OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
25
TUESDAY, March 19.
The House met at 2 30 PM.
The adjourned debate was resumed.
Speech of Mr. McLelan.
Mr. MCLELAN said:—We are told that this
debate must be brought to a close this evening,
and for those who have opinions to express
the time is short. The Provincial Secretary
says this haste is imperative, in order that the
public business of the country may not be interfered with. The exigencies of the country
may now require this, but I ask who produced
the circumstances requiring such hasty deliberations and forcing us to decide so important
a
question in so short a period? We in the country were prepared months ago to come
here
and discuss this subject and to attend to the
ordinary business of the Legislature, but to
suit the convenience of certain hon. gentlemen, the meeting of the House has been
postponed to such a late period as to require that
the most momentous question ever submitted
to Parliament should be passed over almost in
silence. For that reason we are told that we
must limit our remarks to this single point:—
the right of the people to be heard upon the
question, and to decide on it for themselves.
The Provincial Secretary told us yesterday
that he felt proud of the position which he
occupied on this question—that he felt proud
of the improvements in the bill which is soon
to come before us, as compared with the resolutions passed at Quebec. I do not see
in
the position which he occupies anything to
warrant such utterances. He told us last session, as he has told us on every occasion,
that
the Quebec scheme was just and sound in its
principles—that it gave to this Province all it
had a right to demand; and the hon. gentleman's colleagues in the delegation reiterated
the assertion, and they stated that they were
prepared to push that scheme through, and to
make it the basis of a Union of the Colonies.
If the bill gives us more than that scheme,
then whatever it gives in addition is due to us '
who opposed the measure from its inception
If the bill gives us five dollars more, the credit
is due to the stern opposition the Anti-Confederates have given the question. The
hon.
gentleman is in this position: he has told us
that the Quebec scheme was just and sound,
and he has now come back from England
claiming to have got more than justice. If
these statements be true, he must have done a
dishonest thing to some other people, from
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
26
whom he has taken more than he all along declared was just; and surely that is not
a position to regard with pride. Turning to the only
point we are to be permitted, in the magnanimity of the gentlemen opposite, to discuss—the
right of the people to be heard on the question
—I would first refer to the taunt made by the
Financial Secretary. He said we had brought
a case here without a precedent to support us,
although we had a whole year to obtain such
precedents if they existed. I tell him that I
have had an abundance of authorities for the
position I have taken—authority which I have
not sought in the musty pages of Blackstone,
to which the hon gentleman last year referred
to sustain his position. I have been reading a
nobler page than Blackstone ever wrote—a
page which bears the impress and imprint of
God himself: I mean " the human face divine."
I have read the authority which sustains us
every day in the year in the faces of my fellow countrymen. Our authority is the look
of
intelligence on their countenances; I see that
in their faces which declares that they have
the souls and the reasoning and reflecting
powers to enable them to decide on a question
affecting them and their posterity as this does.
These men till the soil, engage in commerce
and fisheries; they have, by their labours and
enterprise given us, under the blessing of Providence, all our prosperity, and I take
them as
my authority. Fifty thousand of these men
are devoting their time and means to learn defence: ready to lay down their lives
to protect
their country, their homes and their altars.
They have during the year paid into the Treasury through the customs, excise and other
departments, nearly two millions of dollars of
their hard earnings, and I say the men who
thus in their persons and property are to be
affected by this measure are my authority for
saying that they should be allowed to decide
the question. It is not only to the copies of
this authority that are already abroad that I
can refer, but every reprint preparing for circulation confirms that authority. These
men
are training children; they have sons who will
be either taught principles and instilled with
feelings that will lead them to rally round the
old flag of England, or will lead them beneath
a foreign standard to attempt, perhaps, the humiliation of England. When I see that
I feel
that my authority for maintaining the rights
of the people is strong and conclusive, and
should be recognised as such by this Legislature. In order to meet the sophistry and
destroy the cobwebs which some gentlemen learned in the law are disposed to weave
about the
question, it is not necessary to labor the argument. I care not how many precedents
from
Blackstone is brought—I care not if they bring
old Blackstone himself from the grave—there
is a principle of common sense that would
trample them all under foot and proclaim that
this right belongs to the people. The very term
"responsible government" tells us that the people should deside the question. Responsible
to
whom? Pass the bill and your responsibility
is at an end. Our system of Government
implies that you have either had the sanction
of the people or intend to return to them for
ratification. This bill does not contemplate
that you should do that, for the very Act
destroys the constitution, and is contrary to
the term — Responsible Government. The
gentlemen who have spoken on the other side
affect to treat lightly the opinion of the
people,—but who gave us all our positions?
Who sent us here but the people? It is but a
few years since they and all of us were pertions of the people, and now forsooth,
because
they are placed in power beyond the control
of their constituents they presume to ignore
the rights of those who sent them here, and
to destroy the hand that lifted them to positions of honor. I can scarcely restrain
my
feeling within reasonable bounds when I see
the determination of gentlemen opposite to
ignore the feelings and rights of the people on
this question. We are told that the country
has not been taken by surprise—that this is no
new question, but I maintain that it is an entire surprise. It is true that for many
years
the subject of a union of British America has
been from time to time discussed, but we all
know that these discussions were considered
more theoretical than practical, and not the
least importance was attached to them as being
likely to affect the country.
Reference has been made to the action of the
Legislature in 1861, when Mr. Howe, whose
name has been so frequently mentioned in this
discussion,moved a resolution declaring that
the subjectof Union had been from time to
time considered, and that as serious obstacles
existed, which could only be removed by
consultation of the leading men of all the Colonies, a delegation should be appointed
with
the view of setting the question at rest. That
delegation met, and it resulted in no action
being taken by this Legislature or by the people. The delegates no doubt found it
impossible to reconcile the conflicting interests existing among the Province, and
they made this
report, setting it, as a public question, as was
believed, at rest. It may be said that Canada
was not anxious for Union at that period,—
but in 1858 they had asked for it by a despatch signed by Messrs. Cartier and Galt,
men who were prominent in the Quebec Conference. That despatch declared that the
harmonious working of their constitution had
been rendered almost an impossibility, and
asking for a Federative Union ot the Provinces of British North America on " grounds
peculiar to Canada."
In 1858, then, you had Canadian ministers
expressing a desire for union, and- declaring,
through a public despatch that the administration of government had been almost an
impossibility in Canada; and when Mr. Howe went
in 1861 to set the question at rest, the desire
existed on the part of Canada to overcome the
difficulties of their system, and to unite with
us. Why, then, this being the case, was not
the Union accomplished? The language of
the resolution is, " by mutual consultation,"
implying that there should be mutual concession: and perhaps the main reason why a
basis of union was not then arranged was that
the Canadians were unwilling to make such
concessions as Mr. Howe, in a due regard for
the interests of Nova Scotia, believed should
be made before we went into any Union—
And let me ask here what concessions
they have made in the scheme under
consideration? It is impossible for the delegates to lay their finger on a single
feature in this scheme and say, there is something that has been conceded to us by
Canada
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
27
as a compensation for the great loss we shall
sustain in going into this Union. Then I say
that in 1863, when the elections took place, the
question, as a public question, had been set at
rest, and did not come under consideration at
the hustings. Take the speech of the Provincial Secretary in 1864, when he introduced
the
resolution for a Maritime Union, and you will
find that the idea of a Confederation with Canada, whatever he may have said about
it in
his lecture at St. John, was not entertained by
him as being likely to yield any practical result. He says in that speech:—
"The proposal which was made and advocated
with such singular ability by my hon. friend the
leader of the Government several years ago in this
Legislature was for a Legislative Union of the whole
British American Provinces. On that occasion the
whole subject of a Union of the Colonies was so fully
and ably discussed by the leading minds of both sides
of the Legislature as to render it unnecessary that
any great amount of attention or time should be occupied in going over the grounds
which have been so
ably detailed. But difficulties have been found—and
I may say insuperable difficulties—in grappling with
that which so many of the ablest minds in this country have advocated in connection
with this subject.
The union of the Maritime Provinces with Canada
has hitherto presented insurmountable obstacles.
"I believe that to be a question which far transcends
in its difficulties the power of any human advocacy
to accomplish."
In 1864, when this gentleman was on the
delegation, he declared to the people of Canada that the people of this Province were
uninformed on this question. That was a year
after the elections had taken place. This was
his language as found in that report of his
speech published by Mr. Whelen, of P. E. Island, on page 67:—
"Uninformed as the public mind in the Lower Provinces was on this question, the visit
and the statements made by the gentlemen connected with the
Government of Canada have aroused attention to it,"
Here, then, we have the acknowledgment
made, after the election of this House, that the
public mind was not awake to it,—not even
when this question was about to assume a
practical shape; and yet we are now told that
the country was not taken by surprise, and in
the House of Commons that the subject was
discussed at every polling booth.
The Prov. Sec, however, claims that the intelligent sentiment of the country is with
him;
—if that be true the hon. gentleman's course is
simple and plain,—what obiection can he have
to presenting this question to the people and
saying, "Will you who are to be affected for
weal or woe by this measure accept it?" The
answer he gives is that party feeling is so
high that a fair decision cannot be obtained at
the polls, but he has the proof that party feeling will not interfere when he has
seen gentlemen from his own side of the House rallying
into opposition, and leading gentlemen formerly
opposed to him in politics forgetting the ties of
party and going to his support. This is the best
proof that the question overrides party feeling,
and that feeling will not interfere with its just
consideration at the polls. The question has assumed such importance that no man should
allow partyspirit to influence his conduct in opposition to his just convictions.
I for one honestly
believe the measure to be wrong, and I will cooperate with any man holding this opinion
and
willing to oppose the scheme from beginning
to end. This, I claim, is the only question be
fore the country,—all other parties and all other
questions are for the time being set completely
aside, and the only plank in the platform of the
party with which I wish to co-operate is the
determination to stop or repeal the measure.
Men, to whatever side they may belong, may
express various opinions about the present
state and proposed organization of the empire,
but the only principle which I can recognize
is that this thing must be stopped. Because a
leading man connected with the Province has
chosen to write an article on the state of the empire, the Prov. Sec. has undertaken
to say that
is our platform, and that we are bound to stand
or fall by it—that we are bound to present
something in opposition to the scheme which
they have submitted. But I tell him we possessed a satisfactory system of government
before this scheme was brought here. Let me
now say a word or two respecting the Organization of the Empire. It has been time
and
again stated and acknowledged that the weakest portion of the British Empire is B.
N. America, and we, placed alongside so powerful
a neighbour see and feel the truth of the statement. When last night this subject
was
touched, my imagination pictured the horrors of a war between England and America
with Nova Scotia for the battle ground as it
would be. The picture presented I cannot find
language to describe, nor can the most vivid
imagination truly paint the desolation which
would come upon us should the demon of war
drive his horrid ploughshares over this fair
Province. The very graves of our fathers
would be uprooted and their cherished dust
scattered to the winds. Every man sees and
feels, moreover, that the chances of war with
us are greatly increased by our connection
with the mother country. Yet still if treated
as men, permitted to enjoy legitimate rights,
the British feeling within us will lead us to
maintain at all hazards, our allegiance and
our connection with Old England, and to contribute our all; if it comes upon us, to
give new
triumphstoBritish arms and new ustreto
British fame. Placed in this position—the
weakest of the Empire—what does Mr. Howe
propose? Simply, to strengthen and protect
the weak point by bringing to our aid all the
might and power of two hundred and fifty
millions of British subjects; whilst the delegates would bring at most but thirty
millions
to the help of a people perhaps divided in sentiment,_or as we verily believe leave
us to the
protection of this new nationality alone. As
was said here last evening Nova Scotia must
belong to some great naval power. We are
so situated that a gunboat can shell almost any part of our territory, and not only
the treasures of coal and minerals we have
within call for protection, but our commerce
without; our ships on every sea demand it;
and yet this scheme which is being forced
upon us will leave us only to the protection
of Canada. What! leave us only under the protection of Canada? What absurdity: Why,
sir, it could not protect one
ot' our potato shallops Put one in the harbour and bring to its protection the whole
navy
of Canada, and there is hardly a fifth rate
naval power in the world but would consider
it alight task to take possession of theboat
and perhaps pelt its defenders to death with
the cargo. And then as to the protection of
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
28
our fisheries against the Americans—it is simply preposterous. They could not protect
a
smoked herring in Digby, much less alive codfish or a school of mackerel sporting
along our
coast. And feeling the force of these facts
and the importance of our position, we are
told that in declining to form this connection
and set up shop in this new concern in company with Canada, we are disloyal; and all
through the story these gentlemen have been
preaching to us about loyalty. They rightly
estimated, to a great extent, the feelings of the
country when they played upon that word.
They have from the outset labored to make us
believe that the measure was forced on us by
the mother country in order that the feelings
ot attachment and the desire to yield to the
wishes of the parent state might lead us to favor the connection, and time and again
we
have been accused of disloyalty in declining
to go into this copartnership.
I may be here pardoned for referring to the
fact that the history of Canada has shown that
her people have not always paid due respect
to the British flag. No such charge, however,
could be made against our peonle,and it would
seem, from the despatches which have been
made public during the discussion of this question, that the statesmen of England
felt a security so long as we remained loyal and were
not tampered with by the Canadians. It
seems that on the. 27th of January, 1860,
the Duke of Newcastle sent a. despatch
marked "confidential," in which he commanded that no delegates should be sent
to confer with other Provinces without per»
mission fron the Home Government. or without the occasion of their conference first
being
stated to him. So far, then, from the British
Government forcing the union upon us, our
Government were obliged to obtain permission before these gentlemen could go upon
the
delegation. The Lieut. Governor says, in a
despatch dated the 18th July:—
"It seems proper that l should call your attention
to the deapatch of the 27th January, 1860, marked
'confidential,' addressed to my predecessor by his
Grace the Duke of Newcastle. In that despatch his
Grace, whilst apparently expressing no disapproval
of the discussion of such a question as that which is
now imminent, concludes with the following instruction: 'Previous to sending delegates
to Quebec or
elsewhere, such a proposal should not be authorized
by yourself without previous communication with
the Secretary of State. in order that the question of
the delegates and the instructions to be given them
may be known beforehand to Her Majesty's Government.' "
We have in the public despatches the clearest proof that the question originated wizh
the
delegates themselves: they churned up the
whole matter in order to butter the fingers of a
few leading politicians; and having done so,
they tell us we are disloyal because we are unwilling to adopt it. We refuse rather
because
we feel that our loyalty might be affected by
the connection. Canada has been, within the
recollection of men around me, twice in open
insurrection, and within a few years
there has appeared a manifesto declaring
that annexation to the United States was
the only remedy for the political evils of
the country. That manifesto was signed by
many public men who have since occupied
prominent positions in her Parliament and
Government; and yet we are called disloyal
because we refuse to join with her. I ask
gentlemen around me—men of family, who
have perhaps daughters whose beauty, whose
accomplishments and virtue is their just pride,
and whose fair name they would at all hazards
maintain,—I ask them what they would say
if such a daughter was publicly charged with
a want of modesty and virtue for no better reason than a refusal to share the bed
of one twice
taken in adultery—one who declared publicly
(as in that manifesto) a determination to again
play the harlot? I tell the hon, gentleman
that if there be any disloyalty in the question,
or any show of disloyalty, he and his friends
have given it. We have been told that Mr.
Howe and the other people's delegates are disloyal because they referred to the temptations
to annexation, in the case which they placed
before the British Parliament. Is there any
disloyalty in telling the whole truth? Was it
not the duty of these gentlemen, as public men
writing a letter to Imperial statesmen, to
present all the features of the question? When
the Financial Secretary gave that taunt, did
he forget that that distinguished statesman
Lord Durham, in his report to Her Majesty on
the state of these Provinces, took the very same
course? Earl Durham came out, and examined and understood the whole case of the Canadas;
he saw the position of the country, and
does not seem to think he makes himself
amenable to the charge of disloyalty in stating
the whole truth, and in drawing attention to
the contrast which exists on the two sides of
the boundary line. Lord Durham says:
"Throughout the course of the preceding pares I
have constantly had occasion to refer to this contrast. l have not hesitated to do
so. though no man's
just pride in his country and firm attachment to its
institutions can be more deeply shocked by the. mortifying admission of inferiority.
But I should ill discharge my duty to Your Majesty—I should give but
an imperfect view of the real condition of these Provinces—were I to detail mere statistical
facts, without dcseribing the feelings which they generate in
those who observe them daily, and daily experience
their influence on their own fortunes. The contrast
which I have described is the theme of every traveller who visits these countries
and who observes on
one side of the line the abundance. and on the other
the scarcity of every sign of material prosperity which
thriving agriculture and flourishing cities indicate,
and of civilization, which schools and churches testify, even to the outward senses
"It cannot be denied indeed that the continuance
of'the many practical grievances which I have described as subjects of complaint,
and, above all, the
determined resistance to such a system of responsible
government as gives the people a real control over its
own destinies, have, together with the irritation caused by the late insurrection, induced a large
portion of
the population to look with envy at. the material
prosperity of their neighbours in the United States
under a free and eminently responsible government.
and in despair of obtaining such benefits under their
present institutions, to desire the adoption of a Republican constitution. or even
an incorporation into
the American Union."
Here this statesman tells her Majesty that
very strong temptations to annexation existed, which can only be counteracted by giving
to them (the Canadians) the control of their
own institutions and revenues. He puts this
in stronger and clearer terms than those used
by Mr. Howe and his associates? and I have
yet to learn that Earl Durham was for this
ever charged with a want of loyalty. Mr.
Howe, after havmg presented the case, and
exhibited the temptationt which exist to annexation provided our rights are overridden
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
29
and disregarded, says that if we are left undisturbed and with the control of our
revenues
there will be no thoughts of annexation. Listen to this conclusion:—
"We have thus, my lord, simply stated the case as
presented to us by General Banks and the Quebec
Confederation. With all the temptations offered us
at Washington, we ask simply to be let alone, or we
ask to be folded to our mother's bosom, and not cast
out into the wilderness of untried experiments and
political speculation. Nova Scotia says to England,
as Ruth said to Naomi, ' Where you go we will go;
your people shall be our people.' This love and affection spring from a thousand sources
that we need
not linger to describe, but which it would he a fatal
mistake to suppose can ever be transferred. You
cannot endorse our hearts or our allegiance over to
the Canadians as you would a note of hand."
These were the sentiments offered by Mr.
Howe, and for which the Financial Secretary
undertakes to make the charge of disloyalty.
I only wish that there were more men in the
British Empire who gave as true and firm allegiance to the Crown as Joseph Howe. I
wish Nova Scotia had more sons occupying the
exalted position in which he stands, and as
mindful of her interests. In all his actions
and speeches the interest of the Provinces
appears uppermost, and one cannot but be reminded of the Persian ambassador who took
with him to France a turf dug from the soil of
his own land, to which every morning be paid
religious salutation, so that he might bear
throughout the day the recollection of his
country, and labor for her advantage. So is it
with Mr. Howe; he seems ever to have with
him a recollection of his country and her interests, while other politicians go on
delegations or embassies, engage in exhaustive
festivities and in salutations to the products of other countries forget the interests
of
their own.
We are told that we are disloyal on account
of our allies, of some expression made by
public men in the neighboring States in connection with this matter. You will remember
that at at the period of the Canadian insurrection a large amount of sympathy was
manifected by the people of the United States with
the Canadas, and what does Earl Durham tell
us in his report as the reason why that sympathy was drawn towards the Canadians?
Was the belief that there was a desire to violate the constitution of the country,
and to
take from the Provinces the control of their
revenues? He thinks that was sufficient
cause for the people who had taken so much
pride in their war of independence to bestow
their sympathy, and it may be that the people
on that side of the line look on this measure as
an attempt to take from the people of this colony their constitution, and to deprive
them
of the control of their measures without their
consent. But, because these people live on
that side of the line are they the less able to
judge of the merits of the guestion?
I hold, as I have said, if there be any disloyalty in the matter it is on the part
of those
who here and elsewhere are attempting to
force on us this scheme of Confederation, and
are thereby weakening the Empire and endangering our connection with England. I
need hardly remind the house of the term
which these gentlemen have used: we are to
form a " new nation," the Confederation is to
be a " new nationality," and these terms im
ply that it is to be separate and distinct from
the mother country. I turn back to the debate on the Canadian Militia Bill in 1863,
and
there I find one of the Ministry, Mr. McGee
declaring that he favored connection with Britain merely that Canada might have time
to
grow and strengthen and obtain the Maritime
element—" to give Canada and the other
provinces time to be linked together, and become a great united nation." Here is
the declaration of one of the Canadian Ministry, and again you have the Prov Sec declaring
in the following language that the object
of promoting union was to effect a change in
the system of Government. At a public dinner at Quebec he used this language—"When
it is understood that the object of this meeting
of delegates is to ascertain whether the time
has not come when a more useful system of
government can be devised for these British
American Provinces, I need not say its importance is one which it is impossible to
overestimate. " Again—" As was observed by Mr.
Cartier, great as is your country, large as is
your population, inexhaustible as are your resources, the maritime provinces have
something to give you equally essential to the formation of a great nation."
Mr. McLELAN—Yes, the more the better,
provided the people of this country desired to
change their system of government, and, if
it were possible, to make of these disjointed
provinces stretching along almost the whole
length of a continent, a united and prosperous
nation. If the provinces, laid side by side
as one with one interest, extending over the
whole from a common centre, you might
talk of forming a nation, and say " the more
the better," but you are in this attempting physical impossibilities, and will only
bring into
conflict separate and distinct interests, which
can only be worked harmoniously from England or some other independent centre. Let
me just say to the hon. gentleman—"That
which God hath put asunder let no man attempt to join."
But Mr. Archibald seems also to have aspirations after a new nationality, I find him
using
this language in Canada, " Nova Scotia came
not asking Canada to accept her, but she told
Canada that with the magnificent back country of the latter, and her territory and
wealth
and her desire to become a great nation, Nova
Scotia had a frontier and resources of which
she need not be ashamed; but if she enjoyed as
she did, all the advantages and freedom ot resposible institutions, why
was she desirous to change her relations? The time had arrived when we
were about to assume the position of a great
nation, and such being the case we should not
shrink from its responsibilities." I tell him
that Nova Scotia was not " desirous to change
her relations;" her people regard our relations
with the Mother Country with just pride,—
and the gentlemen who give utterance to such
sentiments and express such desires are not
exactly the men to taunt us with disloyalty.
Mr. McCully also on a subsequent festive occasion talks of furnishing the maritime
element for a new nation.
But if we are chargeable with disloyalty because of our allies, what of the allies
of the
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
30
hon. delegates? The hon. member for South
Colchester in a. letter to his fellow-countrymen, claimed to have allies in the United
States—allies reflecting his opinions. and
among them he named the New York Albion.
What does that paper say a few weeks after
when speaking of the formation of a nation independent of Great Britain.
"We favor and even warmly advocate Confederarion withaview to the ultimate realization
of these
cherished anticipations."
And in another number the same paper
says—
"The colonists. unaccustomed to national responsibilities. have been slow to move
in the direction so
plainly suggested, namely that of a separate national
existence entirely independent of the mother country.
But, finally aroused to the absolute necessity of action in this direction, A scheme
with this end in
view has been proposed and very generally accepted.
Led by the stronger member of the Provincial Family,
the Confederation of all the Provinces. we are
happy to say, is now very near an actual realization. '
Another of their allies (the London Standard)
referring to the means tried to carry out the
scheme. declares that it endangers the relations
of the Mother Country—and quotes Mr. Oliphant
as authority to say that no genuine effort was
made by the Government to secure a renewal of
the Reciprocity Treaty, without which Confederation could not have been secured, and
adds the
attempt to dragoon the Provinces into Confederation is dangerous to the relations
of the Colonies with the Mother Country. I may add this
gentleman is not alone in the opinion that no
genuine effort was made to secure the renewal of
the treaty,—Mr. Brown withdrew from the Canadian Government, dissenting from his colleagues
mainly on account of the inefficiency of the
policy pursued to effect the end in view.
I feel that I have already occupied more time
than belongs to me, but let me say before I resume my seat, that the events of the
last few
months-within the last few weeks—should operate, asa powerful influence on the members
of
the House and on the people of the country. We
have been told time and again that the British
Government were anxious to have the scheme
carried out, and were making its adoption one of
the conditions on which our defence should be
continued; but although a large number of statesmen may be desirous, from mistaken
views of the question, to have this union
formed, yet there is justice and manliness enough in them to induce them
to say on all occasions that they will not
coerce us into it. They are telling us and have
told us, that they are omitting Newfoundland and
Prince Edward Island from the measure, because
nothing can deceive them into the belief that the
people of those Provinces are favorable to union.
The Provincial Secretary said that Lord Carnarvon asked whom he was to accept as authorities
on this question, it not the men who conducted the Government; and he (Prov. Secy.)
having claimed that a majority of the people were
in favor of union, goes to the Colonial Office and
states it for a. fact, The Colonial Secretary decides that he must accept the statement
as au
thoritative, and having obtained a majority in the
Legislature, the measure received the support of
the Imperial Government; but these who support
it in the British Parliment say, all through their
speeches, that if the people are unwilling,it should
not be forced upon them. The men who know
what the feelings of this country are, and who
know that there is no desire on the art of the
British Government to coerce us, should now,
with this opportunity given, pay deference and
respect to the wishes of the people. The Prov.
Sec. tells us that the man would be an idiot who
would dissolve Parliament as long as he could
command a majority. If that doctrine were carried out, it would be found one of the
most tyrannical and monstrous that could bc uttered: men
have lost their heads for putting in practice doctrines less obnoxious. Does he mean
that so long
as a man can by any means, however corrupt,
command . majority in Parliament, he may do
what he pleases with the people and their property? No such doctrine can be maintained:
there must be some limit, and the men whom the
people have sent here to transact their business,
and to go back to them with an account of their
stewardship, should consider that this question
affects the people and their posterity, and they
should not assume the unnecessary responsibility
of passing- it without their instructions, lest,when
the evils of this union are realized, they live to
be erpetually reproached for their action — live
to be told that, members of Parliament though
they were, they had no more right to force this
measure upon their countrymen than they will
have to enter Heaven with so great a crime
against the manhood of Nova Scotia unrepented of.
Speech of Mr. Arcnibald.
Mr. ARCHIBALD said:—I confess to some
embarrassment in addressing the House at
this moment. My. hon. friend has delivered to us a most impassioned harangue. Not
content with giving us his views in the most
emphatic manner—not content with an
nouncing that no good will come in this
world to those of Confederate faith—he goes
on further, and in his closing sentences
shuts us out from any hopes of happiness:
in the world to come. (Lau hter.) Is it
any wonder that I should feel a little embarrassed in rising to speak after being
thus
formally excluded from everlasting bliss.
(Renewed laughter.)
One thing at all events I shall not aim at.
I shall not attempt to soar to the heights my
hon. friend has reached. I feel that these,
lofty flights are beyond me—that my province is the more prosaic one of common
sense—and I shall assume that after the
House has recovered its self-possession, it
will be disposed to listen to something that,
if it does not appeal to their imaginations—
at all events does to their intelligence and
their judgment.
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
31
I regret that it was not my good fortune
to be present at the earlier part of the discussion. I have not had the opportunity
of
hearing the learned mover of the amendment put his case before the House—neither have
I had the satisfaction of hearing
the answer given to it by the Provmcial Secretary. All that I can gather as to the
line
of argument pursued by these gentlemen is
what I can infer from the tenor of the
speeches of my hon. friend, and one or two
of those gentlemen who have preceded him
—and therefore in what I have to say, I
may be repeating what has already been
said to the House, in which case I trust
they will forgive me, as I may be misapprehending the views propounded by gentlemen
on the other side—and if I do I
shall be glad to be put right, as I proceed.
Now, sir, as I understand the question before the House, the resolution affirms the
doctrine that all great questions ought to be
first deliberately reviewed by a Legislature
and then submitted to the polls before the
Legislature is in a position to deal with
them. This is the doctrine which the learned mover calls on the House to sanction
by
a deliberate vote.
Now, sir, this question has been before
the public since 1864. It is a question
touching a fundamental doctrine of the British Constitution. How are we to ascertain
what is, or what is not constitutional? Is it
not by examining practice and precedents
of that august assembly on which our own
is modelled? Is it not by consulting those
writers on constitutional history who expound and develop the principles of which
these precedents and practices are the illustrations? In the adjoining library are
the
records of the House of Commons since the
earliest history of the empire. They are
open to every gentleman who wishes to inform himself, and doubtless have been resorted
to for the purpose. There will be
found every incident in the long history of
legislation in the mother country. Can the
learned mover of this resolution point out,
in that vast treasury of constitutional usages,
a single precedent for the doctrine he undertakes to preach? Or does he ask us to
believe that, in these latter days, a new
light has dawned on him, and that it is our
duty to accept the fresh revelation?
I think I may safely conclude from the
speech of my hon. friend who has just sat
down, that the mover of this resolution has
been able to quote no authority for his
views. When find my hon. friend deserting the records and the books—when I find
he cannot quote even a text writer in his
favour—when I find him driven to say that
he has no other authority for his doctrine
than the expression of the faces of the people in his neighborhood—I ask myself if
he
thinks so poorly of the intelligence of this
house as to suppose they will accept such
an authority or a constitutional doctrine.
My hon. friend's reasoning would be in place
in a farce.
Mr. ARCHIBALD—Then it is a very comical kind of tragedy. Let my hon. friend address our reason
or our judgement—let him
quote authority or precedent. Let him give
the opinions of lawyers, of historians, of
philosophers, or of statesmen, and I listen to
him with deference. But when he talks of
measuring the length and the breadth of the
faces of his neighbours, and asks us to accept that as an argument, can he wonder
that I consider such reasoning as bordering
on farce. But my hon. friend has good
grounds for not resorting to authority or precedent; they are all the other way. The
idea of a legislature having no power to decide except upon questions that have been
sent to the polls for the opinion of the people is entirely un-English. A doctrine
to
that extent as never been propounded
even in the republican institutions of our
neighbours, but so far as there is any foundation at all for such a doctrine, it is
republican and American as opposed to British
and constitutional principles. Do I wish
the house to take my unsupported assertion
on this subject? No.
Let me turn to one or two British authorities on this subject. Hallam devoted a
large portion of his life to the study of constitutional questions. He is accepted
as an
authority of great weight on these subjects.
The learned member for Guysborough will
admit that his authority is entitled to great
deference. What does he say? In speaking of the Septennial Act passed in 1717,
Hallam says:—
"Nothing can be more extravagant than what is
sometimes confidently pretended by the ignorant,
that the Legislature exceeded its rights by this enactment, or, if that cannot be
legally advanced, that it at
least violated the trust of the people and broke in
upon the ancient constitution."
Now, what was the character of that act?
A Parliament had been elected in 1715, under
a law which gave it a duration of three years.
Under that law it would have expired in 1718;
yet in the year before its expiration a bill was
brought in and became law which extended it
to 1722, giving it a duration more than double
that for which it had been elected. Surely, if
ever there was an act which illustrates the
power of Parliament, this was one. They were
elected for a term, and before that term was
completed, without any appeal to the people,
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
32
they step in and double, and more than double,
the term for which they had been elected; and
that act, so passed, has continued ever since
and is the law of the land at this moment in
England. I could quote Blackstone and Coke,
and other legal writers, coinciding in these
views with Mr. Hallam; but let me ask your
attention to the declarations of British statesmen on this subject. Surely, if any
two men
could be found in the long line of British public
men who more than others could be considered
practical statesmen, these men are Mr. Pitt and
Sir Robert Peel—the men who guided the destinies of England in times of great peril,
and
whose reputations are a source of pride to the
country to which they belonged. During Mr.
Pitt's administration, some gentlemen in opposition propounded the doctrine which
is embodied in the resolution now before the House.
Mr. Pitt took issue upon the doctrine in these
emphatic words:—
"This point, sir, is of so much importance that I
think I ought not to suffer the opportunity to pass
without illustrating more fully what I mean. lf this
principle of the incompetency of Parliament to the
decision of the measure be admitted, or if it be contended that Parliament has no
legitimate authority
to discuss and decide upon it, you will be driven to
the necessity of recognizing a principle the most
dangerous that can ever be adopted in any civilized
state—I mean the principle that Parliament cannot
adopt any measure new in its nature and of great importance without appealing to the
constituent and
delegating authority for direction. If that doctrine
be true, look to what an extent it will carry you. If
such an argument could be set up and maintained,
you acted without legislative authority when you
created the representation of the Principality of
Wales or of either of the Counties Palatine of England. Every law that Parliament
ever made without
that appeal - either as to its own frame and constitution, as to the qualification
of the electors or the
elected, as to the great and fundamental point of the
succession to the Crown - was a breach of treaty and
an act or usurpation."
"What must be said by those who have at any
time been friends to any plan of Parliamentary Reform, and particularly such as have
been most recently brought forward either in Great Britain or Ireland. Whatever may
have been thought of the
propriety of the measure, I never heard any doubt
of the competency of Parliament to consider and
discuss it. Yet I defy any man to maintain the
principle of those plans without contending that,
as a member of Parliament, he possesses a right
to concur in disfranchising those who sent
him to Parliament, and to select others by whom he
was not elected in their stead. I am sure that no sufficient distinction in point
of principle can be successfully maintained for a single moment, nor should I
deem it necessary to dwell on this point in the manner that I do, were I not convinced
that it is connected in part with all these false and dangerous notions on the subject
of government which have lately becomes to prevalent in the world."
In 1846 Sir Robert Peel was called upon to
deal with the question of the Corn Law, in a
Parliament which had been elected in 1841. The
subject of this law had been before the people
at the elections, and, as far as the returns indicated, the people had sustained the
law. Yet
Sir Robert Peel had no hesitation, in the very
teeth of this verdict, of introducing a bill which
he felt was required by the circumstances of the
country, and when taunted with the position he
had assumed, he adopted and approved the doc
trine of his predecessor in words equally emphatic:-
"That, I think would have been a ' dangerous precedent' for a minister to admit that
the existing Legislature was incompetent to the entertainment of
any question. That is a precedent which I would
not estblish. Whatever may have been the circumstances that may have taken place at
an election, I
never would sanction the view that any House of
Commons is incompetent to entertain a measure that
is necessary to the well-being of the community. If
you were to admit that doctrine, you would shake the
foundation on which many of the best laws are
placed."
When, therefore, I find the philosopher in
his closet, and the statesman in the cabinet,
combined to reject the doctrine propounded in
this Resolution, as unsuited to the genius of
the British constitution—when I find the opposite doctrine proclaimed and acted on—when
I find a parliament elected for three years
extending its life to seven—when I find
a parliament excluding from one of its
branches at one time the entire body of bishops—when I find even the succession to
the
throne changed from one dynasty to another
—and all these acts of sovereignty performed
without any pretences that Parliament had no
right to do them without first appealing to the
polls, I ask myself on what grounds the mover
of this resolution can expect this house to declare as a fundamental doctrine of the
constitution, one entirely alien to its genius and character—no man knows better than
himself
that it is so.
Now, sir, while I entirely contest the doctrine of my hon. friend as to the necessity
of
appealing to the people, I do not pretend to
say that the responsibility which devolves
upon a member of this House is not one
which should be exercised with great discretion.
Mr. ARCHIBALD.—I am glad to find this
sentiment meet with the approval of the hon.
member. But when he cheers my declaration
that the question is one of discretion he gives
up his whole case. He admits, as the member
for Halifax admitted, that the house had the
full power and right, and that the only question for consideration is this: Is the
measure
submitted to the house of such a character as
to challenge approval? Is the change proposed to be made, demanded by the circumstances
in which we are placed? Is it a measure
which will contribute, to the real welfare of the
people? On this ground I am prepared to
meet him, and on this ground the battle should
be fought.
Before adverting to some of the arguments
of the member for East Halifax, I must notice
one or two observations of my hon. friend from
Londonderry.
The hon. gentleman has referred to a speech
of mine made in Canada, and has quoted an
observation in it in reference to the change of
relations which Confederation would make,
with a view to create the impression that I
contemplated a change in our connection with
the Mother Country. But surely my hon.
friend could hardly wish me to suppose he
could misunderstand the purport of these observations. The change to which I referred
was in our relations to each other. The relations of the Confederated Provinces to
the
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
33
Mother Country will be the same, ay more intimate and secure, than those which the
separate Provinces now hold to her.
I don't know that I fully comprehend the
purport of my hon friend's quotation from the
Standard, but I understood it to be a censure
upon the British Government for allowing the
Reciprocity Treaty to drop, with a view to
create a feeling in favour of Confederation, and
that no effort was made on their part or on the
part of Canada to renew it. I am surprised
at such a statement being quoted in this house,
where the facts are so well known. The treaty
was not dropped by Great Britain; it was terminated by the positive act of the United
States; and so far from Canada not having exerted herself to obtain a renewal of it,
her public men went further with that object than the
people of this country could defend. They were
willing to enter into arrangements not secured
by treaty, but dependent upon reciprocal legislation; and I consider it as fortunate,
and I believe the people of this country consider it fortunate, that we escaped a
position which was
one of degrading subservience to the caprices
of American legislators. I apprehend that if
there was a mistake at all in these negociations, it was on the part of the British
Government and on the part of the Canadians to exhibit an anxiety for the renewal
of the treaty
so great that the authorities of the Union were
led to believe we could not exist without it,
and, that to keep us without it would
dragoon us into a closer connection with
themselves. We have lived and we have prospered without it, and having shewn the United
tates that their trade, however important it
may be, is not indispensable to us, we have
laid the foundation for a renewal of the treaty
upon equitable and fair terms.
My hon . friend seems to have a great horror
of a future national existence. I should like
to ask him what he looks forward to in the
future. Does he imagine that for all time to
come these Provinces, which in 20 years hence
will count 8 millions of people, and which
within the life-time of many now born, will
comprise a population larger than that of the
British Isles; does he suppose that this enormous population is for all time to come
to be governed from Downing street? Eighty
years ago a country with a population less than
we now possess, irritated at what it considered oppressive exactions on the part of
the Mother Country, asserted and achieved its independence. That country has added
to its
population in a century more than England
has since the Norman conquest. Does my
hon friend imagine that by any possibility these
States could have continued to this moment
dependencies upon the country, from which
they sprung. No sir; there is an infancy and
a youth and a maturity in nations as there is
in men, and while I yield to no man in my desire to retain the connection which we
have
with the Parent State, while I trust and hope
that the day may be far distant when the ties
that unite us may be severed, I cannot shut
my eyes to the fact that in the future—however distant that future may be —we shall
have to assume the responsibilities of a seperate national existence. When that. time
shall come, it is the interest of Great Britain
as it is our interest, that we should enter up and youth.
on this change of position with institutions
adapted to the new attitude we shall have to
assume. That we should be able to continue
as the friend and ally of England, the existence which we began as her dependency.
And
that we should illustrate in the affectionate
attachment we shall bear to the parent state,
the result of the liberal and generous treatment
which she has dealt out to us in our infancy
I have asserted that I do not consider it constitutionally necessary to send this
question to
the polls. I do not mean to assert that it
would not be exceedingly desirable to know
the opinion of the people on the subject. But I
can see no certain way of ascertaining that
opinion. If this were the only subject upon
which the people were asked to express their
views, their verdict might be considered as an
answer: but if there were an election to-morrow, and if the present Government should
be
overthrown by the result, who is to analyze
this result—who is to define what portion of
the vote is against Confederation—what portion against the school system—how much
of
the result may be due to personal or political
unpopularity. entirely independent of this
question.
But I am at a loss to understand the arguments of the hon. member for East Halifax.
He asks in one breath for an appeal to the people, and in another sneers at it as
useless. In
Nova Scotia there is no appeal—the act of the
Legislature is with him the act of a tyrannical
majority. In New Brunswick there is an appeal—and the verdict passed at the polls
with him the result of corruption.' Thirty- three men are returned in favor of Confederation
to eight against it. If any verdict could
be considered to express the unmistakable
convictions of the people this would be it, and
yet the hon. gentleman treats it with contempt!
He says he will not. stay to inquire how this
result was effected. This is not a hasty expression in the heat of debate. The hon.
member has put his hand to this slander of the people of New Brunswick in a solemn
document
subscribed by him in London, addressed to the
Earl of Carnarvon. In referring to the first
decision in New Brunswick adverse to Confederation he says;— .
"On the methods by which that decision was reversed it is painful for a lover of freedom
to dwell;
but Your Lordship is aware that in Jeffreys time
many a jury were induced to reverse their decision
when threatened and brow-beaten by the court."
What does this mysterious allusion mean?
Has the hon. gentleman any distinct idea in
his own mind what he does mean? One thing
is very certain—it is impossible to please him.
We have to choose between the tyranny of a
majority and the tyranny of a Jeffreys. If we
carry the Confederation in the Legislature, no
language is to strong to express his disapproval; if we carry it by an appeal to people,
my
honorable friend has such a holy horror of the
result, that he will not stay to inquire how it
was brought about. My honorable friend from
Halifax has a great dread of corruption. A
gentleman of high position in Canada— a man
who stands perhaps second to none on this
continent for personal character and integrity
—a gentleman who had been for many long
years the friend and political ally of the hon.
member, undertook a year ago to compliment
him upon his talents, and to suggest the pro
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
34
priety of his applying them on a broader field,
and forthwith the hon. member comes down
here and informs the house that an attack had
been made on his virgin purity, but that he
had manfully resisted the assailant. Now he
tells us, establish this and you will have played in the Confederation, by the Government
of
the United States, the same game that they
have been playing in Mexico. Now, sir. does
it not occur to him that, if the United States
have a game of this kind to play, they could
not take a hand at any time more effectively
than at this moment? It is their game to keep
us isolated and apart—to foment jealousies between the different colonies—to separate
them
by hostile tariffs-to induce the public men of
one colony to slander and abuse those of another—to suggest the advantages of American
connection, and to foretell to the people of this
country that in ten years they will have a President-and be under the Stars and Stripes.
I
say that if the American Government have
money to spend for the purpose to which the
hon. Member refers, and have the sagacity for
which he gives them credit, is it too much to
suppose that at they may take a deep interest in
what is going on at this moment? The hon
member undertakes to say that Confederation
will weaken us. Is that the doctrine proclaimed by his allies in the United States?
Mr.
Banks has lately taken a great interest in our
affairs; he has introduced into Congress a bill
to provide for our admission into the United
States. The advantages which this bill offers
us are spoken of in very favorable terms by
the representatives in England of the Anti- Confederates. Mr. Banks has studied the
question from his own point of view. Let us
see what he thinks of Confederation. In
speaking to a resolution recently introduced
by him into Congress, he said:—
"A Bill had recently come before the House
of Lords in England contemplating the establishment
of an empire in the British North American Provinces, which might hereafter surpass
in power that of
England herself, or might equal that ot the United
States. or, as has been wall said by its mover, might
be second only to that. of Russia. The Legislature of
Maine. more interested in the movement than any
other State, had. through its Committee on Federal
relatlons, made a report adverse to that project which
report he would ask to have read to the House. The
stage into which that bill had passed in the House
of Lords was the most important of any of the stages
through which bills pass as all its fundamental principles were in consideration.
He did not doubt that the
peopleof this country would look with intense solicitude upon the progress of this
great movement in the
British Provinces, which contemplated the establishment of an empire, formed on monarchial
principles.
so framed as to control public opinion. and which
could not fait to have in the future a material if not
a controlling influence and power over the affairs of
the American Continent."
Can anybody misunderstand this? Mr.
Banks has the sagacity to perceive that Confederation is to confirm and establish
our position on this continent. He sees that the true
policy of. the United States—as indicated by
the report of the Maine Comittee on Federal
Relations—is to do just what the hon. member
for Halifax is doing; and nobody will deplore
the hon. gentleman's failure more than those of
his American allies who have the sagacity to
see how much his success would promote the
interests and the policy of the United States.
Is there any gentleman in this House that
supposes Mr. Banks would assume this position
—would protest against Confederation—would
ask his government to interfere impertinently
in matters with which they have nothing to do
—if he believed, as the member for Halifax
asks this House to believe, that in ten years
Confederation will place us under the American
flag. If Mr. Banks thought this, instead of
protesting against Confederation, he would do
all he could to encourage it—instead of aiding
the hon. member in his efforts at isolation he
would cheer on us who take the opposite view
as his friends and allies.
But the hon member has called the attention
of the house to the pecuniary disadvantages under which we shall enter the Union.
He says
that since 1863 the revenue of Nova Scotia has
increased $351,822 a year, and still all we get
back under the arrangements recently agreed
to in London in addition to that which was secured for us by the Quebec scheme is
$60,000
a year. The financial arguments addressed to
to this house can hardly impose upon the members, and are probably not intended to
have that
effect.
I have not time this morning to verify the
hon. gentleman's figures as to the increase of
the revenue of Nova Scotia. I will assume
that he is correct. But if Nova Scotia has gone
ahead, have the other Provinces stood still? In
l863 the revenue of Canada was $9 760,316 In
1866 it was $12,432 748. so that while our revenue has increased by $351 822, that
of Canada
has increased by $2 662,432
Even our weaker sister, New Brunswick, has
increased in equal proportion. Her revenue in
in 1863 was...$0 899 991
While in 1866 it was...1,212,021
Which shows an increase of...$312,030
So that great as has been the increase of our
Province, and we may well be proud of the evidence it affords of our country's prosperity,
the
increase of Canada and New Brunswick has
been quite equal to our own.
But not only do their revenues bear to ours a
fair proportionate increase, but both Canada
and New Brunswick. shew a larger comparative
surplus, There remains to the credit of Nova
Scotia, after meeting the expenditure of the year.
a surplus of $60,000, while that of New Brunswick is $122.000, a quantity twice as
much, and
that of Canada, after paying the extraordinary
disbursements connected with the Fenian invasion, is $710,000, or over ten times that
of Nova
Scotia.
But what becomes of our $351,000? Why,
it goes into the same chest with the 2 1/2 millions
of Canada—with the one third of a million of
New Brunswick. It goes to make a common
purse for common objects, and we have the
same right to our fair share of that contribution,
after it goes in as we should have had if it had
never gone there.
Not only shall we have a right, but we shall
be inapositlon to assert that right. Nothing
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
35
can be more inconsistent and contradictory
than the arguments we meet with on this point.
One set of men undertakes to tell us that we
are victims to the political necessities of the
Canadians. It is said that two great counties
were separated by dissensions so incurable—by
antagonisms so permanent, that finding it impossible any longer to carry on Responsible
Government they came down and asked us to
join them to get them out of their difficulty.
Then another set of men say that the representatives of the Maritime Provinces are
a mere
handful. What can 34 representatives do in an
assembly of 181? We are at the mercy of the
Canadians who can do with us just what they
think fit. These views can't both be true, and
yet they are urged by people in almost the same
breath. The hon. member for Halifax adopts
one of them when he tells us that we have been
wheedled by the Canadians into this Union; he
adopts the other when he tells us that we are
surrendering our funds hopelessly to the Federal treasury.
Sir, there are strong grounds of difference between the people of the two Canadas.
