did
Mr. Ayrton take? He would not commit himself
so far as to oppose Union, but what he complained of was that millions of British
money
were to be expended in connection with a great
highway between this provmce and Canada.
Thus we find the British Government, and all
statesmen who value the colonies as one of the
great sources of the importance and influence
of Great Britain among nations arrayed in support of colonial Union, whilst in opposition
to
to this great scheme we find only the men who
wish to get rid of the colonies altogether.
I must for a single instant call the attention
of gentlemen opposite to the fact that they are
bound by their own recorded votes in 1864 to
vote against this resolution. I had the honour
to move in the session of that year a resolution
authorizing a conference to make a much more
radical change than it is now intended to make
in our constitution. It proposed a scheme of
Union that would have merged our local institutions altogether—the Parliament and
capital
would have been transferred to another place.
When I moved that resolution to appoint delegates for a Conference to bring about
such a result, was there a man to raise an objection that
as it would change the constitution, there should
be an appeal to the people. Where were the
gentlemen who now raise these objections when
I declared that this House had the power to do
what I have said? There was no one then to
raise an objection to such a course. They bound
themselves to the constitutional principle that
this Parliament had the undoubted power, and
right to change the constitution of the country
without an appeal to the people at the polls.
But I can give them another illustration how
lately it is that they have discovered this new
constitutional doctrine—that it is not constitutional for the peoples' representatives,
here in
Parliament assembled, to discharge what they
believe to be a solemn duty to the country.
Can it be possible that these gentlemen have
forgotten that in 1863, just before an appeal to
the people, the Government of the day
brought forward one of the most radical
changes, a change in the constitution  which, I
have no hesitation in saying, would revolutionized England it propounded there to-morrow.
This measure was to strike down one-third of
the electoral body who were about to go to the
polls. When we, on this side of the House,
urged specific grounds that it had already been
proved that the entire majority which they had
obtained at the last general election had been
subsequently lost at the polls, that they were
only nominally the government, and that therefore they ought not to propose so radical
a
change before going to the people, we heard no
such pathetic speeches from gentlemen opposite
as we have had to-day, intended to have effect
in the back settlements of the country ? What
had the hon. member for Guysborough
then to say in favour of the people who
were so ruthlessly to be deprived of their privileges. He stood here then one of the
most violent and declamatory supporters of
the Government, declaring that they would
carry this measure, that they had the constitutional right to do so. Then he backed
up
his leader, Mr. Howe, who had put on record
the most unequivocal testimony of the views
of himself and the Liberal party on this
question. It will be remembered that some
26,000 electors, rather taken aback at this
attempt to change the election law, appealed
to the Lieutenant Governor asking for a dissolution of the Legislature, and what was
the
answer? That the petitioners had a right to be
heard? That such constitutional changes
must be preceded by an appeal to the people?
No! I hold in my hand the declaration of
the leader of the Government stating that it
was the undoubted right of "Parliament to
pass a law in defiance of the people. Yet the
gentlemen who voted in support of such declarations are here to-day to express a mock
sympathy which the people will never give
them credit for. Mr Howe said:—"I am not
one of those who shrink from the performance
of a duty. I have never yet backed down
through outside pressure, or waived my
sense of right because of popular influence."
He goes on to say:—"The hon. gentleman
complained that no answer was ever returned to the petitions for a dissolution. Had
they been sent through the Provincial Secretary, the proper official channel of communi
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
13
cation between the people and the Lieutenant
Governor, no doubt they would have received
an answer; but they pursued a different
course—the petitions were sent by a deputation, and handed in through a spokesman
to
His Excellency." These gentlemen, it appears, considered that it was a sufficient
reason
to treat the petition of 26,000 electors of this
Province with profound contempt because they
did not come through the Provincial Secretary.
Suppose, now, we say to these same gentleman
that if they had sent in their petitions through
the proper channel there would have been a
dissolution long ago. (Laughter.) But they
have never condescended to bring these documents under our notice, and I think I know
the reason why, they did not send them through
the Provincial Secretary's Office
I was surprised at the contempt with which
the hon. member asserted that this measure
was actually being passed in Parliament
without these petitions having ever been read
All I can say is that I sat in the House of
Commons the night before I left England, and,
up to that time, these petitions had never even
been seen. I think when I put this and that
together I may be able to venture a pretty
good calculation why they had not been seen,
and why they had not come through the Provincial Secretary's office. We know that
all
that men could do was done, by appeals in the
press and by public lectures and a paid organization, to excite and stir up disapproval
that
never existed and does not exist now. Yet
despite all the exertions that were made for
many months; they could not get 10,000 petitioners to put their names on this table.
When I
know this fact—that after years of excitement
and misrepresentation they were unable to get
anything but a response of so feeble a character—I can understand why these 30,000
petitioners were not subjected to the scrutinizing
eye of the Provincial Secretary or of any other
person who would be able to verify whether
there was any substance in these petitions or
not. The reason why the Parliament of England had not seen these petitions down to
the
hour of the second reading of the bill in Commons, was probably that they were of
a character that would have excluded them from being
presented. I give this to the hon. gentleman
opposite as the excuse why these petitions
have not been presented, although that apology
is not demanded at my hands.
But I must continue my quotations from the
constitutional maxims of the late Government
Mr. Howe said: "But, sir, if they received no
reply in words, they were completely answered otherwise. The constituents of Digby
unconstitutioually asked for a dissolution; we
answered the prayer of the petition by constructing a valuable wharf in that locality."
(Laughter.) Well, I think we have also constructed a few wharves and bridges in that
community and elsewhere. (Renewed Laughter). Again Mr. Howe continued: "As fast
as possible I am running a road through Inverness, that the life-blood of that county
may flow on through a healthy channel."
(Great laughter.) "Queen's has received a
grant for deepening Liverpool harbour. To the
counties through which the railway passes
my answer is the balance in the treasury to
the credit of the railway, at the close of the
present year. To all the counties I reply,
the general increase in your revenue—the general provincial prosperity—the peace and
order that have reigned everywhere—these are
the bases of my reply to this charge." 'Well, I
think we can claim public support on much
stronger grounds than those adduced by the
hon. gentleman. "But I tell the hon gentleman that even in a legal point of
view he is wrong. I defy him to put
his finger on an instance where Parliament has been dissolved at the instigation of
petitions. A dissolution involves the
exercise of the extreme power of the Crown,
and should rarely, if ever, be resorted to,
except under necessity most urgent and overpowering. * * * Let me now refer to the
opinion of a very eminent divine, who has
marked the operation of universal suffrage,
and hear what this gentleman says on that
subject. After describing the gigantic evils
of the system, he says: 'What then is to be
done? Universal suffrage is the law of our
land. Every one knows that this law cannot
be repealed, for I repeat it the masses must
vote its repeal; and this, of course, they will
not do. There are many indications that of
late years, through the vast flood of immigration, through the infamous conduct of
designing demagogues, through the increase
of intemperance, these degraded masses are
gaining in number and in power.' We have
the power, if we possess the will, to repeal
this law—to strike down once and forever
the evil—to relieve ourselves from the charge
of being the only British colony, save Australia, governed by universal suffrage—to
purge our constitution, and purify our electoral system. Let no man at this crisis
hesitate or falter, but manfully and honestly
perform his duty, to himself and to his country.
This is the doctrine that suited gentlemen
in 1863,—they endorsed it to the fullest extent they possibly could. In 1863 to make
a
radical change in the constitution was right
and proper—to ignore the voice of the 26,000 petitioners was right and proper—to
force a law upon the statute book, to prevent a large body of the people passing no.
on their acts, was fully sustained by these
gentlemen, I am glad that I cannot include
the hon member for Yarmouth in these observations, l'or he was then on this side of
the House.
