PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
11
[...]
Mr. BELL wished to reply to the remarks
of the hon. Leader of the Opposition respecting Mr. I. C. Hall. The trade of this
Island was crippled for want of a market for our produce, and since the abrogation
of
the Reciprocity Treaty, the duty of two
dollars per barrel on mackerel, 10 cents per
bush. on oats, and twenty-five cents per
bush. on potatoes, had almost closed the
American market against these articles altogether. The hon. Leader of the Opposition
might be very loyal, as he had nothing
to lose on account of this prohibitory tariff,
but others felt the loss of the American
market most keenly.
Hon. Mr. HAVILAND stated that he did
not object to Mr. Hall trying to get a treaty,
but to his saying that the majority of the
people of this Island were disloyal.
Mr. BELL said it was the opinion of the
greatest statesmen in the world that the
whole continent of North America would
eventually form one great nation. If Mr.
Hall had stated that the majority of the
people of this Island were in favor of Annexation, the hon. Leader of the Opposition
could not say that it was untrue; he did not
know the feelings of the people in the
country. When a poor man had a large
family to support, he would be very much
inclined to pursue for his family without
troubling himself much acout loyalty. If
Mr. Hall succeeded in getting us a market
for our produce, for which there was at
present scarcely any demand, he deserved
more praise from the people of this Island
than those obstructionists, who were continually crying out that we must not do this
or that on account of our loyalty.
Mr. BRECKEN remarked that the name of
a gentleman had been brought up in this
debate who was a high-minded, liberal
man, and who, while carrying on a successful
business in this Island, had done a great
deal for large numbers of men whom he
employed. That man had a large interest
at stake, and he had a perfect right to go to
Washington to negotiate a treaty, but he
had no right to tamper with out political
position, and say that the people of this
Island were willing to annex themselves to
the United States.
Mr. BELL asked if the hon. member (Mr.
Brecken) could say that the majority of the
people of this Island were not in favor of
Annexation.
Mr. BRECKEN said that he had been born
under the stars and stripes, he should have
gloried in being a son of the Great Republic, for he believed the Americans were as
far ahead of us as the white man was in advance of the indian, but his lot having
been cast under the British flag, he believed
in remaining true to it. If Confederation
succeeded, the tie that bound us to the Mother Country would be drawn more closely,
but if Confederation did not succeed, the
next alternative would be Annexation.
The House then went into Committee
on the Address in answer to His Honor's
speech.
Hon. Mr. Kelly in the Chair.
On the first paragraph being read--
Mr. REILLY, in rising to move its
adoption, admitted that the hon. Leader
of the Opposition was right when he said
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
12
that he (Mr. R.) should have made a
speech when moving the Address, but he
had lately been reading May on Parliament, and had there learned that he
should also have appeared in court dress,
so be hoped that he might be excused for
having neglected both. He felt certain
that the paragraph just read, which expressed satisfaction that His Honor the
Administrator enjoyed the confidence of
Her Majesty, and continued to administer the Goverrnent of the Colony, would
receive the cordial approval of this committee, for he believed that it enunciated
not only the views of the house but of
the whole country.
The second paragraph of the Address,
that relating to the visit of Prince Arthur,
was then read.
Hon. Mr. LAIRD said that the paragraph now before the committee expressed
the belief that the auspicious
event to which it referred would still
further strengthen those feelings of
loyalty and attachment to Her Majesty's
person and throne, for which the people
of this Islaud had ever been characterized.
He had never heard in the country that
there was any doubt entertained as to
the loyalty of the Government, but from
the remarks which had fallen from the
hon. Leader of the Opposition it would
appear that they were about to be put to
the test on this question. That hon.
member had, in effect, said, that opposition to Confederation was disloyalty.
Now, he (Mr. L.) had lately read that a
distinguished Canadian statesman had
reamarked that independence and annexation were co-relative terms. The British Government,
which might be called
the government of governments, did not
seem to object to independence, for an
hon. gentleman of influence and position
in the Dominion, who had declared that
he looked forward to the time when
Canada would become independent, was
afterwards knighted by his sovereign.