They
differ in race, in language, in religion. Upper
Canada is mainly Protestant—Lower Canada
mainly Catholic. Upper Canada is Anglo-Saxon—Lower Canada chiefly French. You have
therefore differences permanent in their nature,
and such as to create the elements of opposing
parties. In religion, in origin, and in laws we
have interests and feelings in common with the
people of the West, whilst our geographical position, our commercial pursuits, our
industries,
largely identify us with the people of East. We
are therefore in a position in which we may legitimately choose between the two political
parties that divide Canada—that one which we
shall consider the best exponent of those principles which are for the interest of
our own people and of the people of the whole Confederacy.
Need we fear that in Confederation the party
which shall be supported by the Maritime Provinces—which shall owe its power very
largely
to their adhesion—will be in a position to refuse to the Provinces whose aid is so
essential
to them any fair advantage which they are entitled to ask? No, sir, I have no fears
on that
point. If there is any portion of the Confederacy which may be in a position to ask
more
than its fair share from the public funds, that
portion is not either of the Canadas,—and we
may rest assured that the Maritime Provinces
will receive, as they will be in a position to demand, the most ample justice. More
than what
is fair and right, it would be a reflection on our
character to suppose we should ask. Less then
that, it would be a reflection on our patriotism,
if we did not obtain.
Now, sir, let us see if this is not the actual
state of this question. At the present moment
the people of the two sections are courting our
allegiance. The grounds upon which the people of Upper Canada seek it are explained
in the
daily press. In the Quebec Chronicle of
the 8th inst., in the leader of that paper it is
said:—
"Beyond the Province and in the General Parliament our course is a clear one. First
of all we must
form alliances which will tend to strengthen and protect us in our local relations;
and secondly, our interests, commercial as well as political, will lead us
to co-operate with those whose interests are the same
as our own. The Maritime Provinces have been to
us a sort of terra incognita, as we have been to them
the result in both instances of paralysis of enterprise
which is a marvel to foreigners, and can only be explained by the narrowing influence
of provincial isolation. We are glad to observe some faint symptoms
of recovery from this abject condition, the glimmering of an idea that we have neighbors
with whom it
may be desirable to hold communication by the great
highway which Providence has given us for nothing,
as well as by that other highway which we are about
to build at the expense of twenty million dollars.
These neighbors, who will count for one third under
the new political system, are our natural allies. All
our interests are the same. Whatever act of general
legislation benefits or injures them, will have a like
effect on us. Our great staple interests are the same,
namely lumbering, and maritime, and we have a common interest with them in promoting
a system of government which shall maintain the authority of the
general Legislature with respect to matters, which if
left under local control, are apt to be managed in a
way most detrimental to the commercial interests of
the country. Our motives for forming such an alliance are of the most practical kind,
as reflection may
suggest, and as we shall more fully explain. They
are motives which do not exclusively pertain to the
English section. French and English are equally
concerned, seeing it is commercial interests that are
chiefly at stake."
With these views actuating the people of the
East—with an equal desire for our support influencing the people of the West, is there
a man
in this house or in this country, who does not
believe that we shall exercise in the general Legislature a just and fair influence,
or who does
believe that any part of the Federation will be
in a position to oppress or injure us.
But I understood the hon. member to say
that all the advantage we gain from the London
agreement over that made at Quebec is $60 000
a year. This is not the fact. By the original
agreement a subsidy of 80 cents a head was to
be granted to each Province of the Federation,
but that subsidy was based on the population as
it existed at the time of the census of 1861.
Many persons have thought it was an injudicious arrangement to restrict the subsidy
to the
population of that year, and that it would have
been better to allow it to increase until the population was ascertained at each decennial
census. There are, however, good reasons why
that should not be so, and whether these reasons are valid or not the arrangement
as agreed
upon was not unfavorable to this Province.
The population of Canada West increases much
more rapidly than our own. Suppose it to
double in 20 years from 1861—that Province
will then receive but 40 cents a head. The addition to our population in the same
period may
be 50 per cent, and in that case man for man
we should receive a considerably larger amount
than Canada. By the arrangement at London
this is still further increased in our favor. The
subsidy, as regards the Canadas, still remains
based on the population of 1861, while as regards the Maritime Provinces it increases
with
their population until it reaches 400,000. As
regards Nova Scotia our rate of increase during
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
36
the last decade was over 2 per cent. per annum
This will give us in 1833; a population of 400,000. In other words, it entitles us
to 80 cents
ahead on the additional 70,000 increase of population.
| This amounts to... |
$56,000 |
| We have a special grant of... |
60,000 |
| We have also transferred to the Federal Gov- |
|
| ernment the support of the Penitentiary, |
|
| which costs us... |
16,000 |
| And pensions to the extent of... |
2,000 |
| The new arrangement therefore gives us... |
$134,000 |
a year in addition to the amount we agreed for
at Quebec.
This is a large sum annually added to the
means placed at the disposal of the Local Legislature. This addition may well justify
the support the gentlemen who may have thought the
Quebec scheme defective in that particular.
There was not one of your delegates who was
not anxious to obtain for the Province the most
favourable terms in his power; and it is but
fair to the representatives of the larger Province
to say that they met us in a spirit of generous
consideration for the wants, and even to some
extent, for the prejudices of this Province.
We are told that the change is not for the
better. A different line of argument is adopted
in Canada. Will the house listen to what Mr.
Brown, the editor of the Globe, and late President of the Council, says on, the subject:—
"It appears that the delegates have agreed to increase the grants to all the Local
Governments and
that not on the just principle of population adopted
at Quebec, but in a manner totally irrational and
most unjust to Upper Canada. In addition to the
eighty cents per head distributed as already shown,
the delegates have agreed that the following annual
agents shall be paid permanently from the Federal
chest:—
| To Upper Canada... |
$80,000 |
| To Lower Canada... |
70,000 |
| To Nova Scotia... |
60,000 |
| To New Brunswick... |
50,000 |
| Total additional grants... |
$260,000 |
Had this sum of $260,000 been distributed according to the population, as given by
the census of 1861,
it would give as follows:—
| Upper Canada |
$117,449 |
| Lower Canada... |
93,513 |
| Nova Scotia... |
27,834 |
| New Brunswick... |
21,204 |
| Total... |
$260,000 |
"The whole grant for local purposes under the
scheme as amended will now be as follows :—
| Upper Canada |
$1,106,873 |
| Lower Canada... |
959,253 |
| Nova Scotia... |
324,686 |
| New Brunswick... |
314,638 |
| Total... |
$2,795,450 |
"These grants, at the estimated population of the
several Provinces on the 1st or January, 1867, give
the following rates of grant. per head:—
|
Population. |
Per head. |
| Upper Canada... |
1,802,056 |
60 cts. |
| Lower Canada... |
1,288,880 |
74 " |
| Nova Scotia... |
8,781 |
88 " |
| New Brunswick... |
295,084 |
110 " |
"Nothing could be more scandalously unjust to
Upper Canada than this.
The second departure from the Quebec Scheme is
that, until Prince Edward Island comes into the
Union, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have
between them the four seats in the Upper Chamber,
that the Island was to have had. The distribution
will now he as follows:—
|
Population. |
Members. |
| Upper Canada... |
1,802,056 |
24 |
| Lower Canada... |
1,288,880 |
24 |
| Nova Scotia and New |
|
|
| Brunswick... |
663,884 |
24 |
"There is nothing to palliate this change. Under
the Quebec Scheme the injustice to Upper Canada
was marked enough. but to add to it in this manner
was totally indefensible. Why, the three Provinces
of Lower Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
united have but 150,689 people more than Upper Canada and yet they are to have 48
Legislative Councillors and Upper Canada but 24. Every Upper Canada
Councillor will thus represent 75,083 people, while
the average of all the rest will be but 40,782. The
thing is utterly unfair."
In a subsequent paper the editor returns to
the charge. He says.
"Now mark the justice of this precious arrangement. The Quebec scheme gave precisely
eighty cents
per head to each Province, according to iss population in 1861, and (leaving out in
both cases the special
ten-year subsiding to New Brunswick) here is what our
wise-acres in London have changed the arrangement
to:
To Upper Canada, 85 1/2 cents per head.
To Lower Canada, 88 1/4 cents per head.
To Nova Scotia, $1.19 cents per head!
To New Brunswick, $1.47 cents per head!!
"And let it not be forgotten that the Quebec
scheme was framed in 1864, shortly after the census
returns of 1861 had been printed, and the delegates
took the census as the basis of the arrangement. But
nearly three years have passed away since then, and
the relative numbers of the several Provinces are
greatly altered. According to the present estimated
population of the several Provinces, the annual subsides are to be distributed bv
the Imperial Act in the
following most unjust fashion:
|
Population. |
Per head. |
| Upper Canada... |
1,802,056 |
66 cents. |
| Lower Canada... |
1,288,880 |
74 cents. |
| Nova Scotia... |
368,081 |
107 cents. |
| New Brunswick... |
295,084 |
125 cents. |
"The thing is so preposterously unjust that we are
amazed how any one could have had the audacity to
propose it, much less the folly to concede it."
Now, sir, add to the $134,000 which we have
have obtained by the new arrangement, $264,000 we had before, and we have the sum
of
$398,000, which, with the revenues of our mines
and Crown lands, constitutes the fund at the disposal of the local Legislature. With
this revenue we shall be able to provide in a creditable
manner for every local want.
If anybody had undertaken to say a few years
ago, when the revenue of the country was insufficient to meet the ordinary demands
upon
it, at a time when we had only ninety miles of
railway, and when to meet the emergency we
were obliged to raise our advalorem duties 2 1/2
per cent, that we should be able by an additional 2 1/2 per cent. to secure the construction
of a
railroad to Pictou at a cost of over two millions
of dollars; to extend the railway from Windsor
to Annapolis; to secure the great international
highway for which we have been struggling for
the last twenty years; and that with all these
secured to our people, we should be in a position
to give a road grant equal to that which we gave
when we went to our elections in 1863; to devote to education a sum nearly three times
that
which we granted to it in that year,—is there
a member of this Legislature who would not
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
37
have felt happy if he could have been sure such
prediction would be accomplished, who would
not have felt that such a position is one he
should be proud to occupy? And yet we are
gravely told that with all these advantages secured to us, the country is ruined.
If this be
ruin, we might agree to be ruined every day of
the week.
It is difficult to understand exactly what views
the hon. member for Halifax holds as to the " Organization of the Empire." At one
time he
talks of it as if it was not his scheme—but in the
next breath he tells us his idea is, that this Province should be treated as Kent
or Surrey or any
other English county, and be entitled to have the
privileges and be subject to the burdens of the
Empire.
Suppose it were, it would according
to its population be entitled to about the
same number of representatives in the
Imperial Parliament which the anti-Confederates had in England at the recent session.
I will assume that it could not furnish three
abler or better men. Those three gentlemen
have spent nine months in the single object of
endeavouring to enlighten the members of Parliament on the subject of their mission.
They
deluged them with pamphlets and communications and had, we suppose, a very considerable
number of personal interviews with leading
statesmen. Yet what does the hon. member
himself say was the result? Why that so little
could these three gentlemen—with all their talents and assiduity—interest the Parliament
of
England in the object of their mission, that
when the destinies of this country were to be
disposed of in the House of Lords, he says that
only nine peers could be found to listen to the
proceedings—and in the House of Commons the
most unaccountable ignorance of the whole
question was exhibited. And yet it is to a Parliament exhibiting such carelessness
and ignorance that the hon. member and his friend in
London would be willing to entrust the dearest
rights of the people of this country.
But there is one feature of the hon. member's
argument that would surprise me—if anything
coming from him now could give me surprise.
Be says we have not received a guarantee for a
sufficient sum to build the Intercolonial Railway. Three millions of pounds, he says,
is too
small a sum, it will only land you in the wilderness with a road unfinished—and he
gives as
the foundation of his assertion his belief in a
survey made by Mr. Fleming.
Will it be believed that not two months ago
this same gentleman subscribed his name to a
sole document submitted to Lord Carnarvon
in which he makes a statement directly opposite? Then he supposed the delegates were
asking for four millions of pounds on the basis
of Mr. Fleming's report. He forthwith stigmatizes the report by which he now professes
to
be guided as "a most imperfect Canadian survey," and intimates that four million pounds
is
far too much.
There is something in this document so curious tha I can't refrain from calling the
attention of the House to it:—
"The framers of the Quebec scheme expect the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to go down to Parliament and ask for an advance of £4
000 000 for the
construction of this road. Mr. Gladstone promised
but £8 000,000."
Mark this. The hon. member charges us that
we have secured an advance of £8,000,000 only,
and yet he himself hurries to point out to Lord
Carnarvon that £3,000,000 was the limit of the
Imperial pledge. He warns Lord Carnarvon
not to go beyond that sum, and yet he has the
assurance to come here and blame us for not
getting more. But that is not all. Let me go
on with this precious document:—
"The sum has been increased one-third on the
faith of a most imperfect Canadian survey, with
which Her Majesty's Government, that is to give the
money, or the Maritime Provinces which are to pay
the interest, have had nothing whatever to do. Four
millions of money would build 16 iron-clads, or
would furnish a million of breech loaders, which
distributed over the Empire, would greatly strengthen it in every part. Is it likely
that Parliament will
vote such a sum unless the case be clear. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be reasonably
expected
to prove—
1. That a large sum is actually required.
2. That the security of a sinking fund, which Mr.
Gladstone demanded, but which Canada refused in
1862, is to be given.
3. That the interest is to be paid in fair proportions by the three provinces, and
not by the Maritime provinces alone.
4. That Canada is so secure from invasion that
the money will not be lost even should she be ever
so honestly disposed to repay it.
5. That so large a sum may not, in the altered circumstances which we have to face,
be very much
better employed in the defence of the whole empire,
than in giving facilities to a province which may be
utterly unable to repay the money, or to protect the
road when it is built."
Sir. I have read the whole of this document that
the House and the country may understand what
these gentlemen who style themselves the " People's
Delegates" have been doing in England. Not content with warning the Chancellor of
the Exchequer
to confine himself within the limits of the original pledge, they do all they can
to show that
it is unsafe to go even that far. They urge that
the money might be better spent elsewhere;
and they do what they can to disparage and
discredit the character and reputation of the
country.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when we call to mind the
addresses we have so often heard from one of
these gentlemen on the floors of this House on
the subject of the Intercolonial Railway—when
we remember the fervid eloquence with which
he described the value of such a road in open up the resources of the great country
behind us
and in constituting a means of defence—when
we recollect the letters which in 1862 the same
gentleman addressed to the Secretary for the
Colonies, pointing out the enormous saving in
time of war which would result from the construction of this great work—and then read
the
document to which the House has just listened,
it is difficult to believe that both are the productions of the same hand. But bad
as as all this
is, it is almost worse to come here as
the hon. member does, and after using every
effort to prevent us getting any advance at
all, charge on us as an offence that we have
not secured something more. If we have got
an advance, it has been in spite of all that
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
38
he and Mr. Howe could do to prevent it. If we
have secured the Intercolonial Railroad, it is because all the efforts of these gentlemen
to disparage and discredit us in the opinion of English statesmen have been powerless.
But, Sir, if little attention was paid to this
question in the Imperial Parliament, it was not
because that body was indifferent to the measure, but because there was no member
of it who
felt an interest in the success of these Colonies
who was not persuaded that this measure would
promote that success. Any opposition that was
offered came from gentlemen who were never
friends of the Colonies and who only speak of
them as a burden and incumbrance to
the parent country.
I am able to bear testimony—and I am glad
to do so—to the patriotic and statesmanlike
views of the noble Marquis who formerly presided over the government of this Province.
If
there was any gentleman in either branch of the
Imperial Parliament who might be supposed
inclined to yield a favorable ear to Mr. Howe's
suggestions, that person was the Marquis of
Normanby. While he was governor of Nova
Scotia, Mr. Howe was for years his Prime Minister, and enjoyed largely his confidence;
but
the noble lord, in an emergency in which his
fellow Peers might be supposed to defer largely to his local information and experience
rose
superior to any personal ties between him and
his former minister and friend, and warmly advocated this measure as one that was
essential
to our prosperity and safety.
I believe that is only by means of Confederation that we can prevent our Provinces
from being absorbed in the American Union. I have
more faith in the opinions of the ally of the hon.
member for East Halifax than I have in his own.
I believe that by the establishment of a large
country on this continent, within which labor
shall be free and untaxed, we shall present a field
for industry which will contrast most favourably
with that other field alongside of us in which
labor is pressed down by enormous taxation.
See how that contrast is already apparent in certain branches of business. In a report
to Congress made by the Secretary to the Treasury, no
longer ago than December last, he dwells upon
the condition of the shipping interest of the United States. "Twenty years ago," he
says, "it
was anticipated that ere this the United States
would be the first naval power in the world."
Up to the time when the war interfered with
their industry and taxes crippled their resources,
this anticipation was being realized. In five
years, however, that interest has enormously
declined. The United States tonnage employed in their foreign trade in 1860 was 6
millions.
In five years it fell to 3 millions; while during
the same period the tonnage of foreign vessels
employed in that trade has run up from 2,363,000 to 4,410,000 tons.
Is it any wonder that this should be the case
when on one side of the boundary line a ton of
shipping costs $100, while it only costs $50 on
the other. Cheap ships, cheaply manned and
sailed, will continue to absorb more and more
of the foreign trade of the United States. Within their own borders, where they enjoy
the monopoly of the coasting trade, they may impose upon
industry the burden of enormous freights, but
where they come into competition with the
foreigner, they must compete with cheap ships
or quit the trade.
As it is with shipping, so it will be with other
industries, and the new Confederation may look
forward to a future in which the growth and increase of every industrial pursuit will
bring into
play the vast and varied resources which are
scattered profusely over the country.
A brilliant prospect is before us, and when we
shall have become a country with our sister colonies in the West, and have fairly
entered on
our new course, I believe there will be nothing
at which some of those who now view the prospect with timidity or apprehension will
be more
amazed than at the recollection of the doubts
and fears that they honestly entertained at this
crisis of our history. The men who sit around
these benches have a deep stake in the country.
They represent not only the intelligence and
public spirit—but they fairly represent the
wealth and prosperity of the country. If in
what they are now about to do they mistake the
true interests of the country, they will themselves
be the sufferers from the mistake. But there is
a feeling dearer to a public man than any considerations of a material interest. It
is the desire to enjoy the esteem and respect of those
among whom his life is to be spent. If in the
course we are now taking, we have misapprehended the true interests of the country,
if it
shall turn out that the Confederation we advocate shall be what its opponents declare
it will,
we shall pay the penalty of our rash act by a life
long exclusion from the esteem and respect of
our fellow coutrymen. But, if it be otherwise—
and if it shall turn out that we saw what was not
only for the interests and prosperity, but what was
absolutely necessary for the safety of the people,
then we shall see that we have done right to fix
our eyes steadily on what was for the permanent
benefit of our common country, and to pursue it
regardless of the temporary passions and prejudices which may beset us.
EVENING SESSION.
The house resumed at 7.20.
Hon. PROV. SECRETARY said that the public
mind had been somewhat excited by a rumor
that, by a despatch from the war authorities,
the works upon our fortifications had been ordered to be discontinued. He had not
given
credit to the rumor, because on the last day of
his stay in London he had, as one of a deputation, called on H. R. H. the Duke of
Cambridge
and the Minister of War, and those noblemen
had evinced extreme satisfaction at the great
exertions made by the people of the colonies,
and the admirable spirit displayed by their
Legislatures in connection with the subject of
defence. The deputation had been assured
that the Imperial war authorities would feel
warranted in asking for an increase of the aid
usually granted for colonial protection. On
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
39
hearing the rumor referred to he had put himself in commuication with the Lieutenant
Governor, and was now in a position to state that
the despatch causing this surmise had only reference to one of the fortifications,
in which
some alterations were contemplated.
The adjourned debate was resumed.
Speech of Hon. Mr. Shannon.
Hon. Mr. SHANNON said:—It is rather the
turn of gentlemen opposite to take up the argument, but as no one appears ready to
speak
on that side I would like to say a few words
on this question. I have been so much pleased
during yesterday and to-day in listening to
the statements made by gentlemen connected
with the delegations, that I could have remained here fer hours listening to their
speeches, and have been satisfied if I heard
nothing more. But I happen to be one of
those to whom the epithet "dumb dogs"
was applied last year. The debate on that
occasion had continued to so late an hour of
the evening, that I did not think it advisable
to say anything, but I found shortly afterwards that the Morning Chronicle referred
to
me as one of those who had been expected to
deliver my sentiments but had not done so.
And Mr. Howe also, in his addresses in the
country, referred to what he called the indecent haste with which the resolutions
were
carried, stating that some of those who had
been expected to speak had not uttered a word.
I thought that my sentiments on this subject
had been too well known to require that I
should say a word, and I do not feel that I can
add anything of value to what has already
been uttered; but I am willing to say a few
words to show that I am still as strongly in favor of this great measure as ever.
This is not
the first time that I have spoken in favour of
Union. As long ago as 1861 my vote was
pledged to its support. Mr. Howe, the then
Premier, in that year came down with a resolution which received the sanction of the
house. On a subsequent occasion, 1863, when
we were debating the question of the Intercoonial Railway, though my views differed
somewhat from the then Government as to the
mode in which the guarantee should be raised,
thinking that our Province had been asked to
pay too much, still I was in favor of the railroad, and when Mr. Howe detailed in
such
eloquent terms the prospects rising before us,
and when the hon. member for Yarmouth was
so carried away as to be willing to vote for the
Picteu railway. I then made a few remarks referring to the Intercolonial line as uniting
all
the Provinces, and expressing the hope that it
would give birth to that new nationality of
which gentlemen opposite have shown themseves to be so afraid. I then referred to
my
experience in the old country where colonists
were treated with indifference, and I said
then as I feel now that if we had a larger
field we would not be treated with such contempt on the other side of the Atlantic.
Again, in 1864, when the Provincial Secretary
moved the resolution in reference to the delegation to Prince Edward Island, I endeavored
to express clearly my view on the question,
expressing my regret that matters were not
in progress for the larger Union. In 1865,
when the matter was again before us, I deivered my sentiments as well as I was able
and at length, so that I need not have been
charged last year with want of deference to
the house, or with want of expression in my
opinions.
As I have already said, I feel as strongly upon
this question as I ever did, and am determined
to support the clause in the speech and to oppose the amendment. And now what are
the
arguments which have been advanced? First
of all, it is said that the gentlemen who were
sent on the delegation exceeded their authority.
After the debates of last year in which the most
frantic appeals were made to members not to
support the resolution for the delegation, because the action of the House would bind
the
people and their posterity forever, and on the resolution being carried, after Mr.
Howe had used
the same language throughout the country. I
supposed that it would be fully understood that
the action of the House was final: and I was
much surprised to hear gentlemen making use
of such an argument on this occasion. Then
the hon. member spoke of the tyrannical mode
in which the measure had been carried out. and
said he could find no precedent for it until he
went back to the history of ancient Rome, and
compared the act of that Legislature to which
we must all how to the tyranny of Nero. I
think that such a remark, made among subjects of Her Majesty, in reference to such
a
Parliament might have been spared; and I
may here ask if it has not been shown that
every pains were taken, on the part of those
opposed to the measure, to make members of
the British Parliament acquainted with the
whole subject? We see that in the House of
Lords the matter was carefully debated. It
has been said that on the third reading, when
some discussion had arisen, a number of
Peers went away; but we all know what the
third reading of a bill is; we all know that the
principle is discussed on the second reading,
and on the second reading of this bill the House
was fuller than it had been for a long time before. And was there not one present
who was
well acquainted with Nova Scotia? If there
was one who might have been expected tolend
his assistance to Mr. Howe and the so called
people's delegates, it would have been our former Lieut-Governor, who was so much
attached to his old Premier; but I do not think a better speech could have been given
in favour of
the bill than that which Lord Normanby uttered. He well knew how parties ran in this
country; he understood the whole organization of
society here, and knew that this measure was
calculated to advance the best interests of the
Province. What did that nobleman say to those
gentlemen who professed to represent the people? He had some knowledge of petitions,
and
had come to the conclusion that they were principally the expression of the opinions
of those
gentlemen who got them up. I am somewhat
acquainted with the petitions which came from
my own constituency; I am aware that there
are a number of mercantile men in the city opposed to Confederation. and they put
their
names to the petition as a matter of course; but
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
40
when those opposed to the measure went into
the interior of the western part of the county,
the number of signatures was small indeed.
Although every effort was made, and men were
hired to go down and obtain the names even of
boys, whole sections refused to sign. Lord
Normanby must have told Mr. Howe that it
was no use to come before Parliament with such
petitions, when a. great public measure was
under consideration.
The main point upon which the amendment
is b ing pressed is that an appeal should be
made to the people. I need not trouble the
House with many arguments upon the constitutional question, because that has been
ably
handled by gentlemen who preceded me, and
because the member for East Halifax has. to a
great extent, given up the point in admitting the
precedents. Mr. Archibald showed that when
the British Parliament found it necessary to
change the arrangements connected with the
succession to the Crown and to bring in a new
dynasty—when those noble men who guarded
the rights of the country, and were determined
to get rid of the Stuart family, had induced
Parliament to adopt their views; there was no
appeal to the people, although the leading men
in the movement knew that their action might
be made a ground of impeachment There was
a Union consummated in the history of England to which I may refer, although it is
not;
exactly a precedent. I refer to the union of
Scotland with England. It was hardly to be
expected in that case that the lesser nation would
have concurred. We all know the spirit of
Scotchmen—how the ancestors of the men of
that day had, with their backs to the unconquerable highlands and their faces to the
foe, repelled the English invader on every occasion—and
the same spirit led them to oppose the union
with England. They feared, as our opponents
profess to do, that the smaller state would he
swamped by the greater—but what was the result? From that day Scotland went on in
the
path of improvement, and Scotchmen could
take their place with Englishmen in any part of
the world. One gentleman some time ago
styled the Scotch a race of paupers, but if they
were. they found their way down to rich England, and wherever there was an outlet
for intellect or industry Scotchmen were to be found
availing themselves of the noble education
which they had received and of the opportunities of advancement which appeared. From
the
date of the union there has. not been a ministry
in England in which Seotland has been unrepresented. When the East Indies were opened
to enterprise Scotchmen predominated there;
and at the present day Scotland is one of the
most prosperous parts of Great Britain. This
is, to some extent, a parallel case with ours excepting that we will have far greater
influence
in the United Parliament and a higher position
in every respect; and I feel that the result will
be in our case still more satisfactory. If we look
at what an appeal to the people really is, we
will see that it is not in all cases satisfactory.
There were two such appeals in New Bruns
wick. and the one neutralised the other. Who
could tell which exhibited the real feeling of the
people? In ancient history there is an instance
in which an individual appealed from his sovereign drunk to the same authority sober.
When was New Brunswick sober? Was
it when the Frenchmen were told that
they were to be sent to Canada, and the most
inflammatory appeals made? Or was it when
the real enemy was gathering on the frontier.
and the people saw it was necessary to be no
longer isolated? Then came the strong English feeling and the strong desire to maintain
British connection, and the result was that a
majority was returned in favour of Union. I
would hardly ask, in reference to the great leader of the Opposition to Union, when
he was in
his sober senses, but I would ask when he was
exercising his best judgment? Was it when,
on former occasions, he spoke so eloquently in
favour of Union—when he said he wished to
visit Canada every year; or was it when, a disappointed man, no longer Premier—disappointed
even in going to Quebec, when others, to use
a common phrase, had stolen his thunder, he.
endeavored to arose hostility to all his former
teachings? We have had read to us a state paper. called the case of the people, and
setting
forth the sentiments of Mr. Howe and his colleagues. Can it be possible that this
patriot,
who was once willing to pledge our revenues to
any extent to build the Intercolonial Railway,
after his ambition was disappointed, was unwil
ling that we should receive that boon? I was
trained to consider Mr. Howe an able man,but
not one whom it was safe to follow; and I cannot see how those who have been accustomed
formerly almost to idolize him could now follow
his teachings . As regards the prospects held
out to us by Union, perhaps it is hardly right to
bring them before this House on the present
question, but the subject has been gone into
and one of the delegates gave us a financial view
of the matter.
The hon. member for East Halifax told us
that it was impossible to remain as we are, and
he expressed his preference to see Nova. Scotia
as a county of England, like Kent or Surrey. I
would agree to a large extent with that if it were
possible, but we know well what the reslt would
be. We would be obliged to bear our share of
the burdens falling upon us as portions of the
Brittsh Empire, and neither the gentlemen com:
posing this Legislature nor the community outside would be willing to enter into such
a union.
It would utterly pro trate all our energies to ',be
placed under such a burden as that would cause,
But the hon. gentleman went further, and said;
that if we could not become an integral part of
the Empire. rather than go to Canada, he would
prefer Annexation to the "United States". I
should like the people to understand this sentiment as I cannot think that they have
made up
their minds to such an alternative. I think.
they would prefer the advantages of Confedera
tion to all the temptations held out by Mr. Banks
It is common for the proprietors of newspapers
in the United States on the eve of elections to
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
41
put at the head of their columns the motto and
flag which represent their sentiments. I would
advise the hon. gentleman to put at the head of
his paper the motto; "The United States rather
than Canada," and to hoist the Stars and Stripes
as his banner and let the people know what the
true issue is: Canada or the United States I
am for Canada. In connection with this subject
I may say that the only thing which I regret is
the name by which the United Provinces are to
be designated. I would have preferred
the name British America. I feel convinced
that under Confederation we are to have such
advantages that even gentlemen opposed to it
will have to acknowledge as Scotchmen afterwards did in relation to the union with
England, that it was the making of the country.
I see no ground for the assertion that we are
to lose our liberties,—our laws will be as well
administered as ever,—the local legislatures
will have sufficient funds to meet the local
exigencies, and we will enjoy every privilege
which we had before. I am convinced that in
this respect our people will hardly know the
difference.
One of my constituents said to me the other
day, "What about this Confederation?" I said
to him, "You live in the country; you will get
up in the morning and attend to your work;
the same money will be expended on the roads
and bridges, your children will be educated,
and you will never know the difference, except
when you bring your wares to market you will
get a double price for them." Mr. Bourinot
told us the other day what Confederation would
do for Cape Breton—that the people of that island will have markets they never had
before,
and justice will be done to Cape Breton. I
believe the statement, and further, next to the
county of Halifax, I believe that the county
of Pictou will receive the largest benefit
What is the case in that county? I have been
the instrument, to some small extent already
in bringing Canadian capital into that county
and I believe its towns will be the scenes
of busy industry. New Glasgow may have
its tall factory chimneys, and be the Birmingham of the future Confederation. And
what about Halifax and the great railway?
I have only to read Mr. Howe's speeches for
a description of what we are to have then.
You may take any of the labouring men
upon the streets of our city, and you will
find that they understand the benefits that
are to ensue,—men who came here with no
capital but their industry, and who have acquired a competency among us—men whose
children are being educated for any position
to which they may aspire, and who are willing to exert themselves to increase the
prosperity of the country. And as to our young
men, what great advantages will not they
receive? The hon. member for Londonderry said he wished that we should remain
as we are. I think we cannot do so, neither
politically nor socially. Does he not know
that, notwithstanding our progress, there is
a constant depletion of our population owing to our young men leaving us—that they
are abandoning their country and going to
the United States, and that we cannot retain them until Confederation is accomplished?
I mentioned on a former occasion the
number of Nova Scotians who had left us,
probably never to return. I want to stop
this, and to try to get some of our exiles
back, and I think we can do it in no other
way. Even those among us who have acquired fortunes and desire to keep their
means to themselves will find that their
securities will be far more valuable hereafter than now. Having made these remarks
from a feeling that I should not allow the
opportunity to pass in silence, I will now
resume my seat.
Speech of Mr. Coffin.
Mr. COFFIN said:—I did not intend to make
any remarks upon this subject, but there are two
or three matters upon which I wish to make a
few observations; The hon. gentleman who just
spoke referred to New Brunswick as having had
two elections before the consummation of this
measure; the only thing we are complaining of
is that our government are passing upon it without giving the people an opportunity
of considering it at the polls; for I contend that previous
to the last election no mention of the question
was made to the electors. When the delegates
returned from Quebec the leading men of New
Brunswick finding that they could not command
a majority in the Legislature, dissolved the
House and appealed to the people, when a large
majority was returned against them. Subsequently a majority was returned in their
favour,
but the people of that Province have no reason
to complain. In Nova Scotia the case was quite
different,—the delegates, although the majority
was against them, had not the manliness to go to
the country. We only ask that the measure may
be postponed till the proper time arrives for an
election. If the measure were not then sustained it might at some future period be
ratified by
the people and could then be carried by their
consent. As it is, you are depriving the people
of their constitution without allowing them to
speak for themselves;—you are saying to them,
' you are not fit to judge, we will take away
your privileges and consign you to the care of
other men without asking your opinion." This
makes the people go into the new government
dissatisfied.
It has been stated here that Mr. Watkins told
the House of Commons that the question had
been before thc people, and had been preached at
every hustings throughout Nova Scotia,—coming from such authority the statement was
no
doubt believed. I need scarcely ask whether the
statement was true or not. But I must say I
felt relieved at hearing it. I thought it a most
arbitrary act on the part of the Imperial Parliament to pass the bill without giving
us the priviege of being heard, but this piece of information
throws new light on the proceeding. I know
not whether this information was given by the
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
42
delegates or not—that is for them to say, and
the responsibility rests on them. It has been
said that the delegates obtained better terms for
Nova Scotia at the recent Conference than were
allowed, us before,--if such be the case the Opposition are entitled to the credit;
if there had
been no opposition we would have had the
Quebec scheme. That scheme, however, allowed us certain privileges which we do not
now possess. We were to have been allowed to raise a revenue by some other
means than direct taxation, and that privilege
has been taken from us. Last winter we had
before us bill. which was to have put our mining, operations in such; a positiori
that we would
lose the power from that time of levying a tax on
coal, but it was a hard bill to get through the
House. its passage was not accomplished; but
the delegates have effected the same purpose in
the conference at the other side of the water.
In this connection I could not help thinking of
another bill pressed upon us last year by Mr.
Archibald; the bill to .impose an income tax.
Thefriends of this bill were likewise unsuccessful. but perhaps they mean to,accomplish
their
purpose. by. leaving us without sufficient revenue
to carry on the local departments. and by taking from us all other means of obtaining
a supply
for the' treasury. As regards the allowance to
be made to usby the.general government it is
true some advantagc has been gained. But the
day'is'not far distant when we may have a population of 400,000, and that population
will go
on increasing until bye-and.bye it will reach
double that number, and yet we will receive no
more money.:
It may be said that in this respect Nova Scotia is served as the other Provinces are;
but I
think it would have been wise to have arranged
a sliding scale, _whereby- the revenues could be
raised in accordance with the increasing neces
sify, We will find the arrangement a poor one
indeed when our people number 800.000 or 1.
000,000 and have so paltry a sum out of which
to' meet the public wants. One of the delegates
gave us,this afternoon some observations upon
{he prosperity of Nova Scotia as regards her
shipping, and the decrease of that of the United- States. We know that from the beginning
of the war the shipping of that. country decreased not only from privateering. but
by vessels. being transferred to the British flag. I
do not think that in the statistics that
were given allowance was made for the shipping under the flags of foreign nations
that
will go back as soon as circumstances are
favorable. Taking all these circumstances into
consideration, I think that the prosperity of
the American marine is not so small as it
would seem. It is true that we can build two
ships in Nova Scotia for one in the United
States, but one of their ships when built is
worth, two of ours. Taking, everything into
consideration, I think it is apparent that the
Union will be consummated- that we are to
try a new state of things; but as I have already said, I feel relieved at hearing
that the
British Parliament acted under false information, and I am convinced that if the truth
had
been known an opportunity would have been
allowed us of saying whether we consented or
not to unite our fortunes with those of the
other Provinces.
Speech of Mr. Tobin.
Mr. TOBIN said:—I have so often spoken on
on this question that I feel it is quite unnecessary for me to address the House to-night
at any great length. It will be remembered
that when this subject was under discussion
during the last session of the legislature I was
so indisposed that on the last night when the
division was taken I was scarcely able to utter a word. While that subject was under
discussion. neither the leader of the government nor any supporter of the government
knew which way I was gomg to vote. I have
advocated, however this Union since I first
entered public life. Indeed I have advocated
it even before I had the honour of a seat in
this House. I believe that I was mainly instrumental to the bringing forward of the
resolution which was moved by Mr. Howe in.
1861. At public meetings in this city, in Windsor, in Kentville, in Truro I have addressed
large audiences, and received from them the
kindest attention. After a fair discussion of
this question, I have invariably found. the people of this country in favour of Union.
On
every occasion when I came before the electors ofthe city of Halifax and of the Western
division, I advocated a- Union of the British
American Provinces. 'I have been sustained
at three elections—at two by large majorities.
and at the lost without opposition. So far as I
am personally concerned I assume all the responsibility of my position, and I advocate
this
Union because I believe it is for the best interests of British America. I believe
that the
time has come when we must enter on a new
state of political relations with each other.
Look at this House, today are we not actually bursting our shell? Is there room for
the
hon. gentlemen who come here from the different counties? See how the desks are crowded
into the lobby. Therefore, I say, we have outgrown our condition. and require expansion,
We must do like the Massachusetts man: when
the village becomes too large he emigrates to
the West. We must look to the great West
which opens and cultivate trade and
intercourse with its people.
We are taunted with endeavoring to take
away the privileges of the people, and transfer
them to Canada. What is the fact? We give
19,000 square miles, and get in return 400,000)
square miles; If we transfer our revenue to
Canada, shall we not have a share in her revenue? All the revenues of. the Provinces
are to be put into a. common treasury for the
benefit of all. Each county of Nova Scotia
now contributes to, and gets a share of the
treasury of Nova. Scotia... In the same way
each Province will contribute to, and obtain a
share of. the general treasury of the Confederacy. What is the. first object to which.
our
common funds are contribute? It is the Intercolonial Railway, which is going to bring
the whole of the great West immediately into
connection with us—to distribute merchandize
from one end of the Cenfederacy to the other.
Let me turn your attention in another direction. Who are the men in thishouse who
have
voted to refer this question to the British Go
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
43
vernment? Let. me just look across the floor,
and whom do I see? An hon. gentleman representing the great agricultural county of
Kings—representing in himself wealth, intelligence, and ability. Let me look at Annapolis,
and I find two members of that fine agricultural county also in favor of union. When
I cast my eye down the list, I see gentlemen
representing the great coal as well as the fishing interests of this province, all
of them arrayed in support of this great measure of progress. I find that only two
counties, through
their representatives, voted unanimously
against the resolution of last winter. I confess
that at one time, in order to put down agitation on this question, my judgment inclined
me to go to the polls; but when I come to look at
the position of things in this house, I feel I
would be worse than the infallible juryman if
1 expected to bring over thirty gentlemen
to my opinion.
I have listened attentively to the arguments
offered to the house since the debate commenced,and especially to those advanced by
my hon. friend the member for East Halifax, who was one of the "eople's Delegates,"
in company with a gentleman whose
talents I admire and for whom I entertain tho
highest respect. What view did that hon.
member present of the constitutional aspect of
this question? I think that the pleasant time
he spent in Kew Garden and Bushy Park, or
perhaps the omnibuses rolling down Piccadilly, must have driven all arguments out
of his
head. I think that my hon. friend might have
availed himself of the opportunities within his
reach in the great English metropolis, and
searched out some precedents and authority
for the course he wishes us to pursue. As respects my hon friend from Yarmouth, he
is
true to his text. He has always been opposed
to railwa ys and all measures of progress; in
point of fact, he thinks Yarmouth the hub of
the Province, and that we should always be
tieed to the old stage coach and move to the
musical notes of the wooden axle. Now I
think that the time has come to give up such
antiquated notions; and I hope and trust the
gentlemen who will be sent to represent the
people at Ottawa—if that is the seat of government—will reflect the intelligence and
ability
of the country, and be in every way qualified
to promote its best interests.
There was another question to which my
hon.friend alluded, and that was the "Organization of the Empire" according to the
programme issued by Mr. Howe. However highly I value that gentleman's opinion-however
much I may esteem him I cannot help believing that it is a scheme of an entirely impracticable
character. Such is the opinion, indeed,
of every public man and publicist everywhere
who has given the subject the least consideration
If there is one section of this Province more
likely than another to be benefited by this
Confederation, it is the city of Halifax. This
must be the emporium. whence will be distributed over the Confederacy all the merchandize
brought is to our shores. Trade must be
developed to an infinite degree, labour will be
developed, in fact all classes and interests will
receive a valuable impulse. Our port will be
filled with shipping. and our wharves and
warehouses groan with the merchandize that
will be required for the Confederation. I never
could understand how certain persons in Halifax have opposed the scheme of. Union.
Perhaps l may stand almost alone in the profession to which I belong. There are, a
great
many intelligent- merchants I know opposed to
it, but I cannot understand the reasons that influence them. No man is infallible,
and some
may not, take that broad and generous view
of questions which men in a different position
of life can and do take on subjects of this kind.
There is another question to which I have often
referred, and that is, the position of our young
men. What is there to excite ambition among
our young men in the existing condition or
things? The avenues to employment are narrow and confined. I regret to say that I
know
of many young men belonging to the respective professions whose energies are paralyzed
for want of sufficient employment, and of those
objects of ambition which are open to them in
other countries.
An allusion having been made to the franchise law, I must say that that was an act
passed in this Legislature from which I strongly dissented. I have labored not so
much perhaps in public as other ways to have this obnoxious measure repealed. I am
still
ous as ever to see it struck off the statute
book; for I want the men who sent me here to
passs upon my public acts during the past four
years.
Since the house adjourned last year I have
had an opportunity of visiting Canada. I was
at Ottawa when the Legislature was opened
and when the Fenian excitement prévailed. I
was also at Malone and along the line; but
nothing gave me greater pleasure during my
visit than the manner in which the Ottawa
Parliament was opened. - I passed through
Canada and looked- upon its fertile fields, its
vast resources, and its great commerce—its
hardy and thrifty population—its noble cities
replete with energy and enterprize.
It is only requisite for any one-: to pass
through Canada to see thatlt it is a country with
which we ought to be proud to form a close
alliance. I passed into the United States and
on my return I had the honor of meeting at
Portland the Provincial Secretary and Mr.
Archibald, and we had a very pleasant time
as far as St. John, and then we went up to
Fredericton, and whilst they were in communication With the members of the New
Brunswick Government, I drove around the
little capital of the sister Province. I was delighted to see so fine a country, such
fine residences, and so highly an intelligent people.
Previous to going to the United States, .I had
taken my passage in . the Cunard steamer for the 19th of July, but had no idea that
I
would have had the honor of travelling in
company with the delegates to England. It
appears, however, that when I got on board l
found four or five gentlemen from Nova Scotia
and my hon. friend from East Halifax as well.
We had a very pleasant passage across the
Atlantic. I we ashore at Cork and passed
through the old land, and then I left for London, where I saw my hon friends at the
Alexandra Hotel very comfortably situated,
though it is true they appeared" a little disappointed at the non arrival of their
Canadian
friends.
As regards the present question, I will take
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
44
the whole responsibility of voting against
this resolution. I must confess that I have a
very high respect for the hon. gentleman
who moved this resolution, but we ought
not to put ourselves in the position of the
people of New Brunswick. Suppose we carried that resolution, what spectacle would
the
house present? Suppose the people, through
mistaken notions, and by the influence of the
press, undertook to turn out the majority of
their present representatives that are in favor
of union, and suppose that in the course of
eleven months they reversed their verdict,
and sent their old friends to the wall, what a
spectacle we would present to the world! If
we voted for the amendment we would only
stultify ourselves—make an exhibition of ourselves, that I trust for the sake of our
self-respect we will never be guilty of. After the very
able speech delivered by the Provincial Secretary, in which he reviewed the whole
subject
from its inception up to the present time, and
presented the constitutional aspect so clearly
and forcibly, that no man can fail to understand it; after the able and elaborate
address
of the hon. member for South Colchester, (Mr.
Archibald), who is so well qualified to speak
on this matter, I feel that it is altogether superfluous for me to say much on this
question.
Indeed these speeches must have fully convinced the house of the unconstitutionality
of the
course proposed by the hon. member for
Guysboro, and of the false position in which
the majority would place this Legislature if
they supported his amendment.
Speech of Mr. Annand.
Mr. ANNAND said—As no other gentleman
seems inclined to continue the debate, and having been frequently referred to by hon.
members opposite, in terms inviting reply, I feel
that I would ill discharge my duty to my constituents and myself if I did not at once
meet some of the arguments addressed to the
house. And in so doing, allow me to refer to
the last speaker first. The hon. member for
West Halifax, Mr. Tobin, alluded to my sojourn in the mother country, and playfully
suggested that my visits to Kew Gardens and
Park, and dinners at the Star and Garter, had
made me insensible to the force of the arguments in favor of the change in our institutions
which he and his associates are so anxious to accomplish. And in the same spirit
I reply that I had the pleasure, besides
seeing my hon. friend at those celebrated
localities of meeting nearly all the Delegates
in those classic gardens of Cremorne, and of
visiting the hon. member himself at "Half- moon street"—a very suggestive name, but
I
hope not an appropriate one in regard to the
hallucinations with which he appears afflicted, as to the rights of the people of
this
country upon the question now under consideration. The hon. member seems to think
that after seven months' sojourn in the metropolis of the world, surrounded by elevating
objects, and enjoying the society of the foremost people in the universe, I should
have
come back with larger views, and prepared
to support this scheme of Confederation. Sir,
I did not go to England to enlarge my views, in
presence of which this Canadian scheme dwarfs
into insignificance; I did not go there to learn
the doctrines which 1 hold respecting the Or
ganization of the Empire—to make the nation
to which we all acknowledge a common allegiance fearless of aggression, and invulnerable
in Britain's vast domain. I had read up
to that point years before, and although the
proposition to make the Empire one and indivisible may be ridiculed here, the time
may
come, and I venture to predict will come,
when justice will be done to the few, perhaps
the very few, who preferred the organization
to the dismemberment of the Empire. Sir,
we now belong to the greatest nation of these
modern times, and what more do we require?
Union with Canada—an insignificant portion
of a confederacy of four millions of people, unable to protect themselves from aggression
and conquest? No; what we should aim at is
the consolidation of the Empire—the elevation
of the colonist to the same status as an Englishman; and by giving us a voice in the
great
assembly of the nation, make every Nova
Scotian feel, and every Englishman feel, too,
that we are not inferiors but equals, and
equally entitled with themselves to the honors
and distinctions of the Crown.