I was a good deal astonished when I heard
the hon. member state that the delegates had
exceeded the powers which they had received
from the house in dealing with this question. I
must confess I have had occasion sometimes to
find fault with gentlemen opposite for their very
short memories, but I was hardly prepared for
a statement like that. Is there a man in this
house with the exception of the mover of this
amendment who does not know that this question was debated in this parliament plainly
upon
the basis that under that resolution the delegates were to be empowered to go to the
Imperial authorities and obtain the passage of an
Act without future reference to this Legislature? Is there a single man on either
side who
will endorse the statement made by the mover,
that the delegates exceded their authority in the
slightest degree, or that the whole question was
14
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
not argued and discussed upon the basis that we
were, to deal with it finally ; but I do not require to tax the memory of gentlemen
opposite,
for I shall refer them to the journals of the
House, and prove by the resolution moved by
the hon. member himself, that he knew that the
action taken here last session was the consummation of the measure as far as this
Legislature
was concerned. In the amendment moved by
the hon. member for Guysboro', we read :
"Therefore resolved, That it is the opinion and
sense of the House that the Government and Legislature of this Province should be
no parties to the
consummation of any scheme tor the Confederation
of the British North American Provinces and Colonies, until an opportunity shall have
been first afforded to the several constituencies of the Province at
large, to express their views and opinions thereon
in a constitutional manner at the polls."
It was, therefore, perfectly plain that the
delegates were to go to England and arrange
with the Imperial Government a plan of Union
which would become the law through the Imperial Parliament, and yet in the face of
this
well known fact we have heard the hon gentleman declaring that the delegates had exceeded
their authority. The debate in this House,
the discussion in the press, all go to show that
it was everywhere known that the delegates
were to finally arrange a scheme of Union. I
have already read to you the Queen's Speech,
declaring that we came clothed with the most
thorough constitutional power to deal with this
question, and that too finally.
New Brunswick, said the hon. gentleman, has
been appealed to twice. Why is it that the
people of Nova Scotia have not been allowed to
express their opinions even once ? At Quebec
it was agreed that the scheme of Union should
be submitted to the several Parliaments. It
was the last session of the Legislature of New
Brunswick, and the Government found that they
had not a majority to carry the measure. They
appealed to the people, who decided against the
Government, and therefore all action in relation
to the measure in this house was prevented, for
every man felt that whatever were his opinions
on the subject no Union was practicable unless
New Brunswick came into it. Action was accordingly suspended in this province until
a
change should take place in New Brunswick.
Subsequently the people there, having had the
question fully explained to them, reversed their
former verdict and gave a large majority of
Union. When it became obvious here that
New Brunswick would concur we submitted the
question to this House. I ask the hon mover
of the resolution as well as its seconder if either
of them will venture to say to the House that
the position of the government in this Legislature is in the slightest degree analogous
to
that of the government of New Brunswick.
They were called upon to take action upon the
measure, and believed that by an appeal to the
country they would be sustained, and consequently they made that appeal. Subsequently
it was found that the tide of public sentiment
had turned—the explanations which were made
on this question had shown the people that they
had been egregiously deceived before, and accordingly the moment they were allowed
to
speak again they returned an overwhelming
majority in favor of the great principle of union.
The hon. member said that the Government
had pressed this matter here with "indecent
haste." Does he not know that this scheme of
Union was decided upon at Quebec in 1864 ?
It was a subject of agitation for nearly two
years, down to 1866, but more than that, are
not these same gentlemen who now charge " indecent haste" against us the men who,
session
after session, not only two years ago, but last winter as well, taunted the government
and myself
with cowardice, with failing in what was our
duty to the house and country—for not having
had the manliness to come forward and submit
the question to the members of this Legislature.
But when we knew that the time had come,
when we could deal with this question not as a
hypothetical measure, but one on which the
House could take action in consequence of the
change of sentiment in New Brunswick in favor
of Union—when we found that the duty we
owed to the House and country demanded that
we should bring the question before the Legislature, to be dealt with in the proper
constitutional manner, what did these gentlemen say
and do? When they saw that they had mis—
calculated the intelligence and patriotism of this
House and the public sentiment of this country
—that instead of having the overwhelming majority that they had deluded themselves
into
believing they had, they were in an insignificant
minority; then these gentlemen suddenly dis
covered that we were not open to the charge of
cowardice and want of statesmanship, but that
we were pressing the matter with "indecent
haste." (Applause)
The hon. member for Yarmouth asked why
we did not submit the question to the people as
they did in New Brunswick. No man, sir, in
the history of constitutional legislation ever
heard of so unstatesmanlike a course as a government dissolving the parliament in
which they
had a clear, undoubted majority to carry a measure which they believed would promote
the general prosperity of the country. I do not appeal
only to gentlemen who are ready to support the
government on the question—not to gentlemen
in opposition, who are ready to sacrifice the
best interests of party at the shrine of patriotism
—who think more of their country than of subserving the ends of party—but I ask the
opponents of this measure not to give their votes in
favour of such a resolution, when its advocates
are obliged to confess that they have not in the
whole range of constitutional government a single precedent in favour of the course
they have
chosen to pursue. But what does the hon. member for Yarmouth say about the sat election
in
New Brunswick? " A very few votes did it, I
would not be surprized if New Brunswick now
went against it." Then the hon. member has
himself given us a very clear idea of the futility
of appeals to the people. He has seen New
Brunswick one day giving its decision in favour of, and on the next against, Union.
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
15
But certain gentlemen deputized by some one
or other—I do not think there will be anybody
hereafter ready to father the act—have written
a remonstrance against Union to the Colonial
Secretary. If ever there was a libel on the British constitutional system—if responsible
government was ever brought down to the very depths
degradation, as far as it was in the power of certain parties to put it there, it
was when the
three unauthorized men, two of whom had been
rejected by the people at the polls, presented
themselves at the foot of the throne, and told
the Imperial Government that notwithstanding
our system of government the people are too
ignorant, and the Parliament is too corrupt to
be entrusted with the free institutions we enjoy,
and asked that they should be considered the
true constitutional authorities to whom
the Government and Parliament of the
mother country should pay respect. I know
not who authorized this delegation, but I was
not a little surprized to find these gentlemen
who presented themselves with the authority of
some one or other, asking the Government and
Parliament of England to accept them as our
representatives and to ignore the voice of the
government and legislature of this country, but
especially was I astonished to find them putting
their names to a state paper in which they declared that the position of the people
of New
Brunswick—where the very thing they are
are now asking for has been done—is
perfectly contemptible and compared the verdict they have given at the polls to that
of a
brow-beaten jury under Jeffreys. Yet these
same gentlemen, professing to represent the
sentiments of the people of Nova Scotia, ask the
Government of England to allow the people to
express their opinions at the polls—on the
ground that they had such an appeal in New
Brunswick.
The hon. gentleman has taken exception to a
statement made by Mr. Watkin. I admit freely
that that statement was too strong, and to some
extent inaccurate. I think, however, the hon.
member for East Halifax who was one of the
deputation will admit that it is not a very easy
matter to get gentlemen constantly occupied
with questions of great national importance immediately touching their own country
to understand all the "ins and outs" of our colonial discussions and struggles. I
am glad, however, to
be able to fully acquit myself of having misled,
any one on this question in England. I took
the liberty of placing in the hands of Mr. Watkin and every other member of the House
of
Commons an authentic statement of my own,
and in that document I have shown accurately
as I contend every step that has been taken in
the progress of this questiton. I may state to
the House, and I do it in all sincerity, that from
the first I have never entertained but one opinion, and that is, the intelligent sentiment
of the
people of this country is in favour of Union. I
do not say that I have ever felt it would
be a wise experiment to appeal to the people on this question; that would be an en
tirely unprecedented proceeding; but I know
enough of appeals to the people to be
aware that it is quite possible for the public sentiment to be in favour of a measure,
and yet for this measure to be unsuccessful
when put to the people. I believe a public man
is bound in the advocacy of public measures to
study as far as possible what is required to promote the public good, and to go as
far as he can
in his public legislation as the public sentiment
will sustain him. I have been, perhaps, as
strong a party man as any in this country, but
I am proud to be able to say, that anxious as I
have been to promote the views of party, much
as I believe in the existence of parties in the
state, and the advantage of having a strong opposition as well as government,—anxious
as I
am to serve the partv from whom I have received such unqualified support and co-operation—I
am able to say that I have regarded
one thing as of paramount importance, and that
is, the interests of my country. It is not the
first occasion on which as a public man, standing in the responsible position in which
it has
pleased the people of this Province to place me,
I have brought forward measures and advocated them with all the zeal and earnestness
that I
could bring to their discussion, although at the
same time I believed them to be as fatal to the
interests of my party as it was possible for any
measures to be. I need not tell the House what
was the sentiment of the country in regard to
taxation for the support of schools. I need not
tell the House how perfectly I was satisfied
that, in the ranks of the party which sustained
me throughout this country, there was a
very large body of people who would not only
resist, but resent such a change in the law as
would impose a large burthen upon the people
for the support of the schools. But I came to
this table, and imposed such a burthen, under
the conviction that it was my duty so to do, for
my conscience told me that that measure was
imperatively required to promote the best interests of the country at large ; but
although I
expected to produce temporary dissatisfaction,
I never had a doubt what the result would be
after the people had had abundant opportunity
of testing the merits of the law.
I believe that the intelligent sentiment of the
country is in favour of this Union, but then the
mode by which it might be defeated would be
this : Whilst the opponents of the measure in
the ranks of the conservative party would withdraw their confidence and support from
the government, gentlemen who oppose the measure,
but prefer another party in this province, would
combine with the former, for the purpose of defeating the men in power. How could
I have
any doubt as to the intelligent sentiment of this
country ? Long ago it was acknowledged as a
question removed from party—one which public men, irrespective of party considerations,
should unite in promoting. When it was found
that the government must under all circumstances stand or fall by this question, then
for the
first time were public men who had been them
16
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
selves most enthusiastic advocates of Union prepared to take advantage of the opportunity
thus
afforded.—I will not say an unfair advantage,
though I would be justified in saying so—for
party purposes. Dcspite such facts, however,
I feel convinced that not only the great body of
the conservative party, but the majority of the
liberals of this country—the standard bearers of
which have given this question a support which
does infinite credit to their patriotism—are just
as warmly in favour of Union as when Mr.
Howe was its most able exponent. I do not deny that there has been a large and formidable
opposition to this measure, but I believe when
the people look at it without reference to other
public questions or any considerations of a party character, when it is no longer
sub judice but
become the law of the land, the constitution of
the country for weal or woe, all classes will
combine to sustain it, and the opponents of
Union themselves will feel that there is but one
course to pursue if they wish to lay claim to the
character of statesmen and patriots—and that is
to work out our new institutions in a manner
that will be most conducive to the interests of
the province at large. (Cheers.)
The hon. member referred to the London
Times as a great authority, but no person knows
better than he does that that journal has been
regarded as antagonistic to the interests of British America, and that it has always
favoured
the Australian colonies. It will be also remembered that it has taken the same view
of this
question as has been taken by the opponents of
Union in Parliament, that these colonies are a
burthen to the mother country. The great objection, in fact, which it has urged against
this
scheme is, that instead of dissevering the connection. Union has bound us for ever
to the
Crown, and that the British Government are
committed to the guarantee for the construction of the Intercolonial Railway.
Reference has been made to the defenceless position of Canada. Now I have always regarded
—and I am glad to find that every man who has
had an opportunity of studying the question has
coincided with me—it would be utterly impossible to retain Nova Scotia unless Canada
and New Brunswick were retained. New Brunswick is especially defenseless, and if that
province and Canada should fall into the possession
of a foreign power there is no British statesman
who will undertake to say that the security of this
province could be maintained. Therefore this
is not a question whether one province is more
defenseless than another, but whether the combination and the consolidation of the
whole will
not give increased security to all. The gentlemen who havc been deputed to advocate
the
views of the opponents of Union have placed on
record what I suppose are the opinions of the
gentlemen they represent. The organ of the
party led by Mr. Howe was the first to propound
the principle that British subjects in this country
were bound to pay pound for pound for the defence of the empire with every other portion
of
the British Empire. When the " Morning
Chronicle" was wrested from the hands of its
former editor because he had become the friend
of British America Union, and the hon. members for East Halifax became its editor
as well
as proprietor, the first thing he did was to put on
record what their scheme was for the defence of
the country. If the hon. member says " Leave
well enough alone," I will turn him to the record of the leader of the Anti-Union
party. The
hon. gentleman (Mr. Howe) has given in the
most authentic form his opinion that the province has in the present condition of
affairs " no
security for peace." A number of articles which
are now known to be written by Mr. Howe were
published in the hon. member's paper, and in
these the declaration was made, in so many
words, that their scheme for the defence
of the Empire was to levy a tax upon the
people equal to that borne by the rest of the Empire. The hon. member for East Halifax,
in a
pamphlet which he wrote as the representative
of the Anti-Union party has put it on record that
he is prepared to pay "pound for pound with
the Canadians." I ask, then, the hon. mover of
this resolution with the fact before him that the
leader of the Anti-Union party has propounded
a scheme—a scheme endorsed by the other Anti-
Union delegates—that would absorb the entire
revenue of this province for defence alone; does
it lie in his mouth or of any opponent of Union
to charge us with having attempted to increase the
burthens of the country in relation to defence.
Not only is this scheme the only means by which
British America can remain British America—
by which we can retain the free British institutions which it is our pride and happiness
to
possess—but it opens up to these countries an
avenue to prosperity such as was never offered to
any people before. Therefore I say this measure of Union instead of increasing the
burthens of these people is effected upon terms
which are going to continue us under the aegis of
Great Britain—to preserve to us her free institutions, to give us the largest amount
proaperity;
all this, too, with an immunity from burthens
that might well make us the envy of the world.
Look across the borders, and what do you see
the allies of our opponents doing? We see the
Governor of Maine in his annual message declaring his hostility to Confederation,
and asserting that the friends of the United States in
these provinces were doing their utmost to prevent the consummation of that scheme.
Is there
a man in this country who can be so blind as not
to see what that means? Can any one fail to see
the opinion the sagacious statesmen of the United Statcs entertain of the future which
is in
store for British America under the scheme of
Confederation. The statesmen-of that country
are bound to do all in their power to promote
the stability of the institutions which they possess, but I am not less able to draw
my deduction from the course they are pursuing. In the
report of the Parliament of Maine, founded upon
that portion of the Governor's Address which
refers to Confederation, you find a contrast
drawn between British America and the United
States. They tell you that the population of
New Brunswick is increasing three times as
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
17
rapidly as that of Maine, and look with disfavor
upon a scheme which is going to increase the
prosperity of that province as well as of all British America. They see that this
scheme will
give an increase of power and influence to these
provinces—will bring into them a large amount
of capital and wealth—will enable them to enjoy
an unparalleled amount of prosperity, free from
that heavy load of taxation which is now weighing down the people of the United States.
It is
for reasons like these that the statesmen of the
United States look with a jealous eye upon the
establishment of institutions that are going to
strengthen the connection that now binds us to
the parent state and to make us great and powerful. I ask gentlemen opposite to weigh
carefully the opinions which American statesmen express in respect to this measure
of Confederation, and ask themselves whether the are justified in (pursuing a policy
antagonistic to the
establishment of institutions which are not only
going to make us prosperous but to place us in a
position that will excite the envy of one of the
greatest nations of the world. (Cheers.)
MONDAY, March 18.
EVENING SESSION.
The house resumed at 7.30.
The adjourned debate was resumed.
Speech of Mr. Annand.
Mr. ANNAND said — I have been for
twenty-five years a member of the Legislature
—so long a time that, though not very far advanced in years I have become the father
of the house, but long as my experience has
been, I never until the present occasion witnessed an evening session on the second
day
of our meeting. But I take this to be all of a
piece with the arbitrary proceedings by which
Confederation is to be forced upon the people
of this Province—time is not to be given for
deliberation and free discussion. We have
been told that the season is advanced, and
that the revenue laws will soon expire, but
certainly we had a right to expect that upon
so important a subject as changing the constitution of the Province, at least a week's
debate would have been allowed us without seriously interfering with the public business.
The revenue bills last year were brought down
on the 28th of March, and we could therefore
have been allowed ten days for this question,
and still have left as much time as was deemed necessary last year for arranging the
tariff.
The Provincial secretary has said that he
stood here last year as the defender of the
Quebec scheme—that he was a consistent defender of that scheme—but I was surprised
to
hear him tell us that its terms were inferior to
those which he and his colleagues at Westminster Palace Hotel have obtained for us.
I
was surprised at that statement, because after
a calm examination I have come to the deliberate conclusion that those terms are far
worse. Let me remind the House of the remarks made by the gentleman who made overtures;
to the Government to bring down a resolution for the appointment of delegates. He
said he rose to condemn the Quebec scheme
—that he desired to see it destroyed, and a bet
ter one framed. Another gentleman, representing a distant constituency, made similar
observations, expressing his pleasure that the
Government had abandoned the measure
adopted at the Quebec Conference. But what
do we find in the English press, and the speech
of Mr. Adderly in the House of Commons?
That the bill introduced by the Earl of Carnarvon, at the instance of the Delegates,
is in substance the Quebee scheme. Whom then, are
we to credit, the hon. Provincial Secretary,
or the Under Secretary for the Colonies? And
then we have the bill, which speaks for itself.
The delegates were charged under the resolution of this house to arrange a scheme
of union
with the Imperial Government which would
effectually ensure just provision for the rights
and interests of this Province—far better terms
than those embodied in the Quebec scheme,
which the Government had virtually abandoned.
We are told that "better terms" have been
obtained, and I ask the Provincial Secretary
to point out in what respect the new Confederation scheme is an improvement on the
old
one. Why confine himself to a bald declaration upon a subject of such magnitude and
deep interest to the people of this country? I
join issue with the hon. leader of the Government on this point. I contend that the
terms
obtained by the delegates, instead of being
better, are far worse than those embodied in
the resolutions adopted at Quebec. Under
the Quebec scheme our local legislature would
have had the right to impose an export duty
on coal, from which a large revenue might, if
it was thought proper, be raised and applied
to the local wants of the country. That right
has been taken away from us, and transferred
to the Government of Canada, who are clothed
with the power of taxing as they please one of
the most valuable exports of the Province. It
is clear, then, that in respect to our minerals,
worse instead of better terms have been the
result of the negotiations on the other side of
the water. Then there is the much discussed
subject of the Intercolonial Railway, estimated to cost four millions of pounds sterling,
which it was said would be guaranteed by the
British Government if the Provinces consented to unite in a Confederation. But, as
I understand the present position of affairs, the
Imperial authorities will not venture to ask
Parliament to guarantee more than three millions—a sum sufficient to carry the road
into
the midst of a howling wilderness, leaving it
there, and benefitting no one but those charged
with the expenditure of the money. But then
I will be told that the financial terms are better—that much larger grants for local
purposes have been secured under the new arrangement than the old one. The delegates
will
say, " have we not procured $60,000 a year for
defraying the expenses of your local government, over and above the 80 cents a head
you
were to receive under the Quebec scheme;—
and have we not also made an arrangement
by which you will continue to receive your 80
cents a head until your population is 400,000?"
This is quite true, but the concession will be
estimated at its true worth when I inform the
house of the large increase of revenue which
has taken place in the Province since the adop- 4
tion of the resolutions of the Quebec Conference. These were framed in 1864, and the
fi
18
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
nancial arrangement which was to give us 80
cents a head was based upon the revenues of
1863. Since that time our customs revenues
alone has increased $351,822—considerably
more than the annual subsidy; and yet we are
expected to be thankful when we are promised an additional $60,000 a year—about one-
third of the increase of the revenue for a single year, 1866, under our present low
tariff.—
The terms may seem better, but are they such
as we were entitled to receive—such terms, as
with a full knowledge of the facts, the delegates were bound to secure for the people
they
professed to represent? $60,000 a year; what
is it? By a single enactment the general government could levy a larger export duty
on
coal every year. The increased taxes from
the advalorem duties alone of a Canadian tariff, 50 per cent above ours. will add
nearly
$300,000 a year to our taxation. Talk of taxes!
Our people are for the first time in their lives
about to realize what taxation is under this
precious scheme of confederation.
A great mistake was made in seeking to
change the institutions of these Provinces, under which they have all grown to be
free, happy and prosperous. They would not leave
well enough alone,—and they must take the
consequences of their folly in seeking to establish a new nation, which can only exist
upon
the forbearance of a powerful and exacting
neighbor. We are told that the country is
familiar with the question. Yes, with the
question in the abstract. It has been discussed here from time to time. some favoring
a
Legislative and others a Federal Union, but
no one having a clear and definite view of the
subject. Mr. Howe, who I heartily wish was
here to defend himself, has been charged with
being the originator of Confederation. I deny
the truth of that assertion, and challenge an investigation of that gentleman's speeches
and
writings for a single instance in which he advocated such a scheme as that now pressed
upon our acceptance. My friend has written
and said much on the subject of Union; he has
discussed the subject in its various phases,
but he raised objections to them all—to a Legislative Union, to a Federal Union, to
union
with the United States—and only gave in his
adhesion to the larger and more comprehensive scheme known as the "Organization of
the
Empire." Mr. Howe never favored any scheme
of Union that would have destroyed the autonomy of this Province, and certainly never
would have been a party to any measure that
would have handed over the revenues and resources of Nova Scotia to Canada, or any
other
country. The Provincial Secretary says that
he (Prov. Secy.) held meetings in various
parts of the country, where he lectured upon
Union. And if he did, what then? He does
not pretend to say that he advocated a Confederation scheme like the present, but
like
Mr. Howe, whom he appears to have a mania
for imitating, he was in favor of Union of some
sort, without any very clear or definite views
upon the subject. But suppose Mr. Howe
had written all his life long in favour of Union,
or even in favour of Confederation, what then?
We are here to decide for ourselves and for the
people of this country, and we are bound to
examine and see whether it is for their benefit
or not to reject this or any other measure, but,
above all, to claim their right to be heard before
any change is made.
The Pro Secy. referred to the suffrage question, and told us the late Government introduced
a bill to disfranchise a large body of
the electors. They did. But the difference
between that case and the present is: they did
not succeed in passing the measure into law,
and going to the elections their action was condemned, and they paid the penalty.
The people returned a majority in favor of universal
suffrage—they rebuked the action of the late
Government, but what chance have the electors of reversing the Confederation policy
and bringing back their constitution, when the
Bill before the Imperial Parliament becomes
law? The hon. member knows that they have
none, and that the cases are not parallel.
He has asked us to show a precedent for the
course which we urge. It is not for him to
ask that of us, but we demand of him where
in the history of the world any such attempt
has been made to deprive a people of their
government and institutions against their
will—without even the Parliament being allowed to review the measure. Such a policy
may be tried with impunity in a province like
Nova Scotia with its 350,000 people, but could
it be safely tried in the Canadas with their
two and a half millions? Could it be tried in
England? Suppose any ministry in the mother country were to bring forward a measure
for the annexation of the British Islands to
Austria or any other any other kingdom—
could it be done without a revolution? We
are too weak to rebel if we had the disposition, but it is a fair principle that what
could
not be done constitutionally in England
should not be done here. It is said that the
resolution of 1861 introduced by Mr. Howe
committed the late Government and every
member of the house to the support of Union.
That resolution merely declared that the subject of union had been frequently discussed,
and that the time had come when it should
be set at rest. That resolution speaks for
itself—it bound no gentleman to support
any particular form of union, or union at
all; much less a scheme prepared three years
afterwards at Quebec containing provisions
which no one could have dreamed of in 1861.
That resolution led to a conference in 1862 at
at which were present delegates from Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick, and the whole
Executive Council of Canada. I was one of
the delegates, and was present when the question of colonial union was discussed.
And what
was the decision? This House had asked that
the question should be " set at rest." and the
answer they received was that it was premature
even to discuss the question. The delegates
considered it premature to consider the subject
until the Intercolonial Railway had been built,
and free trade between the Provinces established.
That then is the answer to the argument drawn
from the resolution of 1861 which, it should be
remembered, was not even debated in this
House. The Prov. Sec. spent nearly an hour
in enlarging upon the rights and powers of
Parliament. No one disputes the power of
Parliament.—what we were discussing is not
the power, but the sound and wise exercise of
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
19
that power by a body elected for very different
purposes—elected to carry on the business of
the country under the existing constitution.
We are told by high authority that Parliament
can do anything but make a man a woman, and
while we may admit that it might be tight on
the part of the Imperial Parliament to override
the constitution of a Colony were a great State
necessity to arise, we have no right under the
limited powers which we possess to transfer to a
body of men assembled on the other side of the
water our legislative functions. This fact
must be borne in mind; that this measure is
not the result of the action of the Parliament
of the country; the Quebec scheme and the
bill before the Imperial Parliament have never
been before us, and I deny the right of any
body of delegates, however appointed, to make
laws for us. We are told that there never was
such an attempt to violate the principles of
Responsible Government as was manifested by
the minority in this house endeavoring to
counteract the action of last winter by which
the delegates were clothed with power to prepare a scheme. My idea of Responsible
Government is that the Administration shall be
carried on according to the well understood
wishes of the people, and I hold that the gentlemen who crossed the sea as delegates
knew
that the people were opposed to any such change
as they proposed to make; that they were arbitrarily seeking to change the Constitution
contrary to the well known sentiments of the
people. The Prov. Secretary calls upon us to
show him an example in the history of the
world where a statesman was idiotic enough to
dissolve the house when he had a majority at
his back. We do not ask a dissolution. Let
the duration of the house run down, and the
question come before the people in its natural
course. But was not Mr. Tilley, who had
such a majority, "idiotic" enough to dissolve
the house in New Brunswick? We all know that
he did, and the consequence was that he and
his Government were defeated at the polls. His
was the manly course, for which he fairly earned the respect of the people of that
Province.
This may not be a very inviting precedent, but
that is the answer I give to the honorable gentleman. If there can be any doubt about
the
force of this precedent, I will give another: It
was asked in the Canadian Parliament whether
Confederation should not be placed before the
country, and Mr. Brown, the President of the
Council, said that if there could be any doubt
about the feelings of the people, then, decidedly,
the question should be referred to them.
One reason why this Union is to be forced
upon us maybe gathered from a conversation
between two Canadian gentlemen who were
present on the opening of the present Session.
When that part of the Lieutenant Governor's
Speech was read which referred to the large increase of our revenue, one remarked
to the other
" Good for us." It is " good for us," says Canada, to get these Maritime Provinces,
with their
surplus revenues, with unlimited power to tax
them as we wish. The Provincial Secretary
asked why the petitions of the people against
Confederation had not been forwarded through
the Lieutenant Governor I will tell him. In
the first place, these petitions were addressed
to the House of Commons. The Provincial
Secretary made a complaint of their not being
sent through him, but I was not aware before
that it was customary to send such petitions
through the Secretary of the Colony. Petitions to the Queen are in a different position
;
but the hon. gentleman is incorrect in intimating that he never saw the petitions,
for
one of them was forwarded to the Lieutenant
Governor, and there were other proceedings
that passed through his office to which he
has not referred There were petitions and
addresses from eight counties. There were
addresses asking the members from six counties to resign their seats, because they
voted
for Confederation; and let me say that if such
proceedings had taken place in England—proceedings affecting the entire majority in
the
House of Commons, no ministry dare attempt
to resist such an appeal. The hon. gentleman
spoke about the subject being familiar with
prominent men in England; let me ask how
many members of the houses of Lords and Commons read " The case of the Maritime Provinces,"
as put before them by the People's Delegates? I use the term " People's Delegates"
because we did represent the people; for though
a tyrannical majority may rob us of our constitution, yet there is an overwhelming
majority
behind us who denounce the arbitrary manner
in which the measure was pressed.
What where the facts in connection with the
Confederation Bill? A more indecent proceeding never took place, even in this house
than
was witnessed in the House of Lords on the
third reading of that bill. When delay was
urged by one peer, although the house had been
comparatively full at the commencement of his
speech, there were but nine members on the
benches when he ceased speaking. That is an
illustration of the wicked indifference to the
wishes and interests of the people of this Province which has prevailed throughout.
My
hon and learned friend from Guysboro' very
justly said, this afternoon, that more interest
would have been excited by a bill imposing a
tax on dogs than by a measure involving the future welfare of these British North
American
Colonies. I was in England for some time, and
therefore have had a pretty good opportunity
of guaging the public mind, and I know that the
recent yacht race across the Atlantic, at which
everybody laughed on this side of the water, excited the greatest attention in England,
and produced articles in the press which were nauseating to read, while the ablest
writers of the day
were unable to interest the public in a measure
affecting the interests and welfare of these loyal
Provinces, and involving perhaps their separation from the mother country. What took
place in the House of Commons? The bill was
sent down one day, and for the first time in the
history of that house, it was read a second time
on the following day. Before the papers illust
20
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
rating the subject had been presented—before
our " case was printed—the indecent spectacle
was witnessed of the bill being hurried through
a second reading. I give that has a reason why
the petitions were not laid before the house.
The bill was brought down, as it were, yesterday, and before they could be presented
on the
following day, it was read a second time
I can fancy I understand the influences that
were brought to bear upon some members of
Parliament, among whom was the late Under-
Secretary of State for the Colonies There
was evidently a feeling that it was necessary
to smuggle the measure through. But although there was hot haste as to the
second reading, time was afterwards given
for consideration, and I am not without hope
that there may yet be manly spirit enough to
send the scheme back to the people of Nova
Scotia. That second reading was carried by
declarations that we had no grievance at all,
that the subject had been before the people at
the last general election, that the opposition
was factious and did not represent popular opinion. One very significant fact has
already transpired; last year it was said that the Queen desired Confederation—that
the Secretary for the
Colonies, the Parliament, press, and people of
England all desired it, but now, when the responsibility is thrown on the British
Cabinet, what
do they say? Her Majesty says that the bill has
been prepared in conformity with the wishes of
the delegates from the various provinces.
And what does the act itself say? It says it
is introduced because the delegates desire the
measure. Her Majesty's Ministers, fearing
that trouble may come—that the new nationality
may come to grief—shake themselves clear of
the responsibility, and can hereafter point to the
bill and say—" This is no measure of ours ; we
merely gave the force of law to the enactment,
which you desired." I was amused to hear the
Provincial Secretary say that the friends of union
were sustained by the friends of British connection in England. I have had opportunities
unsurpassed by any Colonist of ascertaining the
feelings of gentlemen connected with the press
of England, and I here declare that
the leading opinion of the governing
classes of England is, that these colonies
should be made into an independent nation,
and they would gladly have separated Canada from the Maritime Provinces, but they
felt that a maritime frontage was essential for
her existence. The opinion, I repeat, of the
friends of Confederation is that we should be
united, and put in such a position that by a
single stroke of the pen we may be separated
from the parent state. Examine that bill and
you will find that the only link of connection which it will leave us is the Governor
General who is to receive out of our revenues
a salary of $50,000 a year. Do you suppose
that when we are charged with our foreign
relations; as was intimated by Mr. Adderly,
when we have our own army to maintain; for
the troops are evidently to be withdrawn un
less we are prepared to pay them, when
the appointment of the Governor General by
the Crown is the only connecting link, can it be
supposed that it will be long before we have our
President? You cannot engraft this mongrel
system upon monarchical institutions,—when
you change you must become a Republic, and
the game played by the American Gov.ernment in Mexico will be played over
again here. I look upon this scheme as
the first step towards a separation from
the Mother Country, and I prophecy that ten
years will not pass before this new nationality
will drift into the United States. Look how
easily the thing can be done—just as easily as the
Confederation scheme was accomplished.—
Several gentlemen were appointed, at the instance of this house, to attend a conference
in Prince Edward Island to mature a scheme
for the union of the Maritime Provinces.
The Canadians came down and spirited them
to Quebec where, for reasons best known to
themselves, they all agreed to go in for the
larger union. They afterwards by some
means succeeded in securing the assent of
New Brunswick and of this house, though
not of the people, and they are now about to
consummate it. Can it be supposed that the
Americans will not imitate an example which
has been so successful, and that by the
exercise of that acute diplomacy for which
they are famous, and by the expenditure of
money, when it is required, sweep the whole
concern into the American Union? The Canadians are just the men, and the Confederate
Government will be just the place to try such
an experiment.
I have ever felt that the moment we ceased to be separate provinces, and came under
the dominion of Canada, her fate must
be our fate, and we must be dragged wherever she might be pleased to carry us. Many
leading men in England entertain that opinion strongly, and tell us that it would
be
our advantage to join the American Union
There is another reason given why we should
confederate and be got rid of, and it has
force from an English point of view. It is
said in England, " as long as we maintain
these colonies, particularly Canada, with its
long and defenseless frontier, so long must
we have a running sore ; but if we were rid
of them, we would talk to the Americans in
a different style; we would not submit to
insult and indignity which we are now
obliged to do from day to day." But we
are told that the friends of British connection are the friends of union. What, for
example, says the Times? In a recent number that great organ of public opinion
wished Confederation God-speed, and trusted it would soon eventuate in the independence
of these colonies. But those supporting our opinions took a larger and more
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
21
statesmanlike view ; they held that when
England loses the Maritime Provinces she
begins to go down in the scale of nations—
that when we are gone, with our 60,000 seamen, our mercantile marine, our noble harbours
and fisheries, and our inexhaustible
coalfields, then America becomes the first
naval power in the world, and England
must stand second on the list. I share in
these opinions ; and it is because I see in
Confederation the beginning of England's
decline and fall, that I have been heartily
opposed to the measure. It has been said
that the people's delegates in England manifested great contempt for responsible government.
Sir, I hold that those who have
had entrusted to them the petitions of well
nigh 40,000 of the people—equal to about
two-thirds of our adult male population—
that they are not unauthorized men, and
that the occupy a prouder position than
the gentlemen sent by the Government, but
not representing the opinions of the country. There are members sitting here who
know that they, are here contrary to the
wishes of their constituents—who have
been requested to resign their seats, and
who, if they had the spirit of Englishmen, would not for a day occupy their
present positions. We were so far authorized as to be recognized as duly accredited
delegates at the Colonial Office, where we were
treated with deference and respect. Mr. Bright
on this subject holds the. language of every
Englishman I ever met, he says, "give the
people of these Colonies the right to speak,
let them decide their own future, let them,
if they please, confederate, join the American States, or remain as they are in "connection
with this country." Then we are
told that the, intelligence of the country
was in favour of Union. I should like the
Prov. Secy. to tell us how he arrives at that
conclusion. When'at the last General Election his party were returned with a large
majority he boasted that there was a large and
enlightened public opinion in the country,
but when he looks around the benches of
this house and knows that not one of
its members dare face a constituency,
I ask him, how he can make the
statement that the intelligence of the country is in favor of this measure ? I have
been
taunted with saying that Nova Scotians
should pay pound for pound with the Canadians towards the common defence. I believe
that the time has come when our people cannot escape paying a reasonable contribution,
and the question has come-to this :
shall we pay to the mother country, which
with all her armaments of war is able to de
fend us, or to a new nationality without an
army or a navy,or the means to create either?
Or on the other hand shall we pay to the
United States?- We must pay such reasonable sum for our defence as we can afford,
and I ask if there is any doubt that England would grant us by far the most favourable
terms. I assert boldly that these Maritime
Provinces must belong to a great maritime
power— the first in the world, if they are
allowed—and if not to the second, they cannot and will not be governed by Canada.
Our position forbids that we should be governed by a people living .in the Canadian
backwoods. We must, therefore, belong
either to the mother country or to the United States, and if we are once separated
from England there is no question about
our final destination. And while on this
point I may remark that in Great Britain I
encountered highly intelligent gentlemen
to whom I spoke of the strong feeling of loyalty and attachment which prevails among
us, and the earnest desire
of the people to remain forever connected
with England, to equally share her dangers and glories,—I said we would like to
be treated as a county of England, as Kent
or Surrey, sending members to the British
Parliament, and whatwas the reply: " Well
your sentiments do you honour, but we cannot reciprocate them ; we care little or
nothing a out you." We have been asked
for a precedent for the course that we urge,
and I in return have asked gentlemen opposite to show us a precedent for their action.
It is an unfortunate precedent that I can
point to for their conduct—that of legislating Ireland into the Union contrary
to the sentiments of the people. But
even for that measure a majority of the Irish
Parliament was obtained,—by what means
we know; By what means the majority was
obtained in this Legislature we do not know
now, but there the majority was secured by
corruption most foul, and history is filled
with the record of the misfortunes that have
grown out of that forced union. Is it not
plain that if this union be forced on us you
will make Nova Scotia a second Ireland on
this side of the Atlantic, but so near the
United States that only a few miles of water separate us? By adhering to a policy
of
coercion you are breaking the loyal hearts
of the people of this country. It is not yet
too late to refer the scheme to our constituents, and if we can get their consent
I
pledge myself to never again lift up my
voice in opposition to it, but will use every
effort to make the measure work well. If,
however, the people are forced into the
22
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
union, I do not hesitate to say that I will
dedicate the remaining years of my life, be
they many or few, to endeavor to repeal a
union so hateful and obnoxious. I am an
Englishman in spirit, if not by birth ; I love
the institutions of England, but if I am deprived of them and of my liberties as a
British subject,—then all I can say is, that by
every constitutional means, I will endeavor
to overthrow and destroy a union brought
about by corrupt and arbitrary means.
Speech of Hon. Financial Secretary.
Hon. JAMES MACDONALD said:— It was not,
my intention to address the House this evening
but as no gentleman appears ready to speak
just now I shall endeavor to compress the few
observations I have to make in as brief a compass as possible. I did certainly expect,
and the
House had a right to expect, that when gentlemen claiming to possess the sympathy
of a large
number of the people challenged the action of an
overwhelming majority of the representatives of
the people assembled in their deliberative capacity, on a great and important constitutional
question they would have been prepared to adduce
some precedent and cite some authority in support of the course they have thought
proper to
pursue. Especially had we a right to expect this
from a gentleman who is a leading member of
the legal profession, who has sat in the highest
position in this House, and who appears to occupy the position of leader of the Opposition
on
this great question. The hon. member for Guysboro', the mover of this resolution,
has challenged the constitutionality of the action of this
House in dealing with this question. That branch
of the subject has been so fully and ably dealt with
by the hon. Prov. Secretary, that it is unnecessary for me to refer to it at an length,
but I must
recall to the recollection of hon. gentlemen that,
during the debate of last year on the Union question, I took the liberty of laying
before the House
and country certain authorities which, I claimed,
proved conclusively the right of the Legislature
to deliberate and finally decide upon this or
any other measure which in their judgment affected the right or interests of the
people. On that occasion I challenged the hon.
member and those holding similar views, to bring
forward a single authority from the whole constitutional history of England or of
any other
country enjoying British constitutions in favour
of the proceeding which they wish to pursue.
Now these gentlemen have had a whole year to
search for these authorities—a whole year during
Which this question has been engaging the attention of the ablest minds of the Empire—but
they have not been able this session any more
than they were at the last, to do more than deal
in the vaguest generalities and to substitute for
argument and authority empty assertions and
worthless declamation. It was not respectful on
the part of the hon. member for Guysboro', to
the members of this Legislature, it did not comport with his own character and self-respect
that
he should fail to bring forward a single authority
in support of his position, and that he should
have felt himself justified in being content to
give us only the opinion of a gentleman whom I
am not disposed to deal harshly with—but still
only the opinion of merely a colonial lawyer
against the opinions of the other lawyers in this
House sustained and supported as those Opinions
are by the leading statesmen and lawyers of the
whole Empire; that is to say, the opinion of Mr.
Stewart Campbell against that of the ablest and
best authorities in the Empire at large. That
hon. member had the audacity, then, influenced
by an arrogant opinion of his own standing in
this country not only to oppose every authority
which has been produced, but tells you, asks this
House to believe that the leading minds of the
Empire, the Peers and Commoners of England—
men who control the destinies of the greatest
Empire in the world—who have passed triumphantly through the storms and passions of
parties, and of popular excitement—men who at
this moment when the country is violently agitated by a widespread movement for Reform,
refuse to be actuated by impulse of mere party
aims—that men like these are not entitled to the
respect and confidence of the House and country on a question like this. Without condescending
to produce one single sentence of law or authority, he asks the people of this province
to
take his unsupported word against the united
opinion of the est minds of British America,
and of the parent state besides.
I did expect that after the able and argumentative address of the Provincial Secretary
we
would have seen an effort made by gentlemen
opposite to combat the position he has taken, but
it is quite evident from the remarks of the hon.
member who last addressed you that there is no
wish on the part of members opposite to convince the members of this House. Their
game
is to excite, if it be possible, a feeling of dread
and dislike to this measure outside these walls.
The amendment of the hon. and learned member for Guysboro' raised only the constitutional
feature of this question, but I am relieved from
the duty which I felt incumbent upon me to produce authority after authority, record
after record, from English constitutional history down
to the present time; for the hon. member for
East Halifax says boldly, " I admit the authority of Parliament; it has the right
and the
power to deal with this question; I do not deny
that the position we took last winter and that
taken by this amendment is entirely unconstitutional ; but all I ask you is, whether
the exercise of that power at the present time is judicious
or not." Who is right? Which is the best authority? I leave the hon. member for Guysboro'
and the hon. member for Halifax to answer the
question, and reconcile the respective positions
they have taken.
We have to decide whether it "is at the present
moment judicious—whether under circumstances
which are transpiring in British America—whether in view of the position of these
colonies towards the mother country and the great power
on our border—we should accept the terms of
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
23
Union offered, or decline more intimate relations
with our colonial brethren ? The hon. member
for Halifax has answered himself. In a Parliament of Englishmen—of gentlemen who all
profess to be devoted subjects of their royal Queen,
who entertain respect for those institutions which
have placed England so largely in advance of
other countries, the declarations of the hon. member ought to suffice, ought to be
more than
enough too for the opinions of the most undecided
and irresolute. He has said, and said truly, that
we must belong to the United States or to England. If he means anything, he intends
that for
a declaration of separation from England. He
has undertaken to tell you that so regardless are
English statesmen of the colonies that they do
not know what they are. He has told you that
the leading minds and governing classes of the
old country desire the separation of the colonies.
He has gone further and boldly declared that rather than assist our brethren in Canada
to build
up a strong power on this side, which will establish British institutions firmly on
this continent,
he is ready at a moment to rush into the arms of
the neighbouring Republic. That is not the first
occasion in which the hon. member for East Halifax has taken a similar position. The
policy of
that hon. member and of the majority of the men
associated with him, down to the present time,
has been nothing more than annexation to the
United States. I regret I have not under my
hand just now the manifesto of the anti-Union
delegates to the statesmen of England—the case,
as they call it, of the Maritime Provinces—but
I would ask the people of this country, all who
have seen that document, whether it does not
contain sentiments most obnoxious to those
who desire to live under British laws and institutions, and direct encouragement to
those in
the United States, who are engaged in promoting the annexation of these colonies.
I have
said that this hon. member is desirous of annexing this country to the United States,
and
this is an assertion which nothing but the
strongest proof could justify. Let me then recall to the recollection of the House
some of
the productions of that hon. member's pen—the
position which he has assumed from the very
commencement of the discussion on this question. What do we find in the paper conducted
by that hon. member? From the beginning of
this discussion—from the "Botheration" articles down to the present hour—the strongest
declarations of the un-British and disloyal sentiments of the hon. member are to be
found. In
the paper which the hon. member claims as presenting the case of the people of this
country—
in this paper, purporting to be a vindication of
a British colony, the hon. member undertakes
to compare the scheme of Union with the sister colonies, and the scheme of annexation
to
the United States devised by Mr. Banks. Take
that document and compare the description of
the Confederation scheme—a description which
could only emanate from a man imbued with
hostility to the country which he pretends to
love—with the description of a plan of Union
which he proposes with the United States. Mr.
Banks' scheme is portrayed in the most flattering colours; our colonial institutions
are vilified, while those of the United States are bespattered with fulsome praise.
But to what does he
invite us ? To pay a portion of the enormous
taxation which now weighs down the United
States—to participate in the political struggles
and convulsions of that country ; we are to see
our mercantile marine, which is now progressing
with a rapidity that no other country can equal,
transferred to the United States. And what
will be the result when that measure is so transferred ? At the present time , according
to the
belief of the most eminent men of that country,
the mercantile marine of the United Sates is at
the lowest ebb, and it would not be at all surprising if a wiser commercial policy
does not
soon prevail in that country, to see almost all
their trade eventually carried in foreign bottoms.
Yet the hon. member and his friends would have
us enter a union which, in the course of a very
few years, has brought the formerly great commercial navy of the Republic to so deplorable
a
condition.
Let me here call the attention of the House to
another interesting fact in connection with this
question. The hon. gentleman complains of the
indifference of English statesmen to colonial matters. When the bill of Union was
introduced to
a very full House by the Earl of Carnarvon, in
a manner that has attracted the praise of journals
of all parties, a noble Lord arose to speak in
support of the anti-Union party. And what was
the reception he met with? Whilst the supporters of the Government sat in their places,
every
one of the friends of the noble Lord arose and
left the House—so thoroughly did they disapprove of the course pursued by him. Is
it at all
surprising that the Peers of England should have
been disgusted when they read the sentiments expressed by these Nova Scotians professing
to be
the delegates of the people in favour of annexation to the United States, and that
they should
have declined to compromise themselves by seeming to encourage their views. When they
saw
the disloyalty that appeared in every line of that
document, I do not wonder that so many of the
Peers should have manifested their contempt for
those who wished to place them in a wrong position, by rising and leaving the House
on the instant. The hon. member tells you that the Parliament of England exhibits
the most utter indifference to the interests of the colonies. Yet the
same Parliament has always shown the deepest
interest in the welfare and progress of the colonies, and we have only to look at
the speeches of
the leading men in the Peers and Commons to
see how deeply desirous they are of promoting
the welfare and progress of every section of their
great Colonial Empire.
The hon. member says that the governing classes of England desire the separation
of the colonies from the mother country. I
will take the liberty of joining issue directly with him on that point. I believe
that
the governing classes of Great Britain have
a higher appreciation of what constitutes
24
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
the wealth and greatness of the Empire,
and I think the people of this country will
require higher authority than that of a disappointed partizan for the assertion that
the
men who have spent the blood and treasure
of the Empire, for their colonial possessions, feel any disregard for their interests
and the continuance of the connection,
But we have higher authority on this point.
The debates in the Houses of Lords and
Commons are supposed to convey, in the
most conclusive manner, the intelligent
public opinion of the country—to disseminate through the world the clearest views
and ideas of the public sentiment; and every noble lord who rose to speak on this
bill
vindicated not only the position taken by
the Legislature of Nova Scotia, but the
conditions upon which this Union is to be
effected, but even went further and
gave it as his deliberate opinion
that the retention of the colonies was
essential to the best interests of the British Empire. Even a nobleman whom the
hon. member thought he might fairly count
upon—a nobleman from whom he perhaps
fairly thought he might expect encouragement—told him frankly he could not sustain
him because he believed the measure
of Union was essential to the best interests
of the country, and the Marquis of Normanby even went further and declared to these
people's delegates that his residence in this
country enabled him to form a pretty accurate estimate of the value of such petitions
as those which the delegates pretended gave them authority to present themselves in
England on behalf of the people
of Nova Scotia.
Mr. ANNAND—I hope the hon. gentleman
has authority for what he is saying.
Mr. MACDONALD—The hon member will
not deny that the Marquis of Normanby
was the friend of the government of which
he was the Financial Secretary. It will be
remembered that when the hon member
was a member of Lord Mulgrave's Government, some 26,000 petitioners approached
that noble lord as the governor of this province, and the hon member took the liberty,
as the constitutional adviser of his Excellency, of putting on record the statement
that
these petitions were not worthy of, or entitled to be shown, credit. Lord Mulgrave
took the advice of his government at that
time, and now naturally feels disinclined to
recede from the position he was advised to
take. "Gentlemen," he says now, " I hold
the same opinion of these petitions that you
did when I was Governor. You appear to
have changed your opinions: I have not."
The Parliament of England was in session
for five or six weeks before the delegates
returned, and yet these anti-Union petitions
had never been presented. The hon member must have been afraid to present them,
or the House of Commons would not receive
them. Let him tell us how this is. If the
people of Nova Scotia entrusted him as
their delegate with the petitions against
Union, and he has failed to present
them, then he forfeited the greatest trust
that was ever reposed in any man.—
If he has done this great wrong to the people who
entrusted him with so sacred a duty, he should
hide in humiliation and shame from an outraged
people. But let me call the attention of the people
to a most extraordinary and curious fact. What
has become of the petitions which we have been
told were entrusted to Messrs. Howe and Annand? Who has seen them? Nobody in this
country certainly and as far as we yet know no
one in England has had that pleasure.
But I can acquit the hon. member of blame
on one ground—he was not the delegate of the
people of Nova Scotia. The people repudiate
the connection which the hon. member wishes to
fasten upon them. The people are not only
loyal to the Queen, but they are intelligent
enough to appreciate the arguments by which.
they are asked to change their condition. I
must protest in their name against the belief
that they are ready to tear down the Union Jack
and associate themselves with the Republic on
their borders. (Applause.) But what is the duty
of the people in the present crisis? What will
the loyal Scotchmen, Irishmen, and Englishmen
of his country do? Are they ready to take the
extreme step urged by the hon. member for East
Halifax to become rebels and traitors because
Mr. Annand is a disappointed partizan? I ask
the intelligent people of this country to do this
—to act as honorable, sensible men should do on
every question—to consider it calmly and on its
merits. I do not ask them to take the views of
the politicians of Canada, of New Brunswick,
or of Nova Scotia; but I ask them, and it is fair
to ask them, to take the views of the Parliament
and people of England, the body of men who,
for centuries, have ruled the destinies of the
world—who have worked out the free institutions of England in a manner that attracts
the
admiration of other nations. I ask the people
of this country if with the unanimous opinions
of such a body in favour of this Union, .they are
ready to attach any value to the sentiments of
the hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not think
that the intelligent people of this country are
the men to reject the public opinion of England
at the dictation of gentlemen who have themselves entertained views directly adverse
to those
they entertain now.
Let me advert for one moment to another position taken by the hon. member. The House
knows that early in the commencement of this
question a gentleman standing high in the estimation of the hon. member—who has occupied
a
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
25
prominent position in this country—offered a
counter scheme of Union in lieu of that submitted to this Legislature. That scheme
has been
rejected as far as my observation goes by the
whole Anti-Union press up to the present hour.
I have heard of no opponent of Union who has
had the hardihood to advocate the scheme for the
organization of the Empire until the hon. member did so to-night. He has had the boldness
to
declare that this scheme is the one which he and
his party favor. He says he does not deny that
some political change in our condition is necessary, and has expressed his readiness
to adopt the
scheme propounded by Mr. Howe for the organization of the Empire. By that scheme we
are to pay for the wars of the whole Empire.
He says he will make us pay pound for pound
with the other portions of the Empire.
That same idea was enunciated some years
ago by Mr. Howe, but I never heard of any
who was prepared. to consider it seriously
until the hon. member to-night declared
that he would make Nova Scotia as Kent
or Surrey or any other county of England.
The objection to the Quebec scheme was
that our representation in the General
Legislature was too insignificant, and that
we would have to pay for the defence of
Canada, that our burthens would be much
heavier than they are now. Yet under the
plan prepounded by Mr. Howe our people
may be summoned at any moment to Canada, or any portion of the world, wherever
her broad empire extends, to fight the battles of England ; we shall be taxed pound
for
pound with our fellow-subjects of the British Islands—whilst we shall only have a
representation of three or four men in the
House of Commons. Are the people of
this country prepared to accept such a
scheme in preference to the one now offered for their acceptance?
In concluding these few imperfect remarks, I may say that perhaps I shall be
able to address the House on another occasion when better prepared to deal with it;
but I could not permit the remarks of the
hon. member to ass without immediate
notice. I shall on y repeat what I said previously that before the hon. member can
lay
claim to the favorable consideration of the
loyal people of this province, he should explain away the sentiments which say so
little for his allegiance and loyalty to the
British Empire.
Mr. ANNAND:—I desire to make an explanation in reply to the hon. gentleman.
I have never advocated annexation to the
United States, I advocate nothing but that
we all remain as we are, and maintain our
present institutions. As to the taunt about
my adhesion to the scheme for the organization of the Empire, I reply that I advocate
that scheme because it will make us English
How the hon. gentleman will reconcile his
imputation of disloyalty with my desire that
we should become as a county of England
I will leave it to his ingenuity to say.
Hon. PROVINCIAL SECRETARY remarked
that the house would be expected to divide
on the question on the following evening.
Another opportunity would be afforded for
discussion when the papers in reference to
the delegation were brought down.
The debate was adjourned.
The house adjourned to the following day
at 2.30
This individual participated in:
