[...] Williston
in 1858, and my mind is still
unchanged. I am thoroughly in
favor of
responsible Government as any man in
this country, and it is the ruling principle
in my mind ; but I do not see that it at all
bears on the placing the members of departments out of the House. It is more
dangerous to the liberties of the people to
have those salaried officers in the House,
because when a man gets one of those
offices he will struggle for life and death
to hold it ; he will go round soliciting
votes here and there, and resort to many
things he otherwise would not, in order
that he may not lose his salary. When
we have three paid members of the Government on the floors of the House, we
have as many as we should have. The
Attorney General, I think, is the best paid
man in the country, as in addition to his
salary, his office gives him a status in
the profession, while it does not interfere
with it, as it does not take the whole of his
time ; but it is necessary for his salary to
be high to secure the most talented man
to fill the office. In regard to the office
of Post Master General, I am prepared to
vote for removal of the office, even if there
is no saving to be effected by it, for the
office is merely local in its character, and
is not one of much importance, as is the
case in England, where they keep a correspondence with all parts of the world.
I do not think it is necessary to have an
inspector appointed, for clerks can often
be sent out of the office to inspect the
different Post Offices without interfering
with the duties of the department. There
has been a cry raised that this was preparatory to a removal of the seat of Government
to St. John. I do not think removing a couple of clerks to St. John will
have any influence in moving the seat of
Government. If the question of removing
it to St. John came up, and I voted against
it, I do not think there would be five of
my constituents would find fault with me.
The resolutions which I have placed before the House, will be the means of
perpetuating the seat of Government here,
because the difficulties in getting to
Fredericton will not be so great as they
have been. This system of railways will
prevent the necessity or desirability of
removing the seat of Government. If a
city is in a position to go vigorously into
manufacturing and trading operations, the
accumulation of public offices and idlers
will weaken and destroy the business
habits of young men, and they will not
acquire the habit of application necessary
to put them forward in the world.
Mr.
WILLISTON.—It is unnecessary for
me at this stage of the proceeding to say
much on this subject ; but I feel bound
by the position I have taken in reference
to this subject, to say a few words before
the vote is taken. You must remember
in 1858, after the office of Post Master
General became political, I felt bound to
bring in a Bill to repeal that Act. I have
been Post Master for some years past,
and am pretty well acquainted with the
routine of duties which he has to perform.
I felt satisfied that eight or nine heads of
departments in a House of forty-one members were more than was required, and I
felt it my duty to do all in my power to
bring about some reform. Mr. Howe, having been educated at his father's office,
who was a Post Master at Halifax, has a
through acquaintance with the duties of
the office, and could perform them much
more satisfactorily than a person who knows
nothing of the duties, but is appointed
because his party has come into power.
I have been here for seven years fighting
against political influence. I thought
that the Government had too many political heads on the floors of the House, and
I for one was determined that I would do
all in my power to lessen the number of
them. In 1859, I brought in a Bill to
repeal the Act making this office a political one. I found my hon. friend from St.
John, (Mr. Cudlip) who was a prominent
member of the House, voting with me,
although we numbered but ten. It is
gratifying to me now to find members who
opposed me on that occasion, when endeavouring to effect that wholesome reform, have
changed their minds, and are
now introducing this as a Government
measure. It is a proud satisfaction to all
of us who voted on that occasion. to find
public opinion so changed that the Government now comes forward to effect that
change which the exigencies of the case
require. I was sorry to hear my hon.
friend from Carleton (Mr. Connell) deny
a case where he ignored the decision of
the Council. The case was the loss of a
money letter sent by "Elijah Clark," and
the Postmaster General himself, without
the advice of his Council, paid that claim.
(Mr. Connell.—" I deny the accusation.")
He did that without the advice of his
Council, and against the advice of his predecessors. (Mr. Connell —" Bring
forward your proofs.") I can bring forward
the proofs. It has been said that if we
abolish the office of Postmaster General,
we should have to appoint a Post Office
Surveyor to inspect the Post Offices.