These were my feelings when I went to
England, and they are my feelings now. I belong to the greatest Confederacy the world
ever saw—to England, with her fifty Colonies in every part of the globe—to a nation
with two hundred and fifty millions of people, and London for our capital. Gentlemen
opposite talk of the expense, of the taxation
for defence, that would result from representation in the Imperial Parliament. But
have
they ever thought of the enormous taxes we
will have to pay when we are Confederated,
when we will have to provide means to erect
fortifications and support our own army and
navy? It is right, sir, that we should pay
such reasonable sum as we can afford for our
defence. We must pay to somebody, and the
question for us to consider is to whom that
contribution should be made. We might pay
to the United States, which is able to protect
us, but this could only be done at the sacrifice of our allegiance, and is therefore
out of
the question. We pay to Canada, but it is evident that, with her long and exposed
frontier
she is unable to defend herself, and therefore
is in no condition, even after the most lavish
expenditure of money, to protect us. But I
would pay to neither. I would pay to England—not pound for pound with the people of
the British Islands, with their vast accumulations of property and concentration of
wealth—but such sum as a comparatively
poor country, with a sparse population, could
afford to pay. With these views I visited the
mother country; I cherish them still, and will
continue to do so until they are crushed out by
tyranny and oppression, in preference to those
which are said to animate some gentlemen on
these benches who favor Confederation as the
readiest mode of annexing these Colonies to
the United States.
Our merchants have been referred to—and
who more competent to judge of the merits
of such a measure? Who more acute and
more likely to arrive at a sound judgment?
These men, by patient industry, have built
up fortunes in the community, and what position have they taken in reference to this
question? On the seaboard line of Halifax, from the
Dockyard to Moren's wharf, not more than
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
45
half a dozen can be found to support the Confederation of the Provinces. The wealth,
the
stamina, the bone and sinew of the country are
against this scheme of Union. One hon. gentleman amused me by asking what was there
among us to satisfy the ambition of our young
men. What more will there be when we are
confederated? Gentlemen talk as if Canada was
a foreign country, and as if, at present, we
could not go there and embark in any branch
of business whenever it may suit us to do so.
Is it not notorious that the young men of
Canada are crossing by hundreds and thousands to the United States, in much larger
numbers than from the seaboard Provinces?
Our Province is too small now for some people, but I would like to know the country
under the sun where men, with steady industry and strict economy, can more readily
acquire independence. My hon. friend from
West Halifax was a young man himself when
he first came here, and the country would
appear to have been large enough for him to
acquire, in a comparatively short time, a handsome fortune and a position which we
all hope
he may live long to enjoy. And if disposed, I
could point to dozens of that gentleman's fellow-countrymen, who at no distant period
landed upon our shores, poor but industrious
men, who have become wealthy, and who, with
my hon. colleague, have no reason to complain
that the country in which it was made was too
small.
Reference has been made to the franchise
law, and I am not sorry it was made. I was
one of the Government that introduced the
bill, and Mr. Archibald and the Provincial
Secretary, now colleagues, were the two antagonists who fought out the question in
this
Assembly. The former gentleman was then
Attorney General,—he was the father of the
bill,:—he pressed its acceptance upon the Government, but I am willing to take my
share
of the responsibility attaching to a measure,
which if bad the majority opposite have it in
their power to repeal. If the franchise act is,
as they say, distasteful, why not bring in a
bill to repeal it? If such a bill were introduced I would allow the gentleman who
originated the term "gutter men" and his new
friend the Provincial Secretary to fight it
out and would not oppose it. I am willing
to try out this question upon the old franchise, and see if the majority of the men
who
returned this Assembly are or are not in favor of Confederation. The gentleman who
preceded me took passage to England in the
same steamer as that in which I went. I enjoyed his society during the voyage, but
did
he visit England as his position entitled him
to. He is a prominent supporter of the Government, perhaps the most influential in
their
ranks. He is beside a merchant of standing
in the community, and to the shame of the
Government be it told that neither he nor
any other merchant was appointed on the
delegation. Five lawyers and a doctor were
selected to change the constitution of the
Province. No one identified with the commerce of the country, its fisheries or agriculture
need apply—and the lawyers and the
doctor had it all to themselves. My hon.
friend has fully earned his position—and
why, I ask, was he treated, as I know he was,
first by the Government who ignored his
claims when here, and then by the Delgates
on the other side. We have heard of the festivities at Stowe and other places, but
who
ever heard of that gentleman being included
in the invitations? And if not, why not? I
think that those gentleman having secured
his support, the least they could have done
was to have paid him that attention to which
his talents and position fully entitled him. It
has been asked, what position will we be in if
we carrv this amendment? We will be
situated just in this way: that while the result
is trembling in the balance, before the bill is
assented to by the Commons, we can telegraph
across the Atlantic to say: " The Parliament
of Nova Scotia have declared the right of the
people to speak on the subject." When that
message arrived all action would he stayed and
the Imperial Government would await the deliberate opinion of the people of this country.
We will then have done justice to the men
who sent us here—who did not give us authority to change the constitution, but to
make laws under the constitution which we
now enjoy. The hon. gentleman who spoke
first this evening (Mr. Shannon) alluded to
the union of Scotland and England as a case
analogous to ours;—but let me point out one
or two distinctions. England and Scotland
had been at war for centuries, and they
formed parts of the same island. Scotland
gave England a King, she was without colonies, and by the offer to share the trade
of the
larger kingdom had every inducement to
union with England. These were the arguments addressed to the Scottish mind, and we
must all admit their force; but what has Canada to offer us? Does she offer us additional
trade with colonies from which we were
previously excluded? Have we ever been at
war with her? Are we part of the same island? And instead of our giving her king
will she not lord it over us? Is her geographical position like ours? Nature evidently
formed the island, now England and Scotland to be under one government, but with
a narrow strip of land connecting the Maritime Provinces with Canada, in many places
not more than twenty-six to thirty miles
wide, is it not evident that geography protests against the union of Provinces, whose
railways and telegraphs in time of war could
be severed in fifty places, and all communication intercepted. We are asked to be
united
to a country which is frozen up five months in
the year, which has no trade to offer us of
which we cannot avail ourselves now. More
than that, Scotland went into the union with
the advantage in a pecuniary point of view,
and we go into Confederation with the money
part of the arrangement all in favour of Canada—so that the cases instead of being
parallel,
are entirely opposite. We being a maritime
and consuming people, will consume, man for
man, $3 for every $1 consumed by Lower Canadians, and more than even the better class
of Upper Canadians. In the face of these facts
I think the hon. gentleman has not shown that
the measure is desirable from a commercial
point of view, nor yet in relation to defence.
Reference was also made to the banner which
I should hereafter display. I am not prepared
to elevate any banner but the one we now
have. I prefer to remain as I am until a
change is forced upon me. I am opposed to
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
46
annexation to the United States as well as to
union with Canada; but I think it may be easily shown that every argument that can
be
found in favour of the smaller Confederation
would apply with greater force to the larger.
Let me, while upon this branch of the subject,
read an extract from the case of the Maritime
Provinces, and I will not shrink from defending every line and word that that document
contains:—
"The terms offered to the Maritime Provinces are
far more liberal than those grudgingly yielded by the
Canadians. Let us contrast them. By Gen. Banks's
bill Nova Scotia would at once secure free trade with
thirty-four millions of people, whose markets are accessible at all seasons, instead
of with three millions,
who are frozen up for half the year, and in summer
can only be got at by a long tedious river navigation.
They would participate in the American fishing
bounties so long as these last. They would secure
protection abroad, which the Canadians cannot give
them. Capital would flow in from Boston and New
York to work their mines and employ their waterpower. Canada has none to spare. Turning
from
material to political interests, how would matters
stand? Nova Scotia would enter the Union as a
State clothed with the accustomed rights, and guarded by recognized securities. She
would select her
own governors, judges and senators, uncontrolled by
any Federal authority. All these, by the Quebec
scheme, are to be selected for her by the ruling parties at Ottawa; and, while she
elected all her own
state legislators and officers, the Supreme Court
should protect her in case of collision or encroachment." * * * * * * * *
"With all the temptations offered us at Washington, we ask simply to be let alone,
or we ask to be
folded to our mother's bosom, and not cast out into
the wilderness of untried experiments and political
speculation. Nova Scotia says to England, as Ruth
said to Naomi, "Where you go we will go; your
people shall be our people. " This love and affection
spring from a thousand sources that we need not linger to describe, but which it would
be a fatal mistake
to suppose can ever be transferred. You cannot endorse our hearts or our allegiance
over to the Canadians as you would a note of hand, or invest a village
on the Ottawa with the historic interest and associations that cluster around London."
These lines were penned in London,—I endorse every word of them here and continue
to
avow that every material advantage offered by
Confederation with Canada is offered to us with
much greater inducement by Confederation
with the United States. But I am opposed to
both. I have never sat down to calculate the
advantages. which annexation would bring to
us. I never had any desire to do so, but have
deliberately shrunk from the task, because I am
too much attached to British institutions. I
prefer the British form of government and will
not yield it up until I am compelled, but I cannot shut my eyes to the commercial
advantages
of closer connection with the United States
while my sympathies are all with England.—
Mr. Shannon said that he disliked the name Canada as applied to the new Dominion.
In that
particular he and I entirely agree, but it would
not have done to have called it British America,
for the time is coming, owing to the Confederation scheme, when we will not be British,
when
we will be nothing but Americans. The change
of the names of the Provinces shews that we are
to be made a Colony of Canada, and I should
like to hear some gentleman rise and reply on
that branch of the question. But the hon. gentleman has defended the scheme prepared
in
England as superior to the scheme laid before
us by the delegates to Quebec. It will be remembered that the Quebec scheme left the
Provinces concurrent jurisdiction in reference to
the fisheries, but by the London arrangement
the matter has been removed from the control
of the local legislatures so that an agricultural
country having no immediate interest in the
fisheries and possessing a tonnage only equal to
half that of Nova Scotia, is to control an interest deeply affecting the people of
the four Maritime Provinces. The government of Canada,
in the hope of conciliating the American government, last year compelled us to give
up our
fisheries for the paltry consideration of 50 cents
per ton while a tax of $2 per barrel was imposed
upon our mackerel. What security have we
that they will not surrender our entire interests
in this particular to the Americans? And who
can doubt that the agricultural counties in the
rear with their large representation in the Confederate Commons, will receive far
more consideration than the seaside Provinces with their
handful of members?
The hon. member for South Colchester, Mr.
Archibald, with singular inconsistency, says in
one breath we must be a new nation, and in the
next that our relations with the Mother Country will not be changed by Confederation.
I
join issue with him upon both points. We want
no new nationality. We are well enough as
we are, and although I think it would have been
wise to have legislatively united the Maritime
Provinces in one Government under the Crown,
I cannot concur with those who wish to make
these Provinces independent of the Mother
Country.
We all know how the American Colonies were
lost to England, which probably never would
have happened had the sage advice of such
men as Adam Smith been taken, and a voice
given to the old Colonies in the imposition of
taxes and the making of laws. These States
would now have been a part of the British Empire, and that Empire would now be invincible
against the entire universe. What power would
dare to assail the Empire if these, the now two
greatest nations in the world, were one. Our
true policy I contend, and our duty as British
subjects are not to dissever the Empire, but to
share the fortunes of England, to cling to, and,
if need be, to defend her. I differ entirely from
those who advocate the dismemberment of the
Empire, and I believe this Confederation
scheme to be the beginning of the decline and
fall of that great country of which we are all so
fond. How long will the West Indies be retained when we are gone? And will not the
cry
then come up for new nationalities and independence from the Australian Colonies and
the
Cape. New Zealand and the smaller Colonies
will catch the infection, and when all is gone
this now powerful and noble Empire will be reduced to two small islands. Against this
fatal
policy, the inevitable result as I believe of this
Confederation scheme, I sincerely and solemnly
protest. It is said that in twenty years our
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
47
population will be eight or ten millions, enough
to maintain our independence as a nation, but
we may be assured that by that time the popu
lation of the United States, recruited from the
old world, most of whom prefer to go there, will
more likely be sixty-eight or eighty million,
making the discrepancy between that country
and ours greater instead of less than now. I
repeat whatI said last night, that these Maritime Provinces must belong to either
England
or the United States,—we cannot belong to
Canada, nor can we form a new nation. You
may call the Confederation, that is to be, monarchical, with a Governor-General at
its head,
but it must become a Republic
Look at the clause of the bill which refers to
the appointment of Senators: 72 of them are to
be created in one batch for life,—and what more
likely than a dead lock between them and the
House of Commons? And if so how is it to be
overcome? I never was in favour of the Upper
House being elective, as far as regards Nova
Scotia, while our institutions were monarchical;
but under Confederation I should say, by all
means let them go out in rotation, so that that
branch may be influenced by public opinion.
Is it not evident that when the embryo republic
is fairly in operation, if the local Legislatures,
pressed by their various constituencies, should
for instance, propose that the Lieut. Governor,
instead of being nominated by the Governor- General, should be elected by the people—and
I
can fancy that such a proposal might be made
—at its first meeting here, the conflict that
would in such a case ensue between the various
legislative bodies would result in serious collision—perhaps smash the whole confederacy
into
pieces. Suppose a resolution were adopted declaring that the senators should be elected—and
I may here say that such a change would be a
misfortune to some persons who have stood for
a day on the hustings and only secured a handful of votes—you will then be creating
not a
monarchy, but a republic—a poor imitation of
that of Mexico, to be crumpled up whenever
the American eagle chooses to grasp it in its
talons.
Our relations with England will not, we are
told, be changed by Confederation. Were that
statement correct, half my objections would be
removed. But what are the facts? At the
present moment the humblest Nova Scotian, the
poorest man in the land, if he has a grievance
to redress, if he has received injustice at the
hands of the local government, has the privilege of appeal and laying his complaint
at the
foot of the throne. That is the position now.
But the moment the Confederation Bill becomes
law, all communication between the people of
Nova Scotia and the Home Government will be
effectually cut off, and instead of appealing to
his Queen at Windsor, he will have to go cap in
hand to the Governor General at Ottawa. We
are now a colony of Great Britain, but under
Confederation we will be a dependency of Canada. And yet the learned member for Colchester
says our position in relation to England
will be the same!
The hon. gentleman referred to a remark
made by me last evening, respecting a tyrannical majority, and commented on the apparent
inconsistency of an observation in reference to
the mode in which Confederation was carried
in the neighbouring Province. How was the
measure carried there? Mr. Tilley, man like
as he always is, appealed to the people and was
defeated. I give him credit for the ingenuity
by which he converted a minority into a majority, but I cannot shut my eyes to the
fact that
but for the unconstitutional action of the Governor, who browbeat the Council by whom
he was
surrounded, using the Queen's name unfairly,
taking advantage of Fenian threats, holding out
the idea that Confederation was the only means
of procuring the Intercolonial Railway, the expenditure on which would make everybody
rich,
and make New Brunswick a great country,—
only for these influences, even Mr. Tilley's
clever strategy and perseverance would have
failed. The history of that period has yet to be
written, but I do not hesitate to say that if New
Brunswick had not been operated upon in a way
anything but creditable to the chief actors in
that Province, I do not believe that the resolution of last session would have been
adopted.
The hon. member for South Colchester remarked that if ever there was a period when
the Americans had an opportunity of coming
in and buying up the Provinces it was the present time, when we are on the eve of
an election. I can fancy an easier mode than by going to the polls to corrupt the
country. It
might, perhaps, be easier to buy a majority of
this House in favour of Confederation than to
purchase a majority of the electors; and when
the time comes, if it should ever come, for buying up not only this Province, but
the entire
Confederacy a very different system will be
pursued from that which the hon. gentleman
suggests—it is so much easier buying wholesale
than by retail.
American diplomatists, with their ingenuity
and with the large means of corruption in their
hands, will say, "Come in and enjoy fellowship
with us. You are only four millions of people,
we are thirty-four millions. Come and have
free trade with us; we are your natural customers; there are no markets like ours.
Our taxation is enormous, but in ten years it will be reduced one half; and the increase
of our population in twenty years will extinguish it altogether." That is the way
in which these Colonies may be dealt with when confederated; and
this may be a good reason why the name Canada has been substituted for that of British
America. Mr. Archibald referred to Governor
Banks—our ally, as he is pleased to term him.
Is Mr. Banks in favor of the organization of the
Empire?
Mr. ANNAND.—Even if I was, I would not be
discouraged. It is not the first time I was in a
minority of one, and I had not to wait long before the friends who left me for the
moment
were forced to admit that I was right. I was in
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
48
a minority of one—I stood alone—at a celebrated meeting last winter at which that
hon. gentleman was present, and if my advice had been
taken, as it ought to have been, it would not
have been in the power of the authorities on
both sides of the water to say that the leaders of
the Opposition, as well as the leaders of the Government were all in favor of Confederation.
The hon. member took exception to my calculations and referred to the Hon. George
Brown
as a great authority. I admit the authority.
That gentleman is one of the ablest public men
in Canada, and is rarely wrong on questions of
finance, nor is he far wrong in the figures referred to although there is an error
of $13,829, the
total amount we are to receive being $380,000
instead of $393,829 as stated in the Globe, when
our population reaches 400,000. But the hon.
member for Colchester is, or was, a great authority on finance. The Provincial Secretary,
his
former opponent, but now his leader, dubbed
him the "Figure Man" of the late Government—
that gentleman is very dexterous in boxing
figures, to borrow an expression from the other
side, but, somehow or other, he is rarely right
in his calculations. The Financial Secretary
will remember the gloomy forebodings of the
hon. member for South Colchester in 1865 and
1866,—that we were on the eve of a financial
crisis —and his confident and reiterated predictions that there would be a large falling
off in the
revenue in both those years, notwithstanding
which the revenue has largely increased in both
of them and our financial position materially
improved,—and I am glad of it.
We hear a good deal about able financiers,
but in most cases the men who earn that name
are those who can convert a deficit into a surplus—the Galts and men of that stamp—who
boast of an increase of revenue over expenditure when the credit of the country is
at its lowest
ebb, and the Government is forced to borrow
money at ruinous rates of interest. The hon.
member for Colchester has favored us with a
long array of figures from the Toronto Globe, in
which it is attempted to be shown that the Maritime Provinces have received more than
their
share of money, and Canada far less, by the
change in the financial arrangements. The
calculation of the Globe is ingenious, and may
have its effect in Canada, in incensing the people of that Province against the Government
to
which Mr. Brown is determinedly opposed, but
it can hardly impose upon any one in this country. The papers on the table show that
our
Customs revenue alone increased $372,000 since
1863, the year selected as the basis of the
amount to be paid for the support of the local
Governments. That amount has been expended in enlarging our humane establishments,
upon education, roads and bridges, ferries, &c.
Where would the $372,000 have gone if we
were that year confederated with Canada?—
Where but into the Canadian treasury, and so
with every increase of revenue in all time to
come. I know it will be said that our surplus
revenue will form a " common fund." True,
the fund may be common, but the question for
us to ask ourselves is: How much are we to
get back when the money is in the Federal
chest, for local purposes? It is vain to deceive
ourselves on this point—the Confederation Bill
settles the question.
Whatever may be our wants and necessities,
every farthing required for local purposes over
and above the 80 cents a head and the $60,000 a
year, must be raised by direct taxation, and by
direct taxation alone. My hon friend from
Shelburne referred this evening to the coal
mines, upon which we might, if severely pressed, have raised additional revenue, but
even
that privilege accorded by the Quebec scheme,
of imposing an export duty, has been taken
away from the local and handed over to the general government. We give Canada the
power
to tax one of our chief exports; and we are
then asked to be thankful for a few cents additional per head. Let me give the member
for
South Colchester another calculation, one to
which I challenge a reply. I am now addressing myself to the people of this country,
who, if
not familiar with the teachings of Hallam and
Blackstone and other constitutional authorities,
which have been quoted against their liberties,
well understand transactions in money in which
their pecuniary interests are involved.
Last year we gave in round numbers $800,000
for local purposes—mark, for strictly local purposes. Now let us see what we are to
receive
under Confederation:—
| And first, there is the 80 cents a head, |
$264,686 |
| Then there is the grant for expenses |
|
| of the Local Government, |
60,000 |
| And lastly, there is to be a further al- |
|
| lowance of 80 cents a head until our |
|
| population reaches 400,000, which I |
|
| throw in, although we are not like- |
|
| ly to receive it until the decennial |
|
| census takes place in 1871, |
55,314 |
|
$380,000 |
| Add to this the local revenue for the |
|
| mines, crown lands, &c., which I |
|
| put down at |
155,000 |
| And we have a total revenue of |
$535,000 |
with which to pay $800,000, the sum appropriated for local objects last year, showing
a deficiency of $265,000 the very first year, and before the high tariff of Canada,
the stamp duties,
the newspaper tax, and the other ingenious expedients for raising money are brought
into operation. I have said that the total revenue from
all sources will be $535,000. Let us see how
far this would go towards the local expenses of
the country. We last year granted—
| For Education, |
$133,595 |
| Board of Works, for services which will still |
|
| be chargeable on our local revenue, |
79,520 |
| Roads and Bridges, |
274,228 |
| Legislative expenses, |
46,420 |
|
$533,763 |
Here, then, we have four items absorbing the
entire revenue you will have under Confederation, leaving unprovided for the following
services, which were last year estimated to cost—
agriculture, $14,000; crown lands, $18,500;
mines department, $17,595; packets and ferries
within the province, $11,070; miscellaneous
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
49
$46,631; navigation securities, $80,000; making a total of $187,796, besides salaries,
coroners
inquests, public printing, &c. This enormous
deficiency can only be made up in one way—in
the way pointed out in the bill—in the way described by the hon member's own authority—the
Hon. George Brown himself—by direct taxation
on the people of this country. In the face of
these facts—and I challenge their investigation
—an attempt is made to influence the house by
quoting some paltry figures from an article in
the Globe, which, after making a show of opposition to the financial arrangements,
finishes off
with a declaration that "with all these faults we
like the scheme."
The hon. member has spoken in contemptuous terms of our "foreign allies ". Sir, we
have
no allies but the people of this country, whose
"upturned faces" he has ridiculed, and whose
wishes he has the hardihood to despise. But it
ill becomes that gentleman, so lately in very
questionable company, to lecture us upon our
allies. Who, when in London a few weeks ago,
were his friends and confreres? In what respect is Mr. Cartier, the Attorney General
for
Canada East, who shouldered his musket and
afterwards ran away, when Lower Canada was
in rebellion in 1838 a better man than Mr.
Banks? Then there is D'Arcy McGee, of cabbage garden notoriety; Galt, who headed an
annexation movement in Montreal, when the Parliament buildings were burnt down and
the
Queen's Representative was pelted through the
streets. Another delegate is a born Yankee:
the fourth is said to be looking to Washington;
and the fifth, the chief scribe at the Quebec
Conference, opposed the Union of the Provinces
two or three years ago, because, in his then opinion, it would lead to separation
from the mother-country. These are the allies, the sworn
bosom friends of the hon member, who has
dared to more than insinuate that my friend
Mr. Howe and myself were in league with foreign allies and endeavouring to subvert
British
institutions. The hon. member has sneeringly
said that my leader, Mr. Howe, and my follower, Mr. McDonald, spent months in London
endeavouring to convince the British public. I
reply to that gentleman, who was once a respected leader himself, but is now the humble
follower of the Provincial Secretary, that we
did largely influence the public mind and shake
confidence in the Confederation scheme; and I
had it from the lips of gentlemen in England,
who did not share our opinions, that we had
done much to educate the British public in respect to the position, resources and
rights of
these Maritime Provinces. We may not have
succeeded in reaching the hearts of the Lords,
for it was not to be expected that we would to
any large extent operate upon the sympathies
of a body so far removed from popular influences. We may not have succeeded in reaching
the convictions of a majority of the Commons, but what opportunity had we? As every
one knows, until Parliament meets, very few of
the members are in town—they are scattered all
over the country. We sent in our case to Earl
Carnarvon, but when the bill was read a first
time the correspondence was not on the table,
and the Queen only had the bill submitted to
her the day before it was introduced.
As I have said, on the third reading in the
Lords, a large number of Peers withdrew, leaving only nine present, when one noble
Lord
had finished urging our case. Then it was sent
to the Commons, and read a second time on the
following day, contrary to the practice which
has always prevailed there of giving at least a
week between the first and second readings for
the consideration of any important measure. So
rapid was the action of the under Secretary for
the Colonies, presed on by those who are now
pressing it on us, that the papers on which the
members could alone form the judgment were
not in their hands until the second morning, and
onc member stated that he had only time to read
that clause of the bill, which refers to the Inter- colonial Railway before the division
on the second
reading was taken. This reminds me that the
member for Colchester has turned my attention
to the subject of the Intercolonial Railway. It
is well known that a guarantee was obtained for
that work in 1862 through the exertions of
Messrs. Howe and Tilley, and but for the bad
faith of the Canadians the railroad might have
been finished to-day and working, as to whether
working profitably or not, I will not undertake to
say. He says I complained of the delegates getting only three millions instead of
four, and further, that four millions were not asked for. If
so then we were deceived by the press, by the
Canadian News among others, for it was plainly
stated that that was the sum and the impression
was confirmed by the fact that Mr. Fleming had
estimated that amount as necessary, and our own
experience of the estimates and cost of railways
gave us no reason to think it could not be built
for less. We are blamed for remonstrating
against the guarantee,—we were willing to remonstrate against anything and everything
to
save the interests which were entrusted to us.
Would I sell the liberties of my country for a
few miles of railroad, even if half the trade of the
world were to come over it? Would I say to my
constituents " you have elected me, I respect you
for your intelligence, but you are not competent
to express an opinion on a matter that will sweep
away your revenues and place unlimited powers
of taxation in a body which you cannot control?" I
was going to say that for all the roads in the
world I would not consent to that, and we therefore thought it right to use every
means to destroy the scheme, and as the road is said to be an
essential part of it, and a necessity for Canada, we could take the chances for the
future until she came to her senses, and there is no doubt
that ere long she would have had to come to us and
asked us to build our share. There was another
reason, for our suggesting that a guarantee for
the larger sum should not be given,—one of the
most powerful influences at work in favor of Confederation is the organization known
as the
Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada,
whose chairman, Watkins, made the statement in
the House of Commons that the measure had
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
50
been discussed at every polling booth in Nova
Scotia. It is the interest of that company to increase the value of their road from
Quebec to
Riviere du Loup, and more especially to secure
the expenditure of the three millions, and get the
entire line into their hands. We were apprehensive that the same system of jobbing
which extracted ten millions of money from British capitalists some years ago would
be repeated over
again, and we thought it only right and proper
to give a word of caution to the British people
There was another reason for my action also,
and I mention it in the hearing of gentlemen who
have known for years the opinions which I held
in respect to this railway;—that was that the
road, passing through a harsh and forbidding
country, having grades too steep for a large and
profitable traffic, would not bring to us the advantages that have been promised.
There was
no reason to believe that a large amount of
traffic would be brought to the harbor of Halifax
and if we had had any doubts upon that point,
Mr. Fleming's report, made after 10 or 12 routes
had been explored, shows that the Intercolonial
Railway might be tapped at Danville and the
traffic diverted by the North American and European line which could carry more cheaply,
because the snow does not fall so deeply on its
track, while the grades were lighter, and the distance between Montreal and Halifax
considerably less. When I read that report, and found
further that at St. John and not at Halifax the
trade was likely to centre, I must confess that
my interest in the Intercolonial Railway was
largely abated. I trust therefore that I have answered the hon. gentleman's banter
upon this
point.
I was in England for several months and had
an opportunity during that time of discussing
the measure with able and intelligent men, and
down to the hour I left, whenever I had a chance
of stating the actual state of affairs in Nova Scotia, when I told them that at the
only three elections held since the scheme was mooted the measure had been condemned,
and when I claimed
for our people the right to speak on it, I did not
find one who did not say, "you are right and
your people should have the privilege you claim
for them." That I believe would have been the
feeling of the House of Commons but for the mis- representations of such men as Mr.
Watkins
who knows the Colonies well, and who is almost
as familiar with the state of public opinion in the
Provinces as with the Grand Trunk Railway
Company, of which he is the Chairman and
Managing Director.
I do not wonder, sir, when such men as Mr.
Watkins and Sir John Pakington made the statements which came from their lips to a
body of
gentlemen utterly ignorant of the facts of the
case, that the House was misled. But there is
time enough yet to avert this great wrong if
members would do their duty to-night, and claim
for their constituencies the right they should
possess. The tidings would be wafted across
the Atlantic with lightning speed that the action
of the gentlemen professing to represent Nova
Scotia in the Delegation had been condemned,
the measure would be postponed, and our country would be saved. (Cheers.)
Speech of Mr. Blanchard.
Mr. BLANCHARD said: The observations I
have to make on this question will be compressed into a very small compass, and shall
be chlefly confined to the point which has been
brought before the house by the hon. member
for Guysborough. I think the constitutional
point connected with this amendment has been
so thoroughly discussed by those who preceded
me that I need not dwell on it at any length—
in fact that I need not touch it all. I shall not
refer to the remarks of the hon. member for
East Halifax, except that when I heard the
hon. member drop the unfortunate observation "that it was easier to buy a majority
of
the members of this house than a majority of
the electors" it grated harshly upon my ears.
I am glad that the hon. member subsequently
withdrew so unwarrantable an insinuation. I
think it came with an exceedingly ill grace
from the hon. member to make any insinuation
against any member of this house of which he
claims to be the father. I think it proper to
state in my place that I look upon this Legislature as much above corruption as any
Legislature that I have ever heard of, and every
hon. member composing it as much above corruption as the hon. gentleman himself; and
it
will not do for him to say to this house or any
future one that it could be approached with
bribes; or that there is any government who
would dare to "buy" gentlemen with the object of effecting some purpose. Such a charge
could not be supported for an instant in this
house. Gentlemen in it, I am glad to say, have
proved themselves above the influence of
party. I remember when several gentlemen
on this side of the house supported the Government on the question of Education against
the opinions of a majority of their friends, and
I am glad to be able to say that the people now
endorse the action we then took.
Mr. BLANCHARD.—Let the hon. member for
Shelburne with his ten thousand people say
"no," but I ask him to come to Inverness with
its twenty thousand souls, and he will hear a
very different story. They will tell him that
we gave them a great boon when we gave them
free schools—a system of Education above that
enjoyed by the people of England, and which
has obtained the encomiums of the publicists
of that country. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for East Halifax seemed
to be remarkably well acquainted with the
means used by the American diplomatists, to
purchase support in Legislatures. For my
part I do not know anything about the matter,
but I think that American diplomatists who
should attempt to approach the Parliament at
Ottawa, would be met in the same manner
they would be in this Legislature.
When we are told that we ought to have an
appeal to the people I contend this is an American doctrine. But even in the United
States
what is the practice? Conventions are elected
and held for the purpose in view. But does
the convention finally settle the question? No.
It goes from that convention to the polls to be
reaffirmed. by the people. The votes are given,
and the whole are counted, and if there is a
majority of "ayes," the "ayes" carry it, and
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
51
if the majority is in the negative, the "nays"
carry it. Can we have a plebiscite under such
circumstances? I take Hants, Kings, Queens,
Shelburne, and Victoria, the united population
of which amounts to 65,000 having 16 representatives. Now, on the other hand, take
Cumberland, Inverness, Annapolis, Lunenburg and
Cape Breton, having unitedly a population of
97,500 and only 14 members. How, under such a
system of representation, can we expect to get
a fair verdict from the people? It takes two
men in Inverness to be equal to one man in
Shelburne. Pictou has 35,000 people, and
four members - or the same number that
Kings has with half the population. How,
then, could any house returned after an election fairly and unmistakably represent
the
wish of the people? I recollect when there
was a majority of two in favor of the Government in this House - this was in the first
session of the house elected in 1859 - and the Provincial Secretary proed to his own
satisfaction that he had a majority of 15.000 in the Province. Suppose we should come
back here with
small majority on one side or the other, yet it
might be that the counties having the least
votes would carry the day. The party of
Union might actually have the majority of
people on their side, and yet be outoted in
this house under our system of representation.
I say to the people of the country that I represent - I voted for the general principle
of assessment for schools on the ground that it
would be found in time a great boon to the
country. I did so in the face of a strong popular feeling against the measure, and
yet tomorrow I could go back to the people and take
a two-thirds majority on that question. But
even were it otherwise, I would have been
quite satisfied with the knowledge that I had
been defeated on a great general principle
which must prove in time of great advantage
to the country. On the present question I am
influenced by the same feelings. A majority
of the people may be opposed to the measure
but I know nevertheless that the time is not
far distant when they will warmly thank me
for having supported it.
We are told that this is an arbitrary exercise of power - that it is going to prevent
us
going into a better place after we die. May
we ventue to hope that the good we did in
carrying the education measure will be accepted as a set-off to the wickedness we
are
about to commit?
There are some members in this house who
will remember when Cape Breton was an independent province - when it had a government
of its own and managed its own affairs.
The British House of Commons did not ask
the opinion of the people at Cape Breton, or
even of Nova Scotia, on the subject, but by an
act of a few lines annexed the island to Nova
Scotia, with only two members. The union
was effected, and for a long while you could
find hardly a dozen men in the whole island
who did not express themselves against the
annexation. There was an old gentlemen who
was Attorney General of Cape Breton previous to the Union, and he spent all his time
and energies in endeavouring to bring about a
separation, until he finally found himself all
alone. When he died, a few years ago, he was
the last man who could say that the union was
an injury to the island. Cape Breton went in
to the union with only two members, but in
the course of time the number increased, and
now she has nine representatives in a house of
fifty-five. If Cape Breton gets justice it is because we are bound to have it - because
there
is not a government in this county that would
dare to ignore the claims of that island for a
single year. I would like to see the government that would do gross injustice to Cape
Breton.
Mr. BLANCHARD- I would like to see
the Provincial Secretary try it three years ago
- how soon my hon friend from Cape Breton
and the other members would have thrown
over the government.
Mr. BLANCHARD- And how gladly would I
have assisted him. So it will be at Ottawa.
No Government can dare resist the claims of
this Province whilst our members are true to
themselves and the interests they represent.
Predictions are the order of the day. We
have the hon member from East Halifax in
one breath say this country- that is to say
the Confederacy-is to be a monarchy exceedingly like Mexico. Another prediction, in
the
next breath, from the same source, is what we
are to have a President and be a republic.
These two predictions do not agree with each
other. Again he says that he will spend the
remainder of his days in endeavouring to destroy this Confederation. I make no pretensions
to being a prophet, or the son of a prophet, but I
venture to prodict that ere many years pass
by he will be found very like old Gibbons, of
Cape Breton, solitary and alone, and grey in
harness, the only surviving exponent of antiunion principles. He will be found for
the remainder of his days fretting and frowning
against a union which has been carried in
spite of all his efforts, and has proved to be
the greatest blessing ever conferred upon this
country.
Speech of Hon. Prov. Secretary.
Dr. TUPPER then rose and said:- I undertook to show the House that every possible
means had beeen taken to familiarize the country with the question under discussion,
and to
ascertain as far as possible the sentiments of the
people, and in making that statement I was met
by the rejoinder from the hon. member from
East Halifax, that although I had discussed in
general terms the principle of union in the adjoining Province, and in various places
in this
Province, I had not proposed such a plan of
union as that devised at Quebec. If the hon.
member would refer to the
NewBrunswicker newspaper, in which may address was fully reported
and to the same address which was delivered by
invitation in different portions of this Province,
he would find that I propounded just such a
scheme of union as was arranged at Quebec and
in Westminster Palace Hotel. The hon. member then challenged me to produce one tittle
of
evidence that Mr. Howe had ever committed
himself to the question of Confederation. I do
not intend to wander over the two volumes containing the name of the hon. member for
East
Halifax on the title page, and on almost every
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
52
leaf of which the reader will find that Mr. Howe's
claim to position in this country has been large
ly rested upon the fact that at all times and on
all occasions he advocated the great question of
union; but I may trouble the House to read two
passages, which, I am sure, will convince the
intelligent people of this country that Mr. Howe
has pledged himself to the Confederation of the
Provinces. I shall refer to a public letter written by him as far back as
1849, when the British American League,
of which Hon. George Moffat was Chairman, undertook to suggest important constitutional
changes. Mr. Moffat was under the
impression that it was a legitimate course of
dealing with questions of great public import for
public assemblages to he called together, and
for the people at public meetings to express their
sentiments; but what did the present champion
of the people's rights say—the man who has
presented himself in London as the exponent of
the public sentiment of this country because he
has held some public meetingsand got up a few
petitions? He wrote a letter in 1849 to the President of the League, in which he dilated
on the
impropriety of any public man undertaking to
deal with great public questions in any other
place except in the legislature of his country,
and when he was clothed with constitutional authority. Here is the letter written
under his
own hand in which he condemns such public assemblages as he has held in this Provinces.
"A Confederation of the Colonies may be the
desire of your Convention. If so. the object is
legitimate; but it must be pursued by legitimate
means. Believe me, it can only be wisely attained
by and through the Provincial Legislatures, not by
self elected societies acting independently and in defiance of them. Suppose to-morrow propositions
were submitted to the Lower Colonies for a Legislative Union or general Confederation.
If
made by the Government and Parliament of
Canada, they would he treated with deference
and respect. If made by a party in opposition,
they would not be for a moment entertained."
Here you find Mr. Howe telling the President of one of the most important conventions
that ever assembled in Canada, that the course
he was pursuing was improper—that he had no
right to deal with such matters outside of Par
liament. This is the same man Who has been
perambulating the Province, and undertaking
to say that in this free country, where we have
been entrusted with British institutions by
which the public sentiment can be legitimately
expressed, what was the legitimate mode in
1849 should no longer be pursued in 1867. In
the paragraph I have read youfind the most
unqualified contempt heaped upon the course
which himself an the gentlemen associated
with him have pursued. Having shown you
his opinion. as to the mode in which this measure should be treated, let me now explain
to
you the origin of the phrase " new nationality,"
so often quoted in the discussion of this question. If we go, back to 1849, we actually
find
that the phrase originated with no less a person
than Joseph Howe. In the same letter to the
President of the British American League, he
said:
"We desire free trade among all the Provinces, under one national flag, with one coin,
one measure, one tariff, one post office. We
feel that the courts, the press, the educational
institutions of North America would be elevated
by union; that intercommuuication by railroads, telegraphs and steamboats would be
pro-.
moted; and that if such a combination of interests were achieved wisely, and with
proper
guards, the foundations of a great nation in friendly connection with the mother country would be
laid on an indestructible basis "
If in 1849 British America could aspire to a
national flag are not these Provinces at the present day equally qualified to have
a common
flag? Sir, in this year of 1867 his successors
have accomplished that, which with him was
only an idea and a dream, and instead of receiving from himself and his friends that
praise and
encouragement to which we are entitled, we are
attacked for having adopted those principles
thus early propounded and thus strongly advocated through his entire life, as traitors
to the
constitution of our country, and as having forgotten what we owe to our own people.
Let
me turn again to his statement in 1854 when
the question of union came before the Legislature on a resolution moved by Mr. Johnston,
his public opponent, and when, with his incapacity to follow any one but himself,
he pro
pounded his views on the organization of the
Empire; but did he say anything ln favour of
a Confederation? Read his speech, and you
will find him dealing with the question in terms
of the most fervid eloquence He then propounded what he considered the best scheme
viz., representation in the lmperial Parliament;
but if he could not get that, then he would
propose this:—
"By a Federal Union of the Colonies we should
have something like the neighboring republic; and
if I saw nothing better, I should say at once, let in
keep our local Legislatures, and have a President
and central Congress for all the higher and more external) relations of the united
Provinces. * * * *
Under a Federal Union we should form a large and
prosperous nation, lying betwen the other two
branches ofthe British family, and our duty would
evidently be to keep them both at peace."
Now I ask the hon. member opposite if with
these documents published to the world under
his own signature he is still ready to tell the
people of Nova Scotia that Mr. Howe has
never advocated a Federal Union of the Provinces.
But the hon. member for North Colchester
(Mr McLelan) undertook to prove to this House
the extraordinary proposition that, when Mr.
Howe, as a public man, moved a resolution in
this Legislature declaring that so great were the
advantages of Union between this Province and
Canada, that he asked for authority to hold a.
conference on the subject, all he really desired
was to get rid of the'question altogether—that
at the conference the matter was found entirely
impracticable, and was accordingly set at rest
as it was intended to be. I have heard a good
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
53
many extraordinary statements fall from the
mouths of gentlemen, but when the hon member tells you that a public man would pursue
such a deceitful course, then he has placed the
person whom he professes to follow in a position
so abject as to excite the pity and contempt of
every respectable and intelligent man. But I
have under my hand that which will give the
refutation of the charge which the hon. member
has brought against Mr. Howe. When Mr.
Howe propounded this resolution he believed in
it, and was sincere if ever a public man was in
relation to any measure. After this conference
was held in Canada what do we find? At Port
Robinson, he addressed a large body of Canadians, and among other things said:
"He looked forward hopefully to the time
when the great Provinces of Canada would be
connected with the Provinces below, and when
a man would feel that to be a British American
was to be the citizen of a country which included all those fertile lands, all those
inexhaustible
fisheries, all this immense marine,—carrying to
all seas the flag of Old England, if they would
let us; if not, the flag of British America. "
Can the hon. member for North Colchester,
when he hears such language as that, still assert that Mr. Howe was desirous of defeating
Union? In that speech from which I have quoted we find him eloquently and forcibly
urging
the same view he had so often previously advocated with all the energy and talents
he possessed.
The hon. member for Yarmouth made an observation yesterday which I forgot: to notice
at
the time. He said that no person in this country desired this union of the colonies
except a
few politicians who wanted office. I have given
the House some evidence in dealing not only
with this, but other public questions, that I have
a higher ambition than of consulting my own
individual interest or of holding office. So far
from looking upon this question in this light,
from the first hour I felt it my duty to deal with
it I have reposed that trust and confidence in
the people which I felt they deserved at my
hands. I have put my hands to this work, not
with the conviction that it was a question upon
which a minister should peril any majority he
might have by a reckless procedure—that he
should make an unnecessary and unconstitutional appeal to the people. I have never
said
that the influences of party passions and prejudices, and the introduction of other
questions
which are inseparable from an appeal to the
people, might not jeopardize this question if
submitted hastily to the country; but at the same
time I have felt that this question, discussed as
it has been down to a recent period by all classes
and parties, has taken a deep hold upon the public sentiment—that the public opinion
of the
country had always been in favor of this measure. Instead of seeking office for myself—instead
of looking forward to an escape from the
verdict of the people at the polls, there is nothing I shall await with greater pride
than having accomplished this union by the aid of my
own colleagues and the patriotic gentlemen who
have regarded patriotism more highly than partizanship—there is nothing that will
give me
greater pleasure than to place myself, my public
character, and my future career in the hands of
the electors of Nova Scotia. I have no hesitation in saying that there is no position,
however
exalted, that would prevent me for a single
instant, asking that verdict from the people
which I have a right to demand at their hands.
(Cheers)
The system of government for British America is the system that now prevails in this
Province; it is the responsible system by which
we can only retain office by the continuance of
public confidence. When did I ever shrink
from ascertaining the opinions of my fellow
countrymen? I am unwilling to make a rash
and irrational appeal to the people at the polls;
but when I came back from Canada—having
previously to the general election committed
myself to this question of Confederation—having obtained the most cordial approval
of the
sentiments which I entertained—the first thing
I did was to court public discussion. At the
first moment at Charlottetown it was decided
we should take up this question, a public meeting was held at which we proclaimed
at once
what our intentions were. I brought the Canada, New Brunswick and P E. Island delegates
to this city, and instead of concealing our
views from the world, at a table surrounded
by the leading men of every profession in the
community, we stated freely to the people of
the Province and of British America the whole
scheme which we proposed to carry out.—
As far as could be judged, the sentiments of
the leading merchants and others were unanimously in favour of the question when it
was laid before them. When it was stated
that there was a probability of accomplishing
the union loud cheers rang through the hall.
But there was a little clause in the Quebec
scheme that chanced the tone of certain gentlemen. It was considered necessary to
place banking under the General Government. I had no
doubt that it was of great importance to the
business of the whole country that the question
of banking should be placed as it is. The result, however, was that, with a few honorable
exceptions, the bankers and capitalists ranged
themselves against this scheme. The men who
had been cheering this question to the very echo
—who had invited the Canadian Parliament to
come down and feted them with "exhaustive
festivities,"—when they found that the tight
grasp which a few capitalists have over the
whole monetary affairs of this country was to
be unclasped, then they came out in violent opposition to the measure. These men came
and
told me that I must back down—that I must fall
back from my duty at the dictation of a few
capitalists. A merchant of this city—one of
those who thought that they might be obliged to
compete with the capital and enterprize of Canada—met me in the street, and told me
that if I
attempted to address a public meeting in this
city I would be hissed from the platform. Well,
I replied, I have never shrank from meeting
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
54
the public; I have looked at no one man's interests, but I have looked broadly at
what I believe will elevate our common country; but if
the public sentiment is such as you say it is, the
sooner I know it the better. What was the result? These bankers and capitalists brought
up
their Goliaths, and we met them with the same
readiness that I have ever met my public opponents. After several meetings with the
ablest
men they could bring on the platform what was
the result? They say this has been a delegation
of lawyers with a doctor to look after them, but
when the ablest merchants had an opportunity
of confronting these lawyers and doctors, they
were silenced in the presence of the largest
assemblages that ever met in a public hall
in Halifax. Why, my hon. friend (Mr. Tobin)
could not get any of these merchants to come
on the hustings with himself, and give their
time and attention to public affairs, when it
was only little Nova Scotia that required their
care; but the moment they thought their own
interests were in jeopardy they were all up in
arms. Then they came out with the politicians
who have given all their time and talents to
the advancement of the public interests, and
after the most deliberate and ample discussion,
the hon. member himself in the press admitted
that Halifax was against him. The night the
discussion was closed—the last night they could
be induced to meet us—Temperance Hall rang
with enthusiastic cheers in favour of Union.
Then I went up into Hants, Kings, Cumberland, Annapolis, and Colchester, and in every
place where this question was fully discussed,
there was not one of these public meetings at
which a single resolution hostile to union could
be carried. Under these circumstances, then,
am I chargeable with a desire to force this measure upon the people, without learning
the
public sentiment? I made a mistake last
night, it appears, in respect to the number of
names in the petitions presented to this House.
I have asked the clerk to count them up, and I
find, after all the excitement and agitation, and
all the public lectures that have been given—
after all the misrepresentation that has appeared on this subject, the whole number
of names
only amounts to 6,267. In a fortnight, on a
previous occasion, when the public sentiment
was agitated, spontaneously 26,000 electors sent
down their petitions here, because they really
felt opposed to a measure which the Government had in contemplation. I ask the people
of Nova Scotia if, under such circumstances, I
had not the right to believe that I was sustained by the public sentiment of the country.
In opposition to this measure may be found a
few politicians, some political partizans, who are
ready to abase their country and themselves for
the support of a few capitalists who could not
make me their tool; but I will go into every county and I shall find the best men
there at my back,
who have been the standard bearers of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia—the men who
have
given Mr. Howe in the past the more cordial support. But what more do I find? The
clergy of
this country, from the highest to the lowest—
Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists,
Methodists—of all denominations, and I stake
my public character upon the assertion, display
the most remarkable unanimity upon this subject. Representing, as these gentlemen
do, the
education, refinement, and intelligence of a community—influencing, as they do largely,
the people among whom they live—can I have any
doubts as to the sentiments of the best informed
of the people on this question?
The hon. member has complained of the manner in which the subject has been discussed
in
England. When, a year ago, I ventured to say
to the House that the press, the public men, the
statesmen, and the Parliament of England were
favorable to this question, how were we met?
With the sneers and inuendoes that have now
been heaped upon the august Parliament of
Great Britain? No; we were told that all that
was necessary was to explain the whole question
in England in order to set the matter right.
When that was done, they would obtain all they
wished for. Now this measure has been discussed in the Parliament and press, in a
manner that
few questions were ever discussed before. The
ablest men that could be found to oppose the
union have done all they could to make their
views and opinions known. What is the reason
that when this question came to be discussed in
Parliament it was treated as it was? This bill
was first introduced into the House of Lords because the Earl of Carnarvon wished
to have the
honour of introducing it. In a very full House,
when he introduced the bill, he met with the
most astonishing support. Noble lords in opposition rose in rapid succession to support
the
Government. Lord John Russell gave it his
warm approval; and the last man I could be expected to influence, the Marquis of Normanby—a
gentleman whom political conflict has made my
opponent—in the discharge of his high duties as
a peer of the realm, gave that question the most
unequivocal and emphatic support; and having
had a better opportunity than any man in the
British Parliament of understanding the state of
affairs in these Colonies, he told the House of
Peers that he did not believe that the public sentiment of this country was opposed
to the union.
Lord Carnarvon explained that there had been
no election here on this question—that the constitution did not require such an appeal;
and the
whole facts having been explained to the House
with the greatest accuracy, there was not a single
man to oppose the bill. The Times of the next
morning placed in the hands of every member a
clear statement of the position of this Province,
and of everything in relation to this matter.
When the Peers found that Lord Stratheden had
lent himself to statements they could not sustaîn,
they got up, one after the other, and left the
House. Mr. Howe heard Mr. Watkins' statement to which reference has been made, and
he
was in constant communication with Mr. Bright
and if any incorrect statement was made, Mr.
Howe is responsible for not having corrected it.
Therefore I say, if the House of Commons was
misled by a single remark—Mr. Watkins having
misunderstood the time at which the Union dis
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
55
cussion took place—Mr. Howe and his friends
are themselves to blame if they did not correct
him.
Under the Quebec scheme the power to levy
an export duty on coal was left in the hands of
the Local Governments. We have changed that
ourselves. The House well knows the policy
that I propounded on the question of the coal
mines last year. I regard them as the great
source of Provincial wealth and prosperity—not
for the royalty which goes into the treasury, but
because of their intimate connection with the development of new branches of industry
in this
country—of the impulse they must give to manufactures in the Province. In fact, the
possession
of coal mines, together with other natural advantages, must, in the course of time,
make Nova
Scotia the great emporium for manufactures in
British America. We felt that in taking it out
of the power of any Legislature to double the
amount of royalty, we were giving a guarantee
to capitalists who might come in and invest their
money in these coal mines, that the Legislature
could not come down and say they must pay one
or two shillings upon every ton of coal raised.
The hon. member has said that we sacrificed
the fisheries. Would it have been desirable to
have left the protection of the fisheries in the
hands of the Local Government? But there is
really no alteration made in this respect. In the
Quebec scheme the power of legislation in reference to the deep sea fisheries was
given to the
General and Local Governments in common, but
there was a clause which provided that regulations of the General Government should
override those of the Local Government. Now the
only difference is that the entire responsibility is
thrown upon the General Government. When
the House receives the public despatches on the
question of the fisheries they will see that the
course taken by the Government of this Province
was rendered imperative by the action of the Imperial Government. It was a compromise
suggested to the British Government by Canada.
The Canadians were ready to license the fisheries, and standing as we do to-day we
are at the
mercy of Canada. If Canada falls we must fall.
We have no status by ourselves; we have no
standing in relation to the Empire apart from
Canada. As respects this question, it is well
known that the policy of Canada has always been
supreme, although we have the largest interest in
the fisheries. Now, however, the Canadians will
be interested in them equally with ourselves, and
we shall have such a. voice in the General Parliament as will enable us in all probability
to largely influence that body, for we shall, as shown by
the hon. member for South Colchester, hold the
balance of power between the two rival sections
of Canada.
The hon. member has taunted me with
having made use of the Queen,s name, and
he and his friends have stated in state paper which they sent to the Colonial Office
that this measure had been carried by the
abuse of our Sovereign's name. The reerence was clearly within the constitution
and such as is made within the Parliament
of England. From the lips of our Royal
Sovereign I have heard the warmest approval of union. The Province I represented,
had the great honor and distinction of
my receiving Her Majesty's command to
wait upon her at Buckingham Palace, and
upon that occasion Her Majesty congratulated me upon the success which had attended
our efforts; and when I expressed
the gratification with which her loyal subjects would learn the deep interest she
had
evinced in this measure, she replied: " I
take the deepest interest in it, for I believe
it will make them great and prosperous."
(Cheers)
I am glad that on the present occasion
the hon. member for Halifax has had the
manliness—
Dr. TUPPER—I do not wonder that my
hon. friend should be anxious that there
should be no misapprehension as to who
is meant. The hon. member for East Halifax has to-night openly avowed his sentiments
upon this question. I have always
felt that hon. gentleman was serving the
United States rather than his own country:
I do not refer to any hasty expression that
may have fallen from his lips; but I have
been painfully impressed with the fact that
from the moment he took his present position he would use every effort to transfer
this
Province from under the British Crown to
the Stars and Stripes. We are told by him
to-night that he is ready to sacrifice the
best interests of his country in order to satisfy his yearning after connection with
the
United States—that he is prepared to
choose, as between a union with Canada
and a union with the American Republic,
in favor of the latter. We have heard him
characterizing the Parliament of Great Britain as ignorant and imbecile—heaping obloquy
upon the grandest institutions that
are the pride and glory of the world. He
has declared that a preference for a closer
uuion wit the Empire would be a weak
and foolish prejudice. He has not left the
people of this country in any doubt as to
his sentiments; and the reason why I congratulate the House and country upon this
fact is, that his position is now clearly defined, and he has disarmed himself. In
a
loyal country like this, when his sentiments are clearly revealed, he must be
perfectly impotent to effect any harm whatever.
But is this the time when any man in
British America can be ready to give up the
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
56
admirable institutions of Great Britain for
those of the United States. Let me read to
you the picture presented of the latter country by Mr. Howe himself:
"Railroads, canals, steamers and telegraphs then
came in and assisted to bind the country together;
but in eighty years, with all their aids and appliances, the game was played out;
and the same causes
which in every quarter of the old world, and in almost every age, have asserted themselves,
came distinctly into view, marking the subjection even of the
great Republic to the laws which the Creator, for
some wise purpose, has established for the government of the universe. It is true
that by the expenditure of a million of lives, and of nearly four hundred
thousand millions of dollars, the country is still
nominally held together; but when hearts are esstranged and interests are adverse,
when communities
baptized in blood and tears, find in a great calamity
ever recurring elements of discord and reproach, the
time is rapidly drawing on when separation is inevitable, and when new combinations
will grow out of
the play of the passionate ambitions which the wit
of men has hitherto been found harmless to control,"
That is the condition in which the United
States is now, as drawn by the hon. gentleman's leader and co-delegate; and yet this
country which has sacrificed a million of
lives in a recent struggle—which has incurred a debt greater than that of England
—this country riven by discord and strife,
in which the Parliament is arrayed against
the President, is held up to our admiration
as the one to which we ought to be united.
These gentlemen having failed to fasten
the tyrannical scheme proposed for the organization of the Empire upon us, turn
round and say: Instead of allowing you to
form part of a great and free community,
with an amount of power and influence
such as no other people ever possessed, we
shall endeavour to drag you under the Stars
and Stripes—into that country which Mr.
Howe has described as so riven and distracted that neither life nor property is
safe. May I not congratulate the House
that the mask is at last removed, and that
the hon member has shown himself in his
true colours? He has presumed to hurl
charges of corruption against the loyal and
patriotic members of this house. Is it in
his own heart that he finds the ground of
these charges? Let me ask him if, having
found him standing in the presence of the
Parliament and daring to disparage the glorious British institutions under which we
live, and if, in addition to this, we find him
advocating a union with the United States,
instead of a union of British America, might
not the charge be made that the money of
the United States had been used to influence him? He talk to me of corruption!—
the man who has taken back every principle that he has ever propounded in this
house—the man who goes to England and
says to the Imperial Parliament, " Be careful of your money—do not give a guarantee
for a loan of three millions of pounds for the
construction of a railway which is going to
make Halifax a city of 100,000 souls—give
us connection with the United States and
Canadas"—who says, " I am aware that I
have claimed the confidence of the constituency of Halifax on the ground that I was
an advocate of an Intercolonial Railway,
but never mind that: I am determined to
use every effort I can to prevent the consummation of that work!"
The hon. member tells us that the American Government are so anxious to obtain
possession of us, that they may come in
and buy up the Confederate Parliament. Is
it or is it not an unjust suspicion to suppose
that if the American Government are so
corrupt that they would buy up the
Confederate Parliament of British
America, they have found means to buy up
one or two individuals in the Legislature
of Nova Scotia? Is it because we have always held one view on this question that
we are to be taunted by gentlemen who
have taken back the declarations of a lifetime with corruption? lf this Parliament
could be so degraded as that men could be
influenced by corrupt means to trifle with
the best interests of this country, then I say
he has given the best evidence in the world
why the confederation should take place.
If legislators, second to none that ever sat
within these walls for probity, intelligence,
education, and everything that constitutes
able and valuable men, are of that character he would have us suppose they are,
then he has given us the best evidence that
Nova Scotia is unworthy of British institutions, and the sooner some other country
governs us the better. But I feel I am insulting the intelligence of the country when
I suppose for an instance that it would do
aught than treat with contempt the unfounded insinuations of the hon. gentleman
whose own openly avowed sentiments this
evening have placed him in so unenviable
a position. I feel that the question can be
safely left to the patriotism and intelligence
of this deliberative Assembly who have always approached it in a spirit that proves
them worthy of the free institutions they
enjoy, and that an intelligent and loyal population will cordially sustain them thus
seeking to elevate and advance our common
country. (Cheers).
Speech of Mr. Fraser.
MR. JAMES FRASER.—I feel it due to myself,
as well as to the people I represent, that I should
made a few remarks concerning the course which
I intend to pursue upon this question. This
subject was before us last year, and when the
resolutions were before us relative to the appoint
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
57
ment of delegates to see if a better scheme than
the Quebec scheme could be devised, I felt it my
duty to oppose them, not because I was averse
to the principle of union—for it is not merely
since I occupied a seat here that I felt the conviction that we could not long occupy
our present position—but because of these two reasons:
first, I did not know what kind of a bargain the
delegates might make when they went thousands
of miles away, and I thought it wrong that we
should not have the opportunity of saying whether we approved of their arrangements
or not;
and second, because I knew that a great many
of the people were opposed to union. From causes that cannot very well be explained,
the people are afraid of change. The first reason for
my opposition has now been done away; and,
as far as I am able to judge, I am disposed to
think that the bargain which the delegates have
made is a great deal better than the Quebec
scheme, though even that I was not afraid of.
I had intended last year to go further than I did;
I intended not only to have opposed the resolution
but to have supported the amendment, but before the discussion was over I discovered
something I did not like—I discovered among some
gentleman a strong desire for annexation to the
United States. I was brought up in loyal principles, and taught to cherish British
institutions,
and while I wished to give our people time for
consideration, I could not and never will consent
to make a change from the English flag to a flag
which I never wish to wave over my head or the
heads of my children. And now, although continued opposition might be consistent,
I consider
the question has come to be in that state in which
further opposition would not only be useless, but
dangerous. We are all proud of the eloquence
and abilities of Mr. Howe, and when he went to
England I waited with great anxiety to see if
he was going to give us something which we
would consider better than the scheme of Confederation; but when I found him propounding
a scheme which was long ago condemned by
himself as impracticable, I began to think if he
had nothing better to propound, there was nothing better to be expected than the scheme
which had been before us. If the Quebec scheme
would bring taxation to the value of one cent,
Mr. Howe's would bring taxation to hundreds
of times that amount.
Another matter which operated strongly on
my mind was the fact that our American neighbors opposed Confederation. Is that on
account
of their love for us? No, but because they do
not want to see the British power grow up
alongside of them. If then I have been sincerely and honestly opposed to the measure
hitherto, after viewing these facts and finding
that the British Parliament and people, and
our honoured Sovereign herself have given
their approval of it, I feel that I should be no
longer so. I will not deny that among the people opposition still exists, but while
no man
attaches more value to the wishes of the people, or is more willing to defer to their
wishes,
I am constrained to take the responsibility of
doing what I believe to be right whether I gain
popularity by the act or not. I am convinced
the day is not far distant when the people will
acknowledge that I have done the best thing
for them, and surely they cannot think that I
would do more for them than for myself and
children—I will take my chance under the new
system, and I have as much at stake as many
who are less willing. I regretted to hear an
hon. gentleman state that if the measure passed
he would still do all in his power to oppose it,
—I cannot agree in that, and if the bill passes,
as I believe it will, I will use my humble endeavors to make it a blessing to our
people and to the great Empire to which we belong.
Remarks of Dr. Brown.
DR. BROWN said that he was sorry to hear
the hon. Provincial Secretary bear so hard on
Mr. Howe in his absence. He was not Mr.
Howe's apologist. He had not approved of
many of that gentleman's acts when at the
head of public affairs, but he entirely concurred in the object of the mission in
which he
was now engaged on the part of the people of
Nova Scotia. He thought that it would have
been more manly and generous in the leader
of the government if he had waited for an opportunity of conducting the discussions
face to
face. As to the question before the House, at
that hour of the night he had but few words to
say. He did not care whether the course pursued by the Government was constitutional
or
not—he would not enter into the legality of the
case; the only question was, was it right, was
it just, was it expedient to pass a measure so
vitally affecting the rights of the people, as it
were by stealth and without their consent? It
could not be argued that an appeal to the people would be inconvenient, because an
election
must necessarily take place in a few weeks, or
months at the furthest. He had heard much
talk about loyalty. He thought that loyalty
like charity began at home. He thought if the
British people and Government passed this
bill, compelling our people into a union highly
distasteful to a large majority, they might
be justly accused of disloyalty towards us.
The best loyalty was to take care of ourselves,
and if Great Britain was weary of the connection, we must only look elsewhere for
friends
and allies. It was clear that free trade with
the United States was the greatest boon we
could now enjoy. The trade with Canada
could never be large, and we could encourage
it as well without union as with it. But free
trade with our republican neighbors would be
our salvation, in a commercial sense. He hoped the Government would pause before they
passed an act so arbitrary and so unjust to the
people.
Speech of Mr. C. J. Campbell.
C. J. CAMPBELL—I did not intend to say
much on this question, but the hon member for
Inverness has made an observation which I
must contradict. He says that the people of
Cape Breton are proud of their connection with
Nova Scotia, and that the only man opposed
to the union has passed away. I think I am
as fully acquainted with the feelings of that
people as he is, and I therefore feel justified in
contradicting the impression which his remarks
would leave. The case of Cape Breton is not
at all parallel with the case now before us,—the
union was effected without the consent of the
people, and indeed without their knowledge.
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
58
The island was at first only represented by
two members out of all proportion to the representation of Nova Scotia. We afterwards
petitioned for a repeal, and two out of the four
members then representing Cape Breton voted
against it. About twenty years ago a large petition was sent to England, and a legal
gentleman employed on the subject in London, so
that the statement made is inaccurate. Even
now Cape Breton can scarcely get justice at
the hands of Nova Scotia, and session after
session we are sneered at by even leading politicians. I attribute the strong feeling
of the
people of Cape Breton on the subject of Confederation to the treatment they have received
at the hands of Nova Scotia. We have not yet
a fair share of representation. In the case of
the present union, however, we enter on more
favourable terms even than either of the Canadas, both as regards representation and
the
funds to be placed at our disposal.
Mr. Blackwood's Speech.
Mr. BLACKWOOD:— As I intend to support
the amendment, I feel that I should like to say
a few words before the vote is taken. I support it on the principle that however finely
argued the case may be in reference to constitutional authority, there is a sense
of right and
wrong which tells us that this privilege belongs to the people, and if there be no
precedent in favour of the course, we urge it is time
we made one when the constitution is to be
changed, and when the eyes of the world are
on us. If ever there was a time when the
feelings of the people should be consulted it is
the present. The time of the house will shortly expire, and if an election were held
the
measure could be completed shortly afterwards. I do not consider that within this
house is concentrated all the wisdom of the
country. We have had Mr. Howe's opinions
quoted to us but I do not see that we should
consider his views as the subject of discussion
now, or the views of any man, but the position and interests and feelings of the people
of
Nova Scotia. I do not entertain an opinion
favourable to the scheme for the organization
of the Empire because I think its features
could not be carried out with satisfaction to
all the Colonies.
With reference to annexation, I may say
that I never could feel otherwise than degraded by being subjected to the Stars and
Stripes; but in making the charges of disloyalty which have been made, I think that
justice has not been done to those expressing
their opinions on this side of the house. They
have not said, or sought to convey the impression, that they favour annexation, but
that
they are opposed to any union, and desire to
progress as we have been progressing. The
people of Nova Scotia have no idea of joining
the United States unless they are driven to it;
but if you stir up hostility by such legislation
as will embitter their minds, and for that purpose take advantage of the position
which the
Government occupy, the British feeling will be
driven out of their British hearts. I feel it
due the people to speak out boldly, for if ever
there was a time when their feelings should be
consulted, it is the present. Let us not take
the opinion of this or that individual, but the
opinion of the entire country, and by that decision I am content to stand or fall.
Mr. Churchill's Speech.
Mr. CHURCHILL—In the discussion of a question of such vital importance it appears to me
that it would have been wise to have allowed
more time for consideration than has been given us. From the very moment this subject
claimed my thoughts, the responsibilities connected with it have pressed upon my mind
with a weight beyond anything that I can express. I have never given to any individual
my opinion, and when asked what my opinion
was about this great question of Confederation,
I have replied that it was not one of so small
moment that an opinion could be given hastily. I have not consulted my constituents
on
the subject, nor they me, but I have viewed
the matter in its broadest aspect, and
nothing has occurred to shake the opinion
which l have formed, although in some respects I have been delighted with the speeches
to which I have listened. It is not in the power of any living man to comprehend and
grasp
the entire subject,—the results lie in the future, and will reveal themselves only
after
years have rolled round. Therefore when my
opinion has been asked I have felt disinclined
to give it. Suppose gentlemen were about
purchasing Canada. Would they use many
words about it? Would they not rather ponder deeply and say but little, and measure
the
language they used rather than make lengthy
speeches? Last session I intended to have
been present and to have recorded my vote, but
I was unavoidably detained—my mind was
made up then as it is to—night. The question
now before us is not whether we shall have
this union or not—that was decided last winter by an unexpected and sweeping majority.
The house then delegated a number of gentlemen to proceed to England, and to make
a
contract on our behalf, and we all know'
the result, and every man in Nova
Scotia might have known what the result
would be with England anxious, Canada anxious, and Nova Scotia willing, constitutionally
willing.
It is not fair to ask the legislature to undo
what it did last winter when it fixed the destiny of the Province and clothed those
gentlemen with the authority of delegates. The petitions sent across the water could
not be expected to have had any effect—on any public
question of interest a cartload of them could
be obtained without any result. One benefit
that will accrue from Confederation is that the
General Government will control the currency.
I look upon the mode in which our Provincial
currency has been managed as imprudent and
selfish; a number of bankers, by combining,
have controlled the currency completely. Instead of £140,000 in Province notes we
should
have had half a million years ago afloat, and the
condition of our finances would have been far
better. Another advantage is the construction
of the Intercolonial Railroad, and the extension
of our other roads, which I believe we could
not have without the union. In view of these
questions I have felt that if my last hour had
come and my opinion were asked, I would
say: do not be afraid to venture on the great
realities that will break forth on a combined
people. Isolated, there is no safety; combined
there is wisdom and security. Mr. Howe has
been much referred to. I was sorry when he
left us, and I can well remember receiving
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
59
from his addresses the conviction that union
must be the order of the day. What could induce me at my advanced stage of life, to
advocate a measure if I did not believe it would
be for the advantage of those who are to come
after me? The proposal made to us is to submit the matter to the polls. Suppose you
could do so would that be the proper way to
try it? Does not every man acquainted with
the condition of our Province know that at the
polls party feelings would override everything? You never could ascertain the real
opinions of the people by an election, and the
great measure would be almost lost sight of.
I therefore feel no doubt upon that ground.
I am now probably in the last year of my political life, and I would have been glad
could I
have escaped the responsibility now resting
upon me; but that responsibility must rest upon some one, and I am here to discharge
it. I
believe there are hundreds and hundreds of
able and deep-thinking men in this Province
who are glad to get rid of this responsibity, as
I would be, if I could.
I was amused last evening to hear the remarks about annexation. I would ask hon.
gentlemen what part of the States would we
be annexed to—the North or the South? I always regretted that Halifax, as well as
New
Brunswick, gave its sympathy to the South
—that mistaken people who are wasted like
the ranks upon the other side of the House.
If war had not occurred, the subject of annexation might have been broached, but after
that
I hoped never to hear of the proposition. I
doubt that the United States would be anxious
to have us; they will get our coals and fish,
and give us what they please, as they always
have done. I would like to have dwelt more
largely on the subject, but time will not permit at this late hour of the night; and
I would
merely say, in conclusion, that I am willing,
with my hon. friend from Pictou, who spoke a
short time ago, to fall into the ranks of those
who seek to unite the Provinces.
Speech of Mr. Hebb.
Mr. HEBB said:—I rise not to make a long
speech, but to give a few views which I entertain upon this question. Last winter,
as well
as in this session, a great deal was said about
loyalty and about the intelligence of the country, and it has been repeatedly said
that all
the intelligence and all the loyal feeling of this
country were favorable to union. Now I believe that not one member of this house desires
annexation to the United States; but supposing a faithful son asked his father for
the
portion of the inheritance which fell to his
share, and the father said, "I will give you
nothing," would it not be expected that the
son would leave him? Again, if a young man
desired a wife, and after seeing many young
women of the neighboring Provinces, should
find one better suited to him in the States, is
it not natural that he should follow his choice?
But, as I have said, no member here desires
annexation; and if such an impression has
been derived from any remarks that have
been made, it is no doubt from the haste of
expression. There are men here who could
talk from now until next September, because
it is their business; but it is not to be expected that some of us should be so well
trained
in expression as those lawyers and doctors.
The blood boils in my veins when I hear
some of these gentlemen despising their constituents. There are good and loyal men
in
this country who will not come to the Legislature, and their opinions should he heard.
It
has been intimated that the people are not
able to judge—that they are too ignorant; but
I ask who has made the country but the people to whom this language is applied? Did
the handful of members around me make the
country? No, but the men who are catching
the fish, who are taking the lumber from the
forests and the stones from the soil. The laborers of the country should he heard,
and I
speak thus because I am one of them, and
know how wrong it is for men of position and
education to look down on the working classes.
I should like to see our public men when they
are passing through the Province, greeted
everywhere with a pleasant countenance and
receiving the ready grasp of the hand.
There is an old saying which forbids us to
compare men and beasts together, but sometimes the comparison is necessary, and I
wish
to make one: I know that if you put on a horse
a collar that chafes his neck and makes the
blood trickle down his breast you will see his
eyes become dim and his ears droop,—and
what can you expect from human beings if
you force on them a measure which they dislike.
I am not so much opposed to union as to overriding the opinions of the people. They
might
at some future time express a desire for Confederation, but if you force it on them
now, I
can only say that I should not like to be one
of those whose names are attached to the records of the country as favoring the measure.
The arrangements between the Provinces reminds me of an anecdote which I heard some
years ago: A cat and a monkey went to market to buy cheese, they did so, and on returning
home, in order to make a division procured
a pair of scales;—the monkey was careful to
cut one piece larger than the other, and when
it did not weigh evenly he got permission to
taste, and so went on cutting and tasting until
the cheese had nearly disappeared, and when
the cat remonstrated she was threatened with
a hiding.
That is pretty much the position of our affairs; we are the small Colonies, and if
we
complain, Canada will threaten to chastise us.
It would seem that no one can speak upon
this question without referring to Mr. Howe;
but supposing that gentleman did at one time
speak of union. It is too much the practice for
men to stick to the principle they have avowed, whether right or wrong; and the man
who
acknowledges an error is entitled to credit.
As is well known, I am not much of a speaker,
and will not therefore long detain the house. I
cannot understand how any set of gentlemen
dare to impose such a measure upon the country, against the wishes of the people.
If the
people are favorable to it, why be afraid to
come out among them and abide the consequences? For my part, I will stand by the
people, and if I fall, I will fall by them.
Remarks of Hon. Financial Secretary.
Mr. JAMES MACDONALD said:—I would
not address the House at this late hour were
it not for some of the observations which
fell from the hon. member for East Halifax
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
60
as to the financial aspect of the question,
and which it is desirable that the country
should fully understand. The House knows
that the opponents of union have argued
that the revenues of this country are to be
dissipated by Canada—that the hardly
earned revenues of the peeple are to go to
enrich the Canadian treasury. I undertake
to tell the hon. member, and I challenge
him to contradict me, by reference to the
figures open to every one, and which I shall
adduce to the House, that so far from the
revenues of this country going to enrich the
Canadas, the fact is the very reverse. The
hon. member has taken the figures furnished in the estimates for the past year laid
on
the table by the government. I will take
the figures from the same source, and
will undertake to show that instead of the
revenues of Nova Scotia going to pay the
debts of Canada, we shall have almost the
entire revenue derived from this portion of
the confederacy spent within the limits of
this Province, in payment of the same services to which our revenue is now applied;
for it must be remembered that although
the management of these departments—the
revenue and post office departments for instance—is transferred to the general government,
the services must still be performed
by men residing and spending their income
in this country. We shall receive, then,
first the contribution fixed by the act of union, to be paid by the general government
in aid of our local expenditure, amounting
to $324,000 in the first instance, and shall
continue to receive in proportion to our population till we number 400,000. Let me
see
then, how the matter will stand, and I may
say that I am entitled to no credit for the
statement shewing this view of the matter,
as I avail myself of the figures as arranged
in a most satisfactory and lucid manner by
a recent writer on the subject.
The estimated revenue for 1866 amounted to $1,631,500; from that amount must be
deducted the sum of $155,000, being the
amount included in the estimate as revenue
derivable from the departments of mines,
casual revenue, gold fields, and
the Hospital of the Insane which remain
under the management of the local government, and contribute to the local fund.
That would leave the balance of the estimated revenue which will pass under the control
of the general government at $1,476,500—from this must be deducted the contribution
as above stated to be made to our
local revenues $324,000, which will leave to
be disbursed by this government $1,152,000.
We have, therefore, for general and
local revenue taking the estimate as
selected by the hon. gentleman himself as
a basis, the following sums
| General Government |
Local Government. |
|
| $1,152,000 |
Amt received |
|
|
from General |
|
|
Government... |
$324,000 |
|
Local sources |
|
|
of revenue... |
155,000 |
|
|
$479,000 |
Now, sir, let us see how these sums are
to be disbursed. I need not refer to the
local revenue as that of course is distributed by the Local Government for the expenses
of that Government and the maintenance of the important public services left
within its jurisdiction. But where and how
is the $1,152,000 transferred to the control of
the General Government paid? Is it in Canada or to Canadian people? No, sir, but in
Nova Scotia and to Nova Scotians. The
hon. gentleman will admit, indeed it is the
basis of his argument—that the services
transferred to the General Government
would be sustained as now. These services then are as follows:
The
General Government would pay—
| The Lieut. Governor... |
$15,000 |
| Judges... |
17,850 |
| Pensions... |
4,800 |
| Governor's Secretary... |
1,250 |
| Statistics... |
4,000 |
| Prosecutions... |
12,000 |
| Debt, interest on... |
480,000 |
| Judiciary expenses... |
1,400 |
| Militia... |
38,000 |
| Protection of fisheries... |
40,000 |
| Support of Light-houses... |
50,000 |
| Post office... |
65,000 |
| Revenue expenses... |
70,500 |
| Drawbacks... |
16,000 |
| Steamers... |
10,000 |
| Proportion of Legislative expenses... |
30,000 |
| Miscellaneous... |
10,000 |
| Sable Island... |
5,000 |
| Government buildings... |
10,000 |
| Penitentiary... |
12,300 |
| Agriculture and Immigration... |
20,000 |
| Total... |
$1,103,600 |
leaving a balance of merely $50,000 as the
only contribution by this Province towards
the construction of the Intercolonial Road—
a work which the hon. gentleman and the
Government of which he was a member
considered so essential to the interest of
this country, that they were willing to mortgage a very large proportion of the revenues
of the country forever to construct not our
own fair proportion of the road, but 50 or 100
miles with New Brunswick.
But if we take the actual expenditure of
this year in some of the servicys named, instead of the estimated amount, what do
we
find? We find, sir, that the amount paid
greatly exceeds the estimate, and that in
reality, instead of a balance of $50,000, there
would be a deficiency on the side of the Ge
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
61
neral Government. Let us compare some
of these. The militia service was estimated to cost $80,000; it cost in reality
about $138,000, or $58,000 in excess
of the estimate. The several services under the Board of Works,
including St. Peter's Canal, were estimated to cost $180,320: the expenditure of
the year was $284,017, being an excess of
$93,697. I need not compare the estimate
and expenditure on the other items, but the
House will see that on these two services
alone there is over $151,000, or three times
the sum which by the first calculation appeared to go into the general treasury without
an equivalent. Nor is this all, for it
must be remembered that the cost of the
construction of the Intercolonial Railway
must come out of the general revenue. It
will be therefore seen that the Province actually receives more than she puts into
the
general fund, and sufficient besides to pay
her proportion of the Intercolonial Railway
debt. I challenge the hon. gentleman to
refute a single statement 1 have made. If
he is unable to do so, and he knows he is,
what becomes of the whole fabric he has
built upon his financial argument, on which
he is now content to rest his opposition?
Speech of Mr. S. Campbell.
Mr. S. CAMPELL:—At this late hour, and
after the fatigues of a long day, and in an
atmosphere to say the least of it oppressive
I proceed to perform the duty accorded to
me by my friends and by the courtesy of
the House to conclude this debate, and I
feel upon the present occasion as I felt in
my previous address, that my present office
and responsibility place me in conflict with
great odds. I feel that I have great antagonists both within and without these walls,
but I am at the same time assured that I
have the warm and hearty concurrence of
the people to sustain me. I believe I have
a righteous cause and I know that—
"Thrice is he armed who hath his quarrel just,
And he but naked, though locked up in steel,
Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted."
Hence, sir, I feel emboldened in proceeding in my present task, and I shall take the
liberty at starting to review some of the observations which have been made by gentlemen
who have preceded me before I
remark upon the main question which this
amendment discloses. The first name I
find on my notes is that of a gentleman who
stands high in this country in point of rank
and talent; I mean the Prov. Sec'y, and I
may say I think it would have become
that gentleman to have pursued a different
course in reference to an absent rival. I
am not the apologist or champion of Mr.
Howe but I claim the honor of his personal
friendship. I am an admirer of his because
I believe him to be a valuable public man
and a pure-souled patriot. I deprecate the
course taken by the Prov. Sec'y., in reference to Mr. Howe because he is absent.
There are those among us who have met
him in conflict, and I wish heartily that he
was here to repel the charges which have
been made against his consistency and
patriotism. We would not try the meanest
criminal at the bar of justice in his absence;
common decency would repudiate such a
monstrous procedure, but here, in reference
to that gentleman who is absent from his
native land on a mission connected with
its best interest, who Curtius like has cast
himself into a wide and deep chasm for his
country's sake, it is thought not indecorous
to put him on trial and to ask the country to
condemn him.
Sir, this is entirely wrong. But not content with pouring the vials of his wrath
upon Mr. Howe, the Prov. Sec'y., went on
to refer to the capitalists of the city in terms
which cannot be justified by their character
or their conduct. And who, sir, are these
capitalists? Are they not the men who
have been at the back of the hon. gentleman
in many a fierce political encounter, and
who, on such occasions, have rendered him
effectual service? He was therefore guilty
of ingratitude of the blackest dye in endeavoring to make them the objects of odium
and scandal before the country. The capitalists of this city, sir, have a deep stake
in
the interest of Nova Scotia; their lot is cast
here for all time; and if the city or province
prosper, their means must be correspondingly
enlarged. To say that they are actuated by
the sordid motives that were asserted, is a
libel on them which I feel called on to
throw back in the teeth of the man who
made it. I am not bound to them by any
considerations or connection, but as they
have no one here willing, although bound,
to answer in their name, l cannot but take
notice and vindicate them from the gross
calumny which we have heard.
Next we were told that the petitions presented here at the last Session numbered
but a few thousands. I well recollect the
circumstances under which those petitions
were withdrawn from general signature.
While they were being circulated for that
purpose the country was told by members
of this House, and their partizans elsewhere,
that Confederation would not be brought
here; that the Government dare not bring
it here; and I think I might bring it to the
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
62
recollection of one of the delegates that he
proclaimed the opinion that the subject
would not be presented to us for many
years. It was under these and other circumstances that the people ceased petitioning,
and but for the representations I have
referred to, the number would have reached
that of those which were sent across the
water.
The Provincial Secretary, in referring to
the scheme, touched upon one important
topic—the fisheries. My constituents, Sir,
are deeply interested in that branch of industry—none more so, perhaps, except those
of the county of Halifax, and what is the
history of Confederation in that aspect?
How damagingly has Canadian influence
operated on those engaged in the fisheries
of the country? Every one knows that they
have been sold and sacrificed; and whether it be Canadian or Imperial agency that
has been at work, I care not—the melancholy fact remains: our fisheries and our
fishermen have been sold. This, Sir, is a
foretaste of the fruits of Confederation—this
is a specimen of the policy that will be pursued in reference to the many other interests
of the Maritime Provinces when it suits
the objects of the new " Dominion." There
is no man, young or old, engaged in the
prosecution of the fisheries, and dependent
upon them for his support, but has this melancholy conviction forced upon his mind—
that to be a British subject is to occupy a
position inferior to that of an American. All
that valuable property which the Legislature has been from year to year declaring
to be the peculiar possesion of the country
has been transferred for a consideration too
paltry and contemptible to mention. Every
member here who has fishermen for his
constituents must feel that this Canadian
policy should induce him to pause a long
time before giving his assent to this Union.
I now come to that part of the Provincial
Secretary's observations which relate to a
gentleman who, though he is here, is debarred from answering for himself, inasmuch
as he has exhausted the privileges
which the rules accord to him. The so called annexation sentiments of the hon.
member for East Halifax have been proclaimed by the Provincial Secretary. I understood
my hon. friend to say this: " I do
not wish to be an American, I wish to be
a British subject—I wish to remain a Nova
Scotian, and to enjoy my birthright and my
constitutional freedom as such; I do not
wish to be a Canadian." That is the whole
extent of the ground on which this charge
of annexation sentiments has been founded
and sought to be fastened upon the hon.
member. The next name on my list is the
hon. member for Inverness, who referred to
a topic that is very distasteful to me, because it refers to a state of mind and intention
which it is derogatory to the honor of
this House to suppose that any member of
the House is moved by—that is, the matter
of corruption. As I have said, the topic is
derogatory to us, it is distasteful to me, and
I will pass it by with only this remark—let
the people be our judge. But the hon.
member thought he had made a great point
when he asked it we had the machinery
for testing this question at the polls, taking
into consideration the population of the various counties, and the number of members
returned. But he forgot that that is the machinery by which this House is constituted,
under any and all circumstances and in relation to every question, and therefore l
consider that his analysis of the population
and representation of the several constituencies was no proof in support of his position.
Then the hon. member spoke of the
union of Cape Breton with this Province;
but he forgot to tell us, as he should have
done, that at that time the island had no representative institutions; its affairs
were
managed by the Governor and Council, and
its people were not represented at all. The
people of the island were therefore elevated
in the scale of constitutional freedom when
their interests were placed under the protection of representatives duly elected by
them.
I now come to the hon. member for Halifax
(Mr. Shannon). He greatly mistook the reference which I made to the period and the
doings of Nero. I meant and made no allusion at all to the proceedings of the Imperial
Parliament, in connection with the
merry-making in which the "speech" called us to join, but my remarks were aimed
at the concocters of that speech. It was in
connection with the proposed rejoicings that
I made the reference to the tyrant who, in
the midst of a calamity such as never afflicted this Province, saw such great reason
for merriment. The hon. gentleman then
went on to give us a glowing picture of the
period when Confederation was consummated in this Province. He told his constituents
through this House: " You farmers, you fishermen, you artizans, all of you
are to get a double price for all the wares
and commodities you bring to market." On
what grounds has he made such an assertion? Has he offered us any grounds for
it? Am I to suppose that this is all claptrap intended to influence a constituency
on the approach of an election? I cannot
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
63
imagine any other reason for such a statement. Then, again, he told us that the laboring
men of the city of Halifax understand this question well, and are going to
be greatly benefited by Confederation. I
ask, do not the merchants who give these
men their living understand the question at
least as well? Is it not the interest of the
merchants to advance the general prosperity, and how is it that they are opposed to
the scheme? Do men generally act in opposition to their interests? No; they are
men of intelligence, and from north to south
of this city they in a very large proportion
reject the measure.
Then we were told that Confederation
would keep all the young men in the country; if the hon. member's expectations are
realized the young men will be too numerous, and Nova Scotia will be too small a
field for them. To this I answer the world
is wide enough. There is the neighboring
Republic, to which many of them have already repaired, and in which they have
raised themselves to positions of eminence
and wealth. I am reminded in this connection of one who has become one of the
most eminent shipbuilders in the world.
He went from one of our western counties.
Mr. S. CAMPBELL.—Perhaps so; but has
he not benefitted the world in the meantime? It would seem from the speech of
the. hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Tobin)
that he, too, is impressed with the same
notion that Nova Scotia is not large enough
for our young men. The Dominion is to
enlarge the field, but they can go to any
part of the new Dominion now. I come
now to the Financial Secretary, who has
entitled himself to special notice at my
hands, having extended to me a certain
class of civilities rendering such recognition
necessary. He termed me " a mere colonial lawyer." Let me ask what he is? Is
he so puffed up by being placed in his present position, and by having been sent on
an unnecessary and expensive delegation
abroad, and having so little to do at home
that he can afford to sneer at members of
his own profession, and endeavour to derogate from their position by the contemptible
epithet he has used? Sir, let him bear in
mind that his position is but for a day. He
also charged me with recklessness and
audacity in my views and expressions.
Sir, as a British subject, and a British freeman, I shall entertain any opinion that
may
commend itself to my judgment, and will
express that opinion as freely as I please.
Annexation to the United States, says the
hon member, is the object of gentlemen on
his side. The hon. gentleman, in so saying
ventured on a statement as untrue as it was
bold. No man shall venture with impunity to
hurl that charge at us, or convey without
challenge the imputation of disloyalty. Disloyalty is no part of my nature—it has
marked
no act of my public career. I am willing
to lay down my life—to shed the last drop of
my blood, on behalf of the country in which my
lot is cast, and with whose fortunes my best affections are entwined; but at the same
time I
know my rights, and shall take every constitutional means to vindicate them. And,
sir, let
me remind the hon. member that I am not paid
for my loyalty—it is an inborn principle; it is
not of that spurious kind which is fed upon and
fattened by the sweets and solids of the public
treasury.
Again, the hon. member says, "If the people
feel any embarrassment in the consideration of
the question, would it not be wise in them to
take the opinion and to act upon the conclusion
of those standing at the head of affairs on the
other side of the water?" Sir, I do not admit
that he has the right to call on a free people living under constitutional government
to forego
their own indubitable privilege and to commit
the decision of any question, much less the present one, to any other than themselves.
They
are clothed from their very birth, with the privilege of deciding upon every question
that can
possibly arise; and though it has been not only
insinuatcd but asserted that they are ignorant, I
know well this fact, that in every county in the
Province there are fifty-five men to be found
quite as capable of giving a righteous decision on
the present question as the fifty-five members
who compose this house. I insist, therefore,
that the people ought not to be content to leave
this question to any arbitrament in which their
voices are not heard.
Before passing from this portion of the hon.
member's remarks, let me present to the house
my idea of some of the hon. gentleman's reasons
for raking up these phantom charges about annexation and disloyalty. The hon. member
knew what was the inborn, ordinary and natural
feeling of a great portion of the people of the
county that he nominally represents. Scotchmen, he knew, were distinguished for their
patriotism, and he thought it might be advantageous, in view of his own dubious position,
to
excite the hostile feelings of the men of that
nationality by charging upon the opponents of
Confederation the aims and sentiments to which
I have referred. But, sir, to retort upon the hon.
member, let me ask, not what have been his views
or his sentiments, but what has been his conduct?
He has done his utmost to denude his Scottish friends and constituents of the inconstitutional
liberties. When I think of this, I feel bound
to tell him, though it may not be a very comfortable piece of information for him
to bear
in his remembrance, that, Scotchmen everywhere are like the guarded emblem of their
never-conquered land, and are ever ready to
DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS
64
meet the foe who wantonly would tread upon or
rudely touch the foliage or the flower of their
freedom. (Hear.) They will not be Scotchmen
if, when he again ventures to approach them,
he does not feel the thrust of their indignation
piercing the very marrow of his political existence.
I now come, sir, to the gist of the amendment—the constitutional question, as it has
been called; and let me ask if this is a subject
in the consideration of which we are to be met
with an objection, what I cannot but call a
constitutional quibble? We have been repeatedly and vauntingly told that we have shown
no precedent that would justify the House in
adopting the amendment I have had the honor
to propose. To this quibble, sir, I offer in reply the sustantial precedent of common
sense.
It will be time enough when these expounders
of constitutional law furnish me with a state
of things similar to that existing in relation
to this question—it will, I, say be time enough
to produce the now impossible precedent. Sir,
the question of Confederation is upon us—it is
widely regarded as a new and unprecedented
malady, endangering the entire body politic,—
and how is it to be met? It must be dealt with
out of the usual course,—no ordinary applications would be reasonable or wise; it
urgently
demands the freest treatment, and no treatment seems to me more prudent or consonant
with wisdom than the one which I propose in
the amendment. This branch of the Legislature must, according to the principles of
its constitution, terminate its existence in the course
of a very few weeks. Every member of this
House will then be called on to meet his constituents face to face. What, I ask, even
in reference to the position and prospects of the Administration itself, can possibly
transpire between the present period and the period of
that inevitable election to induce the Government to oppose the postponement of the
question until then?
I must not be understood as wishing to
take the final decision of the question out of
the hands of the Legislature, but let the matter remain as it is, let the public business
go
on to completion, and after that is done let the
people as is customary and constitutional record their votes, and let the result of
that election be their decision of this question. If favorable let it finaliy incorporated
into law
when our successors come here. There is and
there can be no other question pending in the
country of greater importance than this, and I
assert that the electors are intelligent enough
to decide it on its own merits. With their verdict I shall be satisfied. This is no
sudden impulse with me—this is no factious view. From
the first moment that the question of union
was mooted I have given expression to the
same unchangeable sentiment—and in doing
so I of course advocated a proceeding that
would have the effect, if adopted, of abridging
the term of my own parliamentary existence.
Particularly do I consider it as disonourable
in the extreme to adopt any other course than
the one I advocate inasmuch as gentlemen
here in favor of this measure well know that
they are acting in opposition to their own convictions of the existing feeling throughout
the
Province. In several counties public meetings have been held which have been attended,
not by men of one party, but by men representing every political class; and no man
can
be ignorant of the sentiment which those general gatherings enunciated. The opinions
and
wishes of other counties have also in other
modes been unmistakeably expressed. It is,
therefore, tyrannical, wrong and unjust in the
extreme, with that conviction on the minds of
members, to refuse the people the ordinary
right of passing on a measure that is to affect
them and children forever. What is the end
and object of government but the happiness
and welfare of the people? Governments are
not institutions created for the purpose of hampering a few officials, but to enlarge
the interests and promote the prosperity of the country in entire subordination to
the well understood wishes of the people. Is this measure,
regarded in that aspect, in the least degree
likely to secure that much desired end? Mr.
Speaker, I have from the outset of this debate
purposely abstained from going into the general question of Confederation, the resolution
I
have submitted affirms the one grand principle that the question should not be decided
until the people are heard upon it at the polls.
I might have pointed out many incongruities and unsound and unjust provisions, and
many others likely to produce dissentions in
the dominion about to be erected, but
I have preferred confining myself to the simple
but sound principle of appealing first to the
people of this country to ask them, the sovereign people as I will call them, whether
they
will have this Union—this Dominion—or not?
I cannot close, however, and resume my seat
without this single observation. The Government are about to pass, or expect ere long
to
see enacted this measure of Union. When
passed and enacted will it be worth the paper
on which it is printed if the minds and the
hearts of the people do not endorse it. Is it
merely a stretch of the imagination to fancy
a majority returned in opposition to the
principles of the bill,—may we not justly anticipate that contingency? And what then?
Why of course that there will be an agitation
wide and violent for the repeal of this union.
In what temper and under what pledge will
the representatives of the people come from
the polls? by a large majority this house,
or the house to succeed it, will be composed
of the men opposed to Confederation. Do
you suppose, sir, that the sense of wrong
and injustice will so soon be effaced from
their hearts and memories? No the same convictions that operate now will operate then
with tenfold force, and lamentable will be the
condition of disorder and confusion in which
public matters will then be involved. It is
surely more than wise to avoid this almost
certain consummation. I ask the house to
consider its position and its duty in that view.
This argument I feel should operate favorably
upon the vote to-night. I conclude, sir, with
the hope, sincere and ardent, that the course
taken on this occasion may not produce any
such fatal result. At all events, if it should, I
shall have the consolation that I have done
my best to avert it by submitting the amendment I have the honor to pro pose.
At 2 1/4 o'clock the question was put to the
House when there appeared
For the Amendment—Townsend, Hobb, Balcom, Ross, More, Killam, McLelan, Robert
OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY.
65
son, Blackwood, King, S. Campbell, Coffin,
Locke, Ray, Annand, Brown—16.
Against the Amendment—Heffernan, James
Fraser, Shannon, Chas. Campbell, Bourinot,
Hill, Whitman, D Fraser, Churchill, Allison,
Pryor, Parker, McKay, Kaulback, Hill, Tobin,
Hamilton, Jost, Donkin, Longley, J. Campbell,
McKinnon, McFarlane, Financial Secretary,
Tupper, Cowie, Robichau, Archibald, Blanchard, Colin Campbell, Smyth, Caldwell,— 32.
The last clause of the answer to the address
passed by the same vote.
This individual participated in:
