DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 19
THURSDAY, MARCH 15.
After the usual routine, the House went
into Committee—
Mr. Needham in the
C?r—on a Local Bill : a Bill to provide
more effectually for the repairing of the Roads, Bridges and Streets of the Parish
of Newcastle, in the County of Northumberland. Passed.
MR. GILBERT moved that the Bill to provide for the better secresy of the Ballot, be referred
to a Committee to report
thereon.
MR. LINDSAY brought in a Bill to
extend the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in civil suits.
MR. GILBERT moved that his Bill to
simplify the practies of law and abolish special hail, be referred to a Committee.
MR. NEEDHAM brought in a Bill to amend the practice of the Supreme Court. Mr. N. said he intended
to move the Bill just brought in inamendement to that of Mr.
Gilbert. It was the Bill framed by the
late Attorney General—the present Judge Allen.
MR. FISHER moved the House into Committee—
Mr. Young in the Chair—on a Bill further to amend the law relating to
Parish Schools.
The hon. mover explained the object of the Bill was to supply a want in the
original School of Bill—to extend to Counties the same
privileges as Parishes and Districts with regard to assessment
for Schools. The Bill did not design to make any alteration in the School
Law, but merely to make plain what was doubtful ; to carry out what he
considered must have been the intention of the framers of the law.
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL thought
the Bill would require great consideration.
It involved revenue, and he thought there
would be great difficulty in carrying out
practically the principle of assessment as
regards Counties
A long discussion followed on the principle of assessment of Schools, and finally
progress was reported. We do not report the discussion on this Bill, as the subject
will come up again.
MR.CONNELL said he had understood the Attorney General to say that
ample arrangements had been made with
regard to defence of the Counts of Carlton. But from the information he had received,
he was led to believe that nothing
whatever had been done. There was very
great alarm in the County, and a number
of people were selling out their property.
20 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
He should like to know what the Government had done.
ATTORNEY GENERAL thought
that the information he (Mr. Connell) had
received was incorrect ; he had informed
the members of
Carleton that there were
five hundred rifles and ten thousand rounds
of bail ammunition in the
County. The Government could not
help people selling out
their property ; they could not prevent
that. It might be that some people go
up an alarm designedly in
order to make
a speculation. The Government were
doing every thing they could. They had
directed
a communication
to the Commissioner to have night watchmen on the
Railway, and directions had been given
to have watchmen on the St. Andrew's
Road. The Government were heartily
co operating with the Lieutenant Governor, who was in communication with Col.
Cole, and also in communication with the
Volunteer Officers on the border.
MR.
CONNELL —He did not rise for
the purpose of giving alarm, but he did
think he should have positive knowledge
of what the Government were doing. In
Woodstock there were only some thirty
or forty volunteers. He could only say
that a gentleman in the County had told
him that no preparations had been made
at all.
MR. FISHER could not agree with his
hon. colleague that there was no alarm.
He had recevied a telegram which informed him that all along the line of the Saint
Andrews Railway there was great alarm.
MR. ANGLIN.—The Government had
the best means of knowing. He would
do his tumost to support any measure of
defence they might adopt. He was
prepared to give them the amplest powers
to raise men and expend money.
MR. HATHEWAY said, two hours be- fore Mr. Connell had risen to ask that question, he had received
a telegram
from the press of Woodstock, and in it there was not a single word about
alarm or about Fenianism.
MR. FISHER —There was no doubt
that there was great alarm now, and he
entirely agreed with the remark of the
hon. member of York. If the Government
wanted more power, he would give it
them. He would give them all the resources of the Province, if necessary, but
he would expect them to exercise a careful and prudent economy. The Attorney
General had told them that there were
five hundred rifles in Carleton ; it there
were five hundred men in Carleton to
handle them, what force could cross the
border that that body of men could not
resist ? A great body could not be moved
for the purpose of attack without all the
world knowing it, and people ought to
remember that the Province could not be
invaded suddenly by a large force. He
did not believe that the movement would
attain any importance, nor did he think
the Province was much exposed to attack,
for it had no direct line of communication with the States. Still, a show of
attack might be made. But if a small
body—and it could only be a small body,
did come in, they would be met. As he
said, he would give the Government, if
they required it, more power. He would
give them power to muster men and compel men to serve.
At three o'clock, His Excellency, the
Lieutenant Governor, came down to the
Council Chamber and gave his assent to
the Export Duty Bill.
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL (on
resuming the adjourned debate on the
amendment to the Address,) said that the
Bill just assented to by His Excellency
would remove the ground of complaint
that had been preferred against the Government. Ever since the time that the
error had been discovered, it had given
the Government a great deal of trouble.
The first time they had a knowledge of
the neglect was in the month of September, but they did not think it would have
been right to have summoned the Legislature at a time when the navigation was
open, and when it would have been most
inopportune for the business of the country. They thought that it would be better
to wait until the opening of the
Legislature, and remove the difficulty
then. The House would agree that the
then. The House would agree that the
Government had acted prudently, and he
did not think that any injury had been
done to the country. He could not but
repeat what he had said yesterday and
the day before, that the present was not
the time to shake the confidence of the
country in the Government, to keep up a
political agitation, and make changes
in
the Constitution. But from the information they had received, that boded no
good to the Province, he thought the
time had arrived when it behooved them
to
forget party and political differences,
and look to the safetyand interests of
the country, Within the last few days,
telegrams had been received sufficient
to
excite fear in the country, and he thought
the time had arrived when this Legislature should be united, and they should all
be prepared to meet aggression. He did
not think any observations he could make
would have any influence in changing the
minds of hon. members. The discussion
must take its course. But he put it to
the House, and to the country, it this was
the time, when the country was agitated
with fears of a hostile aggression, to press
a vote of want of confidence. The hon.
mover (Mr. Fisher) had been premature
in moving his amendment. Before condemning the Government for the Railway
contract, he should have waited for more
information. He certainly had been
premature in speaking about the Railway contract. The country, he (Attorney
General) thought had heard of a grand
scheme for gridironing the Province with
Railways, without burdening the country, that the member of York had in his
head. If that hon. member was sincere
in his wish to advance the interests of the
Province, if he thought he had a better
way of building railways than the Government had, he should, if prepared with
his scheme, have come down. With regard to the contract entered into, he
would suppose that the testimony of the
two Nova Scotian gentlemen—both of
them afterwards would have some weight
with the member of York—the testimony
of these gentlemen would show what
truth there was in the statement made
that a delegation was unnecessary, that
all the Government had done in the matter they might have accomplished by
writing a letter at the expense of a shilling. The other statements—(Here Attorney
General quoted from the Report of
the Nova Scotia Delegates.) There was
the testimony of the two Nova Scotian
gentlemen who had gone to England with
Mr. Allen and himself. It showed that
the matter would not have been accomplished without a joint delegation. It
proved the the Legislature had been reciprocal. The bargain that this Pro
vince had made with the Company was much better than that made by Nova Scotia. And
he would say that but for the advantages offered by Nova Scotia, the mining privileges,
the giving of fifty miles of wilderness land, we could not have treated with the Company
at all. Nova Scotia had also agreed to allow certain articles needed for the construction
of the Railway to come in free of duty, and had provided for the right of way. The
Nova Scotia delegates said to Mr. Allen and himself : We give more than you did ;
you ought to give something
more. But we stated that the Government only authorized us to give $10,000 a mile.
He (Attorney General) thought
that a contract most highly advantageous
to the country had been entered into.
MR. WETMORE — Who paid the right
of way through this Province ?
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL —The Company ; but on representations from them of the privileges Nova Scotia had
ceded, we agreed to pay the price of land in excess of ÂŁ50 an acre. Everything else
connected with regard to the contract had been done consistently with law and legislation,
and yet it had been put solemnly forth when he was absent in the
United States that no contract had been
made at all ; that it was simply a pure fabrication to help me to run my election
in
my Country. Would anyone believe that
these Nova Scotian gentlemen, whose testimony he had read, would have gone
simply to enable me to be returned !
Yet a paper in St. John had said that the
whole affair was a bogus transaction.
It had been asked had any gentleman seen
the contract ? And it had gone forth
throughout the country that he had perpetrated a base, deliberate fraud.
(
Mr. Wetmore.—What paper did the
Attorney General allude to?)
It need not signify what was the name
of the paper. The Government had sustained abuse and vilification not only
through the agency of the press, but lecturer had gone through the length and
breadth of the country distilling poison
in the ears of the people. The Government were prepared to take the consequences of
the arrangement that they
had made ; but he put it to the House,
he put it to the country, if it was fair
that they should be subject to those insiduous attacks, which could only be
prompted by feelings of the deepest ma
lignity. With regard to Western Extension, he hoped that the work would
be constructed as speedily as possible ;
but if the Company failed, he, for one,
was willing to undertake it as a Government work, but he hoped that
that would not be necessary. He
thought, as far as Railway matters
were concerned, the House would justify
the course of the Government, and he
could not but think that Mr.—now JudgeAllen and he himself had dont the country a
substantial benefit by the Eastern
Extension Railway contract. It was objected by the mover of the amendment
that the Government had failed to fill up
the office of Auditor General ; and he
thought he had got the Government into
a fix. He (Mr. F.) had spoken a great
deal about the Auditor General—as
a Crown officer, and of his powers
under the Constitution—all very wide
of the mark. In fact, he knew
nothing about what he was talking.
He would say that on the formation of
the Administration, there was on member not now in the Government who
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 21
was well qualified for the office, and
that they had all felt then that he should
have it. But Mr. Wilmot had retired
from the Government without the office.
If it had been necessary to fill up the
office immediately, the Government
could have done it. But if the Government could show that the duties of the
office had been conducted as efficiently,
without an Auditor General. as
before,
he believed the country, who did not
care so much who filled the office as
how its duties were performed. Instead
of four clerks being employed, as when
the late Mr. Partelow (who, as they all
knew, for several years, had not been
able to attend to the office) was Auditor General, there have been only
two. For years before the death of that
gentleman, Mr. Johnston, the chief
clerk, had done all the duties of the
office. He wished to do justice to Mr.
Johnston, who had been most assiduous
to his duty and had proved himself a
faithful and efficient officer. He
challenged the mover of the Amendment to
point out one single case where the
interest of the country had suffered by
the non-appointment of an Auditor General. It was all very well to quote
despatches, but let him point to one fact.
Would the non-appointment of an Auditor General be sufficient in the eyes of this
House to condemn the Government?
He thought not.
The
Attorney General proceeded to
th charge against the Government,
that they had not appointed a Solicitor
General, and challenged the mover of
the Amendment to show where the.
public interests had suffered in consequence. During the absence of the
then Attorney General (Mr. Allen) (and
here he would remark that no appointment had given more entire satisfaction
than that of Judge Allen) provision
was made for the conducting of the
Criminal and Crown business of
the
conntry, and he could assure the
House
that, neither in the case of the absence
of Mr. Allen, or of his own, had that
business suffered in the hands of the
legal gentlemen to whom it was entrusted. He would state that no Government that had
ever been formed
in the Province—he did not ask, and he
did not expect their sympathy, when he
made the statement—had so many
difficulties and embarrassments of all kinds
to contend against as the present Government had at its first formation. It
was said that they had proscribed every
one who was not an Anti-Confederate.
But was it not absolutely necessary that
it should be formed on an Anti-Confederate basis? He would ask every
man who had taken a bold stand on the
question that agitated the country, who
resisted the Quebec Scheme that aimed
at the independence of the Province, if
it was absolutely necessary to form the
Government on that basis? Then a cry
was raised against the Government
when they did not ?ill
up their numbers,
when they did not appoint a Solicitor
General, that they were afraid to open
a constituency. But did any one doubt
that if the Government had consented
to have taken the hon. member of St.
John, on his left, (Mr. Wetmore) into
the Government, that he would have
been returned? Did any one doubt, if
the Solicitor Generalship had been offered to the hon. member of York, on
his right, (Mr. Fraser) that he could
have been returned? Or if it had been
offered to the hon. member of King's
(Mr. Otty) that he could have been
returned? Or did any doubt that any
one of these gentlemen would have
done honor to the position? But at the
time of the formation of the Government, it was felt that the North Shore
was entitled to more representation and
the office would have been filled by a
representative of that district but for the
basis on which the Government was
formed. That was the fact, and all he
could tell the House, and he thought
the explanation sufficient, particularly
when the member of York (Mr. Fisher)
could not show where the interests of
the country had suffered.
There was another thing. It was
stated the Government were guilty of
betraying the public trust and stealing
the public property. When they heard
the first account of the business, hon.
members might have thought that it
was a thousand times worse than the
first great land stealing transaction.
It had gone into the back settlements
that the Government had been plundering the country ; that they had entered
into a conspiracy with Mr. Gibson to
rob the land. A more diabolical attempt to injure a Government had never
taken place. The mover of the Amendment knew well that the vilest injustice
had been done to the Government by
the accusations preferred against them.
He knew the truth of the matter. What
the Government had done was simply
to carry out the intention of the late
Government. When they came into
power they found that an order of survey had been made for which survey
Mr. Gibson had paid $500 for a certain
tract of land. It was said that Gibson
got the Government to repeal the law
in his favor, but the sale of the land
was open and notorious. It was published in the Royal Gazette,
and it was
competent for every man who pleased
to come in and compete. The hon.
member of York knew all the truth
about the transaction.
MR. FISHER. All he had said in
reference to the transaction the other
day was, that the repeal of a regulation
should be as notorious as the regulation
itself
ATTORNEY
GENERAL. But the
hon. member must have known, residing as he did in Fredericton, and having access
to the Crown Land Office,
and he must have known when he
heard the Government charged with
collusion and fraud with Gibson, that
they were charged falsely. Even if no
repeal of the regulation had been made
everybody must have seen in the
Royal
Gazette the advertisement of
the sale of
the land in 100 acre lots, and that was
as public a notice as could be made.
Was it necessary to make repeal ? He
wanted to show that the order, of
which so much had been said, "that
pending negociations for the construction of the Inter-Colonial Railway, none
of the Crown Lands of the Province
shall be sold except with the condition
of actual settlement attached," had repealed itself. Did not every one know
that the law regarding the Inter-Colonial Railway had censed to be on the
Statute Book—that it was the same as
if it had never existed ? Did not every
one know that it had repealed itself and fallen dead? The condition that rendered
the regulation necessary had ceased to exist. The transaction was open and above board.
The sale of lands was published in the
Gazette, and every man must have known that it
was the intention to sell these lands publicly. He would ask the House then if it
was true that the Government had given Gibson lands secretly—if he had given him land
without competition ?
MR. CONNELL. Did not Mr. Gibson hold a three years' license of these
very lands?
ATTORNEY GENERAL. So much
the worse for the late Government. You that supported the late Government would wish
to fasten their sins on us.
ATTORNEY GENERAL. Fifteen
thousand in all. It it was necessary to argue this question, he would say while he
would give every facility to the man who desired to settle in the country, they ought
to look at the other side, and consider that Mr. Gibson had mills that cut twelve
millions annually. The whole country was interested in that manufacture. Let them
not look at this question with hasty prejudice, but let calm reason work, and let
them foster and cherish the manufacturing interests of the country. He would ask if
the people of the Nashwaak were not greatly interested in Mr. Gibson's operations?
He had besides been told that the land was worthless for settlement and not much worth
for lumber- in purposes, unless large sums are spent to open up streams. Mr. Gibson
was a man that ought to be encouraged.
He was informed his operations extended to Careleton and Victoria. The
inhabitants of Carleton derived great
benefit from those operations.
MR. LINDSAY —The people of Carleton found fault with it.
ATTORNEY GENERAL —It might be that the great lumberers found fault ; but would he (Mr. Lindsay) tell
him that the farmers and back settlers complained who found sale for their oats and
their hay, and their produce? He then proceeded to say that the Government were bound
to carry out the acts of their predecessors, and as regarded this transaction they
were in no way to blame. It had been no hole and corner business, and he did not think
the House would say
that the Government had forfeited the confidence of the country. The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Fisher) had said that the Government had changed their mind upon
the question of Confederation, and that
the paragraph in the Address relating to
Union involved the submittal by them of
some scheme. But he would tell the hon.
member that the Government would not
submit a scheme of Confederation to the
House. They were as strongly opposed as
ever they were to the Quebec Scheme,
and would maintain their attitude of opposition to it. He regretted that some of
their friends who had fought the battle
against that scheme had, for reasons best
known to themselves, gone over to the
other side. He hoped they would justify
to their own minds the course they had
taken. He could not see how any man
could, when he saw all the influences at
work, shut their eyes to the fact, that if
this vote of confidence was carried, and
the Government thrown out, that theÂ
22 DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866.
Quebec Scheme, in all its original enormity would be forced upon the country.
He believed, sure as the needle pointed
to pole, that that would happen. Let
hon. members consider the pressure that
has been brought upon the
Government
to break them down. They have had the
pressure of the Canadian politicians
against them, and the Imperial
influence
of the British Government, and influence
from Nova Scotia. They have had the
influence against them of lecturers and
trading politicians, who, through the
length and breadth of the Province have
been disseminating poisonous stories
against the Government, and attesting
that a dissolution was sure to take place ;
and almost the entire Press of the Province had been against them, vilifying and
denouncing them. He had no doubt that
the member of York (Mr. Fisher) was in
constant communication with Canadian
statesmen in favor of the Quebec Scheme.
He saw several gentlemen in the House
who were in favor of Union—taking it as
a broad question. But he would ask were
there ten members in the House in favor
of the Quebec Scheme ? Let these gentlemen who were in favor of the general
principle consider well before they cast
their influence against the Government.
They were told that the Quebec Scheme
could be altered. When that was said
let them harken to the testimony of the
Canadian statesmen who had given birth
to the scheme. Not a single letter could
be altered.
Let them listen in the testimony of the
Hon. D'Arcy McGee :
" Everything we did was done in form
and with propriety, and the result of our
proceedings is the document that has been
submitted to the Imperial Government,
as well as to this House, and which we
speak of now, as a treaty. And that there
may be no doubt about our position in regard to that document, we say question
if you may, but alter it, you may not.
(Hear, hear.) It is beyond your
power
or our power to alter it. There is not a
sentence, aye, or even a word, you can
alter without desiring to throw out the
document. Alter it, and we know at
once what you mean—you thereby declare yourselves anti-Unionists. On this
point I repeat after all my honorable
friends who have already spoken for one
party to alter a treaty, is of course to destroy it. Let us be frank with each other
;
you who do not like our work, nor do you
like us, who stand by it, clause by clause,
line by line, and letter by letter."
Let him call up the Hon. J. A. McDonald, a man who stands very high in Canada, and
let them listen to what he said:
" We present it not in the precise shape
we in Canada would desire it, but as in the
best shape the five Colonies to be united
could agree upon it. We present it in the
form in whichthe five Governments have
severally adopted it—in the form the Imperial Government has endorsed it—and
in the form in which we believe all the
Legislatures of the Provinces will accept
it. We ask the House to pass it in the
EXACT form in which we have presented,
for we know not how alterations may affect its safety in other places, and the process
of alteration once commenced in four
different Legislatures, who can tell where
that would end "
From the mouth of these witnesses let
them judge what truth there was in the
statement that the scheme could be altered. If the Government were defeated be
would tell them again—and another Government formed with the hon. member
of York at its head—the Quebec Scheme
would be carried letter by letter, line by
line. There were gentlemen here in favor of Union, and he would say that if
they could get a Union on a fair and equitable basis, such as would advance the interests
of the country, it might be a question whether it would not be prudent to
adopt it. He would say that the Government were prepared to renew negotiations
with Canada and the other Provinces at
any conference that might be called together ; but not in any event to agree to
the Quebec scheme. The member of
York had spoken of British statesmen,
and of their being listened to as superiors speaking to inferiors. He did not like
the spirit of the remark of the hon. gentleman. It was not doing justice to themselves
or to their country. He had great
respect for their ability, their acquirements and their superior culture. When
they said that this Confederation Scheme
would advance the interests of this country—while he had much respect for their
opinion—still he thought on a question
affecting their own interests, men with
practical judgment and common sense
were the best judges ; and on this question of Confederation they respectfully
differed.
The
Attorney General then proceeded to speak of the stories repeated
by the member of York, (Mr. F.) that the
present Chief Justice Ritchie had ?ed
with him ( Atty Gen.) If there was any
one thing, he proceeded to say, that it was
necessary to maintain, it was the purity of
the Bench. The ermine should be kept
spotless. The people should look up
with respect to those who files high positions, especially those who had the
guardianship of their lives and properties.
Up to the present time politics had never
entered into a court of justice. He put
it to the House if they were prepared to
justify the member of York in dragging
in the name of Judge Ritchie, and repeating the stories set afloat that he had
ca-
balled with him (Att'y Gen.) a year ago
upon the position of Chief Justice. A
year ago he was not in the Government.
When the present Government did come
into power, and the resignation of the
Chief Justice was spoken of, was it not
understood that it Sir James Carter did
resign that position should be given
to Judge Robert Parker. Would the
country have justified any other appointment than that of that justly revered Judge,
of whome he would repeat,
what he had said before, that take him
for all and all he was the best man he
ever knew. When the member of York
knew that, how could he justify himself
when he said that Judge Ritchie had
caballed with him (Att'y Gen.). He
was not going to deprecate Judge Wilmot ; he was not going to say that he
was not a great and distinguished priest ;
but he would say, when Judge Wilmotwhen a great question was agitating
the country from its centre to its circumference—upon the Bench determined
against and denounced men who opposed the Quebec Scheme, and lauded to
the skies those who frame it, he laid
himself open to remark ; he forgot the
duty imposed upon him by his position ;
he dragged the ermine in the mire. He
heard it was said that Judge Wilmot de
livered, from the Bench, a speech on Confederation in Sunbury, and the people in the
Court applauded him. (
Mr. Glasier—they did not). He heard it so stated, and he must believe it. They let Judge Wilmot
speak on any subject, and he grained the irresistable applause of his audience. Now,
if the people cheered him when he spoke from the Bench, must they not come to the
conclusion, if people have a right to applaud him they have an equal right to hiss
him. They could not deny that. Then what became of the respect and dignity of the
Bench ? He would like
to see one of the Judges in England act in that manner. He would like to see an English
Judge throw himself into the discussion on the Reform Bill, and even
that would be more excusable than the
ease of Judge Wilmot. He would ask
the House if it was ever known here that a Judge took part in polities. Had the member
of York hown an instance when a Judge went to the hustings. He would ask him to point
to a case
when a Judge had ever voted ? The
fact that Judges had never voted was conclusive in his mind against Judge Wilmot.
While a Judge (he went on to say) might speak on political subjects, and express his
views in conversation at the social table, he has no right to declaim from the Bench.
The Government had been charged with doing a great wrong for not appointing
Judge Wilmot Chief Justice. But he thought Judge Wilmot had acted imprudently, and
not in a manner that met the approbation of the country. He thought that no man would
deny that the late Chief Justice Robert Parker's judgment on the Judge best qualified
to be successor was entitled to respect. Chief Justice Parker would not have taken
the office if he had not known that
Judge Ritchie should succeed him. He
did not ask the House to believe him at his word, for he had the written record in
proof that what he said was true. It was stated that in the appointment seniority
prevailed. But it was not true that the oldest Judges were always appointed. In the
majority of cases in
this Province the junior Judge had been
appointed over the senior, and if seniority prevailed Judge Neville Parker had the
right. He would not draw invidious distinctions between Judge Ritchie and Judge Wilmot,
but he would say that public opinion would justify the appointment of Judge Ritche,
and the country had the testimony of the late.
Robert Parker that he was the right man in the right place ; would not that testimony
satisfy the murmurs of dissatisfaction.
The hon. member of York had called
the Government a Government of hypocrisy ; he had characterized its members as political
thimble-riggers ; but if
there was any man in the Province remarkable for his expertness in that art
he sat in the seat of the hon. member.
He had done. He was now willing to
leave the question in the hands of the
House.
MR. DESBRISAY said, it might appear strange that he should rise to answer a gentleman of the ability
and talents of the Attorney General. He
would give his reason. He was obliged
to go home, as the Supreme Court, in
Kent, was then sitting, and he had some
very heavy suits pending. That was
his only reason for rising to speak now.
DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR 1866. 23
In the first place he begged leave to
trouble the House with some remarks
concerning himself. He had been ten
years in the House and had always voted consistently. During that time he
had not said a great deal about himself ;
but now he begged leave to say a few
words. The Attorney General said that
he (Mr. D.) had gone over to the other
side. He would like to ask what side
that is, and he would like to ask on what
side the Attorney General was?
MR. DESBRISAY —He also was opposed to the Quebec Scheme ; but the
question of Confederation had no right
to absorb all the other interests of the
Province. He had come out as Conservative and he had always voted consistently. When
the Quebec Scheme was
first agitated in the Province he was the
first man of any prominence in his own
County who opposed it, and he was opposed to it still ; as he said, he was a
consistent Conservative, he had been
born a Conservative, he had lived a Conservative, and a Conservative he intended to
remain. When the Attorney General said that he (Mr. D.) had gone over
to the other side he would like to be
told what was that other side. He would
like to know what was the Attorney
General's side of politics? He thought
he ought to get an answer.
ATTORNEY GENERAL —When he
said the hon. member of Kent had gone
over to the other side, it was because he
had seconded the amendment to the
Address.
MR. DESBRISAY then proceeded to
say that when he read the Speech, and
the paragraph on union, he felt that he
was absolved from anytie to the Government, and he appealed to the conservative members
if the course the Government had taken on that question, in not
even consulting them, entitled them to
their support. He would take the opportunity to say the he had not changed his
views as a Confederate, and, therefore, he was not to be told that he had gone
over to the other side. What claim, he
would ask, had the Government now
upon the conservative interests of the
country. He wanted to ask on what side
of politics the Attorney General was?
Could he tell? He wanted to put forth
to the country that he (Mr. D.) was a
conservative, and had not acted inconsistently. He came to the House an
anti-Confederate, and he intended to ?
as an anti-Confederate. But there were
other interests that hon. gentlemen had
a right to advocate. On what side, he
would ask, was the Attorney General ?
That gentleman had in his time opposed
Railway construction ; he had opposed
the Militia, he had opposed King's College, he had opposed other interests.
Where was he now in regard to them?
He did not think it lay in his (Attorney
General's) mouth to taunt him (Mr. D.)
with having gone over to the other side.
The Attorney General had read a division
the other day upon the Post Office Bill,
on which thirty names were recorded as
supporters of the Government. Had the
Government done their duty they would
have retained that majority ; they would
still have had that division to support
them. Had they acted as they ought to
have done? Had they filled up the political offices? Had they appointed a
Solicitor General and an Auditor General?
But they vascillated, afraid to move or do
anything, and offering, it is said half-a-
dozen men the same office. He looked
through the names on that division ;
where were they now ? Where now, he
would ask, were the conservatives?
they were in the mud, and Mr. Speaker
was one of them. They were nowhere at
all, and never would be anywhere. He
was in earnest, for he felt deeply upon
this matter. The Conservatives had the
position in their hands, and could have
kept the reigns of power in their hands
for twenty years, had they only acted like
men of common judgment.
Mr. DesBrisay then proceeded to say
that on account of the vascillating course
the Government had pursued, the conservative party had had to submit to the
most humiliating and degrading position
before the country. It was well known
when the present Government came into
power that changes should be made. But
what had they done ? Nothing at all,
beyond making a few changes in the
Railway Department. And when the
Government allowed a member in the
Upper House, who was a salaried officer
under them, to vote against a Government measure, he felt that the Conservatives had
been placed into a most humiliating position ; a position that had allowed
them to be pointed at with the finger of
scorn. The Government should have
taken a bold stand when they had thirty
men at their back. When should they
ever see such a day again ? Had the
Government done their duty they would
have made the changes that they were
expected to make ; they would have filled
up their offices at once. He spoke what
he felt. He did not want anything from
the Government, but he did feel he had
feelings beyond ÂŁ500 a year. He felt a
pride as a member of the Conservative
party, and a determination that that pride
should not be broken down. If any man
attempted to do that with him he would
take the course with that man which he
ought to do. But when he saw the Government vascillating and trimming before
the country, every man who was a Conservative must have felt humiliated.
MR. DesBrisay went on to say, he
had asked the other day if the Government were prepared to submit any scheme
of Confederation to the House, and it
was said by the Attorney General that
the Government did not intend to submit
a scheme. He wished to understand the
position of the Government, and he would
ask them, were they prepared to go for
any scheme brought in by any of their
supporters?
MR. DESBRISAY. That was evading
the question. What he wished to know
was—did the Government intend to support any scheme brought in by any one
of their supporters?
ATTORNEY GENERAL. The Government had never heard of any scheme
—the Government were opposed to the
Quebec Scheme, and would not submit
any scheme to the House.
MR. DESBRISAY. He supposed he
would be obliged to let that answer go.
It was impossible to draw out a direct
answer to a plain question from a lawyer.
On this question of Confederation he felt
that the Conservatives had been deceived
by the Government. He had never been
able to see why this question of Confederation should have been carried so farwhy
it should have absorbed all the other
interests of the Province—why the Con
servative feeling should have been sacrificed to it. The Government had carried
the Confederation feeling to the Bench of
the country, where it never ought to have
been carried. Viewing the course the
Government had taken, he thought when
the vote came to be taken that they
would fail to secure a majority of members on their side, and he thought that
they ought to fail. Where, he would
like to know, were the Government? he
did not believe they knew themselves.
They were in this position—that in any
constituency in the country they could
not carry an election. Mr. D. then proceeded to speak of the non-appointment
of Auditor General, and the great importance of the office to the country, as a
dereliction of duty on the part of the
Government, and went on to animadvert
on the course the Chief Commissioner of
the Board of Works had taken with the
construction of the bridge over the main
river of the Richibucto. Before the construction was commenced he thought it
but reasonable that plans should be made
and shown in the country, and he had
written to the Commissioner to postpone
the building of the bridge until the plans
were seen ; to which the Commissioner
had answered tht it could not be done.
After the contract was taken, the whole
thing was thrown up. [The Chief Commissioner here explained why the contract for building
the new bridge was
not carried out the present bridge was
perfectly safe, and he did not intend to
renew the contract this year.] The question was not—Mr. D. said—whether the
bridge was safe or not, but why the Chief
Commissioner should have refused to
submit a plan of the bridge, and why,
after entering into a contract for building
it, they had thrown the m?r up? Nor
could he see what could have induced
the Government to give the contract to
the party they did, when they knew he
had made a botch of the lighthouse he had contracted to build.
MR. DESBRISAY, in concluding, said, that
when he left, at dinner time, he did not expect that he would rise to
speak that afternoon. He had given his reason why he had done so. He thought
he had explained his position satisfactorily, and he was sure no man of
spirit could have felt in any other way than he had ; and his constituence
felt as he did. Before sitting down, he had a proposition to put to the
House. He felt that they were in a time of trouble. The Province
was threatened with invasion, and he did not think it a time when party
spirit should prevail. He proposed that the House should not press the
question of want of confidence further. Much as he condemned the
Government for this vascillation—for their want of pluck, for
the trimming course of policy they had pursued—he, for one, was
perfectly willing to pass the supplies through the House at once. Let the
House pass an act giving them authority to raise men and ample service—give
any amount of credit and then let the House be proroguedand let
the members go to their homes, where, at this time, they were most needed. He might
be wrong, but he thought that would be the wisest
course to pursue in this emergency ; it would be the easiest way
to get over the present difficulty. If the House were prorogued,
it would be best for the interests of the country.Â
A. A.
Cet individu a participé aux :