This is unnecessary, as the work could be
done by the head Clerks in the St. John
office. The Postmaster General receives
ÂŁ600 a year. besides his travelling expenses, which amounted last year to $548 ;
the public has to pay those travelling expenses, even when incurred on an electioneering
tour. I am happy to see the
day when the President of the Council,
after seeing the necessity of the case, has
the correctness to come forward and propound a measure of this kind, which I, an
humble number of this House, advocated
some years ago.
Mr. NEEDHAM.—I
confess my mind is
not made up on the same grounds as the
hon. member who last addressed you. I
do not think became he entertained an
opinion that was wrong, and the President of the Council now
entertains an
opinion that was wrong, that he should keep
that opinion. If the arguments, which
appear to have borne very heavily upon
the mind of the hon. member who last addressed you, are sound, then no
political
office ought to be sustained. If
the
head
Clerk in the office can bear the responsibility, then abolish the whole of them.
There is not a question that has come before the Legislature at this time that
has
occupied so much of my thoughts
and attention, and to which I have given so
much serious consideration as this subject. I stand in an anomalous position ; here
is a Government
measure
brought down by a Government I
was
sent here to sustain—in whom I have confidence both financially and politically,
and whose acts in this House I am prepared to support so far as I can consistently
with my own responsibility to the
people that sent me her. They sent me
here to support that Government, or a
Governement formed on Anti-Confederate
principles. Unfortunately for me. I took
a different view from the Government in
reference to this question. I was here in
1854, when a resolution was introduced
by some hon. member of the House, in
order to make the Surveyor General's
office and the Postmaster General's office
political. I then opposed making the
Surveyor
General's office a political one,
because I believed that the head of that
office ought to be a Surveyor himself, and
understand his business, so as to know
when his subordinates did right or wrong.
Unless we got a political man
on the
floors of the House who understood all
the operations that belonged to an office
of that kind. I did not think
it right to
make it a political office. I
opposed it
then, and if there was a question of that
kind before the House now, I
would still
oppose it ; for I believe the office of political Surveyor General to be
useless.
With regard to the Post Master General's
office, I say this : If the Government can
show that by making the office non-political the country is going to save a great
deal of money, that they can save
twelve
or fifteen thousand dollars, I am
prepared
to go for it, however inimical it may
be
to
the interests of my constituents ;
but
they have not done it. and cannot do it.
(Hon. Mr. Smith. We will save $3.000.)
Have they shown it? They have not,
and cannot show it. They cannot get
along without more clerks, and
they will
have to increase the salaries of the officers they now have on account of the increased
labour and increased responsibility. With regard to my own private
views about all these officers being on the
floors of the House, I think in a House of
only forty-one members, the fewer
political officers on the floors
of
the
House the better for the country ; but that
is not the reason why I oppose the Bill.
I oppose it because the Government do
not show that it is going to
benefit the
country by saving any money. Another
ground is, because by late
arrangements
the Post Office Department has
almost
become a banking institution. I saw an
account that an increase of $24,605
in
money orders over six
corresponding
months of last year, had passed
through
the Post Office since the money order
system had been introduced by the late
Government. Now I ask it this House
prepared to put this into the hands of
irresponsible men ? If the
Government
appoint a man to a situation, and that
man does wrong, I hold them responsible
for his acts. If they choose to make an
office non-political that is political, and
put a man in that office, I hold that, according to true, sound political principles,
the Government is answerable for the
acts of that man if he has done wrong ;
otherwise, let that man be a political
officer, and alone be responsible
for his
own acts when on the floors of the House.
It is perfectly absurd to talk about Responsible Government, if we say the Government
can appoint a man to an
office
where such a large amount of money is
at stake, and that man becomes
a defaulter, that the Government is not
responsible.
There is no necessity for abolishing this
office, for the Government cannot show
that there will be any saving in money to
this Province to justify them in
throwing
to the winds an office that is so much
needed at present, when there is
such an
amount of money passing through the
Province. You allow every man in
this
country, Nova Scotia, Canada and Great
Britain to issue money orders, and give
them the guarantee that they have got
the
Government responsible, and where is it
when the head of the department is a
non-political officer? If you do what is
right now you will abolish your money
orders, unless you tell the people that
they issue those money
orders under a
man who is not responsible. [
Mr. Smith.
—There
is no political office of this kind
in Nova
Scotia.]
We have nothing to
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1865. 109
do with Nova Scotia or Canada ; we will
act for ourselves, and in our acts we
should show we are willing to keep public
faith with those abroad as well
as with
those at home. I ask the members
of the
House how they can—with the issue of
these money orders—sustain abroad the
integrity they ought to sustain in regard
to them ? They cannot. I have
expressed my views, and I must confess, if they
had established a new dynasty, a
new regime, propounded a new system of
Government, they might have adopted
a different system from what they have now ;
but when they have a system of Responsible Government in operation, whether it
is for weal or woe, we are bound to carry
out that principle of responsibility
in all
our actions. It is something extraordinary
if thirty-six members are afraid of some
three or four Generals. I am not afraid
of them, and I doubt whether any
member of the House is. If they bring forward any measure that the other members
of the House feels is inimical to the interests of the country, they cannot get
it
to pass with all their acuteness and
generalship, even if they had a majority of
one. If we had truth and justice
on our
side, I should feel that " he is thrice
armed whose quarrel is just."
I do not
care how many Generals there are
on the
floors of the House ; if the
principles of-
responsible and departmental Government
are true, there are no offices
but what the
head officer should be a political one.
These are the political views I entertain
in regard to responsible and departmental
Government. So long as I entertain
these views, I cannot vote for a Bill that
will place the head of so
important a department as the Post Office where he
cannot be called to account.
C. CONNELL.
Now, those gentlemen having made a
statement affecting my reputation, I think
some explanation is due from them.
THE
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE
PROPOSED INTERCOLONIAL UNION
Mr. CUDLIP.—I see by the
last mail
fiom England that this question, although
decided by the people of this Province legitimately at the polls, is still being
agitated in England. It has been boldly stated by various parties
there,
that the election In New Brunswick was not
the true
exponent of public opinion, and that there
had been a reaction since the election had
been held, and there Would now be a majority in favour of the Scheme, that taking
out two constituencies
the present position
would have been reversed. The whole Go
vernment has been carried on by one or two
constituencies, the late
Government had a
majority of four or five, and without
the
support of St. John they would not have
been in existence ; therefore
they had not
the confidence of the country. We cannot have one rule to apply to one case and
one to another. It is said the question
was tried on false issues: that many voted
against the Scheme for the purpose of
turning out those in power. The same
argument can be used on the other
side.
I have known men who voted the anti-
Confederate ticket in the County, yet in
consideration of a feeling of regard for
Mr.Tilley they voted in favour
of the
Scheme in the City ; and if ever there was
a true exposition of public opinion, it was
on that question. The Union between
England and Scotland, and also
between
England
and Ireland was carried by bribery. It is said false statements are circulated In
England bv the
Canadian delegation, to induce them to legislate for us
in regard to this Intercolonial Union. If
there is anything of that kind in contemplation, they had better pause before they
attempt it, for we would resist coercion
whether it was brought against
us directly or indirectly. I think it would be a
prudent
course to send a delegation home
to correct those false
representations, and
have therefore prepared the
following resolutions, and will now move that
they be
adopted :-
" Whereas, the House in a Committee
of the Whole had under consideration
the resolutions of the Conference held
at Quebec on the 10th day of October
last, on subject of the
proposed
Confederation of the British North American Colonies."
" And Whereas,
it is the opinion of this House that the consummation of said
Scheme would prove politically, commercially, and financially disastrous
to the
best interests and prosperity of this Province;"
" And Whereas, the loyalty and attachment of the people of this Province to the
Throne and Government of Great Britain
cannot be justly impunged,
and they have
always manifested a desire to maintain
their connection with the Mother Country, and to remain a portion of the British
Empire;"
" And Whereas,
in the exercise of the
right of internal self-Government enjoyed
by this Province, its people are entitled to
deliberate and decide upon all
questions
affecting their own local interests in such
manner as to them may seem best
calculated to promote their prosperity and welfare;"
" And Whereas,
the General Assembly
of this Province was, in the month of February last, dissolved by His
Excellency
the Lieutenant Governor avowedly to obtain the decision of the people upon the
resolutions adopted at the Conference
and now before this House;"
" And Whereas,
at the elections consequently holden the people of this Province clearly and unequivocally
pronounced a judgment adverse to the adoption of
the said resolutions;"
" And Whereas, this House confidentially believes that Her Majesty's Government will
receive with due attention the
expression of opinion of this Province so
pronounced;"
" And Whereas, this House has reason
to fear Her-Majesty's Government are but
imperfectly aware of the true state
of the
feelings of the people of this Province
on
this subject;"
" Therefore Resolved, as the opinion of
this House, that a delegation should at
110 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1865.
once
proceed to England for the purpose
of making known to the Imperial
Government the views and feelings of this House
and the people of this Province
on this
important subject."
Mr. MCMILLAN —A
resolution of so
much importance should be fully explained by the members of the Government, as
I imagine it was brought in with their
cognizance. The first proposition say
that is the opinion of this
House that the
consummation
of this Union would prove
politically, commercially and financially
disastrous. I for one have strong
feelings in favour of this Union,
and entirely
dissent from this proposition. Every one
knows that political Union is strength.
do not believe that to unite these British
North American Colonies under one rule
would be a political injury to them. neither do I believe the people of
the country
think so. I do not believe that the
people
are prepared to say that it will be commercially injurious to them to have a free
intercourse in all articles and
manufactures between the Provinces, setting aside
the barriers of the Custom House. I
should like to hear the hon. mover show
us how it is going to be politically,
financially and commercially
disastrous, and
how the country is going to suffer by it.
Mr. CUDLIP.—I
do not intend to shirk
the question, for I want it to be thorough
ly discussed, and I should like to see some
of the leading members of the
House
take it up.
Hon. Mr.
SMITH —I thought the ex-
Surveyor General would feel it his duty to
justify the course he has taken on this
Union, and would have been
prepared to
show wherein it would have been advantageous; having done that, I
think he
did find plenty of hon. members on the
other side to meet any
arguments which
he may advance.
Mr. COSTIGAN.—I
have heard, and the
people of this Province believe, that influences are at work to endeavour to force
this Union upon us; that representations
are made in England that we are a people
disloyal, and do not wish to do our share
of whatever is necessary to maintain the
connection between them and the British
Government. It is our duty to
protect
that character of loyalty by sending a
delegation to correct those false representations. The ex-Surveyor General has
stated that the first part of the resolution
is not correct, in stating that this Union
would be injurious to the people of this
Province. There are many hon. gentlemen
in this House better qualified to show
wherein that Union would have been injurious, and the necessity for this resolution;
but I wish to say a few words in
order to show the disadvantages and ruin
it would bring upon this Province. It
does not require a masterly mind to see it.
It has been said that Union is strength,
but it would not be so in this case. The
more the people became acquainted with
the Scheme, the more they opposed it
The opponents of the Scheme had to contend with many disadvantages. I contend that
when the people defeat a Scheme
proposed by the Government in power, it
is a sure sign that they have a two-third
majority of the people of the country, because the Government by their position
have an influence upon the country, and
there is not a locality but what feels this
influence, because there is a sympathy existing between the Government and the
office holders in the country which leads
them to adopt their measures when they
otherwise would not ; many of those who
advocated the Scheme of Confederation
did not know what the conditions of the
Scheme were, but because the Government proposed it they were bound to
carry it out. I know this to be a fact,
that many who took an active part against
Confederation could not explain how it
was to be carried out. We were three
distinct people, but were to be governed
by one general Government, and that was
to be carried on by a majority vote; that
majority was to rule the country and tax
the people as they saw fit. According to
the construction of Government we would
be represented by fifteen representatives,
and these would have to fight against 145.
Although I might have much respect for
the ability of our representatives, yet I
would not have much reason to expect
that they would have much success in
anything they undertook for the benefit of
the Province. Then the question of the
Intercolonial Railway was brought up,
and it was said under Confederation we
could have the Railway wherever we
wished it ; but my opinion is, that if the
people of Canada really desire the railway, the same facilities for building the
road exist without Confederation as with
it. There was no guarantee that we would
have this railroad under Confederation; it
might grow out of the Scheme, and it
might not. I was said that the general
revenues could not expended in the
construction of the Canal system, as that
was guarded against by a resolution of
the Conference, which said that this work
should be prosecuted so soon as the finances of the country permitted. Who was
to decide when the state of the finances
would permit it to be built? The general
Government of Canada ; and they would
not object to have the work go on immediately if they had Confederation, because
they would have an additional inducement
to extend them when they drag in those
three Lower Provinces to bear their proportion of this great work. This was one
of the grand reasons which induced the
Canadians to advocate Confederation.
They were involved in difficulties in regard to the Union with Lower Canada and
in regard to their finances, and they really required an additional field—not for
public expenditure in improvements—but
an additional field for taxation and revenue ; that was the reason why they were
so anxious to secure the Union of these
Colonies. The Canadians would have no
reason to complain if they were taxed,
because it would be expended and circulated among themselves, and would bear
upon the people of this country, because
they would have to pay this money which
would never be returned again. It was
said that the Government to each Province should have a certain sum to expend for
local purposes ; this was true
enough, we had to provide for our own
local expenditure, and so had the other
Provinces except Canada, who had the
additional advantage of having the general
revenue expended on her public works,
and it, therefore, became local expenditure, and we would have to pay for that
from which we would derive no benefit.
Now, in regard to representation by
population. There is one Section of the
Scheme which provides for the readjustment of the representation by population
every ten years. In such readjustment
Lower Canada is always to be assigned
sixty-five members, and each of the other
Provinces shall have the same number of
members to which it will be entitled on
the same ratio of representation as Lower
Canada will then have. According to
that in a few years, taking the increase of
population according to the past as the
nearest criterion to judge by, the representatives of Upper Canada in seventeen
years would out-vote the whole of the
other Provinces. It has been argued that
if we had Confederation it would make a
great change, and we would become a
great country for capitalists, and emigrants would be induced to come here.
Would it change the course of our rivers
and give more facilities to manufacturers
?
The only change it would make would be
to place at the disposal of the General
Government in Canada the whole resources of the Colonies, and emigration would
tend to that part of the
Confederation, for
we would be removed from any
benefit
arising from the construction of
public
works. I believe that there is reason for
making the assertion that influences are
brought to bear abroad to place the people of this Province and the Government
of the day in a wrong position. It is asserted by those who are very anxious
about the Confederation scheme, that the
Government of the day is merely
called
into its present position by accident. I
contend that if those who are favourable
to Confederation wish to see the present
Government
retire from their present
position, they had better say
nothing
about Confederation, for so long as the
people of the country are reminded of the
Scheme, just so long will they rally round
those who defeated it.
Mr. MCMILLAN.—I
should like to hear
from the hon. mover of the Bill, as those
resolutions for the appointment of Delegates was not named when it was proposed that
this subject should be the order of the day; therefore, I
think it
would be unfair to decide this question at so short a notice. If the Government of
the day are desirous to have this delegation appointed, they should take
the responsibility of it, and not throw it upon
the House. It will be recollected how
some of the hon. members spoke
of the
delegations of the late
Government, and
now they are going to take the same
course without taking the responsibility.
(
Hon. Mr. Smith.—Those delegations
were unauthorized.) They had the Imperial despatch of 1862 to authorize them ?
Did they do anything to bind the House
in consulting upon a great
question and
submitting it to the country for their
decision ? They never claimed any right to
force it upon the people. I do not wish
to go into the discussion
to-day, as there
has not been sufficient time given.
Mr. CUDLIP.—I
do not desire that this
resolution should be carried
without a discussion, because I wish to put
upon record the opinion of the country as expressed through their
representatives. I am
bound to say that while I am opposed to
those delegations as involving unnecessary expense, yet I now think it necessary,
because this is a question affecting our
whole political existence—affecting
the
constitution of our country. It is a question upon which every person in the country
has a right to express his
opinion, and
the people of the country have done so,
and expressed an opinion, and I think
it
now becomes the duty of their representatives to send a delegation to
England to
protect their rights. The delegation
which was appointed to confer
on a Union
of the Maritime Provinces took upou themselves other duties which the Legislature
had not assigned to them, and to avoid
falling into the same error, we wish this
delegation to be appointed by the representatives of the people. It is not right
that after the people of this country have
expressed their opinion at the polls against
Confederation,
that this agitation should
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1865. 111
be kept up directly or indirectly as it
has
been done. Statements have been
put
forth by the press that we will have to
come into this Confederation,
because i
will be forced upon us We ought
to express an opinion in this House, and endorse that by a delegation confirming
that
opinion that they never need hope to
carry Confederation in New Brunswick,
and I think we would save money in the
end by so doing.
Mr. MCMILLAN.—It
is amusing to find
the Anti-Confederate patty asking for
this expensive delegation in order to
set themselves right before the people of
England. It shows that they are
not
satisfied with the position they
hold in
the eyes of the English people
in reference to this question. What were the
arguments put forth by the member
of
the Government, and the leading members
of the Anti-Confederate party in reference
to the appropriation of money for the Militia ? They said it would be a waste of money
so far as defence was concerned, but
they stood in an unfavorable position in
the opinion of the British public, and to
prove their loyalty they voted the people's money for this purpose. They are
not satisfied with asserting that two
thirds of the people are against Confederation, but it becomes necessary to appoint
another delegation to make known
the fact, for they feel they are not in a
right position before the British public.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Costigan) said that the more the people discussed
this question the more unpopular
it would become. My experience is
right the reverse of this ; the question
came upon them so suddenly, and so
few months elapsed before they were required to vote at the polls, that they had
not time enough to form a correct opinion upon the subject, and the general
tendency of the people, when they do
not understand a question, is to vote
against any change until they do understand it. If that question was submitted
to the people to-morrow, and the people
were required to deposit their votes in
the ballot box, either for or against it,
two thirds of the people in the Province
of New Brunswick would vote in favor
of it.
Mr.
NEEDHAM.—The hon ex-Surveyor
General wants to know how this scheme
would ruin us, politically. What would
we have been had Confederation taken
place under this scheme ? Would we
have been a Province? certainly not.
O, it is said we can have a local legislature ; so we could, and its powers would
be confined to making laws to prevent
cows from running on the commons,
providing that sheep shall wear bells,
and to issue tavern licences. Hon. members may talk about their loyalty and disloyalty.
I would like to ask some of the
members of the late Government whether
their idea was not this—that they would
not have gone for Confederation if they
had not believed that it was the first step
towards the independence of New Brunswick. (
Mr. McMillan —it is not true.)
I have no hesitation in saying that thousands of men believed in Confederation,
honestly and sincerely, but they do not
seem willing to give us any credit for
sincerity ; they think they have all the
argument, all the honesty and all the
loyalty. We have now a direct communication with the Home Government,
as they appoint our Governor ; but if we
go into Confederation our Governor
would be appointed by the Governor
General ; that would raise our dignity
very much, to have a local Governor
appointed by the Governor General ;
would not that be derogatory to our political standing, both at home and
abroad. I heard a Judge, in addressing
a Grand Jury, in the County of York,
strive to impress upon their minds the
necessity for this " Great British Nationality as he termed it.
Great British
Humbug! I should like to know
where
there is any nationality in this Confederation scheme that we have not got
now. We are "
par excellence"
Bluenoses ; those born in Ireland are
Irishmen, in Bath Englishmen, in Wales
Welshmen, but we are all British
subjects. Are not we British subjects
as
much as if we were born "
Cockneys."
We have the real British nationality, and
because we did not want any
other we
rejected the great
Botheration or Confederation scheme, for it all amounts to
the
same thing ; thus it is that so
far as politics are concerned we are not going to
gain anything. I will now allow you that
it will be financially disastrous. We will
have to give
up all our revenues to Canada, and they will only refund $201,000;.
(Mr. McMillan, will not they assume
our
debts.) We. are prepared to assume
our own debts.
Canada has to borrow
money
to pay the interest on her own
debts, and then wants to assume
ours.
It is
like a bankrupt wanting to assume
the debts of a rich man. The General
Government will give us
$201,000 a year
for all time to come. That is, financially, the position we are in. No matter
how much
the population may increase in
twenty years, or how many
new roads,
bridges or schools may be
required in that time, we can
receive no
more
than
that sum. If a man had a
million dollars
a year, and he owed the
sum
of five millions, and had plenty of
friends
to back him, do you suppose he
would want to make arrangements
with
another
man to take his debt and give
him just enough to live on until he died.
If he would do that he would he
a fit
subject for the Lunatic Asylum.
It was
enough to condemn the scheme, that
this
delegation assented to tho proposition that whatever arrangements
made
between
Canada and the Home Government from that time
to the time Confederation
went into
operation should form
part and parcel of the obligations to be
assumed
by the General
Government.
At
that very time England had said
to
Canada—what are you prepared to do
in
reference to your own defence ? Did
she say that to New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia or Prince Edward island ? No !
Why ?
Because she knew from
the history of
the past that these colonies would
when
the time arrived;
they would be
ready at a moment's notice to
gather
round the British flag; but there was a
time
in the history
of Canada when it
was otherwise,
and there was a necessity
for asking the question of Canada.
At
that very time Canada sent home a
delegation charged with a power to
agree with the British
Government. to
expend a million of money for
their defence, to be borne not only by Canada,
but
by all
that Confederation. There
would
be a direct tax upon every man.
woman and child
in this Province, to
pay their proportion of that money.
When I
saw that
agreement I felt as
every
son of New Brunswick ought to
feel,
that if it cost me my life, my
all.
Confederation
should
never be carried
if I could
help it. It has not come. I
do not say I stopped it, but if I was but
one little entering wedge I am satisfied
for
the remainder of my life ; so far as
that is concerned I have done my duty,
and am sincere in my opposition, and it
is a matter of moonshine whether they
acknowledge it or not. Canada has
sent home a delegation to influence the
British people in favor of this Confederation. I do not say that this scheme is
going to be forced upon us,
but they
may pass a provisional Confederation
Bill, but we do to not want that
or any
thing to look like it. Forty-eight
thousand men in this Province have said we
don't want Confederation, and
that
should be an end of it. They have said
this, notwithstanding
all the influences
that have been brought to bear by the
Government, telling them the
Inter-
colonial railway was going past every
man's door, whether he lived at Fredericton. Sussex, or the North Shore.
Statesmen in framing a scheme of this
kind should look forward to future
ages. In this scheme of Confederation,
fifty years hence, Upper Canada
would
have a majority of thirty-five over
all the
other Provinces. This is the position
We would be in, and we are called to
pay homage to the statesmen who framed
this scheme, as though they possessed
all the wisdom in the world.
House
adjourned until 9 A. M., tomorrow.
T. P. D.
Cet individu a participé aux :