It was, therefore, evident that the free
expression of such opinions was not regarded with disfavor by the Imperial
authorities, and why, he would ask, should
we be branded with disloyalty if we pre
ferred remaining a part of the British empire
to becoming a mere province of the
Dominion of Canada? He (Mr. L.) did
not, perhaps, attach as much importance
to the Prince's visit as some persons,
still he did not doubt that the presence
amongst us of a son of our virtuous
Queen tended to call forth feelings of
respect for her person and loyalty to her
government. In some quarters, he believed, the hope was expressed that a
scion of the royal House of Britain would
yet occupy the throne of the Dominion.
If such was the expectation of the British
Government he feared they would be
disappointed. Residents in America
generally were too much afraid of expense to think of a monarchy. One reason why independence
was so much
talked of now was because the present
government in the mother country, which
might be said to be largely influenced by
the Manchester school of politicians, was
attempting economy, in order to decrease
taxation, and, therefore, the Colonies
were looked upon as a burden. But he
was of opinion that were the question put
to the British people, a large majority
would declare therselves opposed to the
dismemberment of the empire. It was
very evident that should the Dominion
become independent, it would be a very
expensive country to govern, as it was
composed of merely a strip of habitable
territory. If this Colony, then, refused
to become incorporated with the Dominion,
in order to save ourselves from its
burdens, he did not think we should be
charged with disloyalty, particularly as
we wished to return our connection with
Britain. We were no expense to the
Mother Country. The Governor's salary
itself was now paid out of the Island
treasury. Even this paltry amount was
refused us, though we have had to pay
out of our own pockets for lands which
the other Colonies received for nothing.
Thousands upon thousands, too, were expended in supporting military establishments
in the other Provinces, while, if
troops were sent to this Island, we had to
pay for them to the last shilling. But
the state of the Dominion generally was
not such as to invite us to become a part
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
13
of the confederacy. Her statesmen were
accusing each other of corruption and
dishonesty, words which, notwithstanding our sharp discussions, never disgraced
our Legislature. Nova Scotia was not
yet very contented, nor was the Red
River trouble settled, therefore, taking all
those things into consideration, he thought
the people of this Island might very well
shrink from entering the Dominion; and
he had yet to learn that desiring to remain a separate dependency of the British
empire could be called disloyalty, or that
the wishes of the Imperial Government
should deter us from declining to accept
the proposals of Canada.
Mr. BRECKEN--This question was one
to which, in the language of the address,
we should give "our calm and deliberate
attention." We were bound to return to
the people the trust which we received
from their hands; but every hon member
ought to express his convictions on the
subject under discussion, and not merely
the sentiments which he thought would
catch the popular breeze. The statesmen
and the press of England seem disposed
to allow the colonists to take the course
which they consider most conducive to
their interests, whether to retain their
connection with the Mother Country,
choose independence, or form an alliance
with the great republic. The latter did
not involve very great changes. We
were really the same people, for we had
the same origin, langauge and literature.
A person taken blindfolded from these
Colonies and set down in the United
States, would scarcely distinguish that he
had pased into a foreign country. But
when we discussed the question of consolidation with the neighboring States,
we should not make ourselves contemptible by talking of it as a step which this
Colony could take alone. We would go
into annexation, if it ever came, just as
soon as the rest of British America, and
not one day sooner. Though the people
here were to meet Mr. I. C. Hall on his
return, and literally bow down on their
knees and worship him for what he had
said and done in Washington, it would
not make the slightest difference with
respect to united this Island with the
republic. The hon member from Bedeque
had stated that some eminent Canadian
statesman had said that independence and
annexation meant the same thing, and
that Hon. Mr. Galt, for he believed that
was the statesman alluded to, looked
forward to the time when Canada would
become independent; hence the hon.
member seemed to argue that our going
into Confederation would only hasten
these events. But Mr. Galt was a confederate, and he must believe that confederation
would succeed first, else how
could he expect that independence would
come? If confederation could do this
for the Provinces, make them populous,
wealthy and prosperous, so that they
could set up as an independent country,
then confederation must be a good thing.
Canada could not become independent
with a sparse population engaged in
clearing away the forests and driving out
the foxes. She must induce the people
from the crowded cities and districts of
the Mother Country to come and occupy
her lands and build up her manufacturing
industries, and Mr. Galt's position was
that confederation would do this for her,
and, as a consequence, independence
would follow. And he (Mr. B.), if he
might be allowed to couple his name
with such a talented and distinguished
man, would say that he agreed with Mr.
Galt. He might be told that this was
putting a different aspect on the question
from the no-terms resolutions, which he
supported, though at the time he did so he
objected to the wording of them. The
case, however, was quite different now.
Then Confederation was onlyy a theory,
now, with the exception of Newfoundland, it was an accomplished fact. Mention had
been made of the charges
preferred by Canadian politicians against
each other. He supposed the allusion
had reference to Sir Francis Hincks;
but was that an argument why we should
not go into the Dominion? Did the
hon member for Bedeque, who brought
up this matter, though he paid a compliment to our legislature, think that
the people of this Colony were all so
moral that there would never arise the
person here who would tamper with the
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
14
public funds? Were we so much better
than our neighbours? Look at the United
States. Where was the case of Andrew
Johnson, the late President of that
country, who was accused of almost
every crime, and yet retained his position
in spite of the House of Representatives?
The hon member was also boastful about
our position; we did not, he said, receive
a shilling from the Home Government;
the Governor's salary itself was paid by
the Colony, and we were now ready for
the fight. Well, all he (Mr. B.) could
sayd was that a very different tone characterized the remarks of the Leader of
the Government last session when he
introduced the salary question. That
gentleman, who was not now a member
of this House, he highly esteemed in all
the relations of life. Though he held an
office which he (Mr. B.) would rather
have seen given to another, yet his presence on the Bench never suggested to
him that he had been a political opponent.
He believed that the scales of justice
were safe in his hands, and he could
further say that all his business intercourse with him during his political career
had been pleasant and agreeable. That
hon gentleman, when he proposed the
payment of the Governor's salary, argued
that no course was open to the House
but to submit to the desire of the Home
Government as expressed in the despatch
of the Colonial Minister. At first he
(Mr. B.) thought the point might be perhaps as well be yielded without any
further objection. But, on reflection,
after the first day's discussion of the
subject, he suggested that as we had a
good claim on account of the manner in
which our lands were disposed of by the
British Government, it might be well to
try another remonstrance. But he was
met by the hon members of the Government with a declaration that such a step
would be useless; that there was a threat
in the despatch, and if we did not pay
the Governor's salary, oh we would be
forced into Confederation! The Opposition had a caucus on the question,
the only one they held last session, and
there Hon. Mr. Palmer, who was an
anti-Confederate, expressed the opinion
that there was no danger of being coerced
into Union, though we declined to vote
the salary, as the British American Act
expressly declared that admission into
the Dominion was to be by joint addresses of both branches of the Legislature. This
provision in that Act was
mentioned in the House, but it would
not do, nothing would satisfy the Government but to go down on their knees
and vote the Governor's salary. If
the hon member for Bedeque was
sincere then, when he voted away a paltry
£2100, which he said he had no right to
do, how was it he had become so bold now
that he can afford to speak lightly of
the earnest wishes of Her Majesty's
Imperial Government?
Hon. Mr. LAIRD had been accustomed to look upon the hon. member for Charlottetown as a credit
to the House, but to-night he had
somewhat lost that favorable opinion. The hon member while talking
about loyalty had remarked that Mr.
Galt had said Confederation meant independence, and independence meant annexation,
and, as the hon member agreed
with Mr. Galt, he must be an annexationist.
Mr. BRECKEN would not be misunderstood. He was not in favor of annexation, but he looked upon
isolation as
played out. Either confederation or annexation must come, and he believed that
confederation would carrry the day.
British institutions were being put on
their trial on this continent, and if they
failed of success, he would admit he was
wrong in advocating confederation. He,
however, looked upon our entering the
Dominion as a necessity.
Mr. HOWAT.--The hon. member for
Charlottetown said there were only two
courses before us, confederation or annexation. He (Mr. H.) did not think so.
The Channel Islands, near Britian, had
never been confederated with her, and
yet he believed their inhabitants were
loyal. The very way to make the people
here disloyal would be to coerce them to
join the Dominion. This fuss about
loyalty did not amount to much, for the
moment Canada became independent,
were we connected with her, our allegiance to the British Crown could cease.
He believed there was not a more loyal
people anywhere than the inhabitants of
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
15
this Island, if they were only left alone.
Unless the Imperial Government was
mocking us, we were at perfect liberty to
enter or remain out of Confederation.
If Canada became independent, her expensese would be greatly increased. His
opinion, therefore, was that we should
stay out of the Dominion, remain loyal,
and let the people of Canada, if they
chose, become rebels as they were once
before.
Mr. BRECKEN admitted there had been
a rebellion in Canada, but he had heard
old residents of the province say that
Papineau and those who took part with
him in that disturbance were right. There
hd been wrongs and grievances in that
country which required to be redressed,
and the course which these men took,
call them rebels if you will, resulted in
obtaining for Canada the boon of responsible government. The British Government had
admitted the justice of their
cause when it came forward and indemnified them for their losses. Lafontaine,
one of their leaders, was afterwards
made Chief Justice of Lower Canada,
another, for whose head a reward was
offered, was made a baronet, and Sir
George Cartier, who also took part in the
rebellion, had been honored by his sovereign and privileged to dine at Buckingham
Palace.
Hon. P. SINCLAIR thought there must
be something wrong with either the head or
the heart of the hon member for Charlottetown, when he said that a Canadian was
made a baronet for resisting the laws of
his country. He (Mr. S.) believed that
the members of the Tenant League in
this Island, so strongly condemned here
from time to time, by some of the Opposition party, had a much more just and
righteous cause of complaint than the
Canadian rebels of 1837, and yet had not
adopted so high-handed a course to seek
redress. The hon. member for Charlottetown also said that the Government
should have refused to pay the Governor's
salary. Lst session, he was so indignant
on this point, at last, that, notwithstanding the strong terms of the Coloninal
Minister's despatch, he almost offered to
go and plead the cause of the Colony at
the bar of the House of Commons; but
this year, simply because the British
Governmnet expressed a wish that we
should enter Confederation, he would
give up the rights of the Colony at once,
and comply with their desire.
Mr. BRECKEN presumed that the prin
ciple on which the so-called rebels of
Canada had been rewarded was because
they had rendered a service to their
country. By indemnifying them, the
British Government had admitted that
the grievances of which they complained
should have been redressed before the
rebellion occurred. The hon member
for New London had dragged in the
complaints of the Tenant League in comparison with those which caused the disturbance
in Canada. It was tiem this
smelt-fishing in politics was given up.
No resemblance existed between the two
cases; yes, there was one point in which
they might be said to agree - one of the
Canadian rebels had been made a baronet
and the hon. member for Belfast, Colonial
Secretary. But, in other respects, there
was a wide difference, for no bill of indemnity had been passed for the benefit
of these unfortunate members of the
league who had suffered imprisonment.
Hon. COL. SECRETARY was amused to
hear the utterances of the hon. member
for Charlottetown in this debate. While
the Liberal party were working out
principles which that aristocrat had
opposed, he had become republican in
sentiment. The hon. member had also
taken the position of justifying the
Canadian rebellion; some of his remarks,
in fact, were almost bordering on
sedition.
Hon. Mr. HAVILAND contended that if
the hon. member for Charlottetown had
uttered seditious sentiments, it was his
(Col. Secy's) place, as first officer of the
Government, to have him prosecuted.
Mr. CAMERON thought the paragraph
before the committee had been overlooked. The hon. member for Charlottetown had said
that isolation was
played out, which meant that we must
become confederated with Canada, or
annexed to a foreign power. There
might be some persons in the country in
favor of one or other of these changes,
but the large majority of the people was
opposed to them both. He (Mr. C.) had
as yet heard no argument advanced to
show that the British Government was
going to coerce us into Confederation.
The people had a perfect right, he
thought, to act as they pleased in this
matter; and as they believed that union
with Canada would increase their expenses and bring to corresponding
benefit to the country, they were generally opposed to it. He did not see why
this Island should not remain an inde
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
16
pendent Colony as well as others. If
the Colonies in all parts of the world
were to be confederated, some more
general arrangement would have to be
made than any yet brought to our
notice.
Hon. Mr. McAULAY read the paragraph
in the Address referring to Confederation,
which promised that the House would
give the subject "calm and deliberate
attention," and asked whether hon.
members had forgotten it.
Mr. McNEILL had the misfortune during his short political life to lose two
political leaders, and was now serving
under the third or fourth, but he had
learned to attach little importance to
loud professions. It was generally a
sign of a weak cause. When a mere lad,
an old friend had warned him to beware
of those who boasted of their honesty, as
they rarely could be trusted. He
thought he might apply the advice to
the loud professions of loyalty on the
part of some hon. members in this discussion. He was in Canada about the
time of the rebellion there, and was
aware that it resulted in good. Lafontaine got possession of the Government,
and then those who were displaced from
power memorialized the sovereign against
those who had shed blood receiving the
seals of office. But no attention was
paid to their remonstrance. In process
of time he had no doubt that the tenant
leaguers would be looked upon pretty
much in the same light as the Canadian
rebels. He had yet to learn that those of
them who were lodged in jail had been
urged by any person to act as they had
done, but this, he knew, that they did
not want the sympathy of the hon.
member for Charlottetown. But to turn
to the question of union, that gentleman
appeared to think that there were only
two courses open to us, confederation or
annexation. He (Mr. McN.) could not
see this. Why should we be under the
necessity of going into annexation now,
more than we ever were? There might
possibly be a few more people in its
favor than formerly, but he believed we
could remain out of annexation as long
as Canada could. In his opinion, the
time was not far distant when European
rule must cease in America. Look at
Cuba, where Spanish rule was struggling
for an existence, and at the failure of
France to uphold an empire in Mexico.
He agreed with the remark once made
by the Hon. Mr. Howe, that the best
course for Canada to pursue was to remain quiet; if she did so, she might
prosper. But if she went about setting up
a kingdom, and provoked the United
States to war, she might be overrun in
one week. Why the Dominion Government was so anxious to get this Island,
he (Mr. McN.) could not understand.
They had already plenty of territory.
Canada, he contended, lowered herself
in making this offer to the Island, for it
looked as if they thought we were setting
ourselves up for sale.
Hon. MR. HAVILAND remarked that he
did not intend to speak on confederation
now. When the despatches and correspondence in possession of the Government, and the
despatches that might
come during the session, were before the
House, he would be prepared to go into
this great question. And he hoped when
the discussion of this important subject
came on. There would be nothing heard
in this House about bibery and corruption, or Canadian gold. He believed
that no person in this Island had received
Canadian gold to advocate confederation,
nor did he think that any person had received American gold to advocate annexation.
Let us have none of these vile
insinuations that had passed through the
press. Some of the main arguments in
favor of Confederation were, that we
might have a central authority for the
direction of troops, and a breaking down
of those hostile tariffs which prevented a
free interchange of commodities. The
United States, which some hon. members in this House so much admired,
would not have become so great had
these tariffs between them not been
swept away. But this was not the proper time to go into these questions.
Hon. MR. CALLBECK argued with the
hon. Leader of the Opposition, that this
was not the proper time to discuss the
confederation question; but if we gave
no expression upon it, it might be said
that we were waiting for the current of
public opinion. He believed it was our
duty when proposals came from the
Dominion Government to give them our
calm consideration. It had been said by
hon. members on the other side of the
House, that, as we had to pay the Governor's salary, we would be under the
same necessity to yield to the wishes of
the British Government with respect to
Confederation. He (Mr. C.) did not
think so. We had no means of competing the home Government to pay the
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER.
17
Governor's salary, and now since we
had voted it, we stood in a good position
to give this question a deliberate consideration. When the proposals came,
he took them home, and studied them
over in his mind, and the conclusion at
which he arrived was that they were not
fair to this Island. He thought that
while Canada continued in her present
unsettled state, we might as well remain
as we were. If, after a time, we saw that
confederation was going to be an advantage, we might then enter the Dominion.
He believed that when the United States
were confederated, Rhode Island obtained as good terms when she entered the
Union as those states which entered at
first. The people of this Island would
bear taxes sufficient for the wants of the
Colony; but they would object to see
their money taken away and expended
on works in Canada which would yield
them no benefit.
The debate was then adjourned.
[...]
This individual participated in:
